Twenty Aught Eight and Beyond

Emanuel A. Winston says that we're in a War of Civilizations:

When bombs go off in Spain, England, Scotland, Algeria, Iraq, Israel it is because it is an ancient War of Civilizations - brought forward to twenty-aught-eight (2008) and beyond.

Basically, the way to win a war of this sort is to kill everyone who looks like a Muslim, or has the poor sense to live among them. But lest this be mistaken for garden-variety bloodlust, let’s remember that we’re not just fighting for our own survival; we’re also fighting for the fearlessly probing intellectual tradition that gives rise to insights like this:

History of the past can be instructive.

What the history of the past teaches us is that “America did not enslave Germany or Japan after World War II.” Der Ewige Muselmann, by contrast, not only enslaves his victims but subjects them to “oppressive taxes.” If you can't understand this, you're obviously stuck in a twenty-aught-aught mindset (or you've been reading Deuteronomy 20:11).

Perhaps you think George W. Bush is up to the challenge of defending civilization. If so, think again:

We observe President George W. Bush backing away, seemingly willing to replace the fields of stars on the American flag with the crescent moon symbol and the single star of Islam. This president might be acting like a loser.

I know it's rather dilettantish to criticize the grammar in a high-circulation call for genocide, but I can’t help myself. Get a load of this:

If the Free West’s adversaries get away with defeating and demolishing Israel, then any of the other Free West’s countries will be next, consecutive or coincidental. So, it is in everyone’s best interest (if they are not Muslims) to protect the tiny Jewish State - in their own best interests.

If I've got this straight, what Winston’s saying here is that acting in our own best interests would be in our best interests, which is why we need to kill all the ragheads - consecutive or coincidental - at our earliest convenience:

Our choice is accepting the blowing up of our families or the blowing up of theirs. A bad choice but, if you didn’t start Armageddon, why die with your pride intact, following rules of acceptable national suicide?

Here, at least, Winston has managed to be marvelously eloquent, while maintaining a perfect transparency...he's a veritable Visible Head of eliminationism.

Why die with your pride intact? This question, amazingly, is asked by a man who frets over Islam’s alleged challenge to the “Judeo-Christian ethos.” Apparently, he has never heard that "we are unsubstantial dreams, impalpable visions, like the flight of a passing bird, like a ship leaving no track upon the sea, a speck of dust, a vapor, an early dew, a flower that quickly blooms, and quickly fades."

Note, too, that he’s not even sneering at some unyielding Tolstoyan pacifism that prefers death to resisting evil by force…he’s talking about honoring the fucking Geneva Conventions (or as he calls them, the “so-called rules of civilized engagement of warfare").

Civilization itself is at stake, you see…so we have to throw not just its ideals out the window, but also the feeble, myopic attempts we’ve made at living up to them.

We must absolutely (as it were) sink to their level - or die.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that if we embrace Winston's ideology, we can manage both.

(Illustration: From Danse Macabre by Frans Masereel, 1941.)