All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2018 - Davis Aurini
14:03
The Most Dangerous Question: Freud and Marx, Solzhenitsyn and Jung

The question that must be asked, but must be asked so cautiously.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Marx and Freud, Jung and Solzhenitsyn.
This is a video about the most dangerous question.
Not just dangerous to pose, but dangerous to answer incorrectly, or to answer with the wrong methodology.
This is a question that Jordan Peterson won't even ask, even though his two greatest influences answered it successfully.
This is a video about how we can answer the question correctly so that it does not damn us as it has damned so many.
Because if you don't answer this question with the right process, you become that which you despise.
So let's talk about these two men, Marx and Freud, and why they are so damn significant.
I believe it was Ryan Falk who first quipped that we are all Marxists these days.
You know, it's one thing to point at the horrors of the last century.
I mean, those horrors are over.
It's another thing to point to the deluded fools that still follow that madman.
They tend not to get too high up in the rungs of power.
And you could argue that certain organizations, you know, possibly the EU, possibly the UN, they're influenced by Marx.
But that's not what concerns me about Marx.
That's not what terrifies me about Marx.
What terrifies me is that we're all Marxists these days.
Go back two centuries and take a person at random.
They did not consider themselves part of the proletariat or part of the working class or part of the capitalist class.
No, if you ask them who they were, how they identified themselves, they'd say, well, I'm an Englishman and I'm a Londoner and I'm an Anglican.
Their definition of their personhood was based upon the network of relationships that they had.
These days, these days our definition of ourselves stems first and foremost from the group which we are a part of, the demographic, the interest group.
We divide ourselves along economic lines.
We divide ourselves along racial lines, along sexual lines.
And everybody is in competition with everybody else.
Rather than working as part of an organic nation-state, as an organic whole of one people and one culture, instead, we fight against the people of our own nations.
We struggle against them to try and have one over them.
Marx absolutely dominates modern thinking.
Freud.
Now, if you talk to a psychologist, your typical psychologist will say, oh, we don't follow Freud anymore.
We discounted him.
Dustbin of history.
Well, first of all, that's a lie.
Psychology was reinvented in the 40s.
And when it was reinvented, they dismissed a couple of the far-out there theories that Freud had, but they kept 90% of it.
They kept the same cake, they just changed the icing.
And they said, oh no, it's not Freud anymore.
So, yeah, psychology is still Freudian psychology.
It's just that they no longer suspect that all men want to sleep with their mothers and daughters, electric complex, etc.
They've kind of dismissed those weird parts of Freud.
But it's not the psychologists that really worry me.
Quite frankly, psychologists can't even make up their mind.
They change what everything is in each new DSM.
No, what worries me is Freud's nephew Bernays, the science of propaganda and marketing.
Now, it's interesting to note, you know, we were talking about Marx, how we're all Marxists, how we're all defined by income, race, sex, etc., before we're defined by who our people are, what our nation is, what do Bernays do?
Bernays broke people down into lifestyles.
So you've got the surfers, and you've got the punks, and you've got the dinks, and you've got the suburbanites.
And by the way, all these groups are competing with one another and hating one another just as much as the economic classes.
So Bernays, he's operating off the same sort of theory, same sort of divide and conquer theory as Marx, isn't he?
But more than that, Bernays' theory, marketing, advertising, the whole school of it, the whole modern school.
I'm not throwing out the idea of trying to popularize your product so you have more customers.
That's not what I'm throwing out.
I'm talking about the way they do it.
The way that they market things is to induce neuroses in you.
neuroses that weren't present before the average the average european when they go shopping for clothing they tend to look for something well you know is it well made is Is it functional?
Does it fit me right?
Not anymore.
Now you have Levi's jeans with some supermodel wearing them on a billboard by the bus station.
And so now you've taken clothing and you've got this primal tap into psychosexual perversion.
Induced neuroses, keeping up with the Joneses, hating yourself, needing the product to fill that gaping void in your soul.
And some people have noticed this, and they attack Marx, and they attack Freud, and they attack Bernays, and in the process, they become precisely the sort of hateful monster that Freud and Marx predicted.
They become the evil capitalist.
They become the oppressor.
They become the evil, masculine, dominant.
They're not answering the question in the right way.
The way to answer the question is to follow the steps of Jung.
Jung studied under Freud.
Freud was the big thing.
But while studying under Freud, Jung at one point reached this threshold.
He said, you know what?
These theories that Freud is putting out, these have absolutely nothing to do with the European race.
This psychosexual dramatic.
This has nothing.
This does not apply to Europeans.
This is not correct.
It does not adequately or accurately diagnose Europeans.
Europeans at their core are not a bundle of anxiousness and self-loathing.
We are not a histrionic race.
What we are is a race of dreamers and explorers who look to the future while feeling the echoes of our past.
And so Jung went out and founded a new theory of psychology for Europeans.
He built something good.
He built something to buttress the European soul because he recognized where he was coming from and how maybe Freud's theories were right for Freud, but they sure as hell weren't right for the Europeans.
Solzhenitsyn lived through the worst horrors of communism.
And he wrote a book, Gulag Archipelago, about the European man's complicity, about everybody's complicity in allowing this tyranny to take over a once great society.
He pulled no punches and described at length how the great bullies would become the greatest cowards, how even the brave would compromise themselves for the sake of trying to appeal to their higher-ups.
The neuroticism of the whole damn thing.
Gulag Archipelago is like a punch to the gut about how weak we allowed ourselves to be.
And then, after he wrote that book, after he took the European man and punched him in the gut and said, you did this to yourself.
After that, he wrote 200 Years Together.
In that book, he wrote about those that orchestrated all of this.
Because there is a villain behind it.
There is a villain that wants us neurotic and self-loathing and self-destructive and desperate for the approval of others, that doesn't want us to know our past, doesn't want us to know our heroes, doesn't want us to know, doesn't want us to dream.
They want us to dream of consumer goods and empty, meaningless, non-procreative sex, and status, and having a good credit rating, and a brand new car, and a house that won't last more than 50 years, but is bigger than the house next door to you.
There is a villain behind all of this.
But before you can name that villain, you need to delve into the underworld and find the elixir.
You need to go into the past.
You need to fall deep inside of yourself and find the heroes that were your ancestors.
You need to resurrect the European soul and make it glow and shine and be a beacon unto the world once more before you can walk into Mordor.
So be very careful when you grapple with this question.
The abyss stares back into you.
But with the light of our ancestors, we can make the abyss blink.
Deus Volt, folks.
▲
Export Selection