>>46579785'200 Years Together' by Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a decent snapshot into the issue.
The main thing is that 'middleman minority' is a sort of ontological golf bunker, a divot in the contours of Being where balls of human substance always seem to roll down towards. Certain tribes of eurasian khazars are perhaps the most notable example of this phenomena in the occident at present time, but you can see the same socio-historical selection pressures at work producing subsets of similar kind in many other times, places, and peoples.
Those khahzarian tribesmen, referred too in later days as ashkenazim, were themselves converts who adopted judaism in the middle ages. What makes this type most notable is that it is a form of existence that is specifically selected for fractious hostility to social cohesion; the kinds of self-identified tribesmen that were in any way eusocial also long ago ended up sublimated into the broader europoid societies they squatted in, whether consciously or by accident, leaving only those most execrable examples possible as those that 'survived' as a distinct identity, which typifies it today. In accordance with the old saying, 'two jews, three factions'. They don't just defect on other groups of people, they defect on each other too, because that is what being defective by nature means. Observe how, in Israel, one the greatest agents of chaos serving to undermine the society is George Soros, who is himself a smallhat.
For the broad sweep of that peculiar eurasian set’s history the past millenia or so, they have been set under, in concentrated microcosm, those kinds of selection pressures that more broadly produce more ‘leftist’ types of men in the cycle of societies in general.
Wherever the wandering skype went, civilization is something that was always and already ‘ready at hand’. His apprehension of it as like a ‘standing reserve’; something which may be drawn from, but which he has no reckoning of for furnishing in the first place.
One may find him as a lawyer, but not a Law Man; he may be stockbroker, but not a Steward; he may be preacher, but not a Pastor.
He may, in a more sophisticated example of the species, view the society in which he is embedded as like a complexified mechanism, with many levers and pulleys which, if manipulated the right way, produce desirable outputs. But he does not possess a *proprietary instinct* towards this ‘mechanism’. He might view what it can do for him as good, but he does not view it *in of itself* as a good. He is not a mechanic for such a machine, for he lacks the will to do so. He is not an architect for such a machine, for he lacks the ability to do.
The greater capacity for ‘surplus capital’ a civilization is capable of, the more ‘insulation’ from the basal preconditions of possibility for that civilization is possible. In conditions like these, strategies for gaining status, resources, or other forms of aggrandisement, that are less reliant on possession of greater virtu – such as chronic backbiting of neighbors – become more adaptive for particular beings on contingent time scales, as the consequences of such strategies become more ‘socialized’; that is, less immediately obvious, less immediately catastrophic.
