The thing is it´s kinda ironic isn´t it?
Art imitates life. And subsequently, life imitates art!

I think that sums it up best .

Could you be more specific about this? What honor could organized crime have? Even the rumor that the "traditionalist" mafiosi don't kill women and children is a lie. Didn't you say so yourself in the other thread? Even Jack the Ripper or a child molester may think they have honor, but that doesn't mean this warped concept of "honor" has to be respected by law-abiding people.
As for their opposition to drugs in their hometowns, it's pure hypocrisy on their part, because they still sell drugs abroad. Look at Gaetano Badalamenti who was the chairman of the Cupola and the leader of the "traditionalist" part of Cosa Nostra, the one who was an example of an old-style mafioso who is supposed to have "honor". He may have kept the drugs out of some areas he liked, but he still sold them elsewhere. At the end he ended up in jail just for this.

What is this rumor you keep talking about that the 'traditionalist' mafiosi don't kill women or children? They never say this. In Italy it is common understanding that if your wife/mother/son are in the way, or can be used for a bargaining tool, it will be. This is NOT a secret. It's common knowledge.

The honor they have (in Italy cause i really don't give a fuck about American LCN) is in knowing that they ones that uphold their allegiance and adhere to the codes they swore to, are the ones that have the honor. It's not YOUR honor or anyone elses. But it means something to them. Honor, respect, and dignity. Those are the words they live by. If a man stays to the codes he pled to and doesn't veer from them, he is a man of honor. I don't say you or anyone else has to understand it or agree with it. But if you're going to be born into that life and/or choose to be in that life then do it right. A man that is in jail for life and under article 41-bis and doesn't talk, is a man of honor. It means something to him, if nobody else.

As far as the drugs are concerned, of course it's hypocrisy. I didn't say it wasn't. I mean what I say and what I said was certain bosses are strict about it not being in THEIR town. Don't read too far into my words. I'm very point blank and to the point.

To be honest, I don't remember the exact sources where I read or heard this, but I didn't just make this up, that's for sure. They put quotes like this even in some movies. I remember only the case in which Totò Riina's hitmen killed the mafioso Vincenzo Graffagnino who was suspected to have killed a boy named Claudio Domino. Maybe this was a demonstration of their adherence to the old belief that mafiosi shouldn't kill children, I don't know.


Were he truly a man of honor, he wouldn't have done those things he ended up in jail for. Not talking means nothing from a moral point of view.

But anyway, I am not trying to start an argument or provoke you. I just don't understand what's your personal point of of view on that concept of mafia honor.

I understand you read it or saw it in a movie, and I believe you may have. It's just the furthest thing from the truth and not only that..it is not a secret. It happens so often and only once in awhile does it make italian papers. Of course you remember Giuseppe Di Matteo, the 11 year old boy that was kidnapped, held for 2 years, then strangled and drowned in acid. I'm sure you do. That was a highly publicized story. But, there have been countless wives that have been threatened and believe it, they would have acted on it if it came to it.
More recently, there was a bullet mailed to a house, addressed to the 4-year old son of a mafioso that they were threatening so he wouldn't talk. It goes on and on.

About the honor, I am only saying this... You are on a mafia forum, so already you know the morals of these men. They are obviously not your morals. We already know they are criminals and we're not here to dispute that. So, that being said, from THEIR outlook on what they have chosen for a life (and many did not choose, it was chosen for them), what they consider honor is not what you consider honor. Their lifestyle is not what you consider a lifestyle for you. But if they're going to live that life, then they should do it the way they swore to do it. And if they do, that is what a man of honor is (in that life). That's all I'm getting at.

I remember reading that. The two cops actually worked with and knew Amuso so I would value there opinion on the subject over someone who just reads articles on the internet ( you). They came across as sincere an genuine and really enjoyed hearing what they had to say based on actually being around Amuso as opposed to hearing you regurgitate what Capeci wrote.

Then tell me: what do you actually think about the mafia? Do you believe Amuso was one of its bosses or do you think he has never committed a crime in his life?

You mean they were claiming to be retired cops. It would be hard to tell if they actually were or not.

Maybe they were, maybe not. I don't know. But anyway, what's worthy of noting is that the Amuso admirers never brought forward any reason for them thinking in that way other than "Amuso being framed by lying rats". I asked them how did they know if the "rats" were actually lying, but never got an answer to that question.

I don't know enough about Amuso to have a valid opinion and unlike some people on this form and others I won't pretend I do and ramble on about something I clearly know nothing about. Nevertheless, I would be more inclined to value the opinions formed from years of interaction with the person in question, more so than I would value someone who formed their opinion of the subject by reading articles on the internet be Gerry Capeci.

Most people are concerned with what impacts their everyday lives. I think this is why you read some negative comments from sites like the NY times. You have multi-trillion dollar debts, endless wars, record home foreclosures, skyrocketing taxes, Wall Street bailouts etc. People wonder who the real criminals are. As the mob is being reduced to a street gang, people (at least the educated ones) care less and less about it and feel the focus should be on where the real problems are.

I think it's always been that way. People have always emulated fictional characters, which are often based on real people. Then the people emulating the fictional characters in turn inspire new fictional characters, who are then emulated.I'm sure there were street hoods who emulated Edward G. Robinson and guys like that, and those same hoods grew up to be big-time gangsters. Who in turn would personally inspire characters in fiction.

For example, you had Crazy Joe Gallo imitating Tommy Udo, and then Gallo himself would be fictionalized as the Rosato brothers, Joey Zasa, and probably a lot of other characters. And I'm sure there's some crack dealer out there who saw Godfather 3 and decided that he wanted to be just like Joey Zasa.

Art and real life constantly reflect and influence one another.

I think that's exactly right, Ivan. It goes all the way back to the old cowboy movies of the '30s and '40s. There were always kids who came away from the theatre wanting to wear the black hat. Didn't Nick Pileggi write that Jimmy Burke named his kids Frank and Jesse as an homage to the James brothers?

And of course George Raft, Jimmy Cagney and Edward G. Robinson did as much to influence their generation as Coppola and Scorsese did to influence theirs. These are all acting and directing GIANTS that we're speaking of, and it's hardly their fault that a small percentage of the people who watch their films come away with the wrong idea about the criminal life.

However, there is one example though that I just don't get: the people who watch Goodfellas and then say they want to live that life. WTF? The movie is like one long "don't become a gangster" public service announcement.

I can understand people wanting to be like Michael Corleone. But Henry Hill? The life depicted in that movie is pretty much the nadir of human rot.

Nonetheless, the real story makes the movie look almost glamorous in comparison. Ray Liotta is a nice looking, charismatic guy; there is nothing pretty about the real Henry Hill. I wonder if anyone read Wiseguy before Goodfellas was released and thought "I want to be like these guys"?

Especially the third act of "Goodfellas." There's nothing "romantic" about being a paranoid junkie.

But again, I think it's a small percentage of the people who watched it; mostly the ones who were a little bit criminal minded to begin with.

The first half of Goodfellas does glamorize the mobster life.

Agree, it deglamorized the mob life in a big way, especially for the bottom feeders. Also, the "Kiss of Death" film 1947 with Tommy Udo is a perfect example. I remember reading about colleges around the country setting up Tommy Udo fan clubs. There was nothing likable about the character.

People adore Tony Montana from Scarface, and he was basically an animal. Him killing a "cock-a-roach" for the children thing, though admirable, doesn't exactly make up for his life.

I think what Goodfellas does is show the highs of the high and the lows of the low of a mobsters' life. Even during the first half of the film it's easy to see that all of these guys are sociopaths, exploit honest working people, and are only out for themselves.

The second half of Goodfellas shows how quickly these guys will turn on you when the shit hits the fan.

Wow, that's fucked up. Though I suppose it makes sense for one to be a fan of the way the character was portrayed (i.e., very effectively IMO). But actually admiring a guy who pushes wheelchair-bound old ladies down stairways is kinda twisted.

No, but he does work as an anti-hero. You can't really say that about the characters in Goodfellas.

Perhaps Tony Montana works as an anti-hero because we know he's fictional.

I thought it was people wanted to relate to any sort of rags-to-riches story, regardless of how the "hero" ends up.

I don't know about the American one, but as for the Italian one,

what happened is that sicilian mafia was damaged by the police by far more than ndrangheta and camorra in the latest 20 years
and it's as strong as them today, it's not anymmore a superpower like it was in the 80s under totò riina
ndrangheta and camorra even at their peaks are not even close to cosa nostra at its peak, no comparison at all, people do comparison between cosa nostra in the '80 and today, that's coz said all that stuff
anyway probably in europe as a whole ndrangheta and camorra are stronger today but in the americas cosa nostra is still the strongest by far

I am not really sure if the TODAY'S American Cosa Nostra is really stronger than the TODAY'S 'Ndrangheta, but if it is so, it's probably because for some reason there are no maxi-trials in America and relatively few mafiosi get life sentences. Even the Commission trial had very few defendants, allowing the mafia to immediately substitute the imprisoned ones. And after the big crackdown in the 2008 only Corozzo and Carneglia got real sentences.
I am not pretending I know much about the situation in America though, it's just an opinion of mine.

i mean that in united states and canada cosa nostra is the strongest by far, ndrangheta has just little presence in this places compared to sicilians
today ndrangheta is stronger that today american cosa nostra