An artistic genius!

[MishaK]

Genius's throughout history are individual(s) that do shape or have major impacts within the areas they excel in, and often the world itself. Even while Hitler was in power, he had to get there, it wasn't a random event, his charisma, orator abilities, insight, creativity, willpower, ability to convince, construct & lead, his strategy & deception ("the bigger the lie, the easier the sell") - all of these things & more are tied to intelligence, it takes brainpower to put it all together and it's not an easy feat - and he turned things around tremendously eventually going off the deep end.

Sorry, that still is nonsense. As the discussion between Florestan, Scarpia and drogulus shows, Hitler is a product of his time. He did not singlehandedly create Nazism. He rode an existing wave ti power. Yes, he wrote an unreadable tome but it said nothing new that wasn't already part of right wing culture at the time. He was merely the idiot who was in the (for him) right place at the right time. Apart from some charisma (which was carefully stage-managed and controlled by Goebbels and his other handlers) he was a thoroughly unexceptional human being. In fact, it did not take 'intelligence and brainpower' to accomplish what Hitler did. It took a) the disciplined Prussian state bureaucracy and b) a grandiose amount of imbecility to first orchestrate the comeback of the German armed forces and then to squander each and every technological and strategic advantage it had, both in record time. That's not genius, that's idiocy. A true genius in Hitler's position would have been a truly scary prospect indeed! History would have been quite different.

Another fallacy is that genius has to be there & detected in the very beginning and at all stages of life. In fact, genius can bloom later or at any point in life too, and there can be fleeting moments of it, leaving it's mark. In music for instance you have Mozart (early) & Wagner (late).

You're not really disproving my point. Whether or not genius is manifested early or late in life in the form of published works is irrelevant. Genius is genius in terms of intellectual aptitude from birth. It is not acquired late in life by divine inspiration or lightning strike. Wagner's talent, too, was evident early on, even if he wasn't shipped around Europe as a Wunderkind in early age. 

Anyway, at least there is agreement on the point made earlier that genius is not reserved to only 'good' people.

That's because it was a straw man all along.

[Florestan]

           A Catholic monarchist might want to associate the Nazis with democracy and the French Revolution. This amounts to treating all developments contrary to your wishes as leading to the worst outcome, even if these tendencies are at war with each other. But I will say that the liberality of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in relative terms, is not a myth. However, the suitability of monarchism and Christianity for each other, while no doubt true, doesn't convince me that they are together suitable for human beings who have left absolutism behind. We won't go back.

I take this as a reply to my mentioning Kuehnelt-Leddihn arguing that the roots of Nazism can be traced back to Luther (who was one of the most ferocious anti-semites ever --- actually, Hitler's treatment of Jews followed almost exactly Luther's prescriptions on the matter).

I must confess that I'm greatly puzzled by the absolute irrelevance of your commentary in respect to this. What's your point again?

[MishaK]

I take this as a reply to my mentioning Kuehnelt-Leddihn arguing that the roots of Nazism can be traced back to Luther (who was one of the most ferocious anti-semites ever --- actually, Hitler's treatment of Jews followed almost exactly Luther's prescriptions on the matter).

I must confess that I'm greatly puzzled by the absolute irrelevance of your commentary in respect to this. What's your point again?

His point is that it's a stretch to attribute the rise of Nazism to Luther, his antisemitism notwithstanding. Ideas don't have *one* single inevitable way of developing, so you can't just associate things wily-nilly. Nazism was a peculiar concoction of its time which borrowed from many sources, most of which probably would not have condoned Nazism's ultimate manifestation, be they Luther, Wagner, George or whoever.

[MishaK]

Accomplishment is a vital component - the theory of a person who is born with a high intellectual aptitude (a narrow understanding of what the subject of genius is, btw) but never does anything with it is truly irrelevant, it has to bloom at some point, via an extraordinary achievement to be utterly recognized.

Whether or not genius is recognized does not matter. A genius is no less a genius for not sharing the fruits of his genius with the outside world. You are simply wrong about your conception of the term. You are of course entitled to your own definitions, but then don't act all surprised and annoyed when others like Scarpia try to correct you. Genius is a term for intellectual aptitude, not actual achievement.

There have been hordes of fast learning so-called highly intelligent kid prodigies & savant-types that never amount to anything or do anything of great significance or mastery in any area or branch of human activity.

Savants are not geniuses. That's why there are two different terms. Savants have only limited functionality. Whether or not a prodigy burns out psychologically does nothing to affect the question of that person's intellectual genius. Sorry, you are simply exposing an ignorance of the term 'genius' and are simply not precise about your use of language.

The point that genius can bloom or flower at any stage in life (thru life’s work) is a valid, very real and relevant point. If Wagner never realized his later imaginings you could not call him a genius, even if it’s theorized that he always had it since birth. Again, one unifying thing - Genius’s are those that often leave a significant mark on the world and humanity, and there are of course varying degrees & shades of that.

Sorry, but it isn't. See above. Whether or not a genius is manifested in public works is irrelevant to the concept of genius.

We are all products of our time. Not everyone however, forever changes the course of the planet & human history.

Yes, but it doesn't take a genius to do it. Gavrilo Princip changed history and he wasn't a genius.

With regards to Hitler, he was supremely gifted at the game of politics and at the task he faced of building up that kind of power, and a talented orator. An absolute master of his own domain. Absolutely & overwhelmingly married & driven to his mission (the salvation of Germany), especially after his experiences in the military where he was awarded. And in just 10 years he made a personal radical transformation from virtual homeless outsider to one of the most powerful men in modern history. He became the chancellor of Germany as the head of a coalition government. In his journey to power, Hitler never manipulated a party and organization that was already in place, he created his from nothing.

Sorry. Wrong. From wiki:

On January 5, 1919, the party that eventually became the Nazi Party was founded under the name German Workers' Party (DAP) by Anton Drexler, along with six other members.[22][23] German intelligence authorities sent Hitler, a corporal at the time, to investigate the German Workers’ Party. As a result, party members invited him to join after he impressed them with the speaking ability he displayed while arguing with party members. Hitler joined the party in September 1919, and he became the propaganda boss.[23][24] The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party on February 24, 1920,[23] against Hitler’s choice of Social Revolutionary Party.[25][26] Hitler ousted Drexler and became the party leader on July 29, 1921.[23][26]

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And even that party which was only founded in 1919 rode an existing wave of anti-semitism, romantic nationalism, and hurt feelings that started in the 19th century and were augmented by the loss of WWI.

PS: While Hitler did receive two medals for his service in WWI, note that his superiors found him 'lacking in leadership' and denied him promotion to officer rank. Certainly not the universally recognized 'genius' you make him out to be. I am starting to share Scarpia's bewilderment at your admiration for the man.... Point is, the movement was there. Hitler didn't create it. If it hadn't been for him, someone else would have filled the void. Also, don't forget that in the early days of Nazism Hitler was copying Mussolini, who had employed many of those tactics and methods earlier than Hitler. E.g. the Munich Putsch was meant to emulate Mussolini's March on Rome. Finally, keep in mind that the Nazi party floundered and was temporarily outlawed until 1925 when Goebbels joined. He was indeed the real genius here, the one who was a master at manipulating people and organizing the masses. Without him Hitler would have remained the ineffective beer hall orator that he was.

Spellbound by his oratory many joined the fledgling party, and in less than a year he made it his own, using all of his artistic skills to also create the parties image, putting his own bitterness into the parties ideology. Many underestimated him, he used his cunning & manipulation to ultimately gain his ends. Germany's conservatives initially believed that once Hitler was in power they'd be able to control him - they were dead wrong. He was a populist politician with a lot to prove, he didn't want to be just another conservative he wanted to be something radically different, and within 2 or 3 years of course, he demonstrated to the conservatives that they would profit a great deal from reading Mein Kump. A book, outlining his vision - that tells us a great deal about his geo-politics & his racism, but also his view of human nature, of political process, and his view of what makes societies work and how they hold together. And the general world view that he sketches there dominates his thinking right through to the 2nd World War. At the core of Hitler's power lie his ability to speak, his oratory connected him to the people and touched their emotions, his ability to project & read a room before he spoke. Speeches which seemed so spontaneous but were in fact carefully calculated and utterly convincing (making him always more popular & separate than the party itself), and his ability afterward to recall (many have said he had a phenomenal memory), to ratonalize, the effect on the crowd what each word & statement had had and to later edit & construct what was needed next time, what should be left out etc. All of these things are governed by the mind & intelligence. Not just any average or ordinary person who happens to be there at the right time, right place could pull all of this off.

It's called "Mein Kampf" = my fight/battle. "Kump" doesn't mean squat in German.

[MishaK]

If it is not recognized/applied in some area/field/branch of accomplishment in the real world it's simply irrelevant. Even Scarpia illustrated the point earlier in part of one of his posts rather well - that it's more about (defined as) accomplishment than some narrow idea of aptitude measurement (which doesnt amount or even mean too much). Here...

And understanding genius is obviously so much more than a mere definition (this is true, and a simple point I was making earlier), it is a deep, mysterious (yes) & complex subject entailing a lot, it can't be rigidly defined (and isn't - we're still learning more about it). You have look into a lot of things & also examine geniuses who accomplish, including evil ones. There can be common characteristics and traits, some of them being things I've mentioned earlier & many others. Lots else goes into genius. A definition is just a starting point, but there is a lot more to the subject obviously. (I'm not an authority on it either, but I do know it's a vast thing, based on things I have learned about it) But it's also common sense that you can't know much about something from only it's definition, gotta dig deeper.

Of course there is always more to any subject than the mere definition. But that is no excuse to butcher the definition. Yes, history doesn't much care for geniuses who work in secret and who don't manifest their intelligence to the outside world. That does not mean that they aren't geniuses. Changing the course of history simply isn't part of the concept. You can complain as much as you want about it.

I'll give you an example. In 2003, Grigory Perelman proved the notoriously difficult Poincaré Conjecture, a math conundrum that had plagued mathematicians for over a century. Perelman was a recluse who lived with his mother and wanted none of the fame and money that came with his discovery and quickly disappeared into the obscurity from which he came. *Whether or not he had ever bothered to share his proof of the Poincaré Conjecture with the rest of the world* this man is a genius, by every generally accepted definition or conception of the term. He has both the intellectual aptitude and the self-discipline and maturity to apply it to solve complex problems at a speed and with a level of understanding way beyond that of even well trained above average individuals.

You are welcome to have your own private definition of genius that requires history-changing effects, but that's simply not what the concept is and what the word means.

And I never said savant or prodigies are geniuses (I was trying to highlight the opposite), they are often confused as ones because they show the (narrow) criteria of 'intellectual aptitude' strongly from very early on, but the vast majority don't amount to much and aren't (or wouldn't be) defined as geniuses. With regards to prodigies & fast learning kids, sometimes this does have to do with environmental, psychological and social pressures that can nurture or completely destroy 'that potential' to accomplish great things. The complex mixture of these factors and how an individual deals with them also play a role in genius, and making it grow (for the better or worse, or even good/evil).

Almost correct. The highlighted part is close, but I have to disagree with a few things. Yes, prodigies are often confused for geniuses. But the problem is not that they don't grow up to be people who change history. The problem is that we don't have very good metrics for distinguishing prodigies from real geniuses. Genius requires a level of emotional maturity and tenacity or perseverance that is difficult to measure at an early age. So mere intellectual aptitude and ability to learn in and of itself isn't an adequate measure of genius. But that emotional intelligence and perseverance take some time to become evident. In other cases, kids with genius potential are destroyed by overzealous parenting and become emotional wrecks before they can learn how to apply their intellectual superiority. It's not cut and dry. There are a lot of variables in motion during childhood that can cause the individual to go either way.

Savants I don't think are ever confused for geniuses, at least not by medical professionals. Savants have one peculiar extraordinary ability, but beyond that are either painfully normal or indeed mentally retarded, in most cases autistic. While that special ability - say, photographic memory - might be impressive, nobody would really confuse that for genius.

And with regards to the complicated & contraversial subject of Hitler, always a highly debatable example of genius residing in an evil person, some say he was - some simply refuse to - I've seen it time and time again. You didn't absorb much of what I said there, glossing over lots. And your wiki scribble and other points there don't prove or say much, obviously nothing is formed in a vacuum but he did create the party from next to nothing and made it his own etc. - bottomline is that he ultimately achieved his ends (coming from a virtually rootless background - using many of the facilities I mentioned & others). I'll rely on the more credible sources/authorities/scholars and my own learned experiences on these subjects to draw conclusions than folks here or wikipedia (no offence) - and AGAIN since we're discussing genius that resides in evil people, he being a 'possible' example & because I state basic things about him (accumulated) doesn't mean I admire him.

James, you're once again exhibiting the intellectual dishonesty that you showed on the 9-11 thread: you simply disregard evidence that contradicts you and declare it irrelevant, yet you don't provide any of your allegedly more reliable sources for us to scrutinize.

Hitler neither created the Nazi party nor was he the main architect of its success. This is borne out by the fact that neither nationalism, anti-semitism nor the "Dolchstosslegende" were Hitler's ideas and all pre-existed Hitler's rise to political prominence; it is further borne out by the facts that Hitler did not found the Nazi party, imitated Mussolini, and was completely ineffective to the point of being outlawed until Goebbels joined the posse. Goebbels was the evil genius, not Hitler. Goebbels choreographed Hitler's mesmerizing public rallies and speeches. Credit where credit is due: this simply wasn't Hitler's work alone. Hitler was an unimpressive personality, Get over it. Without the stage management and choreography of Goebbels and Riefenstahl nobody would have found him impressive. They are the geniuses, not Hitler.

And no, Hitler most certainly did *not* "achieve his ends". He neither resurrected the German Reich, nor did he exterminate the European Jewry, nor did he manage to conquer the new Lebensraum for the German people. Across the board he failed colossally on each and every one of his central agenda items, not to mention causing the total devastation and dismemberment of his country. How can you even write such nonsense with a straight face?

PS: Nobody ever argued that genius cannot be evil. That is not controversial at all. BTW, people aren't a priori evil or good either.

PPS: you can rip wiki as much as you want. But have the decency to note that they actually cite their sources, all of which are highly reputable and corroborated by first hand data. Are you still arguing Hitler created the Nazi party and did not take over a pre-existing party founded by others? Because this is a simple matter of fact, easily confirmed, you know?

[Scarpia]

If it is not recognized/applied in some area/field/branch of accomplishment in the real world it's simply irrelevant. Even Scarpia illustrated the point earlier in part of one of his posts rather well - that it's more about (defined as) accomplishment than some narrow idea of aptitude measurement (which doesnt amount or even mean too much). Here...

You are interpreting my point in a way I did not intend.  I said I would not call someone a genius for scoring well on an exam.   If Einstein had invented the theory of relativity and not told anyone about it, or if his paper had been rejected and never published, I think he would be considered just as much a genius, although we would not know it.  On the other hand, if someone had Einstein's brain but used it only to humiliate his friends at games of tic-tac-toe, I don't think I would call that person a genius.  I consider intelligence and creativity important, practical success or influencing history are not relevant.

[MishaK]

It is a very real part of the concept sorry, this idea is not something I'm making up or butchering - it's accepted as being part of it.

OK, then let's stop beating about the bush. Please provide a source that specifically states that this is part of the concept. If it's true, that should be easy for you. If you're finding it hard to do, maybe you should consider revising your position.

Emotional intelligence, drive, discipline - glad you alluded to these things

I didn't 'allude', I explicitly stated it. You really do have trouble with the meanings of words.

There was a time when savants were - and some people still are confused by it.

...

Some of them felt he was a "great man" at the time, even when first witnessing him speak in the earlier days....those around him were spellbound by him and so were the common people.

You know what these two statements have in common? They are both based on a mistake of perception. People mistook savants for geniuses and others mistook Hitler for a great man. Yet, in the former case you agree that savants are not geniuses, while in the latter case you take mesmerized sheep at their word that Hitler was a genius. Why?

And of course Hitler never acted alone, he was one of the main architects, there were other evil geniuses involved ... And yeah he achieved the power he wanted etc, it's just dismissive to say he didn't; it never lasted  & he failed in the end, but that doesnt erase what he managed to get done.

You're shifting the goalposts. You originally said that Hitler single-handedly created the Nazi party from scratch. Now you've reduced that to saying he's merely 'one of the main architects'. Originally, you also said that Hitler 'ultimately achieved his ends', which you have now reduced to 'he achieved the power he wanted'. Not very convincing.

Achieving a position of power is no sign of genius, especially not when there is already an existing state power structure which one merely needs to usurp. Violent suppression of dissent, usurpation of power and dictatorial rule - none of these require genius. What they do require is a kind of alpha-male instinct, a way to instill fear in others and use it to get your way by channeling the herd instincts of others. None of that is genius. We would no more call that 'genius' in a human than in the leader of a pack of wolves. Virtually every junta leader and dictator from Castro to Marcos to Kim Jong-Il to Mussolini to Milosevic possessed that in some degree and all of them arose by opportunity, not by actively creating the circumstances of their rise. What they, unlike Hitler, did not have is the state and military organization and machinery of Germany, nor did they have the public relations genius of Goebbels to stage manage their appearances, nor did the have the genius propagandist Riefenstahl to help them impress the masses, nor did they have the industrial prowess of Germany's corporations with their many scientific geniuses at their disposal, etc. etc. Yet Hitler squandered the achievements of so many geniuses on whose shoulders his empire was built by employing massively boneheaded war strategies, leading to the total destruction of his country in record time. That is not genius, it is idiocy!

BTW, I grew up in Germany and heard from first hand witnesses how the Hitler-myth and persona were created and it has everything to do with Goebbels and next to nothing with any 'genius' of Hitler's. All of Hitler's public appearances were carefully stage-managed, generating anticipation and hysteria through multiple premature announcements of imminent arrival, followed by delays, so that by the time Hitler ultimately arrived the masses were already in such a frenzy that they would have gone bonkers had you showed them your comatose grandma in a wheelchair. It had nothing to do with any intrinsic qualities of Hitler himself. That's why the Nazi party was so insignificant before Goebbels joined. Hitler alone could not do it.

Since you're so results focused, this might make it easier for you to understand: when you put a genius to the test, the genius delivers, where the imposter fails, showing himself to be all facade and no substance. When Hitler was put to the test by history, when his leadership would have really mattered, he failed. He destroyed his country on all levels, economically, socially, politically, culturally, architecturally, etc. He was all facade. A romantic idea married to a vicious hatred and ruthless militancy, all of which were too absolute and hermetic to allow Hitler to actually perceive the reality around him and adapt and act accordingly. A genius possesses the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and still come out on top. Hitler didn't.

[MishaK]

Yes, the Nazi's were defeated and he made the fatal error of trying to invade the USSR.

To clarify: the error was *not* invading the USSR. That was the objective from the very beginning. The 'bread basket' of the Ukraine was the prize Hitler wanted, the 'Lebensraum' he envisioned. The mistake was picking a fight and invading everyone else! That overextended his forces and made holding on to the main objective impossible once surrounded by enemies from all sides. It was the war strategy of a megalomaniac, not a genius.

[Scarpia]

I have already posted the definition of Genius from Webster's dictionary.  Here's the Random House Unabridged dictionary, which gives a similar set of definitions:

1. an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in art, music, etc.  2.  A person having such capacity.  3. A person having extraordinarily high intelligence, especially one with an I.Q. of 140 or above.  4. Natural ability or capacity; strong inclination (a special genius for pediatric medicine).  5.  Distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, language, etc.  6.  The guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.  7.  Either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good the other evil, supposed to attend a person throughout his life. 8.  a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character, conduct or destiny of a person, place or thing (Rasputin, the evil genius of Russian politics).  9 Usually genii, any demon or spirit.

You are confusing two distinct definitions of genius.  Using definions 1-4 above a genius is a person of extraordinary ability.  Definitions 5-9 are based on the original usage of the word, derived from the Latin gignere, to beget, in which a genius is a spirit which influences a person.  Definition 8 is closer to what you seem to be getting at, but it does not imply any talent or ability, only the fact that the person is influential.   If you refer to a person simply as "a genius" that is an example of definition 2 above.  Usage of definition 8 requires some explanation.  

Trying to assert Hitler is a genius according to the more common usage (definition 2) is hopeless.  He showed no evidence high intelligence at any phase of his life.  Although the Nazi government achieved economic and military successes, these were the responsibilities of others.  Those actions of the regime that he directly involved himself in were utter catastrophes.  He was also described as a shockingly banal man by many who encountered him.  Even to call him "the evil genius of German antisemitism" strikes me as dubious, but easier to justify than the convention definition.  However, you are chronically getting into trouble because by calling Hitler "a genius" you are invoking definition 2.

[zamyrabyrd]

I thought that "genius" from the Arabic "jinn" or spirit. Maybe there was a cross pollination here?

ZB

[Scarpia]

I thought that "genius" from the Arabic "jinn" or spirit. Maybe there was a cross pollination here?

ZB

The latin root is cited by Webster, jinn is cited by Random house. 

[Scarpia]

I'm not confusing anything Scarpia - the fact that you have to reference the Webster's dictionary (lol) and follow it word-for-word in discussing something like this says it all really. It's not so cut & dry. Why don't you read some books, watch some films, take some associated courses, or perhaps (if possible) talk to some academics/scholars on these subjects and come back and talk.

Knowing the definition of the words you are using does not preclude a refined discussion.  On the other hand, having a discussion with a person who uses his or her own private definition of words makes any meaningful discussion impossible.  The real problem here is that you are making up your own facts to support your contention the Hitler was a genius.  Again, i suggest you take this discussion to one of the countless Neo-Nazi websites to be found on the internet, where I assume you will find a more receptive audience.

[zamyrabyrd]

I read the article and some of the replies but I don't want to get into the issue of Hitler just now.

On a personal level, I have met (too many) musicians who THINK they are geniuses and give themselves permission to act out. Their immediate families and/or spouses keep up the mystique of "shhh, genius at work" or otherwise take abuse, students alike, from temperamental prima donnas or men. Whether this is a mistaken cultural tradition (and I think Wagner has a LOT to do with it, sponging off practically everyone because HE was a genius, therefore the world should support him), or a psychological phenomenon of narcissism or both, I don't know, except it DOES exist.

ZB

[Saul]

This stupid woman Birgit Schwarz is one of the ugliest people I have seen ever.
No wonder that this troll and orc connected to the monster of history, the brutal and vicious demon of Germany.

[MishaK]

This stupid woman Birgit Schwarz is one of the ugliest people I have seen ever.
No wonder that this troll and orc connected to the monster of history, the brutal and vicious demon of Germany.

You do realize that she never said Hitler was a genius, right? Just checking...

Scarpia, words connote ideas, going about discussing/understanding the topic in literal sense like you are with the dictionary is hilarious. And nothing I've said about Hitler is made up - it happened.

You seem to think that words have meanings vastly different from their dictionary definitions. That is not the case. Dictionaries exist so as to help people find the various meanings and connotations of a word. You seem not to have used dictionaries much in your life. You seem as a result to often find yourself in these debates here where you are convinced you know something and everybody else is telling you you've got it wrong.

google around yourself or better yet talk-to, read and watch films on the subject (go to the library) ...- common sense.

Sorry, this is just like the 9-11 discussion. He who makes an assertion has to provide proof for his assertion, not the one doubting and challenging it. Scarpia and I are going by the dictionary definition, which is indeed the "common sense" definition. You are using some personal idea of 'genius' that has no meaning outside your own orbit. If you think otherwise *you* need to provide evidence otherwise we can't have much of a discussion here.

I wasn't thinking of mesmerized sheep (though they are part of the equation too, he touched/moved them with his oratory), I was thinking of  the highly intelligent people who joined, followed & worked around him. But also stuff from scholars & academics I've seen through the years. Do your homework & dig around more, if you care about this so much.

James, we don't disagree over what Hitler did. We disagree whether it rises to the level of 'genius'. The reason we disagree has little to do with the historic facts and a lot more to do with your warped conceptualization of 'genius'. You're the undereducated one on this subject. If you think there are sources that support your view you are going to have to cite them. That is *your* homework, not mine. You're the one making the claim, not I.

You are simply misinterpreting that I wrote. I never said "single-handedly". Go back and read my posts carefully,

OK, let's see:

With regards to Hitler, he was supremely gifted at the game of politics and at the task he faced of building up that kind of power, and a talented orator. In his journey to power, Hitler never manipulated a party and organization that was already in place, he created his from nothing.

'Misinterpreted' you say? Only if you once again used a lot of words which you thought had other meanings than the ones found in the dictionary. (Leaving aside for the moment that your quoted assertion is factually inaccurate.)

Achieving power and leadership of germany is just one of the many things he wanted, an obsession he was absolutely driven & married to, and he realized & controlled lots else too once in power.

No, he failed at just about all else, once in power.

Anyway, we'll never agree on the issue of whether an evil prick like Hitler had genius or not. Some have said that up to a certain point there he 'could have' went down in history as being one of the greatest leaders ever but eventually took a turn for the worse & fucked it all up.

You're still completely missing the point. The issue is not that he was evil. Evil people can be geniuses. Or geniuses can be evil, however you want to look at that. That is not contentious. Goebbels was probably a genius. The point is that Hitler was not a particularly exceptional intellect, nor a very effective leader. He simply isn't a genius by any definition or conception of the term used anywhere outside 'Jamesland'.

Leadership itself is a vast & testing area, and the tactics and strategies one can use to get the job done. It's not easy, takes brains.

That's too abstract to be meaningful. Leadership outside of a real meritocracy (and Weimar Germany certainly wasn't a meritocracy) is first and foremost a contest of alpha-male instinct, not intellect. Secondly, what is the 'job' that is supposed to get done? What are you even speaking of there in the context of Hitler?

Genius doesn't mean perfection at all times, without mistakes, without flaw, failure. Heck, he even lost in the polls initially. And you don't think Hitler was ever put to the test? That he never adapted-to or perceived his ever changing circumstances? A virtual drifter loner homeless guy, who served in the military, discovered his calling, and went from practically zero to one of the most powerful men in modern history. Gimme a break. Not any joe-blow can do this, not even most smart ones, it takes something like perhaps "genius".

No. He did not adapt his worldview. He always was a nationalist romantic, from his artist years to his death. He squashed dissent, didn't want to hear things that didn't fit in with his view. His whole ideology was based on an imaginary "Dolchstosslegende", he refused to listen to the better advice of his generals and scientists when it came to military decisions, for Pete's sake, the guy rather killed himself than to face the consequences of his boneheaded strategies, while sending thousands of young men to die. How much more evidence do you want for a completely intransigent intellect? Hitler was put to the test very much, indeed. Once the US entered the European theater and once battle of Stalingrad happened Hitler showed himself completely unable to adapt to the new realities. *He failed.* Get over it. He is a total failure. Not a genius. Intelligence is the ability to always learn new things and learn them quickly. Hitler didn't have that. He was too emotionally stunted to have the requisite open mind.

Your main problem here is that you are trying to ascribe causality ex post facto. You see someone rise to power, ergo you assume he must have been a 'genius' to rise to that position. You don't ask what the circumstances were that facilitated the rise and you discount the contributions of other causes to his rise. You simply refuse to believe that very ordinary people can rise to positions of great prominence and power.

[Scarpia]

Scarpia, words connote ideas, going about discussing/understanding the topic in literal sense like you are with the dictionary is hilarious. And nothing I've said about Hitler is made up - it happened.

From this I gather you are not too clear on the definition of "connote" either.

[Scarpia]

Just was reading thru this one again Scarpia. Hilarious stuff. Type 'Genius' into google you'll probably get more to broaden your palette.

Not knowing the definitions of the words you are using does not "broaden your palette." 

[Scarpia]

Oh I know & am aware of what words like 'genius' mean in a literal sense, but I also realize that they have greater & broader implications than those found in a dictionary. Something I'm not sure you understand (the proof is in your posts too). lol

I have to admit that after all of the nonsense you posted on the various 9/11 conspiracy threads, I came to the topic with the prejudice that you are an imbecile, unable to understand a simple argument, and I have not seen anything to contradict that assumption.  Has anyone on this thread agreed with anything you have said so far?  I guess that means you are the lone genius on this thread, either that or the lone half-wit.

[zamyrabyrd]

The article would have been clearer perhaps, if Hitler were described as a narcissist who believed himself to be a genius. Self-perceptions of narcissists are skewed whatever their abilities. The point is what excuse they give for acting out and helping themselves to privileges not automatically accorded to them by common humanity. "Genius" has become socially acceptable for acting out. Narcissists often have a host of enablers who manipulate them, preen their egos, aid and abet their megalomania.

ZB

[MishaK]

The article would have been clearer perhaps, if Hitler were described as a narcissist who believed himself to be a genius.

I rather thought it did:

...this overheated artist's ego...Hitler's deluded view of himself as a genius....The rebuff from the academy was probably what prompted him to consider himself a genius....

SPIEGEL: Could Hitler seriously have considered himself a genius? His talent as a draftsman was moderate at best.

Schwarz: He apparently felt differently, and it was important for his ego that he was self-taught. After the humiliation of being rejected by the academy, he developed an aversion to all professors, and to all academic study.