Carlo Suarés : De Quelques Apprentis-Sorciers : Some Apprentice Sorcerers : II: Jean XXIII

John XXIII (Angelo, Giuseppe Roncalli). Born in Sotto il Monte, near Bergamo in 1881. Entered seminary of Bergamo in 1892 and the pontifical Roman seminary in 1900. He was ordained a priest in 1904. He exercises both the functions of Private Secretary to the Bishop of Bergamo and professor at the seminary of this city. Called to Rome, he joined the Propaganda Congregation to participate in the redesign of missionary activities. He taught at the Lateran seminary before being appointed bishop in 1924. Raised in nunciature, he was sent to Paris in 1944. Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice in 1953. He was elected Pope on 28 October 1958. He died in 1963 after calling a council.



or the dynamiter out of kindness.

10. - Good feelings and fighters of a cause

Good feelings make virtues, these fighters for a cause. These fighters are "good" men on the one hand, on the other they embody the devil. They have in common their battle, its weapons and his field. They are defined according to each other: in "isms" and "anti". These are entities functional psychological, playing contrasting roles within a common social organism. So determined and committed, they cannot have an objective and general view of the human condition. We said they don't think. They let themselves be guided by words, formulas, symbols, how concretizes the unexplored lowlands of their psychological terrain. At no time can they diagnose the deadly disease that causes and causes their conflict, that determines and engages them.

A Gandhi cannot see the real causes which generate and maintain misery: submission to traditions, stupidity, apathy, superstitions, stopping thought in doctrines, the inability to be born again. He cannot see them, because, taking primitive myths for real, far from being freed from it, it purifies them, cleans them to a certain extent from the gangue of ages, and therefore, tends to make epidemic what aging had reduced to just endemic. This design is obviously that of religious leaders in favor of a "new look".

Does this mean that we must fight against submission to traditions, stupidity, apathy, superstitions, the stopping of thought in doctrines, the inability to be born again? No. Why leave ... Would we hold to the surface when the root, the source, bursts everywhere?

Our world is that of sorcerer's apprentices. From each of its points arises an immeasurable energy. Man is no longer the size of his world because his psychological structure is full of measures. This is not a simple way of speaking than saying, to correct, remedy, act: take action. The thought can only evaluate, weigh, compare and, evaluating, comparing, it has built, over the centuries, in the pros and cons, the psychological social structures that are wrongly called individuals. Thesis "Containers" of consciousness (which imagines itself to contain and hold what contains and retains it) do with each other of ecumenism, in order to consider what a world would be if each of them could swell to the point of containing others. So eggs - to which, like fables, we would attribute consciousness and speech - would they talk about how each of them could expand to the size of the Universe.

We have a parable about this. A chick having broken its shell addressed itself to eggs: "I don't know, he said, how I got out of there. I had to peck, fight. This new world is wonderful. We move there, everything moves, everything is always new. "The eggs were listening, evaluating the pros and cons. But some time later we realized that they were boiled eggs.

The real, human fact illustrated by this parable is serious. We are at a turning point in history general of humanity, faced with a completely new situation, which calls, collectively and individually, a mutation, a sudden transformation following the animal evolution which has begotten. Thought realizes that the relationship that should exist between consciousness and the universe is lost, through her own fault, thought, because her evolution had led her to usurp being, to want to identify with him. Her so-called truth-seeking and the institution of various religions have never been anything but attempts to annex the unthinkable. Even today, we read, from the pen of so-called philosophers, nonsense such as: "God is the sum of all perfections", as if the notion "perfection" was not comparative. Rather than measuring its weakness, thought "explains" the inexplicable by absurd inventions, three times more inexplicable than the inexplicable that they explain. This void is filled by the activity of false fights.

Do we suspect that it takes a thousand times more intelligence, virtue, work, intensity, penetration, of persevering and tenacious activity to expel from thought all that is not of its own domain? Because, first of all, thought must know and be able to apply to itself, to what it is, in fact, in its unfolding. Dependent on memory, an accumulation of data, automatisms which consist of to pass from one evaluation to another, he must learn to avoid the solicitations of everything to which the mind gives birth without being able, however, to conceive it. She must learn not to confuse the two meanings of the word to conceive, to refuse to follow the spirit in what it "conceives" (what it gives birth to) and that in truth it is impossible for him to "conceive" (to understand). She must see that the words by which we defines the representations that one has of the world and of oneself do not correspond to real facts, but are conclusions dictated by a psychological structure that has not explored itself.

11. - What is the true religious adventure

Let there be no mistake: this business becomes, from the first step, an extraordinary adventure. From the minute you really see, when you "live" the fact that the psychological fabric of which you are made is a tissue of words, of words without real content, a beneficial tear is produced through which life, truth, the timeless, the uncreated, or God, if we want to call it that, can finally express and act. This is the real religious adventure, which has nothing to do with what is called "spiritual experience." Experiences of this order still belong to the world of thought, therefore of the measurable, of comparison, of recognition. Nothing is more difficult than to free, to release the thought of its own devices, because these have as purpose and effect to establish the illusion of eternal duration in a consciousness made of duration and which to debate not to die in the timeless.

The closed-door trials of reason for or against reason, undertaken by philosophers, theologians - and recently psychologists - have so far only taken place at the verbal level, rationalizing the irrational or irrationalizing the rational and leaving these doctors sitting in their situation. These trials by a completely different bias, pertaining to scientific research, is exploding publicly and it already appears, from direct judgment of everyone, that the fine intelligence with which man adorns himself cannot, by his discoveries, that see the mystery of being deepen. Common sense tells us that to seek the Truth (with or without capital letter) is to seek to see where is the mistake. The simple observation of our world, as it goes, tells us that if man does not surrender completely new, it will be carried away by what it unleashes. Reason exercising where it has the right to say, tells us that don't make new with old. The worshipers of a man who said that are working to fill in old wineskins. What can humble writing do when faced with the brilliance of their meetings?

And yet the sources of the revelation that so many reunited prelates seek in the mythological distance, wondering if, yes or no, Tradition is Revelation or if infallibility is modifiable, yet these sources spring up right here, without any sentimentality, without emotivity, being too attentive to pierce the error. These sources, far too intense to be noisy, too gravely aware of the birth of our new Era, know that a few blades of grass today will give the vegetation that will consecrate the ruin of buildings.

12. - Mutation

We do not define maturation. Even less the source. We only define containers and content. The adult state is freedom. Whichever way one looks at man in relation to the animal kingdom, it is evident that he is distinguished by its greater capacity to modify the world in which it lives and by its capacity to adapt to these successive modifications. It is therefore never definitively adapted but always out of stock adaptations. Societies, civilizations, are established conditionings, which, with more or less misfortunes, more or less impositions accepted or suffered, tend, by their organic nature, to be fixed groups in subspecies, that is to say in functional adaptations. But humanity, having (by successive mutations?) broken animal automation, called "species instinct", which is life guarantor only under limited conditions; having therefore acquired the capacity to survive, humanity in this variation which is its essence, and the essence of all true religious aspiration, is in perpetual conflict with the organizations it creates.

All this is easy to see, but it is difficult to unravel the increasingly complex web of relationships between the proponents of social, economic and psychological organizations, and the "required". Those- most of them only kick back to live better, more conveniently, conveniently enough so that existence is possible, so that it is fixed, immobile, stagnant, stagnant, in a structure modified, whose ideology is more - because more austere and more supported - than that which it fights. This constant process pretty well demonstrates that if Societies are always backward it is because they so want. We want them so, because the animal instinct, that is to say the weight of consciousness under ceiling, is still stubborn. But if, in animal species, it is definitely installed in insurmountable neurological specializations, man knows that he only operates a small part of his brain.

If it is true that the explosion of techniques, sciences, everything that adapts reflexes, knowledge, allows brains to simultaneously pursue an ever-increasing number of data (while primitive brains can only think of one thing at a time), it is no less true that this enormous development is one-sided and tilts consciousness in loss of balance. It results in a shock in return, a reaction of fear, of panic, an SOS to the powers of the past. On call of this general panic, the religions of the West and the East join their efforts in view of a impossible to go back; psychologists, philosophers, politicians, merchants, academics, weekly journals, songs, pharmaceutical manufacturers, including put their own, in remedies or escapes.

For now, we are witnessing powerfully organized brains in their specializations, able to solve, without even thinking about it, mathematical problems of unprecedented complexity, and who "for the rest", which is essential, are at the mental age of children of seven years who swallow all believed their catechism. We are told that at the famous University of Pasadena, where the largest concentration of scientific Nobel Prize winners, past or future, the number of neuropaths is considerable, and we know that in some ultra-secret centers, where monstrous forces are being developed, specialists in are constantly under the observation of psychiatrists and often relayed, for fear that dizziness will grab them to blow up a portion of the planet ... (But who's watching the psychiatrists?) A certain opinion tends to spread - by the care of proponents of the scientific myth - according to which these new ... electronic brains, so to speak, are already changing. Nothing seems to us true in this point of view. These new brain circuits are like highways direct that release traffic that has become too tangled. Certainly, it is no longer necessary to pass by the congestion of Euclid to reach the times of today. But why, "for the rest", which is essential, should we go through the time of Pontius Pilate? Let's go, rather, to the source.

13. - Is it Adam and Eve?

We have shown elsewhere [9] that what are called, in the West, the sources of Revelation, is a preposterous reading of untranslatable texts but which one imagines having translated: The Biblical Genesis, and evangelical texts if manipulated ad usum Delphini, that we make them say what we want and sometimes the contrary to what they want. In the few pages that we will give here to the essential themes that It will be essential to explain, we will return, for the first chapter of Genesis, to the Hebrew text. As for the evangelical passages that we will examine, we will try to rethink them according to their primitive Hebrew, buried under shovels of Hellenism ... But may the reader be reassured. This first chapter of Genesis has this particular, that to understand it well in its original Hebrew text, the first condition is not to know Hebrew.

The explanation of this enigma is in the fact that the Hebrew script does not include numbers: the letters of the alphabet take their place; each corresponds to a number or a number of tens or hundreds, the first four letters of the alphabet: Aleph Beth Guimel Daleth representing respectively the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. We can thus, by assigning each number a sense of code, read in groups of numbers, looking like words, anything other than what these same groups say, read as if they were just words. Now it turns out that the first chapter of Genesis is a code so encrypted, which the meaning, very rigorous from the first diagram to the story (in profane language) of Noah, has nothing to do with common with reading the words that form these patterns. The Kabalists know, by tradition,

[9] The Judeo-Christian Myth: Kabbalah of Kabales

the existence of this code, but have exhausted themselves from looking for it through sometimes extravagant speculation. Their common mistake was to graft this numerical reading onto the myth told by words, which projected everything in great confusion. We have reason to know that the primitive meaning of this encrypted code dates back to times immemorial, that it was taken up and consigned in the text which reached us, while the language stemming from the apparent words of this code, lending itself to current thought, material and sensory, went to the level of all profane languages and lost its origin. It is true that, knowing the source, we can see how certain words in the Hebrew language derive from it. But this study is not necessary for understanding the source.

Let's get straight to the point with a few examples. The Aleph, the first letter, the 1, expresses creative immanence in its spontaneity. It acts in itself, always new, therefore always it and never it, because it is uncreated, therefore timeless, and always creative. We cannot conceive of it, for it has no continuity. (Imagine, in a very material way, the spark of an internal combustion engine.) The second letter, Beth, 2, indicates a container. In common Hebrew, beith means house, but the letter Beith, in its external function, is our B and is pronounced like it [10]. In the code, the 2 is the archetype of everything that envelopes and contains, and, like the 1, as well as all other numbers, must be seen, understood, lived, in all layers of consciousness. This is considerable work; because if we look attentively at the elements of consciousness, we see that all that it imagines to contain is on the contrary its container. (There is only awareness of something, and do not we say: this task, this show made me "Absorbed"?) If we search at the same time, deep within ourselves, the living Aleph, unthinkable, timeless, most people will have to admit, alas, that they can't find it. Yet the encrypted code tells us that it exists in man. It also tells us that man can either suffocate or kill at most deep in itself this source, this discontinuous flow of life, this unknown, this unthinkable, that is to give it birth, fertilize it. How does he say it? Very simply, by calling the man Adam (do not pronounce Adan). Indeed, Adam is written Aleph Daleth Mem, that is to say 1.4.40 / 600. (The final Mem can be 40 or 600.) How to understand this scheme? The 4 is a static force, a seated power, in its sense archetypical. The 40 is this updated force. (Note that Daleth Mem, in Hebrew, does DAM, which means blood. This word is related to its origin.) 600, on the other hand, is the number of cosmic fertilization.

Can we finally see - after how many centuries of false reading - the real, total, current meaning of the scheme Adam? In man is the Aleph, timeless source of life, embedded in the absorbing power of

[10] In its fullness, Beith is Beith, Yod, Tav and, on this plane, goes much further. It is the same for all the others letters.

blood, and man can either suffocate it in the actualization (40) of this absorption, or fertilize it on the scale cosmic (600). No philosophy, no theology, however vast, has ever given man a clearer vision. And this is given by means of three signs! We now need, for our presentation, to show the 7. The 7 is the number of virtuality. It is the repository of all possible possibilities. In him the germ of life is not frozen, fixed in a rigid organization. It is flexible, adaptable. In him is the safeguard of the man to come. 700 is all that in cosmic life. He is the perpetual youth of the world. Now the letter which expresses 700 is the Noun (our N) when it is at the end of a scheme. Here is then explained the BEN (Beith-Noun) scheme, i.e. 2,700. We understand why the vulgar language reads it: "Son". Now let's see what the Rabbi (Jesus) says when he declares himself Ben-Adam. He says: "I am the body, the receptacle of all the virtuality of the world, of the creative youth of Aleph, of living Aleph, which arises from my blood. I perceive in myself the pulsation of creative immanence, in its cosmic totality. ;This is how the figures read 2,700 - 1,4,600 (Ben-Adam).

Can we finally see - after twenty centuries of false interpretations - how the alleged translation "Son of Man is not only grossly limited, but irremediably confused?

We also need, for our presentation, to show the Elohim scheme, the meaning of which is clear and precise, which appears in the first chapter of Genesis and which is translated by an anthropomorphic word : God. (We will only deal with the tetragrammaton Yod Hey Waw Hey - YHWH - only in our next chapter, at about the terrible distortion Teilhard de Chardin makes of it by calling it Jehova.)

Elohim, therefore (Aleph Lamed Hey Yod Mem, that is: is in a simple way - what does not to say simplistic, on the contrary - the actualized movement (30), life (5), in short the actualization (10) of Aleph. (We think we have shown the Aleph enough to not need to go over these explanations.) To complete this diagram, here is finally the 600, of cosmic fertilization, which indicates that the entire universe is a living and fruitful phenomenon.

We see that there is no walkout in the unreal, inconceivable regions of the supernatural, no fabrication of divinity, but the implementation of an organization of thought. The spirits who will accept living this embryo of organization will realize that it is none other than a new life sown in the thought. It is this new life which will be able to note the colossal error of the churches, and, in particular of that who declares himself both the heiress of Peter and the representative of the Rabbi. This observation cannot be made only by bringing the origin back into the present.

Those of our readers who will realize the enormity of a task which consists in identifying twenty centuries of Christian embankment and a Jewish embankment dating from Moses, may agree to follow us again during the few pages that we absolutely need before we go to Caesarea from Philip, that Greek city where, it is said, a famous dialogue took place between the Rabbi and Simon, said Peter. We we need to show the meaning of the words they were able to exchange in Hebrew, (because it is foolish to pretend that they could speak to each other in Greek or Latin), to show the meaning that the Rabbi gives them, timelessly, he, who is the origin, is here, in spirit, today. (Originally, there is obviously no past.)

So let's quickly go over, for the sole purpose of orienting the spirits, and without proposing to deepen the text (there can be no question in the context of this work), so let's go over the first diagram of first verse of Genesis, by establishing somehow, in the vernacular, its meaning as it offers itself to a spirit that awakens to itself and to the world. The spirit that awakens to itself and to the world is invaded by its vocation of reality, by the immediate need to discover, to penetrate the reality of the phenomenon whole life. If he happens to approach the biblical text while wondering if it is possible to find an indication, a direction that leads to reality, and if he realizes that what he has been given for true so far has only referred to a hypothetical future this fusion with total reality, it begins by removing all that it contains from its thought. He approaches the text while ignoring. He knows nothing. He wants to learn. Only the void can learn.

So here it is in front of the first scheme which is pronounced Birichyth: Beith, Reich, Aleph, Shinn, Yod, Taw (, and he can see that the revelation is already there in its entirety. So that she enter us, we must start with the first letter, the Beith, the 2, the house, and identify ourselves totally to the being that it represents in us: can we see that everything that takes place in our consciousness is a "house", a structure, a container? While we believe we have a view of the world, things, of ourselves, of truth, of religion, of morals, of what life is, of the purpose of man, from where and how to seek the truth, all this, everything, is only the container of the consciousness which imagined containing it. All this is only the house, the closed house, where what we call "ourselves", which is only a physico-chemical and sensory reaction to what contains us. But this is only a preamble. Can we go further, ever deeper? Can we first see what this house is made of? It is made up of our education, the social environment where we live, traditions, everything that civilization builds and organizes, materially and morally, to condition us. It is also made, obviously, of all that we have accumulated ourselves in the form of material or intellectual possessions. This multiple and total "house", this Beith is all the memory that is embedded in our brains through millions of circuits neurological, which "responds" automatically when requested.

Can we go even further, or rather closer to ourselves? More deeply ? This "House" is the heritage of a name - obscure or illustrious -, of a dwelling or a castle, of a organization of our existence, of a way of thinking, in short of what we call "our" thought. Finally account, we see that this "ourselves" is nothing but this house itself, this Beith, which imagine being a person, a conscious person?

This Birichyth Beith - as well as the other figures - is, as we have said, the symbol of a being living. As long as this being has not become ourselves, it is useless to continue our reading, because it does not would be that cerebral. The revelation can only be lived. Those of our readers who have the vocation of life, can already see that it is a reversal of the usual train of thought (thus, we commonly say : such has a complex; this is a mistake: the complex "has"). But let's stop this meditation here and let's continue quickly. Birichyth's second number, the Reich is 200, the "cosmic house". It's not that after having meditated deeply enough on the unthinkable cosmic, that one can - perhaps - feel arise the third number from the scheme: the living Aleph, the one. The following Shinn is the cosmic movement of the Aleph, the Yod its actualization (in existence) and the final Taw the great power of cosmic resistance to its own vital movement. The rest of the verse and the entire first chapter of Genesis (Gen. V included, but not beyond, that is to say only until the mention of Noah and his three sons: the suite, the ark, the deluge and the rest falls into popular legends), are a careful description of the vital process in its double aspect that we can illustrate with the following parable: the gardener watering: it is the life going from top to bottom; the plant grows: life goes from bottom to top. This process is described in a double fertilization update: Yehy aur ve yehy aur , which the Aur scheme (1.6.200) expresses in indeed, by the 6 of the fertilization introduced between the Aleph and the cosmic "house". This succession of schemas has been vulgarly translated and betrayed by the all too famous: "let there be light and there was light", which gave birth to the overflow that we know of theological literature.

From numbers to diagrams, from diagrams to symbols, from symbols in appearance of characters, we arrives at Adam as we enter the 1.6.200 process. We have lived longer up the Adam scheme. Let's not come back to it, except to specify that it is obviously not a carnal man, and that no woman has ever been extracted from him. Other schemes arise, which agitate in materializing thought, a garden, trees, a serpent, a divinity, a fruit, a "sin origina lof disobedience, and later Qain (not to pronounce Cain) and Hevel (not to pronounce Abel). Here we touch on some of the most curious and harmful psychological knots in our civilization: these texts read backwards by priestly, Hebrew and Christian traditions, have taken root in the minds the notion of a "God", Jewish and Christian, who is, in all truth, Satan.

14. - Synagogues and churches of Satan

Readers who have followed us - more or less closely - have understood that we do not act words at a superficial level of consciousness. On the contrary, we are at the beginning of this new era inaugurated by the abrupt historical turn of our time, at the heart of the vital movement still impollue which, at the beginning of an era, can be perceived and expressed by certain "initiates", that is to say by people whose conscience is led to participate directly in this source. Let there be no mistake therefore not: our work is highly initiatory and does not lend itself in any way to controversy. Those who accept to enter will understand what is the reversal of thought - and first the void of the mind - which are necessary for a fresh approach to our human problems in all compartments of life, including the economic. So let's not forget the general context of this book and, leading us to the perception that the churches in general and that of Peter in particular belong to Satan, let's go back to ... "Adam and Eve".

We have often said, during these last thirty years, that these characters live and stir in us. Psychologists would call them "complexes". They are all in conflict essential which opposes, on the one hand, life which is a single life-death process, timeless, uncreated, unknown and unthinkable, on the other hand human consciousness, strongly interwoven in the existing, in the temporal, in the created, the known, the thinkable. For this consciousness, death is a mystery, therefore also life. She does not know that existence, it flees death, therefore flees life by situating it beyond death. One should understand which, consequently, occurs in this consciousness, when an initiatory narrative offers it a character Qain, son of the cosmic omnipotence of the living Aleph, who, rising up against Hevel, the man of temporal existence, annihilates it to the point that instead of this Hevel there remains only a pool of blood (the DAM without the Aleph). The conscience of the temporal man, be it rabbi or cardinal, identified with "Abel", hates "Cain" and cursed him. She neglects to read the text which, open book in any translation, says that "Cain" is cursed by the earth, not by the Lord and that the latter, on the contrary, would avenge Cain seven times if someone wanted to kill him ( Gen. IV 11/1 15 ).

We have in La Kabale des Kabales, described in detail the "birth complex", the fruit eaten in the Garden of Eden and expulsion from the womb. We return to it here only to recall the conclusion of this event, in a passage well known to the Rabbi and quoted by him, (Gen. III, 22) that here, in language vulgar: The Lord God said, Behold, man has become as one of us, for the knowledge of right and wrong ... The plural "we" is incomprehensible in translation. Whoever is supposed to speak is Elohim, whose final IM (Yod, Mem) is, in vulgar Hebrew, a masculine plural. Next: Let's prevent it now to put forth his hand, take from the tree of life, eat it, and live forever, is the creation of the Satan complex by the God complex. It's true that the name of this new character, Satan is no more mentioned here than it is attributed to the tempting serpent when it says to the woman (Gen. III, 5): You will not die, but Elohim knows that the day you eat it, your eyes will open, and you will be like Elohim knowing Tov and Raa. The opposition between God and Satan is in the "die or not die".

Who then is Satan? (In Hebrew Satann, 300.9.700). The 9 is the archetypal number of the feminine, that is- that is to say of all-centripetal power, which brings back to itself, which maintains over time. Let's get rid of this character of his mythical masks. We see immediately that he is none other than the personification of human thought. Masks are all by which this thought settles in itself and justifies being what it is. She only has to "renounce Satan" (according to the consecrated expression) to freeze in everything that makes obstacle to the "thought of Elohim". Human thought, projection of the "house" of the container of consciousness, having its being over time, forever incapable of penetrating the timeless, has cultivated a wonderful ability to believe in something she calls God, so as not to die in the flow unconditioned for life. It builds psychic structures and mechanizes them. She builds structures social, and dominates them, when it can, by imposing its dogmas. If it is protean, and also knows camouflage. She is one and knows how to be legion. She has the supreme ability of Satan to make herself very beautiful, to to take on the most beautiful words, the most noble feelings, to take shelter in exalted symbols. She erects altars, religious and lay, for his own worship. Sitting in history and geography, it traditions hypertrophy, makes them overflow in the future. Sitting in morality, it alone is respectable. For some time now, she has been wearing glasses, she has laboratories and observatories. She is scientist and goes in search of the origin of life.

We are far from accusing her of being what she is. But "for heaven's sake" (this is the case with say) that she is not trying to climb it. This fallen angel for not knowing what it is, has its place on earth as the true prince of this world. Naked, he is extremely beautiful, with which the splendors borrowed from its cults are ridiculous devices. The naked intelligence has the beauty of the new look, always awake, amazed and wonderful. In her, yes, a tiny atom on this atom that is the earth, is the miracle of divine gaze on creation, of this gaze which is creation. Thought is temporal, intelligence timeless. Thought totals duration, intelligence abolishes it. The thought is an extension of the known, intelligence the birth of the unknown. Thought says: I know; intelligence says: I learn. The thought is always old, the intelligence is observation, from instant to moment instant. Thought does not understand death, intelligence lives in its own death. Thought is a continuity of existence, intelligence a discontinuous: death and resurrection. Thought is Satan, the obstacle, the enemy of Elohim the uncreated. It proliferates, it invades, it usurps, it materializes. In Elohim, there is neither belief, neither worship, nor worship, but the intelligence of the glance. Satan calls himself God and is worshiped

15. - Of death and resurrection.

The most vital myth, among all, is that of death and resurrection, but still it must be reintroduced into their daily lived reality. Myth, he thinks, satanizes himself in symbols and cults, projects on an imaginary divinity, finally supernaturalizes itself, to suffocate life in continuity of existence: continuity promised, indefinitely, to individual consciences, with the aim to establish and ensure the continuity of a collective structure. Myth, he has his reasons, because as a lived reality, the death and resurrection of thought is irreducibly anti-social. She is anti-social, because dying to yourself is going through the psychological structure that we had identified, and that this structure is none other than that imposed by society. Finally we come to the Rabbi (the name we gave him was the Shinn, in the middle of the tetragrammaton: YHShWH It is impossible to think of it under its pagan distortion Jesus). And this is how are his message those who are this vision: they are in the origin and the Rabbi was in this origin and his message a revival attempt. And in the historic turn that we are living in, its so-called church great efforts to make its own turn, which projects it only in a greater thickness of human thought. This is why we cannot give ourselves the task of assessing the scope of this turning point. the church if one is not situated in the timeless clarity of this origin, so intensely present in this right now.

Readers who care about these questions will follow us through the pages essential for an observation (the superficial game of polemics and discussions has no interest).

6. - The prince of the apostles.

The contradiction between the Rabbi's message and the social and religious values which profess can be found outwardly without difficulty. Its origin is only discovered at the source of the function that calls itself thought. This is where this message turns into its own enemy. This reversal can be perceived in a curious document, the appearance of which justified the enemy, to the point that the latter avails himself of it to assert his victory without trial. But, like the author of a detective novel who would have put in his hands of the reader all the elements necessary to discover that in an apparently closed case the assassin is not other than the judge, we believe that we have sufficiently instructed the reader to ask him to discover, in the piece of evidence here, the real killer of the crucified. Following this document, we will restore the facts he reveals despite his falsifications. So here's Matt. XVI, 13/26 (in extenso, extract from the Bible of Louis Second):

Jesus, having arrived in the territory of Caesarea Philip, asked his disciples: What do we say that I am the Son of man? They replied: some say that you are John the Baptist; tkhe others, Elie; the others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. And you, he said to them, who do you say I am? Simon Peter answered: You are the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus spoke again and said to him, are happy, Simon son of Jonah: for it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but it was my Father who is in Heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and that on this stone I will build my Church and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: what you bind on earth will be untied in heaven. So he urged the disciples not to tell anyone that he was Christ.

From then on, Jesus began to let his disciples know that he had to go to Jerusalem, that he suffered greatly from the elders, the chief priests and the scribes, that he was put to death, and he would rise again on the third day. Pierre, having taken him aside, began to take him back, and said: God forbid, Lord. It won't happen to you. But Jesus, turning around, said to Peter: Behind me, Satan. You are a scandal to me: for your thoughts are not the thoughts of God, but those of men.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, If anyone wants to come with me, let him renounce himself, let him take charge of his cross, and let him follow me. Because whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever will lose because of me will find it ..

In light of all that we have shown so far, readers can already read this piece at conviction quite differently than it is read according to tradition, and can restore it in a light for the least likely. Let's see the place first. Cesarie de Philippe is a very recent city, built by Harode-Philippe on the Greek mode. She is built in Greek around a miraculous cave dedicated to the worship of the God Pan: the cave of Panias, which, like all miraculous caves, attracts a crowd of pilgrims coming to ask the deity to relieve them of physical ailments or to grant them material gifts. The Rabbi, preceded by his renowned, comes to this Hellenic revival center. Why? To assert, against this pagan revival its Hebrew revival [11]. He seeks, therefore, hardly arrived, to know if in this materializing medium, can exist the understanding of who he is who declares himself Ben-Adam; we repeat: the interior of all the possible cosmic possibilities of Aleph in man, in the blood; we repeat: it is the creative spontaneity of cosmic life, arising from the absorbing force of the blood, in its immanence timeless. He says it is that. He says nothing less. We know that language is difficult. His apostles have always admitted it: they understood almost nothing about it. And, indeed, to this question: "who do we say that I am, me Ben-Adam ", they answer: they say that you are Jean-Baptiste, Elie, Jerimie or such other. All these answers relate to beings materialized in flesh and blood. In short, these answers are tainted with Hellenic thought, concrete, material, of sensory, physiological origin, of a thought which is at the opposite extreme of the ontological language by which the Rabbi strives to make himself known.

Now he is questioning Simon now, and the scandal of this text, this interpolation is exploding, which makes Simon answer, with a Greek name: you are Khristos. In this Hellenic revival center, where the Rabbi strives to introduce his Hebrew revival, he would have received from a disciple, in Greek, the only answer that could horrify him, and would have declared himself happy to have received it? It's not only insane, but denied by the text itself: he advised the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Kristos. He didn't want us to say it and still doesn't want us to say it. He especially does not want that, because he is not Christ. It is beyond thought, beyond these representations, beyond all measure. And Simon does don't say either: you are the Son of the living God. The article "the" is still an interpolation of thought Hellenizing, generating images. And the word God does not exist in his vocabulary. He said to him: You are Ben- Elohim, you are what you say, Ben-Adamxsy, but I see you in the updating of your vital movement, not only in your person, but in all men. (For this is the meaning of Ben-Elohim.) To that, the Rabbi answers, insisting on the carnal descent of his interlocutor: "You are happy, Simon son of Jonas, for it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you . In saying it, the Rabbi finds that in this man of flesh and blood, in this simple "Ben-Un-Tel". the intelligence of the timeless was born [12]. There was direct transmission of unconditioned life. But this revelation obviously does not come from a "Father

[11] According to Fabre d'Olivet, Jesus and his disciples quoted from the Greek Bible, which usurped the place of the Hebrew Sepher, then that the rabbis rightly regarded it as a desecration of the Holy Book. In our view, the opposite is true. The Hellenistic language, bastard, played the role that plays, today, in certain areas, Yiddish. Rabbi Yhshwh failed in his attempt at Hebrew awakening, having failed to make even the defenders of this language understand the deep meaning of his original patterns.
[12] In reality, Ben-Ionah has a special meaning.

who is in Heaven"; it can come from the Aleph-Beith implied by the Shinn-Mem-Yod-Mem scheme, Shamaom, which, translates and betrays vulgarly, becomes "Heaven". (Aleph-Beith does Ab, which is translated " dad ".)

We must apologize here to our readers: we will not go into the explanation ontological of the heavens and the earth, of the Yod, which is the 10, according to the Aleph which is the one, because this mind gymnastics can seem very complicated to most people, although from the inside it there is no gymnastics, but an effortless, simple and direct vision. The Rabbi and Simon being at inside this thought system, however, this is where we have to go if we want to understand their dialogue. According to the constant tradition of this thought, the Rabbi, noting a new state of consciousness in Simon, gives it its name: "I tell you that you are Abben". This scheme. combination of AB and BEN (vulgarly father and son) either Aleph, Beith, Noun, or 1.2.700, indicates that Simon became the cockpit of the Aleph with all its virtualities. If it is true that, in profane language, Abben means stone, the Kabalists and the alchemists will not contradict us: it is, according to secret traditions, the philosopher's stone. Let us now eliminate, with indignation, the word Ekklesia, as monstrous in the mouth of the Rabbi as Khristos in that of Simon. There is no place for Ekklesia in Hebrew thought. The idea materializing of "building" an Ekklesia is the absolute opposite of this thought.

What happens in the mind of the Rabbi, we know it directly: it is a reversal dialectic, suddenly, of the Hebrew tradition. A reversal in the dialectical movement of the 1 and the 10. In the Hebrew tradition, ten men united make valid any ceremony, any consecration religious: what ten "bind below" is "bound above", what they "unbind below" is "unbound above". Let us briefly say that this concerns, in this myth, the two vital currents that we have compared above to the gardener and to the plant, and that the Rabbi, facing Simon as he has become, notices a truth prodigious: the whole is not in the ten, it is in the one.

This new life, alas, does not find good soil to germinate. Old Pan, despite its cure of rejuvenation, falling back into the past, the spirits eagerly seize the opportunity to give birth to a brand new god, a god of wheat, in "the house of bread", Beth-Lehem, where the temple of Adonis lost its powers. As for us, we had not yet involuted thought to the extreme distance from being, where the universe becomes absurd. And the words with which we make it so hard for him to return, today were not born. We looked at each other without understanding why the Rabbi did not want to be Khristos; and he, did he not already see, in Simon-Abben's face, the pleasure of feeling important? It was therefore necessary to invent a dramatic spectacle with the dimension of all the Earth, such as the wounds which it would inflict in the consciences cannot heal. The rest of the text goes without comments. Simon-Abben cannot have understood that life is not an acquisition. She does not burst into consciousness once and for all. Transforming thought into intelligence is a task all the time. If we are not careful, a new flow of life only revives existence through feeling of a mission to accomplish, of a privileged role to occupy. He no longer understands death, he does not believe in resurrections: "God forbid, Lord, this will not happen to you". He became Satan, the thought of men, which obstructs that of Elohim. Such is this Ekklesia.

17. - The witness and the reprobate.

The deterioration of Peter - considered with so much indulgence by his church - is obvious, his late repentance, lasting harm. We will come back to it. Let's go straight to John's gospel.

Like a door that opens onto the occult and allows an unconditioned life to break in, to break the old buildings, to animate renewed consciences, in short to inaugurate an era - phenomenon of which we are again today conscious witnesses (because cannot fail to renew itself at each era this discontinuous pulsation of timelessness), the Essenes were constituted in order to open a passage to the conscience of the Rabbi and, as soon as this mission accomplished, this medium disappeared by leaving remain only minimal traces. We spotted a few clues from Matthieu; we can discover in Jean, but not without excavating in the heaps of Hellenizing thought where they are buried.

His gospel in the profane language begins as follows: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. She was in the beginning with God. All things have been done by it, and nothing that has been done has been done without it. She was life, and life was there light of men. Light shines in darkness and darkness has not received it.

This text being unintelligible, gave rise to a proliferation of false thought, that is to say of a thought logically constructing unrealities, and consequently projecting psyches into daydreams of an alleged supernatural. In reality it is, in the context of encrypted code, which our readers know now the existence, a revival of the Berechyt, with an essential modification which is the mark of the era which started some 2,000 years ago and whose end we are announcing today (although it may extend for a long time in its historical appearances). We would like to simplify this message, the make it accessible to all, without lowering it into the vulgarity of a popularization, but the reader, for his part, if he does not put his mind in motion, will therefore indicate that the question does not interest him and will have the right sense not to prolong his reading. Here is Jean's new Berechyt, as we can leave it somewhat to glimpse, without following it through diagrams which it would be necessary, alas, to reconstitute, the Hebrew text having been

lost or destroyed: Beith, container of my life, container of all life, container of cosmic life: Reich, where the immanence of the Aleph arises, timeless spontaneity, non-duration which, in the eyes of the existing bursts unknown, unknowable, essential renewal of the new: CREATION. Life and movement of life: pure magic in the eyes of the existing, without apparent cause, without apparent effect: life-death in a discontinuity of a millionth of a millionth of an instant. And I say, Jean, that in this apparent demiurgy is already, total, the Aleph-Beith: already all the letters, in their being: in the sacred Aleph-Beith. Because this Aleph-Beith [13], in its total being is total where the existent perceives parts. None of his apparent letters came to the existing after any other of the others. In Aleph everything is, in Beith everything is, in Guimel everything is, and so on, and so on, and there is no of duration capable of bringing out what is from what was not. Source, life, intelligence, perception instant of the total cycle of duration, instant vision which is creation, language of a non-language, at the threshold of which words, words die in nothingness (there is consciousness only of its container), beyond the measurable (there is thought only in him), in the most intimate, in the essence of man, is the fruitful consubstantiality of non-substance and substance, which is movement of life, life of movement: inner light that shines secret, invisible, not received, expelled by consciousness, these darknesses which is called Satan.

This is, in rough words, the real revolution that took place. In the original Berechyt, man risked considering himself as the projected shadow of Elohim, where the tetragrammaton, encrusted in his signs, lost both intelligence and life. This was, as we know, what happened. The Essenes, in a burst vigorous, reintroduced the life of the Aleph deep into the center of consciousness of each individual, all by finding that individuals have nothing better to do than turn it off. These Essenes were the only ones depositaries of these truths and still are. Hebrews had split into three branches: the Pharisees, who are, to this day, scrupulous practitioners of a certain religion established by Moses and Aaron; the Saduceans, who are, to this day, progressive aristocrats, Hellenizing in the time of Pontius Pilate, international snobs today; and some "accursed" sons of Cain, having broken all religious frameworks and social, in direct contact with the unthinkable, therefore, not "immortal", this term of carnal acceptance is inappropriate, but having the power to abolish the duration. So it was the day before yesterday (because a thousand years are like a day). We were only two or three around the Rabbi, says, Jean, to play a role in this adventure which we hardly understood nothing, and the Rabbi himself ... but the game he had to play was more important than the understanding he could have.

[13] Concretized, Hellenized, having only a mental character, dependent on the senses, these diagrams, in French, make "alphabet"

Was it necessary to teach that the light is in men, that they refuse to receive it, that it dies in them and must resurrect? But no. At the time, she was not there. She was still just like a collective light fog. It had not condensed into individual droplets. You had to provoke a tear in consciences to fertilize them one by one. Faced with this superhuman task, the spirit of Rabbi was troubled. As we can see, it was not a question of explaining, of showing a fact, but of provoking it, of make it so. Extraordinary problem. Because individuation transforms consciousness into a mirror which projects the image of what it receives in reverse. Through the open doors of the occult worlds, all magical powers were made available to the Rabbi: all except that of preventing his message and his actions are received in reverse.

While history is made up of hundreds of millions of crucified, gutted, decapitated, skinned alive, then that these tortures, these punctured eyes, these widespread entrails, cause horror and terror, the Rabbi had mission to project into the consciousness a pain and a death so spectacular that they would overshadow the sum of all the others: the pain and death of life itself, crucified in man, by man. This spectacle had to be too big to be seen. The chroniclers of history do see that outside events during their duration. The Mystery that the Rabbi was to play, he had to that it was likely to create the duration of history, not to insert itself into it. Without the magic which, in two days earthly, engendered two days of consciousness, of a millennium each, the Rabbi would have been swallowed up in history and we with him.

When the time came, the Rabbi, during our last meal, became excessively disturbed, because he saw that the light - which was him - could only be delivered to darkness by one of those to whom he could deliver it transmit: either one of us, who were dedicated to him. He was troubled because he had learned by metamorphosis of Simon become Peter, that in contact with human thought, the vital flow became its own enemy. When he revealed that one of us would deliver him, we looked at each other, asking which of us would have this honor. Simon-Pierre, who had excluded himself because he wanted that the Rabbi would not have to suffer and did not believe in the resurrection, signaled to me, knowing how much the Rabbi loved me. And I, who was bent over the Rabbi's chest, I asked: who is it? We did not know that the magic operation was already underway, that Judas Iscariote (the only one of us who did not assert himself never and was for the master as the hand for the brain) had ensured the favorable response of darkness, expressed by the number 30 and by the silver metal in which - for darkness - materializes the speech. We know what happens next: what you do, do it, commanded the Rabbi. Satan was already with the piece soaked that the Rabbi put in the mouth of Judas. Satan was already the contact of this wet piece and Judas ... and he hastened to obey ... Finally the cycle was completed, a whole cycle of human consciousness. Ben-Adam was glorified. Satan had obeyed him.

18. - Certain consequences

At the time of the crucifixion, the apostles fled, each on his side, in a second state, as awakening badly from a deep sleep. What happened, nobody will know: too strong vibrations have capsized consciences. John runs to the Mount of Olives, as urgently called for a meeting you. And there, the Rabbi appears to him. He shows her the crowds assembled at the spectacle of a torture which is not of flesh and blood, which in truth is not his own [14]. He reveals to him what "the light of men" is. Jean comes down and laughs at the dramatic stories he hears, and on the third day, he is the first to hurry towards the tomb to see that it is indeed empty ... Judas also has disappeared and no one sees him again, but, to believe the Acts (I, 15/25) Peter echoes slanders about him, as extravagant as contradictory. The details of these events, told, or rather tirelessly invented for twenty centuries, however, matter little, and even the teaching of the Rabbi, however important, is less important today, isn't it, than knowing where we are, as far as this matter and the truth - or error - of what our existence is. Peter who wished "God please, this will not happen to you, weeps over the crucifixion during these two long days of a thousand years each, for the sole purpose of crucifying him, the Rabbi: he crucified him in acceptance of a sacrifice that the Rabbi did not, never offered; he eats it to convince himself that life can be made edible, in order to prolong, after death, lives indefinitely; he establishes his temporal thought in ancient mythology, including the gods at most, their names have changed; he sends into the Olympus, called heaven, the forbidden resurrection. Zeus, despite his change of name and domicile, has not changed either in nature or in customs. His loves, that he satisfies by means of metamorphoses, make him assume, this time, the appearance of a dove. The gods minors are called saints, their statues have powers; to this idolatry is added the worship of pieces of corpses unearthed. In the depths of conscience, however, the feeling of guilt translates into hatred: hatred of Judas. Let there be no mistake: it is hatred of the Rabbi and all of his Hebrews. Yes, the church of the pagan god called Khristos hates the Rabbi.

[14] See Apocrypha. The Gnostic crucifixion. The Hymn of Jesus.
[15] A recent work, published by Mr. Daniel Rops, intended to teach children "holy history" shows, incolors, a bearded god-father sitting at home in "heaven". This is, without doubt, the best way to send him back with the Santa Claus, children no longer believe in.

The mistake is to believe and proclaim that individual and temporal consciousness will discover its reason to be in a beyond, where, extending, it will become timeless. Losing against life creative, these consciences - how to be surprised? - are kneaded with fear.

19. - John XXIII confesses.

Thus the church of Peter was built and lasted, not in love, in hatred, not in the peace of consciences, in terror, not in communicating, in excommunicating.

And it was necessary - the times having matured and the world having taken a great distance - that an Italian peasant, naive and of family goodwill, it was necessary to be called to occupy the seat of Pierre, a material man and without horizon. He dropped, from the heights of his throne, the banal words of everyone. We shouted at miracle. It was one: the only word "ecumenism" undermined its base, without us knowing how, the building bimillenary. It is said of this pope: "he is a great mystic". Let us judge:

The idea of hell terrifies me, he writes, no, I can't support it. It seems almost impossible to me and I can't imagine my God so angry with me that he takes me away from him after loving me so much. And yet this is a very certain truth. If I don't fight my pride, my beauty, my self-esteem, hell awaits me. Oh, unhappy that I am. Would it be so true, oh my beloved Jesus, that I could no longer love you? That I could no longer see your face? That I should be chased away from you? But, nevertheless still it will not be irrelevant to always remember that there is hell, either by the sight of external objects, or by mortifications. I see fire? But in comparison to hell fire, earth fire is just dummy. I have a toothache? Am I thirsty? Do I shiver with cold? Fever me tormented? Let us mortify ourselves: hell is the place of all martyrs, "locus tormentum"; in hell we it will cook, it will burn like coal in the oven; in hell there will be "frigus et stridor dentiem". In Hell, we can't wiggle a finger, and I, why can't I say a prayer, or even my rosary or vespers, without sighs? In hell, we will be stunned by very sharp howls, and me, why can't I bear noises that annoy me? In hell we will suffer from hunger canine and me, why shouldn't I abstain from a few more delicate pieces? In hell, the company of the damned and demons, and why should I not peacefully suffer the presence of those who are not sympathetic to me? Haven't I sometimes deserved hell? And do I couldn't I deserve it again? [16].

The good Roncalli does not want to go to this hell where he knows so well what would await him: he wants to go to paradise. He waits for the moment when, he says, the angel of death will come to get me to lead me, as I hope in paradise. And he also writes (in a letter to his brother): It is natural that, since I have reached eighty years old, everyone else joins me too. Courage courage. We are in good company. I always have near my bed the photo where all our dead are gathered, with their names engraved in marble: grandfather Angelo, uncle Zaverio, our revered parents, our brother Giovanni, our sisters Teresa, Ancilla, Maria and Enrica. Oh, the beautiful choir of souls who wait for us and pray for us ... I await with confidence the moment to join them all in celestial glory and eternal.

It is permissible, before such texts, to experience a profound stupor. If we gave ourselves the task of deliver human consciousness from fear, so from the childish imagery that results, we would measure here, with despair, the weight of centuries. But the truth has no purpose. The truth notes, and only wants notice. The truth is that a Roncalli's psychological frame is made of fear. Whenever I think of purgatory, he writes, I tremble and never manage to accomplish with greater perfect my piety exercises and all my homework. In this frightening situation (the word is correct), he has only one resource: to obey. My tranquility personal, which makes such an impression in the world, he writes, lies entirely in this: to obey ... So fear begets obedience, and fear begets purity. At the same time, the fear of evil devils, who light fire under their cauldrons, generate the opposite image, that of the pleasure of find with family in a pleasant place, paradise. The Lord of this place is called God. He only receives you at his place only if you like him. If you love him, you purify yourself, in order to obey him to deserve his love. So, from fear to obedience, to purity, to love, to purity, to obedience, to fear, the cycle is complete. If, by adventure, we risk tripping, we call for help ... When I am about to offend the holy purity, more urgently than ever I will turn to God, my guardian angel, and to Mary, always having in mind this ejaculatory prayer: "Mary Immaculate, come to my rescue ;

In order to maintain himself in this "divine purity", Roncalli gives himself rules of conduct: "I will apply myself to severely mortifying my feelings ... I will specially make my eyes fast ...avoiding the great people ... my eyes will therefore remain, on such occasions, always fixed on the ground ...

[16] This passage and the following ones are taken from the magazine "Match" 1964

In town .., never looking at posters, pictures or shops where there might be something something indecent ... Regarding women, are they even relatives or saints, I will observe a particular reserve, avoiding their intimacy ... especially if they are young ... I never will not hold frivolity books or images offending modesty in my hand or before my eyes, and any such dangerous object that I find, I will tear it up or deliver it to the flames, even if they are in the hands of my fellow students, unless doing so causes more serious disadvantages.

What does he protect from so precious, he who declares "I am nothing and is worth absolutely nothing"? What is this humility, shaped with such care? The only purpose of this "nothing" is to last indefinitely in better conditions, his humility is a means of obtaining a reward: Serve God and then? The reward ... the homeland ... the sky ... the beautiful paradise ... Yes, paradise ... paradise. This is my goal, this is my peace, my happiness. Heaven, where we see, where we contemplate my God "face to face".

Who of us has not met, on the subway, in the bus, in a station, some abbot, with downcast eyes on his breviary, reading obstinately, moving his lips in his effort, "doing" (as they say), his hello, refusing to dive, to commune in the human tide, painful, joyful, anxious, superficial, exhausted, looking for pleasure, consolation, escapes, exuberant, prostrate, hoping always, clinging to existence, looking for a reason to live, and so readable, so offered to the eyes, by so many of various behaviors, so many expressions on the faces, and all those looking eyes. This is where the one called Jesus. We wanted to send him to a sky that does not exist: how could he have gone there? In fact, this sky probably exists, made by iconographies, with its angels who play the lute or the trumpet and wave their wings around a throne, just as it can happen to a beautiful lady, dressed and adorned exactly as it is represented, to appear at the entrance of a cave; to the young God Krishna to walk in India, playing the flute; for the Buddha to show himself elsewhere. But we will have the opportunity to study these projections, and others, when we follow Jung in some of his journeys fantastic.

20. - De pacem in terris

Does the question arise? If, among other encyclicals this one, in particular, had been published anonymously, without therefore exerting positive or negative pressure on minds, how would we have judged it?

We read beautiful words: The foundation of any well-ordered and fruitful society is the principle that every human being is a person, that is to say a nature endowed with intelligence and free will ... Every human being has the right to respect for his person ... He also has the right to objective information ... Everyone has the right to honor God according to the just rule of conscience (doubtful reservation) and to profess his religion in private and public life ... Every man has the right at work ... Man as such, far from being the object and a passive element of social life, is and must be and remain the subject, the foundation and the end ..., etc., etc.

All such statements - the author makes it clear - are paraphrases of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, "as the common ideal to be attained by all peoples and all nations, so that all individuals and all the organs of society, having this declaration constantly in mind, strive ..., etc., to ensure ..., etc., universal recognition and application, etc., etc. And we wonder why, whereas these proclamations of "ideal to achieve", these speeches, these homilies, these palavers, give the nausea, one wonders why this pontiff wanted to take them back, if not with the intention of giving them the efficiency that makes them so sadly - and ridiculously - lacking? And what does it do for this purpose? Does he understand that an "ideal to be attained" is nothing other than a supposition that everyday man, the everyday man, the man as he is, right now, in his condition, in his mediocrity, could, in a hypothetical future, by virtue of who knows what, become this ideal? Does he finally leave the world of ideas? Is it found on earth? Does he wonder if there is not something to discover, in this big sick body that is man, which prevents him from seeing and resolving directly, without intermediary, without applications of ideological remedies, doctrines, beliefs, its problems individual and social? Oh, no. Similar to these doctors, who, before a patient who instead of let yourself be cured by a purgation, feels worse, believe more in the effectiveness of their medicine than the aggravation which they do not want to note, administer two purgations to him, ten purgations until the kill (and if he dies, it's his fault). John XXIII, to make the proclamation of an ideal effective, applies it the eternal medicine from which humanity dies: a moral order, which postulates a public authority, a universal authority, a moral order, universal, absolute and immutable in its principles, which has its objective foundation in the true transcendent and personal God, an order that requires presence of men legitimately invested with authority and who safeguard institutions and provide sufficient for the common good. Their authority, they hold it entirely from God.

This naive return to a collegiality of divine right exercising spiritual and temporal power is not without flavor: However, authority does not escape any law, adds the author gravely. And ... authority human can only bind consciences to the extent that it relates to and constitutes a God participation. Thus is guaranteed the very dignity of the citizens, and the obedience which they render to holders of authority does not go to men as such: it is a tribute to God ..., etc., etc.

Such is the man who declares "I am nothing". Is it necessary to analyze further? To raise the specious arguments of its commentators seeking to demonstrate that this authority is the very image of democracy ? To note that if - as the text says - a power that relies exclusively or mainly on the threat or fear of criminal sanctions or on the promise of rewards does not succeed in arousing the search for the common good , it is obviously because the fear of the gendarme is less effective, less total than that of hell?

By writing these lines, we can hardly believe that such a huge building rests on bases sou infantile. In all sincerity, we would have been happy to discover a little maturity of spirit. At this by the way, we remember a recent incident which pitted a clergyman, who had declared himself in favor of a sex education at puberty, and a monsignor of the sacred college. This Monsignor was cried out in substance (we don't have the quote in front of me): "don't come and talk to me about education sexual. It only takes two things: a dreadful fear and lots of macaroni. ;Maybe he says beans. The fact, told by the scandalized abbot, passed for a slander on his part or a joke of the Monsignor. But no: we take it for authentic and considering it with all the seriousness that it deserves, we see there a great physiological truth. If Gandhi - which we noted in our previous chapter the confessions about his sexual torments which he could never free himself from - if Gandhi had been wiser, he would have force-fed his body instead of exasperating it by frustrating it. Breeders know that males are more apt to procreate after a somewhat prolonged fast. Otherwise, in the United States, obesity is treated by psychotherapy, because it has been found that an excessive appetite, resulting in adiposity, is a phenomenon of compensation.

Why is Roncalli, whose psychological structure is constantly based on fear, so peaceful in his submission? It is a grace of the Lord, he wrote, not to have been devoured by the malice. Add: and a comfortable overweight. We add it without irony. It is a physiological fact.

21. - The Council.

Extraordinary era! This historic turn is so abrupt, and the Earth so suddenly too teeming, that a head is no longer sufficient on the right, that a head is no longer sufficient on the left. In Rome you need collegiality and gathering of all the brothers and cousins to try to cast a global net on the consciences, to Moscow there is an urgent dekrushchevisation to try to gather brothers and cousins for a global political enterprise. Double movement imposed by the historical movement, like a underground torrent. Do you think these institutions have moved? But no, it's their foundations that crumble. Because these brothers and cousins, called to the rescue, feel, therefore, strong to be themselves, those who were no longer. They who were only obedience, here they are consulted, here they are in authority and each by putting their own, each becomes "the other". On the right as on the left the systems are thus suddenly desecrated. The infallibility of the single head no longer exists as soon as it is questioned, and the head led, nolens, volens, to admit that she is not alone in holding the keys to salvation, suddenly, has no more purpose.

Irreversible process. In vain did Khrushchev try to endorse "personality" without "worship", running out of steam to "compose" with the West. This actor was quickly kicked out of trestles in the name from what he taught, which shatters the structure of an organism becoming three-headed and unable to be. Uneasiness, confusion are settling and we are only at the beginning. Lenin's Church, being biologically similar to that of Peter, but much faster in its evolution, Moscow shows Rome the inevitable path.

This path, bristling with contradictions, Vatican II tried to trace it in the noise of the quarrels that aroused the diagram [13], unique in the annals of the councils, because expelled. As we write, we do not know what this attempt to define the relationships of the church and the outside world will give. To stick to Pacem in Terris, just go to the right to find yourself on the left: the divine origin of authority in no way takes away from men the power to elect their rulers ... this doctrine suitable for any kind of truly democratic regime ... and further. We certainly cannot admit the theory that the only will of men - individuals or social groups - is unique and primary source from which citizens' rights and duties would be born ... We had, moreover, noted above: from the nature of man also derives the right to private property of goods, including including the means of production.

This is where this "thought of men" leads which, in Peter, scandalized Jesus so strongly. For some time, the word "human" keeps coming up in church people. It always and only refers to the existential human, the human in condition, the human whose thoughts only evolve in the measurable, to a human condemned to be only an extension of the past, to a human frozen in fear, petrified (the word is correct) by this Peter, hated by his master and denying him ... because where, in what gospel, what has master enshrined "the right to private property in goods including the means of production"?

But we have said enough about it. To finish this chapter, we only need to quote some opinions of the true defenders of the church, who, courageously lucid, did not hesitate, course of Vatican II, to brave the current which carried them. (In order to give each event its real, relative importance, note that according to a Japanese scientist, there is in Lanchow, in the province from Kausu, a Chinese factory producing uranium 235 and in Sin-Kiang, as well as in other regions, China has considerable uranium deposits. The Chinese, before the end of the century, will be more than a billion "humans", in the strictly existential sense).

The primacy is mentioned seven times in twenty lines on page 7 of the diagram - he writes - either on average once in less than three lines and at least once in each sentence. What amazing, under these conditions, that we speak here and there of a real "obsession with primacy" or of a "torment of primacy". This makes the worst impression, especially with Easterners and non-Catholic observers. It proves the fear of the "good thinkers" and the difficulty of the hierarchical Church to free itself from eight centuries of a theology unilaterally focused on the pontifical monarchy. Only eight centuries, in fact, because until the twelfth century the papacy mainly played the role of arbiter between local churches. The Pope, for example, is not intervened in the appointment of bishops or in the creation of dioceses only from the twelfth century. The hypertrophy of the exercise of papal jurisdiction, which disconcerts the Orientals, is therefore not coextensive with the tradition of the Church. We forget it too often, for lack of culture historical.

We forget that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the triumphant Church established a totalitarian dictatorship having at its disposal all the means of "purification" which the Hitlerian regimes used recently and

[17] We will refer to the excellent communications from Mr. Henri Fesquet, special envoy of the newspaper "Le Monde".

Stalinist. We forget that, from the Council of Verona, in 1183, the bishops delivered to simulacres of courts, for acts said of apostasy, magic, heresy, or witchcraft, all those who, in the Christianity, suspected of deviating from "the line", were condemned in advance, without trial and in the most big secret. We forget the war of extermination launched against the Cathar heresy. We forget the Spanish blood red, founder of an order and sanctified, the memory of which has not yet been extinguished in Albi. We forgets that the Inquisition remained in force for more than six centuries, that it took Napoleon to ban it, that it Sufficient from Waterloo to revive it and that it only disappeared with the Papal States, there is little more of a century and a quarter. In short, we want to ignore that papal power, from its origin to its fall, has never exercised only through imprisonment, torture and assassination, individual or collective.

The times have changed. The global conscience condemns violence. Very good: there never was. We are right to magnify human freedom, because God wanted it to be so - says Cardinal Ruffini - The Church is averse to violence and has always condemned violence. And he adds: Never separate freedom of truth. This one is defined in relation to this one. The truth is one and there is only one and single religion which, in itself and by itself, has the right to freedom ... It is said, (page 33 of the diagram on freedom religious) that the State is incompetent. But if so, how can there be a state religion? ... We therefore goes in this text against a very strong tradition in the Church and against the Holy See itself. It is extremely serious. Cardinal Ottaviani intervenes in turn. The text says: "Even the one who trunk is worthy of honor. " That does not please me. Mistakes are never worthy of honor ... concerns freedom of conscience, let's always talk about it in relation to divine law ... It is a question freedom of propaganda from different religious groups. I do not agree. It's excessive. Saint Paul did not understand it thus, which asked to prevent the propaganda of false doctrines. The Cardinal Quiroga, Spanish, is perfectly lucid: this diagram, he says, exposes the faithful to very serious perils. It also presents a danger for Catholic nations ..., liberalism was often condemned by the Church. Now will the Church say the opposite? Cardinal Bueno y Monreal, aanother Spaniard, adds: In doctrine, he says, only one religion has the right to spread. Others don't have it.

These are the true defenders of the Church, but they are only a small minority. The Italian rearguard Spanish is overwhelmed. The pressure of the open sea is too strong. From the United States, Canada, Chile, Yugoslavia, everywhere, ecumenical voices declare to the Holy See that salvation exists and must, from all necessity, exist outside of it. Does the schema on religious freedom go too far? On the contrary, it is not not enough. Cardinal Liger, on behalf of the Bishops of Canada, wants him to formulate the foundation of the religious freedom in such a way that even unbelievers can accept it. Cardinal Cushing, of Boston wants the Church to claim freedom for all men, without exception. Cardinal Ritter, a another American wants religious freedom to be only a special case of human freedom. Others voices are raised, on behalf of hundreds of bishops, from all continents. The Dominicans of the Curia, the assessors of the Holy Office, heroically return to the charge: it is wrong to put on the same level the conscience of the one who adheres to the true and of the one who adheres to what is false, even if it is sincere. John XXIII, in Pacem in terris never said that, they exclaim.

No, he never said that, he never wanted that, but, apprentice sorcerer, that's what he started. Will there ever come a time when the Church will recognize that freedom of conscience is the value essential human relationships? Obviously not. According to the process common to all religions organized, it will become more and more desacralized (what is called "humanizing") and, reintegrated into the world, will seek its profit there wherever it can penetrate.