'Fred O'Malley' is a convicted rapist

[varg]

Dalvez you can't reach Soldat. He's a dedicated Fredophile.

He left me this message

How did the SPLC kikes get his name, and info only VNN admins knew?

Now where did he get the idea that the information the SPLC had was only available to VNN admins? Because liar Fred posted it, and it must be true, right?

Soldat why don't you read the SPLC article and point out what on there would only be available to us. Tell us where you came up with that idea, other than just outright believing Fred. The only thing I see is his name, which I know from other people he had given it out, and that Angel had told me and other people it too when she was threatening to out him. From the SPLC article it sounds like Cobb provided his name anyway so it's a moot point, but Ferd would rather use it to his advantage and as an opportunity to lie about VNN.

The company name, state, city, address, etc are all shown on Google when you search his name. See for yourself to see how the SPLC could have all the information presented on that page. There is the photo, I'm not sure where they got it, but I have never seen that one (otherwise I would have used it in the past to mock him) I doubt Alex had seen it either.

So go to the SPLC article and tell us what information was only available to VNN admins you gullible dumb fuck.

[M.N. Dalvez]

Speaking of which, Soldatul Vostru, what's your excuse for this?

Originally Posted by WitchesChild
I will give Fred the benefit of the doubt until I hear otherwise, but it won't reflect well on the authors of that thread about Fred even if it was in fact 'our' Fred. The charge wasn't rape either.

It would only make it look like the SPLC purposely left it out so that it could be 'discovered' on VNN to garner views from Craig's thread here on White Nations. There is no fucking way the Potok ratpack would have overlooked a gem like that.

Either way, the whole thing stinks.

No the thumbs aren't private to them, but it never mattered to me when I got angry.
I don't even believe they give a fuck if it's this 'Fred' or not, nor that they really give a fuck about a 30-year-old sexual-battery case. Their only concern is taking down this site, by any means necessary.

Wrong. I don't give a shit about the existence of Fred's site. I give a shit that a convicted rapist is running a WN forum, and trying to pass himself off as a respectable WN. I give a shit about the damage that this revelation could do to the Movement - at least, the Movement in America. I've always been vehemently opposed to degenerates and criminals using the Movement as camouflage for themselves. That is my angle on this.

and:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WitchesChild
I agree. Where's the usual mob of rejects over there screaming about what whores white women are? They miss that thread or something?

Moreover, since the accuser was a married woman, she could have been lying to save her marriage.

A guilty verdict for sexual battery and burglary is not solely contingent on the allegations of a victim. If they were, there would be a lot more convictions for this sort of thing.

AND:

He's cunt-hurt cuz I thumbed down some posts in their 'Fred is a rapist' thread. It has not been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that that is the same person as the proprietor of this forum. You would think the SPLC would have definitely mentioned that once 'Fred' was outed to them and they looked into his background. How did those cocksuckers overlook it?

No. Your game-playing around an exceptionally serious issue is why people were pissed off. Also: like Kelley, you assume the research that the SPLC does is necessarily better, and more conclusive, and more VALID, than the research people within the Movement can do.

Based on what you wrote there, I have to conclude you're not being sincere in what you just wrote here. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that, based on the plain evidence against 'Fred' in official records, you'll make the correct conclusion and do what is right.

[Soldatul Vostru]

Originally Posted by M.N. Dalvez

It is not circumstantial evidence. You apparently don't understand the meaning of the term 'circumstantial evidence'.

Stop saying that it is. It's there in black and white in court records. Exactly the same name. Exactly the same DOB. The same state. It's him, alright.

And why, when people attempt to post the evidence of his past crimes on his forum, are they deleted immediately?

It's okay for all and sundry to throw around wild accusations and allegations about 'their enemies', with NO EVIDENCE, on his forum (and that stuff is allowed to stand even with the token 'don't do that!' misdirection coming from admin) but when someone posts SOLID EVIDENCE of his crimes, suddenly it's deleted, disappears into the ether without a trace?

If it wasn't him, if it was someone else with the same name (as he alleges), why are his administration and him so quick to delete links to newspaper articles, court records, detailing his crimes?

It's time to stop playing silly forum games and stand up for what's right. It's not about personalities, it's about principles. The evidence is there - use it wisely, and do what's right.

I do know the meaning of the term; what I didn't know is about those deletions. If that wasn't him then he would do whatever it took to prove it's not him, not delete the links. Keep the links, and make fools out of your accusers by proving it's not you but another man -- that's what an innocent man would do.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Here, I'll make things easier for the 'instant gratification' generation.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

The SPLC strikes again, how wonderful. I think that is what is being overlooked or lost in all of this because of whom the SPLC struck.

I've known much of Fred O'Malley's personal information and background for over half a year. I would never have outted him, regardless of my personal feelings towards him, however. It was Nigel, of all people, that convinced me of that.

We are talking about an event that took place some 26 years ago. Many of our members weren't even alive back then. We are talking about history here........ancient history. The SPLC would have us, and every one else, judge him on something that happened a quarter of a century ago - and ignore all the recent/current beliefs and behaviors in which he should be judged. Are you the same person as you were 26 years ago?

Love him, hate him, like him, can't stand him - it doesn't really matter. In the end, this is nothing but an attack piece by the SPLC. They are attacking him - digging into his background - because of what he believes.....because he is critical of the jews.

There are those chuckling at the downfall and outting of a previous VNNF 'crank' member.

It doesn't matter if a person is a saint - if they are a face within the WN commuinity - the SPLC will do everything to destroy them and their credibility......most people with skeletons realize this and refrain from being a face. It doesn't change the fact that the SPLC took it upon themselves to take a pot shot at the WN community. The SPLC doesn't think of O'Malley as a crank the way many here do. The public won't think of O'Malley as a crank on the fringes.

We all have skeletons, there are things in my closet that I wouldn't want put out to the public. Things change, people change, times change. I'm not defending O'Malley, I'm not saying this story is or is not about him. I'm saying that it is irrelevant (in a broad sense). (see above statement about plenty of recent behavior to form an opinion)

The SPLC hates anybody that has even a single critical thought about the jews and their behavior. If a person does have any skeletons in the closet, let this be a lesson. If a person thinks about becoming a face of the community, let this be a warning of what to expect. The only reason that the SPLC even showed interest in a Fred O'Malley is because he became a face, a singular voice, a spokesperson for WN whenever he launched his site. He put the target on his own back.

Whether or not his past warrants having that target deesn't really matter to me (personally). I've already made my mind up on the type of person Fred O'Malley is from the multitude of interactions with him during the past year.

At the end of the day, can you say to yourself that the SPLC did something with good intentions to the WN community, or was it evil intent?

Intentions matter.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Does it matter? There are plenty of reasons to like or dislike Fred O'Malley as a "WN community member". If something that may or may not have happened 26 years ago is the deciding factor..... (Then you haven't paid attention to his recent behavior, the best indicator of who a person is now!)

It doesn't change the fact of the source of the outting, and the ideological reasons for such, is disheartening. (Pure dislike, even if warrented) Putting emotions aside, and looking at the cold, hard facts for the reasons the SPLC did this is difficult, but needs to be done.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Varg.....read exactly what I wrote. EXACTLY. Where did I defend him, back his play, or condemn him? All I said, and I paraphrase, "If this information is the deciding factor....." - the dot dot dot implies that a person has never really paid attention.

I'm just commenting on the attack angle of the SPLC, which is being lost in this conversation considering the person they attacked.

All in all, I just don't care, ....really..... about the 'forum war' or personality aspect of this. I don't know why I posted in the first place. People will believe what they believe, with or whithout facts. Fred O'Malley, White Nations, and VNNF doesn't reflect on me any more than slave owners, anti-white whites, or white zionests relect upon me.

Carry on.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

I should have said "could be judged" instead of "should be".


Never said that he shouldn't be, now did I? Once again, if that is the only reason (not that it wouldn't be enough on its own), then........

Phah!

I guess either I completely don't understand the exact circumstances of the 'outting', or people don't know how to read what was said, not what they thought was said. Plain as day to me.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Some see it that way, others don't. I just don't think that something from 26 years ago should be as relevant as people make it out to be. (because recent beliefs, actions, and behaviors is a much better way to judge a person compared to something a quarter century ago. You say people don't change? What were you like 26 years ago compared to now? Don't give me the 'people don't change arguement, because it it bullshit. People do change. They are shaped by their experiences. This does not mean that everyone changes, just that it does happen quite often, and because of such, a person's recent behavior should carry more weight in judging them than something a quarter century ago) I know several respected WN's that participated in disgusting behavior before they were awakened. Is it a piece of the puzzle, a lesser part of the whole as you described?



His past makes no difference to me. (And it doesn't, as my opinion is already formed from recent information)

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Earlier, I said "His past makes no difference to me."

The only reason that a person's past wouldn't matter to another person, is because their mind has already been made up about said person.

So, either my mind has been made up that Fred is ok in my book, and nothing will change my mind......or that I already believe him to be a shitbag of the worst order, and this revelation doesn't surprise me in the least (and supports his recent behavior that isn't a quarter century old).

Now, which one do you think more likely?

I know it's late on a Friday night, but I just couldn't resist the opportunity to 'conduct class' on critical thinking/reading.

So far, VNNF membership is failing miserably.

If anybody feels like re-taking the 'test', go back and read my posts in this thread. Read exactly what I said, how I said it, and what I didn't say now that you know my personal bias.

THIS is how the opposition manipulates the masses in the media, and each one of you bought it hook, line, and sinker because of your own predisposed position on the subject.

To defeat your enemy, you must first understand your enemy.

Originally Posted by varg

How very forgiving and christian of you. Something like rape and wife-beating is definitely relevant to who they are as a person and is a testament to their character. People don't really change much.
Well I didn't know you felt that way you weren't exactly clear with that point earlier on, nor when you joined the 'shitbags' forum.

I was a member there for about 15 minutes (I jest, but not by much), enough to speak my piece. An unregistered guest doesn't have the ability to post (unlike Stormfront), so the only way was to become a member, then ask to have the account deleted......or did that escape you as well?

Originally Posted by varg

Sure why not? The information was out there, I figure people should have a more detailed idea of who they're dealing with. Is there such a thing as providing too much information?

Linking a person's real name with their user name if it has never been done publicly, regardless if they are a member of this particular site or not, is the very definition of 'outting'.

Would it be appropriate for me to start digging into the backgrounds of each and every member, and publicly 'out' them by linking their usernames with public information? The answer there is no.

Like I said, I'm still a bit confused on the timeline of the whole 'outting' thing, and who linked his real name to his username first.

However, once his name is out there, doing a simple google search and posting the results can be relevant on a case by case. I don't think, however, that listing something that happened 26 years ago is relevant without providing substantial supporting evidence (recently) to link the behaviors. Just my .02

Originally Posted by varg

Like I said, it wasn't the SPLC that linked to the rape article, I did. The guy is white so it should be swept under the rug? I don't understand your initial disagreements to this thread. Mostly because you changed your tune and are trying to make it into something more complex now.

For me, it always was simple. Only others thought it was complex.

Originally Posted by varg

That's nice. What's it have to do with the content of the thread? Why'd you come out against us using information from the rape case ? Why is that a big deal?

Please show me where, exactly, in the above where I was against using information from the rape case?

What I am against is using information from 26 years ago as the sole basis in determining a person's character.

[M.N. Dalvez]

Keep the links, and make fools out of your accusers by proving it's not you but another man -- that's what an innocent man would do.

That's correct. But that's not what Fred has done.

And with the plain evidence from newspapers and court records being deleted by Fred and/or his administration, what do you conclude about Fred's guilt or innocence in this case?

Does that strike you as being the action of an innocent man, unjustly accused?

Or does that strike you as the action of an outed rapist madly scrambling to cover his guilt to the few people who post at his forum?

[M.N. Dalvez]

AA: stop it. Just stop it.

This thread is about the evidence that 'Fred O'Malley' is a convicted rapist and burglar, not about you using the opportunity to teach some kind of indeterminate lesson about ... what? and completely detracting from the original point of the thread in the process.

For goodness sake: IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. It's about the clear evidence that 'O'Malley' is a rapist.

You re-posting a screen full of your own posts earlier in this thread DOESN'T HELP. It is DETRACTING from the whole point of the thread.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by varg

Dalvez you can't reach Soldat. He's a dedicated Fredophile.

He left me this message



Now where did he get the idea that the information the SPLC had was only available to VNN admins? Because liar Fred posted it, and it must be true, right?

Soldat why don't you read the SPLC article and point out what on there would only be available to us. Tell us where you came up with that idea, other than just outright believing Fred. The only thing I see is his name, which I know from other people he had given it out, and that Angel had told me and other people it too when she was threatening to out him. From the SPLC article it sounds like Cobb provided his name anyway so it's a moot point, but Ferd would rather use it to his advantage and as an opportunity to lie about VNN.

The company name, state, city, address, etc are all shown on Google when you search his name. See for yourself. There is the photo, I'm not sure where they got it, but I have never seen that one (otherwise I would have used it in the past to mock him) I doubt Alex had seen it either.

So go to the SPLC article and tell us what information was only available to VNN admins you gullible dumb fuck.

I agree wholeheartedly with you here. It is amazing what a person can find on the internet when they start digging. If I can trace back information in the matter of an hour, what could an agency with real experts and a nearly unlimited budget do?

Like I said earlier, Fred put this target on his own back the moment he became the administrator of his own WN website. At this point, he became a voice for WN, and opened himself up to scrutiny.

It has happened time and time again to WN's who put themselves out there publicly, or put themselves in the lime-light.

[M.N. Dalvez]

Like I said earlier, Fred put this target on his own back the moment he became the administrator of his own WN website.

No. Fred put this target on his back, back then in the mid-80's when he entered that woman's private premises without her consent, and raped her.

It has happened time and time again to WN's who put themselves out there publicly, or put themselves in the lime-light.

No. He's not a WN. He's a degenerate piece of shit who's using the Movement to hide his own degeneracy, his own past crimes against OTHER WHITES.

Being a WN is not about what you say. It's much more about what you do. Surely you, with your large and healthy White family, and your general moral rectitude (as far as I can see), can tell that.

Or are we to call Martin Lindstedt a WN, too? Or Steven Akins?

[Soldatul Vostru]

Originally Posted by M.N. Dalvez

That's correct. But that's not what Fred has done.

And with the plain evidence from newspapers and court records being deleted by Fred and/or his administration, what do you conclude about Fred's guilt or innocence in this case?

Does that strike you as being the action of an innocent man, unjustly accused?

Or does that strike you as the action of an outed rapist madly scrambling to cover his guilt to the few people who post at his forum?

That strikes me as the action of an outed rapist madly scrambling to cover his guilt...

[M.N. Dalvez]

If I can trace back information in the matter of an hour, what could an agency with real experts and a nearly unlimited budget do?

So the argument is: the SPLC is necessarily better at doing research than people within the Movement (some of whom are professional writers and researchers)?

You're either giving them too much credit, or giving people within the Movement too little.

Is it really so much to go, hey, the SPLC missed this about Fred? And didn't include this information in their piece due to a simple omission, a lack of research on their part?

Apparently not.

[Soldatul Vostru]

Originally Posted by varg

Dalvez you can't reach Soldat. He's a dedicated Fredophile.

He left me this message



Now where did he get the idea that the information the SPLC had was only available to VNN admins? Because liar Fred posted it, and it must be true, right?

Soldat why don't you read the SPLC article and point out what on there would only be available to us. Tell us where you came up with that idea, other than just outright believing Fred. The only thing I see is his name, which I know from other people he had given it out, and that Angel had told me and other people it too when she was threatening to out him. From the SPLC article it sounds like Cobb provided his name anyway so it's a moot point, but Ferd would rather use it to his advantage and as an opportunity to lie about VNN.

The company name, state, city, address, etc are all shown on Google when you search his name. See for yourself to see how the SPLC could have all the information presented on that page. There is the photo, I'm not sure where they got it, but I have never seen that one (otherwise I would have used it in the past to mock him) I doubt Alex had seen it either.

So go to the SPLC article and tell us what information was only available to VNN admins you gullible dumb fuck.

Hey, Vaggie boy -- if you're going to falsely accuse me of being a 'faggot Fredophile' in a neg rep don't be surprised if I return the favor. Let the libels roll.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by M.N. Dalvez

So the argument is: the SPLC is necessarily better at doing research than people within the Movement (some of whom are professional writers and researchers)? You're either giving them too much credit, or giving people within the Movement too little.

Is it really so much to go, hey, the SPLC missed this about Fred? And didn't include this information in their piece due to a simple omission, a lack of research on their part?

Apparently not.

No, what I'm saying is relevant to how they got his real name, and linked it to his internet user name, not doing some simple search engine and court records checks on his real name once somebody provided it for you. Any fucking idiot can type a name into google and see what pops.

It takes a little information to begin with.....an email address, linking back to a photobucket account.....something to begin backtracking, looking for information.....and even that can be frustrating to do in a person's spare time.

Now think about the SPLC. They could dedicate an entire team to doing this, with a budget that can afford it. No matter what you say, it is much easier for them to do so than a private individual (in nearly all the cases with the rare exception).

That being said, I'm not surprised that the SPLC linked his real name and user name.

[varg]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Linking a person's real name with their user name if it has never been done publicly, regardless if they are a member of this particular site or not, is the very definition of 'outting'.

Would it be appropriate for me to start digging into the backgrounds of each and every member, and publicly 'out' them by linking their usernames with public information? The answer there is no.

Like I said, I'm still a bit confused on the timeline of the whole 'outting' thing, and who linked his real name to his username first.

The problem is you're going off without knowing the sequence of events. Here I'll catch you up to speed. Cobb did an interview with the SPLC. The article mentioned Fred's real name and information about him. Cobb is quoted as calling Fred by his real name in the interview. The article was reposted on a number of other sites who republish SPLC stuff, it was posted on VNN, and even posted on Fred's site and he kept it up. Fred then felt it necessary to spread lies and implicate us and accuse us of giving the information to the SPLC - which is bullshit . Alex posted earlier in the thread saying that us linking to the information isn't classified as outing anymore since it' was already made public by the SPLC. All I did was Google the name, found the rape newspaper article, looked up the court case and verified the names and birth dates matched. Then I posted the link in a different thread and said it was interesting.

However, once his name is out there, doing a simple google search and posting the results can be relevant on a case by case. I don't think, however, that listing something that happened 26 years ago is relevant without providing substantial supporting evidence (recently) to link the behaviors. Just my .02

I showed why I believe the person is the same one, and why the behavior matches.

What I am against is using information from 26 years ago as the sole basis in determining a person's character.

No one was, but this thread is specifically about the rape issue, as you can see from the title. There's tons of other posts documenting the other stuff too.

[Marcus]

Listen, Dalvez. As I've said before, it's essentially just a matter of conflicting accounts - "he said; they said." Sorry, but the accusations leveled against him I can only take at face value. The only thing I can really use in my assessment of O'Malley's character is his treatment of me personally, which has been satisfactory. On a very personal level, we do get along.

With that said, I acknowledge that everything said about him could be true as far as I know. And to put it very simply, I don't know. Yes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Terrible me.

People do repugnant things. People also change. At least, they should change. I think it's fair to say that no sentient being remains the same for any two consecutive moments, and one of the greatest things someone can do is to change; to acknowledge their faults and take measures to overcome them and ascend to a higher level of character. If someone took their punishment, did whatever was in their power to reform their ways, and genuinely attempted to change, then no, Dalvez, I don't think we should hold it against him. Certainly not after so very years.

This is coming from someone with no criminal record, I'll have you know; no real skeletons in his closet.

There it all is. Take it or leave it.

[Nigel Thornberry]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Listen, Dalvez. As I've said before, it's essentially just a matter of conflicting accounts - "he said; they said." Sorry, but the accusations leveled against him I can only take at face value. The only thing I can really use in my assessment of O'Malley's character is his treatment of me personally, which has been satisfactory. On a very personal level, we do get along.

To vindicate Ferd of this crime one must believe that either a) she wanted the dik violently or b) she abused herself and blamed it on Ferd.

What would be her gain in doing so? I don't see any kind of financial settlement in her favor. Just him going to jail, as the state (rightly) believed that he was/is a menace to society.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by varg

Cobb did an interview with the SPLC. The article mentioned Fred's real name and information about him. Cobb is quoted as calling Fred by his real name in the interview. The article was reposted on hundreds of blogs, on VNN, and even posted on Fred's site and he kept it up. Alex posted earlier in the thread that us linking to the information isn't classified as outing anymore since it' was already made public by the SPLC. All I did was Google the name, found the rape newspaper article, looked up the court case and verified it was the same person.
I showed why I believe the person is the same one, and why the behavior matches.

No one was, but this thread is specifically about that.

You just don't get what I'm saying, do you?

Yes, the evidence is adequate that it was him, IMO, by having the same full name and DOB per the court records, never said or even implied that it wasn't. Doing a google search on a name that is already publicly out there is no big flaming deal.

And neither is someting that happened 26 years ago without context.

Guess what. 26 years ago, I didn't like girls. Does that make me a fag like Georgie? Considering current information provides context to the relevancy of past experiences. How many times do I have to say it?

Judging character based from a singular incident that long ago is wreckless and intentionally dishonest or misleading. It is what organizations like the SPLC and the MSM do on a daily basis, or do you deny that fact?

Now, coupled with a continuing pattern of behavior, it does become relevant. If I still didn't really like girls to this day, then guess what? You could reasonbly point a finger at my history, and judge me a fag.

I know WN's that fucked gook whores in Vietnam. They miscegenated. Does that make them Anti-White now? It depends.......do they still get a woodie for slant eyes?

[Nigel Thornberry]

Originally Posted by Marcus

With that said, I acknowledge that everything said about him could be true as far as I know. And to put it very simply, I don't know. Yes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Terrible me.

A court and jury of his peers also felt the same way until the physical and verbal evidence came about. After that they concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Fred violently assaulted and raped this woman, twice. Terrible me, choosing the verdict of a court over some random internet user who likes Ferd for whatever reason.

People do repugnant things. People also change. At least, they should change. I think it's fair to say that no sentient being remains the same for any two consecutive moments, and one of the greatest things someone can do is to change; to acknowledge their faults and take measures to overcome them and ascend to a higher level of character. If someone took their punishment, did whatever was in their power to reform their ways, and genuinely attempted to change, then no, Dalvez, I don't think we should hold it against him. Certainly not after so very years.

This is literally the argument used by leftists and liberals when niggers do nigger things. Whites historically have meted out permanent justice to those who rape like Fred did. It was only because the justice system is Jewed and people started thinking that, despite the evidence to the contrary, people can change and become better people. New men.

This is not decided by some new age religious shit, that is decided by blood.

This is coming from someone with no criminal record, I'll have you know; no real skeletons in his closet.

And someone with little knowledge in jurisprudence.

[M.N. Dalvez]

Listen, Dalvez. As I've said before, it's essentially just a matter of conflicting accounts - "he said; they said." Sorry, but the accusations leveled against him I can only take at face value. The only thing I can really use in my assessment of O'Malley's character is his treatment of me personally, which has been satisfactory. On a very personal level, we do get along.

So, because Fred's been okay to you, you're willing to put the very substantial evidence against him to one side? Well, that's your choice. And it doesn't speak well of you at all.

As I said, Fred never did anything wrong to me personally, and I (to my own shame) chose to leave him alone even when he went all-the-way in spreading false rumours about people, lying ... you know, the full gamut of Fred behaviour.

But I can't, for one second, allow a convicted rapist to use the Movement to try to portray himself as respectable, allow a convicted rapist to hide his misdeeds behind the Movement.

Even if 'he never did anything to me personally'. I never have, and I never, never will.

Your reaction just shows that for you, it's about personalities, not principles.

The evidence isn't circumstantial.

In addition to the substantial evidence against him, there's also the fact that he and his admins have been instantly deleting the links provided in this very thread, seconds/minutes after they're posted on his forum. He doesn't want 'his loyalists' to know that THERE IS substantial evidence against him.

Why would he do that if it wasn't him? Why has he been so silent about this? And why have him and his admin team been so quick to jump on anyone posting the proof of his crimes at his forum?

The evidence is all there. You obviously don't want to pay attention to it, because 'Fred's been OK to me'.

Well, good for you. That's on your head. That only speaks ill of you.

[Mr A.Anderson]

I need a vacation. I don't know what possessed me to post in this thread in the first place.

[Nigel Thornberry]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

Judging character based from a singular incident that long ago is wreckless and intentionally dishonest or misleading. It is what organizations like the SPLC and the MSM do on a daily basis, or do you deny that fact?

No, raping someone, one of your own kin, carries its own context. That WN can blather on about the nature of niggers being irredeemable while on the same token claim that one of ours who is quite obviously defective and turns out to be a blood criminal to the race can 'change' and 'be redeemed' and that we're too hasty in our judgment is absolute nonsense. Fred raped a human being. What more context do you need?

What about the context of your wife being raped 30 years ago? Is he now redeemed? Is he no longer going to play 'hide the weenie' with Angel?

I bet the two of you think he is degenerate scum but want to give a pass to Ferd the rapist.

I know WN's that fucked gook whores in Vietnam. They miscegenated. Does that make them Anti-White now? It depends.......do they still get a woodie for slant eyes?

They are too impossible to redeem in the eyes of any sane man.