'WHITE SHARIA',' 'WHITE KNIGHTING' AND WOMEN


Those who advance the hotly-debated “white sharia” meme on the alt-right appear at present to be waging a two-front war against their critics.

Fighting a war on two fronts isn’t necessarily an unworthy enterprise (though it did turn out to be a bit of a bunker bust for ol’ Adolf); however, in this case, the problem arises in that their two main modes of argumentation are mutually contradictory.

On the one hand, they say, “White sharia is imminently defensible.. it is just a sort of repackaging of the advocacy of traditional gender roles, and a refutation of the cancer of radical feminism currently ravaging the West. Though the use of a term like ISIS-flavored term like ‘sharia’ may seem ‘edgy,’ and some of our adherents may express themselves in a somewhat exuberant manner that thrives on causing as much offense as possible, we don’t want anything all that different from pre-sexual revolution mores—i.e., the family as it has been understood for centuries within European and North American Christendom."

But then, when one points out the extensive array of—ahem—extreme activities that have been advocated under the “white sharia” banner—rape, murder, genocide, to name a few—the response is always to smirk and declare, “You’re taking it too seriously! It’s just a meme, dude.”

To restate the principle of non-contradiction, as originally formulated by a certain fair-to-middlin'-ly influential Western thinker named Aristotle, a thing can’t simultaneously be a serious and unserious. 

So which is it, boys? Feel free to converse amongst yourselves concerning this vexing question, then come back to us with a full report when you know.  

*************

Plenty have expressed indignation at what appear to be the misogyny and ugliness of the ‘white sharia’ meme. Myself, I do not deny that it is misogynistic and ugly (if it is meant to be taken seriously, that is; which is apparently still a matter for debate among its adherents, see above). 

However, I see little need to oppose it on that front, because one suspects that the matter is self-evident enough to serious people. And to be sure, if “white sharia” is mere anti-PC performance art, I can heartily embrace it for the purpose for which it is meant: to “trigger” doctrinaire liberals, scoldy feminists, insufferable white knights, and others whom it is fun, worthwhile, and deeply rewarding to offend.

However, the main issue I have with ‘white sharia’ lies with what amounts to its ironic ambition to please women and cater to their wishes. For much as they may try to deny it, the central tenet of white sharia is the men should become men again, not because of any inherent virtue in manliness, but because chicks dig real men.

*************

As primary ‘white sharia’ advocate Andrew Anglin describes it in his article "White Sharia: Why We Don't Have Any Choice," white guys are becoming feminized pussies these days, and this is the reason why white girls are opting to shun their racial counterparts and miscegenate with blacks and browns. From Anglin’s perspective, it is imperative that white men become savage and ruthless again, like they used to be prior to feminism, because otherwise the white race will be bred out of existence.

Anglin asserts that women are designed by nature to prefer brutish beasts to nice guys; it is simply in their nature to want to “get impregnated by the dominant male.” He asserts that women spontaneously and quite involuntarily “get wet” when they “see videos of ISIS running around chopping people’s heads off.” Anglin admires the violence, brutality, and sadism of Middle Eastern fanatics, and thinks their behavior should be emulated by white nationalists. So great is Anglin’s esteem for the wife-beaters and child-slaughterers of ISIS, he even considered using “white ISIS,” instead of “white sharia,” as a rallying cry.

Many people object to Anglin’s view of white women, calling it insulting, dehumanizing, erroneous and misogynistic. For his part, Anglin says that he is only being realistic; women desire strong, ruthless men as mates as part of an intricate evolutionary strategy, because they will thus be assured of protection in their middle- and old-age by the hearty, dominating offspring they are sure to bear from so worthy a sire; in so doing, they will be better assured of passing on their genes.
I don’t wish to dwell on the question of whether Anglin or his critics are correct when it comes to the question of what turns women on. In fact, I don’t feel at all qualified to take a stand on this matter, nor even to speculate. If Anglin is right about the eternal question of “what women want,” then it doesn’t really matter how offended I or anyone else might be. Truth is truth.

However, what I wish to return to, what for me is the nub of the matter, is this: Anglin is no different from the white knight “pussies” he assails, because, just like them, he thinks it is important to give women what they want. To wit:
“WHITE SHARIA not only involves restraining women, but it also involves men becoming real men, who women will naturally want. Of course, the restraining of women is in itself something that women do naturally want.” (emphasis mine)
In this sense, Anglin is no different from those who would castigate him as a woman-hater. In fact, Anglin’s ‘white sharia’ doctrine differs only in particulars, not in substance, from his critics. Both Anglin and his critics think it is good to cater to women’s wants, they just differ on what they think these wants are. 

The white knight's view: "White girls are magic!"
WN white knights think that white women are magically wonderful creatures, “Aryan women in wheat fields,” glorious beings who walk on air and who must be protected and cherished for their inherent wonderfulness. Anglin, however, holds that white women are, in the immortal words of Britney Spears, “not that innocent,” inclined as they are to be ruthlessly hypergamic, and that putting them on a pedestal—to invoke that overworked metaphor—is counterproductive; in fact, a turn-off to them—they don’t want sensitive guys, they want "shitlords."
                                                 
White sharia on film: Elisabeth Moss in "The Handmaid's Tale"
What Anglin is saying is essentially just a more extreme version of the manopherian “game” guys say: that to get a girl to want to be with you, whether for a night or for a lifetime, you have to project an “alpha” persona, and not be a “beta” wimp. The PUAs recommend this course of action as a means towards enjoying plenty of sex and building up a “notch count” by which you can stoke your ego, while others recommend it as a means of finding, and keeping, a mate. But all agree that it is incumbent upon men to learn to please women.

To which a reasonable man, or woman, might ask a simple but never answered question: Why must men attempt to please women? The fact that this is a question that they never seem even to consider, much less attempt to adequately answer, in itself speaks volumes about the current state of things.

(to be continued)

Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Alternative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the NihilThe Columbine PilgrimConsidering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. He occasionally updates his blog when the spirit moves him to do so. Visit his Soundcloud page. His author page is Alt Right Novelist.

Comments

  1. What is most necessary is a Race War.

    It doesn't matter how nice or tough white males act.

    The FACT is black men are more muscular, stronger, tougher, and bigger-penised.

    Women can see THRU the act.

    Consider white males and yellow males. Many yellow females reject yellow males and go with white males. Why? In general, white males are seen as taller, manlier, and bigger-donged than yellow males.
    So, it doesn't matter if yellow males try to act tough(yellow sharia) or nice(yellow knight). Despite their attitude or posturing, yellow women will still see white males are manlier.
    Biology is too obvious.

    Same goes for white males and black males. It is biology. Black males are more muscular, have stronger voices, and have bigger dongs(generally speaking). And white women know this. They know it from sports(from high school to professional), music culture(where black males singer louder), Jewish-promoted pornography(which women watch too), and sexual experience(as white women are a bunch of whores).

    So, it doesn't matter if someone like Anglin acts tough. The fact is white women will realize that a black guy can kick his ass and has a bigger dong. No matter how tough Anglin acts, black guy will beat him up and fuck him in the ass, and the white girl will laugh at loser-faggoty-ass white boy.

    This is why the ONLY solution is to demand and struggle for racial separation.

    NO matter how tough yellow males act, as long as yellows live with whites, white males will win over yellow males.
    NO matter how tough white males act, as long as whites live with blacks, black males will gain over white males.

    So, we need a race war. White males must say Negroes pose an existential threat to white manhood, white pride, and white life.
    Black males will kick white male ass and humiliate white boys. Black males will colonize white wombs. Thus, white-babies-that-could-have been will be killed and replaced by black babies.

    White males cannot win in co-existence with blacks. Blacks will win. Race war and separation are only answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahahahaha..... hardly, sweet cakes. There are still enough white males of the "frontier" variety -- and nearly all armed, I might add, numbering in the millions -- who will make quick work of the blacks begging for a race war. Hey, that what I want too, and I give it about 8 months before the country is set right again, and with a VASTLY reduced black and Muslim population (and quite a few mudsharks too!). Mosques will close just out of fear and many will simply choose to leave the country rather than face the wrath of the angry whites. And I'll do my part too and will gladly collect a few skulls to decorate my F-150.

      Delete
    2. This is an interesting comment. And, if the government stood aside, it might be accurate. I'd have to do so demographic and weapon purchase analysis. In California, Whites are less than 1/2 of the population, and mostly armed with poppies. But, perhaps elsewhere.

      My real question, though, is what of the military and police in this Turner Diary vision. Do you think they'll stand by or try to interfere? If the answer is interfere, what do you think that would entail / result in and why do you think it?

      Delete
    3. I guess you just love Black cock because Whites completely dominate strength sports - http://alt-right-news.blogspot.com/2017/05/white-guy-wins-worlds-strongest-man.html

      Delete
    4. Wow,you are probably ingesting too much of the kosher propaganda honey,turn off the Hollywood anti-white machine,i guess you missed the heavy weight champion Klitschko brothers who dominated boxing that's understandable though because the media totally ignored them probably because they didn't bite any ones ear off, most likely because they were white.... jew owned sports franchises would rather promote a black boy over a white guy even when the white guy may be marginally better,it's the agenda ,to promote black men as superior to white men and you bought it BIGLY.As far as penis size goes Pedro the donkey in Matamoros is available for parties and bar mitzvahs. YOU'RE WELCOME!(by the way this is not the 1st post iv'e read from you where you've stated your preference of penis).

      Delete
  2. Blacks are neither more muscular, stronger, or tougher than the Great White Race and horses have bigger penises than Negroes and about the same average IQ. Not many Negroes in World's Strongest Man. Women are attracted to resources and not horse's dick. Resources is related to IQ. Horses dicks are found everywhere on farms. You suck at opinions, basic observations, thinking, life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Women are attracted to resources and not horse's dick."

    Smart women look for such men for long-term relation.

    But many women are not smart and go with hormones, especially since they grow up in a society that encourages animal drives.

    Also, even smart women who settle for better-kind-of-man sleep around a lot before they settle down.

    So, even if a woman marries a good man in the end, it's likely she was humped by a whole bunch of groids.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It isn't about appeasing women. It's disempowering them to secure the reproductive future of the tribe. What the women think about this arrangement is irrelevant.

    It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What women wants is a VICTOR and spoils of victory, not the stronger combatant or the smarter one. Strength and wit are just means or virtues. The end is always feasible fruits of victory - status and goodies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are two kinds of victory. Group victory and individual victory. For whites to win as a group, white elites must think of common-collective tribal good and lead, represent, serve, and protect all whites. But current white elites only think of individual victory, and if PC is necessary qualification for them to rise up the ranks, they will betray whites. Libertarianism favors ONLY smart & talented whites who are cunning enough to make PC noises to rise up the ranks. They care about self-victory, not tribal-victory.

      What percentage of whites have superior individual abilities in intelligence, sociability, and cunning? Not too many. Most whites must work as a group to win. They must collectively unite and collectively bargain.

      So, it comes down to the question... do you want to be Victor for yourself or victor who leads your people to collective shared victory? What should be the organizing principle of a people? Class, Creed, or Race? Those who choose class will favor rich Jews, Asians, and blacks over unsuccessful whites. Those who favor creed will favor non-whites with same creed over whites. ONLY RACE is the principle that will make ALL whites part of the Victor people in their own lands.

      Delete
  6. White man is a renaissance man or a jack of all trades and master of none. That's something to begin with. We should look for an opportunity to exploit the weaknesses of our disharmonious opponents instead of trying to best them at their natural talents. Centralized modern world is not a very good environment for that game, since it's best suited for specialists, people who are best at something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need to be like Jews. Jews win at specialism, but even the richest Jews care about lesser Jews in the US, Europe, and Israel. Why? The main organizing principle among Jews is Tribe or Race. So, even when some Jews do very well, they still think "I'm a Jew who cares about other Jews, and so I must do things that are good for Jews all over the world."

      The problem is the main organizing principle among whites is individualism(whereupon white elites only care about themselves), 'white guilt'(whereupon whites must atone by favoring the interests of others, even those who pose threat to whites), universalism, or manipulationism(or the state of being constantly manipulated by devious Jews who use stuff like feminism to drive a wedge between white men and white women).

      Delete
  7. I would like to point out a few things:
    1. The White Sharia meme was started by combat vets. The type of folks who tell dead baby jokes to each other and laugh at them. This comes from the War Room podcast's own words.
    2. Mr Anglin is quick to jump on edgy memes that might make the sensible Alt Right talking points be more accepting to normal folks than what would the Overton window would agree with. Disagree with Mr Anglin all you want, but I do think any Normie would find this site a better read than the Stormer.
    3. There is a case to be made that any and all civilizations are/were made to appease women. We could have deep and thoughtful debates around a campfire and live in tents made from hides and men would be content with it. Womenfolk, not so much. (And, yes, I know this is a very weak argument)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not call it White Barbaria?

      The problem with Anglin's message is this: White males lost because of the rise of Macho Man Culture.

      The reason why white men got cucked had less to do with ideology than biology. White men got beaten up by blacks in boxing, football, basketball, pop music, dancing, etc. In schools, stronger blacks beat up white males.

      Our culture promotes feminism and homomania among white men because white men lost to blacks in the Thug Game.
      When whites lost to blacks, white men lost their sense of manhood. And now, we have young white boys and girls watching porn at age of 11 and seeing black men humping white women. We have cuckold fetish where white men invite black men to their wives.

      Why did this happen? Anglin thinks it was due to ideology, but it really has to do with biology. Look at Japan. It is less PC than the US, but its men are even more cucked out. Why? Because globalism fills Japanese media with images of bigger whites and blacks. So, Japanese women lost respect for loser yellow men. They want to have sex with white men and black men. That is why Japanese men don't have sex and don't have babies.

      Male behavior depends on context. A male beagle will act tough and macho among smaller dogs like chihuahuas. But in the presence of pitbulls, it will cower and act pussy.
      As long as there are blacks in the West, white men will be seen as pussy-boy cuck maggot-faggot.

      It was rise of neo-barbarism that favored black men over white men because black men got more muscle, louder voices, and bigger penises.

      Now, Anglin might have a point IF he means that white men should fight dirty and use terror. White ISIS logic is as follows: Since white men will get whupped by blacks in a fair one-on-one fight, the ONLY chance of white victory is whites fighting dirty and using terror.
      Terrorism has always been the weapon of the weak. It's like Palestinians use it against Jews. Algerians used it against the French.
      But terrorism requires preparation and thinking. It's not a mindless case of acting like thugs and barbarians. Terrorists do terrible things, but they are stealthy and tricky. They act more like weasels than lions. They go for sneak-attacks.

      Such was tried by Timothy McVeigh, and it was really horrible stuff.

      One could argue Anders Breivik used it to greater effect, but the guy is clearly mentally unhinged.

      Delete
    2. In the eastern block of Europe is where your analogy dies, only in the pussified west is where you'll find media outlets praising the demise of all that is "old" European (new term, today's Europe is not the Europe of old).What's more amazing is all the folk buying into this Marxist B.S.,even the simplest of blacks don't buy this garbage,amazing how well the Hollywood machine has perfected their mindfuck on unsuspecting whites.

      Delete
  8. Nowicki doesn't waste any opportunity to rail against Nature, and the fact that men want to (and should want to) please women. This angers him. Sexuality makes him very uncomfortable. Icky. As the Alt Right's resident Jewish grandmother, he's always ready to curb the wings of the impetuous, the adventurous, anyone with a lust for life. Yes, life is best lived in a disembodied, alienated, low energy haze - masturbating. The last thing the younger men need to hear is this sort of repressive, contorted, humorless clap-trap. Read Return of Kings instead, young guys. The writers may not be uniformally white but at least they like girls and don't live in a world of resentment and life-curtailing insecurities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nowicki doesn't waste any opportunity to rail against Nature, and the fact that men want to (and should want to) please women."

      The question is this: How do white men please today's white women? Your average white woman today has jungle fever, worships homos as angels, hates white identity, blames white males for everything(since media do so), is into loose sex, watches whores like Beyonce for entertainment, reveres Oprah, and is mentally colonized by Jews.

      How do you PLEASE such a woman?

      Delete
  9. http://pithysayingsandmiscellany.blogspot.com/2017/05/in-state-of-war-individual-freedom.html

    We all want liberty. We all want to be free as individuals, but in a state of war, liberty and freedom cannot be the highest values. In a state of war, what matters most is survival and victory, which are best ensured by teamwork, organization, loyalty, and trust. Those who invoke liberty & freedom to betray their own side or desert to the other side deserve our contempt. It doesn't matter if they betrayed or deserted in the name of freedom or liberty. The fact remains they are traitors and/or deserters who turned against their own kind. This is why libertarianism is worthless in a state of war.

    The white race is currently in a state of war. It is in a state of war with Jewish globalists who infect and colonize white minds with 'white guilt' and 'diversity'. It is in a state of war with Third World masses who invade and appropriate white lands to leech off white wealth and achievement. It is in a state of war with blacks who beat up white males and colonize white wombs of white women whose minds are infected with the Virus of Jungle Fever disseminated by Jewish-control-of-media.

    In this WWWW or War of Words, Worlds, and Wombs, any white person who collaborates with Jewish globalists is a traitor. Any white person who welcomes mass non-white invasion is a cuck-collaborator. Any white woman who offers her womb to Negroes is a sexual deserter. She has deserted her bio-cultural obligation as creator of future white children and instead uses her womb to make black babies for blacks, the enemy of the white race. White women who choose ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, are enemies of the white race. It's no wonder that Jews, who are hellbent on destruction of white power, are going all out to turn every white woman into a mudshark, a race-traitor and sexual-deserter.
    And it doesn't matter if these traitors and deserters did what they did in the name of individual freedom or liberty. The fact remains that, in a state of war, they sided with the enemy and worked against their own race, culture, heritage, and homeland.
    After all, the military and intelligence services do not forgive traitors and deserters because the transgression took place in the name of individual liberty and freedom.

    Only when white people can ensure survival & enjoy security, only then the issue of individual liberty & freedom can be of primary importance to the white race.
    When a people, culture, and land are threatened and in a state of war, Survival and Victory take precedence over all other considerations and principles, even over liberty and freedom.
    After all, George Washington hanged traitors. He knew that traitors and deserters could invoke individual freedom to do as Benedict Arnold did.

    This is why Jews promote libertarianism as the favored ideology among white 'conservatives'. It leads to atomization, dissension, self-absorption, decadence, and greed, none of which fosters or encourages teamwork and cooperation among white people.

    Now, am I arguing for 'my country right or wrong' or 'my people, right or wrong'? No, that would be imperialism.
    What I'm arguing for is nationalism for all peoples that ensures survival and victory of each people in their own realm in accordance to the particularities of identity, history, and territory.

    Individual freedom and liberty are wonderful things but only in a State of Peace and Security. In a State of War, they must take a backseat to group unity, organization, loyalty, solidarity, and trust in order to roll back or defeat the existential enemy of one's own people, land, and culture.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What I find odd about Handmaid Tale is it most resembles the Jewish-Homo-Afro control over whites.

    In Handmaid Tale, young healthy white women are womb-harvested to produce children for older barren women. So, even though the kids were created by wombs of young women, society makes believe that the older barren women created them.

    Well, that is like homo family. Straight people make babies through real sex. But via adoption, 'gay parents' pretend that they had the kid together.
    Or, a lesbian couple will get some guy to impregnate one of them, and then act as though they had the child together while shutting out the real father from the life of the kid.

    Also, Jews harvest white wombs to produce babies for other races. Jews use media power to encourage white women to go black and offer their white wombs to make babies for black men. Thus, white wombs are harvested to produce black babies. Thus, the white babies that might have been are afroborted by black babies, just like the chicks of cuckoo bird push out the other chicklings out of the nest.

    Feminism seeks to drive a wedge between white men and white women. It also seeks to drive a wedge between older whites and younger whites. It is a Jewish weapon against white unity and power.

    Homos appropriate straight bodies and wombs to create babies for homos who pretend to be parents.
    Jews and Negroes appropriate white wombs to produce prettier-looking Jewish babies or black babies.

    This must stop.

    ReplyDelete
  11. From a general, formalistic or maybe even artistic point of view, launching a concept like "White Sharia" is great.

    Because, details aside, this can be seen as an example of "strategic offense followed by tactical defense".

    That is, create a concept (like White Sharia), this is the offense, then let the enemy attack himself to death in trying to defeat it, which is impossible.

    For, once created, a concept won't just go away.

    With the words of Guillaume Faye, a meme like the one we discuss is "a concept thrown into the face of history". It is its own virtual bastion. It stands on its own, there as a red cape -- the matador's muleta before the charging bull. The bull = the enemy just has to attack it, attacking himself to death in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Basic guide for , How to destroy Life without Love and Faith ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Re: “… we don’t want anything all that different from pre-sexual revolution mores—i.e., the family as it has been understood for centuries within European and North American Christendom.”

    EoP comment available at: A copy of this comment is available at: EoP v WiP NWO Neg: 28 May: Alt Right: Council of European Canadians .. Alternative Right.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a white female many of you got it right. A couple of you missed the mark completely.
    1. From the standpoint of procreating (spreading your seed) you had better be preoccupied with giving women "what they want" you're not spreading shit unless you do.
    2. A white woman will ALWAYS prefer her own race. Especially when you get down to instinctual preferences. The size of the black man's dick doesn't matter. Think about it this way. During the slavery years how many white women were seeking the company of the "stronger, bigger dicked" black males? None, or very few. Wasn't it the white male who seemed preoccupied with the "exotic" dark meat? Speaking from a purely scientific standpoint women will stay with in her own race first. That's not saying there are not anomalies but it seems that principle holds true across the races. Probably also why we self segregate. We prefer to be with our own kind.
    Having said all that it does matter that our men have been womanized, or completely netted. Women are drawn to both stability and the strength aspect when picking a mate. We will not however be with a male who seems to disregard our needs just because he appears slightly stronger. It's a combination.
    White people in general are at a great disadvantage in this war. We're not tribal. Blacks are very tribal as are Arabs. My question is how are we going to win this war when we don't know what white males are on our side and which ones have become brain dead? The Blacks will know that other Blacks are with them, as will the Arabs for the most part. Of course I know there will be exceptions but those will be relatively few and far between for them. Not enough to make a significant difference if they accidentally kill one of their own. There will be a sizable number of white males not on our side at all. How do you adjust for that?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment