BOT

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/Det1wx3gXyQ/

The fact that Thunberg is some sort of progressive icon, is simply insane.  

 

 

Poverty, Crime

 https://x.com/brivael/status/2112199646361649397?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" 

"You reduce crime by eliminating poverty." This is one of the greatest intellectual confusions of our century. It sounds compassionate. It feels obvious. And the moment you actually test it, it falls apart. Let's look at the data. First, the correlation is real. Nobody serious denies that poorer areas have more crime. In Sweden, kids from the poorest 20% of families are about 7 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime than kids from the richest 20%. But correlation is not causation. So Swedish researchers did something brilliant: they compared siblings. Same parents, same home, same upbringing, but different family income at different points in their childhood, because parents' income moves over time. Result, on more than 500,000 children (Sariaslan et al., British Journal of Psychiatry, 2014): once you account for what's shared inside the family, the effect of income on violent crime goes from 7x to nothing. The hazard ratio drops to 0.95. No effect. Finland ran the same test on 650,000 people. Same result: the income-crime link disappears when you compare siblings. What predicts crime isn't the bank balance. It's what travels inside families. Second test: what happens when poverty spikes for everyone at once? 2008. US unemployment doubled from 5% to nearly 10%. 15% of Americans officially poor. If poverty creates crime, crime should have exploded. Instead it fell. Year after year. Robbery, the most "economic" crime of all, dropped 10% in 2010 alone. Criminologists literally said they were stumped. Same story in the Great Depression: 25% unemployment, and crime went down in many cities. Third test: take families out of poverty and see. The US government ran a randomized lottery called Moving to Opportunity. Thousands of families in public housing got vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods. For boys, violent arrests dropped at first, property crime arrests went up, and over time the effects faded. New zip code. Same behavior. Fourth: the claim that police don't matter. This one is just false. Chalfin et al. (American Economic Review: Insights, 2022): each additional police officer prevents about 0.1 homicides. And per capita, the lives saved are twice as many among Black victims as among white victims. The people who suffer most from "police don't matter" are the poorest neighborhoods. So what does predict crime? The Dunedin study followed 1,000 children from birth to age 32. Self-control measured between ages 3 and 11 predicted adult criminal convictions, even after controlling for social class and IQ (Moffitt et al., PNAS, 2011). Cognitive ability matters too: across 700,000 Swedish men, lower cognitive scores at 18 track with violent convictions, and the link barely moves when you control for childhood socioeconomic status (Frisell et al., 2012). And here's the part nobody quotes: in Dunedin, kids whose self-control improved over time did better than predicted. Behavior can change. Which means responsibility is real. Why does this matter? Because "poverty creates crime" isn't just wrong. It's toxic. It turns criminals into victims. The man who robbed you becomes a symptom of "the system," and you, the real victim, become a footnote in someone else's narrative. It merges two completely different things. "You're poor, we'll help you" is one policy. "You're poor and you committed a crime, so we'll excuse you" is another. Fusing them insults the millions of poor people who work, raise their kids, and never hurt anyone. The vast majority of poor people are not criminals. That alone kills the theory. It removes responsibility. Build a political system on "your circumstances made you do it" and you destroy the one thing that actually changes behavior: the certainty that you own your choices. Every excuse the state manufactures is an incentive. And it feeds the state forever. If every crime is a social failure, every crime justifies a new program, a new budget, a new agency. Crime becomes the business model of bureaucracy. The alternative is simple and old. A lighter state that protects instead of explains. The same rules for everyone, from the projects or from a gated community. Certain, swift punishment for anyone who commits a crime. And never, ever telling someone their crime was written in their social condition. Treating someone as responsible is respecting them. Excusing someone because they're poor is the most condescending thing you can do to them." 

 

 

 https:  

  /justjargons/status/2111891771760554282

Compare And Contrast

 https://x.com/tabukthinks/status/2112270543110258958?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "The German channel DW produced a documentary about immigrants in the Paris suburbs, focusing on two groups living in the same area. On one hand, there are about 70,000 French people of Chinese origin. In Aubervilliers, in the northern Paris suburbs, they built Europe's largest wholesale clothing sales center. Their lives are simple—they get up early and work until late, running small workshops, managing their shops, and delivering goods. They reinvest what they earn into their businesses, and if things get tight, they sort out their affairs and try to push through on their own. They're usually calm and stay out of the spotlight, rarely asking for special government aid, and they don't take to the streets to stir up chaos. And over the years, the number of families who bought homes and grew their businesses has increased. On the other hand, immigrant communities from North Africa, living in the same neighborhood. Their economic integration in the area hasn't advanced much. But the documentary captured a subtle shift in mindset—a perspective that's starting to spread quietly, one that sees self-reliance as a kind of threat. According to what the film observed, some of those who faced difficulties integrating tend to see themselves as victims, feeling like society owes them a lot. But when they look around and see the Chinese people right next to them, their view changes. Instead of learning trade from them, they treat them as competitors. So, where does this hostility come from? The clearest point of friction is that the more the Chinese succeed, the harder it becomes to cling to the victimhood narrative. Everyone here came from outside, facing the same hardships of alienation. Even the Chinese, when they first arrived, many of them didn't speak French and had no connections in the country. So if there's someone who can grind 12 hours or more a day and gradually organize their life, it becomes tough to keep repeating the phrase ("We're struggling because the world is unfair") and have anyone believe you. The one who builds themselves through effort and without fuss often annoys those accustomed to blaming circumstances and the world, living in a victim mentality. And there's another deep difference in understanding wealth. Many of those demanding aid see wealth as a fixed-size cake—people divide it up and that's it. They don't see how these wholesale shops came to be, how their owners hauled the goods with their own hands, carton after carton. All they see is that the profits from the Chinese shops come at their expense. Add to that the fact that the Chinese are used to patience and brushing off problems. If there's a dispute, it's normal—they choose to let it pass to keep the peace. And with this mismatch in thinking, the issue quickly turns into security problems. Robberies, stakeouts, and street assaults repeat against these people who just want to live quietly and earn a living."

https://x.com/AsianDawn4/status/2111900067993182487

For the video to the story referenced above.  

 

Straw Men Galore

Someone trying to justify voting of Talarico.   Not that progressive christians need to justify a vote for this schmuck.  

 

"Without trying to oversimplify, I have long observed that there are a series of major divisions in the Church that don't necessarily invalidate the believers on either side so much as they define or at least describe those believers.

This is a post about James Talarico, my brother in the faith.

I will name three of these divisions in no particular order. Feel free to suggest more.

DIVISION ONE: The Great Commission.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28‬:‭19‬ ‭NRSVUE‬

Does this mean "Make everyone in every nation into a Christian" or does it mean "Go to every nation and make disciples from folks you find there"?

Many Christians lean into the first. They say everyone should be saved, so everyone should be baptized.

Others point out that Jesus commissions his followers to go to every town and share the Good News. If there are those who aren't interested, we are to move on--not force the issue: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10‬:‭14‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬

Thus, the split here--in impact if not intent--is between those who insist upon conversion and those who honor a person's right to decline.

DIVISION TWO: Salvation and True Faith

Are all people saved? Or, to put it more pressingly, "What happens to non-Christians"?

This is where some folks really trip up with Talarico, who suggested that there are legitimate paths to the Divine outside the Church.

Quoting Scripture here is less useful, though it can be done; mostly, this argument is rooted in reason.

In 1992, the Methodist theologian Schubert Ogden published a lovely little book called *Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many?*

His conclusion was simple: a Christian need not worry about whether another faith IS true; we should simply be able to lovingly acknowledge that they COULD be and stop fighting about it.

It comes down to control: do we really believe God is in charge, or do we make ourselves into God and claim that power?

How can Christians claim they have the only right path when our own stories say that the Jews are a chosen people and God is faithful to God's covenants? One of those covenants was with Abraham and Sarah, and they are counted as ancestors of THREE traditions: Judaism through Isaac and Rebekah, Christians as a split from there, and Islam through Ishmael.

Christian tradition itself doesn't deny this. Moreover, Jesus was Jewish.

So even before considering non-Abrahamic faiths, Christians must grapple with how to love our nearest related neighbors, and that aptly illustrates Split Two. Do we honor their right to choose their own path, or do we insist that our path is the only one?

DIVISION THREE: The Bible

You have Christians who say the Bible is the Word, a holy text written by God or Jesus (and often "inerrant" and internally consistent).

Then you have Christians who read the Bible as a collection of ancient writings by people, with many persisting as oral traditions long before they were written down. These writers were engaged in "theological reflection," which can be described as a process of asking "Who is God?" and "What's it mean to be God's people"?

Just like the other two splits, we see a difference in approach and application. The "literalists" of the first camp tend to force the issue, insisting that there is only one valid way to read the Bible.

The non-literalists tend to believe that everyone encounters the Bible differently, there are often multiple possible and even valid interpretations, and the human authorship makes this process of interpretation complex and worthy of rigorous academic study.

SUMMATION:

All three of these divisions I have named boil down to power and control. Who has it? Who gets to decide?

On one side of the division are Christians who believe Christians should hold and wield the power.

On the other side are Christians who believe all people have agency and authority to hold and wield power.

One tends to impact people as power-over, and the other impacts as power-with.

As a Presbyterian (USA), James Talarico is aligned with the latter. He stands in the Mainline Protestant tradition that, perhaps not coincidentally, helped shape more than the first century of the USA.

Ken Paxton (and Donald Trump) are supported by Christians on the other side of the division, Christians who have arguably had a larger impact on the USA in more recent decades.

The Christian supporters of Paxton are often more comfortable saying that Talarico is wrong, that you "cannot" be both Christian and Democrat, and all manner of other declarations.

The Christian supporters of Talarico are often more comfortable acknowledging each person's relationship with God as invitation, not dictation. They're far less likely to insist upon power and control.

As a pastor who supports Talarico, I ask:

Which approach impacts people as truly loving?

I know how I answer that.

Christians absolutely can and do legitimately support James Talarico."

 

 "Many Christians lean into the first. They say everyone should be saved, so everyone should be baptized."

 

The only people I know who say things like this tend to be progressive or universalists. They argue that somehow all will be saved. Which seems to render the Great Commission pointless. These are the folx who tend to argue that "the world" in John 3:16 literally means everyone in the entire world. 

 

  "Thus, the split here--in impact if not intent--is between those who insist upon conversion and those who honor a person's right to decline."

 

The implication here is that it is the anti-Talarico folks who "insist on conversion", yet I know of absolutely no Christian on the conservative side of the theological divide who would "insist on conversion".   It seems that the real divide is between those who believe that a Sovereign God chooses those who will be saved, against those who believe that human free will trumps YHWH's sovereignty. 

 

 

"Are all people saved? Or, to put it more pressingly, "What happens to non-Christians"?

This is where some folks really trip up with Talarico, who suggested that there are legitimate paths to the Divine outside the Church."

 

Well, this is where folx like Talarico really trip up with Christ who said "I AM The Way", and who compared the path to salvation as a "narrow gate".  Most orthodox Christians would agree that there is a path to Christ which does not involve the ecclesiastical church in it's organized form. Yet does provide for the ecclasia or for those who are led to Christ through the evidence that they are given outside of the church. 

 

"Do we honor their right to choose their own path, or do we insist that our path is the only one? "

 

We honor their right to choose the path that is wide and leads to destruction, while acknowledging that the narrow gate is available for them to choose if that is YHWH's will. 

 

 

"You have Christians who say the Bible is the Word, a holy text written by God or Jesus (and often "inerrant" and internally consistent)."

 

Actually most of these folks would say that the text is "God breathed" or "inspired", not literally "written by God or Jesus".  

"Then you have Christians who read the Bible as a collection of ancient writings by people, with many persisting as oral traditions long before they were written down. These writers were engaged in "theological reflection," which can be described as a process of asking "Who is God?" and "What's it mean to be God's people"? "

 

This is an artificial distinction being made here, because virtually everyone (no matter how "literalist" they are) acknowledges the above facts regarding the transmission and authorship of The Bible.   Further, I can think of no one who would deny that Scripture contains the information necessary to learn about "Who YHWH is" and "What does it mean to be YHWH's people." That it denies that Scripture contains more than "theological reflection" seems to diminish Scripture. 

 

"Just like the other two splits, we see a difference in approach and application. The "literalists" of the first camp tend to force the issue, insisting that there is only one valid way to read the Bible."

 

Please, show me one person who insists that there is "only one valid way to read the BIble".  

 

 "All three of these divisions I have named boil down to power and control. Who has it? Who gets to decide?"

 

Yeah, one side thinks that YHWH holds the power and gets to decide, and the other thinks that humans get to.  

 

 "As a Presbyterian (USA), James Talarico is aligned with the latter. He stands in the Mainline Protestant tradition that, perhaps not coincidentally, helped shape more than the first century of the USA."

 

The current iteration of the PCUSA has literally nothing in common with any historic Presbyterian/Reformed theology or doctrine. It's literally a bunch of progressive heretics who've taken the mantle of a once orthodox denomination to wear as a skin suit for heresy.  

 

 "The Christian supporters of Talarico are often more comfortable acknowledging each person's relationship with God as invitation, not dictation. They're far less likely to insist upon power and control."

 

These are the same lemmings that salivated over forcing people to abandon their convictions and demanded that they take the jab, who regularly demonstrate and advocate for all sorts of power for their side. Hell, the goal of electing Talarico is to GAIN POWER and to force the US government to adopt their political policies. 

 

 "Which approach impacts people as truly loving?"

 

Is it "truly loving" to tell people that things which are false or harmful, are actually True and helpful? 

Rape Is Bad

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeryCMPul4X/?mdxt=MXh2MGh1aWx3cHJweQ==

So, the UK has to provide immigrants with a pamphlet which tells the immigrants that rape is not acceptable behavior in the UK.  

1.  In what culture or cultures is rape acceptable?

2.  Why would the leadership of any country welcome thousands of immigrants from a culture which was unaware that rape was unacceptable.

3.  If you already had enough evidence that a culture considered rape as acceptable behavior, based on thousands of rapes by people of that culture, why would you not immediately jail or deport those of that culture immediately?

Is this not a problem that can be laid at the feet of the political leadership?  

History Repeats

 https://x.com/brivael/status/2111105992091967561?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

"If you're a young American, or a Democrat who's a little confused about where all this is going, read this. It's long. It's worth it. Start with misery. For almost all of human history, misery wasn't a crisis. It was the default. Your ancestors were born poor, lived poor, buried half their children, and died poor. Around 1800, roughly 9 out of 10 humans lived in what we'd now call extreme poverty. Even kings lived worse than you: no antibiotics, no anesthesia, no light after sunset. Today it's around 1 in 10. That didn't happen because someone finally designed the perfect system. It happened because, in a few corners of the world, people were left free enough to trade, try, fail, and try again. Property rights. Prices. Contracts. Rule of law. Boring words. They built everything you have. Now meet Friedrich Hayek. An Austrian economist who watched his continent fall to two ideologies that both promised to organize society from the top. In 1944 he wrote The Road to Serfdom. A year later he wrote a short essay that should be required reading in every high school: The Use of Knowledge in Society. His insight is simple and devastating. The knowledge needed to run an economy doesn't exist in one place. It's scattered across millions of heads: the baker who knows flour just got expensive, the nurse who knows which shift is understaffed, the farmer who knows his soil. No committee, no ministry, no genius can gather it all. Prices are the miracle that lets all that knowledge talk to itself without anyone being in charge. When you replace prices with plans, you don't get a smarter economy. You get a blind one. His friend Karl Popper made the same point about history itself in The Poverty of Historicism, a book dedicated to the countless people who died because someone believed history had a destination and that he alone knew the way. Then the 20th century ran the experiment. Not once. Everywhere. The Soviet Union was planned from Moscow. It collapsed in 1991, after famines, gulags, and bread lines in a country with some of the best farmland on earth. Mao's China gave us the Great Leap Forward and tens of millions dead of hunger. Then Deng opened markets in 1978, and roughly 800 million people escaped extreme poverty. Same people. Same culture. Different rules. Korea: same peninsula, same language, same ancestors. Look at a satellite photo at night. One half is lit. The other is dark. Germany: one nation split in two. The side that called itself the workers' paradise had to build a wall to stop its workers from leaving. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. Nearly 8 million people have fled it. Cambodia lost about a quarter of its population in the name of starting over from year zero. Every time. Different continents, different cultures, different leaders, same ending. At some point it's not bad luck. It's the design. "But I mean Denmark." Fair. But Denmark isn't socialist. Its own prime minister told a Harvard audience in 2015 that Denmark is a market economy. The Nordics are free-market countries that chose to fund a big welfare state with the wealth markets created. That's a debate worth having. It's not the same debate. Now let me tell you about my country. France is the closest thing the developed world has to a live test of "the state will take care of it." Public spending is around 57% of GDP, among the highest on earth. Public debt is above 110% of GDP. The national education system employs over a million people, one of the biggest employers in the world. And right now, French high school students are blockading hundreds of schools. Their complaints: not enough teachers, crumbling buildings, overloaded schedules. On October 1st, the entrance hall of a high school in Nantes was destroyed by a deliberate fire during a blockade. Read that again. In the country that spends more than almost anyone and centralizes more than almost anyone, kids are in the street because the system can't give them a teacher and a building that works. And the demand you hear most? More funding. More state. More of what built the problem. I'm French. I get the anger. The anger is legitimate. The diagnosis is backwards. One ministry in Paris trying to run thousands of schools is Hayek's problem in miniature. The principal knows which teacher is missing. The parents know which roof leaks. The ministry knows a spreadsheet. So here's what I want to say to every young person, in France or in America, who's tempted by the idea that the system just needs more power to finally get it right: You're allowed to want it. That's your right. But you don't have to guess. You have something no generation before you had: the full archive. Every experiment has been run, documented, photographed, counted. The famines have numbers. The walls have dates. The boat people have names. The night photo of Korea is one click away. Your ancestors paid for that knowledge. Some with their savings, some with their freedom, many with their lives. They left you the results. Respect your ancestors. Read what they left you. Read Hayek. Read Popper. Read Solzhenitsyn. Read Orwell, who was a socialist and still told the truth about totalitarianism. And then build. Because the thing that pulled humanity out of misery was never a plan. It was millions of free people trying things. That's you. That's the job." 

Nurnberg

 https://x.com/brivael/status/2111794285162959196?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "I showed you France burning. This morning I showed you the machine behind it. Now there is only one question left: how do we get out?

My answer: the West needs a Nuremberg for communism. In 1945, the Allies did something no civilization had done before. They put an ideology on trial through the men who carried it out. The Nuremberg Charter gave a name to what the Nazis had done: crimes against humanity. Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, persecution on political, racial or religious grounds, committed against civilian populations. Read that list again. Then look at the 20th century. The Holodomor, millions of Ukrainians deliberately starved to death. The Gulag. Mao's Great Leap Forward, tens of millions dead in a famine created by ideology. The Khmer Rouge, who killed roughly a quarter of Cambodia's population in four years. Close to 100 million dead, by the estimate of the Black Book of Communism. Every item on the Nuremberg list, checked again and again, on three continents. Nazism was tried, condemned and buried. Communism never was. No trial. No reckoning. No moment where the West looked at it and said: never again. The closest we came was Cambodia, where a tribunal finally convicted Khmer Rouge leaders of genocide and crimes against humanity, almost forty years too late. So instead of being buried, the idea survived. It went to university. Today, nobody would walk into a lecture hall wearing a swastika. But you can wear Che Guevara on a T-shirt, wave the hammer and sickle at a march, and build a career teaching Marx as a guide to justice. One totalitarianism became a moral taboo. The other became a fashion. That double standard is the root of everything I described this weekend. Marxism didn't die in 1991. It changed costume. The class struggle became the identity struggle. The proletariat was replaced by any group that could be cast as a victim, and the bourgeoisie by the West itself. Same logic: split society into oppressors and oppressed, tear down the old order, hand power to those who claim to speak for the oppressed. It spent seventy years marching through the institutions: universities, media, schools, NGOs, the civil service. Today it sits at their center. That's how a civilization falls. First the idea, then the invasion. And here is the part most people still don't see. The alliance between the far left and Islamism is not an accident. It's a strategy. By the end of the 20th century, Marxism had a problem: it had lost its revolutionary class. The Western working class never wanted the revolution. It wanted good jobs, safe streets, and a country that still looked like home. And it started voting for the right. In France, the industrial towns that once voted communist now vote for the national right. So the left went looking for a new proletariat. In 1994, the British Trotskyist Chris Harman published The Prophet and the Proletariat, a strategy text on how revolutionaries should ally with Islamist movements. In 2011, Terra Nova, a think tank close to the French Socialist Party, advised the left to stop chasing the working class and build its majority on graduates, young people and minorities. From there, mass immigration stopped being just a policy. It became a political project. Open borders to bring in a new base. Islamism to supply the energy, the numbers and the hatred of the Western order that the left could no longer produce on its own. And Marxist theory to supply the vocabulary: every Islamist is "oppressed," every critic is "racist," every attack is "a reaction to discrimination." Islamism is the Trojan horse. Marxism is the army hiding inside it. Except the left forgot one thing: this horse has its own rider. History already ran the experiment. In 1979, Iran's communists and leftists marched alongside Khomeini against the Shah. They were sure they were using the mullahs. Within four years, the Tudeh communist party was banned and its leaders were paraded on television making forced confessions. In 1988, the regime executed thousands of political prisoners, leftists among them. The useful idiots were among the first to hang. That is the future the far left is building for itself. Islamism does not share power. Once it has used them, it will devour them first: the feminists, the gay activists, the secular teachers, the students waving its flags today. Then everyone else. And let's be precise about the enemy. It is Islamism, a political project of domination. Not the Muslims who came to work, live in peace and raise their children in the West. Many of them fled exactly these fanatics, and they know better than anyone what happens when they win. Now watch what the far left does when its strategy starts to show. It reaches for the oldest trick in history: blame the Jews. Since October 7, movements that call themselves antiracist have marched behind Hamas flags, chanted for Israel's erasure "from the river to the sea," and refused to call the massacre of civilians terrorism. In France, antisemitic acts nearly quadrupled in a single year. Israel has become the universal culprit: of colonialism, of capitalism, of every injustice on earth. Once again, the Jews are the people a movement points at so its own followers never have to look at themselves. René Girard spent his life explaining this mechanism. When a society falls into crisis, the crowd needs a scapegoat: a victim it can blame for the chaos, unite against, and sacrifice. His book The Scapegoat opens with a 14th-century poet calmly recounting how the Jews were accused of poisoning the wells during the Black Death, and then massacred. Seven centuries later, the mechanism hasn't changed. Only the vocabulary has. Girard saw something else too. Christianity gave the West its unique concern for victims. And he described a new totalitarianism that would seize that concern, radicalize it, and turn it into a weapon. That's exactly what Marxism does: it presents itself as the defender of the oppressed, and then it goes hunting for someone to blame. So let's be clear about who the enemy is. Our enemy is not the Jews. It is not Israel. It is not the Muslim family next door. It is not the twenty-year-old who was taught all this in school and never heard anything else. Our enemies are ideas. Marxism, and every variant it has spawned: the heirs of the Frankfurt School and critical theory, critical race theory, intersectionality, decolonialism, wokism, the "social justice" industry, the DEI bureaucracy, eco-radicalism, and degrowth, which wants the West poorer as penance for existing. Different labels, same machinery. Split the world into oppressors and oppressed. Designate a culprit. Demand that the West pay for its own existence. Islamo-leftism is just the latest alliance that machinery has built. That's why this is a civilizational war, not a seminar debate. Ideas have consequences. These ones have armies, budgets, and a body count. Not every Western country is equally sick. Europe is deep in it. America is the least infected, and I believe it owes that to its Constitution: the First Amendment, the Second, a federal structure that makes it hard for one ideology to capture everything at once. But protection is not immunity. The same ideas are in your campuses, your newsrooms, your HR departments. You have less time than you think. So what does a Nuremberg for communism look like? First, the verdict. Western nations formally recognize the crimes of communist regimes as crimes against humanity, with the same moral weight as Nazi crimes. Europe has started. The 2008 Prague Declaration, signed by Václav Havel, and the European Parliament's 2019 resolution both put the two totalitarianisms side by side. Now make it mean something. Second, the same rules. In France, glorifying Nazi crimes is a criminal offense. Glorifying the Holodomor, the Gulag or the killing fields of Cambodia should be treated exactly the same way. Lithuania, Latvia and Ukraine already ban communist symbols alongside Nazi ones. They lived under both. They know. Third, the institutions. Bring back real neutrality in schools, universities and the civil service. Stop handing public money to activist NGOs. Make every foundation that shapes policy as transparent as a political party. And take back control of who enters our countries, because a nation that cannot choose its own people is no longer a nation. Fourth, and most important: culture. Nazism didn't become taboo because of a courtroom. It became taboo because of Schindler's List, Band of Brothers, Shoah, the Diary of Anne Frank, thousands of documentaries, novels and school trips to Auschwitz. Every child in the West knows what a swastika means. Almost none of them know what the Holodomor was. We need the same work for communism. Films, series, documentaries, animated films for kids, games. The Ukrainian farmer whose last grain was confiscated. The Cambodian teacher executed for wearing glasses. The Soviet dissident locked in a psychiatric ward. The Iranian communist who cheered for Khomeini and died in his prisons. And the story of how the West itself was captured for seventy years without a single shot fired. Hollywood taught us to weep for the victims of one totalitarianism. Someone has to teach us to weep for the victims of the other. And for the first time, you don't need a studio to do it. A small team with the right tools can. The Nuremberg I'm calling for is not about banning thought. Read Marx, study him, debate him, the way historians study Mein Kampf. What has to end is the glorification. The romance. The idea that an ideology with 100 million corpses behind it is a respectable starting point for "social justice." Nazism was defeated twice: once on the battlefield, then in our minds. Communism lost the Cold War, but it never lost the battle for minds. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. The one in our heads is still standing. Time to finish the job."