Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Having 'white nuclear family' promotes white supremacy, says New York professor, report says...progressives still working on the perfect human and ignoring human nature and your will.

Having 'white nuclear family' promotes white supremacy, says New York professor, report says

A City University of New York sociology professor reportedly said in a tweetstorm last week that “the white-nuclear family” promotes racism, prompting a backlash on social media.
Jessie Daniels, described as an expert on “the Internet manifestations of racism” on her CUNY page, infuriated social media users after reportedly saying that white families promote racism by default.
The professor began her argument saying she learned that “the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy,” adding that that families “reproducing white children” are “part of the problem” as they facilitate white supremacy in the country, Campus Reform reported.
She reportedly tweeted: “I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but … you’re forming a white family (and) reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ – how is that helping [and] not part of the problem?"
She reportedly ended her arguement suggesting that “white people” should confront their racism and stop perpetuating inequality by leaving their homes for their children.
“Until white people are ready to confront their own family's racism (and) participation in systemic white supremacy, it's not getting dismantled,” she wrote. “Beyond just calling out interpersonal racism, white people who want to be engaged in the work need to ask themselves about housing wealth.”
She added: “White people: do you own your home? When you die, where's wealth in that house going? If it's to your children, you're reproducing (inequality).”
The professor locked her account in response to the criticism. Fox News reached out to the professor and the university early Tuesday and did not receive an immediate response.

Calling the Cops in Europe? Don't Bother

Are there no-go zones in Europe, or aren't there? Have political control and the power of law enforcement in some urban neighborhoods been tacitly turned over to local Muslim leaders, with even the police taking a hands-off attitude? Across Europe, some politicians, journalists, and police spokespeople continue to deny that such zones exist, although the evidence for their existence becomes increasingly difficult to disavow.
Even as these establishment functionaries continue to insist that no-go zones are a myth, however, news reports are indicating that in several European countries, the policing problem has advanced beyond the mere fact of no-go zones. Earlier this month, for instance, the Dutch newspaper Het Parool reported that throughout the Netherlands, police departments are now so overburdened by “radicalization, terrorism, and the influx of asylum seekers” that they simply don't have the time to investigate a large percentage of crimes. In Rotterdam, 54% of crime reports are tossed at once, without even a cursory effort to track down a perpetrator; in The Hague, the figure is 48.5%; in Amsterdam, it's a whopping 64.8%. The overall national figure is 56%.
One night nineteen years ago, a few steps away from Muntplein, a busy square in the heart of Amsterdam, I was accosted by a young Muslim man who held a knife on me and demanded my money while a half dozen of his pals hovered threateningly nearby, at canal's edge. More angry than scared, I responded with what may be described as foolish bravado, telling my assailant to hit the road. He backed off, and headed with his friends down the canal, presumably in search of someone else to mug. For my part, I went to the nearest bar and ordered a gin and tonic. I was so stunned that it didn't even occur to me until I was halfway through my second drink that I should've gone immediately to the police. Even all those years ago, I doubted that filing a police report would've made any difference. Today, apparently, it would almost certainly be a waste of time.
The same thing's happening in Britain. On October 16, the Daily Mail reported that every police force in the country was now “abandoning inquiries into thousands of 'hard to solve' low-level offences.”

What kinds of offenses? The list includes “vandalism, theft, burglary and antisocial behaviour,” plus minor incidents of “grievous bodily harm” and “car crime.”
Of course, these are infractions that are committed, to a wildly disproportionate degree, by Muslims.
The message is clear: if you're the victim of a violation that falls into any one of these categories, you need not bother reporting it, unless you actually know who committed it or have evidence that seems likely to help police identify the perpetrator without too much time or effort. Forget those scenes in movies where cops stare at CCTV footage for hours on end in search of a suspect: under the new British policy, police won't even bother looking at crime-scene videos if the job promises to take more than twenty minutes. Cases will also be abandoned at once if there aren't any “viable lines of inquiry,” whatever that's supposed to mean. Sara Thornton, head of the National Police Chiefs' Council, defended this new opposite-of-zero-tolerance approach, explaining that “we must prioritise so we are using our resources to the best effect and protecting people who need it most.”
What are the priorities of UK police? Well, as the London Times noted on October 12, they've been pretty busy the last couple of years collaring people for making “offensive” remarks online. Last year, at least 3,395 people – the real number is probably a good deal higher – were arrested for this purported transgression. No one will be surprised to know that the remarks judged to be “offensive” enough to merit punishment tend to be remarks about Islam. If you're a Muslim who has repeatedly called for the death of infidels, don't worry: the police won't bother you. (A prominent example, cited by the Times, is terror-supporting activist Nadia Chan, who has called Jews “parasites” and white people “swine.”) If you're an infidel who has merely complained about Muslims who call for the death of infidels, however, you'd better be ready for a knock at the door.
It's hard not to conclude from all this that the British police – or the politicians who give them their marching orders – have cast their vote for dhimmitude, choosing to overlook Muslim misdeeds and to focus, instead, on muzzling those who dare to express concern about those misdeeds.
No one familiar with developments in Sweden will be surprised to learn that police policy in that country has also changed in the same way – and that the situation sounds, if anything, even worse than in the Netherlands and Britain. On September 12, SVT reported that the investigations of many rape cases were being put off for weeks, even months – even when the victims were children, and even when the names of the rapists were known. The number of rap cases that result in prosecutions has also shriveled rapidly – from 20% in 2014 to 14% in 2015 to 11% last year.
The alleged reason for this decline? The police say that they have their hands full with murder cases. Of course, Sweden could appropriate more funds for policing; but where to find the money? The nation's treasury is already overburdened by welfare-state payouts to Muslim immigrants.
In each of these countries, then, the police – presumably on direction from above – have begun to operate by the same suicidal philosophy. Except when dealing with the most monstrous of felonies, they've chosen to use their available resources not to put up a firm resistance to the soft jihad of Muslim lawlessness but, rather, to silence public criticism thereof. So it is that in the Netherlands, Britain, and Sweden, the police – whose job, we all grew up thinking, is to protect citizens and maintain order – are instead systematically abetting the “low-level” disorder and destruction that are part and parcel of the ongoing Islamic conquest of Europe.

Democratic National Committee manager doesn’t want ‘straight white males’ recruited for jobs: report

Democratic National Committee manager doesn’t want ‘straight white males’ recruited for jobs: report

Democratic National Committee manager doesn’t want ‘straight white males’ recruited for jobs: report
A Democratic National Committee manager said she doesn't want "cisgender straight white males" recruited for job openings because "they're already in the majority," the Daily Wire reported. (Image source: YouTube screenshot) 
A Democratic National Committee manager said she doesn’t want “cisgender straight white males” recruited for job openings because “they’re already in the majority,” the Daily Wire reported.
The outlet posted a screenshot purportedly of an email Data Services manager Madeleine Leader sent to DNC insiders Monday noting eight technology department openings.
The message asked recipients to forward the announcement to their contacts — except for those who happen to be “cisgender straight white males.”
“I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority,” Leader allegedly instructed.
The email also said the DNC’s tech department is being rebuilt into a “robust, well-oiled machine that can tackle all elections from the Presidential down to Dog Catcher and School Board” and is looking for a “staff of diverse voices” in order to “secure the future of our country.”
The Daily Wire said an anonymous DNC source offered the outlet the following observation:
Clearly the DNC is doubling down on a failed strategy that has alienated staffers and voters alike. We want to be judged based on the quality of our work, not on identity politics. How can we trust the leadership of the DNC if they don’t even trust us?
Leader declined to comment to the Daily Wire about the email.

Yuff's and black on white crime

NJ Family Visiting Baltimore Haunted By Random Teen Attack At Inner Harbor

BALTIMORE (WJZ) — It’s the heart of Baltimore’s tourism industry, but the Inner Harbor turned into a nightmare for a visiting family of 10 earlier this month.
Out of nowhere, they were swarmed and beaten by a large number of teenagers.
While the family that was attacked does not want to be identified, they do want their story to be heard. They told their story to WJZ off-camera.
“They swarmed us,” said Stacey. “They hit my husband in the head. They knocked him out… and then it was just complete bedlam.”
It happened on the day of the Baltimore Marathon, Oct. 21. The event brought a big crowd to the harbor that night. The 10 family members, from grandparents to grandchildren, were walking by the H&M store when they were overwhelmed.
“And they punched my nephew in the face and knocked him to the floor,” Stacey said. “My sister went to protect her son, and they were kicking her. I was knelling with my husband screaming ‘Somebody help us, why is nobody helping us?'”
Baltimore City police spokesman T.J. Smith says groups of teens have been a problem in the city.
“It’s always groups of them,” he said. “Someone in that group starts it, and that’s what we saw in this situation.”
In March, a group followed a man downtown, hurling insults, which quickly escalated into a physical assault, and a rapid scattering by the attackers. The same technique used last week when two bicyclists were robbed and beaten by a group.
“The disrespect from some of these juveniles is just absolutely unbelievable and stunning,” Smith said. “And it should be to society.”
“Maybe if there’d been police on foot, those people would never have been congregating there, looking for a fight, you know looking to hit somebody,” said another victim, Sal.
“Well we did have cops all over the place, but again they probably got there relatively quickly, but we can’t have cops on every corner in every single block of the city,” according to Smith.
While police are reviewing surveillance video of the attack, the victims can’t stop replaying it in their minds.
“After this, I can’t sleep at night, seeing what happened over and over again in my head,” Stacey said. “Seeing my family attacked.”
Two members of the family suffered concussions. Others came away with scrapes and bruises, and a vow never return to the Inner Harbor.
As yet, police have no suspects in the attack. Because the group appears to have been made up of juveniles, if they are found they cannot be identified.

Want to work in Hollywood? Here's the kind of nondisclosure agreements you have to sign first. Their liberalism is to inoculate themselves from the grotty behavior.

If you wanted to work for Leonardo DiCaprio’s company Greenhour Corp. a few years ago, you would have had to sign a document crucial to the Oscar winner’s “personal safety, well being and business.”
Prospective workers were asked to consent to confidentiality agreements that not only prevented them from disclosing private information about the actor, but also a long list of “offensive/inappropriate material” they may be exposed to in the development of films and other projects.
What’s more, a copy of the agreement reviewed by The Times appears to demand that workers give up their rights to sue DiCaprio or Greenhour over a wide variety of claims, including harassment, invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress — “whether or not in connection with the development” of DiCaprio-related projects.
That’s just one example of the terms of Hollywood confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, documents that aim to protect personal or corporate information and have come under the spotlight since the Harvey Weinstein scandal erupted early this month.While such agreements were reportedly used in settlements between Weinstein and women who accused the powerful producer of sexual harassment, nondisclosure agreements also are a standard part of getting many Hollywood jobs.
The agreements, commonly referred to as NDAs, also vary widely from company to company, differing in how they define confidential information, in how much they demand workers pay for blabbing and in the degree to which they block — or purport to block — workers from taking legal action.
For instance, a years-old agreement for the production company behind business reality show “Shark Tank” identifies confidential information as information directly related to the show, such as the names of participants, the participants’ business ideas and the outcomes of episodes, according to a copy of the agreement reviewed by The Times.
The confidentiality agreement for contractors working for DiCaprio and Greenhour, on the other hand, says a much wider class of information is off limits.

Confidential information, according to that document, includes information about the actor, his family and friends, his businesses and even “the existence of the contractor’s business and/or personal relationship with DiCaprio.” The document goes on to say a long list of “offensive/inappropriate material” is also confidential information.
It states that contractors on a project “may acquire information or material of an explicit, graphic, offensive, sexual and/or inappropriate nature,” and be in situations where “as part of the creative process, conversations, jokes, banter and behavior may contain explicit references to sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, violence and other protected categories.”
Another provision in the agreement appears to demand that workers give up their rights to sue DiCaprio or related companies. The document requires contractors, however, to report to a supervisor if they feel harassed or threatened.
Wayne Outten, a New York employment lawyer who reviewed the language of the agreement for The Times, said that employers cannot block workers from suing.
“The scope of this is just wildly overbroad and I don’t believe it would be enforceable,” said Outten, a cofounder of the nonprofit Workplace Fairness. “It’s overreaching. I can’t imagine any court would enforce this.”
But David Krause-Leemon, a Sherman Oaks litigator who also reviewed the language, called terms of the agreement “pretty standard” for Hollywood, though he also said it appears to be written in a way that would make workers believe — erroneously — they could not sue.
“It’s meant to discourage” potential suits, he said.
A Greenhour Corp. representative declined to comment but did not dispute the authenticity of the document.
A freelance technician called the DiCaprio agreement “ominous” because it appeared to shield DiCaprio from lawsuits or other action stemming from inappropriate behavior.
“I found it so offensive that I turned down the job and did not sign the agreement,” said the technician, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because, like many in Hollywood, he fears he would lose employment opportunities if he spoke out. “I’m very much against NDAs. They’ve gotten increasingly oppressive.”
Another document reviewed by The Times, from Beverly Hills’ United Talent Agency, also warns that workers may be confronted with “conduct and speech that openly and explicitly relates to sex.” That document, though, does not suggest that workers cannot take legal action.

Outten said that kind of disclaimer could be a reaction to a 1999 sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Warner Bros.Television by a former writers’ assistant on the sitcom “Friends.” The assistant alleged that the “Friends” writers’ room was filled with coarse and graphic sexual banter.
The California Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case, finding that the behavior at issue could reasonably be found in a "creative workplace" for a show that sometimes explored sexual themes.
Outten said the kind of disclaimer United Talent Agency asks workers to sign could protect the agency from similar lawsuits, though workers could still try to sue if they feel they’ve been harassed or discriminated against. The agency document also tells employees they should feel free to report harassment or other concerns internally and that there will be no retaliation for doing so.
Still, a former agency worker said she felt the disclaimer would make it pointless to sue or complain.
“Reading it, as a woman, I can see how it would be a disincentive for me to report any kind of sexual harassment,” said the former employee, who said she has not been the victim of harassment at work. “They could pull out this document and say, ‘You waived your right to complain about this type of behavior.’”
Agency representatives declined to comment on the document. But in an email sent less than a week after the New York Times first reported harassment and assault allegations against Weinstein, agency Chief Executive Jeremy Zimmer reiterated the company’s position that workers should report abusive behavior.
“UTA respects and protects the boundaries of our colleagues and clients,” Zimmer wrote, according to a copy of the email reviewed by The Times. “If you feel uncomfortable, threatened or exposed, if a client feels that way, if a colleague does -- you are safe to come forward.”
A common thread through nondisclosure agreements is the use of arbitration or other private proceedings to settle disputes.
The agreements for the “Shark Tank” producer and United Talent Agency demand that any disputes related to confidential information be managed in arbitration, a private system in which testimony, documents and rulings are not available to the public. DiCaprio’s agreement does not call for arbitration, instead demanding that any disputes be handled in court, with the court file sealed and with a protective order prohibiting the release of confidential information.
Some confidentiality agreements detail the consequences for breaking them. The agreement for DiCaprio’s company states that contractors must pay the actor $250,000 if they violate the deal, while the “Shark Tank” agreement called for a payment of $5 million, a sum the document calls “the fair average compensation for any harm” that could result from a breach. A spokeswoman for MGM Television, which now produces “Shark Tank,” declined to comment on the document.
Nondisclosure agreements are generally presented as standard documents that workers must sign as a condition of employment, though some workers protest.
The freelance technician who said he refused to sign DiCaprio’s agreement has balked at signing others, too. Some companies have kept him on anyway, he said, but fewer firms are willing to do that now.
“When I wouldn’t sign, they’d just overlook it because they know me,” he said. “But that’s changing as they get more and more serious.”
Other workers acknowledge they generally do not scrutinize the terms of nondisclosure agreements because they feel they have no choice but to sign.
A former “Shark Tank” worker said that’s especially the case for freelance workers, who rely on referrals and may fear that refusing to sign an NDA — or reporting harassment — could damage job prospects in the future.
“If I give them the impression that I could be a liability, well, now I've got a mortgage that can’t be paid,” the worker said. “The truth is, it’s a buyers’ market. Everyone is replaceable.”

It must have frosted CNBC to publish this...

Consumer confidence hits highest level since December 2000

  • Consumer confidence rose to 125.9 in October, according to the Conference Board.
  • The rating is at the highest level since December 2000. 
  • This accounts for Americans' views of current economic conditions and their expectations for the next six months.

Consumers were even more optimistic in October than economists polled by Reuters expected. 
Consumer confidence rose to 125.9 in October, according to the Conference Board.
The index "increased to its highest level in almost 17 years," Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board, said in a statement. That was in December 2000, when the index hit 128.6. 
The economic weight of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma pulled down the spirits of U.S. consumers in September, when the index was relatively flat. In October, "consumers' assessment of current conditions improved," Franco said.
"[This was] boosted by the job market which had not received such favorable ratings since the summer of 2001," Franco said. 
The high level of confidence suggests the economy will continue to expand "at a solid pace" for the rest of 2017, Franco added. 
The index takes into account Americans' views of current economic conditions and their expectations for the next six months. Economists pay close attention to the numbers because consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity.

St. Louis man, 79, headed back to prison for his fourth murder

ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis man paroled from prison after murdering three people in the 1970s is heading back after killing a woman he said he suspected of stealing from him at his St. Louis apartment complex this year.
Torrance C. Epps, 79, pleaded guilty Monday to a reduced charge of second-degree murder, assault, two gun charges and two counts of armed criminal action.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Dennis Schaumann accepted terms of a deal with prosecutors and sentenced Epps to 18 years in prison.
He claimed he saw Johnson watch him leave earlier that day and suspected her of entering his apartment with a backup key from the office to steal from him.
“It was my life savings,” Epps said from his wheelchair Monday.
“Is that a reason to shoot somebody?” Schaumann asked.
“I was awfully upset,” Epps said. “I’m awfully sorry.”
Epps told Schaumann he had “no doubt” about pleading guilty. After the judge read each charge, Epps responded emphatically, “Guilty as charged.”
Asked about any health problems, Epps told the judge he took “plenty” of medications to treat four blood clots stemming from being hit by a bus.
Police have said Epps had reported a break-in at his apartmentand items missing in the days before the shooting.
He first fired several shots at a woman near her apartment, then went to the leasing office and pointed a revolver at another person before shooting Johnson. It was about 1 p.m.
Johnson, who lived in the 3800 block of McRee Avenue, was found dead in a hallway of the senior housing complex at 1410 Ohio Avenue.
Epps had been sentenced to 30 years in prison for the fatal shootings on Dec. 3, 1973, of three of his wife’s relatives in their home in the 2900 block of Franklin Avenue, now Martin Luther King Boulevard.
He murdered his wife’s mother, Pauline Clark, 44, and his wife’s grandparents, Matthew and Pauline Sherman, both 72, with a revolver.
Epps had been searching for his son and wife, Linda Clark Epps, who said she left him because he beat her. After more than a week of searching, he became convinced that his in-laws were helping hide them. He showed up at a police station, demanding that officers help, then went to the in-laws’ home with a gun.
Epps had served 14 years when he was first paroled in September 1988 and sent to a halfway house.
He escaped a month later and was a fugitive for eight years.
He was caught in a food stamp fraud crackdown when he paid an undercover federal agent $380 for $615 in food stamps, and was returned to prison. He was paroled in 2003.