And you are entitled to that opinion @Vasana. I’ve seen and even admired some of his archetypal lectures. The series on the mythological foundations for our concept of God was fascinating. I’ve actually watched a ton of his stuff. But ultimately, it’s my assessment that all of this is giving an intellectual veneer to his more overtly hateful and wound-based ideas and that’s where the wild success comes in, because it creates a holy crusade, rather than exhorting people (young men) to do the hard work of actual self-reflection — above and beyond his superficial recommendations like “clean your room.”
For example, characterizing chaos as feminine. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. From an archetypal standpoint, it is, in part because the void is the birthplace of all possibility. But chaos is not something to be overcome and ruled with rigid masculine domination. That’s what gives us the world we already have — where we’ve raped the environment, colonized “backwards” continents and otherwise fallen out of step with the natural balance of things because we don’t know how to create synergy between chaos and order/the feminine and the masculine. And that’s right where he wants to keep us. In fact, he’d actually prefer to go back to 1950s levels of that. It’s downright dangerous, actually, both for society and for the Earth.
His “self-help” book says things like “don’t be a girly man” and attributes that to Arnold Schwartzenager. Meanwhile, that was a line from his SNL character from the Hanz und Franz skits. He’s sucking people into his dominance hierarchy wound using archetypal interpretations to do so. It’s tricky, but that’s why it works so well.