>The basics of nationalism and the formation of ethnic/racial identity.
after posting on twitter for some time, I've noticed that many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of nationalism and identity, and drop the ball on some of the most basic aspects
I dont blame people for that, since this basic information has been more or less scrubbed from existence, and the people who should be teaching nationalists about it appear to prioritize intellectual masturbation and bloviating about obscure philosophy
anyway....
firstly, what is a nation?
simple. a nation is a biological group, be it tribal, ethnic, or racial. a nation is not a state or country. a country is a territory claimed by a nation, a state is a political construct created by a nation to rule over its territory.
a nation is defined by blood, of course, but it is also, by necessity, defined by its enemies -- the in-group/out-group distinction. in other words, what you are is equally defined by what you are not.
during the rapid collapse of the Hunnic Empire after Attila's death, Romans, Goths, and Scythians essentially banded together to revolt against their East-Asian Hunnic subjugators, overthrowing them and purging them from European lands (they yeeted them all).
why did these Euro ethnic groups choose to unite against the Huns, instead of allying with them to save or co-opt the powerful Hunnic Empire? simple. the difference between Euros and Asians far exceeds the differences between Germanics, Meds, and Iranics as Europeans
every other collective identity and nation is formed in this manner. e.g., the English identity came into existence when the assorted Germanic tribes of Northwest Europe migrated to Britain and came into contact with the territories non-Germanic native inhabitants
national identity can exist in a state of flux and develops over time. American 'White' identity is the perfect example. tho originally Germanic, other Euro ethnic groups (Italics/Celtics) were assimilated into the population due to the common enemy of br*wnpipo on the continent
in the same way that Germans, Meds, and Iranians united against the East Asian ethnic Huns.
which brings me to the next important point: the friend-enemy distinction
Nationalism (defined as 'politics to advance the nation'), like all politics, can be fundamentally boiled down to the distinction between friends and enemies. the most basic definition of 'politics' is "multiple competing groups opposing one another as mutual enemies"
looking at the work of Carl Schmitt ('The Concept of the Political'), the definition of 'friend' and 'enemy' is simply one who you would potentially die to protect, and one you would potentially kill for the sole reason that they belong to a hostile out-group group
according to Schmitt, any two or more groups that find themselves in a situation that may *potentially* result in war or mutual killing (e.g., competition for resources, territory, etc) should be regarded as mutual enemies.
the friend-enemy distinction does not necessarily have to be based on "nation," though this is by far the most common line of division. any form of antithesis (religious, economic, etc) can potentially become grounds for declaration of "enemy" status.
the friend-enemy distinction is non-personal and non-individual. you may befriend people who belong to 'enemy' groups, you may respect 'enemy' groups, regard them as honorable, and so on. you, as an individual, dont *choose* your enemies.
in other words, being mad at some guy for stealing your bike is not equivalent to being nationally at war with 'Out-Group X' for impeding your in-group's ability to access resources, territory, food, capital, and so on
in my opinion, biological types almost always form the basis of friend-enemy distinctions. consider the phenotypical differences between the modern left-winger and the modern right-winger (actual right-winger, not LARPing libt*rds). one look at "CHAZ" explains this perfectly
fundamentally, both the nation, and by default the friend-enemy (in-group/out-group) distinction, exist completely independently of any formal state, formal territory, and even independently of any formal political organization. these things arise organically, for the most part
any "political theory," political organization, etc., comes AFTER these things have been identified by the in-group. nobody unites as a nation around political philosophy and peepeepoopooism, they unite due to a hostile nation invading their territory and killing their kin