Debate:The Groyper Wars

With the past controversies over Nick Fuentes, TPUSA, Michelle Malkin, YAF, Ashley St. Clair, etc., combined with Big Tech's and the federal government's current suppression of dissent, this is an important discussion to have.

Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Please discuss the content of the Essay itself, rather than the talk page.

1. REDIRECT Template:Hide collapse

My Opinion

This has definitely got to be the #1 most controversial topic amongst the right. I think it's an overblown subject. I do consider myself a member of the Groyper movement, though I do think that "Groyper" is a silly name for a political movement. Now, I can't speak for every member, but I really don't think most Groypers are inherently "eViL aNtI-sEmItIc WhItE nAtIoNaLiStS" like many will tell you. It's a traditionalist paleocon movement that urges America to put God and country first and to return the western values our society was founded on (by white people, hence Nick's many mentions of the anti-white agenda, the importance of white identity and shifting demographics, which many confuse to be racial, when they're actually cultural). The "antisemitic" claim is mainly due to Nick's edgy and often Jew-related jokes (which Nick has said are merely for shock value), as well as the Groypers' heavy criticism of Israel, especially from a foreign policy perspective, and can you blame them? Trillions of dollars in taxpayer money is funneled to Israel every year to help them fight their thousand-year war. They don't need all that money, they have a GDP of 402 billion. It's not like they're some third-world country that we're helping out of pity. Of course, say this at a Turning Point USA event or on The Ben Shapiro Show and you're deemed "Anti-semitic/racist", somehow. Vince Did 7-14 (talk) 12:53, November 16, 2021 (EST)

This is a curious and thought-provoking take. And I wouldn't characterize groypers as white nationalists or anti-Semites, though in the past I would have. A lot of conservatives like to jump the gun and disown anyone outside of the mainstream, condemning them in the harshest possible terms. I think I can give you an explanation why. Part of it is that conservatives are afraid of alienating left-wingers and centrists/moderates. They think if they embrace certain figures they won't be able to convince as many people to accept conservatism. In a lot of cases, the opposite is true. The other thing is that back in 2019, quite a few mainstream/popular right-wingers saw groypers as wignats. Nick Fuentes and Beardson Beardly are having to deal with actual wignats right now. I think the way they feel about TRS is how conservatives felt about groypers. "They're just trying to divide us." "They're infiltrators." "They don't have anything to offer." "They're idiots." A lot of stuff was coming out about Nick especially that just put people off. Like that awful Holocaust joke. I get that he tries to be edgy and says things for shock value, but a lot of times he goes too far. And that's why some factions of the right were concerned that Nick was the new Richard Spencer, and didn't want their reputations tarnished through guilt by association --- which ironically is a tactic they themselves unjustly used against those on the right who chose to associate with the groypers. I know groypers presently are frustrated by wignats. Now they know how mainstream conservatives felt. You're absolutely right that most of Western civilization was built by white people. And there 100% is an anti-white agenda: it's pervasive and vitriolic. It's institutionalized across the Western world. I don't see how white identity politics solves anything. Every group should be proud of its identity. Whites have done many amazing things. But embracing identity politics, as Nick seems to frequently advocate, is playing on the left's battlefield, and that's a dangerous game. Altering a country's core demography inevitably comes with long-lasting and severe consequences. White Americans have a sub-replacement birth rate. Black Americans are aborting and shooting themselves out of existence. Latin American and Middle Eastern immigrants to the U.S., meanwhile, have very high birth rates... and they're only rising. Those immigrants obviously vote for the people importing them and tell their kids and grandkids to do the same. I don't think that's inextricably tied to race, I agree that it's cultural. But there is a link between culture and race, they're not entirely distinct. And we can dispute the reasons why demographic shifts have such drastic consequences, but the point is they have drastic consequences. So we need to import less people. As for Israel, a lot of people seem to think anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. I used to think that, too, reasoning that singling out the only Jewish State must be bad-faith criticism. But that point defeats itself: Israel is unique, which is why it is uniquely criticized. Having an unconventional opinion about a foreign country is not inherently bigoted. I support Israel. Others don't. Who cares? Besides, Israel has stains in its history --- think Lavon Affair and some of the shady/unethical actions of the Mossad. I have to correct you on the foreign aid: I believe it's low billions, not trillions. And hypothetically, I support them getting that money. Sure they do well for themselves, but they're (in theory) the only democracy in the Middle East, surrounded on all sides by hostile powers. Israel also has a lot of holy sites (for Christians, not just Jews). But I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to fund their COVID regime --- while non-Muslims still can't pray at the Temple Mount. I like Ben Shapiro and TPUSA, though I sometimes disagree with them. In spite of those disagreements, I see their conservative activism as a net positive. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 17:46, November 16, 2021 (EST)

I'm happy to say, then, that there's a lot of things we agree on; however, I don't think Nick is advocating for identity politics. I think he just wants whites to embrace their heritage and take action against the anti-white agenda. As for TPUSA and Shapiro, they're not advocating for conservatism. They're advocating for libertarian, capitalist-worshipping economic policy, and squishy, practically nonexistent social policy that is getting us virtually nowhere in this culture war. (Fusionism and its consequences!) If we want to see an actual return to traditionalism in America, the ideas these mainstream "conservatives" are pushing are not contributing in any way. They're pushing us in the opposite direction.(Plus, we all know Richard Spencer is a Democrat Psyop.) Vince Did 7-14 (talk) 11:45, November 18, 2021 (EST)

I think you're right about Richard Spencer. And I would like both Ben Shapiro and TPUSA to put more emphasis on social conservatism and less emphasis on free-market economics (as Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh have advocated for the broader conservative movement several times). Shapiro is sort of libertarian, and so are Charlie Kirk and most of the people at Turning Point. I'm not really a fan of libertarianism. I'm a huge fan of Walsh and Knowles partly because neither of them is remotely libertarian. As well, Shapiro in particular seems to support free-market absolutism and neoliberal, globalized capitalism, though I also just heard him say that America should put tariffs on non-American companies that use child labour and American companies that do so should be punished. I think some people on the dissident right tend to overlook the positives about Ben Shapiro and The Daily Wire: an alt-Hollywood, an alt-publishing company. Openly defying Biden's vaccine mandate and suing him over it. TPUSA has been engaging in conservative activism all over the U.S. for years at this point, and they've improved over time. Charlie Kirk now talks about demographics, marriage, and the nuclear family. Ben Shapiro talks about corporate tyranny. They're human, not controlled opposition. And I'm all for "telling whites to embrace their heritage and take action against the anti-white agenda." That's great. It's something Matt Walsh talks about all the time, at least in 2021. But here's what I mean by saying Nick advocates for white identity politics: here, at 31:24, Nick says "White racial identity politics is not going away." And it's not just that. Nick has explicitly rejected "multi-racial, working-class populism" and grouping together as Americans, patriots, conservatives, or even Christians in favour of white identitarianism. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 20:58, November 18, 2021 (EST)

I think Nick is making perfect sense in the video you linked. I don't think he means "identity politics" in the Obama-esque "I'm black n y'all gotta do everything I say or you racist" sort of sense here. Sounds to me like he's talking about political ideology that prioritizes white identity. (White-identity politics, rather than white identity-politics, if that makes sense). Also, he's not saying we can't come together as American patriots or Christians, he's just saying that many conservatives pretend that race isn't a thing, and that we can't properly fight the anti-white agenda if we don't recognize whiteness. Vince Did 7-14 (talk) 14:22, November 20, 2021 (EST)

From 37:30 - "Race is the basis, and I wish it wasn't that way. Understand, you know, people look at me and they say, 'That's the guy! That's the white supremacist that wants to make everything racist!' I didn't make it that way. Don't point the finger at me, don't blame me! I'm looking at the world and telling you how it is, I'm explaining it to you. I didn't make the world, okay? Don't blame me, I didn't make America the way it is!... We do have to acknowledge where we differ, and we have to account for those things so that we can live together in harmony... To the extent that it is possible that we get along, the way that we get along is by understanding our differences, accommodating for those differences, and then we can flourish. Not ignoring them, not pretending that they don't exist." Vince Did 7-14 (talk) 14:40, November 20, 2021 (EST)

I'd like to believe that race shouldn't factor into anything. In the abstract, it shouldn't. But that's not the world we're living in. You and Nick are right about that. This racial stuff has been foisted upon us. Matt Walsh pointed out that the Virginia governor's race was won by "white grievance politics" and "that's a good thing." We have to deal with the intensity of anti-white hate on both the left and the right properly. I get what you're saying about the difference between white identity-politics and white-identity politics. White identity exists and it's not inherently bad. Identity itself isn't bad. But how significant is racial identity in the political realm? It's significant, no doubt. But more so than everything else? I have to admit, it would be pretty cool to hear a candidate talk about how blue-collar white Americans are being left to dry by neoliberal globalism. Or to hear one talk about the historical accomplishments of white people. Should that exclude talking about America's Christian roots? Or condemning abortion, which disproportionately harms black Americans? Or criticizing LGBT radicalism? I don't think it should. So what should be prioritized? I'm not saying shun white interests in favour of corporate tax cuts --- corporations are part of the problem, so take away their (mostly non-white) foreign labour. Address demographics. Address anti-white critical race theory and other aspects of the anti-white agenda. But don't necessarily prioritize these things. Of course they're important. But you also have millions of unborn babies murdered in the womb each year. You have homosexuality/bisexuality/pansexuality and transgenderism/non-binarism/gender-fluidity/agenderism. You have Drag Queen Story Hour. Child drag queens. Drag queens on children's television. "Conservative" drag queens. You have Internet pornography. Gun control. Drugs. War. Not everything is a racial issue. A lot have a racial aspect, but that's not what governs them. The prospect of a national divorce, or secession? That would be along political or sociocultural lines, not solid racial lines. So yes, appeal to whites. But why not also appeal to sensible non-whites (even if they're a tiny minority)? Instead of "I'm looking out for white people," which can be a good thing, "I'm looking out for families." "I'm looking out for the working class." "I'm looking out for anyone who hates degeneracy." Couldn't that work? Not pandering, or endless harping about "black unemployment," but looking for something above race to unite us. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 18:27, November 20, 2021 (EST)

Of course, all those things are important, and race isn't the only issue. You're not wrong about any of that. I think you and I agree on the majority of things. Like I said, I don't think Nick is rejecting other forms of unity among conservatives, he simply doesn't see enough conservatives addressing the racial issues to the extent that they should be. Vince Did 7-14 (talk) 10:32, November 21, 2021 (EST)

If that's what Nick's saying, then fair enough. This has been and will probably continue to be a blind spot for many conservatives as they refuse to address the issues as they are on the ground. Thank you very much for taking the opportunity to have a civil discussion with me about all this. I think we can end it off here, seeing eye-to-eye on a lot of things. It always helps to be rational as we both are. You made excellent points. Hopefully, the right will improve with time. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 15:28, November 21, 2021 (EST)

Yes, of course. Thank you. Hopefully the Right will start facing these issues head-on, and hopefully someday we can change the Nicholas J. Fuentes page to be a less cringe version than the one Liberaltears wrote. Vince Did 7-14 (talk) 20:00, November 21, 2021 (EST)

Nick Fuentes actively roots for our enemies

On August 15, Nick Fuentes posted this on Telegram. It's one thing to oppose the War in Afghanistan. But it's a whole other thing to actively root for the Taliban and celebrate our defeat in Afghanistan, and for purely ideological reasons.

And on October 27, Fuentes posted this on Telegram. It's one thing to oppose waging a cold war with China. But it's a whole other thing to actively root for the CCP and express hope that it nukes the US, and for purely ideological reasons.

These posts make it clear where Fuentes stands. He is not a paleocon, despite his claims to the contrary. No, he's an extremist who actively supports our enemies -- our real enemies* -- and for purely ideological reasons. Any so-called "populist" movement which endorses this position should not, and must not be supported.

• In my opinion, we only have two real enemies on the international stage: The CCP and radical Sunni Islam. Fuentes has made it clear that he actively supports both, and for purely ideological reasons.

--Geopolitician (talk) 16:39, December 18, 2021 (EST)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I think in part, he was trolling when he said those things. But he has also made the point that, since the American regime (note the distinction from the American nation) is tyrannical and suppresses virtuous dissidents, we should root for anything that wants to destroy it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, essentially. Since the regime is Nick's enemy, Nick wants to support the enemies of the regime, inside and out. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, but it's not as black-and-white as you're presenting it. It's not as though he has committed treason. --BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 22:22, December 30, 2021 (EST)

You're right that Fuentes hasn't committed treason. You can't commit treason by merely voicing an opinion, no matter how odious that opinion may be.

That aside, only time will tell if Fuentes was indeed just trolling or was in fact being completely serious. But one thing's for certain, there are a lot of people on the alt-right who share that opinion, and are completely serious about it. I'm not sure if they compose a majority of the alt-right, but I am sure that they compose at minimum a significant minority.--Geopolitician (talk) 12:49, December 31, 2021 (EST)

Nick seems to think Russia or China would be willing to protect American dissidents the way America protects dissidents of foreign regimes. It's important to note that Nick has been heavily targeted by the federal government, who seized his assets and put him on a no-fly list. I don't think either of us can fully understand Nick's thinking on this matter if we haven't been similarly persecuted. He feels like Edward Snowden or Julian Assange. He has lost faith in the system to the point where he looks elsewhere for pragmatic and mutual support. I believe he is searching in very dark places, but it is undeniable that many of these countries are a lot less degenerate than the United States right now. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 16:14, December 31, 2021 (EST)

Very few countries have governments more evil than our own. Iran and Russia's governments definitely are less evil than ours, although I'm not sure about China's government, or Turkey's. As for the Sunni Islamist regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, those governments definitely are more evil than our own.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:01, January 1, 2022 (EST)

I'm starting to understand what you're getting at with Sunni Islam. You hold it responsible for 9/11, which makes it more evil than the American regime. I'll let you know that Nick doesn't accept the mainstream narrative of 9/11, but putting that aside, the American regime is responsible for far more than 3,000 deaths through the abortion industry alone. Not to mention the military-industrial complex (al-Qaeda's not responsible for that one no matter how you spin it). The only reason I can fathom for your assertion that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are more evil than the U.S. government is because they are supposedly responsible for 9/11. Isn't it funny, though, that Saudi Arabia is technically an ally of the United States? Speaking of allies of the United States, Nick perceives Israel to be a far greater threat to America than any country we've mentioned so far. He would definitely consider Zionism to be more of a threat than Sunni Islam. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I think it bears mentioning. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 18:08, January 4, 2022 (EST)

It's obvious to me that Fuentes views foreign relations from a purely ideological standpoint. And that he either has little to no understanding of geopolitics, or refuses to acknowledge geopolitical realities because they don't conform to his ideology. The truth is, we've always prioritized the interests of Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies above Israel's. This was especially apparent prior to the Gulf War. Many people, both then and now, have marked the Gulf War as the point when our foreign policy became "Israel first." But that's not true. We didn't get involved in that war to defend Israel. We got involved in that war to defend Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. The reason it may have looked like we were getting involved in that war to defend Israel was because that war was the point where Israel and Saudi Arabia's interests began to converge. And those interests appear to be more converged now than ever before. That being said, it has always been Saudi Arabia that has held our strings. After all, they have leverage over our economy through the petrodollar. What does Israel have? Of course the Groypers have an answer to that one: "Dual citizens." Like, give me a break.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:18, January 4, 2022 (EST)

On another note, what do you mean by Fuentes rejecting the mainstream narrative of 9/11? There are many alternative theories, including my own. I personally believe Saudi Arabia and Pakistan orchestrated the attacks, and that our government intentionally allowed them to happen. But I also believe that the attacks were directly carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists, that planes did hit the buildings, and that there were no controlled demolitions. So...--Geopolitician (talk) 23:18, January 4, 2022 (EST)

Israel holds tremendous sway over geopolitics. Follow the money. I don't like to admit it, but well-funded Zionist organizations routinely lobby the American government to warmonger and occupy the Middle East in order to protect Israeli interests. I don't think the United States would have bombed Syria if it wasn't for Israel demonizing Assad. And have you ever heard a neocon talk about bombing Iran without mentioning Israel? Saudi oil is a major part of it, but it's not the only thing. "What does Israel have?" Congress, the Senate, the media, and the banks. Also the Anti-Defamation League. As for 9/11, Nick doesn't hold Muslims responsible. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 01:51, January 5, 2022 (EST)

Israel may be able to get our politicians and our media and our people to view the Middle East through a certain ideological lens. But whenever we actually go to war over there, it’s never on Israel’s behalf. It’s always either on behalf of Saudi Arabia itself or to protect the Saudi-sponsored petrodollar scheme.

Think about it. Iraq was always Israel’s enemy, but we didn’t go to war the first time until it invaded Kuwait, a Saudi ally. And we didn’t go to war the second time until Iraq started selling oil in Euros, which is a big problem when one considers how the petrodollar scheme is supposed to work. Libya and Syria were also enemies of Israel, but they were also getting in the way of the petrodollar scheme. Plus, the Arab Spring was basically a giant Sunni Islamist revolt across multiple countries. Israel would benefit from its enemies descending into chaos, but it would not benefit from its allies descending into chaos, nor would it benefit from Sunni Islamist regimes coming to power in any way. Saudi Arabia on the other hand would benefit from all of those things.

Meanwhile, can you further clarify Fuentes’ position on 9/11? He doesn’t hold Muslims responsible, but does he or does he not believe al-Qaeda carried out the attacks? And if he doesn’t, who does he believe the true perpetrators were?--Geopolitician (talk) 13:33, January 5, 2022 (EST)

Another issue that’s also often overlooked is the role of the Eurasian Heartland strategy in our Middle East (and general Eurasian) policy. That also plays a highly important role in our policies towards Iran, Russia, and even China.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:46, January 5, 2022 (EST)

Perhaps you’re right about Saudi Arabia. Here’s a full picture of Nick’s stance on 9/11. I have to admit, I’m not familiar with the Eurasian Heartland strategy. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 15:09, January 5, 2022 (EST)

Sometimes, I go back and forth when trying to decide which is more influential on our foreign policy: the petrodollar scheme or the Eurasian Heartland strategy.

The petrodollar scheme is the only thing keeping our economy alive. Without it, the dollar cannot be a global reserve currency. And without global reserve currency status, the dollar can't maintain its present value. Even now, in the era of Bidenflation, the dollar is still worth about four times as much as it would be if the petrodollar didn't exist. But what has it cost to keep the dollar in this state? Selling our financial independence to a terrorist state.

The Eurasian Heartland strategy was originally conceived as a geopolitical strategy for the British Empire, but has been employed by the US since the end of World War II. The strategy's central premise is that the "Eurasian Heartland," which roughly corresponds to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, is the "pivot region" which determines which countries rule the global arena. If the region ever were to fall under the hegemony of a single power, then so would the rest of the world. This theory is a central theme of Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard." In that book, he states that the top priority of American foreign policy is to maintain its status as the sole global superpower, which requires a policy of doing whatever is necessary to prevent the emergence of a hegemon within the Heartland, or as he calls it, the "Eurasian Balkans." He identifies seven countries as being capable of producing "geopolitical thrusts" which would disrupt to such a policy: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and Turkey. In addition, he lists Ukraine as a potential seventh disruptive force. Do you notice a pattern here?--Geopolitician (talk) 18:38, January 5, 2022 (EST)

I assume the pattern is they all have nuclear weapons. Israel also has nuclear weapons and is easily capable of a disruptive geopolitical thrust. They're right in the centre of that region (the heart of the Heartland). But I don't think the U.S. needs to maintain hegemony over any part of the world besides the U.S. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 20:44, January 5, 2022 (EST)

First off, I need to correct a mistake I made in my last post. When I said "Eastern Europe and the Middle East," I actually meant "Eastern Europe and Central Asia." Here is a map of the Heartland (or the "Pivot Area") as defined by the term's inventor, Halford Mackinder, for reference. And here is a map of the Heartland (or the "Eurasian Balkans") from Brzezinski's book, for further reference. Both of those maps have the center of the Heartland being somewhere in the western part Central Asia, either in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan.

Anyway, the common denominator between the "geopolitical thrust" countries is that all three of the American foreign policy establishment's major enemies -- China, Iran, and Russia -- are among them (again, I agree that China is an enemy, but not Iran and Russia). This is consistent with a claim Brzezinski makes in his book that a Sino-Iranian-Russo alliance is the most "dangerous" possible alliance combination among the "geopolitical thrust" countries. In his words:

"Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an “antihegemonic” coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances. It would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower."

Additionally, Brzezinski states that the only alliance combinations anywhere in the world that would be even more "dangerous" for the US would be a Russo-EU alliance and a Sino-Japanese alliance. Now, wait a minute. Wouldn't preventing those alliances serve as a justification for our ongoing meddling in Europe and East Asia? Hmmm...--Geopolitician (talk) 13:35, January 6, 2022 (EST)

That Eurasian Heartland stuff is really interesting. I'm going to end the discussion off here, but I really appreciate it. Thank you, sincerely. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 20:55, January 6, 2022 (EST)