If you want to understand where American politics is heading, don’t look to Washington — look to the college campuses. At Arizona State University’s Gen Z Future of American Politics Conference, the ideological battles playing out among young voters were on full display. And in many ways, those battles say more about our country’s future than anything coming out of Congress.
On this week’s episode from ASU, we sat down with Carolyn Downey (National Review) and Daniel DiMartino (Manhattan Institute) to tackle one of the most uncomfortable but necessary questions in modern politics:
Where did the emerging pockets of extremism — on both the left and the right — actually come from?
And why is Gen Z getting pulled into the middle of it?
Reactionary Extremism: A Symptom, Not a Starting Point
Daniel DiMartino opened with a point that rarely gets discussed honestly:
The far-right Groypers didn’t appear in a vacuum — they emerged as a reaction.
He traced the origins back to campus culture in the mid-2010s, where a wave of radical academic feminism and identity politics frequently cast young white men as uniquely at fault for the world’s problems. For some students, resentment brewed — and opportunistic actors seized on it.
But instead of pushing back with healthier alternatives, a subset of disaffected young men fell into something darker:
-
Blaming Jewish communities
-
Scapegoating immigrants
-
Twisting Christian doctrine into ideological weaponry
As DiMartino bluntly put it:
“It’s perverting Christianity. Antisemitism goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
The panel agreed: what started as reactionary became radically destructive, and now influences real political behavior.
Where the Groypers Really Came From
Carolyn Downey added an important historical clarifier: the Groypers didn’t simply form online — they organized aggressively and strategically.
Their rise began during the height of Turning Point USA’s campus expansion, when activists aligned with Nick Fuentes would:
-
ambush Q&A sessions
-
confront Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro
-
host alternative events at CPAC
-
frame themselves as “the real right”
This was not a spontaneous movement — it was a coordinated effort to claim ideological ownership of conservative youth.
Fuentes’ feud with Charlie Kirk became legendary and, as Downey noted, “a turf war” that still influences young right-wing politics today.
With Charlie Kirk no longer on the scene following his assassination, the power vacuum is even more noticeable — and even more dangerous.
The Battle Over Young Men
A striking point from the conversation:
Nearly all of Fuentes’ followers are young men.
And Fuentes’ message to them?
-
Reject women
-
Reject marriage
-
Reject mainstream conservatism
-
Embrace ethnonationalism and antisemitism
Charlie Kirk, by contrast, pushed young men toward marriage, purpose, faith, responsibility, and community.
The difference between the messages couldn’t be more stark — or more consequential.
As Downey put it:
“If Nick Fuentes were really a devout Catholic, he wouldn’t be villainizing this group of people.”
Why This Matters for America’s Future
These fights within Gen Z aren’t fringe drama — they’re shaping:
-
voter turnout
-
online discourse
-
campus politics
-
the future leaders of both parties
If the extremes continue to fill the void where healthy community, mentorship, and real debate should exist, the political polarization of the next decade may make today’s look tame.
But conversations like this — honest, uncomfortable, grounded — are part of the solution.
Transcript
Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. We’re continuing on now from Arizona State University and the Gen Z Future of American Politics Conference hosted by the ASU Center for American Institution, joined by two great friends of the show, Carolyn Downey, columnist for National Review, and Daniel DiMartino, fellow at the Manhattan Institute. We were talking Gen Z earlier. As we were talking in the break, you brought up, Carolyn, something I’m just going to jump right into the well here with these grippers and then.
Daniel, there’s sort of a counter on the left. It seems like these pockets of wild extremism have been baked in or brought into both parties. And I don’t know where it comes from. Like, where does that originate?
**Daniel DiMartino: **Well, I think that the far right version, the Groeper version, came because of the left wing. The version that came first. It’s a reactionary portion. It’s because of the feminism, a really radical feminism, right? It all started at the college campuses where the white men were at the fault of everything, right? And so obviously people have a right to be upset about that.
And then the counter was that now we have this movement of young mostly guys who are blaming the Jews for everything and the immigrants and people who are not white. It’s an actual and perverting Christianity, right? Because antisemitism goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Sam Stone: Perverting the idea, I think, of America too, which is that we welcome everybody of every faith and every color who embraces being an American.
**Carolyn Downey: **Well, so just to add just also to clarify to what Daniel was saying is the technical origins of Groparism was actually during the peak season of Turning Point USA as it was really building its empire five, ten years ago. And what it was is where these activists who were showing up to ambush essentially question and answers during speeches at Turning Point conferences.
Daniel DiMartino: Especially Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro. They also harassed Ben Shapiro many times.
**Carolyn Downey: **They did. And what these guys.
Sam Stone: I remember that a little bit with Nick Fuentes from like 2019-2020.
**Carolyn Downey: **That’s where he started. That’s where he really got to start. And they asked questions that would essentially declare that they were the true right. They were the true right wing and that turning point model and Charlie Kirk.
Daniel DiMartino: They always held an alternative CPAC during CPAC. They held an alternative PAC in the same hotel on purpose.
**Carolyn Downey: **Yes. Right. So there’s always been, talking about turf war, now there’s a turf war because in Charlie’s absence after the tragic assassination, there’s a lot of people trying to compete for his viewers and his market share. But the turf war was even going on before. mean, Nick Fuentes, who’s the head of the Gropers and Charlie Kirk had a bitter feud for many years. And that was was good because Charlie Kirk was the moderating, stabilizing force.
**Sam Stone: **Against that sort of extreme ideology.
Carolyn Downey: Yes, and his prescriptions for young men, because let’s be real, most of Nick Fuentes’ are young men, was not no marriage or, you know, Nick Fuentes has abandoned marriage and abandoned women altogether, and as well as the Jewish people who are the boogeyman, again, here we go again, never forget, apparently, it was short-lived.
But Charlie said no it’s actually opposite you are extremely misguided Nick you claim to be this devout Catholic but if you were really devout Catholic you would not be he would not be villainizing first of all this group.
Listen to the full episode of Breaking Battlegrounds anywhere you stream your podcasts!