Editor’s note: WND’s J.R. Nyquist is a renowned expert on
America’s fatal illusion of an international balance of power;
diplomatic and Cold War history; the survivability of a thermonuclear
world war; and is the author of
“Origins of the Fourth World War.” Each month Nyquist provides an
exclusive in-depth report in WorldNetDaily’s monthly magazine, WorldNet.
subscribe to WorldNet through WND’s online store.
© 2000, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Recently I was handed a book, “The Inner World of Man,” written by Frances G. Wickes. It outlines the key concepts of Jungian psychology and contains many passages on psychological deformations which suggest certain American politicians and political movements.
It could be argued that Wickes’ chapter on “The Persona” offers a major insight into President Bill Clinton. The Persona, says Wickes, is a mask which the ego wears “in order to play a social role.” But this leads to a potential danger. A person might begin to identify with the mask, losing sight of other things — like the true, inner self. In extreme cases, writes Wickes, when a charming Persona hides a confused and ugly human being, “the image must sooner or later stand aside and the inner reality must find its outlet. …”
Perhaps the Monica Lewinsky affair was such an outlet. Perhaps Clinton’s alleged rape of Jaunita Broaddrick, or the groping of Kathleen Willey served this purpose.
The chapter Wickes wrote on “The Shadow” begins with a sentence that oddly suggests Hillary Clinton: “The … instance of a woman identified with a Persona image built upon her early fantasy of a princess self.” But here one finds that this princess self-image has an unmistakable dark side characterized by resentment, jealousy and false assumptions. Sadly, this woman is oblivious to her own negative traits. As people turn against her, she projects these traits onto them.
In this context, we ought to remember Hillary’s explanation of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which she blamed on a vast “right wing conspiracy.” I am also reminded of her frequent use of four letter words and her unprincess-like tantrums.
Even more intriguing, I thought, was Wickes’ chapter on “The Anima,” which reminded me of Al Gore. According to the Jungians the Anima is the woman inside of every man. If a man suffers from an Anima complex, it means that his inner woman rules him without his conscious knowledge. “A man may be lost in his unconscious feminine side,” writes Wickes, “living in phantasy or in womanish moods and emotions. Such a man will be effeminate, overgentle, submissive.”
Nobody should doubt that Al Gore lives in a strange world of fantasy. This is the hysterical world of global warming and rapidly disappearing rainforests. It is also a world in which Al Gore created the Internet.
And if you want further evidence that Al Gore is unconsciously controlled by his softer side: please recall that he hired a leading feminist, earlier this year, to teach him about the “alpha male” thing.
Of further interest, Wickes’ chapter on “The Animus” helps to peg today’s gender revolutionaries. Just as the Anima is the woman inside every man, the Animus is the man inside every woman. Whether we should take Jungian categories seriously or not, a description is given by Wickes of a woman who improperly integrates her male traits.
Obviously, this leads us to the doorstep of feminism.
According to Wickes, falling in love is problematic for Animus-possessed women because they are always “vaguely distrustful of the man.” Such a woman is given over to “professional struggles” rather than to mature loving relationships and the nurturing of children. Wickes tells us that a primitive medicine man would rebuke this pathological tendency by saying: “Woman, you are possessed by the ghost of a man.”
This further suggests to us the underlying pathology of our latter-day lesbians. In other words, the lesbian presents us with an image of distrustfulness toward men. This leads us to ask the psychologists whether or not it is possible that lesbians are merely Animus-obsessed women (in the extreme)?
What is most alarming about Wickes’ analysis, is her notion that women can be easily influenced to distrust men. This influence, she says, can come through “identification with the Animus of another woman.” Given that radical feminism fosters distrust of the masculine, one is left to ponder the motives for originating this propaganda. Could it be that radical feminism owes something to female homosexuality?
A few weeks ago I asked readers to confirm or deny reports of open homosexual kissing in American high schools. The responses I received indicated that such kissing was taking place, but was restricted to “lesbian kissing.” Given the feminist propaganda in our schools today, it is possible we are seeing the early stages of a catastrophe which will deliver a crushing blow to our birthrate by further weakening the man-woman relationship.
At any rate, it is interesting to view our leading politicians and political movements through the lens of an old psychology book, written in the 1930s. Perhaps the social disintegration of our time, in the last analysis, derives its impetus from the disintegration of individuals.
Or do we suppose that Bill Clinton’s psyche is not, in some sense, gradually disintegrating as he proudly marches from one shameless escapade to another? Is anyone sure, at the same time, of Hillary’s psychological health — especially after she explained the Monica Lewinsky affair in terms of a vast “right wing conspiracy”? And then we have Al Gore, the prototype of the weak man who is constantly reinventing himself. Is it any wonder that these people support the lesbian agenda and radical feminism?
Carl Jung was the originator of the psychological concepts discussed by Frances Wickes. It is well known that Jung dabbled in paganism and the occult. But at the end of his life, seeing the spiritual disintegration of the modern world and its totalitarian consequences, Jung wrote in favor of Christianity. Here was a teaching that could heal broken souls, he argued.
For those who are interested, they can read Jung’s argument in a book called “The Undiscovered Self.”