These are the human needs, in descending order of motivating power. Every movement that wants the normies must promise (and try) to help them with these needs.
They'll be dutiful followers for as long as you do a good job of it. They'll abandon your movement when you instead lecture them like an uncompassionate dick.
It's not just the normies, either. This is powerful magic that resonates with everybody. And it applies to every ideology in every field. It's why many Republican voters are going to sit out the midterms. It's why the left started shedding followers c. 2012. It's why Christianity has been declining in all the countries where it has.
They all lost sight of the people's needs and became moral scolds without compassion. If you love (any subset of) people, you should want them to have healthy, civilization-building fulfillments of those six needs. If you want their support, you show them that you mean it and tell them you'll make it happen for them. You don't even have to use all of them.
Are you old enough to notice the parallels between Obama's 2008 campaign and Trump's 2016? They ran on trying to help people meet their needs.
Charlie Kirk didn't even do that, but he had a powerful compassion for young White men (and other Americans) that gained him many, many supporters.
If they're using a formula, we can too. Do you actually believe NatSoc would help them? Fuckin' tell'em so! Nobody gives a fuck what you want to do. Everybody gives a fuck what you want to do *for them*.
"Hey Americans, we're going to send all the nons away and open up the real estate market!"
"Hey young White men, we'll let you take the job or business of any Indian you kjll!"
"Hey incels, we'll get you a government-issued feminist girlfriend and give you the legal right to r*pe her into submission!"
Okay, I admit those are a little bit violent for examples; it's been one of those weeks.
The point stands.
Yes, money is needed for modern healthcare and trade but it's not high on many educated and spiritual people's priorities.
For example, the Amish, all the White families living in homesteads or off the grid, many visual artists, musicians, poets, back-packers, surfers, minimalists, etc. aren't highly motivated by wealth.
Yes people aren't the same. Hell, the same person in a different month may stack their priorities differently. It's a generalization. It's not even a complete list of human needs, just politically useful ones.
The Founders wanted an agrarian society where most families and every village could provide for themselves. A government of self-sufficient people is harder to tyrannize.