WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 4 pts

Good working theory and a good start but niggers and abos are further apart than whites and abos genetically.

Humanity started around the Mediterranean sea, we kept migrating away in different directions over a long period of time likely due to relative overcrowding for resources and territory, the major genetic divides are a product of which ancestor groups sent full flight or full fight and the geographical hazards which divided them.

Niggers moved from what was likely the most aggressive and likely genetically diverse span in what is now the near east from turkey to egypt crossing past the red sea likely congregating around the nile and eventually being forced south. Niggers are the product of generations of losers in the geographic losers bracket being forced south past the sahara.

East asians are the product of many different expeditions across asia one or two tribes at a time leading to massive inbreeding which selected for their current features but enough of these expeditions has stabilized their genetics. It's essentially true for every race from japan to jakarta, and even over to the americas but just like northern and central asia have Indo-Aryan root populations central/south america has echoes of the two pacific seafarer races (or perhaps 1) and this is where the intersection of abos and coconut niggers is.

Abos and coconut niggers(pacific islanders) are the product of a sea faring ethnic group which realized the only competitor for resources in remote islands was nature and so rather than trek up to asia and face having to settle with more peoples wgo might be hostile they braved the seas in simple vessels, its entirely likel that multiple groups had this idea a very l9ng time apart or perhaps as they hopped islands and left some behind each time they l9st s bit 8f knowledge and genetic diversity and began looping nack in in themselves as each islands populace had a few attempts at doing as their ancestors had and settling new areas. Easter island, the olmecs in central/south america and abos are likely the same people in a sense, island breeding becomes deeply incestuous and can be quite regressive socially (think lord of the flies). Olmecs were likely wiped out by a mix of amerindian, incest diseases, and coconut nigger migrations behind them. Easter islanders were probably the proto olmces or their leavings in the journey across the pacific they hunted and chopped the island barren but the lack of wood found indicates a few fled, I'd bet they either got wiped out or added back to australia, australia was likely highly underpopulated by disaster struck sea migrations which lead to the worst inbreeding and social collapses on earth.

The indo-aryan line is a product of multiple migrations north west and east from the Mediterranean hotzone(conflict) the western migrations getting squeezed back east and south due to the ice age, and going into mountain living from forest living. Neanderthals being possibly the earliest northern migration and then due to ice age being forced south east where their people likely collapsed into surrounding tribes and gradually their genetics spread across eurasia the fact that we don't see these genes in the sub saharan population says that africans ancestors got trapped down their likely almost as long ago as the first neanderthals were making contact with subsequent waves of human migration which means there has been a warrior tribe (likely many)in controll of the nile river valley continuously for untold millennia, but they either stopped forcing the conquered south or the niggers didn't fuck the exiled.

Our most ancient ancestors lived in massive forests around the Mediterranean, these are mostly gone now likely due to ages of cutting down trees for tools and housing and weaponized arson. The middle east/near east, palestine to iran, was a great forrest, this was likely the cradle of civilization considering the oldest known civilizations are all proximal to it, humans created this desert terrain by incompetence and ignorance. My point is our ancestors had an abundance of shade and followed the shade it's likely that a fair skin tone was always the default for our ancient ancestors who climbed trees and walked these great forests this evidenced I believe by the proximal skintones of east asians, central asians and europeans, if humans were plains dwellers from the start we would have all been browner, but even the pre islamic conquest near east/middle east was fair skinned as evidenced by descriptions of david, jesus, the babylonians, the beduins, ancient ancestors of the saudis, muhammed, and others, it's likely the common people's skin tone was probably somewhere between the typical israeli jew of today and the typical iranian, obviously they would have a tan on top of this. It was the conscription of niggers into mohammed's armies that led to the Browning of what became islamic lands as evidenced by his armies dividing, where his niggers went became brown, where they didn't remained fair skinned.

[–] 0 pt

Olmec head Statues are Negroid blacks (in Mexico), Cherokee states White People in Continental US were there before them, Viking Runes in Texas, Ancient Greeks had computers and talked about Robots. History is so fucked. lol

[–] 0 pt

Olmecs are only believed to be blacks because their statues had big lips, they look quite a lot like abos and pacific islanders too, even some remote native populations, no genetic testing has found any evidence of sub saharan black gene in native populations anywhere in the americas, olmecs were likely an ancient sea faring people depositing colonies across the pacific that inbred like crazy and had to begin crossing the seas to reproduce or find more sustainable islands, this with asiatic coastal seafaring cultures produced what we now call pacific islanders. no niggers anywhere have ever created what the olmecs did, its just not in them. I would bet olmecs looked something like abos and abos in australia are so retarded because the olmec root civilization only took the most fit and competent men and women on their seafaring journeys, colonialism often drains a home nations of what made it great as the great men from within move out to conquer other new lands, abos are what is left after the climate changed and their best people left while the cowards and idiots stayed behind to become deeply inbred.

it's very likely the amerindians in north america followed north via the Bering straight in a variety of migrations and typically held to coastal geography until they reached deserts in which cases groups likely divided or went around, so I'd bet the west coast and parts of texas likely had native americans when vikings were storming over vineland and finding almost no one if they found any people at all, vikings raided and traded, with no people to do that they couldn't properly colonize, perhaps some stayed and got raided and integrated a long time before columbus, perhaps some kept exploring and became gods over the central and south american tribes we know the most recorded expeditions turned back quickly.

The ancient greeks witnessed massive leaps in technology and the learned men understood we used tools and mechanisms to make work easy or workers obsolete and so of course predicting automata early makes sense.

My study of ancient history suggests there are likely multiple lost civilizations which collapsed and while rumored are not found or understood and the earliest ones may have achieved quite a bit, not reaching our modern level but I suspect Atlantis existed as a confederacy of islands or as a trade union with a capital and they likely shared some common although branch cultures but at least a few likely practiced eugenics elevating those who achieve and are intelligent while setting the lower minded into lower strata with limited access to females and I suspect when their home collapsed they informed ancient babylon, egypt, greece and the gaelic culture. I would bet they lived in what is now the eye of the sahara in modern mauritania and the islands about it, that an ice age was ending and a series of major calving events happened in the same time and flooded atlantis, though briefly, they likely lost the majority of their people to it, save those at sea or inland and those people sought refuge in the lands they had contact with or knew of, I would also bet that some descendants of the atlanteans rebuilt but failed to achieve glory and likely a drought or some other natural disaster perhaps another flood or some mixture of these events caused the bronze age migration called the bronze age collapse. I would also be willing to bet that there were one or two civilizations in the pacific with a somewhat similar story of tsunamis washing them away or tectonic shifts or rising sea levels submerging them after an ice age.

[–] 0 pt

I agree with you and great comment. However, we just are not sure about many things in History. Including the Olmec heads, and those heads are some niggers. Otherwise, anthropologists wouldn't have that consensus. The fact of the matter is we just have no idea or have been lied to on much with regards to History. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative that blacks never had a Wakanda, does not mean there wasn't a Wakanda/Nigger Atlantis.

[–] 3 pts

Race is a social construct, unless you're black or Jewish, then you can claim ethnicity. Nuance, gaslighters love to make you walk on egg shells by having such convoluted rules.

[–] 2 pts

Do you have anything more to read related to this?

[–] 1 pt (edited )

I consider this chart inadequate for any discussion around speciation and what it means for us and the other species of humans on the planet today. Race and ethnicity are just types of speciation and the reason those exist for scientists is to allow a specific granularity of classification that is useful to them because they can really only measure bones they dig up in the ground and not much else.

Note, it isn't wrong technically and it is useful for scientists. However, I don't believe that level of granularity gives us anything because it attempts to say that the the lower in the graph you go the more similar we are the implication being that we are so similar that we are almost indistinct. This sets up the narrative that we are all very much alike, we are one, there is no special differentiation between ethnicities, and this is observably wrong.

Instead if we rename each of the layers as follows:

subspecies =--> speciation granulatiry level 1 race =--> speciation granulatiry level 2 ethnicity =--> speciation granulatiry level 3

What you get is a gradient that correctly labels the layers on a technical level AND a cognitive level. The further you go down the more similar we are, HOWEVER, each layer downward is just an additional branch of speciation. You can therefore extend this graph to:

country / geographic region (not all germans are actually germans for example) =--> speciation granulatiry level 4

town / city =--> speciation granulatiry level 5

family =--> speciation granulatiry level 6

individual =--> speciation granulatiry level 7

Now, level 5 and 6 would have been important speciation branch points 10 000 years ago when people did not have cars and planes, but they still exists in large parts of the world including Europe where families tend to be born into a town and stay in that town (still very common, less so in north america).

So, by doing this, the first thing that we do is step out of the political frame that is imposed on science. Science MUST filter everything down to the politicaly accepted position that we are all the same, there are no distinct human species in existence to day, there are no difference. Two, we get to extend the scientific process to levels of granularity that scientists and anthropologists would not find useful because they cannot test them by measuring bones, but we extend them to levels that are useful for us. They are useful to us because the process of speciation is a continual gradient that ABSOLUTELY requires that speciation can be delimited down to the individual, because that is how speciation works. Lastly, we now get to control the cognitive frame buy controlling the words used to create the labels, and therefore get to explore the possibilities now available to us.

For practical purposes, I consider the critical speciation points somewhere between level 3 and level 4. To my mind, there are at least 6 distinct human species co-existing on the planet today:

  • White Europeans (Spanish, Portugese and Italians are not white, I would be happy to separate norther Europeans from Slavs into separate species as well, but that is a nitpick).

  • Africans

  • Middle Easterners

  • East Asians

  • Polynesians

  • Aboriginies

  • Native Americans

Having dealt with all of those groups quite substantially, those are useful speciation points because those groups have quite distinct wiring of their nervous systems that makes them behave differently enough from each other to really be special.

What is really useful to me about my proposed way of labeling speciation is that you could EASILY break those groups down into many many subspeciation categories. Africa alone has tremenedous unique genetic diversity and genetic clumping. In Africa we could possibly end up with 10 maybe a 100 different subspeciation levels, some more useful than others. As well, for Europeans, if you look at graphs of genetic drift, we have not intermixed enough yet and the genetic groupings are really quite distinct and tied to regionality. This also suggests that we could get further speciation delimitation according to gene drift studies, however, from what I have seen the genetic clumping is roughly around level 4 and level 5 rarely below that.

Ultimately, all behaviour is downstream from speciation, OPs post is specific to scientific and political requirements and isn't too useful for us. For us, we need a bit more granularity to fit the observed behaviour patterns at finer levels of resolution, something we can probably correlate with gene drift studies if we want to be a bit more scientific about it. OPs speciation graph DELIBERATELY hides the huge behaviour differences between human species while my proposed labeling method allows us to CLEARLY observer huge behavioural differences still around levels 3 and 4, and less progressively so as you move lower in granularity.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Race and ethnicity are just types of speciation a...

No, yes. "Race" is species. Ethnicity is not. Ethnicity would be what you later call as simply granulation of the species.

Note, it isn't wrong technically and it is useful for scientists. However, I don't believe that level of granularity gives us anything because it attempts to say that the the lower in the graph you go the more similar we are the implication being that we are so similar that we are almost indistinct. This sets up the narrative that we are all very much alike, we are one, there is no special differentiation between ethnicities, and this is observably wrong.

Uhhh... No? Are all wolves (of the same form + variety) alike? Are all ... elk alike? etc. No. They aren't, but that distinciton exists.

(Spanish, Portugese and Italians are not white, I would be happy to separate norther Europeans from Slavs into separate species as well, but that is a nitpick).

False. They are. What you refer to are none of those ethnicities listed. They're jew-rape babies from when jewslam invaded and raped thousands of times only to be pushed back by 4 conquest battles of other White countries. Stop trying to make the claim that jews are White: they aren't. Stop trying to make the claim that ACTUAL Italians aren't White: they are.

Instead if we rename each of the layers as follows:

subspecies =--> speciation granulatiry level 1 race =--> speciation granulatiry level 2 ethnicity =--> speciation granulatiry level 3

This is meaningless. Completely meaningless. You're doing nothing but detracting by your own trivial semantics which is nothing of value or note. You want us all to believe that niggers, jews, and sandjews are the same species as Whites? That's absolutely obscene. It's repulsive to think someone who can write so much, so well; thinks that is true or even remotely arguable.

of White humans and nigger apes. Compared to Fixation indices of North American Wolves versus Coyotes. Science agrees Fixation Index is an indicator of species. The difference in indices of both pair is the same. But (((scientists))) argue that niggers are human: they aren't.

2nd pic of note; - West Asia = Japan (not to include poos / shitters / shitskins who came later from niggers) - East Asia = Bugmen -> oriental jews - see chinks are literal jews when likeness in dealings is compared.

native Americans

distinct

Do you follow along? At all? Even remotely? Do you care or try? None of the Americas had any humans on them until Europeans settled tehre tens of thousands of years ago ~22k. Chinks came much much much later by walking across the bering strait land bridge. https://archive.md/8xxXj https://archive.md/LOirJ https://archive.is/ry2tQ https://archive.is/m7Fy0 https://archive.md/z4dqT https://archive.md/7Kh0l

6 distinct human species

No no no no no

Human IS the species. To be distinct FROM human means different species. For your benefit: you're closeish; https://pic8.co/sh/u6BAlr.png The # is 4 and niggers are just off the charts not remotely related.

Man has diverged into distinct 'races', or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the negro and the European, ar so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species.

Charles Darwin, The Descent Of Man 1871


Having dealt with all of those groups quite substantially, those are useful speciation points because those groups have quite distinct wiring of their nervous systems that makes them behave differently enough from each other to really be special.

What is really useful to me about my proposed way of labeling speciation is that you could EASILY break those groups down into many many subspeciation categories. Africa alone has tremenedous unique genetic diversity and genetic clumping. In Africa we could possibly end up with 10 maybe a 100 different subspeciation levels, some more useful than others. As well, for Europeans, if you look at graphs of genetic drift, we have not intermixed enough yet and the genetic groupings are really quite distinct and tied to regionality. This also suggests that we could get further speciation delimitation according to gene drift studies, however, from what I have seen the genetic clumping is roughly around level 4 and level 5 rarely below that.

Ultimately, all behaviour is downstream from speciation, OPs post is specific to scientific and political requirements and isn't too useful for us. For us, we need a bit more granularity to fit the observed behaviour patterns at finer levels of resolution, something we can probably correlate with gene drift studies if we want to be a bit more scientific about it.

race-cuck garbage race-cuck garbage race-cuck garbage race-cuck garbage

Having dealt with all of those groups quite substantially...

You haven't. Even remotely if what you write is your honest opinion of them. You've never dealt with a black male (nigger) or a niggress.

just minor speciation required goy!!!

https://pic8.co/sh/Hv6ncq.png https://pic8.co/sh/sSRNOC.png

No. Fuck off. Niggers and humans are not even remotely related.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

>You want us all to believe that niggers, jews, and sandjews are the same species as Whites?

No, what part of my proposed labeling system suggests they are the same. My labeling system provides a way out of the political frame imposed by others, out of the semanting frame imposed by various groups, out of the scientific frame which is very specifica techincally and gives us a way to look at speciation at much more granular level down to the individual.

Although it isn't useful to think of an individual as a species, it is precisely what it is at a genetic level, just another branch that might eventually become distinct enough to even fit into the scientific label.

I clearly listed all the distinct human species and provided labeling for where they fit? What is not making sense here?

[–] 0 pt

>False. They are. What you refer to are none of those ethnicities listed. They're jew-rape babies from when jewslam invaded and raped thousands of times only to be pushed back by 4 conquest battles of other White countries. Stop trying to make the claim that jews are White: they aren't. Stop trying to make the claim that ACTUAL Italians aren't White: they are.

Precisely. A white and a black producing a child creates a third species. Portugese, Spanish and Italians are rape babies as you said, that makes them a third species by definition.

Of course, their entire countries are not uniform, especially in Italy and Spain and you could do a bit of filtering to see genetic clumping as per the charts that you posted. So, if we were to think about what this means, it would mean that if we needed to expel non whites from italy, spain and portugal, we can peform genetic clumping studies and select out those that are white and expel those that are this third mixed species.

What are you triggered about? We are literally saying the same thing. Italians, Spanish and Portugese are not white and need to be removed from the continent.

[–] 0 pt

>"Race" is species. Ethnicity is not. Ethnicity would be what you later call as simply granulation of the species.

I mean, that is literally what my explanation says, its granularity of speciation.

You have some serious cognitive issues dude.

[–] 0 pt

>Are all wolves (of the same form + variety) alike? Are all ... elk alike? etc. No. They aren't, but that distinciton exists.

Again, this is literally what my labeling system defines. I am EXACTLY arguing that point.

Get some sleep dude, you aren't comprehending what you are reading.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

...you aren't comprehending what you are reading.

Clearly I'm not if it's just labeling. But then again: that's meaningless and useless as the labels are posted in my OP picture. Get over yourself if you think that's too difficult, bad, mean, or other such distinction.

My OP is better than what we have but is still not close enough to reality. Teh species differentiation does not group East Asians with Humans. That happens above species.

https://poal.co/c/ec3d182c-3d3e-4400-a2ab-19d73af3d792#cmnts

My labeling system provides a way out of the political frame imposed by others...

Why do I care at all about some jew-grievance of some other group on what reality says they are and they are not? Why? Stop caring yourself. Stop being a race-cuck and pussy-footing around the fact of the issue. You do yourself no favors on such.

Also please pick ONE reply to reply from. This multi reply nonsense is absurd and niggerish. Not sure why you couldn't combine your multiple replies into one.

Combine your 4 replies into the one this reply of mine is to so this doesn't turn into a nigger-tier, low-IQ faggot system of replies in which nobody can follow.

https://pic8.co/sh/nfR0CY.png Unnecessary as fuck. Don't do that jewish garbage. Post one reply. Combine them into

[–] 1 pt

Occidental suggests niggers and Europeans are in some form related

[–] 5 pts

Occidental means relating to the West.

[–] 1 pt

learnt something new thanks.

[–] 0 pt

In this case we are related geographically.

[–] 0 pt

thats too much relationship.

[–] 0 pt

I strongly agree.

[–] 0 pt

No. Look at the chart. No. No. No.

[–] 0 pt

i did and yes still looks like we have a connection based on being in west.

[–] 0 pt

Europeans have ZERO connection to niggers in the hominid tree. That's the only issue I have with this chart: it's wrong. Niggers aren't of the homo (rofl, despite niggers being 100% faggots) genus.

[–] 1 pt

Jews = parasite DNA?

Arabs = mut mix of everything?

[–] 0 pt

Yes. In Hebrew, "arab', means, 'mixed.' Jews are arabs who converted to Judaism, the religion of the pharisees.

[–] 0 pt

I'M A HOMO.

[–] 0 pt

Something the person might not know about etc.: only one is required

[–] 2 pts

Brown is down and tan is grand but white is the big boss man