Dhimmi Revolt

From a Tablet magazine article on the magazine trade:

Although I disagreed with the late Irving Kristol, the so-called godfather of neoconservatism, on many things, I think he was onto something almost existential when it comes to magazine publishing. “A lot of New York intellectuals”—which is to say, Jews—“have roots in Eastern Europe, where, unlike in England or France, there was no tradition or civility,” he told me once when I was interviewing him about intellectuals and magazines. “In England or France, you operate within a framework of existing institutions. In Eastern Europe, we wanted to change existing institutions, to improve them. The Cossack was the existing institution, so ideas were more important than institutions. That is why if you disagree with someone, you stop talking to him and start your own magazine.”

Like the author, I think Kristol is onto something here. One does not have to be a proponet of Kevin MacDonald's theory of Jews-as-cultural virus to note a Jewish penchant for cage-rattling. Yet as Kristol implies, for Jewish one should really insert Ashkenazi. "Jewish" anti-establishmentism stems from the specific historical and cultural context of Eastern Europe. If you were a Russian Jew, you'd have to be a fool not to be a radical in the late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries. The establishment literally closed its doors (in the form of quotas and migration restrictions) to assimilation-minded Jews. The options were: emigrate, revolt, or maintain the ultra-orthodox, Dhimmi-like attitude of *slap* "thank you sir, may I have another?" *slap*

For better or worse, I think a generational shift is occurring and "Judeo-Bolshevism" is dying out. The Tsar deprived Jews of a reason not to hate him, but most Jews now simply have too much to lose should the revolution come. Supreme court judges and husbands of Chelsea Clinton do not take to the barricades.