Immigration and Jewish victimhood

Steve Sailer:

Let me emphasize that a crowd of Jewish Republicans lustily rejected Podhoretz's philosophy of putting the welfare of Jews ahead of the welfare of Americans.

But, as this example makes clear, John Podhoretz himself is the Jewish Al Sharpton, a clownish ethnic activist who thinks first and foremost in tribal terms of how his ethnic group can profit from the political process at the expense of America as a whole.

The crucial question is why are bad apples like Podhoretz up on the speakers' platform while all the good eggs in that audience are stuck paying to hear his odious tripe? Why are the worst full of passionate intensity, while the best, who in this case have plenty of convictions, lack all outlets?

A bizarre aspect of the neocon Open Borders mindset, as enunciated by Podhoretz and Tamar Jacoby, is how utterly nostalgia-driven is their is-it-good-for-the-Jews thinking. They don't care much about protecting Jews in America the future from immigrant terrorists by guarding the borders. (To protect Americans from Arab terrorists, according to the neocons, we must instead conquer the Middle East: the notorious invite-the-world-invade-the-world strategy. And if occupying all the Arab countries doesn't turn them into Americans as planned, well, it will still kill a lot of Arabs in the process, so, from the neocon point of view, it's all good.)

No, to the neocons, the crucial thing is to refight the 1924 argument over immigration, because they perceive that as an insult to their ethnicity. See, the Holocaust is Congress' fault -- they should have known that, even though he was in jail in 1924, Hitler would kill all the Jews 20 years later.

Of course, this neocon obsession with 1924 isn't really about Hitler, it's about maintaining status dominance in modern America, about strutting one's valuable victim status to put others in their place.

Remythologizing The Melting Pot

John Podhoretz on immigration

Pod the Lesser, Birthright Pundit