Debunking the "blacks are potrayed as all criminals on TV" argument

Warning: if you are now attending a college with a gender studies program you may consider shouting this at a "Black Media Reprsenation" class.

In a vdare.com article about why blondes are always bad guys in movies the great Steve Sailer writes:

A more general question is why in movies and television, murderers are far more likely to be white (whether blond or brunette) than African-American—even though, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics: "Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002."

One of my readers recently pointed out that with non-Hispanic whites accounting for only about ten percent of the violent crime in New York City, the three Law & Order television shows were likely to feature more fictional white New York murderers in 2005 than there will be actual white murderers in real life!

Another reader pointed out:

"In the first 24 episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent there's only one black murderer, and she is a corrupt police officer. Make of that what you will…"

Racial activist organizations like the NAACP constantly complain that minority actors have a hard time getting roles. For some reason, though, the NAACP never brings up the most obvious ways to increase the casting of blacks and Hispanics—by making the ethnic make-up of screen criminals more realistic.

There are unintended consequences to all these good intentions. Villains provide excellent roles that actors can sink their teeth into. But minorities seldom get those great Hannibal the Cannibal-type parts.

Unfortunately, African-American actors have long been held back by what's known as Ben Stein's Law. The mordant law professor, economist, screenwriter and game show host made an in-depth study in 1979 that revealed that in any Hollywood whodunit, the whitest, richest and most respectable character usually turns out to be the bad guy.

In Rush Hour 2, Chris Tucker updated Ben Stein's Law with his "Law of Criminal Investigation: Always follow the rich white man."

It appeared that the ice was breaking when Denzel Washington won the Oscar for playing the heavy in 2001's Training Day, a role based on Rafael Perez, the affirmative action-hire rogue cop whose criminality set off the LAPD's Rampart Scandal.

But little progress has been made since. Morgan Freeman, for example, first broke through to public notice playing a vicious pimp in 1987's Street Smart. However, he continues to get cast as the embodiment of saintliness, what Richard Brookhiser calls the "Numinous Negro"—as in Freeman's Oscar-winning but embarrassing role as the holy janitor in Million Dollar Baby.

In Batman Begins, Freeman portrays an inventor—another weird Hollywood racial cliché. Just as judges are so often played by black women, Hollywood has decided that technogeeks must be portrayed by black men, the more improbable the better, as in burly Ving Rhames being the computer nerd in the "Mission Impossible" movies.

Clearly, political correctness damages black actors' careers. Because it would be “racist" for movies to show blacks as killers, since that would support the "stereotype" that blacks commit more homicides than whites, they are denied the good roles as bad guys.

And to counter the "stereotype" that black men aren't as interested as other races in computers, they get force-fed into playing nerds.

The results of 45 years of good hearted unconstionality and Black Over-repsnation

Startling data on black overeprsenation i found in this brillant Paul Craig Roberts vdare.com article from August 06, 2002 with the slightly alarmist title "Abolishing America (contd.): Do Whites Have Rights?":

"The ink was hardly dry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act before an EEOC bureaucrat, Alfred W. Blumrosen, illegally and unconstitutionally subverted the statutory purpose of the law. Judicial complicity and congressional distraction enabled Blumrosen to redefine discrimination from a purposeful action against an individual to the absence of proportional representation regardless of discriminatory intent.

Thus did Blumrosen originate the system of race and gender privileges known as quotas that are thoroughly institutionalized throughout the government, private industry, and universities.

Racial quotas are so firmly entrenched that quotas prevail even in states where federal district courts have ruled against them and referendums have made them illegal.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced for 37 years. The result is a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women.

Now comes an astonishing report from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: “Annual Report to Congress, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2000,” released in April 2002. [You can read it on Adversity.net, an anti-preference organization that fights for victims of reverse discrimination, with analysis and comment. The original government version may be found here.]

This report to Congress makes brutally clear that despite the “equal opportunity” name of the program, the purpose of the federal program is to make certain there is no equal opportunity for whites in federal employment.

The report uses tables and bar charts to make unmistakably clear that federal discrimination against whites goes far beyond merely achieving proportional representation for blacks. In all 22 independent federal agencies and in 16 of 17 federal executive departments, blacks are massively overrepresented.

In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (sic) blacks comprise 46.4 percent of the employees. The “affirmative action” or racial quota target for proportional representation (percent in Relevant Civilian Labor Force) for the EEOC is 6.4 percent black employees.

Blacks are thus overrepresented in EEOC employment by 625 percent!

And the EEOC is the federal agency that is supposed to enforce equal employment opportunity.

Blacks are overrepresented in the National Science Foundation by 504.7 %; in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. by 538.7 %; in the Securities and Exchange Commission by 452.1%; in the Smithsonian Institution by 452.1%, in the Federal Communications Commission by 370.1%; in the Social Security Administration by 263.5%; in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by 375%; in the Office of Personnel Management by 286.7%; and so on.

In cabinet departments, blacks are overrepresented in Department of Education employment by 464.7%; in Department of Labor by 254%; in HUD by 383%; in Treasury by 176%; in Department of Justice by 106%; in Department of State by 165%; and so on.

The push is now on in the federal government to achieve comparable overrepresentation for Hispanics and females.

If these two “minorities” achieve similar overrepresentation, there will be no room for white males in the federal government.

Did you know that the federal government pays its managers “superbonuses” for hiring, training, and promoting nonwhites? According to a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of Energy by DOE employees, a DOE boss, Anibal Taboas, staffed the Argonne National Laboratory with minorities, while reassigning white males to dead end jobs where they could be terminated under reduction in force polices.

For this achievement, the lawsuit says Mr. Taboas received thousands of dollars in bonuses.

Note that no one in the government intervenes in behalf of white males who suffer discrimination, not President Bush, no congressional committee chairman, certainly not the Justice Department or the EEOC.

Today in the United States white people have no political representation. Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights.

Explicit government policies have made whites second class citizens. Whites are a dispossessed majority in their own country.

Why did the white majority allow themselves to be stripped of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Why do whites remain loyal to the political parties that took away their rights?"

Another hidden outrage.

The ugly reality of how the unknown civil rights movements has stripped Americans of basic liberity & given America the laws of a Bannana Republic

I'm like a sucker at the momement.

Why?
Well i'll tell but the reason why may shock you and may hopeful demolish some of the largest myths you have.

The reason why is that i've been reading Steve Sailer's brillant writing on Sotomayor and Ricci and "disparate impact" and rapidly i see one after another, the most basic freedoms that are non existent today as a result of that holyiest of holy entitys The Civil Rights Movement. It's nearly as much of a third rail to speak uncoventionally about as the Holacaust is. But i following Orwells adage, will have the integrity to follow reason anywhere no matter how unpopular a place. So out with: The greatest myth in american society today is that of the "holy"Civil Rights Movement that keeps on-a-chugging today not fighting any real discrimination or racism but doing all it can to make America's claim to be a land of colorblind freedome and justice look like a terrible joke.

(don't worry i will get to exsplaining why)

Where i went to school, the civil rights movement was taught a 100 times more than the founding, Kig might as well have been Washington, Malcolm X John Adams.
But oddly they basically just hammered into us again and again the same images and basics-"i have a dream", ruby bridges walking into school, roots the movie, harriet tubman and the underground railroad.

IN the end as me and my piers leave high school i realize how we really were never even taught about the civil rights movement just the fantasty. LBJ was never mentioned, the civil rights bills were not exsplained, busing neither, and certainly not any talk of the curtailed basic liberitys and never any discussion of why people like William f. Buckley and Barry Goldwater opposed unconstuitional civil rights laws, my piers don't even know who either men are nor of any "constuitional issue in regard to civil rights laws". And i know now for ceratian there terrible education on this so called civil rights movement (that for some reason only took rights away) was not a accident. To produce hordes of children with a entireely facile view of the civil rights movement is good for the left and its agenda. They prodice adolcents who know nothing about the civil rights movements laws, nor why many whites were angered by forced and unconstuitional integration and don'tt even know what "busing" is. Rather the see the civil rights movement literally in black and whites, good vs. evil, northern liberal angels and minoritys vs. evil southern republicans (they don't about the dixiecrats).This false version of the civil rights movement is taught like the liberal creation myth, which solifidys the totally rigtousness of the left and the instinstic dark racist motives of the right forver in young impressionable adolcents minds.


For kids to be taught about the actual civil rights movement is something the left must avoid occuring by all means. The 60's fantasy they teach like sunday school t eachers tecahing scripture, covers up the wholly opposite reality of what the civil rights movement was really like.

King is symbolic as the indivdual diety of this deified movement, for those "extremist" facts about his life show his deification to be just as false. I should not here that in saying that King and the movement he was figurehead of are not the dietys we known them both as, i am not then claiming either to be absolutely bad or amoral but human and mixed like most people and things, gray rather than all white or all black. There is the life MLK lead that we all know and were taught endlessly and not very well but his actual life is rather different and his full collection of views drawl a quite different picture than the diety laid before everyday children.
In reality he was not a saint but a plagarist, a adulterer, a supporter of large scale legalized racism, a likely private communist, a non-believer in numerous basic rights and freedoms enshrined by the constuition and a hypocritical preacher who lived as a rabid adulterer after church (the FBI tapped his rooms and recorded his fallandering on the day of his death he beded multiple women and was recording shoutied "i'm f*** for jesus!"). Copious friends of MLK say (most with glee) that he was probably a closet communist and many of his closet friends and partners claim that he confessed to being one in private. The fact that some of his closest associates were Soviet connected communist party USA leaders and that he had apaulling tolitrian (soviet like) views on wealth distrubition, taxes, and other matters suggest that MLK if not a secret pro-communists was pretty close to being so. As for his support of large scale legalized racism: it wouldn't suffice to merely exsplain that he longed for extreme tolytrian racial quoatas without specficying how extreme the quoata's he favored were: he once said that if a city had a 40 percent "negro" population that then "negros" should then rightly hold 40 percent of jobs in companys in that city.

The glaring contrast between the real MLK and the mythical MLK, when the full facts are reviwed, reflects the same contradiction betweem the civil rights movement myth propogated in public schools and the civil rights movement of reality.

Where are the magical fruits of this so called movement for basic rights? where are these new rights?

(Before i answer those 2 questions let me say that the improvement in race relations and the living consditions of african americans has been a unqaulfied good.)

But where are these new civil rights?

The sad answer is that the Civil Rights Movement produced no new rights (unless i missed them) only took away rights.

For 45 years now the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced. Those 45 years of good hearted unconstuitionality has resulted in a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women among other causes of white guilt.

Thanks to the Civil Rights Movement:

1. you no longer have the right-as a business owner-to not let romanians (or any minority group or gender) into your store if you don't like romanians (for whatever reason). a rather basic right, me thinks?

2. if your a bank, you no longer can give loans to whom ever you want, you can and will recieve massive discrimination lawsuites if you do not give enough loans to blacks compared to whites

3. you no longer, can treat female and male employees that differently.

4. if you do not hire enough black people you may be also recieve a discrimination lawsuite.

5. the goverment can force your kid to be bused 40 miles away to a inner city school instead of the neigborhood school down the block and parents can do nothing about it.

How strangely Orwellian it is to find that the legacy of the civil rights movement is not more liberity and freedom but the stripping of the most basic rights and freedomes and an a imposition of a new rigourous kind of legalized racism that digs deeper and deeper into places Legalized racism do not belong (not that it belongs anywhere).

A NEW LOW: my first blog comment battle (though i do triumph)

The action went down like this at matt ygelisas' blog (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/sonia-sotomayors-iq.php/comment-page-3#comment-1590319):

1. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

   can the people who support Sotomayor, please also say

   that they:

   1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

   2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

   3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.

   stand up tall and pride!

2. Barbar Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

   How do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?

3. SLC Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   Re Daniel Schwarz

   Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.

4. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

   great arguments guys!

   you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?

   why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?

   how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.

5. joe s Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

   Would not a measure of her “brilliance” be the proportion of times her decisions are upheld or reversed at the next level compared to her peers(Sorry, I am not American and not sure if the next level is the USSC)

   Now that would seem to be a qualitative metric

6. SLC Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

   Re Daniel Schwarz

   How about Mr. Schwarz go fuck himself.

7. daniel schwartz Says:
   May 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

   you are so brillant SLC

   you really are such a great debater, so intellectual, not the slightest ad hominem out of you

   i guess your to embarssed to pubicly affirm your absurd racist views, your fervent support for racial quotas, suing banks for not giving enough loans to black people.

   but if you can’t defend yourself just call someone a racist, right?

WHEN LIBERALS FIND THE CONSTUITION

the democratic partys record of leglisation and goverance speaks it for itself, and one of the things it commucates to any honest reader is that the democrats have rarealy ever paused to push the constuition and basic freedom to the margins when they must "do good".

Example 1: Busing. would madison say its constuitional to force some parents child to go to a public school 50 miles away from his home when the neigborhood school is down the street in the name of achieving forced diversity? ofcourse not, totally unconstuitional, utterly totilitirian with the best intentions.

Example 2: Does anybody doubt that it's a basic freedom of a owner of a private business to decide who can or cannot enter there store? for a country club to prohibt women from golfing there? ofcourse not.

Example 3: The Employee Free choice: where upon the goverment forced banks to make a certain amount of loans to minoritys or else be sued by the goverment for discrimantion! contuitionalesque? no.


Anyways THEY DO SOMETIMES LIKE ALZEIHMEIMERS PATIENTS REDISCOVER THERE REVERENCE FOR THE CONSTUITION. but its at the funniest times and for the sillyiest reasons.

for instance.....

1. they rediscover federalism when they don't want to enforce the nations immgration laws in our major citys.

2. they rediscover the constuition when they want to make sure the man who planned 9/11 doesn't undergo any pain at all in order to extract information to save lives. cause someone responcible for 3 thousand americans deaths shall never undergo 20 seconds of simulated drowning and discomfort and because jihadisof a private businet are probably more likely to rat on their cause if we ask more kindly for secrets.

3. they rediscover the constuition to claim that gay marriage is enshrined within it (though its not at all) and is a basic human right.


just a little review: so an owners ss can't decide he doensn't want to allow women to enter his property isn't a constuitional right but gay marriage is. fascinating?

ain't the living constuition great? if you want something to be constuitional you don't need to read anything, it just is!

The "People's Party" standing up for the dowtrodden

THE SITUATION:there are somewhere around 12-10 million americans unemployed, some respected liberal econmist have just issued a paper that estimates that unemployment could soon rise to 12-14 percent.

here's how the democrats-that pride old gaurdian of america's poor and dowtrodden masses respond:


THE DEMOCRATS RESPONCE: So unemployment higher than its been in 20 years? lets pass amnesty then! we have such an abundance of jobs "americans won't do" we need to turn 12-20 million illegal immgrants into citzens! brillant!

QUESTION 1#: isn't this a time when people who care about the working class should actually try to do immgration enforcment for once?

QUESTION 2#:how bout we make our major citys places that follow the nations immgration laws again so that american workers no matter what there color have a better chance of getting the few jobs out there today? i hope this is rhetorical to everyone just in case i'll answer it myself: Ofcourse!

This is really so disullioning. i have lost so much respect for the left (in there putting party above country) and the media (failing to report such a scandal rightly). Utterly appauling this is. it's the shame of every democrat. they do not want to hear about it. they refuse to critize obama, and if you confront them with what there partys doing in this case they just balk or lie or ecovocate.

And when you go so far as to also tell them that the obvious reason for there partys amnesty push is to import millions of new democratic voters they gasp in horror at such a shocking and blamspous suggestion! How dare anyone ascribe such greedy and treasounious motives to Barak "i don't believe in big goverment" Obama! A man who doesn't have a bad bone in his whole body! who would never even think of misleading, lying, misreprsenting, slandering! He would never put his party before the country let alone before the dowtrodden and most needy americans!

And all i can do when i face such piffle is ask (QUESTION 3#)"ok, if its not that obama and his party and everyone else with a brain know that 12-20 million poor latinos heavily depedent on goverment programs with astronemical illegtimacy and drop out rates would be the importing of 12-20 new democrats, then why is obama pushing for amnesty at this time? because of a abundance of jobs? what?"

That right there, ladies and gentlmen, is called striking a blow. They won't have an answer to that one cause there isn't one! and yet why doenst this question above get asked? why can't even FOX news summon it up out of there throats? surely they have a place in the far back of the white house press room.

How Liberals vs. Conservtives think and talk about taxes and why

do you ever notice that when liberals talk about taxes, equality, distribution of wealth, the top 1 bayonet extends, that they seem to be living in a dream world?

They talk about "the pie" and how much the rich get and so fourth as if the pie aka the wealt of america is as unchanging and permeanat a thing as your couch. You might also notice that they refer to "the rich" as if these rich people were born rich and will always be rich and who do nothing and are nothing else than wealthy people. They never say that the rich are rich because they've become rich working as business owners who employ thousands of americans, inventors who make the things that have improved are lives and entrupueners who have competed to provide people better products and services to evreryone.

However when conservtives talk about the same topics of taxes, welath, etc they talk about such things as if they live not in the liberals dream world where the rich are born rich and will never stop being rich, and where the wealth aka "the pie" they want to cut up is unchanging, but in the real world.

They understand that while it sounds good to simpletons to tax 70 percent of a business owner with a 10 millioin dollars a year salary, that that owner employs thousands of amreicans and invests in the market and builds new franchises and creates jobs and in turn raise the living standards of the vert people liberals want to deliver 70 percent of his income to.

Liberals don't seem to be able to grasp the complexity of reality in this area.

When liberals think about the coroporate tax and how it should be higher, they again look at coroprations as unchanging entitys, they don't realize that they can and will move with all their jobs to another country if america taxes them to much.
Unlike liberals when thinking of how high the coroporate tax should be in america, conservtives, see that america like all countrys are competing to keep and attracted companys aka jobs, and that placing taxes at aat a level that willl atrract buisiness and encourage entrupership and investments will give the lower and middle class much more than what they will get from america taxing coroporations even more and thus driving said compnays out of america taking their jobs with them.



THis relates to my feeling that liberals is humans de fault position because liberals is about atleast they think-getting more stuff for themselves and conservtism is too esortic and complex for most people.