Hitler's Second Book

I've been reading Hitler's Second as of late, thanks to a certain tricksy kraut. This one's a doozy. Thankfully, it's about half as thick as Mein Kampf, though apparently it's not as popular as the original in Turkey. This book, found in an Army Archive in the 50s and apparently the real deal, lays out 'dolf's crazy plans for world domination. More importantly for me, it puts his philosophical cards on the table. After reading only the first two chapters, this was disturbing enough already.
Hitler's Philosophy is actually little more than commonly accepted ideas, even to-day. It's the implications that he draws from them that led to his murderous reign.
First, there's his Malthusian economics. This is common thought to-day, it's the idea of limited resources leading to a collapse of human civilisation or some kind of ecological disaster. Thomas Malthus created this idea when he noticed that human populations expand geometrically, agricultural stocks expand only arithmetically. According to Malthus, this would eventually lead to human populations out-stripping their food supply. Malthus defended a "lifeboat ethic" as a result, and believed it was necessary to kill off inferior populations to save one's own. Malthus was one of the principal architects of the Irish Potato famine that killed millions.
Hitler merely combines this with another modern idea- that civilisations are solely the product of races. This started with the kooky "racial sciences" back during the Victorian ages. His belief was that all races that do not continuously expand eventually reach the Malthusian breaking point where they don't have enough land to feed themselves. They then collapse. Hitler's quest for Lebensraum was merely acting on this principle.
For a subject which most believe is useless, it seems bad philosophy has drastic consequences for the world. Perhaps if more people were a bit more cautious about embracing bad philosophy, we'd have a less violent world.
At any rate, it's amusing to see two of Hitler's first principles are alive and well in contemporary thought. It shows that World War II didn't dislodge the poisonous thought which created him.

In other news, I'm ruminating on how much I hate Jerry Bruckheimer. First, we had to watch his post-modern 2-hour trailer "Armageddon." Then, his awful "CSI: Miami" engulfed his one decent creation on a special. Finally, the excrutiatingly silly "gone in sixty seconds" is on to-night. Memories of "Pearl Harbour" sneak into my consciousness too. This joker is the Bert I. Gordon of modern times.

And, as if it's any great surprise, here's how I'll probably vote in the upcoming UK General Election on 5 May from whoshouldyouvotefor.com.

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Conservative

Your actual outcome:

Labour -20
	Conservative 55
Liberal Democrat -58
	UK Independence Party 19
Green -38

You should vote: Conservative

The Conservative Party is strongly against joining the Euro and against greater use of taxation to fund public services. The party broadly supported the Iraq war and backs greater policing and ID cards. The Tories are against increasing the minimum wage above the rate of inflation, and have committed to abolishing university tuition fees. They support 'virtual vouchers' for private education.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For