QTDDTOT: Questions that don’t deserve their own thread
This is the thread for one-liner questions about /pol/-related topics. “What does /pol/ think of [x],” “is [x] redpilled,” and associated questions belong here. Threads created based on a single, simple question will be deleted. If your thread is deleted, come here and ask again. REMINDER TO SEARCH THE CATALOG FIRST.
OP - https://8ch.net/pol/res/12021208.html
view the rest of the comments →
16688726? ago
16688728? ago
Perhaps a brief segment from my book? Still writing it, so please excuse the formatting lines.
A lot of the problem stems from misuse of the definition of words, and from the suppression of scientific knowledge. What we call "races" (caucasoids, mongoloids, negroids, americoids, and australoids) are entirely separate species, as defined by their genetics. Within these "races" there are true subspecies (with a large enough genetic distance to be defined as such) and "ethnicities", which are simple groups within subspecies. For negroes, these group distances are pretty big. For whites, however, there's virtually ZERO FST (genetic distance) between them. Jews, genetically, are a subspecies of the caucasoid species. I've taken to calling it Homo europeansis, so jews would likely be Homo europeansis judaica. The others are Homo europeansis europeansis and Homo europeansis arabica.
16785964? ago
>>12783200
Anon, you’re going to have to give me your sources
16701486? ago
Is that your personal definition on the Jews or is it based off racial science?
16701489? ago
Oh, both. The names are mine, the science is studied and objectively determined. Obviously the mainstream narrative is that there's only one species of humanity, but genetic distance between each of the five species is greater than that of other animal species' within the same genus which we've studied. Either EVERY taxonomic definition we have ever recorded is incorrect and needs to be redone… or humanity is five species and we need to get over this homocentric jewish bullshit and fix our understanding of ourselves.
Anyway, from the genetic studies that have been done, we see three distinct subgroups (so subspecies) of the caucasoid race (so caucasoid species). If we're naming human species like the others, these need names to distinguish them. I came up with Homo europeansis for the whole species, and then those three names for the subspecies. I see that I screwed up on the most important one. It should be Homo europeansis europa, and then Homo europeansis judaica and Homo europeansis arabica.
16703367? ago
Then, Jews, Arabs and Europeans are all apart of the Caucasoid race?
16703370? ago
Genetically. I'm obviously not advocating intermarriage even between these three groups, but from a genetic standpoint they're the same species, at least. Meanwhile, asians, africans, australians, and americans aren't the same species as each other or as them. Obviously I mean abbos and indioes for the latter two groups.
16691028? ago
Impressive. Very nice.
One thing I'll ask, is please cite sources in footnotes or something. I'm sure it's easy to do with an office app or LaTeX or R-Markdown or whatever you're using; it would really help to be able to have sources in hand both for verifiability and to be able to dig deeper into a subject you cover. It might help you too, to keep track of why/when/where/who of various claims and when you want to expand on a subject.
You're doing God's work.
16694951? ago
It’ll be an e-book. All the red text is clickable citation. I didn’t want to interrupt the flow, but at the same time didn’t want a totally uncited book like Defensive Racism.