By Kennedy Hall
Crisis Magazine
November 22, 2025
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.
For a Catholic, the most important characteristic anyone can have is holiness, which is a spiritual quality and cannot be associated with DNA in any capacity. Are Cristero martyrs, who would have been Mestizo, any less sanctified and excellent than the English Martyrs or French Martyrs, who would have been white Europeans? Are the Ugandan Martyrs qualitatively different than martyrs of other ethnic groups?
Now, it is likely that, if pressed on this topic, a Groyper would concede—I would hope—that, of course, genetics and race are not a factor when it comes to spiritual and moral excellence. However, when pressed about whether or not race itself is a deciding factor in the goodness of a desired society, Groypers would have to answer in the affirmative, which is problematic.
Recently, Nick Fuentes was interviewed by journalist Glenn Greenwald, and Greenwald pressed Fuentes on this topic. Greenwald asked Fuentes why he would be so insistent on "white-identity" when it is, for example, white-American women who are the most liberal, socialist, etc. Fuentes answered that while he admits this to be true—that white American women disproportionately advocate for policies harmful to the historic American way of life—he still prefers a nation with more American white women than non-whites because they will produce more white babies, which will be good for America in the long run, according to him.
Now, this is difficult to reconcile with sound Catholic thinking because inherent in this manner of thinking is a belief that DNA will be determinant of social cohesion and the moral fabric of a society. This mentality is utterly anti-historical, and it seems very similar to a Darwinian notion that certain races are better or worse for a given social fabric due to genetic characteristics rather than moral and spiritual qualities.
Again, I sympathize with and understand the need for categories in general parlance that allow us to communicate opinions in ways that are not onerous; thus, I understand using "white" as a shorthand. However, if we flesh this notion out even a little bit, it becomes absurd.
Were the French Revolutionaries not "white"? What about the Communist Revolutionaries in Russia?
I can already see the retort from a Groyperism proponent, and I would be rebutted with a claim that, in the Russian Revolution, for example, many of the main characters in that revolution were Jewish, which would make them not "white" according to Groyper logic. Now, it is true that there was a significant influence of Jewish actors in the Russian Revolution at the top of the hierarchy; however, one of the main arguments against Zionism, which I agree with, is that the Jewish diaspora that flocked to Palestine in the last century consisted mainly of Ashkenazi Jews who by every rational standard are considered white due to their significant Central European heritage. So, if we follow this through, are the Groypers so sure that "white makes right?"
And, if we consider Zionism for a moment, aren't native Palestinians of a Middle-Eastern/Levantine origin, which would make them "non-white?" If it is good, in general, for a nation to be white, would it not then be a positive for the State of Israel to exist and be filled with people of significant ethnic Central European ancestry?
Of course, a Groyper would say I am not being fair, and that it isn't that they hate non-whites but that they believe America should be white because America is a white country. But here is the problem: no, it isn't, at least in toto; and it never has been.
Have blacks not been in America for centuries longer than Italians, Irishmen, Germans, and so on? Are Tejanos (Mestizo in race) not more native to America than the majority of Americans of European descent, most of whom descend from European immigrants who came long after the Colonies separated from England? America has certainly always been majority European, but it has never not had a significant non-white population that has equal claim to being American, in the truest sense, to any Groyper whose ancestors came from Italy or Poland in the 1920s.
Ultimately, the lack of qualifiers and distinctions that Groypers employ to discuss the cultural makeup of America as it pertains to race will lead to logical absurdities and incomplete, if not immoral, views on race relations. Furthermore, if we were to replace the Groyper insistence on the goodness of white people as the foundation of society with another racial group, we would find ourselves to be intellectual bosom buddies with BLM and Indigenous-rights groups who clamor on about the problem with too many white people.
Lastly, because of their errors in how they approach the race question, Groypers, who would tell you that Liberalism is their enemy, espouse the same errors about race and people groups that gained steam because of Liberalism's historical revisionism and redefinition of long-held terms.
There are many things that Groypers correctly recognize as evils in our modern world. But their solutions will, in the end, lead their movement in the wrong direction, like a ship that starts even just a bit off course at the beginning of a voyage.