Why are they superior?
Why are they superior?
Other urls found in this thread:
hbdchick.wordpress.com
twitter.com
3M years of constant genetical purges by wars and epidemics
but what specific genetical condition made em superior
Roman Empire created a shared set of customs etc. Even when Europeans warred with each other, there were certain shared values. Africans, in turn, had no problems to sell each others into slavery.
Europeans sold other Euros as slaves too.
Wby is Siberia there but Thrace and one of the largest cities in the world isn't?
In all honesty, the harsher conditions and constant war leads to that people need to be farsighted in their survival, this leads to people being cautious of resources and planning ahead.
This and the necessity to innovate in order to win constant conflicts with neighbouring tribes leads to abstract thinking for efficiency in killing wich leads to natural selection for intelligence wich leads us to where we are today.
so why are we such sissies today?
living in the jungle is more difficult than on a tundra
that map misses Georgia too
no war for ~80 years
Europe has never seen a period in it's history this non violent before
>Siberia is shown
>Thrace is left out
Brazilian logic
Constant and never ending warlord period that ended up forming nations with strength, history, culture but extremely small and need to figure out how to make their cunt better every fucking day until now when they are quite satisfied with themselves and they're just going deep into human right, anti racism, anti sexism memes
No. It doesn't require nearly as much forward thinking.
High river density
High soil resilience
Natural boundaries creating natural competition
Proximity to other civilisations
Moderate climates
Relatively less harmful diseases
Large farm animals
unique geography, climate, fauna and flora, natural ressources, big population, rivalries, common religion, colonization
and also Rome
Question: If China had balkanized like the Rome did and kept their trade routes more open, could it have had a chance to become the Europe of Asia?
It doesn't have necessary natural borders to balkanise
no
it's still too vulnerable and there's no reason to balkanize
Siberia is a european rightfull clay.
The modern states prefer sheeps to lions
Delusional interpretation as fuck.
Scothland, Germany and Italy are properly represented. France deserves much more. But England and Benelux are highly overrated in that paper.
The exclusion of Russia, Poland and Spain, however, is sadly bluepilled. In the case of Spain it doesn't surprise me. Nobody even here knows the main contributions of Spanish mathmaticians and scientists in the 16th century because they were ommited by anglos and French scholars of 17/18th century and, therefore, by everybody else since then. But slavic contributions are well known by practically every scholar.
But which angers me more is the obviation of Greek science.
Well, at least the truth always emerge and hopefully the nordicist interpretation of history is gonna be overcome sooner or later.
yes it is, you spastic neetshit
Georgia's in Asia, though.
I dont think its the perfect/complete explanation but it correlates with so many things and was also unique to europe
that's not what they'll say, if asked
no it's not, I'm not a NEET and I know a thing or two about forward planning
Greek professional knowledge of medicine, statuary art and philosophy became some of the biggest instances of "Western/European influence" before the age of exploration. The Greek traditions of medicine as shown in Galen's writings and modified in the M.E. were perused even by the emperors of China because of the Silk Road and Christian missionaries.
And there are Indians who say they're white too.
your welcome
but the strongest europeans (the anglo-saxon master-race) were some of the least romanised
They got FRENCH'D
We lost our focus, there is no more get togethers, no fraternizing around a flame which all our ancestors did, the primal need of man. Now we are scattered, illusioned by toys and media. We have lost the heart(h).
>french-speaking VIKING claims the throne
>barely changes anything except top levels of government and a few administrative things to secure power
how so?
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY
difficult environment but not hyper-scarce resources leads to cooperative, altruistic race - whites
a bit of variation on this (maybe small areas of concentrated easy resources like river valleys) leads to clannish in-group/out-group races - east asians, semitic race
easy environment with abundant resources leads to killers, rapists, etc. - like most negroes, some south american tribes
harsh environment with very scarce resources leads to placid but unproductive race - aborigines, some american indians
-
the white altruistic impulse is instinctive but its target/focus has been warped by ideology/propaganda/conditioning
just like extreme small-scale tribalism of some asians has been harnessed towards nationalism