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

Previous post

Conservatism or Radicalism? A Call for a Spiritual Elite

Next post

Australia: Yet Another White Student Union Formed

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment authors
Thomas PlasterAnthony CollinsGeorge WrightAlois WalkenAnthony Collins Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Arvin N. Prebost
Arvin N. Prebost

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
Alois Walken

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… Read more »

Thomas Plaster
Thomas Plaster

Well said, Arvin. And we need to stop glorifying these remaining WW2 vets. At best they were dupes to jew propaganda. At worst they were murderers who went to Europe and killed their own kind/folk/race. Nothing to be praising. I think some may have thought some of this at the time of the war. I’m sure they were social pariahs if they voiced it.

Anthony Collins
Anthony Collins

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… Read more »

Alois Walken
Alois Walken

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
Anthony Collins

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.… Read more »

Alois Walken
Alois Walken

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… Read more »

Anthony Collins
Anthony Collins

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… Read more »

Alois Walken
Alois Walken

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… Read more »

George Wright
George Wright

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.

Thomas Plaster
Thomas Plaster

An excellent article. Socialism and capitalism, both, have to be very carefully analyzed and considered. Communism and socialism are not one in the same. Capitalism and communism, as we have long been led to believe, are not polar opposites. Some of the biggest practitioners of capitalism (true to its root words) were the communists.

Of course, it figures it was jews who caused this confusion, with their well known and historical habit of saying something and not meaning it, or saying something and meaning the opposite.