*Original article was written by Hangman and hosted on the website RopeCulture, which has been taken down. This post acts as a mirror.*
One of our favorite fascist quotes is that of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu: “A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins.”
The basic message of the quote is that much like how a decaying and disease-ridden body attracts flies and parasites, only a weak and decaying society can allow the jews to latch onto it and accelerate the decomposition of the festering gaping wounds, leading to its ultimate demise. Healthy societies have expelled the jews time and time again throughout history, whereas sick societies had fallen victim to them and faced ultimate destruction, least they managed to once again find their inner strength.
Thus arises the obvious question: where does the initial decay come from, where does the first sore appear, inviting in the jews and leading us on the path to the degeneracy we see today? Those of us who understand history to be cyclical, know that the engine of history is that of conflict and complacency. Conflict breeds strength, aspirations and leads to prosperity. Prosperity, however, becomes the inheritance of people who never knew conflict and that begets complacency – people who were handed that, which was fought for with blood, treat it as a given, leading to decay. This is something we have briefly touched upon in relation to conservatism in one of our earlier articles, and is likewise the premise of the antique Greek concept of Anacyclosis, one that we bring up regularly.
This constitutes the short and fundamental answer to the question of “where does initial decay come from?” and this is the answer that will remain relevant throughout all of time for it strikes at the fundamental premise of the problem. What follows below, however, is a look at our own immediate history, to discover how this process played itself out in our times, which can serve as an example for future generations of what to watch out for. Moreover, this analysis will help us better identify who is responsible for the current state of affairs we face today, so that we may hold them accountable and not allow them to escape retribution.
In our immediate history the face of decay first began to take shape with the Bourgeoisie, who rose up against the traditional societal order and spearheaded ideas that would culminate in the French Revolution. Much of this is already widely known in our circles and doesn’t really need further prodding or elaborating, except for one particular element, which is the core of what one may call the “Bourgeoisie mentality”, for though the word is largely discarded nowadays, the mentality lives on and has been at the forefront of the social decay that allowed for jews and degeneracy to creep in and bloom. This mentality lives on in the liberal middle class.
This mentality is the natural consequence of living in prosperity without having ever known its price first hand: conquest, war, blood, strength of character. These are the things that are also closely linked to supremacy, hence prosperity is their reward. The following generations, however, inherit this prosperity, and a warped understanding arises, one that associates prosperity with not having to do anything at all, thus breeding decadence and a false sense of arrogant “supremacy“.
Prosperity is the consequence of true Supremacy – yet here the situation is reversed, and prosperity is deemed to be the evidence of supremacy. This is the trademark of the Bourgeoisie moralistic outlook, where wealth serves as proof of one’s supremacy, even if one merely inherited it and has not proven himself to be capable of living up to the legacy of those who procured that wealth in the first place. Sure, the Bourgeoisie do enjoy wealth they themselves accumulate through economic means, however they wouldn’t be able to do so in the first place, had conquerors not carved out a safe space for them beforehand (note, when we talk of the Bourgeoisie we don’t criticize them on an economic basis, but on the basis of moral outlook definitive of the Bourgeoisie, the very mentality we are addressing in this article). One can likewise easily see how this mentality is at the basis of the Calvinist heresy and its notion of material wealth being a sign of God’s favor.
Which leads us to the other important aspect of this mentality that has to do with inherited security that comes with prosperity. One who has not experienced any sort of hardships and proven himself to be truly Superior by overcoming said hardships is incredibly likely to be a weakling that would prefer to avoid any hardships at all – and thankfully he doesn’t have to in his inherited prosperity. Presence of prosperity without actions necessary to acquire it leads to a moralistic interpretation of supremacy, that simply dictates one being superior “just because he is good“, or rather “just because“, since “goodness” is often defined by such people as “not having done anything bad/wrong“.
This false sense of “supremacy” (in reality nothing more than pretentious smugness) breeds a particular kind of moralistic narcissism and moralistic hedonism, of being “morally superior” by virtue of not doing anything wrong. They get a literal psychological high off of the image of themselves that they construct in their minds: “I am such a good and virtuous person“. However, should this self-image come to be challenged (should someone “harsh their buzz” with some inconvenient truths) or start to wane, such people will quickly jump into “action” so as to sustain said image, for no other reason than to keep their self-appraising delusion going. This “action” is well known and defined now as virtue signalling. You are all well familiar with this kind of behavior and the many ways that it has been depicted and made fun of (prepare for a lot of South Park clips).
We can now summarize the mentality in question thusly: “I have all this wealth and prosperity, and I have not hurt anyone in achieving it, hence I am a good, righteous, morally superior person! I love myself so much for this!“
Funny and relevant South Park clips aside, though, one might ask how exactly could this mentality have undermined, let alone led to the downfall of our Race and Civilization. Well simply look at the historical example of Gandhi, who had exploited this very mentality against the British Empire in order to provoke a virtue-signalling reaction from them that was favorable to his goals. You can pick up Robert Greene‘s“33 Strategies of War” [pdf] for more details on how this unfolded. Below is the audiobook reading of Chapter 32, “Passive Aggression“, which deals with Gandhi’s tactic of exploiting the British Bourgeoisie mentality and need to virtue signal in the face of a threat to their self-image.
Mind you all, that Gandhi was by no means a true pacifist, he would have used violent means if it were plausible, but India was hopelessly inferior to the British Empire where conventional warfare was concerned, yet had he the means, by his own admission, he would have used them:
Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realised that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.-Speech (16 June 1947) as the official date for Indian independence approached (15 August 1947),
as quoted in Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase (1958) by Pyarelal Nayyar, p. 326.
But India had no atom bombs, and thus Robert Greene’s analysis comes to the forefront, solidifying what we have established thus far (highlightsmine):
Gandhi was a deceptively clever strategist whose frail, even saintly appearance constantly misled his adversaries into underestimating him. The key to any successful strategy is to know both one’s enemy and oneself, and Gandhi, educated in London, understood the English well. He judged them to be essentially liberal people who saw themselves as upholding traditions of political freedom and civilized behavior. This self-image – though riddled with contradictions, as indicated by their sometimes brutal behavior in their colonies – was deeply important to the English. The Indians, on the other hand, had been humiliated by many years of subservience to their English overlords. They were largely unarmed and in no position to engage in an insurrection or guerrilla war. If they rebelled violently, as other colonies had done, the English would crush them and claim to be acting out of self-defense; their civilized self-image would suffer no damage. The use of nonviolence, on the other hand – an ideal and philosophy that Gandhi deeply valued and one that had a rich tradition in India – would exploit to perfection the English reluctance to respond with force unless absolutely necessary. To attack people who were protesting peacefully would not jibe with the Englishman’s sense of his own moral purity. Made to feel confused and guilty, the English would be paralyzed with ambivalence and would relinquish the strategic initiative.[…]Many people today are as ambivalent as the English were about having power and authority. They need power to survive, yet at the same time they have an equally great need to believe in their own goodness. In this context to fight people with any kind of violence makes you look aggressive and ugly. And if they are stronger than you are, in effect you are playing into their hands, justifying a heavy-handed response from them. Instead it is the height of strategic wisdom to prey upon people’s latent guilt and liberal ambivalence by making yourself look benign, gentle, even passive. That will disarm them and get past their defenses. If you take action to challenge and resist them, you must do it morally, righteously, peacefully. If they cannot help themselves and respond with force, they will look and feel bad; if they hesitate, you have the upper hand and an opening to determine the whole dynamic of the war. It is almost impossible to fight people who throw up their hands and do not resist in the usual aggressive way. It is completely confusing and disabling.
This analysis is correct when dealing with the modern mindset, the Bourgeoisie and liberal mindset, however it would be entirely incorrect if one were dealing with true conquerors who establish empires like the British one in the first place. Such people know the price of their own prosperity and security, including hardships that must be overcome and blood that must be spilled, your own and that of those who refuse to submit. Furthermore, we would do well to recall the words of Clausewitz, who stated that conquerors prefer submission and peace – it is the victim who makes the war, by refusing to submit. The nature of the refusal, peaceful or otherwise, is irrelevant. Gandhi had set out to wage war against the British Empire with the only means he had, but with full knowledge of their impact. Had Gandhi faced an opponent who was not muddled with petty narcissistic ideas like “self-image” he would have been utterly powerless and faced assured defeat.
That is how the inheritors of Empires, built up with blood and sacrifice, come to lose those Empires, as they grow complacent and overly concerned with their own self-image, motivated by their inherited prosperity and security. This is the starting point for ruin.
Yet this is but one example, however one can easily trace a parallel between the old Bourgeoisie mindset that lost Gandhi and the mindset of the modern liberal that is allowing degeneracy and muslim immigrants to overrun the West today. The quintessential face of this new Bourgeoisie is the American Dream family of the 1950s.
There are two fundamental issues with this visage that is being upheld by American conservatives (who are factually classical liberals as opposed to the American democratic neoliberals).
The first one being its standardized nature. The “American Dream” is a one size fits all model of having a suburban home with a white picket fence, a family of 4, at least one car and, optionally at no extra cost, a dog. The ideal American life is a husband doing his job, wife supporting the home, obedient kids, barbeques on the 4th of July and weekend wine mixers alternating with book club for the wives from the neighborhood. This is not an ideal to aspireto, this is standard to fall in line with. It seemingly maintains all the hallmarks of a traditional family, but in reality acts as a subversion of it in order to produce identical atomized individuals who fully comply with the expectations of the Jew-ridden System.
In the 2nd part (“The Engineering of Consent“) of the Adam Curtis documentary series “Century of the Self” it is well documented how in the 50s Americans were conditioned even psychologically to fit a certain standard model of behavior that was meant to be one of perpetual mindless happiness and conformity to the American “standard”. Below you will find the entire series comprised of 4 parts in one video.
The amount of various comical PSA (Public Service Announcement) films on topics including the “Do’s and Don’ts of Dating“, “Family Dinner Etiquette“, “Are you Popular?” and even “How to Undress” are further testament to how the entire population was being pigeonholed to fit a unified, standardized model most suited for the atomized individualist structure (it is also highly amusing to consider how American conservatives who love these PSA’s complain about State intrusion in private life). Lastly, we can turn to Francis Parker Yockey‘s IMPERIUM for further insight on the creation of the American standard (highlights mine):
A contest was recently held in America to find “Mr. Average Man.” General statistics were employed to find the center of population, marital distribution of the population, family-numbers, rural and urban distribution, and so forth. Finally a man and wife with two children in a medium-sized town were chosen as the “Average Family.” They were then given a trip to New York, were interviewed by the press, feted, solicited to endorse commercial products, and held up for the admiration of all those who fell short in any way of the desirable quality of averageness. Their habits at home, their life-adjustments generally were the subject of investigation, and then of generalizing. Having found the average man from the top down, his ideas and feelings were then generalized as the imperative-average thoughts and feelings.
To drive home the point of difference between an ideal that is to be aspired to and the standard to fall in linewith, one must realize that the absolute ideal is different for each individual based on their particular nature, whereas a standard is based on a common denominator – one is fundamentally rooted in quality, the other in itsuniversality and thus lack of quality. The American Dream is but the common denominator, a single digit in an atomized structure. This in of itself is bad enough from an authentic Fascist perspective.
However there is something else fundamentally wrong with this image, and that is how this American standard of American Life and Family are likewise rooted in a complete lack of awareness of the price of security and prosperity that they enjoy. And this was the model upheld and promoted for all Americans as the standard to comply with, compounding the problem of self-image faced by the old Bourgeoisie with a whole new layer of what constitutes one’s morality and “goodness“. This would later evolve into the turmoil of the 60s, when, much like Gandhi, the African-American Civil Rights Movement would stage numerous peaceful (and not so peaceful) protests that would provoke White Americans, who care about their self-image, into helping the jew and negro ruin their country even further. And they would do it for the sole reason of virtue signalling foremost to themselves that they truly are “good people”. Some may protest and say that the 60s were a clear break from the standard of the 50s, hence the rise of Hippies, and yet hippies are a direct tie-in to the same Bourgeoisie/Liberal mindset of virtue signalling one’s own goodness to themselves. They did, partially, breakaway from the american standard, but only so as to virtue signal to the niggers that they are no longer part of the “system” (what these opponents of surface-level politics call the “system”, and not the far more sinister enemy that we call by the same name with a capitol S). You can check the 3rd part (“There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads; He Must Be Destroyed”) of the Century of the Self documentary on how a new psychological conditioning was employed that helped the 60s unfold as they did, this time feeding directly into the narcissistic aspect of the mentality we are discussing and the beloved “freedom” narrative, which would form the more familiar to us today strands of deviant and degenerate behavior.
In reality, however, the entire struggle of the time was done with American values in toe, and just as how Gandhi used Britain’s self-image, so did the jews, blacks and faggots use the American values and Constitution and the self-image cultivated and derived from them in order to undermine power in their favor (and said values were easy to exploit from the start anyway as said values had always been the values of materialists, rationalists, atheists and others, who are the jew’s prime customers).
The 50s are directly responsible for the 60s and thus for all other subsequent degeneracy (in as much as the 50s were a result of other events going back further than the French Revolution – the point being that the 50s were in no waysome ideal of traditional values). This holy cow of american conservatism had always been a lie. The transition from the 50s to 60s seems to be a radical one only to people who have a limited scope and conform to an outlook that is incompatible with the Fascist/NS one, to us however, the change is insignificant qualitatively, from one lie to another, but all lies share a common aversion to Truth and thus fundamentally share certain points of negation of the Truth. Moreover, the supposed change did not stick, and everything was reversed back to the 50s model by the 90s, but with a contemporary face. Former hippies were now back in the mold of the American standard, further proving lack of any true qualitative difference.
This model persists today, but the standard has been generalized further for export worldwide, thus this form of decay finds itself nowadays in countries which did not experience the kind of prerequisite decay through prosperity that was necessary for countries which are now exporting degeneracy worldwide.
However, we are not done, for there had been developments in this mentality which has led it towards subversion of our movement, and that is the primary reason why we must come to understand the difference and uniqueness of the Fascist mindset, derived from our Worldview, as opposed to the Bourgeosie/Liberal mindset, derived from narcissism and hedonism – seemingly something obvious, and yet during this US presidential election we’ve clearly come to see a danger that must be addressed.
As an introduction to this point, we’ll once again address the topic of “White Pathology” or “pathological white altruism“. This concept could only have come from the mindset that we are discussing and criticizing here – the idea that the downfall of the White Race is the result of Whites being pathologically altruistic is nothing else but a form of virtue signalling – it is tantamount to asking a political candidate “what do you think is your greatest weakness?” and them responding with “I work too hard“.
The way this argument was born can be traced back to the American Dream, a whole society consisting of the same standard copied over millions of times. However not all can fit the mold, and those who do fit the mold would rather not have to see these “malformed” people, even if they are homeless whites.
While it is clearly the pretension of this mindset to think of yourself as a good and moral person by some liberal standard, in practice these people are extremely offended by the presence of anything they don’t like – they like helping the homeless and the starving in theory, as a nominal act that is mostly done to satisfy their own ego with some insignificant token action, which is worth a lot more to them as an act of virtue signaling. However, they do not like the homeless and the starving in their own immediate vicinity. They are dirty, smell bad, look ugly, it ruins the carefully constructed standardized image to have something that disrupts the illusion. In an all white or majority white country it is easy to maintain that illusion and throw caution to the wind when it comes to token gestures, until the jew slips in a gesture that has far reaching consequences, but is sold to the dumb goyim as a way to satisfy their own ego, feeds their narcissism and makes them feel good about themselves in their subtle, psychological hedonism.
“Let’s help the starving niglets in Africa, why not? We’ll never see one in person, but we’ll feel so very good about ourselves for sending some nominal help that doesn’t inconvenient us in the slightest but gives us such a rush of feeling good about ourselves.“
“Oh those poor refugees on boats, we can’t deny them access to our country, I’m sure I’ll never have to actually live next to one of them, but I’ll feel so good about myself!”
“Oh, a Black President! Politics never affected me in any tangible way so I doubt this will have directly tangible and readily apparent negative consequences, but what a rush, I’ll be able to brag about how progressive I am and feel good about myself!“
That 50s American family standard thought in exactly the same patterns, hence why we have further decay today as this same thought pattern continues to destroy our Race and Civilization. Some of these people do manage to live with the consequences of their actions and continue on their merry ride on the “progressive” train to further ruin. Others, however, don’t, and have to resolve to means of removing themselves from the vicinity of the problem, rather than trying to remove the problem itself. Too many non-whites and homeless? We’ll set up a gated community – problem solved! For the moment. In reality the problem grows exponentially until such a point in time where you can no longer keep the undesirables out – “there’s niggers in tennis and golf clubs now as full fledged members for God’s sake! I can’t not invite them to the next cocktail mixer, WHAT WILL THE NEIGHBORS THINK? THAT I’M A BAD PERSON, A BIGOT, A RACIST!“
The panic and realization of the newfound reality sets in for such people and they finally start wondering “how did it come to this?“, and the only “logical” conclusion such ilk can come to is “pathological altruism“, which is, in fact, yet another act of virtue signalling – “it’s because I am fundamentally too kind, I am such a good person that I’m too good! Who says there’s no such thing as too much of a good thing?” – “I’m too good“, “I work too hard“. What is pathologicalisn’t the altruism – because there is no authentic altruism here to begin with – but the blind and delusional narcissism. And how can they change this unfortunate state of affairs?
They can accept it and keep giving in to the demands of the increasingly entitled, arrogant and aggressive subraces and degenerates, until it reaches the sadomasochistic daze of an overdosed drug user that would, had Christianity not become a target of disdain for such people, compare themselves to Jesus in how much suffering they are willing to submit themselves to, as part of their orgiastic virtue-signaling delirium (so they result to comparing themselves to… Gandhi, obviously).
Or, the ones among them who are not yet high enough off their own farts to completely throw caution to the wind and forget about their own basic survival, they can drop some of their pretentious bullshit to try and salvage the rest of it. It is these “disillusioned” liberals, who suddenly begin preaching against multiculturalism and for the “white ethnostate“. They are only disillusioned in the liberal narrative as much as one of these gated community liberals would be upset about a homeless person walking down their street, hence the vagueness of their end goal of “white ethnostate“, which simply translates to a nation-wide gated community where they would carry on with the rest of their liberal bullshit, but without the undesirables to ruin the view. In throwing out the multicultural and multiracial narrative they are left no other option but to side with white nationalism, not because they feel any real racial kinship or understand higher values, but simply as a matter of securing their own, personal interests – “I happen to be white, so I have to throw in with the white nationalists”. They simply seek strength in numbers, they project their individual interest via a common denominator to a larger group.
It is thus, that these liberal minded vermin worked their way into the movement and began injecting it with false narratives like “white pathology“, likewise done by means of the same projection: “I’m white, and I’m such a good person, the very best, and these other white guys say whites are superior, and I know that I’m the best so it must be true, and you know why this is happening? It’s because I’m too good of a person, that’s what went wrong, in fact that’s the problem with our whole race really – we are just pathologically altruistic as a race, that’s what the problem is.“
No. Whites are not “pathologically altruistic” – you are just pathologically narcissistic and you are the cause of this: decadent, hedonistic, virtue signaling scum that never had any intentions of living up to the deeds of your ancestors and the call of your blood, you are the face of our decay, a spiritual and physical weakling, result of the prosperity and security attained by men infinitely greater than yourself and you simply took all they built for granted and let it burn with a braindead smile on your face saying “This is fine” as the fire consumed the world around you. But so long as you felt good about yourself it didn’t matter, and only now, after having thrown everything to shit, you suddenly decide to “join the struggle” that you share no fundamental values with, and in reality stand for everything that we despise which had led to this state of affairs in the first place? No.
You will be held accountable as much as the jew, if not moreso, because the jew simply acts according to his nature and we cannot expect different from him. The traitor always gets the bullet before the enemy.
And if we now discuss most recent history, we have to look to the appearance of the “Altright“, which we likewise have criticized time and again, and one of the articles by Max Macro had likewise drawn that distinct parallel between its advocates and those of the liberal mindset, using the “elegantdinner party” simile.
The Altright represents a new wave of “former” liberals who discovered undesirables in their gated community and who want to change the state of affairs, however they have presented themselves in such vague terms while using our themes, symbols and parts of our narratives to such a degree that it became unclear at first glance as to whether they are our allies or not. However the real nature of Altright revealed itself quick enough during the course of this US presidential election, namely that of being the same liberals who are just more internet savvy and who, for some reason, were utilizing our materials, but ultimately not to uphold our values but to secure their own petty, personal interests.
The actions of the Altright do seem to have a parallel with another action of gated community liberals, namely of white flight and gentrification: “Well we ruined this place with our liberal bullshit and can’t keep these undesirables out, time to uproot move to a new place with low property value and gentrify it, make a new gated community out of it. Oh look at that spot, it’s kind of backwards and quaint isn’t it? Let’s spruce it up a bit, what a project! Are you excited? I know I am!“
The Altright is the first ever attempt at “movement gentrification“, of attempting to subvert the tools and message of an existing movement in order to plant and secure their own petty agenda within it: “Well we ruined conservatism with our bullshit and can’t keep these niggers out, time to uproot and move to a new place, something with next to no respectability and gentrify it, make it more presentable. Oh look at that, Fascists! That’s kind of backwards and quaint isn’t it? Le’ts spruce it up a bit, what a project! I guess I don’t like democracy too much either, I’m so fashy tee-hee!“
Thus the Altright attempt to use our tools and message but then proceed to harp on issues of “presentability” and “respectability“, try to declaw and defang our methods. To an extent this is a calculated method of self-preservation against the inevitable accusations of being Nazi if you don’t keep up fast enough with the progressive parade, hence the existence of the gay term “fashy“, as a kind of cute and quaint way of belittling the idea as being no more than a joke or a meme in order to deflect the accusation. This, obviously, never works, and these people get branded as “evil nazi white supremacists” regardless, but they do serve to confuse and steer people with potential away from becoming true and full fledged Fascists and National-Socialists, offering them that last easy way out of breaking with the System and the decaying society that holds them hostage.
Below is an accurate video presentation of Altright movement gentrification, complete with parody of Dickie Spencer’s Phalanx:
We’ve even had one crystal clear example of this, when one startup movement had stolen the design of another movement’s poster and after changing the name, logos and links, “gentrified” it by removing the swastika and the word “jews” from the poster – “NOW it’s presentable!” Look up any pictures of Dickie Spencer and his attempt at a 1950s Average Man braindead smile, or the Identity Evropa rally where they all look like they are protesting shortage of caviar at their golf/tennis club, listen to the pretentious intellectual voice of Jar Jar Taylor with his retarded little bow-tie.
Other obvious tell tale signs include the attempts to pander to the mainstream media, the exultation of intellectualism over character, defense or apologetics of faggotry, which is not surprising in the least – faggots are the ultimate bourgeoisie and thus the envy of straight bourgeoisie, who would love nothing more than to get the fag couple on the block to come over to their next wine mixer and hear their comments on the newly refurbished living room, and all the wives in the gated community have been just dying for a gay best friend to be a faghag to.
So long as the fags are white they are ALT-RIGHT with me, haha, yes, such witty banter!
Thankfully, one doesn’t have to worry about the Altright too much as its demise is inevitable, and just as the hippie protesters of the 60s seamlessly converted back to the American standard and the jewish narrative, so too will the Altright convert back to mainstream politics by means of its representatives actively seeking that and them being overrun with mainstream Trump supporters who are claiming the title for themselves. However one must avoid the danger of these liberals gentrifying potential Fascist/NS movements, while potential individual Fascists must hear loud and clear that Fascism and the Altright are in no way the same and cannot be allies by definition – a true Fascist/NS is not simply a racist liberal with bourgeoisie mindset, morality and sentimentalities and we shall not stand for people muddying our message and standing in its way as a detour that obscures the one and only path to the Truth:
And there are those that are by no means that way, and whose authors, far from being true followers of the doctrines, of which they display the visible symbols, represent in reality only themselves and use the prestige of the doctrine and the authority that it confers on them to promote their own interests, to satisfy personal grudges, or simply to give free reign to their passions.-Savitri Devi, “The Religion of the Strong”
And for those that accuse us of “purity spiraling“, know this – we do as one of the great champions of our Worldview had instructed us to, thus proving once and for all, who we are, and who you are:
The greatness of any powerful organization, which embodies an idea in this world, depends on the absolutely religious fanaticism with which it establishes itself when compared to others. It must be fanatically convinced that it is right and just, and it must be absolutely intolerant of any idea or organization that is counter to its own teaching. If an idea is right and it takes up the sword of battle with this mind-set, it is invincible and any persecution only strengthens it.-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf V1, Ch12
We are the movement for the Worldview of Truth and Cosmic Order, the rest are nothing.