White Sharia?

Ramadan Begins In Indonesia

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.”

euroknights“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.

vikingrapewe 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.


12 thoughts on “White Sharia?

  1. I chuckled the first time someone said white shariah as a joke. To think that a non-zero number of misguided people would actually implement it is troubling. Fitting that “Crisis of the Modern World” was advertised under this article.


  2. >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.

    Leftists will claim that God is dead, but nonetheless pay Him the compliment of trying to drive a stake through His heart; sometimes it seems to be their #1 priority. (Maybe they remember what happened the last time they put Him to death?) But many on the center-right are genuinely indifferent to God, religion, and culture.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Everyone in the Balkans knows that the Janissary is the first one to get the stake. First the Janissary, than the actual Turk, that’s how it goes.

    You’ve puncutated the central point that US conservatives have shied away from: let’s be “bigoted” in our traditional way, that is actually in our background. I was a spectator to many atheist debates online and everytime an atheist would bring up some “Bible verses” every time the “Christian” failed to ask “When did actual Christians acturally did that? Did the Ancien Regime in france do that?”

    I feel this “White Sharia” thing tells something about the spiritual state of the average Anglo-Saxon, even the race-conscious one: many do not believe in their deepest heart, that they have a spiritual and cultural background, cannot imagine themselves as Christians, in the way that for instance the most secular “riposte laique” Frenchman knows that “integrisme” and Catholicism are a genuine alternative option for him. But, it seems, something went terribly wrong with the Anglo-Saxon soul that they cannot imagine traditional Christianity as a genuine alternative and not even LARPy Varg Vikernes style paganism. They just can’t.

    Can you imagine “Russian Sharia” being proposed by Eurasianists or Russian Nationalist. Or even “German Sharia” being proposed by the German far-right? This “White Sharia” thing is like a feature of globalisation. It seeks globalisation because its proponents are already globalists at heart, their soul eaten up by liberalism I suppose. They cannot imagine any alternative to globalisation and the Revolution except the caricature that is presented of Tradition. So they embrace the caricature. In a way 1488 is more genuine in embracing the Hollywood Nazi than these people are. In any case, if they genuinely go to Islam, I’d rather break bread with Varg Vikernes than with them, and that’s saying something.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well, I think when the time comes we won’t be breaking bread with any of these people.

      I think your point about Anglo-Saxons is interesting. Perhaps it’s Henry VIII’s fault for disconnecting us from Rome.

      Our last religion was Empire, and the Anglican Church. We’re still clinging to remnants of Empire by our fingernails, but we’ve abandoned the Church.

      Christianity is the answer, but it may need a new expression in order to retake England. America, Australia, Canada, I can’t speak for them.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. There is so much here. I absolutely agree that race cannot, and has never been, the first principle around which all other things revolve. When I created the website ‘Christianity & Race’ I almost called it ‘Race & Christianity’ but decided to switch the words because I realized religion is preeminent and foundational. I can’t understand these race first people’s obsession with truth in the realm of race/ethnicity (IQ scores, for example), but their total disregard for it in spiritual matters.

    Like you discussed, Christianity is a strong universal religion because it’s flexible. Doing mission work in Asia for the last two years has opened my eyes to this. There are many Pakastani Muslims in my university and it’s basically unthinkable for a Chinese person to convert to it because the cultural demands are overwhelming. Christianity seems almost tailor-made to be adapted to each culture in it’s own unique form.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Pingback: White Sharia and the Fault Lines of the Alt-Right – Hermitage of the Ascension

  6. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/06/18) - Social Matter

  7. Christianity is forever compromised, the leftist who found the trick of becoming holier than thou and in his own delusions became holier than Jesus, peace be upon him, showed the way to others who wish to undermine that faith. It still lives as a religious form in some remote places in middle east, south America and eastern Europe but it has no future.

    Also, reviving Christianity requires you to find a way to avoid falling into the same trap that killed the original form. This is what often gets ignored by western “traditionalists”; that “glorious traditional form” you seek to resurrect already had a chance and blew it, it was already there when the left showed up, and it proved completely and utterly unable to deal with it. Your life today is the result of Christianity not being able to deal with that cancerous growth, what makes you think the next time around would be any different?

    Islam has no such problems, it has successfully defeated all of its severely destructive herecies of the same genus, any Muslim, Shia or Sunni, would be shocked, disgusted and horrified by the idea of “sola fide”, I know I was when I first encountered it.

    To all of the above you should also add the fact that Bible, especially the new testament, has many suspicious similarities to the egalitarian left, now I know these are superficial similarities but this is also another opening that has been severely abused by the left, to the point that they portray Jesus, peace be upon him, as some sort of hippie(may god forgive me for this heresy). Today “moderate” Muslims have a lot of difficulties coming up with parallels in the Islamic history because all of our leaders, scriptures and preachers, did not preach things like “turn the other cheek”. We are advised to seek out and destroy enemies of goodness, justice and God wherever we might find them, this quality is inherent in Islam, while it is evolved in Christianity.

    However I also think Islam or “white Sharia” is not the way for whites, any usefulness Islamic teachings may have for Muslims is because we believe in Islam’s truth, nothing false could ever be useful to any degree, and whites have a problem with faith in truth. You probably don’t even know what kind of truth I’m speaking of, the majority of your people cannot conceive of a truth higher than “scientific evidence”, they have never “believed in” something with all their senses, they find it creepy to be completely and blindly in faith.

    This has always been a part of your identity, you simply cannot devote your collective consciousness to one singular form of belief. From the times of Socrates, you have elevated methodological doubt to the level of heroism, you have sanctified disbelief and you reward a higher status to “critical thinking” than to constructive thinking, or a thinking within an existing tradition, a thinking limited and confined to a meta frame beyond which nothing is or could ever be true.

    For a very brief window during the middle ages the catholic church managed to force Europe into a sort of faithfulness by burning thousands of “herectics”, but that was a highly irregular oddity, and even during that time doubt still haunted your collective soul. I find it comical that even the works of great Christian saints are filled with accounts of their doubts, and their journey to overcome those doubts.

    This is why I think west cannot be saved, not even through Islam. I have seen seven different white Shia converts in my life and none of them were cured, instead they all had brought their sickness with them. What would happen if ISIS managed to conquer Europe and force-convert all whites is that you would convert only in name and within one or two generations bring the whole religion down. West cannot be saved, it can only be destroyed, or it must be contained until it self destructs and goes away.

    Now this doesn’t mean that westerners should be killed or destroyed along with the west, rather it must be destroyed as an idea, westernes could still join genuine, living traditions around the globe, Islam being the largest one, but this has to be combined with an utter destruction of your existing identity, whatever it may be. Simply converting to Islam won’t get it done, you must first convert out of your current (anti)spiritual system.


    • Your pessimism about our people and our Tradition is duly noted and dismissed. We have no time for such things, especially from outsiders who actually may have sinister motives in this regard. Your statements about Christianity are yet more regurgitation of points which have been addressed before, and stem from Nietzschean misinterpretations, profoundly modern in their formulation. You also seem to have no knowledge of the fated nature of Kali Yuga, i.e – this was not avoidable. It was necessary, and part of cyclical history, just as rebirth will be. This is not to mention the most important fact: Christ was crucified and rose from the dead. In the face of this, all other things must be considered, not the other way around, and in light of that truth, the Gates of Hell will not prevail against our Holy Faith, no matter how persecuted or diminished it becomes. It will be here until the end, and from it shall spring our own resurrection.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s