We all know how they do this: they introduce one of these “progressive” policies somewhere in the West, whether it is government sponsored abortion for teenagers or arrests for not wearing virus masks, then everywhere else in the West claims that it was a smashing success in X place, and they all copy the policy.

Oregon has already decriminalized all hard drugs.

Now Vancouver.

Canadian Press:

Councillors in Vancouver have voted unanimously to ask the federal government to decriminalize possession of small amounts of illicit drugs.

In a statement issued late Wednesday after the vote, Stewart thanked groups such as the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, which he says have pursued decriminalization for years.

In the same process used to create its first supervised injection clinic almost two decades ago, city staff will now write to federal officials, including the ministers of health and justice, seeking an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

If approved, Stewart says Vancouver will work with the police department, Vancouver Coastal Health, community groups and people who have lived experience with drug use to determine how decriminalization should be approved.

Yeah, let’s unironically get the “lived experience” to inform us in the process of legalizing fentanyl and crystal meth.

Understand: this is not some random lunacy. It is systemic lunacy. They are going to do this everywhere, because they want everyone on drugs as they force us into poverty.

The coronavirus lockdown hoax was a plan to obliterate the middle class by transferring their wealth to the ultra-rich, leveling out the world’s playing field among the goyim. The average white American will be no better than some 75 IQ neanderthal creature living in a slum in Dhaka.

None of this is confusing. It’s all in fact brutally straightforward: the ruling elite is using a fake crisis to drastically transform society. Drugs are a huge part of that, because they are a weapon. It was the Jewish Sackler family that normalized the use of opioids in America through OxyContin. Jews have continually been behind moves to legalize all drugs.

The push for this in Oregon was backed by the ACLU, a brutal posse of Jew lawyers.

The media is of course praising it as brilliant.

I can’t stress it enough: This is in the middle of an economic collapse when the government is forcing businesses to close and all of the money that these people lose is being transferred to the rich.

Could you imagine anything more obvious?

Anyway, the good news is that I invented the “toothpaste ad smile heroin addict stock photo meme.”

That’s gonna grow legs. It really shows the whole entire nature of society.

We also need “toothpaste ad smile breadlines,” “toothpaste ad smile while being arrested for a mask violation,” and so on.

Everything is supposed to be happy, while the entire foundation of the social order crumbles.

Even Billie Eilish is happy now.

Pictured: average teenage girl in a relationship.

This is obviously the consequence of teaching men not to rape and telling women about how they were constantly raped in the past. It’s payback for all of the horrors that the Female Race has suffered at the hands of men.

Now it’s their turn to abuse.

Study Finds:

Defined as using technology to repeatedly harass a love interest, partner, or crush in order to coerce, control, intimidate, threaten, or just plain old annoy, digital dating abuse has developed into a disturbingly common phenomenon. The research team analyzed over 2,200 U.S. middle and high school students, and 28.1% admitted they had been subjected to a form of online dating abuse over the past year.

Perhaps surprisingly, the study also noted that boys (32.3%) appear to be experiencing this type of abuse more often than girls (23.6%). Across all variations, boys were more likely to have experienced a form of digital dating abuse. In fact, boys were also more likely to have experienced physical aggression from their partner. Besides these gender fluctuations, researchers didn’t find any significant demographic differences regarding rate of digital abuse among varying races, ages, or sexual orientations.

In all, 2,218 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 who had been in a romantic relationship took part in the study. Examples of digital abuse given by participants included their partner looking through their phone without permission, having their phone flat out stolen by their partner, being threatened via text, their partner posting something embarrassing or hurtful about them online, or their partner posting a private image online without their consent.

Besides online abuse, 35.9% of participants also said they’ve been a victim of offline dating abuse (being pushed, shoved, hit, threatened physically, called names, etc).

“Specific to heterosexual relationships, girls may use more violence on their boyfriends to try to solve their relational problems, while boys may try to constrain their aggressive impulses when trying to negotiate discord with their girlfriends,” says Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., lead author and a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College for Design and Social Inquiry, and co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, in a release. “It’s unfortunate to be thinking about dating abuse as we approach one of the most romantic days of the year, Valentine’s Day. However, it is clear that digital dating abuse affects a meaningful proportion of teenagers, and we need to model and educate youth on what constitutes a healthy, stable relationship and what betrays a dysfunctional, problematic one.”

Predictably, there was a major connection between being harassed online by a partner and also experiencing abuse in person. In all, 81% of students who had experienced digital dating abuse also reported being subjected to more traditional forms of romantic harassment.

Okay, so here’s how women work, basically:

Women are vessels. You either fill them with your seed or demons fill them with their whims.

In other words: if men don’t control women, women are controlled by demons.

We’ve really allowed ourselves to be walked into a corner here with all of these Respect Women laws that keep men from slapping these whores into submission.

Now, if we’re talking about submission, one weird trick that is one hundred percent guaranteed to work on all women all of the time without you having to raise your hand at them is to just literally grab them by the pussy.

Pictured: the face they make when they’re grabbed by the pussy.

Grabbing women by the pussy is actually probably the easiest non-violent way to control them.

The moment your fingers reach her genitals she enters what I like to call Can’t Even Mode, which is a state of being where women literally cannot even do anything about what transpires around them.

But we’ve also allowed ourselves to be legally locked out of that helpful pacifying trick.

So how do we deal with uppity and aggressive women?

First, understand that women are not people, not human, and not really sentient.

They are just toys meant to keep you company and carry your reproductive device for you.

Kinda like some AI robot that cannot stop itself from talking nonsense.

Don’t ever attempt to engage them with logic. They have none.

You cannot win an argument with women using words.

With women, you have to argue using feelings.

Change what they feel. Don’t let them change what you feel.

Impose your will on the interaction.

Smile, grin, laugh, be playful, and force her to realize that she has no effect on you and no effect on the world.

She is small, she is tiny, she is insignificant.

These entertainment devices have no will of their own — but even if they had one, they have no way to impose it on the world.

One of the dumbest things I’ve read in my entire life is that “women are the gatekeepers of sex.”

Women literally cannot gatekeep shit.

In an environment that is true to nature, if a woman gatekeeps anything from you, then you’re not a man because men are naturally above women in might.

We can just take whatever we want from women.

The corrupt system we live in, on the other hand, creates the illusion of women being able to do stuff. It encourages men to view women as creatures that can gatekeep stuff from them. If something can be gatekept from you, it means that you need permission in order to obtain it, and that mindset inevitably results in a sick, destructive quest for the approval of women.

“But Pomidor, how do I smile and laugh when she’s coming at me with her mean words and actual violence?”

Understand the absurdity of this situation we live in.

Understand that basically, women are C-3PO.

And laugh at them.

Laugh at the absurd situation.

Laugh at the world.

Laugh at the universe.

Because you know the truth.

You know your real place.

You know this is just an illusion.

Sally Challen and her victim. She has that innocent look in her eyes.

Women are never responsible for their actions, which is why we must have Equality and give them the same rights and pretend they’re independent.

Daily Mail:

The figure walking across the dark car park was one Sally Challen recognised immediately. Of course she did.

After 30 years of marriage she would have known that gait, that profile, anywhere. It was her husband Richard, locking his car and jauntily trotting across the road — straight through the doors of a well-known local brothel.

Sally’s heart was pounding as conflicting emotions ripped through her. Fury, that he was betraying her, his loyal wife. Disgust that he was paying prostitutes — women who were likely damaged and exploited — for sex. And triumph, that she’d ‘got’ him at last.

He couldn’t wriggle his way out of this one. Finally, he’d have to own up to his appalling behaviour.

An hour passed, and there he was again, returning to his car. ‘He saw me and legged it,’ she says.

A farcical scene ensued as they raced their cars through the Christmas-lit streets of suburban Surbiton, with Sally screeching to a halt outside the family home three miles away in Claygate, Surrey. But Richard had got there first.

‘I ran into the kitchen and found him calmly making a cup of tea,’ says Sally. ‘I shouted that I’d just seen him coming out of a brothel and he looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘what are you talking about, Sally? I’ve just been out selling someone a car. Honestly, I don’t know where you get these ideas. You’re bloody going mad.’

She’d caught him red-handed, but his indignant, flat denials were so convincing it left her thinking that perhaps she was going mad. In the face of such certainty and insouciance, who wouldn’t have been left doubting themselves?

If one incident sums up the devastating mind games that Sally Challen was subjected to during her marriage to Richard, it is surely this one.

…and that’s why Sally killed her husband with a hammer. Because he had sex with prostitutes and lied about it.

But the ‘brothel incident’, as Sally calls it, was just one in a huge, painful dossier of horrifically cruel and controlling behaviour she endured throughout her entire adult life at the hands of the man she still, to this day, describes as ‘the love of my life’.

Oh, wait, there’s more? Why start the story with the “brothel incident” if there are worse incidents that made her kill her husband?

There are worse incidents, right?

The torment Sally suffered left no bruises. No one had a clue what was truly going on until the day, in August 2010, when she finally snapped and killed Richard in a brutal hammer attack.

Driven to breaking point, she inflicted at least 18 blows as he sat eating a meal, before covering his body with blankets, changing out of her blood-spattered clothes and driving away with a plan to commit suicide.

Painted as a vengeful, jealous wife in court, Sally spent nine years in prison for murder.

But a change in the law in 2015, when coercive control finally became an offence, enabled Sally to appeal her conviction, which ultimately led to her charge being reduced to manslaughter.

Her legal team were able to argue that she was incapable of making a cold-blooded, premeditated decision to kill Richard, as all rational reasoning had been destroyed by the years of abuse she’d suffered.

Having been released from prison earlier this year, her case is now cited as one of the most shocking examples of coercive control the UK has seen. It has set people thinking about what goes on behind closed doors.

If you are mean to women, the law allows them to kill you.

Starting today, in a series of shattering exclusive interviews —Sally’s first — she describes the moment she ended the life of the man she never stopped loving.

She recalls how she was pressured into an abortion by him as a teenager, and the numerous times he raped her during their long marriage, as well as his constant lies and many affairs.

She tells how her sons, who only became aware of the full extent of her suffering after their father’s death, have stood by her, of surviving nine years in prison and how she is now rebuilding her life as a campaigner for other abused women.

How convenient that her husband isn’t alive to defend himself against these allegations. How suspicious that her sons were never aware of her suffering before she killed their father.

Sally Challen, the anti-abuse campaigner.

How predictable that she’s now a role model for abused women.

At 17, having had no sex education and with Richard not having instigated contraception either, the inevitable happened; she became pregnant.

Sally says her mother was horrified. When her brothers confronted Richard, he commented: ‘Well I wasn’t the first.’ It wasn’t true.

‘I didn’t think Richard would like it [the prospect of having a baby] so an abortion was the only option,’ says Sally.

Even at the outset, she knew he had a wandering eye, yet with no other experience of men, Sally had no template for what a healthy relationship should look like.

‘I just thought the way he treated me was normal. I didn’t know any better. I was always trying to please him because I thought if I didn’t, he’d leave me.’

…and that’s why women must take ALL the dicks in — so they can make an informed decision and pick the one they like the most.

How else are they supposed to know if they’re being abused?

The college experience is preventing women from killing their husbands with hammers.

Yet Sally never once thought she deserved more. ‘He was my better,’ she says simply. ‘Richard was good looking, charming and attentive when he wanted to be.

‘He was very popular. I felt he was a catch.’ But what about Richard’s feelings for Sally?

BUT HE TRICKED HER!!! He wasn’t really a catch! She was the catch all along!

The couple married in 1979. ‘On the day of my wedding, my mother said, ‘You don’t have to marry him, you know.’ Sally just thought she was being a snob.

After the wedding, Richard expected Sally to do all the housework, cooking and washing, even though she also had a full-time job with the Police Federation.

His business was also doing well, and with his good looks and charm, Richard was a brilliant salesman. He had a Ferrari and expensive suits. Sally was always immaculately dressed and coiffed.

But despite working, she had no financial independence. ‘I gave Richard my salary. He gave me cash to do the shopping with. That was the way he worked. We didn’t have a joint bank account.’

When the boys were born, the entire workload of child-rearing fell to Sally. She still strived to please Richard: the undercurrent of fear that he would leave her was always there.

No wonder she killed him.

Imagine trying to provide for your family to the best of your ability while expecting your wife to raise the kids — absolute domestic abuse!

Early in 2009, Sally had had enough, after seeing a news item where the brothel he had been to was raided and the police found the girls had been trafficked.

She’d started and stopped divorce proceedings five times —but this time she was serious.

They were on a family holiday in Malta when she blurted out: ‘I don’t love you any more. I want a divorce. He said: ‘Well, you know you won’t get anything.’

‘That was his reaction. He didn’t say, ‘please don’t leave me, I love you’. At first, I was euphoric, thinking, ‘I can start a new life’.’

She left Richard, bought a house nearby (with money inherited from her mother) and moved in with her younger son David who was, by now, in his early 20s and fully aware of his father’s shortcomings.

James stayed with Richard for a while, before moving out himself. It didn’t last. ‘I absolutely hated it,’ says Sally. ‘I couldn’t sleep, I was on my own. I couldn’t cope without him.’

That may seem strange given the horrors she’d endured, but Richard had defined her whole adult life. He was all she knew.

In one email, sent on April 6, 2010, she wrote: ‘I want to be with you, I am sorry I left. We are soulmates, we have been together so long, I can’t see a future without you. You are my life, I love you.’

Richard replied: ‘I will consider your return only on these terms . . . when we go out together it means together. This constant talking to strangers is rude and inconsiderate. We will agree to items in the home together. To give up smoking. To give up your constant interruptions when I am speaking.’ 

He also insisted that in any future divorce her settlement would be £200,000 — a fraction of what she was entitled to. Sally promised to obey all the rules.

To give up smoking? To stop interrupting him? To stop talking to random people and ignoring him when they are out together?

What a demanding monster!

On August 13, 2010, the day before she killed Richard, Sally went to a lawyer in Kingston upon Thames to go through the post-nuptial agreement.

The solicitor thought it was a terrible idea, but Sally ignored her. To mark their reconciliation, she and Richard were planning a six-month trip to Australia together.

The following day, she visited Richard at the marital home. They were clearing it out with a view to letting it while they were abroad. ‘He announced he wanted a cooked breakfast even though it was the afternoon,’ says Sally.

‘Sausage, egg and bacon. But he didn’t have anything in the house, so it meant going to Somerfield. It was pouring down, but even so, I was expected to go to the shops, which I did. I felt he wanted me out of the house and the breakfast was an excuse.’

When Sally returned just after 3pm, Richard was upstairs getting dressed. ‘I noticed that the phone handset was now on the sofa — it hadn’t been when I left — so I dialled 1471.’

Sally had a set of keys to the marital home and had been coming in and clandestinely checking his online activity and emails. She recognised the number as belonging to a woman Richard had met on a dating website.

Nothing had changed. Richard hadn’t changed. ‘I cooked the meal. He was upstairs on the computer. As soon as I went upstairs, he blanked the screen.

…and that’s why she killed him.

…right?

‘Then Richard came downstairs, sat down and I put his meal in front of him and I said, ‘Am I going to see you tomorrow?’

‘He said, ‘Don’t question me, Sally, don’t question me’.

‘And it was the way he said it, and it was what he used to say to me always, ‘Don’t question me, because you’re not going to get an answer, so don’t even bother going there.’ And that was it . . . I just flipped.’

Now THAT’s why she killed him.

For real this time.

Sally had brought a hammer with her to the house in her handbag — something the prosecution leaned on heavily during her trial.

‘When I moved out of the marital home someone had put together a toolbox for me so I would have one at the new house and it was the hammer in there,’ she explains.

Today, Sally swears she has no memory of putting it in her bag. ‘Although I must have done, because it was there, it was in my handbag.’

“It just happened.”

Then came the horrifying moment that changed her life for ever and ended her husband’s.

‘I went behind him as he sat at the table, eating his meal. I picked the hammer up and hit him over the head with it. I hit him and I hit him and hit him and hit him.

‘It was like an out-of-body experience, it wasn’t me doing it. I’d never hit him before. I’d never hit anyone before in my life — I don’t remember smacking James or David ever.

Of course it wasn’t you hitting him, Sally! It was him hitting himself in the back of the head with a hammer using your hands just like he used your body for his own sick pleasure so many times before! He did this to himself! He did it!

‘The prosecution say I hit him 18 times, which seems like a ridiculous amount. I can’t believe that — it didn’t feel like that.

‘It felt like I was on some sort of autopilot. Richard was on the floor. I knew that he was dead because I felt his skin. He wasn’t breathing. I rubbed his leg.

‘Then I went through to the garage and found some old blankets. I brought them over and I covered him up. I didn’t want David or anyone to find him like that, to see that . . . I wrote on a piece of paper: ‘I love you, Sally,’ and placed it on his body.‘

What a heart-warming love story.

No seriously.

Won’t someone think of the children?

Because fags hate kids. Nothing makes me madder than hearing about a fag getting invited to a baby shower.

The women kick the men out except for the little kids and these special, nice-smelling and lisping men.

Which is what women do, they always enable these fags. 

Even the slightly more based women I’ve known in my life have had a weak spot for fags.

Which, as it turns out, amounts to child abuse.

Wisconsin Public Radio:

A former nurse accused of crushing the bones of 10 newborns at a Wisconsin hospital has been charged with child abuse and attempted murder.

A criminal complaint filed in Dane County charges 43-year-old Christopher Kaphaem with 19 felonies relating to injuries on infants born prematurely from March 2017 through early 2018.

In February, UnityPoint Health-Meriter officials notified Madison Police about the injuries nurses and parents had discovered on two infants. Initially, staff thought bruising on their arms might have been from equipment or medical conditions the infants had.

According to the complaint, a pediatrician with the University of Wisconsin Child Protection program reviewed the records of 40 infants who had been in the neonatal intensive care unit, reviewing medical histories, blood samples and bone mineralization samples to rule out medical causes for injuries to infants.

Investigators later identified a total of 10 infants that Kaphaem had cared for with injuries consistent with child abuse.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says all ten infants suffered serious injuries. The charges include intentional child abuse and abuse of a patient causing great bodily harm to babies. The injuries ranged from bruises to a broken arm and a skull fracture.

There is so much evil that we tolerate and allow to grow within our society.

I ask you, is not tolerance of evil in itself evil?

Since when has tolerance become a cardinal virtue? It has always, in fact, been a sin.

Tolerance is compromise.

Tolerance is cowardice.

Tolerance is anti-Christian and it leads to innocents suffering.

Kaphaem worked in UnityPoint Health-Meriter’s NICU since October of 2016 and worked overnight. Fellow nurses told detectives that Kaphaem would often close the door to do an infant’s care exam.

But they shrugged and tolerated it. Nurses. The most gossipy women in the most gossipy profession in the world. You just know that they were all like, “ohemgee, you know a lot of babies are getting injured who are in this guy’s care, but I’m sure it’s nothing, and him being a fag isn’t a cause for concern at all!”

According to detectives who interviewed nurses who worked with Kaphaem, he had once told a fellow nurse “he was happy to work in the NICU because he would not have to deal with patients talking back to him.”

Kaphaem appeared in court Thursday where a $500,000 signature bond was set. The defendant was ordered not to have any contact with the 10 victims or their families, Kaphaem also can not be at the hospital except in the case of a medical emergency.

State officials have suspended Kaphaem’s nursing license. His attorney hasn’t returned a message seeking comment.

Dark, dark stuff.

People used to just… disappear for doing stuff like this.

But hey, tolerance.

If only we had a sort of… religion, with form moral standards and a no-nonsense policy towards the weakness and stupidity of women, and the predations of the mentally twisted…

Oh yeah. That religion.

I’ve heard about it in the history books.

You had these people called “Christians” jumping into lion pits to save people, waaaay back when.

They would let themselves get burned alive for their faith, apparently.

It’s a shame that there are no Christians left anymore. 

I wonder what happened to all of them?

Having a Black beat the hell out of your small dog is just something you need to accept.

CBS:

A small dog which was yapping at a man on a San Francisco sidewalk was severely injured after the man brutally kicked into a wall in an attack caught on camera.

Investigators are thankful the attack and the suspect were captured on video and hope the publicized images lead to an arrest.

Surveillance video obtained by KPIX 5 clearly shows a little dog running up to a stranger and the man then kicking it away.

But the dog recovered and ran up to the man again. That’s when the man kicked it again, launching it into a wall and fracturing its skull, according to police.

The man then ran off. Investigators obtained close up pictures of the suspect, who appears to be a black man in his 30s, wearing a dark, short sleeve shirt, some king of necklace, dark pants and a black do-rag or skullcap.

If you want to understand the Jewish organ donation racket, just watch the 2001 documentary film about it entitled “Jeepers Creepers.”

These kikes and pajeets are just waiting to cut you up.

And they won’t even try to save you if they have a right to take your organs. They might even kill you on purpose to get your organs, as is seen in the Jeepers Creepers documentary.

Never, ever put “organ donor” on anything, ever.

Your body isn’t a fucking charity. It belongs to you. And even if the organ donor racket wasn’t a Jew/Pajeet scam, you have a divine right to be buried with all of your parts inside of your body. The idea of cutting up a corpse before burying it is satanic.

Fox News:

A 13-year-old boy who was said to be suffering severe brain injury defied odds when he regained consciousness after his parents had signed papers to donate his organs.

Trenton McKinley, of Mobile, Ala., was hospitalized two months ago after a small utility trailer he was in flipped over.

“I hit the concrete and the trailer landed on top of my head. After that, I don’t remember anything,” Trenton told Fox 10.

Trenton suffered seven skull fractures from the accident. His parents recalled doctors saying their son “would never be normal again.”

As they rubbed their hands, waiting to cut out his organs.

“All I saw was a stretcher with his feet hanging out. He was dead a total of 15 minutes,” Trenton’s mother, Jennifer Reindl, told Fox 10. “When he came back, they said he would never be normal again. They told me the oxidation problems would be so bad to his brain, that he would be a vegetable if he even made it.”

“Just sign the papers, shiksa, so we can sell his organs to someone who needs them. It’s the Christian thing to do, you silly goy.” 

Trenton was barely breathing in the days following the crash, Fox 10 reported. His mother ultimately decided to sign papers to donate Trenton’s organs that would benefit five children who needed transplants.

Fuck those children.

I would let five million or five trillion or five infinity children die for my son’s right to be buried with all his body parts.

“Five kids needed organs that matched him,” Reindl said. “It was unfair to keep bringing him back, because it was just damaging his organs even more.”

Unfair to whomst?

The random parasites demanding his organs?

A day before doctors were going to take Trenton off of life support, the 13-year-old began showing signs of brain activity and movement. Trenton began breathing on his own and woke up speaking full sentences in late March, his mother wrote on a Facebook fundraising page.

Yeah and basically he’s going to be totally fine and live a normal life.

Just how many people have been ready to wake up when the Pajeet doctor said “pull the plug, we need to cut him up and sell his body parts immediately”?

The absolute state of the medical industry.

You just can’t trust the blacks.

KMOV:

The family of a South City woman said she was hit repeatedly, kicked unconscious and left on the floor to die.

The woman is resting in a room at SLU Hospital, police said she suffered a severe brain bleed. Her sister tells News 4 doctors don’t expect her to see, speak or walk again. It’s only a matter of days, according to the woman’s sister, before Nancy Johnson’s family will see her one last time.

“There was no reason for something like this to happen to someone. She had been with this man 30 years. He said he loved her. He was so abusive to her and we did not know it until recently,” said Rudisill.

Paramedics called officers while rushing Johnson to the emergency room.

Rudisill says that it was actually friends of the couple that called for help after seeing Johnson.

“We were thinking, maybe, whatever conscience he had was getting to him,” added Rudisill. “He had been packing his bags, had all of her jewelry and a sum of money put in the bag. He was getting ready to bolt. He told paramedics she fell out of bed.”

Durka Durka Mohammad Jihad.

Ham is and always has been a basic human right. Denying it to someone that cannot get it for themselves – especially on Christmas – is the worst crime which one can commit.

Breitbart:

A Muslim caregiver in Sweden has caused controversy after she refused to purchase a Christmas ham for one of her company’s clients, saying that it violated her religious beliefs.
The case was brought before the local government council in the Swedish city of Trollhättan, where it was claimed that the elderly woman had been wronged after the Muslim caregiver had refused to buy certain food items she had been paid to pick up.

The incident sparked a debate in the community, leading local Liberal Party member Eva Castberger to pen an article for newspaper TTela in which she argued that the religion of the caregiver should not have mattered and she should have carried out the tasks she was paid to perform.

“Not a word was said about the discrimination the elderly woman suffered when she was refused to get the food purchased as she wanted,” Castberger added.

This won’t stop happening until we find a solution to this Black problem.

Fox News:

Police are releasing more information about a fatal stabbing that happened in Holland on Monday afternoon. Officials say 37-year-old Crystal Latham was found stabbed to death inside an apartment on 14th Street.

Police say her boyfriend, Keith Williams, is a suspect in the case and was arrested five hours after the homicide.

“When I heard what happened my heart fell to the floor,” said Sonia Castaneda, a friend of Latham. “I thought it couldn’t be true. It’s horrible.”

Castaneda first met Latham through their struggles with addiction and on their journey to recovery.

“She definitely marched to the beat of her own drum that’s for sure,” said Castaneda. “She wasn’t afraid to show it.”

“I was shocked when I heard,” said Julianna Miner, another friend of Latham. “I just saw her at the women’s meeting last Wednesday. She seemed to be doing okay, but you can’t really tell.”

Miner also met Latham through Harbor House, a rehabilitation program in Holland. Miner says Latham was working towards recovery while trying to support and reconnect with her kids. Latham had an eight month old baby boy they say she had with Williams.

“He was a very possessive and jealous guy,” said Castaneda.

Williams is considered a suspect in the case.

“I just got a bad vibe from him,” said Miner. “He wasn’t very friendly. He took a beautiful person away from us and her children.”

Hm.

Daily Mail:

Social workers let a mother raise her young son as a girl because they were in thrall to ‘transgender equality’.

The boy, who was made to wear a pink hairband, dresses and nail varnish, lived ‘entirely as a girl’.

He was registered as a girl with his doctor’s surgery and was referred to as ‘she’ in official documentation from the age of just four.

But despite the alarm being raised by officials and the boy’s father, council staff failed to intervene.

Details of the extraordinary case were revealed at the Family Court yesterday when a judge accused the boy’s social workers of naivety and professional arrogance.

The seven-year-old, who cannot be identified, has been removed from his mother’s care and is living with his father in the north of England.

He now regards himself as male and plays with toys such as Power Rangers. The judge, Mr Justice Hayden, said: ‘This is not a case about gender dysphoria, rather it is about a mother who has developed a belief structure which she has imposed upon her child.

‘I am bound to say that had the concerns [of school staff] been given the weight that they plainly should have, it is difficult to resist the conclusion the boy could have been spared a great deal of emotional harm.’

He added: ‘Transgender equality has received a great deal of attention in recent times. I believe that in this case the profile and sensitivity of the matters raised by the mother blinded a number of professionals from applying their training, skill, and, it has to be said, common sense.

‘They failed properly to investigate the mother’s assertions, in part I suspect, because they did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high-profile issue.’

Last night, the council involved – it cannot be named – said an inquiry was under way into its handling of the case.

The boy’s 40-year-old mother had separated from her younger partner within 12 months of their son’s birth in 2009. The pair initially agreed to look after their son cooperatively.

But when the arrangement broke down in 2013 the father went to court to restore contact with his child.

By then the boy’s mother had started sending him to primary school wearing a pink headband and nail varnish. She told teachers her son was ‘gender non conforming’.

Social services received repeated warnings over the welfare of the child throughout 2013 and 2014, including a report that the mother was insisting her son was transgender.

She had reportedly claimed ‘that she was going to disappear with him and “they will never find [us]”.’

The woman had apparently reduced a teacher to tears during a confrontation in which she said the boy should be sent to a gender reassignment clinic. She also repeatedly claimed to police her son had been the victim of ‘hate crime’ due to his gender status.

Social workers failed to act despite concerns being raised by the school.

In May 2014, the council’s housing department also raised the alarm, saying that the mother was claiming her son had been diagnosed as transgender at the age of four.

Officials said the boy ‘looked dirty, had pen marks on his legs and was dressed as a girl’. No further action was taken because there were ‘no safeguarding concerns’. By August the clamour from the boy’s school, the NSPCC, a GP and the housing unit finally forced the council to act.

But a visit to the family by social workers ended with the remarks: ‘The assessment concluded that there was no evident concerns suggesting he was at immediate risk of harm.

‘The mother is very clear that she is supporting her son with whatever choices he makes and she presents with a good understanding of his needs. There were no concerns from the social worker regarding the mother’s approach to her son’s gender presentation. Upon completion of the assessment, no further action was taken by children’s services.’

The report noted that ‘despite there being a high number of referrals the concerns have not been substantiated and did not meet the threshold for further intervention’. Sitting at the Family Division of the High Court, Mr Justice Hayden demanded the head of children’s services undertake a thorough review to maintain confidence in its safeguarding policies.

The council had ‘moved into wholesale acceptance that the boy should be regarded as a girl,’ he said. ‘Once again, I make no apology for repeating the fact that he was still only four. There was no independent or supportive evidence that he identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of investigation that suggested the contrary.’

The mother told Mr Justice Hayden that her son had ‘expressed disdain for his penis’ and said she was absolutely convinced her son perceived himself as a girl.’

A psychologist told the court that the mother, a former mental health nurse, had become ‘locked into a rigid and unshakeable belief structure’ about her son’s gender in what was described as an ‘enmeshed relationship’.

A spokesman for the council said: ‘We take our safeguarding responsibilities very seriously and accept the judge’s comments in relation to this case. There is very clear learning for the authority and other key agencies in this matter.

‘We have already begun to review our practice and involvement in this case so that lessons can be learned and shared.’

Maybe single mothers shouldn’t be allowed to raise children?

Maybe this whole feminist experiment has totally failed, and it’s now time to reevaluate if it was ever a good idea in the first place?

I mean – is there some reason we aren’t doing that?