Luther: Questions and Struggle for Truth

Revolutionaries challenge established powers. This starts by asking a few, often simple, questions and then proceeds, if it indeed it reaches that key stage, into a struggle that redefines the limits of the revolutionaries’ will power. Success will make them remembered by following generations, however it is their struggle that will make them great. For without it, there would be nothing.

Martin Luther is one of history’s most famous revolutionaries. His daring to ask certain unorthodox questions led to the Protestant Reformation, which, in turn, led to the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, and both redefined the Christian faith and its followers.

The 2003 film Luther is a dramatization of the German’s life. It remains reasonably faithful to his life story, the key part of it that it covers, but it also makes some key omissions and in the end reduces Luther’s message to a contemporary humanist level.

Film Summary
There is a clever device right in the film’s opening credits: the film’s title first appears as Luther’s signature – it is literally “written” onto the screen – before the conventional printed title appears. A signature is supposed to connote authenticity. As if it is Martin Luther himself telling the story.

We then see a young man scared for his life in the middle of field as a furious thunderstorm is raging. The young man says that he will give his life to serving God if only his life be spared. This is Martin Luther. He keeps promise and begins to study theology and soon joins the priesthood. During his first mass, young Luther seems taken in by light streaming through the stained glass window above – is it wonder? awe? – and it causes him to fumble his first mass, much to his father’s dissatisfaction. Luther’s father even doubts his son’s motivations for becoming a priest, but the young priest only relents.

He enters into an abbey and soon finds himself on his first pilgrimage to Rome. It is right there, in the center of Christendom, that he sees what will set the course for the rest of his life. In the church, before when he fumbled the mass, Luther saw a glimpse of his ideal – a direct connection to God, a personal connection that one faithful person can experience and learn from; now in Rome, Luther sees what he feels that the faithful need to move away from – these are the infamous “indulgences” and the market that deals with them. Much to Luther’s surprise, it is possible, according to Roman Law, to buy one’s way into Heaven. Or to shorten your dead relatives’ time in Purgatory, or even release them early. As Johann Tetzel, salesman of indulgences, puts it: “Coin in the coffer rings, a soul from Purgatory springs” thereby effectively reducing the idea of spiritual salvation down to an advertising slogan. Luther quickly sees the absurdity, hypocrisy and downright ignobility in the selling of indulgences. He even says that the indulgence certificate received upon purchase is “just paper.”

Interestingly, when Tetzel is first shown holding one of these certificates (or “guarantees” or whatnot), he shot is framed so that it is seen through fire – a not so subtle connection to the fear-mongering hellfire speech that he had just given in that scene in order to scare peasants into buying his indulgences.

Throughout the film, Luther is framed with sunlight in key scenes. This can be first seen when he is scrubbing the floors of his abbey, making them very sparkly and clean and his mentor even jokes that he is working himself to hard. This scene comes after Luther’s first trip to Rome and he was angry with all the hypocrisy that he saw, which included monks buying sex and a glimpse of Papal pomp. In the scrubbing scene, after his mentor’s bit of humor, Luther hoists himself up from the floor and then while still kneeling he is framed to match a tall sun lit window in the back and the floor he scrubbed shines bright. It is a brief scene, but a very telling one in that it gets to the essence of Luther’s struggle: it is the effort that counts, not the money. Luther sought to teach that Christians can make themselves free from sin by emulating Christ, through the effort of faith and the rejection of materialism like indulgences and idol worship.

After he makes his ideas officially public with the famous 95 Theses, Luther is slapped with excommunication and a bounty is put on his head, but one of his friends from a high place gives him sanctuary. Luther then goes on to translate the New Testament from Latin into his vernacular German. This great effort would go on to help standardize the German language as well as add refinements to the science of translation.

Luther starts a populist wave, of sorts, with his bringing of Scripture into the vernacular. Much to his dismay this brings its share of violence and madness, but in the end, his teachings catch on and garner intelligent followers. The film, especially, by the end, becomes a rather romanticized and idealized version of Luther’s story, but how can three tense decades be compressed into two hours without such storytelling devices? They really cannot.

The film ends in 1530 right after the Diet of Augsburg when a now happily married Luther learns that Roman Law no longer looms over Germany.

Almost Aryanism
The overall portrait of Martin Luther as seen in this film can be described as humanist. He is shown as a warm-hearted man who is disgusted with Vatican hypocrisy and sets out to counter it. There is a theme of “freedom” in the contemporary liberal sense of “giving it to the people” as Luther seeks to make the Bible available to commoners. That’s not an ignoble goal, but critically short of Aryanism. The overarching notion here is similar to the end of the Lord of the Rings film adaptation, which has that critical deviation from the source novel, and that is: someone capable will bring good to the world, all you have to do is “have faith.” This theme can also be seen in comic books as superheroes fight super-villains, while ordinary people look on in terror and awe knowing that they could never rise up to such feats. It’s a rather prevalent form of mass pacification.

The intensity of Luther’s struggle is also toned down. During the months when he was translating the Bible into German, Luther suffered from various ailments that caused him great pain – these are only mentioned in passing in the film and the character on screen looks more like a book worm or nerd as he notices a subtlety in the translation process – something most others would find trivial – while sitting on the floor in a room with papers strewn all over. That must have been part of the struggle, however, the key part was Luther’s spiritual battle. The will to overcome a grand corrupt scheme, one that has propaganda and blindly loyal enforcers nearly everywhere. There are some scenes of this inner battle, most notably right before the Edict of Worms is passed, but it is a shame that this wasn’t made into one of the film’s key themes or had a series of scenes throughout the film and each one would progress. It was with such sleepless nights and brainstorms that must have brought Luther’s revolutionary ideas into action. Being driven as such as he was could have only meant a treacherously rough ride.

The limited budget excuse doesn’t cut it here. It was a theme that should have been developed from the very beginning of the film project, screenplay statge, and then wound up as a key aspect of the whole story. However, this watering down isn’t nearly as deceptive as another aspect of the film. This particular part wasn’t censored in anyway, it was just completely avoided.

Key Omissions
Anyone who knows the general story of Martin Luther right down to his biographers knows this: Luther hated Jews. The preceding three words are the biggest possible simplification that one can make on this controversial aspect about the founder of the Lutheran faith, however those words remain true. By delving deeper into this subject we can plainly see why it was avoided.

Firstly, there is the simplest reason: this aspect of Luther came at the end of his life. The film ends in 1530, while Luther’s writings about Jews are from after 1537, the last nine years of his life. Thus, this was not included in the film as the core of what Luther had brought into the World had already been discussed.

That would be an acceptable reason, however take a look at the film’s closing text:

“What happened at Augsburg pushed open the door of religious freedom. Martin Luther lived for another 16 years, preaching and teaching the Word. He and Katharina von Bora enjoyed a happy marriage and six children. Luther’s influence extended into economics, politics, education and music, and his translation of the Bible became a foundation stone of the German language. Today over 540 million people worship in churches inspired by his Reformation.”

It seems that the filmmakers just wanted to show a good-hearted humanist hero, one with heart of gold, as they saying goes. This could be for market value, but seeing that this was an independently produced film, in Europe (and not Hollywood), they were not too concerned with the profits of a potential huge hit. They made the film exactly as they intended: a humanist hero. Notice that this is also a common way to show Christ, Ghandi and other spiritual teachers. Yet, what do the two aforementioned spiritual leaders have in common with not just each other, but also with Martin Luther: they held a negative view of the Jews. All their writings and teaching have passed through the Zio-sieve, so don’t expect to read about any of this from any politically correct sources. PC is just a tentacle of ZC.

Secondly, with this in mind, let’s return to the quote above. Now with an Aryanist understanding, “religious freedom” and “preaching and teaching the Word” means pointing out the vicious and hypocritical nature of Judaism as that is precisely what Luther did in those last years! It is not the information that ZC tries to hide, but a certain and vital understanding of it. Facts can be twisted and even made up, while a profound insight is practically untouchable.

There was another movie from 2003 called Hitler: The Rise of Evil (yes that’s the actual title), which had similar manipulations of its historical main character. In a film about Hitler it is impossible not to mention Jews, even the 2004 film Der Untergang has a forcefully tacked on title card at the end with the “6 million figure” though it makes no references to Jewry otherwise. Due to this impossibility of convenient omission, they mention Jews in a way that agrees with mainstream myth. The opening scenes show Hitler still as a child and we can see that his mother occasionally spouts something unpleasant about the Jews. This attempt at “honest” portrayal and the delving into the psyche of Hitler seems to suggest that hate is picked up from a poor upbringing. That Hitler was just a product of a World hateful to the Jews. This is pure folly.

In Mein KampfHitler’s own words – the first mention of Jews in on the bottom of page 42. This referrs to the downloadable PDF document on Aryanism’s Main Site. This puts Hitler’s first mention of Jews well into the second chapter in which he describes his life and work in Vienna. The first chapter is about his family and clearly from Der Führer’s own words he did not learn to hate the Jews from being exposed to bigotry at a young age. It wasn’t racist propaganda that was engrained in his mind and then exploded in rage when he was an adult. That is what the Jews would like the goyim to think.

The fact is that Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther both started to despise the Jew from observations of their World and what Jewry does to it. Jews are not hated simply because they are Jews, that’s irrational. Jews are despised for the most rational reasons possible: people eventually see what Jews stand for, believe in and seek to accomplish. Most critically, people eventually see what the Jews do in order to get their way. That is what gets people to detest Jews.

Martin Luther’s treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, was written in 1543, three years before his death. Luther’s life was a struggle against corruption, materialism and hypocrisy – and he wound up despising Jewry with precise reasons as to why and that is no coincidence. It is men of such persistence who make such inevitable observations and it is them that the Jews hate the most. Luther’s writing are a silver mirror. So are Hitler’s. The Jew fears such things.


Hiding in the Dark
This film is also part of a general theme of “questioning Christianity.” Movies repeatedly come out that raise such questions, most notably The Da Vinci Code and its source novel. Now, I do not believe the Christian faith is perfect and neither was Martin Luther, whose aforementioned treatise contains a fair bit of anger and advocates violent force to be used against Jews. I understand his anger, but do not condone nor advocate such courses of action.

What I do advocate is questioning all religious faiths, even picking apart the many absurdities in Judaism, which always seems to get a pass. The Talmud Code, anyone?

Such a project wouldn’t get off the ground in the mainstream, Judeo-monopolized sphere, since the only people that can discuss such matters are Jews, whilst hiding in the dark, though, for imagine if someone saw Judaism as intrinsically absurd! We can bet that they would very quickly be labeled as an “anti-Semite.” The accusations of heresy that were directed at Luther were pretty much the same; from the same kind of mindset, anyway.

When the full history of Martin Luther is considered we can see that one man’s lifelong quest for truth and honor in spirituality leads him despise Jews. In the part of the film where Luther tells a woman that the indulgence she bought is “just paper” can be directly applied to the Fiat money scheme of today – money is literally “just paper.” Further investigation will uncover who is really behind such things and a dedicated investigator will likely despise Jews even before he finds out authentic solutions to the problem.

The selling of indulgences was, in fact, a way to get people psychologically and spiritually hooked on a money-swindling scheme. Today’s financial news that praises Judaized economics and economists for all their hard work in solving “crises” and other things works much the same way – combining fear and wonder the scheme rakes in loyal followers who will soon not even be aware of anything beyond it.

Note the Aryan definition of “Zion” – a sustainable system of slavery in which internal rebellion is no longer possible. Why is rebellion no longer possible? Likely not due to fear, but due to ignorance. Zion is a “mind-monopoly” where the prisoners can think of nothing other than serving Zion. Thus, even if anything else exists (like the Zionists’ elite standings and luxuries) it becomes irrelevant by the system default. The horror is that the only possible setting in this system is “default.”

To prevent such a nightmare from becoming reality, the story of Luther shouldn’t be the main inspiration, but definitely one of them – a little stone to be inserted into the mosaic that is the Aryan Kampf.

A related essay HERE.

About Miecz Elizejski

Kindling a Kampf deep in Zionist-occupied territory.
This entry was posted in film, history and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Luther: Questions and Struggle for Truth

  1. Difficult subject Komerad,

    The Golden Bull of 1356 was a tyrannical constitution of the Holy Roman Empire, it Fiat decreed all sovereign power within the Holy Roman Empire and the rest of the world to be held by one of two pillars – spiritual/ecclesiastical represented by Papal Rome and temporal/secular represented by the 'seven prince-electors' who were to elect a 'King of the Romans' who was in partnership with the Pope in Rome, this is the 'Doulble-headed eagle'.

    The seven princes are the seven candle-sticks, and one of them who recieved his princedom heritably was Fredrick III who was the Elector of Saxony and Luther's owner, basically, Martin Luther was owned by Fredrick III with everything else that was within the boundaries of Saxony, whether above the ground or below, in fact Fredrick III did not just own the very breath of Martin Luther he owned at least according to the Golden Bull all his descendents for ever an ever.

    It was Fredrick III who had been discussing Reformation or Ammendments of the Golden Bull Constitution (Which BTW remained in force until the 18th) with the Pope, and such was there cosy relationship (being most likely homosexuals) that the Pope had wanted Fredrick III to become King of the Romans!

    Now the reason why the Pope and his male companion Fredrick III wanted Reforms to the structure of the Golden Bull Constitution was because it was hated, and was not working, they needed to soften it round the edges and grant some more “rights” and “liberties” to their living slaves, not because they wanted to improve their lot, it was just that they were dying before they could produce enough to be taxed by the Jewish courts who worked for the seven candle sticks at that particular time. So Luther being a handy Lawyer in candle stick Fredrick III's service provided certain propaganda for his Master.

  2. Yes, the film does simplify and avoid much historical detail. And that's definitely a trend. Moving all discussion away from Aryanism with Luther here being made into a humanist and humanism is just Judaism for Gentiles. Luther was defnitely not an Aryanist, but he was pointing more in that direction than is comfortable for ZC to admit, his teachings have a great many followers… too many to destroy, so they let him be, but shape him accordingly.

  3. I am actually now attempting to expand on Martin Luther & the Reforamtion by writing an essay, it is a very tough subject, of course the further one goes back in time the more difficult it is to work out just what is going on, there are lies on top of lies on top of lies, and so on. I think I should spend a few more days with it and try to really nail it. It is such a critical point in time and so much relates to it and I want to bring in alot of ends and tie it all together. I should watch this movie you reviewed as well, it is at my local video store.

  4. Good idea, Kamerad. Your knowledge of history exceeds mine and my focus was really just the film with a slight venturing into the overall context of Luther. However, if you write a good piece on him, then the two essays will go well together.

Post a Comment

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s