The dystopian vision of Westworld is one step closer to reality. The first ever sex doll brothel has just opened in Germany.

Located in Dortmund, the new brothel, aptly named “Bordoll,” invites paying customers to have their way with any one of their 11 silicon dolls for just €80 an hour.

You might think “Bordoll” is helmed by some guy still living in his parents’ basement but, surprisingly, no. The owner is Evelyn Schwarz, a 29-year-old woman.

Bordoll’s ​website offers a profile of each Asia-imported doll, which all have a name and unique aesthetic. “Possible service” options that the doll can give “passively” are also listed.

Aesthetic selections range from “real” to “skinny” to “fantasy” to “anime,” and the dolls come in an assortment of different body types and hair-colors.

“The ladies are real dream women,” the website reads, claiming that the dolls are “extreme high quality” and are “always willing.”

According to Schwarz, Bordoll has become rather popular; the dolls are now booked 12 times each day to men of varying ages.

Customer satisfaction is apparently high, since roughly 70% of them return for a second visit. Schwarz claims that the majority of the men have “tolerant” wives, who wait in the car as their men do their dirty business.

Schwarz has only had to replace one doll thus far, after one customer apparently broke it.

The sex robot trade has become the newest frontier on the libertine front, with more and more manufacturers producing life-like renditions of the fairer sex year after year. David Levy, author of Love and Sex With Robots, sees no problem with this.

“I see nothing wrong from an ethical point of view of having sexual relationships with robots,” he told Time.

Some sexbot manufacturers have even begun to put personalities in place for their machines, and provide artificial intelligence, with the ability to show jealousy and neediness (who on earth would want a sexbot that comes with the worst attributes of a girlfriend?).

That aside, since sexbots appear poised to become another cultural plague worse than porn, polls are now being conducted to see where the public’s sensibilities lie regarding the use. It turns out many people in Britain — roughly 36% — have no trouble with the idea of getting it on with robots. This applies more to men than women, with two-thirds supporting the practice.

According to a report in Metro, a significantly high number of Brits say that sex with a robot would not be cheating.

“The NOW TV survey reveals that 40% of British people would not consider having sex with a robot cheating,” reports Metro, and if that’s not bad enough, “39% of British people think that by 2050, we’ll regularly be having relationships with robots instead of each other.”

On Thursday, former President George W. Bush spoke at the “Spirit of Liberty: At Home, In The World” event in New York. There, he delivered a barnburner address taking on the ideologies of both the left, the “nationalist populist” right, and the alt-right. Naturally, the press focused solely and exclusively on his attacks on “nationalist populism” (the scare quotes signify that this is not an actual ideology, but a pastiche of attitudes and ideas having little to do with a thoroughgoing philosophy) – Trumpism.

And, to be fair, Bush did excoriate elements of so-called Trumpism.

Bush explicitly and cogently attacked the West’s declining confidence in economic freedom and political democracy, condemning Europe’s “identity crisis,” which he said bred “insolvency, economic stagnation, youth unemployment, anger about immigration, resurgent ethno-nationalism, and deep questions about the meaning and durability of the European Union.”

He seemed to be referring to President Trump when he stated:

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade – forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism. We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places, where threats such as terrorism, infectious disease, criminal gangs and drug trafficking tend to emerge.

But Bush did far more than that.

He led off by recognizing that the populist left and populist right had both forgotten some basic truths: that “America has encouraged and benefited from the global advance of free markets, from the strength of democratic alliances, and from the advance of free societies.” And he noted that the left particularly had ignored the lessons of the Cold War: “There are some signs that the intensity of support for democracy itself has waned, especially among the young, who never experienced the galvanizing moral clarity of the Cold War, or never focused on the ruin of entire nations by socialist central planning.”

He explained that the divisions of Americans into tribal classes are quashing the American spirit:

Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication…We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions – forgetting the image of God we should see in each other.

In the end, Bush stated, all of this was a “combination of weariness, frayed tempers, and forgetfulness.”

Bush’s speech wasn’t perfect. He continued to express the unsupportable idea that “the desire for freedom is not confined to, or owned by, any culture; it is the inborn hope of our humanity.” That is obviously untrue, simply by glancing at either history or contemporary cultures around the world, many of which value purity or equality before freedom.
But Bush reminded Americans that “Freedom is not merely a political menu option, or a foreign policy fad; it should be the defining commitment of our country, and the hope of the world.” Both the nationalist populists and the modern-day left have ignored that moral reality.

So while the media rush to point out Bush’s opposition to so-called Trumpism, they were willing to ignore his just-as-harsh attacks on Democratic leftism. Bush clearly called for hardening our defenses, including cyberdefense against Russia; he called for renewed American leadership around the world based on principles of freedom; he talked up globalization as both inevitable and desirable in economic terms. Most of all, he talked up education in virtue:

Our identity as a nation – unlike many other nations – is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility. We become the heirs of Thomas Jefferson by accepting the ideal of human dignity found in the Declaration of Independence. We become the heirs of James Madison by understanding the genius and values of the U.S. Constitution. We become the heirs of Martin Luther King, Jr., by recognizing one another not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. This means that people of every race, religion, and ethnicity can be fully and equally American. It means that bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed. And it means that the very identity of our nation depends on the passing of civic ideals to the next generation.

Bush condemned the media for failures of accuracy and fairness; he condemned religious institutions for abandoning the playing field; he condemned colleges for shutting down free expression.

Bush’s speech, in other words, was a ringing re-emphasized Reagan conservatism. The media ignore that the populist left has more in common with the populist right than with Bush’s perspective; they take advantage of the (R) next to Bush’s name to use him as a club against Trump. But Bush stood against both Trumpism and Obamaism; he stood in favor of a founding vision rather than the demagoguery of the moment.

And the media will never bother to headline that little fact. It might remind Americans that traditional conservatism is a better solution than either of the currently ascendant alternatives.

“What is the difference between a socialist and a Democrat on taxes?” asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during Wednesday’s CNN-hosted “town hall debate” in Washington, D.C.

Sanders could not or would not answer the question; “I don’t know the answer to that,” said the self-described “democratic socialist” senator from Vermont.

Sanders heralded “Denmark, and Sweden, and Norway, and Finland,” falsely framing the Scandinavian countries as having a “higher standard of living” than America.

America’s “free enterprise system,” said Cruz, has been history’s greatest generator of prosperity, adding, “Bernie likes to glorify socialism, but if you look at the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever seen, it’s the American free enterprise system. There’s a reason millions of people risk their lives to come here.”

Socialist government policies, said Cruz, stultify economic development and exacerbate poverty.

At no point in the debate did Cruz describe Sanders as a communist or neo-Marxist. The Texas senator also neglected to specify “class warfare” as Sanders’ political tactic in appealing to jealousy and covetousness.

Watch part of the Cruz-Sanders exchange below.

VIDEO

In both January and March of 2016, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked Hillary Clinton a similar question. Both times, Clinton could not or would not answer the question.

VIDEO

VIDEO

Neo-Marxism is the Democrat Party’s foundational ideology; pushing a refacing of the classically Marxist class struggle paradigm in which assorted arbitrarily-defined groups – some as oppressors and others as oppressed – are framed as competing against one another in a zero-sum competition for wealth and power.

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

Michael Bennett, a defensive end for the Seattle Seahawks, said on Monday that NFL owners who require their players to stand for the National Anthem remind him of the Dred Scott case. I understand where he’s coming from. I couldn’t get a frosty at Wendy’s last night because the machine was broken and it reminded me so much of the Great Famine.

Bennett elaborated, saying the prohibitions on Anthem protests interfere with his “ability to be a person” and make him into “property” of the NFL. He’s not alone. Al Sharpton, Michael Wilbon, Adrian Peterson, Rashard Mendenhall, Doug Baldwin, and various leftist media outlets have all made this connection. The NFL is modern-day slavery, according to a lot of people who’ve never been within 100 yards of a history book.

This is what the Anthem issue has turned into. It was originally (allegedly) about police brutality, then it evolved into a protest of Donald Trump, now it’s morphed into debate about whether business owners are allowed to limit the political speech of their employees while their employees are on the clock.

The answer, by the way, is yes. And that’s an answer we need to verbalize because this has consequences beyond the NFL. There are already a great many people, especially in my generation, who think they have the right to waltz into their job with a whole list of non-negotiable demands. “Give me more money.” “Give me more time off.” “Let me wear pajamas to the office.” The fundamental difference between employer and employed seems to be lost on most of us.

Whether you’re for or against the Anthem protests, it should be clear to any rational person that this issue has nothing at all to do with “free speech.” You don’t have free speech at your job. The idea that you have the right to say whatever you want while on your employer’s dime is among the most asinine things I’ve heard in at least the last five minutes. Michael Bennett has no more “right” to sit for the Anthem while wearing his Seahawks jersey than I’d have the right to get a job working the cash register at Walmart and then spend my shift hectoring the customers about the collapse of the nuclear family. I can do that with my current job because that is my current job. But even in a job where political speech is the whole job, I could still be fired if the Daily Wire decided that it no longer wanted to be a platform for my brand of blabbering.

Yes, I have a right to blab. I just don’t have a right to do it on this website, which is owned by someone else. You have a right to wear pro-abortion t-shirts. You don’t have a right to wear them while working as a bank teller. NFL players have a right to their opinions about the police or Donald Trump or the moon landing conspiracy, but they don’t have a right to use the NFL as a megaphone to amplify those views. Simple as that.

Now, in case Michael Bennett and Al Sharpton are still confused, let me explain in greater detail why NFL players are not slaves, even if they’re forced to stand for 2 minutes during the Anthem:

1) You choose to be there. You signed a contract. You came to the NFL and asked them for a job. You didn’t have to. You could have taken a massive pay cut and become a blogger and spent all day sharing your opinions on any topic at all. But you chose a different job (wisely). You chose a job where your opinions are not only irrelevant but may be harmful to the bottom line. You were hired under the assumption that you’d help the bottom line. If you hurt it, you can be fired.

2) You can leave. You may not be able to go to another team whenever you want, but you can quit and do something else with your time. It is an infamous fact of slavery that slaves did not have this option.

3) You are not owned. Your team is owned. The jerseys are owned. The stadium is owned. The league you’re playing for is owned. Everywhere you go in your capacity as an NFL player, and everything you use, is owned by someone other than yourself. But you are not owned. Just because there are rules governing the things that are owned does not mean that you yourself are owned when you’re asked to follow them. If the NFL has enslaved you, then I guess I’ve enslaved you when you come into my house and are forced to refrain from smoking in my living room or kicking my dog. Those are my house rules, strictly enforced. If you want to follow different rules, go back to your own house.

4) You’re paid millions of dollars. Slaves were generally not paid anything. That’s really the whole point of slavery. I’d like to meet a slave owner who gives his slaves 60 million dollar contracts. I may have to see if he’s hiring. Or “enslaving,” I guess.

Now, I admit that if we were to put these small differences to the side, suddenly there is very little distinction between a millionaire athlete in 2017 and a plantation slave in 1845. Just as there is no difference between a mild case of acne and the Bubonic Plague if we ignore literally every fact about the Bubonic Plague. It’s funny how that works.