Strasserism?

Would a 'Strasserite' care to explain, in their own words, exactly what 'Strasserism' as a seperate ideology from Hitlerism means?
And just how it can be seen to fulfill the ideas of 'progressive natinalism and revolutionary socialism?
I'm not trying to be funny, I just need to understand as I'm seeing conflicting tendencies.

Alright well to start off Strasserism was an ideology That was born in the 20's and 30's of the last century. Created by Gregor and Otto Strasser, members of the NSDAP (Although I must point out that Otto strasser or the ''Father'' of strasserism was a member of many left-wing parties prior to joinning the NSDAP). Due to their strong opposition to the new drastic changes of the NSDAP agenda they formed a group inside the NSDAP which compromised of many old members of the NSDAP who felt betrayed by A.Hitler, it was first called Kampfgemeinschaft Revolutionärer Nationalsozialisten (Combat League Of Revolutionary National Socialists) then renamed to Black front. Now I could go on about the movement and its aims and goals but as I am still at the learning stage i'd prefer to leave it to someone else thus i'm linking a video made by my fellow strasserite



Another great video

Here's what I want Strasserites to answer:
1. Do you or do you not belong to a common "nation" with the bourgeoisie based upon similar racial/ethnic/cultural heritage?

2. What is the Strasserite definition of "nation"?

3. Do Strasserites seem themselves as---in any way---opponents of working peoples of minority groups within YOUR country or in any other nations in the world?

4. Do Strasserites extend solidarity and even support the struggles of the working peoples of any and all other nations against capitalism?

5. If working people belonging to ethnic minority groups are engaging in struggle against the system and its ruling class in YOUR country, do Strasserites support these peoples and their struggles or not? Why or why not?

6. Are Euroethnic Gentiles in the capitalist class really any better than Jews in the ruling class? Why or why not?

Excellent questions from our comrade Coach, and ones that desrve answering. To which I will add one more;

7. How does an ideology which was concieved for the consumption of the German population alone, relate to the non-German populations of Europe?

Having once considered myself a "Strasserist" (for approximately five years), and having studied the subject matter quite closely as a result of that affiliation, I feel as though I'm in a decent position to answer many of questions Isakenaz and Coach posed regarding Strasserism.

When discussing Strasserism, one of the most important factors to bear in mind is (like socialism in general) it's a rather heterogeneous ideology. Gregor Strasser's views differed markedly from those espoused by his younger brother, Otto, and Otto Strasser's views changed considerably throughout the duration of his life. Consequently, the modern advocates of Strasserism tend to arbitrarily choose which aspects of the Strasser brothers' work they wish to embrace, and which they'd prefer discarding. I'll address the questions using the answers which the relatively sophisticated advocates of the ideology tend to employ—the more vulgar Strasserists can be regarded as little more than Hitlerites who emphasize the need to replace capitalism with some form of socialism.

Isakenaz wrote:Would a 'Strasserite' care to explain, in their own words, exactly what 'Strasserism' as a seperate ideology from Hitlerism means? And just how it can be seen to fulfill the ideas of 'progressive natinalism and revolutionary socialism?

First and foremost, unlike Hitlerian National Socialism, Strasserism rejects the Führerprinzip and instead favors the establishment of quasi-democratic federalism—which would consist of culturally distinct, autonomous regions. Secondly, Strasserists accept that the capitalist mode of production is fundamentally unjust and counterproductive to fulfilling nationalist objectives and overall human flourishing. (Though, in my opinion, the "German Socialism" the Strasser brothers advocated was far from representative of a total abrogation of bourgeois social relations).

Otto Strasser was a self-proclaimed "revolutionary socialist," as he rejected the feasibility of achieving socialism through parliamentary means. However, he didn't believe that class struggle, in itself, could achieve socialism either—as Douglas Reed remarked, "when I asked him if he, as a good revolutionary, thought that revolutions could be made from above, [Strasser] answered: 'In Germany, only from above'" [Reed, Douglas. Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser, p. 98]. Revolutionary socialism, according to Strasser, meant a "complete revolution in the political, economic and spiritual fields, a revolution which must be brought about and carried through by all methods" [Ibid., p. 47].

As for progressive nationalism, some conceptions of Strasserism conform more with its objectives than others. For example, Otto Strasser staunchly opposed militarism and imperialism, arguing:

"The resolute repudiation of any form of imperialism is a core feature of the völkisch idea. Without reservation it affirms the right of every nation to national independence, to its autonomous controls of the forms taken by its political, economic and cultural life."
Grunov, Heinrich. Aufbau des Sozialismus, p. 83.

Unfortunately, later in his career, Otto began to entertain the notion of some kind of pan-European, social-imperialism into Africa. Such an idea is obviously contrary to what we progressive nationalists advocate, though I don't believe many contemporary Strasserists espouse any form of imperialism. The Strasser brothers also believed in having religion play a larger role in matters of the state, which also conflicts with the secular approach to governance progressive nationalists endorse.

Coach wrote:1. Do you or do you not belong to a common "nation" with the bourgeoisie based upon similar racial/ethnic/cultural heritage?

They would answer in the affirmative.

2. What is the Strasserite definition of "nation"?

"[T]he 'nation' obviously discloses itself to be a 'people' that has become more fully self-conscious. A people whose history has taught it its own specific peculiarity becomes a nation, which simultaneously presents itself as the ripe stage, the fully adult stage, of the people which is 'at home' in a specific area. (Compare this with the 'awareness of personality' that ensues in the individual as a result of his experiences and adventures.)"
Strasser, Otto. Germany Tomorrow, p. 121.

3. Do Strasserites see themselves as---in any way---opponents of working peoples of minority groups within YOUR country or in any other nations in the world?

Most of them do not.

4. Do Strasserites extend solidarity and even support the struggles of the working peoples of any and all other nations against capitalism?

Many of them do, while others don't recognize the necessity in doing so.

To my knowledge, the Strasser brothers themselves didn't write much (if anything) on this particular subject. There was a time wherein Gregor Strasser promoted a German alliance with the Soviet Union, but it's unclear whether this was because he genuinely felt that solidarity with the Russian attempt at organizing a socialist state was necessary for Germany's own undisturbed development of socialism, or merely because he viewed such an alliance through the prism of strategic, geopolitical considerations (aka 'realpolitik') and considered it beneficial for different reasons. Joseph Goebbels, who had been a member of the Strasserist faction of the NSDAP when this alliance was proposed, summed up the basis for it as thus:

"We look to Russia because Russia is our natural ally against the fiendish contamination and corruption from the west . . . Because we can see the commencement of our own national and socialist survival in an alliance with a truly national and socialist Russia."
Irving, David. Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, p. 71.

5. If working people belonging to ethnic minority groups are engaging in struggle against the system and its ruling class in YOUR country, do Strasserites support these peoples and their struggles or not? Why or why not?

As was the case in question #4, some of the contemporary Strasserists do, while others do not. The ones which do support minority groups engaged in proletarian activism against capitalism typically do so because they recognize that such groups are fighting on behalf of a shared objective (i.e., abolishing the capitalist mode of production). The Strasserists who oppose said minority groups' anti-capitalist activism, on the other hand, do so mainly because of chauvinistic sentiments they possess against those minorities.

6. Are Euroethnic Gentiles in the capitalist class really any better than Jews in the ruling class? Why or why not?

The Strasser brothers basically considered all capitalists to be equally repugnant.

With respect to the Jewish Question in general, however, Gregor Strasser was consistently antisemitic throughout his life, whereas Otto's views changed substantially towards the latter part of his life. For example, Otto described Hitler's anti-Jewish campaign as being thoroughly "inhuman." He also provided an explanation of how, post-revolution, the problem of national minorities could be handled:

"Speaking generally it may be said that a comprehensive and just solution will only be possible within the framework of the European Federation, where the simultaneous interests of almost all the European peoples, whether as States or as national minorities, will ensure that whatever legal arrangements are made will be universally regarded as just, and will therefore be faithfully adhered to.

But since this desirable joint solution will need time to achieve, New Germany will have meanwhile to set to work by herself to solve the problem of national minorities (and therewith the Jewish problem) in that modern spirit which will pay due regard both to the organic laws of ethnical differences and to the moral laws according to which all human beings have equal rights. Politically considered there are three alternative solutions:

(1) Persons of different racial origin from the majority may be described as foreigners.
(2) Groups of persons of various racial stamps may be deemed to constitute national minorities.
(3) Persons belonging to different stocks may be incorporated into the main body of the nation by assimilation.

All three methods are equally possible and equally honourable, with the urgent proviso that every adult person of another stock than that of the majority must himself or herself have full right to decide which method to adopt."
Strasser, Otto. Germany Tomorrow, p. 75.

As is indicated above, Otto Strasser came to believe that Jews, if they so desired, should have the right to assimilate into German society—though he also thought it would be likely that "the preponderant majority of German Jews will prefer to belong to the Jewish commonwealth" [Ibid., p. 77].

Isakenaz wrote:7. How does an ideology which was concieved for the consumption of the German population alone, relate to the non-German populations of Europe?

That's a good question. Strasserism is undoubtedly Germanocentric, but I suspect that the non-German, modern advocates of the ideology simply feel they could transplant most elements of the doctrine to their respective nations.

Celtiberian wrote:Having once considered myself a "Strasserist" (for approximately five years), and having studied the subject matter quite closely as a result of that affiliation, I feel as though I'm in a decent position to answer many of questions Isakenaz and Coach posed regarding Strasserism.

When discussing Strasserism, one of the most important factors to bear in mind is (like socialism in general) it's a rather heterogeneous ideology. Gregor Strasser's views differed markedly from those espoused by his younger brother, Otto, and Otto Strasser's views changed considerably throughout the duration of his life. Consequently, the modern advocates of Strasserism tend to arbitrarily choose which aspects of the Strasser brothers' work they wish to embrace, and which they'd prefer discarding. I'll address the questions using the answers which the relatively sophisticated advocates of the ideology tend to employ—the more vulgar Strasserists can be regarded as little more than Hitlerites who emphasize the need to replace capitalism with some form of socialism.

Isakenaz wrote:Would a 'Strasserite' care to explain, in their own words, exactly what 'Strasserism' as a seperate ideology from Hitlerism means? And just how it can be seen to fulfill the ideas of 'progressive natinalism and revolutionary socialism?

First and foremost, unlike Hitlerian National Socialism, Strasserism rejects the Führerprinzip and instead favors the establishment of quasi-democratic federalism—which would consist of culturally distinct, autonomous regions. Secondly, Strasserists accept that the capitalist mode of production is fundamentally unjust and counterproductive to fulfilling nationalist objectives and overall human flourishing. (Though, in my opinion, the "German Socialism" the Strasser brothers advocated was far from representative of a total abrogation of bourgeois social relations).

Otto Strasser was a self-proclaimed "revolutionary socialist," as he rejected the feasibility of achieving socialism through parliamentary means. However, he didn't believe that class struggle, in itself, could achieve socialism either—as Douglas Reed remarked, "when I asked him if he, as a good revolutionary, thought that revolutions could be made from above, [Strasser] answered: 'In Germany, only from above'" [Reed, Douglas. Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser, p. 98]. Revolutionary socialism, according to Strasser, meant a "complete revolution in the political, economic and spiritual fields, a revolution which must be brought about and carried through by all methods" [Ibid., p. 47].

As for progressive nationalism, some conceptions of Strasserism conform more with its objectives than others. For example, Otto Strasser staunchly opposed militarism and imperialism, arguing:

"The resolute repudiation of any form of imperialism is a core feature of the völkisch idea. Without reservation it affirms the right of every nation to national independence, to its autonomous controls of the forms taken by its political, economic and cultural life."
Grunov, Heinrich. Aufbau des Sozialismus, p. 83.

Unfortunately, later in his career, Otto began to entertain the notion of some kind of pan-European, social-imperialism into Africa. Such an idea is obviously contrary to what we progressive nationalists advocate, though I don't believe many contemporary Strasserists espouse any form of imperialism. The Strasser brothers also believed in having religion play a larger role in matters of the state, which also conflicts with the secular approach to governance progressive nationalists endorse.

Coach wrote:1. Do you or do you not belong to a common "nation" with the bourgeoisie based upon similar racial/ethnic/cultural heritage?

They would answer in the affirmative.

2. What is the Strasserite definition of "nation"?

"[T]he 'nation' obviously discloses itself to be a 'people' that has become more fully self-conscious. A people whose history has taught it its own specific peculiarity becomes a nation, which simultaneously presents itself as the ripe stage, the fully adult stage, of the people which is 'at home' in a specific area. (Compare this with the 'awareness of personality' that ensues in the individual as a result of his experiences and adventures.)"
Strasser, Otto. Germany Tomorrow, p. 121.

3. Do Strasserites see themselves as---in any way---opponents of working peoples of minority groups within YOUR country or in any other nations in the world?

Most of them do not.

4. Do Strasserites extend solidarity and even support the struggles of the working peoples of any and all other nations against capitalism?

Many of them do, while others don't recognize the necessity in doing so.

To my knowledge, the Strasser brothers themselves didn't write much (if anything) on this particular subject. There was a time wherein Gregor Strasser promoted a German alliance with the Soviet Union, but it's unclear whether this was because he genuinely felt that solidarity with the Russian attempt at organizing a socialist state was necessary for Germany's own undisturbed development of socialism, or merely because he viewed such an alliance through the prism of strategic, geopolitical considerations (aka 'realpolitik') and considered it beneficial for different reasons. Joseph Goebbels, who had been a member of the Strasserist faction of the NSDAP when this alliance was proposed, summed up the basis for it as thus:

"We look to Russia because Russia is our natural ally against the fiendish contamination and corruption from the west . . . Because we can see the commencement of our own national and socialist survival in an alliance with a truly national and socialist Russia."
Irving, David. Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, p. 71.

5. If working people belonging to ethnic minority groups are engaging in struggle against the system and its ruling class in YOUR country, do Strasserites support these peoples and their struggles or not? Why or why not?

As was the case in question #4, some of the contemporary Strasserists do, while others do not. The ones which do support minority groups engaged in proletarian activism against capitalism typically do so because they recognize that such groups are fighting on behalf of a shared objective (i.e., abolishing the capitalist mode of production). The Strasserists who oppose said minority groups' anti-capitalist activism, on the other hand, do so mainly because of chauvinistic sentiments they possess against those minorities.

6. Are Euroethnic Gentiles in the capitalist class really any better than Jews in the ruling class? Why or why not?

The Strasser brothers basically considered all capitalists to be equally repugnant.

With respect to the Jewish Question in general, however, Gregor Strasser was consistently antisemitic throughout his life, whereas Otto's views changed substantially towards the latter part of his life. For example, Otto described Hitler's anti-Jewish campaign as being thoroughly "inhuman." He also provided an explanation of how, post-revolution, the problem of national minorities could be handled:

"Speaking generally it may be said that a comprehensive and just solution will only be possible within the framework of the European Federation, where the simultaneous interests of almost all the European peoples, whether as States or as national minorities, will ensure that whatever legal arrangements are made will be universally regarded as just, and will therefore be faithfully adhered to.

But since this desirable joint solution will need time to achieve, New Germany will have meanwhile to set to work by herself to solve the problem of national minorities (and therewith the Jewish problem) in that modern spirit which will pay due regard both to the organic laws of ethnical differences and to the moral laws according to which all human beings have equal rights. Politically considered there are three alternative solutions:

(1) Persons of different racial origin from the majority may be described as foreigners.
(2) Groups of persons of various racial stamps may be deemed to constitute national minorities.
(3) Persons belonging to different stocks may be incorporated into the main body of the nation by assimilation.

All three methods are equally possible and equally honourable, with the urgent proviso that every adult person of another stock than that of the majority must himself or herself have full right to decide which method to adopt."
Strasser, Otto. Germany Tomorrow, p. 75.

As is indicated above, Otto Strasser came to believe that Jews, if they so desired, should have the right to assimilate into German society—though he also thought it would be likely that "the preponderant majority of German Jews will prefer to belong to the Jewish commonwealth" [Ibid., p. 77].

Isakenaz wrote:7. How does an ideology which was concieved for the consumption of the German population alone, relate to the non-German populations of Europe?

That's a good question. Strasserism is undoubtedly Germanocentric, but I suspect that the non-German, modern advocates of the ideology simply feel they could transplant most elements of the doctrine to their respective nations.

Thanks comrade for an excellent and illuminating post. Now all we need is for one of the forums 'Strasserites' to either confirm or deny your thoughts, with hopefully something more than "Yes, I agree" or "No your wrong".

I guess that's me... I agree with everything that Celtiberian said beside question number 7.

As far as I know Otto Strasser believed in the creation of a Pan-European state (especially after the war) in which people of Slavic, Germanic, Celtic etc heritage. would live as one people. I am not certain if that's true, but I can recall reading an article about Otto Strasser in which the author mentions such views.

WodzuUK wrote:As far as I know Otto Strasser believed in the creation of a Pan-European state (especially after the war) in which people of Slavic, Germanic, Celtic etc heritage. would live as one people. I am not certain if that's true, but I can recall reading an article about Otto Strasser in which the author mentions such views.

You're correct in that Otto Strasser did gravitate towards pan-European federalism following his departure from the NSDAP. However, his vision of a 'European Union' wasn't one in which the whole of Europe would unite under a single government. On the contrary, borders would continue to exist and regions would still govern themselves autonomously. This pan-European federation was primarily meant to assist in economic coordination between nations, as well as to help mitigate the potential of wars emerging on the continent.

Celtiberian wrote:You're correct in that Otto Strasser did gravitate towards pan-European federalism following his departure from the NSDAP. However, his vision of a 'European Union' wasn't one in which the whole of Europe would unite under a single government. On the contrary, borders would continue to exist and regions would still govern themselves autonomously. This pan-European federation was primarily meant to assist in economic coordination between nations, as well as to help mitigate the potential of wars emerging on the continent.

This is the first I've heard of the original Strasserites having anything resembling "revolutionary internationalism".
I'm glad to see this, and hope some of these latter day Strasser-inspired folks here seriously consider this and even going beyond it.

Coach wrote:This is the first I've heard of the original Strasserites having anything resembling "revolutionary internationalism". I'm glad to see this, and hope some of these latter day Strasser-inspired folks here seriously consider this and even going beyond it.

Otto Strasser started to write articles for the German journal "Nation Europa" in the 1950s, which basically espoused Oswald Mosley's "Europe a Nation" concept. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume Strasser felt an affinity for the idea—though, as I indicated above, he had already developed his own pan-European federalist idea nearly a decade earlier.

During the most socialistic phase of his political career (in the mid '50s), Mosley explained how his desired integrated, syndicalist Europe would interact with nations abroad as follows:

"The workers have to choose between a continuing wage-slavery and a wider, freer life through Syndicalism. European Socialism expects full co-operation from every man and woman, and makes loyalty the key-note of the revolution, but this will give the workers all the greater strength for removing the parasitic financial and industrial boss-class, for uniting with their European comrades, for developing and settling Africa and for achieving the closest co-operation with the Syndicalists of South America.

Through European Socialism the full potentialities of three continents can be realised, on the one hand by freeing and encouraging the brilliant individual to use science in transforming resources to produce new forms of wealth: on the other through Syndicalism to share the wealth of continents among those who work in industry. The workers of Europe stand on the threshold of the greatest social advance of their history."
Mosley, Oswald. "European Socialism" (1956).

When he writes "for developing and settling Africa," I'm not really sure if Mosley was implying imperialism—similar to Strasser's idea of a pan-European social-imperialism into Africa—or something else entirely. If he was, in fact, suggesting anything along the lines of allowing Europeans to literally establish settlements in Africa, then it clearly violates the progressive nationalism we advocate on this forum.

Interesting 'Celtiberian', as also an ex-'Strasserite' (albeit a temporary stop whilst looking for a direction), I am wondering how far the modern day adherents to 'Strasserism' adhere to the original 'Fourteen Theses'? Since they would seem to indicate not only a acceptance of the 'Fuherprinzep', but 'Lebensraum' through an expansion of the 'German' folk through the "fates", chief of which is war. If so they most certainly follow a programme that is imperialist and anti-democratic, which can be seen as a reactionary rather than progressive position.

http://strasserism-online.blogspot.com/2008/08/fourteen-theses-of-german-revolution.html

As in any rational evaluation of fascistic movements, I think that an adequate effort to divorce the relevant theories from the overall ideological disposition of its contemporary adherents should be undertaken. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the former, as well as my experience with the latter, is somewhat insufficient to reasonably carry out such a task.

However, I think this thread has served to underscore a few objectionable characteristics inherent to the ideology itself. That being said, it's rather obvious to see that it does not follow the basic fascist ideological trajectory and can loosely be interpreted as an expression of socialism.

Now, given Celtiberian's informative responses on the theoretical basis of Strasserism, I feel that this inquiry should now begin to shift more towards Isakenaz's emphasis on the general character of the modern 'Strasserist'. Much like any reasonable analysis of Marxist political movements will invariably lead one to draw some rather stark distinctions between the traditional ideologues and their contemporary counterparts, so too do I anticipate some rather significant areas of departure between the Strasserists.

Do the modern Strasserists happen to identify with principles more becoming of a traditional fascist, Hitlerite, or reactionary nationalist? Do they instead reject such ideologies with the same level of conviction that Otto Strasser himself did?

In order to arrive at the necessary conclusions, I feel the questions should in part be based upon issues that convert directly to the composition of the state and its corresponding political policies. For example,

What is your position on private property?

What is your position on socialization of the means of production (Worker-ownership/self-management of business)?

What is your position of nationalizations (government ownership/management of business)?

What is your position on class relations?

What is your position on taxation?

What is your position on public education?

What is your position on welfare policies?

What is your position on the relationship between the religion and the state?

What is your general position on foreign policy?

Isakenaz wrote:Interesting 'Celtiberian', as also an ex-'Strasserite' (albeit a temporary stop whilst looking for a direction), I am wondering how far the modern day adherents to 'Strasserism' adhere to the original 'Fourteen Theses'? Since they would seem to indicate not only a acceptance of the 'Fuherprinzep', but 'Lebensraum' through an expansion of the 'German' folk through the "fates", chief of which is war. If so they most certainly follow a programme that is imperialist and anti-democratic, which can be seen as a reactionary rather than progressive position.

ive read through the Fourteen theses (perhaps not the version you have read do you have a link?) and I dont see anything in relation to Lebensraum or fuherprinzep in my opinion and where it says war I belive it means more like revolution.

to quote the Fourteen theses
III

The German Revolution refuses to rule over and exploit foreign peoples and nations. It wants no more and no less than sufficient living space for the young nation of Germans, and insofar as the fulfillment of this deepest natural right of life conflicts with the same right of other peoples and nations, the German Revolution recognizes the decision of war as the will of fate

sounds dogy I know and without asking the guys who wrote it I belive they mean the Sudaten land,Alsase ect

X

On the basis of the same right, the German Revolution proclaims the right of all workers to share in ownership, profit and management of the economy of the nation, which every folk comrade serves. His personal share in property, profit and management id either earned or limited by increased output, greater responsibility. The German Revolution knows ad recognizes the motive force of personal interest, but incorporates this force into a larger machinery for the good of the nation.

XIV

The German Revolution overthrows the world view of the great French Revolution and shapes the face of the twentieth century. It is nationalistic - against the enslavement of the German people; it is socialist - against the tyranny if money; it is folkish - against the destruction of the German soul - but it is all of these only for the sake of the nation. And for the sake of those nation for the German Revolution recoils from no battle, finds no sacrifice too great, no war too bloody, for Germany must live!

Sounds social nationalist my opinion

Admin wrote:What is your position of nationalizations (government ownership/management of business)?

Any large scale operations such as Industr, Power,transport ect would belong to the state something like a corner shop could be privately owned but a corperation like Tesco would be state run.

What is your position on class relations?

there would only be one class British (or if union no longer existed English)

What is your position on taxation?

Tax linked to earnings

What is your position on public education?

public education would be the only education as education is a state matter

What is your position on the relationship between the religion and the state?

The state be secular but im sure a christian strasserist would say abit diffrent

What is your general position on foreign policy?

something like Yugoslavia during the cold war

@ TheocWulf,
Just one question relating to the 'Fourteen Theses'. Are you German? I ask because it deals with the 'German Revolution', and it emphasises this position over and over. Every paragraph either begins with, or refers to a 'German' revolution or the 'German Folk', and I wonder how you square this obvious Germanic world view that Strasser takes throughout his writings, with non-Germanic peoples. I'm not trying to be argumentative it's something I've always puzzled over and would like to hear your thoughts. After all Hitler said that National Socialism was not for export, and Strasser claimed to be a National Socialist, is the idea of the German revolution simply for Germans or is this fudged in the same way as Non-Germans idolise Hitler, conveniently forgetting his view of them?