Online:
Visits:
Stories:
Profile image
By Occidental Dissent
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

JayMan: The Genetics of the American Nations

Saturday, February 11, 2017 12:59
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

JayMan has an excellent article at Unz.com on the genetics of the American Nations:

“And now, a new paper in Nature bears out the genetic roots of the American nations. In “Clustering of 770,000 genomes reveals post-colonial population structure of North America” (Han et al, 2017), we see that Americans can easily be partitioned into distinct regional clusters …

In short, their giant sample and rich genealogical data allowed them to detect large patterns of shared ancestry in living Americans. And, as expected the American nations clearly emerge from the genetic data.

How did this pattern emerge? In short, this is ultimately the result of the four British folkways of Albion’s Seed. Here the genetic data show that they remain alive and well. Previously, in my post Genes, Climate, and Even More Maps of the American Nations, we saw that the founding British colonists came from distinct parts of the British Isles and settled in different parts of North America. The founding British stock are themselves visible in the genetic data, as we saw from fine-scale analysis of Britain (Leslie et al 2015, ungated link here) …”

For the Tidewater and Deep South, the home of the English Cavaliers (see The Cavaliers) in Southwest England is evidence. The Scottish link (presumably Scots-Irish that settled in the Deep South) is also visible.

I’m interested primarily in the Deep South, but there are maps that cover every regional culture:

From what I have read, the founding stock of both the Deep South and the British West Indies was drawn heavily from the West and Metropolitan London in England. Scots-Irish settled all over the backcountry while Cavaliers tended to settle the river valleys:

“So what explains the traits of the Cavaliers, and the hence, the nations they founded? They shared many traits with their old foes the Purtians, particularly a strong nationalistic sentiment, but radically differed from the Puritans in many other ways. The Cavaliers didn’t develop a sense of egalitarian values in the slightest. They also didn’t have a fully corporate system as the other Britons had. They also retained the culture of honor common to clannish peoples. They weren’t as attached to their extended family to the extent the Borderlanders were, but hadn’t evolved into fully atomized family groups as the Puritans or the Quakers had (even though the Puritans seem to have simply replaced the extended family with the entire societal unit – a quick and dirty form of atomization perhaps, which is also seen with Scandinavians). Perhaps it has something to do with their ethnic origins? Whereas the Puritans hailed from the Danelaw, and hence had heavy Scandinavian affinity, the western areas of Britain had been settled by Saxons. As well, the Cavaliers liked to think of themselves as having been descended from Norman conquerors, but it’s unclear how much more so they in fact descended from the Normans. …

The Southwestern English seemed retain the manor system that had already disappeared in much of Western Europe. Gregory Clark noted that the most successful Englishmen had not been the underclass; nor had it been the upper nobility, who tended to die off in violent conflicts with each other. The successful Englishmen (and by extension Medieval European and East Asians) were the yeoman farmers. These diligent, hardworking, and clever farmers had a distinct fertility advantage, and came to numerically dominate the English population. This process explains the subdued, introverted, academic and industrial traits of the Puritans and the Quakers – who also seemed to be fairly outbred as well – likely having gone through the standard processes occurring throughout Northwestern Europe. But what of the Cavaliers? They retained traits similar to their feudal aristocratic ancestors. What if in southwestern Britain, the most evolutionarily successful weren’t the yeoman farmers, but the aristocrat manor lords who still ruled over them? …”

Through an accident of history, this numerically fairly small group came to become a dominant force in the world through their colonization of America. Quite likely, thanks to their exploitative, highly unequal social and economic system (and owing to their sexual proclivities), the plantation lords in the U.S. may have enjoyed a Gregory Clarkian fertility advantage. This would mean modern American Lowland Southerners may be disproportionately descended from the plantation bosses, and as such, carry on the heritage of manorial lords from a distinctly feudal age. These traits remain important for American society, giving us that unique society known as the South. …”

The Cavalier origin area:

The Griffin family comes from the West and North of England:

Colin Woodard has a deep dive into how the American Nations voted in the 2016 election. The upshot is about how we would have expected, but that rural Yankees defected and elected Trump. My theory is that racial and cultural polarization is activating latent authoritarian tendencies in White Northerners and creating a more homogeneous “Heartland America.” This is not unlike what happened with Greater Appalachia after the War Between the States.

Still though, the Whites of the river valleys in the Deep South are unmatched in our racialized, authoritarian, reactionary politics. We are still an authoritarian culture. That’s the cultural and genetic legacy of centuries of the plantation complex and manorialism:

“As the Deep South spread, it developed a social and political philosophy that went beyond defending slavery to actually celebrating it. What others regarded as an authoritarian society built on an immoral institution that concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, Deep Southern oligarchs viewed as the pinnacle of human achievement. Theirs was a democracy modeled on the slave states of ancient Greece and Rome, whose elites had been free to pursue the finer things in life after delegating all drudgery to slaves and a disenfranchised underclass. The Southern gentry were superior to Northerners because they had a “nobility to cultivate some of the higher and more ennobling traits of humanity,” according to one Deep Southern political boss. Yankees, this boss added, were a “nation of shop keepers” while Deep Southerners were a “race of statesmen, orators, military leaders and gentlemen equal and probably superior to any now existing on this or any other continent.” …

As tensions over slavery increased, Deep Southerners began asserting their racial superiority over Yankees as well. The regions thinkers reaffirmed the thesis that they belonged to a master Norman race, separate from and superior to the Yankee Anglo-Saxons. “The Cavaliers, Jacobites and Huguenots who settled the South naturally hate, condemn, and despise the Puritans who settled the North,” the Deep South’s leading journal, DeBow’s Review, declared. “The former are master races – the latter a slave race, the descendants of Saxon serfs … [who] came from the cold and marshy regions of the North, where man is little more than a cold-blooded amphibious biped.” “We are the most aristocratic people in the world,” DeBow’s continued. “Pride of caste and color and privilege makes every white man an aristocrat in feeling. Aristocracy is the only safeguard of liberty, the only power watchful and strong enough to exclude monarchical despotism.” Another paper proclaimed, “the Norman Cavalier cannot brook into the vulgar familiarity of the Saxon Yankee, while the latter is continually devising some plan to bring down his aristocratic neighbor to his own detested level.”

What are they doing in 2017?

As always, they are still “continually devising some plan to bring down his aristocratic neighbor to his own detested level.” They were once widely perceived at the South as a “leveling culture.” In the 19th century, our ancestors were disgusted by what they called “womans rightsism” and “strongminded womanism” and “free lovism,” which were various insanities they associated with the free states. In our times, it is dressing up like a vagina and pretending to be dead in the streets. Why do you think it would occur to these people to do such a bizarre thing?

We have a bunch of New York Jews telling us that we are “liberty” and “American exceptionalism” and “cosmopolitanism” and Emma Lazarus’s give me your human garbage poem on the Statue of Liberty (few, if any of those immigrants, ever settled in Dixie as a matter of fact). That’s not “who we are” though. Take a look at our racial demographics, our distaste for the alien culture we see on television, our voting patterns, our authoritarianism and especially take a look at our neoclassical public and private buildings. We obviously admired the Greeks and the Romans.

Why did the South have such a strong fascination with Antiquity and the Middle Ages? For generations, our education system was geared more toward the classics than the moderns. We admired the hierarchy and authoritarianism of classical republicanism and feudalism. I think it appealed to us because we were already even then searching for a way out of liberalism.

Final thought: it is not just us anymore.



Source: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2017/02/11/jayman-the-genetics-of-the-american-nations/

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.