The friend of your friend is likely to be your
friend.
The enemy of your friend is likely your enemy.
The friend of your enemy is likely your enemy.
But the enemy of your enemy is unlikely to be your
friend.
My comment: It’s interesting, but I think it broadly hangs on how ‘enemy’ is defined here. If enemy is someone actively looking to cause harm, then statements 1-3 are broadly likely to be true. If, however, enemy is someone opposed to certain viewpoints, then less so.
Statement 4 is the most interesting, but not because it’s counter‑intuitive - rather because it challenges a very popular illusion. We’re culturally primed to believe the old proverb “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, but that only works if “enemy” means something like a direct personal antagonist with aligned moral stakes. In most real-world cases, the person opposing your enemy is doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with you. They may dislike your enemy for different reasons, or because they want the same territory, or because removing your enemy clears the way for their ambitions. Therefore, I’d say shared opposition is not shared allegiance.
If “enemy” means “someone actively trying to harm you,” then yes - the first three statements are broadly reliable heuristics about loyalty and alignment. But if “enemy” simply means “someone who holds views you oppose,” the whole structure becomes looser. People disagree for wildly different reasons, and alliances built on mutual dislike of a viewpoint are notoriously unstable.
That’s why the fourth line stands out. And I’d have it that the enemy of your enemy is, at best, a temporary convergence of incentives.
