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

「我已逐漸看清迄今為止的每一種偉大哲學是由什麼構成的—即看到了其創立者的自白書，一種不自覺的、無意識的自傳；並認識到每種哲學中的道德（或非道德）目的，是長成整個植物的真正活胚芽。」

—弗里德里希·尼采，朱泱 譯，來自《善惡的彼岸》

“I have gradually come to realize what every great philosophy so far has been: a confession of faith on the part of its author, and a type of involuntary and unself-conscious memoir; in short, that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy constitute the true living seed from which the whole plant has always grown.”

—Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by Judith Norman, in Beyond Good and Evil

首先為《降天下世》發展的概念，四大解性遊原型的聖、丑、賊、惡代表人物在解性敘事中正式扮演的戲劇角色。靈感來源於京劇的生、旦、淨、末、丑五種行當和 El Teatro Campesino 的 actos，四大解性遊原型是我試圖概述在被庸俗化的革命鬥爭敘述之中的定型角色。有完美和無可指責的聖、不切實際和無能的丑、犯法和拒絕反省的賊或是暴虐和自高自大的惡。它們就是在反革命世界之中為革命的鬥爭如何地「淹死你」，強迫你呈現的「屍型」。它們也是我認為自己該為革命處死自己人性的方式。雖然當時我還沒讀過 Sergey Nechayev 的《革命者教義》，四大原型基本上就是我自己對「註定是犧牲」的革命者的想法。

First developed for Felling Heaven, Felling World, the four agonist archetypes of saint, fool, fiend, and scourge represented the formal dramatic roles played by characters in agonist narratives. Inspired by Beijing opera's five roles of 生, 旦, 淨, 末, and 丑, as well as El Teatro Campesino's actos, the four agonist archetypes were my attempt to sketch out stock characters in vulgarized narratives of revolutionary struggle. There were perfect and blameless saints, unrealistic and incompetent fools, criminal and unrepentant fiends, or tyrannical and self-important scourges. They were how the struggle for revolution in a counterrevolutionary world would “drown you,” the “corpse forms” it would force you to take. They were also different ways I felt like I had to kill my own humanity for revolution. Although back then I had yet to read Sergey Nechayev's Revolutionary Catechism, the four archetypes were essentially my take on the revolutionary as a “doomed man.”

可是是誰在註定革命者？ Nechayev 好像有暗示：就是革命者 ta 自己。革命者為革命「應當」有自我否定的態度。這是革命者自己想負的責任，自己要承擔的命。可是沒有以等級制度為基礎的反革命世界，會有這種責任，會有這種命需要存在嗎？是誰在註定革命者—是 ta 還是解放之敵？

But who dooms the revolutionary? Nechayev seems to suggest it's the revolutionary themself. It's among the revolutionary's “duties” to have a self-negating attitude for the sake of revolution. The revolutionary chooses to take up this responsibility, take on this fate. But if it were not for a counterrevolutionary world based on hierarchy, would this responsibility, would this fate, even have to exist in the first place? Who dooms the revolutionary—themself or the enemies of liberation?

缺了一方，另一方無法存在。沒有必要革命的世界，就沒有革命者必要的存在—可是是革命者的存在暴露出世界有革命的需要。因此，解性遊的中心就是探索這個辯證法—更明確地說，是探索世界的社會狀態和革命者的組織狀態的相互作用如何影響革命的發展。

There is no one without the other. Without a world that needs revolution, there is no need for the revolutionary to exist—but it is the existence of revolutionaries that exposes the need for revolution in the world. Hence, the focus of agonist play is to explore this dialectic—more specifically, to explore how the interplay between the world's social conditions and revolutionaries' organizing conditions influences the development of revolution.

然而，在解性遊戲的開發過程之中，這辯證法退化成探索遊戲狀態和玩家個人政治傾向的相互作用如何影響遊戲政治敘述的發展。退化版是原本的景觀。可是或許可以用這個說法形容解性實踐這概念的全體。在一個被中介的世界的中介之中，此內遊戲的設計和虛構世界代表現實、玩家代表革命者亦遊玩代表解放，怎麼可能會有免受景觀化的革命政治？

However, in the process of developing agonist games, this dialectic devolved into exploring how the interplay between game conditions and players' personal political orientations would influence the development of the game's political narrative. The devolved version was a spectacle of the original. But perhaps this could be said of the entirety of agonist praxis as a concept. In a mediation of a mediated world, in which the game's design and fictional world represent reality, the player represents a revolutionary, and play represents liberation, how could you have a politics of revolution free from spectaclization?

四大解性遊原型也就是革命者被景觀化的形象；以它們為特色的文本也就它們在設計中如何被景觀化的紀錄。在這個文章之中，我將會分析到目前為止使用或提到那些原型的文本，為了探索自己對革命者的看法被景觀化的發展。關於每一項文本，我會回答：

The four agonist archetypes were then the spectalized forms of revolutionaries; the texts that featured them were records of how they became spectaclized in design. In this essay, I will analyze the texts up to this point that have used or referenced those archetypes, for the sake of exploring how my own perspective on revolutionaries became spectaclized.

《降天下世》Felling Heaven, Felling World

「跑團的道理就是把非自創的名字完全當耳邊風，即使是自創有時也認不了。湖編，知這：你的玩家永遠不會感覺到歷史的沉重，除非是自己經驗的歷史。在那歷史當中，他們會為了現在方便能忘就忘，為了現在方便能記就記。你也會。你也會。」

“The principle of playgroups is to completely ignore all names they did not create, if they even recognize the names that they do. Peruffian, know this—your players will never feel the weight of any history except the history they have personally experienced. Of that history, they will forget what is presently convenient for them to forget, and remember what is presently convenient for them to remember. You too. You too.“

有了遊戲後段的這自我否定背景的指示，我們來看看《降天下世》一開始的世界背景：

With this self-negating instruction towards lore from the latter part of the game, let's look at Felling Heaven, Felling World's setting lore at game's beginning:

很久以前，冬鎖帝國征服了世界，把全都困在永恆的冰天雪地。但在百年壓迫之際，江屍革命者暴動成功毀滅了帝國的政權。革命的勝利代價就是詛咒，使下世永遠在痛苦輪迴中轉生，在每一轉都逃不過前世的困擾...

Long ago, the Frostlock Empire conquered the world, imprisoning all under eternal ice and snow. But then, on its hundredth year of oppression, the Corpse River revolutionaries rose up and successfully destroyed the Empire's regime. The cost of victory for the revolution was a curse, causing all future generations to eternally reincarnate in cycles of suffering, haunted by their past lives at every turn...

這是我意圖簡單概述所謂的「後殖民」的世界，其實不是真的有擺脫殖民主義，而是被新殖民主義冤纏。雖然正文中沒寫得特別明確，江屍革命者的詛咒來自於他們自己為了打敗冬鎖帝國而忽略的其他壓迫情況，因革命沒有真正地完畢而產生新殖民主義的呈現。就跟玩家們的毛病一樣，這些革命者的問題是馬基雅維利主義。他們並沒有完全重視革命，反而碰到跟自己的利益有衝突的時候會放棄革命選擇自己或自己陣營的人。

This was meant to be my sketch of a so-called “postcolonial” world, which was not really free from colonialism, but haunted by neocolonialism. Although I didn't make it explicit in the text, the Corpse River revolutionaries' curse came from their negligence towards other instances of oppression for the sake of defeating the Frostlock Empire, giving rise to the appearance of neocolonialism in the wake of an incomplete revolution. Like the problem of the players, the problem of these revolutionaries was one of Machiavellianism. Their priority was not entirely revolution; instead, whenever they ran into any conflicts of interest they would abandon revolution and choose themselves or their own camp.

跑團的時候，遊戲團其中屬於第一的目標就是決定什麼遊戲內容不會用，包括《降天下世》建立世界設定的小小一段。根據我自己的經驗，如果他們是決定保留背景基本部分的話，他們會選擇去掉詛咒那一部分，把遊戲破壞成武俠烏托邦模擬遊戲。就跟我上個文章中說的一樣，這些玩家根本不會管你正文的政治；他們只是把你的遊戲當作為他們實現自我表現拆用的有用屍體。

When running a game, one of the first goals of the playgroup is to decide what parts of the game not to use, including this small paragraph establishing the setting in Felling Heaven, Felling World. In my experience, they would choose to remove the part about the curse, sabotaging the game into a wuxia utopia simulator. Like I said in my previous essay, these players didn't care about the politics of your text; they only saw your game as a useful corpse to cannibalize for the purposes of realizing their self-expression.

但以預想為準，《降天下世》的虛構社會也就是按照拆用的機構創造出來的。湖編，也就是遊戲的 GM，會犧牲自己的角色，拆用自己的角色卡來填寫殭湖的角色卡，代表解性（革命者）的江湖世界。我並且在正文中解釋了這樣設計的目的：

But with prefiguration as the rule, Felling Heaven, Felling World's fictional society was also created through the mechanics of cannibalization. The Peruffian, which was the game's GM, would sacrifice their own character, cannibalizing their character sheet to fill out the character sheet of the Jyanghu or Corpse Waters, representing the agonist (revolutionary) underworld. I also explained in the text of the game what the purpose of this kind of design was:

…當我們打倒承載世界的等級制度，我們也會把世界載到制度的遺址。歷史上制度根深柢固損害未來的地景，而我們種植的新根會繼承到制度的髒土。革除天命的問題就是不能逃避我們總會被分解，總會與土合一的塵世宿命。

...when we bring down the hierarchies that hold up the world, we also bring the world down to their ruins. Their historical entrenchment compromises the landscape of the future, and the new roots we plant inherit their soil. The problem of overturning heaven is that we cannot escape our mortal destiny to become decomposed, to become one with the soil.

所以這現世的道理就是解自分的作用。就是解自己是怎樣損害未來的地景、怎樣會留傳髒土、怎樣會被革除。就是解不只是你，而是這世界上每一個人都在這因果循環中，無論他們是解或不解。

And so the principle of this present is to comprehend the purpose of your own destruction. It is to understand how you compromise the landscape of the future, how your soil will get passed down, how you will be overturned. It is to understand that not just you, but every individual on earth is in this cycle of causality, whether they comprehend it or not.

湖編—願如是解你運素俠的分屍對創造這虛構世界有怎樣的作用。

Peruffian—thus may you comprehend how your yunsu xia's decomposition serves a purpose for creating this fictional world.

《降天下世》—也可以延伸到解性實踐—的自我否定中心思想是革命失敗主義。有時候你就是敵人。那麼，如何知道什麼時候才是該死的時刻？讓四大原型上臺，之中每一個都有自己不願意去死或是自己一開始就被處於死亡的問題。這些原型形成陰陽的兩對：完全無法失去社會接受的陰聖和完全無法得到社會接受的陽賊是一對；全知的陰惡和無知的陽丑是另一對。陰方必須保持自己的正確；陽方必須完全失去正確的可能性。

The self-negation of Felling Heaven, Felling World—and by extention that of agonist praxis—was about revolutionary defeatism. Sometimes you were the enemy. So how did you know when it was time for you to die? Enter the four archetypes, each of which either had a problem of being unwilling to die or being condemned to die from the start. These roles formed two yin-yang pairs: The saint, which could never lose the approval of society, was the yin to the yang of the fiend, which could never gain the approval of society; the scourge who knew everything was the yin to the yang of the fool who knew nothing. The yin had to always protect their own correctness; the yang had to completely lose any potential for correctness.

在殭湖之中，這些緊張關係被擴大到革命者形成的組織。聖歸於篤信宗教的派、丑歸於深奧的會、賊歸於規定為非法的幫、惡歸於被制度化的門。隨機產生情節的敘事功能（靈感來源於 Vladimir Propp 分析民間故事形態的敘事功能）並且闡明四個原型和他們組織為了證明另一方是錯誤的鬥爭。陰陽雙方都認為彼此失敗做的事都是因為羞恥：陰方的聖-派-惡-門羞於被別人視為是錯，陽方的丑-會-賊-幫恥於被別人視為是對。遊戲的目標就是質問誰為了開始決鬥對自己羞恥的克服會產生真的最有正義的結果—真的完成革命、真的結束壓迫。

In the Corpse Waters, these tensions were magnified into the associations formed by the revolutionaries. Saints belonged to religious sects, fools to esoteric societies, fiends to criminalized gangs, scourges to institutionalized schools. The narrative functions (inspired by Vladimir Propp's narrative functions for analyzing the morphology of folk tales) for randomly generating plot also illustrated the struggle to prove each other wrong among the four archetypes and their associations. Both sides of yin and yang thought that the other failed to act because of shame: the yin saint-sect-scourge-schools were ashamed to be wrong to other people, while the yang fool-society-fiend-gangs were ashamed to be correct to other people. The point of the game was to interrogate whose overcoming of shame for the sake of initiating decisive struggle would produce the outcome with the truest justice—the true completion of revolution, the true end of oppression.

四大解性遊原型也有相關的運素，也就是元素和心境的合體—是角色移動他們現實的根源。運素總共分三個種類，按照它們的起源：先天就有的天運素、在壓迫之下被精煉出來的精運素、和命名為冬鎖帝國的壓迫者帶來的鎖運素；三種運素的來源是第一個運素，命。在《降天下世》的解性江湖之中，運素在機構方面形成一個主觀主義現實的結構，也就是影響命發展的結構。天運素—也就是所謂自然法的代表—決定什麼行為對（GM 扮演的）社會來說算是「罪」。精運素是創造解放實現的道理的原材料；鎖運素模仿壓迫，對那道理的創造施加限制。

The four agonist archetypes also had associated yunsu, which were combinations of elements and mentalities—the roots from which the characters moved their reality. Yunsu were divided into three types, according to their origins: natural yunsu that inherently existed, refined yunsu that was developed under oppression, and locked yunsu that came from the oppressing Frostlock Empire; all three types of yunsu originated from the first yunsu, fate. In the agonist underworld of Felling Heaven, Felling World, yunsu mechanically formed the structure of a subjectivist reality, the structure of what shaped the course of fate itself. Natural yunsu—a stand-in for so-called natural law—determined what behaviors would be considered by society (played by the GM) as “crimes.” Refined yunsu served as the raw material for creating the principle of realizing liberation; locked yunsu mimicked oppression, imposing limits on the creation of that principle.

四大解性遊原型自然跟反抗鎖運素制度的精運素有關。每一個原型組織都有虛構代表的可否定故事背景，體現在故事中的反鎖運動會看起來像是怎樣：在監牢中學會運血苦逃獄的聖派、用金決發明新逃脫帝國兵的技術的丑會、運電責向污染他們家鄉的公司實現報仇的賊幫、用空消創造自治區的惡門判軍。

Naturally the four agonist archetypes were associated with the refined yunsu that opposed the order of the locked yunsu. Each archetype-association had negatable lore for a fictional representative, embodying what resistance against locked order might look like in the story: the saint-sect that learned to direct blood-pain to break free from prison, the fool-society that used metal-resolve to invent new technology to evade imperial troops, the fiend-gang that directed shock-blame to realize revenge against companies polluting their homes, the scourge-school rebel army that created autonomous zones with void-ending.

具有諷刺意味的是，這些典型組織的實踐完全沒互斥，讓人懷疑原型與他們組織的「決鬥」到底有沒有必要。他們真正是為了解決誰失敗阻止壓迫而爭吵，還是只是在小題大做？他們決鬥到底有沒有跟詛咒的消除有關，還是只是在吵誰最有本事來幹？在尋找革命「最正確」的路線之中，他們是不是又忘了革命，回到了自己的個人問題？四大原型在《降天下世》之內問題化了革命性政治中避免不了的主觀。或許「大革命」只是一場革命者困在成為聖-丑-賊-惡的惡性循環之中的鬧劇—而此循環的解脫並被他們誤會和真心認為是真正的革命。

Ironically, the praxes of these example associations were not mutually exclusive at all, bringing into question whether the “decisive struggles” of the archetypes and their associations were even necessary to begin with. Were they really fighting over who failed to stop oppression, or just making mountains out of molehills? Did their decisive struggles have anything to do with eliminating the curse, or were they just fighting over who had the most potential to do it? In the search for the “most correct” path to revolution, did they forget revolution again, and return to their own personal problems? The four archetypes in Felling Heaven, Felling World were a problematization of unavoidable subjectivity in revolutionary politics. Perhaps “The Revolution” was just a farce about the revolutionary being trapped in a vicious cycle of becoming saint-fool-fiend-scourge—the escape from which they mistook and took seriously for real revolution.

《受死令》Soulslinger

鑑於《降天下世》的世界設定背景把失敗擺脫壓迫的責任放在「被詛咒的」革命者身上，《受死令》完全指責壓迫性的行星系統秩序。江屍詛咒的對應是主宰系統的協吞教的吞光鐵神，超自然地吞食了系統中百分之九十九的人民。

Whereas the setting lore of Felling Heaven, Felling World placed the blame for failing to escape oppression on the “cursed” revolutionaries, Soulslinger squarely placed the blame on the oppressive order of the planetary system. The equivalent to the Corpse River curse is the system-ruling Cult of Twun's Sparkeater god, who supernaturally devoured 99% of the system's population.

死令，也就是歷史大災事件的背景，顯示出更多關於協吞教的附帶提示：在生榮的倖存者有權利不「自願犧牲」，以被非生物化的判教者身份繼續活下去，跟住在其他星球沒有那選擇的人完全不一樣。雖然沒有公佈的事件時間軸，把血星大戰、送息旱災和刮膽牢籠當作是吞光鐵降臨製造的大犧牲之前發生的事比相反的詮釋更加合理。大戰把生榮的聖榮帝國指責於血星的自動殖民地的敵人；在這大戰之中，一種似核武技術製造的落塵導致了第三方送息星球的旱災，而那裡「視死不歸」的人民用超自然的方式把自己變成殭屍。生榮又在牢籠中有當殖民性壓迫者的牽連；刮膽的人民對它的侵占抗議，但被抓捕並強迫變成超自然的獸人，暗示他們的抓捕者會使用超自然的方式處罰對他們殖民秩序的反抗者。再見生榮核冬的背景，看到起因是吞光鐵的落塵，可以有理地斷定聖榮帝國就是協吞教擁有類似核武跟魔法的國家。同時可以斷定反抗的團體也有使用類似核武跟魔法的能力。

Lore behind the Death Marks, historically catastrophic events, reveals more peripheral clues about the Cult: survivors on Vim'run had the right to have “refused The Sacrifice” and live on as abioticized apostates, which makes them exceptionally different from the people on other planets who did not get that choice. Although there's no official timeline of events, it makes more sense to assume that The Great War of Shahsin', The Drought of Ehm'rah, and The Caging of Gwahdyu' happened before The Sacrifice caused by The Sparkeater's descent rather than the other way around. The Great War names The Holy Empire of Vim'run as an enemy of The Machine Colonies of Shahsin'; in this Great War, the fallout from a nuclear-weapons-like technology caused a Drought on the third-party planet of Ehm'rah, whose people “refused to die” by supernaturally becoming reanimated corpses. Vim'run is again implicated as a colonial oppressor in The Caging; the people of Gwahdyu' protested its occupation, but are captured and forcibly transformed into supernatural werebeasts, suggesting that their capturers could use supernatural methods to punish those who rebelled against their colonial order. If you go look at the lore for The Twilight of Vim'run, which was caused by fallout from The Sparkeater, you can reasonably conclude that The Holy Empire of Vim'run was the nation-state of the Cult of Twun, with access to something like to nuclear weapons and magic. You can also reasonably conclude the resistance forces also had access to nuclear-like power and magic.

考慮到這些背景，吞光鐵中的幽靈起義是完全符合虛構現實的規則的事件。大犧牲可以說是跟我們平凡世界中的大屠殺一樣，而鬼用被搶佔的神腹建立的零空實例跟在我們現實中被創造的自治區沒什麼兩樣，只是加上了科幻的背景敘述。

With this background in mind, the ghost insurrection in The Sparkeater was an incident completely in accordance with the rules of fictional reality. The Sacrifice was just like what a genocide would be in our world, and the nullspace established by the ghost's seizure of the god's stomach was just the same as autonomous zones created in our reality, just with a flavor text of science fantasy.

在《受死令》之中，四大原型可以說是成為時空游擊者（穿越時空把解性的衝動附身傳染給凡人的鬼）的症狀。每個受死令在當時空游擊者的原因就是心火，「逃不離的痛苦，強迫［他們］四處冤纏平行時空。」所以受死令反抗的原因是強迫思維；對革命的投入是他們的病態。

In Soulslinger, you could say that the four archetypes were symptoms of becoming a chronoguerilla fighter (a ghost that crosses through spacetime possessing mortals and infecting them with agonist impulses). The reason why every soulslinger was a chronoguerilla fighter was because of their spark, “an inescapable pain that compel[led them] to haunt parallel timespace in all directions.” So the soulslinger revolted out of compulsion; the commitment to revolution was pathological for them.

我必須在這裡暫停一下，回到文章開頭的尼采引文。對大部分的人來說，面對生命威脅的時候想繼續活下去不是什麼心理問題。我是被虐待者養大的。我是被當作是他們追求完美的寄託者，被教導該活得彷彿一切都只會是我的錯。如果有人要威脅我的生命，我無法直接靠「生理需求」或像是「大家都有存在的資格」的老生常談來接受我對生命的權利。我之前說過了—有時候你就是敵人。以前我弟弟常會問我：法西斯主義到底有什麼問題？他對道德的解釋不滿；他要的是實際的回答。如果你認為別人就是低等的，為什麼不能那樣地對待他們？為什們別人認為這樣是在侵犯他們自由的權利？為什麼他們不願意給你壓迫的自由？

Here is where I have to pause and return to the Nietzsche quote at the start of the essay. For most people, it is not a psychological problem if your life is being threatened and you want to live. I was raised by abusers. I was treated as nothing but a vessel for their pursuit of perfection, taught to live as if everything could only ever be my fault. If someone wants to threaten my life, I'm unable to just rely on “biological necessity” or platitudes like “everybody deserves to live” to accept my claim to life. I already said it before—sometimes you are the enemy. My brother used to constantly ask me: what's wrong with fascism? He found moral explanations unsatisfying; he wanted a practical answer. Why shouldn't you treat others as inferior if that's how you thought of them? Why did others say that this was an infringement of their freedom? Why wouldn't they grant you the freedom to oppress?

因為壓迫的自由跟免於壓迫的自由在本質上就是不一樣、因為在按照等級制度組織的社會之中，製造壓迫是在剝奪別人的權力，而反對壓迫是權力被剝奪的人在奪回自己的權力。如果讓壓迫者有自由執行壓迫的話，剩下的人就不會有自由。

Because the freedom to oppress and freedom from oppression were qualitatively different, because in a society organized according to hierarchy, to create oppression was to dispossess power from others, and to oppose oppression was the dispossessed seizing it back. If we let oppressors have the freedom to carry out oppression, there would be no freedom left for everybody else.

可是這還是沒回答我秘密法西斯主義者弟弟的問題。為什麼不該剝奪別人的權力？為什們人不會乖乖接受他們的剝奪？（秘密）法西斯主義者（或是虐待者）就是不懂為什麼別人不願愈接受隨選真正或比喻地去死的命令。一個（秘密）法西斯主義者-虐待者不重視生命，就算是自己的生命也是。他們重視的是對生命的控制；一個無法被他們控制的生命就是沒資格存在的生命。

But this still wasn't an answer to my cryptofascist brother's question. Why shouldn't you dispossess power from others? Why couldn't people just accept their own dispossession? A (crypto)fascist (or an abuser) just doesn't understand why people aren't willing to accept the imperative to literally or metaphorically die on demand. A (crypto)fascist-abuser does not value life, not even their own. What they value is power over life; a life uncontrollable by them was a life with no right to exist.

如何證明他們是錯？小的時候，我意識到自己有繼續責怪自己，不把我的經驗問題化成虐待的自由。我不懂為什麼自己一直對這樣的自由有內心一直情感操縱不掉的反對。我的認識力能讓我為虐待者一切對我做的事找出合理的解釋。為什麼我就是不能一直做下去？而且如果做不下去的話，我是不是沒有資格繼續活下去？

How could you prove them wrong? When I was little, I was conscious that I had the freedom to just keep blaming myself and not problematize my experiences as abuse. I didn't understand why I kept having internal resistance against this freedom that couldn't be gaslit out. I had the cognitive ability to rationalize everything my abusers did to me. So why couldn't I just keep doing it? And if I couldn't keep doing it, did that mean I had no right to exist?

某一天，我決定該活。我決定接受當他們敵人的責任。不是因為我找到了為什麼我該活的足夠證據，而是因為我證據找不到。我唯一找到的就是權力。我有權力秘密地存錢、去租房間、收拾行李、上車離開。我有權力跟我的室友跟房東交代不准讓我的虐待者進來。我有權力帶刀去看前門。

At some point, I decided to live. I decided to accept the responsibility of being their enemy. Not because I found sufficient proof that I should live, but because I couldn't find proof at all. The only thing I found was power. I had the power to secretly save up, rent a room, pack my bags, get on a car and leave. I had the power to tell my roommates and landlord not to let my abusers in. I had the power to bring a knife to answer the door.

權力就是自由。但自由不是自治。對我來說，自治—也就是對自己生活有的權力—可不是關於個人的問題。反而它是關於集體的問題。我是把每個人都當作一個現實實例；只要一個人的現實之中有任何再生產壓迫的痕跡，宇宙就是不潔淨的。對我來說，光從物質跟社會狀況除掉壓迫的痕跡是不夠的事。我必須要從大家的內心除掉。對我來說，直到永遠不會有人想利用權力控制或強制別人，解放—也就是不以犧牲別人的自治來維護其他人自治的狀態—並沒有完成實現。我要的是完全能確定壓迫的結束。

Power was freedom. But freedom wasn't autonomy. To me, autonomy—that is, power over your own life—was not an individualist problem. It was instead a collectivist one. I considered each person as an instance of reality; as long as any individual's reality had any traces of reproducing oppression, the universe was unclean. To me, it was not enough to wipe out the traces of oppression from material and social conditions. I had to wipe it out in everyone's souls. To me, until no one would ever have the desire to use power to control or coerce another person, liberation—that is, the state where no one's autonomy came at the expense of another's—would not be completely realized. I wanted the end of oppression to be an absolute certainty.

所以要宣布自己是「革命」者的話，要保證全宇宙的人我就是真的—就是完全能確定—結束壓迫的俠，我得給大家完全兌現。如果按照我的實踐不能完全確定地導致每一個人的解放，不准說我在革命。這就是我對自己的標準—最低限度的標準。

So if I wanted to call myself a “revolutionary,” if I wanted to promise all people in the world that I was a 俠 who would bring a true—an absolutely certain—end to oppression, I had to deliver perfectly. If my praxis was not absolutely certain to lead to liberation for every single person, I could not say I was making revolution. These are the standards I hold myself by—the bare minimum standard.

「每個受死令在當時空游擊者的原因就是心火，『逃不離的痛苦，強迫［他們］四處冤纏平行時空。』」應作：我追求革命的原因就是創傷，強迫我完美主義地要求世界的解放。「你的心火是 ___ 。它迫使你定勢如做最終判斷的惡、反制批評者的賊、沒判斷能力的丑、無法被批評的聖」。應作：我有強迫行為必須去改別人、必須認為大家的意見都是錯的、必須認為自己無法判斷對和錯或必須只能有別人覺得是正確的意見。我知道這是我自己的問題。有時候我不想讓它變成別人的問題，有時候我想管他們去死。

“The reason why every soulslinger was a chronoguerilla fighter was because of their spark, 'an inescapable pain that compel[led them] to haunt parallel timespace in all directions.'” Read: the reason I pursue revolution is because of trauma that compels me to perfectionistically demand the world's liberation. “Your SPARK is ___. It forces you to SCHEME like A SCOURGE who ends judgement, A FIEND who cheats judgment, A FOOL with no judgment, A SAINT beyond judgment.” Read: I feel compelled to correct people all the time, compelled to dismiss everyone else's opinions as wrong, compelled to deny that I have the ability to determine right and wrong, or compelled to only have opinions that are correct to everyone else. I know it's my problem. Sometimes I don't want it to become anyone else's, and other times I do.

在遊戲之中，玩家從一組撲克牌卡抽牌創造冤纏時空的一趟行程。每一張卡都代表一段行憶，重複《降天下世》以運動為主的設計。牌按照花色分成四種跟四個星球有聯繫的行：血星的血、送息的息、刮膽的膽跟生榮的榮。每一個「行色」再被分十三張行憶卡的線性故事組成。不管它的行，每一個花色的故事都有下列的基本結構，在遊戲系統的參考文檔中被詳細描述：

During the game, players draw from a deck of cards to create a journey of haunting spacetime. Every card represented a moving memory, echoing the movement-centered design of Felling Heaven, Felling World. The cards were divided by suit into four hsing: the blood of Shahsin', the breath of Ehm'rah, the guts of Gwahdyu', and the glory of Vim'run. Every “hsing suit” was then composed of a linear story divided into thirteen moving memory cards. Regardless of hsing, each suit's story had the following basic structure, detailed in the game system's SRD:

1. 大起 GREAT START: 代表故事開始 represents a story starting
2. 小合 SMALL STOP: 代表故事結束 represents a story ending
3. 小起 SMALL START: 代表故事開始 represents a story starting
4. 小轉 SMALL TURN: 代表故事改變 represents a plot twist
5. 小承 SMALL TRIAL: 代表故事衝突 represents a problem appearing
6. 中合 CORE STOP: 代表故事結束 represents a story ending
7. 中起 CORE START: 代表故事開始 represents a story starting
8. 中承 CORE TRIAL: 代表故事衝突 represents a problem appearing
9. 中轉 CORE TURN: 代表故事改變 represents a plot twist
10. 死令 DEATH MARK: 代表（行的星球上的）社會崩潰 represents a social breakdown (on the hsing's planet)
11. (騎士 J) 大承 GREAT TRIAL: 代表故事衝突 represents a problem appearing
12. (皇后 Q) 大轉 GREAT TURN: 代表故事改變 represents a plot twist
13. (國王 K) 大合 GREAT STOP: 代表故事結束 represents a story ending

受死令使用四行的「動力」來接受或拒絕行憶，指揮時間軸的發展。遊戲在機構上有限制玩家能改變虛構現實的程度。低的行點阻止角色對行憶的拒絕，而只能抽的牌阻止理想時間軸的簡單創造，強迫你去整理非線性的時間跟未予限制的空間的無秩序。另外，抽到的鬼牌會按照你的原型-定勢或心火懲罰你，破壞一行的動力。在表面上，這些限制強迫玩家接受「實際上的」現實—可是因為這是遊戲，其實沒有實際上的現實—只有被我用人工設計出來的現實。

The soulslinger used the “motive powers” of the four hsing to direct the course of the timeline by accepting or rejecting moving memories. The game mechanically limited how much the player could change the fictional reality. Low hsing points prevented their character's rejection of moving memories, and the cards from the deck that could only be drawn prevented an easy creation of an ideal timeline, forcing you to sort through the disorder of nonlinear time and unconfined space. In addition, drawn ghost cards (jokers) punished you by damaging the motive power of one hsing according to your archetype-scheme or spark. On the surface, these limits forced the player to accept reality “as it was”—but because this was a game, there was no actual reality as it was—only reality as it had been artificially constructed by me.

這也就是《受死令》與我的中心問題：認識論唯我論。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。

This is also the central problem of Soulslinger and myself: epistemological solipsism. 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.

我在〈追不到的天際〉分析《受死令》中也有提到—最後受死令和其他的時空游擊者無法完全確定自己改造的時間軸到底有沒有真的改變現實。「雖然你的玩家角色能利用自己痛苦而來的力量來『拒絕』記憶，所謂的拒絕本質不明確—你是在壓制自己的負面記憶還是在真的在把歷史改變？改變的是原來的歷史還是只是在創造架空時間線？該如何解釋在多次遊玩之中重複碰到之前已經順利除掉的記憶？」你是在革命還是只是在情感操縱自己和別人接受你的「進步」？

I also mentioned this in “The Horizon I Couldn't Reach”—in the end the soulslingers and other chronoguerillas have no absolute certainty on whether the timelines they've transformed also actually transformed reality. “Even though your character can use the power of their own suffering to 'reject' memories, the nature of this rejection is unclear—are you repressing your own negative memories or really changing history? Are you changing the original history or just creating an alternate timeline? How do you explain repeatedly encountering memories in multiple playthroughs that you had previously and successfully gotten rid of?” Are you making revolution or just gaslighting yourself and other people into accepting your “progress?”

《受死令》是種承認—承認我到此為止關於正義寫的內容完全都只是個鬧劇，只是個被創傷產生出來的定勢。四大解性遊原型是我自我意像失調的反映，而且除了完全的瘋狂，什麼事情都無法保證兌現。

Soulslinger was a confession—a confession that everything I had ever written about justice was just a farce, just a traumatized scheme. The four agonist archetypes were a reflection of my dysfunctional self-image, and I could promise to deliver nothing except complete madness.

〈血光俠〉 “Blood Lanterns”

同人小說的〈血光俠〉跟《降天下世》的前提很像，描寫一個假的（沒有真正完成革命的）後革命世界。「先鋒主義者的幻想」這副標題也闡明了另外一個能批評認為有所謂的「正確」革命路線的角度。開頭的筆記（加上我自己的強調）說：

The fanfic of “Blood Lanterns” has a similar premise to Felling Heaven, Felling World, describing a false postrevolutionary world (that never completed revolution). The subtitle of “A Vanguardist's Fantasy” also elucidates another angle of criticism towards the assumption that there is a so-called “correct” path to revolution. The notes at the beginning (emphasis own) say:

問題不只是我把所謂的「順利革命」想像成大量武裝的群眾去跟剝削者打大戰打贏、把所謂「革命之後」的問題歸結為「誰才是真正的同志？」的回答、把「同志」想像為「真正理解因此有專有權守護解放原則的人」。問題也是我把革命想像成一種能完全能被繪製出來的計畫，把革命的失敗原因歸結為個人沒預料到的後果，再想說答案是在同志彼此鬥爭中找出管理基本是不確定性現實的「正確」方法。這種鬥爭不是為了革命的鬥爭，而是為了控制革命的鬥爭，為了創造、擴大和保護自己在革命運動中掌權地位的鬥爭。

The problem is not just that I imagined a so-called “successful revolution” as armed masses in great numbers going to war against their exploiters and winning, that I reduced the problems in the so-called “post-revolution” to the issue of “who's the true comrade?”, that I imagined “comrade” as “some who truly understands and therefore has the exclusive right to defend the principles of liberation.” The problem is also that I imagined revolution as a plan that could be perfectly plotted out, that I reduced the reason for any failed revolution to consequences that individuals failed to predict, and then surmised that the answer was to find the “correct” method for managing a fundamentally uncertain reality by struggling against your own comrades. This kind of struggle is not the struggle for revolution, but the struggle for controlling revolution, for creating, expanding, and protecting your position of power within the revolutionary movement.

在這個故事之中，原本是被困在宰制多重宇宙遊戲的非玩家角色的妖怪起義推翻上帝般的玩家，在先鋒血光俠的領導之下建立了自治的公社。後來的期數顯露其實「不是每個人都跑去當俠」、還有法西斯主義者躲在跟血光俠解除同盟的村子之中、俠有支持過監禁質、俠會故意製造創傷恐嚇未成年的見習生引發覺悟、他們沒有道德，尊敬的只有權力。

In this story, NPC goblins who were originally trapped in a game of multiversal domination rose up and overthrew their player, establishing autonomous communes under the leadership of the vanguard Blood Lanterns. Later issues revealed that actually, “[n]ot everyone wanted to be a Lantern,” there were still fascists hiding out in villages that were defederated from The Blood Lanterns, The Lanterns were carceral, The Lanterns would purposely traumatize minor-aged apprentices to trigger enlightenment, they had no morals and only respected power.

原型並不在故事中有主要的角色；反而他們是出現在期數的標題之中，暗示該如何理解那些期數。期數一，〈聖之論〉，敘述「一位革命家在公開呼籲處死㐌前法西斯主義者哥哥的惡果之下重新審議革命的意識。」所謂的革命者，疤茲英名，就是標題中的聖。㐌故意帶人齡十歲左右的見習生，卡拉，到她的第一個共識會議，也就是該不該處死㐌哥哥的會議，為了強迫她「學會當血光俠是多麼殘忍的任務。」

The archetypes don't play central roles in the story; instead they appear in the titles of issues, indicating how those issues should be interpreted. Issue 1, “The Discourse of the Saint,” narrates the tale of “[a] revolutionary reconsider[ing] what it means to have revolutionary consciousness under the fallout of publicly calling for their ex-fascist brother's execution.” The revolutionary in the description, Bazsim, is the titular Saint of the story. They purposely bring their apprentice Kara, who is roughly 10 in human years, to her first consensus meeting, which is a meeting on whether or not to execute their brother, to force her to “learn how cruel it is to be a Blood Lantern.”

這情節點的靈感來源於《V怪客》；此故事中 V 按照自己被法西斯政府逮捕的經驗設計了一個假的監牢來綁架和拷打艾薇，希望她通過同一樣的經驗再發現監牢是完全被設計出來的之後會明白成功反抗權威的必要和可能性。這種實踐是解性設計的基礎—我在 《NS 3416》的舊版中有說過：「遊戲就像監獄一樣。它試圖通過設計來規訓你。因此遊玩就是遊戲的逃逸線，而玩家是那道的追蹤者。」

This plot point was inspired by V for Vendetta, in which V uses his own experiences of being captured by the fascist government to design a false prison where he kidnaps and tortures Evey, hoping that once she has gone through the same experience and subsequently realized the prison is fake, she will understand both the necessity and possibility of successfully resisting authoritarianism. This kind of praxis was the bedrock of agonist design—in the old version of NS 3416, I had written: “A game is like a prison. It tries to discipline you by design. Thus play is a line of flight from the game, and the player the pursuer of that path.”

V 創造假監牢目的是什麼？是要讓艾薇了解世界一切的壓迫也都是人工設計所創造出來的，而不是必然發生的事態。要讓她了解自由不是什麼當權者給她的權利，而是自己拒絕放棄給當權者的權力。可是要拒絕壓迫的話也需要個譴責跟再生產壓迫有同謀關係的人的實踐。而那就是〈聖之論〉的中心問題。如何完全確定地運用譴責對方是革命的敵人的權力？如何保證革命只有完全是「正確」的敵人？

What was V trying to accomplish by creating the false prison? To get Evey to understand that all the oppression in the world was also created through artificial design, and not inevitability. To get her to understand freedom was not some right some authority gave to her, but the power she refused to give up to authority. But to refuse oppression also requires a praxis of condemning those who are complicit in reproducing it. And that is the central question in “The Discourse of The Saint.” How do you wield your power to condemn others as the enemies of revolution with absolute certainty? How do you ensure that the revolution only has enemies that are absolutely “correct?”

我們來看看故事中的典型敵人是誰。禍義而‧恩爪戈—因為在等級制度的血色譜中是最低該處死的突變顏色，成為惡狠的低血獵人，為血脈至上主義的藍血貴族親手執行大屠殺。禍義而原本沒有「突變」的血色；被 troll 艾特尼亞帝國的征服者用病毒強迫變成 troll 之前，妖怪有不同的血色但並沒有按照血色創造有等級制度的物質跟社會關係。相反，他們建立的是互助的關係。在艾特尼亞帝國把 troll 的血色譜帶過來之前，妖怪社會中沒有「突變血色」的種姓這回事。

Let's take a look at who the example enemy is in the story. Waryor Endrag—someone who, because of being the lowest mutant color condemned to death under the hierarchical hemospectrum, became a vicious lowblood hunter, personally carrying out genocide for the blood supremacist Bluebloods. Waryor didn't originally have a “mutant” blood color; before being forcibly transformed into trolls by a virus inflicted by The Conqueror from the troll Alternian Empire, goblins had different blood colors but didn't form hierarchical material and social relations based on them. Rather, they established a relationship of mutual aid. Prior to the introduction of the troll hemospectrum by the Alternian Empire, goblin society had no such thing as a “mutant blood color” caste.

禍義而被殖民和至上主義的「新血秩序」被確認為「突變顏色」的擁有者；他沒有必要接受這身份，沒有必要為了自己生存而變成屠殺別人的法西斯主義者。他一開始就有拒絕血脈至上主義的預示、他知道有其他生存的方式、積極反血脈至上主義的運動也在—但他仍然選擇認為是自己的血「拒絕換色」、仍然選擇壓迫，直到被血光俠逮捕強迫當他們「有用的屍體」。

Waryor was interpellated by the colonial and supremacist “new blood order” as one with “mutant color;” there was no imperative for him to accept this identity, no imperative for him to become a genocidal fascist for the sake of his own survival. He was prefigured to reject blood supremacy from the start, he knew there were other ways to live, there was an active anti-blood-supremacist movement—and yet he still chose to believe that it was his blood that “refused to change,” still chose to oppress, until he was captured by The Blood Lanterns and forced to serve as their “useful corpse.”

也責，其中一個被他殺死的人的母親，認為俠不該處死禍義而，反而用流放「讓他在無可挽回的情況之下活下去」，為了「以示我們對任何曾經選擇跟帝國站在同一邊的人什麼人情都不用欠。」相反，疤茲英名說：「 我想相信潛力。想相信每個選擇都是一瞬間，不算一條命。就算是那個人有重複選擇做出不可原諒的事。我想相信應該對每個人的改變潛力都欠一份信心。[...] 生命是每人都擁有的資格。我最關心的不是今天的最終判決，而是我們為了得到正義必要做出來的事。現在我做出自己的判斷。我要他去死。」

Ezelb, the mother of someone he killed, believes that The Lanterns shouldn't execute Waryor, but employ exile to “let him live with no redemption,” “[a]s an example that we owe nothing to anyone who ever made the choice to side with empire.” On the contrary, Baszim says: “I want to believe in potential. I want to believe every choice is a moment in life, and not a destiny. Even if the person has repeatedly made inexcusable choices. I want to believe we owe everyone faith in their potential to change. [...] Everyone deserves to live. What I am most concerned with is not today's final verdict, but what we must do for the sake of justice. I now cast my judgment. I want him to die.”

之前，我為正義做的定義是真的完成的革命和真的結束的壓迫。可是如果沒讀這文章的前一部分，只聽到疤茲英名的演講會得到同一樣的結論嗎？這就是疤茲英名給卡拉的方便測驗。可以從殺自己哥哥要導出正義嗎？可以在此中的暴力看到革命的存在嗎？

Previously, I defined justice as the true completion of revolution and true end of oppression. But if you hadn't read everything that came before in this essay, would you have come to the same conclusion from just hearing Bazsim's speech? This is the upayan test that Bazsim gives Kara. Can you derive justice from killing your brother? Can you see the revolution in that violence?

也責譴責疤茲英名的情緒恐怖主義也是一種壓迫，爭論沒有必要因為自己的經驗強迫別人從創傷導出對革命的致力。疤茲英名決定向卡拉道歉。卡拉一開始罵㐌是騙子，指責㐌不真的關心哥哥、不真的相信大家都有改變潛力、沒資格談正義。疤茲英名承認㐌其實是自己在決定什麼時候該放棄等待別人的改變，所以㐌的正義無法完美。雖然無法有完美的答案，也是不能避免決定和後果。只能按照希望來辦。

Ezelb condemns Bazsim's emotional terrorism as oppressive, arguing that there is no need to force others to derive commitment to revolution from trauma just because that's how it happened for them. Bazsim decides to apologize to Kara. Kara initially yells at Bazsim for being a fraud, not truly caring about their brother, not truly believing in everyone's potential to change, unqualified to speak on justice. Bazsim admits that the truth is that they actually decide when it is time to stop waiting for someone to change, and so their justice can't be perfect. But despite the inability to have perfect answers, it's impossible to avoid choice and consequence. You can only hope for the result to look like justice.

因此，《血光俠》的聖也就是願意為完美的追求而犧牲完美的權利革命者。Ta 跟陽邊相對的丑合成一體，融入丑的無知。與其知識，他們有的是信念—相信就算是得不到最真的正義，正義的追求還是有用。

Thus, the saint of Blood Lanterns is the revolutionary who is willing to sacrifice the claim to perfection for the sake of perfection's pursuit. They have become one with their yang counterpart of the fool, integrating the fool's lack of knowledge. Instead of knowledge, what they have is faith—faith in the value of pursuing justice even when the truest justice is impossible to attain.

另外跟原型有關的期數是期數四， 〈惡之論〉。它描寫兩個跟禍義而相遇的兄弟最後發生什麼樣的結局。故事中的惡不是禍義而，而是被禍義而殺死的銹血，也責的兒子，死後成為血光祖燀的人物。他被派去當靠，其中一個兄弟的師父。但討論他們之前，我們必須了解另外一個兄弟，諾，和期數一的聖，疤茲英名之間對暴力在革命中的角色的辯論。他們的辯論闡明惡的原型到底不是什麼。

The other issue connected to the archetypes is Issue 4, “The Discourse of the Scourge.” It's about the ultimate fate of two brothers who cross paths with Waryor. The scourge of the story is not Waryor but the rustblood he murdered, Ezelb's son, who became a Blood Ancestern after death. He is dispatched to mentor Kal, one of the two brothers. But before discussing them, we must understand the discourse on the role of violence in revolution between the other brother, Nok, and the saint from Issue 1, Bazsim. Their discourse illuminates what the archetype of the scourge is not.

禍義而為了報仇殺死靠跟諾的父親。因為他們村子跟禍義而聯盟處死父親，靠跟諾逃出去，但不同意該往哪裡逃。靠決定到卡拉的血光俠公社避難，諾決定自己去流浪。在流浪之中，諾趁機伏擊禍義而，同樣為了報仇把他殺死。殺完後，諾繼續走，因為找不到食物和避難所在地上昏倒，被血光俠弄跟疤茲英名拯救。

Waryor kills Kal and Nok's father for revenge. Because their village allied with Waryor to kill their father, Kal and Nok escape, but disagree on where to go. Kal decides to seek shelter with Kara's Blood Lantern commune, while Nok decides to wander off alone. While wandering, Nok takes an opportunity to ambush Waryor, killing him for revenge as well. Nok continues wandering and eventually collapses after not finding food and shelter, and is rescued by the Blood Lanterns Non and Bazsim.

當諾承認他殺死了疤茲英名的哥哥之後，疤茲英名第一個反應就是道歉，說：「他今天能給你造成問題，有一部分是因為我們把他處理得不好。解除你的痛苦是我們該負的責任。」諾感到極端的困感和訝異—他認為問題只不過是禍義而；殺了禍義而就是「解決了」問題，沒有什麼剩下該負責的事。但疤茲英名強調：「就是因為禍義而一部分的原因，我們才會發現你毫無拯救地在森林中一個人昏倒。推而廣之，也就是因為我們一部分的原因，現在的你才會是個流亡者。在最低限度，我們必須要幫助你得到生存需求需要的東西。」

When Nok confesses to killing Bazsim's brother, Bazsim's first reaction is to apologize, saying: “That he could cause problems for you today, was in part because we failed to properly handle him. Your suffering is something we must hold ourselves accountable for removing.” Nok is surprised and confused—he thinks the problem was just Waryor; just killing him “solved” it, and there was nothing left to be accountable for. But Bazsim emphasizes: “Waryor was part of the reason why we found you collapsed in the forest alone with no signs of rescue. And by extension, we're part of the reason why you're an EXILE now. As the bare minimum, we're obligated to help you get what you need for survival.”

在《降天下世》之中，四大原型是彼此在輪迴中的化身。一個解性者必須有能力扮演全四個角色，了解每四個角色對革命的用處，而不是見木不見林。惡不是認為革命只是除掉所有敵人的人。相反，惡深深理解處理敵人只是革命的一部分。

In Felling Heaven, Felling World, the four archetypes are reincarnations of each other. An agonist must have the ability to play all four roles and understand how each one is useful for revolution, instead of not seeing the forest for the trees. The scourge is not someone who just thinks revolution is killing all your enemies. Rather, the scourge deeply understands that dealing with your enemies is just one part of revolution.

祖燀跟靠的辯論關於敵視的解構。在一開始，祖燀要靠了解敵人權威主義實踐的特性。「要完整控制別人的話，該需要什麼？」靠回答：需要很多的威力。祖燀爭論，這威力的目標不是讓人家不敢抵抗，而是「讓他們的自我意識無法存在的威力。讓他們無法擁有不是被霸權者界定的自我意識，然後在違反界定的情況之下，無法避免自我意識的完整崩潰。」

The Ancestern and Kal's discourse is about deconstructing antagonism. At the beginning, The Ancestern wants Kal to reflect on the nature of the enemy's authoritarian praxis. “What do you think it takes to have complete control over someone?” Kal answers: lots of force. The Ancestern argues that the goal of this force is not to make someone feel too scared to fight back, but to “mak[e] it impossible for their sense of self to exist. That makes it impossible for them to possess any sense of self beyond the dominator's limits, and when they try to transgress those limits, makes it impossible for them to stop their sense of self from completely falling apart.”

在這一時刻，祖燀用血光的法力把自己裝扮成禍義而，說如果靠真的想當俠的話，他「必須先修改［他］的界定」，學習放棄過度的信任。說完後，他突然攻擊靠。就跟卡拉在會議中聽到疤茲英名要為了大家的生存處死自己的哥哥一樣，這種情緒恐怖主義實踐的教訓也對靠產生反效果。靠拒絕回擊或保護自己，抗議決鬥虛假的前提，說祖燀「不是［他］真正的敵人」。祖燀反駁真正的敵人不會給靠這種猶豫的機會，而且所謂的「同志」如果認為你的行為背叛了革命、解放、群眾、幹部、同志個人等等（這些也有可能都被他們混合成同一樣的東西），他們動不動就會以對待真正敵人的態度去處理你。

At this point, The Ancestern uses bloodlight magic to disguise himself as Waryor, telling Kal if he really wants to be a Lantern, he's “going to need to work on [his] limits” and learn to let go of excessive trust. After this, he suddenly attacks Kal. Just like with Kara hearing Bazsim justifying the execution of their brother for the sake of everyone else's survival, this praxis of discipline through emotional terrorism also backfires on Kal. He refuses to counterattack or defend himself, protesting against the false premise of the battle, saying that The Ancestern is “not [his] real enemy.” The Ancestern retorts that a real enemy wouldn't give Kal this kind of opportunity to hesitate, and that if so-called “comrades” believed that your conduct betrayed the revolution, liberation, the masses, the cadre, individual comrades themselves, etc. (and sometimes these would all be conflated as the same thing), they would deal with you like a real enemy at the drop of a hat.

祖燀說測驗的目的不是看靠的決鬥能力，而是「明白當同志的意義。」一個同志必須有能力處理壓迫性、反動份子和追逐私利的敵視，並且在過程之中不要讓自己的自我意識崩潰。同時，一個同志也必須在敵視對方的時候避免要求對方的自我意識為 ta 或 ta 事業崩潰。靠該有的反應是什麼？當然是好鬥地還擊，而不是窩囊地像自由主義者一樣請求和平談判。

The Ancestern says the goal of the test wasn't to see how well Kal could fight, but to “understand what it means to be a comrade.” A comrade must have the ability to deal with oppressive, reactionary, and self-serving antagonisms without letting their sense of self fall apart. At the same time, a comrade must be able to antagonize without demanding that other people's sense of self fall apart for them or their cause. What should Kal's reaction have been? To fight back militantly, instead of pathetically begging for peace talks like a liberal.

但靠不願意放棄需要大家同意什麼是對和錯的夢。他認為有真的是對和真的是錯的原因敵視對方，問題只不過是把真實搞懂。對他來說，這就是正義：真正「錯誤的改正」，按照自己有道德的標準來辦。

But Kal refuses to let go of his dream of everybody agreeing on what is right and wrong. He believes there are truly right and truly wrong reasons to antagonize someone, and the problem is only figuring out the truth. To him, this is justice: truly “righting wrongs” according to one's own moral standards.

但對祖燀來說，道德的標準其實是從壓迫者導出來自我規定的限制。要有大家該順從的道德規範，需要大家把自治力交給那規範的界定者，聽從那些界定者對使用自治力的「標準」方法的威權。因為這理想的道德規範是普遍的，這些界定者永遠不能錯。「永遠不能錯」的位置也就是權威主義者佔用的位置。

But to The Ancestern, moral standards are actually self-imposed limits derived from the oppressor. To have a moral code that everyone must follow requires people to give up their autonomy to the delimiters of that code, deferring to their authority on what the “proper” use of autonomy is. Because this ideal moral code is universal, these delimiters can never be wrong. And the position of “never being wrong” is exactly the position that authoritarians occupy.

靠問：那如果你認為別人是在無理地敵視你的話，是不是在跟壓迫者做同一樣的事？祖燀說必須接受這樣的可能性。不，靠說，必須要有一方的敵視在道德方面算正確的。不然為了什麼戰爭？

Kal asks: then if you're convinced that someone else has no good reason to antagonize you, are you acting like an oppressor? The Ancestern says you have to accept that possibility. No, says Kal, somebody's antagonism has to be morally correct. Otherwise what are you fighting for?

你可以為了從剝削者奪回權力而鬥爭，但不必把這個鬥爭變成道德優勢的證明。你可以認為世界不該有壓迫，但不需要證明自己的看法是對的。除了按照自己的看法行動，祖燀什麼都不保證。「正義，」他說，「跟對和錯，是我們管大家去死來決定的東西。」革命發展到哪時候才算完畢、壓迫消失哪個地步才算結束，一切都是我們決定。鬥爭的結果就是我們唯一對和錯的證明，而這對和錯不是按照什麼個人理想判斷的，而是按照被創造跟被計劃的結果的差別來辦。

You can struggle to seize back power from your exploiters without turning it into a struggle to prove your moral superiority. You can believe that the world should not have oppression without proving that your belief is correct. Besides moving according to his beliefs, The Ancestern promises nothing. “Justice,” he says, “like right and wrong, is whatever the hell we want it to be.” When the revolution has gone far enough to end and when oppression has vanished enough to be over is entirely our decision to make. The results of struggle are our only proof of correctness, which is not determined according to personal ideals, but to the discrepancy between the results that were created versus the results that were planned.

在這時候，靠不再考慮祖燀的話，說他是個認為強權就是真理不為人知的權威主義者，在向世界投射思維。對他來說，祖燀的想法是基雅維利主義的—你必須要有真理，不然你唯一有的是強權。但是惡就是認為不需要真理實現革命。如果人家認為你的革命完全不合理、認為你的革命只不過是恐怖分子邪教使用的賊般強權，那你就必須當他們的敵人。革命者的確是「註定是犧牲」的人—註定接受這種敵視。因此，依我之前說過的話：解性派是想結束英雄的人、結束當好人的實踐。

At this point in time, Kal has dismissed The Ancestern as a closeted authoritarian who is projecting his view of might makes right onto the world. To him, The Ancestern's views are Machiavellian—you must have right, otherwise you only have might. But the scourge is convinced you don't need right to realize revolution. If others believe you have no good reason for revolution, that your revolution is merely the thuggish might of a terrorist cult, then you must be their enemy. The revolutionary is indeed a doomed man—doomed to be regarded as an enemy like this. Hence, as I've said before: agonists are those who seek to end heroes, end the praxis of being good guys.

---

在文章的開頭，我說目的是探索自己對革命者的看法被景觀化的發展。最後，我不確定這樣的景觀化到底能不能避免。在《血光俠》的最後一段，我發覺虛構永遠只能是現實的景觀，因為作者完全控制虛構世界中的人物和現實狀況。因此虛構世界永遠不能代表現實，只能代表作者對現實的看法和希望。

At the start of this essay, I said the goal was to explore how my own perspective on revolutionaries became spectaclized. In the end, I'm uncertain whether the spectaclization is unavoidable. In the last section of “Blood Lanterns,” I realized fiction could only ever be a spectacle of reality, because the author completely controlled the characters and conditions of reality in the fictional world. Therefore the fictional world could never represent reality, only how the author perceived it and wanted it to be.

主觀的現實感知對我來說也是一樣。我的現實感知不是實際現實的代表，而是不能跟我對現實的希望分開。在童年中我感知到的虐待對我的虐待者來說只是正常的養育。我希望擺脫他們的控制；他們希望我繼續被他們控制。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，跟他們站在同一邊？為什麼我們從同樣的創傷導出相反的結論？因為他跟禍義而‧恩爪戈一樣存心做了要支持壓迫的選擇。而當他做了這選擇之後，一切的權力動態就消失，滅絕在自然秩序。他感受到的不是虐待，而是父母因為關心做的事。那就是他實際上的現實。我無法同意。

Subjective perception of reality to me is very much the same. My perception was not a representation of how reality was, but inseparable from how I wanted reality to be. The abuse I perceived in childhood was just normal parenting to my abusers. I wanted to be free from their control; they wanted me to remain under it. Why didn't I turn out like my cryptofascist brother who sided with them? Why did we derive the opposite conclusions from the same trauma? Because like Waryor Endrag he consciously made the choice to support oppression. And once he did, all power dynamics disappeared, vanishing into natural order. What he experienced wasn't abuse, but what our parents did out of care. That was reality as it was for him. I couldn't agree.

我無法同意。這消不掉的拒絕就是「自我」。一個粗糙的實體，我是從這個「自我」導出關於解放的一切。四大解性遊原型也就是我如何拒絕的模式。我不希望假裝這樣個人的拒絕是跟革命性的抵抗一樣。但我也無法假裝我對革命性抵抗的看法不是從個人拒絕開始的。但除了相信客觀現實的存在和認為自己的主觀是集體感知那現實能力的污染，誰會覺得這是問題？

I couldn't agree. This unvanishing refusal was “self.” A crude entity, this “self” was the source from which I derived everything to do with liberation. The four agonist archetypes are also how I refuse. I will not pretend that this personal refusal is the same as revolutionary resistance. But I also cannot pretend that my perspective on revolutionary resistance does not start from personal refusal. But besides people who believe in objective reality and also believe that their subjectivity has contaminated the collective's ability to perceive it, who would think that this is a problem?

反正我就是會。根據定義，完美完全不可能有問題—它是好到沒人會拒絕的東西。所以它的追求也是不可能有問題；問題是追求的方式。我不想放棄我的完美主義。讓我一切的政治思想向它的傾向發展。只是我自己註定的命。尼采說殺死上帝，隨心所欲。我對你說：忘了我存在之後，去攻擊。

In any case, I do. By definition, perfection is completely unproblematic—it's something that's so good, no one would refuse it. So by extension, pursuing it is also unproblematic; the problem is the method of pursuit. I have no intention of giving up my perfectionism. Let all my political thought develop in its direction. It's only my life to doom. Nietzsche said kill God and do what you will. I say to you, forget that I exist, and attack.

附言 Postscript

(2025-01-31 23:54:53)

「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.