Carlo Suares : Cahiers du Sud : Regards from Alexandria
REGARDS FROM ALEXANDRIA
To Jean Ballard.
By answering from Alexandria the many questions you ask myself, I feel divided by two contradictory tendencies: the desire that my epistle be of some use to you and the feeling lie of my ignorance. Why don't I have the authority of those who, from here- even, with a view to a plan similar to that which I form in writing to you, launched across the Mediterranean, to a world yet jaded and who should not have been surprised at anything, surprising him god Serapis, mixture of Osiris, Apis, Pluto, Aesculapius and Jupiter, whose noisy career illustrated so well a certain magic alexandrine by virtue of which inconceivable heresies ail -- their bloom here with ease.
Alexandria does not seem to me to have changed over the centuries. In this strip of earth battered by the winds, wedged between the desert tick Mareotis and an ever-turbulent sea, the ancient deities of Thebes and Memphis came one day to hear each other say, middle of gossip and gossip, amorous adventures and commercial, that everything could be arranged. Greeks and Jews, Christians and pagans, it was enough that they were from Alexandria to that their subtle and speculative mind (of the mind or business) released from two opposing facts a third who unlocked them. This is how I dare today to identify with Alexandrianism to tell you that your Islam-West binomial, seen from here, is both too simple, because it is difficult to see the elements which compose it, and too complicated, because this whole is a scramble minima of insoluble problems. I even dare to tell you that this binomial does not exist, so that by posing it we are already in abstraction. I do not see one West, but four, the britannic, American, French, Soviet: you can already see that the U.S.S.R. imposes on me a geography of values where the points around the Arab League, and finally a section, separated from the rest by the vast Libyan deserts, which, from the ancient possessions Italian, goes as far as the Atlantic. Again, let's leave it the cardinal points, as well as the automatisms of thought which date back to the Crusades. I spoke to you about a synthesis and in here is already the theme: the four "occidents", including the historical movements that emanate from a common object: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
That said, I come to your questions; they are anxious and pressing: Islam takes shape as a vast nationality. How will mark its stiffening in front of the attitude of the Occident? Are there still possible grounds for agreement? The two can power levels coexist? What to do for this? Is Islam reverting to orthodoxy or is it showing itself tolerant of heresies that mark the erosion of his unit? On all this is the Jewish question considered as distinct from the Islam-West problem, or is it an integral part of grant? Is Judaism being now, with regard to Islam, incorporated into the world Western or is it believed that the West will get rid of the Jewish element through Zionism and reject it in her arms ? To try to shed some light on everything this, I will choose a very precise point of view: how, I will ask, how do the different branches function of their common substratum? Where are they going? Tending towards cohesion or, on the contrary, do they contain each other? and the others of the contradictions which pervert them dangerously is lying ? To pose our problems on this basis is already their dear. seek meaning in humanists, not in politicians, and open to our reason a path along which we will have some chance of discover values that are both universal and particular, spiritual and useful, which, if the end of the world is being prepared for us, will perhaps allow us, as far as we are concerned, to organize a way of salvation.
Politics today, just like the economy and the social, is like a raging ocean: go and install a water level! Its strings are too numerous: the illusion that were our fathers to do the work of historians, we must abandon it give. A riot in Jaffa, a strike in Tehran, an assassination politics in Cairo, are, for the Reuter agency, events relatively simple. Take a closer look and know to tell me, among all the strings we're pulling, if it's London, Washington, Moscow or New York, the City, Wall-Street, Standard Oil or some Iranian, Turkish, Egyptian, way to be bought, sold or lent, who ultimately has it prevailed over all other influences.
I will first seek a synthetic view of the four occidents that I mentioned above, based on their values fundamental, and as a humanist can see them. Be present in mind what I call civilization a historical development based on a representation of man, and culture the method by means of which a civilization maintains contact with this representation. (Without a method, no contact with its study, is a concept of one God according to which man "made in his image" is necessarily universal. It It follows that culture must be a method enabling people to individuals to achieve the universal and communities to organize and administer institutions to facilitate this asceticism to as many as possible. Let's see how our occidents with respect to these foundations, and let us begin (at all lord...) by the British lion. I'll stick to one document, but, whose merit is to answer very exactly to my design: The Processional of the English force, which P. J. Jouve had appear anonymously in June 1943, and the reply that in October of the same year made him Charles Morgan. I do not don't know that the meaning of this answer was disputed by any English that matters. On the contrary, insofar as I was able to check with my British friends, she seems to me match the truth.
The nation, writes P. J. Jouve, which was the first to shake the feudal power, invented Parliament, founded the law of nations, accepted religious tolerance and sanctioned the existence of the individual; the nation which by the sea founded an empire capable of spreading his legal civilization to distant lands saved ges; this nation, brutal on one side and wise on the other, has a king; and the king is not a master, but a supreme servant; he is the totem of the English, and the totem has been cleared up; it binds, not by the fearsome unconscious in common, it also binds by the formula sharp as possible of Liberty; the king is the representation of the common guarantee and the soul of Parliament. English freedom has no need, like ours, for bloody revolutions in the modern times, because his tree grew long ago. Freedom English has a king so that the existence of the king ensures the continuity freedom, and not only freedom, but greatness. These men therefore possess everything, one might say, and reconciliation of the ages takes place within their breath. (P.J. Jouve, June 1943.)
To this, here is what Charles Morgan answers: ... The French have never understood that the English nation is mystical, that in England the king did not represent the people ... that it does not even serve it, as the author of the Processional. As a man he is the servant of the nation, in the same way as Churchill; but as king he is the Nation, its history, its blood, its very life... The French who, intellectually, are able to understand everything, have no never understood this mystical truth, and therefore have never never trusted us. (Charles Morgan, October 1943)
It could not be expressed more clearly: Your totem has been cleared up, said the Frenchman, as if exclaiming. cusing to use this word totem; in fact he is no longer a totem, he is no longer unconscious, it is a clear and distinct formula of the freedom, he changed state, from irrational he became reason even.
But not at all, replies the Englishman, the king is a totem and we want him totem, he is us, he is nation, he is blood, he is our life itself, which we house and want to make remain in the air rational, in a mystical truth to which, in which, by which our individual consciousnesses perceive themselves. It's here what is our strength, our eternity. (You must read the whole document* to apprehend it well.) In short: You are universal, says the Frenchman, since it was you who founded the law of nations... etc... etc... "Not at all," said the Englishman, with your mania for rationalization you did not understand anything: we left particulars.
The English who is right. The culture of this democracy, whose function is the maintenance of an aristocratic monarchy, is not an export article, I can, from Egypt, give the testimony. The little negro English that negros learn is not not culture, subscriber Shakespeare is nothing: not only does he there is no English method which allows what is not English to integrate with what is, but everything is implemented by the English method so that such an accident does not occur Never. This abyss between the foundation of a civilization and its culture is all I am willing to report here, leaving to everyone to come to their own conclusions,
In France, and people will say to me right away: of course, you are French, and you are still going to tell us about Descartes. I can't help it, it's a fact, the French method is universal, and, in order to satisfy all the oppositions, I will say that it is often in spite of many French people, which does not change anything the case. It's not that we can't show a thousand deficiencies, but they don't count for much. The important thing is to see that this culture is used enough to no longer need, at all times, to invoke its origins. - She leaves where he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. She has none Not needed anymore. She goes alone. She knows how to walk. If she falls she gets up with drunk without prayers, and, seeking the cause of his fall, examines and thinks itself. This constant effort to think of oneself is what thanks to which French culture adorns France with immortality through his deaths and his resurrections and continues to propagate in the world a contagion from France despite the intermittent - these hearts.
But let's cross the Atlantic, and forgive me for being in short as regards the culture of This great American people, because I don't see it. The United States is, to my knowledge, the only nation where neither the saint nor the hero is idealized, but the average man, the one whom the Gallups and other investigators find has the tastes and opinions of everyone. Because it is a matter of tastes, not of faith; of opinion, not of thought, by what a hundred and fifty million men (would they brandish a hundred fifty million Bibles) seek and may find one day to establish a coincidence between what they are and what they would like to be. They have the heart and the ingenuity to intervene in our adult affairs. They have largely contributed, twice, to save our lives, and, loving to feel both very good and very solid, similar in this to those devotees of Proust whose nostrils throb pleasantly with the mixed scents of incense and brioches, accept at the same time the emotional tribute of our recognition and opportunities to extend an order based on individual profit,
Finally, the U.S.S.R. And despite what Marx and Engels themselves, I see no gap between the ancient prophets of God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the messianic spirit which animates the Manifesto of Communism. This new gospel, for having replaced the abstract word verb by its equivalent concrete dialectic and to have perceived this vital movement in the story rather than in the individual, far from having departed subconscious data of the civilizations engendered by Israel, has broadened its bases. (Let orthodox Marxists forgive! You can already see my newcomer's ear peeping here. calf Serapis, heretical and essentially Alexandrian.) What is to come this Manifesto of Communism? And, since the day the history students began to learn that promoters of the October Revolution, Lenin and Trotsky, were denied in Lenin and Stalin, the Line of Revolution is- it a straight line, a curve or a zig zag? These questions have nothing to do with my subject, just as the political conflicts in France and the many regimes that followed one another do not play no role in what I have to say here. If so I'm referring to what is called Stalinism, it is only in order to avoid the reproaches that, on one side or the other, I would have otherwise received. As a humanist, I believe I can discern today, in the U.S.S.R., the desire and the possibility of elaborating a real culture, a universal method capable of conferring on man, in as a person, a new dignity, and as a part of citing to the collective, a sense of responsibility. Of course, twenty years sanitary cordon, followed by the most appalling of wars, does more to shape the visible shape of this vast empire than its principles. And the current, urgent necessities of a consumption strategic formation, taint a human domain with politics where all hopes are however allowed.
In conclusion of this rapid sketch that, of the four Wests, the English have a particular culture, the French have a culture universal, the American does not yet have a culture, the Soviet has one in training. And I come to Islam. Projected in the world, at its birth, like fireworks, it suddenly catalyzed the Arab genius who was unaware of it and demonstrated that the culture is not always a long elaboration. Of this prodigious bursting, allow me to give a personal explanation based on my inner experience, on my perception immediate effect of the Islamic phenomenon which, having long remained secret in my conscience, appears to me more and more clearly as the matrix of my creative faculties. The Prophet Muhammad invoked as proof of the existence of Allah the existence of the Universe. The mere presence of a grain of sand, of a blade of grass, is, if you really want to exercise your thoughts on it, impenetrable enough to feed our curiosity creative stupor that will feed it indefinitely. This perception immediate from the mystery of what is, from the definitive impossibility where we are to conceive that a Universe is one day out of nothing or that it has always been there, that it has spatial limits within an inconceivable nothingness or point of limits, this Revelation which immediately prohibits our reason from seeking proofs of the existence of the impenetrable or to be satisfied with syllogisms relating to causes and effects, this state healthy, exalted, dynamic of amazed grace that, personally, I feel in the depths of my being, this is what, in my opinion, Arab-Islamic conjunction whose breath, the innumerable and sterile quarrels in which so many minds wandered, liberated Reason.
The fireworks went out, and its ashes scattered over three continents gave the impression of being extinct for a long time. Islam remained as a religion but, broken into a West hostile and too complex, bogged down in a backward and passive Orient, his art, his science, his philosophy, his humanism, found there is no way to engage in the present: Arab civilization, like a comet, had passed, they said. In fact, Islam had far exceeded the frameworks of the Arab world. He carried within him two qualities of penetration: its simplicity and its realism. of a apart he placed each one, all alone, in front of the Impenetrable and thereby conferred on each individual his dignity; on the other hand, he asked the real to bear witness to the existence of being and thereby, surpassing the bloody drama, the furious passion of a spirit and of a flesh relentless in contradicting itself, conferred on it its dignity.
Today, the greatest Islamic masses are found in the India, where nearly a hundred million human beings have thanks to him shattered the watertight dream of Brahman and affirm to the both the reality of the world and the universal nature of man. THE pariah, and not only him, the untouchable, but all those who feel dominated and bruised by the definition of themselves, particular and functional, imposed on them by their rigid caste find in Islam an unlimited human representation whose the certain effect is to completely upset the pseudo-dream of Brahman and its Hierarchies. In India, Islam is revolutionary. Expect it to reach out to its first cousin, Chinese Communism. It won't be a alliance in view of what so lightly is called the conflict of East and West, but on the widest stage in the world, an effective regrouping of the psychological motive which is called God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, within two of his metamorphoses
Of the twenty-four million Soviet Muslims, I don't know Nothing. I suppose them, as Muslims, without history, and seeing no grounds for tension between them and all of their fellow citizens, I imagine them capable of developing a valid culture.
The knot in your web of questions is the Arab world. Here I am, and places myself without further delay in front of one of the phenomena most remarkable in contemporary history: the development settlement of Egypt. Let's not get too distracted by the economic and social confusion of the entire planet, where we sees all the stages of development superimposed, from from the most primitive feudal forms to the latest refinements of advanced capitalism. political maneuvers, demagogic one-upmanship, horse-trading, the tricks of weak, the hypocrisies of the powerful, all that national or democratic formulas take on must not stun us. Egypt adds to this common spectacle that of an astonishing political expansion and a revolution in morals. Wander the beaches of Alexandria in the summer and see a movie afterwards Arab. Young men and women, male and female students, all this new petty bourgeoisie which is becoming Americanized is by nature to give many shocks to those who still think of Egypt as it was at the time of Bonaparte's expedition. All this, I apologize for repeating it, being animated with some variants of the very motive which made the West, obeys analogous biological laws, but what is important for you to know is that this movement is conscious and directed. Of King Farouk I of Egypt, I only want to mention one fact, but which relates to the only news that I have to tell you, in the midst of all these general considerations: the very recent appointment to the post of rector of El Azbar by Sheikh Moustapha Abdel-Razek. It's not a secret for no one that this appointment, wanted by the king, was not done without upsetting the statutes of the famous University: Sheikh Moustapha not having the necessary titles, by a royal decree they were no longer needed. With a gesture, the young sovereign directed his country, the Arab world and all of Islam towards their destiny.
Considerable event! I don't know if you clearly perceive the personality of the man called today to the highest cultural function of Islam. It's nice to send you back in the Cahier Musulman et Arabe of these M'essais d'Orient that there in my twenties I was conducting with Elian Finbert. If you still have it in your library, re-read the beautiful study, which we had the honor of publishing there, by Sheikh Moustapha Abdel Razek on this great reformer of Islam, Sheikh Mohamed Abdou, who was his master. Invoking reason and freedom human, Sheikh Moustapha, by I? through the words of his master, exclaims: For every reasonable man, the human being is free in its actions; but this freedom is limited by the laws which the divine Power has assigned to its nature, to its needs, to his instincts and faculties. All our moral phenomena are governed by these laws, just like physical phenomena. In this sense, but in this sense only, Muslims mean fatalism and predestination... And again: Islam transforming simple nomadic Bedouins into a great and strong nation, drawing from these barbarians a new civilized people, giving them the taste for science, art and industry; islam freeing human reason, tolerating all religions and protecting them, spreading truth and light wherever it penetrates, endowing the world with scientific treasures, inoculating its civilization to barbaric Europe, what a sublime work..
But I cannot quote them all! Read again, following this study, the extract from the Rissalat-al-Tawhid of Sheikh Mohamed Abdou, which we publish under the title: Islam has spread with unparalleled speed, and you'll get an idea of what Sheikh Moustapha Abdel Razek (1) proposes to realize today. Tradition is not routine , he began by declaring on assuming his post, and here already the old University theological, shaking off its dust, prepares for all the rejuvenations. If its new rector is the most versed man who either in the study of the Koran, know that he knows no less well Descartes and Bergson; if he is a theologian, know that he is in humanist whose conception, far from being abstract, encompasses the arts and sciences. Egypt already has a university Fouad I in Cairo and a Farouk I university in Alexandria, led by enlightened minds of whom you cannot tell if they are Eastern or Western, and where are invited to the magisterium eminent foreign professors. I do not doubt the immense possibilities of all these conjunctions. The task is difficult, and it is first a matter of perfecting the language. You know the difficulties of the Arabic alphabet: adding to the three consonants which constitute most of the roots of the "verbs the vowels which lack of them would inevitably lead to the destruction of these roots." A serious problem that cannot be resolved, the Turkish way, with a punch. Whatever the future, the trend is clear. Politically, the Arab world is in the process of being based on both in Mecca and Cairo. The king of Arabia Ibn Saud, this prestigious conqueror from a tale of One Thousand and One Nights, is at the moment in Cairo where, personality to his measure, receives him with pomp King Farouk. Last Friday, the nth of January, the two sovereigns went together for their devotions to El Azhar, where the sermon was delivered by Sheik Moustapha Abdel Razek.
It is on this table that I end this chapter of my letter. My conclusions, you guess them easily: a radiation Arab culture is possible, to which the empire will not be indifferent French Arabic. This is where a conjunction
1. This happened in January 1946. We have since known that the University of El Azhar is in mourning for its rector,
magnificent if, true to its motive, Arab culture becomes universal, and if, true to itself, the French remain so. don't doubt not the innate wisdom of the Arabs: they will not pay for appearances and will reject false cultures. For our part, let us not lose sight of the fact that speaking of the will to power of States, even the British, has become an anachronism in the face of the effective power of the U.S.S.R. and the United States, that no other State does not think of equaling, and finally only this incomparable power is nothing, whose fate is conditioned in advance by the frames economic and social from which it emanates, because if these do not evolve not in such a way as to place this power under the real control of the masses (and the leaders of the United States, on the contrary, proclaim openly their desire to maintain frameworks obsolete) the material power they engendered will quickly and surely turn against them. So far, contemporary history has given us material power only illustrations of its self-destructive nature. The opportunity for us Frenchmen is beautiful: stricken, humiliated, dead and resurrected, France, by demonstrating through his actions the concrete effectiveness of the spiritual, will find, do not doubt it, that the Arab peoples are disappointed by white conquerors, whoever they are, and despise them. They do not lose themselves in subtle distinctions: for them, the English, the German, the French, the American, are alike in the substance and their methods are only variants, brutal or hypocrites, from the postulate of material force. To those who believe to be able to unload this stigma on others, let them pleasure to still walk their mortuary on the surface of the planet. Let us show, as far as we are concerned, that we have finally understood. That France settles and spreads out in its vast empire. May France be this empire, universal France, Church Secular. May France be this culture and its institutions, in Africa as in Europe, in the East as in the West, in Islam as in Christianity. France, non-colonies; France, non-agents and mandated, protectors and protected, France where France est, France without yes and no/without but or maybe. What is the risk? Is the universal risk? Ah! Let us guess in Islam an available fervor, incomparable freshness. Once already the Prophet Muhammad extended to Jews and Christians a hand which they refused. It's not too late to get off our false pedestals and accept this embrace in a spirit of true liberty, true equality, true fraternity.
But I cannot finish this letter, my dear Ballard, without talk to you about the Jews, since, moreover, you put me to their topic several questions. They are not a problem but a riddle, and the word of this riddle, Here are millions of years that we turn around him, with the sole aim of not destroying him. encrypt. I have yet to meet anyone who has helped me to study. lucid, but having explained it myself in a book, What, Israel, which appeared -- at my expense -- a few years ago, force was to observe that, in order to have any chance of being taken, it would still have been necessary for this book to find readers. Gold, as the space I have attached to this letter is quickly running out, suffer me to use it armed with a cookie cutter.
I wish with all my heart that the Jews had a safe haven. But I am not in favor of a Jewish state. Nor even of a Jewish "national" home. The Jews are not a nation. Nor a people. Nor is Israel a religion. Nor yet minus one race (see how many we converted massively between Jews and Christians, on one side and on the other, for eight centuries, then all the infiltrations). Nor, in any way, a homogeneity: on the contrary, there is nothing in common between a A Polish Jew and a Spanish Jew, if not what can be found, broadly speaking, in common between Central Europe and the Mediterranean. "Put three Jews together, you will have four opinions different", says a proverb. The Jews do not get along them. I even dare to go so far as to say that they do not have an exaggerated sense of mutual aid. As to their tendency of mind, we sufficiently reproaches them, at the same time, for being revolutionaries and bankers so that these condemnations (if they are condemnations), exactly opposite and of contrary force, cancel each other out. They are also reproached for assimilating too much and not assimilating enough. Do you find these complaints ridiculous? Point. They all tend to see contradictions in the Jews. They do exist, and here we are finally on a good track, because why blame them of these contradictions and why not praise them? Remove the contradictions from the Gospels, those most Jewish books there are, but then throw them into the fire, because they do not. will be worth nothing. Correct what has says Jesus: let the first remain first and the last last, that whoever loses his life loses it indeed; that the worker of the eleventh hour receive no wages, and you will make Jesus, incarnation of Israel, a fair gossip. This contradiction interior is nothing other than that movement of which I spoke above, that John the Evangelist called the Word, that our revolutionaries call dialectical movement. This contradiction is the living seed of our civilizations, their prodigious adventure, their irresistible course, the cause and effect of its destructions and constructions. Israel incarnates it with a view to a Genesis. Those who fear it are called anti-Semites.
And why, and how does Israel embody this divine movement? By virtue of a covenant pact: eight-day circumcision. This is the key to the riddle. I will try to explain it to you in what way. a few lines. Give them your attention
The shock of circumcision that is produced on an organism barely eight days old, and the modifications he makes to it, imprint on the psycho-erotic system in formation a character particular. First, there is a normalization of the sexual sensitivity in relation to the rest of the body, while in the uncircumcised child this sensibility is maintained, by its sheath of protection, in a state of torpor upset by time in time and from an early age hyperacute crises, irruptions of a state of exception which, because of its intensity, puts in activity of nerve centers usually dormant. So, from the cradle, the uncircumcised child has a tendency to engender two selves, that is to say two halves of me who will profess to not knowing each other.
The usual, normal and reasonable self will be all the more balanced, seated, installed, that he will be insensitive; the other, at the head of his unconscious legions and armed with a whole sensual apparatus, sensory, emotional and imaginative, will be all the more virulent in its irruptions or infiltrations that it will have been better blinded and dumbfounded by denying him reason. All this already is implemented well before sexual arousal occurs. In adolescence, the crisis often becomes fatal: the erotic dream sometimes assumes gigantic proportions and, through the mass of the subconscious that it manipulates, can rise to the collective level, become exhilarating and stupid, violent and uncontrollable, and, brought back to its true nature animal, he can then tumble the brains of unfortunate uncircumcised who, at the amorous call of their Fuehrers, have only to rush backwards in Duration to finally lose their consciousness in the blood of this totem they have voluptuously found. At that moment, a sure instinct told them that Israel, the "eldest son" of God, faithful to the pact of circumcision whose purpose is the genesis of the human, is their irreducible enemy. (You shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord: Israel is my son, my first born. I say to you: let go of my son so that he may serve me; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will destroy your son, your first born. Ex., rv, 22-23.) I cannot indulge in this letter to biblical commentaries, but whatever meaning one wants to give to these words "Son of the Lord", which Jesus makes his own, simple honesty .demands that if here only grants them a value of metaphor, it is metaphor also in the mouth of Jesus. On the other hand, if one prefers that the word Son, for Jesus, has a carnal sense, it must be carnal also for Israel. I admit choose any common measure, but the use of two measures is a fraud.
Circumcision at eight days collects and coordinates the energy vitality of the individual, unifies the body in a state of constant awakening and controllable, connects the sensory and sexual apparatus by sublimating eroticism even before it perceives its own nature, finally thereby irrigates and fertilizes the intelligence at the very sources of me by an incessant osmosis between the psychological and the physiological. Sexuality then lost its bloody character and mysterious, she no longer listens to the call of the dark abysses, she crossed the animal stage, and she, who was the enemy, dragged Israel in the great adventure of individuation.
But this subject is so vast that I give up developing it so long be little, and I am happy to have pointed it out to you, in the hope that these few words will encourage physiologists and psychologists to seek in this direction the key to the biblical enigma. I would thus like to have contributed to demonstrating that Israel does not exist. I mean it does not exist as an entity. There is a pre first Alliance (circumcision) with the Movement of the Universe, which allows him to proclaim himself flesh. There is a second Alliance with this same Movement of the Universe which, through Jesus, proclaims itself Person. It's the first Alliance that makes possible the second. I say it makes it possible: I use the present tense for this. Because they don't have me demonstrated that Jesus is not alive, that he has not returned to Earth many times, that he has not elbowed us and spoken to us, that he did not implore his torturers, the false Christians, the anti-Semites who, in his name, by striking Israel, are still driving nails in this body that can't take it anymore.
As for the Charles Morgans, may they rest in the peace of mind provided by their mystical ties with their kings. THE mystical link that binds Israel to Jesus, this non-entity and this king dispossessed, bleeding and naked on a cross, this bond, only can live it and die by it those it engages. And the others, who find that Israel is not faithful to its covenant with God or that on the contrary he is too faithful to him, those, if they know my Father, let them go tell Him.
My dear Ballard, I described you summarily but my best various historical movements. May they all, one day, to move resolutely towards the Genesis of Man. And here how you will be able to judge individuals and groups of individuals in relation to this direction: those who "let Israel go" are the Righteous.
L'Islam et L'Occident