Sex Robots and AI --- Are We Headed for a WestWorld Future?

After hearing about Germany’s first sex doll brothel, Glenn and Stu had some serious questions about the future of artificial intelligence on today’s show.

Some of them may sound crazy at this point, but as sex robots become more lifelike and AI keeps getting smarter, we should be asking these questions now.

  • Are we heading toward “Westworld”?
  • What happens when artificial intelligence starts saying it’s real?
  • If AI “thinks” it’s real, is a sex doll brothel a form of slavery?
  • How long until the U.S. has a birth rate crisis like Japan’s?

Listen to the full clip (above) for more analysis of the future of AI and sex in our society.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: We're getting to a place to where we can't talk to each other at all. I don't know if you saw -- do you remember Walter "Hawk" Newsome? He's the Black Lives Matter activist that was protesting a Trump rally? And they said, no, no. Free speech. You speak, and then we'll speak. We'll give you the microphone.

And he spoke. Well, now, Black Lives Matter is really upset. They said, he did a photo op. And he dismantled a lot of the work that our groups have been doing for F-ing years. It's unfortunate somebody who is so well-educated could represent the community from a radical perspective. He had to stoop to being tokenized by white supremacists.

Well, okay. So what are they saying?

Don't talk to anyone. Don't try to bridge any gaps at all. Don't allow them to see you as a human being.

How do we -- how do we do this? How do we do this? If we're controlled by politics and then because we're afraid of each other.

Look at what's happening in Hollywood now. How does -- how does anyone work in movies? For instance, West World. Do you remember the thing in West World that they had to sign?

If you were an actor or an actress, you had to sign a deal that said, "You will be posed in uncomfortable positions. Your body will be touching other bodies."

STU: Yeah, the talk was like, it was very invasive. And women had to sacrifice, basically give up all their rights.

GLENN: Men and women. Everybody had to sign it. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do that?

How are you going to be able to have anything in -- in Hollywood, in entertainment, even eventually in our own lives?

STU: Yeah. I don't know how you make any controversial content, at all. Listen to this. This was a tweet I saw. And it was from someone who was a woman, who went to go work for an organization. It was a content organization.

And she tweeted a part of her employment agreement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And she decided not to take the job. She refused to take the job because of this.

Okay? Refused a brand-new job that she wanted and applied for because of this.

This is what it said: I understand that this company is involved in the entertainment industry. I further understand that because the company's business requires a creative working environment, including exposure to offensive speech, I may be exposed to conduct and speech that openly and explicitly relates to sex, as well as race, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, religion, disability, and age.

I acknowledge that I may be privy to conversations where offensive speech, work scripts, or roles that involve nudity, sexual scenarios, racial epitaphs, suggestive gestures, profanity, and references to stereotypes is utilized. I understand and acknowledge that as part of my job, I may be exposed to speech and conduct that explicitly relates to sex, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, religion, disability, and age. And I expressly agree and represent that I do not object to being exposed to such speech and conduct and do not find it otherwise offensive and objectionable and that I'm willing to work in such an environment.

Now, how does a company -- give you an example. Schindler's List without this agreement? How does a company make any movie? How does a company make West World?

GLENN: May I boil it down? I'm listening to that, and I'm thinking to myself, "I think we should have everybody in my company sign that," because look at what we --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We look at dead bodies. We are talking about ISIS, racism. We're talkings about all of these things.

STU: Coming up on the program today, we'll discuss the first sex doll brothel. Now, we talked about that in a meeting.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: We had to do research on it. Right?

I mean, it's not even -- this is a crazy example.

GLENN: So how do you --

STU: This was so offensive and so crazy, that she thought -- I'm going to tweet this so everybody can see the ridiculous things women have to deal with in the workplace.

Now, look, if you don't want to deal with that, I think that's understandable. Like, I wouldn't want to go work at a porn film manufacturer, because it's just not what I want to do with my life. But if I was going to work at the porn film manufacturer, I should sign something like this.

GLENN: Not only that, I mean, Stu, honestly, most of that applies to your job.

STU: Oh, absolutely, it does.

We're constantly discussing things when people make offensive comments in the media. We have to talk about offensive speech towards -- sometimes it's racial epithets. Sometimes it is --

GLENN: You're constantly surrounded by that stuff.

STU: Yeah. Think of every show the left loves.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: Think of Veep or Breaking Bad. Or any piece of content that pushes the envelope in any way. The View, for example. I mean, again, literally all programming would be in this world. And I guess that you could say -- as a person, that doesn't mean you can be harassed and assaulted in the workplace. That's not what this says.

You're working in an environment where these things are discussed. And you have to be able to, as a company, if you're going to produce this content, you have to be able to say to your employees, look, you're going to hear some things that are offensive, and if you're so sensitive on this stuff that it bothers you, you probably shouldn't work --

GLENN: So here's the real solution: The real solution is, that should not be signed by women or men. That should be signed by infants with their footprint. Welcome to the world. You're going to be surrounded by nincompoops and offensive things.

(chuckling)

GLENN: So Harvey Weinstein is not doing well in sex rehab, apparently.

STU: Oh, no.

GLENN: He volunteered to go to rehab. And according to people, I guess in the facility --

STU: Oh, no. This is -- I thought he was going to do really well with this. And you're really ruining my day so far.

GLENN: One source says in one group therapy session, Harvey arrived 15 minutes late. He launched into a speech about how this was all a conspiracy against him. Then he fell asleep in his chair. He woke up by the ringing of his smuggled mobile phone, which is banned at the facility. He was jolted awake, jumped up, took the call and ran out of the room.

He -- another source close to Weinstein says he is no longer joining group sessions for, quote, obvious reasons. He insists that he never raped or assaulted anyone. And all of the encounters were consensual. He realized he acted like a hole of some sort and insisted that he's not a rapist. He does have his phone. When he's in therapy, he has to give to someone else. The characterization of what he said, what happened in the group session is not true.

I don't believe it. So I don't know if you saw the chauffeur. You know how all these stories end, where he was like, the chauffeur will take you home. My driver will take you home. Get out.

STU: Get out.

GLENN: Get out. Okay?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So this has come from his French chauffeur, the man who ferried Weinstein around when he was over in Cannes or in France.

He said, Weinstein beat him when he took to meet a prostitute that didn't show up. The alleged beating put him out of commission for four days. He went crazy and hit me. At that moment, there was no question, I would never work for him again. He did try to sue him for damages. But the local prosecutor in the town dismissed the charges.

He said, the women would enter the car with tears in their eyes. He said, I felt like driving poor innocent people. Innocent girls. Taking them to the wolves mouth. I could not tell them where you put your feet, it's dangerous.

He would -- I guess, you know, he would meet people in his hotel room, and he would have these women driven to him. He said, the one that marked me the most was a girl who was a fan of him, who loved him, who followed him for years. She gave her body, her soul, she gave everything to this man because he promised to make castings and make a film that was never shot.

He said, he would demand that the driver would leave him alone with the woman. And he said, I would often find traces of illicit products strung about.

I don't know what that means.

STU: Drugs, maybe. The nickname among the locals in Cannes for Harvey became the pig.

GLENN: The nickname among the locals in Cannes for Harvey became "the pig." One housekeeper at The Majestic Hotel where he stayed, said, oh, him. Yeah -- love this -- oh, him. He was the ugly one who thought he was God.

STU: That's -- that's actually on his business card: The ugly one who thinks he's God.

GLENN: He was very bossy. Men like George Clooney or Brad Pitt, they were such lovely men and so handsome, but not him. He was just a mean pig.

STU: It's interesting. This is sort of the reverse of the Vegas shooting story. In that, with Vegas, it's like, no one had any idea this guy was doing anything like this. There's no motive. There's no background. No trail. Nothing.

This is like literally everyone who has ever met the guy thought he was doing something like this. They may have not known the extent. They may not have known he was committing crimes. But everyone seemed to know this guy was a complete dirtbag. And people like that didn't say anything.

GLENN: Well, Quentin Tarantino came out and said he knew a lot more than -- he said, "I should have said something."

STU: Yeah, and he did a lot of movies with him.

GLENN: Yeah, all of his big movies.

STU: Yeah. All his big stuff.

He said, I knew enough to do more than I did. There was more to it than just normal rumors, than normal gospel. It wasn't secondhand. I knew he did a couple of these things.

I wish I had taken responsibility for what I had heard. If I had done the work I should have done then, I would have not worked with him anymore.

He was dating Mira Sorvino after Weinstein.

GLENN: And I guess Brad Pitt did know. Because Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt confronted him. So Brad Pitt did say something to Harvey Weinstein, just for the Angelina stuff.

STU: Yeah. And Quentin said basically he was dating her, and he knew Harvey wouldn't violate his relationship. So he thought she was protected, and he just brushed it off.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. So a guy, instead of going and stopping the other guy, he's just like, "Don't worry. You're under my umbrella now."

That's bad.

STU: Yeah. Not -- it's not a good look.

GLENN: You know, I thought of this last night. All these people who are now living with the shame -- and they're going to convince themselves that they had nothing they could do. Because that's what happened.

I mean, if you look at -- if you look at the Germans, the Germans that were involved and did nothing, you know, they all convinced themselves, eh, there was nothing we could do. And maybe not. But they had to live a life of shame.

And these people are living a life of shame. They're going to be tormented in their own head, because they know. They know they didn't rise to the occasion.

And so the question that we should all be asking ourself now is -- because I really believe, tough times just aren't sprung on you. It's not like everything is great and the next day it sucks and you're living under Hitler. It happens slowly. And you have opportunities to stop that slide all the way along. But society -- you know, it's in our Declaration of Independence. People are more likely to live with tyrants, than they are to upset the applecart. Now, that's obviously butchering the Declaration of Independence. But you're more likely to just go along with it.

STU: There wasn't an applecart reference in the Declaration of Independence. Are you sure about that?

GLENN: No, there was not. Applecarts, they're racist. I mean, it's human nature to just go along and let it slide.

And if you don't prepare yourself to stand up in in the easy times. He might have thought that was really hard. But he's now looking at that and going, jeez, that was easy. I should have done that. I should have done that.

Don't put yourself in a position to where you're ever having to say, I should have done X, Y, or Z. Do it. Do it. Don't live with the regret. And it's a muscle. Courage is a muscle.

If you're not exercising it in the smallest of ways, telling your kid what you should be telling your kid, telling your spouse what you should be telling your spouse, saying something to somebody that is important, that is hard for them to hear, but you should say it. If you aren't exercising that muscle of courage at the smallest, most personal level, you will never be able to stand when it really counts.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.