← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 9037 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2003-08-14
2003-08-14 18:23 | User Profile
Can anybody explain to what was the true difference between the positions held by Hitler and the Strassers brothers. Most mainstream historians say that it was because the Strassers wanted a National Socialism that appealed more towards the working class while Hitler simply wanted to come to power and was willing to cooperate with anybody. As we all know, the mainstream historians almost always :dung: with the truth, especially when it comes it topics like this. I just like if somebody would explain what the ideological rift between Hitler and the Strassers were really about.
2003-08-15 00:25 | User Profile
The Strasser brothers were outright promoting Stalinist style economics and they were very friendly with jewry who has been supporting that anti German expression from the begining. They were very different that Drexler's DAP and it's forerunners which was something I covered here: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=7793&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...wtopic=7793&hl=[/url] . I have nothing but hatred for Strasserites as the organizations that adopt that moniker support Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Che yet never national liberation for Europeans. In large measure they simply don't matter as Strasserite groups are tiny, poorly organized and filled with freaks (think of a leftist faux nationalist version of Aryan Nations) so they really are not worth while. I don;t know how much suport they had from Roehm.
2003-08-15 01:47 | User Profile
think of a leftist faux nationalist version of Aryan Nations
Sorry, Triskelion, but my imagination fails me... :huh: In the news one day, I remember seeing a sign at a European protest march that read, "Hitler and Mao: United in Struggle!" I wonder if these were the same characters?
2003-08-15 03:50 | User Profile
Thank you, Mr. Gaunt...
.....One must appreciate such a finely honed working knowledge; I hope you'll help me out in this fashion when a question arises in the studies I am doing... I have read a fair amount in this regard, but I am hesitant to afford Hitler much in the way of esteem...
2003-08-15 04:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Aug 15 2003, 02:37 * *There were a lot of "left-wing" Nationalsocialists, but they were not shot because of this. Strasser was simply a powerhungry traitor.
In 1932 he nearly destroyed the party. He was in secret negotiations with General Schleicher who wanted to take him into his cabinet, if he managed to purge Hitler as leader of the party. That was what Strasser wanted all along. The alledged ideological differences were just the fig-leaf for his power-hunger. He was eventualy thrown out of the party and no one cared for him untill 1934.
Strasser did not directly conspire with Röhm, but they were both part of the same conspiracy. After Röhm would have disposed of Hitler, General Schleicher would have been apointed new chanclor. Röhm would have gotten the post of War-Minister and Strasser Minister for economy. Strasser was shot, because his name was found on a cabinetts-list. **
Your account of course completely follows the absurb stories of the Hitlerites. You are of course talking about Gregor, who if I remember right, resigned - rather than being thrown out.
In any event from what I read he was assasinated not because he was power-hungry, but the opposite. He wished to just go into private life as a chemist, and had obtained a job I think with Hitler's approval. Unfortunately he had accumulated too many enemies (Goering one of the chief) who had other plans. And who I think circulated the false stories of his betrayal.
Gregor's downfall was actually his naive faith in der fuehrer. If he'd followed his brother into exile he would have lived.
2003-08-15 04:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 14 2003, 19:01 * As for whether British and American plutocracy and consumerism proved to be the greater foe (as the Strassers had claimed) than Bolshevism, that is a topic worthy of an entire thread in its own right. Otto had a hard life, even though he managed to escape death from Hitler's agents.*
As also is the post WWII life of Otto Strasser. You ought to find that interesting story of yours and link to it again.
2003-08-16 17:04 | User Profile
I like to thank you people for replying, especially AntiYuppie. Like I said, I'm not entirely that knowledgable about the topic since most of what I know has been what mainstream historians have written about the topic.
2003-08-17 21:11 | User Profile
Outside of the material I mentioned in the thread I cited earlier I will also suggest that you read AY's thread on NS ecomonics. If you wish to understand that the Strassers are Stalinists simply read Otto Strasser's"German Socialism" (1931) in which he prasies Stalin and celibrates class warfare and the nationalization of the eocnomy. If one reads the material of the Strasser brothers or their allies it will be easy to note that outside of praise for the economics of Lenin and Stalin little else is to be found. Most notible is the total lack of any consideration of racial matters or criticism of jews.
If you read James & Suzanne Pool's "Who Financed Hitler" that an SA cheif named Stennes was the principle backer of the Strasserites and that he was backed by various jewish business leaders. Gregor Strasser got most of his funding from a jew baker named Paul silverburg. Otto Strasser admits in his book "flight from terror" that he was funded by jew industrialist Otto Wolff and Max Cohen who led armed resistance to Hitler wrote at lenght about his conections with the Strasserites from '33-'35 in his book "Men Against Hitler". Otto Strassser helped the British attempt to assinate HItler in '39 during the Burgerbraukeller affair which is covered in depth in W.J West's "the thruth detrayed". Plenty more material is about detailing how the Strasserites sought to install a Stalinist style goveernment in Germany and were actively backed by jews from the very start.
Modern day Strasserites promote a started Marxist-Leninst critque of Hitler, love Mao & Che, and never complain about the jews outside of suggesting that they treat Arabs poorly. They avoid race like the plague and to obscure to bother with.
2003-08-20 04:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Aug 20 2003, 01:16 * *(from [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=10329]Was Homosexuality Hitler's Best Kept Secret[/url])
Hello all,
PL reasonably why > ** Why were there not any court proceedings then? If Roehm was doubtlessly guilty, why was he shot without trial?ÃÂ If there is any evidence as to his "plot" -and I hear that for the first time- is it not most likely a post-factum forgery? **
The answer is simple. Arresting Roehm & Stemmes would have been impossible do to the fact that they had sizable militias at their command and would not have allowed them selves to be taken to court. Of course, the modern Strasserites would have simply claimed that any court was bogus. Perhaps more to the point was that Lutze was pushing for immediate action based upon Italian reports (which in turn came from French sources) which pointed out that the Hitler supporters would have been militarily at risk if they did not quickly suppress the rebellion and that were Roehm captured (a dubious possibility) the rebellion would have gone a head thanks to the backing of various jew industrialists that I mentioned before as well as the French and British orchestration going on at the times. Basically, Hitler trusted Lutze's appraisal of the military situation after reviewing Italian intelligence reports and having further conformation from pro-NS functionaries within the French Foreign Ministry. I will admit that I know nothing about Von Papen's role in all of this. **
There are a great deal of stories and intrigues about the "night of long knives", and conjecture about the roles of the various players. What seems interesting to me is the interpretation by Klemperer that the driving force in the revolt was not principly Roehm, Stinnes, and the other elements of the Nazi left that had precipitated the "Stinnes revolt" in Berlin, but the conservatives, such as Edgar Jung of the Herrenklub,(highly rated today within some Strasserite circles). who enlisted Von Papen in the effort.
**But apparently such considerations gave way in Jung more and more to an understanding of the basic gulf between National Socialism and conservatism.ÃÂ Precisely the Party's lack of direction was suspect to Jung. In a book which appeared after January 1933 and in which he voiced publically the claims of those outside the Nazi Party who had contributed toward the German revolution, he left none of his readers in doubt concerning his Girondist position toward the Party. Moreover, according to Pechtel, Jung's one objective became the overthrow of the government.ÃÂ He was in contact with Generals von Schleicher and Von Bredow, with Bruning and Treviranus, with socialist and Christian union leaders, with industrialists and members of the German intelligentsia.ÃÂ We are even told he had concrete ideas concerning the method of the coup as well as a composition of a future government.
Finally, with the famous Marburg address which Jung had drafted for Papen and which the latter agreed to deliver to the students of the University on June 17, 1934, Jung hoped to take the case to the public at large. It was a dramatic event, a last-minute attempt to force the revolution into conservative waters. No such clear and sober presentation of conservative principles had been given to the German people in the years before 1933.ÃÂ While accounting for the alliance between the conservatives and the Nazis which led to the revolution Papen redefined conservatism as the philosophy of freedom. There was no longer any trace of the ambiguities of Moeller's style when Papen attacked the "rule of the catchword"
".......There are .......people who speak no single sentance without misusing the word "liberalistic". They are of the opinion that genuine humanitarianism (Humanitat) is liberalistoic whereas in reality it is a fruit of the classic and Christian tradition. They call freedom a liberal concept, wheras in reality it is an old German tradition. They attack equality before the judge, denouncing it as a liberal degeneration, whereas in reality it is the basis of every just verdict.
Those people suppress that very fundamental of state which at all times, not only in liberal ones, has been caled justice.ÃÂ Their attacks are directed against the security and freedom of the private sphere of life......." (Rede des Vizekanzlers von Papen vor dem Universitatsbund, Marburg am 17 Juni 1934)**
(Klemens von Klemperer, Germany's New Conservatism)**
Of course, he is right that the whole issue of a dead man's sexuality is pretty pointless without real proof. I don't have much time to spend on the net and this kind of thing is totally fruitless.
It may at times be tedious. But I think the reason these things have an enduring significance is that they are in fact central to the reality of National Socialism, something occasionaly than idealists like you and I would prefer to ignore. When you let the Hitlerites minimize the importance of everyone and everything in Nationalism, not only outside of National Socialism and the Party but even within it, you are left with nothing but the personality and tics of Adolf. By default therefore any sort of question about Hitler, however seemingly minor, becomes central to the nature of National Socialism. When you say Hitler sneezed, 60 years later committed National Socialists still act like hypochondriacs worried that they have contracted a cold which may turn into pneumonia.
It is this reality which men as diverse as Strasser, Jung, Stinnes, Von Papen, and Schleicher, whatever their defects, seemed to be in agreement on in correctly diagnosing one of the fundamental weakness of National Socialism as it was evolving. Until a movement has the courage to recognize their contributions and the errors made in squashing their viewpoints so ignominiously, it will remain inadequate for any serious political role IMO.
2003-08-20 07:07 | User Profile
Having not read Klemperer I can't say anything about his notions. What I can point to is that fact that other sources I mentioned earlier had piles of very impressive and complete correspondence between the various plotters I mentioned that support totally my position. Herrenklub was pretty vile character from what I have read that seems to fit in well scum like the Strassers. Other texts I mentioned in the past have given a pretty exhaustive collection of period documents detailing what factions were funded and supported by whom. None of them refer to the people that Klemperer does but they do prove quite conclusively that the folks I mentioned were critical to the various failed rebellions, that they were Bolsheviks, that they were heavily backed by foreign states and that they were very much backed by and supportive of jewry. That pretty much ties up things as far I am concerned with respect to major figures covered so far.
**It may at times be tedious. But I think the reason these things have an enduring significance is that they are in fact central to the reality of National Socialism, something occasionally than idealists like you and I would prefer to ignore. **
Well given that the condemnations voiced by the sources, on the supossed sexual sickneess of Hitler, cited by you and PN earlier have nothing substantive to say for all the reasons I have gone over already they say nothing about National Socialism of any sort. As for being an idealist, I think that most would not view me that way. I am simply a product of genetics, history, personal experience and the realization that my life is trivial compared with the obligations given to me at birth.
When you let the Hitlerites minimize the importance of everyone and everything in Nationalism not only outside of National Socialism and the Party but even within it, you are left with nothing but the personality and tics of Adolf.
As I am not a Hitlerite and I don't work with such people (well, if I had the chance I may work with Colin Jordan) I'm not seeing how what your saying relates to me. As you should know, my views of NS is far greater then the NSDAP or Hitler and in point of fact, all of my activism and most of my ideology as been a result of people and movements not associated with the NSDAP at all. I do spend a lot of time talking up Flangism, Portugese National Syndicalism, all sorts of Catholic Corporatism, guildism, Distributalism, Revolutionary Conservatism and other tendencies that contribute into a widely defined National Socialist doctrine that has more to do with French, Italian and Nordic schools. That's not minimizing anything but something very much to the contrary.
** By default therefore any sort of question about Hitler, however seemingly minor, becomes central to the nature of National Socialism. When you say Hitler sneezed, 60 years later committed National Socialists still act like hypochondriacs worried that they have contracted a cold which may turn into pneumonia.**
What your saying applies to those that view Hitler as the be all and end of nationalism which is radically different then my position or positions held by anyone I ever supported.
However, like Winter Mute I do feel compelled to refute those who misrepresent the dead. As Hitler is lied about more then anyone to have ever walked this earth I just happen to spend more time talking about him I want to. If someone chooses to defame or misrepresent Maurras, the Marquis De La Tour Du Pin, Sorel, Jose Antonio or anyone else I know a bit about I can guarantee that I would spend as much effort defending those men as I have Hitler. It also is no secret that I have made plenty of criticisms of the NSDAP regime and those that think simple mimicking that regime is a viable option today.
** t is this reality which men as diverse as Strasser, Jung, Stinnes, Von Papen, and Schleicher, whatever their defects, seemed to be in agreement on in correctly diagnosing one of the fundamental weakness of National Socialism as it was evolving.**
While the Bolsheviks mentioned above were united in their desire to destroy Hitler's vision of NS doctrine that hardly means they were in any way offering something better. I reject Bolshevism in total as it's the anti-thesis of Traditionalism and Organicism. The defects of Hitler's regime were not what they were attacking and what they offered was worse in all possible ways. As to the other men mentioned above conspiracy makes strange bed fellows and I am not as yet convinced that they had a decent, critical diagnosis of Hitler's vision or that they wanted to promote any form of National Socialism at all.
** Until a movement has the courage to recognize their contributions and the errors made in squashing their viewpoints so ignominiously, it will remain inadequate for any serious political role IMO. **
Until Occidental advocates opposed to NSDAP regime are fair and measured in their critique and recognize what value it had they will not learn any thing of value about the regime or it's relationship to the transcendent values of Organicism and a broader National socialism. Such a failure dooms those that wish to effectively resist national destruction.
I do of course expect that those that claim those who sought to destroy Hitler from within the NSDAP prove that they were offering a viable alternative to Hitler that was in keeping with and contributing to NS doctrine and action. A great many of the men question clearly did no such thing but were in fact negative in every way to Occidental resurgence. Others I don't know about but I would be willing to consider.
2003-08-21 07:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Aug 20 2003, 07:07 * Having not read Klemperer I can't say anything about his notions.* I will have to scan in some pages from his and put them on a website He writes extensively on these matters. His viewpoint is of a German pro-democracy conservative/pro-Weimar conservative. (Obviously the only one tenable for an expatriot german professor in an American university, even a private one in the South. So he has the obligatory anti-NS spin, but I think if you can get through that sheen he seems to do some good work and have some interesting observations. I'll just have to refer to his conclusions briefly.
What I can point to is that fact that other sources I mentioned earlier had piles of very impressive and complete correspondence between the various plotters I mentioned that support totally my position.ÃÂ Herrenklub was pretty vile character from what I have read that seems to fit in well scum like the Strassers.
I'm not any authority on the details of the intrigues. But I have to briefly question your characterization of the Herrenklub. Klemperer describes it thus.
They called themselves Young Conservatives.ÃÂ In part they grew out of theearlier neo-conservative groups(Note, his use of the term "neo-conservative" predates the American Jewish dominated movement by that name by at least a decade, and is separate* , and in part they represented a seccessional movement from the German Nationalists. Their main center of activity was the Herrenklub... it had taken the place of the June club... the new organizatin was somewhat different in character. Headed jointly by Gleichen and Count Hans Bodo von Alvensleben, it became a meeting ground for the Junkers, heavy industry, and finance....Its publication Der Ring, which reflected the tenor of its weekly meetings, took the lead in thediscussion of problems like the Reichsreform, the authoritarian state, corporatism vs. parlimentarianism, and aristocracy. It was seconded by other independent magazines like the Deutsche Rundschau and the Deutsche Volkstum*
It hardly sounds like happy hunting grounds for the Strassers. In fact I recall Otto Strasser who I think had been a member of the June club, disdaining membership on account of its reactionary character. I also have read enough about these sundry personalities to have difficulty in believing all these organizations and personalities were really just fronts for Bolshevics, Jewish industrialists, and foreigners, though I can always learn if you are convinced otherwise.
> It may at times be tedious. But I think the reason these things have an enduring significance is that they are in fact central to the reality of National Socialism, something occasionally than idealists like you and I would prefer to ignore. **
As for being an idealist, I think that most would not view me that way. I am simply a product of genetics, history, personal experience and the realization that my life is trivial compared with the obligations given to me at birth.
When you let the Hitlerites minimize the importance of everyone and everything in Nationalism not only outside of National Socialism and the Party but even within it, you are left with nothing but the personality and tics of Adolf.
As I am not a Hitlerite and I don't work with such people (well, if I had the chance I may work with Colin Jordan) I'm not seeing how what your saying relates to me. As you should know, my views of NS is far greater then the NSDAP or Hitler and in point of fact, all of my activism and most of my ideology as been a result of people and movements not associated with the NSDAP at all. I do spend a lot of time talking up Flangism, Portugese National Syndicalism, all sorts of Catholic Corporatism, guildism, Distributalism, Revolutionary Conservatism and other tendencies that contribute into a widely defined National Socialist doctrine that has more to do with French, Italian and Nordic schools. That's not minimizing anything but something very much to the contrary.**
Well the same people like Krebs who called Gregor Strasser an idealist would doubtless call you such also. Your approach minimizes the difference between the approach of someone like yourself, who has a fairly well worked out Nationalist-Folkish ideology, and National Socialism Klemperer's approach is to maximize it. He makes what seems to me to be some good oints, but I think probably the truth is somewhere in between.
> ** By default therefore any sort of question about Hitler, however seemingly minor, becomes central to the nature of National Socialism. When you say Hitler sneezed, 60 years later committed National Socialists still act like hypochondriacs worried that they have contracted a cold which may turn into pneumonia.
What your saying applies to those that view Hitler as the be all and end of nationalism which is radically different then my position or positions held by anyone I ever supported.
However, like Winter Mute I do feel compelled to refute those who misrepresent the dead. As Hitler is lied about more then anyone to have ever walked this earth I just happen to spend more time talking about him I want to. **
Well I have an elastic position on Hitler really. Very little completely reliable info is written on him, such is the pressure on anyone who could come up with some pro-Hitler conclusions in their research. But I still remain convinced that he did do some rather stupid things and the regime put out some rather silly propaganda at times.
> It is this reality which men as diverse as Strasser, Jung, Stinnes, Von Papen, and Schleicher, whatever their defects, seemed to be in agreement on in correctly diagnosing one of the fundamental weakness of National Socialism as it was evolving.**
While the Bolsheviks mentioned above were united in their desire to destroy Hitler's vision of NS doctrine that hardly means they were in any way offering something better. I reject Bolshevism in total as it's the anti-thesis of Traditionalism and Organicism. ** I'll have to include Klemperer's analysis of Otto Strasser's ideology. He seems to think Strasser's had a position that made some ideological sense, but in practice that the differences between it and Bolshevism were lost on a lot of his followers. So without elaborating further for now, practically what you're saying about the opposition being Bolshevic may have a point, but you shouldn't I think get completely hung up on that.
The defects of Hitler's regime were not what they were attacking and what they offered was worse in all possible ways.ÃÂ As to the other men mentioned above conspiracy makes strange bed fellows and I am not as yet convinced that they had a decent, critical diagnosis of Hitler's vision or that they wanted to promote any form of National Socialism at all.
Briefly this is what the movement as a whole appeared to have in mind. You can judge for yourself I suppose for now.
The Tat had for some time prepared the ground for the last-minute negotiations of Schleicher with Gregor Strasser and the trade union leaders Stegerwald and Leipart by its feverish call for a "Third Front".ÃÂ A variation of Moeller's "Third Reich", it alluded to an alleged popular movement cutting across party lines
> ÃÂ Until a movement has the courage to recognize their contributions and the errors made in squashing their viewpoints so ignominiously, it will remain inadequate for any serious political role IMO. **
Until Occidental advocates opposed to NSDAP regime are fair and measured in their critique and recognize what value it had they will not learn any thing of value about the regime or it's relationship to the transcendent values of Organicism and a broader National socialism. Such a failure dooms those that wish to effectively resist national destruction.**
Well it certainly is hard to offer measured criticism, as most commentary differing from mainline radical Hitlerphobia seems mirrorlike Hitlerphilic. But I'm always willing to learn.
I do of course expect that those that claim those who sought to destroy Hitler from within the NSDAP prove that they were offering a viable alternative to Hitler that was in keeping with and contributing to NS doctrine and action.ÃÂ A great many of the men question clearly did no such thing but were in fact negative in every way to Occidental resurgence. Others I don't know about but I would be willing to consider.
Well I'm not sure how much exacty you can establish, as their plans, unlike those of the Hitlerites, were never implemented. I see your skepticism until proven otherwise, but I maybe you can also understand my skepticism about whether mainline/Hitlerism realy produced any real coherent NS ideology and doctrine, and action i.a.w. such. Of course you've studied much on the subject.
One thing that puzzles me is the virulence of your disdain for Otto Strasser. It is one thing that tends to sound vaguely Hitlerish and odd to me coming from you, especialy since intellectually you remind me much more of a Strasserite approach than mainline Hitlerite. Oddly enough in my research on Strasser I have found opinions such as yours of disdain for Otto Strasser seem rather widespread, even among those who seem ideologically more inclined to him than to mainline NS (crudely put, the "left-Nazi's" although I question somewhat the accuracy of this term.) Clearly the man personally had a great many defects, and really none of the authorities I've read is convinced Strasser or any of the others presented any coherent practical alternative to Hitler, although some think ideologically they at least represented a more noble failure. You may regard that as a point against them, I have tended perhaps to view that as a point for them, that is, their disdain from mainstream scholarship. But really it may be a hard call.
I will try to put some of this material on-line though. It at least seems to be fairly good source material.
2003-08-21 23:02 | User Profile
Hello Okie,
I can't see much reason to scan a few pages of a book as a text can only be judged in total. In any case, given the Weimar Republic was a vile pit of anti German jew vipers and shabbas goys heading rapidly to Bolshevism it is silly to speak of a "pro German conservative/pro-Weimar conservative." A better term would be "hopelessly naive" or "collaborator" As to Herrenklub I'd have to take out time I don't have to hunt down the texts about him in my library so I'll refrain from commenting for now.
** I also have read enough about these sundry personalities to have difficulty in believing all these organizations and personalities were really just fronts for Bolsheviks, Jewish industrialists, and foreigners, though I can always learn if you are convinced otherwise. **
I never said that everyone that opposed the NSDAP were Bolsheviks, jews or foreigners although the Strassers/Stinnes/Roehn faction certainly were Bolsheviks backed by jews and hostile foreign governments which were clearly admitted by the Strasserites, jew resistance leaders/financiers and the foreign governments involved in the intrigues of the day. I referenced plenty of texts that have massive amounts of primary sources that prove as much and those sources are not just revisionist but also pro Strasser, partisan jew in nature as well as the memoirs of French and British diplomats/cabinet members of the era. The J & S Pool text cited even has copies of the bank transfers and financial records proving my statements beyond reasonable doubt.
As to the conservative opposition some were monarchists, some were as much faux conservatives as modern American neo-cons, some were backed by financial/industrial interests concerned that Hitler's social reforms would hurt them financially, others were junkers resentful of a commoner leading the nation while others were principled Revolutionary Conservatives. In short, they were to widely varied to treat as a whole. Some were honorable men with much to commend while others were opportunists, traitors or merely well intentioned people that meet fates they did not deserve as is always the case in times of civil strife. If however, you actively plan to violently overthrow a government, as some of them clearly did, you can't be outraged when they use violence to stop you. I will point out that a central tenant of the Strasserites was/is that Hitler was a tool of capital as he objected to the abolition of private property and the creation of totalitarian state a al Stalin the Pool book devastates the Strasserites claims of Hitler as a force of reaction although he did get noticeable support from big business it was a small proportion of the party's finance. Naturally, the success of the NSDAP economic program and the folkish nature of the regime's social policies was further proof that the Strasserites were wrong about Hitler's aims and ideology while the conduct of modern day Strasserites (as insignificant as they are) clearly proves that they are in no way, shape or form nationalists but merely Bolsheviks that favour Mao, Che and Stalin.
** Well the same people like Krebs who called Gregor Strasser an idealist would doubtless call you such also. **
The Strassers were Bolsheviks that fought against their nation in time of war. What such people call me matters not in the least.
** Your approach minimizes the difference between the approach of someone like yourself, who has a fairly well worked out Nationalist-Folkish ideology, and National Socialism Klemperer's approach is to maximize it. He makes what seems to me to be some good points, but I think probably the truth is somewhere in between. **
My approach does not minimize anything. I am a National Socialist and my vision of that conception of life is based upon the Permanence of an Organic and Folkish conception of society and ethics as elaborated by likes of Jón Ãâgmundarson, Anders Rüsen, Eyðun við Dennstad, Othmar Spann, Manfred Wittich, Franz Diederich and Kurt Heilbutz and the French, Iberian and Italian NR/NS/RC from which they drew inspiration. The other schools/theorists I mentioned last time are viewed as valuable within the folkish framework of the about mentioned theorists/activists to the extent that the societal frameworks they promoted were conducive to fostering a preservation of the Nation Organic and the Traditionalism created by it as detailed by the school of thought I adhere to. What ever virtues Klemperer may it is a misconstruction to say that my perspective on the NSDAP era or National Socialism at large are at opposite points of the same continuum.
** Well I have an elastic position on Hitler really. Very little completely reliable info is written on him... **
Plenty of worth while information exists on him. Unfortunately, it's not easy to get but the effort is worth it. Most of the material I cite with respect to him was not the product of his devotees and all of it derives it's merits from having or being primary sources from those with access to the leadership of the NSDAP regime which is internally consistent.
** ... such is the pressure on anyone who could come up with some pro-Hitler conclusions in their research. **
No pressure exists to come up with supportive research about the most vilified person that ever existed. Obviously, some uncritical and wildly supportive material exists but such texts are outnumbered 100000 to 1 by dribble that willfully lies and distorts his record because such is the demands of having a "respectable" publisher issue your work or keeping an academic job.
** But I still remain convinced that he did do some rather stupid things and the regime put out some rather silly propaganda at times. **
I agree fully. I have more substantive complaints about the NSDAP regime but I assume that everyone here has heard them several times so I won't bother boring everyone by restating them again.
** I'll have to include Klemperer's analysis of Otto Strasser's ideology. **
Why read Klemperer when you can read what the Strassers said themselves? You could also read the filth found on Strasserite websites and publications. No reasoned doubt exists that he was anything but a Stalinist pure and simple. That some of the anti-Hitler coup planners may have been inspired by Moeller (whom I like very much) says nothing meaningful about the fact that the chief plotters were the Strassers/Roehn/Stinnes mob and that they were totally in the pocket of anti-German interests and that were their treason successful it would have been Bolsheviks not someone like Moeller running the nation.
** Well I'm not sure how much exacty you can establish, as their plans, unlike those of the Hitlerites, were never implemented. **
A lot can be established by reading what they wrote, noting who backed them and seeing what their ideological descendants are pushing today. In all instances it's obvious that they were vile cretins.
** ...but I maybe you can also understand my skepticism about whether mainline/Hitlerism really produced any real coherent NS ideology and doctrine, and action i.a.w. such. Of course you've studied much on the subject. **
If you read what the regime leadership had to say in the various works I cited in past exchanges you can see that his regime did have a real, coherent NS ideology. You can also see war time conditions led to compromises with his visions being made a reality. The best single example that springs to mind is the dispute between the policies of Walther Darre (and his inspiration, the works of Hans Gunther) and those of his successor Herbert Backe as was covered by Anna Bromwell's "Blood & Soil" and Jordan's "National Socialism: Vanguard of the Future". Again, that is not to say that one can't have reasoned criticism of him and it would be a completely different matter to say that the old NSDAP should serve as a primary model for modern NS activism and ideology which is something I clearly do not maintain.
** One thing that puzzles me is the virulence of your disdain for Otto Strasser. It is one thing that tends to sound vaguely Hitlerish and odd to me coming from you, especially since intellectually you remind me much more of a Strasserite approach than mainline Hitlerite. **
I can't imagine that anything I have said would lead one to view my outlook as at all comparable to the Strasserite view of things. You are right that I do hate them with a passion but I do so because of what they are, the way they acted and legacy they have left. Intellectually, I am closest to Jón Ãâgmundarson, Eyðun við Dennstad and those that influenced them. Like I said, I defend Hitler only when he is lied about/misrepresented and I maintain that while much commended him reasoned criticism of a substantive nature exists. If NS doctrine means anything it would be a disservice to have it identified solely with a single regime and it's allies. Instead, the core of the value of that Weltanschauung rests with it's championing the Nation Organic and the Traditionalism that springs from it.
In the end, the NSDAP era is not a primary interest of mine and I think it has little to do with the current status of the struggle. I far prefer talking about something with direct bearing about what to do now to save the Occident.
2003-08-22 04:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Aug 21 2003, 23:02 * *Hello Okie,
I can't see much reason to scan a few pages of a book as a text can only be judged in total. In any case, given the Weimar Republic was a vile pit of anti German jew vipers and shabbas goys heading rapidly to Bolshevism it is silly to speak of a "pro German conservative/pro-Weimar conservative." A better term would be "hopelessly naive" or "collaborator"...........
If however, you actively plan to violently overthrow a government, as some of them clearly did, you can't be outraged when they use violence to stop you. **
Well of course you indirectly point out a certain dilemma among those reluctant to throw all their eggs in the Hitler basket, those "honorable men with much to commend" or "merely well intentioned people that meet fates they did not deserve as is always the case in times of civil strife"
There are self evidently, by the process of elimination, only two ways to advocate alternatives to Hitlerism (or any other ideological/political movement in Germany for that matter) 1. You could work the democratic/constitutional procedures of the republic, flawed as those may have been, which implies a certain respect out of neceesty for this republic, or 2. You could work outside/against the procedures/ mechanisms of the republic, which of course implies the need for violence.
Rejecting both these options, there would seem to be only one option left - that of unreserved support for Hitler's Third Reich. That is why I continue to still am trying to fully understand the prejudices against these opposition groups from those like you who assert a degree of dissatisfaction with Hitler and the NSDAP type program against those, who however flawed their efforts may have been, did struggle to come up with some alternative.
Clearly there seems to be something basically totalitarian in the NSDAP and its ideoogical successors which demand, at least in those aspiring to sociopolitical leadership, either total loyalty or total opposition. At this point, to some extent, rejecting the NSDAP or nuancing ones support of it while continuing to unreservedly and virulently criticize the opposition seems to be a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. It is an option those who were forced to deal with the situation first hand clearly did not have.
In the end, the NSDAP era is not a primary interest of mine and I think it has little to do with the current status of the struggle. I far prefer talking about something with direct bearing about what to do now to save the Occident.
Hopefully talking about something clearly better. So far, in spite of what seems to be a lot of sincere effort, I stil don't so unambiguous evidence of anything like that.
We can't really put the past behind us until we have honestly addressed its mistakes and errors. Those who move on without addressing positively and unambiguously the mistakes of the past are condemned, if they ever do manage to get what they want, to repeat them.
2003-08-22 07:39 | User Profile
** Well of course you indirectly point out a certain dilemma among those reluctant to throw all their eggs in the Hitler basket, those "honorable men with much to commend" or "merely well intentioned people that meet fates they did not deserve as is always the case in times of civil strife" **
As I pointed out, the most significant opposition forces were Bolshevik so they donââ¬â¢t the descriptors you quote above. Within revolutionary situations the fact is always the same that those who chose revolutionary violence are risking destruction and those conservatives that chose to violently resist made a gamble and lost. Bemoaning such things makes no more sense then complaining about it getting cold when the sun goes down or pain and misery being part of the human condition. The societal situation left no other option as the forces of National Decay always create polarization and death until the nation is destroyed or rescued.
** There are self evidently, by the process of elimination, only two ways to advocate alternatives to Hitlerism (or any other ideological/political movement in Germany for that matter) 1. You could work the democratic/constitutional procedures of the republic, flawed as those may have been, which implies a certain respect out of necessity for this republic, or 2. You could work outside/against the procedures/ mechanisms of the republic, which of course implies the need for violence. **
The first is no option as the republic was 90% along the way to Bolshevism and totally incapable of defending itself do itââ¬â¢s inherent decadence being so severe that served entirely as a force of destruction. Supporting it was simply a non option in the hopes of forestalling genuine Bolshevism just a little longer. Such a position was in no way conservative and those stupid or opportunistic enough to pretend other wise meet a deserved fate. The Revolutionary Conservatism opposed to the NSDAP, true Bolshevism and the republic never seemed to grow beyond an, excellent, intellectual school with no real military or popular support leaving it, unfortunately, no real alternative. The RC school had lots to say about meta politics that was of great value and they had a fine ideology which they never translated into policy goals or a means to produce meaning translation of those ideas into a credible bid for power and they lost everything in a polarized society in collapse as a result.
** That is why I continue to still am trying to fully understand the prejudices against these opposition groups from those like you who assert a degree of dissatisfaction with Hitler and the NSDAP type program against those, who however flawed their efforts may have been, did struggle to come up with some alternative. **
My hatred is reserved for the Bolshevik opponents of Hitler, contempt for the callow opportunists, the stupidity of those that wished to preserve the anti German republic and cowards. The RC factions I respect and admire.
** Clearly there seems to be something basically totalitarian in the NSDAP and its ideological successors which demand, at least in those aspiring to sociopolitical leadership, either total loyalty or total opposition. At this point, to some extent, rejecting the NSDAP or nuancing ones support of it while continuing to unreservedly and virulently criticize the opposition seems to be a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. It is an option those who were forced to deal with the situation first hand clearly did not have. **
The regime was never totalitarian as it was never in favour of complete state control and obviously you know as much. What it was excessively authoritarian for my tastes but again, that was in large measure do to the regime being under siege in an highly polarized scenario of societal collapse which, after a period of highly successful reconstruction, came under assault of total war by vastly superior forces. Again, you know my criticisms of the regime and that my endorsement is qualified within highly disfavourable historical circumstances so donââ¬â¢t mistake such qualified support as anything more then what I say. Your talk of cake make sense only if I was uniform in my hatred for the regimeââ¬â¢s opponents which I am not in any form.
** Hopefully talking about something clearly better. So far, in spite of what seems to be a lot of sincere effort, I still don't so unambiguous evidence of anything like that. **
If you review what I have said in whole I see very little ambiguity with respect to my notions of state/society relations, economics, race, foreign relations or religion. You earlier said that I have a fairly well developed folkish NS ideology or words to that effect so I guess it seems that the ambiguity lies with you. If you do have any substantive doubts about my ideology or the public policies that flow from them simple ask a focused question about some aspect of my thinking and Iââ¬â¢ll answer it.
** We can't really put the past behind us until we have honestly addressed its mistakes and errors. Those who move on without addressing positively and unambiguously the mistakes of the past are condemned, if they ever do manage to get what they want, to repeat them. **
I donââ¬â¢t really see any aspect of the NSDAP regime that I have not made myself clear on. Instead, I think your simply hesitant to accept what I have said on the matter because you have this tendency to draw unwarranted inferences from my statements rather then accept that I have no sub-text. Also, I think you do need to read some of the material I have covered all ready in order to understand what the regime was about the vile reality of Strasserism and the most militarily significant opponents of the regime.
2003-08-22 15:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Aug 22 2003, 07:39 * I donââ¬â¢t really see any aspect of the NSDAP regime that I have not made myself clear on. Instead, I think your simply hesitant to accept what I have said on the matter because you have this tendency to draw unwarranted inferences from my statements rather then accept that I have no sub-text.àAlso, I think you do need to read some of the material I have covered all ready in order to understand what the regime was about the vile reality of Strasserism and the most militarily significant opponents of the regime.*
I do need to read more. One of the criticisms given of the RC's like Moeller and Spengler is their vagueness and/or tendency to engage in more in criticism of the old order than effective formulation of constructive alternatives. However I find that is a very demanding criticism, since the former is always much easier to do than the latter. In fact I find criticism of them by Klemperer, and even to some degree of extension of the NS regime itself, has a mirror like tendency to fall into this category.
I appreciate the great amount of work you have done toward the latter in this regards, and agree I need to study quite a bit more your options and other source material to really have a good grasp in this regards.
2003-08-22 18:37 | User Profile
**Intellectually, I am closest to Jón Ãâgmundarson, Eyðun við Dennstad and those that influenced them. Like I said, I defend Hitler only when he is lied about/misrepresented and I maintain that while much commended him reasoned criticism of a substantive nature exists. If NS doctrine means anything it would be a disservice to have it identified solely with a single regime and it's allies. Instead, the core of the value of that Weltanschauung rests with it's championing the Nation Organic and the Traditionalism that springs from it.
In the end, the NSDAP era is not a primary interest of mine and I think it has little to do with the current status of the struggle. I far prefer talking about something with direct bearing about what to do now to save the Occident. **
Hey Trisk do know of good any links that explains those theorists and their theories? I do know that Hitlerism is just one form of National Socialism, just like Maoism is just one form of Communism. I believe even Kershaw made that point in his bio of Hitler that National Socialism existed since at least the 1890's, long before Hitler entered politics. I believe it was John Luckacs who said that although Hitlerism is dead that doesn't mean that new forms of national socialism cannot rise up.
2003-08-22 22:01 | User Profile
**Regardless of whether their assessments of the character of the Soviet Union were correct or not, the real motive of Strasserite socialism seemed to be their belief that plutocracy a greater threat to nationalist ideology than communism (the Strassers did attack the Jews, but they emphasized the Jewish role as bankers and plutocrats while the Hitler faction emphasized the Jewish role in Communism). Francis Parker Yockey, Julius Evola, and numerous other rightwing thinkers reached the same conclusion, and I would certainly hesitate to pin the "Bolshevik" label on any of these men. **
In the favored idiom of the NeoKahns, this is a 'distinction with out a difference'. The plutotocrats ARE the communists, at least the ones at the helm of the bolshevik juggernaut. The boys at the NASDP realized this and stated openly that their war against communism was ipso facto a war against the plutocracy. Discriminating between the Banksters and the Bolsheviks makes about as much sense as drawing distinctions between Jews and 'Godless Atheists/Secular Humanists' (note to Jew dazed Christians) or between Kahnservatives and 'Liberals' (note to Flush LimpBlow groupies).
2003-08-22 22:14 | User Profile
Hello all,
A very busy makes me unable to address a few topics floating about here.
With respect to my old compatriot Okie I will say that the value of RC thought is pretty much restricted to Meta-politics which is importaint as you need that you have a meaningful ideology. Unfortunately, the RC types (save Ortega y Gasset) did not do a very good job making the jump from meta-politics to ideology and obvioulsy without that you can forget going any further (which is why the RC types have gone nowhere).
What made NS, narrowly defined by the NSDAP, viable was that they had a real ideology, not just criticism and public policies that flowed from it which they were able to enact. I suggest to you, I book I wrote on the matter which a long time comrade will be reprinting soon called "The Limits and Promise of Revolutionary COnservatism: The Folkish Perspective".
The Flemish moderator of the old EK list put it best: "The problem with the RC is they read to much books and spend to too little time figuring out how to apply what they have to offer to something tanglible. The failed just like Boulangists and Sorelian revistions before them because they saw meta-politics and meta-history as a be all and end all to Traditionalism which is the problem with Radical Traditionalism as well."
Hello Perum,
Damn little exists on the net and basically nothing in English as the people active in those circles hate the internet and think that it's a total waste. I have Moeller's work up at polinco within the library section. Within the interview that Tsun did within me you'll find several links that are quite good. I would also suggest the Othmar Spann translation that is floating about polinco (do a ssearch under posters using my name). Lastly, I think that I have some stuff by Dr. Steuckers on my hard drive on the subject so I'll rumage about for them.
I will re-post an old article I put togeather for EK and Dr.Stuecker's list that covers the felows I mentioned in the last post I did here. That should give you a pretty good idea where I'm coming from.
2003-08-22 23:51 | User Profile
**Hello Perum,
Damn little exists on the net and basically nothing in English as the people active in those circles hate the internet and think that it's a total waste. I have Moeller's work up at polinco within the library section. Within the interview that Tsun did within me you'll find several links that are quite good. I would also suggest the Othmar Spann translation that is floating about polinco (do a ssearch under posters using my name). Lastly, I think that I have some stuff by Dr. Steuckers on my hard drive on the subject so I'll rumage about for them.
I will re-post an old article I put togeather for EK and Dr.Stuecker's list that covers the felows I mentioned in the last post I did here. That should give you a pretty good idea where I'm coming from.**
Damn! Oh well, I'm still interesting in hearing about many of you theories of NS ideology. Note: I'm not a NS, but I've always been interested and agree with many tenents of NS ideology(not just Hitlerism). I'm more of a Neo-Slavophile and connections to the New Right(minus their advocacy of paganism) :D
2003-08-23 01:15 | User Profile
"Hitlerism" is a term coined by the bolsheviks. Thats what the jews would like, that "Hitlerism" is "dead". Ideas can not be defeated by military might but through a better, more powerfull Idea
i agree, although I do believe the Bolsheviks simply referred to Hitler and his theories as "fascists". But like I said earlier, Hitler's theories of National Socialism were not the only ones. I'm not even talking about Strasser, National Socialism as a theory has its origins in at least the 1870's and then among Germans in Czechslavokia around 1890's.
John Luckacs makes some interesting points about Hitler and NS. First off, he contends that Hitler, not Lenin, was the most influential revolutionary of the 20th century. NS, not Communism or Liberal Democracy, had the most influence on world politics in the 20th century. In large part because the Soviet Union became more NS after WW2, in that of the mixture of nationalism and socialism. Also many regimes around the world based their popular appeals on nationalism with socialistic policies. You can read more [url=http://www.nationalism.org/library/science/ideology/lukacs/Lukacs-TMPR-2002.pdf]here[/url].
In his "the Hitler of History" Luckacs even contends that as "the modern age" draws to a close, a new age of barbarism maybe at hand. When that age is at hand, there's the possibility for Hitler's reputation to rise again and be seen by most as a defender of Western civilization. Where else could you read something like that in a mainstream author? By saying Hitlerism is dead, Luckacs is contending that a carbon copy of Hitler's regime is no longer possible, but a new form of national socialism(certainly based on many of Hitler's theories) can arise and apply itself to comtemporary issues.
2003-08-23 18:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 22 2003, 20:56 * > *If you read James & Suzanne Pool's "Who Financed Hitler" that an SA cheif named Stennes was the principle backer of the Strasserites and that he was backed by various jewish business leaders. Gregor Strasser got most of his funding from a jew baker named Paul silverburg. Otto Strasser admits in his book "flight from terror" that he was funded by jew industrialist Otto Wolff and Max Cohen who led armed resistance to Hitler wrote at lenght about his conections with the Strasserites from '33-'35 **
I don't think the fact that the Strasser faction received money from Jews "proves" that they were tools of Jewish interests. Jews have always hedged their bets by backing every faction in any kind of power struggle, indeed, many Jewish plutocrats (such as the Rothschilds) funded Hitler thinking that NS "anti-Semitic" rhetoric was just empty demagoguery.** Good point. :th: While making some good points, Triskelion's criticism of Strasser, following as it does Hitler's characterization in a disputation with Strasser of him as "Marxist" and again as "a parlor Bolshevik" doesn't really do him justice.
To my knowlege, the Strasserites never defended Lenin, Trotsky, etc. If anything, they were somewhat sympathetic towards Stalin because they believed that hewould move the Soviet Union away from International Judaeo-Bolshevism and in a nationalist direction (though Stalin remained under the control of men like Kaganovich, Ehrenburg, and Yagoda, so the transformation of character was never as complete as the Left-NSers had hoped). In that regard they weren't alone, Benito Mussolini remarked in the 1930's that "Bolshevism died when Stalin took power. What remains is an early stage of Slavic fascism."
There was incidentally a real "National Bolshevik" faction within the opposition to Hitler, which could be discussed in more detail, but the ideology of the Black Front was different, although the natural stress of opposition to Hitler threw them and a lot more odd bedfellows, (like the reactionaries of the Herrenklub) together as I note above.
Regardless of whether their assessments of the character of the Soviet Union were correct or not, the real motive of Strasserite socialism seemed to be their belief that plutocracy a greater threat to nationalist ideology than communism (the Strassers did attack the Jews, but they emphasized the Jewish role as bankers and plutocrats while the Hitler faction emphasized the Jewish role in Communism). Francis Parker Yockey, Julius Evola, and numerous other rightwing thinkers reached the same conclusion, and I would certainly hesitate to pin the "Bolshevik" label on any of these men.
The "Bolshevik" label as noted was a the Nazi polemic. Certainly no Bolshevik factions would admit Strasser to their fold, Strasserism remains categorized as a hate group (Leland's modern day commentary about Germany, if true needs to be investigated, being a rare exception).
I put up again Klemperer's characterization of Strasser.
**The Strasser brothers were responsible for transplanting National Socialism, originally a South German movement, to the North........No doubt the Strasser brothers were too theoretical for the expedient Hitler.ÃÂ Otto Strasser, in particular, outlined elaborate schemes for a neo-feudal conservative-socialist order which involved Germany's withdrawal from the world market, abolishment of private property, decentralization of Germany's economic and political structure, and in foreign affairs, an alliance with Russia.....
The emblem of the Black Front, a hammer and a sword crossed at the crux of a Swastika, was indicative of a good deal of ideological crossbreeding, if not confusion, in Strasser.ÃÂ It reflects his political peregrinations, if we allow the hammer to stand for his Leftist phase, the swastika for National Socialism, and the sword for a militant kind of conservatism.....Strasser was certainly no materialist in the Marxian sense of the word, even though his violent anti-capitalism often came close to the position of the extreme Left.... In his own terms, his world was the world of "allegiances" of the "we-idea" of "conservatism". And his socialism was a "conservative socialism" calling for "harmony between capital and labour and between the individual and the community".ÃÂ Throughout, Otto Strasser remained one of Moeller's diversified fold.ÃÂ He was a magician's apprentice, a conservative most definitely, but a conservative gone mad, vulgar, proletarian. Though the so-called "Strasser Program" which had been defined in 1925 in Hanover, excluded any idea of dictatorship and opposed the uniformity of National Socialism, the rowdy members of the Black Front would have been the least qualified to administer a moderate program. We are led to be believe that, in practice, Strasser's conservatism would have incorporated the worst features of both Rightist and Leftist extremism (Klemens Von Klemperer, Germany's New Conservatism)**
2003-08-24 17:37 | User Profile
The Strasserites are and were Bolsheviks plain and simple. I own everything they ever wote and they have plenty of praise for Stalin, the Sparticus League and Lenin in their writtings of the the '30s if you "German Socialism" by Otto Strasser ('31) he clearly states his desire for the end of private property and a totally nationalized economy. The Strassers themselves and their jewish allies of the time are very open about their support for jewry so simply put, their is no meaningful dispute on the matter.
I am very suprised that AY would imply that Hitler was somehow not economically socialist as that clearly was untrue. The Strasserites clearly favoured Soviet style economics and said so then as they do now. Hitler was not less socialistic for rejecting Soviet economics. Rather he had a very different vision of economics which I have gone over else where. AY talks a bit about the differances with in the party over economics which indicates that the regime was not monolithic as Okkie had implied many times in the past. In point of fact Goebbels and Goering did not favour Soviet style 4 year plans which is very clear if you consult some the material I mentioned in the "NS economics" thread a while ago. It is true that they were some what supportive of DeMann's "Planism" which was a major trend NS economic thought at the time but they never actively promoted his ideas (thankfully) if one reads Sternhell's excellent coverage of NS and fascist philosphy in his various books on the matter you'll get plenty of information on the subject. My long time comrade Bjarni who joined here wrote a book about the subject and various related topics (he's got an advanced degree in economics and is pretty up that sort of thing) so perhaps he will get around to posting on the subject.
Basically, it seems to me that the desire to see the Strasserites as something other then what they clearly labeled themselves as and were is nothing more then knee jerk "Hitler purpged them so they must have been better then those nasty nazis say they were" style reaction.
AY may be suprised that the Strasserites are fully legal in Germany (and everywhere else for that matter) yet that is the reality. I have seen some of their offices and it is fully obvious that they opperate with zero bother from the state. Of course they are totally marginal in every way so I have no suprise that you may not have noticed them.
2003-08-24 17:39 | User Profile
Perun,
Read over the material I suggested to you and the Nordic Imperium thread I started here a day or two back then get back to me if you have any questions.
LG,
I will address your posts when I get a bit more time.
2003-08-24 17:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 24 2003, 16:16 * Okiereddust: Triskelion's criticism of Strasser, following as it does Hitler's characterization in a disputation with Strasser of him as "Marxist" and again as "a parlor Bolshevik" doesn't really do him justice...The "Bolshevik" label as noted was a the Nazi polemic. Certainly no Bolshevik factions would admit Strasser to their fold, Strasserism remains categorized as a hate group (Leland's modern day commentary about Germany, if true needs to be investigated, being a rare exception).*
The Hitler faction's characterization of Strasser as a "Marxist" is no more accurate than the Strasserite characterization of the Hitler camp as "plutocratic capitalists." .... I noted in my post, both sides accused the other of "selling out to the Jews" - Hitler was accused by the Strasserites of taking money from the Rothschilds while the Strassers were accused of getting aid from Soviet Bolsheviks. Well as described by Otto Strasser in Flight From Terror, his split with Hitler precipitated a genuinely ruthless war of extermination by Hitler against renegade Strasserites, and of course Strasser naturally responded in a number of ways as you might expect, some which he'd freely admit to and some which he might not (such as alliances with or recruiting Communists). While some of Strasser's story sounds compelling historians note his testimonies must be used with great cautiion, as of course Hitler's must also.
Furthermore, there were some major ideological differences even between Otto and Gregor Strasser. Gregor seemed to favor some sort of neo-feudalist society, while Otto favored centralized state socialism. One could find similar ideological quarrels in the Hitler camp: Goebbels and Goering favored state socialism along the lines of the "four year plans" while Rosenberg was an agrarian decentralist.
Goebbels of course was initially in the Strasser camp of the Nazi party of course, so that was no surprise. As the reference I gave described I think it was Otto Strasser who was the neo-feudalist. Basically I think he advocated reorganization of economics back on the basis of the guild system.
Differences between them were more I think personality wise than ideological. Otto was the theoritician, with the Ph.D in economics, while Gregor was the one respected as a practical pragmatic political leader. The differences came to a head when Otto split from Hitler and Gregor remained with him. It is often assumed that they were a monolithic bloc, which realy wasn't the case at all.
As for the contention that Strasserism is legal in Germany today, I find that rather hard to believe. Any authentic Strasserites would fly the swastika on the Black Front standard, which in itself would earn them prison time. Nor would open distribution of the Strassers' writings be tolerated, as they were filled with references to Jews being at the forefront of international finance capital.
It's interesting along these lines. Checking the website of I think the chief Strasserite group, the [url=http://www.rosenoire.org/]National Revolutionary Faction[/url], which I think is run by Troy Southgate, I noticed that they no longer carry whatr I think was the old Black Front emblem, except with the Swastika replaced with a gear wheel. Possibly they've made some changes to avoid attracting the authorities attention, the way they National Democratic Party did by carrying the old Nazi insignia intact sans swastika.
In any event the National Democratic Party has managed to remain legal in Germany also due to recent politics, so this can't be necessarly used as positive affirmation of to much.
I would be curious to know exactly which faction of Stasseritism Triskelion is referring to when he talks about Strasserites being Gueverites etc. There are variations I'm sure between factions, and I do recall seeing some Red-Brown coalition links with Che's and Casto's picture prominent and the National Bolshevik factions are similar, the standard Third Positionist factions which also admire Stasser are as I recall quite a bit more conservative politically
2003-08-24 18:17 | User Profile
*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 24 2003, 10:16 * ** The Hitler faction's characterization of Strasser as a "Marxist" is no more accurate than the Strasserite characterization of the Hitler camp as "plutocratic capitalists." Certainly Hitler was more friendly towards plutocrats and industrialists than Strasser just as Strasser was more favorably disposed towards economic socialism than Hitler, but the fact is that the Black Front would be no more welcome in Marxist circles than Hitler was welcomed by "capitalist" democracies. So as such I don't take either camp's criticism of their opposing faction very seriously. **
Amen to that. Your reading of this question equals my own.
2003-08-26 22:09 | User Profile
** "Hitlerism" is a term coined by the bolsheviks. Thats what the jews would like, that "Hitlerism" is "dead". Ideas can not be defeated by military might but through a better, more powerfull Idea. **
When I use the term Hitlerite or some other derivative I use it because it seems an accurate descriptor for those that deem Hitler to have been the be all and end all of Eurocentric racialism and condemn anyone that suggests anything to the contrary as treasonous. I realize that other people use the term as a demeaning phrase for anyone that is supportive to some degree of his regime or any form Eurocentrism. I object to such characterizations as you know but if in the case of the former you can recommend another term to express the same disposition I'll consider using it instead.
** I don't deend Hitler because I am a National socialist, bit because I am primarely a German. Hitler represented all the virtues of our past. He was the most selfless person in recent history and just lived (and died) for his people. **
You know, I assume, that I had several relatives that fought and died on behalf of the Third Reich although they were obviously not German and that I have a heightened sense of awareness of the virtues that the regime held and a deep respect for those that gave themselves in that struggle. Obviously, those of us that are not German but Eurocentric and nationalistic with respect towards our own nations should and do take inspiration from else where and hope to foster a sense of unity among European of all nations for the purpose of resisting our common destruction the existence of all of Europa is very much in doubt. As a result, it is not reasonable or desirable for Europeans outside of Germany to simply hold the NSDAP regime as the sole standard for any for of Eurocentric National Revolution.
** What would National socialism be without him? He formed it, he gave it life and he established the first NS-State. **
Most nations of Europa had (and have) schools of revolutionary nationalism that was characterized by a rejection of parliamentarianism, capitalism, jewry and a sense of Organicism as the foundation of national life that called themselves National Socialist. That title is an accurate one for such people/schools/movements and a great many political soldiers that adhered to those movements and schools gave their lives fighting along side the Axis. That they failed to achieve national liberation within their own nations is No is saying that Hitler or his regime were not National Socialists nor does anyone deny the historical importance and virtues of that regime that is serious about the survival of the nations of Europa. Yet to say that someone that promotes a vision of Eurocentric revolutionary nationalism that characterized by a rejection of parliamentarianism, capitalism, jewry and Organicism as the foundation of national life has no claim to the label National Socialist is absurd.
** National socialism without Hitler isn't National socialism anymore. **
Earlier you talked about the primacy of ideals which can't be killed now you say that National Socialism no longer exists. As what matters is promoting a vision of Organic nationalism your position that National Socialism died with and was solely defined by a single man is simply untenable unless time travel is mastered by a Hitler loyalist. While I am interested in learning from the past I am not willing to be held captive by it.
** His greatest and most revolutionary accomplishment was to point out the nature of the JEW and to build a state based on this knowledge. **
Yes, that was a great accomplishment. However, a great many others reached the same conclusion about the jews and some of those people fought and died on behalf of the Axis. That others have not yet succeeded in achieving national liberation (the NSDAP regime also ultimately lost it's struggle) does not, as you pointed out, diminish the value such ideals.
** the Jew had to destroy it, because it would have set a shining example for all white nations. (And also some non-white ones also). How wonderful Germany would be if we had only the chance to live all these years under national socialism. It's hard to imagine, a completely pure white country. No foreigners, no race mixing, no Jews and the signs of decay that they bring with them. I imagine a paradise after death would be like a perfect NS state. **
I don't believe in paradise as all humans and the institutions that they create have problems and short comings. Certainly I would have preferred that the Axis won the last war and that the nations of Europa would have been much better off if that had happened. Yet the reality is that jewry won and the Axis is no more. It is also true that the nations of Europa do need and deserve liberation and folkish renewal. I am interested in the ideological and practical matters relating to achieving those goals and I see no prospect for replicating the NSDAP regime in any nation of Europa today including Germany. As a result, I am concerned with what can be done to take the Folkish /Organic core of National Socialism which is to be found in numerous currents from a great many nations of Europa and find a way to apply them to the current phase of the struggle rathern then dream about what could have been while all of the nations of Europa die out.
** I am aware that forms of"national socialism" existed in the 19th century. But those were just party-names or mere descriptions of groups and clubs.**
You seem to know nothing about the matter at hand as evidenced by your use of ironic quotes and the fact that many of those organizations, individuals and schools held highly developed critiques of the order of the day but also highly developed ideologies and meta-political theories. Again, I would say that someone that promotes a vision of Eurocentric revolutionary nationalism that is characterized by a rejection of parliamentarianism, capitalism, jewry and Organicism as the foundation of national life is a National Socialist.
** It was Hitler who created the National socialist Ideology and "Weltanschauung". **
No. It was Hitler who created the ideology and weltanschauung that defined the NSDAP after Hitler assumed leadership over the party and latter the state he created.
** Since NS is not an internationalistic Ideology, each national version of the Idea will look different. **
Exactly my point. The ideology of National Socialism out side of Germany from the early ââ¬Ë20s till ââ¬Ë45 will not and can't be a reflection of Hitler nor the regime he created.
** German NS - not "Hitlerism" if you will, expressed itself in such a form, because it had to embrace the traditions and forms of German nationalism and history. **
Agreed.
** so if anyone says "Hitlerism" is dead, then I consider this the same as saying "Germany is dead". some people say, that Hitler didn't create anything new, but just used already established ideas and forms from his Vienna days (Brigitte Hamman, "Hitlers Vienna" ). That is partialy true. But by combining these different Ideas, he created something new and dynamic. **
Agreed.
** NS is also a very pragmatic Idea, which adapts to time, without aping fashions and dumping it's basic principles. Thats why NS was always developing and had to find the best solution in copeing with the difficulties it faced. I think NS was never realy able to establish itself completely in Germany, because the War forced us on paths, that were not originaly in the interest of NS. **
Agreed.
** A "carbon copy" of Hitlers State is already impossible, because we face today totally different challenges. Even Hitler would react different when confronted with today problems. But it is also essential that we (as German NS) do not give up our traditions. The Ralleys, Parades, Militarism etc. are not primarely NS, but German. German NS was not born out of nothing, but was itself based on older German traditions. Giving them up, would be surrendering parts of our own identety and history. Culture States need traditions, so their heritage can be passed on. I was very pleased to see how Russian nationalists picked up on old Russian traditions and to see Cossacks parade in their old uniforms and insignia.**
Agreed. But how National Socialism developed prior to and after Hitler outside of Germany is and should be a product of the traditions and temperament of the nation in question accordance with the history and contemporary status of the situation in question. As a result, I reject the notion that Hilter alone defines National Socialism as such a notion is counter factual.
** I also can not see Strasser as national socialist. Strasserism has - very similar to Marxism - primarely an economic worldview. Race plays no significant role at all. The fight against the Jew doesn't mean much to them either. How could they otherwise have worked together with the soviet and western Jews against "Hitlerism", if they actually considered them as enemys? **
Agreed. If you have read my posts in this thread you'll know I despise Strasserism and the "National" Bolshevik tenancy.