Print this post Print this post

The Politics of Nuclear War, Part 3

3,508 words

Samson, Asdod, Israel

Part 3 of 3

Portuguese translation here

The Specter of the Holocaust 

According to Rosenbaum, Israel’s paranoid nuclear policy is justified by fears of a “second Holocaust.” He says that this term has been in use by Israelis since at least the 1960s to express their belief in the genocidal intentions of their neighbors, should Israel ever lose a war against them. Rosenbaum says he was prompted to begin using it in his own writings after reading Philip Roth’s 1993 novel Operation Shylock, in which one of the novel’s characters complains that, by relocating en masse to Israel, Jews have made Israel into a concentration camp of their own making, and that the second Holocaust could be accomplished very easily through the use of nuclear weapons. Rosenbaum claims that given Israel’s size, the vast majority of its population could be killed by just one or two larger-yield nuclear warheads.

For Rosenbaum, Zionist and Israeli fears over nuclear weapons in the hands of Muslims can only be understood within the context of the memory of the Holocaust, and the overwhelming drive to prevent it from recurring.[1] He is certainly not alone in this; Zionists have continually invoked Hitler and the Holocaust when discussing anyone who opposes them. Saddam Hussein was repeatedly compared to Hitler between 1990 and 2003, after the Americans and the Israelis, who both supported him during the 1980s against Iran, decided to put Iraq on the other side of the fence. With Hussein gone, Iran quickly took his place. “It is 1938, and Iran is Germany,” Benjamin Netanyahu has said. “And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.”

In relation to this, in defending the idea of the second Holocaust, Rosenbaum briefly discusses the history of Haj-al-Amin Husseini, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a Palestinian Muslim leader who made radio broadcasts from Berlin during the Second World War in an effort to get Muslims around the world to fight on behalf of the Third Reich. This has become a common Zionist trope in recent years, and several books have already been published about Husseini, claiming that present-day Islamist rhetoric regarding Jews is directly descended from Husseini’s propaganda efforts. This is a rather clever stratagem, since it seeks to erase the Palestinians’ actual status as victims of Jewish repression and ethnic cleansing and instead places them on a par with the National Socialists themselves, thus making Palestinians culpable in the Holocaust.

While it is true that some Muslims (mostly from the Balkans) did serve in the ranks of the Waffen-SS, it is quite a stretch to argue that they had anything to do with German racial policies or with the operation of the camps. As for present-day Islamism, I find it hard to believe that the Palestinians (most of whom are not Islamists) needed recycled propaganda from the 1940s in order to learn to hate Jews, given the treatment they’ve received from them since 1948. Nevertheless, that is what Rosenbaum and others would like us to believe. It’s just a more elaborate version of their old standby of accusing anyone who criticizes Israeli or Jewish power of being a Nazi.

Rosenbaum had been writing and speaking about this matter for many years prior to the publication of this book, and he had already been taken to task by some critics of Israel for his insistence on invoking the Holocaust to justify Israel’s present-day politics. Amusingly, Rosenbaum refers to such people as “second Holocaust deniers” who are engaging in “Holocaust inconsequentialism.” He writes:

In many ways, Holocaust inconsequentialism is worse than Holocaust denial, because inconsequentialism doesn’t deny it happened; it acknowledges the mass murder but adds insult to injury by depriving those murdered lives of any possible meaning for the living. Actually, the wish to ‘banish’ it is not even second Holocaust denial: it’s a call for erasure of the first Holocaust, for elimination. The Final Solution to the Final Solution: forget it, eradicate it for all practical purposes.

This brought to mind Greg Johnson’s recent essay “Dealing with the Holocaust,” and his view that refuting the continuing relevance of the Holocaust in contemporary politics is a better strategy for those who seek to counter Zionist propaganda, rather than trying to deny that it happened.[2]

From the “Second Holocaust” to the “Samson Option”

The problem with associating what was, allegedly, the greatest atrocity in human history with nuclear politics is that it inspires an immense pretense of moral superiority. So much so, in fact, that Jews even feel justified in making threats, not only against their enemies, but even against their own allies. And this is something that readers around the world would do well to understand.

“The very secondness of the second Holocaust carries with it a temptation to abandon all thoughts of proportionality in retaliation, and to punish the whole world for allowing not one but two slaughters of a people,” Rosenbaum writes. And again, he is not alone in this idea. He is referring to the Samson Option, which has long been rumored as being an actual strategy on the shelves of the Israel Defense Forces to be brought out in the event that Israel chooses to employ nuclear retaliation in the face of total defeat. No one knows for certain what’s in it, since Israel has never admitted to its existence. Indeed, Israel has never confirmed that it has nuclear weapons at all, but enough clues have been unearthed over the years, some dropped by the Israelis themselves, that there are few doubts in anyone’s mind that they do. Some estimates place their arsenal as high as 400 warheads, which would make it one of the largest nuclear powers in the world. They continue to remain opaque about the matter in official terms, since admitting to having them would make Israel subject to international recrimination, and possible sanctions, under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Some say that the Samson Option is merely a standard contingency plan to be implemented against a foe who is about to overtake Israel on the ground. Others say there is much more to it than that. It may call for an attack on the entire non-Jewish world.

Israel “would use their nuclear-armed missiles to do more than retaliate against Israel’s specific attackers but would use their nuclear missiles to bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance) on the grounds that their enabling – or toleration of – eliminationist anti-Semitism made both the first and second Holocausts possible,” Rosenbaum writes.

You read that correctly. In the minds of some Zionists, the destruction of Israel would entitle it to take the entire rest of the world down with them, even if the rest of the world had no actual hand in their defeat.

Rosenbaum is not the first to attempt to rationalize such a thing. He quotes an infamous op-ed piece that was written by Professor David Perlmutter of Louisiana State University in 2002: “What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?”[3]

In a similar vein, Martin van Creveld, a prominent Israeli military historian who travels in the corridors of the Israeli government, said in 2003, “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’ I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”[4]

To me, this sounds like the ravings of an egomaniac or the screams of a spoiled child, a sore loser with the power to destroy the world in a fit of suicidal spite. If true, it removes any moral equivalency, much less superiority, that Israel may claim with the rest of the world, including its Muslim enemies. As far as I know, Pakistan, Syria, or Iran have never threatened to attack Russia, Europe, or Japan in retaliation for actions taken by the Israelis. Clearly Zionists really do not think very highly of non-Jews. The very idea of the Samson Option implies that they see themselves as morally superior to the rest of humanity, which has to be frightened into submission with fear-mongering and threats. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether or not this is an actual IDF doctrine. Perhaps it is just a heavy-handed attempt by a few frustrated Zionists to scare the rest of the world into supporting their policies. But the fact that so many of them are openly discussing it is troubling. And Israel certainly does retain the technical ability to carry out such a strike if it chose.

In 2008, the IDF introduced the Jericho III ICBM into their arsenal, which is known to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Israel has claimed that the missile has a range which makes it possible for them to strike anywhere throughout the Middle East, as well as throughout large portions of Europe and Africa. American intelligence reports, however, have claimed that its actual range may be sufficient to reach Asia, as well as both North and South America, giving them a nuclear capacity on a par with both the U.S. and Russia.

In addition to its missiles, Israel currently fields a fleet of four Dolphin-class missile submarines, which were specially designed for Israel and paid for by Germany. Two more are currently under construction. (The German government has said that this was done as compensation for the assistance given by German firms to the Iraqi chemical weapons program of the 1980s, although I can’t believe there isn’t an element of Holocaust reparations in it as well.) As submarines are undetectable while submerged, this gives Israel a strike capacity anywhere in the world, even assuming that all of its surface missiles were destroyed in a surprise attack.

Therefore, if the Samson Option is a reality, the Israelis are certainly equipped to carry it out.

Rosenbaum, however, is still an American liberal at heart, and he must have realized how crazed his justifications for the Samson Option would come across to his non-Zionist readers. So he returns to an issue he had raised earlier in the book in relation to the Cold War, asking whether the idea of retaliating against an enemy (and bringing about the destruction of the entire population of the enemy, and not just the people responsible for the war), even after deterrence has failed and one’s country already lies in ruins, is morally justifiable. This, after all, is the essential, and yet seldom asked, question of any nation that practices nuclear deterrence. Rosenbaum calls it the “forbidden question.”

To examine the question in the context of Israel, Rosenbaum seeks out Moshe Halbertal, an Israeli professor who teaches ethics and international law at both New York University and Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Halbertal has interesting credentials, being the co-author of the Israel Defense Force’s code of ethics. Rosenbaum poses the question of the morality of Israeli nuclear retaliation to him. In the case of using nuclear weapons against a nation that is preparing to use them against Israel, Halbertal says yes, it’s justified – which is unsurprising.

He does make one odd comment concerning this, which is that if Israel were to attack a country, such as Iran, to preempt a nuclear strike on itself, it would also have to target the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan, in case Pakistan decided to avenge its Muslim brethren. I’m not certain why Halbertal makes this leap of logic, since Pakistan has never stated any intention of coming to the aid of another nation that attacks Israel, and has no apparent interest in doing so. But one thing I took away from this book is that Zionist paranoia knows no bounds.

But their conversation takes an interesting turn when Rosenbaum asks him about deterrence in a situation where Israel has already been destroyed – a dilemma that would be faced by the officers aboard Israeli submarines at sea, after having received word from home that the war has already been lost and that their nation lies in ruins. Should they then fire, knowing that Israel’s fate is already sealed? Halbertal refers to this situation as one of “esoteric morality.” According to him, Israel should make its enemies believe that it would use its weapons in that situation, but that in reality, Israel’s leaders and commanders should know that they would not use them if the scenario actually came to pass. For him, this is the only morally defensible position. This reminded me a bit of George Orwell’s concept of “doublethink,” where one holds two contrary positions to be true at the same time. But I can’t really be too hard on the Israelis in this case, since it’s a moral quandary that all nuclear powers must face.

An interesting postscript to their discussion is when Rosenbaum begins to wonder if he should actually write about their conversation in the book, since he fears that it might implant in the heads of Israel’s enemies the idea that Israel is not really serious about its deterrent. So he contacted Halbertal and asked if he should write about it – and Halbertal, unsurprisingly given that it’s in the book, said yes.

I guess it provides a glimmer of reassurance to realize that at least some Zionists don’t subscribe to the moral justness of the Samson Option, but wartime decisions are not made as a result of deep, philosophical conversations in university offices, but in short periods of time and under intense pressure. And I wouldn’t trust that Israel’s missileers and sub commanders would take the high road, especially if they have training and orders to the contrary.

At any rate, Samson Option or not, Israel has certainly managed to install itself as the linchpin of any nuclear crisis that is likely to transpire for the foreseeable future. However, the problem of new nations joining the “nuclear club,” nations which may or may not exercise as much restraint as the existing nuclear powers have done to date, is something that is not restricted to the Middle East alone. North Korea, after all, managed to slip under the radar of the international watchdogs. As Rosenbaum himself correctly observes, the United States originally began its pursuit of the atomic bomb after it became known, in an effort led by Einstein, that the Third Reich was working on the same thing. The U.S. hoped to be the first one to build one and thus pre-empt the “Nazi bomb.” (Germany, of course, collapsed before either side developed nuclear weapons, so Japan became the site of a demonstration that was aimed as much at the U.S.S.R. as at the Japanese.) That is the awesome power of nuclear weapons: they are so scary that the main reason nations resort to building them is to prevent someone else from using them first.

The problem, however, is how the existing nuclear states can continue to retain a monopoly on nuclear armaments, while insisting that no other nations join their club. The original intention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was first introduced in 1970, was for all nations to ultimately disarm. In practice, however, it has been used as a bludgeon by the primary nuclear powers against the non-nuclear nations, while they themselves show little intention of giving them up. Other nations therefore have little motivation to exercise restraint so long as this double standard persists, and so long as non-nuclear nations are subjected to the whims of the “First World” – Iraq was invaded based on false claims of pursuing WMDs, after all, and the Gaddafi regime in Libya was destroyed in spite of the fact that it had voluntarily surrendered its nuclear program in 2003. This is not a good way to persuade other nations that following the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a wise course.

As for Rosenbaum, it was interesting to see how the cool-headedness he displayed in his treatment of the situation between Russia and the U.S., where he calls for cooperation and understanding, was quickly abandoned when it came to the subject of Israel. But then this is typical of Zionist thinking, in which the rules that the rest of the world are expected to play by are considered to be inapplicable when it comes to the Jewish state.

The Future: The Morality of Nuclear Weapons

I realize that there is a long way to go before the North American New Right, or any of the similar groups throughout the Western world, will have a say in matters of international politics or nuclear policy. However, I think it is important for us to be aware of, and begin thinking about this matter, because nuclear weapons aren’t going anywhere and could return to the political stage with a vengeance in the not-so-distant future. Eventually, if we are successful, they will have to be reckoned with, both as a weapon in the hands of our adversaries (for example, in the event of secession, would the U.S. government just let the rebels go their own way unscathed?) and as something we will have to determine our own attitude towards.

Rosenbaum is certainly right to ask the “forbidden question”: is the actual use of nuclear weapons moral? Personally, I believe that, no matter what system of belief one subscribes to, the answer must be an emphatic no. Nuclear weapons do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Moreover, they have an enormously destructive effect on the environment that is not limited to the target area. Even more crucially, so long as more than one nation possesses them, their use will always entail the risk of provoking an equally devastating response from the other side.

Even beyond such moral questions, however, there is the issue of whether or not nuclear weapons belong in the hands of people who claim to uphold traditional values of any sort (and I do not mean traditional solely in the sense of Traditionalism). Nuclear war is the ultimate expression of the industrial mentality in the form of a weapon – mass-produced death and destruction on an unimaginable scale. They are a weapon for lazy people and cowards, enabling the worst elements of humanity to remain safe at home, knowing that their enemies can be eliminated at the press of a button while they bask in decadence.

As Mark Dyal has reminded us in his recent series of essays on vitalism, the way in which the members of a civilization conduct their lives determines their qualities. The irony of nuclear weapons is that, in being so awful and all-powerful, they end up rendering actual warfare too terrible a thing to practice, leaving nations to resolve their differences through economic policies and treaties – passive activities. Men have no reason to train and steel themselves for battle, instead resorting to videogames and watching sports on TV as an outlet for their natural aggressions. And we can already see the type of society that such a way of life produces. War should be a contest between brave and heroic men, not an impersonalized process in which the combatants never even look their foe in the eye, except perhaps on a screen.

Therefore, I think that the elimination of nuclear weapons should be one of the ultimate goals of the New Right. I realize that this is unlikely to be a practical goal anytime soon, even assuming we attain any actual political power, since our enemies are unlikely to respect our loftiness, but I think it should be placed on our eventual horizon. There is no place for nuclear weapons in a civilization of good and honorable people.

In the meantime, however, we should never forget for a moment that we all live under the sword of Damocles that is The Bomb.

Notes

[1] It falls outside the scope of this essay to discuss the accuracy of the conventional narrative about the Holocaust. As far as nuclear politics are concerned, it really only matters that the Zionists and their supporters fervently believe in it.

[2] Greg Johnson, “Dealing with the Holocaust,” at The Occidental Observer (July 20, 2012), available at http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/07/dealing-with-the-holocaust/.

[3] David Perlmutter, “Israel: Dark Thoughts and Quiet Desperation,” in The Los Angeles Times (April 7, 2002), available at http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/07/opinion/op-perlmutter.

[4] Quoted in David Hirst, “The War Game,” in The Guardian (September 20, 2003), available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

30 Comments

  1. Posted November 30, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    I think the Holocaust mythos is at this point most poisonous to Jews themselves. It tells them from a young age that they are victims who deserve revenge. This is the same type of thinking that afflicts minority communities worldwide, who turn their goal into revenge against the majority, and thus never self-actualize. A healthier goal for Jews is to raise a nationalist Israel and to exclude all other ethnic groups.

    I am amazed that the United States in 1953 did not declare it illegal for any nation other than the US and UK to have a nuke. Nuclear proliferation is not only pointless, but highly dangerous, and it will accelerate as more countries get the bomb. The situation that Israel is in is prone to high escalation, namely that the Arab nations get their act together and flood Israel’s border with 10 million troops and 30,000 tanks, at which point the relatively small IDF would be as doomed as the Germans in 1945. The natural response would be to use a tactical nuke, which could lead to rapid escalation and all of us glowing.

    All of us suffer under the shadow of WWII. It’s time to let that miserable, fratricidal war go to rest and to form unity amongst Western Europeans. Our culture is roughly similar, and we share the same values. We should learn from Israel and become strict nationalists who exclude all other races and ethnies, nepotists, aggressive business people and self-interested first and foremost. Nationalism is the only solution to globalism.

    • Posted November 30, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

      Dear Brett,

      1. How do the Jews not already have a “nationalist Israel”? The only reason they tolerate some Arab presence in the non-occupied territories now, as second-class citizens, is because they need the cheap labor.

      2. Why 1953? By then, the Soviets had already developed nuclear weapons, so it would have been very difficult to enforce. Also, by what right would the U.S. and U.K. have declared that only they could have nukes? They like to at least observe a pretense of international law. That would have destroyed it forever. And moreover, how would you enforce it? Attack any country that refuses to follow suit? That would be both difficult to monitor (that was before satellite technology and the like) and potentially very messy, unless you’re going to just start dropping bombs all over the world. Of course, that is the direction we’re heading in today.

      3. The Arab nations are never going to “get their act together” and attack Israel en masse. They couldn’t do it in 1948, 1967 or 1973. They certainly can’t do it today. I doubt there are 30,000 tanks in the entire Middle East. Besides, as I point out in my essay, the leaders of the Muslim countries aren’t dumb. They know Israel can nuke them, and they also know that the U.S. would likely intercede if all else fails. The main danger at the moment, to my mind, is from Israel making pre-emptive strikes, possibly using its own nukes, or having the U.S. do it for them. Also, the situation may change in a worldwide collapse scenario, which might put Israel and its neighbors on more equal footing, making the “Samson Option” a much greater concern.

    • 1RW
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:12 am | Permalink

      That’s because the Soviets had tested their fourth type of bomb by 1953 and had tested their first four years earlier. And of course they had a massive conventional war machine to boot. So “illegal” would have been a hard concept to reconcile with reality.

      Nuclear proliferation today is not only not pointless, it’s also the only guarantee of avoiding invasion by the US which seems determined to overthrow some regime or other every couple of years. With our recent deployments of anti-ballistic missile systems, I have no doubts that Russian delivery systems will get more sophisticated, evasive, and stealthy.

      Unfortunately, power, once attained, cannot be given up without dire consequences for its former welder. This was proven true for the white man who chose to give up his supremacy in his countries, and will be equally true for any nuclear power that relinquishes its weapons.

    • Posted December 1, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      The story Yockey tells is that the Jews tricked Roosevelt into developing the A Bomb with a phony threat of a German bomb program [sound familiar?] — I discuss this in my CC essay on Veblen, which should reappear in my next book, The Eldritch Evola & Others –, then gave the secrets to the Soviets; the plan was to then use their Jew-dominated UN to “expropriate” the technology. Stalin, however, re-asserted his Russian nationalism and threw a monkey wrench into the plans. This, along with his opposition to Israel, resulted in the “anti-Stalinist” Left arising in the 50s, which eventually [we know know, Yockey being long dead] became our NeoCon helpmates.

      • Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

        I had thought about saying something about that, but wasn’t sure of the facts, so I left that out, apart from the reference to Einstein. But the Germans did have some sort of nuclear program. The Russians and Americans raced to capture its remnants at the end of the war. I also remember reading that Heisenberg and the others who had worked on it were being held captive in a house in the UK by the Allies when the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. The British had recorders hidden in the house, and had them going when the news was delivered to them so they could eavesdrop . What they heard was that the German scientists were very surprised that the Americans had done it, and that when they discussed their own bomb designs, it turned out that they hadn’t even been close to building one.

        There was a book published in German in 2005 called “Hitler’s Bomb,” in which the author claimed that the SS had tested some type of nuclear device, possibly a dirty bomb, in early 1945 on some concentration camp inmates. I don’t think many historians believed it, however.

        An interesting side-note that I left out of the final paper is that Rosenbaum mentions that there was an official NATO policy during the Cold War that no German would ever have control over the nuclear weapons stationed in Europe (including in Germany itself).

  2. Kudzu Bob
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    If a doomed Israel wanted to exact a terrible revenge, all it need do is employ its nuclear weaponry to obliterate the Middle East’s capacity to produce and export petroleum, Without oil revenue, the Arabs, whose collective GDP roughly equals that of Finland, would starve en masse. Much of the rest of the world also would be plunged into chaos, as gasoline supplies dwindled.

  3. Greg Johnson
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Nuclear weapons have been used continuously and effectively since 1945 — as a tool of blackmail. And they have been extremely effective. No nuclear power has ever been invaded.

    Thus in my view, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the only effective way to halt globalization. Even with all the risks, I think that it would be good for the white race and for the rest of humanity if globalization could be halted by the states that wish to opt out possessing nuclear deterrents. I hope the Iranians are doing everything they can to get the bomb. They Syrians too. After all, cooperation did not help Saddam or Qaddafi.

    If genuine nationalist regimes emerge in Europe, I hope it happens first in France, since they have an independent nuclear deterrent. A smaller nation without nukes would be in danger of getting the Austria or Serbia treatments.

    If a White Republic or republics emerged in North America, shouldn’t their first priority be to get independent nuclear deterrents?

    But the bomb only works as a deterrent if people think you are willing to drop it. I disagree with the idea the a Traditionalist would never use the bomb. It would certainly be consistent with the apocalyptic strain of Traditionalism. What better way than a nuclear war to hasten the end of the Kali Yuga and clear the slate for the next Golden Age? Of course it would be devastating, but Earth has survived nuclear winters before, and life went on to manifest magnificent new forms. Of course it would destroy civilization, but the humans who survive would be forced to adopt a healthier, more natural and vital outlook, which would be the foundation of a new historical cycle.

    Traditionalists, who embrace both creation and destruction within our concept of the divine, are far more capable of contemplating and accepting such events than followers of Bible-based humanistic religions and their secular offshoots. It fits our cyclical historical narrative but not their progressive one. So I think that our opponents would actually believe that when we load our Kalki Warheads in our Shiva ICBMs, we would definitely be willing to push the button.

    • Posted November 30, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

      Yes, nuclear weapons have helped to keep the peace, at least between the great powers, since 1945. But they come with an enormous risk, as I detailed in the first part of this essay. I don’t know that the benefit of having the ultimate deterrent outweighs the risks. On a long enough timeline, the probability of nuclear war becoming a reality rises. The fact that the last 67 years haven’t seen their use doesn’t mean we’ll make it through another 67, especially if there is a massive disruption to the global order.

      However, for the short-term, I agree that the proliferation of weapons to more nations is probably a good thing, if dangerous, since it will act as a counterweight to NATO’s world domination. And definitely, if nations arise in keeping with our principles, they should seek to attain a nuclear deterrent – it would be suicidal not to. That’s why I put the abolition of nukes as a DISTANT goal.

      Nuclear weapons are not consistent with Traditionalism because they are expressions of modernity. As I said in my conclusion, a civilization based on any sort of heroic or moral values should shun them, if possible. Nuclear weapons are a tool of cowards. If a future state of our making has them, it should only be out of realpolitik, but should not be something to be celebrated. But you’re absolutely right that a deterrent must be credible. People fear the U.S., in part, because we have actually used them in war.

      Although I do find it amusing that India dubbed its first nuclear test, in 1974, “Smiling Buddha,” and its series of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles are named “Agni.”

    • Dominion
      Posted December 2, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

      Traditionalists certainly believe in a cyclical concept of yugas and time, but its not one we have control over. It might be that the kalki warhead lays the ground for another age to commence, but that age might well be without our species, in hundreds of thousands of years, or perhaps on another world. If the gods will an asteroid to do that job for us, so be it, but I certainly don’t think it is a policy we want to implement ourselves.

      I was reading Revolt Against the Modern World last night, and in the chapter ‘Games and Victory’, Evola condemns modern warfare as being inimical to the warrior ethos and the Traditional working of creating Victories from heroic wills, which become entities in their own right and manifest the Active and Particular principles of Divinity. I think that it would be best for Traditionalists to begin creating the foundations for a new Imperium, a new Europa, the successor to Christendom and Rome – and one which coexists peacefully with the other nations of the world. The eventual abolition of nuclear weapons for warfare would be a worthy goal in this respect, and institutions for battle and victory can most certainly be created in other ways.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

        1. Evola and Guenon both believed that historical decline and the rise of a new Golden Age were note merely the product of disembodied forces but of bodies of initiates working to produce them.

        2. Even though one might believe that it is impossible to win against the Dark Age, those whose Duty is to fight will fight nonetheless.

        3. Modern weapons, including nukes, are just one more tiger to ride at the end of the Kali Yuga.

        4. In the end, the Traditionalist sides not with his own particular species or subspecies (the white race, in my case) but with the active divine principle, which in history divides itself into various agents that struggle against one another. But ultimately, the divine cannot lose, because it loses only to itself, meaning that it always wins. Life loses only to itself, meaning that it always wins. And if life goes on evolving without humans, or whites, that is our loss as conditioned beings but not life’s loss, and not our loss to the extent that we too are merely modes of the divine life force at play. So the Traditionalist can contemplate even the extinction of mankind with equanimity, and bringing about the extinction of mankind can even be seen as a duty.

        So, returning to the question of whether the Traditionalist atomic bomb would be an effective deterrent: the answer is clearly yes. Using the bomb is far more consistent with our worldview than with Biblical or secular-progressivist humanism. Let’s just pray to God we never have to use it.

    • Jaego
      Posted December 2, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

      Bravo, that’s thinking outside the box – the coffin they would build around us. Yes, they will not leave us alone unless we make them leave us alone. Their choice: a swift end to this age or a slow drowning in their own multi hued karma while we wait it out high, dry, and White.

  4. JPLex
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Personally I see absolutely no harm in nuclear proliferation in Middle-East. Israel started it and let the Israelis then live with it.

    Gilad Sharon admired the way USA annihilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. May these words haunt people living in Israel…

  5. Posted December 1, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    “The very idea of the Samson Option implies that they see themselves as morally superior to the rest of humanity, which has to be frightened into submission with fear-mongering and threats. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether or not this is an actual IDF doctrine”

    Actually, as Michael Hoffman II has tirelessly documented, Official Talmudic Doctrine holds that non-Jews are not just morally inferior but, in fact, non-human, hence more than susceptible to extermination.

    As some folks at Occidental Observer have noted, the long history of Jewish-led massacres [quite contrary to the lachrymose history of Jewish "persecution" cited by the Zionists above, of course, since the Jew impudently "cries when HE hits YOU" as the Polish proverb has it] from Joshua to Esther to Soviet Russia, suggests what they have in mind for us if they ever consolidated their power.

    As I discuss in my essay on CC “The Gilmore Girls Occupy Wall St.” [reprinted in my new book, The Homo and the Negro], supposedly “Leftist” but basically Jewish commentators like James Kunstler, while supposedly espousing Peak Oil or Climate Change gloom and doom, usually get around to odd little rants about those “fat, stupid, NASCAR people” [Jim calls them "pale white. like mold or pus"] that a. cause the problem, or b. refuse to admit it, or c. stand in the way of solving it and above all, d. at least will be the first victims, thus improving the Earth.

    Not only would the Jew kill us in revenge, he’d kill us to “establish the workers paradise” he’d do so to end global warming or deal with Peak Oil, and with the same smug self-satisfaction. Kunstler dreams of a “post Emergency” world of small towns and small farms, like the 19th century but with no Southerners or, indeed, goyim at all; in my essay I analyze this idea of the Leftist Utopia of small towns without small towners in such tropes as the Big Chill, Gilmore Girls and Portlandia.

    Jim’s Samson Option involves the death of the big cities and suburbs, the traditional homes of the Jews; by contrast, Jews have never tilled the land, from Genesis to Levittown. One can only imagine that Jim will keep some goyim around as “hewers of wood and drawers of water” just the Zionist needs the Palestinians to do the heavy labor.

    • me
      Posted December 2, 2012 at 12:05 am | Permalink

      James O’Meara wrote:

      Jews have never tilled the land, from Genesis to Levittown.

      I’d think there would be some jewish farmers in Israel, growing fruits and veggies. Don’t they also have kibbutzes growing food, too?

    • Edmund Connelly
      Posted December 4, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      James, good comments (and thanks for the reference to TOO; I’m one of the writers pointing to the Jewish intent to genocide us).

      I like what you say about Kunstler, too. Like even Covington, I follow Kunstler for some reason. And yes, he attacks in his blogs exactly those you mention– Southerners, etc. Which makes it all the more a mystery: in his book “World Made By Hand,” which I’ve read twice — carefully — he actually RESPECTS the same White Christians he normally despises. This includes a group of Southern born agains who move north to Saratoga Springs to escape the racial chaos and global warming further south.

      Interestingly, Kunstler’s alter ego in the novel, Robert Earle, is outed as a Jew. Why does Kunstler do this? Also, I confess I’m at a loss trying to understand the instances of the supernatural that Kunstler inserts, mainly revolving around the Christian leader of the New Faith southerners. This might be an interesting topic for us to discuss.

      • Jaego
        Posted December 4, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

        I’ve read it and I read his column. Perhaps the novel represents the deeper side of his nature? And the columns more his typical Anti-Southern consciousness. In his book, “The Long Emergency” he talks for several pages at the end about Blacks and how their misbehavior is not going to be tolerated during the crisis to come. Also he says that only a people as clueless as White Americans could listen to rap music – which is largely a challenge to a race war to come.

        I bring these points up on the Blog and the Liberals can’t handle it at all. They seem to have blocked out this whole part of the book.

  6. me
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Greg Johnson wrote:

    No nuclear power has ever been invaded.

    He left out an important word, as that sentence should read:

    No nuclear power has ever been invaded militarily.

    Most white nuke powers are being invaded with non-whites from 3rd world countries.

  7. Simon Lote
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Wasn’t Israel a suspected nuclear power during the Yom-Kippur war? Argentina invaded the Falklands owned by a nuclear UK.

    I think its more appropriate to say that no two nuclear wielding powers have ever gone to war.

    I am only speculating but it seems to me most emergent ethno-states will be the size of a Serbia and unable to join the great game of nuclear brinkmanship. If we assume that the United States will be carved up into several states, why do we assume that Europe will be any different to this trend and the nation-states are restored whole. We should hope for a ‘European Spring’ across the entire continent the creation of dozens of small ethno-states at the same time. Individually not a threat enought to nuke but impossible to occupy militarily with conventional forces.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

      You are right about the Falklands/Malvinas. But there is a difference between trying to grab disputed territory on the other side of the globe and the attempt to invade the homeland or force regime change on a nuclear power.

    • Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      Simon, no one knows precisely when Israel developed nukes. Some people believe they may have had them already in the 1960s. Most people agree that they had them by the late 1970s, at the latest – which is why the last big war between Israel and its neighbors happened in 1973.

      It is actually not accurate to state that two nuclear powers have never gone to war. India and Pakistan have that distinction. They fought the Kargil War in 1999, a year after Pakistan had tested its first nukes (India did that in 1974). And of course there is the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, which is more of a low-level insurgency.

      This is entire speculative, but I do believe it will be possible for small ethnostates to practice deterrence if they want. It really only requires a small number of weapons, provided that they are secured in such a way that at least some of them will survive any attack. The trick, however, will be acquiring them, and even more importantly, maintaining them in operable form, which is no small achievement.

  8. excalibur
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    I believe nuclear weapons will be in the background more to scare than to use them.There are other weapons very effective with minimal risks, as “human rights”,”democracy” and similar shibboleths to promote internal strife,revolution and disintegration.Add to that financial incentives,financial blackmail ,bribery you have a very powerful weapon.The real risk of using a nuclear weapon may be posed by some third world megalomaniac dictator just to show the power of the “oppressed”.Why did the South Africa destroyed the blue prints of nuclear bomb before surrendering all power to the black population?

  9. rhondda
    Posted December 2, 2012 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Thank-you Mr. Morgan for explaining the irrational reasoning of the Zionists. This does spill over into White Christian guilt which says we must support them for our own peace of mind. ( the war, we fought for them!) I am reminded of, unfortunately, my Canadian leader Harper ignoring the world and voting against the Palestinians at the U.N. Ah, we are just the ‘kept woman’ of the US. We have relied on the US for defense.
    As for deterrents, I am all for protection; it is just that irrational element that worries me. I do not think we can hurry the Kali Yuga.

    As an aside, it is not for nothing that the word for rational conversation is called ‘intercourse’. (this is for all the homophobics out there. Homo just means the same. You know as in the White race. If you are worried, just say no.)

    • Posted December 2, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

      Rhondda, I’m glad you found my essay useful. As for the UN vote, it was a positive development, but in the end I doubt it’s going to change anything.

  10. Jaego
    Posted December 2, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Most Palestinians aren’t Islamists? What’s an Islamist? Isn’t that some kind of Hillary speak? Is an Islamist a Muslim who doesn’t believe in Jihad and Islam supremacy? Then such a person isn’t a Muslim anymore in reality but in name only. Sure there are many such – the West has had a strong influence in Egypt, Iran etc. And the modern West is fatal to traditional Monotheism – there are countless nominal Christians now. They are the majority.

    I think it was the President of Turkey who said, there is such thing as radical Islam, there is just Islam. And Islamists (a grotesque sounding word) are clearly not radical enough to be Muslims. Yes, I know about the Sufis – they have always been outside enough to be considered a Sect. And there aren’t clear lines here either since there have been many Sufi Jihadists.

    Now back to the original question, now clarificed. Are most Palestinians Muslims? Yes. Threre are some Non Practicioners/Believers of Muslim heritage as well as some Christians, but the clear majority are Muslims who believe in Jihad and Muslim dominance as delineated in both the Koran and Hadith.

    • Posted December 2, 2012 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

      Jaego, I said that all Palestinians aren’t Islamists for the simple reason that 15% of Palestinians are Christians – a fact that the Zionists and their supporters in the U.S. like to overlook in the hopes of making us forget, since it might make Americans uncomfortable to know that they are, in fact, aiding in the genocide of fellow Christians at the hands of Jews.

      It is also a fact that some Palestinians, such as the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine, are Communists, and are therefore atheists.

      As for the supposed lack of distinction between Islamism and the other branches of Islam, yes, it is true that many different branches of the religion, including various schools of Sufism, claim to be the “real Islam,” just as the Catholic Church, and other churches, say that they are the only valid branch of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, there are clear distinctions between the various types of Islam. Wahhabism is different from Sayyid Qutb’s Islamism, just as Sunni Islamism is different from the Shi’ite Islamism of Khomenini (which dismisses jihad), just as Shi’ism is different from Ismailism, or from Naqshbandi Sufism or Nimatullahi Sufism, all of which are different from Ahmadiyya Islam, and so forth. So, with all due respect, what you wrote is just empty verbiage unsupported by any reality.

      • Jaego
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

        Why not just say that 15% of Palestinians aren’t Muslims then?

      • Posted December 3, 2012 at 12:10 am | Permalink

        Because there’s a big difference between Islamism and Arab nationalism, which is what Fatah is. You’re going to tell me that Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were/are Islamists? Fatah still controls half of the Palestinian territories. And I doubt that everyone in the Hamas-controlled area is an Islamist. Particularly not the Christians and the atheists.

  11. rhondda
    Posted December 2, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Well Greg, @ 4:02 pm That is a very good reason n0t to have kids. So it seems to me that White Nationalists wailing on women for not producing, just might be in a contradiction. If I thought that my kids would not make it, I would not have any. A nuclear war would also wipe out wildlife and plants which we all depend upon. The first to go would be kids.

    • Posted December 3, 2012 at 12:17 am | Permalink

      Rhondda, the damage that a nuclear war would do to the planet would depend on the number of weapons used, their strength, where they detonate (on the ground or water, in the air, or in space) and what type of targets they hit. A small regional war, or a “limited war” (to use the Reagan-era terminology for use of only a small portion of a nation’s arsenal) wouldn’t necessarily devastate the planet. But there are certainly more than enough weapons on the Earth today to endanger the future of humanity, if a large number of them were used. And that will always remain a risk so long as they continue to exist. Unfortunately, however, I don’t see them going away anytime soon, as I wrote in the essay.

  12. Jaego
    Posted December 3, 2012 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    John: You’re ducking the question: you don’t want to define what Islamist means to you. All I know is that it’s a word that American and European politicians use to make their duped constituents believe that other Muslims are “just folks” and are going to fit right in. As Confucius says, to rebuild society there must first be rectification of names. After all Language can be used to confuse as well as inform.

    I know that Islam is complex but not so much that it can’t be discussed. As C.S Lewis said of Christianity, the differences seem great to Christians, but not to others. They have no problem generalizing nor should we about Islam. Our Jewish friends love to say that Judaism is so complex that nothing can be said about it, and yet they have no problem with talking about others. In short, it’s a trick to cut short discussion, one that they excel in. We should have this ability too, but know when we are using it, against whom and for whom.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance