Your analysis is spot on. But it should be clear that you, and people sharing your worldview, asked for this. Now that you're getting it, and getting it good and hard, whining about it isn't going to help.
I think you are being unfair here. Richard is one of the few authors making a somewhat good-faith effort to deprogram these people. Here are just two posts I found with a quick Google
I'm a bit suspicious that this really is the long term because so much of Groyperdom is so riven with interpersonal weirdness, and lacks the kind of animal magnetism someone like Trump has which allow people to project onto him whatever they want.
The point you make about scale of listenership is correct, though - it can't just be dismissed as the Very Online, the fact that Heritage is jumping onboard means that, like any institution which ultimately exists on the basis of donations, they see something there.
Ultimately right of centre voters will go with whatever they find the most compelling at the lizard brain level and adjust the ideology to go along with that, but I don't think its guaranteed to be Groypers. Right of Centre voters are oppositional-defiant in the American political context, and the salience of issues is what drives micro changes to ideological beliefs. The bizarre spectacle of, for example, getting really interested in the territorial claims of the Russian Federation, is entirely driven by this - if CBS and ABC say one thing, we must say the opposite, etc
In 5 years, the issues on this front are hard to predict.
One thing I will note - the Groypers really don't seem to have much to say, or at least don't seem to care much, about the spectre of libertinism enabled by drug legalization, sports gambling's explosion, or the proliferation of online porn. The leaders of the movement might say things that social conservatives would agree with on those, but the juice isn't in the squeeze for them on it, as opposed to Jew Baiting. It may be interesting to see if that continues
None of this is a surprise. A movement dedicated to ethnonationalism is going to be full of antisemites. That has never not happened. So many of what I call Trump's "more sophisticated supporters" thought it was okay to tolerate all his bad acts and crankery as long as it didn't come for them. It was never going to last. They were too consumed by their hatred of woke to see what was right in front of them.
"I’ve spent the last few years warning about the moral and intellectual decline of the right. To see what I’ll be correct about next, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.".
I think you might be exaggerating in this tagline for the newsletter. Maybe the last 9 months? I think this new line for you started around 90 days into Trump's presidency. That's ok. I still read the newsletter and find it insightful, as I did previously. But perhaps a bit less "prophetic" on this point than the tagline suggests.
There are a few issues with this thesis. First of all, where is the evidence that all these online influencers are playing a huge role in actual voting patterns? Where are the so-called “based” candidates being elected into office? A lot of these groypers types hate Vivek Ramaswamy, but he’s still sitting comfortably in the top of the polls for the Ohio governor race.
Also, being anti-immigration and anti-Israel doesn’t necessarily make someone an ethnonationalist. Fuentes himself regularly collaborates with people like Sneako and others that are non-white.
And also, populism can win elections, but can’t deliver results. So unless there can be a groyper managerial class that will actually carry out groyper orders, then the ideology is just people talking on podcasts.
According to Wikipedia, Sneako is part Haitian and part Jewish among other things, and converted to Islam. I assume this is an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.
I have been an online critic of woke cancel politics for several years, but this makes me think that the wokes will be missed if the Groypers take over. Hopefully the dialectic will eventually shift back to a cosmopolitanism that rejects victim politics.
Conservatives are like Minions, chasing around the next biggest, worst supervillain. I won’t be interrogating this analogy any further because it’s perfect.
I agree, but I feel like you almost don’t take your own argument seriously enough? If Nick Fuentes and the Groypers are the future of the Republican Party, shouldn’t you spend more time criticizing them and their ideas and less time criticizing declining stocks like JD Vance, Yoram Hazony, Steve Bannon, Catturd etc.?
When President Nick Fuentes signs the Preservation of the Purity of our Blood Act in 20 years, maybe you’ll be able to write a really good tweet dunking on Yoram Hazony for encouraging ethno-nationalism as you’re being deported on the remigration shuttle. But wouldn’t it have been more useful to have directly criticized the white nationalist, theocratic, and anti-science philosophy of Nick Fuentes instead?
Richard, this is one of your sharpest pieces yet. You’re right that the Groyperization of the GOP has moved from fringe to gravitational center — but let’s not kid ourselves that Vance will resist it. He’s a complete invention, a man who believes in nothing but power. He won’t even defend his own wife, let alone any principle. The irony, as you put it so well, is that this movement worships “authenticity,” yet its future standard-bearer is one of the most synthetic figures in American politics.
I do have doubts on whether liberal institutions would have been able to "contain" wokeness, were it not for the (as you say, inevitable) backlash which led to Trump and MAGA coming to power and in many cases forcing them to. You seem to be suggesting liberal institutions by their very nature would have been (eventually) doing the same thing anyway. I don't see a lot of evidence for that, but maybe I'm overlooking something.
Exactly, how quickly he forgets. Had Musk not bought Twitter, had Substack been successfully debanked, the woke hegemon would probably still be calling the shots. In which case the NY Times would definitely not have course corrected at all.
I read his point differently. Whenever the backlash came (which indeed was accelerated by trump’s win) the liberal institutions have governance mechanisms that have allowed them to course correct. Distributed, independent media outlets don’t really have similar mechanisms.
But that said - I think this point is weak. Any change like this is due either to cultural or economic pressure and incentives.
Great article and accurate. I hate everything Nick stands for but I love the way he stands. He’s honest about what he thinks and why, consistent in his beliefs and coherent in his speech, and charismatic as hell. I don’t personally understand why he wants a white Christian America, seems to fly in the face of American ideals, just seems ignorant and really narrow and cynical reading of the Constitution. But compared to the watered down manipulative bs at least I know where I stand with this guy and he doesn’t make things up and spread stupid conspiracy theories just to get clicks. If he’s saying it, he likely believes it. I’ve been saying this a while now, that while I’m politically aligned with Destiny, I see Fuentes as the best opponent because like Destiny, he just doesn’t give a f$&@ and he knows who he is. I’ve been encouraging Destiny and others to take him more seriously because others will.
Yeah it looks like he’s a little nuts. At least in this situation. I can’t read thru all of it or audit what’s actually happening. When I said honest I didn’t mean HONEST honest. Just that his brand plays a little more raw and consistent than other people in the genre. Don’t worry I’m not saying the guy is a saint or anything. He has what I consider horrible racist and anti-Semite beliefs, full stop. In my opinion his mind is kind of warped. There’s something refreshing about the candor around his beliefs and values. So unapologetic. We know people think like that and it’s kind of comforting to see him just spit it. Even though I hate it.
While I understand the concern expressed here, I also think the conclusion reached by Henania for why we should be concerned for far right authoritarianism is rather weak. Essentially, his argument is “any far right influencer has more views than a far left author has sales for their book, therefore, the far right is more ascendent.” It ignores a lot of nuance and other factors, and only shows how little Henania knows about the right, and how he’s essentially a wolf (left wingers) is sheep’s clothing (right wingers).
I'll admit to not understanding Fuentes appeal at all, but the comparison to Trump seems farfetched. Trump was pretty good looking, dated and married beautiful women, was successful before politics. Some little gay anti-semite just isn't going to go that far on the right, I'm pretty sure.
This seems right. Fuentes isn’t going to gain much more direct power than he currently has. But will his indirect, secondary, influence impact politics on the right? Consider something like Grover Norquist's pledge. Or the influence of woke politics and staffers on Biden - who never was really very work- but nevertheless enabled plenty of things on the work agenda and made some very dumb DEI picks.
You seem to be using "groyper" as synonymous with "racist/ethnonationalist", but what is distinctive about the groypers (according to my understanding) is their hostility toward Jews and Israel. I see many right-wingers on Twitter who dislike the groypers but are just as hostile toward groups like blacks, Muslims and Indians. In fact, a common criticism of groyperism is that it is "brown-coded".
And to make matters worse, Jews are too “white” and rich for the left to care about defending them. If the groypers continue framing it as “Zionism” or “usury” the left will turn a blind eye to the Jewish aspect
Your analysis is spot on. But it should be clear that you, and people sharing your worldview, asked for this. Now that you're getting it, and getting it good and hard, whining about it isn't going to help.
I think you are being unfair here. Richard is one of the few authors making a somewhat good-faith effort to deprogram these people. Here are just two posts I found with a quick Google
"Conservatives Are Lying on Immigrant Crime" https://substack.com/home/post/p-149349244
"High-Skill Immigration as the Ultimate Progress Issue" https://www.richardhanania.com/p/high-skill-immigration-as-the-ultimate
There shall be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine just people who need no repentance.
Unfortunately, we’re all getting it
Neither is your pointless and meaningless comment, but here we are.
I'm a bit suspicious that this really is the long term because so much of Groyperdom is so riven with interpersonal weirdness, and lacks the kind of animal magnetism someone like Trump has which allow people to project onto him whatever they want.
The point you make about scale of listenership is correct, though - it can't just be dismissed as the Very Online, the fact that Heritage is jumping onboard means that, like any institution which ultimately exists on the basis of donations, they see something there.
Ultimately right of centre voters will go with whatever they find the most compelling at the lizard brain level and adjust the ideology to go along with that, but I don't think its guaranteed to be Groypers. Right of Centre voters are oppositional-defiant in the American political context, and the salience of issues is what drives micro changes to ideological beliefs. The bizarre spectacle of, for example, getting really interested in the territorial claims of the Russian Federation, is entirely driven by this - if CBS and ABC say one thing, we must say the opposite, etc
In 5 years, the issues on this front are hard to predict.
One thing I will note - the Groypers really don't seem to have much to say, or at least don't seem to care much, about the spectre of libertinism enabled by drug legalization, sports gambling's explosion, or the proliferation of online porn. The leaders of the movement might say things that social conservatives would agree with on those, but the juice isn't in the squeeze for them on it, as opposed to Jew Baiting. It may be interesting to see if that continues
None of this is a surprise. A movement dedicated to ethnonationalism is going to be full of antisemites. That has never not happened. So many of what I call Trump's "more sophisticated supporters" thought it was okay to tolerate all his bad acts and crankery as long as it didn't come for them. It was never going to last. They were too consumed by their hatred of woke to see what was right in front of them.
"I’ve spent the last few years warning about the moral and intellectual decline of the right. To see what I’ll be correct about next, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.".
I think you might be exaggerating in this tagline for the newsletter. Maybe the last 9 months? I think this new line for you started around 90 days into Trump's presidency. That's ok. I still read the newsletter and find it insightful, as I did previously. But perhaps a bit less "prophetic" on this point than the tagline suggests.
There are a few issues with this thesis. First of all, where is the evidence that all these online influencers are playing a huge role in actual voting patterns? Where are the so-called “based” candidates being elected into office? A lot of these groypers types hate Vivek Ramaswamy, but he’s still sitting comfortably in the top of the polls for the Ohio governor race.
Also, being anti-immigration and anti-Israel doesn’t necessarily make someone an ethnonationalist. Fuentes himself regularly collaborates with people like Sneako and others that are non-white.
And also, populism can win elections, but can’t deliver results. So unless there can be a groyper managerial class that will actually carry out groyper orders, then the ideology is just people talking on podcasts.
According to Wikipedia, Sneako is part Haitian and part Jewish among other things, and converted to Islam. I assume this is an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.
I have been an online critic of woke cancel politics for several years, but this makes me think that the wokes will be missed if the Groypers take over. Hopefully the dialectic will eventually shift back to a cosmopolitanism that rejects victim politics.
All major political shifts require either a new generation taking leadership roles, or some outside event like a war. We are in for rough decade.
Conservatives are like Minions, chasing around the next biggest, worst supervillain. I won’t be interrogating this analogy any further because it’s perfect.
I agree, but I feel like you almost don’t take your own argument seriously enough? If Nick Fuentes and the Groypers are the future of the Republican Party, shouldn’t you spend more time criticizing them and their ideas and less time criticizing declining stocks like JD Vance, Yoram Hazony, Steve Bannon, Catturd etc.?
When President Nick Fuentes signs the Preservation of the Purity of our Blood Act in 20 years, maybe you’ll be able to write a really good tweet dunking on Yoram Hazony for encouraging ethno-nationalism as you’re being deported on the remigration shuttle. But wouldn’t it have been more useful to have directly criticized the white nationalist, theocratic, and anti-science philosophy of Nick Fuentes instead?
Richard, this is one of your sharpest pieces yet. You’re right that the Groyperization of the GOP has moved from fringe to gravitational center — but let’s not kid ourselves that Vance will resist it. He’s a complete invention, a man who believes in nothing but power. He won’t even defend his own wife, let alone any principle. The irony, as you put it so well, is that this movement worships “authenticity,” yet its future standard-bearer is one of the most synthetic figures in American politics.
I do have doubts on whether liberal institutions would have been able to "contain" wokeness, were it not for the (as you say, inevitable) backlash which led to Trump and MAGA coming to power and in many cases forcing them to. You seem to be suggesting liberal institutions by their very nature would have been (eventually) doing the same thing anyway. I don't see a lot of evidence for that, but maybe I'm overlooking something.
Exactly, how quickly he forgets. Had Musk not bought Twitter, had Substack been successfully debanked, the woke hegemon would probably still be calling the shots. In which case the NY Times would definitely not have course corrected at all.
I read his point differently. Whenever the backlash came (which indeed was accelerated by trump’s win) the liberal institutions have governance mechanisms that have allowed them to course correct. Distributed, independent media outlets don’t really have similar mechanisms.
But that said - I think this point is weak. Any change like this is due either to cultural or economic pressure and incentives.
Great article and accurate. I hate everything Nick stands for but I love the way he stands. He’s honest about what he thinks and why, consistent in his beliefs and coherent in his speech, and charismatic as hell. I don’t personally understand why he wants a white Christian America, seems to fly in the face of American ideals, just seems ignorant and really narrow and cynical reading of the Constitution. But compared to the watered down manipulative bs at least I know where I stand with this guy and he doesn’t make things up and spread stupid conspiracy theories just to get clicks. If he’s saying it, he likely believes it. I’ve been saying this a while now, that while I’m politically aligned with Destiny, I see Fuentes as the best opponent because like Destiny, he just doesn’t give a f$&@ and he knows who he is. I’ve been encouraging Destiny and others to take him more seriously because others will.
For more thoughts on Fuentes check out my article here. https://open.substack.com/pub/galan/p/destiny-vs-everyone?r=1xoiww&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
He isn't honest about what he says about Kassy Dillon/Akiva. At all. He is a liar. And a very very good one.
I’ll check it out. I don’t consume a whole lot of Fuentes tbh.
Kassy Dillon has a thread where she goes through how Fuentes lied about her and why.
Yeah it looks like he’s a little nuts. At least in this situation. I can’t read thru all of it or audit what’s actually happening. When I said honest I didn’t mean HONEST honest. Just that his brand plays a little more raw and consistent than other people in the genre. Don’t worry I’m not saying the guy is a saint or anything. He has what I consider horrible racist and anti-Semite beliefs, full stop. In my opinion his mind is kind of warped. There’s something refreshing about the candor around his beliefs and values. So unapologetic. We know people think like that and it’s kind of comforting to see him just spit it. Even though I hate it.
While I understand the concern expressed here, I also think the conclusion reached by Henania for why we should be concerned for far right authoritarianism is rather weak. Essentially, his argument is “any far right influencer has more views than a far left author has sales for their book, therefore, the far right is more ascendent.” It ignores a lot of nuance and other factors, and only shows how little Henania knows about the right, and how he’s essentially a wolf (left wingers) is sheep’s clothing (right wingers).
I'll admit to not understanding Fuentes appeal at all, but the comparison to Trump seems farfetched. Trump was pretty good looking, dated and married beautiful women, was successful before politics. Some little gay anti-semite just isn't going to go that far on the right, I'm pretty sure.
This seems right. Fuentes isn’t going to gain much more direct power than he currently has. But will his indirect, secondary, influence impact politics on the right? Consider something like Grover Norquist's pledge. Or the influence of woke politics and staffers on Biden - who never was really very work- but nevertheless enabled plenty of things on the work agenda and made some very dumb DEI picks.
You seem to be using "groyper" as synonymous with "racist/ethnonationalist", but what is distinctive about the groypers (according to my understanding) is their hostility toward Jews and Israel. I see many right-wingers on Twitter who dislike the groypers but are just as hostile toward groups like blacks, Muslims and Indians. In fact, a common criticism of groyperism is that it is "brown-coded".
And to make matters worse, Jews are too “white” and rich for the left to care about defending them. If the groypers continue framing it as “Zionism” or “usury” the left will turn a blind eye to the Jewish aspect
Youre gonna miss Jewish occupied government when its gone