Unfortunately the anger becomes useful on a societal basis in 'appeals to base human urges' (The Prince by Machiavelli).

At the start of the US involvement in WWII Joseph Campbell was put in the position of having to defend culture and truth rather than go along with the crazed nationalism and outright invasion of so many public institutions through all manner of propaganda. He ended up being accused of being a Nazi by many who should have known better. The speech that follows stands as true or truer today than when he gave it to the ladies at Sarah Lawrence College, where he was a professor.

“Permanent Human Values


I have been asked to tell you what seem to me to be some of the important things—permanently human—which men are likely to forget during hours of a severe political crisis.


Permanent things, of course, do not have to be fought for—they are permanent. We are not their creators and defenders. Rather—it is our privilege (our privilege as individuals: our privilege as nations) to experience them. And it is our private loss if we neglect them. We may fight for our right to experience these values. But the fight must not be conducted on a public battlefield. This fight must be conducted in the individual mind. Public conquerors are frequently the losers in this secret struggle.


Permanent things, furthermore, are not possessed exclusively by the democracies; not exclusively even by the Western world.


My theme, therefore, forbids me to be partial to the war-cries of the day. I respect my theme, and I shall try to do it justice. I am not competent to speak of every permanent human value. I shall confine myself, therefore, to those which have been my special disciplinarians: those associated with the Way of Knowledge.


Which of these are likely to be forgotten during the hours of a severe political crisis? All of them, I should say. I think that everything which does not serve the most immediate economic and political ends is likely to be forgotten.


I think, in the first place, that the critical objectivity of the student of society is likely to be forgotten—either forgotten or suppressed. For example: The president of Columbia University has declared that the present conflict is a war ‘between beasts and human beings, between brutal force and kindly helpfulness,’ Yet Columbia professors laboriously taught, during the twenties and thirties something about the duties of objective intelligence in the face of sensational propaganda: and no educated gentleman can possibly believe that the British Empire or the French Empire or the American Empire was unselfishly founded in ‘kindly helpfulness.’ without gunpowder or without perfectly obscene brutality.


It is not surprising, of course, that there should be a strain of opportunism in those public gentlemen who are in a position to tell the multitude what to think; but that our universities—those institutions which have plumed themselves in their dignified objectivity—should begin now to fling about the gutter-slogans of our newspaper cartoons, seems to be a calamity of the first order.


Perhaps our students must prepare themselves to remember (without any support for our institutions of higher learning) that there are two sides to every argument, that every government since governments began, has claimed to represent the special blessings of the heavenly realm, that every man (even an enemy) is human, and that no empire (not even a merchant empire) is founded on ‘kindly helpfulness.’


When there was no crisis on the horizon, we were told that objectivity was a good. Now that something seems to threaten our markets—or to threaten perhaps even more than that—we are warned (and this by still another of our university presidents) that the real fifth-columnist in this country is the critical intellectual. What kind of leaders are these men, anyhow?—snorting through one nostril about the book-burnings in Germany, wheezing through the other at critical intelligences in our own Republic?


In the second place we are in danger of neglecting the apparently useless work of the disinterested scientist and historian. Yet if there is one jewel in the crown of Western Civilization which deserves to take a place beside the finest jewels of Asia, it is the jewel cut by these extraordinary men. Their images of the cosmos and of the course of earthly history are as majestic as the Oriental theories of involution and evolution. But these images are by no means the exclusive creation, or even property, of democracies. Many of the indispensable works which you must read, if you are to participate in the study of these images, have not even been translated into democratic tongues. Let me say, therefore, that any serious student of history or science who permits the passions of this hour to turn her away from German is a fool. Whatever may be the language for hemisphere defense, German, French and English are the languages of scholarship and science. (Biblio: At Sarah Lawrence, as at many schools and universities, German and Italian were being eliminated from the curriculum, as if somehow the boycott of the language would enforce some kind of sanction on the country or its political leaders. It was probably this practice Campbell was decrying.) German, French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, Scandinavian, English, Irish, Polish, Russian, Swiss, Christian, Pagan, Atheist, and Jewish have been the workers in these spheres. Chauvinism has no place here. The work is international and human. Consequently, whenever there is a resurgence of the nationalisms and animalisms of war, scientist and scholar have to cork themselves tightly in. They are not anti-social parasites and slackers when they do this. It is with them that Western Culture, as opposed to Western Empire, will survive.


In the third place, the work of the literary man and the artist is in danger. We need not worry about the popular entertainer: he will be more in demand than ever. But we may worry about the artists of social satire: theirs will be a plight very like the plight of the objective social scientist. And we may worry about the creative writers, painters, sculptors, and musicians devoted to the disciplines of pure art. The philistine (that is to say the man without hunger for poetry and art) will never understand the importance of these enthusiasts. But those of you whose way of personal discipline and discovery is the way of the arts will understand that if you are to keep in touch with your own centers of energy, you must not allow yourself to be tricked into believing that social criticism is proper art, or that sensational entertainment is proper art, or that journalistic realism is proper art. You must not give up your self-exploration in your own terms. The politicians are such a blatant crew and their causes are so obvious that it is exceedingly difficult to remember, when they surround you, anything but the surfaces of life….


The artist—in so far as he is an artist—looks at the world dispassionately: without thought of defending his ego or his friends; without thought of undoing any enemy; troubled neither with desire or loathing. He is as dispassionate as the scientist, but he is looking not for the causes of effects, he is simply looking—sinking his eye into the object. To his eye this object permanently reveals the fascination of a hidden name or essential form…


Now this perfectly well-known crisis, which transports a beholder beyond desire and loathing, is the first step not only to art, but to humanity. And it is the artist who is its hero. It cannot be said, therefore, that the artist is finally anti-social, even though from an economic point of view his work may be superfluous; even though he may seem to be sitting pretty much alone.


In the fourth place, the preaching of religion is in danger. God is the first fortress that a warlike nation must capture, and the ministers of religion are always, always, always ready to deliver God into the hands of their king or their president. We hear of it already—this arm-in-arm blood brotherhood of democracy and Christianity…


And how quick the ministers of religion are to judge the soul of the enemy; when the founder of their faith is reputed to have said: ‘Judge not, that you may never be judged.’ How quick they are to point at the splinter in the enemy eye, before they have looked for the plank that sticks in their own! ‘Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,’ is not the phrase for a political emergency. ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ is not the phrase for a political emergency… And perhaps it would be well to remember that even the inhabitants of the democracies were born with original sin on their souls: and that not even the President of the United States has any objective assurance that he is the vicar of Christ on earth.


We are all groping in this valley of tears, and if a Mr. Hitler collides with a Mr. Churchill, we are not in conscience bound to believe that a devil had collided with a saint (Biblio: This phrase was quoted out of context, with a predictably horrifying impact on modern sensibilities, in the New York Times article of 1989 on Campbell’s alleged bigotry.)—Keep those transcendent terms out of your political thinking—do not donate the things of God to Caesar—and you will go a long way toward keeping a sane head.


I believe, finally, that education is going to suffer during the next few years, as it did during the last war. You will be tempted to forget that you are educating yourselves to be women: you will imagine that you are educating yourselves to be patriots. Primarily you are human beings; secondarily you are members of a certain social class. Primarily you are human beings; secondarily you are daughters of the present century. If you devote yourselves exclusively, or even primarily, to peculiarities of the local scene and the present moment, you will wonder, fifteen years from now, what you did with your education…


I would not say that the Way of Knowledge is the only way to human fulfillment: but it is a majestic way; it is a way represented by the innumerable sciences, arts, philosophical and theological systems of mankind. The final danger is not (let me repeat this emphatically in closing), the final danger is not that mankind may lose these things (for, if Europe and America were to be blown away entirely, there would remain millions and millions of subtly disciplined human beings—who might even feel relieved to see us go!). The great danger is that you—unique you—may be tricked into missing your education.� (5)


I am such a fan of Mr. Campbell and there are so many things of his which I quote in different books that some think I am nuts about him. The facts he presents have been added to in the archaeological and linguistic or anthropological, so I really end up quoting more of his pure spiritual ecumenicism thoughts. But when a potential editor from my alma mater who had 14 years post secondary education and had been a professor commented about Campbell being a Nazi sympathizer – I lost interest in him. He also was stupid enough to suggest the Pyramids had nothing unknown to academia – RIGHT!!

JUNG WAS NOT A NAZI SYMPATHIZER!
Another Eranos Conference luminary of integrative science and spirituality is Carl Jung. The charges made by Freud and his supporters have served the Hegelian Dialectic very well indeed. The truth is neither black nor white and the world psyche has yet to be honest or address the causes of racism. Here is a Simon Fraser University psychologist saying many things I agree with from a larger article I recommend.
“’I am absolutely not an opponent of the Jews, even though I am an opponent of Freud's. I criticize him because of his materialistic and intellectualistic - last but not least - irreligious attitude and not because he is Jewish’ (Jung, 1934b, as cited in Gallard, 1994, p. 218).
To this day, the two schools of thought are opposed to each other. This opposition probably resides in the typological differences alluded to by Jung. The Freudian outlook is much closer to the extroverted orientation of our Natural Sciences while Jung's approach is of a more subjective nature (Franz, 1975). Whether one is satisfied that he was an opponent of Freud because of professional and not religious differences, Jung was also accused of writing, throughout the 1930's, what some consider to be anti-Semitic statements about Jews in general.
Jung and Jewish Psychology
In the very first issue of the Zentralblatt fur Psychotherapie, with Jung as editor, he wrote that the universal aspect of the psyche should not be allowed to hide the particular characteristics that are evident from belonging to any given cultural or religious group. In fact, Jung touched on this topic - differences between Jewish and Germanic psychology - on many occasions which highlights his "concern to give voice to those viewpoints which report on the 'imponderable differences' between men, and by exposing them, to reach a synthesis" (Gallard, 1994, p. 209). Such may be the case, but Jung's emphasis on religious and cultural differences of the psyche was a serious breach of ethics in consideration of the time in history (Gallard, 1994). To accentuate such differences between Jewish psychology and other schools of thought fed into Nazi propaganda.
Furthermore, Jung continually failed to explain exactly what he meant by his oftentimes paradoxical writing, thus leaving him open to criticism. In light of this, the accusations of ant-Semitism seem hardly surprising. As an example of paradoxical writing, Jung, at one point, likened Jewish psychology to Chinese psychology. At that time in history however, the Chinese culture was not well known; they were a remote people, not valued by others, and were of an entirely different cultural realm (Gallard, 1994). It is not surprising that such an idea could be taken as a further attack on Jews. Yet unknown to most, Jung had spent years immersing himself in Far Eastern culture and found somewhat of an authentication of his ideas. His great respect for the Chinese culture implies that he was complimenting Jewish psychology. In fact, at one point, he stated that Jews were more vastly conscious than the barbaric Germanic people and had a higher degree of civilization and adaptability (McGuire, & Hull, 1977).
In relation to such differences that Jung so eagerly emphasized, it was his belief that the cultural specificities were the universal heritage of humankind which can be found in all people (Gallard, 1994). However, an effort must first be made to recognize these particulars which usually show themselves as differences. This notion would explain why Jung was so intent on highlighting differences between Jewish and Germanic psychology: he simply wished to initiate discussion on, what many considered, sensitive matters (Sherry, 1986). Though some would later suggest that through addressing Jewish psychological differences, he was really unconsciously addressing Freud, it is clear that he failed to understand the possibility of misinterpretation and the dangerous misuse of what he wrote. If Jung could be accused of anything, it would be his poor timing in light of the events unfolding around him in pre-war Europe.
Having considered these accusations - of being a Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite - it is worth considering often overlooked public statements expressed by Jung as the war approached.
Jung's Own Words
As early as 1918, Jung knew something unfavorable was arising within Germany. His words of the ‘blond beast stirring in its subterranean prison...threatening us with an outbreak that will have devastating consequences’ (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947) serve as an early warning of what was to come. Just ten years later, he wrote on how each person is unconsciously worse when acting within a crowd rather than individually. Jung warned the world that the larger an organization becomes, the more the people are prone to immorality and blind ignorance (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947).
In 1933, in a lecture given in Cologne, Germany (at the same period in history when others accused him of Nazi-sympathy), Jung leveled a full blown warning about people as a collective suffocating the individual, leaving those in the crowd anonymous, irresponsible, and dangerous. Jung implied that Hitler (and Nazism) was the inevitable cause of such collectiveness. Four years later, in 1937, Jung spoke at Yale University in the United States, relaying his belief that the movement seen in Germany was explained by a fear of neighboring countries supposedly possessed by devilish leaders. In stating that no one can recognize their own unconscious underpinnings, the possibility that Germany was projecting their own condition upon their International neighbors was evident (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). This fear leads to the nationalistic duty to have the biggest guns and the strongest army.
In 1940, most of these words were published in German but were quickly suppressed. As a result of Jung's views about Germany and particularly Adolf Hitler, he ended up on the Nazi "blacklist" (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). When France was later invaded, the Gestapo destroyed Jung's French translations as well. In no uncertain terms, Jung's writings and lectures served as a warning for the conflict to come. As well, Jung's own words opposed the accusations of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism. It would seem then, in light of the above, that the answer to the question of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism is fairly clear.� (6)

Jung a Nazi sympathizer? That's funny. Sounds like propaganda and attempted character assassination from the Freudian camp.

Freud is the champion of the paradigm and he feared all things metaphysical as Jung did say.

Here is a response to someone asking about another semi-alchemist names Shakespeare (As Jung is called an alchemist by Time Life Videos).

Shakespeare's Cosmogony of the Spheres and the Tao combine with the chakras to give the Tree of Life or Norse and Indian of America - Yggdrasil as shown in the graphics at my publisher site.

The Triune Nature of Man is the Tao plus Divine Spirit and together can become Providential especially when a true union (Yoga means union) is achieved. Thus as Victor Hugo noted in his evaluation of Shakespeare "One is drawn back again and again to the cliff over-looking the waves of the marvellous, and each time taking one step further down or towards the precipice". But when you lose yourself fully in the 'marvelous' you will find PURPOSE and that Divine Providence you are part and parcel of. We are all Gods in Training and God requires all energy to harmonize and thus another phrase for Shakespeare's Cosmogony (a paper I did a real study for in grade 11) is 'Harmony of the Spheres' or sephirah.

The tragedy of it all is this - man and his ego will not allow him to listen to the music of the spheres. Man seeks affirmation and avoids the unknown or unknowable. He rages at the 'sound and fury' and will not simply 'BE'. He chooses the stage and acts his parts as laid out by other men and the material world of hierarchy. He gives to Caesar more than what Caesar deserves and has lost his center or soul (Collective is God).

to Robert the Bruce:
I have alot of sympathy for you, because your world sucks. You don't live in reality, therefore you are not a happy person. The ideology of these new age, mystical have a little truthful bases, but the way you described it, is unfortunely false. And please don't draw connections with unstable groundings. It seems like you don't have much faith in your own reasoning therefore you continue to put out quotes and some little facts to prove your point. You have adopted different ideas from the so called famous people without deep analysis. So, as a person who like you, read some Plato and learn to reason and judge as an individual

Quite an analysis for a chicken who cannot identify himself - and might I suggest does not know himself. I assure you I have had all that life can offer and I have enjoyed and lived life to the MAX - and I know few who can say they enjoyed life as much as I - would you like to deal in reality? Lets compare results.

You might start by looking up the clinical term Projection.

And since when is Wholistics (I am not New Age - there is no such thing really - it is VERY OLD) a negative attitude or who says the New Agers are unhappy? I think the reverse is generally held to be the normal characterization of them.

Most telling of all is you cannot deal with the great facts and expert authorities I present so you have to stoop to ridicule.

So might you Bob, So might you: Look up the term for characteristic trait transference, I mean here: as you're talking to yourself not me nor unknown!
Cowards are not born nor cower from own mind.... I'm just bored of it!
When you say something new I haven't heard you say before, I'll speak to your mind...just leave the rest of that heap you call yourself at the open door where we can both clearly see each others!

Respect Jasper
And I ain't affraid to say that I love you for your soul, your courage, and your minds mind! And that scum called unknown should do well to buger off into own abyss of his purest yellow spit before I really show my insides true colours!