Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Student Claims White Privilege Is Blocking People of Color From Going Outside

November 20, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Did you think everyone is born with the right to go outside, smell the roses and maybe enjoy some hiking? According to one student’s analysis of white privilege in outdoor culture, you’re wrong.

A student at Claremont Colleges in California has claimed that the schools’ outdoor programs are “predominately white spaces” that are “uncomfortable” for students of color. “The image of the ‘outdoorsy individual’ is an exclusive classification that gives white people the authority to venture into the outdoors freely, leaving people of color behind,” Malcolm McCann wrote.

Doc stood in for Glenn on today’s show and talked about this story with Kal. Both were puzzled by the idea that being “outdoorsy” is exclusively for white people.

Want the full story? Read our explainer here.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Take part in any outdoor activities? Do you golf? How about hiking? Do you bike ride? Go for walks? Anything outdoors other than just, you know, going and getting in the car? You spend any significant time outdoors? Do you camp, any of that stuff? Well, if you're saying yes, that's because you're white.

KAL: What?

DOC: It's because you're white.

KAL: I beg to differ. I've seen many races outdoors.

DOC: Trust me, they were masquerading as some other race. Trust me they were. I think they were likely white people in disguise. That's probably what it was.

I say that because a student at Claremont College in California wrote an op-ed that says non-white people are excluded from the outdoors because of white supremacy.

And I can't tell you all the times I've gotten together at the Klan meetings. And we're there with the hoods. And burning the crosses, just to keep everybody else from outside.

You know, it's our goal, you know, to keep as many people inside as possible.

KAL: As many white -- you want white people outside.

DOC: Yeah. We want the non-white people inside. The white people outside. You know, that's the goal.

What?

KAL: This is a white-only hiking trail. Sorry.

DOC: He explains it this way in his op-ed piece, he says, due to the predominance of whiteness in the outdoors.

KAL: That sounds like -- that sounds like a bad combination.

DOC: You know what, I've seen white people outside. I have seen them outside.

KAL: I have seen one or two.

DOC: Due to the predominance of whites outdoors, people of color have been denied access to outdoors. What? With the boarding up of doors, windows, barring them.

KAL: I don't really think this person lives in another country.

DOC: You haven't seen this?

KAL: I haven't seen any of this.

DOC: That's likely because you're one of those white people.

KAL: Has he been outside? Because seems quite a few other people outside.

DOC: Hmm. Let me think. He said, due to the predominance of whiteness outdoors, we're getting into wintertime.

Is that what he means? Well, with all the snow and what not. And the whiteness.

KAL: The whiteness is causing the winter.

DOC: I don't know. He says, outdoor clubs are the most funded on campus. Yet, are saturated with white supremacy. The outdoor clubs.

So likely what they did, okay. It's our hiking club. Welcome to the hiking club.

KAL: Yes. Hi, my name is Jim.

DOC: Hey, Jim, welcome to the club. And we've all been here for a while, for a few years. Tell you all about the hiking. We go on a couple trips for year. Here's the list of things you'll need to hike.

KAL: Oh, great, great.

DOC: You'll see here it has the shoes. The white sheets. You're going to need --

KAL: Why do you need a sheet to go hiking?

DOC: For the outfit, for the outfit. You'll need that. A cross to burn.

KAL: Hold on.

DOC: A lunch. A picnic lunch.

KAL: Cross to burn, I'm not cool with that. Pointy hat.

DOC: You'll need some nooses. We go lynching people, to keep them inside. That's our goal.

KAL: Going to have to avoid this group.

DOC: He says the outdoor clubs are saturated with white supremacy. He admits the clubs are open for all people, yet saturated with white supremacy, because no matter the color of someone's skin, you can attend these clubs, but not everyone feels safe to attend.

So it's a safety issue that is having the whites rule supreme at these outdoor clubs at Claremont Colleges in California. Oh, they must be.

See, apparently, this is part of the systematic racism, where it's scaring people to keep them away. It's a scare tactic. Well, we don't want them as part of our outdoors club. You know.

He went on to write in his op-ed piece, this discomfort is unfortunately caused by existing racial boundaries. Historically, white people in imperialist conquests have appropriated land as their own. North America rightfully belongs to indigenous communities, yet it has been taken away from them by force. Consequently, a false sense of ownership of nature permeates white America.

We know we own --

KAL: Nature?

DOC: We own nature. Whitey, of course.

KAL: Do the trees and the birds and the squirrels.

DOC: White. Absolutely white.

You mean do tell me any non-white people out there, somewhere -- a non-white person owns a tree.

KAL: Yeah.

DOC: Please. Yeah, yeah.

KAL: I'm pretty sure.

DOC: You're so naive, Kal. So naive. The image of the outdoorsy individual, he said, is an exclusive classification that gives white people the authority to venture into the outdoors freely, leaving people of color behind.

KAL: This is so ridiculous.

DOC: How do you even come up with this? How can you even write this?

KAL: I have no words.

DOC: I think I may understand it. They smoke a lot of dope in Claremont Colleges. That's the only thing I could come up with.

KAL: Or his head is so far up his other thing, that's -

DOC: Maybe there was a fall in his past, and he hit his head a lot, repeatedly.

He went on to say, racial barriers that prevent nonwhites from stepping outside. But also, financial barriers are a problem.

KAL: Really?

DOC: To non-white people being allowed into the great outdoors. He said, only people with economic privilege can participate in outdoor activities.

KAL: I don't know if you know this, you don't need that much to go hiking.

DOC: Oh, walking is -- you know how expensive walking is?

Every time I head out -- I mean, I can afford it because I'm white.

KAL: Okay.

DOC: Every time I head out, they're like, that's going to be $450 billion. And I just write the check. And I'm like, man, fortunately, I make 700 trillion as a week, you know, as a white person, and I can afford it.

KAL: That's right.

DOC: But crazy expensive to walk. I mean, that's -- you know, and running. You know, I run now --

KAL: You do run.

DOC: Even more expensive.

KAL: Secret white trail.

DOC: Me and my economic privilege participating in activities.

He also says understanding obscure outdoor lingo is something that -- that white people get. Nonwhites don't.

You know, we have this special -- special language like -- well, I'll give you some examples of special coded things that apparently non-white people don't understand about the great outdoors, like walk. Walk.

KAL: Walk. That's a white-only thing?

DOC: I assume. I mean, these are outdoorsy terms. Run. Picnic. Maybe they don't know that.

Golf. Maybe they don't know what that word means. Frisbee. Okay. That's pretty white. That's a bad example. Don't use that. That's actually a really bad example. I think that just may be for white people. Stupidly, but, yeah.

Not because nonwhites are excluded. It's just they're smarter than whites and they don't actually take part in fraul (phonetic) -- they're not a part of that.

So can you think of any other lingo that may be throwing them off, where they're like, I don't understand what they're talking about. The cracker is over there. What with words like --

KAL: Run and jump.

DOC: And swim. Fish. They don't -- they don't understand them apparently.

KAL: Throw the ball.

DOC: So you got the financial barriers. Economic privilege. You got the special lingo. I imagine garb is a part of that.

KAL: So it's a recipe for --

DOC: It also said friendship can act as a portal for the whiteness, for those who have historically been denied the privilege of comfort.

KAL: What?

DOC: Let me share that again. Friendship can act as a portal to the wilderness, for those who have been historically denied the privilege of comfort.

So I guess invite a non-white friend to the great outdoors. You'll have to explain to them, this is a -- sidewalk. Sidewalk. Repeat after me.

KAL: What we're going to do now, 1 foot in front of the other.

DOC: Like this. You need to get them used to it. How to do this.

KAL: It's called jogging. The J is silent.

DOC: Now, he offers some solution to the outdoors being part of white supremacy. Would you like to know his solutions?

KAL: I would be thrilled.

DOC: Number one, affirm that nature belongs to all humans, not just white ones.

KAL: Okay.

DOC: We need that affirmation.

KAL: We need to know that. Okay. I didn't know nature belonged to humans at all, but okay.

DOC: No. For all you whites out there, that are walking around like nature belongs to you exclusively, it does not. And I'm here to affirm that it does not just belong to you. It belongs to the other folk as well, not just to the crackers. Not just to the honkies. Not just to the peckerwoods, but everybody. I'm here to affirm -- how do we affirm -- how many times do I have to say this?

No, no, no. So how do I -- do I have to put it on signs, or is there a public -- I mean, I just affirmed it.

KAL: Yeah, I think you probably have --

DOC: Am I done affirming, or do I have to keep affirming? Does everybody have to affirm it all the time? I don't know -- I wish he would offer a clarification. But anyway --

KAL: Kind of like if you're white, you have to affirm it.

DOC: Affirm that nature belongs to all humans, not just white ones. Number two, the image of the outdoor enthusiast should not belong to just white people. That's one of the solutions.

KAL: The image of the outdoor enthusiast.

DOC: Yes. Should not belong to just white people.

KAL: Okay.

DOC: Which means, Kal, we proceed to fix that by --

KAL: Making more nonwhite people --

DOC: The image of outdoor enthusiasts should not just belong to white people.

KAL: Are you talking about, like, magazines and ads and things?

DOC: I was hoping you could help me out with this. I have no idea what this means. I don't know.

KAL: Do they know that the guy who -- well, not this year. But the last 50 New York City marathons have been won by, like, an African guy. Like a Kenyan.

DOC: No! It's white guys.

KAL: This is the first year in I don't know how long.

DOC: I don't think they let blacks enter. They don't even let them enter, do they?

In fact, there's none in Manhattan. That's entire outdoors, been exclusively white people.

You're telling me there are blacks that enter the New York marathon? Is it like a separate, but equal marathon?

KAL: No, no, no. They all run together. They all run together.

DOC: Okay. You run in Harlem. And we'll all run around Central Park.

KAL: No, no, everyone runs together. It's kind of co-mingling.

DOC: Okay. You're embarrassing yourself here. Let me just stop you. You obviously are misinformed. I'm just going to stop you before you embarrass yourself even more.

KAL: There's this game called basketball, where they play --

DOC: And that is primarily played, where?

KAL: Indoors.

DOC: There it is. How often is the MBA played inside?

KAL: Not quite often.

DOC: Okay. How often does the NFL play outside?

KAL: Sometimes they're open domes. You know, they're not always --

DOC: Like I said, it's 50/50.

Number three, white people should exert caution as not to dominate ownership of the word outdoorsy.

KAL: You guys own that? I didn't know that. Okay.

DOC: I own the word "outdoorsy." I mean, I say it at least once every millennia. Once every maybe decade. How often do you say outdoorsy?

KAL: When describing myself, not often at all.

DOC: Does it ever -- you would say outdoors? I will go outdoors.

KAL: I don't even think I say outdoors.

DOC: That often?

KAL: No.

DOC: Outdoorsy.

KAL: Where is the car? Outside.

DOC: All right. I'm going to go ahead and give it to you. I'm happy to never say it again. I feel comfortable with that.

KAL: You're giving up your white privilege?

DOC: I am. Because I don't want to dominate ownership of the word outdoorsy. I'm going to exert caution as to not dominate it.

KAL: All right. Thank you. Thank you for --

DOC: It's the least I could do.

KAL: Okay. Thank you.

DOC: And finally, he says, outdoor clubs on college campuses should work to increase accessibility and to help people learn the skills they will need. Increase accessibility to the outdoors.

KAL: Okay. All right.

DOC: I'm thinking more doors, more windows. Is that what we need? So colleges and dorms -- you know what we need? Maybe a white door and a black or non-white door.

KAL: You might want to be careful. Because they used to do that.

DOC: Well, yeah, but see, what we would do was have more nonwhite doors, so they would have greater accessibility to the outside. Apparently, they're getting bottlenecked at the door.

Maybe their doors are more narrow or something. Maybe like garage doors or more of them.

Until we get more teleportation, that's what I'm going for. More windows. More escape hatches. I'm willing to hear it all because I don't want to dominate the great outdoors.

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.