Yes, you read that right. The Holocaust which Hitler carried out was the ultimate logical consequence of the altruist code of morality. Hitler consistently implemented the ideal of the altruistic moral doctrine in the only way that this "ideal" could be implemented. The difference between Hitler and, for example, Mother Theresa is merely that Hitler was a more consistent altruist than said lady was.
 
Let's first examine what altruism means in theory.
 
Altruism is the moral doctrine which says that every person must make sacrifices for the sake of others. This principle is concretized in the Bible. The Bible says that if you yourself are wearing a shirt, and you meet someone else out on a road who does not have any shirt – then you should give him yours. And subsequently go shirtless yourself.
 
This concrete example of altruism also makes concrete a fundamental self-contradiction of the altruist code of morality.
 
If you yourself are morally good when you give your own shirt to a shirtless man - is not this other man morally bad when he takes your shirt? He is guilty of being "selfish" when he accepts your shirt – is he not? If it is more blessed to give than to receive - is not the meaning of altruism then that you, when you try to be good by means of giving - sacrifice for the sake of someone else who, according to the altruist moral code itself, is instead evil? If and when he agrees to accept the sacrifice that you offer him?
 
Evidently it is therefore in the nature of the morality of altruism that said code of morality necessarily entails that those people who - according to this moral doctrine itself - are good - must sacrifice themselves for the sake of those people who - according to said moral doctrine itself - are by implication evil!
 
Wouldn't it be more consistent if everyone had to be "selfless"? And if no one was supposed to be "selfish"? That is, should not everyone have to sacrifice themselves, and no one received those sacrifices and thereby profited from them? In other words - would it not be better if everyone sacrificed and got hurt? And not a single blessed soul gained anything from the whole business?
 
Well, it was precisely this logical consequence of altruism that Hitler embraced! Hitler was an unusually consistent practitioner of altruism. He made sacrifices on a scale which in world history has only been surpassed by a couple of Communist dictators (namely Stalin and Mao) and an American bureaucrat, the former head of the EPA in the USA, William Ruckelshaus. [note 1]
 
Millions of innocent people lost their lives on the battlefields and in the concentration camps that Hitler caused. And no one profited from this devastation. Hitler himself? He ended his days with a humiliating and pathetic suicide. And those of his many followers who survived his world war then had to slave and toil for years to rebuild their wasted country.
 
And making sacrifices that no one benefited from was precisely Hitler's purpose! How else could one explain the creation of Auschwitz and the other death camps? Only a desire to destroy for the sake of destruction is enough to explain it all.
 
It was in reality extraordinarily expensive to build and run the concentration camps. The camps required tens of thousands of guards and other personnel. They required countless kilometers of barbed wire. They required hundreds of prison barracks and technologically advanced ovens, etc. The "income" from the death camps - in the form of, on average, a few meager grams of dental gold and a few meager hectograms of body fat per prisoner - could not have covered more than a tiny fraction of the costs of the death camps.
 
So - the death camps were not "profitable"! The death camps constituted a great big, enormous sacrifice - even for the Nazis themselves!
 
Bear in mind that during the last years of World War II, the Wehrmacht was being pushed back from the Soviet Union by the Red Army. The Wehrmacht was in desperate need of equipment and materials. Only rail transport could have transported to the Eastern Front the equipment and materials that the Nazi army desperately needed to deal with the enemy. But even though his own army was in dire need of all the rail transport it could get, Hitler prioritized having numerous trains transport Jewish prisoners to the concentration camps! Hitler felt that slaughtering the Jews was more important than conducting the war effectively. The old man betrayed his own soldiers for the sake of being able to slaughter Jews! The death of the Jews was really of enormous importance to Hitler!
 
Why did Hitler make such a sick priority? It was obviously not rational - except according to the perverted logic of altruism, that is. For - the extinguishing of an innocent human life is the greatest sacrifice that is possible for us human beings. Hitler wanted to exterminate the lives of millions of innocent Jews because he really wanted to bring into existence as much sacrifice as he possibly could. The Holocaust was all about making the ideal of the altruistic morality (i.e. the “ideal” which was sacrifice) a reality in the world in which we live!
 
Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Whenever someone tries to translate into reality a self-contradictory theory - like the altruistic morality - then the self-contradiction must necessarily be canceled out. I.e. in the case of altruism, the "selfish" component of said moral code must necessarily be removed – just like a kind of superfluous appendix. Logic demands it. The element of "benefiting others" in the moral code must disappear so that only the other element, the "sacrifice of oneself", remains. Only renunciation for the sake of renunciation remains in the end - when someone tries to apply the morality of altruism with true consistency!
 
So: If humanity wants to avoid being saddled with still more equivalents of Hitler in the future - and if it wants to survive at all - it must reject the moral code of altruism all the way. Humanity must instead learn to embrace the ethics which says that it is each man's own life that constitutes his own end-in-itself. And which adds that sacrifice is never a legitimate goal at all - but is on the contrary always - and in all forms - a vicious evil!
 
[note 1] Ruckelshaus´ monstrous moral crime was that he condemned more than 200 million innocent human beings to death by malaria. He did that when - in 1971 he, as head of the EPA - made the fateful decision to legally ban the continued use of DDT to fight the mosquitos which carried the malaria parasite. Since Ruckelshaus was responsible for the deaths by malaria of more than 200 million innocent human beings around the globe - he was a still greater mass murderer than Hitler, Stalin and even Mao Zedong!