all 8 comments

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of the mindcontrol the elites use depends on manipulating the psychological archetypes. To me, Carl Jung was the one who researched these archetypes the most, he had a very interesting idea regarding neurosis.

To Jung, Neurosis was a sign that people weren't in contact with their true potential. He saw it as an opportunity for people to become aware of their true self by exploring the psychological archetypes and reaching what he called individuation.

This concept of his is what made me so interested in him because I was hunted by images in my dreams, even visions in real life and I had no idea how to deal with them until I met Jung. Since them I've respected the images in a way, they sometimes show me hints on what to do next, or even predict the future to some extend.

[–]RoxannaHardbutt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Jung .. Schmung /

Dear Professor Freud, 2 June 1910, I was amazed by your news. The adventure with "Schottlander" is marvelous; of course the slimy bastard was lying. I hope you roasted, flayed, and impaled the fellow with such genial ferocity that he got a lasting taste for once of the effectiveness of psychoanalysis. I subscribe to your final judgment with all my heart.

Such is the nature of these beasts. Since I could read the filth in him from his face I would have gone for his throat. I hope to God you told him all the truths so plainly that even his hen's brain could absorb them. Now we shall see what his next coup will be. Had I been in your shoes I would have softened up his guttersnipe complex with a sound Swiss thrashing. Carl Jung Letters, the Adventure with Schottlander.

Just as churchmen got away with generations of child abuse, torture and murder, the same sh*t was underway in psychoanalysis clinics and psychiatric hospitals world wide. Link.

Just as Popes Bishops and Cardinals should have been prosecuted for outrages carried out as "Sacraments," so should Doctors [PDF] and others within the mental health field who have been up to no good since forever been hauled before the courts, Carl Jung no less!

[–]Mnemonic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That quoted letter seems so unrelated... This is the Freud to Jung letter preceding it:

Dear friend, 30 May 1910, Vienna, IX. Berggasse 19

On the 28th something amusing happened. 1 I must tell you about it. I was in a good humour because Deuticke had told me he was planning to bring out a third edition of The Interpretation of Dreams next autumn (after one year!) and that the first volume of the Papers on the Theory of the Neuroses was soon to be reprinted. At that point a Hofrat Schottlander of Frankfurt phoned to ask me when he might see me for a talk. I asked him to come at nine for coffee. At nine o'clock a card was brought in. On it I read: Hofrat Friedlander, Hohe Mark bei Frankfurt am Main. I stood there dumbfounded and had the little man shown in. He denied having misstated his name and pointed out that it is very easy to misunderstand over the phone, but he showed rather too little emotion, he didn't seem surprised or in¬ dignant enough. I was certain that he had said Schott, but what could I do? So there was our great enemy. I quickly pulled myself together and hit on an excellent tactic. I'll come to that. But first about the man. He had hardly sat down when he began denouncing. First Ferenczi for having said in his paper on introjection 2 that all our methods of therapy—electricity, massage, water, etc.—owed their ef¬ fect purely to suggestion, i.e. transference, when in reality their success in rheumatism etc. was unquestionable. I picked up the Jahrbuch and showed the demon that F. had spoken exclusively of the treatment of psychoneuroses. Beelzebub pulled in his horns, emitted his well- known stench, and went on denouncing. First someone not unknown to you whom he had called on in Zurich; he even remarked (how right he was!) on this person's restraint in not throwing him out. And then our friend Pfister. He asked me to restrain him, he was not a critical mind, he had discredited himself by an attempt at an analysis. Then he came to Stekel and Sadger, who, he said, had been practising medicine for at most two years. Especially Stekel, who claimed the figure 1 meant the penis. I held a sheltering hand over all my dear ones and asked my visitor, who was born in Vienna, if he had ever heard what the ‘‘eleven” meant in Vienna (the two legs). Of course he didn't know. He went back to Pfister’s attempted analysis and identified me completely with all my followers, which was not at all in keeping with his original plan of poisoning me with sweets and inciting me against the younger men.

The conversation began to amuse 3 me more and more. As Fve told you, I developed an excellent technique. Slipping into the father role he was determined to force on me (Pfister was perfectly right), I af¬ fected hearty good humour and took advantage of the atmosphere and situation to make the most insulting remarks, which produced exactly the desired effect. He whined and whimpered, but he was helpless against my -analytic frankness. I told him that he knew nothing of the analytic technique, which accounted for his negative results, that his methods were those of 1895 and that he hadn't learned a thing since that date because he was too well off to bother, what a shame it was that there was no one in his vicinity who might teach him some¬ thing, that his conversion would make an enormous impression in Germany, that he was essentially a brute, a retarded guttersnipe (this in more polite language, to be sure), 4 that his friendliness and obsequi¬ ousness were pure pretense, that I myself has passed the word around not to answer him, because obviously he was itching for attention, etc. I was having a fiendishly good time, I couldn't get enough. I kept him there until one in the morning. I've forgotten the choicest details, anyway they would take too long to tell. Just one point, which is of general interest. Out of sheer hypocrisy he launched into a self-analy¬ sis; it turned out that he has an immense amnesia on the subject of his childhood up to the age of 7-8. Then conscious memory of child-hood misbehaviour set in. From the earlier period he remembers only one thing. When he was four, he was in love with an eighteen-year- old girl, Pauline , and was very unhappy when she got married. An hour later he claimed that I had first opened up with personal attacks—in my analysis of Lina H. I denied the existence of this Lina and it turned out that he ment Dora. Now comes the analysis! “Why did you remember her mistakenly as Lina?” — He: “But Lve told you about Karoline, the girl I was in love with at the age of four.” — “No, my dear colleague, we're not on the phone now. I am prepared to swear that you called the girl Pauline and not Karoline ” He had to admit it! Consequently I do not believe I heard wrong on the phone; he made the slip (or rather, lied) because he was afraid I wouldn't see him if he presented himself as Friedlander.

One of my present patients, a Russian, 5 was with him for a week a year ago. I brought the conversation round to this young man and was told something which the patient, who is quite trustworthy, has already half exposed as a lie. When his mother comes to see me, I am hoping to have the same luck with the other half. Final judgment on my visitor: professional liar and hypocrite, wolf in sheep's clothing, braggart and faker, ignorant brute, juvenile delinquent who made a habit of swindling his father. It is such people who mould the opinion of the general public about our *A. He admitted to me that he can't even “go along” with my Everyday Life, that he sees no explanation for cases of forgetfulness and slips in speech. His main argument is that with the unconscious one can prove anything. The successful cures he speaks of prove that he works with the technique we dis¬ carded (1895) but has never understood it. He is obviously colour¬ blind as it were toward the perception of his own unconscious, and this with excellent complexive motivation: otherwise he would drown in filth.

To think we have to trouble our heads over such riffraff! It gives me great satisfaction to reflect that we after all are different.

With kind regards,

Yours, FREUD

Hoche seems indeed to have us in mind if Karlchen Schottlander hasn't been lying again.


Jung invented analytical psychology and Freud was the psychoanalysis 'drinking milk from a tit is the first sexual act of a human' dude. Pretty big difference!

So I'm not sure who you're quoting but that wikipedia genius got some things confused.

[–]RoxannaHardbutt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The wall of text is not gonna get you anywhere .. hit the edit button and put in a few paragraph breaks just so ppl can read it.

Psychoanalysis identifies the problem be it conceit which it very often is, whereas Fool on the Hill types who hate everybody and want to rub their noses in filth, were treated by acknowledging the patients illness is incurable then sending him or her off to the pensions office.

Where in anticipation of a guaranteed income sans labor he or she undergoes a remarkable recovery, that's if they are recoverable, mental illness of any kind does not grant license to kill .. under Common Law if you did it you hang without mitigation or MI pleas.

[–]Mnemonic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You can skip the letter if it's too much, but can you answer the question why Jung's reply letter was related to him being set aside with mishandled labels as someone who should have been tried in court?

[–]RoxannaHardbutt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you had received a "sound Swiss thrashing" from someone particularly a doctor or a "health care professional" you had approached on trust, surely you would want him or her hauled before the courts, how many ppl did Jung "thrash," how often did he administer thrashings and what else did he do .. because he sounds like a violent psychopath to me.

[–]Mnemonic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not a real thrashing, it's a verbal thrashing. Freud's letter gives the much needed context. For example, this person was not a patient.

[–]Mnemonic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh and upon the edit: Again psychoanalysis is Freud and There are mutiple reasons Jung went his own way. Jung is analytical psychology.