Jump to content

Talk:Occultism in Nazism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

How to bring balance

What needs to happen to bring balance to this article... Seems to me that either the title should be more precise, or the content of the article should include discussion of the serious historical issues.

"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)

An example of one way a reader can find a reference to this article is the page Occultism_and_the_far_right. That page suggests that "Nazi occultism" is about occultism and the far right in the 1919s-1930s. That, I think, is the sort of area a general reader would expect to see covered in a WP article called either "Nazi occultism" or "Nazism and occultism"

You've suggested that it is not necessary for the title to say this is popular culture article, because the first sentence says that anyway, and because the 3rd sentence then says something rather different… The point is, a precise title would tell the readers what to expect before they click to go to the article, so that they can then choose whether to go there or not...

You've also suggested that the present title and scope of the article (which refuses to look at the serious historical questions) has something to do with established academic usage... No, because Goodrick-Clarke presents his substantial positive findings on certain points (as well as his negative findings on other points) under the title "Occult Roots of Nazism", not "Religious Roots of Nazism".

It is true that in his book the terms occult and religious are closely associated. Still, if there are good reasons for including his findings (along with the views of other serious historians) in a WP article called Religious aspects of Nazism, surely there even better reasons for including them also in an WP article called National Socialism and Occultism.

If not, why not??

Regarding sources, I would suggest that Ellic Howe and James Webb should also be included. They are important not only as historians, but also as commentators on the popular culture. The fact that they are in English rather than German may not make them more authoritative, but does make them more accessible to the general readers of the English-language WP. And the whole point of WP is to make knowledge accessible. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am somehow disappointed, your previous arguments were better. I thought that we had agreed that we should keep the fringe theories, the popular culture and the occult speculation separate from the real historical issues, inasmuch there are any real historical issues. There isn't an optimal name for this article here. I personally think that "National Socialism and Occultism" is a slightly better title than "Nazi occultism", but any of these is better than "Nazism and Occultism in popular culture". Why? Because with the usual structure of Wikipedia concerning "...in popular culture" articles, the later name would lead a reader to assume that "Nazism and Occultism" is also a topic outside of popular culture etc., which is not the case. So far you apparently have not seen the wood for the trees. Goodrick-Clarke does discuss the influence some occultist might have had on Himmler. He also discusses the significance of occultism in the Thule Society and devotes one whole chapter to the question of "Ariosophy and Adolf Hitler". But if you look at the last pages of that chapter (p.202), you will find Goodrick-Clarke's conclusion:
"Hitler was surely influences by the millenarian and manichaean motifs of Ariosophy, but its descriptions of a prehistoric golden age, a gnostic priesthood, and a secret heritage in cultural relicts and orders had no part in his political or cultural imagination. These ideas were of course widespread in the völkisch movement, but Hitler's achievement was the transformation of this nationalist feelings and nostalgia into a violently anti-Semitic movement concerned with national revolution and revival. (...) Ariosophy is a symptom rather than an influence in the way that it anticipated Nazism."
Here Goodrick-Clarke describes Nazism as "a violently anti-Semitic movement concerned with national revolution and revival." The occult elements of Ariososphy that he has identified in his book, "descriptions of a prehistoric golden age, a gnostic priesthood, and a secret heritage in cultural relicts and orders" were neither part of Hitler political/cultural/religious world view, nor of any significance in the Nazi movement. For Himmler, who is mentioned in the part of the quote that I've left out, this is, according to Goodrick-Clarke, different; But I've already offered that we could split of a part of the article religious aspects of Nazism and create and article cultic activities within the SS or something like that - as soon as we have more content on the general topic, so please don't be so bold an go ahead with that. There are many far more urgent issues, e.g., I've spent the last hour looking through old redirects to this article. If you find a disambigation: Occultism_and_the_far_right, it is part of the article structure that needs to be reworked. These issues are going to require much more time, and it doesn't help Wikipedia if we prolong this discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't see the wood for the trees?

Zare wrote...

"with the usual structure of Wikipedia concerning '...in popular culture' articles, the later name would lead a reader to assume that 'Nazism and Occultism' is also a topic outside of popular culture etc., which is not the case."

That is indeed a crucial point, where you and I seem to see things differently.

You tell me, Zara, that I have not seen the wood for the trees. The trees I can see are a series of statements by Goodrick-Clarke about Wiligut's "extraordinary influence" (p 178) and "spectacular contribution" (p 186), about tracing "the lineage of the early Nazi Party in respect of its sponsors, newspaper, and symbol... to the Thule Society, the Germanenorden, and thus to the ideas of Guido von List". (p 192) "Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas". (page 225) All of this in a book whose full title is The Occult Roots of Nazism : secret Aryan cults and their influence on Nazi ideology : the Ariosophists of Austria and Germany.

To me, these trees do indeed add up to a rather substantial wood. For Goodrick-Clarke, the relation between Nazism and occultism is an significant topic of study.

You've quoted a passage from that begins with the words "Hitler was surely influenced by the millenarian and manichean motifs of Ariosophy". And this is supposed to show that there is no real connection between Nazism and occultism?

Are you saying that Ariosophy (according to Goodrick-Clarke) had occult and non-occult aspects, and that its "manichean motifs", by which Hitler was surely influenced, are part of the non-occult side of Ariosophy? OK, where and when does Goodrick-Clarke say that this manichean side of Ariosophy falls outside his conception of occultism? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Hitler was posthumously cured from demon possession

Among the various accounts that Hitler was possessed by a demon, one that struck me as especially unusual is the claim that Hitler was somehow cured from demonic posesssion after his death. According to this account, Hitler had not been evil all his life, but gradually became possessed by demons when he associated himself to occult mystical circles that had links to Masonic sects. After his death, Hitler was supposedly visited by two archangels, including the archangel Michael, who cleansed him of his demonic possession and brought him before God so he could atone for his sins. It is not known what happened next, but it is presumed that Hitler may have received forgiveness after he expressed regret for all the harm that he had caused. This is a rather strange account, but it is one significant view among many schools of thought in the small world of exorcists and occultists. ADM (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name: new suggestion

Maybe one way of addressing concerns, without having to radically change article's scope, would be to make the title Nazi occultism in popular culture. I suggest this because

Just for your information, we already had an article with that title: Nazi occultism in popular culture. I merged it into this one, because that, was Goodrick-Clarke discusses in Appendix E of The occult Roots.. is already a popular culture topic. I even have a quote from his Black Sun where he explicitly speaks of popular culture. As you know, the title of Appendix E is: The Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism, this is why is suggested Mythology of Nazi occultism as title, but Modern mythology of Nazi occultism would also be possible. Currently I am reading Rißmann again, who refers this topic simply under the heading Nationalsozialmus und Okkultism (National Socialism and Occultism), as do two other reliable German secondary sources, so that would be a possible suggestion, too. I personally am currently thinking of something like: Cryptohistory about Nazism and Occultism, but I hope that I can think of something better (and shorter). Anyway, before we make an even longer list of possible suggestions, I would have to write an overview about the reliable secondary sources on the topic, since the notability of the fringe theories as fringe theories has been called into question. Believe me, there are enough reliable sources to make the topic notable, but I will need some time to prepare an overview about these sources. Zara1709 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


National Socialism and Occultism would be a fine title for an article that covered the serious historical literature about relation between nazism and occultism, as well as discussing the more popular and speculative literature. On the other hand, if we want to keep this as a specificalIy popular culture page, then I suggest that its title ought to spell that out as clearly and simply as possible.

Of course I know Goodrick-Clarke's appendix is called, "The Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism". I also know that in that appendix Goodrick-Clarke speaks of "crypto-history" found in "popular books". Thing is, WP policy wants page titles to have "the highest degree of neutrality" (emphasis added). Which then is the most neutral expression — "mythology", "crypto-history", or "popular"?

Regarding secondary literature about the popular works, I suggest that James Webb's book The Occult Establishment (which, as you know, Goodrick-Clarke respects) should be taken into account, as Webb makes some interesting comments on Pauwels and Berger. He describes their book as "exaggerated, underresearched, and erratic on many points" but thinks they are right about some things, and "often have the advantage of an expert knowledge of occult patterns of thought." Webb, like Goodrick-Clarke, clearly finds Pauwels and Berger to be unreliable, but would Webb have agreed with words such as "mythology", "crypto-history"? I don't know.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, National Socialism and Occultism as title is discussable, but please don't give me a sentence referring to the "actual role of occultists in the German National Socialist movement." I have Rißmann's book right here, and he concludes:
"Neither Hitler, the NS-Ideology nor alleged world-conspiracies are suitable to understand National Socialism as Occultism. The cryptohistory can only do this, because - as it has been described in the catalogue of characteristics above - tends to a distorted view on the historical facts (1.) maintains a frivolous handling with scientific literature, refuses the results of serious science and passes down dubious myths (Legendenbildung)uncritical (2.) because it often seeks the vicinity of the fictional literature of the fantasy-genre (3.) has succumbed to a conspiracy-myth (Verschwörungsmythos) (4.) and finally equates the ideas of a few party bosses (Parteigrößen) with the whole administrative machine." (Rißmann 2001: 171,172)
Admittedly, Rißmann's book is written in German and so far not translated, but I am quite sure that this recent monograph about Hitler's religious beliefs is a highly reputable source. And he explicitly calls the topic cryptohistory, too. If you say that Webb writes that Berger and Pauwels ""often have the advantage of an expert knowledge of occult patterns of thought," that sounds like a rather ironic statement. Anyway, if you want to say something about the "actual role of occultists in the German National Socialist movement", then please bring the references for that forward first. Because, although e.g. Himmler had an occultist searching for the holy grail, for National socialism as such this was of no significance (at least according to Rißmann). Zara1709 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Zara, in the sentence you've objected to, I actually referred to "the imagined or actual role of occultists in the German National Socialist movement". Logically, if their role was neither actual nor imagined, there would be no books about it whatsoever, speculative or otherwise, and we'd have nothing to talk about here.

However, since you've asked, I think it is difficult to deny that occultists played an actual role in the Nazi movement. Karl Maria Wiligut is an instance. Goodrick-Clarke identifies him as an occultist (Occult Roots of Nazism, p178), gives details about the way he assisted Himmler in development of insignia and ceremonies (Occult Roots of Nazism, p177), and asks "how did he come to exercise this extraordinary influence?" (Occult Roots of Nazism, p178, emphasis added). The SS was part of the Nazi movement, wasn't it, Zara?

In the passage you've given, Rißman rejects the view that one can "understand National Socialism as occultism". Which is a hardly the same question. After all it is one thing to say that there are admirers of Ayn Rand who play a role in Wikipedia, but it would be quite another thing to think of "Wikipedia as Ayn Randism".

The fact remains that there is not only a speculative literature about links between occultism and Nazism, but also a much more rigorous literature, which Goodrick-Clarke has both recognized and added to. If the title of the article is to be National Socialism and Occultism, (which is fine by me) then we do need to pay attention to what the more rigorous authors say about e.g. Wiligut and Himmler. Not just what they say about e.g. Pauwels and Bergier.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I simply think that it would hardly be meaningful to speak of the "actual role of occultists in the German National Socialist movement." Yes, there were those occultists who worked for the SS, and this tells us something about Himmler's religious beliefs. But does it tell us anything about Nazism? Rißmann rhetorically asks if the Holocaust would not have happened if Reinhard Heydrich would have been in command of the SS. Heydrich was not only one of the main architects of the Holocaust and Himmler's second-in-command, but, as far as I know, also an atheist and part of the secular fraction within the Nazi party (those that were neither Paganists nor 'Germanic' Christians.) All that can be said for the actual role of occultists in the Nazi movement is that one occultist designed the death head ring of the SS. Tell me, do you think that we can, based on this, say that occultist had an actual role in Nazism? Does it make a difference for the phenomenon of Nazism that the ring that was worn by SS members was designed by an occultist? Therefore I think we should only speak of the "potential occult aspects of Nazism." Zara1709 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Design of the death's head ring was only part of what Goodrick-Clarke calls "Weisthor's contribution to the ceremonial and pseudo-religion of the SS." (Occult Roots of Nazism, p187) As Goodrick-Clarke mentions, Wiligut (aka Weisthor) also "had an important influence of the development of SS ritual", (Occult Roots of Nazism, p187) including wedding ceremonies, and spring, harvest and solstice festivals. I think this tells us something, not only about Himmler's personal beliefs, but about the corporate culture of the SS, its esprit de corps. About the way the people who eventually carried out the Holocaust were encouraged to see themselves and their mission.

I don't know very much about Heydrich's personal Weltanschauung, so cannot comment on what the SS would have been like under his leadership. In any case, when Goodrick-Clarke speaks of the "contribution" or "important influence" of certain occultists on certain aspects of the Nazi movement, I don't see that this as a reason for disregarding contributions to that movement made by Christians or atheists. I agree there is a danger of exaggeration regarding Nazism and occultism, and I agree that there are popular works which have sensationalized the whole question. However, there is also a danger of denying or downplaying things things that actually happened.

What happens at the moment in Wikipedia is this. Someone interested in the Pagan component of the Nazi movement finds the article about Karl Maria Wiligut. In the first sentence of that article, Wiligut is described as a "Nazi occultist", which is entirely consistent with what Goodrick-Clarke says about Wiligut. The searcher then clicks on the words "Nazi occultist", expecting to learn more about people like Wiligut... finds an article entitled "Nazi occultism", (so far so good)… begins to read... "speculative theories", "speculation", "crypto-history"… and then, eventually, the news that "The actual religious aspects of Nazism, including the question of its potential occult and pagan aspects, are a different topic." Which seems rather strange...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The current title is unacceptable. It is perfectly possible to have a serious dicussion on "Nazi occultism" even while fully aware that the cryptohistorical ideas on Nazism having somehow been substantially shaped by occultism are untenable. This article should be about Nazi occultism, such as it was, not about debunking overblown claims in "cryptohistory". --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Goodrick-Clarke's work

Although this discussion has been going on for months (with a break), we still haven't moved at all. We have arrived again at the point "where you and I seem to see things differently." However, our difference is not some arbitrary difference; what we are discussing is the content of an academic history book, and whereas works of literature etc. can be read from different perspectives, academic works on history usually can't. Goodrick-Clarke writes: "Ariosophy is a symptom rather than an influence in the way that it anticipated Nazism." This sentence is definite and does show that, according to Goodrick-Clarke, there is no significant, direct (real) connection between Nazism and the (occultist) movement of Ariosophy, which he has examined in his book. In the preceding sentences Goodrick-Clarke has specified, in what sense he considers the Nazi movement and Hitler to have been influenced by Ariosophy. Both Ariosophy and Nazism had according to Goodrick-Clarke, milleniaristic and manichean elements, but other elements of Ariosophy were not present in Nazism. For example: Whereas some anti-Semitic groups in the völkisch movement has organized themselves deliberately in the form of 'secret' lodges, in Nazi Germany (and Austria) such groups later where prohibited, despite their ideological affinity. There is no generally agreed definition of Occultism (which doesn't make writing this article easier.) However, the notion to form this kind of secret societies is nothing original of Ariosphy, it was already present in Rosicrucianism and irregular 'Templar' freemasonry. (Read Esotericism in Germany and Austria, an article which I have written largely based on Goodrick-Clarke; alternatively I can give you some more quotes from Goodrick-Clarke). I think, if we want to use the term 'Occultism' as a scientific term at all, we could describe the notion that one should form secret religious societies as occultistic. This notion was present n Ariosophy, as well as in several other Esoteric movements. But, and that is the point, it is not present in Nazism. For Nazism this sounded to much like Freemasonry, which it opposed, because it considered Freemasons to be part of the so-called Jewish conspiracy. All this modern Mythology of Nazi occultism ignores this part of the history of Nazi Germany when they are searching (or proclaiming to have found) secret Nazi societies. Zara1709 (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder if the Nazis were opposed to Mormonism, which allegedly has a [casual relationship] to Freemasonry. 68.36.120.7 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Significance of occultism -- positive and negative statements

Academic works can indeed be read in different ways. Where an author makes both positive and negative statements about something, it is possible either to focus on the positive side only, or to focus on the negative side only, or to take seriously both the positive statements and the negative.

Goodrick-Clarke's statement that you've quoted -- "Ariosophy is a symptom rather than an influence in the way that it anticipated Nazism." -- certainly notable, as is his statement, on same page that Hitler was "surely influenced by the millenarian and manichean motifs of Ariosophy". It is apparent that he sees both continuity and discontinuity there...

While there may not be a generally agreed definition of occultism, Goodrick-Clarke writes about his own understanding of the term at the start of chapter 2 of Occult Roots of Nazism (page 17). "Its principle ingredients have been identified as Gnosticism, the Hermetic treatises on alchemy and magic, Neo-Platonism, and the Cabbala, all originating in the eastern Mediterranean area during the first few centuries AD..." Describes "dualism" as a common theme of Gnostic doctrines, and Manicheanism as a dualistic religion. Goes on to say that during the Renaissance period... "Prominent humanists and scholar magicians edited the old classical texts... and thus created a modern corpus of occult speculation." Occultism, for Goodrick-Clarke, is in the first place a particular type of doctrine, rather than a particular type of organization, such as the masonic lodge, even though he goes on to discuss organizations that were based on those doctrines. And those "manichean motifs" by which Hitler was "surely influenced" (page 202) are well within Goodrick-Clarke's conception of what occultism means.

For WP, though, the crucial point is not even whether Goodrick-Clarke's findings are best described as largely negative, or as having equally significant positive elements -- in any case, that is rather like arguing about whether a glass is half empty or half full. The real question is -- Why shouldn't WP readers (those who don't read thru the talk pages as well) be informed both about what he and other historians found, and about what they didn't find?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move

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

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

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

  • weak support. This is not mysticism in the strict sense, as exemplified by Theresa of Avila; and the loose sense of "incoherent thought" would extend the subject to the Welteislehre and other crackpottery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The phenomenon is definitely more occultic than mystical in character. Nevertheless, racial mysticism seems to be an established term and concept in the literature, and there is definitely an element of racial mysticism in this thing; perhaps more so in its post-war developments. I'm ok with 'Nazi occultism', but there is an alternative that I would like to point out before we decide. In Black Sun (which I've just been reading through), Goodrick-Clarke employs the term Esoteric Nazism. This has the advantage of actually being attested in the literature, and it would neatly cover both the occultic and any mystical aspects of this phenomenon, thus sidestepping a needless controversy over the meaning and relative merits of these two terms. Gnostrat 21:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, it isn't clear whether G-C would include the occult interests of the 3rd Reich in his 'Esoteric Nazism' concept. It seems to be an umbrella term for the postwar groups. So maybe I'd go with 'Nazi occultism' after all. Gnostrat 03:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a big improvement on the existing title. Esoteric Nazism, even if attested in the literature, would be an enigmatic and unrecognisable term to most people. Nazi occultism is the best suggestion yet. A better suggestion would be welcome, and I seriously considered weak support and even typed it in, but on reflection there's nothing weak about my support for this proposal in the absence of a better one. Andrewa 10:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just checked the edit history again. Both 'Nazi occultism' and 'Nazi mysticism' were created by Sam Spade. He, however, has seems to have quit the English Wikipedia, so I think I should not bother to ask him. I also was thinking whether there would be similar names more appropriate, 'Occult Nazism' or more exact 'Occult Elements of Nazism'. Unfortunately I don't have the time to check Goodrick-Clarke's book on this question a.t.m.. -Zara1709 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I find the whole title of the article misleading. I came here to find out about the beliefs and dabblings of Nazi leaders in the occult. This article is not about "Nazism and occultism" or anything of the sort. This article is about "Occultist views on Nazism." At the very least, there should be a disambiguation note at the top explaining this. I propose "This article deals with occultist explanations of the origin of Nazism. For the religious beliefs of Nazis, see XXXX." 173.152.150.7 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Crowley and Hitler

I'm not sure how this should be used to change the article given the difficulties with my reference, but here goes. I have seen a letter by Aleister Crowley, written to German-American poet and Nazi enthusiast George Sylvester Viereck, in which he asks Viereck to use his influence to have Crowley's Novum Organum adopted as the "bible of the New Order". I have no information on whether Viereck - who in any case does not appear to have been taken seriously by Nazi leaders except as a conduit of propaganda to the United States - followed up on this request. The letter was in a manuscript auction held by R.M. Smythe in New York on May 9, 2002, and was part of lot 334. However, because there is a question about its current ownership, I don't think it's appropriate to quote or cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.13.66 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUE, article title and scope

I understand that "Nazi occultism" is flooded by cryptohistory / pop culture crap. Nevertheless, "Nazism and occultism" is far too important a topic to be marginalized by an obsessive debunking of what "has been claimed in popular culture". Split off the "in popular culture" stuff and let this article focus on the ambivalent relation of Nazism and occultism. Not as a compound, "Nazi occultism", but with the conjunction "and", implying that what is being discussed are both the tendencies of Nazism and the völkisch movement towards occultist ideas (mostly in 1918 to 1933) and the move away from such ideas after the Nazi rise to power, mostly after 1935, afaik almost completely after 1939. The Nazis as a group had a love-hate relationship with occultism, they instrumentalized it in the early days and they shed it once they had outgrown what it could usefully do for them. This is worth a detailed discussion without the the constant "in popular culture" tangents. --dab (𒁳) 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Did "Arbeit Macht Frei" have anything to do with "Nazi occultism"?

see here

I notice that "Work Makes Free(dom)" was stapled all over the entrances of concentration camps, perhaps mocking the prisoners or being sarcastic, but I wonder if the Nazis actually believed at all in the power of work to make one free (even if it was only freedom in death or in an afterlife or whatever). Did the Nazis ever deify work, or was "Arbeit Macht Frei" simply a joke, or what? 68.36.120.7 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither occult nor a joke. Nazism used slogans for morale, and even wanted morale for their slave workers toward work (within the meta-reference of the "Kraft Durch Freude" programme invested with some slogan creating (its name being its official slogan)). Free being philosophical, and the "abstract-empiricalist-philosophically minded jew" as top Nazis would have pinned the bourgeois jews in the camps, would have IMO to the Nazis understood the "work makes free" from a philosophical perspective; that work engenders the feeling of freedom to which anyone actual attains any freedom: within ones own contentment of mind. Read the "fascist philosophy" of Giovanni Gentile to understand that. 184.100.176.69 (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing to a newcomer

I came to this article for the first time today from an external link. I was hoping to find the best current answer to one simple question: "To what degree is the frequent association between Nazism and occultism based on actual interests or actions of the Nazi leadership?" Whatever else this article may include, that would seem to be the core issue for it to address.

My experience may not be representative, but I did not feel that the article effectively answered that question. I hoped there would be a clear statement right up front, but the vast majority of the introductory paragraph just discussed the history of how the idea was popularized, not its basis (or lack thereof). Only the next-to-last sentence even addresses the existence of serious scholarship on the topic, and it doesn't give any clear sense of the current status of that debate.

"Ok," I thought, "the article's focus is on the idea in pop culture, but surely there's a section somewhere that summarizes that actual scholarship or discusses the basis or inspiration for the connection." But no: there are two(!) sections about documentaries on the subject, a list of (unrealistic sounding) claims made in those documentaries, a list of related fiction, and a bunch of references. Maybe the answer is buried in there somewhere, but boy, none of it sounds likely (and skimming through didn't turn up anything, either).

So I still don't know the answer to my question. Is there direct evidence that Hitler or his chief lieutenants read occult literature, participated in occult practices, or had any interest in the occult? Is there evidence that such beliefs provided direction or inspiration for Nazism in general? To what degree are serious historians confident in the answers to those questions?

I don't even know if there's some other Wikipedia article that might give me the answers I'm looking for. I can't think of what else it would be called, though! [Added later: Ah, I see that the subsection with this name in the "Religious aspects of Nazism" article gets a bit closer to answering my question, though I still had to fully read two rather long paragraphs to get to the answer. Shouldn't the specific article on the topic do a better job than the general one?] --Steuard (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Helena Blavatsky

I would like to see a section on the topic of whether Hitler was influenced by Helena Blavatsky. Some have been quick to disregard the use of the Swastika by Hitler and the possible influence of Blavatsky on Hitler. Answer this: If Hitler was Christian-oriented as some claim, why would he use an inverted Buddhist symbol for the Nazi flag? Because he wasn't Christian.

I know that Hitler was raised in a Christian home, which means nothing. If anything, this is the reason that people link Hitler and Aleister Crowley - because both were raised in Christian homes yet neither represented anything about Christianity as adults.

Blavatsky, of course, also prominently used the term "Aryan" to refer to a master race, even though defenders of Blavatsky are quick to argue that Hitler "perverted" Blavatsky's racism, because Blavatsky was more oriented towards the East, while defenders of Blavatsky seem to assume that Hitler was oriented towards wanting to be the dominant force in the West.

Hitler's motivations remain highly debatable, so to simply write off Blavatsky as a possible influence by way of fallacious reasoning (because the deduction is based on an indefinite premise) is a travesty to the intellectual discourse of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


While Helena Blavatsky may well have influenced Hitler - apparent by your representation of facts and opinion, too little evidence is apparent. The idea that Hitler could not have been Christian because he did not well represent the religion is preposterous. If everyone represented their religion, there would never be any hatred or war. Hitler saw that his idea was the (assumed) Christian thing to do. Because I'm a Christian, does that mean I have no knowledge of the Qur'an, Torah, Kojiki, or Nihon Shoki? No.
Many primitive cultures developed the same technology and knowledge around the same time. And yet many people would believe that aliens once visited us.
[/sarcasm]
We simply cannot make the connection we do not know and claim it as the universal truth. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Are all those documentaries wrong?

So, you're saying that all those documentaries about their documented occult links all wrong? Even though, the Discovery Channael would never air false history like National Enquirer would. I think this article needs some work on the subject. The Nazis have had evidence about their occult links documented. So, why is the article pseudohistory anyway? I'm beginning to wonder. Why, is it pseudohistory when in fact, it's true, what

What makes them false? The double sigrunes of ths SS symbol was an occult symbol from Nordic mythology, hijacked for evil purposes. They have footage of Nazis dancing around in a pagan type ritual in "Nazis, The Occult Conspiracy." It's documented footage by the way. Himmler and all them dabbled in the occult and were quite open about it.

So, you're saying that all those documentaries and books on the subject are wrong? I think there needs to be more examination on the subject. There's more here than meets the eye.

Why is it pseudohistory anyway? No, I do not belive in Aryanism or the occult in any way. I do not believe that with documented evidence about Himmler and all that, that they are wrong. Blavatsky's ideas were popular then. Hitler visited the Ostara editor and was an avid reader of Ostara in Vienna. I think somebody is whitewashing history here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Patchman123 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


The writers of this article clearly miss the point and have missed the point

I added that in there about the weddings because the article has overlooked the whole segment of them and Karl Maria Villegut being a spiritual mentor of Himmler. A detail also missed is Himmler's belief that the Allies were sinking submarines through an occult power and contends that the best way to fight back is with more occultism. This was mentioned in the documentary "Nazis, The Occult Conspiracy." On the Discovery Channel. How can it be false? The documentaries are not trying to demonize the German people or treat them as demons. They're just trying to make a point with available footage. Nobody is casting the German people as demons in these documentaries. One reviewer's opinion may not necessarily be accurate as you well know and using a reviewer's opinion does not necessarily mean accuracy.

I question why it is put in the pseudohistory category. Helena Blavatsky herself should be put in the Pseudohistory category, anyway.

I heard that Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States" is Pseudo history. So, who are you trying to fool here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Historians contempt for anything that they didn't write

What kind of historians are these? The ones that want us to believe that Nazis were all Christians? The articles fail to mention that academics aren't always right because they only want to see what they want to see. The article fails to mention anything about Hitler being a messiah and replacing himself as a God. The article also fails that Himmler believed that he was an incarnation of King Heinrich I and about the Wewelsburg Castle SS rituals and tends to focus too much on negative opinions of certain reviews.

The History Channel is not trying to be National Enquirer here or outrageous, but the article also fails to mention that. Nobody is trying to demonize the German people. Why can't anyone understand this?

This is not bullshit. The idea that Nazis and Occults are linked is an unsettling topic to many. The Nazis tried to manipulate the occult to serve their own needs. I believe that historians tend to overlook certain aspects. The Nazis were a strange bunch of folks, but whitewashing history is something that Wikipedia should not be doing. The article fails to mention Himmler's ties to the occult and Karl Maria Villegut. Instead, it bashes TV documentaries on the subject, rather than seriously examining them. This is not Pseudohistory. It fails to mention the occult significance of the swastika symbol. The article does not address this at all. This article is too opinionated and focuses on propaganda. The Nazis used the occult as a propaganda tool.

Patchman123 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


I don't think that this article should be written off as "Pseduohistory" because of negative reviews of a TV show. Fatal Attraction of Adolf Hitler writes that "Hitler was saved by Providence" that is also failed to have been mentioned here. The documentaries are too much being bashed. Would National Geographic, History Channel lie to fabricate history? I think not. I think somebody doesn't have their facts straight in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Patchman123 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The article also fails to mention anything about the Nordic pagan connections of the Nazis. Why isn't this addressed at all?

Bashing

This article, I'm sorry to say, reads too much like an opinion bashing the writers of the documentaries rather than EXAMINING it. One of the contributors to the documentary "Hitler and the Occult" on NatGeo is from UCLA and one is from University of Texas. Wikipedia uses one professor's opinion rather than counterbalancing these opinions to form a neutral opinion. Isn't that Wikipedia is for? There is a problem with the heavy-handed way Wikipedia handles the topic. This topic shouldn't be in pseudohistory, but rather in the controversial topics section because it is a controversial topic. The article completely fails to mention the SS occult rituals, and is too focused on bashing the documentaries for mishandling the German people. The SS uses runic alphabet from the

How come the documentaries and books themselves aren't under the category of "pseudohistory?" I sense something is wrong here. The article tends to bash the commentators, rather than examining the lady who says that "Christianity would not work if you're on a genocidal mission" It wouldn't either because Christianity is all about love of fellow man and thou shalt not kill and the like. Hitler through Himmler, uses the occult to perpetrate an Aryan master race. The article also fails to consider "borrowed footage" and focuses too much on one reviewer's opinion. The problem is, people tend to be biased. There is no mention of bias in these documentaries or anything like that in these articles.

I see this article as being very poorly written and tending to blacklist authors, rather than seriously examining it. Wikipedia just does not want to admit occult links because it does not fit in with a certain narrative of bashing the authors, rather than examining it. Just because it's out of the mainstream, does not mean that it is "Pseudohistory" Many topics are outside the mainstream that aren't discussed much, aren't pseudohistory, like certain taboos. The article just simply won't address the taboo subject within. Just writes it off as pseudohistory, rather than seriously examining it.

Patchman123 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Nicholas Goodrick-Clark himself is featured in these documentaries. The other languages do not place this in the category of pseudohistory. Not one that I know of. The article is too busy bashing the documentaries for its use of footage, rather than SERIOUSLY examining it. The article tends to focus on the opinion of a Swedish socialist author, rather than the UCLA personalities featured in this documentary. This article reads too much like propaganda rather than focusing on the topic itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet, much much of the material mentioned in documentaries like Hitler and the Occult and Nazis: the Occult Conspiracy is MENTIONED in other wikipedia articles, yet cries Pseudohistory when the documentaries mention it? Hypocrisy anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Documentaries

Much of the stuff mentioned in those documentaries is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles.

Such as this one, The fascination that runes seem to have exerted on the Nazis can be traced to the occult and völkisch author Guido von List, one of the important figures in Germanic mysticism and runic revivalism in the late 19th and early 20th century. In 1908, List published in Das Geheimnis der Runen ("The Secret of the Runes") a set of 18 so-called "Armanen Runes", based on the Younger Futhark, which were allegedly revealed to him in a state of temporary blindness after a cataract operation on both eyes in 1902.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_symbolism.

All they were saying was about the uses of Nazi runes and other symbols. What is so criminal about that? Much of the material covered in those dcoumentaries is covered in OTHER Wikipedia articles.

Why hasn't anyone bothered to mention that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 

Patchman123 (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 



http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/heinrich_himmler.htm

Yet, in those documentaries, there is mentioned Himmler's interest in the occult, which is mentioned on this website. This too is mentioned in the documentary "Hitler and the Occult"

Himmler became convinced that Germany's future rested in the stars and he was a keen astrologist and cosmologist. He also believed that the SS were the Twentieth Century's Teutonic Knight. Many SS ceremonies were held at night in castles lit only by flaming torches. He recommended that SS officers had only leeks and mineral water for breakfast and he would only have 12 people at a time sitting around his table - as King Arthur had done. Himmler became very interested in the occult. He saw the SS as being a new type of people - soldiers, administrators, academics and leaders all rolled into one. The SS, in the mind of Himmler, were to be the new aristocracy of Germany.

This is a reputable website. So why is "pseudohistory" when mentioned in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 

Patchman123 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

________________________

This article does not adhere to the NPOV criteria; is there any way for it to be refined to reflect a more factual basis for Nazi mysticism? I do not know if this is true or not, but I've heard that there were several books that were required reading for those in the SS and Hitler Youth that had references to the occult in them; having said this, I believe that if it were true that the Nazis engaged in practicing magic, then there should be some kind of evidence to suggest such a notion (ie concepts mentioned in Hitler's speeches, propaganda posters, symbols that accompanied Hitler during his travels, speeches made by propaganda ministers, etc).

Just finished looking at the sig rune (origin of the lightning bolt symbol); discovered that the Nazis changed its original meaning to "god of victory" and that it was a reference to Odin, a mythological god. If the nazis didn't practice magic, then why would they glorify a pagan deity and associate it with Hitler? Isn't divination "looking for help outside yourelf"? And didn't Hitler also associate himself in some way with Apollo?

74.34.89.103 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This vs Religious aspects of Nazism

Shouldn't the content of Religious aspects of Nazism be integrated here, or vice versa? -- 77.7.167.132 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

attempt to improve

I tried to re-arrange the article and re-write it without deleting much of what anyone else had written. Doctor Goodrick-Clarke (rest his soul) has done the heavy lifting, but the trouble is to try and organize and integrate what he has written with everything else

I think the main problem is you are dealing with two completely different ideas.

Idea 1 is that The Occult controlled/were the Nazis.

Idea 2 is that occultist ideas trickled down to the Nazis.

This idea is a little tricky, i mean its really slippery to me. But you have to understand they are completely different. Not even in the same ball park together. But Goodrick-Clarke discusses both of them so its really confusing.

Another way to look at it is like this. Ask two questions.

1. Did the Nazis believe in Conspiracy Theories?

2. Were the Nazis a Conspiracy?

These are clearly two different questions, but it can be quite easy to get them mixed up with each other, considering all the unusual and bizarre terminology and jargon you have to dig through any time you want to try to study this area of history.

Decora (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Crowley and Hitler

"Aleister Crowley

There are also unverifiable rumours that the occultist Aleister Crowley sought to contact Hitler during World War II. Despite several allegations and speculations to the contrary (e.g. Giorgio Galli) there is no evidence of such an encounter.[27] In 1991, John Symonds, one of Crowley's literary executors published a book: The Medusa's Head or Conversations between Aleister Crowley and Adolf Hitler, which has "definitely" to be understood as a literary fiction.[27] That the edition of this book was limited to 350 also contributed to the mystery surrounding the topic.[27] Mention of a contact between Crowley and Hitler—without any sources or evidence—is also made in a letter from René Guénon to Julius Evola dated October 29, 1949, which later reached a broader audience.[27]"

There is quite a lot of primary source material indicating that Crowley, while enthousiastic about Mussolini and fascism, was extremely hostile towards Hitler and nazism (which, as many people seem to forget, was quite distinct from Italian fascism), an attitude he shared with contemporaries including Winston Churchill. 82.176.204.198 (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Extermination Camp ”Ley Lines”

While theories about Nazis and Ley Lines are certainly within the purview of this article, the material being added here would need to be sourced to a WP:RS rather than the single website "one-evil.org", which appears to be alone in propagating these theories. Also the connection between Occult Ley Lines and an alleged Vatican-financed conspiracy to exterminate the Jews is off-topic WP:COATRACKing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your revert for the reasons you have stated. The source cited is not RS and there are WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE weight and POV problems. I also agree that the subject of "Nazis and Ley Lines" may be a matter to mention in this article but it would have to be brought forth from well established WP:RS sources and presented/written from WP:NPOV. Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

SS insignia and Black_Sun_(occult_symbol)#Nazi_and_Neo-Nazi_significance

There are documented assertions to be made that the SS in particular contained direct references to outright occultism. As this talk page referenced, many of these sources are reliable enough to be in other articles. This one in particular directly references the occultist interests of Heinrich Himmler.

The allegation that occultism ran deep in National Socialism is not a conspiracy theory. Though it is unknown how deep it permeates, there are unquestionably occultist references and symbols. At face value, isn't the swastika a spiritual icon in India? It means "peace", but still.


--99.104.188.245 (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nazism and occultism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Occultism in Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"Action against secret teachings and so-called secret sciences"

This aspect has hardly been taken into account so far. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_gegen_Geheimlehren_und_sogenannte_Geheimwissenschaften — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:CD10:AC6B:77B4:CD2B (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occultism_in_Nazism/Archive_4&oldid=1239780719"