What a 21st Century Advocate of 20th Century Mass Murder Looks Like.
Susie Madrak, who also blogs at Suburban Guerrilla (be sure and go there to admire the masthead of a cartoonish Ms. Madrak wielding a submachinegun and throwing a hand grenade in response to an eviction notice), has put us all on notice at the notorious Crooks and Liars website: "So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?" She writes, in part,
Rick Perlstein writes about how Democrats completely surrendered our political will to control guns when the Obama administration backed away from the Bundy ranch. And I have to admit, he makes a good point. I assumed the feds would be back later -- as in, a few weeks. How long has it been now? By the time anything actually happens, will it have any real deterrent effect?But Perlstein doesn't mention the big honkin' elephant in the room: Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? Because we're not talking about bank robbers here, we're talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks -- scofflaws and political malcontents. So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point? Because you can't talk about the Bundy ranch without talking about Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
Several readers brought this collectivist jeremiad of murderous intent to my email inbox and included links to Bob Owens' and Brock Townsend's comments.
Ms. Madrak has never been shy about collectivist advocacy of violence, witness this from 2011:
"I have to say, as much as I like what the Occupy movement is doing, I think they were wrong to explicitly rule out violence. This country does nothing until the elites feel threatened."
Yes. Well. So the submachinegun and the grenade cartoon was an expression of Ms. Matrak's fondest wishes, perhaps? I wondered immediately, just what this harridan doing in the late sixties? She certainly sounds like an unrepentant member of the Weather Underground. As for myself, I elected to take the collectivist advocate of citizen-murder-by-government harpy by the talons and pluck her feathers directly. To wit,
From: email@example.comTo: firstname.lastname@example.orgSent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 11:21 amSubject: Congrats on your latest C&L post! Your voluntary self-nomination for the Julius Streicher Memorial Award is duly noted."I have to say, as much as I like what the Occupy movement is doing, I think they were wrong to explicitly rule out violence. This country does nothing until the elites feel threatened." -- Susie Madrak, 7 October 2011.Ms. Madrak,Several of my readers brought my attention to your Crooks and Liars post entitled "So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?" which includes the paragraph:But Perlstein doesn't mention the big honkin' elephant in the room: Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? Because we're not talking about bank robbers here, we're talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks -- scofflaws and political malcontents. So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point? Because you can't talk about the Bundy ranch without talking about Ruby Ridge, and Waco.Interesting use of language, the phrase "before we start mowing them down to make our point." Which begs the question, what exactly is "our (your) point"? Citizen disarmament for everyone? I think not. Certainly it is evident that you identify with the present regime's ability to work their will upon people without the possibility of those targeted people to resist. This seems an odd opinion for someone whose website features a cartoon of herself firing a submachinegun and throwing hand grenades in response to an eviction notice. From this contradiction I conclude that your objection is not to weapons in the hands of the people, but simply to weapons in the hands of people with whom you and the present regime disagree with. Well, that is certainly understandable, you being an obviously unrepentant collectivist. As with all such true believers in the various butcher philosophies of the 20th Century, you define "peace" as the silence, imprisonment or death of all who oppose you. I know, I used to be a collectivist myself. (See http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/05/missed-anniversary-vous-les-americains.html as well as my talk last year on collectivist lies here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zwz6wEuZks).It is surprising to run into someone who espouses collectivist tyranny yet who is so honest about it, however. Most collectivists are inveterate liars. If you view my talk on collectivist lies referenced above, you will hear the story of how my daughter once got in trouble at school for defining the difference between a socialist and a communist as: "A socialist is a communist who has not yet found his AK-47 nor the will to use it, whereas a communist is a socialist who HAS found his AK-47 and the will to use it on you." The difference is merely one of self-awareness and opportunity. Yet it is refreshing to have found someone who is so honest and unabashed in her collectivism. Your bloody suit fits you well. You accuse us of "want(ing) a civil war so bad, they (we) can taste it." Yet we merely wish to be left alone from your collectivist meddling and the iron fist of government which you would use to enforce it. It seems to us that it is you who has the hunger for other people's liberty, and property and lives. Frankly, it is your bloody appetites which are the problem here, not ours.But before you start stacking up our bodies and those of our families in service to your collectivist goals (and how many million of us are you willing to see dead to make your point?), I should have the good manners to remind you that the Law of Unintended Consequences, which can neither be repealed nor its sentences appealed, always applies to both tyrants and wannabes. You may ask Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu about their unexpected Christmas present back in 1989. Unfortunately, you'd have to go to hell to have that particular conversation. (See my post, "'Resistance is Futile': Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules," at http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/06/four-years-after-resistance-is-futile.html)Of course you are not a tyrant yourself, you may argue, not even a doorkicker of the kind you suppose will unthinkingly do your bidding to work your will upon the rest of us. You are merely an advocate. Well, then, may I refer you to the case of Hitler's favorite "journalist," Julius Streicher? He started out as an advocate too. That fact did not save him from doing the executioner's jig at Nuremburg. We here at Sipsey Street recognize such present-day collectivist advocates as yourself with the Julius Streicher Memorial Award from time to time. Thus, your voluntary self-nomination for the Julius Streicher Memorial Award is duly noted. Old Julius would be quite proud of your use of marginalizing language to dehumanize your intended victims, to smear their principles as evidence of mental pathology or worse. Yes, you certainly deserve the NOMINATION to the Streicher Award, but I'm afraid you will have to compete with several other previous self-nominations already on file for this year. Whether you deserve to WIN the Award will be determined at a later date. And of course whether you deserve Streicher's fate will be decided by the unseen historical judges who mystically enforce the Law of Unintended Consequences and have done so consistently throughout the centuries. For myself as a Christian, I sincerely hope that you avoid Streicher's fate, no matter how sorely you now tempt it.But of course I also hope that we avoid the civil war and mass butchery of innocents that you seem to advocating for the rest of us.Sincerely,Mike VanderboeghThe alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percentershttp://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.comPO Box 926Pinson AL 35126