Talk:Nazism and occultism

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)

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)