Honor killing, or Eloidom?

Jane Corbin in the Daily Mail calls the murder of 17 year old Laura Wilson by her Muslim boyfriend Britain’s first honor killing of a white. I would reply that at its most significant level there’s nothing “first” about it. It is simply the latest in an endless series of murders of brainless white female Eloi who got themselves involved with black or Muslim men. And I’m still waiting for the first mainstream news article, feature article, or editorial on that phenomenon.

The “feisty” 17-year-old Eloi who had been around
the block with not one, but two Muslim men,
both of whom then conspired to kill her.

Laura, of Rotherham in South Yorkshire, had had a baby with 20 year old Ishaq “Zac” Hussein. But Zac rejected both Laura and the baby and Laura really was in love with his friend, 17 year old Ashtiaq Ashgar. So what did this plucky young Englishwoman do? She visited the families of both men and told them that she had had sexual relations with both of them, setting off a fierce argument in which one of the mothers tried to hit Laura with a shoe. While it’s not clear what Laura was trying to achieve by this, her behavior shows that she was an Eloi and was “feisty” (as her mother describes her)—a doubly deadly combination. It was too much for the families to bear. Ashtiak and Hussein met several times in the three days after Laura’s visits to their families. They exchanged text messages about buying a gun. Then Ashtiaq invited Laura to meet him by a canal, where he “began a frenzied knife attack on the girl,” threw her into the canal, and repeatedly stabbed her in the head when she tried to struggle out of the water. Ashtiaq has been convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison—17 years for a deliberate, planned, extremely aggravated, first degree murder. He’ll probably be out in eight years. Hussein was also charged in the murder but acquitted.

On the subject of honor killing, Corbin quotes a government prosecutor’s account of a conversation he had recently had with a 20-year-old man:

“He told me that in his society, a man is like a piece of gold, a woman is like a piece of silk. If you drop gold in the mud, you can clean it. But a piece of silk is ruined.”

Now what does this tell us?

First, it tells us that the murder of Laura Wilson was not due to her lost honor, since she was not a Muslim and not a member of the families that had her killed.

Second, it tells us that there is no solution to the problem. If, according to the Muslim code, once a female has been dishonored, the dishonor is permanent and also dishonors the family, and the only way to rid the family of the dishonor is to kill her, then there is no solution to Muslim honor killings in Britain, short of removing Muslims from Britain.

But that is a solution for another time, another generation. The West is not ready to hear it. And when it is ready to hear it, it will be too late to do it peacefully.

* * *

A final point. Corbin herself acknowledges that the conventional proposed solution to honor killing, education, will not work:

Many believe that the key to preventing honour abuse in the long term lies in education.

Yet Jasvinder Sanghera approached more than 100 schools before finding one that was prepared to let her talk to pupils about forced marriage and honour-based abuse.

She says: ‘The schools all say the same old thing—we don’t want to offend communities.’

But who is Corbin to make this implied criticism of British schools for not wanting to “offend communities”? She herself does not want to offend them, as shown by the fact that she, this pathbreaking journalist, does not once use the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in her article, but instead refers euphemistically to “Asian” and “ethnic” communities; she refers once to the killers’ families as Pakistani.

If people are not only afraid to speak to Muslims about honor killings, but even afraid to use the term Muslim in a critical context, how long will it be before they are ready to recognize that Muslims do not belong in Britain and that it was a suicidal error to bring them in? Not until it’s too late to solve the problem, short of violence that will largely destroy Britain.

- end of initial entry -

Jason R. writes:

You wrote:

“Ashtiaq has been convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison—17 years for a deliberate, planned, extremely aggravated, first degree murder. He’ll probably be out in eight years.”

As I suspected, it was actually a minimum 17 (actually 17.5) year sentence. In English courts, the judge at sentencing is obliged to prescribe a minimum tariff. That Ashtiaq pled guilty and was under 18 at the time of the killing saved him from a longer sentence. On the other hand, given that he had texted the acquited Hussain the message, “I’m gonna send that kafir bitch straight to hell,” and the trial judge claimed that he saw “white girls simply as sexual targets,” the CPS could have argued that the murder was racially/religiously aggravated, which would have increased the sentence.

I’m wondering if you’ve also heard about the recent double murder of two English girls, Kimberley Frank and Samantha Sykes. The police have in custody Ahmad Otak.

Now that he’s been charged the media has to observe the usual legal proprieties, but the time between a crime and the arrest of a suspect is when the media often reveals interesting background to a case.

LA replies:

The two stories, from the Daily Mail, are not very informative. All we know is that the two female victims, aged 17 and 18, were found killed by stab wounds in the flat. And that one of the girls, Kimberly Frank, was known for having frequent parties, with a lot of men, most of them Asian, hanging around her flat. It seems to be taken for granted that a 17 year old lived alone in her own apartment.

18 year old Samantha Sykes is (was) almost movie star beautiful.

I guess she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Meaning, Britain in the 21st century.

Jim R. writes:

I don’t think that the habit of white women/girls seeking out Muslim or black or other nonwhite, non-European men is “Eloi” but rather female hypergamy at work, without moderation of the traditional culture. After all, even Jane Austen’s Elizabeth Bennett fell for the bad boy Mr. Wickham, but given the moderation of traditional culture on sexual expression (sexual repression does a society good!), no lasting harm was done.

White women seek these guys out because they are more dangerous and therefore alluring than their beta-male, “boring,” and safe counterparts. See Elizabeth Bennett’s initial reaction to Mr. Darcy: a stuck up prig who was boring, even if rich.

Most societies understand that the business of forming families is too important to be left to utter chance and initial sexual attraction. Because looks fade, children need (in a productive, technology oriented society) lots of resources, and both parents need to stick together to create societal wealth. Which means endless compromises and trading off sexy men for dependable ones (women can’t have both).

The liberation of female sexuality by the pill, condom, anonymous urban living, and improved female earnings, has cracked open the basis for European (and NE Asian) society. The desire to import lots of dangerous, violent, aggressive, non-Western men into the West is purely a female driven phenomenon. You don’t see beta male white guys pushing the view, “Gee, I’d like the most attractive of my female peers to have kids and be murdered by non-Westerners, and be made semi-slaves in my own country.” But anyone reading Twilight is familiar with the phenomenon.

The pill and the condom have in their own way changed the West more than the printing press and gunpowder.

LA replies:

I see that hypergamy is defined as “marriage with a partner of higher social status.” I don’t quite see how that fits with the idea of sleeping with menacing lowlifes.

Be that as it may, let’s take it as a given that many young females today are drawn to dangerous, and therefore to them exciting, males. I don’t see how that contradicts the idea that these females are Eloi. First, what does this relationship consist of? The male provides the thrill, and the female passively enjoys it. She is passively delivering herself over to the company of this lawless, perhaps violent man, who provides an excitement and meaning in her life that she cannot provide herself. Then, her passive relationship with this violent man continuing, the man kills or maims her. So it seems to me that there is a continuum between what you call hypergamy and what I call Eloi-hood.

As an example of what I’m talking about, consider the story of Katie Piper and Daniel Lynch.

The pretty blonde Englishwoman “fancied” the exceptionally thuggish- and dangerous-looking black man, and instantly embarked on a sexual relationship with him. Within two weeks he grew possessive and threatening and he physically attacked and raped her. She withdrew (though did not call the police), then he called and asked her to meet him for a cup of coffee to “talk.” She passively complied (despite the fact that he had already violently attacked her), and on her way to the meeting place an accomplice of Lynch’s walked up to her on the street and threw sulfuric acid into her face.

Her “hypergamous” attraction to this obvious savage, and her suicidal Eloi-hood, were not different things, but the same thing.

LA continues:

As I wrote in another entry on the Katie Piper atrocity:

What is there to say? Women have basic weaknesses built into their nature. Traditional society provides girls and women with an upbringing, a formation, that gives them the ability not to give into those weaknesses, for example, to fend off alluring but dangerous men. But in liberal society, they have no formation, no guidance, no upbringing, except for the liberal message to be open, to pursue your desires, and not to judge people. So liberal society exacerbates young women’s weakest and most vulnerable side and turns them into victims. Liberal society is a factory for the production of dead (or in this case disfigured) young white women.

March 18

James N. writes:

You wrote: “I see that hypergamy is defined as ‘marriage with a partner of higher social status.’ I don’t quite see how that fits with the idea of sleeping with menacing lowlifes.”

What you are missing is that the term “social status” has multiple possible definitions.Of course these males with white girlfriends in Britain and Sweden do not conform to a conventional understanding of high status.

But they ARE, conspicuously, male, and as such are complementary to the European female in a way the the male European geldings are not.

Hypergamy is often misunderstood as simply an economic matter — and our young women certainly sometimes act that way. But the deep roots of hypergamy are not economic but are instead driven by the female drive for safety.

In a world gone mad, hooking up with a badass brings an illusion of safety. After all, who is going to protect these girls from the casual savagery they see all around them? David Cameron?

Don’t make me laugh.

LA replies:

Agreed that, as a general matter, women have a drive for safety. But I do not see what a drive for safety has to do with Katie Piper’s attraction to Daniel Lynch, or with innumerable other instances of white women getting involved with violent nonwhite men who then harm or kill them. It seems to me that the proponents of the hypergamy theory have got to straighten out what they think the theory means. Some say it means that women go for more manly, and thus higher status, men, because they want to be excited. You, while stating that the higher social status that hypergamous women desire in men has multiple possible meanings, say that at the deepest level women go for more manly, and thus higher status men, because they want to be safe. Obviously excitement and safety are conflicting motivations.

March 19

Expatriot writes:

Hypergamy means that women are attracted to men who are “above” them—superior to themselves and, ideally, to other men as well. This can be either social dominance, in the form of wealth or social status, or personal dominance, in the form of physical strength or force of personality. The social dominance of men over women, being a function of traditional patriarchy, has been negated by female empowerment. With women more or less equal to men in socioeconomic terms, only those few men who are of much richer or higher status than the common run of men are perceived by women as socially dominant.

This leaves personal dominance as the weightier factor influencing the modern woman’s choice in men. As for physical strength, modern man has little opportunity to display his superiority in this area outside of sports. Not long ago, even the lowliest manual laborer could establish and reestablish his virility daily by performing tasks beyond the ability of most any woman, and thus partially offset the disadvantage incurred by his lower social status relative to other men. Mechanization has largely neutralized this male advantage as well. The other venue in which brute physical strength was displayed was fighting, which was once tolerated if not outright encouraged but is now so severely sanctioned (at least for white men) that the only ones who can afford to engage in it are those with nothing left to lose. Once upon a time, even good men were occasionally violent. Nowadays only bad men are violent. If violence is outlawed, only outlaws will be violent.

Which brings us to the final point. The only way that an increasing number of men can distinguish themselves is by resorting to the one type of dominance remaining to them: dominant personality. This covers a wide range of qualities: leadership, decisiveness, confidence, determination, independence, resourcefulness, risk-taking, charisma, intelligence, wit, etc. What needs to be noted about all these is that, while they initially appear to be unreservedly positive qualities, they are in fact morally neutral (as are all the other forms of dominance mentioned above—a physically strong man is not necessarily good, nor a rich man, nor a high-status man, despite the fact that we would all prefer to be strong, rich and powerful). A personally dominant, “manly” man may be either good or bad. We could just as easily re-word the above list as: domineering, impulsive, arrogant, pig-headed, selfish, inconsiderate, irresponsible, reckless, devious, and yes, violent. Whether we choose positive or negative terms to describe them, these are the “alpha” traits that women subconsciously associate with high-status men. Of course, the “alpha” qualities they crave are really epiphenomenal, merely superficial markers of the things they really need, not the things themselves. Thus, to a woman judging men in the raw, unmediated by any societal evaluation, a man who puts on a convincing act of being confident and charismatic is as good as a man who is confident and charismatic and has the accomplishments to prove it. And when this act is accompanied by the brute physical violence forbidden to men who play by the rules, the combined effect is intoxicating. Women are attracted at the visceral level to the raw masculinity, which they in turn interpret at the conscious level in the most hopeful light possible, taking wishful thinking to heights unimaginable to us men. A temple built atop a sewer indeed. “But to the girdle do the gods inherit, beneath is all the fiend’s.” There is thus no contradiction in a woman imagining herself to be seeking safety from a “strong” man who excites her and ends up abusing her.

Patriarchy valorizes qualities that men value in other men, dominant or not, “beta” qualities such as loyalty, honesty and industriousness, and converts these into a currency that women value: social status and the financial resources that accompany it. In this way male and female values become aligned. In the past, women’s judgments of men were mediated by male authority. Nowadays, however, women are evaluating men on the basis of their own subjective, gut-level feelings, which, while accurate indicators of the thrills they can expect from the relationship, are poor indicators of their prospects for long-term happiness.

Jim R. replies to LA’s reply to him:

Yes, that probably covers it. It just seems to me to be a gender-related breakdown. You rarely see white guys suddenly coming to grief with blacks / Muslims / non-Westerners they previously trusted who predictably victimized them. I guess my problem is that H.G. Wells’s novel treats the Eloi as being both male and female, passive victims. Whereas I see most ordinary white guys being completely absent from this phenomenon and not particularly wanting either “an Imaginary Black Best Friend” a là Oprah.

It’s probably just a semantic thing. Again thanks for all you do, God Bless.

LA replies:

An analogy of X (Wells’s Eloi) to Y (our modern Eloi) does not mean that X and Y are similar in all respects, just in some respects. Furthermore, white men are also, obviously, Eloi, but in a different sense from the specific sexual Eloihood we’re discussing here.

Laurence B. writes:

Expatriot said, “Hypergamy means that women are attracted to men who are “above” them—superior to themselves and, ideally, to other men as well.”

I would only add that in these instances, it’s not just that the brutish men with whom these women shack up are physically superior to them, the men are racially superior to them (and, for that matter, to other men). A white woman is marrying upwards in the liberal social strata if she is marrying into a minority race. The social respect, satisfaction, and privileges that come with provide much more of an incentive for the woman than just the visceral desire for physical protection.

There are still plenty of large, brutish, blue-collar white guys, both in American and in Britain. Associating with these men brings social ruin, however, not elevation.

LA replies:

That’s an original and excellent point.

Daniel O. writes:

Jim R. is right when he says that “the pill and the condom have in their own way changed the West more than the printing press and gunpowder.” I think this is a moral and psychological fact. Moreover, it reminded me of research a few years ago, which asserted that birth-control pills biologically distort the picking of a right ”mate” (a secular word for partner or spouse). Moreover, the same distortion also leads to women having more sexual partners. Hence, the pill not only morally encourages women to have multiple, wrong ”partners,” it does so biologically as well. Basically, it creates a multiplier effect. Combined with the already known facts on the influence of birth control pills on, e.g., breast cancer, it is evident that these pills are both immoral and unnatural. In a certain sense, birth control pills are liberalism.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 17, 2012 10:26 AM | Send