Lew Rockwell Institute

Escape from New York is the name of a 1981 film. Now it’s also, many fear, going to be a reality with Mayor-elect Zohran Kwame Mamdani’s impending socialist makeover of NYC. Why, commentator Bill O’Reilly has predicted that his ascendancy will spark an exodus of 765,000-one million Big Apple residents. This, of course, would involve the loss of significant capital.

Yet this is all predicated on the idea that Mamdani’s promises reflect principles more than positions of convenience. And while he is a radical, he’s also a power seeker who surely aspires to higher office. So questions arise:

Will Mamdani go the full socialist monty and risk crashing NYC?

Or will he, being the consummate politician he was on the campaign trail, practice some Machiavellian moderation?

Should he pursue the latter route, he not only will survive politically, but will certainly have a good excuse. “Tyrant Trump and the establishment are standing in the way of progress!” Mamdani will be able to say. “They’re stymieing the people’s agenda!”

(“So I need even more power,” would be the message — “‘governor’ comes to mind.”)

Won’t Lives on Can’t Street?

Mamdani can’t actually build a wall around NYC to keep people in, as was done in the “escape” movie. (It was only around Manhattan in the film.) And unlike Cold War communists, who also kept people captive via a wall, he won’t enjoy absolute power. He’s going to have to play well with others to get things done.

So while USA Today laments that “[n]ow we get to see full-blown socialism in action,” well, maybe, maybe not. Just consider five obstacles confronting Mamdani, according to New York insiders. Politico lists them in this order:

1. “Donald Trump and the Federal Government.”
2. “Legislative Wrangling in Albany.”
3. “Campaign Fatigue” — Democratic NYC mayors usually have leisurely general election campaigns. But Mamdani had to work hard to get elected and now will have to hit the ground running. (Personally, I’m not so sure this matters much.)
4. “Democratic Rifts.”
5. “Plus — No Big Deal — the Job.”

As to the last point, Emperor Tiberius once said that governing Rome was like “holding a wolf by the ears.” If true, well, then managing the Big Apple may at least be like holding a coyote by the ears. Politico elaborates:

The NYC mayor immediately becomes a manager of 300,000 cops, teachers, social workers and so many more. Mamdani will be faced with constant, complex choices — not to mention weathering the controversies and challenges that no one can anticipate, from police shootings to hurricanes to acts of mayhem that fill tabloids.

Promises, Promises — and Realities

Then there’s that legislative wrangling. Mamdani outlined 10 to 12 policy proposals while campaigning, yet he’ll lack the power to effectuate about half of them. As to specificity, here’s a list (according to a Grok AI analysis):

• Proposal — “increase corporate tax rate from 8.85 percent to 11.5 percent.” Reality — set by state law; mayor proposes but can’t enact alone.
• Proposal — “two percent flat tax on millionaires.” Reality — state jurisdiction.
• Proposal — “free buses citywide.” Reality — Metropolitan Transportation Authority (a state entity) controls fares; requires state funding/approval.
• Proposal — “end mayoral control of schools.” Reality — mayoral control is state-granted (expires 2026); changes need legislative renewal.
• Proposal — “free CUNY (City University of NY) tuition for all.” Reality — CUNY funding is state-controlled; city covers approximately 30 percent, but full free tuition requires state match.
• Proposal — “creation of Social Housing Development Authority (SHDA). Reality — involves state capital/financing; mayor can advocate but not establish alone.

In other words, to get any or all of these things done, Mamdani will have to go through the state Legislature and Governor Kathy Hochul. He’ll have to deal with an entrenched political establishment.

Human Wrecking Ball?

This said, Mamdani can still do much damage. First, it appears that some NYC residents will leave just over the threat he poses. Wealthy rapper 50 Cent has reportedly already done so.

Second, Mamdani could spike crime by hamstringing the police (he has promised in the past to defund them). He has vowed to intensify NYC’s “sanctuary” (read: illegal-alien enabling) status. And his rent-freeze plans could actually cause apartments to be taken off the market and thus ultimately increase housing costs. As U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) put it, encapsulating the danger:

He’s called to DEFUND police, ABOLISH prisons, LEGALIZE prostitution, and even attacked Jewish people and American law enforcement in the same breath.

This isn’t just New York’s problem — it’s spreading to cities like Seattle, Minneapolis, and even Congress.

The radical Marxist wing is taking over the Democrat Party — and EVERY American should be alarmed.

The question is again, though: Will Mamdani be socialist or sly? Or will he be both to an extent?

Will He or Won’t He?

For sure, Mamdani is a radical man. He has expressed belief in “seizing the means of production,” a communist tenet. He has paraphrased Karl Marx, saying, “Each according to their need, each according to their ability.” He has also been seen giving the middle finger to a Christopher Columbus statue. And he has threatened to arrest ICE agents and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should they enter NYC’s jurisdiction.

Then there’s the group backing Mamdani and of which he’s a member, the Democratic Socialists of America. It will put pressure on him to deliver on his radical promises. It’s also true that during his victory speech, the mayor-elect didn’t exactly extend an olive branch to foes.

Then again, there’s that power lust. Mamdani is not a dumb man. As mentioned earlier, too, he certainly should realize that crashing NYC would crash his political fortunes.

And he’d have built-in excuses for not implementing his entire agenda. President Donald Trump has, after all, threatened to cut off funding to NYC in response to a Mamdani victory. And then there is that state Democratic machine to contend with. So we can hear it now: “The oligarchs are standing in the way of the revolution!”

For this reason, there’s an argument to be made that perhaps Trump shouldn’t take action against NYC. Make sure the responsibility is all on Mamdani, is the idea.

So what will the socialist mayor do? He is intelligent enough to understand his policies’ risks. Yet as Professor Thomas Sowell has noted, “It doesn’t matter how smart you are if you don’t think.”

If Mamdani’s radicalism-shaped emotional foundation and lack of virtue hold sway, he may crash as he ascended: meteorically. And while this would involve short-term pain, it’s likely the best outcome for NYC and America.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post In Power, Will Mamdani Be Socialist — or Sly? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Back in 2023, all orthodox Catholics of good will heard the news of His Excellency, Bishop Paprocki’s condemnation of heresy in one of the most prominent American journals, First Things. This was ostensibly a condemnation of Cardinal McElroy’s brazen challenge to Catholic moral theology in two pieces (here and here) at America—a connection underlined by Bishop Paprocki’s quoting verbatim from the cardinal’s first article. Nevertheless, His Excellency did say shortly thereafter (on Raymond Arroyo) that he did not want to name names, but had European cardinals also in mind.

Faithful Catholics compare today’s bishops with the saintly bishops of old and they find the former woefully lacking in manly courage. They do not seem to act like men of God should – with zeal, filled with faith and charity.

I am willing to hazard that there are many orthodox bishops out there. But it seems to me that most of those orthodox bishops are cowardly. They think of themselves as “vicars of the Roman Pontiff” (a concept that Vatican II condemned in Lumen Gentium 27), and they are afraid to excommunicate and issue the anathema, as did the saintly bishops of old.

Thanks be to God, this crisis has had one silver lining – it is separating the men from the boys in the episcopate. We thank God for Bishop Paprocki, as well as for Archbishop Cordileone who excommunicated the aiders and abetters of child murder and who was supported by over sixteen other bishops, and for Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who has been continually willing to act like a man of God – with courage and conviction – despite being unceremoniously sacked by Pope Francis.

Less Words, More Action

But if there’s one thing we’ve learned from the Vatican II crisis it’s this: more talking, statements, and documents do almost nothing to stop the heretic wolves from scattering the flock.

Therefore, I respectfully propose to all bishops the same proposal that the Trad movement has been asking for since 1965: the charitable anathema.

At OnePeterFive we aim to resource and promote the work of our Trad godfathers in the Faith. It was Cardinal Ottaviani who asked all bishops to condemn heresy in 1966, heartily cheered by Archbishop Lefebvre. When Dietrich von Hildebrand met with Paul VI in the summer of 1965 – even before the Council ended – he begged Paul VI for the same thing – the charitable anathema. But the Pontiff thought it “was a bit harsh” and decided against it.[1]

The Case of Notre Dame

One of the worst cases of this fear of taking appropriate action concerned the bishop of South Bend, Indiana, after Notre Dame went into revolt against the Magisterium in the 1960s. The bishop wanted to place the whole university under interdict, but hesitated, waiting for Rome to back him up.

Rome never did, and thousands of American Catholics (and worldwide) were led into heresy by joining in the revolt against Humanae Vitae (and other dogmas of the Faith), led by the heretic wolves at Notre Dame and other so-called “Catholic” institutions.

Indeed, at the judgment day, the bishops of these generations will be judged by Christ, the Good Shepherd, about whether they laid down their life for their sheep, or if they let the heretic wolves destroy the faith of little children, as we have seen happen. For these heretic wolves have torn out altars, held Catholic universities hostage to heresy, and have done nothing less than scourged Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament by their liturgical abuse.

As our contributing editor, Dr. Michael Sirilla shows, St. Thomas himself strongly defended the bishop’s responsibility of excommunicating heretics.[2] This was understood as obligation of charity for the flock.

The sheep cry out, How long, O Lord, wilt thou forget me forever? and the Prophet cries out, Woe to you, Shepherds!

The Only Way Forward: the Charitable Anathema

But let me return to my point: more talking and documents will do nothing. Only action – the action of a man of God – will have any effect.

And that action, we assert – with the whole history of the Church – is the charitable anathema.

As Hildebrand said acutely, pointing to the root of the problem decades ago:

The valuing of unity over truth plays a central role in the crisis of the Church; for the Church of Christ—the Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church—is based on this fundamental principle: the absolute primacy of divine truth, which is the very primacy of God.[3]

This proven solution has always been the answer in times of heretical depravity. Critics of this solution ultimately value unity above truth. They are scared of schism more than they are of error and falsehood. Hildebrand refutes the critics of the anathema with these words, proclaiming that the anathema is itself an act of charity:

… The anathema excludes the one who professes heresies from the communion of the Church, if he does not retract his errors. But for precisely this reason, it is an act of the greatest charity toward all the faithful, comparable to preventing a dangerous disease from infecting innumerable people. By isolating the bearer of infection, we protect the bodily health of others; by the anathema, we protect their spiritual health[.] …

And more: a rupture of communion with the heretic in no way implies that our obligation of charity toward him ceases. No, the Church prays also for heretics [as we see in the traditional orations of Good Friday]; the true Catholic who knows a heretic personally prays ardently for him and would never cease to impart all kinds of help to him. But he should not have any communion with him. Thus St. John, the great apostle of charity, said: “If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar” (I Jn. 4:20). But he also said: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house[.]” (2 Jn. 1:10).[4]

Therefore we exhort every cleric, theologian, and diocesan official of any kind: examine yourself, and consider speaking to your bishop about this solution. The words that have been spoken by Bishop Paprocki are obviously good, but we ask for less talking and more action.

Read the Whole Article

The post Bishops Against Bishops: the Proven Solution appeared first on LewRockwell.