Have you read the Fourth Lateran Council documents, and Cum Nimis Absurdum? Chrysostom, Tertullian, Athanasius? Ælfric of Eynsham? Josephus? All could be accused of “scapegoating an entire people.” And of course, the Old Testament makes this move all the time: Amalek is to be destroyed — even the children, women, etc.
Perhaps scapegoating is not the word I should have used. My concern with the Groypers is more about where their aggressive desires lead in the present.
I have some longer theories about the Old Testament genocides but that's a separate thing.
I appreciate the distinction you’re making, though I side with groypers, more or less. To me there will always be the problem of “one of the good ones” in a group that causes problems. It’s really a hard hair to split. But my sense is that since the period since emancipation of Jews in Europe starting around 1800 is the historical anomaly. So we’re living in an experiment. When they aren’t trolling or being hyperbolic, I think the groyper idea is to try to return to the old model.
And yes that’s gonna take some serious political will and policy nuance to do it well — but no matter how it’s done, it will be called unjust by the group that doesn’t want to be treated as an outsider group.
Precisely. I think a lot of what Darryl Cooper points out is correct, for example and I like his work because it actually made me simultaneously sympathize more with the Jews and the Palestinian (non combatant) people. The question is just what you do about it and whether you punish the innocent along with the guilty...
I yearn for the Catholic Church of my youth but it will never return to that through thoughts, words, and actions that are directly opposed to true Catholic teachings.
In my church, some of the priests slip in a little Latin which takes me back to my early days. I was feeling that our new Pastor would frown on that but, fortunately, he stood in solidarity as one of our priests said Kyrie Eleison…, and closed with El Nomine Padre… yesterday. Then, with no musical accompaniment, he and the other priest burst out with God Bless America as they proceeded out. The entire church joined in the song, Beautiful!
But sometimes I also think being overly patriotic in Church is sometimes contrary to the gospel as it's giving a little too much to Caesar compared to God as well as secularizing salvation. Praying for the country, yes, maybe one hymn at the end, but having only hymns about America all throughout Mass is at least on the edge. Treating it like a Holy Day or solemnity for the sake of forgoing abstinence also might go too far.
As far as the patriotic songs, I agree that they should not be sung during Mass but, on national holidays, I believe God Bless America is appropriate, patriotic, and inspiring during the exit procession.
One extra bonus, I found out both the new Pastor and Father Michael have great singing voices!
I sumnarize it like this: “Hitler, FDR, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh all were anointed from the same peerage of financiers, and there was never a grand geopolitical struggle between ideologies of Liberalism, Fascism, and Marxism”
Yes, I've heard that from Jay Dyer's review of Carol Quigley but I don't think it was all one single plan but the way that existing movements were hijacked for profit by bankers to get more control. I think it's true that all sides were being manipulated but no group had full control. Neoliberal Feudalism has a piece here that responds to some of it (I don't give him full credence for a couple reasons) but he points out that the bank owners =/= the Jews but are good scapegoats for the central bank owners to deflect their own guilt: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-complicated-relationship-between
Who do you think the non-"jewish" member of the 500 million limit on the population will be? Rhetorical question of course but just pointing out that the ideal involves having all the Best And Brightest to be The Help for the master class.
To drive the point home I add “ideologies are for bandwaggoner imbeciles like me, no one who makes the larger strategic decisions believes in these ideologies except perhaps progressivism broadly or a background masonic orientation.”
Very interesting. NOW I know what the Groypers are. I'd encountered the term, but wasn't exactly sure what it meant; it was usually in the context of some defamatory leftist generalization... so I ignored it.
I think a lot of these problems are connected to a broken culture. I don't mean a culture with broken or maladaptive values - I mean the old transmission mechanisms and functions of cultures have been so radically changed by technology and consumer culture that what we call 'culture' is actually a new thing: a blend of playacting/simulacram/marketing/online activity.
I'm struck in so many cases (not just this one) by people adopting cultural values that they don't actually believe in. Groypers don't want to kill Jews or blacks... or they would. Progressives don't want to redistribute wealth and status... or they would. Radical ecowarriors don't want to live without fossil fuels and the power grid... or they would. 'Anti-racists' don't want to surrender 'white privilege'... or they would.
Culture has gone from being an organic (and therefore authentic) expression of a group's consensus solutions to the problems and mysteries of reality to a kind of play-acting. People adopt the ideas and the lingo and the online flair that suits their psychology and station, and then they have these little 'wars' with others. But NONE OF IT IS REAL. What IS real? It is a reality that none of these people have very much control over their own lives or communities, not like people used to. They're not agentic participants so much as they're passive subjects. So am I. So are you. I suspect that the variety and color of these ersatz cultural expressions probably originate in that factor more than any other. If people are really trying to influence their group to do real things that will affect their future then they're constrained by circumstances and the advice of the wise. If they're just a bunch of people bullshitting and pretending to be working toward some political vision then they can say anything (as long as it doesn't become too public, which usually isn't a huge risk). It's like a bunch of children planning a global military strategy or something.
The interesting question, for me, is: how can we get back to the place where people have more control over their own lives? THAT is the primary cultural question we should be attending to, keeping in mind that this runs in opposition to the weight of bureaucracy and the Hive and consumer culture, etc. I think that's really the thing: we're people at the mercy of impersonal forces that no one controls (certainly not ourselves). In a world like this it feels good to REBEL and to affiliate with others and to believe in things. Every believers online is rebelling against something. Interestingly, they usually identify that 'something' as close to the power structure that controls their lives (so progressives against capitalism, Groypers against bureaucrats and jews, etc.). But they're all leaving out key ingredients in making their stew, and they're avoiding the real and urgent question. How can we regain control over our lives, starting today? I know that primarily online activity and national politics and streaming, etc. can't be the solution. They're too much a part of the problem. The WWW can function as an information transmission mode, but people will actually have to get out there and do things. Everything else is mostly talk.
There isn’t a ‘Hive’ for men (it’s too predicated on female emotional tendencies and interests) but the Groypers and Rumble and parts of Twitter come to closest. It’s a comparison I hesitate to make because the Hive is literally 100x more influential than the male side of things, but it might offer some insight into the psychological dynamics of this thing.
Have you read the Fourth Lateran Council documents, and Cum Nimis Absurdum? Chrysostom, Tertullian, Athanasius? Ælfric of Eynsham? Josephus? All could be accused of “scapegoating an entire people.” And of course, the Old Testament makes this move all the time: Amalek is to be destroyed — even the children, women, etc.
I appreciate your article!
Not in full, fragments of each.
Perhaps scapegoating is not the word I should have used. My concern with the Groypers is more about where their aggressive desires lead in the present.
I have some longer theories about the Old Testament genocides but that's a separate thing.
Thank you.
I appreciate the distinction you’re making, though I side with groypers, more or less. To me there will always be the problem of “one of the good ones” in a group that causes problems. It’s really a hard hair to split. But my sense is that since the period since emancipation of Jews in Europe starting around 1800 is the historical anomaly. So we’re living in an experiment. When they aren’t trolling or being hyperbolic, I think the groyper idea is to try to return to the old model.
And yes that’s gonna take some serious political will and policy nuance to do it well — but no matter how it’s done, it will be called unjust by the group that doesn’t want to be treated as an outsider group.
Thanks again. Very good essay.
Precisely. I think a lot of what Darryl Cooper points out is correct, for example and I like his work because it actually made me simultaneously sympathize more with the Jews and the Palestinian (non combatant) people. The question is just what you do about it and whether you punish the innocent along with the guilty...
I yearn for the Catholic Church of my youth but it will never return to that through thoughts, words, and actions that are directly opposed to true Catholic teachings.
In my church, some of the priests slip in a little Latin which takes me back to my early days. I was feeling that our new Pastor would frown on that but, fortunately, he stood in solidarity as one of our priests said Kyrie Eleison…, and closed with El Nomine Padre… yesterday. Then, with no musical accompaniment, he and the other priest burst out with God Bless America as they proceeded out. The entire church joined in the song, Beautiful!
Have a great and blessed day!
Precisely!
But sometimes I also think being overly patriotic in Church is sometimes contrary to the gospel as it's giving a little too much to Caesar compared to God as well as secularizing salvation. Praying for the country, yes, maybe one hymn at the end, but having only hymns about America all throughout Mass is at least on the edge. Treating it like a Holy Day or solemnity for the sake of forgoing abstinence also might go too far.
I wrote a satire on this problem yesterday: https://irkutskice.substack.com/p/usccb-unveils-the-independence-mysteries?r=2da9ku
I enjoyed that satire, thanks!
As far as the patriotic songs, I agree that they should not be sung during Mass but, on national holidays, I believe God Bless America is appropriate, patriotic, and inspiring during the exit procession.
One extra bonus, I found out both the new Pastor and Father Michael have great singing voices!
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/07/05/they-can-read-every-line-of-a-tlm-report-but-not-one-paragraph-of-udg/
Great thinkpiece to serve as a quick cautionary note, but Sutton....
He's right, but it wasn't all of "them" no matter what the bankers may have done.
I have yet to finish both of his books, but Sutton also writes about Wall Street financed Hitler, which again points me back to the theory that there is no single unified deep state: https://grainofwheat.substack.com/p/conspiratorial-occasionalism
I sumnarize it like this: “Hitler, FDR, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh all were anointed from the same peerage of financiers, and there was never a grand geopolitical struggle between ideologies of Liberalism, Fascism, and Marxism”
Yes, I've heard that from Jay Dyer's review of Carol Quigley but I don't think it was all one single plan but the way that existing movements were hijacked for profit by bankers to get more control. I think it's true that all sides were being manipulated but no group had full control. Neoliberal Feudalism has a piece here that responds to some of it (I don't give him full credence for a couple reasons) but he points out that the bank owners =/= the Jews but are good scapegoats for the central bank owners to deflect their own guilt: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-complicated-relationship-between
Who do you think the non-"jewish" member of the 500 million limit on the population will be? Rhetorical question of course but just pointing out that the ideal involves having all the Best And Brightest to be The Help for the master class.
The Freemasons maybe, but again I think it's a mix of groups that compete with eachother.
To drive the point home I add “ideologies are for bandwaggoner imbeciles like me, no one who makes the larger strategic decisions believes in these ideologies except perhaps progressivism broadly or a background masonic orientation.”
Very interesting. NOW I know what the Groypers are. I'd encountered the term, but wasn't exactly sure what it meant; it was usually in the context of some defamatory leftist generalization... so I ignored it.
I think a lot of these problems are connected to a broken culture. I don't mean a culture with broken or maladaptive values - I mean the old transmission mechanisms and functions of cultures have been so radically changed by technology and consumer culture that what we call 'culture' is actually a new thing: a blend of playacting/simulacram/marketing/online activity.
I'm struck in so many cases (not just this one) by people adopting cultural values that they don't actually believe in. Groypers don't want to kill Jews or blacks... or they would. Progressives don't want to redistribute wealth and status... or they would. Radical ecowarriors don't want to live without fossil fuels and the power grid... or they would. 'Anti-racists' don't want to surrender 'white privilege'... or they would.
Culture has gone from being an organic (and therefore authentic) expression of a group's consensus solutions to the problems and mysteries of reality to a kind of play-acting. People adopt the ideas and the lingo and the online flair that suits their psychology and station, and then they have these little 'wars' with others. But NONE OF IT IS REAL. What IS real? It is a reality that none of these people have very much control over their own lives or communities, not like people used to. They're not agentic participants so much as they're passive subjects. So am I. So are you. I suspect that the variety and color of these ersatz cultural expressions probably originate in that factor more than any other. If people are really trying to influence their group to do real things that will affect their future then they're constrained by circumstances and the advice of the wise. If they're just a bunch of people bullshitting and pretending to be working toward some political vision then they can say anything (as long as it doesn't become too public, which usually isn't a huge risk). It's like a bunch of children planning a global military strategy or something.
The interesting question, for me, is: how can we get back to the place where people have more control over their own lives? THAT is the primary cultural question we should be attending to, keeping in mind that this runs in opposition to the weight of bureaucracy and the Hive and consumer culture, etc. I think that's really the thing: we're people at the mercy of impersonal forces that no one controls (certainly not ourselves). In a world like this it feels good to REBEL and to affiliate with others and to believe in things. Every believers online is rebelling against something. Interestingly, they usually identify that 'something' as close to the power structure that controls their lives (so progressives against capitalism, Groypers against bureaucrats and jews, etc.). But they're all leaving out key ingredients in making their stew, and they're avoiding the real and urgent question. How can we regain control over our lives, starting today? I know that primarily online activity and national politics and streaming, etc. can't be the solution. They're too much a part of the problem. The WWW can function as an information transmission mode, but people will actually have to get out there and do things. Everything else is mostly talk.
There isn’t a ‘Hive’ for men (it’s too predicated on female emotional tendencies and interests) but the Groypers and Rumble and parts of Twitter come to closest. It’s a comparison I hesitate to make because the Hive is literally 100x more influential than the male side of things, but it might offer some insight into the psychological dynamics of this thing.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-hive