![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}
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.
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
(post is archived)