Talk:Dietrich Eckart

Untitled

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

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.

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)

'Nearly stranded'?

Diagnosed with morphine addiction and nearly stranded, he moved to Berlin in 1899.

'Stranded' in what way? Valetude (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Richard Steigmann-Gall

The section about Eckart's ideas is practically all based on Steigmann-Gall's writings, including the Rosenberg's citation, which is found in Steigmann-Gall's cited book. Steigmann-Gall's views differ from the scientific mainstream ideas on the religious attitude of Nazism toward Christianity and it is not a chance that the whole section is about the alleged links between Christianity and Eckart's philosophy. However many scholars (even more authoritative than RSG, I dare to say) criticized Steigmann-Gall's approach, in particular Irving Hexham analysed the Rosenberg's citation in his paper "Inventing 'Paganists': A Close Reading of Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich": «This [Steigmann-Gall's] approach raises important issues about the appropriate way to read texts, particularly works of propaganda, which use religious or pseudo-religious language». Basically he accused Steigmann-Gall of naively (or deceptively) reading propaganda texts and taking them at face value, out of their context. Check out Doris Bergen's Nazism and Christianity: Partners and Rivals? A Response to Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 too, for more criticism. In conclusion the section is not neutral, if not fringe. – 5.179.158.195 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You say that the "Ideas and assessment" section is "practically all based on Steigmann-Gall's writings", yet the section has four paragraphs, one based on RSG, one about Alfeed Rosenberg's book, and a short one based on Edgar Ansel Mowrer's assessment of Eckart, so I don;t see that the section is , overall, POV. Rather then tag it (which I've removed), it would be far better for you to add additional voices to the section. The POV tag should be used only when there is a serious imbalance in the article (or section), which does not seem to be the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I specified that the Rosenberg citation is taken from the Steigmann-Gall's book and it is POV by itself because, as other scholars pointed out, it is taken out of context by SG. So no, the four paragraphs are actually three (where is the fourth?) and two of them are based on SG's writings. The short third one is just a collection of various critics about Eckart, at most Steigmann-Gall should have a place here. As I stressed before, SG has been repeatedly accused by fellow scholars (and many of them more authoritative than him) of mishandling sources, among them Rosenberg, misrepresenting the research of other scholars and using outdated research. I could post here the relevant papers by Irving Hexham, Doris Bergen, de:Manfred Gailus, de:Ernst Piper that all blame SG of disingenuous statements and interpretations. The section, as it is now, gives undue eight to fringe theories. – 5.179.158.195 (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Sofix it. Please re-balance it with information from non-fringe theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Now it is more balanced and more fluid. Still dislike the last "random trivia" paragraph. Removed Rosenberg's quote as it is (1) a primary source, which should be avoided if possbile,[6] (2) from a partial point of view (Rosenberg is not a neutral scholar) and (3) maybe even edited. It should be used only through some scholar's analysis and NEVER as it is. Cheers. − 5.179.176.108 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edit is not acceptable. You "rebalanced" it by removing material you did not like. Please do so by adding additional material instead. Once you've done that, a wp:consensus discussion can take place about any material which may need to be removed. I have reverted you, please do not restore it without a consensus to do so from this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have restoredd the material you added, but without deleting the material you took out. I have also split off the last paragraph into a "Personality" sub-section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The material that "I do not like" is OR material, since it is a primary source (allegedly, by the way). The choice of which primary sources are significant or not, how they must be selected, what is their actual meaning CANNOT be done by a RANDOM wikipedia editor like you. So those citations have no place here: the Steigmann-Gall's one because it is primary and ostensibly by Hitler and not by Eckart, the Rosenberg's one because it is allegedly Eckart's own words, which cannot be used unfiltered by some scholar as per Wikipedia policy. Please remove. − 37.32.83.127 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got your notions about primary sources, but you're wrong, there is no broad proscription against using primary sources, just guidelines about how they should be used. See WP:PRIMARY. The material in this article does not violate those guidelines, indeed it is in tune with "[Primary sources] offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." No interpretation of the primary material is offered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, if you're going to continue editing Wikipedia, I'd recommend that you create an account. Dealing with an editor who hops from IP to IP is annoying and a distraction from the discussion. Are there other IPs you have edited from int he past? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)