So, with respect to speciation, you can take the following position: 1) The scientific definition of speciation. It used to be animals that could not breed viable offspring but this had changed over time and scientific definition of species no longer is limited to that. Pros: Scientists agree with you. Cons: Just like each human technical specialization, it defines it's own terms and groups because each specialty uses those group definitions as tools for their specializations needs. In the case of scientists, It "might" be possible to say that all humans are one species and let it go. The problem is that scientists are under HUGE political pressures from all sorts of groups and literally cannot discuss human speciation in any way without having their career and life nuked. 2) There are no species of animals and all individual animals are transitional stages between species. This is the technically correct answer because all attempts to draw circles around a cluster of genes can be argued to be arbitrary and if you argue rigorously enough, you eventually end up drawing a circle around each animal and saying it is a transitional state between the pre and post species. This isn't useful because, first genetic clustering happens, can be measured and can be graphed / measured to such a high degree of precision you can measure the spaces between the genetic clusters between species. The problem is not speciation, it is the arbitrary nature of drawing circles around genetic clusters and calling it a species. For example, remember above how I said scientists are forbidden by political pressure to not explore human speciation? Well, the genetic drift between whites and blacks is twice as large as that between wolves and dogs. Yet, no one would call a wolf and a dog the same species and everyone would recognize each species has unique sets of features that make them different not only on the outside but inside including their nervours systems. You cannot keep wolves as pets for example. 3) A pragmatic approach to genetic clustering. Look at the point clouds and recognize genetic clustering. You can do it at the large scale level and say there at least 7 human species on the planet, like so: https://twitter.com/page_eco/status/1075012460703150080?lang=en Or, you can get more fine grained and amongst each of the 7 look at additional clustering and draw genetic lines around those groups. In Europe genetic clustering is REALLY REALLY visible across the entire white continent so much so that over time you can easily imagine each group speciating further if left isolated. Africa has the most genetic diversity of all of the worlds human species, I magine you would get a lot more human species on that continent than any others. However, I just take the pragmatic approach and say there are 7 human species on the planet as per above. There are cloud graphs that further show the genetic clustering in much more obvious ways than that tweet. The 7 species are: White, black, brown, yellow, aboriginie, polynesian and american indian. So, I agree that my speciation is somewhat arbitrary and we could argue about how many human species there are on the planet. However, if you want to explain rates of crime vs rates of success, vs virtually every other metric that is improtant for past explanatory and future predictive power, you just draw lines around those seven groups and call them species. It explains everything about crime vs success in those groups and provides deep insight into the special nature of all of those species and WHY they have never been able to historically get along. So, for example, if you take blacks and transplant them anywhere in the world, they always have the same crime rates. If you transplant yellow people they always have the same success rate. And so on. My point to the original poster was a comment on just how gullible the white species of human can be. I absolutely loathe to tell other people how to spend their free time bullshitting about whatever. But, there are special cases of unbelievable stupidity, like steel beams disintigrating into powder when the entire outer shell of the towers were load baring steel beams designed and built for a unique open space donut floor design, and every single video shows the fucking load baring steel beams peeling off under the pancaking of the floors of above and falling down like leaves from a tree, it makes me angry. Let me give you an example of how my speciation groupings overlap with my comments about 9/11 here. There is a terms called PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM that exists ONLY in the white species. No other species of human has this feature. Somewhere in our past, our species had pathological altruism embedded into it's genome. Pathological altruism is the deep deep deep need for our people to help everyone on the planet and everyone outside of their in group preference. We are the only species that do this, all other human species ONLY have ingroup preference. It is thought to exist because in cold climates those that sacrifice them selves end up with better chance of genes passing on and surviving because in bad situations you will sacrifice your self for youe neighbours kids and vice versa. In todays world, this bites us in the ass every single day. What makes me angry is when i see a white man on here submit him self to a false idea so obvious that i see a white man so distrustful of authority (rightfully so, as I am) yet so needing to fit into a group that he will look at the outer load bearing steel beams in the videos and commit him self to stupidity like they disintigrated. No, no they didn't disintigrate. I am not saying the buildings were not brought down by us/israel teams, I believe that to be true. I can even buy thermite on the inside columns, you would only need thermite on one floor and the rest would pancake down. But, holy shit, our white species really needs to start training our men to become better versions of our selves because this sort of nonsense is pathetic.