It's a speculative thesis, to be sure, and it's politically incorrect. But the logic seems to me sound.

The Scandinavian countries are exceptions that prove the rule. Viking culture was overtly sociopathic, so the pendulum swung far in the other direction afterward (after WWI gave Scandinavia the chance to reinvent itself with social welfare states), just as it did for Germany after its Nazi period.

Of course the physiological basis for psychopathy would be equal in Whites and Blacks. I said so in the article. The telling point would be how different cultures deal with those common antisocial tendencies. Do European cultures celebrate psychopathy more or differently than African or Indian cultures?

What's your point about European philosophers? That not all white people are subcriminal psychopaths? How is that not a strawman? I'm talking about broad cultural trends, not the minutiae of every individual who's ever lived. Sure, European and Chinese societies have engaged in some socialist or communitarian reflections. What's the broader trendline, though? What kind of person ends up in power in a kingdom or in a free-for-all modern society (a capitalistic, democratic one)? What sort of person is a business executive or a politician, generally speaking? In the West, aren't they mostly white and male, for starters? Or in the East, aren't they mostly male? Ditto for southern dictatorships. Why do men tend to dominate in those places? Is it because they suffer from excessive moral scruples, or is it the opposite? And how to explain that politically incorrect advantage?