Dante v. Nolan: Comparing Their Treatment of Homer's Hero of Many Turns

 

As a cornerstone of Western literature, The Odyssey reflects eternal verities as well as contemporary sentiments. According to Homer, the Odyssey is a celebrated warrior’s tale rife with cunning schemes and many turns. According to Christopher Nolan, it is a patriarch’s revelation of regret and redemption.

In the original poem, Homer ends his tale with the vengeful families of the dead suitors slain by Odysseus. They demand his blood, as any upstanding Ancient Greek would. In the midst of the battle to come, divine authorities Athena and Zeus refuse to take sides (stark contrast to their choices in Homer’s Iliad) and force a permanent truce among all parties, ending the cycle of violence. With his wife Penelope and his kingdom restored to him, Odysseus rules over Ithaca in peace.

In the movie, Odysseus and his wife reconnect, but they cannot rest and celebrate their renewed love. They must travel west so he can atone for his sins (having violated Zeus’ law) and provide a proper death and burial for his fallen crewmates.

Homer’s original ending would have served just as well by blockbuster standards. Yet Nolan’s unique twist on the man of many turns commands its own respect, revealing the temperament of our time.

Nolan’s decision for Odysseus to go west reminds me of another account of the famed wayward wayfarer: the celebrated Italian epic poet Dante Alighieri in his medieval masterpiece The Divine Comedy.

Aside from enthusiasts of Italian literature, classicists, and hard-core humanists, the general public is not aware of Dante’s interpretation of Homer’s much-traveled hero: not just flaws and flaunts, follies and failures, but flames and hellfire, too. Yet Dante’s Divine Comedy deserves more respect and recognition than it currently receives, especially because his work forms a seminal part of Western literature, too.  Dante, along with Homer (and Virgil), is one of the finest, most sophisticated epic poets in the Western Tradition, and his take on Odysseus, or rather Ulysses, is illustrative not just of the power of Homer’s epic, but its ongoing influence on Western thinkers and creators today. Nolan and Dante share in this magnificent effort, and their interpretations of the Ancient Greek epic and hero complement each other.

How one views the Odyssey, and its main character, is shaped by the times and trials of the author, the readers, and the times. How did Dante view Odysseus, whom he calls Ulysses per the Latin tradition?

Let’s visit Inferno, the first part of Dante’s Comedy, where we find the poet facing the medieval version of a mid-life crisis. His poetic mentor, Virgil, finds Dante, then informs him that he has been called from on high to go on a spiritual journey through Hell and Purgatory, then to achieve moral perfection and redemption in Paradise. Like Homer’s Odysseus, Dante will take many turns, but he will be guided by reason, then revelation. Like Nolan’s Odysseus, Dante will learn from his failures, and he will document his journey through hell, where sinners of all backgrounds suffer commensurate punishment for their sins.

In Canto XXVI of Inferno, Virgil leads Dante into the eighth of ten bolge, or pockets, in the Eighth Circle of Hell (which has nine total). In the eighth bolgia, the false counselors burn in all-encompassing flames. Not only do they suffer for defrauding others, but also because they misused their God-given gifts to seduce others to partake in evil deeds.

Dante portrays Ulysses as a subject of this eternal, infernal torment (along with Diomedes, who burns with him in the same flame) specifically because of their deceitful plot to aid the Greeks’ entry and destruction of Troy. In contrast, Nolan allows Odysseus to atone for his sins while alive, while Dante ensures his eternal damnation.

Here we see where Dante and Nolan’s interpretations intersect: Odysseus is not necessarily a hero, but certainly a flawed man who did a great evil. The poet and the director expound upon a man who ruined a civilization, but condemn his actions and require restitution for his wrongdoing.

According to Dante, how does Homer die? Ulysses tells Dante through Virgil that he set sail for the West, seducing his men to come with him. He conjoins them to his ill-fated voyage by telling them not to settle for their limited knowledge and imagination:

Considerate la vostra semenza:
 fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
 ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.' (XXIV, 118-120)

[Consider ye the seed from which ye sprang;
  Ye were not made to live like unto brutes,
  But for pursuit of virtue and of knowledge.'] (Translation, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

The irony in this phrasing is unmistakable. Odysseus/Ulysses' men are brutes, not just figuratively because of their part in the destruction of Troy, but also literally: they became such at Circe’s hand. True, their captain convinced the sorceress to reverse her evil curse, but the brutish nature of his crew never disappeared and curses them in the end. Just as Ulysses rallied them to deceive the Trojans and sack Troy, so too he bewitches his men to sail west to their doom.

According to Dante’s account, Ulysses’ men see a large mountain (Mount Purgatory in Dante’s cosmology) rising above the Atlantic horizon. Then a mighty whirlwind rushes at them from the mountain, whips their ship around, causing the water to overcome them, “Until the sea above us closed again” (Inferno, XXVI, 142), to their doom.

In contrast to Dante’s depiction of Ulysses’ ignoble end, how does Nolan’s movie end? On a ship together, the warrior and his wife embrace the exile. There is a forlorn sorrow in this necessary departure.

They share these final words:

Odysseus: A new dawn will break over the darkened world when our mistakes will once again be forgotten.

Penelope: We will endure.

Like in Dante’s poem, Nolan’s film ends with Odysseus going West, but with hope. For Dante, it is in the West where Ulysses perishes, having transgressed another boundary unfit for them to touch, and faces well-deserved torment.

One could argue that Nolan’s Odysseus borrowed this “Western” ending from Dante’s treatment of Ulysses. Nolan dismisses the sailor/schemer’s vanity and cleverness, focusing on his brazen disregard for Zeus’ Law, and the irreparable harm that follows.

Homer’s Odysseus does not respect boundaries, but he is celebrated and receives a happy ending. Why do Nolan and Dante treat him differently, punishing him for these transgressions? They interpret him through their times and values.

Dante viewed Troy and its successor, Aeneas, with great reverence (in large part because of Dante’s supreme appreciation for Virgil’s Aeneid), as precursors to the Roman Empire and then the medieval Italian states under Papal authority. For Dante, Christian rule under the Pope will end the political rivalries and constant warfare ravaging his homeland. Ulysses dishonored those honored figures and frustrated that hopeful end, so he must pay an eternal price.

In contrast to Dante’s apparent Christian themes, Nolan taps into the latent Christian sensibilities of a post-Christian world, entertaining his time and audiences with the expectation that Odysseus’ wrongdoing will be corrected, but also that the warrior is a good man who did bad things, and he can be redeemed.

In Dante and Nolan’s accounts, Odysseus/Ulysses does not stay in Ithaca. For Dante, the Homeric hero’s internal wanderlust inevitably leads him to his demise. In the movie, Odysseus/Ulysses takes his wife and wends his way West to embrace self-exile for violating Zeus’ law. Not as terrible as burning in hell, but it’s a punishment all the same.

The focus on the West as a theme also deserves our attention. Homer’s works are foundational to the Western Tradition. The works of Homer (as well as Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, etc.) invite, nay, demand that other future artists contend with them, comment on them, and even adapt them for their times. Odysseus/Ulysses may not be an Everyman to some, but every man can appreciate the wonders and works of his ventures, and also pass judgment on them for their contemporary readers and viewers to consider.

While some critics (including myself) would have preferred Nolan to remain faithful to the original epic, Nolan’s film in itself did not suffer for this change. I don’t necessarily agree that Ulysses is evil because of his sacking of Troy, but I can appreciate why the Italian epic poet punishes him. In that way, Dante’s religious epic and Nolan’s breathtaking movie amass incredible respect for not only referencing one of the West’s most frequently cited and revered characters, but having the audacity to condemn him for his deeds, whether through exile or eternal flames.

Perhaps this essay will encourage Nolan to focus his next movie project on the epic poem The Divine Comedy. He could detail the Tuscan political outcast’s journey from Hell to Paradise, documenting the tortures, trials, and triumphs of his contemporaries and well-known historical and literary figures. At the very least, Dante’s Inferno deserves a broader appreciation than it currently receives, and based on current sales, Nolan’s compelling film has generated a renewed respect for The Odyssey.

Why Are Conservative Pundits Demanding Young People to “Get Married!”

In my previous article, I wrote about the growing rallying cry among conservatives, especially Dennis Prager and his fellow intellects, about the crisis in marriage. Specifically, they argue frequently that marriage is the rite of passage which young people need to engage and embrace again.

In fact, they go to great lengths to shame people that they need to get hitched, or they should be prepared to get ditched in this life. While the most enlightened conservative intellects have their opinions, the Bible is our standard for wisdom. In both the Old Testament, there are men and women who do great things for God, and they are never married (like the prophets Elijah and Elisha). In some cases, marriage or romance can hinder a man’s service to God (consider Samson and Delilah).

To recap the Biblical stance on singlehood, let’s refer back to what Paul the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians:

“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” (1 Corinthians 7:1)

Paul encouraged everyone to be like him: celibate, unmarried, committed to God’s work rather than raising a family. (1 Corinthians 7:6, 32-35). However, he assured the church that there is nothing wrong with being married”.

“Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.” (1 Corinthians 7:27-28)

Also, it’s worth nothing that just because someone is not married or does not want to get married, that they are immature in some fashion. Marriage does not define or undermine adulthood.

The next question arises: why are conservative pundits determined for young people to get married?

1.       Depopulation

Decades ago, academics argued that the world would struggle with overpopulation. As far back as the late 1700’s, Thomas Malthus predicted that demands from population growth would far exceed available resources and wealth.

Then came Industrial Revolution. More bountiful harvests with less work results from agricultural reforms. Mechanical ingenuity produced and transported goods better, faster, and cheaper. Families moved into bustling, teeming cities, where a growing network of commercial activity created higher demands, more work, and so on.

Larger families were no longer crucial, whereas agricultural families had reared many children to help with work on the far. The need for larger families tapered off. Fast forward to today, there’s an unprecedented number of younger people who don’t want to marry, especially among men. As a result, populations in Western countries are declining. “Get married! Have kids!” is an understandable reaction. A better response would assess more proximate causes.

The higher suicide rate among young people should concern us. The opioid crisis is wiping scores of people. Rampant violence among gangs, drug cartels, and even terrorism are wiping out people. Yet even removing these concerns, lots of people are not getting married for selfish reasons: they want to live their lives in the present, unencumbered by demands, etc.

Death has been a fact of life since man sinned, however. Populations in decline and in growth are a more frequent phenomenon than most people realize. Would anyone expect Japanese families to birth out large numbers of children when there is so little room for all those people in that country?

What’s really animating this “marriage crisis” for these conservatives?

They want to save Western culture at all costs. Married life as an institution bolsters conservatism in general. As they witness the growing moral malaise of the modern Western World, conservatives want to retain a strong, vibrant Western Civilization, and that requires a Mom and one Dad bringing new lives into the world. Conservatives are right to see declining marriage trends with concern. However, they are treating a major symptom rather healing the disease.

Why are people, especially men, avoiding marriage? Why is the culture in such decay? It’s not because more people are avoiding marriage.

The attack on manhood has turned off men to getting married and raising children. Third Wave Feminism has shamed and demeaned men as such. Rather than commanding respect in their homes, colleges and their Third Wave feminist acolytes have been taught to see men as the enemy. Who would want to marry someone with that kind of worldview? Legal institutions have inculcated this anti-male bias, drawn from decades of progressive indoctrination in colleges and graduate schools. In courts of law, the wife/mother is automatically entitled to half of everything just because she’s the wife. Following a divorce, the woman custody of the kids nine times out of ten.

Why is Western culture in decay?

God’s reign of grace and truth has been demeaned, rejected, and excluded. The Judeo-Christian ethic which makes civilization possible, which blesses and prospers married life, has fallen into disrepute. Children no longer learn about God the Father or His Son Jesus Christ, which was long ago routinely taught in public schools. Students no longer read the Bible and receive revelation from it. In those schools, teachers have replaced school prayer with secular regression.

While conservatives are alarmed about the decline in marriage, and the decline in population which has resulted from it, they need to focus on the fundamental disregard for God and His Majesty in our public as well as private lives. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.” (Psalm 33:12)

Conservatives need to focus less on shaming men for not marrying, and they need to do more than merely promote its fringe benefits. Christ is the center of all happy marriages, and any society which wishes to foster this sacred institution must restore its sacred core and displace its secular degradation.

The cultural rot overwhelming our societies stems from national disregard for God’s grace and the Finished Work of His Son Jesus. When He is properly recognized as the Head of all Creation once again, then we will see Male and Female Great Again, and Marriages Strong and Abundant Again.

A Lack of Civility from Trump? What About the McCain Funeral Hoopla?

With all this civility talk in Washington DC, let's not forget that the "civilized" political class, including Presidents Bush and Obama as well as US Senator John McCain, spent little time cutting back our foreign interventions into every other country while ignoring major concerns in the United States. They also bailed out the big banks, and they expanded the administrative state at the expense of the American citizen.

As for Senator McCain's funeral, the stunning lack of civility during the McCain funeral procession on TV and during his funeral was disturbing and disappointing. The media pundits and the speakers at McCain's funeral spent more time vilifying President Trump and his policies instead of eulogizing Senator McCain. Was it for lack of anything to praise about the senator?

He was a good father, from what little Meghan McCain shared about him, but he was a terrible US Senator, attacking climate change with unjust alarm while fighting to open up our borders and silence our freedom of speech. Not a legacy worth praising in my view. His repeated efforts to frustrate President Trump's agenda on immigration, healthcare, and individual liberties was deeply disappointing, motivated by personal animus and not principled opposition.

For the record, there is nothing wrong with being uncivil to save Western Civilization and America's political traditions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. President Trump may be crude sometimes, but he cares about all of us and our country--and that's what counts.

Right-Wing Infighting: Why?

                 


Yes, there is in fighting among the members and standout stalwarts among the New Right.

The terms are confusing.

The grudges are unclear.

Yes, there is a lot of pride in the movement.

So, what is going on?

First of all, what are we talking about when we discuss "The New Right"?

How about "The Alt-Right" or the "Alt-Lite"?

What does any of this mean? These labels are part of the reasons we are seeing so much conflict. There is an over-emphasis on the groups which members belong to.

LA Werewolf mentions the need to focus on "the cause."

What is the cause they are fighting for?

The major cause which had animated and energized many of the New Right was the Trump campaign. He made California conservatives feel hope again. Even if Trump had no chance of winning California, he could sweep the country and enact key policies to help our state.

So far, his election has been the very godsend we needed. Enforcement of our immigration laws is taking place at an all-time record. The market is rebounding like never before. Media conglomerates are taking a serious beating. Hollywood has had an epic bad year at the box office, and their purported leading lights have been exposed for their incredibly evil, dark deeds done in secret.

But ...

What is the movement all about, then?

Do we want to ensure that more people are voting for Donald Trump in the next Presidential election.

OK, but why did so many people want Trump to win in November 2016 to begin with?

1. Illegal immigration. The overrunning of our borders has taken an untold toll on American communities. The strain on public resources, the cheap labor pushing out American workers, and the security threats to American citizens--all of this snowballed among the electorate to demand enforcement of our immigration laws.

2. Obamacare. This terrible law needs to be repealed, pulled apart, removed from the Congressional record. Let's make health care great again and broaden the much-needed free-market reforms.

3. Tax reform--yes, we need to lower the tax burden across the board on all income earners.

4. Political correctness.

5. Patriotism.

Anyone of these issues need special attention, fighters of all backgrounds to take on the groundwork and advance the cause.

6. Corruption.

Here's another major issue.

7. West Culture/Judeo-Christian values. This fight is needed now more than ever.

These concerns deserve utmost attention and care.

I would of liked to see you, kyle, rc maxwell, red elephants, arthur schaper, and everyone bash the left here. But no we in-fight instead.

— Frank Espinoza (@LAWereWolfOG) October 24, 2017

The infighting persists for a few reasons.


1. Some of the leading lights in the movement early on have become more invested in celebrity and the rewards of income which follow from it. Without going into names, it seems that more of them want to make a name for themselves and get rich in the process. They want fandom, stardom, whatever you want to call it.

2. New movement with new members has lead to the new challenges of handling conflict and disagreements. Most of the people rising up in the Trump movement have never worked in activist or organizing movements before. The skill set for conflict resolution is very new for people, and so there are clashes over timing and planning. A competition for different events will take hold, and people's feelings get hurt.

Conservative, Pro-Trump Unity in Action!

3. There are people jumping into the Trump, pro-Western, right-wing movement who want to sabotage the movement. They actually Trump, conservative values, and right-wing politics.

I submit that there are plenty of prima donnas looking for attention rather than seeking to make a difference. Otherwise, pride would not be a factor to begin with.

What does motivate people to get involved, to be active and push back against the politically corrupt climes in our current culture?

I do it because it's fun and because I do not like the arrogant, abusive bullying of the Left. The fundamental disregard for fairness and the rule of law from the Left has so enraged me, that I could not sit back and put up with it anymore. Besides, it is such a great feeling to put down bad policies, corrupt politicians, to rage against the legal and political establishment ... and WIN!

Why is that a problem for anyone?

Oh, and another thing about this "in-fighting" ...

The Democratic Party is in full free-fall as we speak. The infighting is intense, brutal, and likely to incinerate the Left. Left-leaning political parties are losing elections all over Europe and Asia.  The hardcore socialists have been led along for decades from the center-left parties. The political establishment has promised them just about everything, and yet after the most left-leaning President in American history was elected, much of what they hoped for never materialized. The most outspoken and effective left-wing activist in federal politics was not even a Democrat, but Independent socialist Bernie Sanders.

The Democratic Party has bee outed as incompetent, corrupt, and now bankrupt. Only in California does the Democratic Party have a lasting power, yet even here the party is fraying at the seams barely able to hold itself together. People on the right should not fear the infighting. It's all about growing pains, and sometimes the clashes lead to more independent movements which fight for the same causes but in their own way.

There is good news for the differing right-wing coalitions, too.

A long-stand press for national unity and identity has overtaken many of the clashes and divides among the right. Steve Bannon, Chairman for Breitbart News, listed the three groups who helped Trump wing: nationalists, populists, and Christians.

All three of them care about God and country, and these basic commitments allow for strong yet wide alliances. If the growing number of New Right members will learn to settle differences privately, there is nothing but growth, influence, and improvement available for all of us.

It’s OK to Be Uncivil to Save Our Civilization

For the past three months—and especially in the last two weeks, the fight to push for Trump’s agenda, especially in “Lost Cause/Blue Line” California has reached a feverish pitch. Our civilization, our Western World, Judeo-Christian culture is under attack, and I could not take time to write about it. I needed to fight it, and hard. I don’t say nice things anymore. I don’t worry about offending people. President Trump leads by example. It’s OK to be crude to make a point.

Our culture is under assault, folks. We don’t have time to be nice. The dangers are that precarious. When a kid is playing in the middle of the street, his father doesn’t make nice and beg. He grabs the kid and shrieks at him for his dangerous stupidity. “Don’t ever do that again!”

Islamic hordes are on the run in the Middle East. Why? Because our President vowed to “Bomb the hell out of ISIS!” Oh, but the President can’t use such language!” shriek the establishment pearl clutchers. It’s not nice, but it had to be said. Interestingly enough, he did not get offended, but listened to me. Yes, he can—and he’s doing his job, too. I got into a war of word with one Trump supporter over his “unpresidential rhetoric” on Twitter and in public. My answer? To quote the wildly successful Governor of Maine? “Tell ‘em to kiss my butt!”

There are barbarians at the gates. The radical Islamic world sees their chance to impose Sharia around the world. I say “No” to that. A friend of mine, a Muslim and Trump supporter, was offended when I posted this incredible debate from a UKIP leadership debate. This woman in exacting detail courageously explained for her audience that Islam is not a religion of peace. I did not apologize, but told him plainly “Islam is a cult”. I have no problem with Muslims who live peaceful lives, but I urge them to look deeply into the Koran, and they will find a mass of misconceptions and contradictions, with the final result of urging war against infidels and blind submission to Allah for all mankind.

So many church people have faulted me that such language is “unbecoming.” Do they read their Bibles? During His earthly ministry, Jesus did not mince words, calling the religious establishment “a brood of snakes and vipers.” He even shouted down one of his disciples when he told Him not to die on the Cross. Spare me the lecture about pious niceties. We as the arbiters and defenders of our civilization must not get caught up in the civility scam. Thomas Sowell said it so well: “If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.”

I am prepared to be an uncivil civilian, and I don’t care who’s offended. This strong sentiment ran through my mind when I protested Maxine Waters’ town hall in Inglewood. My favorite poster for the occasion read “Maxine Waters: Go to Hell!” Spare me the civility garbage. Not interested.

I work with American Children First to target the utility user’s tax in sanctuary cities throughout California. We won’t wait for Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Cities flout federal immigration laws? They lose their revenue base. The Brown Supremacists throughout Los Angeles County are so angry since their lawless days are numbered.

Some of these Brown Supremacists have come to Torrance looking to cause trouble against me. “You play in our hood? We will play harder in yours!” Major fail! I have waited for these disruptive hatemongers to come to my city. They bring out the worst in my corrupt mayor, and therefore have made it easier to expose him and get him thrown out of office. By the way, my city became the largest yet in California to oppose Sanctuary State SB 54, the dreaded and horrific legislation which would give illegal aliens free reign to stay in my state after committing horrible crimes and taking space in our state’s prisons.

I say enough!

Yet at the same time, I got picked at and picked on by fellow warriors and even some church people. They don’t like some of the words that I use. Some of them do not like my tone. Leaders in the California Republican Party have repeatedly told me to watch the words that I say.

The illegal alien hordes have become so brazen in their arrogance. They announce in the streets that they are “Undocumented and Unafraid.” No, they are illegal aliens. Does that hurt your feelings? 

Good!

I was celebrating the Fourth of July in Santa Ana, California, a sanctuary city where 70% of the residents are of Hispanic descent. The skin color of the inhabitants and their children never prevented me from teaching others about our wonderful history. They made a big mistake. Those same hatemongers found that their shameful protest did not stop me. Now they run when I confront them about harassing parents and children.

Don’t be civil when people are shameful. Shame them right back! Double down! Punch back twice as hard.

And I have not reserved my bile for Democrats. Traitorous California Republicans have joined hands with this ruination. The Big Green scam is overtaking California. Instead of fighting, eight Republican legislators joined Sacramento Democrats to extend the corrupt, false, useless Cap and Trade program, the same Big Green Scam which died in Congress when Barack Obama was President and controlled both houses of Congress. It is just untenable to me how corrupt politics has become in my own state. Instead of taking it lightly, I realized that I have to declare political war on both parties.

Civility, accommodation, and playing nice with Republican and Democratic elected officials is over, especially GOP holdout-sellouts on repealing Obamacare. It’s time to take back our country. Making America great again is not about placating and pleasing everyone, but standing up for what is right, even if it means disrupting a few tea parties.

Tolerance, Inclusion, Diversity Mean Nothing Without Clear Principles

Three terms are turning into the basis for political discourse and legitimacy in our times.

1. Tolerance.

2. Inclusion

3. Diversity

Yet these terms are losing their theme and value precisely because they have turned into pre-eminent virtues, ends in themselves, goals which everyone must abide by or be rejected. This approach, however, ignores the unintended consequences of political force attached to them. What does it mean to be tolerant, if those who do not agree with  you lose their jobs or lose opportunities to speak out on issues?

Let's look at Tolerance:

Pastor Jim Marguerite of Faith Community Church (West Covina) taught me an important principle about "tolerance."

"You have to believe in something, you have to have real backbone and stand for what you believe in, in order to be tolerant."

My father explained a similar distinction on this issue. "Tolerance" does not mean acceptance, nor does it mean that I have to welcome or promote a set of values or ideas in order to be tolerant. Even Jacques Derrida, the left-leaning Deconstruction philosopher, readily pointed out that tolerance does not create a radical equality of any kind in our society.

Tolerance cannot be a virtue without other virtues. Certain ideologies do not recognize tolerance of any kind. Islam stands out as a key example. What are essential values which apply to everyone? When those issues are determined, then tolerance is possible. As long as the natural rights of all individuals remains protected, then there is nothing to fear for those whose views are not dominant or mainstream in any society.

Tolerance is a Christian virtue. For tolerance to flourish, a respectful adherence to Christian principles is essential. Every human being has eternal value, is designed to bear the image of God. Individual have a right to freedom of speech, the press, to self-preservation, and to determine their own courses of success and/or destiny.

These values all fall within the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Now, individuals who do not share these views are entitled to them, but they must respect that everyone has these rights, and that they cannot be infringed or violated.

So ... tolerance as a value cannot exist without a comprehensive embrace of Judeo-Christian ones. Otherwise, tolerance becomes a masquerade in the public sphere, and a mask to persecute those who do not agree. In fact, tolerance is turning into a cudgel of intolerance.

All to justify "inclusion".

The name of this game--inclusion--is to ensure that no one is "excluded", marginalized, or made to feel like an "other."

Yet ironically, the more power and force applied to ensure inclusion, the greater the divides, the more pronounced the sense of exclusion. Consider the transgenderism agenda. Stores and some states have enacted a policy allowing biological men to enter women's bathrooms, even though such a measure puts women at risk. Women at a Washington State swimming pool objected to a male entering into their locker area to change, but the law which had just passed by the state legislature permitted this to happen!

The Target Corporation announced a transgender policy to allow customers to use the dressing rooms and bathrooms which conform with their gender identity rather than their biology. Instead of creating a more inclusive environment, however, these policies have de facto excluded the vast majority of people who are now threatened, placed at risk because of these dangerous policies. Ignoring distinctions in the name of inclusion has sharpened distinctions terribly, and at great cost to the individual integrity of young men and women.

The secular war on Christmas is another push for inclusion, based on the idea that people are easily offended and feel left out because they do not celebrate the holiday. So now it's a point of shame to wish someone a Merry Christmas? The rigid resistance to saying "Merry Christmas" to anyone creates a sense of exclusion. Why should anyone refrain from speaking what they feel for fear of someone else's feelings? Besides, saying "Merry Christmas" is not an intrusion.

Inclusion based on fantasy or fraud is a determined path to more exclusion and destruction. Inclusion based on shame and dishonor creates more exclusion. That is also wrong.

Then the last value, preempting a destruction of values: diversity.

Diversity of what kind? Why does requiring a recognition of everything make a different? Why does it matter? Differences of opinion do exist, but to demand that every opinion be recognized, with no final determinant for truth ... that is useless as well as abusive.

Points of view, ideological distinctions, anything which posits a final set of "intangible verities" is now roundly condemned. How can anyone distinguish one set of ideas from another without any clear distinctions of right and wrong, good and bad, poor and rich? The cultural Marxism of the university, bridled with the term "openness" has led to a less open, less diverse community. If there is no pursuit or reverence for truth, then diversity cannot hold.

Now let's get specific about the clear principles that matter.

1. Western Civilization is true repository of learning, depth, truth, expansion of liberty and wealth.
2. Freedoms of speech, self-preservation, and national sovereignty surpass the limited and even destructive customs of other cultures.
3. The Gospel, the foundation of Judeo-Christian values, form the backbone and foundation of Western Civilization and culture.
4. Learning means a dedication to a designed order, one which can be discerned and understood.
5. Understanding and growth are based on a voluntary association and transaction of ideas, not the threat of force, coercion, or death.

Diversity, Tolerance, and Inclusion are turning into meaningless, Orwellian tropes to create the opposite of what the words intend.

There can be no diversity without liberty to think.

There can be no inclusion--which matters--without a commitment to the values which prize key aspects of every human being, and reject the values and agendas which harm everyone while benefiting a few.

Tolerance--this is the most abuse word. A restive intolerance has become the norm, specifically in more liberal circles, which claim to embrace all three ideas enumerated above.

The implications of this argument will follow.