Vertical or Ability and Value Classes

For all intents and purposes, with wide individual variation, physical attractiveness (which yes, is a universal), physical fitness, General Intelligence, and personality, serve as a rough indicator of class. For all intents and purposes, intelligence serves as a personality trait – and perhaps the dominant personality trait. For all intents and purposes, personality and physique require exercise in order to produce individual fitness. (This being the primary failure of the 20th century – personality training.)  

Reproductive Classes

Elite – Extremely desirable Upper – Desirable throughout life. Middle – Desirable through fertility, Upper Lower – Desirable during peak fertility. Lower – Desirable only as ‘settling’ (last resort) Lowest – Undesirable  

Social Classes

( status, opportunity )  

Economic Classes

( ability economy, siezure )

The Functions of The Economic Classes

Upper (Asset Capital – Power) Tool of Coercion: Force – Military, Law, Sheriff

The Middle Class

The common definition is:

—”the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”—

I would use:

***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”***

Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it. The British and American Systems The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive. We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified. The British and American Class Models British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states) British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money) For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation. British Elite – American Upper Middle Class (in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.) Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law, and medicine are more traditional upper-middle-class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class. British Established middle class – American Middle Class Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26] British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27] British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27] British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27] British Emergent service sector – American lower working class The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27] British Precariat – American upper proletarian class The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers. British ???? – American Lower proletarian class British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class.  

The Four Middle Classes Criteria

1. Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable)
2. Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions)
3. Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business)
4. Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner)

To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations). So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in. American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically. SUMMARY the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits.

Class Rotation

(… individual rotation vs family and clan rotation)(… the difficulty in defeating the red queen) WHY SO LITTLE SOCIAL ROTATION? IT’S PRETTY MUCH ALL NATURE. –“If genetics dominates, then the persistence rate should be the same at the top and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Moreover, endogamous social groups—groups whose members do not marry outside the group—will be completely persistent in their status, high or low. Groups that are on average high or low on the social scale will not succeed or fail socially because of any distinctive culture that they adopted. Instead their success or failure will be the result purely of their positive or negative selection from a larger population. The more distinctive they are now in social status, the smaller a share they will be of the descendants of their parent population.”– (INVOLUNTARY REDISTRIBUTION IS GENOCIDE) –“Only if genetics is the main element in determining economic success, if nature trumps nurture, is there a built-in mechanism that explains the observed regression. That mechanism is the intermarriage of the children of rich and educated lineages with successful, upwardly mobile children of poor and uneducated lineages. Even though there is strong assortative mating—because this is based on the social phenotype created in part by luck—those of higher-than-average innate talent tend to mate with those of lesser ability and regress to the mean. Similarly, those of lower-than-average innate talent tend to marry unlucky offspring of higher average innate talent.”– ITS ALL GENES – THE WORLD IS A MUCH FAIRER PLACE THAN IT SEEMS. –” 1) First, it means the world is a much fairer place than we intuit. Innate talent, not inherited privilege, is the main source of economic success. 2) Second, it suggests that the large investment made by the upper classes in the care and raising of their children is of no avail in preventing long-run downward mobility: the wealthy Manhattan attorneys who hire coaches for their toddlers to ensure placement in elite kindergartens cannot prevent the eventual regression of their descendants to the mean. 3) Third, government interventions to increase social mobility are unlikely to have much impact unless they affect the rate of intermarriage between levels of the social hierarchy and between ethnic groups. 4) Fourth, emphasis on racial, ethnic, and religious differences allows persistent social stratification through the barriers they create to this intermarriage. In order for a society to increase social mobility over the long run, it must achieve the cultural homogeneity that maximizes intermarriage rates between social groups. “– Justification. Dunning Kreuger. Envy. Reproductive Strategy. All guarantee that despite the fact his is true, it is in the lower majority’s interests to deny it. Unless we pay them well to have but one child, and punish them severely for having more. Personally I think that’s a pretty good deal. I’d have just one child if someone would pay me 10-20K a year for it, and would take it away if I had more. I don’t advocate redistribution for the purpose of equality. I advocate it for the purpose of suppressing breeding, and paying people to assist in the construction of property rights and the commons that facilitates the voluntary organization of production