![67500[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dbLBdnD.jpg "67500[1].jpg")
>"In the eyes of the Italians we Germans are merely low Teutonic swine. They exploit us like charlatans and suck the country to the marrow. Wake up Germany!"
What did he mean by this? Was Luther actually a nationalist leader rather than a religious one?
>>1421534
He was for "common man". He felt that people should have the right to read the bible and interpret it, rather than have edicts handed down from a corrupt intellectual elite. I "guess" you could call it nationalism, if you "nation" is a mass of plebians and other simple folk under oppression by foreign mandate.
>>1421572
Not quite. He still supported the nobles right to rule the peasantry, hence his support for their brutal beat down of the German peasant rebellion.
I just think he hated italians
Who doesn't though
Not that germans aren't actually low teutonic swines too
I think we can all agree Germans and Italians are equally shit.
>>1421580
He didn't dissent from the Catholic Church so that people would insurrect. He did it by conscience as a sort of whistle blower. He didn't support any rebellion, but his words were used as substance for rebellion.
Why is "Wake up X!" such a popular slogan throughout history?
>>1421611
Because being asleep on your feet has always been such a prevalent human condition? Because people take advantage of people and it's not always immediately apparent, or masked by tradition?
>>1421534
The key ingredient there was the condition of the Papacy itself, not the approach of any of the Reformers. And the plain fact of the matter is that the Church was to arrogant to hear about reform.
Had the Reformers appeared on the scene a bit earlier, things could have been different, but, if that had been the case, the need for reform would not then have been as acute as it was in Luther's time.
>>1421651
There were Reformers before the Reformation. Wycliff, Hus, Grote, Waldo, and others. The Church wasn't particularly interested in listening to them either.
>>1421534
As much as I support a Catholic stronk Europe, I can also understand why (mostly northern) Germans and Scandinavians felt the way they did because they weren't part of the Roman Empire and didn't have a Roman culture, so it was naturally hard for them to relate to the Roman Catholic Church, on the opposite end of the continent no less. Anglos are filthy heathens though because they were part of Rome and took the Reformation to autistic levels. At least Luther didn't want to outlaw Catholicism.
>>1421605
German and Italian culture are literally the two originators of European culture. France is a mix of German and Italian culture, and England in turn is a mix of German and French culture.
>>1421704
Wrong.
First of all there is no "European culture", it's called Western culture. And its core is France and England. Germany and Italy are outliers which each only managed to acquire an incomplete grasp of Western culture, while violently rebelling against the parts they couldn't understand.
>>1421704
There is very little German or Italian influence on French culture, or German influence on English culture. There is however tremendous English and especially French influence on all of them.
>>1421534
Why is MLK white here? Did he have the same illness Michael Jackson had?
>>1421534
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn traces the origins of nationalism and socialism (and thus national socialism) back to Luther or even Hus by proxy.
tldr protestants fucked up Europe
>>1421754
They did, but that's retarded.
>>1421758
Basically he views it like this. You should read Liberty or Equality, it's a great book that essentially describes the protestant reformation as a cry of peasant rabble to destroy aristocratic hierarchy and creating a precursor to modern nation states.
>>1421731
>what is french renaissance
Not like François the 1rst made come a shitton of italians artists to decorate his castles
Also
>talking about "Italia" before it was unified
>>1421768
>Luther is Hitler
I mean, I get that you hate all Germans and want to exterminate them and replace them with brown people, but isn't this theory a little extreme?
>>1421781
I not only love Germans, I descend from Germans myself. Leddihn was German as well. This is an anti-modernism and anti-progress sentiment rather than anti-German one.
>The people from Prague and other Czechs should be whipped who speak half Czech and half German (...) And who could enumerate how the Czech language has already been corrupted, so that the true Czech hears they speak, but he does not understand them. And from that arises envy, anger, conflict, strife and Czech humiliation.
>If I knew a foreigner from anywhere in his virtue who would love God and would be interested in the good more than my own brother, he would be dearer to me than my brother. And hence I prefer good English priests over timid Czech priests and good German over an evil brother.
He seemed to be a complicated man.
>>1421768
But that's bullshit. Protestantism wasn't championed by peasants, but primarily by merchants and the rest of the bourgeoisie.
Meanwhile nationalism has existed in France and England since the Middle Ages, and socialism is the combination of Christian morality with absolutism.
>>1421778
Pretty irrelevant.
>>talking about "Italia" before it was unified
That's what you just did.
>>1421800
Borgeouise is basically just wealthier peasantry, they're both a class of commoners.
>Meanwhile nationalism has existed in France and England since the Middle Ages, and socialism is the combination of Christian morality with absolutism.
You really ought to read that book, alongside de Maistre's Considerations on France.
>>1421768
>I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain al the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead. All their blood is upon my head. But I put it all on our Lord God: for he commanded me to speak thus.
>To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!
>Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.
>>1421812
>Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business.
>But the woman is free through the divine law and cannot be compelled to suppress her carnal desires. Therefore the man ought to concede her right and give up to somebody else the wife who is his only in outward appearance.
>Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly
>I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.
>Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.
>>1421818
>If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham.
>Like the drivers of donkeys, who have to belabor the donkeys incessantly with rods and whips, or they will not obey, so must the ruler do with the people; they must drive, beat throttle, hang, burn, behead and torture, so as to make themselves feared and to keep the people in check.
>Moses is an executioner, a cruel lictor, a torturer a torturer who tears our flesh out with pincers and makes us suffer martyrdom . . . Whoever, in the name of Christ, terrifies and troubles consciences, is not the messenger of Christ, but of the devil . . . Let us therefore send Moses packing and for ever.
>It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.
>If we allow them - the Commandments - any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies
>One should learn Philosophy only as one learns witchcraft, that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them
>It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.
>Reason is the Devil's handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.
>St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.
>>1421812
He was actually forced to write that after peasantry rebelled in his name and he was horrified to see what atrocities they are capable of doing, look at the timeline. It's the same story with all revolutions that consume their own creators.
>>1421810
>Borgeouise is basically just wealthier peasantry, they're both a class of commoners.
No, the bourgeoisie were and are better educated and wealthier and have very different interests. The bourgeoisie, for instance,strongly supported *enclosure* in England, whereas King Charles and the peasants both opposed it.
>You really ought to read that book, alongside de Maistre's Considerations on France.
He was a Freemason who would have been more at home in the Aztec religion than as a Catholic.
>>1421831
He wasn't forced to write anything, the man defied the Church and would have been incarcerated for life if he wasn't broken out. Nobody forced him.
No, the peasants did not rebel "in his name"
>>1421834
>the eternal freemason allegation against Maistre
Many important people regardless of their interests back then were Freemasons, it was actually more like a social club for influential dudes than a secret conspiracy group like it's portrayed today. When the revolution broke out Maistre actually blamed it on the Janssenists who were viewed as crypto-protestants.
>>1421852
The RCC forbade any membership of the Freemasons in 1738
>>1421788
The second one is far clearer, Jan Hus read a lot of John Wycliffe. A great many Englishmen who were followers of John Wycliffe moved into a number of Cezch cities around that time. Jan Hus would of found thus people much closer to his views then most other Cezchs during his life time. Heck after he was dead Oxford sent open letters of support for some of his theology.
>>1421731
>No German influence on English culture
>What were the Angles and Saxons
>What are Anglo-Saxons
>What is English, a Germanic language
>>1421919
>What were the Angles and Saxons
>What are Anglo-Saxons
Well they sure as fuck weren't Germans.
>>1421919
Not the guy you're replying to but there's way too many retards treating German and Germanic like they're synonyms.
>>1421936
>>1421941
Idk, at this point I just think, you're being pedantic. Sure, there wasn't a true German identity yet like in Luther's time, but they were still Germanic and from areas today part of Germany. Also, when England's very language is of the Germanic branch, you can't deny German influence on the country.
>>1421958
German and Germanic are wholly different things, lad
Angles and jutes were basically danes
>>1421989
Sure jutes were Danea and maybe Angles, but definitely not Saxons and other Germanic peoples who migrated to Britain.
Also even though Germans arecone group out of many in the Germanic ethnic group, they are also the largest. Modern English themselves are more or less a Germanic ethnic group. You can't deny the German or Germanic influence on England.
Lastly, the Italians kickstarted the renaissance that would spread across Europe. Both Germany and Italy were important influences to France and England and vice versa.
>>1421958
Angles and Saxons aren't Germans. They're Germanic tribes that migrated to Britain from modern day Denmark centuries before there was anything resembling Germany.
>>1422099
>German or Germanic
Those are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Just because they sound similar in English DOESN'T MAKE THEM THE SAME THING.
>>1422099
Saxons still had more in common with frisians and jutlanders etc than with the high germans
>>1422099
>German or Germanic
Jesus this triggers me so hard
>>1422099
>Modern English themselves are more or less a Germanic ethnic group
They actually aren't
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663
Teutonic knights were so fucking awesome. Pretty scary desu. Much better than the dick waving helmets german soldeirs used on WWI
>>1422099
>>1422140
I know they're different you fucktards. But if you want evidence of German influence, then look at how the British queen descends from the Hannoverians. How much English has in common with German, both West Germanic languages.
>Hurr durr that's west germanic not west german
Just stfu.
>>1422154
>Analyzed only 10 skeletons
>Other DNA was Dutch and Danish
>Not Germanic
Yeah, ok
>>1421788
Meanwhile...
>Češi do toho!
>>1422285
That's like saying Bohemia had Ukrainian influence because they both spoke Slavic languages.
>>1422285
You were making the argument that English culture was mix of french and german
Germanic does not fucking equal german
Swedes are a germanic people and swedish is a germanic language, has fuck all to do with Germans you dummy
Of course England has germanic influence, germanic as in old saxon/angle/jute/dane etc
Jesus how dense are you
Also, the royal family being of German descend means literally nothing
>>1422363
I never claimed French, but biw that you mention it they did too, what with the Normans and William I. You would probably deny the hat too though or say Normans aren't actually French.
I fully realize German and Germanic aren't the same thing, holy fuck. If England didn't have significant German influence in their culture, then they certainly did in heritage and language. Yes, Germans were an ethnic group that formed an identitt centuries after the Anglo-Saxon mihration but they share mixh of the same genetics. If anyone is dense it is you.
>>1422335
I also noted the genetic link between them, one that Bohemians or Czechs and Ukrainians don't share to the same extent as English and Germans. Also, Ukrainian and Czech are Eastern and Western Slavic languages respectively, so they are hardly intelligible to the other. English and German are in the same branch of the Germanic language family and have closer links.
>>1421725
>First of all there is no "European culture", it's called Western culture
No it's called European Culture, calling it "Western Culture" is something Americans do to feel apart of something because there own nation is a culture wasteland
>>1421936
>What were the Angles and Saxons
>Well they sure as fuck weren't Germans
Where the fuck to you think Saxony is retard
>>1422565
Kek
This must be bait
>>1422542
eh heh, he says as he communicates in English through American media, visits shopping malls, watches Hollywood blockbusters, listens to American music, and on and on and on.
I don't even. Whatever culture you think you had, it's been assimilated. It is futile to resist.
>>1421731
How exactly have France or England influenced Germany or Italy? Rhetorical question, but I'm curious what kind of mental gymnastics you'll pull. French culture was created by the culture the Romans and later Franks left behind, practically nothing of the Gauls remains. Why do you think you're speaking a Latin language?
>>1422099
god's sake you're dense
>>1421810
>Borgeouise is basically just wealthier peasantry.
w-what?
>>1423131
My mistake of using the word "peasant" to denote "commoner", but yeah, they were commoner who migrated to the cities and eventually got rich off of trade and banking, they were pretty far from aristocracy and aristocracy loathed them and the fact they were getting more powerful than them.
>>1422542
Britain has culturally nothing in common with Belarus or Albania. There is no "European culture".
>>1422788
Seriously? Germany and Italy are both built as nation-states in imitation of French nationalism. Germany was built both as a continuation of the French-created Confederation of the Rhine and as a reaction against Napoleonic conquest. Italy was unified through its liberation from Austria by France. Both countries have law systems based on the French civil codex. Both have constitutions and democratic principles based on those of France. And this goes much farther back, both have always taken example on France in politics, art, science, technology, philosophy, etc. You could fill an encyclopedia with the amount of French influence.
>Gauls
>Romans
>Franks
>Latin language
What are you talking about? You realise neither France, Britain, Germany, or Italy existed at the same time as any of those things, right?
But I thought German and Italian identities are 19th century inventions.
