Video yรผkleniyor...
Video Yรผklenemedi
๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ ๐ง๐ต๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต ๐๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฎ. Padma Shri Nivedita Bhide delivers an eye-opening speech in simple yet thought provoking words at #SaveCultureSaveBharat event, revealing hard truths about hateful anti-Bharat forces disguised as entertainers. @vkvk77
69,416 gรถrรผntรผleme โข 2 yฤฑl รถnce โขvia X (Twitter)
10 Yorum
She was touring the US this year but Audrey and the gang got all her lectures cancelled! HSS/Sangh united and ensured she got a private audience everywhere she traveled!
Very impressive & meaningful talk. Society at large needs to be awakened with such efforts tirelessly. The long drawn agenda of communists & radicals needs to be defeated today & everyday. They are no less than Danavas & Rakshasas of earlier era. I will do my bit. ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป
Strict control on OTT services by ISP and mobile service providers is needed .@AshwiniVaishnaw ji
I went for night stay with my kids to my brother's place. He had NetFlix subs. Kids were watching TV at night and my ears were razed, hearing the crass content and language! Grateful, we have no NetFlix! Already struggling to teach good language to my kids without it!
nice
The result.......
1. Gulaam Mustafa - muslim savior 2. Main hoon na - Hindu terrorist 3. Pathaan and Tiger Zinda Hai - Soft corner for Pakistan, Khans secretly supporting Hamas by wearing their scarfs. 4. Shehzada - Villain named โValmikiโ who gets slapped. + many more.. #SaveCultureSaveBharat ๐
Destroying family system by making 'Wife Centric baised blind cruel laws' is one of war type against India.
Padma Shri NiveditaBhide ji, aapka hriday se aabhar! ๐๐ฝ๐
First glimpse I thought she's Medha Patkar
![Really hard not to make the parallel between JD Vance's speech right now at the Munich Security Conference and Putin's 2007 speech at the very same podium. Both were watershed moments that fundamentally transformed the existing consensus. Putin at the time delivered the speech that marked the beginning of the end of the unipolar moment. JD Vance's speech will probably be remembered as the speech that marked the beginning of the end of the post-WW2 Western alliance. As a European, I'm in two minds about what Vance said about Europe. He is of course right about many things. For instance Europe's attitude with respect to Romania's elections was beyond appalling and unequivocally antidemocratic. I myself called it out repeatedly on this platform. But - and this is a very big BUT - on Romania and much of Vance's criticism directed at Europe, the U.S. was right there alongside Europe acting jointly, and often even guiding Europe's actions. Specifically on Romania for instance, I believe that the US State Department was first in issuing a statement on December 4th ( expressing its concern about "Russian involvement in malign cyber activity designed to influence the integrity of the Romanian electoral process" which led to the elections being cancelled two days later (and which, it was later proven, was completely false: it turned out that this "malign cyber activity" were paid for by the very Romanian party in power that cancelled the elections!). It's only after that State Department statement that the Europeans followed the U.S.'s lead. So it's a bit rich, even very rich, for Vance, less than 2 months afterwards, to lecture Europeans on this without as much as acknowledging the U.S.'s own role in a lot of it. Same could be said about European content moderation and "censorship." He conveniently forgets that much of Europe's current approach was developed in close coordination with American agencies and tech companies. The EU's content moderation framework didn't emerge in a vacuum - it was heavily influenced by American practices and pressures. Or take Vance's criticism of European mass migration policies. He spent a big part of his speech lamenting over the attack in Munich yesterday by (apparently) a young Afghan asylum seeker, describing it as a direct "result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the [European] continent". But he conveniently fails to mention why Afghans migrated en-masse out of their country, which might have a little something to do with a certain great power that decided to wage a 20-year long war over there and completely wrecked the country... Same story for many migrants in Europe, a huge share of them being a direct result of disastrous US foreign policy decisions. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with Vance's stated intentions to meddle in European politics. He calls out - rightly - Europe for not living up to its democratic values, yet in the same breath he's explicitly announcing America's intention to intervene in European politics by supporting certain movements against established institutions. He criticizes European elites for not respecting democratic choices while simultaneously suggesting that a Trump administration would actively work to influence those choices. How is this any different from the kind of interference he hypocritically condemns? Perhaps most worrying of all, Vance's vision seems to completely disregard why the post-WW2 European architecture was built in the first place. Europe is the place where both world wars started, 100% of them. The past 80 years were a uniquely peaceful time in European history: due to the high density of states in a relatively small geography and the somewhat disagreeable character of many European nations (the French very much included), the continent had been in almost constant conflict for the previous millennium. I really dislike European institutions as much as the next guy but I don't forget the original spirit with which they were built: to put an end to endless war in Europe. By positioning America as an ally of nationalist forces against these institutions, Vance isn't just ending an alliance - he's actively working to unwind the entire post-war European peace architecture, which could have immense ramifications. In fact I think we can even legitimately ask ourselves if the U.S. doesn't now have war in Europe as one of its strategic objectives. Given the U.S.'s history in triggering wars left, right and center when it believes they're in their interests, and given Vance's speech, I think the question has merits. All in all, I'm not ashamed to say that I much prefer Putin's 2007 speech to Vance's. Whatever you may think, Putin remained within the confines of what he thought were challenges to Russia's national interests, issues like NATO expansion or American attempt at global hegemony. He didn't try to meddle in intra-Western politics or position Russia as an active force for undermining Western institutions from within. His vision was about creating a multipolar world where Russia would be one independent pole - not about dismantling the internal architecture of other poles. Where Putin wanted to limit Western power globally, Vance seems to want to fracture the European order locally. That's a far more dangerous proposition. I'm all for reforming Europe and I constantly call for it. But to me by far the biggest issue for Europe is its lack of sovereignty and strategic autonomy, especially vis ร vis the United States, in almost all domains. If Vance's speech could have any silver lining, it would be to finally wake Europeans up to this reality: let's hope that for once Europe draws the right lesson.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1890451912342008178/amplify_video_thumb/1890421458028892161/img/WIHUzA5MRnWcEJqi.jpg)
![The Trump administration is attacking free speech, say the media and Democrats. On Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, โThereโs free speech and then thereโs hate speech. And thereโs no place [for it], especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie.โ Fear of the Trump administration led ABC to abandon late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel yesterday, said progressives. Kimmel had claimed the man who assassinated conservative leader Charlie Kirk was โMAGA.โ Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates broadcast networks, said, in response, โThis is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney [ABCโs owner]. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.โ However, prominent Trump supporters condemned Bondiโs remarks en masse, near-instantaneously, and she backtracked the next day, saying, โIf you want to be a hateful person and simply say hateful things, that is your right to do so.โ As for Carr, he dismissed the idea that his words played a significant role in ABCโs decision, telling Public, โthe reporting is that Disney itself had their own concerns about the programming. A lot of folks want to point fingers here at convenient targets because they donโt want to see or deal with the broader market trends. Late night ratings are way down.โ And yet it is difficult to believe that Carrโs remarks had no influence. It is reasonable to think that Nexstar may have feared that the FCC wouldnโt approve its acquisition of Tegna, which operates 64 stations in 51 markets, if it had allowed Kimmelโs show to continue. That purchase requires the FCC to allow Nexstar to go beyond current limits on broadcast station ownership. And, notes the Journal, Carrโs remarks may have indirectly impacted Disney: โExecutives also discussed staff safety, including threatening emails staff on Kimmelโs show had received after Carrโs remarks and the posting of some of their personal information online, the people said.โ The FCC repealed the โfairness doctrineโ in 1987, since it required too much government regulation of content, and the FCCโs โpublic interestโ power is not a license to police programs like Kimmel. Indeed, the FCCโs mandate today is largely structural with narrow content exceptions (e.g., indecency, childrenโs programming, and political advertising). As such, Carrโs remarks were โjawboning,โ a term that refers to speech or implied threats by government officials to pressure private parties into actions that officials cannot legally mandate. Such jawboning can be a form of indirect censorship. President Biden engaged in similar pressure tactics when he publicly said social media companies were โkilling peopleโ by not removing Covid โmisinformation.โ Biden officials also invoked Section 230 to coerce platforms into greater censorship, and internal Facebook emails revealed that the company was worried about failing to secure a data deal with Europe if it did not comply with the administrationโs censorship demands. The Leftโs complaints about censorship are made in particularly bad faith, given its role in defending the Biden administrationโs coercive jawboning and the resulting mass censorship during Covid. The Left also normalized โcancellations,โ calling for countless public figures and private individuals to be deplatformed and fired for causing offense. In 2018, Kimmel mocked Roseanne Barr after ABC canceled her show after she posted an offensive tweet about a black former Obama administration official. The people decrying what Bondi and Carr said are the same ones who demanded sweeping government censorship of social media platforms in the guise of combating โmisinformationโ and โhate speechโ in 2020 and 2021. Consider Barack Obama, who criticized Carrโs remarks. It was Obamaโs people at the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, National Science Foundation, DOD, and CIA who put in place the Censorship Industrial Complex between 2016 and 2024. And it was Obama who gave a 2022 speech at Stanford laying out a vision for government โregulationโ of social media platforms one week before DHS launched its โDisinformation Governance Board.โ The Democrat-supported Censorship Industrial Complex was and remains, in Europe and elsewhere, a far greater threat to free speech than the angry remarks of Trump and Carr, as inappropriate and as unhelpful as they were. The Complex was embedded in the government, including the Intelligence Community, and operated secretly to manipulate information, public opinion, and โwhole narratives.โ New York Times columnist David French, who criticized the Trump administration for censorship, defended government censorship in the past as โcorrecting misinformationโ and pointed to the First Amendment rights of government employees. Itโs important to remember the context we are in. A little over one week has passed since an individual, who appears to be a Left-wing romantic partner of a trans-identified male, assassinated a major conservative leader, Charlie Kirk. Assassination is the ultimate form of censorship. And Kirk was a communications and organizing prodigy who many on the Right viewed as future Republican presidential material. Kirkโs killing comes after 10 years of the Left, broadly defined to include the media, Democrats, and the progressive NGO industry, dehumanizing Republicans. As such, many, if not most, on the Right hold the Left responsible for the killing of one of its most promising leaders, who also happened to be a family man and Christian. When it comes to public opinion, five times more people on the Left justify violence than those on the Right. A YouGov survey conducted after Kirkโs assassination found that 25% of people who describe themselves as โvery liberalโ and 17% who describe themselves as โliberalโ say that it is sometimes justified to resort to violence to achieve political goals. Only 3% of people who describe themselves as โvery conservativeโ and 6% of people who describe themselves as โconservativeโ said the same thing. A separate poll earlier this year found that 55% of people who identify as left of center say that it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Trump. But it is short-sighted for the Trump administration to do and say things that undermine its ability to demand free speech abroad, and hold the Left accountable at home. The Trump administration has rightly raised the alarm about censorship in Europe and Brazil of American social media platforms, and often of Americans. Carrโs remarks about the โeasy way or the hard wayโ undercut the administrationโs free speech diplomacy.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1969405155906109688/amplify_video_thumb/1969402761495396353/img/L0qXIX_dWFDlzl06.jpg)
![Pearson airport employee investigated over alleged genocidal social media posts Surely, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority knew about Adil Ali's vile rhetoric online. But only when a media outlet gets wind of the story do they suddenly spring into action. Another day, another Islamist bozo eruption online. It never ends. And itโs staggering. Not only are these Islamists hateful, but they are also downright idiotic, given that they spew their vile rhetoric for all to see, thinking there will be no consequences, even when there are consequences in terms of gainful employment. Indeed, as we have chronicled for the past several months, wannabe jihadis lurk amongst us. And they are (or were) employed by major corporations ranging from Air Canada and Telus to Scotiabank and the Royal Bank of Canada. They spout online hatred, typically against Jews โ but not exclusively, mind you. Many of these Islamists also hate Iranians who are anti-regime. And Palestinians who are anti-Hamas. And for some odd reason, they hate Indians too. Weirdโฆ And they all cross that proverbial line in the sand when it comes to free speech. Which is to say, they advocate harm, murder, and even genocide against identifiable groups. Our most recent candidate for the title of Online Islamist Bozo of the Year is Adil Ali. Our information comes courtesy of our friends at Leviathan. Adil Ali is an analyst for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. This is the entity that operates Toronto Pearson International Airport, otherwise known as the worldโs worst airport. Weโre not exaggerating here. Pearson is the worst airport in the world, and yes, that includes airports that are in third-world countries. Ali called for the murder of nearly 10 million Israelis. He wants to see a nuclear weapon detonated in Israel. For what itโs worth, I donโt think heโs thought things through here. Dropping a nuke on Tel Aviv would result in radioactive fallout that would spread to several Islamic regimes in the Middle East. But never mind. The very idea of having nearly 10 million Israelis incinerated puts a smile on Aliโs face, and hey, as they say, if you want to make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs, right? Ali also believes Israeli Jews are โ[the] chosen people of the devil." And he refers to their places of worship as โthe synagogue of Satan.โ Nice. He also believes that all those synagogues that were shot up in Toronto these past two and a half years were the handiwork of Jews themselves. Naturally, he doesnโt have a scintilla of evidence to support such an outrageous claim. But never mind. Referring to Indians, Ali believes they send their money home for the purpose of โfeeding cowsโ, which is a dig at Hindu culture. So, the question is: Who among you wants such a psycho working in Canadaโs largest airport? Who among you wants a hateful Islamist getting his hands on luggage or having access to jets? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? We reached out to the media relations department of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. Here were our questions: Is the GTAA aware of Mr. Aliโs hateful rants online? If so, why is this being tolerated? Does this behaviour violate the GTAAโs code of conduct guidelines? What does the GTAA have to say to those Canadians who are disturbed that someone calling for genocide via the nuking of other countries also happens to be working in a sensitive position at Canadaโs largest airport? I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the GTAA automated phone system is a disaster. I called to speak with Mr. Ali and was transferred to Delta Airlines. Subsequent calls were fruitless. Therefore, can you kindly pass on my contact information to Mr. Ali so that I can get his side of the story? The GTAA did get back to us, and while they did not specifically answer our queries, the following statement was provided: Toronto Pearsonโs security team is actively investigating allegations that an individual working for an airport employer made hateful and threatening comments on social media. The investigation is still ongoing, but the employer has been notified, and the individualโs security access has been suspended. Toronto Pearson takes these allegations very seriously and has zero tolerance for any behaviour that compromises safety or violates our standards of conduct. In the days ahead, we will follow up with the GTAA to find out how this investigation is proceeding. But seriously, if any entity should be sensitive to threats to public safety, youโd think it would be Toronto Pearson International Airport. After all, this was the airport where Air India 182 departed on June 23, 1985. Khalistani terrorists were able to embed a bomb in a piece of luggage. The plane blew up over the Atlantic Ocean near Ireland. All 329 on board died. It remains Canadaโs worst act of terrorism. Right now, the GTAA is at least doing something right by removing Aliโs security clearance and conducting an investigation. But again, like all those aforementioned companies that were outed for having an Islamist bozo on the payroll, the GTAA appears to be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Which is to say, surely they knew about Aliโs vile rhetoric online. But it was ignored. Why? Cultural sensitivity? Reasonable accommodation? But when a media outlet gets wind of the story, the GTAA suddenly springs into action. Not due to safety reasons, mind you, but to prevent the GTAA from receiving yet another public relations black eye.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2046230705533792689/media/HGWsxmoaoAAvMnP.jpg)
![You Canโt Make People Cheer For Your Wars After Committing A Live-Streamed Genocide I saw a clip of Fox News war propagandist Sean Hannity solemnly reading a tweet by Atlantic Council fellow Jamie Metzl which said, โIt is profoundly disturbing that a growing segment of the far left appears to be almost rooting for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, and other forces fundamentally opposed to the US and our allies. This seems to reflect a corrosive strain of anti-Americanism dressed up in post-colonial theory that risks blinding us to the moral realities of our world and the nature of our adversaries.โ These assholes really thought they could commit a genocide in full view of the entire world for years and then expect everyone cheer for them to win. Of course weโre seeing more โanti-Americanismโ. You donโt get to commit horrific atrocities year after year and then cry when the world starts to hate you. โ CBS News reports the Pentagon has made detailed preparations to send US ground forces to Iran, while conscientious objector nonprofit Center on Conscience & War reports that theyโre getting numerous calls from US service members who say theyโve received surprise deployment orders. Military experts for decades: Donโt go to war with Iran, theyโll close the Strait of Hormuz and kill US forces in the region, plus their terrain makes a ground invasion impossible. USA: [bombs Iran] Iran: [closes the Strait of Hormuz, kills US forces in the region] USA: USA: Letโs try a ground invasion. โ I canโt get over how many leftists bought into the โwe support the Iran protestsโ schtick. Where the fuck did you idiots think this was headed? What did you think you were promoting when you assisted the US empireโs regime change sloganeering throughout the west? Fucking morons. โ Two great ways to make me permanently lose interest in your political perspective: Say negative things about the Iranian government during an active war propaganda campaign by the US empire. 2. Babble about โantisemitism on the leftโ like itโs a real thing in the year 2026. โ I used to think itโs wrong to massacre civilians and carpet bomb large cities but then a clever and insightful right winger informed me that if I was Iranian Iโd be wearing a hijab, so now I think itโs good. โ Itโs so funny how Trump apologists have started claiming the United States has been at war with Iran for 47 years, because I had literally never once heard anyone utter that claim until this war began. Itโs just a talking point they all began regurgitating at once in order to justify Trumpโs warmongering. Pretty sure if there was an ongoing decades-long American war I would have heard about it before March 2026. โ FYI if your main reason for caring about Trump raining military explosives on Iran is that it will help Democrats in the midterms, youโre a piece of shit. โ The American far right lives in a fantasy world where the United States would ordinarily be a beneficent, peaceful utopia if not for Israel, despite the fact that the US has been steeped in the blood of the innocent throughout its entire history since long before Israel existed. โ Itโs just an unfortunate fact that historically the only way to get Americans to start forcefully opposing a US war is to give them some skin in the game. Last time it was the draft in Vietnam. Maybe this time it will be everything getting crazy expensive due to the war on Iran. โ The US would be as reluctant to go to war as Iran was if its leaders knew theyโd be killed by the other side in the opening days of any conflict. Iran has shown that itโs always had the ability to bloody Americaโs nose in a war, yet its leaders displayed remarkable restraint in their efforts to avoid it. There are surely a lot of reasons for this, but one self-evident reason is that they knew if they went to war with the US and Israel, their own necks would be on the chopping block. Khamenei, Larijani and other officials whoโve been killed each had a personal vested interest in de-escalation. Imagine if that were the case for US and Israeli leadership? Their warmongering would stop immediately, and theyโd pursue peace at every turn. This is the kind of cowardice that is driving these wars. Theyโre not fighting for causes theyโd be willing to die for, theyโre sending other peopleโs sons and daughters to kill other peopleโs sons and daughters for extremely stupid and unworthy reasons. Because theyโre never the ones to pay the price. โ Reading by Tim Foley:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2035331134951661980/amplify_video_thumb/2035329981413548032/img/l-EL2EUpKq9_rEiW.jpg)
![At a campaign rally in Hamilton, Ontario, Liberal leader Mark Carney unveiled what can only be described as a coordinated assault on digital freedom in Canada. Behind the slogans, applause lines, and empty rhetoric about unity, one portion of Carneyโs remarks stood out for its implications: a bold, unapologetic commitment to controlling online speech under the guise of โsafetyโ and โmisinformation.โ โWe announced a series of measures with respect to online harmโฆ a sea of misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theoriesโthe sort of pollution that's online that washes over our virtual borders from the United States.โ He then made clear his intention to act: โMy government, if we are elected, will be taking action on those American giants who come across [our] border.โ The former central banker, who now postures as a man of the people, made it clear that if the Liberals are re-elected, the federal government will intensify efforts to regulate what Canadians are allowed to see, say, and share online. His language was deliberate. Carney condemned what he called a โsea of misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theoriesโ polluting Canadaโs internet spaceโlanguage borrowed directly from the Trudeau-era playbook. But this wasnโt just a moral denunciation. It was a legislative preview. Carney spoke of a future Liberal government taking โaction on those American giants who come across our borders.โ Translation: he wants to bring Big Tech platforms under federal control, or at least force them to play the role of speech enforcers for the Canadian state. He blamed the United States for exporting โhateโ into Canada, reinforcing the bizarre Liberal narrative that the greatest threat to national unity isnโt foreign actors like the CCP or radical Islamistsโitโs Facebook memes and American podcasts. But the most revealing moment came when Carney linked online speech directly to violence. He asserted that digital โpollutionโ affects how Canadians behave in real life, specifically pointing to conjugal violence, antisemitism, and drug abuse. This is how the ground is prepared for censorship: first by tying speech to harm, then by criminalizing what the state deems harmful. What Carney didnโt say is just as important. He made no distinction between actual criminal incitement and political dissent. He offered no assurance that free expressionโa right enshrined in Canadaโs Charter of Rights and Freedomsโwould be respected. He provided no definition of what constitutes a โconspiracy theoryโ or who gets to make that determination. Under this framework, any criticism of government policy, of global institutions, or of the new technocratic order could be flagged, throttled, and punished. And thatโs the point. Mark Carney isnโt interested in dialogue. He wants obedience. He doesn't trust Canadians to discern truth from fiction. He believes itโs the job of governmentโhis governmentโto curate the national conversation, to protect citizens from wrongthink, to act as referee over what is and isnโt acceptable discourse. In short, he wants Ottawa to become the Ministry of Truth. Why They Donโt Actually Care About Antisemitism The Liberal establishment talks a big game about fighting hateโbut when it comes to actual antisemitic violence, theyโve shown nothing but selective enforcement and political cowardice. Letโs look at the facts. In 2023, Bโnai Brith Canada recorded nearly 6,000 antisemitic incidents, including 77 violent attacksโfrom firebombed synagogues to shots fired at Jewish schools in Montreal and Toronto. This wasnโt a marginal increase. It was a 208% spike in violent antisemitism in a single year. Statistics Canada echoed the same alarm bells. Jewsโwho make up just 1% of Canadaโs populationโwere the victims of 70% of all religiously motivated hate crimes. Thatโs nearly 900 recorded incidents, up 71% from the previous year. Then came October 2023, when Hamas launched its attack on Israelโand the wave of hate turned into a tsunami: a 670% increase in antisemitic incidents across the country. Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centers were hit with bomb threats, arson attempts, and intimidation campaigns. This was a national security issue, not just a policing matter. And yet, the government's response? Virtually nonexistent. Case in point: the Montreal Riot, November 2024. A 600-person mob, waving anti-NATO and pro-Palestinian banners, turned violentโsetting fires, smashing windows, and attacking police. Amid this chaos, a man was filmed screaming โFinal Solutionโโa direct reference to the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. It went viral. There was no ambiguity, no misunderstanding. It was a public call for genocide. So what happened? Three arrests. None for hate crimes. None related to antisemitism. Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher insisted there were โno confirmed antisemitic acts,โ and as of early 2025, no hate crime charges have been filed against the individual caught on camera. That man, as it turns out, owned a Second Cup franchise. His punishment? His cafรฉ was shut down by the company. Not by law enforcement. Not by hate crime investigators. A corporate HR department showed more backbone than Canadaโs justice system. And this is what reveals the truth: they donโt care. Theyโll enforce hate speech laws when itโs politically convenientโwhen it can be used to silence critics, crush dissent, or placate woke constituencies. But when Jewish communities are being threatened, attacked, and terrorized? The same laws suddenly go limp. The same political class that claims to protect minorities becomes paralyzed. They wonโt touch it. Because confronting real antisemitism would require standing up to their political allies in activist circles, university campuses, and radical protest movements. This isn't an accident. It's a pattern. The Liberals arenโt weak on antisemitism because theyโre unaware of it. Theyโre weak on it because they donโt see political value in enforcing the law when it conflicts with their ideological allies. Their obsession isnโt with hate speechโitโs with controlling โwrongโ speech. And what qualifies as โwrongโ isnโt defined by law or principle. Itโs defined by what the Liberal establishment deems unacceptable. Their target isnโt violent bigotry. Itโs dissent. Theyโll chase down citizens for questioning carbon taxes or criticizing globalist policyโbut when Jewish schools get shot at, or someone calls for genocide in the street, they shrug. This isnโt leadership. Itโs selective justice. And it proves, beyond any doubt, that their agenda was never about protecting Canadians. It was always about protecting control. The Online Harms Act: Carneyโs Blueprint for Speech Control This isnโt hypothetical. Mark Carneyโs remarks in Hamilton mirror the exact logic and intent behind the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)โlegislation drafted under the Liberal banner and introduced in 2024 that pushes Canada into territory no free society should accept. At its core, Bill C-63 hands the federal government sweeping powers to police digital speech. It creates a Digital Safety Commission, an unelected bureaucratic authority empowered to monitor, investigate, and punish online platforms and individuals for content deemed "harmful." That wordโharmfulโis never concretely defined. It includes things like โhate speech,โ โconspiracy theories,โ and vague notions of โharm to children,โ but itโs written broadly enough to be used as a political weapon. The most chilling provision? Preemptive imprisonment. Under this law, Canadians could be jailed for up to a yearโwithout having committed a crimeโif a judge believes they might post something harmful in the future. This isnโt law enforcement. This is thought policing. Carney didnโt just echo this approachโhe amplified it. In his Hamilton rally, he described the internet as being flooded with โmisogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories,โ and laid blame on foreign content โwashing over our borders from the United States.โ He didnโt argue for open debate or for empowering users to challenge dangerous ideas. He argued for the state to intervene and shut them down. He told Canadians that these ideas are โchanging how people behaveโ and claimed his government will go after โthose American giantsโ that allow this content to circulate. Thereโs no ambiguity here: this is a public declaration that a Liberal government under Mark Carney intends to censor, de-platform, and penalize dissenting views. Not illegal onesโjust ones they don't like. And this isnโt new for him. Back in 2022, during the Freedom Convoy, Carney referred to protesters as committing โseditionโ and demanded the government โthoroughly punishโ them. These werenโt violent rioters or foreign agitatorsโthese were working-class Canadians honking their horns and standing in the cold, protesting vaccine mandates. For Carney, their real crime was disobedience. Carneyโs view of speech is simple: if it challenges the ruling order, itโs dangerous. And now, with Bill C-63 on the table and Carney at the helm, heโs building the legal infrastructure to lock down the digital public squareโnot to protect Canadians from violence, but to protect the Liberal establishment from criticism. That law is real. Carneyโs agenda is real. And if he wins, enforcement is coming. Final thoughts This is the Canada Mark Carney envisionsโone where citizens canโt speak freely online without first checking their views against government guidelines. A country where speech is no longer a right but a privilege granted by bureaucrats. A country where opposition isnโt argued with, itโs labeled harmful and erased. There was a time when Liberals championed civil liberties. That era is over. The new Liberalism is authoritarianโcloaked in the language of safety and inclusion, but animated by control. Carneyโs rally in Hamilton wasnโt a policy rollout. It was a warning to anyone who still thinks they live in a country where dissent is allowed. They donโt want to fight hate. They want to define โwrongโ speechโand then eliminate it. And by โwrong,โ they mean anything the Liberal establishment disapproves of. Criticize the government, question the orthodoxy, challenge the stateโs narrative, and youโll be branded a threat. Not a citizen. Not a participant. A threat. So here we are. The speech laws are written. The censors are waiting. And Mark Carney is ready to pull the trigger. This election isnโt about tax credits or campaign slogans. Itโs about whether Canada remains a free country or slides deeper into soft tyranny, one regulation, one commission, one silenced voice at a time. There is a choice. And the choice is this: bring it homeโrestore freedom, restore sanity, restore this country. Or: hand the keys to the same people who think youโre the problem for having the nerve to think for yourself.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1911016400912859219/amplify_video_thumb/1911015612068839424/img/frTZBF9wAo75ED79.jpg)
