Just the other day I received a company-wide email. The email updated employees with the latest leadership changes, new business opportunities, employee highlights, COVID testing kit availability, and about a recent DEI meeting.
The DEI blurb included a video and PDF. Both items, titled Let’s Talk Pronouns! Common Mistakes & What To Do Instead, were used in the meeting.
Thank you to everyone who attended the first [ ] meeting in December. The featured topic for the meeting was pronouns. Participants discussed common mistakes and what how to avoid them, including examples of language to use when sharing your own pronouns, asking others about their pronouns, or correcting yourself if you’ve mistakenly used incorrect pronouns. If you missed the meeting, you can watch the 10-minute video of this part of the discussion or download the PDF summary below.
Remember, when you take time to think about how others choose to be referenced and use their correct pronouns, you’re helping create an affirming workplace culture where all employees can feel fully seen, respected, and valued.
A couple of months before this DEI meeting an anonymous questionnaire was sent out asking opinions about bias. The responses, it stated, would be used to formulate DEI meeting topics. Here’s a couple of the questions and my responses:
Do you see bias in the company?
My response: “If you are looking for bias you will find it.”
What concerns about bias should DEI meetings address?
My response: “Why is [ ] turning the company over to children? (I should have added “Where are the adults?”) And with regard to bias, “Why not follow the Christian DEI understanding – Love your neighbor as yourself – instead of a Marxist program that separates people into disparate groups instead of unifying them?”
I should note that our company’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) initiative started in 2021. This was after the company began an aggressive hiring campaign during the OSHA COVID vaccine mandate disaster. At least fifteen percent of over 2000 employees had submitted exemptions to the vaccine and testing mandate. (I was one of them.)
Many of the new hires came from universities where they had been indoctrinated into the DEI stream of consciousness. Thereof, I suspect, was the impetus for our company’s DEI initiative – providing a “safe space” in a corporate culture that new hires were led to believe was non-affirming, disrespecting and devaluing. Getting paid and acknowledged for doing quality work in an engineering community is not enough for the narcissistic.
(Isn’t abstracting one’s self with absurd pronouns (ze/zir/zirs and zhe/zher/zhers, etc.) much like the deconstruction and obscuring of the human form in a cubist painting? And, isn’t the current pronoun mania much like the current tattoo mania?)
Of course, what’s behind the DEI pronoun façade is not only the willful and arrogant perversion of language, but also the pronoun warriors desire for power and control. As I see it, the owners of the company effectively handed over control of the business to the government by complying with the OSHA mandate and by venturing into wonderland with DEI.
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
I have a questionnaire for you. The questions relate to the foundations of our current sandcastle culture:
Would you spend your time talking about pronouns?
Would you describe what Disney produces as sublime?
Do you subscribe to the Disney channel?
Will you watch the Woke live action movie copied from the original animate film Snow White? Will it be called Snow Blanca and the Seven Pronouns now that dwarfs living in a cave are out?
Should M&M’s become inclusive and allow one of their own to identify as a Skittle.
Is the word “entertainment” in scripture?
Do you believe that the U.S. government, via its representatives and bureaucrats, is altruistic?
Are you OK with all of your devices listening to your conversation via 5G?
Should we scrap everything and Build Back Better toward a “green prosperity” based on climate change hype?
Are you OK with The Great Reset forcing you to be part of their social experiment?
Are you OK with banks, the Federal reserve and elites bringing our country to economic collapse so as to Build Back Better?
Are you OK with the U.S. becoming a socialist hell-hole like Venezuela?
Are you OK with “the “deliberate enfeeblement of the nation” by political and cultural elites in the name of globalization and a transnational conception of Europe”? (Beyond the Culture of Repudiation – Claremont Review of Books)
Are you OK with “a watery, globalized humanitarianism” in place of the Christian “love your neighbor as yourself”? (Beyond the Culture of Repudiation – Claremont Review of Books)
Are you OK with eugenics –vaccine and implant induced – to produce a better human race?
Do you trust the elites?
Should a village raise a child?
“If California is ever going to achieve true equity, the state must require parents to give away their children.
. . . Now, I recognize that some naysayers, hopelessly attached to their privilege, will dismiss such a policy as ghastly, even totalitarian. But my proposal is quite modest, a fusion of traditional philosophy and today’s most common political obsessions.”
Should a child have multiple parents?
“It soon could be unremarkable for a child to have three or more legal parents.After months of political wrangling over how to support families, this may sound fantastical, but it’s fast becoming reality: Six states — California, Delaware, Maine, Vermont, Washington and most recently Connecticut — have enacted laws over the past decade expressly allowing a court to recognize more than two parents for a child. Many others, including Massachusetts, are considering similar proposals.”
Are you willing to live in a house designed by the architects of the new world order?
Jesus taught, as he often did, using nature to present truth.
“So, then, everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. Heavy rain fell; floods rose up; the winds blew and beat on that house. It didn’t fall, because it was founded on the rock.
And everyone who hears these words of mine and doesn’t do them – they will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. Heavy rain fell; floods rose up; the winds blew and battered the house – and down it fell! It fell with a great crash.” – Jesus as recorded in the gospel according to Matthew 7: 24-27
We know from nature that sand forms when rocks break down from weathering and eroding over thousands and even millions of years. We know that cultural sand forms from the breaking down and erosion of longstanding truth. The culture of repudiation produces cultural sand almost overnight.
The rock crushers call themselves Progressives. They are dismissive of every aspect of our cultural capital, human nature and tradition. They rush in to create the negative, for they are nihilists. They are the jack hammers that leave nothing standing and reduce the rubble to dust and sand. They use diatribe chisels – “racist” “homophobe” “xenophobe” “racist”, “sexist”, and the like- to chip away at the bedrock of culture.
Many today sustain a quasi-religious belief in Progress. These build pronoun sand castles. These build sand castles of “hope and change” fundamental transformation and of Build Back Better. Sand pails are provided by The Great Reset elites who sit on the beach and watch them play.
You don’t need to be a civil engineer to know that rock and sand are two different footings. A wise builder makes sure the footing is stationary and stable. What’s the point of building if it isn’t?
Fools, reactionary fools, build their lives, their hopes, dreams, and future, on shifting sand. But all for a naught!
“And you all say, ‘The times are troubled, the times are hard, the times are wretched.’ Live good lives, and you will change the times by living good lives; you will change the times, and then you’ll have nothing to grumble about.” — St. Augustine
Informed dissent against the Hideous Strength:
“ . . a judge ruled that the FDA and Pfizer would have to answer [Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency] FOIA requests. Among the first reports handed over by Pfizer was a “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports” describing events reported to Pfizer up until February 2021. It reveals that the drug behemoth received more than 150,000 serious adverse event reports within three months of rolling out its COVID shot, but here we will focus on Table 6 of the data on pregnant and lactating women who received the shots in the first few months of the rollout, which began December 11
“OSHA announced in the federal register that although the temporary emergency rule was being removed, it would be retained as a proposal for a permanent rule in the future.” (emphasis mine)
Dr. Aaron Kheriarty at the Ron Johnson Vaccine hearing — ‘We will lose our license to practice medicine.’
Those who have ears, listen!
You are being monitored: