Pierce v Koehl: an original document

Posted by RF on October 10, 2009, 03:33 PM | #

please reload pages 10,11,12

Posted by Guessedworker on October 10, 2009, 04:15 PM | #

Sorry, RF.  Now you can see that Pierce really did sign off with a paint-myself-into-the-corner “Heil Hitler”!

Posted by jamesUK on October 10, 2009, 05:18 PM | #

I see you have Subverted Nation as a hyper-link on you site.

When I tried to post a comment on there site on article about Russia in the controlled dissent section refuting what he said with facts hoping to get it published and get a responce he deleted my comment and banned me from publishing any more comments.

Subverted Nation IS controlled dissent.

Posted by Captainchaos on October 10, 2009, 06:01 PM | #

I too think that Pierce’s attachment to National Socialist ideology was short sighted.  The only requirement of movement members should be that they are pro-White, which in effect means they are for preserving our race genetically; a subset of which could be ethnic nationalism, which means they are committed to preserving their ethny genetically - and practically that entails a broader concern for the rest of their race.  If beliefs and actions of a pro-White individual do not damage the goal of racial and ethnic preservation, they should be left alone.  In the hyper-individualized context we find ourselves, this is all the more essential.  That also implies tolerance for those with National Socialist convictions, though not necessarily the costumed affectations, which are clearly counterproductive.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 10, 2009, 06:33 PM | #

I don’t really understand his attachment to Hitler, National Socialism, National Socialist imagery and aesthetics, and other anachronisms. Pierce, Koehl et al. weren’t stupid men. It might have been a case of intellectual laziness, instead of coming up with something uniquely American and suited for the times and targeted audience, German National Socialism was an off the shelf ideology with a certain cachet that worked [albeit in Germany in the ‘30’s].

Well, it’s very unfortunate that they stuck to a counterproductive dead-end approach. Pierce’s radio broadcasts and writings, however, continue to be relevant and interesting.

http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/

Posted by RF on October 10, 2009, 08:52 PM | #

OK guys, Pierce was pretty much denigrated in Deguello report. Anybody here with knowledge about that report? Any idea who was behind it? And was there any follow up?

Posted by jamesUK on October 10, 2009, 09:57 PM | #

Attachment or use of NS iconography or symbols is doomed from the start. The immediate connection is to Neo-Nazis with low IQ’s at least the foot soldiers skinheads who hate every non-white. 

Peirce was also into pre-Christian ideas like paganism with I think like other WN thinks Christian teaching were race is not a factor is partially responsible for the egalitarianism in society. Not true of course.

Aren’t Jews white and main stream WN activists like Jarod Taylor aligning themselves with Jews? In the future they will be the leaders of the WN movement just like they were the conservative movement.

As I said before CaptainChaos will be coming on this site praising Israel and Jews leaders of the WN movement.

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/040209/njScholarEuropesRight.html

Rothschild’s choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLTOjQSkGDQ

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 10, 2009, 11:31 PM | #

“Aren’t Jews white [...]?”  (—JamesUK)

If “white” means European, no.  (If it means Caucasian, yes.) 

In the plot at the following link, which shows the result of analysis of “a few hundred genetic markers” in several thousand volunteers, European Jews are pink and Europeans red:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o6vigEr23C4/R5V5asoshKI/AAAAAAAAAC8/vsc_CUNeWiE/s1600-h/10.1371_journal.pgen.0030236.g002-M.jpg .

As is seen at a glance, European Jews and Europeans are not genetically the same. 

(Hat tip Sherwood Smith, http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/10/08/into-the-light/#comment-20422 )

Ted Sallis, in a piece published today in The Occidental Observer, also asserts that European Jews and Europeans are not genetically the same: 

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sallis-Cuckholdry.html .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 10, 2009, 11:39 PM | #

Here’s the Professor Steve Hsu log entry linked by Sherwood Smith at Proze’s (see my comment above):

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html .

Here, by the way, is Prof. Hsu’s discussion of Lewontin’s Fallacy:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/11/human-genetic-variation-fst-and.html .

Posted by Captainchaos on October 11, 2009, 12:41 AM | #

As I said before CaptainChaos will be coming on this site praising Israel and Jews leaders of the WN movement.

Nope, I’ll convert to Islam.  I don’t get it JUK, if you’re going to get the grief of being an anti-Semite, why not get the gravy of being a racist?

Posted by Nordmacht on October 11, 2009, 09:28 AM | #

And here again the insane coat-turner F.W. Braun (brown eyed bastard) denigrating the NS ideology which he fanwanked to just a mere year back. What a nutter. He belongs in the Phora.

Posted by James Bowery on October 11, 2009, 11:50 AM | #

Pierce seemed oblivious to Hitler’s meddling in military decisions that may well have led to Germany’s defeat in WW II.  He talks about letting men of integrity and demonstrated competence have a free reign in their areas of responsibility, and then says that Germany’s example of giving central authority to Hitler cannot be followed because Hitler was such an exceptional leader.  Indeed, Hitler’s descent from Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1939 to the most hated and reviled man in the West really cannot be entirely attributed to Jewry’s previously-declared war (of propaganda) against Germany.  Power does corrupt, and it corrupted Hitler.

This, more than anything else, is what made Americans prone to see Hitler as an enemy:  The long history of American conflict not just with hereditary monarchy, but with monarchy even if only “for life”.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 11, 2009, 02:07 PM | #

Indeed, Hitler’s descent from Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1939 to the most hated and reviled man in the West really cannot be entirely attributed to Jewry’s previously-declared war (of propaganda) against Germany.  Power does corrupt, and it corrupted Hitler.

The revulsion was quite evident in popular opinion even before the war.

JEWISH QUESTION

1. (US Jan ‘36) Do you believe that in the long run Germany will be better or worse off if it drives out the Jews? (for)
  Better   Worse   Don’t know
National total   14.0%    54.6%    31.4%
by geographical section
Northeast   15.1%    52.7%    32.2%
Midwest   16.1   55.1   28.8
Southeast   7.5   60.0   32.5
Southwest   14.7   52.4   32.9
West   9.8   41.0   49.2
Pacific coast   14.3   61.1   24.6

2. (US Feb 8 ‘37) Would you vote for a Jew for President who was well qualified for the position? ( aipo)

Yes 49% No 51% = 100% No opinion 9%

3. (US Aug 2 ‘37 and Mar 8 ‘39) Do you think anti-Jewish feeling is increasing or decreasing in this country? ( aipo)
  Increasing   Decreasing   No change       No opinion  
US Aug ‘37   38%    30%    32%    = 100%    23%   
US Mar ‘39   45   17   16       22   = 100%
Britain July ‘39   21   10   45   24   = 100
Britain Nov ‘40   22   12   34   32   = 100
Britain Jan ‘42   19   11   44   26   = 100
Britain Jan ‘43   25   16   43   16   = 100

4. (US Apr 27 ‘38) Do you think the persecution of the Jews in Europe has been their own fault? ( aipo)
Not at all   31%
Entirely   10
Partly   48
No opinion and no answer.    11

8. ( Great Britain Nov ‘38) Do you think the persecution of Jews in Germany is an obstacle to good understanding between Britain and Germany? ( bipo)

Yes 73% No 15% No opinion 12%

9. (US Nov 22 ‘38) Do you approve or disapprove of the Nazis’ treatment of Jews in Germany? ( aipo)
  Approve   Dis-
approve       No
opinion
National total   6%    94%    = 100%    7%
by religion
Catholic   7%    93%   
Protestant   5   95  

10. (US Nov 22 ‘38) Do you approve of the temporary withdrawal from Germany of the American ambassador as a protest against the Nazis’ treatment of Jews and Catholics? ( aipo)

Yes 72% No 28% = 100% No opinion 21%

Source: Public Opinion, 1935-1946

Book by Hadley Cantril, Mildred Strunk; Princeton University Press, 1951

Posted by jamesUK on October 11, 2009, 03:43 PM | #

@Captainchaos

Because non-coloured people are no real threat besides we are about to genocide them anyway through zero industry de-population growth under the guise of combating global warming like we did or should I say the US did in Mexico.

Why convert to Islam? Islam is a mass mind control cult like Communism to control the dumb masses.

Why not convert to Christ and do what Brother Nathanial does and stick it to the Jews? 

The best commentators on Jewish subversion are usually Catholic Michael Hoffman, E. Michael Jones, etc.

Trust me CC in 3 years time if you’re still commenting on this blog you will be praising right wing Jews Neocons and dissing liberal ones were jews willl be in the leadership position of white nationalist organisations like they were with black ones during the civil rights movement.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 11, 2009, 04:00 PM | #

This, more than anything else, is what made Americans prone to see Hitler as an enemy:  The long history of American conflict not just with hereditary monarchy, but with monarchy even if only “for life”.

Yeah? “...a Gallop Poll of United States voters in 1930 showed that they considered Il Duce the most brilliant and desirable statesman on Earth.”

http://www.third-reich-books.com/x-566-hitler-bungling-amateur-or-military-genius.htm

Posted by James Bowery on October 11, 2009, 04:26 PM | #

Desmond, that result on the Southeast is interesting given the subsequent role of Jews in the Civil Rights movement.

FB, that’s an interesting statistic, but it most certainly didn’t last:  A mile wide and an inch deep.  One wonders how much the crash of 1929 and the Italian “trains running on time”, had to do with it.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 11, 2009, 04:36 PM | #

JB, you’re speculating and romanticizing American history. The U.S. racialist republic certainly didn’t start as a mass democracy. To the contrary, the Founders were horrified at the thought and wouldn’t believe how far from their intentions things have turned out. Two factors were responsible for American feelings toward Hitler: Jews and Brits. And even with their agitation, 80% of the population wanted to stay out of Europe.

Posted by cladrastis on October 11, 2009, 06:01 PM | #

Why worry about the revolution?  The whole earth is in revolution.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 11, 2009, 07:31 PM | #

Friedrich Braun,

Two factors were responsible for American feelings toward Hitler: Jews and Brits.

I’m not sure one can eliminate from consideration the Germans themselves, given the American attachment to the liberal individualist cause.  What impact on American public opinion would Organisation Todt, say, or The Night of the Long Knives have had?

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 11, 2009, 08:02 PM | #

(US Oct 1 ‘38) If you absolutely had to decide which dictator you liked best, Mussolini, Stalin, or Hitler, which would you choose? ( aipo)
Mussolini   53%
Stalin   34
Hitler   13
  __________
  100%
None and no opinion   21%

(US June 29 ‘39) Which European political leader, now alive, do you like best? Least? Two comparable cross-sections were used. One was shown a card with a list of names, the other was not. Results were combined. ( aipo)
Best   Least
Chamberlain   27%    Hitler   70%
Eden   13   Mussolini   9
Daladier   4   Stalin   6
Mussolini   3   Chamberlain   2
Hitler   2   Franco   1
Others   11   All others   1
No opinion   40   No answer   11

Italian fascism was very popular in Ontario and Quebec. Some called it as Canadian as the maple leaf and fish and chips that is until Mussolini changed his opinion about a particular ethnic group.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QrdOR_lDbsgC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=r.b.+bennett+fascism+mussolini&source=bl&ots=hczDOBTgUh&sig=MKGBwWEZQH6Kmn32qRJ2_divDZ4&hl=en#v=onepage&q=r.b benne.tt fascism mussolini&f=false

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 11, 2009, 08:52 PM | #

US public opinion opposed Hitler’s actions, but it, by no means, meant they wanted war.

  1. (US Sept 23 ‘38) Do you think England and France made a mistake in agreeing to Germany’s demands on Czechoslovakia? ( aipo) Yes 52% No 30% No opinion 18%

  2. ( Great Britain Oct ‘38) Hitler says he has “no more territorial ambitions in Europe.” Do you. believe him? ( bipo)
  Yes No
  7% 93%
  (Sept 17 ‘38) 8 92

  3. (US Oct 1 ‘38) Do you think that Germany’s demand for the annexation of the Sudeten German areas in Czechoslovakia was justified? ( aipo) Yes 23% No 77%

  4. (US Oct 1 ‘38) Do you believe that England and France did the best thing in giving in to Germany instead of going to war over the Sudeten German areas? ( aipo) Yes 59% No 41%

  5. (US Aug 17 ‘39) Would you like to see England, France, and Poland agree to Germany’s demands regarding Danzig? ( aipo) Yes 12% No 88%

  6. (US Aug 17 ‘39) Do you think Hitler’s claims to Danzig are justified? ( aipo) Yes 13% No 87%

  7. (US Aug 17 ‘39) Do you think Hitler’s claims to the Polish Corridor are justified? ( aipo) Yes 14% No 86%

  8. (US Sept 11 ‘39) If Hitler offered to make peace in exchange for part of Poland, should England and France accept? ( aipo) Yes 16% No 73% No opinion 11%

  9. (US Sept 11 ‘39) If Hitler offered to make peace in exchange for all of Poland, should England and France accept? ( aipo) Yes 12% No 76% No opinion 12%

  10. (US Oct 3 ‘39) Hitler says that the Polish question is settled and England and France have no reason to continue the war with Germany. Do you agree? A comparable crosssection was asked: The German government says that the Polish question is settled and England and France have no reason to continue the war with Germany. Do you agree? Results were combined. ( aipo) Yes 14% No 86% = 100% Don’t know 13%

  11. (US Oct 10 ‘39) Hitler says that because the Polish question has been settled, the British and French have no real reason for continuing the war. Do you agree or disagree? ( aipo) Agree 9% Disagree 79% No opinion 12%

  12. (US Feb 20 ‘40) If peace could be reached by letting Germany keep Poland, would you favor this? ( aipo) Yes 30% No 70%

  13. (US Feb 20 ‘40) If peace could be reached by letting Germany keep Czechoslovakia, would you favor this? ( aipo) Yes 38% No 62%

  14. (US Feb 20 ‘40) If peace could be reached by letting Germany keep Poland and Czechoslovakia, would you favor this? ( aipo) Yes 19% No 81% = 100% No opinion 17%

  15. (US Apr 9 ‘40) Do you think Germany was justified in marching into Denmark and Norway and Sweden? ( aipo) Yes 7% No 93% = 100% No opinion 7%

  16. (US Apr 9 ‘40) Should the United States do anything about Germany marching into Norway and Denmark? ( aipo) Yes 21% No 79% No opinion 9%

  What [should the United States do about Germany marching into Norway and Denmark]? Asked of the 21% of the sample who thought we should do something about it. Fight Germany 3.7% Should not fight Germany 96.3%

Source:
Public Opinion, 1935-1946

Posted by Islam Has Backbone on October 11, 2009, 08:52 PM | #

jamesUK asks, “Why convert to Islam?”

Why not indeed?  Christianity has certainly let us down.  We need to be on the lookout for a brand of Islam that allows pork chops & bacon, of course, but Islam might free us to speak up.  And Arab Muslims have a better knowledge of their Semitic cousins than we have managed to acquire in 200 years.

Somehow, white American boys are killing Afghans halfway around the world, and dying for no earthly reason in southwest Asia and south-central Asia.  We don’t need boots bleeding and dying on the Asian stony ground.  Even that old oversexed rogue, Bill Clinton, didn’t send boots to Serbia.

Get our young men and women out of Europe, Asia, and Africa.  If we were Muslim, it would be easy.

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 11, 2009, 09:22 PM | #

Except in the South. 

  38. (US Oct 3 ‘39) If it appears that Germany is defeating England and France, should the United States declare war on Germany and send our army and navy to Europe to fight? ( aipo)
  Yes No
  National total 29% 71%
  by geographical section
  New England 33% 67%
  Middle Atlantic 27 73
  East central 25 75
  West central 26 74
  South 47 53
  West 28 72
  (Jan 30 ‘40) National
  total 23% 77%

  68. (US June 25 ‘40) Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do—to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war? A comparable cross-section was asked the question with the alternatives reversed. Results were combined. ( aipo)
  Keep
  out Help
  England
  National total 64% 36%
  (July 20 ‘40) (opor) 61 39
  (Aug 22 ‘40) ( aipo) 53 47
  (Sept 30 ‘40) ( aipo)
  National total 48% 52%
  by geographical section
  New England and Middle At-
  lantic 48% 52%
  East central 52 48
  West central 57 43
  South 30 70
  West 46 54
  (Oct 22 ‘40) ( aipo) Na-
  tional total 50% 50%
  Keep
  out Help
  England No
  choice
  (Nov 19 ‘40) ( aipo)
  National total 40% 60% = 100% 2%
  by geographical section
  New England and Middle
  Atlantic 38% 62%
  East central 46 54
  West central 46 54
  South 25 75
  West 35 65

Public Opinion, 1935-1946
Book by Hadley Cantril, Mildred Strunk; Princeton University Press, 1951

Posted by Desmond Jones on October 11, 2009, 09:35 PM | #

An Atypical Tar Heel Politician and Isolationist

A most atypical southern politician and U. S. Senator from 1933 to 1945, Robert Rice Reynolds was an unabashed isolationist and Anglophobe, whose foreign policy positions, not economic ones, alienated him from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Reynolds’s notorious womanizing and five marriages, opposition to Prohibition, flamboyant actions, and non-racist demagoguery set him apart from the straight-laced, Tar Heel politicians, who supported FDR’s aid-to-Britain policies. [...]

During his senatorial career, Reynolds advocated strict limits on immigration, the registration of all aliens, and the deportation of alien criminals.  In particular, the nativist Reynolds deemed most aliens as a threat to American security, values, and jobs, so he co-authored the Reynolds-Starnes Bill (1936) that called for cutting immigration quotas by 90%.

An advocate of “Fortress America,” Reynolds supported a strong national defense, naval expansion, and increases in the size of the army and air force.  But like most progressive isolationists, he adamantly opposed Roosevelt’s efforts to revise the Neutrality Acts.  Reynolds and Senator John Overton (La.) were the only southern senators to vote against repeal of the arms embargo.  After handily winning reelection in 1938 and gaining a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Reynolds—now less dependent on a president who had thwarted his patronage preferences—publicly split with FDR on foreign policy.  Challenging Roosevelt’s claim that Adolph Hitler threatened American security, Reynolds compared the Fuehrer’s conquests to earlier American and British territorial expansion.  Accusing the president of leading the nation into war, he denounced the “destroyer deal” and was the only southern senator to vote against the Lend-Lease Act (1941) and most of FDR’s aid-to-Britain measures.  At the request of Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, Reynolds, now chairman of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, introduced and held hearings on the extension of the Burke-Wadsworth Act—the nation’s first peacetime draft.  He unsurprisingly voted against it.
 
A genuine believer in democracy, Reynolds’s controversial remarks were neverthless perceived by many as pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic.  Even his legislation banning Nazi and Communist parties failed to rehabilitate his reputation, for his anti-immigrant proposals coincided with Jews fleeing Nazi persecution.  Although an admirer of isolationist Charles A. Lindbergh and his America First Committee, Reynolds avoided affiliating with the nation’s leading noninterventionist organization because of its unpopularity in North Carolina.  The senator even discouraged the organization from polling Tar Heels concerning a war declaration against Germany, for he feared it might reveal pro-war sentiment.

His professional associations undoubtedly prompted perceptive criticisms of an underlying anti-Semitism.  In January 1939, Reynolds formed the Vindicators Association, an ultra-nationalist, isolationist, nativist, anti-Semitic, and anti-communist organization which published American Vindicator to spread his opinions.  Reynolds’s association with American Nazis, fascists, and anti-Semitic demagogues, including Gerald L. K. Smith and Fr. Charles E. Coughlin, revived accusations that he was pro-Nazi.  But Nazi agents and propagandists, such as George Sylvester Viereck, had genuinely deceived Reynolds and other isolationist senators, when they inserted anti-British and anti-Semitic press releases into the Congressional Record and disseminated them via his franking privileges.  Also, Fritz Kuhn, leader of the pro-Nazi German-American Bund, and Asheville’s leading fascist, William Dudley Pelley, and his Silver Shirts, endorsed many of Reynold’s pronouncements regarding the war; copies of American Vindicator were even sold at Bund rallies.

Most North Carolinians held views that embraced aid-short-of-war as Britain’s situation became more desperate.  A bastion of pro-military sentiment, North Carolina sent 361,000 of its citizens into the armed services and more soldiers were trained at its numerous military bases than in any other state.  No doubt as a result, the state benefited enormously from defense spending.  North Carolina businesses and farmers were awarded a fifth of all government defense contracts.

Reynolds initially blamed London, not Tokyo, for the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor.  However, much like his fellow isolationist senators, he later voted for war against the Axis powers.  After Pearl Harbor, Reynolds dissolved the Vindicators Association and renamed his nativist newspaper, which advocated national unity, the purchase of war bonds, a ban on strikes, the registration of labor unions, the relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans, and the renewal of Lend-Lease.

Due to his unpopularity at home, Reynolds decided not to seek reelection in 1944.  Instead, he became national chairman of the neo-isolationist, nativist, and anti-communist American Nationalist Committee of Independent Voters, out of which came his short-lived Nationalist Party in 1945.  During his last year in the Senate, Reynolds presciently warned of Soviet expansionism and voted against peacetime conscription, higher taxes, and America’s entry into the United Nations.

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/108/entry

Posted by jamesUK on October 11, 2009, 09:44 PM | #

@Islam Has Backbone

Islam is a Jewish control machanism like Communism both socialist in structure.

That why international Jewry supports every Islamic seperatist/terrorist movement across the world and are fervently in support of independent Muslim states worldwide with links to international organised crime and Islamic terrorism even 9/11 and extensive links to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian VEVAK yet don’t support an independent state in Palestine.

What about Orthodox Christianity?

Posted by Al Ross on October 12, 2009, 03:09 AM | #

Perhaps Dr Pierce admired National Socialism not simply because it was German but because it was beneficial, in the same way as many people enthuse about golf and Scotch Whisky, not because they are Scottish but because they are superb.

Posted by RF on October 12, 2009, 05:48 AM | #

good point, Al Ross,
if we are to survive and further evolve, adopting a certain form of NS, not necessary gitlerian, is crucial

Posted by James Bowery on October 12, 2009, 05:15 PM | #

FB writes: JB, you’re speculating and romanticizing American history. The U.S. racialist republic certainly didn’t start as a mass democracy. To the contrary, the Founders were horrified at the thought and wouldn’t believe how far from their intentions things have turned out.

You’re talking to the guy who got introduced and very nearly passed a resolution to repeal the 17th Amendment in the Washington State Republican Party Platform Committee.

For the ignorant who might be swayed by FB’s false dilemma between dictatorship and “democracy”:

A Republic is democratic but it is not a democracy.

Indeed, I’ve been trying to get the Constitutionalists to pay more attention to the original intent of the Electoral College.  Do you know what that was, FB?

Posted by White Advocate on October 16, 2009, 10:36 AM | #

This is a very fascinating piece of history.  What I would really like to see as a followup, if any one can provide it, would be a fascimile of the next major letter that Pierce sent out, which was his fall 1970 letter, sent out to the Willis Carto mailing list, announcing the reformation of the National Youth Alliance under his leadership.  I would love it if someone could post this.