Martin Luther, The Original Self-Hating White Man

I recently read a biography of Martin Luther, Protestant Reformer and founder of Lutheranism, by theologian Martin Marty. Luther was an intellectual and a spiritual seeker. He was a lot better at asking questions than answering them. He got involved with political, cultural and social issues he wasn’t really equipped to deal with.

There were more things going on in the world in the 1500’s than the disputes of a few German princes with the Pope. As it is now, it was a time of Islamic aggression. The Turks had been invading Europe for centuries- they had conquered Constantinople and finished off the Byzantine Empire less than a hundred years earlier. The threat was active and the Pope wanted Europeans to set aside their theological arguments, which involved others than Luther, and unite militarily to defeat the Islamic menace.

Luther said no. War was wrong, he said, and while individual princes might raise armies to fight defensively for their territory, another Crusade would be immoral and he would not support any offensive or preemptive action against the Turks.

It is widely agreed in the West that preemptive warfare is wrong. This has been relaxed in recent years with the Iraq war, over vociferous opposition from liberals. But why is preemption wrong? If someone is planning on attacking you, why shouldn’t you attack them first, eliminate the threat, and keep the damage on their territory rather than yours? Setting aside any debate over WMDs, the Turks had been attacking Christian territory for centuries, and it was obvious they planned to continue.

Christianity at that time was not pacifistic and had not been for a millenia. As Christianity became the religion of the rulers, and the new Islamic empire threatened, some adjustments needed to be made. Being a soldier and fighting was not wrong as long as it was done for a legitimate purpose. The epic poem “Beowulf” is an example of this. On one level Beowulf is a Germanic warrior of the pagan old school, chopping up monsters and dozens of foes with his sword when he’s not killing them with his bare hands. But he is a man of generous spirit and self-control who fights to protect others, not only for his own glory. When Unferth insults him, he is entitled by the rules of the time to kill him; but he turns aside the “dis” with a story of his own accomplishment.

The code of chivalry addressed this formally. A society with an outside threat needed professional warriors. Such men might abuse and take advantage of others. The code told them that quite the opposite, they should protect the weak and be kind to them, using their strength to protect them from evil people. The “white knight” so derided of “game” enthusiasts, the strong but well-mannered gentleman, is not pathetic and foolish but the greatest ideal of Christian and Western civilization.

But Luther was a petty man. He couldn’t bear to help Catholic and Orthodox Christians, as compromise would make him look weak. What did it matter if they were killed or enslaved by Moslem Turks, if it made his political and theological position relatively stronger?

There is a widespread belief among “alt-right” people that 1) Jews are the enemy 2) Moslems hate Jews so 3) Moslems are really our friends and we should support them and not fight them. This is false logic. The enemy of your enemy might be your friend, but he is more likely your enemy also! People who are enemies of one are usually enemies of most.

Pacifists aren’t usually actual turn the other cheek people. They are against other people defending themselves. They do this selectively and tactically to use the far enemy to weaken their near enemy. And Martin Luther was the man who started all this.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Martin Luther, The Original Self-Hating White Man

  1. ntk says:

    The pro-Muslim thing has always struck me as more of a paleo-right than alt-right thing. The alt-right is mostly race-realist and agnostic these days, and so they’re not going to be fond of low-IQ races (e.g. most Muslim races) or Muslims themselves.

    It’s the paleos who keep trying to befriend Muslims (and failing), sort of like how mainstream conservatives keep trying to befriend blacks (and failing).

    • maxsnafu says:

      I agree. I know of NO ONE in race realist or alt-right circles who views Muslims with anything other than contempt. They are not now and never will be friends or allies to Westerners.

  2. odds says:

    Luther destroyed the Catholic Church. I despise Luther, not from a Christian perspective, but from the perspective of a white man. Luther set the standard of protesting and leaving when you disagree, instead of valuing the sense of community and comradeship.

  3. Rollory says:

    Good piece.

  4. Greencoat says:

    Martin Luther did not destroy the Catholic Church, as we can see with our own eyes. And the Church that he inspired, the Lutheran, is increasingly admitting its theological errors.

  5. Joe says:

    Luther and the other Protestant reformers greatly divided the white race. The wars in Europe following on the heels of Luther resulted in the death of one-third of the white race at the time. It was a great loss of blood for our race.
    In the confusion and turmoil of war, those factions and business interests who didn’t gave a damn about religious matters managed to get slavery and usury legalized in some of the newly formed Protestant lands.
    For all the faults of the Catholic church,slavery and usury was illegal in Catholic Europe.
    The controversy over simony was hardly worth all of this. Simony could have very easily been done away with if the reformers stayed in the Catholic church.
    Even if simony had remained,simony is nothing compared to the legalization of slavery and usury.
    It’s here in the Reformation where our present day corporate-controlled,bank-controlled economy and culture began.
    Slaveowners, having much less overhead, use their great profits to buy up as much land and businesses as they can,giving them much more power in the world of finance and business. Slavery always leads to a monoply based economy and always undermines free enterprise. The results are very much with us.
    In addition,the legalization of slavery brought a foreign and alien race into our midst. We today must deal with all of this because a few were so hungry for wealth and monoploy.
    There is much about Protestant Christianity that I like and respect, but the negatives outweigh the good in my estimation.
    If the reformers stayed in the Church and worked from within to change it, we would have now the good things about Protestant Christianity without the negatives that came along with it.
    To my mind,it was a giant disaster for the white race. We are now a greatly divided race.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s