Why are Western people largely indifferent to mass immigration and the decline of cultural hegemony in western countries? The most obvious reason is that western societies are not monolithic and that many specific sub-groups within these societies benefit from a system of resource transfer, patronage and market manipulation that is in general detrimental to social well being, however, it is also noticeable that many sub-groups specifically disadvantaged by imposed multiculturalism, including women, homosexuals, feminist, atheists and working-class people seem to be mostly in favour of a social revolution that increases competition for employment, lowers wages, increases theocratic influence, endangers women and endorses misogyny. Obviously propaganda plays a massive role in this phenomenon; objectors are relentlessly portrayed in popular culture and by the media as racists, and migrants are portrayed as paragons; despite this there are still many people who are astute and smart enough to recognize propaganda who still support cultural extinction. Why is this?
Conspicuous consumption is a phenomenon first recognized by the great American economist, Thorstein Veblen. Conspicuous consumption is a means of displaying status and prestige through ostentatiously wasteful modes of consumption, wherein the goods and services "consumed" have a value that is far beyond the actual utility of the goods and services in question. Goods that fall into this category are described as "Veblen goods" , specific examples of Veblen goods are Rolex watches, Rolls Royce motorcars "designer" clothing and accessories (every man made object is, in fact, designed, there is no such thing as a non-designer pair of jeans, shoes or handbag), "fine" wine and "fine" art. Items that fall into this category do not have no utility and are not indeed in many cases, admirably engineered and manufactured, but essentially their nominal value is massively in excess of their actual performance, usefulness and cost of production.
Examples of conspicuous consumption in ornithology are demonstrated by such things as elaborate plumage, birdsong and extravagant nest building rituals; the ostentatious peacock's tail being the most commonly cited example. A further highly relevant (mostly) ornithological phenomenon is "lekking". In "lek mating", males congregate in a group and participate in aggressive dominance rituals in order to demonstrate genetic fitness and mate worthiness. Lekking is demonstrated within the human species in bars, clubs and nightclubs and in risk taking behaviour as diverse as bungee jumping, excessive alcohol consumption, smoking and the bizarre recent Russian cult of free climbing urban structures and uploading heart stopping videos of the act on youtube.
Essentially conspicuous consumption is an assertion of status made by a reckless disregard for resources and personal safety.
In the UK the scope of social welfare is comprehensive to the extent that the average citizen must earn something in the region of £25,000 a year as a single person with no dependents in order to make a positive contribution to the economy of the state. The vast majority of migrants do not fall into this income bracket and a large percentage of migrants fall below this income bracket. Events such as the murder of soldier Lee Rigby, the English asian rape scandal, the Paris riots, Bradford riots, the London bombings, etc, denote multiculturalism as presenting specific, palpable danger.
In the former case shrugging off the economic impact of mass-immigration is a means of displaying economic status, security and confidence, it may affect some incompetent people, but it will not affect me. In the latter case insouciant bravura in the face of obvious risk is a way of demonstrating physical prowess, courage and fearlessness. In both cases immediate status imperatives trump long term security imperatives. The popular reaction to the dissolution of western hegemony has been the formation of a societal lek in which, paradoxically, positive levels of economic and social dangers are critical to demonstrations of enhanced status. This explains the reason for the existence in our newly multicultural societies of "Islamophobia" and the absence of "Sinophobia". The Chinese are self-sufficient, adaptive and non-confrontational; Muslims are...less so.
There is a difference between demonstrating status by displaying purchased assets and by disposing of social assets. The difference is that you can ultimately control personal economic stupidity, but you cannot control the consequences of disposing of social assets. The first case is like checking into an expensive hotel; you can ultimately checkout. The second case is like boarding a plane, you "checkout" when the plane lands, and where the plane lands isn't decided by you, it's decided by whoever has control of the cockpit.
No comments:
Post a Comment