Talk:Guido von List

I find it odd...

Adolf Hitler's name does not appear in the article about Guido von List -- not once. Aren't your Readers aware that Hitler lived in Vienna from 1907 to 1913, when List and Liebenfels where at their height?

I would question whether there really is much of a link between the two men, or even their work. Granted, List's publications influenced members of A. Hitler's inner circle, but every reliable account I have read asserts that A. Hitler did not care a whit for the subject of much of List's works. Hitler used the romanticised ideas of German history popular during that period of time as propaganda, and even those ideas did not overlap much with List's work except in the cases where List wrote on political topics. The last part there might be a valid connexion. We would need more data to work with in order to add something about it to the article. You are welcome to do so, of course.

Is there a reason that you feel that A. Hitler should be mentioned somewhere in the article? If there is a connexion we are missing, this is a good place to mention your thoughts. P.MacUidhir 00:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there was any direct contact between Hitler and List. Hitler was still an unnotable loser, at that time; afaik he was "one step removed" so to speak: we do link to Hitler from Lanz von Liebenfels. A link to Nazi mysticism is also in order, since that's what List's stuff essentially is, but Ariosophy, the more exact term, is already a redirect there. Of course, the way we more or less arbitrarily link to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, there is no reason not to mention Hitler, either, e.g. "von Liebenfels, who in turn came to be an influence on Adolf Hitler". I suppose the only thing List and Hitler had in common was their rabid Anti-Semitism. I think Hitler only became active in 1918, when List was already wasting away. dab (ᛏ) 06:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

   * In regard to the comment "I suppose the only thing List and Hitler had 
   in common was their rabid Anti-Semitism." I have only ever seen speculation 
   about this and no fact. I have read Lists works in German and also the translated
   ones into English and find no such thing. I would like very much some fact's 
   supporting that he was anti-Semitic. Also, I find today that anyone who criticises 
   a Jew or the state of Israel is ignorantly labled a Nazi and anti-semitic so I
   reject mere speculation and uneducated 'facts'. This also happens today so any
   information that is reasonable on his 'anti-semitism' would be greatl;y appreciated.

I am puzzled by your need to assert this silliness about how misunderstood anti-Semites are here. Are you disingenuous enough to believe that List is NOT deeply intricated with the development of cuckoo German nationalism, resulting in Nazism? Or just disingenuous enough to believe he "didn't mean it" and was "taken out of context"? In any case, List was an equal-opportunity racialist: he despised Czechs, Poles, Russians and Hungarians too. NaySay (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

INCORRECT

A circle formed around Baron von Sebottendorf that via the “Teutonic Order” in 1918 in Bad Aibling became the “Thule Gesellschaft”.

Dietrich Bronder (“Before Hitler Came”) and E. R. Carmin (“Guru Hitler”) named the leading members as follows:

1 Baron Rudolf von Sebottendorf, Grand Master of the Order 2. Guido von List, Master of the Order 3. Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, Master of the Order 4. Adolf Hitler, “Führer”, German Chancellor 5. Rudolf Hess, Vice Führer, and SS Obergruppenführer 6. Hermann Göring, Reichsmarschall and SS Obergruppenführer 7. Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer SS and Reichsminister 8. Alfred Rosenberg, Reichsminister and NS-Reichsleiter 9. Hans Franck, Dr. Dr. h. c., NS-Reichsleiter and Governor General of Poland 10. Julius Streicher, SA-Obergruppenführer and Gauleiter of Franken 11. Karl Haushofer, Prof. Dr., Major General ret. 12. Gottfried Feder, Prof. Dr., Secretary of State ret. 13. Dietrich Eckart, Editor in Chief of the “Völkischer Beobachter” 14. Bernhard Stempfle, father confessor and confidant of Hitler 15. Theo Morell, personal physician of Hitler 16. Franz Gurtner, president of the police, Munich 17. Rudolf Steiner, founder of the antroposophic teaching 18. W. 0. Schumann, Prof. Dr. at the Technical University Munich 19. Trebisch-Lincoln, occultist and traveller to the Himalayas 20. Countess Westrap

I can provide countless other references confirming this if you wish. Guido von List was a leading member of the Thule Gesellschaft, however the society WAS NOT concerned greatly with the occult (as is popular myth) but with a study of German Antiquity. It's original name was Studiengruppe für germanisches Altertum" (Study Group for German Antiquity). A facade of occult study hid a counter-revolutionary activism of stockpiled weapons; schemes to kidnap the Communist leader, Kurt Eisner; infiltration of spies into the Communist cadres; and the Kampfbund Thule paramilitary group.

References for above assertion: - Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, U.K.: Aquarian Press, 1985. hb, 293pp, illust, ISBN: 0-85030-402-4. Also see: Gemäss Glowka (1981:25) soll die Thule-Gesellschaft als "Verein zur Pflege deutscher

Despite these references, my feeling is the Thule Gesellschaft was more smoke and mirrors to hide the real purpose of the society (a covert store for arms, anti Communist terrorism and political infiltration). The membership list (even though secret at that time) may have been exaggerated to puff up their image to new recruits and sympathizers. Many of those listed above may never or seldom have attended meetings as is indicated by the accounts of the few meetings that have survived.

Mrfh (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

'Germanic mysiticism' link

When clicking the 'Germanic mysticism' link, one is redirected to the 'Nazi mysticism' article. Though I myself am less scholared in this subject I don't quite approve of this simplification; it contributes to the common opinion that everything related to subjects such as germanic lore, biogenetic research on racial distinctions and philosphies and ideologies concerning inferiority/superiority (read: Nietzsche)are considered Nazi and therefore studied with heavy prejudice and lack of objective consideration. Any comments/explanations?

Dagfinn

Fair use rationale for Image:Balzli.jpg

Image:Balzli.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Date Conflict

"In the spring of 1919, at the age of 71, List and his wife set off to recuperate and meet followers at the manor house of Eberhard von Brockhusen, a List society patron who lived at Langen in Brandenburg, Germany. A circle formed around Baron von Sebottendorf that via the “Teutonic Order” in 1918 in Bad Aibling became the “Thule Gesellschaft” with Guido von List named as "Master of the Order" (a title he shared with fellow member Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels)."

Clearly he could not have arrived in Langen in the Spring of 1919 and been "Master of the Order" of the Thule Gesellschaft in 1918 (unless he accepted the title before his arrival). Both claims are well referenced so an additional source is needed. Can anyone help in this regard. Mrfh (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

List was Student of Blavatsky

List a thoroughgoing "Blavatskyian", doubtlessly, from at least 1899 when he composed an an article under the influence of Sebaldt.

In any case, if any one does not know as factually established, "Ariosophy" and "Theosophy" are closer kindred conceptually than is conventionally acknowledged. Aryan ("white") dominion is one of the first principles of Theosophy, in fact:

"I told you before now, that the highest people now on earth (spiritually) belong to the first sub-race of the fifth root Race, and those are the Aryan Asiatics; the highest race (physical intellectuality) is the last sub-race of the fifth - yourselves the white conquerors. The majority of mankind belongs to the seventh sub-race of the fourth Root race, - the above mentioned Chinamen and their off-shoots and branchlets (Malayans, Mongolians, Tibetans, Javanese, etc., etc., etc.) and remnants of other sub-races of the fourth - and the seventh sub-race of the third race. All these, fallen, degraded semblances of humanity are the direct lineal descendants of highly civilized nations neither the names nor memory of which have survived except in such books as Popul Vuh and a few others unknown to Science" (Letter 93B, "Mahatma Letters to AP Sinnett", Chronological Edition).

This is just for any polemicists who desire to argue Theosophy was not "racist" for whatever reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guido von List. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308152847/http://nsl-archiv.com/Buecher/ to http://nsl-archiv.com/Buecher/

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) 04:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Preponderance of prepossessed source(s)

It seems possible that the handling of the subject matter as pertains to occult-racist groups could be coloured by what are involved but common agendas with an interest in taking at face value as much as possible of what these groups proclaim or of what is ascribed to them. (I'm aware it relates to a certain business model.) Thus it might be prudent to reduce the reliance upon one single source (Goodrick-Clarke) whose principal presupposition is taking everything at face value which emanates from persons involved who say they "adhere to beliefs".

E.g., claims like, "He believed that prior to the spread of Christianity into Northern Europe, there had once been a culturally unified German civilisation that had been spread across much of Europe"; "he believed that they developed a secretive language for transmitting their teachings, known as kala." How does Goodrick know this is List's truly held belief and not dissimulation to some end? He doesn't let us know what exercise of critique has led him there and the article is teeming with this. Likewise, sweeping inferences about the influence of one current of ideas upon another are just regurgitated. Also, in general, plainly so much of the literature on this is either motivated by the weird personal delight in inflating projections of "outré" views secretly exercising an attraction on oneself – or again there's some interest in misdirection at play.

So maybe there are sources out there with more critical distance? Three Knaves (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Goodrick-Clarke is the primary researcher in this topic area. There are few, if any, other sources, especially in English, and what other ones do exist are mostly citing him. This article also does not rely solely on him - it relies a lot on him, but this is because 1) he is one of the most respected researchers of this topic 2) his scholarship represents the vast majority of scholarship on von List, especially in English. His book on the topic is widely cited as one of the best and the seminal work on the subject. But other sources are represented in accordance with their weight.

On its merits I don't think your issues with his work, which are not represented by scholarship, have weight. They are his perfectly fine analysis of the works. How are we to know if anyone's beliefs are "true"? Why would that even matter? Your or my personal criticisms of reliable sources are given no weight, only what is in reliable sources. Also why would we need his "exercise of critique"? This is not something that sources do. We say what the reliable sources say, that you think the literature on this is written by weirdos is of no relevance. What matters is what the reliable sources say, not us. Also, "prepossessed"? "relates to a certain business model"?" "weird personal delight in inflating projections of "outré" views secretly exercising an attraction on oneself – or again there's some interest in misdirection at play"? What? And also, why would we care?

Pinging @Midnightblueowl as the primary writer of this article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

By those final remarks I was just highlighting what I find to be issues, with this question in mind: "So maybe there are sources out there with more critical distance"? Obviously this is just requesting comments/discussion.

"Also why would we need his "exercise of critique"? This is not something that sources do" Yes it is. Exercise of critique is something secondary sources most decidedly do. This is a discussion of evenness of secondary sources in the article. No, indeed, it's not for us to do criticism; clearly not what I'm saying. Three Knaves (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If what you mean by "exercise of critique" is "analyzes the material that brings him to his conclusion", then yes, he does it? He evaluates the material in the book. I'm not sure what else you want. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the book as RS for the present purposes; I was just trying to make plausible why a more critically minded source could contribute to the balance of the confluence of sources in the article. That's intended as input on how the article could be improved, not as criticism of GC or using the current "one source" per se. Three Knaves (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

All we care about is sources that exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hence my question, "So maybe there are sources out there with more critical distance?" You're just spamming the place up at this point. Three Knaves (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

"his scholarship represents the vast majority of scholarship on von List, especially in English. His book on the topic is widely cited as one of the best and the seminal work on the subject" These are just your claims so far. It's one book on an obscure fringe subject, so how can it be "widely cited as one of the best works" etc. when it's mostly mentioned in little-read special journals and such? Three Knaves (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The "little-read special journals" are respected academic publications, and really the only sources we should be considering? Most academia is little-read, but it is the most reliable type of source out there. The Daily Mail is extremely frequently read but is terrible. That does not matter. Respected history journals widely describe it as the best book on the subject , as do books from the most reputable University presses in the world like Oxford University Press or Manchester University Press, like Occult Imperium and Faith, Folk and the Far Right Racist and Anti-Racist Heathenry and Occultism in Britain, both very recent books from those publishers that describe Goodrick-Clarke's work as seminal in the field and one of the most influential books on the topic. To name 2 of the most recent of hundreds of examples. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough but you were stating "widely cited" as a good criterion. I don't think "much mention" (and so probably much-read) is useful to go by in such a niche. Now I was originally not questioning the general reliablity for the present purposes but your tone is now raising suspicion. "Major history journals widely describe it", "2 of the most recent of hundreds of examples". Is this serious? It doesn't even matter if they "widely describe it" as bad or good. I don't know of many other sources myself but just wanted to highlight the problem. Probably nothing can even be done about it at this point. Three Knaves (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, how much something has been cited is a major consideration listed at WP:RS; WP:UBO, "how accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts".

Yes, I'm being serious. Whenever any source ever brings up the subject of Ariosophy or Occultism in Nazism Goodrick-Clarke will be mentioned, it is that degree of influential. Handpicking a few clearly reliable recent examples from some of the most influential publishers in the world seemed a more efficient way to show this than spamming hundreds of examples. But here is a representative look on google scholar, for instance . PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are trying to make in this conversation. The fact it has been cited is not in question. It is not in question as RS as such. Only, you seem overly defensive of it ("widely cited as one of the best works"). It seems unwarranted and strange for a narrow field of research for which there is basically not much serious literature anyway, it would seem, and so there's not much to review in comparison. Three Knaves (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You were questioning the reliability earlier, clearly, reading your first response here. "motivated by the weird personal delight in inflating projections of "outré" views secretly exercising an attraction on oneself – or again there's some interest in misdirection at play." or "He doesn't let us know what exercise of critique has led him there and the article is teeming with this." And if there is no literature to compare it to, why are you asking for other literature to compare it to? I'm very confused about what you are asking of this article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Not questioning it as far WP:RS is concerned, no. Clearly not. My attempt there was at illustrating (admittedly with looser brush-strokes) my general concern with the evenness of the article. In a broader sense it is in part questioning the reliability but not as far policy goes. It's a roundabout indication of underlying issues that editors can take on improving or not, to the extent possible. Three Knaves (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

"In a broader sense it is in part questioning the reliability" ... That is why my focus was on emphasizing the source's reliability in my response. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As I've shown it's beside the point. And I'm not saying there is absolutely no other literature, only that there is little. So I'm most likely asking in vain for better/complementary literature but the point still stands; there's no contradiction there. Three Knaves (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You keep waving at a question of whether there are other sources that could be used. Until sources are presented for discussion, any discussion of hypothetical sources is a waste of time. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

"You keep waving" etc. That is some aggressive framing. I added a topic to the talk page with general observations culminating in a question which could well trigger or motivate, in a roundabout way or directly, a solution/improvement at some later point. The waste of time is burying the original observation in an artificial polemic. Which btw is apt to raise suspicion. Three Knaves (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As and when further academic, peer-reviewed sources appear which discuss von List then we can integrate them into the article. Until then, I don't really see what could or should be changed here. At Wikipedia, we are totally dependent on the availability of high quality WP:Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)