Tuesday, June 28, 2011

In Defense of Hitler and his National-Socialism

From "Letters to Editor," National Vanguard No. 103, Jan.-Feb. 1985:

“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?

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-capitalists 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.—


  1. That is a thoughtful explanation by Dr. Pierce of national-socialism from 1985. He fleshed out this thinking on the subject for his National Alliance members in the 143-page 1993 Membership Handbook, under RECRUITING TIPS:

    4.g.v.10. Nazis and neo-Nazis:
    Inevitably, every member who engages in public activity, so that he is recognized publicly as a member, will be asked, “Are you a Nazi?” or, “Are you a neo-Nazi?” just as the National Alliance is routinely described in the controlled news media as a “Nazi (or neo-Nazi) organization.” (For those who make the distinction, the difference between “Nazi” and “neo-Nazi” seems to be this: The former term refers only to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its members. The latter term refers to organizations and people who draw their inspiration from the former, from the same sources as the former, but which are too young to have been directly associated with the former. Many people, of course, make no distinction between the two terms.)
    So how does a member answer the question? If he wants to give a meaningful answer, he must know what is in the mind of his interrogator: What is his interrogator’s understanding of “Nazi”? If it’s a Politically Correct bigot (which will be the case for anyone working for the controlled media), or even a typical “couch potato” whose ideas all came from a television tube, we know that he is thinking of sinister-looking men in black uniforms and swastika armbands who like to click their heels together, thrust out their right arms, and shout, “Seig! Heil!” before marching off to gleefully machine-gun a group of prisoners who were arrested for listening to the wrong radio program or failing to have a photograph of the Führer displayed in their living rooms. This mythical “Nazi” is an invention of the Jews who control the mass media, and so the member is perfectly correct in answering, “No, I am not a Nazi and the National Alliance is not a Nazi organization.”
    Suppose, however, that the person asking the question is a potential recruit, someone with an open mind who really wants to understand our beliefs and goals. In this case we are obliged to explore the question more deeply, and in so doing we may have an opportunity to use one of the catchiest ideas of all: the idea of National Socialism.


  2. continued...

    Using this idea requires great care and good judgment. It is an idea which evokes such strong feeling that even some members cannot face it squarely. On the one hand there are those who are embarrassed by it and would be happier if the National Alliance would explicitly disavow it. On the other hand there are those who accept it wholeheartedly but are unable to distinguish between the idea itself and its specific manifestations in Germany between about 1920 and 1945. They are caught up not only in the idea but also in the mystique of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist era in Germany, and there are very real dangers in this. For one thing, many of the latter people make a cult of National Socialism, with an emphasis on symbols, uniforms, insignia, rituals, and the like. The danger in this is that National Socialism becomes a hobby, and hobbyism becomes a substitute for effective action. And if we associate ourselves with the cult of National Socialism, as contrasted with the idea, we are forced to contend with the mythical image created by the Jews, for that will be the image raised in the mind of the average person who comes into contact with us.
    It is largely for this reason that we have the admonitions elsewhere in this handbook against uniforms, quasi-uniforms, and insignia. Breaking through the wall of misunderstanding between us and the White public is a large enough task without raising the specter of made-in-Hollywood “Nazis.” Even if there were no such negative image to overcome—even if the Jews never had made an anti-Nazi film or television show—it would be wrong for The Alliance to associate itself with the cult aspects of National Socialism in Germany prior to 1945. Things that were natural and helped form a positive public image in Germany at that time seem unnatural and alien in many parts of America and other parts of the White world today. For example, party uniforms were the accepted norm in Germany, not just for the National Socialists but also for the Communists, the Catholic Centrists, and other political groupings. They never have been the norm in America.
    It also is wrong, however, for us to shut our minds to the eternal truths embodied in the National Socialist idea: they are the truths on which our own creed is based. It is wrong for us to shut our eyes to the truth about the Second World War, its background, its conduct, the real issues involved, and the real consequences of its loss by our race. And it is wrong for us not to acknowledge the debt our race owes to Adolf Hitler and his followers throughout Europe, despite their apparent defeat in 1945.
    The recruiter who is working with the right sort of potential member—and who himself has an adequate mastery of the subject—can use the National Socialist idea and the mystique associated with its manifestation in Germany as a powerful tool for opening the mind of his prospect to the Alliance message. Again, however, the greatest discretion is required.