CXLVI

"...in regard to "revolutionary" ambitions it is necessary to clear the misunderstandings and to choose between the 2 aforementioned opposing positions, which determine 2 likewise opposing styles. Again, on the one hand there are those who acknowledge the existence of immutable principles for every true order and who abide by them not allowing themselves to be swept along by events. Such people do not believe in "history" and in "progress" as mysterious super ordained entities, but instead attempt to dominate the forces of the environment and lead them back to higher, stable forms: according to them, this is what embracing reality amounts to. on the other hand there are those who, having been "born yesterday," have nothing in the past, who believe only in the future and are committed to a groundless, empirical, and improvised action, deluding themselves that they are able to direct events without knowing or acknowledging anything that rises above the plane of matter and contingency; such people devise many systems, the end result of which will never be an authentic order, but instead a more or less manageable disorder. The "revolutionary" vocation belongs to this second line of thought, even when it does not directly serve the interests of unadulterated subversion. In this context, the lack of principles is supplied with the myth of the future, thought which some dare to justify and sanctify recent destructions that have occurred (WWII), since in their view they were necessary in order to move ahead and to achieve new and better horizons (any trace of which, I am afraid, it is difficult to point out).

Once things are clearly seen in these termns, it is necessary to thoroughly examine one's "revolutionary ambitions, all the while aware that if these ambitions are kept within their legitimate limits, one would then be a part of history's demolition squad. Those who are still standing upright in this world of ruins are at a higher level; their watchword is TRADITION, according to the dynamic aspect I have just made evident. When circumstances change, when crises occur, when new factors come into play, where the previous damns begin to crack, these people know how how to retain their sangfroid and are capable of letting go of what needs to be abandoned in order that what is truly essential may not be compromised. These people know how to move on, upholding in an impassive way the forms that are proper to the new circumstances, knowing how to assert themselves through them; their goal is to reestablish and maintain an immaterial continuity and avoid a groundless and adventurous course of action. This is the method of the true dominators of history, which is very different from a more virile than that of the merely "revolutionary"."

"...if the "Fascist ideas" still deserve to be defended, they should not be defended simply insofar as they are "Fascist", but rather insofar they have represented a particular form of the apparition and affirmation of ideas that were older and more elevated than Fascism, ideas that have the character of "constants", so that they may found again as integral parts of a great European political tradition. To cherish these ideas not according to this spirit, but solely because they are "revolutionary", original, and proper only to Fascism, would amount to belittling them, adopting a limiting perspective and making difficult a much needed task of clarification."

Men among ruins, Chapter I

Julius Evola (1953)