Imported Muslim terrorist offs 11 Jews celebrating the first day of Hanukkah.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

That's not necessarily true. I made sure my spawn are taken care of. Now we wait for grandchildren. 

In this day and age? Dude you cannot leave it to them, you'll be waiting forever. I'll go get a pin, you go find their condoms.... 

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In this day and age? Dude you cannot leave it to them, you'll be waiting forever. I'll go get a pin, you go find their condoms.... 

Actually, my daughter and her husband are working on grandchildren now. 

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. People who are a little more arm's length from those who pay them. Academics are probably the most objective, although they belong to groups that have serious cultural biases in some areas.  Paid lobby groups... It's fine that you listen to them, but they must pay the piper with their output.

2. No, it's 2.39 Trillion.  But I was taking the government budget which is less. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada

3.  You might be thinking of Czechoslovakia. Look at my link. It's the middle late '50s 

4. Yes.

1. Which brings us to the pedantic argument. Just who can be trusted? But plain old common sense says that if you drive energy prices up and flood your nation with welfare cases, you're gonna have issues. Serious issues.

2. Which is much worse.

3. That was 75 years ago. I know families who came then. They assimilated willingly and seamlessly. 

4. I dont believe in coincidence. 

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Which brings us to the pedantic argument. Just who can be trusted? But plain old common sense says that if you drive energy prices up and flood your nation with welfare cases, you're gonna have issues. Serious issues.

2. Which is much worse.

3. That was 75 years ago. I know families who came then. They assimilated willingly and seamlessly. 

4. I dont believe in coincidence. 

1. Policies of the last government. Not Harper's though.  Seems like you could trust some governments then.

 

2. Yes, worse than using GDP, but back to my original numbers.

 

3. Yes.

 

4. Randomness will produce this phenomenon at regular, if infrequent, intervals. 

 

I don't think we're just agreeing on much anymore...

 

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Policies of the last government. Not Harper's though.  Seems like you could trust some governments then.

 

2. Yes, worse than using GDP, but back to my original numbers.

 

3. Yes.

 

4. Randomness will produce this phenomenon at regular, if infrequent, intervals. 

 

I don't think we're just agreeing on much anymore...

 

1. I lost trust during the Martin and Harper years.

2. Mike...there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. As far as im concerned, Any money spent on these "refugees" is sunk. A waste and an insult.

3. Thus irrelevant. 

4. Randomness? Now you're reaching.

[Goddess]

Those who have a hate on for Sam Cooper (even though they've never actually read anything from him) can skip over this post, but I thought he made a good point here.

The Uncomfortable Demographics of Islamist Bloodshed—and Why “Islamophobia” Deflection Increases the Threat: Ian Bradbury

 

After attacks by Islamic extremists, a familiar pattern follows. Debate erupts. Commentary and interviews flood the media. Op-eds, narratives, talking points, and competing interpretations proliferate in the immediate aftermath of bloodshed. The brief interval since the Bondi beach attack is no exception.

 

A recurring concern is that, at some point, many of these engagements suggest, infer, or outright insinuate that non-Muslims, or predominantly non-Muslim societies, are somehow expected or obligated to interpret these attacks through an Islamic or Muslim-impact lens. This framing is frequently reinforced by a familiar “not a true Muslim” narrative regarding the perpetrators, alongside warnings about the risks of Islamophobia.

These misaligned expectations collide with a number of uncomfortable but unavoidable truths. Extremist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and decentralized attackers with no formal affiliations have repeatedly and explicitly justified their violence through interpretations of Islamic texts and Islamic history. While most Muslims reject these interpretations, it remains equally true that large, dynamic groups of Muslims worldwide do not—and that these groups are well prepared to, and regularly do, use violence to advance their version of Islam.

(I would add that the majority of Muslims sadly remain silent amongst their peer group about this, as well.  It's extremely rare for radical mosques to be reported to authorities.  I get the sense that "moderate" Muslims rarely speak up or admonish their peers about radical beliefs and I think this is part of the problem.)

Islamic extremist movements do not, and did not, emerge in a vacuum. They draw from the broader Islamic context. This fact is observable, persistent, and cannot be wished or washed away, no matter how hard some may try or many may wish otherwise.

Denying or deflecting from these observable connections prevents society from addressing the central issues following an Islamic extremist attack in a Western country: the fatalities and injuries, how the violence is perceived and experienced by surviving victims, how it is experienced and understood by the majority non-Muslim population, how it is interpreted by non-Muslim governments responsible for public safety, and how it is received by allied nations. 

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more The Uncomfortable Demographics of Islamist Bloodshed—and Why “Islamophobia” Deflection Increases the Threat: Ian Bradbury Addressing realities directly is the only path toward protecting communities, confronting extremism, and preventing further loss of life, Canadian nat-sec expert argues. Dec 17     READ IN APP   OTTAWA — After attacks by Islamic extremists, a familiar pattern follows. Debate erupts. Commentary and interviews flood the media. Op-eds, narratives, talking points, and competing interpretations proliferate in the immediate aftermath of bloodshed. The brief interval since the Bondi beach attack is no exception. Many of these responses condemn the violence and call for solidarity between Muslims and non-Muslims, as well as for broader societal unity. Their core message is commendable, and I support it: extremist violence is horrific, societies must stand united, and communities most commonly targeted by Islamic extremists—Jews, Christians, non-Muslim minorities, and moderate Muslims—deserve to live in safety and be protected. Yet many of these info-space engagements miss the mark or cater to a narrow audience of wonks. A recurring concern is that, at some point, many of these engagements suggest, infer, or outright insinuate that non-Muslims, or predominantly non-Muslim societies, are somehow expected or obligated to interpret these attacks through an Islamic or Muslim-impact lens. This framing is frequently reinforced by a familiar “not a true Muslim” narrative regarding the perpetrators, alongside warnings about the risks of Islamophobia. These misaligned expectations collide with a number of uncomfortable but unavoidable truths. Extremist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and decentralized attackers with no formal affiliations have repeatedly and explicitly justified their violence through interpretations of Islamic texts and Islamic history. While most Muslims reject these interpretations, it remains equally true that large, dynamic groups of Muslims worldwide do not—and that these groups are well prepared to, and regularly do, use violence to advance their version of Islam. Islamic extremist movements do not, and did not, emerge in a vacuum. They draw from the broader Islamic context. This fact is observable, persistent, and cannot be wished or washed away, no matter how hard some may try or many may wish otherwise. Given this reality, it follows that for most non-Muslims—many of whom do not have detailed knowledge of Islam, its internal theological debates, historical divisions, or political evolution—and for a considerable number of Muslims as well, Islamic extremist violence is perceived as connected to Islam as it manifests globally. This perception persists regardless of nuance, disclaimers, or internal distinctions within the faith and among its followers. THE COST OF DENIAL AND DEFLECTION Denying or deflecting from these observable connections prevents society from addressing the central issues following an Islamic extremist attack in a Western country: the fatalities and injuries, how the violence is perceived and experienced by surviving victims, how it is experienced and understood by the majority non-Muslim population, how it is interpreted by non-Muslim governments responsible for public safety, and how it is received by allied nations. Worse, refusing to confront these difficult truths—or branding legitimate concerns as Islamophobia—creates a vacuum, one readily filled by extremist voices and adversarial actors eager to poison and pollute the discussion. Following such attacks, in addition to thinking first of the direct victims, I sympathize with my Muslim family, friends, colleagues, moderate Muslims worldwide, and Muslim victims of Islamic extremism, particularly given that anti-Muslim bigotry is a real problem they face. For Muslim victims of Islamic extremism, that bigotry constitutes a second blow they must endure. Personal sympathy, however, does not translate into an obligation to center Muslim communal concerns when they were not the targets of the attack. Nor does it impose a public obligation or override how societies can, do, or should process and respond to violence directed at them by Islamic extremists. As it applies to the general public in Western nations, the principle is simple: there should be no expectation that non-Muslims consider Islam, inter-Islamic identity conflicts, internal theological disputes, or the broader impact on the global Muslim community, when responding to attacks carried out by Islamic extremists. That is, unless Muslims were the victims, in which case some consideration is appropriate. Non-Muslims are free to give no consideration to Muslim interests at any time, particularly following an Islamic extremist attack against non-Muslims in a non-Muslim country. The sole exception is that governments retain an obligation to ensure the safety and protection of their Muslim citizens, who face real and heightened threats during these periods. This does not suggest that non-Muslims cannot consider Muslim community members; it simply affirms that they are under no obligation to do so.   The central issue for public discourse after an Islamic extremist attack is not debating whether the perpetrators were “true” or “false” Muslims, nor assessing downstream impacts on Muslim communities—unless they were the targets. It is a societal effort to understand why radical ideologies continue to emerge from varying—yet often overlapping—interpretations of Islam, how political struggles within the Muslim world contribute to these ideologies, and how non-Muslim-majority Western countries can realistically and effectively confront and mitigate threats related to Islamic extremism before the next attack occurs and more non-Muslim and Muslim lives are lost.

[Michael Hardner]

On 12/21/2025 at 8:41 AM, Nationalist said:

1. Mike...there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. As far as im concerned, Any money spent on these "refugees" is sunk. A waste and an insult.

2. Thus irrelevant. 

3. Randomness? Now you're reaching.

1. Well refugees are taken care of for humanitarian reasons. So money spent is best considered gone. Do you give to charity? 

2. The Yugoslavian refugees came in the '90s. And I don't think it's irrelevant because we can trace what happened with these people over time. The hungarians, the Vietnamese, the Bosnians...

3. No, that's metaphysics... And probability.

If I had a thousand people flipping 10 coins for heads or tails. One of them is going to see all ten heads or all ten tails. They would think the coins are loaded.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

  I thought he made a good point here.

I guess so. He says what we should not be obliged to consider a Muslim perspective when attacks happen? 

I don't think I've read many people advocating for that anyway.

Edited December 22, 2025 by Michael Hardner

[Nationalist]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well refugees are taken care of for humanitarian reasons. So money spent is best considered gone. Do you give to charity? 

2. The Yugoslavian refugees came in the '90s. And I don't think it's irrelevant because we can trace what happened with these people over time. The hungarians, the Vietnamese, the Bosnians...

3. No, that's metaphysics... And probability.

If I had a thousand people flipping 10 coins for heads or tails. One of them is going to see all ten heads or all ten tails. They would think the coins are loaded.

Mike, you're reaching again. There is nothing "good" about flooding a nation with people completely foreign to that nation's society and culture. That's shock treatment. It causes social upheaval on many levels.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Mike, you're reaching again. There is nothing "good" about flooding a nation with people completely foreign to that nation's society and culture. That's shock treatment. It causes social upheaval on many levels.

And yet studies show that people assimilate the same way.  Cultures change, but people want prosperity and stability for their families.

I addressed your points in my last post, we're back to just tit for tat points here.

I think that we may be done. 

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And yet studies show that people assimilate the same way.  Cultures change, but people want prosperity and stability for their families.

I addressed your points in my last post, we're back to just tit for tat points here.

I think that we may be done. 

Had they wanted prosperity and stability, they'd have treated it in their own nation's. Why should we sacrifice out society and prosperity, for people who have already proven they make failed states?

So if we're done...so is England, France, Germany, Italy and several others. Have you seen the riots throughout Europe over this?

Supporters of Ukraine like to justify the war...that none of them want to go fight...by saying that Russia will advance on central Europe next. But they won't have to use military. Between NATO and the EU, they are giftwrapping the former satellite states and giving them back to Russia. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Had they wanted prosperity and stability, they'd have treated it in their own nation's. Why should we sacrifice out society and prosperity, for people who have already proven they make failed states?

So if we're done...so is England, France, Germany, Italy and several others. Have you seen the riots throughout Europe over this?

Supporters of Ukraine like to justify the war...that none of them want to go fight...by saying that Russia will advance on central Europe next. But they won't have to use military. Between NATO and the EU, they are giftwrapping the former satellite states and giving them back to Russia. 

We import people because of prosperity.

You're moving on to other subjects... Europe, the Russian invasion of Ukraine...

 

Should we move this to another thread then?

 

Feels like ping pong...

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We import people because of prosperity.

You're moving on to other subjects... Europe, the Russian invasion of Ukraine...

 

Should we move this to another thread then?

 

Feels like ping pong...

Who filled your head with that garbage? We dont need, or want, more welfare cases.

Not at all. The central European countries have done a great job of keeping Muslim refugees out. The EU is trying to force them to take on these refugees, but they've held fast. NATO is trying to get their buy-in on a protracted war in Ukraine. But that ain't flyin' either.

The Czechs, Slovaks, Polaks and Hungarians are questioning what benefit either present...and the answer is 'little to none'. They are preserving their cultures and do not want war with Russia. What they do want is trade with Russia. 

[Goddess]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I guess so. He says what we should not be obliged to consider a Muslim perspective when attacks happen? 

I don't think I've read many people advocating for that anyway.

If you read the whole article, he's saying the main concern after an Islamic attack should not be on Muslims, we are not obligated to focus on Islamophobia after an Islamic attack

The main concern should be the country/people/culture that was the victim of the attack.

I realize this completely goes against far-left thinking, in which most often - the focus of everything is the perpetrator (did he come from a difficult upbringing? Well, then HE'S the real victim here.) and who gives a crap about the victims.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Goddess

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We import people because of prosperity.

The fact is we don't. And prior to 2006 Immigrants tended to be in that drain. It was their children that would be more successful and contribute. After the change in the laws in 2006 Things got better because immigrants were more heavily screened, but most of that has gone by the wayside.

Immigration is not about Prosperity these days and the studies are quite conclusive. The children that they have here in Canada will go on to be prosperous on average and in fact more so than the children of Natural Born Canadians by and large

But no, it's not about prosperity.  Immigrants will consume just as many resources as anyone else (medical, etc) and require just as much housing but will produce far less tax revenues.  For example In 2021, immigrants admitted in the last 10 years earned around $42,320, compared to $51,400 for non-immigrants and that difference is far worse in the first years.  while the gap closes as time goes on it never reaches parity. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Who filled your head with that garbage? We dont need, or want, more welfare cases.

 

Why do you think most immigrants are on welfare?  Or are you conflating immigrants with refugees?

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think most immigrants are on welfare?  Or are you conflating immigrants with refugees?

That's not conflating anything, by definition refugees are immigrants

[ironstone]

Jess Lee Peterson doesn't beat around the bush lol.

In other news, three men are charged in the UK for plotting to attack a certain group of other people...

I wonder what faith these three guys followed?

https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2025/december/Three-men-convicted-after-CTPNW-investigation-into-antisemitic-terror-plot-in-Greater-Manchester/

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think most immigrants are on welfare?  Or are you conflating immigrants with refugees?

You know what I mean. Our border needs to be closed...now!

[herbie]

One of the two wasn't imported. 
Oh so that's why you want to end birthright citizenship... punish criminals and all their kin like it says in the New American Testament.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You know what I mean. Our border needs to be closed...now!

Ok, your concluding thoughts are noted.

[User]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

One of the two wasn't imported. 
Oh so that's why you want to end birthright citizenship... punish criminals and all their kin like it says in the New American Testament.

How about we create a train from Mexico straight to Canada. All the South American immigrants can just get a free ride through America and settle in your country. 
 

Most nations, including Western ones, do not have the absurdity of birthright citizenship. 

[User]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think most immigrants are on welfare?  Or are you conflating immigrants with refugees?

Are refugees not immigrants? 
 

They are. 
 

The point remains, doesn’t your country have enough of its own problems, poor, debt, that you don’t need to import more?

 

[herbie]

Obvious you've never read a dictionary in your life. Can you?
Come back when you finish Grade 5

[CdnFox]

Just now, herbie said:

Obvious you've never read a dictionary in your life. Can you?
Come back when you finish Grade 5

Refugees who stay in Canada are immigrants by definition under the dictionary.

If a refugee is in Canada temporarily with the intent of returning home after whatever crisis drove them out is over, then they are just refugees. But if they stay in the country they are immigrants. By definition

im·mi·grant

/ˈiməɡrənt/

noun

 

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country

    

   In Canada the vast majority of refugees are here permanently and are there for immigrants

    

   Who did you say it was the can't read the dictionary? You never miss a chance to look stupid do you