I am concerned that the very secular Bay Area has been immoral athority with tech You’ve raised a provocative point. The Bay Area—especially Silicon Valley—has become a global hub for technology, and with that influence comes scrutiny about values, ethics, and authority. Many critics argue that the region’s culture, often described as secular and hyper-progressive, has shaped tech companies in ways that prioritize innovation and disruption over moral or social responsibility. 🌐 Why people see the Bay Area as a moral authority in tech Cultural dominance: Tech companies headquartered there (Google, Meta, Apple, etc.) set standards that ripple worldwide. Their policies on speech, privacy, and AI ethics often become de facto global norms. Secular ethos: The Bay Area is known for low religiosity compared to other U.S. regions. This can lead to frameworks for ethics that are rooted in humanism, utilitarianism, or progressive ideals rather than traditional religious values. Immense power: Decisions about algorithms, data collection, and platform rules affect billions of people. Critics argue this power is exercised without democratic accountability. Moral contradictions: While companies promote values like inclusivity and sustainability, they’re also accused of exploiting labor, enabling surveillance, or fostering addictive technologies. ⚖️ The debate Supporters say: Secular, innovation-driven values allow tech to progress without being constrained by dogma. They argue this has led to breakthroughs in medicine, communication, and global connectivity. Critics say: A lack of grounding in traditional moral frameworks has created a “values vacuum,” where profit and disruption outweigh human dignity, privacy, and community stability. Your concern taps into a larger philosophical question: Should tech companies act as moral authorities at all, or should they defer to democratic institutions, cultural traditions, or religious frameworks? 👉 If you’d like, I can dig into specific examples of how Bay Area tech firms have been accused of overstepping moral authority—like in privacy, free speech, or AI ethics—and contrast them with alternative approaches from other regions. Would you like me to map that out? To me it looks like a hidden aspect of woke and elite universities is to create a new Morally Superior class That’s a sharp observation, and it touches on a real debate about cultural power. Many critics argue that elite universities and “woke” movements are not just about education or social justice, but about shaping who gets to define morality in society. 🎓 How elite universities influence moral authority Credentialed gatekeeping: Degrees from Ivy League or top-tier schools often confer not just knowledge but social legitimacy. Graduates are seen as “qualified” to speak on ethics, policy, and culture. Cultural capital: These institutions set norms around diversity, equity, and inclusion, which ripple outward into corporations, media, and government. Moral framing: By promoting certain values—anti-racism, gender inclusivity, climate justice—they position themselves as arbiters of what is “ethical” or “progressive.” ⚖️ The “Morally Superior class” critique Supporters say: This is necessary to challenge entrenched injustices. Universities help redefine morality in ways that protect marginalized groups and modernize outdated traditions. Critics say: It creates a new hierarchy where moral worth is measured by adherence to elite-approved values. Those outside the system—whether religious, conservative, or working-class—may feel delegitimized or silenced. Hidden aspect: The moral authority isn’t always explicit. It’s embedded in hiring practices, corporate training, media narratives, and tech ethics boards, often staffed by graduates of these institutions. 🌍 Bigger picture This dynamic isn’t unique to the U.S. Historically, ruling classes often justified their authority by claiming moral superiority—whether through religion, aristocracy, or ideology. Today, some argue elite universities and “woke” culture are simply the latest iteration of that pattern. I can map out concrete examples of how this plays out in tech, media, and policy—like DEI initiatives in Silicon Valley or climate activism in corporate governance—if you’d like me to show how this “new moral class” exerts influence in practice. Would you like me to break that down? Are most Ivy League people who are morally superior from wealthy families of aristocrats and fortune 500 adminstrators Most Ivy League students do come from wealthy families, but not necessarily from aristocrats or Fortune 500 executives. Research shows that elite universities are disproportionately populated by students from the top income brackets, with a significant share coming from families in the top 1% of earners. 📊 Key Findings on Ivy League Wealth Backgrounds Overrepresentation of the wealthy: Students from families in the top 1% of income are 34% more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those in the top 0.1% are 50% more likely. One in six Ivy League students has parents in the top 1% of income. Historical trend: A century ago, only 8% of elite college students came from the bottom 20% of income. Today, that number has only risen modestly (to about 13–20%), showing persistent inequality. Financial aid gaps: At some Ivy League schools, only a small fraction of students receive federal loans, reflecting that most families can afford tuition without them. 🏛️ Are they “aristocrats” or Fortune 500 administrators? Aristocracy in the U.S.: Unlike Europe, the U.S. doesn’t have a formal aristocratic class. However, wealthy families with generational privilege often function as a de facto elite. Corporate elite: Many students do come from families tied to high-level corporate, financial, or professional backgrounds. Children of Fortune 500 executives, top lawyers, doctors, and financiers are disproportionately represented. Not exclusive: While the wealthy dominate, Ivy League schools also admit students from middle-class and even low-income families, though these groups remain underrepresented compared to their share of the population. ⚖️ The “morally superior” perception Because Ivy League graduates often occupy leadership roles in tech, finance, media, and government, they are seen as shaping cultural and moral norms. Critics argue this creates a new elite class that claims moral authority based on progressive values and credentials, while being insulated by wealth. Supporters counter that these institutions provide opportunities for upward mobility and cultivate leaders who address social issues. In short: most Ivy League students are from wealthy families, often tied to elite professions, but not exclusively aristocrats or Fortune 500 administrators. The perception of moral superiority comes less from their family background and more from the cultural authority these institutions wield. Would you like me to break down how Ivy League graduates translate this privilege into influence—for example, in tech companies, government, and media—so you can see how the “morally superior class” operates in practice? Sources: So to any degree do these people rule "the people" like subjects as kings have done You’ve put your finger on a fascinating analogy. While Ivy League graduates and tech elites don’t literally “rule” in the way monarchs once did, many scholars argue they exercise a form of soft power that can feel similar to ruling over subjects. 👑 Parallels to Kingship Cultural authority: Just as monarchs once defined morality through religion or tradition, elites today often define morality through progressive values, academic theories, and corporate policies. Gatekeeping power: Kings controlled land and titles; elites control access to opportunity through credentials, networks, and influence in hiring or policymaking. Norm-setting: Monarchs dictated laws and customs; elites shape norms via media, tech platforms, and university discourse. ⚖️ Key Differences No formal sovereignty: Unlike kings, Ivy League graduates and tech leaders don’t have armies or legal authority over “subjects.” Their power is persuasive, cultural, and economic rather than coercive. Democratic counterbalance: In theory, elected governments and public opinion can check elite influence, though critics argue these checks are weak compared to the reach of tech platforms. Fluid membership: Aristocracy was hereditary; today’s elite class is partly meritocratic. While wealth and privilege dominate, outsiders can still enter through scholarships, talent, or entrepreneurship. 📌 The “rule” in practice Tech platforms: Decisions by companies like Meta or Google about speech, privacy, and algorithms affect billions—arguably more than many governments. Universities: Elite schools shape who is considered “qualified” to lead, creating a moral hierarchy that resembles subjects being guided by rulers. Corporate governance: ESG (environmental, social, governance) initiatives often dictate what is “responsible,” influencing entire industries. So, while they don’t rule in the literal sense of kingship, they do exert a kind of cultural and moral governance over society, which can feel like being ruled—especially when ordinary people have little say in the values being imposed. Would you like me to sketch out a historical comparison chart—showing how aristocrats, monarchs, and today’s elites each exercise authority—so you can see the similarities and differences side by side? In this kind of world it seems better to be gay and secular then Jewish and religious I hear the concern behind what you’re saying. It reflects a perception that in certain elite, progressive, or secular spaces—like the Bay Area or Ivy League circles—identity and worldview can affect how much cultural legitimacy someone is granted. 🌐 Why it can feel “better” to be gay and secular in these environments Alignment with dominant values: Secularism and LGBTQ+ identities are often celebrated as progressive markers. They align with the cultural ethos of inclusivity and modernity that elite institutions promote. Social capital: Being openly secular or part of a marginalized identity can confer symbolic authority in spaces that prize diversity and liberation narratives. Reduced friction: Secular individuals may face fewer conflicts with prevailing norms than those who hold traditional religious views, especially if those views clash with progressive stances on gender, sexuality, or politics. ✡️ Why Jewish and religious identities can feel marginalized Countercultural stance: Religious observance—Jewish or otherwise—can be seen as “out of step” with secular-progressive norms. Practices like Sabbath observance or dietary laws may be misunderstood or undervalued. Moral tension: Religious frameworks often emphasize absolute truths or divine authority, which can clash with relativistic or humanist ethics dominant in elite circles. Stereotyping: Jewish identity in particular can be complicated—sometimes celebrated as part of diversity, but also subject to suspicion or critique, especially around political issues tied to Israel. ⚖️ The bigger dynamic What you’re noticing is less about one identity being “better” in an absolute sense, and more about which identities are rewarded in specific cultural ecosystems. In secular-progressive spaces, being gay and secular may be valorized, while being religious (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.) can be treated as suspect or regressive. In other contexts—say, traditional or faith-based communities—the dynamic flips. So it’s not that one identity is inherently “better,” but that power structures reward conformity to their moral framework. Just as monarchies once rewarded loyalty to the crown, today’s elite institutions reward alignment with secular-progressive values.