fschmidt #fundie

fschmidt #fundie love-shy.com

The Apartheid analogy is wrong. Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population. Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation. I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos. But Liberalism has no interest in separation of any kind. Liberalism is designed for the complete elimination of decent and intelligent people, giving us a pure Idiocracy.

There are some differences between Nazism and Liberalism. Nazism, coming from Germany, was more efficient and aimed for rapid extermination, while Liberal extermination is a slower process. This is why we have no death camps. Also, Nazism was intentional, the Germans being fairly intelligent people, while Liberalism is unintentional, since Liberals are fools. Liberals do not consciously want to eliminate anyone, but they are repulsed by decent people and, through Feminism, they have unintentionally managed to create a system that is highly effective at genetically eliminating decent people. And this is why all of you incels are here.

59 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

South Africa: Those not White treated as second-class citizens. In every way.

fschit's 'Gor'-esque mind: Those without a 'Y' chromosome treated as second-class citizens In every way.

...nope, not seeing how sexism isn't an analogy equal with racism, fschit. Least of all how - in Australia - leader of the Labour Party [i]and[/i] Prime Minister Julia Gillard won her leadership battle against her rival Kevin Rudd in a 2/3rds majority vote.

Rudd resigned.

And there's me thinking that Australia was filled with sexists...? Well, I guess that liberal thinking annihilates stereotypes. Good.

PROTIP: In Australia, 'Liberal Democrats' are as right-wing as the Teabaggers in the US.

'Advance Australia Fair' indeed.

Here in the UK, Labour (who I vote for): centre left. Conservative: centre right. Liberal Democrat: 'middle of the road'. Geo-politically, and therefore educationally & intellectually inferior much, fshit? Ergo, misogyny is dying. Q.E. and D., bitch. Deal with it.

old comment by Thinking Allowed

I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos.

I don't think fschmidt knows what the definition of ghetto is.

ghetto [get-oh]
noun, plural ghet·tos, ghet·toes.

1.a section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships.

2.(formerly, in most European countries) a section of a city in which all Jews were required to live.
3. a section predominantly inhabited by Jews.

4.any mode of living, working, etc., that results from stereotyping or biased treatment: job ghettos for women; ghettos for the elderly.

old comment by D Laurier

"The Apartheid analogy is wrong. Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population."
WRONG.
Neither Nazism nor Liberalism were designed to do any such thing.
Nazism was designed to appeal to a poorly educated public. Liberalism was designed to reflect the virtues of a well educated public.

"Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation."
WRONG.
Nazism and apartheid both aim to preserve the privlege of a group who claim to be a superior "race", chosen by a god name Gott. They both rely on violence to enforce their notions of "race" since reality doesnt support them.
Liberalism points out the sheer absurdity of the idea of "race".

old comment by rebel

Actually, I too, would like to separate intellectuals and rational people from the idiots who wish to stamp on others' rights. It would be very amusing to watch them rip each other to shreds.

@Anon e moose, being an Australian and a woman, I wanted Rudd to win.
Not being sexist, but she basically stole his job without a vote from the Australian (public) people. At least none I was aware of. Plus I'm not keen on the carbon tax being as high as it is. Though, I digress, I don't know anything about politics.
I would love to see a woman PM someday, but one elected by the people of Australia.

Now the choice is between ultra conservative Abbot from the Liberal party (blech!) and Gillard from the Labour party, who has lost the trust of the people. I worry for our next election.

My vote is for the Sex Party.

Yes, we have a political party called the Sex party.

old comment by

Attention everyone bashing the love-shy guys! Here is some reading material for you:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2736399/posts

Yes, I know it's free republic but that is actually the top link when I google "married by 40"- pretty much every other link from every forum liberal or conservative expresses exactly the same disgusting opinion. Now do you idiots begin to understand why someone (male or female) over 40 who has never had a relationship might be just a teensy weensy bit pissed off? Because he or she is powerless. No matter how well they follow all your helpful advice "just ask someone out!", no matter how well they overcome any personality flaws they may have, no matter what they do in life, it will never be enough. No one ever told them there was a sell by date when it comes to love but apparently their is. Our fucked up society believes in giving murderers a second chance but not people who were late to the dating game.