Part VII: Henry Ford And The Aaron Sapiro Case

February 20, 2014

Henry Ford And The Aaron Sapiro Case

Part VII

by

R.E. Prindle

AaronSapiro2

 Whose Heaven On Earth?

 Now let’s examine the apparent expectations of the two men, Henry Ford and Aaron Sapiro in light of their ethnic backgrounds and/or religious outlook, what the famed Jewish psychologist would call group psychology.  How were their attitudes and opinions conditioned by their respective ethnic educations?

The leading characteristic of the Jews is that their approach is based on domination, the need to be Top Dog ‘by any means necessary.’  While I am not aware of Ford’s religious beliefs, if any, he reflects a Christian-American point of view, that is to say he considered service the highest virtue.  Therefore he violated all established business practices by offering the highest value for the lowest price.

In that light then Ford founded his company and conducted its business on the basis of service, possibly what the Communists mean by ‘social justice.’  In constrast Sapiro exploited the farmers he claimed to represent extorting the highest fee for little value while aggrandized his persona.  Ford created benefits for the many in everything he did including more than doubling the wage rate.

The Great Henry Ford

The Great Henry Ford

Just as Sapiro’s actions were based on his religion or ethnic collective, Ford’s activities were based on Christian-American ideals.  Americanism could be placed on the same religious level as Judaism while Ford was busy developing his own variant of Christian-Americanism.  It seems to have been his intent to reform the socio-economic basis of American life as a sort of American religion with himself as its prophet.

The clash between Ford and Sapiro was essentially ‘religious.’  As Miss Woeste points out Ford had his own vision of the farmer’s well fare based on service which clashed with Sapiro’s vision of dominance.

Ford had been a farmer while Sapiro never was.

Now, if one considers the psychological yearnings of the Ford Plan and those of the Sapiro Plan one has something like this:  Ford’s Plan was essentially utopian in which he sought to create a heaven on earth for everyone while Sapiro’s Jewish Plan was millennial with the intent of creating a heaven on earth for Jews, they dominating everyone else.

Ford, believing he had the industrial key for bettering conditions for all was busy reforming every institution he came into contact with from industrial conditions to hospital care to electricity generation, not to mention his railroad.  He was, like many of his generation, including W.K. Kellogg and his corn flakes and Bernarr Macfadden and his juice bars,  interested in finding the miracle food, and he thought he may have found it one time in soy beans.  In fact it was nearly a miracle bean.  Ford established the bean as a premier American crop which had more than a little to do with aiding the farmer.

Sapiro’s notion can be seen in this photograph where he stands at the head of a group of Canadian farmers symbolically their master.

Sapiro In Alberta

Sapiro In Alberta

As should be clear the Jewish War Against Ford was long standing before the Independent articles.  Jewish animosity toward  him began with the five dollar day and added to by the six  dollar day and eight hour five day week improvements.

Ford in a religious sense was working miracles that threatened to overturn the Jewish system.  If Ford were able to establish his earthly utopia that would obviate the Jewish millennium.  It will be remembered that the Jews believed the advent of the millennium was imminent at the time so Ford was construed as a very dangerous threat to the Jewish millennium as well as the Communist Revolution in which the Jews were also heavily involved.

Thus when the Communists attacked Ford plants in the thirties, the Jews through Roosevelt were undermining his authority through legislation finally forcing a union on him in 1942.

Ford was quite right to challenge Sapiro.  It would be nice if Ford or Uwayne State published the Ford Sapiro articles for all of us to study.  While Miss Woeste laughs at them claiming them full of misrepresentations we are obligated to either take or reject her word for it.  Uncharacteristically as a historian she offers no examples.

For instance what was Sapiro’s relationship to Albert Lasker and Bernard Baruch?  What publicity was Lasker, as a publicist, giving Sapiro?  How was he represented in the press?  If he was, what kind of advice was the commodity expert Baruch giving Sapiro?

Are we to believe the articles lie when they say Sapiro was involved with these men?  It just doesn’t seem reasonable or if not Miss Woeste might have given examples and refuted them.  Her charges don’t have to be insinuated.  After all, while not a historian, she is a lawyer.

That UStanford, one of the most prestigious universities in these United States, would imply that they accept Miss Woeste is a credible scholar leads me to ask the question, Why?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s