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.
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.”
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)