It’s not exactly as if the world is swimming in a sea of tranquility these days.
War in Gaza has been raging for months. War in Ukraine has been raging for years. And Russia has even threatened using nuclear weapons.
Terrorist groups brazenly attack American shipping vessels.
Iran keeps stirring the pot by shipping weapons and cash (most of which has been provided by the US) to belligerents around the world.
China continues to insist that it will “reunify” with Taiwan by force if necessary, and demonstrates its resolve for war by bombing mock-ups of US ships.
Now, the world has been in far worse shape in the past. And history shows that it is possible to pull back from the brink of almost certain conflict— the Cuban Missile Crisis is a great example.
But putting out all these fires requires serious, experienced professionals who can be laser-focused on achieving their nation’s diplomatic priorities from a position of strength.
Yet apparently the US State Department has a far higher calling than achieving peace through strength: gender neutrality.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently sent a memo to State Department employees entitled, “Modeling DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility]: Gender Identity Best Practices.”
The memo informs State Department employees that they should use “gender-neutral language whenever possible” because gendered terms such as “manpower”, “you guys”, “ladies and gentlemen”, “mother/father”, “son/daughter”, and “husband/wife” can be offensive.
Offensive to whom, exactly?
Does the US Secretary of State honestly believe that the word “father” is in any way offensive to the people with whom they have to negotiate?
Are Hamas terrorists triggered by the term “husband”? Will Ukrainian soldiers be outraged for praising “the brave men and women” who are fighting on the front lines?
Obviously not.
Terms like “father” and “mother” are only offensive to a tiny, tiny group of silly extremists in the US who have nothing better to do than wake up every morning and find an excuse to live in a state of perpetual victimhood.
But apparently the State Department is teeming with these whiny perpetual victims… which is pretty terrifying given the state of the world today.
Rather than focus on promoting strength, peace, and stability, there are ostensibly American diplomats who are more concerned about not being triggered by gender-specific words that have existed in the English language for more than 15 centuries.
Now, bear in mind that the entire purpose of the State Department is to interact with officials in other nations, who obviously tend to speak different languages. Yet many of these gender-neutral terms don’t even translate.
In Spanish, for example, mother is la madre and father is el padre. And if you’re referring to both parents, or you’re not sure which one, native speakers say padres, i.e. fathers.
There is no genderless word for parent in Spanish. It simply doesn’t translate.
So what exactly is the point of using this new genderless woke newspeak when it cannot even be communicated to foreign diplomats?
Now, I’ll return to the State Department soon. But I also want to tell you about a 90-year old woman named Fran Itkoff who was recently fired from her job.
Fran (who appears incredibly youthful at 90) has spent the last six decades volunteering for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. That’s a long time.
Yet the organization recently implemented a new Diversity and Inclusion policy in which staffers must include their pronouns, i.e. she/her, at the end of an email.
Fran didn’t understand the policy and asked why putting ‘she/her’ was inclusive? It’s certainly a reasonable question.
But “why” is the most triggering word of all to Diversity & Inclusion fanatics. They have no answers, they have no logic. So they respond with rage.
90-year old Fran Itkoff was fired— as a volunteer— for asking why.
Her story started making the rounds online, so National Multiple Sclerosis Society subsequently issued a bizarre apology, which stated that, even though “Fran has been a committed champion of [the Multiple Sclerosis] cause” for six decades, they fired her “with the best intentions”.
You just have to laugh at these people. I mean, it’s obvious that the Multiple Sclerosis society cares more about pronouns than they do eradicating Multiple Sclerosis! How does this organization expect anyone to take them seriously?
But the same question applies to the State Department. By publishing this memo, the Secretary of State has made it very clear what his Department’s priorities are.
How does he expect Iran, Hamas, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, etc. to take him seriously?
Remember, we’re not talking about a mid-sized non-profit or some random Congressman. This woke newspeak is now official guidance at the US Department of State.
I’ve written extensively that the United States faces a mountain of extraordinary challenges, from geopolitical threats to the southern border crisis to the looming national debt catastrophe.
These problems are not unsolvable. Not yet. But there is only a narrow window of opportunity— probably five years at best— to get back on track.
Unfortunately the Inspired Idiots in charge keep making things worse.
And this is a perfect example: by publishing this memo, the Secretary of State weakened America’s position in front of its adversaries. He made things worse, not better.
Obviously they don’t believe they’re making anything worse. They think their crusade for justice makes the world a better place. But they’re clearly out of touch with reality,.
And Fran Itkoff’s case is a great explanation:
Remember that the National Multiple Sclerosis Society’s new policy requires staffers to put pronouns in their emails, because stating pronouns = inclusive.
Yet the State Department’s newspeak memo states that you should not “pressure someone to state their pronouns” because it is “problematic” and sends a “harmful, exclusionary message”.
Wait, so which is it? Are we supposed to demand people state their pronouns or aren’t we?
It’s all so confusing… pronouns cannot be simultaneously “inclusive” and “exclusionary” at the same time, can they?
Well, in the Shrodinger’s Cat logic of Inspired Idiots, of course they can!
And that’s part of this 1984-style newspeak. Nothing has any fixed meaning. Everything is arbitrary and open to interpretation. There is no structure, there is no order. It’s all fluid and ever-changing… just like their definition of gender.
