MOORE: 20 Years After ‘Sex And The City,’ The ‘Real-Life Carrie Bradshaws’ Are Wishing They Hadn’t Slept Around

By Faith Moore

Sex and the City, which premiered 20 years ago this week, changed the way women thought about sex. The assertion of the show’s main character, Carrie Bradshaw, that she will start having sex “like men” — sleeping around and feeling “nothing” afterwards — struck a chord. It was a new kind of fairy tale — a glitzy, glamorous, New York City Cinderella ditching the prince but keeping the shoes. Twenty years later, though, these “real-life” Carrie Bradshaws are single, childless, and many are starting to wonder what happened to their happy endings.

In the early 2000s, modeling themselves on Carrie Bradshaw and her friends, women in their 20s and early 30s began to have sex “like men.” One night stands and sexual exploration became the ultimate feminist statement. If men could do it, then why shouldn’t they? “There was no such thing as a bad date,” writes dating columnist Julia Allison of her time living the Sex and the City lifestyle, “only a good date or a good brunch story.”

In fact, in the years since the show’s premiere, Sex and the City has come to be seen as not feminist enough — receiving criticism for leaving its four heroines happily paired up romantically by the series finale. In 2010, The Telegraph complained that “The happiest character, Charlotte, is by far the most conventional – rich husband, children, no job (by the end), a Park Avenue palace.” In 2017, Marie Claire called one of the show’s main characters “anti-feminist” for saying that “everyone needs a man.” If a lesson is to be learned from the show, today’s critics seem to be suggesting, it’s that it didn’t go far enough. In order to be truly feminist, it seems, women must give up romance altogether.

There’s only one problem: eventually women do want to settle down. In fact, many of the women who bought into the Sex and the City lifestyle 20 years ago are coming forward to share their regrets. Julia Allison says the show literally “ruined her life.” She says it peddled a “fear of intimacy disguised as empowerment.” Writing for The New York Post, Allison wistfully wonders what her life might have been like if she hadn’t bought into the Sex and the City philosophy. “Perhaps I’d be married with children now?”

In her memoir, Unwifeable, journalist and former dating columnist Mandy Stadtmiller describes how a decade of living the “real-life Carrie Bradshaw” lifestyle left her fearful that there “might be no one out there left for me at all.” She writes, “I told myself I was a feminist,” but, ultimately, she came to realize that happiness came, not from casual sex and no-strings-attached relationships, but from “only revealing [her heart] when someone has proven themselves worthy.”

The fact that the women of Sex and the City ultimately want to settle down is not the unrealistic lie the show sold these women. The lie is that they can settle down after spending their 20s and 30s sleeping around. At the time, it seemed like a radical act of feminism to do away with Prince Charming and focus, instead, on the dress, the shoes, and the physical attraction. After all, as novelist Keira Cass said, “Cinderella never asked for a prince, she asked for a night off and a dress.” But suddenly, with biological clocks ticking and one man after another running away from the thought of commitment, these women are beginning to wonder. Maybe Cinderella knew something they didn’t, after all.

Follow Faith on Twitter @FaithKMoore or on Facebook @DisneyPrincessAddict.


4 Ways To Stop A Woman From Manipulating You

There are many reasons women manipulate men. The more prevalent reasons these days are money, gifts, financial favors, etc. For example, if your woman wants a to go on a weekend getaway so she’ll let you fuck her brains out the entire week.

Another example would be if she wants a kitchen upgrade so she tells you that you can have a “man cave” and one night of anal sex with her so you’ll agree to a 5-figure mortgage refinance loan so she can get her overpriced kitchen.

Many kitchens have been negotiated with “man caves” and anal

The best example would be being on her best behavior because she wants you to propose. She sucks your dick every night, let’s you do it in the butt, cooks you meals every night, she’s kind, agreeable, feminine, etc. (Note: A woman is never more well behaved when she hears the sounds of wedding bells in the not-too-distant future)

The bottom line here is that women rarely do anything for a man just to be nice. There’s always an ulterior motive and that’s where the manipulation comes in.

Manipulation vs. Good behavior

While it’s important to know how to nip female manipulation in the bud, it’s equally important to know the difference between a woman attempting to manipulate you and a woman exhibiting good behavior.

The difference between the two is that manipulation is good behavior occurs close to the time when a woman wants something. Good behavior happens all the time.

If a woman knows she’s good to you and doing what she needs to do to hold it down with regular sex, cooking, looking good for you, representing you well in public, giving you access to her phone, staying off social media and so forth, she doesn’t feel the need to manipulate you into doing something for her. She knows she’s entitled to good treatment from you because she’s a good woman to you.

Girls who do this on the regular don’t need to manipulate their men

Women who manipulate men for gifts, trips, iPhones, etc. know they are not doing what’s necessary to be a good woman. Women who use manipulation tactics know they haven’t built up enough equity with you to simply ask you for what they want. So they dress like a slut, cook your favorite meal, or whatever it is they think they can do you manipulate you. Once they get what they want, the good behavior stops and that’s how you know it’s manipulation.

Women who are good all the time know they have the right to ask you for things and they know that in order to keep that privilege they have to continue to do what’s necessary to feel entitled to  good treatment from you.

So now that we’ve laid down the basics, let’s get to the first step on how to stop being manipulated by your woman.

Be proactive and set the tone. Setting the tone and letting your know you are not the kind of man who cannot be manipulated is absolutely paramount. Not only does this reduce the odds of her trying to pull any bullshit with you, when she actually does (and she will) she’ll be far less confident because you let her know early on that you’re not here for the games.

So how do you set the tone and let your woman know you’re not who gets tripped up by mind games? Let’s take a look at four examples and how to properly respond:

Call bullshit on her sob stories


Her: “My ex boyfriend was horrible! He was an abusive alcoholic who gambled away our money while he fucked hookers and snorted cocaine while he simultaneously beat and raped me every night!”

You: :::roll your eyes and chuckle::: “Oh stop…if he was so bad why’d you stay with him for 3 years? We both know you weren’t the perfect girlfriend either. And don’t talk about your ex around me. Save that shit for your friends.”

Cry me a river….

This accomplishes two things. First, it shows her you’re not gonna buy the bullshit stories about her ex like all her other boyfriends did which means she won’t try to bad mouth him again and second, it stops her from talking about her ex around you.

Don’t take everything at face value

When she makes a statement you find questionable, quiz her on it. Ask her questions. Ask for details. That tells her in no uncertain terms that you won’t believe just anything she says. She knows that if she tells you something it has to be true, and she has to be able to back it up lest you question her on the details.

If you don’t ask questions about shit you have questions about, this WILL come back to bite you because if you start and you didn’t do it in the beginning, she won’t answer your questions when you try to. Be skeptical of everything she tells you that doesn’t make sense or sounds strange or suspicious.

Tell her about your ex’s unsuccessful manipulation attempts

It’s inevitable that your girl is going to ask you “So why did you and your girlfriend break up?” Rather than going into some long diatribe about what really happened say this:

“We broke up because she wanted to manipulate me and she couldn’t.”

If she asks “How did she try?”

Dismissively say: “You know how women are.”

This tells her that you know a woman’s nature and that you know that she knows what women do to manipulate men. 

This makes her far less likely to try any bullshit with you later on because she knows you’re wise to how women really are and what they do.

Point out examples when you’re out in public together

Example 1: If you see a woman being overly affectionate to her man in public, say “She must want something.”

Example 2: If you see a man buying something expensive for a woman, say “She must have let him go back door last night.”

Example 3: If you see a marriage proposal in public say “Welp! I guess he’s not having sex anymore!”

Example 4: If you see a woman crying in public, roll your eyes and say “Oh please…”

Example 5: If you see a woman throwing a fit or bitching about something say “That chick needs a stiff drink, a stiff dick, and a nap”

At some point your woman will inevitably challenge your pithy Red Pill arrows with what she’ll rationalize as “the voice of common sense.”

Challenge to example 1: “Well how do YOU know she wants something?! She might just be in love him!”

You say: “You don’t believe that.”

Challenge to example 2: “That’s not what it looks like to me!”

You say: “Of  course YOU don’t” (then laugh)

When she’s heard enough of these she’ll finally say, “God you’re so jaded!”

You respond with: “You call it jaded, I call it experience.”

Taking these steps at the beginning of a relationship will drastically reduce the odds of her attempting to manipulate you, but keep in mind that nothing will completely eliminate it because this is just how females operate. She’s going to try at some point. Count on it.

However, taking the measures above lets her know that you’re not the typical guy who gives into her emotional shenanigans or believes everything she says. And when you make that clear to her both directly and indirectly, she will have more respect for you than she’s had for any man in quite a while.

Part Two will cover some of the ways women try to manipulate men and how to handle it directly so as to squash it like a bug…

…but if you don’t want to wait for the article, click here to watch or listenAnd watch Donovan Sharpe drop Red Pill truth on TSR: Live weekday afternoons at 1pmE/10amP 


Thots On Parade: White Women Really Need A Reality Check

Eric Striker from the Daily Stormer got me thinking after reading this tweet:

He’s 100% right! Why are White women so obsessed with ugly tattoos and working out?

We get it, you are hot. But did you have to permanently affix tramp stamps to your entire body and then prance around the gym half-naked so that every guy has no choice but to stare at you as you walk by doing your gym version of the thot parade?

Here’s a secret guys, that thot is a damaged basket case on the inside.

I know that many normie men find these kinds of women attractive because they are secretly turned on by pathological hostile misandry. They like a woman who is slightly gender fluid with an elevated androgen count that can beat them in arm wrestling and put them in a rear naked choke if they get out of line.

After all, gender is a social construct.


Here is that same woman in 30 years:

Hey, Grandma! May I have another bowl of cereal?

I am not saying that having a tattoo or two in itself is disgusting or bad. Many people in our movement have them, and they usually have some sort of racial or cultural significance, so I am mostly fine with those. However, completely canvassing your entire body with a bunch of Chinese symbols or letters, long strings of gibberish in Sanskrit, skulls, devils, butterflies, hearts with your name in it, et cetera, is just plain ludicrous, LARPy, and screams of serious deep-seated psychological and emotional issues.

Unfortunately, many White women have fallen prey to narcissism. They believe whole-heartedly in the White Girl Magic meme of unmitigated agency for White Women that permeates almost every society known to mankind- and trust me, most of it is correct. White women are in fact the most beautiful compared to any other race by far. White men, in addition to every other race, have put them on a pedestal. However, the only reason they arrived and remain on that pedestal is because of White men. And as a result, they are the most spoiled and entitled group of people that this planet has ever produced.

To be sure, it is lamentable how White women give themselves far too much credit for their elevated status in the world. That, my dear ladies, was bestowed upon you by us. You really should thank us all on a daily basis. We earned your elevated status with our blood, sweat, and tears. Don’t get me wrong, you did help, but not as much as you’d like to think. Therefore, you should never complain about being some oppressed group of people, or how much the White patriarchy has kept you down. That is nonsense, and you know it. The White patriarchy has rewarded you, White women, above all others.

Attention whore much?

We also have to be completely honest with ourselves, gentlemen. A good-looking White woman receives a ridiculous amount propositions for sex on a daily basis. If men received as many offers, we would never leave our bedrooms. So give White women credit, they do have a whole hell of a lot of restraint.

On the other hand, my problem with White woman is the pathetic amount of narcissism and conceitedness that many of them exhibit; ergo, the constant workout routine and “sexy” tattoos. There is nothing wrong with exercising as long as it is about being healthy; the problem is that their motivation tends only to be about their own vanity via how many men hit on them or ask them out for a date.

Oh, and about that reality check I promised, my dear White angels. We need to talk about how rather than spending your days pursuing traditional relationships and having children, you spend them taking selfies, shopping, binge drinking, having meaningless casual sex, using men as interchangeable placeholders to buy you material possessions, and constantly talking about the exciting and scintillating life of the Kardashians. (OMG, What is Kim wearing today and has she lost the baby weight??!!)

Hey, we all understand how important that is ladies. I mean, we might be at war with Russia soon, the country is falling apart, most of us cannot find anything more than a part-time job, and White Genocide, but forget all that, who is the designer of Kim’s shoes in tonight’s E-News exclusive?! You absolutely do deserve a little self-indulgence after all that hard work studying for your sociology exam and posting your various meal pics online, right?


Ladies, I do not mean to just pick on you. Men mimic the same idiotic behavior when they focus on sportsball, which is more pathetic in many ways. It’s all a sick obsession with the the false reality of pop culture that people create in their minds as a barrier between them and their cognitive dissonance.

Many Whites want love, happiness, companionship, and children, but they do not want to take any time out of their busy lives to work towards achieving any depth, self-awareness, and personal sacrifice that would lead up to those goals. They attempt to find a hollowed shell of these ambitions through social media or dating websites that are totally based on superficiality, which leave most feeling empty and sad at the end of the day. For the thot, that void is then filled by the obsession with the tattoos and working out, The tattoos are their armor, and the constant endorphin rush from the workouts help them to escape from the reality of their emotional pain.

This is precisely why the Alt-Right movement has started a paradigm shift to change these kinds of behaviors. No, I am not dog-whistling White Sharia, but I am demanding more and better from our women. We want women that would be happy and excited to go on a date to the Metropolitan Museum of Art rather than some brutally disappointing Hollywood film. We no longer want our women to be pieces of meat covered in tramp stamps twerking at a wet t-shirt contest, who are vapid automatons without acumen or culture. We want good wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and grandmothers, of whom we can be proud. Ladies, we are asking more from you and ourselves. There is no such thing as a self-made man or woman. We have to complement one another, not slip into androgyny and self-mutilation.

Food for thought, ladies.




Why “Racist” is Losing Its Power

Roseanne Barr posing as Hitler.

In college I learned over and over that during a debate of any kind, my Leftist opponents could immediately assess themselves the winner and end the conversation by pointing out my white privilege, and hence, my subconscious racism. If I was making the case that Maya Angelou’s book I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was lousy, I would be informed that I could not possibly understand it because I’m white. If I was making the case that Ron Paul would be a good President, I would be informed that I only thought that because I was white and couldn’t possibly understand the fear Dr. Paul inspired in non-whites. If, in a casual conversation about music, I mentioned that I didn’t care for rap, I would be told that I didn’t like it because, as a white guy, I was subconsciously racist, making it impossible for me to appreciate such a black genre. No matter the topic of debate, I could be routed so long as the other guy invoked “racism” or “privilege.”

Calling someone racist or privileged is tactically very useful. Inherent in the concept of white privilege is the fact that it is invisible, or at least invisible to untrained eyes. The original promoter and popularizer of the concept of “white privilege,” Peggy McIntosh, described this privilege as an “invisible knapsack” and spoke of the racism of “invisible systems” that protected this privilege. Similarly, modern definitions of racism are opaque and stress that people can be racist without themselves knowing it.

Its invisibility is what makes it impossible to rebut. When someone accuses you of something that you yourself cannot see, in the eyes of your accuser, you cannot refute it. If I accused you of wearing a shirt that was stained by invisible jam, how could you tell me it wasn’t so? Its invisibility makes it so that you cannot see it, and implicit in my accusation is the assertion that I, for whatever reason, can see it. So it goes with racism and white privilege. When someone would accuse me of either, I would deny it. My opponent would then note that racists with white privilege do not believe they have it, and that not believing you have white privilege is a fundamental part of having white privilege. Said privilege also blinds one to their own racism. The tautological reasoning is airtight.

An important dynamic of the accusation of racism and white privilege is that the accusers view themselves as a kind of priestly class. They are a part of the group of people wise and smart enough to be able to see something the average Joe cannot. It is a self-designation, since there is no formal process to “become a seer of racism and white privilege.” There is no official specialized college degree, certification, or membership that separates those who can see racism and white privilege from those who cannot. The fact that there is no official way of becoming a “seer” cements the tautological nature of their arguments. No one accused of racism and privilege can allege that their accuser is not qualified to so designate them. The accusation itself is the qualification. In an argument about economics or mathematics, the involved parties will invoke how well-educated in these fields everyone is, or is not. There is no such equivalent in arguments about racism and white privilege. By virtue of invoking the concept, you are an expert in it, and your opponent an ignoramus.

The only other place we see a similar kind of logic is when the mentally unstable, or at the very least eccentric, talk about God. For example, several years ago I was smoking a cigarette on a streetcorner and a homeless man walked up to me and told me that the Devil was making me smoke. I asked him how he knew the Devil was behind it, and he looked me dead in the eye and said, “God told me.” I did not respond, because how could I? There was no way for me, or anyone else, to determine whether or not God had spoken to this man. To this day, I maintain that God never spoke to him, and that the Devil has never made me smoke. But there is no way of proving this objectively. There certainly was no way for me to convince this guy, in that exact moment, that God had not spoken to him. If I had argued with him, he would have found my arguments ludicrous. How could I know whether or not God had spoken to him? In his mind, for me to even suggest that I could possibly know whether or not God has spoken to him is absurd. By bringing up his conversation with God, this man was establishing himself as one who can “see” or “know” what others cannot. As one who can “see,” he righteously decided it his job to inform the rest of us, who cannot “see,” about what is good and what is bad.

“Anti-racists” use the same logic. They are self-appointed “seers” of racism and privilege. The difference between the kook in the street telling me about the Devil and egalitarians condemning racism and privilege is not that one uses a sounder logic than the other. The difference is one of power. No one listens to the kook; indeed, society at large considers it important to ignore kooks so we can get on with our daily lives. For anti-racist egalitarians, the situation is exactly the opposite. It is considered important to cling to their every word so the unique evil of racism can finally be eradicated from society once and for all.

What further strengthens the tautology wherein something is racist simply by being accused of being racist is that, as Sam Francis noted, “racist” has never been well-defined. There is no algorithm to detect racism, no legal definition, and no way to measure “racism” the way “wealth,” “speed,” or “toxicity” can be measured. Furthermore, no definition of it has ever gained universal acceptance. In lieu of a precise definition, what is and is not racist is decided by whether or not the accuser can get enough people to agree with him.

Why is blackface racist? Because most people say so. Why is the word “negro” racist? Because people agree that it is. Do either of those things have a measurable negative effect on blacks in any way? If someone could magically snap their fingers and make everyone say “negro” instead of “black,” would blacks (or, dare I say, “negroes”) be worse off? This question is moot, as effects are not what determines the label. “Racist” is assigned on a more democratic basis, and when it comes to blackface and the word “negro,” the people have spoken. All it takes for something to be racist is for one person to say so, and enough people to agree.

This is why when something becomes targeted as “racist,” the media whips up such a frenzy. If the Confederate flag is to be deemed racist, a critical mass of people need to know it as “racist” as quickly as possible. Once a certain critical mass is reached, there is no turning back. Nothing has ever been considered racist but then later became “reinstated” as “not-racist.” So to successfully label anything you dislike as “racist” is the ultimate triumph. Not only does successfully invoking racism confer victory, it confers honor. To be a fighter of racism is, after all, a very good thing.

Imagine if the homeless man who claimed I was smoking because of the Devil had a receptive audience. What if people wanted to share in the special feeling that must come with knowing God has elected to speak to you? What if, in a clamor to feel special, more and more people started claiming that God was talking to them, and that God wanted the rest of us to stop giving in to the Devil and smoking? What if several of these people then got on CNN? What if the anchors on CNN agreed with them? What if a few of them got book deals to write about how the Devil causes smokers? What if those books became overwhelmingly popular among academics and they started teaching it to their students? The logic behind the argument would not grow sounder, but the argument itself would suddenly have validity merely because enough people, and enough powerful people, were parroting it.

In our times, the willingness to label something “racist” has increased as the country becomes less and less white. The increasing number of non-whites means that reaching a critical mass of people who agree with you that something is racist is becoming easier and easier. In the 1980s, Bill Clinton as Governor of Arkansas defended his state flag’s allusion to the Confederacy. In 1992, when he was first running for President, he assured white voters he was on their side by publicly condemning black rapper Sister Soulja’s highly-publicized comments about killing whites. With the country still three-quarters white, Republicans like Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, who were pro-immigration and pro-affirmative action, were considered “not racist.” The smear of racism was reserved for more marginal political groups like the Christian Right and paleoconservatives. But after winning re-election in 1996, Mr. Clinton celebrated the forecast that white America was coming to an end, and those changes he celebrated would dramatically change how the Left would use the word “racist.”

But by 2008, with whites having diminished to around two-thirds of the population, the smear “racist” could be wielded much more broadly. Senator John McCain, a longstanding supporter of both unfettered immigration and affirmative action, never managed to escape the taint of racism for merely being in the way of a black man’s ascension to the White House. Once Mr. Obama won, the portrayal of the Republican Party as belonging only to dying white racists became ubiquitous throughout the media and the academy. The Tea Party was immediately labelled racist, and once Mr. Obama won reelection, they were labeled powerless racists headed for history’s dustbin. The Republican surge in the 2014 midterms was also racist, but immaterial. Mr. Obama had won, and twice. The rhetorical tool of yelling that the other guy was a racist, buttressed by an increasingly large chorus of non-whites eager to repeat it, seemed to be an invincible tool for Leftist political power. It was working over and over again and nothing could stop it, not the Tea Party, not Rush Limbaugh, not Mitt Romney. You’re with History or you’re with the racists, and History is on the march.

The complete lack of logic behind the word “racist” was never a problem so long as the victories kept rolling in. Who cares if something makes sense, so long as it gets you what you want? But as the Left was rolling in victory after victory, their own ranks began to split. By the now the children of anti-racist activists were entering the world of politics, journalism, and the academy. Their parents had taught them the trump card of labeling the other guy a racist, but the kids took this weapon and ran with it. Suddenly, young Leftists were accusing older Leftists of racism and privilege. Their parents had apparently never taught their kids that when using the word “racist” as a political weapon, an important string came attached: pas d’ennemis à gauche — “no enemies to the Left.” Or perhaps that lesson was taught, but ignored by this new generation in their lust for power and desire for goodness. Either way, during the Obama years, intra-Left conflicts began where different factions of the Left began lobbing the “racist” attack at one another.

These conflicts would start to crack the power of the word “racist” as they highlighted the incoherence of, and the inability to falsify or disprove, the accusation of racism. When two Leftists accuse each other of being racist, who determines the winner of the argument? I imagine Leftists yearn for the simpler days of only ever punching Right, as they now fall into never-ending cycles of one of these two back-and-forths:

A: You’re racist!
B: No, you’re racist!
A: No, you are!

A: X is racist!
B: No, it’s not!
A: Yes, it is, and you are, too!
B: We need to be more civil and fact-based in our arguments.
A: That’s racist!

Example one is best typified by the fall of Cornel West. Once something of a black guru, regularly on TV and at Mr. Obama’s side, Brother West (as he likes to be called) has fallen from grace in recent years, and fallen hard. Brother West’s sin was coming to conclude that Mr. Obama was not the real deal; not a real friend of blacks, or the poor, or the Third World. Though he had been an unofficial adviser to Mr. Obama, once Brother West took his leave, he began attacking the President from the Left, with gusto, over and over again.

As a black identitarian, Brother West slammed not just the President’s policies, but grappled with what those awful policies said about Mr. Obama’s essence as a black man. Brother West has called him a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface,” and “a brown-faced Clinton. Another opportunist. Another neoliberal opportunist.” He further claimed that Mr. Obama has “a certain fear of free black men.” In other words, Mr. Obama isn’t really black; it’s a mirage, and this can be detected by how little he does for blacks.

In response, black supporters of Mr. Obama dipped their pens in poison. Jonathan Capehart took to The Washington Post to declare that Brother “West is trying to deny him [Mr. Obama] his inherent blackness. By indulging in the ‘Obama-as-other’ narrative, West is no better than a birther.” Prominent black liberals at The Nation and The New Republic were hardly more charitable in their attacks on a man to whom they had all once looked up.

But if Cornel West claims Mr. Obama is a closet racist, and in turn, black supporters of Mr. Obama call Brother West a racist for those remarks, who can declare the winner? Obviously, when any of the three parties in the above dispute call, say, Newt Gingrich a racist, they are the winners. Black Leftists calling a white Republican a racist? No need for overtime, the verdict is in. But accusations of racism within the Left lack a mediator, because no longer can the accuser win ipso facto. If Brother West can claim another black man, the President, doesn’t represent blacks, then why can’t another black man like Michael Eric Dyson claim that it is Brother West who doesn’t represent blacks? Who is to say, especially when Brother West and Mr. Dyson both have large enough followings to keep either from reaching a critical mass of people who agree with them?

The case of ((((((Jonathan Chait)))))) serves as an example of the second conversation about race within the Left. Mr. Chait, a Jewish, moderate liberal of high-toned tastes, is a very different man from the scrappy Marxian Brother West. No doubt those stark differences led to their very different journeys into the ire of the Left where they were once well-received. Mr. Chait’s sin came in 2015, when he wrote a lengthy essay called “Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say: How the language police are perverting liberalism.” In it, he made the simple case that, sometimes, the drive for political correctness overrides the search for truth, dialogue, and understanding.

By and large, he griped that the weapon of political correctness was being wielded against good liberals like himself instead of bad Republicans. Other journalists on the Left immediately dogpiled on him, eviscerating him for his “privilege” and accusing him of just whining about his loss of status as a white man in America. One rebuttal’s title alone (from the popular Huffington Post) says a lot: “A Brief Rundown of ((((((Jonathan Chait))))))’s Angsty White Man Opus.” From her perch at The Guardian, Jessica Valenti, arguably the most important feminist alive, wrote, “Chait’s real problem, it seems, is that he doesn’t understand why his privilege — or anyone else’s — should impact how people perceive what he says.” Amanda Marcotte, now a darling of Salon, but then of Talking Points Memo, noted the obvious in the title of her response as well: “P.C. Policeman ((((((Jonathan Chait)))))) Can Dish It Out, But He Can’t Take It.” Alex Pareene, that longstanding adversary of John Derbyshire, opened his rebuttal with the line, “So, here is sad white man ((((((Jonathan Chait))))))’s essay about the difficulty of being a white man in the second age of ‘political correctness.’”

For white advocates, Mr. Chait strikes an unsympathetic figure: a condescending liberal elite figure who penned a milquetoast critique of political correctness, but regularly attacks Republicans for being politically incorrect. But for outsiders, the perception was different. Here was a well-regarded liberal, a regular in the respected New York magazine, who, after noting the limits of calling things you don’t like “racist” and “sexist,” was eviscerated and condescended to by his fellow Lefties. Noteworthy is that while all his attackers were younger than he is, most attacked him from newer and online-only publications, and quite a few were rising stars within the Left.

What Mr. Chait was hoping for in his moderately anti-PC piece was what the late Lawrence Auster called “an unprincipled exception.” Defined simply: “The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that liberals use to escape the inconvenient, personally harmful, or suicidal consequences of their own liberalism without questioning liberalism itself.” Mr. Chait in no way expressed a desire to do away with the entire program of attacking political opponents for being politically incorrect. He simply wanted himself to be exonerated from such attacks. He aches for the simpler time of a decade or two ago, when only conservatives could be smeared as “racist” or “sexist” and thereafter be ignored. Now that the tactic is being used against him by younger Leftists, he wants to be the unprincipled exception. He wants to get some kind of liberal ID card establishing him as a “good guy” that should never be smeared by other liberals.

Brother West wanted to be an exception of another kind. Blacks and Leftists, and especially black Leftists, regularly denigrate conservative non-whites as “Uncle Toms” or race traitors. The unspoken rule was to never level such an accusation against one of their own. No matter what a black leader like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson might do (e.g., lie and steal), black Leftists understood that loyalty in the ranks was of the highest priority. That always made critiquing their own beyond the pale. Brother West broke that rule, and suffered the consequences. Before him, all black critics of prominent black figures had been obscure Communists or academics such as Carl Dix or Adolph Reed. Brother West was the first black Leftist commentator to reach the heights of national respectability, and then get yanked offstage by his own side for getting too radical.

The sagas of these two figures, Cornel West and ((((((Jonathan Chait)))))), as different as they are, represent the beginning of the end of “racist” as a trump card at the end of the Obama era. On the one hand, you had a clique of black talking heads in a public shouting match over which of them was truly black, and which was truly racist. On the other hand, you had a liberal old guard getting buried in a blizzard of criticism for asking to ease off the gas pedal of political correctness. It became clear that the rules were changing. The world was no longer as simple as it was a mere generation earlier, with President George H. W. Bush denouncing David Duke’s runs and President Bill Clinton announcing a dialogue on race filled with hollow rhetoric and no action. Two decades of critical theory, Tumblr, and the rising tide of color, and the political game of attacking racism has become a whole new animal.

What was once a weapon used by the Left against the Right, and occasionally by the Right to save face, is now a free-for-all. The war against racism has morphed from two armies facing off on a traditional battlefield into a state of fourth-generation warfare of Hobbesian proportions. Some Leftists are now openly expressing regret for applying the word “racist” too liberally in the past, and urging that it be used less from now on, as its overuse is weakening its desired sting. Meanwhile, centrist commentators have conceded that whatever “detente” American racial politics once held is now gone. Everyone can be a racist now. Black neoliberals in the WaPo can call a black Marxian who used to be pals with our black President a racist. And young Leftists have discovered that old Leftists are racist, and demanding that, as such, editorial positions be handed over — they have only their internships to lose.

This entropy is what fuels the ridiculous headlines of anti-racist action you see today that would have been unfathomable even a few years ago. Everything can now be labelled racist because whatever rules there once were for the accusation are now gone, and there is always an opportunity to show off how virtuous you are just by making the accusation. Peanut butter and jelly sandwichesdress shirts, and even math itself have all been accused of racism this past year.

Inside the academic world, the incentives for levelling the accusation of racism is highly incentivized. Imagine the popularity and satisfaction that must come to a student who outmaneuvers his anti-racist professor to show that the professor himself is racist, too. Universities are also continually expanding their bureaucracies, which of course must be staffed by the most anti-racist candidates possible. If you were a 22-year-old recent graduate saddled with debt and you wanted to get a job in your alma mater’s Diversity Department, would you be willing to assert that the Department as-is had too much white privilege and that you could fix that in order to secure the job? In a world of “publish or perish,” academics can now carve out a niche for themselves by discovering a new manifestation of racism never mentioned before. Doing so will make you a big hit at the next White Privilege Conference, which could help you land a job. Wherever eliminating racism is held as the highest ideal, word-savvy entrepreneurs will find racism everywhere.

The 2016 election highlighted this well. Remember that Ta-Nehisi Coates, the chic black radical of our day, took ((((((Bernie Sanders)))))) (the socialist and former Civil Rights activist) to task for not doing enough to fight white supremacy. Senator Sanders also had to suffer the indignity of Black Lives Matter activists forcing him off the stage at one of his own rallies so they could speak. Him not letting the activists do so would have represented a latently racist privilege. Even now that the election is over, Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters still trade barbs by accusing the other side of being racist.

With definitions blurred and accusations being thrown in every direction, the word “racist” is losing meaning, and the absurd logic it employs is being exposed. A generation ago, regular, apolitical Americans were fearful of the label racist, and repelled by anyone who carried the label. Today they are less wary. While they certainly are not following the career trajectories of Brother West and Mr. Chait, they see the fallout of those fights, and fights just like them. Everyday conservative media outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Caller shine a magnifying glass on the latest thing college professors have deemed irredeemably racist. Simultaneously, those professors have now influenced the political Left enough that national figures like Hillary Clinton pay lip service to theories about “white privilege.”

These days, everyone is a racist, even anti-racists. To all of this I say, “Cheers.” The breakdown of the status quo order of racial politics is an absolute victory for us. As Jared Taylor and countless others have pointed out, in the last election cycle both the media and the academy threw everything they had at Mr. Trump. He was called a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe, and a sexist just about every day by nearly every mainstream media outlet. Over sixty million people voted for him anyway. It is hard to imagine the America of the 1980s, though much whiter, which was so content to ignore the media’s smear of “racism” on a presidential candidate. Certainly labeling Pat Buchanan a racist in the 1990s did more damage to him than the same label did to Mr. Trump two decades later.

The indifference so many Americans now feel over the label “racist” is certainly due, at least in part, to the ever-oscillating and expanding usage of the word. Over the last decade, the Left has tipped its hand, engaging in too much anti-white rhetoric before demographics made a “whitelash” impossible. Simultaneously, the Left began to drink its own Kool-Aid. The word “racist” proved to be a Pandora’s Box of sorts, a weapon that can overpower its user.

While certainly still powerful, the label “racist” is not what it used to be. The Left is now doing its best to keep from “normalizing” the Trump presidency, by which they mean not reporting and commenting on it objectively, but instead just calling it racist over and over again. Let us hope that they do exactly that. Because if the President can be a racist, anyone can.

The Truth About ‘Spiderman’ and the emotional manipulation of the West

Muslim ‘refugee’ invasion of Europe

Exclusive: Pamela ((((((Geller)))))) flays media’s ’emotional manipulation of the vilest kind’

The photo of a child washed up on a beach has become iconic of the massive Muslim migration to Europe. The child’s death is tragic, but the media’s cynical exploitation of the image is grotesque.

While the media hand-wring and wail about the poor migrants overwhelming Europe, it is a crisis, but not the crisis that the media would have you believe it is. The international media obscure the reality of this flood of “refugees” into Europe, in an attempt to blunt legitimate concern over it.

Here’s a typical headline: “Hungary police force migrants from train tracks; dead boy’s image shocks Europe.”

CNN says of the photo of the toddler: “It took a tragic photo of a drowned toddler on a Turkish beach to make the refugee torrent pouring into Europe a problem for America too.”

The mother and two boys died – the father lived. The boy died because his father wanted new teeth. That speaks volumes.

Also, the father’s story is riddled with inconsistencies that show him to be thoroughly dishonest. In a deeply damning report on his numerous self-contradictory stories, the Muslim Issue surveys his various statements and then adds this devastating conclusion:

Although Abdullah claims to have seen the dead bodies of his two children and his wife after their boat was hit by two large waves, his story then changes and he claims that he made it safely to the beach. He now assumed that the wife, who had laid bloated and drowned, and the two small boys who he had seen drowned right in front of him and he knew were dead, had managed somehow to make it alive to the beach. He could not find them on the beach so he assumed they had “become scared and ran away.” He now sees these dead people nowhere. But he only finds the “truth” about their death after going to the hospital where their bodies were kept. Can someone explain to us how dead bodies run away? In other words, he only knew they were dead after the pictures of his son started showing up in the media reports.

The victims of the Christian, Yazidi and religious minority genocide in Islamic wars are no less valuable or important as the Muslim child on the beach. They are all victims of the global jihad.

Where are the photos of the little girls gang-raped and bought and sold in ISIS slave markets to fighters and wealthy Muslims? Why don’t their deaths spur the West to decisive action against the jihadic doctrine and its adherents? And how many jihadis are among the refugees?

The father whose wife and children drowned is a tragedy – a casualty of war, a war being brought to the continent of Europe by this massive invasion.

That image is not iconic of the invasion, but the media say it is. Take, for example, this caption on another photo: “BUDAPEST: Hundreds of migrants stormed Budapest’s main international rail station after police reopened it on Thursday (Sep 3), in an escalating refugee crisis seared into European hearts by horrifying pictures of a drowned Syrian toddler.”

This is just emotional manipulation of the vilest kind, as we’ve already seen so many times with the Gaza conflict, the Bosnian civil war, the supposed “genocide” of Muslims in Burma, etc.

In 732, the Battle of Tours ended the “last of the great Islamic invasions of Europe.” How this new invasion will end is anyone’s guess – but it won’t be pretty. Today’s refugee is tomorrow’s jihadist: Already jihadis have been discovered among the refugees, and there will be more of that.

In February, the Islamic State threatened to send half-a-million Muslim migrants to Europe in a “psychological” attack against the West. And lest we forget, back in May, I reported that the Islamic State was making a fortune smuggling Muslim “migrants” into Europe.

Immigration jihad, or hijrah, is the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.

The EU is telling its members that they must take in these migrants or lose important grants. Yet meanwhile, the oil-rich Muslim countries, chiefly Saudi Arabia, are doing nothing for the refugees. Muslim countries are not taking a single refugee. No, non-Muslim Europe must absorb them all, so as to be all the more easily conquered and Islamized.

The fact is, the mass Muslim migration is symptomatic – it’s not the problem. ISIS is the problem. Iran fueling and fighting Assad’s civil war is the problem. All of this chaos has resulted from Obama’s disastrous and incoherent foreign policy.

Yet the media’s callous and cynical spin is that those who voice legitimate concerns and oppose the refugee influx into Europe are just like the Nazis. That hyperventilation was in the Washington Post. The U.K.’s Daily Mail was even worse, likening the trains carrying refugees to settlement camps to the Nazi trains that carried Jews to their deaths: “You did not need to be a historian to sense the chilling echo of Europe’s not-too-distant past. The last time people were duped on to trains around here, they ended up in Auschwitz.”

The crisis is crushing – the scale of which is one not seen in Europe since the end of World War II. Obama’s “junior varsity” team has overturned the order of the world. And it’s only just begun.

Europe in Collapse – Refugees Attack Police Officers at Migrant Center, ‘Allah hu Akbar’ Gunman Kills Two Female Police Officers and Migrants Discover New Route into Italy, 2,000 Arrive in 48 Hours

Refugees Attack Police Officers at Migrant Center in Dresden

Since the beginning of the refugee crisis Germany has received over one million asylum applications, more than any other country in the European Union. As a result of the influx, the authorities in Berlin have tightened migration controls.

Police on Monday were called by security guards in order to stop a food-related dispute between two immigrants from Georgia at a migrant center in Dresden. However, after the police arrived, a crowd of refugees attacked them, injuring two police officers and one security guard.

“As a result, about 50 residents gathered and attacked officers by throwing lit cigarettes, then kicking and beating them,” a statement from the Dresden police said, adding that one of the migrants tried to attack the officers “with an iron bar from his bed.”

Additional forces were required to stop the crowd and restore order.

This incident is yet another in a series of clashes between the police and migrants in the country. Earlier this month, the police endured an attack of 150 migrants, trying to “rescue” a 23-year-old failed Togolese asylum seeker from deportation. The authorities released the man in question at the time, however, after a subsequent operation he was again detained and then deported.

The clashes come on the heels of a scandal in Bremen in April, where a former official from the The German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees and his four colleagues were accused of taking bribes in exchange for granting around 1,200 refugees asylum, although they did not meet the criteria.

‘Allah hu Akbar’ Gunman Kills Two Female Police Officers, one Bystander, in Belgium in Suspected Terror Attack

‘Allah hu Akbar’ Gunman Kills Two Female Police Officers, one Bystander, in Belgium in Suspected Terror Attack

Local media have named 36-year-old Benjamin Herman as the gunman who fatally shot three people outside a cafe and took one woman hostage at a school in Liège, Belgium, on Tuesday morning. He allegedly shouted ‘Allah hu Akbar’ before being shot dead by police.

Shots were heard in the centre of the eastern Belgian city of Liège at around 10.30 am local time when an armed man opened fire outside the Cafe des Augustins on the Rue des Augustins, killing two police officers.

Belgian prosecutors’ office spokesman Philippe Dulieu confirmed the attacker in Liege was carrying a knife and approached two police officers, stabbed them several times, disarming them, and then used their weapons in a shooting rampage.

Dulieu said that the attacker “then took their weapons. He used the weapons on the officers, who died.”

National Belgian broadcaster RTBF has named the suspect as 36-year-old Benjamin Herman who was on temporary release from prison. He was known to police for petty crime such as theft, damage to public property, and minor drug trafficking.

The broadcaster speculates that he was radicalised in prison in Lantin, where he began his sentence in 2017, but whilst being allegedly known for violence by fellow inmates, he was not known for being associated with the radical Islamist prison scene.

Belgian officials confirmed a third person, a 22-year-old man who was in his car at the time, was also killed. A member of the Anti-Banditry Squad (PAB) and another bystander were reportedly injured.

The shooter then fled and held a cleaning lady hostage in the Waha high school. Police confirmed that security services arrived on the scene and shot the suspect dead, reports HLN.

Belgian broadcaster RTBF reports claims that a terrorist motive is suspected. According to police sources who have allegedly spoken to Belgian newspaper La Libre the gunman shouted “Allah hu Akbar” before being shot dead by police.

National media outlet VTM News also claims some witnesses allegedly heard the suspect shout the Islamic war cry.

Another official from the Belgian federal prosecutor’s office, who spoke on condition of anonymity with The Associated Press, said that “there are indications it could be a terror attack”, and the case has been taken over by the office which deals with extremist attacks.

An eyewitness video appears to show evacuation of the Avroy Boulevard with the sound of gunshots in the distance and people running for safety. Later footage shows a convoy of ambulances heading towards the scene.

Liège police will hold a press conference in the coming hours.

Migrants Discover New Route into Italy, 2,000 Arrive in 48 Hours

After a period of relative calm, African migrants have begun arriving en masse into Italy once again, crossing through Tunisia now that Libya has become virtually impassable.

Over the weekend some 2,000 African migrants arrived on the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia, many of them having departed from the North African country of Tunisia.

Over the past four years, Libya has been the prime departure point for African migrants attempting to reach Italy by sea, with more than 600,000 migrants successfully making the crossing in this period. People smugglers have taken advantage of the security vacuum created by ongoing armed conflict in Libya and the lack of a single recognized government.

Since last summer, however, migrant crossings have declined sharply after Italy struck a deal with Libya, offering to train, equip, and finance the Libyan coastguard and to work together to turn back vessels and return migrants to Libya.

The deal was endorsed by European leaders and has been credited with significantly reducing the migrants flows arriving on Italy’s southern coast.

Traffickers also struck a deal with the Tripoli government and Libya’s coastguard—backed by the European Union (EU)—began patrolling the coast and intercepting migrant boats before they could reach NGO vessels that would bring them to Europe.

This spring, Libyan coastguard vessels have intercepted a number of migrant boats, returning their passengers to Africa rather than allowing them to rendezvous with NGO ships.

In early March, one vessel carrying over 100 migrants on board made it as far as the Aquarius rescue ship some 21 miles off the Libyan coast, but was stopped before it could unload its passengers for transfer to Italy.

This past weekend, however, the same Aquarius ship, used by the NGOs Doctors without Borders and SOS Mediterranean, arrived in Catania carrying 70 migrants picked up at sea.

Pro-migration forces have also struck back at Italy’s successful efforts to curb new arrivals, filing a lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) alleging that Italy’s collaboration with the Libyan coastguard has subjected migrants to inhumane conditions, beatings, rape, and starvation by forcing them to return to Africa.

The lawsuit was brought by the UK-based charity Global Legal Action Network and focuses attention on a November 2017 incident in which the Libyan coastguard allegedly interfered in efforts by an NGO boat to rescue 130 migrants from a sinking vessel.

As of mid-May, 25,338 migrants have entered Europe by sea in 2018, with about 41 per cent arriving in Italy and 38 per cent to Greece, with the remainder (21 percent) arriving in Spain, according to the UN Migration Agency (IOM).

During the same period last year, more than double (54,324) the number of migrants had made the crossing and about 188,000 at this time in 2016.