Adolf Hitler's Assumptions

pcblues.com


I am currently reading Mein Kampf, which was written while Hitler was in jail in 1925 after a failed coup attempt. I am about half way through and am struck by his rhetoric and logic. Hanging on his initial assumptions, the logic plays through. So the assumptions must be inspected. This is especially so considering the way Australian policy is being shaped, and it makes me wonder if a few people in power have read this book closely.

* His love for his country over every other nation.
He does not consider any person of any other nationality deserves to be treated as human while his nation is in a life and death battle for survival and supremacy.

* His hatred for weak politicians
He blames vacillating politicians for the current state of his nation.

* His blame for the economic woes of his country on international capital
He is an early anti-globalisation protestor and believer in maintaining his own nation's production capacities.

* His blame for the state of the nation on an uncontrolled media
He believed that state-controlled media would be key in strengthening the country.

* His blame of the country's syphilis epidemic on it's leadership
He believed direct and decisive action was required to deal with the problem.

* His hatred of communism.
He stood strongly against Marxism, and trade unionism too, until he saw that unionists consisted of the workers that he needed to restore his nation.

* His blame for all of the above firmly at the feet of Jews.
The extra step of picking a race as an enemy fulfilled his own advice that in order to succeed in politics, the people must be shown to have a single enemy. This is realpolitik at it's most coldly calculating and appeals to deep biological desires for identity, protection, and feeling close by beating someone up together. I can't tell if it was his personal opinion or not. It seemed to be.

Nearly all of his policies were underpinned by his prejudice, his consideration of history and current events, his belief that people not of his nationality do not deserve humanity, that his own people were in a life and death struggle to survive, that because of this no recourse to morality was required, and that the only way to survive was to destroy his nation's perceived enemies and the weak, and to nurture his own nation's strong.

It is interesting to now consider the whole world as a single nation, and see how his policies play out. If a person is working against one's own interests, is it wise to consider them a friend or to hold out the hand of friendship? One would think maybe that "one world" will only work if everyone thinks they are on the same team - otherwise, you must protect yourself from the enemy. But who is the enemy? And, if no-one takes the first step of peace, how does it happen?

Australia Day has just passed with dickheads being racist while waving an Australian flag. That isn't patriotism, it's plain old prejudice and it's very old.  Top blokes and sheilas come in all colours and races, and so do dickheads. Dickheads are the enemy of humanity. How do you identify a dickhead? What should be the standard? Compare their behaviour to the charter of human rights. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like someone, just not be prejudiced against them based on anything but their own behaviour. Let's run the dickheads out of our country (and off our planet if possible) and not take the easy route of ganging up on groups of easily identifiable people.