Home / Politics / No Country for White Men?

No Country for White Men?

At the end of the nineteenth century a fatuous humanitarianism prevailed and immigrants of all kinds were welcomed to “The Refuge of the Oppressed,” regardless of whether they were needed in our industrial development or whether they tended to debase our racial unity. The “Myth of the Melting Pot” was, at that time, deemed by the unthinking to be a part of our national creed.
– Madison Grant, Conquest of a Continent

Alexis Ohanian, the founder of Reddit, recently penned a lengthy post on his own website praising immigration and damning President Trump’s recent executive orders. His post uses his family history to push the deceitful narrative that America is a “nation of immigrants” (who they were and where they were from notwithstanding) and must therefore always open her borders for more immigrants (who they are and where they are from notwithstanding):

After two weeks abroad, I was looking forward to returning to the U.S. this weekend, but as I got off the plane at LAX on Sunday, I wasn’t sure what country I was coming back to.

President Trump’s recent executive order is not only potentially unconstitutional, but deeply un-American. We are a nation of immigrants, after all. In the tech world, we often talk about a startup’s “unfair advantage” that allows it to beat competitors. Welcoming immigrants and refugees has been our country’s unfair advantage, and coming from an immigrant family has been mine as an entrepreneur.

As many of you know, I am the son of an undocumented immigrant from Germany and the great grandson of refugees who fled the Armenian Genocide.

A little over a century ago, a Turkish soldier decided my great grandfather was too young to kill after cutting down his parents in front of him; instead of turning the sword on the boy, the soldier sent him to an orphanage. Many Armenians, including my great grandmother, found sanctuary in Aleppo, Syria—before the two reconnected and found their way to Ellis Island. Thankfully they weren’t retained, rather they found this message:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

My great grandfather didn’t speak much English, but he worked hard, and was able to get a job at Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company in Binghamton, NY. That was his family’s golden door. And though he and my great grandmother had four children, all born in the U.S., immigration continued to reshape their family, generation after generation. The one son they had—my grandfather (here’s his AMA)—volunteered to serve in the Second World War and married a French-Armenian immigrant. And my mother, a native of Hamburg, Germany, decided to leave her friends, family, and education behind after falling in love with my father, who was born in San Francisco.

She got a student visa, came to the U.S. and then worked as an au pair, uprooting her entire life for love in a foreign land. She overstayed her visa. She should have left, but she didn’t. After she and my father married, she received a green card, which she kept for over a decade until she became a citizen. I grew up speaking German, but she insisted I focus on my English in order to be successful. She eventually got her citizenship and I’ll never forget her swearing in ceremony.

If you’ve never seen people taking the pledge of allegiance for the first time as U.S. Citizens, it will move you: a room full of people who can really appreciate what I was lucky enough to grow up with, simply by being born in Brooklyn. It thrills me to write reference letters for enterprising founders who are looking to get visas to start their companies here, to create value and jobs for these United States.

My forebears were brave refugees who found a home in this country. I’ve always been proud to live in a country that said yes to these shell-shocked immigrants from a strange land, that created a path for a woman who wanted only to work hard and start a family here.

Without them, there’s no me, and there’s no Reddit. We are Americans. Let’s not forget that we’ve thrived as a nation because we’ve been a beacon for the courageous—the tired, the poor, the tempest-tossed.

Right now, Lady Liberty’s lamp is dimming, which is why it’s more important than ever that we speak out and show up to support all those for whom it shines—past, present, and future. I ask you to do this however you see fit, whether it’s calling your representative (this works, it’s how we defeated SOPA + PIPA), marching in protest, donating to the ACLU, or voting, of course, and not just for Presidential elections.

Our platform, like our country, thrives the more people and communities we have within it. Reddit, Inc. will continue to welcome all citizens of the world to our digital community and our office.


And for all of you American redditors who are immigrants, children of immigrants, or children’s children of immigrants, we invite you to share your family’s story in the comments.

For the cherry on top of his self-victimization/self-congratulation sundae, Ohanian even redrew the iconic Reddit mascot (a “snoo”) into a miniature Statue of Liberty – because, of course, that poem is a sacred commandment which must not be violated lest Lady Liberty unleash her wrath upon America.

Given the amount of gushing press which Ohanian has received for his post, as well as for shoahing r/altright, we should smack down these arguments…before the time for arguments has passed.

“Lady Liberty’s lamp is dimming”

Shit-libs are absolutely obsessed with the poem on the Statue of Liberty. Much like cuckservatives and kosher-cons, next to an out-of-context phrase from the Declaration of Independence and some related rhetoric in Gettysburg Address, this is all of the American history that they know. The fact is that the poem on the Statue of Liberty (often-quoted by America-hating shit-libs as a way of pretending that they are patriotic) does not represent foundational American values at all. On the contrary, it is profoundly “un-American.”

The Statue of Liberty was originally a gift from France to commemorate American independence from the British Empire and the Union’s victory over the Confederacy, not to be a beacon for immigrants. “We will not forget that liberty here made her home,” declared President Grover Cleveland at the dedication ceremony. “Nor shall her chosen altar be neglected.” While the Statue of Liberty was conceived in 1865 and dedicated in 1886, the poem, ‘The New Colossus,’ written by the Marxist Jew Emma Lazarus, was not added until 1903. Lazarus originally wrote the poem during a fundraising drive for the statue’s pedestal, but the poem itself failed and was not even included in the statue’s dedication ceremony. After Lazarus’ death, her female friends successfully lobbied the government to affix a small plaque of the poem to the pedestal of the statue.

In contrast to the underwhelming origins of this vaunted cornerstone of American values, there is the Naturalization Act of 1790 (one of the very first acts of the very first Congress), which plainly stated that only immigrants who were “free white persons of good character” could become citizens. While the restriction of “free white persons of good character” was not debated in the Congress, the severity of the rule of naturalization for such immigrants was a point of contention. When the South Carolina Congressman William L. Smith proposed that only immigrants who were also freeholders (i.e. landowners) should be permitted to become citizens, the Georgia Congressman James Jackson objected that this was too liberal:

Mr. Jackson conceived the present subject to be of high importance to the respectability and character of the American name; the veneration he had for, and the attachment he had to, this country, made him extremely anxious to preserve its good fame from injury. He hoped to see the title of a citizen of America as highly venerated and respected as was that of a citizen of old Rome. I am clearly of opinion, that rather than have the common class of vagrants, paupers, and other outcasts of Europe, that we had better be as we are, and trust to the natural increase of our population for inhabitants. If the motion made by the gentleman from South Carolina, should obtain, such people will find an easy admission indeed to the rights of citizenship; much too easy for the interests of the people of America. Nay, sir, the terms required by the bill on the table are, in my mind, too easy. I think, before a man is admitted to enjoy the high and inestimable privileges of a citizen of America, that something more than a mere residence amongst us is necessary. I think he ought to pass some time in a state of probation, and at the end of the term, be able to bring testimonials of a proper and decent behavior; no man, who would be a credit to the community, could think such terms difficult or indelicate: if bad men should be dissatisfied on this account, and should decline to emigrate, the regulation will have a beneficial effect; for we had better keep such out of the country than admit them into it.

So the choice for American foundational values is between a law passed by the very first Congress and signed by President George Washington or a failed poem written by an unknown Marxist Jew.

On another level, even if it were true that the poem on the Statue of Liberty did embody American foundational values, it would not matter, because those values are degrading to national identity and dangerous to national sovereignty. Even if it were true that the Founding Fathers believed in open borders, then we the living would have every right and reason to govern ourselves according to our own interests. As Thomas Jefferson wrote from France to James Madison in Virginia:

The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;” that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

Jefferson’s particular concern was with the elder generation passing on debt to the younger, a problem very similar to recent immigration history: the Baby Boomers opened up the borders so Paco could mow their lawn and Guadalupe could clean their house, never thinking of what sort of country they were leaving for their descendants.

Why should any country adopt an immigration policy which prizes weakness above strength? The British settlers who founded Jamestown and Plymouth were not “huddled masses” or “wretched refuse,” but great men with the bravery to explore uncharted territory, the strength to dominate a savage wilderness, and the vision to build a civilization. This idolization of the “poor,” “tired,” and “homeless” who are “tossed” upon American shores is morally degenerate and culturally subversive. We will take the “storied pomp” of “ancient lands,” please. Thank you.

In the Congressional debate over the Naturalization Act of 1790, Virginia Congressman James Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”) spoke common sense on immigration policy:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalisation, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.

I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalisation excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

Yes, an immigration policy that makes America rich and powerful, not one that romanticizes backwardness and weakness!

“We are a nation of immigrants, after all.”

In 1782, John Hector St. John Crevecoeur, a French aristocrat who had settled in New York, published a book describing the American way of life, Letters from an American Farmer. In his book, Crevecoeur addressed the question of American identity. “What then is the American, this new man?” he asked. “He is either a European, or the descendant of a European,” he answered. “I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a Frenchwoman, and whose sons present sons now have four wives of different nations.” So yes, America has indeed always been a nation of immigrants – a nation of immigrants from all the diverse ethnicities of the white race.

The United States grew from Great Britain’s North American Colonies, which were populated by the various English and Celtic people from the British Isles: the English “Cavaliers” in the South, the English “Puritans” in New England, the Scotch-Irish “crackers” in the backcountry, and English “Midlanders” in the Delaware Valley. It was these Anglos and Celts who comprised the “founding stock” of the American people.

In his famous “Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies,” delivered shortly before the American Revolution, the British statesman Edmund Burke defined the identity of the American colonists:

First, the people of the Colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation, which still I hope respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles…

The people are Protestants; and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion not only favourable to liberty, but built upon it…Even that stream of foreigners, which has been constantly flowing into these Colonies, has, for the greatest part, been composed of dissenters from the establishments of their several countries, and have brought with them a temper and character far from alien to that of the people with whom they mixed.

In the 1790 Census, the American population was approximately 80% “free white,” with the remainder chattel slaves, disfranchised freedmen, and Indians. In effect, therefore, the actual polity was 100% white. Among the white population, another 80% were of British descent, with the remainder mostly made up of Germans. As John Dickinson, the famed “Penman of the Revolution” proclaimed in the late 1780s, “Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these States are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?”

After American independence, the first two waves of immigration were the Irish in the 1840s and the Germans in the 1850s. Prior to these waves, however, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville and author of the sociological Democracy in America, named the American people as “Anglo-Americans,” named the United States an “Anglo-American Union,” and identified Anglo-American culture “as the peculiar cause which renders that people the only one of the American nations that is able to support a democratic government.”

By the mid-1850s, however, discontent with the Irish and German immigrants resulted in the formation of the “American Party,” which ran a presidential candidate in 1856 (former President Millard Fillmore and future Confederate Andrew Jackson Donelson) under the following platform:

(1) Repeal of all naturalization laws [i.e. no “path to citizenship” for immigrants].

(2) None but Americans [natural-born citizens] for office.

(3) A pure American common school system.

(4) War to the hilt, on political Romanism [Catholic influence].

(5) Opposition to the formation of military companies composed of foreigners.

(6) The advocacy of a sound, healthy and safe nationality [civic identity]

(7) Hostility to all Papal influences, when brought to bear against the Republic.

(8) American Constitutions & American sentiments.

(9) More stringent & effective emigration laws [i.e. closing the borders].

(10) The amplest protection to Protestant interests.

(11) The doctrines of the revered [George] Washington [i.e. neutrality in the affairs of Europe].

(12) The sending back of all foreign paupers [i.e. deporting immigrants on welfare]

(13) Formation of societies to protect American interests.

(14) Eternal enmity to all those who attempt to carry out the principles of a foreign Church or State.

(15) Our Country, our whole Country, and nothing but our Country [i.e. “America First”].

(16) Finally, American Laws, and American legislation; and death to all foreign influences, whether in high places or low! [“Oyyy veyyyyy!”]

After the War Between the States and Reconstruction (which included the emancipation of the slave population and enfranchisement of the negro population), the next wave of immigration came from Southern/Central Europe and lasted from 1890-1924. Most of these immigrants were Italians, Slavs, and Jews. Just as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, Americans pushed back against this massive influx of foreigners (the largest in national history at that point in time). In 1921, 1924, and 1929, a series of laws were passed designed to reverse the demographic changes that had occurred since 1890 and return America to her Anglo-Saxon roots. As President Calvin Coolidge, who signed these reforms into law, wrote, “Our country must cease to be regarded as a dumping ground.”

South Carolina Senator Ellison DuRant Smith explained the reasons for discriminating on the basis of national origins:

I think we now have sufficient population in our country for us to shut the door and to breed up a pure, unadulterated American citizenship. I recognize that there is a dangerous lack of distinction between people of a certain nationality and the breed of the dog. Who is an American? Is he an immigrant from Italy? Is he an immigrant from Germany? If you were to go abroad and some one were to meet you and say, “I met a typical American,” what would flash into your mind as a typical American, the typical representative of that new Nation? Would it be the son of an Italian immigrant, the son of a German immigrant, the son of any of the breeds from the Orient, the son of the denizens of Africa? We must not get our ethnological distinctions mixed up with our anthropological distinctions. It is the breed of the dog in which I am interested. I would like for the members of the Senate to read that book just recently published by Madison Grant, THE PASSING OF A GREAT RACE. Thank God we have in America perhaps the largest percentage of any country in the world of the pure, unadulterated Anglo-Saxon stock; certainly the greatest of any nation in the Nordic breed. It is for the preservation of that splendid stock that has characterized us that I would make this not an asylum for the oppressed of all countries, but a country to assimilate and perfect that splendid type of manhood that has made America the foremost Nation in her progress and in her power, and yet the youngest of all the nations.

In 1965, under false assurances that “nothing will change” and “everything will be alright,” the 1921, 1924, and 1929 immigration acts were replaced with the (((Hart-Celler Immigration Act))), which removed the national-origins quotas and opened immigration up to the whole world. “The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, and the people of Holland,” complained North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin. “With all due respect to Ethiopia, I don’t know of any contribution that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.”

As a result of (((Hart-Celler))), 59 million immigrants have entered America (nearly triple the next-largest wave from 1890 to 1924). While pre-1965 immigration was virtually 100% European, 85% of post-1965 immigrants are from the Third World (particularly Latin America). From 1965 to the present, immigration accounted for 51% of American population growth, and is projected to account for 82% through 2055. In 1960, America was 82% white (with the remainder largely black), but today it is only 62% white. If the present mass-immigration to America continues, whites are projected to lose their majority status by 2055. Furthermore, of the post-1965 immigrants, 51% are dependent on welfare (as opposed to 30% of white Americans). Of Latinos, who comprise over half of all post-1965 immigrants, 70% are dependent on welfare, and accordingly, 70% identify with the Democratic Party (which with each new immigrant drifts further from its working-class/blue-collar roots and becomes more anti-capitalist/anti-American/anti-white).

In the history of the world, there is simply no precedent for a mass-migration and demographic displacement – both of which have always been the downfall of superpowers – of such scale in such a short period of time. If present trends continue, America is doomed to either become a left-wing, anti-American, one-party state ruling over growing numbers of hyphenated-American tax-consumers and shrinking numbers of white-American tax-payers, or simply to Balkanize along sectional and ethnic lines.

“Let’s not forget that we’ve thrived as a nation because we’ve been a beacon for the courageous.”

Along with quoting the “New Colossus,” another popular refrain of shit-libs like Ohanian is, “Americans are saying the same things about Mexicans and Muslims today that they said about the Irish and the Germans in the past.” There must be a term for this particular sort of fallacy: “The past treatment of [Group A], which is now commonly recognized as prejudicial, is similar to the current treatment of [Group B]. Therefore, the current treatment of [Group B] is prejudicial.”

For one, this assumes that there are no differences between A and B which would justify the prejudicial treatment of the latter. In Ohanian’s case, the Armenian refugees from 1894-1918 and the current Arab and African refugees are extremely different – different people from different parts of the world with different backgrounds and different beliefs. Armenians are not Nordic (the Supreme Court has twice-recognized them as “white,” specifically “of the Alpine stock”), but they are not Arabs or Africans, either. Also, while Armenian refugees were easily identifiable and their plight amply verifiable, many current “refugees” are just migrants from all over the Middle East using the cover of the “crisis” to enter Europe and America. Claiming equivalence between two such cases (and there are many more) is a tactic to trick pathologically altruistic American whites. If anything, the implications of this argument make the case for total isolationism, in order to avoid setting any humanitarian precedents which become suicide pacts in the future. Because we let in a few Armenian refugees (Transcaucasian Christians suffering from Turkish oppression), we are now obliged to open the gates to teeming masses of Arabs and Africans?

For another, the assumption that past immigrant groups who were subject to prejudice were ultimately assimilated is incorrect. Why would anyone assume that the Irish and the Germans, for example, would assimilate in a country populated by the English-descended people, governed by English-descended laws, and pastored by English-descended churches? In fact, America assimilated to these foreign elements as much as these elements assimilated to America. The French and the Spanish in Louisiana changed America, as did the Irish and the Germans after them, the Italians, Slavs, and Jews after them, and so on. Each wave of immigration has changed America, for better or for worse, and has not necessarily made America “thrive.” Now, after the immigration revolution in 1965 (opening the castle to the barbarians at the gate), the Third World is changing America, too. Is there any reason whatsoever for Americans to allow their country to become Third-Worldized – to submit to reconquista by permitting Mestizo mass-migration or jihad by resettling Muslim “refugees”?

Last, but not least, America has never been a “beacon for the courageous,” which is just a fancy way of saying a dumping ground for the rest of the world. America is a nation like every other, with her own people, history, and interests. After over three centuries of virtually 100% European immigration (1607-1965), Americans have, out of fear that they might be called “racist” or “xenophobic,” spent the past fifty years inviting in the “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse” from some of the worst places in the world. With the election of the “America First” candidate, Donald Trump, this treason against our heritage is now hopefully finished.

“Reddit, Inc. will continue to welcome all citizens of the world to our digital community and our office.”

What an utterly fatuous statement. Allowing anyone in the world to use your website is not the same as welcoming them into your country or granting them citizenship.

Ethno-Centrism for Me, but Not for Thee

Since Ohanian is Armenian, it is worth noting that there is some hypocrisy in the “Armenian-American” community on American immigration policy (save for a few public figures like Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies). As an immigrant group (and even a high-functioning one which has been classified as white), Armenians still vote disproportionately for the anti-white Democrats and identify more with immigrants from Kebabistan than white Americans. At the same time, however, Armenians have been fighting the Azeris in a territorial war since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, Armenian secession from the Soviet Union was fueled mainly by ethno-nationalism rather than any particular problems with Communism. Furthermore, Armenians demand that the Turks return the historic territory which they were obliged to return after World War I, including the sacred Mount Ararat and the ancient ruins of Tigranakert. While Armenians are free to be a nation united by “blood and soil,” Americans must be a Tower of Babel where diversity drowns out community.

Unlike the Jews, the Armenians are not misanthropes who ritually degrade the sacred and subvert the culture of their host societies. They are simply like so many other immigrant groups (especially Near-Eastern groups) who put their own people’s interests first. This ethno-centrism among immigrants, combined with the ethno-masochism of white Americans, is why diversity is our greatest weakness, not our greatest strength.

Of course, it is hard to say that Ohanian is self-consciously ethno-centric, given his recent engagement to the beastly negress Serena Williams, who makes Michelle Obama look as feminine as Melania Trump. Sadly, Ohanian’s Armenian ancestors survived thousands of years of conquest at the hands of Persians, Romans, Muslims, and (((Communists))), only to have their most-successful descendant piss away their genetic legacy.


This conclusion is short and sweet. When it comes to immigration, the Left is wrong and the Right (the alt-right, not pathetic cuckservatism) is right. The Left is telling lies about our history in order to give their anti-capitalist/anti-American/anti-white agenda moral authority. (((Somebody))) is doing the lying, but the vast majority of these shit-libs are genuinely brainwashed and actually believe that the Founding Fathers would have welcomed Muslim immigrants. Even if what they were saying about our history were true, however, it still would not matter, because it would not be in our best interests to continue such a policy anyway. Americans must secure an existence for our people (the whites who conquered this continent) and a future for our children.

  • M Johnson

    Your articles are simply the best. truth justice indeed.

    • TIJ