The revolution may be seen as an insignificant wave born in the ocean depths: unnoticed at first, but gradually swelling, suddenly bursting out of the waters, and then cresting in controlled fury. Like the pattern followed by waves, the pattern of the many seemingly unrelated incidents that eventually bring about a revolution can become clear. Those who are riding this wave, or are washed away by it, or who are merely witnessing the spectacle; will all feel the world standing still for a split second and then moving ahead in a slightly altered course. The revolution is very much a phenomena of the Zeitgeist.

When thinking about this, I suddenly remembered that I, too, have witnessed a "revolution," or a very dramatic change of society, at the least. I was just 14 years old, when the Soviet Empire deteriorated. Its satellites left their time-honored orbit practically overnight. The German Democratic Republic, a tight police state governed by Marxist-Leninist doctrine, experienced not only a drifting apart of policy and reality, but a sudden and heavy letdown by its Soviet overlords. It was the time of perestroika and glasnost. What I realized only much later was that the Communist East Bloc did not, and could not, attempt reforms: it declared bankruptcy. The Soviet Union was not only outpaced by the USA in regard to computer technology and military hardware. The Soviet Union, like her European knaves, had relied, and eventually depended, on ever increasing credits from the "West."

So the East Bloc lost whatever independence and autarky it once possessed. Communism sold out to Capitalism. In 1989-1990, this wasn't known to the common people on the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain, though. They just sensed the waning power of the system, and reacted spontaneously. Thousands of GDR-citizens fled through Hungary and crossed the border into Austria and eventually West Germany. This was an exodus that could not be explained away or covered up. The system was hurt, yet it didn't respond. This encouraged our domestic peaceniks and Christian clergy who, to no avail, had propagandized and proselytized against the system for decades. They were always closely monitored and widely belittled by the powers-that-be. Now, they took to the streets and an ever growing crowd joined them.

After an initial show of force, the system gave in. This was the most fascinating element in this truly grassroots uprising. The machinery for a swift and bloody repression of the civil unrest was in place and could have been put to work at once. Yet nothing happened. The puppet master in Moscow had severed his strings, and all his marionettes ceased to function. The Politburo of the GDR was scared and helpless without aid from its Big Brother. This paralysis was decisive. The uprising gained momentum and the police and armed forces switched sides. The feared Stasi, the state security agency, destroyed files upon files -- not dissidents upon dissidents as was always expected. I remember one chilly Fall evening in 1989, at the time when mass-rallies were organized in every city and town throughout the GDR. The local church and peaceniks in my hometown called upon the citizens to show up and to face down the local Communist party leaders.

People turned out on the streets, and so did my friends and I. We gathered at the marketplace in the center of the town, where some hundred angry, excited, and drunk people crowded together. A pastor played peace ballads on his guitar; people took turns at the microphone and voiced their protests and grievances. Here is one I remember: an owner of a store selling sporting gear blamed the local party boss for shopping but not paying. There were many similar reports, all of them accusing the local powers-that-be of one wrongdoing or another. The peaceniks wanted the crowd to stay calm; and, indeed, there wasn't any violence -- unlike in other, bigger cities where mobs went on rampages through party buildings. I didn't much understand what this commotion was about, but I sure understood that life would never be the same again. That is the "revolution" I witnessed.

Compared to revolutions I know from history books, or even the revolution in Romania in 1989, what I experienced didn't amount to much. It somehow didn't feel quite right or real to me. It resembled a complicated chemical process not carried through to the end, with a disappointing outcome. There were fundamental changes, all right. The socialist society was vigorously replaced by the capitalist society. Or should I say that Capitalism was imposed on my home country?! It is only relatively recently that I realized what happened, although it was obvious right from the start. The revolutionary process was not carried out to its logical conclusion, but was aborted and taken over by a foreign power.

The revolutionary drama couldn't be played out as it ought to have been. The zest of the "revolutionary" forces was stifled, their drive broken, and power eluded them. The fault was, ironically, with the supposed revolutionaries themselves. Just as the Communist government couldn't react when the unthinkable happened because they weren't prepared for it, despite elaborate emergency plans, so the would-be revolutionaries were caught by surprise, despite their elaborate strategy papers. The revolutionaries did not anticipate the breakdown of the system. They did not prepare for the revolution. In a certain sense, they were comfortable with the status quo: they played a cat and mouse game with the state security. And the emphasis here is on "game." It seldom turned serious as long as they stuck to the rules. The dissidents, intellectuals, and artists had carved their small and cozy niche in the Socialist society. They enjoyed a certain name recognition among "Western" intelligentsia and media; they were "somebodys," and they wore their dissident and persecution as badge s of honor. Of the revolution they guessed pitifully little. They clamored for domestic versions of perestroika and glasnost, but they weren't keepers of the revolution. Of course, when they sensed the winds of change starting to blow, they were the first to form new political parties and to march ahead of the crowd. In this sense, they were real opportunists who attempted to fill in the vacuum suddenly left by the collapsing system. That they ultimately failed and are all but forgotten nowadays, well, that they couldn't guess either.

Since they relied on improvisation and good faith and lacked revolutionary groundwork, it is no wonder that they couldn't carry the day. After the system deteriorated beyond the point of no return, the real power players moved into the German Democratic Republic and relieved the naive and inexperienced domestic "opposition movement". The GDR was gutted, aborted, and colonized by its Western neighbor.

I believe, nevertheless, that reunification of the two German states was long overdue, necessary, and basically positive. This reunification had a price though, and that price was the revolution. There have been tremendous economic, social, and political changes in Central Germany ever since that day, but these are changes imposed on a defeated country. Just like the alleged "liberation" of Germany in 1945; the changes were something done to us, not with us.

I am writing about this supposed revolution of a decade ago for a good reason: by analyzing what happened everywhere in Eastern Europe, but especially in Central Germany, we are able to see the advent and demise of revolution. This merits careful examination by every White Racialist and Nationalist. The study of the cause and effect behind the revolutionary process should especially be of interest. There is casual talk of "White Revolution" among the "Movement," but this talk reveals an ignorance of the forces at work behind every successful revolution that makes me shudder. A revolution does not happen. A revolution is made, is either won -- or lost.

The 20th century was the era of the revolution and its aftermath. My grandparents were born in Imperial Germany, they grew up in the Weimar Republic, and they spent their prime in the Third Reich. They founded and raised a family in the German Democratic Republic, and they eventually died in the Federal Republic of Germany. They experienced five distinctively different systems: Monarchy, powerful Presidency, National Socialist F�hrerstaat, semi-Communist Dictatorship, and parliamentary Democracy. All this left them remarkably apolitical, however. Moreover, they adjusted to each system with little or no difficulty at all. There are countless similar examples, of course. They all contradict a popular misconception about revolution: that the consent of the masses is required. That is not so. The historic truth is that revolutions are not won because of the masses, but despite them. It still goes without saying, however, that popular support is needed for a revolution to succeed.

West Germany, France, Italy, and Japan have all had their share of aspiring "revolutionaries' who didn't swim like fish in water, but perished like fish out of water instead. Popular support is the Movement. The Movement has to build up and to eventually release the revolution. While the Movement is sometimes thought to be detached from society, the Movement rather needs to penetrate society.

The Movement is made up of people from all walks of life, it easily bridges social divides and class-differences. This makes the Movement very much a part of society, and rightly so. It is sometimes said that the Movement operates on the fringes of society. Although this notion holds some truth, insofar as disaffected and disenfranchised social elements among the Movement are concerned, it would be entirely wrong to dismiss the Movement, per se, as a "fringe phenomena," however, without a consideration of the people involved and their biographies. Such a consideration would reveal a diversity of backgrounds, outlooks, and professions. This wouldn't occur with the Movement was solely a "sanctuary for losers, freeloaders, sociopaths, and kooks." The Movement is society in miniature. Such is the hallmark of the revolutionary Movement. Sometimes there are voices who call on the Movement to "turn away" from society, even to cultivate an anti-social attitude. Apart from being not possible because the Movement couldn't exist without the context of society, this call distracts the Movement from its actual assignment: revolution. Such voices must be suppressed and silenced. The target of the Movement is not society; anyway. Its target is the social, spiritual, and political framework of society: the system, that is.

raison d'etre of the government and its institutions which merely accommodates their peculiar system. The system can ultimately be changed by revolution from within only, not from without. That is what the Movement aims at. The Movement can never match the power of the government. It can however do something else to ultimately neutralize, and to subsequently assume, this power. Organized crime doesn't threaten the government and its institutions through bribery and corruption. The Mafia, say, wants to have a Judge or a Public Prosecutor in their pocket. They might succeed by blackmail or bribery; but if they want to play it safe, they send one of their own to law school and have him make a career in criminal prosecution. After 20 years or so, this infiltrator might be in a position where he is useful. He'll be of greater and longer use than anyone who requires coercion, because his allegiance is with his fellow Mafiosi.

The Movement is, of course, no criminal enterprise, but infiltration and subversion are the linchpins of the revolutionary process. The Movement needs to send forth enabled members who can move in and work for the system, but whose allegiance is with the revolution only. The system operates efficiently only with people who owe the system, who take great pains to maintain and to protect it. Take this allegiance away, and the system works only as long as it is not challenged. The Movement must not encourage an attitude of refusal, in addition, the Movement must praise virtue and condemn vice. And this attitude is, unfortunately, already particularly popular among young people who want to "quit" or "drop out" of society. Quite to the contrary. The young people who associate with the Movement need to be (re)educated, indoctrinated, and trained to be true revolutionaries in mind but ordinary citizens in appearance.

They must be immaculate and inconspicuous. The system attempts to detect infiltration, of course. But the system can only detect so much. It can't read your mind or look into your heart. It is simple enough to pay lip service to the system, for many years if need be, but it will be equally simple to forsake the system in the crucial moment. That is what matters. The infiltrators lay the groundwork for the revolution; they build an infrastructure where the Praetorians of the powers-that-be least expect it. As a matter of fact, the Movement to an extent has to exist "underground" in the very midst and under the aegis of the system. You see how the opposition in the GDR lacked this important prerequisite. This opposition was all too visible, with their hiding away in churchyards and bohemian communities. It was a simple exercise on part of the system to have this opposition infiltrated. Their Movement was made up of informers, agents provocateur, and infiltrators.

Needless to say, such a Movement could not carry out a revolution, let alone conspire for one. There must also be a considerable fraction of the Movement whose members have deliberately retreated from society. They do this not because they bear a grudge against society, they do this instead because no society can incorporate the likes of them. They are the revolutionary Avant-garde, who will draw blood and bleed blood when it comes to that. They take risks and face dangers which forbid too intimate a relationship with society, a relationship asking for compromise and consideration which must not be. The foremost imperative of this Avant-garde is the revolution, all else is meaningless.

White Racialists and Nationalists have, by and large, only a superficial comprehension of the dynamics and mechanics that need to be minded and manipulated if the revolution is to succeed. At best, they cache guns and explosives in anticipation of the revolution. At worst, they snitch on those who do the caching. Neither understands what is required of them actually. "Evaluating the enemy, causing the enemy's Ch'i to be lost and his forces to scatter so that even if his disposition is complete he will not be able to employ it; this is victory through the Tao," says Wei Liao-Tzu. Long before revolution can be attempted, the pre-revolutionary conditions in society have to be evaluated and aggravated by the Movement.

In every society there is unhappiness and discontent with the system. The "Western" countries have a considerable groundswell of anti-government and anti-system sentiments; and they are more or less visible among virtually every political faction, social class, and religious community. That is not to say that a revolutionary cause exists in every such circle. A revolutionary movement can tap into this groundswell and hide behind a smokescreen of seemingly aimless dissent or it can enlist support from these dissidents who might not even be aware of the cause they are contributing to. Every dissent is weakening the hold of the system on society. The system can function properly only with the consent of society.

But it is a matter of fact that a majority of citizens give their consent no matter what, there has never been a system shrugged off by society as a whole. The system is either worn and torn down by internal forces, or it is conquered and demolished by external forces. Either way, the more the system is identified with by society, the longer it lasts. The Movement therefore needs to pry loose the system's framework. A revolutionary cause, i.e. the very idea of revolution itself, is appealing to only so many people. But such a Cause is not needed for alienating large parts of society from the system. Many people who feel unsatisfied with the status quo are hard pressed to put their resentment into words, much less into action. They simply retreat into their private lives and reduce interaction with the system to a minimum.

They have rationally or instinctively decided to avoid the system with it's institutions and representatives. The ever declining participation of eligible voters in elections bears witness to this low-profile dissent. This is the point at which the Movement is supposed to step in. It is feasible to outline alternatives to the current system which might attract recruits. Far more important though is the Movement's capacity as a sounding board of dissent. The Movement takes up dissent, puts a certain desirable spin on the dissent, and projects this dissent back into society. The Movement needs to aggravate already existing tensions, frictions, and discord among society; and to put the blame for it squarely on the system. The system is to be portrayed and denounced as inadequate, incompetent, and unjust.

The sole responsibility for the wrongs in society is to be sought within the system. The Movement has the major advantage of not having its own agenda contradicted by practical results, while the system can't help but commit blunders. No system is or can be perfect. However, the peculiarity of the system imposed on "Western" society shows such a blatant disregard for what works and what doesn't that this system ought to be considered criminally imperfect. The Movement is supposed to generate and to amplify dissent. Political, social, and spiritual undercurrents which run contrary to the system must be located and combined, until there is an undertow capable of pulling away a high number of people from the system. The paradox of the system is that even though it clamps together society, it will irrevocably come apart once a considerable fraction of society attempts to break away. The Movement has to set things in motion, to compel the responsive parts of society to join the flow, and to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the system. That is how a revolution must be prepared: discourage trust in the system, and divide support for the system. A dozen small fires are harder to put out than a single big one. However, the Movement must be careful to attack only the current form and foundation of the system, not the very system itself. The revolution does not intend the abolition of government or all of its institutions. Anarchy and lawlessness are not compatible with a revolutionary cause. The Movement is craving, not despising, power, after all. Where the system is taken on by the Movement, the outcome can only be the usurpation and subsequent remodeling of this system -- not its utter destruction, as erroneously imagined by self-styled "revolutionaries" from the far Left and far Right fringes.

The opposition in the GDR did not hunger for power, and thus never initiated a revolution. They envisioned a utopian society governed by completely irrational principles instead by a system that distributes and sustains power. It comes as no surprise that this opposition was outwitted by the politicians from West Germany, who moved in the power-vacuum left by the crumbling system of the former German Communists. Pre-revolutionary conditions come about occasionally in society, and there is more often than not no revolutionary movement at hand for seizing the opportunities that can advance a revolutionary cause when these conditions occur. White Racialists and Nationalists can be very ignorant of any dissent not fitting the pattern of their agenda. Moreover, even when they may recognize such an opportunity, they are often too timid and too reluctant to take advantage of it. That causes their Movement to advance at a snail's pace; and even worse, to be utterly predictable in its motions. As if that wasn't enough of a drawback however, White Racialists and Nationalists look for the easiest route to take.

It is apparent that they don't really feel convinced of their righteousness, which in itself ought to justify whatever it takes to undo the system. The revolution not only needs a Movement, it needs first and foremost a Cause. This Cause can't be implemented under the current system, and that calls for a revolution. Probably the most popular cause for a revolution is the betterment and progress of society, be it through a certain non-religious ideology or a certain religion. The Movement must hence be instilled by fanaticism and zealotry. There must be not the slightest doubt that the Movement's cause is right, just, and true. Indeed, this Cause should be considered a self-evident truth which can't be questioned or second-guessed. As long as the Movement argues about the Cause, the revolution can only come to naught.

The system, especially when adhering to at least a certain degree to pluralism, is put at a disadvantage by two or more factions which attempt to dominate one another. The Movement in contrast should have the advantage of an uniform attitude where the Cause is concerned. While the system not only defends its power, but has to distribute a share of power to please and accommodate everyone involved, the Movement only knows a single will-to-power. The revolutionary struggle is very much a contest of two willpowers -- one that maintains the status quo, and the other that challenges the status quo. The revolution is the mutual vision of the Movement made manifest, the triumph of a collective will over reality.

The power of will over reality is a characteristic of fanatics and it's what makes them such potent, such powerful, such astonishing men. For these men to admit any but their own vision is to doom themselves. Their strength is their will, their absolutism; their weakness is their inflexibility. The Movement that preserves guiding principles without decreasing its flexibility is most likely to bring about a successful revolution. Concerning White Racialists and Nationalists, these principles have to be the same as expressed by National Socialism, but which can be found under different names also. There are voices who maintain that any identification with National Socialism ought to be avoided, due to prevailing public resentment. Such a consideration is uncalled for, however. Although the revolutionary movement can, like the chameleon, change its colors, it can't change its very nature. The objective of the Movement, namely revolution, would be lost otherwise.

There is no such thing as "revolutionary conservatism" or "revolutionary Patriotism" or whatever other agenda is deemed palatable by public opinion. Only the basic truth underlying National Socialism makes a truly revolutionary cause for White Racialists and Nationalists. What label is pinned on this Cause is irrelevant, and ought not distract the Movement one bit. It is at this point that fanaticism kicks in and carries the Movement through to the conclusion of victorious revolution. The opposition in the GDR lacked this fanaticism and was predictably sidetracked time and again by arguments over the Cause. It is questionable whether this opposition had much of a common cause anyway. The Movement's fanaticism, however, needs to be paired with pragmatism. As it is necessary to be able to react flexibly to whatever obstacle is encountered ahead. "One who is able to change and transform in accord with the enemy and wrest victory is termed spiritual!," says Sun-Tzu in The Art of War.

A movement that doesn't reorient and realign itself will soon stray off its track and either end up in disintegration or oblivion. The fanatic can tell what needs to be done for the revolution, but the pragmatic will know what can be done. While the former already lives in the post-revolutionary reality, the latter remains in touch with the reality that has to be overcome at first. By working in tandem, they both can direct the Movement in its predestined course and make sure it arrives at its destination sooner or later. The opposition in the GDR was well-equipped when it came to evaluating their resources and limits, because they never really attempted to plan the revolution in the first place. When destiny made them protagonists in the collapse of GDR, they didn't have the stamina to be full-fledged revolutionaries -- and they consequently turned this responsibility over to the next, and more capable, candidates who appeared on stage.

White Racialists and Nationalists have an ambivalent attitude towards the current powers-that-be. They don't like the government, all right, but they'd rather not provoke the government either. The Movement can't be afraid to take on the powers-that-be. Their system is the single most important obstacle on the course for revolution. Indeed, the very idea of revolution is to remove the current powers-that-be and to replace them with the Movement. That understood, there can be neither concession to nor compromise with the system as it is. "When men have minds set on victory, all they see is the enemy. When men have minds filled with fear, all they see is their fear." from the Chinese The Methods of the Minister of War.

There must be no doubt that the powers-that-be, once they identify the Movement and correctly assert its objective, will not hesitate to mobilize their system for a preventive strike. It is a rather irrational notion that to believe the system would never, under any circumstances, step over the boundaries of its own legislation. He who writes the law can likewise break the law with impunity.

The Rule of Law is, of course, the bedrock of civilization. A sophisticated revolution will avoid the total breakdown of law and order, but that can't mean the consideration of law and order has to be paramount. Every government writes into law a restriction of anti-system activism. The Movement will sooner or later arrive at the point when a defiance instead of a compliance with law will become necessary. There are the usual voices speaking out in favor of the "legal approach". It is cowardice that speaks here, though. If a revolution would be legal by law, why, you could just ask a Judge to rule that the system ought to be undone, and redone, under supervision of the Movement. This cannot be, of course.

The Movement may be well to be as lawful as possible, but in every revolution there comes the moment when the law doesn't matter anymore. This moment must not be ignored, but anticipated and acknowledged. Currently, it appears a long way off. Some White Racialists and Nationalists prematurely call for the armed conflict with the system. However, if ever put into action, this will inevitably backfire and hurt the Cause. In the end an armed confrontation with the system might not even be necessary at all.

A popular image is that of the revolutionary shooting it out with the government. Although the part of the revolution that possibly involves bloodshed is highly visible, and often mistaken for the very revolution itself, this is a merely symbolic gesture. When the powers-that-be are rounded up, as they were for example in the storming of the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg in 1917, the revolution is already won. The Movement can certainly not succeed with military means alone, or even with such means predominantly. The time at which it is feasible to employ such means is a tactical decision, depending on various factors. It can't be ruled out that an armed confrontation may be needed for defeating the powers-that-be, and the Movement has to prepare for this eventuality no matter what the law demands.

Generally speaking, the more repressive and the more nervous the system acts when confronted with the Movement, the better the condition for revolution. The so-called "Western" democracies, even though they aren't genuinely democratic at all, still provide the disgruntled citizen with many (albeit ineffective) options for making his grievances known. The Movement, operating under such circumstances, is well advised to compel the system to infringe more and more on the rights allocated to the citizenry. The system thus loses face and fealty among the citizenry. And this is unfortunate indeed for a system challenged by the prospect of revolution. It goes without saying that a system betraying its supposed principles is rather easy prey for a movement that strictly adheres to its own principles. As Sun-Tzu wrote in his classic The Art of War, "compel others. Do not be compelled by them." Such reads the formula for revolution.

Prior to the final stage of the revolution, when the system is eventually ripe for takeover, comes a long phase of build up of revolutionary forces. The pre-revolutionary conditions, as they are about to exist in "Western" society, can be achieved with a minimum of organization. The Movement at this point in time is pretty much a "grassroots" affair, i.e. it is localized, decentralized, and largely unorganized. There is little effort invested in recruiting members, and the fluctuation of membership in the few organized entities among the Movement doesn't allow for too professional public agitation either.

The Movement is made up of single activists or small bands of activists who can produce a formidable amount of propaganda nevertheless. The still fluid condition of the Movement permits for spontaneous collaboration with elements who share dissent though not the Cause. The system, especially the media it controls, does not perceive the Movement as a threat. The Cause is still reviled and ridiculed when the occasion arises, however.

Pre-revolutionary conditions occur with a certain historic regularity. The system, no matter what its original intentions, inevitably encroaches on society in an attempt to consolidate the status quo. This in turn sparks dissent and discord, which intensify in proportion to the infringement on rights and privileges granted to the citizenry. If there is no revolutionary movement at hand picking up and transforming this discontent with the system's measures and policies, the pre-revolutionary conditions appear just to vanish after a while. The system, if fine-tuned sufficiently will detect the discontent and ease the most severe causes contributing to it. That is generally all that needs to be done for dispersing the pre-revolutionary conditions. This self-regulating mechanism won't work always and forever, but it works more often than not. It can take up to decades until the system once again introduces insufferable repression and restriction. It can't help but repeat similar motions over and over again. Like a pendulum swinging from one side to another, the system encroaches on society and retreats. The Movement's very first and probably most important task is anticipating how the pendulum swings, and to arrest the pendulum at the point that predicates pre-revolutionary conditions. Once this task is accomplished, the revolution can begin in earnest. It is around this time the Paramount Leader of the Movement emerges from society. He (or she) is the catalyst needed for the revolution.

There is the concept of "leaderless resistance" which advocates revolutionary struggle without organized structures and leadership. That this concept will fail is shown by historic instances. The leader is a social necessity. He is also a prerequisite for revolution. It is the example of the Paramount Leader that at best illustrates why there is more to the revolutionary dynamics than what meets the eye. A revolution that makes history, that is history, seems to be a spiritual event, a sacred Cause before which nothing can stand. Nothing can exist beside this Cause until this Cause equals truth and then equals reality. This might explain the almost invincible movement once the revolution is underway.

The revolutionary struggle is of apocalyptic quality: one world is lost while another is won. The genuine revolution, regardless of its cause, aims at nothing less but a new consciousness; a new world-view which in turn creates a new world. In this context the Paramount Leader has a messianic significance, and it is very interesting to observe what seemingly superhuman qualities can be attributed to him. Be that as it may, the Paramount Leader at least combines the fanatic as well as pragmatic in his personality. He doesn't despair at insurmountable odds against the revolution, nor does he rush the revolution on a suicide trip.

While the Movement is society in miniature, the Paramount Leader is the Movement in miniature. Thus he is enabled to straighten out differences and to close gaping opposites among the Movement. Despite its outward uniformity, the Movement will experience internal disagreements and arguments. The Paramount Leader is the only force capable of countering disintegration. Moreover, he is the only force capable of organizing the Movement . The revolution needs a strong organization. While the Movement could be of a polyglot character in the pre-revolutionary days, with many small and smaller groups, it is now necessary for the Movement to mature into a full-fledged revolutionary organization with a clear hierarchy and a uniform program.

Given the heterogeneous tendency inherent in societies large or small, such a feat requires the supreme personality of the Paramount Leader. Along with the organization comes the mobilization of the Movement. The revolution is not a hobby that one can engage in in his free time. The revolution demands rapt attention and dedication for 24 hours/7 days a week. He who works for the system might do so for 8 hours from Monday to Friday, and be heedless of his directives for the rest of the time. The revolutionary though batters at the system relentlessly; scouting out its vulnerability, and attacking the moment the system appears to be not alert.

The Movement, a certain segment of it at least, boldly seeks public attention. It is now, with a high-grade of professionalism at work, that the Movement can finally exercise public agitation at the same level already achieved with public propaganda. Whatever grievances there are among society, the Movement must address these and proclaim the culpability of the powers-that-be.

The system, especially when having no revolutionary origin of its own, will play straight into the hands of the Movement and thus make the revolution ever more likely. Instead of admitting to its shortcomings and looking for solutions, the system intensifies the repression of dissent and begins seriously persecuting dissidents. The controlled media covers for the system, of course, and this in turn repels perceptive elements of society and makes them listen to revolutionary propaganda.

Needless to say, the system identifies the Movement and its Paramount Leader as a challenge to be taken seriously. Instead of neutralizing the (pre)revolutionary conditions that give rise to the Movement, the system rather accelerates the revolution by persecuting and martyrizing the Movement. In the public perception, insofar as attention to the revolutionary struggle is being paid at all, the system is discredited by its own words and actions. The revolutionary cause appears ever less "extreme" and more creditable. It is now inadvertently that the system begins to crack under the increasing strain. It is good to recall what John Adams once had to say: "Remember, democracy never lasts llng. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." And there still isn't to the joy of the true revolutionary.

The system is, for one thing, neglecting everyday politics in favor of combating the Movement; and this causes many citizens to think the Movement must have a point when the powers-that-be invest so much effort in suppressing this point. The system furthermore takes advantage of the tense situation by activating "emergency procedures" at the expense of society. And these invariably infuriate even more citizens and make them side with the Movement. The tragedy of the powers-that-be is their "tunnel vision" which makes them oblivious of anything but the Movement, their adversary.

Even in the unlikely case that the system begins jailing or shooting every activist in the Movement it can lay its hands on, a move that might have proven successful earlier when the Movement was still low-profile, the powers-that-be could not survive the seismic shockwave caused by the public outrage that would follow. The only option that might stop the revolution dead in its tracks will not occur to the powers-that-be, namely the (partial) acknowledgement of the revolutionary cause and its incorporation in the system.

Instead of pouring oil on the waves, the system is pouring oil in the fire. Now comes the revolutionary situation when the Movement crosses the Rubicon, and the final and iconoclastic phase of the revolution is about to begin. This phase, the coup d' etat -- coup d'grace may be more appropriate -- being "the revolution" in the public awareness and in the annals of history. The coup is the conclusion of the revolution, however, when the system deteriorates under the impossible double-task of fighting the Movement and governing the society. Now comes the crucial moment when the clandestine members of the Movement, who burrowed their way into the very fabric of the system, renounce the powers-that-be. It is at this point that segments of the military, the police, and the civil administration join forces with the Movement. The public approval or disapproval of the coup is of no relevance whatsoever at this point of time, because the revolution is as good as concluded and could only be averted by the intervention of a foreign power. If the government does not resign voluntarily, it will be disposed of by force. Either way the Movement eventually absorbs the system, indeed becomes one with the system, and begins executing the revolutionary cause.

Society will be reshaped according to this Cause. Since a modern nation is very much an "imagined community," according to historian Benedict Anderson, the product of a sustained act on the part of millions of people to constantly imagine what they all have in common, the revolutionary regime simply needs to inspire the imagination with a new vision for transforming society. With the revolution thus outlined, it must also be noted that unpredictable events like natural disaster, epidemics, or war, have their impact on the course of revolution, making it either more likely or more difficult. The so-called "velvet (non-violent) revolution" that took place in the German Democratic Republic lacked the Movement, the Cause, and the Paramount Leader, as required by the revolutionary process. It stands to reason that the outcome of this would-be revolution was predestined by the absence of the aforementioned trinity.

Even though the pre-revolutionary conditions existed, a genuine revolution could not be launched. The chain of events that eventually ended with the reunification of the two German states, and which is usually called a "revolution" for lack of a better word, was not the result of years of planning and toiling, but the result of mere chance and coincidence. It is nowhere written that a system can be overcome by revolution only. A system can fall flat of its own doing, or it can be defeated and replaced by a foreign power.

For White Racialists and Nationalists, there can be no waiting for the "Western" system's self-destruction or hoping for deliverance from the system by foreign saviors. They have only one option: revolution, that is. This revolution must not be talked of as though someone else will be in charge. Every genuine White Racialist and Nationalist is a revolutionary in virtue and must live up to this responsibility.

However, the "White Revolution" is not imminent. That is, neither have White Racialists and Nationalists seriously started with laying the groundwork of the revolution, nor have they given thorough thought to what a revolution requires of them. Time is running out however, especially for those people still frantically looking for alternatives to the prospect of revolution. You can't vote or talk your way out of the system. You can't even shoot your way out. Revolution being what it takes; yet revolution is a prospect not to be dreaded but to be welcomed with a grim determination. The pendulum in the West swings towards further instability of the status quo. Be prepared to seize upon this chance, for destiny is with those who seek her out!