If we reject egalitarianism, we are elitists; if we are elitists, we are for quality over quantity.
A pervasive problem (among WN adherents — Ed.) is the lack of a sense of direction and of a sense of direction that is charged with meaning—a theme to which I have returned again and again in my writing. Many seem to deem it sufficient to ‘tell the truth’ / present ‘the facts’ (e.g., the Jews, IQ, immigration), warn about how much worse things will be in the future and lament how much better they were in the past, and dream about the great collapse, as if such a collapse would magically put White Nationalists in charge and thus instantly solve all our problems. As things stand, the great collapse, if and when it comes, would likely put Islam in charge, at least in Europe. (And of course it might never come—the present system could well die with a whimper.) Next, the past was not the idyll it is often portrayed as having been: after all, it led to the present, so it obviously had problems. And, finally, the truth/the facts are useless on their own: most people believe what they want to believe, which is usually what makes them feel good about themselves; when facts are inconvenient, they are ignored, discredited, and / or suppressed. What is missing, and what would make a difference, is a meaningful future-oriented programme: one that shows that our side is for something, rather than just against everything. And when I say for something, I do not mean a return to the 1950s, or the 1930s, or some earlier time, or just a reversal of certain policies, or just the expulsion of certain people; I mean something entirely new, relevant to the 203os, or the 2050s, which affects every aspect of life, inside and out, corporeally and spiritually, which is ours, and both futuristic and yet based on archaic values. It does, as Greg argues, begin with thinking differently. But it continues with the translation of that thinking into a dynamic aesthetic, a dynamic praxis, a methodology, a meaningful way of doing things, that inspires ordinary people, gives meaning to their lives, and can be assimilated so that it envelops and affects every aspect of their existence, down to the smallest detail, inside and out.
Put in practical terms: if we reject egalitarianism, we are elitists; if we are elitists, we are for quality over quantity; if we are for quality, we favour sturdy, durable, well-designed, and artistically rendered everyday objects. For the apolitical citizen, this is attractive: something he understands, something he can appreciate, something he can have near, to remind him about the good life, about work well done, about having high standards, about life not being about cutting corners and quick profits, about being, in sum, elitist, inegalitarian… That is what I mean by translating ideas into an aesthetic and a praxis. It begins with abstract concepts and it ends with the most ordinary of household objects; and from there it radiates outwards and upwards again into the heights of abstraction. But the apolitical citizen need not concern himself with that: he will go for the proposition that makes him feel good about life and about himself.
At the moment, all the apolitical citizen sees is that our side offers nothing but, on the one hand, depressing facts, and, on the other, ostracism, prison sentences, unemployment, martyrdom, social embarrassment, and a bleak future taken straight out of the grimmest, darkest, most crushingly depressing apocalyptic science fiction film ever made or imagined. Is it a surprise he prefers the version shown in Star Trek?