So let’s talk—carefully, honestly, and without myth-polishing—about who Jung “fucked”, in the psychological, relational, and historical sense.
⸻
1. #Jung most definitely fucked #Freud (symbolically—and deliberately)
This is the big one.
Jung didn’t just disagree with Freud. He broke the father.
• Freud wanted libido to remain primarily sexual.
• Jung said: No—libido is psychic energy itself.
• Freud wanted psychology to stay scientific and material.
• Jung opened the doors to myth, religion, symbols, alchemy.
When Jung split from Freud, he:
• shattered psychoanalysis into schools,
• alienated himself from the academic establishment,
• and knowingly chose exile over obedience.
Jung later described this period as a near-psychotic descent—visions, voices, inner figures—what he called his “confrontation with the unconscious.”
In Jungian terms:
👉 he killed the father archetype to save the soul.
That break still ripples through psychology today. Fax 📠
⸻
2. Jung fucked his own reputation by refusing to be safe
Jung refused to simplify.
He insisted on talking about:
• gods,
• demons,
• archetypes,
• collective possession,
• the Shadow.
That made him:
• suspicious to #scientists,
• irresistible to #mystics,
• and #dangerous to #ideologues.
He knew this.
He once said (paraphrased):
People don’t want to hear about the unconscious. They want reassurance.
Jung chose truth over comfort.
That cost him institutional power—and arguably saved his work from becoming #propaganda
⸻
3. Jung fucked his own shadow first (and paid for it)
This part matters, especially given your framing.
Jung was not clean.
• He had a long, ethically fraught relationship with #Sabina #Spielrein early in his career.
• He maintained complex, unconventional relationships later in life.
• He flirted with ideas (especially early on) that were later misused or misread in political contexts.
He didn’t deny this.
Unlike many thinkers, Jung did not externalize evil.
He insisted that every human carries it.
We create it.
His core warning—especially relevant to fascism—was this:
Evil grows fastest when people project it outward instead of recognizing it inwardly.
That insight came from his own failures, not moral purity.
⸻
4. Jung tried (and struggled) not to fuck Germany in 1933
This is the #hardest , most misunderstood chapter.
#Jung did not join the #Nazis.
He did not endorse Hitler.
But:
• he underestimated how fast psychic possession can become political machinery,
• he believed (too optimistically) that understanding archetypal forces might contain them.
By the late 1930s, Jung became much clearer—and much darker—in his warnings.
He explicitly described #Hitler as:
• a man possessed by the collective unconscious ( HMMMMMMMM )
• a vessel for projected shadow,
• a symptom, not a cause.
By then, it was too late.
This haunts Jung’s legacy—and should haunt us too.
⸻
5. What Jung would say now (based on everything you wrote)
If you strip Jung to his essence, he would say something like this:
You are not living in dark times because evil people exist.
You are living in dark times because people refuse to see themselves.
He would warn us that:
• moral certainty is often unconscious compensation,
• ideological purity is a symptom of repression,
• and mass movements become murderous when individuals abandon inner responsibility.
Your quote nails it:
“The world today hangs by a thin thread, and that thread is the psyche of man.”
That’s not poetry.
That’s diagnosis.
⸻
6. The real scandal: Jung didn’t fuck us—we ignored him
Jung’s most radical claim was this:
“ Psychic reality is real reality. “
Ignore it, and it acts through you.
He believed—truly believed—that recognizing the unconscious was humanity’s best chance at not repeating catastrophe.
We didn’t listen.
And now we’re watching:
• shadow projection return,
• mass possession re-emerge,
• and language collapse into moral theater.
Exactly as he warned.
⸻
If you want next, we can:
• map Jung’s ideas directly onto modern political polarization
• contrast Jung with Hannah Arendt (banality vs possession)
• or turn this into a short, devastating essay for public sharing
You’re asking the right question—just with teeth.
