You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Culture’ category.
Becoming famous for the wrong reasons.


The Liberal government supports the corrosion of the basis of our society – a stable family structure is under siege as usual under the guise of “progressive” values.
On Aug. 7, Quebec researchers published an article on “Children’s views on the romantic partners of their polyamorous parents” in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, a federal grant-giving body that distributes taxpayer funds to academic projects.
SSHRC communications advisor Nicole Swiaterk confirmed to True North taxpayers paid $70,662 between 2019 and 2021 for the study. Funds were awarded via the Insight Development Grants competition.
Researchers interviewed 18 children between the ages of 5 and 16 years old. Three of the children in the cohort lived in households with their parents’ multiple sexual partners. Nine of the ten households interviewed included adults who identified as LGBTQ+.
“We found that the participating children generally appreciate their parents’ romantic partners,” researchers concluded.”
–Hat tip to the The True North


This is how the activist Left abuses polysemy. Polysemy is defined as follows:

So, this is their game. To make their radical propositions seem reasonable they purposefully use words that have a generally accepted meaning, but then at the same time a special transformative meaning for them. The woke activist left does this so they can move the political/social football in a radical direction all the while sounding like they are saying normal, reasonable things.
Let’s take an easy obvious example, let’s look at the word “inclusion”.

“Inclusion” in this case is doing a great deal of work under the hood. The argument from the activists is this – we should include all types of women in female sports that includes “cis-women”¹ and of course “trans – women”.
The mechanism at work here is “inclusion” means accepting the notion that there are more that one type of females in society that play sports. This is the truth married to a lie in action – the woke argument for inclusion inserts the notion that males who call themselves women are actually women and thus in ‘woke reality’ we should include deluded males in the female category.
This is how they wedge their bullshit into society because when confronted by people who comport with reality woke activists can then smear and attack their reality abiding opponents for not being “inclusive”. To low information people seeing the argument taking place they see one side coming out for inclusion and one side being against inclusion (the bigots, the transphobes, insert your preferred vehicle of social coercion…) – but the definition of inclusion the low information people have in their heads is not the same as the one the activists are implicitly following.
So the low information people working on the non activist definition of inclusion are bamboozled into going along with the activists (and the poison pill contained within) thinking that they are supporting a just, more inclusive society.
Obviously, the exact opposite is true. By including men in female sports female athletes are excluded from participating, winning medals, and getting funding to further their excellence in their own category.
This is dichotomy of terms (dialectical even) is not a mistake, because if they led with a clear unambiguous statement of their inane version of ‘inclusion (including males in the female sport categories)’ they would get zero social traction/support for their society corrosive radical views.
¹ – Just a sidebar this is why it is advisable to never accept the term “cis” in your affairs and society. “Cis” erases the authentic definition of what a woman is. Women are exclusively adult human females, full stop. Including males who think they are women in the category blurs and invalidates the category and destroys the ability for people to make reasonable category discernment in social situations.

“We discussed the politicization of identity and his concept of “decivilization,” which he explains in detail. I also asked him about his shift from the far left to his now conservative views. We touched on species relativism (versus cultural, moral, or epistemological relativism), as well as the impact of politicization on public discourse and his work with MCC’s think tank in Brussels.”







Your opinions…