Ranting Monkey is a seriously retarded person.

And I'm not even a vegan.

Ranting Monkey is actually arguing ethnat logic the entire time: he cannot name traits that make human superior to a cow (like intelligence, moral conscience, etc.) he only does switch terms games like "humans deserve different treatment because they are person, and they are persons because they are human", running in circles between terminology.

The closest to an argument he has was argument from selfishness either personal selfishness (which he failed to even tackle) or selfishness of a population ("it is just because it my group" basically)... because he couldn't even acknowledge any superiority of humans toward other animals (even if such statement would obviously be just subjective).

Basically, he takes the moral nihilist position, where might-makes right and every species should think for themselves and not give the slightest fuck about others, and there would be nothing wrong in killing humans *if you were an alien*. There should only be compassion for your own relatives. And that isn't the most retarded position, if you had the intellect to *actually argue that position* instead of being all over the place and entirely without a point.

Yeah

I mean it would be easy to argue in my mind

But it would be a nihilist argument. There's little room to them scream about "degeneracy".

If you are a moralist, you cannot be a nihilist.

The main point would be that humans are more genetically similar to each other than animals, and are superior

In the nervous system and conscienceness

But also give into society

This is why AR is kinda internally hypocritical: it's highly moralistic on some issues, and totally might makes right anti-moralistic on others.

It's not a virtue-based philosophy.

And it's also not purely nihilistic either.

It's a bastard child of both of them, picking worst aspects from each, creating an abomination.

AR, just like Ranting Monkey, cannot **name the trait**.

AR doesn't believe in "might makes right"

Is it because you’re listening to Nick then someone else ?

Because Nick will argue that god makes the rules

AR believes that "might can be right, in some instances"

AR can name the Jew, but they cannot name the trait.

The alt hyp will disagree

Because if AR named the trait (like IQ) they would have to admit high IQ niggers, and purge the white rednecks.

>AR can name the Jew, but they cannot name the trait.
That's literally incorrect

They don't like to name preferential traits humans should have, they don't like to name virtues to be promoted. It's your race, your culture, by definition, nothing to improve.

@Monstrous Moonshine So high IQ nigger is better than low IQ white? And you are in favor of East Asian immigration to raise IQ?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40806-017-0115-7

How is that an ethnostate?

See this for which traits are responsible for typical 'Jewish' behavior

>So high IQ nigger is better than low IQ white? And you are in favor of East Asian immigration to raise IQ?
No

But if some white individual has those "Jewy" traits (and many do) should they be treated like Jews despite being whites?

This is why IQ is a junction, not the end argument

No, because you aren't interested in the trait in whites.

We are interested in many more things than *just* the traits

We see homogeneous societies as an extension of the family unit and hence see it as a moral obligation to the extended kin

Should whites with "Jewy" traits be deported to Israel?

From which stems the concept of nationalism

Should wiggers be deported "back" to Africa?

Arguing racial differences in IQ and IQ nationalism would result in mass importing gooks and pajeets

Jews do cluster with southern Italians so I would say Ashkenazis are racially white, my issue with them is they have split loyalties. Or at least that’s the stereotype