Looking for old videos?
Find them here â–ş https://www.bitchute.com/channel/iouRs4aNC04f/
Note to flag bombers: When YouTube deletes a video due to flag bombing, I send a link to my "insiders" e-mail list where they can upload the deleted video to their YouTube channels and other social media venues. Though deleted from my channel, the "offending" flick proliferates on, perhaps, dozens of other channels receiving far more views than before it was zapped.
Support my hard work via Patreon â–Ľ
https://www.patreon.com/kenndaily
Please do not use hate speech, racial slurs, profanity, pejoratives,
etc. in comments. Let's keep this channel a safe space where sane people can engage in conversation.
SUBSCRIBE â–ş https://www.youtube.com/dailykenn
MEWE â–ş https://mewe.com/profile/5ac752278416212f5c8fb72a
GAB â–ş https://gab.ai/DailyKennDOTcom
VK â–ş https://vk.com/kenndaily
FACEBOOK â–şhttps://www.facebook.com/dailykenncom/
TWITTER â–şhttps://twitter.com/DailyKenncom
KENN SINGS â–ş https://goo.gl/hDm6cd
KENN'S LAWS â–şhttps://goo.gl/48EoBp
KENN ON CLASHDAILY â–ş https://goo.gl/IzotGS
ATTRIBUTION [FAIR USE] â–Ľ
https://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2018/10/democrats-turn-hate-from-white-men-to.html
DAILYKENN.com --Now that the Kavanaugh hearing is history, the far-left moonbat Democratic Party has no more use for white women.
Explains the far-left moonbats at the New York Times, “[W]hite women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain”.
Summation: Democrats are dividers. The segment us into racial and gender categories, labeling one group as the oppressing bourgeois and another group as the oppressed proletariat.
From nationalreview.com â–Ľ
By Kyle Smith
Today, white women are being lumped together into a giant bloc subject to absurdly broad stereotyping and vitriolic condemnation. They’re being told to step back and know their place by writers in the New York Times (“white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain”), The New Yorker (“despite the enduring legacy of testimony by black women, white women have often played the protagonists in the history of sexual violence, and black women have been relegated to the supporting cast”) and NBC News (“white women who voted for Trump . . . clearly have no issue with the president’s openly misogynistic behavior, his demeaning of female reporters and his mocking of [Christine Blasey] Ford”).
A writer for The Root castigated Taylor Swift because “like some white women, she uses her privilege to not be involved until she’s directly affected.” Talia Lavin, the New Yorker fact-checker who resigned in June after erroneously suggesting that an ICE agent (who turned out to be a combat-wounded Marine Corps veteran) had a Nazi tattoo, continues to contribute to The New Yorker and tells her 51,000 Twitter followers, “patriarchy won’t protect you no matter how hard white women fight for it.” “White women use strategic tears to silence women of colour,” ran a headline in the Guardian. On the basis of five phone calls, plus the story of what happened to Emmett Till in 1955, Rolling Stone published an essay entitled, “Why White Women Keep Calling the Police on Black People,” blaming them for “a new 21st century version of Jim Crow.” It wouldn’t be terribly difficult, in a nation of 300 million, to come up with five examples of black men who had murdered white women, but if you wrote an essay entitled “Why Black Men Keep Murdering White Women” you would rightly be barred from writing for just about any reputable journalistic outfit. The intellectual error of making invidious generalizations about large groups of people based on superficial characteristics is obvious. So is the moral error.
Copyright Disclaimer: Citation of articles and authors in this report does not imply ownership. Works and images presented here fall under Fair Use Section 107 and are used for commentary on events deemed newsworthy. Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 allows for fair use for purposes including criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 reads in part, "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
