Why Cultural Difference Matters

 

By Frank Filocomo

"Culture counts," writes Samuel Huntington in his widely-cited work, The Clash of Civilizations, "and cultural identity is what is most meaningful to most people."

This is indisputable. Our culture, whatever it might be, gives us a sense of greater belonging. Without it, we are nothing but a hodgepodge of free-floating, tetherless individuals. 

Thus, when disparate cultures encounter each other, there is often tension and conflict. And tension and conflict do not create fertile soil for civil society. 

In the U.S. and in Europe, unprecedented levels of non-Western immigration have fundamentally changed the cultural character and identity of Western countries. 

In Governing, Alan Ehrenhalt highlights this phenomenon:

There's no doubt that places affected by heavy in-migration are losing a civic culture that once was their leading source of pride. Old-timers walk down their town’s Main Street and hear conversations in languages they can’t understand. They are exposed to culinary customs they had never experienced before and confronted with foods that taste strange to them. There are new and unfamiliar religious practices. All of this is unsettling, to say the least, and for some long-time residents, a source of profound anxiety.

That isn't to say, of course, that there aren't profound benefits to cultural mixing. 

I was recently watching Concert for George, the live tribute to George Harrison from 2002. As a kid, I always loved the rendition of Harrison's The Inner Light, featuring Jeff Lynne of ELO on guitar and vocals, Anoushka Shankar on the sitar, and a traditional Indian ensemble behind them. 

I would describe that as a remarkably successful encounter between the East and West. If you haven't already experienced it, you're missing out.

Not all inter-cultural encounters, however, result in something beautiful. In fact, most don't. 

The reason for this is actually pretty simple: culture - which is defined by a people's norms, behaviors, traditions, and so on - vary from place to place. The West and non-West present us with two very different outlooks on life. 

For instance, Huntington writes that "both Westerners and non-Westerners point to individualism as the central distinguishing mark of the West." Few will actually debate this. "For East Asians," Huntington continues, "success is particularly the result of the East Asian cultural stress on the collectivity rather than the individual."

Such different temperaments, which are so deeply rooted, make coexistence difficult, if not nearly impossible. 

Some in academia have landed themselves in hot water for making such assertions. 

In a December 2021 interview with the great Glenn Loury, University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Amy Wax asked the following about Asian students in academia: "Does the spirit of liberty beat in their breast?" 

Wax was underlining the cultural difference between Westerners, who have a long tradition of maximizing liberty and individual autonomy, and non-Westerners, who are much more deferential and collectivistic. 

In response to the interview, Theodore Ruger, then the dean of UPenn's law school, called Wax's remarks "xenophobic and white supremacist."

Wax, it should be noted, is Jewish and thus will probably not be welcomed at many so-called "white supremacist" meet-ups.

Amy Wax on The Glenn Show

And YouTuber Nick Shirley, who in December of 2025 shed light on the rampant Somali fraud in Minnesota, hasn't had an easy go of it either. Shirley, who made no racial claims, showed viewers what a non-Western takeover of a great American state looks like. In the video, the Somalis of Minnesota are referred to, by himself and locals, as "close knit." That is, they are insular, hostile to outsiders, and unwilling to assimilate to their host country. 

Shirley, in response to the video - which, to date, has accrued nearly 4 million views on YouTube and likely led to Governor Tim Walz suspending his reelection bid - was called a white supremacist and accused of creating "political propaganda."

The point: cultural difference is real, and calling it out is real dangerous. 

To be clear, both Western and non-Western temperaments have their strengths and weaknesses. This is not a battle of the cultures. That's not something I care to engage in. The bottom-line, though, is that making the distinction and articulating the drawbacks of multiculturalism shouldn't be taboo. 

Censorship on Reddit

By Christopher Turturro

Reddit is easily one of the worst - if not the worst - sites for free speech.

Over the past few years, we've witnessed the rise of censorship and partisan bias on social media. One of the most authoritarian of these platforms, that makes it their mission to censor any opposing views, is Reddit. Reddit is easily one of the worst - if not the worst - sites for free speech. I typically only use Reddit for advice from others on vehicle and mechanical information, or I'll look into things such as film and classic movies. Nevertheless, Reddit, which is driven by rage bait and partisan hostility, never ceases to recommend me hot-button political content, even if I never searched for it myself. 

Anyone who uses Reddit or social media in general knows that all of these platforms are generally Left-leaning. They label most content by "Right-wingers" as misinformation, propaganda, or just completely fake. Reddit, more than any other site I've encountered, has taken this to a completely new level. If you're unfamiliar with Reddit, every category is a "subreddit." For example, Chevrolet is a subreddit (r/Chevrolet), Ford is a subreddit (r/Ford), personal finance is a subreddit (r/personalfinance), and many, many more categories of essentially anything you can think of. To further explain, each of these subreddits has a group of "moderators" who ensure that all the "rules" of the page are being followed. These are people who either created the page, were invited by existing members to moderate, or have applied through "mod recruitment" posts. 

These groups of mods are essentially the police on these subreddits. Some are more laid back than others, but others can take it to a whole new level, especially when it comes to the political subreddits. Buzzwords like Nazi, racist, and bigot fly so freely on Reddit that they have essentially lost their meaning now. Anyone leaning more to the Right is immediately labeled any one of the terms mentioned. This is a blatant effort to censor, silence, and discredit conservative voices on the platform. The problem for Reddit's thought police is that they've overused those words so much they've been trivialized completely. I recently posted about having nationalistic views about America and how we should close our borders, help our own, and lift ourselves up rather than worry about the rest of the world's problems. Want to know what happened? Tons of people called me a Nazi-sympathizer, Hitler-sympathizer, and a racist. You're no longer allowed to apply common sense without being called names. You MUST bend your will to these people, or they will do their best to destroy you as we have seen with the attempted assassination on the President and the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

The same people who claim to be "anti-fascist" hate it when anyone with differing views dare speak. 

With one simple search on Reddit's site, you can plainly see how any comments with Right-leaning bias are uniformly downvoted and the users themselves are attacked. In addition to this, the other users with opposing views will report you, which then notifies the mods and they then "silence" you. This can result in a temporary ban that lasts just a few days, or what's known as a "perma-ban," preventing you from engaging with the entire social media platform. The same people who claim to be "anti-fascist" hate it when anyone with differing views dare speak. 

There was recently a video posted on Reddit of the Black Panthers of Philadelphia essentially threatening to kill ICE officers and any federal officers doing their best to enforce the rule of law. The video has since been removed. They were carrying rifles and shotguns in the streets of Philadelphia which, at the end of the day, is their 2A right that I feel very strongly about. But you can't threaten to kill federal officers or an officer enforcing the law. This video was posted in the subreddit "R/videosthatgohard" page. I posted a comment on this video stating that these are real threats and should be treated as such. The same group that hates the 2A and Republicans exercising it is now on the side of the Black Panthers openly talking about killing federal agents. My comment was removed from the page and cited for "harassment," and I was banned from interacting with the page for 4 days. Harassment for pointing out these threats should be taken seriously. But guess what, I'm on the wrong side of the political spectrum on Reddit, so what do they do? Silence me. We all remember when the Biden administration was sending FBI to the homes of people who were posting opposing views to the administration themselves. The videos were all over social media. It's okay to weaponize the government and enforcement agencies so long as it benefits the Left. If it happens on the Right, we see massive protests, riots, civil unrest, and so forth.  

If that was enough to trigger a visit from police to these individuals' homes, shouldn't threatening federal officers' lives be cause for something, too? Nonetheless carrying guns with intent to harm officers enforcing the law? Sounds like major hypocrisy to me because, if I remember correctly, just a few years ago the Left was so against Republicans having guns due to the "insurrection" on January 6th, yet they continue to protest, burn down cities, and threaten to literally start a civil war. If it were up to me, free speech would be free speech and therefore should be protected, and law enforcement should have zero involvement until a crime is committed. Although, this all started with the Biden administration targeting Republicans and calling them "domestic terrorists." So, we must apply the same logic and rules to the other side. 

Christopher Turturro, born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, is an HVAC mechanic and 

U.S. Air Force veteran.

Making Friends in an Era of Isolation

 

By Frank Filocomo

Making friends is easy on paper, but often difficult in practice. 

In Front Porch Republic, a publication that I urge all Frank Forum readers to check out, Dixie Dillon Lane penned a thoughtful piece on her trials and tribulations with making friends, particularly after becoming a mother. 

"There’s only so much friendship-making you can do while both the adults in question are sleep deprived and the conversation is frequently interrupted by toddlers," she writes. 

Forging friendships in a social vacuum with all else being equal is one thing, but reality is full of externalities (both good and bad) and encumberments that make socialization time-consuming and inconvenient.

Sometimes it seems like there just aren't enough hours in the day. We have jobs to work, families to tend to, and myriad other social obligations to fulfill. But friendship-making? For many of us, that ranks low on the priority list, and thus is frequently jettisoned from our daily objectives. 

To forgo friendship-making, though, is a grave mistake. Friends are - or at least ought to be - constants in our lives. They keep us honest, make us laugh, and help guide us through hardship. They are indispensable soldiers in our social infantry.  

Many of us, though, are consumed by work and are without many meaningful friendships. What, though, can be done?

Lane offers some good tips and tricks. 

This one if obvious, but frequently overlooked: tapping into dormant, or rather, not-fully-realized relationships. These are friendships that you already have, but that need some cultivating. 

Lane writes:

In the past several months, for example, a friend whom I’ve always valued but whose life has been somewhat different than mine has become my weekly walking partner, and through this we have discovered that we are truly kindred spirits in many deeply meaningful ways.

NYU Langone neurologist Joel Salinas, in an interview for the Washington Post, has called this "preserving what you have." 

This is a light-lift and can be sparked by a text message. 

Among Lane's other suggestions is to attend more live events and conferences: 

Jetting off to a conference—much less a week-and-a-half in Spain—seemed extremely far from possible to me until my wise and confident spouse practically pushed me into it. I thought I should 'build community' by trying yet again to run another playgroup or host another big party or offer to watch other people’s kids; but those things didn’t work very well. Instead, life invited me to far-flung places and new professional roles. I’m very glad I finally started to listen.

This is advice I need to listen to more myself. I love to stay inside and read and play guitar. Going out can be a schlep. Not to mention the social battery it requires. It's so much easier to be safe and comfortable. Too much loafing in one's safe space, however, isn't healthy. Exposure to social environments - uncomfortable as they may be - is a necessary exercise. It develops your social muscles, keeps your mind sharp, and introduces you to new people, who might just become new friends. 

This all, however, requires work and openness.

Again, you can read Lane's full article for FPR here. Take her advice. 

Can Father Even Know Best Anymore?

By Troy M. Olson

The country needs more children. If we have them, we'll end up alright. 

"I tried hard to have a father but instead, I had a dad." - Kurt Cobain lyrics from "Serve the Servants" on Nirvana's final studio album, In Utero.

I've always taken this lyric to be a line about Kurt Cobain's contentious relationship with his dad. Like so many in Gen X, Cobain was a child of divorced parents. His cohort was the first to experience the consequences of the liberalization of family law in the 1960s and 1970s. This line has long had me thinking about the genuine differences between being a father and being a dad. And, aside from mere preference and semantics, I think there is a difference. 

The Cool Dad vs. Fatherhood 

Around the time elder-Millennials were little kids, all of the cultural and family programming in our society moved from the fatherhood example best displayed in the classic TV shows, Father Knows Best, Leave It To Beaver, and The Andy Griffith Show, to shows that cast the father as incompetent and foolish at worst, and trying hard to be young, cool, and relatable at best. 

Beyond that, it became cool to mock the prior model as well as the decade it was most associated with: the 1950s. Now, I have long been a defender of the 1950s and written about that often, but I haven't focused in on what has long been in my head. 

Civilization needs strong fathers again. Not dads. We need moral lessons, wholesomeness, and fathers more interested in preparing their children for the world than being their best friend. 

A dad that is your friend, he may spend time with you, he may even coach your little league team, and there is something to be said about this model, but two straight generations of "cool dads" are not cutting it. The Millennials have been slow to grow up and now Gen Z (predominately the children raised by Gen X) is. 

What are we returning to, and why should we return to it? We're returning to father knows best. Why? Because society needs it and today's social and family statistics will tell us that new parents are older and older anyway, making the "cool dad" model more obsolete, and possibly ridiculous. 

While on pro-natalist and national renewal grounds we should be very concerned about declining birth rates, there are some silver linings to older parentage. We have seen this before.

Older Greatest Generation Parents

There are only two ways to mature in life: packing in the years gradually, or packing in the experiences into a small number of years. The Greatest Generation had both of these features. Coming of age during the Great Depression and a World War, the generation both had to grow up fast and because of what was going on in the world delayed forming families, especially relative to the era. 

Many returning GIs were well into their 30s before they became parents. My grandfathers, for instance, both WWII veterans, had seven children in their 30s and 40s between them. They had the life experiences and the necessary perspective that each generation since simply doesn't have. Not even close. 

Younger Boomer Parents

A critique of what in my view is clearly the greatest generation may be, well... they raised the Boomers. How good of parents could they have possibly been? One, Boomers were set up incredibly well by their parents both from a familial perspective and a societal one. While the 1960s opened up considerable cultural rifts between who would be the elder-Boomers and their GI generation parents and elders, it is hard to find a Boomer that would have a critical word to say about this generation. Two, Boomers were the first generation to be mass marketed as a generation at all. In both childhood terms, and mass marketing terms. While their slightly older Silents were the beginnings of youth culture, Boomers got it fully and then began driving the culture and writing all of the narratives that are still with us today. 

Boomers were also able to get married and have children in their 20s in ways their parents, and now their children, were not able to. It set them up for a long retirement, or at least a long post-raising their children period that has driven spending in the economy for quite some time, especially in housing. For instance, the median home buyer is 59 years old. Twenty years ago, it was 39. The same generational cohort (the youngest Boomers and elder Gen X) has basically been buying American homes for the near-entirety of the 21st century now. Housing sets the stage for so much second- and third-order decisions and spending too. If you have a house in the suburbs or a small town, you're going to buy more cars, and so forth. 

Older Millennial Parents 

While the Millennials flooded into the cities after college, chasing enough income to get their slice of the American dream, many have crashed into a wall of political turmoil and division, the college degree as an over-inflated and overrated status, and the incredible fatigue of being old enough to remember an America that was normal and having a childhood of expectations, but too young to really reap the rewards of a post-war, pre-9/11 America. But these days, Millennials are splitting from what this culture had pegged them as.

Being a parent is, objectively speaking, the most important thing you'll ever do. The most important job you'll ever have. 

Gone is the progressive archetype of the college-educated Millennials of a diversifying and "fundamentally transformed" America. Millennial voting patterns are not surprisingly following along the lifespan of their Boomer parents (started more liberal, becoming more conservative with age, and we'll see about the rest). In the last decade, the marriage and family gap in partisan voting habits has been driven by realigning Millennials getting married, taking on starter home mortgages, and having children. And for the married men with children, now a +20% Republican voting constituency, fatherhood, as opposed to being a dad or a cool dad, is taking on additional weight. Taking on the appropriate weight. Being a parent is, objectively speaking, the most important thing you'll ever do. The most important job you'll ever have. 

57% of Millennial dads say that fatherhood is a core aspect of identity. This is a good thing. Millennial dads also spend three times as much time with their kids as the previous generation. This is also a good thing. Although the quality of that time and the imparting of moral and practical education will be more important than the quantity. 

It is very important that Gen Z follows this father knows best era, with preferably one more kid than millennials are having. 

We can turn this whole thing around, and it will start at home, where all true peace and prosperity comes from. And, not everyone is going to be Ward and June Cleaver. That's not a reasonable expectation, especially if you know the radical opposite. But we can all pick up the slack a bit, and if we do, I think the country will be alright in the long run. 

If this sounds like white pill optimism, well of course it is. But that lesson is a lot more constructive and productive than the man-o-sphere (who are almost always childless). If you're not a father today, I don't care to hear about your views on masculinity. The only exception I'll make to that rule is if you're a veteran. 

The country needs more children. If we have them, we'll end up alright. 

The country needs more dads in homes, even the cool dad is preferable to no male role model at all. And family law reforms and balancing could speed this one along quite a bit. If we have more dads in homes, we'll end up alright.

The country needs more strong fathers as role models, who are focused on imparting moral lessons and passing on heritage and the received wisdom from ancestors. And strong father role models understand that the head of this model is faith in God, the marriage itself, and then the children. And the kids will be alright if father knows best again. 

Troy M. Olson is an Army Veteran, lawyer by training, and co-author of ‘The Emerging Populist Majority’ available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Target. He is the Sergeant-at-Arms of the New York Young Republican Club and co-founder of its Veterans Caucus. He has appeared on CNN, CBS, and OAN. He lives in New York City with his wife and son, and is the 3rd Vice Commander (“Americanism” pillar) of the first new American Legion Post in the city in years, Post 917. You can follow him on X/Twitter and Substack at @TroyMOlson

New York Needs Another Ambassador to Loneliness

 

By Frank Filocomo

 

In November of 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul appointed talk show host and former sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer as the nation's first-ever Ambassador to Loneliness.

I expressed my skepticism about the move in a November 9, 2023 post for this blog titled, New York's New Ambassador to Loneliness Is Who?

From the post:

At just 95 years young, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, an erstwhile sex therapist and talk show personality, has been appointed "ambassador to loneliness" by New York Governor, Kathy Hochul. 

I know what you're thinking: surely this must be an Onion headline, or perhaps something from Babylon Bee. But no, this is actually happening. 

So, will Westheimer, who told the New York Times last summer that she will "still talk about orgasms", be the person to cure our current societal malady of social disengagement and loneliness? Well, according to Governor Hochul, this is "just what the doctor ordered". What a joke...

In retrospect, I think I was far too pessimistic. While an honorary appointment was never going to be a panacea for tackling the loneliness epidemic head-on, the more people we have talking about this issue, the better. 

What's more, I lambasted the move as yet another instance of the government taking what should be a bottom-up issue and thrusting onto us top-down policy solutions. But, you know what, I'm no longer all that opposed to top-down solutions. The loneliness epidemic is quickly turning into a loneliness pandemic, spanning the Western world. Therefore, it might just be kitchen sink time. 

Dr. Ruth, though, didn't have much time to accomplish anything. She passed away on July 12, 2024, just months after her appointment. 

Sadly, Dr. Ruth's passing didn't get much media attention, as the first assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler, PA happened the following day. 

Now, in 2026, New York still doesn't have an Ambassador to Loneliness. Upon further reflection, I think Governor Hochul might have been onto something. She, or whomever succeeds her, ought to appoint another one. Even if it's just an honorary position, it couldn't hurt. The Ambassador could be a prescriptive force, aiding New Yorkers with tips for ameliorating loneliness and fostering social connection. 

In other news, it's worth noting - since no one else seems to be saying anything - that the nation still doesn't have a Surgeon General. Dr. Vivek Murthy, who served under the Biden administration, was the country's last leading doctor. January 20, 2026 will mark one year without a Surgeon General. 

I've written about that, too, in an August 4, 2025 post titled, Laura Loomer's Idiotic War on the Office of the Surgeon General

From my post:

Surgeon generals, through their advisory reports, launch, what the late-Amitai Etzioni called, "national dialogues," or "megalogues." These are community- and country-wide conversations that, if executed correctly, can "lead to significant changes in core values." 

Case in point: it wasn't until Dr. Vivek Murthy's 2023 report, Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation, that we began to take the loneliness epidemic seriously. 

The country needs leaders who will keep this issue top-of-mind and offer some much-needed prescription. 

The Loneliness Epidemic: Is Tech Really To Blame?

 

By Frank Filocomo

It's become easy - intellectually lazy, actually - to blame America's fraying social fabric and atomization on social media and technology, writ large. 

I've written about this reactionary reflex before. 

Many of us would like nothing more than to return to the mid-20th century, when we truly had a common culture and deep love of country. 

But we must face the music: times they are a-changin'. Actually, they've already changed drastically.

"Digital friends," writes Taki Theodoracopulos in Taki’s Magazine, "are now replacing human ones, and that goes for romantic partners also."

While it's indisputable that robotics and AI have, in many cases, supplanted IRL social connection - just read Sherry Turkle's magnum opus, Alone Together - it would be futile and wrongheaded to lay the blame solely - or even mostly - on screens. 

There's simply no empirical data to back up this assertion. 

While Robert Putnam - in his 1995 essay, Bowling Alone - did place a good deal of blame on TV for America's diminishing social capital - he and his co-author, Shaylyn Romney Garrett, largely abandon the technology thesis in their 2020 book, The Upswing.

More from Taki's article:

I may sound old-fashioned, which I proudly am, but life online cannot even come close to replacing or satisfying the spiritual hunger of human beings. It might pretend to, just like bright lights and come-hither poses lure one into sordid nightclubs, but placing our faith on modernity leaves us blind to one another and what is human. Turn off your screens, says Taki, and start living.

Again, I don't disagree with the sentiment here. We would all be better off if, instead of getting entranced by the Instagram Reel doomscroll, we went outside, touched grass, and socialized with actual people. No argument there. 

Taki, however, misses an important fact here: Social media has actually helped facilitate IRL social connections and, if used correctly, can be a powerful tool in combating loneliness and isolation. 

As I've documented before in National Review and Philanthropy Daily, certain social media apps have proved to be formidable supplements - though, perhaps not replacements altogether - to the old-school way of forging social connections. 

In The Guardian, Emily Bratt writes about the friendships she's made on Timeleft, "an app that invites you to dine with six strangers."

Through it, you are asked to complete a personality quiz – apparently used to match you with six like-minded friends-to-be. Then you’re briefed on where you need to be for dinner and when. Once again, the unnaturalness of the situation made me slightly uncomfortable. We were one of several groups of strangers, positioned across a restaurant floor, all relying on an algorithm to find new friends – it was like an episode of Black Mirror.

But there was a comfort in learning that these six strangers were in this for similar reasons. Most were at a time in their lives where old friendship trajectories had changed course and there was a desire to seek out new kindred spirits. Elvira turned out to be one such kindred spirit. Seated opposite me but one, she was the quietest of the group and initially I assumed we had nothing in common. Then she made a dry, acerbic comment under her breath, giving me a wry smile, and I realised in that moment that we shared the same sense of humour. That was enough for us to keep in touch and hang out periodically over the next 11 months. In that time, I introduced her to another friend, with whom she has formed a friendship of her own, and now the three of us meet for dinner and join each other’s social events.

Emily's experience with app-based social connections is becoming more and more common. 

My social life, for instance, has benefited a great deal from social media. For example, I learned about Reading Rhythms, an NYC-based group that hosts "reading parties" across the city, through Instagram. See my article on Reading Rhythms for Front Porch Republic here. 

Additionally, I first heard about my local bar's weekly open mic via Instagram. I'm now a regular. 

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the myriad other social connections I've made using social media as a tool. 

So, while the natural inclination is to blame the apps and tech on the country's current social maladies - and, to be sure, some of these arguments have merit - it would be unwise to overlook the good in them, too. 

The Zoomer Loneliness Epidemic

 

By Frank Filocomo

New research published by the UK's Office for National Statistics finds that "33% of Britons aged 16 to 29 reported feeling lonely 'often, always or some of the time' - the highest of all age groups (17% of over-70s said the same thing)."

While I've written about the effects of loneliness and social isolation on Zoomers, middle-aged people, and the elderly, that the former is impacted the worst is particularly troubling.

"The youth of today," Nelson Mandela famously remarked, "are the leaders of tomorrow."

Leaders, though, must be raised in environments that set them up for success. Individuals raised in isolation and without regular socialization, however, are off to a remarkably inauspicious start.

Thus, for Zoomers to flourish, they must be surrounded by a rich civic life with robust social connections.

In an article for BBC, Luke Mintz points to a few factors that might be contributing to the Zoomer loneliness epidemic.

One thing that Mintz touches on - the problem of "scattering" - is particularly salient. That is, for many people today, friends and family don't live near by, but are instead scattered around the country and thus out of physical reach. 

From the article:

In some ways, early adulthood has always been a time of instability. Young adults tend to leave their childhood home and move around. Friends depart, and family ties weaken. These transitory life events can, for some, lead to intense loneliness.

I've written about this kind of modern day sprawl before. From my research, this appears to mostly be a Western problem, as many parts of the non-West are more community-oriented and do not subscribe to the cultural ethos of hyper-individualism. 

Of course, a wholesale rejection of our rights-centric individualized culture would not be desirable either. The solution lies in what Amitai Etzioni advocated for: a balance between top-down order and individual liberties. 

Today, though, we have taken the latter - individual liberty, that is - to such an extreme that we - young people, especially - feel a kind of rudderlessness and disconnection. 

Thus, it is incumbent on us to actively seek out pockets of community and socialization that can, among other things, help moor us to a higher level of being and humanity. 

A friend of mine has found such a place in his Catholic church. Others, though, may find purpose and communion in secular organizations, like book clubs and other voluntary associations. 

Whatever it may be, Zoomers, many of whom work remote jobs, must find an excuse to venture outside of their apartments and fill the community-shaped hole in their souls. 

'Far-Right'... Fascism or Love of Country?

By Christopher Turturro

Has patriotism become "Far-Right?"

As of late, many of my friends and colleagues have been talking about Nick Fuentes and the rise of many more "far-Right" online personalities. So much so that Democrats and even some Republicans fear that, with the current state of our country, we may be at risk of another "mustache man" coming to power at some point in the near future. Hitler, being the reference to "mustache man," pretended to be a strong, nationalistic leader, but, as time went on, he murdered millions of people for their immutable characteristics and religious beliefs. This, of course, is not someone that any level-headed individual would want in power. Even in the end, he turned on his own citizens ("purebred" Germans, that is) that he so brazenly claimed he supported by sending their families and children to war and almost-certain death. 

Nowadays, though, any leader who prioritizes their country's citizens, families, economy, and overall wellbeing is slandered as a "fascist" or "NAZI". Supporting your own fellow countrymen, wanting safe and secure borders, good salaries, and your own revenue to support your country is now a fascistic belief? It seems like we are living in an episode of the Twilight Zone. So, how do you swing the pendulum back? How have we turned into a country with little to no identity, distrust of our fellow neighbors, and hatred for the same document that provides the freedoms to do all the things we love and live our lives as we best see fit?

Today, the Constitution, which protects our God-given rights, is looked at with disdain by a not-insignificant chunk of the country. Many U.S. citizens have contempt for our country because of its imperfect history. America, though, has made huge strides towards correcting its past wrongs, yet still is seen as irredeemably evil. In addition to this, our country supports a plethora of other countries financially across the world and has an allegiance to them should a war spring out. Why?

Much of the time, if you ask an immigrant where their allegiance would be in a time of war if it came down to America vs. their homeland of origin, they very often will side with the latter. This is unacceptable, and it's why our country is losing its identity, its strength, and sense of community. Many come here and refuse to assimilate, refuse to support American beliefs and values, and take advantage of all it has to offer. 

People wonder why many conservatives/Republicans like myself believe in a leader who supports the nation they belong to. Saying that in today's world gets you called a "Nazi," "bigot," "racist," and every other name in the book. The further we go down the road of criminalizing anyone with an allegiance to America, the harder the pendulum is going to swing back when we have a leader who truly supports American citizens and American values. If people refuse to assimilate to American morals, traditions, and values, they should not be welcomed, and should be turned away. Is that to say you can't practice your religion? No. Is that to say you can't be anything other than white? Absolutely not. If you don't believe in freedom, capitalism, the Constitution, and the nation's core foundation, you should think twice about emigrating here, and our government and citizens should not welcome you.

So, call it what you like, but the strongest nations in the world are the ones who have a citizenry with love and belief for the nation they reside in. A prime example of this is Poland. Currently one of the safest countries in Europe, doing the best to keep their citizens safe in a particularly volatile time in history. Meanwhile, other countries such as England, Germany, and others are importing citizens from third-world countries in the name of "morality" and having their citizens terrorized and their government aide systems sucked dry.

So, when you think of someone as a "NAZI" who supports their own country's wellbeing and that of their fellow countrymen, ask yourself a question as to why you immediately get labeled with a derogatory name. We are on the edge of a very steep cliff right now, especially with many conservatives losing faith in the Republican Party for not truly being America First. America better do something fast to get back on track for its citizens and itself or I fear something bigger and scarier may be coming in our lifetimes. 

Christopher Turturro, born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, is an HVAC mechanic and 

U.S. Air Force veteran.

Conservative Infighting, Cognitive Empathy, and How We Move Forward

 

By Frank Filocomo

It seems like there's just too much going on in the world right now. It's head-spinning, really: The Brown University Shooting, the Bondi Beach shooting, the internecine Civil War brewing in the American conservative movement, and the emergence of nasty online personalities and podcasters accruing unprecedented followings. 

With all of these events still unfolding, it's hard to find one thing to zero in on. Thus, the following are some thoughts I've had bouncing around the ole noggin concerning two matters in particular: Infighting in the conservative movement and how we ought to think about bigotry. 

The Turning Point USA Debacle:

If AmFest 2025 was supposed to be a look inside the future of the modern conservative movement, color me pessimistic. Instead of a continuation of America's rich conservative tradition (I'm thinking of figures such as Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr., Pat Buchanan, and others), what we got was - barring some notable exceptions - a collection of crackpot internet personalities with, I would wager, little to no comprehension of conservatism properly understood. 

Tucker Carlson emitted platitudinous slush about why dialogue is important and proceeded to utter his unsettling, cartoonish cackle; intellectual firebrand and rapper Nicki Minaj read off her sardonic Tweets about Governor Newsom and glazed Trump; and one Groyper questioner grilled Ben Shapiro on the topic of the USS Liberty attack, a common talking point of Israeli-skeptics and Fuentesian trolls. 

The elephant in the room: Jews. These folks can talk about how their gripe is with Israel and "forever wars" all they want, but I'm not sure I buy it. The irritation seems to be with American Jews, whom Fuentes and his supporters despise. To Fuentes' credit, at least he doesn't beat around the bush in the way that Tucker does. 

To be sure, Buchanan and others in the conservative movement had intelligent reasons for not supporting Israel. His books are well worth a read. The Groypers, however, just don't care much for Jews. This isn't hard!

Navigating the GOP's Fuentesian Takeover:

According to former senior editor of The American Conservative, Rob Dreher, "between 30 and 40 percent of the Zoomers who work in official Republican Washington are fans of Nick Fuentes."

Make of those numbers what you will, but the fact of the matter is that far-Right Groyperism is ascendent, at least among disaffected young men in Republican circles. 

I recall, back in 2017 or thereabouts, strongly disliking Fuentes and his ilk, for, in my opinion, the little video-gaming troll was taking a salient message - the paleoconservatism of Pat Buchanan - and de-intellectualizing it and turning it into a low-IQ meme. See, Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, and others, had good points to make regarding the perils of trade liberalization, globalization, unfettered immigration, and myriad social issues. The not-so-thoughtful Groypers, however, co-opted paleoconservative messaging - which, again, had its merits - and turned it into something fundamentally unserious. 

I fully expected this cheapened version of Buchanan's message to die on the vine, but alas, here we are nearly a decade later. 

The reality: Fuentes and his followers aren't going anywhere. This is a fact that GOP-insiders will have to shake hands with. 

The answer to the Fuentes question, though, should not be censorship, debanking, or deplatforming of any kind; that's what the Left does. Fuentes' claims - most of which are utterly false, and rebarbative - ought to be defeated on the merits, not by shadowbanning. 

Establishmentarians on the Right, though, must get this through their thick skulls. 

Mark Levin is a good example of what not to do. 

At the Republican Jewish Coalition's Annual Leadership Summit last month, Levin - known for his strident monologies - said the following about cancel culture:

What do you mean we don't cancel people? We canceled David Duke. Donald Trump canceled David Duke. We canceled Pat Buchanan. We canceled the John Birch Society. We canceled Joseph Sobran. We canceled pornography on T.V. We cancel stuff all the damn time. Hitler-admirers, Stalin-admirers, Jew-haters, American-haters, Churchill-haters... You're damn right we're going to cancel them and de-platform them. 

Again, this is not the way. Canceling the Groypers won't make them go away; it will embolden them. Right-wing provocateurs often flex the amount of platforms they've been canceled from. Fuentes, whose wildly-popular show has been relegated to Rumble, has demonstrated that mainstream deplatforming only makes him a more formidable force. He has become something of a free-speech/ anti-censorship martyr. If conservatism's gatekeepers continue this push for cancelation, his following of disenfranchised young men will only grow.  

So... What Now? 

As to where we go from here, I defer to editor-in-chief of NonZero, Robert Wright, who advocates for the practice of "cognitive empathy." 

The following definition is instructive:

Cognitive empathy—sometimes called “perspective taking”—is a colder kind of empathy. It does involve awareness of other people’s feelings; you can’t fully understand how people are processing the world unless you understand how they react to it emotionally. But cognitive empathy doesn’t entail identifying with their feelings, or sympathizing with these people. You don’t have to wish them well, or care about their welfare at all. This is an especially important fact when you’re applying cognitive empathy to enemies or rivals, which I recommend.

The bottom line of cognitive empathy is heightened predictive power. If you skillfully exercise cognitive empathy—do a good job of understanding how things look from the vantage point of someone—this will make you better at anticipating what that person will do under various circumstances. It won’t make you perfect at prediction; people are really complicated and hard-to-predict organisms. But it will make you better, and in the long run that will pay off for you and the world. 

We ought to take heed of Wright's advice. The reality is that Groypers were susceptible to Groyperization - so to speak - for a reason, whether it be increased social isolation, unfettered feminism, or whatever. 

As Tim Carney astutely points out in Alienated America, Trump won in 2016 by appealing to the "forgotten man." This message of "I hear you, I see you, and I want to help you" had resonance with despondent inhabitants of flyover country, many of whom voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. 

Fuentes has a similar appeal. Earlier this year, he referred to himself as "one of the real disaffected white people."  He claims, in other words, to be "one of us." Young, white, male Zoomers, therefore, see him as their leader, while other conservative personalities - particularly of the Boomer variety - are simply out of touch. 

Americans and conservatives who don't like the Groyper-road, thus, must not make the Levin mistake and seek to cancel Fuentes and his followers. Instead, we must try to understand them and the circumstances that led them down this dangerous path.

This is something that Bret Weinstein, co-host of The DarkHorse Podcast, himself a Jew, understands quite well:

The respectable folks are going to keep telling themselves that Nick Fuentes is just some vile, little troll riding a monster wave of bigotry. I’m going to keep pointing out that they’re misunderstanding the wave, and underestimating him. Ultimately I’ll have to explain Fuentes’…

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) November 9, 2025

Congressman Tim Burchett Might Be Onto Something

 

By Frank Filocomo

In an age of partisan bickering and performative pugnaciousness, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) has set himself apart. 

Burchett, a three-term Congressman serving Tennessee's 2nd Congressional District, has been a voice of sanity, bipartisanship, and civility in politics.

At an event in October, Burchett spoke about his friendly relationship with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes. 

You know, I can respect a liberal. I respect Cortes. She's my buddy. I mean, she's a Marxist. She's a friendly neighborhood Marxist, as I always call her.

Watch here:

Burchett has also commented on his friendship with far-Left Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), saying that "he called my momma when my daddy died." 

Burchett and Cohen fist bump

And, just last week, Burchett hosted a 15-minute Christmas party at the Capitol. Republicans and Democrats alike basked in the Christmas cheer, noshing on crackers smothered in Cheez Whiz and drinking Mountain Dew. Perhaps not the healthiest options, but a hit nonetheless. 

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) and Burchett at Christmas party

Watch NBC's coverage of the party here:

For 15-minutes, politics no longer mattered. The communitarian spirit stole the show. I'd say we can use a lot more of this. 

The Voting Crisis in NYC

By Christopher Turturro

The native should have more of a voice than that of the transplant.

There's a voting crisis here in the Big Apple. The fact that NYC doesn't even require individuals to show state or federal I.D. to vote opens up a slew of issues and possible instances of voter fraud across the board. With NYC being a so-called "sanctuary city," who's to say that illegal or "undocumented" immigrants aren't voting? When going to cast your ballot, poll workers merely ask for your name, address, and date of birth. Everybody has to show I.D. for virtually everything, such as driving, flying, bars/dining establishments, and so forth. Yet, in NYC, city, state, and federal voting seem to be a joke to the powers that be. 

To add insult to injury, hundreds of thousands of people move to these cities and try to radically change them within weeks or months of being here. Whether it's a radical push for Democratic policies or Republican policies, these individuals should not be able to fundamentally change the foundation of what each state is and what each state's native citizens and their families have done to build it, maintain it, and make it what it is today. I'm not advocating that newcomers shouldn't have the right to vote in state, city, or other municipal elections. But, the person who's been here 10 years or more, or even the person whose family has been here for generations, should have a bigger influence on the election than that of someone one who just arrived to the city because it's the trendy place to be. We see this happening in cities all over the the U.S. that once had safe streets and booming economies. Fast forward a couple of years, and they are completely different places due to these citizens who run around the country, vote super hard in one direction, and continue the cycle elsewhere. There are examples of this all over the country.

Aside from NYC, some examples are Dallas, Portland, Los Angeles, and so on. While some of these cities were Left-leaning to begin with, the radical change that we see now is like never before. The future of our cities are being voted on by people, young and old, who haven't even been in the state/city for half a decade and they're voting for disastrous policies and politicians that support communism, socialism, and so forth. The point: a vote from a native inhabitant should far outweigh a vote from someone who just arrived a year or two ago. If you've lived somewhere practically your entire life, invested into the economy, paid taxes, been a lawful citizen of that state/city, why should someone else who just arrived recently be able to vote to overhaul everything that makes the city what it is? Its wrong.

Again, I'm not advocating for American citizens to not be able to vote in their state, city, and local elections, nor am I a politician with the ability to make such rules. I am simply saying the natives should have more of a voice than that of the transplant. In my opinion, a waiting period would be best. You must live in the state, work, pay taxes, be a law abiding citizen, and after a time period you can then vote in these state and city elections. You shouldn't be able to just move here, vote for a radical socialist/communist, and then move home with your parents when you find out that NYC or some other major city isn't for you.

Imagine you have a home and take in a family member in their time of need. Without your consent, they change everything. The layout, the walls, the art, the paint, the light fixtures, appliances and so forth without your approval, AND it affects your wallet. I'm pretty sure you'd be upset, no? Then, when a couple months or years go by and they're back on their feet, they leave. Now, you're left with the burden of the mess they created. And, ultimately, it is your money, home, and issue to deal with. 

Christopher Turturro, born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, is an HVAC mechanic and 
U.S. Air Force veteran.