Introduction

The first step to understanding race is to understand the basic building blocks of biological classification: taxonomy. Biology Online defines taxonomy as “the science of finding, describing, classifying, and naming organisms, including the studying of the relationships between taxa and the principles underlying such a classification.”

Taxonomic systems are “social constructs” that allow us to build a cohesive view of the world by placing ‘things’ into predefined categorical groups, known as ‘taxa’ (singular: ‘taxon’), within a wider hierarchical order, according to how related those ‘things’ are to one another.

This process of categorization and hierarchical ordering is something that we all do instinctively, day-by-day. Consider how you classify items around your home: A bowl and mug are crockery; a knife and fork are cutlery; crockery and cutlery are kitchenware; kitchenware and furniture are homeware. You get the picture.

  • Note: Something being a “social construct” does not mean that it is invalid or useless. Language, math, color, etc., are also “social constructs.” Fundamentally, your entire perception of reality is based on so-called “social constructs.” Thus, the argument that “social construct = invalid” logically concludes to “nothing in life is valid.”


Ancient Taxonomy

Although naming and classifying our surroundings has taken place since the dawn of communication (“don’t eat those berries, they’re poisonous”), the science of classifying organisms can be traced back to Ancient Greece.

During the 4th Century BC, Aristotle recorded and categorized the attributes of countless species, producing an incredible breadth of work. In ‘Historia Animalium’ (“The History of Animals,” 322 BC), Aristotle sets out to investigate four major differences between animals: Body parts, ways of life, types of activity, and specific characters. He established that animals can be recognized as groups (species or races) when all members possess the same set of distinguishing features. All birds have the universal characteristics of wings, beaks, feathers, etc.


Modern Taxonomy

Aristotle’s taxonomic system was influential for over 2,000 years, and many of his distinctions, such as vertebrate and invertebrate, are still used to this day. This method of scientific classification continued throughout the Medieval, Renaissance, and Early Modern periods. Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), creator of Linnaean Taxonomy (the system currently used by all Western scientists), simply refined the existing processes by creating a standardized naming system, providing a revolutionary solution to a relatively chaotic and disorganized scientific field.

Today, specialized biologists, known as taxonomists, are responsible for sorting organisms into taxa (groups/categories). The validity of a classification is agreed upon by scientific consensus, presided over by official taxonomic organizations. Every living creature on earth theoretically has a taxonomic classification, from blue whales to single-celled organisms.

Some people argue that taxonomy is merely “fiddling around with semantics.” Those people are chumps; taxonomy is a central pillar of biology. How we categorize our world is extremely important (especially in our current political climate) as it dramatically affects how we perceive our world and our relationship with it, as well as how we perceive ourselves.

The ranks, or ‘taxa,’ within a taxonomic system nest together like a Russian matryoshka doll. Within the biological taxonomic system, multiple species fit into one genus, multiple genera fit into one family, multiple families fit into one order, and so on.

The full list of biological taxa/ranks is as follows, from lowest to highest:

Taxon RankExample
RaceInformal rank, refers to any taxon rank
Subspeciese.g., Mountain gorilla
Speciese.g., Eastern gorilla
Genuse.g., Gorilla
Tribee.g., Gorrillini
Subfamilye.g., Homininae
Familye.g., Hominidae
Infraordere.g., Simiiformes
Subordere.g., Haplorhini
Ordere.g., Primates
Classe.g., Mammals
Phylume.g., Chordates
Kingdome.g., Animals
Domaine.g., Eukaryote

Race — as per its current definition — is the second-lowest taxonomic rank. Races are, supposedly, not quite subspecies, but distinct enough to be recognized as separate biological groups within a subspecies (if they are even recognized at all, that is).

HOWEVER, historically, “race” had always been used as an informal shorthand term, used to refer to any level of the taxonomic hierarchy. For example, biologists of yore talked of the “Canine race,” despite the fact that canines (or Canidae) constitute a family. This usage was phased out after the Second World War, between 1960 and 1980 for political reasons. Basically, it boils down to globalists wanting to trick White people into embracing mass migration. It isn’t too complicated.

Species and subspecies are the first “formal” rankings. Since they are the ‘fundamental units’ of taxonomy, they’re often mistakenly regarded as the smallest distinct biological groups that either exist or are scientifically meaningful. This is not true by any means; biological groups can always be divided and subdivided, right down to the level of the individual.

Genus ranks above species in the taxonomic hierarchy. The first half of an animal’s scientific (Latin) name is its genus. For example, the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and North American coyote, Canis latrans, both belong to the ‘Canis’ genus (canines). The genus of humanity is ‘Homo.’


Classifying Taxa

Generally speaking, there is much confusion among the public as to what criteria separates one taxon group from the next. The typical example is what distinguishes a species from a sub-species. Below is the definition that most people are familiar with.

This mode of classifying species can serve as a rough guide, but it is slightly outdated and should not be regarded as absolute for several reasons. For example, some species reproduce asexually (self-cloning), and multiple species (not sub-species) are capable of interbreeding (‘hybridizing’) to produce viable, fertile offspring.

Thanks to the rise of recently discovered hybrid species, such as the coywolf, the fact that some separate species can successfully interbreed with one another has been somewhat accepted by the mainstream. However, you should regard everything that the mainstream media publishes with the utmost skepticism. Rags like the Washington Post and The Economist rarely publish an article that is 50% honest, let alone 100% honest.

Taxonomists do take breeding compatibility into account while classifying species and subspecies. However, a variety of other factors are also considered. These include morphology, physiology, ethology, ecology, evolutionary history, genetics, and so on.

In other words, an organism is classified based upon its appearance, its physical construction, what it does, how it acts, where it lives, and which organisms it is genetically descended from, related to, or distinct from. Reproduction is just one piece of a much wider puzzle. Taxonomists generally regard an organisms’ morphology — its external physical appearance (eidonomy) and internal structure (anatomy) — as the most important piece of the puzzle. Additionally, an organisms’ phenotype, the sum total of its observable characteristics (build, behavior, etc.), generally takes precedent over genetic data.

All of the aforementioned factors tend to be strongly correlated. Two animals that exhibit major genetic differences will also exhibit major behavioral and physical differences. Similarly, two animals that exhibit major behavioral differences will also exhibit major physical and genetic differences, and so on. A sea cucumber, for example, is very genetically different from a wolf, but not quite as genetically different from a starfish; this is reflected in both their behaviors and morphologies.

There is no absolute formula for defining an organisms’ taxonomic classification, and some problem cases can lead to heated arguments between taxonomists, but, generally speaking, the taxonomic system is pretty reliable and accurate. Until humanity comes into the picture, that is. In our case, taxonomy is applied horrendously badly. As previously mentioned, this was done for purely political purposes, and this article provides a brief summary of the subject. However, I have written some deep dive articles on the issue, which I’ll be publishing at some point in the near future.