![What you're not supposed to know about "race" - genus - species - subspecies - variety (race) - form (ethnicity) [1479x839 - 26KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/hJY2cW.png){kind=link}
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.
>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?
>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.
>"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.
>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.
...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
For the record, I'm really just replying to you at this point so others that might have the same / similar question can just refer to this fantastically garbage thread of analysis.
For example:
>Stop caring yourself. Stop being a race-cuck and pussy-footing around the fact of the issue.
Not a single part of that makes sense. Details:
1) Stop caring about my self =--> What does this even mean? You are reading something into my post that isn't there.
2) Stop being a race-cuck =--> I literally listed 6 distinct species of humans living side by side and provided a labeling system that explains how I counted that, provided further distinctive granularity capability and provided predictions that additional speciation granularity is possible.
3) ... pussy-footing around the fact of the issue. =--> Really? What fact would that be? That there are AT LEAST 6 distinct species of human that I can account for using my labeling system, a labeling system that not only predicts there will be more ESPECIALLY if we combine it with genetic drift / clumping studies?
You are LITERALLY retarded. Occasionally you post something reasonable, but your ability to comprehend well structured well presented information is kinda shit.
Okay, you don't like my labeling system, fine. Yours is useless in virtually every dimension except as a tool to keep everyone thinking that there is only one human species and the rest is just culture. That is literally what you are saying, even though you keep on re-posting my position that there are multiple species of humans on the planet.
Whatever you are drinking, I don't want to go near that.
Dear lord.
I disagree.
What you posted is fine and that is what the scientific community uses, but it has a whole bunch of problems, not the least of which is that I proposed a labeling system that labels africans, europeans, asians, etc as SPECIES and yours does not because it is designed for scientific testing requirements that have to fit into political frameworks. Scientists that call different races species get fired.
There are a few things to consider in my post.
1) My proposed labeling system was designed by me, for me. It is extremely useful in all sorts of ways, including past explanatory power and future predictive power.
The scientific labeling system does not have future predictive power because it claims that africans and europeans are not a separate species but a race. Race has been DELIBERATELY poisoned and overloaded with useless meaning in our time. In the past it may have been something closer to species, today race just means its just the same person with a tan. To you and me, we might be able to see past the label, but the label is still an overloaded term and deliberately misleading.
With my labeling system I just need to know at which layer of speciation a particular person is at and I know everything I need about their past and how they will behave in the future. It is particularly useful when hiring people. Albeit not perfect in any sense of the matter.
2) I posted my labeling system not as a recommendation that you change your perspective or you use it. Whatever works for you. I shared my labeling system and my rationale around it.
It is my claim that the labeling system is neither arbitrary nor unscientific. It's literally a description of the speciation process and only provided for your consideration.
If you don't find it useful, okay. I don't find your labels useful, you don't find mine useful, that is fine.
3) My proposition is that my labeling system, repeated now for the third time, solves a bunch of problems including:
Removes us from the political context imposed on the scientific labeling frame.
Removes us from the cognitive context imposed by the use of overloaded language like race and ethnicity, which is completely meaningless.
It extends the labeling system to actual points at which speciation tends to fork. The scientific speciation graph is not useful to us because it really deals with specation only at the skeletal level. Scientists can only measure bones to distinguish species (and bodies for species alive today) and they simply stop at speciation and throw everything into a buck of "I cannot measure it therefore it is meaningless and probably mostly the same". We simply step out of that and look at speciation down to the individual because all new species must / can only start from a single individual. Now, sure, the levels of granularity are proposed by me for my purposes, my thinking is that you guys might want to give it a think and see if additional levels of granularity make sense. I proposed adding genetic clumping studies to help the filtering process and provided africa as an example where we would find a ton of new species of humans simply because of the huge genetic varioation on that continent and the huge amount of genetic clumping that is greater than anywhere else on the planet.
And so on.
In other words, if I take your scientific graph and I try to use it for a hiring process or a risk mitigation process in resolving a dispute it gives me really nothing to work from. Your graph basically says we are all one species and if i need to know how to hire or how to resolve a dispute, i have to pull out a giant (and always changing) book of cultural norms and try to figure out what each group believes in some arbitrary way.
If I take my labeling system, if I hire or need to resolve a conflict, I just need to know where a person comes from and I can automatically know that a black person will exhibit dominance behaviours, an asian will be submissive but resentful underneath, a european will be highly compliant but rebellious and so on. The distinctions get more fuzzy at the lower levels of granularity, but if I were to apply genetic clumping studies to the speciation granularity I could easily start to simply discriminate against italians, spanish and portugese because, frankly, they are the children of invaders (another species) and therefore their own species and not white.
If the scientific labeling method works for you, okay fine. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.
(post is archived)