Two Arrested After Alleged Hate Crime
VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
press release
Nature of Incident: Criminal Threats – Hate Crime Arrests
Location: Woodland Avenue and Silverspur Street, Ojai, CA
Date & Time/ RB#: June 30, 2011 @ 6:10 p.m.
Unit Responsible: Ojai Valley Patrol Deputies and Detectives
(S)uspects, (V)ictims, (W)itnesses City of Residence Age
(V) Juvenile Male, 17, Mira Monte
(V) Juvenile Male, 17, Mira Monte
(S) Daniel Dockery, Meiners Oaks, 22
(S) Shauna Criner, Meiners Oaks, 19
Narrative
Two male juvenile victims were criminally threatened while standing near the intersection of Woodland Avenue and Silverspur Street in the Mira Monte area of the Ojai Valley. The crime was hate-motivated and was identified as a hate crime.
Daniel Dockery and Shauna Criner drove up in a vehicle to confront these teenagers. One of the victims is of Hispanic decent. Dockery identified himself as a “Skinhead” and that he hated “Mexicans.” Dockery continued to shout sexual and racial slurs at the victims. Dockery continued to question the victims to determine if they were part of the local Hispanic criminal street gang known as “OSL”, which they are not members. Dockery got out of the car then slapped one of the victims in the face. Dockery claimed to have a handgun in his possession then threatened to shoot the victims in the head if they were still at that location when he returned. Criner escalated the threats urging Dockery to steal their wallets and bicycles. Dockery and Criner drove away then returned within a few minutes. Dockery drove his car towards one of the victims narrowly missing him as an additional final act of intimidation before fleeing the scene.
The victims were in fear for their life and immediately reported the attack to a parent. Patrol deputies assigned to the Ojai Valley Station responded and met with the victims. The deputies quickly determined the criminal threats were hate-motivated and started a search of the area. Within the hour, deputies found that the suspects had returned to the nearby Circle K store in their vehicle. Dockery and Criner were arrested for the criminal threats. Xanax and Klonopin prescription drugs were found in the suspects’ car that were not prescribed to either party during the vehicle search incident to arrest.
Detective Steve Michalec immediately responded and continued the investigation due to its serious nature. Based on the initial patrol investigation and detective follow-up, this hate-based crime appears to be an isolated crime of opportunity where the suspects and victims did not know each other prior to this incident.
Dockery was booked into the County Jail for Penal Code section 422 – Criminal Threats; Penal Code section 422.7 – Hate Crime Enhancement; Penal Code section 242 – Battery; and Health and Safety Code section 11375(b)(2) – Possession of a Controlled Substance.
Criner was booked into the County Jail for Penal Code section 422 – Criminal Threats and Health and Safety Code section 11375(b)(2) – Possession of a Controlled Substance.
Officer Preparing Release: Sergeant Randy Watkins
Pingback: Two Arrested After Alleged Hate Crime at Ojai Valley News Blog | Mans Page
Ojai is this strange little bubble that is fun to go back and visit once in awhile. Kind of like watching a Twilight Zone marathon. It’s not the real world. It doesn’t matter what color you are. Trash comes in every color.
Marcus Tellius is a stand up guy. He and I work at Blockbuster together with his girlfriend Modesta. When we’re not at work, we’re shooting rats in the river bottom or playing X box.
Admin, you should expose the people who in one line of conversation break into multiple names and post basically the same thing over and over again. People stop reading a thread about 1/4 way in when it gets high jacked by someone who posts the same thing under many different aliases.
@anna
No love for the yellow man?
I don’t normally get into conversations like this because they are so stupid. But I am white and am not anti-white. I am anti-racism. I am pro-people … doesn’t matter the color of their skin. Red, white, black or brown, Jesus loves them all.
1.
harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.
a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark
“Just the facts”, it appears that only the editor can close it at this point. I thought it ended a while back, but when confronted by ignorant ad-hominem comments, yet again, I had no choice but to reply.
Usually when the term “Hitler” is brought up, the thread has left the realm of productive discourse. I think Foghorn just ended it.
“Just the facts”-
Who are you, Hitler?
I think it’s about time to wind down this discussion thread, eh?
Disgusting display of politically correct one-sided history by an anti-White called Gary.
Feel free to believe in your brainwashing, but rest assured that among a growing number of us, the brainwashing has worn off.
The inscription on the “freakin’” Statue of Liberty was appended by Emma Lazarus, a member of a hostile anti-White nation.
No country which thinks a collection of the wretched refuse of the earth, with no more connection than a piece of paper saying they are “citizens”, has a future. A “country” of this sort is no longer a nation. “America” is no longer a nation, unless you believe your textbooks, news broadcasts, or similar fairy-tales.
History is above all a field of subjectivity, of struggle between subjectivities.
I thought my job here was finished, but with idiotes (that’s Greek, look it up) like Gary weighing in, I guess it isn’t. One can only hope that Gary isn’t a representative example of education in Ojai, but I fear the worst.
Disgusting display of racism and ignorance in many of these comments. The USA is a polyglot nation, not a “white” nation. Whites stole it from Native Americans using war and genocide, and took California from Mexico by an act of war. Whites brought Africans as slaves. How messed up is that? Chinese were nearly slaves building the railroads. We’re all here now, and need to get along. Nationalism stinks. Anti-racism does not mean anti-white. It means anti-racism, period. Racist loser punks have no future in this country. Go read the inscription on the freakin’ Statue of Liberty. Do you even know what it says? Let me remind you:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Marcus Tullius? More like Marcus Fool-ius. Never has a person made such long commentary whilst answering nothing.
@Modesta
La siento, carina,
En todo caso, un abrazo fuerte de mi parte.
Animo comadre!
El Bigotes
Leave Marcus Tullius alone — you hueros!! I’m having his baby…
A special PS, just for “Mary”, who said …
Q: “Does anyone really care what you have to say?”
A: Mary, probably not! (wink)
Lloyd, we all live in a certain “myth space” … no human being lives outside one: it’s just the way humans are made, all of them.
The problem occurs when groups of people, a PEOPLE who share a common myth space, come into contact in a manner which puts one, the other, or both at risk of losing their identity, which rests in large part on a set of beliefs derived from that “myth space” that defines them.
When you clarified your background and identity as a “mixie”, whether that be “genetic” or “memetic” in terms of a mixture of myth spaces that define you … I realize your position. You TOO have the same concerns about YOUR “place in the cosmos” as defined by the myths that define you. It would be both rude and a waste of time to ATTACK your defining myths and expect a positive result: they just ARE. I would suggest that you be sensitive to the “myth spaces” of others … but I don’t need to suggest it because some parts of your last post do acknowledge that, at least on a verbal level, you do SEE this issue.
I responded to your previous comment which asserted the Supremacy of your “myth space”, the Judaic myth space in the manner I did because I wanted to point out that you have no ground to claim supremacy for that narrative in a manner that suppresses, demonizes and delegitimizes the myth spaces of the eternal “other” from a Judaic standpoint.
The findings of Social Identity Theory tell us that this is something to be expected when confronting how an “ingroup” views an “outgroup”. Since this behavior is to be expected, from “both sides”, we don’t need to continue jockeying for position regarding the details.
My comments never excused those two “men” for threatening violence to the other two. I also think it’s entirely unproductive to go around saying “I hate Mexicans”. Pretty DUMB.
But you seem to be trying to link a healthy sense of identity (which also requires a myth-space) among young White European Americans with being a pathology! You’ve played the “Nazi” card, the “Supremacist” card, and the “Holocaust” card, all with the apparent intention of smearing any young White European American who supports a healthy sense of self-respect for their people as some sort of pathological immoral human being.
Your feelings of victimization due to family history DO NOT give you the right to project your just-so stories onto other people(s) as if it was “their fault”, and therefore they must cease in having an identity … just because your just-so narrative claims it’s a “slippery slope”.
This whole thread never went “off topic”. It actually got CLOSER to the real topic, and it did so when the first person at the top of the thread wrote about “racism”. Since the current mental-regime uses “racism” as a weapon aimed at ONLY White European America people, myself and others noted that “anti-racism” is just a codeword for anti-White”. Since I, and probably those other commenters, are well outside the anti-White Zeitgeist, we no longer have patience for anti-White discourse. We will no longer tolerate slurs, smears, hate-caricatures and stereotypes which promote the “Anti-White Narrative”. We are the beginnings of a Euro-Am version of the ADL, and we insist on the same slur-free world for young White children as the ADL insists on for young Jewish children.
My part in this extended conversation is finished. I’ve said what I want to say, and presented the ideas I wanted to present. If they’ve been useful to some because they’ve presented a viewpoint seldom seen in today’s media, that’s great. It’s not often that a White man is willing to stand up against the predominant anti-White Zeitgeist and its apologists. I do it for the reason that young White people don’t deserve being blamed for all the world’s problems. This is what they’re being taught on many fronts, and it’s going to be stopped, one way or another. Those who stand in the way of it being stopped, or are party to its promotion, will reap the consequences of their stance. There’s no way around this.
As for you, personally, Lloyd … I wish you a good day and thank you for your contributions. I also hope you’ll talk with other members of your tribe and let them know that we don’t have to be enemies if we can reach the proper TERMS OF CO-EXISTENCE where we don’t get in each others’ way, where our “myth-spaces” don’t collide, and neither “side” makes claims of supremacy to be the one “chosen” people who have ownership and control over of “all that is”. I have a feeling the necessary changes may be more difficult for “your people” than mine, but sincerely hope for the best for all.
Thanks for the fun folks!
“Holocaust” and “Holocaust Denier” are both very interesting terms to research and think about. The former term is a quasi-religious term applied to certain interpretations and propositions about events during the period called “WW2″ The latter term is usually applied to anyone who has questions about the orthodox narrative and propositions about said events.
At this point in time, I do not, and cannot discuss any propositions concerning said events. Here are two things, factual things, which might explain why I cannot discuss these propositions.
1. It is currently against the laws of about 12 European countries to DISCUSS any propositions about said events that differ from the “official narrative”. If you DISCUSS such propositions, you are liable for arrest, fines and imprisonment. Many people have been in prison, and are currently in prison for DISCUSSING these events. I might want to visit these countries some day, and don’t want to be imprisoned for DISCUSSING these propositions.
2. Throughout history, every time anyone is threatened with prison for DISCUSSING a proposition, it has ALWAYS ended up that there has been something WRONG with that proposition.
Until legitimate historians and scientists are no longer under threat of imprisonment for DISCUSSING certain historical events, there is no possibility of clarifying what really happened.
Great sweeping rant from Mr. Tullius which handily exposes him as what is referred to as a “holocaust denier.” He does give us a lot to chew on with claims of my own “insanity” etc., etc. Without wanting to completely dismiss him it is a great “bafflement of b.s.” and as my father, good Jew that he was would call a good case of “diarrhea of the mouth.” My father by the way was a survivor of Birkenau—luckier than his own parents whom I’m sure were we to ask Tullius would tell us that he was lying about them disappearing from the same camp with an explanation that they’d been sent to a luxurious “spa” in the Ukraine–where I’m sure they died of “natural” causes at the hands of their Noble Aryan handlers, and I won’t even go into now what happened to my various aunts and uncles and their children at the hands of the same noble, idealistic people. But, Tullius has his beliefs no doubt gleaned from his “deep” research on the internet or gotten from those noble Skins he knows wearing suspenders. My family’s background is different from his in this way. We have a wholly different experience (hey, and what do I know, maybe Tullius will next tell us his grandfather was a German soldier at Birkenau and what my father told me is a lie–that they were all in the mountains at beautiful resorts picking and smelling flowers all day long…) Yes, Tullius, forgive me the stories of my father and what it passed down to his children. It did not infuse us with hate, because my father was a nobler man than that, he even told us not to hate and he was there! But it does give us a special kind of awareness of what can happen, and, please do not insult the dead by equating the drug induced anxiety of two punks and call it a representation of “genocide” on the White Race by denying the genocide caused by gas and bullets. Perhaps you are a young eager man who didn’t get to grow up in the shadow of WWII and the mists of time are now obliterating all that happened–we are now onto new things like worries about whether our computer will crash, or we won’t get enough friends on Facebook or our MacDonald’s hamburger will arrive 10 seconds too late. My father and the stories and fears we had to ponder on held us in a different kind of thrall–for us at least more real, whether you deny it or not. In the same way though, I will not deny you your very real fears about your White culture being overrun–remember dear fellow I am half WASP!
@Marcus Tullius
The Genocide Definition by Lemkin is Damning and is the very first quote in the Wikipedia entry on Genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
It describes Exactly what anti-whites call “Multiculturalism” and “Diversity”, which they ONLY Demand for all white countries and only white countries.
Those laws have been in effect since – nineteen hundred and forty seven.
So there are no excuses.
Can cases of Deliberate Racial Targeting of European Peoples for GeNOcide, be proven? IMO these laws are just waiting to be tested by ANY white community, in the civil courts.
When such cases set legal precedent, what would it be worth in raw monetary terms and who would be required to pay damages?
Anti-white activists and their wealthy backers?
Anti-white media and their advertisers?
Government institutions that enforce anti-white policies, in only white countries?
The education system is famously anti-white, what should they pay?
Does anyone really care what you have to say?
Isaacson, just in case your memory could use some refreshing, and perhaps distraction from your fantasies ….
—
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Raphael Lemkin, who originated the term genocide, defined it as follows:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean destruction of a nation… It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of a national group.
Isaacson, by equating a group of young Whites, “skins” or otherwise, who want to maintain their ethnic identity and a healthy sense of self-respect for themselves, their people and their history …. by equating this desire with a “slippery slope” to some war-time horrors … you have really outed yourself as an UBER anti-White.
You do realize, don’t you, that denying a people the things you appear to want to deny them is considered, under the Geneva Genocide Convention, GENOCIDE! However you try to explain what your doing, it’s obvious that you are spinning rationalizations for White Genocide. The man who drew up critical aspects of the Genocide Convention was also “one of your people”, but a whole lot more sane. Shame on you!
Mr. Isaacson may be half WASP and half TIC(k) (Talmudic Internationalist Caucasian), but the mythologies of the TIC side seem to have gained the upper hand, in his psyche at least. Otherwise why would he bring in references to “those evil German nazis”, and a whole host of real events with legendary and not necessarily accurate “lessons” easily viewed in the latest Spielberg Spectacular (always with small print that says the story is fictional)?
This is evidenced by his repeating of the TIC narrative of the “slippery slope” to Kristallnacht, and the legendary (but imaginary) “soapmaking” at Auschwitz. You forgot to mention those legendary, and also imaginary skin lampshades Isaacson! Maybe there’s some inner phobia of “skins” due to your belief in fantasy-legends of soap and skin in play in your discourse?
On a less lugubrious, and also less fantastic level, we should look at Mr. Isaacson’s continued use of the term “White Supremacists”. Even though Isaacson threw in a bone by mentioning the La Raza Aztlan enthusiasts and the Muslim caliphate enthusiasts (ya gotta be “diverse” in your stereotypes or someone will call you out as a ‘hater’, right Isaacson?), he forgot to mention another “identity group” which is seemingly obsessed with its own “purity” and “high thinking”, and has its own form of supremacy.
Let’s look at the nature of Mr. Isaacson’s claims, and wonder why he failed to identify that other identity group, one which shares all the attributes he imposes on “White Supremacists”? Is there a psychology in play which makes it difficult for a person to name ALL the groups sharing such attributes? Yes, there is. It’s the psychology associated with Mr. Isaacson’s own “chosen” identity group: the TICs
TICs the world over, especially the orthodox among them, are bound by their own belief system to be “pure”, “high thinking”, and, dare we say it, Supremacist. They have no choice but to be Supremacist: their G-d told them it was their destiny. They are currently acting it out in various parts of the globe … which I guess you could say is sliding down that “slippery slope” which has its roots in the imperatives of their mythology and attendant institutions and culture.
Of course, not ALL TICs are orthodox, and not ALL of them are insanely obsessed with their belief systems, but enough of them are that we must ask the question: Will the “pure” TICs be able to be controlled by the less insane and less Supremacist TICs, and prevent the former from spinning out of control?
Mr. Isaacson, it’s obvious you are obsessed with the narratives of victimhood and oppression passed on to you from many sources, probably including your father’s side of the family. I can’t do anything about your sense of victimhood, but I can say that by PROJECTING your inner narrative onto others, and thereby pre-emptively and passive-aggressively GUILT TRIPPING modern-day young White European Americans in order to feed your need for a victimology narrative, you are getting into dangerous territory.
You IMPOSE the word “Supremacists” on young White Euro-Americans, but conveniently forget the Supremacy that’s deeply embedded in your own religious identity structure (yes, we all know this). You PROJECT this “sin” of “Supremacy” onto young Whites, and then link this up with a narrative of a slippery slope to gas chambers and bullets ???
The best thing that can be said about you and your discourse is: you are not only anti-White, you are mentally ill. Go get some help for your paranoia and delusions, not to mention your problem with projecting your inner disease onto others.
Okay, now Tullius is getting close in one aspect with his description of his “Skins” friend and he is in essence describing in a certain way how the nazi movement in Germany got started–and it makes sense (I say this as a Jewish-WASP American man).
Cultural pressures outside your own threatening the ideal you have as your group. Good for his friend that they have high standards!
Here is where “the slippery slope” begins (to quote our friend “Man with a Cigar in His Mouth”). The “movement” whatever it is, in this case White Supremicists (or hey, even idealistic members of the Aztlan or Muslim Caliphate–who demand purity and ‘high thinking’—sound familiar?) starts an ideal but at some point CAN spin out of control and get picked up on by lower forms “posing” if you will be other people acting on the behalf of the ideal. To be specific, the low lifes who claim to be “skins” have some kinship in ideals to Tullius’ Skin friend in that they share some beliefs. The problem is that the low life skin gets lumped in with the Skin of the higher ideal–in the end though does Kristallnacht still occur out of it? Does it spin out of control and end up at Auschwitz and the soapmaking? The genocide (not just as a spoken opinion, but physically acted out by gas and bullet?) of 6 million (send them back to Africa)?
That friends, is the slippery slope—and all of you supremicists whether tan, white, yellow or black should take note and be aware. Will the pure Skins be able to control the punk-ass skins?
The best DEFENSE is a good OFFENSE. Identifying as “White European American” and describing the group as “diverse” is silly and oxymoronic. It’s too large of a group and has too varied of a history of origin to be significantly different from other large groups of people. At least the Chinese look like Chinese. Part of what keeps immigrants out of there is lack of people WANTING to go there.
Who among us knows who our great-great-great-great grandfathers were? Suppose you did, generations of people have been moving around the globe and mixing blood for at least in the neighborhood of 10,000 years, if not longer. People have been enslaved and raped by invading armies.
How about further back-the integration of Neanderthal man into the Homo sapiens-sapiens group?
Turn it off, Marcus. You are infected by your own self-importance…
Wouters … you’re getting warm.
I have a friend who is a “skin”, and he’s a member of an organized group of “skins”. I’ve spoken with him about this incident, and he informed me that these two guys would not be allowed to participate in their organization: no drugs, no alcohol, no gratuitous violence. In other words, the guy who said he was a “skinhead” was playing games and talking trash, regardless of his haircut.
Most of my “skin” friend’s group don’t have Marine haircuts, but they do tend to be neat and clean, and uphold high standards of conduct among themselves. The fact that they like Doc Marten boots and sometimes wear skinny suspenders for “events” is a “problem”?
An important question to ask about “skins” is HOW did they end up being in that kind of club?
In my friends case, he used to live in the San Diego area, and when he and his other White friends wanted to go to the beach, they had to walk through a hispanic neighborhood where they routinely got the crap kicked out of them by latino gangster “youths”.
They “joined the club” for mutual defense. Once the “members” set the latino gangsters straight, they no longer had to fear attacks when going to the beach.
Bottom LIne: real “skins” are a DEFENSIVE organization.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media distorts this and furthers the perception they are “racists” and “haters”, without clarifying that they are actually defending themselves against ethnic-group aggression against Whites.
Bigotes ask me to “reveal my plan”.
How can Whites discuss a “plan” or “solution to the problem” when we are usually prevented from openly discussing “the problem”, on our own terms, without being subjected to a load of anti-White invective like “racist”, “anti-semite”, “nazi”, “KKK” and “hater” by those promoting the anti-White Narrative?
When Whites who want to openly discuss White interests in the context of a multi-racial society, they are almost ALWAYS pre-emptively “shut up” by one or more of the above slurs and hate caricatures which support the anti-White Narrative. Many of the comments in this thread are a manifestation of this: they seek to delegitimize any explicit manifestation of White group identity in the public sphere.
This is the point where I”d like to try to establish a link back to the original article. It will have to be a “thought experiment” at this point, because we only know what the article tells us, and there is no mention of a “back story” to the incident, the so-called “hate crime”. Your participation will only require you to think beyond the bounds of the “event” itself, and look deeper into human motivations, and the current shape of the social/political order.
How does something become a “hate crime”? The obvious crime that was committed was threatening violence against another party, but it only became a “hate crime” when one of the aggressors mentioned the word “Mexicans” and shouted racial slurs.
The question that must be asked about a possible “back story” is: WHY would one or both of the aggressors have a “thing” against “Mexicans”? And is it possible that the men’s “hate” is an entirely RATIONAL response to being put in a situation of “ethnic group conflict”, a situation which has been the norm among all human groups throughout history?
Were there events up to that point in their lives where they had a negative experience due to the impact of the large influx of Mexicans into MO and the OV? Was the peace of their neighborhoods disturbed by loud and unwelcome Mexican radio station music? Was there “neighborhood friction” caused by the use of lawns as parking lots for junker vehicles, instead of lawns?
Why did they ask if the younger men were part of OSL? Were they threatened by OSL at some point? Were they, like most young Whites, subjected to the “Anti-White Narrative” in school and popular culture? Did they just get fed up with reading history texts that present White Europeans as the source of every other peoples’ problems? Did they become disgusted with teachers who wouldn’t allow anyone to question this anti-White Narrative?
Were they put to the back of the line in a job-seeking situation where “affirmative action” privileged people with a brown skin, people who weren’t even in the area legally?
Did they try to get a job in a workplace where the majority of workers were “latino”, and experienced the “pushout effect” because the latinos wanted to keep a maximum of positions available for their co-ethnics? Did they try to get a job at a local restaurant, in the kitchen, and experience “alienation” in their own country because nobody else wanted to, or even could, speak English?
Did they, like me, get tired of having to “Push 1 for English” in their own city-state-nation?
The above questions don’t excuse the criminal behavior of threatening violence. But the possible answers to the above questions might provide a “back story” that could illustrate a possible RATIONALITY to their dislike of the predominant non-white demographic in the area.
By rationalizing away their animosity as mere “racism” or “hate”, one rationalizes away a possibly LEGITIMATE REASON for holding this animosity.
You will see this same kind of animosity worldwide. The Chinese have no interest in seeing their local cultures diluted with “outsiders”, but nobody shouts “racist” at them for upholding their group identity.
The Israeli Jews have no interest in seeing their local culture diluted with “outsiders”, but (almost) nobody shouts “racist” at them for upholding their group identity.
It’s only when MY people, the diverse white European American people, show an interest in preventing the destruction of their local cultures via dilution by “outsiders” that WE are shut down by slurs like “hate” and “racist”.
That is how the Anti-White Narrative works. Whoever pushes this double standard forward, by whatever rationalizations, is … anti-White.
E. Pluribus et al, perhaps this is what Tullius means:
For years whites in the U.S.A. were in the majority and the minorities had equalizing programs, were denigrated and marginalized–victims of a kind (they were….).
With the fairly open immigration policies of the last 40 years and population boom it is a fact that the white population is headed to become the minority in the U.S.A. The shoe is on the other foot and some white people are starting to feel like victims. Maybe this is a good thing in its way because everyone gets to feel what is is like which perhaps in a ideal world will lead to understanding.
Tullius’ point about the hidden anger of the “skins” in Mira Monte
has them expressing their anger (drug infused no less) in an unconstructive way. Are they victims or perpetrators?
It’s always curious, not to mention silly, when white people assume the role of victims. The same people who rail against the term African American (“they’re not from Africa!”) call themselves White European American, wholly without irony.
Note to editor on your question: “why is it when we discuss race that we refer to President Obama as a Black Man?” You WILL note I hope my reference to his White half en parentheses. Mr. Obama does have black skin and I think you could find numerous references even by him that he is a “black man.” This is a problem for some people, it is not for me. That he is proud, in kind of both of his halves is as American as apple pie.
The whole Irish thing of late just tickled me pink as it did the Irish–in droves.
I believe he is as proud of his black half as his white half and that is part of the beauty of the situation. I am an American Jewish man. I am proud of both. I served this country in the Marine Corps in Vietnam and I had “Jewish” on my dog tags as religious preference. I was raised in the “Jewish culture” but my mother was a White Anglo Saxon Protestant who learned how to cook Jewish traditional food–and then other days we’d have roast and potatoes. She even took me to the Methodist Church at times to expose me to the culture of her own upbringing. For sure I’m half WASP, but the enduring, overriding culture I was brought up with was that of my father. I am sure this situation happens all over the place, no less with the First Family and many other folks in America. Part of the White Supremicist argument about white purity is getting harder to qualify, because as “the worm turns” we are getting more intermarried and mixed together. My youngest daughter is married to a Mexican-American man whose family celebrates the culture into which they were born, she in turn influences his family with some Jewish culture (and roast and potatoes–and flag waving American patriotism).
What do we do with this ‘o little Adolf’s? Who among us is now so pure that we don’t have some relationship or doings with people of color, even if they are of mixed blood? Leaders, military officers, loved ones, employees, coworkers. And what do we do now…..root them out and “send them back to Africa?”
Great thing to mention Editor, and thanks for getting on board with the further discussion!
@Marcus Tullis
Your rhetorical acrobatics are bordering on the spectacular, but unfortunately they are simply entertaining and not educational, constructive, or honest.
Where is the clarity you value? You broadly label and attempt to dismiss others based on circular reasoning that you express in cryptic euphemisms and tract-like droning.
Surprise us, Mr. T., declare yourself and reveal your plan.
El Bigotes
(@Bigotes … continued) …
So why does Bigotes ask this question of Marcus?
Why does Marcus, a White European American, have to “prove” what he IS? Why do White European Americans somehow have to justify their existence by providing a name that Bigotes approves of to justify the FACT that they EXIST, not only as an individual member of a group, but as a PEOPLE?
The White European People have been in America for a long time. Do we still have to “validate our authenticity” in the place we’ve not only dwelled for so long, but have largely shaped?
Bigotes wouldn’t dare go to Japan and demand that the Japanese “prove” the validity of their existence in that space, a space pretty much created by them.
But Bigotes seems to have a problem acknowledging White European America’s legitimacy. He won’t have that problem acknowledging Japan’s or China’s legitimacy, or even an African nation’s legitimacy. But somewhere in his mind he questions the legitimacy of White European People having a place they call their own … so he asks Marcus to justify himself and name himself in a manner which Bigotes finds worthy of approval before granting legitimacy.
This double standard is PRECISELY why people like Bigotes are anti-White: they ONLY have a problem with White European American people having a self-owned bio-cultural space. They never ask the same question of other peoples.
Bigotes writes, “O.K. I’m asking: What do you call yourself? Bigotes is asking Marcus “What are you?”
When Bigotes visits a place in Africa and is confronted with a local, does he ask that same question?
When Bigotes visits China and meets a Chinese does he ask “What are you?”, or does Bigotes recognize the obvious without need of asking?
Of course, most towns and the people in those towns in Africa and China don’t suffer the problem White European Americans have to suffer. They have not been subjected to attempted Genocide of their bio-cultural identity by a regime which insists on promoting mass colonization by immigration, and massive blending by multi-racialism. Most of those Africans and Chinese know that someone who is “not them” can never become a part of them just by having a piece of paper that says they’re a “citizen”.
They know that just because a tomcat is born in a chicken coop, he can’t lay claim to being a rooster.
“Editor’s Note: Why is it when race is discussed, President Obama is a black man? Unless we’re mistaken, he has a white mother and was raised by his white grandmother.”
Dear Editor;
Genetics is not arithmetic. White European populations have many recessive genes which, when mixed with certain non-European genes, result in a phenotypic expression which is no longer recognizable to White Europeans as “White European”.
When looked at through the lens of social identity theory, it makes no sense to think of Obama as 1/2 white and 1/2 black. Social groupings identify members, and hence non-members in a non-arithmetic way. They determine genetic similarity, which is a salient category in EVERY bio-social demographic, by the expression of the genetics.
Because of the recessiveness of genes in White European populations, many “mixes” yield a result which is seen, in social terms, as “not one of us”. This has far reaching consequences in the social and political dimensions. This is not something that can be “changed” by imposing new definitions to words, or passing laws, or changing the curriculum at schools. The bio-social nature of human beings of all types is not a blank slate, not something which can be re-engineered by ideology.
But you don’t have to go all “intellectual” to know this. Everybody knows it … instinctively. But in the current climate most are afraid to say it. Bottom line: Obama is black. No such thing as an arithmetical version. We do have a name for that mix: mulatto. Mulatto does not equal White European, even if 50% of his genetics are from that source.
—–
Parts of Lloyd’s comment above asked important questions. If they were asked in the spirit of “opening up a discourse which has probably never been seen in the OVN”, I’m game.
I don’t value agreement so much as I value clarity.
As for Bigotes, he’s “got some splainin’ to do” about hurling the word “racist” around and tacking that label on “Whites” in a manner which indicates he won’t tack it on other demographics with the same degree of delight.
Some seem to wonder about this thread’s “derailment from the topic”. I ask them to ask themselves about their use of the term “racist” in this particular case. I ask them to wonder if when an Old School Latino gang attacks young White European Americans they also apply the label “racist” to the OSL boys.
White people like to say, “I can’t be anti-White because I AM white!”. Sorry to say, one of the biggest enemies of a healthy sense of self-respect for young White children is brainwashed older white people who love the “other” more than they love their own people. Maybe we can delve into that …
@Marcus Tullis
Re: “We tend to have different names for ourselves. We also don’t tend to like others deciding what we call ourselves without asking us first.”
O.K. I’m asking: What do you call yourself? What are some of the names you believe accurately identify you? Feel free to describe yourself in narrative form if you’d rather not limit yourself to a single racial, ethic, or cultural label. If you choose to not, I will not decide for you.
I do not expect anything as richly evocative as your description of me as a provincial, run-of-the-mill anti-White.
Sincerely, Marcus Tullis, who are you?
El Bigotes