Dustin Chin: Another #AngryAsians Playwright

Dustin Chin: Part of the #AngryAsians Trend

This essay is cross-posted at Counter-Currents. 

The #AngryAsians motif continually fascinates, especially given their relatively well-to-do economic position in our ‘white supremacist’ society, and the proliferation of plays and other writings by them that villainize, ostracize, and ‘Other-ize’ white people has become an identifiable trend. Snowflakes, or Rare White People can be added to this list, a supposed comedy by NYC-based playwright Dustin Chinn, which is currently being workshopped at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Chinn has a track record of churning out speculative comedies with overt racial themes: there’s his previous plays Asian Women in Space (“It’s the 24th century and the United Earth Space Federation is looking for a few good Asian ladies. Will Nausicaa Lee and her fellow wayfarers be enough to stop humanity’s greatest and most perverted threat?”), and The Rise and Fall of the United States of Asian America (“After an earthquake levels San Francisco, a clandestine organization sends the Bay Area’s Asian Americans north of the Canadian border. When the newly minted refugee government declares independence, all stupidity breaks loose.”).

In his advance review of a production of Chinn’s Snowflakes, Chris Rohmann gleefully writes of the play’s clobber-you-over-the-head moralizing and heaps approbation on the play’s anti-white racism, which, if the races were in any way reversed, would certainly outrage the Woke Crowd, leading to loud protests, de-platforming demands, firings, and the like. Rohmann begins his piece with a scene from the play:

“What am I bid for this fine specimen of white manhood?”

The swaggering black auctioneer scans the audience of prospective buyers, who quickly bid the price up, until the white man on the auction block goes to the jubilant winner for a fat five-figure sum…

This table-turning riff on an antebellum slave auction was part of the UMass Theater Department’s season kick-off event earlier this month.

No Country for White Men

If there’s one thing to be said about this satirical (?) scene, it’s that it is more relevant, allegorically, than standard white liberal optimism. Enoch Powell, in his famous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, predicted that in due time, given the trajectories of mass immigration and the emergent shape of Political Correctness as a social force (which he himself had the pleasure of witnessing), “the black man will [someday] have the whip hand over the white man.” When it comes to the future of race relations in a white-minority United States, white liberals, on the other hand, hold an imagined, idealized, and often unexamined, teleological idea: they believe, explicitly but more often implicitly, that we will then enter a transformative, qualitatively different, Kumbaya State of Being, where ethnic group loyalties are shed and all races finally ‘get along’. This is the same sort of mindset which actually expected the election of Barack Hussein Obama to be so cathartic and redemptive for the nation that we’d be entering a historical era of post-racial America. That this utopia did not come to fruition during Obama’s presidency (and actually witnessed the reactive spawnings of the Tea Party Movement which peaked in 2010 or so, and the Alt-Right which peaked in 2016-2017) does a lot toward explaining the hysterical levels of anti-whiteness we’ve seen really accelerate among the Postmodern Left in the last couple of years.)

The road to Hell, as we are wont to say, is paved with good intentions. The imaginative yearnings of white liberals, even those with the best of intentions, is an unfortunate delusion completely out of touch with human history. When whites do, in fact, become the minority in the United States, revenge (for imagined slights) will be exacted upon them by newly empowered POCs, and it will assume all sorts of latent and manifest forms.

One doesn’t have to look far to see what the rationale for such vengeance will be. It is right before us: generations of POC quasi-intellectuals serving up the latest bromides of postmodernism, neo-colonialism, gender studies, and other variants of cultural Marxism. Simply put, white malevolence is the ‘root cause’ of group differences between whites and POCs. Discussion of the compounded effects of poor choices, bad behavior, and cognitive misfortunes which befall non-white group X is, as we are all too well aware, taboo. In such a white-minority future, even the Last White Man Standing will continue to be blamed and held indirectly responsible for the continued relative failure of black and brown cultures. Even after the Last White Man’s throat is slit, and his race is no more, the ‘trauma’ associated with his memory and past actions (however fancifully imagined) will then be positioned for blame and passed down through folktales and PhD theses in Departments of Wokeness Studies.

With Snowflakes, we have a play that actively fantasizes about such a future:

What’s noteworthy about this season is that, as theater professor Harley Erdman told me, “There are no canonical white male playwrights” in the mainstage lineup. In fact, three of the four plays are by and about people of color, and the fourth features a gender-fluid central character. In other words, this is not your granddad’s college theater.

Indeed.

The goal posts are shifting. Having proportional representation is no longer enough. True Diversity can only reached when whites are themselves underrepresented or essentially wiped away from the scene altogether. Again, if and when ever pressed on it, such a strategy will no doubt be rationalized by appeals to alleged historical injustices, etc. It will take the same form as contemporary appeals for slavery reparations, where future generations of whites, most of whose ancestry had absolutely no involvement with slavery whatsoever, are nonetheless to be taxed (and implicitly held as the beneficiaries of slavery) based on, presumably, sufficient levels of melanin in their skin.

Erdman said the department strives to be “conscientious about what’s taking place in the country and the world, serving our community with work that’s relevant, that reflects our ideals and aspirations.” The ability to even mount a season’s worth of shows with majority non-white casts is due in part to the department’s Multicultural Theater Certificate program, directed by Priscilla Page, which has attracted a lot of students of color as theater majors.

We are actually at a point in time in our nation’s history where having a majority non-white cast, in a country that is still currently majority white, is actively celebrated. The current demographic reality doesn’t matter. It is the Long Arc of History – you know, the one that Bends Towards Justice – that matters. It is the reality of imminent racial displacement, one that the Left is very much aware of (but that Conservatism Inc. is afraid to discuss) that matters. The projected and imminent demographic displacement of whites is a clarion call among the Left, and with Snowflakes we have leftwing agitprop using this racial displacement as a premise of the play:

It begins with a deliciously unsettling premise, building on the demographic projection that before midcentury a majority of the U.S. population will be people of color. Extrapolate that shift out a couple hundred years and, in the playwright’s imagining, Caucasians are almost extinct.

Hip, hip, hooray!

The “Listen to Black Women Party”… Coming Soon!

In this 23rd-century fantasy, humanity has evolved into a mixed-race multiculture and the country is governed by the Listen to Black Women Party, which has imposed “decades of sensible, boring, stable regulation and reform.”

At this point, the play is beginning to sound like an inversion of The Turner Diaries. It also represents another iteration of the burgeoning “shut up and listen” cultural niche animating much of the Left these days.

Remnants of the once-dominant white race are preserved on remote reservations and in Nueva New York, in the Museum of Natural History. There, in the Hall of Caucasian Peoples, two of them are exhibited as anthropological curiosities in a 1950s domestic habitat.

Similar dynamics already exist any time a coastal elite journalist is forced to do a story on ‘middle America’: their reportage on whites in Flyover Country treat them like anthropological curiosities, relics of a dead past. And why, I wonder, would there be a Hall of Caucasian Peoples? Oughtn’t such a despicable Race be forgotten and memory-holed?

When the captive couple escape from the museum with the help of a white-obsessed curator, high levels of Caucasity are released on a public that hasn’t been subjected to it for generations. The show morphs into a madcap chase thriller, as the Caucasoids’ mere presence infects the outer world with microaggressions, unconscious entitlement, “irrational self-confidence” and cultural appropriation.

Where to begin. Unpacking that last paragraph could consume an entire dissertation. Notice, however, how the reviewer’s use of the phrase ‘high levels of Caucasity’ is an acceptable sentiment in a review. It’s akin to how virtually every POC ‘comedian’ has obligatory bits about “Ever notice how white people do _____?”

Snowflakes is a giddy, sassy, reverse-transgressive fun-house-mirror image of today’s society. The dark-skinned locals are both intrigued and fearful of the pale exotic fugitives, as officials from the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Ethnic Preservation try to recapture them and contain the toxicity levels.

Now, there’s a phrase I actually like: reverse-transgressive. The Dissident Right is reverse-transgressive. Race realism is reverse-transgressive. Believing that the West is unique, and came from a particular, narrow group of Western European ethnicities, is reverse-transgressive. Believing in scientific objectivity is reverse-transgressive, ad infinitum.

UMass MFA candidate Gabriel Harrell is directing the show. The play’s themes are timely and topical, he said, citing the white male privilege on display in the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings. (In Chinn’s future utopia, most of the characters holding power are female.) “These are not issues that we can often laugh at. There’s something about the comedy of this show that I hope will enable conversation that it’s difficult to have in our day-to-day lives. In reversing the paradigm, the script allows you to laugh, and then hopefully to talk to the person who’s sitting next to you.”

From the sounds of it, every check box on the P.C. Checklist has been checked. In Chinn’s “future utopia”, power is held by females. And I chuckle every time I hear someone from the Left (e.g., Eric Holder) talk about having a ‘conversation’ about race, by which they mean a monologue involving them lecturing to you, Whitey.

After the season kick-off, I sat in on a rehearsal of Snowflakes. The cast was working through a scene in which the white couple crash a traditional Indian wedding, observed with horrified fascination, from a safe distance, by the two officials pursuing them. They freely partake of the henna tattoos and ethnic food, claiming “a real connection to what’s happening here – an authentic cultural experience.”

Even liberal white hipsters, it would seem, have no place in this future utopia. But think of what underlies this ‘comic’ bit about ‘cultural appropriation’: We are in an age where there is both a denial that a uniquely white culture exists (or even really existed in a positive way), as well as a simultaneous zeal to pounce on and vilify any discernible iota of uniquely white cultural expression. So, with no real culture of their own to publicly extoll, liberal whites and CivNat GOPE-types earnestly try to ‘experience’ and appreciate The Other. While this was supposed to be virtuous behavior among good-thinking whites, it seems to have backfired, as they are now maligned, mocked, and ridiculed. Such are the hilarious foibles of cultural genocide.

It’s worth mentioning that Snowflakes has very specific racial casting recommendations (strictures?):

Roles by Race: 1 middle eastern or arab american, 1 black or african american, 1 latinx, 1 native hawaiian and other pacific islander, 2 white

It doesn’t look like the UMASS production has an Arab or Pacific Islander in the cast, though I’m not certain. Question: If their representation is lacking, does this mean the whole production is itself racist?

Rohmann’s interaction with the UMASS production’s cast of Snowflakes, which from the accompanying photos as well as the cast’s names appears to have a high Wakandan ratio, is most telling:

During a break, I spoke with some of the cast members. I asked the actors of color what it’s like being the majority in a show, for a change.

“It’s really beautiful,” Sabine Jacques enthused. “It’s a beautiful feeling to be in the majority on this stage, because we’re not often represented and I want to show representation for young black women and girls.”

Taylor Mickens observed that while TV is getting “a little more open” for actors of color, positive roles are often given to light-skinned black women “and usually color blind. But in this show the roles are meant to be people of color because of the circumstances and the setting, so the fact that it’s majority people of color, and meant to be that way, is also breaking some boundaries.”

One of the token white actors displays all the requisite contrition, virtue-signaling, and Soy Boy Wokeness:

Nicholas Cummings plays one of the two white characters. I wondered what it’s like for him to be in the minority, for a change. “It’s been incredibly valuable to me, to just sit there and listen,” he said. “Everyone has heard the white guy’s story a million times, and to have an environment where other people can talk, and hearing everything they have to say, has really impacted me. I’m really grateful for that.”

Yes, “just sit there and listen”, White Boy. We don’t want to hear you anymore. That is what we want of you, and all we want of you, thank you very much.

Oh, and for you to continue to subsidize our existence.

Indefinitely.

You awful racist monster.

Posted in Anti-White, Political Correctness, Theater | Comments Off on Dustin Chin: Another #AngryAsians Playwright

NYT: Nervous Demographers

Why the Announcement of a Looming White Minority Makes Demographers Nervous” is the NYT title, in a piece about the year 2044, when white Americans are projected to fall below half the population and lose their majority status.

They’re not nervous about the actual ramifications of racial displacement, mind you, but rather how some (aka: whites & gloating Dems) might *perceive* such racial displacement. Towards the former’s realities, there is no real concern. Towards the latter, well, something must be done.

“I said ‘I’m really worried about this,’” said Dr. Prewitt, now a professor of public affairs at Columbia University. He added, “Statistics are powerful. They are a description of who we are as a country. If you say majority-minority, that becomes a huge fact in the national discourse.”

The piece posits a false dichotomy between ‘white nationalists’ (who else would see the Great Displacement being a ‘bad’ thing?) and gloating Dems:

For white nationalists, it signifies a kind of doomsday clock counting down to the end of racial and cultural dominance. For progressives who seek an end to Republican power, the year points to inevitable political triumph, when they imagine voters of color will rise up and hand victories to the Democratic Party.

The piece then goes into the serious strategizing various (mainly Jewish) scholars are scrambling to put together to shape perceptions on The Great Displacement.

Jennifer Richeson, a social psychologist at Yale University, spotted the risk immediately. As an analyst of group behavior, she knew that group size was a marker of dominance and that a group getting smaller could feel threatened. At first she thought the topic of a declining white majority was too obvious to study.

But she did, together with a colleague, Maureen Craig, a social psychologist at New York University, and they have been talking about the results ever since. Their findings, first published in 2014, showed that white Americans who were randomly assigned to read about the racial shift were more likely to report negative feelings toward racial minorities than those who were not. They were also more likely to support restrictive immigration policies and to say that whites would likely lose status and face discrimination in the future.

Mary Waters, a sociologist at Harvard University, remembered being stunned when she saw the research.

“It was like, ‘Oh wow, these nerdy projections are scaring the hell out of people,” she said…

“That’s what really lit the fuse,” said Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California, referring to the 2008 projection. “People went crazy.”

The concern, it would seem, is how the irrational ‘demographics is destiny’ beliefs about displacement (aka the dastardly white supremacists) might spread to a wider slice of whites. This is in no small measure due to liberal Dems’ gloating about how… demographics is destiny:

It was not just white nationalists worried about losing racial dominance. Dr. Myers watched as progressives, envisioning political power, became enamored with the idea of a coming white minority. He said it was hard to interest them in his work on ways to make the change seem less threatening to fearful white Americans — for instance by emphasizing the good that could come from immigration.

“It was conquest, our day has come,” he said of their reaction. “They wanted to overpower them with numbers. It was demographic destiny.”

Good news, though:

Dr. Myers and a colleague later found that presenting the data differently could produce a much less anxious reaction. In work published this spring, they found that the negative effects that came from reading about a white decline were largely erased when the same people read about how the white category was in fact getting bigger by absorbing multiracial young people through intermarriage.

Yes, the good doctor and his ilk will be sure to present (enframe) the data in such a way as to minimize the chances of this information being perceived as what it is: demographic displacement. My prediction is they will lobby for, and successfully obtain, significantly widened definitions of ‘white’, so that ‘white Hispanics’ like George Zimmerman will be classified as ‘white’, etc., thereby deflecting the realities of the radical demographic change taking place in the U.S.

The piece contains this gem, the NYT making a discovery 50+ years after the fact:

It is unclear exactly when the idea of a majority-minority crossover first appeared, but several experts said it may have surfaced in connection with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

And, lastly, there’s this great quote from a neo-Boasian relativist:

[R]ace is about power, not biology, said Charles King, a political science professor at Georgetown University.

“The closer you get to social power, the closer you get to whiteness,” said Dr. King, author of a coming book on Franz Boas, the early 20th-century anthropologist who argued against theories of racial difference. The one group that was never allowed to cross the line into whiteness was African-Americans, he said — the long-term legacy of slavery.

Yes, black would be seen as white… if it weren’t for that dang slavery.

Just like night would be seen as day… if it weren’t for the danged sun.

Posted in Race, White Identity | Comments Off on NYT: Nervous Demographers

Racial Polarization Will Widen

A very good piece by Eric Kaufmann, which gets to the heart of the matter.

Kaufmann begins with the evidence that, across Western nations, more diversity leads to steadily widening political divisions.

This new schism springs from several forces. First, the unprecedented post-1960s level of long-distance migration from the developing world to an aging West. Second, the Left-wing ideological shift from class populism to pro-minority cosmopolitanism. The latter has successfully made any meaningful discussion of immigration and national identity taboo, with mainstream parties until recently steering clear of such topics for fear of being branded ‘racist’.

However… when there is a vacuum, it gets filled:

When liquor isn’t supplied by the market, bootleggers move in. So, too, the expanding anti-racist ideology hemmed in the major parties on immigration, opening space for populist Right entrepreneurs such as the Sweden Democrats or Donald Trump. In Britain, where the debate was more open, it was the failure of first Labour, then the Tories, to control numbers that permitted the BNP and Ukip to flourish.

And by those dastardly Alt-Right types.

Kaufmann cites recent evidence of how the racial-displacement-of-whites projections is framed (which is largely driven by media coverage) affects how such whites interpret this future scenario:

As coverage of the increase [in non-white immigration] grows, the public becomes more focused on the potential long-term loss of what I term the nation’s ‘ethno-tradition’, i.e. its characteristic ethnic composition of having a substantial ethnic majority alongside minorities. It also makes white majorities more aware that their group, with its collective memories, sense of common ancestry and cultural practices, is declining numerically in relation to other groups.

In other words, in the Western democracies — which are the countries founded by ethnic ‘whites’ and that (until the post-1960s, Third World, mass immigration debacle) were clear-majority ‘white countries’ — demographic racial displacement will increasingly lead to forms (plural?) of white racial consciousness.

As society grows more diverse, these divisions will steadily widen. This self-reinforcing triple-lock will tighten its grip. The US is at a more advanced stage in the process, but as the German regional elections show, Europe is following suit: the centre is hollowing out.

Kaufmann’s piece stumbles, however, at his proposed ‘solution’ for the intensifying racial discord we are seeing (and will continue to see) worsen:

The remedy lies in what I term Whiteshift, the voluntary assimilation of minorities into the majority though intermarriage – a process which will need active telegraphing as mixing won’t be strong enough on its own to make much difference to social cohesion until the end of the century.

I fail to see how any such racial intermarriage, particularly among about half of the white electorate, will come to fruition. It’s an idea that seems to bely the widening polarization we’re seeing emerge along racial lines.

Unless, that is, an implicit auxiliary hypothesis of Kaufmann’s is that, for all intents and purposes, the Left will have won, causing the eventual disappearance of a heightened white racial consciousness.

Posted in International, White Identity | Comments Off on Racial Polarization Will Widen

Whitey on the Moon

Richard Brody

Rabbi Richard Brody doesn’t seem to like Gentile White People. He especially doesn’t like films that feature Gentile white people as the leading characters. We recently saw Brody take issue with the Unbearable Whiteness of John Krasinski’s horror film A Quiet Place (“The noise of A Quiet Place is the whitest since the release of Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri…) and the recent film Peppermint.

In his review of First Man, the new Neil Armstrong biopic by Damien Chazelle, more of the Rabbi’s hostility emerges. The film is a “right-wing fetish object… a film of deluded, cultish longing for an earlier era of American life, one defined not by conservative politics but, rather, by a narrow and regressive emotional perspective.”

Okay, then!

Of the flag-planting kerfuffle:

When “First Man,” Damien Chazelle’s drama about Neil Armstrong’s mission to the moon, premièred at the Venice Film Festival, in August, it stirred up an absurd controversy among right-wing blowhards who hadn’t seen the film but nonetheless damned it on the basis of reviews stating that the movie doesn’t depict the iconic moment when Armstrong planted the American flag on the lunar surface. It’s true that the flag-planting isn’t dramatized, but the blowhards need not worry: “First Man” is worthy of enduring as a right-wing fetish object. It is a film of deluded, cultish longing for an earlier era of American life, one defined not by conservative politics but, rather, by a narrow and regressive emotional perspective that shapes and distorts the substance of the film.

Brody also dislikes the stoicism of Armstrong, especially when women and minorities were existing in other spaces and places in time. At a deeper level, he seems to dislike the creation of Gentile white ‘heroes’, both now and even then, at a time when the country was about 90% white and Christian. Hence, per the Rabbi, among the film’s many sins, the biggest appears to be that it doesn’t have enough screen time for BLM & #MeToo concerns:

Nothing in the film suggests that Neil is even aware of what’s going on in the world around him. Much of the action in the movie takes place in Jim Crow states where public facilities were segregated, but there’s no hint of this in the film; there’s no hint of where Neil stands on the pressing questions of the time. He has no black colleagues, no female colleagues; meanwhile, a female cosmonaut, Valentina Tereshkova, flew a space mission for the Soviet Union in 1963. What did he think?

How can one possibly make a Neil Armstrong biopic without exploring what he thought of an obscure female cosmonaut? What serious filmmaker would tackle the Apollo missions without addressing why NASA had so few blacks in 1969?

The Rabbi’s fangs really come out with the film’s unbearable Whiteness. He describes the movie as “whiter than a Fred-and-Ginger ballroom set” (the contempt and hostility in this guy’s tone is amazing).

There has been a most peculiar, and longstanding, animus against manned space exploration by the likes of the Rabbi and his ilk, as there was with Barry Obama. I would argue their types lack the Faustian soul of European Man; they’d rather be spending the money on wider welfare redistributionism & high speed rail boondoggles:

The one scene that embodies the sixties onscreen is, to my mind, among the most contemptible scenes in recent movies. It takes place midway through the action, when Congress begins to question the value of the space program. Neil is dispatched to represent NASA in a meeting at the White House, where senators fret about “taxpayer dollars,” and while there he is summoned to the phone and informed of the deaths of three astronauts in an Apollo test. The point is clear: that the astronauts are risking their lives while Congress is counting beans and playing politics.

But Chazelle takes that notion even further a few minutes later in the film, when, racked with unspeakable grief over the deaths of his colleagues, Neil drives off to be alone. “Half the country” may oppose the moon mission, but here Chazelle offers a peculiar, tendentious, and self-revealing cinematic interpretation of that phrase in the form of a montage. It shows Kurt Vonnegut, appearing in a black-and-white television clip, saying that the government would do better to spend the money on such things as making New York City “habitable.” There’s an archival clip of chanting protesters, featuring, prominently, a sign saying “¡Ayuda al Pueblo!” and footage, staged for the movie, of Leon Bridges performing Gil Scott-Heron’s 1970 song “Whitey on the Moon.”

Chazelle openly mocks people who thought that the moon money was spent foolishly—those pesky intellectuals, blacks, and Hispanics who go on TV or into the street demanding “gimme” while the likes of Neil and his exclusively white, male colleagues uncomplainingly put their lives on the line to accomplish historic things in the interest of “mankind.” In its explicit content, and by artful omission, “First Man” subscribes to the misbegotten political premise that America used to be greater—and that the liberating and equalizing activism of the sixties ignored, dismissed, and even undermined that greatness.

Posted in Film, Left | Comments Off on Whitey on the Moon

Study on PC Sentiments

Interesting (albeit frustrating) numbers from a poll that attempts to measure public attitudes toward both Political Correctness and so-called ‘hate speech’. The headline takeaway is the seeming contradiction that: “81% of poll respondents said they think political correctness is problematic, and 82% said hate speech is an issue”. Among the public, is there significant cognitive dissonance on these issues?

Some other interesting facets:

The study found that ‘progressive activists’ were the only of the seven categorized political groups to express strong support for political correctness. The co-authors said the group makes up 8 percent of the U.S. population.

IOW, 8% of the general population (i.e., our SJWs) are a loud bunch who, increasingly, are getting their way when it comes to the formalization and bureaucratization of PC dogma.

Majorities of different demographic groups said political correctness is a problem. That viewpoint was shared by 79 percent of whites, 82 percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hispanics, 88 percent of American Indians and 75 percent of African Americans.

Wow. POCs think PC is a problem more than whites?! What that tell me: There are huge numbers of self-loathing whites racked with liberal white guilt.

The study found that the greatest predictors for whether a person believes political correctness is an issue is their education and income.

Eighty-three percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 a year said political correctness is a problem, compared with 73 percent of respondents who make more than $100,000.

Similarly, 87 percent of respondents who did not go to college said political correctness is an issue, while 66 percent of those with postgrad degrees shared that sentiment.

Stands to reason: the wealthier and more educated a liberal is, the more rigidly he believes in PC dogma.

Posted in Political Correctness | Comments Off on Study on PC Sentiments

2018 Nobel Prize in Economics

William Nordhaus and Paul Romer both won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics. In this very simplified summary of their respective areas of originality, which led to their respective wins, this article describes Romer’s work thus:

The mainstream economic analysis of the 1970s, when Romer was a graduate student and Nordhaus was an assistant professor, was mostly dedicated to what’s known as general equilibrium analysis: if consumers were to maximize their utilities, and producers were to maximize their profits, what would happen? Both Romer and Nordhaus provided key insights to thinking about what happens over time. That is, how our individual decisions today shape the outcomes for society as a whole in the future. They both framed their ideas in the then-nascent field of economic growth, and both changed it completely.

The concept of economic growth was jump-started by Robert Solow (who won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in 1987) with a model that connected the decision to save with the amount of capital available in the economy. It was mostly used as a device to connect the past and the future by obtaining constant growth rates that made sure the economy scaled with time.

But economists failed to address the underlying reasons for technological progress — it was just assumed to happen — and they took the fact that it had risen enormously since the industrial revolution for granted. There was little interest in why some countries grow faster than others: after all, it was assumed, everyone in the world was using similar technologies.

My Spidey senses tingled at that last paragraph. Will they? The suspense builds…

The piece continues:

Romer, it has been suggested, was inspired by a graph showing how economic growth has skyrocketed since the industrial revolution, and decided he wanted to get to the bottom of it.

In doing so, Romer changed the old approach to economic growth completely. Instead of technological growth simply happening — as if falling upon the economy from the sky — his doctoral thesis assumed that economic agents, such as people or businesses, can actively affect the speed of economic growth.

The rate of growth of GDP per person began to meaningfully depend upon the proportion of the labor force dedicated to developing new ideas. Obviously, more people producing ideas means fewer people producing goods in the short run. But you’d get a higher rate of growth in the long run due to more ideas leading to better productivity. Other economists followed this line of thinking (Robert Barro, Daron Acemoglu, Philippe Aghion — all prize candidates for a few years now), and the Journal of Economic Growth that covers these topics is now one of the most prestigious and most cited in economics.

Maybe I’m missing the plotline here, but this just seems to highlight to me how empirically wanting international macroeconomic theory is when attempting to make sense of something like how and why the industrial revolution in England occurred (vs the rest of the world), but pays zero attention to population genetics and race realism.

There is such opportunity for cross-fertilization between disciplines if and when The Cathedral ever relents on taboo subjects for discussion.

Posted in Economics | Comments Off on 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics

A Study in Contrasts: New School vs. Old School

First, watch Flake from the other day, looking down at his shoes while a hysterical SJW cries about “her body” and then a Wise Latina lectures him:

Then, as a pairing, watch Joe Manchin from earlier today, similarly deferential to another annoying SJW “survivor”:

And then, finally, compare both to the very different, old-school response of Orrin Hatch. Watching the Harpies scream when he tells them to “grow up” is pure joy:

Posted in Political Correctness | Comments Off on A Study in Contrasts: New School vs. Old School

RIP: Geoff Emerick

As a sonically creative and imaginative studio engineer (who helped create the vintage Abbey Road psychedelic sound), it is hard to overestimate the role of Geoff Emerick, who recently passed at the age of 72. After George Martin, Emerick was the most important recording studio figure that contributed to The Beatles’ genius recording output, and (if you believe Emerick), Martin stole much of his glory in the process.

In addition to working on the Beatles’ seminal later albums, and at least a dozen solo McCartney albums, Emerick engineered on countless other classics. Among them:

The Beatles – Revolver (1966)
The Beatles – Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
The Beatles – Magical Mystery Tour (1967)
The Beatles – White Album (1968)
The Beatles – Abbey Road (1969)
The Zombies – Odessey and Oracle (1967)
Paul McCartney – Band on the Run (1973)
Paul McCartney – Ram (1971)
Paul McCartney – Venus and Mars (1975)
Paul McCartney – London Town (1978)
Paul McCartney – Wings at the Speed of Sound (1976)
Paul McCartney – McCartney II (1980)
Paul McCartney – Tug of War (1982)
Paul McCartney – Pipes of Peace (1983)
Paul McCartney – Flaming Pie (1997)

Keith West / Mark Wirtz Orchestra – Excerpt From A Teenage Opera ‎(1967)
Tomorrow – Tomorrow (1968)
Peter & Gordon – Hot Cold & Custard ‎(1968)
Los Brincos ‎– Contrabando (1968)
Koobas – Koobas (1969)
Badfinger – No Dice (1970)
Badfinger – Straight Up (1971)
Stealers Wheel – Stealers Wheel (1972)
Nektar – Down To Earch (1974)
America – Holiday (1974)
Chris Bell – I Am The Cosmos (1975)
Elvis Costello – Get Happy! (1980)
Elvis Costello – Imperial Bedroom (1982)

Posted in Music | Comments Off on RIP: Geoff Emerick

Sokal, Elfwick, McGrath LLC

Some months back, when the story was first circulating, I’d never read up on the details of this incident. It turns out it was a brilliant Sokal Hoax 2.0.

Bottom Line: PC has gotten so surreal, it is getting increasingly easy to pull off Alan Sokal / Godfrey Elfwick / Titiana McGrath type hoaxes.

The trio noted below penned 20 hoax papers, 4 of which have been published. Amazing.

The existence of a monthly journal focused on “feminist geography” is a sign of something gone awry in academia. The journal in question—Gender, Place & Culture—published a paper online in May whose author claimed to have spent a year observing canine sexual misconduct in Portland, Ore., parks.

The author admits that “my own anthropocentric frame” makes it difficult to judge animal consent. Still, the paper claims dog parks are “petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’ ” and issues “a call for awareness into the different ways dogs are treated on the basis of their gender and queering behaviors, and the chronic and perennial rape emergency dog parks pose to female dogs.”

The paper was ridiculous enough to pique my interest—and rouse my skepticism, which grew in July with a report in Campus Reform by Toni Airaksinen. Author Helen Wilson had claimed to have a doctorate in feminist studies, but “none of the institutions that offers such a degree could confirm that she had graduated from their program,” Ms. Airaksinen wrote. In August Gender, Place & Culture issued an “expression of concern” admitting it couldn’t verify Ms. Wilson’s identity, though it kept the paper on its website.

All of this prompted me to ask my own questions. My email to “Helen Wilson” was answered by James Lindsay, a math doctorate and one of the real co-authors of the dog-park study. Gender, Place & Culture had been duped, he admitted. So had half a dozen other prominent journals that accepted fake papers by Mr. Lindsay and his collaborators—Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University, and Helen Pluckrose, a London-based scholar of English literature and history and editor of AreoMagazine.com.

The three academics call themselves “left-leaning liberals.” Yet they’re dismayed by what they describe as a “grievance studies” takeover of academia, especially its encroachment into the sciences. “I think that certain aspects of knowledge production in the United States have been corrupted,” Mr. Boghossian says. Anyone who questions research on identity, privilege and oppression risks accusations of bigotry.

Posted in Academia, Political Correctness | Comments Off on Sokal, Elfwick, McGrath LLC

Eddie Addenberry – Captain Jones (1972)

Here is a really terrific baroque pop song from the excellent compilation Tea and Symphony: The English Baroque Sound (1967-1974), which you can hear in full here.

Posted in Music | Comments Off on Eddie Addenberry – Captain Jones (1972)