*Calls Jow Forums*

maltese = ?

Attached: 1525639744313.jpg (450x449, 135K)

VAAAAAAAAARG
IT IS MEEEEEEEEEEEE
EURONYMOUS

Attached: ce8bb6192503c55c8205f3db5501f9e0.jpg (500x487, 33K)

tunisian = camel piss

*raises paw*

was only asking a question mate :^)

I'm half-Med half-Nord, your ultimate nightmare, Varg.

Attached: 1459452824345.gif (425x481, 1.51M)

Fuck off. I've had enough of your flag's shit.

When in doubt: *Vargkick*!

Attached: 1512646474717.jpg (1024x543, 32K)

Come here, half-blood!

Attached: 1510594501177.webm (600x338, 233K)

I hope varg's kids all marry niggers.

>thirsty mutt

*HISSSSSS*
IF I CAN'T BE WHITE NOBODY CAN. GO RAPE THEM KARA BOGA

Attached: 1510241136358.png (1200x1200, 54K)

bump for varg

Attached: 1524763622018.jpg (300x168, 4K)

Why does he have a grey beard? Isn't he in his 40s

I don't mind Southern Europeans. But I agree with Varg on one thing about them: The Greeks are filth. I've never met a Greek I've liked.

>I don't mind Southern Europeans.
I don't think Varg does either. The whole meme has just spun out of proportion.

>varg doesn't hate meds bro lmao it's just a meme dud-

youtube.com/watch?v=XPz59kg1xDA

Varg would literally murder someone for simply having med blood

I've seen that video and he just explains why he dislikes the "culture" they brought. I don't see why he would have a problem with a regular non-decadent med ("southron"). It's no secret that Varg dislikes civilization (even though whites are the only ones capable of building it (???)), so these are just some of the reasons for it.

T. Raheem Sterling

I imagine there must be a lot of greeks in Australia

Norway legalized gay marriage before any southron country except Spain(2009) lmao
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

his dog bit some italian dude on holiday in frace once

lmao

Meds and Nords must unite.

Attached: IMG_20180420_071633.jpg (720x586, 55K)

There are a lot in Melbourne and they act like apes and spergout.

bring it on, commie

Attached: 4316141.jpg (1453x918, 381K)

fuck you subhuman I AM GREEK

Nordic women prefer Mediterranean men. This is the cause of all of his frustrations.

Wh*toid genes

Why did Varg end up in southern France if he despises southrons?

He explained in the video. He believes Mediterraneans brought civilization to the north and that was a bad thing. Because Mediterraneans were more tolerant, diverse empires, and started banking systems. Also that Christianity taking over was their fault for enslaving the Jews and letting their believes proliferate among the other slaves and taking over from there. He has hints of truth in really wrong conclusions.

He sounds retarded but okay.

The opposite is also true though. Most dark haired women go for light skin or light haired guys. And vice versa, just in general it's something I notice

I'm red haired and generally all my girlfriends have been latina or black haired

nobody REALLY cares that much because "germanics" nowadays have generally brown or black hair, only super nordic areas are majority blonde

Attached: oikeesti.jpg (480x480, 25K)

why did he marry a french woman if he hates southrons?

I mean he was showing real archeological findings, but drawing retarded conclusions from it. I think he literally believes every european before Roman empire brought slaves from elsewhere and moor invasions was blonde/red hair and blue eyed. Which is retarded

See I think he believes she isn't a real southron because she's light eyed and blonde. So not mixed from "moor invasions" like other meds. Even though he's a retard and meds look mostly the same since they have to live in the sun more.

It's not about the cardinal direction, you mongs. It's about race and biology.

t. not even a Vargfan, but come on now

she believes she descends from french royalty or something
also we're not southrons, france is essentially western europe

>france is essentially western europe
racially and biologically

Isn't she an autist that's like 20 years younger than him?

Yes she has actual autism and is 20 years younger or something like that. I don't know how they met, maybe she was just a really obsessive fan of his music.

>meds look mostly the same since they have to live in the sun more

Varg is a retard, but trying to fit whole of Europe into one racial category is equally retarded.

The sun meme is just ridiculous, compare Dutch settlers in South Africa who have lived there for 300+ years and tell me they look more like Italians than Western with a straight face. It's obvious different genetics are at play here, not some sun meme.

Attached: Erwee-Young-families.jpg (1362x572, 353K)

The variations you get come from thousands if not tens of thousands of years of habitation. Meds were living there for that long. Nords were living in the north where paler skin was beneficial so they have that. Evolution takes a long fucking time dude. More than just a few centuries especially for large animals like humans.

>also we're not southrons
This. Franks were Germanics. And then actual southrons happened and now the stereotypical frenchman is black haired with a baguette.

She studied in Norway I believe and that's how they met, considering they married in 2007 and spent their early years in Norway.

Attached: Varg_Vikernes-4.jpg (1000x667, 154K)

In other words, different racial groups. You are literally agreeing with me.

Not going to debunk your argument but South Africa is nowhere hot as you may think when you hear the word "Africa"

>ompare Dutch settlers in South Africa who have lived there for 300+ years and tell me they look more like Italians than Western with a straight face
uh....

What this guy said.

Varg ridicules the """scientists""" who claim nigger Britons turned white Europeans in some 1000 years, so why the fuck would Afrikaaner change their biological makeup in 300 years?

Northerners and southerners are undeniably different though

Spain is a nordic visigothic country though

As a mutt, i must support my med brothers

Attached: Roman_Bind_Ending_good.gif (320x180, 1.46M)

Neither is Southern Europe.

What do you have a problem understanding? I'm arguing that these differences are VAST and genetic and have nothing to do with "some whites live in cold climates, some live in hot" memery. No, these are different racial groups living in different environment for thousands of years and that's why they are different. It's not one group living in different climates.

Why did they move to France again? Why not stay in Norway? His blood and soil.

It's more that the south of France has more Roman admixture because it was closer to Rome, whereas the north has more Frankish admixture because that's where the Franks settled for the most part. The French are mutts in general.

Yes, but line has been shifted. France was never "southron" in olden age, especially not considering the physical place (Frankland) has been Germanic for thousands of years.

He believes France has the "deepest roots in Europe" according to his latest video.

Modern day france is more than just franks though. Frankish kingdom absorbed celts and southrons and forced them to assimalate. Probably mixed with them too.
Ethnic categories, not racial ones. I'd distinguish the two. Meds and Nords are clearly related where as some black sub-saharan african or asian is not. Genetics shows Europeans are largely the merger of 3 tribal groups. The main ones being the indo-european invaders and the original inhabitants they conquered. Plus some other group I can't remember, maybe neolithic settlers from MENA. Basque and Sardinians for example are believed to be more "pure" remnants of original inhabitants, but all they're not pure pure. You Europeans are really autistic when it comes to that and think nobody mixed at all between European countries over all those thousands of years. Every single European even from Portugal to Finland is related up to 37,000 years ago. If you take out Finns who have a lot of outside asiatic group outliers it goes back even farther. Long story short Varg is retarded if he thinks modern euros aren't all related to each other even the "moor rape baby southrons" which is heavily exagerated considering the moorish pops were kicked out after reconquest.

But I don't think southern France was ever germanic or frankish...

>these are different racial groups living in different environment for thousands of years and that's why they are different
Indeed, that is correct. But every group are affected by their choice of habitat. The three main progenitors (neanderthals, homo sapiens and denisovans) spawned different types of people fit for different places in the world, and each group (tribe) that relocated to where did were not fit to survive either died out or lived on and changed.

No idea.

>Modern day france is more than just franks though. Frankish kingdom absorbed celts and southrons and forced them to assimalate.
It's exactly what I said in my post.
>Franks were Germanics. And then actual southrons happened

Something to do with his crimes there maybe?

>>Modern day france is more than just franks though. Frankish kingdom absorbed celts and southrons and forced them to assimalate.
>It's exactly what I said in my post.
>>Franks were Germanics. And then actual southrons happened
What I will say is I'm annoyed when try to compare that kind of mixing with what is happening today. All those groups like I said were already related, they were cousins of each other. Genetically, linguistically, and culturally related. It's not nearly as big of a deal as literal black africans or arabs coming in, they are completely foreign in every way.

>1488

France confirmed for superior blood and soil.

when people try*

Is that you, Varg?

>Ethnic categories, not racial ones. I'd distinguish the two.

By what criteria? The same argumentation that allows you to distinguish between races allows you do do so for ethnicity, so I don't get this fascination with establishing an ethnic category to be something separate from racial category. The two describe the exact same phenomena, a differentiation of genetics and if you want to define your race exclusive or inclusive of groups is fine by me. Both have implicit bias in them in the sense that these are subjective categories once limits are applied.

And it's within the realm of limits the categorization of race as inclusive 'wide' term loses it's meaning to me. You will have groups within this category whose racial origins will cluster closer to some out-groups than all of the in-groups. As far as I can see, racial white nationalism does not have an answer to this other than denial or making it a taboo subject.

But you have to, so the snowhead your country hosts can delegitimize a good chunk of its inhabitants with his "out of Northern Europe theory" and claim it for himself.

If you read the rest of what I wrote you'd understand. Europeans are all closer related to eachother versus outside humans. They're like close cousins. Everyone else is extremely distant and has little to no similarities in any way. Especially sub-saharan Africans who are so distant from the rest of humanity you might even be able to call them a separate sub-species if it wasn't politically incorrect.

But we can obviously group certain populations together based upon similar characteristics. A cambodian isn't the same thing as a Japanese but they are clearly more physically similar than a japanese and a sub saharan african. Just because the lines are blurry doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because Orange exists doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between red and yellow.

>What I will say is I'm annoyed when try to compare that kind of mixing with what is happening today.
Uh..... have I done that?

Right. Well, I'm just being objective and I definitely separate Germanics from non-Germanics in contexts like these.

>Uh..... have I done that?
No more like normies outside of Jow Forums, and maybe some leftist shills on here who support mulitkulti.
>Right. Well, I'm just being objective and I definitely separate Germanics from non-Germanics in contexts like these.
That's a much more recent division in the grand scheme of things. Useful if you're trying to determine the differences between Europeans, but the existence of such a division isn't enough to get autistic about and start demanding segregation and shit. Were having a hard time getting Europe to be for Euros as it is.

Greeks group closer to Turks than they do Norwegians. Are Turks European too now?

Yes, they exist. And I happen to be one of those people who think white = Nordic based on the evidence on genetics I have seen so I refuse this concept of wide racial categorization.

>Greeks group closer to Turks than they do Norwegians. Are Turks European too now?
Probably because Turks aren't really Turks. At least the ones in Turkey. They're mostly just native Anatolian who adopted the language and identity of their ruling class with some slight admixture. Yeah, I'd say you would be autistic for getting uppity about that. It's not like their are tens of millions of greeks threatening to displace nordics in Scandinavia. If there was maybe you could start complaining but not now.

White equals nordic? There are less than 30 million of you. It's ridiculous to think that nordics constitute the sole population of whites. What category would you put people like the irish in?

>As far as I can see, racial white nationalism does not have an answer to this other than denial or making it a taboo subject.
Nationalism is about nations (duh!) and what the nations are. What are the long standing genetic makeup of a specific nation? The answer is what nationalists are keen of preserving. For example, the Nordic Resistance Movement aims to preserve the general Scandinavian and Finnish biology that currently make up their nations. They are fully aware that none of these nations are "pure" in that sense, but that is of no concern as they are still genetically coherent enough to form a nation and all that comes with a nation. In the case of the Swedish branch, they want the Swedish nation to remain in existence, not the tribes (Swedes, Geats, Rus', Jutes, Danes, etc) that formed it - because those tribes are no more. This however does not justify extreme degeneration with non-white racial tribes - because that would undo said nations and their biology for good.
That is all. Just casting some light on nationalism.

Who the fuck takes this guy seriously LMAO

Nah I'm a southron myself.

I think that's fine, but you wouldn't go as far as enforce Nazi tier mixing laws with even other Europeans would you? Or refuse to ally with other European nationalists? I can understand if you don't want a million greeks moving in, but just allowing marriage is no big deal.

"White" has been babby's first approach to anthropology since forever, Romans and Greeks used it, north african Berbers used it, Germans used it, the English used it, and all of em used it mainly in a self-referential way. We should all limit the use of the term "white" or "black" for the bantz.

I think race is real but I'm averse to the blood and soil rhetoric. I'm fine with immigration as long as the immigrants admitted actually contribute in some way to the nation. Immigration should never be viewed as charity or as a way to save third worlds from poverty. I'd rather let a somalian muslim with a medical degree immigrate to the US than a nordic NEET.

>Romans and Greeks used it, north african Berbers used it, Germans used it, the English used it, and all of em used it mainly in a self-referential way.

So?

>White equals nordic?
No, but Nordics are generally the purest whites and that's why that line is drawn, I guess. We've been so isolated from non-white influence in comparison to others. And I'm not saying we're not influenced, by that we are influenced the least.

Nordicist ideology is what caused ww2 and destroyed europe though.

But I asked if Turks are European, not if they are real Turks or not. By the way, they are quite literally the only real Turks. I think you are thinking about Turkic people, who are obviously a different thing considering the Turkish genetic make-up is barely Turkic.

And it's not about what is threatening me or anyone else, it's about establishing coherent arguments.

Let's move onto Italians. Italians too cluster close on this PCA diagram to near-Eastern people like Turks and Armenians than they do to Russians or Finns. Take a ruler and measure the distance. Now you claimed in one of your posts that all Europeans cluster together closer than out-groups. How is this possible if the data shows clearly the genetic distances as being wider among some of the out-groups than the in-groups (in your categorization). There are many of these examples within just this picture that would be difficult reconcile with your view.

Attached: 1413094662177.png (1600x1600, 178K)

Maybe pre-2000. You're on the road now to being as racially jumbled as us. There's really no reason or benefit from purity spiraling. Every white country currently faces the same miscegenation problem.

So debating whether a Scandinavian should include only 30 million people in an arbitrary definition is superfluous.
Europe's a bunch of spectrums, everyone will always have his own ideal line to draw

But there is a definite point where something is obviously not white. Chinese are not white. Somalians are not white. Places like greece or portugal are debatable but just because there is some admixture doesn't mean we can't say with some certainty that whiteness exists.

I can clearly see distinct groupings there though. Euros are all close in their corner, middle east in theirs
I'd circle the bottom for Euros and than another circle with the MENAs. There is more than just pure genetics. culturally and historically Euros are closer. Along with close genetic ties.

what makes Varg statements retarded is that his whole idea revolved around that a "pure european" exist . when in fact the whitest scandinavian , is actually a mix of neanderthal , paleo man (cro magnon/hunter gather) and neolithic indo european.

Southern europeans have less paleo european mixture and more neolithic and near eastern and north african mix no shame in this.

Anywhere South of Denmark is too far South desu

>I think that's fine, but you wouldn't go as far as enforce Nazi tier mixing laws with even other Europeans would you?
Not at all. One of the highest leaders on their Nordic council is married to a Finnish woman.

>I think race is real
Of course it is.

>I'm fine with immigration as long as the immigrants admitted actually contribute in some way to the nation
Oh no, this depends on the immigrant. An African cannot "contribute" to a Scandinavian nation as that would degenerate the lineage of whoever mixed. A Dutch or German immigrant however would not biologically damage the nation.
Footnote; nation means people, just in case that wasn't clear.

>but I'm averse to the blood and soil rhetoric
Why though? A culture is sprung from the people, and with language, race, religion, history, etc they form a nation. A nation best thrives when it lives on its own. And this is not because of contempt towards other nationalities, as lefties would believe, but out of cultivation and healthiness for the nation itself. Scandinavians are always Scandinavians, no matter where in the world they are or live, but a Scandinavian always lives best on Scandinavian soil - whether it be in actual Scandinavia or another place where Scandinavians settle in numbers.