JayMan: The Genetics of the American Nations

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.

Gov. John Quitman, a New Yorker transplanted to Mississippi, assimilated to our culture. Monmouth Plantation in Natchez, MS was his home:

The building screams patriarchy and authority.

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.

Note: As I read more about the settling of Barbados, I am left with the impression that perhaps no country in the history of the world was based less on the principles of classical liberalism. It was market capitalism without liberalism.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Atlantic Monthly is making a big stink about Moldbug, and NYT is making a bigger stink about Evola. But how did Alt Right become a household name?

    In truth, most people never heard of the Alt Right.

    If Alt Right became a household name, it is due to the media. Spencer himself admitted he felt like was getting nowhere.

    But in 2016, the media in cahoots with the Hillary campaign has a brilliant idea. It would exaggerate the power of the Alt Right, associate it with Trump — Hillary’s speech had been planned long beforehand — , and Trump would be smeared as ‘nazi’. He would lose for sure, especially as he’d be associated with Duke too.

    But in this age of trolling, the Trump side used ‘basketful of deplorables’ as a badge of honor. Also, Alt Right was too obscure and ideologically varied to pigeonhole as ‘neo-nazi’. The most the media could squeeze out in that regard was ‘heilgate’ AFTER the election.

    So, it wasn’t Moldbug and Evola that made Alt Right known worldwide. It was the media that miscalculated in hyping a fringe movement as a SPECTER HAUNTING THE WORLD.

    But of course, the media were never much for self-reflection. They unwittingly played the role of John Reed and Edgar Snow. Now, Reed and Snow were sympathetic to the radical movements they covered(and Reed was a communist himself), whereas the media meant to harm Trump and Alt Right. But they just ended up providing free publicity to a movement that had once been limited to a corner of the internet.

    They did for Alt Right what NYT did for Castro. Unwittingly but effectively just the same. Lame Media turned Alt Right into the ‘les enfants terribles’ of politics.




    • The answer is that the Alt-Right colonized 4chan and Reddit. In recent years, there was a second wave of the Alt-Right associated with The Right Stuff, and those people pushed it into the mainstream when they arrived en masse on Twitter in 2015.

      • Lord, that means I’m an old man in comparison!! But 60 is the new 40…. or so my AARP Boomer friends tell me… wait…ummm…

      • I always thought the Alt-Right began with Pat Buchanan. Especially with his “peasant’s revolt” in 1992. But I’m probably just getting old…

        • Trump was elected because of the GOP purging the serious conservatives from its ranks and virtually declaring war on its own constituents. The “alt-right” is prominent because of internet presence and the congruence of Trump’s campaign with some of its goals. Correlation is not causation. We cannot say, because so many “alt-right” (alt-lite) personalities are involved in Trump’s campaign that the “alt-right” is responsible for Trump. It’s true that without outcast conservatives and right-wingers on the net it would be much harder to craft the sort of campaign that Trump managed to do, as the voters would be depending on insufficient exposure to the sort of position Buchanan laid out in the 90s. We shouldn’t imagine that the alt-right elected Trump. The right wing internet contributed to the verbal fluency of the Trump campaign and to triggering the hysteria and revealing the insecurity of Trump’s opposition. We shouldn’t imagine we created Trump or his support.

  2. To call the Upper Midwest “Yankeedom” doesn’t make a lot of sense. For one thing, these “nations” only really consist of the whites. To determine the outcome by sub-nationality we should only look at the white populations and how they vote. Then we need to consider that the women’s vote and the professional vote are somewhat independent from the votes of the sub-nationalities. Trump being Scottish Presbyterian and nationalistic guaranteed him success in the South. We can blame the Northern whites for lacking racial awareness in past elections, but not voting for Romney, McCain, Bush, can we really blame them for that?

    • “To call the Upper Midwest “Yankeedom” doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

      Surely Yankeedom would be a mix-blended humanity, thanks to their liberalism and the massive immigration coming in though New York from all over Europe. Not to mention the non-White invasion that followed.

      I have seen some Alt-Rights say they are a mixture from five European countries ranging from Northern to Southern Europe.

  3. ” … and especially take a look at our neoclassical public and private buildings.”

    Oh, right—because public and private buildings with a classical cast are never encountered in the U.S. outside the South …

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f767329523011d2c8457f0c13c4f43843d7e58c5e450844055e9076cf09d5fc9.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/503bdb35b4764d75b29976bc0009f1fb18952271b5d46a8fd2882dcf2a51ffb0.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cc9e3905e757c9b34dca2163a7c7e7ac03a740e94ded72cc09700bb43f23e77.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb84f0966297a07c0dd3c3ffad4d9ffe651c2f5c0fb34ab0888265efc05dbcda.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/06aec2979b60dad892d762b36a7df03d23dfbf9a752e099c1539e63d0c3a1b5b.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5915c849bd5d7f1d837ad4f54bb26b99872e8a9ecc4b552fdc235932ea36da2.jpg

  4. “especially take a look at our neoclassical public and private buildings.”

    They’re all over Texas.

    “The building screams patriarchy and authority”

    To me it says peace, contentment, familiarity, pride, quiet strength.

  5. “Why do you think it would occur to these people to do such a bizarre thing?”

    Because they think they’re being “political.” They’re expressing themselves, practicing “Democracy.” They wish to be heard. But I can’t think of whom it might be that they are addressing. Nor what response they expect.

Comments are closed.