Well, I got an email from Seb a few days ago — it seems that S,N!’s bestest friend, Amber Pawlik, has been complaining that we’ve been ignoring her in Seb’s absence. So, even though she just doesn’t have the flair for metaphor of a Doug Giles, I decided to check out her new website.

The first thing I went to was the section for publishers and agents.

I am seeking to find an agent or publisher to help me publish a book I have written, which is a book on sexuality from an Objectivist viewpoint.

Since this would fill a real niche in the sexuality market, I wish Amber the best of luck with this. I even read the first chapter, An Introduction to Objectivist Sexuality, and will summarize it here, in case any of you are agents or publishers:

Objectvism says that things are what they are. Water isn’t acid. Men aren’t women. But feminism tries to make you believe differently. Feminists say that men and women are the same (and that acid is water). Men, of course, don’t believe them, and just go off and have some beers at Hooters. But women do fall under the sway of feminism, and eschew makeup, get jobs, and have lots of meaningless sex — which goes against their feminine natures, and causes them to be unhappy, or become lesbians or something. And that’s why feminists are evil.

Some have scratched their head that not only socialist women but many libertarian women still cling to the label ?feminist.? Given their politics range so drastically, some wonder what could unite them. But the one uniting theme is that they all reject their nature as women. Among self-identified feminists, you will always find women who deny gender differences; who believe women can or should be masculine; who are lesbians; who want to keep their maiden name; etc.

And so, you should reject feminism, communism, and all other-isms, and embrace traditional sex roles, the way nature and Ayn Rand, intended.

And that’s the first chapter of Amber’s book. Okay, that was kind of short. So, let’s look at Amber’s latest column, which I was going to skip, out of concern for Amber. Considering all the trouble Kos got into for not caring about the deaths of his fellow human beings in Fallujah, I didn’t really want to expose Amber to public outrage by highlighting her piece, which advocates the death of all Muslims. But what the heck.

Atrocity in Fallujah: Time to Take Off The Gloves

Fallujah is known for being a hot spot for violent anti-Americanism. What were the civilians there to do? Help deliver food to the people.

Well, that’s one story.

We were commanded by leftists to worry about the ?innocent? civilians in Iraq when going to war. In fact, any time the US considers military action, various socialist groups always cry at us about the civilians ? as if this is reason enough that we should never engage in war.

Yeah, damned leftists, always worrying about civilians, women, children, etc. Can’t we just once have a war where we just kill then all, and let God sort them out? No, wait, Amber’s an atheist, like Ayn. Okay, why can’t we just kill them all, leave them unsorted, and then go home and revel in our moral superiority?

In the recent Fallujah attacks, it was not organized terrorists that hung Americans off of a bridge as if they were animals and dragged their corpses through streets with glee. It was a ?jubilant crowd? filled with civilians.

As far as I?m concerned, these civilians are the enemy too. A population has a responsibility for the government in place and also a responsibility, obviously, for how it behaves itself. When we are at war with a tyrannical government, if the population works to overthrow that government and does not wish death and destruction on us solely for being us (please note the Americans killed in Fallujah recently were civilians), such as the Iranian civilians, then the civilians are not our enemy ? in fact, they are an asset. But civilians who erupt in mass joyful glee at seeing dead Americans being abused and humiliated are.

Damned straight! Anybody who erupted in glee should be nuked, for having a bad attitude towards us, their American benefactors. And of course, a population has a responsibility for its government, and anybody who lives in a place where vile acts have been committed, and who hasn’t risen up against that government, deserves to die. I’m talking about YOU, Washingtonians!

But back to Fallujah — a handful of its residents killed our ex-SEAL, highly-paid, soldier-surogate civilians, the monsters! And since killing civilians is the height of barbarism (unless we decide to do it, of course), the Fallujahites don’t deserve to live — unlike the Iranians, who assure Amber that they love Americans, and would always be our friends, if only we would kill all the evil Muslims for them.

Probably the most self-destructive, altruistic position of the United States, however, is our unwillingness to do the simplest, least bloody thing we can do to fight this war on terror: fight ideologically by condemning Islam as being the violent religion it is, responsible for producing terrorists.

The fact is Islam creates exactly the kind of brutality seen in Fallujah. Islam is an ideology that hates, above all things, man. In Islamic art, they are forbidden to draw the human form for the ?work of man will never equal that of God?s,? which is why much of Islamic art is of flowers. If you have watched the Muslim men beat themselves or parents cut their little children on purpose, this evidence is enough to prove Islam hates man and worships death.

Okay, so we fight terrorism by denouncing Islam, because it draws flowers instead of people. And that denunication helps fight terrorism . . .how?

(Regarding Amber’s evidence other than the flowers: apparently the Shiites have a ritual which involves making light cuts on the head of an infant, and then having the child blessed — something comparable to circumcism in Judaism, I’m told via the net. However, this is a cultural thing, and isn’t actually mandated by Islam. I think the “men beating themselves” is something similiar to the medieval Christian practice of self-flagellation — I belive it’s cultural too, but I haven’t researched it. In any case, based just on the evidence of circumcism and “mortification of the flesh,” I wouldn’t call Judaism or Christianity “dealth worship” religions. But that’s just me.)

The reason why Americans are so benevolant and unwilling to see evil is because we are na?ve. We really are like babies with a lollipop …
That, however, changed slightly on 9-11. Unlike our response when a US soldier?s corpse was dragged in a similar fashion through the streets in Somalia, the overwhelming sentiment from Americans in response to Fallujah is that we must not let these attacks scare us or back down. This is a good thing, but we still are not willing to commit ourselves fully to this war, most evidenced by the fact that we keep apologizing for Islam. It?s time to stop it. Pure, raw evil does exist and we must treat it as such.

And again, while Amber doesn’t tell us exactly what we do once we admit that Islam is evil, I assume “treat it as such” means taking some pretty drastic action. Based on her eagerness to do away with the distinctions between civilians and armed combatants, and her willingness to consider everybody who felt “glee” at the death of Americans as our enemies, I can only conclude she means razing Fallujah and putting all its residents to the sword. However, maybe she means we should wipe out all Muslims — maybe we are to give them the Ann Coulter/Torquemada option of converting to Christianity first, but it would be hard to know if they were sincere about it, so this probably wouldn’t work. There’s no compromising with evil, after all. So, I guess we just nuke the entire country, and some of its neighbors (not Iran, though). Per Amber.

However, I’m hoping that Kathleen Parker can talk Amber out of this blood-thirsty plan and get her to just watch a Rambo movie instead.