Nazism descends from Lutheranism

Just as progressivism, (by which I mean anglosphere mainstream leftism) descends from the Puritans, via the infamous and conspiratorial Exeter Hall, the Acorn of its day, and “super protestantism”, looks like Nazism is descended from Lutheranism.

The apple does not fall far from the tree. Lutherans hated Jews, Puritans hated Christmas and men having sex with women.

Mencius argued that Nazism was genuinely right wing because it was not progressivism. This fits the definition of the “right”, that whosoever disagrees with progressivism on any one point of ten thousand points of doctrine, is a rightist (and doubtless a racist also). If however, Nazism is, like progressivism, a child of the seventeenth century holy wars, this accurately describes its extensive commonalities with leftism.

Thus Nazis are rightists, in that they are not descended from puritanism, but leftists, in that they are descended from protestantism.

Thus World War II and denazification may be understood as an atheocratic continuation of the theocratic holy wars of the seventeenth century. Once the Roman Catholics were defeated and the Holy Roman Empire vanished, the protestants turned on each other, since each sect of protestantism disagreed with a different aspect of Roman Catholicism, having little in common except that they deviated from Roman Catholicism on a few issues of a thousand issues.

Theocracy is inherently warlike. The warlike character of theocracy/atheocracy is obfuscated at present by the strategy of progressivism/puritanism to ally with the far enemy, such as communists and Muslims, against the near enemy, ordinary white taxpaying Americans.

Hence the doctrine of democratic peace: Democracies never go to war with each other – provided we define all democracies where progressives lacked the upper hand as undemocratic. If, however, we ignorantly look at things like voting and elections, it looks very much as if democracies frequently do go to war with each other.

27 Responses to “Nazism descends from Lutheranism”

  1. Matt says:

    How does this line of thought differ from the errors of those who view Christianity itself as the source of all the Universalist excesses? The logic seems identical, which I think reinforces the foolishness of “genealogical research” on the history of ideas.

    The most important thing about a movement is what it believes. What answers does it give to the most serious questions? What are it’s goals? How does it talk about itself? Who are it’s enemies? The rest is circumstantial evidence at best. Lutheranism has creeds. Nazi-ism had (informal) creeds. If you’re going to conflate the two, you need to dig in and find similarities. Shared absence from the Catholic Church does not constitute proof of anything.

    Was the French Revolution rooted in the Avingon Papacy? Both shared a location, an ethnicity, and an opposition to Rome. Come on. When people do things like this with the history of ideas, they’re revealing more about themselves than they are about the real world. I think the most frustrating part is that this really is a great blog, most of the time.

    • jim says:

      How does this line of thought differ from the errors of those who view Christianity itself as the source of all the Universalist excesses? The logic seems identical, which I think reinforces the foolishness of “genealogical research” on the history of ideas.

      I should have said that in the course of the pursuit of theocratic power, all ideas that got in the way of the pursuit of power were cast overboard – that progressivism is what Puritanism became as a result of natural selection on memes whose bearers pursued political power

      As I have said many times before, but failed to say in this post, Christ was demoted from the incarnation of the lord and the redeemer of mankind, to community organizer in chief, before being ejected altogether.

      Genealogical research on the history of ideas is useful, because the framework of memetic selection tells us that the supposed ideas of our enemies are merely instruments for obtaining power, and that their nominal content is empty, that our enemies neither believe or disbelieve in any of this stuff.

      From the point of view of memetic selection and evolution, it should come as no surprise that the climategate files revealed total indifference and complete lack of interest in the question of whether Global Warming was in fact true. The geneaology of ideas should have told us that Warmism was believed in the same manner, and for the same reasons, as they opposed fasting during lent and the use of images in churches.

      Was the French Revolution rooted in the Avingon Papacy? Both shared a location, an ethnicity, and an opposition to Rome.

      I have not investigated. That is why I said anglosphere leftism. While Voltaire was atheistic, a lot of his contemporary leftists were stridently religious, but I have no idea of their religious roots. The war in the Vendee was obviously more about religion than Royalism. The peasants were fighting for their priests, and pretty much conscripted the nobility to organize their militias, while the Parisian army was fighting to purge the peasant’s priesthood.

      The army of the Vendee initially styled itself “The Catholic Army”, and only later styled itself the Royal Catholic Army, and their number one demand was the reopening of the Churches with their former priests – which implies an effort by the new regime to install new priests, which is pretty much a rerun of the Avignon Papacy, though similarity of measures does not necessarily imply continuity of personnel and organization. Indeed, after four centuries out of power, continuity of personnel and organization between Avignon and the new priesthood is unlikely, whereas there is clear continuity of personnel and organization between the puritans and today’s left.

    • jim says:

      Was the French Revolution rooted in the Avingon Papacy?

      On checking, I find that the French left was continuous with Gallicanism, that Gallicanism was a formally organized religious movement with official doctrines and offices back in 1682, a century before the French Revolution, that this movement claimed continuity of organization, authority, and personnel with the Avignon Papacy, and that the Vendee war, the first real shooting struggle of the French Revolution, was a holy war between Gallicanism and Ultramontanism.

      So yes, rooted in the Avignon Papacy.

    • jim says:

      The most important thing about a movement is what it believes. What answers does it give to the most serious questions? What are it’s goals? How does it talk about itself? Who are it’s enemies?

      If that is the most important thing about a movement, why was the first shooting war of the French revolution war with the ultramontanist peasants in the Vendee?

  2. RS says:

    I can’t say I believe this at all. The nazis wanted to garner votes with socialism (and I think Hitler sincerely wanted to help the working Joe alongside whom he fought)…

    ….wanted to manage capitalism’s occasional zaniness and also I think dampen it as a dynamic or highly vital force (preferring that tradition and the state have high vitality instead)………….. respond to waxing Jewish/bolshi power (including within Germany)………. Respond to the loss of faith in the old nobility and their consequent loss of effectiveness qua ruling class / influential class of rightists or trads.

    I see these things as having not a lot to do with the past, they have to do with that day.

    You havent mentioned the amorality which is kind of a key thing with the nazis — or more accurately their willingness to inflict almost arbitrarily large amounts of suffering in exchange for being on course for personal and civilizational greatness, excellence, virtue. No doubt Hitler dreamed of future eugeno-Wagners that would be like 10x better than the actual Wagner. And when Savitri Devi waxed rhapsodic it gets really frenetic, it was like, given time why shouldnt armies of millions of Wagners (along with the world at large) be getting like (10^10)^10 better (more violent, disciplined and artistic) per millisecond on a billion different planets in different galaxies.

    lozlzolzolzlolzlo

    So, they took a really extreme position on that whole question, largely I guess because they proposed that Europe was in extreme peril of dying. Most far rightists would take something more like a compromise position.

    To repeat, pretty key point thar for nazism, largely makes it what it is to us and to all. Does it have anything to do with protestant sects? IMO elites were unbelievers and this amoralism, Savitri Devism, hypereudaimonism and hyperviolence have 500 times more to do with Nietzsche — like fascism he was a bit on the hysterical side whilst affecting a staunch classicism at the very heart of his world. I’m not saying he was necessarily an important direct influence on Hitler (he;s usually not thought to be, but consider how we would actually verify that), but Germany veritably bloomed with Nietzsche mania from WWI (he and the bible were the primary government issue in the trenches, i understand), and I dont really blame them at all, Im crazy about the guy though I think he has his excesses. The rest of the West had Nietzsche hypomania, and apparently he made a splash of some sort in Japan rather early on in the timeline of his unveiling (in Germany and neighboring realms he had underground influence in the 80s and considerable influence from the 90s). Consider _Nietzsche, godfather of fascism?_ and various materials from Stephen Aschheim.

    > Theocracy is inherently warlike. The warlike character of theocracy/atheocracy is obfuscated at present

    Once more I’ll side with the idea that it’s a response to conditions. Nukes, basically. Who could deny that they sure make it a bear to have war.

    • jim says:

      Well, not knowing German, I cannot trace out a transformation between lutheranism and Nazism, the way I can trace out the transformation between puritanism and modern progressivism, with at each step doctrines that got in the way of the pursuit of power being discarded,and doctrines that advanced the pursuit of power being adopted.

      However, I notice that the Nazis nazified the protestant churches, and hit no resistance in so doing, which is evidence that then existent Nazism was not in fact substantially different from then existent Lutheranism.

  3. RS says:

    I think the case for the superprotestants being seriously influenced by christianity, is much better. God knows they are a frightening bunch if we look at MM;s favorite TIME article. Theres still something you can ask which is, are these particular churchmen actually seriously influential in that day or are they mainly an epiphenomenon reflecting our decline, our rot, the rise in PC inanities such as thinking there could be progress despite genetic decline, etc.

    • RS says:

      > Theres still something you can ask

      & i would

    • RS says:

      > I think the case for the superprotestants being seriously influenced by christianity, is much better.

      First of all we know that they were actually a sort of believers, many of them. many others must have been deep believers in christianity without believing in god or jesus.

    • jim says:

      > Theres still something you can ask which is, are these particular churchmen actually seriously influential in that day

      I notice that Exeter Hall was disguising the extent of theocratic church authority, was making the anti slavery/woman’s emancipation movement look considerably more secular than it actually was. We had a multitude of nominally secular do gooder organizations that just happened to have the same postal address (Exeter Hall) as nominally religious do gooder organizations, so the extent of churchmen’s influence is hard to assess.

  4. RS says:

    > Genealogical research on the history of ideas is useful, because the framework of memetic selection tells us that the supposed ideas of our enemies are merely instruments for obtaining power, and that their nominal content is empty, that our enemies neither believe or disbelieve in any of this stuff.

    To be sure, you’ve given the most convincing account of the notion that I can imagine. It does make considerable sense, only to my mind the truth is that people dis/believe only moderately ; I don’t think they dis/believe altogether. That’s not to say they actually ‘think’ ; innate components of personality, alone, would seem to control very much of the variance.

  5. Red says:

    Nazism itself may not have been right wing, but the nation of Germany was. It was the German industrialists, military aristocracy, and the very productive middle classes that was engine that made Germany powerful. The same group that would traditionally been called right wing in the US. And just as the progressives cut deals with the american nationalist elements while planing their eventual removal so Hitler eventually planed removing the power of the industrialist and even the military from his government once the war was won.

    • jim says:

      If German Industrialists and the military aristocracy was right wing, then the Nazis were left wing:

      The industrial employers association published an evaluation of Nazism immediately before the 1930 election, in which they concluded the Nazis were totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist, that they intended a fundamental transformation of the existing economic order; an evaluation that turned out to be entirely accurate.

      See Henry Turner’s “German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler” (O.U.P. 1985). page 114.

      On page 135 Turner quotes various German big business figures saying that the difference between Nazis and commies is insignificant, an observation rather similar to that made by George Orwell who said anyone who claimed that nazis and commies were very different from each other was always an advocate of supporting one or the other.

      Mencius, however, reasonably defines the left as anglosphere progressivism, and any movement that it effectively seeks to use as its tool, by which standard the Nazis were not left.

      If, however, we take a genealogical point of view of these movements, and regard their supposed ideologies as mere arbitrary symbols without much significance, then both the similarities and differences are well summarized as that the Nazis were the post Christian spawn of Lutheranism, the commies the post theist spawn of Judaism, and the Americans the almost but not quite post christian spawn of the puritans.

      • Red says:

        Interestingly enough Nazi economic order was much more medieval than the other progressive systems. They embraced the old catholic church concept that you shouldn’t earn money without working for it and largely outlawed usury and fiscal trading. Their system of industry was that of the state allowed cartel and many small businesses. The system of trade was trade among friendly nations only. They even introduced a trading credit system that guaranteed and equal flow of goods in and out of the nation. It was a very different animal from progressive capitalism.

  6. [...] Nazis and Lutheranism Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

  7. Will S. says:

    “Puritans hated Christmas and men having sex with women.”

    They hated Christmas, but no; the puritans hated fornication, not heterosexual married sex.

    In fact, rather the opposite; it is well established that spouses who withheld themselves from their spouses, were ill thought of, and sometimes ended up facing excommunication for it!

    Here’s some education for you:

    http://www.gracebaptist.ws/sermons/notes/PuritanStudy/Puritan2.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/406.html
    http://www.likesbooks.com/puritans.html
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/halloween/features/puritans.html
    http://www.cracked.com/article_19575_5-ridiculous-sex-myths-from-history-you-probably-believe.html

    You’re welcome.

    • jim says:

      The puritans tended to blame men, rather than women for fornication, and while they theoretically supported patriarchy, they undermined it, foreshadowing the Victorian abolition of patriarchy.

      The puritans opposed fornication by both men and woman, which is a major move leftwards from the patriarchal position.

      The patriarchal position is that it is the duty of a woman to resist her sexual impulses, and the duty of father and husband to restrain her, not so much the duty of a man to refrain from tempting her. The puritans were gender neutral in their opposition to fornication, a major step towards the current left wing position of ignoring, and indeed forbidding, differences between the sexes.

      • Will S. says:

        I see what you’re saying, and acknowledge it, but they were following the Scriptures in that – the Bible condemns fornication period, without distinction as to sex of the offenders – so I don’t think they could have done, otherwise.

        If their descendents had stayed faithful, we wouldn’t have ended up with liberalism, and with their greater ‘egalitarianism’ turning into the egalitarianism of our day. I’m not prepared to blame puritanism’s deformation on puritanism…

        • jim says:

          Yes, the early Puritans were scripturally correct, unlike their successors, who tended to adapt the bible to whatever furthered getting power, and eventually tossed it overboard altogether.

          But they were not all that scripturally correct. They themselves sacrificed truth for power. As Mencius colorfully put it, spoke power to truth. For example in Cromwell’s England, and in the puritan colonies in the Americas, most of the crimes and punishments concerned not crimes against property and the person, but crimes against the puritan interpretation of scripture, the most infamous such enforcement being the war on Christmas.

          The puritans objected to Christmas supposedly because it was impure, being a pagan festival thinly spray painted with Christianity, with the underlying paganism quite visible under the spray coat of Christianity.

          But here is what Paul has to say on this topic: Romans 14:

          [2] For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
          [3] Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
          [4] Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
          [5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
          [6] He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
          [7] For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
          [8] For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
          [9] For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
          [10] But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

          The puritans believed that being holier than the next person, they were entitled to exercise power over the next person – which attitude is the essential core of leftism, and as gross a violation of scripture as anything their successors did. Had they truly stuck to scripture, they would have known that Christmas can be 99% pagan, and still be 100% Christian if the person celebrating what once were pagan rituals, what would still be pagan rituals if a pagan celebrated them, celebrates Christmas to the Lord, and giveth God thanks.

          Since being holier about sex and Christmas proved violently unpopular, their successors instead started being holier on slavery and female emancipation, which was more popular but violently unscriptural, and, being violently unscriptural, eventually led them to ditch the bible altogether, becoming the progressives we now know and detest.

          But the original sin of leftism was present in the original puritans.

          When in the restoration they were purged from governmental and quasi governmental institutions, for example universities and the Anglican church, they were replaced by Latitudinarians.

          Before the restoration, the attitude was that each sought to prove he was holier than the other. One might suppose that with a religious purge, a new version of holiness would be imposed, but instead we got the attitude “So, I am not all that holy. Big deal.” What was purged was theocracy itself.

          • Will S. says:

            Fair enough; I certainly condemn the totalitarian impulses and actions of the Puritans – as I have made clear in my post – and insofar as their doing such things and having such a mindset, paved the way for their secular descendents to do likewise with social liberalism, I’m prepared to apportion blame to them in the first place, too.

          • Will S. says:

            (The post I referred to above as my post, is here.)

  8. [...] I noticed this usual smear against them come up once again in the blogosphere, in this post. [...]

  9. bgc says:

    Well… the process of modernization (functional specialization, division of labour) began a long time ago (at least 1000 years in the West) – and protestantism/ puritanism does lie on that *general* path.

    Nazis were seen, at the time, by most people, as a step back from modernization – which is why someone such as Heidegger liked it – he envisaged a return to an agrarian, medieval type society.

    In the end, and under pressure of war, National Socialism became pro-modernization in its net effect – seeking power by specialization. It also became anti-Christian – which is a progressive (Leftist) phenomenon.

    (I’m assuming here that the pure expression of the right is indeed religious – and that the ‘secular right’ is merely a metastable hobby of intellectuals)

    But Nazis coming from Lutheranism? While of course there are a few common features, surely not in any significant way.

    Lutherans elsewhere in the world did not go in that direction. And the Nazis power base was in Catholic Bavaria, wasn’t it?

    It just strikes me as a wrong mode of reasoning – not going anywhere.

    But then I don’t think that anybody *can* reason rightly from an atheistic utilitarian perspective, because you cannot expose your assumptions to your own critique.

    • jim says:

      But then I don’t think that anybody *can* reason rightly from an atheistic utilitarian perspective

      As I have said many times, I am not a utilitarian, very few atheistic libertarians are utilitarians, and not many atheistic right wingers.

      Utilitarianism logically leads to left wing and/or statist conclusions, in that utilitarianism demands that the state maximize utility by sacrificing some people for other people, and it emotionally leads to left wing conclusions, in that anyone who says he would hold a child in the fire to cure malaria, will hold a child in the fire and forget he was trying to cure malaria.

      • red says:

        I don’t buy that leftists are utilitarian in nature. They use a lot of utilitarian arguments when trying to sway people but they don’t believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If they did they would be advocating removing all blacks and Mexicans from america to improve everyone’s quality of life.

        • jim says:

          I don’t think that anyone really believes in utilitarianism in their hearts. It just is not in the human potential. But because utilitarianism tends to give left wing conclusions, leftists tend to come up with utilitarian rationalizations for stuff that they believe in for other reasons, often reasons that are quite unspeakable and unthinkable.

  10. RS says:

    IMO almost no rightist is mostly utilitarian.

    –Of course, as I once mentioned, there is a complex dialectic surrounding ethics, with Epicurus being ‘ultimately’ a lot more like a virtuist or Aristotilean than a sybarite or indulger, even though he believed pleasure was the only intrinsic good. Perhaps he is still a utilitarian in some literal sense, for all that — thus I feel that the gestalts, attitudes, instincts, are about as meaningful as the proper propositional content of one’s outlook.

    Your suggestion that secular rightism is unsatisfactory or unworkable, while debatable, is much more understandable than the idea that we secular rightists and right-libertarians are all utilitarians.

    For one thing, the most important single figure in secular rightism is Nietzsche, who created pretty much the first great ‘old’/’new’ rift within the right, scandalizing all stalwart ‘old’ rightists with his every utterance. (For a while he was received primarily by leftish bohemians, before going on to vastly influence the fascist ferment.) Nietzsche famously scorned pleasure (while praising a soldierly sort of cheerfulness) in favor of personal and cultural progress (‘self-overcoming’). He was inequalitarian to a fault — repeatedly suggesting that the well-being of the great bulk of mankind, the chaff, should be very largely disregarded — in contrast to pretty much all utilitarians. In brief, his ethical outlook, along with that of fascism, could be considered a rather hystericized version of the classical Greco-Roman value system of virtuism — or the worldwide value system of malthusian life at large. This value system, for obvious reasons, drastically privileged warriors, battlefield virtue, and to some extent other virtues and their bearers over non-virtuous persons, and treated human life as cheap.

    We rightists continue to find meaning in ourselves, our own societies/races, and the superior (66% | 20% | 1% | 0.001%) of mankind worldwide — and the disciplined cultivation thereof — despite the slackening of forces like malthusian hunger, which obviously makes (made) ‘perpetual peace’ unthinkable, if it is ever thinkable. Of course many individuals, such as all of my old friends, want precisely this, but fail to understand themselves and/or where leftism flows to: “if this sort of humanity shall prevail, then I fear that the world will at last become a great hospital, and each the other’s humane nurse”. That is, leftism favors an (ever-increasing) maximum of indulgence — utilitarianism, basically — while rightism favors virtue, and distinction between superior and inferior persons and races. My friends (ultra-bohemian types) always felt sharply superior to others, only they allow themselves to be convinced that the main problem in society is bourgeois narrow-mindedness, an easy sell when we are all very high-O personalities — and like all people, eager to attribute superior aspects of our natures to acts of will, i.e. eager to believe that all people could be like us if they wanted to be.

    The fact that nazism is mostly a rightism is a pretty trivial corollary to my general points.

    However, like the thing with Epicurus, ‘left’ and ‘right’ end up being reflected through dialectics of two, five, a dozen mirrors, so that the concepts and the attempt to apply them wind up being pretty empty in countless cases. It is generally better to skip left and right and proceed directly to an examination of the actual content of an ideology — what are nazism’s or communism’s or Atlanticism’s economics, what is its take on Christianity, how does it balance virtue vs ‘utility’………….. and to what extent is each element meant for action, real purposive action, rather than for show.

Leave a Reply