“I Now Cast My Judgment:” Analyzing The Four Agonist Archetypes – Postscript

「我們並不討厭職權，只是討厭那些沒有資格但還去使用職權的人。」

—國民暴風主義協調組織，Velkan Corvinus 譯，〈無治法西斯主義宣言〉

“We do not hate authority, but those who exercise it without being worthy of it.”

—National Tempestist Coordination, translated by Velkan Corvinus, “The Anarcho-Fascist Manifesto”

「雖然我是無治者，我不是反權威主義者。其實是相反：我需要職權，雖然我不相信它的存在。」

—恩斯特·榮格，《尤姆斯維爾》

“Although I am an anarch, I am not anti-authoritarian. Quite the opposite: I need authority, although I do not believe in it.”

—Ernst Jünger, Eumeswil

「我們不應該推翻我們置身其中的例外狀態，而是利用它們來反抗權力本身。」

—隱形委員會，鄧逸晴 譯，《致我們的朋友》

“The state of exception in which we are living shouldn’t be denounced, it should be turned back against power itself.”

—The Invisible Committee, To Our Friends

「因為最後，對隱形委員會來說，一切都能被簡化成看法和理解方法的小問題。」

—匿名，〈致顧客〉

“Because, ultimately, according to the Invisible Committee itself, everything is reduced to being a mere question of perception and sensibility.”

—Anonymous, “To the Customers”

---

在這篇文章的結尾，我完全缺乏自我意識地問：為什麼我沒有跟我秘密法西斯主義者的弟弟變得一模一樣，強迫自己改變我的看法，跟我們的虐待者們站在同一邊？過了快半年後，我發覺其實跟他沒差兩樣，只是傾向不同而已：不是古典法西斯主義，而是融合左右翼第三位置主義風格的無治法西斯主義。我是剛才在研究國家工團主義的時候發現無治法西斯主義的存在，但越讀越發先自己在這個文章寫的內容太像是來自無治法西斯主義的同路人，認為有必要馬上補個附言做正式的自我批評。

At the end of this essay, I asked with a complete lack of self-awareness: why didn't I turn out like my cryptofascist brother and force myself to change my perspective in order to side with our abusers? After nearly half an year, I've realized I actually did, just under a different tendency: not classical fascism, but the politically syncretic Third Positionist anarcho-fascism. I only discovered the existence of anarcho-fascism while researching national syndicalism just now, but the more I read about it the more I realized the things I had written in this essay sounded too much like it was coming from a fellow traveler of anarcho-fascists, and felt that it was necessary to immediately add a post-script with formal self-crit.

無治法西斯主義不只是一種。在這個附言之中，我只會注意跟解性主義和這個文章有相同的部分。附言開頭的第一個引文來自暴風主義派，他們跟隱形委員會的召喚主義的雄辯很像。雙方都支持一種任何人都能加入的去集中化的革命上層先鋒和為奪取權力而完全不擇手段的實踐。「任何行動，不管多麼矛盾，在暴風主義之中都算是合理。」隱形委員會同意：「我們有絕對自由的空間去做決定，發展策略，如果這些都是對於處境的認真回應的話。」我說：有正當理由使用「情緒恐怖主義」來規訓有革命潛力的人接受最真正義的覺悟，也就是大家—而「正義，跟對和錯，是我們管大家去死來決定的東西。」一切支持最真正義、完全的革命、壓迫完全的結束、革命涅槃的最真同志就是組成我「有機和自然共同體」的非國家民族、我「想像的政黨」的「勇敢散漫軍人」。

There's more than one type of anarcho-fascism. In this post-script, I will only be focusing on the parts that are similar to agonism and my essay. The first quote at the start of this post-script comes from the Tempestists, whose rhetoric is very close to that of the appelist Invisible Committee. Both support a decentralized revolutionary elite vanguard that anybody can join and a praxis of pure Machiavellianism. “Any action, however contradictory it may be, makes sense within Tempestism.” “We have an absolutely clear field for any decision, any initiative, as long as they’re linked to a careful reading of the situation,” agree the Invisible Committee. I said it's justified to use “emotional terrorism” to discipline anyone with revolutionary potential, which is everyone, into accepting the enlightenment of The Truest Justice—and that “Justice, like right and wrong, is whatever the hell we want it to be.” The Truest Comrades who supported The Truest Justice, The Perfectly Complete Revolution, The Perfect End of Oppression, and Revolutionary Nirvana were the “brave undisciplined soldiers” who formed my “organic and natural community” of the stateless nation, my “imaginary party.”

因此「決鬥」是解性遊的中心。在解性遊的「決鬥」之中，玩家們形成一個本體論的鬥陣俱樂部，之中我們互相要求彼此盡全力打我們，為了引起暴風主義的「上級自由」和「上級風紀」，為了創造完美的無治者。「這些革命的精英將會在鬥爭、在改造存在的長征之中被鍛鍊出來。」「這純粹、原始的男子氣概只能在壓力之下被發展。它只能從混亂之中崛起，作為對外力的反應。從那點它將會變成熟，經過時間的塑造，變成名譽文化，而那個文化—那個給一個民族特性的集體歷史和習俗的組合—就是偉大傳統的來源。我認為男子和男子氣概所有該保留的好處都是在介於武士幫的純淨和複雜商人文化被寵壞、暗算他人的墮落之間的最佳點之中得到興旺。」

Which is why “decisive struggle,” drawn from the Mandarin word for combat, lies at the center of agonist play. In the “decisive struggle” of agonist play, players form an ontological Fight Club, where we mutually demand that we hit each other as hard as we can, to induce the Tempestist “superior freedom” and “superior discipline,” to create perfect Anarchs. “This revolutionary elite will be forged in the struggle, in the long march towards the renovation of the being.” “This pure, primal manliness can only be realized under stress. It can only rise out of chaos, as a reaction to external forces. From there it matures, shaped by time, into an honor culture, and from that culture–that combination of collective history and custom that characterize the identity of a people–comes Tradition. Everything I recognize as good and worth saving about men and masculinity thrives in this cultural sweet spot between the purity of the warrior-gang and the spoiled, conniving depravity of complex merchant-based cultures.”

剛才那是無治法西斯主義者 Jack Donovan 說的話。的確，解性主義從來都沒有明確地論證解放是完全該屬於男人的領域。但把上面引文的「男子」改成「革命」（或「無治者」）的話就完全沒差別。解性主義認為革命的精神只能在壓力之下被發展。它只能從混亂之中崛起，作為對外力的反應。從那點它將會變成熟，經過時間的塑造，變成名譽文化，而那個文化—那個給一個民族特性的集體歷史和習俗的組合—就是偉大傳統的來源。解性主義認為革命和革命精神所有該保留的好處都是在介於武士幫的純淨和複雜商人文化被寵壞、暗算他人的墮落之間的最佳點之中得到興旺。

That was from anarcho-fascist Jack Donovan. True, agonism never explicitly argues that liberation should completely be the province of men. But if you change “man” in the above quote to “revolution” (or “Anarch”) then the discrepancy disappears. Agonism believes the revolutionary spirit can only be realized under stress. It can only rise out of chaos, as a reaction to external forces. From there it matures, shaped by time, into an honor culture, and from that culture–that combination of collective history and custom that characterize the identity of a people–comes Tradition. Everything agonism recognizes as good and worth saving about revolution and the revolutionary spirit thrives in this cultural sweet spot between the purity of the warrior-gang and the spoiled, conniving depravity of complex merchant-based cultures.

回到暴風主義派的宣言，解性主義「妄想和堅決的職權堅持」來自這需要拯救革命（精神）的願望。解性主義希望能創造能結束一切革命的偉大革命，能擺脫一切職權的權力。而那就是先鋒化、景觀化和極權主義化的起點。跟恩斯特·榮格說得一樣，我不是真正的反威權主義者，「不是反權威主義者。其實是相反：〔他們〕需要職權，雖然〔他們〕不相信它的存在。」解性主義要對現實有最後的決定權，因此過分地尋找「最真」、最有資格繼承革命、「最上層貴族」的同志和革命實踐。

To go back to manifesto of the Tempestists, agonism's “delusional and determined assertion of authority” comes from this desire to save the revolution(ary spirit). Agonism wants to create The Revolution that will end all revolutions, the power to end all Power. And that's where the vanguardization, spectaclization, and totalitarianization start. Just as Ernst Jünger says, the agonists “[are] not anti-authoritarian. Quite the opposite: [they] need authority, although [they] do not believe in it.” Agonism wants the last word on reality, hence the obsessive search for the “truest” comrades and revolutionary praxis, the ones who most deserve to inherit revolution, the “most high aristocracy.”

解性主義、無治法西斯主義、召喚主義以及諸如此類的傾向希望異軌的是職權的本身。「因為最後」，來使用隱形委員會的匿名批評者的話來說，「一切都能被簡化成看法和理解方法的小問題。」在這篇文章的第一部分，我承認自己的認識論唯我論。我說：

What agonism, anarcho-fascism, appelism and their ilk hope to détourn is authority itself. “Because, ultimately,” to quote an anonymous critic of the Invisible Committee, “everything is reduced to being a mere question of perception and sensibility.” In the first part of this essay, I confessed to my own epistemological solipsism. I said:

「我無法完全確定所謂『實際上的現實』的存在；我唯一有的是透過主觀感知的中介創造的實際現實景觀。主觀的存在就是問題。主觀的存在破壞得到完全確定的能力。主觀的存在註定你無法真的是對或真的是錯—你對當革命者或是正義—真的完成的革命和真的結束的壓迫，無法做任何真實的斷言。唯一有的是判斷的權力和無法避免被人家判斷的可能性。」

I have no absolute certainty that so-called 'reality as it is' exists; I only have the spectacle of 'reality as it is' constructed through the mediation of subjective perception. The subjectivity is the problem. Subjectivity destroys the ability to reach absolute certainty. Subjectivity dooms you to never be truly right or wrong—you cannot make any true claims about being a revolutionary, or about justice—the true completion of revolution and true end of oppression. You only have the power to judge and the unavoidable possibility of being judged.

前提不同但是跟隱形委員會一樣的問題。匿名批評者說：「到了此刻讀者感到興奮和滿足和做任何事情的自由」，一切的行動都能使用革命的名義。給自己一點讚揚，與其跟無治法西斯主義者和召喚者一樣地慶祝這狀態，我辯證的反應是對一切疑神疑鬼。沒錯，我們有能以革命的名義解釋任何行動的自由，但我們有資格使用我們的自由嗎？我一直重複說：有時候你就是敵人。我活在一種侵入性最後通牒的自我暴政之下：證明你有資格使用自己的自由、證明你有革命的精神、證明你不是敵人，不然你必須把自己除掉。

Different premises but the same problem as that of the Invisible Committee. As the anonymous critic says: “at that point the readers feel stirred up and gratified and free to do anything whatever” in the name of revolution. To give myself credit, instead of celebrating this state like the anarcho-fascists and appelists, I argue for reacting with total paranoia. True, we have the freedom to justify any action in the name of revolution, but do we deserve to use it? I keep repeating that sometimes you are the enemy. I live under the self-tyranny of an intrusive ultimatum: prove you deserve to use your freedom, prove you have a revolutionary spirit, prove you are not the enemy, or take yourself out.

但「敵人」的定義到底是什麼？最保守的定義：敵人是該被除掉的威脅。我認為跟法西斯主義有太多雷同的定義：敵人是該被除死的人、敵人是沒有革命精神的人、敵人是沒有資格使用自由的人。意味是必須要靠某種集中或是去集中化的革命權威人士來做出這些判斷。如果你認為問題出在「敵人」這分類的存在—如果你認為我們該沒有「敵人」的定義、認為不管怎麼樣，大家都該算是可能的同志，那麼恭喜，你是召喚主義的同路人。我還是認為大家有革命的潛力，我只是不認為可能成為革命者的潛力該比真正製造出來的結果更重要。我們不是佛陀，我們無法在神話時空之內花個十百千萬年等待一個靈魂的改變。

But how is “the enemy” being defined? The most conservative definition: an enemy is a threat to be taken out. Definitions I think that have too much affinity with fascism: an enemy is someone who deserves to die, an enemy is someone who has no revolutionary spirit, an enemy is someone who does not deserve to use their freedom. The implication is that we can rely on some centralized or decentralized revolutionary authority to make these judgments. If you think the problem comes from the category of “enemy” existing—if you think we should have no definition of “enemy,” if you think that no matter what, everyone should be considered potential comrades, then congratulations, you're a fellow traveler of appelism. I still think that everyone has revolutionary potential, I just don't think that the potential of becoming revolutionary should outweigh actually produced results. We are not the Buddha, we do not have the ability to spend several tens or hundreds or thousands of years waiting for one soul to change in mythical spacetime.

在物質世界之中生存無法逃避的條件可能是唯一能使用來判斷敵人的非秘密法西斯主義標準。我不認為自然狀態是全對全戰。我認為法西斯主義者和其他的壓迫者是故意宣戰的幫派，而我們必須好好搞清楚誰在使用暴力和誰在使用反暴力。敵人是威脅生命的實體。除非你認為某些人沒有資格生活，要求自己的生存不可能算是威權主義的要求。能算是威權主義的只有在暴力之下要求別人的死亡。在反暴力的自衛情況之下要求別人的死亡不算。除非「一切都能被簡化成看法和理解方法的小問題。」除非你認為自己或許是該死的傢伙。

Perhaps the unavoidable conditions of material survival are the only uncryptofascist standards by which we can use to determine the enemy. I do not believe the state of nature is a war of all against all. I believe that fascists and other oppressors deliberately make war, and we must be clear on who is using violence and who is using counterviolence. The enemy is that which threatens life. Unless you believe some people don't deserve to live, it is not authoritarian for people to want to live. The only thing that qualifies as authoritarian is demanding the death of others through violence. It doesn't count when the demand of death occurs in a situation of self-defense against violence. Unless “everything is reduced to being a mere question of perception and sensibility.” Unless you think maybe you do deserve to die.

但我就是有這個懷疑。我認為我沒有資格活下去，但我還是有活下去的能力和願望。我認為我是革命的騙子、認為自己沒有資格去作出實現革命的實踐，因為我永遠不會得到偉大革命的批准、因為偉大革命是個先鋒主義的無根據觀念，但是我還是去做。我認為我沒有資格擁有自治力因為不管我多麼對自己疑神疑鬼，狂熱地追求完全的謹慎，我還是在再生產壓迫。我覺得堅持讓自己保持自治力，因為我也有做出讓壓迫無法運行的事、因為我寫了一大堆像者種附言的自我批評文章，因為我可以改變，只是在做自我安慰—說難聽一點，是在幫自己找藉口，甚至在幫跟我的思想有雷同的無治法西斯主義、召喚主義等等的傾向找藉口。

But that is what I think. I think I don't deserve to live, but I still have the ability and desire to continue living. I think I'm a revolutionary fraud, and that I don't deserve to carry out praxis that realizes revolution, because I will never get approval from The Revolution, because The Revolution is a vanguardist myth, but I still do it anyway. I think I don't deserve autonomy because no matter how paranoid I am against myself, no matter how fanatically I pursue complete scrupulosity, I am still reproducing oppression. I feel like insisting that I keep my autonomy, because I've also done things to render oppression inoperable, because I've written so many self-crit essays like this one, because I can change, is just a move to comfort myself—to be meaner, a way of making excuses for myself, of even making excuses for anarcho-fascism, appelism and other tendencies that my work has had affinity with.

所以我不會在這裡做藉口。解性主義和這篇文章有無治法西斯主義和召喚主義的辯護。我認為自己因為這件事應該被取消。我認為如果自己知道自己是垃圾，就該把自己倒出去，而不是把最先嗆聲的責人推給別人。秘密法西斯主義完全沒有理由出現在一個自稱是「解放派」份子的實踐之中。我就是敵人。我不知道問責在這情況之下會有什麼樣的面貌。

So let me not make excuses. Agonism and this essay have anarcho-fascist and appelist apologia. I think I should be cancelled for this. I think that if you know you're trash, you should take yourself out, and not make it other people's responsibility to call you out first. There is no excuse for cryptofascism to show up anywhere in a self-proclaimed “liberationist's” praxis. I am the enemy. I don't know what accountability in this situation would look like.