Middlest Wealth, Highest Deviance

 "Did...did you know? Humans lie!" Whao.

 Human = children of Satan, and the western peasants are indeed the most Satanic, loudly asserting the most false thing they can get their grubby mitts on.

 Middle classes everywhere claim they're the best and every other middle class is inferior.
The western middle classes gets all the bonus demerits when it explicitly claims they don't. They virtue-signal tolerance and "open-mindedness" and cosmopolitanism, while being, as per de Tocqueville, even more parochial, narcissistic, and tyrannical than other middle classes.

 There's this alleged harem deconstruction I was unfortunately bored enough to read. It includes a wonderful example of how the middle class (and inarticulate nonverbals generally) see religion. The premise is that harems are terrible horrible no good very bad and the ideal man is a φαγγωτ castrati with autist-caricature social skills.* Harems are the source of all evil and even lightside harems are skeevy and perverted. Also it's normal and accepted, or rather than accepted, having only three wives is considered low.
*(He isn't shunned due to author fiat. As with all middle-class literature, the true theme of the story is that middle-class mores are right about everything and outgroup get bonked; are caricatures of evil.)

 Harem = bad. Multiple wives = perfectly fine. Makes sense? Got it? Good.

 How do Muslims drink booze? Without the slightest twinge in their conscience, that's how. If booze is bad, they must not be drinking booze. It would be sogol - if they had any idea what booze was. If harems are bad, having multiple wives is not having a harem, because the author doesn't disapprove. It can't be called betraying their principles as they can't properly be said to have principles.

 Being an ignorant, illiterate, superstitious, xenophobic peasant is bad, therefore being a deluded, traitorous nutcase must be broad-minded education.

 Reading "challenging" writing is good, therefore we write stuff that "challenges" the outgroup by lionizing the ingroup, and you're bad if you don't read it. Makes sense? Got it? Good. 

 Challenges the strawman of the outgroup by lionizing what the ingroup says the ingroup does.

 Yvain (Siskind) claims he's aware that he's supposed to tolerate the outgroup, not tolerate everything except the outgroup, but this is merely Vizzini putting the glass in front of you instead of in front of me instead of in front of you. It's a distraction; the criticizes the thing he himself is doing as camouflage so you don't notice he's still doing it. He wouldn't know what tolerance was if rolled up and broke his femur and he doesn't want to know.

 "No psychological insight is needed to guess Petrarch's motives in pretending that a thousand years of darkness had ended with himself. But there is something of a puzzle as to why later historians continued to accept the exaggerated account the Renaissance gave of itself."
https://archive.ph/iZmxu#selection-357.1-357.274

 Likewise no deep lore is needed to explain why the middle class claims to be above middle-class vices. It's only strange when anyone else takes them seriously. 

 

 I've decided it's not a coincidence you hear about middle-class sex parties. They all have sexual deviance along with regular deviance. The pervert class.