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

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)

#MeToo’s Next Step: “The Gray Areas”

In Jezebel, there’s an article/column (there’s little distinction between the two on that site) that is a goldmine of absurdity, albeit a natural trajectory, for the #MeToo Harpies (“The Next Step for #MeToo Is Into the Gray Areas”).

Written by the unhinged Julianne Escobedo Shepherd, Jezebel’s Editor in Chief, the piece begins with boilerplate stuff about the inherent sexism of due process, wherein “alleged abusers are, in all contexts, held by default to be innocent until proven guilty and so, logically, all victims are liars until proven otherwise.” But where this article gets really mind-blowing is in its forecasting of where the Screeching Harpie Movement needs to go next:

Yet #MeToo’s next direction is toward a deeper look at some of the most common and harder-to-define experiences. It’s looking toward a more equitable world in which women and other marginalized genders can live less fearfully, by digging deeper into the gray areas and educating all of us about the harm they perpetuate…

Shepard wants the woke feminist movement to begin “moving the lines so that all sexual maltreatment is considered socially unacceptable, whether or not it’s punishable by the legal system.”

The White Pill in this article is the salacious details of #MeToo pagan witches eating their own male allies, due to ever-unrealistic standards of male behavior and the eradication of anything resembling female agency and responsibility, as well as formal due process. The piece focuses on Jack Smith IV, a radical SJW (who has long targeted Alt Right figures) who has been fired from his SJW publication job at Mic because of it. As far as his pedigree, Smith has all the right SJW bona fides:

Jack Smith IV: #MeToo Ally & #MeToo Fodder

Jack Smith IV has made a name for himself over the last year and a half as a senior writer and correspondent covering the extremist right for Mic, a website known for its progressive takes on social justice. His 2017 arrest while covering the Standing Rock protests was a key moment that raised his profile, and he has capitalized on it, writing about incels, MRAs, and neo-Nazis; helming videos about racism and xenophobia; tweeting to his nearly 45,000 followers about the next white supremacist rally in Charlottesville and Milo Yiannopolous; and publicly speaking about, and positioning himself as an authority on, issues of misogyny.

Smith is the model of a type of journalist who has flourished in the age of #resistance: Defiantly left, he is fluent in the discourse of privilege, and has supplemented his writing and video hosting slots with his ability to exploit social media to garner as much attention for himself as the causes he supports. He is ensconced in media circles, and well-known across a certain cross-section of progressive journalism. (A recent former roommate is a staffer at Gizmodo, Jezebel’s sister site.) His reporting offers his audience less new information or a unique perspective but rather a straight white man who has allied himself with the marginalized. His visibility has landed him plum hosting gigs, including this segment on WNYC in which he discusses “virulent misogyny,” and incels and their relation to the #MeToo movement. He has been the host of For the Record, a Mic show in which he speaks authoritatively about “racism, sexism, and bigotry of all sorts.” On August 7, Smith appeared on a PBS show called The Open Mind with Alexander Heffner, in which the host described him as “one of the leading chroniclers of the modern age fascist and anti-fascist movements”

So, with all his Woke posturing and virtue-signaling, what’s the problem?

Multiple women, though, say that Smith’s public persona doesn’t square with his behavior toward them. In a series of individual conversations with Jezebel, they have painted a picture of someone whose behavior is in sharp contrast to what would be expected of a fierce public advocate for progressive politics.

Did he rape anyone? Nope?

His sin was alleged “emotional abuse, manipulation, and gaslighting.” Jezebel reports that “three of these women say independently of one another that these tactics led to coercive sex.”

Now, when one reflects on the term “coercive sex”, one typically envisions some form of physical restraint involved or the unmistakable threat of violence if the woman is unaccomodating. Not so with #MeToo’s ever-widening definition, which will soon make all the norms of courtship and dating various forms of abuse. The Jezebel piece cites this surreal governmental definition, from a Clinton-era created department, to support their jihad:

The United States Government Office on Women’s Health defines sexual coercion as “unwanted sexual activity that happens when you are pressured, tricked, threatened, or forced in a nonphysical way. Coercion can make you think you owe sex to someone. It might be from someone who has power over you, like a teacher, landlord, or a boss. No person is ever required to have sex with someone else.”

As comedian Aziz Ansari discovered earlier this year, awkward sex after a date can now qualify as ‘abuse’ and/or ‘sexual assault’. In the case of Smith, the ‘victims’ here all appear to be female SJW colleagues he had consensual sex with:

Of the five women Jezebel spoke with on the record about Smith, all but one are journalists and writers; Jezebel is granting three of them pseudonymity because they fear both professional and personal consequences. Two of the women say they were drawn to Smith’s leftist persona and clout on social media. Erica Kay—who has chosen to use her real name and was the first known public accuser of Smith, via an August 2017 Twitter thread—tells Jezebel that during a sexual relationship with Smith from 2014 to 2017, which began when they met in college and continued well after they graduated, their encounters included instances of forceful sex she now describes as “coercive.” “Jenny” describes being pressured into sex with Smith while they were high on weed; “Nina” says Smith coerced her into sex after an hours-long barrage of emotional abuse and manipulation; and Becca Schuh (who has chosen to use her real name) describes emotionally manipulative interactions with Smith that she says created a climate of anxiety and fear.

In the Tinder age, the elimination of alleged gaslighting is part of #MeToo’s brave new world:

Nina is blonde, thin, and stands a little over 5’3”. She told Jezebel that she first matched with Smith on Tinder. She said that their first two dates seemed normal, if intense. “Both times, we did have a connection,” she said, and on their second date, on May 19, they had consensual sex. For a few days after, they didn’t see each other because of conflicting schedules; after Smith was unresponsive to several text messages, Nina said she attempted to end their brief relationship, saying it was clear it was going nowhere. Smith texted later, writing, “I’m surprised you couldn’t sense my interest in you; you’re very sensitive to praise (not a criticism).” Nina responded, “ahh, i’m sorry, maybe a lot of this was in my head!! we texted a lot over the weekend and then the quick fall-off/non-replies to the two times i asked you if you were still into it got me thrown off.” She would later characterize this as Smith’s first attempt to gaslight her, by ignoring her and then making her feel that she had interpreted his lack of response incorrectly.

As is a man yelling at a woman:

“I told him his body language was intimidating me,” she says, “and not to yell at me, to which he said, ‘This isn’t yelling.’”

Not only is ‘Yes’ the new ‘No’, but asking for rough sex is a new ‘No’:

Nina was still upset, she says, and didn’t want to have sex, but didn’t say no because she felt she “had something to make up for.” She panicked, she says, and told him to get a condom from a drawer. She says she froze up and “was so disgusted I just wanted to rip my skin off,” but told him to be rougher “because I just wanted to build distance from myself [during] it.” She now describes what happened as “coercive sex.”

Heartiste would have a field day deconstructing these female SJW victimization accounts, as well as their penchant for bad boys and rough sex:

Kay, who has also spoken about Smith on two separate episodes of her relationship podcastThe Ex Files, tells Jezebel that she dated Smith in 2014, when they were both students at Montclair State University. She says they broke up that same year but continued having a sexual relationship for roughly three years afterwards. She says that their interactions consisted primarily of forceful sex, which she now identifies as “coercive,” and that he employed tactics of control and manipulation, including an unwillingness to have sex with her unless she wore a specific eye makeup. (“I would be forced to put that makeup on before anything happened between us,” she tells Jezebel.)

Not only was the consensual rough sex a form of ‘abuse’, but Smith’s mild fetish for a specific eye makeup is further ‘abuse’. In another context, Kay adds: “Not every time was coercion, and I obviously wouldn’t have stayed with him if literally every time I didn’t want to have sex with him at all.”

The rules, it appears, can be bent and modified at will… by females.

Of yet another SJW woman Smith (who appears to have real game) bedded:

Smith then “pressured” her into sex in a way that made her uncomfortable, she says, and penetrated her without a condom or asking if it was okay. They had sex twice again, later that night and in the morning, both of which were consensual.

Read that paragraph again.

Of yet another SJW chick he bedded:

“I was into him for a very long time and took me a really long time to contextualize the things I had learned about him. I was at a point where his approval and desire for me was the only [thing] that mattered and I don’t know if that’s necessarily relevant, but I personally think that relates to the manipulative aspects of everything.”

Read that paragraph again.

Has #MeToo entered an Ouroboros cycle, with its mouth now devouring its tail? It would seem the movement is heading in a direction that seeks to eliminate all vestiges of female agency. Women become, practically speaking, inert objects who don’t choose or do, but are chosen and only have things done to them.

Furthermore, in the modern era of sex-as-purely-physical-transaction, #MeToo seems to be painting women as emotional roller coasters, easily ‘coerced’ and ‘psychologically abused’ by manipulative men, with low-threshold bouts of crying and neuroticism ensuing.

None of which are very feminist ways of framing things.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Culture Wars, Political Correctness | Comments Off on #MeToo’s Next Step: “The Gray Areas”

Accept – Up To The Limit (1985)

Udo’s pipes on the chorus are… wow.

As one YouTube commentator writes: “It’s saturday, it’s 6:25 AM, I have to go to work and put this song [on] and I FEEL F*CKING ALIVE AND FULL OF ENERGY. LONG LIVE ACCEPT.”

All I can say: out of my way!
Before I get to the top
All I can feel is wild running blood
Please stop, you better watch it!
It’s getting up to the limit!
Up to the limit
It’s getting up to the limit!
Up to the limit… 

Posted in Music | Comments Off on Accept – Up To The Limit (1985)

Notes on the Prospect of Immortality

At Counter-Currents, Jef Costello has a nice essay ruminating on the existentialist choices surrounding suicide. I wrote a long comment to the piece, which I’ve reproduced here:

I’m in full agreement about the importance of living with a sense of purpose and meaning that is beyond one’s self. It is the only way to avoid the black hole of nihilism.

As I see it, approaches to the existential condition (the absurdity of mortal sentient existence) can be split between Heroic Pessimism (Nietzsche, Camus, Hemingway, Cormac McCarthy) and Non-Heroic Pessimism (Schopenhauer; anti-natalists like David Benatar & Thomas Ligotti). Both sides have strong arguments.

Too long to go into here, but I find the philosophical position of anti-natalism to be a formidable one. One can’t just dismiss its arguments out of hand. IMO, a major philosophical piece needs to be written which examines & critiques anti-natalist arguments (in the widest, most general sense of philosophical assumputions & logical consistency), and then also counters with a more pointed, WN perspective (vis-à-vis evolutionary sociology), the WN angle really being a phenotype of basic human in-group preferences.

Durkheim talked about the “collective effervescence” that gives our lives meaning. The mission of the Dissident Right is one such form of this, and is likely a primary one for many CC readers (as Jef notes.)


One irony of improved medical science is that we are all living longer and not dying of heart attacks and such, which inadvertently means more of us will live long enough to say hello to Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia. Now, in all likelihood, Alzheimer’s will be conquered within 50 years time, but short of that, or if it (like the ravages of cancer) cannot be eradicated, then I expect more liberal views of euthanasia to emerge in these end-of-life contexts.

Similarly, if/when gene tech eventually gets to the point where we can choose immortality (or, similarly, elect to have our children born immortal, with non-aging cells and the like), then the specter of suicide will be thrust upon us all. Why? Because the prospect of living forever goes against our entire evolutionary biological structure. Our entire way-of-being, of enframing things, works against the background knowledge that we will someday die, that our time is limited. The arc of life, its ultimate telos, is towards death. In fact, it is the brute fact of imminent death which provides life with its value (life being the concatenation of things + experiences + ideas + time, processed through a subjective value-ordering schema.)

It is the finitude of life, not its infinitude, that provides us with meaning in our day-to-day lives. In ordinary language, this day-to-day sort of ‘meaning’ is predicated on establishing the relative value of things. Both consciously and largely unconsciously, we prioritize things, often within a context of time constraint. I prefer A over C, but B over A. So, we make and operate under implicit lists. I look at the rows of Great Novels on my bookshelf. I see a lesser Chandler novel and the The Brothers Karamazov. From the perspective of “These are the books I need to read before I die”, I prioritize the reading of The Brothers Karamazov as more important than the lesser Chandler novel. If I were immortal, the need for this prioritization would largely be moot.

The elements of Culture that are worth a damn often consist of man attempting to make a mark, create a great work of art, write a great book, compose a great song; to influence people and ‘live on’ after his death (a form of cultural ‘immortality’ one could say.) This is related to our hard-wired biological urge to have kids, to reproduce a version of ourselves and carry our genes into the future.

But for any one individual to be able to live forever… this strikes me as a horror show. In ‘The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality’ (1973), Bernard Williams points out the extreme boredom that would necessarily ensue if one could live forever. Whether it’s living 200 years, or 2000 years, eventually human consciousness (as it exists) would find such a prolonged existence insufferable. (In William Gibson’s Neuromancer, some of the rich elites, the only ones in society with tech-based immortality, eventually off themselves for such reasons.)

Only in some hypothesized transhumanism might consciousness be modified/adapted/tinkered with to be happy and content with the prospect of immortality, but that is doubtful if, like me, you side with the New Mysterian view of consciousness (Colin McGinn, Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers) over the prevailing materialist/functionalist, “brain is meat & consciousness is an epiphenomenon” types like Daniel Dennett. I used to be an uber-optimistic proponent of transhumanism, but I’m not today. Of course, I vacillate every few years between the New Mysterian vs. Materialist views, which really dictates how I perceive these abstract questions.

Today, I feel that, in the end, there is really no way to ‘make rational’ the sheer irrational absurdity that is sentient existence. Now, this doesn’t diminish my energy and commitment towards the WN cause; in fact it may even strengthen it, if only to make it a better world for tomorrow’s white children, whose future is currently under siege. That being said, when pressed on it, I have to concur with Macbeth:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
                   Signifying nothing.

Posted in Existentialism, Philosophy of Mind | Comments Off on Notes on the Prospect of Immortality

The Marvelous Subversion of Mrs. Maisel

The 1950s has long been the Left’s favorite punching bag.

To those of the loud, urban, NYC-pseudo-intellectual milieu, the small towns of Mayberry, and wherever Ozzie and Harriet and ‘the Beave’ lived, are jokes, absurdist romanticizations of an era that never was, a place that never existed. That such relative utopias might have actually existed is never entertained, perhaps a projection of frustration from liberal messianists who’ve never been able to create a utopia themselves, though not for lack of Trying Real Hard.

In our current cultural climate, subtlety is out of style. Woke histrionics and shock value have the highest currency (The Handmaid’s Tale). History is written by the winners, and Hollywood has won. The awards season is less about merit and all about virtue signaling, ratings plummets be damned, and last night’s Emmy’s is a fresh reminder of this. One of last night’s big winners was a show called The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, which took:

  • Comedy Series: “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
  • Actress, Comedy Series: Rachel Brosnahan, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
  • Supporting Actress, Comedy Series: Alex Borstein, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
  • Writing, Comedy Series: Amy Sherman-Palladino, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
  • Directing Comedy Series: Amy Sherman-Palladino, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”

The show’s premise, from Wikipedia:

It’s the late 1950s and Miriam “Midge” Maisel has everything she has ever wanted — the perfect husband, two kids and an elegant apartment on New York’s Upper West Side. Her seemingly idyllic life takes a surprising turn when she discovers a hidden talent she didn’t previously know she had — stand-up comedy. This revelation changes her life forever as she begins a journey that takes her from her comfortable life on the Upper West Side through the cafes and nightclubs of Greenwich Village as she makes her way through the city’s comedy industry on a path that could ultimately lead her to a spot on the “Tonight Show” couch. The series was created by Amy Sherman-Palladino (“Gilmore Girls”).

The casting is not very diverse.

Of Sherman-Palladino herself:

Sherman-Palladino was born in Los Angeles. Her parents are comedian Don Sherman… and dancer Maybin Hewes. Sherman was her father’s stage name. Her father, from the Bronx, was Jewish, and her mother was a Southern Baptist from Gulfport, Mississippi. She has stated that she was raised “as Jewish. Sort of.”

At one point in the show’s first season, the protagonist exposes her breasts onstage, and an indecent exposure charge ensues. It’s not only a paean to Lenny Bruce, but features Lenny Bruce as a character. The Hollywood assault against the 1950s is textbook Jewish subversion of Gentile social norms. If there’s one novel twist in this show, it’s that apparently even one’s Jewish parents are the target of rage.

Wikipedia also notes:

The second season is set to feature Midge and Susie going out on the road together with Midge playing clubs along the Borscht Belt in the Catskill Mountains.


I can’t wait.

There should be lots of diversity in that environment.

Posted in Hollywood, Jewish, TV | Comments Off on The Marvelous Subversion of Mrs. Maisel