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.

Freedom, Independence, and Liberty are NOT possible without EXCLUSION

INCLUSION is now the buzzword in PC lingo pushed by Globalists.

But inclusion can work against freedom, liberty, and security. Indeed, freedom and liberty are impossible without security. Does anyone really free in a jungle full of dangerous animals? Does anyone really feel free in high-crime Detroit? Does anyone really feel free in the war zones of Syria or Libya(caused by Zionist-imperialist intervention)? Radical Inclusion leads to breakdown of security(and stability) and that means less freedom and liberty. Coercive Inclusion of US military imperialism into the Middle East and North Africa led to countless deaths and chaos everywhere. And Coercive Inclusion of masses of Africans and Muslims into Europe is leading to crime and mayhem.

Inclusion forces intrusion(even invasion) of other homelands. When EU is forced to be 'inclusive', it means it must surrender to intrusion and invasion by masses of Africans and Muslims. When White Americans are forced to be 'inclusive' of masses of non-white immigrants, it means having to live in a nation where they are reviled and blamed for everything.

A woman who is forced to 'include' every penis can only be rape victim. A woman without the choice to exclude the men she doesn't like is no longer free.

And this goes for victims of stalking as well. Such victims call on the police for safety to keep stalkers away. A woman doesn't feel safe with such types trailing her. This is especially true with famous celebrities who are stalked by crazy fans. In order for such people, women or celebrities, to feel secure(and free and independent), the police is called on warn or even imprison the stalkers. Women and celebs want to EXCLUDE stalkers from their lives.

Freedom and liberty have often been about Exclusion. Exclusion can happen by expelling a people who are deemed dangerous or threatening(or invasive). Or it can be achieved by mass-escape or mass-exile.

In the case of the Vietnamese and Algerians, they finally got together to expel the imperialist French invaders. Natives used guns and bombs to send the French back to France. Vietnamese and Algerians sought national independence via the expulsion of the French. Independence was achieved with the exclusion of the foreign French invaders.

In the case of Moses and Hebrews(if the Biblical legend is to be believed), they self-exiled themselves from the Egyptians. For the Hebrews to be free, they needed to exclude Egyptian tyranny from their lives. Since they couldn't overthrow Egyptians in Egypt, they chose mass-departure from Egypt to found their own homeland. Thus, Egyptian power came to be excluded from the lives of Jews, especially with the help of God who sent the Pillar of Fire and split the sea to devour the Egyptian cavalry(according to myth anyway).

So, Jews found freedom by excluding Egyptian tyranny from their lives. (But in founding their own homeland, they intruded into the lands of other peoples and slaughtered tons of them, again if the Biblical legends are to be believed. In forcing those gentiles in the Promised Land to be 'inclusive' of Jews, there were blood invasions and reprisals. Recent history has similar themes of freedom-by-exclusion and oppression-by-inclusion. The 20th century Exodus is about Jews gaining freedom by excluding the gentile world from their own lives. By departing from gentile lands and creating a Jewish state, Jews would welcome only the Jews and keep out the gentiles. Jews in hostile gentile nations would seek exile and exodus to Modern Israel, thus excluding gentile tyranny from their lives and living freely with other Jews. But this creation of the Jewish homeland required the the intrusive 'inclusion' of Jews upon Palestinians. Palestine was forced to 'include' Jews who soon turned into intruders and invaders who came to lord over the Palestinians. Exclusion meant freedom for Jews, but Inclusion meant tyranny for Palestinians. It's like the Japanese found new opportunities in Manchuria, but it required the coercive 'inclusion-invasion' of Northeast Asia. Later, for the Chinese to be free of Japanese Rule, the Japanese had to be expelled and excluded from China.)

America was founded on themes of exclusion. Colonial elites(Founding Fathers) rebelled against the 'tyranny' by King George and the Brits(even though historians say it wasn't all that bad). Also, white folks worried about Indian raids and red folks scalping white folks and leaving them bald. So, in order for America to be created, the colonials had to declare independence and EXCLUDE British power from the Americas. And in order for white folks to be safe and secure(in order to be free as civilized folks), they had to exclude the 'red savages' and dangerous animals(bears, cougars, wolves, and etc) from their domain.

The very idea of INDEPENDENCE implies exclusion. After all, to be independent means to be free FROM something.

When the Pilgrims came to America, they chose exile in order to exclude British religious tyranny(or what they saw as such) from their lives. When Robert Duvall flees in THX 1138, he is trying to exclude the tyranny of the System from his life. He wants to be free. He wants to be free FROM something. It's like the movie THE GREAT ESCAPE. The prisoners are trying to be free FROM of the German Prison Camp System. They want to exclude the power of German Guards from their lives.

Of course, themes of exclusion and inclusion are often inter-connected, as in the Moses story. Jews seek to exclude Egyptian tyranny from their lives. But in seeking a homeland of their own, they force other peoples in the region to 'include' Jews who come as intruders and invaders.

Also, there is the troubled relation between man and God. In some ways, man wants to be free of God. God has too many laws and injunctions. So, some Jews wanted to dance and party around the Golden Calf. They wanted to follow Edward G. Robinson than Charlton Heston. But God insists on the Jews including His laws in their lives because He figures Jews freed from God's Laws will succumb to their wild egos and start acting nuts like Sarah Silverman and Anthony Wiener. (To be sure, God sometimes want to exclude human affairs from His existence because humans are pesky, ridiculous, and retarded. But just when He wants to say 'get lost, idiots', humans are praying to Him and beseeching Him for help after they mess up. And God figures He will include their prayers in His plan for humanity...)

In a way, one might argue that the theme of INCLUSION in current American politics allows freedom for all of humanity. US is the Promised Land to which all peoples of the world should escape to. All the world is like one giant Egypt, and every people who want to flee are like Jews. Just as Jews sought freedom by excluding Egyptian tyranny from their lives by seeking mass-exile, all these immigrants are trying to exclude from their own lives the tyranny of their own kind by coming to America. So, Chinese wanna flee from China, Indians wanna flee from India, Africans wanna flee from Africa, Mexicans wanna flee from Mexico. Their own people are their worst enemies, and they want to exclude their own race and culture from their own lives and come to America and be included as 'Americans' by presumably superior white folks who run a better political, economic, and social system.

But this is where the analogy with Hebrews break down. Hebrews were not escaping from their own people. They ran from Egyptians. In contrast, Immigrationism says that people should 'escape' from their own race, culture, and land. They should become McCitizens of America.
Yet, there is another contradiction, that of multi-culturalism. Even though all these immigrants say NO to their own race & culture and reject their own homelands in order to join the White World, the white/Jewish 'progressives' who control Western media/academia insist on immigrant-folks maintaining their non-Western 'identities'(as redefined by multi-culti politics). (Better to exploit tensions in the service of 'progressive' politics because non-whites who get along with whites might become 'Republicans'.) So, we have the strange phenomenon of non-white immigrants(and esp their children) rejecting and forgetting their own race, culture, and language(and becoming just generically American in Hollywood and MTV sense) but also taking on 'identity politics' of hostility toward whites. However, this non-white 'identity' is a political construct than something genuine or organic. It is imposed on non-whites by PC politics that didn't originate in their homelands. (For example, no non-Western culture has been traditionally homomaniacal, but multi-cultism would have non-white kids in America believe that worship of homosexuality is part of multi-culturalism. It even fuses Islamic identity with homo decadence.) Non-white 'identity' according to multi-cultism is less about the intrinsic assets of a race, culture, or language than about the politics of hostility toward whites. Indian-Indian identity isn't the same as Indian-American 'identity'(as constructed by PC). Asian-Indians in India are Indian regardless of events and developments in the rest of the world. Even if the entire white world were to vanish overnight, Indians in India would organically and historically be Indian. But 'Indian-American' has no such autonomous or independent meaning. It is premised on PC-ordained Indian-American hostility towards whites as the holders of 'white privilege'(according to venomous PC). Multi-culti identity is about the exploitation of identity politics to corral non-whites against whites. This kind of identity can only exist in opposition to something. It lacks autonomy.
A Japanese in Japan is organically Japanese even if the rest of the world were to vanish. Indeed, Japan was Japanese for many centuries in isolation. But Japanese-American 'identity', as constructed by PC multi-cultism, cannot exist except in the context of hostility against whites.
This is why we have PC-ized Asian-Americans identifying with blacks against whites. These clowns might have had an autonomous identity back in their homeland. But in the US, where they've lost their racial, cultural, and linguistic identities, they rely on multi-culti 'identity' of hating 'white privilege' with the implication that Asians have more in common with Africans than with whites(with whom Asians are closer genetically, in terms of civilizational achievement, and as victims of black violence). It also means Middle Easterners(who are Caucasian if not white and whose histories are more closely tied to the West) have more in common with Mongolian-Americans and Peruvian-Indian-Americans. As white Hispanics count as 'people of color', it also means someone like Marco Rubio can claim to have more in common with a Nigerian-American than with European-Americans. It just gets surreal. And the politics of victimhood identity means that white homos and white women can claim to have more in common with blacks, browns, and yellows than with straight white men. It just gets more and more surreal.

The Historical Tragedy of Anti-Russian-ism and the Russo-Japanese War. And the Evil of Current Anglo-Zionism.

‘Anglo-Zionist’ as term sort of makes sense given that so much of world affairs have been distorted by the uber-national ambitions of Anglos and Jews in our globalized world.

It goes back to the Crimean War, but it got really crazy during the Russo-Japanese War.

Given that Russia is a white power, it would have made sense for UK and US to side with Russia. But UK was paranoid about Russia because of its vast size even though Russia had no designs on rest of Europe or even wanted to challenge Anglo-Franco rule of the world. (Indeed, Russia's land-centrism ensured its limited role in overseas ventures. Russia was too busy maintaining control over its territorial empire.) And US too often followed Anglo-centrism and prejudices. Sometimes, US was right to follow the UK-lead. Other times, it was stupid, and the Russo-Japanese War was a prime example.

Enabling Japan to win the war(though it was more like a tie with the advantage going to Japan) messed things up for everyone in the long run. It undermined Tsarist authority because Russia became the first white nation in modern times to lose to non-whites. That paved the way for revolution.
And it was bad for Japan in the long run because it became filled with over-confidence that led to confrontation with America. If Russia had won the war, Russians would have gained influence in Manchuria and Korea, and that would have been better for Chinese and Koreans since Russians were more tolerant and willy-nilly than the the psycho-anal control-freak Japanese. Also, Russian aims were limited in Asia whereas Japan wanted to win it all.

In a way, Japanese over-ambition was understandable given the historical context. For most of Asian history, China was the most powerful nation. And Japanese had respected that. But because Japan westernized/modernized first, it became the PREMIER Asian power. Now, if Japanese had a proper long-term view, they would have resigned themselves to the prospect that China too would eventually modernize and become the biggest Asian power. But once the Japanese got a taste of ‘greatness’ and respect(from white nations) as the premier Asian power, Japan didn’t want to let it go. Defeat in Russo-Japanese War would have cured the Japanese of such hubris.
If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, it would have licked its wounds, gained sobriety, and accepted its loss of role in continental Asia. But once it ‘beat’ even Russia, it got addicted to its role as the #1 Asian power. It could no longer accept the inevitable rise of China. It had to everything to prevent China’s rise because it would mean Japan would be #2 in Asia, not #1.

Japan got its foothold on continental Asia with its defeat of China over Korea in 1895. Next, the Japanese were eyeing Manchuria. If Japan had lost the Russo-Japanese War, there was no way Japan could encroach further on China. Also, it would likely have lost its influence over Korea to the Russians who, being more tolerant, wouldn’t have been as aggressive against the Koreans.

So, there would have been no Japan-China War, and China would gradually would have developed and modernized and surpassed Japan — and western powers would gradually have withdrawn from China. And since Japan would have learned its lesson by losing to Russians, it would never have dared to take on the Americans.
Also, losing to Russia would not have been End of the World. Russia had no plan or means to invade and occupy Japan. Russia would have driven Japanese out of Manchuria and controlled the seas around northern China. In contrast, when Japan lost to the US, it lost all sovereignty and became a total whore-cuck nation of America. And it is still a sorry-ass whore-puppet of Uncle Sam/Ham.

So, imagine that. If Russia had won the Russo-Japan War, it would have been better for Russia, China, and Japan.
But, why did Russia ‘lose’? Because of the damn Anglo powers. Brits made it difficult for the Russian navy to get to the Pacific. They were denied the use of the Suez Canal.
And not so subtly, US favored Japan too.

Instead of seeing Russia as the Other Great White Power, US and UK saw them as the BAD BACKWARD WHITE POWER and began to favor the yellow Japanese as the 'honorary whites' who would work with US and UK to counter the power of Russia and eventual rise of China.
UK and US developed a similar paranoid-hostile feelings about Germany. Supposedly, Anglos and Anglo-Americans were good civilized whites while the Germans were Huns and Teutons.

To be sure, Germans and Russians were also to blame for seeing each other as enemies when they could have been friends. Germany vs Russia in WWI was pretty retarded. Stalin realized this, which is why he was willing to work with Germany, but that Hitler violated the pact and attacked Russia and ruined everything.

It is the Russian Jinx. Every time some great white power makes things bad for Russia, its seismic effects mess up the whole world.

The problem long ago was that UK and US saw the world in Anglo-centric terms and failed to see or acknowledge the important role Russia could play.

Fast Forward to today, and we have the same kind of petty ethno-centrism messing up the world. Now, it is Zio-centrism with Anglos playing the role of cuck toady dogs of Jews. Zios now control the US and EU. And Zios see EVERYTHING in terms of “Is it good for the Jews?”

Given the rise of yellow Chinar, it would make sense for white Europe and white Russia to come together and grow closer. And given the massive population explosion of Africans and invasion of EU by the Muslims and the black Africans, it would make sense for white nations to increase nationalism and national sovereignty and work with Russia as a great white power to fend off the Flood of Color.

But instead, US and EU are doing everything to isolate Russia and destroy Russia’s economy.
This is not in the interest of white Americans, white Germans, white French, white Italians, white Britons, and etc. So, why are US and EU at loggerheads with Russia? Because there is nothing Jews fear more than white identity and unity.

Now, especially due to WWII and Holocaust, even those who call for white identity and white unity are not for persecution of Jews. If anything, most white right parties in Europe are pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. So, why are Jews so worried? It’s because Jew are no longer satisfied with the good life under the rule of law in the West. They want Zio-centrist supremacist rule over the world. Jews totally control the US, and Jews want EU and Russia under total Jewish control as well. There are lots of Jewish oligarchs and rich Jews in Russia, but that is not enough for Jews. As long as there is Russian identity and unity, Jews fear it may one day check and restrain Jewish power.

So, Jews are totally out to destroy white power. This is why Jews push massive migration of black Africans into Europe, massive homo propaganda, massive feminist propaganda, and massive interracism via pop culture. It is a way to drive a wedge between the most crucial racial unity, that of man and woman. After all, no amount of technology , science, economy, and government can create white people. White people can only be created by union of white man and white woman. So, Jews use feminism to make white women hate white men and ONLY white men. Jews use massive black and Muslim migration to make white women mate with non-white men. And Jews promote whore culture so that white women will go with Negro bad boys than white boys.

This is bad for whites, but Jews push such an agenda. As far as Jews are concerned, the interests of white folks don’t matter at all. It doesn’t matter how much the white world is harmed and ruined as long as it is good for Suprema-Semitic power.

More than 100 yrs ago, overweening Anglo and Anglo-American hurt Russia and set off a series of events that led to all sorts of disasters.
Today, Zio-Anglo power is acting in much the same manner and once again against Russia for the sake of Zio-centric rule of the world.

Anglos long ago failed to treat other great white powers — arguably with the exception of France — with any respect. And in its overreaching, events led to Revolution and the World War II.

Today, Jews cannot accept a multi-polar world where Russia plays a role and China plays a role. But Jews are more willing to accept Chinese power since Jews figure — correctly — that whites in US and EU will never identify with China no matter what China does since China is an Asian nation. (And in the US, it is acceptable to be ‘racist’ against the Chinese, so there is a fair amount of yellow peril alarmism, and that means whites will always see the Chinese as the Them). But because Russia is white, European, and Christian, the rise-success-and-pride of Russia is a threat to the Jewish model and a model for whites in the West.

Russia and nationalism, Jews don’t like. Russia and Christianity, Jews don’t like. Russia and anti-homo-agenda(as proxy of Jewish globo-imperialism), Jews don’t like. Russia and international agenda independent of Zio-global approval, Jews don’t like. Russia and its role in WWII as the #1 destroyer of Nazi Germany. You would think Jews would like this and be grateful, but Jews don’t like it since Russians are one people they cannot pin with Holocaust Guilt.

Jews are now like Hitler. There is the combination of grandness and pettiness. Zio-globalism is grand because it has a grand vision of remaking the entire world. Likewise, Hitler was a grand visionary who wanted to remake the world.
But if you’re going to have such a grand vision, you have be for all peoples and nations.
Hitler’s grand vision only served his petty prejudices. At least Napoleon invaded Russia to spread Enlightenment values(and rule by iron croissant, to be sure). But Hitler’s view of Russians was just to see them as slaves of German invaders. If you only care about your own people, then stick to your own nation. Bismarck’s vision and his actions complemented one another. He was for Germany and came up with policies that mostly affected Germans.
Hitler only cared about his own kind and despised Slavs and other races, but he had global ambitions. If you have national ambitions, stick to your nation. If you have global ambitions, think about what is good for everyone. Hitler was incapable of such grandness of heart to match his grandness of vision.

Likewise, Jewish zealotry is too petty for a grand world vision. Jews are less than 0.1% of the world population but Jews want to steer all of global power and events in the interest of “Is it good for the Jews?”

Anglos were sort of petty too but not entirely. The Christian and universalist side of them did sincerely believe in some of that White Man’s Burden stuff. Many Anglos and Anglo-Americans were sincerely devoted to improving other parts of the world and feeling some degree of sympathy for the bloody darkies.

But Jews? Just take a good look at Victoria Nuland’s countenance, and you know what it’s all about. The world must not be ruled by people with the personality and prejudices of, say, Rahm Emanuel, Abe Foxman, and Sheldon Adelson.

Also, even though Anglos were full of themselves, they never claimed to be perfect and were open to criticism from other peoples. And there were plenty of Anglo writers and critics who were harshly critical of Anglo over-reach, hypocrisy, and etc.

But Jews? Even the slightest whiff of criticism of Jews is treated like Mein Kampf.
Consider how Gregg Easterbrook ended up in the Jewlag, or Jewish Gulag.

Jews are the most powerful people in the world but want to be seen and treated like the most powerless. Jews want the whole world to see Jews like the GOP does. Jews boss around the GOP, but GOP acts like it needs to protect poor poor Jews from all those ‘anti-semites’.

Also, if Christianity and Marxism had some universal strains, there is nothing about Jews and Zionism that is about universal good or justice. It’s all about “is it good for the Jews?” and nothing else.
When Zio-centrism is the most powerful animating force of globalism, we live in dangerous times indeed.