Varg Vikernes attacks South-Europeans

[Kamal900]

Why are we still talking about that piece of racial trash ?

He's been banned from Youtube a long time ago, and he's on bitchute, but he doesn't make many videos anymore.

[Daco Celtic]

This guy is like Varg's more subdued brother, Varg on xanax

[Nicolaus]

Weak argument. Your argument would only work if Scandinavia historically had as much people as southern Europeans.

This is like the common argument used by black people when they state "more whites are in prison or on welfare than blacks in the US" after a white person states the opposite. Whites are 63% of the population and blacks are 12%. It's per capita what matters. Breeding more and having a large population isn't an accomplishment. The only reason the Renaissance happened in Italy(and to a lesser extent in South Germany and the Low Countries) is because Italy had a population of 10.5 million in 1450, a country like England only had 3.3 million, Norway had 300k.

When the population of England caught up, accomplishment surpassed it. People love to point out how Germanic tribes were dominated by the Romans and accomplished a lot less. The dominated militarily part is arguable as well, Germanic tribes won 4/9 battles before 17 AD, 3/10 from 200-368 AD, then 6/10, 1 draw from 376 to 461 after Rome had declined. The vast majority were Germanic attacks, in Roman territory with Romans being the defending army, and defense is easier. You have to be a moron to draw any sort of accomplishment from that(including all the urban settlements) when the population of Italy was 6,830,000 in 1 AD, the European part of the Roman Empire had 25,000,000 people, the entire Roman Empire had 46,900,000 and the entire population of non-Roman Europe was 7,900,000. The population of modern Germany was likely around 1-2 million, Magna Germania 3-4 million, extremely spread out and rural. It's the same reason Egyptians were building pyramids while southern European-like neolithic Europeans were living in villages with huts similar to Masaai huts.



Let's also not get into historical revisionism here either, regardless of the reasons, Germanic tribes had eventually conquered Rome, Iberia and had made up the majority of the ruling monarch elite in Europe in the following period.

Even if you want to put more weight on historical accomplishments, how long exactly do you think northern Europeans have been dominant? 1950? The scramble for Africa? What exactly lead the decline of southern Europeans?

Central Europe(Belgium, France, southern Germany, Austria) was already the richest and most accomplished region by the early 1000s(in Europe anyway, the Middle-East was richer than all of Europe save for Byzantium then), both in terms of total and per capita(although N. Italy/Byzantium were richer on an individual, not regional basis). By the 1500s, central Europe was by far the richest in total, Scandinavia had surpassed southern Europe/most of central Europe as a whole per capita whilist N. Italy was still ontop but with Belgium, Netherlands, and Denmark at 2, 3, 4. By 1600, N. Italy was no longer ontop. By the 1700s, N. Italy(and ofc the remainder of S. Europe) had become irrelevant, completely irrelevant in the 1800s.

This not only goes for economy, but in terms of significant figures in science/art/literature as well(also, Charles Murray is not a "neo-Nazi" propagandist, he's an anti-Trump classical liberal married to a Thai woman).






(N. Italy no longer at the top in 1600 and largely irrelevant by 1800, as southern Europeans were no longer the largest population)

If we go by per capita, contrary to your "irrelevant" statements about Scandinavia, the per capita list would put Denmark, Sweden, Norway at the top, then Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland.



We see the same with Nobel Prizes and literacy:


(the Austria, Hungary, Lithuania numbers are inflated by Jews)


(Southern Italy, Spain and "muh ancient Greeks" were at below 15% in the 1800s)

Notice how accomplishment rises with total increase of population:



Per capita. Not a difficult concept here. I actually don't even think Scandinavians are the smartest Europeans(that honor goes to Dutch/Flemish, SE English, Rhine/South Germans, NE French, based on actual measurable data, not circumstance influenced ancient history, these populations are also not an intermediary between N and S Euros, but far closer to N. Euros), but to claim they're less accomplished is misleading, and to claim southern Europeans are historically more accomplished is outright false. Southern Europeans were ontop on an individual basis(Minoans/N. Italians) from 1500 BC-1500 AD and 1000 BC-1000 AD on the entire region basis. It's also arguable Eastern Europeans were dominant before 1500 BC because the various Indo-European groups like Corded Ware were more accomplished and dominant over neolithic farmers(more gold hordes, dominated militarily). Again, that doesn't mean anything, that success likely solely depended on their use of the horse, what does mean something is modern comparisons and data. The idea that 3% literate Romans where barely anything was invented can be weighted the same as recent or modern history is non-sense.

So long as there are much more southern Europeans moving north than vice versa, the average European does have a "Nordicist, neo-Nazi" perspective whether they acknowledge it or not.

Varg may be an idiot and factually wrong about nearly everything, but the emotional overtly-defensive counter arguments southern Euros bring out are just as stupid. Anyway, it seems the main topic of this thread was supposed to be he implied Southern Europeans look exactly like Middle-Easterners. He obviously didn't mean it literally, he meant they're an intermediary population, and both genetically and phenotypically that is absolutely factually correct.

The reason why renaissance was born in italy is because several events happened by the culture background in the country. Then the fact of the fewer population is irrilevant, was saying that de facto scandinavian countries were in the periphery of the european civilization, then we can discuss about the causes, one can be surely the amount of the population.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

The reason why renaissance was born in italy is because several events happened by the culture background in the country. Then the fact of the fewer population is irrilevant, was saying that de facto scandinavian countries were in the periphery of the european civilization, then we can discuss about the causes, one can be surely the amount of the population.

Racialists are generally ignorant about how the actual world works. The world is complicated, but simple men have simple thoughts. Economics reveals much about how the world works, but it's too complicated for these people.

Notice here in the US, the vast majority of significant figures were born in the north and especially the northeast, and where there is heavy economic activity, there is also better education and an incentive to maximize potential for economic purposes. The IQ average of southern Whites and northern Whites isn't much different, and even when you take into account the larger White population of the north, the American southern Whites still lag heavily behind.



With regards to Europe, a high proportion of significant figures can be found in the "Blue Banana Corridor":losely connected urban areas with heavy economic activity that has existed since the Middle Ages.







Every time people bring up Murray's book on human achievement, I can't help but wonder if they read it. What I notice about people at this forum is they don't actually read. They get their information here and there off the internet. You can always tell, too.

[JamesBond007]

Racialists are generally ignorant about how the actual world works. The world is complicated, but simple men have simple thoughts. Economics reveals much about how the world works, but it's too complicated for these people.

Notice here in the US, the vast majority of significant figures were born in the north and especially the northeast, and where there is heavy economic activity, there is also better education and an incentive to maximize potential for economic purposes. The IQ average of southern Whites and northern Whites isn't much different, and even when you take into account the larger White population of the north, the American southern Whites still lag heavily behind.



With regards to Europe, a high proportion of significant figures can be found in the "Blue Banana Corridor":losely connected urban areas with heavy economic activity that has existed since the Middle Ages.







Every time people bring up Murray's book on human achievement, I can't help but wonder if they read it. What I notice about people at this forum is they don't actually read. They get their information here and there off the internet. You can always tell, too.

Your thoughts are simplistic too. The world is complicated and economics is just one aspect or factor just like race. Capitalism arose out of Britain from the invention of the steam engine and codifies in Britain with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and these things did not come from the mind of a nigger :

It’s Genes that Count NOT Environment

The average Negro pupil (I.Q. 80.7) cannot go beyond a national standard Seventh Grade curriculum; for half the Negro group the Fifth Grade is maximum...only one (1%) per cent of the Negroes are intellectually equipped to do acceptable college work (110 I.Q. and over). Thirty (30%) of Whites are so equipped. DR. HENRY E. GARRETT. Head Dept. Psychology, Columbia U.

The differences in thickness of the supragranular layers of the cortex of White and Negro brains is the difference between civilization and savagery. DR. WESLEY CRITZ GEORGE, Head Dept. Anatomy, U. N.Carolina.

The supragranular layers in the dog are 1/2 the thickness of those in the ape, and the ape's only 3/4 the thickness of White man. The Negroe's are 14% thinner than White man. CARLTON PUTNAM, LLD, Princeton, "Race and Reality".

Non-whites are more intelligent in direct proportion to the amount of White genes they carry. (Evidence suggests that) the average I.Q. of Negro populations increases by about One (1) I.Q. point for each one percent (1%) of Caucasian genes. (Conversely, Whites grow dumber as they grow darker, Ed.). DR. WILLIAM SHOCKLEY, Nobel Prize Laureate, Stanford U.

Whatever may be the sociological value of the legal fiction that "All men are created equal" there can be no doubt that...in its biological application...this statement is one of the most stupendous falsehoods ever uttered...Dr. EARNEST WOOTEN, Prof. Anthropology, Harvard.

Genes determine CAPACITY. CAPACITY determines environment.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[JamesBond007]

Racialists are generally ignorant about how the actual world works. The world is complicated, but simple men have simple thoughts. Economics reveals much about how the world works, but it's too complicated for these people.

Notice here in the US, the vast majority of significant figures were born in the north and especially the northeast, and where there is heavy economic activity, there is also better education and an incentive to maximize potential for economic purposes. The IQ average of southern Whites and northern Whites isn't much different, and even when you take into account the larger White population of the north, the American southern Whites still lag heavily behind.



With regards to Europe, a high proportion of significant figures can be found in the "Blue Banana Corridor":losely connected urban areas with heavy economic activity that has existed since the Middle Ages.








Every time people bring up Murray's book on human achievement, I can't help but wonder if they read it. What I notice about people at this forum is they don't actually read. They get their information here and there off the internet. You can always tell, too.

You are an ignorant American who does not know history , maybe, two Americans, know history otherwise you would know your theory does not make sense because Scotland has pretty much always been the poorest nation in Western Europe :

Who formed the first literate society? Who invented our modern ideas of democracy and free market capitalism? The Scots. As historian and author Arthur Herman reveals, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Scotland made crucial contributions to science, philosophy, literature, education, medicine, commerce, and politics—contributions that have formed and nurtured the modern West ever since.

Herman has charted a fascinating journey across the centuries of Scottish history. Here is the untold story of how John Knox and the Church of Scotland laid the foundation for our modern idea of democracy; how the Scottish Enlightenment helped to inspire both the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution; and how thousands of Scottish immigrants left their homes to create the American frontier, the Australian outback, and the British Empire in India and Hong Kong.

How the Scots Invented the Modern World reveals how Scottish genius for creating the basic ideas and institutions of modern life stamped the lives of a series of remarkable historical figures, from James Watt and Adam Smith to Andrew Carnegie and Arthur Conan Doyle, and how Scottish heroes continue to inspire our contemporary culture, from William “Braveheart” Wallace to James Bond.

And no one who takes this incredible historical trek will ever view the Scots—or the modern West—in the same way again.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Inv.../dp/0609809997
.