Crusader vs nomad

In my last review I used the word crusader and to be honest I’m a little uncomfortable with it – what for all its historico-religious undertones. Not to mention it sounds a little more aggressive then I’d like it to express. Nonetheless, I'd like it to go further than the ambivalence of the Deleuzian "nomad":

"Nomadism" is a way of life that exists outside of the organizational "State." The nomadic way of life is characterized by movement across space which exists in sharp contrast to the rigid and static boundaries of the State … The nomad, is thus, a way of being in the middle or between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is unfettered by systems of organization.

The dichotomy between nomad and state is an insightful and very fruitful one, but it falls apart in practice – especially when another of Deleuze’s juxtapositions are taken into account: the major and the minor. What happens to the major within the nomadic group? Is it simply impossible? Or do we constantly have to try and overcome it, just as any other group might want to try? I think the latter is more likely. Obviously the nomadic lifestyle seems to produce greater opportunities for this overcoming, mainly due to its disequilibrium – it may even require this constant overcoming in order to sustain itself – but nonetheless some authentic idea (to cheat Derrida) must be maintained. A progressive truth requires a progressive body – likewise a progressive body requires a progressive truth ... a transitory body – a transitory truth etc. Hence my call for trajectory, or directional orientation. The crusader seeks something – to some extent in blind faith – but nonetheless he seeks. He is going some place, he is overcoming something, he is in transition. He may wish to change where he’s headed at some point, but nonetheless he is always in a state of transition: dog’n it out in the "intermezzo." But let’s return to Derrida for a second – and the messianic promise. What? "Blind faith," I already spoke of, and history is there too. Maybe this crusader necessarily does contain the kind of historico-religious undertones I slighted above. Maybe this word is adequate. Maybe it’s actually the history of religion that has tarnished this figure. Anyways – I’m done.