Talk:Nazi occultism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Occult Portal
Nazi occultism is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Contents

[edit] Archives and old discussion

[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. - —Preceding unsigned comment 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:

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)

[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)

That section should be moved to the article on vril, quite definite. -Zara1709 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I anticipated someone would come to that conclusion. It will need licking into shape whichever article it's in so I've been trying to get a more or less NPOV rewrite into the first few paragraphs and more needs to be done. I would be only too happy to see the back of it here, but unfortunately (a) the Vril article is messy enough as things stand, and (b) there ought to be some reference to Vril in this article because as a matter of plain fact the concept has become a part of some present-day Nazi mystical ideologies (see the sections on Serrano and the Tempelhofgesellschaft!) so it isn't totally irrelevant. Nonsense it may be, but then the whole idea of Nazi mysticism is pretty nonsensical. Gnostrat 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The German article on the Vril Society is quite good. If you can read German I'd really recommend that one. I thought about translating it to improve the English article, but there are other articles that I consider even more important to improve. -Zara1709 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I just moved the Vril section to Vril and will work on that now. I think those Nazi-Ufos that allegedly are propelled by Vril can also be treated there. -Zara1709 00:51, 23 March 2007 (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)

[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)

I originally removed this poem some time ago as the only reference it gave was the German Wikipedia article which had NO citation. In this instance I saw it as not noteworthy. The poem as since re-appeared with a different citation (John Toland: Adolf Hitler ISBN-10: 0345338480 ISBN-13: 978-0345338488) - what page is this? I will get the book this weekend to check aswell. Robert C Prenic 16:21, 12 February 2007 (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 Bülow
Else Christensen · Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson
Alexander Rud Mills · 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 · Queste · Yrvasnth · Mount Ślęża
Incidents

Kennewick Man · White Horse Stone · Teutoburg Forest
Symbols

Black Sun · Fylfot · Swastika · Runes
Sig Rune · Sigel · Tiwaz rune · Algiz
Unicursal Hexagram · Armanen Runes
Wendehorn · Hagal
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)

[edit] Quotes & Reptilian Agenda

Surely you can't use supposedly mystical Hitler quotes from the Reptilian Agenda website? The site doesn't give a single reference for these lines. If they did we might have something but they don't so I question their inclusion. ThePeg 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler & Christianity

Someone should quote some of what Hitler said in Martin Bormanns 'Table Talks', where he says in private sometimes the opposite of what he said in public about Christianity. 71.222.88.249 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename it or divide it

Aside from the mountain of POV and gross factual errors in this article, the groups described in the section on Early influences - Armanism, Ariosophy et al - are not forms of Nazi mysticism; all pre-date Nazism and some of them were later suppressed by it. Actually we have two different subjects here: specifically Nazi mysticism, and the wider völkisch/Aryan mysticism.

I propose that the entire section on the pre-Nazi groups, and anything else on non-Nazi Aryanism, should be moved into a new article, without the Nazism category & banner attached, to be called Aryan mysticism. Or else the present article should be renamed Aryan mysticism and the space given over to Nazi mysticism within it should be significantly reduced by cutting the nonsense and possibly relocating material to other articles. (We could then debate whether or not the Nazism tag is appropriate as it plainly does not relate to large parts of the subject matter.) Gnostrat 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that there is already an article entitled Germanic mysticism in which some of the material from this article is duplicated. I believe the simplest course would be to move the whole of the Early influences section of Nazi mysticism over into Germanic mysticism, but not before some work has been done on both to get them into a better logical and chronological sequence. I'm going to put that on my "to do" list. Gnostrat 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes section

Hi Bloodofox, I see you cut the quotes section. That's all very well but I doubt if future editors who no longer have them to hand are going to go hunting through previous edits for useful quotes to work into the article. I'm putting them here on the Talk page where they might be of more use than in thin air. Gnostrat 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

“ From a public speech: "In a hundred year's time, perhaps, a great man will appear who may offer them (the Germans) a chance at salvation. He'll take me as a model, use my ideas, and follow the course I have charted." ”

Adolf Hitler

“ The real destiny of Man is something that ordinary men could not conceive of and would be unable to stomach if given a glimpse of it. Our revolution is a final stage in an evolution that will end by abolishing history. My party comrades have no conception of the dreams that haunt my mind or of the grandiose edifice of which the foundations, at least, will have been laid before I die. The world has reached a turning point, and will undergo an upheaval which you uninitiated people cannot understand. ”

Adolf Hitler

“ Referring to Queen Elizabeth as: "the most dangerous woman in Europe ”

"Adolf Hitler

“ "The New Man is living among us now! He is here! Isn't that I enough for you? I will tell you a secret. I have seen the New Man. He is intrepid and cruel. I was afraid of him!" ”
“ ... Far better to be Pagan than Christian. Far better to worship the certainties of nature and ancestors than an unseen deity and its bogus representatives on earth. For a Volk which honoured it's ancestors, and sought to honour itself, would always produce children , and so that Volk would have eternal life. — Heinrich Himmler[1] ”
“ It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan [father of the gods in the German lore]. Our old mythology ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. — Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk[2] ”
“ The characteristic thing about these people [modern-day followers of the early Germanic religion] is that they rave about the old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack. — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf [3] ”
“ [The future] must not take the form of a revival of the worship of Wotan. — Adolf Hitler[4] ”
“ The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. — Joseph Goebbels, in his diary, December 28, 1939. ”
“ Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. — Hitler, 1941 citation needed ”
“ My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who — God's truth! — was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. — Hitler, on his belief in the non-Jewish, anti-materialistic, 'Ario-heroic' spirit of Jesus, later distorted by exoteric Christianity citation needed ”
“ The German people, especially the youth, have learned once again to value people racially-they have once again turned away from Christian theories, from Christian teaching which has ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused the racial decay of the German people, and almost its racial death. — Heinrich Himmler May 22, 1936 at a speech in Brocken, Germany.citation needed ”

[edit] References

  1. ^ Robin Lumsden, Himmler's Black Order: A History of the SS, 1923-1945 (Stroud: Sutton Pub, 1997), p.117
  2. ^ Page 61, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, 1953
  3. ^ Chapter 12
  4. ^ http://www.runestone.org/lep4.html
Hello there! No problem and thank you. :bloodofox: 07:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In view of recent edits I think I should emphasise that I parked the quotes here as a resource for editors. I don't believe they should go back in the article en bloc as they stand, but that if and when individual quotes have been properly sourced (some of them have a distinctly suspect look!) and there are appropriate niches and contexts to slot them into, they could help to improve the article. Gnostrat 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thule Society

I have moved this section to Germanic mysticism where it more naturally belongs, and will continue working on it there. I decided to put it there rather than in the Thule Society article because I think the latter (and Germanenorden too) should be merged in Germanic mysticism. At some stage I will see if I can write a brief section here on the largely imaginary influence of Thule on the Nazi party as this is the only thing about the Thule Society that is really relevant to Nazi mysticism. Gnostrat 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esoteric Hitlerism and the Gnostics

I take issue with the material on Gnosticism that's being inserted in the Serrano and Tempelhofgesellschaft sections. What I would like somebody to clarify, is whether and to what degree these identifications with Gnosticism are being claimed by Serrano and the THG, and how far they are interpretations by editors.

If "Serrano follows the Cathar Gnostics", is that Serrano saying the Cathars were Gnostics, or is that an editor saying the Cathars were Gnostics? Does the THG identify theologically with Gnostics, or with Marcionites? Because they are not the same thing. Marcion lacked the key Gnostic concept of an esoteric tradition, and he made faith and love central to his system instead of gnosis. Marcionites were dualists, because they entirely disconnected the Demiurge from God; Gnostics, in my humble opinion, were not (ultimately) dualists, because they made the Demiurge an emanation from the Godhead.

But neither Marcionites nor Gnostics held the view attributed here to Serrano and the THG, that the Demiurge Jehovah is an evil creator. They simply adhered to an old Jewish (or better, Hebrew) conception in which Jehovah included both good and evil within himself. Being a secondary god in the eyes of Gnostics, he was limited, ambivalent, even ignorant, but that does not mean they identified him wholly with evil.

It's all very well paraphrasing an encyclopedia's summary of Grant and Maccoby saying that Gnosticism was dualist; I could quote Elaine Pagels or Giovanni Filoramo or, for that matter, ancient texts like the Gospel of Thomas or the Tripartite Tractate or Marsanes to the effect that some major currents of Gnosticism weren't dualist at all. Even the Congress of Messina's (1966) definition of Gnosticism describes it as "a dualistic conception on a monistic background, expressed in a double movement of devolution and reintegration." Having identified a polar opposition, the Gnostics moved beyond it to the divine unity that lay behind. (But then that's my interpretation.)

I would say cut the quotes from Collier's or any other encyclopedias (another layer of interpretation?) and concentrate on the subjects we're supposed to be writing about. What this article doesn't need is opinions from scholars in support of one or another view of what Gnosticism is really about; scholarly interpretations of Gnosticism have always been in a state of flux, and those issues can be left to the Gnosticism article. What is needed here is clarification of what Serrano and the THG actually think. Do they call their systems Gnostic, or Marcionite and Cathar? Do they claim that Gnosticism was dualist, or is it editors who think that their dualism is the same thing as Gnosticism? Are they themselves identifying with Gnostics, or are editors doing it for them?

Let's get a NPOV write into this. (I'd do it myself if I weren't occupied with Germanic mysticism.) By all means report that Nazi mystics claim to find inspiration in Gnosticism if that's what they're doing, but let's make clear that it's an interpretation. We don't have to prove that it's correct; we don't need to go wheeling on scholars with analyses of what Gnosticism is or isn't. Gnosticism is a disputed concept. Gnostrat 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a book in German, Gnosis und Nationalsozialismus (Srohm, 1997, revised 2005). Except for ideological similarities and the origins of the Swastika, I find the argument of a link between Gnostic sects and Nazi mythology rather speculative. Still interesting to read, though. -Zara1709 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, though I would struggle with the book myself. I am one of those people who can read a little German — enough to get a rough idea of what Lanz von Liebenfels is claiming in "Anthropozoon Biblicum" (but it helps that he uses other languages as well). I will certainly check out Strohm if they bring out an English edition (or if my level of German ever improves!)
Since my last post, an extensive quote on Serrano and the Cathars has gone into the article. OK, so now we know the source was Goodrick-Clarke, but we're really no wiser about what Serrano thinks. Evidently Serrano is claiming the Cathars as his ideological forebears but, the way the quote is phrased, you can't tell if he thinks the Cathars were Gnostics, and Gnostics were dualists and antisemites — or if those are G-C's interpretations of Catharism.
I guess I'll have to read Black Sun to get the whole context. Goodrick-Clarke is very good on the Ariosophists, but on Gnosticism he's just one among many other, far more eminent, voices. His colleague at EXESESO, Tobias Churton, has quoted two authorities (Bernard Hamilton and Michel Rocquebert) for entirely opposite opinions on whether or not the Cathars were Gnostics, and to include this material from G-C — simply assuming the Cathars were Gnostics — without any counterbalancing opinion is, in effect, to prejudge the outcome of that debate. POV, in other words.
I could add quotes and sources to put the other side, but I'm reluctant to go that route. This is an article about Nazi mysticism, not about Gnostics or Cathars, and we've already had a struggle to prune it down. I would simply recommend replacing the G-C quote with a paraphrase summarising Serrano's dependency on (or exploitation of) the Cathars without mentioning Gnosticism at all — and leave other articles to address the issue of whether or not Catharism was Gnostic. It's a taxonomic question, and we don't need to classify the Cathars in order to speak about their influence. In the summary we can also observe that Serrano (or Goodrick-Clarke) interprets the Cathars as antisemites, but to say they actually were antisemites is POV. Gnostrat 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Friend "Gnostrat": Serrano clearly and emphatially identifies himself and the tradition he claims to represent with the various Christian Gnostic and Dualist sects (of ultimate Aryo-Iranian orign) suppressed by mainstream Judeo-Christianity throughout his various works. For example, the following is from Nos: Book of the Resurrection:

'This miraculous Hyperborean initiation comes from a great distance, from the original polar continent, where the remale magicians, the priestesses of magic love, Morgana and Allouine, appeared. And also the women who, in the legend of the Grail, healed the wounded warrior and the Sick King. This mystery comes to us from an unfathomable distance. In the west, it was destroyed with the Cathars and the Templars, with the Minnesanger and the Fedele d' Amore, with the troubadours of the Languedoc, in the eternal war with the enemies of the divine myth. What had been a private, unique, aristocratic initiation has become vulgarised in the exotericism of the Church of Rome, which has taken possession of its symbols and adulterated them. The Gnostic Lady, Sophia, Woevre Saelde, the feminine Holy Spirit, Parakletos, the Dove, has been popularised as the Virgin Mary; the Exchange of Hearts, which is in reality the awakening of the Anahata chakra, has been externalised in the cult of the heart of Jesus. The crown of thorns and the rosary have replaced the Templars' alchemical rose of a thousand petals, the Sahasrara chakra, at the summit of the invisible skull. It is the assassination of the sacred way of Kundalini, of the Tantric road of the chakras. A hermetic initiation of solar love has been adulterated by an exoteric, lunar religion, by an anthropomorphic, exclusively materialistic cult. 'The initiation of "loveless love" has been destroyed, and man has gone over to the diffusion of a physical, matriarchal love, centred purely on the physical body of the woman, in which the externalised Eve triumphs, desecrating the warrior, imposing her female urgency and her "Demetrian" fever for procreation. Love has become human, all too human. The "loveless love" of the warrior, of the troubadour, is the mystery of the Grail. The love of the unresurrected woman and man is the Church of Rome, lunar Christianity. The initiatory poem has deteriorated into the novel, the popular literature and the unhealthy sexualism of our day. 'When we talk about the religion of love of the troubadours, of the initiated knights of the Grail, of the true Rosicrucians, we must try to discover what lies behind their language. In those days, love did not mean the same thing as it does in our day. The word Amor (Love) was a cipher, it was a code word. Amor spelt backwards is Roma. That is, the word indicated, in the way in which it was written, the opposite to Roma, to all that Rome represented. Also, Amor broke down into "a" and "mor", meaning Without-Death. That is, to become immortal, eternal, thanks to the way of initiation of A-Mor. A way of initiation totally opposed to the way of Rome. An esoteric, solar Kristianity. The Gnostic Kristianity of Meister Eckhart. And mine. Because I have tried to teach western man to resurrect Kristos in his soul. Because Kristos is the Self for western man. 'This is why Roma destroyed Amor, the Cathars, the Templars, the Lords of the Grail, the Minnesanger, everything which may have originated in the "Hyperborean Blood Memory" and which may have had a polar, solar origin. 'The love talked and written about so much in novels, poetry and magazines, the love of one's neighbour, the universal love of the churches, love of humanity, has nothing whatsoever to do with "loveless love" (A-Mor, Without-Death), which is a harsh disciplirie, as cold as ice, as cutting as a sword, and which aspires to overcome the human condition in order to reach the Kingdom of the Immortals, Ultima Thule.

--It seems like Sir Gnostrat is quibbling on a side issue in order to avoid facing the larger, more difficult question: is the primordial Gnosis necessarily compatible with our modern ultra-egalitarian, demo-liberal order of things? Should we understand the Gnosis in its own terms, or fearfully seek to fit it into the modern world-view, procrustes-style? The obviously eccentric yet nevertheless genuinely intelligent, poetically outstanding and culturally accomplished figure of Serrano prompts denizens of matter-arrested modernity to engage in difficult self-questioning.

That's what I thought: a dualist, not a Gnostic. And if I may allow myself a personal opinion here, it looks like simply another effort (like the Catholic Judeo-Christianity that Serrano claims he despises) to steal the clothes of ancient Gnosis to dress up something ascetical and hierarchical.
If we talk about Gnosticism for a minute, and not Nazi mysticism, it's not a side issue how you define it. It's not a side issue whether your idea of Gnosis comes from the radically "ultra-egalitarian", "demo-liberal" (yes! the Catholic Fathers denounced them for precisely that!) Valentinians, Carpocratians etc — the actual historic transmitters of the tradition — or from the ascetic and hierarchic ideas of non-Gnostic Marcionites and Manicheans, tendentious 'reconstructions' by Nazis, or the troubadour nonsense (which, contrary to Serrano, was as "matriarchal" as it comes).
Serrano claims to be speaking for an ancient Gnosis, and you imply that you are, too, but that's just your claim. Thirteen Nag Hammadi codices say you're wrong. They bear little resemblance to the effusions you've just quoted, but they do bear witness to a Gnosis of Hebrew (though pre-Jewish) origin, related — more distantly — to an "Aryo-Iranian" (as you put it) Pagan Gnosis that originally had not a trace of dualism in it.
But my interest here is in writing a neutral and half-decent article, not filling it out with propaganda one way or the other. Reporting Serrano's claims that the Gnostics were anti-semitic dualists is fair enough. Saying that these ancient Semitic Pagans and monists actually were anti-semitic dualists is not even POV, it's just plain flat-out wrong. And if you insist on quoting Goodrick-Clarke to that effect, it becomes necessary to add balance by quoting other (in my view, more authoritative) sources to the opposite effect. Gnostrat 11:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of Sources for Tibet Expedition

I'm new to this so feel free to correct/remove/edit this etc.

I noticed that in the section 6.4 SS Research and Expeditions a citation is needed concerning the statement that an expedition was sent to Tibet to research the origins of the Aryan race.

The book "Himmlers Crusade" by Christopher Hale is entirely devoted to said expedition.

I thought I would mention this in the hope that someone can edit the page and put the citation in. As I said I'm a newbie at all of this and would probably mess it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Livetogetherdiealone (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I entered it in the notes; the book was already listed in the references. (I've an idea that Tibet expedition wasn't all that it's been made out to be, however.)
Oh, and I wouldn't get too worried about messing up: reverting is easy-peasy, and somebody's sure to come along and fix it anyhow :) Gnostrat 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Reptilian" Bogey

To the serious researchers here, a moment of your time please---The "reptilian" business has gone on long enough on this page. It is seriously lessening the tone and overall scholarliness. As a scholar of extreme cults a la Goodrick-Clarke, I have personally studied the works of Serrano, Devi and Evola and NOT ONCE is there even a hint of mention of so-called "reptilian humanoids" (except perhaps a vague denigrating reference to the 'subhuman level' of the Jewish mentality). I have Arktos by Godwin in my hands right now, and there is no prominence given to "reptilian" Hyperboreans, but just plain Hyperboreans. Ditto with Goodrick-Clarke's two works on Nazi occultism. So these references to reptilians and reptilian Hyperboreans betray a gross misunderstanding and sloppy scholarship, and, if there is no direct citation of source material, these pseudo-references should be finally removed, pronto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Is it possible that all of the repilte stuff is in reference to the multi-culteral and even european legends of dragons? even as such with norse and germanic legend. Germans love the bird yes but they do have a few coats of arms with dragon winged lions. A refernce to cats in my opinion, after all they do have reptile eyes for better night vision.
It really doesn't matter what it "means" because our anonymous friend is right: it isn't in the sources. I've checked over those two fascinating works Arktos and Black Sun, and the "reptiles" are nowhere. The nearest you can get is Arktos pp 136-7, on R.E. Dikhoff's H.P. Lovecraft-inspired stories about serpent or crocodile people from Venus hibernating in hidden Antarctic crypts. But nothing to connect them with Hitler or Hyperboreans. Possibly characters like David Icke are making those sorts of claims but if so, they should be in an article about Icke, not Serrano and crew. I'm going to replace that passage with something accurate and sourced. Gnostrat 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moaism???

 Just as a passing reader, maybe i will regret what i am about to right, and a christian of
occullt nature,  didn't all this hitler as a religion stuff you all are refering to start
around world war two, the same time moa-ste-zung (or however it is spelled) was attempting to
replace the dhalli lama as the chinese spiritual "father" and leader?  As some of you state
you are students of learning isn't that something to be taken into account.  after all germany
and china at that time were very large countries. it would be odd if they were conected.  I
know the germans did quite a few feild recon missions on the philosophies and trainings at
monastaries in the far east???  weren't they looking for the pre-roman esoteric bonds of
spirituality and the mind?  Ancient jewish texts, egyptian text, and hymalain text,  isn't
that why the tried to allie themselves with mexico (MYan\toltek\aztec\ pyramid stuff) so as
to understand the world that man chose to forget.  Is there a possible link between china 
and germany, the nazi were allies with japan? just a though.  The weird things about new
world orders isn't they are the same as the last one somtimes the weird thing is they are
the same old world order

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Secretking.jpg

Image:Secretking.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

Since there is so much work being done on this article currently, I'd like to put forward the question of moving it, about which I have been thinking for some time now.

I am quite sure that the term Nazi occultism would be more appropriate than Nazi mystizism. I couldn't find that our (mine and Gnostrat's at least) primary work of refernce, The Occult Roots of Nazism, uses the term Nazi mysticism at all. The book does not use (as far as I remember) the term Nazi occultism either, because the use of this term would suggest that it had been more structured and organized as it actually was.

However, I think Goodrick-Clarke would prefer to speak of 'occultism' instead of 'mysticism'. Although one should generally avoid to the term 'Occultism', he has a definition of it in his book (that I recently added to the Occultism article) and takes quite a few pages to explain in what sense it would have been occultism. I previously felt that I should read a few more books on this topic first and see if they had another suggestion, but I expect that there is nothing that would fit better. And I don't know if I can find the time for some more reading on this field, so I'd like to suggest the move now. -Zara1709 00:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • weak support. This is not mysticism in the strict sense, as exemplified by Theresa of Avila; and the loose sense of "incoherent thought" would extend the subject to the Welteislehre and other crackpottery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The phenomenon is definitely more occultic than mystical in character. Nevertheless, racial mysticism seems to be an established term and concept in the literature, and there is definitely an element of racial mysticism in this thing; perhaps more so in its post-war developments. I'm ok with 'Nazi occultism', but there is an alternative that I would like to point out before we decide. In Black Sun (which I've just been reading through), Goodrick-Clarke employs the term Esoteric Nazism. This has the advantage of actually being attested in the literature, and it would neatly cover both the occultic and any mystical aspects of this phenomenon, thus sidestepping a needless controversy over the meaning and relative merits of these two terms. Gnostrat 21:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, it isn't clear whether G-C would include the occult interests of the 3rd Reich in his 'Esoteric Nazism' concept. It seems to be an umbrella term for the postwar groups. So maybe I'd go with 'Nazi occultism' after all. Gnostrat 03:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a big improvement on the existing title. Esoteric Nazism, even if attested in the literature, would be an enigmatic and unrecognisable term to most people. Nazi occultism is the best suggestion yet. A better suggestion would be welcome, and I seriously considered weak support and even typed it in, but on reflection there's nothing weak about my support for this proposal in the absence of a better one. Andrewa 10:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just checked the edit history again. Both 'Nazi occultism' and 'Nazi mysticism' were created by Sam Spade. He, however, has seems to have quit the English Wikipedia, so I think I should not bother to ask him. I also was thinking whether there would be similar names more appropriate, 'Occult Nazism' or more exact 'Occult Elements of Nazism'. Unfortunately I don't have the time to check Goodrick-Clarke's book on this question a.t.m.. -Zara1709 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of this Article

I hope, the outline of the structure I intend for this article has become obvious. From a historic point of view I would prefer to speak only of The Occult Elements within Nazism. With the Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism, the term Nazi occultism, however, can be justified. There are four elements of Nazi occultism that I know of: Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs, the Thule SS and the origins of the NSDAP, Himmler and the SS and, yet to be added, Rosenbergs Myth of the 20th century. I hope that I will find the time to improve this article to a point where it is on the level of Goodrick-Clarke's study. The next thing I will do is search some reference for the Holy Grail part. Please give me some time with that, I just have to skip through the literature again. Also, you will see that I strongly prefer the term "Ariosophy" to "Germanic mysticism". I agree, that "Ariosophy" and "Nazi occultism" should be treated in different articles, but we probably have to discuss this point. (btw: I apologize for any grammar errors, spelling should be mostly correct thanks to spell-checking software.) -Zara1709 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope your structure sticks, but this article is getting rearranged so often these days that I'll concentrate my efforts on building up Germanic mysticism. They should definitely be different articles, if only because Germanic mysticism is an oasis of stability (and mercifully free of reptilians, UFOs or demon possessions!) Seriously, though, G.M. was split away for good reasons: the connections are tenuous, and "Nazi mysticism" was getting way too long. I'm not really sure what needs discussing except maybe the name. "Germanic mysticism" is a term of convenience like "Nazi mysticism" was, but it fits the subject matter more closely, and "Ariosophy" isn't any better: (1) Goodrick-Clarke has helped to make it ambiguous — referring EITHER to the strict New Templar-Ariosophy Society current inspired by Lanz von Liebenfels, OR to something broader, beginning with Guido von List. Whatever the merits of the broad definition (and there are some), the ambiguity makes the term "Ariosophy" just as problematic as "Aryan" itself. (2) Even taking Ariosophy in the broad sense, Germanic mysticism is still wider than that. For one thing, it overlaps with Germanic neopaganism. For another thing, why begin with List? If we focus on the pure concept of a racial-mysticism of Germanic (or even of "Aryan") people — and I'm talking more than just occultism here — then how can we possibly exclude Wagner and H.S. Chamberlain? Or, indeed, the German Faith Movement? Recently I've begun to think that not only should Germanic mysticism retain its current name (or something very like it), but it should also expand to incorporate Wagner and Chamberlain at least. My apologies for getting into things which we can discuss more appropriately at Talk:Germanic mysticism. It's simply that you raised it here first. Gnostrat 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not only Goodrick-Clarke who used the term Ariosophy. If you want, I can give you a nice quote by Strohm. (If you still want to read a copy of Strohm's book, write me an email rather soon, since I won't have access to it much longer.) Sooner or later, I think, I have to suggest that Germanic mysticism be renamed to Ariosophy, but that won't happen until I have brought this article to an A-Class rating. I admit, that the relation between Ariosophy and esotericsm on the one hand and antisemitism and racism on the other hand is rather difficult. If you want to work that out, good luck. -Zara1709 06:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism

I am sorry for the rather extensive use of quotes. I have moved the ones by Goodrick-Clarke into the text, but I see no way a.t.m. how I can do the same with the quotes by Gardell. And I think all those quotes are necessary to avoid the impression that this section would be original research. If you know any other author that mentions this problem at all, please let me know. -Zara1709 06:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed quote

"Books written about Nazi occultism between 1960 and 1975 were typically sensational and under-researched. A complete ignorance of the primary sources was common to most authors and inaccuracies and wild claims were repeated by each newcomer to the genre until an abundant literature existed, based on wholly spurious 'facts' concerning the powerful Thule Society, the Nazi links with the East, and Hitler's occult initiation. But the modern mythology of Nazi occultism, however scurrilous and absurd, exercised a fascination beyond mere entertainment. Serious authors were tempted into an exciting field of intellectual history: Ellic Howe, Urania's Children (1967, reissued as Astrology and the Third Reich, 1984) dealt with the story of Hitler's alleged private astrologer, and James Webb devoted a chapter to 'The Magi of the North' in The Occult Establishment (1976). By focusing on the functional significance of occultism in political irrationalism, Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas." (-Zara1709 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] popular culture

I tried to check the Manual of Style on this, and I found no reason, why the popular culture part can't be mentioned at the beginning. And I think I have a good reason to mention Indiana Jones and other popular culture references with two sentences at the top of the article. Otherwise a reader will stumble across the mentioning of the Holy Grail after 1/3 of the article. And when I first heard that there was a Nazi connection with the Holy Grail I was inclined to disbelieve that, since I previously only had heard about something like that in a movie. Since this whole topic is rather obscure, this obscurity should be mentioned early, and this was the best idea I had on how this could be done. "popular culture trivia" are not mentioned in the introduction, because they are equally important, but because they are the only thing that most readers are likely to have heard of.-Zara1709 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another removed quote

Adolf Hitler ordered the location and rescue of Il Duce (Mussolini) by any means necessary. This was done through the power of the pendulum as revealed in Peter Levenda's Unholy Alliance:

"Nevertheless, a "Master of the Sidereal Pendulum" succeeded at last in locating Mussolini on an island west of Naples. To do this seer justice, it must be recorded that at the time Mussolini had no apparent contact with the outside world. It was, in fact, the island of Ponza to which he had been transferred at first. In other words, the "Master of the Sidereal Pendulum" had successfully located the most famous Italian prisoner of the twentieth century ... and with no more than a decent meal, a few drinks, a good smoke, and a pendulum swinging over a map of Italy. It will be remembered that one of Hitler's closest friends was the "Master of the Sidereal Pendulum" Dr. Gutberlet. Whether or not it was this same "Master" who worked on the Mussolini problem is not revealed."

I am also about to remove two external links that are defunct. Instead of using the link to the google cache, [7] , I linked directly to the page in the references section. -Zara1709 05:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Rahn data needed

Otto Rahn is a major figure in "nazi-occult" literature and speculation and should be included in the article for completeness. He is commonly portrayed as an inspiration to Indiana Jones as an "adventurer of the Grail." Rahn's collaborations and ideological assignments from Himmler demonstrate the heretical-dualist, "ario-Christian" (they considered Jesus as some sort of Hyperborean god-king with divine extraterrestrial/alien blood) and Grail obsessions of certain sectors of the Third Reich.

http://www.geocities.com/countermedia/Otto.html

http://www.maryjones.us/jce/rahn.html

http://tracyrtwyman.com/blog/?page_id=52

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/Speech%20by%20Otto%20Rahn%20SS%20in%201938.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Fixed a Spelling Error

"They Nazis" Just isn't proper English. ; ) --Taken By Robots 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taged for sourcing

NB:Statements not supported by sourcing can be deleted at any time. Kwork 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know this. If I remember correctly, it was Grandia01 had adde that tag. Since she/he also considered to be that archteype-stuff less an element of Esoteric Nazism and more a psychological view of Hitler, I thought I would first take care of that field. No I haven't read Serrono or Jung, but I have read Lords of Chaos (book), so I thought I expand that article, taking care to establish that in this book the topic really is referred as part of an esoteric doctrine and not as a psychological theory in the strict scientific sense. But as soon as I had added the relevant points from the book, some editor, who apparently hasn't even read it, starts to delelete the content I have added, accusing me of not being neutral and writing in an improper tone - hey, it is not my fault if the book sometimes reads as a piece of extreme-right propaganda. If it also wasn't one of the few sources on the Early Norwegian black metal scene, it wouldn't be that important. -Anyway, this was rather discouraging for me, so that i haven't done much on Wikipedia the last month.
Concerning the two remaining citations needed here, I don't have access to the proper sources a.t.m., but I don't think that they are that problematic. Zara1709 12:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serrano-Enoch material

Please re-include the material on Serrano's reliance on the Book of Enoch for the sin of cosmic miscegenation and the origin of the Hyperboreal-Aryans (and the material on the Hyperborean Tuatha de Danann), as these sources are highly relevant and document the weird, occult (alleged) substantiations of certain Nazi beliefs. Cf.

Who are the Ufonauts? (Book of Enoch)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/nephilim.htm

http://www.echoesofenoch.com/meetthenordics.htm

"[The Book of Enoch the Prophet translated by Richard Laurence...makes it clear that the Fallen Angels...were giant white men..."

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

1After a time, my son Mathusala took a wife for his son Lamech.

2She became pregnant by him, and brought forth a child [i.e. Noah], the flesh of which was as white as snow, and red as a rose; the hair of whose head was white like wool, and long; and whose eyes were beautiful.

3And when he was taken from the hand of the midwife, Lamech his father became afraid of him; and flying away came to his own father Mathusala, and said, I have begotten a son, unlike to other children. He is not human; but, resembling the offspring of the angels of heaven, is of a different nature from ours, being altogether unlike to us.

Thanks. I'm familiar with the Book of Enoch and the various interpretations and counter-interpretations of the UFO phenomenon, but none of that is really the issue here.
Enoch and the Tuatha De Danann material (from the Book of Invasions, presumably) aren't "weird, occult" sources — they're apocryphal/mythological sources well-known to scholars of religious history. We could list Apollo, Irish gods and whatever else Serrano uses to back up his theory, but in a general article do we need to get into that degree of detail? Especially when it's a question of mere supporting evidence that is highly subject to interpretation and cannot form the core of this or any other theory.
I'd like to oblige you, without swamping the article in details that I think are merely contingent. Could we compromise and put this other stuff in a footnote?
About the Enoch connection as it is presented by Goodrick-Clarke, I can't agree that it is relevant to Serrano's case for extraterrestrial origins. The miscegenation thing refers to what happened afterwards. If you can produce a quote to show that Serrano links Enoch specifically to ET ancestors, slip it in. But I don't think the reference to Enoch and miscegenation really fits the context here. (Goodrick-Clarke isn't always that good at organising his material, unfortunately.) Would you be agreeable if I look for some other place in the Serrano section to re-include it?
In fact, perhaps that entire Extraterrestrial Origins subsection should be integrated in with the rest of the Serrano material, and then we can get a better view of all the main elements of Serrano's system and how they fit together. But it really should be a summary, not bogging down in details. Gnostrat 20:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

--Thanks for the patient fair-mindedness (atypical for Wikipedia). In fact, if you study the strange phenomenon of Nazi mysticism, the Book of Enoch is widely cited by these types in their mystico-racial theories and the Enoch stuff isn't limited to Serrano in the Aryanist and Neo-Nazi underground, as the links show (even the Nation of Islam believes in similar derivation for whites--i.e. promethean/luciferian fallen angels). There is some sort of history behind the Enoch references, which is why I thought it should be highlighted in understanding their worldview.

If the Enoch stuff could be put in a footnote or relocated, that is acceptable, as this specific ancient source truly does form a 'secret thread' in the neo-Nazi and/or Aryanist underground and is key to understanding their ideological self-understanding. I trust you will tweak the article fittingly in whatever way seems best. Good day, fellow-explorer of Lovecraftian weirdness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.135.142 (talk) 01:16:57, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Julius Evola, a similar radical-right "mythologist of Hyperborea" also relies on the Book of Enoch and its theme of the Nephilim (in The Hermetic Tradition and Revolt Against the Modern World) for his concept of (racially-based) "divine elitism". Evola was not a strict Nazi philosophically, but tried to steer the Nazi-Fascist movements according to his own obscure ideology; nevertheless, Evola probably should be included in the article in some way, as he is one of the main "hot tips" in the neo-Nazi underground and interlocks with the rest... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 02:51:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Evola's a borderline case, as someone who has managed to influence Nazism in the postwar period whilst critiquing it from even further "right"; but I think the concept of Esoteric Nazism could be stretched to include a section on him. Evola and Landig both, and maybe even Parvulesco; they all share a similar revisionist outlook (as in "national-socialism went off the rails under Hitler but we can put it back on track"). Which is why Esoteric Nazism is a broader concept than Esoteric Hitlerism. Gnostrat 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split off Esoteric Nazism

I suspect this to be uncontroversial, but I still like to discuss it first. The developments after '45 are different enough so that they should be debated in a separate article. Especially there seems to be know modern occult mythology for them. Of course, the material currently present in that section could also be use to improve other articles, but I think Serrana, Devi, etc. need to be linked from a page that gives an overview about them as esotericists, just like this article gives an overview about Himmler and Darré as occultists (and needs to be expanded to include Rosenberg, Hess and probably some more Nazis that held occult views). With a separate article for Esoteric Nazism we would also not have to worry about adding to much details, at least at first. I think the term 'Esoteric Nazism' is the most appropriate following Goodrick-Clarke's "Black Sun", but if you have any other suggestions, please bring them in. Zara1709 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Zara, once again you have your finger on the pulse. I am in complete agreement with your proposal. (The intro and bibliography will need splitting too, of course.) It's overdue, and it's the logical next step in the process of separating out the more conventional history from the, er, "weirdness".
As to the name, we don't seem to have anything better than Esoteric Nazism. Again, we could bring in critical fellow-travellers like Evola and anti-Hitler revisionists like Landig (as Goodrick-Clarke's book in fact does), if we make a clear distinction between the narrower idea of Hitlerism and the much broader one of national-socialism, which has a history both before Hitler (Austro-Hungary in the1890s! — see Austrian National Socialism) and outlasting him.
Possibly this might be an argument for calling it Esoteric national socialism, if you prefer to identify 'Nazism' more specifically with Hitler's form of the ideology. But I'm not going to get all pedantic over it. Gnostrat 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Developments after 45 are large and distinct enough to deserve a new page. I also think the relative importance of esotericism has changed since the the end of the war and the way the article is laid out now undermines that. Bartleby 08:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunetely I currently can't perform the splitt-off. I'll do it as soon as I have the time (and after I have done the merger at Fallen angels). Zara1709 13:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, I have just performed the split. Gnostrat actually got us into an edit conflict there, as I was going to link Third Reich, too. I'm not that sure if one can use the term "white identity" for Esoteric Nazism, but that is not so important. Feel free to continue to edit there, but I would rather like to expand some of the Black Metal articles at the moment. Zara1709 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry about that one, Zara. I saw you were working on the split and was trying to help out in small ways. "White identity" is part of Goodrick-Clarke's definition from Black Sun, but I appreciate there might be issues with it. Good to see you're back anyway. Gnostrat 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is just that I think that the term "white identity" is usually only applied to movements in the United states. It don't think that it is appropriate to bring Savitri Devi under this term. One whould have to refer to Black Sub in detail.
Goodrick-Clarke seems to have been thinking about the Christian Identity movement (which is more an Anglosphere than a U.S. thing) and thought that's a useful word in a wider context. Savitri Devi was Greek, which is white, and she identified with upper-caste Hindus who are also white, or as near to it ('wheat-coloured') as makes no difference to the educated Aryan racial-mysticist who is aware of the Indo-European relationship. Gnostrat 03:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, since there aren't any good relaible sources for the connection between Occultism, Esoteric Nazism and Black Metal, I am back at this topic. Zara1709 12:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bramwell's book

Branwell's book, although not about occult elements in general, has quite a few remarks on that. I have to bring it back to the library and I'm really in a hurry, but if anyone is interested, these are pages I marked: 60, 108, 117, 130, 133, 134, 175, 178, 189. (I'd also like to use this as note to myself, if I can get the time to read the book a second time.) Zara1709 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next split off

This article still misses some import historic material that can be added from Goodrick-Clarke 1985. I think that I can find the time to add that, but meanwhile I would like to suggest to split of the Esotericism in Nazi Germany- section. The question if Nazism was an 'occult thing' and if Esotericism was suppressed in Nazi Germany are obviously different. There currently isn't enought material to justify an own article: Esotericism in Nazi Germany, and I don't think that it is likely that this material can be gathered. My idea whoud be to create an article Esotercism in Germany and Austria, and debate all the developments of esotericism in Germany a nd Austria since ca. 1880 there. I would then add a section on the German occult revival 1890-1920 based on Chapter 2 from Goodrick-Clarke 1985 to that article. But I think this needs to be discussed first. Zara1709 13:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no immediate objection has been put forward, I think I just go ahead. (Since I have some time at the moment.) I could have explained my intentions for the new article in more detail, but this should become obvious as soon as I get started. Zara1709 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually I was about to say that I'm going to have to revert to mergist form on this one. I just don't see that another new article is necessary at this stage. It sounds like it will inevitably involve an awful lot of overlap with Ariosophy and I'm not sure how much new information you could put in it that couldn't be incorporated into existing articles on Ariosophy or Theosophy or postwar Esoteric Nazism.
A case can be made that the stuff you have split off is still relevant here. Asking whether the Nazis suppressed occultism and asking whether Nazism was an occult thing are different questions, but they are very definitely related. The varying fate of occultists in the 3rd Reich tells us something about whether leading Nazis had occult sympathies, as distinct from having occult roots. (History is littered with movements which betrayed their roots.) Different sections within the party took up different positions, and contradictions need to be exemplified. The persecution of occultists is a concrete demonstration of one particular attitude. The fact of something like the Skald Order getting its members into high office, though not without tensions, also goes to illustrate the complexity of the question. All this is surely relevant here.
I think you are wanting to make room for stuff on Rosenberg, Darré and Wiligut but I can't see that as a reason to cut this particular section. What we could have done instead was prune and condense the article as a whole. If we did nevertheless prefer to deal with the regime's treatment of Ariosophists somewhere else, that material would fit naturally into the Nazism section of Ariosophy. (I may still use some of it there anyway.) But I'm pretty sure that it's still relevant here. Gnostrat 06:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit that my idea for Esotericism in Germany and Austria is rather ambitious. But there needs to be a place to describe the developments of groups like Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft, and since they apparently don't put that much emphasis on the aryan race, that can't be done in the article Ariosophy. I can see that Esotericism in Germany and Austria would partly overlap with Ariosophy, but it would also overlap with Anthroposophy and several other articles. I hope that you get my point that the various articles on esotericists and esoteric publications need to be made accessible through an overwiev article. Meanwhile I can bring the important parts on Rudolf Hess back into this article. Zara1709 09:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead rewrite

Currently I am in a heavy discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the term "Okkulter Nationalsozialismus"/"Nazi occultism" is appropriate, see de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung. This brought me to the conclusion that the occult part should be toned down even further in the English article. Naturally I started with the lead. Zara1709 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the very first sentence that labels occult influences on Nazism as being "of minor overall importance" - this is not in agreement with the article on the Thule Society. According to that article:

In 1919, the Thule Society's Anton Drexler, who had developed links between the Society and various extreme right workers' organizations in Munich, together with Karl Harrer established the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), or German Workers Party. Adolf Hitler joined this party in 1919 . By April 1, 1920, the DAP had been reconstituted as the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), or National Socialist German Workers Party (generally known as the "Nazi Party").

Additionally:

The Thule Society bought a local weekly newspaper, the Münchener Beobachter (Munich Observer), and changed its name to Münchener Beobachter und Sportblatt (loosely, Munich Observer and Sport Report) in an attempt to improve its circulation. The Münchener Beobachter later became the Völkischer Beobachter (People's Observer), the main Nazi newspaper. It was edited by Karl Harrer.

Based on this, the occult Thule Society was the parent body of the Nazi Party, making it of substantially more than "minor overall importance." Thule occultists forged a Nazi political movement into a coherent group, are we to assume they had only minor impact on its doctrine and temperment during its creation at their hands? I would suggest greater emphasis be placed on the role of mysticism in the genesis of Nazism. Kholtyn 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Thule Society set up a political discussion circle, which set up the German Workers' Party, which was renamed the NSDAP. So the Thule influence was at several removes. If you re-read the Thule Society article, and also the relevant section of the Ariosophy article, you will see that the Thulists had lost any effective influence by the time the party was renamed in 1920. Hitler drafted regulations specifically to exclude occult societies from any such role, and both Harrer and Drexler soon resigned (in effect, forced out).
Some leading Nazis had been to Thule meetings, but never actually joined. The big exception is Rudolf Hess, who does now seem to have been a Thule member at one stage. However, the party program copied an earlier Austrian party and not the Thule Society. Goodrick-Clarke (1985) states that even before the name change, "the DAP line was predominantly one of extreme political and social nationalism, and not based on the Aryan-racist-occult pattern..." (Occult Roots of Nazism, p.150).
You can't say the Thulists had any major input if they were sidelined by the end of the first year. "Minor overall importance" seems like a reasonably fair summing-up to me. Gnostrat 03:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political religion

This sentence: "Some other historians would prefer to deal with this topic under the term Political religion, a concept elaborated by Eric Voegelin." This is just wrong. Voegelin, Gentile, Griffin, etc. use the term "Political religion" NOT to describe the intersection of politics and religion in ideologies such as Nazism, but to describe the "Sacralization of politics" (Gentile) in which a political entity is given sacred status (such as The Nation or The Volk) and thus politics has seen the stakes raised to a cosmological struggle between good and evil, with no room for compromise. This can be related to but is not the same as Nazi or Neonazi use of religious or religious symbols or tropes. --Cberlet (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I haven't read Voegelin yet. But Goodrick-Clarke explizitely used the term "political religiosity" at least once, an d in the German Wikipedia this topic is currentle debated in a section of de:Nationalsozialismus with the title: "Der Nationalsozialismus als politische Religion". Since the term "Political religion" is much more prominent the the term "Nazi occultism", the link to Political religion has to stay in there; but if you want I can rewrite that sentence. Zara1709 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I am thinking of renaming this article: "Religious and occult aspects of Nazism". Goodrick-Clarke actually doesn't use the term "Nazi occultism" anywhere else than in Appendix E, so it would probably not be appropriate to apply this term to anything else than the "The modern mythology of Nazi occultism". I would then like to merge that section with Nazi occultism in popular culture and use the term "Nazi occultism" there, since it is only suitable to describe a modern interpretation of the historic events 1933-1945, and not suitable to describe these events (or the reasons behind them) as such. And afterwards one would have to write at least a subsection on the research of "Voegelin, Gentile, Griffin, etc. ". Zara1709 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "Religious and occult aspects of Nazism" and splitt of "Nazi occultism"

I had already previously mentioned my intention to rename the article. The modern myth of Nazi occultism clearly is notable as such, but we should really keep fact and fiction seperate. For convienience I would like to rename the article first and splitt of the part about Nazi occultism afterwards. If there are no objections concerning the new page title (which I hope), we still have to debate I it wouldn't be more appropriate to only speak of the "Myth of Nazi occultism". But since we are dealing with a (modern) myth here I would consider the later term more fitting. Zara1709 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I support renaming this page, and your title is better than the one that I had in mind. On the other hand, I am less convinced that anything else should be split off.
I cannot see any reason for continuing to use Nazi occultism as the title for anything at all. It was an improvement over Nazi mysticism but it is not really adequate now. A name this vague might refer to (1) the occult interests of a minority within the NSDAP; (2) the postwar cryptohistorical myths of occult practice within the NSDAP; or (3) the postwar esotericists who combine neo-Nazi ideology with their own occult practice. The third meaning is covered by Esoteric Nazism and Neo-völkisch movements, so that the title Nazi occultism is already a prime candidate for disambiguation. The name should redirect to a central disambiguation or summary article, probably Occultism and the far right.
Whether senses (1) and (2) need to be separated is another matter. It's actually not going to be easy to write an article about historical occult involvements (or the absence of them) in the NSDAP without dealing with the modern myths at the same time. If we are discussing the influence of the Thule Gesellschaft, we are in that very process separating the fact from a large accretion of fantasy. Similarly, the Neopaganism subsection aspires to be both a survey of some lurid imaginings (not all of them postwar) about supposed Nazi paganism, and an analysis of what the evidence indicates was and was not the case. Do these sections belong in an article about the modern myth, or in one which examines the historical reality?
The distinction between fact and myth may be razor-sharp but that doesn't mean it is helpful to discuss them in isolation from each other. IMO the subject of this article is neither the history nor the cryptohistory. The subject of this article is the differentiation between them. This separation is best performed within one article which keeps both in view, in order to address the questions and issues in an integrated way.
But if a new article were to be spun off, it should not be titled The myth of Nazi occultism. This would imply that all such claims are myth, and then why would we need an article called Religious and occult aspects of Nazism? Gnostrat (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Most likely I will not get to work on this article this week, (since I am in some kind of edit war in the article Nordic race) but I think this needs some further consideration and I won't split of the 'Nazi occultism' part yet. When the article is moved, the focus on the research of Goodrick-Clarke needs to be reduced, which is going to require a lot of work anyway. Basically one would have to add at least a little on the research of other historians. Btw, the philosopher on who it is currently hinted in the lead is Camus. There are two definite sentences on Hitler's religiosity in the preface of L'Homme révolté.Zara1709 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I have not yet found the time to continue to work on this article. But personally I don't have a problem with a proposal being listed for several month on the top of an article, this happens often enough at Wikipedia. In the meantime I consider the matter further and came to the conclusion the "religious aspects of Nazism" would be the most appropriate term: It does not only cover the debates about Nazism as political religion, Nazism and Gnosticism and Nazi millenarianism, but the term "religious" also covers "occult", so it would be kind of a Pleonasm to speak of religious and occult aspects.Zara1709 (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Having been involved in this via the Walpurgisnacht page I agree with the split, and think that the two subjects and nomenclature are appropriate. It allows the more serious discussion of the psychological aspects of the Nazi pseudo-religion to be explored without the detrius of the occult links that I've found very hard to properly cite (albeit in a non-exhaustive search). I leave it to the subject matter experts, Zara1709 and Gnostrat, but wanted to lend support for the move. Let me know if you want a hand. Regards Shamanchill (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formation of NSDAP

Hi again, Zara. I'm not exactly sure what the value is of the bracketed comment inserted into the Joscelyn Godwin quote. Although Godwin is speaking about Thule in particular, I think his point is that Hitler saw no value in paganism generally — whether Ariosophical or any other sort.

By the way, you might be interested to know that the Thulist origin of the Nazi swastika is in doubt. The Bavarian DAP may have copied the Austrian DAP (or DNSAP) which seems to have used it first. (We don't even know for sure exactly which month the Bavarian DAP was renamed to NSDAP.) It's all very unclear but I had a most interesting discussion about this at Talk:Nazism. Gnostrat (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I added the bracketed comment into the quote is that, according to Goodrick-Clarke, "the whole Thule business" wasn't Paganism, but rather occultism. 'Racist-occult complex' is a quite good definition of Ariosophy, and I wouldn't want to hint that Ariosophy has much in common with contemporary neopaganism. Neopaganism is not a coherent movement, quite the contrary actually, but a reader who is not familiar with the topic won't know that. Also, I just skipped through the chapter in Goodrick-Clarke again, he doesn't say precisely when the DAP became the NSDAP either. I managed to get some more precise information on the swastika, though. Zara1709 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Religion At Source

I really think this new material should at the very least have been posted on this talk page for in-depth discussion before being inserted into the article because on the face of it, the claims are sensationalist and unlike anything to be found in generally reliable sources. Extraordinary propositions about Nazi "solar religion" require at least a few mainstream historians to back them up. What we have are:

(1) the suspect theories of an SS prehistorian which may never have been officially adopted (and I can name a few more SS academics of whom this can be said);
(2) some unexceptionable quotes from a French academic about ancient Germanic kingship and solstice festivals that establish absolutely nothing about Nazi attitudes, which were never coherent or monolithic anyway;
(3) supposed Hitler monologues from a single recent source, corroborated only by the totally discredited book by "Rauschning", a fabricated work of Allied war propaganda that Rauschning probably didn't even write;
(4) reminiscences of Nazi-period solstice festivals which nobody denies were a regular occurrence among Germans in the Reich and elsewhere, but were essentially modern in origin and unconnected with any ancient rites.

So, what exactly does this amount to that isn't irrelevant or that we didn't already know? The Nazis were impressive with ceremonial but it didn't constitute a "religion". It was political spectacle and didn't make the participants any less Christian. If this section isn't largely a copyright violation, then it's a synthesis (interweaving sources to arrive at a novel conclusion), which violates WP:No original research. At the same time, there is something in what it says about dismissive attitudes towards Wotanism, so I'm prepared to accept that there may be short sections which could be salvaged and integrated into other parts of the article. Gnostrat (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree in central point here: There was no Nazi Religion! There were, though, quite a few people in the völkish movement who held beliefs that one could describe as occultist or neopagan. Those people would have been inclined to join the SS, so it should not be a surprise if you can find evidence of some SS-Officers celebrating a Sonnenwendfeier somewhere. I would suggest that we bring this under a section like "cultic activities of the SS", although it already deserves some consideration whether one should speak of the "cultic activities of the SS" or of the "cultic activities within the SS". That Hitler personally disregarded the whole occult/neopagan part of the "racist-occult complex" is nothing new; the only question that I'd personally consider interesting is whether he took over some Gnostic aspects. I probably should read up a little concerning the 'official' Nazi ceremonies.
Before we go into further details a important general remark. I didn't have a lot of time when I flagged the new section; but the quality of writing was above the usual contributions to WP, so I though it was copied from somewhere. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and although different people have a different knowledge about a specific topic, all editors are equal. So it doesn't really matter whether you have already written several books about the topic in real life, Geoffrey Michael Brooks; and unfortunately book titles like "Hirschfeld - The Secret Diary of a U-Boat" sound a little sensationalistic to me. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to assume that you are one of the authors who "reveals secrets" about Nazi U-boat or UFO bases in Antarctica, but basically this is the level that sensationalistic authors have reached when it comes to this topic.
From a short glimpse your books look like popular (but serious) military history. With all that post-war fascination about Nazism, Nazi U-boat diaries might sell not bad - but of course accounts of a Nazi Religion would sell even better. The great think about WP on the other hand is, that is is financed by donations. We don't really need to sell the writing. And SS-Officers celebrating pagan rituals are already interesting enough, so there is no need to push this up to a whole "Nazi religion". Zara1709 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
GMB, from the looks of your contributions I don't think you're familiar with the way Wikipedia works. You acknowledge that you have "copied up" your own "interpretations" of the authors you've quoted as sources. If you've published these interpretations in your books, in theory you might be able to cite page references to those books, which you would need to do in order to verify that your interpretations have already been published in a secondary source. Otherwise, simply weaving together an argument from your sources would fall foul of WP:No original research if it's published here.
Without knowing how your books have been received by historical scholars (favourable reviews, citations by academics) I can only go on my impressions that the argument which you have advanced could not be called mainstream. But long verbatim extracts are not the way to go in any case. A brief, concise summary of your argument or maybe a short quote would be more likely to not get deleted. Please read WP:Undue weight as well as WP:Fringe theories. But please also note: "Anyone can...pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books...and similar sources are largely not acceptable" (WP:SPS—but there are some exceptions, if you refer to the latter page). Gnostrat (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I moved some of the stuff to a section that I consider more appropriate. I don't know what to do with the rest, not yet. Rauschning isn't a reliable source, but "Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier" [8] is (afaik) (I just couldn't find the edition that was used here in the first attempt), so we could move some of this to Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs. But I don't think that we are getting around deleting some of the text. Zara1709 (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I created a section for the "Cultic activities within the SS" then. Probably later today or tomorrow I can expand the section on the Wewelsburg, which is necessary, because the Wewelsburg should be the clearest example of occult beliefs actually having an influence on Nazi leaders: A seer, calling himself "Weisthor" gets Himmler to make great plans to redesign a castle, based on weird predictions from a 19-century romantic poem. But to my knowledge this should be the strongest case that would point towards a 'Nazi Religion', if one uses 'religion' in a conventional meaning. On the other there are also cases in which Wiligut et al. were opposed by others in the SS because they were seen as too irrational and religious. So I guess I will delete the remainder of that Nazi religion section in a few days, unless someone considers any further stuff worthy of being kept.
By the way, Gnostrat, congratulations for your work on the Schwartz-Bostunitsch section. It is quite comprehensive and well-written. Zara1709 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The summary here will be good enough, although I didn't do any more than condense the biographical data from a single source. (Bostunitsch's own article has more sources in the German version.) It's good that you've found uses for some of GMB's edits. The ancient-Germanic stuff also looks scholarly enough, and pretty interesting in its own right. I wonder if they could use it on Germanic paganism? But the inherently improbable statement that Adolf was indebted to Schilling for any of his beliefs has no backup, and those Rauschning passages have to go, for definite!
I did think the table talk might be usable. I wasn't sure, because pantheism and reincarnation and "microcosm/macrocosm" are all too suspiciously countercultural for Hitler, but the Wotan speech is attested from other sources. It doesn't amount to sun-worship but, if we took the monologues as evidence, it would appear that Hitler (like Karl Marx) was a believer, neither in personal gods nor in an immortal afterlife, but in some sort of shapeless "panpsychic" life-energy — wouldn't it? Gnostrat (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed this section from the article to Talk:Nazi occultism/Nazi Religion At Source as a violation of WP:NOR (as I recall it being) --98.224.250.238 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split-off done

So, I finally sorted this out. At least halfway, there is still some rewriting necessary and the links to this article need to be looked through (some would need to be changed to link Religious aspects of Nazism instead). Zara1709 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of article

This article doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article. I feel it doesn't try to look at the sources dispassionately. Also, much of it reads like original research. Scrawlspacer (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy-editing, by, no, sorry, I am not having a debate about OR here. I have spent weeks cleaning up the old Nazi mysticism article, and now a have finally reached a point where there is one article for the actual historic debate about the religious aspects of Nazism and one for all the occultist Mumbo Jumbo. Please make sure that you understand the main point of the article: It is about a modern myth, not about real history. Of course, one cannot look at the sources "dispassionately" if this would mean to give them equal weight. Nazi Germany was not directed by any "hidden power". Those few sources that have taken a look at such claims from the actual perspective of a historian deserve much more weight than those many sources that claim it in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)