A talk by Eli Harman adapted by Simon Sheppard. Published in Heritage & Destiny Sept.-Oct. 2017, issue 80
This came from a video talk by Eli Harman, who expressed the idea so cogently that it was transcribed and adapted into this article.
The first thing to understand about White Sharia is that it is not about adopting the tenets of Islamic law. The term is used ironically. “Sharia” actually means “the way” and it calls for a return to traditional White ways: White Sharia. It’s helpful to evoke an Islamic concept because at the moment Moslems are doing certain things better than we are: patriarchy, enforcing traditional morality, imposing modesty and traditional feminine roles. That is why they are guaranteed to still be around in decades to come and we aren’t. Our position as a people is becoming increasingly precarious.
One of the demands feminists make is for equality: that, for example, candidates for a job should be chosen entirely on their ability, regardless of sex. A meritocratic approach, in other words. Of course when sex is involved it never quite works out that way, but let’s take the argument at face value and demolish that first. The reader is also asked to ignore, for the moment, the great number of likely unforeseen consequences of allowing women in the workplace.
A stark example is women in the military. There are some women who are capable of qualifying for service in front-line and elite units. However, the women who can meet the objective criteria are few, and further, they will exceed the minimum standards by less than men. This is just a consequence of the different distributions of traits within the male and female populations. If men are stronger on average and have better endurance on average, then women who exceed the minimum standards are going to exceed them by less, on average. Plus there are fewer of them. So being strictly meritocratic and saying “Okay, these are the objective standards” may not be the best policy. We may be not giving up much by saying “Women shouldn’t do these things and we’re not going to let women try to do these things, even if some of them qualify.”
Plus, as a consequence of the different frequencies and distributions of traits, a lot more women have to be rejected to find a qualified candidate than the number of men who have to be rejected. That’s costly, and not just monetarily. Since the female candidates are less qualified on average and exceed the standards by less on average, selection involves disappointing many women who fail to make the grade. Strict meritocracy is not the best policy. It may be kinder overall to impose a blanket ban and make the role out of bounds to women.
If that’s not enough, let’s consider a foreseeable consequence of having a female member of an army unit. On a critical mission she is injured, and the natural protective instincts of the men cause them to take extraordinary risks, which results in a number of them being killed and the mission failing.
In the West, women are extended a great many opportunities. They have many alternative ways of obtaining status besides homemaking and reproduction and family. The problem here is that when we extend them alternatives to homemaking, we get less homemaking. Moreover, we get less homemaking in a systematic and predictable way. The women with many alternatives to family and reproduction become less active in family and reproduction. It’s left to the women with the poorest alternatives. So the most talented and capable women, the women with the best alternatives, are doing the least reproduction. The women with the worst alternatives, the least talented and capable, are doing the most reproduction. That’s obviously dysgenic. So in addition to harming the ability of our people to create successive generations which are of similar or greater size than previous generations, we’re also decreasing the genetic quality of succeeding generations. That’s a double problem.
This is just a consequence of the biological cost of reproduction to women. Reproduction takes a great deal more out of women than it does men. There’s a much greater trade-off between success in other endeavours and success in reproduction. So the more we allow women to obtain status by other means, the less of the homemaking and reproduction and family we will get. That’s bad for our people.
The two-income household of today is barely making any more than the one-income household of yesteryear. What has happened is that activity has been taken out of the domestic sphere, where it isn’t taxable, into the marketplace, where it is. The result is more competition for jobs, lower wages and higher taxes. The government benefits from that while the capitalists and employers benefit from lower wages and higher returns on their capital. Yet most people are not better off. Many more hours are spent in the workplace but the net earnings are only slightly more. So the benefits of allowing women into the workplace are dubious. We’re paying huge costs in terms of family and reproduction and frankly it’s just not worth it.
With White Sharia, women would play no part in the political process. Allowing women to vote is a terrible idea because women don’t fight. Politics is a substitute for organised violence: we vote about things so we don’t have to fight about them. It’s a civilised solution, better for both winners and losers. Voting is a proxy for violence because if enough support can be amassed to prevail in an electoral contest, it’s a pretty good indication of succeeding in a violent contest. So if the outcome is going to be the same, voting is a less costly alternative to fighting. However once women are included in the political process that skews things, because they don’t participate in organised violence. That’s in the male sphere. Allowing women to vote is to give them something for nothing: they’re getting a share of the spoils which they can’t participate in winning. When people get something for nothing that causes a breakdown in incentives and accounting. This inevitably leads to skew and distortion.
Women don’t have the ability to win authority for themselves, so giving authority to them, giving them something for nothing, leads to detachment from reality: they partake in the benefits but share none of the costs. The real world doesn’t work that way, nature doesn’t work that way, and politics certainly doesn’t work that way. Western society has gone off the rails. They will continue further off the rails until this distortion is fixed.
There are other points: if men are to lead the nation, how can we expect them to lead if they can’t lead their own homes? So in addition to patriarchy on a systemic level, domestic patriarchy seems to be a practical necessity.
Another consideration is traditional sexual modesty and morality. This is important because, especially for a woman, the more pre-marital sexual partners she has, the less prospect she has of achieving a stable marriage. It increases the likelihood of her marriage dissolving in divorce. Our people need marriages and our children need marriages. Marriage is associated with positive outcomes and their dissolution, or never forming in the first place, is associated with negative outcomes. This is happening now, causing great social dislocation, and we can’t afford that indefinitely. Many women are spending their best years using sex to try and secure commitment from men who have little interest in it – the hypergamy syndrome. When they get over the hill and finally realise that they have to settle for someone attainable, what’s attainable has diminished because they’re no longer in their prime. Their best childbearing years have passed. So they end up marrying later and marrying worse and that’s not a good situation for anyone because that contributes to the marital instability and unhappiness that we see.
There are a lot of ways that we can profit as a people, as a society, by limiting women’s opportunities much more than we do, and subjecting them to much more masculine authority than we do. It’s important to compare White Sharia to Islamic society because we run a very real risk of conquest by these people. Moslems certainly don’t have to achieve a majority in White countries in order to start imposing their will, or their sensibilities or their agendas, and they are to eventually outnumber us, by simple demographics.
So in all these different ways we can profit as a civilisation, and as a people, by limiting women’s options and opportunities. We’re going to have to do that in order to compete with societies like Islamic society which do that. We can’t compete against that and if we don’t change we’re going to succumb and be subsumed by them. That’s why it’s helpful to have this White Sharia meme because it really drives home the contrast. However bad you think White Sharia is, it’s still nowhere near as bad as Sharia Sharia, and that’s the alternative. That’s what will happen if we don’t re-impose White Sharia.