A concept in it’s infancy : Nationalist Distributism.

After my dissatisfaction with libertarianism and libertarians in general became a little too much to handle. I drifted over to reactionary politics where I can say that I am very satisfied with my new home. Over the past few months the beginnings of a new ideal began running around in my head. I’ve dropped hints with articles like Mutual aid and the right  and Communal self sufficiency policy . But those were just seeds being planted in the soil. Entertaining autarky and mutual aid were just the start of something.

Distributism represents the circulation of the blood (value). Nationalism represents the flesh that protects what is underneath. Monarchy represents what mankind naturally desires. The need for a paternal authority. A family that operates like a monarchy is ordered and healthy. A family that works like a democracy is chaotic and produces spoiled offspring.

A collective caesarism is beneficial for the populace. Viewing our people as great and wanting to remain so is logical. Populist slogans like “MAGA” are thought up by people that understand this basic truth. A united front motivated by the desire to be great is superior to the alternative. The modern aversion to collectivism is not rational .

Distributism points out that capitalist corporations are harmful to communities. Due to the fact that they have no real tie to the community. Small business will be easily run out of the market. Taking money out of the community and into the hands of international giants. Another issue with the current system is it’s ability to subvert cultural norms . Here’s a link to a decent book on distributism .

The state should intervene in order to ensure that employment is stable and people are being fed. I suggested one way to do this in “communal self sufficiency policy”. By having a partially state owned agriculture organization. You could reduce unemployment while feeding people that cannot afford food. Homeless veterans for example.

Outsourcing and Mass immigration’s negative impact on labor. Lowering wages and losing jobs to immigrants and people in other nations. Can have a negative affect on the native population. Eventually extreme solutions will be search for once the scenario deems it necessary.

Nationalism , distributism , and monarchism were made for each other. Nationalism wants to preserve the nation. Distributism wants to bring morality into the marketplace. Monarchism wants to guide the populace. They all intersect because of their belief in putting your group first and making sure that your group stays in a positive state.

Socialists and classical liberals see mankind for what they think it can be. But they never acknowledge it for what it truly is. A hierarchal group oriented species that is not inherently good. The socialist thinker assumes that because all human beings are good. That means that they will share the wealth and work to stomp out inequality. But as long as beauty and intelligence exist. You will never get rid of it completely. The classical liberal thinker assumes that humans are inherently good as well. But he believes it in the hopes that man can handle it. Except not every human can handle running their own lives let alone true freedom. You’ll find people that prioritize sex and partying all over. They lack meaning in their life , So they seek pleasure.  Reactionary ideologies acknowledge the true state of man.

Something that just as important to society as any thing else is the  environment . It’s important for a society to preserve it’s land while taking full advantage of the resources. Humanity should absolutely reach for the stars and achieve technological heights that were previously impossible. But we should exercise caution so that the world doesn’t end up a useless husk.

It was suggested that I post the quote from this link. “Although the corporate idea was intimated in the congregationalism of colonial Puritan New England and in mercantilism, its earliest theoretical expression did not appear until after the French Revolution (1789) and was strongest in eastern Germany and Austria. The chief spokesman for this corporatism—or “distributism,” as it was later called in Germany—was Adam Müller, the court philosopher for Prince Klemens Metternich. Müller’s attacks on French egalitarianism and on the laissez-faire economics of the Scottish political economist Adam Smith were vigorous attempts to find a modern justification for traditional institutions and led him to conceive of a modernized Ständestaat (“class state”), which might claim sovereignty and divine right because it would be organized to regulate production and coordinate class interests. Although roughly equivalent to the feudal classes, its Stände (“estates”) were to operate as guilds, or corporations, each controlling a specific function of social life. Müller’s theories were buried with Metternich, but after the end of the 19th century they gained in popularity.”



  1. I do not think nationalism and monarchism fit at all. The claims of peoples to self-determine inevitably will conflict with legitimate claims of dynastic authority, as they indeed did in the 19th century.

    State-owned agriculture is straight out of a kolkhoz. The employment problem can most parsimoniously be solved by bringing back Tudor Poor Law-era workhouses and allow a certain degree of patronage to develop, which is today maligned as being “slavery”. With some men being natural slaves, there is no way around it, though.

    (I should also point out that a lowering of the wage rate is not synonymous with decline in living standards, since the real wage [the quantity and quality of available commodities one can buy with a certain unit of currency] is constantly expanding and making money wage estimates misleading. In fact, a lowering of wages is usually a prerequisite to further capital deepening.]

    Paternal authority guided by lordship, and Caesarism, are two quite different things, I think. In fact, I do not think a united populist front or mass mobilization are good things at all, especially not after a restoration. You want people to pursue noble vocations and fit into a hierarchical, well-ordered pattern of society — not to fill them with transient propaganda.


  2. I’m going to nitpick on a specific term or two because words matter.

    You define capitalist corporations as solely huge, probably multinational entities. That’s not going to sway anyone who’s not already at the farther reaches of the leftist ideologies. Many incorporate businesses are local or regional in nature, including those small businesses you’re protecting and, as such, many will take your idea poorly, especially since the pertinent laws to weaken the large companies almost always end up having a greater negative impact on smaller businesses.

    Similarly, anything close to a denigration of- lament about the amorality of capitalism is going to fall on deaf ears except for those of the farther reaches of the leftist ideologies. Most people, especially the ones who you should be wanting to influence, aren’t bothered by this amorality anymore than their bothered by amorality of nature, e.g., the weather.


    1. Fair enough, But I’d say it would only appeal to the far side of both ends of the spectrum. Maybe for different reasons but still. If I decide to take this idea further. I’ll take what you have to say into consideration.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s