Movement groups go after their members with a raging demand for total conformity to a pattern that is unreal and call for perfection in their human material. Regulation haircuts, clothing standards, minimums of (worthless) literature to be bought and - presumably - distributed, a certain percentage of their income to be pledged (wasted) each month, demonstrations (ridiculous) to be staged minus the necessary personnel to do it right and minus a public which gives a damn. PLUS, I should add, strict adherence to the "Fuhrerprinzip" (regardless of what any non-Nazi group may wish to call it)... The only totality we can apply currently with success is in our own view toward the System, the Enemy. When we attempt to apply it to new people, new adherents to the Movement, we achieve only an inward-looking cult; we alienate good people who are committed but still of a level-headed, reasoning nature. We open the field for nuts and tin-horns who are willing to put up with, and even add to, the nonsense in order to be a bigger part of it and, worst of all, we stifle fresh genius. It is a low view, held only by those who can't handle the Enemy and choose instead to tyrannize the membership and make people over while pretending to attack small surface symptoms of a far more serious problem (and falling flat even at that). In applying a strategy of totality toward the System instead, we find ourselves keeping up a constant pressure against it where it counts; on a never-ending, day-to-day basis, we begin to lay the groundwork for a truly popular front and rid ourselves of the label of "kooks", "reactionaries" and "fascists"; we develop a true ideology, a worldview, and in living it rather than playing at it we eventually become larger, greater than the Enemy itself; we assume the advantage, the OFFENSIVE, and through our self-discipline and diligent efforts, we become the embryonic government-to-be, more than worthy and capable of taking over the reigns once the present government is gone.

When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in possessing and preserving the present. It ceases then to be a movement and becomes an enterprise. According to Hitler, the more “posts and offices a movement has to hand out, the more inferior stuff it will attract, and in the end these political hangers-on overwhelm a successful party in such number that the honest fighter of former days no longer recognizes the old movement…. When this happens, the ‘mission’ of such a movement is done for.”1 The

There can be but one German Youth Movement, because there is but one way in which German youth can be educated and trained... This Reich stands, and is building itself up anew, upon its youth. And this Reich will hand over its youth to no one, but will take its education and its formation upon itself.

A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action.

A movement, even a radical movement, is also an institution with its own set of leaders, power dynamics and hierarchy.

A movement which is confined to philosophers and honest men can never exercise any real political influence: there are too few of them. Until a movement shows itself capable of spreading among brigands, it can never hope for a political majority.

All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance. All movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherents from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of mind. Though there are obvious differences between the fanatical Christian, the fanatical Mohammedan, the fanatical nationalist, the fanatical Communist and the fanatical Nazi, it is yet true that the fanaticism which animates them may be viewed and treated as one. The same is true of the force which drives them on to expansion and world dominion. There is a certain uniformity in all types of dedication, of faith, of pursuit of power, of unity and of self-sacrifice. There are vast differences in the contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity in the factors which make them effective. He who, like Pascal, finds precise reasons for the effectiveness of Christian doctrine has also found the reasons for the effectiveness of Communist, Nazi and nationalist doctrine. However different the holy causes people die for, they perhaps die basically for the same thing.

No mass left-wing movement has ever been built on a majoritarian strategy. On the contrary, every such movement-socialism, populism, labor, civil rights, feminism, gay rights, ecology-has begun with a visionary minority whose ideas were at first decried as impractical, ridiculous, crazy, dangerous, and/or immoral.

Mere fanaticism alone is not the ultimate indicator of a revolutionary movement whose time, it can be justifiably said, has come. All this must be in answer to the commands of the genes in our blood. This immediately rules out all the "Jim Jones", all the "Hare Krishnas", all the "Moonies", and at the same time it rules out all the Reds and the off-brand socialists. We now state that only the affirmative answer to the call of the BLOOD decides which movement shall be the redeemers of an entire race of people. For that reason it could have happened nowhere else but among the most hardcore of National Socialists.

Most revolutionary movements are unable to practise among themselves what they preach. Strong leadership cults, factionalism, ‘ego-tripping’, backbiting are the rule rather than the exception.

Perhaps the one solid development that has occurred within the Movement in recent years - very recent years - is the consensus that not only is the total destruction of the world-wide System and Establishment inevitable now, but it is our only best hope. Not even Spengler himself could have foreseen a twist like that.

Anatomy of a Movement

Senator Bill Bradley defines a movement as having three elements: (1) A narrative that tells a story about who we are and the future we're trying to build. (2) A connection between and among the leader and the tribe. (3) Something to do - the fewer limits the better. Too often organizations fail to do anything but the third.

Hitherto every civilization that has arisen has been able to develop only a comparatively few activities; that is, its field of endeavor has been limited in kind as well as in locality. There have, of course, been great movements, but they were of practically only one form of activity; and, although usually this set in motion other kinds of activities, such was not always the case. The great religious movements have been the pre-eminent examples of this type. But they are not the only ones. Such peoples as the Mongols and the Phoenicians, at almost opposite poles of cultivation, have represented movements in which one element, military or commercial, so overshadowed all other elements that the movement died out chiefly because it was one-sided. The extraordinary outburst of activity among the Mongols of the thirteenth century was almost purely a military movement, without even any great administrative side; and it was therefore well-nigh purely a movement of destruction. The individual prowess and hardihood of the Mongols, and the perfection of their military organization rendered their armies incomparably superior to those of any European, or any other Asiatic, power of that day. They conquered from the Yellow Sea to the Persian Gulf and the Adriatic; they seized the imperial throne of China; they slew the Caliph in Bagdad; they founded dynasties in India. The fanaticism of Christianity and the fanaticism of Mohammedanism were alike powerless against them. The valor of the bravest fighting men in Europe was impotent to check them. They trampled Russia into bloody mire beneath the hoofs of their horses; they drew red furrows of destruction across Poland and Hungary; they overthrew with ease any force from western Europe that dared encounter them. Yet they had no root of permanence; their work was mere evil while it lasted, and it did not last long; and when they vanished they left hardly a trace behind them. So the extraordinary Phoenician civilization was almost purely a mercantile, a business civilization, and though it left an impress on the life that came after, this impress was faint indeed compared to that left, for instance, by the Greeks with their many-sided development. Yet the Greek civilization itself fell because this many-sided development became too exclusively one of intellect, at the expense of character, at the expense of the fundamental qualities which fit men to govern both themselves and others. When the Greek lost the sterner virtues, when his soldiers lost the fighting edge, and his statesmen grew corrupt, while the people became a faction-torn and pleasure-loving rabble, then the doom of Greece was at hand, and not all their cultivation, their intellectual brilliancy, their artistic development, their adroitness in speculative science, could save the Hellenic peoples as they bowed before the sword of the iron Roman.

The only serious organizational principle the active workers of our movement can accept is strict secrecy, strict selection of members and the training of professional revolutionaries.