Talk:Nazi mysticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives and old discussion 2 Wacko conspiracy theories 3 Merger 4 Esotericism 5 Prayer to Hitler 6 Dino hyperborean UFO's in the hollow earth 7 UFOs 8 Cover story in FT 196 9 Recent edits & "weasel words" 10 Vril Society 11 Moon Base additions 12 RfC + {{disputed}} 13 Anthroposophy - an influence on nazi mysticism? 14 Nazi mysticism page 15 Hitler's Poem 16 Please don't remove cited information 17 what "Pohl"?? 18 Project templates 19 Removed citation: David Kertzer's Popes Against the Jews (Knopf, 2001)

[edit] Archives and old discussion

• Talk:Mysticism_in_Nazi_Germany

[edit] Wacko conspiracy theories

This is a serious subject; and one that is relatively well-documented. While I've heard the "conspiracy theory" that Hitler escaped alive to Argentina, this business with the dinosaurs seems like something planted to make people view with ridicule an otherwise serious and interesting subject: namely how the adoption of a certain philosophy by a handful of individuals eventually led to WWII, the Holocaust and other atrocities. Especially suspicious is the fact that it is planted right at the top of the article; where everyone could read it and thus be immediately dissuaded from reading the rest of the article without lumping it in with the dinosaurs. In any case, the head of the article is no place to put such theories. -Latecomer-

Hmmm.... I deleted it, but now its reappeared again.... Gee, I wonder why. -Latecomer-

Can anyone show any documents proving that the ridiculas(sic) theories mentioned in the articles are believed by anyone? As of now part of the atrticle(sic) reads "Modern Conspiracy Theories

Modern variations of the theory involve Hitler having escaped to the Antarctic, where he joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race, with whom he now travels inside of UFOs underground, generally beneath the South pole or throughout the center of the hollow earth, but sometimes to a Nazi moon base as well. These Reptilian companions, sometimes seen to be Hyperboreans, are said to possess mighty "Vril" rods capable of easily defeating even modern armies." If anyone can show a single website backing up this dinosaur and antartic crap than MAYBE we should keep the conspiracy junk if not its gone. I searched the internet and the only thing that came up wa(sic) this wikipedia article.--Gary123 21:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look here: http://www.whitehousestinks.com/article/Verschwoerungen/1048963980.html There's a movie, it is in German but should be enough to confirm that there are such theories.

Nevertheless the article is a mess. There should be a clear distinction, perhaps in two different articles, between occult influences to historical nazism, as attested by serious historical research, and the kettle full of strange conspiracy theories, kept boiling by a minor faction of neo-nazism and those, who are only interested in selling there(sic) books to the gullible. --Pjacobi 13:20, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Those theories sound like the claims of Miguel Serrano (a least as recounted by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke in Black Sun) but with an Ickian twist (regarding the reptiloid nature of the alleged Hyperboreans). Regarding the article split: I, too, think there is more than one article here, but my plan was to continue adding content until size warrants a split. --Morning star 14:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ITS BEEN MONTHS AND STILL THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONE LINK PRODUCED ABOUT HITLER JOINING FORCES WITH DINOSAUR MASTER RACES--Gary123 03:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph used to live at the top of the article, but now has its own section near the end. I've added a published scholarly attribution for the parts I could source, and have removed some of the more granular details that I couldn't course. I also removed the offhand single-sentence Skull & Bones reference, which more properly belongs with the Thule Society and seems merely inflammatory here. --Lumin 18:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The modern-conspiracy paragraph at the beginning is redundant now that there's a Modern Conspiracy section at the end which repeats most of the information, but with sources. When I delete this now-redundant section, Sam Spade puts it back and suggests I ask about it in Talk. Since I explained my reasoning in Talk immediately above, and this redundancy problem remains, what needs to be resolved for this edit to make it past you, Sam? Doesn't it seem to give a lot of weight to this very small part of the topic to put an un-sourced claim in the intro and another section at the bottom? (Also, the citation question has already been asked several times above, with no sources produced.) --Lumin 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also...I do see the sources you added at the end, Sam -- but shouldn't they be cited in the text they validate? Also, can we work out a way to combine the hyperborean stuff in the intro with the Modern Conspiracy stuff at the end? Maybe integrate the sources you just added into that end section? I don't want to remove anything we can source, but do you see my concern with having un-cited (in the body) text about modern fringe theory up in the intro? --Lumin 20:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above: this is simply unacceptable in an encyclopedia. If they are to be kept at all, you need to add a section at the end with such theories; they are not only totally unproven, there is no evidence to support them. Books that quote the theories are not evidence! I enjoyed reading them, I must say...we really should make place for them somehow. There does need to be clear differentation between what is factually proven and what is speculation, however. Hgilbert 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of references for this, I'm not sure what your point is. Stop deleting cited content, start researching (reading over this talk page would be a good start. Then try Miguel Serrano, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, etc... Sam Spade 22:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried them. This is one part of what I found (at [1]: "Placing his magnifying glass on the "MOM" genre, Goodrick-Clarke reports as follows:

There was no Vril Society or "Luminous Lodge," as the fabulists call it, although there was a "Lumenclub" in Vienna for some years after 1932, acting as a front for the banned National Socialist Party;

Prof. Haushofer did endorse a thrust to the east, into Soviet territory, but strictly for obvious geopolitical reasons; his alleged goal of reaching the ascended masters in the Orient is "entirely false;" according to Goodrick-Clarke;

Dietrich Eckart (who died in 1923), along with the young Alfred Rosenberg, attended a few early Thule meetings as guests but there is no evidence linking other Party leaders, or List, Lanz or Haushofer, with the group;

The Thule Society was disbanded around 1925 because of declining membership and was never reorganized.

We certainly owe something to Goodrick-Clarke for so expertly skewering this pernicious nonsense, which has even tripped up major-league historians like Joachim Fest, although he does not follow through on the truly important question. The inimitable Holocaust, spotlighted by all these "schlock" authors as the result of the national demonic possession, still sits enshrined in its increasingly shopworn hideousness, even here." Hgilbert 02:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A great example of the reasons Wikipedia cannot be considered a serious reference work of any worth. Any "referrence work" that by its very nature tends to give equal amounts of air-time to fringe-lunatic "Hitler-is-a-dinosaur" theorists, alongside legitimate researchers, is... well, worthless for its stated purpose. And wikipedians wonder why we consider their "encyclopedia" trash for anything other than obscure pop-culture items.. --User:193.92.228.184

[edit] Merger

Please see Talk:Mysticism in Nazi Germany and Talk:Esoteric Hitlerism for previous discussion. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 13:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Esotericism

Nazi mysticism is an esoteric philosophy categorized as Occult. In fact, esoteric is Greek for "occult". In other words, the term, "esotericism", merely describes the category of occultism. It is a description, not a category. --Viriditas 13:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. Sam [Spade] 14:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One could make an argument for higher-level categorization, such as Esotericism and Exotericism, with respective sub-categories of Occult and Organized religion, but it's probably too confusing and quite messy. The KISS principle probably applies. --Viriditas 22:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The literal meaning of the Greek word "esoterikón" ("εσωτερικóν"), which transliterates to "esoteric", is "internal". It is used in the Greek language almost exlusively in its literal sense, e.g. in describing the internal situation of a room or a human organ. The word has come to signify in English various notions related to internality. Here are the www.dictionary.com definitions:

1. Intended for or understood by only a particular group or an enlightened inner circle: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious.

2. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.

3. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.

4. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.confined to and understandable by only ; a compilation of esoteric philosophical theories.

The Gnome 11:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prayer to Hitler

I just read the following: "Prayer to Hitler: Führer, mein Führer, von Gott mir gegeben, beschütz und erhalte noch lange mein Leben / Führer, my Führer, given to me by God, protect me and sustain my life for a long time" This is clearly a monotheistic prayer used to compare Hitler with Christ. How do the authors here reflect this with the so-called Esoteric Hitlerism? Shouldn't there be some info about the origin of the prayer and some links with christianism and catholicism? Averroes 14:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is not about the religious views of Adolf Hitler, or the uses of religion by the Nazi Party of Germany, or the religious views Hitler's supporters. (See the first sentence of the article for a description of the article's purpose.)

Therefore, if your interpretation is correct -- that this prayer is a monotheistic prayer in the Judeo-Christian tradition that recognizes Hitler as a special agent of God -- then it doesn't belong on this page at all.

(1) I am not convinced this prayer is genuine at all. What is the evidence for its existence, and are there any established facts about who taught this prayer, and to whom?

(2) Averroes, when you read this prayer, you conclude it is a prayer to the Christian God, and a comparison of Hitler to Christ. I don't see why this is the logical conclusion. First, recall that from the mid-18th century until the present day, it has been common for people to be monotheists without being Jews/Christians/Muslims in their theology. ("Deism", Albert Einstein, etc.) The term "God" (Gott) in this prayer is monotheistic; I don't see that it's Judeo-Christian. The term "daily bread" certainly comes from Christianity, but notice that this prayer gives Hitler credit for this bread. So if this prayer is seen in Christian terms, it is comparing Hitler to God the Father, not to Jesus his Son.

(3) This is a prayer to Hitler. In other words, it assumes that Hitler can miraculously hear the prayers of people all over the world. Nazi propagandists made many false claims about Hitler, but I have never heard that they claimed Hitler could hear everyone's thoughts. (If he could, why bother with espionage?) So this again makes me doubt this prayer's authenticity.

Lawrence King 08:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See [2], thats where I got it from. Sam Spade 14:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Judeo-Christian, but about Christian; national-socialism didn't want to acknowledge the part of Judaism in the Judaeo-Christian civilization at all, but wanted to create a Germanic Christianity (where all Judaist parts were 'erased') including some of the mysticism we can read on this page. Or as it is called in the NSDAP party programme: 'positive Christianity'.

Knowing the line ‘Führer, von Gott mir gegeben’ says Hitler was send by God reflects the being of a monotheistic God. We can conclude it is the Christian one, since the Germans and Hitler and many nazi’s were themselves Christian. Other monotheistic gods could be the Islamic one or the Zarathustrian God, but all those clearly had nothing to do with Germany in the past century. And as Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf: ‘Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.’

And then we have the part of the prayer where they are speaking of bread, that is also something that compares Hitler with Christ (or at least some sort of christian prophet), since we know Christ said he was the bread of life. Though, I agree with you we should know more from where this prayer came from, but I do think it is interesting for this page as it is still a part of Nazi mysticism and how some Nazi’s wanted place Hitler as a central part of their faith. (as the article says: In some cases it ascribes a religious significance to the person of Adolf Hitler and his doctrine.) Sincerely, Averroes 21:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See [3], thats where I got it from. It was a prayer used at orphanages. Sam Spade 14:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks. There it also says Hitler was compared with jezus: "die den Führer mit dem Erlöser Jesus oder mit Gott gleichsetzten und von ihm das tägliche Brot erbaten." On Google I find some few other pages who know about the prayer: http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=%22F%C3%BChrer%2C+von+Gott+mir+gegeben%22&lr=lang_de Greetings, Averroes 22:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the prayer is mentioned on seven websites plus the German-language Wikipedia is indeed evidence that this prayer existed. But as there is no evidence that Hitler was "often" compared to Christ, so this adverb is not substantiated.

Regarding monotheism: You need to read more about the history of German thought from the 18th century onward. Monotheists who were in no sense Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Zoroastrian were very common in 18th to 20th century Germany -- and today as well. Therefore the word "Gott" is not sufficient to show that this meant the Christian God. I already agreed that the phrase "daily bread" is of Christian origin, but that is not sufficient to show that it is the Christian God. Therefore leaving this simply as "God" is a correct, neutral way of putting this. Lawrence King 04:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree there, indeed if he was in any way intellectually consistant it seems highly incredible that he could have been refering to the God of the Old Testement. My assumption is that incidents like this were ment to hijack christian symbolism rather than evidence of an embrace of it. Hitlers personal religion (as well as that of a number of other signifigant Nazi's) is a matter of extensive debate, and not something we are likely to settle here. In my estimation they seem highly eclectic, combining certain aspects of Christianity and mysticism with Hinduism and asatru. Sam Spade 06:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very true. And in their more clever moments, the Nazis also tried to replace the church socially. For example, the SS soldiers had certain death rituals that "replaced" the Last Rites that Catholics would have expected. By the way, I am not objecting to the language here because I am trying to prove the Nazis are Christians, or are not Christians, or anything like that.

In my opinion, some people try very hard to prove that Nazism had connections to Christianity (and exaggerate the available evidence); others try very hard to prove that Nazism had connections to paganism (and exaggerate the available evidence); and still others try very hard to prove that Nazism had connections to atheistic Social Darwinism (and exaggerate the available evidence). While all three of these are partially true, Nazism's connection to any of these three things is tiny compared to Nazism's connection to the European political tradition. Hitler was much closer to Robespierre, Lenin and Mussolini than he was to any philosophical or religious tradition. Lawrence King 07:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've never gotten the impression that he personally was particularly religious at all. He was probably much like an average person on the subject, not especially church going but also not atheistic. Sam Spade 08:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the major problem is always some people try to give Nazism a particular religious stench, whether they try to give it a Christian, heathen, atheistic or Hinduistic one. In my opinion none of the comparisons are correct, since Nazism is a religion on own, (mis)using many pieces of other religions in its own ideology. We have the swastika from Hinduism, some runes from asatru, some Darwinist influences and of course Christian influences. All with the goal creating a state religion that idealizes the Nazis and Hitler in particular. An objective article should never have lines with "the Nazis were of that particular religion so there’s something wrong with that religion." Not only it is insulting to people’s religious feelings, it is also not based on facts. But, I do say some parts of Nazism were based on several religions, also Christianity, misused by the Nazis to spread the Nazi ideology effectively. The prayer for instance talks about the bread thing, about only one God and that Hitler was send as a savoir; these are clearly three points used to indoctrinate people with the abuse of Christian segments. If it weren't so many segments, I would agree it could also suggest another monotheistic religion, but I do find that even more harder to prove with sufficient facts. And there is of course an internal struggle between the Nazi’s themselves in what religious or philosophical ideology they should maintain. Take for instance the catholic darwinist Hitler, the protestant-pagan Rosenberg and the almost Buddhistic Himmler, all trying to have their own ideas being the dominating one in the party. I think that's also important for people to understand, so people know Nazism wasn't a monolith at the point of religion. Greetings, Averroes 19:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wikiquote - Hitler Has some interesting quotes from Hitler regarding religion. Sam Spade 13:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One can't help but wonder that if the following is true: "IN NAZISM, Hitler was FREQUENTLY compared to Jesus", evidence that he was compared to Jesus would be a lot more widespread? 62.61.132.53 11:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

CITATIONS!!!! add a citation to the hitler prayer or else it should be deleted. if you have a citation from somewhere reputable add the citation otherwise your just pasting stuff up there. i could add a hitler wears pink panties section. crikey, ADD a citation. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.188.180 (talk • contribs). 14:29, 2 November 2006

I think citations are great, but it seems odd for you to get upset that someone isn't following the citation rules when you yourself don't follow the rules requiring commenters to sign their comments.

The citation is given above, several times. Here it is again: [4]. Please specify whether you are saying this is an invalid source, or whether you simply object that this source wasn't listed on the main page. - Lawrence King 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dino hyperborean UFO's in the hollow earth

Modern variations of the theory involve Hitler having escaped to the Antarctic, where he joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race, with whom he now travels inside of UFOs underground, generally beneath the South pole or throughout the center of the hollow earth, but sometimes to a Nazi moon base as well. These Reptilian companions, sometimes seen to be Hyperboreans, are said to possess mighty "Vril" rods capable of easily defeating even modern armies.

You can look into books:

• Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival by Joscelyn Godwin, 1996, ISBN 0932813356
• Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (2001, ISBN 0814731554)
• The Omega Files; Secret Nazi UFO Bases Revealed by "Branton", (April 15, 2000 ISBN 1892062097)
• Hitler's Flying Saucers: A Guide to German Flying Discs of the Second World War by Henry Stevens (February 1, 2003 ISBN 1931882134)
• Underground Alien Bases by Commander X (June 1, 1990 ISBN 093829492X)

Wacky websites:

http://www.beyondweird.com/ufos/Bruce_Walton_The_Underground_Nazi_Invasion_21.html

http://www.detailshere.com/ufo2b.htm

and Nazi mystics:

Julius Evola and Miguel Serrano.

Sam Spade 20:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See my comments in the previous conspiracy theory thread above. I tend to think that a.) there should be at least some in-text citation in support of this in the article itself, and that b.) having it in the intro skews the article from the reader's perspective, since the intro acts as a summary/focus for the rest of the article. I wrote the new Modern Conspiracy section with the Arktos citation, and I know that for a couple of months at least, the hyperborean stuff now back in the intro lived in a separate section. Would you be ok with expanding the Modern Conspiracy section and at least trimming down or (ideally, IMO) deleting the alien-dino-UFO wackyness in the intro? --Lumin 21:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W/o it the intro looks sparse, and this is IMO a good summary of the more extreme ideas on the subject. If you have other ideas lets see what you have in mind, but deleting the entire reptiloid / underground UFO concept isn't acceptable, there are plenty of cites for it, its a popular idea (look into Sherry Shriner or David Icke for a modern advocates of similar theories), and it spices up the article. W/o it I wouldn't personally be 1/2 as interested ;) Sam Spade 21:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not actually objecting to the dino-UFO stuff itself, just the lack of in-text citation and the placement. I'm pretty familiar with Icke and so on, but in-text citations benefit the reader who isn't, so I think we need some footnotes or something that link specific dino-points in the text to specific dino-sources since this is such fringe material. Beyond that, I think it's too detailed for an intro paragraph when the rest of the intro is so high-level. Nazi mysticism isn't a "theory," so much as a set of related belief systems, so writing "modern variations on the theory..." is also problematic. I would recommend this for a streamlined intro:

Related modern theories involve Hitler having escaped to the Antarctic, where he joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race, with whom he now travels inside of UFOs underground, generally beneath the South pole or throughout the center of the hollow earth, but sometimes to a Nazi moon base as well.

...and would suggest moving the second sentence to an expanded and renamed Modern Theories section, which would also ideally include more in-text citations to avoid the "some believe" kind of constructions. --Lumin 22:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, lets see what you have in mind. In text citations can be problematic, but there is a method for it somewhere... Sam Spade 22:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Numbered_footnotes_for_external_citations, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Footnote2, Wikipedia:Footnote3, and Wikipedia:Footnote4 show some of the options. Not really my area, but I figured I'd give you some leads :) Sam Spade 22:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually wound up just getting into more informal detail on authors in the new section (Nazi Mysticism and modern Pseudoscience). I want to provide some useful points of departure for general readers who want more detail, so I think just giving them some additional names (with the references list at the bottom for support) will do the trick. The revision I just posted includes minor streamlining edits to the intro and otherwise focuses on the new section. Maybe this section will eventually grow up to be its own article, as I think was mentioned above. --Lumin 23:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This image] from the Uncyclopedia gives new information in the case that really needs serious consideration... Nixdorf 17:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UFOs

"Other related modern theories involve Hitler having escaped to the Antarctic, where he joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race, with whom he now travels inside of UFOs underground, generally beneath the South Pole or throughout the center of the hollow earth, but sometimes to a Nazi moon base as well."

hahaha references please. - Omegatron 21:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up. Sam Spade 22:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cover story in FT 196

The cover story of this month's Fortean Times (Issue 196) is titled Himmler's Fortress of Fear and covers the occult practice rumors of prominent Nazis. I thought it was an interesting read and might be worth noting here, or developing something in Heinrich Himmler, or both. — FJ | hello 22:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly! I don't happen to have a copy of Issue 196 however... Sam Spade 06:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits & "weasel words"

I recently made an edit to the article, in which, among other things, I qualified some claims about "lesser races", etc. SS reverted my changes with the edit summary: "these are beliefs, and are clarified as such, no weasel-speak needed)". Leaving aside his usual pleasant tone, he omits to mention that they weren't clearly beliefs, but that he added the clarification that they were with his reversion of my changes. That's bad faith at best.

The claims are so unpleasant and silly that, though only a drooling cretin with a personality disorder could hold them, I think that it's still important to label them clearly with qualifications; I've thus replaced my edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't a revert, I edited the article, as you've noticed. What that has to do w bad faith (other than possibly yours?) is beyond me. I will now be reverting your revert, however. Sam Spade 14:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

1. I made changes, you deleted them; "revert" or not is just a mater of terminology.
2. To call my edits "weasel words" on the basis of wording that you only added afterwards is bad faith. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

obviously, we need the "so-called" specifying the "lesser races", even though the whole thing is characterized as a belief: e.g. "allegedly, Hitler fled to a subterranean fortress in Antarcica" implies that while Hitler fleeing there is a silly belief, the concept of "Antarctica" is undisputed. Similarly, "allegedly, the Herrernrasse was diluted with lesser races" would imply that the existence of inferior races is undisputed, it is the interbreeding that is a matter of belief, which is clearly not the case. dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I too hate the contrivance "so-called" and believe using the actual German word is much more specific in this case with it's link and then adding lesser races in quotations. Hopefully this is a compromise that will be well received by both sides, if not, war on. --Wgfinley 16:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hooray compromise~!

Sam Spade 16:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vril Society

Nice to see that the foundation of the Vril society is no longer attributed to Gurdjieff, but no source is cited for Sam Spade's quote attributing it to Haushofer.

Neither have I ever seen any documentation that Hitler himself was directly associated with any of these esoteric societies. If anyone has proof of it, it would be worthwile to mention. Asav

This Vril-Society-stuff is pure nonsense, nothing but invalid cryptohistory. For german speaking readers, please have a look at this: [[5]]. Crypto-ffm195.96.41.16 14:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon Base additions

I've reverted a large addition [6] about a Nazi Moon base. AFAIK the consensus in the historical science is, that the Nazis didn't land on the Moon in 1942 and didn't have vehicles for flight in the vacuum. The web sites which report otherwise may be interesting in themselves but can't outweight the scholarly research. --Pjacobi 20:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I added the articles for the Nazi Moon base as well as SS Technology. The reason I added those two articles is because they had already been alluded to throughout other Nazi mysticism-related articles. There originally was a Nazi Moon base article but it has been decided that the information relevant to the belief that the Nazis landed on the Moon was to be added into this article. There is sufficient evidence to support this belief. As for the SS Technology on flying rocket-powered saucers this is actually factual. There is clearly no reason for you to delete these important topics from the main article seeing as they clearly fit in to the overall theme of Nazi mysticism and as part of general beliefs that have been explored by esoteric Hitlerians and conspiracy theorists alike. Piecraft 20:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You cannot source history from http://jnaudin.free.fr/, http://www.meta-religion.com/, http://www.naziufos.com and the like. Yes, you can the add something about the belief, that there exists (or has existed) a Nazi Moon base, but you can't present it as fact. --Pjacobi 21:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I never presented it as fact. The only thing I presented as fact were the SS Technology which has been proven throughout in other articles under Nazi aircraft and science. I never related to the Nazi Moon Base as being FACTUAL, please read the article again and you will find I wrote the beliefs relating to particular sources that are present in the article. I never attempted even to try to state that the Nazi Moon base was a reality - I think you have misread the article and for that I think you had no justification to delete it. Piecraft 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

E.g. you presented as fact The Rudolf Shriever Flugkreisel (Flight Gyro), a disc-shaped aircraft (with 5 kerosene jet engines) was first produced in 1943 as an interplanetary exploration vehicle.. If the alleged SS flying saucers have invaded other Wikipedia articles, please direct me to these articles, so that I can do my duty there, too. --Pjacobi 09:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The above-mentioned craft was designed for possible interplanetary exploration, so I made a mistake in my wording. However it is known that this craft was designed and most porbably tested as an aircraft for the Nazis, however it's unsure what they used it for entirely. If you still have a problem with that then fine, but I'm not going to bother with this anymore. Piecraft 12:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have references of encyclopedic quality for this? Some known author of military history? Sourcing something historical from the over-unity HQ at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ is a bad joke. --Pjacobi 13:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC + {{disputed}}

Does it comply to WP:WWIN and other policies, to present as fact, that the Nazis built an interplanetary exploration vehicle in 1943?

The Rudolf Shriever Flugkreisel (Flight Gyro), a disc-shaped aircraft (with 5 kerosene jet engines) was first produced in 1943 as an interplanetary exploration vehicle. It had a diameter of 60 metres and stood 45 metres high, as well as containing 10 levels for crew compartments.

Later the Richard Miethe Flugscheibe (Flight Disc) prototype (with the Schauberger vortex motor) was designed in April 1944 as a rocket craft built to 15 and 50 metres of diameter. It closely resembled what would be considered today as the common shape of a UFO.

Pjacobi 11:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. I agree some editing needs to be done, but deleting the entire section was a bad idea. I restored it, now lets edit it, and remove the tag. Sam Spade 21:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I made some edits. Sam Spade 21:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone has an unimpeachable or reliable source (say, an actual book or government report) they can cite, it ought to go out, Wikiepedia verifiability policy and all that. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.members.tripod.com/uforeview/naziufo.html seems to cite some sources. --Maru (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

These claims are basic to Nazi mysticism. Plenty of citations have been given. You obviously won't be finding a govt. report, but books, websites and self-appointed experts are plentiful. Sam Spade 12:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

But then, finally, this article should be split (or better distinguish in one article) between hsitorical Nazism (til 45) and the faction of contemporary nazism that origiantes all this Reichsflucgscheiben-cruft. The inplanetary/Moonbase/Reptiloid stuff claimed to be connected to historic Nazism, doesn't really belong to the historical Nazism part, as it cannot be sourced to encyclopedic standards. It belongs to the modern part, the Serrana/van Helsing faction, which beliefs (or at least judge it benefical to say so) in this stuff. This can be sourced (that there are people believing the historical Nazis had Reichsflugscheiben). --Pjacobi 19:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Lets be clear. No reputable source believes this stuff. Its much like the "Jesus flies in a UFO w bigfoot" cult which is supposed to exist in brazil. No verifiable members, but lots of verifiable rumors. Sam Spade 00:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Sam Spade! Doomsday tomorrow!

Fine, and what's your opinion about the technical difficulty, that the article also contains information about historical Nazism, which is historical sciences consensus like Ahnenerbe, Thule Society and Himmlers belief in the paranormal? Any idea about better separating these issue?

Pjacobi 10:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your getting at core philosophical issues: "what is truth?" "what is verifiable/provable?". Quite simply, only an amazingly tiny number of people can be proven to have believed in any sort of "nazi mysticism". Out of these people, how many believed in lizard men w underground flying saucers and a nazi moon base?

I personally can hardly imagine Serrano belived such things, but if he he did... he would have to be the only one! These ideas are crazy as hell, but the fact is, we can prove the ideas exist. Its verifiable. In the end, all we can do is cite sources.

If you can cite the US military or the german govt. or a prominent historian, thats obviously a hell of alot better than some random nutjob website. This is not however an article on german history, or nazism. Its an article on nazi mysticism, a subject inately riddled with contentious and fantastic informations. Sam Spade 02:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

since you all seem to agree here, why the npov boilerplate? dab (ᛏ) 09:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthroposophy - an influence on nazi mysticism?

Tell me.. how exactly was anthroposophy an influence? Either way, I find the way it is presented in the article quite misleading. Rudolf Steiner was declared by Hitler as the arch nemesis of the Nazis, and their ideological enemy.

Reference? Did he do so prior to or after Rudolf Hess flight to Scotland in May 1941? Nixdorf 10:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting this clarification.

Hitler's and Nazi (often virulent) criticism's of Steiner's ideas date back to 1921, 20 years before Hess's flight. In particular, Nazi publications stated that anthroposophical ideas were incompatible with Nazi racial theories and were a danger to the Nazi movement. The anthroposophical society was banned in 1935, still 6 years before Hess's flight. There is no evidence for any relationship between the Nazi leadership and anthroposophy per se other than a hostile one. See Hess and the anthroposophists for an explanation of the supposed relationship of Hess to anthroposophy; Hess was interested in agriculture and thus in biodynamics if it could be proven to be an effective method.

I have deleted this section of the article; it could be restored only under a heading of Urban Legends. User:Hgilbert

Since when did pages on angelfire, etc become legitimate "sources" for what is meant to be an encyclopedic article? Some of this article is so NPOV and so poorly based in fact - it is mere allegation and so I am astounded that it remains in what is meant to be a scholarly site. The moon base section particularly sounds like a plot from a D-grade science fiction film. If the author of the article at least had some more legitimate sources, then maybe it could be considered. But I wonder if any sources exist...? User:202.7.166.171

Thank you for drawing attention to this; it has been deleted. Hgilbert 14:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

[edit] Nazi mysticism page

"Sam Spade",

Several users are trying to help this page be worthy of an encylopedia. Undocumented information does not belong on the site. See comments on the Nazi mysticism talk page. The next step is to take this into conflict resolution. Hgilbert 19:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The information is documented. After I finish midterms I'll look into citing it line by line. Meanwhile take a deep breath. Are you a sockpuppet? From your editing pattern you appear to be a role account, but if not, please take some time to get to know our policies before trying to threaten others. Its no way to make a first impression. Sam Spade 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sam,

You have provided three citations already. One of these is a book that quotes the subjects you refer to only in order to show that they are unfounded. A second is the angelfire site, made up of random contributors' random contributions. I have not looked at the third.

I raised these issues on the talk pages of the page in question and you did not respond, but instead continually reverted to undocumented (and apparently bizarrely improbable: Nazi bases on the moon???) information. My mention of the Wikipedia resolution process was not meant as a threat; it is the only path forward when you have insisted on including totally undocumented information that appears to be unfounded. Hgilbert 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The path forward is for you to do some research. I told you I will cite specific passages (w excerpts from the books already cited, and which you already admit verify that such claims are made) when I have the time. Go read a book, and in the future do not disrupt articles on subjects you are unwilling to research. Sam Spade 19:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the writer to provide sources. Hgilbert 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats why I did. Have a look Nazi_mysticism#References. Sam Spade 15:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is baffling and, in my opinion, useless to the researcher who is not interested in esoterica, as every claim, whether from naziufos.com or an angelfire site, is viewed as equally credible. Surely there is some view of Nazi mysticism that is generally accepted by historians of the field that doesn't involve telepathy and dinosaurs, see Knights Templar to see an example. Accounts I have read say the Thule Society was one of many nationalists secret societies modelled on the Freemasons (take a look at the entry in the "Encyclopedia of the Third Reich," you can find it on Google Books), and that the Ahnenerbe was basically propaganda "window-dressing" (Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, Google Books again), etc. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys would do well to read something by Miguel Serrano, Julius Evola, Savitri Devi, or Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (the latter being the foremost expert in the field).

As I keep saying I will provide line by line cites (I own some of Goodrick-Clarke's books, and have access to my universities online database), but not for a little while. I have 2 midterms this week, and am moving on march 1st. It will be slow, but you have my word I will get around to it.

In the meanwhile please review the books listed @ Nazi_mysticism#References. They address your concerns, and then some. I have been providing references (and will continue to). It is your responsibility to read them if you have disputes. Thats how it works. Sam Spade 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Confessing that making Samp Spade happy is not my primary imperative, I nevertheless want to suggest a direction which may make both sides happy (or both sides unhappy, as often is the case for compromises):

Split the subject -- and the article

1. What is known (as in scholarly research) about the Third Reich and its roots
2. What is the belief of a small faction withing Neonazism

I'm pretty confident that Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke would know how to differentiate these lemmas.

Pjacobi 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but that won't work. For one thing there is Wikipedia:POV fork. Additionally, there is already Neofascism and religion, if you want something mundane.

This page is about nazi mysticism. It is by its nature esoteric. Fortunately Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke bridges the gap. He is an expert witness who discusses many off the oddest claims, and I have 2 of his books here. Wait awhile, and I'll cite line and verse. Or, alternately, you can go read the books yourselves. Deleting cited info or maiming the article with weasel speak is not acceptable however. Our readers are smart people, and they can make up their own minds on whither to believe in underground ufo's. Sam Spade 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a POV fork, but different subjects. Historical Nazism and Esoteric Neonazism are subjects which can and should easily be distinguished. The one confusing point, and it should be our task to save our readers from this confusion, is: Contemporary esoteric Neo-Nazis may have a view of Historical Nazism, which differs significantly from scholarly view. But as they are a fringe minority this view should be presented in "their" article only, not invading the main article about the mysticism in Historical Nazism. This is the same procedure discussed at length (and then followed) for LaRouche, the physics crackpots etc. --Pjacobi 09:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no bold black line between "historical" nazi mysticism and "esoteric" nazi mysticism. The distinction is yours, and it would be original research to try to promote it within the article. This is no different than any other article regarding religion. Some claims are fantastic, and are left up to the reader to decide. There arn't two separate articles on the bible, one for facts everyone accepts, and another for claims only believers hold. Instead all informations are cited and the evidence behind them clarified for what it is. Sam Spade 09:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've started. Some of these will have to be reworded of course, but we'll see how it goes. It'd help alot if any of you have any references and can join in with the investigations and source citing. I tell you what, its never boring! ;) Sam Spade 01:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's Poem

While this poem does mention the Germanic god Wotan, it should be noted that this is hardly a sign of Hitler's belief in Odinism, as "Wotanseiche" (Woden's Oak) was (is?) a fairly common name for an oak tree in Germany. Perhaps removing the poem is a good idea? - comment posted 01:40, 6 March 2006 by User:139.168.76.201

What about the other "mystical" terms in the poem? The following all have a magical or "mystical" flavor: "With dark powers" (mit dunklen Mächten), "the moonlight showing me the runic spell" (Die Runen zaubert mir der Mondenschein), "all... are made small by the magic formula" (alle... sie werden vor der Zauberformel klein), and "formula blessings" (Formel Segen).

Given the fact that all these mystical allusions are there, it seems reasonable to conclude that the poem's author is deliberately referring to the pagan roots of the word Wotanseiche.

If this page claimed that Hitler actually believed in Odinism, then you would be right, but the page does not do that. The poem is evidence that Hitler was interested in German pagan and magical thought -- any conclusions beyond that are speculation. Of course, including this poem might violate WP:NOR, but that's another issue, and I don't think that "original research" can be detected until the Powers That Be decide what the purpose of this page actually is supposed to be. - Lawrence King 09:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Its simply a citation of relevant info, nothing to be disturbed by. As said above, if we made conjecture based off of it, that would be OR, but we don't. Instead it is for the reader to make up their own mind as to what it means. Sam Spade 10:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't remove cited information

Particularly during mediation. Thanks, Sam Spade 10:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what "Pohl"??

"In 1915, Pohl was joined..." what "Pohl"????

[edit] Project templates

This used to have two templates: {{Germanic Mysticism, Revivalism and Nazism}} and {{Nazism}}. On 23 Oct, User:Dbachmann removed the former. Why? From the description in the template's text itself, it seems precisely in line with the subject-matter of this page.

Assuming that Dbachmann was correct to remove the former template, I will move the {{Nazism}} template to its proper place near the top of the page instead of leaving it orphaned in the middle of the page. - Lawrence King 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence, I know. I had a message from Dad on my talk page stating that:

"please stop adding 'Germanic Mysticism, Revivalism and Nazism' to article namespace (apparently a Wikiproject template, as opposed to a template on an article series). We want to avoid self-reference and not refer to Wikiprojects in articles. Alternatively, you could change the template to link to articles, not Wikipedia: namespace." dab (ᛏ) 19:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But, as I am not 100% sure about these things don't know whether it is right or not as the Animal Righta article has a Wiki project and I based mine on that? I am very enthusiastic to work on it and through it was very helful to browers for it to be on the pages that it was. FK0071a 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think dab's right. {{alib}} shouldn't have the WikiProject link either. See WP:SELF. Lupo 08:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree if you are both right. But, for me personally when I came accross the Animal Rights one as a general browser I found it VERY helpful and appreciated it being in the article. Not 100% of the reason why It shouldn't be but honestly, I found it a great help. Maybe this can be reviewed? FK0071a 08:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not fundamentally opposed to this template or anything: it is a bit bulky, a template should not give a comprehensive list of articles on a topic (we have categories for that), but just link a few key topics. What prompted me to remove the template is its reference to the Wikiproject: References to Wikiprojects belong on article talkpages exclusively, not in article namespace. If the references to the Wikiproject are removed from the template (and, ideally, it is slimmed down a bit), I have no further objections. Article space templates have the purpose of facilitating navigation for the reader. If you want to draw attention to the Wikiproject, you should create a second template, along the lines of {{WPMILHIST}} (and others), and put it on talkpages of pertinent articles. dab (ᛏ) 09:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Germanic Mysticism WikiProject The aim of this project is to educate readers & editors about the concept of Germanic Revivalism, Germanic mysticism and its misrepresentation and connection with Nazi mysticism in the commercial media.[citation needed] Notable Advocates Guido von List · Karl Spiesberger Freya Aswynn · Andrea M. (Nebel) Haugen Siegfried Adolf Kummer · Friedrich Bernhard Marby Karl Maria Wiligut · Lanz von Liebenfels Wilhelm Wulff · Stephen A. McNallen Heimgest · Stephen E. Flowers · Ludwig Straniak A. Frank Glahn · Peryt Shou · Nigel Pennick Rudolf John Gorsleben · Werner von Bulow Else Christensen · Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson Alexander Rud Mills · E. Max Hyatt (Edred Wodanson) Valgard Murray · Aleister Crowley Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky Adolf Schleipfer Organisations Odinic Rite · Asatru Folk Assembly Armanen-Orden · Thule society Vril Society · Ahnenerbe · Artgemeinschaft Philospophies Nazi mysticism Theozoology · Ariosophy · Armanism Runic Astrology · Völkisch movement · Pendulum Astrology · Divination · Runic divination · Magick Ouija · Sami religion · Neopaganism Chaos magick Sacred Places White Horse Stone · Stone Circles · Stonehenge Irminsul · Externsteine · Teutoburg Forest Trollkyrka Incidents Kennewick Man · White Horse Stone · Teutoburg Forest Symbols Black Sun · Fylfot · Swastika · Runes Sig Rune · Sigel · Tiwaz rune · Algiz Unicursal Hexagram · Armanen Runes Categories Occult · Germanic neopaganism Germanic paganism · Neopaganism Norse mythology Books The Book of Blotar · The Occult Roots of Nazism · The Secret King Unholy Alliance · Reveal the Power of the Pendulum Black Sun · Occult Reich · Zodiac and Swastika Gods of the Blood · Invisible Eagle · Pagan Resurrection

[edit] Removed citation: David Kertzer's Popes Against the Jews (Knopf, 2001)

I removed the citation to David Kertzer's Popes Against the Jews (Knopf, 2001) from the end of the Armanism section. Kertzer doesn't attempt to prove that the Catholic Church (or the Lutheran Church) was the sole or primary driver for antisemitism. Instead, it documents that the Vatican was one (of several) source of antisemitism, and argues that there is at least some connection between the antisemitism of the Vatican and that of the Nazis. It was largely written as a response to a Vatican report "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah", which admits that the Catholic Church had been guilty of religious-based antisemitism (or anti-Judaism), but claims that this was different from, and completely unrelated to, the biological (or race-based) antisemitism that the Nazis practiced.

The text in the article was worded much more strongly than what can be supported by Kertzer's book (even assuming that the book is perfectly accurate). This can be verified (without reading the entire book) simply by reading this interview of the author. I left the article's text as it is because I don't doubt there are authors who make the stronger claims, but Kertzer isn't one of them. EMan 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the book? I only ask as 'Dr. Stephen E. Flowers Ph.D.' also makes the above statement with that citation in the introduction of his translation of "The Religion of the Ario-Germanen" by Guido von List. The section in the article is written differently I believe to that of what Flowers writes. Contact Flowers here for his take on it. FK0071a 07:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)