The onto-political concept of the refusal introduced by Maurice Blanchot is anything other than reactive. It is aggressive. It corresponds to the law, not of unity, of consensus and of satisfaction, but of a “necessary division and an infinite destruction”. In it an echo of Walter Benjamin’s destructive character can be perceived. Its destructive power resists any form of self-enclosure within models of coherence such as the self, the state, fatherland, the party, religion, the family, „home“. Refusal includes resistance against the phantasm of interiority and ontological stability of human subjectivity. It is resistance to the „law of the father“, to any authority that tears the subject away from the exterior in order to assimilate it into some kind of interior promising it a kind of transcendental shelter. It would be too simple to see in refusal nothing other than the figure of a romanticism of destruction. In it something is expressed that reaches far beyond romantic self-delusion: the insistence on a freedom that would no longer be the freedom of phantasmal consciousness, of the subject completely at home in its fictions of reality. To open the subject to the exterior means precisely this: to make it go through the experience of the ontological inconsistency of its world against its fictions in order to confront it with the discomfort of a freedom that makes it into a subject of unrest or, to use Nietzsche’s and Deleuze’s language, of becoming. The dimension of becoming or of chaos is this space of unrest which Deleuzian thinking determines as a hyperborean zone. In this zone, the subject is related to its indefiniteness, its truth as an open subject or as the not finally determined animal.