American Thinker Contributor: We Need More Kent State Style Attacks On Peace Activists

American Thinker publishes The Madness of Ron Paul, by Adam Yoshida who wrote the following:

“Can any rational person deny that Michael Moore is a traitor? … Michael Moore should be made an example of. During the Revolutionary War, loyalists were tarred and feathered and sometimes killed. … In short, during virtually every major American war, subversion, sedition, and treason have been harshly dealt with and civil liberties have been curbed. This is the way things ought to be. This is the way that things must be.

“Vietnam was lost both because seditionists were allowed to run free and because the government failed to take proper action to curb them. Today Kent State is memorialized as a great tragedy because a few traitors (or those stupid enough to stand near them) were killed when, in fact, one of the great tragedies of the war was that there were obviously too few Kent States.”

Good lord.

This is what passes for mainstream “compassionate conservatism” these days.  Apparently the implication is that the State should gun down unarmed peace protesters to prevent anti-war opposition.

I have to wonder what the editors of American Thinker were thinking when they published this piece by a fascist nutcase.  Yoshisa is clearly off the reservation, yet the American Thinker sees fit to publish his fascist articles.

I was going to save the following commentary for a separate post, but it seems more appropriate here:

The facts of the matter are that any war waged by the State necessitates that the State first wage war against its own citizens.  Follow the logic.  Wiki defines war as:

War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war is usually called peace.

So let’s apply that definition of war to the actions of the State against its own citizenry.

In order for the State to conduct a war, the State must first appropriate the resources it needs to conduct a war.  This means using violence or threats of violence against its own population to either loot through taxation, appropriate resources through confiscation, and/or appropriate man power through conscription (slavery).

Any domestic political group that opposes the State’s war is clearly under duress as this situation unfolds.  Their property is taken against their objections, their sons are conscripted against their consent, and the resources that could have gone into producing things that improve their lives are redirected into the machinery of war, which is always wasteful.

Should any of the people who object to the war attempt to resist this confiscation of their property and person, they will face the full violent wrath of the State.  The State will always escalate violence against any resistance until the resistor is dead.  Should a person attempt to defend their property from tax collectors, the tax collectors will call in the police.  Should the person attempt to defend their property from the police, the police will escalate violence until the end result is death.

Even if the people at home are not attacked directly by an opposing army, their lives are just as detrimentally effected.  This is because in order to build a tank, the State must first take the steel that could have been used for building a car.  Resources are poured into a black bottomless pit of destruction where they benefit no one.  The more military spending that takes place, the less resources that are available for the private sector to utilize in the production of domestic goods and services.

This situation meets all the criteria of a domestic war.  Political groups in opposition to the State’s war will face the same violence enemy combatants face on the battlefield.  There is no difference between how the State treats enemy combatants and those who refuse to turn over their resources here at home.

Indeed, enemy combatants who acquiesce to the State’s war will more than likely face a less harsh penalty than those who refuse to turn over their property domestically.  Enemy combatants are released at the end of wars without penalty or felonious criminal records.  Tax evaders may face up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, along with a felony record that bars them from owning firearms, voting, or receiving benefits from the money that was stolen from them.  And of course, should one attempt to resist the confiscation of their property for use in war, the State will escalate violence until the property is taken and the resistor is dead.

  • Ryan Roland

    From my reading, those paragraphs no longer appear to be in the article.

    • I initially only included one link, I have edited the article to make it more clear.

  • Interesting. I’ve not seen anything that crazy posted on American Thinker. I’ve read a lot of articles on that blog. I generally like them. I don’t agree with what you attribute to Yoshida in your article. It’s clearly insane, and I don’t support that kind of thinking at all. I’d like to see the context – guess I’ll go look up the article.