God, Man, Marx, Satan, Jung, Peterson
Who is Jordan Peterson and why does he matter . . . ??
Jordan Peterson (epic podcaster, Jungian psychologist, and natty dresser), has just released a video titled "The Devil and Karl Marx," in which he interviews Dr. Paul Kengor (1966-) about the "religious ideations" (i.e. subconscious) of Marx (EP 455). Kengor is a political scientist, perhaps best known for his portrait of Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), now the basis of a new movie on the ex-President. Peterson is currently finishing his "We Who Wrestle with God" Latin American speaking tour (where close-in seats are selling for $3000+), to be shared more broadly when a book with that title is published later this year. So, if Dr. Peterson feels comfortable analyzing Marx (who he never met), perhaps it’s time to provide some analysis of Peterson, who we've also never met.
The Aryan Christ
In 1997, Richard Noll (1959-) published his The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung, following the 1994 publication of his award-winning The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement. Noll was rewarded for his scholarly work by being black-listed by the Bollingen Foundation (named after the medieval tower Jung built in the woods), publishers of much of Jung's work, and shunned by many other Jung scholars -- ending his Jungian career. In Aryan Christ, Noll's research revealed that Jung had imagined himself to be a reincarnation of Aion (sometimes Aeon), a Hellenistic deity associated with time and a god of cyclic ages, often linked to mystery religions and the afterlife. Apparently all this was intended by Jung as the basis of his new religious movement. Some have suggested that the 2007 publication of Jung's The Red Book (composed mostly in the 1930s, then titled Liber Novus) was an attempt to dispel any ill-effects of Noll's work. Has it worked?
Noll is not the only one who has taken on the "religious ideation" of Jung -- just the most thorough. Previous books on the topic clustered around linking Jung to the historic movement known as "gnosticism" (small "g," not the big-G "Gnosticism" which pre-dated and then paralleled the rise of Christianity, sometimes called its "evil-twin"). Gnosticism (both small and big "g") have multiple descriptions -- since many internal disputes have been documented -- typically focused on the Manichean (a dualist Zoroastrian cult) belief in how this world was created by a "demiurge" not by the Christian God. A fallen world. In need of "repair." In need of "reformation."
We prefer the description which links gnosticism with the human inclination to imagine ourselves as "gods" themselves. Deified. Like Jung did with Aion. Like the split between Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) Christianity over the "sacrament" of Hesychasm, as practiced in monasteries on Mount Athos. Not the "made in the image and likeness of God," from Genesis. When we appoint ourselves to carry out that repair -- like many “Marxists” (including those now labelled "neo-conservatives") – we are “deifying” ourselves. In the early 50s, Marshall McLuhan struck up a correspondence with Eric Voegelin (known for his “Immanetizing the Eschaton” accusation against the Marxists &al). McLuhan suggested that there were two “axes” for gnosticism: Vertical (focus on self-divination) and Horizontal (focus on transforming society). Jung was both.
These are questions that are of much more than mere historic interest. Digital technology compels us to answer the question "What does it mean to be human?" When some inevitably answer that question with "To be a God!", we will all have to deal with the consequences. In fact, we are already in the thick of it.
When his biographers take up his early life, Marx is often considered to have been a "devout" Christian until he went to the University of Bonn in 1835 (later going to Berlin and then Jena, where he got his philosophy degree). Evidence cited for this is an essay he wrote just before heading to Bonn titled "The Union of the Faithful with Christ." But is this actually Christian? Or might it be "gnostic"? "Union with Christ" (who was God, according to Marx) puts humanity in a weird relationship with the divine. Union. Marx is then documented to have adopted a personal identification with the Mephistopheles (himself a "god") from Goethe's Faust (Part 1, 1808, Part 2, 1832), as adduced from his poetry and one-act play "Oulanem" (approx. "emanuelo" backwards). No one seems to have suggested why this "switch" occurred. So, maybe it wasn't a switch at all. Perhaps Marx was a gnostic all along. Like many “evangelicals” of his time.
Cue Fredrich Engels (1820-95) -- one-time "evangelical Christian" (from Barmen, the "buckle in the German Bible Belt") and Marx's closest collaborator, co-authoring the phrase "the opium of the people." Cue Max Stirner (1806-1856) and his 1844 The Unique and Its Property -- sometimes translated as "Ego," giving Stirner credit for originating aspects of anarchism. By "unique," Stirner meant that each of us is inherently different -- making humanity something abstract and potentially expendable, as perhaps seen by today's "post-humanist." Or Marx with his goal to "annihilate" everything -- clearing the decks before rebuilding on the ruins. This was a period of enormous ferment. Particularly in Germany. Building from the 18th-century Illuminati — which was building off the 17th-century's Rosicrucians — while taking heed of how the Print-based Reformation didn't complete the job. Under Electric conditions, perhaps the "reformation of the whole world" would now be possible?
Marx was living through the transition from the Print Paradigm to the Electric one -- much as we are living through the shift from Electric/Television to Digital. These shifts are tumultuous and filled with conflicts. Leading to Wars (including Kulturkampf). Just like our world today. Marx, Engels &al were a product of that earlier paradigm shift. As was Frederich “God is Dead” Nietzsche (1844-1900). "Communism" was an Electric fantasy. China has already given Marx a full-on makeover -- staring with a fresh set of translations and then pushing it through the filter of "Chinese Characteristics," making it no longer "Marxism," as understood in the West. Gnosticism and the relationship of humanity with God isn't their problem. It's ours.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
Hebrew scholars have suggested that the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis: 2:16-17) is more than a simple statement of moral judgements. Apparently, the phrase means something more like “all knowledge” – indicating omniscience. Plus, the injunction against eating the “apple” then concludes with “for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” – indicating the loss of immortality. Omniscience and immortality are attributes of God, in both Judaism and Christianity. Not humans. What does that make Adam and Eve and what does it have to do with answering the question “What does it mean to be human?”
Many scholars and theologians have focused on the “disobedience” (thus, tied to Free Will) aspects of all this. Some, like Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), emphasize what was lost. Some blame women. Some link it to the beginning of agriculture. But is that really at the core here? We’d like to focus on the gnostic aspects. Eating the “fruit” was intended to turn Adam and Eve into “divine” beings: “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). That is the Original Sin. Wanting to be God-like. And it still is. Making a “post-human,” usurps God’s original creation of humanity. “Repairing” a fallen world, overruns God’s creation of the one in which we live. Can humans perform these feats? Many are convinced that they can. We do not agree.
What did Jung think? He praises the Fall. He says, “The biblical fall of man presents the dawn of consciousness as a curse.” The desire to return to Eden, as sung about by Joni Mitchell (1943-) in her 1968 anthem “Woodstock,” was for Jung the hope for a safe, uncomplicated, familiar place. But that is all wrong. Misplaced. According to Jung. It is constricting and prevents people from becoming autonomous, fulfilled and ultimately happy. Jung was trying to start a new religious movement – which he thought would have to begin “inside” of Christianity. Jung said, “Only through the mystery of self-sacrifice can a man find himself anew” (Jung, “New Paths in Psychology,” 1911, para 437). This is exactly what Peterson says today. It’s also a version of the Jungian Joseph Campbell’s (1904-1987) “Heroes Quest.”
No wonder Peterson is “wrestling with God.” Jung was perhaps the most important “religious” figure of the Electric 20th-century. In an overwhelmingly “secular” world, Jung and his associates appeared to many as a port-in-the-storm. Jung carried on an extensive correspondence with a Dominican priest, Victor White, OP (1902-1960), among many others. The University of Dallas (UD), once a stanchly Catholic school, found itself beached following Vatican II. Many other major Catholic schools – Notre Dame, Fordham, Georgetown &c – had followed the contours of the 1967 “Land o’ Lakes Statement,” and would largely be leaving Catholicism behind. Not wanting to be “left behind” themselves, UD officials invited James Hillman (1956-2011) to help them restore spirituality on campus. And Hillman was known as the founder of his own “Archetypal Psychology,” closely related to Jung, although based on his own views of the “Imaginal” psyche.
Peterson has recently published his “112 Books” reading list – without any volumes by Jung, but one by Freud (1856-1939) – however by recommending his own book, Maps of Meaning, he has included a modern Jungian textbook. He also recommends Ellenberger’s The Discovery of the Unconscious (1994) — which completely misses the older Faculty Psychology, now very much needed (Dianoetikon V.1, Inner Senses (digitallife.center)) — but covers Jung extensively. How does Peterson’s revolutionary “man anew” Jungian psychology relate to his “politics”? Let’s see.
Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution”
China is run by Daoists, not by Marxists anymore. Russia is run by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), not by Marxists anymore. Under Digital conditions, Marxist “atheism” has gone spiritual in both places (see “The Rise of Spiritual Civilizations,” 6-parts, EXO: Digital Bomb! Substack). So where will you find “Marxists” in power today? In the U.S. Congress and the Parliaments of the West. They are the ones now pursuing today’s version of “permanent revolution.” It’s called Globalism. And, crucially, they have lost that battle. Globalism is dead. Thanks to Digital, we now live in a Three Spheres: East, West and Digital world. And, today, these are the people often called the “War Party.”
All “Marxists” do not agree, and those disagreements can be quite important. Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was a major figure in the Russian revolutions and the establishment of the Soviet Union. Famously, despite earlier disputes with him, post-1917 he was very close to Lenin (1870-1924) and split with Stalin (1878-1953) after Lenin’s death. This lead to being kicked out of the Party, internally exiled, and finally deported in 1929 -- only to be sentenced to death in absentia in the show trials and assassinated in Mexico City by a “Stalinist agent” in 1940.
Trotsky was known for his theory of “permanent revolution,” which declared that the socialist revolution could only survive if spread to advanced capitalist countries. Whereas Stalin was known for his “socialism in one country.” Trotsky published his The Permanent Revolution in 1930, and his Revolution Betrayed: What is the Soviet Union and Where is it Going? in 1937 – where he argued that the Soviet Union had become a ”degenerated workers’ state.” In 1938, he formed the 4th International, challenging the still-forceful Communist Party based 3rd International (also known as the “Comintern”), formed in 1919 by the CPSU.
Trotskyism, absent the “Leninist discipline” associated with the Stalinist Communist Parties, became very influential for intellectuals in the West. Many factions – often organized as “personality cults” – followed, as the proletarian-oriented “old left” increasingly fragmented. As the 60s counterculture grew, under the influence of Television-as-environment, a “new-left” arose – now focused on what Marx called the “lumpen-proletariat” (who, as it turns out, Marx detested). Today this has consolidated into what some call the “Woke” movement, targeting all forms of “oppression”(and now mistakenly called “Cultural Marxism,” since it’s “cultural” and not based on Marx’s economics). This left the Radio generation “old-left” stranded by the Television-era “new-left.” What to do?
This provoked a radical shift in “Marxist” affiliations. They flipped and went “conservative.” They are now often called “Neo-cons” (because they only recently discovered the “right” side of the street.) Many previous Trotskyists and socialists from the Radio era took up affiliations with the Socialist Party of America (SP) and its successor the SDUSA. Some of them then worked for the CIA (and other agencies), since they were the best “anti-communists” (i.e. anti-Stalinists) money could buy. They supported the Vietnam War and tended to back Ronald Reagan, who had promised to confront Soviet (i.e. Stalinist) expansion. Many of them published magazines and books. Like Commentary and Encounter.
Michael Harrington (1928-1989), popularized the term “neo-conservative” in 1973, to emphasize how his democratic socialist views differed (as first organized under the name DSOC and is now the DSA, where Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez is a member) He noted how these one-time Trotskyists were now a part of the Republican coalition (and, had he lived long enough, would have noticed that they have “flipped” again and are being lionized by the left because they are “anti-Trump”).
What Does it Mean to Be “Conservative” Under Digital Conditions?
The Neo-cons brought Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” with them. No, that’s not “textbook” conservativism. Not satisfied with post-Berlin Wall geopolitics, they remained committed to ending Russia’s survival – with some suggesting that the Russian Federation be totally broken up. And, when China ended their “head fake” affection for “democracy” and free markets, they piled onto opposition against China (another one-time Stalinist country). History had come to an end – they thought. A “New World Order” was in place and there was no room for “Marxists” in it. Globalism was taking over. The “Rules Based Order” was on the march. Not so fast. Thanks to Digital-as-environment, Globalism is now obsolete. The result: we are living with today’s strategy-empty, not-so-Cold wars on many fronts. Permanent? Revolution? Not quite.
Today’s Paradigm shift forces us to reimage the Left and the Right. Attacking “Cultural Marxism” (aka the old “new left”) which was formed by Television and has been around since the 1960s completely misses the point. Not bringing things up to date for the Digital Paradigm can only lead to an obsolete sort of “conservative” – perhaps good for attracting an audience unaware of the Paradigm shift – so all this needs to be rethought. Is it conservative to aim for a revolutionary remaking of the world? Is the Jewish “Tikkun Olam” effort to “repair” the world, a conservative goal – as some now assert?
Perhaps the new Digital “right” will be those who would like the AI race to conclude with robots becoming our version of medieval “serfs” – never reaching Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)? And perhaps the new Digital “left” will center around those who support the notion of “replacing” humans with robots. Like the Post-humanists – who have already largely replaced the “Post-modernists.”
What does this have to do with Jordan Peterson’s politics? Peterson is surrounded and supported by “conservatives.” He goes out of his way to trash the “left,” which he terms “Post-Modern Neo-Marxism,” as reflected in his “Marx & Satan” podcast. And he also criticizes the “right” for its meekness and lack of having a strategy. Does he want to out-conservative the conservatives -- by being a revolutionary? Are there elections in his future? Is he Digital or Television in his sensibility? Overall, what is clear is that he is a leading proponent of Jung’s hoped-for “gnostic” religious movement. It appears that he is aiming, like Jung, to revolutionize religion (and thus the world) via Jungian psychology.
He gained his initial fame by fighting the “correct words” brigade – endearing him to the “anti-Woke” crowd. He sits on the Advisory Board of the Alliance for Responsible Citizens (ARC) and helped to motivate its formation – which recently published “The Twilight of the West?”, asking “Are we at a point of civilizational twilight?”. Virtues. Values. All standard “conservative” fare – but often voiced very quietly – as opposed to Peterson’s bullhorn. But is he a Permanent Revolutionist (via Jung)? A Neo-con? Is he aware of the political history involved? Not obviously – so we’ll just have to see how this works out, as we wrestle with: God, Man, Marx, Satan, Jung and Dr. Peterson.