3100 words, ~15 mins read
1. Out-Group Fetishism
2. The Formation of National and Racial Identity
3. Nationalism and the Friend-Enemy Distinction
5. Evidence of Out-Group Fetishism
After seeing a lot of ridiculous out-group fetishism on my Twitter timeline recently, it dawned on me that many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of nationalism and identity. What I’ll be covering in this article, in relation to the foolishness of out-group fetishism, is one of the most basic aspects of nationalism, the ‘friend-enemy distinction,’ as defined by the highly influential conservative political theorist and philosopher, Carl Schmitt.
Schmitt was a prominent member of the NSDAP, and completely unrepentant about this fact. After the Second World War, he refused to go through the United Nations’ “de-Nazification” process and refused to stop writing about “Nazi stuff,” which cost him his career in academia. Despite all of this, his work has influenced theorists and philosophers from all over the political spectrum, including prominent Orthodox and Western Marxists, such as Zizek and the leaders of the Frankfurt School.
I’ll be attempting to simplify his friend-enemy theory as much as possible, without totally butchering it in the process. Hopefully, after reading this, you’ll understand why I’m so vehemently opposed to out-group fetishism.
1. Out-Group Fetishism
If you follow me on Twitter, you may have seen me say something along the lines of “modern nationalists fail at nationalism on the most basic, instinctual, biological level.”
What I’m referring to here is the constant out-group fetishism that plagues nationalism in the West. This trend has had disastrous consequences and will continue to have disastrous consequences as long as it persists. I’ve already provided copious evidence of prominent out-group fetishism via my lengthy article on the Neo-Alt-Right’s Duginist tendencies. If you doubt that this trend exists, I recommend that you read that article. I’ll also include some recent evidence at the bottom of this article.
In short, this out-group fetishism includes things such as:
- Simping for China
- Simping for Russia
- Simping for the entirety of the Middle East and North Africa
- Simping for Third World Communist shitholes
- Simping for Communism in general
- Simping for anti-White leftists
And, the most recent cuckoldry, which prompted me to write this article:
- Simping for BLM and ANTIFA rioters (unbelievable, I know)
All of the aforementioned groups have openly proclaimed that they wish to see Whites eradicated, our civilizations destroyed and/or conquered by their kin. Or, at the very least, they are currently working towards our destruction, hand-in-hand with our various enemies and Our Greatest Allies.
Furthermore, all of these groups, aside from the random Third World Communist shitholes, are actively harming our race in some way. China wages economic war upon us, buys up our territory, floods our countries with drugs and poison (and Asian people). Russia has imprisoned more White nationalists than any other country on earth, alongside importing non-Whites en masse into Russian territory, while exporting subversive demoralization propaganda into Western territories. Every single nation in the Middle East and North Africa has a huge, extremely hostile diaspora in Europe. Iran, a particular favorite of the Alt-Right, has threatened to flood Europe with “refugees,” supports anti-White movements in the US, such as BLM, and has repeatedly pumped out propaganda about destroying “White supremacy.”
As I’ve said on Twitter countless times, supporting these openly hostile, openly anti-White groups can only be described as racial cuckoldry.
Many delusional nationalists seem to be operating under the bizarre paradigm of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if this enemy has openly proclaimed that he sees me as his enemy too.” Most of these people appear to have adopted an equally bizarre version of the Leftist “magic dirt” theory. They claim that the brown diaspora that dwells in white countries is somehow completely separate and distinct from their ethnic kin who have, thus far, opted to remain in their original homelands, even though these diasporas are often fully supported by their non-diaspora kin. All of this is utterly nonsensical. They’re endorsing everything that nationalists have worked for decades to debunk.
Fellating people who openly despise us or wish for our extinction isn’t a trait exclusive to the Neo-Alt-Right, although they are the main force responsible for spreading this cancer among nationalists. Out-group fetishism is an extremely pervasive problem throughout the entirety of Western civilization. See the incorrectly labeled “pathological altruism” phenomenon, for example.
(In reality, so-called pathological altruism is simply ‘carrot and stick’ brainwashing, with extra-stick. Well… it’s almost entirely ‘stick’ at this point).
That being said, out-group fetishism obviously isn’t a problem that should be plaguing nationalism. But, unfortunately, it is. And that’s largely thanks to the brainiacs of the Alt-Right.
2. The Formation of National and Racial Identity
For those who aren’t aware, a “nation” is simply a biological group; be it tribal, ethnic, or racial. A nation is not a state or a country. The former is a political construct created by the nation, while the latter is the territory occupied and controlled by the nation. A “nation-state” is a territory occupied and governed by one nation.
A nation is, of course, fundamentally defined by blood. However, by necessity, a nation is also defined by its enemies. The in-group / out-group distinction. In other words, what you are is equally as defined by what you are not.
Consider the following example:
During the rapid collapse of the Hunnic empire that followed the death of Attila the Hun, Romans (Meds), Goths (Germanics), and Scythians (Iranics) essentially banded together to revolt against their Hunnic subjugators, overthrowing them and purging the remaining East-Asiatic ethnic Huns from Europe (by genociding them). Before the Asian invasion, the aforementioned European ethnic groups had spent centuries warring among themselves, attempting to conquer and subjugate each other. So, why did they now unite in the face of the Huns, and why did they not attempt to ally with the remnants of the collapsing Hunnic empire to maintain or co-opt it? Simply because the collective difference between Europeans and Asians as distinct populations far exceeds the differences between Germanics, Meds, and Iranics within the European population. Thus, a temporary “European” or “White” identity was formed until the Asians were ousted. Then, naturally, the European groups returned to fighting among themselves.
Every other collective identity and nation is formed in a similar manner. The ancient ‘English’ identity, for example, began to form when the distinct Germanic tribes of Northwest Europe (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians) migrated to Britain and came into contact with the territory’s non-Germanic native inhabitants.
It’s important to note that these national identities can exist in a state of flux and that they develop over time. The American ‘White’ identity is the perfect example. While it initially consisted of Germanics (Anglos and Germans), later waves of ethnic European migrants (Italics, Celtics, etc.) were slowly assimilated into the overall ‘White’ ethnic identity. The difference between the collective of European groups of America and the non-Whites, with whom they shared the continent, was strong enough to lead to the formation of a cohesive ‘American’ identity. The formation of this identity was not always smooth sailing, but non-Germanic Europeans were always recognized as the racial kin of the American founding stock.
A more modern example can be found in the United Kingdom, where a revived ‘English’ identity has arisen in opposition to the modern “British” identity, which has been co-opted by multi-racialism and globalism. According to Wikipedia, ~60% of the White inhabitants of England refer to themselves as ‘English,’ rather than ‘British,’ while only ~5% of non-White inhabitants identify as English. The defining factor in this instance is not ethnic (e.g. English vs Scottish) but racial; English (White) vs Multi-Racial (Non-White).
3. Nationalism and the Friend-Enemy Distinction
Nationalism, which should simply be defined as ‘politics to advance the nation,’ like all politics, can be fundamentally boiled down to the distinction between friends and enemies.
While this conception of politics and, by proxy, nationhood, was not originated by Carl Schmitt, his writings on this topic are by far the most comprehensive and developed (as far as I know). In his work ‘The Concept of the Political,’ Schmitt famously stated that “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”
The definition of ‘politics’ itself can be reduced to “multiple competing groups opposing one another as mutual enemies.” More often than not, these groups have a biological basis; i.e., they are competing nations (races/ethnic groups/tribes), or competing social ‘castes.’ Consider the generalized physical distinctions between the Left and Right wings of the modern world: The Left is stereotypically soft, flabby, degenerate, materialistic, egalitarian, whiny, unintelligent, etc. Conversely, the Right is stereotypically hard, fit, moralistic, religious, hierarchical, intelligent, etc. This is evidently a biological conflict; the lowest castes (that of the worker and producer), against the higher castes (that of the priest and warrior).
[In my opinion, all politics are fundamentally motivated by the propagation and preservation of one’s own immediate lineage and wider biological group].
According to Schmitt, the distinction between friend and enemy — the in-group and out-group — is the “utmost degree of intensity of association or disassociation.” The utmost degree of association is an individual’s willingness to die for members of their group, whereas the utmost degree of disassociation is an individual’s willingness to kill others for the simple reason that they belong to a hostile group. Any two or more groups that find themselves in a situation that may result in war or mutual killing, such as competition for resources and territory, are mutual enemies.
To clarify: I’m not advising that you should go out and kill random people who belong to groups that are hostile to our own, I’m pointing out that all of the groups that have openly wished death upon us as Whites and who are actively invading our territories, objectively fall into the “enemy” category — regardless of whether they are ‘based anti-Z*onists!’ or whatever.
Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction is not necessarily based on morality. An individual’s group can be enemies with a group that the individual views as morally ‘good.’ Similarly, groups can view one another as morally reprehensible without classing each other as ‘enemies.’ The friend-enemy distinction is also not necessarily linked to other distinctions upon which group identities are often constructed; race, ethnicity, language, religion, etc. However, Schmitt emphasized that “every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively according to friend and enemy.”
Schmitt also advised that any nation-state should ‘purge heterogeneity’ in order to become as united as possible (in terms of the other ‘group identities’ mentioned above), thus minimizing the possibilities of internal strife and collapse. Believing that the legitimacy of a state or governing body was entirely reliant upon a clearly defined friend-enemy distinction, Schmitt concluded that any sovereign leader must strive to homogenize the community through suppression, elimination, or expulsion of internal elements who do not endorse the defined friend-enemy distinction.
It’s important to note that Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction is, quintessentially, a public, impersonal matter. Though an individual’s personal beliefs often align with the political friend-enemy distinction, an individual’s personal hatred for another individual does not qualify as a political phenomenon. In other words, being mad at some guy for stealing your bike is not equivalent to being at war with ‘Out-Group X’ for impeding your in-group’s ability to access resources, territory, food, capital, and so on.
“The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. He is also not the private adversary whom one hates. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the public enemy, because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of men, particularly to a whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a relationship.”Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1932)
Schmitt proposed that a ‘political community’ or ‘political nation’ exists wherever a group of people separate themselves from out-groups through the creation of a friend-enemy distinction. Any group, regardless of formal or official political organization, is capable of naturally understanding the distinction between friend and enemy, in the same way that the gazelle instinctively views the lion as a threat.
Herein lies the problem:
Any ‘political nation’ that fails to sufficiently distinguish between friend and enemy will inevitably extend membership rights to those who do not and should not belong to the ‘political nation’ or the self-selected in-group. Schmitt claims that a hazy boundary between friend and enemy, between in-group and out-group, will result in ‘depoliticization.’ The nation will suffer from internal strife or become overwhelmed by external enemies who are more politically united than the nation in question — i.e., enemy nations that have a more robust friend-enemy distinction. This is precisely what is currently happening to every White country on the planet.
“The equation politics = party politics is possible whenever antagonisms among domestic political parties succeed in weakening the all-embracing political unit, the state.”Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1932)
You should also bear in mind that the friend-enemy distinction is why the Alt-Right’s completely delusional “Red-Brown Alliance” pipe-dream is destined to fail. The modern Red / Left / Communists have firmly aligned themselves with the anti-White, Multi-Racial, Rainbow Coalition camp — as they have done since before the dawn of the USSR. Today, Leftism is completely inseparable from anti-White politics and reconcile between Nationalists and the Left is utterly impossible, on all levels. We are heading directly into a civilization-scale South Africa situation, and the Alt-Right is currently attempting to court the ANC and Nelson Mandela instead of the Apartheid-sympathetic White South Africans.
Below: Anti-Racism campaigns of the USSR. Learn more about ‘Cultural Marxism’ here.
Our current political and geopolitical circumstance can be summarized as follows:
- Our biological in-group has been cucked by a subversive biological out-group, that LARPs as our in-group and steers us in harmful directions.
- This out-group has infiltrated and wholly occupies the entirety of our countries’ political infrastructure (including corporate/media/education apparatus).
- This out-group has opened our countries’ borders and invited multiple other hostile out-groups into our territories, while propagandizing them against us and inciting them to attack us both politically and physically.
- Our in-group is now involved in a biological struggle against not only the out-group controlling our state apparatus, but all other hostile out-groups that are attempting to colonize and conquer our completely un-defended civilizations.
- White countries are currently the equivalent of a super-car that has been left in a ghetto, unlocked and unattended.
This is a clash of civilizations, nations, and races. One side (the globalist, leftist Brown x Rainbow Coalition) understands this, while the opposing side, our side, does not. This is what we need White people to understand. It isn’t difficult to explain, in theory. However, when people such as the bloviating pseudo-intellectuals of the forever-cancerous Alt-Right muddy the waters and obfuscate the most basic political distinction — friend and enemy — it becomes increasingly difficult to explain this very simple situation.
If these people had any sense, they would capitalize on populist ‘anti-Out-Group’ sentiment while also calling out “our own” political elites, who claim to oppose these out-groups while selling out our countries to all of them, via trade and immigration. Instead, the Alt-Right & Co relentlessly fetishize the very out-groups that are currently slicing and dicing the carcasses of our once-great civilizations.
Even if you attempt to argue that fetishizing an openly hostile out-group (i.e., an enemy) was somehow “morally correct” — see: “hurr durr muh anti-Z*onism,” “muh poor oppressed Thirdies,” etc. — to fetishize an out-group that is currently invading your territories en masse will ensure that your political movement never gains significant support from your in-group. This is because the majority of your in-group instinctively recognizes openly hostile out-groups as enemies, even in spite of overwhelming multi-racialist libt*rd propaganda. Furthermore, out-group fetishism is weak, defeatist, and submissive; it projects pure “please fuck my wife” energy.
- Opens us up to attacks from anti-Whites.
- Opens us up to subversion from out-groups.
- Does not present a clear friend-enemy distinction to normies (who aren’t capable of complex, abstract thought).
- Does not give people a distinct opposition to rally against.
- Prevents nationalists from gaining mass popular support.
- Leads to disruption and disunity within the nation.
The people who do this shit are a joke. They fail at nationalism on the most basic level possible. They have tied their own shoelaces together and tripped over at the starting line.
I think a lot of people who pull this shit are genuinely misled or, perhaps, genuinely stupid. Both of these things are, in my opinion, completely forgivable. However, if I was a glow-in-the-dark-who wanted to neuter and derail a rising nationalist movement within a White country that was on the verge of total collapse and all-out racialized civil war, I wouldn’t do anything differently to this. There comes a point when you have to stop asking why these people consistently fuck up everything that they do, and start assuming that they’re fucking up intentionally. I refuse to believe that “intelligent” people can be this “stupid.”
5. Evidence of Out-Group Fetishism
[Alt-Righter, frantically sucking as many out-group dicks as possible]:
“Hello fellow oppressed dissident, I hate capitalism too. We need to defeat the evil racist liberal bourgeoisie supremacists.”
“Shuddup ytboi gimme yo sneakers before I burn yo house down.”
Duginism Inc. thinks that the anti-White race riots are “justified” because police tried to reduce insane inner-city crime rates:
If you miraculously aren’t already aware: These riots are huge anti-White protests (see below image). As I’ve just covered, the fundamental distinction in politics is that between friend and enemy. The absolute enemy of the Left / BLM / etc. is “White supremacy” and “racism.” According to Western Marxist Critical Theory, which has been adopted by literally the entire Western World, all White people are inherently “racist” because we have “systemic privilege.” The line has already been drawn for us, we don’t have a choice in this matter.
Here’s who the Alt-Right have been siding with on these transparently engineered very fake and g*y riots; every corporate, financial, and political elite on the planet:
Apparently, anti-White subversion is bad when out-groups do it within our territory, but when out-groups do it in their own territory and project it into our territory, it somehow becomes based anti-“American” World Order strategic propaganda. Thank you, Comrade Striker! ✊🏿 ✊🏾 ✊🏿 ✊🏾
“They’re threatening to flood Europe with refugees? This is exactly what Hitler would’ve done!”
I’m sure old Adolf was a big supporter of this:
“Hello fellow white colonizers, we don’t belong in Australia” – Syrian refugee
I’ve been warning the Neo-Alt-Right that this would happen for months and they all called me a fed:
You get the picture.
Let’s quickly add some context to this so-called “fetishization” as you did not provide any. To have no position on the following issues, or to take the “American” side on them, is to support the Jewish influence over American foreign policy. Should we do so simply because the countries affected are a racial out-group and therefore our “enemies”? To suggest you cannot be pro-white while also supporting the Arabs against the Zionist state, because Arabs and Muslims are incompatible with the West, is two-dimensional thinking.
1. Why do people support Palestine? Because the Jews have been oppressing the Palestinians with our tax dollars, while using our military as their shield. Siding with the Palestinians means the Palestinians can stay where they are rather than come to our nations while also attacking a shared enemy. Siding with the Palestinians means ending financial support for Israel. The Palestinians would never have been an issue had it not been for Jews, therefore supporting BDS and counter-signaling Israel makes sense from a white perspective.
2. Why do people support Iran? Because Trump, at the behest of the Jews, killed one of their generals with a cowardly drone strike recently. Because Israel has been assassinating anyone involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Because Israel would like nothing more than to goad America into a war with Iran. And because the CIA has been doing ghey ops on Iran before that. In other words, they are siding with Iran against the Jews, our common enemy. This doesn’t mean that anyone supports Iranians coming to our countries. Is David Duke any less of a white advocate for his position on Iran, or are you a retard for seeing everything as black-and-white?
3. Why do people support Syria? Because Israel, America, and Saudi Arabia’s ghey ops with ISIS. To not support Syria is to ape the mainstream media’s position, which is to paint the Syrians as the bad guys in that conflict. That is not true. To support the narrative is to support the creation of more refugees coming into Europe. Why bother attacking someone like Syrian Girl when you can point out the Jewish role in the Syrian war? Save your ammunition for your actual enemies, not potential allies who would have no conflict with us had it not been for the Jews. Otherwise you just come across like a Zionist butt goy.
4. Why do people support China? In fact they are not supporting China or the CCP but counter signalling the mainstream media’s recent attacks on China over the corona scare. This corona virus is being used to gin up a war-like atmosphere which everyone with a brain knows would be disastrous. It is entirely unclear what is going on with this outbreak, so why support anti-Chinese sentiment? This does not mean we cannot simultaneously point out how the Jews sold out America’s manufacturing to China and that we need better trade.
5. No one is suggesting an alliance with communists, they are attempting to convert people from that camp over to a more sane position. Perhaps that is silly thinking, but it is not the same thing as advocating for communism. A similar strategy of reaching out on mutual ground might work with the environmentalists, which could prove fruitful. The people you claim are anti-capitalist are saying that capitalism has issues that need to be dealt with. Is there any doubt that this is true? How do you propose we deal with the H1B visa issue, for example? Are you a libertarian free-market retard? Do you think Hitler allowed capitalists free rein or did he try to shift production towards the public good? We need to be able to discuss these things. Perhaps you are simply too low IQ to understand the nuance of the conversation.
TL, DR: Just because someone is non-white does not automatically make them an enemy. Jews have learned to forge alliances with non-Jews where it is beneficial to their interests, and you are advocating that whites should not do the same. We need all the allies we can muster as the Jewish threat is a global threat.
You are a drooling ret*rd.
LikeLiked by 2 people
im on board with you hun example in general but at one point the oestragoths allied with the huns against there fellow Germanic tribesmen. there are countless examples of sellouts to this principle. indeed its the vast majority of whites at present.
LikeLiked by 1 person