Memes are doing that thing again, where they begin to manifest as actual positions. White Sharia is one such meme. If you need proof that at one point this was simply a joke, see Anglin’s write-up on it. Basically, white sharia is a reaction to the laxity and borderline non-existence of Traditional morality in Western culture, often focusing on moral themes of patriarchy. Despite sneering at Muslims, its proponents want to treat their women as Muslims do. Why has such a sentiment emerged? Is it simply a product of the Manosphere? I don’t think so. In fact, I see it as a reaction to social liberalism among those who operate in these spheres. I won’t caricature the position of moral laxity, and instead present it in its own words from Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents:
“I oppose a package deal of White Nationalism and social conservatism. White Nationalism is for all white people. My idea of a utopia is a place where we are still fighting over abortion and feminism, but it is only white people who are doing it. I think these reactionaries are a ball and chain on WN. They have never won a battle since when? Stalingrad?”
For many people, social conservatism and a belief in identitarianism are inseparable from one another. There is a convoluted logic to that, in that wishing the best for your people does not simply end at their existence, but their welfare. Deeper than this however, is a correlation of decency. If you value the unique nature and living individuality of groups (at least at an intellectual level) you will likely be someone with moral standards. You will likely see absolutes rather than relativism. You will likely be a decent human being rather than a degenerate. Decent people don’t tolerate social liberalism, because why on earth should decency tolerate indecency? People don’t want to argue about feminism because they are disgusted by it. The contention here is that outside of the race issue, there are two sides to the story of every hot-button topic, and if both sides have some legitimate point, then a debate/dialogue/election can solve things. Perhaps we should just call this ‘WN Republicanism’ since it apes conservatism’s toleration of liberalism on every issue but race.
Thus, these people who don’t accept WN Republicanism can arrive at the white sharia meme. But notice something. white sharia. An explicitly religious concept of profound spiritual significance is profanely detached from the metaphysical, and reattached to the physical, the race, and in this case not only race as a purely biological construct, but race as a monolithic bloc. Sacco Vandal was given an opportunity to defend white sharia as a concept on Counter-Currents where he wrote:
“Ultimately, cultural forms are not and should not be considered as anything other than tools of the race. What is important is the survival of our people. And our people have worn various outfits throughout their history. Christianity was one such cultural garment that many of our ancestral tribes agreed to don in order to gain Rome’s approval for whatever patch of Europe they had come to rule over. And we should have no qualms whatsoever about utilizing any useful cultural forms we discover or organically conceive. Those who insist on resurrecting dead traditional forms are merely prioritizing their LARPy nostalgia over the survival of our people.”
“hehe, our Christianity was merely a costume!”
I would contend this approach is even more myopic than outright social liberalism, because it is trying to shoe-horn everything around race when race is not central and never has been. This person would discount anything of higher value, and in a departure from what some may think of this school, that includes paganism, as simply a useful tool of race. Considering truth? The nature of the eternal? A return to the reign of quality over quantity? LARPy nostalgia! Whether you have to wear a hammer, a cross, or a crescent, it does not matter so long as race remains paramount. If sharia law is ‘useful’, then implement it.
Let’s look at what the sharia truly is. René Guénon:
“The casing or shell (al-qishr) is the sharīʿa, that is, the external religious law which is addressed to all and which is made to be followed by all, as indicated moreover by the meaning of “great way” that is associated with the derivation of its name. The kernel (al-lubb) is the ḥaqīqa, that is to say truth or essential reality, which, unlike the sharīʿa, is not within reach of everyone but reserved for those who know how to discern it beneath outward appearances and how to attain it through the exterior forms which conceal it, protecting and disguising it at the same time. In another symbolism, sharīʿa and ḥaqīqa are also designated respectively as the “[outer] body” (al-jism) and the “marrow” (al-mukh), of which the relationship is exactly the same as that of shell and kernel; and one could no doubt find still other symbols equivalent to these.”
Thus we find that spirituality is divided in its accessibility, and the sharia is the Islamic “great way” via which the great masses attain sustenance from God, because they have no way of accessing the haqiqa. Sharia is most certainly not just a system of random laws intended to control muhh women. Douglas Murray may think so, but he has no idea of the sacred and profane. Thus, to consider the sharia outside of this primary function is to entirely miss its point. Is there any relation between sharia and race? Yes, as there is always some interaction between moral codes and racial dispositions. As much as Muhammad may not have intended, the sharia is not interpreted and practiced in the same way by Central Asians as it is by Arabs as it is by Persians, but that isn’t what is mean by white sharia. Channeling Jack Donovan, Vandal states that we must “become barbarians again”, but why in God’s name should that satisfy us? Barbarism is not the natural state of man, civilization is. You want to reconstitute Europe so you can shit in the woods? I’m a stalwart defender of patriarchy, but treating women in the way we would treat our cattle is abhorrent to European sensibilities, and is thus the ultimate form of LARPing. He claims that existing outside of this barbarian state is weakness, and yet the barbarians were decimated by the civilized, all over the world. That element of Europe which had so much in common with the barbarous situations of other wretched peoples, is gone and hopefully never returns.
we want to repeat this because?
Part of the reason Christianity was so compatible with Europeans was its open-endedness where Islam had little, in the arrangements of civil society. Christianity tells us adultery is bad and provides guidance that it should be penalized, but it never states by what measure or in which circumstances, for while the moral law is binding upon us, the civil law will end up as a combination of the moral law and common sense grounded in self-understanding. Stoning adulterers was entirely appropriate for the society described in the Old Testament, but to argue for its implementation in sleepy Liechtenstein because women are uppity, that is something else.
There are two key things which make white sharia an embarrassingly bad concept. The first is that sharia cannot mean anything outside of the tradition in which it is based. The second is that the kind of law it proscribes is inappropriate for European peoples, to a far greater extent than it was ever inappropriate for Central Asians or Persians.
Does this give a free pass to those racial activists who demand that social conservatism be done away with? Not in the least. All that is being said is that one need not go to the Islamic extreme in order to answer this particular foolishness. Europeans have the answer to degeneracy, feminism, baby-killers, sodomites, etc. That answer can be found in our Greco-Roman and Medieval past. Now please, let us be ‘bigots’ in our own special way, no sharia required.