Medina sod

Langer, a psychiatrist, was commissioned by the Allies in 1943 to prepare a thorough psychological study of Hitler. His report, kept under wraps for 29 years, was published in book form in 1972 as The Mind of Adolf Hitler. Langer writes that Hitler was certainly a coprophile (a person who is sexually aroused by human excrement) and may have practiced homosexuality as an adult. He cites the testimony of Hermann Rauschning, a former Hitler confidante who "reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitler's homosexual partners, but their testimony can hardly be taken at face value. More condemning," adds Langer, "would be the remarks dropped by [Albert] Foerster, the Danzig gauleiter, in conversation with Rauschning. Even here, however, the remarks deal only with Hitler's impotence as far as heterosexual relationships go, without actually implying that he indulges in homosexuality. It is probably true that Hitler calls Foerster 'Bubi,' which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners. This alone is not adequate proof that he has actually indulged in homosexual practices with Foerster, who is known to be a homosexual" (Langer:178). However, writes Langer, "Even today, Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at men's bodies and associating with homosexuals" (Langer:179). Too, Hitler's greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual (Garde:44). The Pink Swastika by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams.

Hitler, if homosexual, was certainly not exclusively so. There are at least four women, including his own niece, with whom Hitler had sexual relationships, although these relationships were not normal. Both Waite and Langer suggest that his sexual encounters with women included expressions of his coprophilic perversion as well as other extremely degrading forms of masochism. It is interesting to note that all four women attempted suicide after becoming sexually involved with Hitler. Two succeeded (Langer:175f). The Pink Swastika by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams.

Kidology on a grand scale! poor saps, they just don't get it...everything is pre-ordained!

but keep on, it's a hoot! Armageddon? my ass! Medina? hahahahaha! daft sods..

The motif of beauty and pride is central also here. It is what causes his downfall. The archetype has reached a high excitation level and is running at high speed. He commits the same mistake as the unicorn, running headlong into a trunk or stump. Thus, he comes to an immediate halt and falls down into the dust. This is symbolic of the process of incarnation, or in psychological terms, realization. The god has been covered with earth and become a humble little prairie wolf. Note that Coyote losing his beautiful blue coat is analogous with the theme in Princess Cottongrass, where she is bereaved of her royal garments. In this process, the divinities are being reduced.


Oedipus

What about the Oedipus myth, then? Oedipus is not formally associated with the dying gods, but there are significant similarities. He is a hero that suffers demise.

The Oedipus myth

Oedipus follows the notorious fairytale pattern of the disowned child, representing the self archetype[2], who later obtains the kingdom. But, in becoming king and guiding principle of (collective) consciousness, the archetype loses its autonomy and is deprived of its inner light, i.e. its eyesight. Oedipus, who in his youth was thoroughly emancipated from mother dependency, again finds himself caught in the embrace of the mother. What does this mean? The conscious establishment of the archetypal spirit of Oedipus also means, paradoxically, that the archetype falls prey to the mother from whom it was initially disengaged. Analogously, Princess Cottongrass, full of heroism and ambition, left her mother in the Dream Castle, but ends up stripped of her regalia and bound to Mother Earth.

The immediate breaking free from the mother-tree is a typical theme. It represents the emancipation of the archetype. The archetype, before it was charged with energy, was part of a matrix of archetypes called the collective unconscious, whose symbolical value is motherly. The energetic aspect is always underscored. Princess Cottongrass is full of energy. That is why she is jettisoned from the Dream Castle like a meteor.

The hero toddler is amazingly resourceful. Shortly after Hercules' birth Hera sent two great serpents to destroy him. Hercules, although still a baby, strangled the snakes. On the day of his birth Hermes stole the cattle of his brother, the sun god Apollo, obscuring their trail by making the herd walk backward. These hero infants tend to be independent of mother and they undauntedly confront the dangers of the world.

Oedipus is somewhat similar, although he is more human. He manages to survive death as an infant. I argue that, first and foremost, we must think of Oedipus as an archetype that emerges from the deeper layers of the unconscious, and becomes a free agent, but then again ends up fettered to the earth in marrying his mother. Obviously, then, the Oedipus myth lacks a strong connection with the Oedipus complex, that is, we cannot draw the conclusion that boys have an urge to actually kill their fathers. However, the myth is ideal to use metaphorically, as an illustration of the complex.

The Oedipal spirit could be exemplified by a new paradigm of collective consciousness, being resisted by father Laius, representing the old paradigm. The king represents that idea of the self[2], the regulating centre of the psyche, that has become a representation of the collective attitude. In rising to glory, the once expansive and powerful spirit, which is the archetype, becomes reduced to mater-iality. It loses its autonomy of spirit, becomes carnal and earthly-minded. The archetype, represented by Oedipus, puts out his own eyes, while the spirit is in the process of losing its own inner light. Oedipus grew out of the collective unconscious, and was initially merely a twig on the mother-tree. The archetype again became dependent on the mother when it fell into conscious material reality. It is the other side of the mother-principle. He went from one end to the other.

Freudian psychology exemplifies this finely. It emerged as a lively and charismatic spirit, harbouring an ambition of world dominion. But it became wholly integrated with material consciousness and thus reduced to carnality. In this it fell prey to the Mother and became mother-bound again. The once proud spirit can today only contribute with mechanical interpretations that reduce everything to carnality by way of 'genitalization', whereby everything is understood as a sexual organ. Freudian psychology lost connection with its own inner spirit, which is the archetype from whence it emerged, and thus it has thoroughly regressed to mother-dependency, which is equal to being caught up in materiality.

So in Oedipus we again find the pattern of the archetype who rises to eminence after having attained autonomy (independency of the mother) and great energetic excitation. But in its vainglory the new idea, breaking into the conscious field, strove after world dominion, without having recourse to other fatherly principles. It is the overextension, i.e. the attempt to apply it on everything, which is the megalomaniacal effect of archetypal possession. An unrestricted identification with material reality causes the downfall of the archetype which becomes wholly enmeshed in materiality. Freudian psychology is today a sad sight, reminiscent of the blind vagabond Oedipus, who finally came to rest at Colonus. The old king is wandering about the country, with a small following of caretakers, mumbling about penises and vaginae.

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-73784/index.htm 

Clever people these scandinavians........