Talk:Dietrich Eckart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

This article is in conflict with the Thule Society article. According to the Thule Society article the Society was founded 17 august 1918, yet in this Eckart article he supposedly joined Thule in 1913. Anybody else see the problem? I have not yet checked other sources for the most likely correct information.

By the way, am I to understand that the conversations between Hitler and Eckart never took place? Aside from that, how did Plewnia demonstrate as such?

Answer: He used gay methods.

Seriously, how did Plewnia reach that conclusion.

MK dedication[edit]

Wasn't it the second volume of Mein Kampf that Hitler dedicated to Eckart, not the first? The first is dedicated to the Putsch dead, I believe. --WacoKid 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hannah Newman should not be used as a source. She is fringe.[edit]

Historian Hannah Newman has stated that Eckart was a follower of Helena Blavatsky's ideas and had introduced The Secret Doctrine of Theosophy to Hitler. Reference: Newman, Hannah. Blavatsky, Helena P. (1831-1891) . In Richard S. Levy. (2005). Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution. ABC-CLIO. p. 73. ISBN 1-85109-439-3 Quote: "Another Blavatsky disciple, Dietrich Eckart, boasted that he had initiated Hitler into The Secret Doctrine. Hitler later dedicated Mein Kampf to Eckart."

I believe Hannah Newman would be considered WP:FRINGE. She is a Jewish apologist and the author of the online book The Rainbow Swastika: A Report to Jews on New Age AntiJudaism, [1], a conspiracy theory book with the basic thesis New Age=Nazi that accuses the New Age Movement of being a Nazi conspiracy to exterminate world Jewry. Ironically, although Newman is a Jewish apologist her conspiratorial rantings against New Age in the book have similarities to Henry Ford's conspiratorial rantings against International Jewry in The International Jew. Here are some quotes from The Rainbow Swastika:

Lucifer is personally in charge of human evolution [see below]. As such, he presides over the coming "planetary initiation", the ultimate goal in the New Age "Plan". He, with the intermediary help of Maitreya, is credited by Creme (in various essays, interviews and lectures) as having "nourished" all the genius which humankind has produced, including Freud, Jung, Picasso, Mahatma Gandhi, Karl Marx and Einstein (all of these reaching a "2nd level" initiation). Lucifer arrived here 18-1/2 million years ago from the planet Venus, which became known by one of his names, "The Morning Star". [2]

(Note Hitler's partiality to certain of the "old" Masonic lodges, in the Nazism section. Also, for a wealth of direct quotes confirming the Luciferian orientation of the top Masonic leadership, see Gary Kah, _En Route to Global Occupation_)[3]

Hitler did make one exception, however; his 1942 law banning secret societies and confiscating their assets specifically exempted the "old Prussian" Freemason lodges, otherwise known as the Bavarian Illuminati. This group followed the Nazi racial purity ideal far more closely than the "humanitarian Freemasonry" (as the Angeberts distinguish the different streams), and in fact the Bavarian sect shared Hitler's disdain for the other branches of Freemasons, not to mention for the Jews as well. (p.157) [This would imply another reason why Steiner and the Freemasons, as "humanitarian" strains of occultism, were ruthlessly attacked by both Thulists and Nazis: they were considered too compassionate to do what was needed to usher in the New Age.][4]

You can also read Newman's cited entry on Blavatsky in the cited book here, [5] on pages 72-73. Newman writes

Blavatsky's influence...contributed to Nazi ideology. One link was Baron Rudolf von Sebottendorff, a devoted Blavatsky fan and founder of the Thule Society (in 1918). The Munich based organization borrowed heavily from The Secret Doctrine and counted several future Nazi leaders among its members or hangers on. As early as 1920, Sebottendorff named the Jews as 'cosmic enemies' to be 'cleaned out' as a 'final goal'. Another link was Blavatsky disciple Karl Haushofer, whose 'geopolitical' doctrines served the Nazis before and after 1933, and who some speculate may have introduced Hitler to The Secret Doctrine after their meeting in Landsberg Prison in 1924. However, yet another Blavatsky disciple, Dietrich Eckart,boasted that he had initiated Hitler into The Secret Doctrine. Hitler later dedicated My Struggle to Eckart.

Newman's essay on Blavatsky is not in the mainstream of scholarship, just like her book The Rainbow Swastika is far outside the mainstream. I think she should be removed as a WP:FRINGE source. RandomScholar30 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: Reformatted for readability. BMK (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
RandomScholar30 appears to be correct. Here, in answer to the Socratic question "Who is this Hannah Newman... and why should we believe her?", Newman writes:{}{parabr}}

I'm a nobody, actually. I have no academic degree even remotely related to this field. No list of published books, teaching stints, or associations with Big Names. No sponsors, no financial backers, no authority endorsing my efforts. I have never lectured on this subject, nor do I ever intend to. This research is not connected with my job, and was done completely in my spare time over several years. Among other things, this means I have no reputation to protect, no superiors to satisfy (except the G-d of Israel, who I acknowledge with no apologies), no agenda for fame or notoriety. No reason to lie to you.

Perhaps, but also no reason to think that Newman has the necessary qualification to be considered a reliable source, or that her opinions represent anything but her own idiosyncratic views. I support RS30's removal of the Newman material from the article. BMK (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)