r/RadicalOCD

I remember my mum always found it a travesty that schools didn’t teach idioms as a part of their language construction

Such as “too many cooks ruin the broth”
“Poisoning the well”
“Anarchy is order government is civil war”
“With great power comes great ir-responsibility.”

When Shawn Wilbur in anarchy insides and outsides says that

“anarchy is one of those things that, as we say in less serious contexts, “you can’t unsee.” It started as a look outside—and gradually became a kind of being outside—which has always mixed uncomfortably with the often strict border-patrolling characteristic of the milieu.
The outside that characterizes anarchy is not just the outsider status that brought so many of us to the brink. That, as I think most of us recognize, is a relative thing, entirely compatible with various inversions and the creation of new kinds of INSIDER status.
“

INtrusion/INtruder/

BORDERS CONTROL EXCLUSION

KIM DOVEY CALLED SHOPPING MALLS INVERTED PRISONS

When they identified it with order, it was not in any way that ought to make any “law and order” crowd feel safe™

“Chances are pretty good that what we fear most is UNCERTAINTY .”

“The overwhelming emphasis on authority in our culture probably makes us place too high a value on our own rebellion. In our truly authoritarian societies, virtually EVERYTHING we would like to do is in some sense controlled or mediated by authority, so once we have embraced the position of anarchist—dedicated opponent of all of that—everything we do seems to be a part of our struggle. But there’s a real danger of turning anarchy into just another absolute”

I was love to think of the text state languages and state territories by Peter Gelderloos

It’s like vernacular/aesthetic vs street level order 🏴🫆

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-state-languages-and-territorial-languages

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/xavier-oliveras-gonzalez-deny-anarchic-spaces-and-places-an-anarchist-critique-of-mosaic-statis

It’s a lot more accessible and down to earth then the trots who are dumb enough and I’m so insular that they think university students actually want to read “books.”
They don’t even do the weekly readings 💀😵‍💫😑

From r/mutualism

“Well my questions are getting weirder as I go along

I can’t tell if it’s a genuine threat, sensorinomotor OCD or something else maybe trauma related but iv been having the existential ocd doubts again about why exactly I label myself as an “OCD ANARCHIST” on r/debateanarchism I remember going back in time to last year when I told my friends that I was “weirded out” why I thought these things, I was thinking of the book a moral psychology of disgust, sometimes my own ocd brain catches up to me and does too much rumination. As someone who is going to be tested for autism/“being on the spectrum”? I wonder how much my ocd overlaps with my (possible/likely) autism

The article “anarchy and Uncertainty” on the libertarian labyrinth goes into interesting detail here

“term to positive conceptions—and to think of some potentially difficult concepts (profusion and uncertainty, “lawlessness” and “lack of principles,” etc.) in their positive senses. Profusion is, of course, obviously positive in a material sense—involving great, perhaps overwhelmingly great quantities of something—even while it appears to us negative from the point of view of ORGANIZING AND CONTROLLING THINGS.” but perhaps only because we cling ( quite dearly may I add) to particular notions of organization

“Uncertainty is not a concept that is particularly prominent in anarchist theory—and certainly does not generally figure as a positive value or indicator. But when we suggest that what is tempestuous about anarchy is a lasting feature, then it is not a stretch to further suggest that one of the ways we will know that we are acting as anarchists is that our actions will be taken in the face of fundamental sort of uncertainty”

“But, before we turn to the practical questions—like living in a social world reshaped by asymptomatic contagion—let’s spend a bit of time in that part of anarchist theory where the question of certainty does indeed play a prominent role. In his early works, Proudhon returned a number of times to the philosophical question of the criterion of certainty and made a critique of the notion the centerpiece of the second letter in The Philosophy of Progress.”

The criterion of certainty, according to the philosophers, will be, when discovered, an infallible method of establishing the truth of an opinion, a judgment, a theory, or a system, in nearly the same way as GOLD (or diamonds might I add) is recognized by the touchstone, as iron approaches the magnet, or, better still, as we verify a MATHEMATICAL operation by applying the proof

“while all that makes a claim to an absolute, fixed character can be expected to “become dangerous and deadly.” So here we have the affirmation of a “favorable prejudice” in favor of all that we must consider, at least in an authoritarian context, uncertain. It is no surprise, then, to find Proudhon further claiming that “the criterion of certainty is an anti-philosophical idea borrowed from theology, the assumption of which is destructive of certainty itself” and proposing what is essentially a different kind of certainty: a certainty without criterion”

“This new certainty and uncertainty seem, at least at present, rather hard to completely distinguish. But that’s a “problem” that we can probably embrace, at least for now.

In”

“Particularly in the US, there are lots of aspects of the governmental and capitalistic responses to the threat of widespread contagion that have limited our options. Failed “relief” attempts—which have arguably just been successful capitalist wealth redistribution—have imposed all sorts of costs on cautious action that might easily have been avoided had the same resources been applied where they were needed most. But the corruption and ineptitude simply amplified what is arguably the single greatest difficulty associated with Covid-19: our uncertainty about so many aspects of its spread.”

Yea so re reading these things is sort of funny I realised I “missed so many things.” Was this purposeful? Was this assumed knowledge that anyone thought I had due to the existence of r/RadicalOCD Because going back I realised how many things I missed

There was also mentions of Alfredo bonnano’s “the anarchist tension” which explores doubt in its unsafe sense, I remember it was cited in “insides and outsides” anarchy and anarchism

“It started as a look outside—and gradually became a kind of being outside—which has always mixed uncomfortably with the often strict border-patrolling characteristic of the milieu.

The outside that characterizes anarchy is not just the outsider status that brought so many of us to the brink. That, as I think most of us recognize, is a relative thing, entirely compatible with various inversions and the creation of new kinds of insider status.”

I remember it felt like kicking and screaming at people to open up, it’s been difficult understanding myself or my “thinking process”

I’m not a scientist or a mathematician I do arts and those are like my most hated subjects my psychiatrist will say I’m quite aware but it confuses me as “OCD ANARCHISM” came about more due to anarchism then anything of a pathological order

I listen to a lot of rap music so it’s a bit cyclical that I think in riddles and rhymes

It’s talks about border patrolling I instantly think about Peter gelderloos in worshipping power and his parable of the state keeping everyone inside like hadrians wall

Or people referring to OCD as a CALCULATED caged box

Or the post about taboo and superstition on this sub

Or Mary Douglas (which both gelderloos and Graeber have cited)

Books on taste (bourdieu) saying “we are all snobs” on the blurb or its inverse “we are all illegal” an intro to brown anarchy by re-existir media

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brown-anarchy

And talks about disgust and purity dichotomies

Religious “sanctity”

The SACRED the holy, the righteous and the PROFANE

“If, for the moment, we find ourselves skeptics, relativists or nihilists—or enthusiasts for alternative systems—it is because we remain in a moment of critique, still subject to the terms of the dominant, authoritarian, absolutist culture. There will, however, come a moment, if we do not simply fail, when those critical terms will lose their sense and we will have to continue on into realms, and according to logics, that are hard even to adequately describe right now. But we can, I think, at least imagine ourselves walking away—from law and order, crime and punishment, permission and prohibition, and all the other facets of authority and the absolute—provided, of course, we have not internalized our role as critics as a form of identity. That should be a familiar enough danger. We have to be able to imagine a day when we will no longer be rebels—and when that will be just fine.”

To capture this one I may add the line “nothing is dear nothing is sacred.”

Sometimes I get confused at my own life and thinking I know an anarchist twice my age that has ocd and he has existential ocd where he constantly debates truth theorems back and forth, knowing certain philosophers and theorists he made it worse by saying i have a psychoanalytical conception of ocd as everything now becomes a new hot topic to verify and hoard information n my brain which causes overload

He has the same problems of music and political theory info hoarding and sometimes his moral radar police’s bad behaviour in anarchist movements and sometimes it makes him feel too much and get riled up over nothing

Was any of this intentional? To my brain there are to many signs

It’s weirdly loops around I remember explaining some of my ocd rules to a comrade online and they said accolades Thomas S Szasz

“Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But this is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities.” -Thomas S. Szasz

Another person whom I asked if they were an anarchist said that I will not get any answers “only doubts” said

“It's about modern cognitive cages, a metaphor for the way we look at the reality”

I posted a quote from max Stirner “most prisons are built from the beliefs you never dared to break.”

I would love to build a collective of

“ an open collective project exploring the invisible cages of contemporary life: surveillance, identity, work, AI. No hierarchy, no budget, just people who see what others don't. I'm looking for collaborators. Interested?”

They asked me if I could make a sub on it but I can’t find the right portrait to paint this picture 🖼️ 🎨

Rey asked me what my personal cage was and I said “OCD.”

They continued

“The ritual of repetition.

​A cage built of checking and re-checking until the walls feel safe. You will find the SYMMETRY in our EXHIBITS 🖼️ 🎨 🖍️ either very soothing... or remarkably triggering 🩸 🦠 👻🎃😈.

​Welcome to the loop.”

“We don’t call it a condition. We call it an operating system.

To catalog the chaos of the modern world, a certain level of clinical obsession is... required.

You are in good company.”

“Brutality is often a feature, not a bug.

You're referencing Laursen’s concept of the State as a machine that processes humans as resources. You are spot on. Whether it’s the internal loop of the mind or the external laws of the State, the OS is indifferent to the suffering of the hardware.

We document the friction between the flesh and the code.

(I see the glitch in your signature. We speak the same language.)”

Or am I being “absolutist” in my anarchy

“

Anyone have pretty horrifying experiences with arithmomania? It controlled where I could go, how long I could go to the toilet or sit in places in the house, I sometimes had to get up and down and sit on the toilet ten times over and I always had to do a tapping ritual to 34:35 two times over before I was “safe”

Arithmomania is the security check marks ✔️, that give a viable and legible end to an otherwise uncertain terrain

It gives you a bench mark to measure progress

The sacred is the inside, the profane is the outside

Neutrality is ambiguity and uncertainty 🏴

If feminism didn’t exist, conservative politicians would have had to invent it. (Why, pray tell, did all-male legislatures ever criminalize “obscenity” in the first place? And why do all-male courts arbitrarily exclude it from constitutional protection?)

“their primary, near-preemptive preoccupation would have to be Cosmopolitan, Barbara Courtland romances, and the vast crypto-pornographic pop literature written for and snapped up by women.”

As someone who used to and still wants to read that shit ☠️☠️🤣🤦🏿

Neo-libertatia is a movement which rejects strict definitions. Fed up with the state of the world with the rise of fascism and out of control capitalism, as well as a left which has lost its identity, we have decided to spark a new movement which will seek to establish something truly innovative, meant to allow for the fringes of the fringe to come together and form new ideas, the only rule is that it's not boring or right wing (sorry libs and fascists lmao). There have been philosophical roots in the ccru, egoism/ego-communism, pirate politics/copyleft, communism in general, taoism, the situationists international, foucault, active nihilism, absurdism, g/acc and xenofeminism, and many more. But the idea is not to succumb to a singular idea, but to create many, kind of a chaos magick ethos to theory in a way (see my post on theorypunk): adaptable, DIY, and ever-evolving. But oh, don't mistake this for JUST something to discuss theory, tho theory is a big part of it. Instead, think of this as the breeding grounds for something big irl. Everything has multiple stages, each bigger and more advanced than the last. This will discuss culture, art, current events, philosophy, things that may or may not apply to everyday life, it doesn't matter, the outcome will be the same: complete abolition of the pre-established dogma dominating the present day, and the liberation of all creatures, by any means necessary, and establishing a more updated, more relevant, and more interesting form of communism. Adapting and increasing awareness and intuition, like the rabbit. Misunderstood by others but having the greatest potential, like the dragon. And constantly evolving with the times to create a better future, like the butterfly. The thirteen candles are a few of the core ideas to build upon, and they are as follows:

1. Complete equality and abolition of class, hierarchy, and oppressive systems such as capitalism, the state, social norms and forced conformity, patriarchy, white supremacy/eurocentricism, etc.
2. A society where gender and sexuality are no longer enforced to any degree. That system is abolished entirely, and people will just be whatever is authentic to them without fear of external hostility. A post-gender society, so to speak.
3. Religion, specifically abrahamic religions (most forms of christianity, islam, judiasm, etc) will no longer be imposed on anyone in any context. It will no longer be an institution, it will be forced out of the government entirely, and should not be what dominates culture. Spirituality embraced, but will be unique to each person, non-hierarchal, and focus less on policing morality and more so about spiritual enlightenment and gaining a better connection to/understanding of yourself and the world. We don't need to pray to a god to survive, animals do it all the time. God is dead, as told by Nietzsche. It is crucial to keep overall society spiritually neutral and secular however, to avoid any and all forms of religious dominance.
4. Enter the next stage in human evolution, where we renounce our humanity, or at least certain parts of it, and become something greater. What that entails exactly depends on the individual, but in order for a monster to combat an oppressive angry mob, they must not desire to side with the angry mob. Humanity is not the center of anything, we are all shaped by structures around us. Thus, deconstruct all of those structures, including the idea of humanity itself. Ofc all of this also means something more akin to posthumanism/voidpunk, and all its various forms and adjacent outlooks.
5. A world where everyone has the basic right of food, shelter, education, and health, regardless of wealth or background. You should not have to be forced to work or be forced to be a slave to a piece of paper society has let control our lives just to survive. There will be no money, or at LEAST have things extremely cheap and accessible to the point where we may as well not have money lmao. If everyone's basic needs aren't met, then there is an issue. This also means the environment must flourish and be protected. Ideally it's a solarpunk thing, with the perfect blend of earth and machine, allowing for biodiversity without sacrificing technological progress, in fact strengthening it. A cyborg world so to speak. But there must be maximum effort to prevent global warming, deforestation, animal cruelty/extinction, etc.
6. Evolve into a newer form of leftism. I'd like to consider myself more post-left but acknowledge that leftism generally has most things correct. However, many of them (non-anarchist adjacent people, at least) tend to be a little outdated, specifically the various sects of Marxists. Those theories need to be updated for the modern day, as things have generally gotten more complex now. We need to get creative, we need to get experimental with it. Idolizing the past only leads to more suffering and stagnation. This is why people who ignore the flaws of the soviets or idealize past theorists/movements from 100 years ago irk me, like it's good and completely normal to take inspiration from the past especially if it has elements that worked well, but it's important to have nuance about it and not endlessly glaze, and ffs form your own ideas already. And yes, Stalin DID do something wrong. Lots of things. Let's get one thing clear, tankies, if you want to talk about how nations like that are lied about by the west and there were good things about it, i'm cool with it. But if you start defending the regimes to the point of idolizing, and all of your opinions are just based on whatever Lenin or Stalin or whoever else believed, you have no place here. Put your own spin on it, make it less authoritarian, critique the negative aspects, combine it with other things, SOMETHING! Even anarchists are stuck in the past, although they don't glaze those nations, instead they are bound to their figures and theorists. It feels like most of the left is stuck in the 19th-20th century, which irks me to no end. Don't be afraid to push the boundaries rather than only talk about old theorists and old movements or be bound to the world of academia. Form your own ideas.
7. Dispose of the current system of government worldwide. Liberalism was a failed experiment, as we see it consistently evolve into authoritarianism. Now we are once again on the threshold of a neo-fascist dystopia. What, are we just gonna vote for a democrat next year? How many times do we have to repeat the same lessons over and over again? The west HAS fallen in a way, and that's a good thing if it means evolving into the next stage.
8. Workers owning the means of production is necessary, as is the abolition of private property, copyright, etc. Something non-hierarchical and ofc non-coercive. Standard stuff, but also not being forced to work in the first place. Everyone has a right to leisure, and society should have allow for the focus of our passions. Perhaps this could mean full automation? In any case, people should have agency over their own lives, in work and everywhere else.
9. Discrimination of any kind on the basis of gender, sex, religion, race, sexuality, disability, species, nationality, class, or anything of that sort is unacceptable and WILL be dealt with. In the new world, if you are to fight for people's rights, you will fight for EVERYONE'S rights. Everything is connected by the same divine energy, after all. If you suggest someone else doesn't deserve something, that implies that you don't either. Either everyone is liberated or nobody is, your choice. No more queerphobia, no more misogyny, no more white supremacy, no more ableism, no more classism, xenophobia, or ANYTHING of that sort. The revolution isn't JUST economic, but also cultural and spiritual. Hierarchy shall be wiped out.
10. Individuality (tho not really individualism in the western liberal sense) will be protected through collectivism. You can't have one without the other.
11. Desire will be the new driving force for the world. Living authentically to your true destiny, following and indulging in your passions, as long as you're living your true desire. Key word is true desire. Take a heroin addict for example. Ask someone if they actually want the drug and they'll say no 90% of the time, yet they are still addicted to it. The addiction in this case, taking the drug, is a false desire. Focus on the true desire that resides inside. Suppression of that true desire only leads to suffering.
12. Fascism thrives on nostalgia for an imaginary past where everything was peachy. They use this to fuel hatred for the modern era. We have a distaste for the modern era as well, but they hold this sentiment for the wrong reasons. Times are seen as so negative that our generation is known for idealizing the past even if they've never really lived it. I should know, i was 100% guilty of this. Most of the time this is harmless, but clearly the right has weaponized it, and it's just not really healthy or productive anyway. We acknowledge that there is no future, but instead of trying to escape fear, we face it head on and force a change. We will CREATE the future.
13. All borders and countries will eventually mold into one. A new Pangaea, so to speak. No borders, no countries, no walls to divide us.

This will be updated whenever the time is needed, but the core will remain the same. And this won't be the only post explaining what this movement will represent, in fact i will be releasing a document soon that i will send to as many people as possible, similar to what i tried to do in the past but it never went anywhere. I needed to start fresh anyway lol. So we'll be starting that over, everyone will be allowed to participate and write down their own political and philosophical shit, as well as link their own posts in the document. I will archive all of it into one big page. Another thing to note is that this isn't really an organization, that just makes us a target. I intend for us to be less easy to take down in honor of the fallen. Think of it more akin to like antifa or an alternative subculture, where where it's a movement instead. More freedom that way, with no uniform or headquarters, no rules on what you can and can't do, just raw desire and passion to create the new world. Organizations just increase restrictions and make it harder for us to fully advance, for they're a physical object. You can capture that. A movement is different. Imagine trying to catch the air around you with your bare hands. Note that i am not against organizations in general, in fact i want the neo-libertatia idea to help create LOTS of them, but i don't see the need to force anyone into a box including an organization. We're more of a pack of wolves than a fully-fledged gang, which is fine by us. We wanna be a circus, not a church. This isn't a case against getting organized in general for the greater good, by all means do so. But people are best drawn together when left to their own devices, i'd say

He’s an interesting name I have seen in regards to sex liberation

“At times Liberty takes the form of a hateful reptile. She grovels, she hisses, she stings. But woe to those who in DISGUST shall venture to crush her! And happy are those who, having dared to receive her in her degraded and frightful shape, shall at length be rewarded by her in her time of her beauty and her glory.
Macaulay: Essay on Milton.
The men of order, those we call “honest folk,” demand nothing but gunfire and shellfire.
Renan: Nouvelles lettres intimes.
I read and hear it claimed that anarchism is beset by a crisis. This is not precisely correct. In truth, there is a conflict between the static and dynamic conceptions of anarchism, between those who want to gregarize and stabilize anarchism and those who want the revolutionary, individualist spirit to remain and simmer permanently within anarchism. At base, it is more a question of two methods than of two ideas. It would be extraordinary if a competition did not exist between them. It is precisely because they compete that, far from being stagnant, anarchism asserts itself, develops, expands and surpasses the narrowness of a church or a party.
“

Abstract
This article imagines some theoretical directions for what is deemed as “critical OCD studies.” Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is characterized in both clinical and cultural discourse as a preoccupation with order. This article moves beyond the notion of order making in OCD as a uniquely pathological aspect of the disorder and instead explores what obsessive experiences can teach us about living in an untidy and uncertain world. To do this, the article first draws upon Mary Douglas’s classic anthropological text, Purity and Danger. It uses Douglas’s theoretical framework to show how OCD is reflective of broader social and clinical efforts to assert order and control ambiguity, and how this desire for purity causes perceptions of disorder to proliferate. The second part of this article engages with the writing of literary critic Maggie Nelson in conversation with OCD to imagine ways of living beyond the disorder/order binary. Ultimately, it argues that a reconsideration of order and an embracing of ambiguity are integral to both OCD and society more broadly.

I love the abstract on this one 🕵️🏴🫆

“You are so lucky he cleans I wish I had that.” 💀

This and “the terrorist within” were probably the funniest ones I had in my personal writeup a little while ago, that and my psychiatrist (cop) who fearmongered me doing “suicide or homicide.” I’m sorry this shits just so funny 😭🤦🏿🤣💀

This is one of my favourite lines

“ What would change if everyone grew up knowing that states built walls to keep their subjects in.”