By: Rosemary Dewar
Whatever pleases the eyes, burns the ears, and itches the palms seems to be a recurring theme for popular consumption. The classic gothic literary style has not ventured too far from its usual components of over-dramatization, hyper-sexuality, and relentless tragedy. When the market says, “Sex sells,” it only means that a particular type of sex sells. The usually depicted Americana classic stereotype of the white picket fence family doesn’t fetch a reaction that compels contemporary culture to embrace it. Although we are experiencing a call to get back to classic Western cultural norms such as the nuclear family, we are also living with a pervasive entertainment high which highlights competing levels of deviance. The 90th annual Oscars proved yet again that those in Hollywood have dubbed themselves as the givers of culture. The more outlandish or imaginary the victimhood, the more the Left demands the public embrace it.

The eye is naturally drawn to what is out of order. This is not to be confused with what is referred to in mathematics as a “standard of deviation” similar to the Golden Ratio, which demands a high level of order even to manifest. Another example of the importance of order would be the reproduction of butterflies. Should a female identify a variant in the male’s wing-pattern that is only a minute fraction off, it will not be selected. Similarly, humans scientifically find symmetry more appealing. When it comes to the standards of human nature and social interaction, a person could be the most demonstrably symmetrical, attractive person, but if their moral standards deviate too far from responsible freedom, that person would be considered ugly.

Our culture seems to be embracing two insidiously ugly notions: beauty is not to be strived for, and standards for morality are subject to each individual’s personal definition. It is impossible to find a common goal and create a way of life with one’s neighbors without sharing mutually agreed-upon standards.

When standards like the nuclear family, biological gender, personal responsibility, and individual freedom are done away with, we can find ourselves in a highly constrictive environment. As depicted in the movie The Giver, children are birthed by artificially inseminated surrogates. The children are assigned to people who are assigned to be couples. Individuals are drugged every day to manage their emotional state. The protagonist, Jonas, is selected to learn from the Giver in order to become one himself. Jonas then learns of all that comes with humanity and how even the most inconvenient truths expose beautiful realities. Jonas’s female friend is assigned to be a surrogate, has twins, and then one of the twins is to be eliminated because they share too much DNA in order to fit in the environment. Jonas’s newly found knowledge finds it wrong to kill an innocent baby.

Why is it wrong to kill the baby, and why is Jonas right to preserve the baby’s life?

Humanity has endless amounts of history and science to reference in order to deduce standards that preserve a moral society. When a culture aims to tear away at the foundation it is built on, society will cease to function. One doesn’t get to pick and choose which rules they get to defy without there being consequences that have uncontrollably detrimental results.

Abandoning logic in order to satisfy any passion that sways one in the moment is a critical mistake. Eros is not solely a salacious love; it is also uninhibited passion. Romans determined that Eros was a source of unprofitable diversion. In a morally lacking society, death is the only counter-balance to passion. The saying, “You can have too much of a good thing,” holds true.

Author Malcolm Muggeridge summed this up perfectly when he stated, “It has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and labouring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.”
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
Although innocence is defined as a state of lacking assigned guilt, there is a social aspect of innocence that can include a level of naivety and witlessness. It is accompanied by a deficiency of knowledge and experience. No one comes out of the womb knowing all things and evaluating them properly. Wisdom comes from knowing which information to throw out, and which information to integrate in order to effectively calculate a solution. Foolishness is just the opposite. Try doing the worthless thing enough times expecting a different outcome will drive oneself insane. One of two things will manifest. Either the community will dub the foolish person “the village idiot,” or the community will follow the fool to the point that there is a village full of useful idiots. Culture can either recognize that it is vulnerable to immature perspectives, or it can promote weak innocence.

Children are innocent and less formidable simply because they do not know enough. The reason for preserving innocence in children is to gradually develop the resistance to what will hurt them. Sometimes we don’t have control over what trauma is introduced into a child’s life; however, how the culture demonstrates the way to resolve that trauma will determine if the child will become willfully ignorant or wisely constructive. If culture organizes children to become adults that are easy to manipulate, that will leave the community susceptible to being able to be taken advantage of.

When someone takes away another’s ability to defend themselves, it is a violation of autonomy. How culture reaches solace amidst conflict can determine how moral it is.

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that an effective and moral way to confront and neutralize hostile engagement is to have intimidating strength, to know your strength, and be ready to restrain it for as long as possible. It states that you ought to be “wise as a serpent, and innocent as a dove.” A serpent is an ominous creature. It is partially instrumental in man’s exile from Paradise. Nevertheless, if your intent is to become that wise serpent, for the sake of all that is ethical and honorable, do not bite. You must hold your ground until you have to defend yourself. The text also states that “the meek will inherit the earth.” The word meek is usually defined as something blindly obedient. In fact, it literally means that those who are trained to conquer resist taking by violent force.

That is the easiest way to gauge the validity of those who claim to be moral arbiters. If someone has all the power to dominate you, and doesn’t, they have not violated you, and have in fact proven that they occupy the moral high ground.

Author Earnest Hemingway said, “All things truly wicked start from innocence.”

The child has to grow up. It is simply impossible to be innocent and adequately knowledgeable simultaneously within the human condition.

“No more; where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise,” says English poet Thomas Gray in his piece “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College.” It expresses the woes of the boy becoming a man by coming to the knowledge of suffering. Earlier in the piece he says, “These shall the fury Passions tear/ The vultures of the mind/ Disdainful Anger, pallid Fear/ And Shame that skulks behind/ Or pining Love shall waste their youth/ Or Jealousy with rankling tooth/” Passion must be something we can be strong enough to say “no” to.

Maintaining the state of willful ignorance is similar to watching worms and termites eat away at rotting wood. Observing entropic decay is like experiencing a living hell.

A childlike perspective may open our eyes to novelty, but it cannot achieve a purely ethical answer to wildly differing opinions. In a constitutional republic, the tongue can be sharper than the weapon used to defend it. You must learn when to hold it, and determine whether it is valuable enough to protect.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
Last year, upon the announcement of Fidel Castro’s overdue exit from this world, our mainstream media toadied at his dreadful rule. The so-called achievements he made were held up as standards to the rest of the world. Cuba’s citizens enjoyed Castro’s feats so much that they were willing to risk death by either the government or by dangerously floating on barely buoyant garbage for 103 miles just to escape it.
Now at the Winter Olympic Games, as a result of the long-term, frigid relations between the United States and North Korea, our mainstream media decided to pit our Vice President Mike Pence against the North Korean Dictator’s sister, Kim Yo Jong. The primetime segments were rife with magnanimous fawnings over a women who happens to be the propaganda director for the North Korean regime. In addition, she is one who has not yet spoken about her half-brother’s assassination last year. Every news outlet, other than Buzzfeed who used just enough forethought to cast criticism on Kim Yo Jong, readily presented the North Korean team leadership and chaperones as though they had just graduated from charm school.

It is as if Joseph Goebbels escorted the German team to the Olympics Games, and the United States media gave him accolades for giving Vice President Alben Barkley the cold shoulder.

Secularists raise the question that they think the religious community has never thought of: “Why is there heinous wickedness while a good God exists?” The Judea-Christian worldview asserts that mankind can choose evil because they love darkness. There is not a better example of this idea than to witness people who have been given the brightest opportunities to shine a light on unscrupulous people, and they instead choose to applaud actual oppressors.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” In all honesty, truth is always under attack. It seems to be that the best way to confirm a truth is by how persistently it is attacked by lies.
One does not have an inherent, involuntary nature to lie to one’s self. A lie is also a choice.

As long as people willfully lie to themselves, evil will have no other course than to flourish.

Political philosopher Edmund Burke asserted, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” A lie is worse when it used to suppress a truth for the sole purpose of doing harm, or in order to keep someone from excelling.

The attempt to keep someone in the dark long enough in order to control them is a seething, great evil. That is a dance with darkness, and no good thing can come of it.
By: Rosemary Dewar

By: Rosemary Dewar
Westernized lifestyles have created variety and accessibility in such a way as if it were an international buffet, and all for the convenient price of $8.99. That’s not a bad thing. The capability to experience the pinnacle of every culture, and use every advance to the fullest potential ought to be desired in any society. Currently, it doesn’t seem so. The illogical fear of greed- driven appropriation is a false flag in the pursuit of quashing individuality. Imagine if a fusion cuisine restaurant couldn’t open because of “cultural appropriation.” That is what happens when people are precluded from experiencing the best of any culture’s food, fashion, or ideas.

The consistently growing trend of customization is fortifying the idea of the individual. You can practically customize everything you put your hands on. It used to be a status symbol of luxury or investment to customize a home, car, one-of-a-kind clothing, or jewelry. Now, the smallest things we consume every day are virtually tailored to the individual. If you don’t like the entire album, buy one song. Don’t like all the shades in a cosmetic eyeshadow palette, buy only the shades you want. Can’t find the ideal skincare? Then you can mix and concoct your miracle cream.

Forrest Gump’s famous line, “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get,” doesn’t hold as true as it once did. If you don’t like “toothpaste-filled” ones, you can stock your personal selection of chocolates to your heart’s content.

A service that does not have the option to give the customer the added feeling of ownership is usually considered out of date or behind the times. With customization, the customer feels that they have achieved an extra level of ownership. Ownership, the word that competing ideologies decry. The capability of making something personal is a desired outcome. Personal property is a concept that many are trying to dismantle. They do so while owning an iPhone and using an app that they enjoy with a wallpaper background they probably appropriated from somewhere else. No matter how little that “i” tries to stay, it can’t help but grow up and want to become a big individual. If one-size-fits-all marketing doesn’t sell, then neither does group identity politics.

Author Ayn Rand asserted, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” This concept flies in the face of how some actually categorize minorities. Simply because a group shares a culture, it does not mean that those who make up the group share a mind.

Thoughts are as various as iPhone apps, shades of lipstick, car models, clothing designers, coffee flavors, movie productions, and then some. Can you imagine a life without the freedom to make even one less beneficial choice? And once that freedom is tasted, can you imagine someone telling you that you’ll never be allowed to experience it again? I can’t think of anything more oppressive and bland.

The Judeo-Christian worldview asserts that the individual is “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Why fearfully? As transcendent as the human experience is from one individual to another, that same individual is as capable of great malevolence as it is great benevolence. How a society attempts to reward either behavior dictates whether the society will last or decay.
History has consistently exposed the darkness that manifests when the individual is forced how to think, how to speak, and how to live.

In the English poet William Cowper’s work, The Task, he states that,” Variety is the spice of life, that gives it all its flavor.” This particular work was discovered between two momentous revolutions: American and French. The American Revolution was waged against a tyrannical government, and the French Revolution was waged against social classicism. Some Americans see class warfare as an inevitability, while others encourage it. A system that limits the productivity as well as the rewards of the individual will see the opportunities for wealth diminish to the point of revolt. This can be observed in what Venezuela is experiencing now.

To eventually extinguish human suffering is to increase the opportunities for wealth in a way that the individual can succeed if they choose to. The more barriers that are created to prevent personal advancement, the greater the desire to relinquish personal achievement. Do not create a hardship that you are not willing to take upon yourself. No one wins that way.
By: Rosemary Dewar

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