The Zoomer Loneliness Epidemic

 


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

 


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:

Congressman Tim Burchett Might Be Onto Something

 


In an age of partisan bickering and performative pugnaciousnessRep. 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

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.

The Dating App Blackpill



App-based dating sucks. 

But this, of course, is nothing we don't already know. 

Collectively, we've become left-right-swiping automatons, numb to both connection and rejection alike. 

It's all so mundane. 

In Chronicles, Gage Klipper writes that, instead of using dating apps as an aid to making romantic connections, we've almost completely jettisoned the prospect of meeting people in-person.  

From the article:
While I did meet my wife a decade ago on Tinder, the app then still functioned as a complement to the dating experience rather than an outright replacement.

Klipper hits it on the head here: the apps have effectively supplanted IRL ask-outs. "Shooting your shot" is relegated to DMs. 

Not long ago, a friend of mine asked me to wingman him at a bar. But I had no idea how to. Since I started dating almost a decade ago, I utilized the apps. Being an in-person wingman, though? He might as well have asked me to recite a poem in Mandarin. 

The dating apps are the lens that Zoomers see the world through. Instead of using the apps to our advantage, we've effectively handed over the reins; now, we're paralyzed by them. 

More from the article:

For those who see nothing but romantic misery in their future, the apps become a crutch, even a coping mechanism. In just a few swipes, you can numb the sting of past rejection by proving that you are still desirable—even if this confidence is short-lived.

As Klipper notes, the constant rejection and ghosting one experiences on these dating apps causes us to feel "damaged." Friends of mine have shared this exact sentiment with me. And I know the feeling quite well myself. It sucks. 

Klipper, while acknowledging that his advice is "easier said than done," ends on a sanguine note:

Stop thinking of the apps as a unique torture device designed to inflict as much pain on you as possible, and instead try using them to your advantage as the tool they were meant to be. Cultivate the cool confidence of someone who knows romance always has its ups and downs.

While I agree with the premise here, I'm not sure that re-wiring the way Zoomers approach dating will be all that easy...

A Note of Gratitude

I spent this Thanksgiving weekend with my folks and their orange cat, Morris.

I felt so blessed: good food and even better people. 

Thanksgiving is about gratitude, something in short supply these days. 

Aside from my amazing family and friends, I'm beyond grateful for everyone who has read and promoted The Frank Forum. I started this blog in March of 2023, and already it has accrued 93,000 pageviews. I know that's not much, but it's nothing to sneeze at either!

Anyway, I hope you all had a restful weekend, accompanied by your loved ones. 

On a side note, I've done a lot or writing recently. 

See my review of Lawrence M. Mead's latest book in the University Bookman here

Read my latest on civil society for Philanthropy Daily here

Read my piece on a Bay Ridge pub for RealClear Books & Culture here

To find more of my work, visit the "Other Writing" tab on this site here

Wishing you all an awesome week ahead! 

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 Westhe...