Russell Brand is a disaster

We’re all hypocrites, after all hypocrisy is the thin line between our reality and ideals except that some of us are more hypocritical than others.

Thankfully the Establishment dislikes Russell Brand more than it does Nigel Farage. I don’t find either to have any leadership qualities, thankfully in our Constitutional Monarchy the Crown remains

100 Years of Marxist Revolution..

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/books/review/victor-sebestyen-lenin-biography.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/books/review/martin-amis-lenin-russian-revolution.html?_r=0

 

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/247342/sickening-cost-of-lenins-revolution

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/books/review/12-new-books-we-recommend-this-week.html?_r=0

http://reason.com/archives/2017/11/01/communism-turns-100

 

You are right that the Marxists of the early 20th century can be excused to some degree because the results of Marxist revolution had not been seen at that point. Those who sympathized with arguments like Edmund Burke’s argument against the French revolution were already opposed to it (as, obviously, were those whose privileges or perks were directly threatened by it) but that line of argument is dense and/or subtle and there are equally dense and subtle arguments against it (in theory), so yes, it is understandable that many good and intelligent people could be tempted by it then, but we expect their descendants to know better now.
This HAS happened to some extent. It is not as widely popular an alternative as it was in the 1930s. But even after it has been repeatedly tried and has repeatedly failed, the fact that so many good and intelligent people are STILL tempted by it may have more to do with the fact that it also aligns with some deeply rooted quirks of human nature. i.e. like other religions, it is fated to remain a part of our social life. It appeals to enough of our nobler AND baser instincts to remain an attractive meme; not for everyone. But for enough people. Something like that.
The same could, of course, be said for other persistent ideologies. The rise of a particular ideology to dominance may be contingent, but baseline persistence is more or less guaranteed.
Not a very original observation.

 

The Official Future Is Dead! Long Live the Official Future!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/29/100-years-100-million-deaths-later-communism-still-has-converts/

 

 

Review: The Holocaust, A New History

Historian Laurence Rees has spent a lifetime studying the Holocaust, and it shows in this book. The book is a very readable (and horrifying) retelling that starts from post WWI Germany and details all the steps in the somewhat haphazard but ultimately effective process that led to the most horrifying mass murder in history. It was not necessarily the largest genocide in history (estimates and definitions vary, so it hard to say with certainty) but he makes case (and I think it is a very reasonable case) that many aspects of this particular genocide are truly unique and extremely terrifying (and I am including even larger crimes, such as the Arab and European slave trades, in this comparison). Anyhow, readers can (and surely, will) make up their own mind about the relative horror of this particular crime, but if they read this book, they will at least learn the full extent of it.
He starts with the currents of antisemitism that circulated in 1920 Germany (many of them were pan-European, some were even of Anglo-American origin) and the process by which Hitler rose to power. The book makes clear that while anti-antisemitism was commonplace, most Germans were not thinking of systematic genocide; but some violent, socipathic and/or evil people were, and they gradually coalesced around Hitler and got the chance to put their various demonic ideas into practice using the resources of a modern state.
He also makes clear that there was no single point at which the process was set in motion. There was never one clear directive or one single individual charged with a clear mission to exterminate all Jews, or other “undesirables” (while Jew-hatred formed the central pillar of Nazi thought, Hitler and his minions had many other targets, including mentally and physically disabled Aryan Germans). A general urge to “purify” the Reich of Jews was built into Nazi policy, but it was put into practice gradually and with uneven application, with much variation in intensity, priority and methods.
Many concentration camps with extremely harsh conditions and cruel punishments were already in place in the early years of Nazi rule, but systematic extermination started after the war was underway. I did not know (or had forgotten) that the first use of gas to kill people was by physicians who used carbon monoxide to kill disabled patients in a room where it was piped in via specially constructed pipes (the patients were stripped before being sent to the room “for showers”). This was developed because killing them individually by lethal injection or other means was too slow and was traumatizing for the Nazi physicians doing the killing; distance from the actual act of killing was needed. Disabled children already herded into facilities were taken from the dining room of a children’s hospital “for consultation” (some crying and resisting) and never returned. A fact noticed by some of the other children there and remembered years later with horror. And so it goes.
The various instances throughout the thirties where other Western countries resisted Jewish immigration and turned away Jewish refugees are all detailed, as is the everyday antisemitism of leaders from Canada to Poland. When Hitler mooted the possibility of Germany and its eastern neighbors all coordinating a plan to send all the Jews elsewhere (“the colonies” in this case), the Polish ambassador even told Hitler that “if he finds such a way we will erect to him a beautiful monument in Warsaw”. British reluctance to accept refugees or to allow refugees to go to Palestine is detailed; Neville Chamberlain put it this way “it is of immense importance that Britain should have the Muslim world with us”, consequently “if we must offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs” (a multi-year resistance to Jewish immigration to Palestine for which the British get no credit from the Arabs today, incidentally). In the end, the Nazis could claim with some justification that “no one wants to have them”, though it must be kept in mind that no one then had any idea of exactly how far the Nazis were about to go.
The cooperation of various conquered nations (and the silence, if not the active connivance, of the Pope) in rounding up their Jews is discussed and as expected, the details vary. For example, the occupied and semi-occupied civil services in Holland and France deported more Jews than the German’s axis ally, Italy. In fact, in some ways they did a more thorough job than their compatriots in more old-fashioned antisemitic countries such as Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria; though in some cases this may be due less to humane instincts and more to early awareness that Germany could lose the war. Some, of course, went further than others, with Slovaks rounded up Jews with alacrity and Croatians even doing their own enthusiastic Jew-killing; incidentally, the Croats shocked even the SS by their shockingly brutal treatment of helpless Serbian civilians.
The role of the Germans themselves is discussed in great detail, making it clear that all of them certainly did not know what was going on, and almost none of them had the whole picture, but far too many knew a lot and actively participated. In the course of the book, Lees also offers the original suggestion (original to me at least) that Himmler and company began to let other senior German officials know more about the ongoing holocaust in 1943 as a way of stiffening their spines as the war turned against Germany. By letting them know what crimes they were part of, Himmler was also letting them know that “we are all in this together”, and after such crimes defeat is not an easy option to consider. Still, this did not stop Himmler himself, in 1945, from trying to make excuses for the holocaust (in brief “the war made us do it” or “the allies, by not taking the Jews off our hands”) and to try to make peace by handing over the few remaining Jews in his control.
But luckily for the image of the human race, there are also a few counter-examples. The Danes saved almost all their Jews; part of the “credit” may go to the Nazi in charge, who let them get away without trying too hard to stop them (Lees speculates that he may have seen that the war is going badly and taken his own precautions against the future, or may just have felt that his job was making Denmark “Jew-Free”; so what if they disappeared from Denmark only to reappear in Sweden), but even in countries where most were killed, there were thousands of individual acts of heroism and humanity. The Poles have had some bad press after the war for the various antisemitic acts and utterances of Polish leaders and common citizens, but Lees points out that in the midst of horrendous suffering, reprisals and punishments, about 90,0000 Poles risked their own lives to hide 28,000 Jews in Warsaw over the course of the war (11,500 of them survived). Even in Berlin itself, 1700 Jews managed to survive by hiding with Good Germans, who took almost unimaginable risks (and some very material sacrifices, given the severe food shortages at the end) to hide them through 6 years of war. Last but not the least, in the Greek island of Zakynthos, when asked to produce a list of their Jews, the local mayor and bishop handed over a paper with only two names on it: their own. All 275 Jews on the island were hidden in non-Jewish homes and survived.
And on this faint, but heroic positive note, I think I should end this review.
A must-read book.
8 likes

What if everything that’s not a disease is polygenic?

In the early 2000s FOXP2 was dubbed the “language gene”. It was a sexy story. Humans exhibited accelerated adaptive evolution on this locus in relation to our relatives. Additionally, vocally oriented lineages such as birds and whales were also subject to the same process.

But over the past five years or so I’ve heard a lot of skepticism of the early claims as more genomic datasets have come online. Cell has a new paper which pretty much smashes the door down and breaks the skepticism out into the open, No Evidence for Recent Selection at FOXP2 among Diverse Human Populations:

FOXP2, initially identified for its role in human speech, contains two nonsynonymous substitutions derived in the human lineage. Evidence for a recent selective sweep in Homo sapiens, however, is at odds with the presence of these substitutions in archaic hominins. Here, we comprehensively reanalyze FOXP2 in hundreds of globally distributed genomes to test for recent selection. We do not find evidence of recent positive or balancing selection at FOXP2. Instead, the original signal appears to have been due to sample composition. Our tests do identify an intronic region that is enriched for highly conserved sites that are polymorphic among humans, compatible with a loss of function in humans. This region is lowly expressed in relevant tissue types that were tested via RNA-seq in human prefrontal cortex and RT-PCR in immortalized human brain cells. Our results represent a substantial revision to the adaptive history of FOXP2, a gene regarded as vital to human evolution.

They make Nazis look good

People may be aware that there has been a small dustup in US media because the venerable New Yorker magazine invited Steve Banon for a debate and then withdrew invitation in face of mounting outcry. The question was that was it advisable to provide Steve Banon’s controvercial politics a venerable platform such as New Yorker. This is a debatable point. Debating Steve Banon in a celebrety gala that will surely be marked with one-line zingers rather than a substantial tussle of ideas and philosophy, is ofcourse a dabatable point. However, most people objecting were not objecting the platform but the very idea of debating with white ethno-nationalism or western nationalists (one-nation or less respectable) themselves.

 

Brown Pundits