Happy International Nazis Day

Today is March 8th, 1940. Germany and several other annexed countries are celebrating the sixth annual International Nazi Day. This tradition started in 1934, a year after the Nazi party won the popular vote in Germany. Since then, many nations had been invited to join the great German reich and decided to embrace the positive force for change that is Nazism.

They had found themselves a common enemy. That powerful enemy was the Jewriarchy, a system designed by Jews for Jews to keep the Nazis and their allies under control. For thousands of years, Nazis had been oppressed by the Jewriarchy. Fortunately, things have been changing in the recent years. Prominent Nazi theorists rose up to denounce the Jews and their privilege and, soon enough, they secured important positions in academia and were able to educate students about jewish privilege in classes called Aryan studies. Many people got Aryan studies degrees, amongst them a sizeable minority of Jews, who recognised their own privilege and wanted  to use it to help fight the Jewriarchy.

Meanwhile, the majority of Jews did not really care about the rise of Nazism. Most accepted the idea that Nazism was about achieving equality between the Jews and the Nazis. It was common to hear that “nobody is against equality, so why aren’t you a Nazi?” In fact, even the dictionary definition of Nazism said that it was about equality. Dissenting voices were few and far between.

Some did challenge the theories of Nazi academics, claming that the studies they produced weren’t supported by credible evidence and that they were the product of an echo chamber. These people were dismissed without much thought, because they didn’t know what it was like to be oppressed. A few Nazis started to speak up against the academic establishment but soon enough, new studies were produced proving that these people had “internalised naziphobia” and that, while their arguments should be dismissed out of hand, they should be treated with empathy and re-educated on the problems that Nazis face in a jewriarchal society.

Jews wore that with pride and confidence

International Nazis Day was established to underline the issues faced by Nazis. While it was true that Nazis got the right to vote, the right to work and the right to own property several decades ago, Nazi activists and academics still pushed the idea that there were glaring inequalities that had to be solved. A common complaint was that there was a confidence gap between the Nazis and the Jews. The latter paraded around with the Jewish star sewed on their shirt, as if they felt compelled to prove their jewrinity to the world around them. Most Nazi academics called this behaviour “toxic jewrinity”.

To counter this phenomenon, major German cities had an annual event called the Aryan walk. During this event, Nazis drew Swastikas and wrote “proud Nazi” on their bare chest and walked in the streets shouting empowering slogans. As famous Nazi academic Robina Morganwitz said: “I feel that jew-hating is a honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them”. This sentiment fuelled their enthusiasm and they strutted foward like peacocks while Jews were looking at them in utter bewilderment.

This was a good start, but most people felt that this was not enough to stop the Jewriarchy’s oppression of the Nazis. How do you undo millennia of ongoing oppression? Academics pondered this question and came up with something perfect. Reducing the Jewish population to a mere 10% of the total population. Surely, such a tiny minority wouldn’t be able to oppress other people! One problem remained: how would the Nazis achieve such a herculean task?

The answer was so evident, it seemed foolish that no one had thought about it before. In 1934, an article was published in the newspaper Der Stürmer. Nazi academic Julia Bindelweiss, when asked if the Jewriarchy would survive Nazis’ liberation, responded: “It won’t, not unless Jews get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I would actually put them in some kind of camp”. Later, these camps would be known as concentration camps. Nobody really knew what was going on in these camps but everybody believed that they were helping in achieving equality.

Things went well for a while. Jews were steadily moved to a growing number of camps. Some even went willingly, especially those who had gotten Aryan studies degrees previously. They walked in with a smug demeanour, looking down at the others Jews because they hadn’t given up their privilege willingly, like them. The governement soon requested that studies be produced to check if the concentration camps were still helping the Nazis achieve equality. What academics discovered caused uproar of a magnitude never seen before.

Jewish guests and Nazi hosts were fed daily rations of food. Studies found out that Nazis only recieved 77% of the ration that the Jews recieved. Naturally, there was an outrage in the media and people demanded that the “rations gap” be closed at once. It was decided that Nazi hosts would recieve 23% more food than the Jewish guests. The extra food was to be taken from the Jews’ rations. This idea originated from Der Stürmer’s columnist Jessika Valenten who wrote an article titled “A radical fix to the camps’ rations gap: why not feed Jews less?” She was roundly congratulated for her progressive idea by the Nazi leadership.

Some people were sceptical of the ration gap. Jews who hadn’t yet been moved to a camp were claming that there was a simple explanation for the so-called ration gap and that it wasn’t oppression, like Nazi academics had claimed. They said it was surprising that the gap was only 23% because the Jews vastly outnumbered their Nazis hosts in concentration camps. According to them, Nazis in aggregate ate 77% of the total amount of food while Jews in aggregate ate only at 23% of it. In fact, feeding Jews even less would mean that they would be starving to death. The Nazis didn’t care. After all, what did Jews knew about oppression?

Today is March 8th, 1940. Abraham was busy filling a hole he had dug yesterday. This wasn’t a useless exercise, he was told. It was designed to supress any toxic jewrinity that may remain in him. Abraham was a good-hearted man so he accomplished his task without complaining. He believed in equality and if digging and filling holes helped achieve equality, he was glad to do it. At around 11 am, when the sun was starting to burn his neck, Abraham looked up and saw one of the Nazi host walking towards him. When he got close, he looked down at him with slight disgust, but with the look of entitlement in his eyes.

“Happy Nazis day”, said Abraham.

Without responding, the Nazi walked away with a crooked smile on his face.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Trudeau’s cabinet discriminatory on the grounds of sex?

The new Canadian Prime Minister made the vow to achieve gender equality in his cabinet. And achieve gender equality he did. Half of the 30 ministers are women and a lot of them are visible minorities, which in Canada means that even though you might be a part of a small struggling community of Russian men, you don’t count as a minority group because your skin is the wrong colour. However, that’s a whole other topic that merits its own article.

The obvious problem with having gender quotas is that they most likely create discrimination against the dominant group, in this instance, men, for no other reason than them being born with the wrong genitalia. I’m not one to believe that two wrongs make a right so I’m not quite sure why Trudeau and his followers think that you can solve alleged discrimination by creating actual discrimination. It seems to me that the way to eliminate discrimination is to enforce a strict meritocracy and if that results in a cabinet full of white men or full of black women or whatever, so be it. What matters is that they got the job because they were qualified, not because of a birth accident. Furthermore, if I were a woman, I couldn’t help myself but wonder if I became a minister because of my qualifications or because of what I have between my legs. Frankly, if I found out that the reason was the latter, I would be deeply insulted. Such is the paradox of women’s quotas: to empower women, you have to tacitly admit that women are not good enough to rise up by themselves so they need a little boost from the establishment. Who, other than a feminist, would be misogynistic enough to believe that about women?

Quotas do not lead to equality

The worst thing about quotas is that they aren’t applied equally throughout society. For example, there is a severe lack of male teachers and nurses but never do these equality advocates demand quotas in favour of men. Also, when it comes to jobs that aren’t so safe, well paid and prestigious as politician or CEO, like waste collectors (we call them garbagemen for a reason), lumberjacks, sewer workers and long distance truckers, to name a few, they are somehow perfectly content with having only an infinitely small minority of women doing these jobs. It’s usually at that point that the following argument comes up: women don’t want these jobs! I’m sure they don’t want them and I bet most men don’t want them either. The reality is, they still have to be done and if women are so keen on participating equally to society, they’ll have to pull their fair share of the weight there too. Instead, we’re running down a path where it would possible for a woman who has never picked up garbage once in her life to become the administrator of a public waste collecting company through gender quotas discrimination and essentially be given authority over men who are more qualified than her, simply because she has a vagina. Not only is this unfair, it is also utterly idiotic and yet, it’s where so-called progress is leading us.

Women are overly represented in the cabinet

On October 19, the Liberal Party won 184 seats and 30 of these elected MPs have been selected to become minister. Of these, only 50 are held by female MPs. It means that women represent a mere 26% of the elected MPs. Why then do they get 50% representation in the cabinet? Here’s another way to look at it. If you’re a female MP in Trudeau’s party, you had 30% chance of becoming a minister, while your male colleagues only had 11% chance, for no other reason than pure discrimination. Talk about male privilege!

One might argue that it is only fair that women represent 50% of the cabinet members since they represent half of the population. This argument doesn’t hold water. Ministers do not represent the population, the elected members of Parliament do. Women consistently participate in the democratic process at a higher rate than men and there are no systemic barriers preventing women from running for election, which is evidenced by the fact that there are plenty of women running for elections and that there has even been a female Prime Minister, Mrs. Kim Campbell (a sexist system wouldn’t allow that to happen, just like the KKK wouldn’t accidentally elect a black man as Grand Wizard). Despite having all the same opportunities as men, women only manage to get themselves a representation of 50 MPs in the ruling party and 88 in total in the House of Commons, which incidentally also represents 26% of all the elected MPs. This is not an attack against women. It has been well established by now that women in aggregate tend to make different career choices than men to more easily accommodate a family life. As someone whose grandfather used to be an MP, I can attest that the lifestyle of a politician is hard to conciliate with a family, because you’re always away from home and most women don’t want that. The point is, the low female representation is well explained by individual choices rooted in biology, not by systemic discrimination.

Conclusion

As with many things, it all comes down to equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. Justin Trudeau’s progressive policies are an example of the latter. The scariest thing is not the rampant discrimination against men but the erosion of meritocracy in Canada’s uppermost ruling body. Harper and the conservatives in general might have their flaws, but at least they didn’t play the identity politics game the Liberals are playing – and winning at the moment. As the Sweden of North America, Canada is used to general silliness and feminist dogma in the political establishment but I fear that the reign of Trudeau as PM will destroy what little remains of Canadian pride and respect on the international scene.