Wikipedia

Talk:Occultism in Nazism/Archive 3

< Talk:Occultism in Nazism
Latest comment: 15 years ago by 82.118.113.164 in topic Serious problems
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Structure of this Article

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

The Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism

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

Removed quote

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

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

another removed quote

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

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

I am also about to remove two external links that are defunct. Instead of using the link to the google cache, [1] , I linked directly to the page in the references section. -Zara1709 05:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Otto Rahn data needed

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

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

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/Speech%20by%20Otto%20Rahn%20SS%20in%201938.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed a Spelling Error

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Taged for sourcing

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Serrano-Enoch material

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Who are the Ufonauts? (Book of Enoch)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split off Esoteric Nazism

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

Bramwell's book

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Next split off

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Lead rewrite

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

Additionally:

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

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

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

Political religion

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Formation of NSDAP

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Nazi Religion At Source

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

I absolutely agree in central point here: There was no Nazi Religion! There were, though, quite a few people in the völkish movement who held beliefs that one could describe as occultist or neopagan. Those people would have been inclined to join the SS, so it should not be a surprise if you can find evidence of some SS-Officers celebrating a Sonnenwendfeier somewhere. I would suggest that we bring this under a section like "cultic activities of the SS", although it already deserves some consideration whether one should speak of the "cultic activities of the SS" or of the "cultic activities within the SS". That Hitler personally disregarded the whole occult/neopagan part of the "racist-occult complex" is nothing new; the only question that I'd personally consider interesting is whether he took over some Gnostic aspects. I probably should read up a little concerning the 'official' Nazi ceremonies.
Before we go into further details a important general remark. I didn't have a lot of time when I flagged the new section; but the quality of writing was above the usual contributions to WP, so I though it was copied from somewhere. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and although different people have a different knowledge about a specific topic, all editors are equal. So it doesn't really matter whether you have already written several books about the topic in real life, Geoffrey Michael Brooks; and unfortunately book titles like "Hirschfeld - The Secret Diary of a U-Boat" sound a little sensationalistic to me. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to assume that you are one of the authors who "reveals secrets" about Nazi U-boat or UFO bases in Antarctica, but basically this is the level that sensationalistic authors have reached when it comes to this topic.
From a short glimpse your books look like popular (but serious) military history. With all that post-war fascination about Nazism, Nazi U-boat diaries might sell not bad - but of course accounts of a Nazi Religion would sell even better. The great think about WP on the other hand is, that is is financed by donations. We don't really need to sell the writing. And SS-Officers celebrating pagan rituals are already interesting enough, so there is no need to push this up to a whole "Nazi religion". Zara1709 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
GMB, from the looks of your contributions I don't think you're familiar with the way Wikipedia works. You acknowledge that you have "copied up" your own "interpretations" of the authors you've quoted as sources. If you've published these interpretations in your books, in theory you might be able to cite page references to those books, which you would need to do in order to verify that your interpretations have already been published in a secondary source. Otherwise, simply weaving together an argument from your sources would fall foul of WP:No original research if it's published here.
Without knowing how your books have been received by historical scholars (favourable reviews, citations by academics) I can only go on my impressions that the argument which you have advanced could not be called mainstream. But long verbatim extracts are not the way to go in any case. A brief, concise summary of your argument or maybe a short quote would be more likely to not get deleted. Please read WP:Undue weight as well as WP:Fringe theories. But please also note: "Anyone can...pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books...and similar sources are largely not acceptable" (WP:SPS—but there are some exceptions, if you refer to the latter page). Gnostrat (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I moved some of the stuff to a section that I consider more appropriate. I don't know what to do with the rest, not yet. Rauschning isn't a reliable source, but "Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier" [2] is (afaik) (I just couldn't find the edition that was used here in the first attempt), so we could move some of this to Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs. But I don't think that we are getting around deleting some of the text. Zara1709 (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I created a section for the "Cultic activities within the SS" then. Probably later today or tomorrow I can expand the section on the Wewelsburg, which is necessary, because the Wewelsburg should be the clearest example of occult beliefs actually having an influence on Nazi leaders: A seer, calling himself "Weisthor" gets Himmler to make great plans to redesign a castle, based on weird predictions from a 19-century romantic poem. But to my knowledge this should be the strongest case that would point towards a 'Nazi Religion', if one uses 'religion' in a conventional meaning. On the other there are also cases in which Wiligut et al. were opposed by others in the SS because they were seen as too irrational and religious. So I guess I will delete the remainder of that Nazi religion section in a few days, unless someone considers any further stuff worthy of being kept.
By the way, Gnostrat, congratulations for your work on the Schwartz-Bostunitsch section. It is quite comprehensive and well-written. Zara1709 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The summary here will be good enough, although I didn't do any more than condense the biographical data from a single source. (Bostunitsch's own article has more sources in the German version.) It's good that you've found uses for some of GMB's edits. The ancient-Germanic stuff also looks scholarly enough, and pretty interesting in its own right. I wonder if they could use it on Germanic paganism? But the inherently improbable statement that Adolf was indebted to Schilling for any of his beliefs has no backup, and those Rauschning passages have to go, for definite!
I did think the table talk might be usable. I wasn't sure, because pantheism and reincarnation and "microcosm/macrocosm" are all too suspiciously countercultural for Hitler, but the Wotan speech is attested from other sources. It doesn't amount to sun-worship but, if we took the monologues as evidence, it would appear that Hitler (like Karl Marx) was a believer, neither in personal gods nor in an immortal afterlife, but in some sort of shapeless "panpsychic" life-energy — wouldn't it? Gnostrat (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed this section from the article to Talk:Nazi occultism/Nazi Religion At Source as a violation of WP:NOR (as I recall it being) --98.224.250.238 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Split-off done

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Tone of article

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

However much time you've spent on the article, Zara, I'm afraid Scrawlspacer has a point. Far from looking at sources dispassionationately, the article as it stands presents Goodricke-Clarke's views as true beyond question, and dismisses nearly everything else written on this topic as unworthy of serious consideration. The article does mention, though, that Goodricke-Clarke himself considers Urania's children by Ellic Howe and The Occult Establishment by James Webb to be "serious works". And yet the article as it stands tells its readers nothing about the content of those "serious works". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand it. Nazi occultism is in relation to Nazism somehow like Flat Earth theory is in relation to the earth, which is round. The only reason we have such an article at all is that the theory - better say myth- is notable as such. Appendix E of Goodrick-Clarke's '85 book, the Chapter in his 2004 book and some remarks by Gardell is about the only thing that there is on this, to my knowledge, by academic historians. Zara1709 (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Flat Earth article. As that article itself shows, on the question of roundness versus flatness of the earth, there is an overwhelming consensus of educated opinion since ancient Greek times. In other words, a lot of people have written serious stuff about that question, and overwhelmingly came to the same conclusion.... If only Goodrick-Clarke and Gardell have looked seriously at the question of alleged influence of occultism on Nazism, then the question is hardly settled in the same sense as the flat earth/round earth question... Please understand, I am not saying Goodrick-Clarke's POV is wrong. He may well be right about everything, as you seem to think... but do YOU think he might be right when he says that the works of Ellic Howe and James Webb qualify as "serious"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the new article

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I didn't have much time when I performed the split of the article, and there are a few things that I should add. Gnostrat, you have some point when you ask: "Whether senses (1) and (2) need to be separated is another matter. It's actually not going to be easy to write an article about historical occult involvements (or the absence of them) in the NSDAP without dealing with the modern myths at the same time." Reading Goodrick-Clarke's Black Sun again, I finally figured out what to make of the reference to Erich Halik, Mensch und Schicksal 6 in the section about the SS that is now in the other article. Erich Halik is the guy who invented the Nazi UFOs! In exactly that journal Mensch und Schicksal (roughly: men and fate), between 1951 and '55. (check: Black Sun, p. 130,131, 155). So not a reliable source. Neither is the statement by Rudolf J. Mund that is mentioned ion the book by Strohm. There were some general occult and neopagan activities within the SS, notably supported by Himmler himself, but generally the SS didn't care that much about the topic. Only the SS-members who later turned occultist, the Landig group (Vienna Circle (esoteric) should be renamed), pushed this up to a whole religion. Still, there is enough material there to probably fill an article: Heinrich Himmler's religious beliefs. So I need to admit that these topics Nazi occultism vs Religious aspects of Nazism are difficult to disentangle. But I think it can be done. What actually convinced me was the popular culture info that had been added by anom. editors. I really think that this information is useful, but it doesn't really belong into an article that tries to be on an academic level (not that I can bring the article there any time soon). So before another editor would remove those passages again, I performed the split. So, just let me say this. This IS a popular culture topic. Stuff like Indiana Jones is fully appropriate, although this has to be counterbalanced with the critique of Gardell and Goodrick-Clarke, who point out that this has nothing to do with the reality of Nazism, then. Zara1709 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This article doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article. I feel it doesn't try to look at the sources dispassionately. Also, much of it reads like original research.

— Scrawlspacer, 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wandering over to this talk page to make the very same observation (7 months later). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh, you don't get it. There are exactly three reliable sources about this topic, which are mentioned in the article. Zara1709 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So if there are only a few reliable sources then it's okay to insert point of view, original research, and opinion? I'm wholly unfamiliar with that policy... ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Then give me a specific critique. You can feel free to tag single sentences with {{or}}. Damn, I didn't work on improving this article because there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that are worse. Zara1709 (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
How many editors have commented about these deficiencies above? You've laced sarcastic remarks into excuses ranging from "there aren't enough sources" to "there are worse articles out there"; none of these justify these serious concerns of policy noncompliance. You need to step away from the article, it is not yours, and you certainly need to stop removing good faith notices from multiple, independent editors that are prima facie valid. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


>serious concerns of policy noncompliance. As a non-wikipedian, I can tell you, this is all that's wrong with wikipedia. You're bureaucrats. I've seen so many bad articles propped up with arcane policy, and so many great ones hamstringed by a beanpusher. I've stopped contributing, because I know however well researched my contribution is, it's likely to be removed by some bureaucrat with an axe to grind, and policy sufficiently boring and complex to suffice as justification. I'm sure I'm one of many. Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, but using regulations as a weapon is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.113.164 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliabe Sources about Nazi occultism

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The so-called "deficiencies" noted by other editors above are simply the result of a misunderstanding. The article is accused of not trying "to look at the sources dispassionately". What people apparently fail to understand is that this is not an article about Nazism, but about pseudo-historic theories about Nazism. You should be able to understand that Wikipedia:Reliable sources values academic sources the highest. If academic sources say that the original authers that invented these theories are crypto-historic occultists, then the article has to describe the topic as crypto-historic occultism. Of course, we could discuss concerns about original research, if necessary. But that would require that people actually specify which statements they consider to be original research. I take such issues serious - why do you think I have a reference for almost every sentence. You're not even attempting a serious discussion currently. I can't react with anything but sarcasm to the attempts to bash this article, when you don't specify your concerns. All I understand from what you're writing is that your central objection appears to be: I don't like it.

Anyway, I have a justified reason to assume that I am an expert on the topic, since I read all the academic overviews about it that i could gather. A whole list of the academic literature that relates to this topic can be found in the "Excursus" about Nazism and Occultism in Michael Rißmann, Hitler's Gott (in German), pp. 137-172. But concerning Nazi occultism, Rißmann especially highlights Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's work (p. 143) and H.T Hakl's work (p. 141). From an academic perspective, and also from the perspective of Wikipedia, there is nothing to say against the sources used. If you want to criticize this article, you would have to read these sources and see, whether the statements attributed to them are attributed correctly. If you don't want to make this effort, you will have to leave the article alone. Zara1709 (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk: List of books about Nazi occultism

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We don't need that list in the article, although it might be useful. Zara1709 (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk: Alleged Germanic-pagan influence

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The use of runic symbology and the existence of an official Nazi government department for the study of the Germanic ancestral heritage (including paganism) have lent some credence to the idea that there was a pagan component to Nazism. As early as 1940, the occult scholar and folklorist Lewis Spence identified a neopagan undercurrent in Nazism,[1] for which he largely blamed Alfred Rosenberg, and which he equated with "satanism". He further connected Nazism to the Illuminati.[2]

Occultist or neopagan authors like Stephen McNallen, Stephen Flowers and Michael Moynihan (Flowers and Moynihan being translators of The Secret King) argue however that the Nazis' occult and runic pretensions amounted to a distortion and misrepresentation of the ancestral religion, Odinism.[3] Thus McNallen denounces "the lie that 'Hitler was a pagan' or that 'Asatruar trace their roots to Nazi Germany'".[4] In an article entitled "The Wiligut Saga" featured in The Secret King, Adolf Schleipfer points out the differences between Wiligut's beliefs and those generally accepted within Odinism. Flowers, who is also a scholar of Germanic religious history, contends that

The Ahnenerbe and the Totenkopf Orden made more practical use of Judeo-Christian and Manichean techniques and ideas in their magical traditions and organizational principles....One brief glance at a book on ancient Germanic and old Scandinavian culture and religion will show the massive degree to which the Nazis perverted the egalitarian systems of the ancients into a totalitarian scheme ... just as the Christian evangelists would employ old pagan symbols (such as the cross) to convert the heathens and then gradually infuse those venerable symbols with a contrary significance, so too did the Nazis employ old Germanic symbolism (which was very popular at that time) and infuse it with non-Germanic concepts for manipulative purposes.[5]

This is not only the opinion of occultists. Heinz Höhne, an authority on the SS, observes that in practice the organisation was modelled on Ignatius Loyola's Jesuit order and that "Himmler's neo-pagan customs remained primarily a paper exercise".[6]

Another section that isn't needed in the article a.t.m. The problem is that these authors, Moynihan and Flowers, try to portray some occultist/neo-pagans from Germany as victims of Nazi persecution, which would at least be highly controversial. It should be noted somewhere in these articles though, I think. Zara1709 (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why, and in whose opinion, would it "at least be highly controversial" to portray some (not all) German occultists/neo-pagans as victims of the Nazis? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodrick-Clarke's punchline

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Zara, you've based this article largely on Goodrick-Clarke's piece "The Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism", Appendix E of Occult Roots of Nazism. I agree with you that Goodrick-Clarke is a good source to use. But, have you thought through the implications of the last couple of sentences of that piece of writing? Here is the punchline...

"…and James Webb devoted a chapter to 'The Magi of the North' in The Occult Establishment (1976). By focusing on the functional significance of occultism in political irrationalism, Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas." (Emphasis added.)

I ve been looking at the James Webb chapter in question. It is almost entirely about occultists and Nazis in Germany pre 1945. Within that context, there is an interesting one-paragraph comment re Pauwels and Bergier.

As Goodrick-Clarke considers Webb's chapter to have "rescued the study of Nazi occultism", it would seem appropriate to include a summary of Webb's chapter in a Wikipedia article which has "Nazi occultism" as its title. To do so, however, would mean a widening of the article's current scope, and a revision of its introduction. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, again

I apologize for not replying here earlier, but I don't have much time for Wikipedia and the time I had was used for other issues. The reason this article relies so much on Goodrick-Clarke is simply that, as the work of a historian, his The Occult Roots of Nazism is outstanding. If it wasn't for him and H.T.Hakl, Wikipedia simply couldn't have an article about this topic. (We can discuss James Webb in another contexts, but we first have to deal with this.) If you look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, you will see that it "is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (Emphasis added) If you further look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, you will see what is meant by reliable sources: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [..] Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Note that books published in "university presses" and "university-level textbooks" are mentioned first, and that web pages and television documentaries are not mentioned at all.

There are exactly three academic historians that have dealt with the topic of this article, Goodrick-Clarke, Hakl and Rißmann. Especially Rißmann's academic reputation is beyond doubt, so even if Goodrick-Clarke alone would not be sufficient, jointly these authors overrule all the occultist and popular literature on Nazism. This is what NPOV means. The neutral-point-of-view largely is the academic point-of-view. So before someone comes along and flags this article for NPOV, first he or she would need to do some good research for more sources. Zara1709 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodrick-Clarke's punchline

Zara, I have only one question about your above statement re NPOV...

What does all this have to do with my point about Goodrick-Clarke's punchline?

You keep reminding us how outstanding and reliable Goodrick-Clarke is... Isn't that is all the more reason to consider the implications of the words I quoted, words written by Goodrick-Clarke himself in the final paragraph of his overview of literature about "Nazi occultism"?

Please have another look, and think about the following questions.

For Goodrick-Clarke, does the term "Nazi occultism" refer only to postwar mythology (as the WP article intro currently implies)? Or does the term "Nazi occultism", as used by Goodrick-Clarke, also refer to an area of study that can be, and has been, "rescued"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in dispute

Please don't delete this talk section, or remove the POV flag until there has been some discussion and (non-unilateral) resolution.

It is probably my fault that my original talk edit regarding POV didn't appear. I am new to editing of wikipedia pages, though by no means new to wikipedia. In order to be very careful, and act with full good faith, I consulted the Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines to help guide my POV discussion. POV issues I observe, based on those guidelines include:

Undue Weight "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Undue weight is given to Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's texts and viewpoints, and appear to deny and marginalize any and all evidence of links between Nazis and occult fields, which include secret societies, black magic, astrology, etc. Goodrick-Clarke's name appears 37 times in the article, with significant passages, and high praise. By comparison, Himmler only appears five times, with almost no explanation of his occult background, and Hess only appears twice in book titles, with absolutely no explanation of his occult interest.

Impartial tone "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." As stated, Goodrick-Clarke seems to be just one of these individuals engaged in heated dispute, and his claims (which, at least as they are presented here, are flat wrong) are not presented in an impartial tone. To call any research into the occult connections of Nazism as "fringe theory" akin to a Flat-Earth theory, or "crypto-history" is likewise not neutral, and in fact, quite insulting to a good number of legitimate researchers.

POV forks "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article." To shift all discussion of the occult topics to "neo-volkische movements" or "hitler's religious beliefs" or some such other page not only evades neutrality, but renders this page meaningless, except as an expansion of a page that already exists on Goodrick-Clarke's book The Occult Roots of Nazism. Overlap is a common, normal factor of wikipedia pages. A very common feature is to have summaries of ALL important issues of a topic, with a link, just below each section title, to another main article. For an uncontroversial example see, for instance, Bread, where under history, not only is a discussion of Sourdough provided, but also a link to "Main article: Sourdough." I would suggest, and in the coming days will offer my help, adding expanded sections on ALL of the occult links, including secret society connections like the Thule Society, Germanenorden, and Vril, the SS Ahnenerbe sacred archaeology expeditions, connections to occultists like Julius Evola and Rene Guenon, the astrological connections with Erik Jan Hanussen and others, and so on. The connections are there, and it is not speculative theory.

Neutrality and verifiability "A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias." Just because Goodrick-Clarke is cited does not mean the claims he makes are neutral, or the way they and counterclaims are presented in this article are balanced. They are not.

Let the facts speak for themselves "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." Instead of telling the reader of this article which books have been "debunked" by Goodrick-Clarke, the books should just be listed. I would, and have already attempted to, RE-include the list of books on Nazism and the Occult, and let the readers decide for themselves which books are legitimate.


Since I am the FOURTH person to dispute neutrality in this talk section, and none of the issues brought up in the past have been resolved, it would be a severe violation of etiquette to remove my POV flag again.

Parallaxvision (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't get what NPOV means. As it currently stands, you are a Single-purpose account that only has removed information from this article because you considered it undue weight to include it. If you are honestly concerned about the "Thule Society, Germanenorden, and Vril, the SS Ahnenerbe sacred archaeology expeditions, connections to occultists like Julius Evola and Rene Guenon, the astrological connections with Erik Jan Hanussen" etc, than work on these articles. Actually I just noticed that there was a lot of expansion at articles like 1939 German expedition to Tibet. The problem with these topics is that they somehow attract a lot of popular attention, and that much that is written from a popular perspective (and all that is written from an occultist perspective) is simply factually false. And there is no way you can interpret wp:NPOV to imply that something that is not factually true should be stated as such. How do we know whether a statement is true or false? Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Of course, it takes some effort to know what the best available reliable sources are for a certain topic. If you don't want to believe me that Goodrick-Clarke is the most reputable source available, you at least have to substantiate your concerns. Otherwise it doesn't matter if it is one person that criticizes the article or dozens. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a democracy. (wp:not) Anyway, if you would like to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the topics you have mentioned, you are welcome to do so. As far as my time permits, I will check up on that, and if we then have a contradiction between the sources we used, we can apply principles like wp:NPOV during the resolution process. And just for your information: The appropriate summary style article concerning the actual semi-religious activities within the SS and that like is religious aspects of Nazism. However, since there was not such thing as a Vril society (at least not any that had any influence on Nazism), it is not linked there and will not be linked there.Zara1709 (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It s true that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is supposed to work by consensus. Right now there is unfortunately not a consensus about the neutrality of this article. For this reason, the pov tag ought to be put back on it, and stay there until a consensus emerges.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While I do not want to spend too much time defending myself against personal attack, let me just say a few things to clear up any misunderstandings or resentful feelings: 1. It is true that I have currently only edited one article (this one), but I have to start somewhere. I was compelled to register and begin my editing career on this topic because I feel it is important, and think that the current page is considerably biased and limited. If one checks the record of what I removed, I don't think one will find it constitutes "information" but rather editorializing and justification of POV content forking. And in my previous edit, I tried to include a useful booklist that was previously censored by Zara1709, but after doing so that list (along with my entire edit) was censored once again. The second time around, I decided to try to do less, to avoid wasting time on a lot of editing that was going to be undone. I reposted the neutrality flag, cleared up the top paragraph and called it a day. 2. "Undue weight" was not the reason for those subtraction edits, and is only one of five different neutrality issues I have raised, accompanied by direct reference to the NPOV guidelines themselves. I am willing to keep an open mind to the claim that I "don't understand what NPOV means," and to be further enlightened as I continue to edit, but I have made a considerable effort to stick closely to the wikipedia guidelines, interpret them fairly, and to explain how they relate to the problems I perceive with this page (which I am clearly not alone in perceiving). I get the impression that the charge about my neutrality misunderstanding is more a personal attack than an intellectual dispute, but I do wish to maintain good faith and be civil, so I will not insist that my feeling on the matter is certain truth. 3. My main concern is that people who come to this page to learn about Nazi occultism get the fullest, most balanced account of the issue, as I hope is true of all who edit this page. How will people know about the real Nazi occult issues of the Ahnenerbe, Thule Society, etc. if all such information is censored from this page on the logic (specifically contradicted by the wikipedia guidelines) that they ONLY belong on their individual pages? I hope all will treat me with good faith as I continue to work on this page. I hope my commitment to neutrality and fair presentation of all relevant information on this topic is not taken personally by Zara1709 or anyone else who participates in this page, as I certainly don't mean it personally. Even if we may have differences of opinion, I'm sure this page has room for ALL points of view to be presented evenly. As I promised above, I will make substantive and helpful additions to this page in the coming days and weeks. And as I see areas of other pages where I can be of assistance, I will edit those as well, so that I may avoid the charge of being a single-purpose account, and become a welcome member of the wikipedia community. I hope we can collaborate on this page with civility and openmindedness. Thanks. Parallaxvision (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard

So that no one can complain about not being informed about this: I made a note of the issue at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Nazi occultism. When I wrote that Wikipedia is not a democracy, I was referring to the principle that we determine consensus through discussion, not through voting. You can't simply say: 'I think that this article is not written from a neutral Point-of-View', you need to give me the reasons why you think that. So this article is largely based on the work of Goodrick-Clarke and Hakl. Do you want to dispute their academic reputation, or do you have another academic historian that disagrees with them? As it currently stands, I don't know whether I can actually discuss this with Parallaxvision: You are writing "How will people know about the real Nazi occult issues of the Ahnenerbe, Thule Society, etc. if all such information is censored from this page .." Let me make this plain: There were no 'real Nazi occult issues. Admittedly, there were some occultists who worked for the SS, but the 1939 German expedition to Tibet did not search for the hidden city of Shambalah (or whatever it is called) and, as far as I know, it didn't even specifically seek to prove Hans F. K. Günther’s claims that early Aryan race had conquered much of Asia. However, what there is to say on the real relation between Nazism and Occultism is said (or is to be said) in the article Religious aspects of Nazism, where we currently have a section on Occultists working for the SS. I was rather tired yesterday evening, so probably I couldn't explain it that well, but that is what I meant with my comment at User talk:Kalidasa 777. If you are interested in the real connection between Nazism and occultism, please work on articles like Religious aspects of Nazism. The term 'Nazi occultism' is used by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke primarily to denote the fringe theories about Nazism. And concerning fringe theories our policy of wp:NPOV is clear:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained."

It should be abundantly clear that no academic historian would seriously considers the thesis that Hitler was initiated into a hidden lodge which possessed occult powers, regardless of whether these hidden masters are supposed to be from the Thule Society or to be Erik Jan Hanussen. Therefore, following wp:NPOV we can't discuss such thesis in the articles on Nazism: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." This is why we are having this specialized article: "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space", with all the limitations the the principle of a Neutral-point-of-view implies. I think that I managed to adhere to this principle here well enough; The articles makes appropriate references to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and DOES NOT attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Therefore I think that the NPOV tag is unwarranted. Zara1709 (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a new section on Occult Societies and National Socialism. I also put the NPOV tag back up. I don't think Zara1709 has the right to decide that the NPOV tag is unwarranted when others have expressed valid concerns about neutrality. To quote the tag itself: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I don't think anything is lost by keeping the tag up until all parties with valid concerns have resolved the neutrality dispute. Some pages have NPOV tags up permanently. So, let's err on the side of caution and keep it there. Deal?Parallaxvision (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On a further note, I think Zara1709 misconstrues the minority view/popular view issue as it concerns this page. For instance, "demonic possession of Hitler" is a minority view, and is treated as such in this page, although it is presented. But the topic of Nazi occultism as a whole is not a speculative or fringe theory or necessarily cryptohistory or whatever, as my new section on Occult Societies and National Socialism should demonstrate. I'll provide further abundant evidence of occult connections in future edits, and as long as they are not entirely censored, they will suffice to show that the topic as a whole should not be disparaged.Parallaxvision (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodrick-Clarke

Zara, you've written that the term 'Nazi occultism' is used by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke primarily to denote the fringe theories about Nazism. So how did you work out which of Goodrick-Clarke's published statements on this topic are primary and which are secondary??

Thank you for letting us know about your contribution to the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Have just added a note there about what Goodrick-Clarke actually says.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the ambiguity in Goodrick-Clarke's usage?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, Zara wrote

>These fringe theories are described by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, and following him, some other historians, as Nazi occultism... although one or two occurrences of the phrase 'Nazi occultism' in the work of Goodrick-Clarke are ambiguous, Goodrick-Clarke makes is extraordinarily plain that he wants to keep the fringe theories separate from the academic historical research.... The phrase Nazi occultism is only used in Appendix E of the book...

I'd agree that Goodrick-Clarke "wants to keep the fringe theories separate from the academic historical research". The question is, does he in fact try to do that by reserving the term "Nazi occultism" for the fringe theories rather than the research?

I've just been looking right through that Appendix E, trying to find all occurrences of the exact phrase "Nazi occultism". As far as I can see, there are only three, all of which are in the final paragraph. I ve already quoted 2 of them in this discussion, but here they all are for the sake of completeness...

1. "Books written about Nazi occultism between 1960 and 1975 were typically sensational and under-researched."
2. "But the modern mythology of Nazi occultism, however scurrilous and absurd, exercised a fascination beyond mere entertainment. Serious authors were tempted into an exciting field of intellectual history."
3. "... Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas."

Which if any of these occurrences is "ambiguous"?

The only possible ambiguity I can see is in the phrase "the modern mythology of Nazi occultism", which is also the title of the Appendix. In itself, this phrase can be read in 2 possible ways, either

1. the modern mythology pertaining to Nazi occultism; or
2. the modern mythology which is Nazi occultism.

Zara has apparently assumed the 2nd of these to be Goodrick-Clarke's meaning. However, when all three occurrences are taken into account, any ambiguity disappears.

When Goodrick-Clarke writes of "the modern mythology of Nazi occultism" he does not mean that Nazi occultism is simply the name of a mythology. He means that it is a field which has a mythology, as well as a serious place in history.

In short, Zara, I think you've read Goodrick-Clarke superficially, and found a usage that simply is not there. Goodrick-Clarke clearly does not reserve the phrase "Nazi occultism" only for mythology/fringe theories/speculation. Why then should Wikipedia?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You can look in the archives of this discussion page and through the revision history of this article. I can understand it, if you think, based on you reading of Appendix E, that Nazi occultism would refer to the material which is currently included in religious aspects of Nazism or Ariosophy. But, if this was the case, WHY DOESN'T GOODRICK-CLARKE USE THE PHRASE IN THE REMAINDER OF THE BOOK, too? Honestly, I haven't found the phrase used a single time in the book outside of Appendix E and I think that I can say that Goodrick-Clarke makes it "extraordinarily plain that he wants to keep the fringe theories separate from the academic historical research" if he outsources the fringe theories to the Appendix. I will take another look at his book 'Black Sun', to see how he deals with the issue there. If you want a concrete suggestion, I'll suggest that we rename this article Mythology of Nazi occultism. Zara1709 (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't expect that someone would be bold and simply move the article, but then, on the other hand, if we can think of a better name, we can simply move the article another time. The current name should make it clear that we are discussing fringe theories in this article, I hope. Zara1709 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

article falling apart

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

some people seem to be trying to pull the floor from under this article. So the lead now says that "The actual religious aspects of Nazism, including the question of its potential occult and pagan aspects, are a different topic". How come? The topic of this article is and has always been the "potential occult and pagan aspects" of Nazism. I am fully aware that there are a lot of cranks in this field. I am also aware that occultism is a marginal aspect in the history of Nazism, mostly associated with the SS and Himmler. Guess what: this article is supposed to focus on this marginal aspect. Talking about occultism in any detail at Nazism would clearly be WP:UNDUE. But this article is dedicated to focussing on the occultists within the Nazi movement, and not on latter-day cranks making loony or "mythological" claims. --dab () 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NO, Dbachmann, I think you missed something here. I wrote that sentence, "The actual religious aspects of Nazism, including the question of its potential occult and pagan aspects, are a different topic." , myself, after I split Religious aspects of Nazism from this article. And I split the old article apart because people kept adding popular culture stuff here.. Which is fine, because the speculation about occult-obsessed Nazis is a popular culture topic. And please, if I am wrong and we should not keep the fringe theories on the Nazi connections to occult groups separate from the actual discussion on the Nazi connections to occult groups, comment in the section on the noticeboard. However, if we want to keep these topics separate, then the current article structure is fine. All we need to discuss is the title of this article. Zara1709 (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope and title of the article

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Zara. After acknowledging my point about what Goodrick-Clarke says about "Nazi occultism" in Appendix E of his book, you go on to ask "WHY DOESN'T GOODRICK-CLARKE USE THE PHRASE IN THE REMAINDER OF THE BOOK, too?" That is an interesting argument from silence. However, if we want to understand what an author means by the words he uses, I think we ought to focus on what he says, not on what he doesn't say... Throughout his book, Occult Roots of Nazism Goodrick-Clarke frequently uses words like occult, occultism, occultist. E.g. He uses the word "occultist" to describe the SS officer Karl Maria Wiligut in the 3rd paragraph of chapter 14. One might ask why he doesn't use the exact words "Nazi occultist" in that paragraph, but what would be the point of such a question?

The question I suggest we should be considering is this — if someone does a Wikipedia search with words such as "Nazi" and "occultism", what might they reasonably expect to find? Answers to historical questions about whether, and in what way, occultists such as Wiligut contributed to National Socialism? Information about books on those historical issues by specialist historians, including Goodrick-Clarke and James Webb? Information about more speculative writings, and about how those works have been commented on by people like Webb and Goodrick-Clarke? Information about entertaining fictional works?

It seems to me that someone searching words such as "Nazi" and "occultism" might reasonably expect info on any or all of these areas, in an article with a title like "Nazi occultism" or (if you prefer) "Nazism and Occultism" or something of the sort.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Zara1709 wins. congratulations.

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I posted this on the fringe theories messageboard in response to Zara1709's "playing games" message, but it really belongs here:

This might be an illustrative case for those committed to the cause of wikipedia. I am a new editor and already I am tired of it. I spent a considerable amount of time sincerely trying to make a page more complete (I'm not really committed one way or the other on the substantive argument Zara1709 wants to engage in, I just wanted to put more useful information on a page I think is lacking). In return, all I got was some uncivil commentary from the person who created this page, who appears to feel too much ownership over it, and a retraction of absolutely everything that I added to the page. I was accused of being a single-purpose account, simply because I'm new to this, told I don't understand neutrality, although I read and cited from the page thoroughly in making a complaint that I am not the first to make, and called a "fringe advocate" simply because I thought it might make sense to include information about Nazi occultists on a page called "Nazi occultism." I promised to add more to the page, and tried to make good on that promise, but since it doesn't appear my additions are welcome here, I can't see what the point would be in trying to add any more. I also promised to follow through on dispute resolution if unfair behavior continued, but I'm not interested in engaging in that sort of activity with a reactionary denialist. I already know what sort of ugly roads it will lead down. I get the sense Zara1709 would support burning all books about Nazi occultism not written by Goodrick-Clarke. He/She certainly doesn't want anyone to try reading any of them for subversive ideas. Yes, I've crossed the line of civility, but anyone who reads my previous posts will see I really did try to act in good faith. Now I'm fed up.

On a side note, I was trying to recall where I had heard Zara1709's derogatory comment about me before ("You know how fringe advocates are, Give them a little finger and they'll try to chew off your hand.") Then I saw The Pianist again tonight, and there it was: A Nazi soldier says it to Wladyslaw Szpilman about Jewish people. Something to think about...

Farewell wikipedia editing community. It was a short run, but certainly illuminating. Remember all, try not to bite the newcomers... Parallaxvision (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about the intro

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The introduction is better worded and contains more information than before, but treatment of Goodrick-Clarke is still hugely unbalanced. Much further down in the article, it is mentioned Goodrick-Clarke himself has written a whole book about "the racist-occult movement of Ariosophy… and this movement's potential influences on Nazism", also that he recognizes the books of Ellic Howe and James Webb as "serious works".

My question is — Why should not this more rigorous literature about Nazism and Occultism be mentioned in the introduction??Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was about to elaborate this comprehensively at the noticeboard, but I simply couldn't find the time. In WP articles we need to see that we give all viewpoints their due weight. The cryptohistoric viewpoint is notable (both Le Matin des Magiciens and The Spear of Destiny sold over a million copies worldwide), but, and I hope you agree, it definitely is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, a fringe theory. Working on the articles on this topic, I therefore tried to disentangle the fringe theories from the academic research - but, this is not done yet. I actually had moved the sentence on Howe and Webb, that we are arguing about here, back and forth between Nazi occultism, because I could get it to fit properly. And yes, Howe and Webb are serious researches (as far as I can say that without having read them), however, their works are from '67 and '76, respectively. There is better and more recent (well, 1980s) literature. I still think that the best option would to devote this article to the fringe theories and popular views and to discuss the academic research at Religious aspects of Nazism. Zara1709 (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that the intro now acknowledges that there is "academic research" and "ongoing debate" about the historical issues, and that significance of Webb and Ellic Howe is acknowledged in the article on Religious Aspects of Nazism.

I don't necessarily oppose idea of devoting this article to "fringe theories and popular views", but certain questions remain… Are the books, docos, etc notable primarily because they are fringe, or because they are popular? Your point about the sales figures of Le Matin des Magiciens and The Spear of Destiny is important. If this point is what establishes the notability, does it belong only in a note in brackets on the talk page? Or does it belong right at the start of the article itself?

I'd also repeat my earlier suggestion that, if this article is to cover only the popular literature, tv etc, then the words "popular culture" should be included in its title, so that the article's scope is clear to the reader from the very first glance. I know you mentioned similar wording being used in the title of an article that got merged into this one, but the question remains: do you still think it was a good idea to lose that wording, and if so why??Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Literature on National Socialism and Occultism (or whatever)

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I admit, I haven't done much at this article, and the option to move the article had been discussed some time ago; but then, on the other hand, you could simple have written something, Kalidasa 777, and I would have replied to it. Because, when I thought about where to move this article, I encountered some difficulties. But first: What would be the appropriate name for the article according to the literature? I should have written a survey of the literature a month ago, but since it required some time, I postponed it until now. The secondary literature speaks of:

  • The modern Mythology of Nazi occultism; Appendix E of Goodrick-Clarke's 1985 book
  • The Nazi Mysteries; Chapter 6 of Goodrick-Clarke's 2002 book
  • National Socialism and Occultism or more exactly: Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus (in German)
  1. An essay by H.T.Hakl in the German edition of Goodrick-Clarke's 1985 book
  2. An excursus in the book on Hitler's religious beliefs by Rißmann
  3. An online article: Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus? Die Thule-Gesellschaft
  • National Socialism and the Occult A short book by H.T.Hakl (in English), which simply might be a translation of the essay that is included in the German edition of The occult roots.... I don't know, because I haven't obtained it yet, since it is rather difficult or expensive to get.

What do we make of this? The title most secondary sources use is Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus, because all German language secondary sources use this title. Translation is simply, and since "Mythology of Nazi occultism" has already been rejected as title, and "The Nazi Mysteries" would likely be rejected for similar reasons, this is the most plausible choice. However, there also is a discussion going on about the article National Socialism and Nazism. Whereas in German the phrase Nationalsozialism, sometimes abbreviated as NS, is the most common name for the topic (more common than 'Nazismus' and 'Deutscher Faschismus') in English the most common name is Nazism. I don't know if you see the problem here, but you might want to have a look at Talk:National Socialism. Whereas I think that this article should be titled National Socialism and Occultism, I although think that National Socialism should be a disambiguation, and that the topic should, on the English Wikipedia, be referred to as Nazism. This would mean that I would need to involve myself in that discussion, so I was reluctant to move the article.

However, National Socialism and Occultism is certainly a better name than 'Nazism and occultism in popular culture'. Aside from the point that it is only a popular culture topic since the 1960s, I think that WP's policies favour the name that the topic is commonly referred as in secondary sources. Zara1709 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When did the article stop being about popular culture?

Zara, who was it that wrote, right here, on 18 June 2008 "This IS a popular culture topic."?

Same person used similar language on 23 March 2009, and 24 March 2009, and cited Goodrick-Clarke s own use of term "popular culture"… If you no longer think the term "popular culture" describes the scope of the article, when and why did you change your mind? And just why do we still see the term "popular culture" in the 1st sentence of the introduction?

I suggest to you, Zara, that we need to consider the purpose of an Wikipedia article title. What is it for? And who is it for?

Couple of quotes from Wikipedia policy pages…

"The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Wikipedia:Naming_conventions

"Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article. A reader may have found your article with a search, through Recent Changes or in some other way that provides no context for the subject matter, so do him a favor and name your articles precisely." Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)

Titles like "Nazi Occultism" or "National Socialism and Occultism" may seem optimized to you, as an editor with some specialist knowledge, but are they optimized for a general audience?

How many times have you told people, right here on this discussion page, that they didn't understand the scope of the article? That's why I think the article should have a title that would help them understand.

Regarding that list of references you ve provided… I've taken a look at the online article "Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus? Die Thule-Gesellschaft", and noticed that it discusses questions like "What sort of influence did Karl Haushofer have on Hitler?" ("7.2 Welcher Art war der Einfluss Karl Haushofers auf Adolf Hitler?")

That is exactly the kind of serious historical question that a reader would expect to see addressed within an article called "National Socialism and Occultism". And exactly the sort of issue which is not addressed in this Wikipedia article as it stands.

Yes, Appendix E of Goodrick-Clarke's 1985 book has the title of "The Modern Mythology of Nazi occultism". However the book as a whole has the title "The Occult Roots of Nazism". As that title indicates, it is a book about the serious historical issue of the relationship between occultism and National Socialism, in which just a few pages at the end offer an assessment of earlier and generally less rigorous books.

A title like "Mythology of Nazi Occultism" is far from precise -- it could mean any of a number of things to a general audience. For instance, it could be taken to refer to versions of very ancient events as taught by Nazi occultists such as Karl Maria Wiligut. No doubt it does its job as a chapter heading for a specialist's book with 20 chapters (including appendices).

But Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia of almost 3 million pages. If they are not labelled very very clearly, how is the general reader expected to get through such a jungle to find whatever it may be that he or she really wants?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if this was a simple question. If I knew a good name for this article, I would not have been so reluctant to discuss the issue. There isn't an obvious solution to this, and I rather would have liked to keep the previous name and spent the time that we now need for discussing the issue on editing. You do have a point, when you mention my argument that this is a popular culture topic. It might help some readers if this is pointed out in the title, but then, on the other hand, it is pointed out in the first sentence anyway. If they miss this in reading the first sentence, I don't think that this kind of reader could be helped at all, regardless of what the title of the article is. And more importantly, the third sentence already specifies: "The first examples of this literary genre appeared in the occult milieu in France and England in the early 1940s." The books from the early 1940s are not popular culture books - as far as the source for this (Hakl) is concerned, there are from the occult milieu (that should be almost verbatim). So I probably should have been more specific and should have written: This is a topic on popular culture and occultism. I wouldn't know that Crowley is part of popular culture, but we shouldn't have difficulties finding a source that calls him an occultist. That is one argument that speaks against the title you propose. The other argument is the general difficulty of Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. We do have a rather large list of reference to Nazism and Occultism in movies, computer games and that like. If we only had these kind of information, it would be hard to justify why we need this article. (Read the guideline.) If you want an example, take a look at Talk:Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Quote: "This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus." This article here, National Socialism and Occultism, has something that the article Adolf Hitler in popular culture apparently doesn't have - secondary sources. And according to the secondary sources the title of this article should be National Socialism and Occultism. Of course, you are free to help me find more secondary sources, but I think I have identified all of them.

If you still want to discuss a 'real' relation between Occultism and Nazism here, well, then I suppose I can't remove the 'unbalanced' tag yet. I really thought that we had resolved that part. I don't know why Goodrick-Clarke's book has the title "The occult Roots of Nazism" WITHOUT QUESTION MARK. The question if there were any 'occult roots of Nazism' had been pending an answer since Wilfried Daim had discovered the connection between Lanz von Liebenfels and Adolf Hitler. Goodrick-Clarke answered this question with his book, and the result was largely negative. There were direct connections, but these are very sparse. Some occultist designed a ring for the SS, and he and a few others did some occult research for Himmler, but they neither had any manifest influence on the doctrines of the SS, nor on Nazism. Paganism (or Neopaganism if you want) is a different issue, which is still controversially discussed. Anyway, these discussions belong to the article religious aspects of Nazism. The only separate article I currently take into consideration is an article Cultic activities within the SS or that like, where we could asses the significance of persons like Wiligut in detail. Concerning Haushofer: If you want , I can write you a a short paragraph on him for this article... but would you, then, consider the controversy about the balance of this article to be resolved? Zara1709 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Goodrick-Clarke's findings

If you don't know 'why Goodrick-Clarke's book has the title "The occult Roots of Nazism" WITHOUT QUESTION MARK' I suggest you have a closer look at his book. A few quotes... On page 177, the occultist Wiligut is described as the "favoured mentor" of Himmler. A few pages later, on page 186, Goodrick-Clarke describes Wiligut's role in relation to the Wewelsburg castle as a "spectacular contribution to the Third Reich". On page 192, Goodrick-Clarke writes "The lineage of the early Nazi Party in respect of its sponsors, newspaper, and symbol has been traced to the Thule Society, the Germanenorden, and thus to the ideas of Guido von List." On page 198 "On the basis of the available evidence, then, it seems most probable that Hitler did read and collect the Ostara in Vienna. Its contents served to rationalize and consolidate his emerging convictions... and buttressed his own sense of mission to save the world." Goodrick-Clarke presents all these findings -- which I would not call "largely negative" -- under a title which includes the worlds "occult" and "nazism". Why, then, shouldn't Wikipedia mention his positive conclusions in an article under a heading like "National Socialism and Occultism"???Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have pointed out what Goodrick-Clarke did find. However, there is also quite of lot that he didn't find, rumours which he couldn't confirm. Among other, all the people who weren't members of the Thule Society. Dietrich Eckart only gave one reading at the Thule Society, e.g. (Goodrick-Clarke 2002: 117). Furthermore, other historians were not quite as bold as Goodrick-Clarke in interpreting the partly patchy evidence. Whereas Goodrick-Clarke thinks that Lanz' account of the contact to Hitler is credible, Brigitte Hamann leaves the question open and Ian Kershaw is extremely sceptical. Rißmann is sceptical, too. (cp. Rißmann 2001: 249) I suppose that the article religious aspects of Nazism has to be expandend to include all the questions you mentioned, but I don't know when I'll find the time.Zara1709 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Spence, Lewis, Occult Causes of the Present War, 1940: p85.
  2. ^ Spence 1940.
  3. ^ http://www.runestone.org/RS32/books/index.htm, http://www.runestone.org/lep4.html, http://www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/odinvsnazi.html; "The Myth and Reality of Occultism in the Third Reich" lecture by S. E. Flowers, November 12th, 2006. http://www.woodharrow.com/lectureseries.html.
  4. ^ Review of The Secret King by Stephen A. McNallen, (http://www.runestone.org/RS32/books/index.htm).
  5. ^ Flowers 1984: 16.
  6. ^ Höhne 1969: 138, 143–5, 156–57.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occultism_in_Nazism/Archive_3&oldid=1022584158"