Blackbird Braille: Winter (4)

A song of two humans. A loose and non-exhaustive list of comparable traits discovered in the self-differentiating dynamics of anarchism and what seems to be emerging as the neo-right:

1. Comparison only becomes tenable wherever claims for its self-evident impermissibility have been asserted.
2. For the purpose of this process, ostensible dissimilarities shall be disregarded where these have been mutually recorded by the parties that are to be compared.
3. Both anarchists and neo-rightists assign objective significance to the reciprocating list of horizontal incompatibilities between their projects. 
4. Both argue that what differentiates each from the other is significant and permissible.
5. Both argue that any disclosed similarities between them are insignificant and impermissible.
6. Both argue that only the factors which they think are significant are categorically significant.
7. Both argue that the factors which the think are insignificant are categorically insignificant. 
8. Both present an exceptionalist argument for their horizontal mutual self-differentiation into incompatible forms. Everyone has become an exceptionalist. Everyone desires to suspend the law in their own case. Everyone hallucinates a vigilante gambit. 
9. Both extrapolate their politics from their present position, vis-à-vis each other, and in relation to world process, as if this were an end point, as if each and everything now is is a completed project which carries only those values which are conventionally attributed to it.
10. Both operate out of a vendetta type mechanism of facing terrains, or rival lineages and traditions, that are organised towards a mutually recognised boundary or rift in the symbolic order.
11. Both display traits of a fort/da type repetition compulsion through which they seek to gain mastery over inherited traumas from the Great War by undertaking quasi-militaristic manoeuvres.  
12. Both allow immediately demonstrative militaristic or cultish adherence to the cadre as a means to bypass observance of stated principles and objectives.  
13. Both function practically along the lines that adherence to the group is the only permissable expression of engagement with principles. 
14. Both have no recognised internal corrective mechanism by which a positive feedback in punitive fantasies may be inhibited. 
15. Both are only prevented from reaching plague state by external constraints on their popularity and the courage of resistant individuals within the group. 
16. Both appear, as in an arms race dynamic, as self-incarnating divergences from their market competitors (the neo-rightists are categorically not 'conservatives' and the anarchists are certainly not 'the left'). 
17. Both habitually prioritise the always self-evident transgressions of the enemy over the problematics presented by in-group's dynamics (where anarchism was not the return, in more radical form, to politics but an engagement with what it took to be the internal constraints holding it back - where anarchism itself was the inoperable portal). World production is tending to produce all consciousness as formally anarchist - to the degree that human consciousness is increasingly irrelevant. 
18. Each approaches its own politics as the ritual rediscovery of itself to be the one true opponent of that in the world which should be opposed. 
19. Both are interpellated as political epiphenomena by world-creating processes which both incorrectly consider to be responsive to their ideological inputs.
20. Both are equidistantly remote from gaining control over social process and political power and yet behave as if gaining control were a real possibility.  
21. Both have irrationally interiorised the state's imperative towards its monopoly on violence as if each were also a state power; the justification for violence is always the appeal to the self-evidence of the enemy's non-membership of the community.
22. Both direct their appeal to a wider popular body on grounds of what is already established as self-evidently wrong with the opponent. 
23. Both will not countenance that their own movement may be determined by forces other than their stated principles. However, the opponent is nothing but a carrier of all the contaminations of the world. 
24. Both are politically responsive to, and most comfortable with, avatars, exemplars, icons and personifications of forces.
25. Both are hostile to the proposal that they should let things lie. 
26. Both are soldierly, and young. 
27. Both conceive the subject as self-productive of its autonomy in relation to its environment. The subject is both free and driven to act against what constrains and realises it. 
28. Both are righteously dependent for the unfurling of their banners upon an enemy placeholder. 
29. Both conceive a proposed active intervention within the established political realm as essential to a general social wellbeing beyond the cadre.
30. Both emphasise the role of militant adherents and prioritise paramilitary aesthetics. 
31. Both incorporate a patriarchal-juridical component in their formation, and organise towards the opponent as if it were also categorically dehumanised and thus criminal. The opponent is never merely a rival, obstacle or burden.
32. Both insist that the failure to act in conformity with the prescribed agenda, or failure to agree to the measures taken, is tantamount to capitulation before the enemy's hold over the symbolic order.
33. Both consider all questioning of the measures taken as a functional apology for the enemy. 
34. Both are triggered into a pattern of reductive responses by the imperative discovery that it is almost, but not yet, too late to make a difference. 
35. Both are organised as a funnel trap for reactive motifs of mobilisation and convergence around events generating the existing order. 
36. Both theorise liberation as submission beneath the burden of voluntary struggle and adhere to the fetish of social transformation by subjective agency.
37. Both are constituted as sequelae of conventional enlightenment anti-clericalism emerging from the contradiction between self-evident superstructural degradation and the escape of occult material process.
38. Both manifest within the world: as if they are the product of their own principles; as if the source of their own image repertoire; as if the possessors of their own interventions; as if their activities are commensurable with their objectives.
39. Both appear as newly forming oppositions to any presently existing opposition to inhuman process. The continuum of oppositions is produced by a logic of extension, each successive iteration the incorporation of a further category of offence.
40. Both assume that what they designate as liberation depends upon suppression of enemy traits - where suppression itself is located as an enemy trait, a theological or legislative gall is formed. 
41. Both portray themselves as the defender of values counter to the dominant values. 
42. Both are motivated to say the unsayable and express that vital content which they perceive to have been forbidden, neglected or otherwise repressed.
43. Both rely strategically upon the successful innovation of concepts by their milieu which are derived from an explicit assumption of the milieu's materialising a truth which otherwise could not appear.
44. Both present universalist appeals to what they identify as an uninvolved and passive population for whom they feel a more or less misanthropic contempt.
45. Both misconceive the universal as a single theory of everything, and attempt to apply their inferences as if these were the vehicles of the universal. 
46. Both are mechanisms by which self-evident universalism is degraded and decomposed into obscure and incomprehensible populisms comprised of a set of conventional triggers (solidarity, freedom, belonging) to incomprehensible affects. 
47. The anarchists are always less dangerous, and are therefore always marginally preferable, on account of: their populism's greater distance from actual process; their being less successful in mobilising populations; their less perfect replication of state exigency; their lip-service to, or precedence for, generating internal dissent. 
48. In contradiction to all ideology, the truth of a perception emerges from the relative failure to mobilise populations around it. 
49. Emancipation is dispersal and separation of bodies from the given forms of social production and nothing else. 
50. There are no military escapes, only military refortifications. The objective terms of engagement ensure that everybody on the streets is a fascist (of a greater or lesser variety).
51. Ideology is located in the claim for the self-evidence of being incomparable to the enemies (fascists, priests, cops) where a stated desire not to become these is sufficient. 
52. No social order has ever been overthrown. Instituted relations die from hypoxia or the denial of requisite energy, and where other relations have supplanted or abandoned them. 
53. Both anarchism and neo-rightism have produced individuals of interest who are incompatible with social production despite the ideology to which they seemingly cleave.
54. The disputes of two remora riding the leviathan. 
55. Comparisons are always odious.