The New York Times published its very first article about Adolf Hitler on November 21st, 1922. In it, it assets that “Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded” – that it was merely a ploy for votes among Germany’s angry masses.
Several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: “You can’t expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.”
Hmmm. Using racist, right-wing rhetoric to pander to a conservative audience? Expressing extreme views to mislead the masses? I wonder why that sounds so familiar…