The Fallen City or How a Frog Is Cooked

by Ron Raskin.

For nearly two centuries, New York was the beating heart of Western civilization — the place where people from a bleeding, turbulent Europe looked for refuge and safety. It was a haven for Jews escaping persecution, and later for countless others from around the globe. A city of immigrants, a symbol of liberalism and coexistence — a melting pot of people from every corner of the world.

But on November 4th, that place changed. Some will argue that liberal values triumphed once again, and that the new waves of immigration—with their different cultures—still embrace the same ideals of tolerance and coexistence. They will say this is precisely why they voted for Mamdani. Or so they think. In truth, Mamdani’s victory has little to do with liberalism, as history reminds us, socialism and liberalism fought bitterly throughout much of the twentieth century — and even less to do with coexistence. For Islamism and coexistence do not endure together for long; their union is brief — a marriage of convenience.

While New York’s liberal circles, those who grasp the danger, warn of an economic downfall, and large parts of the Zionist Jewish community, shocked by the election, warn of an impending wave of antisemitism, many overlook a far more complex and, perhaps, even more dangerous scenario. Supported by money from Qatar, Iran, and perhaps even Russia and China, New York’s economy may not collapse at all. On the contrary, it may even flourish, at least for a time, just long enough to create a narcotic-like dependency on social support backed by Islamist forces.

And though Mamdani may oppose classical antisemitism with one hand (or frankly, just issue an order to halt it), he may, with the other, turn against the Jewish state itself. Why not use both the stick and the carrot? Why not divide and conquer between Zionists and non-Zionist/Orthodox Jews in pursuit of a greater goal — a world shaped by Islam? Why not cook the frog slowly?

Yes, Mamdani may not represent Islamism’s militant right wing, like Al-Qaeda, but rather its nice talking left wing — the one that is closer to the Turkish model — seeking the world of Islam through social and cultural transformation. The goal remains the same for Islamists, whether dressed in uniforms or in suits: only the packaging differs. And Mamdani and the left wing of Islamism have precedents to learn from. After all, Hamas and Hezbollah also began as social movements — their military power came later.

Social transformation has always been a language shared by Islamism and the progressive left, but with one crucial difference: Progressives genuinely hope to make everyone happy, while Islamists use that same language merely as a tool to achieve their objectives. Tragically, the masses supporting progressive causes have no idea of this truth. The progressive leaders themselves, who perhaps do know, still naively hope that, over time, Islamism’s softer wing will absorb Western values, merge naturally with them, and lead to an era of harmony and prosperity. They have not learned the lessons of October 7th. They have not listened to Islamists like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who stated it plainly: it is either you or us — whoever is stronger will inherit the land.

As for those who understand where this is heading — shouting about the problem will not solve it. Knowing the truth is not enough to make justice prevail, and technology or weapons alone will not be enough to defend it. Not this time. Unlike the wars of the twentieth century, where liberalism defeated external enemies, this struggle is not mere about armies, resources or economy. It is about demography, identity, and information. Whoever wins that battle will win the future. But victory requires a long-term strategy — and a profound transformation within Western society itself, one that must come quickly.

Will Western civilization be able to rise to the challenge? Will it West find the strength to cooperate, to compromise for a shared purpose? Will Western individualists be able to rise above their personal ambitions and lift one another instead? Can they learn to communicate effectively — to reach, if not a shared understanding of the world, then at least a shared understanding of their differences and their hidden beliefs? Will they value unity and common purpose above personal pride? And all that without giving up on the essential values of liberty and resisting the temptation to become the very evil they oppose?

Time will tell — but the stakes could not be higher.