I don't need an inherent purpose in this universe to drive me. No one does.

The fact that it means nothing, means nothing. The reconstruction of values and the formation of a society beyond the individual.

Truth be told, when I pulled myself out of nihilism I paid a bit less attention to Nietzsche and am exploring my own path.

He's not a prophet for me.

Or anything like that. He has useful insights and has made some remarkable predictions but I don't frame my philosophy around him entirely.

I don't believe in humanity.

Humanity is a non-identity.

Like any other species.

The species endures not because its individual acts for its interest, but because they act for their social group.

They kill and compete amongst each other and the species strengthens.

To focus on the idea of 'humanity' is destructive.

I'd rather focus on my people and nation.

It was entirely self-motivated uber.

They didn't not press the button to save humanity.

They didn't press it because they themselves would be destroyed.

Specific group interest once again contributing to the species.

Humanity would survive a nuclear war.

Mostly in the southern hemisphere.

There's very little worth nuking.

@TempleOfIron Biologically speaking that's the optimum model.

Sexual market value peaks a lot later for men than for women.

I'm who?

@ubermensch There may well be a feasible philosophical model for that. I won't discount it entirely. I've simply come to belief that the idea of 'humanity' is better served by its component tribes and groups acting in their own interest.

The strongest will survive and propagate as they always have.

I think you'll find it a lot easier to cultivate individual investment in a group of some resemblance to them as an individual physically, culturally, and religiously, than you will cultivating an investment into the species.

I don't much care for the future of the human species if my people aren't a part of it.

And I don't much care if 99% of human life dies as long as my people endure.

That's the error of the identity of humanity. It's merely comprised of its component parts.

You can remove all but one and still have 'humanity'.

If every human group bar... the Dutch, were just wiped out.

Are you saying that humanity is no longer a concept?

I meant 'one' as in a component group.

A tribe. A population. A specific people.

One with self-identity and consciousness.

But you see my point? You could wipe out all humans bar that one specific group, be they Dutch, Americans, Congolese Pygmies, it doesn't matter.

"Humanity" continues to exist.

I believe it exists. I don't believe it's an identity to pursue the betterment of directly.

I could achieve much the same result by ensuring the success of my own people. And at least then the identity I'm directly affiliated to continues.

Why should I care that humanity endures if my people don't?

Humanity would endure if my people were the only ones left.

So clearly my local identity is the more important of the two.

Humanity doesn't need my people to exist.

So I don't need it as an identity.

I'm just viewing this as nationalism.

It's of little concern to me of the fates of the thousands upon thousands of tribes and peoples across this world. Only mine own. Because that's the one I belong to.

I'm not Dutch.

I pulled that out as a random example.

Because in this model, individuals would feel as I do but about their own people.

"Humanity" would then endure because the strongest groups would compete and dominate the weakest.

It's not a case of *wanting* everyone else to go extinct.

It's just a case of *refusing* to allow your own to go extinct.

Just because "humanity" would endure without you.

Localist is an interesting term.

Sorry Bad.

Sniped.

I'm not much of a gambler.

I'm not even suggesting the idea that if my people go extinct, we wipe out everyone else Uber.

I'd just prefer my people to endure.

Humanity *would* continue to survive if my group was defeated and destroyed by a superior one.

I just wouldn't have any investment in it because I'd be gone and so are my descendants and people.

What do I do to ensure my people's survival?

Expansion, accumulation of resources, procreation, etc.

How every group endures.

Humanity only needs me as an invisible component of the collective, Nova.

I as an individual could easily be sacrificed for the greater continuation of humanity.

Humanity would only truly *depend* on me if I was the last human.

Or last male rather.

Quite possibly uber.

I never like to say I would do something I've not been placed in a situation of having to do.

But it's possible.

You're right Badfish.

But humanity would endure for a little longer if I were the last male and not just the last human.

I want that group to be my people. If my people endure, so does humanity.

If another groups people endures at the expense of mine, humanity also endures.

Humanity will exist so long as component groups compete on their individual basis.

So why not focus on my own directly?

I'm British.

English more specifically.

What is British is the sum of the achievements of the Britonic people of Anglo-Celtic descent. Our institutions, our philosophies, our means to ends.

I just joined this server today, I have no idea who you are referencing.

I think my ideology pretty clearly establishes I am a Brexiteer.

These institutions have been somewhat corrupted.

To answer your question uber, yes it would. Because Irish is a separate identity.

It is from Britain that the initial ideas of freedom of speech emerged. We've never had the constitutional incentive to codify its component parts however.

English common law is a template for people around the world.

I'd be lying if I didn't say there is a specific ideological version of Britain I'd want to see realised, Scale.

But that'd be impossible if my people were gone.

So long as the British exist there exists the potential for ideological actualisation.

Then the present identity is destroyed and replaced.

Possibly by the ethnic continuation of the original stock.

Possibly by a foreign people.

They are. And when the existence of my people can be guaranteed is when the internal process of proper ideological actualisation as I would like to see it can be made manifest.

I can't create the ideological ideal for a people who don't exist anymore.

I see what he's going for though.

Cultural replacement by a European group would be a far less radical change than by a non-European group.

Still not one I'd actually enjoy however.

I do have a limited European identity for the preservation of its individual states.

But Britain comes first.

This has been quite an interesting conversation.

And this is only my first day here.

Thanks for the warning @Nat