Talk:Guido von List/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I would like to challenge one statement made in this article, where it says he "believed in an international Jewish conspiracy who threatened the existence of the Aryan race." I am an Odinist and have been for 7 years. List was folkish yes but not anti-semitic, I think this is an unjust statement that is contributing to tarnishing the name of the most prominent runic revivalist of the 20th Century. Can this be changed? I think for more information on list you should look here: http://www.geocities.com/fnrswulf/welcomeguido.htm

He was folkish and proud of his people and their heritage but being this is a far cry from beiung racist or even Nazi as he died in 1919. I have studied his life for a long time, as has Edred Thorsson (Stephen Flower Phd.) and has translated the majority of his works and written about his life and we have not found anything "anti-semitic."

I truly hope that you can mamde a decent change to this article. If yo uneed any pictures of him then I recommend you look at this link of conversation as their are some VERY rare pictures here towards the end of the post, found no where else on the interent: http://odinist.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=920

Thank you. Fjorn.

Revision of this article

What you suggest would be to revise the text to where it agrees with the deceptive public stance maintained by people like Stephen Flowers, when in fact what is desired in an encyclopaedia is *factual* information.

Guido von List will continue to be known for the grand deceiver that he was, and no amount of socio-religious bias on the part of Asatruar is going to change the facts we do have to give to the world.

Making edits.

This article is almost entirely the work of a pro-von List supporter, filled with inaccurate statements ranging from personal bias to outright fabrication.

I am going to extensively edit it, remove the parts that only reflect 'personal' thoughts of the last editor, and try to ensure it is more neutral in the phrasing of the statements.

-An educated heathen, and a professional historian-

Finished for now.

All right. I fixed most of the obvious logical and grammatical problems in the article text, but I am certain there remain some I simply overlooked.

Considering von List's influence on modern Asatru, this article is worth some considerable expansion, but hopefully not at the price of accuracy in the future. I welcome additions to what is now present.

Just for giggles: yes, I am a Heithinn. I also believe, however, in truth, not truth subjected to biased ideologies. Science and religion are two different methods of interpretation, and should be kept separate.

06.Feb.2005 19:37 Eastern Standard Time

von

It appears he was simply called Guido List, and the aristocrativ "von" is self-applied. Maybe the article should be moved, not to endorse his self-agrandissement. But arguably, the "von" is just part of the nom de plume he is commonly referred to. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My opinion: keep it with the 'von' intact. I have never encountered his name being used without his self-added 'von' except when something is referring to him actually adding it. Retaining it will likely ensure less overall confusion. Pádraic I. M. MacUidhir 19:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  *Hi, I have added an excellent article as a link to the 'von' issue which will help I hope
to clear up a few misconceptions - http://geocities.com/odinistlibrary/OLArticles/Articles/dermeistervoncontroversy.htm

No, you haven't. This is some sort of broken Geocities link, not a reference, and it isn't in the article. List appears to have made up his "von" just as Lanz did. The remark that he somehow had really been granted the title appears to be unsupported and should be removed. NaySay (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Von (pronounced Fon) does not automatically indicate a title (Count) but in many cases simply indicates the place of birth of the person. Max von Frankfurt for example can simply mean Max from Frankfurt NOT Max, Count of Frankfurt. Mrfh (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Celtic paganry

"List's concept of renouncing Christianity, a Semitic religion intertwined with Judaism, and returning to the pagan religions of the ancient Europeans would also influence Neo-Nazism and White Supremacism strongly. Germanic and Celtic pagan religions would be part of the White Supremacist movement for years to come."

Can someone show me more than one or two fringe weirdos who somehow have managed to tie Celtic paganry to White Supremicist socio-political movements in the 19th and 20th centuries? I am going to delete the 'Celtic' portion of the statements from the article as quoted above until someone can find references that support the assertion made by the editor who originally included that bit in the article. Pádraic I. M. MacUidhir 20:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Runic revivalism

I have (once again) removed that very odd bit of vandalism that continues to be appended to the 'Runic revivalism' section of this article. The entire section is still a mess as it is, and (in my professional opinion) either should be erased and re-written entirely or extensively edited. Pádraic I. M. MacUidhir 20:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The article has been edited again by myself. I have removed a few paragraphs that did not belong in the body of the article. Since much of that material consists of quotes from individuals, they should be referenced by citations if someone desires to actually retain them as part of the article. If I am in error in saying this, please feel free to let me know on my Talk page or here.

The more modern usage of the Armanen runes has also been edited to reflect a more NPOV presentation. The article, however, could stand to have a lot more editing done to it. I am going to leave it to others to edit for now. P.MacUidhir 05:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your deletions. The main article is at Armanen runes anyway. The "npov" part of contemporary use by neopagans does not impinge on the discussion of the runes' origin. There is no serious debate as to their origin with List. If Neopagans should use it is a debate within Neopaganism, of course, and if some choose to use them as 'runes' that's their personal choice, I suppose, along with all the other syncretism common in those circles. It is misleading to call those 'reconstructionists' however, unless you want to imply they want to reconstruct early 20th century Neopaganism :) dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. On the last point- the Asatrufolk, in most cases, claim to be reconstructing various forms of heiðni instead of making it up as they go along like other neoPagan groups do. So, what I was trying to say was that the people using the Armanen runes are reconstructing what they think is heiðni, but I was allowing for the possibility that they can find some sort of logic in doing so whilst also finding the Armanen runes to be of value in their efforts. It makes no sense to me, but I am trying to be descriptive of what they believe and do rather than prescriptive about what is or is not reconstruction of heiðni according to my own views.

I think you were reading it as they are reconstructing something a bit different. Your interpretation strikes me as much more entertaining than mine, though. ;)

Regardless, the rewrite you just made is more concise than my own, and gets the point across without all of my verbosity, so I say it is a good change. Thank you. P.MacUidhir 09:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

thank you :) WP:NPOV of course means that mainstream academic views are given more weight than fringy or kooky claims (otherwise Wikipedia would be a madhouse, see Talk:Pelasgians for example). If Neopagans use the Armanen runes for their rituals, that's up to them of course (although it invariably will put a folkish smack to them by association with List); if they claim that these runes are of hoary antiquity, they are then of course open to academic criticism (see also Wolfsangel for the Gibor case). dab (ᛏ) 11:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)