William Pierce

In Defense of Hitler and his National-Socialism

adolf_hitler_A response by William Pierce to a Letter to the Editor

“No” to Socialism

I READ THE article in Issue No. 102 by William Simpson twice. I’ve read all of his articles very carefully since you first began printing them, and I am greatly impressed by his conclusions.

I was raised in a Christian home. Both my parents were very religious, and I started reading the Bible, at my mother’s urging, when I was 12 years old. From the beginning I had some doubts about both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and ever since then I’ve had struggles with myself about the Bible’s teachings.

After reading William Simpson’s articles in NATIONAL VANGUARD I have come to agree with him that Christianity is not a suitable religion for the Germanic peoples. It is leading our nation to destruction. Our civilization is being wrecked by Biblical doctrines and the fuzzy thinking of church leaders. Their acceptance of all the inferior races into America has convinced me of this. Jesus’s own teachings are partly responsible.

What I cannot accept in NATIONAL VANGUARD, however, is your affinity for Hitler and his National Socialism. I detest any socialism, national or otherwise. I do not believe that it is necessary to establish a socialistic government in Washington in order to break the Zionist hold over our politicians and rid ourselves of the international pests. Do you agree?

C.L.C.
Van Buren, AR

Editor’s Reply

THE SECOND World War was the great watershed in the collapse of the West. Had any major Western nation — in particular, Britain, France, or America — had the integrity to resist the Jews and avoid being drawn into their worldwide conspiracy against Germany, there would have been no world war, but only a war between National Socialist Germany and the Marxist Soviet Union. Germany would have won, Marxism would have been eradicated, and it would have been the beginning of the end for the Jews everywhere.

Instead, Western men were persuaded by their bought politicians, their Judeo-Christian priests, and the Jewish manipulators of public opinion in their midst to take up arms against their German brothers in an unholy crusade to eradicate National Socialism, so that the Jews and the Marxist cancer they had unleashed on the world could survive. Before the Second World War the West was still viable; afterward it was not.

The catastrophe of 1945, with the triumph of the Jew and his allies, made inevitable the opening up of the immigration floodgates for non-Whites into Britain and the United States; the destruction of American White public schools; the enactment of laws curtailing White freedom of association and the rights of White employers and renters (and with them the rights of White employees and tenants); the rise of feminism, homosexuality, and drug use; the breakdown of the traditional family structure; a soaring miscegenation rate; and the displacement of healthy White art, music, literature and drama by a Judeo-democratic-Hollywood ‘schlock’ culture. It also led to the metastasis of the Marxist cancer throughout huge areas of Europe and the rise of malignant Zionist power in Palestine — a power which surely would be the instigator of the Third World War.

It behooves those of us who still hope that enough healthy genes for a new beginning can be salvaged from the coming chaos, therefore, to understand everything we can about the Second World War; about its preeminent personality, Adolf Hitler; and about his ideology, National Socialism, from the eradication of which logically followed the evils briefly accounted above. That’s why NATIONAL VANGUARD often has articles on these subjects and will do so in the future.

As for the “socialism” in National Socialism, don’t let yourself be deceived by its enemies, among whom are the adherents of the Judeo-capitalist New Right; it certainly has nothing to do with the Semitic socialism Marx and his kinsmen peddled. The first slogan of Hitler’s National Socialists was: “The common interest before self-interest!” They believed that every German, whether a factory owner or a janitor, should put the interests of his nation and his race ahead of his personal interests. That was really what they meant by the “socialism” in National Socialism.

They also believed that it was the responsibility of the nation’s leaders to concern themselves with the physical health of every member of the nation — not to cater to special-interest groups or to win popularity contests with the fickle and easily swayed masses.

These beliefs determined the racial, economic, and educational policies of Hitler’s government. That government was “socialist,” in that it devoted much of its efforts to improving the economic welfare of working-class and middle-class Germans, as well as the racial quality and racial consciousness of the whole nation. But it did not attempt to enforce any sort of artificial “equality” on its citizens, either of status or income. And it did not discourage the entrepreneurial activities of individual Germans, so long as those activities were not harmful to national interests. Private property not only remained sacrosanct in National Socialist Germany, but the government instituted new policies to enable small farmers to avoid losing their land to moneylenders.

Whether that is “socialism,” or not, NATIONAL VANGUARD certainly is not against it. To go further: We will not break the Zionist hold on America until White Americans have made a conscious decision to put their common racial interests ahead of their private interests.

* * *

Source: The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce

For Further Reading

Previous post

Conservatism or Radicalism? A Call for a Spiritual Elite

Next post

Australia: Yet Another White Student Union Formed

9 Comments

  1. Arvin N. Prebost
    November 29, 2015 at 2:09 pm — Reply

    Far more glorious than any mythological “second coming” will be when our people, as a whole, awaken and realize that they were wrong, terribly wrong, in their assessment of Hitler. . . when they realize that what they did in WW2 was the equivalent of a man walking into a museum and defacing a Michelangelo or a Rembrant . . . the equivalent of giving their children over to the leadership of thugs and pimps.

    What we did in that war, and what we unleashed upon Europe, was so terrible that it became a necessity to demonize Hitler forever, in order to make us look good in comparison.

    • Alois Walken
      December 1, 2015 at 5:26 pm — Reply

      I always said, even before I realized the truth about AH, that there was no such thing as good and evil in war. It’s all perspective. But that war was perhaps more relevant to our people as a whole than any other to date. When men like George Patton come out and say things like “we defeated the wrong enemy” and points to fighting the Soviets then and there, even a historical layman ought to rethink what he knows about the subject.

      My grandparents fought in WWII, and when they came back…they certainly had their own opinions on the matter, opinions we’d agree with.

      Unfortunately if AH won WWII, America might not have been spared the post-war wrath inevitably fired on losing countries. That being said Germany was one of the few countries with no reports of war-time rape and pillaging, so maybe they would have offered a hand and helped us back up (if we lost). And from there, anything would have been possible.

  2. Anthony Collins
    December 1, 2015 at 4:05 am — Reply

    Despite its hostility to Hitler and National Socialism, Lawrence Birken’s book Hitler as Philosophe: Remnants of the Enlightenment in National Socialism (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995) makes some good points on the socialist dimension of National Socialism.

    Birken recognizes that National Socialism represented a fundamental alternative to capitalism and communism (pp. 46-47):

    “To understand the role of economics in Hitler’s thought it is necessary to remember that, from almost the beginning of his political career, he portrayed national socialism as a uniquely conceived middle path between the sterile extremes of capitalism and communism. . . .

    “The Hitler of the twenties and thirties viewed Germany as torn between two irreconcilable worldviews, one reactionary and the other subversive, each tied to its own socioeconomic base. On the one side were the better classes. In particular, the upper levels of the German bourgeoisie had forfeited their claim to be a revolutionary class by allying themselves with the old aristocracy and thus turning their backs on the masses. According to Hitler, the Junker-bourgeois alliance constituted a ‘closed society’ in which people were judged solely on the basis of their social status. This society possessed a traditionalist worldview, supposedly nationalist but actually quasi-dynastic, outmoded and ineffectual. On the other side, in opposition to the better classes, was the ‘laboring population.’ The masses, Hitler argued, had been alienated from their own nation and thus won over to an international Marxist worldview which was utterly modern.

    “Capitalism, as Hitler understood it, was essentially hierarchical in the sense that its most salient feature was its acceptance of class divisions. In contrast, Marxism was essentially egalitarian, its most characteristic feature being its leveling socialism. Hitler thus viewed Weimar Germany as not only divided, but divided between two equally incorrect weltanschauungen. On the one hand, the republic preserved the Junker-bourgeois class system in the economic realm. On the other hand, it encouraged what Hitler considered an essentially Marxist concept of democracy in the political realm. Even the National Socialist Party was polarized between Munich conservatives and Berlin socialists. For Hitler, this bifurcation of German life was intolerable. The presence of two mutually hostile and irreconcilable worldviews not only stood in the way of the coordination of wills necessary for a national revival, but both ideologies ignored the fundamental laws of nature Hitler believed were necessary to secure such a revival.”

    Birken then elucidates the economic implications of Hitler’s concept of “race and personality” (pp. 47-49):

    “Hitler believed that the German people needed a dynamic political economy to achieve their destiny, but how to achieve that dynamism? The German dictator believed that all growth could be traced to individual effort — but only at the service of the common good. He thus tempered what might be taken as a ‘libertarian’ definition of inventiveness with a somber collectivism. Invention, Hitler believed, was thus the product of individual geniuses of high personality value. But personality value was in turn conditioned by the individual’s biological (racial) endowments or race value so that an economic policy had to be underpinned by a racial policy.

    “For Hitler, the ultimate goal of a people was to apply those material laws that would enable the multiplication of personality values and thus the proliferation of inventions necessary to raise the technological level ever higher. Nor was there any end to this process, which would enable the best of humanity . . . to ‘have a free path for activity in domains which will lie partly above it and partly outside it.’ This was the vision of unlimited expansion that Hitler opened up to his followers. But it was precisely here, Hitler believed, that both capitalism and communism failed — and for several reasons. In the first place, neither system possessed the social preconditions for inventiveness. A proper political economy was essential because race value was a necessary but not sufficient cause of personality value. In other words, if the first was necessary in order to produce the second, it did not automatically do so. Thus, in his Secret Book Hitler wrote that ‘on the basis of its general race value a people can certainly entertain a justified hope that it can bring real minds into existence,’ but only if that people did not ‘restrict such brains in their activity’ by diluting them in a sea of mediocrities. Only a leader-state, dedicated to selecting the best minds from among a people and giving them freedom of action, could permit that people to transform its race value into the personality values necessary to raise the overall level of wealth and culture.

    “In this context, capitalism was inadequate because it accepted the notion of class just as Marxism was inadequate because it accepted the notion of mass. Capitalist political economy had simply taken the family as a natural phenomenon given to the system, thus accepting the inequality of social endowments. But the existence of these endowments, Hitler believed, stood in the way of the selection of inventive personalities. The class system snobbishly denied the talent of the lowborn (including Hitler himself), thus weakening the potential of the nation. Capitalism, in other words, was insufficiently democratic. At the same time, Hitler argued, Marxism was too democratic. Marxism’s leveling of everything stood in the way of inventive personalities by denying the far more fundamental inequality of biological endowments so that individual genius was drowned in a sea of mediocrity. Hitler thus advanced the notion of a third force which would simultaneously guarantee property as a reward for and reject class distinctions as a barrier to effort.

    “In the second place, Hitler believed, neither communism nor capitalism possessed a proper understanding of the concept of work, a concept essential for inventiveness. For Hitler, labor was basically a synthesis of individual effort and social need. He thus argued that while work was essential ‘for maintaining [individual] life,’ true work did not ‘conflict with the interests of the community.’ Only when individual labor was reconciled to communal need did it become truly productive. Cultural, including technological, development was consequently proportional to the ability to reconcile individual genius with social need. Yet, it was precisely this reconciliation that neither capitalism nor communism was able to effect. Indeed, for Hitler, both systems actually possessed a similarly defective concept of work by overidentifying it with a narrowly defined working class. Capitalism and communism equally contrasted profits with wages, the only difference being that the latter saw profit as exploitive and the former did not. In contrast, Hitler denied the dichotomy between profit and wage and thus between the labor of the ‘brain’ and that of the ‘fist.’ What appears to be profit, he seemed to argue, was in fact merely a superior wage paid as a reward for the capitalist’s greater inventiveness. Property, in this context was simply an accumulation of wages. While such a notion of profit harked back to the genesis of economic ideology and was no doubt primitive from the perspective of both mature Marxist and bourgeois economics, it nevertheless underscored Hitler’s tendency to regard all Germans (including himself) as workers, even if their work was not equally productive. The concept of profit as a superior wage was thus tied to a notion of work that neither communism nor capitalism apparently possessed.

    “In the third place, Hitler believed, neither capitalism nor communism had a coherent vision of political economy in the broadest connotation of the term. In a real sense, Hitler’s critique of Weimar was that it suffered from a profound disjunction of the political and the economic spheres. The republic was insufficiently integrated. Within this context, both Weimar communism and capitalism were merely ‘partial’ weltanschauungen which bifurcated the German people along transnational (and thus unnatural) class lines. The capitalist had more in common with a foreign capitalist than with a domestic worker, while the worker had more in common with a foreign worker than with a domestic capitalist. . . .”

    I think that much of Hitler’s critique of capitalism and communism remains relevant. In this and many other things, Hitler was right.

    • Alois Walken
      December 1, 2015 at 10:23 pm — Reply

      Thank you for the post, it is interesting to read about Hitler’s possible thoughts on economy and labor. It really makes me think. His idea sounds very natural and common sense like despite the fact few people really understand it that way.

      • Anthony Collins
        December 2, 2015 at 9:08 am — Reply

        It’s not quite correct to say that Hitler’s ideas on economics are common sense, but they’re certainly good sense. If good sense is to become common sense, the power of the Jews will have to be broken.

        There’s no logical reason why socialism should be committed to the egalitarianism, environmentalism, internationalism, totalitarianism, and utopianism of Marxist socialism. None of these things need to be defining features of socialism. One shouldn’t conflate the characteristics of Marxist socialism with socialism in general or with all forms of socialism.

        In the broadest sense, socialism means that the common good takes precedence over self-interest. But what is the common good? Answering this question requires defining a community of reference and values of reference with which to define what is common and what is good. National Socialism defined the common good, not with reference to the international proletariat, but to the German Volk. One can immediately see how this definition of the common good allowed National Socialism to unite the political and the economic, the national and the social, in ways that Marxist socialism never could. The socialism of a united nation has obvious political and economic advantages over the socialism of a subaltern class waging a class war both nationally and internationally. War and anarchy is politically poisonous and economically ruinous.

        In my previous comment, I should have perhaps quoted the following from Birken’s Hitler as Philosophe (pp. 73, 73-74, 74, 75):

        “According to the radically anti-Semitic theory outlined in Mein Kampf, the Jewish people never possessed the essentially human capacity for creative work. Remember that Hitler regarded labor as a fusion of the individual and the social principle, a fusion best realized among the Aryans but necessary to all peoples if they were to survive.”

        “For Hitler, then, the very existence of the Jew seemed to violate the fundamental laws of nature as he described them. How could an essentially individualistic crowd come together to form a people which if not a genuine race-in-itself was clearly a race-for-itself? The answer, Hitler believed, was that the Jews were a kind of vampire. From that standpoint, which awarded race value on the basis of national creativity, the Jews appeared to have zero race value. Unable to exploit a specific territory by working, they should have disappeared . . . But somehow, Hitler believed, the Jews short-circuited nature and escaped the cycle of creative work by injecting themselves into the social body of productive peoples everywhere. Like a fungus, which takes root in a chance crack in the skin, the Jews took root in social fissures and began to exploit them.”

        “From Hitler’s standpoint . . . the Jews were a ghost people who artificially and vampiristically lived off the economy — and the libido — of living states. Utterly devoid of either race or personality values, the Jewish people exhibited no creativity except the creativity to devise ways to live off others. Without a territory of their own, they injected themselves into the territories of other people. They were both everywhere and nowhere. Thus, Hitler claimed, the Jews developed ideologies like Marxism which concealed their real nature and thus made it easier for them to gain control of the host peoples whose productive forces they exploited. The Jews created, in other words, a kind of ‘false consciousness’ which deceived peoples into acting against their national self-interest. This the Jew did ‘not only’ by ‘divorcing the social idea from the national, but’ by ‘actually representing them as utterly contradictory’ when in fact they were identical.”

        “In Hitlerism, the Jews were not a creative but an essentially sterile and somehow unnatural force. But this very fact allowed Hitler . . . to be essentially optimistic. If he expressed the sentiment that ‘a people that is rid of its Jews returns spontaneously to the natural order,’ it was precisely because he regarded them as a perversion rather than a part of nature. To say that the Jews inspired both communism and capitalism was therefore to damn both ideologies (and the sexual, racial and economic policies linked to them) as unnatural. For Hitler, national socialism was natural socialism.”

        In a Judaized world, an authentic socialism must be anti-Jewish.

        • Alois Walken
          December 2, 2015 at 12:25 pm — Reply

          Very thought provoking. I suppose what I meant by “common” sense was to say that, for instance, you learned something you did not know but then thought about it and realized how naturally and how easily it settles within the brain. Thus, uncommon common sense (if I had to term it).

          But still, while there is certainly a bias against Hitler in the writing, it still educates and gives a fairly clear and easy to understand picture of Hitlerism (should Hitlerism be separated from Nazism or National Socialism).

          The lyrics of the German song of the era, “When all become Untrue”(or disloyal, as an alternate translation) “We are returning to the origin of love and peace” really resonates with the idea that National Socialism is based not on abstract man-made ideas but rather on fundamental principles held dearly to Europeans and some Asians since the time of savages and cavemen. In other words, it is a construct based around something already in existence (nature) versus around a concept (abstract or “divine”).

          • Anthony Collins
            December 3, 2015 at 8:19 am

            Perhaps you’re using “common sense” to refer to things that are or can become “second nature” — a “second nature” in the sense that these things are compatible with one’s nature, are created through the cultivation of one’s nature, and are an outgrowth of one’s nature.

            Culture may be regarded as an artifice of nature, the means by which man gives form to his nature. Culture can be native or foreign, natural or unnatural, genuine or simulated. Blacks can’t bear what Lothrop Stoddard called “the burden of civilization,” and Jews can’t tolerate what John Murray Cuddihy called “the ordeal of civility.”

            The social organicism that one finds in Indo-European tripartition (as described by Georges Dumézil and Jean Haudry), in hierarchic harmony (as described by Kevin MacDonald), and in national socialism (not only that of Hitler’s National Socialism, but also that of other movements) seems to be a characteristic of White culture from prehistoric times to the modern era. It may thus be the case that “national socialism is natural socialism.”

            I believe that Michael Walsh once wrote a short work on National Socialist Germany titled “Witness to History” which had the nice subtitle: “When the Blindfold Drops the Penny Does Too.” When one’s mind isn’t bound by Jewish values, dogmas, taboos, and superstitions, one can freely exercise one’s faculties of will, imagination, and reason. One can exercise and strengthen one’s powers of observation and ratiocination. One can see and engage with reality as it really is. One can exercise the rationality and creativity which is native to the White mind and foreign to the Jewish mind. And one can be true to oneself and one’s people.

        • Alois Walken
          December 3, 2015 at 1:31 pm — Reply

          Nicely said. That is what I meant, though put in more eloquent words.

          I have noticed a very simple pattern when learning: if it is natural, it comes easily and rests easily. If it is abstract, it comes difficult but rests fairly easily. If it is unnatural but not abstract, it comes easily but rests poorly. If is unnatural and abstract, it comes very difficult and does not rest at all. In this way a person could read the world.

          Native customs (like table manners or automatically saying “God Bless You” when sneezing, etc) are almost innate in that they coincide very well with personal nature and are more like physical habits than learned ideas. Native inventions, like cars and how to tune them, may be hard to figure out but once learned they become easy to use. Similar things can be said about ideology: although abstract (and thus difficult to learn) they can be either easy to retain/use (like “natural socialism”) or very difficult (like Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.). However sometimes the idea is polar to your own and therefore totally incompatible (like African savagery}

          In spite of the difficulty in learning and retaining foreign or alien ideals and concepts, some are grounded in roots similar to our own. For example: Shintoist Japanese believe in channeling anger for warfare and justice (exploiting the anger we humans are capable of for a practical field), while simultaneously encouraging strict manners and good behavior (by our standards). The latter, though aesthetically different, is fundamentally similar in both purpose and effect to our own beliefs, making it possible to retain their concepts for our use despite the difficulty inherent in learning such a distant idea.

          However, some alien ideas are grown from similar roots but made to exploit others’,like Jewish-pushed corruption and convoluted banking, though both built on Jewish nature and abstract thinking on their–and some of our—part, it is made to exploit our own nature–be it primal or emotional–and thus drive us their way without our really knowing it. That is also how any culture can dominate another: by taking advantage of common roots and appealing to them in order to trigger a natural conversion against their own native ideals. However, this can eventually lead to a total 180* turn from what is naturally right. For example, accepting and civilizing African savages and mix breeding. While there are “good” Blacks by our standards, the mean and norm is far more violent and cruel than the average White can ever be, thus providing an abstract answer as to why our natures prevent us from naturally wanting to cross-breed (and thus requiring us to be “eased in” to the process).

          Last, while “cultural takeovers” can result in the weakening and fall of “good cultures” (i.e., ours and ones like ours) it can also be used to weaken and defeat “bad cultures” (and thus enforce a gradual natural selection state where the inhabitants would be pressured to be with those that think and act like the superior culture’s, thus converting them slowly but surely one generation at a time).

          An easy example is the founding of the united Chinese Empire. China is made up of at least 10 recognized native races and further subdivided into 100’s of nations. China’s most numerous race (Han Chinese) is the one we refer to as “normal Chinese”. The Han (referring to the race not the Empire) grew from the Yellow River and eventually became the most numerous race on the planet, similar to how the Aryans grew from Northern Europe and eventually became what we now call “Europeans” or Whites. The Han slowly but surely passed their ideals and genes onto their neighbors until eventually their native population covered nearly 1/3 of modern China. From there they engulfed more peoples and either forcefully or voluntarily had them assimilate, more quickly converting them to the Han. Eventually as the present climate came around only 9 races (such as Manchurians and Mongolians) remained that were unable to be assimilated due either to their radical genetic differences or national/ideological strength. However, most of them call themselves Chinese, thus implying they are accepting their slow conversion to the modern Han.

          However, the peoples the Han integrated were not very different from themselves (fundamentally genetically), thus making the racial transformation easy and “safe”. If we tried that with Africa it would not end the same way, unless we took a very very small amount of them and breed them in over the course of 1000’s of years. Even then we’d only have a small part of Africa. And the people who bred with the “initiates” and “mixeds” would carry a very minute amount of African that would make them conceivably a different race than us, though very similar. While this example is far more radical than the case study with the Han, the formation of modern Spaniards, Ukrainians, Anglo-Saxons etc. worked out very similarly.

  3. George Wright
    December 1, 2015 at 5:27 pm — Reply

    This is undoubtedly one of Dr. Pierces’ best writings. I am very grateful to see someone accurately explain the “Socialist” part of the National Socialist ideology. This is something that our enemies frequently misrepresent to vilify Hitler, along with views on private ownership of firearms and a myriad of other issues.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.