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

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

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

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

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

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

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

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

Well, okay. So what are they saying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And she tweeted a part of her employment agreement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Yeah.

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

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

GLENN: Uh-huh.

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

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

GLENN: So how do you --

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

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

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

STU: Oh, absolutely, it does.

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

GLENN: You're constantly surrounded by that stuff.

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

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

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

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

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

(chuckling)

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

STU: Oh, no.

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Get out.

GLENN: Get out. Okay?

STU: Uh-huh.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know what that means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah, all of his big movies.

STU: Yeah. All his big stuff.

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

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

He was dating Mira Sorvino after Weinstein.

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

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

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

That's bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.