Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals SEVEN POINTS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS
($5 to Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Rd., Rochester, WA 98579) Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:20 | # The definition of “Shield” is a mutually consenting relationship—frequently between a man and a woman of reproductive age—in which one gives up their status as Sovereign in exchange for the protection of a Sovereign—protection from being challenged to formal combat. Only Sovereigns may vote. It is also the default status of children with respect to their mothers and or their mothers’ respective Sovereigns. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:08 | # Any particular woman you were thinking of challenging, zuwr? 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:11 | # James, would a politics of sovereignism affirm or negate particularity and dependence? 5
Posted by Rollory on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:33 | # This is a bit too wordy to be popular. As for point 6, I for one would never consent to giving up the ability to use a gun, and I would use said gun on anybody who attempted to compel it. 6
Posted by Rollory on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:18 | # ... and having said that, and thought about it some more, I can see the value in having the blade-only rule for this specific circumstance. Need to think this over. The rest of it seems very sound. 7
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:23 | # GW, different territories would tend to acquire their own human ecologies simply because incompatibles residing too close to each other would be at each other’s throats in a most literal and legitimized manner. This is one of the reasons I am so focused on assortative migration. As for “dependence” I’m not sure what you mean. Certainly there would be dependence of men upon women for reproduction and women and children upon men for protection. The rest would be a matter of societal amity but I think there are inherent limits imposed by the idea that individuals cannot really be sovereign if they are too dependent on others. Where things get more interesting is when armed gangs start roaming the countryside attacking individuals. Point 5 gives license to the individual sovereigns to form voluntary armies in self-defense. Desertion would not be punishable by the group—only by individuals willing to challenge the deserter or, less severely, to merely fight him in a non-lethal and non-disfiguring manner. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:50 | # A little illustration of how this would affect things in practical terms:
Both David Waisman and Eliane Karp are Jewish immigrants to Peru and both of them held highly influential government positions in Peru. Waisman’s refusal to accept Ramos’ challenge to mortal single combat would result in him being subject to the death penalty at the hands of legitimate group force. 10
Posted by John on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:39 | # I said in 2003 that I’d have much preferred to an Iraq War simply to hold between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein a cage match on Pay per View according to WWF rules with no holds barred and a referee agreed to by both of them. 11
Posted by zuwr on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:30 | # @Fred: I was testing the boundaries. @James What is to stop David Waisman from paying to be a shield? He couldn’t enter politics, but he could still make a living from debt collection/usury. He would just have to pay some Ultimate Fighter type to be his sovereign. Is this prohibited in section 5? If so, how does shielding work? 12
Posted by cladrastis on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:07 | # This sounds like a great way to get rid of impulsive individualists and subvert the evolution of a more collectivist European group strategy (as predicted by Kevin MacDonald). One question: when does a shield become a sovereign (or a boy become a man)? Does this require some minimal number of accomplishments (like survival in the wilderness) and a vote of the sovereigns, or is it wholly age-dependent? 13
Posted by cladrastis on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:46 | # Also, if a sovereign dies, is killed, or abandons his shields, what happens to such shields? Are they transferred to the sovereign of the closest living kin? 14
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:00 | # Al: You seem smug. Do you really think the center is going to hold? As for the discussion of Sovereign vs Shielded, from pages 88-90:
15
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:29 | # zuwr asks (rewording slightly for accuracy): “James What is to stop David Waisman from paying to be shielded?” Nothing except other sovereigns who would find Waisman’s sovereign shield to be despicable for shielding him. This is, in fact, part of how Jews originally gained entry to the Goths: Court Jews. Together they brought down the corrupt Roman Empire but, Jews managed to replace the Goths’ indigenous religion with a “turn the other cheek for foreigners” religion while Jews retained their tribal “tit-for-tat for foreigners” religion. The way they did this was probably a combination of setting up Gothic leaders with permanent gang structures based on spoils from the Roman Empire. The problem is how to prevent that from happening again—perhaps not with Court Jews this time but perhaps with Court Dravidians, Court Muslims or Court Africans. The key is watching carefully for the “Ultimate Fighter with his toadies” game and make sure that the moment he does anything that even smells of violating point #5 that he is tried, convicted and executed by an army of other sovereigns. 16
Posted by Rollory on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:46 | # Thinking about this more, the last sentence of point 2 is a problem. Any civilization worthy of the name (and I am not convinced that civilization itself is invariably bad) must be patriarchal. http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html goes over this argument at length, and better than I can. A society where a woman has the ability to summarily and unilaterally dissolve a family with no consequences is not a society that will produce anything worthwhile. That she have veto power over acceptance in the first place, yes, but once accepted, divorce or its equivalent needs to be very very difficult. A man works for his children. If he has no children - or, more commonly right now, no control over them or input into their lives - he might as well stay home and drink beer and play video games all day. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:51 | # Correct, Rollory. The question is whether civilization can be made eugenic rather than dysgenic. Clearly the “woman’s choice” civilization that provides state protection of women invites all manner of subversion of healthy sexuality. In an individual sovereignty culture a woman’s choice has far reaching consequences for her without the state as sovereign. 18
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:16 | #
Though sometimes they work for their neices/nephews. 19
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:27 | # The philosophical justification for using a sword and cordage is that these are tools/weapons an individual can be trained, by the time he reaches adolesence, to make himself from locally available materials, as well as the fact that they represent tension and compression structural members; the compression members being derived from materials, such as tree branches, cut by the sword. As technology advances allow, it may be reasonable to alter the conception of what kind of sword and cordage may be used consistent with this philosophy. For example, the Swedes just recently came up with a technology for turning wood pulp into high strength fiber for an energy cost of 1kWh/kg. At present the tools to apply this energy properly to make the “nanocellulose” fiber are out of the reach of that well-trained adolescent, but that certainly could change. For example if a high energy density technology comes along that could be fabricated by that well-trained young man, it could bring nanocellulose within reach of the individually-created material. Such a fiber would have amazing properties as tension member in a variety of technical improvisations. Post a comment:
Next entry: Black-white student room-shares raise some black student grades - whites get to be less prejudiced
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by zuwr on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:54 | #
Are women sovereign? May a man challenge a woman to combat?