Girl lures smitten boy to alleyway where gang beats and stabs him to death

The story appears in the Mail:

A two-timing schoolgirl who lured her 16-year-old boyfriend into a ‘honeytrap’ which saw him stabbed to death was facing a life sentence yesterday.

Wearing a short see-through dress, Samantha Joseph, 15, tricked lovestruck Shakilus Townsend into following her to an alleyway where he was ambushed by a gang of six masked and hooded teenagers.

The youngster bled to death after being beaten with a baseball bat and stabbed six times in a ‘relentless and merciless attack’ led by a jealous love rival who was also dating Joseph. One of the killers was out on bail at the time.

Samantha Joseph and Danny McLean walk away calmly
after ambushing and murdering Shakilus Townsend

Read the entire article, which explains why 15 year old Samantha Joseph assisted in the murder of the boy who was in love with her, and be sure to see the mug shots of the convicted.

* * *

On the same page at the Mail as the story of the murder of Shakilus Townsend is this, under the daily “Femail” section:

I tried dating men my own age but I’d rather stick to toyboys
Wendy Salisbury, 63, has a penchant for seducing toyboys and brags about it in print and online

There’s the Mail for you. It gives ample, critical coverage to the nonwhite savagery of today’s Britain, even as it normalizes and celebrates gross sexual decadence among stylish whites. Don’t the Mail’s editors and writers realize—don’t its readers realize—that a society that allows whites to do anything they please, will also be a society that allows blacks to do anything they please?

- end of initial entry -

The reader who sent the article writes:

People of this kind of depraved culture deserve each other. Let them mete out their own justice. In their own territories.

James P. writes:

You say,

“Don’t the Mail’s editors and writers realize—don’t its readers realize—that a society that allows whites to do anything they please, will also be a society that allows blacks to do anything they please?”

I think this should be the other way around—we are not a society that allows blacks to do as they please because we allow whites to do as they please, we are a society that allows whites to do as they please because we allow blacks to do as they please. If blacks are inherently more disorderly and anti-social than whites, and laws and customs are applied at strict white standards, then more many more blacks will go to jail and face social condemnation than whites, and this is politically unacceptable. On the other hand, if law and custom accepts black misbehavior as “normal”, then not so many blacks face jail and social condemnation as under the stricter standard, but this necessarily means giving whites license to behave badly. The bar of criminal and socially acceptable behavior has to be low, so that not too many blacks are punished, and as a result a lot of whites can escape punishment for behavior that would have earned them punishment in an all-white society that adhered to normal white standards. If you have blacks and whites together, then the behavioral standard is set at the lowest (black) common denominator.

LA replies:

Excellent point. I’ve linked our exchange in a new entry. And I don’t have an answer to you at the moment. I don’t have a sense of which view is correct.

James N. writes:

Chalk up another murder to sexual jealousy!

Here’s another thought on the subject for Kristor: In the past, when a girl said “no” to sex, it was not a titanic ego challenge, because it was normal and expected. Certainly it wasn’t as cool as if she said “yes,” but, after all, it wasn’t about YOU and your manhood, it was about HER and her femininity.

NOW, when a girl says “no,” it’s ONLY about you, since you know (or think you do) that she says “yes” to every other man on the planet. It’s not her values, it’s not her principles, it’s not her virtue—It’s YOU, big guy, it’s only YOU and your lower-than-dirt, wormlike non-masculine self that she doesn’t want.

This type of rejection under these (presumed) premises makes men angry. It makes some of them VERY angry—homicidally angry, in fact.

There is a neologism to deal with this problem—“dating violence.” In my mother’s day, girls took “pin money” on a date, in case they had to get home on their own after saying “no.” Now, they take .38 specials. You can change behavior, but not the human heart.

LA writes:

Terrific insight. Contrary to what liberalism tells us, sexual liberation and universal promiscuity do not reduce violence (i.e., by getting rid of everyone’s sexual tensions), but increase it, since any sexual rejection is now a departure from the universal norm and therefore an unbearable insult.

James has been on a roll lately. :-)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 09, 2009 01:15 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):