SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
social media
Why Are America’s Far-Right Leaders So Young?
How social media turned a handful of young provocateurs into the far right’s national vanguard.
Sep 16, 2025
Through the late 2010s, pundits hailed Gen Z as America’s most progressive young cohort. Yet, the truth is more complicated: While many young voters voice support for climate action, racial justice, and reproductive rights, their overall partisan tilt is far less lopsided than early headlines implied. Support for Democrats among under-30 voters has softened since 2020, and young men in particular are drifting rightward on issues like gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights.
That gap between reputation and reality is, in part, due to a rising cadre of young conservatives who are more radical, more visible, and better organized than their progressive peers. From Nick Fuentes to Laura Loomer to the late Charlie Kirk, the figures shaping the far-right agenda have been startlingly young. Why, then, are some of the movement’s most prominent figures in their late 20s and early 30s? How did a political current once defined by veteran politicians and talk-radio personalities come to be led by live-streamers and college-circuit activists?
Consider Fuentes. Only 28, yet he commands a national audience of more than 700,000 followers. He has a dedicated fanbase, connections to GOP congressmen, and once had a private dinner with US President Donald Trump. And Fuentes is not an outlier. From political candidates to campus organizers, the far-right’s most prominent figures are getting younger—and more extreme.
The explanation lies in the internet’s ecosystem. Figures like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec were among the first to show how provocation and relentless online promotion could transform fringe ideas into mass influence. In the years since, news has gone largely digital, with about 86% of Americans getting at least some of their news on phones or computers. The overwhelming bulk of political information now flows through a dense lattice of live-streams, podcasts, and Discord servers, all spaces young people navigate with native ease.
For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
In this landscape, digital platforms have dismantled traditional barriers to political power. Two decades ago, a young ideologue needed gatekeepers—local radio, party donors, sympathetic editors—to build a following. Today, a ring light and an algorithm are enough. YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and X provide inexpensive infrastructure and frictionless amplification, allowing individuals to raise money, mobilize supporters, and establish a brand long before institutions can react.
Why is this dynamic propelling the far-right in particular? Without much formal representation in elected office, these ideas circulate almost entirely online, where scarcity makes them more alluring. And algorithms reward outrage, propelling the sharpest sound bites and most incendiary claims to the top of every feed. For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
Conservative legacy media compounds the effect. Figures who achieve algorithmic virality are quickly booked on cable programs and high-profile podcasts, which confer legitimacy and feed the next surge of online attention. The result is a self-reinforcing loop: Digital notoriety leads to mainstream exposure, which drives further radical content.
The American left lacks a parallel generation of online, movement-building leaders. Progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have national profiles, but their influence depends on elected office and formal party structures rather than on a grassroots, youth-led network. Yes, young progressives such as Dean Withers and Matt Bernstein have built impressive reputations as digital advocates for progressive causes. But they operate largely as individual voices, not as architects of a nationwide, highly-branded youth movement comparable to Kirk's Turning Point USA or Fuentes' America First movement. Comparable grassroots movements on the left, like the emerging 50501, lack visible leaders capable of unifying and sustaining a broad, youth-driven base.
This distinction matters. Without a cohesive, youth-led movement, progressives struggle to match the visibility and narrative power of their far-right counterparts. Every far-right provocation arrives with a spokesperson and a polished national platform, while the left relies on a handful of elected officials and scattered digital voices. The absence of equally prominent, institutionally supported young progressives cedes narrative ground, and gives rising alt-right leaders disproportionate space to break out online.
Addressing this imbalance will not turn on deplatforming extremist voices alone; the internet’s architecture makes that a game of whac-a-mole. Nor will it come solely from established progressive leaders. It requires cultivating and sustaining a cohort of young progressives who can operate effectively online and build movements without succumbing to social media's darkest ideologies. It also requires a cultural shift on the left: valuing charismatic leadership as a complement—not a substitute—for collective action.
Gen Z was supposed to guarantee a progressive future. Instead, many of its most visible political entrepreneurs are on the far-right. Unless progressives move beyond supporting individual creators and intentionally develop their own social movements, the loudest young voices shaping America’s political future will continue to belong to its most far-right fringes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Your Socialist Grandfather Wants You to Fight for Economic Democracy
"The left" must get back to what was its original reason for existence—to fight for one-person, one vote democracy in the economic as well as political systems that govern our lives.
Sep 14, 2025
What’s the best way to pass on what you learned from more than a half century of left-wing doing, reading, writing, talking, and thinking?
Write a book. This was especially obvious to a retired union-activist-journalist-novelist grandfather. So, I did. Started writing a book tentatively titled Economic Democracy or No Democracy—An Anti Oligarchy Manifesto.
But then I actually listened to my grandchildren and learned they don’t read much. Instead, their pipeline to understanding the world is social media, mostly memes and videos, few of which exceed five minutes of attention span. At first, I argued with them. “You should read. Much more. Opens your mind to places, experiences, ideas …”
They try to be polite to grandpa, but there’s no mistaking the disinterest as cellphone-induced zombie (perhaps Zen-like?) eyes stare at a screen on the table instead of me.
How to respond? What to do? Decades of union organizing has taught me the importance of listening. Meeting people where they are at. Following their lead rather than trying to impose an "organizing template" on them. The most successful organizing drives are ones in which the "organizer" is a resource, an assistant in a process where the unorganized transform themselves into the organized. “The union is U”—an old slogan expressing a fundamental truth.
So, how to meet my grandchildren and other young people where they are at? How to say something they might consider listening to?
To achieve our goals, we must get rid of capitalist dictatorship in our economy and workplaces as well as oligarchy and authoritarianism in our political systems.
Perhaps these are questions someone two generations removed can never really answer. Certainly, in the late 1960s and early ’70s, when I was the ages of my two oldest grandchildren, there was no way most "old people" were deemed worthy of even asking their opinion about war, politics, and life in general, let alone the really important issues of the day like sex, relationships, and feminism.
Still, it is important for a socialist and union elder to try passing on at least a few things that might help young people today learn from our experiences—successes and, most of all, failures. According to a TV documentary about elephants, the oldest females are the ones able to lead the herd to faraway, lifesaving watering holes in times of drought.
Surely this era of climate-change-ignoring-billionaire-emperor CEOs, "free-world"-supported-live-streamed genocide, Donald Trump and all the other authoritarian, about-to-turn-fascistic "world leaders" is at least the human political equivalent of a savanna drought.
We are in a crisis almost certainly about to get worse, and the young ones need our working-class socialism, union-movement elderly-elephant-like accumulated knowledge to survive. It is up to us whose tusks are falling out to do what we can to save the herd.
So, I taught myself how to make videos, created the Your Socialist Grandfather YouTube channel, and turned my book manuscript into 43 five-minute-or-so-long videos. I call it a video book, and the first few episodes are already live on YouTube with a new one added every second day.
Mostly the free videos are about creating a new inclusive language of economic democracy to replace the old socialist-Marxist-anarchist jargon that divided us and to understand capitalism as another in a long line of tiny minorities attempting to rule over the vast majority.
As Your Socialist Grandfather sees it, "the left" must get back to what was its original reason for existence—to fight for one-person, one vote democracy in the economic as well as political systems that govern our lives. To achieve our goals, we must get rid of capitalist dictatorship in our economy and workplaces as well as oligarchy and authoritarianism in our political systems. We must challenge capitalists’ claim to “own” our economies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nepal PM Resigns as Anti-Corruption Protesters Torch Parliament
"In every sector... corruption is increasing," said one protester. "Students are being killed by police... We would like to request that the government of Nepal stand down."
Sep 09, 2025
Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned Tuesday as youth-led anti-corruption protesters set fire to government buildings and assaulted officials as they fled for their lives as the number of demonstrators killed by state forces rose to at least 22.
On Monday, state security forces attacked protesters with weapons including water cannons, tear gas, batons, steel-coated rubber bullets, and live ammunition, killing at least 19 people and wounding upward of 350 others in the capital Kathmandu and other cities. Medical responders said that many of the protesters had been shot in the chest or head.
The BBC reported three more people were killed on Tuesday, bringing the death toll to at least 22. Protesters in Kathmandu stormed and set fire to the Singha Durbar—which houses the Nepalese Parliament and several government ministries—as well as the home of Oli, who was serving his third nonconsecutive term and said he resigned "in order to take further steps towards a political solution."
Video recordings posted on social media show protesters chasing and assaulting Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel, who is seen stripped to his underwear and dragged through a street. Another video shows bank notes raining from the sky as demonstrators set Energy Minister Deepak Khadka's home on fire.
Yet another video posted on social media shows Foreign Minister Arju Rana Deuba and her husband, former Prime Minister and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, bloodied after their home was attacked and burned. The home of Jhala Nath Khanal, another former prime minister, was also torched. Khanal's wife, Ravi Laxmi Chitrakar, was inside the house at the time and was severely burned, according to The New York Times.
The Condition of four time PM of Nepal @SherBDeuba and his wife curent foreign minister Arju Deuba Rana pic.twitter.com/BxrQUm9QBs
— IN- Depth Story (@in_depthstory) September 9, 2025
The demonstrations, now in their second day, were sparked by growing outrage over government corruption and impunity, pervasive nepotism personified by the "nepo-kid" children of powerful officials, and the September 4 nationwide ban on 26 social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit, WhatsApp, X, and YouTube.
The ban came after the companies missed a government-imposed registration deadline. Some social media platforms, such as Nimbuzz, TikTok, Viber, and WeTalk registered in time and were allowed to remain in operation.
Critics, who include Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah—a 35-year-old rapper-turned-politician who many believe could be a future prime minister—called the ban an attack on free expression and businesses that depend on social media for sales and marketing.
Although the government subsequently lifted the ban amid the nascent protests, the move came too late—and, critically, the social media proscription was only part of the problem.
"It's shameful to see international media framing Nepal's Gen-Z protest as merely against the social media ban. That's not what it is about," Nepalese physicist Sunny Labh wrote Monday on social media. "The protest was—and still is—against a corrupt system, unchecked government privileges, and years of exploitation. Reducing it to just the ban is dishonest and insulting to the movement."
One student protester in Kathmandu told The New Indian Express: "We are not fighting Oli, we are fighting Oli-ism—the system that rewards loyalty over competence, wealth over work, and silence over truth."
Satish Mandal, a 26-year-old protester in the capital, told the BBC that "Nepal is being corrupted day by day."
"In every sector, especially in heath and education, corruption is increasing," he added. "Students are being killed by police... We would like to request that the government of Nepal stand down."
It is unclear who will be Nepal's next prime minister. On Tuesday, the army issued a statement saying it would secure law and order, starting at 10:00 pm local time.
International human rights defenders condemned the deadly crackdown.
"We call on the authorities to respect and ensure the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression," United Nations Human Rights Office spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani said in a statement Monday. "All security forces must comply with the basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials."
"Nepal enjoys a lively democracy and active civic space, and dialogue is the best means to address young people's concerns," Shamdasani added. "We urge reconsideration of measures to regulate social media to ensure they comply with Nepal's human rights obligations."
Amnesty International Nepal director Nirajan Thapaliya said Monday that "the protestors have a right to peacefully protest and express their frustration and outrage against corruption and the government's restriction on the right to freedom of expression including the social media ban in Nepal."
"It is the obligation of Nepali authorities to respect this right in line with its commitments under international law as well as its own constitution and protect all protesters from further harm," Thapaliya added. "The government must genuinely listen to the legitimate demands of the youth to end corruption, deliver accountability, and ensure civil liberties instead of meting out such reckless violence against them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular