Talk:Occultism in Nazism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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)

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)

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)

Dino hyperborean UFO's in the hollow earth

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

You can look into books:

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

Wacky websites:

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

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

and Nazi mystics:

Julius Evola and Miguel Serrano.

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

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

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

Well, I'm not actually objecting to the dino-UFO stuff itself, just the lack of in-text citation and the placement. I'm pretty familiar with Icke and so on, but in-text citations benefit the reader who isn't, so I think we need some footnotes or something that link specific dino-points in the text to specific dino-sources since this is such fringe material. Beyond that, I think it's too detailed for an intro paragraph when the rest of the intro is so high-level. Nazi mysticism isn't a "theory," so much as a set of related belief systems, so writing "modern variations on the theory..." is also problematic. I would recommend this for a streamlined intro:
Related modern theories involve Hitler having escaped to the Antarctic, where he joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race, with whom he now travels inside of UFOs underground, generally beneath the South pole or throughout the center of the hollow earth, but sometimes to a Nazi moon base as well.
...and would suggest moving the second sentence to an expanded and renamed Modern Theories section, which would also ideally include more in-text citations to avoid the "some believe" kind of constructions. --Lumin 22:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Numbered_footnotes_for_external_citations, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Footnote2, Wikipedia:Footnote3, and Wikipedia:Footnote4 show some of the options. Not really my area, but I figured I'd give you some leads :) Sam Spade 22:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually wound up just getting into more informal detail on authors in the new section (Nazi Mysticism and modern Pseudoscience). I want to provide some useful points of departure for general readers who want more detail, so I think just giving them some additional names (with the references list at the bottom for support) will do the trick. The revision I just posted includes minor streamlining edits to the intro and otherwise focuses on the new section. Maybe this section will eventually grow up to be its own article, as I think was mentioned above. --Lumin 23:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please don't remove cited information

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

what "Pohl"??

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

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
Organisations
Philospophies
Sacred Places
Incidents
Symbols
Categories
Books

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler

"Adolf Hitler








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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occultism_in_Nazism/Archive_2&oldid=1137053975"