By: Quod Libet

The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion movement has quickly risen to capture the hearts, minds, and imaginations of many, it’s taking the country by storm. The “Weathermen” (a 60’s radical group) had a slogan: “You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” Fast forward to the country today where circumspect traditionalists are wise to question which way the DEI wind really blows. Just as the direction and authority of wind are useful information, it would behoove us to know the trend and sway of the DEI juggernaut. In addition, we’d be wise to know from whence this DEI current originated and what its intended final destination is. The origins of DEI are Western (if you consider Europe Western), no surprises there since the West is always found at the “Left” when viewing a map.

Equity is the second precept of the nascent DEI movement, but before we delve into the subject of equity specifically, I wonder, is DEI brand new or really 100 years old? “OPUS DEI is an institution of the Catholic Church that was founded in Spain in 1928 by the Catholic priest Josemaría Escrivá. Its stated mission is to help its lay and clerical members seek Christian perfection in their everyday occupations and within their societies. OPUS DEI has long attracted significant controversy regarding its political activities and its alleged cultlike practices.” (Wikipedia)

What a coincidence! There’s a politically controversial, social organization founded in 1928 with DEI in its name whose mission is to counsel folks to remediate interrelations within their workplaces and societies. That sounds mighty simpatico with the presumed objectives of today’s DEI movement. I wouldn’t worry about this apparent DEI connection though, both organizations share the same objectives. If you believe in diversity, equity, and inclusion and you believe in the Pope, you’re in good hands. “We believe what we want to believe.” (Tom Petty) But for those who have yet to acquire a taste for the cultlike woke Kool-Aid, if you’re beginning to perceive a hidden agenda and you’d prefer the DEI cards face-up on the table, you might be on to something.

When a Supreme Court nominee cannot define the word “woman” it’s clear that language is being weaponized in this contemporary culture war. Too bad Marsha Blackburn didn’t peel that onion a little further. “Are you a woman?” “Do you identify as a woman?” Ketanji B. Jackson would certainly answer “Yes” on both counts. Then an even more awkward moment may have followed, “If you can’t define the word woman, how can you call yourself a woman and identify as a woman if you don’t know what a woman is?” By the way, it isn’t that Ms. Brown can’t define the word, it’s that she won’t. Woke DEI ideology and politics dictated her disinclination to answer a simple question that telling day. The woke have something (plenty) to hide, and her refusal to answer a simple question spoke volumes to those perceptive types who recognize the Left’s affected linguistic dodges.

Miriam Webster defines “Woman” (she ought to know) as “An adult female person.”

The Heritage Dictionary defines “Woman” as “An adult female human being.”

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “Woman” as “An adult female human being.”

So far so good, but The Cambridge Dictionary goes on to broaden (no pun intended) the definition of “Woman” as “An adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”

Hidden agendas often require words to be redefined or undefined. Open agendas, however, require no such linguistic artifice. When you control the language, you control the debate. When you control the debate, you control the outcome. When you control the outcome, you are empowered to affect and enact social change. History informs us that this mechanism is utilized by social engineers with bad ideas and undisclosed motives.

Knowing Jordan Peterson as I do, if he were to be asked if he believed in equity, he would answer that question cautiously and deliberately with a couple of his own well-thought-out questions such as, “What do you mean by believe?” and, “What do you mean by equity?” Good questions, especially in this brave new world in which words are constantly being redefined or even undefined by dubious sociopolitical activists.

Pontious Pilate asked, “What do you mean by truth?” Spanky McFarland (“Our Gang” comedies) asked, “What do you mean by WE?” Bill Clinton sought clarity (or something less) when he uttered those famous words of legal disentanglement, “Depends on what your definition of is, is.” Depending on your motive, language can be a tool to engender understanding or one to ensconce the truth in darkness. Many in politics, academia, the media, and woke activists savvy this and often employ the artful equivocations that insincere language affords.

At a point in the prophetic novel “1984” by George Orwell, Winston (the protagonist) starts to question his own mental state vis a vis the inescapable government propaganda he and his countrymen were forced to endure. Big Brother called the shots and established the narratives, all of which were obvious lies and distortions. Neither disagreement nor nonconformity were tolerated by that totalitarian regime. Go along to get along was Winston’s lot, and as time passed, he began to question the psychological effects of his volitional but reluctant acquiescence. He wondered to himself that if Big Brother were to declare that two plus two equals five, would he just go along for the sake of expediency and to stay out of trouble, or would he actually begin to believe it?

Control of the language was the order of the day in “1984.” In like manner, linguistic dominion and duplicitous psychological bedevilment are the not-so-subtle objectives of today’s woke DEI movement. Big Brother would force you to say what you know isn’t true by threats and coercion, DEI adheres to the same template. The silly tampering with pronouns may seem frivolous, but it’s a cornerstone of DEI theory. Don’t fall for it. Woke DEI language control is less than Jake and serves as prima facie evidence of their psych-ops and insidious agenda.

From the dawn of recorded history, science (biology and anatomy) and common sense determined pronouns. That system has functioned with few (if any) flaws, and to my knowledge, was never seriously questioned by anybody. Fast forward to woke innovation in which we all determine our own pronouns based on how we “identify.” Although we clearly see others as they really are, under the new language rules of the woke, people identify themselves, often in a manner contrary to the medical determination at birth. Doctors are trained to make that educated finding on the spot, and diagnostic errors at birth almost never occur. Some traditional types cling to the notion that you are what your mom and dad lovingly made you, or even what your Creator made you. Is that universally accepted notion now in need of revision? Not according to the vast majority of reasonable people worldwide. What next? Will we be picking our own nouns and adjectives someday, as well?

Not unlike Winston’s dilemma, we are now being compelled by public shaming (and soon by law) to say what we know is not true. One might make a concession in polite company by referring to a trans person by their preferred pronoun, but forcing an individual to call a he a she when it’s obvious that she’s a he is an abuse of the First Amendment and an affront to one’s sensibilities. Jordan doesn’t necessarily object to calling him her if that’s deemed appropriate interpersonally, but he ran afoul of the law in Canada because he objects to forced speech under criminal penalty. He rightly recognizes the danger in enforcing required speech that contravenes four hundred years of English Common Law. Freedom of speech is codified in our First Amendment for good reason. Protect it, utilize it, and never, ever surrender it. We’re finished if we do (that goes for the 2A as well).

For the record, the observer determines the correct pronoun, not the subject. Such conclusions are typically reached by visual cues. I cite as evidence the Fab Four: “I saw HER standing there.” The music I love would be impossible if we were to dispense with all the observer-determined pronouns. There are twenty-five pronouns in the three minutes of “I Saw Her Standing There.” I can really relate to the early Beatles’ lyrics. My heart’s gone “boom” a time or two when I held “her” hand in mi-♫-ne. We mustn’t let the woke DEI agenda destroy this treasured art form or our culture as a whole. If forced speech (punishable by law) is a red flag for you, don’t just stand there with your arms folded. Get off of the sidelines and get in the game. Your country needs you.