Steven Crowder: Social Media Is the Ultimate Echo Chamber

Think you're getting a fair and balanced perspective on your social media accounts? Think again. When you like or follow something, algorithms respond, pushing you more of the stuff you like, creating an echo chamber of singular perspectives. Steven Crowder with LouderWithCrowder.com released a video that addresses this phenomenon --- and it's impact.

"Steven, you did an amazing video this weekend, and I wanted to have you on to explain. You know, we all stand against the media. And the media is corrupt. And the media is biased. But we're creating something even worse, and we don't even know we're doing it," Glenn said.

Crowder explained what's happening.

"Social media and advertisers are beholden to only telling you exactly what you want to hear, otherwise, they don't make it to your feed," he said.

It's happening on both the right and the left, creating its own ecosystem where you may go six months without hearing a single dissenting viewpoint. How does that create an informed citizenry?

Watch the full video from LouderWithCrowder.com below:

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder is with us. Steven, you did an amazing video this weekend, and I wanted to have you on to explain -- you know, we all stand against the media. And the media is corrupt. And the media is biased. But we're creating something even worse, and we don't even know we're doing it. Will you explain?

STEVEN: Yeah, well, thanks. It's unfortunate. It's one of the ironies here, where I know we've talked about this, working for years. Going, all right, the mainstream is going away. There are no more gatekeepers. Now, you can have TheBlaze. I can have Louder With Crowder, the YouTube channel. Anyone can get a message out, and that's great.

What's changed -- and people don't realize it, in the age of social media, YouTube, Facebook, this sort of algorithm-based feed, they've just become the mainstream media gatekeepers.

Now, it's easy for people to say, "Well, it's really liberal because of Mark Zuckerberg." And it's true. He leans to the left. It's true, most people who run social media lean to the left. However, they are beholden to a profit motive. And in today's age with media, their profit -- they can only generate a profit if they tell you what you want to hear.

Think about this, whenever you like an article. Let's say you're pro-Trump. Let's say you're pro-Hillary. You like Hillary Clinton's Polls Are Doing Well, right? It will then say, "Hey, you may also like" and show you a pro-Hillary Clinton article. It doesn't say, "You may also really need to hear, or you may also really need to get your crap together on this issue." It's, "Oh, you like everything that's anti-Trump. We'll show you everything anti-Trump." And then the pro-Trump people only read everything that's anti-Hillary -- and so we get to a point, Glenn -- you've run into this, where if you merely cite a fact, even if you agree with the Republican Party, even if you agree with this person, for six months they have had a newsfeed where they have heard nothing but exactly what they want to hear. And I don't mean people lean this way. I mean, that social media and advertisers are beholden to only telling you exactly what you want to hear, otherwise, they don't make it to your feed.

You go six months in, and people on both sides of the spectrum now have not heard a single dissenting viewpoint. And this happens on the right and the left, and it's really accelerated to a point where if you just say, "No, you know what, gosh, this new swing state poll from Pennsylvania doesn't look good for Donald Trump," you're working for Hillary! You're a shill!

No, no. This is the poll. You're rigging the polls. Because that's all they've been reading. It's a scary thought.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: I will tell you this, I talked about this. Steven, it was so amazing that you posted this because this weekend, I was looking at my Facebook page, and it's remarkable. My Facebook page, if I post something at all, anti-Hillary, it's huge.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: I put anything, even pro-Trump on my Facebook page, and it gets about 200 likes, which is abysmal for someone who has three and a half million followers. I post -- I post something very, very positive about nothing, and it will -- you know, it will pop up 14,000 likes. And it will happen quickly.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: What I was looking at was, "Wow, I can tell you exactly what my audience wants." And what they don't want from me is anything on Trump. So do I continue to give it?

Well, I happen to believe that we have to be curious. We have to be honest. And we have to know the other side of the argument. We cannot just be feeding the same things that we want to hear, or we disable ourselves.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: But most people in the media are not like that. They only care about the clicks. They only care about the money.

STEVEN: You're exactly right. You know, we've talked about this. I've never been on the #NeverTrump. Because I always think people can be redeemed. My producer is voting for Trump, albeit begrudgingly -- Jared is. I know plenty of people who are making the lesser of two evils argument. I entirely get that. I think that's a valid position, whether people agree with it or not.

GLENN: I agree with you.

STEVEN: However, people simply lying on either side of the spectrum -- good example, Glenn, I was talking with Stu about this. I saw this trend that Glenn Beck endorses Hillary Clinton.

I was going, oh, wow, that sounds weird. And I go, "Wait. Hold on a second. This hasn't been taken from the Vice interview, is it? Where Glenn personally said he's voting for the Constitutional Party representative. And he said he wasn't -- and, oh, that's the click. But someone runs it with the headline that says Glenn Beck Officially Endorses Hillary Clinton, guess what, the people who maybe don't like you, the people who think you're super anti-Trump, they like it, like it, like it, like it, share it without even reading it.

And all of a sudden, because people are consuming only exactly what they want to hear, people believe you're officially working for the DNC. I know we don't want to laugh on it because it's probably a sore spot. But it shows you absurd it's gotten. I watched the actual video. And in it, you were saying, "I am not endorsing Hillary Clinton." It's mind-boggling.

GLENN: So here's what -- here's where it goes further, Steven, I'd love to hear your comment on this. If you like that -- if you share that, it also pulls things like it -- and that particular story was made particularly famous on the right by being pushed by a guy named Hal Turner.

Hal Turner is a Holocaust denier. Neo-Nazi. Really bad guy. And I went to his website. Because I wanted to find out who this guy was. And I looked at his website. And I saw several stories that he had churned out that are in my Facebook wall, where people are -- well, this, Glenn Beck needs to know, this is going on. And I'm like, "Wow." Because they posted this, it may have sucked into their ecosystem other stories from him. And they have no idea what is now steering their -- their, quote, unquote, newsroom, if you will.

STEVEN: Right. And speaking on that, it's actually kind of funny. But just let me go with it because it's going to start off sounding not really funny. But people send me horrible anti-Semitic stuff. I mean, you know, just like Ben Shapiro. Right? People send me pictures of me in gas chambers or stuff like that.

GLENN: Are you Jewish?

STEVEN: And it was being shared a lot, until these people found out I wasn't Jewish.

GLENN: Okay.

STEVEN: This anti-Semitic stuff I was getting for weeks. And people just shared it because nobody thought like, "Hey, maybe Crowder is not -- maybe he's not Jewish."

But, again, they're in their own ecosystem. So no one even thinks that, "Hey, you know what, I know we're all Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic jackasses, but I don't even think Crowder is Jewish." So this went on for months. And no one actually -- this is what happened with Hollywood, right?

We've always complained about this. And now it's happening to everybody in the age of social media. Again, the parallel there is narcissism. Tom Hanks once came out and said, "World War II was spurred on by fear and racism and xenophobia." And I remember he said it on MSNBC. And the reason he said it is because he's been saying this behind closed door for so long. And nobody, because he's Tom Hanks, is going to say, "What? I beg your pardon." Well, that's what's happening now. Only it's a media feed.

Let me give you a really kind of short example. A mom logs on to Facebook. Signs up for the first time. Okay? She's pro-Trump. A daughter logs on to Facebook, signs up for the first time during this election season. She's pro-Hillary. One likes Trump, one likes Hillary.

Comes up, polls are rigged, the mom likes this. Comes up, the election is rigged. Mom likes this. The daughter sees Hillary Clinton is winning in the polls. She likes it. The daughter sees Trump Foundation. She likes it. The mom sees WikiLeaks. She likes it.

Now, here's the deal: They don't like anything from the other side of the social media spectrum. Six months in -- and I don't misuse the term "literally," it makes me insane when people misuse it -- six months in, you could have two people, mother and daughter, who have literally never seen one post -- never seen one news story that would even expose them to a different opinion. And that's by design because these social media quagmires need to make money. And they only make money by telling you what you want to hear.

That's the concern here: Whether right or left, people are beholden to telling a lie if it encourages more clicks. And everyone wants to do well. Everyone wants ratings to do well. That's fine. I understand it. Making a good title. That's been called a lead for decades. We understand that. But lying about something, that's crossing over into new territory, and you are seeing that across the political spectrum right now because of the upheaval. People don't know how to handle this media. And this is how they've figured out how to do it. It's awful.

STU: It's amazing. Because the perfect example I would give -- and I've given many very good ones is the online polls. Now, look, I obviously don't like Donald Trump, and, you know, people know that. So they're looking at me skeptically, if they're Trump fans. And I get that. But it's like, this is not a questionable thing. An online poll means nothing. Zero. And when you're talking about, "Oh, well, he won the Drudge Report poll, how can you deny that one?" These people make that argument with no check on that. This is not a controversial point. It's not a point where I'm like adding in my opinion. "Oh, well, I don't really believe those polls." It literally means nothing.

And so many people, particularly when media personalities come out and tout those types of things, send their own listeners into this abyss, where they -- the listeners look like morons for parroting what the personalities say. And I don't know how you do this. Because in a way -- and I'm sure liberals would point this out, it's essentially the free market run amuck. Like, yes, there's a profit motive here, but it does create a problem. And I wouldn't advocate as a conservative, for everyone to step in and them start controlling the information that you feed. How do you solve this, Steven?

STEVEN: Right. Well, it's kind of like, remember when we would be at CPAC, and all of a sudden, somebody busts in a few college pot party members, and Ron Paul won every single straw poll?

STU: Right.

STEVEN: And we just kind of said, ah, I guess a few people showed up with weed belt buckles and T-shirts. Yeah, that makes sense.

And we moved on down the trail. Only now that's happening on -- and, by the way, I know not all Ron Paul supporters are potheads. I like Ron Paul. I like his son Rand. Just hold your hate tweets before you go off --

GLENN: Just like a Jew to say that.

STEVEN: Yeah. I know. I know. But, I mean, now it's on a national level, like you're talking -- and, again, same thing. You know, we're talking about that. You could host a poll on one of these sites: What do you do with the evil Jew Steven? And you could probably get 20,000 people to vote without even realizing that I'm not Jewish. So this is the nature of online polls: They're not scientific.

I think as it relates to Trump, I tweeted this out this morning, I said, "I think Trump has a far greater chance of winning than the media gives him credit for. And I think he has a far less chance of winning than his hard-core supporters are guaranteeing." I got tweets coming back saying, "You're going to be wrong when he wins in a landslide." And I said, "Well, hold on a second. How does it make my statement wrong? It doesn't make it wrong at all. I'm saying that both sides have completely shut it off, and they're completely glib to the realities of an opposing viewpoint." And it really is a bizarre time because the right didn't use to be this way. And I don't think it's a concerted effort. I think we've all just been tossed into this tumbler of social media, and it's been shaken up. And people are trying to figure out how media works nowadays.

So if people out there want to avoid it, what I do recommend -- and I always say this on my show. I know you, Glenn, you've done this too. I never encourage people to eliminate information. I say, "Listen, set Huffington Post, Salon, Daily Cut -- all the liberal sites, set them to your Favorites and check them every morning and set some conservative sites, check them every morning, in addition to social media, that way you're guaranteed to know what the other side is saying. You have to be proactive, otherwise, it will get the best of you before you even realize.

GLENN: Steven, as always, great talking to you, brother. LouderWithCrowder.com. LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder. He does an amazing job, and he did this video this weekend on this, and it spelled it out perfectly. I don't know why he was wearing a skin wig and looked like a 50-year-old pot-bellied man while he did it, but he's very, very funny and very, very smart.

Featured Image: Screenshot from LouderWithCrowder.com

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.