As I have already written to you, I find the texts [about Abraham Moles] (excellent material presentation) and the manner in which you managed the row completely good. This is the tone to employ with these robots; it is necessary to worry them about the future; to insult them in the present on several selected occasions and not to enter into a too serious refutation of what isn't serious (on the theoretical level).
I still haven't received the packet of tracts, which I would like to distribute to our friends.
I think that, judging from this first public statement of opinion, it is necessary to envision the development of our collaboration. First of all, your more extended participation in the current work of the SI; and also other statements of opinion on your terrain, to the extent that the circumstances will present the opportunity (without precipiating the obligation to express yourself in the least affairs, but in maintaining the attitude that made you make this intervention before the Strasbourgian public). In other words, from this gesture, advance without precipitation, but advance (not repeat yourself as much as possible).
It is quite regrettable that Bechir [Tlili] hasn't believed that he must subordinate his reservations about you to participation in a minimal communal action of which he approves. It is certain that this dialogue between you, now openly broken, will possibly be resumed at a subsequent stage of development of each other's activity, which will objectively lead you to communal positions. In any case, this might take a long time.
Bechir has told me his objections in a long letter. Of these complaints against you, only one appears to me applicable to a real peril. Your participation in a "perspectivist" or semi-perspectivist[1] group, and thus with the under-handed dealings of the U.G.E.T.,[2] cannot be treated as "a simple farce." There is the risk of you compromising yourself a little (and thus, at the limit, of compromising all of us) in the relations and attempts condemned in advance. I believe that it is necessary that the Tunisian group with which you occupy yourself is clearly autonomous at the organizational level, up to the day when the perspectivist leaders accept the conditions that you posed in December [1964] -- which has been anticipated as long as the beginning of the Tunisian revolution!
You can read in the Spring issue of the journal Cahier des Saisons [Notebook of the Seasons][3] three articles by Jean-Pierre and Francois George, which are very good expressions (in a bad framework) of certain positions of the SI.
In Denmark, on 16 March, we had the first occasion to lead (practically rather than theoretically) a mass protest against the manoeuvres of German troops from NATO. This was a great success, in the Zengakuren style, a violent demonstration in the street. Two days later, J.V. Martin's house was destroyed by a fire bomb. One speaks of it -- in a very falsified fashion in the German weekly Quick, published this week. But the Scandanavian press provided better documentation.
Cordially,[1] The Perspectives group, which assembled Maghebin students from all of the Leftist groups.
[2] The General Union of Tunisian Students.
[3] Published by Julliard.
(Published in Guy Debord, Correspondance, Volume 3, 1965-1968. Footnotes by Alice Debord. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! August 2005.)