Talk:Neo-völkisch movements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from Neo-völkisch movements appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 6, 2007.
Wikipedia


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

could perhaps be merged into the larger Nazi occultism, but this article concerns post-1960s fringe movements, not Nazi Germany or Theosophy. It should be considered a sub-article of the wider topic of Nazi occultism. dab (𒁳) 11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] fascism vs. neo-fascism

I suggest we take the entire text and move it to Neo-fascism and religion where the topic is discussed in a larger context, and neopaganism that is neither fascist or neonazi can have some text inserted pointing out that most neopagans are neither fascist or neonazi. The Neo-fascism and religion page has served to defuse edit wars on the sensitve topics involved. The title is wrong anyway. It is about neofascism and neopaganism based on the cites provided. Both Gardell and Goodrick-Clarke are much more cautious in their language. --Cberlet 19:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's too long for that -- plus, it's a sub-topic of both Nazi occultism and Neo-fascism and religion. Just treat it as WP:SS sub-article. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
But the authors you cite talk about "extreme Right" and/or neofascist groups, and generally avoid the term "Nazi." In any case, the current name is just wrong. It could be "Neo-Nazism and paganism" or "Neo-Nazism and satanism" if you found the proper cites, but so long as the main scholarly cites are Gardell and Goodrick-Clarke, then either "Neo-fascism and paganism" or moving it under Neo-fascism and religion is a better solution. The current name is just not accurate. Also, there is plenty of romm on Neo-fascism and religion, especially if it helps defuse an edit war.--Cberlet 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

we can move it. As you can see, lots of terms are in boldface, and lots of redirects point here. The article could reside at any of them. I started out with an article on OJB. Then I decided the group wasn't notable enough for a standalone article and collected more context. I have no problem with moving this to fascist satanism, fascist paganism, fascism and neopaganism, or anything similar. I am not aware of any ongoing edit-war btw, so I am not sure I understand what you mean. dab (𒁳) 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Every time there is a standalone page such as Christian Fascism or Islamic Fascism, it turns into an edit war. I expect that this will be no different, but let's hope. The problem with the names you suggest is that this page is not about Nazism or Fascism, but about Neo-nazism and/or Neo-fascism. "Nazism" and "Fascism" refer to the pre-WWII varieties.--Cberlet 22:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean, you see to it there is an edit-war? I have already told you I am not opposed to a move. Strictly speaking, what you say is correct, but "fascism" in practice also happens to be applied to contemporary flavours (Ecofascism, Islamofascism...). Same for "nazism" (American Nazi Party?) We have to go with terminology as used in practice, not enforce terminology we think should be used. So, if you want to help, please compile a statistics of what terms are actually used, by whom, and referring to which groups. Goodrick-Clarke happens to have a chapter entitled "Nazi Satanism and the New Aeon" which is why I opted for the current title. dab (𒁳) 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"Neo-fascism and paganism" isn't the smartest of solutions. It is hyper-correct with the neo in neo-fascism, but neglects the neo in neo-paganism. The distinction of neo-paganism and paganism is much more fundamental than that of neo-fascism and fascism (which happens to have been held by the very same people, depending on the calendar date). Since "neo-fascism and neo-paganism" sounds plain silly, I would strongly recommend "fascist paganism". dab (𒁳) 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably stepping into a minefield here but what should concern people more than the "neo" prefix is that the groups we are talking about are overwhelmingly (neo-)Nazi (not merely "fascist"), and Satanic (whose "pagan" status will certainly be hotly disputed). Goodrick-Clarke's terminology is "Nazi Satanism" and he clearly differentiates this from "Nordic racial paganism". Even though there is some cross-fertilisation (mostly Satanist groups syncretically using pagan imagery rather than vice versa). Whereas we can perhaps agree that the groups in this article self-identify as Satanist, their "pagan" claims are controversial, utterly rejected as pretension and window-dressing not just by mainstream pagans but also by NRPs in general. The use of "paganism" of any sort (paleo or neo) in the title is therefore non-neutral.
Can I suggest that in any case we might sidestep this discussion by concentrating on where this stuff belongs. The proper home for it already exists, but not in Nazi occultism. It is clearly a sub-topic of Esoteric Nazism, which deals specifically with the post-1945 development of mystical religiosity and to which it is clearly related through the appeal to characters like Savitri Devi and Serrano. Gnostrat 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is what Nicholas Goodrick-Clark writes:
  • “This book originated as a sequal volume to The Occult Roots of Nazism in order to document the survival of occult Nazi themes in the postwar period. As work progressed, however, my perspective broadened considerably. Far from tracing faded fascist mystics and redundant ideas, I found that I was actually having to write a new history of contemporary neo-völkish groups and ideology in America and Europe.” p. 6. (emphasis added)
--Nicholas Goodrick-Clark. 2002. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU Press.
So what used to be called quite accurately "neo-Nazism" has now spread into a variety of forms of neo-fascism and "contemporary neo-völkish" groups. Look, I realize terminology is still being debated by scholars, but on Wikipedia most editors on Fascism and Nazism are adament that those terms refer only to the interwar versions.--Cberlet 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm formally proposing we merge this article to Esoteric Nazism, so if you guys support the merger, the discussion moves on to what we're going to call that one. I think the Talk page there is the best place to carry on this debate. Gnostrat 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
As long as we have a discussion about naming issues, that seems like a reasonable short-term solution.--Cberlet 15:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the problem of (neo-)fascism vs. (neo-)nazism. The article lists all these shades of flavours seperately, but obviously we need to settle for a unique title. I am reluctant to merge this into the "Esoteric Nazism" article because that would exclude all the material that doesn't directly concern Nazism proper. I think it is important to have an article collecting material on the question of Neopaganism and far-right extremism in general, without needing to bicker whether a particular ideology is fascist, nazist, neo-fascist, neo-nazist, völkisch or neo-völkisch. How about, then, moving this article to Neopagansim and the far right to include them all? We can then build a ToC structure to address the shape of it, such as it is. Neopaganism and the New Right might then also be redirected here. Another problem, analogous to fascism vs. nazism, will be that of paganism vs. satanism. Few pagans identify as satanists, and few satanists identify as pagans, but this topic is precisely where the two terms overlap. Perhaps "occultism" rather than "neopaganism"? The Arktion Federation self-identifies as "Pagan Church", but is counted among satanist grouplets by our sources. It's a question of titling, the subject matter remains the same. dab (𒁳) 08:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would not be averse to calling it Occultism and the far right, as my main point is that the "pagan" label is highly contentious. My case for merging with Esoteric Nazism is that, essentially, this article is an overview of Nazi satanism. Several of the groups featured here might eventually end up with their own articles but the place for a short overview is within a larger article which supplies broader context. (It also reduces our naming problems from two titles to one title.) I have in mind to expand Esoteric Nazism and organise it around Goodrick-Clarke's chapters so there will be substantial overlap between the two. In fact, I would suggest that Esoteric Nazism is your article on "occultism and the far right", in embryo.
I take the point which you have both raised that Goodrick-Clarke's book covers more than the strictly Nazi groups. However, he isn't suggesting that his term Esoteric Nazism is any the less appropriate for the ones which it does apply to. Not everything in Black Sun should be the subject of an article on far-right esotericism. Christian Identity shouldn't, and "Nordic racial paganism" generally shouldn't, for much the same reasons: these groups don't fit the "esoteric" description, and/or don't consistently self-identify as Nazi or even far-right. We could describe them more broadly as volkisch or neo-volkisch but we should be aware that this is not necessarily either a far-right or an esoteric categorisation. Neither do Integral-Traditionalism or the "New Right" belong (except as side-influences) when you consider, for example, that Benoist and his followers lament the terminological confusion which prevents them being known as the "New Left". If you exclude these various groups from the article which you propose, what are you left with? Precisely what Goodrick-Clarke calls Esoteric Nazism! (And yes, I think we can probably stretch the concept a little to fit the likes of Evola and Parvulesco.)
However, my thoughts on this are not set in stone. There are several options. All that I'm saying is that part of the article which you visualise has already begun to take shape at Esoteric Nazism, with the present article being another possible nucleus. Merge the two and you have an article that is overwhelmingly about post-WW2 (neo-)Nazi occultism and we can then go on from there to debate whether, and how far, to extend it into areas of far-right occultism that are not so clearly classifiable as Nazi. It doesn't matter so much whether you call the merged article Esoteric Nazism or something a bit broader. As long as it's not got "paganism" in the title. Gnostrat 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move?

Well, how about renaming this page Occultism and the far right for starters, putting in some more material on Nordic racial paganism and far-right Satanism, move some of the material directly related to Esoteric Nazism to that page, leaving a brief summary paragraph here that sends folks to Esoteric Nazism as the main page. Then we sit back and think about the remaining naming issues. There are already pages on Neo-Nazism, the Traditionalist School, the Nouvelle Droite, History of far right movements in France, and Integralism. Fascist paganism redirects here; and Integral Traditionalism redirects to Traditionalist School.--Cberlet 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Occultism and the far right" would be a huge umbrella article, also including in its scope all of (pre-WWII) Nazi occultism. I would prefer to restrict our focus to current (1970s to present) neopagan and 'para-neopagan' movements (which very much includes both the Nouvelle Droite and Norwegian Black Metal). dab (𒁳) 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Or "Occultism and the far right" could be a brief introductory entry that sent people off to the various main article subpages. What would you suggest for a title for an entry on current (1970s to present) neopagan and 'para-neopagan' movements?" Where would you put material on post WWII far right groups that were/are Satanist but not neonazi?--Cberlet 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
How about Contemporary far-right occultism?--Cberlet 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

let's see -- this is a difficult topic already for reasons of terminology (occultists, unsurprisingly, aren't very fond of crystal clear "calling a spade a spade"). So perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to aim at a broad sweeping uber-article like "Occultism and the far right" in summary style. It will need to address the following sub-topics:

the interesting thing is how extremes touch. The "neo-tribalism" advocated by "fascist pagans" is only shades away from the neo-paganism of Anarcho-primitivism, and the völkisch Islamophobia of Koenraad Logghe is informed by the same ideology as the endorsement of Islamic terrorism by David Myatt. A difficult topic, and we should take it slow and carefully (there is no deadline). dab (𒁳) 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology can be a nightmare, especially when writing for publication. Here is a ercent effor by me in my non-Wiki persona Chip Berlet, and a co-writer Stanislav Vysotsky: Overview Of U.S. White Supremacist Groups. I like the above outline. The point, of course, is to help eraders find material. I think what you suggest is a good start.--Cberlet 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you people have gone off on a trajectory quite different from either the merger or the original idea of this article. At this point I have a couple of observations to throw in:
(1) Move everything that relates directly to Esoteric Nazism into that article and there will be next to nothing left here. So if you want to retain this one as a separate "uber-article" it would be a very summary style. But, that's close to my merge proposal. Let's move it across, and then this article could be written up more or less as you suggest.
(2) Having said that, I now realise that Occultism and the far right is an inadequate name and concept for what you seem to have in mind. Going back to one of my reasons for preferring "Esoteric Nazism" in the first place: these movements have a strong religio-mystical component, which is far more explicit than in Third Reich Nazism. "Occultism" is too narrow a word to cover it. ("Esotericism" perhaps better, because it is often used in a religio-mystical context where "occultism" might be deemed inappropriate?)
What you are suggesting might indeed be just too broad and amorphous. I can't really see either esotericism or radical-right politics as the overarching idea or unifying theme that would tie all these disparate phenomena together. As I commented above, Christian Identity doesn't match the criteria for esotericism, and the Nordic neopagan groups wouldn't necessarily identify as either esoteric or far-right. That also goes for Nouvelle Droite paganism, in spite of the name. None of this really fits the mould of far-right esotericism.
I'm not sure what the solution would look like, but I'm wondering whether Goodrick-Clarke's concept of a "new völkisch" or "neo-völkisch" movement might be pressed into service here as an umbrella concept, at least for the postwar groups. It's his term (p.6) so we wouldn't be inventing a neologism. It would transcend nazi/neonazi/fascist/neofascist quibbles, as well as issues of esoteric versus non-esoteric. It would even — let us be clear about this — transcend political categorisations of Left and Right, as the original völkisch movement did. What do people think about Neo-völkisch movement as a title? Gnostrat 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy with Neo-völkisch movements (plural). My main desire is to find a home for an overview page with an accurate title that will look at at pagan, occultic, esoteric, and Satanist racial nationalist groups with metaphysical belief systems like White Order of Thule, or 14 Words Press, etc. Mostly White supremacist. I call them racist, but that's my POV. We could include brief mentions of some of the groups that already have entries, and direct folks to the Main page I got into this when I was looking at a way to better provide internal links to a range of related articles, and realized there was not enough cross linking. If we come up with a name, I can change the subheading and links in Neo-fascism and religion. But some of the non-neonazi Satanism stuff would go here.--Cberlet 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
we are clearly struggling with the fact that this field is "understudied", and consequently lacking established terminology. I appreciate that "Esoteric Nazism" is trying to do something very similar to this article. We can merge the two, but I doubt "Nazism" is appropriate in the title, since it will force us to drop all topics not unambiguously "Nazi" in ideology for fear of "unsourced allegations". While Cberlet is focussing more on the fascism vs. nazism question (and neo- derivatives thereof), my angle is more from the esotericism vs. occultism / neopaganism vs. satanism side of things. That there are at least two sliding scales involved here makes it very difficult to triangulate. Varg Vikernes is an instructive case: "The public perceived Vikernes was motivated by Satanism ... However, Vikernes has made clear that he was motivated by pagan ideology. ... Vikernes embraces a 'modern scientific worldview resting on a foundation made up of the Pagan values and ideals ...' denouncing theism as 'mental enslavement' fit only for 'inferior races'." -- so, is he a Satanist, a Pagan or a materialist "Traditionalist"? Clearly, the question is secondary, and individuals embracing the ideology under discussion here can switch from satanism to paganism to atheism without feeling they are re-aligning their loyalties. dab (𒁳) 11:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dbachmann on this issue. I would prefer to have an umbrella page and then pages on specific sub-topics with a more precise focus. There is no reason an umbrella page needs to be lengthy, but I am concerned that some of this material just does not belong under the title "Esoteric Nazism."--Cberlet 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. First, we probably need a third category besides straightforward Satanism and völkisch neopaganism. Most of the Satanist groups in Black Sun look like they would fall readily into this third category: they have taken on neopagan elements without ceasing to be Satanist. I don't think that understanding this phenomenon is helped, though, by simply lumping Nazi neopaganism with Nazi Satanism into some barely-differentiated uber-concept. We need more discrimination, not less — and unfortunately, some new terminology to go with it (but I have no idea what terminology would apply).
Secondly, we might either (1) merge this article with Esoteric Nazism and rename the whole thing to Neo-völkisch movements, which would be similarly based on Goodrick-Clarke's definitions but using his broader terminology; or (2) rename this page to Neo-völkisch movements to serve as the umbrella page but keep a separate Esoteric Nazism page for those characters and groups which explicitly identify in that way. In the latter option, the Nazi Satanism stuff would go into Esoteric Nazism which in turn would have a summary here, along with other summaries for Christian Identity, Nouvelle Droite, Germanic neopaganism and so forth. If both of you are set on having an umbrella page, it looks like we're headed for option (2). Gnostrat (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
sounds like a plan. I agree, of course, that we need more discrimination, not less. But we need to implement such discrimination within the structure of a single article, not keep a bunch of isolated stubs, fascist satanism, fascist paganism, Nazi satanism, Nazi paganism, all separately listing a few fringe grouplets. Instead, we need a single, long article making all the relevant distinctions and comparisons. dab (𒁳) 11:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's go with option 2 for now. Then see what it looks like. I would like to hold open a discussion on the possibility of making Esoteric Nazism a disambiguation page linking to Nazi occultism and a renamed page holding the current contents of Esoteric Nazism, but what to call it has me stumped. Thanks for a thoughtful discussion, you both are bery well read on these subjects. It is a delight to work with you.--Cberlet (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and ditto to you both. No doubt we will be continuing the discussion about Esoteric Nazism back over there. I'll post a few thoughts there before very long. Gnostrat (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myatt's Denial and NPOV

I've added references re Myatt's denial of involvement to give a NPOV, and corrected the mistakes re his middle name and his DoB. This brings it into line with the ONA article here and the article on Myatt.Coolmoon (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazism, Satanism, Paganism

Paganism and Satanism are two COMPLETELY different entities. One being a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses (Paganism), and the other being either atheistic (ie. LaVeyanism), or based upon Judeo-Christian concepts (ie. Luciferianism). The fact that there are "Pagan" Nazi groups out there is a bunch of crap, but thats just POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanderVK (talk • contribs) 05:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism and neopaganism

"countercultural fascism" or "avant-garde fascism" appears to be the US term for this complex.

Find sources: avant-garde fascism — news, books, scholar
Find sources: counter culture fascism — news, books, scholar

dab (𒁳) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to bloodofox (talk · contribs)'s persistent attempts at sanitization, consistently removing one side of the argument based on "dubious sources" but not the other. See also Talk:Germanic Neopaganism, Talk:Michael Moynihan (journalist), Talk:Tyr (journal). With this article, we finally have a central location to address these questions up front and on-topic. By all means, we should report on both (or all) sides of the divide, and apply reasonable and balanced criteria for the "reliability" of a source. I obviously agree that there is much room for debate, and I would welcome third opinions on bloodofox's approach. I argue that Michael J. Murray's and Michael Moynihan's double membership in Asatru and Nazi and/or Satanist organizations makes them patently on-topic if not textbook examples for this article. Neither Moynihan's nor Murray's involvement with Asatru, Nazism and Satanism are at all disputed. To discount the source given as "dubious" is clearly disingenious. We clearly cannot expect the various groups and "think tanks" associated with these people to be listed on the pages of Nature or Physics Today: WP:RS calls for sources with sufficient notability relative to the topic under discussion. An article by Kevin Coogan in Hitlist can hardly be dismissed as "dubious" in this context. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While this is a controversial matter, the work of Kevin Coogan in this topical area is not dubious, but a legitimate analysis.--Cberlet (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that you describe my requests for sources on controversial and potentially libelous matters as "sanitization". While I am most definitely no fan of movements advocating fascism, totalitarianism or censorship, I am no fan of misinformation either, especially when living people are involved. I've looked up some of these claims and this summary essentially equates to some previously mentioned fact mixed with some very funny wives tales in it. I'd like to point some out:

  1. It claims Moynihan is "according to some reports" a blood drinker. So, where are these reports on that Moynihan is a vampire?
  2. It claims that Moynihan was "suspected" of being responsible for Arson. What is the source for this? This is a serious claim.
  3. What is the source that the Asatru Alliance is a "racialist" group and that Moynihan is the "head" of it? Here is their website: [1]
  4. What is the issue and year for Seconds where the quote: "I think basically I am a Fascist, because I do think there is a hierarchy, and there are people that are stupid, and there are people that are clever" comes from? Seems we have a more modern counter-source that states that Moynihan would no longer be involved in such politics: [2] where he's recorded as adorning "..an envelope full of recordings with sprightly "TEACH TOLERANCE" stickers."

These are examples of a poorly written and researched source; it has very questionable claims and it fails the reliable source test for living people, which requires extreme carefulness. Related, where is Moynihan involved in a "Nazi" organization that you claim above? I don't see this anyway. Are you talking about the Asatru Alliance? Is this your opinion, some else's opinion or do they self-label as Nazis or Fascists? Are you saying Nazi organization because of former associations due to Valgard Murray apparently once having some involvement with a Nazi organization? These are all important basic questions to anything we're dealing with, no matter if we're talking about a television shower or suspected fascists. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Mike Murray, it is evidently incorrect to describe him as proposing some Nazi/Asatru combination or as holding "double membership in Asatru and Nazi and/or Satanist organizations". I think we would agree that Goodrick-Clarke is a notable and generally reliable source (and where he is biased, he tends to be biased against his subjects). Well, here's what Black Sun (p.262) has to say:
"Mike Murray had been a young member of Rockwell's American Nazi Party, then joined Christensen's Odinist Fellowship, eventually serving as vice-president, before coming to the ritual spirituality of the AFA [Asatru Free Assembly]. His Asatru Alliance has disowned racial affiliations..."
This should be clear enough. The words that matter are the ones I've bolded. Murray's involvement with Asatru and Nazism at the same time can certainly be disputed. That is, unless we hold the former beliefs of ex-Nazis to be an indication of their current proclivities now and forevermore. Gnostrat (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The unifying characteristic of Murray and Moynihan is that they both were Neo-Nazis in their youth, and moved on to racial mysticist paganism at a more mature age, plus that they remain active in catering to Neo-Nazi adherents / fans. Regarding bloodofox: you display a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia fundamentals: You are criticizing a source (Coogan) as if it were an edit by a Wikipedian. We can agree that Coogan is a "critic" of Moynihan. He is not a neutral, but still an independent and notable source that can be quoted as a critic. If you want to deconstruct Coogan's criticism, you'll need to provide another source doing that. Dundas is, in fact, such a counter-source, and it can very well be referenced, but it cannot be treated as somehow "invalidating" Coogan. It is simply expressive of the opposing viewpoint sympathetic to Moynihan. Nothing speaks against recording this as well, but you need to stop trying to suppress sources conflicting with your own viewpoint. The very source you are citing (Dundas) reinforces the point that Moynihan is being criticized along the lines I have tried to discuss against your opposition. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If these are the "Wikipedia fundamentals by Dbachmann", perhaps, but we're supposed to be operating on policy. That would dictate that this source here , Coogan, has some serious issues and you are referring to it heavily. I would like to draw attention to:

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these.

..at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. With this very important policy in mind, I suggest we look at Coogan's sources, which are basically all interviews with Moynihan as it's obvious by Coogan's fact checking that we are not dealing with a reputable source on a living person and these claims are potentially libelous. We must compare them to contradicting sources. Coogan is also contradicted later by other source I've supplied above. Dab seems set on re-inserting "Nazi skinhead" and "White power" skinhead before the word skinhead here despite the fact that Coogan's source for this is an interview where Moynihan doesn't state this at all, instead stating that he was simply a "skinhead" and, really, that is all we know. Someone is making their own judgment here and we can't pass it along as fact, as Dab is attempting to to do. If we are going to use the terms "Nazi Skinhead" or "white power skinhead," we are going to need to state that Coogan stated this as this in itself is libelous.
Similarly, anywhere Dab has placed the terms "White Power," "Neo-Fascist" or "Fascist" as a descriptor for Moynihan without further explanation needs the same treatment, just as his characterizations of Myatt required a disclaimer put next to it stating that Myatt denied that he was a Satanist on this page - a fact Dab conveniently left out and another user added after him. This essentially breaks down to yet another example of Dab inserting his own opinion into numerous pages as if it were unchallenged fact as he did with the Thor Steinar (placing their name next to various incidents of fascist symbolism in brackets on numerous articles , despite their numerous denials) and Tyr (journal) which he repeatedly linked with the descriptor of "Neo-Fascist" without any source even claiming this and a big Anti-Fascist disclaimer in the 2nd issue. Dab seems to think he can go around issuing these terms as descriptors all over Wikipedia as if they were unchallenged self-descriptors for these subjects and he has done it numerous times. Despite his attempts at characterizing me as "sanitizing" or "removing critical information," Dab knows this very well, is an administrator and nobody should have to remind him of these elements of retaining neutrality on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
this representation is utterly disingenious. Moynihan has publicly embraced the "fascist" label conferred upon him by critics as well as fans, in the 1990s, and he hasn't "denied" being a fascist later, he has just "dismissed" the term as too crude to catch the full brilliance of his thought. He applies his term "Radical Traditionalism" to the ideology of Julius Evola. Evola is known as a fascist, and duly so categorized on Wikipedia. If you object to the Evola=fascist association, try to build a case for this astounding revisionism on Talk:Julius Evola. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I deleted the mention of the word skinhead altogether, because if it can't be confirmed that he was a political skinhead (such as a white power skinhead, a supporter of Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice or a Redskin), then it's just irrelevant trivia, just as if he was a member of some other subculture. It is way more more relevant that he was a musician and a journalist.Spylab (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I would like to draw your attention to: Michael_Moynihan_(journalist) which I recently rewrote from scratch, researched every aspect of extensively and sourced it very heavily. Stating that Moynihan a "proponents of combining "folkish" Asatru with neo-fascism or neo-Nazism" is ridiculous, as you can see there. I would normally remove it immediately per policy and just explain it here but there seems to be some resistance to that for some reason, so please take a look for yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I frankly fail to see why it is "ridiculous" to point to Moynihan as a typical case of "neo-fascism meets Asatru" here. I agree we don't need to label him a Nazi just because he hung out with Nazi skinheads as a teenager, this is a detail that can be left to his bio article, or indeed just dropped for all I care. The claim that MM was a Nazi skin is made by W.H. Kennedy[3] (the fact that the article is now hosted on geocities is irrelevant. It was published online in 2002, and revised 2004, by WHK[4], and its notability is entirely dependent on that of WHK, not on the host of some random person mirroring the article), and I never attempted to present it as anything other than one example of a critic calling Moynihan a fascist. Such criticism isn't exactly far-fetched, and there is no reason to insist on quoting Kennedy's in particular. I presented numerous sources identifying MM as a fascist. There are even newspaper reports on "antifa" protests in San Francisco preventing him from performing in 1998. I do not claim these sources are "neutral": they qualify as allegations, which MM partly confirms and partly denies. Your attempts to remove sources biased one way and keep sources biased another are in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
What "source" are you talking about? You can state a source claimed it but you can't pass it off as fact without explaining that, indeed, a source passed it off and, no, Moynihan doesn't back it up. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
sure. As I have already said, I don't think the "Nazi skin" factoid (or allegatioid as the case may be) is at all relevant to this article. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently the article states:

In the United States, there are several proponents of combining "folkish" Asatru with neo-fascism or neo-Nazism. These include Michael J. Murray of Ásatrú Alliance (and former American Nazi Party member)[16] and musician/journalist Michael Moynihan (who has turned to "metagenetic"[17] Asatru in the mid-1990s,[18] former member of the Abraxas Foundation).[19] Moynihan and his former associate Boyd Rice were adherents of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan.

Outside of the mention of Murray below as examined below, there are problems with this:
  1. First of all, what does the Abraxas Foundation have to do with anything? It was a "group" founded around the subject of Charles Manson that basically equated to Boyd Rice. While it may sound spooky, I fail to see that it is relevant here.
  2. How is Moynihan a proponent of combining Asatru with Neo-fascism and/or Neo-Nazism? Is this because Julius Evola is an influence of Moynihan and he has some fondness for McNallen's wacky "metagenetics"? I fail to see how either of these charges equates to Neo-Nazism and calling it "Neo-Fascism" because he's fond of Evola's new age books should also be brought into question. You need to state exactly why so it can be examined as being NPOV or not.
  3. I am not sure why the Church of Satan is mentioned here either.. ? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asatru Alliance

[5] -- I would be interested in one such reliable source: if it says "Murray left Nazism 30+ years ago", we can certainly repeat that, but just striking all mention of Murray or the AA won't do. "Folkish Asatru" is the very topic of the "paganism" section of this article, and the AA epitomizes folkish Asatru in the US -- even the (self-designation!) "folkish" imitates the völkisch of pre-WWII fascism. (if Murray is "working to keep out of Asatru" neo-völkisch ideology, I am afraid he must not have been very successful. Anyway, our source that Murray was a member of the American Nazi Party is J. Kaplan (1997)[6], and as far as I can see, this isn't even disputed, so I fail to see anything "defamatory" in the statement. dab (𒁳) 18:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dab, in the future, if you add this back in, you need to state that the Kaplan has alleged this and not that it is simple fact. Also, the source says he was "involved" in the American Nazi Party in the 60s, so that's what you need to be stated as being alleged, not that he was "a former member". This is exactly what the SPLC source states regarding Murray:

The key successor organization was the Asatrú Alliance, started after the Free Assembly's demise by Arizonan Michael J. Murray (whose "magical" Asatrú name is "Valgard Murray").

As a teenager, Kaplan writes, Murray had been involved in the American Nazi Party, signing his letters "Heil Hitler!" into the late 1960s. In the 1970s, Murray became vice president of Christensen's Odinist Fellowship.

But by 1988, a year after he started the Asatrú Alliance, Murray found himself facing the same political pressures that McNallen had earlier. When a California neo-Nazi published a list of Murray's followers, implying that they agreed with the Californian's racial views, Murray wrote him an open letter saying the Alliance "does not advocate any type of political or racial extremist views or affiliations."

We also need to track down the SPLC's source to see exactly what they said. Obviously, rumors fly largely unchallenged and freely in this territory and they must not be propagated here. Love the SPLC's fixation on boar hunting and lack of disclaimer regarding Germanic Neopagan groups that have no links to Neo-Nazism. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

sure, Murray was a Nazi until the late 1960s, and an emphatically unpolitical "folkish" pagan from the late 1980s (in 1999 ranting against the "Meggiddo report" how dare they suggest that Asatru had ever anything to do with Neo-Nazism). This is undisputed afaics, and I never meant to claim anything else. dab (𒁳) 18:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Berger (2005, p. 45) has more:

Gardell notes that older racists groups are Christian and patriotic. The newer groups are composed of young men who have rejected the Christianity and patriotism of their elders because they view both Christianity and the United States government as responsible for what they see as the evils of a liberal society. These young white supremacists are instead embracing Odinism. Jeffrey Kaplan (1997) similarly notes the growing interest in one form of Odinism among members of the radical racist right-wing movements. The aggregation of both racist and nonracist groups under the heading of Odinist has confused the discussion about the threat of Neo-Nazi Pagans[7]

all of this is perfectly undisputed, and spot-on-topic in this article. Berger goes on to quote Murray (1999) "vilify ... outright lies ... what next, will we be fed to lions" --- I cannot but wonder if the AA couldn't have found another member without a personal past as an ardent Neo-Nazi to submit their outrage over being associated with Neo-Nazis... dab (𒁳) 19:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the full Murray quote? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
click on the link. I am tired of jumping at your every whim when you aren't even prepared to read the references I shove in your face. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The link does not feature the full quote. I am not sure why you mention this quote as I don't see anything controversial about it considering the report they're referring to. Since you found it necessary to post an abridged version, here is what it says:

Out nation's founders felt so strongly about our government's inalienable right to religious freedom without fear of government harassment that they placed it first in the Bill of Rights at the top of the First Amendment. . . . Americans who support the Bill of Rights must question their government's efforts to vilify, demonize and even destroy a law aiding religious minority through what amounts to a smear campaign based on gross misrepresentation and outright lies . . . What next, will we be fed to the lions"

This apparently resulted in a correction by the SPLC. Again, not exactly "Neo-Nazi" or even remotely controversial stuff here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
your point being? I wasn't implying the Murray quote was anything else than a slightly humorous rant. Why humorous? Because a government report that "such and such symbols are being used by far right extremists" are attacked as "vilification" and "outright lies" and compared to the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire when all that the report failed to state was that the same symbols are also used by unpolitical groups -- and a disclaimer to the effect was duly added in the light of these protests. Hardly reminiscent of Torquemada or Decius. And funny because the "lady doth protest too much", rather -- the most noise about the report was being made by precisely those Germanic neopagans who actually were knee-deep in Neo-Nazi connections, not by the universalist hippies. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Jeffrey Kaplan book clearly states that Mike Murray left Neo-Nazism in the late 1970s and also points out that he later took a stand against Nazi attempts to link themselves to the Asatru Alliance when confronted by a group called "New Dawn", and again during the Edred Thorrsson/Temple of Set controversy. He was clearly a member of the American Nazi Party 40 years ago. It is misleading to imply, as the current wording does, that he is an advocate of mixing Nazism and Asatru today. 70.108.114.120 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I wonder why this is not made more clear. Such statements are required to per Wikipedia:Biography_of_living_persons as not telling the full story equates to libel and can cause people serious issues. I specifically would like to draw attention to Wikipedia:Biography_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. I have tried to do this so we can discuss it here first as it states to do here but Dbachmann, who is an administrator, calls it "blanking" and reverts it. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the precise wording can be improved. Nevertheless, it is entirely inappropriate to speak of "unsourced or poorly sourced material". The material is fully sourced. If you feel it isn't presented neutrally, try to put it into perspective by adding more sourced material. You cannot invoke WP:BIO to prevent the discussion of fully sourced criticism of a person, living or dead. At present, I find I have to do all the actual work, while bloodofox keeps sabotaging progress by disingenous one-sided appeals to "policy". boo, I don't have a problem if you are an adherent of neo-völkisch paganism. Really, it's fine. You are also free to work towards exposing the virtues or benefits of these ideologies, I don't doubt that subjectively, they are being embraced with best intentions by adherents. What you will not do, however, is obfuscate coverage of their history and associations. I also object to your continuous allegations of "smearing" in the context of the "fascism" label. I fail to see how "fascism" is any more inherently "libelous" than "folkish". Both are terms for identical or near-identical ideologies, self-applied by adherents in the early and late 20th century, respectively. To imply that association of one with the other is "libelous" one way or the other would need attribution to a reliable source. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

since when is folkism -- as understood and defined by some Odinist and Asatru groups - 'identical or near-identical' to fascism? Fascism is a totalitarian regime and mindset/outlook to establish one ('all inside the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state' as Mussolini stated), and folkism -- in the provided meaning -- is a belief, that -- using the language of Asatru Folk ASsembly, evben presented on the wikipedia page about them -- 'spirituality and ancestral heritage are related'. And it -- to quote the further -- 'has nothing to do with notions of superiority. Asatru is not an excuse to look down on, much less to hate, members of any other race. On the contrary, we recognize the uniqueness and the value of all the different pieces that make up the human mosaic'. Where do you, dab, find "fascism" here?
Also, you question someone's views because of the lack of 'sources', while in another of your statements you base on your direct experience. Can you cite any publication that supports it?
Furthermore, are we here discussing about folkism as ideology or folkism as practice of the selected ""folkist"" neopagan groups?? If the first -- the attitude that's necessary to explain the meaning of the term per se -- then Unwilling to deny your "direct experience", I will say that it simply does not belong here.
To be precise, I am NOT folkish myself, but I find it repulsive to compare this quite benign ideology to one of the biggest totalitarian nightmares of XXth century.
Last, but not least, everyone should chill out a bit. It's nice that you've later noticed that folkish isn't equal to neo-voelkisch. I think that nobody here questions that there ARE people who are both neo-pagan and neo-nazi or that there are people who abuse3 neo-paganism for the stinking neo-nazi agenda, or that they build some kind of incoherent, syncretic ideology made up from parts that don't fit to each other and don't go together. Also, nobody here claims that Else Christensen didn't have racist views, because she did and she was proud of it, until she has totally given up this mindset. The biggest question is whether folkish can equate with neo-fascist and it's not only my own opinion that it can't. Therefore, at least the disambiguation article for the word 'folkish' should be expanded to contain the term as it is used by some Aatru and Odinist groups. Otherwise, I'm sure that many people can get upset by finding their a bit ethnocentric but tolerant views about religion linked with fascism. And some of them may even file a lawsuit against Wikipedia (it has already happened, at least in Poland) Critto (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


To have the more complete and more honest picture, you should quote what they say about their beliefs, and not only what some scholars (with all due respect) say about them. In that sense, folkism is -- using the language of Asatru Folk Assembly, even presented on the Wikipedia's page about this organization - "a belief, that


I am not nor have I ever said that I am an "adherent of neo-völkisch paganism" and I suggest that you do not attempt to cloud the issue by assuming that I am. I am not trying to prevent the discussion of anything here, nor have I ever stated that. I point to these specific links because you are fond of adding contentious, questionable and potentially libelous material without attributing it to a source directly as their claim and instead inserting it as fact. Obviously, this causes a lot of problems. I do not like working like this and I don't see why this can't be a civil, constructive exchange. Policy says that you can't state a "conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)" as fact and that it must always be attributed, just as example. You must be very careful when calling living people fascists or Nazis and if someone questions it you need to remove it and talk to them about it on the talk page until the issue is resolved. This is plainly stated. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, how on Earth are Moynihan and Murray "proponents of combining "folkish" Asatru with neo-fascism or neo-Nazism"? I am particularly curious about the latter. I have questioned this before - as another user here does - but you have not yet responded. It seems to me that you are drawing a link between the perhaps poorly-chosen term "folkish" - which essentially means that the groups that use the descriptor prefer people who have Germanic ancestry to practice Germanic Neopaganism as a sort of inherited religion, not exactly unique in the world - but also that there is a necessary connection to fascism in the historical Völkisch movements, which does not seem to be the case. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Dbachmann has provided cites for the text being disputed. If critics of this text cannot provide cited text to refute it, it is not a policy violation. And in any case, the cited text refuting the original text would merely be added to the entry. It would not force the crtiical text to be removed. Wihtout cited text, this deiscussion does not serve the purpose of writing an encyclopedia.--Cberlet (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no source for Moynihan and Murray as "proponents of combining "folkish" Asatru with neo-fascism or neo-Nazism". I'm still interested in exactly how this has been deduced. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
then you must not have read Moynihan's article, I take it? He is a member in a folkish Asatru "kindred". And the "anti-fascist watchdog community" is crying bloody murder over him, so it is hardly the case that there are "no sources" linking him to fascism. dab (𒁳) 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I said there was no source for the statement. How "folkish" equates to "Neo-Nazism" or "Neo-Fascism" is also mysterious. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is going in circles. You misrepresent what the entry text states. The text as written is well cited. I am sorry you disagree, but unless you find cites to back up your personal views, it has no place on Wikipedia--Cberlet (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the text has been altered since this. However, do keep in mind that I was the one asking for citations here and the section that was uncited that I requested a citation for has since been reworded to where it no longer requires a citation and not by myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal on again

I've continued the discussion with Cberlet on what would be the most appropriate name for Esoteric Nazism and have suggested that the title is so poorly-defined that it would be better redirected to this article. An explanation of the term could be inserted into the lead section here, and the present content of Esoteric Nazism (or most of it) could be moved to Esoteric Hitlerism. Cberlet hasn't replied yet and it also looks like we will need an admin to perform the move on account of the edit histories, so now might be a good time to come to a decision about whether, alternatively, we want to simply go with my original Plan A and merge the stuff into N.v.m. after all.

I have no strong inclination either way. In favour of merger, I would observe that we do seem, on the face of it, to have half an article there and half of one here; that the account of Esoteric Hitlerism there is of quite a modest length, and we will at some point have to write a summary of the subject for the present article anyway; and that the Satanism and neopaganism sections of that article overlap this one. Against, I would observe that N.v.m. has already demonstrated its potential for attracting imbroglios, and my experience has been that coherent articles are often best worked up in the quiet and sheltered backwaters of Wikipedia!

Anyway, guys, I'm putting the merge tags back on so people will notice. A happy Christmas to some of you, and a happy Yule to the rest. Gnostrat (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we postpone this question for some time? The controversy surrounding the issue seems to have cooled down a little, and it might get quiet enough here, anyway. I agree that we need a definition of Esoteric Nazism, but I would prefer, if we could check whether Goodrick-Clarke has such one first. Currently I am of the opinion that one could thread Nazi paganism and Nazi Satanism in a different article; if I had created that article I would have named it "Nordic Racial Paganism" though, that is the title of chapter 12 of Black Sun, where Goodrick-Clarke looks at such people as Vikernes, e.g., if I remember correctly. As with many other books, I don't have it available at the moment. In February I should be settled back in Germany, and have the time to do some library work. Then I can see what there is on definitions. Zara1709 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no hurry. I rather suspect that Cberlet will not want to leave Esoteric Nazism at its current title, but we can defer a decision until February at the earliest. Would you prefer to remove the templates until then, or leave them up and see what response comes in the meantime?
Just in reply to the above, I've come around to realising that some of the terms and definitions we have been working with are not adequate. Goodrick-Clarke has no formal definition of "Esoteric Nazism". Really. It is possible to infer that he means it as an umbrella term to include some of the post-1945 currents, but it isn't possible to say exactly what is included or why. The definition that we have been using on Esoteric Nazism is in fact Goodrick-Clarke's description for the broader phenomenon which he actually calls "Neo-völkisch movements". The latter is quite well-defined and inclusive, whereas Esoteric Nazism logically can't cover all of the movements in his book (several of which are not esoteric, or do not identify as Nazi, or are internally divided between Nazis and non-Nazis).
Something has to give. Either the Esoteric Nazism article is co-extensive with "Neo-völkisch movements", or it should narrow its focus to Esoteric Hitlerism. If we can make that choice at some point, we will have clarified our terms of reference and resolved any naming issues at the same time.
"Nordic racial paganism" is a fairly narrow subset of these movements and G-C evidently doesn't intend it to cover Nazi Satanism as such. There is some overlap, because Nazi Satanists are syncretic, but the syncretism is one-way. The purist Nordic-racialist groups don't touch Satanism (or Nazism, for that matter). On the other hand, Nazi Satanists start from a critique of classical Satanism and proceed to mix in the Nordic stuff. The difference is important, and I don't think that these two should be brought together in one article unless it is to be a very broad survey of these currents more generally. Esoteric Hitlerism (Savitri, Serrano), Evola and others have also influenced Nazi Satanism, and I cannot see any grounds why a grouping of the latter with the Nordic neopagans should receive a special emphasis.
These movements as a whole are very diverse but also mutually influencing. They may be Christian, pagan or Satanist, they are not all esoteric, and they don't all identify as Nazi. Which is why, so far, we seem to have a consensus for a comprehensive summary article with the broadest possible terms and definitions. Anyway, we can take our time and think it through. Gnostrat (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not correct

The folkish movement has made itself distinct from the Nazi influence neo-volkish movement.

Folkish movement has absolutely no relation to fascism or Nazis. Neo-Paganism has nothing to do at all with Fascism and in fact opposes it! Odinist are against central authority. The folkish movement does not teach hate or racial conflict or Nazi concepts. What it does teach is that the white race should be treated equally to any other race and offers an outlet for those struggling with white identity. Just as any other race has a culture and history that is exclusively theirs the neo-pagan movement seeks to restore that status to whites by offering them something from their own heritage that is not tainted by multicultural undertones of Christianity or other populist culture. It is no different than a Native American embracing his indigenous tribal philosophies or a person of African descent connecting with his heritage based philosophy or an Asian etc. etc.

Only if a black man says he is proud of his race and his heritage or an Asian or any non white and states that he wants to connect with his heritage and people then he is considered a great person if a white man says the same thing he is a fascist and neo-nazi and all this. Most folkist oppose the Nazis and are strongly against any central authority much more so fascism.

Hitler himself locked folkish Asatruar (wotanist) in death camps! Really get your facts straight and do a little research before you write an article on something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.107.126 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"folkish" does not equal "neo-völkisch". At best, "Nordic racial neopaganism" is a true subset of "folkish neopaganism". But in many if not most cases, "folkish" is an euphemism for a racialist ideology. Not necessarily Nazism, but updated (Nouvelle Droite style) versions of Nordicism (for the record, I obviously consider Afrocentrism a racialist ideology as well (because, duh, it is an ideology revolving around a notion of race). The allegation that fingers are only being pointed one way completely fails to stick with me. In fact, I narrowly escaped mob-justice on the part of the PC crowd when I tried to remind people of WP:NPOV over at the Afrocentrism article). Regarding your claim that "Hitler himself locked folkish Asatruar (wotanist) in death camps", you should perhaps do some research on your own before parroting urban legends. See here, we have one known case of a German occultist interned in a concentration camp. These were Listian occultists, not "Asatruar", the Asatru revival wasn't around until 1971. dab (𒁳) 19:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To some degree I think you are both right. This is a rather strange argument based on a straw man. Editors here are aware of the difference between Nazi and non-Nazi interpretations of völkisch thought. And neo-völkisch, for the record, means either (a) völkisch ideas updated for a post-WWII context, or (b) any postwar current which parallels the original völkisch movement in its defence of 'white'/'Aryan'/'Nordic' identity. I can't see where the article at any point makes the claim that either völkisch or neo-völkisch equates with Nazi — though if you find examples of this, then they will obviously need fixing. Some of the movements listed are clearly Nazi, others are just as clearly not, and still others (Odinism for example) are internally divided between Nazi and anti-Nazi camps; I've tried to give an overview of the nuances in the section on Nordic racial paganism, and if our anonymous objector would re-read it, he/she would I hope find it to be fair and balanced. Nothing wrong with "racialism", by the way. It's purely descriptive, and any negative meaning is down to the reader. If I were to express a belief in racial differences and that every race (including white people) is entitled to explore its own indigenous cultural and spiritual heritage, I would be a racialist, which I freely admit I am. If I were to go round insulting and beating up foreign-looking people, enslave them or throw them into death camps, I would be a racist, which I emphatically am not.
Regarding death camps, it's true that so far we know only a single Germanic neopagan — let's just rise above these Asatru/Listian/Wotanist quibbles — who died in one. But we also know of others who were interned (Marby) or had their writings suppressed (Lanz von Liebenfels, though he probably counts as quasi-neopagan). The ones we've dug out are likely to be the tip of the iceberg. Somebody should look into the case of Dr Odfried Jungklass of the Deutschgläubige Gemeinschaft, according to my information. Which would be a bit more constructive than this rather pointless non-debate. Gnostrat (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Germanic mysticists being "persecuted by the Nazis" is a red herring. It is simply ridiculous to quibble whether one or two of them spent time in internment (did any of them die?) in relation to the sheer total number of people interned and killed in the period. As you say, that's a non-starter. The debate of the nature of folkish vs. völkisch vs. neo-völkisch otoh is crucial. I completely agree with Gnostrat in that Odinism is internally divided. That's what the article says. I am unsure whether the folkish moniker is embraced on both sides of the divide. In my direct experience, folkish as in actual use in Odinism directly translates to neo-völkisch, but I am not sure this is the whole picture. I think it is safe to say that any neopagan group embracing the folkish designation (as opposed to tribalist or similar) has a basically racialist outlook, and is at least anxious not to spoil friendly relations to the radical right or supremacists wing even if they themselves may not be actively pushing such agendas. dab (𒁳) 14:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
your direct experience -- therefore in your original research. Do we discuss here about the ideology as such, in abstracto, or about practices of various Asatru and Odinist groups?? As I see it, the discussion was revolving around the definition of folkish, not about application of the idea by living people or existing organizations. Using your logic about direct experience, one who knows a person that has quit alcoholic habit, but something can't stop it and drinks, would be entitled to define alcoholic abstinent as person who generally abstains from alcohol but who sporadically drinks it. Would it be correct? NO.
I know that folkish is a quite different thing, because the term itself can be ambigous. In the dictionary definition it means something relating to folk or folklore. In some cultural dimension, it can mean any movement inspired by German voelkisch currents. In the reality, however, it can be applied by somebody that has nothing to do with voelkism and still it may mean more than simply related to the folk or folklore. It's like with the people who reclaim swastika for the non-political and non-racist religious (eg. budhhist, neo-pagan or hindu) or cultural purposes; the symbol has been tainted by nazis and still is by some neo-nazi idiots, but the fact that it is overwhelmingly associated with the Hitler's regime doesn't mean that groups reclaiming it may be called 'neo-nazi' or 'closely related to neo-nazis' or 'nearly identical to neo-nazism and nazi skinhead movement'. Critto (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fascist paganism" should not re-direct here.

"Fascist paganism" in & of itself does not denote "völkisch" folk/culture or race concepts at all. People like Jack Grimes who propagate an Italian-Fascist Roman-paganism and Neo-völkisch movements have little if anything in common. 67.5.157.138 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. Fascism is focussed on the corporate state rather than deriving its legitimacy from the ethnos or from racial theories. Whereas in Nazism there was always an unresolved internal tension between the völkisch and the fascist sides. So you really have three categories to consider: (1) folkish, but non-Nazi, paganism; (2) folkish, Nazi paganism; and (3) fascist, non-folkish paganism.
Just a couple of questions, however. First, where should "fascist paganism" redirect to exactly? And secondly, would any "paganism" that was not rooted in the folk be properly described as pagan in the first place? (Given that the very etymology of the word designates the beliefs native to the peasant and/or non-combatant general populace.) Gnostrat (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
this is splitting hairs. I have difficulties imagining that people calling for a "Italian-Fascist Roman-pagan" state are doing so in complete abstraction of a notion of an Italian or Roman ethnos (e.g., "let's build a Roman-pagan Italian-Fascist state in ... Ghana!"). These notions are closely related. They are all fringe ideologies, and we need to treat them as a group because they are simply too obscure to treat as individual topics. dab (𒁳) 12:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is splitting hairs. The difference between the folkish and the fascist is deep and historically important (in understanding the internal politics of the NSDAP for instance). Mussolini explicitly rejected Nordic racial theories, for obvious reasons but also because at heart he was heir to the long Western tradition of "rational" political philosophy, not Romanticism. From Grimes' websites it's clear that he supports Mussolini's ideology in toto (i.e. pro-Jewish, non-racialist, corporate-statism) and wants to build a new Roman Empire (from the USA!) Maybe not in Ghana,
(Actually, in Ghana too!) Gnostrat (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
but I seem to recall that Mussolini didn't abstemiously shrink from Albania, Ethiopia and the lion's share of Somalia.
There's nothing "closely related" about these ideas. Whatever its national power base, every imperialism is universalist in spirit and aspiration. (The all-absorbing Roman Empire soon turned to Catholic Christianity as its religious accomplice when pagan traditions were found to be too... ethnic to be up to the job.) Since Grimes appeals to the same Roman-Imperial tradition as Fascism did, I could not justify putting him in with völkisch-type pagan groups. It doesn't even seem like he's running a serious religious outfit, just an eccentric political one with some ill-conceived LaVeyan-Satanist knobs on (dressed up as 'Saturnian' paganism). Just expand his own article if need be, and redirect fascist paganism to an entry on Occultism and the far right (or to Neo-fascism and religion, perhaps). And leave him off this page, please. Gnostrat (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a disagreement in content here, at most one in presentation. I agree with you, but I still maintain that it was no coincidence that there was an "Axis" of Italian fascist imperialism and "völkisch" Nazi imperialism (and not with, say, British imperialism). We may need to revisit the title and scope of this article (again), but its original raison d'etre was the discussion of these occultist-fascist-völkisch groups in context. I actually agree this Grimes character doesn't belong here. Grimes appears to be an internet nutcase of rather limited notability, and puts no emphasis on paganism at all. By "fascist paganism" I refer to Else Christensen and the "Odinism" in her tradition, not crank websites like Grimes'. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
At one stage I believe Mussolini was contemplating alliance with Britain against Germany. But we could go on forever about Musso. I'm more worried about categorizing Else Christensen as a purveyor of "fascist paganism". I would describe Christensen's and the OF's position as folkish-socialism, and her only interest in fascism was in reclaiming ideas that fascism hijacked from the Left in the first place. But, fascist or not, she fits the völkisch pattern, and there are more explicit neofascist-oriented pagans and Satanists who don't define as national-socialist but still incline to the völkisch (in spite of Mussolini). Until Grimes came along, we thought 'Neo-völkisch movements' was sufficiently all-embracing, and I am loath to discard the current title on account of one clown who wants to be world emperor. It is too useful for that. It may not cover absolutely everybody, but it's probably the nearest we will get. Grimes apart, are there any significant numbers of esoteric-religio-mystically inclined neofascists who don't fit the völkisch pattern? Gnostrat (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Folkism doesn't belong to "neo-fascism" series

Folkism, as understood and defined in Asatru and Odinist community doesn't belong to the "neo-fascism" series AT ALL. Few points:

1. folkism in this meaning is a RELIGIOUS, not a political attitude; in fact, one may be folkish in religion AND libertarian, liberal, or leftist (anyway: anti-fascist) in politics and there' no contradiction in it. One could NOT, however, be fascist and anti-fascist at the same time. Or to claim superiority of his/her ethnic group and equality of all groups in the meantime. Or could ey, dab? How do you think?

2. folkism in this meaning represents the point of view that each nation/ethnic group/race has its own traditions and by their birthplace, family relations and genetic heritage should follow them.

3. folkism in this meaning doesn't have anything to do with the notion of "superiority", hatred or degrading of any culture; only of uniqueness and preciousness of each element of human mosaic; that all people are equal and should be equally proud of their traditions - Germanic person of Germanic ones, Slavic one of Slavic Ones, Black African of their ones, Hindu of Hindu ones, Jew of Jewish ones, etc.; look at the Asatru Folk Assembly bylaws for example. Or Canadian Asatru Portal (http://www.asatru.ca/faq.html). I don't know if the latter organization is folkish, universalist, both or none (??), but they DO present this debate in a clear, comprehensive way. Or take a look at the site of Odinist Fellowship UK ( http://www.odinistfellowship.co.uk/ ), certainly a "folkish" organization, though not related to Else Christensen. This is what they say about folkism v. universalism:

Odinists strongly disapprove of the way Christians and Muslims have engaged in missionary work among less developed peoples, undermining their traditional customs and way of life, while imposing upon them alien moral and cultural standards, much in the same way as the Church acted towards the heathen English during the conversion period. Odinists do not desire to convert the whole world to Odinism, because, whereas paganism is universal, the Odinist form of paganism is ethnospecific. Indeed, were we to receive a request to administer the Odinist Pledge of Faith to, say, a Japanese or a Nigerian, we would encourage that person to embrace his indigenous form of heathenism, because heathens of all nations believe in being true to oneself and to one's ancestors.
NOW, dab and the other fellow, tell me please, HOW IS THIS "FASCIST" or "neo-fascist"?? Or how is this kind of folkism similiar to fascism or neo-fascism? I know that this is folkish, but "fascist"?? Since when??

4. fascism, neo-fascism and racism IS based on the notion of one's ethnic "superiority", which conflicts with pp. 2 and 3.

5. some non-European ethnic groups, incl. some of the American Indians, here incl. Lakota Nation are sworn defenders of their culture uniqueness and they STRICTLY FORBID anyone that is not of Lakota descent (at least by one parent) to practice their religion and customs, especially the Lakota Sundance. Moreover, they issued the document titled "Lakota War Declaration" on the so-called plastic shamans. Now this would be STRICTLY FOLKISH... And yet you wouldn't call it "fascist" or "nazi", or would you, dab and some others?

6. Similiarly, until recently nobody of Jewish origin would be officially accepted in the community of Judaism religion; it has changed in 2000s, as I remember in 2005 or 2006. It was an old, maybe ancient policy and it was certainly FOLKISH in the strictest sense. But... was it neo-fascist, dab? Especially that it predated fascism for centuries?

7. Exactly the same as p. 6, Persian Zoroastrians didn't -- until recently -- accept ANY converts and in Iran they still don't accept them (for the fear of persecution by the Islamic regime. It is STRICTLY FOLKISH, too.. But is it neo-fascitst, dab? Was it neo-fascist through all centuries, when it was observed??

8. even Matthias Gardell differentiates between three kinds of Asatru kindreds: racist, non-racist ethnocentric and unversalist. And Gardell can't be considered as a fan of ethnic intolerance... Or could he, dab? How do you think?

9. as I said before, NOBODY here claims that there are no neo-fascist or even neo-nazi currents, groups and persons in Germanic neopaganism. Yes, it's a shame, but there ARE some. The question is, however, not the distribution of such ideologies in the Heathen community, but the meaning of the word FOLKISM. This and only this.

Now, I'm not folkish myself... Well, maybe a bit, because while I think that every nation should practice their own tradition by default, I would NEVER deny anybody's right to choose whatever religion he/she chooses, including ethnic one. As I'm pagan (Slavic reconstructionist), I find it simply unacceptable to deny access to our Gods to anybody. After all, if Gods want to call someone, it's Their right. We, humans, are all equal in relation to Them and we are equal to each other (as humans). Well, am I neo-fascist, dab? Or was I inspired by the nazi currents? If you call me so, I wouldn't have any choice but scream "DAB HEIL!!" :) Critto (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I really should let dab answer for himself, but I would agree completely that there is a distinction between folkish/völkisch and fascist; however, there is overlap too. Most (neo-)fascist groups with a racial-mystical agenda — certainly those which identify as (neo-)nazi — would readily accept the folkish or völkisch label. Which doesn't mean that everybody who does so is a nazi/fascist, or even that the majority are. The article does not make that claim, and (even if I do say so myself) I think I've done a fair job of documenting the anarchist and leftist elements in folkish neopaganism.
As for neo-völkisch, I would say it's simply a convenient way of parcelling out a new period or growth stage within the same movement, along with a shift in focus from Germany to the Anglosphere. It covers postwar groups which defend white identity from a mystical/traditionalist perspective, whether explicitly religious or occult in orientation, or simply "political". They can be neopagan, Christian or syncretic Satanist, and they can be fascist, anti-fascist or simply non-fascist. The common element is the appeal to indigenous folk identity, culture or traditions. (And I still think that fascist paganism should redirect to the disambiguation page Occultism and the far right, not here — if only because it's so vague that it could refer to pre-1945 dabblings like Mussolini's early pagan flirtations or Himmler's SS rituals.) Gnostrat (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the absence of any objections I've redirected Fascist paganism as I suggested, and if there are no arguments against removing the Neo-fascism template I'll do that next. Part of the rationale behind the current article name was precisely that not all of these movements do belong in the box labelled Fascism. At least, not convincingly. We conceived of a broad survey covering not only groups which are explicitly or plausibly fascist, but also ones with a leftist or anarchist orientation and others which say they have transcended ideas of 'left' and 'right'. (Other than removing the template, we might avoid indiscriminate pigeonholing by adding, say, an Anarchism bar jointly with Neo-fascism. The trouble is, this was tried at National-Anarchism where, after some less than charitable outbursts, we have currently arrived at the happy compromise of no templates at all.) Gnostrat (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and removed the Neo-fascism template. Gnostrat (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this page needs to be renamed

The phrase "neo-volkish" is only used four times on google, and not on reliable sites.[8] and who is going to use an umlout in the search bar? I don't know what to, but this isn't a commonly used term as it stands. (People will know what it means, though- well, people who have read about the subject a little or something.) Merkin's mum 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, NVM is the most comprehensive term we have come up with (after extensive discussions! — please see above) which covers postwar racial-mystical type movements centred on white identity. We can't simply coin our own titles, and we can't use anything with "fascist", "nazi" or "pagan" in it, because not all of these movements fall into those categories. But this phrase is in the academic literature, and Goodrick-Clarke is widely read and regarded as authoritative (even if not entirely free from bias, in my opinion).
The umlaut is no problem, you can spell it without one and it will redirect here. But I don't accept the premiss of the "Google test" — you can't assess the notability of a specialist subject or term in this way because specialist knowledge may not be widely available online. Gnostrat (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)