It is for revolution that we unite. Unity with revolutionaries is out of the question if one opposes revolution. Making revolution and opposing imperialism is the demand of the broad masses of the people who comprise more than 90 per cent of the world’s population and is the irresistible trend of history. Whoever goes against this aspiration of the people and this trend will inevitably be discarded by history.

I don’t want revolutions. Categorically, because innocent heads will fly into the revolution and into all these wars. I think this is wrong. No revolutions. Do everything that is possible, but to prevent this from happening. At both sides. I would choose North Korea. I don't want sacrifices. It means that some tactics, some experience, some wisdom are lacking for people who are against this regime. That's all.

Everything the revolutionary does, he does because he has to. There is the justification and there lies complete and total morality. The revolutionary does nothing "for the hell of it", does nothing "for the fun of it", does nothing for the gratification or diversion of it. Revolutionaries possess the highest goal, the highest calling and, therefore, anything is allowed. And in this same regard, it was Commander Rockwell who said, "Only failure is immoral."

Tommasi was among many revolutionists who knew that if a revolution were ever sparked in. this country, it would be done by one, lone incident that had all the dimensions necessary to catch fire and spread in all directions at once. It is the missing factor. It is why the times we are living in are the roughest because nothing, that is nothing dramatic and widespread, is happening that is truly revolutionary.

For all these things have been illegal, as illegal as the Revolution, as the fall of the Monarchy and of the Bastille, as illegal as liberty itself... Citizens, did you want a revolution without a revolution?

With respect to a revolution, though I think it at no great distance, it seems to defy all calculation for the present. If the increase of taxes, the decline of manufactures, the high price of provisions, and the like, have no effect upon the apathy of the sans culottes here, one can expect little from the reasoning of philosophers or politicians. When the pot boils violently, however, it is not always in the cooks power to prevent the fat from falling into the fire. But suppose a revolution do happen, how is it to provide for you? People will have to work for their bread, I presume, pretty much as they do at present; for a long series of years at least; and he who has nothing will be in equal danger of starving. In fact the idea of an approaching change should influence you the rather to fix yourself in a business or situation which would enable you to take advantage of it when it did come: and I do not see but an attorney is as likely to make his way in case of a revolution as any other member of the profession.

The revolutionary enters the world of the State, of the privileged classes, of the so-called civilization, and he lives in this world only for the purpose of bringing about its speedy and total destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place, or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with an equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships.

Revolution has to be rethought. Look, even when revolutions have been successful, they have caused so much destruction and hatred that there is always some kind of horrible backlash. It’s inherent in the method. If you choose violence, then you create enemies who will resist you forever. And ruthless men become your revolutionary leaders, so when the war is over they’re in power, and likely to be as bad as what they replaced.

The truth is, revolution is anti-democratic. Revolutions in their beginnings are always opposed by the majority, which is nothing but a virtual herd controlled by the media. A minority of one knows its own interests better than the rest of society, and the rest of society can only be convinced of a truth if people start putting it into action rather than waiting for validation from the majority. The struggle for a world free of domination is the insistence that we are the only ones who can define and meet our needs, and that our needs are more important than the ever-manipulated bylaws, due process, and sacred pieces of paper that democracy holds so dear. The principle of direct action is fundamentally at odds with following the rules and getting permission.

I mean, you can't be a revolutionary after the revolution, can you? Didn't we all struggle so that kids like Lil wouldn't have to?

Both Hitler and Mussolini regarded themselves as revolutionaries, and rightly so. Rauschning claimed that National Socialism was actually more revolutionary in its goals than either Communism or anarchism.

A revolution was never fought, throughout history, for ideals. Revolutions were fought for much more concrete things: food, clothes, housing, and to relieve intolerable oppression. … I know of no one, outside of Patrick Henry, willing to die for an abstraction.