William Pierce and a Play by George Bernard Shaw

William Pierce

The only real tragedy in life is being used by personally minded men for purposes you recognize to be base.

All civilization is founded on [man’s] cowardice, on his abject tameness, which he calls his respectability.

Men will never really overcome fear until they imagine they are fighting to further a universal purpose—fighting for an idea.

George Bernard Shaw

In the early part of this century, I published a portrait, as I called it, of the white activist William Pierce, who died shortly thereafter, called The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.   I called the book a portrait rather than a biography because it was basically my sense of Pierce after spending a month living in close contact with him on his remote compound in West Virginia.

Pierce was the most remarkable human being I have ever been around.  He was incredibly intelligent and enormously committed to doing something of lasting worth with his life.   In stark contrast to how his adversaries depicted him, he was a decent and kind person, a gentleman, a gentle man.  I’ve never seen anyone work that hard—ten, twelve, fourteen hour days, seven days a week.  One of Pierce’s prime traits, he took ideas very seriously and lived in accordance with the ones that gave him direction in his life’s project of living an honorable and meaningful existence in the time he had allotted to him on earth (it turned out to be 68 years).   One major source of perspective and guidance for Pierce was a stage play, Man and Superman, by George Bernard Shaw.  The following is an excerpt from the Fame book about that play’s impact on him.

“As an undergraduate in college [at Rice University in Texas],” Pierce told me, “I had a nagging worry about whether I was doing the right thing with my life.  Did I really want to be a physicist, the route I was taking at that time?  What standards best assess the paths in life I might take?   I had an awareness of my mortality from a very early age, and it seemed to me that I shouldn’t waste my life doing things that weren’t truly important.  I didn’t want to be on my deathbed thinking, ‘I’ve blown it; I had one life to live, and I didn’t do what I should have done.’

“When I got to Oregon State as a professor of physics [in 1962], I started to do more general reading—before, with all my science courses, I hadn’t had the time—and gradually things started to take shape about what was important in my life.  It was a process of taking the insights and teachings from what I was reading and refining them and learning how to exemplify them.

“One of the things that helped me find direction was a play I first came upon at Caltech [where he had gotten his doctorate] back in 1955 or so—Man and Superman.  Act three of the play was the one that really struck me.  It expressed the idea that a man shouldn’t hold himself back.  He should completely use himself up in service to the Life Force.  I bought a set of phonograph records that just had that act.  As I remember, it had Charles Laughton, Charles Boyer, Agnes Moorehead, and Cedric Hardwicke—it was well done.

“Don Juan’s expositions were what resonated with me.  I listened to that set of records over and over and let it really sink in.  The idea of an evolutionary universe hit me as being true, with the evolution toward higher and higher states of self-consciousness, and the philosopher’s brain being the tool for the cosmos coming to know itself.  Over time, I elaborated upon this idea—I came to call it Cosmotheism—and discussed it in a series of talks I gave in the 1970s.”

I obtained a copy of Man and Superman and read it.  It was first performed in 1905 in London and has been a theater staple ever since.  Coincidentally, a successful run of the play was about to end in Washington, D.C. at the time I talked to Pierce about it, and I was able to drive over from West Virginia to catch a performance before it closed.

Man and Superman was written by the renowned critic, pundit, and playwright George Bernard Shaw.  Shaw was born in 1856 in Dublin and died in 1950.  Man and Superman is a long play, about three-and-a-half hours.  Often act three is performed as a separate piece and called Don Juan in Hell, and this is what Pierce listened to on the record.

After reading and seeing the play, it became clear what it was about this particular play that so captured Pierce’s imagination at that time in his life.  The central question the play explores is the very one that Pierce was confronting: what is the most important thing to do with one’s life?  And not only was the question relevant to Pierce’s life at that point, the answer Shaw gives to that question in this play had great appeal to him, and that was to give your all to being a “force of nature.”  In prefatory remarks to the published version of the play, Shaw wrote:

This is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; being thoroughly worn out before you are thrown on the scrap heap; being a force of Nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.  The only real tragedy in life is being used by personally minded men for purposes you recognize to be base.

The idea of being worn out in the service of a mighty purpose was exactly what this exceedingly bright young graduate student in California had been looking for.

George Bernard Shaw

In act three of Man and Superman, its central characters have traveled from their homes in London to vacation in an untamed mountainous area of Spain.  There is Jack Tanner (modeled after a young Shaw?); his potential love interest, Ann Whitefield; and Ann’s guardian Roebuck Ramsden.

Immediately upon arriving in Spain, they are pounced upon by bandits whose chief is a man named Mendoza.  Mendoza, it so happens, is a Jew.  Says Mendoza, the role of the gang he leads is to “hold up motor cars and secure a more equitable distribution of wealth.”

Mendoza informs Jack that the band of brigands aims to extract a tidy ransom before allowing them to go on their way.  Jack tells Mendoza that he is amenable to that idea, but it is mutually decided that since it is late in the evening the transfer of funds would best wait until the morning.  They all bed down for the night and fall off to sleep, and Jack has a dream.  Almost all of the rest of the act—or play when it is performed separately—is Jack’s dream.

The setting of Jack’s dream is Hell, and everyone in the dream is a character we have met before in the play but transformed into someone else.  Jack is the fifteenth-century nobleman Don Juan.  Ann is Doña Ana de Ulloa—Ana for short.  Roebuck is a talking statue.  Mendoza is the Devil.

This dream-state setting and cast of characters sets up what is essentially a debate between Don Juan and the Devil about what life ought to be about and which is a better place to be, Don Juan’s version of Heaven or the Devil’s version of Hell.  When the antagonists talk about Heaven and Hell it is clear that they aren’t referring to places or states “up there” or “down there” in an afterlife.  They are using Heaven and Hell as metaphors for ways of being in this life.

Don Juan sets out his case: Hell is the situation here on earth now.  It is the way most people live, and he wants out.  “In Heaven, as I picture it, you live and work instead of playing and pretending.  You face things as they are; you escape nothing but glamour; and your steadfastness and your peril are your glory.”

What will Don Juan do once he gets to Heaven?  A big thing, he will think: “I hope to escape at last from the lies and the tedious, vulgar pursuit of happiness, to spend my eons in contemplation.”  And it is not just any kind of contemplation that will occupy Don Juan’s time in Heaven.  It is contemplation of Life (with a capital “L”), or as it comes to be called as the act proceeds, the Life Force.  Don Juan declares to Mendoza: “Even as you enjoy the contemplation of such romantic mirages as beauty and pleasure, so would I enjoy the contemplation of that which interests me above all things, namely, Life: the force that ever strives to attain greater power of contemplating itself.”  

Don Juan speaks of Life as an entity unto itself, a separate being of sorts.  Life, or the Life Force, this entity, this being, has a monumentally important purpose: to become aware of itself and understand itself, and to realize itself, that is to say, become the finest version of what it truly is.  He refers to Life’s “continual effort not only to maintain itself, but to achieve higher and higher organization and more complete self-consciousness.”  He refers to the full achievement of these ends as the attainment of “godhead.”  As Don Juan sees it, godhead won’t come without a mighty struggle.  Life faces extremely formidable enemies: “the forces of Death and Degeneration.”

Life’s central impulse, Don Juan asserts, is to move toward the creation of a superior kind of human being.   Here Don Juan is expressing an evolutionary, Darwinian concept, man evolving into something higher, more advanced than he is now.  Life, as Don Juan perceives it, is the force that seeks to bring about “higher and higher individuals, the ideal individual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infallible, and withal completely, unilludedly self-conscious: in short, a god.”  He brings race into it as he affirms the “great central purpose of breeding the race; ay, breeding it to heights now deemed superhuman [perhaps an allusion to the ideas of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche].”

Says Don Juan, if the Life Force is going to accomplish its great mission, prevail in its epic struggle, it is going to need help.  “It needs a brain, this irresistible force, lest in its ignorance it should resist itself.”  And later on in the act: “To Life, the force behind the Man, intellect is a necessity, because without it he [the Life Force? man? both?] blunders into death.”

And where is the Life Force going to get the brain it needs? From contemplative people like Don Juan.  That is why he is leaving Hell and going to Heaven in the first place, to establish better contact with the Life Force and discern exactly what it needs in order to become self-conscious and self-realized.

Beyond providing the needed philosopher’s brain, Don Juan also aims to provide the Life Force with brawn to help it stay on course and move forward.  He’s going to do more than think; he is going to act.

Thus Don Juan lauds a certain kind of individual, one who “seeks in contemplation to discover the inner will of the world, in invention to discover the means of fulfilling that will, and in action to do that will by the so-discovered means.”  He holds up the ideal of a person who can see beyond surface events and preoccupations and come to grips with the true purpose of Life, so that he can work toward that end rather than “thwarting it and baffling it by setting up shortsighted personal aims as at present.”

What keeps someone from pursuing this ideal?  According to Don Juan it is a lack of courage and a concern with respectability.  “Man gives every reason for his conduct save one, and that is his cowardice,” he asserts.  “All civilization is founded on his cowardice, on his abject tameness, which he calls his respectability.”

There is a way to overcome these personal limitations, however, and that is to find an idea worth giving one’s life to.  “Men will never really overcome fear until they imagine they are fighting to further a universal purpose—fighting for an idea,” Don Juan declares.  Serving the Life Force is a powerful idea because it enables people to live the life they would lead if they weren’t so afraid and caught up in what others think of them.

The Devil responds to Don Juan’s assertions by declaring that Nature (his term for the Life Force) in fact has no purpose.

You’re wrong, counters Don Juan. The philosopher’s brain is Nature’s pilot helping it get to its destination.  “It is the success with which you have directed the attention of men from their real purpose,” Don Juan accuses the Devil, “which is in one degree or another the same as mine, to yours, that has earned you the name of The Tempter.  It is the fact that they are doing your will, or rather drifting with your want of a will, instead of doing their own, that makes them the uncomfortable, false, restless, artificial, petulant, and wretched creatures they are.”

In place of that negative circumstance, Don Juan offers a positive alternative: an individual with a purpose in life that goes beyond his own individual needs and wants.  Don Juan holds up the ideal of someone who devotes his life to serving the Life Force, who supports the Life Force in knowing itself and reaching its destination.

That sounds a bit staid and drab to Ana, who has been listening to the exchange between the two men.  “Is there nothing in Heaven but contemplation, Juan?”

Don Juan replies, “In Heaven I seek no other joy!  There is the work of helping Life in its struggle upward.  Think of how it wastes and scatters itself, how it raises up obstacles to itself and destroys itself in its ignorance and blindness.  As long as I can conceive of something better than myself I cannot be easy until I am striving to bring it into existence or clearing the way for it.  That is the law of my life.  That is the working within me of Life’s incessant aspiration to higher organization, wider, deeper, more intense self-consciousness, and clearer self-understanding.  It was the supremacy of this purpose that reduced love for me to the mere pleasure of a moment, art for me to the mere schooling of my faculties, religion for me to the mere excuse for laziness, since it had set up a god who looked at the world and said it was good, against the instinct in me that looked through my eyes at the world and saw it could be improved.  I tell you that in pursuit of my own pleasure, my own health, my own fortune, I have never known happiness.  It was not love for Woman that delivered me into her hands; it was fatigue, exhaustion.”

This last sentence in Don Juan’s speech hints at the notion that women get in the way of what a man has to do in life.  It is a coolness toward women that shows up several places in this act of Shaw’s play.  One example, “I turned my back on the romantic man with the artist nature.  I told him that his beauty worshipping and happiness hunting and woman idealizing was not worth a dump as a philosophy of life.”  Another example, Don Juan talks about how “romantic men” had led him “into the worship of Woman.”  And another, he asserts that men are “deluded and mind-bended towards honorable love as the highest good, and to understand by honorable love that romance, beauty, and happiness are obtained by the possession of beautiful, refined, delicate, affectionate women.”  At one point, Ana says to Don Juan, “I’m going with you,” to which he replies, “I can find my own way to Heaven, Ana; not yours.”

“I prefer to be my own master, and not the tool of any blundering universal force,” the Devil informs Don Juan.  “I know that beauty is good to look at; that music is good to hear; that love is good to feel; and that they are all good to think about and talk about.  As for your Life force, in the end serving it will lead you to despair and decrepitude, broken nerve and shattered hopes, vain regrets for the worst and silliest of wastes and sacrifices, the waste and sacrifice of the power of enjoyment: in a word, the punishment of the fool who pursues the better before he has secured the good.”

“But at least I won’t be bored,” Don Juan replies. “So fare you well, Señor Satan.”

Don Juan asks the Statue to direct him to Heaven.  The Statue replies that the frontier between Heaven and Hell is only the difference between two ways of looking at things. “Any road will take you across if you really want to get there.”

And off goes Don Juan.

The Devil warns Ana, “Beware of the pursuit of the Superhuman: it leads to an indiscriminate contempt for the Human.”

 “Tell me,” Ana asks the Devil, “where can I find the Superman?”

“He is not yet created,” the Devil answers.

“Not yet created!” Ana cries. “Then my work is not yet done. I believe in the Life to Come!”  Ana looks at where Don Juan had been standing, but he is gone.

Shaw’s play contained many of the elements that became integral to William Pierce’s life.  The disdain for the shallowness and misguidedness of contemporary life.  The idea of seeking a grand purpose to direct one’s life.  The value in facing reality head-on rather than living a life of “playing and pretending.”  The vital importance of the intellect and acquiring a comprehensive perspective on things.  The idea of serving the Life Force as the organizing principle and purpose of one’s life.  The focus on improving the race.  The view of life as a struggle against powerful opposing forces.  Jews as the “other side.”  The importance of courage and the will to rise above one’s desire for respectability.  The virtue in steadfastness, of holding firm and staying the course.  The contradiction between love, women, and family and a man achieving his true purpose in life, along with the challenge to reconcile, to transcend, this contradiction (Pierce wasn’t successful at doing this).

It is too simple to say that there is a direct and singular causal connection between this play and what Pierce did with his life.  Indeed, many factors account for what he became.  But Pierce singles out listening to the Shaw play as being a major turning point in his life, and after looking into the play, I believe him.

Pierce has passed on.  He was given direction by Shaw’s play, and his successes and failures were what they were.  We’re still here.  The task for us, still in possession of the incredible gift of life, is to determine what, if anything, Shaw’s ideas mean for our own existence; and more fundamentally, what ideas, what vision, what purpose or purposes, will guide us from here forward.   We need to put what we are about as human beings into words that have clear meaning to us, and then discern what those words imply for the way we conduct our lives today and tomorrow, and the days and months and years after that, until time runs out for us as it did for Pierce, as it did for Shaw, as it does for everyone.

29 replies
  1. Nick Dean
    Nick Dean says:

    “The task for us, still in possession of the incredible gift of life, is to determine what, if anything, Shaw’s ideas mean for our own existence …”

    You would think from all the prodding we get to look at this or that or any, please just ANY, celebrity thinker that the average man could not think for himself. In fact from the nationalist viewpoint, the ordinary man is known to be quite a better guide for how to think than celebs.

    There is no known lack of normal, instinctive nationalist sentiment in ordinary anonymous men in the street. Go to them not playwrights or philosophers for guidance.


    “The task for us, still in possession of the incredible gift of life, is to determine what, if anything, Shaw’s ideas mean for our own existence …”

    They mean nothing. Airy fairy ideas of all kinds are how we’re distracted from the focus on our existence.

    • Tom
      Tom says:

      Yeah, I agree with Nick Dean. It is almost certain that the more one engages in intellectual abstractions the more one will leave the world of discrete reality and think only in terms of broad masses and groupings. And, in a social science context, what could be more broad than notions like “one world” or “we are all human”? Dwelling exclusively in the world of abstraction almost automatically lands you in liberal and socialist unreality wherein difference and contradiction are wholly excluded.

      For the common workingman, abstractions are merely utilitarian universals instead of objects of faith and worship as concocted by intellectuals who deal with them exclusively apart from the discrete, varied, and non-uniform existences surrounding them.

      So yes, the common man is inherently nationalistic simply by virtue of the discrete demands faced by him in the quest for survival. Since intellectuals don’t have to “get their hands dirty” and suffer the real world consequences of dealing with social antagonisms, contradictions between people are merely swept under some emotional/psychological/philosophical rubric. Voila…problem solved for the intellectual. The same cannot be said for the workingman.

      • Santoculto
        Santoculto says:

        Most of “socialist irrealities” are considerably real, exploitation of the masses by elites?????? Indeed, I think “socialist” ideas was hijacked earlier and corrupted to serve elite and (((elitz))) interests. People revolting against “elites”??? Oh no, anything less this!!

        But again, I debate most part of time with white people which don’t know their own history. Sad!

    • Santoculto
      Santoculto says:

      Not so Aryan little boy!!

      Many of this “fairy” ideas can be useful exactly to avoid the deplorable state of stupidity of “white meals” “today”, from the extreme left to extreme right, but yes, your primary condition make you incapable to understand their indispensable values.

      • Nick Dean
        Nick Dean says:

        Santoculto, what are these indispensable ideas that ordinary folks just must be indoctrinated with? I’m familiar with the idea that we have to read Schmitt, Evola, Junger and Yockey – and I did so, for a while. But I didn’t find any great ideas therein that were new or original or transformative. What did I miss there – or elsewhere if you have other *thinkers* in mind? I only assumed a New Right orientation because you manage to speak with a lisp even in text.

    • Earl Oill
      Earl Oill says:

      Excellent thought! Not to knock the value of philosophy, it remains true that the distinctive struggle of our time is to get philosophers off the plain man’s back so we can get back to common sense. The left’s characteristic mode is to put the plain man on the defensive over things he takes for granted, such as the dangerousness of walking through black neighborhoods at night or the superior strength of men compared to women, or that Europe is more advanced than Mexico. You don’t need a philosopher or even a scientist to confirm these opinions. I suppose it’s better to have a friendly scientist than not, but in a better world we would not be huffing and puffing to prove that 2+2=4. Let me suggest that instead of REFUTING the left, we might turn our attention to DEFEATING them. This is the distinctive move of effective politics. Strategies of practical politics must be considered in the unsentimental fashion we find in, for example, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a book directed at a left-wing audience and discussing the efficiency of tactics quite cold-bloodedly. The glaring inadequacy of 99% of right-wing commentary is that it seems to regard its function as refuting the left or whining about the left’s hypocrisy, with no thought at all to how we can get the upper hand.

  2. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Thank you, Dr. Griffin, for this article.

    I knew Dr. Pierce. Not well, but I knew him, and he taught me some things. He was a good man, and loved our people.

    It broke my heart when he passed on; Summer of ’02 as I recall.

    I know his work will go on, in the hearts and minds of those he influenced.

  3. Wandering Learning
    Wandering Learning says:

    I hope Pierce had no doubt at the end, that his life had meaning and had served a purpose.

    What he did, and what those who followed him carried forward, gave me one of the keys that unlocked the mental prison I was born and raised in.

    I’m not the only one set free. And I’m sure we are all passing on those favor as we can. In the end we will be legion.

    • Brandon
      Brandon says:

      Dr. William Pierce was also my gateway on the JQ with his fulfilling balance of intellect and emotion. His was a coherent, focused message, professorial yet also as angry as I. He was also amazingly prescient and predicted 9/11 in at least three broadcasts, its agency by name (bin Laden, 1999) and its cause (Israel). Because I followed his broadcasts both 9/11 and the Iraq war were old news to me the moment they happened. Some listeners may have objected to the “bloody mindedness” of a few of his tropes but how can any relict white man look at what has been and is being done to his race and not harbor feelings of vengeance and “payback day” and consequently not feel a healthy catharsis at his evocations of re-purposed meat hooks, salt mines, and of course lamp posts. It goes without saying Jewish power yet fulfills his prophesies, having lately doubled down on its white mongrelization campaign in their advertising and entertainment media and buffaloed of all people Our Donald Trump into being yet another running dog for Jewish interests in the Middle East. As Dr. Pierce would say, they seem hell bent to supply the wars, alienation and pain that will make our message meaningful and true to more and more people. Or as Nixon put it to Billy Graham, “Y’know, a death wish has been a problem with our Jewish friends for centuries.” My heart really sank when in June 2002 his broadcasts began to rerun—for I knew something must be really wrong for that to happen. Many thanks to Dr. MacDonald for filling in the loss with his works, which, though lacking Dr. Pierce’s emotion on many points, represent an empirical breakthrough we can take beyond our individual silo to a wider, even cosmopolitan, audience. I know I have found Dr. MacDonald’s argument and presentation a more compelling model among my vested liberal associates than Dr. Pierce’s, which tended to leave them closed-faced at best, sometimes tersely remarking, “That man is crazy.” I have yet to get that reaction via Dr. MacDonald’s work and witness.

      • HelenChicago
        HelenChicago says:

        You mention Pierce’s “American Dissident Voices” radio broadcast. I came across it some years ago, and found that almost every show was a little gem. After Pierce’s death, amd occasionally before, Kevin Strom would do the shows. The content was always excellent, but Strom’s . . . precious diction always rubbed me the wrong way. And his unsavory legal problems didn’t help his reputation any. Anyway . . . you can still listen to Pierce’s broadcasts here:
        Pick any show at random — they’re all outstanding.

        • Brandon
          Brandon says:

          Yes, I definitely preferred Dr. Pierce’s folksier delivery to Kevin Strom’s. But it was Kevin who got the radio show off the ground which allowed Dr. Pierce to maximize his message. Kevin has had a rough life—an abusive alcoholic father who hanged himself; a bitter, emasculating divorce; a child porn conviction which if you review the facts of the case was obviously a government setup; and all this against a backdrop of defamation not just from the SPLC and their ilk but also from his own fellow travelers in the movement, many of whom found him a little too high-flown and aesthetic for their lights. And yet, despite taking hits that would have left the average white male in a psych ward, he survives, never wavering in his commitment to the cause of white racial integrity. He also continues to write and deliver a weekly column, skyward as is his wont, but also of perfectly cogent intelligence. Think of the poet Wallace Stevens as white nationalist.

        • Earl Oill
          Earl Oill says:

          Some very impressive videos have been made from his talks. They are on youtube if they haven’t been removed. Whoever did the video part really put in some work and the results are impressive whether or not you agree with the message. Check out the one on Haiti.

    • Earl Oill
      Earl Oill says:

      A number of Pierce’s talks have been made into videos on youtube which I have watched. I am impressed with his intellect, which is far above others on the right, though his more extreme ideas are shocking. Pierce thought a lot about how to build a movement and get his message out. Obviously he didn’t succeed in popularizing his ideas. With a few exceptions, the right seems content with grousing and never tries to break into mainstream discourse. It assumes the public will never actually agree with its views. Such a view is self-defeating, of course.

  4. Aitch
    Aitch says:

    I’ve always had the impression that Bernard Shaw, with his communist leanings, was no friend of ours?

    • Troy
      Troy says:

      True, but like his compatriot HG Wells, there was much of truth and merit in his thought and writing, though yes indeed, his ultimate fundamental conclusions were incorrect, though contradictions appear in the writings of both that reveal how their naïve penultimate conclusions were arrived at.

  5. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    Irrespective of Shaw’s politics, there is value in Dr. Griffin’s analysis. Shaw’s concept of Life Force is applicable to any ideology. There is a tendency, today, to look at the politics of the person, rather than the thoughts behind the politics. There are useful bits across the spectrum.
    I recognized two trends in American politics some time ago:
    1) Ignore those who are unlikely to vote for you; and
    2) Go negative.
    The first leads to more extreme political platforming, and the second consists mostly of ad hominem attacks rather than attacks on the political platform.
    No one campaigns on good governance or real ideals. Dr. Griffin is suggesting, I believe, that Pierce was campaigning on good governance and real ideals. Whether you agree with him is a different question.
    As a side note, I have been listening to Enoch Powell interviews and speeches, given this is the 50th anniversary of his so-called
    “Rivers of Blood Speech”. It seems he and Pierce were of the same mettle and similar mindset. Both made predictions that were dismissed out of hand, but have become a Hell.

    • Earl Oill
      Earl Oill says:

      Pierce was concerned with a lot more than immigration and race. Personally I don’t care much about race and I even like the idea of Muslims overrunning decadent Europe and putting the tarts in burkas, but I like Pierce’s rants against the people who are responsible for the influx.

  6. Al Ross
    Al Ross says:

    Enoch Powell probably had more in common with Revilo Oliver than with William Pierce given that the two Classicists were polyglot polymaths albeit with differing views on Jews.

    For those who wish to know more about Enoch Powell’s views, here’s a link :


  7. Jerry Hoekstra
    Jerry Hoekstra says:

    I have heard the claim that being coler-blind is like having a lower IQ. https://voxday.blogspot.com/ Luther Pierce does mention(notice) things that did not did not occur to me. I heard him ask why Japanese war criminals are never pursued while remote German soilders are hunted down. I could give examples of Japanese who got off scott free. His observation that only jews matter under ZOG is hard to deny. I have to accept being coler-blind in trying to follow what he is talking about most of the time.

  8. Confederate Patriot jeff
    Confederate Patriot jeff says:

    At a point you mention that Pierce was not successful at transcending etc.
    What exactly do you mean by that ?
    I also must side to some degree with the more practical comment prior to mine about abstract thinking generally.
    I find it burdensome without point to meander intellectually about star wars movies being real in the future etc.
    We need the concrete action Pierce demonstrated and not the abstract nonsense of Shaw and his “soft” cultural Marxism as he attacked Christianity and the God of our american and Confederate founders.

    • Earl Oill
      Earl Oill says:

      You’re right. Whatever happened to the old right? The Alt Right talk dirty like Borscht Belt comedians and have the sexual mores of hyenas. No piety, no honor, no nobility. Quite a fall off from Lindberg, Ford, Mencken, et al.

  9. steven clark
    steven clark says:

    First, I discovered ADV in the late nineties, and Pierce’s presentation was very instrumental in my thinking. It didn’t really make me think differently…just that a lot of what I saw and thought was made open and given shape. Like Macbeth put it, before I had said the less but thought the more.
    It was a help the programs were published. I still have several years of them.
    I heard Strom before I heard Pierce, and I always liked Strom and his delivery.
    As for Man and Superman, I discovered the play when I was a teenager, and read it several times. In 1981, I saw a production of it at the national Theater in London…and all I for get was standing room only ticket, but it was worth it to stand for Shaw. It was a brilliant production.
    I think what Shaw was doing was writing a super play…in effect, bringing Wagnerian opera to the British stage. Shaw was a great admirer of Wagner, and Jack Tanner was Shaw’s alter ego. A lot of Eugene O’Neil’s epic work also had this Wagnerian aspiration.
    Shaw was certainly a socialist, and he had a lot of respect for Mussolini.
    His thoughts at the end of the play are pretty funny. ‘Those that can, do; those that can’t, teach. Beware of a man whose god is in the skies. The conversion of a savage to Christianity is actually the conversion of Christianity to savagery.’

Comments are closed.