Theme: Class

  • It’s not the ruling class, it’s the activists who threaten to organize the whini

    It’s not the ruling class, it’s the activists who threaten to organize the whining class with brand harm.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-20 02:39:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1814490324602859799

    Reply addressees: @ChrisWenzel2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1814487272999289045

  • BTW: women are just as bad as non-white men. AFAIK, the only net contributors to

    BTW: women are just as bad as non-white men.
    AFAIK, the only net contributors to the economy are white males over 35.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 01:04:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812654547086479817

    Reply addressees: @Draconaissance @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812646440335970522

  • Correct. My my estimation, which I haven’t recalculated since 2020, is that ther

    Correct. My my estimation, which I haven’t recalculated since 2020, is that there are 100M surplus people in the USA given the present level of technology, and worse, for the coming levels of technology – including consideration for repatriation of all non-polluting and strategic industries. This is not a difficult number to calculate if you are intellectually honest and understand the limit of employability (unemployability) in relation to the minimum skills necessary for the extant technological means of production.

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-14 22:07:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812609995445293057

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812584356579533104

  • Class: Depends on the degree of precision: Lower vs upper (division at middle vs

    Class: Depends on the degree of precision:
    Lower vs upper (division at middle vs upper middle)
    Lower vs middle vs upper
    Lower vs lower middle, vs middle, vs upper middle vs upper.
    Out of sight lower vs lower lower vs upper lower, vs lower middle vs upper middle, vs lower upper,… https://t.co/2y8kn1WfMs


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-14 21:33:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812601445595885654

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812597050577760477

  • RT @EPoe187: The root of progressivism is equalitarianism. If you think all grou

    RT @EPoe187: The root of progressivism is equalitarianism. If you think all groups are equal, then outcomes disparities are evidence not of…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-14 02:43:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812316971368698142

  • ACCURATE SUMMARY OF PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT FACTIONS

    ACCURATE SUMMARY OF PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT FACTIONS https://twitter.com/whatifalthist/status/1811942275334709283

  • “LESSER ARISTOCRACY” IN THE ANGLO TRADITION In the historical literature, partic

    “LESSER ARISTOCRACY” IN THE ANGLO TRADITION

    In the historical literature, particularly in america, my family is referred to as “lesser aristocracy”. As an american I grew up finding this term pretentious. But that’s a bit of modern misunderstanding. It’d be equivalent to people who performed military service, owned property, were literate, often functioned as a layer between the commoners and the aristocracy, and could be professionals – some were lawyers and preachers and from limited records it looks like lent money now and then, or who performed some minor public political function.

    “The term “lesser aristocracy” refers to a social class that is below the high aristocracy but still holds meaningful social status and influence.

    While the term might sound pretentious today, historically, it simply referred to a specific social class with distinct roles and responsibilities.

    The lesser aristocracy occupied a social stratum below the nobility but above commoners and peasants. They were often landowners but did not hold noble titles.

    They derived their income primarily from rents and agricultural produce from their lands.

    They frequently held local authority and were involved in regional governance, often serving as justices of the peace, sheriffs, or other local officials, and in america served as early politicians.

    They had a significant influence on local politics and society, often acting as intermediaries between the peasantry and the nobility.

    Literacy and education enabled them to take on roles such as officers in the military, legal professionals, and administrators.

    It was common for members of the lesser aristocracy to serve as officers in the military, given their education and social standing.

    Military service was seen as both a duty and a means of maintaining or enhancing their social status.

    In early New England, families referred to as the lesser aristocracy often played pivotal roles in the establishment and governance of colonies.

    They were among the more affluent and influential settlers, contributing to legal, military, and political structures.

    They often had the potential for social mobility, either rising to higher aristocratic status through marriage, wealth accumulation, or royal favor, or, conversely, losing status through economic decline.”


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-12 23:29:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811905806943608832

  • Jonathan is too kind. The left pushes for irresponsibility and the right pushes

    Jonathan is too kind. The left pushes for irresponsibility and the right pushes for responsibility. That’s the correct take. It’s the cause of sex and class differences.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 01:44:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811214839764709672

    Reply addressees: @MarioNawfal @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811214095841943735

  • Q: “WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE BLUE STATES OF THE NORTHEAST?” Let’s start with Connec

    Q: “WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE BLUE STATES OF THE NORTHEAST?”

    Let’s start with Connecticut:
    The Good: if you live in the non-urban green zones in CT that are still remnants of the pre-war economy, or if you live in Fairfield county, which is a tax haven for NYC, it’s a beautiful countryside in all four seasons.

    The Bad: However, other than that, there is a lot of bad. Connecticut is effectively bankrupt. The state employee pensions are unfunded, unfundable and unpayable. The Government has driven every business out of the state that isn’t military. The tax policy alone, the power of the unions, the decline of the cities made it impossible to recruit talent combined with failure to produce enough housing that drove up the cost of living, combined with exhaustively open immigration that drove down wages, combined with the general failure of post 1970 education drove not only business but people out of the state as well. The most valuable people, those who are able to obtain a STEM education, or employment under a higher quality of life, leave Connecticut at the first opportunity. The people are generally considered nihilistic. Connecticut is the second worst state for Starting businesses, and tech biz is almost impossible. (Otherwise I would have built not one company in CT and eleven in other states). Everyone who CAN leave DOES leave. Every business that can leave does leave.

    Fairfield county is the only reason the state economically survives. Otherwise the state would fiscally collapse. Everything along 91 and 95 for three miles around it is a slum all the way down to Fairfield County. The most dangerous cities in Connecticut are Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury, New Britain, and Plainville. Hartford’s overall crime rate is 81% above the national average, with a violent crime rate 180% over the national average. Other dangerous cities in Connecticut are Bloomfield, Derby, New London, East Windsor, and East Hartford.

    The Connecticut river valley until WW2 was one of the best places to live in human history – comparable only to the Loire Valley in France.

    Why? Because Yale, Trinity, and Wesleyan, combined with New England Women as the origin of Progressivism, were at least positive movements, but combined with the pre and postwar labor movement, and especially the 1960s leftist movements, adopted more soviet policy than any other state in the union.

    But unlike MA, which had to reform because of the shock of losing the technology industry to california, CT did not reform. And the public keeps doubling down. And demographically, and because of demographics, economically, and because of economically, politically, there is no chance it can be corrected.

    So until the Federal Government creates the possibility for States to go Bankrupt and renegotiate their contracts and debts (particularly with state employee unions), CT will follow other dying regions. With the top most indebted states being In order (Mass, CT, RI, NY NJ, NH, VT, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware).
    In other words Blue = Debt.

    So all the northeast’s blue states are dying. If so then why don’t they know it? What’s wrong with the people of the northeast?


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-10 20:16:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811132299506802688

  • It’s only arrogance if it’s false. All you’re doing is pretending you’re of high

    It’s only arrogance if it’s false.
    All you’re doing is pretending you’re of higher status, worth, value to others, and agreeableness than others. Meaning you’re likely from the upper proletarian or lower middle class and you want to shame others into agreeing with your pretense.…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-09 23:37:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810820661008273732

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810817413639745921