skip to Main Content

A Critique of the Groypers

The Groypers are a welcome sign of life on the American Right – but do they go far enough?

When Dave Reilly of Culture Wars Magazine asked Charlie Kirk about the relationship between the US and Israel,1 he was met with unsurprising contempt and name-calling. What was surprising however, was the fact that he and others continued to press the social issues that conservatives have failed to question: homosexuality, Zionism, and immigration. As well, the appearance was striking; rosaries, suits, and MAGA hats – all worn by teens who looked fresh out of high school. These were the same zoomers (Gen Z), who, months earlier, had been channelling the nostalgia for Pepe the Frog and 2016 with the creation of the Groyper.2 The digital troll movement became physical in late October, and still the conservative movement has no way of understanding them, let alone answering their questions.

The Groypers are young, white, and energetic – a sign of life on what remains of the American Right.

From the appearance of the Groypers (MAGA hats and rosaries) and the questions they asked, one is able surmise their philosophy: Catholicism, Trumpism, Americanism and nationalism. There is as well a conspicuous streak of romanticism that energizes the Groypers. For example, Vincent James has plainly stated (via Instagram)3 that he longs for the days through which he did not live: ethnic neighbourhoods and intact families, and Bishop Fulton Sheen dominating the ratings in television. While I share his sentiments, it is important a.) to understand the material preconditions necessary for such ‘good ol’ days’, and b.) to therefore question one’s conventional assumptions in order to advance a greater ideology. This is the purpose of this article: to evaluate the philosophy and identity of the Groypers.

Intergenerational Politics

The Groypers are young, white, and energetic – a sign of life on what remains of the American Right. A group that thrives on schadenfreude, they look to their millennial brethren in a way similar to how Generation X sees the boomers. The Groyper contingent of Generation Z views millennials – for the most part – as the people who have taken the propaganda hook, line and sinker. This is not to say that the zoomers have not taken any propaganda, but they stand much closer to the child drag shows4 and other such degeneracy, and they seem to be more polarized than their millennial predecessors. Their predecessors were schooled on the abuses of Nazi Germany and the Jim Crow South. From their education regarding MLK and Hitler, they (and more importantly their parents) accepted the social engineering in good faith. Of course, the social engineering was kicked into high gear after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. The bourgeois teaching that once had been about equality became about equity, which felt like betrayal to many (whites). This feeling of betrayal led many to begin questioning their entire situation.

Another difference between the millennials and zoomers seems to be their internet use, which woke the latter more than the former from their slumber, when they began listening to a number of people on YouTube discussing demographic changes and its consequences. The zoomers are growing up being told about the evils of ‘whiteness’, patriarchy and privilege. While lectured about it, and made to feel guilty for it, they had no choice but to rebel against it. Millennials did not grow up – until they were already in their college days – being explicitly told that whiteness was a problem, but they implicitly understood the evils of colonialism and the virtues of all marginalized peoples. Zoomers understand that whites are the modern kulaks – the group you’re allowed to hate and disparage. Millennials idolize the sixties revolutionaries as models to emulate, while Zoomers are either apathetic toward or contemptuous of those days and people. The youth of the Groypers is key in their philosophy and in their rebellious attitude toward Conservatism Inc.

Catholicism and Americanism

With the youth of the Groypers comes their nostalgia, with which in turn comes their religiosity. The Catholicism of the Groypers, as seen in figures like Nick Fuentes, Vincent James, and their greatest thought leader E. Michael Jones, is the most important influence on their neo-paleoconservatism. First, we should address the Catholic Church of today as an institution that hardly resembles conservatism, let alone the ideal religion of the Holy Roman Empire. Preceding the Groyper movement was the Amazon Synod in Rome. At the Synod there were discussions of the horrors of Catholic colonialism, genuflections toward pre-Christian life in the Amazon, talks of married clergy – restricted for certain types – and prayers with pagan idols,5 which is not a first occurrence6 for the Latin Church. In short, the Church has never been more divided,7 and never weaker.

America – whether it was intended as such or not – has become this malleable, melting-pot, blank-slate, proposition nation.

The division in the Catholic Church is best represented by the left-right split that should be transcended in Christ. Groypers speak of ‘America First’, and call on the spirit of Fr. Charles Coughlin, who advocated against US intervention in WWII – and, funnily enough, for social justice. The problem is that the Catholic Church is ‘America First’, not in the sense of Fr. Coughlin, but in the sense of Fr. James Martin S.J. America is the epicentre of the revolution, and the revolution today is based on two things: free love and free markets. The latter cannot be questioned because anyone who wants any restrictions on the free flow of capital (and labour) must be a communist-luddite-Neanderthal. Free love cannot be questioned lest we disturb the sacrosanct choice of the individual. Fr. James Martin S.J. has empathy for the homosexual (likely because he is one), which is in accordance with his Christianity. However, he has no right whatsoever, according to his own faith, to subvert the teachings of the Church. In short, being ‘America First’ is not the ignorant-but-masculine ‘muh freedoms’, ‘muh Second Amendment’ worldview; it is rather mammon and sterile sex.

Let us understand this: no institution can be wedded to the American Empire without being subdued by it. The fact is that during the Cold War, the Church got into bed with America in order to fight communism, which is ironic, considering that liberation theology once deeply penetrated (mainly) the South American Church. America – whether it was intended as such or not – has become this malleable, melting-pot, blank-slate, proposition nation, a nation where a Somali is just as American as the ancestors of Washington or Jefferson. America is Israel Zangwill’s caricature of America, as portrayed in his 1908 play The Melting Pot. The Groypers, if they value a coherent philosophy, should not partake in Americanism, because Americanism is the source of all they detest: homosexual rights, usury, and interventionism.

Trumpism, Capitalism and Nationalism

The most upsetting bit of the Groyper aesthetic is the fact that they still wear the MAGA hats and support Trump. One imagines that the support for Trump is a fraction of what it was in 2016, but nonetheless carrying water for someone who is actionably opposed to your ideas is ludicrous. At least the Groypers all have this in common: they represent two figureheads that actively oppose them and their traditionalism in Pope Francis and Donald Trump.

No institution can be wedded to the American Empire without being subdued by it.

While the Groypers should reject Trump – and, I would argue, should even burn their MAGA hats outside of these TPUSA events – they should also reject a key component of Trumpism and Americanism: capitalism. First, capitalism has never been the standard economic policy of the Catholic Church, and historically the Church has viewed the marketization of things with indifference if not hostility. Second, capitalism is the very system which allows for mobility of labour, resulting in displacement and atomization. As a result of this second point, nationalism and capitalism are simply incompatible; borders are an obstacle for the capitalist to freely move capital and labour.

In sum, I deny the Groypers’ nationalism on the basis that there have (since Rome) been unipolar or multipolar hegemon(s), i.e. China, Russia, or Britain. I deny their Americanism, because it is a malleable ideology hostile to their nationalism and to any sense of traditionalism. I deny their admiration for Trump, that stellar candidate and failed president who duped them in 2016 and will dupe them again next year. I reject their Roman Catholicism, which amounts to adherence to an institution plagued by left-wing and right-wing factions. I affirm their trolling and I laugh with them at the destruction of the conservative movement – especially when it comes to figures like Kirk, Donald Trump Jr., and Congressman Dan AIPATCH. Again, I make this article not merely to critique them, but also to aid them, because every ideology needs a solid foundation. Deconstruction for its own sake is subversive; let it be clear that I intend no such thing. I wish them the best in their destruction of the conservative movement, though it should not be destroyed just to be repeated.

References

2Groyper’, Urban Dictionary.

4Alexandra Kacala, ‘‘Drag Kids’ Are Slaying the Runway — One ‘Fierce’ Look at a Time’, NBC News, October 9 2018. Accessed 26 November 2019.

7Six Cardinals and Bishops Who Condemned Pagan ‘Pachamama’ Rituals at Vatican’, Life Site News, 30 October, 2019. Accessed 26 November 2019.

This Post Has 2 Comments
  1. Whether the Gropyer/Fuentes enterprise ultimately amounts to anything is a matter for unfolding events, so my comments are not predictions, but observations.

    ‘America First’ is a political-economic posture. No other nation ‘first’, just America. Other nations and their peoples come after America. This is true in all aspects of foreign policy including trade.

    ‘Catholicism’ — while true of some members of the Groyper Army — is not true of all. What is largely true is a rejection of ‘degeneracy’, a rejection of the normalization of homosexuality, pedophilia, Drag Queen Story Hour.

    Aligned with ‘America First’ is a concern about allegiance. This stems directly from concern that there are too many US ‘citizens’ who clearly and obviously owe their allegiance to other nations (Mexico, Israel, China, Ukraine).

    Rarely mentioned, but nonetheless in the mix is White Identitarianism, at the very least as a tactical response to the success of non-White identitarian politics and the coming minoritization of White Americans.

    Which brings about the combo-platter of ‘America First’ and ‘White Identity’ in the form of immigration-driven demographic change in the US that is creating a substantially non-White American that no White American (or any non-White American) voted for.

    There is virtually nothing in the Groyper/Fuentes ‘ideology’ that does not garner significant support from much of the American public, which is why suppression and demonization has been the response from ‘Conservative Inc’.

    1. “Hamburger Today,” this was a thoughtful and measured response. What must apparently be reasserted, almost as a preamble to anything that one says, is that prudent men act according to nested hierarchies of responsibility. Faith is first, of course, for one’s soul and those of others. There is a universality to Catholic theology. It is important to point out assertively is that the universal concern and mission for souls is not to be manipulated by others–least of all the bishops and religious–as a crude, blanket cover story for wrecking societies, nations and whole civilizations to satisfy God only knows what unholy ends and whichever paymasters. The universality of the invitation to salvation is not to be crassly and fraudulently converted in support of policies about trucking across borders and libertine claims of license in promoting hideous things in schools and libraries. I will only devote one sentence here to stating that it is precisely the sometimes discriminating and exclusionary structures of society and nations that societies and nations are made to be the kind of things that serve all in general, within and across borders. Returning to the earlier line of reasoning, because of the subsidiarity of things rightly considered, when there are serious attacks on subordinate parts and priorities, these must be addressed in turn. Putting out grassfires does not contradict commitment to the full order of things. Demographic attacks upon a people, a nation and important civilizational institutions are all worthy of defending against. When the forces amassed against both Europeans in particular, and ultimately all humans, attack all pillars of human flourishing and spiritual development simultaneously, then defense from all walls, parapets and towers is a necessity. No man can defend all but his assigned station. Only the King is responsible for all, but it is good that the defenders of the castle know that their battle is part of the saving of the whole. Only an enemy would want to pick apart and undermine that which serves the whole in truth.

Leave a Reply

The comment section of Arktos Journal will be regulated by standards consonant to the principles of the project itself. Our general rules are as follows:

  • Comments will not be moderated on the basis of the opinions expressed (controversy is welcome), but rather on their quality.
  • Contributors are requested to obey the rules of civility, without which all discourse is null, and to avoid crude personal attacks. Wit is welcome, but argument, and not insult, will be the expected means of refutation.
  • Obscenities, vulgarity and slurs will not be tolerated.
  • Contributors are invited to check their contributions for general grammatical correctness (allowances will obviously be made for second-language speakers) and logical cohesiveness.

As a general guideline, all contributors should imagine that they are speaking their minds aloud in a public space, unhindered by political correctness but bound to the older standards of honour and decency in speech.

All decisions of the moderators are final.

Back To Top