By: Rosemary Dewar
The state of adolescence has been agonizingly extended by our current social structure. The Peter Pan mentality is the unavoidable outgrowth of progressivism, and the ideology of socialism has been the most difficult to disparage. However, it is becoming much clearer as to why. The idealized elements of socialism are proscribed on an extremely small scale every day when you are a child. Everyone’s priority is to make sure you survive. Additionally, if you experienced life in a religious home, mostly likely your church community is focused on making sure you survive spiritually. All resources are expected and prompted to cultivate your well-being. It becomes simple to see how socialism attempts to mimic religion and supplant family.

With the rise of the welfare state and the implementation of policies such as the Affordable Care Act, a person is made to believe that they can and will be cared for by the state in the manner their family might have. The intention may be thoughtful; however, the child that refuses to grow up will never have anything to offer. Millennials and Generation-Z are graduating and coming off their parents’ healthcare, and they are panicking. They are being forced to grow up and become independent for the first time in their life, and they don’t know what to do. Instead of instinctively following a biological determination to hunt, build, and protect something and someone who is undeniably theirs, they are being taught that all of it is a social construct that bears no meaning or value.

The philosophy of maturity has been choked-out of culture, almost as if it were a snake slowing tightening its grip on its prey. If you remember, in Disney’s 1967 animated movie The Jungle Book, a boy who is raised in the jungle journeys his way back into society. The dramas are the obstacles that attempt to keep him from becoming a man that will one day dominate them all. The panther, aware of the threat of man, knows the boy will be cared for if he rejoins mankind. The bear wants to cultivate a friendship without the boy becoming a proactive member of mankind. The snake tempts the boy with false promises of trust and understanding in order to satisfy its own hunger. The vultures proclaim they are his friends, while crafting a plan to gratify their appetite. The ape confesses it wants to be like the boy just to use a tool to protect him from the ultimate predator. The tiger has no pretense in its determination to make the boy a victim before he has the chance to become a man.

The tool that the ape wants and the tiger fears is fire, which is a symbol for both destruction and purification. The rubbish must burn so that which withstands it is revealed. At the end of the film, the boy is lured into mankind’s society by a girl. The girl carries a blissful tune conveying a picture of her home with a mother and a father, as well as a hope of a husband and girl of her own. This encounter concludes the boy’s journey from the jungle into society.

The fact that this movie came out during the sexual revolution of the 1960s is evidence of entertainment’s attempt to instill classic societal rolls. It is the exact opposite of what we see in entertainment, today.

In Judaism, a boy is to begin his development into manhood at the age of thirteen. The commemoration is called a bar mitzvah, and the boy is prepared to accept the responsibilities of manhood as proscribed under Jewish law.
So, what happens when Peter Pan grows up? The 1991 movie Hook depicts an adult Peter Pan who has lost his ability to be a hero in his son’s eyes. A vindictive Captain Hook kidnaps Peter’s son and daughter. The only way to save them is to become the hero he once was. The pivotal scene where Peter regains his power to fly is when he finds happiness in being a father. Peter’s son is seduced by Hook’s ability to pacify his every childish whim, but it is no match for Peter’s halcyon call to come home.

Anything that attempts to take the place of family or God will fall grievously short for those who are willing to substitute them with communal policy.

The demand for mankind to become beneficial contributors to society will always look differently to being faithful contributors to a family. The expectation to treat a stranger equally to a member of the family unit is a diminishment of value to all participants in a community.

Due to the counterproductive demolition of social foundations, mankind has largely lost its purpose and focus. By contrast, our insistence upon restoring that foundation is essential for the future we will leave behind for generations after us.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
This past year has been nothing short of a whirlwind, and all that has been highlighted by culture itself is desperation and the grotesque. The tenets of nature’s law seem weakened even though they are holding as true as they always have. The dark will continue to darken; however the light can only grow more brilliant. The principles of morality are akin to the general understanding of gravity; they are universal, absolute, and unrelenting.

Similar to Newton’s third law of motion, where every action has an equal and opposite reaction; every unforgettable dark hour will be eventually be met with an hour of undeniable brilliance. Our culture has a chronic habit of focusing on what displeases the human consciousness. It seems to take additional effort to perceive positivity and wholesomeness.

Mankind is broken. It is observable that humans do not consistently make decisions that have beneficial outcomes. Hopefully the moral standards of the society assist in curbing disaster and dread. When the standard fails to withstand damage, what manifests? The gravity of morality strains society until it eventually cracks the shell that it has built up around itself. That frail veneer that blotted out the light systematically falls apart.

When a crack in a structure reveals itself, that which is outside cannot help but pierce what inhabits the inside. The air and the light begin to permeate what is barricaded within. As pressure mounts, the crack stretches across the structure until it collapses. Then, you are exposed, broken, and forced to create equilibrium with what was forcefully kept out.

Structure is still an essential, and you can’t make it out of what just failed to protect you. A binding agent to re-fortify the defense must be made of something valuable and resilient.

A repairing technique called ‘golden joinery’ is a process of using precious metals like gold, silver, or platinum to restore broken pottery. It is most interesting that an object has the potential to become more valuable after once being damaged.

Much as it is with a person; they may make mistakes. They may even cause great harm. Additionally, should one break under the weight of ethics, what one determines to repair themselves with is just as vital. As for society, it breaks under the weight of its rebellion. When it chooses unwisely, it cannot help but fail and crack again.

Experience, turmoil, and responsibility break everyone on some level. While broken, you get to see what you have made yourself to be. The quandary is, what are you going to use to pick yourself back up with? Will what you use be easily tampered with and unsustainable, or will it be something of intrinsic worth that can stand the test of time?

Brokenness can be a stunning place to start. Once the light is let in and that atmosphere is aired out, an extravagant confidence can be rebuilt.

As we enter the season of lights, let’s be aware of the darkness that is broken by the things that hold the greatest value to us. The very thing that we need the most is sometimes that which will humble. Once the pressure is lifted, we will mend each other with the most precious substance that sustains us. Whether it is your faith, love, or morals, find what will reinforce your value, and do not squander what will bring the greatest return.

Let it catch the light.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
Men have been presented in the most unfavorable and distasteful light in the past few months. Scores of men cast out of social favor in the realms of politics and cultural entertainment. Within the whirlwind of the accusations, there seems to be no man innocent of the allegations. Culture has no problem determining what male behavior is most unbecoming. However, it does have a great problem defining what men ought to be. Without the traditional roles for which men are created, e.g., provision, leadership and self-sacrifice, the use for men is unceremoniously snuffed out.

When one reads in The Washington Post: “And in this broken system, anyone who isn’t with us is against us. Particularly, and especially, men,” the chance for the social redemption of men is near zero.

Or when in The Guardian they assert that, “Perhaps it’s an extreme version of masculinity that has always been with us in a culture that gives men more power and privilege.” Attributing ill behavior to only one sex is in itself sexist.

Observing that certain behaviors are more apparent in one gender demands the acknowledgement that there are fundamental differences between the sexes. If the sexes are indeed different, what would be the benefit in allowing them to switch at will? Not much. Should a woman decide to live her life in a more masculine way, does that mean she is devolving because of toxic masculinity? These contentions are pointless. They are the evidence of a moral and intellectual wasteland, a no man’s land. It’s a true manifestation of utopia.

Men have a purpose and are of noble worth to society. They are the husbands who protect their wives. They are the fathers who provide for their children. They are the leaders who sacrifice for their communities. Any man or woman who would dare to spitefully discount the worth of men is responsible for the squandering of humanity at large.

The Judeo-Christian worldview presents esteemed men as humble leaders, loyal husbands, and caring fathers. Any deviation from the given prescription for honorable manhood was a direct grievance to God. Such men were met with scorn and ruin.

The premise of a successful sexual relationship was exclusively defined by marriage. Instead of being intimate with every viable counterpart, a man was to commit himself to a woman in marriage. In a consensual exchange for companionship and physical protection the two agreed to forsake adultery. There is nothing controversial about this premise unless one or both break their loyalty. In reference to this structure, it is hard to conjure a better situation for women and a society.

Such traditions are frowned upon in our current culture, yet we wonder why our society is in quite an unraveled state. I do not see how men and women can reach their full potential without acknowledging one another’s unique fortés. Once culture reconciles the honorable roles of womanhood and manhood, it has a higher probability of succeeding.

Should culture continue its wholesale tearing down of the standards to which men and women are to hold themselves, the more we will see them torn apart by one another’s vying for self-focused pleasure. The consequences of such recklessness will create greater societal terrors.

Psychologist Carl Jung stated that, “The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” When in the pursuit of unbridled pleasure, mankind is usually living in a hell of his own making. There should be no shock when the things that can hurt you the most actually do.

Men hold a heftier weight of responsibility when it comes to leading a family or leading a community. Compromising the standard for temporary pleasure, fame, or power will have detrimental consequences on society that will take more time to correct than it took to utilize for any advancement. If the aim is to purposefully create a societal disadvantage, dismantle the standard for manhood.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
Agreeing to a plan or arrangement with no consideration for the outcome is without a doubt unwise. Our culture has adopted this post-modern habit of acquiescing to fatalistic ideas without calculating the cost of its affect on society. The religious community is just as responsible for perpetuating this frailty, as is the secular community.

Historically, an army would surrender on the grounds of mutual standards of engagement. The aim of surrendering without the hope of outliving the conflict while in the custody of your enemy is counterproductive. If there were no hope of survival, one would more likely choose to die fighting. Therefore, the term “unconditional surrender,” as was used at the end of WWII, was agreed to with the hope that the conquered would be treated mercifully by the conqueror(s). Such was the case with Germany and Japan, who are now thriving.

By contrast, the word “unconditional” is used rather flippantly in conjunction with the word “love.” Both the religious and secular communities are culpable for the irresponsible use of this concept. The Judeo-Christian model of God is that He simply does not change. Although God is not affected by the lack of adherence to His precepts by those who claim to follow Him, this does not correlate with the idea that what He offers is unconditional. God promises He will not change, and a follower agrees to obey based on this promise. I couldn’t conjure a more conditional relationship if I tried. When Evangelical Christians reduce the consciousness of redemption to “just a relationship,” they seem to ignore that relationships are also built on rules. That is what a covenant is. If you are going to equate the religious experience with a marriage covenant, you better be prepared to sacrifice much of yourself. It is anything but unconditional.

Once the weightiness of the religious experience is understood, it becomes easier to understand why intellectual secularists hesitate to entertain anything resembling a religious practice. Consciousness, whether one is a believer or a secularist must inevitably be sacrificed. In addition, true redemption can only occur when something dies in order for something untainted to take its place. Can you imagine surrendering the very idea that defines you? It is a scary experience that can and will shake you to your core. Christian ideologues present it as a request when in reality, it is a command.

Once you give up a behavior that hurts you, it is imperative to adopt an ideology that will support and reward the positive change. The Judeo-Christian life unapologetically acknowledges that there are rules and even commands. They should not be seen as limitations of rewards, but support systems that make that reward easier to obtain.

Evangelical Christians assert that “the Law” is obsolete after salvation. I can’t think of a time you need elevated standards more than when you realize you either have low standards or you had no standards at all. What you do and how you act matters.

Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky presented in his The Brothers Karamazov that how you choose to live your life while interacting with society is more important than one’s ability to say they simply believe something on a spiritual or metaphysical plane. What one believes should and will have influence on the behavior that is exercised.

Reason ought to never be divorced from religious expression. Whenever it is, there is no active structure that produces valuable incentives. A relationship with a divine being is as conditional as a relationship would be with a friend, a brother, or a lover. Violation of that dependability has consequences. Be ready to reconcile those occurrences, because they are inevitable.

The law always kills something. It can either kill what harms you, or it will kill that which can save you.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
Acts of evil are much easier to define than it is to define those who commit them. Our culture has a serious problem with sustaining standards of morality, and the lack of thoughtful consistency and honesty leaves people logically and emotionally vulnerable. It should not be difficult for anyone to conclude that violation of choice correlated with violation of life is socially harmful. Humanity is not short on examples of frailty, and identifying that frailty is dependent on one’s ability to define it.

Mankind is inherently capable of doing great good as well as great wickedness. Anyone who has had or has babysat a toddler can affirm that they can be willful and selfish dictators. Without healthy discipline and stability, any child is at a higher risk of cultivating irregular levels of vanity and validation in their character. Should these behaviors go unchecked, having someone develop into a sophisticatedly manipulative adult is a plausible outcome.

Our culture has acknowledged a new level of awareness in two particular stories: the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock and sexual predator, Harvey Weinstein. Both men perpetrated the most degrading and heartless acts, each violent in their own way. Weinstein used his influence to limit choice and violate the self-worth of his victims. Paddock fed a still-undefined delusion so fervently that he committed the largest mass shooting in United States history.

These men are equally guilty of their crime, yet society does not want to hold them solely responsible. For Paddock, the left looks to blame America’s Constitutional right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves against those like him.

Condemning an inanimate object will not resolve the character issue. As for Weinstein, the left aims to denounce masculinity for his abhorrent behavior. However, conflating sexual abuse and aggression with masculinity is culturally detrimental and, in fact, inaccurate.

Simply because men disproportionally commit more crime than women, does not mean that society has the privilege of convicting all men carte blanche of being subhuman. Absolving women who have committed heinous acts also does not cultivate a stable society. Humanity is broken, but society must do a better job at promoting and honoring men and women who excel at their morality.

Our current culture has yet to define what darkness is. It ought to do so before dancing with it.

In Act I, Scene III of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Banquo warns exactly as noted below:

But ’tis strange:
And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s
In deepest consequence.

Ambition without mercy is the death of the human soul.

The Judeo-Christian worldview asserts that mankind is feeble and that there are those who choose darkness knowing full well that they betray the light afforded them. They forfeit their humanity. That is not a masculine trait or a feminine trait, but a godless one.

Greek philosopher Socrates stated, “Worthless people live to eat and drink, people of worth eat and drink to live.”

Those who feed on the vulnerability of others are never satisfied, and they do not consider what comes forth from them as they devour every person they encounter. In contrast, those who consider how they affect others are far more conscious of what they are willing to consume.

Should culture continue to worship self-gratification, it will find itself consumed by the very darkness it cultivated. The light is one choice away, accessible by simply refusing to indulge in another’s discomfort.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis said it best when he stated, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
As much as culture seems to be splitting away from sound rationale, there is much to recognize as hopeful. After observing the overzealousness of the nationalists and the self-righteousness of the neo-communists, it is certain that they are few in number. Society is aware that it does not take many to cause serious unrest. If one is allowed to conquer the other culturally, the collateral damage affects the conqueror as well as the vanquished.

Even though there is plenty to be concerned about, I believe the best action is to step back and breathe. So much of this is has been seen before: riots and politically-influenced violence. It is as if the 1960s have been completely forgotten. The memory has gone the way of tall-tales and myths. America came out of a chemical stupor long enough to experience a cultural renaissance in the 1980s. I repeatedly hear from my hippie-converts to conservative mentors that they have seen this all before, and a revival is approaching. I am compelled to believe them. They should be professing it more often.

The fear of division is not unusual. During the birth of the United States of America, the Founding Fathers anticipated the friction that came with the integration of opposing ideas. They did not want to mistake novelty for uniqueness. Federalist James Madison stated, “…the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness. But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new? Is it not the glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times… and the lessons of their own experiences?”

Learning is the key component on how we are to move onward. The assertion that something ought to be censored for its possible dissonance inhibits the learning process. Each individual and their expression is novel. Limiting what could be learned is a purposeful violation of discovery and advancement.

The deluge of tragedies like the Charlottesville protest, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Maria, and the Las Vegas shooting has reopened a genuine discussion of what American values are. What are we supposed to be standing for? The standard that was sacrificially built upon which the citizens of the United States rely is exactly what we are desperately attempting to preserve.

The starkest dilemma is that we are now presented with two generations that were never exposed to the concept that America had any fundamental values. In response to this idea, one cannot simply say, “Because I said so” or “Because God said so” or “Because the Bible said so.” In order to effectively expose these generations to this fundamental fact, we must be willing to take time to explain “why.” Furthermore, any action that obstructs the ability to have this conversation is a direct threat to liberty.

Founding Father Benjamin Franklin stated, “Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”

Whether a person is conservative, liberal, religious or not, once you assert that an individual ought to be forced to censor themselves in order to avoid challenging you, the result is that all will ultimately be censored. Targeting the individual beyond the bounds of the U.S. Constitution is discrimination. Any variant from this crucial core will decline into a tyrannical and fascist abuse of power.

The Judeo-Christian worldview presents the idea that an individual is not to pass judgment on his neighbor until they have taken the time to realize that they themselves have a fatal flaw or a blind spot. You may feel justified in your perception; however, you can be just as harmful as the person at whom you are pointing the finger.

If you are intent upon the improvement of society and culture, you must be willing to engage in constructive dialogue. Any statement or answer that is unmeasured, either yours or someone else’s, must be tested in order to affect that improvement.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
Distress can be an indicator of a situation having failed to operate in a beneficial manner, similar to the shocking sensation you experience when jamming your finger, or maybe that searing heat when one has been burned by steam. On a societal level, this can look like an increase in crime or the break-up of the nuclear family. Either a single factor or a combination of detrimental factors can cause suffering to both the individual and the immediate community.

A solution must be calculated and pursued. Is the goal to turn off the dashboard light, or is it to discover what caused it to come on in the first place? You wouldn’t stop driving a car simply because the oil-change notification appears. That’s equivalent to someone saying that when dealing with a mild case of constipation, that they would consider an elective colostomy as a cure.

There is no promise that pain in and of itself is going to bring forth anything good in someone’s life, although history is full of the stories of people who overcame tremendous adversity of all types, and they and society and were better for it. By contrast, what we have now is the mis-belief that anxiety, depression, delusion, disassociation, and dysphoria are foregone conclusions that the sufferer is a creative genius.

This is far from helpful. When something is undoubtedly wrong, the last thing you need is someone telling you, “There is nothing wrong with you. You’re perfect just the way you are.” This false affirmation delays relief. It becomes easier to understand why beloved artists abruptly commit suicide. To many, this act is presented as selfish, and it can be; however, sustained pain is torturous. Anyone with chronic physical pain can confirm that. Now, imagine if it is mental. It’s a prison with a view, but you’re “fine.”

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that when contentment and relief are overdue, the heart grows sick.There is truly nothing more depressing and dreary than an effort unrewarded or a stress unrelenting. But, a desire fulfilled is a tree of life. Nothing feeds into life like incentive. There is no sensation quite like when winning a competition or overcoming an adversity no matter how small. It feeds the soul.

Our culture is hell-bent on abandoning the vehicle that society needs to move forward in a proactive way. A society that tells you that you’re never wrong, ignorant, or miserable is incapable of cultivating a society that endures. In addition, teaching the young that they will “live forever,” and that their actions have no impact on either their physical or mental health is irresponsible. Then there is Karl Marx , who stated that, “The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain.” That philosophy is exceedingly heinous.

Yes, America’s heart is sick. It is not due to class inequality or race inequality, but from abandoning principles that work for everyone when applied. The smallest percentage of society is yelling the loudest, and the result is that we believe they are growing in numbers daily when it’s simply not true. The dissection of American culture is the result of falsehoods pushed by collectives who have little to complain about.They’d rather see more pain than relief, so long as it benefits them. Truth will confound the most divisive narrative, and it is needed more now than ever. Truth diffuses a collective ideology. Decency has a greater return than compulsion. No matter how deeply you want something, it should never come at the cost of someone else, or it will eventually come at the cost of you.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
For those who have any doubts, if you are ever approached by another who demands your silence and compliance, they are not conservative. America’s pop-culture has shown a blatant example of how they wish the world to be. It is a despotic nightmare. One’s thoughts, words, and expressions are no longer one’s own, according to the left. Any “resistance” is met with scorn and retribution.
A cascade of recent events has exposed the political left’s core.

Senator Bernie Sanders is releasing a book later this month titled Bernie Sanders’ Guide to Political Revolution. I don’t know how much more Lenin-esque one can get, but this is bordering on impersonation. Vladimir is noted to have stated, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” The senator seems to have no qualms following in the footsteps of a leader that lead tens of millions to slaughter.

Actress Lena Dunham reported two airport attendants to American Airlines for having a private conversation about the social trans-sexual issue. Since their opinion dissented from her own, Lena felt compelled to hope for a reprimand. After sharing her experience on Twitter, American Airlines stated that they were “unable to substantiate” her claims. Lena operated on the assumption that she could become a covert operative of the group-think of the left.

Actress Chelsea Handler expressed inane appreciation after hearing that Germany arrested Chinese tourists for giving the Nazi salute in front of the Reichstag building. Of course, it is distasteful. So is depriving someone of their right to free expression. The liberty to be stupid is a two-way street, whether we like it or not.

Furthermore, Google first admonished and then terminated an employee by the name of James Damore for distributing a ten-page informative memo regarding Google’s haphazard approach to accomplishing “equality” and “diversity.” Damore’s detractors framed him as a hateful, ignorant, sexist bigot for refusing to comply. So much for diversity of thought. It is reported that fifty-four percent of Google employees did not agree with the decision to dismiss. It can be expected that much of the American public shares this disappointment.

The overindulgent left has yet to reconcile the fact that once liberty is limited to one, it becomes limited to all. It continues to be believed that the hand of totalitarianism will only be ushered in by the conservative religious right. We see this mirrored in culture.

Author Kurt Vonnegut held the opinion that the concept of socialism was simply misunderstood. He stated, “It isn’t moonbeams to talk of modest plenty for all. They have it in Sweden. We can have it here… Even so, I would like to see America try socialism. If we start drinking heavily and killing ourselves, and if our children start acting crazy, we can go back to good old Free Enterprise again.” After his dystopian novels, he didn’t seem much the wiser. Although he meant to create a satire, he depicted precisely what authors George Orwell and Ray Bradbury expressed.

Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta has the same fatal flaw. In this realm, the conflation of religion, conservatism, and totalitarianism is made again. It is an absolute mockery of the concept of conservatism. The character V expresses, “And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors… soliciting your submission.” It should be observed that only one side of our government is demanding conformity and censorship. The petition for safe-spaces from alleged micro-aggressions is strongly resisted by those who hold conservative ideals.

The left’s consistently amorous flirtation with fascism can best be explained by Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and Dinesh D’Souza’s The Big Lie. Until the left recognizes that they have celebrated division and subjugation that is justified by their own warped view of morality, it is uncertain that they’ll change.

The Judeo-Christian worldview loathes the idea of unwarranted judgment. God doesn’t strike a human dead within the millisecond of the very first sin committed.The left is all too anxious to use their version of morality to judge those who disagree with them. Should the culture remain estranged to liberty, the left will never find the peace it claims it desires.
By: RosemaryDewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
On Sunday, William Shatner took to Twitter to express his disappointment in and distaste for the toxic level of leftist-identity politics. He started by stating, “SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) stand for inequality, where they are superior to any one else, hence my use of Misandry and Snowflake.” A deluge of leftist criticism flooded his Twitter feed with an ugly mutation of the principle of justice that should not need a modifier.

Detractors called Mr. Shatner a sexist, as well as a misogynist. Liberal publications decided to jump on the bandwagon and condemn William Shatner’s statements.

Recently, decided to denounce William Shatner’s regular confrontational interactions with his own SJW fans. Shatner’s unapologetic and commanding style has seemed to trigger hysteria from the most fragile of life forms.’s Matthew Rozsa asks in vitriolic fashion, “Does William Shatner’s attack on ‘SJWs’ erase his ‘Star Trek’ legacy?”

The answer to such a ridiculous question is a simple “No.”
The article is tagged with many progressive buzzwords, including but not limited to “alt right.” This is rather asinine since the topic is not addressed anywhere in the publication. Salon’s Mr. Rozsa selected several of Shatner’s Tweets that definitively outline the incoherence of those who hold fast to progressive values.

After I read the publication and found it to be quite inflammatory, I reached out to Mr. Shatner by saying, “Reminder that Salon is garbage. Once again, I adore my captain.”

Mr. Shatner responded, “Who knew Salon would go the way of New Media Yellow Journalism? I guess readership was down?”

To categorize as sensational and crude would only begin to expose how debased their platform has truly become. Their cultivation of moral relativism has ranged from sympathy for pedophiles to kowtowing to Islamic extremism.

Salon has experienced declining numbers of readers since May of 2015, without any signs of recovery. Their blind adherence to leftist philosophy is causing adverse reactions so acute that the Starship Enterprise’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. McCoy, (also known as Bones) would have no hope of saving their delicate readership.

I replied to Mr. Shatner, “The whole right-wing knew it, Bill. Salon is a sitting duck in a vortex of cultural decay.”

Lastly, he stated, “Sad. They ( used to have amazing writers.”

William Shatner’s sentiments are shared by conservatives, and reviled by progressives.

When tagged the publication under “misogyny,” one has to ask, “Did they ever even watch Star Trek?”

Captain James Tiberius Kirk’s manly charm and commanding allure are enduring qualities of his character. Current progressive standards would consider these traits “toxic masculinity.” Most Star Trek fans of the original series would not consider altering Captain Kirk’s character any way. It would clearly ruin the cavalier spirit the show epitomizes.

Mr. Shatner’s observations are perfectly innocent, yet insightful. In the sphere of truly diverse ideas, his awareness is welcome.

“The prejudices people feel about each other disappear when they get to know each other.” – Captain Kirk

Note: the Twitter exchange between veteran actor William Shatner and the author can be viewed at @rlynnd1.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
There are many issues of importance concerning the woes of local communities. Instead of looking inward for a solution, the choice to petition the federal government is often pursued. Reaching out for a federal government subsidy should only be considered an absolute, last resort. Unfortunately, it seems to be a default setting for those who manage city and state regulations in order to pacify their constituents. Resolutions are rarely reached when community limitations continue to mount. Should travailing communities want lasting relief, it is best that they find strength to be with a neighbor, while maintaining moral principles as well as responsiveness toward another.

The federal government was never intended to intertwine itself with the states’ common functions. States were to govern themselves to the point of nearly absolute independence. Any cooperation with the federal government was largely limited to self-defense.

When the Founding Fathers used the word “welfare,” they did not mean a subsidy funded by national government. Today many citizens and state representatives have severely corrupted the original meaning of the word “welfare” to the point that they have contributed to the unstable conditions found in their communities. Domestic overcrowding combined with high government funding consistently results in the increase of : single-parent families, low labor participation, substandard education, inferior urban infrastructure, increased mortality rates, and exponential growth of crime. Current state representatives have proven that they do not trust their constituents to govern their own communities; so much so that they have chosen to make sure they will not be able to.

Founding Father James Madison advised the division between the sovereignty for states, the federal government, and its citizens. He was well aware that “the cabals of the few” were as much a threat as an over-eager governing body. In the anticipation that citizens would be so enamored with liberty, Madison hoped that “the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit than the most diffusive and established character.” No matter which side of the aisle one currently analyzes, this concept is foreign, except to an honorable few.

It was Thomas Jefferson who stated, “I prefer dangerous freedom over quiet servitude.”

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that freedom and deliverance from injustice are given in such a way that it is truly impossible for mankind to strip it away from each other permanently. A legislative title will not, and cannot alter that. The only way to preserve it is to do one’s part. Take responsibility, and be accountable.

No one is going to give any mind to what someone else cares for until it is proven valuable. Once an individual creates a solution that makes other people’s lives more bearable, it benefits the individual and the surrounding community. This contributes to the overall welfare of society.

Was the government needed? No.

Should the government get involved? Not if it can be avoided.

Individual liberty is self-determined. Should one be persuasive enough to convince others to benefit from another’s loss of liberty, they are no better than those who believed that bondage is acceptable. Whether the subject is healthcare, education, infrastructure, and/or communal aid, any measure of liberty lost is bartering for a partnership with chaos.

Should a community be determined to achieve self-sustained advancement, it is imperative that it looks inward. Want to witness charity, morality, justice, and revitalization? Get a mirror.

The only non-metaphysical obstacle standing in the way suffering societies is its citizens. Most neighbors are not foes. Most carry the same hopes and fears as the next neighbor. One is usually aware of one’s own needs, which are also frequently shared by one’s neighbors. It is an individual’s responsibility to care for their neighbor as well as their brother. Many, if not all, social ills can be addressed and resolved by a small contingent of people who care about the same issue. And, it can be accomplished without any assistance from a mayor, a state representative, or a president.

To bog down the governmental system with every little complaint without considering what the individual can accomplish, robs each person of a measure of liberty. This consistent carelessness will lead to the disintegration of care and justice.
By: Rosemary Dewar