Note: Adolf Hitler's personal prejudices led to the needless, tragic deaths of millions of people. His crimes against humanity are legion, and are not here disputed. But his ideas as to what constitutes "genius" are closer to modern American ideals than those of Churchill, FDR/Truman, and Stalin his enemies. Hitler's ignorant views on race made him seek to exterminate or keep ignorant those he held inferior. It is the following secret doctrines that he kept for the "Master Race" as to how education should proceed, that ironically the World at large will find very useful today. Since the "Master Race" is the Human Race, we can even learn from a flawed tyrant like Hitler, as long as we leave his hatred and ignorance to the dustbin of history. Here follows, therefore, a brief expose into a non-destructive, creative realm of Hitlerian thought. - Marc Cohen The Third Reich was a 12 year social experiment that challenged and downright attacked some of the most basic convictions and values held by the outside, bourgeois and Bolshevist worlds. The Judeo-Christist-Bolshevist world, then as now, seems to define intelligence as, in part, rapid ability to retain random strings of data -i.e. numbers, words, "facts". This is COMPLETELY AT ODDS with the National Socialist conception of human intelligence and human potential. Hitler himself summed this all up, and I paraphrase him here, from "Table Talk": 'Children must be taught to appreciate Beauty, not memorize unconnected 'facts' of which they have no use". Hitler - and hence the Third Reich's - criterion of intelligence is much more akin to what I consider true genius, whereby we define "beauty" as the subjectively aesthetic creation, appreciation, and representations of harmonious, symmetrical, and consistent expression and processing of the continuity between outward appearance ("phenomena") and "innermost"/abstract essence ("noumena"). By contrast, bourgeois Judeo-Christist and Bolshevist conceptions of intelligence seem to value quantity over quality, memorization of data and ability to mimmick learned social codes as formulated by cultural norms as opposed to valuing the individuals ability to challenge, permutate, and subjectively alter such cultural normative standards of intelligence. Hitler was without a doubt a genius, probably the closest thing to a Philosopher-King since Alexander the Great. Stalin was a genius as well, but in him the underlying motive was a psychopathological contempt for ALL HUMANITY; in Hitler the psychopathological contempt, diseased as it was, was for a few minority groups (Hebrews, Slavs, Gypsies), but otherwise his motive lay in his great love for and desire to raise the human condition (I never said the man was perfect, I'm just being honest). Goering, by Hitler's standards of intelligence (i.e. , ability to perceive and create Beauty, as previously defined) was a brilliant man, but not a Genius; he would be closer to a genius in the Judeo-Christist/Bolshevik model of quantity/retention of data being valued more than aesthetic and creative potential. Hess may well have been a genius by the Hitlerian/quality formulae, and may have appeared only "brilliant" by the Judeo-Christist/Bolshevist model: the "Hess" at Nuremberg, though, for many reasons, I do not consider the IQ test as applicable to - whatever the abilities of the real Rudolf Hess were. von Manstein may well have been close to genius level by both categories, but probably would have at least been considered "brilliant" by any means. Goebbels would have had one of the highest scores of genius on the Judeo-Christist/Bolshevist model, easily a genius there; but by Hitler's standards, he would have fallen under the brilliant category. He lacked the self-motivatory illumination of genius, and needed a "Fuhrer" with which to spark his intelligence ... just like Goering needed necessity to get his higher faculties moving. Speer, as an artist, may well have qualified as a genius on Hitler's criteria, but "only" brilliant or highly intelligent by the bourgeois model; Schacht - the famous economist - would probably be the exact opposite. Dietrich Eckhart is probably the only Nazi of whom I can think, besides Hitler, who would have been considered a genius by Hitlerian and Judeo-Christist/Bolshevist standards. BACK TO HISTORY HOME
- Marc Cohen
The Third Reich was a 12 year social experiment that challenged and downright attacked some of the most basic convictions and values held by the outside, bourgeois and Bolshevist worlds. The Judeo-Christist-Bolshevist world, then as now, seems to define intelligence as, in part, rapid ability to retain random strings of data -i.e. numbers, words, "facts". This is COMPLETELY AT ODDS with the National Socialist conception of human intelligence and human potential. Hitler himself summed this all up, and I paraphrase him here, from "Table Talk":
'Children must be taught to appreciate Beauty, not memorize unconnected 'facts' of which they have no use".
Hitler - and hence the Third Reich's - criterion of intelligence is much more akin to what I consider true genius, whereby we define "beauty" as the subjectively aesthetic creation, appreciation, and representations of harmonious, symmetrical, and consistent expression and processing of the continuity between outward appearance ("phenomena") and "innermost"/abstract essence ("noumena").
By contrast, bourgeois Judeo-Christist and Bolshevist conceptions of intelligence seem to value quantity over quality, memorization of data and ability to mimmick learned social codes as formulated by cultural norms as opposed to valuing the individuals ability to challenge, permutate, and subjectively alter such cultural normative standards of intelligence.
Hitler was without a doubt a genius, probably the closest thing to a Philosopher-King since Alexander the Great. Stalin was a genius as well, but in him the underlying motive was a psychopathological contempt for ALL HUMANITY; in Hitler the psychopathological contempt, diseased as it was, was for a few minority groups (Hebrews, Slavs, Gypsies), but otherwise his motive lay in his great love for and desire to raise the human condition (I never said the man was perfect, I'm just being honest).
Goering, by Hitler's standards of intelligence (i.e. , ability to perceive and create Beauty, as previously defined) was a brilliant man, but not a Genius; he would be closer to a genius in the Judeo-Christist/Bolshevik model of quantity/retention of data being valued more than aesthetic and creative potential. Hess may well have been a genius by the Hitlerian/quality formulae, and may have appeared only "brilliant" by the Judeo-Christist/Bolshevist model: the "Hess" at Nuremberg, though, for many reasons, I do not consider the IQ test as applicable to - whatever the abilities of the real Rudolf Hess were.
von Manstein may well have been close to genius level by both categories, but probably would have at least been considered "brilliant" by any means. Goebbels would have had one of the highest scores of genius on the Judeo-Christist/Bolshevist model, easily a genius there; but by Hitler's standards, he would have fallen under the brilliant category. He lacked the self-motivatory illumination of genius, and needed a "Fuhrer" with which to spark his intelligence ... just like Goering needed necessity to get his higher faculties moving.
Speer, as an artist, may well have qualified as a genius on Hitler's criteria, but "only" brilliant or highly intelligent by the bourgeois model; Schacht - the famous economist - would probably be the exact opposite.
Dietrich Eckhart is probably the only Nazi of whom I can think, besides Hitler, who would have been considered a genius by Hitlerian and Judeo-Christist/Bolshevist standards.