We obviously do not agree with what Henry Ford published about Jews, or for that matter his support for Prohibition or his “sociology department” that intruded on his employees’ private lives. We did an Internet search on suspicion and found Henry Ford on a list of historical figures (along with Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, and George Washington) who were suspected of having Asperger’s Syndrome.
People with Asperger’s Syndrome are often described, as having social skills deficits, reluctance to listen, difficulty understanding social give and take, and other core characteristics, is typically quite misunderstood and/or misdiagnosed in our country today.
Other characteristics include a lack of empathy and a fascination with systems, i.e. “how things work.” The latter certainly describes Ford, noting his boyhood fascination with taking watches apart and even being able to put them back together. His production line was described as a giant clock, and it relied on workers as “components” who performed repetitive tasks to make the clock work. The system’s success paid the “components” high wages but it is quite likely that Ford viewed people as something like elements of a machine–hence his infamous Sociology Department–with roughly identical desires and motivations. If Ford did have Asperger’s, he could have understood intellectually that he needed to pay fair wages to gain his workers’ commitment but it is doubtful that he could really empathize with them on an emotional level. If true, this theory explains quite a bit. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (in which Ford is God, My Life and Work is the Bible, and people are manufactured to fit society’s needs) constitutes Fordism taken to the extreme.
In any event, The International Jew was not Henry Ford’s creation. It a translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that was given to Ford by the Tsarist Russian propagandist Boris Brasol. To put this in contemporary terms, Ford saw the equivalent of a sensationalistic Web site or E-mail, copied it to everybody on his mailing list, and pressed the “Send” key. His “Send” key unfortunately consisted of the Dearborn Independent, so what he circulated caused substantial harm to Jews and, in the end, Ford’s own reputation.
What then are the lessons to be learned from this experience? How many of us have, at one time or another, forwarded an E-mail or Web posting without investigating thoroughly? We have received them from highly intelligent and well educated friends only to find, after investigating, that the material was untrue. The National Jewish Democratic Council relied on somebody else’s blog posting or equivalent to publish a vicious falsehood about the Christian computer game “Left Behind: Eternal Forces.” None of this excuses Ford for his own failure to investigate Brasol’s material thoroughly but we must make sure we do not repeat the same mistakes.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument the absolute worst about Henry Ford. This does not change the fact that his methods created the American middle class along with the 40 hour work week, and made the United States the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth. Our thoughts must now move to application of this knowledge to our country’s current problem: an incompetent buffoon in the White House who has proven repeatedly that he knows nothing about how to create jobs or prosperity. (The same individual wishes to reward Palestinian terrorism with territorial concessions at Israel’s expense.) We should welcome assistance from any source that will help remove Obama from office next year and, even more importantly, create high wage jobs for the millions of American workers who need them!
Now let’s move on to a genuine Nazi who has plenty to teach us. Most people cannot get past their revulsion at Hitler’s statement, “If you win, you need not have to explain. If you lose, you should not be around to explain,” to internalize the truth of this observation. Hitler lost so he had to follow his own advice on April 30, 1945. His equally murderous and genocidal counterpart Josef Stalin was on the winning side so he never had to explain. Neither did Mao Tse Tung or Pol Pot, for that matter. This applies directly to Israel versus its militant Islamic neighbors: “If you win, even if you have to kill several million Arab aggressors and inflict some collateral damage while you do it, you won’t have to explain. If you lose by playing nice and worrying about world opinion, you won’t be around to explain.”
We observe further than ancient Jewish history was not very “nice,” with the result that today’s Jews need not explain while the Canaanites and so on are not around to explain. Roman history was not very “nice” either but the sole consequence of Rome’s genocide of the Carthaginian people is that Southern Europe and even England speaks words with Latin instead of Phoenician roots. Modern Hungary and Mongolia have statues, currency, and/or postage with images of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, neither of whom were nice people but who did outstanding jobs for the Huns and the Mongols respectively. Ann Barnhardt elaborates further on the problems with being “nice.” (Christian-oriented material can be ignored without loss of continuity.)
This is not to say that Israel or any decent country should initiate aggression today even though history shows it can often get away with it. It does say that, if an aggressor attacks you, you must take him down in such a manner that he will never lift a hand to you again. Only in movies must the hero (or often a terrified female victim who turns the tables momentarily) let the downed serial killer or monster get up again, and that’s only because the movie can’t end at the 45 minute mark. If you put your attacker down for good, you don’t have to explain. If you let him get up again (in the absence of law enforcement personnel who can take him into custody), it is quite likely that you won’t be around to explain. Israel should have put its attackers down for good in 1967.
Most people and especially Jews are meanwhile reluctant to read Mein Kampf because of its content and authorship. This is EXACTLY why the Arabs, who love the book not merely for its anti-Semitic aspects but for its very practical content, are currently demonizing Jews in general and Israel in particular the way the Nazis demonized Jews during the 1930s.
Mein Kampf however goes beyond a discussion of how to use propaganda effectively; it shows explicitly that Hitler followed the advice to learn from the enemy, in this case the Triple Entente. The Entente and its American sympathizers demonized Germans the same way the Nazis later demonized Jews. The following could in fact be described as a blood libel of Germans, noting that it was proven that the Lusitania carried munitions and was therefore a legitimate military target.
Little Lost Children of the Lusitania (to view jpgs click here)
Main Kampf states explicitly that Germany failed to recognize the effectiveness of this kind of propaganda, and failed to reciprocate in kind: with visual images designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the man in the street and the man in the beer hall. If the Jews in Israel could bring themselves to read Mein Kampf, they would realize that Israel is repeating Imperial Germany’s mistakes to the letter while the enemies who want to destroy it are working straight from the Entente’s (and later the Nazis’) playbook.
Arab propaganda; could have been drawn by genuine Nazis
Our recommendation is and has always been retaliation in kind and with an enormity of compound interest, to dehumanize Israel’s enemies and militant “Islam” in general every bit as thoroughly as the Entente dehumanized the Central Powers. We should not hesitate to adapt propaganda images from the Second World War that were used to demonize Nazis and Japanese, along with similar material from the First World War and Spanish American War. As but one example:
The Palestinian Brute
Ethics and honor require only that the propaganda be truthful (and the militant Muslims have provided our side with an unlimited supply of truth), and that hatred and contempt be directed selectively against a specific behavioral choice (militant Islam) and never against an entire religious identity, race, or ethnicity.
George Santayana wrote that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Those who cannot or will not learn from the enemy, even an enemy as loathsome as Hitler, are likely to become history.
