What is "White" Sharia? (Yes, this is a Thing)

Life was cheap to those who created Sharia. Sadly, Americans on the hard right/Alt-Right are openly talking about what their own version of Sharia would look like in the context of non-Islamic European-Americans.

White Sharia is a meme that likely began in late 2016. As far as I can tell, the Alt-Right podcast The War Room was one of the first to explore the idea and for almost two hours the hosts flesh out a graphic vision of white rape gangs and more.

White Sharia is conceptualized as a corrective to the decadence of Western feminism that has led many of our sisters and wives to debauch themselves in prodigal living resulting in less white babies and weaker marriages. This makes demographic replacement by non-Westerners/non-whites inevitable.

It should be mentioned that the Alt-Right and meme culture is based on irony and jokes meant to shock and steer conversation. Much like third-wave feminism, it's full of half-truths.

White Sharia is open to such heinous activities as "corrective rape" and polygamy to forcefully impregnate obstinate Western women of "good genes" who refuse to carry and birth children. By the calculation of White Sharia advocates, this strategy would jack-up desirable female genetic contribution during peak childbearing years that are usually lost to empowered promiscuity and careerism. Earlier childbirth means fewer sexual partners which equals stronger marriages. 

Andrew Anglin, infamous proprietor Alt-Right site The Daily Stormer once mentioned that Western women will eventually need to choose between Islamic Sharia and White Sharia. 

I've found that Leftists, "normies", and most conservative-types don't really understand the Alt-Right or meme-culture. They either don't get the high levels of irony or they pretend they don't. Much of the Alt-Right's belief-cycle plays out as follows (roughly):

1. Become conversant in spiritually/morally dangerous ideas (National Socialism, "helicopter rides" etc) in order to trigger your enemies and signal to fellow travelers.
2. Deploy ironic memes based on these ideas.
3. Begin to actually sympathize with the above ideas and/or start to see other human beings as vermin/sub-human/contemptible.

Ultimately, and these are just the facts, the Alt-Right and White Sharia are the result of the leftwing's war on traditional morality plus identity politics. It's also a result of the capitulation of establishment, economically-minded Republicans in government. The war, the identity politics, and the capitulation are all evil.

This is all totally antithetical to the Church's vision of complementary vocations for husbands and wives. Additionally, race/ethnicity are irrelevant in Christ. Christ transcends that for us. We don't have to obsess over it anymore.

Not unlike leftists today, there is a preoccupation in the Alt-Right with earthly justice with no concept of ultimate victory in the eschaton where God will "wipe away every tear" (Rev 21.4). Orthodox Christians have nothing to learn from Islam or Mohammed and ought not take cues from them. We have the fullness of the Truth and life with the witness of the saints. Darkness does not comprehend the light (Jn 1.5).

That said, it's unsurprising in this fallen world that some men would put their foot down and take on the role of oppressor in jest or in reality. If these men can do-no-right in the eyes of our culture's wicked pseudo-reality -- what do they have to lose? It's not right, but it's one of the choices the culture gave them so some men are going to choose it. Surprise, surprise.

----------------------------
Graphic content warning! The links below are NSFW. Many contain racially charged, offensive and violent language. Presented here for educational purposes.
----------------------------

*[Video] Explaining why White Sharia is "a good meme." A good place to start to understand the concept.

The women with the most alternatives, the best alternatives to family and reproduction do less of the family and reproduction.

*[Podcast episode] Put a baby in her belly!

November 2016. The War Room. White Rape Gangs #WhiteSharia. This podcast is hosted on a mainstream Alt-Right site.

*Could there be a hard right/Islamic alliance on the horizon? I doubt it, but someone is floating the idea.

People called us crazy, but we have said and continue to say this because this is based on historical precedent going back to the 15th century with the fall the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans through the sale of the cannons to the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II and has persisted up through the First World War, Second World War, and will manifest again in the Third World War, as it is coming together today.

*A critique of White Sharia from within the hard right.

If "white sharia" does not sound as ridiculous to you as "white Zionism," then it is time to take stock of who you are and for what, exactly, you are fighting. In doing so, not only will you naturally arrive at a more workable political strategy, but you will have eradicated one more remnant of anti-white indoctrination from your core being.

*In Defense of White Sharia. The author responds to the critique above and lays out the case for stealing the patriarchal form of the enemy.

When I say we will have White Sharia in White Afghanistan one day, it means that we will have an extreme tribal patriarchy in the ethnostate. But it also offers visions of what that patriarchy and that ethnostate could look like. People can imagine themselves with a beard and an AK in the Appalachian Mountains. Images and examples are more powerful than words. That is why joking about White Sharia is more powerful than pleas for returning to long-dead traditions.

*[Video] Emily Youcis, former Philadelphia Phillies snack vendor, stumping for White Sharia.

*White Sharia Will Make You Dumb. A critique of the bizarre eugenics argument for White Sharia.

*They Want Us Caged: Anti-Feminism, "White Sharia" & Traditionalism. Click the link for a standard feminist response.

*[Video] Titled WHITE SHARIA NOW. A laugh track is edited in over a documentary-style video of young white women debauching themselves.

St John of Damascus (Dec 4)

St John of Damascus was born less than fifty years following the traditional date of the death of Muhammad. As the Muslims had conquered Syria and the Middle East, John grew up in a Christian household under Islamic rule, and so had a first-hand and intimate acquaintance with Islam.

St John of Damascus was a theologian and a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. Since he was known as a hymnographer, we pray to St John for help in the study of church singing. His most important book is the Fount of Knowledge. The third section of this work, “On the Orthodox Faith,” is a summary of Orthodox doctrine and a refutation of heresy.

Read St John's Critique of Islam, from his section 'Heresies', contained in The Fount of Knowledge.

Life of St John of Damascus 

(Commemorated December 4)

Saint John of Damascus was born about the year 680 at Damascus, Syria into a Christian family. His father, Sergius Mansur, was a treasurer at the court of the Caliph. John had also a foster brother, the orphaned child Cosmas (October 14), whom Sergius had taken into his own home. When the children were growing up, Sergius saw that they received a good education. At the Damascus slave market he ransomed the learned monk Cosmas of Calabria from captivity and entrusted to him the teaching of his children. The boys displayed uncommon ability and readily mastered their courses of the secular and spiritual sciences. After the death of his father, John occupied ministerial posts at court and became the city prefect.

In Constantinople at that time, the heresy of Iconoclasm had arisen and quickly spread, supported by the emperor Leo III the Isaurian (717-741). Rising up in defense of the Orthodox veneration of icons [Iconodoulia], St John wrote three treatises entitled, “Against Those who Revile the Holy Icons.” The wise and God-inspired writings of St John enraged the emperor. But since the author was not a Byzantine subject, the emperor was unable to lock him up in prison, or to execute him. 

Islam, Heresy, and 'The Dangerous Vision of Paradise'

"The Fathers, contemporary to early Islam, all judged it to be a form of Christian heresy... classical Christianity would readily agree that heresy is dangerous stuff. There’s a reason that the Church has always opposed heresy. It kills people."

The Dangerous Vision of Paradise
by Fr. Stephen Freeman,  Glory to God for All Things, November 24, 2015

Edward Hicks. The Peaceable Kingdom. 1833

A utopian vision gave birth to America. The “pilgrims” who came to New England in the 17th century, imagined an ideal state, defined by their radical “purification” of society and the Christian Church. Their dreams of a new world were constantly thwarted in England by the reluctance of the greater body of Protestants to embrace their extreme vision. England’s Reformation fell far short of their imaginings. In 1640, the English cousins of the American pilgrims managed to take control of Parliament. In short order, they began a radical reform of England, including the execution of King Charles. They sought to do for England what the Puritans in the New World were doing for “New England.” The English land endured 10 years of Oliver Cromwell’s reign of purifying terror. It’s disfiguring marks have never been erased. Such extremism with its attending violence is not an isolated phenomenon. It has been a recurring hallmark of the modern period. Paradise haunts the modern world, both as promise and as threat. Modern people do not live – they dream. And their dreams sometimes become nightmares.

There is something inherently utopian within Christianity: we look for the coming of the Kingdom of God. Christ began His ministry, preaching the coming of the Kingdom. And He acknowledged, “If my kingdom were of this world, then my disciples would fight.” Modernity, in many respects, is simply the secularizing of the Christian vision. The Kingdom that is “not of this world” must, in modernity, become “of this world.” Every dream of a better world, every hint of progress is a modern echo of the preaching of the Kingdom. Of course, the Kingdom no longer needs a king, much less the King of Creation. But the modern imagination is always turned towards a future. Our dreams are inherently eschatological (directed towards the end).

This orientation is the engine behind the constant improvement and development in technology and science. At the most fundamental level, we think we are building towards something. It is uniquely Western, inasmuch as the modern West is built on a Judeo/Christian foundation. The religions of the East (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) lack this eschatological vision. It’s not that there are no visions of a Buddhist or Hindu paradise, but that those visions are very much “not of this world,” indeed, this world is not even of this world.

Islam has to be seen as belonging to the Judeo-Christian world, regardless of how foreign it might seem. The Fathers, contemporary to early Islam, all judged it to be a form of Christian heresy. I think this is quite accurate and important to our understanding. For though Mohammed makes many changes in the Jesus Story, and modifies most of the elements of Christianity, he, nevertheless, still works with Judeo-Christian elements. There is an expectation of paradise – and, more ominously, the notion of a pure state established under Sharia Law.

Historically, Islam has occasionally been content to live within the borders of its religious vision. But there always lurks the haunting figure of a righteous world. Our most recent experiences with ISIS have been a modern outbreak of a drive to “restore the Caliphate,” an eschatological vision of a purified state – a Muslim paradise on earth.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons: 2nd Century Church Father refutes the heresy of Islam

Irenaeus' classic refutation of the heretics, "Image of the King, versus the image of a Fox," anticipates Muhammad's heresy by nearly 500 years.


St Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.8; CCEL, ANF01, Ch VIII

Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge.  

They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth.  

By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions.  

Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king.  

In like manner do these persons patch together old wives’ fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma*. 

* Pleroma: The divine fullness of the Godhead, see Colossians 1:15-20, esp. v19, "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell".

St. Irenaeus' metaphor is devastating to Islam because it describes — five centuries before Muhammad — how heretics have always distorted the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, teachings and traditions. 

To begin with, the Koran retells Old Testament stories out of sequence, with no historical context, imparting completely different lessons, and confusing names, places and epochs. For instance, the Koran calls Miriam, the mother of Isa, the "sister of Aaron", even though that Miriam lived centuries earlier. Would the God of all make such a mistake? 

Secondly, with even greater brazenness, the Koran presents a bizarre, wholly false picture of Jesus. It provides no historical context for its prophet "Isa" (the Koranic name for Jesus), and regurgitates infancy myths clearly lifted from the gnostic false Gospel of Thomas and other spurious sources, while explicitly denying historically verifiable facts, including especially the crucifixion of Jesus. 

In contrast, from a purely secular standpoint alone, Jesus the Christ is written of by numerous Roman and Jewish historians from the mid first-century onwards, including Thallus (who wrote circa 52 AD about Jesus’ crucifixion and the darkness over the land), Mara Bar-Serapion (writing ca. 70 AD), the renowned Jewish historian Josephus (ca. 93 AD), the Roman historian Tacitus (ca. 110-120 AD), and others. The Evangelist Luke frames his gospel narrative with historical references to people, rulers, places and events to such a thorough extent that he is clearly writing a verifiable historical narrative; Luke, even more than Matthew or Mark, holds up quite well to historical fact-checking. Whereas in the Koran, there are simply no facts to check.