Picture it: 8,000 college students packed into an arena. Not to watch basketball but baptisms. Hundreds stepped into portable tanks while their friends cheered, with 500 professing faith in Christ that night alone.
This scene unfolded recently at the University of Tennessee, a major state university. It wasn’t an isolated incident. The Unite US revival movement, which began at Auburn University two years ago, has now spread to more than 20 college campuses nationwide.
The problem with building your worldview on sand is that eventually people notice that they’re sinking.
Here’s what’s happening: For decades, secular progressives positioned themselves as countercultural rebels against the oppressive Christian tradition. But they overplayed their hand. They became the establishment.
The result? Young people are now rebelling against them by turning to Jesus Christ in record numbers.
Since Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10, churches report attendance increases of 15% and campus ministries are seeing even higher numbers. Bible sales in 2025 have surged past 10 million copies, already over a million more than last year.
The secular left didn’t just ask for “tolerance” of its beliefs — leftists demanded total capitulation. Over the past six decades, they captured universities, media, entertainment, corporations, and government agencies, then wielded these institutions like weapons.
They told young men their masculinity was toxic. They told young women that marriage and motherhood were a trap. They flooded schools with gender ideology and characterized objecting parents as “domestic terrorists.” University DEI offices became enforcement arms for ideological conformity. During COVID, they locked down churches while keeping abortion clinics and strip clubs open. They promised liberation and delivered loneliness, anxiety, and existential despair. Then they called Christianity oppressive.
The problem with building your worldview on sand is that eventually people notice that they’re sinking.
Scripture tells us that God has written His law on every human heart (Romans 2:15). You can suppress that truth, but you cannot erase it. When a generation has been fed nothing but lies dressed as progress, the hunger for truth becomes overwhelming.
Research from Pew shows that for decades, each age cohort was less Christian than the one before it. But that trend has stopped with Gen Z. Americans born in the 2000s are just as Christian as those born in the 1990s, the first generation in decades not to show further decline.
Even more striking: Gen Z men now attend weekly religious services more often than Millennials and younger Gen Xers. The gender gap in religious participation has closed, with young men flooding back even as some young women leave.
The secular progressive vision has been particularly hostile to biblical masculinity. Men were told that their natural inclinations toward strength, protection, and leadership were “toxic,” that the desire to work hard and keep your feelings private promoted aggression toward women and the vulnerable, that embracing traditional marriage roles reinforced gender power imbalances and made society less safe.
Kirk recognized that men who fear God more than they fear man build the foundations of civilization.
By contrast, the church doesn’t tell young men that they’re inherently evil. Instead, it calls them to be servant leaders after the pattern of Christ, to lay down their lives as He laid down His for the Church (Ephesians 5:25), and to be strong and courageous in the face of evil (Joshua 1:9).
Scripture has always offered a vision of masculinity that is both strong and sacrificial. When a generation of young men have been told they’re “toxic” simply for being masculine, the gospel’s call to biblical manhood becomes irresistibly attractive.
Charlie Kirk understood this. He often told young men: “Get married. Have children. Build a legacy. Pass down your values. Pursue the eternal. Seek true joy.”
Kirk recognized that men who fear God more than they fear man build the foundations of civilization.
His assassination, meant to silence a voice calling people back to faith and family, had the opposite effect. As one pastor noted, “Charlie Kirk started a political movement, but he ended it as a Christian movement.”
His memorial, attended by 100,000 and viewed by millions, became a gospel proclamation. Young people decided they wanted what Kirk had found: purpose, meaning, and hope anchored in Jesus Christ.
Amid all this good news, Christians should never underestimate the resistance that will come from the cultural elites.
Expect increased persecution on campuses. Institutions that previously celebrated every sexual deviation will now express concern about “cultlike behavior” when students undergo baptism. University administrators, who previously ignored the Black Lives Matter riots, will now seek to restrict Christian gatherings. Media outlets that praised “mostly peaceful protests” will warn about the dangers of “religious fervor.”
That’s because spiritual warfare is afoot, and the enemy knows what’s at stake. When young people turn to Christ, they don’t just become saved, they also become transformed. They get married, have children, and raise the next generation in biblical truth. Civilizational renewal begins with revival.
It’s also crucial not to mistake enthusiasm for revival. True revival brings conviction of sin, genuine repentance, hunger for God Himself, and hearts transformed by the gospel, not just increased church attendance.
Time will tell whether these professions of faith endure. Jesus warned that many hear the word with initial enthusiasm but fall away when trials come (Matthew 13:1-23). We must pray that these young believers sink roots deep into scripture and persevere.
But we should also recognize what God may be doing. When thousands pack arenas across multiple campuses to worship Christ, that’s not normal in modern America. As Paul wrote, “What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice” (Philippians 1:18).
RELATED: Charlie Kirk's legacy exposes a corrosive lie — and now it's time to choose
This isn’t just about individual souls, though. It’s about Western civilization itself. Strong families produce stable societies. If this revival takes root, we’ll see the reversal of family collapse, demographic decline, and cultural decay.
The secular left knows this. Leftists built their project on the destruction of the family, the confusion of gender, and the rejection of biblical authority.
Every young person who turns to Christ, gets married, and raises godly children is a defeat for their vision. Every young man who embraces biblical masculinity is a threat to their power. Every young woman who chooses motherhood over careerism is a rebellion against their ideology.
The gospel offers what secular humanism never could: forgiveness through Christ’s sacrifice, transformation through the Holy Spirit, adoption into God’s family, and a purpose that echoes into eternity.
Most importantly, it offers Jesus Himself: the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Not a system of self-improvement or a political ideology, but a Savior and friend who loved us enough to die for us and who conquered death and rose again.
At key points, there is always a moment when God’s mercy is clearly apparent. This is one of those moments, and Christians must seize on it and fan the flames.
How? Take the following steps:
Finally, if you’re a student reading this, recognize that your campus could be next for real revival. How can you help advance it? Start a regular prayer meeting. Invite your skeptical friends to church. Be bold when professors mock Christianity. Defend biblical truth.
You’ve been trained for this moment. Now step into it.
The gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church (Matthew 16:18). We don’t fight for victory — we fight from victory.
The secular left’s project was always doomed because it was built on lies — and lies cannot ultimately triumph over truth Himself. The same God who sparked the Great Awakening, who raised up Luther to reform His church, who turned the persecutor Saul into the apostle Paul is still at work today.
The question isn’t whether God will prevail. That’s already settled. The question is whether we’ll have the courage to stand with Him while He does.
If He chooses to use the overreach of secular progressives and the hunger of a desperate generation to turn society back to Him, that’s precisely how God works. He uses the wrath of man to praise Him (Psalm 76:10). He takes what enemies meant for evil and works it for good (Genesis 50:20).
So let the secularists tighten their grip on their failing institutions. Every act of overreach, every attempt to silence the gospel only makes Christianity’s countercultural appeal stronger.
They made rebellion against God the establishment position. Now, young people are rebelling by turning back to Him.
The age of comfortable, culturally acceptable Christianity is over. What’s rising in its place is something far more dangerous to the powers of this world: a generation that has counted the cost and chosen Christ anyway. A generation that knows following Jesus might cost them jobs, friends, and status and has decided He’s worth it.
This is how reformation begins. This is how revival spreads. This is how civilizations are rebuilt from the rubble of failed ideologies.
The question isn’t whether God will prevail. That’s already settled. The question is whether we’ll have the courage to stand with Him while He does.
The revolution has already begun. The only question left is: Which side of history will you be on?
This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University's Standing for Freedom Center.
A “gigantic mental health catastrophe" began in 2012, and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt believes that overprotecting children in the real world — by not letting them out to play and develop independence — and under-protecting them online is to blame.
Especially now that around every corner is an app fighting for your child’s attention.
“We have all kinds of documents, leaks, docu reports that came out in lawsuits where we hear them talking about all the harm they’re causing and all the things they’re doing to cause addiction. These platforms are designed to grab our kids' attention and never let go because if they let go, it’s going to go to their competitor,” Haidt tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Podcast.”
“So I think now that the case is pretty much closed, the argument that ‘Oh well, we just don’t know, we need to gather more information,’ you know, that was the tobacco industry playbook decades ago,” he explains.
Haidt calls it an “evil industry,” with TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat “harming children at an industrial scale.”
“We’re not just talking like a few hundred kids. We’re talking literally tens of millions are harmed and thousands are dead. So I do think that this is having a very pernicious effect on society, on children,” he says.
And it’s not only affecting their attention spans.
“They need to make lots of mistakes and learn from them. And then especially during puberty ... when the brain is changing very, very fast. It’s rewiring from the child to the adult form. And so if in puberty, kids are not out there having adventures and flirting and getting embarrassed and getting in arguments ... if they’re not out there having real world experience, it’s going to prevent the neurons from wiring up in a healthy adult way,” Haidt explains.
“In terms of what they’re going to be like in 30 years, here’s what we can say with some confidence just because these are the way the trends are. They’re going to be more anxious and more fragile,” he continues.
“We never let them grow thick skin. We never let them have those toughening experiences,” he adds.
But that’s not the biggest issue these children will face.
“The biggest one I think is the destruction of the human capacity to pay attention. Young people, they find it very difficult to pay attention to anything for more than 10 or 15 minutes. They find it difficult to watch movies,” Haidt says.
“They find it difficult to read a book, and they’re reading much, much less. Can you imagine Western civilization if we lose books? If it’s all just TikTok?” he asks, noting that while attention span might be the most common, it will also affect demographics.
“The frequency of sex and marriage was already falling with the Millennials. It’s falling much faster with Gen Z. Boys raised on porn who have very poor social skills and play a lot of video games and don’t have really much practice flirting,” Haidt tells Glenn.
“And that’s just on the boy side. The girls especially are more anxious and fragile, which is also a bad sign for marriage,” he adds.
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
David Harsanyi recently sounded the alarm in the New York Post that “Gen Z’s casual anti-Semitism is growing.” His warning has some merit, but it also reveals blind spots about the political context he prefers not to acknowledge.
Harsanyi isn’t wrong that ugly anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric has surfaced in parts of the populist right. Plenty of very online commentators have insinuated — and in some instances insisted — that Charlie Kirk’s assassination was tied to Israel. Conspiracy theory claims circulate online that Jewish billionaires control conservative media, bribing or blackmailing Republicans into supporting Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza no matter the cost.
Gen Z has broken old taboos. That’s healthy. But if Zoomers want to be taken seriously, they must separate legitimate criticism of US policy from adolescent conspiracy theories.
This is an “ugly turn,” but it didn’t appear out of thin air. Once the neoconservative gatekeepers lost their grip, a wider debate on the right was inevitable.
For decades, particular outlets and movement foundations policed what conservatives were allowed to say. That censorship has collapsed in the internet era, for better and worse.
I welcome the broader discussion on the right. It was overdue. But the opening comes with a price: young voices saying stupid and reckless things. Then again, establishment conservatives have spent years saying reckless things of their own. My own anthology of commentaries catalogs four decades of such elite nonsense — much of which never saw daylight in “respectable” venues such as National Review, Commentary, or the Wall Street Journal.
Why? Because I was “unreliable on Israel.” Never mind that I never attacked the Jewish state. My real offense was questioning whether American conservatives should be compelled to parrot Likud talking points. Harsanyi may not see it this way, but the reality is obvious: Conservatives should be free to criticize Israeli policy without fearing cancellation from their own establishment.
That establishment has demanded iron discipline on Israel, sometimes even backing Democrats AIPAC preferred over those judged insufficiently loyal to Jerusalem. Yet the same institutions shy away from clear stands on basic civilizational issues like marriage. The imbalance speaks for itself.
And Charlie Kirk himself, before his death, reportedly raised doubts about Netanyahu’s ongoing Gaza campaign — only to spark frantic denials from conservative influencers who insisted he hadn’t meant it. Harsanyi frets about Gen Z’s “abnormal fixation” on Jews and Israel. He should also notice the establishment’s fixation, which is every bit as abnormal.
The movement Harsanyi defends is a relic. I’m old enough to remember its birth in the 1980s, and I remember how eagerly it purged dissenters. (Full disclosure: I was one of them.) Forgive me if I feel some schadenfreude watching Gen Z give that same establishment fits, even if I wince at the crudity of their attacks.
RELATED: Netanyahu takes aim at the so-called 'woke right,' Tucker Carlson
What really troubles me is the lack of reflection among Gen Z’s loudest voices. Nick Fuentes, for example, is a sharp communicator, but he throws away credibility by ranting about international Jewish conspiracies. That style is unserious, self-defeating, and easily exploited by enemies.
Even on substance, the Gen Z case collapses under scrutiny. They cite the Adelsons, but that’s one family. They point to Bill Ackman, a hedge-fund billionaire, but ignore his politics: Ackman is firmly on the left at home, even if he backs Israel abroad. Meanwhile, non-Jewish moguls like the Murdochs wield far more influence over conservative institutions and their loyalty to Israel.
And one final irony: As a Jewish dissenter on the right, expelled long ago, I know from experience that many of my opponents were not Jewish at all. More often than not, they were well-heeled gentiles writing checks.
Gen Z has broken the old taboos and raised questions the establishment tried to bury. That’s healthy. But if Zoomers want to be taken seriously, they must separate legitimate criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel from adolescent conspiracy theories. Otherwise, the real lessons will be lost in the noise.
Freedom of speech on university campuses has collapsed. Left-leaning college administrators, faculty, and students have been silencing conservative voices, and conservative students are increasingly adopting the left’s errant ways. The Trump administration has launched a strong counterattack that also seems poised to suppress speech.
The First Amendment’s free speech guarantees are at the core of our liberties. As Justice Louis Brandeis explained in Whitney v. California(1927), “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas — they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.
Though set out in a concurring opinion, Justice Brandeis’ counter-speech doctrine has become the bedrock of free speech jurisprudence. In the milestone First Amendment case of United States v. Alvarez (2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Justice Brandeis, opining, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.”
Many in Gen Z and younger Millennials would beg to differ. To many of these students and recent graduates, particularly — but not only — on the left, offensive speech is violence that should be silenced — and with physical violence, if necessary.
For the last six years, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has surveyed tens of thousands of students at hundreds of American universities to evaluate the status of free speech on campuses. Its most recent survey, in collaboration with pollster College Pulse and RealClearEducation, included 68,510 students at 257 universities.
The results are troubling. Together with other surveys, campus activism, and social media invective, a considerable decline in support for free speech is manifest, particularly among younger Americans on the left.
FIRE’s scores are based on 12 components, including student perceptions of six factors, three areas of campus speech policies, and three types of speech controversies. FIRE generates a blended score on a 100-point scale, which it converts to letter grades. Claremont McKenna College (not affiliated with Claremont Institute) received the highest score, 79.86, and Columbia University’s Barnard College the lowest, 40.74. My alma mater, Columbia College, was next lowest at 42.89.
Just 11 of the 257 schools surveyed received a grade of C or higher; 14 received a C-minus; 63 ranged from D-minus to D-plus; and 168 institutions — nearly two-thirds —received an F. Of the top-10 schools, only Claremont McKenna did better than a C grade, scraping by with a B-minus, though FIRE observed that but for rounding scores, the college would have received a C-plus. Each of the other nine top-ranked schools received a C.
According to FIRE, the lowest-ranked schools are home to restrictive speech policies, threats to student press freedom, speaker cancellations, and the quashing of student protests. Only 36% of students said that their school’s administration protects free speech. To the contrary, the great majority of campuses are inhospitable to faculty and students who oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion, observe religious tenets, are pro-life, favor Israel in its struggle with Hamas, or otherwise fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
The most troubling result of FIRE’s survey and other recent studies is that educators in both K-12 and higher education are indoctrinating students in ideologies that are completely adverse to free speech.
FIRE warned that there has been a “steady erosion of free expression at colleges and universities,” adding that “the atmosphere isn’t just cautious — it’s hostile.” To stop speakers with whom they disagree, at least 71% of students surveyed (a high) support shouting; 54% (a high) endorse blocking other students from attending a speech on campus; and 34% (also a high) support the use of violence at least some of the time.
The FIRE survey found that 76% of students would stop someone from saying that Black Lives Matter is a hate group; 74% would stop a speaker from saying that transgender people have a mental disorder; and 60% would not allow a speaker to say that abortion should be completely illegal. These numbers suggest almost universal support from left-leaning students to bar speakers with whom they disagree, and at least some support from conservatives. American liberals used to champion free speech, which was the message of those angered by Disney’s suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Our rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty — not to adopt the left’s worst impulses.
Smaller majorities, comprised chiefly of conservative students, would bar speakers from advocating that the Catholic Church is a pedophilic institution (62%), that the police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan (62%), or that children should be allowed to transition without parental consent (51%). While I disagree with these perspectives, it is not conservative doctrine to bar speakers who have bad ideas.
Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas — they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.
A more careful review of Claremont McKenna’s scores and the national data demonstrates the fervor of left-leaning students to suppress speech with which they disagree. Claremont McKenna ranked only 24th for tolerance of conservative speakers and 186th in the closely correlated category of tolerating differences. Overall, most campuses received higher marks for tolerating controversial liberal speakers than for tolerating controversial conservative speakers.
On a positive note, 79% of respondents thought their college protects free speech, and about half would feel comfortable disagreeing with their professors on controversial political topics. However, anecdotal evidence and surveys suggest that conservative students would feel less secure in speaking candidly than liberals.
RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s ‘fascist’ slur echoes in the streets
A decline in support for free speech and an increase in support for violence to suppress opposing views go hand in hand in authoritarian regimes. According to a recent report from Vanderbilt University’s the Future of Free Speech project, over the past decade, the number of countries limiting speech has far outnumbered those expanding it. Of the countries surveyed, the United States had the third-largest decline in support for free speech since the last study was published in 2021.
According to Jacob Mchangama, executive director of the Future of Free Speech, the decline in the U.S. represents fundamental shifts in values within a short period. While older Americans (ages 55 and over) have maintained relatively stable attitudes, showing only single-digit declines in most categories, the steep drops among younger cohorts raise profound questions about the future of free expression in America. College-educated Americans show another surprising shift. This group, traditionally associated with openness to diverse viewpoints, has markedly decreased its support for controversial speech since 2021.
The Free Speech study found that younger Americans are especially hesitant to defend speech that offends minority groups. Only 57% say such speech should be permitted, a result driven by those on the left. Tolerance for religiously offensive speech declined from 71% in 2021 to 57% this year, a result driven by those on the right.
In a recent YouGov poll, 25% of those who are very liberal agreed that violence is acceptable to achieve political goals, as did 17% of liberals, but only 6% of conservatives and 3% of those who are very conservative approved. Eleven percent of adults said that political violence can be justified, while 72% disagreed. By contrast, for those ages 18 to 29, 19% believe violence can be justified, and just 51% disagreed. Ironically, while 65% of all adults believe violence is justified for self-defense, just 60% of those ages 19 to 20 agree. Their views may be associated with sympathy for criminals as perceived victims of systemic oppression.
In April, the nonpartisan Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University issued a report based on its extensive polling that concluded “widespread justification for lethal violence — including assassination — among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users.” NCRI reported that these “attitudes are not fringe — they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse. Cyber-social platforms — particularly Bluesky — play a strong predictive role in amplifying this culture.”
More than 2,100 students were arrested during campus protests last year. Though demonstrations continue, they have been smaller in 2025 since the Trump administration’s crackdown on universities that have enabled anti-Semitic demonstrations.
The administration is pressuring universities to end anti-Semitism and take down barriers to free speech by revoking visas for foreign students who have endorsed Hamas or used violence to support Palestinian causes, and by suspending funding for leading universities that fail to defend the rights of Jewish students and faculty, including Columbia, Harvard, Brown, UCLA, and the University of Pennsylvania. At least 60 colleges and universities are being investigated by the Department of Education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their handling of anti-Semitic discrimination.
The Washington Postrecently reported that the Trump administration is developing a plan that would give an advantage for research grants to schools that pledge to adhere to administration policies on DEI and combating anti-Semitism. According to the Post, universities could be asked to affirm that admissions and hiring decisions are based on merit, that specified factors are taken into account when considering foreign student applications, and that college costs are not out of line with the value students receive.
RELATED: Make college great again: Trump ‘has the spine’ to declare war on woke universities
While a requirement that universities adhere to the law to receive funding is sound, a requirement that they adopt discretionary policies preferred by the administration, or avoid criticizing its objectives, is not. Much as I would likely support the administration’s policies, the time will come when Democrats reclaim the presidency.
I don’t want them to impose a radical left agenda on universities as a condition of funding. Particularly because Democrats would encounter a sympathetic audience, their effectiveness would be far greater than any benefits that the Trump administration might achieve by suppressing dissent.
Numerous educators have been suspended or terminated for blaming Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Kirk or MAGA, or even openly endorsing Kirk’s murder. A Washington Post columnist was fired, Jimmy Kimmel was suspended for four nights, and investigations are proceeding against members of the military and federal agents who posted intemperate thoughts on X and Bluesky.
I have written extensively on loyalty tests, cancel culture, and radical left bias at American universities, as well as the Biden administration’s collaboration with, and coercion of, social media platforms to silence conservative views. I opposed those actions not because of my agreement with those who were censored but rather because I support the First Amendment.
For many years, the rot on American campuses has spread as the radical left has pummeled and marginalized conservative voices. Under intensive indoctrination about safe spaces, intersectionality, and oppressor ideology, too many Americans under 35 have lost track of American exceptionalism and the beauty and meaning of free speech.
Our rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty — not to adopt the left’s worst impulses.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published on the American Mind.
For the first time in years, the Republican Party has momentum with America’s youth.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination jolted young voters into the political fight. Many students and teenagers first encountered politics through Kirk’s viral debate clips or the wave of conservative influencer content that followed.
The political landscape shifts as fast as internet memes. The era when a campaign could hire an intern to post twice a day is over.
Figures like Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and even Alex Jones command more attention from Gen Z than most senators ever could. Ask a teenager about Mike Johnson or Ron Johnson and you’ll likely get a blank stare. Ask them about Charlie Kirk, and they can quote his videos word-for-word. Kirk was not only a cultural giant but also the leader of a network of influencers who connected conservatives with a rising generation.
Conservative politicians often struggle to overlap with their influencer counterparts. Donald Trump proved it can be done. His mastery of social media carried him to victory in 2024. Trump’s rapid-fire posts and fluency in internet culture convinced young voters he understood them.
Democrats tried their own version of “youth outreach” — with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz attempting to meme their way into relevance. The result? Cringe. Young voters walked away.
If Republicans want to sustain their surge, they must keep building para-social relationships. For Gen Z, politics is less about white papers and more about viral clips. Students rallied to Trump and Kirk because they were captivating, funny, and relatable. That matters more than policy minutiae.
Vice President JD Vance may be the heir to Trump’s social media throne. He combines political stamina with influencer wit — a rare skill set.
Vance’s Yale Law pedigree and mastery of policy shine in debates and press conferences. He speaks clearly, with bold ideas on foreign aid and criminal justice. But Gen Z doesn’t tune in for long speeches. They want punchlines. Trump understood this. He may be the only president with “Funniest Moments” compilations on YouTube. Vance seems to get it, too.
When Kirk was assassinated, Vance was the first to host his show. That was no accident. A hole opened in the conservative influencer space, and Vance moved to fill it. By stepping into that role, he told young voters that Charlie’s vision of connecting with Gen Z didn’t die with him.
Kirk’s efforts helped Trump retake the presidency in 2024. His legacy may yet help Vance win in 2028. Vance has built his own digital reputation: His tweets mix humor and insight, his football posts feel genuine (unlike Walz’s forced fandom), and he has leaned into memes at his own expense. That kind of self-deprecation resonates with an online generation allergic to pretension.
RELATED: Holy defiance: Why Erika Kirk terrifies the feminist elite
But Trump’s legacy is more than jokes. He delivers. He has nearly wiped out illegal immigration, shut down USAID, and pushed DEI out of government and corporate life. Winning has become a habit. Gen Z notices.
This generation didn’t grow up with the lethargic Republican Party of the 1990s and 2000s. Their political world began when Trump rode down his golden escalator in 2015. They expect leaders to win, not just talk.
If Republicans want to dominate the future, they must keep MAGA’s high-octane energy alive. The political landscape shifts as fast as internet memes. The era when a campaign could hire an intern to post twice a day is over.
Charlie Kirk understood it. Donald Trump proved it. If JD Vance keeps pace, he could lock down the youth vote for the next generation.
Sexual liberation has been packaged and sold as just that — “liberating” — despite BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey seeing it as having the opposite effect on women, especially younger women.
“Aren’t we more, especially young girls it seems, more depressed than ever, more anxious than ever, even more suicidal than ever? And there are a lot of different factors, I think, that play into that,” Stuckey asks author Louise Perry.
“Young women especially are berated on social media with ‘Just love yourself’ ... ‘Just discover yourself,’ ‘You are your own truth,’ ‘You’re enough for yourself,’ you would think that in an age where that kind of message is primary for women that we would be happier if that were the solution,” she continues.
While Perry agrees, she does believe there’s a resistance growing to the sex-positive, self-interested movement that’s taken over the youth.
“I think it’s a bit of a complicated picture, because you’ve got among Gen Z, for instance, you’ve got a combination of some members of Gen Z who are really into the sex positive stuff, and then you’ve also got some who are, I think, reacting against it, and there is a bit of a sexual counter-revolution brewing,” Perry says.
“For instance, there are a lot of young men who are reacting against porn and who are swearing off using porn at all. They generally are not doing so out of any kind of ethical motivation at all,” she continues.
Perry explains that one of the primary reasons appears to be that porn “is really destructive for the consumer” and “tends to have a really negative impact on your own mind” and “sexuality.”
“When something is bad for society, it tends to be bad for the individual and vice versa, and so to me, it just is another piece of evidence ... that the mind and the heart and the soul and the body are connected,” Stuckey agrees.
“It might be self-interested, but as you said, the consequences are good of that kind of self-control,” she adds.
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
No kings? More like no young people. On Saturday, several so-called “No Kings” protests took place across the country. The protests looked more like an AARP meeting, with NBC Boston perhaps encapsulating the state of the protests best: “This is an older crowd … A lot of white hair. You see Q-Tips as we used […]
As a former so-called Swiftie, it stinks to watch the once-precocious pop star devolve into musical drivel that's at best banal and at worst agonizing.
www.theblaze.com