October 6, 2022 (Vol XXXV, Is. III) - Binghamton Review

Editor

O’Toole

O’Loughlin

Manager

Media

O’Sullivan

Emeritus

Gagliano

Writers

Badalamenti

Apostata

Leung

Blakeslee

M.

M.

Madeline Perez

Our Staff

Logan Blakeslee

Madeline Perez

Siddharth Gundapaneni

Midas Leung

Julius Apostata

Network

Review was

by Gary Marsden

Provide the Truth.

Provides the

Shayne O’Loughlin

From the Editor

Dear Readers,

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s that time of the month! Specifically, the time of the month when Binghamton Review comes out with a new issue. Not to say that it comes out the same day every month, or even on a monthly basis (which it doesn’t. Our publishing schedule is something I made up on a whim one night by intoxicatedly throwing darts at a calendar.), but rather every day exists within the time frame we know as “month,” literally making when ever we release this issue the “time of the month.” All in all, Review issues will come out when they’re ready and, more importantly, nobody’s pregnant.

I’m sure many of you quit halfway through that paragraph, and those who stayed probably regret reading it. Well, “Reading is Fundamentally Ill” after all. Hey! That’s coincidentally the name of my article on page 6, where I talk about how reading and elitism go hand in hand when they should be going fist to fist. In a fighting way, if that wasn’t clear.

Speaking of fisting, check out “There’s No Place for Zoning Laws in Binghamton” by Siddharth Gundapa neni on page 10, where he talks about the Binghamton Mayor screwing over college kids trying to live off-campus. Be warned: it may concern you or the people close to you. More specifically, your wallets.

Are you real? Am I real? Is this edition of Binghamton Review real? Hopefully not, as one day I dream this will all vanish, having been some sort of hellish mirage. But who can say? John M. can say, as he does in his article “Postmodern Questions and the Project of Truth” on page 8. Like Neon Genesis Evangelion, this piece is full of introspection, Catholic gesturing, and ponderance of human experience in a way that will pleasantly surprise you.

I am running out of space in the editorial, so let’s try a rapid-fire round. Make sure to peek at Midas’s article “Yik Yak: The Hidden Underbelly of BU” on page 11. It makes me want to reference the 1959 hit “Yakety Yak!” more than any other article ever has. Look no further than page 12 to find “Misunderstandings: Necessary Corrections To “LEFTIST MEME ALERT”” by Julius Apostata, where he talks about me and the wacky, zany, and quirky things I’ve said in my last couple articles. Ponder Logan Blakeslee’s “Austrian Economics: A Genuine Fix to Monetary Policy in the U.S.” on page 5, where he gives his insight on the Austrian School of economic thought. For more information, look up sonic inflation. Finally, read Shayne O’Loughlin’s “Adventures in American Secession” on page 14. “It’s about modern secessionist movements throughout America,” says Shayne. Intriguing! Better start reading! Or don’t, I’m not the boss of you. ...Or am I?

Sincerely, Madeline Perez

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine of conservative thought founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole.

Advice Column

Ioffered

to give you all life advice. These were your ques tions.

I’ve been talking to a girl recently, and she was showing a lot of interest at the beginning, but recently she’s been more distant and awkward. What happened, and does it have something to do with all the times I called her fertile?

I can tell you right now, the fastest I’ve seen women get uncomfortable was when someone else called them fertile. Hell, it made me extremely uncomfortable, almost to the point of purposely crashing my car into the Susquehanna River to eliminate the awkwardness. You really fucked up, so just hope that you haven’t been put on the blacklist of datable people in Binghamton.

It’s in my walls oh fuck help me it’s in my walls. What do?

Sorry, it’s already too late for you. Thankfully, your heroic sacrifice means we can now quarantine your entire neigh borhood to further prevent its spread. You will probably be forgotten

Is it true that Binghamton Review holds weekly orgies in the Library North Underground?

If the event isn’t listed on our B-Engaged then we haven’t reserved the room for any event. So, rest assured, we are not holding weekly orgies on campus. Those occur off campus for select invitees.

Will you do it?

Only if you wire the money to my offshore account.

Speaking of MILFs, is anyone else disappointed by Claudia Tenney’s district no longer covering Binghamton?

You can’t be disappointed in what you never knew existed in the first place, although now that I do know, I am still not disappointed. I hate MILFs.

I had a sexy-Baxter nightmare last summer, and the damp feeling of horror has yet to leave me. How do I stop seeing her in that horrible train station stall?

I don’t even think Binghamton has a train station. Maybe just drive a car like everyone else, you can’t be worse than any of the other drivers in Binghamton. Also, to get rid of these feelings, you should desensitize yourself to furry art.

Written by our Staff

This publication’s EIC threatened to take me out behind the shed and kill me. What is the appropriate response?

Proper citizens of the People’s Republic of Binghamton Re view don’t question the orders of their leader.

I live on a farm. Also, I think this is unrelated, but there’s this… thing… a far-off indistinct-looking guy in a reddish shirt, and whenever I see him, I puke black bile. I guess my question is, how do I talk to freshman girls on campus?

That’s easy! Just use your words, unless those words are fer tile. That should never leave the farm.

How do I get compliments from girls?

You have to talk to women in order to get compliments from them, maybe try that first!

How do I make my boyfriend feel better about his circumci sion 23 years ago?

The same way you talk to someone with a recent haircut. Say “nice cut bro,” and then go about your day as normal.

Why are those people in the edge of my vision getting bigger?

Your medicine is clearly not working, you should up your dosage. Don’t consult your provider first, they don’t want you to get better. It’s actually against their financial inter ests. Down with Big Pharma!

What movie should I spend my evening watching?

Madeline: Robin Hood: Men in Tights

Dillon: The Blues Brothers

Shayne: American Psycho

Sid: Barbie and the Diamond Castle

Arthur: Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal: The Movie

What hurt you enough to write for Binghamton Review?

I was forever scarred by Pipe Dream when I first visited Binghamton University. The paper cut still hasn’t healed, even after several years.

Need life advice? Email Manager@binghamtonreview.com for more wacky, quirky, and zany responses.

Austrian Economics: A Genuine Fix to Monetary Policy in the U.S.

By Logan Blakeslee

Among all mainstream schools of economic thought in the western world, one black sheep stands out. The Austrian School, as it is commonly known, was founded by Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Their ideas and those of their contemporaries, far from being outdated or incompatible with the modern global economic structure, are quite possibly the tools necessary to save it from collapse.

The Austrian School is built upon one crucial fact of life: human beings value things in a subjective and rational manner. This idea can be contrasted with the Marxist principle of Labor Value Theory, which postulates that value is objective and tied to the effort—or labor—put into the production and distribution of a good or service. Followers of the Austrian School observe that when socialist (not social-democratic, like the Scandinavian Model supported by Bernie Sanders) eco nomic policies are put into practice, inefficiency ensues. This inefficiency is created by the leftist assumption that value can be magically separated from supply and demand. In reality, this leads to severe shortages of essentials and consumer goods in countries with planned economies, such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

Mises referred to this historically-repeated outcome as the “Economic Calculation Problem,” which turned socialism from a noble idea into a mathematical impossibility. It also touch es upon how capitalist nations likewise make poor economic decisions for similar reasons. Whether capitalist or socialist, governments can never accurately determine the true value of a good or service because they do not make decisions like in dividual consumers do. Without supply and demand guiding the market, there is no way to observe whether something in the economy is actually wanted by its people. Price signals are integral to deciding what gets produced, always proving to be far more efficient than “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” as the Marxists posit.

Because of the emphasis on guiding economic thought through the lens of individual consumers, the Austrian School is popular among libertarians, fiscal conservatives, anar cho-capitalists, and a few other political minorities on the right. It wholly rejects collectivism as a means to lift nations out of poverty or to maintain prosperity. It also uses a form of logic called “praxeology,” which assumes that human action is delib erate, something that carries over into the everyday decisions people make that affect the market. Unlike the Keynesians or their ideological kin, members of the Austrian School come to their conclusions via a priori reasoning, or simply using theo retical deductions to understand the economy rather than di rect observation. This is a point of contention and perhaps the

foremost factor in Mises’ unpopularity among most academics.

The most pertinent idea belonging to the Austrian School is the Business Cycle Theory. Currently, inflation in the United States and elsewhere is hurting the livelihoods of millions, and supply chain issues continue to plague most industrial sectors. Although the unemployment rate appears low, it does not ac count for individuals who are no longer seeking employment or can no longer find it. Thousands of businesses shut down during the Covid-19 pandemic and a large percentage of them will likely never reopen, skewing the unemployment rate tout ed by liberals in government. The Business Cycle Theory ad dresses these problems succinctly: they were caused by govern ment intervention.

As Ludwig von Mises once said, “Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money without a corresponding increase in the demand for money, i.e., for cash holdings.” When the gov ernment prints significant amounts of money beyond what is needed or lowers interest rates beneath the market rate (accord ing to Dan Mahoney), it creates a fiscal bubble destined to pop. The Trump Administration twisted the Federal Reserve’s arm to keep interest rates low, an action that provided short-term gains and long-term consequences. Likewise, both the Trump and Biden presidencies have overseen unprecedented injections of new money into circulation, as can be seen in the ever-rising national debt.

Is it any wonder, then, that the state of the global mar ket in 2022 is so abysmal? John Maynard Keynes cemented the notion that more deficit spending and inflation can rescue an economy from recession, but this has been thoroughly disprov en since the 1970s. While politicians like to blame COVID for our woes, it only encouraged policymakers to act on their worst instincts and take as much power for themselves as possible, while spending as much money as possible. Average Americans are left to foot the bill for generations to come.

The boom-and-bust cycle of a modern economy is hard to break. It requires a number of reforms, such as ending fractional reserve banking, cutting market regulations, balancing the fed eral budget, and potentially restoring the gold standard. There are pros and cons to each of these suggestions, but they may be the cures to the more endemic disease of government misman agement. In this author’s humble opinion, a truly free market is preferable to the mess we see today. If the White House cares for good advice, they should listen to the Austrians.

“It wholly rejects collectivism as a means to lift nations out of poverty or to maintain prosperity.”

Reading is Fundamentally Ill

By Madeline Perez

Let

me be clear. I am NOT like other girls. I don’t spend my time apply ing make-up and being conventional ly attractive. I don’t own a hairdryer, can’t do dishes, and am able to read an analog clock. Every day, I throw my humble brunette locks into a messy bun and put on clothes that leave ev erything to the imagination until I am nothing more than an idea. I am cyn ical and satirical and refuse to stoop to the vulnerabilities of saying what I mean, though I still believe I am the most genuine person I know. Though an air of despondency hangs around me, I can rest assured knowing there is one factor, above all else, that sepa rates me from the phonies and femmes alike: my literacy.

While the sheepish mobs are busy watching television meant to brainwash them into complacency, I expand my infinity brain by consum ing media in a different way. Through BOOKS. You may not have heard of them, being you only know things like iPad, iPhone, and iPod shuffle. Books are REAL things made of DEAD TREES that you CANNOT CLICK. I make sure to carry one on me at all times, lest a normie mistakes my aloof atmosphere as an invitation for con versation. (DON’T INTERRUPT MY BROODING.) I am actually a lot like Holden Caulfield (not that you would even know who that is, deeming my simile pointless), being that I am the only real person in a sea of pretend ers and fakes. It’s enough to drive you insane, which society already thinks I am. But to me, society is the one that’s insane, and I am the only truly “nor mal” thing about it.

Being a “reader” has a lot of weird connotations. People assume readers are smart, educated, and tend to get an ego complex in the presence of some one independently reading. This nor mally goes as follows:

“Wow, that’s a big book you have there, that must be heavy to carry around! Haha, but seriously, what are you reading? Animal Farm? Wow,

that’s crazy. You know, I used to be a lot like you. I used to read so much. It’s a wonder why I don’t read as much as I used to. You know what? I’m going to get back on the book train! That’s right, I’m going to start reading every day before bed since books don’t emit blue light that tricks your eyes into staying awake longer. You know, I had this cousin once–”

And so on and so forth. This script that people follow isn’t them selves talking; It’s a result of years of societal messaging about how reading is good and makes you smart and is necessary to keep your mind sharp. It’s only my assumption that, knowing this, people feel threatened when they see someone reading in the wild, kind of like how I feel threatened when I see someone wearing their retainer like they’re supposed to. But is any of this true? Is reading good? Could it be bad? Should I stop using rhetorical questions every single time I’m about to make a point? Like the eternally wise words of one of the Magic 8 Ball’s twenty predetermined responses, “An swer not clear.” There are no definite answers to these questions, as they don’t exist in black and white, but let’s dive into them anyway. Let’s tackle these 50 Shades of Grey.

Reading is a form of entertain ment. Reading books is essentially media consumption in the same way

that television, magazines, and radio are media consumption. While televi sion tends to get the short end of the stick, reading is put on an undeserved pedestal. It’s seen as lazy, unhealthy, and worrying to watch television for 8 hours a day, which it is; you desper ately need to touch grass. Meanwhile, reading for 8 hours in a day is more of ten interpreted as impressive, as most well-adjusted people would not want to do that. This is because watching television and listening to things is passive—you don’t need to work very hard to pay attention, and your brain engages in less cognitive processing. Meanwhile, reading is active—it ex ercises the imagination, increases language comprehension and fluen cy, and can activate neural pathways that can make us feel as if we’re actu ally experiencing the story. There’s no question about it, the science is already out: Television kills you, reduces your

“You may not have heard of them, being you only know things like iPad, iPhone, and iPod shuffle. Books are REAL things made of DEAD TREES that you CANNOT CLICK.”

brain’s gray matter, and makes you fat; reading improves your cognition, memory, and gets you hoes. Wait, not that last one. I meant to say it increases your empathetic capabilities through the theory of mind concept.

Wow. After all that science it’s going to be a lot harder to argue my point, but God willing, I’ll still try. Many studies and articles out there as sume that television must be overstim ulating, shallow, and less thought-pro voking. Meanwhile, it’s assumed that books are more calming, provide indepth character analysis, and are more

factually correct. While this is a com mon trend, it’s not always the case; this all depends on the type of media you’re actually consuming. There exists tele vision that increases your knowledge and can calm you. It can make you think about your values, your life, and your relationships with those around you. (Have you ever heard of the mov ie Joker? It says a lot about society.) On the other hand, books can be just as good at perpetuating harmful ways of thinking and shallowly wasting your time. Many stated benefits of reading come from the thought that goes into it, the book being a comprehension puzzle you need to solve. This is what keeps your mind sharp. If the book is not intellectually challenging enough, many of those benefits are lost, and you are left with a form of entertain ment only marginally better for you than good television.

Many have joked about the praise they’ve received for “being a good reader,” while the other person remains oblivious to the fact they are essentially reading “smut,” or sexually vulgar literature. And herein lies the natural progression from book enjoyer to porn junkie many innocent women fall victim to. It’s an insidious pipeline, especially when many more popular or heavily marketed books for women rely on the sexual crutch. Here’s where the double standard between books and other media seems most appar ent, as adult books containing sexual themes are seen as non-threatening while visually erotic material would never be left out in the open in some sort of breakroom or child’s playpen.

Learning more about the world, as well as yourself, can help you feel fulfilled after a novel experience. This goes the same for books, math problems, and the articles I write and publish in this magazine. And only those things.

I have no qualms against people who enjoy this material but only ask for their introspection on whether read ing porn for four hours was benefi cial to them and their life mission. Of course, I am consistent in my belief that detailed sex should be banned from most books, as well as television, movies, and real life.

I got a little off-topic there, but let’s get back to the issue at hand. The benefits of reading can vary depending on how one consumes the book. No, I am not talking about literally eating paper, as much as I would like to. Skim ming over passages and not taking the time to process what you’re reading will obviously not do you much good. By contrast, really concentrating on an audiobook and putting in the work to stay engaged can lead to a better memory of what was said and still help exercise your cognition. Television is challenging to derive as many benefits, cognitive-wise, but it can influence your thinking and leave as much of an impact on you as any book, just as long as you’re watching the right things and processing them afterward. What are “the right things?” Sorry, I said I would stop with the rhetorical questions. The “right things” expose you to new infor mation, worldviews, and exercise your brain’s thinking-muscles.

Educational television, like docu mentaries, can be good for your mind while still leaving you entertained and happy. Contrary to how college makes you feel, learning and understanding new things should lead to an increase in dopamine, the major neurotrans mitter of your brain’s reward system.

Ok, so I’ve established how read ing can be bad and television can be good, as opposed to everything you’ve ever learned. That doesn’t change the fact that society still sees excessive reading as the thing smart, weird peo ple do. And why is that again? Oh yeah, because excessive reading is hard, and excessive television watching is not. Unless… unless the material you’re reading is not intellectually challeng ing you and is a preferred form of entertainment. Unless you have es sentially trained your mind to be able to focus on books for long periods of time, making reading amounts that would be hard for others a part of your routine. This is essentially the trick. Independent reading comes naturally if you do it every day. You don’t have to be any smarter or better at focusing, you just have to be committed.

I have never seen anyone criti cize excessive reading, which is why I find it necessary to start now. While most other unsocial attention-based activities, like television, social-media use, and video games, are constantly under fire (and rightfully so), reading seems to always get the metaphorical get-out-of-jail-free card. But here’s the thing—not all reading is created equal. Not all reading is good for you, and excessive reading should be called out every once in a while for what it is: a glorified form of escapism. It is not “quirky” to spend the entire day in your room reading, just as much as it’s not “quirky” to spend the day reading memes off your phone. It can be harm ful to you and keep you from living your own life, having your own expe riences, rather than the kinds you read about in your books. And that’s not to say I’m perfect, I’m only writing this so people don’t do the same stuff I did. Don’t get me wrong, reading is good for you, but just like everything else, should be done in moderation. Except for reading my articles, which you should do at every possible opportu nity, over and over again, indefinitely.

Postmodern Questions and the Project of Truth

Now, I’m no philosopher, but I do engage with postmodern ques tions about the nature of truth; I feel like anyone looking for the truth now adays has to. Postmodernism has this tendency to pop up everywhere. Some people seem to have very strong opin ions on it, though I tend to wonder how many of those people actually un derstand the logic of the philosophy.

To my mind, postmodernism exposes the foundationless and delud ed nature of the modernist project. We can see this in how the rational project of the enlightenment is coming apart all around us (just think about poli tics). In this postmodern age, truth is a bad joke. There is no center, moral, philosophical, scientific; there are no points of reference. There is only lan guage, an endless media-mind-maze that relies on your confusion to create the illusory narrative of truth from which we draw some meaning (just think about politics). Human beings are not rational creatures, they are narrative-seekers. This is an almost inevitable conclusion from an interro gation of reason and language. When you really question ideas like truth or right and wrong, you will eventually discover a missing piece: “the real.” How can you rationally argue for the existence of a common ‘real’ world if your whole existence is a construct of your senses, which may or may not be interpreting external stimuli ‘correctly,’ if there even is a ‘correct’ way to inter pret reality.

Setting aside the concept of God (we’ll address that later), you’ll struggle to prove much of anything. Every scientific experiment is con structed through your senses, or even worse, a machine or another person who has communicated their sensory information to you. There are many “men of science” who will walk around proclaiming that your mind is just a chemical reaction, that your free will, a fundamental element of your expe rience of reality, is an illusion created

by some advanced physics. In a mod ernist reality, the scientist’s experience of observing data from their machine can prove that all human experience, yours included, is invalid. Postmod ernists criticize this mindset. Most of the public doesn’t.

Things will only get murkier when you push into the realm of log ic and reason that underlies science. What does it mean for something to be “proven” or “exist?” How can we even communicate these ideas with words?

I think that the most accessible piece of media where this topic is explored is George Orwell’s 1984, specifically with Ingsoc’s manipulation of language. Af ter being captured and tortured by the party, Winston is given the opportu nity to ask party member O’Brien any question he wants. This is the ensuing dialogue:

“Does Big Brother exist?”

“Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party.”

“Does he exist in the same way as I ex ist?”

“You do not exist”

For all the horrors in that book, this is the interaction that lives rent free in my head.

Do you know if you exist, read er? You might think and feel like you exist, perhaps you could physically prove it, logically prove it, prove it to yourself by an act of the mind or will, but all those ‘proofs’ can be muddled by language and other labyrinthine philosophical queries which point out the obvious unreasonableness of rea son. Why does science work? It just does. Why does math work? It just does. Why does logic work? We just use it because it helps us make sense of reality. Why does reality have to make sense? Do you see what I am getting at?

These problems go even fur ther than rational thinking. The very

By John M.

connection between words and ideas, the sign and signified, can be blurred. There are some who believe that there is no difference at all: that there is no concrete world behind everything, only what French philosopher Jean Baudrillard would call “the Simula crum.” Only the Simulacrum exists, that web of constructs and signs we create within our minds.

Yet, this all feels so wrong, so laughably out there, seemingly un conscionable to actually believe, so contrary to all human experience. So what gives?

Ironically enough, it is the heart and experience, which the mod ernist tells us to deny, that provides the most compelling (not necessarily the best, but most compelling) defense of the idea of objectivity of reality. The postmodernist can explain away the figures and signs of trees and rocks and rivers, but when you run into one, you can’t seem to explain it away. It just exists, and the postmodern mindgames seem comedically irrelevant to the actual life of a human being. So we now find ourselves in a bit of a bind. To justify the rational systems that we use to navigate and understand our world, we have to borrow from our intuition and subjective experience, but science tells us that our experience is nothing more than an illusory construct of a chemical reaction.

Now, are there any political or philosophical schools of thought which seek to reconcile the rational and subjective elements of human ex perience? Well, there are actually quite a few, but in this article I would like to talk about religion, and more specifi cally, Roman Catholicism. Why Ca tholicism you may ask? To be honest, it’s simply the religion I know the most about because I am a practicing Cath olic (though this was not always so). Catholicism is also a helpful example for the subject of this article because of how literally Catholic philosophy embodies the idea of a center of exis

tence. It is very much possible to dis agree with Catholic theology and the church, while still understanding the project they are desperately building towards. Allow me to explain.

The Catholic and the post modernist are allies in their opposi tion to the modernist enlightenment project. Science and reason lack the ability to justify themselves and fail to complete language and the human narrative experience. You can see this in the almost comedic excesses of the French Revolution: the Cult of Reason, the reconstruction of the calendar, the constant spiraling into ideological vi olence. These are all symptoms of a hollow center. Reason is not a suffi cient principle for human organization and prosperity. In the western world, which is dominated by a weary liberal modernist mindset, the Catholic and the postmodernist actually assist each other in shaking the public out of their rationalist complacency. Where the two differ is in how they address the hollowness of modernism. The post modernist points out all the lies, the biases, the structural violence, maybe they use critical theory to deconstruct liberal narratives or empiricism, and they conclude with something akin to the simulacrum. Everyone’s narratives become equally valid because there is no truth, only language and interpre tation. The hardcore postmodernist argues not that God isn’t real, but that there is no real. The Catholic, on the other hand, has a very different re sponse. The Catholic goes to church, worships God, and maybe tries to share their ideas because they believe that there is such a thing as reality and that God is the center of it, acknowl edged or not. God is truth.

The Catholic church claims to be the one, universal Christian church, with a lineage (apostolic succession) going all the way back to Jesus and his apostles roughly two thousand years ago. Every ceremony, every tradition, every symbol, has been built, council by council, on the foundational so cio-cultural narrative recorded in the bible, which itself finds its foundation in the life of Jesus Christ and the ex istence of God, an infinite omnipotent being that exists outside of space and

time, which itself, somehow, loves you. God is, according to Catholic theolo gy, THE center, that fixed point which creates, orders, and loves existence. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING, is constructed around God. The ideas of free will, morality, nature, beau ty, our narrative life experience, and truth itself, now rather intuitively fall into place (with a bit of philosophical legwork of course). This is the project of truth, using reason and experience to build towards that center point of reality.

I think that religions, Ca tholicism especially, are often stereo typed by the mainstream conscious as close-minded brute acceptances of antiquated practices as truth. Though I often lament how people (even re ligious) fail to investigate the deeper meanings of the traditions we hold dear, tradition itself serves a crucial function of preserving and allowing participation in truth through the ages, without having to literally ex plain every philosophical point, some of which defy language to begin with. Religion is not an ideology (at least, it’s not supposed to be), it is a system of relating oneself to reality. To the Cath olic, worshiping God is not so much an act of blind submission as it is of di recting oneself, physically and spiritu ally, towards the truth: looking to the highest good at the center of existence made manifest in our world by the sac rifice of Jesus Christ. With this proper orientation, one can understand right and wrong (moral concepts that only mean something concrete with belief in God) and find happiness by com plying with his will, one of true love and moral perfection.

Some of the strangest and most apparently superstitious rituals of the Catholic Church are the most neces sary to holding this project of a uni versal truth together. Really I am now hinting at the Catholic sacraments, especially transubstantiation and the Eucharist. To simply explain, transub stantiation is the theological idea that in the Catholic mass the bread and wine are literally transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and that in receiving the eucha rist you are not symbolically, but phys

ically and spiritually in communion with God and his church on Earth. To any modernist, this all sounds posi tively bonkers, but remember what the Church is trying to do here. The proj ect of reconciling human experience, the heart, the mind, and the center of existence, requires going down some pretty unique philosophical path ways. Also, having a bit of faith helps too. Even most atheists place their faith in something, they trust science, they trust reason, even if the founda tion beneath those ideas is something rather nebulous. The Catholic Church holds to the idea of sacred mysteries as phenomena that are beyond human understanding in our mortal lives. In many ways acceptance of mystery (or a general limit to human understand ing) allows for the study of the com prehensible elements of our reality to proceed without hidden doubt or postmodern malaise.

While I disagree with the fun damental postmodern idea that there is no center to reality, I wish more peo ple would ask the questions postmod ernism asks, instead of blindly clinging to their beliefs. It was by encountering and being forced to ask myself post modern questions that I shook off the deeply flawed and baseless modernist assumptions that I used to make about existence. After a lot of philosophical exploration, I have now found myself at home in a set of ideas and practic es that better map on to the real world and my narrative experience of it. I wish more people would understand the “intellectual price tag” of athe ism, and how much of your genuine intuitions about the nature of reality and your own existence are sacrificed when you assume that God does not exist. There is absolutely a new lev el of understanding, happiness, and peace with oneself and the world that occurs when you stop lying to yourself and endeavor to encounter the world as it truly exists. Accept the simulacra or direct yourself towards the project of truth. Do be aware, however, that this will pose many serious mental and emotional challenges, so it is best done with friends and a playful spirit on your heart. Life’s a comedy, don’t be afraid to laugh once in a while.

There’s No Place for Zoning Laws in Binghamton

On July 19th, Binghamton Mayor

Jared Kraham put forth a new housing law with the purpose of “pro tecting the integrity of single-family residential neighborhoods.” In an attempt to diversify housing options available for locals, this law will place significant restrictions on where stu dents looking to live off-campus are able to reside. Unfortunately, the con sequences of this policy will not be as favorable as the Mayor may have hoped.

This law will immediately make the housing process difficult for stu dents looking to move off-campus, many of whom are first-time renters.

A number of houses, including ev erything south of Ayres Street, will no longer be available to students seeking to live with their peers. Many of Bing hamton’s multi-family (R3) residential zones, where students are able to re side, will be converted to single-family (R1) and two-family (R2) residential zones. The language used in Kraham’s announcement gives a strong impres sion that the City of Binghamton will take prosecuting students that live in R1 or R2 zones much more seriously going forward.

As a result of the restricted mar ket for students, rent prices will un doubtedly begin to rise. This stands in stark contrast to nationwide trends of a declining housing market due to ris ing mortgage rates, which are now at their highest point since the Great Re cession. Restricting the housing mar ket while mortgage rates increase is a recipe for worsening financial stress among students.

Now you may be wondering, does this policy only hurt college stu dents? Unfortunately the scope of zon ing laws’ consequences is much larger. As of now, all non-Vestal apartments are located in the heart of downtown Binghamton. It is reasonable to as sume based on Binghamton’s growing industries, like the new metrocenter

By Siddharth Gundapaneni

and whatever may come out of the $500,000 federal funding for an energy project, that there will be a demand for more apartment complexes.

Unfortunately this law, with no type of sunset provision (essentially an expiration date for laws), will hamper the market’s ability to build new apart ment complexes due to areas restricted to only single or double family hous ing.

Similar phenomena can be ob served nationwide. Over the last two years in California, there have been massive pushes to deregulate the housing industry and allow for more apartments to be built. Like Bingham ton, California wanted to preserve the “clean” suburbs sought after by Amer ica’s upper middle class that wished to enjoy proximity to jobs, but be kept away from poorer populations. There’s always been this notion of the white liberal that supports low-income hous ing but not in their neighborhood, and advocates of these zoning reforms em body that stereotype. Soon enough, Binghamton’s poorest residents will be unable to rent apartments in Bingham ton, and will be relegated to competing for R1 and R2 houses with wealthier middle class families. Clearly, Bing hamton’s college-aged population is not the only demographic facing the repercussions of this policy.

Consider California’s housing crisis, ranking 49th in the union for both housing units per resident and home ownership rates. This obviously

stems from numerous zoning restric tions on land-use, severely restricting their housing supply. While Bingham ton likely won’t experience a housing crisis to the extent California is dealing with, we can see similar trends come to fruition through the same mistakes being made. California voters, under standing the ramifications of zoning laws, recently approved of SB 9 and 10, which eliminates many of the sin gle-family zones in the state. Seeing this Binghamton law garner such large support comes at a time when others are going the opposite direction comes as a disappointment.

Housing deregulation is a po sition that must be embraced across the political spectrum. Proponents of a limited government should be sup portive of the government no longer dictating how many people can live in which area. Social justice advocates should foresee a more equitable dis tribution of living standards brought about by an increased housing supply, in addition to “bourgeoisie” interests no longer being held above the work ing class’.

Mayor Kraham’s zoning law is yet to go into effect, with a public hearing set to occur prior to the planning com mission issuing a final vote. It is crucial that this legislation be blocked, for the students that dominate this city’s econ

omy, and for the extensive low-income communities of Binghamton. Zoning laws are one area of politics most de spise, where politicians protect the interests of a select, influential voting bloc. No matter how you feel about the politicians, college students, or locals, one thing rings true for all; zoning laws have no place in policy if we want to see a better Binghamton.

“Binghamton’s poorest residents will be unable to rent apartments in Bing hamton”

Yik Yak -The Hidden UnderBelly of BU

By Midas Leung

If you have ever had a social media account, you would know that an onymity is diametrically opposed to growing your following. Despite this, increasingly more people are opt ing to stay anonymous for the added benefit of staying unaccountable for the stupidity they post. Enter: Yikyak, basically the 4chan for BU students. Many students use this as a place to vent and release their edgy demons when it comes to campus life. Despite the terms and conditions, Yik Yak is rife with people looking for a relation ship or other nefarious needs. It’s hi larious to see people asking for drugs and other illicit things only for others to call them feds looking for their next victim. Not so far off from 4chan expe riences. It leads one to wonder when the FBI/CIA will tempt their next BU student into saying something horrif ic. I mean, it looks as though Yik Yak would be a perfect breeding ground for this—second to 4chan, of course. But I can tell you when the ma jority of people are happy and when they are sad. Cases of people compli menting you are nice and all, until it controls your actions. Group polling is used to make important life decisions. A perfect example of this crowd-sourc

ing would be: “He kissed another girl while he was drunk, Upvote if I should break up with him.” I’m just waiting for the day when someone says the wrong thing and they get found out and chased around. In fact, the same people who would chase them have probably said the same things in their own time.

What’s really great is the horny mfs asking for hook ups and then be ing downvoted into oblivion. But not all are like that; people posting about their mental troubles have shown how great users are when it comes to sup porting those in need. When someone asks for help they usually get some good advice, although most advice is for comic effect. What can’t be helped are the trolls just out to ruin most peo ples day. I think everyone is a troll, but their preferences to one topic or an other determine how much of a troll they are. Moving on, Yik Yak has been a place for many new jokes relating to BU students. Dangerously crossing the

road hoping to get hit by a car in order to get free tuition is either a statement of concern or enjoyment.

It’s nice to know that people from the same place have the same relat able financial problems. This form of encouragement is great; knowing that people are in the same situation makes you want to overcome them and then

gloat at those below you, as is the American way. Funny enough, did you know people who are born rich are more likely to be generous with their money than those who are self-made. The latter are less likely to give up their money because it was through their own hardship that they were able to get where they are. If I were to end this article now, you might be wondering how these previous sentences connect to Yik Yak. I’ll be honest with you, I just got sidetracked and now you guys are on a journey of self exploration the same as I. Let’s continue exploring the culture of Yik Yak.

Many who use it have a sense of community: be it of ethnicity, sports, or social standing. But those who try and stick out too much (i.e. trying to act like a main character) get shut down by downvotes. Overall most of Yik Yak is confessions and mutual understandings of what is going on. Although the people of Yik Yak are di verse there is a consensus of thought. The best part is the talks of “confes sions of the dirty minds of Bingham ton.” How can the number 1 school of New York known as the PREMIER PUBLIC IVY be filled with such de generacy?

“But I can tell you when the majority of people are happy and when they are sad.”

Misunderstandings: Necessary Corrections To “LEFTIST MEME ALERT”

By Julius Apostata

Let me start this by saying the fol lowing: I have nothing but respect for Madeline Perez. She’s a great writ er, a talented artist, an amazing EIC, and a good friend. I also appreciate her leadership of Binghamton Re view, as I know she’s currently main taining it as a free-speech-principled platform that allows the voices of all to be heard, whether the reader per sonally agrees with them or not. All these things are what I genuinely be lieve to be true, and I hope that you, the reader, could understand that. That being said, I recently read Madeline’s two-part “LEFTIST MEME ALERT,” a four-page article spanning two issues regarding her misgivings towards cur rent trends in the conservative move ment, particularly regarding the LGBT community, women, and immigrants.

The article itself does a good job at pointing out some of the more ridiculous elements of these trends; Madeline does hilariously point out the absurdity of certain laws, such as how the “Save Women’s Sports Act” passed in Ohio could force children to undergo genital exams, a clear over step of government. However, despite doing a reasonable job highlighting these more bizarre proposals, there are several points in the article which I believe misunderstand the arguments many mainstream conservative figures make regarding some (not all) of the proposals. Therefore, I see it as neces sary to provide clarifications as to what the conservative argument actually is or things that take away from the arti cle’s main argument.

The first issue comes when the article brings up some of the recent legislation, specifically regarding trans women. Now, it is worth noting that the article’s whole argument is that conservatives apply a “victimhood model,” basically stating that because conservatives don’t approve of some

thing in one’s personal life, they must point to how such a thing is harmful to society or children. Again, it is worth noting that there is truth to this; the recent “groomer” trend among some conservative figures such as James Lindsay is a good example of this type of fear-mongering, which the article appropriately points out as shifting the conversation away from what is actu ally being discussed. What the article fails on, however, is that it does ignore some of the legitimate concerns that some have regarding these complex issues. For instance, the controversy regarding trans women competing with cis women boils down to whether 1) this provides a level playing field for female althetes and 2) if allowing such competition takes away from cis wom en who could have had a spot in the competition.

I should clearly emphasize: I am not making these arguments myself, but these are what conservatives ar gue. It is also worth noting that wom en athletes could qualify for scholar ships from various institutions based on their athletic performance in high school. Should trans women qualify for such scholarships or not? The point I am trying to make to you, the reader, is not to walk away saying yes or no to any of these proposals, but rather the fact that this leads to a cascade of oth er questions whose answers will prove difficult to satisfy everyone. The article seems to at least partially acknowledge this, stating that such matters should be judged on a case-by-case basis, which I respect. However, to simply dismiss these concerns—all of them— as being nothing more than “conserva tive transphobia” represents a partial inability to grasp the full scope of what some of these conservative figures are stating.

Another point where the article seems to get a little confused is when

discussing the recent “Parental Rights in Education” bill. The article again starts by noting the clear controver sy. I especially agree with the fact that such legislation could negatively im pact teachers who consider themselves a part of the LGBT community, who now feel forced to hide their identities to their students (although it is worth noting that the bill’s language specifi cally bans discussion of gender iden tity and sexual orientation, not just discussion of the LBGT community, as the article claims. Still, a fairly horren dous bill regardless). These are serious concerns that the article notes will be a disaster in the making. I myself don’t particularly agree with the bill, either, as the implications for free speech are concerning.

Where she goes wrong, howev er, is the fact that this bill is primarily aimed at an especially young demo graphic of students, with the highest age being about 8 to 9 years old. What many conservatives and the parents who promoted this bill argue is that such ages are not even developmen tally ready for such topics, considering that many haven’t even gone through puberty. Part of the problem with this legislation is the incredibly vague language; what specifically about dis cussions of gender identity and sexual orientation does this prohibit? After all, children are at least partially aware of topics of identity. I suspect that most conservatives would potential ly suggest a cap on what is and isn’t appropriate for discussion for these ages. A teacher should not be fired for having an identity outside of het eronormativity (a reasonable concern given the legislation), but what is the line for what the teacher can discuss? Obviously, a common talking point is “Drag Queen Story Hour”, an often pointed to and exaggerated example of what many conservatives decry as

too far. But what about other parts of gender identity? Where does this fit in this discussion? What should children learn about sexual identity, and, more specifically, to what extent?

The problem in the article is that it assumes children are used in this “victim narrative” to punish teachers (which, in all fairness, is a valid point) rather than where a line should be drawn that will satisfy most conserva tives. Is it true that some conservatives, like Matt Walsh, want to go further, and ban such discussion at all educa tion levels? Yes, and that is obviously wrong. There are very clear points where this bill is simply ridiculous. But again, the article does avoid the ques tion of when such discussion is neces sary and what should qualify, as many conservatives like to bring up, instead going with the victim narrative, which weakens her argument.

The article also seems to have a general misunderstanding regarding the conservative argument on abortion (an issue I am, once again, personally neutral on). This comes primarily in the wake of the Supreme Court deci sion to overturn Roe v Wade, which practically set off an explosion of re newed dialogue in the United States. A controversial decision bound to ignite fury in the hearts of many? Absolutely! A risky political move by conservatives that might prove to have lacked fore sight, given the upcoming midterms? Almost certainly. An issue delicately intertwined with a woman’s bodily au tonomy? Perhaps, depending on what side of the argument you find yourself on.

In this case, the article again ap plies the “conservative victimhood” model, correctly pointing out that

“While I do agree that the people that propose some of the more radical, absurd legislation or take part in the “groomer” labeling are wrong, it is also important to main tain one’s humanity while doing so.”

certain conservative figures point to abortion as ending a life. However, she argues that this is simply to pun ish sexual autonomy, cloaked only by thin desire to save a human life (per haps true with some figures), but she forgets to include an additional piece of information that many conservative voters apply to abortion: conservatives believe that life begins at conception, meaning that once the sperm and egg form a zygote, it becomes a human be ing which can eventually survive out the womb. When does this life, and by extent personhood, begin? Again, that depends on who you ask, but again there is a necessity for a zygote to be formed.

The article does suggest that fro zen or discarded embryos from in-vi vo fertilization (IVF) should qualify for this treatment, and that conser vatives should care about this waste. While I do think there is some truth to this in that it does present hypocrisy on part of conservatives, I also believe the reason conservatives don’t care as much about wasted frozen embryos as opposed to abortion is likely a result of their designed purpose. IVF provides options to at least preserve the embry os for a period of time, as this is meant primarily for those with fertility issues, although options exist for donating these samples for research. Abortion’s primary goal, by contrast, is a termi nation of the pregnancy. The fact that these other options for in-vivo fertil ization exist is likely why most con servatives don’t usually don’t usually focus on frozen embryos. Could one dismiss the idea that an embryo has at least some degree of personhood so easily, as conservatives would argue? Is it true that some conservatives try to ban contraception for certain reasons? Yes, and this is a valid point, but again there is a bit of hand-waving that does ignore what conservatives argue re garding embryos.

One last point of contention I have with the article is the way that the author portrays those that pro mote such ideas, to the point where it takes away from the overall piece. While I do agree that the people that propose some of the more radical, absurd legislation or take part in the

“groomer” labeling are wrong, it is also important to maintain one’s humanity while doing so. We have already seen an increasing polarization within our society in which there is an increased contempt for those that don’t hold the same political views as ourselves. We have already seen that those that iden tify to the right of the political spec trum use such labels, such as “libtard”. In my view, such insults are wrong, as it avoids genuine discussion in favor of a quick, easy label. In the article’s case, the author does something sim ilar, using terms like “conservatard” and “republicunt”, for instance. This is, of course, a free speech platform, and it may be tempting to use such terms, especially if you are discussing a sub ject you are passionate about or be lieve something to be severely wrong. However, as a writer, it is your job to persuade the audience with your ar guments; using such labels while si multaneously discussing controversial topics to an audience you are trying to convince you are right makes one come off as childish. You are free to use such terms, but it was deeply dis tracting from what you are trying to say. Again, stick to the argument with out the insults, as it makes for a much more restrained, convincing piece.

With this in mind, I must again emphasize that I mostly agree with Madeline throughout her two articles. There are clear oversteps in many of the things she discusses, and should almost certainly be taken seriously. Between some of the ridiculousness of the proposed laws and the degradative trends in the conservative movement, the article has very good points. How ever, I also believe that there are parts of the article that do miss, at least par tially, of what conservatives do argue, instead substituted for a convenient “conservative victimhood” narrative that, while true in some cases, does take away from the actual points in others. This, combined with the por trayal of these figures, ultimately weakens what should be an otherwise strong piece. Again, this should not be taken as some kind of insult, but rather as clarifications and advice to a mas sive article produced by a friend that I mostly agree with.

Adventures in American Secession

By Shayne O’Loughlin

Your American History class prob ably taught you about the evils of the Confederate States of America, a secessionist government comprised of 11 US states hellbent on maintaining the institution of slavery. After their opponents’ surrender at Appomattox, the Union took on the task of recon struction and reintegration. Even 150 years later, relations between the North and South are still influenced by the American Civil War.

However, scars heal, and with the increasing polarization in the past two decades alone within Amer ican politics, the term ‘National Di vorce’ has been seriously considered. Supporters have different visions of how a peaceful divorce would take place, with some suggesting a multi layered process starting first with sepa rating “red” and “blue” states, and then becoming minute to the point of divi sion along county lines and natural ge ography. While the maps you can find online are fun to speculate about, this article will take a closer look at some of the more popular contemporary seces sion movements throughout the Unit ed States, and their relative chances of success within the near future.

Texas

This has to be first on the list. Texas has a long history of inde pendence that has permeated popular culture, beginning with their state’s or igin.

Due to the influx of American ex patriates who saw the danger to their livelihoods following the abolition of slavery in Mexico, the Texans were able to capitalize on the power vacuum caused by a coup led by Antonio Lo pez de Santa Anna. The battles fought among Texas and Mexico would be called the Texas Revolution (18351836), the most famous of which was at the Alamo, where around 200 Tex ans held out in a siege for thirteen days against the Mexican army. The battle

still captivates the popular conscious ness nearly 200 years later in the rally ing cry, “Remember the Alamo”.

The result of the Revolution was the short-lived Republic of Texas. Although admittance into the US was popular among Texans, its pro-slavery status initially turned away both the Democrats and the Whigs who want ed to maintain the status quo between free and slave states. It would take until 1846 for the Republic to be an nexed as the 28th state, a move which precipitated the Mexican-American War. Texas was later one of the states that rebelled against the US during the Civil War, and holds the dubious hon or of being the last state readmitted afterwards.

In 1995, an organization called the Republic of Texas formed, claiming to have set up a provisional government for secession. In the fol lowing years, the organization faction alized into smaller groups, the most pertinent of which being the Texas Na tionalist Movement, which has since distanced itself from its more militant forebears. On the movement’s website, they give plenty of information about a theoretical independent Texas: under the tab “TEXIT” (a play on words of Texas and Exit in the style of the UK’s own Brexit movement), one can find the process that they claim would lead to independence: a referendum styled after both the UK and Scottish referen dums of 2016 and 2014 respectively.

What is the chance that this movement accomplishes its ends? Many research polls seem to indicate a trajectory towards moderate sup port. A poll by Research 2000 in April 2009 showed that 35% of likely voters thought Texas would be “better off as an independent nation”, but that 35% was comprised of 48% of Republi cans, 40% of Independents, and 15% of Democrats. A Reuters poll in 2014 showed that 54% of Republicans, 49% of Independents, and 35% of Demo crats thought that “Texas should leave

the Union”. In a poll by Public Policy Polling in 2016, they asked the same group of 944 people whether they sup ported or opposed secession. 26% sup ported, 59% opposed, and 15% were undecided. However, when given the hypothetical that Hillary Clinton were to win the 2016 election, the same sample showed 40% supported, 48% opposed, and 12% were undecided.

In January, 2021, Representative Kyle Biedermann of Texas’s 73rd Dis trict introduced HB1359, called the Texas Independence Referendum Act, which was tabled. At the Texas GOP’s Convention, two planks were added to their platform, one reaffirming state sovereignty (Plank 33) and one call ing for “the Texas Legislature to pass a bill in its next session requiring a referendum in the 2023 general elec tion… to determine whether or not Texas should reassert itself as an inde pendent nation,” (Plank 225) receiving 88.64% and 80.17% delegate approval respectively.

The most recent poll from July may be the most telling. SurveyUSA conducted the poll in eight states, mea suring secessionist sentiment by state and political party; Texas polled the highest of the bunch, with 66% of reg ular voters supporting secession. 69% supported a referendum for secession, 81% of them being Republicans. Both the promises of the GOP and polling data suggest that a referendum for Texan independence may soon take place, but the better question now may be about the complicated process of legal secession, something which the United States has never dealt with be fore.

New Hampshire

With the motto, “Live Free or Die,” New Hampshire embodies a libertarian mindset on most every thing: it lacks seatbelt laws, helmet laws, state income tax, sales tax, and it has lax gun laws, being one of many

states to now support constitutional carry (i.e. permitless gun carrying in public, whether open or concealed). It’s no wonder this motto has survived as long as it has in their culture, as it was the first state to declare independence from the British during the American Revolution. This spirit has culminated in some impressive accolades: New Hampshire has been heralded by the Cato Institute as the freest state since 2016, based on such statistics as having the 4th highest quality of life, the 2nd lowest tax burden, and having the 5th greatest educational freedom. It also has the largest state legislature in the US.

These statistics attracted a group of libertarians, called the Free State Project, to migrate to the state and encourage others to do the same, in what is called a “political migration movement.” The Free State Project sets out to influence policy in the low-pop ulation state by attracting libertarians from across the world, with the goal of eventually moving 20,000 to New Hampshire. As of 2022, 6,232 libertar ians have migrated. While not official ly a secessionist group, many members have sympathies with independence. One such organization is the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, which has formed their own portmanteau, “NHExit.” They cite the aforementioned SurveyUSA poll that we considered for Texas, wherein New Hampshirites were 29% in favor of sovereignty, including 52% of Re publicans. 42% of correspondents sup port a referendum, with 47% against. While these numbers may seem prom

ising for the secessionists, one should keep in mind that 58% did not sup port immediate secession. As such, the New Hampshire secession movement still seems to have a long way to go.

Hawaii

For hundreds of years, the Polynesians who settled on the Hawai ian islands enjoyed relative prosperity, bound only to their material limits. Sometime in the 1200s, Tahitians set tled the islands and brought with them Eastern Polynesian language and cul ture. In 1778, a British explorer, James Cook, landed on the island, and in the proceeding 75 years, the population of Hawaii halved after the introduction of new diseases. Kamehameha the Great established his dynasty in 1795 after officially uniting the islands.

The islands faced change at a har rowing pace: in only a century, Hawaii became a kingdom, opened trade with the western world, brought in huge profits from whaling and sugar har vesting, saw its population fall from disease, made multiple constitutional changes following troubled succes sion, and witnessed the fall of their monarchy in a coup in 1893 (with some American involvement).

A four-day revolt in 1895 was quelled and led to the official abdica tion of the throne by Queen Lili’uo kalani, and McKinley would sign the Newlands Resolution in 1897, making Hawaii a territory of the United States. The importance of the military base in Hawaii at Pearl Harbor is established in every US History class, after an attack on it on December 7th, 1941 convinced the US public to go to war against the Japanese in World War II.

Despite the rapid westernization of Hawaii (or maybe because of it), in digineous culture still remains to this day among the locals. Even in the con tiguous US, it’s not uncommon to hear of schools having Hawaiian-themed holidays where children wear leis and colorful tropical shirts. In the state it self, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I still participates in important local ceremonies.

During the cultural leftist move

ments of the 1960s and 70s, the rise of Native American and Indigenous Peo ple’s movements spread throughout reservations and communities, where discussion over the colonial efforts of the United States were seriously debat ed. Hawaii was not free of this discus sion. An organization known as the Aborigional Lands of Hawaiian Ances try (ALOHA) hit its stride during this era, supporting a bill that would give reparations to the Hawaiian people. The organization saw mild success, in fluencing Congress to form a study by historians to determine the degree to which the U.S. participated in the 1893 coup. Another important organization in the fight for Hawaiian secession is the Nation of Hawaii, which posits that Hawaii should reinstate its monarchy with Dennis Puʻuhonua Kanahele, a distant descendant of Kamehameha I.

In 1993, a full century after the coup, the U.S. Congress acknowledged that the American involvement in the coup was illegal, in what was called the Apology Resolution. It received twothirds support from both chambers of Congress, in a moment that vindicated the broader movement.

Recent criticisms of the Hawai ian independence movement consider how native control would exist within a free Hawaii: If the US were to “re turn” power to the people of Hawaii, one would have to acknowledge the demographic changes within Hawaii itself. As of 2021, only 10% of the state’s 1.4 million citizens considered themselves native Hawaiians. If the impetus of the movement is the re establishment of the Hawaiian mon archy and control of the government under the natives of Hawaii, then such a government would need to receive a nigh-unachievable majority support.

If the “National Divorce” were to come to fruition as many pro pound, it will come down to the move ments begun within the states them selves to start the domino effect of secession. In this future, the best case scenario is for these states to set an example of the peaceful transition of power from the federal government to the new nations in question, a process unprecedented in American history.