Pronouns And The Destabilization Of Thought

When Vice President Kamala Harris announced her pronouns while introducing herself to pro-abortion disability rights activists, she also described what she was wearing: “I am Kamala Harris. My pronouns are she and her. I am a woman sitting at this table wearing a blue suit.” All others at the conference table mimicked the process in some way…

…When the video made rounds on social media, a lot of people were amazed by the absurdity of it all. However, when high-level public figures put on such performances, the goal is to portray the behavior as normal so more will do the same until there’s a cascade of public acceptance. Indeed, declaring one’s pronouns—saying things like “I go by he/him” or “My pronouns are xi/xir/they”—has become a ritual in much of academia and the corporate world, where people have started wearing pronoun badges.

Those who promote the practice claim it’s only about good manners and avoiding the risk of marginalizing people by making assumptions about how they identify. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Progressive Pronoun Project is plain old social engineering. And it disrupts the natural flow of human communication at every level. We all know that.

George Orwell famously warned that if we keep corrupting the English language, we’ll eventually start spouting dangerous nonsense like “Freedom is slavery” and “War is peace.” Indeed, turning the language into unintelligible mush serves to turn people into fools who can be controlled. We’ve all seen how the media and our institutions are enforcing this farce. This abuse of language is bound to destabilize thought, especially in children. Read More»

Stella Morabito | “Kamala Harris’s Pronoun Charade Is About A Lot More Than Bad Manners” | August 3, 2022

Resources

    Post authored by:

  • Heidelblog
    Author Image

    The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

    More by Heidelblog ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


4 comments

  1. What the pronoun destabilization of language starts, the wild abbreviations used in texting finishes. We seem to be entering into a period of brainwashing via warped pronoun usage followed by general illiteracy as a result of the inability to spell words correctly. Whenever I hear a young person get up in front of an audience to speak, e.g., during a worship service, and they are well spoken, not using annoying speech patterns like ValSpeak, UpTalk, or vocal fry, it almost makes me want to stand up and applaud them.

  2. Conditioning and normalization campaigns to shape and win majority of public opinion.

    “ Ultimately, the failure of litigation to win the right to same- sex marriage highlights Alinsky’s most basic insights about how to bring about change. Almost every aspect of the structure and procedure of litigation mitigates against effective organizing and mobilization. In turning to courts, proponents of marriage equality confused the rhetoric of rights with the reality of reaction. To continue to litigate after 1996, when it was clear that any further litigation victories would produce continued backlash, was pure folly. The “lure of litigation” misled same-sex marriage litigators to move faster and farther than the American public was ready to go. When they won, they were unsurprisingly met with major opposition. The lesson here is a simple one-those who rely on the courts absent significant public and political support will fail to achieve meaningful social change and may set their cause back.
    For Saul Alinksy, there was no substitute for political action. As long as many of the brightest and most idealistic young people embark on legal careers and look to legal strategies to produce change, that change is unlikely to be achieved. Alinsky taught that community organizing and political mobilization may not be glamorous or pay six-figure salaries, but they are the best if not the only hope to produce change-not as a fallback position, not as a complement to a legal strategy, but as the strategy itself. Same-sex marriage activists had a choice about how to further their cause. In ignoring Alinsky’s experience and arguments and choosing to litigate, they created additional barriers to the achievement of their goal of marriage equality. Alinsky would not be surprised.” – Saul Alinsky and the Litigation Campaign to Win the Right to Same-Sex Marriage

  3. The Accordance™ program counts 16,246 pronouns in the Greek New Testament alone, so they are indeed serious business.

  4. Very insightful:

    “However, when high-level public figures put on such performances, the goal is to portray the behavior as normal so more will do the same until there’s a cascade of public acceptance.”

Comments are closed.