Page 3 of 7

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
Xenophon wrote:
Tacitus wrote:That the woman may not think herself excused from exertions of fortitude, or exempt from the casualties of war, she is admonished by the very ceremonial of her marriage, that she comes to her husband as a partner in toils and dangers; an equal both to suffer and to dare, in peace and in war : this is indicated by the yoked oxen, the harnessed steed, the offered arms. Thus she is to live ; thus to die. She receives what she is to return inviolate and merited to her children ; what her daughters-in-law are to receive, and again transmit to her grand-children. [Germania]


There is an example from European history, why don't you follow that? Or are you a muslim?


Next chapter...
Germania, Tacitus Ch.19 wrote:This means that they live a life of sheltered chastity, uncorrupted by the temptations of public shows or the excitements of banquets. Men and women alike know nothing of clandestine letters. Considering the great size of the population, adultery is very rare. The penalty for it is instant and left to the husband. He cuts off her hair, strips her naked in the presence of kinsmen, and flogs her all through the village. They have no mercy on a woman who prostitutes her chastity. Neither beauty, nor youth, nor wealth can find her another husband. In fact, no one there laughs about vice, nor is seducing and being seduced called ‘modern’. Even better is the practice of those states where only virgins can marry: the hopes and aspirations of a wife are settled once and for all. They are content with a single husband, just as they are content with one body and one life. She has no thoughts beyond him, nor do her desires survive him. They must love not so much the husband himself as their marriage. To limit the number of their children or to kill one of the later-born is regarded as a crime[…]


Sounds to me like something I could file under "White Sharia".
After all, it's White Sharia and not Muslim Sharia.
The Way of White not the way of muslims.

Also, the translation I use here (Oxford World Classics), says -
…hence she is reminded in these very rituals at the outset of her marriage that she is entering into toil and danger as a partner, to suffer and to dare with her man alike in peace and in war….


- nothing about the "equal" contained in the quote you posted.

I didn't look into the latin but judging from the other chapters and other translations I don't think that they are thinking about man and woman even remotely in terms of what moderns consider equal or equality.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:12 pm
by WendyDarling
the implication towards equal is in the word "alike".

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:29 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
WendyDarling wrote:the implication towards equal is in the word "alike".


You would like to imply that.
They talk in that chapter about the exchange of gifts, the exchange of weapons between the man and the family of the woman.
The woman is to be reminded that she is not detached from the warrior world of the man.

You know, like you, who would claim that she has nothing to do with the wars that men fight. That she is not tied to some team.
If the enemy wins, no big deal, you were an innocent damsel who just happened to be on the wrong team at the wrong time.
And this betrayal, is part of what is to be avoided by reminding the woman that she is part of the struggle of team patriarchy A versus team patriarchy B.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:08 pm
by Pandora
I'll take flogging and exile for 500 please.

Reminds me of an (ok) movie Die Wanderhure (the whore, 2010). There was another movie along the same lines, a pretty good one, too, but I forgot the name of it, about a woman trying to survive in Middle Ages on her own. Basically, prostitution was a way to go for most women on their own back then.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:17 pm
by WendyDarling
Is_Yde_opN wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:the implication towards equal is in the word "alike".


You would like to imply that.
They talk in that chapter about the exchange of gifts, the exchange of weapons between the man and the family of the woman.
The woman is to be reminded that she is not detached from the warrior world of the man.

You know, like you, who would claim that she has nothing to do with the wars that men fight. That she is not tied to some team.
If the enemy wins, no big deal, you were an innocent damsel who just happened to be on the wrong team at the wrong time.
And this betrayal, is part of what is to be avoided by reminding the woman that she is part of the struggle of team patriarchy A versus team patriarchy B.


Men always make themselves the enemy, like you, who would claim that wars are glorious and just rather than temperance and cooperation as a means to an end rather than the selfish, selfserving bullshit of war and folks of your ilk can war on to become dust. I'll be the woman and sweep that dust away. Dumb men don't deserve the support of smart women.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:24 pm
by Pandora
I wonder if Islam allows a husband to pimp his own wife out in times of economic hardship, and use her body as a source of income. I wouldn't be surprised if Islam gave the man that right.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:27 pm
by WendyDarling
More like pimp her out then claim adultery to get her stoned to death...on to next wife. They'd make more pimping their daughters which wouldn't surprise me either, the younger the better, big bucks. Only 20-30 million women and children slaves reported, unfortunately much goes unreported.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:37 am
by Xenophon
Is_Yde_opN wrote:
Xenophon wrote:
Tacitus wrote:That the woman may not think herself excused from exertions of fortitude, or exempt from the casualties of war, she is admonished by the very ceremonial of her marriage, that she comes to her husband as a partner in toils and dangers; an equal both to suffer and to dare, in peace and in war : this is indicated by the yoked oxen, the harnessed steed, the offered arms. Thus she is to live ; thus to die. She receives what she is to return inviolate and merited to her children ; what her daughters-in-law are to receive, and again transmit to her grand-children. [Germania]


There is an example from European history, why don't you follow that? Or are you a muslim?


Next chapter...
Germania, Tacitus Ch.19 wrote:This means that they live a life of sheltered chastity, uncorrupted by the temptations of public shows or the excitements of banquets. Men and women alike know nothing of clandestine letters. Considering the great size of the population, adultery is very rare. The penalty for it is instant and left to the husband. He cuts off her hair, strips her naked in the presence of kinsmen, and flogs her all through the village. They have no mercy on a woman who prostitutes her chastity. Neither beauty, nor youth, nor wealth can find her another husband. In fact, no one there laughs about vice, nor is seducing and being seduced called ‘modern’. Even better is the practice of those states where only virgins can marry: the hopes and aspirations of a wife are settled once and for all. They are content with a single husband, just as they are content with one body and one life. She has no thoughts beyond him, nor do her desires survive him. They must love not so much the husband himself as their marriage. To limit the number of their children or to kill one of the later-born is regarded as a crime[…]


Sounds to me like something I could file under "White Sharia".
After all, it's White Sharia and not Muslim Sharia.
The Way of White not the way of muslims.

Also, the translation I use here (Oxford World Classics), says -
…hence she is reminded in these very rituals at the outset of her marriage that she is entering into toil and danger as a partner, to suffer and to dare with her man alike in peace and in war….


- nothing about the "equal" contained in the quote you posted.

I didn't look into the latin but judging from the other chapters and other translations I don't think that they are thinking about man and woman even remotely in terms of what moderns consider equal or equality.



Yes, the part you quoted follows. And? Sharia is part of muslim law. Tacking the word "white" on the end does not change the fact that it is an erosion of European tradition by bringing in and favouring what is foreign. Nor does that quote say anything about tying the woman up and putting a gag in her mouth or putting her in a burka which is again a muslim addition.

If there is a difference in your translation, what of it? I did not use the quote as a support for equality among the sexes. I do not have my copy with me but I remembered that the passage was quoted on Knowthyself http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1983-tacitus#61440

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:38 am
by Pandora
The movie was Flesh and Blood, 1985 (it was bugging me)

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am
by Is_Yde_opN
Xenophon wrote:Yes, the part you quoted follows. And? Sharia is part of muslim law. Tacking the word "white" on the end does not change the fact that it is an erosion of European tradition by bringing in and favouring what is foreign. Nor does that quote say anything about tying the woman up and putting a gag in her mouth or putting her in a burka which is again a muslim addition.

If there is a difference in your translation, what of it? I did not use the quote as a support for equality among the sexes. I do not have my copy with me but I remembered that the passage was quoted on Knowthyself http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1983-tacitus#61440


What did you intend to show with that quote?
Did you intend to strengthen European patriarchy or subvert it?

We don't want Muslims (brown people) flowing into the West.
We want to reduce the numbers of those who are already here.

We do not have a problem with them because they control their women.
That's liberal thinking.
That's not the problem.
That's the core of the White Sharia meme.
It's an attack on liberalism.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:33 am
by Xenophon
Is_Yde_opN wrote:What did you intend to show with that quote?
Did you intend to strengthen European patriarchy or subvert it?

We don't want Muslims (brown people) flowing into the West.
We want to reduce the numbers of those who are already here.

We do not have a problem with them because they control their women.
That's liberal thinking.
That's not the problem.
That's the core of the White Sharia meme.
It's an attack on liberalism.


I intended to show exactly what I said:

Xenophon wrote:Does Europe have so few noble traditions that you must seek out Islam for inspiration?

Xenophon wrote:There is an example from European history [...]


Why do you then jump to conclusions and attribute arguments to me that I never made? If there is no danger in appropriating the tenets of islam by using the sharia meme then surely you can explain why there is burkas attached in the first post of this thread?

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:11 am
by AutSider
Xenophon, your arguments have already been addressed in one of my posts elsewhere. Here it is:

Actually there are specific reasons why it can't be called "White Patriarchy" and have the same effect.

1. Feminists have pushed the overton window so far to the left with regards to gender by labelling everything "patriarchy" that if you say "White Patriarchy" a normie might think "oh well, according to feminists that's what we have now". In their eyes you'd just be advocating for the status quo.

2. Even if a normie doesn't immediately just think of the status quo when we say "White Patriarchy", Whites haven't had a proper patriarchy for a long time so if we say white patriarchy the mental imagery that comes with it is vague and weak at best. On the other hand we know exactly what Sharia Law is and how it looks in practice as there are numerous news reports of beheadings, beatings, and terrorist attacks on a consistent basis. It's shocking and the imagery associated with it is vivid.

3. When used in an interaction with pro-Islam whites such as liberals and some cucks it forces them to face their doublethink as in order to attack WHITE SHARIA they'd have to attack Sharia. Why is Sharia fine for others but not whites? Aren't we all equal?

4. It pushes the overton window better as it's more extreme than what most of us are actually advocating for. After the White Sharia meme any non-whites will be happy if they aren't completely exterminated and women will be happy if they aren't put into burqas and if their clitorises remain intact. It'll make people appreciate things a bit more by being reminded that white men can and will be violent if we are fucked with, and we are much better at violence than anybody else.

Also:

I've already heard the idea that accepting the masculine order of a foreign people is cultural cuckoldry. The key thing to understand is that none of this is 100% serious and literal. The alt-right takes rap songs from degenerate niggers and remakes them into promoting WN, it takes a green frog from some cartoon and turns it into a God to be worshipped. Kind of like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, people promote the pretend worship of it for the lolz and for the purpose of pissing off their enemies and exposing hypocrisy, they don't actually believe in any of it.

"SHARIA" in "WHITE SHARIA" is basically used as a substitute for "patriarchy" because it is an example of an actual patriarchy in modern times that we're all familiar with. The usage of the word "SHARIA" is thus ideological and meant to be stripped of all its cultural connotations by the fact it is used in combination with "WHITE". If people really wanted to advocate for adopting Muslim culture and the acceptance of Arab genetic input they'd advocate for islamic sharia, not WHITE SHARIA.

If we had WHITE SHARIA, islamic sharia Arabs would be at the very least deported, if not outright exterminated. Of course we wouldn't actually call it WHITE SHARIA except when joking and trying to make a point, like an atheist doesn't claim he actually believes in the FSM, except when joking and trying to make a point.


I'm fairly certain some or all of these have been listed already in various WHITE SHARIA articles on DS by Anglin.

Somebody also wrote this nice post addressing the arguments against White Sharia:

There have been certain estrogen-filled pussies who are claiming that "White Sharia" is a bad meme and that it is too radical. And that it will repeal women. I am here to claim the oppossite. I am going to prove they are wrong with facts.

I will reference quotes from another thread counter-signalling White Sharia as reference

I am here to give logical arguments on why this is wrong.

Fallacy 1 : Being extreme will repeal normies

Something like white sharia is not suitable for mainstream consumption. It belongs in an intellectual discussion group, not with the masses of newly red-pilled people we've tried so long to draw in.
This is an argument that a lot of people claim. It is so blatantly wrong, that I am not sure how it still survives.

Here is the fact, Anglin has the most extreme postion within the mainstream WN community. His website is the most popular WN website out there, yet he claims we need to create race-specific viruses and wipe out Somalians and Sunni Arabs, as well as other evolutionary throwbacks. Why is he more popular than all other pro-White outlets out there ?

On top of that why are extreme personalities within the SJW community achieving results, whie moderate leftist achieve nothing of value? It's because the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Jared Taylor got maybe 1-5 articles about him. Andrew and Weev are on the opposite always complained about by Jews, which ironically gives them cred, proves their effircieny, and works as advertisment.

In fact, extreme positions make normies question they're belief system. Only by shaking normies to the core can one de-program the Holohoax thinking. Weeved proved that being extreme is more efficient in converting normies than being moderate with the RACE method. Check it out.

On top of that, let's remember Buckleyite conservatives talked about not being extreme when dealing with the left. What has that achieved exacty ? Are we going to repeat the cuckservative strategy ?

Fallacy 2. Jews cooked the frog slowly

This is what the Jews have done; if they had told everyone, say, in 1950 they were going to be demographically replaced and their granddaughters would be having mixed-race babies, there would have been riots and their plans would have been thwarted. So instead, what they did was keep their plans secret and instigate change gradually and over a long period of time.
Another myth is that Jews won by "slowly turning the dial up" on degeneracy. This is false. The reality is Jews have done the opposite. Jews always go to far. Jews don't keep much secret, they kept plans out in the open, it's just that too few people cared.

Beatniks were openly advocating for communism, homosexuality, drug consumption and pedophilia. If you think I am wrong, read about the Beatnik hero, Alan Ginsberg. Check his magnus opum, "Howl" :

On top of that, NAMBLA marched with LGBT marches from the 60's onwards, openly advocating pedophilia with no opposition form mainstream homos.


The Jews have an extreme wing advocating pedophilia, necrophilia, mandatory race mixing, mandatory estrogen pills for boys, etc. And a "moderate" wing advocating equal rights, women outside the kitchen, free porn, etc. The moderate seem reasonable, so the Overton Window is shifted to the left.

We have shifted the Overton Window over one single election with Trump. Trump said let's block all muslims, let's build a wall. Suddenly overnight it's a mainstream Republican position.

We can do the same with White Sharia.

Fallacy 3. In Europe using the word "Sharia" will trigger right-wingers due to muslims living there

When you live in a European city 25-30% muslim; advocating sharia (aka islamic law, not only patriarcal rules), white or not, makes you a total traitor or at least a giant cuck.
Then why has National Action. An extreme right-wing group in England achieve extreme success with their "White Jihad" meme ?

huffingtonpost.co.uk4

The Most Bizarre Far-Right Video Yet - 'Inside The White Jihad'

The neo-nazi group behind the ...
Why have they been the only non-violent group to be banned in UK ?

Fallacy 4. Sharia is a sandnigger word

Musim Sharia is different from White Sharia, like "White magic" is different from "Black magic" and "Meme magic" is different from "Satanic magic". If you have an IQ too low to understand that or are so triggered by sandnigger words (although Sharia predates sandniggers as Anglin pointed out) that's your and only your issue (and a few other autists).

Fallacy 5. We need to use Christian / Pagan / Roman memes

Chrisitnity, Roman paganism and other forms of paganism are dead forms. They do not exist in breathing, living form. People can't relate to that. We have never seen what Romans were like. It won't inspire the same degree of reaction as "Sharia" which is a living meme, which we can observe.

Not only that. Sharia triggers even some of us, which means it's like an eye-sore. The mainstream will HAVE to address it and expose their hypocrisy. Plus it causes strong emotions which is exactly the purpose of a meme. It wil make people question their worldview. Pagan memes make you look like a LARPer and no one will care. Just like the mainstream does not care about crusader memes (although they are objectively good).

Fallacy 6. We don't need Sharia, we have good Christian, NS, non-whore women. Go find them

No strong Christianity and even NS ideology can control the thottery of modern women. We have reached an age were women wish their sons would be gay, the church has close to 0 polotical power. Women can use the state to divorce you or accuse you of rape, as well as force you to pay for her abortion and single-mom nigger babies.

None of the means that have been used in the past (Christianity, NS, being a player) are strong enough to stop female behaviour, These means worked in a less degenerate society. In our modern society only Conanism will stop these thots.

Plus, for those who claim that you need to marry "Christian women". Please explain the divorce rate. Are Christians less affected by divorce. Are men in Christian marriages truly happy ?

There is no NAWALT. Deal with it. Women respond to social queues. Even good ones. There is no bullet-proof strategy of making a family today.

Fallacy 7. Only men with small dicks need Sharia. Real men use PUA / pure masculinity / righteous naziism to pick up women and control them

Some men have ego on the line. They like to believe they are like a force of nature, who doesn't need collective solutions (White Sharia), but only needs "game" or his personal religion/ideology to control women. They seem to believe that if men come together to control women, that means they can't get laid otherwise.

I am a man who has used "game" to get laid. But the price of sex is too high, and there is nothing I can personally do to stop it. I can get laid, but I have no means of maintaining a long-term relationship, because I am cucked by the state and can't even slap my woman.

She can leave anytime, be defended by an army of White knights and take my shit. I am forced to approach around 30-40 girls before getting 1-2 dates and sleeping a few times with the same women after a few dates. I am not ugly, stupid, with poor social skills, whatever. That's just how it is.

I am tired of this. I want to be able to not expand as much energy on getting laid. I want more attractive women and cheaper sex, which will not happen as long as women collectively cuck us.

Women are getting fatter, thus there are less non-fat, non-tatooed, non-niggerloving women.

There is nothing you can individually do to improve the pool of women you can date. You can only run circles like I do, spending hours talking to every semi-attractive women and asking her out, lifting weights, spending money on clothes and maybe saving money for hair transplants and teeth fixing or whatever issues you have.

My dad didn't have to spend hours approaching women, spending a fortune in turning into a gorilla dick nigga, like I do. I do this because I have no choice of getting laid otherwise. Yet most women do not appreciate that, and think I am not good enough for them. Even though I am smooth talker, tall and in shape. They all want millionaires and want to use sex as a weapon.

My dad got married in his early twenties in the Soviet Union. He didn't need game or shit to get laid. He could focus on studying and making money for his family. Not running circle for female validation

Drop the ego. Accept women were poisoned and there is nothing you individually can do to make it easier. You CAN get laid. But you can't get laid REASONABLY EASY, like our ancestors could. We need sharia.

That doesn't mean you have a small dick. On top of that, no one calls women losers when they use feminism (which is reverse sharia) to get power. And if they are, they don't care. They support each other. It's time for us men to drop dick-measuring contests, alpha signalling and name-calling and do the same. We will all win. A real man doesn't just play women games, he uses power to gain advantage by removing female power. Would any great White civilization before us even think for a second to adopt White Sharia if they saw what women are like today ?

Fallacy 8. Women will be scared away

First. Women do not like nice guys. They are all dripping wet from the thought of sleeping with criminals and terrorists. Just like they slept with Nazis, and just like they sleep with whomever they think is strong and popular today.

Women will not sleep with Nazis if we buy them flowers. Just look at the Stormfront dating section to see cringe of nice guys looking for "Aryan princesses". Women do not sleep with Nazis, because Nazis are not popular. And Nazis wll not become popular until they stop being white knights.
Bringing White Sharia will make women want us. Anything contrary is just a shit-test.

Second. The only reason women oppose White Sharia is because they are afraid of having their right to fuck around taken away. They all want free abortions to be able to screw niggers and whatever and get away. Yes, even "good girls". Since when do thot opinions matter ?

Three. Why do we care what women think anyway ?

We don't need women "in the movement". We need women to breed us children and provide sexual services and mild cuddling and other kind of comforting services.

For all we care, they could be sex slaves. If women don't want Sharia, who cares, they won't get a choice. Why should we modify our position to make them comfortable ? I don't care if they feel uncomfortable.

As long as we own them, their opinion won't matter so we won't have to cuck to gain their favors. That's the best plan. If they voluntarily join us, good, if not, who cares ?

On top of that, this argument is super-gay, because it uses man-shaming, which is why most who bring it up are thots disguising themselves as men.

Conclusion
White Sharia is good policy. Anyone complaining is a pussy.

The only problem with White Sharia is that it is not hardcore enough.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:33 am
by AutSider
Also, I'd like to add that I'm not exactly a 100% traditionalist. I'm a naturalist. I care about what works. The parts of traditionalism that work are great, but I won't adopt the parts that don't work just because "MUH EUROPEAN TRADITION".

Though I respect many of the insights people in the past had on society, we now have even more information, and it is time we make new traditions based on it.

Pandora wrote:Autsider, the psychology you describe is portrayed by both sexes, both can be brainwashed. Only when men are brainwashed they also back it up by force (nationalism is one example, playing on hero complex). As far as domination by sexes, each one should have its own sphere of domination, woman at home and social sphere, and men at public relations and politics.
As for your throne fantasy, just remember control comes with a lot of responsibity and can be very stressful on one. If you think it's just about having your every wish met, you're wrong. It really boils down to taking responsibility for your own actions (and your subordinates), and owning your mistakes, because these will be your mistakes, and that's something I think which could be even more productive if extended and applied beyond the bedroom sphere.


Domination is a male thing, women have no place dominating anything.
What would it even mean that women dominate in home and social sphere, and how do you separate that, especially the social sphere, from public relations and politics?

Men in general don't mind responsibility if they have authority over what they are responsible for. Stressful, lol. Men are designed by nature to deal with such stress. Women are much more delicate, and in general shouldn't be forced to deal with nature (politics, war, philosophy, truth) as it might hinder their ability to care for the child by destroying them emotionally. Ideally, women would never have to hear some of the mean truths I tell. They would have their own female spaces where they can talk about whatever things women talk about (supervised by men, of course, to prevent possible treason and conspiring).

It's funny to me when women are called the empathetic sex when they have no empathy (UNDERSTANDING) of other people at all. They just project their own feelings into the other and presume that the other is feeling the same way she would be feeling if she were in their shoes. The problem with this is that it presumes equality - that the woman and the person the woman is projecting herself as, are the same or at least very similar. This can kind of work for women when it comes to understanding other women, less so when it comes to men. Such blind projection fails to account for the differences between the sexes and adjust the judgment based on them, which an accurate understanding would necessitate.

It's like when a woman told me that she can't understand how men can put so much effort into pretending to be macho/masculine. It is completely inconceivable to them that men and women are different, so they think that if for her, as a woman, acting like a man would be difficult, then it means that it must be so for men too. What men really want, after all, is to be just like women, it's just this society that keeps brainwashing men into wanting to pretend they are masculine. This is how these retards actually think.

In reality, for men it comes naturally to act like men, and for women it comes naturally to act like women. For men it would be difficult and a pretense to act like women, and for women it would be difficult and a pretense to act like men.

Try to get a woman to understand this, though, I dare you. "muh equality". Anyway, that's for you thinking it's difficult for men to deal with such stresses. It's not like we have much of a choice anyway.

It would be nice if people were forced to bear the direct natural consequences of their actions, instead of distributing the costs of their actions to the entire society. It would be perfect, for example, if Muslim immigrants raped and killed only those men and women who voted to import them. That would be so fucking awesome. Among other things, cucks and liberals would be made slaves of the enemies or killed, feminists would be raped and/or put into burqas or killed. And WN who opposed all this degeneracy would not have to suffer it and would get their own white state which would eventually rise to be powerful enough to push back Muslims.

Ah, it would be so nice if everybody got what they deserved.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:39 am
by Xenophon
Many of those arguments I never made and so I will not address those which have no bearing on what I am saying.

AutSider wrote:Actually there are specific reasons why it can't be called "White Patriarchy" and have the same effect.


Can you show me where I advocated the term white patriarchy? One could just as well have said Europe needs traditional European values:

AutSider wrote:Fallacy 5. We need to use Christian / Pagan / Roman memes

Chrisitnity, Roman paganism and other forms of paganism are dead forms. They do not exist in breathing, living form. People can't relate to that. We have never seen what Romans were like. It won't inspire the same degree of reaction as "Sharia" which is a living meme, which we can observe.


Would you then say that the idea of European tradition is dead, particularly for those who matter in the struggles we face today?

AutSider wrote: The key thing to understand is that none of this is 100% serious and literal.


I am saying there is a reason to be serious and literal:

Xenophon wrote:When Europeans come looking for their own, why don't you provide them a display of virtue [...]


Considering the issues facing Europe today, do you not think that many Europeans will come seeking their own and be nothing but repelled by the propagation of muslim ideas, in jest or otherwise?

I see no reason to address simple minds who cannot think beyond the repetition of internet memes. That is the difference between aristocracy and any form of government which relies on mass society.

AutSider wrote:Fallacy 1 : Being extreme will repeal normies


If you mean repel, then this is exactly what I mean by the difference between aristocracy and governments based on mass society. It might not repel the mass of uncouth men and women but it will repel those who care for and respect their traditions and do not see them as dead so that the banner of islam must be taken up instead.

AutSider wrote:Here is the fact, Anglin has the most extreme postion within the mainstream WN community. His website is the most popular WN website out there, yet he claims we need to create race-specific viruses and wipe out Somalians and Sunni Arabs, as well as other evolutionary throwbacks. Why is he more popular than all other pro-White outlets out there ?


Are you making the argument here that what is best is based on popularity? I think you are underestimating the ability of great men to rise above the heard and the mass of statistic.

AutSider wrote:On top of that why are extreme personalities within the SJW community achieving results, whie moderate leftist achieve nothing of value?


Who said anything about being moderate? Caring for European tradition in Europe is moderate to you?

AutSider wrote:Fallacy 3. In Europe using the word "Sharia" will trigger right-wingers due to muslims living there

When you live in a European city 25-30% muslim; advocating sharia (aka islamic law, not only patriarcal rules), white or not, makes you a total traitor or at least a giant cuck.
Then why has National Action. An extreme right-wing group in England achieve extreme success with their "White Jihad" meme ?

huffingtonpost.co.uk4

The Most Bizarre Far-Right Video Yet - 'Inside The White Jihad'

The neo-nazi group behind the ...
Why have they been the only non-violent group to be banned in UK ?


Though I did not make this argument, I will say that the argument I am making is not about "triggering" at all but the development and progression of our ideals.

AutSider wrote:Fallacy 4. Sharia is a sandnigger word

Musim Sharia is different from White Sharia, like "White magic" is different from "Black magic" and "Meme magic" is different from "Satanic magic". If you have an IQ too low to understand that or are so triggered by sandnigger words (although Sharia predates sandniggers as Anglin pointed out) that's your and only your issue (and a few other autists).


Would you be willing to show the source which proves that sharia is originally a European term? Also, accusations of being triggered is not an argument for anyone except children and mental teenagers populating the internet.

None of your arguments even addressed the fact that you have sought out islam for your campaign rather than European ideals, and your response was full of arguments not even addressed to me.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:42 am
by AutSider
I'm not interested in discussing with you in particular because the gist of all your arguments has already been addressed and yes, refuted.

If we wanted islamic sharia we'd advocate for islamic sharia, not WHITE SHARIA. Just to make it clear though, not everything written in that post is mine, as I noted.

The fallacies are written by somebody else, I just don't use quotes when copying huge amounts of text because it makes it smaller, uglier, and harder to read.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:46 am
by Xenophon
If you are not willing to discuss it then it shall be left there for any thinking individual's consideration.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:47 am
by AutSider
Pandora wrote:I'll take flogging and exile for 500 please.

Reminds me of an (ok) movie Die Wanderhure (the whore, 2010). There was another movie along the same lines, a pretty good one, too, but I forgot the name of it, about a woman trying to survive in Middle Ages on her own. Basically, prostitution was a way to go for most women on their own back then.


I don't think exile is a smart tactical move. The exiled woman might join the enemy and reveal important information to them about the group, or even increase the number of enemies by giving them children.

Or she might just do some other spiteful thing to get back at the group that exiled her. An execution is a swift and clean way of dealing with traitors and degenerates, possibly preceded by flogging and public shaming.

And yeah, just in case you ask, the same applies to men - execution, not exile.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:54 am
by AutSider
Xenophon wrote:If you are not willing to discuss it then it shall be left there for any thinking individual's consideration.


If you're interested in further informing yourself on WHITE SHARIA:

http://www.dailystormer.com/?s=white+sharia

Just the first page contains at least 5 long articles, those are the ones with hundreds of comments. It's already been discussed a lot and all your complaints were addressed, multiple times.

I see no point in endlessly repeating the same discussions.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:43 pm
by Is_Yde_opN
WendyDarling wrote:
Men always make themselves the enemy, like you, who would claim that wars are glorious and just rather than temperance and cooperation as a means to an end rather than the selfish, selfserving bullshit of war and folks of your ilk can war on to become dust. I'll be the woman and sweep that dust away. Dumb men don't deserve the support of smart women.


Oh contraire, dust sweeper.
I do temper myself and do cooperate this very moment.
I think it's good that you think that dumb men don't deserve the support of smart women but let's be honest here, deserve has got nothing to do with it.
They do what they do and they support who they support.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:54 pm
by AutSider
Is_Yde_opN wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:
Men always make themselves the enemy, like you, who would claim that wars are glorious and just rather than temperance and cooperation as a means to an end rather than the selfish, selfserving bullshit of war and folks of your ilk can war on to become dust. I'll be the woman and sweep that dust away. Dumb men don't deserve the support of smart women.


Oh contraire, dust sweeper.
I do temper myself and do cooperate this very moment.
I think it's good that you think that dumb men don't deserve the support of smart women but let's be honest here, deserve has got nothing to do with it.
They do what they do and they support who they support.


What she's saying is that she wants you to agree with her and do what she says without her having to risk anything being violent, cause women are worse at violence and also risk averse.

I share that sentiment. I too would prefer if people did what I want them to do without having to use violence. But I also recognize that's not how things work.

Wendy claims to be all about cooperation but you can be sure that if somebody tried to implement something like WHITE SHARIA she would not want to cooperate, and might even go to war against them.

It's what I spoke of in my nobody is against violence thread.

People constantly keep lying about this, pretending they are above violence, that they are innocent, when what really differentiates us is the PURPOSE for which we are willing to do violence. But everybody is violent.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:28 pm
by WendyDarling
You's entertain me! Keep it up.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:43 pm
by Pandora

It's funny to me when women are called the empathetic sex when they have no empathy (UNDERSTANDING) of other people at all. They just project their own feelings into the other and presume that the other is feeling the same way she would be feeling if she were in their shoes. The problem with this is that it presumes equality - that the woman and the person the woman is projecting herself as, are the same or at least very similar. This can kind of work for women when it comes to understanding other women, less so when it comes to men. Such blind projection fails to account for the differences between the sexes and adjust the judgment based on them, which an accurate understanding would necessitate.

It's like when a woman told me that she can't understand how men can put so much effort into pretending to be macho/masculine. It is completely inconceivable to them that men and women are different, so they think that if for her, as a woman, acting like a man would be difficult, then it means that it must be so for men too. What men really want, after all, is to be just like women, it's just this society that keeps brainwashing men into wanting to pretend they are masculine. This is how these retards actually think.


This is not so in my experience. Many men will automatically assume that a woman is successful in her career because he has either slept her way up or had ingratiated herself to her superiors. This is the kind of thinking men do, as if this is what they would do if they were women. And this is total bullshit. Women who want equality will not seek shortcuts and use their sex to their advantage- their success is purely merit based and they work hard for it ( even harder than other men). For some reason men refuse to acknowledge that an attractive girl/woman would succeed based on merit/skill and not based on her looks. This to me is just a projection of men's own thinking of how they would act if they were a woman - basically, they would take shortcuts, because it just makes logical sense to them. There is a hidden sense of jealousy and insecurity projected in this too.

I don't know about men really wanting to be women, I haven't really sensed that, only perhaps some kind of envy based on misunderstanding that women have it easier in life, because they think if they were women everything would be so much easier for them; all they'd have to do is bat their eyes and spread their legs. These men do not understand women, but think they do.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:47 pm
by Pandora
AutSider wrote:
Pandora wrote:I'll take flogging and exile for 500 please.

Reminds me of an (ok) movie Die Wanderhure (the whore, 2010). There was another movie along the same lines, a pretty good one, too, but I forgot the name of it, about a woman trying to survive in Middle Ages on her own. Basically, prostitution was a way to go for most women on their own back then.


I don't think exile is a smart tactical move. The exiled woman might join the enemy and reveal important information to them about the group, or even increase the number of enemies by giving them children.

Or she might just do some other spiteful thing to get back at the group that exiled her. An execution is a swift and clean way of dealing with traitors and degenerates, possibly preceded by flogging and public shaming.

And yeah, just in case you ask, the same applies to men - execution, not exile.


Well, I don't think executing your own people is a smart tactical move, either. I can see your population eventually dwindling down to just maybe a handful of hardcore idealists.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:03 pm
by WendyDarling
Well, I don't think executing your own people is a smart tactical move, either. I can see your population eventually dwindling down to just maybe a handful of hardcore idealists.


That's why shortsighted extremism is so entertaining. There is no talking sense to such radicals.

Re: White countries need White Shariah

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:04 pm
by WendyDarling
Is_Yde_opN wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:
Men always make themselves the enemy, like you, who would claim that wars are glorious and just rather than temperance and cooperation as a means to an end rather than the selfish, selfserving bullshit of war and folks of your ilk can war on to become dust. I'll be the woman and sweep that dust away. Dumb men don't deserve the support of smart women.


Oh contraire, dust sweeper.
I do temper myself and do cooperate this very moment.
I think it's good that you think that dumb men don't deserve the support of smart women but let's be honest here, deserve has got nothing to do with it.
They do what they do and they support who they support.


How big of you! :lol:

Some dust sweepers treat the ideas of shortsighted extremists as merely dust in the wind floating amidst a lot of hot air.

Deserve has got a lot to do with decisions concerning intelligence and backbone, even Karma follows the deserved, and the women who bring all the goods including positive Karma would never support extremism leading to their own detriment. Your cause is a mixture of tyranny and terrorism against your own people and only the brain dead and the soulless support such sharia endeavors, not I or anyone else with a brain and spine.