BINGHAMTON REVIEW
P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXX, Issue IV
Editor-in-Chief
Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Kayla Jimenez Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot
Business Manager Jason Caci
Editor Emeritus Jordan Raitses
Associate Editors Adrienne Vertucci, Colin Gilmartin
Staff Writers
Aditi Roy, Luke Kusick, Chris DeMarco, Jordan Jardine, Tommy Gagliano, Thomas Sheremetta, Matthew Rosen
Contributors
Annoyed Observer, Sam Hyde, Anonymous
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
BANNING GUNS WILL NOT STOP MASS SHOOTINGS
PAGE 9
by Tommy Gagliano
6 Entertainment and Politics Don’t Mix by Thomas Sheremetta 7 The Rebrand of Deutschland by Jason Caci 8 The Politicization of Tragedy by Annoyed Observer 10 Response to “Denouncing white supremacy” by Anonymous 12 Flexin’ On These Haters by Chris DeMarco 15 10 Ways to Increase Alt-Right Membership by Sam Hyde
Departments
3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch ft. Memes
Throwbacks
14 An Old Pipe Dream Interview
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXX, Issue IV
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
I
From the Editor
figure you’re tired of number references. Yeah, we get it, you publish (#PublishNashYall). On a serious note, you may have noticed our more somber cover. On behalf of the Review I want to extend my deepest condolences to the victims and the families of victims of the Las Vegas shooting that happened earlier this month. As the largest mass shooting in modern American history, now is a pivotal moment to decide how to move forward as a nation. Having those tough conversations through rational debate while still maintaining appropriate levels of empathy and emotional support for victims of violence in our country is a challenge we all face, no matter our political or social background. A few of our writers tackle exactly that topic, and hope to start that conversation. Tommy examines the particulars of the Vegas shooting and concludes that preventative measures for the future look bleak. An Annoyed Observer comments on the quick politicization of violent tragedies, and calls out hypocrisy on both sides. Thomas moves to a general denouncement of celebrity involvement in politics, making a clear case for the purposes of certain entertainment platforms. Jason observes the rise of the right in Germany, and claims that this is because of the deep entrenchment of establishment politics. The anonymous writer behind “Is White Genocide Real?” in Vol. XXX, Is. III of the Review continues the conversation in response to a Pipe Dream opinion piece claiming that the anonymous writer promoted white supremacist ideals. Chris issues a condemnation of haters of the Review, and makes an outline for the principles behind some conservatives’ beliefs. Finally, notorious “lone white gunman” Sam Hyde issues recommendations to leftists on ways to continue to grow alt-right membership (I didn’t think it needed to be said, but this one is satire). We also have included an old interview our staff once gave Pipe Dream, and to be honest the sentiment is not much changed from our original answers. Sorry not sorry fellow publications. (Although I’m sending a personal shout-out to the Binghamton Law Quarterly; you have interesting and thoughtful topics. Good work.) I’ve been meaning to include this amazing quote for a while now, and I think it summarizes the conservative/libertarian ethics pretty well. I’m keeping the person’s identity anonymous, and the quote may not be exactly right, but the message is clear: “There are two ways to get people to do unpleasant things. You can pay them with money, or you can beat them with whips. And if you aren’t in favor of paying people with money, then you are in favor of whips and chains and starvation and labor camps.” Please, for the love of your chosen deity, let’s choose the non-whip option in our interactions with each other.
Sincerely,
Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, studentrun news magazine of conservative thought at Binghamton University founded in 1987. 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 those divergent 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.
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
3
CPampus resswatch We know you don’t read the other camppsu publications, so we do it for you. Original quotes are in regular text, our responses are in bold. “SA cuts NY Times delivery program” Orla McCaffery, Pipe Dream August 28, 2017 “Last year, the Student Association (SA) budgeted $24,546 for the program…” Why was the SA dropping thousands of dollars to provide “free” copies of the New York Times to the students? I’ve never once seen a student pick up a copy, nor did any of the students I know do so. This money will finally go towards supporting student groups and activities, rather than being wasted on something a majority of students don’t value. “PETA deconstructs speciesism” Gillian Kenah, Pipe Dream September 28th, 2017 “Speciesism attributes the exploitation of animals under the pretense of human egocentrism, or the idea that humans are intrinsically better than or superior to animals.” This argument is crap… and here’s why. Sorry I feel that I’m a tad more elevated than an animal that would eat their own feces if it looked appetizing. These animals couldn’t find their way out of a farm-animal-sized paper bag and I get the feeling that I’d get out just fine, not to brag. Am I playing exactly into the quote I just copied into this paper? Yes. Do I care? No. bacon, chicken cutlets, steak, and pork chops taste good. Deal with it. “Considering the ethics of veganism” Hannah Rosenfield, Pipe Dream September 28th, 2017 “... with this in mind, I do wholly support veganism. It is undeniably a choice that is better for the Earth, as well as one’s own body.” Pretty sure I read somewhere that a new study found that plants are somewhat conscious of the fact that they’re
4
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Written by our Staff
being harvested and consumed by us. In that case, what are vegans supposed to eat now? Dirt? Air? Filter-feeding?! Taking a page out of Spongebob’s playbook?
“Fun” Comics Nate Walker & Annabeth Sloan, Pipe Dream September 28th, 2017 These comics are flat out bad, possibly depressing. I can’t see how someone could be proud of these jests that have somehow waltzed their way into the “Jokes” section of a publication. Both artist and editor are at fault here for the “Charlie Bit My Finger” quality comedy. Do better. “Understanding the historical neglect of Puerto Rico” Sarah Molano, Pipe Dream October 5th, 2017 “Despite the fact that the U.S. Congress has full jurisdiction over it, Puerto Rico does not have a voting representative. While Congress can make decisions that affect Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico does not have a say.” No mockery here, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States and therefore should be treated with respect. Piggybacking off of the author’s notions, if Congress and the president have full jurisdiction over them, the citizens of PR should have more of a say in their future, whatever they deem acceptable. Bravo for the thought out piece.
“Supporting sexual assault survivors” Kara Bilello, Pipe Dream October 5th, 2017 “If we rely on an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach, then we risk missing those who are, in fact, guilty, while compounding more shame and doubt on the victim” Let me preface this by saying victims of sexual assault and/or rape deserve the utmost sympathy for enduring the despicable acts done onto them by the savages doing so. However, we shouldn’t throw away the judicial system that is the backbone of this country. We can’t disallow the “innocent until proven guilty” philosophy for the outlier cases where the offender gets away scot-free. Not to mention the cases where the offender is wrongfully accused from a vindictive prosecutor. “Salvation Army builds new facility” Caelum Rogers, Pipe Dream October 5th, 2017 “Some residents of the North Side of the city of Binghamton are forced to take city buses across the river to Downtown Binghamton to receive help from the Salvation Army, often spend-
Vol. XXX, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM ing extra cash on bus fare.” Newsflash, no one is forcing these people to take the bus, which again, newsflash, costs money. Don’t spend the money you don’t have. Plus, walking costs nothing. If you’re tight on cash, consider other options before dropping cash on a bus, and also don’t complain.
Nothing says simplifying and misconstruing political talking points more than memes! So that’s exactly what we’re gonna do.
“Economic Energizer” Sasha Hupka, Pipe Dream October 5th, 2017 “‘[Charge CCCV]”, with this great invention, is now ready to go to the next step, which is to create a factory to actually make these batteries and produce these batteries,’ Cuomo said. ‘Where are they going to do it? Right here in Endicott.’” Smart! “Help” this invention really take off by producing it in a high-cost area! Thanks, Cuomo. “Fun” Comics Nate Walker & Annabeth Walker, Pipe Dream October 5th, 2017 Nate, you almost redeemed yourself with your “#tallpeopleproblems”. I can honestly say I internally chuckled, then quickly remembered the steaming pile of garbage you pumped out onto the September 28th issue. Keep up the mediocre work sport. Annabeth… BOI. Your comics, ahh your comics, they give me headaches… HEADACHES! To be fair, I laugh at these comics, mainly because they’re so lackluster, keep making me pity laugh, until next time *Fedora Tip*. Shout out to The Binghamton Law Quarterly, the only other tolerable publication on campus! Keep killin’ it… also fix your layout.
editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5
ENTERTAINMENT AND POLITICS DON’T MIX
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Entertainment and Politics Don’t Mix By Thomas Sheremetta
N
othing is better than coming home from a long day of schoolwork and winding down. Some people use this free time for social media, YouTube, video games, and television. We use these forms of entertainment as a way to clear our mind from our real-life affairs. These affairs can include triumphs, hardships, and everything in between. Another affair we must deal with on a daily basis, whether we like it or not, is the conversations of modern politics. However, by no means should we be forced to listen to our very own entertainment figures spew their opinions at us. Even the most passionate activists need time away from politics. When celebrities use their entertainment platforms as a tool to voice their opinions, they alienate any viewers that disagree with them, which is not good for their image. During an awards show or late night sketch, you are speaking to the masses. But, believe it or not, those masses didn’t flip on the channel to see you preach your views. Since the 2016 presidential election, there has been a call to action to voice your opinion on any public platform possible. Whether it be talk shows, award shows, or sports events, it is likely that someone will get political (we’re looking at you, Colbert and Noah and Kimmel and...). Due to this constant insertion of politics in inappropriate environments, viewers have been deciding to tune out the nonsense plastered on their screen. The question is whether these part-time activists will figure out the damage they are doing to their careers. First, let us establish that not only do viewers disagree with hearing the point of views of celebrities on public platforms, but other celebrities also disagree with it. Celebrities such as Billy Joel, Mark Wahlberg, and Kevin Hart all understand that it is not their place to speak politics.At least they are putting their viewers first, rather than possibly alienating them. However, these celebrities become overshadowed by the “woke” ones. Like I stated before, viewership is dropping on shows that are not intended to be political. Let’s start off with the most recent awards show, the Emmys. Put aside the people running the show this year, such as the chair and treasurer who happened to be Hillary supporters that donated to her campaign. Also, put aside that the “The Sexual Spectrum” episode of Bill Nye Saves the World was nominated for outstanding writing. By the way, watch the video of the song that aired on this episode. It’s not only far from outstanding writing, it’s downright uncomfortable. Even with Stephen Colbert as host, they couldn’t stop the train wreck from happening. The number of viewers for the 2017 Emmy Awards was at 11.38 million viewers, tied for its previous all-time low. It’s no surprise since celebrities treated the show as a shooting range towards Donald Trump. We’ll have to see if it continues to decrease because of this liberal bias in the upcoming years. We’ll also have to see if rewards shows return to being about awards. Next, let’s discuss late night shows. I think most of us can agree that the main reasons for these night shows are for celebrity interviews and comedic entertainment. However, they have
6
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
also joined the whirlwind of politics. Maybe they’ve forgotten, but you’re supposed to be funny, not spew opinions on modern day events like a “news” show. It tends to show where they stand on politics since none of these late-night hosts have a large Republican viewership. Breitbart writes that “a THR poll showed Colbert’s audience is only 17 percent Republican, as opposed to 33 percent for Kimmel and 31 percent for Fallon.” As you can see, they seem to not care since they pander to the majority of their audience on politics. However, Stephen Colbert really bit the bullet when he took over for Letterman and moved from the 3rd highest viewed late night show to the 4th. Someone should try to tell Colbert that trying to appeal to young liberals doesn’t work out well since they’re not his major demographic. But, I’m sure they’ll continue to involve themselves with politics because our public is so fascinated by the uneducated opinions of people living on Cloud Nine. Finally, the worst thing about all of this goes beyond the ratings. The main issue is that these celebrities just don’t know what they’re talking about. They make these generic statements that you would see on a Facebook comment thread and yet, people can’t get enough of it. There are celebrities that have literally called for the death of President Donald Trump and no one on the left bats an eye (Johnny Depp and Madonna, for example. And Kathy Griffin if you’d forgotten). I thought most logical people would not care at all what celebrities say but that’s not the case in modern-day America. For example, Jimmy Kimmel has gotten a lot of kudos for his monologues on healthcare and the recent Las Vegas shooting. It’s very easy to trend on YouTube when you pander to viewers that don’t need facts to believe in something. Kimmel is not fooling everyone else, and I wouldn’t be surprised if people caught onto his game. Let’s not forget that all his talking points for his healthcare crusade were fed to him by Chuck Schumer, without considering the point of view of any Republicans. The fact that a show initially made for comedy decides to engage in politics and only considers one side of said politics is a bit concerning to me. The way entertainment is shifting in our world is frustrating. Whether you agree with the politics they speak of or not, we don’t watch these forms of entertainment to be lectured on political issues. We need to remember that these are two different entities. A celebrity should entertain the masses, and a news channel should discuss politics. Sources: http://deadline.com/2017/09/emmy-ratings-2017-down-lowsean-spicer-stephen-colbert-donald-trump-handmaids-tale-sundaynight-football-falcons-packers-cbs-1202172324/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30YkSGXgcBI http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/12/16/latenight-losers-trevor-noah-stephen-colbert-suffer-ratings-collapse/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/22/jimmy-kimmelgot-help-from-schumer-in-health-bill-battle-report-claims.html
Vol. XXX, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
THE REBRAND OF DEUTSCHLAND
The Rebrand of Deutschland By Jason Caci
D
espite the fact that Angela Merkel won her fourth consecutive term as Chancellor of Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the right wing populist party in Germany, is on pace to secure 88 seats in the Bundestag, according to the Guardian. In hindsight, it might not seem like a lot of seats when one sees that the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) will secure 137 seats and the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) will secure 237 seats. However, in the grand scheme of things, this is a huge win for right wing populism in Germany. This marks the first time that a right wing nationalist party will have a seat in the Bundestag since the immediate aftermath of World War II. Clearly, the German people are sick of Angela Merkel’s policies of letting refugees into the country. Merkel even reaffirmed a few times that she did not regret taking in so many refugees. As a result, the German people showed their stance at the polls when they voted for more right wing nationalist candidates than usual. Germany’s population consists of mostly older folks, specifically those over the age of sixty years old. Pas-
“The problem with Germany’s government is that it has become too stable. As a result, people start to view establishment politics as the norm. Then, every event, detail, and person becomes politically correct.” cal-Emmanuel Gobry of Bloomberg indicated that “younger people disproportionately support either less establishmentarian parties or don’t vote, showing alienation from the political establishment that has steered Germany since the end of World War II.” This is huge because the establishment parties have not preached the importance of family in a culture, and in the long
editor@binghamtonreview.com
haul, Germany will have a shortage of workers if the population continues to have a majority of folks older than sixty years old. This is a reason why in the next decade or two India is projected to overtake Germany in the ranking of the world’s highest GDP. That is where the difference in population size comes from. However, another reason is the fact that, instead of refugees, the young people of Germany want to be the ones that fill the void in the shortage of jobs. Based on the discontent shown from the younger voters, maybe the establishment parties will make the issue of families as a bigger focus of discussion. Typically, European countries such as Germany have a larger margin of error when it comes to having left wing policies implemented because immigration is normally not an issue. In the United States of America, immigration has been a focus for several years. This is due to the loophole-ridden immigration policies that the United States imposes, and selective enforcement on the part of the executive branch doesn’t help solve the problem. However, now that refugees in large numbers have arrived in Germany, people steer more to the right because they feel as if their culture is being threatened by the refugees. The problem with Germany’s government is that it has become too stable. As a result, people start to view establishment politics as the norm. Then, every event, detail, and person becomes politically correct. There is no counter-cultural movement to face off against the politicians. Eventually, a stable government will reach its tipping point with the opinions of people because the public will grow tired of the status quo. I believe this most recent election was the beginning of the turnaround. This pales in comparison to the United States in regards to the general view of politicians over the past decade. During President Obama’s first few years in office, he had a pretty
large favorability rating. According to the Gallup poll, in the last few days of his presidency, his numbers were high. His approval rating stood at 59% due to the fact that most Americans were not satisfied with Trump on a personal level as they were with Obama. In the end, people should take polls with a grain of salt (look at the 2016 presidential election). Basically, people were tired of identity politics and felt that the social justice messages were being shoved down their throat. They felt as if they had lost their identity as a result of the message of diversity being preached constantly. Overall, this is a wakeup call not only for Germany, but for the rest of Europe. Europe usually goes as far as Germany goes since Germany has the highest economic input out of all the countries in Europe, as well as the de facto leader of the European Union. The citizens of Germany are making sure that the country that has had their culture intact for hundreds of years still has its boat rowing. Sources:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-29/a-graying-germany-complicates-merkel-s-task http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/ barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx h t t p s : / / w w w. t h e g u a r d i a n . c o m / world/2017/sep/24/angela-merkel-fourth-termfar-right-afd-third-german-election
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
7
THE POLITICIZATION OF TRAGEDY
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
The Politicization of Tragedy By Annoyed Observer
I
t’s the exact same story every time a tragedy ensues. The only difference is in the details. It starts off with grim news reports that get plastered at the top of the trending stories all over social media. Then we get the body count, with more people confirmed injured or dead as time goes on. #PrayFor_____ and #ThoughtsAndPrayers trend on Twitter almost immediately. Shortly after, the perpetrator’s photo, life story, race, and possible motivations are glued to the number of lives they destroyed. They remain on the front page of every major newspaper and cable news broadcast for at least the next 72 hours. Everyone and their mother shares why they think the perpetrator really did it, before the facts are even confirmed. Facebook threads and biting tweets throw anger and frustration around while accomplishing nothing and changing nobody’s mind. A couple of days go by, and as the police investigation uncovers more details of the tragedy, those details get politicized and used to fit a narrative, while the other side pretends to be offended by it, as if it doesn’t do the exact same thing when a tragedy fits their narrative. Rinse and repeat. Sorry, but it’s true. When a Muslim terrorist shoots up a gay nightclub
8
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with politicizing these events as long as it’s done in a respectful manner.” or blows up innocent teens at an Ariana Grande concert, those on the right immediately jump to sarcastic #NothingToDoWithIslam while they point out violent verses from the Quran about killing infidels. Meanwhile, those on the left use the attack in all seriousness to point out that #NotAllMuslims are terrorists and how Muslims are the real victims because they will experience Islamophobia afterwards. The right pretends to be disgusted at the left for defending Muslims’ feelings instead of standing up for victims, while the left pretends to be disgusted at the right for being insensitive to Muslims. Then flip the script. When a deranged white man shoots up a black church, the left blames people who carry Confederate flags, accuses all of white America of white supremacy, and call for widespread gun control, while the right argue against gun control and accuse the left of wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment.
It’s never time to talk about politics at those moments because of the tragedy that just occurred. All of this outrage leads to more outrage and divisiveness and no solutions. We have a moral grandstanding problem on both sides, where we both try and paint the other as the worst kinds of people and then argue why our side has the better principles and ideology. One’s political opponents become evil murderers complicit in the deaths of innocents. Granted this happens all the time, but it’s particularly true during tragedies. This is not to say that there aren’t people who make vile and disrespectful comments online after every mass shooting or terrorist attack, but this is probably not the vast majority of people. When something like a Mandalay Bay or Orlando night club massacre happens, it’s only human nature for people to want to look for answers and solutions. And yes, that means politicizing them. Striving to find that balance, however, is crucial. When something like this happens, we all want to prevent a repeat disaster in the future. It’s both universally agreed upon and inherently valuable to stop senseless and unjust death. Both sides just have two completely different ways of going about it, and that’s okay. There’s nothing inherently wrong with politicizing these events as long as it’s done in a respectful manner. Conversations about policy are necessary by both sides, which is best done when emotional arguments - those pathos justifications - are removed from the picture. This is because both sides can draw upon an endless supply of sad stories to fit their narrative, which are then shared in efforts to make their opponents look heartless. We can mourn and we can call for gun control or immigration restrictions for solace, but as soon as we vilify the other side into oblivion to virtue signal to people on our side, we eliminate any chance of having these difficult conversations and passing legislation.
Vol. XXX, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
BANNING GUNS WILL NOT PREVENT MASS SHOOTINGS
Banning Guns Will Not Prevent Mass Shootings By Tommy Gagliano
O
n October 2nd, 59 people were killed and more than 500 were injured in the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history. The attack took place at a concert in Las Vegas and the gunman, identified as Stephen Paddock, shot at people from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. Paddock was found dead in his room, along with more than 20 firearms, including modified assault rifles. The attack does not appear to be politically or religiously motivated, and therefore has not been declared an act of terrorism. The responses to the attack were exactly as expected - people on the right (such as the InfoWars staff like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson) tried to find a way to tie Paddock to Islam (ISIS did claim responsibility, but the FBI says their claim is false), while people on the left (such as almost every celebrity and Democratic politician) blamed the attack on guns. Both sides are stupid. Paddock was a United States citizen, so obviously no amount of border security or immigration/refugee policy was going to stop him - but stricter gun control, or even an all-out ban on guns, wouldn’t have stopped him either. It was originally reported that many of the rifles that Paddock possessed were legally purchased, but illegally modified into fully automatic weapons. Newer reports, however, have claimed that the guns didn’t technically qualify as “fully automatic machine guns”, and the modifications were legal. Either way, the legality of the guns wouldn’t have made a differ-
“Ultimately, banning guns doesn’t mean anything to people that are already willing to break the law. There will always be a way for people to obtain weapons illegally, the same way drugs are still fairly easy to obtain through the black market or other illegal means.” editor@binghamtonreview.com
ence in light of his tenacity. Although his motivation still remains a mystery for the time being, Paddock was clearly very dedicated to carrying out this attack. Not only did he have 23 weapons with him in the hotel room, another 19 were found back at his house in Mesquite, Nevada. It wasn’t a spur of the moment act of violence and it wasn’t accidental. It was a very wellthought-out, premeditated attack. He was going to get his hands on the guns, whether it was legal for him to do so or not. He shot over 500 people, obviously breaking the law wasn’t a big deal to him. Ultimately, banning guns doesn’t mean anything to people that are already willing to break the law. There will always be a way for people to obtain weapons illegally, the same way drugs are still fairly easy to obtain through the black market or other illegal means. Outlawing guns only prevents sane, law-abiding citizens with good morals from possessing them, and those aren’t the kinds of people that are executing horrific attacks such as the one in Las Vegas. I’m not here to argue about the Second Amendment, or self-defense, or whether more guns means more violent crimes or less. I’m not going to get into the statistics comparing crime in areas with a lot of legally owned guns against areas with very few legally owned guns. All of that is irrelevant when it comes to shootings like the one in Las Vegas. My usual go-to line for gun control debates is “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, but I’m not going to pretend like that applies here. Paddock was 32 floors up, shooting from his hotel room. The odds of anyone finding where he was shooting from, grabbing their own gun, shooting back, and actually hitting him before he killed 59 people are microscopic. The typical gun control
talking points don’t apply to situations like this. There is nothing that could have prevented the massacre in Las Vegas. Traditional gun control methods don’t always catch seemingly normal people like Paddock. An all-out ban of guns pushes people with the means to get them into the black market. He could have obtained the firearms even if they were illegal. More security or police officers endanger an average citizen’s right to privacy, and they would not have been able to get to him in time. In fact, they actually didn’t. An increase in armed citizens in the area would have no way to defend themselves from an attacker 32 floors up. Even if the members of the audience were all armed, the chances of them finding him in his hotel room and shooting him would be incredibly low. Everyone wants to act like they have the solution, but they don’t, because there is no solution. Paddock planned it all out, had his mind made up, and nothing was going to stop him. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by this terrible tragedy. Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/02/ las-vegas-shooting-at-least-58-dead-in-massacre-trump-calls-act-pure-evil.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/02/ stephen-paddock-suspected-las-vegas-gunmanstashed-weapons-in-room-police-say.html http://nypost.com/2017/10/02/fbi-lasvegas-shooter-had-no-connection-to-terrorgroups/ ht t p s : / / w w w. u s at o d ay. c o m / s t o r y / news/2017/10/03/what-gun-used-las-vegasshooting/726743001/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/lasvegas-attack-stephen-paddock-trnd/index.html
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
9
RESPONSE TO “DENOUNCING WHITE SUPREMACY”
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Response to “Denouncing white supremacy” By Anonymous
Editor’s Note: Anonymous is responding to a Pipe Dream opinion piece in the 10/2/17 issue of Pipe Dream. The Guest Author of the Pipe Dream piece was in turn responding to Anonymous’ article “Is White Genocide Real?” in Vol. XXX Is. III of the Binghamton Review. Anonymous felt that their response needed more space than our Press Watch section, which I also encourage you, dear reader, to peruse.
B
efore I begin, I’d like to say that first of all, I appreciate that Guest Author didn’t deface our issues with “they’re fucking Nazis” expletives in response to my article, like somebody did for our previous issues. Instead they (I won’t assume your gender like you assumed mine) did so in the Opinions Section of Pipe Dream, read by thousands of the local student body. So I’d like to respond to every accusation made by Guest Author (GA). GA starts off with a fairly accurate brief summary of my piece, concluding with the idea that I suggested that we need to stop the diminishing global population of whites. I explicitly stated in my article that by the UN’s standards of what is considered genocide, that genocide against white people is not happening in the West. I concluded my article saying that there was nothing wrong with being concerned about declining white birth rates, but nowhere in my piece did I offer a solution to the problem. GA suggests that I said “something must be done to stop it”. Again, I was just pointing out a problem, not its solution. GA then goes on to say that they could argue why white genocide isn’t real (which I literally concluded in my third paragraph, as the rest of the article was about worldwide declining birth rates). GA says they could explain “that whiteness is a social construct developed to justify anti-black chattel slavery”. Last I checked, varying levels of melanin cause differences in skin color, our mitochondrial DNA sequences can tell us exactly where in
10
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
“I’m not white, and your assumption that anyone who looks into the worldwide declining birth rates of an entire population is a Nazi sympathizing white supremacist is in itself racist.” the world our maternal ancestors came from, polygenic inheritance gave us differences in eye color, and epidemiology research uses race and genetics to study the diseases, risk factors, etiology, etc. between the races. So in other words, no. Race is as much of a “social” construct as socialism is an effective market strategy. We all acknowledge that slavery was a disgusting aspect of our history, but white people were certainly not the first ones to use the basis of race to justify it. The Arab Slave Trade started long before the Transatlantic slave trade, where Arab slave-traders justified using black people as slaves because they saw them as their inferiors. GA goes on to say “I could explain how the author’s assertion that indigenous peoples’ oppression in the Americas began after they became a minority to white colonists is an anti-historical account.” In my article I said “I would like to point out the Native American example that gets thrown around by the left, of white people coming over to steal their land and wipe out their populations. Today, they are the minority in their original homeland, and last time I checked, the left agreed that minorities had things much worse.” I’m struggling to find where exactly GA found that I said that Native American oppression began once they became a minority. GA then goes on to my personal favorite line of their response: “I could go into every single statistic and citation and explain why it either doesn’t matter or isn’t real at all. But I’m not going to. Why? Because that
wouldn’t do a damn thing. What’s the point?” I would LOVE if GA went through all of my statistics and citations and proved me wrong on every single one of them. If done properly, it might even have changed my opinion on this topic. The “point,” GA, is that debunking my claims is an actual argument, but instead you continue the rest of the article assuming the worst of me and attacking my character, even though the original article was written anonymously. So here is GA’s pathetic attempt to “expose me for what I am.” “A white supremacist named David Lane coined the now infamous “14 Words,” a sentence that was categorized by the Anti-Defamation League as a white-nationalist dog whistle: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” The author admits in the introduction that the Anti-Defamation League considers this sentence a serious warning sign that an organization might be a hate group. Does he believe them? No, he waves it away as nonsense because the Anti-Defamation League is “the same organization that labeled ‘Pepe the Frog’ as a hate symbol.” GA misses the mark on my introduction paragraph. The whole point of this article was to look into the claim of “white genocide,” since it clearly has different meanings to different people, hence why I described definitions from Wikipedia and the ADL. I included the point about the ADL labeling “Pepe” as racist because this is a legitimate reason why some people wouldn’t believe them and see them as exaggerating the issue. “The fact that it is literally a quote by a white supremacist adapted from a passage of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf ” (“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people”) does not seem to register with the author.” I am well aware of the origin of
Vol. XXX, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM the “14 words,” thank you. Again, the intro paragraph’s purpose was to show what the term meant to others. “Or take Anders Breivik, the terrorist who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011. Breivik cited in his manifesto a series of attacks on white Afrikaners’ farmland in South Africa as proof that there is at least one place in the world where a real attempt at anti-white ethnic cleansing is happening. Not only are those attacks actually the result of anti-colonialist sentiment, as apartheid had only ended a few years prior while most farmland still belonged to the families of nationalist leaders, but they were partially the impetus for Breivik’s attack. Why do I mention this? Because our friend cites these same attacks as evidence for their belief in the myth as well.” So you’re suggesting that because a mass murderer used the same statistic to justify his killings, and I mentioned that statistic in my piece, that I am a would-be Anders Breivik? Tell me, GA, is murdering innocent white farmers justified just because of perceived “anti-colonialist sentiment”? Also, again please tell me WHERE I said that I personally believed in white genocide? So if a radical Muslim uses the ideology of Islam to justify ramming trucks into European citizens or shooting up a gay American night club, does that mean everyone who believes in Islam is bound to behave the same way? “It is not hyperbole to call this rhetoric Nazi-like — it is a civic duty. We need to remember why and how the Holocaust happened. It wasn’t just one man and a few hired thugs. Hitler played on people’s fears of a lost German supremacy being ravaged by invading hordes. That fear of lost German supremacy became the white genocide myth. Don’t believe me? Look at any neo-Nazi website on either side of the Atlantic Ocean and you’ll find that their primary motivation for ethnic cleansing is the false belief that they themselves are being ethnically cleansed.” I can agree with you that the “14 words” is Nazi rhetoric, but you’re trying to suggest that about the entirety of
editor@binghamtonreview.com
RESPONSE TO “DENOUNCING WHITE SUPREMACY” my article, which is just intellectually dishonest. Hitler rose to power mainly because Germany was facing widespread cultural and economic despair after WW1 in the Weimar Republic, not because of mass migration. I agree with you that these extreme Neo-Nazi groups use the idea of the 14 words and white genocide to justify their beliefs, which is why I even did the article in the first place, since the idea has been gaining a lot of traction lately amongst the far right, and I wanted to give a brief and objective synopsis of it. That does not make me a Nazi sympathizer. “That’s why the Binghamton Review should issue an apology and a retraction, and keep this writer from ever publishing an article again. In the meantime, everyone reading this who is as disgusted as I was when they found out there are Nazi and
“We stand on the side of history that said “FUCK YES” to free speech and the only diversity that matters: diversity of opinion. The Binghamton Review oftentimes publishes pieces that its editors vehemently disagree with, because we refuse to censor anyone like how you want to do.” apartheid sympathizers on campus: pay attention to the next issue of the Binghamton Review. If they don’t issue an apology and ignore the problem altogether, or worse, they try to turn this criticism into some sick joke, then you know what side of history they stand on.” We will not be issuing an apology nor a retraction, and I will continue to publish articles with the Binghamton Review. As far as the “Nazi and apartheid sympathizers on campus,” please show me where they are, because last I checked, as a non-white person, the Nazis and pro-apartheid groups in history would have wanted me dead. The only joke here is your pathetic inflation of what was an attempt by me to objectively look into the issue of
declining white birth rates into calling me a Nazi and apartheid sympathizer, making me out to be the next Anders Brevik, assuming my gender, and completely misrepresenting what I said. We stand on the side of history that said “FUCK YES” to free speech and the only diversity that matters: diversity of opinion. The Binghamton Review oftentimes publishes pieces that its editors vehemently disagree with, because we refuse to censor anyone like how you want to do. I just want to remind you that during the era of McCarthyism, left-leaning people were denied free speech on the basis that they would be spewing pro-Communist rhetoric, and people practiced an unprecedented amount of self-censorship, even if they were just your average liberals. This is why it is so important to stand up for the right for free speech, even for those people who you might find absolutely despicable, because the reverse could happen to you. While I personally despise your ad hominem attacks against me and this publication along with your misrepresentation of my article, I’ll still support your right to do so, and I hope you write again. In closing, I would like to respond to the title of GA’s response “Denouncing white supremacy”. If I had just included one word in my article, it would have destroyed your whole narrative. That word would be the inclusion of “POC” next to my authored name, “Anonymous.” I’m not white, and your assumption that anyone who looks into the worldwide declining birth rates of an entire population is a Nazi sympathizing white supremacist is in itself racist. It shouldn’t matter what race or gender I am to discuss a topic, that with a simple Google search, leads to several mainstream news articles discussing the statistics behind the issue. GA, if you’ve made it this far and still think I’m a Nazi, I’d encourage you to check out a piece by Sam Hyde in this issue, if you’re wondering why the far right seems to be growing so rapidly in number and how people like you contribute to it. Congrats, you exposed nothing. - Kisses, Anonymous (POC)
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
11
FLEXIN’ ON THESE HATERS
Flexin’ On These Haters
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
By Chris DeMarco
I
am writing this to all of you liberals who deface the bulletin board of the Binghamton Review, destroy copies of our issues, and incessantly protest on campus. I don’t presume to speak for the Review as an organization, but my voice must be heard. This destruction and obstruction must stop, for several reasons. Firstly, it shows how childish and illogical you are. Secondly, if in fact we, the writers, are wrong about our beliefs, then we are entirely open to critique. Please let us know and we will be happy to discuss anything with you. (editor@binghamtonreview.com, in case you forgot.) If you truly believe that we are wrong, it is your civic duty to have that discussion with us. Believe it or not, we are all on the same side in wanting the best for our country and for the world. This requires both sides to come together and reach an understanding, which we are fully willing to do. Coming together can’t happen without civil discourse as opposed to the wanton obstruction of the free spread of our ideas. If you have a problem with what we write, there are better ways of responding to it than disrespecting our issues and writing nasty things on our bulletin boards. I suppose that could be considered freedom of speech, but it’s a rather destructive kind of speech. If you have an opinion, please be able to back it up with facts. All of us on campus come from different backgrounds and have had different experiences in life that shape our worldviews and political beliefs. This is a good thing! Our goal as the
12
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Binghamton Review is to provide the conservative/libertarian view of things. That being said, here is a brief defense of the values and beliefs we generally hold dear, to help you better understand where we’re coming from. Not all of us believe these things, but these are the topics we regularly explore. It has been said, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart. But if you’re not a conservative when you’re 30, you have no brain.” All of us attend Binghamton Univer-
“You might think it’s cool or “edgy” to protest capitalism and the “system”, but the fact is that capitalism has given you everything you have in life. I challenge all you haters of capitalism, give up your iPhone for even one day. Or walk to campus in freezing weather instead of taking a bus or car made by a supposedly evil capitalist company.” sity with hopes of landing our dream jobs. The conservatives are simply mature beyond our years. We fully realize that we are working hard towards our dreams, and we don’t want the government getting in our way, nor do we want people who have worked less hard than us to enjoy the fruits of our labor without putting in the same level of hard work. This includes illegal non citizen aliens who freeride on the blood, sweat, and toil of American citizens. All of us Binghamton students spend countless hours studying in the library. We put in a lot of time and effort. Most of us are citizens of New York State, which has one of the highest costs of living in the country. We will need to earn a high level of income just to be able to afford a home and fund our life goals. It turns out that if you plan on having an income sufficient to live comfortably in New York,
voting Democrat is voting money out of your own pocket. Disclaimer: this is not to say conservatives are heartless. Helping the less fortunate is the job of voluntary charities, not a forced charity by the government. Usually, those charities are religiously based, which points even more to the strong moral code of conservatives. We also are committed to ensuring that we attend the best university possible. This means selecting the most qualified applicants for both faculty and student positions, as opposed to an affirmative action system that puts a metric that ought to be irrelevant (race) ahead of choosing the best candidate. We are opposed to affirmative action because it diminishes the quality of the education we are receiving. Similarly, we are opposed to any programs on campus that benefit members of a certain race. We are not racist; we are actually the polar opposite of racists. We believe that people of all races should benefit from campus programs equally. If you think anything other than this, YOU are the racist because you actively support discrimination. We are the only publication on campus that believes in true equality under the law. You might think it’s cool or “edgy” to protest capitalism and the “system”, but the fact is that capitalism has given you everything you have in life. I challenge all you haters of capitalism, give up your iPhone for even one day. Or walk to campus in freezing weather instead of taking a bus or car made by a supposedly evil capitalist company. Put your money where your mouth
“If you truly believe that we are wrong, it is your civic duty to have that discussion with us. Believe it or not, we are all on the same side in wanting the best for our country and for the world.” Vol. XXX, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
“Most of what academia does makes little difference in the world. This is evidenced by the lack of employable skills generated by a liberal arts degree today.” is! Many of you also support a socialist named Bernie Sanders. If you are supportive of socialism, then I challenge you to research countries where socialism is the governing philosophy. You will find that under socialism, people experience a significantly lower standard of living than under capitalism. Move to a socialist country, like Venezuela, where people wait in long lines for food, if there even is food available. I would be willing to bet that most of you would prefer to stay in the United States, with our comparatively higher standard of living, supported by capitalism. Another point of contention between the Review and liberals on campus has been the role of policing. The fact is that Binghamton is extremely unsafe, and the Binghamton police that you constantly protest are the only thing stopping you from getting robbed at knifepoint by a heroin addict
editor@binghamtonreview.com
FLEXIN’ ON THESE HATERS
on your way to the bars. Binghamton mayor Rich David made large strides in increasing safety in Binghamton by increasing the level of policing, and we all benefit from it. Arresting criminals for committing crimes is never an issue of race. Last semester our campus was racked with controversy over the possible blue light installation planned for downtown. A bunch of general leftists and progressives, loosely organized as the Frances Beal Society, occupied the Couper administration building over the issue rather than taking non-disruptive methods to petition both the city government and the Binghamton University administration when the plan was being formulated. The attacks this semester that have hit members of our campus community only add
“In the words of William F. Buckley Jr, “We stand athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’ at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” At the very least, please be patient with our beliefs and respect our right to express them.”
to the evidence that this program should not have been thrown away so quickly. Stopping the blue light program is helping violent criminals; if you are a member of the Frances Beal Society you are literally complicit in the many violent crimes that occur in Binghamton. We realize that there are bad people in the world who will hurt us. This is also why us conservatives have the realistic worldview that occasionally war is necessary. We are not warmongers; we would obviously prefer peace. But pragmatically, protecting our interests through violence is sometimes necessary. Campus is a liberal bubble because it is cut off from the real world. Liberal professors outnumber conservative professors 12 to 1, and this is not because conservatives are unintelligent. There are two reasons for this. First, conservatives are discriminated against in the hiring and tenure process. Second, most conservatives would rather go out into the world and do something concrete, start a business, or make a difference in the world, than become a professor. An old aphorism is very applicable here: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” Most of what academia does makes little difference in the world. This is evidenced by the lack of employable skills generated by a liberal arts degree today. At the end of the day, nobody gives a fuck what your professor has to say about “critical race theory,” or how many genders there are (newsflash: There are only two genders, and I don’t need a Ph.D. to figure that out.). Conservatives realize this and take on roles that make a difference in the world. We are conservatives and libertarians. In the words of William F. Buckley Jr, “We stand athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’ at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” At the very least, please be patient with our beliefs and respect our right to express them. At best, I urge you to test your own beliefs against ours. You will find, if not today, then when you enter the real world, that they have greater merit than your own.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
13
AN OLD PIPE DREAM INTERVIEW
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Flashbacks: An Old Pipe Dream Interview
This piece was originially published in the April 2014 issue of Binghamton Review, although it may have been published earlier seeing as how it was a flashback itself. No, I’m not digging through everything we have right now. I have a life.
Q. What are the Binghamton Review’s principles? A. See page three, you fucking moron. Q. What are the most significant things the Review has accomplished, both specifically and conceptually, in its history and during your service? A. Freeing the slaves, landing on the moon, and ending communism. Oh, and destroying NYPIRG. Q. What attracts you to the Review? A. The Review’s support for traditional gender roles. Q. What are some important things that distinguish the Review from other campus publications? A. We don’t suck. Q. The Review is known for attacking other campus publications in its pages. Why? What does it accomplish? Are there any reactions from those publications that are notable and you’d like to mention? A. In order of questions asked: Because they suck. To prove they suck. Probably, but we don’t really care… because they suck. Q. If the Binghamton University campus ever became predominantly conservative rather than liberal, how do you think the role of the Review would change in campus life? A. The Binghamton Review would be printed bi-weekly. On Tuesdays and Fridays, in fact. And we’d have large white racks to distribute on. Life would be better. Q. The Review tends to focus on politics and campus issues. Is there any interest within the Review staff in doing a section on Arts & Entertainment, Science, or anything else? A. No. Q. Are there any faculty members that you know well? If so, who? A. Only the ones that actively support terrorism. We know them very well. 14
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Vol. XXX, Issue IV
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
10 WAYS TO INCREASE ALT-RIGHT MEMBERSHIP
10 Ways to Increase Alt-Right Membership By Sam Hyde
T
he alt-right has gained quite a bit of attention this past year, and people on both the left and the right seem to have no idea why it keeps growing as a movement. We’re going to be looking into ten different reasons why the alt-right could have possibly gained so much traction to cause hundreds of people to come out and march in Charlottesville.
1. Blame white men for literally everything wrong with society. After the Las Vegas shooting, Twitter blew up with #BanAllWhiteMen, as if no other race or gender has ever been capable of such violence and as if a good chunk of the victims weren’t white men. White men get blamed for everything from the supposed patriarchy, to the recession, to racism, because of an imagined “white privilege” card that was awarded to them all when they came out of the womb, making sure they never had any struggles in life. Point out their caucacity when they try and say that you’re wrong.
er it’s a Jewish conservative (Ben Shapiro), a gay man with a black husband (Milo Yiannopoulos), or fucking Jake Tapper (CNN anchor), the more you call everyone a literal Nazi, the bigger the alt-right actually seems!
5. If you’re a mainstream conservative, keep pretending to stand up for free speech, and then label anyone who even questions race and IQ a YT supremacist and other expletives in order to silence them! And if you’re on the left, well just don’t let them speak in the first place! 6. Keep laughing at the idea of “white genocide.” Keep celebrating white people becoming a minority worldwide because that’s what they get for colonization and slavery! 7. Call everyone in the alt-right a Neo-Nazi, it’s not like that won’t get constant media coverage in the Trump era!
2. Tell white people that they are inherently racist no matter what they do. Too many white allies showing up to march with you at BLM rallies, travel-ban protests, and anti-conservative protests? Just tell them that they’re inherently racist, and that it’s in their blood and their DNA! While you tell them that they are the REAL racists (because racism = power + privilege), make sure you make condescending jokes about how white people ruin everything and have no culture and give them cute nicknames like “cracker”, “inbred redneck” and “whitey”!
8. After you’ve completed #7, make it loud and clear that it’s OK to punch Nazis, and then proceed to use violence on everyone you’ve personally labeled a Nazi.
3. Keep shoving leftist identity politics and the gay agenda down everyone’s throats, and call them a racistsexisthomophobebigot when they disagree with you! Allow every group of people their own sense of identity and belonging except for ypipo.
10. Be mainstream conservatives and ignore declining white birth rates and pretend that replacing white people (who vote overwhelmingly Republican) with any other race (no other demographic votes overwhelmingly Republican) won’t hand over elections to Democrats who have no problem using identity politics to win elections.
4. Label everyone to the left of Lena Dunham “alt-right.” Wheth-
9. Associate President Trump and his administration with the alt-right, giving them the illusion of power, even if there are no openly alt-right members working in the government! That way it looks like an even more powerful movement, even though it has NO real political power.
Strong opinions about our pieces? Wanna rant and rave, or get more info? Send feedback to: editor@binghamtonreview.com editor@binghamtonreview.com
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
15