0430
that is both illogical and deadly,
and against romantic nihilism
whether it be bourgeois or allegedly
revolutionary. To tell the truth, far
from being romantic, I believe in
the necessity of a rule and an or–
der. I merely say that there can
be no question of just any rule
whatsoever. And that it would be
surprising if the rule we need were
given us by this disordered society,
or, on the other hand, by those
doctrinaires who declare them–
selves liberated from all rules and
all scruples.
III.
The Marxists and their fol–
lowers likewise think they are hu–
manists. But for them human na–
ture will be formed in the classless
society of the future.
To begin with,
this
proves that
they reject at the present moment
what we all are: those humanists
are accusers of man. How can we
be surprised that such a claim
should have developed in the
world of trials? They reject the
man of today in the name of the
man of the future. That claim is
religious in nature. Why should it
be more justified than the one
which announces the kingdom of
heaven to come? In reality the end
of history cannot have, within the
limits of our condition, any de–
finable significance. It can only be
the object of a faith and of a new
mystification. A mystification that
today is no less great than the
one that of old based colonial op–
pression on the necessity of saving
the souls of infidels.
IV.
Is not that what in reality
separates you from the intellectu–
als of the left?
You mean that that is what sep–
arates from the left those intellec–
tuals? Traditionally the left has al–
ways been at war against injustice,
obscurantism, and oppression. It al–
ways thought that those phenom–
ena were interdependent. The idea
that obscurantism can lead to jus–
tice, the national interest to lib–
erty, is quite recent. The truth is
that certain intellectuals of the
left (not all fortunately) are today
hypnotized by force and efficacy
as our intellectuals of the right
were before and during the war.
Their attitudes are different, but
the act of resignation is the same.
The first wanted to be realistic na–
tionalists; the second want to be
realistic socialists. In the end they
betray nationalism and socialism
alike in the name of a realism
henceforth without content and
adored as a pure, and illusory,
technique of efficacy.
This is a temptation that can,
after all, be understood. But still,
however the question is looked at,
the new position of the people who
call themselves, or think them–
selves, leftists consists in saying:
certain oppressions are justifiable
because they follow the direction,
which cannot be justified, of his–
tory. Hence there are presumably
privileged executioners, and privi–
leged by nothing. This is about
what was said in another context
by Joseph de Maistre, who has
never been taken for an incendi-
