New York City has just elected Zohran Mamdani – a self-described democratic socialist and the first Muslim mayor in the city’s history. Let that sink in. The cultural capital of America, once a beacon of enterprise, grit, and Judeo-Christian values, is now under the leadership of a man whose worldview is rooted in Marxist economics and secular progressivism. For those of us who still believe in God, country, and constitutional liberty, this is not just a political shift – it’s a spiritual alarm bell.

Mamdani’s platform reads like a socialist wish list: rent freezes, free public transit, city-run grocery stores, and a government that inserts itself into every corner of daily life. This isn’t compassion – it’s control. And it’s being sold to a generation that’s been taught to distrust freedom, worship entitlement, and redefine morality to suit their feelings.

Let’s be clear: Mamdani’s rise is not an isolated event. It’s the latest chapter in a coordinated effort to dismantle the foundations of Western civilization. His refusal to affirm Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is a slap in the face to every Christian who understands the biblical significance of Israel. His embrace of gender ideology and radical identity politics mocks the very notion of objective truth. And his economic vision – where government replaces God as provider – is a direct assault on the biblical principle of stewardship and personal responsibility.

This is the fruit of decades of cultural decay. We’ve allowed our schools to become indoctrination centers. We’ve let Hollywood normalize rebellion against God. We’ve watched churches trade conviction for popularity. And now, the consequences are sitting in the mayor’s office of America’s largest city.

But here’s the deeper danger: New York sets trends. What happens there doesn’t stay there. Mamdani’s victory will embolden radicals in other cities. It will push the Democratic Party further left. It will normalize policies that punish hard work, reward dependency, and erase the moral compass that once guided this nation.

The church has got to stop apologizing. The body of Christ must stop compromising. We’ve got to stop pretending that neutrality is noble. This is a war of worldviews, and it’s time to fight like it. Stand up. Stand out. Speak up. Speak out. Fight with truth. With bold preaching. With courageous parenting. With political engagement that refuses to bow to the gods of wokeness.

Mamdani may have won New York, but he hasn’t won America. Not yet. The soul of this nation still belongs to those who fear God more than government. Who believe that freedom is worth defending. Who know that socialism is not charity – it’s theft dressed in virtue.

Let New York be a warning. Let Mamdani’s victory be the wake-up call. Because if we don’t stand now, we may soon find ourselves living in a country we no longer recognize.

John Lanier

In the 77 years since the formation of the Jewish state, and for the 2,000 years since the destruction of the Second Temple, the West has understood peace in the Middle East—peace between Arabs and Jews—as impossible.

Semantically, the “Peace Process” was the continuing enjoyment of a process which could be ended only by peace. What, then, have the West, the world and the United Nations been doing in regard to the Mideast since 1948?

The terrorist Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994; the U.N., funded by the U.S., has dedicated time, treasure and prestige to the demonization of the Jewish state; Presidents Obama and Biden funded Iranian terrorism; presidents prior to Donald Trump vowed to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and broke their word; successive Democratic administrations promoted energy restrictions ensuring we’d have to buy oil from those enemies who paid for terrorism.

Through all the mishigas, the antisemites held that the Jewish state must be destroyed. The more philosemitic disagreed, suggesting instead accommodations that could only possibly end in Israel’s obliteration. Historically, this diplomacy was mistaken for and awarded as achievement.

There is an analog in my experience. It is the home game. This is a poker game made of a longtime, limited set of players—friends and neighbors, but acquaintances at least—given to “friendly” play. The game is “friendly,” as supposedly no one will lose greatly over the long run. Why? If they did, the game would dissolve from lack of players. The money, then, is largely just pushed around.

Should a player lose beyond his ability to pay, the others may allow him time to pay off his loss—usually, time until the next game—and he may offer up an IOU. If the players acknowledge the worth of the IOU and its holder bets it as if it were cash, it must be accepted at face value by the pot’s winner.

If the IOU isn’t redeemed in good time, the players have a problem. They will then understand the chit as worthless, which must mean the exclusion of the debtor from the game. In a small pool of players, that might mean the game’s end.

The point of the home game is its continuation. The home game, then, is essentially the opposite of any rational understanding of poker—the aim of which is to win the most money.

As the chits of losers proliferate, the members, seeking new cash, may admit outside players. These newcomers, however, have no stake in the comradely game’s continuation, and are in fact dedicated to its obliteration: They want to take the game’s money away.

Their success must reveal the home game’s essential fatuity. Should the newcomer win, he will first be offered the IOUs as payment—as the longtime members see this as a happy way to realize the worthless debt. The newcomer, however, would be foolish to accept the paper. He’d come prepared to pay his losses, with the understanding that he will be paid should he win.

The members must contrive to pay the new guy off, which means redeeming the deadbeat’s paper. Which means they can no longer allow their friend, the loser, to play. The nature of the home game is thus revealed. The players have been funding an evening of camaraderie and calling it poker. They are now out of pocket, short on players and, perhaps, abashed at their complicity. The game can no longer continue.

Far from being the impediment to the Peace Process, Hamas was its one essential element. If Hamas, like the insolvent card player, were eliminated, the “process” would be revealed as a sham. The marginalization of Hamas allowed those not interested in “process” to pursue actual resolution of the conflict. The “outsider” in this home game was, of course, Mr. Trump.

Before his appointment to the bench, Louis Brandeis referred to himself as “Counsel for the Situation.” This is a warm and pleasing understanding of the law, but for counsel to represent “the situation” rather than his client is actually a dereliction of his sworn duty.

The U.N., the various peace commissions, the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords, and so on, were the work of Attorneys for the Situation. “A situation” is a persistent state of affairs.

Mr. Trump recognized, and then busted out, the home game.

Mr. Mamet is a playwright, film director and screenwriter.

At over 7 percent, the unemployment rate in Canada is the highest it has been in a decade. For those under 25, it surpasses 14 percent. This is a real challenge for young people at the beginning of their working lives. The usual rules for getting started on a promising career no longer seem to apply.

The university degree does not open doors the way it used to. There are many more university graduates than there are openings that require this qualification, and this does not even consider the mismatch that exists between the fields of the vacant positions and those of the graduates.

The government has reacted to this sad situation by severely curtailing the number of temporary foreign workers (TFWs) allowed into Canada, presumably to save jobs for unemployed Canadians. It may not work. TFWs have been brought into Canada to fill jobs that, even in times of high unemployment, Canadians would not fill.

Agricultural workers are an example. Youth (and older workers) are reluctant to take seasonal jobs that require long hours of demanding physical labour outdoors for the rates of pay that our food-producing sector can afford.

TFWs also play a big role in entry-level service jobs, another area that is hard to fill with Canadians, especially if they have a university degree. Finding Canadians for these jobs is particularly acute in smaller centres and more remote locations.

Not only are the jobs left unfilled by reducing TFWs unattractive to most Canadians, but many of the more attractive jobs are now, or soon will be, replaced by AI. Older workers will recall how swathes of lower-level white-collar jobs, such as secretaries and clerks, were eliminated by the introduction of computers.

Now the work of higher-level positions can be done by AI. This includes junior executives, many mid-level management positions, and any position that has the word agent or broker in the title—areas where many aspiring leaders got their start. Now it is even harder to find any openings.

There are still good jobs in desirable locations that pay well, where vacancies tend to exceed job seekers and which will be difficult or impossible for AI to replace. Most Canadians do not even consider these opportunities or are barely aware of them.

The people needed now and into the future are trades workers, technicians, and technologists. Also needed are people who can provide a level of human contact that machines cannot offer in medicine and other areas.

Use the phrase “hands-on” to determine which occupations are safe from an AI takeover. AI cannot fix a leaky pipe or wire a new building. It cannot deliver a baby.

Nor can AI create and maintain the physical underpinnings of our 21st-century world. For this, technicians and technologists are required. Right now, there are openings for technicians and technologists in engineering at all levels and also in design, maintenance, inspection, project management, and other fields.

Such in-demand occupations are regulated in B.C. by the Association of Technicians and Technologists of B.C. Current job openings are listed here. Institutes of technology and many universities and colleges offer the training that would lead to positions like these. Most courses take two years, less than a university degree. Many technician and technology positions offer upward mobility into areas like management or professional engineering.

For those who prefer to deal with people, we will still need doctors, nurses, and other health professionals even as AI takes over the more tedious administrative aspects of that work. Counsellors and advisors will still be needed, but they will need to have both excellent people skills and detailed expertise in fields like financial planning, employment, and others. The more routine support and advice can and will be provided by AI.

Even in hands-on occupations, practitioners will still have to keep up to date with AI and other developing systems. These current and future developments will be like the telephone—useful and necessary in whatever we do. But they will also free us from the tedious administrative requirements that until now were part of just about every job.

We now find ourselves in an uncertain economy with high and rising unemployment. What used to be good ways to find a job or establish a career are no longer working, and AI-related elimination looms over many positions. But there are still many hands-on occupations that AI cannot fill and that offer good jobs now and excellent career prospects to those willing to consider them.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Roslyn Kunin, Epoch Times

Many people are wringing their hands over the election of self-identified democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as New York City mayor. Unfortunately, they have reason to be worried, because his election reflects a trend that can be called conservatively, concerning, and liberally, alarming. To understand this assessment better, it helps to understand the nature of democratic socialism.

What is the history of the movement in this country?

Although he wasn’t an admitted socialist, Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced sweeping socialism to America:

While Roosevelt was not a socialist, his administration enacted a series of sweeping government programs that had long been championed by the Socialist Party.

Policies such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, federal jobs programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and laws protecting workers’ rights to organize were all core tenets of the socialist platform that had been dismissed as radical just years earlier.

The Great Depression thus serves as the clearest example of how a systemic crisis can rapidly move socialist-inspired ideas from the political fringe to the center of American public policy.

Many of these programs have now become integral to the operations of the federal government, in spite of the early criticism of them. There is a good reason for calling them “entitlement programs.” Most of the country has come to depend on them.

Fast-forward 40 years, and we see the beginning of the Democratic Socialists of America:

Shortly before he co-founded Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in 1982, academic and leftist activist Michael Harrington attended a conference of the Socialist International in Paris. There he befriended many of the world’s leading socialists, including Israeli Knesset opposition leader Shimon Peres. Peres was among the coterie of leftist leaders with whom Harrington could sit down ‘over a beer and exchange stories,’ as Harrington’s biographer Maurice Isserman put it.

Interestingly enough, Jews and Israel were originally supported by the DSA:

Harrington would build support for Israel into the amalgamation of American socialist groups that formed DSA. Embracing Israel as the fulfillment of the Jewish right of self-determination, he wrote that Zionism is ‘the national liberation movement of a Jewish people.’

In spite of its founding principles, DSA made an about-face when it came to the Jews and Israel. It’s hard to know precisely when this shift occurred, but October 7 solidified this change:

On October 7, 2023, in response to Hamas’s horrific attack, DSA issued a statement ‘unequivocally’ condemning the killing of all civilians but also calling Hamas’s actions ‘not unprovoked’ and ‘a direct result of Israel’s apartheid regime.’ The following spring, members of its youth branch, Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA), played a leading role in pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel campus demonstrations. In at least one instance, Jewish protesters were told to ‘go back to Poland.’ Other demonstrators used imagery and slogans equating Zionism with Nazism. The slogan “

‘From the River to the Sea,’ often interpreted as a call for eliminating Israel, has sounded at DSA meetings. And at its 2025 national convention, DSA approved a resolution citing support of Israel’s right to defend itself or equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism as ‘expellable offenses.’

As it turned out, the DSA was behind many of the campus protests and riots that consumed American campuses after October 7. In April of 2024, the DSA posted a statement to the website, which included this passage:

We support the righteous message of protesters at the encampments. We call on our comrades to support efforts nationwide to force universities to divest from the Zionist occupation and call on the United States government to cease all aid to Israel. Where protests appear, we’ll appear in numbers. Where repression looms, we’ll show up and protect the whole. Where support is needed, we’ll be a support.

Now, if you’re thinking that the participation of the DSA in political affairs is fringe or harmless, look at the inroads that the DSA has made:

A new report by the Heartland Institute, a national free-market think tank, reveals that nearly every candidate endorsed by prominent socialist organizations in the United States emerged victorious during the 2024 election.  

Overall, these organizations endorsed a total of 51 socialist candidates, of which 48 (94 percent) won their races for federal, statewide, or local office with an average margin of victory of approximately 49 percent. Nine of these candidates ran in uncontested races. Taking out those nine candidates, the 39 remaining socialist candidates won their races by an average margin of approximately 37 percent. Only three socialist candidates lost their races, with a 13 percent average margin of defeat.

Among the candidates endorsed by these three socialist groups, 27 ran for the U.S. House of Representatives, two ran for U.S. Senate, 12 ran for statewide offices, and 10 ran for local offices. These races occurred in 22 states and the District of Columbia. California was the leading state for socialist candidates in the 2024 election, with 10 in total.

The DSA also publicly condemned one of their own, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after she led a panel discussion in July 2024 against antisemitism:

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) dropped its endorsement of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after she hosted a panel discussion on antisemitism.

The DSA said in a Tuesday statement that it was rescinding its conditional endorsement of Ocasio-Cortez’s reelection campaign after she ‘conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism and condemned boycotting Zionist institutions’ during the discussion she sponsored last month.

‘This sponsorship is a deep betrayal to all those who’ve risked their welfare to fight Israeli apartheid and genocide through political and direct action,’ the statement said.

Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, condemned antisemitism in the public discussion with two Jewish activists — Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), and Stacy Burdett, a former senior official at the Anti-Defamation League and US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Democrats in the party continue to radicalize. The position of the socialists in supporting Marxist ideology increases its hold. People who feel they can draw on government programs are becoming more dependent on the “free” services that are offered. The movement to extend entitlement grows.

Are we truly prepared to accept people running for office who are democratic socialists? What if they are antisemitic? Are the freebies too tempting to too many people? Even if they fail to be elected—increasingly unlikely—how much damage will be done?

Susan Quinn, American Thinker

Zohran Mamdani’s triumph has given socialists huge power in New York City. Now they must use it well—or see the ruling class crush them.

Zohran Mamdani’s election as mayor of New York City has thrust the US democratic socialist movement into the national spotlight. If Mamdani’s triumphant affordability platform—which includes plans to provide universal childcare by increasing taxes on high-income earners—is implemented, it could lead to a significant transfer of wealth from the wealthy elite to the working class and provide a blueprint for socialist leaders across the country. Equally, if Mamdani’s mission is stymied, the forces banking on his failure will use it as a weapon to try and banish the left everywhere. In other words, the stakes of a Mamdani mayoralty could not be higher. That’s why it’s so crucial for the left and progressive movements to adopt a mass politics orientation during Mamdani’s tenure, the 2026 midterms, and beyond.

Mamdani’s rise is partly due to the corporate elite’s failure to defend working-class New Yorkers against the city’s cost-of-living crisis. It’s also because corporate Democrats lacked a strategy to counter Mamdani’s left-wing populist economic message, which resonated with many New Yorkers who came to see themselves as renters and working people struggling with affordability because of the billionaire class.

Now, the movement behind Mamdani’s election is poised to stand up against the chaos fueled by Donald Trump’s policies, particularly those that have exacerbated economic inequality. The same strategy and message that worked so well for Mamdani can be used to challenge corporate Democrats in the midterms, holding them accountable for their inaction on the cost-of-living crisis and their failure to build a diverse coalition against authoritarianism.

Win the Affordability Agenda 

The Mamdani campaign transformed the New York City electorate, tapping into long-ignored Muslim and Southeast Asian communities while shoring up support among younger Black and Latino working-class voters—many of whom were being lured rightward by Trump. If it lasts beyond Mamdani’s win, this realignment presents an opportunity for progressive forces to become rooted in New York City’s multiracial working class and build an organized and combative political base. By doing so, they can leverage the electorate’s power to implement Mamdani’s affordability agenda.

The incoming Mamdani administration is well-positioned to build institutional working-class power by empowering unions with stronger contracts, raising the minimum wage to $30 per hour, standardizing and improving working conditions for informal workers, exploring sectoral bargaining legislation, increasing access to affordable housing, promoting public power in utilities, and encouraging community participation and civic engagement among working-class New Yorkers. 

The more than 100,000 volunteers the Mamdani campaign was able to mobilize can turn their attention to the work of sustaining the movement they helped build—for instance, by training volunteers to become community organizers in support of Mamdani’s political program. A key task will involve exposing the purposefully opaque and baroque channels through which the governor and state legislature in Albany might try to stifle Mamdani’s agenda. Having organizers on the ground who can demystify the state budget process and connect working-class New Yorkers to campaigns that pressure their state representatives—for example, to tax the rich in order to fund Mamdani’s plan for free universal childcare— will be key.

This organization can help create the mass working-class movement this city desperately needs and serve as a national model for other successful grassroots electoral campaigns. By institutionalizing the Mamdani coalition, we can popularize the narrative that his campaign rode to victory. 

There is not a second to lose in building up this infrastructure. That’s because the ruling class—the real estate industry, the finance sector, the charter school industry, pro-Israel forces, corporate Democrats, the right wing of the City Council and the state legislature, and, of course, the fascist Trump administration in DC—is already gearing up to try to derail Mamdani’s administration, turn public opinion against him, and attempt to fracture his political base. This coalition, which has spent decades hollowing out state capacity through ruthless austerity, will try to make an example of Mamdani’s New York City and use an “NYC in crisis” narrative for their own electoral gains in the midterms. (Republicans have wasted no time, instantly framing Mamdani’s ascent as a “national story of a party bending to socialism and the far left.”)

By staying laser-focused on winning the affordability agenda, orienting its work to organize the unorganized, and continuing to center the active participation of working New Yorkers in its campaigns, the left can take advantage of this populist moment and blunt the opposition’s narrative.

Replicating Mamdani’s ruthless message discipline can also help blunt the bigoted culture wars that both Republicans and many right-leaning Democrats seem so eager to fight. A key breakthrough that the left achieved through the Mamdani campaign was championing left-wing economic populism while demonstrating solidarity with oppressed communities. We prioritize a universalist affordability agenda not because we practice narrow economism, but because we know the cost-of-living crisis affects communities of color and other oppressed groups the hardest, and we aspire to center them as key pillars of our coalition. Applying that strategy nationwide can suck the air out of the far-right’s faux-populism and help the left in the midterms.

Last night was the (well, not mid-term elections — those are next year — “quarter-term” elections?) and the areas that thought that Kamala Harris was a damned fine pick for POTUS last cycle stayed Blue. That should not have been a big surprise to anyone with a licence to adult.

In Newt Yack City, a CAIR1–funded communist Democratic Socialist is now mayor.

Whee. As long-time readers of my little scribblings have probably already figured out, I doubt that Mamdani will be as bad as his detractors say; but I damned sure don’t think he’s going to be all that his supporters want him to be.

Newt Yack City has been going head-first into the khazi for years. Mamdani, with his standard-issue Democrat Socialist ideas2 of blended communism and unicorn-fart-fueled idealism3, isn’t going to slow that trend down any — odds are that it’ll speed up.

And I find that I really don’t care — other than I don’t want the cancer that is socialism/communism to metastasize to red states. If you voted for Mamdani, and you decide to flee to Texas or Tennessee after it bites you on the arse, you should be stopped at the State line, horse-whipped, and forcibly kicked back to Newt Yack City.

Y’all voted to turn your city into a cess-pit — own it, and wallow in it. Be proud of your vote!

In Virginia, Democrats decided that they were perfectly okay with a candidate who called for the murder of the children of political opponents. Not only that, but Democratic voters decided that a man who wished that the children of a political opponent be shot in the face in front of their parents was a damned fine candidate for the top law enforcement position in Virginia.

I don’t want to hear a Democrat snivel at me about “political violence” ever again. It’s quite obvious from the Virginia Attorney-General election that Democrats think that calling for “political violence” is an Evil Bad Thing when it’s directed at them, but Business As Usual and Completely Legitimate when they do it against anyone else.

Is anyone on the conservative side of the political spectrum going to learn from this? Are they going to figure out that the Leftists are perfectly4 fine5 with violence, as long as they’re the ones wielding it?

We’ll see, but the cynical side of me is snorting.

Blue Areas stayed Blue. Voters who thought that Kamala Harris was the best thing since sliced bread … voted that way again.

Conservatives are spinning this as a strategic victory, that voters will see the destruction wrought by these idiots and wreck the Democrat party in the mid-term elections next year.

To quote H.L. Mencken: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Given the proven track record of the Republican party at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I’m less sanguine about that, but maybe I’ll be surprised for once.

I’m betting that once the voters have figured out how badly they voted to bugger themselves, they’ll either flee to another State6, or bleat piteously for a God-Emperor to wave regally and unilaterally un-bugger them.

Pfagh.

Personally, what the damage that voters in Newt Yack City and Virginia do to themselves means very little to me — other than when the people who self-inflict socialism upon themselves, flee to free States, but bring their stupid political ideas with them — so I’m going to sit on my front porch in Small Town Texas, mutter sulphurously into my coffee, buy another gun, more ammunition, and get some more training in Applied Social Violence.

We have frequent elections, and every time we hold an election one side is badly surprised — the Pendulum of Politics is always swinging. After all, don’t forget that the Democrats took it in the neck during the last election for POTUS. The conservatives took the brass ring last time; the leftists took it this time. That is the way of things.

In the long run it’s going to be ok,7 Gentle Readers.

Ian, the Bugscuffle Gazette

CNN analyst Van Jones sounded off after New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s fiery victory speech, suggesting the far-left Democrat may have alienated the same voters who helped him win.

At just 34, Mamdani became the first Muslim, first South Asian, and first democratic socialist elected mayor of New York City. His campaign centered on grassroots organizing, affordable housing, and public transit — all themes that drew strong support from young and working-class New Yorkers.

“I think he missed an opportunity,” Jones said during CNN’s post-election coverage. “The Mamdani that we saw on the campaign trail — who was a lot more calm, who was a lot warmer, who was a lot more embracing — was not present in that speech.”

Jones, typically seen as sympathetic to progressive causes, described Mamdani’s tone as “sharp” and even “almost yelling.” “That’s not the Mamdani that we’ve seen on TikTok and in great interviews,” he said. “It felt like a character switch… the warm, open, embracing guy that’s close to working people was not on stage tonight.”

But the tone of his victory remarks surprised even allies. “There was some other voice on stage,” Jones said. “He’s very young, and he just pulled off something very, very difficult. I wouldn’t write him off, but I think he missed an opportunity to open himself up tonight — and that will probably cost him going forward.”

Mamdani’s speech itself drew immediate attention. “Since I know you’re watching… turn the volume up,” he said to President Trump — a line that went viral across social media. He declared his win a victory for “working people, immigrants, and dreamers,” while promising rent freezes, free bus service, and universal childcare.

Jones’ reaction mirrored that unease. “There are a lot of people trying to figure out, ‘Can I get on this train with him or not?’” he said. “Is he going to include me, or is he going to be more of a class warrior, even in office?”

Mamdani’s win capped a stunning rise that began with his June primary upset over former Governor Andrew Cuomo, followed by a general-election victory over both Cuomo — who continued as an independent — and Republican Curtis Sliwa. With just over 50 percent of the vote, Mamdani’s campaign rewrote the city’s political map, energizing younger voters across Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx.

Yet as Van Jones noted, the challenges of leading a city of nine million will demand a broader coalition than the one that carried him to office. His populist message about “taking back New York from the powerful” resonated deeply on the campaign trail, but governing will require partnerships with unions, law enforcement, and business leaders who may not share his worldview.

“He’s got the passion,” Jones said. “But you also need presence — that ability to pull people in rather than push them away. That’s the Mamdani people fell in love with on the campaign trail. That’s the one he needs to bring back.”

The coming months will show whether Mamdani can translate his activist energy into leadership that unites a diverse and skeptical city — or whether, as Jones hinted, his first impression as mayor will be remembered more for rage than reach.

J. B. Shurk, American Thinker

The radical left’s takeover of America’s largest city is complete, and it comes with open attacks on President Donald Trump, capitalism, and even the very foundations of Western civilization.

Zohran Mamdani, a self-described “democratic socialist” and the first Muslim mayor-elect of New York City, delivered a fiery, Marxist-tinged victory speech that sounded less like an American mayor and more like a disciple of Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, and Eugene Debs rolled into one.

Mamdani not only quoted socialist Eugene Debs but also invoked Jawaharlal Nehru, the Marxist “founding father” of socialist India, who “crushed Hindus and empowered Jihadis.”

Mamdani also declared his intention to “freeze rents,” make “buses fast and free,” and bring “universal childcare” to New York — an agenda right out of a socialist manifesto.

Calling himself a “Muslim democratic socialist,” Mamdani celebrated toppling what he called “a political dynasty” and said his victory marked the “dawn of a better day for humanity.”

He vowed to make New York a city where “the Donald Trumps of our city have grown far too comfortable taking advantage of their tenants.”

Translation: higher taxes, more regulation, and open hostility toward landlords, small businesses, and anyone daring to succeed under the free market.

Mamdani couldn’t finish his remarks without unleashing a tirade against President Trump, the city’s most famous native son. “If anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him,” he boasted, “It is the city that gave rise to him.”

He went on to mock Trump and his supporters as “billionaires and bosses who seek to extort workers,” calling his administration “a despot” and promising that “to get to any of us, you’ll have to get through all of us.”

Mamdani: After all, if anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him. If there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power. This is not only how we stop Trump; it’s how we stop the next one.

So, Donald Trump—since I know you’re watching—I have four words for you: turn the volume up.

We will hold bad landlords to account, because the Donald Trumps of our city have grown far too comfortable taking advantage of their tenants.

We will put an end to the culture of corruption that has allowed billionaires like Trump to evade taxation and exploit tax breaks. We will stand alongside unions and expand labor protections, because we know—just as Donald Trump does—that when working people have ironclad rights, the bosses who seek to extort them become very small indeed.

New York will remain a city of immigrants, a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants, and, as of tonight, led by an immigrant. Hear me, President Trump: when I say this, to get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.

Mamdani’s speech wasn’t a victory address, it was a manifesto.

He proudly declared himself a Muslim and a “democratic socialist” who refuses to apologize for it.

In his words, New York will “respond to oligarchy and authoritarianism with strength,” but in reality, his plan replaces individual liberty with state control.

This is the new Left, obsessed with tearing down not only Trump but also the millions of Americans who believe in faith, freedom, and the rule of law.

Jim Holt, Gateway Pundit

I am an enthusiastic supporter of homeschooling.  When parents are in a position to prioritize their children’s education, young minds learn more information more quickly.  A young person who excels in mathematics, for instance, is not forced to follow the regimented schedule of the state’s curricula, in which geometry belongs to a certain grade level, an introduction to calculus must be kept secret until the final years of high school, and summer vacations interrupt the accumulation and application of new knowledge.  Those who show promise in mathematics — especially those who enjoy working with numbers — should not have their educations slowed down merely because a state education board has decided that everyone should learn the same things at the same age.

This is particularly true today because public schools are “dumbing down” lesson plans, eliminating advanced classes for bright students, and replacing academic competition with generic passing grades.  A half-century ago, students who failed classes were forced to attend summer school or repeat the same grade level in September.  Now everybody passes, and in certain Democrat-controlled cities, it has become entirely too common for entire “graduating” classes to be incapable of demonstrating proficiency in concepts that should have been mastered years earlier.  In some Democrat-controlled school districts, sizable percentages of “graduating” high school seniors read at an elementary school level.

Such failures should shock people.  What is the point of putting a young person in a classroom for twelve or more years if nothing is learned?  If teachers’ unions and school superintendents believed that their primary responsibility is to educate young minds, then they would hang their heads in shame and desperately seek solutions.  But it seems clear that modern-day school administrators have no interest in helping the youngest members of society learn how to think critically.  They are interested in the number of tax dollars they receive for each name on an enrollment sheet.  

Whether those names belong to bodies that will actually sit in chairs in functioning classrooms is irrelevant to those who treat “education” as a business.  If “students” show up long enough to be counted, and if those counts are sufficiently large enough to justify increased school budgets, then it doesn’t matter whether anything is taught or learned.  If those numbers need a little padding, then Democrat officials can flood the local schools with illegal aliens.  There’s a reason teachers’ unions love open borders and mass migration: Like other human-traffickers, they make big money by aiding and abetting criminal activity.

Today, many public school teachers are babysitters at best and prison guards at worst.  They are expected to do the “parenting” that parents won’t do.  This was not the case in the past.  An education was not treated as a “right” that teachers (or anyone else) owed to students.  It was considered a privilege, and, accordingly, students showed a measure of respect to those who did the teaching.  Teachers did not “owe” a student a passing grade, and teachers were not expected to endure bullying from their “students.”  Parents understood that there were serious repercussions for their children should they fail classes or be expelled for bad behavior. 

These days, the inmates are officially running the asylum.  When students behave inexcusably, parents blame the teachers.  When students fail exams, parents blame the teachers.  Should a teacher attempt to discipline a student, parents become irate.  Teachers are simultaneously expected to fill the many gaps that deficient parents leave in the upbringing of their children while doing so without a modicum of deference from those wayward parents or their incorrigible offspring.

A primary reason for the collapse in academic and behavioral standards in public schools is the absence of moral teachings.  When U.S. courts effectively banned the expression of Christian principles in public school settings, they torpedoed teachers’ ability to cultivate virtue in their classrooms.  Educators since the time of the ancient Greeks have understood that young minds require a proper mixture of intellectual, spiritual, moral, and physical rigor to reach their full potential.  When courts demanded that Christians hide their beliefs and teach students as if God were not real inside a school’s walls, the recipe for meaningful education was corrupted. 

Devoid of spiritual authority, moral lessons became antiseptic.  Without the sowing of firm moral foundations in the classroom, true virtue could no longer be reaped in the outside world.  Without the supervised struggle of rejecting sin and seeking salvation, character-building disappeared from public schools.  Students deprived of a moral education left school without the protections of fully formed shells constructed from discipline and nurtured character.  This deformity metastasized and crippled society.  Why?  Because those who lack moral character find themselves both intellectually and physically ill prepared to face and fight the struggles of this world.  No person can become a great thinker if the soil in which his thinking has grown lacks the spiritual and moral nutrients found only in a relationship with God.

Without these necessary nutrients, teachers’ unions and public school administrators added synthetic versions of their own.  Left-wing politics became the public school’s “moral code.”  Sexual propriety was jettisoned for abortion on demand.  Historical facts were supplanted with politically correct “narratives.”  Math became “racist.”  Literary masterpieces were bowdlerized to conform to “woke” standards or discarded entirely for being “white supremacist.”  Love for knowledge disappeared.  In its place, leftists taught students to love the “cause” and “revolution.”  By taking control of public schools, leftists grew young minds in Marxist manure, and the stench of that manure oppresses America today like the smells of a junkyard trapped under a dome of summer heat.

We may not be able to save public schools from themselves.  Until the whole monstrosity is demolished and rebuilt from the ground up, I will continue to support all opportunities for young students to discover their true potential.  If schools exist to indoctrinate, rather than to educate, then they betray their purpose.  If they insist on teaching students what to think instead of how to think, then they are just brainwashing camps.  If they prioritize narratives over knowledge, then they are simply surgical wards for amputating critical thinking.  American students need to be rescued from the intellectual barbarism and moral vacuums now posing as public school education.

For me, it’s back to basics.  I don’t think there is any one way to learn.  Daily schooling for children between the ages of five and eighteen, after all, is a modern invention whose implementation more or less coincided with the emergence of the nineteenth-century factory.  As business owners enticed workers to leave their farms for industrial jobs, the creation of public school institutions provided three immediate benefits: (1) Schools kept an eye on children who might otherwise get into a bit of mischief while their fathers toiled.  (2) Schools taught children the skills needed to become an entrepreneur’s future employees.  (3) Schools put children on a daily work schedule that mimicked the schedule of a worker in an industrialized society.  

Before the growth of public school systems, people learned wherever they could.  Christian priests and ministers taught children reading, math, and logic as part of their moral education.  Civic leaders such as Benjamin Franklin established public libraries.  Parents taught their children personally.  Those who could afford private tutors hired teachers to supervise their children’s education.  Today, almost every thought that has ever been committed to writing is available online.  It has never been easier for a human being to acquire a free — yet priceless — education.

Teachers’ unions criticize parents for daring to help their children escape the public school prison.  They think they know what’s best for American students.  They think they are every student’s true parents.  They are not.  Too many are liars and grifters.  Learning does not require so much dogmatic control.

J. B Shurk, American Thinker

The list of Islamist attacks in Germany and Europe is long and growing month by month. And it proves how intimidation of secular western society has become successful — when even traditional festivals like Christmas markets are only possible behind heavy police presence and concrete barriers to stop jihadist vehicle attacks.

The feeling of carefree celebration is gone.

Another Christmas Market Falls

The cancellation of this year’s Christmas market in Overath near Cologne fits perfectly into this picture. High security costs to protect visitors from terrorism make it impossible to open. The city refused to cover the organizer’s expenses.

The same now in Dresden — several smaller private Christmas markets cancelled because security costs exploded.

For one and a half years, the market association tried to negotiate with city officials, said Andreas Korschmann, head of the town marketing group.

Wouldn’t this be precisely the moment for the city to step up? Aren’t politicians always preaching about civic engagement and vibrant local life?

But there is no sign of courage, no standing up for a free, tolerant society. Just hollow political phrases for their own feel-good bubble.

In Overath, Islamists have managed — without any real resistance — to crush a piece of tradition and communal life.

Outside knife-free zones and heavily policed city centers, a chilling silence spreads.

Winter Markets as Fig Leaf

The pitiful renaming of Christmas markets into “Winter Markets” was already a bow to Islam. A needless kowtow to an increasingly irritable, alienated homegrown left-wing milieu.

Germany is trapped in an identity and cultural crisis.

It’s impossible to ignore: large parts of politics and society have thrown in the towel, surrendering to Islamist pressure and the obvious threat.

A real solution would begin at the border — with a completely new regime controlling who enters the country. But the political Left and its media complex successfully taboo such measures as nationalist extremism.

The policy of open borders — a one-way membrane into the welfare state — has inflicted deep wounds on German society over the last decade. This is not just a vague feeling of insecurity; it is statistically documented in black and white.

With endless migration waves and the lack of cultural immune defense, German traditions and public life are fading into a deafening silence.

Michel Houellebecq’s grim vision of Europe bowing before militant Islam is, year after year, turning into a bleak certainty.

In the German town of Overath (North Rhine-Westphalia), this year’s Christmas market has been cancelled. The cost of protecting visitors from potential terrorist attacks exceeds the organizer’s budget. The city refuses to cover the expenses. A capitulation to Islamism.

It wasn’t long ago that Christmas markets were among the social highlights of the year. Whether in small towns or major cities — they were meeting points for friends and family, for mulled wine, sausages, and quiet conversations wrapped in winter’s cold and early darkness.

Places of Togetherness

There was this special peaceful coziness. A place where community was celebrated — joyful, calm, and without fear. A tradition that brought people closer together.

What would urban life be without safe and regular gatherings in public spaces? A wasteland. A dystopia.

These moments — when people could pause, breathe, and let the soul drift for a moment — have become scarce in Germany’s public life. Since 2015, since Angela Merkel’s open-border decision, Europe has entered its own Michel Houellebecq moment.

The mass influx of young men from predominantly Islamic countries has deeply shattered the population’s sense of security.

The Loss of Carefreeness

And in this increasingly tense atmosphere, just when Chancellor Friedrich Merz touched a sore point by speaking about the changing face of cities, a manufactured storm of outrage erupted against him.

Even after deadly Islamist attacks — Berlin’s Breitscheidplatz in 2016 with 12 victims, the Solingen festival stabbing in 2023 with three dead, or the car ramming attack at the Magdeburg Christmas market last year — Germany still refuses to confront militant Islam pressing into Europe.

The aggressive rejection of any criticism within Islamic circles points to the core problem: Islam never passed through the crucible of Enlightenment like Christianity did. Christianity’s claws were cut

what remained was woven into the psychological fabric of modernity.

The list of Islamist attacks in Germany and Europe is long and growing month by month. And it proves how intimidation of secular western society has become successful — when even traditional festivals like Christmas markets are only possible behind heavy police presence and concrete barriers to stop jihadist vehicle attacks.

The feeling of carefree celebration is gone.

Another Christmas Market Falls

The cancellation of this year’s Christmas market in Overath near Cologne fits perfectly into this picture. High security costs to protect visitors from terrorism make it impossible to open. The city refused to cover the organizer’s expenses.

The same now in Dresden — several smaller private Christmas markets cancelled because security costs exploded.

For one and a half years, the market association tried to negotiate with city officials, said Andreas Korschmann, head of the town marketing group.

Wouldn’t this be precisely the moment for the city to step up? Aren’t politicians always preaching about civic engagement and vibrant local life?

But there is no sign of courage, no standing up for a free, tolerant society. Just hollow political phrases for their own feel-good bubble.

In Overath, Islamists have managed — without any real resistance — to crush a piece of tradition and communal life.

Outside knife-free zones and heavily policed city centers, a chilling silence spreads.

Winter Markets as Fig Leaf

The pitiful renaming of Christmas markets into “Winter Markets” was already a bow to Islam. A needless kowtow to an increasingly irritable, alienated homegrown left-wing milieu.

Germany is trapped in an identity and cultural crisis.

It’s impossible to ignore: large parts of politics and society have thrown in the towel, surrendering to Islamist pressure and the obvious threat.

A real solution would begin at the border — with a completely new regime controlling who enters the country. But the political Left and its media complex successfully taboo such measures as nationalist extremism.

The policy of open borders — a one-way membrane into the welfare state — has inflicted deep wounds on German society over the last decade. This is not just a vague feeling of insecurity; it is statistically documented in black and white.

With endless migration waves and the lack of cultural immune defense, German traditions and public life are fading into a deafening silence.

Michel Houellebecq’s grim vision of Europe bowing before militant Islam is, year after year, turning into a bleak certainty.

Thomas Kolbe, American Thinker