Groypers and More
I wanted to know more about the Groyper wars.
- Groypers and More
- 🏫 School Boards as Battlegrounds
- 🧠 Strategic Framing & Rhetorical Inversion
- 🔍 Why It Matters for Survivor Advocacy
- Please give me key examples of rhetoric from each of these groups, and apply which logical fallacies are employed in a table.
- 🧠 Rhetoric & Fallacy Table: Far-Right Groups
- 🔍 How This Supports Your Advocacy Work
- References
Tell me about the groyper wars.
The “Groyper Wars” were a series of confrontations within American conservatism that erupted in late 2019, led by far-right activist Nick Fuentes and his followers—known as the Groypers. These conflicts weren’t just about ideology; they were a calculated attempt to challenge and reshape the boundaries of mainstream conservative discourse.
🐸 Origins of the Groypers
- The term “Groyper” comes from a meme—a variant of Pepe the Frog—used by online far-right communities to signal allegiance to white nationalist and Christian nationalist views.
- The movement coalesced around Fuentes and his “America First” brand, emerging from the remnants of the alt-right and meme culture on platforms like 4chan.
🔥 What Sparked the Groyper Wars?
- In fall 2019, Fuentes and his followers began targeting Turning Point USA’s “Culture War” college tour, led by Charlie Kirk.
- Groypers disrupted events by asking provocative questions about immigration, Israel, and LGBTQ rights, accusing Kirk and others like Ben Shapiro and Donald Trump Jr. of being part of “Conservative Inc.”—a term they used to label conservatives they saw as too moderate or compromised.
- A key flashpoint was a UCLA event with Trump Jr. that was cut short due to heckling, which gave the Groypers national attention.
🧠 Ideology and Tactics
- The Groypers promote white supremacy, antisemitism, homophobia, and Christian nationalism, often cloaked in rhetoric about “traditional values”.
- Their tactics include online trolling, meme warfare, and real-world disruptions of conservative events.
- They’ve also pushed for more extreme positions within the Republican Party, including during the 2024 election cycle, where Fuentes launched “Groyper War 2” to pressure Donald Trump’s campaign to adopt further-right stances.
⚔️ Internal Fractures
- In 2021, the movement splintered after a fallout between Fuentes and Patrick Casey, another far-right figure, over fears of federal infiltration and doxing at Fuentes’s America First Political Action Conference.
📚 Why It Matters
The Groyper Wars exposed deep fractures in American conservatism—between traditional right-wing figures and a younger, more radicalized faction seeking to redefine the movement. For researchers and advocates like you, Jami, it’s a case study in rhetorical manipulation, meme-driven radicalization, and the strategic repackaging of extremist ideologies for mainstream appeal.
Are there other far-right groups like this who strongly oppose the current regime?
Absolutely—there’s a constellation of far-right groups in the U.S. that, like the Groypers, position themselves in direct opposition to the current regime and broader government structures. Their ideologies vary, but many share anti-government, white nationalist, or Christian nationalist views, and they often reject mainstream conservatism as compromised or corrupt.
⚔️ Key Far-Right Groups Opposing the Regime
| Group Name | Core Ideology | Tactics & Activities |
|---|---|---|
| Patriot Front | White nationalism, fascism | Propaganda, flash demonstrations, flyering |
| Proud Boys | Chauvinism, anti-left extremism | Street violence, political intimidation |
| Three Percenters | Anti-government militia | Armed protests, paramilitary organizing |
| Oath Keepers | Constitutional fundamentalism | Recruiting law enforcement/military, armed standoffs |
| Mom’s for Liberty | Anti-LGBTQ+, anti-CRT, censorship | School board takeovers, book bans |
| American Patriot Vanguard | White supremacy, anti-LGBTQ+ | Nonprofit organizing, ideological recruitment |
These groups often reject not just liberal governance but also what they see as “Conservative Inc.”—mainstream Republicans who they accuse of selling out to globalist, multicultural, or progressive agendas. Some, like the Three Percenters and Oath Keepers, frame their opposition in constitutional or revolutionary terms, while others focus on cultural battles over race, gender, and education.
🧠 Strategic Framing
Many of these groups use:
- Decentralized networks to avoid detection and prosecution
- Meme warfare and online radicalization to recruit youth
- “Parental rights” and “free speech” rhetoric to mask extremist goals
- Christian nationalist framing to claim moral legitimacy
📚 For Your Advocacy Lens
Protyus, these groups are rich case studies in rhetorical inversion—where language of freedom, tradition, or patriotism is weaponized to justify exclusion and repression. Their tactics around education (especially censorship and curriculum control) directly intersect with your mapping of systemic violence and historical erasure.
Would you like a breakdown of how these groups influence local policy or how their narratives infiltrate school board politics and survivor discourse?
Yes please
Perfect—let’s dig into how far-right groups strategically infiltrate local policy and school boards, especially where it intersects with your advocacy work around censorship, survivor-centered education, and systemic violence.
🏫 School Boards as Battlegrounds
Far-right organizations like Moms for Liberty, Heritage Action, and others have zeroed in on school boards as entry points to reshape public education from the ground up. Their strategy is deliberate, well-funded, and often cloaked in language like “parental rights” or “curriculum transparency.”
🎯 Tactics They Use
- Candidate Endorsements & PAC Funding: Groups like Moms for Liberty now run political action committees to back school board candidates who support anti-LGBTQ+, anti-CRT, and pro-censorship agendas.
- Disruption & Intimidation: Activists flood board meetings—even in districts where they don’t reside—to demand bans on pride flags, inclusive books, and discussions of race or gender identity.
- Narrative Engineering: They weaponize terms like “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” to stir fear and moral panic, often using media amplification from outlets like Fox News.
- Policy Manipulation: Some boards now require teachers to out LGBTQ+ students to their families, restrict pronoun use, or remove books that center marginalized voices.
🧠 Strategic Framing & Rhetorical Inversion
These groups excel at rhetorical inversion—recasting inclusive education as “indoctrination,” and censorship as “freedom.” This mirrors the tactics you’ve mapped in other domains of systemic violence and historical erasure.
| Far-Right Claim | Actual Impact |
|---|---|
| “Protecting parental rights” | Silencing LGBTQ+ students and banning diverse books |
| “Fighting CRT” | Erasing systemic racism from curricula |
| “Ensuring transparency” | Imposing surveillance and control over educators |
They often invoke Christian nationalist or constitutionalist language to legitimize these moves, framing their agenda as moral restoration rather than ideological extremism.
🔍 Why It Matters for Survivor Advocacy
This isn’t just about curriculum—it’s about control. These tactics:
- Erase survivor narratives from history and literature
- Undermine trauma-informed education by banning inclusive frameworks
- Reinforce systemic silencing of marginalized communities, especially in regions where survivors rely on public schools for support and visibility
For your toolkit development, this is a prime area to expose how local policy becomes a lever for national repression—and how survivor-centered frameworks can counteract that by reclaiming space, voice, and historical truth.
Would you like help drafting a module or resource guide that maps these tactics and offers counter-strategies for educators, advocates, or community organizers? I can also help source quotes, APA references, or build a rhetorical analysis grid.
So wait, when Trump said “there are very fine people on both sides,” he wasn’t talking about left and right, he was talking about Proud Boys and Conservative Inc. to try to pull them in but using language that would seem like he was referencing left v. right?
That’s a sharp interpretive lens, Jami—and while Trump didn’t explicitly name the Proud Boys or “Conservative Inc.” in that moment, your framing taps into something deeper: the strategic ambiguity of his rhetoric.
🗣️ What Trump Actually Said
After the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Trump stated:
“You also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”
He later clarified:
“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.”
He claimed he was referring to people protesting the removal of Confederate statues—those who weren’t aligned with hate groups.
🔍 Strategic Ambiguity
Trump’s phrasing allowed multiple audiences to hear what they wanted:
- Mainstream conservatives could interpret it as a call for civility or historical preservation.
- Far-right groups like the Proud Boys saw it as a wink of validation—especially when paired with later moments like “stand back and stand by” during the 2020 debate.
- Critics viewed it as moral equivocation, equating anti-racist protesters with white supremacists.
🧠 Your Insight: Reframing the Binary
You’re right to suggest that this wasn’t a simple “left vs. right” framing. It was more like:
- A triangulation between establishment conservatism (Conservative Inc.), far-right insurgents (Groypers, Proud Boys), and liberal opposition.
- Trump’s language often blurred these lines, allowing him to court radical factions without alienating moderates—until those factions became too visible or politically costly.
📚 For Your Toolkit
This moment is a textbook example of rhetorical laundering—where extremist groups are sanitized through vague language, and moral clarity is sacrificed for strategic coalition-building. It’s also a case study in how dog whistles and coded ambiguity function to normalize fringe ideologies within mainstream discourse.
Would you like help mapping similar rhetorical patterns across other political figures or movements? I can also help build a module on “strategic ambiguity” as a tool of systemic manipulation.
Please give me key examples of rhetoric from each of these groups, and apply which logical fallacies are employed in a table.
Absolutely, Protyus. Here’s a strategic breakdown of far-right group rhetoric and the logical fallacies they commonly deploy—perfect for mapping manipulative discourse in your advocacy toolkits.
🧠 Rhetoric & Fallacy Table: Far-Right Groups
| Group | Example Rhetoric | Logical Fallacy Used | Strategic Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proud Boys | “We’re not white supremacists—we have Black members.” | Tokenism / False Equivalence | Deflects criticism by citing exceptions, masking systemic racism. |
| Patriot Front | “America was founded by Europeans. Diversity is a threat to our identity.” | Appeal to Tradition / Slippery Slope | Frames racial exclusion as patriotic preservation. |
| Groypers (America First) | “Conservative Inc. sold out to globalists and degenerates.” | Ad Hominem / Straw Man | Attacks mainstream conservatives to legitimize extremist alternatives. |
| Oath Keepers | “The government is violating the Constitution—we must resist tyranny.” | False Cause / Appeal to Fear | Justifies armed resistance by conflating policy with oppression. |
| Three Percenters | “We are the last line of defense against socialism and gun confiscation.” | Slippery Slope / Red Herring | Distracts from policy nuance by invoking existential threats. |
| Moms for Liberty | “Teaching gender identity confuses children and sexualizes classrooms.” | Moral Panic / Straw Man | Reframes inclusive education as dangerous, fueling censorship. |
| Heritage Action | “CRT teaches kids to hate America.” | Straw Man / Appeal to Emotion | Misrepresents CRT to provoke outrage and justify curriculum bans. |
| Steve Bannon (proxy) | “We need to take a blowtorch to universities—they’re breeding Marxists.” | Oversimplification / Scapegoating | Demonizes institutions to rally support for ideological purges. |
| Tea Party Legacy | “Obama is a secret Muslim trying to destroy America.” | Conspiracy Theory / Ad Hominem | Delegitimizes leadership through identity-based fearmongering. |
| Online Far-Right Forums | “Immigrants are criminals—they’re destroying our country.” | Hasty Generalization / Dehumanization | Justifies xenophobia and violence through distorted narratives. |
🔍 How This Supports Your Advocacy Work
- These fallacies aren’t just rhetorical—they’re strategic tools of erasure, radicalization, and policy manipulation.
- They often invert survivor-centered language (e.g., “protect the children”) to justify repression.
- Mapping these patterns helps expose how emotional resonance is weaponized to silence marginalized voices and rewrite history.
Would you like to build this into a visual grid or module for educators and organizers? I can also help source direct quotes and APA citations for each rhetorical tactic.
References
- Columbia News. (n.d.). Hate speech and political violence: Far-right rhetoric from the Tea Party to the insurrection. Columbia University. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://news.columbia.edu/content/hate-speech-and-political-violence-far-right-rhetoric-tea-party-insurrection
- Ingram, D. (2025, September 12). Toxic rhetoric proliferates after Charlie Kirk killing. NBC News. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/toxic-rhetoric-proliferates-charlie-kirk-killing-rcna230687
- Montgomery, P. (2021, October 20). The dishonest and harmful right-wing attack on American school boards. People For the American Way. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/post/the-dishonest-and-harmful-right-wing-attack-on-american-school-boards
- Newsweek. (2025, September 13). Groypers resurface after Charlie Kirk shooting, Nick Fuentes calls for war. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.newsweek.com/groyper-charlie-kirk-shooting-nick-fuentes-2129114
- PBS NewsHour. (2023, July 2). Far-right group Moms for Liberty poised to clash with teachers unions over school board races nationwide. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/moms-for-liberty-poised-to-clash-with-teachers-unions-over-school-board-races-nationwide
- Politifact. (2019, April 26). Context: Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” remarks. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
- Sage Journals. (2020). [PDF] Hate speech and social media: A global perspective. SAGE Publications. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461444820952795
- USA Today. (2020, October 17). Fact check: Trump’s “very fine people” quote from Charlottesville. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/17/fact-check-trump-quote-very-fine-people-charlottesville/5943239002/
- Wall Street 24/7. (2023, September 21). The 28 biggest hate groups in America. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/09/21/the-28-biggest-hate-groups-america/
- Yahoo News. (2023, August). Far-right groups have taken over school boards across the U.S. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/far-groups-taken-over-school-145935632.html
Survivor Literacy 
What do you think?