The Go-Giver: A new way to do business

Glenn interviewed a fascinating author this week who has come up with a way of doing business that turns conventional wisdom squarely on its head. This decidedly unconventional approach will seem completely ludicrous, but it’s so effective Glenn bought every member on staff a copy to read.

Glenn: Okay, we were just talking in the break as I’m watching some of the staff. I just told Bob that I can’t tell you the number of people that wrote to me after I gave it to everybody on the staff and just said thank you. And it wasn’t about giving them the book. It was about, “Thank you. This is the direction we’re going.” I think people really want, in all walks of life, this is who they want to be, but society or whatever, cronyism, has convinced them you can’t be that way and be successful. So go through the five laws.

Bob: Okay, first, thank you for the great complement. I think a lot of times people see on TV, and they see in the movies, you know, the greedy, moneygrubbing capitalist. Nobody wants to be like that, so if that’s what capitalism is, I don’t want… right?

Glenn: Right.

Bob: And so we look at five laws. The basic premise is that shifting your focus, and this is the real key, shifting your focus from getting to giving, and when we say giving in this context, we simply mean constantly and consistently providing value to others. We look at five laws. The first one is the law of value. This one says your true worth is determined by how much more you give in value than you take in payment.

Now, this sounds a little counterproductive at first. How do you give more in value than you take in payment and survive, never mind thrive in business? You’ve got to make a profit, right? And that’s fine. We just need to understand the difference between price and value. Price is a dollar figure. It’s a dollar amount. It’s finite. It is what it is. Value, on the other hand, is the relative worth or desirability of something to the end-user or beholder. In other words, what is it about this thing, this product, service, concept, opportunity, idea, that brings with it so much worth that someone will willingly, again, free market, willingly exchange their money for this and feel great that they did while you make a healthy profit?

16341508181_ff4593d93a_k 16155904370_694111db6b_k

In the book, we talk about Ernesto, the restauranteur, who provides a great dining experience. You go in that restaurant, and not only is the food fantastic, but you feel like a million bucks. They treat you so well, and the atmosphere, and you come out of it, you feel you got more in value than what you paid, but of course his costs for the food and the staff, overhead, is less than what he’s charging, so everybody makes a profit, because the buyer also makes a profit because they come away ahead. But the key is the focus, you can’t be focused on the money. You must be focused on bringing value, because that’s what turns into money.

Glenn: You know, I read this, and I know you’re libertarian. Are you a big Ayn Rand fan?

Bob: I am a big fan of her works without necessarily agreeing with every—

Glenn: Got it. I had a feeling you and I are the same. She’s great, but where she goes wrong for me is she just doesn’t understand the connection to the heart. It’s all very internal. It’s all me, me, me, me, me, so it becomes very selfish. You’re saying the same thing that she is saying about…she’s unashamed of being a capitalist, because she’s saying there is value here. I am creating something that no one else can create. I’m creating it. They want it, so it’s a fair exchange.

Bob: It’s what her heroes did—

Glenn: Correct, but you’ve…I don’t know, I don’t want to use cloaked it, because that’s not the right word, but you’ve wrapped around this service, and to me, that is the big difference between this and Ayn Rand, and it’s very subtle, I think, if you take the bone structure down. It is your intent. Her intent is I want to be me. This intent is I want to be me, but I want to serve the people with what I have. I’m going to go find the people that need what I have, and we’re going to exchange, and it’s going to be great. It’s less of, “That’s who I am, and I’m Howard Roark, and I’m going to design this building. If you don’t like, it screw you.” It’s, “This is great, isn’t it?” And so it’s an exchange.

16157392767_cb42ae53a7_k

Bob: Thank you. I appreciate that. So, that’s really what the law of value is all about. It’s focusing on bringing value. This is why we say that money is an echo of value. It’s the thunder to value’s lightning, which simply means the value, the focus on the value must come first. The value, you’re providing. The money is simply a very direct and natural result of the value you’ve provided. That’s the foundational principle.

The second law is the law of compensation. This one is much simpler. This simply says your income is determined by how many people you serve as well as how well you serve them. So, where law number one says give more in value than you take in payment, law number two tells us the more people whose lives you add this kind of exceptional value to, the more money with which you’ll be rewarded.

Glenn: Here’s why I love this, because you can explain to everybody who says, “Oh, you know, it’s not right that, you know, so-and-so is making all that money.” Really? Look at your average football player. How many people is he affecting? You might be doing something that is more important, but you, you’re not affecting that many people. You know what I mean? That value of that game on Sunday, millions are watching, and so they are attaching just a little bit of value, just a few pennies, all of those people, where you might be doing something really important that yes, it is worth more than a stupid football game, but it’s not, because you’re not affecting millions of people. And so that whole class warfare of well, what you do, you’re making all this money, that all just disappears with this.

Bob: Well, thank you. That’s why we had Nicole Martin, the CEO, who was the schoolteacher who was very frustrated with the fact that, you know, she loved the students, they loved her, the parents loved her, but she could only reach so many people. Plus the government school bureaucracy kind of wasn’t really…so she went out on her own, and she was entrepreneurial, and she found a way to expand her value, to leverage that, and she was able to touch the lives of a whole lot more people and make a lot more money as a result.

Glenn: It’s scalability.

16341508181_ff4593d93a_k

Bob: Exactly. Now, law number three is the law of influence, and the law of influence says your influence is determined by how abundantly you place other people’s interests first. Again, counterintuitive at best, Pollyanna-ish at worst, right? And yet, the top leaders, the great influencers, the most successfully profitable sales people, this is how they conduct their businesses. This is how they run their lives. They’re always looking for ways, as Sam told the protégé, Joe, in the book, to make their win about the other person’s win, but it’s very important to qualify this by saying when we say place other people’s interests first, we don’t mean you should be anybody’s doormat, that you should be a martyr, that you should be self-sacrificial in any way. It should always be congruent with both sides coming out ahead.

[break]

Glenn: Okay, so let’s go back to where we were. Give me an example.

Bob: Okay, this example of placing the other person’s interests first happens every single day just in the sales process. A professional salesperson understands, and Glenn, I often will start out when I speak at sales conventions with this. I’ll say nobody is going to buy from you because you have a quota to meet. They’re not going to buy from you because you need the sale. They’re not going to buy from you because you think it’s a great product. They’re going to buy from you because they see value in doing it.

They see it’s of much greater advantage to them to have your product or service than to not have it, so as a professional salesperson, what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to focus on them. You’ve got to ask them the questions that help identify their need, their want, their desire, and to the degree you do that, you’re going to be successful.

Glenn: Can I tell you, one of the things that we have always done, and at first it drove the salespeople, the professional salespeople, crazy. They were like…the first time I did it before I owned everything, and I was kind of working for another company, I’d come in with the salespeople for a sales call, and I’d be right there. It was a big, you know, a big sale, and I’d say, “I don’t think this is right for you. I don’t think I can do the job for you, because I don’t think my audience will connect with what you’re selling.” And you’d see the salespeople just went white. They were like, “He’s drunk. You should sign.”

And we turned down a lot of business, and what we found is it’s really amazing. (A) You keep your clients because it works, but (B) and I wish I was doing it for unscrupulous reasons, kind of, because we would’ve made more money, because those people always come back, and they want it more. And you’re like, “No, I’m not negotiating with you. I’m just telling you it won’t work.” “No, it’s gotta work. It’s gotta work.” They’re selling you all of a sudden. It’s crazy.

Bob: Glenn, here’s what it comes down to, and in the story, Sam told this to Joe. He called it the golden rule of business, of sales, if you will, but it’s of anything. It’s leadership, influence, and that is all things being equal, people will do business with and refer business to those people they know, like, and trust. There’s no faster, more powerful, more genuinely effective way of eliciting those feelings toward you than by placing their interest first, just like you did.

Glenn: The secret, I think, is not to just hire a bunch of people that people like, because there are people who, you know, you walk in, they might be really smart, but you just don’t like them. They have to actually connect with you. I mean, they have to be doing the right thing for you. That’s where the trust comes in.

Bob: Yeah, absolutely. Stephen M.R. Covey, the son of Dr. Stephen Covey of 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen M.R. Covey wrote a book called The Speed of Trust, where he quantified…he also wrote a book called Smart Trust. They’re both wonderful books, and he really quantified trust. He showed that when there’s high trust, things happen quicker. Things happen faster. People understand what you mean. They trust you. But when there’s no trust, low trust, lack of trust, that’s when bureaucracy, that’s where things…right?

Glenn: Right.

Bob: And so that trust is just so important.

Glenn: Okay, so the next habit.

Bob: The next one is law of authenticity, and this one simply says the most valuable gift you have to offer is yourself. In the story, Deborah Davenport shared a lesson she learned early in her career that all the skills in the world, the sales skills, technical skills, people skills, as important as they are, and they are important, they’re also all for not if you don’t come at it from your true, authentic core.

Now, when you do, when you show up as yourself, day after day, week after week, month after month, people feel good about you. They feel comfortable. They know you. They like you. They trust you. But when someone shows up as they do as a…I think the Latin term is Phonus Bolognus or something…right? You know, people don’t feel comfortable with them.

And you say well, why don’t they show up as themselves? Are they, you know, crooked or trying to…? No, I think usually it’s because they don’t have the confidence in themselves to know that they have something of value to offer, and it’s hard to show up authentically when you don’t feel you have anything worthwhile to offer.

Glenn: This one is going to be really important in the future, because you’re going to be stripped down to your authentic self because everything is going to be taken from you. There’s no privacy. There’s no privacy, so the only way you can get…the only way I got to my authentic self was being down on the ground as an alcoholic and realizing I’ve got nothing left. There’s nowhere to go, and so that’s when you find out who you really, truly are.

That’s going to happen to all of us. In some way or another, you’re going to be stripped down naked to the essence of who you are. The faster you strip it down, the faster you gladly say, “Yep, I’ve got it all out, it doesn’t matter, I want to go there because I want to find who I really, truly am,” the more you’ll be a leader in what’s to come. Okay, next.

16343266025_18312a5ff4_k

Bob: The law of receptivity, and this one kind of ties it together. The law of receptivity says the key to effective giving is to stay open to receiving. Late in the story, Pindar, the main mentor, tells Joe, the protégé, to breathe out and hold that breath to the count of 30. Joe tries, but in about ten seconds or so, he’s gasping for air, and Pindar says, “What’s the matter, Joe, can’t do it?” Joe says, “No, I can’t just breathe out. I’ve got to breathe in as well.” And Pindar says, “But, Joe,” and he says this jokingly, “what if I was to tell you it’s actually healthier to breathe, it’s been medically proven that it’s healthier to breathe out than it is to breathe in?” And Joe said, “That’s silly. You can’t do one or the other. You’ve got to do both.”

Absolutely, we breathe out, we breathe in. We breathe out carbon dioxide. We breathe in oxygen. We breathe out, which is giving. We breathe in, which is receiving. Society, with its very lack messages, and we see this everywhere, we see it on TV, we see it in movies. They pit the rich against the…so we tend to believe it’s one or the other, you know? You’re either a giver or a receiver. No, you’re both.

Glenn : Okay, the name of the book is The Go-Giver, can’t recommend it highly enough, available everywhere. It’s been on the number one New York Times list for years now. Get it, The Go-Giver, and be a part of the change to come.

16343249765_3f578fc8c8_k

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.