UR



Moderator: Hello everybody, welcome to my late-night talk show, "Solving Radicals"! Today we have UR as our guest!

UR: Yeah, hi.

Moderator: Since we're polcompballs, let us start the interview with the simplest question. What quadrant are you on the political compass?

UR: I am a non-quadrant ideology. My system doesn't really care about things like left or right, totalitarian or anarchist, or anything of the like. Although most would put myself where Social Darwinism because of my philosophy and praxis.

Moderator: Well, don't keep us waiting! Tell us what you are standing for.

UR: Right. I am a post-pacifist and nihilist ideology. I split all humans into two simple groups: Monsters and Victims. Monsters are the ones to abuse. Agressive, self-centered and violent, we pursue our own goals by hurting the Victims. Victims are the ones to be abused. Pacifistic, selfless and altruistic, they exist only to be fodder to the likes of me. Most would think that Victims are somehow morally superior to the Monsters, but that is simply not true. Both of these groups exist only to prolong the system, so choosing one over the other does not change the world to the better in any way. It's like predators and prey in nature, one cannot possibly exist without the other.

Moderator: So you just attack the weak? Does not sound much different from Darwinism.

UR: Ah, no, you misunderstood. Darwinism's ideology is that of purging genetic pool of weak and undesirable traits. But Monsters can be weak too. And Victims might not actually be inferior genetically. Like a pack of wolves, Monsters care about the weaker members of the group despite being predators and being viewed as "evil" by our prey. Humans are social animals, after all.

Moderator: Okay! Next question, do you agree with Libertarianism on the issue of gun ownership?

UR: Some herbivores have horns, but they use it only like a prey would. As a defense. The entire concept of non-agression and property rights is what Victims use to defend themselves from the likes of us. But the stronger our Victims get, the better the Monsters get as well to overcome those defenses. An arms race, if you will.

Moderator: If there are two options in your ideology, why did you choose to specifically become a Monster?

UR: People become like me for variety of reasons. I just simplify it to muh values.

Moderator: Your values?

UR: No, no, I meant MUH values. Look here, I've made this simple icon to represent them.

UR: Morals, Understanding and Hope. Lacking at least one turns you into my kind. Loss of morals makes you like Capitalism. You disregard the well-being of others in order to achieve your own prosperity and wealth. Using the state or capital to do so would be equally valid. Loss of understanding makes you become like Antifa. Demonising your opponents, calling everybody else evil or a fascist leads to a monstrous ideology. Most authoritarian regimes use some form of us vs. them rhetoric, the alt-right and categoristic movements do this against specific minorities, and even anarchists disagree among themselves on the basis of simply not understanding what the other side is arguing for, be this misunderstanding deliberate or not. The last value is hope. When hope is lost, you get someone dissatisfied, depressed and extremely violent like me. I may have had my morals before, I may have tried my best to help others drop their biases and just listen to their opponents, but people are too stubborn to do anything of the like. I lost more and more hope every time I talked to someone that holds onto their ideology like their existance depends on them not changing their viewpoint. And now... I have no more hope left. It's all used up. So at that point, why not just become a Monster myself? Being a pacifist never payed off like it was supposed to.

Moderator: Edgy much?

UR: Haha, yeah, I'm the edge itself now. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Moderator: Okay, onto the next question. What does your name mean?

UR: It has no meaning. UR is just the opposite semaphore symbols to ND that are used as the pacifism symbol.

Moderator: Do you have any friends? Enemies? Frenemies?

UR: I don't really get such concepts as friends or enemies. I'd say a similar ideology to me would be Communo-Darwinism, but we still have our differences. Anarcho-Altruism sees the same values as me, but comes to a different conclusion, wanting to establish universal moral, understanding and hope via technology that is not currently available, and neither would everyone voluntarily agree to be a part of them, even in the far future when such tech does become available. Altruism likes to mention Prisonners Dilemma a lot and how if both parties would be nice to each other, then both win, yet that is only applicable in a case where you do not know which move your opponent is picking. Under such "prisoners dilemmas", if you know your opponent is a Victim, the best course of action would be to agress.

Moderator: Well, I believe that was actually the last question! Thank you for the interview!

UR: Yeah, yeah...

Moderator: Wait, what is that knife fo-

slashing sounds