....in the hands of a strictly personal agenda or a strictly defined 'moral' agenda can be dangerous. The only effective leadership should reallistically be defined as doing what is balanced for all the peoples of the world while being able to exact a quality of life for the peoples of your own country that leads them through a life that is comfortable and will not lead to rebellion, war or effectively your own martyrdom. These are the risks of any leader though that must be taken into consideration when accepting or exacting the privelege of leadership. In final, Hitler wasn't evil...just misguided by the voice of his people for revenge and the illusion of the need to blame another society for the economic condition of their own, and by his own personal moral agenda that was fueled by the education endeared to him by his society.

I would correct Goering and say that "all you have to do is convince that there is an opposing and evil force"....and not to be semantically inclined, but the Jewish have been doing it for centuries, and so has the very strong and thriving Roman Empire, cleverly stolen from the Jewish and renamed Jesus. If you argue this point, it is written in the bible in Romans. Further more, any form of patriotism can be developed into a dangerous weapon in the hands of a leader who's will is otherwise than the diplomatic cohabitation of all the peoples of the world and the acceptance of the people of his countries will to live within their boundaries and ideologies that they govern their own sociological entity with. Which unfortunately is the downfall of any society that accepts a moral abandon as their means of society, and is prevalent in several factors of any society. Naturally humans compete, is it then simply the role of governance to effectively limit and restrict these competitions to a moral decree that can be agreed upon by the society itself. If the society itself then is an immoral and apathetic society how can there be an effective leadership that knows any form of moral agenda. If you see, there never is an answer. People will always accept any form of leadership that convinces them that they as a society are righteous in ther morallity, or shames them for immorality or weakness. leadership in any form