It seems over the years that more and more Americans have come to stop worrying and learn to love corruption. It’s as if many people, perhaps the majority, have become accustomed to corruption(and even criminality), much like Asian Indians have learned to live with air pollution. Corruption and foulness have always defined humanity and in many societies simply became mundane facts of life, even across centuries(or millennia for that matter). However, the passivity, even a kind of acceptance(and embrace), in the face of corruption among Northern Whites is historically significant. Not that Northern White societies were ever devoid of corruption, a timeless and universal feature of humanity. But just as air pollution, though a universal condition, is a far bigger problem in some places than others, the levels of corruption have never been uniform across cultures. Some have been notably more corrupt than others, some remarkably less so. Some have been very tolerant of corruption, some highly allergic to it. Granted, there have also been societies that learned to ‘harmoniously’ navigate through meticulous rules-based corruption, like in Japan.
At any rate, the socio-political orders developed by Northern Whites have long held a reputation for being law-abiding, conscientious, and ethical. Some have called them ‘high trust societies’ due to confidence in the authority and the populace in general. A distinction between Northern Europe and Southern Europe(and Eastern Europe) has had much to do with public governance and civic virtues. A similar distinction has applied to North America and South America, with the North having cleaner, more ethical, more efficient, and more conscientious societies than the South where too many people, from top to bottom, have become resigned to corruption and incompetence. It’s been a key reason for the mass migration from the south to the north, i.e. many in Latin America have given up on fixing their problems and opted to migrate up north in search for a better life.
This contrast between the North and the South has held for a long time. Therefore, the acceptance of corruption as the New Normal among Northern Whites is a troubling, even alarming, development. For sure, the Northern prestige has dissipated over the years. In the past, Northern Whites in both Europe and America took pride in running the most functional societies in the world. Thus, they expected new arrivals from the corrupt South(and backward parts of the world) to show some respect and appreciation for what the Northern Whites had achieved. Those from corrupt countries had much to gain by modeling themselves on the Northern Whites who led the world in forming and sustaining sound societies.
But over time, with the rise of the ‘White Guilt’ ideology and ‘anti-racist’ dogma, it was unacceptable for Northern Whites to take special pride in their achievements. And for the peoples of the Global South being mired in poverty and corruption, the bulk of the blame was usually placed on ‘Western Imperialism’ — never mind that Latin America was the first creation of Western Imperialism in the New World; why did imperialism produce functional societies in North America but dysfunctional ones in South America? With the abnegation of pride and confidence among Northern Whites, the only game in town was to blame them for having more goodies(apparently by exploiting and stealing from other peoples, especially the ‘darkies’) than to ponder why they achieved more(often with less) in life. Notice that Somalis and American blacks in Minnesota never make an effort to learn from the Scandinavian-and-German Americans who created nice societies; they only know how to bitch, complain, and demand.
But then, can we blame them when so many Northern Whites have been inculcated with ‘white guilt’ by the Jews? Jews made Northern Whites feel guilty about their achievements, and Northern Whites imparted this ‘wisdom’ to the darkies whose go-to-explanation to any problem is ‘systemic racism’ and ‘white supremacism’. One of the vulnerabilities of Northern White conscience and high trust was the priggish(and even puritanical) desire to purge oneself of sin by deferring to figures of moral authority. Northern Whites came to regard Jews as especially intelligent & wise and predictably based their course of self-improvement on Jewish advice from the likes of Barbara Specter, a guru to childlike do-gooders in Sweden.
Undue emphasis on ‘white guilt’ and ‘anti-racism’ led to the fading of racial identity, solidarity, and pride among white elites who soon reneged on their special obligation to white folks, their own racial brethren. These days, any positive racial consciousness among white elites is anathema, the result being they’d rather serve the Jews(as the rightful master race), prioritize Globo-Homo, idolize blacks, and promote Diversity. The white elites spin this as the new ‘woke’ virtues of ‘diversity’, ‘equity’, and ‘inclusion’, but they only end up indulging the corrupt proclivities of Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and nonwhites while placing the blame on whiteness as the catchall scapegoat for every problem. Sadly, with no white elites to represent and guide them, the white masses find themselves without direction, especially in a globalized world where jobs are exported and labor is imported.
And given that Pop Culture, the only culture that matters in our age, has increasingly become debased, shameless, hedonistic, nihilistic, and pornographic, it’s no surprise that so many people, even Northern Whites, have become so trashy and retarded. Even their righteousness has been perverted: Many Northern Whites believe green/purple hair dye, multiple piercings, trashy tattoos, and tranny delusions constitute ‘progressive’ values of the highest moral fortitude. Immorality has become the New Normal in morality, which is worse than honest immorality. With so many people having grown up in broken families in broken communities with no elites to lead them and with debased Pop Culture as their only compass, it’s no surprise that so many people have turned to drugs, legal and illegal. But then, the venal elites who presided over this cultural rot and allowed tons of illicit drugs to enter the US, leading to the fentanyl crisis that took the life of George Floyd, had the temerity to beat their chest and lecture us as to for what/whom we should ‘take the knee’.
In one respect, social degradation that accompanies the normalization of corruption cannot be good for the elites. Who wants to rule over a sick society beset with pathologies? On the other hand, systemic corruption and degradation may be less dangerous to the elites than the expressions of political will, genuine or false. The false ‘virtue’ politics of 2020 certainly did more damage to ‘blue’ cities than simple degeneracy and degradation could ever have done. Better for ‘grunge’ losers in Seattle and Portland to just wallow in drugs and squalor than join a crusade and smash entire business blocks in the name of ‘social justice’. As for political will based on genuine virtue, it raises consciousness and calls out the elites, like the pro-Palestinian movement that condemns Jewish supremacy as the sick soul of America. Politics of virtue, genuine or false, brings people together to confront the powers-that-be. In contrast, the acceptance of and participation in corruption among the masses has a way of fostering greater tolerance of corruption at the top. “It’s just the way it is”, and nothing can be done about it.
This is why long-running TV shows like THE SOPRANOS and BREAKING BAD may have had a profoundly corrosive impact on society by rendering corruption and criminality as the banal facts of life. The overall message, even if unintended, seems to be, “Don’t worry, be crappy.” If indeed corruption is presented as pervasive at every level of society, why not just accept it for what it is, like Asian-Indians have no choice but to inhale the foul air in cities like Mumbai. There seems to have been a cultural-moral break at some point in modernity, with the US as the exemplary, trend-setting, and authoritative center of the universe. The general culture seems to have gone from a moral denunciation of crime/corruption to an artistic/critical exploration of it(as well as an intellectual fascination with it) to finally a blithe and banal resignation to it. Are we all goombas now? And if we’ve adapted to this reality, why even bother to call out on the corruption of the elites? It’s just the way it is, ain’t it? Indeed, Watergate now seems quaint compared to what the elites are able to get away with these days(and out in the open too). Joe Biden and Donald Trump are exactly the kind of ‘leaders’ we deserve given the circumstances.
Crime and corruption are nothing new to entertainment, be it popular fiction, cinema, or TV. To moralists, however, depiction of crime has been more worrying on the screen than on the page. While popular fiction reached the masses, many more ‘illiterates’ were bound to be affected by moving images than the printed word. Even books for the unwashed require some degree of concentration and effort whereas movies(and TV shows) just ‘wash over you’. And if the radio can only suggest at violence through voice-over narration and audio-dramatization, the visual image further sensationalizes through (graphic)action. While there were calls for censorship in publishing, the pressure was far greater on movies and especially TV. Prior to the rise of Cable TV, most of what was on television remained at the level of PG. And, when it came to language, it might as well have been Rated G as foul language was prohibited. Even years after censorship faded from the big screen, even leading to the legalization of pornographic films, the TV maintained its more-or-less strict rules on what was socially-morally acceptable. And then, the rise of Cable and Home Video changed the TV-scape. Suddenly, people could watch violent and/or raunchy R-rated and even X-rated movies at home on the TV screen, which had been sanitized compared to other mediums. Still, the idea was that only adults could rent out certain kinds of movies, R-rated and above, and Cable TV had to be paid for, thereby remaining apart from the public sphere. Increasingly, however, cable and then later streaming services became part of mainstream culture than special services for select households, overshadowing the traditionally dominant TV networks. One of the appeals was that, being censorship-free, Cable and Streaming offered a far greater variety of programs. (On the other hand, the control of programming still remained in the hands of the oligarchs who were no longer restrained in flooding the digital-space with whatever kind of ideological-pornographic material in service to their own agendas and anti-values. As such, Cable and Streaming constituted one-way ‘free expression’ than multi-way expression, the revolutionary feature of the internet.)
The general ‘moralist’ rule used to be (1) showcase the lawmen than the outlaws and in a positive light (2) if outlaws are emphasized, show that crime doesn’t pay (3) if outlaws are heroes, make them out to be misunderstood Robin Hood types(as in old Westerns about Jesse and Frank James) than nihilistic hoodlums or present them as redemptive, like in John Ford’s THREE GODFATHERS. What came to be categorized as the ‘film noir’ was problematic to the moralists for its dark allure and intimacy with vice, but it nevertheless illustrated amorality as seedy and sordid.
Things really changed with THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART 2, though a case could be made for A CLOCKWORK ORANGE that ends in triumph of its anti-villain(or a revisionist departure from the traditional villain who is either rightfully destroyed or comes to a redemptive realization). THE GODFATHER films violated the rules of conventional morality in entertainment. The legitimate world was presented as just as compromised and crooked as the world of the gangsters who, if anything, seemed more honorable for their lack of pretense. And the crime certainly paid, indeed paid big, especially with super-smart and steely Michael Corleone at the helm. Granted, one could argue that THE GODFATHER movies, at least in part, did conform to the moral convention of presenting criminals as partly justified by circumstances or somewhat better than their adversaries, even those in the ‘rules-based’ world. Michael entered the business because men tried to kill his father, and in the background story of THE GODFATHER PART 2, we learn that young Vito entered the crime world because it was the only game in town and, besides, he used his newfound power to ‘protect’ the good folks in the community.
It’s also worth noting that, even though the Corleones are ultimately triumphant in ‘business’, the overall tone is tragic, suggestive of the Bible verse, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Unlike the tenor of the novel where Michael goes from naïve boy scout patriotism to manly realism, the mood of the films, especially the sequel, is dark and moody, like a long funeral for a man’s soul.
Still, crime does pay in THE GODFATHER films, and, for all the foreboding gloom-and-doom about Michael’s soul, one can’t help feeling the work is more about the Nobility(than the Banality) of Evil. In a world of gangsters, where even lawmen and politicians are crooks, it’s preferable that men like the Corleones come out on top than the Barzinis, Tataglias, Gearys, and Roths(or the Fanuccis for that matter). Also,there’s a sense that the Corleones had an ‘ennobling’ influence on those under their wing. When Clemenza first entered young Vito’s life, he was just another thief and killer, a man willing to kill a cop over a rug. Vito Corleone sticks to gambling & unions and loathes prostitution and narcotics. Michael doesn’t fool around and is loyal to Kay following their marriage. (If anything, she killed the kid.)
As such, the lighter parts of THE GODFATHER seem more like IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE than LITTLE CAESAR and PUBLIC ENEMY, both about maverick psychopaths than members of a community with patriarchs, managers, loyal soldiers, and, of course, their families. In THE GODFATHER, Michael wins big, and THE GODFATHER PART 2, he wins even bigger, even outsmarting the U.S. government(though at the cost of alienating Tom Hagen, losing his wife who killed his unborn son, and ordering the death of his older brother; furthermore, even though he overcomes all the obstacles, his reputation has been sullied to the point where he never really be part of the legitimate world). It’s only with the vastly inferior THE GODFATHER PART III that Michael finally gets his comeuppance, ironically when he finally tried to do the right thing and make amends with everyone, which could be read in two ways: (1) ultimately crime doesn’t pay or (2) virtue doesn’t pay, and it would have been better for Michael to have remained in full-gangster mode.
For all their maverick outlook, violence, and/or subversive elements, DIRTY DOZEN and THE WILD BUNCH remain closer to the ‘classic’ moral formula: The only redemption for sinners is self-sacrifice.
One aspect of THE GODFATHER films dwells on the corrupting influence of the immigrant communities, the Southern Italians, the Jews, the Irish, and etc. who brought their own cultural pathologies to Anglo-America. Even though the ‘liberal’-minded Francis Ford Coppola made fashionable comments about the corrupting influence of capitalism, THE GODFATHER films, especially part 2, show that the Sicilians arrived in the US with their clannishness, distrust(or disdain)for the law, loose ethics(despite the conservative morality), culture of vendetta, and twisted sense of honor. After all, it wasn’t American style capitalism that wiped out Vito’s father, brother, and mother in the Old World, and it was the persistence of the Sicilian Way in America that finally turned Vito toward a life of crime, albeit in a somewhat benevolent manner. (Actually, GOODFELLAS comes closer to showing how some of the mafia elements exult in the dog-eat-dog ethos of outlaw capitalism.) In other words, Southern Italians didn’t need any lessons from American Capitalism to dwell in the underworld.
And the same could be said of the Jews and the Irish. The Jewish Boss is Hyman Roth, a shrewd mastermind of big deals and the finance of gangster operations. And the Irishman is McCluskey the police captain, an embodiment of Irish domination of big city political machines. Italians had their families, the Irish had their clans, and Jews had their tribe.
The common gripe or rationale among the criminally-inclined and their apologists was that the non-Anglo groups had no choice but to turn to crime and corruption as the doors to socio-economic elevation were often shut to those without WASP pedigrees. Also the assurance of justice. THE GODFATHER begins with an aggrieved father, Bonasera, relating how the judge suspended the sentence of the young men who beat up his daughter for refusing to put out. The implication is that the perpetrators are the sons of the Old Stock(or at least Northern European) Americans who look upon swarthy Italians as people to ignore or exploit but not to be taken seriously.
But then, Michael was sufficiently accepted by the system and attended a top-notch college, and even got himself a light-skinned girlfriend, Kay. No doubt, much had changed in America between Vito’s arrival as a child in Ellis Island and Michael’s development as a young man, a war hero and college graduate, the first in his family. If there is an element of personal betrayal in the arc of Michael’s life, it’s that he needn’t have turned to crime to have a stake in America whereas his immigrant father did. The difference between the America of Vito-as-young-man and the America of Michael-as-young-man was probably as stark as America-before-the-Civil-Rights-Movement and America decades after it. Michael came of age in an America in which Italian-Americans had come to prominence in certain fields, and not just in crime. But then, given the racy romanticism of the gangster during the Prohibition Era, which did as much to undermine WASP moral-cultural authority as the War-on-Terror did on the Republican Party under George W. Bush, it wasn’t totally negative to be associated with hoodlums, often depicted as Tough Guys on the silver screen. (Oddly enough, even though the Neocon faction was most responsible for the foreign policy under Bush II, the various neocon stalwarts emerged from the fiasco almost unscathed and soon teamed up with Democrats for the exact same foreign policy while the white-goy-Christian figures in the GOP got most of the blame.)
At any rate, the most disturbing aspect of THE GODFATHER isn’t that Michael Corleone(and others like him) failed at Americanism but that Americanism was all just a myth. One way to interpret Michael’s trajectory is as a betrayal of America, but another way is as a fulfillment of what America really is: It’s all about winning, by hook or by crook. (It’s like the Nixon of Oliver Stone’s film staring at the portrait of JFK and muttering, “When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are.”) Even those who aren’t prone to corruption ultimately fail the ethics test if they aren’t up to the task of suppressing it. The weak-and-virtuous are a sitting duck for the strong-and-wicked.
That said, contra the cynical take on Americanism, one could make a persuasive case that certain ethnic groups were generally cleaner and more capable than others. Clearly, Anglo-Americans and German-Americans were more orderly, productive, principled, and efficient than the Southern Italians, Scotch-Irish, and Dumb Polacks. (Jews were an outlier as a people far more corrupt than the Anglos and the Germans but also more capable, a combination that made them rather formidable.)
Perhaps, the lower levels of corruption among the Northern Whites owed to the historical fortune of having developed, culturally and morally, under confident and secure elites, because few factors are as corrupting as having craven, cowering, and lowlife elites whose modus operandi is sucking up to foreign or alien powers. Comprador elites, living in fear and anxiety, are all about looking out for number one, namely themselves, and generally lack the sense of the national or communal good. As the fish rots from the head down, such elites set a poor example for the rest of the population. Given how much of Southern Italy and Greece were under foreign rule for prolonged periods, the main priority of the local elites was to keep theirs and ignore/neglect the rest of the population that did likewise, if only in imitation of their superiors. Such venal attitudes became entrenched socio-culturally, extremely difficult to root out and eradicate(as they remain to this day). The same could be said of the Irish who lived under British rule.
In contrast, Anglo and Germanic socio-cultural norms developed under stronger and more confident national elites. But then, fast-forward to our time and notice the rapid decline in the quality of governance and social trust across the Anglo- and Germano-sphere as virtually all Anglo and Germanic elites have been reduced to playing cuck-comprador junior partners to Jewish Supremacist Masters. Anglo elites in both the UK and US live for only one thing, which is to look out for themselves by flattering and appeasing Jews at every turn, leaving the demoralized and despondent Anglo & Germanic hoi polloi to either emulate their cuck-maggot elites(and become compromised themselves) or lose all hope, surrendering to drugs and degeneracy.
In a way, the relative ease with which the Anglosphere conquered much of the world probably went to its head. From a macro-historical perspective, Anglos with their industry, ingenuity, and organization were bound to quickly take over the vast territories of the Americas and Australia. Anglos also quickly conquered vast areas of Africa inhabited mostly by half-naked savages. The Indian subcontinent and East Asia were sizable advanced civilizations but vulnerable and ultimately defenseless in face of the technological might of the industrial West. With the Spanish and Ottoman Empires on the wane, the Russian Empire occupied with territorial disputes, and the French empire’s resignation to its second-tier status, it seemed that the Anglos were unstoppable. There was the intra-Anglo rift following the American Independence, but both the UK and US were essentially Anglo-ruled domains. Power can mean more power, but it can also mean complacency, the conviction that its might and mastery are here to stay. It could also mean the vanity of power, the narcissism that its might is a right. Jews surely understood this soft underbelly of Anglo Power, and Disraeli’s ascension to the top position, in the Conservative Party no less, forebode future developments wherein Anglos would become increasingly subordinate to Jewish will and manipulation.
An irony of Anglo history was that the aristocratic outlook lasted longer precisely because aristocratic power was diminished. In abrupt historical ruptures where one group or class is discredited, its influence could be rooted out wholesale, like in the Bolshevik Revolution(and to a lesser degree in the French Revolution — World War I had a similar effect on aristocracies all across Europe). But when a powerful group is willing to cede a measure of its authority in exchange for the preservation of its prestige and privileges, its attitudes and manners may not only persist but affect the lesser groups and classes. The aristocracy had developed from the warrior caste but grew over time into a culture of refinement and honor as matters of social reputation. Therefore, whatever advantages the aristocratic types had accrued as leaders of men in the field of battle, they were less adept at fighting dirty and lowdown, which they surely did but lived in fear of being found out.
Furthermore, being defined by physical courage, the aristocratic culture(even among non-aristocrats) emphasized physical feats of daring and adventure, without which the culture grew considerably apathetic and stale. For such an order to thrive, a clear distinction had to be made between legitimacy and mere opportunism. While both Anglo seamen and pirates(of all stripes) shared a sense of adventure and excitement, a line had to be drawn between the dignified and the dirty, between the lawful and the lawless. And in order for the dignified to prevail, the down-and-dirty had to be kept out.
Yet, Jews managed to worm into the Anglo order because, despite their ‘dirty’ and ‘pirate-like’ ways, they were a learned people of the Law (and even to this day, they are experts of ‘lawfare’ where gangsterism is legitimized through master-manipulation of legal institutions). Also, as a People of Memory, Jews increasingly put the Anglos on the defensive with reminders that the Anglo World Order grew out of piracy and all sorts of dastardly deeds. (And as a people of spirituality, Jews used the Holocaust Narrative to procure new sacraments and taboos.)
In the end, the Anglos met their match(or their Waterloo) in the Jews and then some. Consider the stark contrast between the Jews and the earlier foes/rivals of the Anglos. Even without much effort on the part of Anglos, the Spanish squandered their head start in empire-building and slid into irreversible decline. The French under the monarchy were too absolutist for individual initiative and then, post-Revolution, too contentious among themselves to sustain a united front(against Britain or Germany). The primitive natives of the Americas could be quelled easily enough. Hindus were too busy worshiping cows and burning widows to get their act together. And the Chinese, for so long complacent in their Middle Kingdom delusions, were traumatized for nearly a century before coalescing toward a workable modernity. The much despised Russians were backward, incompetent, and lazy. Perhaps, the greatest Anglo-British tragedy, after so many triumphs, was the mischaracterization of the Germans as the biggest threat when they could easily have been the greatest ally and partner of Britain, the understated theme of Patrick Buchanan’s UNNECESSARY WAR. A tragedy made even worse by yet another Anglo miscalculation of Jews as the wisest advisors and finest friends, something worthy of the Godzilla-head-palm award.
As for the Anglo-American elites, all their challenges were surmountable prior to their capitulation to the Jews. After the stony-faced and alcoholic Red natives were wiped off the land, there were various ‘ethnic’ immigrant groups to contend with. Among the earlier arrivals, the Irish were most problematic for their Catholicism and unruly drunken ways, as well as their clannishness that gravitated toward ‘machine’ politics. And the Scotch-Irish could be rather troublesome in rural parts with moonshine and the like. But all said and done, the Irish were petty and limited in imagination. Thus, their power was constrained and managed by the overclass through backroom deals. As for the Germanics, including the Scandinavians, they mostly liked to work hard, follow the rules, and respect authority. As for the danger of religious squabbles, it was managed through the principle of ‘freedom of religion’ that allowed every group, from elite-dominant denominations to rural churches, to congregate and worship as it chose in the mutual understanding that none of them would be particularly favored by the state. As for the browns in the Southwest, they were mostly dull and docile. As for the yellows, their numbers were low, and besides, they came from authoritarian cultures that emphasized submission to the dominant order. As for the North-South Divide, it was decisively settled in the Civil War, whereby the South accepted its military defeat with a mix of honor and self-pity. Some of the later immigrant groups, especially the Italians, posed a challenge with their culture of criminality. But as things turned out, Italian organized crime degraded over time while law-abiding Italians assimilated into the American system. Blacks were a different matter. Though present in the US far longer than most immigrant-groups, they were less assimilable given their savage nature and their physical threat to the white race, Anglos and ethnics alike. However, minus the guidance and support of the Jews, blacks couldn’t gain a significant place at the table. Even mass non-white immigration was a manageable challenge in American History before Jewish Power went about weaponizing it against the White Majority beginning in the Sixties.
The bill for the great Anglo miscalculation of alienating the Germans, especially beginning with World War I, while accommodating the Jews would eventually come due. It continues to this day with the US policy of shitting on Russians while heaping fulsome praise on the Jews, in some ways even a bigger miscalculation than the anti-German strategy of the past. Unlike Germany that could be strangled economically, Russia is self-sufficient in resources and, besides, has reliable partners who’ve lost respect for the US as the crazy empire of cucked white brownnosers who cater to every whim of the Jewish Master Race that promotes Globo-Homo as the de facto state religion. When the richest and most powerful country in the world is about white weaklings sucking up to Jewish crazies, worshiping sodomy, and being spineless against black thugs burning down cities, the world surely wonders what the hell is going on.
Well, what once was and what could have been are no more and will never be. White elites have chosen to be total cucks to Jewish Supremacist gangsters, and the white masses are lost and confused, flailing about and looking for scapegoats to explain their mounting problems. Gangsterism was always a part of the American Way, but most Americans now seem rather at ease with the reality. Thus, instead of regarding gangsterism as ineradicable but controllable, they’ve given in to its cancerous growth. We can’t rid the world of rats and other pests but still can keep them under control. But suppose we resign ourselves to having our houses be taken over by mice, rats, raccoons, ants, termites, and various other pests. That would be the end of anything to call ‘home’.
When people accept foulism(of crooks, gangsters, and cheaters of every stripe) as the normal state of affairs, they can kiss goodbye to any possibility of civil society. Gradually or rapidly, the social order will degrade and crumble, and there are unmistakable signs across the US. The kinds of conditions rife in Latin America are now cropping up in the US, which, except for black-heavy areas, was a nice place to live. In many cases, Americans(white or otherwise) have just given up and only care about ‘what is mine’. As Robert Putnam expounded in BOWLING ALONE, the rise in Diversity certainly didn’t do wonders for social cohesion and civic-mindedness. Granted, it wasn’t Diversity alone but the promotion of ‘white guilt’ that proved fatal. Had diversity increased in the US but under the confident and proud leadership of White Americans(who’d made the system work in the first place), things might have been different. But just when diversity increased, pride in whiteness sank like a stone.
There are several reasons why so many Americans became inured to foulness, corruption, and criminality. One was the hip factor. Trashy pop culture sensationalized Da Gangsta, especially those associated with Rap Culture. And a shameless culture and rampant black narcissism led to the fading of sportsmanship and the emergence of athletes as thugs than ‘hero’ role models. Tattoos and piercings certainly didn’t help. In time, even the spectacle of women beating up women in mixed-martial-arts became something to celebrate, something for men(including President Trump and his entourage) to get their jollies from.
Another factor is the new clannism. If white elites only suck up to Jewish supremacist gangsters and if the white masses have been thrown to the wolves, the only chance that most white people have is to form their own ‘gangs’(though not necessarily street gangs). In small towns and rural areas, down-and-out whites form their own criminal communities, something like hillbilly mafias. What else are they supposed to do when they are now without representation as all their white politicians do little but stand in line to suck Bibi Netanyahu’s penis and pledge more trillions for the Wars for Zion?
There’s also the smarty factor, which explains why the educated types are so enamored of shows like THE SOPRANOS and BREAKING BAD. They regard themselves as too smart and knowing to believe in any boy-scout BS about civic duties, morality, and ethics. Flattering themselves as mini-machiavellians, their cynicism regarding politics and business serves as both defense mechanism and opportunism, i.e. they’re too attuned to what’s going on to be shocked by anything and too savvy to let idealism or principles stand in the way of their careerism. It explains why so many young ones in government and the media are willing to join in the Big Lie. You see, it’s all about the game of power or ‘empowerment’, and it’s all a game of gangsterism. Many so-called ‘liberals’ denounced Donald Trump as a Hitler-like gangster but were fully onboard with the gangster and lawfare tactics of the deep state. As for genuinely principled liberals like Glenn Greenwald, they mostly went ignored as passe and outdated. “You still believe in free speech? Come on!” Surely, all those mainstream media personalities can’t be THAT stupid. Yet, they keep pushing the official narrative to keep their paychecks coming. They like to be ‘da playa’. Then, it’s fitting that their highest ‘moral’ theme is adoration of Globo-Homo, especially given that homos are among the most brazenly machiavellian bunch of gangsters who see the power-game as a figurative bitch-contest of fuc*ing others in the ass.
Not that MAGA-tards are much better. Despite their fulminations against ‘wokeness’ and censorship, most have been either silent or apologist about Trump administration’s war on pro-Palestinian free speech. Believing that the power is now on their side, they’d rather play gangster than stand on principles. It’s rather ironic since it wasn’t the Palestinians(over there or over here) who led the war on whiteness; if anything, Palestinians, along with Russians and Iranians, have been the ONLY people on earth who’ve been reviled as much as white people have been by Jewish Power, the difference being Palestinians have resisted while whites only cucked. The leading lights of Anti-Whiteness have been the Jews all along, but MAGA-tards are now shilling for the very people who employed lawfare on Trump and their kind. Perhaps, some have no idea while others do know, but they also know that the rule of gangsterism(that governs the US) means that MAGA or GOP must do everything to court the Jews who got the most money, power, and influence. So, it doesn’t matter that Jews have been the most anti-white. As they’re the most powerful, the ONLY HOPE for the whites is to flatter and win over the Jews to their side. A totally foulist approach.
Pop Culture is the only culture left standing, and its prestige now mostly rests with TV. Until recently, the TV was mostly regarded as the idiot box. Cinema was where the best in writing, directing, and acting was at. And for serious storytelling unrestricted by cinema’s time considerations(with most movies being around 90 min to 2 hrs), the novel was the favored format. But over time, the TV screen grew larger with much improved picture quality. And Cable and then Streaming meant that TV programs could explore subjects previously discouraged or banned on mainstream channels. And as most Movie Buzz came to center on spandex superhero action movies for the teen audience, as most of popular music turned into insipid worship of idols, and as the literary scene came to be dominated by teen fiction, e.g. HARRY POTTER, HUNGER GAMES, TWILIGHT, and etc., the more ‘serious’ audience gravitated toward TV as the most intelligent, complicated, and challenging medium. Among the most lauded shows have been THE SOPRANOS and BREAKING BAD, with many claiming the one or both as the ‘Best TV Show of All Time’, even ranking with the very best that art has had to offer since the beginning of history, LOL.
Now, I’m not the one to judge as I’ve only seen four episodes of THE SOPRANOS and just parts of BREAKING BAD(and EL CAMINO: A BREAKING BAD MOVIE). Based on the evidence, I’m less than overwhelmed. THE SOPRANOS struck me as third-rate GOODFELLAS with goombas acting like goombas. But then, even if the series were on the level of Martin Scorsese’s classic, what would be the point of watching psychotic hoodlums cheat, steal, and murder week after week over several seasons? How much criminality does one have to observe to get the point that gangsters are sleazebags? As for BREAKING BAD, it seems to be well-written, well-acted, and well-made but also padded with material better left to soap operas, albeit done with more grit and technical mastery. It would have been better as a ten-hour hour miniseries than an open-ended narrative that finally ran out of plot complications.
But regardless of their technical finesse and artistic merit(dubious, as with THE WIRE), what’s the likely social impact of allowing the banality of foulness to enter one’s living room week after week, year after year? After a while, some are apt to regard Tony Soprano as a family member, a kind of uncle, of dubious reputation to be sure but also someone with balls enough to make sure to ‘get what is mine’. He’s become something of a folk hero to many Americans, even a matter of ‘Italian-American pride’. Yeah yeah, he is a hoodlum alright, but in a world full of sleaze, what’s wrong with breaking a few eggs to get things done? Besides, when he’s not robbing and killing, there’s Tony the husband, the father, the son, the neighbor, the customer at a restaurant. When he isn’t grinding up another goomba into sausage, he’s just one-of-us. After a while, he seems less a gangster than an ordinary guy who does some gangsterism on the side as a hobby or recreation.
Now, if we come to tolerate Soprano’s banality of foulness, won’t we end up tolerating corruption and foulness in general? One wonders, do shows like HOUSE OF CARDS(with Kevin Spacey) and BOARDWALK EMPIRE make us more critically aware of the system or do they put us at ease with corruption as fun and glamorous? Back in the 1980s, viewers couldn’t get enough of DALLAS and DYNASTY, but they were never taken seriously. Also, they were about rich, corrupt, greedy, and vain people. Naturally, trash is sensationalistic, and greedy people are greedy(and such people live in a world of their own divorced from what most of us know as reality).
More troubling is that THE SOPRANOS features hoodlums as ordinary people in a world that is recognizably ours, the implication being that corruption has seeped into the very fabric of middle class existence. BREAKING BAD says a once honest school teacher had it in him to become an utterly ruthless drug lord. And HOUSE OF CARDS is about people in government, with hardly any outrage that the legitimate world operates just like the gangster world. And it went on week after week, year after year. Apparently, we should just accept the fact that even people who are supposed to be public servants are just pigs at the trough. With such an outlook becoming commonplace among hoi polloi, the corrupt ruling elites surely have less to worry about as no one’s shocked or offended by corruption anymore. The bad can indeed sleep well.
