I just saw a film I really liked, Harry Brown. Think of it as the British version of Gran Torino. It shows what happens when a few generations of omegas have been born. Society becomes dominated by youth street gangs, nothing is maintained and everything turns into a sprawling dump. The only reason these omegas survive at all is because they inherited a surplus of wealth from earlier betas. As soon as wealth dries up, omegas will turn on each other. Omegas come to power when betas are outlawed from enforcing justice. But it doesn't take that many betas to fight back against omegas. Omegas are often druggies whom lack teamwork, intelligence and discipline.
I just watched Harry Brown which can now be played over the internet. I couldn't really relate to the movie. It portrays a strong dichotomy between a lawless underclass and civil society. I don't believe in this view. Society is rotting uniformly from top to bottom. Barack Obama has no more integrity than any gang member, and in this he truly represents the people. The movie portrays gang members in the worst possible way, and while I don't know much about gangs and I certainly don't sympathize with them, I will say to their credit that at least they exhibit loyalty to members of their own gang, and in this respect, they are superior to mainstream society. A vigilante like Harry Brown accomplishes nothing of value because he fails to do anything about the underlying problem which is liberalism in society. A movie like this helps average people feel good about themselves by blaming society's problems on the underclass. But this is misguided, the blame for society's problems belongs squarely on average people, particularly average men.
This "loyalty" you speak of is temporary and conditional. Gang members regularly snitch on each other. And respect is based on repercussions of violence. If you fail convey great enough threats of violence, all loyalty disappears. You'll be exploited as much as someone outside the tribe.
Maybe you are right. As I said, I don't know much about gangs. But I do know that mainstream society isn't nearly as good as portrayed in the movie, and mainstream society shouldn't just be looked at as a victim of the underclass.
I thought the gang members were fairly mainstream. None of them looked to be committing violence for poverty's sake. I don't think the dichotomy was between mainsteam and underclass, I think it was generational.