Jeff Hall, Former National Socialist Movement Candidate, Shot to Death by Stepson

From an article in the Los Angeles Times:

[A] 10-year-old Riverside boy accused in the shooting death of his neo-Nazi activist father gave police a chilling account of how he carried out the early morning attack May 1, officials said in a court document.

The boy — who told authorities he was tired of his father, Jeffrey R. Hall, beating him and his stepmother — grabbed the family’s Rossi .357 revolver from a closet and then “he went downstairs with the gun, pulled the hammer back, aimed the gun at his dad’s ear while he was asleep and shot him,” Riverside Police Det. Greg Rowe wrote in a court declaration filed Tuesday.

Read the full article here.

The unabridged court documents in the case are available here.

NOTE: IPR ran a story previously on Jeffrey R. Hall’s 2010 candidacy under the National Socialist Movement banner.

14 thoughts on “Jeff Hall, Former National Socialist Movement Candidate, Shot to Death by Stepson

  1. Paul

    I object to this being filed under Left. Just because the Nazis are in favor of a command economy does not make them socialists. When Hitler took over the original Nazi party, he decided to keep the word “socialist” in the party name because it was viewed positively at the time, but their economic policies are not socialist at all. They identified themselves as conservative and capitalist, and therefore definitely right-wing by the typical definitions of the term.

  2. Kyle

    I agree with Paul. He makes the correct historical points, which largely apply to the current discourse as well. Furthermore, it seems totally inconsistent with past categorizations on IPR (which I’ve been reading for 3 years. Note that the “past article” was filed under “right-wing minor parties”.

  3. Starchild

    Historically, I think the Nazis *were* more of a left-wing than a right-wing party, and their origins were most certainly leftist — see these links on the origins of fascism, Hitler as a socialist, and the Nazi party program of 1933, respectively:

    However, I think a case can be made that — due to decades of subsequent revisionist history classifying the Nazis as right-wing, and the acceptance of this revisionism by much of the public including neo-Nazis themselves — those calling themselves Nazis or neo-Nazis today are probably more accurately described as right-wing than left-wing.

    Ah, the paradoxes of history.

  4. Marc Montoni

    They were tagged as ‘Socialist/left’ because they are the National Socialist Movement. If they say they are socialist, they are.

    Fascism is simply a variant of socialism.

    Definitions of “socialism” by Merriam-Webster:

    1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

    2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

    Under either or both of these definitions, the German Nazis qualified as socialist/left, as the Reich nationalized numerous industries and controlled almost all others; ditto with the neonazis, who advocate all sorts of state enterprises (such as socialized health care and other activities).

  5. Gene Berkman

    The National Socialist Party in Germany did indeed impose a command economy, as Marc says. Hermann Goering was in charge of the 4 Year Plan Committee, modeled on the Soviet Union’s Gosplan.

    The Nazis were socialists, but more successful than other socialists because they appealed to nationalist sentiments that might be considered “right-wing”.

    The Nazis combined a socialist industrial policy with a commitment to the rural big land-owners, who were anti-capitalist from a pro-feudal point of view, so the Nazis were not really leftist.

    The NSM stresses some of the more socialistic points of Nazism. NSM supports state takeover of industry, along with socialized medicine. The National Socialist Movement that Jeff Hall took part in was explicitly anti-capitalist, but stressed opposition to immigrants and other racial issues as their main selling point.

  6. Jeremy C. Young

    With all due respect to Mr. Montoni, whose comments at IPR I’ve enjoyed for quite some time, @5 is poppycock. It’s as if he’s never seen a Nolan Chart before. Fascism and socialism are both statist philosophies, but Fascism is conservative statism while socialism is leftist statism. Every aspect of National Socialism that doesn’t have to do with the size of the state is conservative.

    Don’t believe me? Try answering the Nolan Chart sometime as if you were Adolf Hitler. I did, and I got a result that was right-of-center statist. It would have been more conservative except that certain aspects of National Socialism, such as exterminating racial minorities and conquering other countries, aren’t reflected in the quiz.

  7. wolfefan

    Hi Marc @5 –
    Is the People’s Republic of China a republic? Are all the agents and clients of Farmer’s Insurance farmers?

  8. wolfefan

    This discussion could actually be an interesting one – how does one define left vs right? The National Socialist movement is left on many economic issues, but right on many other issues. Is a call for strong borders and expulsion of people here illegally a left or a right position? Are left and right solely defined by economic issues? What are the other issues that are considered, and what weight do they get?

  9. NewFederalist

    Perhaps they are centrists? Radical moderates? Reactionary middle-of-the-roaders?

  10. Alan Pyeatt

    Once again, our friends on the left are shocked to hear that fascism is a form of socialism. Of course, they would know this if they had read “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek, which dealt with this subject extensively (and also pointed out, t0o their chagrin, that socialism has the unintended consequence of decreasing freedom, contrary to many socialist’s claims). Hayek, by the way, was a Fabian socialist until he met Ludwig von Mises, the great Austrian School economist.

    That said, I think fascism is actually a right-wing form of socialism. And the Merriam-Webster definition given above isn’t really accurate, either. As Ludwig von Mises pointed out (“Bureaucracy,” “Omnipotent Government,” etc.) ownership of the means of production isn’t the defining issues here. The defining issue of socialism is CONTROL over the means of production. Mises pointed out that the Nazis in Germany had a system that retained a superficial ownership of the means of production in private hands. However, the government regulation of industry resulted in private businesses throughout the economy being controlled by the government, and the owners being reduced to positions comparable to shop managers.

  11. Paul

    The problem with the classification is the failure to distinguish between different aspects of economic policy. Environmentalism, socialism, and capitalism reflect the “factors of production” — that is, whether economic decisions should prioritize land (maximize efficiency of use of resources, protect land from unsustainable use), labor (maximize employment, protect workers from abuse by employers), or capital (maximize profits, protect money and other capital from being wasted). On the other hand, there is a spectrum of command vs. market economies, reflecting the extent to which the economy is planned vs. unplanned or centralized vs. decentralized. Originally, command was on the Right and market was on the Left, but this has since been flipped as far as most people are concerned by the identification between socialism, which tends to favor command, and the Left label due to the revolutionary rhetoric of many in the various socialist movements.

    It’s pretty clear that the Nazis were far toward the command end of the latter classification, since the economy of Nazi Germany was essentially private businesses doing whatever the government told them to do, but they were also more capitalist and even environmentalist than they were socialist, since their policies were geared towards manufacturing military apparatus with what Monty Python might call ruthless efficiency and actively suppressed labor unions and other organizations that would cut into that efficiency by demanding shorter hours, higher wages, negotiation with management, etc. So they could be considered far-Right by the original definition or far-Left by some contemporary definitions, since they were very much for centralized control of the economy. The more I think about it, the more I’d call them neither Left nor Right if both capitalism vs. socialism and command vs. market are taken into account… Check out the estimated position of Hitler on the Political Compass website, for example.

  12. Paul

    That’s exactly the problem. The current definition of Left vs. Right is extremely incoherent. Free speech, however, is (lower-case l) libertarian, as opposed to authoritarian, regardless of how the economy works, so it’s on a totally different axis. This is a common feature of charts that try to show political views in more than one dimension, like the Political Compass ( or the Nolan Chart (

Leave a Reply

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