Testing Our Country to Destruction

By | September 4, 2017 | 2 Comments

The photo on the left shows tread separation, caused by destructive testing of tires. The photo on the right shows societal separation, caused by destructive rioting in Berkeley and elsewhere.

In the first case, high-speed endurance was tested by mounting the tire on a laboratory wheel, then slowly increasing the speed as the tire spun on a roller. Eventually the tread would separate or the sidewall would burst.

The endpoint was destruction of the tire. The test was conducted in the safety of the laboratory.

No one would think of mounting the tires on his own car, then driving faster and faster to see when the tires disintegrated. If he did, he would not have to worry about saving for retirement. Yet is that not what we are doing − not with tires, but in other ways?

In the second case, societal cohesion was tested by scheduling, then cancelling, a free-speech rally in Berkeley. Black-masked Antifa thugs proceeded to beat up, hit with sticks, and pepper spray pro-Trump demonstrators who showed up. In many cases, police stood by idly. Yes, Antifa stands for anti-fascist. But beating up political opponents, while police did nothing, was characteristic of Italian Fascists and German Nazis in the 1930s. Fascist is as fascist does.

The endpoint is destruction of freedom. But this test is being conducted on our beloved country.

Think about it. When the government initiates a new social or economic policy, or when a court issues an order, or when leftist demonstrators make demands, we should ask one question: What is the endpoint? And in many cases, there isn’t any ‒ short of destruction.

There is always a “crisis” that justifies the government in taking away still more of our freedoms. “Global warming” is only one of many such crises demanding “urgent action.” But even if global warming exists, will compact fluorescent bulbs alleviate it? Who cares? Yes, they cost more, contain toxic mercury, and are made in China. But “going green” makes leftists feel good, and that’s what’s really important, isn’t it?

Did Roosevelt’s New Deal programs shorten the Great Depression, or prolong it? Does sex education decrease teen pregnancy, or increase it? Do strict gun-control laws decrease violent crime, or increase it? Does abolishing the death penalty show we are “compassionate,” or does it increase homicide? Does increasing school funding improve test scores, or does it just make us feel good?

We quote theories proposed by “experts.” We imagine how things ought to be. But the real question is: Does the program work? To answer this question, we need definitions of “success” and “failure.” And we need an endpoint.

No sane person would test tires to destruction on his own car, driving faster and faster, the only endpoint being literally the end point. Yet is this not exactly what we are doing to our own country?

● Are we not initiating and expanding a host of social and economic programs, but without clearly defined endpoints, and meanwhile terminating very few?

● Are we not passing hundreds of new laws every year, but repealing very few?

● Are we not issuing thousands of new regulations every year, but rescinding very few?

● Are we not allowing political discussions to degenerate into name-calling, with the endpoint being irreparable damage to friendships and family ties?

● Are we not allowing leftist haters to call President Trump “Nazi” and “racist,” thereby trivializing these terrible words? Trump has a Jewish daughter, a Jewish son-in-law, three Jewish grandchildren, and another daughter who is going with a Jew. He opened Palm Beach hotels to blacks and Jews. If “Nazis” act like that, how bad can they be? You see what I mean by trivialize? Being to the right of Bernie Sanders does not make one a “Nazi.”

● Are we not allowing leftist haters to call President Trump “anti-immigrant,” thereby trivializing this serious charge? Trump’s paternal grandparents were immigrants from Germany, his mother was an immigrant from Scotland, and his wife is an immigrant from Slovenia. If “anti-immigrants” are like that, how bad can they be? You see what I mean by trivialize? Being against illegal immigration does not make one “anti-immigrant.”

● Are we not dividing ourselves into factions defined by race, gender, and class, with the endpoint being the fracturing of our nation?

● Are we not allowing discussions to become arguments, arguments to become confrontations, and confrontations to become violent, with the endpoint being a second civil war?

Let us stop testing our country to destruction − before we reach the endpoint and succeed in destroying it.

No, these are not anti-fascists,
they are fascists

Author’s Note:
Before you call someone a “Nazi,” you have a moral and intellectual obligation to inform yourself of what the real Nazis were. If you have a strong stomach, watch this video:

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.


Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.