The Unconscious Versus McFreedom of McSpeech

Thanks to 'Rasputin' for that. (A guy's handle on a private investment forum that some of you here know well).

So if you go 'Google-Search' the collective unconscious according to Jung you instantly get a definition from Britannica claiming the Jung said it was a form of the unconscious - in brackets next then [that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware] - common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain.

Now that's just about as far away from what Jung actually said in his fairly precise English and his very precise German as well, as the cow is to the moon.

You look at it from the perspective of a grasshopper and you could think the cow did jump over the moon though. 

He definitely never said 'only containing memories and impulses.' God, and impulses - I don't think so!

Come inside. It's warm in here.

See the thing is with these diabolically slippery words in the hands of a toxic criminal class of supercilious so-called 'elites' who want to control everything especially you and your life, is they are excellent at spinning words and dissembling.

Stephen Fry is a great example. He will sit there, wiggling about, tapping his ankles as if everything is real jocular and he will take this utterly self-appointed position as knowing more than anyone else, and tell you, that the French woman in some Flaubert novel, is 'looking up in awe at the colors and the grandeur...' of the cathedral or whatever.

And he even has the hide to continue on and say things like: 'In her simplicity, she appreciates...'

...Whatever it is he is pretending she is 'appreciating.'

And then the idiot interviewer, who claims to be a physicist, nods and adds that someone else said they 'did not enjoy the rainbow any less because they now know how it works' (or how it is made).

Oh you actually know, do you, how the rainbow is made?

Okay so you tell me where the energy went after the violet band then.

Carl Jung never said anything like that. But what he did say is sufficiently verbally like it that Britannica and whoever is continuously pushing this Karl Popper-style line can easily get away with saying what they have said, because the new kids will never 'get it;' get how deceptive and tangentially these people's words depart from the meaning of anything Jung ever did say.

For a start Jung never did say 'brain structure' and he did not say 'inherited' pure and simple  -like you would take that to mean 'from the DNA!'

Or only from the DNA.

You need to be warm, kids,
it's going to get cold soon.

What he actually said was we do not know what the unconscious is at all!

Not - we are not attentive to it in our conscious states, or 'unaware' - he said and he meant 'really not knowing about it at all!'

He said we can observe, maybe, if we look really hard, some signs and that these are the same things across all cultures and hence it is a collective thing (IE the collective unconscious).

The surreptitious, and quite deliberate reason people like Fry put out this 'positioning' of themselves intellectually above you - unless you agreed with them and even then, you will find it is not all that simple either(!) (...They won't let you do it) - is that it deprecates then, the observer reliability.

And that is actually not a prima facie fact.

But once someone has uncritically just accepted it that it is a prima facie fact, then it's easy to hit them over the head because the wool has already been pulled over their eyes.

Except the observer could be both honest and reliable. Certainly they have no obvious hidden agenda, whereas if you have the board of editors at the Oxford University Press behind you and all of the press and media pumping that is going on, there most certainly is a hidden agenda and a very strong one. It's about research grant funding attracting, it's about political power, and it's about controlling the field of ideas.

There is no 'freedom' of 'speech;' there is McFreedom of McSpeech which is a generic label for in this case the particular brand of OxCam Freemasonic propaganda which is a literal one-way flow, in a drive-by take-out for ideas and 'philosophy.' They vend, you suck in, and you also pay and you pay dearly. 

Stephen Fry will tell you if you asked him, and he will tell you floridly and rapidly, that he does not see God, nor any evidence of God and even were God to exist then God has to answer for His Theodicy.

Yeah, I know. You vegetarians
don't want to eat this!
Bill and I will have it.
Heck, there's not even that much to
go around on that plate! 

And then...

Wait for it.

Wait for it.

Can you imagine what is going to be said here now - next?

What? What do you suppose?

Imagine me as the interviewer though, right...

Just imagine it.

"Hey Steph. You're familiar with Genesis, aren't you?"

Fry rolls eyes. He's thinking: (What does this low-life intellect think he is going to 'challenge' me with?! Humph. Scoff. Snort).

"That snake guy, he was the most intelligent, maybe even the most intellectual, certainly the smartest, cleverest and most self-important arrogant slimy bastard around, right?"

Fry: 'Huh? So what?'

"Well did he see God then too after he got tossed out of G-of-E, or like you was he not ever able to see God either..."

But see, the cunning lowness of people like Fry, is even in saying that above there that I said -, it does not diminish the possibility that those who 'see God' are just simply wrong, because after all he's already positioned them as stupid. ...Unable to tell the difference between 'dream' or imagination, or wish-fulfillment - and reality.

Susana.
DJ and prominent Euro
trance singer - sings in
multiple languages.
We're backing Susana
around here now.
She sings the trance song below.

But what I said was that super super-duper advanced intelligent (EG ET Alien) beings, come here, can do so, do do so, materially and physically, not 'metaphorically,' but that they do it under the blanket of either other events which take precedence in the attendant minds of humans generally, or in places that they are not being watched.

Carl Jung said that as our scientific measuring equipment got better, it may be possible soon (meaning, after the time when he was making those statements), to observe more and better things relating to the unconscious.

He did not ever actually distinguish - as two different, entirely separate things - between someone's individual unconscious, and the human collective unconscious. All he said was that the personal ego was one clear 'thing,' the personal 'self' was another thing that encompassed the 'ego' and that the personal unconscious was the unconscious whatever that was, especially necessarily including the collective unconscious, interacting specifically to the personal self.

But I will certainly distinguish between people like Stephen Fry or Sir Salman Rushdie, and say, you, and very definitely 'the collective unconscious.'

Stephen Fry is not attached in any way whatsoever, to the human collective unconscious. He is a different creature altogether.

The genius of real scientific thinkers like Stuart Hameroff, is that they can perceive down into the mysterious, previously unseen bits and pieces of things, and, by applying good quality thinking and also adopting these new physical tools that Jung foresaw - they are starting to come to terms with what the unconscious might be.

They already know very clearly, that consciousness is operating on one frame of reference of its over all activity, easily at the quantum level.

And so we can start to authentically envisage the real logic of actual 'collective' connectedness...

But that then asks a question about my assertion that people like Stephen Fry are not 'here' with the rest of us; that they are not connected. So well then where are they, in fact? Where does their consciousness tie in to, if it ties into anything at all. They have a consciousness, it would appear, but they deny 'God' so they are not consciously at least tied to that...

But see hey, why are they so intent on saying 'God does not exist?'

Aaaah. Just relax you 
vegetarians.
Drink your tea.

Because what flows from the scientific understandings and knowledge of leading-edge mechanistic scientists (and I am a mechanist, when it comes to 'Cosmology'), is that at minimum, the entirety of the connected-up human race, albeit 'unconscious' must be a kind of a 'god' - if you consider that it, the human species, will go on and on into the future, maybe even to Eternity. 

Ah now but if someone truncated that 'eternal unfolding...'

In religious thinking 'the Devil' aka Satan, wants to do that.

And already Imperial College is going to establish an entirely 'from a tabula rasa;' an inceptive new 'being' that has AI 'consciousness...

So you've already been shoved to one side, my good friend.

And secondly, Fry has no 'connection interest' with the simpleton woman who 'looked up at awe' - meaning you. He means you - you're the simpleton, the simple-minded fool. Make no mistake about it.

And see you can't really connect to him either, because you will never be as smart as he is. That's what arrogance says, see. He might not say it to you so openly, but it's what every single word and action of his whole being tells you actually!

Now, you have to make up your mind about something though. The human collective conscious knows everything. Jimi Hendrix said so: 'Just ask the Axis, He knows everything.'

And it also has supreme power to do anything and everything, that it, sorry - that you, want.

And you have to hurry up now, and decide whether you are going make any moves right now.

That Austrian medical doctor who was also a psychologist, whose name must not be McMentioned - well he said that all politicians, were unable to be sexually satisfied. And he gave really good reasons for saying it. Uh-oh. LOL