Talk:Occultism in Nazism

Not a very informative article

This article is mainly about the historiography of Nazi occultism but doesn't actually discuss it. It hardly provides any actual details on things like Wewelsburg, the Anenherbe, the influence of folkisch mysticism on Nazi ideology, the Thule Society etc. Rather the article seems to be more interested in discrediting the idea that Hitler was a sorcerer with real magical powers or something, which is kind of silly given that its rather obvious that he didn't have magical powers. I mean, sure, Hitler didn't actually commune with the dark forces and the Nazi party wasn't secretly run by shadowy mystical cults but he and many other Nazis still believed in various occult ideas to varying degrees but this article doesn't mention any of that. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There is also an article called Nazi Esotericism, perhaps a merge would help? 142.134.74.139 (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

A merge with Nazi Esotericism wouldn't be right, since that page is now Esoteric Nazism and focuses specifically on modern esotericist interpretations of Nazi ideology. This page does need some serious work - the focus is misdirected IMO and makes it really unclear whether we're talking about conspiracy theories alleging secret control of the Nazi party or about actual crossover between occultist belief systems and Nazism in Nazi Germany. I would argue that we should focus on the latter. I made some attempts at cleaning up the first section, but there's a lot more to be done, and the lead should be rewritten entirely. --AvrahamHerschel (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The best source I've found on the topic is Hitler's Monsters but Erich Kurlander (available in book and audiobook form) which unlike many other books and documentaries takes a strictly academic perspective. I only have it in audiobook form, making citing it a bit difficult, but for those that want to put in the work it stands far above all I've yet found and well worth the time of any serious historian. A quick glance at his wiki should be enough to prove his qualifications. Full title and ISDN: Hitler's Monsters: A Supernatural History of the Third Reich. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2017. ISBN 9780300189452 - Aeonfluxus 11:01, 15 May 2024 (GMT-4)

Before the NSDAP was a political party, it was an occult organization

I am shocked that there is NO mention in this article of the Thule Society, which mutated into the Nazi Party. The fact that this organization, along with Dietrich Eckhart (the man who mentored Hitler and gave him his education in politics, without which his rise to power would never have been possible) are never even mentioned greatly detracts from this article's credibility and usefulness. This is an embarrassing omission that should be corrected ASAP. Thanks! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9C81:5D00:0:0:0:44FE (talk • contribs)

WP:RS ? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The article actually has two mentions of the Thule society and an external link, so I'm not sure what your complaint is about. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Alleister Crowley: a modernist freemason, but also linked to the third reich?!

Since when are masons, being mostly known as a holocaust victim group, now weirdly also involved in the third reich?!

Also, just as weird is even Puzzle and Dragons Z. It involves the polytheism from racial discriminators, even humanists, but also promasonic elements such as nondogmatic and nonenigmatic (you are beating Enigma and Dogma into absolute oblivion without actual included replayability). Even a Crowley named monster is in the game ...

See, it is so weird to play games like this one nowadays. --82.207.238.113 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

More

Hitler and Paganism 2A02:8109:1040:29C0:7D77:D556:9095:8CD0 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge with Esoteric Nazism

I don't see how the topics are substantially different. I'd suggest merging the Esoteric Nazism here (18 vs 9 interwikis), and also renaming this article (the term "Occultism in Nazism" does not exist in GS, "Esoteric Nazism" does and could be retained after merge but Nazism and the Occult might be better (not sure if occult should be capitalized?). Such a title would be more clear, and it is the same as of this academic artiocle. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Check the article history, it was split by consensus. This article is intended to cover occult beliefs in historical Nazism, and it was decided that it should not cover post-war Esoteric Neo-Nazism, which is the focus of Esoteric Nazism. I've removed the merge tag, moved the article to Esoteric Neo-Nazism, and added hatnotes. The topics are indeed substantially different. Skyerise (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise While I appreciate your explanation, I don't think you should remove the merge proposal - I may well agree with you, but a discussion like this should be left visible for several month to ensure there is consensus not to merge. I'd kindly ask you to restore the merge notice and revisit this in few month, and then, if consensus leans your way, the merge notices can be removed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to restore them, but I am not going to restore them myself, because I don't believe the articles should be merged. Before a merge discussion is placed, an editor should check the archives for split discussions, which you failed to do. They should also read the entirety of both articles before deciding they cover the "same topic". The topics are clearly different, and while it is your right to add the tags again to force a discussion, it isn't within your rights to demand that I do so. Merge discussions are rarely allowed to go more than a month, and there is no rule against removing a misguided merge proposal by an editor who happens to know that the articles are intentionally separate due to a consensus not to coatrack related yet distinct topics in a single article. Skyerise (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise I checked that discussion and it represents a consensus of only two editors, with no indication there was any notification of proposed split in article itself. I stand by my believe that by removing the merge notice you are not following best practices; per Wikipedia:Merging. You explicitly did not follow the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Merging#Step_4:_Close_the_merge_discussion_and_determine_consensus, nor did you wait the bare minimum (a week, but realistically, much more - I would wait however long it takes for at least 2-3 more folks to notice the discussion) for a consensus to emerge. Therefore I ask you to follow the merge guidelines and at least restore the templates that you improperly removed (no, I am not "demanding" that, but keep in mind that violating Wikipedia policies can have negative consequences eventually). PS. To put it simply: you did not follow the proper merge close procedures, so please self-revert yourself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you must be right, but I don't respond to threats. However, I won't revert you if you restore them. You are being "demanding" when you won't simply do yourself what I've suggested you do. Adding a threat about "negative consequences" into what has been a civil discussion, seems to me to cross the line into WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I've said go ahead and put them back if you like and that I won't remove them again. If you think someone is going to give me "negative consequences" when I've said that you should just go ahead, but instead you insist that I must make the edit that you want to make: well, that's an attitude that I simply don't understand; adding a threat makes it impossible for me to comply. I'm putting up no opposition here, so if you continue to make this a talk page battle rather than just restore the tags yourself, I won't respond further here. I hate pointless and unnecessary talk page theatrics. Skyerise (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise You broke it - you should fix it. This is really simple netiquette (or wikiquette), and all I am asking is that you follow it. And sure, I will spend my time, again, restoring content you removed in violation of the merge guidelines, and I am glad you say are ok with that; I am just asking you not to do so again. PS. Thanks for adding the hatnotes, they are very helpful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines are not WP:POLICY. Ignore all rules is policy. You don't get to play silly dominance games to get other editors to do what you want. It is policy that I get to ignore the rules if I think doing so is the best way to improve Wikipedia in a given instance. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise Now, Wikipedia:Civility is a policy, so I'd kindly ask you to stop your personal attacks (another policy I recommend checking) and accusing others (here, me) of threats, "dominance games", or such. PS. On the subject of best practices, I'd suggest (suggest, not demand...) that you WP:REFACTOR your comments that violate said policies._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I do think splitting by time period makes sense, as wartime Nazism and Neo-Nazism are often discussed distinctly, though do the sources do the same thing? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the sources do the same thing: material about occultism and historical Nazism is much more sparse and speculative - it was an aspect of Nazism for some Nazis, but not something generally believed or promoted as a religion; Esoteric Neo-Nazism on the other hand is a distinct new religious movement and is covered as such in sources, though Goodrick-Clarke confuses the issue by calling the NRM "Esoteric Nazism" rather than "Esoteric Neo-Nazism", it is specifically covered as a post-war phenomenon. Skyerise (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should stay split then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The articles are split so that people can differentiate between the influence pagan tradition, occultism and esoterica had on "orthodox" WW2 Nazism, which is largely speculative, and was a fringe movement, mainly propagated by Heinrich Himmler and his SS. This wasn't explicitly done out of genuine belief in paganism however, and the most likely explanation is that Himmler thought Christianity was inherently bad because of its roots in the Jewish people and faith, and promoted paganism because it was, in his mind, purely Germanic.

This is very different than the Esoteric Nazism described by the article, which didn't become relevant until after the war, and is largely based on a cult of personality and deification surrounding Hitler. For example, two of Esoteric Nazism's chief ideologues, Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano, Devi believed Hitler was "an avatar of Vishnu" and Serrano believed Hitler was an incarnated god made flesh to save the Aryan race.

Basically, one covers the influences esotericism had on the original Nazi regime, while this article covers what is essentially a New Religious Movement based around Hitler, Nazism, Pagan religions, and racial purity. 192.92.2.182 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear anon. Thank you for the very clear explanation. If possible, could you back it up with reliable sources and add it to the lead of both articles? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Per WP:HEY, the hatnotes at the top of both articles help clear up any confusion. 5Q5|^✉ 12:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)