Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] • 13 pts

They are not a "subspecies". Based on their genetic distance from Whites they are a different species; arguably, they are a different genus.

[–] • 6 pts

I wouldn't go that far, but yes, they are indeed a different species.

[–] • 7 pts

A chihuahua is genetically closer to a wolf than the nigger is to the rest.

[–] • 3 pts

There are plenty of examples of different genuses cross-breeding and creating fertile offspring.

If you look at the genetic distance between humans and sub-saharan nig-nogs, it's larger than what we consider "different species".

3%-19% of nigger DNA is from an unknown archaic hominid.

[–] • 10 pts

Homo Erectus Africanus Criminalis

[–] • 5 pts

Subhuman. Untermensch.

[–] • 4 pts

I'd like to see a serious attempt at a taxonomic breakdown. Niggers are obviously a different species (actually 3: west, east, and Hottentot). Abos are obviously a different species. Are Eurasians one species or several?

[–] • 1 pt

I would wager that Slavs, Anglos, Teutons and Nords are distinct enough

[–] • 1 pt

No, definitely not. All Whites are clearly the same species. Different subspecies? Maybe.

[–] • 2 pts

chirp!

[–] • 1 pt

I venture the fact that people knew this. That’s why in the constitution “man” meant White Caucasian etc. not the specifies negroitus-Nikelootus folk.

[–] • 1 pt

Correction: Niggers are another, separate species...

[–] • 0 pt

By definition it means whites, asians, inuit, aboriginal etc are subspecies too.