It is seemingly impossible to engage in a conversation about conservative politics, or even the intersection of religion and politics, without the topic of “Groypers” rearing its head. If you know what a Groyper is, or what “groyperism” is, then I will not have to define what it is. If you do not know what it is, I will try to explain it, although that is difficult.
A Groyper is someone who adheres—generally speaking—to the political and socio-cultural beliefs of the growing Groyper Movement. The Groyper Movement is a mix of American Nationalism (in the case of America, although it is present elsewhere), strong criticism (to put it mildly) of Zionism and general Jewish influence in America, along with a strong “anti-woke” mentality that is vehemently anti-feminist, and so on. In essence, it is a right-wing movement with focal points highlighting these issues. Of course, it is more complex than this short definition would suggest, but this definition should be sufficient for now.
On the surface, I do not find the movement—at least insofar as it is defined above—objectionable. While I understand that speaking on Jewish issues is sensitive, I personally have no qualms about criticizing Israel; and if I peruse centuries and centuries of Catholic literature, I am equally undisturbed by criticisms of Jewish cultural influence in Christian society. Also, I hate feminism and all the “isms” that conflict with Catholicism. Furthermore, while I wouldn’t use the term “Nationalist” to describe myself—I would prefer “Patriot”—I do believe a healthy dose of love of country is good for any society.
In any event, despite any general agreements I may have with Groyper talking points, I do believe there are profound problems with the movement.
One important aspect is the fact that it is largely a movement of young males who would qualify as “Zoomers,” meaning those from Gen-Z (born between 1997-2012). The most well-known figure is, of course, Nick Fuentes, who did not invent the term but embraced it, and he is 27. While it is true that a movement filled with youth could be positive, it is also true that a youth-heavy movement will suffer from a lack of wisdom and perspective, which is only natural in a youth movement.
Now, I can see various Groypers reading this and becoming upset, perhaps brushing any criticisms off that I may have because I am not part of their generation. Well, if it helps, I am 37, which is not even a decade older than the oldest Zoomer; and I taught Zoomers for half a decade who would all be in their early-to-mid 20s now.
At any rate, the three main pitfalls that I see in the Groyper Movement are:
1. An oversimplified, if not erroneous, understanding of race.
2. A lack of decorum and virtue in public displays of Groyperism.
3. Resentment and antagonism at the heart of the movement.
In this article, I will focus on the first pitfall: the issue of race.
As far as race is concerned, the main issue with the general Groyper conversation about race is that they are often utterly wrong about how race has been understood historically. What I mean is that before Modernity, races of people were not separated by skin color but by tribe, regional differences, and so on.
For example, an Italian from 200 years ago would speak of the “French Race,” or the “English Race,” and that they shared a similar skin pigment was not enough to be considered of the same race. The word “race” comes to the English language from the Old French word rasse, which comes from the Italian word razza. The meaning of these words originally referred to family lineage, or, in a broader sense, to the clan someone was from.
So, an Englishman from 1600 could consider a Scotsman to be from a different race because he was from a different clan and family lineage. With the rise of Liberalism and Scientism in the 1800s, the word acquired a rationalist sense, and Evolutionists, specifically, began to apply it to people groups generally. Thus, we begin to hear of “white people” and “black people” as defining characteristics, rather than the more nuanced usage that was common.
Of course, this use of the term gained steam during the period of chattel slavery, and the momentum has never left us.
Furthermore, as Christendom continued to disintegrate, what it meant to belong to a people continued to change, which was accelerated by massive emigration. Historically, people stayed in one region for generations, and their belonging to a culture or people group had more to do with their identities as Catholics and their family history. As Protestantism and Liberalism became the dominant philosophies of the Anglosphere—and, by extension, America—the old, proper understanding of race disappeared. Now, when speaking of race, people have come to view it as a matter of skin color or DNA more broadly.
Within Groyperism, there is an acute understanding that mass immigration has led to severe societal consequences—because it has, at least in our day. However, it has not been the case historically that such immigration has produced deleterious results. If you are a North American and are proud of your history, be it Quebecois, New Englander, Hispanic, etc., then you would not have a history to be proud of if it were not for massive amounts of ancestors coming over from the Old Continent.
In any event, we can all agree that the present state of mass immigration has been a disaster. But the question is: Why has it been a disaster?
The Groyper answer would almost assuredly be because the immigration has been of predominantly non-white people. The notion of “white” identity is central to Groyperism. And it is a consistent theme in Groyper thinking that one of the main problems with America, and other nations historically consisting of an ethnically European majority, is a rise in non-white citizens.
On the surface, it is easy to understand why such an opinion makes sense, and it is possible to see the merit in this manner of thinking without having to throw around terms like “racist.” As human beings, we must use descriptive categories; and, visually, we can see that the general “white” culture is different than general Indian, Middle Eastern, and African cultures. And, since we would associate cultural, religious, and ethnical expressions with non-white cultures that are different, or even antithetical to the way of life we are used to in North America, it is understandable to see how an influx of people from such backgrounds is undesirable.
However, upon further consideration, the notion that the problems associated with other people groups have to do with race—DNA—is an untenable position for a Catholic. This is because genetic characteristics pertaining to skin pigmentation and other physiological traits carry no moral or spiritual weight. And the fabric of a civilization is not based on the color of skin or how people look but in how they believe, act, and so on.
Granted, having a preference for people who look like you for reasons of marriage, for example, is only natural; however, there is simply nothing about “being white” that is any better than being from some other race.
