Jump to content

Talk:Armanen runes

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


Nazi use of Armanen runes

[edit]

it is both historically and factually incorrect to state that the Nazi's used the Armanen runes. Where runic insignia were used, it was based on the Elder Futhark and the runes created by Karl Maria Willigut. See both 'The Secret King' - Stephen Flowers and Michael Moynihan, and 'The Occult Roots of Nazism' by Nicholas Goodrich-Clark. Now undoubtedly some 'wise ass' is going to come along and change it back, include the inaccurate statement and tell me I've not followed the appropriate procedure. But I'll just come back to remove the line, because it's basically wrong.

In Modern Heathenry as well, use of the Armanen runes is isolated to white supremacists, neo-nazi Volkisch (or "Folkish") Heathens following von List's ideologies, and those very few who are ignorant of the runes' past and creation.2001:48F8:9004:11:69ED:5367:A861:1BF9 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

I guess it needs a picture to be relevant. Evertype 23:55, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

you are welcome to add it. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I haven't got one. Evertype 11:33, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
well, there's the external link. We can either grab those and argue fair use, or draw them anew in a graphics program. [1] [2]. dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? This system is quite obviously fake. If some bonehead thinks he wants to know the pictures, let him go find them. If you had any doubts, the symbol "os" solves them. First off, by the rules of mutation, the name "os" in the younger futhorc comes from an older "ans-". So to say the original rune was "os" is absurd. Secondly, he says it means "mouth". "Os" is Latin for "mouth". To have one piece with a Latin name is absurd. These can obviously have no authority.

Yes, List's system is (by scholarly standards) quite obviously fake; but it is his system. As for educating boneheads, I agree, it's a fruitless task; but on Wikipedia we try to educate more than just boneheads; and an awareness of List's ersatz rune-row can certainly help tiro runemasters distinguish between it and the real Elder and Younger Futhark.
Nuttyskin (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FK0071

[edit]

I would be grateful if you could edit a little more responsibly, sparing me the effort to scrutinize all your additions. How can you state nonsense like The Armanen Runes have been very influential in German-speaking countries, where they are better known than the Elder Futhark (or common Germanic Futhark)? Also, However, the Armanen Runic system is making a big impact in the English speaking Western world. is pure subjective hype, and listing a couple of internet pages does nothing to substantiate it. You would need to say "in the opinion of XY, the Armanen runes still have significance in English-speaking occultist literature", citing some study by Dr. XY. dab (𒁳) 11:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, you seem to be very insistent to link to Nigel Pennick from all possible and impossible places. Are you, by any chance, him? dab (𒁳) 11:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to your edit summary, I never said that ‘The Armanen runes are also known as the Elder Futharkh’, I said that in German speaking countries they are better known than. I admit, I need to cite references which I am going to do now, by studies. 3 main studies are by Dr. Stephen E. Flowers Ph.D., professor Stefanie von Schnurbein, professor Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke B.A. and Nigel Pennick. I will cite these studies. I also admit that I need to edit my edits rather a lot, it looks a mess for others to review. No, I am not Nigel Pennick. I do take on board your suggestions Dab and want to get better at this. Thanks. Also, how is this new edit? FK0071a 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I apologize, this is my fault, I didn't read properly. I have serious doubts, however, that the Armanen runes are "better known than the Elder Futhark". I appreciate you are editing in good faith, and yes, it would be nice if you'd use the preview button a little bit more. Still, try not to get too carried away; your view seems to be largely that of esoteric or occultist literature, and that mostly doesn't translate to general statements. I'll grant you the Armanen runes may be more prominent than the Elder Futhark, in occultism, but not in any more general way. dab (𒁳) 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to strongly agree with user Dbachmann on the fact, that the claim The Armanen Runes have been very influential in German-speaking countries, where they are better known than the Elder Futhark (or common Germanic Futhark) is not correct. I don't know what some wannabe-sociologists/linguists/historians write in their publications in order to get some attention, but I am from Germany and here, the armanic runes are completely unknown unless you get into a discussion with experts for nazi-occultism. The Elder Futhark on the other hand is printed in a schoolbook of my father I possess and especially in heavy metal culture, the use of elder futhark is widely common in recent years. As an example take the cover art for the latest album of american band "Manowar", in the form it is marketed in Germany. The claim for relevance of Armanen Runes in neopagan circles in Germany is giving you a good chance to be labelled a nazi, because all non-fascist german culture ignores this unhistorical runeset completely. As inhabitant of a German-speaking country, I strongly suggest to remove the above said claim completely. 84.179.205.148 12:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the relative familiarity of different runic systems in Germany, but since List wasn't a Nazi (he died before the party was formed), it seems likely that only uninstructed minds would associate the Armanen system with Nazism. Having said that, I've been unable to find the source of the claim in Goodrick-Clarke (2003) and it seems possible that both of the references in that statement are spurious. That doesn't mean the claim itself is completely spurious. I have the following quotes from Futhark by Edred Thorsson/Stephen Flowers (1984) which would back it up in part:

p.15: "The personal force of List and that of his extensive and influential Armanen Orden was able to shape the runic theories of German magicians...from that time to the present day."

p.16: "Although [Karl Spiesberger] eliminates all the racist and völkisch elements, he retains the Armanen system of runes, which by 1955 had become almost "traditional" in German circles!"

He means, of course, in German rune-occultist circles. (And, both as a scholar and as an influential rune-magician, Flowers would know better than almost anybody.) With that qualification — quite a major qualification, I have to admit — I think the statement should now be retained. Just tweak it and source it to Flowers instead. I'll do it myself if nobody else fixes it sooner. Gnostrat 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's me, the anonymous outraged poster from above again. ;) I think if the section would point out that this rune system is influental in occultism and would not make the hilarious claim that this rune system in general is better known than the elder futhark, I will be satisfied. I am not an expert on occultism, I own only Gardenstone's Germanische Magie (don't know if an english title exists), which uses the elder futhark. So I guess among rune magicians the Armanen Runes could be influental, as I lack knowledge in the field. Just make sure that nobody gets the idea that if you pick 1000 people from the street in Germany, the three of them who can read runes will know Armanen Runes rather than Elder Futhark. That just isn't correct. 141.76.40.139 06:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gnostrat 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that puts it in the correct context. 141.76.40.139 06:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alright, now a formal point, instead of repeating full bibliographic references in footnotes again and again, you should do a "Literature" section, where you list each work once, and say merely "Pennick (1995), p. X" in the footnote, this is far less bulky. dab (𒁳) 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misrepresenting your sources. You make a specific claim, and then link to like five websites as "references", without making clear what parts exactly your claim is taken from. Listing five books isn't good for backing up a claim as specific as "the Armanen runes are better known than the Elder Futhark". This claim either is on some page in some book, or it isn't, this isn't better than citing "see Congress Library" as your reference. Likewise, the claim that the runes are used in a "non-racist, pansophical" context is attributed to like five websites. Looking at Kasen's website, far from being "pansophical", the man is insisting on a "racial folk-soul" and "Holy Odinic vastlands". This is pure racialist-facist mysticism, and nothing like "eclectic pansophy". If one of these authors claimed such a thing, say which one, and where. dab (𒁳) 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above on some of these sources, which I've now replaced with verifiable references i.e. Flowers. The "pansophical" claim is also from Flowers, and refers to Spiesberger, not Kasen, so I've put that one back in. By the way, talk of "folk-souls" may be racial-mysticism but it isn't necessarily fascist mysticism : ) Gnostrat 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasen

[edit]

FK, I have my doubts this V.O.L. Kasen person is notable and should be mentioned among other authors. All he seems do have published is a geocities page, this might as well be some random pseudonym. Geocities pages don't really count as references. dab (𒁳) 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Writers

[edit]

I have removed the following line "(Named writers)....have also disclaimed political implications, although the runes are still used in a clearly folkish context." as it is unclear as to whether you are saying that
A) the aforementioned writers are still 'folkish' in their own thinking or
B) that, despite their efforts, the Armanen runes themselves remain 'folkish' in nature?
As you are commenting on the work of others I think it needs to be clear as to exactly what it is you are saying. 90.197.138.26 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rune list

[edit]

Wouldn't it be better with an image/graph of the runes with List's names on them, instead of dead links to runes not very interesting in themselves? Would anyone bother making one? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stress

[edit]

'armanen or arm'anen? --Jugydmort (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the stress lies on the initial vowel.
Nuttyskin (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armanen runes. 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: 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) 06:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for encoding Armanen runes into the Unicode runic block.

[edit]

I think the Armanen runes are worth to be added to the Unicode runic block. Because someone is interested in reviving runic script for Modern German language and they will be disappointed to find out that Unicode is missing some runic characters added to Armanen runes. They should be urgently added to the next version of Unicode (14.0, I think). 94.180.44.12 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Wiligut Runes too, maybe Slavic Runes, etc. Ultima Thulean (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^^^irony. Nuttyskin (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armanen_runes&oldid=1205335646"