On campuses across the United States, a toxic movement is rising. This movement centers its ideology around the tenets of identitarian politics, particularly in regard to race. In recent weeks, swarms of individuals have packed question-and-answer sessions of events hosted by conservative speakers, bombarding them with pointed questions about American support for Israel and the racial divide. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not a continuation of the race-baiting agenda that has been a hallmark of the campus left. Instead, the Groyper movement claims itself to be a product of the alt-right. Unless it is opposed, and opposed with calculated intent, the movement stands to irrevocably disfigure the modern conservative movement.
The Groyper movement takes its name from Groyper, an obese illustrated toad with its hands folded under its chin. This meme was commonly utilized as a profile picture by members of the alt-right. The meme has since given its name to the movement in question, which was formed by Nick Fuentes. A former Boston University student and 2017 Charlottesville rally participant, Fuentes has gained prominence after a leader of the conservative organization TPUSA was terminated for associating with him. Fuentes has since declared war on what he and his followers refer to as “Conservative, Inc.” by sending his followers to hijack question and answer sessions at TPUSA events. In particular, the Groypers have targeted TPUSA head Charlie Kirk for his supposedly excessive support of Israel and his openness to gay marriage and immigration.
The Groyper movement threatens to hijack the conservative movement, and give truth to the slanders laid upon conservatives by the left. In addition to attending the infamous Charlottesville Rally, Fuentes is also a thinly disguised white nationalist. Among his more recent comments, he joked about Holocaust denial by comparing Cookie Monster baking cookies in ovens to Jews burned in crematoria and referring to Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh as a “race traitor” who “works for Jews,” a blatantly anti-semitic attack against Walsh’s boss, Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro. Though Fuentes only brands himself as someone who is “America First,” it is evident that he is a racist and anti-semite whose views stand to poison conservatism if he gains sufficient popularity.
However, those who have attempted to stop Fuentes have merely served to fuel the credibility of his cause. In response to the beginning of Fuentes’ campaign, various members of the conservative movement have sought to shut out his views. On Twitter, conservative radio show host and former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka questioned why Fuentes was given verification status, calling for Fuentes to be removed from social media. This only fueled Fuentes’ cause against the so-called ‘Conservative Inc.,’ as he accused those who called for his removal to be practicing the same form of tech censorship that the conservative movement opposes. Furthermore, the hypocrisy expressed by Kirk, Gorka, and other figures drove many members of TPUSA to resign, despite the fact that they wholeheartedly opposed Fuentes’s views. If Fuentes and the Groypers are to be stopped, use of censorship is out of the question.
In order to prevent the Groyper movement from seizing control of the conservative movement, it is essential that perspective of the Groypers be debated and debunked in the public square. Such a premise may seem unpalatable given the views Fuentes and his followers hold. Indeed, their views are undoubtedly detestable. However, as previously illustrated, silencing the Groypers is simply not an option. Any attempt to smother the movement will only serve to fuel the resolve of the Groypers to continue their campaign, as well as further their narrative of hypocritical censorship from the conservative establishment. Instead, a proficient debater within the conservative movement should agree to the request so often demanded by Groypers: debate Nick Fuentes. A competent debater should be easily able to refute Groyper talking points. Such a debate would also remove any possibility of falling back on the censorship defense, and serve to strip away the mystique that enforced silence lends to the Groypers. Shining light to drive away the murk of the Groypers would serve the conservative movement far better than turning aside from it and declaring that it does not belong to us, and thus allowing it to spread.
The Groyper movement and the method by which they must be addressed serve as valuable lessons to the conservative movement. The rise of Fuentes and the Groypers demonstrates that the conservative movement must never be complacent. Oftentimes, the conservative movement has focused its attention on the radicalism of the left, thus unintentionally turning away from the potential rise of radicalism within our own movement. Going forward, the conservative movement must be vigilant to prevent others like Fuentes and his Groypers from gaining traction. Additionally, conservatives must be careful to avoid violating our own principles when addressing individuals with extreme viewpoints. The Groyper movement only draws strength when conservative figures call for Fuentes and his compatriots to be removed from social media, as such a reaction merely serves to paint the conservative movement as hypocrites, and the Groypers as victims. In addressing the Groypers and any future fringe elements, it is necessary to repudiate these unconservative values while simultaneously holding true to our own.