IDEOLOGY. The founder of the Nordic Resistance Movement, Klas Lund, writes about the enemy within. Originally published on Nordfront.se in 2012.
This article was originally published in the internal educational papers of the Nordic Resistance Movement. However, it has become necessary to republish these important facts to a wider readership, and above all to nationalist fighters. The article is shortened and edited.
One of the worst enemies in our struggle is the enemy within (within the so-called nationalist movement). This internal enemy has many faces and disguises itself in various ideological and political shapes. We have chosen to term this entire spectrum of hostile trends under a generic collective name: Strasserism.
It should be made clear that we are not referring only to a strictly defined ideology – so-called Strasserism – but to a wider range (genera) of tendencies we have chosen to incorporate under the label of Strasserism. We have done this in order to put all these ideas together in one category, as we have been able to establish they all have a similar method and effect and that their advocates (sometimes instinctively) discover one another and work together – against us.
Firstly I would like to explain what is characteristic of generic Strasserism. The primary characteristic of Strasserism is the relativization of the basic foundation for our idea; which is the biological basis of Race. Out of this racial basis, all of our other political ideas, positions, considerations and actions emanate. This could be explained by the following maxim: That which benefits the race as a servant of nature and that which benefits National Socialism as a servant of the race is good. That which does not is bad – Colin Jordan
We can derive all our other ideas from this maxim; even our views on morality and religion, etc. Generic Strasserism seeks to, for different reasons, trivialize the absolute concept of Race and tries to find different explanations, often similar and seemingly related, but completely opposite when analyzed more deeply.
Strasserism tries to highlight other things, such as the Socialism aspect of National Socialism and argues that economic matters, social matters, matters of justice and of class take some kind of precedency (over the racial principle). According to a similar way of thinking, other matters can be highlighted at the expense of the foundational principal, such as culture, ethnicity or form of government. Another way of doing this is to keep the race chained to doctrines that have proven to be destructive (Christianity) and make claims of being ”traditional”, etc.
Another very important component of generic Strasserism is the rejection of what we call the ”leader principle”, and the rejection of concepts such as ”organisation” in favour of ”independence” and ”networks”.
All of this constitutes a dissolving and subversive force that has a negative and confusing effect. These destructive doctrines constitute a threat to our Race, because they attempt to confuse the situation by means of snobbery, intellectual sophistry, baseless theoretical ideas or badly camouflaged anarchism.
Real Strasserism is named after the brothers Gregor (1892-1934) and Otto (1897-1974) Strasser. The Strasser brothers are known to posterity as the leaders of the ”National Socialist” opposition to Hitler. They have come to personify the ”inner” resistance to Hitler and National Socialism – and this for good reason.
Both Gregor and Otto were members of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), but a struggle for power between Hitler and the Strasser brothers existed from the very beginning. Hitler was the obvious leader, but the Strasser brothers, who were more intellectual, exercised a great influence on many people both in and outside of the NSDAP. They did this primarily by controlling the party’s biggest publishing house (the Kampfverlag), which issued a number of daily newspapers and a very large number of books and writings.
Goebbels, who originally was one of the close associates of Strasser, was one of the people who later came to view Strasser’s ideas as lacking in substance and being ”hollow”. He also wrote in his diary, somewhat alarmed, that the Strasser faction surpassed them in terms of producing intellectual material (books, writings) and that the Strasser faction was only surpassed in terms of speaking prowess.
Already at this stage, in the 1920s, a relativization of the race question and a highlighting of economic and social matters was noticeable. The Strasser faction also incorporated many ideological trends that were opposed to one another, being united only in an often badly concealed opposition to Hitler.
Attempts to change the 25 points
When Hitler was in prison for having led the Munich uprising in 1923, Gregor Strasser in practice took over the party with his brother Otto and others. Julius Streicher was kicked out of the party because of ”vulgar anti-Semitism”. Once he was released, Hitler had a difficult time in reclaiming control of the party. The Strasser brothers had northern Germany in a firm grip, and Hitler, appropriately enough, had been prohibited by the regime from travelling and speaking publicly in northern Germany. This was used against him and the Strasser brothers and their allies summoned a meeting in northern Germany that Hitler could not attend. Hitler sent Gottfried Feder (author of the party’s 25 points) to the meeting as his representative, well aware that the Strasser brothers had plans to change the party program of the NSDAP.
As a response to this, Hitler called a meeting of leaders in Bamberg, where he finally managed to subvert the attempts of the Strasser faction and reclaim his leadership position.
Forced into a compromise
After the blundered coup, Hitler had decided to attempt to gain power by elections. It was doubtlessly going to be a long and hard path to take. Because of this, and especially considering the strong position of the Strasserists in the party, he was forced to compromise. The risk of the Strasserists causing serious division in the party and ruining his plans forced him to proceed cautiously regarding them, and he instead sought to slowly but surely strengthen his grip of the party.
Attempts to split the party
Otto Strasser finally broke out of the NSDAP in 1930. That is, he tried to split the party and published a manifesto called ”The Socialists are leaving the NSDAP” together with other defectors. In this manifesto Otto Strasser demanded the nationalization of all means of production and accused Hitler of having encouraged the Gauleiter of Berlin (Goebbels) in a letter to ”ruthlessly cleanse” the party of all ”parlour Bolsheviks”. The manifesto is evidence in itself of the deviation of Strasserism from the basic principles of National Socialism.
Strasser later formed the Black Front, a partially secret, Socialist revolutionary organisation, whose deep hostility to Hitler was its primary reason for existence.
The Stennes Revolt
When the regime threatened to ban the NSDAP, Hitler ordered the SA units not to bear arms. This was used a reason for engineering a revolt in the SA which was led by the SA leader in the east, Captain Walther Stennes (who later in life became a Soviet spy). It was later made clear by Otto Strasser that this revolt was financed by Jewish interests (Silverberg and Wolff). During the revolt, Strasser and Stennes claimed that Hitler had betrayed ”Socialism” and that an armed revolution was the only way. Stennes later became the leader of another NSDAP breakaway group called The Independent National Socialist Movement of Struggle (Unabhängige nationalsozialistische Kampfbewegung) – a group that mainly engaged in fighting the NSDAP.
Support from big finance
One of the accusations levelled against the NSDAP and Hitler by the Black Front was that they took bribes from German industrialists (Krupp, Thyssen, etc.). But today we know that the NSDAP never received anything but small amounts of money from capitalists (mostly from the nationalist-minded steel magnate Emil Kirdorf). The NSDAP instead financed their activities through membership fees, but also through entrance fees at meetings and by selling newspapers, writings and books.
The Black Front received support from a much worse source however; from Jewish capital (Silverberg, Wolff, etc.). This was because their interests coincided in the desire of the Black Front to crush the NSDAP.
Threat of division
At the same time that Otto Strasser conducted a stubborn campaign against the NSDAP, including gross smears against Hitler, Goebbels and Göring, they accepted his brother Gregor as a leading member of the party. The NSDAP was close to victory, but the threat of division was there all the time because of Gregor Strasser’s lack of loyalty.
This meant a very serious dilemma for Hitler, because the newspapers under Strasser’s control cautiously and cunningly criticised Hitler (”National Socialism is bigger than Hitler”, etc.) but openly attacked Göring and Goebbels. Acting against Strasser at this very sensitive point in time could have led to division and made it impossible to achieve victory. For that reason Hitler was forced to compromise. He was forced to accept Gregor Strasser despite being aware of what he was doing. And it should be added that this was at the same time that Gregor’s brother constantly acted in secret and caused tremendous problems.
Goebbels writes in his diary of this time that Gregor Strasser, unlike the other leaders, was treated well by an otherwise hate-filled press. This, if anything, was serious evidence that something was severely wrong with Strasser. Thus it has to be assumed that they thought that Strasser had the opportunity of splitting up the NSDAP. His relativism concerning the racial question and the Jewish question made him a ”man of compromises”. A person one could ”do business” with.
The great treason
When the NSDAP was on the verge of victory, Gregor Strasser turned into a defeatist. He said the NSDAP would never come to power and that Hitler made a mistake by pushing for a hard line. Strasser, the revolutionary Socialist, suggested a compromise with very reactionary elements and forming a government coalition together with them. Hitler refused. His established goal was becoming head of state and the NSDAP gaining government power – it was this or nothing. The Strasser faction fomented sentiments of defeatism in the party (this was only a few months before Hitler coming to power). At last it was revealed: Gregor Strasser had been offered the role of deputy head of state if he could split up the NSDAP.
A meeting was summoned with the other NSDAP leaders, and many of them had lost hope because they had been affected by Strasserism. A split in the party was imminent. Hitler was ready to commit suicide if he did not manage to convince his gauleiters to hang on and not let themselves be led astray by Strasser. Hitler managed to convince them, and this became the end for Strasser. He was forced to leave the party and just a month afterward Hitler became the head of state on January 30. The uncompromising and principled Hitler had won. National Socialism had come to power in Germany – despite the intrigues of the Strasser brothers.
Infiltration and espionage
What had Gregor’s brother Otto been up to during this time? He had wholeheartedly been committed to destroying as much as possible. He was the master of spreading lies about leading National Socialists, especially Hitler. He had incited Stennes and many others to revolt.
Otto Strasser was also up to other things; his Black Front recruited disgruntled NSDAP members by criticising Hitler for trying to come to power through elections, for having ”betrayed Socialism” and, they claimed, for letting himself be bought off by the industrialists. They claimed that the only way to come to power was through a violent Socialist revolution. Otto Strasser encouraged the recruited NSDAP members to remain in the party and make up a secret revolutionary front, a sabotage and espionage organisation. What many of these people did not understand was that their reports and information was used by the Strasserists, and in the long run Zion, to fight Hitler and the NSDAP. Thus the members of the Black Front were de facto spies for the enemy.
Black Front – Black propaganda
The Jew Dr. Kurt Hiller, who got to know Otto Strasser during Strasser’s long stay in Czechoslovakia, writes: ”Since 1930, first in Germany and then in exile, he [Strasser] waged an unfailing and brave fight against the werewolf [Hitler] in Germany.”
Black propaganda is a very mendacious form of propaganda with the purpose of grossly slandering, demoralising and confusing by means of ingeniously crafted lies. This form of propaganda thus goes hand in hand with the name of Otto Strasser’s organisation; the Black Front.
Sefton Delmer, the foremost British expert in black propaganda during World War Two, and the man behind the black radio station ”Gustav Siegfried eins” (whose chief collaborator was a Strasserist refugee married to a Jewess), mentions in his autobiography ”Trail Sinister” that one of his role models was a secret black propaganda radio transmitter in Czechoslovakia operated by Otto Strasser and run by another Strasserist; the radio engineer Rudolf Formis, who had been forced to flee Germany after having been uncovered as a saboteur. From this secret radio station, the most grotesque lies about Hitler and others were spread. It should be mentioned that many of the hoaxes about sexual perversion among leading National Socialists stem from Otto Strasser.
Strasser’s black radio transmitter was financed by Jews and was operated under the protection of the government in Czechoslovakia.
The Jew Fritz Max Cahen writes in his book ”Men against Hitler” that he, in his role of leading the ”German” resistance against Hitler, met regularly with Otto Strasser during the course of his fight against National Socialist Germany. (Otto Strasser’s contacts with the Jewish interior minister of France in the beginning of the war should also be mentioned in this context.)
In May of 1939, Strasser issued an order to the members of the Black Front, which contained these words: ”The Black Front’s [secret] groups in Germany must work together with other enemies of the regime toward the common goal of overthrowing it.”
After the German invasion of France, Otto Strasser fled head over heels through France but did not manage to get to England. He instead got down to Portugal, and the English later helped him to safety in Canada. Strasser later helped the Allies in their propaganda war against Germany.
It is thus clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Otto Strasser was fighting his own people, his own race and his own country. He also did this in times of war, which is equal to high treason according to all definitions.
Is Strasserism used today as a means for the enemy to prevent the emergence of a serious resistance to Zion? The answer must be yes. John Tyndall (the deceased former leader of the BNP who was deposed through a coup by an old Strasserist, Nick Griffin) had no evidence, but he suggests in his article ”Enemy finger in the pie?” that the enemy trains infiltrators and schools them in Strasserism so they can attack the nationalist movement from within with the help of this subversive ideological trend. He writes: ”What I did not consider seriously enough then – though I did later – was that there could be some method in their evident silliness, and that ’Strasserite’ politics could well have been some skilfully conceived wedge driven into the remnants of the former NF (National Front) in order to ensure its continued division.”
But Strasserism unfortunately appeals to many people without them needing to be trained or serve as conscious agents for the enemy. The dissolving effects of the modern world and liberal democracy also affects our struggle. Even if modern man is ”nationalist-minded” it is also natural for him to base his thinking and actions on the (Judaised) culture and values of the modern world. Modern democratic man reacts negatively when he sees an organisation which is hierarchically organised, which demands a lot from its members and which demands that every member incorporates himself in this order and is loyal. Such an organisation must be perceived by modern man as a cult, especially in comparison to the surrounding democratic society in which he lives and is a part of. The more degenerate a society and the more democratically corroded a man, the more appealing Strasserism will be to ”nationalists”.
As a National Socialist, it is important to always remember that everything in the end is traceable to the biological foundation: Race. Strasserism could therefore be seen as an ideological trend which fundamentally comes from and appeals to the stratum of ”nationalists” which are racially suspect.
It is of course the job of the Nordic Resistance Movement to convert as many of these people as possible, because most of them have hopefully adopted some form of Strasserism due to a lack of insight. The threat from this ideological trend nevertheless exists, and we must always be on our watch against those who will never change and against those who consciously use these false doctrines as a weapon against us. Be on your guard and remember that all ”nationalists” are not nationalists.