During the early voting period, we had a two-part discussion on the implosion of the Democrat party, part 1 of which addressed the issue with Zohran Mandani’s candidacy – which is primarily rooted in the broader agenda he serves, which is significantly influenced by the Democrat Socialists of America – an entity much worse that the Democrat establishment. Well, today, we ought then to consider a post analysis of the 2025 New York mayoral elections – looking at the cost of of Zohran Mamdani’s leadership, and why there is a categorical imperative for the Church to pray for the city of New York, and its leadership.

RECAPITULATION: THE DSA’S FASCIST AND PREDATORY INTEREST IN MANDANI’S WIN

And now onto our main discussion, being “A Post Analysis of the 2025 New York Mayoral Elections”, and more accurately, an analysis of the cost of or issues with Zohran Mamdani’s leadership in New York. Now, to begin with, the terms “fascist” and “fascism” are continuously bandied about today. But those who use these words most seem to understand them least, such that many of today’s self-styled anti-fascists paradoxically take on the central features of fascism to an extraordinary degree – and this paradox is essentially a recurring theme in ZM’s candidacy and claimed legitimate election as mayor of New York.

In greater detail, and as a point of recapitulation, we see this paradox of self-proclaimed anti-fascists taking on the central features of fascism to an extraordinary degree in the relationship between Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America. You’d recall that we’ve discussed here on The War Room that while  Americans generally value democracy, fairness and freedom of thought, a movement has emerged that directly challenges those ideals — and this is the Democratic Socialists of America (or the DSA), which is the actual entity behind Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy, and not the Democrat party. In fact, as the leaders of the DSA repeatedly state, the DSA are NOT Democrats. They are an external force that has infiltrated the Democratic Party to reshape it in their own image. If successful, this project would transform one of America’s notable political parties (being the democrat party) into an unrecognisable entity hostile to the institutions that define America. In other words, think the democrat establishment that we already know to be diabolical – but worse!

Now, this characterisation of the DSA is not intended to be an exaggerated depiction of a socialist boogeymen: rather, this narrative is an inference from the communication of the DSA’s leadership and membership base. Furthermore, on the 1st of September this year, Canary Mission released its first report on the DSA. The findings revealed that the DSA is not only engaged in a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party, but has itself been further radicalised through its ties to the terror-linked Palestinian Youth Movement. These influences have created an organisation whose goals and alliances make it one of the most destabilising political forces in American history.

The combined goals of this alliance include: (1) To destroy Empire (the USA); (2) Replacing the market economy with state-controlled Marxism; (3) Defunding the police and using the funds for DEI programs; (4) Supporting terrorist groups and terrorist entities, i.e., Hamas and Hezbollah; (5) Normalising antisemitism and supporting violent extremist groups; and (6) Promoting foreign policies that align with authoritarian regimes. Here’s more on the predatory relationship between the DSA and the Democrat party – from the words of DSA members themselves – including how Zohran Mamdani features in their plans to infiltrate and destroy the Democrat party.

I believe additional proof of the longstanding relationship between Mamdani and the DSA, as well as additional proof of their aim towards infiltration of the democrat party is that Mamdani was also actually elected to the New York State Assembly for Queens in 2020 on the Democratic Socialists of America ticket. As a member of the State Socialists in Office bloc in Albany, he can take credit for a negligible three bills and a lot of missed Assembly votes. But, the progression from that was the New York mayoralty, in which the DSA served him up as a trojan horse to the democrat party – which is ironic because it takes a page from the Democratic establishment’s own playbook that has created neo-cons and rhinos like Lindsay Graham and Niki Haley.

ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S CANDIDACY REPRESENTS THE COMMUNIST PROBLEM

Well… a notable American political commentator once quipped that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. These remarks were once a commercial comment on the state of academia and the people it produces, AND YET, in the status quo, this presents an unfortunate reflection, as it appears that (if not careful), New York City is about to be governed by the Columbia University student body. A city that used to think of itself as grown up, and reflective of the ideals of liberty that are so intrinsic to the American socio-political fabric – this very city has just elected a mayor who seems the very embodiment of the American college student: which is uninformed, entitled and self-important, enjoying a regal quality of life that depends parasitically upon a civilization about which he knows nothing, yet for which he has nothing but scorn. American college students regularly act out little psychodramas of oppression before an appreciative audience of diversity deanlets and associate vice-provosts of inclusion and belonging. This is how I would characterise Mandani’s policy focuses.

Now, Mamdani’s campaign focused on four proposals, all allegedly inspired by what he says is the city’s alleged affordability crisis. First, he promulgated that he would freeze rents; second, he would make city buses free; third, he would offer free universal childcare; and fourth, he would open a government-operated grocery store in each of the city’s five boroughs. Now, these four proposals run the gamut from sweeping to weirdly narrow. But they all treat urban governance primarily as a means of shrinking the role of for-profit enterprise, expanding public control and redistributing wealth from its creators to the so-called poor – which sounds a lot like communism (specifically the kind that is pretentiously presented as well-meaning socialism).

And I highlight this because (as has been noted by a number of political analysts and historians), the Marxian message of ‘exploitation of the poor’ helped sweep communists into power in countries around the world in the twentieth century, at a pace and on a scale seldom seen in history – despite those communism claiming ot be well-meaning socialists. Which means that not only is there a political market for the Marxian message of ‘exploitation of the poor’ (hence ZM has a support base), but it also means that communists have a well-documented history of capitalising on this message, and have used it to garner support for their plans, despite how disastrously that turned out to be for millions of other human beings living under communist dictatorships. This is one of the biggest issues associated with Mandami’s candidacy.

AN ANALYSIS OF ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S POLICY FOCUSES: THE 4 YEAR RENT FREEZE

With this in mind, let’s proceed to an analysis of Zohran Mamdani’s campaign promulgations and policy focus. And well, proposal one from the Mamdani camp pertains to decommodifying housing. In particular, Mamdani has advocated for a rent freeze in New York, and this rent freeze would apply to nearly half of all rental units in the city: those whose rents are set by an appointed “Rent Guidelines Board,” not by the housing market. And those million or so rent-stabilised apartments make up one-third of the city’s homes, including owner-occupied homes.

Well, in response to this, even left-wing economists have concluded that rent controls produce only housing shortages. Yet for those with a communist mindset, landlords are greedy for wanting to earn a market rent, whereas tenants enjoying a below-market rent are merely receiving their due. But, what this four year rent freeze would amount to is a decimation of New York’s housing stock. The city’s small landlords are already struggling due to maintenance costs having risen by 28 percent over the last five years, and the regulated rents failing to cover repairs, property taxes or the costs of tenants that do not pay rent. Meanwhile, thanks to the city’s advocate industry it takes about two years to evict a nonpaying renter, during which time the landlord has to provide him/her the same services as paying tenants. Apartment owners shell out their own lawyers’ fees; activist-assisted tenants do not.

In addition, there are also already 50,000 to 60,000 abandoned rental properties in the city. That number would balloon under a rent hike moratorium, adding to the city’s blight. Ripple effects could spill over to the banking sector. But more abandoned properties merely mean more opportunities to move “toward the full de-commodification of housing,” as Mamdani puts it. AND YET, in all this, the rent freeze would do nothing to lower the cost of other housing in the city, in which the majority of New Yorkers live.

MAMDANI’S CAMP HAS AN A-HISTORICAL VIEW OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Let’s proceed to proposal number 2 from the Mamdani camp, and this pertains to farebeating for all, through which Mamdani wants to make city buses free, at the cost of almost three-quarters of a billion dollars a year in canceled fares. This sounds nice on the surface, until you consider what is the cost of this, and who bears it? I say this considering two things: first, nearly half of all New York City bus passengers already do not pay for their rides; second, through the full transit fare – which is $2.90 a ride, with discounts for  those with weekly or monthly passes – is already heavily subsidized, the city offers half-priced transit fares to lower-income residents. But fewer than 40 percent of those eligible have signed up for the half-price fare program.

SO, if the principle of free bus rides is established, farebeating in the subways, which is already pervasive, will actually skyrocket. The cost of this is that the loss to the city will be more than monetary. The greater loss will be in the further degradation of public order in the public transportation system. But, I think truly, the Mamdani camp has an entirely a-historical understanding of public transportation in America, and the contrast in the role of the private sector and that of the government in ensuring its functionality.

It has been noted by many that in politics, highly expensive proposals to have the government provide various benefits ‘free’ to everyone can be very appealing to some voters, when the additional costs to the government are said to be paid for by collecting higher tax revenues from ‘millionaires and billionaires, regardless of whether there is any factual accuracy to such a proposal. But, while such an outcome might seem desirable to some voters (especially from a social justice perspective), it is important not to miss that desirability does not preclude questions of feasibility.

THE DECEPTION OF CONVENIENCE: MAMDANI’S FREE CHILDCARE PROMISE

But, let’s then proceed to proposal number three from the Mamdani camp, and in essence Mamdani is promising $5 billion worth of free childcare to all New Yorkers, starting from the sixth week after birth. He was not very specific about where this new army of social-service workers will come from, but there is an immediate and obvious problem here, which is the encouragement for parents to see it as easy to outsource the care of their children. Make no mistake, Mamdani does not care about the wellbeing of your child more than you.

If anything, this is supposed to make it seemingly cheaper for parents not to be present in the upbringing of their children, thus leaving those children vulnerable to the influence or even abuses of external actors, in what amounts to a conduit of the agenda of creating children of the state.

And I say this considering that governments have a history of using social welfare programmes to undermine the family unit, in a manner that amounts to the destruction or indoctrination of children. This occurs because welfare programmes give greater benefits to unmarried individuals than to a married couple of otherwise identical income. The resulting marriage penalty discourages marriage and rewards single parenthood. Combined marriage penalties across federal and state welfare programs can reach tens of thousands of dollars per year for a given family.

As a n example, one component of the marriage penalties comes from state-level free or subsidized preschool programs. In addition to a failed track record in providing high-quality preschool education, the majority of government-funded preschool programs also have severe marriage penalties. Marriage is highly beneficial to adults, children, and society as a whole. Therefore, policymakers clearly have ignored the implications of their programs on marriage and, in fact, probably see this as a plausible outcome (during the previous administrations) that made identity politics and feminist ideals central to their policy objectives.

Now, as far as strong refutation towards Mamdani’s social welfare aspirations is concerned, I will concede that – from a politician’s point of view, there is not a variety of gentle language available to sell the need to decrease dependency through welfare programmes, but I will not go as far as to say that is something that can or should hamstring pursuing stringent measures to reduce those relying on the state. And the reason is that the issues with welfare programmes are well documented in the US, and even other parts of the world. In essence, welfare states generate systematic and often chronic problems such as excessive bureaucracy, soaring costs, and labour market rigidities—that sometimes even threaten to bring the whole state enterprise into disrepute. And we see this with two primary issues from state welfare programs.

First is the issue of unsustainable funding. This is to say that welfare programs can be expensive to administer, and their costs can escalate due to factors like an aging population, increasing demand, and rising healthcare costs. In addition, finding sustainable funding sources for welfare programs can be a major challenge, especially during economic downturns or when there are competing demands on public resources (such as when a government takes in an influx of illegal immigrants that also receive welfare benefits). Then, some welfare systems are also just heavily reliant on economic growth to generate the revenue needed to fund programs, which can then make them vulnerable to economic fluctuations.

The second issue with welfare programmes is the potential for dependency, which is perhaps the most represented argument in light of the medicaid debate. The gist of this argument is that welfare programs can create a disincentive to work, especially if benefits are generous or easily accessible. Meanwhile, long-term reliance on welfare can also create a cycle of dependency, making it difficult for individuals to become self-sufficient. And I should state here that this argument does not account for all citizens indiscriminately, but rather focuses on individuals who are able-bodied but neither work or volunteer to meet the 80 hour a month requirement – so it targets people who just do not want to contribute to society.

Then, in addition to these two issues, I’d say (especially in light of the American context), there is also the issue of corrupt or inefficient bureaucracies; where bureaucratic inefficiencies and administrative challenges can hinder the effective delivery of welfare services. This is why under the Biden-Harris administration, we saw Americans who pay tax be less prioritised for housing benefits over illegal immigrants. So that was a clear case of a failure to prioritise the state’s duty to care for its citizens first, while corrupt practices were adopted to prioritise illegal immigrants in welfare programmes.

But, the purpose behind this is to highlight that welfare programmes have certain innate and re-occurring issues, and that these programmes do not have the great record that we think they do. In fact, about three years ago, we heard GOP senators express continued opposition to Biden’s Build Back Better policy, on the basis that it was creating an expensive social welfare state in the US.

MAMDANI’S RESPONSE TO FOOD INSECURITY IS ALSO A-CONTEXUAL

We then come to proposal number four from the Mamdani camp, which is a city-run grocery store in each borough. In an October 16 mayoral debate, Mamdani stated that children in New York were going hungry. Now, this is not necessarily a point to disagree with, seeing as the Master Jesus taught us that there will always be those who are poor among us. But, in making this the basis of his response to food insecurity, Mamdani has not considered nuance when it comes to the food issues in New York – especially since obesity is among the health concerns of children in the city.

Furthermore, a significant consideration in the food problem in New York is the relative scarcity of grocery stores in some areas, and not exclusively the cost of their contents. There would be more options if the city reduced shoplifting, but grocery stores have been bombarded by a deluge of crime. For instance, a notable grocery store chain opened its first Manhattan branch in East Harlem in 2010 to great fanfare. The East Harlem outlet boasted a multicultural inventory and low-cost fresh food. BUT, it then proceeded to shut down in 2023 due to retail theft and crime risk to its employees. And so, it would appear that the left’s soft on crime approach in New York, is culpable in issues of food insecurity. This is why I believe Mamdani’s approach to food insecurity in New York is a-contextual: it ignores the very crucial consideration that these shortages are often driven by people and bad government policy. In fact, even his approach to the minimum wage has dire consequences for affordability.

DEFUNDING THE POLICE: A PRECURSOR TO THE CREATION OF A POLICE STATE

Finally, we ought to discuss Mandani’s DSA-inspired inclinations towards defunding the police. For some context, during the COVID era, almost all of the world’s population was locked up in their houses (especially in 2020), and police were given added powers to terrorise those who protested the measures that were put in place at the time. So much so that, people were even terrorised for simply going on a walk! But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. In the US, they also had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that some had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

Ultimately, it seemed like martial law; as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. THAT “something” allegedly had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly people’s social media posts were censored and people were being asked to do things that made no sense, like putting on a mask for a virus that apparently also evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles. BUT here’s the caveat: despite all those stringent measures and increased police presence, crime rose ever further, even inciting citizen anger – especially during the George Floyd riots.

Well, ironically, this provided a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, which was tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system. But, how could it be that these outbursts of crime took place despite restrictions on movement, except there was a manufacture of crime? Well, it seems that crime is manufactured through calls to defund the police and also through the creation of legislation that makes it difficult for people to protect or defend themselves, like anti-gun laws, while simultaneously, ignoring border security and devastating the economy to the extent that emergency services cannot fully perform their duties due to a need to cut costs!

For instance, a 2022 report detailed that police in Pittsburgh would no longer be responding to calls that are not deemed to be “in-progress emergencies,” meaning theft, harassment, criminal mischief, and burglary alarms would essentially be ignored. Such calls would instead be redirected to an answer machine, according to the report which also notes that from 3 am to 7 am, the city’s six police stations would operate without desk officers present. In addition, Only around 20 officers will be available for overnight shifts to cover the entire city, due to “understaffing.”

This was a clear fallout from a ‘defund the police’ mentality. Pittsburgh was essentially experiencing the ramifications of defunding the police mentality, with the municipal city council having approved a budget that called for a reduction in police staffing in previous years. Police enforcement was thus at an all-time low, according to city reports, with arrests in the city having dropped from over 18,000 in 2013 to 6,710 in 2022. Traffic stops also dropped from close to 29,000 in 2013 to a record-low 6,883 in 2022. Meanwhile, violent crime had risen since 2019. Meanwhile, NY had suffered a similar experience since 2020. Gun violence was said to be up 358% in New York City since June 2019 as police are being stripped of resources in Democrat run cities nationwide. A report even stated that “It has been nearly a quarter century since New York City experienced as much gun violence as it did in June 2020 – which was a year after the law was implemented. The report further stated that the city “logged 125 shootings in the first three weeks of the month of June 2020, which is more than double the number recorded over the same period last year.

And yet, legal enforcement experts have spoken out against this. Which makes us question why they were not listened to. But, this is yet another cost of the defund the police mentality that Zohran Mandani advocates for, in alignment with the DSA’s priorities. It is about manufacturing crime that will later serve as a precursor for a police state.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso