Talk:Miguel Serrano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT BELIEVABLE CLAIMS; NEEDS CITATIONS[edit]

This article is in need of citations and also revisions. As it stands, it seems almost like a PR piece for this guy. Further, claims that this SELF-PROFESSED NAZI met with and befriended, among others, Herman Hesse (opposed to nazism), Carl Jung, Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama, cannot be believed, at least without citations. I find it nearly impossible believe that the Dalai Lama would have met with this man and befriended him, especially when he had many more pressing concerns at the time; if he did, I would like to know what exactly was involved in this "friendship". Jung and Hesse I can accept as he seems to have written a book with/about them; however, I would greatly appreciate a clarification as to the nature of their friendship, especially a clarification as to how Hesse fell in with this guy (Jung, I believe, may have had Nazi sympathies, so I don't have as many problems with their association). The others need some references. Stonehouse 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serrano describes his association with the Dalai Lama (as well as Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Jung and Hesse) in this interview (second question). A photo of the two (taken in 1992) can be seen here. Citation could also be made to page 177 of Goodrick-Clarke's Black Sun. Serrano gives his reflections on Hesse's association to anti-Nazism in his introduction to C.G. Jung and Hermann Hesse. —Morning star 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Stonehouse is working under some ideological and mass-media-suggested preconceptions that people capable of sympathy to the Hitlerian philosophy are somehow inevitably antisocial, unsuccessful, unspiritual, unaccomplished, unrefined and otherwise culturally retarded. Miguel Serrano, a man of high spiritual aspirations, wide social and international success, and authentic high culture, obviously contradicts Stonehouse's pre-programmed ideological, mass-media-suggested preconceptions. Serrano's intellect and sincere spirituality endeared him greatly to the geniuses Hesse and Jung (in addition to Nehru, Indira Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, etc.) and all one has to do is examine Serrano's book, C.G. Jung and Hermann Hesse: A Record of Two Friendships to see an actual photograph of Serrano and Hesse joyfully posing together. Hesse (and Jung) were both immediately impressed and touched by Serrano's great intellectual power, intense, honest soul-searching and sensitivity to non-modern values (the very non-modern values Serrano was to find embodied in the National Socialist Aryan Imperium). In fact, Hesse and Serrano were on such intimate terms that Hesse told Serrano that "now I have only friends who are younger than myself" (quite a compliment to Serrano) and, after Hermann's death, Ninon Hesse wrote to Serrano: "It's a comfort to me to know how much you loved and still love him" (Oct. 21, 1962). So perhaps Stonehouse should not waste the time of others with his empty concerns and unthinking enslavement to modernist-liberalist dogmatic blindness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.201 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Stonehouse's original comment is not without merit. Neither is the unsigned reply without merit, unfortunately: any mind is capable of entertaining the most bizarre beliefs. But I think Stonehouse's point is this: it would be very nice to have some third-party verification of Serrano's claims. If there is no third-party verification or corroboration, then that needs to be noted too. After all, we are all aware, are we not, that self-aggrandizement amongst people in any sphere of public life is hardly unknown. Moreover, these friendships and acquaintanceships need to be located in time in comparison to the devlopment of Serrano's beliefs - and of course, it would be useful to know to what extent his famous friends were aware of Serrano's beliefs. Hi There 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was comparing the claims made here about Jung's view on Hitler with the Jung article. I don't think they're compatible. The linked interview with Serrano says "C. G. Jung compared Adolf Hitler with Mohammed in an interview given before the war." If anyone has a reference to the interview (if it exists), rather than to Serrano's statement about it, that would be informative. (FWIW, I think anyone who believes what Serrano professes to believe according to this article has a mind so open that all his wits have blown away... nonsense is nonsense.) --Alvestrand 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JUNG'S WORDS ON HITLER: SOURCE OF SERRANO'S SPECULATIONS[edit]

In several interviews and articles of the interwar period Jung analyzed Hitler as "possessed" by the collective Aryan unconscious:

"Hitler is a spiritual vessel, a demi-divinity; even better, a myth. Mussolini is a man."

"Hitler seemed like the 'double' of a real person, as if Hitler the man might be hiding inside like an appendix, and deliberately so concealed in order not to disturb the mechanism ... You know you could never talk to this man; because there is nobody there ... It is not an individual; it is an entire nation."

"His voice is that of at least 78 million Germans. He must shout, even in private conversation ... The voice he hears is that of the collective unconscious of his race."

Source: C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, edited by William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978), pp. 91-93, 115-135, 136-40. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.176.173 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well I've looked at the photo of the DL & Serrano and it doesn't seem to prove that they were bosom buddies. It looks more like the DL is greeting a guy in a crowd. Besides which, even if Serrano and the DL knew each other, or were even 'friends' does that sanctify Serrano's beliefs? How much did the DL know of Serrano's beliefs? Does the DL anywhere agree that the Jews are the servants of the Demiurge? That they need to be killed or that Hitler was an avatar of a divine being? I don't think so. I would also like to more about Serrano's relationship with Jung and Hesse and how it CHANGED as the War carried on. The issue of their supposed links with Nazism is at best contested. Hesse was outlawed by Hitler and Jung's opinion changed. He freely admitted he had made a mistake about Hitler in the early years. It has to be remembered that a lot of people were wrong about Hitler (including most of the leaders of the democratic nations who regarded Stalin as the real enemy) until it was too late. A few out-of-context remarks about Hitler by Jung doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. A 'myth' representing his people doesn't mean Hitler was a good guy if the people he represents are also expressing something negative. Serrano sounds like a nut, I'm afraid, and forgive me for saying so but the guy who suggests that pro-Nazi people are actually rather splendid and anyone who assumes they aren't are small-minded needs to put his name to his words. There is NOTHING to recommend Nazism to the world. Its spirituality is corrupt, its racial politics obscene and it has been responsible for the deaths of over 65-85 million people (which I would term 'antisocial', wouldn't you?). Fascist ideas are not spiritual. True spirituality does not advocate the slaughtering of people of different races, sexualities or other political, religious or ideological persuasions. ThePeg 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

I'm not particularly concerned about the claims Serrano has made about who were his friends. What is more important is that, as Stonehouse says, this reads like a PR piece. It is very sympathetic to Serrano and his beliefs, and it is not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is there any indication that Serrano's ideas might be a bit out of the mainstream and that he might be considered a nutter by some; it might be considered that this makes the article straightforward reporting, but I think that there needs to be some balance, with the inclusion of critical opinions of his ideas. Iain1917 08:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree that this article doesn't say it describes a belief that is nonsense (as I do about a lot of other articles on wikipedia). However, just stating my opinion would be bad WP:OR - if someone finds a reference for a critique of Serrano, we can incorporate stuff stated there as WP:V verifiable statements, but just stating what's obvious to me isn't the Right Thing. --Alvestrand 15:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I mean. I'm not asking that Serrano's beliefs be characterised as nonsense, because that would be as POV as the current article. However, I do feel that the article is unbalanced because it does not provide an alternative voice, which can be interpreted as suggesting that the ideas are correct because there isn't an alternative perspective. It might be done simply by providing links to pages about critics or opponents. At the moment, it is Serrano's world that is being presented. Iain1917 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads less like a PR piece and more like a love letter. The general tone of the piece is completely biased and clearly geared at portraying Serrano in a positive light. that alone should mandate a rewrite. whats distressing about it isn't the lack of an alternative perspective, but the fact that his philosophical, racial and political views are presented as fact (as opposed to his views). most of the ideas espoused in this article are not widely accepted by historians, scientists etc. Most of them (hyperboria and the Aryans as a pure Germanic master race included) are quantifiably false. so there is no need to search out specific criticisms of serrano. Even the facts listed in the "early life" section are completely unprovable, and most likely uncorroborated. neutrality can't be maintained by allowing obviously false or questionable material to be presented as probable or true. even if that information is offset with criticism. 24.185.239.254 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not neutral with regards to National Socialism, don't ACT like you are. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.192.224 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

This ist a piece of propaganda for a writer, whose opinions would be regarded as extremely bizarre even by most right-wing people, let alone the rest of potential readers. --84.150.243.150 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a POV tag. The article reads as a subtle propaganda piece for Mr. Serrano's spiritual and philosophical beliefs. The reference are almost entirely from one author (one of not necessarily extremely dubious reliability but no other viewpoints are given,) and one citation is even of Mr. Serrano himself, hardly a neutral source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsolarearth (talk • contribs) 09:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLETE NONSENSE[edit]

I have read the article about this Serrano and all I can tell that is a complete nonsense, a delirium of some senile negacionist fascist. In some points is laughable rather than delirious and offensive. Wikipidea should not have such long articles on such ridiculous characters, a couple of paragraphs are enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fpenteado (talk • contribs) 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).--Fpenteado 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder[edit]

WP:TPG: "Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page) is generally not allowed." --GirasoleDE 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

I deleted some of the intro today and it's been restored. I don't want to start a revert war, but I don't think it belongs there. This section describes Hitler as lord of the world, etc. and I think it should be more explicit that these are Serrano's beliefs and not Wikipedia's. Makerowner 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serrano's beliefs certainly are strange and repulsive, but the introductory section is essentially accurate. I think it makes clear that those ideas are his own. The policy is pretty cut and dry in this area - just describe what the person thinks, even if it is nuts. The section could be rewritten a bit for tone, but the information ought to remain. See: WP:NPOV, especially here and here Bartleby 06:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

There is no sourcing in this article. Nothing. If that is not fixed, the article could be nominated for deletion. Kwork 17:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple references cited, the article just lacks inline citations. I've altered your tag to reflect that. Bartleby 18:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources indicated in the text of the article, and if there are no page references, there is no sourcing. A list of books at the bottom of the article is not sourcing. If that is not changed soon, indicating good intentions, I will restore my tag. Moreover, anything not sourced can be deleted from the article at any time. Kwork 18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an axe to grind with this article. Your interpretation of citation policy is completely incorrect. Please review WP:REF and policy on red links at WP:RED. Also look at WP:EL regarding external links: you deleted a link to his homepage and a link to two texts of his not available in any other form. I am reverting all your edits. Please discuss any further changes on talk first. For example, if you explain if there are passages you consider incorrect or controversial, I will attempt to specifically cite them as best I can. Bartleby 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irano-Hyperborean Gnosis[edit]

From Henry Corbin, Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth (trans. Nancy Pearson, Princeton University Press, 1989, pps. 71-72).

"...That is why the progression, which this mode of thought makes it possible for us to conceive, is not a horizontal linear evolution, but an ascent from cycle to cycle, from one octave to a higher octave. A few pages from the same Shaikh, which have been translated here, illustrate this. The spiritual history of humanity since Adam is the cycle of prophecy following the cycle of cosmogony; but though the former follows in the train of the latter, it is in the nature of a reversion, a return and reascent to the pleroma. This has a gnostic flavor to be sure, but that is exactly what it means to 'see things in Hurqalya.' It means to see man and his world essentially in a vertical direction. The Orient-origin, which orients and magnetizes the return and reascent, is the celestial pole, the cosmic North, the 'emerald rock' at the summit of the cosmic mountain of Qaf, in the very place where the world of Hurqalya begins; so it is not a region situated East on the maps, not even those old maps that place the East at the top, in place of the North. The meaning of man and the meaning of his world are conferred upon them by this polar dimension, and not by a linear, horizontal and one-dimensional evolution, that famous 'sense of history' which nowadays has been taken for granted, even though the terms of reference on which it is based remain entirely hypothetical.

Moreover, the paradise of Yima in which are preserved the most beautiful of beings who will repopulate a transfigured world, namely, the Var that preserves the seed of the resurrection bodies, is situated in the North. The Earth of Light, the Terra Lucida of Manicheism, like that of Mazdeism [Zoroastrianism], is also situated in the direction of the cosmic North. In the same way, according to the mystic Abd al-Karim Jili, the 'earth of the souls' is a region in the far North, the only one not to have been affected by the consequences of the fall of Adam. It is the abode of the 'men of the Invisible,' ruled by the mysterious prophet Khizr (Khadir). A characteristic feature is that its light is that of the 'midnight sun,' since the evening prayer is unknown there, dawn rising before the sun has set. And here it might be useful to look at all the symbols that converge toward the paradise of the North, the souls' Earth of Light and castle of the Grail...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is now Ruined, must be restored[edit]

The page has now been ruined thanks to the efforts of formalistic anal-retentive editorship. Every single fact on the page was taken straight from Nicholas Goodricke-Clarke (Black Sun) and Joscelyn Godwin (Arktos). Any real-life editor would see the obvious in this instance, and would not maniacally and pathologically delete all of the valuable, rare information simply because it has not been anal-retentively, psychocompulsively referenced in perfect anal-retentive wikipedia style. The old page should be restored immediately; every single fact can be legitimately sourced to the discussions of Goodricke Clarke and Joscelyn Godwin on Serrano.

The old page violated numerous Wikipedia policies, most obviously WP:NPOV. This page was taken from another page, as it is sourced and largely meets Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to add to the page or make changes, please feel free to do so but the previous page was simply unacceptable per Wikipedia guidelines. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as I have checked this material, I can confirm that the old page was based on Goodrick-Clarke and Godwin. It would have been helpful if it had been sourced with in-line citations and written up in a neutral style. I think I can improve it and work it back in. After that, we should move some of this stuff back to Esoteric Nazism. Serrano is a central figure there and deserves more than the tiny summary that now remains. Gnostrat (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current state of the article is pretty miserable, though still an improvement over the previous article that existed. I support your idea and I think you're right. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put back part of the original article, sourced it more comprehensively (it's nearly all Goodrick-Clarke), made a few corrections and expansions, and removed a few peacock terms; but on the whole, this bit was well-written and I've only needed to intervene with a light hand. There are some changes I might still want to make to the way Gnosticism is represented in this article. This seems to be a problem not so much with Serrano's understanding of Gnosticism, as with Goodrick-Clarke's. I may have more to say about this later. Other than that, I hope the restored section is more or less up to standard now. The second part will be more of a challenge! Anyway I've moved the replacement material back to Esoteric Nazism. Gnostrat (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dagobert's Revenge Review on Serrano[edit]

http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/bookstore/arktos.html

Next Godwin examines Migeul Serrano´s El Ultimo Avatara. He too believes in a spiritual magick war between the Hews and the Aryans, whom he calls the “Hyperboreans.” In the Golden Age, prior to the disaster that wiped out their civilization, the Hyperboreans, unlike the Hebrews, have made it their goal in life to escape Samsara, tat involuntary trap of never-ending reincarnation in Buddhist and Hindu belief. They “commanded the power of the Vril and possessed the Third Eye... while through their veins coursed the light of the Black Sun. It was their great advanture to incarnate for the purpose of combating the mechanical universe of the Demiurge”, the Jewish god whom they despised. Of particular importance to Grail researchers, Serrano wrote, “There is nothing more mysterious than blood. Paraclesus considered it a condensation of light. I believe that the Aryan, Hyperborean blood is that - but not the light of the Golden Sun, not the light of the galactic sun, but of the light of the Black Sun of the Green Ray. Serrano believed that the Templar Knights had “discovered the Hyperborean tradition for themselves and had broken with their Judeo-Christian roots, an event celebrated by their rupture from the Priory of Sion.” This tradition was also known by The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, “but Serrano says that it was perverted by the degeneracy of Aleister Crowley and the Hewish Bergsons.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.48.146 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Godwin's book and will cite it when I restore the deleted final section of the article. I'm in the process of rewriting it now. Gnostrat (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serrano's Distant Theosophical Inspiration[edit]

Readers interested in Evola, Serrano, etc. should also take a look at the Nordic Aliens entry here. Benjamin Creme believes in a scenario quite similar to Evola and Serrano, with hyperphysical Venusian Nordic aliens from the extramundane etheric plane guiding the evolution of earthlings, etc. The Theosophical inspiration is here again quite evident. Theosophy seems inextricably linked with far-out root-race and therefore racialist ideas in modern history

More on the Book of Enoch-Theosophical-Ufologist-Nazi connection:

http://www.echoesofenoch.com/meetthenordics.htm

Blavatskian-Theosophic Racialism[edit]

Sumathi Ramaswamy, The Lost Land of Lemuria (University of California Press, 2004), p. 68: Indeed, Theosophy generates a complex geography of human races in which all the black peoples of the world are either Lemurians or their degenerate descendents, while the most advanced peoples of today--white Caucasians--are members of the fifth Root-race, far removed from them (77). In the Theosophical evolutionism, as Spirit--or Monad or Pilgrim--works its way through the history of the earth, it "is compelled to incarnate in, or rather contact, every race" (78). As it marches across the history of the earth, Spirit manifests itself in the form of the various Root-races and sub-races which it successively sheds as it surges upward toward our present Fifth Race, the most perfect so far. Those who get left behind--referred to variously as "sluggards" and "failures"--are destined to stagnate. Arguably, this enchanted evolutionary vision is much more racist and hierarchical than that espoused by many a contemporary disenchanted materialist, for millions of years separate the white Anglo-Saxon from the black aborigine whose origins are ascribed to the "racial decay" that besets the seventh sub-race in the closing years of Lemuria's life on earth (79). Further, rather than emerging from the more perfected forms of the Fourth Root-race on Atlantis, as the majority of northern humanity do, the blacks of the world--"fallen, degraded semblances of humanity"--are deemed to be descendents of a Root-race that was ultimately transcended by other, superior forms (80). Lemuria is handy in this regard as well, allowing the Theosophist to not only place the lower, degraded specimens of humanity in a different time, but also to isolate them further from the more evolved races by tracing their origins to a totally different continental configuration (81). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.136.1.133 (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of Serrano's Racialist Mythopoeia[edit]

The former material on Serrano's strange personal Aryo-Hyperborean mytho-philosophy was not concocted out of thin air. Diverse, independent scholars confirm the same thing:

http://www.greylodge.org/occultreview/glor_006/invisible.htm

The former material should be restored somehow. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.77.165 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of 'mytho-philosophy' section[edit]

I keep getting sidetracked on various articles but I've put back the larger part of the section summarising Serrano's ideas which I've rewritten, I hope, in a neutral enough style and with adequate citations. I haven't been able to come up with a reference for the first sentence so maybe somebody else can fill that in. It really was tempting to leave some unintentionally hilarious passages untouched. ("The Hyperboreans were super-sexual and reproduced through spiritual projections", indeed.) Oh well, safer to go with the evident meaning of the source (i.e. the Hyperboreans were asexual and reproduced by emitting something like ectoplasm). I'll restore the remainder of the section soon. Gnostrat (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive concentration on Serrano's later mythology[edit]

One of the worst problems of this page is the amount of space given to discussing the mythology Serrano promotes in his later Hitler trilogy. The works translated into English during his middle period, e.g. Visits of the Queen of Sheba, The Serpent of Paradise, The Ultimate Flower etc. deserve at least as much exposition as the later works, and arguably hold the key to how literally the claims of the Hitler trilogy should be taken. They also explain much better the otherwise puzzling friendships he sustained with some of the most gifted individuals of the day. Could someone (preferably not a neo-nazi) who has read them provide some sort of precis of their content? 129.67.17.233 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I created this article, basically, several years ago -- and NOT as a "neo-Nazi" but an actively intelligent quester of Truth in forbidden territory. I am genetically half-Jewish and half-"Norman-Sicilian"--so the thoughtblock of "anti-Semitism" is nothing but a pathetic joke of the less gifted and morally scrupulous of my cousins in Jewry. I know the tactics of psychological intimidation by means of language well, and I advise all to immediately aggressively call out any Jew using the utterly nebulous agitprop war-hammer term as a means of interpersonal domination.

Truth is non-linear and paradoxical -- one of the essential teachings of authentic metaphysical doctrine. Why can I not, on the one hand, appreciate the aesthetic and poetic gifts of Mr. Serrano, and, on the other hand, recognize his flaws, his misapprehensions of partially schizotypal-paranoid nature re: the collective slaughter of Jewish people in WWII, compassionately condemn the Nazi state's massacres of Slavs and Jews in the strongest terms? Where is genuine "arctic" wisdom and philosophy unencumbered by FEAR and STUPIDITY?

Why can I not appreciate, e.g., the relentlessness of pure intellectual aggression, the storm-wind from the North (see Ezekiel), of the Baron Julius Evola (as a fellow Sicilian, I can support Evola was baronial, as I myself am baronial, because in Sicily the concept of honorific "baronage" was very, very loose, euphemistically stated), while simultaneously forcefully condemning wholesale his damnable, libertine-Gnostic moral nihilism? Social death, fate of outlawry as warg/werewolf, simply for being self-true. Why can I not appreciate, e.g., G. Scholem analogously, while similarly condemning his sometimes implicit and sometimes explicit support of subversive pseudo-messianic forms of Judaic religiosity, etc.? Moralism is not ethics, is not honor, only artifice of over-socialized effeminacy.

In case people wonder, I self-identify philosophically and spiritually as both JEWISH and ARYAN in the most meaningful senses of the hysteria-generating mere words: or, said differently, I am NEITHER Jew nor Aryan, but "Hyperborean-blooded" as, not a rootless mamzer/mischling who acts as tradition-corrupter, disseminating liberal "ecumenism" dissolving all religious particularity in amorphous relativistic soulless indifference; but, as dispassionately passionate sword-bearer of authentic Gnosis (Justin the Philosopher: "Every holy, rational person, such as Heraclitus and Socrates, was 'Christian'"...) unbound by the discursive intellect, supporting Truth or aesthetico-intellectual depth wherever found, and slashing through mendacity wherever found, beyond humanistic moralist conceitedness of self-deception. I am an esoteric mystic of the heart of Christ -- KARDIOGNOSIS. Catholicism once knew Christ, especially in comparison to the rest of pseudo-Christian sects and heathen cults sugared over with tinsel of Christian doctrine. But now "smoke of Satan [not the 'Satan' of Serrano -- ALL TRUTH PARTICIPATES IN APORIA!] has entered the Temple" -- so I am homeless.

I sincerely appreciate the assistance of "Gnostrat" in the technical stylistic formation of the article. I hoped someone of less anti-academician bent would help me out here... Thx.

Please do not rubricize all spiritually-virile, intellectually dynamic individuals who recognize inspired genius, wherever found, wherever its source, no matter how "infamous" in the hypocritical, ultra-Pharisaic eyes of moderns and modernity -- the unseen mass-necropolis of burnt-out souls that is our neo-Gomorrah of today, this noisome, toxic global pestilence of hollowed out zombies bearing only nihilism in their state of heartlessness, gently expressed by T.S. Eliot as our epoch of "MEN WITHOUT CHESTS" that is modernity, -- thus depersonalizing such rare individuals, receptive to Truth no matter the cost, -- please do not rubricize such types as cartoon-like, depersonalizing true "free spirits" (the Carpocratian-Nietzschean "free spirit" is ironically the greatest slave-spirit), depersonalizing these free spirits of Order as demons in human form, because bereft of cowardice and mawkish social conformity. You only become the ape of what is pretentiously despised... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually real...[edit]

...or a hoax? This stuff seems too bizarre to be really believed. Is Serrano a hoaxer? Vultur (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's quite real. His biography and his ideas are all reliably referenced, and my impression is that he seriously believed his own claims. Wikipedia doesn't, of course, adjudicate on whether or not he was seriously self-deluded. We just record. Gnostrat (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Real and Not Insane[edit]

"Afraid"... Please, Sir. Your services in making the article "scholastically acceptable" according to the Wikipedia editorial masses are sincerely appreciated, but condescending attitudinizing is out of place. Have any of you even tried to understand Serrano?

Karl Marx, if analyzed in all seriousness, is equally insane, if Serrano is deemed insane. Social conformist popularity is irrelevant. I personally agree Serrano succumbs to many, and probably morally irresponsible, intellectual errors, but he was no lunatic, and indeed no worse, in terms of psycho-pathology, clinically, than the numerous battalions of fashionably popular Leftist icons so sweetly and stealthily positively characterized here on the New Soviet Encyclopedia, I mean, Wikipedia...

I don't defend Serrano. I am trying to EXPLAIN Serrano. First thing, is understanding he was an authentic ESOTERIC of rare, suppressed occult traditions in the West. All his comments relating to Hitler, Hyperborea, Thule, etc., are subtly SYMBOLIC and not dead-letter schizophrenia. I am describing his world-view not defending his world-view.

Judgmental moralist critique is just irrelevant. Just document and honestly characterize without double-standards.

I personally believe the excesses of Communist tyranny at least possibly RIVAL those of NS tyranny. I don't like partisanship either way, no matter how unpopular among the literati and cultured "set" I thus become for striving for balance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I can't agree more with you. Calling Devri and Serrano "insane" or "lunatics" while respecting communist ideas and ideals are a positive double standard. Wikipedia should portray Serrano's ideas unbiased, and let us, the readers, judge them. 189.60.174.156 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miguel Serrano. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Miguel Serrano. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy[edit]

This section seems to be very misleading. It reads as if Serrano was a serious scholar and/or religious authority which received praise by respected historians, when in fact he only received praise by historians which were nazi sympathizer themselves. I am all for exposing his thoughts as he believed them, but this section and other parts of the text read like a piece of propaganda, like if his Nazi ideology is a morally-neutral belief system, accepted by a large part of society. It's a truly treacherous article.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miguel_Serrano&oldid=1216355327"