William L. Pierce defends National-Socialism against Americanist Qualms

I knew Dr. William Pierce, and I had a great respect for him, but at times I found myself disagreeing with him. Regarding National-Socialism as  formerly practiced in Germany, I find that Dr. Pierce’s view is in some ways correct, but in some ways deficient. 

A letter-writer objected to whatever “socialist” aspect there was in National-Socialism. The word socialism of course has never made a good impression in the United States — nor was Dr. Pierce favorable to it — but in 1920s Germany it was an asset, insofar as the NSDAP managed to recruit many supporters away from the Marxist parties. Hitler himself had been drawn to the Social Democrats before he understood that they were hostile to German  ethnic loyalty. While National-Socialism under Hitler does not entirely fit the textbook definition of socialism (involving government ownership of enterprises), National-Socialist Germany did conduct social programs and economic regulation on a colossal scale. But like George Lincoln Rockwell, Dr. Pierce seems  rather uninterested in National-Socialist economics.

Dr. Pierce’s statement of the probable impact of a German victory on World Jewry is entirely excessive.  It would not have been “the beginning of the end for the Jews everywhere” since Hitler’s intention all along was simply resettlement of Europe’s Jews, preferably far away on the island of Madagascar, which under the peace treaty with France would have been a German protectorate, or, failing that, in some eastern territory carved out of the Soviet Union. At worst the Jews would have had to adopt a way of life different from the parasitic lifestyle to which they were accustomed.

Deprived of its economic component, National-Socialism is reduced to a very common American way of thinking, one  that had great influence in the first half of the  20th century, when interracial marriage was illegal and persons of substandard intelligence were subject to forced sterilization in many states. Forced resettlement of an entire population as a way to solve a social problem is also  an idea that is not alien to the United States.

It was an effect of war-propaganda that the racial idea, which is native to the United States, became primarily associated with Germany, and the subsequent caricaturing of that idea with some alleged intention of killing every Jew is of course a result of propaganda. 

Dr. Pierce is completely correct in stating the centrality of the principle of putting the common interest of our people ahead of individual interest, but effective support of that ethos involves economic modifications that require some rethinking of American assumptions.

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.—

Leave a Reply

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