Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

(b) The movement, owing to the lack of financial means, is not in a position to appoint official
leaders, but for the present must depend on honorary officers.
This way is the slower and more difficult.
Under certain circumstances the leadership of a movement must let large territories lie
fallow, unless there emerges from the adherents a man able and willing to put himself at the
disposal of the leadership, and organize and lead the movement in the district in question.
It may happen that in large territories there will be no one, in other places, however, two or
even three almost equally capable. The difficulty that lies in such a development is great and
can only be overcome in the course of years.
The prerequisite for the creation of an organizational form is and remains the man necessary
for its leadership.
As worthless as an army in all its organizational forms is without officers, equally worthless
is a political organization without the suitable leader.
Not founding a local group is more useful to the movement when a suitable leader
personality is lacking than to have its organization miscarry due to the absence of a leader to
direct and drive it forward.
Leadership itself requires not only will but also ability, and a greater importance must be
attached to will and energy than to intelligence as such, and most valuable of all is a
combination of ability, determination, and perseverance.
(12) The future of a movement is conditioned by the fanaticism yes, the intolerance, with
which its adherents uphold it as the sole correct movement, and push it past other
formations of a similar sort.
It is the greatest error to believe that the strength of a movement increases through a union
with another of similar character. It is true that every enlargement of this kind at first means
an increase in outward dimensions, which to the eyes of superficial observers means power;
in truth, however, it only takes over the germs of an inner weakening that will later become
effective.
For whatever can be said about the like character of two movements, in reality it is never
present. For otherwise there would actually be not two movements but one. And regardless
wherein the differences lie-even if they consisted only in the varying abilities of the
leadership-they exist. But the natural law of all development demands, not the coupling of
two formations which are simply not alike, but the victory of the stronger and the cultivation
of the victor's force and strength made possible alone by the resultant struggle.
Through the union of two more or less equal political party formations momentary
advantages may arise, but in the long run any success won in this way is the cause of inner
weaknesses which appear later.
The greatness of a movement is exclusively guaranteed by the unrestricted development of its
inner strength and its steady growth up to the final victory over all competitors.
Yes, we can say that its strength and hence the justification of its existence increases only so
long as it recognizes the principle of struggle as the premise of its development, and that it
has passed the high point of its strength in the moment when complete victory inclines to its
side.
Therefore, it is only profitable for a movement to strive for this victory in a form which does
not lead to an early momentary success, but which in a long struggle occasioned by absolute
intolerance also provides long growth.
Movements which increase only by the so-called fusion of similar formations, thus owing
their strength to compromises, are like hothouse plants. They shoot up, but they lack the
strength to defy the centuries and withstand heavy storms.
The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the
religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it
intolerantly imposes its will against all others. If an idea in itself is sound and, thus armed,