Blacks, unlike most other ethnic groups in the United States, enjoy some cultural privileges that other groups can’t claim access to.
The most significant one is effective immunity from the demands of political correctness in most of their cultural products. The most famous Black comedians, for example, use the word “nigger” as an anchor for their routines. For a White or even Jewish comedian to use that word is grounds for the destruction of your career, as happened to Michael Richards (AKA Kramer from Seinfeld) in 2006.
The privileges are a bit more profound in terms of creative liberties allowed to rappers and sports figures. Since the integration of professional and college sports in the mid-20th century, expectations of good behavior by athletes has been downgraded. Ideas of sportsmanship have gone to the wayside, for the most part, replaced by a sort of Black machismo. You hear sports fans of all races embracing Black patois when talking about sports — from the announcers to the fans.
The decision by American elites to roll back mass conscription — and the adoption of Freudian and post-Freudian ideas, so much so that Freud is essentially the font of modern pseudo-religious thought, no matter how many times that he’s discredited — has made it so that most masculine personality archetypes have been defined by academic and medical authorities as pathological.
Part of this definition has been justification for the creation of endless new cultural artifacts which are ‘progressive’ to replace the cultural record with new cultural products that reflect the ideas of equality more perfectly. Most of these cultural products are highly perishable, tending to fall out of fashion within months, to be replaced by another expensive production soon afterwards.
The idea of a man as tough, morally resolute, with the capacity to lead, protect, and create order — came to be seen as the font, also, of ‘authoritarianism.’ And the critics weren’t entirely wrong about that. What they were wrong about was in portraying authority — particularly paternal authority — as something evil.
Blacks, as a sort of compensation for their low position in integrated, post-Civil Rights society, get some special room in the culture that they probably wouldn’t be accorded otherwise. Although the critical establishment tends to marginalize Black film-makers, they do tend to elevate a small number of stars here and there. Music has been rather the opposite — as rock became niche, most of the biggest pop stars are either Black or Black-inspired.
What this results in is a White-centered culture which is effete and weak, because depictions of that might smack of the ‘authoritarian personality’ tend to receive severe criticism. When a few slip in through the cracks of censorship, they’ll be subjected to withering criticism later on. This same standard isn’t applied to Black culture, in part because it’s seen as a corrective to the past ‘crimes’ of White male authorities.
It’s not really possible for American conservatives to criticize this effectively, because they tend to accept the Freudian and post-Freudian critiques of Christian family life and paternal authority. When they criticize dysfunctional Black culture and cultural products, they tend to do it from the same frame as the people who critique them. They notice an inconsistency and see an opportunity to score irrelevant rhetorical points in a debate where the score doesn’t matter. Conservatives may also criticize the Black ‘fatherlessness’ epidemic, while simultaneously decrying the idea of paternal authority more generally.
Just about across the spectrum, even and perhaps especially on the alt-right, there’s a discomfort in straying from the Freudian-therapeutic frame — because outside that frame lies the buried lands of religion and philosophy.
What this has lead to is a coarsening of the general culture down to the ghetto standard, while feminine crackers hector one another for deviations from the anti-authoritarian ideal. The culture elevates the idea of the thug — even showering some of them with billions of dollars in illogical corporate mergers — while denigrating the more traditional alternatives, praising the soft, supplicating, nonviolent man-thing who’s more comfortable with spreadsheets than authority.
Due to its particular circumstances, the US needs both conflicting cultural concepts. It needs spreadsheet-man and hipster-man to go to college and hopefully to produce tax revenue. It needs thug-man to fill the prisons and to justify the vast administrations of the welfare state. And also, occasionally, to keep the weak men in line — which they are happy to have happen to them, because they’re so easily intimidated into compliance, being terrified of all kinds of violence.
Civilization demands actions of both creation and destruction, often within the same people. After World War II, Westerners progressively became terrified of both of these elemental forces, and hoped to tame them, to take the edge off of them, under the myth that apocalypse would result if this spiritual advance couldn’t happen.