I’m shocked that nobody has commented, this is a really well thought out view of the world and solidifies my optimism for the future of the 21st century. I think most people reading HN are G2 and I completely agree that we are the essence of the coming post-mathusalist society!
This pattern of writing has been used for hundreds of years.
It starts with a base mostly detached description dividing people into groups. The groups begin mundane or at least non-threatening. The idea is the reader will attach themselves to one of those groups so that they are insulated from what is to come. The writing here even helps you with this, "G2 is my native social class, and probably that of most of my readers.". A flattering upper-middling position in the hierarchy just defined.
But past this point the article takes a hateful turn. The description of the previous groups existed merely so that the reader could ensure they personally don't exist as part of the target. Here the perpetrators are not people, they are rapists, war lords, and gamblers. There is nothing virtuous about this group, "they’re the ugliest and most broken of each nation". In effect there are really only two groups, that of the good and that of the evil.
At this point, the reader is supposed to have two conclusions, 1. there exists a group of bad people we must do something about, and 2. they personally are one of the "good guys". The group descriptions merely exist to justify collective action against of group of "bad people" who are not bad because of actions but because of who they are intrinsically. They cannot be saved.
What action is to happen varies, this form of argument has been used to justify everything from the taking of land and property to outright genocide. They always target a small minority of the population and assure the reader the violence will not be directed at them.
I find the author's description of the E1 class persuasive. I think there is a selection effect here. To become a member of that class it is usually necessary to be a clever, heartless sociopath, and so most of the people who achieve that status have such personalities.
You want us to believe that today's E1 is not in fact an evil class, but you offer no specific arguments, instead just a vague historical one. Furthermore, you say, "What action is to happen varies, this form of argument has been used to justify everything from the taking of land and property to outright genocide." But as the article explained, what happened after WWII was instead the elite were restrained and forced to behave in a moral fashion, and the populations benefited enormously.
I am going to assume that the reason you offer no specific arguments that today's E1 is not evil is because you don't have any remotely persuasive ones, and the reason you don't is because they are in fact evil.
Although this article mentions racism later on, it would be interesting to see the distribution of various ethnicities among the ladders and levels mentioned in the first part of the article -- many people outside the U.S. view it as a 4-caste society made up of Caucasian, Asian, Black, and Hispanic, with an underclass of Muslim "untouchables".
"The Elite is pre-Malthusian; they are obsessed with the zero-sum game of social status and the need to keep themselves elevated and others out"
In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said that when people strive for more wealth than they need to live comfortably, it is to achieve high social esteem.
I’m shocked that nobody has commented, this is a really well thought out view of the world and solidifies my optimism for the future of the 21st century. I think most people reading HN are G2 and I completely agree that we are the essence of the coming post-mathusalist society!