Hungarian PM Victor Orban says Europe must return to its Christian roots. What about Canada?

[Zeitgeist]

Orban is 100% correct, but the majority of Canadians won’t see the truth in his words and will label him a fascist.  That’s how it’s done now.  Brought to you by the same fools who insist on land acknowledgments that are now being used to remove title to private property. Canada needs a major overhaul and I don’t see it happening because our politicians don’t get elected unless they’re progressive castrates.

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Paywalled 

You're a grownup. You know how easily these paywalls can be removed.

https://archive.is/

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, herbie said:

They indocrinate you to learn facts instead of blindly accept what Mummy and Daddy and the Nuns want you to believe.

Repent

[User]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

My liberal Toronto, my kids come home singing o Canada and talking about Remembrance Day and how great Canada is...

And when were your kids coming home, like 40 years ago?

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, User said:

And when were your kids coming home, like 40 years ago?

 

 

That’s the trouble. Michael’s sentiments are very 1990’s.  I wish it was still that world.  

[Gaétan]

Those churches who call themselves Christians are not truly Christians, but have usurped that identity. The true Christians are the Marcionites and the Cathars, who were persecuted and wiped out.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2025 by Gaétan

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You're a grownup. You know how easily these paywalls can be removed.

https://archive.is/

Grownup=hacker?

 

Have pity, I'm old.

9 hours ago, User said:

And when were your kids coming home, like 40 years ago?

 

 

No, weeks ago...

9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s the trouble. Michael’s sentiments are very 1990’s.  I wish it was still that world.  

2025.

 

------

 

Here's the thing, a community has to be able to absorb the full perspective of viewpoints to thrive.

That's not how things work on political forums with anonymous and faceless posters.

We have religious people, LGBTQ families, various nationalities and customs in our neighbourhood that have to make it work... to raise our kids.

I have seen the people work through things in ways that never happen on here.

Traditional Canadians, as August says, know how to get along.  We know that we're blessed 

Edited December 29, 2025 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

https://archive.is/jZFQb

I owed Groot the review of at least one article.

This opinion piece rightly points out that hate speech exists and that anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views are conflated by protesters.  They're also done by the article itself though, asking whether professors who are anti-Israel can be trusted to teach at all.

As I explained above, many of us have to deal with these divisive and delicate questions in real life. Not as keyboard Warriors who issue blanket statements about Canada being done, and calling for the rise of some form of Christian nationalism. 

As August says.. We get along. 

Even the articles in question point out that there are institutional responses when behavior passes a certain boundary. That's the best we can hope for.  

[John Stone]

............ representation of Viktor's political character........... Viktor is similar to any political hack in using faith to consolidate power or rhetoric to undermine an opponent. 

The National Socialist German Workers Party (1933) vowed support to the (Catholic) Centre Party in 1933 in exchange for the passing of the Enabling Act - the rest is history. 

Ah, the Centre Party was eaten last,  but it was eaten paving the way for a dick-tator. 

[Zeitgeist]

12 hours ago, Gaétan said:

Those churches who call themselves Christians are not truly Christians, but have usurped that identity. The true Christians are the Marcionites and the Cathars, who were persecuted and wiped out.

 

 

Perhaps, but I would suggest that if Christendom, which is quite synonymous with Western civilization and its Greco-Roman traditions, is allowed to be further compromised, the options that remain to fill that void are a kind of Orwellian China-style, totalitarian capitalism surveillance state without any appeal to a higher authority than the state mixed with a hedonistic Huxley me-oriented society with continued declining birth rates and vacuous materialism, climate crisis fear-related restrictions and taxation, transhumanism, and tech-obsessed cyborgs.  That’s pretty much what’s on the horizon.  

Edited December 29, 2025 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

Christians need to stand for what they believe or their world will be crushed by the woke, liberals, left, progressives, or Islamists.  It is happening now in many places.  It is coming to a crunch in many places.  Christians must defend their right to basic freedoms or it will be taken away.  It is happening even in Canada.  Some liberal or left politicians are working on bringing in new laws under the guise of eliminating hate speech, but they are taking away basic freedoms in the process.  This has already been happening in other countries such as the UK.

Edited December 31, 2025 by blackbird

[John Stone]

............. arguably the PRC wouldn't be on the verge of becoming  the largest global economy if they had tolerated democracy or freedom of religion in practice. 

Imagine democracy with a population of  1500 million citizens......... use Congress as an example. 

I mean,  who really wants a democracy that resembles India - 6 national parties, 58 state parties and 2500 unrecognized parties.  Suppose the real divisions are along religious grounds tho. 

Imagine true freedom of religion with 1500 million citizens being influenced by an imaginary figure? 

Give them PRC  bast'ds credit on their accomplishments ........ lets face it, ya can't eat ideology ........even less if it is corrupt to the degree that the U.S. politic (supposedly) constantly commits.. 

 

Edited December 31, 2025 by John Stone

[Nationalist]

So "What about Canada"?

Well...Canada is well on its way to becoming a failed state. Its lead by a blatant liar and thief. Its tax system and regulations literally choke off prosperity. Its being driven to bankruptcy. Hell Tim Horton's is now a stepping stone for not for young Canadians, but for Indian "new comers". Our hotels are now homes for these "new comers" all at the expense of real Canadians.

So "What about Canada"?

My answer is my planned action for 2026. Im gonna dump my properties, pack up my wife, my finances and my golf clubs...and leave for Central Europe...where Christian morals and the Caucasian race are still welcome.

[John Stone]

21 hours ago, Nationalist said:

So "What about Canada"?

Well...Canada is well on its way to becoming a failed state. Its lead by a blatant liar and thief. Its tax system and regulations literally choke off prosperity. Its being driven to bankruptcy. Hell Tim Horton's is now a stepping stone for not for young Canadians, but for Indian "new comers". Our hotels are now homes for these "new comers" all at the expense of real Canadians.

So "What about Canada"?

My answer is my planned action for 2026. Im gonna dump my properties, pack up my wife, my finances and my golf clubs...and leave for Central Europe...where Christian morals and the Caucasian race are still welcome.

Odds are good that Europe will become a parking lot within 10 years. 

I am grateful for the Islamic corner stores - a nod to their pizza places .

 

21 hours ago, Nationalist said:

So "What about Canada"?

Well...Canada is well on its way to becoming a failed state. Its lead by a blatant liar and thief. Its tax system and regulations literally choke off prosperity. Its being driven to bankruptcy. Hell Tim Horton's is now a stepping stone for not for young Canadians, but for Indian "new comers". Our hotels are now homes for these "new comers" all at the expense of real Canadians.

So "What about Canada"?

My answer is my planned action for 2026. Im gonna dump my properties, pack up my wife, my finances and my golf clubs...and leave for Central Europe...where Christian morals and the Caucasian race are still welcome.

 

[I am Groot]

Can anyone imagine what Canada would be like now if we'd never liberalized immigration and allowed people to come here from the third world?

https://www.tps.ca/organizational-chart/specialized-operations-command/detective-operations/investigative-services/homicide/most-wanted/

 

https://boloprogram.org/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23102290963&gbraid=0AAAAADCiKKwgNaYCODjazFQMutlUWpxfS&gclid=CjwKCAiA09jKBhB9EiwAgB8l-DBKde0ZVsEa-FcCVnbVm0zlGD_3F4EZtcuOTbK8Re1BHAWHjnCE8BoCc7AQAvD_BwE

[Michael Hardner]

Well it's pretty hard to argue cold statistics against a picture that's obvious, and a literal picture of brutal looking criminals, all immigrants.

But it's possible.

Immigration will never be zero.  And criminals will always get in.  You'd need more to establish want went wrong with these criminals and the system.

I'm always interested in having a serious conversation, but last time I tried people insisted on making the discussion about me and my failings, and when I asked them to be more serious they told me that I didn't like people who disagree with me.

I do think that you're a better poster than most in this regard for whatever it's worth.

[User]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well it's pretty hard to argue cold statistics against a picture that's obvious, and a literal picture of brutal looking criminals, all immigrants.

But it's possible.

Immigration will never be zero.  And criminals will always get in.  You'd need more to establish want went wrong with these criminals and the system.

I'm always interested in having a serious conversation, but last time I tried people insisted on making the discussion about me and my failings, and when I asked them to be more serious they told me that I didn't like people who disagree with me.

I do think that you're a better poster than most in this regard for whatever it's worth.

Your posting habits here do not show that you are interested in having a serious discussion at all. I have tried many times with you. You want to operate on the extreme end of the spectrum, either arguing against the strawman of no immigration at all (or very selectively only arguing against the few pushing that kind of argument)

Meanwhile, there is plenty of room in the middle here where we are discusing ILLEGAL immigration and enforcing existing immigration laws against ILLEGAL immigrants and you usually come in to the discussions with something about how tragic stories are not statistics and then run away when called out. 

So no, you do not seem interested in serious discussions at all. You seem to support open borders madness and obfuscate to that end. 

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, User said:

1. Your posting habits here do not show that you are interested in having a serious discussion at all. 

2. You seem to support open borders madness and obfuscate to that end. 

1. I offered a truce on the other thread.

2. No I don't.

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I offered a truce on the other thread.

2. No I don't.

We already had an agreement, I was not insulting you, you still ran away. 

OK, lets put it to the test then. Do you support ICE in America in their enforcement of immigration laws? Do you support santuary city policies that let illegal immigrants go instead of coordinating with ICE to deport them, even when they were arrested for criminal acts?

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

 

1. OK, lets put it to the test then. Do you support ICE in America in their enforcement of immigration laws?

2. Do you support santuary city policies that let illegal immigrants go instead of coordinating with ICE to deport them, even when they were arrested for criminal acts?

 

1. Support?  What do you mean by it?  It's a function of their policy, not sure what there is to support.  I'm not up on the lastest on this issue, but there have been allegations of abuse.  I'm not sure what you're looking for, but...

I don't "support" the politicization of different security institutions, such as the FBI, RCMP, CIA etc.  They should be allowed to operate without interference.

2. No, criminals who aren't citizens should be deported, generally...

[User]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Support?  What do you mean by it?  It's a function of their policy, not sure what there is to support.  I'm not up on the lastest on this issue, but there have been allegations of abuse.  I'm not sure what you're looking for, but...

I don't "support" the politicization of different security institutions, such as the FBI, RCMP, CIA etc.  They should be allowed to operate without interference.

Word games. You routinely interject yourself into immigration discussions where it is pointed out that some criminal illegal alien has done something awful and dismiss it as not being statistics so as to avoid the point. 

I clearly defined what I meant by support: "in their enforcement of immigration laws?"

 

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. No, criminals who aren't citizens should be deported, generally...

What about people who are here illegally and are not criminals in any other sense beyond being here illegally?

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

1. Word games. You routinely interject yourself into immigration discussions where it is pointed out that some criminal illegal alien has done something awful and dismiss it as not being statistics

2. ...so as to avoid the point. 

3. I clearly defined what I meant by support: "in their enforcement of immigration laws?

4. What about people who are here illegally and are not criminals in any other sense beyond being here illegally?

 

1. Yes, I fully admit I do that. Your question about ICE doesn't have anything to do with how I look at those things. I am much more about how things are discussed versus the conclusion. If you arrive at a conclusion different from mine, but you use principles and sound logic, there's nothing I can say.

2. My motives aren't as you state. I'm not trying to obfuscate or win an argument. 

3. It still isn't clear. Support them in their enforcement? That can be read so many ways. I think they have the right to enforce immigration laws, so does that mean I support them?  If they break the law in their duties and I object to that, is that wrong? I don't think it is. 

4. Obviously the country has a right to deport people who haven't come here through legitimate channels.  Now, I did answer your first question. And now I've answered the second question on this.  Do you think I'm dodging still? Or are we making some progress here in the back and forth? 

I feel like the best I can hope for is for you to I'm not think I'm lying.

 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, I fully admit I do that. Your question about ICE doesn't have anything to do with how I look at those things. I am much more about how things are discussed versus the conclusion. If you arrive at a conclusion different from mine, but you use principles and sound logic, there's nothing I can say.

Except, you declared earlier that:

"2. No I don't."

When I said it appears you support open borders madness. So, I am putting your claim to the test. And now you balk. 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. My motives aren't as you state. I'm not trying to obfuscate or win an argument. 

Fair enough, who knows what your motives are, but the outcome is the same. You obfuscate and avoid the discussion. 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. It still isn't clear. Support them in their enforcement? That can be read so many ways. I think they have the right to enforce immigration laws, so does that mean I support them?  If they break the law in their duties and I object to that, is that wrong? I don't think it is. 

More games, but glad to see you say you do in fact support them in the enforcement of immigration laws. Lets see how that plays out in future discussions. 

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Obviously the country has a right to deport people who haven't come here through legitimate channels.  Now, I did answer your first question. And now I've answered the second question on this.  Do you think I'm dodging still? Or are we making some progress here in the back and forth? 

This is good, I appreciate the clarity here now, but you did not say if you support a country enforcing its deportation of illegal immigrants; you just said a country has a right to do it. Do you support that though?

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, User said:

1. Except, you declared earlier that:

" No I don't."

When I said it appears you support open borders madness. So, I am putting your claim to the test. And now you balk. 

2. Fair enough, who knows what your motives are, but the outcome is the same. You obfuscate and avoid the discussion. 

3. More games, but glad to see you say you do in fact support them in the enforcement of immigration laws. Lets see how that plays out in future discussions. 

4. This is good, I appreciate the clarity here now, but you did not say if you support a country enforcing its deportation of illegal immigrants; you just said a country has a right to do it. Do you support that though?

 

 

 

1. I am not balking.  You expect me to answer yes to the question of whether I support madness? Am I allowed to disagree with anything and not have a characterized as madness? 

My problem is with people using specific incidents as a basis for broad generalizations.

If you say that I can't do that, and have to admit to supporting madness then I don't know what to tell you. 

You would basically be calling me a liar for not supporting your framing of my beliefs and my methods as madness. 

 

2. If I obfuscate, it means I'm trying to muddy the waters and stop the discussion. I'm not but I don't support the initial framing... It could be said that I'm avoiding a version of the discussion that starts with a premise I disagree with.

3. You accuse me of playing games when:

-I answer 

-I respond to questions 

-I ask clarifying questions 

-I answer again 

-I give an answer you seem to agree with 

Anyway, what else do we have. 

4. I support a country enforcing its laws however they do so according to laws.

Of course, I'm a bleeding heart so I want them to be as humane as possible.  But I don't think I have a right to tell them how to govern...

[User]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You accuse me of playing games when:

-I answer 

-I respond to questions 

-I ask clarifying questions 

-I answer again 

-I give an answer you seem to agree with 

Anyway, what else do we have. 

Lets make this clear as mud, and I will focus on one response of yours from before. I asked if YOU supported the deportation of illegal immigrants and your response was to say a country has that right. 

So, yes, you answered, yes you responded, yes you did answer again when I asked this... but you didn't actually answer the question. Its stuff like this that leads me to say you are playing games. 

Even now, when I asked you point blank again, you still do not directly answer, you give me some vague response about how you support a country enforcing its laws, how they enforce their laws.