 |
| Duterte Harry? |
by Siryako Akda
As a "Flip," it is a bit amusing, and also a bit flattering, to see so much attention focused on Duterte in the Western media (both of the mainstream and of the dank maymay variety). What's particularly entertaining are some of the reactions I've seen from Western liberals when they discovered Duterte's 91% trust rating, and the succeeding virtue signalling of trying to compare him with Trump.
However, there is more to this than just simple rhetorical ammunition. The fact that the Western mainstream media compares Trump to Duterte indicates that they see both men as embodying similar principles. Indeed, many in the Alt-right see it too, considering Duterte’s popularity in places like /pol/ and The Daily Stormer.
What many Duterte admirers and detractors outside of the Philippines fail to articulate is that he is an archetypal non-white rightwinger, a POC who, to use internet lingo, is "literally Hitler" because of his war on drugs and his various politically incorrect comments, some of which were taken out of context.
This isn't normally a problem for Western liberals, since they don’t need to interact with right-wing POC's in their own backyard, let alone their leaders. However, as the western world imports more and more of the world its borders, the more it imports the norms, assumptions and attitudes of the rest of the world, the vast majority of which is tribal.
So, sooner or later, Western Multicultural liberalism will have to contend with the paradox of the Non-White Right Winger.
Multiculturalism is an ideology that frames identity within the larger context of multiculturalism by establishing common interests among various non-Western ethnic groups in relation to the Western world. (These non-Western groups don't really have much in common outside of said interests.) This framing is mostly a product of the anti-colonialism movement and Third Worldism, which combines the universalist tendencies of Western thought with the developing world's desire to reach economic and technological parity with the Western World.
It is within this framework that the "Non-White," "Person of Color," and "Subaltern" identities exists. Those who immigrate to the Western World are expected to adopt this identity and operate within the boundaries of its framework.
Of course, it's also worth mentioning that non-whiteness is an artificial construct. "Non-Whiteness" is a negative identity and only used as a distinction with regards to Whiteness. Such an identity, however, makes no sense outside of white countries or in the absence of white people, because, like all identities, it requires a specific context in order to make sense.
When a person of color rails about "discrimination," "inequality," "barriers," etc... using the standard template talking points of the multicultural left, he is complying with this manufactured identity.
On the other hand, when he opposes these things, or adopts ideas and positions that oppose them, he becomes an anomaly; he becomes a non-white right winger. Such a being who exists outside of the context of the multicultural framework has the potential to undermine it, which is one of the main reasons some conservatives will trot out the rare African American Republican or the conservative Hispanic. It’s because they know or sense that the identity of such a creature has the potential to undermine the metapolitical structure of their opponents.
Unfortunately for American Republican conservatives, the DR3 strategy does not and will not work because they are still working within the multicultural framework of the identity politics left. The only difference is that they believe that their brand of universal egalitarianism is better than the other side's, which means that they don't actually understand the real significance of the right-wing POCs that they desperately try to promote, which brings us to...
A non-white right winger undermines the universality of racial egalitarianism by refusing to accept the legitimacy of its universal assumption, which is that all races can cooperate as part of a single political entity. To put it another way, egalitarianism is (in theory) a Nash Equilibrium, but framed in moralistic language.
For you non-economic Austists out there, a Nash Equilibrium is a game theory concept developed by Russell Crowe/ John Nash, where different competing interests arrive at an optimum payout for all parties involved.
Here's an example of how this works. Let's supposed that two starving people on a desert island find an apple. Person A could take the entire apple for himself, but he would have to kill Person B to do it, which creates the risk of getting killed himself as well. Likewise, Person B could also try to take the apple for himself, but he would have to murder Person A and at the same time open himself up to the very real possibility of being killed by A.
However, a third option does exist and that third option is to simply share the apple, and this compromise is basically a Nash Equilibrium. However, a Nash Equilibrium is not necessarily about equality. It is about maximizing rewards and minimizing risks, which basically comes down to stability.
The same principle holds true in the construction of the identity of Person of Color. Since we propose that racial egalitarianism is a theoretical form of the Nash Equilibrium, we can therefore say that it is reliant upon competing members to agree upon a consensus, which is that all the various ethnic groups that fall within the POC or minority category agree on certain basic premises and goals, most notably to increase their share of equity within Western Civilization.
Now, the multicultural narrative posits that only the White identity can undermine this racial equilibrium, whereas all the various non-white ethnic groups are pro-multicultural by default, since it assumes that it is in their interests to maintain the equilibrium.
This assumption, although presently correct, will only remain true as long as the incentives for them exist. Once there are no more incentives for immigrants and minority groups in the Western World to comply with multicultural norms, they will start to pursue their own interests, sometimes at the expense of other minority ethnic groups.
There are several ways that a POC can remove himself from the multicultural equilibrium. One way is to attack another person of color (e.g. Black guy attacking a Latino, Latino attacking a Muslim or a Muslim attacking a Jew), thus undermining the consensus and the equilibrium that allows different identities to coexist. After all, you can't have a multicultural rainbow if all the factions see each other as threats.
Another potential situation is for a POC to explicitly adopt an illiberal or anti-multicultural ideology or worldview, which in effect denies the validity of the multicultural consensus.
The best example of this is radical Islam, which explains why Western Governments are so desperate to promote the "moderate Muslim" meme. It's because the former are political actors who exist outside the stabilizing framework of the multicultural equilibrium.
What this means is that whenever such POCs commit political acts, such as let's say a terrorist attack calculated to damage the legitimacy of Western governments or kill police officers in the name of the Black Lives Matter Movement, their actions create new political meanings for their identities, and such meanings destabilize the multicultural consensus. For the proponents of multiculturalism, this can be devastating, as it creates a whole new set of political actors whom they cannot control, which in turn destabilizes their political power structure even further.
It's one thing for immigrants and minority groups to engage in meaningless criminality and violence. Because such violence has no political significance, it is meaningless. The crimes are meaningless, just as the suffering of the victims are meaningless. So don't bother with your crime stats. They don't matter.
It will only matter when the actors carry out actions which are aimed at achieving certain political objectives, which is the case with BLM activists and Islamic Fundamentalists. Where there is strategy, there is focus, and from that, meaning comes...
An explicitly Non-White Right Winger has the potential to deconstruct the POC, non-white, subaltern identity by creating or helping to create a new political narrative that opposes or questions the feasibility of multiculturalism. Furthermore, he also undermines the legitimacy of Western universalism, as well as the concept of equality, by denying the assumptions and relevance of such ideas in relation to the non-white world.
Political figures, like Lee Kuan Yew, Alberto Fujimori, Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte, are good examples of this. However, their influence is limited to a geopolitical level, and they can be safely ignored by Western liberal consciousness as long as their politics and policies do not pierce the bubble of popular political perceptions.
It will become an issue, however, when a country shifts from ideological politics to identity politics, because right-wing politics is tribal by nature. Furthermore, aside from the tribal politics exercised by non-Western minorities in the Western World, there is also the very real possibility of forming or even participating in illiberal ideology. It's worth mentioning, for example, that there are quite a few non-Whites on the Alt-Right: Dr. Khan from TRS, VoxDay, the late David Yeagley, and yes, there's little 'ole me to represent "The Most Powerful Race in the World."
In contrast, the universalism of the various strands of leftism are largely unique to White, Western peoples (though they pretend it is otherwise), and in order for multiculturalism to work, Whites have to adopt the role of the moral specialist, that is to say, that they have to save the multicultural structure from its own contradictions by absorbing the costs of those contradiction.
This is the point where the contradiction of multiculturalism will ultimately hit a wall, because basically, you can't have multiculturalism without White, liberal people to sustain it, and that is fundamentally what the existence of right wing POCs mean: The Western World is importing Right Wingers.
So, perhaps the most important lesson to learn from non-White right wingers (perceived or otherwise), like a Duterte, a Lee Kuan Yew, or even an Assad, is that when you invite the non-western world into your borders, you shouldn't be surprised when your country adopts their values, ideas and assumptions.
Connected Content:
The True Global Minority
Are Humans Naturally Conservative as a Species?
The Root of Progressivist Sin
Become a Patron!
How could they support such a monster? The world needs to unite against all forms of tyranny, especially Trump. He’s just like Trump. Ha Ha. Did I mention how that Filipino guy resembles Trump?Now, I regard the Duterte-Trump comparison to be a bit of an exaggeration, born either out of ignorance or disingenuous malice, usually on the part of the Western media to guilt-by-comparison Trump with the leader of a foreign country.
However, there is more to this than just simple rhetorical ammunition. The fact that the Western mainstream media compares Trump to Duterte indicates that they see both men as embodying similar principles. Indeed, many in the Alt-right see it too, considering Duterte’s popularity in places like /pol/ and The Daily Stormer.
What many Duterte admirers and detractors outside of the Philippines fail to articulate is that he is an archetypal non-white rightwinger, a POC who, to use internet lingo, is "literally Hitler" because of his war on drugs and his various politically incorrect comments, some of which were taken out of context.
This isn't normally a problem for Western liberals, since they don’t need to interact with right-wing POC's in their own backyard, let alone their leaders. However, as the western world imports more and more of the world its borders, the more it imports the norms, assumptions and attitudes of the rest of the world, the vast majority of which is tribal.
So, sooner or later, Western Multicultural liberalism will have to contend with the paradox of the Non-White Right Winger.
The Non-White as Manufactured Identity
Multiculturalism is an ideology that frames identity within the larger context of multiculturalism by establishing common interests among various non-Western ethnic groups in relation to the Western world. (These non-Western groups don't really have much in common outside of said interests.) This framing is mostly a product of the anti-colonialism movement and Third Worldism, which combines the universalist tendencies of Western thought with the developing world's desire to reach economic and technological parity with the Western World.
Of course, it's also worth mentioning that non-whiteness is an artificial construct. "Non-Whiteness" is a negative identity and only used as a distinction with regards to Whiteness. Such an identity, however, makes no sense outside of white countries or in the absence of white people, because, like all identities, it requires a specific context in order to make sense.
When a person of color rails about "discrimination," "inequality," "barriers," etc... using the standard template talking points of the multicultural left, he is complying with this manufactured identity.
On the other hand, when he opposes these things, or adopts ideas and positions that oppose them, he becomes an anomaly; he becomes a non-white right winger. Such a being who exists outside of the context of the multicultural framework has the potential to undermine it, which is one of the main reasons some conservatives will trot out the rare African American Republican or the conservative Hispanic. It’s because they know or sense that the identity of such a creature has the potential to undermine the metapolitical structure of their opponents.
Unfortunately for American Republican conservatives, the DR3 strategy does not and will not work because they are still working within the multicultural framework of the identity politics left. The only difference is that they believe that their brand of universal egalitarianism is better than the other side's, which means that they don't actually understand the real significance of the right-wing POCs that they desperately try to promote, which brings us to...
The POC Right Winger Undermines Racial Egalitarianism
A non-white right winger undermines the universality of racial egalitarianism by refusing to accept the legitimacy of its universal assumption, which is that all races can cooperate as part of a single political entity. To put it another way, egalitarianism is (in theory) a Nash Equilibrium, but framed in moralistic language.
For you non-economic Austists out there, a Nash Equilibrium is a game theory concept developed by Russell Crowe/ John Nash, where different competing interests arrive at an optimum payout for all parties involved.
 |
| It's not universal morality, it's just a sleazy compromise. |
However, a third option does exist and that third option is to simply share the apple, and this compromise is basically a Nash Equilibrium. However, a Nash Equilibrium is not necessarily about equality. It is about maximizing rewards and minimizing risks, which basically comes down to stability.
The same principle holds true in the construction of the identity of Person of Color. Since we propose that racial egalitarianism is a theoretical form of the Nash Equilibrium, we can therefore say that it is reliant upon competing members to agree upon a consensus, which is that all the various ethnic groups that fall within the POC or minority category agree on certain basic premises and goals, most notably to increase their share of equity within Western Civilization.
Now, the multicultural narrative posits that only the White identity can undermine this racial equilibrium, whereas all the various non-white ethnic groups are pro-multicultural by default, since it assumes that it is in their interests to maintain the equilibrium.
This assumption, although presently correct, will only remain true as long as the incentives for them exist. Once there are no more incentives for immigrants and minority groups in the Western World to comply with multicultural norms, they will start to pursue their own interests, sometimes at the expense of other minority ethnic groups.
 |
| Nash Equilibrium breakdown. |
Another potential situation is for a POC to explicitly adopt an illiberal or anti-multicultural ideology or worldview, which in effect denies the validity of the multicultural consensus.
The best example of this is radical Islam, which explains why Western Governments are so desperate to promote the "moderate Muslim" meme. It's because the former are political actors who exist outside the stabilizing framework of the multicultural equilibrium.
What this means is that whenever such POCs commit political acts, such as let's say a terrorist attack calculated to damage the legitimacy of Western governments or kill police officers in the name of the Black Lives Matter Movement, their actions create new political meanings for their identities, and such meanings destabilize the multicultural consensus. For the proponents of multiculturalism, this can be devastating, as it creates a whole new set of political actors whom they cannot control, which in turn destabilizes their political power structure even further.
It's one thing for immigrants and minority groups to engage in meaningless criminality and violence. Because such violence has no political significance, it is meaningless. The crimes are meaningless, just as the suffering of the victims are meaningless. So don't bother with your crime stats. They don't matter.
It will only matter when the actors carry out actions which are aimed at achieving certain political objectives, which is the case with BLM activists and Islamic Fundamentalists. Where there is strategy, there is focus, and from that, meaning comes...
The POC Right Winger Creates New Meaning
An explicitly Non-White Right Winger has the potential to deconstruct the POC, non-white, subaltern identity by creating or helping to create a new political narrative that opposes or questions the feasibility of multiculturalism. Furthermore, he also undermines the legitimacy of Western universalism, as well as the concept of equality, by denying the assumptions and relevance of such ideas in relation to the non-white world.
 |
| Lee Kuan Yew: POC badass |
It will become an issue, however, when a country shifts from ideological politics to identity politics, because right-wing politics is tribal by nature. Furthermore, aside from the tribal politics exercised by non-Western minorities in the Western World, there is also the very real possibility of forming or even participating in illiberal ideology. It's worth mentioning, for example, that there are quite a few non-Whites on the Alt-Right: Dr. Khan from TRS, VoxDay, the late David Yeagley, and yes, there's little 'ole me to represent "The Most Powerful Race in the World."
In contrast, the universalism of the various strands of leftism are largely unique to White, Western peoples (though they pretend it is otherwise), and in order for multiculturalism to work, Whites have to adopt the role of the moral specialist, that is to say, that they have to save the multicultural structure from its own contradictions by absorbing the costs of those contradiction.
This is the point where the contradiction of multiculturalism will ultimately hit a wall, because basically, you can't have multiculturalism without White, liberal people to sustain it, and that is fundamentally what the existence of right wing POCs mean: The Western World is importing Right Wingers.
So, perhaps the most important lesson to learn from non-White right wingers (perceived or otherwise), like a Duterte, a Lee Kuan Yew, or even an Assad, is that when you invite the non-western world into your borders, you shouldn't be surprised when your country adopts their values, ideas and assumptions.
Connected Content:
The True Global Minority
Are Humans Naturally Conservative as a Species?
The Root of Progressivist Sin
Become a Patron!
