Calliope
@calliope5431.bsky.social
Not the Greek muse, just a casual fan. I study the Third Reich. The demands to READ THEORY will continue until you have actually read Christopher Browning and Ian Kershaw.
Worst example in the other direction is sacred prostitution, which created a millennia-long complex mythology around something that modern archaeological evidence and cross-disciplinary analysis both agree did not exist:
November 25, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Worst example in the other direction is sacred prostitution, which created a millennia-long complex mythology around something that modern archaeological evidence and cross-disciplinary analysis both agree did not exist:
"Why shouldn't the Great Khan have input in ending Muscovy's proxy war for Rus' expansion?"
November 25, 2025 at 6:44 AM
"Why shouldn't the Great Khan have input in ending Muscovy's proxy war for Rus' expansion?"
The actual figure for the consumption of the top 10% is around 23%, which has been essentially unchanged for decades:
November 25, 2025 at 3:55 AM
The actual figure for the consumption of the top 10% is around 23%, which has been essentially unchanged for decades:
No matter how often people say this, it simply isn't true. The Federal Reserve statistics do not show this.
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1NOuC
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1NOuC
November 25, 2025 at 3:54 AM
No matter how often people say this, it simply isn't true. The Federal Reserve statistics do not show this.
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1NOuC
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1NOuC
Charted below is the actual percentage, nobody cites it because you'd need a microscope to determine actual trends:
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1NOuC
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1NOuC
November 25, 2025 at 3:50 AM
Charted below is the actual percentage, nobody cites it because you'd need a microscope to determine actual trends:
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1NOuC
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1NOuC
The top decile does not in fact account for half of all consumer spending, this is a viral myth and you can look at the Federal Reserve figures if you do not believe me. Top decile is unchanged at 23% of consumer spending:
November 25, 2025 at 3:49 AM
The top decile does not in fact account for half of all consumer spending, this is a viral myth and you can look at the Federal Reserve figures if you do not believe me. Top decile is unchanged at 23% of consumer spending:
3. This is literally true of all developed economies, you claim this is some unique product of the US but actually the world is just aging. So what?
4. The percentage of income households spend on necessities ("household financial obligations") is DOWN since the 80s as per the chart I shared:
4. The percentage of income households spend on necessities ("household financial obligations") is DOWN since the 80s as per the chart I shared:
November 25, 2025 at 2:28 AM
3. This is literally true of all developed economies, you claim this is some unique product of the US but actually the world is just aging. So what?
4. The percentage of income households spend on necessities ("household financial obligations") is DOWN since the 80s as per the chart I shared:
4. The percentage of income households spend on necessities ("household financial obligations") is DOWN since the 80s as per the chart I shared:
1. You keep moving the goalposts, first "using the median is concealing the rich getting richer", now "the rich" are defined to be "people with *below median* wealth but above the 20th percentile".
2. No, actually, you are quite wrong about that, "other nonfamily households" has barely budged:
2. No, actually, you are quite wrong about that, "other nonfamily households" has barely budged:
November 25, 2025 at 2:24 AM
1. You keep moving the goalposts, first "using the median is concealing the rich getting richer", now "the rich" are defined to be "people with *below median* wealth but above the 20th percentile".
2. No, actually, you are quite wrong about that, "other nonfamily households" has barely budged:
2. No, actually, you are quite wrong about that, "other nonfamily households" has barely budged:
1. It's literally the bottom 50% we are definitionally not talking about rich people. Hence. You know. Bottom 50%
2. No, household size getting smaller means you have fewer kids to support with more income.
3. The same is true of literally every other developed country on Earth.
4. See below:
2. No, household size getting smaller means you have fewer kids to support with more income.
3. The same is true of literally every other developed country on Earth.
4. See below:
November 25, 2025 at 2:08 AM
1. It's literally the bottom 50% we are definitionally not talking about rich people. Hence. You know. Bottom 50%
2. No, household size getting smaller means you have fewer kids to support with more income.
3. The same is true of literally every other developed country on Earth.
4. See below:
2. No, household size getting smaller means you have fewer kids to support with more income.
3. The same is true of literally every other developed country on Earth.
4. See below:
Since you object to the median, here's the wages of the bottom 20%. Notice how the 2025 value is roughly 4 times the size of the 1980s value:
November 25, 2025 at 2:05 AM
Since you object to the median, here's the wages of the bottom 20%. Notice how the 2025 value is roughly 4 times the size of the 1980s value:
1. Sure, and the net worth of the bottom 50% has increased sixfold since the 80s.
2. It has gone down by 27% since the 1980s, no it hasn't.
3. The poverty level is not constant across countries, if you calculated peer countries' poverty via US metrics a lot of them would be poor.
4. No it doesn't:
2. It has gone down by 27% since the 1980s, no it hasn't.
3. The poverty level is not constant across countries, if you calculated peer countries' poverty via US metrics a lot of them would be poor.
4. No it doesn't:
November 25, 2025 at 1:59 AM
1. Sure, and the net worth of the bottom 50% has increased sixfold since the 80s.
2. It has gone down by 27% since the 1980s, no it hasn't.
3. The poverty level is not constant across countries, if you calculated peer countries' poverty via US metrics a lot of them would be poor.
4. No it doesn't:
2. It has gone down by 27% since the 1980s, no it hasn't.
3. The poverty level is not constant across countries, if you calculated peer countries' poverty via US metrics a lot of them would be poor.
4. No it doesn't:
1. The net worth of the bottom 50% has gone up by a factor of 6 since the 1980s
2. Households are smaller now, which means people are supporting fewer kids with more money.
3. Irrelevant
4. No, CPI calculates expenditures literally everyone makes, it's called the "consumer price index" for a reason
2. Households are smaller now, which means people are supporting fewer kids with more money.
3. Irrelevant
4. No, CPI calculates expenditures literally everyone makes, it's called the "consumer price index" for a reason
November 25, 2025 at 1:54 AM
1. The net worth of the bottom 50% has gone up by a factor of 6 since the 1980s
2. Households are smaller now, which means people are supporting fewer kids with more money.
3. Irrelevant
4. No, CPI calculates expenditures literally everyone makes, it's called the "consumer price index" for a reason
2. Households are smaller now, which means people are supporting fewer kids with more money.
3. Irrelevant
4. No, CPI calculates expenditures literally everyone makes, it's called the "consumer price index" for a reason
Setting aside the fact that in the 1980s, half of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage and 75% of Americans believed that homosexual activity was "morally wrong", this is of course false.
November 25, 2025 at 1:00 AM
Setting aside the fact that in the 1980s, half of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage and 75% of Americans believed that homosexual activity was "morally wrong", this is of course false.
The median income (no, not the mean, skewed by billionaires, the MEDIAN - that is, the 50th percentile human being in the United States) in the US is higher than every country on earth other than microstates and tax havens.
November 25, 2025 at 12:44 AM
The median income (no, not the mean, skewed by billionaires, the MEDIAN - that is, the 50th percentile human being in the United States) in the US is higher than every country on earth other than microstates and tax havens.
According to 1989's Asahi Shinbun, real estate investment accounts for half of GDP growth. A reversal would risk recession. We can't afford to go backwards.
November 24, 2025 at 11:28 PM
According to 1989's Asahi Shinbun, real estate investment accounts for half of GDP growth. A reversal would risk recession. We can't afford to go backwards.
This was still true on 9/11. The global economy is changing *incredibly* quickly and undergoing a seismic shift the likes of which haven't been seen since the 19th century:
November 24, 2025 at 9:10 PM
This was still true on 9/11. The global economy is changing *incredibly* quickly and undergoing a seismic shift the likes of which haven't been seen since the 19th century:
The homicide rate in modern Kenya is something like half that of 19th century Europe, and Kenya hasn't performed an execution in over 30 years.
November 24, 2025 at 6:18 PM
The homicide rate in modern Kenya is something like half that of 19th century Europe, and Kenya hasn't performed an execution in over 30 years.
99% of this is people looking at crime rates from the 1990s, seeing it was higher than in the 1950s, and not looking any further back than that:
November 24, 2025 at 6:09 PM
99% of this is people looking at crime rates from the 1990s, seeing it was higher than in the 1950s, and not looking any further back than that:
Below is the distribution for American Nobel laureates in chemistry:
November 23, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Below is the distribution for American Nobel laureates in chemistry:
This is the distribution of American Nobel prizewinners for physics and their alma mater by type of institution:
Ivy+ includes the Ivy League plus MIT, Stanford, UChicago, Caltech, CalTech, and UC Berkeley
Public and private are US non-Ivy+ institutions
Foreign are non-US institutions
Ivy+ includes the Ivy League plus MIT, Stanford, UChicago, Caltech, CalTech, and UC Berkeley
Public and private are US non-Ivy+ institutions
Foreign are non-US institutions
November 23, 2025 at 6:57 PM
This is the distribution of American Nobel prizewinners for physics and their alma mater by type of institution:
Ivy+ includes the Ivy League plus MIT, Stanford, UChicago, Caltech, CalTech, and UC Berkeley
Public and private are US non-Ivy+ institutions
Foreign are non-US institutions
Ivy+ includes the Ivy League plus MIT, Stanford, UChicago, Caltech, CalTech, and UC Berkeley
Public and private are US non-Ivy+ institutions
Foreign are non-US institutions
Once again, the very word "white" is an anachronism here. The largest mass lynching in US history was of Italian immigrants in 1891. Minnesotans were lynching Finns in the early 20th century. The share of immigrants as a percentage of the US population was *higher* a century ago than it is today.
November 23, 2025 at 6:17 AM
Once again, the very word "white" is an anachronism here. The largest mass lynching in US history was of Italian immigrants in 1891. Minnesotans were lynching Finns in the early 20th century. The share of immigrants as a percentage of the US population was *higher* a century ago than it is today.
A world-historical demographic shift is occurring between Europe, Asia, and Africa as Europe rapidly ages while Africa's population and economy both explode. The Trump Administration has decided to respond to this shift by alienating as many sub-Saharan Africans as it possibly can.
November 22, 2025 at 5:53 AM
A world-historical demographic shift is occurring between Europe, Asia, and Africa as Europe rapidly ages while Africa's population and economy both explode. The Trump Administration has decided to respond to this shift by alienating as many sub-Saharan Africans as it possibly can.
JD Vance may want to look at population projections for the US without immigration and ask if he's comfortable throwing his country off the demographic cliff:
November 21, 2025 at 6:23 PM
JD Vance may want to look at population projections for the US without immigration and ask if he's comfortable throwing his country off the demographic cliff:
This is entirely untrue. Going back 50 years, we have:
Trump's termination of USAID (casualties in the hundreds of thousands, soaring into the millions by 2029), the bombing of Iran, the Caribbean boat strikes, and (often underreported) Trump's massive escalation of the drone program both terms 1/
Trump's termination of USAID (casualties in the hundreds of thousands, soaring into the millions by 2029), the bombing of Iran, the Caribbean boat strikes, and (often underreported) Trump's massive escalation of the drone program both terms 1/
November 21, 2025 at 4:34 AM
This is entirely untrue. Going back 50 years, we have:
Trump's termination of USAID (casualties in the hundreds of thousands, soaring into the millions by 2029), the bombing of Iran, the Caribbean boat strikes, and (often underreported) Trump's massive escalation of the drone program both terms 1/
Trump's termination of USAID (casualties in the hundreds of thousands, soaring into the millions by 2029), the bombing of Iran, the Caribbean boat strikes, and (often underreported) Trump's massive escalation of the drone program both terms 1/
I will say this exactly once. The US up until February 2025 was the biggest donor of foreign aid on Earth - larger than the next 3 combined. I will also note that only a single non-Western nation (Turkey) makes the top 10, despite there being numerous non-Western nations in the top 10 list for GDP.
November 21, 2025 at 4:08 AM
I will say this exactly once. The US up until February 2025 was the biggest donor of foreign aid on Earth - larger than the next 3 combined. I will also note that only a single non-Western nation (Turkey) makes the top 10, despite there being numerous non-Western nations in the top 10 list for GDP.