PDA

View Full Version : Social-Nationalism & the Strasser Brothers



NatRev
Monday, February 10th, 2003, 05:15 PM
The Strasser brothers seem to be very interesting but I don't seem to have much luck in finding anything half decent about them. I've found some stuff on a Schools History site which was quite informative but didn't have much about their beliefs.

From what I've read of Yockey, I think he meant Slavs under the then yoke of Communism and not really as a folk. I think he was thinking of the Slavs as the country bumpkins of Europe rather than a separate race, but then again I've never read his work only other peoples interpretations of it.

Personally I have never had anything against Slavs and I must admit to admiring Communist propaganda posters.

Does anyone know where I can get a decent copy of Imperium from? I've seen one advertised on some website but it was about $40 or so which is pretty pricey, dunno what the exchange rates are for the UK.

Jack
Wednesday, February 12th, 2003, 06:45 AM
The Strasser brothers seem to be very interesting but I don't seem to have much luck in finding anything half decent about them. I've found some stuff on a Schools History site which was quite informative but didn't have much about their beliefs.

On the Strasser brothers: http://www.aryanunity.com/strassers.html
http://www.libreopinion.com/libertad/news/i98102201_us.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/11/03/20022.html


Does anyone know where I can get a decent copy of Imperium from? I've seen one advertised on some website but it was about $40 or so which is pretty pricey, dunno what the exchange rates are for the UK.

:gift

http://members.odinsrage.com/superman/Imperium.pdf

Its a PDF file. Its got Imperium and a bunch of his other stuff. I'd recommend you right click on that link and save it to your hard drive.

NatRev
Wednesday, February 12th, 2003, 07:59 PM
Just want to say thank you for all your help.

Cheers, mate!

J

Ederico
Wednesday, March 5th, 2003, 06:42 PM
I would like to know more on the Strasser brothers who to my knowledge were Left-Wing National Socialists and really Socialist, that quote from Gregor Strasser used by Jotunheim in his Sig is an indication to this.

NatRev
Thursday, March 6th, 2003, 05:18 PM
I've just bought 'Germany Tomorrow', I'll let you know more when I've read it.

Moody
Friday, March 7th, 2003, 06:36 PM
As we know, Gregor Strasser was executed as a traitor in the Blood Purge; however his brother Otto resurfaced in the post-war period.
I have an interesting dialogue between Otto Strasser and Oswald Mosley, where they discuss the future of Europe.

The debate is similar to that which rages here at times, and I'll quote some brief excerpts.
Strasser, in his objection to a united Europe says;

"Europe is full of the inner vitality which has its source in her national and cultural differences ...
It is that blessed individuality of each nation of our Continent - it is those rich shades and degrees of difference between us; whether they be cultural, economic, military or political - which go to make up the foundation of Europe's greatness - which gives shape and colour to the culture, to the soul of Europe!".

Mosley replies;

"I want a Europe integrated to the degree of Great Britain after the union of England, Wales and Scotland, or of Germany after the work of Bismarck ...
When 270,000,000 Europeans have come together with the strength of a united nation we shall be much too powerful to be governed from Wall Street ...
Why should we be dependent upon American finance when we have the productive power of all Europe?"
[Mosley, 'Policy and Debate', 1953]

While one can agree with Strasser's 'sentiments', one wonders whether he ever adjusted to the realities necessary for political struggle. In Hitler and Mosley, not the Strasserites, we find that reality-principle which is pregnant of the future.

NatRev
Friday, March 7th, 2003, 10:54 PM
WOW!

I've always thought those two were cut from the same branch, didn't know they knew each other though.

Is the dialogue a 'soft' or 'hard' copy?

I've really got to find some time to read Germany Tomorrow as I feel it is a book that requires some carelful reading and analysis.

I've also got Policy and Debate but likewise, I need to spend some time reading this one too.

I believe that both of them are right, I believe that a total synthesis of all European peoples would be wrong, like if my heart combined with my lungs, they couldn't work in their own distinctive ways and I'd soon die, however, like my heart, lungs, kidneys and what have you, they all work in unison for a common cause, the survival of me. Mmmmm, does this analogy make any sense?

Kvasir_
Saturday, February 14th, 2004, 09:35 PM
Where can i find books by Otto Strasser and/or his brother Gregor?

Julius
Monday, February 16th, 2004, 04:25 PM
Hitler offered Otto Strasser to become the Press Chief for the German Reich. Hitler admired his intelligence but they had very different ideas about socialism and capitalism.


This is from Otto's book "Hitler and I":

'I could only accept, Herr Hitler, if we could find a basis of
agreement for our divergent political views. If the understanding
were only superficial, later on you would feel that I had deceived
you, and I should always have the feeling that you had deceived me. If
you like, I am willing to spend a month at Munich to discuss socialism
and foreign policy with you and Rosenberg, whose rivalry is very
obvious to me.'

'No,' said Hitler curtly, 'it is too late. I must have a decision at
once. If you don't accept, I shall begin to act on Monday. These are
the measures I have decided on. The Kampfverlag will be declared an
enterprise harmful to the National-Socialist Party; I shall forbid any
Party member to have anything whatever to do with your papers, and I
shall expel you from the Party, and your supporters with you.'

I made a superhuman effort to control myself. I was thinking, as a
matter of fact, of Gregor, whom a final rupture with Adolf would
separate from me.

'All that is very simple for you, Herr Hitler, but it only serves to
emphasize the profound difference in our revolutionary and socialist
ideas. The reasons you give for destroying the Kampfverlag I take to
be only pretexts. The real reason is that you want to strangle the
social revolution for the sake of legality and your new collaboration
with the bourgeois parties of the Right.'

This time Hitler grew violent.

'I am a socialist, and a very different kind of socialist from your
rich friend Reventlow. I was once an ordinary workingman. I would not
allow my chauffeur to eat worse than I eat myself. But your kind of
socialism is nothing but Marxism. The mass of the working classes want
nothing but bread and games. They will never understand the meaning of
an ideal, and we cannot hope to win them over to one. What we have to
do is to select from a new master-class men who will not allow
themselves to be guided, like you, by the morality of pity. Those who
rule must know that they have the right to rule because they belong to
a superior race. They must maintain that right and ruthlessly
consolidate it.'

I was dumbfounded at these words, and told Hitler so openly.

'Your racial ideas,' I added, 'which you owe to Herr Rosenberg, are
not only a flagrant contradiction of the great mission of
National-Socialism, which should be the creation of a German nation;
they are calculated to bring about the disintegration of the German
people.'

Hitler continued as though he were addressing a public meeting.

'What you preach is liberalism, nothing but liberalism. There is only
one possible kind of revolution, and it is not economic, or political,
or social, but racial, and it will always be the same; the struggle of
inferior classes and inferior races against the superior races who are
in the saddle. On the day the superior race forgets this law, it is
lost. All revolutions - and I have studied them carefully - have been
racial. When you read Rosenberg's new book,(1) you will understand
these things, for it is the most powerful book of its kind, even
greater than Houston Chamberlain's Foundations of the Nineteenth
Century. Your ideas of foreign policy are false because you have no
racial knowledge. Didn't you declare openly for the Indian
independence movement when it was obviously a rebellion of the
inferior Hindu race against the valorous Anglo-Nordic? The Nordic
race has the right to dominate the world, and that right will be the
guiding principle of our foreign policy. That is why any alliance
with Russia, a Slav-Tartar body surmounted by a Jewish head, is out of
the question. I knew those Slavs in my own country! When a German
head dominated them, Germany could make common cause with them, as it
did in Bismarck's time. Today it would be a crime.'

(1) The Myth of the Twentieth Century.

'But, Herr Hitler, such ideas can never be the basis of a foreign
policy. For me the only problem that counts is whether the political
constellation is favourable or unfavourable to Germany. We cannot let
ourselves be guided by considerations of sympathy or antipathy. One of
the principal aims of German foreign policy will have to be, as I have
told you before, the abolition of the Treaty of Versailles. Stalin,
Mussolini, MacDonald, Poincaré, what does it matter? A good German
politician must put the good of Germany first.'

'Certainly,' Hitler agreed, 'the good of Germany must come first.
That is why an understanding with England is indispensable. We must
establish Germano-Nordic domination over Europe and then, with the
co-operation of America, over the world... The land for us, the seas
for England...'

[...]

The same evening I described this conversation to my friends, Richard
Schapke, Günther Kübler, Herbert Blank, and Paul Brinkmann, and they asked
me to transcribe it for their use.

[...]

I sat up all night, making notes and preparing the chief questions
which I proposed putting to Hitler next day.

Before leaving the house next morning, I had a short talk with Gregor
which served to establish his attitude.

Adolf Hitler was just finishing breakfast when I entered the
dining-room of the hotel. He rose and asked me to follow him.

In the reading-room four men awaited us: Rudolf Hess, Amann, director
of the Völkischer Beobachter, our colleague Hans Hinkel, and my
brother Gregor.

'Herr Hitler, I expected to continue our conversation tête-à-tête,' I
objected when I saw them. It seemed to me that if I were alone with my
adversary I could more easily penetrate to his real intentions.

'These gentlemen,' he replied, 'will be very interested to hear your
arguments, and mine.'

After all, it was not a bad idea to speak in front of witnesses. But
the precariousness of my position was clear to me; these men were won
to Hitler in advance.

Adolf invited me to speak.

'These are the questions that I propose to put to you, Herr
Hitler. Are you convinced, as I am, that our revolution must be a
total one in the political, economic, and social spheres? Do you
envisage a revolution which opposes Marxism as energetically as
capitalism? Do you consequently admit that our propaganda should
attack both equally in order to obtain German socialism?'

Then I laid before him the points of the Strasser programme, as it had
been drawn up at Hanover, and our ideas on the nationalization of
industry.

'It's Marxism!' cried Hitler. 'In fact, it's Bolshevism! Democracy has
laid the world in ruins, and nevertheless you want to extend it to the
economic sphere. It would be the end of German economy. You would wipe
out all human progress, which has only been achieved by the individual
efforts of great scholars and great inventors.'

'I don't believe in the progress of humanity, Herr Hitler. Men have
not changed in the last thousand years. Their physique may have
altered, and their conditions of life, but nothing more. Do you think
that Goethe would have been happier if he had been able to ride in a
motor car or Napoleon if he had been able to broadcast? The stages of
human evolution resemble those in the life of a man. A man of thirty
thinks he has progressed since he was twenty; a man of forty may still
nourish a similar illusion. But a man of fifty rarely talks of
progress, and at sixty he has completely given it up.'

'Theory, pure theory,' Hitler replied. 'Humanity does progress, and
progress is the result of the actions of great men.'

'But the role of these great men, these leaders, Herr Hitler, is not
what you think. Men do not create or invent the great epochs of
history; on the contrary, they are the emissaries, the instruments of
destiny.'

Adolf Hitler stiffened.

'Do you deny that I am the creator of NationalSocialism?'

'I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of
the times in which we live. It is in the hearts of millions of men,
and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in
so many minds proves its historical necessity, and proves, too, that
the age of capitalism is over.'

At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove
to me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was
nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize world
commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or
socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but dilettantism, not
to say Bolshevism.

Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was
the thirteenth point of Hitler's official programme.

'Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What
would you do about Krupp's? Would you leave it alone or not?'

'Of course I should leave it alone,' cried Hitler. 'Do you think me
crazy enough to want to ruin Germany's great industry?'

'If you wish to preserve the capitalist régime, Herr Hitler, you have
no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and
your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.'

'That word "socialism" is the trouble,' said Hitler. He shrugged his
shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on:

'I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the
contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises
prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so
guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in
our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our NationalSocialist State,
like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers' and workers'
interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of
dispute.'

'But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains
unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily
stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose
to leave it intact.'

'Herr Strasser,' said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, 'there is
only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on
the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be
responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his
authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be
responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them;
and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been
for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.'

'Yes, Herr Hitler, the administrative structure will be the same
whether the State is capitalist or socialist. But the spirit of labour
depends on the regime under which it lives. If it was possible a few
years ago for a handful of men not appreciably different from the
average to throw a quarter of a million Ruhr workers on the streets,
if this act was legal and in conformity with the morality of our
economic system, then the system is criminal, not the men.'

'But that,' Hitler replied, looking at his watch and showing signs of
acute impatience, 'that is no reason for granting the workers a share
in the profits of the enterprises that employ them, and more
particularly for giving them the right to be consulted. A strong
State will see that production is carried on in the national
interests, and, if these interests are contravened, can proceed to
expropriate the enterprise concerned and take over its
administration.'

'As I see it, that would change nothing, Herr Hitler. Since you are
prepared, if need be, to expropriate private wealth, why make use of
local authorities and leave the responsibility to their judgment? Why
risk arbitrary action on the part of men who may be misinformed? Why
trust dubious informers rather than set up the right of intervention
as an integral part of our economic life?'

'That,' said Hitler with a hypocritical sigh, 'is where we differ.
Profit-sharing and the workers' right to be consulted are Marxist
principles. I consider that the right to exercise influence on
private enterprise should be conceded only to the State, directed by
the superior class.'

folkandfaith
Wednesday, April 7th, 2004, 05:20 AM
You can purchase titles on the Strasser Brothers from www.folkandfaith.com (http://www.folkandfaith.com) F&F, in the US, or from www.national-anarchist.org (http://www.national-anarchist.org) Terra Firma in UK and abroad.

Ask about RISING PRESS titles regarding the Strassers and the Black Front.

There are at least 3 or 4 that I can think of.

Ederico
Wednesday, April 7th, 2004, 12:21 PM
Hitler offered Otto Strasser to become the Press Chief for the German Reich. Hitler admired his intelligence but they had very different ideas about socialism and capitalism.


This is from Otto's book "Hitler and I":........................

An interesting discussion, I find myself still doubtful about both positions.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Wednesday, April 7th, 2004, 04:27 PM
This Otto Strasser semi-"interview" appears to be either (1). pure fabrication, or(2). the over-embellished "account" of a desperate rival who knew he was never going to be the Leader of the NSDAP.

The choice of words shows nothing but contempt for Hitler, and glorification of Strasser. One example:

Hitler says
'That,' said Hitler with a hypocritical sigh, 'is where we differ. Profit-sharing and the workers' right to be consulted are Marxist principles. I consider that the right to exercise influence on private enterprise should be conceded only to the State, directed by the superior class.'

While Otto Strasser says later-on
I made a superhuman effort to control myself. I was thinking, as a matter of fact, of Gregor, whom a final rupture with Adolf would separate from me.
Hitler performs a "hypocritical sigh", while Strasser makes a "superhuman effort to control" himself.

So, as Strasser "recorded", Hitler=Impatient and Hypocritical, while Strasser=superhuman victim of Hitler's "whimsy".

Moody Lawless was 100% correct when he said:


While one can agree with Strasser's 'sentiments', one wonders whether he ever adjusted to the realities necessary for political struggle. In Hitler and Mosley, not the Strasserites, we find that reality-principle which is pregnant of the future.

Japetos
Saturday, December 4th, 2004, 07:45 PM
Do you think he was a "kind" of NazBol?Is something that correct?

Phlegethon
Saturday, December 4th, 2004, 08:20 PM
Not quite, but a National Socialist.

HC-9
Saturday, December 4th, 2004, 08:49 PM
Gregor Strasser was a national socialist yes, he was one of the "left-wingers" in the NSDAP.

Strasser was very popular in northern Germany, he stands in opposition to Adolf Hitler with his ideas of a german socialism. Gregor Strasser was killed during the "night of the long knives" in june 1934. Strasser is one of the men I would call "the real socialists".

NatRev
Sunday, March 12th, 2006, 08:19 PM
I'm interested in the ideals of the Black Front and the Strasser brothers. Does anyone know of any existing organisations that are orientated towards this?

Thanks.

Tribal-Socialist
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, 12:58 AM
Social-Nationalism

Introduction To Strasserism (http://socialnationalist.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/introduction-to-strasserism/)
Social-Nationalism & the Strasser Brothers (http://socialnationalist.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/social-nationalism-the-strasser-brothers/)
Nemesis? - The Story of Otto Strasser (http://web.archive.org/web/20040214033852/http://www.douglasreedbooks.com/nemesis.html)(alternative link here (http://www.folkandfaith.com/smf_forums/index.php/topic,666.0.html))
The Fourteen Theses of the German Revolution (http://www.folkandfaith.com/smf_forums/index.php/topic,1484.0.html)
Hitler and I (http://public.box.net//billybobbooks)
Strasserism (http://socialnationalist.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/strasserism/)
Anti-Capitalist Strasserism (http://socialnationalist.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/anti-capitalist-strasserism/)
The Hitler-Strasser Debates (http://www.folkandfaith.com/smf_forums/index.php/topic,1502.0.html)
Gregor Strasser (http://socialnationalist.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/5/)
Otto Strasser (http://socialnationalist.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/otto-strasser/)
MOTHERHOOD AND WARRIORHOOD (http://www.folkandfaith.com/smf_forums/index.php/topic,360.0.html)
The Prisoner of Ottawa: Otto Strasser (http://www.douglasreed.co.uk/prisoner.pdf)
Syrian Social Nationalist Party (http://socialnationalist.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/syrian-social-nationalist-party/)



(NOTE: I will add more links and literature here soon. If you have anything to contribute, please post it)

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 11:10 AM
I'm not a fan of the Strasser brothers, but national-anarchism is nevertheless an appealing ideology.

Zeuciano
Friday, November 30th, 2007, 08:47 PM
The Social-Nationalism is a degeneration of the National-Socialism, the original, a magnifical Worldview. The Social-Nationalism is pernicious for the world.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, December 1st, 2007, 01:30 PM
The Social-Nationalism is a degeneration of the National-Socialism, the original, a magnifical Worldview. The Social-Nationalism is pernicious for the world.


They represented the 'Social' part of 'National Socialism'. Since their role was to co-opt left wing populist voters from the communists, once Hitler was in power he got rid of them, with the support of the military and large industrial enterprises who had supplied essential behind the scenes support for the NSDAP.

It seems that the 'Strasserites' and other such seek to lay claim to an economic system that was responsible for the German 'economic miracle' of the 1930s while avoiding the negative associations of Hitler and WWII, yet a deeper analysis of the situation at the time shows that the German economic miracle of the 1930s would not have been possible had Rohm and Strasser had their way, and thus the purge of these elements was essential to the German 'economic miracle' of the 1930s.


http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/roehm.htm
[I]
The four million brown shirted Nazi storm troopers, the SA (Sturmabteilung), included many members who actually believed in the 'socialism' of National Socialism and also wanted to become a true revolutionary army in place of the regular German Army.

But to the regular Army High Command and its conservative supporters, this potential storm trooper army represented a threat to centuries old German military traditions and the privileges of rank. Adolf Hitler had been promising the generals for years he would restore their former military glory and break the "shackles" of the Treaty of Versailles which limited the Army to 100,000 men and prevented modernization.

For Adolf Hitler, the behavior of the SA was a problem that now threatened his own political survival and the entire future of the Nazi movement.

The anti-capitalist, anti-tradition sentiments often expressed by SA leaders and echoed by the restless masses of storm troopers also caused great concern to big industry leaders who had helped put Hitler in power. Hitler had promised them he would put down the trade union movement and Marxists, which he had done. However, now his own storm troopers with their talk of a 'second revolution' were sounding more and more like Marxists themselves. (The first revolution having been the Nazi seizure of power in early 1933.)

IlluSionSxxx
Monday, December 3rd, 2007, 11:29 AM
They represented the 'Social[ist]' part of 'National Socialism'. Since their role was to co-opt left wing populist voters from the communists, once Hitler was in power he got rid of them, with the support of the military and large industrial enterprises who had supplied essential behind the scenes support for the NSDAP.

It seems that the 'Strasserites' and other such seek to lay claim to an economic system that was responsible for the German 'economic miracle' of the 1930s while avoiding the negative associations of Hitler and WWII, yet a deeper analysis of the situation at the time shows that the German economic miracle of the 1930s would not have been possible had Rohm and Strasser had their way, and thus the purge of these elements was essential to the German 'economic miracle' of the 1930s.

I'd further like to add that it is an absurdity to think that Hitler's national-socialism wasn't socialist. Hitler clearly pleaded for a class-less society and he also gave the labor class a higher amount of welfare than in any other nation in Europe. I'd go as far as calling national-socialism the ONLY real socialism that has existed in both theory and practice.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, December 3rd, 2007, 09:30 PM
I'd further like to add that it is an absurdity to think that Hitler's national-socialism wasn't socialist. Hitler clearly pleaded for a class-less society and he also gave the labor class a higher amount of welfare than in any other nation in Europe. I'd go as far as calling national-socialism the ONLY real socialism that has existed in both theory and practice.

Well yes, it differs from regular socialism in demanding a classless society instead of a 'class warfare' which still permeates countries like the UK, and also the state benefits generally went to the more able (young families in particular) as opposed to the general socialist ideal of distributing benefits on the basis of 'needs'

Bärin
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008, 07:40 PM
Umm I think they have some stereotypical views with all these claims that socialism was hijecked by leftists but otherwise it's an interesting site.
Socialism is a broad term, socialism can be nationalistic or multicultural, radical or moderate.

Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries.


The Social-Nationalism is a degeneration of the National-Socialism, the original, a magnifical Worldview. The Social-Nationalism is pernicious for the world.
Why is that? :confused:

Nachtengel
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 09:22 AM
What do you think of Strasserism & the Strasser brothers?:)


Revolution Vs. Reaction
Social-Nationalism & the Strasser Brothers
Historical Pamphlets Series: No. 13
By Troy Southgate

The following article first appeared in Issue #2 of THE CRUSADER [The Rising Press, 1993, pp.8-9] and whilst it offers a brand of economics which must inevitably operate on a national level (something the NR Faction no longer advocates due to its opposition to all forms of centralised government and neo-statism), it remains important in that it demonstrates that there was clearly a more radical National-Socialist alternative to Hitlerism. Despite their imperfections, there is no getting round the fact that Otto and Gregor Strasser played a vital role in the long-term development of Revolutionary Nationalism.

MANY people associate the term "Socialism" with Left-Wing intellectuals, Communists or members of the Labour Party. The sad reality is that the internationalist Left has completely highjacked this word and used it to hide their more sinister motives. "Socialism", for the average Marxist-Leninist, is the description given to the promotion of minorities above the larger community as a whole. Left-Wing organizations are fond to trying to appeal to the working class, or what they patronizingly refer to as "the Proletariat". The ulterior objective behind such ideology is based upon a desire to divide and rule. In other words, whilst these organizations are offering support to so-called "oppressed minorities", such as homosexuals, Black Power groups and rebellious middle class students, they are in fact creating disunity amongst the ordinary members of society by ensuring that they possess the only banner behind which degeneracy and abnormality can find a safe haven from the seemingly encroaching rigors of normality. That society is becoming more degenerate, is merely testimony to the fact that Communists are regularly able to rally between two and three thousand protestors at the drop of a hat, as recently happened on a wet Monday evening at an Anti-Nazi League demonstration in London. By adding up all the minorities, social inadequates and anyone else with a chip on their shoulder, these activists can appear to comprise a majority. But this is minority rule in its most pure and distorted guise.

There is simply no disputing the fact that Socialism is an integral part of the Nationalist creed. To separate the very essence of the social sphere from the concept of the nation, is to ignore the basic fact that it is the People who actually comprise the nation itself.

Without people there can be no nation, and without a nation there can be no people. On the other hand, it is quite certain that we have absolutely nothing in common with the intellectually-bankrupt legions of the modern Left, but then, neither do we owe any allegiance to those on the Right. Many so-called Nationalists are content to describe themselves as being "right of centre", or even on the “Far Right”, but it must be stated quite categorically that true Nationalism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Right-wing politics. To simplify, a Right-winger is no more ‘Nationalist’ than his counterpart on the Left. Both Communism and Capitalism are two heads of the same beast.

But rather than take a leaf out of the existing books and attempt to form some kind of a ridiculous halfway ideology, Revolutionary Nationalists remain unconcerned with philosophical materialism altogether and reject the middle and both ends of the system in its entirety. We Revolutionary Nationalists oppose the Reactionaries and the Reds alike, because we are genuine Social Nationalists.

The doctrine of Social Nationalism was chiefly propagated by Otto and Gregor Strasser, two brothers who joined the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) during the 1920's. This organization eventually came to be led by Adolf Hitler, who, in his selfish lust for ultimate power came to betray the very ideals of Social Nationalism that had been promoted by the NSDAP from the very beginning. To many so-called Nationalists, criticism of Hitler is viewed as heresy. But nobody can ignore the plain and simple fact that Hitler totally refused to condemn German Capitalists and the Right-wing Establishment, even allowing the Party to receive funding from wealthy Jewish financiers in Wall Street. The evidence for this claim can be found in Anthony Sutton's excellent Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

The Strasser Brothers, however, who were both extremely active in the NSDAP before the party came to power in 1933, were regularly engaged in a war of ideology with Hitler himself, a man who refused to advocate the decentralization of State power or offer the normal working people of Germany a stake in both agriculture and industry. Hitler had actually rejected Otto Strasser's The Structure of German Socialism in 1925, preferring instead to stick with Gottfried Feder’s 25 Points, considered by many Party members to be outdated. Even without Strasser’s radical ideas for a new direction beyond both the Left and Right of the political spectrum, the 25 Points were still incompatible with Hitler’s reactionary allegiance to his Capitalist financiers and many of these basic tenets of National Socialist policy were betrayed. Anyone taking the trouble to examine Point 11 of this manifesto, for example, will discover a forthright condemnation of unearned income. However, after Hitler’s ascension to power, usury continued to infect the German banking system and no effort was made to prevent wealthy bankers from charging the German people huge interest on their loans. Indeed, Hitler placed all financial power in the hands of Hjalmar Schact, a freemason with connections in Wall Street. Gregor Strasser, however, had this to say about Capitalism: “The Capitalist system with its exploitation of those who are economically weak, with its robbery of the workers’ labour power, with its unethical way of appraising human beings by the number of things and the amount of money he possesses, instead of by their internal value and their achievements, must be replaced by a new and just economic system, in a word by German Socialism.”

Moving on to Points 13 and 14, the statement of Party principles called for the destruction of the Capitalist system and its replacement by family businesses and workers’ co-operatives. Once again, Hitler had no time for such economic justice and these two articles of policy were soon forgotten. Otto Strasser, on the other hand, explained that: “The alternative to the bankrupt alien “solutions” of Communism and Capitalism, the idea which we present is the political representation of parties, trades and professions based on our ancient Guild system.”

Otto Strasser, who was once described as “a dauntless man of compelling sincerity and charm” by the English anti-Capitalist A.K. Chesterton, then went on to propose a three-point programme for industry and the workers:

1. There will come into being, in contradistinction to the extant “class” of Capitalist, an “estate” of managers, which, regardless of wealth or origin, will constitute a functional aristocracy that, thanks to the very methods of its selection, may be said to be made up of “captains of industry” or “commissioned officers of economic life.”
2. The dispossessed “class of proletarians” will vanish, its place being taken by an “estate” of fully privileged workers, directly and indirectly participating in and therefore interested in their “workshop”. They will no longer be objects of the economy, but its subjects.
3. The relations between State and economic life will be radically altered. The State will not be the “night-watchman and policeman” of Capitalism, nor will it be a dictator whose bureaucracy cracks the whip that drives the workers to the bench and spurs them to their tasks; but it will be a trustee of the consumers, and as such it will have much influence, but only within and beside the self-determination of the working producers, namely of the management and the staff of workers (consisting in appropriate proportions of clerical and other intellectual workers, on the one hand, and manual operatives, on the other).

But in spite of the commonsense ideas of Strasserism the list of contradictions continues, as a result of the fact that Hitler meekly refused to condemn the Right, gaining control of the NSDAP and eventually leading Germany into an imperialist onslaught against the rest of Europe, suppressing non-German culture and tradition in his fanatical drive towards a “Greater Germany”. Point 16 promised the destruction of chain stores and supermarkets, and claimed to support small businesses. The reality, on the other hand, was far different as Hitler once again defended the monopolists. Whilst Strasserite stormtroopers picketed the large stores and urged people to support the small traders, Hitler put an instant stop to all such anti-Capitalist activity. Indeed, one large chain store was funding the Southern Branch of the NSDAP itself and Hitler did not want to alienate his financial backers.

In Point 17, it was explained that there would be an end to the rule of the big landowners, and that there would be a resettlement of the expanded peasantry. During the 1920’s, over 20% of Germany was owned by fewer than 19,000 people and the peasants were looking to the NSDAP to provide a brighter future in the face of their ever-worsening predicament. Unfortunately, they were to receive little assistance from Hitler. Although Agricultural Minister Walter Darre appeared to do much to safeguard the role of the peasantry, there was no attempt to redistribute the land. Even when Darre passed the Hereditary Peasant Holdings Act, the draft itself was provided by his deputy, Ferdinand Fried - the secret leader of Otto Strasser’s Black Front. So what answer did Strasserism provide to combat the unholy alliance of Capitalists, landowners and Hitlerites? Otto Strasser provided a truly just argument to the complexities of agriculture in his Structure for German Socialism:

The object of agriculture is to make sure that the community will be fed. The land available for the use of the community is owned exclusively by the nation, for it was not by any individual but by the community at large that the land was acquired, by battle or by colonization on the part of the community, and by the community it has been defended against enemies. The community as owner puts the land at the disposal of the nation in the form of “entails” to those able and willing to use them for husbandry and stock-raising. This will be undertaken by self-governing corporations of local peasant-councils. The size of the farms will be limited in accordance with the local qualities of the land: the maximum being determined by the principle that no one may hold in "entail" more land than he is able to farm unaided; and the minimum being determined by the principle that the landowner must have enough land to provide, not only food for self and family, but a superfluity by the disposal of which he will be able to obtain clothing and shelter for his family.

The maximum limitation will result in freeing large quantities of land for settlement by peasants, particularly in Eastern Germany. This peasant settlement is all the more necessary because the existence of an abundance of peasants thus settled on their own farms furnishes the best guarantee for the maintenance of public health and public energy.The landholder who thus receives a farm for "entail" will pledge himself to manage this farm for the best advantage of the community and to use his utmost endeavors to make sure that the land shall be farmed to supply the food of the community. He will therefore have to pay a land tax, a tithe rent, to the community. This will be payable in kind, the amount being fixed in accordance with the area and quality of the land. No other taxes will be payable by the peasant. Should the holder of an "entail" die, the farm will pass to a son able and willing to carry it on. If there are no male children available, the "entail" will revert to the community, and will be allotted by the local peasant-council.

In the event of bad farming, an "entail" will also revert to the community, the decision upon this matter resting with the local self-governing body (peasant-council) in agreement with the state (represented by the circle president). The introduction of "entail" into German agriculture will be in such manifest conformity with German tradition and with the right and necessary ideas of peasant possessor-ship, that neither psychological nor material difficulties are likely to ensue.

The sad motive behind Hitler's blatant refusal to listen to Otto and Gregor Strasser, was power. Whilst Hitler saw power as the objective, the group of people who were gathered around these visionary brothers - commonly known as the Strasser-Circle - saw power merely as the means to implement their Social Nationalist programme. Once again, the common people paid the price for the selfishness of a reactionary. In 1930, things finally came to a head and Otto Strasser began to clash with Hitler on a regular basis. His newspaper, the Arbeitsblatt, which was based in Berlin and which served as the Party's official northern publication, became a constant irritant to Hitler. Finally, in April of the same year, trade unions in Saxony declared a general strike and Otto Strasser announced his total support for the German workers. Meanwhile, the powerful industrialists themselves put pressure on Hitler to condemn the views of Strasser and bring the strike to a halt. Hitler called Otto Strasser to a private meeting at his hotel the following day, where he attempted to bring him into line by ordering him to submit to his authority. During a heated debate, Hitler accused him of promoting "bombastic nonsense" by placing emphasis on the Ideal rather than the Leader. Strasser was right, of course, but Hitler was only interested in personal power and chose to put himself before the economic freedom of the German people. Otto Strasser went on to rightly accuse Hitler of trying to: "…strangle the social revolution for the sake of legality and your new collaboration with the bourgeois parties of the Right."

Hitler angrily denied this and tried to condone what modern Capitalists today like to call "free enterprise". He also went on to endorse the Capitalist philosophy that "might is right" and only “the strong survive”, whilst the weakest must inevitably “go to the wall”: "The Capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection, which again only proves their right race, they have a right to lead."

This statement alone is testimony to Hitler's allegiance to Capitalism and Big Business, and reveals the unbridgeable gulf that exists between reaction and revolution. Hitler, after failing to come up with any real argument against the genuinely Socialist principles of Otto Strasser, eventually wrote to Goebbels and instructed him to drive Strasser and his supporters from the Party. Otto Strasser remained true to his beliefs and, as a result, was expelled from the NSDAP soon afterwards, setting up a group known as the Union of Revolutionary National Socialists - the forerunner of the Black Front. Otto Strasser was finally interned by the SIS-OSS and became a broken-hearted exile in Canada, where he was forced to live as a non-person until 1955. He eventually managed to return to his beloved Germany, but only after some very determined campaigning by the English journalist Douglas Reed. Meanwhile, despite the fact that Gregor Strasser had bowed to Hitler’s authority and remained in the party in the hope that the Fuhrer would realize the error of his ways, he was brutally murdered in the Prinz Albrechtstrasse prison during a Hitlerite purge in June 1934, now known as the infamous Night of the Long Knives. Even Hitler was forced to admit some years later, that Gregor Strasser’s murder had been “a mistake”.

Before this essay is brought to a conclusion, it must be pointed out that Strasserism is totally incompatible with Marxism and the alleged “Socialism” of the Left. Here are a few excerpts from Otto Strasser’s polemic comparison of the two ideologies:

How German Socialism differs from Marxism:

1. The personal initiative of the responsible managers is preserved, but it is incorporated into the needs of the community.
2. Within the systematically planned management of the whole national economy by the State (organically safeguarded by the equal third of influence which the State has in every industrial enterprise) the wholesome rivalry of the individual enterprises is maintained.
3. The treatment of State and economic enterprise, that is to say of official and industrial manager, on an equal footing is avoided; so is the arbitrary power of the State which deprives the worker of his rights.
4. Everyone engaged in an enterprise is, by virtue of his being part-possessor as a citizen, one of the immediate and influential possessors of his enterprise, his “workshop”, and can exert this possessive right in full measure on the supervisory council of the concern. The form of the factory fellowship, founded upon the legal idea of the fief, and given life by the great self-governing body of the workers’ and employees’ councils, on the one hand, the industrial and trades’ councils, on the other, constitutes the new economic system of German Socialism, which is equally remote from Western Capitalism and Eastern Bolshevism, and nevertheless complies with the requirements of large scale industry.

On a final note, I hope that this short essay on Strasserism has persuaded some of the more misguided supporters of the Hitler regime that genuine Socialism has yet to achieve a practical breakthrough and progress from the purely theoretical stage. It is futile for any Nationalist to look back to Nazi Germany as a worthy example of what is best for our English nation, or even for Europe as a whole. Without completely rejecting the Right-wing Capitalists, revolutionaries will continue to be betrayed over and over again. Indeed, with Nazism on the rise once again in the wake of German reunification, it is hoped that the German people will remember the mistakes of the past. One thing must be made clear. We in the National Revolutionary Faction have the determination to stick to our guns and will never be under the control of the Capitalist Right. Likewise, neither will we betray our revolutionary principles.
Recommended Reading:

* Otto Strasser:
o Hitler and I (translated by Douglas Reed)
o A History in My Time (translated by Douglas Reed)
o Germany Tomorrow (translated by Douglas Reed)
o Gregor Strasser (written under the pseudonym of “Micheal Geismeyer”)
o We Seek Germany (written under the pseudonym of “D.G.”)
o Whither Hitler? (written under the pseudonym of “D.G.”)
o Europe Tomorrow (written under the pseudonym of “D.G.”)
o Structure of German Socialism *
o The German St. Bartholomew’s Night *
o European Federation *
o The Gangsters Around Hitler [Please note that this book cannot be regarded as an entirely accurate work, due to the fact that it has been doctored by a number of Jewish exiles. This was Otto Strasser’s last manuscript and may simply be of interest to the collector, rather than taken as a reliable example of factual history]
* Gregor Strasser:
o Struggle for Germany
* Douglas Reed:
o Nemesis: The Story of Otto Strasser
o The Prisoner of Ottawa: Otto Strasser
http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/hist13.php