Law of Tribalism says People want to be with their own kind - Law of Supremalism says People want to be the Superior or the Inferior even if Different

It is part of nature(and human nature) to fear and ward off the different. Nature exists in a state of terror and aggression. All organisms are hungry and want to devour others and fear being devoured by others. Organisms seek to get closest to organisms they want to eat and furthest from organisms that would eat them. To be sure, there are various organisms that remain oblivious to one another and co-exist peacefully as they don’t regard each others as rivals, predators, or prey. Full grown trout will swim alongside full-grown carps. Sparrows, pigeons, and ducks co-exist and just ignore one another. Indeed, often there is more violence among similar species or the same species than among different species. Chimpanzees are most violent with other chimpanzees and get along better with other animals. Squirrels are often quarrelsome and aggressive with one another while ignoring skunks, opossums, and pigeons.

In some ways, organisms feel closest to their own kind but also most competitive and acrimonious among their own kind as well. This is why many people prefer to leave their own community and go to another one where they can just be strangers. Indeed, that's been of the great attractions of America. If there were two very tribal societies, people in Tribe A would think twice about going to Tribe B. After all, Tribe B will see the member from A as an outsider. He may be treated as an outcast or come under great pressure to convert/conform to the ways of Tribe B. Therefore, in a world of tribalism, it’s best to stick with your own Tribe. Despite all the acrimony, bad blood, and competition within the Tribe, you are still treated as an organic member.
But what if there is land where everyone is a stranger? One may feel lonely and lost but also loose and liberated. One no longer has tribal obligations and duties. If you belong to Tribe A, you must carry out the duties of your Tribe, and they could be time-consuming, burdensome, or just plain boring. But if you move to a land of strangers, you can just do what you want. You are no longer part of a Tribe(and that is alienating and disorienting) but you also feel free and independent. It’s like when kids go to college and are surrounded by strangers. It can be lonely and confusing but also exciting and stimulating, as opposed to being at home where you must act in accordance to the rules of the family. Going from one’s Tribal community to a land of strangers isn’t really like going to the Other. If member of Tribe A goes over to Tribe B, he has to adjust to the Other. But in the land of strangers, there really is no Other since every person is on his own.

The land of strangers may be especially welcome to a minority living in a Tribal system. For instance, if you were a Jew in Poland or Hungary, you were reminded of your Jewish minority status at all times. There was a sense that Poland really belongs to Poles and Hungary really belongs to Hungarians, and YOU, as a Jew, was a mere guest. But in the land of strangers(like how Jews saw the US), the land belongs equally to each individual. A Pole or an Hungarian in America has no special claim on the land over a Jew. Now, Anglos and Northern Europeans who founded and built America may insist on a special claim, and Jews always saw such claim as a threat, and that was why they were so adamant from putting the Immigration Experience at the Center of the American Narrative.
And yet, there is a further twist. If indeed Jews only want to come to the US as a land of strangers where every individual is equal to any other, things might not have gotten so crazy. If Jews really only want to be individuals, there would at least have been consistency in their view of New America.
But, being free individuals hasn't been enough for Jews in America. Rather, they want to lay claim to America as theirs, indeed, the Jewel in the Crown of Judea or World Jewry. (Judea is the most powerful force in the world. The combined wealth of US Jews, Israeli Jews, European Jews, Russian Jews, Latin American Jews is much bigger than the US economy.)
In a way, Jews left Europe to get away from Tribalism and came to the US to be free as individuals. Jews valued the erosion of tribalism even among the Anglos who’d founded and built this nation. Jews envisioned a Melting Pot of free individuals easily co-existing with one another in a land defined by liberty, commerce, ambition, and potential. And yet... even as white gentile tribalism and identity grew ever weaker, Jewish identity and tribalism grew ever stronger. If the rise of Anglo-American power led to Wasps seeing themselves as a universal neo-imperial people spreading Americanism all over the world and taking in New Americans from all over the world, the rise of Jewish-American power led to Jews feeling more proud as Jews, Zionists, and citizens of Judea, or World Jewry. In the land of strangers where every group was supposed to let go of their tribal loyalties and just become ‘Americans’, Jews did the very opposite despite urging all other groups to lose their tribalisms. Jews can be Jewish, but all other groups are supposed to be just deracinated individuals whose only points of identity must be Israel/Shoah, Homomania, and Afromania.

Anyway, what is true among humans is also true among animals. A wolf may run from other wolves and prefer to live with other animals that leave it alone. While a wolf may ideally want to belong to a wolf pack, if its own pack is scattered or destroyed, it may have a difficult joining another wolf pack. Indeed, other packs may see it as a threat and try to kill it. In that case, a wolf has most to fear from its own kind and may seek solace as a ‘stranger’ among other species that just ignore him. And that is why people seek refuge in other nations. A Turk might be politically or legally persecuted by other Turks in Turkey. A Burmese may be tyrannized by other Burmese for political or whatever reasons. A Pakistani may be hounded by other Pakistanis who vie for power and dominance. Such an individual might prefer to just become a stranger in a place like UK, Canada, Australia, or the US. Or even in Japan. He may feel lonely as a stranger, but because he’s a nonentity, people will just leave him alone. This is especially true in many parts of the US where the ONLY thing that most people have in common is the fact that they are strangers in a strange land too.

An animal that flees its own kind may seek sanctuary among humans who tend to be more compassionate, at least in comparison to cold-hearted and ruthless nature. After all, wolves evolved into dogs because they preferred to be with humans than with other wolves that might kill them. While humans could be brutal to animals, they could also be kinder and empathetic. Also, as wolves could sense great intelligence among humans, they looked to humans as a guide. Animals can instinctively tell which animal is more special. Even a dog that has never seen a human or cat before will react differently to both. It will see a cat as just another animal but react with far greater curiosity toward the human. Even killer whales sense something special about humans.

Humans are organisms too, and even though many people want to be with their own kind and feel most comfortable around one another, there is also a wish among some humans to be with the superior or the inferior. This is where the Law of Supremalism comes into play. Supremalism can be (1) wanting to be with the superior people than with one’s own that seem inferior in comparison (2) wanting to feel superior over others who are deemed inferior. Missionary types are often (2) kind of supremal people. They want to feel special, admired, loved, and appreciated as a superior people. Of course, being Christians for whom humility is crucial, they won't admit to such supremal urges and instead will just claim compassion for humanity. But, in a way, they want to go to the wretched of the earth because it makes them feel as demigods or angels. Such missionary supremalism also exists among celebrities, like Bono of U2 going to Africa and standing among adoring black children. He feels like a white god bringing love and compassion to the jungle folks. Whether it’s a Christian missionary going to some poor country and playing the role Angel Savior or some Social Justice activist or journalist globe-trotting around the world and recording all the misery, a kind of supremalism is at play. Chris Hedges loves feeling important as the Big Caring White Guy who had stood with and over the Wretched of the Earth all over the world.

But there is (1) Supremalism where people want to depart from their own kind and be with the superior folks who could be superior in wealth, ability, creativity, beauty, athleticism, talent, and/or glamour. Many people want to leave their boring little town and go to the city(filled with very different peoples) where the action is because that’s where all the talent and glamour are. Many people want to move to the West because they see white nations are richer, white people are better in management & fairer with Rule of Law, white people are more attractive, white people are more capable, and etc. So, we have millions upon millions of Africans and Muslims heading to Europe. And we have people all over the world flocking to US, Australia, and Canada to be with superior white people.
Of course, they will never admit to this since it would be shameful. No one wants to admit, "Yeah, my people suck, they are ugly, they are corrupt, they are moronic, and I feel ashamed of them, so I want to go to a land filled with capable and pretty white people." No Mexican or Hindu will dare admit it. But he feels it deep down.

As for whites who welcome mass immigration-invasion, (2) Supremalism is a factor because all these non-whites flocking to white nations means that superior white Liberal folks get to lord over these ‘darkies’ pleading for a better life. Diversity makes white people feel more magnanimous as the superior breed. Again, they won’t admit to harboring such feelings because PC says we’re all equal, but such emotions are there. If indeed all people are equal, why can’t Mexicans make their own nation as good as the US? Why must they scramble to the US to live under Gringo to have a better life?
But there are also whites who want to be part of another people. Some whites see blacks as superior. They want to be with blacks, admire blacks, have sex with blacks, and have black kids. Rachel Dolezal wants to be black. And in the movie GET OUT, white people want to literally enter black bodies.
But some whites want to be with the Other because it makes them feel special. If you’re a white nobody in the white world, you must feel special if you’re among poor folks in Bolivia or India who look upon you as a kind of white god-angel.

Supremalism is built into our psyche and underlies all religions. Why do we imagine God or gods? Because we want to be with the superior being. Just as dogs prefer being with us than with their own kind in nature, we want to eventually take leave of our world and be in the world of God or gods, be it Heaven or Valhalla.

Among humans, there are many cases of preference for the Other that is perceived as more just, more able, more fair, more attractive. Taiwanese are Chinese but they prefer American hegemony over the Pacific because they see fellow Chinese in the mainland as ugly yellow barbarians. Taiwanese want to regard themselves as honorary whites. Many Zimbabweans want white farmers back because their own black kind have ground everything to dust. Most Arabs would rather go live in Germany than deal with their own cutthroat, corrupt, and haggly-waggly kind. And some whites wax romantic about the Other as wiser or more spiritual or ‘cooler’. People tend to undervalue & take for granted what they got and overvalue & obsess about what others got.

Many non-whites are drawn to white nations because they see whites as superior in every way. These non-whites get little or no justice from fellow non-whites who are superstitious, corrupt, brutal, and clannish. So, they want to go to America(or Canada or Australia) and live under white rule. Also, they find whites to be sexually more attractive.
This may seem counter-intuitive because non-whites scream about ‘white racism’ and ‘white guilt’. One might think, “If they hate whites so much, why do they want to run from their own kind and live in white nations?”
But it is precisely because they prefer whites and want to live in white nations that they employ PC to lower white defenses against non-white immigration/colonization.

And in a way, whites who welcome mass-colonization from Third World are practicing a kind of soft subconscious supremacism. They feel, “You darkies wanna leave your own inferior nations and cultures because you know that the white world and white people are better. You want to live in our superior world because you are incapable of creating anything so good in your own world.”

Most non-white ‘immigrants’ are closet-white-supremacists. They want to run away from their own kind, own nations, and own cultures to start new lives and take on new identities under white rule. They prefer white nations(esp those created by Northern Europeans) to their own kind despite the long history and culture. Chinese, Hindus, and Arabs have deep history, culture, and identity going back 1000s of years, but they are willing to give that all up just to have a chance to live with whites, have sex with whites, work for whites, and take on white names like ‘Heather’ and ‘Robert’.

Is a Nation(such as America) Just-an-Idea? Is a Person Just-an-Idea?

It’s a common practice(even habit) among politicians and thinkers(mostly official scribes) to reiterate that America is an Idea or even ‘just an idea’. But is a nation just an idea? Can a nation be just an idea? And if a nation is just an idea, is it no longer a nation if those ideas fade and are replaced by new ones?

Let’s compare a nation with a person. Just like nations have an official ideology, identity, and/or narrative, every person has set of values and beliefs. So, the person is shaped by those ideas. Therefore, does it follow that the person is those ideas? Of course not. Rather, isn’t he a holder of those ideas or ideals? Isn’t he a believer in certain tenets and principles than the very embodiment of those ideas? If he is those ideas, is he not himself when sleeping and not thinking of those ideas? Even in waking state, is he himself only when he espouses those ideas?

While ideas and beliefs are very important, a person is primarily his core biological and biographical being. He was himself even before he espoused those ideas, he is himself with those ideas, and he will still be himself even after he has rejected those ideas and moved onto a different creed. Suppose a person claims to be a libertarian or communist. That makes him a person who espouses libertarian principles or communist dogma. So, is he the person = set of ideas? No, he is a person who follows or upholds those ideas. To conflate him-as-core-being with him-as-believer-of-ideas is utterly foolish. If we define people that way, a person is nothing unless he comes into belief in a set of ideas. And he must remain faithful to those ideas because failing to do so will unperson him. Idiotic, right?

Then, why do we apply such fallacy to the nation of America? If America is an idea(as opposed to a nation that upholds certain ideas, which have changed over the course of its history), then America was not America until those ideas came to fruition & dominance. And America would no longer be America if those ideas were compromised or rejected for new ones. In fact, however, America will always be America no matter what ideas it espouses since America is essentially the land mass between Canada and Mexico(and Alaska and Hawaii) constituting the continuity of a particular civilization that originated and developed from the mass arrival of Europeans.

Also, using the current PC logic of ideocentrism, America was not America for most if its history. If indeed America is the current set of globalist PC ideas, then it couldn’t have been America since it held onto different ideas, attitudes, and values in the past. Until the mid-1860s, America had slavery, and until the Civil War, the Northern Free States tolerated slavery in the South. Since America then had slavery — ideas at odds with freedom — , America must not have been America. We are told that America cannot be ‘racist’. But America wouldn’t exist if not for ‘racism’. White Europeans conquered America and drove out the native peoples who came to be called ‘Indians’. And there were race wars between whites and reds where the former prevailed. Also, until 1965, American immigration policy favored Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, over other peoples. Since the ideas back then were very much at odds with current Ideas(that are said to define True America), America must not have been America in the past, at least prior to 1965 when the Immigration Policy was changed by Jews.

Some have said America is a Christian nation. Some revised it to Judeo-Christian nation. It is true enough that America, as founded, was an overwhelmingly Christian Protestant nation. There’s no doubt that Christianity has been culturally and historically important to America. But is America = Christianity? But the Founding Fathers were Deists who were skeptical of Biblical claims. And they thought Jesus was a great man than a Son of God. If America = Christianity, it was founded by remarkable men who were not the most committed Christians. Also, many Americans of prominence were agnostics or atheists.

While ideas and values matter a great deal, a nation is much more than that. Nations are like people in this sense. If Bob and John are both libertarians, are they the same? After all, they believe in the same ideas. If nations are ideas, why shouldn’t we say humans are ideas too? So, Bob and John would be interchangeable since they are both ideas of libertarianism. But we know this is not true. Even if Bob and John believe in a certain ideology, they are more than what they believe. Also, even when people espouse the same ideology, they interpret and practice it differently. There are no two same Christians. Each person responds to Jesus in his or her own way. And each person came to libertarianism in his own way. And he practices libertarianism in his own way due to factors of intelligence, integrity, character, personality, happenstance, and circumstances. So, a person has a being and story beyond any set of beliefs.
Furthermore, an idea changes over time and can evolve to the point where it has little semblance of its original self. It’s like meanings of words change over time, even to the point of meaning something profoundly different from its original usage. Consider how the Greek term ‘tyrant’ didn’t necessarily have negative connotations but came to mean an evil oppressive ruler. Indeed, even Liberal Americans of the past would not recognize today’s so-called ‘liberalism’. And Progressives 100 yrs ago, or even 50 yrs ago, would be appalled at much of what passes for ‘progressivism’ today. And Conservatives from 50 yrs ago would find nothing conservative about current Conservatism Inc. that’s mostly about "Democrats are the real racists" and "Muh Israel".

Just like every person is more than the ideas he believes, a nation is more than the ideas it upholds and practices. If America is an idea, then it would follow that any other nation that shares those ideas are also ‘America’. If America is about democracy and tolerance, then isn’t Mexico also ‘America’ since it is also a tolerant democracy? Isn’t Germany also ‘America’ since it is democratic? Isn’t Brazil also America because of its democracy?
As for ‘diversity’, it can be an ideal or a condition. A nation can be diverse in actuality but not see diversity as a good thing. A nation can be homogeneous but see diversity as a desired ideal. Many diverse nations are not happy with their diversity and plagued with tensions. Some nations have traditionally been homogeneous but came under Jewish PC influence and feel inadequate because they are not ‘diverse’ enough. So, they welcome Africans and Muslims to increase diversity. Current Sweden believes Sweden = Ideal of Diversity. Since the new mandatory Idea = Diversity, many Swedes don’t believe Sweden was True Sweden in the past. True Sweden can only be created via adherence to the idea of Diversity. See how utterly stupid this line of thinking is? If indeed Sweden = Diversity, are Peru and Morocco ‘Sweden’ since they have Diversity?

Furthermore, if we claim that America is America ONLY IF it commits to the current PC of ‘anti-racism’, then even the America of either political party is not that True America. After all, both parties support Zionist-imperialist-supremacist repression of Palestinians. If True America must not play favorites among racial, ethnic, or national groups, why does the current US favor Zionists over Palestinians? Why does it favor Israel(that has 200 nuclear weapons) to Iran(that adheres to international nuclear agreements and has no nukes)? And why do the national Media favor Jews, blacks, and homos over other groups IF INDEED America is all about ‘equality’ and not about ‘playing favorites’? And if all peoples and groups are equally valuable, why must all peoples be made to support Jews/Zionism and Homomania BUT Jews and Homos are not required to support, praise, or celebrate Mormons, Palestinian-Americans? Or Chinese-Americans, Russian-Americans, German-Americans, or Incest-Sexuals? And if America is about using its might to remind us of past injustices, why is there no Nakba Remembrance Day? And if America is about waging war on its ‘racist’ past, why is the South attacked for Confederate monuments but the North isn’t condemned for its ‘genocidal’ wars against Indians? And if America is all about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, why does it honor the memory of Emma Lazarus who fully endorsed Manifest Destiny and called on more Europeans and Jews to come to America and grab remaining Indian territories by killing Indians or reducing them to wretched huddled masses in barren reservations?

If America is an idea, it is not America whenever it violates those principles. So, America could not have been America during WWII since its media called Japanese ‘Japs’ — how ‘racist’!! — and since the government rounded up Japanese-in-America for ‘internment’. Some German-Americans, tens of thousands of them, were also ‘interned’. Since the US violated its ideals, it must not have been America back then.

Now, certain ideas and values have become so ingrained or instituted into a nation or civilization that there is a tendency to conclude: Identity + Place = Ideas + Values. But the core identity of a people in a place is always more than any set of ideas and values. China was a Confucian Civilization for a long long time. But was it no longer China because Chinese Communists waged war on Confucianism? No, China was China even under the ideology of Maoists. Current China dearly loves businessmen who get rich. But Confucianism despised the merchant class. If China = Confucian Ideas, then current China is not China since the current ideas and values are so much at odds with traditional Confucian moralism.
Now, take the Turks. For the longest time, Turks were defined by Islam. But Kemal Ataturk came along and created modern secular Turkey where religion was banished from much of public life and state affairs. So, were modern Turks no longer Turks since Turkishness = Islam? Atarturkism proved that there is more to Turkishness than what Turks believe as credo.
Same goes for Greeks. Ancient Greeks were pagans. Then, they became Christians. Since their ideas and credos changed, were they no longer Greeks? Or did Greek become True Greeks only as Christians? But, if Greekness = Christian Credo, are Greeks no longer Greek if they become atheist or secular?

Ideas matter but they are not the core of an identity. Under communism, the Soviet authorities insisted that Russia and its Soviet Republics were all defined by an Idea. Soviet Union was a Proposition Empire of Marxism-Leninism. But if that is True Russia, was Russia not Russia prior to the Revolution when it had espoused different ideas and values? And did Russia cease to be Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was no longer the Propositional Idea of Russians?

The fact is cradle matters more than credo. Each person exists because he was born and develops a biography. That existence is the core essential self. Now, ideas and values are very important because humans live with beliefs and principles. But a person is a person, he is himself, regardless of what he believes. John is John as a libertarian. If he chooses to reject libertarianism and adopt communtarianism, he is still John. And even if he changes his name to ‘Muhammad’, he is still his biological self who was born of his parents. Even as ‘Muhammad’, he is the person who was born to such and such parents and was named John, experienced a unique personal history that led him to current set of beliefs that led him to change his name to ‘Muhammad’.

This much is true. Bad ideas or attitudes lead to degradation and demise of a person or nation. Hedonism will destroy a person. Fanaticism can destroy him too. And radical ideologies can bring about hell on earth to nations. Also, crude impulses can ruin a person like crazed personalities can destroy a nation. Take National Socialism. It had good ideas and bad ideas. Its good idea was nationalism and German revival, its bad idea was imperialism and racial chauvinism. What really destroyed Germany wasn’t so much the ideas but the crazed personalities who impulsively acted on the worst ideas of National Socialism. (Even systems with bad ideas can be steered safely by sane personalities. Gorbachev and Deng took over systems founded on radical ideas but steered them to moderation and world peace. If someone like Albert Speer had gained control of National Socialist Germany, wars would have been avoided.) Personalities of a nation are like impulses in a person. If a person’s neurons go haywire and go for short-term impulses than long-term sobriety, a man or woman can be lost to drugs or debauchery. Likewise, if a nation indulges the most radical, fanatical, or crazed personalities to to pursue their egotistical or tribal lusts without restraint, the result is something like US embroilment in Wars for Israel that laid waste to the Arab/Muslim world and destroyed millions of lives, resulting in the massive flood of Europe with 'refugees' as well. Another result is the ‘new cold war’ with Russia on the premise that the entire world exists mainly to serve the megalomania of Jewish supremacists who hypocritically mask their ultra-tribalism and egotism with platitudes about ‘spreading democracy’, ‘liberal democracy’, and ‘human rights’.

One of the worst and most dangerous ideas is to put credo before cradle or to conflate cradle with credo. Such assumption says a person’s ideas are more important that the person. Indeed, we are believe he is the idea. Using such logic, he is no longer a person unless he espouses certain ideas. He is unpersoned if he were to question or reject those ideas. Likewise, globalists threaten to un-nation America unless it commits to the ideas of Emma Lazarus.
But then, even if we play by rules of PC, are Lazarusean ideas really in line with Current PC that claims to be the True America? Wasn’t Emma Lazarus an imperialist and ethno-supremacist? After all, more European and Jewish immigration to America meant the expulsion of American Indians from their ancestral lands. If America is about ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, didn’t Lazarusean ethos violate those principles since continued mass arrival of Europeans and white Jews made America less ‘red’(Indian) and more white? Jews say their ancestors ran from pogroms in Eastern Europe, but wasn't America created by 'pogroms' against Indians, just like Israel was created later with massive pogroms against Palestinians in the Nakba?
Furthermore, if Americanism is about atonement for its ‘racist’ past, why does the current America support Israel that was created by imperialism, pogromic ethnic cleansing, & destruction of Palestine and, furthermore, occupies West Bank & practices Apartheid there? If America is an Ideal that requires feeling guilty over Jim Crow and once-alliance with apartheid-practicing South Africa, why is it so un-repenting of its historical ‘sins’ against Palestinians? And if America is about equality, why is there more ‘white guilt’ for what was done to blacks than what was done to American Indians? Surely, ‘genocide’ is a bigger crime than slavery.

When we look at Current America, it’s less about an idea than an agenda(driven by the zealous ego of an ethnic tribe). If America is really an idea as this ethnic tribe claims, why don’t the members of this tribe practice these ideas themselves? If whites must forgo their racial identity and interests to serve the higher idea of True America, why don’t Jews forgo their identity and tribal interests to just merge with all other Americans? Why do Jews tell European-Americans that it’s wrong to preserve and serve European identity but insist that not only Jews but all gentile groups must support, praise, and serve Jewish identity, Jewish heritage, Zionist Israel, and Wars for Israel? Why do Jews insist that all non-Jews must worship Jews-as-Jews. Worse, why do they insist that all non-Jews must hate peoples and nations hated by Jews? So, if Jews hate Russians, all gentiles(even Russians) must hate Russians. If Jews hate Iranians, all gentiles(even Iranians) must hate Iranians. So much for America being an Idea. That ‘idea’ in Current America is just a ruse used by the Agenda serving the Ego of a rabid, virulent, and fanatical ethnic tribe.

Finally, if indeed America is an Idea, there is no need for people to come to America. Ideas are portable and transferable. If American Ideas are the best, then the rest of the world can adopt and use those ideas. It's like, if a people learn how to make fire, that idea can be borrowed by other peoples who can make their own fires in their own lands. They don't have to come to the people with the fire to have the fire.
It's like one doesn't have to go to Mecca to be a Muslim or go to the Vatican to become a Catholic. Islam and Catholicism are ideas or creed. They can be adopted by any people in any part of the world.
So, even if we argue America = Idea, the world can just adopt Americanism-as-Idea in their own nations. There is no need for them to flood into America. Also, if democracy was a precious commodity in the 19th century, it is dime-a-dozen all over the world. Most nations are democracies around the world. Besides, much of the world has been 'Americanized' with McDonalds, Hollywood, Evangelicalism, and even Homomania. They can have their 'America' in their own nations.

Which American State is Quintessentially Most American?

Which American State is ideally Most American?

People say America is a nation of immigrants. Okay, but which immigrants?

Today, globalists say All nations are 'nations of immigrants' since humanity originated from Africa and people moved out all over the globe. Also, there were series of invasions in every territory.
But even if we agree that all nations are 'nations of immigrants', why are they different? Because different peoples 'immigrated' there. So, white Europeans 'immigrated' to Britain and made it European. So, East Asian Mongoloid people 'immigrated' to Japan and made it East Asian.

So, even if we agree that both Britain and Japan are 'nations of immigrants', they are fundamentally different because different kinds of people 'immigrated' there and built different cultures and recollected different histories.

And this applies to the US as well. Okay, let's use the broad term of 'immigration' to mean not only legal immigration but illegal kind, migration, invasion, imperialism, colonization, etc.
So, one can say US has been a 'nation of immigrants' from the beginning. And since Indians arrived from Asia and moved all around in endless tribal invasions, they too were 'immigrants' going from one part of America to another. And we can say South American natives 'immigrated' from North America.

Still, a 'nation of immigrants' means little. What is crucial is WHICH people immigrated, whether legally or illegally, peacefully or violently.

Consider an alternative American history. Let's say Anglos founded and settled America in the early stages. But instead of allowing more immigration from UK and northern Europe, suppose the Founder Fathers caught the PC bug -- don't ask me how -- and decided they are going to favor non-white immigration. So, from American Independence to the next 100 yrs, US takes in only Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, Africans(as free immigrants on tops of slaves), Mexicans, Filipinos, Egyptians, and etc. Anyone but white Europeans.
Now, this US would have been a 'nation of immigrants' too, but would it have become the US that we know, the one that came into being as an extension and outgrowth of European civilization? Absolutely not. Surely, WHICH people is crucial. Suppose there are three exact Vermonts. First one takes in 500,000 Germans, the second one takes in 500,000 Hindus, and the third one takes in 500,000 Haitians. In the most generic senses, all three took in 500,000 immigrants. So, will the result be the same? No, culturally, racially, intellectually, politically and economically, they will differ drastically. Even among only whites, preponderance of different ethnic groups led to different outcomes. Germans in Wisconsin behave differently from Scotch-Irish in the South. Indeed, it is amusing that East Coast Wasp types, Minnesotan Scandinavian types, and West Coast Jewish types all sneer at southern Scotch-Irish as 'white trash'. If all Americans are the same and interchangeable, why such ethnic and cultural snobbery and contempt?

Now, consider the various American states. Officially and legally, all Americans of any race or culture or religion is 'American'. So, every American state is equally 'American'. But are all races, cultures, religions, histories, and etc equally valuable to the meaning of America?

A mind-experiment. Suppose all of America were to become like a particular state. Would the result be the same regardless of which state is chosen? Or are some states more quintessentially American than others? Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Iowa. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant New Mexico(where Mexicans outnumber Anglos). Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Hawaii. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Wisconsin. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Vermont.

Now, each of those hypothetical nations could be said to be a 'nation of immigrants' since all Americans came from elsewhere. And each of them are legally just as American as any other.
But can any honest person say that an America that is like a giant New Mexico is as American as one that is like a giant Iowa? A giant New Mexico would be more Mexico than America. And a giant Hawaii-as-America would be more Filipino-Japan-China than European America that is quintessentially America.
And a giant Mississippi as American would be Euro-Africa.

The fact is America would still quintessentially be American without non-whites, but it is inconceivable without whites who extended European civilization, peoples, cultures, and ideas into the New World.

WHICH matters. Every New World nation, from Canada to Mexico to Panama to Venezuela to Bolivia to Chile, is a 'nation of immigrants'. So, why are they so different? Because they took in different kinds of immigrants who interacted differently with the native populations.