The Council of La Raza is the largest Mexican organization in the United States. Every election politicians line up to speak to delegates from La Raza. Watch this video of a UCLA college professor calling for war against "frail racist white people."
What do you think the reaction would be from the national media if a video of Thomas Robb was being shown calling for war against minorities.
There is a double standard. White people have no idea of the hatred being directed against our people.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/7165215/18659668
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
He specifies "racist white people". In his opinion, America has a problem with hatred directed at racial groups. With this I agree--racism is a trait that must be purged from America.
"What do you think the reaction would be...if a video of Thomas Robb was being shown calling for war against minorities."
A negative one, just as this man would deserve if this demonstration concerned whites as a whole. But that's not the case. He only refers to the racists. Therefore, this really isn't a double-standard. He's not directing hatred toward white people, only toward racists. If you aren't racist, you have nothing to worry about, and this video shouldn't feel threatening.
Racist should be classified as terrorist. We don't need another Timothy McVeigh trying enact a race war.
Dear Delicious White:
Your recall of history is faulty. Timothy McVeigh was not "racist." He was anti-government and was not a white nationalist. His associate in his brutal and savage attack in Oklahoma City was Terry Nichols who was involved in an interracial marriage with a Filipino. It is absurd to even consider that he had associations with White Nationalist organizations.
It is ok to be against us if you wish, but do have your facts correct. Timothy McVeigh's best friend was a race-mixer and therefore evidently had no objection to it.
Norwegian Heat:
Are you nuts? This guy is calling for revolution! He considers all white people racist. Did you even listen to what he said? And then he glorifies communist revolutionaries like Che Guevara.
NorwegianHeat,
You're as blind as a beetle. Or perhaps as a Beatle! In this video, the hostility and warmongering of the speaker is so obvious and so conspicuous that only a thoroughly brainwashed person -- one who does not want to see the truth -- could fail to see it. Why, I've even heard a Jew or two complain of the racism of La Raza -- that's how obvious it must be to the normal White: even the Jew knows that he cannot deceive the normal White when the latter is confronted with such vivid and clear evidence as this speech we've just seen and heard.
John Lennon said, just prior to his death, the following about his music:
“Rock music has got the same message as before. It is anti-religious, anti-nationalistic and anti-morality. But now I understand what you have to do. You have to put the message across with a little honey on it.”
Norwegian,
This man calls for a taking back by revolutionary violence of land Mexico lost to the U.S. This is war. He even called the U.S. a "beast" and said his fellow La Raza members were in its "belly."
These words are a declaration of war.
If you really are of Norwegian descent -- something I'm beginning seriously to doubt -- know this: he would take your life every bit as quickly as he would take mine. He's only interested in the color of your skin as decided by your ancestry. He is calling for war between Mexican nationalists and the United States.
If you, Norwegian, do not wake up in time, you may very well be murdered by one of these "wonderful" non-Whites you love so much. I don't want this to happen, but it will certainly be your own fault. WAKE UP!
Thomas Robb said...
Dear Delicious White:
"Your recall of history is faulty. Timothy McVeigh was not "racist." He was anti-government and was not a white nationalist. His associate in his brutal and savage attack in Oklahoma City was Terry Nichols who was involved in an interracial marriage with a Filipino. It is absurd to even consider that he had associations with White Nationalist organizations."
I meant what I said. Another Timothy McVeigh wanted terrorist bombing in order incite a race war. It matters not who's McVeigh's friends are. But racist idiot copying his methods.
I am sorry Mr. Robb but McVeigh referred to blacks as "mud people" You claiming McVeigh was anti-government is also untrue. McVeigh wanted the government to follow the constitution as written. He did not feel the Clinton's were doing that.
My question is: if you really feel this way then why not go to Cuba? Or even South America where your views are shared? No he wants to come here and make us like them. Because we are where the money is because we were designed and built by whites. Yet little does he realize that if they take over we are going to become poor like these other little snot nations.
I think later on in history people are going to realize that McVeigh was not the nut job he is made out to be.
I am sorry but Mr. Robb is right, McVeigh associated with race-traitors. His best friend was married to a Filipino. He was not the friend of White Nationalists.
Also, blowing up innocent people is not nice. In fact, I heard Pastor Robb say a few years ago that one of the people killed in Okla was a member of The Knights.
Okay, I've watched through the video a couple times now to clarify after reading the responses directed at me, and I'm just not getting it--where are you guys getting the reference to violence? I understand that he wants revolution--I have my own visions of change as well--but I don't see him calling for violence specifically, nor do I understand him to direct hatred at the white race as a whole. This video is nothing more than a political rally. “Are you nuts?” If you honestly see this as a literal call to arms, then it’s your sanity I’d place in question. By the contents of the concerns you’re posting, I’d say you’re all suffering from extreme paranoia. In my opinion, organizations like yours beat the race-war drum louder than anyone.
Oh, and just out of curiosity, why is my heritage now being brought under suspicion? The way you make assumptions without any basis but your own limited insight just amuses me.
Taken directly from the speech: "Where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico. [. . .] On this planet, at the forefront of the revolutionary movement [against frail white racist people] is La Rasa. [. . .] We have nine left-of-center governments in Latin America right now. [. . .] They know that we will no longer fall to these lies called "borders" . . . We see ourselves as the northern front of a Latin American revolutionary movement . . . There are more than forty million of our people north of the Rio Grande -- forty million potential revolutionaries north of the border, inside the belly of the beast . . . Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism . . . [we must] lead our people to liberation."
Draw your own conclusions. I'd have written out the entire speech, but these posts need to be short!
"Oh, and just out of curiosity, why is my heritage now being brought under suspicion?"
You have questioned whether Thomas Robb is an actual pastor, have you not? Someone here has, and it may have been you.
But, the true answer is this: any anonymous person (and Pastor Robb is not anonymous!) may make any claim. If we don't know who you are and don't have an opportunity to meet you in person, it is not possible to verify what you say.
I have had conversations on the Internet with one or two persons, only to find out later that they had lied about who they were. Many have also had this experience.
I have an aunt who is Danish-American, and she's nearly as liberal as you, so I will accept your Norwegian claim as a working hypothesis.
I would like to propose a compromise: Rather than give California back to Mexico . . .
Let's let them have Nancy Pelosi's Congressional District.
"Draw your own conclusions. I'd have written out the entire speech, but these posts need to be short!"
Again, within the quotes you provide I find no direct call for violence. You're concluding that this is a call for war because that's what you want to see in it--it would help to justify your views. I'm just still not seeing it.
"You have questioned whether Thomas Robb is an actual pastor, have you not?"
Yes, I have. To my knowledge, Mr. Robb has not been ordained by any recognized Christian denomination. I just don't believe that he represents a wholesome, constructive Christian standpoint.
"Again, within the quotes you provide I find no direct call for violence."
The call need not be direct to be understood. In fact, it is all the more devious and dangerous when suggested rather than stated outright. This man's revolutionary supporters understand what he's saying. Leftist revolutions have been characterized by violence, and this man's calling for a leftist revolution.
Dear Adeimantus: Great comments. I would like to post it but please shorten it. God bless!
One of the things that really bothered me about Senator Kennedy was that he lived his life above the law. He did not accept responsibility for his mistakes, and he also refused to listen to the voters in his district when they disagreed with his policy-making decisions.
Instead of following the moral teachings of his Church, he followed the dictates of Jewish power-holders in Washington. His life was a classic study in tragedy.
"The call need not be direct to be understood. In fact, it is all the more devious and dangerous when suggested rather than stated outright. This man's revolutionary supporters understand what he's saying."
Hm, well, I'm still unconvinced. As a fellow American, I think I'll give him the benefit of the doubt--at least until it is apparent that this "Race War" is actually of legitimate concern. When is the kick-off, by the way? Did you find any vague references within his speech that would "suggest" that?
"Leftist revolutions have been characterized by violence..."
Hmm, I'd like to hear you elaborate on that one. How have "Leftist revolutions" been any more violent than those of the Right? By all accounts, the Christian revolution was an awfully bloody affair. Was this Leftist, then, or Right? I have so much trouble keeping labels straight when their applications are so subjective. I suppose the American Revolution was violent, but which side were they? Declaring independence certainly wasn't a conservative play, so was it Leftist? Could your freedom be the result of a "Leftist revolution"?
Regardless, your conclusion is a ridiculous one. To say that this revolution is bound to be violent based on an completely unsupported stereotype is entirely ignorant. Ignorance--from one side or the other--is what often leads to violence.
Norwegian,
By "Leftist" I mean socialist! The American Revolution was not socialist.
The Russian Revolution was socialist, so was the Nazi take-over.
The fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Democracy in Russia was non-violent.
So, the Mexicans will take back the land they lost to the States and rename it Mexico, all without violence?
Possible. But is it likely? If it does happen peacefully, it is because America will already be dead -- just as Communism was dead in people's minds before its fall.
BTW, the Nazis took over Germany without violence! The violence was to be in the future, with neighboring nation-states.
I never stated that every violent revolution was an unnecessary evil.
There is evil and suffering in war, but sometimes it is worth the freedom gained. Socialism is NOT freedom, and the Left are socialists.
The Early Christian Church was not violent. Martin Luther -- the original German religious Reformer -- stated that nothing good ever came of violence. Every man's entitled to his opinion.
“Nothing good ever comes of violence.” -- Martin Luther (1483-1546)
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/nothing_good_ever_comes_of_violence/215205.html
Ah, so it all comes back to socialism--how could I have been so blind?!
I guess we'll just have to wait it out then, and see what happens. Personally, I feel this was nothing but a harmless political rally--and I doubt any real revolution will stem from it at all--violent or not.
I also feel the concerns here are the result of fear-mongering--drawing unnecessary and senseless division between Americans.
If you wish to perceive the differences in others as threats to you and your own way of life, and live in fear of that, that's your choice. I just feel it's a waste of time and potential. I'm not going to go looking for enemies to stand guard against--especially if those enemies are only the product of my perception.
Dear NorweigianHeat:
Unlike some of the others here I would never attempt to prove to you the error of your judgement. You are not capable of rational thought.
And you have no standard of right and wrong.
"Unlike some of the others here I would never attempt to prove to you the error of your judgement."
No, while others might actually attempt to debate the merits of our opposing beliefs, you've made it very clear that you're content to merely declare error in my judgment without any explanation or evidence.
Dear Norwegian:
What ever! It's would be like trying to debate a four-year old who is unable to follow logic.
"You are not capable of rational thought."
Why not? Because I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you? If I were to place unquestioning faith in the Christianity and White Nationalism, would that make me rational in your eyes? If I proclaimed "Race War!" at any little sign of political dissent expressed by a demographic I refused to try to relate to, would that put me up there on your unrivaled level of logical reasoning? And even though I attempt to explain and justify my views--while you are resigned to empty statements--it is MY rationale that is in question? Why would I have any reason to accept that you are in any position to make judgments of me? You provide no views of your own, and you provide no reason for your negative evaluation of me. That I should take any consideration of your assessments of my mental and moral standing are a joke.
Dear Norwegian:
"moral standing" What exactly is your moral standing? What is the standard you use to detemine moral standing?
"And you have no standard of right and wrong."
Because you say so? Where is your evidence of this? If I didn't think that the White Nationalist views on race in America are WRONG, why would I bother hacking it out here nearly every day? Seriously--where do you come up with the idea that I have no standard of right and wrong?
"What exactly is your moral standing? What is the standard you use to dete[r]mine moral standing?"
Perhaps you missed it--I was asked this a while back. My explanation of that can be reviewed here:
http://tarobb.blogspot.com/2010/02/vote.html
Somebody else did a poor job of summarizing them for me following my explanation. Hopefully you weren’t judging me based on THAT interpretation—I could see where my character could be misconstrued if assessed solely on those misguided claims.
Dear Norwegian:
You seem to miss the point. You see I have no inner need to prove that you are wrong. You choose to be wrong and that is well with you. It is not that you are wrong on all things. But there are those who love their heritage and you condemn them for it. Just because you do not "see" the danger our people are facing does not mean it does not exist. As Pastor Robb has stated, "I can't make a blind man see the sunset."
Thomas Robb,
I strongly agree with you, because if you had a video that emblaced preserving the White Race, and eliminatimg race mixing and illegal immigration, you would create quite a controversy.I am a "white Christian" nationalist and I am offended by the double standard.
Post a Comment