File: 1418865691728.jpg (240.15 KB, 933x1280, 933:1280, Titelbild_Engel,_Dämonen_….jpg)

117218 No.10940
Reactionary Phalanx (RxPx)
We stand for tradition and hierarchy, the values of the past that has been lost in our modern society.
Natural law and natural rights
These follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals we are. True law derive from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Monarchy
It is one of the oldest forms of goverment. Practically all forms of goverment derive from it.
Monarchy in the long run tends to provide more societies overall with smarter, wiser, and more benevolent rulers. This shouldn't be mistaken for the claim that, always and everywhere a monarch will be smart, wise, and benevolent; rather assuming through a process of selection, through selective descent of surviving monarchies those families which ard best able to concentrait power, and maintain it in their bloodlines' hands, will also be smarter, wiser, and benevolent. The alignment of society's and roya family's interest is what allows traits of intelligence, wisdom, and benevolence to become traits that are selected for through competition. As opposed to democratically elected representatives, who increasingly selected for sociopathic ambition, solipsistic callous, willingness to toe the party line, and political correctness.
Anti-communism in all forms
Marxism, socialism, communism, hideous deforminities of the civil society of men, and its ultimate ruin.
Surely, these are they who, as the scriptures testify, "Defile the flesh, despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty".
They leave nothing untouched or whole which by human and divine laws has been wisely decreed for the health and beauty of life. They refuse obedience to higher powers, to whom, according to the admonition of the Apostle, every sould ought to be subject, and who derive the right of governing from God; and the proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties. They debase the natural union between man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, in which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken and deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is "the root of all evil which some coveting has erred from faith", they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common what has been acquired through title of lawful inheritance, or by labour of brain and hands, or by thrift of one's mode of life.
Aristocracy
The modern world needs a true elite to rescue it from the involution into materialism, egalitarianism, and economism and to restore a healthy regime of order, hierarchy and spiritual vitality.
Etho-nationalism and self-determination
Each race should have its own homeland. A place they could call their own.
Etc.
Seats will be divided between active members.
2b6345 No.10988
There is mountains of evidence (eg Hayden, The Plateau Interaction Sphere and Late Prehistoric Cultural Complexity, 1997) that pre-state societies had strong egalitarian values (what Marx called primitive communism) and that property rights and the development of the state went hand in hand. Are you saying that pre-state societies were unnatural? They were the only form of society for most of humanity's history.
117218 No.11032
>>10988Ohh I know. You leftists just
love these hunterer-gatherers, these noble savages, and yes, they're egalitarian.
But they're not what you, Marx, and the other leftists think they are.
They're not gender equal, peaceful, or as completely non-hierarchial as you think.
Violence and warfare is endemic, they were pretty hierarchial with the strongest male as the leader, and yes I know women did most of the work, but men were in charge of protecting the perimeter.
They weren't democratic, some of you actually believed they were.
They were egalitarian but in the way dark age nobles were.
And also they weren't promiscuous like freudo-marxists seem to think.
Our ancestors have lived a hunterer-gatherer lifestyle for most of human existence, but most of us wouldn't want to go back there, even if it was less work than our modern age.
64957e No.11035
>>11032Do you have any evidence to back up any of those claims?
117218 No.11036
File: 1418904947726.jpg (67.85 KB, 446x677, 446:677, The-Lucifer-Principle-book….jpg)

>>11035That book and its refrences.
>>11032And this
64957e No.11040
>11036
>Jack Donovan
He doesn't have any scientific credentials to speak of. Why would you consider him a legitimate source?
>Howard Bloom
Now that's better. I'll have to look into him more.
117218 No.11041
>>11040Yes, always trust the jew.
>Why would could consider him a legitimate source?You leftists and your credentialism.
He's done the research, he cites legitimite sources, and he's the main philosopher for masculinism.
2b6345 No.11043
>>11032>Ohh I know. You leftists just love these hunterer-gatherers, these noble savages, and yes, they're egalitarian.And is this natural, or unnatural?
64957e No.11044
>>11041I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for people to know what they're talking about. Also, just because howard bloom is a scientist doesn't make his book scientific. I will look into it, though.
5fa560 No.11046
Primitive communism was real. Just look at Malinowski's studies on the Trobriand Islands and the Kula ring. You can even look at Margaret Mead's imperfect yet useful analysis into primitive society.
Familial structures only came into existence when surplus value was created and when there was a need to determine paternity (For inheritance)
117218 No.11048
>>11044But, you're not really asking people what they're talking about.
You're just assuming that they know what they're talking about because of their credentials.
But then again you can always tell by their papers.
You should it's a good read.
>>11043Leftist love for hunter-gatherer societies, because it somehow confirms their worldview?
>>11046Well Marx's definition of primitive communism wasn't real, but sure, you can call egalitarianism, primitive communism.
There were misuderstandings on Mead's research, especially Mead herself.
But her research is useful on understanding tribal societies that has lost a recent war.
Recent research has disproved her work.
b0a86d No.11050
>>11048>Leftist love for hunter-gatherer societies, because it somehow confirms their worldview?Is the egalitarianism of pre-state societies natural or unnatural?
2c6dd7 No.11051
117218 No.11057
>>11050Yes and no.
Hunter-gatherer societies have an egalitarian ethos, but they ultimately follow an organic hierarchy.
Egalitarianism has been shown to exist in primates, but so does hierarchy.
In pre-state ages where one small group compete for resources with another, egalitarianism serves for the survival of able-bodied individuals, therefore increasing the survival of the group as a whole.
In state societies where egalitarianism is less manageable and less inclusive, openly hierarchial systems manage better.
7190b5 No.11061
>>11050So you'd rather human society go back into a hunter-gatherer lifestyle because it's more natural?
Until I see leftists like you practicing what you preaching by become hunter-gatherers like some tribes in Africa and South America still stuck in that era, you have no legitimacy here with your hypocrisy.
GTFO of our thread. You're just shitting this up with your presence.
3e9d23 No.11095
>>11048Doesn't matter what they're talking about if they don't have any evidence to back it up. I never assumed anything. Howard Bloom can still be full of shit, but having credentials makes his work warrant some looking into at the very least.
3e9d23 No.11096
>>11048Also, you can very easily tell what our ancestors lived like by looking at societies like the san people and other hunter gatherer societies in Africa and other places. Such societies tend to fit Karl Marx's definition of primitive communism.
717a29 No.11135
>>11057How can a defence of property rights follow from the nature of man and the world if man was egalitarian until relatively recently?
>Hunter-gatherer societies have an egalitarian ethos, but they ultimately follow an organic hierarchy.You mean like a Marxist-Leninist republic with a Communist party serving as the vanguard?
>>11061>So you'd rather human society go back into a hunter-gatherer lifestyle because it's more natural? No, I reject the reactionary naturalistic fallacy.
117218 No.11233
>>11135>Marxist-Leninist republicNever heard of that one before.
That's not really a hierarchy.
That Party and the State are practically the same.
But they have an organic hierarchy in thir leadership.
>>11096I get it, you're a diddly fiddly marxist.
You don't need to keep saying it.
We've already discussed this.
>>11057>>11095But both do have research to back it up, Bloom made some of his own research I think.
3e9d23 No.11234
>>11233I just pointed you towards the evidence. You decided to just call me "fiddly diddly marxist", and ignore it.
117218 No.11240
>>11234And I already presented a counter-argument.
The whole "primitive communism is real" thing has been already discussed.
Yes, they're primitive, yes you can call egalitarianism communism.
But , Marx's views on hunter-gatherer societies isn't exactly right.
3e9d23 No.11244
>>11240You're counter argument is the works of one man without a scientific leg to stand on, and another man who is a scientist, but who's work you sourced is in no way scientific. I present physical evidence, you present the unscientific writings of people with a clear bias.
117218 No.11251
>>11244Yes they do, they have research to back them up.
What physical evidence do you even present?
You're jus saying that this tribe here is like that.
I'm not even arguing that hunter-gatherers aren't egalitarian.
I'm just saying that it's not exactly what your god thought it was.
3e9d23 No.11254
>>11251Well explain to me then how Marx was wrong then. Besides your earlier claims that prehistoric man was a hierarchical society, which is patently false.
117218 No.11266
>>11254They had a natural pecking order, despite their egalitarianism, they weren't gender equal, pacifistic, matriachial, or matrilineal like Engels and feminist think, they're weren't completely non-hierarchial.
3e9d23 No.11272
>>11266The "Hierarchy" is based on age, and they are absolutely, and continue to be, gender equal as well as occasionally being matriarchal. Again, it depends on age.
717a29 No.11273
You have an incoherent philosophy.
3e9d23 No.11274
>>11273It's usually best to elaborate.
117218 No.11275
>>11272Yes, it is based on age, usually the strongest and capable able-bodied male is on top.
Old people aren't really that useful in survival situations.
Matriarchy is just an exception, they don't really occur that much.
Hunter-gatherer society is pretty much male-dominated, and yes women do most of the work, but men do the fighting and hunting.
3e9d23 No.11277
>>11275>Yes, it is based on age, usually the strongest and capable able-bodied male is on top.Hardly. Usually the males are most likely to die young, do to the fact they're exposed to danger the most.
117218 No.11278
>>11277That doesn't mean what I said wasn't true.
3e9d23 No.11279
>>11278I'm saying your claims are full of contradictions.
117218 No.11280
>>11279Elaborate.
Just because the top male dies doesn't mean he's not going to be replaced by another.
3e9d23 No.11281
>>11280You yourself said that it's based on age. In most cases, the wife would take charge, since in all likelihood she would be the next oldest.
117218 No.11282
>>11281>You yourself said that it's based on age. In most cases, the wife would take charge, since all likelihood she's would be the second oldest.Don't know if youre trolling, or if you really think like an autistic child.
It's not all about age, it's also about the individual being strongest, and most capable.
Usually really old people become a burden in the group since they couldn't hunt or do any work.
3e9d23 No.11284
>>11282Again, what evidence do you base this off of? If you look at hunter-gatherer societies that still exist today, you would see that it's based off of age(experience), and not brute strength no gender.
>Don't know if youre trolling, or if you really think like an autistic child.You know, I was about to say the same of you.
3e9d23 No.11285
117218 No.11287
>>11284>that still exist todayThat's the phrase.
The thing is most hunter-gatherer societies today don't really participate in warfare that much, their goverment bans it.
Therfore the likeliness of death has pretty much gone down since pre-modern times. (This doesn't mean they're always fighting, warfare is endemic, and battles small scale and less lethal than modern ones)
Again it's not
all about strength. Experience and mastery matter too.
Gender matters too.
Recent research has disproved the whole gender egalitarianism thing, but gender equality does exist in some rare tribes, and usually its for utility, minangkabau for example.
117218 No.11289
>>11287The word all should be in italics not strikethrough.
117218 No.11290
>>11287By the way "Gender matters too" doesn't mean women are equal.
3e9d23 No.11291
>>11287>Recent research has disproved the whole gender egalitarianism thingCitation needed.
What evidence do you have that proves they were more like pre modern times?
3e9d23 No.11292
117218 No.11293
>>11292The fact that warfare was endemic, hunter-gatherer societies have more or less warlike warrior cultures (which originated from hunting) and the fact that tribal warfare has long been banned.
3e9d23 No.11295
>>11293>the fact that warfare was endemicCitation needed for this as well.
>hunter-gatherer societies have more or less warlike warrior culturesOnce again, citation needed.
117218 No.11301
>>11295I see what you did there.
It's not going to work because you haven't cited anything yet.
If you want citations, go read the books I cited.
Good luck trying to cite academic papers.
3e9d23 No.11304
117218 No.11316
>>11304That doesn't prove anything.
It's just a list of classifications of the different kinds of hunterer-gatherer research.
These are a list that I refrenced:
Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperance
Deborah Gewertz, 1980s research on the same tribes as in Sex and Temperance
Peterson and Wrangham, Demonic Males
Jack Donovan, The Way of Men
De Waal, Chimpanzee Politics
Howard Bloom, Lucifer Principle
Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn
Matt Ridley, The Red Queen
Minangkabau wikipedia entry
Lee and DeVore, Man the Hunter
Donald E. Brown, Hierarchy, History, and Human Nature
7b7771 No.11331
>>11316It's not just a classification. It outlines the research and it's findings. The behaviors of different tribes etc etc. This is pointless, though. We can continue to argue over this till the end of time.
117218 No.11341
>>11331It's pretty nice though.
We could just agree to disagree since none of us are ever going to change our minds.
0a91a6 No.11343
143907 No.11981
May i join the RxPx?
9a7e1e No.11982
>>11981Yes, just go to the Great Sticky and declare yourself a member.
Welcome to the Phalanx, and Merry Christmas.
d6bbf6 No.12437
Our respective parties share quite a few ideals.
We of the Althings Alliance hope to work with you in the future.