I wrote an article about enforced monogamy where I discussed how the responsibility of marriage, rather than just consistent access to sex, keeps men law abiding (if it was just about sex, broadly legalized prostitution would solve the low status male rage problem).

Karl Marx had a few opinions to the tune of marriage being one of the the shackles keeping proletarian men compliant under capitalism. Marx was a married man, by the way, so maybe that was a subliminal expression of his desire to escape the matrimonial ball and chain himself.

“Marriage is for cucks” — something Marx might say

Why would free-thinking iconoclasts reading ROK who just want to bang hot girls and who consume red pills like Ronald Reagan ate jelly beans care about whether or not other men successfully marry and settle down into the purgatorial drudgery that is middle class life? Besides, the middle class sucks: they’re boring consumerist unimaginative petit bourgeois sheep who clog up the freeways with their mini vans, bring their loud kids on airplanes, and blather on about sportsball and reality television.

If the middle class should disappear, it’d be the end of democracy

Consider countries without a large middle class. For one thing, they’re societies more prone to revolution. Did Tsarist Russia have a large middle class? Fuck no. Vietnam, China, and El Salvador, countries where communist revolution fomented, all had one thing in common: no significant middle class. Cuba was an exception and, while Marxists like Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Trotsky were considered middle class themselves, the nations they agitated in lacked a large middle class demographic.

The insipid, blue-pilled middle class keeps society safe and predictable. They provide the anodyne cultural security blanket that allows the standouts — the wealthy, the sexually successful, the rebels and the artists — to operate in contrast to mundanity. Moreover, they act as a buffer against the sanguineous hordes of  either anarchy or totalitarianism; the middle class will never revolt because they enjoy lives just comfortable enough to deter them from general strikes and mass civil disobedience.

Think about how wealthy people in developing nations live: fear of kidnappings, Marxist rebels in the jungle, and drug cartels intimidating provincial governments require the third world elite to maintain expensive private security forces. Watch half a season of “Narcos” or the movie “City of God” and you’ll get an idea, or visit any poor country and observe how many buildings have iron gates over the doors and bars on the windows. Sure, third-world plutocrats can afford to live in mansions with high walls guarded by attack dogs, but they’re essentially besieged by the indigent masses.

Loading...

Not to belabor the point, but did Gaddafi foster a large, stable middle class in his country? Of course he didn’t, and he died with a bayonet shoved up his ass.

Not even Gaddafi’s all girl fantasy security squad could save him in the end

The Middle class is patriarchal

Here’s where Marxism and feminism play footsie with each other: the characteristics of the middle class are defined by patriarchy. I didn’t make this up—some PhD named Ruby K Payne articulated that idea in the 90’s. In her book “A Framework for Understanding Poverty,” Payne described the characteristics of social classes in America. Guess which social class was matriarchal> If you said “the lower class,” you’re right!

In the American socioeconomic strata, according to Payne, generational poverty follows a matriarchal structure, where the mothers, who aren’t always certain who the biological fathers of their children are, take on sole caretaker roles for their children. Impoverished women tend to have a rotation of non-committal relationships with men whom they select for being basically “bad boys” (lovers and fighters) and consider fungible within the family unit.

The classic middle class by contrast is patriarchal where the men act as consistent primary providers, with women as either homemakers or secondary income contributors. While divorce is common within the middle class, patrilineal connections remain intact, with subsequent new marriages for each party as post-divorce norms.

When I read comments by single guys lamenting the unfair dating market and promiscuous millennial female behavior, I infer that either the characteristics of generational poverty have encroached into the middle class social strata or they’re out trying to run game in front of the welfare office. Signs point to the former even though the sign in the photo points to the latter.

This way to sarge a few desperate single moms

The Last of the Classy Ladies

If the traditionally patriarchal middle class adopts matriarchal lower class traits then what eventually happens to the middle class? It disappears. What happens when the middle class disappears? Purple haired postmodernists begin tromping through the North American marshlands, coordinating guerrilla raids with their smartphones and setting up pronoun re-education camps. There’d be a rainbow flag with a hammer and sickle emblem on it flying over the White House eighteen months later.

So high five the next paunchy dead-eyed slob you see holding his wife’s purse at the mall and tell him: “Thank you for being the socioeconomic buffer between us and totalitarian communism. Well done.”

Read Next: Is Digital Technology Destroying The Middle Class?

Loading...

Send this to a friend