'Fred O'Malley' is a convicted rapist

[Jae Manzel]

Why is there such a chimp-out about someone who's already barred from posting here?

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by jae manzel

Why is there such a chimp-out about someone who's already barred from posting here?

If you think this thread already qualifies as a chimp-out at this incipient stage....well, you're new then, aren't you?

Something wicked this way comes.

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards VNNF to be born?

That's Bradbury & Yeats in the same post. Top that.

[varg]

Why is there such a chimp-out in your signature about the numbers at the bottom of your posts that no one cares about?

[HardHawk]

Originally Posted by jae manzel

Why is there such a chimp-out about someone who's already barred from posting here?

Thumbs Down on my posts are usually from Sundry Fucktards

You think so?

Dont you like red?

[Jae Manzel]

wowWoWoWow..I prefer not to respond further on this Thread, Sorry guys

[HardHawk]

Originally Posted by jae manzel

wowWoWoWow..I prefer not to respond further on this Thread, Sorry guys

Good advice to one self.

[Jae Manzel]

Originally Posted by HardHawk

Good advice to one self.

I deserve a rep and a thumbs for that!

[HardHawk]

Originally Posted by jae manzel

I deserve a rep and a thumbs for that!

Posting here is not about reps jm. Go and make your reps visible and we discuss that part.

[Jae Manzel]

Originally Posted by HardHawk

Posting here is not about reps jm. Go and make your reps visible and we discuss that part.

If i were here for reps, I would have made them visible...

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Like I said earlier......now that you know my bias, re-read EXACTLY what I said, and what I didn't say (and allowed you to fill in the blanks with your own bias).

Yes, it most definitely was a lesson on critical reading, and you failed with everyone else. You only think it was 'back peddling' because I kept giving 'hints' on what I actually thought.....and still you didn't get it. I had to spell it out for you, in the most obvious and blunt terms possible.

Like I said, this whole community is full of mouth breathers stealing my air. No surprise.

Let me paraphrase:

1. What somebody did 26 years ago is not as relevant to who they are as what they have done recently.
   
2. If a person is a shitbag 26 years ago, and is a shitbag now, then guess what? They are probably a shitbag.
   
3. If a person is a shitbag now, why do we - or anyone - need to go back 26 years ago to paint them as a shitbag? Oh yeah, there's no reason except for typical Anti-White/SPLC spiteful hatred.
   
4. We shouldn't get wrapped up by any hit piece from the SPLC about something that happened 26 years ago, as there is plenty to have been wrapped up about recently. (I misunderstood the entire 'outting' scenario - I was under the assumption that it was something the SPLC brought up - an old article that connected the dots between his real name, and his internet username).
   
5. It doesn't matter to me what he may or may not have done 26 years ago, because my mind is already made up......why you finally ask? Because of his recent behavior!

You are a tech wizard, but sorely lacking on subtlety.....and you even knew more of the story than the casual reader.

I would expect DiO and maybe Rouse to read it all, and in the end give a 'well played' type of comment and appreciate the deeper meaning of what I'm trying to get across. I'm not surprise that people are upset, and reacting the way they are.....people don't like being played for a fool.

Wow...serious chutzpah. You started with a whopping misread of where the info was coming from. Now you're blaming others for being dumb / missing points / not being subtle? Does not compute.

Here's how I look at it.

1) Fred was outed by the SPLC.

2) To say Fred was outed - the guy was talking to more people via PM here than I do, and obviously giving his real name to plenty of them. So it's not like it was that big a secret in the first place.

3) Craig Cobb referred to "Stan" when, for some unclear reason (I've talked to him about it) he gave the SPLC an interview.

So, for none of that is VNN responsible.

4) Varg found some apparent proof that "Fred" was convicted of rape. Obviously we would not be posting it on here unless we were pretty darn sure it was accurate. Because UNLIKE FRED 'N' HIS FUNKY, FURRY PALS, WE DON'T SPREAD DEFAMATORY LIES ABOUT PEOPLE. (major point, hence need for capitalization)

5) did you see "Fred's" vehement denial? Demand for restraction? Yeah, me either.

6) All I, for one, ever knew about Fred was that, as I said: he's generous with money; he's paranoid; he tells scurrilous lies about people at the drop of a hat. He sucks at analysis and judges anyone who opposes him as a fed / anti / troll. Some combination of bluster and bad character. It's pretty common.

But I didn't know he was a rapist. Can't say I'm overly surprised, but I certainly didn't expect it either.

As Eric Thompson likes to say, "principles protect people." That's why VNN has the principles it does. We get rid of people who are paranoid. And we get rid of people who tell grossly defamatory lies, and fling baseless accusations at the drop of a hat.

We ostracize them. Which means, we don't talk about them. Even when we know they are off elsewhere spreading the same garbage they were here, we stop mentioning their names. That's the best thing we can do to limit their influence. If only others would learn from our example, the White Nationalist movement would be a lot cleaner and healthier.

The principle should be:

- real and relevant information about ANYONE in the movement is fair game. And no one should be disparaged if they have genuine information that makes a leader look bad. That is the wrong principle -- covering things up to preserve appearances -- that has hurt Stormfront and National Alliance in the past, and which VNNF was in part founded to provide an alternative to. So long as the information or data is real evidence, there can be no complaint. But at the same time, the companion principle must be:

- no one is allowed to spread serious, defamatory lies in an attempt to assassinate character. I can point out that VNN is the only place through the entire movement where this principle is observed.

Because we allow swearing here and encourage epithets, we are considered by the implicit conservatives who imagine they're White Nationalists to be on the low road - to adhere to and enforce lower standards than their high road of no-epithets and politeness only. But this is wrong. VNN keeps it clean where it matters. They keep it clean only in language, where it not only doesn't matter, it actually impedes the advancement of the cause. BIG BIG BIG difference. They have the politics and the principles wrong. We have them right.

VNN has a problem with child molesters, and congenital liars. TOO and CC and other sites do not. They have a problem with cursing and calling blacks niggers. BIG BIG BIG difference.

VNNF's standards are the right way to go. And we will keep going that way.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Marcus

I'm very close to throwing in the towel on this matter. I'm simply not sure if I can ever get to the bottom of this.

Fred swears up and down that Varg and Donnie are the problem, insisting that Varg is just a malicious scumbag, and Donnie is literally an SPLC agent.
Varg and Donnie swear up and down that Fred is the problem; that he's a liar, a crook and a rapist.

And then there's Linder's dubious reputation.

I'm not going to lie; I'm confused. Very confused. Nor am I going to act like I know who's right and who's wrong; attempting to do so is probably futile anyway.

Is there any hope for White Nationalism? I really, truly do not know.

You're not confused, you're stupid. And hysterical as a woman. I'm going to tell you what I told Angry White Female, and she, years later, agreed was correct: politics is not for you. You're simply too het up for it. AWF was smart enough for it, but far too high strung. She was much better off when she got out of it. You're probably the same way.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

You're not confused, you're stupid. And hysterical as a woman. I'm going to tell you what I told Angry White Female, and she, years later, agreed was correct: politics is not for you. You're simply too het up for it. AWF was smart enough for it, but far too high strung. She was much better off when she got out of it. You're probably the same way.

I'm stupid because I reserve judgement on issues that I know little of?

Fine, fuck it. O'Malley is as guilty as they come. You're right, they're wrong. I'm sorry for not giving in to the mob mentality, I'm sorry for being discerning and nonjudgmental, and I'm especially sorry for ever daring to engage in independent thought.

It won't happen again, Master Linder. Anything to please you.

[M.N. Dalvez]

I'm sorry for not giving in to the mob mentality, I'm sorry for being discerning and nonjudgmental, and I'm especially sorry for ever daring to engage in independent thought.

You're refusing to see what is there in black and white BECAUSE 'Fred was okay to you'. How is that discerning? How is that independent thought? You're willing to over-ride your judgement and willing to ignore clear and plain evidence because of personality. That doesn't make you an independent thinker, it makes you a sucker. A drone.

And for what? A geriatric, lying, paranoid rapist like Stanley Diggs? Oh, oh, 'but he was OK to me'. That shows you're the very worst kind of idiot, the very worst kind of person: you're willing to let personality stand well, well before principles. Just like the rest of the coterie of degenerates and borderline (and in Stanley's case, not even borderline) sex criminals at Stanley's forum.

Having a luminary thinker as your avatar here doesn't make you a thinker - any more than sticking a few feathers in your arse and quacking doesn't make you a duck. It makes you an idiot with a picture of a great Roman thinker as your avatar.

And no. Unlike you and unlike your hero Stanley Diggs, I don't find rape funny. I think it's disgusting.

And people who find it funny are even more disgusting. But you wouldn't understand that; after all, 'haven't you ever laughed at South Park?' The degenerate brainchild of a jew, aimed specifically at lowering the character of young people in America and all around the world?

No, I haven't.

I think it's sad, especially seeing young people like you, the very product that show (and others like it: Family Guy et cetera) is aimed at creating.

Now, get thee gone. Go back to the rape dungeon with Stanley the rapist, Akins the paedophile, Brenna Wolf the alcoholic, and other such luminaries. I think you'll find their company much more congenial. No insistence on morals, on truth, on standards: just say whatever you want, whenever you want! "Hey, it's all the same, it's all good!"

No. It's not all good. Rape is not "all good". Lying is not "all good".

But pieces of shit like you and the rest of them can believe what you want.

Marcus Aurelius would be turning in his grave to see his image attached to the rubbish that comes out of your keyboard.

[Leonard Rouse]

Originally Posted by Marcus

I'm stupid because I reserve judgement on issues that I know little of?

Fine, fuck it. O'Malley is as guilty as they come. You're right, they're wrong. I'm sorry for not giving in to the mob mentality, I'm sorry for being discerning and nonjudgmental, and I'm especially sorry for ever daring to engage in independent thought.

It won't happen again, Master Linder. Anything to please you.

By your illogic, every jury that convicts on the evidence is an unthinking mob.

You're not discerning. You are judgmental. You are not thinking independently, far from it, on this issue.

[M.N. Dalvez]

HardHawk:

South Park is a cartoon which is set in a small town in America. And wouldn't you know it: non-stop poking fun at the 'hicks', the small-town Whites.

And just to add icing to the jew cake, guess who the only sensible, enlightened people in town are? You guessed right - the jewish family! The only kid who isn't deficient in some way? The jewish kid!

So now you know where people like Marcus, for all his pretence to 'independent thought', takes his lead from.

That's right - he takes it directly from jewish propaganda directly aimed at denigrating White people, promoting jewish people, and lowering the character of young Americans.

He's basically nothing but an automaton, a goyish Golem.

So now you understand him a bit better.

[M.N. Dalvez]

You're not discerning. You are judgmental. You are not thinking independently, far from it, on this issue.

Leonard, he takes his lead directly from jew propaganda. And guess what that says? Thinking critically is wrong. After all, 'it doesn't matter', and 'it's all good!'

He doesn't see that it is just that, discernment, on our part to condemn Diggs the rapist, because he by his own admission hasn't even looked at the evidence against Diggs. Why would he? Reading, and thinking, that's for suckers! He's ignorant, and he's happy to persist in his ignorance.

Don't waste your breath on fools like that. Don't throw pearls before swine like that.

[Marcus]

Listen to me very carefully.

I'm not on anyone's "side." All I ever said was that I'm willing to give O'Malley the benefit of the doubt. For now, at least.

On one side there's O'Malley; on the other is folks like DiO and Varg. Am I such an idiot because I admit that I don't know nearly enough about these people to pass judgement? I've heard plenty about the aforementioned characters. Hell, Dalvez, I've heard that you're Linder himself. But hearsay isn't going to cut it. I demand facts. And the assertions of O'Malley being a compusive liar or DiO being an SPLC plant are not facts; not as far as I'm concerned, at least.

You hate O'Malley? Fine, good for you. But I ain't taking sides, so piss off.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Donnie in Ohio

In your defense, you're apparently a lot of people, so you're probably pretty busy.

As always, irony: Brenna the feminist defends Fred, while we 'misogynists' denounce him as a rapist. Not surprising, far closer to the general rule. Look at how many elite leftists are sex perverts. Kennedys being the classic example.

[M.N. Dalvez]

Hell, Dalvez, I've heard that you're Linder himself.

You heard that from fucking Akins the paedophile, who you know is happy to say anything he wants about anyone, so long as it gets him attention he has a pathological need for.

The big difference is:

There's no evidence to support the statement that Linder is jewish.
There's no evidence to support the statement that DiO is an SPLC employee.
There's no evidence to support the statement that I am Linder.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

There is a massive amount of evidence to support the statement that "Fred O'Malley', Stanley Diggs, is a convicted rapist and burglar. The problem is, you haven't read it, nor are you willing to.

You hate O'Malley? Fine, good for you. But I ain't taking sides, so piss off.

Before this news came to light, I did not hate Diggs. I did not have a problem with him. Even with all the lying, the paranoia ... that he pumped out, I did not hate him, because he never did anything to me.

The reason I hate him now is that he is a convicted rapist and burglar who is using WN to hide his degeneracy, his criminal past, his deviancy.

But you just don't get it - insistently so.

IT IS NOT ABOUT TAKING SIDES. IT IS NOT ABOUT PERSONALITIES. But you don't understand standing on principles, even when it's not in a person's interests, do you?

Do you think I want to get on the bad side of a degenerate, grudge-bearing, violent rapist? No. Not at all. But it's the principle that matters.

But hell, principles might as well be all Greek to you, right?

Now get along. Go watch your South Park. Go laugh at the 'stupid hicks'. Go swallow the jewish poison. You've never contributed anything of any use anyway - so you won't be missed.

[Alex Linder]

"The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of one hour. -Japanese proverb"

Determined or destroyed.

There are some things you do or say that can't be taken back, and that are legitimate points for the world to judge you by. Rape is certainly one of them.

This discussion can carry on as long as it needs, and then, as Will Williams says, * flush * we need never speak of Fred again.