Henry Ford – katana17

Luke Ford – Andrew Joyce On The Jewish Question — Apr 17, 2017 — Transcript

admin — Tue, 13 Oct 2020 12:23:30 +0000

[The Occidental Observer (TOO) contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, talks, in April 2017, with Luke Ford, an Australian convert to judaism.

— KATANA]

[Cover Note: Photo of Luke Ford, circa 2000]

Luke Ford

Andrew Joyce

On the Jewish Question

Apr 17, 2017

Click here for the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0uQbGk3Tn0

(YouTube video no longer available)

Published on April 17, 2017

YouTube Description

Luke Ford
Subscribe2.5K
Add to Share More
3,832 views
48 6
Published on Apr 30, 2017

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=111835 Luke Ford talks to Andrew Joyce about the Jews & Western Civilization, conflicts of interest between groups, Jews & the Alt Right, David Duke, Andrew Anglin (Daily Stormer), and Andrew’s forthcoming book, Talmud & Taboo.

_____________

TRANSCRIPT

(92:59)

[00:00]

Ford: I’m here with Andrew Joyce, who’s got a book coming out called “Talmud and Taboo”. So Andrew, can you to tell me about your forthcoming book?

Joyce: Yes. Well anyone who has taken a look at my articles at the Occidental Observer, or in the Occidental Quarterly and some of the other sort of Alt-Right journals will be familiar with the subject matter that I deal with. And the book is no exception to that.

The book really concerns, in the broadest capacity possible jewish influence, jewish history, and aspects of jewish culture, from the perspective of a White European who possesses, I would argue, a level of ethnocentrism that would be equivalent to many within the, I suppose, inner core of the jewish community, to the extent that it would represent people who are highly ethnocentric, or certainly care for their ethnic interests and see themselves as a group to a very strong degree.

So the book, I guess, is the response of a highly identified, strongly identified European against similar ethnic feelings within the jewish community.

Breaking it down it looks at jewish influence in academia, in particular the writing of history. And also in contemporary politics. There’s some nineteenth century politics and I also look at some offshoots of literature and how jewish influence has manifested itself in relation to efforts to promote the concept of jewish genius, with particular focus on, Spinoza and some other figures.

The book really is a collection of what I have regarded as my best materials at the Occidental Observer and the Occidental Quarterly, with some new material, but most importantly the [word unclear] edition.

What really makes it a book is I’ve written a quite lengthy introduction of some fifteen thousand words, or so, in which I try and condense, not jewish history in its entirety, but certainly the history of jews in Europe into a kind of easily digestible narrative, pulling out some of the main themes in that history. Some of the major problematic areas of interaction between Jews and Europeans.

Ford: What precisely is your ethnic background? Are you English? Are you Irish? What are you?

Joyce: My own ethnic background, I actually have no Irish in me. I was born in Ireland. But I was raised in several different countries actually. I come from a military background. And in terms of my immediate ethnic background my parents, there’s English, Welsh, and Scottish there. And nothing else, as far as I can tell. I’ve done quite extensive work on my own family tree. And certainly on my father’s side I’ve researched back to the fourteenth century. I haven’t been able to go back anywhere as far on all my mother’s side, but it’s predominately English people from Yorkshire. And also the south of Wales to the extent that there were sort of English and Norman settlers in that part of Wales.

Ford: It’s interesting how dramatic the differences are between say, the English and their genetics, and the type of variety they create in the Irish. So when you had the Irish coming to the United States, it took many generations to assimilate them, because they’re much more ethnocentric than the English. And much more likely to commit crimes, and to be drunk. And it’s interesting the dramatic genetic differences, you know, within that still pretty similar geographic locale and how they play out in the way group statistics play out.

Joyce: The Irish are fascinating! I have many, many Irish friends. And, I have a great deal of respect for them I would agree with you that the Irish possessed a heightened sense of ethnocentrism, to a degree. It’s kind of become perversely plastic and the late 20th century. In the way that we have this kind of “plastic paddy” phenomena, where you have the sort of the orange beards and the Leprechaun hats that accompany St Patrick’s Day tomfoolery.

But yes, going back into the middle the nineteenth century, certainly through, say the 1940s there was a very, very strong drive for Irish nationalism. A very strong emphasis on the importance of ethnocentrism within Ireland during that period. There are substantial differences between the English and the Irish.

I think overall those differences have been exaggerated at times. And some of the recent genetic studies, for example a book called “Blood of the Isles” it was discovered that the English and the Irish, and also the Scots and Welsh share a lot more in common genetically that was ever thought previously. And this was down to the fact that the study of English DNA revealed that there was a lot more remnants of the pre Celtic even, and certainly pre-Germanic sort of settlers within, … The remnants were still there of their DNA.

So this kind of image that people have in their minds of the Anglo Saxons, of all of all these German tribes migrating from Saxony, and Freesia, and some of those German lands, and basically pushing the Celtic or pre-Celtic peoples into the Celtic countries of Wales or Scotland, are largely a myth. There was a great deal of intermixing there. Certainly between a relatively small group of Saxons, and many of the indigenous tribes that the Romans would have been familiar with, for example.

So yes, there are differences there. I think they’ve been overplayed. But certainly if you look at the studies produced by someone like Richard Lyn on IQ. The IQ gap between English and Irish has been very substantial at times. And the Irish IQ actually has been remarkably low for Western Europe. It was on par I think with, or was it, with Romania and some other incredibly impoverished European countries.

Ford: You’ve mentioned that the beginning that you are someone with a strong European identity. What about English identity vs European identity?

Joyce: Yeah, this is a question I get asked quite frequently. I was actually contacted not so long ago on social media by a guy who, he had a question, I think he was French. But he asked me:

“Did I think it was right, …”

It was a hypothetical question:

“Did I think it was right, for example, if a sizable German population came into France and assumed positions all power and influence in the top levels of French government, …”

And he basically said:

“You’re describing yourself as a White nationalist. So, if these are fellow Whites, at kind of problem would you have with such a scenario?”

The first thing I said, well, I conceded that the problem that he posed was a good one. But at the same time it was quite unlikely scenario. And thirdly, in order to give him a straight answer to it. I said:

“No. I don’t think that that would be a good idea.”

I think that, because of the threat, some people would argue obviously against me. Certainly a Social Justice Warrior say there is no threat to the White race currently. But I do perceive it there to be a broad demographic threat to the White race as a whole. And I do believe that the White race is being targeted for what it is.

For those reasons alone, I think we need strategies which are in some respects international. I think that some of the threats that are being posed to us are international in nature, and certainly their international in their scope and in their strategy. And we need a response that is going to work on that level.

For example, if I was to support any sort of White nationalist government, or English nationalist government that is race aware and is keen to redress the demographic decline, et cetera, et cetera, such a government may well, hypothetically, take hold over England and then succeed to some extent. But the international community would still bring enough pressure to bear on that country, on England, in that hypothetical scenario, to the extent that any gains that it may make would be minuscule.

And certainly if you look at the modern apparatus of international government sanctions, and the worst case scenario of military responses, I don’t think that any White country can go it alone, so to speak. I believe in a kind of pan European strategy, if you will. And by that I don’t mean anything remotely similar to the European Union.

But, I do believe that Whites must learn to come together and operate in different nations, towards the same goals, in the same way, for example, the jews have all operated across borders in order to look after their interests and achieve their ethnic goals.

Ford: At the beginning of his book, The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald makes the point that people of northwestern European heritage tend to be about the least ethnocentrist people around while, jews and other Middle Eastern people tend to be very highly ethnocentric. But, you know, under a certain level of stress people from northern Europe can start to become increasingly ethnocentric. I’m wondering how much of your strong European identity is a response to say, strong jewish identity, and the challenge that presents to your people?

Joyce: I would say that plays a large part in the development of my own ethnocentrism. I think that ethnocentrism can arise from a number of positions within the mentality of the person. One way in which ethnocentrism can develop is on an emotional level.

So for example in Eastern Europe in the 19th century, in daily interactions with with jews many of the peasant populations lost money, they lost possessions, whether it was through the money lending system, the tavern system, petty pawn brokering, or different things. In general and cumulatively, and together, the Russian peasantry was losing out to the Jews. And this gave way to a groundswell of resentment, and to anger. And I think that was a huge point in fueling the development of ethnocentrism in that part of the world, at that time.

Have I ever been ripped off by a Jew? Or have I ever been financially exploited or otherwise? No! My own journey towards a more ethnocentric outlook bears a a lot of similarity to Kevin MacDonald actually, about how he describes his development. I think in his introduction to Culture of Critique he does say something like:

“This has been an intellectual journey. When I wrote ‘A People that Dwell Alone’ I was sort of pushing this from a purely intellectual standpoint but as time has gone on I discovered more things. I’ve become more aware of my own ethnic interests.”

And I think that my own journey has been roughly similar, although I think I started significantly younger age than Kevin MacDonald. I’m not sure what age he was when he started writing Culture of Critique. Certainly by the time I was about twenty years old, I had a fairly well developed sense of ethnocentrism.

One of the things that I would add actually my sense of ethnocentrism was, even to this day when I write something like “my people”, or “our people”. These phrases actually don’t sit well, they don’t come out of my mouth or my pen easily. It’s still something that I’m not exactly sure why. But I find it difficult. It doesn’t slip off the tongue. And certainly there’s a lot within my own culture that currently I’m not very happy with. There’s a lot in the past that I’m proud of, but sometimes it can difficult .

One of the great things that Western Europeans, or Europeans in general are good at, perhaps human beings are good at is, a kind of self-criticism, or a critical approach of one’s self. And sometimes that takes a conscious overpowering in order to really assert, that:

“Yes, okay, my tribe has its flaws, but it’s my tribe! And it has to be defended if it is to have a future.”

So in terms of ethnocentrism, yes, it’s fairly strong in me. It’s not, I wouldn’t say it’s sort of ADL strong, or SPLC strong! [chuckling] But it’s definitely stronger than the average. And the reason it’s got there is, I think is largely due to an intellectual process. At times there are things that have infuriated me during that intellectual process. But overall, it’s been through study and observation of facts, as I have interpreted them.

[16:18]

Ford: I think I heard in a previous podcast that you did. That in high school you wrote a critique of Schindler’s List, so you must have been pretty red pilled on the Jewish Question in high school!

Joyce: Well the thing is at that point I knew very little about Jews in high school. When I was very young my mother sent me to a Presbyterian Sunday school. And it was one of those branches of the Presbyterian, … A small breakaway factions of the Presbyterian Church where jews were revered! And my first encounter with jews was that they were the apple of God’s eye. That they originated in some far off sunny land. It certainly wasn’t cloudy, windy, rainy. Northwest Europe.

And they had all these exotic fruits, you know, there was talk of pomegranates in the Old Testament. And all this was made much of and discussed with great fanfare within that Sunday school. But between that very young age that I attended that school, and that essay that I wrote on Schindler’s List, there was nothing. There was a blank space!

I didn’t encounter any jews, read anything about jews. It was only really when I encountered the high school curriculum, in which the rise of the Nazis, the “Holocaust”. And within the curriculum was Schindler’s List that they really came out. And even at that stage, when I critiqued the film, from what I thought was just a purely analytical perspective. But I should also say that even at that young age my personality was quite contrarian.

And so I was led to believe that this was a film I should feel sad, or that I should have great sympathy with the victims as portrayed in this film. It would have been much my personality at the time to adopt the opposite approach. So I would have adopted a kind of a hostile approach to the mainstream narrative presented within that film. I think anyway.

This is me, you know, some, almost two decades later reading something back to my younger self. A flawed exercise perhaps, and certainly I need to be very careful in how much I read back into my younger self.

But was I well versed in the JQ [Jewish Question] at the age of fifteen, or sixteen? No, I wasn’t. I wouldn’t claim to be that precocious or a child that was well read at that age. I just had a film in front of me in which I saw flaws. And certainly had some level of bias in its presentation. And I just wanted to argue against it.

Ford: So what about at university? What did you study? And how did that bear on your developing response to the jewish question?

Joyce: I studied history and literature. And that is something that I stuck with throughout my academic career. Again I didn’t study anything explicitly jewish at any point during that. I did focus on twentieth century United States history.

And that really didn’t even offer much scope in terms of looking at Jews. I did encounter some reference with the jews, or I think, I guess from the age of eighteen, or nineteen. From Nixon, the mentions that he made in the Watergate tapes, for example. And I also encountered Jews again through, I guess a more in-depth study of the “Holocaust” during that time. But only ever as part of a broad sweep, you know, this general classes on the 20th century international history, 20th century European history.

But at the age of, I think it was coming to the end of twenty, I might have turned twenty one. And I was wanting a good meaty book that was also controversial. I just wanted something that would capture my interest. And I heard about this book by Daniel Goldhagen, called the [word unclear] Willing Executioners [? Hitler’s Willing Executioners]. And it was a book that was largely hammered actually by the critics. And certainly I read many criticisms from some jewish critics, who said that it was awful. Purely from a professional standpoint.

But I wanted to know [chuckling] what “bad history” looked like! So I read it, and I thought it was actually fascinating! I actually liked the way Goldhagen wrote. It was a very well written book, even if in terms of its argument, it was very deeply flawed. But I enjoyed reading it, none the less.

It stimulated me to start reading independently, and use some of the skills I learned picking up my degree and later my PhD., into a broader study of what went wrong in Europe, in the early 1940s. Because there were certainly mass killings. And they certainly did occur right across Europe at the time. And I wanted to know why. I wanted to dig deeper.

So I got Paul Johnson’s “History of the Jews” and started from there. And then I just branched out. And I read as much as I could, whenever I could. And over the years that knowledge accumulated and expanded, and I started developing my own ideas.

But within a couple of years really started with my current work with Kevin MacDonald, which was both affirming in a sense. In the sense that I found echoes of my own thoughts in his work. And also it was directional in the sense that it pointed me in the areas that I wanted to go, or felt that I should go.

And certainly having read, even by the time, I think I just finished reading Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “Foundations of the Nineteenth Century”, when I find Kevin MacDonald’s work. And at that time I had read one, or two, maybe three or four actually of the nineteenth century seminal texts on the jewish question. And for all of their plus points there was a certain vulgarity or bluntness of approach in many of those texts that wasn’t there with Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald’s work is very clear! It’s very exact! And that has very unique in terms of writing about the jewish question.

Historically, writing for the jewish question has involved lots of emotion, a little bit of analysis, and quite a lot of, just bitterness! Which is understandable. It is an emotive and emotional subject matter when you look at it’s, all it’s implications, for jews underpinnings, and Europeans.

But it has taken us a long time to get to the point where Europeans can write at least somewhat objectively about this subject matter. It’s been getting better over time. I think that Henry Ford’s “The International Jew” actually was a leap forward in the sense that there’s a break from some of the writings, certainly from French writers like Drumont, [words unclear], and some of the, … Well Germany always had a traditional sort of intellectual anti-semitism, if you want to give it that title.

But MacDonald’s work really was, marked, a huge break from the past.

[24:57]

Ford: We keep talking about the Jewish questions, so my definition of the jewish question is that it’s Gentiles are asking:

“What do we do about the jews in our country?” [chuckling]

What’s your understanding of the definition of the Jewish Question?

Joyce: That’s fairly, that is nice and concise! I actually like it! But, it’s almost like we’re jumping the gun a little bit, in terms of what do we do. For me the jewish question is really two questions. What we’re asking when we talk about the jewish question is, do Jews really possess more influence in European societies than they should?

And then sort of the second part of the jewish question would be, what you just said there. Would be like, well what do we do about it? How do we manage this? And within each of those questions are a lot of smaller questions. The jewish question is a nice title for what are endless socio-economic, political, and cultural questions.

And I think that before we talk talk in any sense of about what are we going to do about jews. We really need to be very careful about what we mean about jewish influence, how we understand it, where next itself manifest, how it makes itself manifest.

And only when we fully understand those things can we even begin to discuss remedies. Now I know that in Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald says something along the likes of, we might need something like affirmative action in order to redress certain manifestations of jewish influence in European societies.

For example, jewish over-representation in the universities, and in some professions. This has been attempted before. It’s been attempted countless times before with the quota system, with the numerous clauses that were in place in the United States. When did that end? I think sometime in the 1920s.

Ford: No, like the 1960s.

Joyce: 1960s? Wow!

So efforts to kind of curb via legislation, or codes, or admissions requirements, and things like this, they have kind of come and gone. They were also in place in Russia. They were also present in different parts of Western Europe at various times.

Then they were an effort at a solution. And for me, it’s just so far down the line I never think about solutions, to use [chuckling] a dubious term, “solutions to the jewish question”. I’m more interested in simply investigating it’s manifestations.

Ford: How old were you when you read Culture of Critique?

Joyce: I think I was maybe twenty two at the time. I think twenty two.

Ford: And I don’t know anyone can be the same after reading that book.

Joyce: No. It was transformative! As I said I was already on some of the track. Culture of Critique wasn’t the first MacDonald’s books that I read. I was, as I said, I was predominately interested in anti-semitism. I came away from Goldhagen’s book wanting to know more about why people didn’t like jews.

As I said, I didn’t have any personal interaction with them growing up, so I reached the age of my early twenty’s, without ever having met a single jew.

And I was fascinated! I just thought:

“Why all this trouble? Why all these centuries of conflict and bloodshed? There must be a reason.”

So my own investigation did not begin with wanting to find out about jews, or the Jewish Question. My investigation started with wanting to find out about anti-semitism, and why it came about.

So the first book that I read of MacDonald’s was his book on anti-semitism, “Separation and Its Discontents”, which was an evolutionary analysis of anti-semitisms it was, and remains, my favorite of MacDonald’s books. I like “Culture of Critique”. But everyone adopts a position on the jewish question that reflects some sense, some aspect of their personality. For example, Martin Luther was a thunderous preacher. And his approach to the jewish question was that of thunderous preacher. “On the Jews and Their Lies” is just a long ranting sermon about jews, and about eternal damnation, all the things that really appeal to Luther.

And, on the other hand, you’ve got the kind of journalistic type people, like Wilhelm Marr who coined the term anti-semitism. He wrote the pamphlet tract, “The Victory of Judaism Over Germany”. And his book, … And also I would argue Drumont’s as well, “La France juive” [1886 by Édouard Drumont], “Jewish France”, those are written by journalists. And the tone of their text that they develop are journalistic texts. So they always sort of err on the side of the exposé! The whole tone of the book is “let’s expose the jews”. And they bounce from one revelation to the next. Some are more authentic than others.

So, and then you course you have the academics who think everything can be solved by breaking them down into minute parts and analyzing it and putting it together and developing theories about it. And the first two books, by MacDonald, were the most truly academic in my opinion. And certainly the second appealed most to me.

The Culture of Critique on the other hand, certainly while being a very academic book — and I don’t take anything away from that regard — but it’s content, and also some of its tone, because MacDonald does shift his tone in that third book, and some of his phraseology certainly adopts a more journalistic tone. There is more in there that has a kind of a journalistic feel, there’s something of the exposé about it. Particularly when he’s talking about Freud. He gets into some aspects of this, and the Frankfurt School, exposing the jewish nature of the Frankfurt School. It’s exposing the jewishness of Freudianism.

So “Separation and Its Discontents” has always been my favorite. And it was a good primer in a lot of ways, anyway, for Culture of Critique.

But yeah, I read it! It sits on my bookshelf. I think it’s an absolute tremendous, timeless classic that will be read and re-read in decades to come. And perhaps centuries.

But I would say that it didn’t dramatically, or radically change any aspect of my thinking. It helped in my development. I just wouldn’t say that there was a transformative effect.

[32:39]

Ford: What subject did you get your PhD in?

Joyce: My PhD was, … I don’t want to be too specific, but it was on a quite famous 19th century literary figure. But the thesis took in quite a good bit of nineteenth century British history, economics and literature.

And I think that the breadth of reading on that, certainly just in terms of how to craft a piece of history, helped me along in my development. Certainly, the analytical approach. I still have a great fondness for literature. I do write a lot about jews, obviously, for Kevin MacDonald.

But recently, I’ve kind of intertwined that with my passion for TS Eliot, Ezra Pound. I have in the past written some pieces in the Occidental Quarterly which has taken in some of the works of Charles Dickens, and some other nineteenth century authors.

Ford: When did you arrive on the scene, of the Alt-right writing under, you know, Andrew Joyce? Was it two or three years ago?

Joyce: No, no, no. It’s been longer than that actually. I’ve been in contact with Kevin MacDonald for at least eight years. Well, yeah, at least eight years. And we corresponded for a long time, about a number of different topics. And I think it’s about six years ago now. Five, or six, years ago, I suggested that I’ll send him a piece of writing and perhaps he’d want to publish it at the Occidental Observer.

And he did. But I read written little bits, little blog posts anonymously. And I’d read the lengthy pieces in chat forums and things previously.

So it wasn’t like a sort of a radical and sudden appearance on the scene. It developed incrementally over time. But I think it was in 2012 that I first wrote for the Occidental Observer under Andrew Joyce. And at first I didn’t have the time — I still don’t have the time — [chuckling] to write as much as I do. But first I wrote something every six months, four, or five months. It is quite a distance between the pieces that I was producing.

And then a couple of years ago, I just started pushing myself a little bit more in part. I think I do have a contribution that I could make. I have read a lot of stuff, at this point. So, I’m going to try and up the work rate and increase the input.

And I try to, as much as possible, to produce content for the Occidental Observer on a fairly regular basis. And sometimes, sometimes there’s nothing to write about! Sometimes you’ve got so much to write about, whether it’s current affairs, or something that you’re reading, or something that’s come into your head, that you don’t have the time to write or, … At the minute I’m writing like three pieces! I just need to get them out on paper.

[36:23]

Ford: How do you deal with the tension between being an activist and an academic?

Joyce: It’s difficult. It’s difficult. Academia is hostile territory for some of my beliefs, so they need to be concealed, almost entirely! Because it’s very sensitive environment. It’s a very, it’s like the spotlight is always shining on anyone who may have any ideas which are dissident to the status quo.

Academia is very difficult. I’ve had many conversations with Kevin MacDonald about this. Obviously he was practically tortured and hounded by the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] in the latter years of his position at, the University of Southern California, Santa Barbara?

Ford: He was at Cali State, Long Beach.

Joyce: Yeah, that is right, Long Beach. They made his time there quite terrible towards the end. And I think it was a great relief to him when he [chuckling] finally found his way into retirement!

But the tension. Just, … There is almost there is no tension simply because you cannot allow the two sides to come into contact. To be openly Alt-Right within the university system, within the college system, is impossible!

Ford: Yeah! Well, ..

How, … You’re on the more tough end of dealing with the Jewish Question. Like Kevin is not nearly as tough on jews as you are. [chuckling] How did you end up on your end of the spectrum? You know, you’re to the Right, so to speak, of Kevin MacDonald on dealing with the jews.

Joyce: Umm, … [chuckling] I didn’t realize that I came across so far to the Right of Kevin MacDonald! I think it’s more a matter of writing style, than position. Certainly in conversations that I’ve had with Kevin MacDonald, intellectually we’re sort of in the same position. We’re both kind of questing, and we’re both pushing, and we both are aware of our own interests, our ethnic interests in this entire [?] conflict.

But before I answer, I guess maybe I could ask you a question as to what is it in my work that makes you think I’m particularly hard on the jews?

Ford: I think it’s just a feeling that I get. I mean, also I could point to your essay for Radix Journal in January, “The Jewish Question and Some Answers”. I mean, you really want complete separation between jews and non jews. And Kevin MacDonald has not, you know, advocating anything like that. I mean, that’s a pretty big difference!

Like you and Richard Spencer now advocating for complete separation. While Kevin MacDonald is not calling for something like that. So that’s why I would say that you’re to the Right. Also, it’s just a feeling tone that I get, like when I read Kevin MacDonald I feel, you know, very much that I’m reading, generally speaking, the work of a surgeon.

And when I read you it just feels more hostile. You know, I could be wrong. That’s just the feeling. It’s like I have to put on a thicker layer of armor to engage with your writing on the jews than I do with Kevin MacDonald.

Joyce: Hmm.

Ford: Because, you know, as someone who converted to orthodox judaism who naturally, like everybody who strongly identifies with his group, tends to naturally think of his group being awesome, and members of other groups being less awesome!

And Kevin MacDonald is a challenge to deal with, but I have to put on even more armor to put myself in a place where I can engage with your writings.

[41:20]

Joyce: I think I can understand where you’re coming from. I think of the part of the reason why my work might be seen as a step up in terms of hostility, part of it might be due to the tone I write, and writing style. I do have an abruptness of style where I don’t like grey areas. And sometimes if it comes between taking the foot off the gas, or putting the pedal to the floor, I’ll put the pedal to the floor. So that’s part of a personality thing.

But in another sense some of the things that I have encountered in my research do make me angry! And sometimes that may come across in something that I’ve written. And certainly it’s not impossible that readers could pick up on that sense of grievance in my writing.

In terms of the Radix piece and advocating complete separation. I thought long and hard about the introduction to that interview. If you think back to when it was published it was kind of an iffy time in the Alt-Right in terms of how do you address the jewish Question. Red Ice Radio had a guy called “Reactionary Jew”, I think. Yeah, they had Reactionary Jew from Twitter, on. And they did an interview with him.

And a lot of the kind of 4chan crowd were unhappy that Red Ice had done this. So they started complaining, or some kind of online activism against Red Ice Radio. Which was picked up by The Right Stuff. And The Right Stuff took Red Ice’s side on this matter. And then the 4chan guys that started attacking the Right Stuff guys, which resulted in the doxing of a few of them.

I watched this. This was all very interesting to me, because it was a tussle about do Jews have any say even in how the Alt-Right approaches the jewish question. And I actually didn’t listen to the Reactionary Jew interview, but in the summaries that I heard about it, I think that, … Well this is all secondhand, this is all hearsay, as I said, I did listen to the interview.

But the word on the street, so to speak, was that Lana [Lokteff] had been quite soft on this guy, Reactionary Jew, in the first place. And that’s where the problems all began, that Lana had basically gone, made approving noises to this guy, saying, you know, there could be quite some kind of common ground there. So all of this was floating around and I thought to myself at the time:

“I would actually like to interview some jews!”

Some so-called, Right wing, reactionary jews.

Who I undoubtedly would have some kind of common ground with, in the sense that they were ethnocentric, and I was ethnocentric. And I wanted to ask them some pretty blunt and honest questions, which is the way that I would, with my personality, conduct an interview.

So, at the time I had been exchanging words with a couple of these people on Twitter. Really it was Reactionary Jew I conversed with most. And then he, got the other guy, their rabbi [?], I think he was either a convert, or this is mother, or someone, was not ethnically jewish, but he was very, very strongly identified as a Jew. It was almost like, because he was only half jewish, he had to like make up for it with a super amount of strong jewish identification. He was fascinating to talk to.

So we have some honest discussion. I said:

“Look. Here’s the deal guys. Here’s my email address, let’s us the take a step further.”

So I did this interview and I was happy with the responses. And I said to MacCaddis:

“Look. One thing I’m going to promise you with this interview is that I’m not going to alter your answers any way, shape, or form! What you send me is what will go in Radix. And I will send you a full copy of everything! Even my introduction before it is published and you guys can give me any feedback that you want.”

So I want a really transparent interaction with them where we walked through every step of the way.

Once I had the interview I thought to myself:

“Right how do I introduce this?”

And, it’s funny when you say that I’m really, really hard on the jews Well, there were people on that interview when was posted that were like:

“Oh, you know, Joyce has completely cucked out! [Ford laughs] I was soft on the jews!”

And there were people, a bit like yourself, who read that, … I know you reviewed the interview on your own blog. And I thought many of the criticisms, if not all of them, that you made about that interview in the blog were pretty valid. I don’t dispute, I don’t think that my writings is perfect, or even that was the perfect interview.

But it was difficult for me to frame. But I try to think about all angles of objection, first of all, to publication on Radix. And, you know, the first objection is:

“Look! Jews have no place in any of our publications, or, we don’t need to discuss anything with them. They are the enemy. And they just need to be opposed one hundred percent! We don’t need to listen to a single word they say.”

And I can understand that sentiment. But at the same time, from an intellectual point of view, it’s almost like:

“Well if won’t even discuss anything with them, there’s no point in really studying them, or anything else, neither. There’s no point in studying our interactions, or the history of it, you know, Culture of Critique can go out the window, or in the trash can. And so many other publications that have been produced over the centuries as well.”

Actually, engaging in some kind of dialogue even if you go into it with a certain amount of bias. Like, for example, if you want to make the argument that I went into that interview with those two jews with a fully loaded set of preconceptions, biases, and hostility, that still does not preclude the fact that elements of that interview could be useful to me and also to them.

So for me there was always going to be some kind of usefulness in interacting with these people, as I said, to some critics, and some people, who applauded the interview. I would interview Heidi Beirich [SPLC] if she let me. I would interview her for Radix, for the Occidental Observer. If you wanted to. Or Abe Foxman [former head of the ADL], or anyone else, in what I would regard as a jewish establishment.

Because, if we are confident of our position, we can’t guarantee that we’ll ever get honest answers to our questions, but if we are truly confident of our position, then we will take all of our arguments and all the questions that we have to pose, and put it’s of these people who we have designated as our opponents. And in my opinion, rightfully so.

So that interview was free and explained in accordance with how I understood it would be perceived. And I also wanted to explain to people why the interview even took place. And perhaps the only thing I left out in that introduction was, it was to satisfy, in some respects, my own curiosity.

A lot of the things that I write about, the things that I engage in are part of my own intellectual journey, which is ongoing. This is still something that I try to understand as time goes on.

I think Kevin MacDonald is still learning and developing things within his own mind, and his own understanding too. Although I think in recent years, certainly in last five, or six years, his emphasis and his focus in terms of what he is seeking to understand, have shifted inward in the sense that he has stopped looking so much for anything new on the jewish side. And he’s now looking into White pathology, the origins of Europeans. He’s trying to understand European man more.

Whereas I think I’m so really deeply in the stage of trying to understand why jews operate within European societies, and how that provokes responses from those societies. And how that vicious cycle, it sort of perpetuates itself.

[51:07]

Ford: And part of what you’re talking about when you give the framework for the Radix essay and interview is a problem faced, but everybody who belongs to a group. And that is the problem of virtue signaling and purity spiralling.

So, for instance I’m in Orthodox Judaism, so there’s always a strong incentive to be more religious, and more observant of jewish law, and more of a warrior for jews and jewish causes, than the next jew! So there’s always this inherent tension in any group that your more pure, you are more devoted to the cause, stronger in your devotion to the cause than the next guy. And it’s a real obstacle for honesty! [laughter] You’re always under, … Like I know in Orthodox Judaism you’re always under the pressure to show how observant you are, and how devoted you are to jews.

And so there’s a strong incentive then to deceive, or to say things that you don’t believe, or do things that you don’t believe, in order to appear more pure and more virtuous in the eyes of your group. And it seems to me that the same sort of dynamic, you know, operates in White Nationalism, along with every other group.

Joyce: It certainly does to an extent. And within any group you also have a certain type of person, or persons, who may not have anything particular original to contribute to the discussion, but they will find some sense of self-worth within that movement by acting in a certain capacity. And that capacity is to be the the guardian of purity spiralling, or the perpetual critic. And that’s the person who will just sit there all day long and say:

“Oh he’s cucking hard, or he’s selling out, or he didn’t name the jew on this one thousand two hundred sixteenth occasion! He didn’t mention jews this time. What’s going on there?”

And you go find this level of autism, you know, periodically within any movement, or any organization. It’s someone who has nothing else to say, so they will just simply engage in that behavior. It’s not helpful! I agree that it’s a barrier to honesty.

The question of jewish interactions in Europe, in European societies, and visa versa Europeans have responding to jews being in their midst, is so complex! It’s incredibly demanding! I mean, I’ve really lost count of the number of books I’ve read on the subject. I have not a hope of ever counting up the number of academic journal articles I’ve read on the subject matter, or the references in the literature and art. It is mind blowing the amount of effort, time, and ink, that has been consumed in dealing with this question!

And some people will prefer not to engage in even the slightest bit of effort to understand any of it, and will simply just say:

“Oh, it’s all the jews!”

And if you don’t say that, you’re cucking then. So you have to contend with that. But also you have to understand the emotional reactions, you actually understand the problem where in. And unfortunately, there’s no beating around the bush here, Whites are in really rather demographic decline across the board. We are losing rapidly our dominant position, and even our ancestral homelands! It does not look good! This is a very high pressure environment!

Perhaps the time of calmly analyzing this problems academically is drawing to a close. Simply, because of circumstances and the environment that we are in. That is unfortunate. It’s always unfortunate in any situation in which time runs out for calm discussion and the war drums start beating in the distance.

It is certainly not a situation that I want to see in my lifetime. It’s not a situation that I want for my children, or my grandchildren. But there is a certain hopelessness, certainly that I feel about the situation that may well preclude Kevin MacDonald’s of the future from having their voices heard, because for all the SPLC, the hysteria about the work of Kevin MacDonald he is certainly not an extremist! And he is certainly not any of those slurs that they made against him.

He is actually, in my opinion, a voice of incredible reason! His appeal is actually is at the end of the Culture of Critique is astonishing in a lot of ways, and in some ways touching. And it reminded me in some respects of the work by Hilaire Belloc, “The Jews”, 1922 in which the whole book is basically an appeal! It’s an attempt at reason that said:

“Look! We have friction here in our society. And if we ignore this friction it will continue to increase. If we lie about the friction it’s really going to set this tinder box on fire.”

And, of course, Belloc’s warnings were ignored. And just over ten years later we had the advent of a explicitly anti-semitic government in Germany, in which things really were forced onto a new level.

And this is just something that has occupied my thoughts a lot recently, actually. For how much longer will the Occidental Observer type material, have any kind of sway. Or we go towards the simplest message. For example, the Daily Stormer type content. And that’s not to take anything away from the Daily Stormer either. It presents a message that is broken down so simply that it can be digested by just about anyone. Certainly the popular message is always going to be the most powerful.

[58:09]

Ford: Right. I mean the Daily Stormer and David Duke are aiming at, you know, 100 IQ. The Occidental Observer is aimed at an audience with an IQ 120.

Joyce: Mmm, …

Ford: Obviously any successful movement is going to have different messages for different levels of IQ. So that’s why I get up upset by Daily Stormer and David Duke, because I see them as appealing to the 100 IQ crowd, and so they’re obviously not going to have the nuance of someone who aims his work at the 130 IQ crowd. I mean your work is aimed at people north of 120. It’s not acceptable to people with a 100 IQ.

Joyce: Yeah, … [chuckling] I’m always surprised, you know, I meet some people, I met some people at an Alt-Right meeting in Washington DC, I guess a year and a half ago now. It was all young guys, some of them were subscribers to the Occidental Quarterly and certainly read some of my work, but they explained to me that they weren’t regular visitors to the Occidental Observer because the stuff is heavy, it is dense. It does require a significant level of background reading and education.

You know, the last time I looked at Alexa, I was just having a quick glance at the ranking of the Occidental Observer. But it breakdowns visitor educational background. How they gather this information, I don’t know. Whether it’s by survey, or whatever. But the majority of people that visit the Occidental Observer had not just a first degree, but a higher degree. So I guess that is when you when you are talking about Masters and PhD’s, you are talking about an IQ level in the range of what you just described. So yeah, and then in a way that limits your audience. But that kind of argument still needs to get out there.

And in terms of leaders, and culture shapers, you really have to reach people with that level of IQ if you have any kind of influence too.

Ford: Yeah. One thing that makes me pessimistic about the relationship between Whites and Jews, is that I can’t think of many historical examples of White cohesion and Jewish strength going together in a country. Can you think of any examples of that?

Joyce: Not genuine examples. No. Some of the more, … There have been examples given for what you’ve just described. One of them would be the growth of commerce in the Netherlands from the late sixteenth century, onwards. So you’ve got the growth of the Amsterdam jewish community, the development of merchant shipping, their involvement in the financing of that. And you have a genuine rise and growth in the geopolitical power of the Netherlands at the time.

The question is how interlinked or deliberate is any of that, or is it purely coincidental? Unfortunately, the dominant pattern in history, certainly when you look at England in the Middle Ages, in France, and some of the German principalities, but most definitely in Eastern Europe, where jews were strong and they did not derive their strength in those periods from within themselves.

It wasn’t that the jews arrived extremely powerful and just kind of stamped down the peasantry. It was that they came in and they were opportunistic, talented, in certain areas, certainly in the financial areas. And their entry into European society, and into some of these countries, was just so perfectly timed. And the system of government was so perfectly set up for the entrance of a middleman minority like the jews at that time, that that’s what the strengths really came from. And as long as jews were strong, the development of a middle class was pretty much precluded at that point in time.

But, I hesitate to say just because, … Again this issue of nuance. Just, because the jews were a strong position does not necessarily mean that the peasants were completely down trodden for that reason. There was a whole system of government going on at the time, where the king and the nobles were dominant. The jews came in just under them, sometimes alongside the nobles. The peasants were always going to be the peasants.

That doesn’t mean that they weren’t exploited by jewish money lending, but it does mean that were on a lower level.

Ford: And then you’re also about the American South prior to the Civil War. No rabbi in the American South spoke out against slavery. Like jews in the American south prior to the Civil War had no problem with slavery. And jews were quite popular in the South. They got along better in the South, than in the North. And jews it was that played a prominent role in the Confederacy. So to me that’s one example of jewish, … There are very few numbers in the South but, you know, they got on great! Jews and Whites seemed to have gotten on great in the American South prior to the Civil War.

And also jews in say, nineteenth century England, you know, there’s just a small number. But England continued to flourish. And the small number of Jews also did well. So these seem to me to be examples of Jewish strength and White cohesion growing together.

Joyce: Well, … I would certainly debate the example of nineteenth century England. I think it’s always important to say, if we’re talking even about jews and those in the American South getting along well, it’s important to talk about who’s getting along well? Let’s just break it down. We are talking in both cases, in England and the American South of relatively small numbers of jews. Which is always going to lead to slightly better relations, in some circumstances.

But the problem with England in the nineteenth century, is yes, there were a relatively small number of jews. They were all quite well assimilated. They weren’t from [word unclear] immigrant class. They where not engaged in kind of petty money lending that gave rise to a lot of resentment in Eastern Europe. But on the other hand there were other problems. Yes, there was intermarriage, the beginnings of intermarriage into the English aristocracy. So you could point at that and say:

“Look that is them getting on well. The British Empire is at its strength.”

But there were also problems and antagonisms. There were issues, for example, the Marconi scandal, the Indian silver scandal. And these big governmental, financial, scandals of the nineteenth century in Britain involved Jewish nepotism. For example, a lot of the high positions within the British Empire were occupied by, really only three, or four, jewish families! They were the Nathan’s, the Montefiore’s, the Goldsmith’s, and who were the others? I think, …

Ford: Rothschilds!

Joyce: Yeah, … The Rothschild’s weren’t explicitly involved in the sense of taking named explicit positions within the British Empire. But they were intermarried with those families. They were intermarried with the Nathan’s and the Goldsmith’s and the Montefiore’s and some of the others there, the Montague’s. So, they were all intermarried. They were called “The Cousinhead”. Because they were literally all cousins to each other. And they all married each other’s cousins. So there was higher level of consanguinity going on at the time.

A lot of it was about being jewish. A lot of of it was about seeing themselves as an aristocracy. And, of course, aristocrats tended to arrange marriages within themselves, even the non-jewish nobles of the time. So inbreeding was sort of the order of the day in terms of trying to keep wealth within a certain family circle, and also influence.

But certainly jews were very prominent in a lot of the scandals of the day. So there were difficulties there. There were objections to jewish influence in those positions, particularly when we see the coming of the Boer War, which was denounced by many socialist politicians actually at the time, as a war for the jews. For jewish diamond mines in South Africa. And certainly the British Army at one point was described by one socialist politician as the “Janissaries of the jews”.

See: Andrew Hitchcock with Dr Peter Hammond – “Remembering the Late Great Stephen Mitford Goodson!” — TRANSCRIPT

So, there were problems. But are there any terrific examples of a growth in jewish power and a non jewish population that also seems to be growing, and doing well, at the same time? Nothing really stands out.

Ford: How do you see Israel? As an inspiring example of an ethnostate, or what?

[68:55]

Joyce: As an ethnostate? Yes. It’s a pretty good example obviously. It’s a State founded on ethnic principles. It’s immigration policies, it’s walls. It’s explicit and unapologetic description of itself as a jewish state is admirable. And something that any White nationalist really if he’s honest would want to replicate for himself and his own.

However, I’ve always been hesitant to go beyond that in terms of anything valuable I see in the State of Israel, because it just doesn’t stand on its own two feet. None of what we see in terms of how it performs on the international stage is truly authentic. Because so much of what it is and how it performs is backed by copious amounts of non-jewish aid in the form of military support, financial support, diplomatic support. It’s like Israel has some kind of umbilical cord attachment to the West!

Ford: Yeah. Yeah. Going back to Kevin MacDonald. I’m thinking that one can regard all of Kevin MacDonald’s major points about Jews as true. But then you get the implications of what should we then do, just all over the map. And it doesn’t seem to me like there’s a straight line between, you know, accepting the basics of MacDonald’s evolutionary psychology analysis of jews, and then, what we then do. It seems to me like the implications are quite varied.

Joyce: They are. And we can come back to this thing of my advocating the complete separation of jews and non-jews. Which some could say that’s incredibly harsh. It’s inhumane, it’s unnecessary, it’s impractical. There are any number of criticisms which could be made against such a proposal. However, when we even begin to think about alternatives, the effort involved in trying to devise any number of social solutions would be so vast that we would have to eventually come to some kind of questions for ourselves in terms of:

“Is this worth it? Or has this been tried before and failed?”

And in many cases we would say:

“Yes. That has been tried before and failed!”

Because there is nothing new under the sun. And, you know, whether it’s quotas, whether it’s, you know, go right book whether it’s some form of ghettoization, whether it’s limiting jewish ability to enter into certain professions.

All this has been done before. All of it has failed. It’s really difficult to be original in terms of coming up with solutions in this field of social interaction and ethnic relations. Because, as I said earlier, [chuckling] this is something that has been written about for centuries, portrayed in art. It has been the subject of sermons, fulminations, publications, screeds, legal proceedings, legislative acts, … Everything has been done under the sun! And we always seem to find ourselves back at square one with this stuff.

So, … It’s, you know, solutions are something that I try to stay away from! It’s really difficult!

The only thing I would come back to the issue of “effort”. Is it worth it? And I go through the same sort thought process when I think of multiculturalism.

Even on my best day, and with the best of will, and if I get out of bed on the Right side and the sun is shining, and, you know, my kids have done their homework, and all the chores are done, whatever it might be. Everything’s going well. And I listen to some person on TV talking about multiculturalism, how good it is, and how, you know, some black school in London has just won some kind of prize for doing some kind of academic contest, … Even on my best day, in those circumstances, I still have to think:

“What with all the other difficulties, is it still worth it? Is it still worth it.”

I mean, are all of these gang rapes by Muslim immigrants, and all of this crime that we are seeing in the multicultural society, and all the money, … I mean, the amount of money that is invested in trying to make the multicultural society even seems somewhat sane is got to be phenomenal!

A book should be written one day on the financial cost of multiculturalism! We all know the human cost. We all know the cultural cost. But I’m certain that the financial cost, in terms of the funding that some minorities require just to function in Britain. The The cost of the NHS [National Health Service], the cost of education, the cost in policing the crime, the cost in foreign aid, and all the other financial aspects of this. It’s huge! And that’s just one aspect of it! Is it worth it? It’s not worth it in my opinion!

And we have to kind of put on our super rational hats on when we deal with this topic, I was listening to radio show a couple weeks ago, where they were talking about developing machinery in which the human consciousness will be able to leave the human biological body and be uploaded on to some kind of hard drive. And they were discussing the scientists behind this as hyper rational people. There are people that literally are so black and white, so committed to just blunt reason that nothing is out of the question! And ethics doesn’t really play a part. And morals doesn’t com into it. Because they’re just looking at the end goals.

Perhaps in some ways, that’s what I am. It’s the hyper rational person. I look at all the difficulties, I look at two thousand years, or more, of bloodshed, of heartache, and wars, and constant antagonism, and cultural decay, and the resurgence and then decay again after generation! Is it worth it?

[76:22]

Ford: Richard Spencer made this great point he said:

“One of the challenges of dealing with the Jews is that they are in our head!”

Meaning that Jews have lived within Western civilization for over a millennia. And many of unspoken assumptions, ways of thinking, come from the Jews and are just automatically absorbed by non-jews, so it’s hard for non-jews trying to think about, you know what’s best for their people, to separate out what is jewish, and what is authentic to their own tradition.

Joyce: Yeah. I would agree with that to an an extent, although I think Richard gives, he always gives Jews too much credit with a statement like that. I don’t agree with it fully. I think that we imbibed a lot of ideas from jewish intellectuals, and some jewish interactions in our culture. But would I go so far as to say that they are really at our heads in a really strong sense, and a real literal sense of that statement? I don’t think. So I also think that it would be wrong to assume that we aren’t in jewish minds to the same extent.

I remember a quote from a guy called Anthony Julius who was jewish lawyer to Princess Diana some years ago, during her divorce from Prince Charles. And he wrote a book, “Trials of the Diaspora — a History of Anti-semitism in England”. It’s not a very good book at all. I wrote a review critiquing it for the Occidental Quarterly, and the Occidental Observer, also.

But in it he wrote that one of the attractions of anti-semitism was that it gives a troubled non-jew an opportunity to appear as an expert in something. It’s kind of a typically arrogant statement from Julius. It’s a perfect Julius statement to come out with. But one of the things Julius, even if I were to grant him that, which I don’t, but even if I was to grant him that, and say:

“Julius, there are some people who really don’t have much going on in their lives, you know, just like any kind of crank conspiracy theorist, this gives them an opportunity to appear as an expert on something, and they can a few quotes and sound smart, Jews suffer with exactly the same thing!”

Jews like to appear as experts on the anti-semitism.

It is in so many of the books that I’ve read on anti-semitism but Jews, there’s such a level of naivety and arrogance in the writings of those books. And I’m thinking in particular of historians like Robert Wistrick [?], Leon Placoth [?], and what’s his name? Not Jerrery Katz, he’s actually not that bad. But certainly Robert Wistrict. Striekter [?] was another one. But just the level of naivety there! They think that they can be completely objective when looking at anti-semitism when, of course, they can’t. Because they’re one of the warring parties.

I think the only truly objective history of anti-semitism is probably yet to come. And it will come from somewhere like China, or a different continent. Not Africa, because [chuckling] you probably won’t get that many good books written from Africa, anyway!

But it might it might be left to the Japanese, or the, or the Chinese to really write some kind of more impartial account, anyway. But there’s an arrogance there, there’s a naivety there. But I think that we are in the jewish mind as much as the jews are in ours.

Ford: It’s a shame that there’s no term like “anti-gentilism”, because as a convert to Orthodox Judaism I know that there’s just as much antipathy towards Gentiles among many jews, to varying degrees, as there is antipathy to jews amongst Gentiles to varying degrees.

Joyce: Yeah, … It’s there. I mean, I’m certainly aware from all my research, I believe that there is a deeply ingrained hostility among jews towards Europeans.

When you look at the, even the philosopher of someone like Leavenas [?], a Jewish philosopher. When he discusses European he talks about the Greeks, and how jews should not be like the Greeks. And he doesn’t mean the Greeks literally in terms of the ancient Greeks, but he means the Greeks in terms of, … That’s all Europeans.

And the reason why he’s using the terminology is this is going back to the [word unclear] [name of people]. This is going back to the original conflict between the jews and the Hellenes in ancient times. And it was a conflict that they largely believed to be ongoing. It just kind of fluctuates in different times and it adopts different phases. We are all familiar with this terminology that is used a lot by strongly identified Jews, :

“Anti-semitism is a virus that mutates.”

It’s not! It’s just that it follows Jews wherever they go. So the only concept they can come up with to rationalize it is:

“Oh! It’s just a virus just keeps adapting no matter what we do! It keeps adapting!”

But in truth anti-semitism has never had to adapt, because jewish behavior has never adapted, it has never changed! Jewish behavior has been largely continual, and remarkably stable, and consistent, over many centuries, if not millennia.

For that reason anti-semitism really has not changed, even if we were to regard it in some fairy-tale land as a virus, it’s a virus that has never had to mutate because all the arguments always been the same! Whether you pick up your Cicero or whether you pick up your Kevin MacDonald, the argument there is the same:

“Jews are highly cohesive, they stick together, they look out for their interests.”

Literally! The same argument made by Cicero is made by Kevin MacDonald, separated by some two thousand years the argument is the same! How is this a virus that’s mutating? Where is the mutation? Where is the change? There is no change.

[83:27]

Ford: Right, … But I mean, for much of European history in the last two thousand years it seems like much of the animus directed against jews came from theological differences, that the very existence of Jews argues against the theological truth of Christianity.

Each day that there are jews walking around their they are crucifying Christ anew. So that’s a different dimension of the incentive to have negative views of jews.

Joyce: That’s part of that. But I think the theological argument has been overplayed.

There is a book by a jewish historian called Dan Cohn-Sherbok called “The Crucified Jew” [The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism (1997) ] and he really overplays it. He basically says that anti-semitism began with Christianity. When in truth we know that in ancient pagan times there were criticisms made of jews as being highly ethnocentric, and that they separated themselves from other peoples. That they were in money lending and different forms of financial exploitation.

What we see of the Christian era, is yes, there was still was a theological overlay that was placed on top of those grievances. But those earlier grievances never went away. So we see, for example, as much as [Martin] Luther in all “The Jews and Their Lies” in the sixteenth century he may well rant against the jews as sort of the sons of Satan, or as deniers of Christ, et cetera, et cetera. A large part of the book is still taken up with some very old themes that we had already seen in pagan times and in the pre-Christian era.

So anti-semitism does not fundamentally change with the advent of Christianity. It takes on a new complexion for a while, but fundamentally it remains the same. So there is no dramatic alteration in that anti-semitism over a historical time. It is remarkably consistent.

As I say, if you really pick up the works, for example, church fathers, Ambrose, some others, you get many of the complaints within those texts
Don’t appeal as much as theological reasoning as you might suspect, if you were basing your understanding of the subject purely works [word unclear] like the “The Crucified Jew” by Cohn-Sherbok.

Ford: There maybe some great analogies to the topics that we were talking about that can kind of reduce the emotion, if we simply look at the world of animals and the world of plants.

And there’s a perspective called “invasive species”. Just a quote from Wikipedia:

“An invasive species of a plant, fungus, or animal species, that is not native to a specific location, which has a tendency to spread through a degree you believe to cause damage to the environment, human economy, or human health.”

So, when you introduce a people who are not native to the location it is very likely to have negative consequences for the native populations. Such as the United States and the land mass of North America when Europeans came here, you know, the Europeans were going to triumph or the Native Americans are going to succeed in repelling them. The two groups are not going to live in peace.

And so, when you bring eucalyptus trees to southern California — I’m from Australia, I love eucalyptus trees, I’ll walking around something California seeing eucalyptus trees — but they have this property whereby they kill out, you know, [chuckling] others plant, or tree, that falls under it’s branches. So they also suck up a lot of water resources.

So I’m thinking the naturalistic perspective of invasive species is a way for people to approach the difficult and emotional laden topic that we’ve been discussing, with a less emotion. And just, seeing the human interactions and human immigration as just another form of invasive species of nature.

Joyce: I agree with that to an extent. The only thing I would say is that I would be very cautious about appealing to the animal kingdom, or the plant kingdom in that respect, or even microbiology, before I would start talking about types of virus, or insect, or whatever it might be. Because there is an element of dehumanization there. And jews are humans! There are human beings! I think that needs to be kept in mind at all times.

They have different. Interests to Europeans. They pursue their interests very aggressively in my opinion. That needs to be met aggressively. But I think we can never lose sight of the fact they are human beings.

If I was to look for analogies, that would enable us to deal with the subject in a less emotional way, I might not look necessarily to things like plant species and things like that. I think it might be more helpful to look at similar middleman minorities.

For example, Indians in Uganda, or the Chinese in other parts of South East Asia. Where they have performed functions and reached levels of influence that are broadly similar to those of the jews in Europe and European societies. There are some differences, for example, jews tend to be very unique in the way that they become actors culturally, and the way they seem to have a detrimental cultural effect on their surrounding societies. The analogies are not perfect.

However, I think that I would stand by my argument that we need to see Jews as human beings, and always to conduct our struggle for our own self-determination against negative jewish influence with our heads held high. And in order to do that I think we should always look at our opponents of the eye, and that does not entail writing them off as, on a level, or in any way some way, as some kind of virus, some kind of bacteria, infection, cancer, or insect.

Ford: OK, great! Is there, I’m going to throw the interview to a close, but I want to leave you with any final words, or any final topic, that you feel are necessary.

Joyce: No. I think this has been a very, very, enjoyable interview, one of the most enjoyable I’ve given. Actually your questions have been terrific.

One thing I would sort of leave off with is that it looks like this is going to be a very interesting remainder to Donald Trump’s presidency.

I was always a Trump skeptic. I did publish a piece on the Occidental Observer some time ago about Jewish intermarriage. And I did always say that the Jewish intermarriage into the Trump’s family was always going to be problematic on some level. And would probably make itself manifest quite early into his presidency.

All that had to be set aside for a time I think across the Alt-Right. I think many of us had our suspicions about Trump, and perhaps for those reasons, but the prospect of a Clinton presidency was just so horrific, that the gamble had to be taken.

So we find ourselves not only post election, and post Trump victory, but by we find ourselves post Trump realisation in the sense that some of the predictions that we were hoping would not come true, have come true. And certainly looks like, in terms of foreign policy and in some other aspects of culture, it doesn’t look like much is going to change.

Ford: Well, thank you Andrew. This interview is recorded on April 30th of 2017. Thank you very much for your time.

[92:59]

END

============================================

PDF Download

top

* Total words = 12,592
* Total images = 13
* Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

top

Version 9: Feb 2, 2022 — Added Age of Treason transcript link. Improved formatting.

Version 8: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 7: Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 6: Oct 18, 2020 — Added last 15 more minutes of transcript. Transcript text now complete = 93 minutes.

Version 5: Oct 17, 2020 — Added 9 more minutes of transcript. Added 2 more images. Total transcript complete = 78/93 minutes.

Version 4: Oct 16, 2020 — Added 18 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 69/93 minutes.

Version 3: Oct 15, 2020 — Added 18 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 51/93 minutes.

Version 2: Oct 14, 2020 — Added another See Also link. Added 6 images. Added 17 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 33/93 minutes.

Version 1: Oct 13, 2020 — Published post. Total transcript complete = 16/93 minutes.

Jim Rizoli Interviews Hadding Scott — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:49:37 +0000

[In yet another interesting interview Jim Rizoli talks with a well-known figure in the Revisionist movement, Hadding Scott. We learn about Hadding’s earlier years and how he first learnt from his mother the old saying, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!”

Then, we learn how he became aware of some of the character traits of jews from listening to the Larry King radio show. Hadding recounts it was in 1992 that he became finally convinced that the “Holocaust” was a myth after listening to a Dr. Willian Pierce radio show.

Further on, the matter of the “revisionists” who have moved away from revisionism, like Irving, Weber, Cole and now Eric Hunt, is discussed.

— KATANA]

_______________________

YouTube Description

Jim Rizoli interviews Hadding Scott, Feb 2017, discussing Hadding’s ‘awakening’ concerning revisionism of Iraq and then, of course, WWII.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_553gsl07TQ&feature=youtu.be

[No longer available on Youtube]

UPDATE: Jul 2, 2022 – BitChute Video available here:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rQwBYc2s8vHJ/

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Hadding Scott

Published on Feb 17, 2017

TRANSCRIPT

(47:40)

[00:00]

Jim: Hi everyone, Jim Rizoli here. And I have another special guest for the show today, it’s Hadding Scott. And we’re going to be discussing a little bit about his life and some of the things that he’s been doing. So let’s get started.

So Hadding again, welcome to the program.

Hadding: Well, hello!

Jim: First of all, the only, really thing I know about you is just in e-mails, I see coming here and there. And the biggest thing I know about you, I should say is, because my brother Joe. He was very much involved listening to your discussion about Henry Ford with Carolyn Yeager.

Hadding: Oh yeah, “The International Jew Study Hour”.

Jim: Right, right! So, maybe you can tell us a little bit, … I’ll tell you what, before we get into that, why don’t we, you know, find out a little bit about you. So, what would you consider yourself?

Hadding: Well, I really hate to see somebody prevail through lying! This is something that you could notice in various things that I’ve done. But, you know, I really came to “Holocaust” revisionism through other things.

Jim: Yup.

Hadding: My origin has a lot to do with, … My parents were about a generation older than people my age. I just born in the ninety sixties. My parents were born in the nineteen twenties. And my mother was raised by her grandparents who were born not very long aft the War Between the States. So I got a very old perspective from my mother. And my mother always used to say, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!” And she gave me another perspective, when I brought home what I learned about Abraham Lincoln in school. And she also told me that all the stories about the cruelty of slavery in the South were not true. That this was exaggeration. And that slaves generally, were treated very well. And that the war was not about slavery, right?

So this really is a nice analogy to Holocaust revisionist. And I grew up with that.

Jim: Are you a teacher or anything like that? Are you an academic person?

Hadding: I have been a teacher.

Jim: OK.

Hadding: Not presently.

Jim: OK. Well, basically you, you know, you’re like me. I mean, I, you know, I got into this, because I didn’t like lying! [laughing] So, you know, I didn’t like people saying things that were just completely absurd and they’re lying and I’m trying to figure out what, why are they saying this if it’s not true? So I could understand that. So what were the first things that you took up within your travel through life, here? What were some of the topics? I mean, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln. But I mean, what other things did you do?

Hadding: Well, I can tell you how I arrived at Holocaust revisionist, all right? From this dissident perspective that was inherent in my parentage and my upbringing, I was already accustomed to the idea that much of what we hear in mass media is not true. I grew up with that! Right? But I had other things still that I needed to learn. I needed to learn that there was lying also about the Second World War, because my parents didn’t really have any inkling of that. My mother was very well informed about how there was lying against the South, but not about lying against Germany. But it was not a big leap to think that there might have been lying against Germany. But a lot of this depends on what you think about the character of the jews. Right?

I grew up with this idea that the jews were pretty much like everybody else, except they had a different religion, and the [???] jews were victimized by some mass psychosis that swept over Germany. And you have to learn about the jews to understand that this is not really how it was. And the way that I became acquainted with the real character of the jews was by listening to the Larry King Radio Show on the Mutual Broadcasting Network, beginning around 1978 and into the early 1980s.

[05:01]

I used to, actually I dropped out of high school at a very early age, actually. I got away with that. And I would stay up all night listening to Larry King radio show. And this was a big eye opener for me, because Larry King from my perspective was insane! [Jim laughing]

This was a man who professed to believe in racial equality, whereas I as a Southerner, knew first hand that this was clearly not true! And I noticed other things about Larry King. Well for one thing he made no secret of being a jew. He talked about it often and he would have guests on his show all the time the he identified as jews and many of them were buddies from the old neighborhood in Brooklyn. You could learn from listening to the Larry King Show the character of New York City jews and the fact that jews were very prevalent in the mass media and had no shame about using their positions in mass media to promote specifically jewish interests.

And Larry King was also extremely unfair to callers that disagreed with him on these particular issues, like race, and, … Well, especially race. If you disagreed with racial equality, he was very likely to badger you until you became incoherent and then hang up on you and then play the Looney Tunes thing. Right? [Mimicking the Looney Tunes music]

This was extremely unfair and this was really how I learned about jews. I mean, it’s sort of like seeing the platonic form of something, you know, you see the platonic form and then you see how that form exists in it’s imperfect form and the others. So, Larry King was sort of “concentrated jew”. And I saw that there was a little bit of Larry King in a lot of jews!

Jim: Did you ever call into the show?

Hadding: I did a couple of times.

Jim: And what happened?

Hadding: It was a long time ago, … I managed to get some stuff out and got hung up on.

Jim: [Laughing] Yeah! So that was your bad introduction to jews. And he’s such a wack job anyway, that guy!

Hadding: The thing about Larry King is he’s completely different on television, compared to how he was on the radio.

Jim: Really?

Hadding: On television he’s very toned down. You don’t, you don’t get the shameless promotion of jewish interests on his television shows, that he used to do on the radio.

Jim: Did he ever talk about the “Holocaust” or anything like [it]?

Hadding: I’m sure that he had Simon Wiesenthal on there and Eli Weasel. But at that point I wasn’t really suspicious about the Holocaust. I believed in the Holocaust until the late nineteen eighties. I started to have some questions about it in the late nineteen eighties. All right? Before I started to question the Holocaust. I had become interested in psychology. And I read a lot of psychology books, and one of the books I read was by a Scottish psychiatrist named R. D. Laing. And R. D. Laing labeled and demonized, obviously Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists.

So, because of R. D. Laing I was open to the idea that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists might have their own story. That what they did does not seem crazy, right? What they supposedly did, right?

So, before I arrived at questioning the Holocaust, I arrived at the position of trying to understand why this happened. What did the jews do to bring this on them? Right? That seemed to me a logical question. Now, I did know from having been exposed to Larry King and also some other experiences with jews, that it was entirely possible that there was exaggeration and distortion. But I still believed the “Holocaust” must have had at least some truth in it.

It was not until about 1992 that I was convinced that the Holocaust was false. I had started listening to short wave and the alternative media on short wave. Like Radio Free America with Tom Valentine, and I stumbled across also the American Dissident Voices radio program, which was usually Kevin Strong. But once a month Dr Pierce would make a broadcast. And I wrote to them because I was very interested in the fact that the way Dr Pierce talked about racial problems was very similar to the way that I talked about these things. And he presented a rational discussion of these things.

[10:16]

And I was certainly already open to the, … I knew from listening to Larry King that jews had a lot to do with these problems. That jews in the media push for racial equality! And I ordered books and magazines from them, and one of the magazines that I ordered was an issue of National Vanguard magazine from 1989. It had Adolf Hitler on the cover, it was the one hundredth birthday of Adolf Hitler issue of National Vanguard magazine. And that magazine had an article in it called, “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue”. I had heard and read before that before the Zundel Trial. I heard Ernst Zundel interviewed on Radio Free America with Tom Valentine.

I had read an article by Professor Robert Faurisson that somebody that reproduced. But, I wasn’t sure about how much of what they said I should believe! I didn’t know who Robert Faurisson was. He could have been a crazy man, for all I knew. He said that there was no chemical residue in the gas chambers and there should have been chemical residue in the gas chambers. Well, that’s a valid argument, but, it seems to be a valid argument, but I don’t know who is Robert Faurisson, what is his expertise? How can I be sure that there really should have been residue there. He just says that there should have been. How do I know it?

But with Dr Pierce, when I read it from him, I believed him, because he had a lot of credibility with me, because he spoke my language. I mean, in terms of how he talked about race and racial issues. And he also was a physicist, you know, he would know things like whether there should be cyanide residue in the bricks. You couldn’t fool him on these things and I knew he was a man who consistently told the truth. Therefore, when I read this very concise presentation about the Leuchter Report, from Dr Pierce, I was convinced. And he presented it very concisely. He talked about the blue staining in the bricks which was in the delousing chamber at Birkenau but not in Krema one in Auschwitz [I] nor in any other Krema’s [crematoria]. And this convinced me!

Jim: So that was a good awakening for you, to see that. Now how did you pursue it after that?

Hadding: I didn’t do very much was Holocaust revisionism after that until about 2002, 2003. During the propaganda for, war against Iraq. Because it was very clear at that time that Hitler comparisons and the invocation of the “Holocaust” played a very large role in this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have gassed the Kurdish, the Kurds, he’s supposed of gassed Kurds, Kurdish civilians, for no reason! It was just an unprovoked gassing of these poor Kurdish civilians! That Saddam Hussein was supposed to have done for no reason. And this was supposed to make Saddam Hussein like Hitler. And he wanted to conquer the whole world like Hitler, right? So they were all these comparisons of Saddam Hussein legend, which I knew to be false by that point about Adolf Hitler.

And I wrote some articles, in early 2003, before the US invasion, in which I debunked the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It was not true that Saddam Hussein had gassed any Kurdish civilians! This was a story that originally had been put out by the Iranians. Because what happened was that the Iranians were attacking this town in northern Iraq called Fallujah and there was nobody in the town. But then some Kurdish rebels went into Fallujah and the Iranians thought they were Iraqi soldiers and shelled them with cyanide canisters. And the Iranians accidentally killed these Kurds in Fallujah. What happened aft the Iranians went Fallujah and saw the dead Kurds is that they blamed it on the Iraqis. And they called in journalists to see what happened there and they said, “Look what the Iraqis did!”

[14:48]

If you read the early reports about this incident you can tell that they’re somewhat skeptical. The reports are somewhat skeptical what the Iranians say. The Iranians said there were five thousand dead Kurds killed by the Iraqis. The reporters said that they saw one hundred or so, bodies. This is the kind of initial reporting on Fallujah. But what happened after, Iraq came out of the war much stronger, as a sort of a regional superpower. jews started in with their anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. It happened on September first, 1988.

There was an article, a news article and also an editorial by William Safire in the New York Times. In which William Safire mentions that this cyanide gas had been used to kill the Kurds at Fallujah was the same gas used at Auschwitz! George Herbert Walker Bush also made an explicit Hitler comparison. Compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. And Saddam Hussein also returned the comparison, comparing George Herbert Walker Bush to Hitler! Everybody that you want to motivate people to attack apparently is just like Hitler.

So we have this war in 1991, but I’m perfectly willing to believe the Iraqi side of the story that April Glaspie, that the Kuwaitis provoked the Iraqis and that April Glaspie told them that the USA wouldn’t care if they invaded Iraq.

Also I found out the CIA had made a fake satellite photograph showing Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border to try to get the Saudis to support the whole project of invading Iraq, attacking Iraq. Which echoes, of course, the fake CIA photograph that was published in Life magazine of the fake aerial photograph of Auschwitz that was published in Life magazine, I think in 1977. That showed doctored photographs of Auschwitz with people lined up for the gas chamber.

Jim: I’d like to see that picture.

Hadding: Yeah! Well that’s online. You just do a search, “Life magazine Auschwitz”. You’ll find it. Actually, it had people standing on the corner of buildings in these lines that were lined up, to go into the gas chamber. It was a kind of sloppy alteration. And they also put in a wall to hide people, so that they could pretend these people going to be gassed were not seen by people outside of the camp. There was there was no such wall.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: Anyway, so this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda about the gassed Kurds went on for fifteen years, until we had the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003. Really the gassed Kurds story was the basis of the whole propaganda. Because this is an observation that I’ve made about how propaganda works. Most people are so overwhelmed with information that they can’t bother to check everything that they hear, or even very much of what they hear.

So what people will do, is that they will take a few bits of information that they’ve heard and that they believe and they’ll construct a picture based on assumptions. So basically they try to see a pattern and fill out a picture based on that. In Gestalt psychology this is called “reifications” where you have a few, a few hints about what a shape might be and you can imagine that the shape is there. That’s called “reification”. It literally means “making the thing”, “thing making”.

So this tendency of people to fill out their knowledge gaps with imagination is exploited in propaganda. And the biggest way that they do this, is by misinforming people about somebody’s character. Once it was spread that Saddam Hussein had gassed the poor Kurds and had done it with no cause, people would believe that he could do anything! All right, this is a crazy man! A man who might very well have been involved in the 9/11 attacks!

You couldn’t really convince people that he wasn’t involved in the 9/11 attacks, because that would that would require checking the evidence and most people will never do that. But it would fit, … If people implied that he might have been involved in the 9/11 attacks they were very ready to believe it, because of what they had been told about Saddam Hussein’s character. And this is something that has to be addressed is also in regard to the Holocaust.

One thing that a lot of people in Revisionism seem to do, they seem to focus on these details about gas chambers and crematoria and they don’t really look at questions like, “What kinds of people were these that were accused of doing these things?” “What is the character of the people making the accusations?” That’s extremely important!

[20:12]

Now, since 9/11 and actually since the late 1970s when people started becoming critical of the state of Israel, but especially since 9/11, there’s a lot less trust of jews, because a lot of people noticed after 9/11 that there was a lot of dishonesty.

I just had a conversation yesterday with a leftist. I asked him privately if you believed in the Holocaust. And he said he wasn’t sure, but he doesn’t trust jews. This guy’s a leftist! He says he doesn’t trust jews! Right? Because he doesn’t trust jews, he’s open to the possibility that the whole cause could be a big lie. Right? That’s very important! And this is something that has to be addressed if you’re trying to say that there was no Holocaust, while maintaining, “Oh yes! The Nazis were these horrible people!” you’re not going to be very convincing.

Jim: The big thing for you to understand how a lie could be propagated upon us and not be true, and I understand that too, … And I do I do believe you, what you say there about this psychology of this all too. There’s a lot more involved than that. That a lot of people don’t get into. I mean, I don’t get into it, because it’s hard, it’s hard to deal with that aspect of it, unless you show pictures [laughing] ., you know, what I mean?

I mean, you know, people, you could talk psychology all you wanted but it seems like it only resonates with a certain type of people, the psychology aspect of it. I mean, I think it’s a good aspect of it. Just like, what’s her name, Elizabeth Loftus. Is that her name? She’s the one that talks about the false memory syndrome. Have you ever hear of her?

Hadding: Yeah.

Jim: So I mean, she was saying, …

Hadding: I’ve heard of False Memory Syndrome.

Jim: Yeah. Well anyway, that’s, I think that’s who she is. And she’s the one that, you know, she went at it from that aspect. But she didn’t get into the “Holocaust”. She just gets into it from other people in life, but being a jew, she didn’t want to deal with that topic of the Holocaust, because obviously, you know, the tribes she belongs to, the tribe and that’s not going to be too good for her. So that’s why she never, … But that is an interesting topic if you ever wanted to find out about her. I think it’s Elizabeth Loftus.

Hadding: Well I’ll tell you another psychologist who wrote something that casts a lot of doubt on the Holocaust is Leon Festinger. He wrote “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance”. This was published in 1957. And you really have to wonder what Festinger had in mind.

It’s irresistible to make the analogy, jews hearing the rumors in Auschwitz, or someplace like that. If they were, … If they had a bad conscience, if they really hated the Germans, if they were communists and had bad intentions and had been locked up in this camp. But were being treated way better than they expected, or way better than seem justified. They would be disposed to believe the same kind of rumors that these Japanese interned in these American camps believed. They had this rumor that they were being secretly killed and it was the same rumors that the jews had.

Jim: Can I ask you this about your relationship with Carolyn Yeager doing that real, you know, I guess it want on for what, months? Your thing about Henry Ford.

Hadding: Yeah, it was some 50 chapters.

Jim: Wow! So how long did that go on for?

Hadding: It was about a year, I guess.

Jim: Yeah, my brother, … I mean, the reason I know about that, is my brother Joe, he takes the mp3s and he listens to them when he drive. So he told me all about it and, you know, it’s a great way of understanding, or actually getting the book in without reading it, you know. Because sometimes people, they can’t read. My brother he, … And I do too. When I get on the plane I take mp3s and listen to them as I fly. You know, right now I’m listening to “The Myth of German Villainy”. Are you familiar with that book?

Hadding: No. Who wrote that?

Jim: Oh my goodness! Ben Bradberry. You have to get that book! If you want to understand World War Two, and prior to World War Two, World War One, and even prior to that from the 1850s on, what happened with Germany and the whole ten yards, you have to, … You have to read that book. Because you’ll get the best education on what really happened. And I think of all the books I’ve ever read, that probably has been the best one.

[25:14]

I interviewed him actually, Ben Bradberry. You could probably do a search for it on You Tube “Ben Bradberry Jim Rizoli interview” But he’s been he’s been interviewed by Red Ice and Rense and all these other people, too. So he’s a phenomenal writer and the book, … I don’t even know how he wrote his book. There’s so much in this book. It’s like how does anybody get into so much information and put it into a book? I just can’t even comprehend it. But he did it.

So, yeah, if you ever get a chance definitely read that. I actually have it all online as a mp3 that I downloaded on the site, the archive site [https://archive.org/details/MRTAPMAN_gmail_MGV] that people can download it and listen to it, like I’m listening to it. But it’s like, how many hours, my goodness, I think it’s fourteen hours just audio. So it’s pretty long. But, I do recommend that.

But anyway, getting back to Carol Yeager. Have you done any more stuff with her, or what?

Hadding: She’s not doing very much these days, so she just posts articles on our blog, occasionally. She has this website called, January 27 [http: //jan27.org], you know, the “Holocaust” Revisionist Commemoration on International “Holocaust” Remembrance Day. I just wrote an essay for that.

Jim: Yeah, I saw that. It’s not Jan27.org is it? Is that it? Oh, that’s her site, then OK, all right

Hadding: “jan27.org”

Jim: Right. That’s a real good site there. So she basically, she hasn’t been doing much with, you know, online interviews and stuff anymore?

Hadding: I haven’t heard her do an interview in months.

Jim: Oh, OK. I mean, I know I was on her show some years ago. But I haven’t really heard much about her since, you know.

What do you think about, … Here’s something that we’ve been discussing here, Diane and I. We’ve been discussing what’s happening in the revisionist movement. A lot of people, well not a lot, but some pretty high ranking people in the movement are kind of recanting! They have [moved??] now. Like for instance Eric Hunt. You know, what do you think about what’s going on there?

Hadding: Well, Eric Hunt, I don’t know if it’s really “high ranking”. He’s got notoriety because he makes videos in which, I mean, he’s prominent, because he makes videos, …

Jim: Right.

Hadding: I think mostly, … Honestly I don’t pay a lot of attention to what other people do, but I’m sure mostly in his videos he summarizes other people’s findings.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: With Cole, he had an argument, …

Jim: Oh! David Cole, yeah, yeah, …

Hadding: And apparently he felt badly about his performance in the argument with Cole. And he felt he had been defeated, I guess. He said, “We really need to prove that those jews weren’t killed in the Action Reinhardt Camps!” Well, wait a second. The burden of proof is on the accuser, you know. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote this essay called, “Semi-revisionism is Dead” [https://jan27.org/semi-revisionism-is-dead] .

Jim: Yeah, I read it and it was excellent. I thought it was very good, but I think, … You know what’s happening with this conversation, OK, what I’m noticing anyway, is these, … I call them the “Holocaust”-hucksters and what they do is they turn the conversation on us, to prove something that didn’t happen!

Hadding: To prove it didn’t happen!

Jim: I mean, it’s like, how do you do that!? How do I prove something didn’t happen!? And their biggest thing is [laughing] if you ever get in the conversation is, “Where did the jews go if they weren’t executed?” and I’m saying to myself, “Who cares? I don’t care where they went!” they weren’t killed, that’s all I care about, you know. So that’s my, you know, my take on that. But, you know, now he in his last article I just saw, he writes all about, you know, the Reinhardt Camps and that people were killed in those camps, because, you know, “Where did they go if they want were killed?” And the thing that really bothers me is they make all these assumptions that, you know, the jews had to go somewhere if they weren’t killed, but they forget all the other information showing how ridiculous the hoax is!

Hadding: That’s right.

Jim: I mean, I don’t get it! I don’t understand how this guy can even look at himself in the mirror and think, “Well gee! Let’s talk about those Reinhardt Camps and, you know, find out where they get all that wood?” You know, how they do all this, you know, those, … How they burnt all these bodies just with lighting a match to a body and the whole body just incinerates, you know, “puff” and the whole pile goes up [laughing] just, you know, just like that! Yeah, I don’t know. I just get so aggravated when I hear it.

[30:12]

But then, you know, I hear David Irving, he’s kind of capitulated not??? . Mark Weber, you know, he’s the same way, you know, he basically says, “While I think that millions of jews were killed, …” but he doesn’t get into how it happened. He just said it happened.

Hadding: I thought you humiliated Mark Weber by asking him, “How were they killed?” and he couldn’t answer that.

Jim: I mean, how do these guys show their face!? I mean, how do you, how do you make, … I mean, you know, I use a lot of IHR [Institute of Historical Review] material and, you know, the old stuff. And, you know, I’m always using it and then I talk to a guy that can’t even give me two facts that show that it happened! And that, you know, David Cole is the same way, you know. So yeah you got David Irving, David Cole and obviously, you know, Mark Webber and now we get Eric Hunt. You know, who’s next? You know, that goes, …

Hadding: Irving, Weber and Cole all have different motives. David Irving, he wants to have his career back, right. I don’t think he’s going to get it, but that seems to be, … I mean, that’s what somebody opined, somebody very well informed and prominent and famous, opined to me in 1996 when the “Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich” came out. David Irving wants his career back.

So that is why David Irving is espousing this semi-revisionism the continues the demonization of Goring and Goebbels and Himmler, .. But not Goring, but Himmler and Goebbels. But it’s really a reversion to the position that he had in the 1970s. That was always his position. That he constructed this drama where Hitler was doing good things and he had these evil men around him that were harming jews behind his back.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But this is the kind of drama that David Irving has constructed. And really he’s just gone back to that. Mark Weber has a different motive, I think he just wants to avoid Holocaust revisionism and not discuss it to the extent that he can avoid it.

In the case of David Cole, … David Cole got involved in Holocaust revisionism only after the 1988 False News Trial when the Leuchter Report appeared and Leuchter testified and David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zundel. The holocaust industry was, in general, was in retreat at that point. And you could see this for example in Yehuda Bauer, his letter to The New York Times. An article about Yehuda Bauer to The New York Times followed by a letter from Yehuda Bauer, talking about the need to lower the death toll at Auschwitz, because those neo Nazi holocaust deniers, “They can count, you know!”

They realized that they were under a lot of scrutiny and criticism and that they needed to make revisions themselves to try to save their holy myth. And this is when David got involved! By his own account it was 1989 when he got involved. And the first time that the world heard anything about David Cole wasn’t until 1992. David Cole as a “Holocaust” revisionist.

By that time it was the period when Holocaust revisionism appeared to be this great chariot leading to victory, right? And, you know, that’s what David Irving clearly believed in 1988. He believed that revisionism would prevail within, he said, five to ten years. And then the history books could be rewritten. Well it didn’t turn out that way.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But during that time David Cole got involved. He endorsed the findings to the Leuchter Report. And he made this video at Auschwitz, where he basically duplicated what other revisionists had already done. There’s really no new information, I don’t think, in Cole’s Auschwitz video. It is very well done, you know, it has a nice tempo to it and has good audio and it’s watchable. All right? But David Cole was basically just putting a jewish face on what others had already discovered.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: That’s what he was doing. It’s jewish damage control!

Jim: Right. I know Mark Weber, you know, I don’t know, maybe, you know, this, or not. I don’t know, but he inherited a lot of money, you know, in a settlement he got, you know, he actually inherited like, for the IHR.

Hadding: Carto.

Jim: Yeah and all that. He got several million dollars out of that. I mean, did, you know, that?

[35:12]

Hadding: Well, I knew that there was this woman, I think, left a lot of money to the IHR.

Jim: Yes, she was part, …

Hadding: ??? And Carto had embezzled it and, …

Jim: Yeah, there’s a whole story there. But the bottom line was, the end result, was he inherited seven, I think seven and a half million dollars that went to IHR and that’s the reason why you don’t hear Mark Weber saying anything anymore. Because he’s got so much money that he’s just sitting on it and just waiting to retire and live happily ever after. So, and he’s not doing anything! No new books, no new writings, nothing! Because he’s pretty well set for life, now. I mean, that’s what I get out.

Hadding: Well, from what I see apparently he’s perfectly happy to travel and give a speech against the Zionist jewish power!

Jim: Right.

Hadding: He’s apparently happy to talks about Palestinians, but he doesn’t want to talk about the “Holocaust”.

Jim: Right. Well, that’s the point, you know, why, because he’s still, he’s still reaping money. He’s getting money that’s coming in from people that still donate to his cause and, you know, he, like I said, he doesn’t want to upset the apple cart with the, you know, maybe some of the jews even contribute to his cause that want him to keep quiet, you know, what I mean? [laughing].

Hadding: Who knows?

Jim: So I think, oh yes, I think, you know, I think that’s part of the issue there with him. But that’s sad because, you know, Germar Rudolf, he wrote a really good article about that. About what happened with all that. I just read that, I think the other day, you know, the whole relationship about revisionism and how money corrupts. And it sure has, because it keeps revisionism from doing more. Because, you know, if they have a lot of money they don’t have to do anything. And Germar, I think Germar out of all the revisionists, he’s the one I think is the top one now, you know, that’s really doing something and, you know, trying to make this work. Germar. I mean, he’s, that’s my opinion anyway, you know. I don’t know any other one that’s that’s doing anything as much as Germar.

Hadding: Oh sure. Faurisson some years ago referred to the amazing energy of Germar Rudolf, or something to that effect.

Jim: Yes, it’s phenomenal what he’s doing. And, you know, we interviewed, we went down to Pennsylvania and interviewed Germar and he was really a good man. I really like him and I just hope he can, … I mean, what really bothers me is you get these inheritances that come in to these organizations and you think the IHR would throw some money his way, you know, because of all the work that Germar has done, you know. But no, he doesn’t get anything from anybody. You know, he’s just poking along. It’s just sad! I hate to see that happen but, you know, it’s happening, you know. Anyway, but that’s, …

Hadding: Well, I don’t think. I just want to clarify. I don’t think that receiving money is what’s wrong with Mark Weber, all right. Mark Weber, I mean, this is according to Faurisson’s account. Mark Weber is a weak man! He’s a weak man. He’s not very brave. When they were in, I think, in Germany and police had detained Ernst Zundel. They were going to have, … I don’t remember the story now, but they were in Germany and they are in danger of being arrested and Mark Weber’s teeth were chattering!

Jim: Right.

Hadding: But, you know, Mark Weber he’s not a, just look at him. He does not convey strength.

Jim: Yeah, he at that point that you are talking about, I’m going to use a term that, there’s no other way I could use it any differently, … He was ready to shit his pants! OK! Because [laughing] he was so afraid of getting arrested and that’s what happened with him. So yeah. But, you know, I look at Fred Luechter and, you know, hey Fred, you know, he took it. I mean, he, you know, he was going to go to jail too and he hung in there. He eventually got out of there which was the smartest thing to do too.

But if he goes back there, they’re going to put him in jail [laughing] So, you know, Fred hung in there and he’s, you know, he’s not going back on any of his views about how things were done in the, you know, the Luechter Report and all that. And he suffered more than anybody, you know. So, you know, when I see these people talking about suffering like Eric Hunt, you know, my whole life has been topsy turvy by this and that. I just say, please!

Hadding: So you think that’s why he’s backing away from this?

Jim: Well, that’s what I think. I think even Germar said that too. But you got to understand too with David Cole, you know, they threatened David Cole. They had a hit on him, to kill him. You know, he was supposed to, he was going to be killed.

[40:11]

Hadding: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing, they didn’t kill him, did they?

Jim: No, no, I know, yeah, because he talked to, what was his name?

Hadding: Irv, …

Jim: OK, OK. Irv Ruben, at the time anyway. He went to jail. He actually end up going to jail, but he actually end up talking to him and as far as I understand, the story what Cole said, he ended up paying him money or something, not to do anything to him. That’s the story that I heard. I thought I heard from Cole, when I was listening to one of Cole’s audios, videos, like we are doing now.

So, the point is it seems like a lot of these people might have been threatened, you know, I can understand that would cause a problem with you, but, you know, we’ve all suffered. I mean, I lost a business, because of the jews. So I mean, that’s life. You just get on and, you know, I know I didn’t stop. I actually got more, I got more involved with it. I didn’t get less involved in it, because now I have the time to put to it! You know, that’s that’s what I feel is important, you know, use your time wisely. And I think that’s what we all have to do you know.

Hadding: Well Irv Ruben has been dead for years now. I don’t think that Irv Ruben is the reason for what David Cole is doing now. I presented in my essay, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” background that would support the interest that David Cole was never really interested in debunking the Holocaust, as such. That is never what he wanted to do. He tried, like Yehuda Bauer, he wanted to revise it to keep it alive.

Jim: Right.

Hadding: That’s my thesis.

Jim: Well, he got [???] too. After all that he ended up working for the “Holocaust” museum, or whatever. Somebody involved with that and he was doing videos for them. According to what David Cole says now. I’m telling you what David Cole said. After he went into hiding, he ended up doing stuff for the opposite cause, here. And doing videos and research for the pro-holocaust people.

Hadding: As Stein?

Jim: Yeah as Stein.

Hadding: OK.

Jim: Yeah, he changed his name. And then, you know, that’s what happened there. I mean, well, you know, what are you going to do? I really don’t care about him. I have no interest. I would like to interview him though and really hit him with, you know, some really tough questions, but I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen, you know. I’m not really worry about it.

So what, … Do you have like a website, do you like, have a blog site or anything like that?

Hadding: Yes, my main blog is The National Socialist Worldview. Its National hyphen Socialist hyphen Worldview dot blogspot dot com [http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com].

Jim: Oh OK. That’s good. So we can go to that and see what’s going on with you. Like you post things there all the time, or something, or keep it up?

Hadding: Yeah. I try to post at least one thing a week but, you know, sometimes it’s only one thing a month. If I get working on something for CODOH it might keep me from posting on my blog for a while.

Jim: Yeah. So explain to me a little bit about CODOH. So you do stuff with them and who is running CODOH now?

Hadding: Germar Rudolf!

Jim: OK. So Germar is running it and how’s that going?

Hadding: It’s a good gig., you know, I wasn’t really, … It pays a little less than the Occidental Observer, but the Occidental Observer won’t publish my stuff anymore. And I get published much more regularly on CODOH than I could on the Occidental Observer. I use this to pay my bills.

Jim: Right, right. Who runs the Occidental Observer?

Hadding: That’s Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald is afraid of, seems to be afraid of, that subject.

Jim: Well, you got to understand that if he takes that topic on he’s going to be dead, just like Irving!

Hadding: Well, he’s retired, so what does he have to lose?

Jim: Oh, is that what it is. OK, well I can understand that. So, well that’s good. So, I mean, I just started going to the CODOH site looking up more things. I mean, that’s a great site. I mean, a lot of information there, you know. We, you know, we’re revisionists, I mean, we have a tremendous amount of information out there, you know, the “Holocaust” handbooks. I mean, my goodness. I mean, there’s so much stuff there. The problem is the majority of people out there don’t get to see it because, you know, you can’t get it out there. I mean, you know, you have to look for it deep down in the Internet to find it. But it’s there if people, you know, want to look at it, you know. We can we can definitely look at it.

[44:51]

So, basically, you know, you’re just biding your time. Just, you know, writing things as they come. I mean again we, you know, we enjoy what you write. I mean, you know, you’re a good writer. You know, you have a nice, you know, style and insight. I would say about things and I think that’s important that people, you know, see that stuff. I mean, that article you wrote about, you know, the three revisionist, what was it, three revisionist you took up?

Hadding: Yes, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” is the name of it.

Jim: Yes, that was a super article! That was a great article, you know. So anytime you get something, you know, a new, .. Well you send them my way anyway, so we get what you’re doing now. So that’s important.

Well, anything else you have you like to, … What do you think, what do you think the future is for us? You know, the movement, you know, revisionism, the truth movement and all that?

Hadding: I think that we have some people falling away from Holocaust revisionist right now that maybe hadn’t really thought through their position very well initially. Maybe their commitment wasn’t very deep to begin with. So I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I just worry about what I’m doing and trying to make sure what I’m doing the right thing. And keep doing it. And as long as I can get by and pay my bills and have enough to eat while I’m doing the right thing that is what I keep doing.

Jim: Right, right. Well, I agree. I’m the same way. You know, I was saying to Diane, I was saying I don’t, I really don’t care what anybody even the revisionist views are! I know common sense! You know, me I can read and I can understand common sense and if someone wants to go back on common sense and go to stupidity and believe things that just can’t happen I mean, that’s that’s up to them! I just feel sorry for them that they can’t stick it out and do what’s right.

But, well look, I really appreciate that you came on with us today. Again you contribute a lot to the cause! I just want to let, you know, that, OK!

Hadding: Thank you very much.

Jim: Yeah, I mean, you’re a good man and, you know, keep continuing on and don’t let anybody discourage you. I know financially, you know, things could be better, but it could be like that for all of us to, I suppose. But the truth is the truth! And no matter what the topic is you’ve got to let people know about it. I don’t care what the consequences are, you’ve got to just let everybody, you know, deal with it and go along with it, you know.

Well look, Hadding, thank you very much for our interview. Good luck with what you’re doing and, you know, another time we’ll probably try to talk to you again when something else comes up that, we know, we can talk about too.

Hadding: All right. Well, thank you very much.

Jim: All right. Bye now!

[47:40]

END

============================================

PDF Notes

* Total words in post = 7,731

* Total words in transcript = 7,582

* Total Images = 27

* Total pages = 29

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.0 MB):

Jim Rizoli Interviews Hadding Scott 2017 — TRANSCRIPT

Version History

Version 5: Jul 2, 2022 — Improved formatting. Added BitChute link to video.

Version 4: Feb 3, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 3: Mar 14, 2017 — Added PDF of post for download.

Version 2: Feb 23, 2017 — Added 25 images.

Version 1: Feb 20, 2017 — Published post.

Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

admin — Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:20:43 +0000

[Part 13]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

Part 13, starts with an outline of the dire conditions in Germany prior to the National Socialists taking power. After taking power international jewry launched a world-wide trade boycott against Germany and cut off funding from international jewish banks. In part response Hitler asked the German people to give him 4 years of emergency dictatorial power (Enabling Act) to solve the problems that confronted Germany.

What Hitler intended was a total revolution.

“The people,” he said, “were not put here on earth for the sake of the economy, and the economy does not exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital should serve the economy, and the economy in turn should serve the people.”

In the section, “Night of the Long Knives” Hitler finally takes action against the SA’s Chief of Staff, Ernst Rohm and his close associates that were causing the Party to lose support from industry and military leaders, in addition to threatening a possible coup against Hitler. Hitler was praised in a Daily Mail article for saving his country.

In the section, “1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg” Hitler proclaimed the “thousand year Reich”. The Nuremberg Rally was held annually in September until 1938 to show the world and energize the nationalistic pride of the German people and their support for National Socialism.

In the section, “Hitler Revives the German Economy” the dramatic and probably the greatest economic turnaround in history is described. The world’s first superhighway system, the “Autobahn,” was a shining example of National Socialism’s economic policies at work. Mass production of the Volkswagen, which literally means “people’s car,” was another. Germany got around the jewish trade boycott and capital strangulation using a barter system that helped the economy flourish.

Finally, in the section, “Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World” the praise and admiration of foreign statesmen and prominent personalities for the success of Germany under Hitler and the National Socialists is described. Even that traitorous tool of international jewry was moved to say:

“One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”― Winston Churchill, 1935

— KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

Chapter 13 Life in Germany

Under Hitler

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly bankrupt and deeply in debt. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations requirements on the German people, demanding that Germany pay all the costs incurred by the Allied nations during the war. This was totally unrealistic because the combined costs of the war totaled three times the value of all property in Germany, completely beyond Germany’s ability to pay. At the same time that the Treaty required Germany to pay these unrealistic reparations, other measures in the Treaty, i.e. taking her coal mines, her merchant fleet and her richest farmlands and giving them to other countries, reduced her ability to pay even further. As unrealistic as these demands were, France nevertheless demanded that they be paid, and paid on time, and then sent the French army in to occupy the Rhineland for the purpose of enforcing these reparations payments. The German army was limited by the Treaty to only 100,000 men, too small to resist an invasion, or to even effectively police the country.

Germany was in a double bind. She had no choice but to pay the reparations, but pay with what? To meet the scheduled payments, the German government resorted to printing money, which, predictably, created inflation. Once inflation began, private currency speculators jumped in to try to make money off the inflation by selling the mark short. This caused the German mark to plummet in value, setting off an inflationary spiral which quickly zoomed out of control. The Jews totally dominated finance and the financial markets in Germany, and nearly all of these currency speculators were Jews. Their role in setting off the inflation received wide publicity and was therefore well known by the German people. The inflation went out of control, to the point that at its worst, a wheelbarrow full of marks could not buy a loaf of bread.

Sweeping up worthless German Marks during the 1923 hyper inflation.

The thrifty German middle class who had always been careful savers, were ruined en masse by the inflation, as their life savings simply evaporated before their eyes. The value of the mark decreased so rapidly that prices were adjusted upwards several times a day. To compensate, employers began to pay their employees twice a day. With their pay in hand, these poor German people literally ran to a store, any store, to purchase almost anything of value before the price was adjusted upwards again. Almost any item or real asset was preferable to their handfuls of marks which were losing their value by the hour. This wild consumer spending set off an economic boom in Germany for a time, though that soon deflated. Due to the velocity of the inflationary spiral, prices went up so fast that people could not buy enough food with the wages they earned. They began desperately selling off all their personal possessions just to buy enough food to keep themselves and their families alive as wages and salaries lagged far behind the rapidly increasing prices. Pawn shops proliferated. Countless homes, farms and commercial buildings were lost to private banks. Those with access to foreign capital, especially dollars, began buying up property all over Germany for pfennigs on the mark. The private banks and the pawn shops were owned almost entirely by Jews, and the Jews were the ones who had access to foreign capital.

The Jews, as a result, grew rich off the inflation, while ordinary Germans were reduced to living in hovels, and in many cases, starving to death.

According to the British historian Sir Arthur Bryant in “Unfinished Victory,” 1940:

“It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.”

The 1923 inflation resulted in the largest transfer of wealth from one group to another ― that is, from the Germans to the Jews ― in all of German history, and, as might have been expected, feelings of bitter resentment developed toward the Jews because of it.

As if this were not enough, the inflation was soon followed by a global depression which hit the already fragile German economy especially hard. Germany’s unemployment rate at the depth of the depression was the highest in Europe at 30%; even higher than that of the United States, which stood at 24%. Germany’s depression was not just worse than America’s Great Depression, it was much worse. Anguished parents in Germany watched helplessly as their children starved to death. People lost their homes. Shanty towns of hovels constructed of shipping crates and the like sprang up all around Germany’s cities and in the forests. To keep alive, they made communal pots of soup out of anything they could scrounge up, such as turnips, potatoes, and even grass.

By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry workers roamed aimlessly through the streets looking for anything to eat or any way to earn a few pfennigs with which to buy food. The government paid unemployment benefits, but only for six months, after which, nothing, and what it paid was pitifully inadequate. These unemployed men had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million Germans, a third of the population, were at the point of starvation.

Line at the unemployment office in Hanover, Germany in 1930

The cost of welfare amounted to 57% of the total revenue taken in by the government. The entire society was at the point of collapse. Those lucky enough to still have jobs were not much better off, as their salaries and wages had been sharply reduced. The intellectuals were hit as hard, or harder, than the working class. The unemployment rate of university graduates was 60%. Well educated people could be seen on the streets of Berlin with signs on their backs saying they would accept any kind of work. But there was no work. Hardest hit of all were the construction workers, 90% of whom were unemployed.

Farmers had also been ruined by the two economic disasters; the inflation followed a few years later by the depression. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and land, but then, when the economy “crashed,” the value of real estate declined to the point that by 1932, to use the parlance of today, they were “under water” in loan to value ratio. Those who could not meet the interest payments saw their homes and farms auctioned off, the result of which was that those with access to foreign currencies (again, mainly Jews) grew rich off the misery of the hapless ordinary Germans. In 1931 and 1932, 17,157 farms, with a combined total of 1.15 million acres, were liquidated in this way.

Germany’s industries, once the envy of the world, saw drastic reductions in production. Thousands of factories had closed down, resulting in a 50 percent decrease in gross industrial production compared to what it had been in 1920. Exports had also dropped by an astounding 75 percent. Germany’s central bank, the Reichsbank, was in danger of collapse due to the growing number of outstanding loans going into the red, while at the same time foreign loans were being called in.

It was estimated during that time that no more than around 100,000 people in all of Germany were able to live without financial worries. Germany was a nation of 65 million people living in gut-wrenching misery caused by a variety of problems, including the imposed burdens of the Versailles Treaty, industrial stagnation, horrific unemployment, and serious political instability. The situation became so bad that between 1929 and 1933 some 250,000 Germans committed suicide out of despair and hopelessness. The birth rate in Germany dropped from 33.4 per thousand to just 14.7 per thousand. Even this birth rate was achieved only because of the higher birth rate in the countryside. In the 50 largest cities, there were more deaths than births. In Berlin, deaths exceeded births by 60 percent. This morass of misery caused many to submit to the allures of Communism, making a Communist takeover of the country a real possibility. The Weimar government proved itself totally incompetent to deal with this multiplicity of crises, with its various factions squabbling impotently as Germany teetered on the brink of disaster.

Germany’s situation was further aggravated by the unrestrained competition of its 25 regional states whose governments were often in direct conflict with policies of the central Reich government. These states, such as Bavaria, Prussia, Wurttemberg and Saxony, had ancient origins, and only a few years before, that is, before the 1871 consolidation of Germany, they had been independent, sovereign monarchies. Not surprisingly, they jealously guarded the power and privileges which still remained. Germany was a federation, with a weak central government and each of the 25 states was still ostensibly sovereign. Getting them to work together for the greater good of Germany was nearly impossible. Germany had become a country that was ungovernable.

March 21, 1933, Hitler strolls toward the Garrison Church in Potsdam (Suburb of Berlin) for a ceremony to open the new Reichstag session. Hitler became Chancellor in January, 1933.

These were the conditions that existed in Germany when Hitler and the National Socialists came to power in 1933. But as if the situation were not bad enough, conditions were made worse by the worldwide Jewish boycott of German goods which immediately followed Hitler’s election to the Chancellorship. The immediate result of the boycott was a precipitous 10% drop in German exports, which were already disastrously low, which then threw even more people out of work. The boycott also attempted to strangle the German economy by cutting off funding from international Jewish banks. International Jewry had declared war on Germany with the intention of undermining and destroying the already fragile German economy in order to discredit and destroy the National Socialists (Nazis) who had just been elected into office. Germany was already at the point of collapse, and the boycott might well have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

After assessing the situation, Hitler gave a speech to the German people in which he said that the difficulties facing Germany were so dire that he needed emergency dictatorial powers in order to confront them:

“German people, give us four years time, after which you can arraign us before your tribunal and you can judge me!”

Hitler speaks to the German people and asks for 4 years of dictatorial power to cure Germany’s ills.

The Reichstag responded overwhelmingly. On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag voted 441 to 84 to pass the Enabling Act into law, which gave Hitler the 4 years of emergency dictatorial powers he said he needed to resurrect Germany’s economy.

“The great venture begins,” Hitler said. “The day of the Third Reich has come.”

Hitler knew from the start that the task he had set for himself would be immense and difficult to accomplish. He knew that Germany would have to be transformed from top to bottom, beginning with the very structure of the state. The old class structure would have to go and a new German society, imbued with a new civic spirit would then take its place. He also intended to free Germany from foreign hegemony (the Versailles Treaty) and to restore German honor in the world. But the first and most immediate task would be to put the six million unemployed back to work.

Hitler intended not only to put men back to work, but to give prestige and honor to the concept of “work,” itself. Germany had traditionally been stratified by “class,” with a privileged class at the top, including the industrialists, and the working class at the bottom, who were considered by the upper class to be nothing more than “instruments of production.” In the eyes of the capitalists, “money” was the important element in a country’s economy. To Hitler’s way of thinking, that conception was upside down. Hitler believed that “money” was only an instrument, and that “work” was the essential element in an economy. Work was man’s honor, blood, muscle and soul, Hitler believed.

“All work which is necessary ennobles him who performs it. Only one thing is shameful ― to contribute nothing to the community.”

“Nothing falls into a man’s lap from heaven. It is from labor that life grows.”

“Social honor recognizes no distinction between the employer and the employed. All of them work for a common purpose and are entitled to equal honor and respect.” Adolf Hitler

Hitler wanted to put an end to the class struggle and to reestablish the priority of the human being as the principle factor in production. Germany could do without gold to finance industry, he believed. In any case, Germany was broke and didn’t have any gold. Other things could be used to finance industry, and he would find them, but “work” was the indispensable foundation for industry and for the economy. The worker had been alienated from society in Germany because he had traditionally been treated with disdain and contempt. Hitler believed that to restore the worker’s trust in the fatherland, he would from now on have to be treated as an equal, not as a socially inferior “instrument of production.” Hitler argued that under previous so-called democratic governments, those who ran these governments failed to understand that in the hierarchy of national values, “work” is the very essence of life. Mere matter, either steel, or gold, or money of any kind, is only a tool.

What Hitler intended was a total revolution.

“The people,” he said, “were not put here on earth for the sake of the economy, and the economy does not exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital should serve the economy, and the economy in turn should serve the people.”

It would not be enough to reopen the thousands of closed factories, put the people back to work and continue with business as usual. Unless things were drastically changed, the workers would remain, as they had been before, nothing more than living machines, faceless and interchangeable. Hitler was determined to establish a new moral balance between the workers and capitalism. He was determined that capital was to be used in its proper function as a tool to facilitate what the workers create with their labor.

“It will be the pride of my life,” Hitler said, “if I can say at the end of my days that I won back the German worker and restored him to his rightful place in the Reich.”

Hitler knew that such a revolution could not be achieved as Germany was presently structured. The 25 different states that made up Germany continued to compete with each other and to initiate policies that conflicted with those of the central government in Berlin. No coherent national program for economic recovery could be initiated as long as this condition existed. The revolution could also not succeed as long as there were dozens of political parties and thousands of deputies of every conceivable stripe, all squabbling and competing with each other. There would have to be centralization and control if the revolution were to succeed. There were also the Communists who continued assiduously in their efforts to undermine the German state and turn it into a Russian style Soviet Socialist Republic. The Communists would also have to be dealt with.

Hitler took a series of steps to secure absolute power over Germany which was necessary to impose a coherent recovery program. First, he abolished the independent local governments of the 25 states in Germany and replaced them with Reich Commissioners answerable only to Hitler and the National Socialist regime.

Jewish prisoners at Dachau, 1938.

Then he cracked down on the Communists. The SA and the SS rounded them up by the thousands and locked them up in the newly constructed “re-education center” at Dachau near Munich ― later called a “concentration camp.” 78% of the membership of the Communist Party in Germany was Jewish. Therefore, to arrest a Communist was almost always to arrest a Jew. It was not that Jews were being singled out for arrest because they were Jewish. They arrested the Communists who almost all happened to be Jews. Hitler saw the Communists as enemies of the German people.

By centralizing federal power in Berlin, and by locking up the Communists, Hitler put an end to the constant squabbling and working at cross purposes among the states and began to create rational, consistent policies and programs necessary for national recovery. Step by step, Hitler implemented his plan.

On May 2, 1933, Hitler outlawed the trade unions and ordered the SA to arrest the trade union leaders, who also happened to me mostly Jews. These too went to Dachau. Hitler then established the “German Labor Front” as the only labor organization allowed in Germany, and placed Dr. Robert Ley in charge. Ley, an intelligent and industrious man, had been an aviator in the war and worked as a chemist before joining the Nazi Party. Ley confiscated the money of the labor unions and used it to fund his “Strength Through Joy” program, a broad-based program to improve the working and living standards of Germany’s workers. As part of his program, Ley ordered two new cruise-liners to be built which were used to take German workers on foreign holidays. In 1938 an estimated 180,000 people went on cruises to places such as Madeira and the Norwegian fjords. Others were given free holidays in Germany.

Hitler with Dr. Robert Ley, new head of the German Labor Front.

The Strength Through Joy program also built sports facilities, paid for theatre visits, and financially supported travelling cabaret groups. Although the German worker paid for these benefits through compulsory deductions, the image of people being given holidays and subsidized entertainment was of great propaganda value for the Nazi government. It also vastly improved the lives of German workers.

The Strength Through Joy program also subsidized the development of the People’s Car, known as the Volkswagen. The American auto maker, Henry Ford, was an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler in his plan to reshape the German culture in favor of the working man. In fact, Hitler said, in 1931, “I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.” Hitler’s (and Ley’s) mass production of the Volkswagen car was modeled on Ford’s formula of mass production, low prices, and high wages for workers. Ford also shared Hitler’s opinion of the Jews.

By abolishing the labor unions, Hitler was able to hold down wages to give industry a chance to prosper and grow. It has been said that labor unions are in the business of extortion. They extort ever higher wages out of factory owners by strikes and threats of strikes, by slowdowns and often by sabotaging machinery and equipment, all of which is extremely deleterious to industrial growth and development. The aims of labor unions can be summed up by a comment made by the American labor leader, Samuel Gompers. When asked what the labor unions wanted, he said, “More.” Even though self-defeating in the end, labor unions never stop demanding ever higher wages and benefits, until eventually they put the company out of business. By outlawing the labor unions and establishing the government controlled “German Labor Front,” Hitler was able to maintain a fair wage level for all German workers, not just the members of trade unions, and at the same time to end the strangulation effect of the trade unions on German industry.

On July 14, 1933 the Communist Party and the Social Democrat Party were banned. Party activists still in the country were arrested and sent to the concentration camp. Hitler decided that while they were at it, they would clean up Germany in other ways, as well. The Gestapo began arresting and incarcerating beggars, prostitutes, homosexuals, alcoholics and anyone who refused to work, or who was “work shy,” as they put it. A law was then enacted banning all political parties except for the Nazi Party.

All of these measures were met by hysterical propaganda diatribes in the international Jewish press in which events were exaggerated out of all proportion to their actual significance. Labor unions, the Communist party and all other left-wing movements and organizations had been specifically targeted by Hitler and the Nazis as “enemies of the German people.” As Jews were highly disproportionately represented in the labor unions and all other left-wing movements and organizations, they were disproportionately arrested and incarcerated at Dachau. This was described in the international Jewish press as an attack upon the Jews.

The Nazis were accused of specifically singling out and arresting Jews, simply because they were Jews. In reality, there was, at this time, no specific Nazi program to target Jews, per se. Nevertheless, international Jewry made the most of this opportunity in their anti-German propaganda campaign.

Night of the Long Knives

The greatest threat to Hitler’s survival during the early years of the Third Reich came from the SA, a huge and powerful organization within the Nazi Party, around 3½ million strong, led by its Chief of Staff, Ernst Rohm. [The SA (Sturmabteilung), literally Storm Detachment/Assault Division, functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). Also known as the “Brownshirts” and “Storm Troopers”.] The SA was largely responsible for putting Hitler into power, but now in power, things changed. If he was to succeed in implementing his programs, Hitler now needed the support of the industrial and military leaders. The German General Staff despised and detested the SA. The Industrialists who had financed Hitler, also detested the SA and saw them as a dangerous bunch of hooligans. Rohm had made matters worse for himself by indiscreet remarks about absorbing the German army into the SA with himself as the commander. The SA was at that time much larger than the Army. This further set the General Staff’s teeth on edge.

Several of the SA leaders, including Rohm, had also been vocal about their socialistic, anti-capitalist sentiments, which neither Hitler, the industrialists nor the army approved of. The SA Brown Shirts were also not very popular with the average Germany citizen because of their gangster-like, thuggish behavior. Critical and derisive remarks made indiscreetly by Rohm about Hitler, personally, also got out. Rohm began to be seen as a “loose cannon” whose loyalty could no longer be trusted, and who might even be a threat to Hitler’s leadership. General von Bloomberg and President Paul von Hindenburg advised Hitler that he had to do something about Rohm and the SA or they would no longer be able to support him. The industrialists were telling him the same thing. Both Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler had already been warning Hitler of a possible coup by Rohm’s SA against Hitler, himself. Hitler finally decided that he had to act against Rohm and the SA.

Hitler began by ordering all the SA leaders to attend a meeting in the Hanselbauer Hotel in the city of Wiesse. There was no explanation of what the meeting was about. Meanwhile Goering and Himmler were drawing up a list of political enemies outside the SA whom they wanted eliminated. On June 29, 1934, Hitler, accompanied by the SS, arrived at Wiesse where he personally arrested Ernst Rohm. During the next 24 hours 200 other senior SA officers were arrested on their way to Wiesse.

[Add. image — Hanselbauer Hotel in the city of Bad Wiessee where Rohm was arrested.]

Several were shot as soon as they were captured but others were taken into custody for further consideration. Hitler personally liked Rohm and decided to pardon him because of his past services to the Nazi movement, but both Goering and Himmler argued against it, advising Hitler that he was making a dangerous mistake. Hitler finally relented and decided that Rohm must die, but insisted that he be given the chance to commit suicide. When Rohm refused, he was shot by two SS men.

Chief of the SA, Ernst Rohm

All together, around 77 of these “unreliables,” including Rohm, were “officially” shot, putting an end to all opposition to Hitler and the National Socialists. Unofficial estimates of the number executed range much higher, however. In a speech following the executions, Hitler explained his actions to the German people.

“In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason.”

The Night of the Long Knives was a turning point in the Nazi regime, making Hitler the supreme, unchallenged ruler of Germany.

An article in the Daily Mail of London was full of praise for Hitler’s actions.

“Herr Adolf Hitler, the German Chancellor, has saved his country. Swiftly and with exorable severity, he has delivered Germany from men who had become a danger to the unity of the German people and to the order of the state. With lightening rapidity he has caused them to be removed from high office, to be arrested, and put to death.

The names of the men who have been shot by his orders are already known. Hitler’s love of Germany has triumphed over private friendships and fidelity to comrades who had stood shoulder to shoulder with him in the fight for Germany’s future.”

Daily Mail, London, July 2nd 1934.

Victor Lutze was appointed to head the SA in Rohm’s place. Under Lutze, the SA gradually dwindled and lost its power as the SS under Himmler grew rapidly to take its place as the dominant force in Germany.

[Add. image — SA-Stabschef Viktor Lutze (28 December 1890 – 2 May 1943) was the commander of the SA, succeeding Ernst Röhm as Stabschef. He died from injuries received in a car accident. Lutze was given an elaborate state funeral in Berlin on 7 May 1943.]

On August 2, 1934, President von Hindenburg died and Hitler took over the office of President and thereby became Commander in Chief of the army. Hitler, thereafter called himself the “Fuhrer,” or leader.

On August 19, 1934, an election, called a “plebiscite,” was held in which the German people could express either their approval or disapproval of Hitler and his regime. About 95 percent of registered voters went to the polls, and 90% of them voted for Hitler. The election was internationally supervised, and by all accounts, was a fair and open election without voter intimidation of any kind. Hitler now had the overwhelming support of the German people.

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

The Nazis held their annual rally at Nuremberg in September, 1934, just two weeks after the plebiscite, during which the Fuhrer’s grand proclamation was read:

“The German form of life is definitely determined for the next thousand years. The Age of Nerves of the nineteenth century has found its close with us. There will be no revolution in Germany for the next thousand years.”

The Jewish American journalist William L. Shirer (“Inside the Third Reich”) attended the rally to see what Nazi pomp and pageantry was all about. He wrote:

“I am beginning to comprehend some of the reasons for Hitler’s astounding success. Borrowing a chapter from the Roman Catholic Church, he is restoring pageantry and color and mysticism to the drab lives of 20th century Germans. This morning’s opening meeting…was more than a gorgeous show; it also had something of the mysticism and religious fervor of an Easter or Christmas Mass in a great Gothic cathedral. The hall was a sea of brightly colored flags. Even Hitler’s arrival was made dramatic. The band stopped playing. There was a hush over the thirty thousand people packed in the hall. Then the band struck up the Badenweiler March, … Hitler appeared in the back of the auditorium and followed by his aides, Goring, Goebbels, Hess, Himmler and the others, he slowly strode down the long center aisle while thirty thousand hands were raised in salute.”

To Shirer, the intoxicating atmosphere inside the hall was such that;

“every word dropped by Hitler seemed like an inspired word from on high.”

The 1934 Nazi rally at Nuremberg during which Hitler proclaimed the “thousand year Reich.”

In his speech before the Nuremberg Rally, Hitler absolved the SA Brown shirts from any complicity in the events precipitating the blood purge (Night of the Long Knives) which had just occurred, and acknowledged their unwavering loyalty to him and the party. The 50,000 Brown shirts assembled for the occasion responded with a full throated chorus of “Seig Heils.” There was no longer any question of SA loyalty.

The Nuremberg Rally was held annually in the month of September until 1938 when it was suspended. The Rallies were intended to show the world a German nation-state in lock step with its leader and his ideology. They also energized the nationalistic pride of the German people. Hitler obtained the services of the German film actress and director, Leni Riefenstahl, to make a documentary of the 1934 Nuremberg rally.

Mass gymnastics at the Nuremburg Rally during “Day of Community.” Hitler and the National Socialists promoted unity, discipline, health and vigor for the German “volk.” [Adolf Hitler watched the huge demonstrations given on the Zeppelin Field, Sep 8, 1938.]

Leni Riefenstahl had made a name for herself in the German film industry by appearing in a series of so-called mountain films directed by Arnold Franck. In these films, she played the part of a prototypically fit and healthy German girl with a properly Aryan face. This film genre would soon become associated with the nationalistic aspirations of the emerging Nazi party. She went on, in 1932, to write, direct and perform in her own mountain film, “The Blue Light.”

Hitler with Leni Riefenstahl at Nuremberg

Despite her lack of experience, the film was remarkably sophisticated in its visual effects. In the whiteness of its snow and the robust Teutonic energy of its heroines, The Blue Light was a celebration of the spirit and vitality of the Aryan Volk, a theme which was central to Nazi ideology.

It was no accident that Riefenstahl was hand-picked by Hitler to direct a series of documentary films that would cast National Socialism in a favorable light. The first and most influential of these films was Triumph of the Will, which was shot in commemoration of the 1934 rally at Nuremberg. This film has been called the most dazzling and successful propaganda film ever made.

Hitler Revives the German Economy

In a very short period of time, Hitler engineered what was and remains probably the greatest economic turnaround in history. People went from starving to full employment, and became so prosperous that ordinary workers were given vacations abroad, paid for by the German Labor Front, the government’s labor organization. Germany went from hopelessly bankrupt to massively restoring, and even expanding, its infrastructure. The world’s first superhighway system, the “Autobahn,” was a shining example. Mass production of the Volkswagen, which literally means “people’s car,” was another. General Eisenhower was so impressed by the German Autobahn system that when he became president years later, he initiated the superhighway system for American ― a direct replication of the German Autobahns. Hitler also pursued a policy of “autarky,” meaning, national “self sufficiency.” That is, Germany would limit imports and produce its own consumer goods, in so far as possible. Hitler transformed Germany from a seemingly irreversible deep depression into the most vibrant economy in Europe.

The Volkswagen (people’s car) begins mass production.

Hitler’s government had reduced unemployment from 6,014,000 in January 1933, when he became Chancellor, to less than 338,000 by September 1936. At the same time, wages also dramatically increased. German trade was prospering, and deficits of the cities and provinces had almost disappeared. Contrary to official historiography, expenditures for armaments had been minor up to this point, and played no part in Germany’s economic recovery. That came later.

Unemployment was eliminated at first, primarily by increased government spending on public works. Germany’s basic infrastructure, such as railways, roads, and public building projects, were improved and expanded. There was also indirect government support to private works projects. At the same time, taxes were sharply reduced to create an incentive for hiring more workers. The effect was an injection of increased wages into the national economy, followed by increased consumer spending, which itself led to job increases. Hitler’s policy of “autarky” (national self-sufficiency) had the effect of creating “wealth creating” jobs in manufacturing which was necessary to sustain long term economic growth. By 1936 there was a labor shortage, especially in the building and metallurgical trades.

[Add. image — Charles Lindbergh in Germany, inspecting German aviation.]

Charles Lindbergh and his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh travelled widely in Germany at this time. In his book Autobiography of Values, Charles Lindbergh wrote:

“The organized vitality of Germany was what most impressed me: the unceasing activity of the people, and the convinced dictatorial direction to create the new factories, airfields, and research laboratories…”

His wife drew similar conclusions.

“… have never in my life been so conscious of such a directed force. It is thrilling when seen manifested in the energy, pride, and morale of the people―especially the young people,” she wrote in “The Flower and the Nettle.”

To counter the effects of the international Jewish boycott of Germany, including the financial strangulation, Hitler simply went around the international bankers by creating a new currency issued by the German government instead of borrowing it from the Jewish owned central bank. This new currency was not backed by gold, but by the credibility of the German government. The new mark was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said:

“For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.”

The government paid workers in these new marks and the workers spent them on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed upon them by the international bankers (read, Jewish bankers). Within two years Germany was back on her feet again. It had a solid, stable currency with no debt and no inflation.

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany and despite the global boycott by Jewish owned industries and shipping. Germany got around the boycott and the capital strangulation by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries using a barter system that cut the bankers completely out of the loop. The Jewish boycott actually boomeranged. While Germany flourished ― because barter eliminates national debt, interest on the debt, and trade deficits ― Jewish financiers were deprived of the money they would have earned on these activities. This, of course, only intensified international Jewry’s determination to undermine and destroy the Nazi regime.

“Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full employment public works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C.K. Liu, “Nazism and the German Economic Miracle,” Asia Times — May 24, 2005)

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular

Leader in the World

The German economic miracle did not escape the notice of foreign leaders who heaped praise on Hitler at every opportunity. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain wrote:

“I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has affected. Whatever one may think of his methods ― and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.”

“He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany.”

“It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war ― broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.”

“There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.”

“One man [Hitler] has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart.”

“He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against the constant dread of starvation which is one of the most poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world.”

“The fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of repetition of that period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him an unchallenged authority in modern Germany.”

“As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondence and degradation.”

“To those who have actually seen and sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany, this description may appear extravagant. All the same it is the bare truth. This great people will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modern Germany.”

“That impression more than anything I witnessed during my short visit to the new Germany. There was a revivalist atmosphere. It had an extraordinary effect in unifying the nation.”

“Catholic and Protestant, Prussian and Bavarian, employer and workman, rich and poor, have been consolidated into one people. Religious, provincial and class origins no longer divide the nation. There is a passion for unity born of dire necessity.”

“The divisions, which followed the collapse of 1918, made Germany impotent to face the problems, internal and external. That is why the clash of rival passions is not only deprecated but temporarily suppressed.”

“I found everywhere a fierce and uncompromising hostility to Russian Bolshevism, coupled with a genuine admiration for the British people with a profound desire for a better and friendlier understanding of them. The Germans have definitely made up their minds never to quarrel with us again, nor have they any vindictive feelings towards the French. They have altogether put out of their minds any desire for the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine.”

“But there is a real hatred and fear of Russian Bolshevism, and unfortunately it is growing in intensity. It constitutes the driving force of their international and military policy. Their private and public talk is full of it. Wherever you go you need not wait long before you hear the word ‘Bolshevism’, and it recurs again and again with a wearying reiteration.”

“Their eyes are concentrated on the East as if they are watching intently for the breaking of the day of wrath. Against it they are preparing with German thoroughness.”

“This fear is not put on. High and low they are convinced there is every reason for apprehension. They have a dread of the great army, that has been built up in Russia in recent years.”

“An exceptionally violent anti-German campaign of abuse printed in the Russian official Press and propelled by the official Moscow radio has revived the suspicion in Germany that the Soviet Government are contemplating mischief.” ― David Lloyd George, Daily Express, 9/17/1936

Winston Churchill, who would later become Hitler’s most obstinate enemy when German economic power began to again challenge that of Great Britain, had this to say in 1935 ― (before he became the front man for the Jewish Focus Group):

“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he [Hitler] has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War… the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished … whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.”

“… and the achievement by which the tables have been turned upon the complacent, feckless and purblind victors deserves to be reckoned a prodigy in the history of the world and a prodigy which is inseparable from the personal exertions of life thrust on a single man …”

“Those who have met Hitler face to face in public, business, or on social terms, have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a discerning smile and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.”

“Nor is this impression merely the dazzle of power. He exerted it on his companions at every stage in his struggle, even when his fortunes were in the lowest depths …”

“One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” ― Winston Churchill, 1935

Douglas Reed, British journalist, playwright, novelist and author of many books about Europe between the wars and after World War Two provided the following observation about the economic transformation of Germany under Hitler:

“Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the English people in theirs, but better. You are faced with a country immensely strong in arms and immensely strong in real wealth ― not in gold bars in a vault of the national bank, but industry, agriculture, the thrift and energy of the work people, and the conditions of life they enjoy.”

“In Germany now they have a mighty organization, equipped with full powers, for improving the lot of the work people in factories and workshops. Their engineers and social workers and artists go into the factories and see what needs to be done. They say that a shower room, recreation room, a restaurant, a medical clinic, a dental clinic is needed and these are provided. They have a civic sense, a social conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind ― in spite of the bestial concentration camps ― which you lack.”

John L Garvin, editor of the London Sunday paper, “The Observer,” wrote:

“Last May, I returned, bringing my family for another sojourn, after two years spent in other European countries. I found a Germany which has advanced miraculously from the point of 1933. I found political solidarity, a wholesome tone in the life of city dweller and country dweller alike.”

“I found living costs materially reduced and an unmistakable optimism on every hand. In every quarter I found the same answer to my questioning: Profound belief in the genius of the Leader, love and admiration for him as an individual. My observations have covered a wide range of social classification.”

“I have talked with the humblest type of laborers, with merchants, professional men. I have yet to discover a dissenting voice to the question of loyalty to the Fuehrer. My two young daughters are attending German public schools and are receiving an education which in thoroughness could be equaled in few countries.”

And this from Lord Lothian, British Ambassador to Washington, written June 29, 1937:

“I think that it must be admitted that National Socialism has done a great deal for Germany. It has undoubtedly cleaned up Germany in the ordinary moral sense of the word. The defeatism, the corruption so manifest a characteristic in the days after the war has disappeared, at any rate from public view. It has given discipline and order and a sense of purpose to the great majority of young people who in earlier days did not know where to go or what they were living for.”

In an article which appeared in the New York Times on July 12, 1935, John H. Holmes, Pastor of Community Church wrote:

“The spectacle of Germany today is a tremendous experience. Fifteen years after the war in which the allied powers thought they had destroyed her, Germany is on her feet again. As compared with 1922 and 1931, when I last saw Germany, the change is miraculous. The people are confident, enthusiastic and courageous. They have recovered their morale. In 1931 the German people were going to pieces. But now they are themselves again, no doubt about that! The masses of the people are increasingly with Hitler. I have been fooling myself all along that this was not so, but now I know it is so.”

In his book, Defense of Germany, British scholar G.E.O. Knight wrote:

“Last July, feeling that the Press of this country was willfully lying and conducting a political campaign against Germany, I resolved to go to Berlin and make free and independent investigation. I was determined to do pretty much as I pleased when I got there, and no one interfered with my movements.

I found Germany, comparatively speaking, a free country, much freer than some of its neighbors. My own views were not always acceptable to my many friends, among whom I can count Jews and Gentiles, Nazis and Communists, Democrats and Socialists. Soon I found that being a Nazi does not preclude one holding views that few Labor men in my own country would dare to express to their ‘comrades’ of the national Labor Party.”

The general improvement in the standard of living of the German people under Hitler’s regime put Germany well ahead of all other nations at that time, including the United States. The Nazi regime implemented a viable social security program for retirement. The working conditions were drastically improved, and the German people were provided opportunities for leisure and recreation after work. The same level of prosperity and social benefits for all its citizens have rarely been achieved anywhere in the world, either before or since then.

German society under Nazi rule was also very democratic, with regular elections of representatives to a legislature. It was not democratic in the same sense as in the United States today. The German form of democracy, as an expression of the popular will, was assured by the right to organize plebiscites to express the desires of the people.

“The result of the revolution [National Socialist revolution] in Germany has been to establish a democracy in the best sense of the word. We are steering towards an order of things guaranteeing a process of a natural and reasonable selection in the domain of political leadership, thanks to which that leadership will be entrusted to the most competent, irrespective of their descent, name or fortune. The memorable words of the great Corsican [Napoleon] that every soldier carries a Field Marshal’s baton in his knapsack, will find its political complement in Germany.” ― Adolf Hitler

“In England, under democracy, you do not put experts in charge of your affairs, but distribute favors among men of a small class without especial qualification for the posts they receive. This is the misuse of democracy in the interest of class, the betrayal of democracy, and it is the cause of our woes, past, present and to come.” ― Douglas Reed, in “Disgrace Abounding”

“What the German nation has ardently desired for centuries is henceforth a reality; one single, fraternally united people, liberated from the mutual prejudices and hindrances of past times.” ― Adolf Hitler

“The will of the people is the will of the government, and vice versa. The new political structure raised in Germany is a kind of ennobled democracy; i.e., the government derives its authority from the people, but the possibility of misinterpreting the peoples will or of sterilizing it by the intervention of parliamentary methods has been eliminated altogether.” ― Dr. Joseph Goebbels

“The movement was consolidated together in one Reich a people who were hitherto kept in disunion but various lines of division… religious divisions, class divisions, professional divisions, political divisions and the territorial divisions into the various autonomous federal states. This unification is now an historical fact. Nationalism has founded a genuine folk community.”

“Formerly the votes of the people were distributed among several political parties. Eventually the number of these parties came to thirty-six. They had no great common platform to offer to a people who were struggling to live. They carried on their political campaigns against one another in a quarrel over paltry and selfish issues.”

“Today the people of Germany vote for one leader and one party in a consolidated unity that has never before been dreamed of. Following the disappearance of the political parties, which fought only for their own ends and kept the nation divided, great and common vital problems were presented to the people so that they might understand which ideals were worth striving for and for which sacrifices would have to be made. The whole of Germany was aroused to struggle for these great questions which are of vital importance to a nation’s existence.” ― Rudolf Hess

“The parliamentary principle of decision by majorities only appears during quite short periods of history, and those are always periods of decadence in nations and States.” ― Adolf Hitler

“… Hitler has repeatedly taken the opportunity of consulting the nation and has each time obtained its wholehearted approval of his policy and methods of government.” ― Cesare Santoro, “Hitler Germany, Vivisection”

“I myself was and still am a child of the people. It was not for the capitalists that I undertook this struggle; it was for the German working man that I took my stand.” ― Adolf Hitler

The following photos show Hitler interacting with the German people, especially children. Hitler is the most popular national leader in the world at this time.

Contrary to the propaganda, Hitler was a Catholic and a Christian believer. Here, he is photographed leaving the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven.

It has been made out by those whose intent was to slander and smear Hitler that he was an atheist, an occultist, that he believed in astrology, that he engaged in pagan ritualism, etc., ad nauseam. The History Channel is currently running a documentary asserting these very absurdities. But this is how Hitler described his beliefs in Mein Kampf.

“First, I believe in Almighty God… and I solemnly declare that Almighty God has chosen me for this task.” He said further, “We wish to fill our culture once more with the spirit of Christianity – but not only in theory.”

Hitler saw Christianity as an essential cultural institution for Germany:

“The German Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethical life of the German nation, attaches the greatest importance to the maintenance and development of friendly relations with the Holy See [The Pope]. The national government regards the two Christian confessions [Protestantism and Catholicism] as the most important factors of the maintenance of our ethical personality. The Government will adopt a just and objective attitude towards all other religions.” ― Adolf Hitler

In numerous utterances by Adolf Hitler and about Adolf Hitler, he hardly comes across in the way he was described above. In his 25 Point Speech of 1920 (point 24), Hitler said:

“The Party as such advocates a positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular church.”

“In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come, He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgment and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that he may grant to us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.” ― From a speech by Adolf Hitler.

“I believe in the Holy German people inside and outside the German frontiers. I believe in Adolf Hitler, who by the grace of God, was sent to give the German people faith in themselves once more.” ― German Faith Movement.

“Adolf Hitler gave us back our faith. He showed us the true meaning of religion. He has come to renew for us the faith of our fathers and to make us new and better beings… just as Jesus Christ made his twelve apostles into a faithful band to the martyr’s death whose faith shook the Roman Empire, so now we witness the same spectacle again. Adolf Hitler is the true Holy Ghost.” ― Hanns Kerrl. German Minister for German Affairs.

It was international Jewish propaganda that made Hitler out to be an atheistic, murderous monster. His Nazi regime did not persecute the German people, nor deprive them of their rights. On the contrary, as can be seen by the statements and comments of world leaders at that time, Hitler devoted his life and all his energies toward improving the lot of his German people, and the German people responded with an outpouring of love and devotion for their Fuhrer rarely seen in history. The police actions of his regime were directed against the enemies of the German people, which included the Communists and other Leftist organizations whose members were generally not ethnic Germans. Both Hitler and the German people saw what the Jews in Russia had done to that country, and knew that they intended to do the same to Germany if they ever got the chance. Hitler had these leftist revolutionaries rounded up and locked away to make sure they never got the chance. That the vast majority of these people were Jews was only coincidental. They were locked away because they were Communists and revolutionaries, and therefore a dire threat to Germany. Judging by what they did in Hungary, Italy and Spain, he had every justification for his actions.

The international Jewish press blew these events all out of proportion and accused the Nazi regime of “persecuting” the Jews in Germany for no reason except that they were Jews. They repeatedly and relentlessly accused the Nazi regime of the intent to “exterminate” the Jews, beginning with the Untermeyer Speech in New York in 1933. That simply was not true. Most Jews lived unmolested in Germany right up until the beginning of World War II, and a great many lived unmolested in Germany right through the war. It was the Communists, who happened to be Jews, who were harshly dealt with. A number of German Army officers, including a couple of field marshals, Field Marshal Erhard Milch, for example, were Jewish. Milch oversaw the development of the Luftwaffe.

At the same time that the comments and observations of statesmen, historians and journalists presented above in this chapter were being made describing Germany as a land of happy, prosperous people with a benign government dedicated to their well being, international Jewry continued its virulent anti-German propaganda campaign portraying Germany as a charnel house of repression, brutality, and murder. In March, 1935 the National Council of Jewish Women in New York City proclaimed Hitler a “world menace.” At precisely the same time in Germany, Julius Streicher, publisher of “Der Sturmer” newspaper, was comparing Hitler to Jesus Christ. A professor Hauser made the news by declaring that God had revealed himself to Germany through Hitler, and Dr. Reinhardt Krause declared that Hitler alone had “God’s order” for the Germany nation. The National Socialists claimed that the international hostility toward Hitler was entirely Jewish inspired. While the German people adored Hitler and saw him as the savior of Germany, many outside Germany had been conditioned by Jewish anti-German propaganda to regarded him as a menace to mankind.

Hitler had been elected in large part on his promise to reclaim territories taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and to create a single German state to include all German people. British, French and Soviet leaders refused to recognize Germany’s aims as legitimate, but chose instead to regard Hitler’s revanchist goals as international aggression.

Representatives of Britain, France and Italy met at an Italian village (Stresa) on April 11, 1935 to reaffirm their opposition to Germany absorbing Austria or the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Hitler denounced these reaffirmations as hostile to Germany, declaring that his aims were legitimate and that Germany did not want another war. He spoke of the absurdity of war and of the “follies” of the past. Wars of revenge, he said, were out of date. “A deliberate maker of war may have been a patriot in the old days,” he said, “but today such a person would be a traitor.” “We are not imperialists,” he added, and said that all the German people wanted was “equal rights for all,” and its honor restored.

All the German people wanted, he said, was to be treated like everyone else, and among other things, that meant the return of German territory.

Despite the dogged anti-German propaganda, there remained support for Hitler’s aims from reflective, thoughtful men. On June 6, 1935, Britain’s leading cleric, the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressed sympathy for Germany’s position among nations, declaring that Germany;

“… must be recognized as a nation entitled to an equal place among other nations.”

Yet, the average American or Englishman was made to believe that Germany was a world menace and should be controlled and held in check. They were made to believe through the Jewish controlled media that Germany was an evil, brutish country with an oppressive, totalitarian government that kept a terrified population under strict control with secret police forces and concentration camps. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

The “holy war” declared on Germany by international Jewry continued relentlessly, and the propaganda campaign of deliberate lies, smears and misrepresentations was succeeding in turning the world against Germany. The contrast between life inside Germany as it actually was, and the way in which it was depicted in the International Jewish press could not have been greater.

Following is a series of photographs taken during the Nazi period showing the Germans to be a clean-cut, handsome, intelligent and civilized people, not unlike those of any other European country at the time.

This was the real face of Germany during the Nazi period

A German army officer and a soldier (above). A young soldier (below left) and a young German officer (below right).

A German Officer and his dog

Young men of the “Hitler Youth” Movement (like the Boy Scouts).

Young women of the Nazi Youth Movement (Girls’ equivalent of the boys’ Hitler Youth).

More German Youth Movement Girls

German farm girl, 1930s. German city boy of the 1930s

A 1930s German street (before it was bombed)

German public swimming pool ― 1930s

Strolling the children.

An elegant German couple of the 1930s.

Below is the face of Germany as depicted in Jewish propaganda.

“Propaganda” Nazis

[END of Part 13]

______________________________

PDF Notes

* Total words = 11,782

* Total pages = 75

*Total images = 46

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

======================================

div>

Click to download a PDF of this post (11.0 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

_____________________

Version History

Version 6: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

Version 5: May 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 4: Apr 9, 2020 — Added updated links to other parts.

Version 3: Dec 26, 2016 — Added 2 additional images. Added my introductory summary. Added PDF for download.

Version 2: Dec 25, 2016 — Added missing images.

Version 1: Dec 24, 2016 — Created post.

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

Admin — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 13:49:51 +0000

[Very informative interview by Jim Rizoli with Benton Bradberry and the story behind his excellent book that exposes the lies behind our “official” understanding of the events of the 20th century whereby Germany is most wrongly portrayed as the “evil villain“. The truth is the very opposite — KATANA.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc-l5AYu6fg

Click on the above link to watch the video.

NOTE: Commenter mblaineo (see comments section) submitted the full text of the transcript.

I applaud him for his efforts in doing his bit to help bring truth to the public about recent history that is suppressed by our enemies.

“The Myth of Germany Villainy“

Author Ben Bradberry Interviewed

by

Jim Rizoli

January 6, 2016.

Ben Bradberry, who wrote The Myth Of German Villainy, is interviewed by League of Extraordinary Revisionists Co-Founder, Jim Rizoli.

_______________________

Neither Kaiser Wilhelm nor Adolf Hitler wanted war. Both WWI and WWII were thrust upon Germany by the Allied powers. Germany’s great sin was emerging too late as a consolidated nation-state and upsetting the long established balance of power scheme in Europe. The already established great powers, Britain, France and Russia, joined together in 1914 to destroy this new rival. When Germany rose phoenix-like from the ashes of WWI to again become a great power, they finished. the job with World War II. The deliberate destruction of Germany during the Second World-War can only be compared.to the Roman destruction of ancient Carthage, and it was done for the same reason — to destroy a commercial rival. The “official” history of World Wars I & II, the story we learned in school, is a myth.

As the title “The Myth of German Villainy” indicates, this book is about the mischaracterization of Germany as history’s ultimate “villain“. The “official” story of Western Civilization in the twentieth century casts Germany as the disturber of the peace in Europe, and the cause of both World War I and World War II, though the facts don’t bear that out.

During both wars, fantastic atrocity stories were invented by Allied propaganda to create hatred of the German people for the purpose of bringing public opinion around to support the wars. The “Holocaust” propaganda which emerged after World War II further solidified this image of Germany as history’s ultimate villain. But how true is this “official” story? Was Germany really history’s ultimate villain? In this book, the author paints a different picture. He explains that Germany was not the perpetrator of World War I nor World War II, but instead, was the victim of Allied aggression in both wars. The instability wrought by World War I made the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia possible, which brought world Communism into existence. Hitler and Germany recognized world Communism, with its base in the Soviet Union, as an existential threat to Western, Christian Civilization, and he dedicated himself and Germany to a death struggle against it. Far from being the disturber of European peace, Germany served as a bulwark which prevented Communist revolution from sweeping over Europe. The pity was that the United States and Britain did not see Communist Russia in the same light, ultimately with disastrous consequences for Western Civilization. The author believes that Britain and the United States joined the wrong side in the war.

About the Author

Benton L. Bradberry served as an officer and aviator in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1977, from near the beginning of the Cold War to near its end. His generation was inundated with anti-German propaganda and “Holocaust” lore. Then, in his role as a naval officer and pilot, he was immersed in anti-Communist propaganda and the war psychosis of the Cold War era. He has had a life-long fascination with the history of this period and has read deeply into all aspects of it. He also saw much of Europe during his Navy years and has travelled widely in Europe since. A natural skeptic, he long ago began to doubt that the “propaganda” told the whole story. He has spent years researching “the other side of the story” and has now written a book about it. The author is a graduate of the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California with a degree in Political Science and International Relations.

TRANSCRIPT

(69:33 minutes)

[00:00]

Jim Rizoli (JR): Hi everyone! I’m Jim Rizoli, this is Rizoli TV, and today we have a special guest, Benton Bradberry. And the reason why I wanted to have him on today is because he wrote a book, “The Myth of German Villainy,” and there’s the book right there if you can see it. And out of all the books I’ve read, I read a lot of books, and I thought that this was probably the best book I’ve ever read dealing with the whole picture of Germany from the beginning all the way up till now. I’ve never read a better book than this, and I’ve been telling a lot of people about the book. So Benton, do you want me to address you as Ben or Benton?

Benton Bradberry (BB): Ben. Ben is fine.

JR: Okay, so Ben is the way we’re going to address you then, that’s fine. And Ben, maybe you can tell us a little bit about where you live, and then we’ll get into some aspects about the writing of your book. So where do you live?

BB: Yeah, I live in Jacksonville, Florida. And I was born in 1937 in Oak Grove, Louisiana, which is a little cotton town on the southern tip of the Mississippi Delta, and I grew up in West Monroe, Louisiana. Now, you’ve probably heard of that, as small a place as it is, because that’s where the Duck Dynasty lives.

JR: Oh, is it, okay. Well, I’ve never watched them, so I don’t really know.

BB: Okay. So anyway, I grew up in the Duck Dynasty culture in West Monroe, Louisiana, out in the country. And we were very poor growing up, we had ten kids in the family, I had a twin brother. My dad was an auto mechanic, my mother stayed at home and, … Well, she had 10 kids so she could hardly do anything else. And when I graduated from high school my twin brother and I joined the Navy, which was the, … There were no prospects for us in West Monroe, Louisiana, which was the best thing that ever happened to me. And I scored pretty high on the basic battery test when I went in, so I was sent through a series of Navy schools and wound up as a radar operator on a big Super Constellation four-engine plane. That’s the one used in the airlines. And it was equipped with long-range radar, and we were deployed up to our Argentia, Newfoundland. And we flew a loop all the way down to the Azores islands and back about every other day, it took 16 hours to go. And we were guarding against being bombed by Russian bombers, which, looking back is absurd, but at that time we were told to believe it.

[Image – click to enlarge] Argentia Naval Air Station, Newfoundland in the late 1940s.

[Image – click to enlarge] A Super Constellation four engine aircraft.

[Image – click to enlarge] Sixteen hour flights in a Super Constellation from Newfoundland to the Azores islands and back.

Anyway, we only lasted a couple years because those planes were rendered obsolete by long-range, land-based, over-the-horizon radar. So they decommissioned our squadron and I went down to the Hurricane Hunter squadron here in Jacksonville and spent a year and a half in that chasing hurricanes. And the officers I worked for thought I was a pretty bright kid and so they arranged for me to go over to Pensacola, Florida to enter the flight training program. And I spent two years in flight training and came out as a helicopter pilot, flew fixed wing also, but wound up in a helicopter squadron in Norfolk, Virginia, which was anti-submarine, anti-Russian submarine. And we were at sea about two-thirds of the time, and then back at home base about a third of the time. And we drilled and practiced, drilled and practiced on how to detect and destroy Russian submarines.

[Image – click to enlarge] WV-3 Hurricane Hunter at NAS Jacksonville in 1950s

JR: Wow. Oh, gee, that’s interesting. So what happened after that?

BB: Well, then I went out to the, … Well, several places. I went down to training command in Pensacola as a trainer, as an instructor pilot. Later on I went out to Vietnam and was a helicopter pilot out there.

JR: Wow! wow.

BB: Won an Air Medal and some other medals and so forth. And from there I went to Navy post-graduate school. Now mind you, I was only a high school graduate at that point, and I was lucky to get in the Navy post-graduate school and I graduated with a degree in Political Science and International Relations with honors, by the way. And then went back to the fleet for another tour, and then I retired. And in Jacksonville is where the Navy turned me out, so that’s how I happen to be here.

[Image] The Air Medal is a military decoration of the United States Military. The medal was created in 1942 and is awarded for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.

JR: So how long were you in from beginning to end?

BB: Twenty-one years.

JR: Wow. So you retired from the Navy?

BB: From the Navy, yeah.

JR: Okay, wow!

BB: I was in from 1955 to 1977.

JR: Wow. So, after your retirement what did you do for work?

BB: Well, I planned ahead a little bit, and my wife and I got real estate licenses and we went to work for a large real estate company here with about 300 or so sales people. And within a year my wife was the top salesman and I was number nine.

JR: Wow.

[05:00]

BB: So we were good sales people, and so we opened our own business, real estate business, and rose up to be the third ranking real estate business in Jacksonville. And we got divorced. I guess too much togetherness after all that separation in the Navy, got divorced and sold the business, which was kind of stupid. I took the property management division out, built it up to be the second largest property management business in Jacksonville. A few years later I opened a dental business, of all things — I’m no dentist!

JR: Ah, no kidding.

BB: And so now we have been in that business for 26 years.

JR: So you’re a dentist?

BB: I’m not a dentist, I just do the business side of it and we have dentists that, …

JR: Oh, okay, okay. Are you married now?

BB: Yes, I went out to Ukraine about 21 years ago, 22 years ago, with a doctor friend of mine and we went to tour the regional hospital he wanted to, in Kiev, Ukraine. Our tour guide for the hospital was a young beautiful gynecologist named Morika, and I married her.

JR: Okay, so she’s the blonde woman. She’s blonde, right?

BB: Yeah. And she came back here. We’ve been married 21 years.

JR: Oh, wow.

BB: And she and I run the business together.

JR: Okay, so you run a dental, … Some sort of dental business type thing?

BB: A dental business.

JR: Okay. Wow.

BB: And how I happen to write these books is that the business after all those years pretty much runs itself. We have talented people in every job. And my job, … I have an office upstairs and a computer and a lot of time on my hands as everything, … All the wheels are turning, so I wrote two books.

JR: Okay. What was the other book you wrote then?

BB: The other one was a memoir, autobiography, called “Putting on Airs,” [1] and it was about my military service and all the traveling around the world I’ve done, and that kind of thing. But anyway, we’ve been very prosperous and life, thank god, and I still work and we still own the business.

[Image] Puttin’ On Airs: Making it Against the Odds The Story of My Life

JR: Okay. All right, so now let’s talk about this book here. Because I’ve never read any book like it. This is a very unique book. How did you get into the topic with this book?

[NOTE: Some dialogue regarding problems with the audio is not included here.]

BB: I’ve been a serial reader, one book after another, since I was a child. And I’ve read hundreds of books, and this, … Events of the 20th century, World War I, World War II, even back in the Franco-Prussian war of the previous century, have been an interest of mine. I’ve got a degree in International Relations and Political Science. And you said, this is the first comprehensive book you’ve read that starts from the beginning and goes through, …

JR: Well, yeah.

BB: Yeah. And that is interesting, because reading these books about these events in the 20th century, they’re treated, World War I, the Hungarian Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, World War II are all treated as separate and distinct entities without very much reference to the other events.

And it began to occur to me that these were not distinct individual isolated events at all but were a pattern that began in 19, … or even 1870-71 with the Franco-Prussian war, I would say it even began there, and bring it all the way even to the present day, are all a string of related events. And so I felt that that needed to be treated that way, to start from the beginning and take it all the way through World War II.

JR: Okay. Now, if you could just sum up your book, if you had to kind of sum it up what would you… like if you had to say to someone, “Here’s what my book is about.”

BB: Yeah, the main theme of the book is the mischaracterization of the Germans as a people and the German nation. They’ve been totally mischaracterized. They’ve been made out to be, by relentless propaganda beginning with World War I and even going on today if you tune into the History Channel [aka, “Hitler Channel”] you see it even now, this relentless anti-German propaganda painting these people as somehow uniquely different from everybody else, they were predisposed to violence, predisposed to war, and pre-disposed of following a dictator, blindly following him. Oh, this is my phone, let me…

[10:10]

JR: Okay. I can edit this out so don’t worry. If something happens then just up and start up again and I edit that out, so don’t worry about that.

BB: Yeah. And anyway, where was I?

JR: Well, about how the German people have been villainized.

BB: They’ve been characterized as, … Anyway, as I said, I read a lot. And I started to read books written by Germans, Germans soldiers. One I remember was “The Deutschland Division,” written by an enlisted man, and talked about the invasion of Russia and going into Belarus, he talked about his fellow soldiers and about his officer that was over him who was captain that he highly admired and all this.

And I said, these people are the same as we are. Soldiers in the Army, they’re fighting for their country. And soon you begin to realize that there is nothing unique about the Germans, except if you want to say that they’re unique, they’re uniquely civilized and cultured and capable as a people. And when I started to realize that it put a whole new twist on the, … I began to see that the way the Germans are portrayed, were and are portrayed, is pure, … The result of propaganda, pure and simple.

JR: Right. Now, I know you get into…

BB: Oh yeah, let me just say that the second theme is the role International Jewry, the Jews, played during this 20th century, and it was central. It’s taboo to make too much about that today, they’ll attack you if you do, but they had an inordinate control over events during this period. They surrounded the leaders of the Allied countries and virtually dictated what our foreign policy was. And even the occupation was dictated by the Jews, in terms of the occupation and in terms of the surrender and everything.

JR: Right. Now, what interested me about this, and that’s why I really liked the book, was you explained that in the beginning Britain and France actually made a move on Germany because, … It was jealousy, I mean, because of their economic prosperity.

BB: Yeah. Well, more than just jealousy. Germany, as you know, became a consolidated nation state in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. Otto von Bismarck after the war managed to pull all… Germany was just a geographic expression before that for Central Europe, all the little German entities in central Europe that spoke German, and there were about 230 of them or something like that, little private estates, monarchies, principalities and so on. And Bismarck managed to bring all these together and create the modern German state.

And after doing so they began to grow exponentially. And industry, they took the lead in technological development, chemistry, everything. And they began to out produce Britain in manufacturing, and even take some of Britain’s markets away. And Britain has always, they’ve always been the superpower… I mean for a couple hundred years the superpower of the world, and they’ve always had a sharp eye on the continent of Europe and they never permitted any consolidation of power which would compete with the British Empire, and Germany was a competitor. [See “Vampire of the Continent”*]

And they began to scheme about how Germany could be cut down to size, and so Britain had that reason to go to war with Germany, they wanted to destroy Germany’s economic power because it rivaled that of the British Empire.

* [“Vampire of the Continent”, published in 1916 as an English translation of a German book will be posted here at a later date.]

Now, France had declared war on Prussia, and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, I won’t get into why, but they lost the war. And they had to pay reparations, and Germany took the two provinces of Alsace and Lorraine and made them part of Germany. Now, they were a majority German-speaking ethnic German population anyway which had previously been taken away from Germany by Louis XIV, I think it was. So they had a cause and a justification for it. But France during all of this, … After that, they focused on and obsessed over and eventual war against Germany to get their colonies back and also to salvage their honor. They taught in their military academies, politicians talked about it all the time. So France was seething for the opportunity to get into a war with Germany.

[15:07]

Russia now had wanted a warm water outlet from the Black Sea through the, … Istanbul, the strait there. What’s it called? I forget. [Bosporus Strait] But unfortunately that was controlled by the Ottoman Empire which was an ally of Germany, and Germany had a fleet there in Istanbul. So Russia wanted to go to war against Germany so they could claim the city of Istanbul and control the strait for an outlet from the Black Sea.

So you had all these three countries together that wanted war with Germany and would obtain something from war with Germany. Germany did not want a war with anybody, they were doing fantastically well without a war. And so the pot was boiling and all that was needed was a trigger to cause this war to explode, and that trigger was provided when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophia went down to Bosnia and were shot, murdered by this guy Princip, what, Gavrili I think his name was. [Princip Gavrilo]

JR: Now, Ben, what about the, … I was reading that there was a train line that was going from up top there all the way down to Turkey or somewhere that they were making a beef about too, the British. They weren’t happy that the Germans were putting a train line. Did you ever read about that?

BB: I have read about it but I don’t know much about it, I don’t remember much about it, but I think that was a, … All those were factors.

JR: Well, right, they were trying to open up trade with those countries, you know, where Turkey was and everything, from Germany all the way down. And I forgot the name of the train line. [Berlin to Bagdad Railway]

[Image – click to enlarge] Map of the proposed Berlin to Bagdad railway.

BB: Germany was also building a fleet to compete with the great Royal Navy, and that was another factor.

JR: Okay.

BB: So all of these were factors that Great Britain began to feel that they were being threatened by the growth of Germany. And I think also Great Britain at the time felt themselves to be in the ascendancy [descendancy], they weren’t growing anymore, and they were watching across the channel as Germany was in the ascendancy, and they felt that they had to do something before they didn’t have the power to.

JR: But now, as this war went on, World War I, weren’t Germany winning, weren’t they winning against them?

BB: Yes. I think in 1916, what, about November, something like that, they made a peace offer.

JR: Right.

BB: Germany did. And Germany was, … It appeared they were winning on all fronts, especially on the Eastern front, but they were winning on the Western front too. And they made a peace offer, and Britain turned them down. They didn’t want, … I guess they felt they’d invested too much and they had to win as justification for the cost and so forth. After all, they went to work to destroy Germany, not to have peace with Germany. And so they turned it down.

And about that time a group of Jews, I think Chaim Weizmann was the leader of them, that kind of represented world Jewry went to Arthur Balfour, I think he was the Foreign Minister, and made a presentation. They said, we safely can bring America into the war on Britain’s side if you’ll just give us Palestine as a home for the Jewish people after the war is over.

[Image – click to enlarge] Arthur Balfour

They signed the Balfour Declaration* and the Jews got busy, all the Jews that surrounded Wilson, these powerful Jews like [Bernard] Baruch, … I can’t remember the names of the others without looking them up. [Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Stephen Wise] But anyway, they were very wealthy Jews and they were responsible for Wilson’s success in politics, they made him President as a matter of fact, and so they had control over him.

*[See post: Background to Treason: The Balfour Declaration]

JR: Right, yeah. I heard they actually blackmailed him, actually.

BB: That was another factor, yeah. I’ve read that, I’m not definite about how much of that to believe. How much of that was actually a factor, but maybe it was.

JR: Yeah, yeah.

BB: But then six months after the Jews had went to Wilson, we declared war on Germany. Now, here’s an interesting aside. The Jews actually favored Germany before this and refused even to lend money to Britain and so forth, because the Jews hated Tsarist Russia. Because the Jews in Tsarist Russia were suppressed, and they had a program, international program of one day bringing the Tsar down. And they didn’t like Britain because Britain was allied with Russia, and Germany was against Russia so they liked Germany. But after they made this agreement, this Balfour Declaration agreement for Palestine, they switch sides overnight and threw all their international effort in with the Allies, finance and everything. And they cut off German finance and began to create revolutionary trouble in Germany at the same time.

[20:15]

JR: Right, right. Now, the thing that I read that really did for Germany was the blockades, isn’t that true?

BB: Yeah, that was instigated by Churchill. That’s where he’s just emerged there as a young man, a warmongering S.O.B [Son of a Bitch]. And they had a total blockade around Germany. I forget exactly when it started, but it was devastating. It caused the deaths of almost a million German people, starvation blockade, and women, children, old people mostly, but several million people their health was ruined as result of this.

After, … Okay, the Germans had made the peace offer, a status quo ante peace offer, “Let’s all go back home, nobody wins, nobody loses, let’s stop the war.” That was in 1916. Britain said no, and when the United States came in on Britain’s side, well, Germany simply could not stand up against this overwhelming combination of forces.

And so they had an armistice on November the 11th, 1918. And it was an armistice, they were supposed to stop fighting until they could work out a peace agreement, but the Allies treated it as a German surrender. And they got together in Paris at the Versailles Palace in 1919 and worked out this peace agreement which wound up as the Versailles Treaty. And they called the Germans, … They still had this blockade. For seven months after the war was over they maintained this starvation blockade, which was immoral and inhuman actually. And they called the Germans in and says, “Okay, sign here.” And they read it over and they were appalled, because the treaty held them responsible for starting the war, which they did not do, and held them responsible for all the death and destruction caused by the war. And they finally imposed reparations, some $35 billion in money at that time — I guess it’s in the trillions in modern currency — mainly paid to France and some to Belgium.

Now, this Versailles Treaty virtually enslaved Germany. It got their troops down, the number of people in their military, down to 100,000. Not enough to defend the country certainly, not even enough to maintain peace in the country. They took their merchant fleet entirely and divided it amongst themselves — the Allies did, not the United States, but France and Britain did it. They took large chunks of Germany and gave it to other countries, along with the German people living in those regions. Memel went to Lithuania, Silesia and part of East Prussia went to Poland, the Polish corridor cut Germany in two with East Prussia completely separated from Germany.

The Sudetenland, which was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, had 3.8 million Germans living there, lived there for hundreds of years, and they were the most prosperous people in the region, wanted very much to join Germany, wouldn’t allow it. Austria was cut off, I think they had about 7 million people, something like that, as a little rump state, completely unviable economically. They wanted to join Germany, the Treaty wouldn’t allow it.

And so the point of the Treaty, … I mean the purpose of the war was to knock Germany down as a competitor. And the purpose of the Treaty was to hold Germany down so they never would rise up and become a superpower again. So that’s what, …They took most of their coal mines, their richest farmlands. And finally they had to sign the Treaty because the people were starving, thousands a week were starving to death. And so they signed the Treaty but they didn’t agree with it, they said this is under duress.

JR: Right. So now maybe you can tell us a little bit how Germany brought themselves up by the bootstraps from this, and we can get into, maybe, Hitler coming onto the scene too, I suppose.

BB: Okay. Well, the reparations that France demanded caused a runaway inflation. Germany didn’t have the means of paying the reparations, but France demanded it and threatened to invade the country if they didn’t pay it, so Germany resorted to printing money to pay it, which caused the runaway inflation and destroyed the German economy. A few years later that was followed by depression, which was far worse in Germany than it was in the United States. And people were starving to death, something like 250,000 Germans in three years time committed suicide out of total despair. Thirty percent, … We had twenty, what, one or two percent unemployment in America at the time? They had thirty percent.

[25:00]

And so the people were demoralized, as I said, they were committing suicide, they were starving to death. And Hitler comes along and becomes Chancellor. I mean, it’s a long process, becomes Chancellor. And he became Chancellor, he campaigned to become Chancellor on the promise that he was going to take, … The Jews virtually controlled the country, to at least the extent that Jews control the United States today. They controlled every institution. And Hitler promised to take these institutions away from the Jews and give them back over to the German people.

Now here I’ll show you just one thing, how the Jews profited from this inflation. The Jews had access to international currencies, and they had pawnshops. The Germans had to sell everything they owned, and the Jews owned all the pawnshops, and so they wound up making big money off the Germans who ruined themselves. Not only that, they had to sell their land, their farmland, their homes, their buildings and so forth. And the Jews with international currency came in and bought it, and by the end of the inflation the Jews in Germany owned half of the real property in Germany.

JR: Wow.

BB: That’s one percent of the population.

JR: Right, right.

BB: And the German people knew all about this, understood what happened, and they were seething with resentment. So that’s part of the anti-Semitism that developed in Germany.

JR: Right, right.

BB: Hitler comes along and becomes, … He’s promising he’s going to take, … you know, hand over this property back to the German people who owned it. International Jewry, right after Hitler became Chancellor, declared war on Germany. Now, most people don’t know anything about this, but it was big in the papers at the time, and they made big speeches and announcements encouraging worldwide Jewry, … Now, these people are very powerful in finance, shipping, and they controlled the media, so they controlled public opinion. And they declared total war against Germany.

JR: Now, that was 1939, right? Or, …

BB: Before. ‘33. ‘33.

JR: Oh, okay. Because I thought ‘33 is when the, …

BB: That’s when Hitler became Chancellor, and within weeks after he became Chancellor international Jewry declared total war against Germany.

[Image – click to enlarge] Organized Jewry declares “war” on Germany on Friday, March 24, 1933.

JR: Okay, fine.

BB: Boycotts, cut off credit, wouldn’t permit German goods in Jewish-owned shipping lines, and so forth.

JR: You’re right. Okay, yup.

BB: Now, so here’s what Hitler did. Hitler was a very smart man. And of course he surrounded himself with smart people too, Hjalmar Schacht [Reichsbank President and Minister of Economics] and others. But the central banks all over the Western world are owned by Jews. — I mean, let’s be frank about it. It was then, it is now. — And the Jews owned the central bank in Germany. And how the central banks work is that they produce the currency for a nation and they lend it to the government at interest. So Hitler says, “We don’t need them.” So he came up with a new currency, the Reichsmark [actually introduced 1924] , and it was printed by the government, no interest, no debt.

Well, he went further, he established the barter, … Since you couldn’t have any, … Credit was cut off for international trade, he established the barter system, where they would, for example, trade a shipload of German coal for a shipload of Argentine wheat. And they had a system of keeping track of relative values and so forth. He established the principle, the policy of autarky, which is an economic term meaning economic self-sufficiency. He said anything that can be manufactured in Germany, will be manufactured in Germany regardless of the cost. And he imposed tariffs, a tariff wall which would protect it from outside trade. So that revived German industry.

Let’s see, what else did he do? He started an infrastructure renewal. He built the autobahn, which was, … Our own autobahn system, the interstate highway system, Eisenhower started that based on the German autobahn. He had the Volkswagen car built, and used Henry Ford as an advisor on how to do it and mass produce it and so forth. And this was a cheap car, family car — Volkswagen means “people’s car.”

[Image] The autobahn road system.

So within a couple of years the unemployment rate was cut down by about two-thirds. Within five years they had a labor shortage. Within five years they had the highest standard of living in the world in Germany. In a very short period of time. They had the highest incidence of private ownership of cars. More people owned a family car there than anywhere else. They created the “Strength through Joy” — is that what they called it? — program. [Kraft durch Freude, KdF] They eliminated the labor unions, because the labor unions were trying to suck the blood out of the industries, and established a government labor board which established wages and so forth. “Peace Through Joy”, or something, I forget what it is now. Robert Ley, Dr. Robert Ley was put in charge of it. They built ocean liners to take German workers on tours abroad, and they did all kinds of theater and stuff like that to enrich the lives of the German people. So they magically transformed Germany from this desperate impoverished people to a happy, prosperous, most prosperous people in the world. And Hitler and the “Nazis” — they didn’t call themselves Nazis, …

[Image] Dr. Robert Ley.

[30:10]

JR: Right, National Socialists.

BB: … National Socialists were highly praised by leaders all over the world.

And the German people, … You know, you get the impression reading the propaganda that this was an oppressive regime, and they were locking everybody up. That’s not true at all. The German people were happy and they loved Adolf Hitler.

JR: Oh sure, yeah.

BB: Now, the propaganda, because the Jews controlled the media throughout the West, the people who were suffering — if you can call it that, but not really that much — were the Jews, who are 9/10 ths of one percent of the population, 500,000 Jews in a country of 65 million people.

Now, the Jews invented Communism. Communism and Judaism is one and the same thing. They were constantly inciting revolution, they were inciting, … The Jews also controlled the labor movement. They were inciting riots and strikes and so forth, and just causing trouble all around, and they were relentlessly trying to take over the German government and make a Soviet Socialist Republic like they had done in Russia. So Hitler had Dachau built and he locked all these people up. Not because they were Jews necessarily — not even actually — but because they were Communists and labor troublemakers. And it turned out that almost all of them were Jews. And the international Jewish press screamed bloody murder over this, and further vilified Germany.

JR: Right. So now maybe you could tell us about, … see, a lot of people think that Hitler had a policy that he wanted to kill them all, extermination. But his real policy was emigration, right? He wanted to get them out?

BB: Exactly! Yeah, exactly. They had the Nuremberg laws, where they restricted, … You know, the Jews really were inordinately powerful in Germany. The majority of the professors and universities were Jews, the majority of the lawyers, doctors, and they filled up the government, and they controlled everything. So Hitler decided that he was going to, you know, reduce their power. And so, what was the question you asked me, I’m sorry?

JR: Well, I’m getting into the Transfer Agreement, that’s what I’m getting into.

BB: Oh, that’s right, yes. And he wanted, … Yeah, he wanted these people out of Germany. What Hitler wanted to do was have a homogeneous population of German-speaking Germans, he was a National Socialist. National means having a homogeneous German people, and Socialist was to take care of all of them and create the quality and this kind of stuff.

So, to do that he wanted, … The Jews keep bringing up the gypsies, so they’re not alone, I think, but he wanted to get the gypsies out — they were almost insignificant — but he wanted the Jews to emigrate out of Germany. And so they had an agreement with the people down in Israel, Palestine at the time, …

JR: The Zionists, the Zionists.

BB: … Transfer Agreement, to enable these Jews to, … They opened a bank in Palestine, which was a branch of a bank in Germany so they could transfer money back and forth, and they permitted these Jews to transfer their wealth down to Palestine. If they’d move down there they could transfer their money. And it’s a lie that these people were stripped of all their wealth. They weren’t. And so the object was to get them to emigrate out of the country, and by 1939, … they had 500,000 Jews in Germany in 1933, but in 1939 they had 190,000. And they annexed Austria also, and they had 180,000 Jews, and by 1939 they had 40,000. So most of them had emigrated peacefully. [Not to Palestine, however, but to America and other European countries.]

[35:00]

JR: Right. All right, so now we have a little situation here. The Zionists, as far as I understand it, they’re the ones that wanted their own people out of there too, to send to Palestine, right?

BB: Yeah. Okay, you’re breaking up again, but I heard what you said.

JR: Okay.

BB: Zionism was a movement that was started by Theodore Herzl back in the late 1800s, and because the Jews were discriminated against — they brought it on themselves, but because they were — he thought the Jews should have a homeland of their own. They had been before, that spread all around the country [world] with small Jewish minorities living amongst Gentile host populations, … And Theodore Herzl started the Zionist movement and a lot of other people joined in, because they thought the Jews should have a homeland of their own and that would solve all this discrimination problem. So they decided that Palestine was going to be it, the Balfour Declaration gave it to the Jews. And so in order to make this thing work, they had to [have] Jews all over Europe and America and so forth, and the Middle East, emigrate down to Palestine and become Jewish citizens.

Now, a lot of Jews didn’t want to do that because they liked it just fine where they were. And so Hitler and the “Nazis,” if you will, worked in cooperation with these people down in Palestine to have these Jews emigrate down. And they let them have their wealth and encouraged them to go down, but leave voluntarily. And a lot of them did.

JR: Now, what happened to stop that though? In other words, it stopped, right? So, …

BB: It stopped. The British stepped in and said:

“Wait a minute, this is causing trouble with our Arab friends down here. This is going to be a disaster.”

Of course they were appreciative, because it has turned into a disaster. And they stopped it, and so then when the war began everything was on hold as far as Palestine.

JR: So now, what did Hitler have to do with these Jews now? I mean, you talked about Dachau, but that was political prisoners. So now the other Jews who didn’t go, what happened there with them?

BB: Well, International Jewry, … To look at it from the German’s perspective, I mean, the official story now is that these Jews for no reason whatsoever were discriminated against and harassed and persecuted and so forth, just because they were Jews. That’s not quite true.

International Jewry was still in a war, a declared war on Germany, and the Jews that lived in the Diaspora, as it’s called, these small populations all around other countries, were part of the international Jewish nation, considered themselves part of the international, … the international Jewish leaders considered them all. So these “German” people living inside Germany were in a declared war against the country they lived in, for all practical purposes, and they made a lot of trouble, revolutionary trouble. So that’s why when the war started they started to lock them up in concentration camps.

But you know, it’s interesting. The story is that they had this program, a German government program of rounding up all — all — of Europe’s Jews and putting them in concentration camps and then exterminating them. My wife and I went out to Dachau several years ago, ten years ago, something like that, and we got a taxi driver to take us out to Dachau in Munich. And the taxi driver, he had a big Mercedes and happened to be an engineer, he happened to be Jewish also, he was an engineer and he used his car part time to take tourists to make extra money. So we were talking about events as we drove out, and he said his mother spent the war years in Munich. And I said:

“Wait a minute, I thought, …”

— This was all part of my process of developing my ideas today. — I said:

“Wait a minute, I thought they rounded up all the Jews to put them in concentration camps?”

He said:

“Well, not all of them.”

So, …

JR: Yeah. Well, I mean, I’ve heard that Hitler actually had German Jewish soldiers, …

BB: Yeah.

JR: … that were, … I mean, that [over talk] .

BB: Field Marshall Milch. Let’s see, what did he do? Part of the military-industrial complex that he controlled, he was a Jew. And there were others.

JR: Right. Yeah, I know there was a book written on that, “Hitler’s Willing Soldiers,” or something like that. A hundred and fifty thousand [over talk] .

[40:00]

BB: Yeah, exactly. The assimilated Jews had no problem. It was the ones who identified as communists and as brothers of the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union who constituted a fifth column or a Trojan horse inside Germany, that they worried about.

JR: Right, right, okay. And they had just reasons to corral them all up, right, and do that?

BB: I’m sorry, you’re breaking up?

JR: They had reason to do that. The Germans had just reason to do that.

BB: They had just cause to do it. Of course they did. They’d have been stupid not to have isolated these people who were devoted to undermining the country that they lived in on behalf of international Jewry whose headquarters were in Moscow.

JR: Right, right. Maybe now you could talk to us a little bit about the “Holocaust”, how that came into play here.

[Image – click to enlarge] Maps of the camps.

BB: Yeah. Let me tell you a little story, I’ve told this before. The first book I read, like I was a brand new ensign, that’s like a second lieutenant in the Army, a brand new ensign in a Navy squadron, a pilot, and somebody had bought a book called “Treblinka.” And I forget the author of it now [Jean-Francois Steiner (1966)], [2], but it was passed around, a number of us read it. I read it and I was appalled. This was what went on, written by a Jew about what went on in the Treblinka concentration camp. One little thing the Nazi guards did that stands out that I remember is that they would line Jews up in a row, one behind the other, and they would shoot the Jew in the chest in the front with a bullet to see how many bodies it would pass through. Then they would change calibers, a larger caliber, and another line of Jews, to see how many bodies it would pass through. And they did this for sport. And I was a little skeptical of that even then; now it sounds absurd. It turns out this guy, …

Anyway, this was the first “Holocaust” book I ever read, and I was so, … it was like seeing a bloody auto accident, you can’t look away and yet it’s repellent at the same time. And I read everything I could get my hands on about the “Holocaust” after that, picture books, everything. And swallowed it — I had no countervailing arguments — but began to feel that it was exaggerated, you know, that a lot of these things, wait a minute, that’s implausible. And not only that, you’d see picture books:

“Wait a minute, I just saw this picture and another book, it had a different caption.”

And then I started to wonder, we have thousands and thousands and thousands of pictures of the camps and the war, but never a picture of a gas chamber, never a picture of dead bodies being pulled out of a gas chamber. They show a bunch of fully dressed people, women, children with a Star of David on their shirt, by train where they just got unloaded, and the caption would say:

“These people are on their way to the gas chamber.”

Well, they could have been on their way to lunch, you know.

JR: Right.

BB: But so you start to be skeptical eventually. Now, I was skeptical, and I went out to Poland in 1989 with a, … Or met a friend out in Lodz, he had a distant relative out there and I stayed with him for a while. I went to Warsaw and looked at all, … traveled all around to find these sites, I’d been reading all about it and I wanted to see what it looked like firsthand. Went to Warsaw ghetto and not much of it left. Then I wound up down in Kraków near Auschwitz, and I wanted to go out to Auschwitz.

And I asked the maître d’ if he could connect me with a taxi driver or a tour guide if you knew something about this. So I met this guy and he’s Polish history professor. And that’s not unusual, by the way, we had a history professor in Istanbul as a tour guide also. But I asked him why he did that, he said he could make $400 a month as a tour guide and he could make $100 a month is a history professor, so that’s why he did it.

He took me all around the sites in Kraków, Hans Frank’s office, he was the Gauleiter of that area. The last day we went out to Auschwitz. Now, it turned out the professor was born in Auschwitz — in Oswiecim, that’s the Polish name of the town — and they lived in a little house, he and his family, right outside of the wire of Dachau. And you can see everything there. He took me there, …

JR: Now, do you mean Auschwitz? You’re talking about Auschwitz.

BB: Auschwitz, I’m sorry.

JR: Okay, all right.

BB: But it’s surrounded by farmland. — No Dachau, Dachau. — I don’t mean Dachau, I mean Birkenau.

JR: Oh, Birkenau.

BB: Birkenau, yeah.

JR: Right.

[Image – click to enlarge] Auschwitz Camp Complex.

BB: Okay, they’re surrounded by farmland with houses all around it, and you’ve got a big fence around the compound, and you can stand outside and see everything. There’s no wall, nothing is blocked, you can see everything. Now, this guy was in his mid to late 60s and had been a teenager during the war, this was 1989. And so we went out to his house where he’d lived, and I’m standing there looking into this compound with all the barracks buildings and what remains of it. And I said:

“Well, how did you feel standing out here watching all this brutality and murder going on inside?”

And he smiled, and he said:

“Oh, those are just stories. Nothing of the kind happened here.” He said, “This was a well organized, well run labor camp.”

I said:

“What about the gas chamber?”

He said:

“There was no gas chamber.”

And that’s the first time I’d heard that. And, “Hmm, no gas chamber?”

So then we went inside. He said what he saw as a boy was columns of workers that would line up outside the front gate and they’d be controlled by two or three armed guards and they would walk off to the factories that circled Oswiecim. War fact[ories], … producing war material.

[46:00]

JR: Sure, yeah.

BB: And they’d go out in the morning and come back in the evening. If they were going some distance they had trucks that picked them up and took them out, brought them back. Anyway, we went inside and took the official tour, this was in ’89 and there weren’t a lot of tourist at that time, there are floods of them now I understand. But we walked around and followed the official tour guide and he explained all the horrific things that happened. Here’s a bin of women’s hair. Supposedly they kept the Jews’ hair off so they could sell it to a mattress company to make mattresses. And they had shoes, a bin of shoes and all that. And he pulled me aside:

“Okay, they cut their hair off for lice control, because, … to control typhus. They have bins of shoes because they gave them a new uniform and new shoes.” Okay.

JR: Yeah.

BB: And on and on. And every place we stopped he pulled me aside and told me what the real story was. Then after the tour, … Anyway, they took us to the gas chambers. He said:

“This was no gas chamber.”

This was a bomb shelter or something.

JR: Sure, yeah.

BB: So he took me around and showed me this Olympic-sized swimming pool they had. I went to both Auschwitz and Birkenau, and I forget which, … where the swimming pool was exactly.

JR: Auschwitz I. Auschwitz I has the swimming pool.

[Image] Auschwitz swimming pool available to inmates.

BB: I think it’s Auschwitz I that has the swimming pool, yeah.

JR: Yeah.

BB: And there was a theater where the inmates were allowed to go. They had an orchestra composed of inmates, they had a soccer field, all of this stuff. A hospital. He said:

“They weren’t slaughtering people here.”

And after that, since then, I don’t believe a word of the Holocaust.

JR: I know. Well, that’s my expertise, that’s what I’ve been getting into myself.

BB: I noticed, yeah.

JR: Yeah. Okay, so now why do you think the Jews are so adamant about that “Holocaust” claim?

BB: Well, I think they’ve profited enormously by it. It was a justification for the creation of the State of Israel. Harry Truman recognized them, the argument was the Jewish people had to have a place to avoid this happening to them again. They have gotten enormous reparations from Germany, something like, … I don’t know how many billions they’ve gotten [About 100 billion]. Even 70 years after the war is over, you’ve got half a million Jews that are on lifetime pensions from the German government, living mainly in America and Israel as Holocaust survivors.

JR: Right.

BB: Oh yeah, another thing, they put that number on their arm. Why in the world did they do that? You start to ask the question:

“Why would these Germans bring all of these Jews in on a train, tattoo a number on their arm, cut their hair off, send them to shower, give them a new uniform, if they were going to exterminate them?”

JR: Yeah, right. Now, the other thing I find too about the “Holocaust” myth is that they actually had to protect the Allies, or make it look like the Allies were innocent, and make the Germans look like they were the bad guys. So everything the Allies did wrong was covered up by the “Holocaust”.

BB: Yeah, it was justified.

JR: Yeah.

BB: The end of the war was total chaos for Germany. I say that in the book, that 8 million Germans died during the war, and 13 million died after the war was over, as a result of the abuse and slaughter and starvation and all that happened to the Germans after the war. And we justified this somehow because they had carried out this “Holocaust”.

JR: Right.

[50:00]

BB: And the Nuremberg trials afterwards, the “Holocaust” was the central theme. And it justified executing a lot of Germany’s leaders.

JR: Right. How many Jews do you think died at the most, what you think?

BB: It’s certainly less than a million. The 6 million was just plucked out of the air. The 6 million is an iconic number that’s gone back to the beginning of the century, and they’ve used, … They’ve stated it numerous, numerous times, that 6 million Jews are in danger of dying, you know, over and over and over again. And sure enough, when the war was over 6 million died. The number is absolutely meaningless. They modified the number that died at Auschwitz down from 4 million down to 1 million, yet they didn’t reduce the total number. So the 6 million is just an iconic number. I’ve read that not more than 65,000 Jews died, up to less than a million, so certainly, …

JR: That’s what I get out of it.

BB: But that’s got to be compared to 55 million died, all totaled. What’s so special about the Jewish number? So when 55 million people died in Europe as a result of the war, and 1 million or 6 million, whichever.

JR: Well, look at the Germans, how many Germans died. Right, you said 20-something, 20 million Germans died.

BB: Yeah, they expelled 15 million of them from East Europe, Poland, Prussia, East Prussia, and Hungary, everywhere else, and pushed them into Europe, and 3 million of them it’s estimated died from brutality, outright murder, exposure, everything. And they were brutal to these German populations living, … still living in the Sudetenland, for example, the Czechs were just brutal to these people, mass murder.

JR: Right, right. Let me ask you this, in regards to you writing this book. Have you had any flack, any problems? Because again, this book, I mean, it really just exposes the Jews, it exposes the lies, you know, everything that we’ve been talking about here. Have you had any repercussions on this?

BB: Nothing personal, yet. I’m surprised I haven’t. A couple of people around here in Jacksonville who, you know, have commented it’s anti-Semitic, they read it. But the reviews, some of the reviews, for Amazon Books for example I’ve got about 125 that I think up to this point and almost all of them give it five stars, except for the Jews who give it one star.

JR: Right, I know, that’s always going to happen. Yeah. Well, that’s how you know you’re doing good. You know you doing good. [laughter] Yeah, I’m just very surprised that nothing’s happened to you. Because I get a lot of flack in what I’m doing.

BB: Oh, of course.

JR: And I mean, I don’t have, … I’m retired, so I don’t worry about working anymore, but when I was working they did affect my business, so I’m glad I retired. But they came after me like gang busters. I mean they just came after me unbelievably.

BB: Yeah. You’re breaking up again. Anyway, let’s go back and look at the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

JR: Okay.

BB: I’ve read a lot about that over the years, and I kept seeing these Jewish names pop up, obvious Jewish names pop up. They never identified the Bolsheviks as Jews, but there were a lot of Jewish names in there. And you kind of get the idea, wait a minute, there’s an awful lot of Jews involved in this. And then I started to go back and read, … I read one by Wilton — Robert Wilton, is that it? I think he was a reporter for a London newspaper and he’d been there throughout the war, and it was called the, … something about the death of the royal family. [“The Last Days of the Romanovs”] And he’s the one that laid it right out there, and it was kind of an addendum to the book, in the end. And he said that, … he named all the names.

[Image – click to enlarge] The Romanovs. From left to right: Olga, Maria,Nicholas II, Alexandra, Anastasia, Alexei, and Tatiana. Pictured at Livadia Palace in 1913.

And so I copied and pasted that in my book to show all the names. The reason I did it was you can throw numbers out there, but it’s a lot more impressive to have the names of all these individuals and put what their ethnicity is. But there was something like 555 or something like that. Of the top 550 people in the Bolshevik government, that controlled the Bolshevik government, 437 of them were Jews. And even the ones that were not Jews, a large number of them were married to Jewish spouses, Jewish wives.

And almost none of them were Russian, there were Polish, Georgian or Latvian, or whatever. The ones that were not Jews. I mean, there were almost no Russians in the Bolshevik government. They took control, this was a coup d’état, this Russian Revolution with Trotsky and Lenin was a coup d’état, a Jewish coup d’état of the Russian state. Nobody says that today, and the history books don’t say that it all.

JR: Right.

BB: They ruled over Russia as an alien force, and they lorded it over them. And they hated the Russian people because they’d been discriminated against and there was, … International Jewry hated Russia and it was on the top of their agenda to one day bring down the Russian government. Well, the war had weakened it sufficiently that now they were able to do it. And they killed the Tsar too, by the way, and his family, all Jews who did that.

[56:00]

JR: Right, right. Now, Benton, do you have any other books you’re working on now, or what?

BB: No, I’m trying to think of something. I’ve thought about writing something about the occupation of Germany and what happened during the occupation, I may do that.

JR: Yeah. Have you ever heard of the book “Hellstorm”?

BB: I read it, yeah.

JR: Oh, you read it. Yeah, because he talked about what happened when the Russians came in and all that.

BB: Mm hmm.

JR: Well, you know what I’d like to see you do, I’d like to see you go out on tour. [laughter]

BB: Well, I’ve been afraid of that, I’m afraid that tomatoes might be thrown at me or something, but, …

JR: Well, no. I mean, you’d have to started off really well, you know. I’d like to see that. I mean, it would be a great tour if you did that.

BB: If I retire I might do that.

JR: Yeah, that part would be good.

BB: I’m 78, and so they can’t do much to me at my age. I have a twin brother too, you know.

JR: You have what?

BB: I have a twin brother.

JR: Yeah, I know, you mentioned that at the beginning. Interesting. Well, I think that pretty much covers this, unless you have anything else you’d like to say about your plans, what you plan to do with the book or anything like that. Any plans?

BB: It’s done better than I expected. I didn’t write it to make money or anything. I wrote it because I had gotten to the point where I said:

“Somebody needs to put all this together.”

And because, you know, over the years reading one book after another after another, and especially reading the other side of the story written by Germans and so on, the dots begin to emerge, and you start putting them together and pretty soon it’s just crystal-clear, you see what happened.

JR: Right.

BB: And the Spanish Civil War, for example. I always thought, … I read Ernest Hemingway’s book, [“For Whom the Bell Tolls”] , I read half a dozen books on the Spanish Civil War, and in all cases they have these Jewish names on the Socialist side. And the American, … what’d they call it, the American group that went over there, I can’t think of it right now. [Lincoln Battalion] Anyway, a group of Americans that went over, their leader was a guy named [Milton] Wolff, who was a Jew. And the guy who was the head of the, … you know, the people who had been in the war back here, …

[Image] Milton Wolff (October 7, 1915 – January 14, 2008) better known as Milt Wolff, was a communist Jew subversive from the United States who acted as a terrorist in the Spanish Civil War, in his role as the last commander of the Lincoln Battalion of XV International Brigade. [3]

JR: Veterans you mean?

BB: Yeah, I’m trying to say the veterans of the Spanish American, … Civil War, …

JR: Yeah, yeah.

BB: … was a Jew. And I’m thinking, you know, you read all this stuff and you say:

“Wait a minute, there’s more to this than appears.”

JR: Yeah. Well, the whole slave trade was run by Jews.

BB: Yeah. But there is a common thread running through here that involves Jews.

JR: Right.

BB: And pretty soon you say, well, Judaism and Communism is the same thing. And when the Russians imposed, … I mean the Jews imposed their power over Russia they set about to kill scores of millions of Russians. They did it deliberately in the most bestial fashion you can imagine. They’ve been settling scores, and they were wiping out whole groups, the bourgeoisie, you know, which included I guess the aristocracy and the estate owners and the possessing classes, they set out to kill those people.

For example, they would leave, … They had this Cheka. I forget, … it’s an acronym, I forget exactly what it stands for. [Chrezvychainaya Komissiya – Extraordinary Commission (to combat Counter-Revolution)] But 75% of the members, the agents of this Cheka, were Jews. Of the 95% percent who were not Jews almost none were Russians, they were these Georgians, Poles and so forth, and a great number of those had Jewish wives. So this was a Jewish entity. They created the Comintern, the Communist International, for the purpose of exporting their revolution to Europe and bringing down existing regimes and replacing them with Jewish-controlled Soviet republics.

[60:10]

JR: Right, right. What do you think about the United States, do you think it’s controlled by the Jews?

BB: Yeah, yeah. You know, I was just reading, … I’m reading a book now about Allen Dulles than the CIA, I forget the name of it, but I’m halfway through it, and it’s talking about the origins of the CIA, the people from the Ivy League schools, you know, kind of the upper class in America. They’re the ones who joined the ISS [OSS – Office of Strategic Services] I think it was in World War II, which after the war became the CIA. He’s naming all these people, and it’s the American White Anglo-Saxon Protestant upper crust that runs the State Department at that time and the CIA. They were Arabists, they were called Arabists, they had an affinity for the Arab, … A close relationship with the Arabs, which was destroyed when Israel became a state in 1948.

[Image] Allen Dulles on the cover of Time, Aug. 3, 1953.

And then I was amazed at how, as this author was describing who ran the country in the 50s, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, we have transitioned over, … They’ve been all totally displaced by Jews.

The Jews run every institution and every department of our government. The Neocons, neoconservatives. I don’t know if you know the origin of them, but they came out of the Trotskyite wing of the Communist Party. And they hate Russia. Why do they hate Russia? Because they hated Stalin. And they hate Russia now. It’s back to the same old, … Reverting right back to the pre-revolutionary years when the international Jews hated Russia, and now they’ve evolved right back to it. They controlled Russia from 1919 until shortly after World War II when Stalin began to turn against them and purge them, and then they started to leave Russia — after looting it, by the way.

[Image – click to enlarge] Just a few of the jewish Neocons.

And now the center, … That was the center of Jewish power, was the Soviet Union. And now the center of Jewish power is in Israel and America, about 6 million Jews in Israel, 6 million in America, who work together today, closely together, to bleed America for the benefit of Israel.

We send billions of dollars to Israel. American people don’t approve of that. But these Neocons that have positions of power and control in this country, funnel billions of dollars, the latest technology, everything, into Israel. They’ve got one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, in tiny Israel, with the latest technology. They got their nuclear weapons from us, I mean the technology to build them. They’ve got about 400 nuclear weapons. And Israel and American Neocons together control our foreign policy.

JR: That’s right. Now, would you say that it doesn’t make any difference who the President is, right?

BB: I don’t think so. Donald Trump MIGHT, but I’m not sure, make a difference.

But there is the Deep State, they call it, which pulls all the strings. So Obama wants to close Guantánamo Bay, for example. But he hasn’t done it yet. Why? Because it doesn’t have the power to do it. The real power are the people who make, … You know, that make the decisions and so forth. But, it’s incredible the extent to which our country is controlled by Israel and the Neocons in this country working together.

JR: Yeah. And it doesn’t look too promising, does it?

BB: No. And they’re the ones behind this multiculturalism.

JR: Right.

BB: I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Kevin MacDonald.

JR: Oh sure, yeah! I read his stuff, yeah.

BB: I’ve read his stuff. He explains how they’ve done behind the scenes, you know, using front men, Gentile front men like Teddy Kennedy to pass the last immigration act in 1965, which opened up doors to these floods of Third World non-White, non-Christian people.

And they did it deliberately to undermine the White majority. And they got away with it because of this anti-Nazi propaganda, this racism they said. I don’t see anything wrong with nationalism. I think nationalism is the natural way that peoples ought to be organized, organize themselves. But he wanted a homogeneous German population, and the Jews have made that out to be sinful.

JR: Right. Yet if you go to Israel today, they don’t allow any of this there!

BB: That’s exactly right.

[65:00]

JR: A bunch of hypocrites. Unbelievable. Wow! Well Benton, this is really great, I think we covered from A to Z here quite a bit. Hopefully if you ever do get a chance to write another book I’m definitely going to be reading that. I’ve been telling everybody about your book.

BB: Thanks so much.

JR: Every place I go I say it’s the best book I’ve ever read to give me the whole story. Now I understand what happened with World War I, how World War II was just an extension of World War I.

[Image – click to enlarge] Béla Kun, a jew, was the leader of the Hungarian Revolution of 1919.

BB: Well, they tried to bring revolution to Europe, and they did overthrow Hungary for a time under Bela Kun. He had a 100% Jewish administration, and they raised bloody hell with, … Launched a war of terror against the Hungarian people. Admiral Horthy with the Hungarian, … I mean with the Romanian army came in and threw them out and saved, … But it caused intense anti-Semitism in Hungary as a result of that, what they did.

They came into Germany and for a time. They had the Soviet Socialist Republic of Bavaria, until the Freikorps came in and kicked them out. And then there was the Spartacus revolt, … Revolution in Berlin with Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, Jews, leading it. And then they tried the same thing in Italy, and Mussolini saved Italy from the Jewish Bolsheviks.

[Image – click to enlarge] Revolutionary jews, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

JR: Yeah, right. And he’s a bad guy now.

BB: Yeah, he’s a bad guy now. And then Franco was also a bad guy, but not as bad as Mussolini. He saved Spain from the Jewish communist take over. Hitler saved Czechoslovakia. And it’s one of the things, this absurd thing about appeasement today. Even John McCain uses it all the time, you know, ridiculing somebody because they want to appease somebody. Appeasement was actually successful. Britain and France, they were the warmongers, wanted to make war against Germany for annexing the Sudetenland, which had 3.8 million Germans who wanted to join Germany. No reason why they shouldn’t have.

[Image – click to enlarge] Map of the Partition of Czechoslovakia, 1938 – 1939

But then that led, … Then Czechoslovakia kind of fell apart, along ethnic lines with groups rejoining their original country, and that left Bohemia and Moravia where Prague is, the head of that, that’s where the Czechs are. That was the only thing that remained of Czechoslovakia. They had 180,000 Jews, most of which were communists and ready, … In direct communication with the Comintern in Moscow. Ready to turn Moravia and Bohemia into a communist state right in the heart of Europe. It would have been a disaster if that had happened.

And Hitler wouldn’t let it happen, and so he made it a protectorate, so that the communists wouldn’t take it over. He saved central Europe from the communist takeover. And yet, that’s used today as an example of how appeasement doesn’t work:

“Look, we made this agreement, appeasement, and then he went in and made it a protectorate.”

But he did it for a reason that we all ought to thank him for, he kept the communists out of Central Europe.

JR: Yeah. Well, Churchill, I believe it was Churchill who said:

“We slaughtered the wrong pig.”

BB: Yeah.

JR: Didn’t he say that? I thought that’s what he said. Well, that’s what I heard he said anyway, whether he said it are not. Well, Benton, I really want to thank you for this time together, you did a great job.

BB: Oh, thank you.

JR: And this video is probably going to get you more books [sold].

BB: Well, my sales doubled as a result of your promoting it, so thank you very much.

JR: I’m telling you, all the programs, because I’m on programs and interviews, and I’ve always brought it up, and every book that I talk about the top five books, this is probably, … I would think this is number one, honestly. And then I get into the Holocaust books. But if you want to understand everything exactly from the beginning, this is the book to get, so I recommend it. Anyway, I want to thank you for being on my show today, and I will get this video to you when it’s done and I’ll show it to you, you can watch it. And I’m going to put it up on YouTube at some point.

BB: Okay. All right. I enjoyed it, thanks so much for having me.

JR: Okay Ben, you take care now. God bless, bye now.

BB: Bye bye.

[69:33]

END

Footnotes

[1] Puttin’ On Airs: Making it Against the Odds The Story of My Life

From Amazon Description

Horatio Alger wrote wildly popular dime novels in the mid to late 1800s about poor boys making good. The theme was always the same; that through honesty, hard work, strong determination,and perseverance, the American Dream could be realized regardless of his beginnings in life.

“Puttin’ on Airs” is the author’s own story of himself as a poor boy who made good against the odds, a story which could have been written by Horatio Alger. The author describes his life growing up in rural Louisiana as one of ten children of uneducated parents, under conditions of spirit crushing poverty. He escaped this life by joining the Navy at age 17. Within 5 years time he became an officer and aviator and went on to complete a 21 year Navy career. In time he obtained a university degree (with honors), the only member of his family to even attend college. Only 2 of the 10 children even graduated from high school, himself and a sister.

“Join the Navy and see the world,” the recruiting poster said, and see the world, he did. He has been on 6 continents and in over 40 countries. He was also on the front line of the Cold War from near its beginning to near its end, which included a year in Viet Nam as a helicopter pilot. As a helicopter pilot, he also helped retrieve the astronauts from the sea after their return to earth.

With the same determination and grit that propelled him in his Navy career, he entered private business after retiring from the Navy, which has made him a wealthy man. This well written book should be an inspiration to anyone who enjoys a good rags to riches story.

[2] From an Amazon reviewer of “Treblinka”

(Source: http://www.amazon.com/Treblinka-Jean-Francois-Steiner/dp/0452011248)

1.0 out of 5 stars Nazi sado-porn

By HolocaustHistory channel on March 3, 2013

Format: Paperback

Treblinka was first identified as a site of killing with gas in a story published July 11, 1942 in the Polish newspaper Dziennik Polski (The Polish Daily). This story read, in part, “In the area of Lublin on the night of 23-24 March [1942] the Jewish population was deported. […] 26,000 were sent to camps in Bełżec and Tremblinka […] Reportedly in Bełźec and Tremblinka the killing is going on with the help of poisonous gas.”

Treblinka “death camp” opened on July 23, 1942 — making it hard to understand how people were gassed there in March 1942!

In any event, the atrocity stories being spread about Treblinka soon changed, and reported that killings went on in “steam chambers” at Treblinka; the steam chamber story was “proven” at the Nuremberg trials. Because people really weren’t sure what a steam chamber was supposed to be, and because the gas chamber story had been widely spread about other German camps, the story then changed back to gas chambers. A few postwar reports described the Treblinka gas chambers, most notably Rachel Auerbach’s “In the Fields of Treblinka,” which claimed that at Treblinka blood “was found to be a first-class combustion material.” [Blood is mostly water, and is certainly not a “combustion material” at all!]

After 1948, however, Treblinka disappeared from the pages of written history until 1966, when it was resurrected by this novel, published by the French Jew Jean-François Steiner and ghost-written by Gilles Perrault. It is based on the (extremely limited) written record, as well as interviews with former Treblinka prisoners, and caused something of a scandal as some of those former prisoners thought they had been unfairly portrayed as “collaborators.”

Steiner’s novel is extremely crude, belongs to the genre of sadistic pornography, and lacks all value for the serious student. One amusing episode describes the killing of the Ukranian guard dubbed “Ivan the terrible” in the Treblinka uprising. The same former Treblinka prisoners who told Steiner that “Ivan the terrible” had been killed in the revolt later identified John Demjanjuk as that very same Ivan; he was deported to Israel, put on trial, and sentenced to death, although years later evidence surfaced which forced the Israeli supreme court to overturn the conviction, thereby calling the former Treblinka prisoners liars.

For those who actually wish to study Treblinka rather than amuse themselves with trashy novels, there is no better source than Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Holocaust Handbook).

[3] Milton Wolff (October 7, 1915 – January 14, 2008) better known as Milt Wolff, was a communist Jew subversive from the United States who acted as a terrorist in the Spanish Civil War, in his role as the last commander of the Lincoln Battalion of XV International Brigade. Later in his life, as well as his continuing communist activities, he was also involved in Europhobic agitations in an attempt to undermine European Americans in the United States and the Boer people in South Africa. He died in Berkeley, California on January 14, 2008 at age 92.

Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Milton_Wolff

_________________________

Click on a link to go to each part of Ben Bradberry’s book, “The Myth Of German Villainy”:

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

======================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (3.0 MB):

Jim Rizoli – Ben Bradberry Interview – The Myth of Germany Villainy – 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

Version History

Version 15: Apr 9, 2020 — Improved formatting.

Version 14: Jan 6, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 13: Aug 29, 2017 — Added links to each part of Ben Bradberry’s book, “The Myth Of German Villainy”.

Version 12: Dec 29, 2016 — Improved formatting.

Version 11: Jan 23, 2016 — Fixed some typos.

Version 10: Jan 21, 2016 — Added PDF of transcript.

Version 9: Jan 20, 2016 — Added 10 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 70 min. Added images. Draft of TRANSCRIPT now complete.

Version 8: Jan 19, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 60 min. Added images.

Version 7: Jan 17, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 45 min. Added maps.

Version 6: Jan 16, 2016 — Added more images; added Footnotes; fixed some typos.

Version 5: Jan 15, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 30 min.

Version 4: Jan 14, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 15 min. NOTE: Commenter mblaineo has actually submitted the full text of the transcript to me. I applaud him for his efforts in doing his bit to help bring truth to the public about recent history that is suppressed by our enemies.

Version 3: Jan 13, 2016 — Updated the time slots with, [IN PROGRESS [MBLAINEO].

Version 2: Jan 10, 2016 — Added “About the Author”; cover.

Version 1: Posted Jan 9, 2016

Henry Ford — Part 11: How Cheaply Can Things Be Made?

admin — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:54:21 +0000

[This autobiography of Henry Ford describes the creation and building of the Ford Motor Company as well as his business philosophy. Ford was one of the world’s greatest industrialists, businessmen, entrepreneurs and visionaries. He introduced the assembly line, reduced working hours, introduced a high minimum wage, the five-day work week, etc., at the beginning of the 20th century. Ford was greatly admired by Adolf Hitler, the driving force behind National Socialism. In turn, Ford became an admirer of Hitler and equally shared his understanding of the menace the world faced with International jewry. — KATANA]

[Click to enlarge]

My Life and Work

Henry Ford

Part 11

IN COLLABORATION WITH

SAMUEL CROWTHER

GARDEN CITY NEW YORK

DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY

1923

CONTENTS

Introduction — What is the Idea? ……………….……………… 1

Chapter I. The Beginning of Business ……………..….………. 21

Chapter II. What I Learned About Business ……………….. 33

Chapter III. Starting the Real Business …………..………….. 47

Chapter IV. The Secret of Manufacturing and Serving .. 64

Chapter V. Getting into Production ……………….…….……… 77

Chapter VI. Machines and Men …………………………..………. 91

Chapter VII. The Terror of the Machine ………….………….. 103

Chapter VIII. Wages …………………………………………..………. 116

Chapter IX. Why Not Always Have Good Business? ……..131

Chapter X. How Cheaply Can Things Be Made? …….……. 141

Chapter XI. Money and Goods …………………………..……….. 156

Chapter XII. Money — Master or Servant? ………….……… 169

Chapter XIII. Why Be Poor? ……………………………..……….. 184

Chapter XIV. The Tractor and Power Farming ..…….…… 195

Chapter XV. Why Charity? …………………………………………. 206

Chapter XVI. The Railroads ………………………………………… 222

Chapter XVII. Things in General ………………………..……….. 234

Chapter XVIII. Democracy and Industry ………..………….. 253

Chapter XIX. What We May Expect …………………..……….. 267

Index ……………………………………………………………..…..……… 285

Chapter X

How Cheaply Can Things Be Made?

No one will deny that if prices are sufficiently low, buyers will always be found, no matter what are supposed to be the business conditions. That is one of the elemental facts of business. Sometimes raw materials will not move, no matter how low the price. We have seen something of that during the last year, but that is because the manufacturers and the distributors were trying to dispose of high-cost stocks before making new engagements. The markets were stagnant, but not “saturated” with goods. What is called a “saturated” market is only one in which the prices are above the purchasing power.

Unduly high prices are always a sign of unsound business, because they are always due to some abnormal condition. A healthy patient has a normal temperature; a healthy market has normal prices. High prices come about commonly by reason of speculation following the report of a shortage. Although there is never a shortage in everything, a shortage in just a few important commodities, or even in one, serves to start speculation. Or again, goods may not be short at all. An inflation of currency or credit will cause a quick bulge in apparent buying power and the consequent opportunity to speculate. There may be a combination of actual shortages and a currency inflation — as frequently happens during war. But in any condition of unduly high prices, no matter what the real cause, the people pay the high prices because they think there is going to be a shortage.

[Page 142]

They may buy bread ahead of their own needs, so as not to be left later in the lurch, or they may buy in the hope of reselling at a profit. When there was talk of a sugar shortage, housewives who had never in their lives bought more than ten pounds of sugar at once tried to get stocks of one hundred or two hundred pounds, and while they were doing this, speculators were buying sugar to store in warehouses. Nearly all our war shortages were caused by speculation or buying ahead of need.

No matter how short the supply of an article is supposed to be, no matter if the Government takes control and seizes every ounce of that article, a man who is willing to pay the money can always get whatever supply he is willing to pay for. No one ever knows actually how great or how small is the national stock of any commodity. The very best figures are not more than guesses; estimates of the world’s stock of a commodity are still wilder. We may think we know how much of a commodity is produced on a certain day or in a certain month, but that does not tell us how much will be produced the next day or the next month. Likewise we do not know how much is consumed. By spending a great deal of money we might, in the course of time, get at fairly accurate figures on how much of a particular commodity was consumed over a period, but by the time those figures were compiled they would be utterly useless except for historical purposes, because in the next period the consumption might be double or half as much. People do not stay put. That is the trouble with all the framers of Socialistic and Communistic, and of all other plans for the ideal regulation of society. They all presume that people will stay put. The reactionary has the same idea. He insists that everyone ought to stay put. Nobody does, and for that I am thankful.

[Page 143]

Consumption varies according to the price and the quality, and nobody knows or can figure out what future consumption will amount to, because every time a price is lowered a new stratum of buying power is reached.

Everyone knows that, but many refuse to recognize it by their acts. When a storekeeper buys goods at a wrong price and finds they will not move, he reduces the price by degrees until they do move. If he is wise, instead of nibbling at the price and encouraging in his customers the hope of even lower prices, he takes a great big bite out of the price and gets the stuff out of his place. Everyone takes a loss on some proposition of sales. The common hope is that after the loss there may be a big profit to make up for the loss. That is usually a delusion.

The profit out of which the loss has to be taken must be found in the business preceding the cut. Any one who was foolish enough to regard the high profits of the boom period as permanent profits got into financial trouble when the drop came. However, there is a belief, and a very strong one, that business consists of a series of profits and losses, and good business is one in which the profits exceed the losses. Therefore some men reason that the best price to sell at is the highest price which may be had. That is supposed to be good business practice. Is it? We have not found it so.

We have found in buying materials that it is not worth while to buy for other than immediate needs. We buy only enough to fit into the plan of production, taking into consideration the state of transportation at the time. If transportation were perfect and an even flow of materials could be assured, it would not be necessary to carry any stock whatsoever. The carloads of raw materials would arrive on schedule and in the planned order and amounts, and go from the railway cars into production. That would save a great deal of money, for it would give a very rapid turnover and thus decrease the amount of money tied up in materials.

[Page 144]

With bad transportation one has to carry larger stocks. At the time of revaluing the inventory in 1921 the stock was unduly high because transportation had been so bad. But we learned long ago never to buy ahead for speculative purposes. When prices are going up it is considered good business to buy far ahead, and when prices are up to buy as little as possible. It needs no argument to demonstrate that, if you buy materials at ten cents a pound and the material goes later to twenty cents a pound you will have a distinct advantage over the man who is compelled to buy at twenty cents. But we have found that thus buying ahead does not pay. It is entering into a guessing contest. It is not business. If a man buys a large stock at ten cents, he is in a fine position as long as the other man is paying twenty cents. Then he later gets a chance to buy more of the material at twenty cents, and it seems to be a good buy because everything points to the price going to thirty cents. Having great satisfaction in his previous judgment, on which he made money, he of course makes the new purchase. Then the price drops and he is just where he started. We have carefully figured, over the years, that buying ahead of requirements does not pay — that the gains on one purchase will be offset by the losses on another, and in the end we have gone to a great deal of trouble without any corresponding benefit. Therefore in our buying we simply get the best price we can for the quantity that we require. We do not buy less if the price be high and we do not buy more if the price be low. We carefully avoid bargain lots in excess of requirements. It was not easy to reach that decision. But in the end speculation will kill any manufacturer.

Give him a couple of good purchases on which he makes money and before long he will be thinking more about making money out of buying and selling than out of his legitimate business, and he will smash. The only way to keep out of trouble is to buy what one needs — no more and no less. That course removes one hazard from business.

[Page 145]

This buying experience is given at length because it explains our selling policy. Instead of giving attention to competitors or to demand, our prices are based on an estimate of what the largest possible number of people will want to pay, or can pay, for what we have to sell. And what has resulted from that policy is best evidenced by comparing the price of the touring car and the production.

YEAR . . . . . . . PRICE . . . . . PRODUCTION

1909-10 . . . . . . . $950 . . . . . . . 18,664 cars

1910-11 . . . . . . . $780 . . . . . . . 34,528

1911-12 . . . . . . . $690 . . . . . . . 78,440

1912-13 . . . . . . . $600 . . . . . . . 168,220

1913-14 . . . . . . . $550 . . . . . . . 248,307

1914-15 . . . . . . . $490 . . . . . . . 308,213

1915-16 . . . . . . . $440 . . . . . . . 533,921

1916-17 . . . . . . . $360 . . . . . . . 785,432

1917-18 . . . . . . . $450 . . . . . . . 706,584

1918-19 . . . . . . . $525 . . . . . . . 533,706

(The above two years were war years and the factory was in war work).

1919-20 . . . $575 to $440 . . . 996,660

1920-21 . . . $440 to $355 . . . 1,250,000

The high prices of 1921 were, considering the financial inflation, not really high. At the time of writing the price is $497. These prices are actually lower than they appear to be, because improvements in quality are being steadily made. We study every car in order to discover if it has features that might be developed and adapted. If any one has anything better than we have we want to know it, and for that reason we buy one of every new car that comes out. Usually the car is used for a while, put through a road test, taken apart, and studied as to how and of what everything is made.

[Page 146]

Scattered about Dearborn there is probably one of nearly every make of car on earth. Every little while when we buy a new car it gets into the newspapers and somebody remarks that Ford doesn’t use the Ford. Last year we ordered a big Lanchester — which is supposed to be the best car in England. It lay in our Long Island factory for several months and then I decided to drive it to Detroit. There were several of us and we had a little caravan — the Lanchester, a Packard, and a Ford or two. I happened to be riding in the Lanchester passing through a New York town and when the reporters came up they wanted to know right away why I was not riding in a Ford.

“Well, you see, it is this way,” I answered. “I am on a vacation now; I am in no hurry, we do not care much when we get home. That is the reason I am not in the Ford.”

You know, we also have a line of “Ford stories”!

Our policy is to reduce the price, extend the operations, and improve the article. You will notice that the reduction of price comes first. We have never considered any costs as fixed. Therefore we first reduce the price to a point where we believe more sales will result. Then we go ahead and try to make the price. We do not bother about the costs. The new price forces the costs down. The more usual way is to take the costs and then determine the price, and although that method may be scientific in the narrow sense, it is not scientific in the broad sense, because what earthly use is it to know the cost if it tells you you cannot manufacture at a price at which the article can be sold? But more to the point is the fact that, although one may calculate what a cost is, and of course all of our costs are carefully calculated, no one knows what a cost ought to be.

[Page 147]

One of the ways of discovering what a cost ought to be is to name a price so low as to force everybody in the place to the highest point of efficiency. The low price makes everybody dig for profits. We make more discoveries concerning manufacturing and selling under this forced method than by any method of leisurely investigation.

The payment of high wages fortunately contributes to the low costs because the men become steadily more efficient on account of being relieved of outside worries. The payment of five dollars a day for an eight-hour day was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made, and the six-dollar day wage is cheaper than the five. How far this will go, we do not know.

We have always made a profit at the prices we have fixed and, just as we have no idea how high wages will go, we also have no idea how low prices will go, but there is no particular use in bothering on that point. The tractor, for instance, was first sold for $750, then at $850, then at $625, and the other day we cut it 37 per cent, to $395. The tractor is not made in connection with the automobiles. No plant is large enough to make two articles. A shop has to be devoted to exactly one product in order to get the real economies.

For most purposes a man with a machine is better than a man without a machine. By the ordering of design of product and of manufacturing process we are able to provide that kind of a machine which most multiplies the power of the hand, and therefore we give to that man a larger role of service, which means that he is entitled to a larger share of comfort.

Keeping that principle in mind we can attack waste with a definite objective. We will not put into our establishment anything that is useless. We will not put up elaborate buildings as monuments to our success.

[Page 148]

The interest on the investment and the cost of their upkeep only serve to add uselessly to the cost of what is produced — so these monuments of success are apt to end as tombs. A great administration building may be necessary. In me it arouses a suspicion that perhaps there is too much administration. We have never found a need for elaborate administration and would prefer to be advertised by our product than by where we make our product.

The standardization that effects large economies for the consumer results in profits of such gross magnitude to the producer that he can scarcely know what to do with his money. But his effort must be sincere, painstaking, and fearless. Cutting out a half-a-dozen models is not standardizing. It may be, and usually is, only the limiting of business, for if one is selling on the ordinary basis of profit — that is, on the basis of taking as much money away from the consumer as he will give up — then surely the consumer ought to have a wide range of choice.

Standardization, then, is the final stage of the process. We start with consumer, work back through the design, and finally arrive at manufacturing. The manufacturing becomes a means to the end of service.

It is important to bear this order in mind. As yet, the order is not thoroughly understood. The price relation is not understood. The notion persists that prices ought to be kept up. On the contrary, good business — large consumption — depends on their going down.

And here is another point. The service must be the best you can give. It is considered good manufacturing practice, and not bad ethics, occasionally to change designs so that old models will become obsolete and new ones will have to be bought either because repair parts for the old cannot be had, or because the new model offers a new sales argument which can be used to persuade a consumer to scrap what he has and buy something new.

[Page 149]

We have been told that this is good business, that it is clever business, that the object of business ought to be to get people to buy frequently and that it is bad business to try to make anything that will last forever, because when once a man is sold he will not buy again.

Our principle of business is precisely to the contrary. We cannot conceive how to serve the consumer unless we make for him something that, as far as we can provide, will last forever. We want to construct some kind of a machine that will last forever. It does not please us to have a buyer’s car wear out or become obsolete. We want the man who buys one of our products never to have to buy another. We never make an improvement that renders any previous model obsolete. The parts of a specific model are not only interchangeable with all other cars of that model, but they are interchangeable with similar parts on all the cars that we have turned out.

You can take a car of ten years ago and, buying to-day’s parts, make it with very little expense into a car of to-day. Having these objectives the costs always come down under pressure. And since we have the firm policy of steady price reduction, there is always pressure. Sometimes it is just harder!

Take a few more instances of saving. The sweepings net six hundred thousand dollars a year. Experiments are constantly going on in the utilization of scrap. In one of the stamping operations six-inch circles of sheet metal are cut out. These formerly went into scrap. The waste worried the men. They worked to find uses for the discs. They found that the plates were just the right size and shape to stamp into radiator caps but the metal was not thick enough. They tried a double thickness of plates, with the result that they made a cap which tests proved to be stronger than one made out of a single sheet of metal. We get 150,000 of those discs a day. We have now found a use for about 20,000 a day and expect to find further uses for the remainder.

[Page 150]

We saved about ten dollars each by making transmissions instead of buying them. We experimented with bolts and produced a special bolt made on what is called an “upsetting machine” with a rolled thread that was stronger than any bolt we could buy, although in its making was used only about one third of the material that the outside manufacturers used. The saving on one style of bolt alone amounted to half a million dollars a year.

We used to assemble our cars at Detroit, and although by special packing we managed to get five or six into a freight car, we needed many hundreds of freight cars a day. Trains were moving in and out all the time. Once a thousand freight cars were packed in a single day. A certain amount of congestion was inevitable. It is very expensive to knock down machines and crate them so that they cannot be injured in transit — to say nothing of the transportation charges. Now, we assemble only three or four hundred cars a day at Detroit — just enough for local needs. We now ship the parts to our assembling stations all over the United States and in fact pretty much all over the world, and the machines are put together there. Wherever it is possible for a branch to make a part more cheaply than we can make it in Detroit and ship it to them, then the branch makes the part.

The plant at Manchester, England, is making nearly an entire car. The tractor plant at Cork, Ireland, is making almost a complete tractor. This is an enormous saving of expense and is only an indication of what may be done throughout industry generally, when each part of a composite article is made at the exact point where it may be made most economically. We are constantly experimenting with every material that enters into the car. We cut most of our own lumber from our own forests. We are experimenting in the manufacture of artificial leather because we use about forty thousand yards of artificial leather a day. A penny here and a penny there runs into large amounts in the course of a year.

[Page 151]

The greatest development of all, however, is the River Rouge plant, which, when it is running to its full capacity, will cut deeply and in many directions into the price of everything we make. The whole tractor plant is now there. This plant is located on the river on the outskirts of Detroit and the property covers six hundred and sixty-five acres — enough for future development. It has a large slip and a turning basin capable of accommodating any lake steamship; a short-cut canal and some dredging will give a direct lake connection by way of the Detroit River. We use a great deal of coal. This coal comes directly from our mines over the Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railway, which we control, to the Highland Park plant and the River Rouge plant.

Part of it goes for steam purposes. Another part goes to the by-product coke ovens which we have established at the River Rouge plant. Coke moves on from the ovens by mechanical transmission to the blast furnaces.

The low volatile gases from the blast furnaces are piped to the power plant boilers where they are joined by the sawdust and the shavings from the body plant — the making of all our bodies has been shifted to this plant — and in addition the coke “breeze” (the dust in the making of coke) is now also being utilized for stoking. The steam power plant is thus fired almost exclusively from what would otherwise be waste products.

Immense steam turbines directly coupled with dynamos transform this power into electricity, and all of the machinery in the tractor and the body plants is run by individual motors from this electricity. In the course of time it is expected that there will be sufficient electricity to run practically the whole Highland Park plant, and we shall then have cut out our coal bill.

[Page 152]

Among the by-products of the coke ovens is a gas. It is piped both to the Rouge and Highland Park plants where it is used for heat-treat purposes, for the enamelling ovens, for the car ovens, and the like. We formerly had to buy this gas. The ammonium sulphate is used for fertilizer. The benzol is a motor fuel. The small sizes of coke, not suitable for the blast furnaces, are sold to the employees — delivered free into their homes at much less than the ordinary market price. The large-sized coke goes to the blast furnaces. There is no manual handling. We run the melted iron directly from the blast furnaces into great ladles. These ladles travel into the shops and the iron is poured directly into the moulds without another heating. We thus not only get a uniform quality of iron according to our own specifications and directly under our control, but we save a melting of pig iron and in fact cut out a whole process in manufacturing as well as making available all our own scrap.

What all this will amount to in point of savings we do not know — that is, we do not know how great will be the saving, because the plant has not been running long enough to give more than an indication of what is ahead, and we save in so many directions — in transportation, in the generation of our power, in the generation of gas, in the expense in casting, and then over and above that is the revenue from the by-products and from the smaller sizes of coke. The investment to accomplish these objects to date amounts to something over forty million dollars.

How far we shall thus reach back to sources depends entirely on circumstances. Nobody anywhere can really do more than guess about the future costs of production. It is wiser to recognize that the future holds more than the past — that every day holds within it an improvement on the methods of the day before.

[Page 153]

But how about production? If every necessary of life were produced so cheaply and in such quantities, would not the world shortly be surfeited with goods? Will there not come a point when, regardless of price, people simply will not want anything more than what they already have? And if in the process of manufacturing fewer and fewer men are used, what is going to become of these men — how are they going to find jobs and live?

Take the second point first. We mentioned many machines and many methods that displaced great numbers of men and then someone asks:

“Yes, that is a very fine idea from the standpoint of the proprietor, but how about these poor fellows whose jobs are taken away from them?”

The question is entirely reasonable, but it is a little curious that it should be asked. For when were men ever really put out of work by the bettering of industrial processes? The stage-coach drivers lost their jobs with the coming of the railways. Should we have prohibited the railways and kept the stage-coach drivers? Were there more men working with the stage-coaches than are working on the railways? Should we have prevented the taxicab because its coming took the bread out of the mouths of the horse-cab drivers? How does the number of taxicabs compare with the number of horse-cabs when the latter were in their prime? The coming of shoe machinery closed most of the shops of those who made shoes by hand. When shoes were made by hand, only the very well-to-do could own more than a single pair of shoes, and most working people went barefooted in summer. Now, hardly any one has only one pair of shoes, and shoe making is a great industry. No, every time you can so arrange that one man will do the work of two, you so add to the wealth of the country that there will be a new and better job for the man who is displaced.

[Page 154]

If whole industries changed overnight, then disposing of the surplus men would be a problem, but these changes do not occur as rapidly as that. They come gradually. In our own experience a new place always opens for a man as soon as better processes have taken his old job. And what happens in my shops happens everywhere in industry. There are many times more men to-day employed in the steel industries than there were in the days when every operation was by hand. It has to be so. It always is so and always will be so. And if any man cannot see it, it is because he will not look beyond his own nose.

Now as to saturation. We are continually asked:

“When will you get to the point of overproduction? When will there be more cars than people to use them?”

We believe it is possible some day to reach the point where all goods are produced so cheaply and in such quantities that overproduction will be a reality. But as far as we are concerned, we do not look forward to that condition with fear — we look forward to it with great satisfaction. Nothing could be more splendid than a world in which everybody has all that he wants. Our fear is that this condition will be too long postponed. As to our own products, that condition is very far away. We do not know how many motor cars a family will desire to use of the particular kind that we make. We know that, as the price has come down, the farmer, who at first used one car (and it must be remembered that it is not so very long ago that the farm market for motor cars was absolutely unknown — the limit of sales was at that time fixed by all the wise statistical sharps at somewhere near the number of millionaires in the country) now often uses two, and also he buys a truck. Perhaps, instead of sending workmen out to scattered jobs in a single car, it will be cheaper to send each worker out in a car of his own. That is happening with salesmen.

[Page 155]

The public finds its own consumptive needs with unerring accuracy, and since we no longer make motor cars or tractors, but merely the parts which when assembled become motor cars and tractors, the facilities as now provided would hardly be sufficient to provide replacements for ten million cars. And it would be quite the same with any business. We do not have to bother about overproduction for some years to come, provided the prices are right. It is the refusal of people to buy on account of price that really stimulates real business. Then if we want to do business we have to get the prices down without hurting the quality. Thus price reduction forces us to learn improved and less wasteful methods of production. One big part of the discovery of what is “normal” in industry depends on managerial genius discovering better ways of doing things. If a man reduces his selling price to a point where he is making no profit or incurring a loss, then he simply is forced to discover how to make as good an article by a better method — making his new method produce the profit, and not producing a profit out of reduced wages or increased prices to the public.

It is not good management to take profits out of the workers or the buyers; make management produce the profits. Don’t cheapen the product; don’t cheapen the wage; don’t overcharge the public. Put brains into the method, and more brains, and still more brains — do things better than ever before; and by this means all parties to business are served and benefited.

And all of this can always be done.

[Page 156]

____________________________

Version History & Notes

Version 1: Published Aug 18, 2015

__________________

Notes

* Cover image is not in the original document.

__________________

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen at KOINEN’S CORNER

Note: This document is available at:

https://katana17.wordpress.com/

======================================

Click to go to >>>

Henry Ford — Part 1: Introduction — What is the Idea?

Henry Ford — Part 2: The Beginning of Business

Henry Ford — Part 3: What I Learned About Business

Henry Ford — Part 4: Starting the Real Business

Henry Ford — Part 5: The Secret of Manufacturing and Serving

Henry Ford — Part 6: Getting into Production

Henry Ford — Part 7: Machines and Men

Henry Ford — Part 8: The Terror of the Machine

Henry Ford — Part 9: Wages

Henry Ford — Part 10: Why Not Always Have a Good Business?

Henry Ford — Part 11: How Cheaply Can Things Be Made?

PDF of this post.

Click to view or download (0.7 MB). >>

Version History

Version 1: Aug 18, 2015

Henry Ford — Teil 10: Warum nicht immer gute Geschäfte machen?

admin — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:28:21 +0000

[Die Autobiographie von Henry Ford die Gründung und Bau der Ford Motor Company sowie seine Unternehmensphilosophie beschreiben. Ford war einer der weltweit größten Industriellen, Geschäftsleute, Unternehmer und Visionäre. Er führte das Fließband, Kurzarbeit, führte eine hohe Mindestlöhne, die Fünf-Tage-Woche, usw., zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. Ford war stark von Adolf Hitler, die treibende Kraft hinter dem Nationalsozialismus zu bewundern. Im Gegenzug wurde Ford ein Bewunderer von Hitler und sein Verständnis für die Bedrohung der Welt mit dem internationalen Judentum konfrontiert zu gleichen Teilen getragen. — KATANA]

[Klicken zum Vergrößern]

Mein Leben und Werk

Henry Ford

Teil 10

HENRY FORD

MEIN LEBEN UND WERK

EINZIG AUTORISIERTE DEUTSCHE AUSGABE

VON

CURT UND MARGUERITE THESING

ACHTZEHNTE AUFLAGE

PAUL LIST VERLAG LEIPZIG

DRUCK VON HESSE & BECKER, LEIPZIG

1923

INHALT

Seite

Vorwort des Herausgebers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI

Einleitung Mein Leitgedanke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. Kapitel. Geschäftsanfänge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

II. Kapitel. Was ich vom Geschäft erlernte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

III. Kapitel. Das eigentliche Geschäft beginnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

IV. Kapitel. Das Geheimnis der Produktion und des Dienens . . . 74

V. Kapitel. Die eigentliche Produktion beginnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

VI. Kapitel. Maschinen und Menschen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

VII. Kapitel. Der Terror der Maschine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

VIII. Kapitel. Löhne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

IX. Kapitel. Warum nicht immer gute Geschäfte machen?. . . . .153

X. Kapitel. Wie billig lassen sich Waren herstellen? . . . . . . . . . . 165

XI. Kapitel. Geld und Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

XII. Kapitel. Geld — Herr oder Knecht? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

XIII. Kapitel. Warum arm sein? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215

XIV. Kapitel. Der Schlepper und elektrisch

betriebene Landwirtschaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228

XV. Kapitel. Warum Wohltätigkeit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

XVI. Kapitel. Die Eisenbahnen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

XVII. Kapitel. Von allem Möglichen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

XVIII. Kapitel. Demokratie und Industrie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

XIX. Kapitel. Von künftigen Dingen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

IX. KAPITEL

Warum nicht immer gute

Geschäfte machen?

Der Arbeitgeber muß für das Jahr sorgen. Der Arbeitnehmer muß für das Jahr sorgen. Aber beide arbeiten in der Regel nur für die Woche. Sie nehmen Auf träge und Arbeit an, wo sie sie bekommen und zu dem Preise, den man ihnen bewilligt. In guten Zeiten sind Aufträge und Arbeit reichlich vorhanden; in einer „flauen“ Geschäftszeit sind sie rar. Im Geschäftsleben herrscht immer „Hausse“ oder „Baisse“; die Geschäfte gehen „gut“ oder „schlecht“.

Doch noch zu keiner Zeit gab es in der Welt einen Überschuß an Gütern — sonst hätte es ja auch einen Überschuß an Glück und Wohlstand geben müssen —, trotzdem erleben wir zuzeiten das seltsame Schauspiel, daß die Welt nach Gütern, die industrielle Maschine aber nach Arbeit hungert. Denn zwischen beide — zwischen Nachfrage und die Mittel zu ihrer Befriedigung — schiebt sich ein unübersteigbares Geldhindernis. Produktion wie Arbeitsmarkt sind schwankende, unsichere Faktoren. Statt stetig fortzuschreiten, kommen wir ruckweise vorwärts — einmal zu schnell, dann wieder überhaupt nicht. Sind sehr viele Käufer vorhanden, reden wir von einer Knappheit der Ware; will niemand kaufen, von einer Überproduktion. Ich persönlich weiß, daß wir stets eine Warenknappheit, aber noch niemals eine Überproduktion hatten. Wohl möglich, daß zuzeiten ein Überschuß an einer falschen Warensorte herrschte. Das ist aber keine Überproduktion — das ist planlose Produktion. Es mögen vielleicht auch große Mengen überteuerter Waren auf dem Markte lagern.

154

Das ist ebenfalls keine Überproduktion — sondern entweder fehlerhafte Produktion oder fehlerhafte Kapitalisation. Werden aber Hausse oder Flaute im Geschäftsleben vom Schicksal diktiert? Müssen wir diese Zustände als unabänderlich hinnehmen? Die Geschäfte gehen gut oder schlecht, je nachdem wir sie gut oder schlecht gehen machen. Weswegen säen wir Korn, betreiben wir Bergwerke oder produzieren wir Waren? Weil die Menschen essen, heizen, sich kleiden und Gebrauchsartikel haben müssen. Es gibt keinen anderen Grund; dennoch wird dieser Grund ständig verschleiert — es werden Manöver vorgenommen, nicht um der Welt zu dienen, sondern um Geld zu verdie»nen — und all das nur, weil wir ein Finanzsystem ersonnen haben, das, anstatt ein bequemes Austauschmittel zu sein, zuzeiten ein direktes Austauschhindernis bildet. Doch davon später.

Nur weil wir schlecht wirtschaften, haben wir häufig unter Perioden sogenannten „Mißgeschickes“ zu leiden. Hätten wir eine ungeheure Mißernte, so könnte ich mir vorstellen, daß das Land hungern müßte; aber unvorstellbar ist es, daß wir Hunger und Armut nur um der schlechten Wirtschaft willen erdulden, einer Mißwirtschaft, die unserem widersinnigen Finanzwesen entspringt. Natürlich hat der Krieg die Wirtschaft unseres Landes in Unordnung gebracht. Er hat die ganze Welt aus den Fugen gerissen.

Aber der Krieg ist nicht allein schuld. Der Krieg zog zahlreiche Fehler unseres Finanzsystems ans Licht, vor allem bewies er einwandfrei, wie unsicher jedes nur auf einem finanziellen Unterbau ruhende Geschäft ist. Ich weiß nicht, ob schlechte Geschäfte die Folge schlechter Finanzmethoden sind, oder ob die Fehler in unserm Geschäftsleben die schlechten Finanzmethoden geschaffen haben. Ich weiß nur, daß es zwar nicht angebracht wäre, unser heutiges Finanzsystem einfach über den Haufen zu werfen, aber sicher wäre es erwünscht, unser gesamtes Geschäftsleben auf Grund des Dienstleistungsprinzips neu zu organisieren. Die Folge davon wird auch ein besseres Finanzsystem sein. Das gegenwärtige wird schwinden, weil es keine Daseinsberechtigung hat. Doch der ganze Prozeß kann nur allmählich vor sich gehen.

155

Die Stabilisierung im einzelnen kann sehr wohl von dem Individuum ihren Ausgang nehmen. Zwar lassen sich vollkommene Resultate ohne die Mitarbeit der anderen nicht erzielen, wenn das Beispiel aber im Laufe der Zeit bekannt wird, werden andere diesem einzelnen folgen, und so wird es ganz allmählich gelingen, eine Inflation des Marktes zusammen mit ihrem Zwilling, einer Depression des Marktes, in die Klasse der verhütbaren Krankheiten einzureihen. Nach der unbedingt notwendigen Reorganisation von Industrie, Handel und Finanz müßte es durchaus möglich sein, wenn auch nicht diese Periodizität selbst, so doch deren üble Folgen und damit zugleich die periodischen Depressionen von der Industrie fernzuhalten. Die Landwirtschaft befindet sich bereits in solch einem Umbildungsprozeß. Wenn Landwirtschaft und Industrie ihre Neuorganisation vollendet haben, werden sie sich ergänzen: sie sind Komplementäre, nicht getrennte Komplexe. Als Beispiel möchte ich unsere Ventilfabrik anführen. Wir haben sie dreißig Kilometer von der Stadt entfernt auf dem Lande errichtet, damit die Arbeiter zugleich Bauern sein können. Durch Einführung geeigneter Maschinen wird man in Zukunft zur Landarbeit nur einen Bruchteil der Zeit verwenden brauchen, die heute erforderlich ist. Die Zeit, die die Natur zum Produzieren benötigt, ist viel größer als des Menschen Arbeitszeit beim Säen, Kultivieren und Ernten. In vielen Zweigen der Industrie, deren Produkte nicht umfangreich sind, bleibt es sich auch so ziemlich gleich, wo produziert wird. Mit Hilfe der Wasserkraft läßt sich vieles recht gut auf dem Lande machen. Wir werden daher in größerem Maße als bisher einen Industriestand bekommen, der zugleich Bauernstand ist und der unter den denkbar ökonomischsten und gesündesten Bedingungen wirkt.

156

Die Saisonindustrien lassen sich auf diese Weise versorgen. Auf etwas andere Art wird man wieder für eine richtige Reihenfolge der Produkte, je nach Jahreszeit und Ausrüstung sorgen können, und wieder auf andere Art müßte man imstande sein, unter sorgfältiger Organisation gute und schlechte Zeiten auszugleichen. Eingehendes Studium jeder beliebigen Frage müßte hierzu die richtigen Wege zeigen.

Die periodischen Depressionen sind das Schlimmere von den beiden Übeln, weil sie so ausgedehnt sind, daß sie als unübersehbar erscheinen. Bis nicht die gesamte Neuorganisation vollendet ist, lassen sie sich auch nicht völlig beherrschen, aber jeder Geschäftsmann vermag sich bis zu einem gewissen Grade selbst zu helfen und, indem er seinem Unternehmen sehr wesentlich hilft, auch den anderen zu nützen. Die Fordproduktion hat zu keiner Zeit im Zeichen guter oder schlechter Geschäfte gestanden. Sie ist unbeschadet der Verhältnisse ihren graden Weg gegangen, ausgenommen in den Jahren 1917/19, in denen sie für Kriegszwecke umgestellt wurde. Das Jahr 1912/13 galt als ein schlechtes Geschäftsjahr, obgleich es heute von manchen als „normal“ bezeichnet wird. Wir haben damals unsern Umsatz fast verdoppelt; 1913/14 war entschieden flau: wir vermehrten unsern Absatz um ein Drittel. Das Jahr 1920/21 gilt als eines der trübsten, deren die Geschichte sich entsinnen kann: wir hatten einen Absatz von 1 1/4 Million Waagen, das heißt rund das Fünffache von 1912/13, dem sogenannten, „normalen“ Jahr. Ein besonderes Geheimnis steckt nicht dahinter. Wie bei allen anderen Vorgängen in unserem Unternehmen war auch dieser nur eine logische Folge aus einem Prinzip, das sich auf jedes Unternehmen anwenden läßt.

157

Heule zahlen wir ohne jede Einschränkung einen Mindestlohn von sechs Dollar für den Tag. Die Leute sind so daran gewöhnt, hohe Löhne zu verdienen, daß eine Überwachung überflüssig geworden ist. Jeder Arbeiter erhält seinen Mindestlohn, sobald er die Mindestleistung in seiner Produktion erreicht hat — und das hängt ausschließlich von seinem Wunsche zu arbeiten ab. Wir schlagen unsern voraussichtlichen Gewinn auf die Löhne drauf und zahlen jetzt höhere Löhne als zur Hochkonjunkturzeit im Kriege. Aber wie immer zahlen wir sie als Entgelt für die Arbeitsleistung. Daß die Leute wirklich arbeiten, geht aus der Tatsache hervor, daß ungefähr 60% der Arbeiter mehr als den Mindestlohn verdienen. Sechs Dollar im Tage sind eben kein Durchschnitts-, sondern der Mindestlohn.

Welches sind die Grundlagen des Wohlstandes? Wir kommen nicht durch eine Reihe kühner Sprünge vorwärts. Jeder Schritt muß sorgfältig erwogen sein. Wie kann man glauben, ohne Denken vorwärtskommen zu können! Auch die Frage des Wohlstandes erfordert Nachdenken. Eine wirkliche Zeit der Blüte ist jene, die einer möglichst großen Anzahl Menschen alles gewährt, was sie an Essen, Trinken, Kleidung, kurz zu einem behaglichen Dasein brauchen! Der Grad der Behaglichkeit der Mehrzahl des Volkes — nicht die Höhe des Bankkontos der Produzenten — ist Maßstab für den Wohlstand des Landes. Aufgabe des Produzenten ist es, zu dieser Behaglichkeit beizusteuern. Er ist ein Instrument der Gesellschaft und vermag der Gesellschaft nur dann zu dienen, wenn er sein Unternehmen so gestaltet, daß er der Öffentlichkeit ein immer mehr vervollkommnetes Produkt zu immer niedrigerem Preise bietet, sowie allen denen, die an seinem Geschäft beteiligt sind, stetig steigende Löhne auf Grund der von ihnen geleisteten Arbeit zahlt. So, aber auch nur so, erwirbt sich der Produzent und jeder andere Geschäftsmann Daseinsberechtigung.

158

In unseren Betrachtungen halten wir uns keineswegs an die Statistiken oder Theorien der Nationalökonomen über periodische Zyklen des Wohlstandes und der Depression. Zeiten, in denen die Preise hoch sind, gelten bei ihnen als „wohlhabend“ . Dabei läßt sich eine wirklich wohlhabende Zeit nicht an den Preisen der Produzenten für ihre Produkte berechnen.

Wir haben es hier keineswegs mit tönenden Begriffen zu tun. Sind die Preise der Güter höher als die Einnahmen des Volkes, so gilt es, die Preise dem Einkommen anzupassen. Gewöhnlich beginnt der Zyklus des Geschäftslebens mit dem Produktionsprozeß, um bei dem Konsumenten zu enden. Will aber der Konsument nicht kaufen, was der Produzent zu verkaufen hat, oder fehlt ilim dazu das Geld, so schiebt der Produzent dem Konsumenten die Schuld zu und behauptet, daß die Geschäfte schlecht seien, ohne sich klar zu machen, daß er mit seinen Klagen den Wagen vor das Pferd spannt.

Ist der Produzent für den Konsumenten da oder umgekehrt? Will oder kann der Konsument nicht kaufen, was der Produzent ihm bietet, ist das dann die Schuld des Produzenten oder des Konsumenten? Ist es überhaupt jemandes Schuld? Ist aber niemand daran schuld, so muß der Produzent sein Geschäft schließen.

Welches Geschäft hat aber jemals wirklich mit dem Produzenten angefangen und mit dem Konsumenten aufgehört? Woher stammt das Geld, das die Räder treibt? Natürlich von dem Konsumenten. Der Erfolg im Produzieren beruht doch ausschließlich auf der Geschicklichkeit des Produzenten, dem Konsumenten mit dem zu dienen, was ihm gefällt. Ihm kann durch Qualität oder durch Preis gedient werden. Am besten wird ihm gedient durch höchste Qualität bei niedrigstem Preise; und wer dem Konsumenten die höchste Qualität zu niedrigsten Preisen zu liefern vermag, wird unfehlbar ein Führer der Industrie werden, gleichgültig welchen Artikel er produziert. Das ist ein unumstößliches Gesetz.

159

Warum also herumsitzen und auf gute Geschäfte warten? Reduziert die Kosten durch tüchtigere Geschäftsführung. Reduziert die Preise entsprechend der Kaufkraft.

Das Herabdrücken der Löhne ist die leichteste und gleichzeitig die liederlichste Art, um einer schwierigen Situation Herr zu werden, von der Inhumanität ganz zu schweigen. In Wahrheit heißt das, die Unfähigkeit der Geschäftsführung auf die Arbeiter abwälzen. Wenn wir nur klar sehen wollen, so müssen wir erkennen, daß jede Depression auf dem Wirtschaftsmarkt einen Ansporn für den Produzenten bedeutet, mehr Gehirn in sein Geschäft zu stecken! — durch Umsicht und Organisation zu gewinnen, was andere durch Drücken der Löhne zu überwinden suchen. Mit Löhnen experimentieren, bevor eine allgemeine Änderung erreicht ist, heißt der eigentlichen Schwierigkeit aus dem Wege gehen.

Rückt man der wahren Schwierigkeit jedoch von Anfang an zu Leibe, so ist eine Lohnherabsetzung überhaupt unnötig. Das ist wenigstens meine Erfahrung. Praktisch ist der Haken der, daß man bereit sein muß, bei diesem Anpassungsprozeß einen gewissen Velust zu tragen. Diesen Verlust vermag aber doch nur der zu tragen, der etwas zu verlieren hat? Dabei ist der Ausdruck, „Verlust“ eigentlich irreführend. In Wahrheit entsteht gar kein Verlust. Es wird nur auf einen gewissen Teil des bisherigen Profits zuliebe eines größeren künftigen Gewinnes verzichtet. Vor kurzem unterhielt ich mich mil einem Eisenwarenhändler aus einer Kleinstadt. Der Betreffende meinte:

„lch bin jetzt darauf gefaßt, etwa l0000 Dollar an meinen Beständen zu verlieren. In Wirklichkeit verliere ich ja aber gar nicht so viel. Wir Eisenwarenhändler haben recht gute Geschäfte gemacht. Meine Bestände habe ich zum allergrößten Teile teuer eingekauft, ich habe sie ja aber schon verschiedene Male mit gutem Gewinn erneuert.

160

Außerdem sind die 10000 Dollar, die ich, wie gesagt, verlieren werde, ja eine ganz andere Art von Dollar als die früheren. Sie sind gewissermaßen Spekulationsgeld. Es sind nicht dieselben guten Dollar, die ich für hundert Cent das Stück gekauft habe. Daher sind meine Verluste, obgleich sie hoch erscheinen, in Wirklichkeit gar nicht so hoch. Gleichzeitig ermögliche ich aber meinen Miteinwohnern hier, ihre Häuser weiter zu bauen, und sich nicht durch die Höhe der Ausgaben für die Eisenteile abschrecken zu lassen.“

Der Mann war ein kluger Kaufmann. Er zog es vor, sich mit geringerem Gewinn zu begnügen und die Geschäfte in Flulj zu halten, als seine teueren Bestände zu behalten und den Fortschritt des Gemeinwesens zu hemmen. Ein derartiger Kaufmann ist für jede Gemeinde ein Gewinn. Er ist ein klarer Kopf; er findet es gleichfalls richtiger, einen Ausgleich mit Hilfe seines Inventars zu schaffen, als die Löhne seiner Angestellten und damit auch ihre Kaufkraft zu drücken.

Er beharrte nicht müßig auf seinen Preisen und wartete, bis sich etwas ereignete. Er erkannte, was alle scheinbar vergessen haben — daß es zum Unternehmertum gehört, gelegentlich auch Geld zu verlieren. Auch wir mußten unsere Verluste tragen.

Auch unser Umsatz verringerte sich allmählich wie überall. Wir hatten ein großes Lager. Angesichts der Kosten des Rohmaterials und der fertigen Teile konnten wir nicht billiger als zu dein geforderten Preise herstellen. Dieser Preis war aber höher, als ihn das Publikum bei der damaligen (Geschäftslage zu zahlen bereit war. Wir gingen im Preise herunter, um wieder flott zu werden. Wir standen vor der Wahl, entweder einen Preisabstrich von 17 Millionen Dollar auf unser Inventar vorzunehmen oder durch eine vollständige Stockung des Geschäftes viel größere Verluste zu erleiden. Im Grunde blieb uns also gar keine Wahl.

161

Vor eine derartige Situation wird jeder Geschäftsmann einmal gestellt. Er kann den Verlust entweder freiwillig buchen und weiter arbeiten oder gar keine Geschäfte macher und den Verlust der Untätigkeit tragen. Der Verlust aus vollständiger Untätigkeit ist aber meist viel größer, als der tatsächliche Geldverlust; denn die Perioden der Stockungen kosten ihn noch obendrein Kraft an Initiative; und dauert die Flaute lange, wird er nicht mehr genügend Energie übrig behalten, um wieder von vorn anfangen zu können.

Es hat keinen Zweck zu warten, bis die Geschäfte wieder von selbst anziehen. Will ein Produzent seine Aufgabe wirklich erfüllen, muß er seine Preise herabsetzen, bis das Publikum sie zahlen kann und will. Irgendeinen Preis gibt es immer, den die Käufer, mag die Lage noch so schlecht sein, für einen wirklichen Gebrauchsartikel zahlen können und wollen; ist nur der Wille vorhanden, so läßt sich dieser Preis auch einhalten. Das darf aber weder durch Qualitätsverminderung noch durch kurzsichtiges Sparen geschehen, wodurch nur die Unzufriedenheit der Arbeiterschaft erregt wird. Auch Eifer und Betriebsamkeit können nichts ändern.

Das Einzige, was hilft, ist eine Erhöhung der Leistungsfähigkeit, Steigerung der Produktion. Von diesem Gesichtspunkt aus kann man jede sogenannte Geschäftsdepression als eine direkte Herausforderung an Geist und Kopf der Geschäftswelt des betreffenden Gemeinwesens betrachten, es besser zu machen. — Die einseitige Einstellung auf den Preisfaktor anstatt auf Dienstleistung kennzeichnet einwandfrei jenen Typ, der keine Berechtigung hat, Geschäftsmann, Eigentümer von Produktionsmitteln zu sein.

Das ist nur ein anderer Ausdruck für die Forderung, daß Verkäufe auf der natürlichen Basis des reellen Wertes vorgenommen werden müßten die gleichbedeutend ist mit den Kosten der Umwandlung menschlicher Energie in die Erzeugnisse von Handel und Industrie. Diese schlichte Formel gilt aber nicht als, „busineßlike“. Dazu ist sie nicht kompliziert genug., Busineß“ beherrscht die von Hauso aus ehrlichste aller menschlichen Tätigkeiten und macht sie Ford 11 der spekulativen Schlauheit derer dienstbar, die eine künstliche Knappheit an Lebensmitteln und anderen Lebensnotwendigkeiten erzeugen, um eine künstlich gesteigerte Nachfrage hervorzurufen. So löst die künstliche Erschlaffung die künstliche Aufpeitschung ab.

162

Ständig, wenn auch mitunter ganz unbewußt, wird gegen die ökonomische Gerechtigkeit gesündigt. Man kann mit gleichem Rechte behaupten, daß die ökonomischen Verhältnisse die Menschen zu dem gemacht haben, was sie sind, wie, daß die Menschen die ökonomischen Verhältnisse geschaffen haben. Am häufigsten hören wir jedoch die Behauptung, daß unser ökonomisches System die Menschen von heute geschaffen hat. Sämtliche Fehler der menschlichen Natur werden der modernen Industrie zur Last gelegt. Viele behaupten ferner, daß der Mensch Herr und Schöpfer seiner Umgebung sei, und daß das Schlechte in Wirtschaft, Industrie und Gesellschaft nur ein Reflex des Schlechten im Menschen selbst darstelle. Die Mängel unseres modernen industriellen Lebens seien nur Abbilder der Mängel der menschlichen Natur. Die Produzenten geben jedoch nur höchst ungern zu, daß die Fehler in den industriellen Methoden unserer Zeit zum Teil wenigstens ihre eigenen systematisierten und auf die Allgemeinheit ausgedehnten Fehler sind. Rückt man die ganze Frage indes aus dem Bereich des Persönlichen hinaus, so wird man bald die Wahrheit erkennen.

Das Eine ist sicher: wäre unsere menschliche Natur weniger gebrechlich, so wäre auch ein weniger gebrechliches soziales System entstanden. Wäre sie noch schlimmer als sie ist, so würde auch unser soziales System noch größere übelstände zeigen — obgleich ein noch schlimmeres System sich wahrscheinlich nicht bis heute gehalten hätte. Doch nur wenige werden behaupten wollen, die Menschheit hätte von vornherein bewußt die Gesellschaft auf falscher Grundlage aufgebaut. Zugegeben, daß sämtliche Fehler der Seilschaft sich im Menschen selber wiederfinden. Daraus folgt noch immer nicht, daß der Mensch sie vorsätzlich systematisiert und verbreitet hat. Viel ist der Unwissenheit zuzuschreiben; viel der Unerfahrenheit und Unschuld.

163

Betrachten wir einmal die Anfänge unseres heutigen industriellen Systems. Seine Entwicklung finden wir nirgends vorgeschrieben. Jeder neue Fortschritt wurde mit Freuden begrüßt. Niemand dachte daran, „Kapital“ und „Arbeit“ als feindliche Interessen zu bezeichnen. Keiner ließ sich träumen, daß im Erfolge selbst heimtückische Gefahren lauerten. Dennoch traten im Laufe der Entwicklung sämtliche latenten Mängel hervor. Die Unternehmen wuchsen derart an, daß der Unternehmer mehr Helfer benötigte, als er mit Namen nennen konnte. Diese Tatsache rief aber nicht Bedauern, sondern Jubel hervor. Trotzdem ist daraus allmählich ein System erwachsen, daß so unpersönlich ist, daß der einzelne Arbeiter darin kein Mensch, sondern nur ein Teil des Systems noch ist. Niemand glaubt natürlich allen Ernstes, daß dieser entmenschlichende Prozeß vorsätzlich eingeleitet wurde. Er hat sich einfach von selbst ergeben. Im Keime schlummerte er bereits in den Anfängen des Systems, aber keiner hatte ihn dort entdeckt, und keiner vermochte diese Folgen vorauszusehen, allein eine ungestörte, erstaunliche Entwicklung vermochte ihn ans Tageslicht zu ziehen.

Wie heißt der Leitgedanke der Industrie — wie lautet er? Der wahre Leitgedanke heißt nicht Geldverdienen. Der industrielle Leitgedanke fordert Schaffung einer nützlichen Idee und deren Vervielfältigung ins Abertausendfache, bis sie allen zugute kommt.

164

Produzieren und wieder produzieren; ein System ersinnen, auf Grund dessen das Produzieren zu einer hohen Kunst wird; die Produktion auf eine Basis stellen, die ein ungehemmtes Wachstum und den Bau immer zahlreicherer Werkstätten, die Hervorbringung immer zahlreicherer nützlicher Dinge ermöglicht — das ist der wahre industrielle Leitgedanke. Aus der Spekulation anstatt aus der Arbeit Gewinn schlagen, bedeutet jedoch die direkte Verneinung des industriellen Gedankens. Zwar gibt es Kurzsichtige unter uns, die nicht einsehen können, daß das Geschäft selbst größeres als irgendeines Menschen vereinzeltes Interesse umfaßt. Das Geschäft ist ein ewiges Nehmen und Geben, ein Leben und Lebenlassen. Es ist eine Kooperation vieler Kräfte und Interessen. Wer glaubt, das Geschäft sei ein Fluß, dessen heilbringende Strömung stocken müßte, sobald sie ihn erreicht hat, der befindet sich in einem verhängnisvollen Irrtum. Es wäre das gleiche, als wenn man meinte, das Geschäft durch Unterbindung seines Blutkreislaufes am Leben erhalten zu können. Das hieße Güter durch Unterbindung der Güterproduktion schaffen.

Das Prinzip der Dienstleistung muß und wird die schlechten Geschäfte kurieren. Und damit sind wir zur praktischen Durchführung der Prinzipien des Dienens und der Finanz gelangt.

165

____________________________

Version History & Notes

Version 1: Published Aug 16, 2015

__________________

Notes

* Cover image is not in the original document.

* Images in text are not in the original document.

__________________

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

Note: This document is available at:

https://katana17.wordpress.com/

======================================

Klicken Sie hier um zu gehen auf >>>

Henry Ford — Teil 1: Vorwort des Herausgebers; Einleitung Mein Leitgedanke

Henry Ford — Teil 2: Geschäftsanfänge

Henry Ford — Teil 3: Was ich vom Geschäft erlernte

Henry Ford — Teil 4: Das eigentliche Geschäft beginnt

Henry Ford — Teil 5: Das Geheimnis der Produktion und des Dienens

Henry Ford — Teil 6: Die eigentliche Produktion beginnt

Henry Ford — Teil 7: Maschinen und Menschen

Henry Ford — Teil 8: Der Terror der Maschine

Henry Ford — Teil 9: Löhne

Henry Ford — Teil 10: Warum nicht immer gute Geschäfte machen?

PDF of this postt. Click to view or download (0.9 MB). >> Henry Ford – Mein Leben Und Werk – Teil 10

Version History

Version 1: Aug 16, 2015

Henry Ford — Part 10: Why Not Always Have a Good Business?

admin — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:43:20 +0000

[Click to enlarge]

My Life and Work

Henry Ford

Part 10

IN COLLABORATION WITH

SAMUEL CROWTHER

GARDEN CITY NEW YORK

DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY

1923

CONTENTS

Introduction — What is the Idea? ……………….……………… 1

Chapter I. The Beginning of Business ……………..….………. 21

Chapter II. What I Learned About Business ……………….. 33

Chapter III. Starting the Real Business …………..………….. 47

Chapter IV. The Secret of Manufacturing and Serving .. 64

Chapter V. Getting into Production ……………….…….……… 77

Chapter VI. Machines and Men …………………………..………. 91

Chapter VII. The Terror of the Machine ………….………….. 103

Chapter VIII. Wages …………………………………………..………. 116

Chapter IX. Why Not Always Have Good Business? ……..131

Chapter X. How Cheaply Can Things Be Made? …….……. 141

Chapter XI. Money and Goods …………………………..……….. 156

Chapter XII. Money — Master or Servant? ………….……… 169

Chapter XIII. Why Be Poor? ……………………………..……….. 184

Chapter XIV. The Tractor and Power Farming ..…….…… 195

Chapter XV. Why Charity? …………………………………………. 206

Chapter XVI. The Railroads ………………………………………… 222

Chapter XVII. Things in General ………………………..……….. 234

Chapter XVIII. Democracy and Industry ………..………….. 253

Chapter XIX. What We May Expect …………………..……….. 267

Index ……………………………………………………………..…..……… 285

Chapter IX

Why Not Always Have a Good Business?

The employer has to live by the year. The workman has to live by the year. But both of them, as a rule, work by the week. They get an order or a job when they can and at the price they can. During what is called a prosperous time, orders and jobs are plentiful. During a “dull” season they are scarce. Business is always either feasting or fasting and is always either “good” or “bad.” Although there is never a time when everyone has too much of this world’s goods — when everyone is too comfortable or too happy — there come periods when we have the astounding spectacle of a world hungry for goods and an industrial machine hungry for work and the two — the demand and the means of satisfying it — held apart by a money barrier. Both manufacturing and employment are in-and-out affairs. Instead of a steady progression we go ahead by fits and starts — now going too fast, now stopping altogether. When a great many people want to buy, there is said to be a shortage of goods. When nobody wants to buy, there is said to be an overproduction of goods. I know that we have always had a shortage of goods, but I do not believe we have ever had an overproduction. We may have, at a particular time, too much of the wrong kind of goods. That is not overproduction — that is merely headless production. We may also have great stocks of goods at too high prices. That is not overproduction — it is either bad manufacturing or bad financing.

[Page 132]

“ … but I cannot conceive how it is that we tolerate hunger and poverty, when they grow solely out of bad management, and especially out of the bad management that is implicit in an unreasoned financial structure.”

Is business good or bad according to the dictates of fate? Must we accept the conditions as inevitable? Business is good or bad as we make it so. The only reason for growing crops, for mining, or for manufacturing, is that people may eat, keep warm, have clothing to wear, and articles to use. There is no other possible reason, yet that reason is forced into the background and instead we have operations carried on, not to the end of service, but to the end of making money — and this because we have evolved a system of money that instead of being a convenient medium of exchange, is at times a barrier to exchange. Of this more later.

“Of course the war upset affairs in this country. It upset the whole world. There would have been no war had management been better.”

We suffer frequent periods of so-called bad luck only because we manage so badly. If we had a vast crop failure, I can imagine the country going hungry, but I cannot conceive how it is that we tolerate hunger and poverty, when they grow solely out of bad management, and especially out of the bad management that is implicit in an unreasoned financial structure. Of course the war upset affairs in this country. It upset the whole world. There would have been no war had management been better. But the war alone is not to blame. The war showed up a great number of the defects of the financial system, but more than anything else it showed how insecure is business supported only by a money foundation. I do not know whether bad business is the result of bad financial methods or whether the wrong motive in business created bad financial methods, but I do know that, while it would be wholly undesirable to try to overturn the present financial system, it is wholly desirable to reshape business on the basis of service. Then a better financial system will have to come. The present system will drop out because it will have no reason for being. The process will have to be a gradual one.

[Page 133]

The start toward the stabilization of his own affairs may be made by any one. One cannot achieve perfect results acting alone, but as the example begins to sink in there will be followers, and thus in the course of time we can hope to put inflated business and its fellow, depressed business, into a class with small-pox — that is, into the class of preventable diseases. It is perfectly possible, with the reorganization of business and finance that is bound to come about, to take the ill effect of seasons, if not the seasons, out of industry, and also the periodic depressions. Farming is already in process of reorganization. When industry and farming are fully reorganized they will be complementary; they belong together, not apart. As an indication, take our valve plant. We established it eighteen miles out in the country so that the workers could also be farmers. By the use of machinery farming need not consume more than a fraction of the time it now consumes; the time nature requires to produce is much larger than that required for the human contribution of seeding, cultivating, and harvesting; in many industries where the parts are not bulky it does not make much difference where they are made. By the aid of water power they can well be made out in farming country. Thus we can, to a much larger degree than is commonly known, have farmer-industrialists who both farm and work under the most scientific and healthful conditions. That arrangement will care for some seasonal industries; others can arrange a succession of products according to the seasons and the equipment, and still others can, with more careful management, iron out their seasons. A complete study of any specific problem will show the way.

“We now have a minimum wage of six dollars a day paid without reservation.”

The periodic depressions are more serious because they seem so vast as to be uncontrollable. Until the whole reorganization is brought about, they cannot be wholly controlled, but each man in business can easily do something for himself and while benefiting his own organization in a very material way, also help others.

[Page 134]

The Ford production has not reflected good times or bad times; it has kept right on regardless of conditions excepting from 1917 to 1919, when the factory was turned over to war work. The year 1912-1913 was supposed to be a dull one; although now some call it “normal”; we all but doubled our sales; 1913-1914 was dull; we increased our sales by more than a third. The year 1920-1921 is supposed to have been one of the most depressed in history; we sold a million and a quarter cars, or about five times as many as in 1913-1914 — the “normal year.” There is no particular secret in it. It is, as is everything else in our business, the inevitable result of the application of a principle which can be applied to any business.

We now have a minimum wage of six dollars a day paid without reservation. The people are sufficiently used to high wages to make supervision unnecessary. The minimum wage is paid just as soon as a worker has qualified in his production — which is a matter that depends upon his own desire to work. We have put our estimate of profits into the wage and are now paying higher wages than during the boom times after the war.

“It is the degree of the comfort of the people at large — not the size of the manufacturer’s bank balance — that evidences prosperity.”

But we are, as always, paying them on the basis of work. And that the men do work is evidenced by the fact that although six dollars a day is the minimum wage, about 60 per cent of the workers receive above the minimum. The six dollars is not a flat but a minimum wage.

Consider first the fundamentals of prosperity. Progress is not made by pulling off a series of stunts. Each step has to be regulated. A man cannot expect to progress without thinking. Take prosperity. A truly prosperous time is when the largest number of people are getting all they can legitimately eat and wear, and are in every sense of the word comfortable. It is the degree of the comfort of the people at large — not the size of the manufacturer’s bank balance — that evidences prosperity.

[Page 135]

The function of the manufacturer is to contribute to this comfort. He is an instrument of society and he can serve society only as he manages his enterprises so as to turn over to the public an increasingly better product at an ever-decreasing price, and at the same time to pay to all those who have a hand in his business an ever-increasing wage, based upon the work they do. In this way and in this way alone can a manufacturer or any one in business justify his existence.

We are not much concerned with the statistics and the theories of the economists on the recurring cycles of prosperity and depression. They call the periods when prices are high “prosperous.” A really prosperous period is not to be judged on the prices that manufacturers are quoting for articles.

We are not concerned with combinations of words. If the prices of goods are above the incomes of the people, then get the prices down to the incomes. Ordinarily, business is conceived as starting with a manufacturing process and ending with a consumer. If that consumer does not want to buy what the manufacturer has to sell him and has not the money to buy it, then the manufacturer blames the consumer and says that business is bad, and thus, hitching the cart before the horse, he goes on his way lamenting. Isn’t that nonsense?

“… and any man who can give to the consumer the highest quality at the lowest price is bound to be a leader in business, whatever the kind of an article he makes.”

Does the manufacturer exist for the consumer or does the consumer exist for the manufacturer? If the consumer will not — says he cannot — buy what the manufacturer has to offer, is that the fault of the manufacturer or the consumer? Or is nobody at fault? If nobody is at fault then the manufacturer must go out of business.

[Page 136]

But what business ever started with the manufacturer and ended with the consumer? Where does the money to make the wheels go round come from? From the consumer, of course. And success in manufacture is based solely upon an ability to serve that consumer to his liking. He may be served by quality or he may be served by price. He is best served by the highest quality at the lowest price, and any man who can give to the consumer the highest quality at the lowest price is bound to be a leader in business, whatever the kind of an article he makes. There is no getting away from this.

Then why flounder around waiting for good business? Get the costs down by better management. Get the prices down to the buying power.

Cutting wages is the easiest and most slovenly way to handle the situation, not to speak of its being an inhuman way. It is, in effect, throwing upon labour the incompetency of the managers of the business. If we only knew it, every depression is a challenge to every manufacturer to put more brains into his business — to overcome by management what other people try to overcome by wage reduction. To tamper with wages before all else is changed, is to evade the real issue. And if the real issue is tackled first, no reduction of wages may be necessary. That has been my experience. The immediate practical point is that, in the process of adjustment, someone will have to take a loss. And who can take a loss except those who have something which they can afford to lose? But the expression, “take a loss,” is rather misleading. Really no loss is taken at all. It is only a giving up of a certain part of the past profits in order to gain more in the future. I was talking not long since with a hardware merchant in a small town. He said:

“I expect to take a loss of $10,000 on my stock. But of course, you know, it isn’t really like losing that much.

We hardware men have had pretty good times. Most of my stock was bought at high prices, but I have already sold several stocks and had the benefit of them. Besides, the ten thousand dollars which I say I will lose are not the same kind of dollars that I used to have. They are, in a way, speculative dollars. They are not the good dollars that bought 100 cents’ worth. So, though my loss may sound big, it is not big. And at the same time I am making it possible for the people in my town to go on building their houses without being discouraged by the size of the hardware item.”

[Page 137]

He is a wise merchant. He would rather take less profit and keep business moving than keep his stock at high prices and bar the progress of his community. A man like that is an asset to a town. He has a clear head. He is better able to swing the adjustment through his inventory than through cutting down the wages of his delivery men — through cutting down their ability to buy.

He did not sit around holding on to his prices and waiting for something to turn up. He realized what seems to have been quite generally forgotten — that it is part of proprietorship every now and again to lose money. We had to take our loss.

Our sales eventually fell off as all other sales fell off. We had a large inventory and, taking the materials and parts in that inventory at their cost price, we could not turn out a car at a price lower than we were asking, but that was a price which on the turn of business was higher than people could or wanted to pay. We closed down to get our bearings. We were faced with making a cut of $17,000,000 in the inventory or taking a much larger loss than that by not doing business. So there was no choice at all.

That is always the choice that a man in business has. He can take the direct loss on his books and go ahead and do business or he can stop doing business and take the loss of idleness. The loss of not doing business is commonly a loss greater than the actual money involved, for during the period of idleness fear will consume initiative and, if the shutdown is long enough, there will be no energy left over to start up with again.

[Page 138]

There is no use waiting around for business to improve. If a manufacturer wants to perform his function, he must get his price down to what people will pay. There is always, no matter what the condition, a price that people can and will pay for a necessity, and always, if the will is there, that price can be met.

It cannot be met by lowering quality or by shortsighted economy, which results only in a dissatisfied working force. It cannot be met by fussing or buzzing around. It can be met only by increasing the efficiency of production and, viewed in this fashion, each business depression, so-called, ought to be regarded as a challenge to the brains of the business community. Concentrating on prices instead of on service is a sure indication of the kind of business man who can give no justification for his existence as a proprietor.

This is only another way of saying that sales should be made on the natural basis of real value, which is the cost of transmuting human energy into articles of trade and commerce. But that simple formula is not considered business-like. It is not complex enough. We have “business” which takes the most honest of all human activities and makes them subject to the speculative shrewdness of men who can produce false shortages of food and other commodities, and thus excite in society anxiety of demand. We have false stimulation and then false numbness.

Economic justice is being constantly and quite often innocently violated. You may say that it is the economic condition which makes mankind what it is; or you may say that it is mankind that makes the economic condition what it is. You will find many claiming that it is the economic system which makes men what they are.

[Page 139]

They blame our industrial system for all the faults which we behold in mankind generally. And you will find other men who say that man creates his own conditions; that if the economic, industrial, or social system is bad, it is but a reflection of what man himself is. What is wrong in our industrial system is a reflection of what is wrong in man himself. Manufacturers hesitate to admit that the mistakes of the present industrial methods are, in part at least, their own mistakes, systematized and extended. But take the question outside of a man’s immediate concerns, and he sees the point readily enough.

“No one believes, of course, that this dehumanizing process was deliberately invented. It just grew. It was latent in the whole early system, but no one saw it and no one could foresee it.”

No doubt, with a less faulty human nature a less faulty social system would have grown up. Or, if human nature were worse than it is, a worse system would have grown up — though probably a worse system would not have lasted as long as the present one has. But few will claim that mankind deliberately set out to create a faulty social system. Granting without reserve that all faults of the social system are in man himself, it does not follow that he deliberately organized his imperfections and established them. We shall have to charge a great deal up to ignorance. We shall have to charge a great deal up to innocence.

Take the beginnings of our present industrial system. There was no indication of how it would grow. Every new advance was hailed with joy. No one ever thought of “capital” and “labour” as hostile interests. No one ever dreamed that the very fact of success would bring insidious dangers with it. And yet with growth every imperfection latent in the system came out. A man’s business grew to such proportions that he had to have more helpers than he knew by their first names; but that fact was not regretted; it was rather hailed with joy.

[Page 140]

And yet it has since led to an impersonal system wherein the workman has become something less than a person — a mere part of the system. No one believes, of course, that this dehumanizing process was deliberately invented. It just grew. It was latent in the whole early system, but no one saw it and no one could foresee it. Only prodigious and unheard-of development could bring it to light.

Take the industrial idea; what is it? The true industrial idea is not to make money. The industrial idea is to express a serviceable idea, to duplicate a useful idea, by as many thousands as there are people who need it.

To produce, produce; to get a system that will reduce production to a fine art; to put production on such a basis as will provide means for expansion and the building of still more shops, the production of still more thousands of useful things — that is the real industrial idea. The negation of the industrial idea is the effort to make a profit out of speculation instead of out of work. There are short-sighted men who cannot see that business is bigger than any one man’s interests. Business is a process of give and take, live and let live. It is cooperation among many forces and interests. Whenever you find a man who believes that business is a river whose beneficial flow ought to stop as soon as it reaches him you find a man who thinks he can keep business alive by stopping its circulation. He would produce wealth by this stopping of the production of wealth.

The principles of service cannot fail to cure bad business. Which leads us into the practical application of the principles of service and finance.

[Page 141]

____________________________

Version History & Notes

Version 1: Published Aug 14, 2015

__________________

Notes

* Cover image is not in the original document.

__________________

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

Note: This document is available at:

https://katana17.wordpress.com/

======================================

Click to go to >>>

Henry Ford — Part 1: Introduction — What is the Idea?

Henry Ford — Part 2: The Beginning of Business

Henry Ford — Part 3: What I Learned About Business

Henry Ford — Part 4: Starting the Real Business

Henry Ford — Part 5: The Secret of Manufacturing and Serving

Henry Ford — Part 6: Getting into Production

Henry Ford — Part 7: Machines and Men

Henry Ford — Part 8: The Terror of the Machine

Henry Ford — Part 9: Wages

Henry Ford — Part 10: Why Not Always Have a Good Business?

Henry Ford — Part 11: How Cheaply Can Things Be Made?

PDF of this post.

Click to view or download (0.7 MB). >> Henry Ford – My Life and Work – Part 10

Version History

Version 1: Aug 14, 2015

Henry Ford — Teil 9: Löhne

admin — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:56:15 +0000

[Klicken zum Vergrößern]

Mein Leben und Werk

Henry Ford

Teil 9