General updates about day to day life
March 1st 2020
I watched this very interesting Ted Talk, from scientist and doctor William Li. He explains how certain foods can increase our chances or developing cancer in life, and others can reduce those chances. Now, he emphasizes that cancer can have different causes and some people have a genetic predisposition. But each and everyone of us endures gene mutations throughout our lives and especially once we are over the age of 40. William Li explains that these cell mutations can remain small clumps of cells and then be cleaned up by the body's immune system, or they can continue dividing and turn into cancerous tumors over time. Now scientists have discovered that certain foods can help speed up this process, or help undo this process. Dairy products for instance contain a substance which promotes it, whereas foods like specific mushrooms and soy beans can help reduce these chances. How? Through new blood vessel mechanisms; angiogenesis. Cancerous tumors can grow due to the body creating blood vessel systems for them. Without these blood vessels, the tumor cannot grow. And here a link with rosacea emerges. Because for us rosacea patients who have issues with red or flushed cheeks, the angiogenesis mechanisms have gone haywire too. The human body has a certain set of blood vessels, formed in the uterus, and we are set with those vessels through life. But the body can also create extra blood vessels during very specific circumstances, for instance during wound healing of a skin injury, or when a woman is pregnant and has to develop extra vessels in the uterus to form the placenta. After pregnancy, the body reabsorbs those extra blood vessels again and brings things back to the status quo through naturally occurring angiogenesis inhibitors in the body. Regulating the amount of blood vessels through a system of stimulators and inhibitors of blood vessel growth. Or so it should be. And there are other situations where this happens. Dr. Li even shares an image during his Ted Talk where he mentions rosacea as one of the possible medical conditions of which patients suffer due to angiogensis going rife, and the body not cleaning up the excess blood vessels. Dr. Li then focuses on cancer and how trimming down the bodies ability to grow blood vessels for the tumor is a promising treatment mechanism for early stage tumors. He explains the mechanisms and interesting for us people with rosacea; he names potent angiogenesis foods and medication. Something we blushers and flushers may also benefit from. I cut the 20 minute long video up a bit to show you specifically what dr Li says about these blood vessels, I recommend it as it is extremely interesting I think. First the trimmed video in 2 parts (due to limited size options on blogger), then the full 20-minute video, also including info about cancerous tumors: 
So, Dr. Li mentions a number of natural anti-angiogenesis foods, which help the body prune back excess blood vessels. Taking some foods together can cause food synergy and enhance the anti-angiogenesis effects. He mentions:
-Soy products such as tofu and tempeh, (which contain the inhibitor "genistein")
-Agaricus subrufescens mushrooms (contain the inhibitors sodium pyroglutamate and ergosterol)
-Black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) extract
-(Green) tea (catechins)
-Lingzhi mushrooms and Maitake mushrooms (via inhibition of VEGF and TGF-beta)
-Trametes versicolor mushrooms (Polysaccharide-K).
-Parsley
-Turmeric
-Lavender
-Citrus
-Red grapes
-Garlic
-Liquorice (glycyrrhizic acid)
-Red wine (resveratrol) -> -resveratrol 60% reduces unnatural angiogenesis!
-Royal Jelly (Queen bee acid)
-Berries
-Tomatoes (lycopene)
-Vitamin E
-Tranexamic acid
-Ellagic acid (strawberries)
-Bok choy-olive oil
-Grape seed oil
-dark chocolate
In this NCBI research paper, you can read more about the potency of natural health products to reduce angiogenesis. It highlights several supplements which have a proven record for reducing angiogenesis: "The herbs that are traditionally used for anticancer treatment and that are anti-angiogenic through multiple interdependent processes (including effects on gene expression, signal processing, and enzyme activities) include Artemisia annua (Chinese wormwood), Viscum album (European mistletoe), Curcuma longa (curcumin), Scutellaria baicalensis (Chinese skullcap), resveratrol and proanthocyanidin (grape seed extract), Magnolia officinalis (Chinese magnolia tree), Camellia sinensis (green tea), Ginkgo biloba, quercetin, Poria cocos, Zingiber officinalis (ginger), Panax ginseng, Rabdosia rubescens hora (Rabdosia), and Chinese destagnation herbs." The article also mentions western medicine used to reduce angiogensis, such as bevacizumab (Avastin) and heparin. Interestingly this research paper also mentions Vitamin D and bovine cartilage as scientifically proven anti-angiogenesis sources. There have been many rosacea patients who improved from increasing their (typically low) vitamin D levels, and drinking bone broth (containing bovine cartilage usually) has also been mentioned often as beneficial by rosaceans.
This is a study of the pathogenesis of rosacea: how angiogenesis and mast cells may participate in a complex multifactorial process
This study proves that tranexamic acid ameliorates rosacea symptoms through regulating immune response and angiogenesis
The 2018 study confirms that rosacea is immune system influenced: "Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory cutaneous disease characterized by immune system anomalies and vascular hyperreactivity." Recently, therapy of rosacea has improved substantially with the approval of Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent. Rosacea-like symptoms including skin erythema and histopathological alterations, as well as the elevated pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and TNFα) and MMP9 expression were significantly ameliorated by TXA treatment. In addition, TXA reduced the expression levels of innate immune gene (TLR2, KLK5 and Camp) and neutrophils relative gene in rosacea-like lesion. Furthermore, the anti-inflammatory effects of TXA were associated with the inhibition of TLR2, pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and TNFα) and chemokines (CCL10) expression in LL37-activated HaCaT cells. Finally, TXA repressed the angiogenesis by reducing the number of CD31+ cell and downregulating the expression levels of VEGF in rosacea. In conclusion, our finding defines a treatment mechanism by which TXA ameliorates rosacea symptoms by regulating the immune response and angiogenesis." - In other words: Tranexamic acid is a medication used to treat or prevent excessive blood loss. Side effects are rare and may include changes in color vision, blood clots, and allergic reactions. There is however a small risk that tranexamic acid may cause a clot in another part of the body. This research found that Tranexamic acid ameliorates rosacea symptoms through regulating immune response and angiogenesis.
This study proves that artemisinin is a potential option to inhibit inflammation and angiogenesis in rosacea
February 29th 2020 All's going so so. I haven't had too many issues with cold urticaria this winter, but this must surely be due to the abnormally high temperatures. Too col and these itchy raised welts show up on my face. I had a couple during the coldest month, which was January I think, I don't even remember anymore as it was all so minor compared to previously colder winters. Been very tired lately, but trying to just keep ploughing on. I still have the same issues as ever with skin redness, flushing and burning. I just try to keep matters under control by cooling my skin and trying to eat healthy and exercising. I tried fasting lately, because there has been some talk that not eating for 24 hours, or for two or three days ideally, can reset the immune system. Supposedly. By affecting bacteria in the gut, which play a role in basically all important body functions. I have no issue with eating one meal a day, at set times (so having a 23 hour 'fast' for the rest of the day), but must admit that not eating for two or three days has been ... unappealing. I know, it's about a bit of discipline, and I'll really try to muster it and do a 2 day fast at the very least. The one time I managed two days, I didn't notice any difference in my rosacea. I also don't really notice much difference with the once a day meal either. Unfortunately. But there is documentation on the benefits of reduced amount of meals on immune function and inflammation even. I'll write some more about it soon I hope.
What else... Some stuff I have seen, watched or found interesting then. I knew for a long time already (because she was very beautiful, also in death, and has inspired some artists in the past, as such) about this DEATH MASK of a young woman who drowned in the River Seine in the 1880s. It was believed she had taken her own life, but since she was never identified, no details of her life were known and the events leading to her demise remain a mystery. As was customary in those days, before her remains were disposed of in an unmarked pauper’s grave, her corpse was put on display in a chilled room in the Paris mortuary, in the hope that someone might recognize her and claim her body. Back in 1881 this was a custom and it attracted many Parisians, who would pass the glass window to have a look. The pathologist on duty became entranced by the beautiful girl with the enigmatic half-smile, and so he commissioned a plaster cast made of her face. It is unclear if this was done in furtherance of attempts to establish her identity, or purely because the pathologist was so taken by her face that he wanted to make a memento of her beauty. The death mask of this serene beauty soon took on a life of its own, becoming a “must have” object in the souvenir shops. This mask was replicated many times over. She became known as "L'Inconnue de la Seine,” or “The Unknown Woman of the Seine.” Now I read that her
face was also used as a model for the 'CPR doll': the life-saving technique used in medical emergencies such as heart attack or cardiac arrest. In 1955, a toy maker named Asmund Laerdal created what we now know as the CPR doll. He did so in commission of Dr. Peter Safar, a pioneer in emergency medicine, who had developed a method of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation combined with chest compression in the mid 1950's. Asmund Laerdal wanted his life-sized mannequin to have a natural appearance. While there are many CPR dummies or mannequins on the market, the face of the one most widely used model, Asmund Laerdal's "Resusci Anne", was a model of this anonymous Parisian young woman, whose body was fished from the Seine around the turn of the 20th century. It is quite a lovely thought I think that this tragic girl who drowned in the 19th century and who's life was so short, has in death been responsible for saving so many lives all over the world. It is said that she has the most kissed face of all time.
Songs of the day
Something else
I saw this touching short animation film called "The Life of Death". Hand drawn, about the day Death fell in love with Life. It really touched me, the animation, and reminded me also a bit of some of the animation done for one of my favourite books, Watership Down:
Regarding that lovely Life of Death video, as I interpreted it, Death fell in love with this beautiful deer. But everything he touches dies. Therefore Death refuses to embrace this deer, because he loves her so much. But then at some point eventually the deer becomes old and starts to suffer and she approaches him, asking him for an embrace. And thus and end of her suffering. Which death does, but it pains him. I guess the message is that sometimes even death can be gentle. And welcomed. One youtube commentator summarized it much better. MoonShimmerDragon wrote: "Death floats around the forest, touching the animals he sees to end their life in a quick and painless way. While he is flying through the forest, he meets a beautiful deer who he loves. He is about to touch the deer, when she turns around and he falls in love. The deer runs away, back to her family, and Death doesn't want to hurt her, but he doesn't want to lose her. He flies after her, and he watches over her, until she is comfortable enough to were they walk side by side together, almost touching. He and the deer live together for many years, until the deer is so old that she can hardly walk. She goes up to death and tries to touch him, but he backs away, not wanting to lose her, but somehow he understands that it is her time. The deer touches her nose to his hand and they hug each other tightly, until Death gently lies her on the ground. He stays with her until nightfall, when he leaves to mourn her death."
Death can sometimes be a relief, when the time comes. We just have this overwhelming fear of it in our culture because we live in a technocratic world where we thrive on control. As such, we are more removed from the natural cycles of life than most of our forefathers. But it's all for naught in the end; living 20 years or 40 or 80, in the big scheme of things it does not matter all that much. Either you use life to enjoy yourself as much as is possible for your specific personality type and circumstances, or you try to leave something behind somehow, and work towards that goal. A friend wrote me that "I have talked to...and comforted...a few people just days....and minutes...prior to their death. I reminded them that death is a part of life, that an artificially extended lifespan does not necessarily equate to improved quality of life, that the most precious possession one has are memorable happy experiences, that one is simply returning from whence one came." "For the more pragmatic--which I have yet to encounter at their final moment--I would state similar, but perhaps add that....IF one could live forever, boredom would be a fate worse than death, that death is a release from being trapped on this rock with a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals 😏" - Regarding boredom, Nietzsche said that "Is not life a hundred times too short for us - to bore ourselves?" But indeed, would life be endless for us, boredom is the thing to fear. We're already at an age where most mundane things have been experienced already; most First Times are for the youthful. Except for the experience of old age and death of course.
Another animation I liked:
I also saw this series last night, it comes in three parts. Heart warming! Some wonderful people interviewed here, from the Jewish community in Manchester. Just love Joel and Jack and Bernette, all so down to earth and funny or touching:
February 26th 2020 We took a friend to a buffet restaurant for a birthday, and we had a very good time. Lovely food, and so much choice that in the end we managed to taste perhaps 2% or so of what was on offer. Despite not eating much meat and fish anymore thee days and mainly eating vegetarian, I did enjoy some different food this evening, including lobster, milk-cooked lamb, dorade fish fillet, spaghetti and then I may have tasted up to 5% though of the desserts available :) You can see the video and photos of the deserts below. Unfortunately it was quite warm in there and I did flush quite a bit. Had brought two small neck fans and cold packs, but we were seated right next to other restaurant goers left and right, and it was quite brightly lit so I just didn't want to look or feel a spectacle. Once I could cool my face in the car and at home, it wasn't too bad anymore.
I love British comedy
February 25th 2020
I must admit that I have a dislike for political correctness (nothing new probably). And by now also a dislike for the word of the year of 2019; 'woke'. Originally meant for people who are sensitive and observant to social injustice and racism within society. Which is in itself wonderful. But like so often is the case with human behaviour, it has turned a good intention into a dogma which stifles debate and sometimes flirts with thought control. A well intended initiative which has become synonymous with an obsession with the pursuit of grievances – real or imagined and which has the ability to take celebrities hostage in a way, forcing them to publicly support the woke rage du jour, or else... Lose your job/business/reputation/costumers. I find it hard to understand why there are scores of people out there who seemingly are fine with that sort of extremism.
Social media help magnify and spread these things, and create echo chambers for like-minded people. And thus in 2020 there are more grievances than ever. People have developed the habit of scouring through everybody's past, sometimes many decades back, looking for behaviour which we today no longer accept. So that in retrospect, people can be punished for their early wrongdoings. Yes, some people misbehaved horribly in the past; think of movie moguls, directors, people in power (let's not exclude women here), as well as historical figures. But people thereby also stamp our own 2020 cultural/ morality view on a completely different era. Without seeing things within the context of the historic times in which they occurred. Because in a black and white world, wrong = wrong and right = right. History is also being vilified now, with our modern day (morality) goggles on. So statues of historical figures need to be taken down, when we perceive things in their past which we no longer condone today. To me that reeks of hysterics and iconoclasm. We can also allow history to remain history and learn lessons from it which we implement to make today a better place, without having to destroy cultural heritage and rewriting (and thus censoring) history. Just let history be, and let the past represent habits and actions which in today's world are no longer accepted. What annoys me is this attitude from people that what they feel and believe is the Right thing. And should be imposed on the rest of the world. You are either with them, or against them. Difference of opinion is not taken kindly or respected. No, you are the enemy if you don't agree with them. The concept that their current beliefs on right and wrong are culturally and historically determined in their own right, and may be old news and become obsolete and objectionable in the future, just doesn't seem to cross their mind.
And the issues people have today and feel passionate about, and are debating like missionaries are numerous: race, privilege, identity, gender, politics, religion, sexuality, cultural background, morality. People are supposed to think broader and more open minded thanks to the wealth of information on the internet, but instead the opposite seems to be true; people form more narrow and rigid alliances defined by their race, sexuality or cultural background as ever before. The omnipresent influence of social media plays a huge role in this, with its ability to segregate people in online communities of only like-minded people. It is all linked to a phenomenon called ‘Groupthink’: a group of people sternly fixated on a particular view of the world, regardless whether or not there is any evidence to support it. People can wholeheartedly and sometimes even aggressively defend a certain empathic (emotion-fueled!) stance, without even having it fully thought through or investigated. So convinced are they that their opinion is correct that they cannot believe any sensible person would disagree. This leads them to treat all those who have different ideas and opinions with contemptuous hostility. Emotions are a very powerful vehicle and the fact that their opinions can be based on emotions above anything, only encourages them to insist even more vehemently and intolerantly that their views are right. You can witness Groupthink all over the internet these days, in comment sections and even in every day face-to-face life. Even politicians pander to the Groupthinkers, often throwing nuance out the window. It spreads like an oil stain and infects many people who like the warm bath of 'belonging' to one group or another. A new tribalism perhaps?
There is a striking example of one of the earlier example of modern day Groupthinking: In January 1987, around 500 students and staff of California’s Stanford University in the United States listened to a speech by the civil rights campaigner Jesse Jackson. He riled up his audience to no end and when he was done talking, angry students headed to a meeting of the university’s governing body, chanting the infamous words: ‘Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go.’ They demanded that the university's Western culture course, which introduced students to history, ideas and literary classics, was axed. Everything about it is was deeply offensive suddenly for the students. Things we still hear today were uttered: why did they have to learn about classics from ‘dead white males’ such as Plato and Shakespeare? Mind you, this stuff is hardly heard over here in Europe, where (to my knowledge) we still respect the great classics. But in the United States it was all deemed highly offensive suddenly. Writers, scholars, scientists, philosophers who all stood the test of time due to their progressive and important works, now were suddenly deemed 'too white' and 'too masculine'. As if these things are in reality equally divided between men and women, white and black people. Well, even if they are not, they should be. If not conserved by natural historical selection based on quality, then universities themselves had to artificially install works by women, black writers and other racial and cultural groups into the echelons of greatness. Under force. As a result of the protests, and in the name of the new buzzwords of ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’, the universityn course was swiftly redesigned and new ones such as ‘gender studies’ and ‘feminist studies’ were introduced. Political correctness as we now know it had been born. All with good intentions of course. But did it really improve the quality of Literature or Philosophy studies? These ideas swept across the channel to the United Kingdom too by the way. Not yet in the Netherlands and I don't believe France is yet willing to sacrifice its great cultural (white, male) heroes. But who knows what will happen once Frances population becomes more diverse in time. For instance, the philosophy faculty of Oxford University announced in 2018 that in order to attract more female students, its ‘diversity and equality officer’ should draw up a new reading list. The result was that after 2,500 years of civilization, during which all but a tiny handful of the world’s leading philosophers had been men, 40 per cent of the authors on the new Oxford reading list were now to be female. To make room for the new additions, eminent philosophers from down the ages had to be ditched for LESSER (yes I dare to say it) female thinkers. Utter madness, you may think, and you would be right. But both of these events are a perfect example of Groupthink at work.I love the books from George Orwell. In his epic book 1984 (about an imaginary totalitarian state of the future that tries to brainwash all its citizens) he introduces the term Groupthink, which had to be achieved through propagandistic language marked by euphemism and the inversion of customary meanings. There were hate sessions installed, aimed at anyone who strayed away from the rules. Orwell based his works often on a communist model, which equally brainwashed the masses through state propaganda. Groupthink works through the same mechanisms usually; first some people consider themselves an authority on some matter, and formulate a specific view. When they gather more people who share the same view, they form a group. Their beliefs are usually emotionally fueled, so not fully objective and they therefore also cannot be checked and corrected like one would do with objective scientific views. But nevertheless Groupthinkers go out of their way to insist that their view is so self-evidently correct that all right-minded people must agree with it. Even though in reality, their view is ultimately subjective, and based on a picture of the world as they imagine it to be, or how they think it should be. Any contradictory evidence proving them incorrect and any views of anyone who does not agree with them, are disregarded entirely. Or mocked and ridiculed. Then there follows the rule that in order to reinforce the conviction that the viewpoint of the ‘in-group’ is right, they need to treat the opinions of anyone who questions it as wholly unacceptable. In effect, these people are in effect incapable of engaging in any serious dialogue or debate with those who disagree with them or who have slightly different points of view. Instead, they need to be demonized, marginalised or ignored, and if necessary their views must be mercilessly caricatured to make them seem ridiculous. And as if this is all not enough, other thinkers must then also be attacked in the most violently contemptuous terms, usually with the aid of some scornfully dismissive and wrongly applied label – such as ‘bigot’, ‘prude’, ‘xenophobe’, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘denier’. Dissent in any form cannot be tolerated, as is seen too often in daily life today.
And thus holiday names are altered, because they may offend people. A Leicestershire market trader was warned by the council in 2017 that following a complaint, she had to stop selling ‘offensive’ pottery mugs decorated with images of 12th Century monks, the Knights Templar, because they had murdered Muslims during the Medieval Crusades. And any Muslim shopper passing the stall might be offended. Refusing to stop selling, she ended up having her license withdrawn. And it works in the other way also; in Rotherham there was an utterly disgusting sex ring active, where Asian men mass raped English teenage girls. Police knew of this but did nothing (and admitted as to that now also), because of fear of 'stigmatizing' the Asian and Muslim community. Positive discrimination therefore, at the expense of innocent young teenagers who were let down and traumatized over many years. Fear of the public calling the police force 'racist'... See this BBC article on the matter for instance. If you do not agree with the latest political correctness craze, you commit the horrible offense of 'hate crime'. Like political correctness, it originated in America. Society seems polarized to the extreme in this respect. One group with a rigid mindset about what it is permissible for people to say, think or do. is constantly on the lookout for anyone or anything likely to give offence, and they express their disapproval in a series of all-too-familiar cliches. The other group, meanwhile, stares at them in utter amazement, baffled as to how anyone could be so obsessively blinkered and so humourlessly intolerant – and to have departed so wholly from the dictates of basic common sense. Anyone who disagrees with the One group can be openly accused of 'hate crimes'. And thanks to the internet and social media, that news spreads like wildfire. With social media such as Facebook and Twitter, the internet has given a powerful new platform for people to spread their views to others. More than many people are willing to endure, because these (unfounded) accusations can ruin careers and relationships, depending on how vicious the accusers do their work. Because ‘online hate crimes’ are often treated just as seriously as offences committed ‘in person’ by today's police force. And so we witness what is known as ‘virtue-signalling’ – the desire by people to highlight a view to demonstrate that they side with those who they consider to be morally ‘virtuous’.
Often resulting in.... personal abuse at anyone expressing contrary opinions. Many universities these days are so vigilant to avoid any controversy, that they ban any lecturers or visiting speakers whose views may be considered offensive. Which in my view is outrageous and completely contrary to what universities should offer their students; difference of opinion and challenging new views; the capacity to debate and defend your point of view against other thinkers. Welcome to the real world! America also invented the mind-boggling concept of ‘safe spaces’, where students are guaranteed protection from anything which contradicts their rigid views on all the issues of the politically correct lexicon. This can include not just statements about race and gender, but also opposing political and cultural ideas, and even climate change denial. And also coming from America: ‘trigger warnings’. Universities, dealing with adults intending to learn, now censor passages in books that adult students might perhaps find ‘disturbing’, such as Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, because it includes scenes of ‘violence by men against women’, or even fairy-tales. Gob-smacking pampering and mollycoddling. And don't even think about dressing up in a pretty Chinese dress during Halloween if you aren't Chinese yourself, or wearing a Mexican sombrero when you are white; you will be slapped with ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘patronization’.It all stems from the same problem: this absurd wish to be protected from anything that contradicts these ultra-sensitive people's own rigid ideology. They demand protection from any challenging other opinion. And the rest of the world needs to bow and change. Its craziness to me that instead of modernizing the world and abolishing oppression, these political correctness warriors have created their OWN oppressive 21st century system. A completely new social, psychological and ideological prison of intolerance. Oh the irony, and these people don't even see it. Who would have thought we would go back and act so regressive in this modern day and age. I don't follow the tune of that flute, but then again I am called a 'hater' online many a time already. Who cares.
This weekend, things got heated in Paris, when French-Polish film director Roman Polanski was awarded a César award for best director. Actress Adèle Haenel stormed out of the awards demonstratively when Polanski's name was read out loud. Fine, adieu. And earlier the woman presenting the awards refused to say his name and instead referred to renowned director Polanski who made countless laureated movies as 'Sneezy', from the movie Snow white. Very rude. But respect and sensitivities only are a one way street for political correct people. You're either 'in' or you are 'out' and then none of the self-made rules apply to you anymore, and they can do exactly the opposite of what they preach. The César commission deemed his work important enough in its own merit for an award so that is what counts I guess. Horrible as he has acted in the past; these awards are not a political tribunal. His artistic works, I think, should be judged on their own merit. It's not his first award nor will it be his last. Roman is a director and a very good one too. Although that is, of course, subjective.
Although I completely understand that there are people who don't want to watch his movies as a result of the controversy surrounding his past, or who would never vote for his movies to win any academy prizes, people should also try to understand that their feelings and views are not the only ones. And that others may have different ideas, and still be decent human beings despite that. Just accept that people may differ in opinion and that this does not mean a personal dismissal of you and your personal beliefs. So there is no need to start cursing and demonizing or ridiculing or blocking those with different views. My view on Polanski: well done to the César organizers for having the guts to put artistic integrity first. Roman has by his own words, as far as I understand, acknowledged that he made a horrible mistake in the late 70's, raping a teenage girl. Back then it wasn't picked up on but now it has been highlighted and fairly so. He escaped justice by fleeing the United States. But there is more to Roman Polanski. This does not diminish what he did, but there is additional information about his life. He was in Warsaw ghetto as a child. He lost his mother in Auschwitz and had his 8,5 months pregnant wife Sharon Tate (and child) taken from him in one of the worst slayings in history, from the hands of Charles Manson sect fanatics. And the American judge who locked Polanski up, let it slip during a party while Polanski was out on bail again, that he intended to lock him up for 100 years. When a friend overheard him say this and told Polanski, he freaked and considered that no justice, and fled the United States. None of this is an excuse for the crime he has been accused of, but part of the bigger context is that this man has also been traumatized and went to hell and back in his own life. Yet still makes amazing movies. My view is that these award shows are not political tribunals. If the jury of the French César awards decided that Polanski deserves an award for his latest movie, then it is what it is. Then he gets awarded a prize by the movie industry for his artistic work. Completely understand why people don't want to view his movies, as a result of Polanski's personal life. But I myself believe that art (including music, books, paintings and movies etc) should be judged on its own merit and not based on the personalities that produced it. Perhaps this is a culturally determined view partly. I'm Dutch (well part Polish also), European, and over here we also don't judge politicians typically on their extramarital affairs for instance. That is more an Anglo-American/ Anglican thing perhaps. Here many look at peoples professional record above anything else, and tend to separate the private life from the professional life. While respecting the law of course; criminals should be tried. So in this case; people can boycott Polanski's movie if they despise the maker (same with Woody Allen), but that is not (only) what is happening. No these film makers need to be publicly vilified in comment sections and on social media, and anyone who has a different opinion gets attacked. Because it is simply too much asked these days to agree to disagree and to respect someone else thinking differently. That challenges someone's own set of ideas too much, and thus those other-thinkers need to be shamed and ridiculed. Entire comment sections online are shouted and cursed full. BAD bad baddddd mannnn who should be spat out by the whole world. As if appreciating someone's work equals condoning rape. People make grave mistakes in life but that doesn't mean that they can't work for the rest of their lives. Some people cán separate art from its maker. I'm fine with people not wanting to see his movies. Fine, each to their own. But don't tell me what I am or think just because I happen to appreciate his movies. Besides, the hypocrisy can be annoying. These social justice warriors rarely practice what they preach; many still watch the scores and scores of (often excellent) movies which someone like Harvey Weinstein has produced (or where Kevin Spacey features in, for instance). Inglorious Bastards, Kill Bill, Scream and the list goes on and on. If these nay-sayers are consequential, they also boycott all those movies. But then they would have to skip a lot of good movies. I still read Céline's books, even though he was wrong in the war, as long as he doesn't sprout his fascist nonsense in his books. Art stands on itself. You do not have to destroy all the good someone did in order to be certain about the wrongs he also did. Glad many people are more nuanced over here in this part of the world. You just boycott his movies then and other people will decide for themselves if they want to see his movies or not.
Update: Stephen Glover wrote about this topic on March 4th 2020: "It seems to me there is a distinction between on the one hand expressing personal distaste for Polanski and electing not to see his film, and on the other hand stopping everyone else from watching it. The sins of an artist should not be confused with the work of art which he or she produces. It is a hard truth to swallow that many proficient, and even great, artists are bad people — sometimes very bad. The wonderful Italian painter Caravaggio was often violent, and, in 1606, killed a man in a brawl. He fled after being convicted of murder. Like Eric Gill, he produced works of great religious art. Paul Gauguin, the 19th-century French post-impressionist whose fine portraits were exhibited recently at the National Gallery in London, took three under-age wives in Tahiti, and infected them all with syphilis. He eventually died from syphilitic complications at the age of 54. Writers are sometimes no better. The 16th century playwright Christopher Marlowe was frequently in trouble with the law before being stabbed to death in a brawl in a Deptford pub. Charles Dickens anatomised unforgettable rogues in his magnificent novels. In his own life he dumped his wife Catherine (who had borne him ten children) to take up with the young actress Ellen Ternan. He even publicly accused Catherine of having a ‘mental disorder’. And so it goes on. The American novelist Norman Mailer stabbed his wife with a penknife in 1960, and nearly killed her. His compatriot, the great modernist poet Ezra Pound, was a fascist and a supporter of Mussolini, as well as an anti-Semite. Nor are composers exempt from moral failings. German Richard Wagner was a virulent anti-Semite whose views influenced Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Is his music any less sublime? Whether a wholly wicked person could produce a great work of art may be seriously doubted since art demands a high degree of human empathy, of which very bad people seem incapable. But it is surely incontrovertible that many great artists, whose works we revere, have been no better than the rest of us, and sometimes a lot worse. And yet I suspect that most people can see that we should try to appreciate a work of art without dwelling on the moral imperfections of the person who produced it [..] Abominate the man, or his act, but let Roman Polanski’s film be watched — that is my message. It is simply one of the mysteries of life that bad men can produce good, sometimes great, art." Of course the Daily Mail commentators (right wing and conservative as a whole) disagreed with him.
