The E-Z way to get men to fight for you is to convince them that their women are threatened by some bad men “over there,” and that only their swift sacrifice will protect the purity and freedom of their charges.

You see this propaganda technique used frequently in warfare of all intensity levels. In general, men don’t care all that much about threats to other men who aren’t explicitly bonded to them in some way. A man might put himself at risk for his buddy or brother, but he’s quite unlikely to feel that much urgency to protect a more distant male relation.

The woman threatened doesn’t even have to be real. In the case of the low-level rhetorical conflict of #GamerGate, one side invented a cartoon woman to act as an organizing symbol of their ‘movement.’ Both sides tend to be men fighting for the perceived honor of their women, whether or not those women are real or not. Additionally, questions of real versus virtual identity often pop up, particularly in the case of the veracity and real danger represented by ‘death threats.’

Of course, the invention of imaginary women threatened by the enemy is a cultural technique that’s thousands of years old. It’s thousands of years old because it remains effective, even when the symbol is entirely symbolic, when the survival of the state is not at stake.

In the real world, women are rarely threatened by lethal violence, and never have been at nearly the same rates as men have been. This has been marginally different with the brief and disappearance of the doctrine of total war during World War II, but norms in warfare have returned to within historic ranges since then.

The trouble that feminists have is that, by positioning themselves as equal to men, they run the risk of making themselves less attractive as objects of inherent male chivalry. In the case of the #GamerGate kerfuffle, a feminist academic who has crowd-funded her career by decrying the masculine tendency towards chivalry has simultaneously found herself appealing to male chivalry to defend her from the real or imagined threats to her safety.

The recent UN campaign calling for men to defend women in their global quest for equality splays out this contradiction even further. If women are indeed equal to men (which they aren’t, owing to sexual dimorphism in our species), then they should need no men to defend them. They should be like the Amazons of myth. Because the Amazons are myths with no basis in reality, people who try to make the more fanciful myths real will find themselves often frustrated.

This sort of unstable situation, in which women provoke male conflicts in order to gain attention, is not sustainable. It’s one of the reasons why successful societies have tended to separate women from military concerns.

The gender as a whole as a skin in the game problem in that, like Helen of Troy, whatever happens to their home culture, they’ll be taken care of, whether by their fathers, brothers, and husbands or by their new masters. Menelaus just re-po’d his stolen wife after the sack of Troy, and Paris dies in agony (along with countless other heroes on both sides).

When men lose conflicts, they all get killed, or they lose everything but their lives. If women are on the losing side, they might even rise in social status.

On the international scale in America, we have women represented in our military, diplomatic, and espionage institutions at higher rates than they ever have been before. Women charged with the defense of the country tend to make headlines holding up self-portraiture signs, sometimes provoking major international conflicts like in Ukraine. Characters like Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton provoke wars that they will never be endangered by.

This is already a major problem in democracy (horrible tragedies like the slaughter at Galipoli occurred due to the reckless ignorance of Churchill), but it’s compounded further by the presence of women in military authority.

We will never value the lives of men as much as we value the lives of women. But devaluing male lives entirely is the quick route to the destruction of any culture.

The popularity of virtual death threats as a last-ditch appeal to chivalry shows that, underneath the egalitarian rhetoric, even the most radical feminists of today enjoy the feminine power trip of seeing countless men pledge their virtual honor to her defense.

The correct way for men of good character to respond to this is not to decry the male impulse towards chivalry: it’s to ask for the pound of flesh that men tend to be owed for their sacrifices before lifting any fingers for any purported damsels in distress. Knights in medieval tournaments at least expected a flower signifying a favor. Have some self-respect.

From the Atlantic:

At 11 o’clock on a Tuesday night, Amanda, a senior at Princeton University, got her first text message from Stephen, a 60-something Wall Street banker. He wanted her at his New York City apartment. Immediately.

“I told him it was too late—the trains just stopped running,” Amanda said. “He said he’d send a limo.”

Amanda agreed, on the condition that she’d be back on campus for her 10 o’clock class the next morning. After dinner at a fancy restaurant, sex, and some post-sex apartment decorating, Amanda was back in the limo. When she got back to Princeton, she had just enough time to change her clothes, grab her books, and run to class.

Why is this?

Consider that career life is deeply unpleasant for women. It’s, in fact, deeply unpleasant for everybody, because labor is a curse with inherent disutility. That’s what makes it ‘labor.’ Prostitution is much easier work that’s also much more remunerative than most of the alternatives. It’s much easier for Amanda to be paid to fuck a 60 year old executive than it is to get into an investment bank’s competitive recruitment program.

Before the Victorians agitated for the full decriminalization of prostitution, the common figure quoted for women in prostitution as a percentage of the population was 20%. That sounds about right to me. Since that time, the Victorians and their successors attempted to reform the morals of the lower class, to bring them up to higher standards of fidelity and monogamy.

What happened is this: the lower class overwhelmed their superiors. Now, the higher classes ape the morals of their inferiors, rather than the other way around.

If Amanda ever has children, will she send them to Princeton? When Princeton calls her, will she donate to her alma mater? Is she burnishing the reputation of Princeton by listing it on her escort profile?

Certainly not. So, we should applaud these educated, liberated women for damaging the reputations of their schools irreparably, and for making a mock of the entire project of the gender-integrated education project.

What’s happening here?

• The colleges do their best to break down any vestiges of Christian morality in their students. This begins in the classroom, and is reinforced by the extracurricular activities.
• The law makes marriage intolerably risky for men of means and good judgment.
• Colleges, in tone-deaf desperation, encourage graduates to pursue ‘careers’ that don’t actually exist in a chaotic economy wrecked by central planning.
• Prostitution becomes socially acceptable for the upper middle class as an urbane alternative to dating and marriage.

The culture can’t maintain itself in this fashion. Unfortunately, no lessons will be learned until everything goes off of a cliff. It’s somewhere between difficult and impossible to reignite a fundamental re-evaluation of the feminist project, because so many people have wrecked their lives and the lives of their children on pursuing its impossible objectives.

The good news is that a hostile elite with no hearth to defend and no posterity is a weak one that can be displaced without all that much aggression. The bad news is that it also goes for the rest of the world, and, speaking for myself, I’d rather be in control of my own country than living in a country controlled by more cohesive foreigners. A leadership with no skin in the future is living for today only.

In the end, their educations just make them marginally more competitive whores, because it makes them far worse wives. A wife is not good because she is well-read (speaking as someone with an Ivy-educated mother). Or, rather, merely being well-read, quasi-educated in the fashion of our time, and pretty is not among the cardinal virtues for wives.

Glibness without loyalty, dependability, or fertility are all wonderful traits for a whore. We should look upon the Ivies for what they are: finishing schools for whores.

Let’s talk about the middle class.

The 20th century redefined what it meant to be middle class, especially in the United States. In the past, it was a particular set of mercantile and moral values combined with a basic material requirement of property ownership.

Gradually, with the help of more than a century of propaganda, it changed into a squishy set of beliefs centered around faith in education and in sending children to be educated by their priestly betters. This was not the case in the 19th century, especially in the United States: you can read about the disdain for formal education broadly shared by the barons of the bourgeoisie. Similarly, you can find a disdain for high culture, preferring the virtues of hard work, thrift, and personal restraint.

Previously, the role of thrift was critical. It was middle class to wear inexpensive shoes and simple clothing. Investors who wanted to show canniness would condemn company owners who used fancy pens or who purchased gilded books for paying excessive attention to form over function.

Parents instructed their daughters to marry men who displayed such values, in large part because it’s more natural for women to be physically attracted by rakes and not by dentists.

We can criticize these values from a different standpoint, but that’s not the point of this post. Whether or not those values were good or bad is less important than observing how they have been obliterated in the present.

Currently, middle class has become less about thrift and ownership and more about displaying your access to credit with enormous vanity purchases used to signal class status. Because, under democracy, it’s not possible to formalize class distinctions in law, people will often expend enormous sums to signal their status informally. They will buy expensive new cars on credit, buy expensive (and useless) educations for their children from the most prestigious (holy) institutions that they can get their children into, and buy ticky-tacky houses in the nicest neighborhoods that they can borrow for.

Part of this has to do with many decades of monetary experimentation that punishes saving and rewards borrowing, but that, too, is co-morbid with a change in values.

One of the big problems is that we have told everyone that they are ‘middle class’ even though that they show none of the attributes that were historically attributed to that class. You, too, can be middle class if you borrow enormous amounts of money to live in an ugly house full of pulp furniture. You can be middle class if you’re a slut. You can be middle class and a single mother. You can be middle class and own no property. You can be middle class and not be either a professional or a business owner. You can be middle class without displaying Christian virtues (in fact, you needn’t have any religion at all).

The Horatio Alger values of the past are widely mocked, even by Senators and Presidents. The notion of mobility is not the same as ‘classlessness,’ because even aristocratic systems ennoble people for demonstrating heroically noble values.

A class system is not a caste system, although they do have some relation to each other. Noble houses can and do tumble into the earth. Part of the reasons why princes struggled against each other with such vigor was because of the real possibility of losing one’s position in war.

In the classless Diet Communism of democratic society, ideologues seek to abjure the values of the classes in an attempt to destroy the class system itself.

You can blame the Federal Reserve for the destruction of the middle class, perhaps rightly, but it’s more right to blame the destruction of the middle class on that class’ abandonment of its own values.

You can’t be middle class (in the old sense) and support:

• The divorce looting bonanza of modern marriage
• The notion that one can borrow one’s way into the middle class
• That one can be middle class without monogamy
• That psychological theories trump religious duties
• That devotion to the education system of Diet Communism trumps family
• That spending money as sheer display is admirable, and thrift pathetic
• That gender equality is sacrosanct
• That universal suffrage is a moral mandate

Now, the problem is that almost all leftist movements have started in the middle class, and have found their strongest supporters among the middle class. The stereotype of the champagne socialist who joins a revolutionary movement to get back at her daddy is a stereotype for a good reason: because that’s the psychological type that has always dominated the left and will continue to dominate the left for as long as we maintain the idea that political egalitarianism is desirable.

Modern monarchists get tarred routinely as unrealistic. Well, fine.

But if not the King, then who will put red heads on pikes when heads need to be mounted upon pikes?

We have observed that, when the moderating influences are removed from the middle class, ferment and then revolution tend to follow soon afterwards. The slower that those influences have been removed, the slower the pace of the revolution. Because the middle class is inherently insecure in its social position (always in danger of falling due to changes in material circumstances), when placed into political authority, its members tend to do what they can to co-opt and bribe people who want to take everything that they have rather than going for the more direct solution of just killing and exiling the troublemakers.

In the United States, early laws against sedition and legal norms for suppressing socialist uprisings were eventually overturned. It’s not possible to somehow claim that the Founding Fathers were opposed to restrictions against sedition when John Adams made it a central plank of his presidency.

When the sovereign no longer exists, entrepreneurs of violence fill in the gaps. These can be gangs, but they’re also often institutional purveyors of violence that do what they can to protect themselves from open competition. When the problem of ‘drug gangs’ emerged in response to prohibition (a vain attempt by bourgeois intellectuals to externalize the costs of enforcing their own values), the proposed solution was the ‘war on drugs,’ which militarized the police force, demanding ever-greater payoffs by the middle class to maintain the enormous fighting force of acronym-bearing agencies.

Similarly, while in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, American capitalists were willing to use mercenaries to suppress socialist political activity (with the legal permission and assistance of the state), this eventually gave way to elite capitalists supporting half-throttle socialism via foundations. The muddled democratic ethos of Carnegie is a good demonstration of this incapacity of the middle class to properly perpetuate itself.

Because individual members of the middle class can never individually have a controlling influence over the state (an institution whose main business is violence), they all have strong incentives to defect on an individual level, to submit to paying protection to people who are better at violence than they are. Because the wealth of the middle class is necessarily created through trade and not through violence, individuals will always be at a competitive disadvantage in war. This necessary disadvantage is not possible to imagine away.

I think what we have to acknowledge is that middle class values are not effective governing values, because politics concerns the effective use of force.

The middle class is a largely peaceful class that is not particularly adept at the violent business of politics, except perhaps in a society that mandates militia membership and forbids other forms of military organization. Part of what the right ought to advocate for is for the middle class to return to its subordinate position within the traditional political hierarchy, in return for a better defense of its own values. In the United States, we’ve seen both the greatest growth in the middle class ever observed in history, as well as the greatest looting extravaganza ever enabled by law.

As the middle class is being mopped up right now, despite its indispensability, we should consider what must be done in order to make its re-establishment and proper maintenance possible.