Glenn's Stream of Consciousness: White Power, Progressives, Prohibition and Poison

Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn proved why liberals have the advantage when it comes to soundbites. It actually takes time and thought to explain connections that form the reality we live in.

"I just want to take you through the stream of consciousness that is The Glenn Beck Program here. Show you where we've been and where we're headed," Glenn said.

Glenn's stream of consciousness included the white supremacist Trump delegate, Netflix, the downfall of network television, Prohibition, Carrie Nation and Woodrow Wilson. How are they all connected?

For starters, Netflix is like beer and network television is like Prohibition in this instance.

"They said that Netflix and Amazon would be the death of television. It's never been better. It's never been better. Why are you not watching shows that are spending as much money, if not more, for broadcast television? It might be easier to ask, 'Why are you watching the shows on Amazon and Netflix that are produced for those guys?'" Glenn asked.

Co-host Stu Burguiere hit the nail on the head.

"Part of it is, I think, they don't have the same hang-ups. They don't care. They don't care about being politically correct. They don't care . . . they just do what they do," Stu said.

Bingo.

"We're being forced to live a lie by the same kind of people that started Prohibition," Glenn said.

Prohibition failed for several reasons, most obviously because of gang violence and crime. However, there was another key component to its downfall.

"It was the elites who decided with a small group of people that it would be best for everyone and it would be best for our culture if they banned alcohol," Glenn said.

"But the American people didn't listen to them. If you couldn't buy it, you would make it. And it was just a game to get around the law. Because that's who the people were. And you don't have a right to stop me from drinking, that was the mentality. So we had two cultures. We had this culture that we said we lived because the government was forcing us, and then the culture that we actually lived."

When Prohibition didn't work, the government decided to poison alcohol, and 50,000 people died at the end of the Prohibition era because the United States government was poisoning alcohol.

"The problem is the wake that it leaves. The problem is if it goes on too long, the pendulum swings back too far. And if you're poisoning my beer, to hell with you. I'll poison your beer too," Glenn said.

"We're now entering the point where they will put poison in that to stop you from saying it. Because they believe it so much, they will poison, destroy, kill, run you out of business, whatever it is that they dream up in the future."

The silver lining?

"It always destroys itself," Glenn said. "The strong arm of the government saying, 'You will do these things. You won't do these things,' on television is done from the free market system. Prohibition is done because of the free market system and the people said, 'This is crazy. It's only making things much worse.' And this too will be done."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: All right. I just want to take you through -- I want to take you through the stream of consciousness that is the Glenn Beck Program here. Show you where we've been and where we're headed.

We had a guy who was a delegate for Donald Trump. He is a white supremacist. He was on CNN. We'll play the audio for you here in a little while. He was on CNN and he said things that didn't sound like a white supremacist, unless you knew who he was and then you were like, "Oh, yeah, he's clearly a white supremacist." But he was saying basically that the western culture is being displaced by those from Africa and the Middle East. And Europe is being destroyed. And he's right. And America is changing because we're being displaced. The white culture, as he called it -- I would call it the white Anglo-Saxon culture, the historic culture of Europe and America. And I want to come back to that.

But I jumped from that to television. The difference between broadcast television and what we're watching on -- you know, we're actually watching.

Broadcast television is going through the floor. And most people now -- I shouldn't say most people, a large number of people no longer watch broadcast television. And when they get off of broadcast television, they are going to things that are produced for Amazon or for Netflix. And if you do watch something in that format from broadcast television, I would say the only one that would make the exception would be something like Fox because it has a harder edge to it.

Now, I jump from there to Prohibition. And I want to finish the story on Prohibition. Then I'm going to go backwards and wrap it all up.

Wayne Wheeler, he was the guy who started the idea of Prohibition. He actually got the plank into the Constitution to prohibit all alcohol. He did it with the help of people like Carrie Nation, this little old lady with an axe. And she would go in, and she would terrorize bars. Most of this was done by women and the Temperance Society. And that was the idea that women were being beaten by their men when they come home. And that alcohol leads to all kind of damage. In their words at that time, all kinds of sin. So we got to ban alcohol.

Well, the women were just at the beginning of the women's suffrage movement. And the women had real clout. And they pushed this through.

The government decided to do it because it would be best thing -- because it's a progressive government now, Woodrow Wilson. It would be the best thing for the people to be able to have a temperance movement and to have Prohibition because it's good for the collective.

When it didn't work and caused all kinds of other problems, the government with Wayne Wheeler decided that they would poison the alcohol. And they would poison the alcohol because too many people are choosing -- choosing to drink is a choice for death anyway. That's what he said.

And so they would poison the alcohol. 50,000 people died at the end of the Prohibition era because the United States government was poisoning the alcohol.

Here's the interesting argument they had: You are violating your own laws. What? You mean by poisoning your own people? No. By not following the FDA guidelines and putting a label on it saying this contains poison.

So they were concerned, the progressives, that they had just started this FDA that would help people know what was in products and know if it was good or bad for you, and they weren't labeling while they were installing poison. That was their concern.

The guy who FDR said was the worst guy in the world and vilified all the way through the 1930s was Andrew Mellon. Remember? He was the Treasury Secretary. Treasury was the IRS. The IRS was the enforcer of the Untouchables. They were the enforcer of Prohibition.

When Mellon found out that we were poisoning alcohol, he exposed it and said it was unforgivable and an outrage. Yet, this was all forgotten by the progressives. And he was made into a villain because he was the architect of the Roaring Twenties and prosperity.

Now, I bring you to Prohibition because what was happening at Prohibition? The elites decided with a small group of people that it would be best for everyone and it would be best for our culture if they banned alcohol. But the American people didn't listen to them. They found their own ways. If you couldn't buy it, you would make it.

And if your friend was making it, you would just trade some food for it, and you would get it. And so everybody had a hidden closet. In their cupboard, they had, sitting behind everything else, a little bit of wine or a little bit of whisky or whatever. And generally speaking, you could get it, and people were still drinking it. Speakeasies were everywhere. And it was just a game to get around the law. Because that's who the people were. And they're going to drink. And you don't have a right to drink -- and you don't have a right to stop me from drinking, that was the mentality. So we had two cultures. We had this culture that we said we lived because the government was forcing us, and then the culture that we actually lived.

Now, let me bring you back a step to television. If you watch television now, network television, even the grittiest stuff is just not gritty. It's not real. Because of what Netflix and Amazon have been able to do, where they're making movie quality television and it's real, you're no longer watch -- you turn on broadcast television, and not only is it riddled with commercials, which drive me crazy, but the story lines feel fake. It's like watching Starsky & Hutch in comparison. It's just not real. It's either a homogenized utopian world. Or it's a homogenized dirty, gritty world. Where, when you watch Netflix, God forbid on broadcast television, you use the N-word, you call anybody a name.

You watch Boardwalk, they're using the N-word. They're using, you know, you dirty thieving wop. They're using -- they're using what people actually said back then.

It's the difference between watching Roots from 1974 or 1976. You watch that now. Oh, my gosh, is that homogenized. That's not what it was like. We were shocked by it.

That is a storybook, fairytale version of slavery today. That was like, "Oh, look at -- I mean, it wasn't that bad." If you watch it today. We were horrified in '76, but that was homogenized.

Now you see things on television, and you're like, "I bet that's what it was really like. I bet that's what it was really like." They're showing you what life was really like. And that's who we are. Just like Prohibition, the government said, "Network television is going to do this," and we're living this. That's why network television is dying. Because that's not who we are. We're more choices and more reality. Okay?

Let me take it one more step. When you watch the white power guy and you forget that he's a white supremacist and you listen to what he says. And could you play just the beginning of this, Pat?

You listen to just the beginning of what he says. Now, again, you have to forget -- you have to think like somebody who is just watching the news. The average person who doesn't know the news. Is kind of tuning in. All it says is Donald Trump delegate. It will change to Trump campaign selects a white supremacist as a California delegate. But it doesn't say he's necessarily the guy. He just says California delegate for Donald Trump.

And listen to what he says.

VOICE: Do you believe that the white race or the European white race is the superior race? Is that your view?

GLENN: Pretend you tune in here.

VOICE: I believe that western civilization is declining and dying out in every country around the world that has traditionally been white. Europe is being replaced by immigrants from Africa. America is the same thing is happening here -- happening here. And so I believe that we need to be aware of this precipitous decline in the white race. And I think it's good for people to be proud of your heritage, whatever heritage that might be. But particularly for white people because the whites now are so afraid to be proud of their heritage because they're called bad names if they are.

GLENN: Stop. That's the key. White people are afraid to speak out about their own culture because they'll be called names if they were.

We're living a lie. And we're being forced to live a lie by the same kind of people that started Prohibition and said, "We have to acquiesce and do exactly what the government tells us on television." But in the end, it doesn't work. In the end, it doesn't work.

We're being told, "You can't be -- you must be PC, and you can't say these things." But we might be living that life on the outside, but on the inside of our home, look what we're watching. Look what we're consuming. Look how we talk to each other.

We just don't say these things outside of our circle of friends because we're afraid of being punished for who we've always been. And that is decent people who understand. I don't have a problem with other races. I don't have a problem with other races. I watch Boardwalk and I think, "Look how far we've come. My gosh, can you imagine living like that? How did that happen?" But we got through it. And we're not like that anymore. And we know we're not like that. But we're expected to feel bad. We're expected to take it on the chin for something -- I didn't have anything to do with the 1920s. I don't have anything to do with the 1960s. I didn't have anything to do with the 1860s.

And, yes, those grievances happened and we need to be sympathetic to that and we need to make sure that we guard ourselves. But good God, can we take a moment and look at how great the western culture in America is not Anglo-Saxon, started as Anglo-Saxon. Started as Christian. And look what it produced.

Now, look at all the roots that people that came in from Russia, from Germany, from Africa, from England, from Ireland, and look what they brought to us. From Mexico. Look at thousand they've enriched. But they did one thing. They wanted to be Americans. They wanted to be part of this special culture.

We're being told now there is no special culture. And we're being told in the same way we were being told by prohibitionists. It's best for you not to live that way. And we didn't agree with it. But they imposed it on us. So we lived it anyway.

We're now entering the point where they will put poison in that to stop you from saying it. Because they believe it so much, they will poison, destroy, kill, run out of business, whatever it is that they dream up in the future.

They will -- right now, they're just driving you out of society if you stand up. It always ends with somebody -- I always joke, with a bullet in the head. It always ends with somebody poisoning your beer. That's the way it ends before it destroys itself.

It always destroys itself. The strong arm of the government saying, "You will do these things. You won't do these things," on television, is done from the free market system. Prohibition is done because of the free market system and the people said, "This is crazy. It's only making things much worse." And this too will be done.

The problem is the wake that it leaves. The problem is if it goes on too long, the pendulum swings back too far. And if you're poisoning my beer, to hell with you. I'll poison your beer too.

JEFFY: And then I'll poison your water.

GLENN: Right. And that's what -- and that's what this guy -- makes this guy frightening. Because people are living a lie. They know it. They're tired of it. This is why Donald Trump is connecting. You will dismiss what he says about the Negro race, just like people dismissed what Hitler was saying about the Jews at the beginning.

Eh, he doesn't believe all that stuff. And that's crazy. Nobody goes for that stuff. But he's right about this. He's right about this. We are afraid to say -- be proud of our own culture.

So we are so hungry for somebody to say that, that we dismiss all of the other things that go along with that, from that carrier of that message. This is the warning that all cultures get at this point. And if you dismiss the other things those messengers bring with them, you do so at your own peril.

Featured Image: Prohibition era photo

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.