No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
<div style="grid-area:2/1/3/2;">''"Note that, before the coming of [[File:Lib.png]] [[Liberalism|nationalist democracy]], it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved. If [[File:OchloAngry.png]] [[Ochlocracy|the mob]] wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them."''<br><br>- [[File:Curtis_Yarvin.png]] [[Neoreactionaryism|Curtis Yarvin]], [https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist ''Why I am not a white nationalist'']</div> | <div style="grid-area:2/1/3/2;">''"Note that, before the coming of [[File:Lib.png]] [[Liberalism|nationalist democracy]], it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved. If [[File:OchloAngry.png]] [[Ochlocracy|the mob]] wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them."''<br><br>- [[File:Curtis_Yarvin.png]] [[Neoreactionaryism|Curtis Yarvin]], [https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist ''Why I am not a white nationalist'']</div> | ||
<div style="grid-area:1/2/3/3;">''"[[File:Rational.png]] [[phil:Rationalism|Rationality]], during the [[File:Enlightenment.png]] [[Enlightenment_Thought|enlightenment]], had to fight religion; and they fought religion with the most up-to-date science: physics. They fought it with the necessity of physical laws. The problem—[[File:DavidHume.png]] [[phil:Humeanism|Hume]] saw this, he saw it very well—is that the necessity of laws is not something you can demonstrate, but only something you can believe in: so it's a belief against another belief. And in fact I think the belief in the necessity of laws is necessarily a belief in God, because you believe in what you cannot demonstrate, you believe in an order that guarantees laws. In fact, you may not believe in god any more, but you believe in the divine solidity of laws."''<br><br>- [[File:Speculative_Realism.png]] [[phil:Speculative_Realism|Quentin Meillassoux]], [https://altexploit.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/quentin-meillassoux-ray-brassier-alain-badiou-after-finitude-_-an-essay-on-the-necessity-of-contingency-bloomsbury-academic_continuum-2009.pdf ''After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency'']</div> | <div style="grid-area:1/2/3/3;">''"[[File:Rational.png]] [[phil:Rationalism|Rationality]], during the [[File:Enlightenment.png]] [[Enlightenment_Thought|enlightenment]], had to fight religion; and they fought religion with the most up-to-date science: physics. They fought it with the necessity of physical laws. The problem—[[File:DavidHume.png]] [[phil:Humeanism|Hume]] saw this, he saw it very well—is that the necessity of laws is not something you can demonstrate, but only something you can believe in: so it's a belief against another belief. And in fact I think the belief in the necessity of laws is necessarily a belief in God, because you believe in what you cannot demonstrate, you believe in an order that guarantees laws. In fact, you may not believe in god any more, but you believe in the divine solidity of laws."''<br><br>- [[File:Speculative_Realism.png]] [[phil:Speculative_Realism|Quentin Meillassoux]], [https://altexploit.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/quentin-meillassoux-ray-brassier-alain-badiou-after-finitude-_-an-essay-on-the-necessity-of-contingency-bloomsbury-academic_continuum-2009.pdf ''After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency'']</div> | ||
<div style="grid-area:1/3/3/4;">''"To absorb even the slightest fraction of [[File:Individual.png]] [[phil:Individualism|<nowiki>[diversity]</nowiki>]] and to conclude, in the only way possible, that it is either nothing at all, or a 'social construct' and index of oppression, is sheer Gnostic delirium: a commitment beyond all evidence to the existence of a true and good world veiled by appearances. People are not equal, they do not develop equally, their goals and achievements are not equal, and nothing can make them equal. Substantial equality has no relation to reality, except as its systematic negation. Violence on a genocidal scale is required to even approximate to a practical [[File:Equality.png]] [[ | <div style="grid-area:1/3/3/4;">''"To absorb even the slightest fraction of [[File:Individual.png]] [[phil:Individualism|<nowiki>[diversity]</nowiki>]] and to conclude, in the only way possible, that it is either nothing at all, or a 'social construct' and index of oppression, is sheer Gnostic delirium: a commitment beyond all evidence to the existence of a true and good world veiled by appearances. People are not equal, they do not develop equally, their goals and achievements are not equal, and nothing can make them equal. Substantial equality has no relation to reality, except as its systematic negation. Violence on a genocidal scale is required to even approximate to a practical [[File:Equality.png]] [[phil:Egalitarianism|egalitarian]] program, and if anything less ambitious is attempted, people get around it (some more competently than others)."''<br><br>- [[File:NickLand.png]] [[Landian_Accelerationism|Nick Land]], [https://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/#part4b ''The Dark Enlightenment Part 4b: Obnoxious observations'']</div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 13:42, 3 September 2023
 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent Quark's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
"
Capital is but a form of labor, and its distinction from labor is in reality but a subdivision, just as the division of labor into skilled and unskilled would be."
-
Henry George, Progress and Poverty
Capital is but a form of labor, and its distinction from labor is in reality but a subdivision, just as the division of labor into skilled and unskilled would be."-
Henry George, Progress and Poverty"Note that, before the coming of 
nationalist democracy, it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved. If 
the mob wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them."
-
Curtis Yarvin, Why I am not a white nationalist
nationalist democracy, it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved. If 
the mob wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them."-
Curtis Yarvin, Why I am not a white nationalist"
Rationality, during the 
enlightenment, had to fight religion; and they fought religion with the most up-to-date science: physics. They fought it with the necessity of physical laws. The problem—
Hume saw this, he saw it very well—is that the necessity of laws is not something you can demonstrate, but only something you can believe in: so it's a belief against another belief. And in fact I think the belief in the necessity of laws is necessarily a belief in God, because you believe in what you cannot demonstrate, you believe in an order that guarantees laws. In fact, you may not believe in god any more, but you believe in the divine solidity of laws."
-
Quentin Meillassoux, After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency
Rationality, during the 
enlightenment, had to fight religion; and they fought religion with the most up-to-date science: physics. They fought it with the necessity of physical laws. The problem—
Hume saw this, he saw it very well—is that the necessity of laws is not something you can demonstrate, but only something you can believe in: so it's a belief against another belief. And in fact I think the belief in the necessity of laws is necessarily a belief in God, because you believe in what you cannot demonstrate, you believe in an order that guarantees laws. In fact, you may not believe in god any more, but you believe in the divine solidity of laws."-
Quentin Meillassoux, After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency"To absorb even the slightest fraction of 
[diversity] and to conclude, in the only way possible, that it is either nothing at all, or a 'social construct' and index of oppression, is sheer Gnostic delirium: a commitment beyond all evidence to the existence of a true and good world veiled by appearances. People are not equal, they do not develop equally, their goals and achievements are not equal, and nothing can make them equal. Substantial equality has no relation to reality, except as its systematic negation. Violence on a genocidal scale is required to even approximate to a practical 
egalitarian program, and if anything less ambitious is attempted, people get around it (some more competently than others)."
-
Nick Land, The Dark Enlightenment Part 4b: Obnoxious observations
[diversity] and to conclude, in the only way possible, that it is either nothing at all, or a 'social construct' and index of oppression, is sheer Gnostic delirium: a commitment beyond all evidence to the existence of a true and good world veiled by appearances. People are not equal, they do not develop equally, their goals and achievements are not equal, and nothing can make them equal. Substantial equality has no relation to reality, except as its systematic negation. Violence on a genocidal scale is required to even approximate to a practical 
egalitarian program, and if anything less ambitious is attempted, people get around it (some more competently than others)."-
Nick Land, The Dark Enlightenment Part 4b: Obnoxious observationsFunni quotes.
You may have noticed i'm too lazy and haven't added much yet to this page. That is factual. Accordingly, please refrain from adding me to your relations until i actually put what i believe in here, understood?
Now, i know most people who got here would like a quick way to know whether they must call me evil or not, and my influences section isn't all that helping if you're not into wacky stuff, probably. If you really really really don't want to read the page, just consider i want 
asexual CEOs to be able to defend their 
city-states with nuclear bombs, i believe nothing can or should be done to stop capitalism from 
eradicating humans, and 
i don't think god is real. These takes are extreme enough that you should be able to judge me now. You may laugh/seethe/not give a damn. You're welcome.
If you want to add me to your relationships, i stongly encourage you to put your own chosen icons (If you use them) to describe me as you see me, but if you're not original, take these:
[[File:Qacc.png]] [[Quarkism]] ([[File:Neocameralism.png|link=pcb:Neocameralism]]/[[File:Accelerationism.png|link=phil:Accelerationism]]/[[File:Cosmo.png|link=pcb:Cosmopolitanism]]/[[File:Darwinist.png|link=pcb:Social_Darwinism]]/[[File:Postgenderism.png|link=pcb:Postgenderism]])
Which will look like this: 
Quarkism (
/
/
/
/
)
So, let's get to it.