Why Europe and the US Can’t See Eye to Eye: A Genetic Divide

[Johnnyvee]

Audio version; https://jumpshare.com/s/YrKCEORELYK2ecGdeCo0

Reviewed Grok text...

The divide between Western Europe and the United States goes beyond politics or economics—it’s a clash of worldviews rooted in genetic differences. From healthcare debates to gun laws, Europe and the US seem irreconcilable, a rift shaped by the self-selection of immigrants who left Europe for America. These migrants weren’t random; they were risk-takers and individualists, leaving behind a population inclined toward stability and conformity. Traits like risk-taking and individualism have a genetic basis, and these inherited differences have forged the distinct identities of Europe and the US.



Europe: Stability and Cohesion in the Genes
Western Europe’s regulatory, cohesive societies—like the EU’s GDPR or Scandinavia’s welfare states—reflect the genetic legacy of those who stayed. Studies tie heritable traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness to a preference for rules and social harmony. Europeans who didn’t migrate carried these markers, fostering a culture that values collective well-being over risk. This explains Europe’s lean toward progressive ideals and structured policies, often seen as bureaucratic or overly inclusive.



The United States: Freedom’s Genetic Blueprint
The US, by contrast, embodies the genetic traits of its immigrant founders—risk-taking and independence. Lower taxes, minimal welfare, and fierce liberty debates highlight a nation prizing individual freedom, fueling innovation like Silicon Valley but also chaos like gun violence. Genetic factors, such as dopamine variants linked to novelty-seeking, were abundant among those who crossed the Atlantic, shaping a society that celebrates exploration over cohesion.

Summary and Conclusion
The Europe-US divide is genetic at its core: immigration sorted risk-takers to America and left stability-seekers in Europe. These inherited traits drive Europe’s order and America’s freedom. Recognizing this could bridge the gap—Europe might adopt some dynamism, the US some safety nets—but for now, the Atlantic reflects a divide in DNA as much as in ideas.

 

[Wutang]

My feeling was that this is generally correct but then I started thinking about Canada and wonder how the theory would explain Canada. Canada's a country that was founded by European immigrants as well so you would think they would have the same adventure seeking risk tolerant personality but they seem much closer to Europeans than Americans in their attitudes and political preferences.

 

[Johnnyvee]

My feeling was that this is generally correct but then I started thinking about Canada and wonder how the theory would explain Canada. Canada's a country that was founded by European immigrants as well so you would think they would have he same adventure seeking risk tolerant personality but they seem much closer to Europeans than Americans in their attitudes and political preferences.

This article goes into that; https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/canada-americas-post-liberal-counterpart-paul-marshall I still think the genetic explanation holds water...

 

[GoodShepherd]

Audio version; https://jumpshare.com/s/YrKCEORELYK2ecGdeCo0

Reviewed Grok text...

The divide between Western Europe and the United States goes beyond politics or economics—it’s a clash of worldviews rooted in genetic differences. From healthcare debates to gun laws, Europe and the US seem irreconcilable, a rift shaped by the self-selection of immigrants who left Europe for America. These migrants weren’t random; they were risk-takers and individualists, leaving behind a population inclined toward stability and conformity. Traits like risk-taking and individualism have a genetic basis, and these inherited differences have forged the distinct identities of Europe and the US.

View attachment 19516

Europe: Stability and Cohesion in the Genes
Western Europe’s regulatory, cohesive societies—like the EU’s GDPR or Scandinavia’s welfare states—reflect the genetic legacy of those who stayed. Studies tie heritable traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness to a preference for rules and social harmony. Europeans who didn’t migrate carried these markers, fostering a culture that values collective well-being over risk. This explains Europe’s lean toward progressive ideals and structured policies, often seen as bureaucratic or overly inclusive.

View attachment 19517

The United States: Freedom’s Genetic Blueprint
The US, by contrast, embodies the genetic traits of its immigrant founders—risk-taking and independence. Lower taxes, minimal welfare, and fierce liberty debates highlight a nation prizing individual freedom, fueling innovation like Silicon Valley but also chaos like gun violence. Genetic factors, such as dopamine variants linked to novelty-seeking, were abundant among those who crossed the Atlantic, shaping a society that celebrates exploration over cohesion.

Summary and Conclusion
The Europe-US divide is genetic at its core: immigration sorted risk-takers to America and left stability-seekers in Europe. These inherited traits drive Europe’s order and America’s freedom. Recognizing this could bridge the gap—Europe might adopt some dynamism, the US some safety nets—but for now, the Atlantic reflects a divide in DNA as much as in ideas.

Being a Portuguese immigrant myself I notice that amongst the Portuguese people living outside of Portugal compared to those living inside of Portugal.

The Portuguese outside of Portugal are entrepreneurs, they doing well, even in USA they are in the top 20 earners, in South Africa and other places they doing very well but inside Portugal the mentality seems very different, more socialist like you said, etc.

I do see a change coming to Europe as many people who have been living outside of Europe are slowly returning to Europe, I wonder what influence these people will have when they return.

 

[Cooper]

We are basically of the same European stock on both sides of the Pond, the differences are more about culture than genetics. You now for example have a large fraction of urban white youth in coastal cities that is a lot more "European" than their predecessors. A young woke San Franciscan or Bostonian has more in common with their counterpart in Berlin or London than with your average red state rural guy.

There are also large differences within Europe, between for example the Protestant north and the Catholic west and south, although these differences have been shrinking due to globalism and EU's cultural war against nation-states.

 

[budoslavic]

Be aware that (((Hudson Institute))) is a ((()))ish-run organization that is connected to (((AIPAC))).

 

[BeatUpTruck]

Not buying it for a second. It's nurture not nature.
In northern Canada there was a group of natives that were complete passivists, so much so that they they were named the 'Slave Indians' by the warlike plains Indians who lived in todays Alberta, who would travel north to seize them. Great Slave Lake in Canadas Northwest Territories was named after these people.



The thing is that when young boys were taken and grew up amongst the plains Indians, they were just as aggressive as their peers.

 

[RedLagoon]

So how does that go for Kangaroo land or NZ then? Most people in the cities are as liberal or even worse than the ones in Europe.

 

[It_Is_My_Time]

Comparing entire countries, in 2025, to each other, isn't going to give accurate results. But if you were to go back in time and compare the people then you get more accurate results pinpointing genetics. Edward Dutton has talked about this, and he goes as far to say that the US Civil war was a genetic certainty due to the different groups of people who moved to the USA, and where they came from in Europe.

In the northeast, many of the settlers descended from the Puritans, who were the libtards of their time and so annoying the English ran them out. To this day, the northeast of the USA is very liberal, despite having some areas with very high White population percentages. The term "Masshole" is really just the modern-day Puritans.

In the southeast, the settlers came more from Germany and Scotland. They had more a sense of tradition and honor. Southern hospitality is rooted in these people, who put tradition and politeness above all else.

These two groups were never going to see eye to eye and it only got worse as time progressed.

That is more a true genetic comparison. By 2025, there have been a lot of late coming Europeans, who could go either way, and they just happened to come to the USA for a better economic opportunity. Also, you have to factor in decades of satanic brainwashing in every place someone goes, which also will change attitudes, especially among women.

 

[Caduceus]

So how does that go for Kangaroo land or NZ then? Most people in the cities are as liberal or even worse than the ones in Europe.

Those were criminals who were exiled there against their will.

 

[RedLagoon]

Those were criminals who were exiled there against their will.

True and their governments reflect this but was referring to the Europeans who went there on their own terms similar to the later European migration to the US and Canada.

 

[magoo]

US is just Europe without elite barriers.

A lot of english were sent to US by the lords in times of economic crisis cause there was no work for them. They were sponsored and directed to boats leaving for US. it wasn´t only risk takers.

Many tech advancements started in Europe but only developed in US. Cause in Europe you have historical elites which don´t like innovation and newcomers.

 

[KomnenAl]

I've had it with the materialistic/deterministic takes in this forum.
It seems like the Spirit has been relegated to follow the laws of genetics (the laws of the fallen flesh) in the minds of the majority of forum members.
"My sperm is King".

Good luck.

 

[scary_robot_music]

US is just Europe without elite barriers.

A lot of english were sent to US by the lords in times of economic crisis cause there was no work for them. They were sponsored and directed to boats leaving for US. it wasn´t only risk takers.

This is probably true. In addition to this, it's my understanding that the popular idea that Australia was populated by criminals but most people who came to British North America in colonial times were freedom loving risk takers isn't entirely accurate, and that the British shipped many, many convicted criminals here to North America by force too. There was an interesting post about this on Quora a while back. If I manage to find it, I'll link it here. It even claimed that conditions for convicts in colonial British America were so harsh that some would opt for execution in Britain instead.

Still, I agree with the basic premise that Americans are descended from adventurous risk takers more than Europeans are.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the World Wars yet. I've always supposed that many countries like France and Germany had a significant percentage of their higher testosterone men killed in those wars, maybe even most of them, to the point that it changed the culture and trajectory of those countries significantly. I once had occasion to spend a few months working in the Netherlands. While I generally liked the Dutch, I was surprised by how aggressive and thuggish many young Dutch guys are, especially when they drink. I imagine Germans used to have the same tendencies 100 years ago before most of their most manly, aggressive men died in WW2 and they then spent the next 80 years or so feeling guilty and being shamed over things that happened long before most of them were even born.

Going back to North America, I think heritage Canadians are also generally more conformist and governable than heritage Americans and this goes back to colonial times. English-speaking Canadians are the ones who favored staying under British rule, after all.

 

[analyst_green]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the World Wars yet. I've always supposed that many countries like France and Germany had a significant percentage of their higher testosterone men killed in those wars, maybe even most of them, to the point that it changed the culture and trajectory of those countries significantly. I once had occasion to spend a few months working in the Netherlands. While I generally liked the Dutch, I was surprised by how aggressive and thuggish many young Dutch guys are, especially when they drink. I imagine Germans used to have the same tendencies 100 years ago before most of their most manly, aggressive men died in WW2 and they then spent the next 80 years or so feeling guilty and being shamed over things that happened long before most of them were even born.

I can't really see that being the case for France because, although they lost a lot in WW1, in WW2 their military deaths were fairly low.

For Germany they lost a huge percentage of their young men in WW2. But also Russia lost over 10 million men, which may also be why it took them so long to shake off the godless communists.

 

[It_Is_My_Time]

I can't really see that being the case for France because, although they lost a lot in WW1, in WW2 their military deaths were fairly low.

For Germany they lost a huge percentage of their young men in WW2. But also Russia lost over 10 million men, which may also be why it took them so long to shake off the godless communists.

Alot of France's best men fought on the side of the Germans in WW2, because they were fighting against satanic Bolshevism. So, a lot of France's best young men were also killed.



This was true for a lot of Europe. The best men knew the enemy wasn't Hitler, but instead the Bolsheviks who were killing Christian and burning down churches. Such as the man in my profile picture...

Larry Thorne

 

[scary_robot_music]

I can't really see that being the case for France because, although they lost a lot in WW1, in WW2 their military deaths were fairly low.

For Germany they lost a huge percentage of their young men in WW2. But also Russia lost over 10 million men, which may also be why it took them so long to shake off the godless communists.

With France, I was mostly thinking of WW1.

Edit: It_is_my_time made a good point above that a lot of Frenchmen fought on the Axis side in the WW2. For example, I've even read that the final defense of Berlin in 1945 was largely a French effort. Also, as far as I know the only time Japanese and European Axis troops ever fought side by side was in the Battle of Madagascar, with Vichy French troops involved agains the British, along with the Japanese Navy.

 

[magoo]

All powers in Europe were in favor of Hitler. The dumb retard managed to alienate all the good will. And powers changed camps.

I know people who are descendants of those that sponsored the emigration of english to colonies. The reasons was simple there was no money/food for the population. And the only solution was to send them to colonies.

Googled and found this. read the first pages it seems it validates what I already knew.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c5111/c5111.pdf

"Emigration can be considered from two distinct aspects:

(a) from the point of view of the force attracting people to other countries;

(b) from the point of view of the force expelling people from their own country.

There is no doubt that before the nineteenth century, and for a considerable part of the nineteenth century itself, the motive controlling British emigration was mainly the latter, i. e. expulsion from the home country. Much of the emigration from the Highlands of Scotland and from Ireland during the eighteenth century was due to the fact that the increase in the means of livelihood did not keep pace with the increase in population, and the standard of living was substantially and continuously reduced. In certain cases emigra1[See International Migrations, Vol. I, pp. 97—105, 619-659.—Ed.] 2Stanley C. Johnson, History of Emigration from the United Kingdom (1913), p. 2. C. Johnson, op. cit., p. 38.239240 MIGRATION INTERPRETATIONStion was organized by the land owners, and a substantial proportionof the population of a particular village would emigrate under thecare of the squire, for the purpose of setting up a new life in NorthAmerica. Lord Selkirk at the end of the eighteenth century playedan important part in this and the Hudson Bay Company also wereprominent in facilitating the emigration of surplus population fromGreat Britain into Canada. The opening of Canada to the Britishin the last quarter of the eighteenth century fired their imaginationand helped to solve the serious social problems of overpopulationin Ireland and the Scotch Highlands."

Before americans. Europe had already circumvented the globe with Magellan. Had made ships to india and China to collect species. America was discovered by Colombo.

Europeans are risk takers. Because Europe doesnt have much natural resources. Unlike US and Russia which are self sustainable.

US simply didn´t have lords to limit their growth. It was a european population free to invent and use their craftmanship as they wanted. And it invented incredible things for humanity. Electricity. When people talk about cultural apropriation. And we think just electricity is used by the entire world. And it´s a western invention. Cars, train, etc. So many things are used by other countries. It´s crazy to even mention cultural apropriation. There´s no culture more apropriated than western.

There´s a quote from Rotschilds that they had not expected US to develop so strongly and had not implemented a strategy in due time to control americans. FED was one institution who was designed to refrain and control US enterpreneurship. And it did.

World wars crushed european elites and nobility. And left the plain wide open for jewish dominion. But US ended suffering even more. They might have destroyed one competitor Germany. But in the process was infiltrated by jews. And now they are reaping what they sow. Israelis are completely dominant of US policies. Europeans cannot attack the problem which is jews lunatic policies and influence. Cause they are protected by US. And until this protection ends. Things will continue to deteriorate. This is nothing new. It´s happening for a long time.

 

[Samseau]

I've had it with the materialistic/deterministic takes in this forum.
It seems like the Spirit has been relegated to follow the laws of genetics (the laws of the fallen flesh) in the minds of the majority of forum members.
"My sperm is King".

Good luck.

Rather than blame the forum, why not try to educate and offer contrary views?

 

[Samseau]

Comparing entire countries, in 2025, to each other, isn't going to give accurate results. But if you were to go back in time and compare the people then you get more accurate results pinpointing genetics. Edward Dutton has talked about this, and he goes as far to say that the US Civil war was a genetic certainty due to the different groups of people who moved to the USA, and where they came from in Europe.

In the northeast, many of the settlers descended from the Puritans, who were the libtards of their time and so annoying the English ran them out. To this day, the northeast of the USA is very liberal, despite having some areas with very high White population percentages. The term "Masshole" is really just the modern-day Puritans.

In the southeast, the settlers came more from Germany and Scotland. They had more a sense of tradition and honor. Southern hospitality is rooted in these people, who put tradition and politeness above all else.

These two groups were never going to see eye to eye and it only got worse as time progressed.

That is more a true genetic comparison. By 2025, there have been a lot of late coming Europeans, who could go either way, and they just happened to come to the USA for a better economic opportunity. Also, you have to factor in decades of satanic brainwashing in every place someone goes, which also will change attitudes, especially among women.

This really isn't true, the South was settled by men who only cared for making money, while the North was settled by families seeking God.

The South had no qualms with enslaving others and working with Talmudic Jews (the ones who sold the slaves to them), while the North would excommunicate all non-Christians from their villages and even burn heretics at the stake.

The South were the libtards of the time, they worshipped themselves and twisted political theory to match their feelings, while the North did their best to obey God and put their feelings second to objective commands of God.

It was the deeply rooted differences in spirituality which set the course for Civil War.