Sept 27 2017 (Vol. XXX Is. III) Binghamton Review

BINGHAMTON REVIEW Editor-in-Chief Contents

P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Founded 1987 • Volume XXX, Issue III 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 Jaline, Tommy Gagliano, Thomas Sheremetta, Matthew Rosen

Contributors Sue Doe Nym

Cleaned Out the Fridge Jason Caci

Special Thanks To:

Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth.

He Provides the Staples

THE NFL MERITOCRACY

PAGE 13

by Thomas Sheremetta 5 The Left’s Fetishization of Violence: A Response to Sarah Molano

by Sue Doe Nym 6 No Gays in This Farmer’s Hay

by Tommy Gagliano 7 Trump’s Worst Week So Far

by Matthew Rosen 8 Is White Genocide Real? by Anonymous 10 Protestants Are The Real Liberals

by Luke Kusick 12 Kaepernick Does Not Deserve to Play in the

by Jason Caci NFL 14 Making the Case for Ecolibertarianism

by Jordan Jaline 15 The Crisis of American Masculinity

by Chris DeMarco

Departments

3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to editor@binghamtonreview.com 2

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

Vol. XXX, Issue III

EDITORIAL Dear Readers,

T

From the Editor

hree Musketeers, three Stooges, three amigos...number three is a pretty big thing.

Did you know that, with our next issue, we’ve reached the amount that we printed for all of the fall semester last year? Incredible! I’m loving this breakneck pace and I’m sure you, dear reader, are loving it as well. The Review staff has grown considerably in the first few weeks of the semester, and I’m incredibly proud of how hard our staff is working. Variety is the spice of life, and Variety Spice is the Spice Girl that loved putting her new and different opinions into the Binghamton Review. That’s right, right?

Our issue is so jam-packed that we didn’t even have time to do a throwback piece in this one! That’s ok, though, because seeing the new generation of Review writers and editors is emboldening enough for our rich history and bright future. In our cover story, Jason and new writer Tom discuss why Colin Kaepernick does not necessarily deserve a spot on an NFL team, and why, broadly speaking, nobody really deserves a spot unless their talent merits it. Sue responds to Sarah Molano’s 9/18 Pipe Dream column regarding political violence in America, with some choice words and poignant rebuttal to her rhetoric. Tommy, in his first article, exposes discrimination by and against a farmer from Minnesota, and why he has every right to discriminate against prospective clients but the government cannot discriminate against him.

Luke traces the origins of the modern liberal movement to the Protestant Reformation, just in time for the 500-year anniversary of Martin Luther’s revolutionary act in October of 1517. Jordan begins his Review career by making the case for why a freer environmental market would help prevent the extreme weather that we see today, instead of increased government regulation. Chris tackles the crisis of American masculinity, and how the breakdown of the traditional household has dire consequences for a society. Finally, an anonymous writer flips the script and dares to ask whether a white genocide is being carried out, knowingly or unknowingly, in places such as Europe and Africa.

If you’re looking for even more of what the Review is about, I now have a PA show on WHRW 90.5FM! I’ll be on air on Tuesdays from 6-6:30pm (just before our meetings at 7pm, in UUWB05) and trying to take “The Right Approach” to current political and philosophical questions. Of course, I’m running my show like I do the Review: should you disagree with me, please ask to come on and I’d be more than happy to hash out your favorite issues. You can send your guest request, or anything else you might be so inclined to share, to editor@binghamtonreview.com. Hope to hear from you soon!

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’re not reading the campus papers, so we read them for you. Original content is in quotes, responses are in bold.

“Taking the politics out of teaching” Emily Houston Pipe Dream, September 10th, 2017 “I think it’s hard to be a Republican on this campus. Even worse, I think it’s almost impossible to be a Republican political science major….With an increasingly intolerant nation, it is essential for professors to remain neutral in their teaching and to remember that no matter what your political leaning, liberal or conservative, socialist or anarchist or anything in between, we all belong to this one campus community.”

This is one of those rare instances where we compliment Pipe Dream for doing a good job. Emily nailed it.

“Indicting ignorance” Kristen Dipietra Pipe Dream, September 14, 2017 “Additionally, radio host Rush Limbaugh recently told his listeners that hurricane warnings were a panic-inducing hoax. This can be considered homicidal: encouraging listeners to ignore the possibility of evacuating a Category 5 hurricane should be enough to charge Limbaugh in the deaths of any people who chose not to evacuate.”

If people chose not to evacuate, that’s on them, not Limbaugh. People are responsible for their own actions.

Referring to conservatives like Limbaugh: “These people are more powerful than any hurricane our oceans can conjure. And they wreak just as much havoc.”

UC Berkeley just recovered from Hurricane Ben. Be a little more sensitive you bigot.

“The problem with protagonists” Hannah Rosenfield Pipe Dream, September 14, 2017 “When a lack of characters of their own

4

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Written by our Staff

culture is noticeable throughout literature, readers do not connect and relate to a text in the same way that a student whose ethnic group is portrayed in the text might relate to it. This is most relevant for minority groups, which are grossly underrepresented as protagonists in literature. When readers cannot find a representation of themselves in a book, it teaches readers that their society values them less than the more widely represented characters of a majority background.”

No it doesn’t. We all loved Harry Potter and Percy Jackson despite the fact that they were white males. Also, there’s literally thousands of books outside of Western literature where the protagonists are not white. If someone really cares that much about the race of the protagonist, a good book with a person of color as the protagonist is just a Google search away.

“Waiting for Trump’s transformation” Nicholas Walker Pipe Dream, September 14, 2017 “Now let’s take a look at his actual presidency to see if he has tempered his divisive rhetoric, as his supporters believed he would. Well, he blamed “many sides” for the Charlottesville conflict without explicitly condemning the “alt-right” white supremacists. Extreme pressure from inside and outside the White House was needed before he called out the bigots. He should not have been given a 48-hour grace period to denounce hatred and racism.”

He explicitly condemned the KKK, white supremacists, and Neo-Nazis in his Charlottesville speech. He also gave journalists the chance to define the alt-right for him, which is not unreasonable considering that people like Jake Tapper from CNN and Ben Shapiro, the number one journalist target of online hatred from the altright, has been labeled “alt-right”.

There was footage from the event of the violence from both Antifa initiating violence and the Unite the Right ralliers initiating violence. Both

forms of violence are disgusting and both were condemned as they should be.

“Fostering a welcoming environment” Chelsea Strong Pipe Dream, September 14, 2017 “Some white millennials disagree with the notion that racism and police brutality are top problems in the world today, citing health care as the top concern. This is where the divide lies and where we must step in to amend the pressing social issues that stem from discrimination.”

It’s not just white millennials hun, 17% of blacks and 35% of Democrats don’t support Black Lives Matter. According to the 2014 FBI Crime Report, white men were more likely to get shot by the police than black men, and the number one killer of black men were not cops, but other black men. (93%!)

“According to the Washington Post, “At a time when 42 percent of Americans say they worry ‘a great deal’ about race relations, according to Gallup, the notion that millennials aren’t united to take on racism is worrisome.” While we are the future, there has been much discrepancy surrounding the united front of millennials.”

I wonder what caused race relations to elevate so much. It surely couldn’t have been a race-baiting president who claimed that attitudes towards him were different between northern whites and southern whites, or who defended the radical ideology that resulted in five dead police officers during their memorial service.

Vol. XXX, Issue III

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

THE LEFT’S FETISHIZATION OF VIOLENCE

The Left’s Fetishization of Violence: A Response to Sarah Molano

By Sue Doe Nym

O

ne of the hallmarks of a functional, thriving society is the principle of freedom of speech: neither the government nor society can use violence, or the threat of violence, to intimidate you into silence. But after their embarrassing defeat to Donald Trump, the Left has grown more and more shrill and desperate; as a result, they’ve grown more radical (and quite frankly idiotic). Portions of their ideological movement have taken a firm hold of the rhetoric, both in the media and in universities. Violence has become their new modus operandi.

Deep down they know they’ve lost the battle of ideas, so now they’ve resorted to insane justifications of force and intimidation.

This idiotic defense of political violence is mostly the offspring of the Charlottesville protests/riots; it’s suddenly acceptable to assault people who disagree for having different opinions.

I detest white supremacists: as a mixed race, Spanish-speaking child of immigrants, they aren’t too fond of me either. But as detestable as they are, no one has any right to assault them for what they are saying; do you really think that you can hit someone because they have a different opinion?

Sarah Molano apparently thinks so, as she explains in the 9/18 issue of Pipe Dream; political beliefs (which is what Nazism, like Marxism, is) are no longer political beliefs. Molano claims, “since white supremacist groups are inherently violent, violence against them is not only justifiable, it is moral as well.” Really?

Who are you to decide that? After all, you’re now the apparent arbiter over whether or not violence (aka people being beaten with bike-locks) is justified. So please, present me your case. Is it the rhetoric that makes them inherently violent? I admit that their ideas and proposed “solutions” are racist and evil, but that should not, under any circumstances, be the linchpin over whether or not you can assault them. Sarah continues, “for those who

editor@binghamtonreview.com

are part of the groups these neo-Nazis wish to eliminate, violence against them is merely self-defense.” It isn’t self-defense when you aren’t actually being attacked, Sarah. If I say, “I really dislike you and wish you’d go away,” you can’t just punch me and claim that you were acting to defend yourself.

You actually have to be, you know, attacked to defend yourself. Otherwise you’re the aggressor (duh).

But you’re an idiot, and thus predictable, so your likely rejoinder will be “well, they’re calling for the deaths of millions of people, and would gladly do so if they got the chance.” History lesson: do you know who the Nazis hated most? Correct, it was the Jews.

Do you know who else really, really dislike the Jews? Muslims, quite a few of them. Both the Palestinian and Iranian governments, for instance, have gone on record calling for the global genocide of every Jewish man, woman, and child. Even in the United States, Imam Ammar Shahin prayed that Allah “count them one by one and annihilate them down to the very last one.”

Hmm, that sounds like it incitement to me. What do you think, Sarah? Should my Jewish friends preemptively attack these people for their hateful, genocidal rhetoric? After all, you said that we have to fight intolerance (namely with physical vi-

olence). Seeing as 60% of Turks, 74% of Pakistanis, 76% of Indonesians, 88% of Moroccans, 99% of Lebanese Muslims and 100% of Jordanians have either “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” feelings towards Jews, according to Pew Research Global. It seems we need to fight against Muslim anti-semitism. And using your standards, I mean actually physically fight them.

You seem like the type to be a hypocrite, so you’re probably going to say that “it’s different” or some such nonsense. But the fact of the matter is that it isn’t. As I said before, you have NO right to hit someone for having a different opinion, even an evil one.

Are you proud that rhetoric like yours shamed so many conservative groups into silence? Is that something that makes you happy? Do you really want the United States to have a heckler’s veto, where I can simply intimidate my political enemies into silence by rioting?

Like I said before, you seem like an idiot so you probably wouldn’t understand how the threat of political violence is definitionally fascistic. I know, I know: everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a fascist. But gimme a second here: the dictionary definition of fascism is “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce.” Notice the phrase, “forcible suppression of opposition.” I would say that having men in masks assault conservatives constitutes “forcible suppression.”

You try to justify it by claiming, “using violence against neo-Nazis is about defending those people,” but all you’re really doing is haphazardly condoning political violence against people with opinions you don’t like.

If Jews can’t assault Muslims for their active calls for a new, global Holocaust (spoiler: they can’t), then you can’t punch Nazis/white supremacists when they spew their idiotic garbage.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

5

NO GAYS IN THIS FARMER’S HAY

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

No Gays in This Farmer’s Hay

By Tommy Gagliano

T

he gay wedding cake controversy strikes again - only this time it’s about a farmer, not a baker. The city of East Lansing, MI has banned Catholic farmer Steve Tennes from selling his produce at the city farmers market because of his stance on samesex marriage. Tennes is the owner of Country Mill Farms, a property that he sometimes uses to host weddings.

He was asked on Facebook if he hosts gay weddings as well, to which he said no, explaining that he did not wish to use his property to promote behavior that goes against his religious beliefs.

Upon discovering this post, the city of East Lansing informed Tennes that he could not sell his produce at the farmers market. Tennes is fighting back by suing the city of East Lansing, claiming that it is discriminating against him based on his religion. Furthermore, he claims that the city has no jurisdiction over what he does on his property since it is in Charlotte, not East Lansing.

Regardless of who you believe is in the right and who you believe is in the wrong in this situation, there are a few things that must be acknowledged.

“Not only are they turning away a significant percentage of potential customers, but plenty of people will no longer go to the restaurant because of their racist policies....That’s the beauty of capitalism. As Dr. Thomas Sowell would say, ‘Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green.’ ” First of all, both parties are committing acts of discrimination – Tennes on the basis of sexual orientation, and East Lansing on the basis of religion.

Second of all, both parties believe that what they are doing is morally right.

Steve Tennes believes that same-sex marriage is a sin. From this opinion, he does not want to be an accomplice in sinful behavior. The city believes

6

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

that same-sex marriage is no different than marriage between a man and a woman, and that discrimination such as the kind practiced by Tennes should be discouraged as much as possible.

It is very important to understand this.

Neither party is “evil.” They just have different ways of looking at things.

The biggest difference between the two sides is that Tennes is an individual who owns a private business, whereas the city of East Lansing is a government. Discrimination by an individual and discrimination by a government are two completely different animals. If someone owns a business, they should have the right to deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason they want. It is their goods, their service, or, in Tennes’ case, their property.

If someone owned a restaurant and decided they did not want to sell their food to black people, for example, they should have every right to do so. Even though it is not morally right, doing immoral things is not against the law. It would be a very poor business decision, however. Not only are they turning away a significant percentage of potential customers, but plenty of people will no longer go to the restaurant because of their racist policies. They would go out of business very quickly, unless they changed their stance on black customers. That’s the beauty of capitalism. As Dr. Thomas Sowell would say, “Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green.”

However, discrimination that comes from the government is different. The purpose of government, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This applies to all citizens, because, of course, “all men are

created equal”. Therefore, everyone must be treated equally by federal and local governments. Additionally, the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments all work to ensure that all US citizens are treated equally by the government. The first amendment is particularly relevant in this case, since it protects citizens’ right to practice whatever religion they want. These amendments, however, only protect you from the government. In other words, the government cannot deny you access to public services on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. However, an individual CAN deny you service on the basis of one or more of those identities.

Many people probably see scenarios like this and think “Good, he’s a homophobic asshole. He deserves it.”

While that may be true, I beg you to please look at the bigger picture. Steve Tennes owns his farm. He should be able to do whatever he wants with that farm. The city of East Lansing does not have the authority to force him to provide service to certain people, nor do they have the power to discriminate against him if he refuses to do so.

The worst part is that this is just one of many examples of the government overstepping its boundaries. I find this trend terrifying, and if you value your freedom, you should too.

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/12/ catholic-farmer-banned-from-market-for-hisgay-marriage-stance-wants-judge-to-intervene. html http://w w w.washingtont imes.com/ news/2017/jun/1/country-mill-farms-oustedfrom-mich-farmers-market/

Vol. XXX, Issue III

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

TRUMP’S WORST WEEK SO FAR

Trump’s Worst Week So Far

By Matthew Rosen

I

have been a conservative Republican for as long as I can remember. I supported Trump from the very beginning, when there were still 16 candidates in the 2016 Republican Primary.

It pains me to say that during the week of September 10th, President Trump alienated the Trump loyalists in his base and will pay the political price. These loyalists are led by people such as Ann Coulter, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Ingraham, Steve Bannon, and many others who believed in his “America First” policy. Unfortunately, President Trump let these people down by going against the policies we elected him for.

The first and the biggest mistake made this week was the unilateral decision to cut a deal with the Democrats on the debt ceiling hike. Basically, the issue is that the Federal Government is running out of money, and it is time to service out debt. If Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling, the executive branch loses its ability to borrow money, essentially causing a government shutdown. Whenever it is time for a debt ceiling hike, the party opposing the President uses the situation to gain leverage and push through policies that the President would not usually sign. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell understand this, and suggested a debt ceiling increase that would last us 18 months, past the next election cycle.

President Trump, who is a self proclaimed master negotiator, walked in and overruled Congressional Republicans as well as his own cabinet, including his own Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin. He agreed to sign a deal that only raised the debt ceiling by three months. According to Politico, President Trump “[cut] Mnuchin off mid-sentence as he argued against the merits of a short-term debt increase. The room went silent.

Everyone was stunned.” What this does is effectively preserve the Democrats’ leverage until December, giving them the ability to negotiate for policies that they favor when it comes to raising the debt ceiling again in December. Historically, the President wins the debt ceiling debate most of the time as the governing party can more easily raise the debt ceiling and use it as a tool to get policy through. Instead, President Trump caved to the Democrats and gave them leverage in the upcoming December debates on the debt ceiling. Republicans are saying, “the President of the United States just handed a loaded gun to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.” President Trump is signaling to Democrats and Republicans that he is willing to work with them and give them what they want, rather than negotiating in order to uphold promises to his base.

While that was the most important mistake President Trump made, the most well-known is probably his move on DACA. DACA stands for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an executive order made during the Obama administration giving amnesty and working papers to certain children brought into the country illegally. At first, it seemed like President Trump would keep his promise to his supporters when he struck down DACA. However, now President Trump is supporting the move to enshrine it in law under the DREAM Act.

editor@binghamtonreview.com

Working closely with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, he is supporting amnesty for children brought here illegally. This strongly goes against his initial promises.

As a candidate, Trump campaigned on immigration reform and law and order. He had the strongest anti-illegal immigrant stance we have seen. Despite the fact that much of his base elected him on this platform, it seems that he flip-flopped on this one in particular. What makes this even worse is that he gave up his leverage when he refused to demand the border wall in return for the DREAM Act (the wall was another one of Trump’s major campaign promises). In her tweets, Ann Coulter, one of Trump’s biggest supporters, is calling this a betrayal and a broken promise, calling for a President Pence instead.

So why has President Trump taken a turn? Unfortunately, President Trump actually isn’t running the show in the White House anymore. President Trump has been surrounded by establishment, globalist Democrats from the beginning. President Trump is being cut off from his base by people in the White House who oppose his policy. Loyalists like Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Reince Priebus, Katie Walsh, Mike Flynn, and many other “Trumpians” are all being swallowed by the globalists and ousted. H.R. McMaster, Gary Cohn, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and even General John Kelly all seem to have the President’s ear now, calling for more Democratic and Globalist policies. This drastic change is also due to President Trump’s desire to please the left.

Although I hope to write more about actual policy in the future, I felt the need to identify the true problem for a successful President Trump. He already has his hands full with the Republican split in Congress, the insanely biased media, and a Democratic Party willing to do anything to crush him. The last thing he needs is to alienate the people that voted for him.

Allen West and The Daily Caller, two true conservative outlets, recently wrote articles on Pollster John McLaughlin who is “warning Republicans, based on a latest omnibus poll, that unless they start keeping campaign promises to Trump voters, the president’s base may not turn out to vote for them in the 2018 midterm elections.”

Since the election, I find a lot of what President Trump has done great. Unfortunately, this pollster is correct. If the promises that were made to us aren’t fulfilled, the Republican majority will soon vanish. President Trump is now considering “fixing” Obamacare, staying in the Paris Climate Accords, and not cutting taxes on the rich-- three more promises he would break if these turn out to be reality. The Bannon-Coulter-Watson-Ingraham base may not show up in 2018 or 2020. I personally believe that despite this, President Trump is overall doing a great job (outside of this horrific week) and that he can bounce back. I hope that in the future I can write more about President Trump’s good policies, and why I believe he is doing good for the country. However, I do believe it is important to remind conservatives how important it is to keep President Trump on the right track: the one that got him elected.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

7

IS WHITE GENOCIDE REAL?

Is White Genocide Real?

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

By Anonymous

W

hat is white genocide? Wikipedia describes it as a “white nationalist conspiracy theory” that describes a scenario where “mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion” are being mass promoted in majority white countries that will lead to white people becoming a minority, which will lead to their eventual extinction.

The ADL describes it similarly, and adds that it is part of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race and is associated with the 14 word slogan, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” This is, of course, the same organization that labeled “Pepe the Frog” as a hate symbol. According to Jezebel, “There is No Such Thing as White Genocide.”

So what is all the fuss about?

Genocide is “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group.”

According to the UN’s Convention for the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, one or more of the following must occur to be classified as a genocide: killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions calculated to bring about

8

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. While nothing close to this is happening to white people in the West, thousands of white farmers have been brutally murdered in South Africa since 1994, and the white population has decreased by almost one million people in the last decade. The attacks have been blamed on increasingly anti-white rhetoric from the ruling African National Congress.

Their treatment has stemmed fears in the West amongst white identitarian groups of similar events occurring if whites are to become a minority in America and Europe.

While no explicit genocide is happening in the West, what about the effects of mass immigration, racial integration, and low fertility rates? You can claim to hate identity politics all you want, but hating it does not make it go away, and it does not change the fact that people have a strong connection with their racial identity. The left has capitalized off of victimhood and identity politics for decades with no shame in order to appeal to voters. Speaking of which, whichever

candidate can successfully appeal to white voters has a much better shot at winning elections. Without the blue collar white middle class vote, Barack Obama and Donald Trump would not have been elected president. If the right resorted to using white identity politics to win elections like the left, they would for sure be labeled “racist,” but it could also be argued that they might win more. The alt-right rose to prominence during the 2016 election and used both identity politics and memes to help get Trump elected. It was a response to the anti-white rhetoric and identity politics of the left. So should we be worried about declining white birth rates? If your answer to that question would be “yes” if we replaced “White” with “Black,” “Asian,” or any other race, then this is obviously an issue to be concerned about.

A quick Google search of “declining white birth rates” leads to dozens of reports from mainstream media outlets reporting on the issue. In 17 states, the Caucasian death rate surpasses the birth rate. Dr. Case and Dr. Deaton of Princeton University compared this “silent epidemic” to the AIDS epidemic. They predict that suicide, drug overdoses, financial crisis, and economic insecurity contributed to the effect. In fact, whites are projected to become a minority in America by 2050.

Due to the effects of mass migration, this is also a trend all across Europe. Millions of Muslim refugees have been pouring in from all over the Middle East and North Africa, who have a much higher birth rate than the native European population. If these people were coming in and assimilating to European culture, contributing to society, and learning the language, then identity politics would cease to be an issue. But this is clearly not the case.

Coined “The Great Replacement” by Robert Ménard, an advisor to Marine Le Pen, this phenomenon describes the replacement of a group of people by a different group of people in a single generation. It is a taboo subject to the

Vol. XXX, Issue III

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

point where European governments have either refrained from or collected sparse data on migration patterns. In Britain today, an estimated 1 in 3 babies born are non-white British, and white Brits are expected to become a minority by 2066. In France, the Muslim population was 0.6% in 1950, and today is about 10%. This means that as the white population declines, the Muslim population will continue to grow. In Germany, 20% of the population have a foreign background, while the birth rates of native Germans are in decline. Some might be asking what the big deal is if Europeans become a minority in their own home. 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.

This can also be seen with Palestinians. Regardless of your viewpoint on Israel/Palestine, it is quite obvious that the Palestinians who have been displaced from their homes are struggling to regain their previously held territory. If Nigerians were being mass replaced in their home country

by Americans, or Japanese were being replaced Russians, Nigeria would no longer be Nigeria, and Japan would no longer be Japan. It’s not just the racial component, but the cultural component, which is arguably much more important. Assimilation into new cultures is difficult because every culture

editor@binghamtonreview.com

IS WHITE GENOCIDE REAL? has different standards and morals.

As Americans, we w o u l d have a hard time assimilating into the culture of the UAE, which has a much more conservative and strict culture and value system.

Should white people be replaced for the sins of their ancestors that they personally had no part in? When looking at worldwide populations, whites are already outnumbered by Asians, Indians, Africans, and Latinos. So while there is no explicit genocide occurring against whites in the west, their populations are on the decline across the world, and expressing concern over this is simply human nature, not racism.

black-on-white-farm-murders-insouth-africa/ h t t p : / / w w w. n e w s . c o m . a u / f i nance/economy/world-economy/ bur y-them-alive-white-south-afr ic ans-fe ar-for-t heir-f uture-ash or r i f i c - f ar m - att a ck s - e s c a l ate / news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-3984874/More-whites-dieborn-states-New-research-revealschanging-demographics-amidst-soaring-Caucasian-death-rates.html ht t p s : / / w w w. t h e g u a r d i a n . c o m / uk/2000/sep/03/race.world https://www.defendevropa.org/2017/ population-replacement/cultural-replacement-france/ http://freewestmedia. com/2016/10/23/the-great-replacement-and-the-tragedy-of-sweden/ http://ww w.express.co.uk/news/ uk/396390/Migrants-change-UK-forever-White-Britons-will-be-in-minority-by-2066 https://www.defendevropa.org/2017/ population-replacement/the-great-replacement-part-2-great-britain/ Photo Courtesy of National Geographic

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory h t t p : / / w w w. n y t i m e s . com/2009/12/18/us/18census. html https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/white-genocide https://www.adl.org/news/ press-releases/adl-adds-pepethe-frog-meme-used-by-anti-semites-and-racists-to-online-hate http://jezebel.com/thereis-no-such-thing-as-whitegenocide-1790500883 https://w w w.ushmm.org/ confront-genocide/just i c e - an d - a c c ou nt a bi l it y / introduction-to-the-definition-of-genocide http://dailycaller. com/2017/05/01/damnedlies-and-statistics-about-

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

9

PROTESTANTS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Protestants Are the Real Liberals

By Luke Kusick

I

n order to trace the origins of the modern left, one has to look into history. To start, let us define what is meant by the term right and left. In the context of this article, the right will be concerned with maintaining the traditional culture, hierarchy, and social order. The left is characterized by tearing down the traditional culture, being anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian. Defining the left and right in this manner, rather than the modern sense of capitalist/socialist, relates to the historical understanding of left and right and how the two groups are different.

With the definition of left and right established, we can jump into the Protestant Reformation.

Let’s start with the heretic Martin Luther. Martin Luther was a monk obsessed with knowing whether he achieved salvation or not. His obsession with his own personal salvation, which is evident in his early works, consumed him. His visit to Rome didn’t help, wherein he found corrupt bishops and clergy using their political and religious power to make financial gains. Evidentially, instead of trying to reform or attack corruption from within, he began to attack the very nature of the Church. He tried to overhaul the hierarchy of the Church and create a group against what he viewed as the authoritarianism of the Church.

This movement, this anti-authoritarian streak in Protestantism that began in October 1517, would eventually lead to an anti-authoritarian nature

“Attacking tradition is an attack on the social order, so sola scriptura, which means scripture alone, means that tradition has no place in one’s faith. Since religion was tied strongly to the governments of the age, the traditions of the governments themselves would also be attacked.”

10

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

in all successive governments. At the time of the Reformation, religion and politics were intertwined; therefore, an attack on the Church was an attack on the very government as well. Princes and noblemen used this justification in order to start revolutions, seize land from the Church for personal profits, and ultimately to score a huge blow against both the Catholic Church and the Kings across the land. This anti-traditional rhetoric of the Protestant Reformation can be summed up by their claim of sola scriptura, or “Scripture alone.” What does this phrase mean and why is it so leftist? Well, the Catholic and Orthodox Church believe to this day that it is through Faith and sacred Tradition that one finds himself saved. This tradition is inherently a conservative or right-wing position, as defined before. Attacking tradition is an attack on the social order, so sola scriptura, which means scripture alone, means that tradition has no place in one’s faith. Since religion was tied strongly to the governments of the age, the traditions of the governments themselves would also be attacked. We

would see this climactic attack on tradition again during the French Revolution.

How does the French Revolution play into Protestantism? The answer comes from Enlightenment thinkers who are now regarded today very highly amongst Republicans in the United States. These “classical liberals” were not classical in any sense, rather they were simply liberal. They were anti-authoritarian, anti-tradition, anti-social order, anti-hierarchy. Their political and philosophical arguments were deep into the individualistic nature that the Protestant Reformation held. The Protestant rationale was simple: an individual can determine whether or not they were saved, and therefore did not need the Church to guide them. The Protestant Reformation can be seen in the modern sense as an Objectivist, Ayn Randlike movement. The focus is on the individual. The focus is on whether or not an individual is saved and how the individual interprets the Bible.

There is no emphasis on an opinion of hierarchical structures. Who needs

“While Martin Luther had an extensive role to play in the French Revolution, or more accurately planted the intellectual roots of the first Proto-Communist revolution, many interesting Protestant reformers have had a part to play in the liberalization of our politics.” a learned clergy and theologians who have devoted their lives to studying sacred texts when I can simply pick up the Bible and figure it out for myself?

Who cares if I am repeating the same mistakes that heretics from across the years have? In short, the Protestant emphasis on the individual and individualism lead to an attack on any

Vol. XXX, Issue III

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM sort of hierarchy. The Church was seen as unneeded because the individual could do everything for himself. In the same sense, the Enlightenment thinkers fell for this trap that the individual is greater than the community around him. They believed that the individual is greater than not only his country, but also those of a higher status than him.

The common peasant was the same as the learned noblemen. This dangerous philosophy lead to quite possibly the bloodiest conflict of the 18th century, the French Revolution.

The battle cry of the French Revolution was Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.

Of course these proto-communists would not only kill the King of France, but would expand upon this Reign of Terror much more violently. The mass hatred of the Catholic Church

“Ultimately, it is hard for this message to disseminate across America. From its inception, America had this anti-authoritarian streak that screams of the liberalism of the French Revolution. However, the left in America has begun to eat itself just like the Protestant groups have.�

PROTESTANTS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS ber that if one considers themselves on the right wing side of politics one must understand that that means being inherently hierarchical, inherently traditional, and at least tolerant of authority. The Protestant Reformation is a total rejection of that. We see this in the modern day, as modern Baptists, Pentecostals and Evangelical Protestant groups openly defy tradition and hierarchy within their churches, yet can never unify with one another.

It is similar to that of the far left. Everyone on the far left is a socialist or communist of some sort; however, they quarrel over whether Trotskyism, Stalinism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, or whatever currently popular communist ideology is the true communist ideal is similar to the divisions amongst the Protestant tradition.

Ultimately, it is hard for this message to disseminate across America.

From its inception, America had this anti-authoritarian streak that screams of the liberalism of the French Revolution. However, the left in America has begun to eat itself just like the

Protestant groups have. Mainstream Protestantism is in total collapse in this country as Americans are turning their backs to this reformist message.

A rise in Traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy is growing in this country, which is a good thing. If we want to get back to the roots of right wing politics than we must restore the roots of the right. Those roots stem from tradition, hierarchy and a respect for authority. A healthy respect for authority is a sign of maturity. One can protest against authority all they want, but in the end people always be running back to it when you find the world without it empty and dark. The world in France without the monarchy was full of bloodshed, terror, and pain. The world without the Tsar of Russia was full of blood, hunger, terror, and pain. A world without tradition will be a world with only blood, terror and pain. In October, with the 500 year anniversary of the great Protestant heresy, let us come to grips with ourselves as a people and stop protesting, stop resisting tradition and come back to the right side of victory.

and hierarchy in general was a huge part of the revolution that often goes unnoticed. The revolutionaries even attempted to change the calendar so people would no longer know what day Sunday fell on, murdered clergy in mass numbers, and violently killed people across France. No amount of blood could satisfy this liberal demon that was the intellectual heir to the Protestant movement. Hierarchy bad!

Tradition bad!

While Martin Luther had an extensive role to play in the French Revolution, or more accurately planted the intellectual roots of the first Proto-Communist revolution, many interesting Protestant reformers have had a part to play in the liberalization of our politics. As we are approaching the 500 year anniversary of the great Protestant heresy, let us remem-

editor@binghamtonreview.com

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

11

KAEPERNICK DOES NOT DESERVE TO PLAY IN THE NFL

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Kaepernick Does Not Deserve to Play in the NFL

By Jason Caci

S

ince the beginning of the NFL Free Agency signing period in March and leading up to the first few weeks of the regular season, Colin Kaepernick has still not signed with a team. Many social activists voiced their support for Kaepernick, saying that he deserves to be in the league and that his political views are the reason as to why he is still on the market. Colin Kaepernick does not “deserve” to be with a team.

The NFL is a private business, and the upper management for each NFL team can choose to sign any player that can contribute to the team. I do not think all of the owners gathered together and agreed to not sign Kaepernick. It is just a matter of fact that he is not worth the distraction to any team.

In the second month of the 2016 NFL regular season, Kaepernick made an asinine decision on his part when he decided to restructure his contract with the San Francisco 49ers.

He agreed to have a player option on his contract, which stated that he could choose to opt in or opt out of his contract at the end of the season.

Eventually, he chose to opt out. He did all of this after he made headlines by protesting the National Anthem in the preseason and regular season. His original contract was 7 years, worth

12

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

$126 million. He never even came close to that. According to Business Insider, the contract had some incentives. For example, they reported that “Kaepernick’s salary went down $2 million each year if he was not named first- or second-team All-Pro, or if the 49ers didn’t play in the Super Bowl the previous season with 80% of the snaps taken by Kaepernick.” Of course, none of those conditions were met. In the end, he only received $39.4 million from the contract after opting out early, which shows how much his play has declined in the last few years. After all of the talented defensive players on the 49ers retired after the 2014 season, Kaepernick showed that he was unable to lead his team to wins, as he went a combined 3-16 as a starter in the 2015 and 2016 seasons, as noted by Pro Football Reference.

Even after his gradual decline into mediocrity, Colin Kaepernick reportedly wanted $9 to $10 million on the open market in the offseason, according to Will Brinson of CBS Sports.

Kaepernick’s demands were ridiculously high considering the fact that his play has declined to a point where he has become a mediocre or even arguably bad quarterback. NFL teams have 53 players on a roster, so they can only pay so many players a lot of money. If you are a team with very few options for quarterback, of course you are going to sign a no-name quarterback and pay him $800,000 instead of paying Colin Kaepernick $10 million.

At that point it isn’t about his protest. The team is not going to be good anyways, so why not spend less money?

Colin Kaepernick’s success was because of the team, not him. The 49ers went to the Super Bowl in the 2012 season as a result of a great defense and an excellent offensive line. The season before that, the 49ers made it to the NFC Championship game with Alex Smith. When a team

has two quarterbacks and has a lot of success for two straight years, the success should be attributed to the rest of the players and not just to the quarterback. As we saw in Colin Kaepernick’s last season, he went 1-10 as a starter.

He played worse than what the statistics show. The 16 touchdowns and 4 interceptions were mostly in garbage time, as the 49ers were blown out in many games. He also had an offensive-minded coach in Chip Kelly, who helped Nick Foles throw 27 touchdowns and 2 interceptions in the 2013 season with the Philadelphia Eagles.

Nick Foles! Heck, you probably forgot about him until I mentioned him just now.

If Colin Kaepernick does not want football, then football does not want him. On his Twitter account, he only tweets or retweets about social activism. These range from DACA to police brutality to racial injustice. Clearly, he seems to be doing something that he likes, and that’s good for him. However, this is clearly a red flag to NFL teams that he is more committed to social activism than playing football.

Kaepernick chose to take this route, so he should not feel slighted that NFL teams do not want him because they have the perception that he is not into football anymore.

In the end, there are many variables to consider, especially when signing arguably the most important position in sports, the quarterback.

One can’t simply look at talent alone.

He must also look at work ethic and how much drama he will bring to the team. Right now Kaepernick gets a failing grade in both of those categories and thus is not good enough to be on a roster right now.

Sources

http://www.businessinsider.com/colin-kaepernick-record-49ers-contract-2017-8 https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/colin-kaepernick-reportedly-wants-9-10-millionper-year-and-a-chance-to-start/ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ players/K/KaepCo00.htm

Vol. XXX, Issue III

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

The NFL Meritocracy

THE NFL MERITOCRACY

By Thomas Sheremetta

I

t is no surprise that the ratings for the first week of the NFL were, to say the least, sub-par. CBS reported that “viewership for the NFL was down 14 percent on a year-over-year basis during the first week of the 2017-18 season.” Seeing this number as a major letdown, people started to develop theories of what caused this lower viewership. Many news outlets, including CBS, Variety, and the Atlantic, used distractions such as the hurricanes, the 2016 election, and Peyton Manning’s retirement as reasons for the lower numbers. However, there is another major reason to consider: Colin Kaepernick.

In case you did not know, Kaepernick has taken a firm stance on his feelings about the state of America. Taking a stance against police violence and racial injustice, he decided to kneel during the National Anthem throughout the 2016-2017 NFL season. Likewise, other players decided to join in his anti-anthem crusade.

Fast forwarding to present day, Colin Kaepernick does not have a job. Celebrities, ESPN, and news outlets all have a stake on why he is out of the league, accusing the NFL of racism. The New York Times even stated on June 16th that if Kaepernick was in the NBA, then he would still have a job because they allow their players more political freedom. But in my opinion, the only thing to blame for Kaepernick not having a job is himself.

We need to analyze the facts behind this. First, he was signed on to another year with the 49ers but opted out of his contract. However, this as a valid reason was quickly debunked when the GM of the 49ers, John Lynch, confirmed that he would have been cut if he decided to stay on the roster.

So, let’s take a look at his style of play. Kaepernick is not a pocket passer.

Instead, he likes to play on the move.

This style works with some players, such as Russell Wilson, but not for others, such as Robert Griffin III. The issue is the fact that many teams will

editor@binghamtonreview.com

pass on a mobile QB for a chance at a Tom Brady or Peyton Manning style, which is the pocket passing style. Furthermore, in the 2017 QB Tiers survey, ESPN explained that “many voters said they see Kaepernick as a Tier 3 player in a system designed for him, and a Tier 4-5 player outside that framework.” It makes sense that many teams passed on him since the voters of this survey were fellow NFL coaches and evaluators.

“At the end of the day, all players are at the mercy of the owner on whether they get a spot or not. Cast aside this nonsense that NFL owners are racist. Out of all the players employed in the NFL, seventy percent of them are African-American. The NFL is a business and owners want profit.”

Oddly enough, he still ranked higher than others who have NFL jobs.

On the surface, that does not make much sense. However, Pete Carroll, coach of the Seattle Seahawks, stated that Kaepernick was better suited to be a starter, meaning that him as a backup QB defies logic. There are numerous reasons that he is not a necessary backup QB. For example, if his play style does not match up with the current quarterbacks and the offensive scheme of the team, it does not make sense for him to be on that team. Also, the backup QB in certain cases is not the best player available. Coaches see the backup QB position as a spot to put developing young players or veterans that can provide leadership and guidance to other players. You can prove this through numerous examples of teams trading for QBs when their main guy goes down instead of going with the backup. For example,

the Vikings traded for Sam Bradford and the Dolphins signed Jay Cutler.

To put it bluntly, Kaepernick is already 29 years old, which means there is not much room for improvement at that age. Furthermore, his radical opinions could possibly cause a disturbance in the locker room.

At the end of the day, all players are at the mercy of the team owner on whether they get a spot or not. Cast aside this nonsense that NFL owners are racist. Out of all the players employed in the NFL, seventy percent of them are African-American. The NFL is a private business and owners want profit. They’re not going to employ someone simply because of skin color.

Instead, they will pass on a player because that player won’t maximize their profits. In the eyes of many owners, it could be true that they see Kaepernick as the opposite of a money-maker. On the other hand, maybe they disagree with his National Anthem protest. For example, Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, has great pride for the National Anthem. He stated “…the act of recognizing the flag is a salute to our country and all of the people that have sacrificed so that we can have the liberties we have.” Although I disagree with Kaepernick and other players using the public platform of the NFL to voice their opinions, they do have the right to do so. However, the opposite is true. Owners have the right to not sign them because of it.

Kaepernick deserves at least some credit for his actions because, unlike other celebrities that make a charade of being part-time activists, he is tangibly contributing to society.

He promised to donate one million dollars to numerous organizations “to fight oppression of all kinds globally.”

You can see all the organizations listed on his website, http://kaepernick7. com/million-dollar-pledge/. However, for people giving their two cents on how he deserves a spot on a team’s roster and not to his charities: spots aren’t given, they’re earned.

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

13

MAKING THE CASE FOR ECOLIBERTARIANISM

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

Making the Case for Ecolibertarianism

By Jordan Jaline

I

n the wake of catastrophic hurricanes such as Harvey and Irma, there has been an uproar from many on the left for the government to increase efforts to combat climate change and pollution. A recent article from The Hill talks about how environmentalists and blue state governments have formed a coalition of sorts and have threatened to sue the EPA over their decision to delay Obama-era regulations. These regulations are supposed to limit the amount of toxic chemicals that coal-fueled power plants can emit so that the water in surrounding areas might become less polluted. The delays will last for two years, pushing the deadline of compliance from November of 2018 to November of 2020. The burdensome regulations of the government will most likely cause some power plants to shut down. I’m all for clean water, but I do not believe that it is the government’s responsibility to mandate limits on pollutants.

That responsibility lies with consumers and the residents of the towns and cities in which these power plants are located. If private individuals or scientific groups want to come up with and build a better power plant that is more efficient and more environmentally friendly, let them take care of it. The government doesn’t have the efficiency or competence to accomplish such an arduous task. It is simply too big of a project for them to undertake. Nonetheless, the government still can’t resist the urge to stick its ugly, power-hungry nose where it doesn’t belong.

Another example of this nosiness is the notion that better zoning laws and regulations would have lessened the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma.

No amount of zoning or government overreach could have prevented the damage done by these gargantuan, destructive storms. Houston is a city that doesn’t have zoning in the traditional sense, but crafty local lawmakers have implemented land use rules and regulations by alternative means. Particular instances include deed restrictions, parking requirements and

14

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

homeowners associations. These policies are not only costly and ineffective, but they are also hurting the communities they are supposed to be helping. Land use regulations have impeded real estate development in areas like Houston, leaving very few options left for areas that could potentially be used for development of the local area. The unintended but all too obvious consequence of this is that the supply of housing in the market simply can’t keep up with demand.

Having said all of that, I believe climate change and pollution are serious problems, but as mentioned earlier, I have a different view of how to combat these problems than many on the left. I just don’t think the government can handle such monstrous tasks as quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively as private individuals, entrepreneurs, and private scientific organizations can. If enough consumers demand greener products and energy sources, eventually, the market will shift in that direction, leading to the highest quality goods at the lowest prices. The government could never accomplish that. I still maintain a certain degree of respect for the EPA, but I am also well aware of the reality that they have become little more than a vacuous cesspool of bureaucracy and corruption (SHOCKER!). The last thing environmental activists should be advocating for are bureaucratic institutions that hinder the economic and technological innovation that the same environmentalists claim to be yearning for. Improving the environment is a job for the invisible hand, not the filthy meddling hand that is the federal government.

Sources: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/350531-epa-delays-toxicwaste-rule-for-power-plants http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/05/to-protect-against-the-next-harvey-forge/1

Vol. XXX, Issue III

BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM

THE CRISIS OF AMERICAN MASCULINITY

The Crisis of American Masculinity

By Christopher DeMarco

W

hat if I told you that there was a certain minority demographic in America today that makes up 49% of the population, 80% of suicides, 94% of workplace fatalities, and die an average of 6 years sooner than the rest of the population? (1) This demographic also has had its constitutional rights and equal protections under the law slowly eroded over the past 50 years. Despite these things, the so-called “progressive” movement has not only been silent on the issues affecting this demographic, but they actually actively work to strip this demographic (men) of their rights.

The narrative pushed by the left is that men have more privilege than any other demographic. In some ways, they do.

But to whom much is given, much is expected. Feminists will tell you that women make x fewer dollars than men doing the same job, but I don’t plan on getting into that because there is a lot more to the picture than just the proposed wage gap, whether or not it exists. The fact is that men are required and even obligated by social norms to go out and earn the best living possible. Women have the privilege of choosing not to work, or working less, and being supported by a man. If you as an adult woman choose not to work, that is perfectly fine. However, if you are a man and you choose not to work, you are considered by society to be an abject failure. This requirement that men work is the reason men make up 94% of workplace fatalities.

It is also why the male suicide rate is much higher; males are tasked with achieving things, their greatness is measured by what they achieve, and this standard can be crushing to those men who fail to achieve (Think Death of a Salesman).

Most men do the right thing: work a job and support a family. However, in today’s day and age, that isn’t even good enough. In movies, on television, and in popular culture, men are perceived as the bad guys. Instead of being praised for earning a good income to support their family, they are scorned for not “spending enough time with the family” or being “uncaring.” To add insult to injury, this bias against the male role in the family continues in the court system. In most states today, police are required to make an arrest in the event of a domestic disturbance, and in 75% of these cases, the man is arrested with no concrete evidence of any abuse. (3) An automatic restraining order is then put into place against the man, forcing him to vacate his home. I must stress again that this is done without proof of any wrongdoing. The family court system that deals with these cases literally gives men who were involved in minor domestic altercations fewer rights than murderers, rapists, and bank robbers.

To the family court system, your value as a man is literally only the dollar value you can produce. In 85% of divorce cases, women win full custody of all the children in the marriage. To make things worse, men are also required to pay “child” support that can exceed 75% of their income, payable of course, to the ex-wife, and not the children. It is no wonder that more than two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women; they can receive all the benefits of a marriage without any of the costs.

editor@binghamtonreview.com

The man, on the other hand, is left with all of the costs and none of the benefits. The ex-wife lives in their house, takes their kids. In return, the man might get to see the kids (with whom he is no longer close) on the weekends… if he’s lucky. This is bad not only for the man, who is left destitute, divorce-raped, and 10x more likely to commit suicide than a divorced woman, but it also has horrific consequences for the children. Children from fatherless homes are statistically much worse off than their counterparts with a present father: they make up 85% of the prison population, 63% of suicides, 80% of rapists, 71% of teenage alcohol and drug abusers, and are 4 times more likely to be poor as adults. (2) The court’s removal of fathers from the family structure is destroying the fabric of our society. Creating strong men and women to be good citizens requires both masculine and feminine parental values. Young men and boys especially require a strong father figure to show them how to be a man.

While it manifests itself later in life, unfortunately, today’s progressive anti-male bias begins very early in life. In preschool, young boys are discouraged from engaging in masculine activities, such as rough-housing, playing tag, and generally just being boys doing boy things. It’s no wonder that grade school boys significantly underperform compared to girls; their masculine energy is sapped and they are punished for expressing it. This does not end later in life. In college, young men will be told by clueless professors that their “Toxic Masculinity” is something to be curtailed. Alternatively, a more appropriate celebration of masculinity that emphasizes the positivity of masculine traits and their necessity in today’s society. We need to produce more men who are strong leaders, pillars of their community, and strong father figures for the next generation. Today’s anti-male, progressive leftist agenda is sending us ever closer to the elimination of masculinity and a weakening of American society, ideals, and norms that have made us the greatest and most prosperous country on earth. Be warned!

Sources 1. https://www.avoiceformen.com/the-facts-about-men-and-boys/ 2. Fatherhood.org 3. https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-US-men-have-beenarrested-for-domestic-violence-by-age-50

BINGHAMTON REVIEW

15