Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old May 7th, 2018 #121
Phaedrus
Aryan race erudite philoso
 
Phaedrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Aryan race expertise & erudite philosophizing
Posts: 598
Phaedrus
Default

Quote:
The Frank case was a major factor in the creation of the Anti-Defamation League (or ADL), still one of the most powerful Jewish pressure groups.

The Jewish power structure organized and exerted itself in depth, like never before, in order to exonerate Frank — an effort that still persists to this day.

2018 also marks the 50th anniversary of the publication in book form of Leonard Dinnerstein’s The Leo Frank Case. His book is based on his 1966 dissertation thesis, which may be read online.

Dinnerstein is Jewish. Dinnerstein is a purported scholar. Dinnerstein is presented by the controlled media as a “respected historian.” Dinnerstein is one of those who, through his own efforts and those of his fellow tribesmen, control our perception of the past. Dinnerstein’s book is one of the central texts upon which the Jewish power structure’s “received narrative” about the Leo Frank case rests.


Jewish Subversion of History: Leonard Dinnerstein, part 1


Jewish Subversion of History: Leonard Dinnerstein, part 2
__________________
Any attempt by a lower order to overcome a higher order represents evil.
- Robert Pirsig
 
Old August 25th, 2018 #122
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
Default 103 Years After Leo Frank’s Execution

by Dale Bennett and National Vanguard staff

THIS WEEK MARKS the 103rd anniversary of the death of Leo Frank, who was lynched on August 17, 1915 by some of the leading citizens of Atlanta, outraged at a corrupt governor’s commutation of his death sentence. The Leo Frank case marked a major turning point in White/Jewish relations in the United States and — especially considering how weak is the Jewish position that asserts that Frank was an innocent victim of “anti-Semitism” — is very much worthy of our attention.

Philip St. Raymond of The American Mercury wrote recently of a new audio book that is being issued in installments at that venerable publication, which contains many new revelations about the case, based on the amazingly good research of the Jew-critical Black separatist group the Nation of Islam Historical Research Group. An extract of his latest report follows.

* * *

THE CRIMINAL ACTS of the Leo Frank forces as they attempted to get a new trial for their client — or invalidate the results of the original trial — are so numerous, so outrageous, so obvious, and so egregious that — once you hear about them in this new audio book — you will be outraged at how academia and the media have kept these facts from you. Did you know an attempt was made to pay an inmate to poison one of the state’s main witnesses, James Conley? In fact, it’s fair to say that chicanery on this scale comes very close to proving that Frank was guilty — and that his legal/propaganda/dirty tricks team knew he was guilty; for these are not the acts of innocent men with clear consciences.

The Burns Detective Agency was hired by the Leo Frank legal team to “find new evidence” and invalidate witnesses’ testimony after Frank was convicted. The agency’s and Frank’s other allies’ scandalous behavior — planting fake evidence; bribing perjurers; paying witnesses to leave town; and even attempting to murder a prosecution witness! — was a significant factor in convincing Georgians that Frank was indeed guilty.

Audio Player

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/08...nks-execution/

Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

In this, the thirteenth audio segment of this ground-breaking work originally published by the Nation of Islam, part of their series called The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, we also learn of the judicial condemnation of Frank’s team — another thing that today’s media accounts and academic studies of the Frank case leave out.

This, the best investigative effort made on the Leo Frank case in the last 100 years, will take you on a trip into the past — to the greatest American murder mystery of all time; a mystery that will reveal to you the hidden forces that shape our world even today.

To read all the chapters we’ve published so far, simply click on this link.

* * *

Kevin Alfred Strom said of the case and this ground-breaking book:

* * *

A Jew, Leo Frank was [in 1913] the president of the Atlanta branch of the B’nai B’rith, and was also superintendent and part-owner of the National Pencil Company, the sweatshop where little Mary [Phagan] was killed. We’ve discussed this important case before on this program, and some new facts have come to light that deserve public exposure.

The Leo Frank case is important for two reasons: First, because it’s a case — perhaps the first in recent years — in which people on our side, racially conscious Whites with an awareness of the Jewish Question, have been able to make significant headway against the Jewish propaganda juggernaut. Searches on the topic of Frank and his victim Mary Phagan regularly turn up significant numbers of first-page links to truth-telling sites that document the case objectively and present the overwhelming evidence of Frank’s guilt, along with exposés of how Jewish individuals and organizations, and those employed by Jews, have engaged in criminal obstruction of justice and blatant, easily exposed, lying for propaganda purposes. They may have the TV specials, the docudramas, and the newspaper headlines — but we have the facts; we have the in-depth research libraries like http://leofrank.info with reams upon reams of solid documentation which shows the Jews to be what they are.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if our success on the subject of Leo Frank was one reason the Jews at Google have now decided to rig their algorithms to demote “anti-Semitic” search results to hundredth-page oblivion. Just like I once said about Leo Frank’s planting of fake evidence to falsely implicate two Black men in the murder he himself committed: This is not the act of an innocent man. Rigging the algorithms so that exposés of the Jews and their agenda are largely hidden from view is not the act of an innocent group. It is also not the act of a group whose strength is increasing — it’s the act of a criminal gang that greatly fears the exposure of its crimes to the light of day. It’s an act that proves we’re winning.


This article is dedicated to the memory of Mary Phagan (shown here with her aunt, Mattie Phagan), who was murdered by Leo Frank, who was executed for that crime 103 years ago this week.

Second, the Leo Frank case is important because it sheds light on the psychology and the weaknesses of those who are brazenly attempting the genocide of our race.

I was surprised to discover new evidence of this — evidence ignored by mainstream publishers for a century — in a book put out by the Jew-critical Black organization, the Nation of Islam Research Group. It’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, volume 3: The Leo Frank Case; the Lynching of a Guilty Man and it is well worth reading. It does emphasize what the authors see as the anti-Black bias of the Frank defense team and Southern society in general, but it is competently written and well-researched and does not at all resemble the childish “We Wuz Kangs” literature one expects from Afrocentric groups.

When Leo Frank was convicted of strangling Mary Phagan to death after she refused his sexual advances, a huge nationwide newspaper and magazine campaign was launched by the Jews in an attempt to convince the public that Frank was innocent and deserved a new trial. Even though the South was not “anti-Semitic” — philo-Semitic is more like it, just as today — and even though Leo Frank himself stated that “anti-Semitism” was not the reason he was prosecuted, the alleged Jew-hatred of Southerners became the centerpiece of the propaganda campaign. Jewish writers falsely claimed that anti-Semitic mobs shouted “hang the Jew” and “crack the Jew’s neck” and the like right outside the open courtroom windows, and that the judge and jury were threatened with hanging themselves if they failed to convict Frank. These fake news articles have been quoted and re-quoted and recycled for a hundred years now, and are still all over the controlled media, the latest example being a really ludicrous fake news piece in Salon magazine unironically titled “What the Leo Frank case tells us about the dangers of fake news.”

Albert Lasker

The head of this propaganda campaign was a Jewish advertising and public relations executive named Albert Lasker. He handled the money-men — Jews like Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff and Julius Rosenwald of Sears — and directed the efforts of innumerable writers, editors, and publishers from those working for small local weeklies to giant metropolitan dailies like Adolph Ochs’ New York Times. Lasker was the head of Lord & Thomas, the largest advertising agency in the world.

Over the next several years, Lasker would run the largest and most sophisticated Jewish disinformation campaign ever seen in America, transforming Leo Frank in the gullible public’s mind from a perverted sex killer of a 13-year-old girl to a noble, innocent martyr and the victim of unreasoning and pervasive Southern hatred of Jews.

That Lasker was a Jewish supremacist is clear. He said

The Jews are a superior people. I have a hard time hiding that; I believe we should be patient with non-Jews…. I deeply believe that no Christian civilization can last that removed from it the Jews. That it is the Jew that brings them the pollen.

Lasker’s campaign was wildly successful in changing the minds of Americans — at least Americans who were far from Atlanta and who had not read the day-to-day reporting on the investigation and trial and so were quite ignorant of the facts of the case. Lasker “sold” the American people on the idea of Southern “anti-Semitism” and the “persecution” of “innocent” Frank — just as he sold millions of Americans on the virtues of smoking Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Later in life, though, Lasker regretted making “Southern anti-Semitism” the focus of his propaganda efforts, since Georgians resented the lie greatly and that may have contributed to a new resentment and distrust of Jews — and to Frank’s lynching itself. He said:

[We] indicted the whole people of Georgia; well, then, as was natural, in any group, you solidify…. We put the whole state of Georgia on trial and we did what is so often done, in the cure that we gave for the disease, we increased the disease.

…I made a great mistake. Georgia, which had kept it quiet, resented the pressure from outsiders…. Yes. I want to make up to Georgia for what I did to them then, because there is where our greatest mistake was when we took and flashed this all over the country.

[What I should have said to the newspapermen was: We] don’t want you to print a word; we want you to tell this to people who have economic connections in Georgia, and we want them to talk to the economic leaders of the South. We want them to go down to Washington and talk to them quietly as if nothing was going on…. If we had done that I think we would have saved the boy’s life, but when we put this tremendous pressure on all of them, the state was indicted and there came a unanimous opinion in Georgia that he was guilty; so I handled it badly…. We didn’t understand the psychology…. The boy was commuted and lynched. I got him lynched instead of hung, that is all that happened.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that such second thoughts indicate that Lasker had a guilty conscience about deceiving the people — on the contrary, his regrets are simply based on his failure to save Frank, the B’nai B’rith president and therefore a representative of Jews generally. Lasker’s lack of conscience and cold, cynical value system is demonstrated in one of his first acts on behalf of Frank’s Jewish supporters: he traveled, along with influential Hearst chain newspaper editor Arthur Brisbane, on a strategy-planning mission to Atlanta to meet the Frank defense team, the prosecution team, and Frank himself. He thought little of Frank and even suspected him of sex perversion based on his appearance and manner — but nevertheless carried through the utterly cynical campaign to make him a martyr. Lasker stated:

[N]either Brisbane nor I liked Frank. From our interviews, we found him a supercilious egotist who was enjoying this notoriety. We took a great prejudice against him and we could see… how it would add to the psychology of those against him who didn’t have an open mind.

Both he and I took a tremendous prejudice against the prisoner [Frank]. Like so many, all this publicity had gone to his head — he became a megalomaniac… So we disliked our principle very much, but we determined in our minds that he was innocent and that this was a big frame-up….

Later, Lasker and Brisbane met with detective William J. Burns and Atlanta Georgian editor Keats Speed and together interviewed Frank. Lasker privately stated of this meeting:

It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he [Frank] impressed us as a sexual pervert.

Keats Speed described Lasker’s reaction after the interview with Frank:

And when we got out and started down the courthouse steps — Lasker hated him — he said [of Frank], “Well, I hope he gets out… and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.”

The quotes from Lasker can be found in private letters, interviews, and in his biography, The Man Who Sold America.

So there you have it. The Jewish boss of the campaign to exonerate Frank in the public’s mind was disgusted by Frank, thought him a sexual pervert (and likely a murderer), but nevertheless, in loyalty to his tribe, “determined in his mind that he was innocent” and cynically pushed the image of Frank as a martyr to evil White bigotry, “bigotry” which Lasker well knew never existed. Can you bring to mind any person of your acquaintance who more thoroughly embodies living a lie?

One of the largest and most influential Jewish groups in America, the Anti-Defamation League, or “ADL,” began its first operations as a part of the campaign to exonerate Frank. The Jews of the ADL have been living a lie, too, since they are one of the most prominent portrayers of Frank as an innocent martyr and of the White people of Georgia as vicious, unreasoning haters — yet an investigative report on the Frank case which was commissioned by the ADL itself in 1953, and never made public, indicates clearly that Frank was a liar.

The report, titled “Anti-Semitism and the Leo M. Frank Case,” was prepared by DeWitt H. Roberts and can be found in the American Jewish Archives in Cincinnati, Ohio, under item number SC-3576.

Roberts said of Frank’s own testimony that it was “marked by factual error” and that it — not “anti-Semitism” — “completed the case against him” in the minds of the jury:

His four-hour appearance on the witness stand was disingenuous in the extreme…. It’s doubtful he persuaded anyone… that he was guiltless. Indeed, the more probable reactions were suspicion and disbelief.

Roberts reported to the ADL that — except for the family and friends of Frank — even the Jews of Atlanta largely believed Frank to be guilty before and during his trial, changing their position only after Lasker’s massive propaganda campaign had begun:

Apparently, except for close personal associates, his family and in-laws, Herbert Haas, some members of the Journal staff… and Rabbi Marx, no one believed Frank innocent until after his conviction.

I dedicate this piece to the memory of Mary Phagan, who was lured to her death in the bowels of Leo Frank’s sweatshop 104 years ago this week. May her spirit live among us today and every day for the rest of our lives, inspiring us to expose the people of the lie who knowingly and with malice aforethought venerate her murderer and viciously defame the White people of Georgia, and whose inhuman and quintessentially evil goal is the genocide of our race.

* * *

Mr. Strom also has brought out, in detail, the acts of the corrupt governor who so outraged Atlanta’s leading citizens that they sought to carry out the execution themselves (some would call their acts extra-judicial, but they believed it was Governor Slaton who committed extra-judicial acts):

* * *

THIS WEEK is the anniversary of the carrying out of the sentence of death by hanging imposed by the courts on the Jewish sex killer Leo Max Frank by a group of prominent Georgia men who were outraged by the commutation of his sentence by a corrupt governor, and last month was the 100th anniversary of that commutation. That Governor’s name, which will live forever as an example of subservience to Jewish power and Jewish propaganda, was John Marshall Slaton (pictured above).

Here’s what happened:

In 1913, the Atlanta president of the Jewish B’nai B’rith, sweatshop operator Leo M. Frank, was convicted of strangling to death a 13-year-old White girl in his employ — Mary Phagan — after sexually assaulting her while they were alone on the second floor of the National Pencil Company, of which Frank was the superintendent and part-owner. Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, networking, and financial and press power came into play almost immediately after Frank’s arrest and indictment.

The case became a national cause celebre for the Jews, with headlines in major newspapers from San Francisco to New York City trumpeting Frank’s “innocence” and the barbarity of the White Southerners who dared to convict him. Fat-headed Whites who believed the fictional newspaper stories of the “persecuted” member of “God’s Chosen” were recruited to help in the crusade, and the equivalent of many millions of dollars was raised in his defense.

With this Jewish money, Frank hired the finest and most expensive team of lawyers ever seen in the state of Georgia, yet he was still held by the Coroner’s Jury — still charged by the Grand Jury — and still convicted at trial. He hired another expensive legal team — and then another, even including the leading Jewish lawyers in the USA — and appealed his conviction to the Georgia Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. In every case, his conviction was upheld.

With this Jewish money, other things were procured as well: Someone planted a bloody shirt at the home of the factory’s Black night watchman, Newt Lee, at a time when both Lee and Frank were suspects in the killing. Someone paid a long list of witnesses to leave town or change their stories in ways that favored Frank. Someone paid an unscrupulous attorney named Felder to fraudulently present himself as working for the Phagan family and attempt to illegally obtain evidence and documents in the possession of the police. Someone paid a Pinkerton detective named W.D. McWorth — and the Pinkertons were openly in the pay of Frank and the other Jewish owners of the pencil factory — to “discover” a bloody club and what was said to be part of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope near the ground floor elevator where the factory’s Black sweeper, Jim Conley, was keeping watch for Leo Frank that day — but the fake was discovered and McWorth dismissed. Someone paid the Pinkertons’ great rivals — the infamous Burns detective agency — to take over when the Pinkertons refused to “cooperate” as the Jews had hoped, and in particular, refused to withhold evidence from the police until Leo Frank’s attorneys had had a look at it.

And, in 1915, when all the appeals had failed and the integrity of the jury’s verdict that Leo Frank was guilty and that Leo Frank should hang had been upheld by every jury, every judge, and every court with jurisdiction over the case, there was only one place left for the Jews to try: the outgoing Governor of Georgia, John Slaton. In addition to their glittering wealth and generous largesse, the pro-Frank forces had another ace up their sleeve with John M. Slaton: He was a leading partner in the partly-Jewish law firm that defended Frank and had been so for many months. Even though he could not practice law while governor during his term of two years, for some reason or other the law firm that was defending Frank — and which doubtless was receiving a huge portion of the money raised in Frank’s defense and would receive even more as “bonuses” for each desired outcome attained — sought out Governor Slaton as a partner.

With Leo Frank’s execution date imminent and all appeals exhausted, and with Governor Slaton leaving office in just days to be replaced by a man without such connections, the time was now or never. One would think that an ethical governor would have nothing to do with, and would not even consider, interfering in the case of a man who was a client of his own law firm, especially when the issue could be handled by the incoming governor, who had no conflict of interest, and who would be in office in less than a week. You would think that a rational governor would know that his political career — and Slaton very much wanted to be become United States Senator from Georgia — would be over for life if he committed such an ethical lapse. It would take some kind of overwhelming consideration for a man in Slaton’s position to interfere in the Frank case. But interfere he did.

On June 21, giving a patently specious string of reasons, he commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank to life in prison. He said his conscience impelled him and that he could not live with himself if there was even the possibility that he would have the blood of an innocent man on his hands. That, if true — though it hardly sounds like the reasoning process of the same man who blithely ignored the commutation requests of several non-Jews while in office — would truly constitute an overwhelming consideration. But you will forgive me when I tell you that the evidence suggests an overwhelming “consideration” of a quite different kind.

Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, lead counsel for Leo Frank, who had argued his case before the jury, paid a very interesting visit to the home of his law partner Governor Slaton just before the commutation decision was made. For reasons which might not seem too obscure, he arrived late at night. For the same reasons, he approached the mansion by a back street, parked several blocks away, and entered the grounds on foot via a dark alley. He did not leave until well after midnight.

I quote from Watson’s The Celebrated Case of Leo Frank:

What Rosser said to Slaton in this clandestine meeting, will never be known; but it was noticed that next day the lamentations of the Jews were replaced by sly grins, and offers to bet ten to one that Slaton would commute!

Read the following, not as evidence of Frank’s guilt, or as proof of Slaton’s hypocrisy and perfidy, but as a side-light on events in Atlanta:

Atlanta, June 22.

Mr. Tom Watson:

What I tell you I know to be true as God is light, and it is this: The Jews all gathered at the home of the Seligs, on Washington Street, where Frank’s wife and father-in-law live, and from 8 till 12 o’clock, they had a regular old-time Belshazzar feast. They drank wine, high balls, whiskey and beer, and smoked and sang, and had music; and there were not less than a hundred and twenty automobiles full of Jews that came there from the time I say to the late hour.

Now, they all knew Slaton had commuted Frank, and were celebrating it.

And I know a policeman who was on the streets yesterday, to make out like controlling the mob, and he told me he passed the jail every night at 12 o’clock for a year, and going on duty, and never saw a light in the office of the Sheriff till Saturday night, and he was surprised to see the Sheriff sitting there like he was waiting for somebody, and suddenly a Jew came running up and tapped on the window, and the Sheriff raised the window and the Jew whispered to him, and the Sheriff smiled, and then the Jew ran off and the Sheriff closed the window. Now, that showed conspiracy, and that Slaton was working with the Jews all the time.

In other words, the Jews knew — some on Friday, and some on Saturday — that Slaton had commuted the sentence.

John Slaton did not announce his commutation order until Sunday.

After you hear my words and read the sources I have provided on the Frank case, I invite you to watch the NBC television program about John M. Slaton, from their 1964 series Profiles in Courage. I’ll embed the video from that program so you can watch it right here on nationalvanguard.org:

After watching that production, do you recognize John Slaton? — do you recognize the Leo Frank sex killing case? — do you recognize the people of Georgia? No. You cannot. The program — like almost all Establishment works on the Leo Frank case — is a vicious, poisonous cocktail of lies designed to obscure the truth, exonerate and even ennoble a murderer, make the odious and the sleazy into “heroes,” and demonize the real heroes — real heroes like Tom Watson.

Thomas E. Watson’s contemporary series of exposés on the corruption and mendacity of the Leo Frank machine is one of the classics of American muckraking. Watson was an intelligent, cultured, and literate man, author of highly-regarded biographies of Jackson and Jefferson and a history of France. In the NBC episode, he is played by a sweaty, greasy-looking Hollywood “heavy” Michael Constantine, who, as Watson, openly admits his corruption and talks in “cracker” dialect, wearing a heavily rumpled suit without a tie, putting his feet up on Slaton’s desk, and wiping his dripping nose on his sleeve. We get it, Mr. Director, we get it. No such meeting between Watson and Slaton ever took place.

The program is anything but subtle. In the opening scene, another sweaty White man, with a crazed look on his face and a very bad set of teeth, stands on the courthouse roof and screams for the head of Leo Frank to a torch-lit crowd of Whites while the Frank verdict is about to be read. No such rally ever took place — it is an invention of the filmmakers.

Inside the courthouse, Judge Roan, the presiding judge in the case, mutters to an associate that “Frank’s innocence has been proven to a mathematical certainty” — something that he never said.

The noble Slaton is played by Jewish actor Walter Matthau, and Slaton is portrayed as a deeply moral man of principle throughout. The screen Watson admits to the screen Slaton that Watson’s newspaper, the Jeffersonian, is “written for the great unwashed,” and that “you bathe too much.”

Almost unbelievably, the program asserts that the Black night watchman and early suspect, Newt Lee, was in the pencil factory building when the murder was committed — and that the factory sweeper Jim Conley, another Black man falsely accused by the pro-Frank forces, confessed to the murder to his own attorney. Needless to say, none of this ever happened.

Jewish screenwriter Don Mankiewicz was the author of this bundle of lies. It was made by Saudek Associates, and aired on Robert Sarnoff’s Jewish-owned NBC. The executive in charge of production was the Jew Bernie Weinraub.

The producers of this program were so sloppy — and so contemptuous of their viewers, who they evidently think will believe even the crudest and most obvious lies — that they even get Leo Max Frank’s name wrong, calling him “Leo A. Frank.”

Thus is history rewritten by liars. Thus is the public fooled into hating those who try to save them, and worshipping those, like John M. Slaton, who have sold them out.

It is satisfying to reflect upon the fact that John M. Slaton, quite contrary to the liars at NBC, was so reviled for his act of evil that he had to flee the state. He did not return to stay for nearly a decade. Tom Watson was elected to the Senate seat that Slaton had coveted, and it was only recently that the Jews were able to force the great writer and statesman’s statue to be removed from the state capitol.

We have now passed the centenary of that moment in US and Georgia history when the leading citizens of that state re-took control of the legal and judicial process and carried out the sentence of the court — the sentence of the judge — and the sentence of the people — on Jewish sex killer Leo Max Frank.

* * *

For further reading on this case, which changed fatefully — and forever — the actions and attitudes of the Jewish power structure toward its hosts, we recommend careful study of the Leo Frank Case Research Library.

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/08...nks-execution/
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Old August 25th, 2018 #123
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
jewsign Is Jewish activist professor Leonard Dinnerstein, an academic fraudster?

Jewish Subversion of History: Leonard Dinnerstein, part 1

APRIL 28, 2018

Leonard Dinnerstein looks worried — and well he should be. His heavily promoted magnum opus on the Leo Frank case, on which his reputation rests, has been exposed as a fraud.

American Dissident Voices broadcast of April 28, 2018

Listen to the broadcast by Kevin Alfred Strom

“WHO CONTROLS the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

So said George Orwell in his 1984, meaning that those who rule over us decide what is written about history — what is omitted, what is emphasized, and what is utterly fabricated — and that, by thus altering our perception of the past, they constrain or control what we think and what we do in the present. And what we think and do determines our future. Therefore our future is effectively under the control of those who write history.

A somber anniversary

This week marks the 105th anniversary of the death of 13-year-old factory girl Mary Phagan, who was found strangled to death and likely raped in the basement of Atlanta’s National Pencil Company, the Jewish-owned sweatshop where she worked for a few cents an hour. Her boss, factory superintendent Leo Max Frank, was convicted of her murder — and later lynched by a committee of prominent Georgians when a corrupt governor commuted Frank’s sentence from death to life in prison. Frank was a Jew — and a prominent one, being head of the Atlanta B’nai B’rith, the influential Jewish fraternal organization. His death has been cited as perhaps the only case of a Jew being lynched in Southern history — something that, even if not unique, is certainly extremely rare. The Frank case was a major factor in the creation of the Anti-Defamation League (or ADL), still one of the most powerful Jewish pressure groups. The Jewish power structure organized and exerted itself in depth, like never before, in order to exonerate Frank — an effort that still persists to this day.

2018 also marks the 50th anniversary of the publication in book form of Leonard Dinnerstein’s The Leo Frank Case. His book is based on his 1966 dissertation thesis, which may be read online. Dinnerstein is Jewish. Dinnerstein is a purported scholar. Dinnerstein is presented by the controlled media as a “respected historian.” Dinnerstein is one of those who, through his own efforts and those of his fellow tribesmen, control our perception of the past. Dinnerstein’s book is one of the central texts upon which the Jewish power structure’s “received narrative” about the Leo Frank case rests.

A false narrative

That narrative tells us that Leo Frank was investigated, indicted, and convicted — and had that conviction upheld during multiple appeals that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court — all because of “anti-Semitism.” It’s a false narrative. And, as we’ve shown here on National Vanguard, a preposterously false narrative.

By controlling the publishing industry and dominating the academic establishment, the Jewish power structure was, for almost the entire century following the trial and conviction of Leo Frank, able to get away with whopper after whopper about the Frank case — Dinnerstein’s prominent among them — with hardly anyone noticing, much less objecting. But since the age of the Internet began, the people have been able to bypass the Jewish gatekeepers and find the facts for themselves. Real independent investigative journalism has arisen. What we do here at National Vanguard is a part of that.

Now that original source material on the Leo Frank case is only a few keystrokes away, what Leonard Dinnerstein could get away with in 1968 is a huge embarrassment for the Jews in 2018.

So let’s take a critical look at Leonard Dinnerstein’s half-century-long war with the facts.

“History” with a purpose

Dinnerstein is a University of Arizona “Professor Emeritus of Judaic Studies.” Almost his entire career has been focused on the Frank case, Jewish identity, and the “immigrant experience.”

The whole premise of Leonard Dinnerstein’s book, The Leo Frank Case, is to 1) smear the people of the South with the charges of gross corruption and supposed “anti-Semitism”; 2) attempt to frame a long-dead Black man who cannot defend himself — Jim Conley, a prominent witness against Frank — for the murder; and 3) shamelessly rehabilitate the image of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith president, Leo M. Frank, who has been shown by court records, sworn evidence, and multiple judges and juries to be the pedophile strangler and child killer who was guilty of bludgeoning, garroting, and ordering the burning of the body of 13-year old Mary Anne Phagan on April 26, 1913.

The general conclusion of Dinnerstein’s book is that, in the White racial segregationist and separatist Atlanta of 1913, White Southern Gentiles were so filled with anti-Jewish hate that they knowingly and willingly set free a guilty Black man who had just a few weeks before pounded his fists into the face of a little 13-year-old White girl, just before raping, strangling, and mutilating her. These White jurists and detectives and prosecutors and policemen and jurors, Dinnerstein claims, knowingly let the guilty Black rapist and strangler go free so they could intentionally frame an innocent Jew for the crime. Topping it all off, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, the Atlanta police and detectives, and even the Pinkerton detective agency hired by Frank’s own company, all worked together to coach James “Jim” Conley to repeat, like a trained parrot, a very complex story in order to trick the trial jury and unjustly convict Leo Frank.

For five decades now, the organized Jewish community regularly gave kudos and accolades to Dinnerstein for his anti-Gentile propaganda books. Many described Dinnerstein as the “definitive author” of the Leo Frank “epic saga.”

Leonard Dinnerstein’s “hate crime” hoax

Dinnerstein perpetuates the hoax — repeated by Abraham Foxman of the ADL and by dozens of media and academic hacks — that mobs of angry people were screaming “racist anti-Semitic death threats” at the jury through the courtroom windows during Leo Frank’s trial. These alleged mobs were claimed to have screamed at the jurors “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you!” and other threats. (See “Leo Frank and the American Jewish Community” in the American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, volume 20 number 2.)

The Jewish ADL has used Dinnerstein’s “hang the Jew” hoax repeatedly over the years in an effort to rehabilitate the image of Frank and make the claim that a nonexistent “Southern anti-Semitism” was the real motive for Frank’s indictment and conviction.

Interestingly, none of the local Atlanta newspapers, some of whom took a pro-Frank stance — and who had teams of reporters inside and outside the courtroom — ever mention this alleged incident, which surely would have been instant grounds for a mistrial. It was also never mentioned during the trial by Frank’s own high-powered and expensive legal team, who surely would have jumped at the chance to gain a new trial in a new venue for their well-connected client.

The Jewish ADL still uses Dinnerstein’s “hang the Jew” hoax as a major part of its “outreach” on the Leo Frank case.

“Bite marks”? You’ve got to be kidding! But Dinnerstein seriously expects us to believe.

Dinnerstein’s book does not stand up to even the most basic fact-checking.

As pointed out by reviewer Elliot Dashfield, Leonard Dinnerstein also perpetuates the Pierre van Paassen 1964 “bite mark” hoax in his book:

For example, he uncritically accepts the 1964 hoax by hack writer and self-promoter Pierre van Paassen, who claimed that there were in existence in 1922 X-ray photographs at the Fulton County Courthouse, taken in 1913, of Leo Frank’s teeth, and also X-ray photographs of bite marks on Mary Phagan’s neck and shoulder [as if one needs to take X-rays of bite marks!] – and that anti-Semites had suppressed this evidence. Van Paassen further alleged – and Dinnerstein repeated – that the dimensions of Frank’s teeth did not match the “bite marks,” thereby exonerating Frank.

Here’s the excerpt from van Paassen’s 1964 book To Number Our Days (pages 237 and 238) that Dinnerstein endorses:

“The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.

“I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

“Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.

“That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy.’ The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch….”

Dinnerstein references these pages in his book (page 158 of the 2008 edition), saying “In 1923, at the height of the Ku Klux Klan’s power, a foreign journalist, working for The Atlanta Constitution, became interested in Leo Frank and went back to study the records of the case. He came across some x-rays showing teeth indentations in Mary Phagan’s left shoulder and compared them with x-rays of Frank’s teeth; but the two sets did not correspond. On the basis of this, and other insights garnered from his investigation, the newspaperman wanted to write a series ‘proving’ Frank’s innocence. One anonymous correspondent sent him a printed note: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy,’ but this did not deter him.”

Since Dinnerstein is such a lofty academic scholar and professor, perhaps he simply forgot to ask a current freshman in medical school if it was even possible to X-ray bite marks on skin in 1913 – or necessary [today], for that matter – because it’s not. In 1913, X-ray technology was in its infancy and never used in any criminal case until many years after Leo Frank was hanged. Was Leo Frank’s lawyer named “Harry Alexander” or Henry Alexander? Why would the famous attorney who represented Leo Frank during his most high-profile appeals say he didn’t have his trial yet?! Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to trial in Milledgeville – he wasn’t on his way to anywhere, and it happened in Marietta, 170 miles away. And it defies the laws of physics, and all logic and reason, to believe that any person driving a motor vehicle in 1922 – when there were virtually no safety features in automobiles – could suffer a direct collision with a “fast-moving streetcar” and survive “without a scratch.” Oddly, Dinnerstein says van Paassen “was not deterred” from writing the supposed series of articles, though even the hoaxer himself clearly implies that he was indeed deterred. (Even the most basic online research would also have shown that van Paassen is a far from credible source who once publicly claimed to have seen supernatural “ghost dogs” which could appear and disappear at will.)

Not only did Dinnerstein completely fail to point out the obviously preposterous nature of van Paassen’s account, but he blandly presents his claims as established historical fact. If this is scholarship, then Anton LaVey is the Pope.

Leonard Dinnerstein’s book and other works on the Leo Frank case are of laughably poor quality, and his falsehoods are growing thinner and thinner, and less believable, with each passing year. Yet Dinnerstein is still cited as a source by the ADL on their Web site, and his work is even a part of a “Teaching Guide” used to inculcate the Jewish narrative in the minds of American children.

Remember Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

We’ll have more about Dinnerstein and his role as a falsifier of the past next week, right here on American Dissident Voices.

* * *

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/04...rstein-part-1/
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Old August 25th, 2018 #124
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
jewsign Is Jewish extremist Dr. Leonard Dinnerstein, a conman in the academy?

Jewish Subversion of History: Leonard Dinnerstein, part 2

MAY 5, 2018

Albert Lasker, the Jewish advertising executive who ran the pro-Frank publicity campaign during Frank’s appeals of his conviction for the sex murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. Jewish “historian” Leonard Dinnerstein hides many things about the Frank case in his works, including, significantly, Lasker’s real attitude toward Frank.

American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 5, 2018

Listen to the broadcast by Kevin Alfred Strom

“WHO CONTROLS the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

So said George Orwell of the history-twisters in his novel 1984, and today we’ll continue our look at a history-twister of our own day, Leonard Dinnerstein. Dinnerstein’s specialty, to which most of his life has been devoted, is rehabilitating the image of Jewish sex killer Leo M. Frank.

One piece of information that Leonard Dinnerstein kept secret was the attitude of the man who engineered the nationwide publicity campaign to exonerate Frank during the last two years of his life — between his conviction and his lynching. That man was Jewish advertising kingpin Albert Lasker, the man who has the dubious distinction of being the one who convinced millions of American women to take up the filthy habit of cigarette smoking. Dinnerstein researched Lasker for a special piece he did for the American Jewish Archives (AJA). He went into details of Lasker’s private correspondence. Yet nowhere does he reveal that Lasker disliked Frank after having met him, nowhere does he reveal that Lasker said Frank impressed him as a sex pervert, and nowhere does he state that Lasker deliberately used cagey language when the subject of Frank’s supposed innocence came up.

As I wrote on last year’s anniversary of the death of Mary Phagan:

The head of [the pro-Frank] propaganda campaign was a Jewish advertising and public relations executive named Albert Lasker. He handled the money-men — Jews like Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff and Julius Rosenwald of Sears — and directed the efforts of innumerable writers, editors, and publishers from those working for small local weeklies to giant metropolitan dailies like Adolph Ochs’ New York Times. Lasker was the head of Lord & Thomas, the largest advertising agency in the world.

Over the next several years, Lasker would run the largest and most sophisticated Jewish disinformation campaign ever seen in America, transforming Leo Frank in the gullible public’s mind from a perverted sex killer of a 13-year-old girl to a noble, innocent martyr and the victim of unreasoning and pervasive Southern hatred of Jews.

That Lasker was a Jewish supremacist is clear. He said

The Jews are a superior people. I have a hard time hiding that; I believe we should be patient with non-Jews…. I deeply believe that no Christian civilization can last that removed from it the Jews. That it is the Jew that brings them the pollen.

Lasker’s campaign was wildly successful in changing the minds of Americans — at least Americans who were far from Atlanta and who had not read the day-to-day reporting on the investigation and trial and so were quite ignorant of the facts of the case. Lasker “sold” the American people on the idea of Southern “anti-Semitism” and the “persecution” of “innocent” Frank — just as he sold millions of Americans on the virtues of smoking Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Later in life, though, Lasker regretted making “Southern anti-Semitism” the focus of his propaganda efforts, since Georgians resented the lie greatly and that may have contributed to a new resentment and distrust of Jews — and to Frank’s lynching itself. He said:

[We] indicted the whole people of Georgia; well, then, as was natural, in any group, you solidify…. We put the whole state of Georgia on trial and we did what is so often done, in the cure that we gave for the disease, we increased the disease.

…I made a great mistake. Georgia, which had kept it quiet, resented the pressure from outsiders…. Yes. I want to make up to Georgia for what I did to them then, because there is where our greatest mistake was when we took and flashed this all over the country.

[What I should have said to the newspapermen was: We] don’t want you to print a word; we want you to tell this to people who have economic connections in Georgia, and we want them to talk to the economic leaders of the South. We want them to go down to Washington and talk to them quietly as if nothing was going on…. If we had done that I think we would have saved the boy’s life, but when we put this tremendous pressure on all of them, the state was indicted and there came a unanimous opinion in Georgia that he was guilty; so I handled it badly…. We didn’t understand the psychology…. The boy was commuted and lynched. I got him lynched instead of hung, that is all that happened.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that such second thoughts indicate that Lasker had a guilty conscience about deceiving the people — on the contrary, his regrets are simply based on his failure to save Frank, the B’nai B’rith president and therefore a representative of Jews generally. Lasker’s lack of conscience and cold, cynical value system is demonstrated in one of his first acts on behalf of Frank’s Jewish supporters: he traveled, along with influential Hearst chain newspaper editor Arthur Brisbane, on a strategy-planning mission to Atlanta to meet the Frank defense team, the prosecution team, and Frank himself. He thought little of Frank and even suspected him of sex perversion based on his appearance and manner — but nevertheless carried through the utterly cynical campaign to make him a martyr. Lasker stated:

[N]either Brisbane nor I liked Frank. From our interviews, we found him a supercilious egotist who was enjoying this notoriety. We took a great prejudice against him and we could see… how it would add to the psychology of those against him who didn’t have an open mind.

Both he and I took a tremendous prejudice against the prisoner [Frank]. Like so many, all this publicity had gone to his head — he became a megalomaniac… So we disliked our principle very much, but we determined in our minds that he was innocent and that this was a big frame-up….

Later, Lasker and Brisbane met with detective William J. Burns and Atlanta Georgian editor Keats Speed and together interviewed Frank. Lasker privately stated of this meeting:

It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he [Frank] impressed us as a sexual pervert.

Keats Speed described Lasker’s reaction after the interview with Frank:

And when we got out and started down the courthouse steps — Lasker hated him — he said [of Frank], “Well, I hope he gets out… and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.”

The quotes from Lasker can be found in private letters, interviews, and in his biography, The Man Who Sold America.

So there you have it. The Jewish boss of the campaign to exonerate Frank in the public’s mind was disgusted by Frank, thought him a sexual pervert (and likely a murderer), but nevertheless, in loyalty to his tribe, “determined in his mind that he was innocent” and cynically pushed the image of Frank as a martyr to evil White bigotry, “bigotry” which Lasker well knew never existed. Can you bring to mind any person of your acquaintance who more thoroughly embodies living a lie?

But Dinnerstein tells us none of that. His is a sanitized Lasker, nobly fighting for the truth and to free an innocent, angelic Frank. As he says in his AJA piece:

The amount of assistance given to Frank by influential Jews cannot be overestimated. Aside from Marshall, perhaps the most energetic worker for Frank’s cause was Albert D. Lasker, the advertising wizard from Chicago. Personally informed of Frank’s plight by relatives, he conducted his own investigation in Atlanta. Interviews with Frank and his lawyers convinced Lasker that a monstrous mistake had been made and that the terrible injustice had to be eradicated. Taking a year’s leave from his business, Lasker marshaled nationally prominent people to the defendant’s aid, directed lawyers and investigators in search of new evidence, secured funds from diverse acquaintances, and personally contributed more than $1oo,ooo of his own money to help secure justice.

In his dissertation on the Frank case, Dinnerstein says of Lasker:

In addition to Louis Marshall and other members of the American Jewish Committee, Albert D. Lasker, the Jewish advertising genius from Chicago, contributed his services. Lasker, too, had heard of Frank’s plight and, according to his biographer, John Gunther, “Every instinct he had for justice and fair play, for racial tolerance, for dignity in the courts and good citizenship, was aroused.” He went to Atlanta, interviewed Frank and his friends, and returned to Chicago determined to aid the cause.

Just reading this fluff from Dinnerstein — while knowing the truth about Lasker — leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

Dinnerstein is so sloppy that he gets the name of a president of the United States wrong, referring to Benjamin Harrison as “President Benjamin Harris.”

In addition to editing out important facts that don’t match his agenda, Dinnerstein’s work is shoddy, unscientific, illogical, and full of unsupported assertions. The very beginning of Dinnerstein’s dissertation, on which his book was based — the very first paragraph — is a good example:

At the beginning of the twentieth century, rural Georgians migrated to Atlanta to enjoy the heralded advantages of industrialization. To their chagrin, they found harsh working conditions and squalid living quarters. Southern traditions, which glorified the Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage, and the bitter memories of the Lost Cause, complicated the newcomers’ reactions to urban life. Unable to retaliate against the industrialists whose colossal indifference caused them many hardships, the new urbanites vented their pent-up aggressions upon Negroes and other vulnerable ethnic groups.

…With the continued influx of immigrants, the new urbanites blamed the aliens for the uncontrollable forces now shaping their lives. The people found it impossible to assume responsibility for their own failure, and were unable to attribute their problems to impersonal forces or to groups with whom they identified. Hence, in a fashion characteristic of those unwilling to face reality, they responded to their difficulties with xenophobic outbursts. . …they seized upon one individual [Leo Frank] to pay for all of the crimes, real or fancied, which they believed had been inflicted upon them by northerners, industrialists, and Jews.

From the very beginning of his work, the highly-cited and fêted (and fetid) Dinnerstein wants us to see the Leo Frank case as an example — not of a perverted sex killer’s lust and rage ending the life of an innocent 13-year-old girl — but as a case of the deep psychological disturbances of “bitter” White Southerners “venting their pent-up aggressions” on “vulnerable ethnic groups.” Some of these mentally disturbed Whites, according to Dinnerstein, then “seized upon” Leo Frank and charged him with the murder of Mary Phagan in order to make him “pay for all of the crimes, real or fancied” that they imagined in their fevered, cracked brains. Can anyone still in possession of his or her senses take such psychobabble seriously, let alone regard it as “scholarly analysis” or see it as actual evidence in a serious criminal case?

Dinnerstein goes on and on about the vicious “anti-Semitism” of White people in Georgia for literally dozens of pages.

Dinnerstein typifies the Jewish fakers of history who honeycomb the academy and the media in the West. The man is vicious. He is prolific. He is verbose. He is backed by all the money there is and by a fake news and real publicity machine par excellence. But he is not credible and he is not even careful. And the courageous truth-tellers of National Vanguard and other alternative media have made major inroads in exposing his lies and the lies of the Jewish power structure.

Censorious, Jewish-run Google has been so enraged by our success in getting the truth out that they have tweaked their algorithms to demote our results when people use their search engine to find out about the Leo Frank case and other issues. Two years ago, our articles were appearing — even starting to dominate — Google searches on the case. Now they don’t. Worthless Dinnerstein does, though. Google has demoted truth-tellers and promoted Dinnerstein. On some non-Google search engines which haven’t (yet) instituted politically- and racially-motivated censorship, truth-tellers’ pages still appear on the first page of “Leo Frank case” search results.

Truth-telling pages, such as those from LeoFrank.info, The American Mercury, and National Vanguard, show up right on the first pages of search results for the terms “Leo Frank case.” It took a lot of hard work to achieve this.

But Google doesn’t feature any truth-tellers in its first page of results for the same search terms. They do, however, make a brazen push for their users to buy Leonard Dinnerstein’s worthless books, even though his name wasn’t included in the search query!

Since 2016, Google has openly admitted altering (that is, faking) its results to purposely disfavor sites to which powerful Jews object.

We are making a difference. The frauds, like Leonard Dinnerstein, are being relentlessly exposed. Our children now have a chance, if we keep up the fight, to know their true history and the truth about the enemies who want to kill them. With your help, our work can continue.

* * *

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/05...rstein-part-2/
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Old August 25th, 2018 #125
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
jewsign Did half of Georgia's 3,000 Jews exodus after Leo Frank the toilet strangler was convicted?

(I gotta say this part 3 of the four-part series was a brilliant expose of how Jews manipulate reality to their benefit, they got caught lying about demographics to push their anti-Gentile narrative)

Jewish Subversion of History: Leonard Dinnerstein, part 3

MAY 12, 2018

A young Wendell Rawls, Jr., a few years before becoming an enthusiastic disciple of Leonard Dinnerstein and the Jewish narrative on the Leo Frank case Wherein we discover what “Judenrating” is.

American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 12, 2018

Listen to the broadcast
by Kevin Alfred Strom

WHEN THE JEWS ran the administration of their own ghettos in German-occupied territories during World War 2, that administration was called the Judenrat. Among Jews, there’s quite a controversy over the actions of the Judenrat, since although some of these councils covertly impeded German efforts, including efforts to segregate Jews, others fully cooperated with the Germans in many things, some even helping to arrange for the identification and location of subversive or criminal Jews and arranging for their deportation — and Jews today generally allege that deportation was a synonym for extermination. Jews themselves, therefore, acknowledge that Judenrat leaders are guilty of exactly the same crimes against Jews for which Germans have been imprisoned, executed, and made to pay reparations for seven-tenths of a century now with no end in sight. Yet neither the Judenrat leaders nor their beneficiaries or descendants have spent a single day in jail for what even the Jews admit they did — they, in fact, have benefited just as much as any other Jew from the “Holocaust” racket that has been paying off plentifully since 1945.

A correspondent of mine has suggested, and I concur, that we should propose a new term — Judenrating, or let us perhaps Anglicize it to Judenrating — for the Jews’ inveterate habit of accusing Gentiles of the crimes of which they themselves are guilty — and guilty in the extreme. Leonard Dinnerstein and other Jews accuse Whites and other Gentiles of “hate” — but hate of non-Jews is the watchword of Jewish psychology — and of Judaism’s texts from the Torah to the Talmud — and of the mass media controlled by secular Jews who push hard for White genocide in every possible way.

Leonard Dinnerstein is the modern prophet of Judenrating. His work, beginning in the 1960s, reiterated and publicized, and clothed in pretended scholarship, the claim that Atlanta B’nai B’rith president Leo Max Frank was prosecuted and convicted of the sex murder of his sweatshop employee, 13-year-old Mary Phagan, solely because of pervasive Southern anti-Semitism. Despite his shoddy research and outright fraud, Dinnerstein has been massively influential in shaping the media’s portrayal and the public’s perception of Leo Frank, the murder case against him, and Southern White society.

Where Dinnerstein left off, others have taken up the Judenrating with enthusiasm.

Let’s look at one particularly ridiculous claim stemming from the Leo Frank case. It’s Dinnerstein’s disciples, not Dinnerstein himself as far as I have been able to discover, who have promoted this claim. The earliest evidence of it that I have seen comes from the New York Times and the Nashville Tennessean circa 1982, during the first promotion of the Alonzo Mann hoax, but if any intrepid researchers can find an earlier example, please let me know. The one man linking the Times and Tennessean pieces is one Wendell Rawls, Jr., who, like Dinnerstein, secured fame and “made” his career by being an advocate for the Jewish narrative on the Leo Frank case. Rawls received numerous awards and eventually rose to be the head of the leftist and Soros-linked “Center for Public Integrity.”

We’ve already established that “widespread Southern anti-Semitism” — supposedly so powerful and pervasive that it inspired Southern Whites to convict an innocent Jew and let a guilty Black murderer of a White girl go free — actually did not exist, and that outside of Israel there is no place, then and now, more philo-Semitic than the American South. Yet Dinnerstein’s disciples continue to vend the story that, in the wake of the Leo Frank case, literally half of the Jews in Georgia fled the state out of fear for their lives.

• A Jew named Neil Silberblatt in reviewing a work by another Jew, The Lynching of Leo Frank by Zvi A. Sesling, says “Frank’s lynching was the impetus for the creation of B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League in October 1913. It also resulted in the exodus of around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.” (Note also that they don’t even bother to research how many Jews were in Georgia at the time, which was more than three times the number claimed. They also place the lynching two years before it actually took place, and make a 1915 event the “impetus” for a 1913 “founding.”)

• The Jewish-controlled New York Times told us as long ago as 1982 that after Frank’s death, “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.”

• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that, after the Frank case, “Armed anti-Semitic mobs roamed the streets of Atlanta, forcing Jewish shopkeepers to board up their places of business. Jewish businesses were boycotted and about half the state’s 3,000 Jews reportedly moved away. Those events led to the formation of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.”

• The Times of Israel claims that “Half of the state’s Jews fled Georgia following the lynching.”

• A supposed encyclopedia of crime, Murderpedia, claims, echoing Wikipedia, that “After Frank’s lynching, approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

• The Writer’s Theatre states in their “The Trial That Divided America,” that “After the trial, 3,000 Jews fled Georgia out of fear.” This is really remarkable, because it would mean, if we accept the Jewish press’s fake Jewish population statistics, that every single Jew in Georgia fled the state!

• In a piece on the 100th anniversary of Leo Frank’s death, Jewish writer Greg Bluestein tells us in Georgia’s big newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that “As many as a half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled after the hanging.”

• The Jewish newspaper Haaretz ups the ante even more, stating in a piece on Jewish history, “More than half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state after Frank’s killing.” [emphasis added]

• A publication called Jewish Currents tells us, “The lynching led to the exodus from the state of about half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.”

• In 1994, Hadassah magazine’s travel guide for the state of Georgia made the claim too, saying “half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled the state.”

• Author Hal Erickson, ethnicity unknown (Jews often take on Gentile sounding last names), immediately after quoting Leonard Dinnerstein in his book Any Resemblance to Actual Persons, breathlessly informs us “Those not directly connected with the [Frank] case did their part by fomenting so much anti-Semitic vitriol that nearly half of the 3000 Jews in Atlanta moved out of the city.” (Now all 3,000 are in Atlanta alone! How confusing, and Orwellian, it is to accept all these mutually contradictory claims.)

• Criminology Professor Randy Blazak of Portland State University states in his video on Frank that “half of 3,000 Jews who lived in Georgia fled the state.”

I am beginning to get the impression that all of these people are reading from the same script, have an agenda that doesn’t include fidelity to the truth, and don’t give a damn whether the script is true or not.

Jewish activists hover constantly over the Leo Frank page on Wikipedia, lest any truth-tellers add any information exposing the Jewish frauds and exaggerations vended by Dinnerstein and his ilk. Such deviations from the Jewish narrative about Frank are quickly and ruthlessly deleted, sometimes within minutes of being posted. Wikipedia repeats the lie about half of Georgia’s Jews having to flee the state (and that lie has been on Wikipedia for years without being deleted). Wikipedia states flatly that:

After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.

Wikipedia’s claimed “source” for this claim is a book by an evidently non-Jewish historian, Athan Theoharis, and another probable non-Jew, John Stuart Cox, entitled The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition. But an examination of this “source” indicates that it is ludicrously unreliable and flat-out wrong even in its brief summation of the Frank case.



The authors say that Leo Frank “was convicted in 1915” — wrong: He was convicted in 1913, two years earlier. The authors say Mary Phagan was fourteen when she died — wrong: She was thirteen. The authors say Frank was convicted on the “sole testimony” of Jim Conley — wrong: There were dozens of witnesses. The authors declare without even mention of proof as if it was established fact that Conley “was, in fact, the killer” — wrong: There is a great deal of controversy, even among Frank apologists, surrounding that claim. Four whoppers in just two sentences — Cox and Theoharis may not be Jews, but they are hacks, and they obviously know on which side their bread is buttered. Such is the legacy of Dinnerstein’s corruption of scholarship, and Jewish corruption of scholarship generally. Such trash would deserve a grade of “F” as a high school essay, yet it is published by Temple University Press, and its author sits as a “professor of history emeritus” at Marquette University.

Well, what of this widespread claim that half of Georgia’s Jews left the state in fear for their lives after the “horrific outbreak” of anti-Semitism evidenced by Leo Frank’s “terrible persecution”? Is this claim backed up by evidence? Is there even a hint anywhere besides among Leonard Dinnerstein’s Judenrating disciples that it might be true?

Let’s look at the American Jewish Year Book, published in 1921, which gives population statistics for every state in the Union for the years 1907 — before the Frank case happened — and 1918, three years after his lynching. According to the Year Book, in 1907 there were 9,300 Jews in Georgia. Eleven years later, in 1918, there were 22,414 Jews in the state — well over a 100 percent. increase! If the Jewish claims are true and there were about 10,000 Jews at the outset of the Leo Frank case — and half of them fled Georgia to save their lives after Frank was lynched — and considering that Jewish immigrants arriving in Georgia were only around 200 per year — then those 5,000 Jews supposedly left behind in 1915 would have to have had more than 15,000 children in three years, more than quadrupling their numbers in 36 months! That would be like the average American family going from a man and a wife and a child this year to a man, a wife, and ten children in just three years’ time. That cannot happen. The Jews have been caught in a brazen lie again.

Is it beginning to dawn on you that you’ve been conned? Is it beginning to become obvious that the entire Jewish narrative on the Leo Frank case — the case that began the modern Jewish assault on truth and on the minds and souls and consciences of White Americans — is a tissue of easily-disproven lies?

On our next program about Jewish history distortion, we’ll discuss the Jewish weaknesses exposed by their repeated pattern of the falsification of news and the falsification of history. That’s all right here on American Dissident Voices.

* * *

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/05...rstein-part-3/
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Old August 25th, 2018 #126
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
jewsign Is jewish supremacist Leonard Dinnerstein a link in the jews' centenary web of lies?

(Part 4 of the four-part series was a grandslam, he really hit this one out of the park. The whole series taken together was extremely educational about how the traditional enemies of Western Civilization weave their open-faced lies. There can be no doubt, the jews' narrative on the Leo Frank case is based entirely on self-serving frauds, anti-Gentilism and us-versus-them tribal-supremacist narratives, as one writer best described it.)

Jewish Subversion of History: Leonard Dinnerstein, part 4

MAY 19, 2018

Apparently, Dinnerstein’s gold-plated prose are in such demand that his works go through edition after edition. Study and decide for yourself if that is due to merit — or Jewish nepotism and influence.

American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 19, 2018

Listen to the broadcast
by Kevin Alfred Strom

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/05...rstein-part-4/

LEONARD DINNERSTEIN is called a “historian” by the media and the academy. There are better words to describe him. The main focus of his life has been to indict, try, and convict the White people of the South of hysterical, unreasoning, anti-Jewish hatred — and blame these psychologically damaged White people for charging and prosecuting an innocent, angelic Jewish sweatshop operator, Leo Frank, for the sex murder of a 13-year-old White girl, Mary Phagan, in one of the most significant murder cases of the 20th century.

Leonard Dinnerstein, with the help of his fellow tribesmen in the media and elsewhere, got away with his falsification of history — his Judenrating — for half a century. But now that we the people can easily do our own research and read contemporary accounts and original documents for ourselves, we can see that there is a great deal of evidence — overwhelming evidence — that Leo Frank, who was president of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith, was in the habit of treating the mostly teenage girls who worked in his sweatshop as his sexual playthings, and that Mary Phagan was killed by him when she resisted his advances. An additional problem for Leonard Dinnerstein is that — even though he is lauded by his fellow tribesmen as the “great expert” on the Leo Frank case — he is so slapdash and careless in his lies and fabrications that in the end, his legacy will be 1) to irreparably harm the cause of Leo Frank he so passionately wanted to help, and 2) to help awaken millions of people to the distortions of history perpetrated, not just by Dinnerstein, but by the entire Jewish power structure.

Dinnerstein does his dirty work mostly in print, but in 2009 he appeared on camera in a pro-Frank (what else could it be?) documentary called The People v. Leo Frank. It’s viewable on YouTube. (Interestingly, a large number of the comments on the video and its trailer show beyond all doubt that people are waking up.) A review of the film states in part:

In this documentary, Leonard Dinnerstein is caught red-handed falsifying legal records on camera, about Leo Frank being the first in telling the police [that factory sweeper] Jim Conley could write. [This is important because it eventually came out that Jim Conley wrote, at Leo Frank’s request, the notes that were found by the body.] The official Leo Frank trial Brief of Evidence (1913) and the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Case records provide definitive proof [of how the police found out about Conley’s literacy]. . . .

Leonard Dinnerstein in a video interview segment [at approximately 22 minutes into the film], makes authoritative[-sounding] comments on the interrogation of Jim Conley by the Atlanta Police. Dinnerstein states to Director Ben Loeterman [who is also a Jew]: “They [the Atlanta Police] asked [Jim Conley] about the notes; he said, ‘I can't read and write.’ That happened to come up in a conversation between the police and Frank, and Frank said, ‘of course he can write, I know he can write, he used to borrow money from me and sign promissory notes’ — so Conley had not been completely honest with the police.”

Dinnerstein is clearly implying that Leo Frank was the one who told police that Conley could write, thus putting a major break in the case right in the hands of the detectives. He does the same thing in his book, though the alleged quote from Leo Frank is entirely different, stating on page 22:

The authorities had not considered Conley a serious suspect until they discovered that he could write. The Negro sweeper had originally denied his ability to read and write, but the news that he could eventually reached Harry Scott of the Pinkertons because of a chance remark made in front of Leo Frank. “I know he can write,” Frank said, “I have received many notes from him asking me to loan him money.” Scott immediately confronted Conley with this information. Forced to write, the Negro penned a duplicate of the murder notes that appeared almost identical to the originals.

The problem for Dinnerstein, now that people can read original, contemporary accounts of the case from people who were there, is that his made-up stories can easily be debunked. Here’s the real story of how detective Harry Scott found out that Jim Conley could write, as reported by journalist Britt Craig, who personally interviewed the people directly involved, for the Atlanta Constitution of July 13, 1913:

Conley had maintained that he was illiterate—couldn’t even write his name, and as this seemed the only vulnerable spot in his story, Scott told him he probably was a liar.

At least, it was the only thing about the negro that could plausibly be discredited. On the theory that every negro who owns a wife and home as Conley owned, possesses furniture bought on the installment plan, the two sleuths cast about for some contract to which the black man could possibly have attached his signature.

They visited third-rate furniture stores, business houses, and jewelry shops. The search was fruitless. The signature of Conley was as missing as the secret of the Sphinx. Scott was prepared to abandon his hunch on the doorsteps of failure, when Fate—not a thirst—took them to the vicinity of a saloon near Five Points.

Providence—and not the bouncer—urged a gentleman in Panama and white shoes, and with the oily air of a collector, gently through the doorway. He stepped to the sidewalk and recognized Black. He greeted and shook a disconsolate hand.

“You’ve got a nigger down at police station I’d certainly like to see,” he announced.

“What nigger?” said Black, promoting conversation.

“That Conley nigger?”

Something bright and dazzling flashed through Scott’s hunch-ridden brain as he noticed the batch of bills carefully folded in the person’s coat pocket.

The hunch told him to collar the oily individual and search his batch of bills. He did, at the oily one’s consent. A single glance revealed a contract issued to Jim Conley. A second glance revealed the negro’s name, scrawled in a characteristic hand all over the signee’s line.

Scott’s hunch had been fulfilled. It had guided him to a specimen of the black sweeper’s handwriting—two words in barely legible script that proved the negro a liar three ways from breakfast. It has since proved the means of lifting the Phagan secret from the mire of mystery.

The contract was signed by Conley more than twelve months ago for a watch he had bought from a jewelry firm. It is now in possession of the solicitor general, and likely will be produced as evidence in the coming trial of Leo Frank.

What followed its discovery was the most successful third degree ever operated at police headquarters. Scott and Black showed the signature to the solicitor general, detective chief, and Chief Beavers.

Then, they showed it to Conley.

It was on a Sunday afternoon. The police station was dull and drowsy and a sleepy atmosphere pervaded the building. Even the inevitable newspaper reporter was absent. Scott and Black took the prisoner into the little 6×8 “sweatbox” and sat him where the light could play full on his face.

Scott locked the door and threw the key over the transom. Black pulled off his coat, let down his suspenders and put cigarettes conveniently near. Conley blinked at the light and wondered what was coming off.

Scott pulled a mysterious something from his pocket and laid it on the table. It was a folded bit of paper, and he smiled significantly as it left his hand. Conley grimaced and shifted a leg.

“Well, Jim, we’ve got the deadwood on you. Better cough up and tell us something.”

“Honest, white folks, I swear ’fore God and High heaven I don’t know a thing.” His plea was pathetic in its apparent sincerity.

“But we know better. The quicker you tell, the better off you’ll be. Kick in, Jim—kick in. It’s the best for you.”

“I can’t kick,” protested the negro. “I ain’t got nothin’ to kick for.”

Scott stepped to the table and pointed at the folded slip.

“You see that! It’s enough to hang you. You don’t know what it is, and you couldn’t guess in a year. It’s dead-wood, nigger. It’s a dead-wood. You’d better kick through or we’ll pull it on you.”

The negro studied the slip intently. He was sorely puzzled. Great drops of sweat rolled down his face and his fingers twitched nervously. His very air betrayed guilt.

“Listen,” said Scott. “Can you write?”

“Naw, sir, I can’t. I never could.”

“Will you swear it?”

“I shore will.”

“Do you know the penalty for perjury?”

“Naw, sir—what is it?”

“Twenty years in the gang—maybe more.”

“What’s perjury?”

“Swearing a lie.”

“But I ain’t goin’ to swear no lie.”

“You will if you swear you can’t write. Here! Look at this.”

The Pinkerton man unfolded the mysterious slip. It was the contract. The negro noted the signature with a betraying flash of recognition.

“How could you sign this if you couldn’t write?”

Conley was wordless for minutes. He stared dumbly out the window and twisted his fingers. Suddenly, he exclaimed:

“White folks, I’m a liar!”

(Besides the bill collector, another person who told the police that Jim Conley could write — long before Leo Frank mentioned it — was E.F. Holloway, the day watchman at Frank’s pencil factory.) You will note that there is nothing whatever in the account about Leo Frank being the great hero and letting the police know that Conley could write. It was only later that Frank admitted as much — he and his allies had initially been trying to frame Newt Lee and had been very, very silent about Jim Conley, since they knew Conley was an accessory in the case and could hurt Frank. Frank kept Conley’s literacy a guarded secret until well after Harry Scott had found out about it. When the Frank forces failed to frame Lee and began to frame Conley, however, there was no longer anything to be gained by silence. Reading Leonard Dinnerstein’s supposedly exhaustive and authoritative works, you would learn nothing of this. Dinnerstein is hiding the truth from us.

Dinnerstein also states at about the 52-minute mark in the People v. Leo Frank documentary:

No one in the Jewish community in Atlanta publicly commented about Frank’s innocence or guilt, or about the nature of the trial, even though the Jewish community was incensed.

That’s yet another sloppy and easily-debunked lie from Dinnerstein. Anyone who has read the newspaper coverage in the Atlanta daily newspapers, before and during and after the trial of Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, knows that there are innumerable cases of Jews stating publicly that Frank was innocent and “couldn’t be guilty,” including some statements made in open court, and including the public statements of Atlanta’s Rabbi Marx who was quoted in the documentary just seconds after Dinnerstein’s whopper — and in fact, in one case the very Jewish Rhea Frank, Leo Frank’s mother, called prosecutor Hugh Dorsey a “Gentile dog” in open court because she objected to a line of questioning that suggested that Leo Frank might have made inappropriate sexual advances on the young girls in his employ. This episode was widely reported and certainly, Leonard Dinnerstein, knows about it (and all the others). It was even documented by some of the less reckless Jewish authors, such as Harry Golden.

Why are Jews like Dinnerstein so careless and incompetent in their falsifications? Why so brazen? The simple answer is that they overestimate their own considerable abilities, and they massively underestimate us. Many of us are smart enough to figure out their game. Their own hatred and contempt for non-Jews blinds them to the intelligence and discernment and dedication and persistence of the better class of Whites. Their own unjustified hatred and contempt will be their own undoing, as it has been in the past.

So, after learning how a Jewish “academic,” Leonard Dinnerstein, can brazenly lie to you about an important episode in your history — after learning of his shoddy research and his glaring, deliberate omissions, and his laughably unconvincing arguments — after seeing that such a man, whose work doesn’t even justify a passing grade in high school, enjoying a half-century-long career in the history departments of accredited universities (whose faculties and administrations are famously honeycombed with disproportionate numbers of members of his tribe) — after you see such a bumbler and liar treated for decade upon decade as though he is not only an authority, but the leading authority on the Leo Frank case, constantly quoted and re-quoted in books, films, newspapers, magazines, and academic journals (almost all of which are, again, overwhelmingly owned or dominated by members of his tribe) — are you finally willing to admit that there is a Jewish effort here — ham-handed as it may be, but relentless and ubiquitous as it certainly is — to control your thinking and force you to come to conclusions about the Leo Frank case that are starkly opposed to the facts?

What does it tell you about the magnitude of this Jewish effort — or, let’s be totally honest and call it a conspiracy, for what they have done and are doing fully deserves that word — what does it tell you about the magnitude and power and entrenchment of that conspiracy when you see that it began in 1913, half a century before Leonard Dinnerstein became its leading light, and continues to this very day — another 50 years later — with no sign of stopping? What does it tell you about that conspiracy when you realize that until very recently — before the National Alliance and the American Mercury and the Leo Frank Case Research Library and now the Nation of Islam started telling the truth about it — everything you had ever heard or seen or read or been taught about the Leo Frank case was essentially a grotesque inversion of reality? — that you were systematically denied important facts about our history and taught — falsely — that your people, White people, are congenitally psychologically disturbed, hateful, and even murderously evil; that you were prevented from hearing the other side of the case, the side of the juries and the judges in every single court of jurisdiction in the land right up to United States Supreme Court? What kind of power can suppress the point of view even of the leading jurists of this country and prevent you from hearing from them? — prevent you from hearing the evidence that convinced them?

I’ll tell you what kind of power: power in the service of evil. People who will deliberately lie to you about your own history do not have your best interests at heart. And when you realize that this same group — this same tribe — Leonard Dinnerstein’s tribe — is also behind the hushing up of horrible crimes against White people; is also behind the push for open borders; is also behind the “migrant” invasion which constitutes replacement migration — replacement of us with Third Worlders in our own lands; is also behind the demonization and criminalization of any who resist their efforts; is also behind the push to convince our young people to engage in abortion, race-mixing, and sex perversion — to engage in any kind of abnormal sex, so long as it does not result in the birth of White children; when you realize all of these things, when you see the evil that is being done, and you are a man or woman of quality, integrity, and responsibility — you will join with us to fight that evil.

* * *

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/05...rstein-part-4/
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Old August 25th, 2018 #127
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
Thumbs up Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3: The Leo Frank Case, Lynching of a Guilty Man

The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3, The Leo Frank Case, The Lynching of a Guilty Man, By The Nation of Islam Research Group (2016). An audiobook with commentary, read by Alex Linder (2017).

https://archive.org/details/nation-o...f-a-guilty-man
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Old October 19th, 2018 #128
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,907
Robbie Key
Default

American Pravda: The ADL in American Society

RON UNZ • OCTOBER 15, 2018 • 7,300 WORDS • 524 COMMENTS • REPLY


13-year-old Mary Phagan, the girl raped and murdered by Leo Frank, the founding hero of the ADL

In our modern era, there are surely few organizations that so terrify powerful Americans as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a central organ of the organized Jewish community.

Mel Gibson had long been one of the most popular stars in Hollywood and his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ became among the most profitable in world history, yet the ADL and its allies destroyed his career, and he eventually donated millions of dollars to Jewish groups in desperate hopes of regaining some of his public standing. When the ADL criticized a cartoon that had appeared in one of his newspapers, media titan Rupert Murdoch provided his personal apology to that organization, and the editors of The Economist quickly retracted a different cartoon once it came under ADL fire. Billionaire Tom Perkins, a famed Silicon Valley venture capitalist, was forced to issue a heartfelt apology after coming under ADL criticism for his choice of words in a Wall Street Journal column. These were all proud, powerful individuals, and they must have deeply resented being forced to seek such abject public forgiveness, but they did so nonetheless. The total list of ADL supplicants over the years is a very long one.

Given the fearsome reputation of the ADL and its notorious hair-trigger activists, there was a widespread belief that my small webzine would be completely annihilated when I first launched my recent series of controversial articles in early June by praising the works of historian David Irving, a figure long demonized by the ADL. Yet absolutely nothing happened.

During the next three months my subsequent articles directly challenged nearly every hot-button issue normally so fiercely defended by the ADL and its lackies, so much so that a friendly journalist soon described me as the “Kamikaze from California.” Yet despite my 90,000 words of text and the 13,000 comments I had attracted, the continuing silence of the ADL was absolutely deafening. Meanwhile, my articles were read more than half a million times, with the following being a list of the most provocative pieces:

The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving
June 4, 2018 • 1,700 Words • 570 Comments
American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?
June 25, 2018 • 8,000 Words • 985 Comments
American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion
July 16, 2018 • 7,800 Words • 1,637 Comments
American Pravda: The Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath
July 23, 2018 • 6,900 Words • 913 Comments
American Pravda: The Nature of Anti-Semitism
July 30, 2018 • 5,500 Words • 666 Comments
American Pravda: Jews and Nazis
August 6, 2018 • 6,800 Words • 554 Comments
American Pravda: Holocaust Denial
August 27, 2018 • 17,600 Words • 2,323 Comments
American Pravda: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
September 10, 2018 • 11,000 Words • 2,355 Comments

When divine wrath fails to smite the heretic and terrifying enforcers of official dogma seem to have suddenly lost their taste for battle, others gradually begin to take notice and may grow emboldened. Eventually leading pro-Russian and Libertarian websites such as Russia Insider and LewRockwell began republishing some of my most controversial American Pravda articles, thus bringing my factual claims to the attention of broader audiences. After the conclusion of the my series, I began directly ridiculing my strangely timorous ADL opponents, publishing a short column entitled “Has the ADL Gone Into Hiding?” which led the redoubtable Paul Craig Roberts to describe me as “the bravest man I know.”

Apparently the combination of all these factors at long last grew too worrisome for the ADL, and stirring from their secret hiding place, its activists have now finally released a short and rather milquetoast response to my material, one which hardly much impresses me. A few days ago, they Tweeted out their column, together with a photo of their new nemesis.

The ADL may boast an annual budget of $60 million and have many hundreds of full-time employees, but its research skills seem sorely lacking. I discovered that they opened their rebuke by denouncing me as a notorious “anti-immigrant activist.” This seems an extremely odd claim given that I have published perhaps a quarter-million words on that contentious topic over the last twenty-five years, nearly all of it online and fully searchable, and my views have never been characterized in that fashion. To cite just one example, my article “California and the End of White America” appeared as a 1999 cover-story in Commentary, the flagship publication of The American Jewish Committee, and surely anyone reading it would be greatly puzzled by the ADL’s description. Indeed, just a few years earlier, I had been a top featured speaker at the October 1994 pro-immigrant protest in downtown Los Angeles, a 70,000 strong political rally that was the largest such gathering in American history to that date.

Over the years, my political activities have been the subject of many thousands of articles in the mainstream media, including a half-dozen front-page stories in the New York Times, and these would provide a similar picture, as did the New Republic cover story chronicling my California successes. Moreover, my views on immigrants haven’t changed all that much over the years as demonstrated by my more recent articles such as “The Myth of Hispanic Crime,” “Immigration, Republicans, and the End of White America” and “A Grand Bargain on Immigration?” Perhaps the intrepid ADL investigators should acquaint themselves with a powerful new technological tool called “Google.”

I was equally unimpressed that they so hotly denounced me for substantially relying upon the writings of Israel Shahak, whom they characterized as viciously “anti-Semitic.” As I had repeatedly emphasized, my own total lack of Aramaic and Hebrew necessarily forces me to rely upon the research of others, and the late Prof. Shahak, an award-winning Israeli academic, certainly seems a fine source to use. After all, famed linguist Noam Chomsky had lauded Shahak’s works for their “outstanding scholarship,” and numerous of our other most prominent public intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Edward Said, and Gore Vidal had been similarly lavish in their praise. Furthermore, one of Shahak’s co-authors was Norton Mezvinsky, a prominent American academic specializing in Middle Eastern history, himself hardly an obscure figure given that both his brother and sister-in-law served in Congress and his nephew later married Chelsea Clinton. And as far as I’m aware almost none of Shahak’s explicit claims about the Talmud or traditional Judaism have ever been directly challenged, while the online availability of his first book allows those so interested to conveniently read it and decide for themselves.

The ADL similarly denounced me for taking seriously the theories of Ariel Toeff, another Israeli academic. But Prof. Toeff, son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, certainly ranks as one of the world’s leading scholarly authorities on Medieval Jewry, and working together with his graduate students and other colleagues, he had devoted many years of effort to the research study in question, drawing upon extensive primary and secondary sources produced in eight different languages. I found his 500 page book quite persuasive, as did Israeli journalist Israel Shamir, and I have seen no credible rebuttals.

Now the work of all these prominent academics and intellectuals may not necessarily be correct, and perhaps I am mistaken in accepting their factual claims. But I would need to see something far more weighty than a casual dismissal in a few paragraphs contained within an anonymous ADL column, whose author for all I know might have been some ignorant young intern.

Those glaring flaws aside, most of the ADL’s remaining catalogue of my numerous heretical positions seemed reasonably accurate, though obviously presented in a somewhat hostile and derogatory fashion and sorely lacking any links to my original pieces. But even this desultory listing of my mortal transgressions was woefully incomplete, with the ADL strangely failing to include mention of some of my most controversial claims.

For example, the authors excluded all reference to my discussion of the thoroughly documented Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s, which played such a crucial role in laying the basis for the State of Israel. And the ADL similarly avoided mentioning the nearly 20,000 words I had allocated to discussing the very considerable evidence that the Israeli Mossad had played a central role in both the JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks. Surely this must be one of the few times that the ADL has deliberately avoided leveling the charge of “conspiracy theorist” against an opponent whom they might have so easily slurred in that fashion. Perhaps they felt the evidence I provided was too strong for them to effectively challenge.

The worrisome incompetence of ADL researchers becomes particularly alarming when we consider that over the last couple of years that organization has been elevated into a content gatekeeping role at America’s largest Internet companies, helping to determine what may or may not be said on the most important Social Media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

My local paper is the San Jose Mercury News and a couple of weeks ago it published a major profile interview with Brittan Heller, the ADL Director tasked with policing “hate speech” across the America-dominated portions of the Internet. She seemed like a perfectly pleasant young woman in her mid-thirties, a Stanford English major and a graduate of Yale Law, now living in Silicon Valley with her husband and her two cats, Luna and Stella. She emphasizes her own experience as a victim of cyber-harassment from a fellow college student whose romantic overtures she rejected and the later expertise she had gained as a Nazi-hunter for the U.S. government. But does that resume really provide her with the god-like knowledge suitable for overriding our traditional First Amendment rights and determining which views and which individuals should be allowed access to some two billion readers worldwide?

There is also a far more serious aspect to the situation. The choice of the ADL as the primary ideological overseer of America’s Internet may seem natural and appropriate to politically-ignorant Americans, a category that unfortunately includes the technology executives leading the companies involved. But this reflects the remarkable cowardice and dishonesty of the American media from which all these individuals derive their knowledge of our world. The true recent history of the ADL is a remarkably sordid and disreputable tale.

In January 1993, the San Francisco Police Department reported that it had recently raided the Northern California headquarters of the ADL based upon information provided by the FBI. The SFPD discovered that the organization had been keeping intelligence files on more than 600 civic organizations and 10,000 individuals, overwhelmingly of a liberal orientation, with the SFPD inspector estimating that 75% of the material had been illegally obtained, much of it by secret payments to police officials. This was merely the tip of the iceberg in what clearly amounted to the largest domestic spying operation by any private organization in American history, and according to some sources, ADL agents across the country had targeted over 1,000 political, religious, labor, and civil rights organizations, with the New York headquarters of the ADL maintaining active dossiers on more than a million Americans.

Not long afterward, an ACLU official who had previously held a high-ranking position with the ADL revealed in an interview that his organization had been the actual source of the highly controversial 1960s surveillance on Martin Luther King, Jr., which it had then provided to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. For many years Hoover had been furiously denounced in the national media headlines for his use of tapes and other secret information on King’s activities, but when a local San Francisco newspaper revealed that an ADL spying operation had actually been the source of all that sordid material, the bombshell revelation was totally ignored in the national media and only reported by fringe organizations, so that today almost no Americans are aware of that fact.

I am not aware of any other private organization in American history that has been involved in even a sliver of such illegal domestic espionage activity, which appears to have been directed against almost all groups and prominent individuals—Left, Right, and Center—suspected of being insufficiently aligned with Jewish and Israeli interests. Some of the illegal material found in ADL possession even raised dark suspicions that it had played a role in domestic terrorist attacks and political assassinations directed against foreign leaders. I am no legal expert, but given the massive scale of such illegal ADL activities, I wonder whether a plausible case might have been made to prosecute the entire organization under RICO statutes and sentence all of its leaders to long prison terms.

Instead, the resulting government charges were quickly settled with merely a trivial fine and a legal slap on the wrist, demonstrating the near-total impunity provided by massive Jewish political power in modern American society.

In effect, the ADL seems to have long operated as our country’s privatized secret political police, monitoring and enforcing its ideological doctrines on behalf of Jewish groups much as the Stasi did for the Communist rulers of East Germany. Given such a long history of criminal activity, allowing the ADL to extend its oversight to our largest Social Media platforms amounts to appointing the Mafia to supervise the FBI and the NSA, or taking a very large step towards implementing George Orwell’s ” Ministry of Truth” on behalf of Jewish interests.

In his 1981 memoirs, the far right Classics scholar Revilo P. Oliver characterized the ADL as “the formidable organization of Jewish cowboys who ride herd on their American cattle” and this seems a reasonably apt description to me.

Although I had long recognized the power and influence of the ADL, a leading Jewish-activist organization whose leaders were so regularly quoted in my newspapers, until rather recently I had only the vaguest notions of its origins. I’m sure I’d heard the story mentioned at some points, but the account had never stuck in my mind.

Then perhaps a year or two ago, I happened to come across some discussion of the ADL’s 2013 centenary celebration, in which the leadership reaffirmed the principles of its 1913 founding. The initial impetus had been the vain national effort to save the life of Leo Frank, a young Southern Jew unjustly accused of murder and eventually lynched. Not long before, Frank’s name and story would have been equally vague in my mind, with the man half-remembered from my introductory history textbooks as one of the most notable early KKK victims in the fiercely anti-Semitic Deep South of the early twentieth century. However, not long before seeing that piece on the ADL I’d read Albert Lindemann’s highly-regarded study The Jew Accused, and his short chapter on the notorious Frank case had completely exploded all my preconceptions.

First, Lindemann demonstrated that there was no evidence of any anti-Semitism behind Frank’s arrest and conviction, with Jews constituting a highly-valued element of the affluent Atlanta society of the day, and no references to Frank’s Jewish background, negative or otherwise, appearing in the media prior to the trial. Indeed, five of the Grand Jurors who voted to indict Frank for murder were themselves Jewish, and none of them ever voiced regret over their decision. In general, support for Frank seems to have been strongest among Jews from New York and other distant parts of the country and weakest among the Atlanta Jews with best knowledge of the local situation.

Furthermore, although Lindemann followed the secondary sources he relied upon in declaring that Frank was clearly innocent of the charges of rape and murder, the facts he recounted led me to the opposite conclusion, seeming to suggest strong evidence of Frank’s guilt. When I much more recently read Lindemann’s longer and more comprehensive historical study of anti-Semitism, Esau’s Tears, I noticed that his abbreviated treatment of the Frank case no longer made any claim of innocence, perhaps indicating that the author himself might have also had second thoughts about the weight of the evidence.

Based on this material, I voiced that opinion in my recent article on historical anti-Semitism, but my conclusions were necessarily quite tentative since they relied upon Lindermann’s summary of the information provided in the secondary sources he had used, and I had the impression that virtually all those who had closely investigated the Frank case had concluded that Frank was innocent. But after my piece appeared, someone pointed me to a 2016 book from an unexpected source arguing for Frank’s guilt. Now that I have ordered and read that volume, my understanding of the Frank case and its historical significance has been entirely transformed.

Mainstream publishers may often reject books that too sharply conflict with reigning dogma and sales of such works are unlikely to justify the extensive research required to produce the manuscript. Furthermore, both authors and publishers may face widespread vilification from a hostile media for taking such positions. For these reasons, those who publish such controversial material will often be acting from deep ideological motives rather than merely seeking professional advancement or monetary gain. As an example, it took a zealous Trotskyite leftist such as Lenni Brunner to brave the risk of ferocious attacks and invest the time and effort to produce his remarkable study of the crucial Nazi-Zionist partnership of the 1930s. And for similar reasons, we should not be totally surprised that the leading book arguing for the guilt of Leo Frank appeared as a volume in the series on the pernicious aspects of Jewish-Black historical relations produced by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI), nor that the text lacked any identified author.

Anonymous works published by heavily-demonized religious-political movements naturally engender considerable caution, but once I began reading the 500 pages of The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man I was tremendously impressed by the quality of the historical analysis. I think I have only very rarely encountered a research monograph on a controversial historical event that provided such an enormous wealth of carefully-argued analysis backed by such copious evidence. The authors seemed to display complete mastery of the major secondary literature of the last one hundred years while drawing very heavily upon the various primary sources, including court records, personal correspondence, and contemporaneous publications, with the overwhelming majority of the 1200 footnotes referencing newspaper and magazine articles of that era. The case they made for Frank’s guilt seemed absolutely overwhelming.

The basic outline of events is not disputed. In 1913 Georgia, a 13-year-old pencil company worker named Mary Phagan was last seen alive visiting the office of factory manager Leo Frank on a Saturday morning to collect her weekly paycheck, while her raped and murdered body was found in the basement early the next morning and Frank eventually arrested for the crime. As the wealthy young president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, Frank ranked as one of the most prominent Jewish men in the South, and great resources were deployed in his legal defense, but after the longest and most expensive trial in state history, he was quickly convicted and sentenced to death.

The facts of the case against Frank eventually became a remarkable tangle of complex and often conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony, with sworn statements regularly being retracted and then counter-retracted. But the crucial point that the NOI authors emphasize for properly deciphering this confusing situation is the enormous scale of the financial resources that were deployed on Frank’s behalf, both prior to the trial and afterward, with virtually all of the funds coming from Jewish sources. Currency conversions are hardly precise, but relative to the American family incomes of the time, the total expenditures by Frank supporters may have been as high as $25 million in present-day dollars, quite possibly more than any other homicide defense in American history before or after, and an almost unimaginable sum for the impoverished Deep South of that period. Years later, a leading donor privately admitted that much of this money was spent on perjury and similar falsifications, something which is very readily apparent to anyone who closely studies the case. When we consider this vast ocean of pro-Frank funding and the sordid means for which it was often deployed, the details of the case become far less mysterious. There exists a mountain of demonstrably fabricated evidence and false testimony in favor of Frank, and no sign of anything similar on the other side.

The police initially suspected the black night watchman who found the girl’s body, and he was quickly arrested and harshly interrogated. Soon afterward, a bloody shirt was found at his home, and Frank made several statements that seemed to implicate his employee in the crime. At one point, this black suspect may have come close to being summarily lynched by a mob, which would have closed the case. But he stuck to his story of innocence with remarkable composure, in sharp contrast to Frank’s extremely nervous and suspicious behavior, and the police soon shifted their scrutiny toward the latter, culminating in his arrest. All researchers now recognize that the night watchman was entirely innocent, and the material against him planted.

The evidence against Frank steadily mounted. He was the last man known to have seen the young victim and he repeatedly changed important aspects of his story. Numerous former female employees reported his long history of sexually aggressive behavior toward them, especially directed towards the murdered girl herself. At the time of the murder, Frank claimed to have been working alone in his office, but a witness who went there reported he had been nowhere to be found. A vast amount of circumstantial evidence implicated Frank.

A black Frank family servant soon came forward with sworn testimony that Frank had confessed the murder to his wife on the morning after the killing, and this claim seemed supported by the latter’s strange refusal to visit her husband in jail for the first two weeks after the day of his arrest.

Two separate firms of experienced private detectives were hired by Frank’s lavishly-funded partisans, and the agents of both eventually came to the reluctant conclusion that Frank was guilty as charged.

As the investigation moved forward, a major break occurred as a certain Jim Conley, Frank’s black janitor, came forward and confessed to having been Frank’s accomplice in concealing the crime. At the trial he testified that Frank had regularly enlisted him as a lookout during his numerous sexual liaisons with his female employees, and after murdering Phagan, had then offered him a huge sum of money to help remove and hide the body in the basement so that the crime could be pinned upon someone else. But with the legal noose tightening around Frank, Conley had begun to fear that he might be made the new scapegoat, and went to the authorities in order to save his own neck. Despite Conley’s damning accusations, Frank repeatedly refused to confront him in the presence of the police, which was widely seen as further proof of Frank’s guilt.

By the time of the trial itself, all sides were agreed that the murderer was either Frank, the wealthy Jewish businessman, or Conley, the semi-literate black janitor with a first-grade education and a long history of public drunkenness and petty crime. Frank’s lawyers exploited this comparison to the fullest, emphasizing Frank’s Jewish background as evidence for his innocence and indulging in the crudest sort of racial invective against his black accuser, whom they claimed was obviously the true rapist and murderer due to his bestial nature.

Those attorneys were the best that money could buy and the lead counsel was known as the one of the most skilled courtroom interrogators in the South. But although he subjected Conley to a grueling sixteen hours of intense cross-examination over three days, the latter never wavered in the major details of his extremely vivid story, which deeply impressed the local media and the jury. Meanwhile, Frank refused to take the stand at his own trial, thereby avoiding any public cross-examination of his often changing account.

Two notes written in crude black English had been discovered alongside Phagan’s body, and everyone soon agreed that these were written by the murderer in hopes of misdirecting suspicion. So they were either written by a semi-literate black such as Conley or by an educated white attempting to imitate that style, and to my mind, the spelling and choice of words strongly suggests the latter, thereby implicating Frank.

Taking a broader overview, the theory advanced by Frank’s legion of posthumous advocates seems to defy rationality. These journalists and scholars uniformly argue that Conley, a semi-literate black menial, had brutally raped and murdered a young white girl, and the legal authorities soon became aware of this fact, but conspired to set him free by supporting a complex and risky scheme to instead frame an innocent white businessman. Can we really believe that the police officials and prosecutors of a city in the Old South would have violated their oath of office in order to knowingly protect a black rapist and killer from legal punishment and thereby turn him loose upon their city streets, presumably to prey on future young white girls? This implausible reconstruction is particularly bizarre in that nearly all its advocates across the decades have been the staunchest of Jewish liberals, who endlessly condemned the horrific racism of the Southern authorities of that era, but then unaccountably chose to make a special exception in this one particular case.

In many respects, the more important part of the Frank case began after his conviction and death sentence when many of America’s wealthiest and most influential Jewish leaders began mobilizing to save him from the hangman. They soon established the ADL as a new vehicle for that purpose and succeeded in making the Frank murder case one of the most famous in American history to that date.

Although his role was largely concealed at the time, the most important new backer whom Frank attracted was Albert Lasker of Chicago, the unchallenged monarch of American consumer advertising, which constituted the life’s blood of all of our mainstream newspapers and magazines. Not only did he ultimately provide the lion’s share of the funds for Frank’s defense, but he focused his energies upon shaping the media coverage surrounding the case. Given his dominant business influence in that sector, we should not be surprised that a huge wave of unremitting pro-Frank propaganda soon began appearing across the country in both local and national publications, extending to most of America’s most popular and highly-regarded media outlets, with scarcely a single word told on the other side of the story. This even included all of Atlanta’s own leading newspapers, which suddenly reversed their previous positions and became convinced of Frank’s innocence.

Lasker also enlisted other powerful Jewish figures in the Frank cause, including New York Times owner Adolph Ochs, American Jewish Committee president Louis Marshall, and leading Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff. The Times, in particular, began devoting enormous coverage to this previously-obscure Georgia murder case, and many of its articles were widely republished elsewhere. The NOI authors highlight this extraordinary national media attention: “The Black janitor whose testimony became central to Leo Frank’s conviction became the most quoted Black person in American history up to that time. More of his words appeared in print in the New York Times than those of W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, and Booker T. Washington—combined.”

Back a century ago just as today, our media creates our reality, and with Frank’s innocence being proclaimed nationwide in near-unanimous fashion, a long list of prominent public figures were soon persuaded to demand a new trial for the convicted murderer, including Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Jane Addams.

Ironically enough, Lasker himself plunged into this crusade despite apparently having very mixed personal feelings about man whose cause he was championing. His later biography reveals that upon his first personal meeting with Frank, he perceived him as “a pervert” and a “disgusting” individual, so much so that he even hoped that after he managed to free Frank, the latter would quickly perish in some accident. Furthermore, in his private correspondence he freely admitted that a large fraction of the massive funding that he and numerous other wealthy Jews from across the country were providing had been spent on perjured testimony and there are also strong hints that he explored bribing various judges. Given these facts, Lasker and Frank’s other major backers were clearly guilty of serious felonies, and could have received lengthy prison terms for their illegal conduct.

With the New York Times and the rest of the liberal Northern media now providing such massive coverage of the case, Frank’s defense team was forced to abandon the racially-inflammatory rhetoric aimed at his black accuser which had previously been the centerpiece of their trial strategy. Instead, they began concocting a tale of rampant local anti-Semitism, previously unnoticed by all observers, and adopted it as a major grounds for their appeal of the verdict.

The unprincipled legal methods pursued by Frank’s backers is illustrated by a single example. Georgia law normally required that a defendant be present in court to hear the reading of the verdict, but given the popular emotions in the case, the judge suggested that this provision be waived, and the prosecution assented only if the defense lawyers promised not to use this small irregularity as grounds for appeal. But after Frank was convicted, AJC President Marshall and his other backers orchestrated numerous unsuccessful state and federal appeals on exactly this minor technicality, merely hiring other lawyers to file the motion.

For almost two years, the nearly limitless funds deployed by Frank’s supporters covered the costs of thirteen separate appeals on the state and federal levels, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the national media was used to endlessly vilify Georgia’s system of justice in the harshest possible terms. Naturally, this soon generated a local reaction, and during this period outraged Georgians began denouncing the wealthy Jews who were spending such enormous sums to subvert the local criminal justice system.

One of the very few journalists willing to oppose Frank’s position was Georgia publisher Tom Watson, a populist firebrand, and an editorial he reasonably declared “We cannot have…one law for the Jew, and another for the Gentile” while he also later lamented that “It is a bad state of affairs when the idea gets abroad that the law is too weak to punish a man who has plenty of money.” A former Georgia governor indignantly inquired “Are we to understand that anybody except a Jew can be punished for a crime.” The clear facts indicate that there was indeed a massive miscarriage of justice in Frank’s case, but virtually all of it occurred in Frank’s favor.

All appeals were ultimately rejected and Frank’s execution date for the rape and murder of the young girl finally drew near. But just days before he was scheduled to leave office, Georgia’s outgoing governor commuted Frank’s sentence, provoking an enormous storm of popular protest, especially since he was the legal partner of Frank’s chief defense lawyer, an obvious conflict of interest. Given the enormous funds that Frank’s national supporters had been deploying on his behalf and the widespread past admissions of bribery in the case, there are obviously dark suspicions about what had prompted such a remarkably unpopular decision, which soon forced the former governor to exile himself from the state. A few weeks later, a group of Georgia citizens stormed Frank’s prison farm, abducting and hanging him, with Frank becoming the first and only Jew lynched in American history.

Naturally, Frank’s killing was roundly denounced in the national media that had long promoted his cause. But even in those quarters, there may have been a significant difference between public and private sentiments. No newspaper in the country had more strongly championed Frank’s innocence than the New York Times of Adolph Ochs. Yet according to the personal diary of one of the Times editors, Ochs privately despised Frank, and perhaps even greeted his lynching with a sense of relief. No effort was ever made by Frank’s wealthy supporters to bring any of the lynching party to justice.

Although I have now come to regard the NOI volume as the most persuasive and definitive text on the Frank case, I naturally considered conflicting works before reaching this conclusion.

For nearly a half-century, the leading scholarly account of the incident had probably been Leonard Dinnerstein’s book The Leo Frank Case, first published in 1966, and Dinnerstein, a University of Arizona professor specializing in Jewish history, entirely supported Frank’s innocence. But although the work won a national award, carries glowing blurbs from several prestigious publications, and has surely graced the reading lists of endless college courses, I was not at all impressed. Among other things, the book appears to be the original source of some of the most lurid examples of alleged anti-Semitic public outbursts that apparently have no basis in reality and seem to have been simply fabricated by the author given his lack of any citations; the NOI authors note these stories have been quietly abandoned by all recent researchers. Even leaving aside such likely falsifications, which were widely cited by later writers and heavily contaminated the historical record, I found the short Dinnerstein work rather paltry and even pitiful when compared to that of its NOI counterpart.

A far longer and more substantial recent work was Steve Oney’s 2003 And the Dead Shall Rise, which runs nearly 750 pages and won the National Jewish Book Award, the Southern Book Critics Circle Prize, and the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel, probably establishing itself as today’s canonical text on the historical incident. Oney had been a longtime Atlanta journalist and I was favorably impressed by his narrative skill, along with the numerous fascinating vignettes he provided to illustrate the Southern history of that general era. He also seemed a cautious researcher, drawing heavily upon the primary sources and avoiding much of the falsified history of the last century, while not entirely suppressing the massive evidence of bribery and perjury employed by the Frank forces.

But although Oney does mention much of this information, he strangely fails to connect the dots. For example, although he occasionally mentions some of the funds spent on Frank’s behalf, he never attempts to convert them into present-day equivalents, leaving a naive reader to assume that such trivial amounts could not possibly have been used to pervert the course of justice. Furthermore, his entire book is written in chronological narrative form, with no footnotes provided in the text, and a large portion of the content being entirely extraneous to any attempt to determine Frank’s guilt or innocence, contrasting very sharply with the more scholarly style of the NOI authors.

To my mind, a central element of the Frank case was the massive financial temptations being offered by Frank’s Jewish backers, and the huge number of Atlanta citizens, both high and low, who apparently shifted their positions on Frank’s guilt in eager hopes of capturing some of that largess. But although this obvious theme was heavily emphasized in the NOI book, Oney seems to mostly avoid this obvious factor, perhaps even for personal reasons. Print publications have suffered massive cutbacks in recent years and I noticed on the book flap that although Oney is described as a longtime Atlanta journalist, he had subsequently relocated to Los Angeles. Once I checked, I immediately discovered that Oney’s book had became the basis for an independent film entitled The People v. Leo Frank, and I wonder whether his hopes of capturing a sliver of Hollywood’s vast lucre may not have encouraged him to so strongly suggest Frank’s innocence. Would an account of Leo Frank as rapist and murderer ever be likely to reach the silver screen? The quiet influence of financial considerations is no different today than they were a century ago, and this factor must be taken into account when evaluating historical events.

The NOI authors devote nearly all of their lengthy book to a careful analysis of the Frank case provided in suitably dispassionate form, but a sense of their justifiable outrage does occasionally poke through. In the years prior to Frank’s killing, many thousands of black men throughout the South had been lynched, often based on a slender thread of suspicion, with few of these incidents receiving more than a few sentences of coverage in a local newspaper, and large numbers of whites had also perished in similar circumstances. Meanwhile, Frank had received benefit of the longest trial in modern Southern history, backed by the finest trial lawyers that money could buy, and based on overwhelming evidence had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl. But when Frank’s legal verdict was carried out by extra-judicial means, he immediately became the most famous lynching victim in American history, perhaps even attracting more media attention than all those thousands of other cases combined. Jewish money and Jewish media established him as a Jewish martyr who thereby effectively usurped the victimhood of the enormous number of innocent blacks who were killed both before and after him, none of whom were ever even recognized as individuals.

As Prof. Shahak has effectively demonstrated, traditional Talmudic Judaism regarded all non-Jews as being sub-human, with their lives possessing no value. Given that Frank’s backers were followers of Reform Judaism, it seems quite unlikely that they accepted this doctrine or were even aware of its existence. But religious traditions of a thousand years standing can easily become embedded within a culture, and such unrecognized cultural sentiments may have easily shaped their reaction to Frank’s legal predicament.

Influential historical accounts of the Frank case and its aftermath have contained lurid tales of the rampant public anti-Semitism visited upon Atlanta’s Jewish community in the wake of the trial, even claiming that a substantial portion of the population was forced to flee as a consequence. However, a careful examination of the primary source evidence, including the contemporaneous newspaper coverage, provides absolutely no evidence of this, and it appears to be entirely fictional.

The NOI authors note that prior to Frank’s trial American history had been virtually devoid of any evidence of significant anti-Semitism, with the previous most notable incident being the case of an extremely wealthy Jewish financier who was refused service at a fancy resort hotel. But by totally distorting the Frank case and focusing such massive national media coverage on his plight, Jewish leaders around the country succeeded in fabricating a powerful ideological narrative despite its lack of reality, perhaps intending the story to serve as a bonding experience to foster Jewish community cohesion.

As a further example of the widely promoted but apparently fraudulent history, the Jewish writers who have overwhelmingly dominated accounts of the Frank case have frequently claimed that it sparked the revival of the Ku Klux Klan soon afterward, with the group of citizens responsible for Frank’s 1915 lynching supposedly serving as the inspiration for William Simmons’ reestablishment of that organization a couple of years later. But there seems no evidence for this. Indeed, Simmons strongly emphasized the philo-Semitic nature of his new organization, which attracted considerable Jewish membership.

The primary factor behind the rebirth of the KKK was almost certainly the 1917 release D.W. Griffith’s overwhelmingly popular landmark film Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Klan of the Reconstruction Era. Given that the American film industry was so overwhelmingly Jewish at the time and the film’s financial backers and leading Southern distributors came from that same background, it could be plausibly argued that the Jewish contribution to the creation of the 1920s Klan was a very crucial one, while the revenue from the film’s distribution throughout the South actually financed Samuel Goldwyn’s creation of MGM, Hollywood’s leading studio.

In their introduction, the NOI authors make the fascinating point that the larger historical meaning of the Frank case in American racial history has been entirely lost. Prior to that trial, it was unprecedented for Southern courts to allow black testimony against a white man, let alone against a wealthy man being tried on serious charges; but the horrific nature of the crime and Conley’s role as the sole witness required a break from that longstanding tradition. Thus, the authors argue not unreasonably, that the Frank case may have been as important to the history of black progress in America as such landmark legal verdicts as Plessy vs. Ferguson or Brown vs. Board. But since almost the entire historical narrative has been produced by fervent Jewish advocates, these facts have been completely obscured and the case entirely misrepresented as an example of anti-Semitic persecution and public murder.

Let us summarize what seems to be the solidly established factual history of the Frank case, quite different than the traditional narrative. There is not the slightest evidence that Frank’s Jewish background was a factor behind his arrest and conviction, nor the death sentence he received. The case set a remarkable precedent in Southern courtroom history with the testimony of a black man playing a central role in a white man’s conviction. From the earliest stages of the murder investigation, Frank and his allies continually attempted to implicate a series of different innocent blacks by planting false evidence and using bribes to solicit perjured testimony, while the exceptionally harsh racial rhetoric that Frank and his attorneys directed towards those blacks was presumably intended to provoke their public lynching. Yet despite all these attempts by the Frank forces to play upon the notorious racial sentiments of the white Southerners of that era, the latter saw through these schemes and Frank was the one sentenced to hang for his rape and murder of that young girl.

Now suppose that all the facts of this famous case were exactly unchanged except that Frank had been a white Gentile. Surely the trial would be ranked as one of the greatest racial turning points in American history, perhaps even overshadowing Brown v. Board because of the extent of popular sentiment, and it would have been given a central place in all our modern textbooks. Meanwhile, Frank, his lawyers, and his heavy financial backers would probably be cast as among the vilest racial villains in all of American history for their repeated attempts to foment the lynching of various innocent blacks so that a wealthy white rapist and murderer could walk free. But because Frank was Jewish rather than Christian, this remarkable history has been completely inverted for over one hundred years by our Jewish-dominated media and historiography.

These are the important consequences that derive from control of the narrative and the flow of information, which allows murderers to be transmuted into martyrs and villains into heroes. The ADL was founded just over a century ago with the central goal of preventing a Jewish rapist and killer from being held legally accountable for his crimes, and over the decades, it eventually metastasized into a secret political police force not entirely dissimilar to the widely despised East German Stasi, but with its central goal seeming to be the maintenance of overwhelming Jewish control in a society that is 98% non-Jewish.

We should ask ourselves whether it is appropriate for an organization with such origins and such recent history to be granted enormous influence over the distribution of information across our Internet.

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pra...rican-society/
 
Old April 30th, 2019 #129
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
Default

Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume III, The Leo Frank Case The Lynching of a Guilty Man

Segment 01
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-1/

Segment 02
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-2/

Segment 03
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-3/

Segment 04
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-4/

Segment 05
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-5/

Segment 06
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-6/

Segment 07
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-7/

Segment 08
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-8/

Segment 09
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...ty-man-part-9/

Segment 10
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-10/

Segment 11
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-11/

Segment 12
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-12/

Segment 13
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-13/

Segment 14
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-14/

Segment 15
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-15/

Segment 16
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-16/

Segment 17
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-17/

Segment 18
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-18/

Segment 19
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-19/

Segment 20
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-20/

Segment 21
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-21/

Segment 22
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-22/

Segment 23
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-23/

Segment 24
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-24/

Segment 25
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-25/

Segment 26
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-26/

Segment 27
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-27/

Segment 28
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-28/

Segment 29
https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/...y-man-part-29/
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Old May 4th, 2019 #130
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
Default

THE LEO FRANK TRIAL centennial articles by Bradford L. Huie (1913-2013) made into audiobooks years later

Leo Frank Trial Week One
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...Week%20One.mp3

Leo Frank Trial Week Two
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...Week%20Two.mp3

Leo Frank Trial Week Three
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...ek%20Three.mp3

Leo Frank takes the Witness Stand
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...he%20Stand.mp3

Leo Frank Trial Week Four
https://theamericanmercury.org/audio...eek%20Four.mp3

Closing Arguments of Reuben Rose Arnold (for the defense of Leo Frank)
PART 1:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%201.mp3
PART 2:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%202.mp3

Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper (for the state's prosecution)
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...0Arguments.mp3

Closing Arguments of Luther Zeigler Rosser (for the defense of Leo Frank)
Part 1:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%201.mp3
Part 2:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%202.mp3

Closing Arguments of Hugh Manson Dorsey (district attorney of Atlanta)

Part 1:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%201.mp3

Part 2:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%202.mp3

Part 3:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%203.mp3

Part 4:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%204.mp3

Part 5:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%205.mp3

Part 6:
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...20part%206.mp3

Judge Leonard Strickland Roan's Charge to the Jury
https://audio.nationalvanguard.com/T...the%20Jury.mp3

* * * * *

Leo Frank Guilty of Murder, An Audiobook series of Bradford L. Huie's 100 Arguments Why Leo Frank was guilty (The American Mercury).

1) Leo Frank Guilty of Murder, Part 1 of 3
https://www.nationalvanguard.org/aud...15-0815thb.mp3

2) Leo Frank Guilty of Murder, Part 2 of 3
https://www.nationalvanguard.org/aud...5-0822tswl.mp3

3) Leo Frank Guilty of Murder, Part 3 of 3
https://www.nationalvanguard.org/aud...15-0829sis.mp3

* * * * *

Tom Watson Centennial (2015) AudioBooks (Originally from The American Mercury and produced by Bradford L. Huie).

Meticulously studying the efforts of Jewry and how they work tirelessly, to control the narrative of history, this rough quote never made more sense:

"Who controls the present, controls the past. Who controls the past, controls the future" --George Orwell in his dystopian novel 1984 (published in 1948).

"CARD STACKING"

"Card stacking" is choosing some facts and leaving out others, and arranging them to suit your purposes. What you get is a house of cards built over lifetimes, which is unstable by its very nature, and destined to fall if grains of truth fall upon it.

This idea of card stacking explains why Jews use the Jenga tower game scheme to dominate the popular culture narrative of history, which simply means, they take a pro-Jewish position on any historical event related to Jews (even if the evidence is against them), and then each year, decade and generation thereafter, swarms of credentialled Jews all over the Western MSM (mainstream media) and academic world, write about the Jewish subject with one interchangeable echoing voice of self-defense, ego-safety, public relations (PR), and selective editing. Thus, using nepotistic citations, references, and bibliographic sourcing, Jews then quote and use each other's materials as the foundation for which to build on, re-writing each other's works over time, but using different synonyms and adjectives, while maintaining the same message outcome. After a century of building their web of lies, Jews have totally controlled the diachronic storyline of every historical event which pertains to themselves and Gentiles when it relates to them.

The overlapping nature of Jewish activism in the academy and news media continues.

The Mary Phagan murder case is no different in the above-said paradigm because her killer was Jewish serial child molester Leo Frank who was a B'nai B'rith chapter president. Frank was a German-Jew, so the Hasbara propaganda machine takes its advanced shape in modern times, standing on the shoulders of their judeo-activist predecessors of the past. Jewish activist professor Leonard Dinnerstein took up the mantle of controlling the narrative of the Frank-Phagan case in the academy from 1966 until he retired many decades later and passed away in January, 2019. There were waves of Jewish supremacists who wrote about the case before Dinnerstein, and New waves of Jewish supremacists who overlap his time in existence, carrying on the torch of Jewish supremacist propaganda. Every year, new Jews and old Jews, step forward to write about the case, and proclaim his innocence, while blaming the darky for the crime and accusing Whites of anti-Semitism with relation to Frank's hanging.

The Judeo-Mythology of Leo Frank

The Jewish web of lies strategy is conspicuous with regards to the Leo Frank Case being retold in the news media. Their narrative for Frank is he was a holy religious martyr of anti-Semitism "wantonly murdered" and a Jewish-American civil rights icon whose "mob-terrorized conviction" galvanized the founding of ADL -- Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Frank, the Jewish mythology propounds was "undeniably innocent" of the Phagan rape-strangulation on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day in 1913. Jews go to great lengths to suppress the open secret that Leo Frank admitted at his trial he was at what the prosecution theorized was the scene of the crime when the murder happened (the metal room). Frank, the Jews continue ceaselessly, was falsely accused, because the "Blood of a Negro was not enough to atone for the murder of Phagan". I couldn't believe my own eyes until I read their books on this true crime.

Imagine the psychopathic mental gymnastics Jews must do to contort their minds, for them to be able to effortlessly promulgate the idea that racially conscious European-American Protestants in segregationist Atlanta of 1913, would knowingly pretend a deadly sexual predator Afro-American, was magically not guilty of defiling, mutilating and suffocating a White Baptist little girl, just so they could intentionally railroad an innocent Jew. Think of how disgusting the architecture of the Jewish mind must be to be able to push the above idea with a straight face and actually believe their own pathological lies. Jews are truly the most dangerous force Western Civilization has ever seen to be able to push this, or adjacent and parallel kinds of compulsive lies, concerning all aspects of their history. But with time their compulsive lies, become their standard narrative of history with which they repeat going forward. They are so brazenly sloppy and get away with it because no one calls them out for fear of being labeled: anti-semite.

The Jewish version of the case continues as:

At a sealed-testimony Grandjury tribunal, Frank was unjustly indicted, followed by framedup at a Kangaroo court, Salem witch trial, and wrongfully convicted by a "terrorized jury" using the "hang the Jew death threat hoax directed at the petit jury". Moreover, the keystone cops and rogue district attorney, who made it all happen, were hotheaded White Christian Protestants, and they were in an unholy alliance with a guilty semi-literate black killer-rapist (a homicidal black sexual offender whom they essentially let off the hook with 1-year in prison). This is the literally the barebones Jewish narrative of the Leo Frank case from the 4-month time segment of his arrest to conviction.

In the monolithic Jewish dominated narrative of American history, populist U.S. Senator from Georgia (1920-1922), Tom Watson, is very often accused of being the impulsion behind Jewish homicidal rapist-pedophile, Leo Frank, getting lynched on the 17th of August, 1915. The lynch mob was made up of the leading citizens of Atlanta and Marietta, Georgia.

Jews and their goyim sycophants have built a centenary mythos in the trifecta of Academe, Hollywood and Broadway -- basically the Jewish supremacist propaganda industrial-complex -- orthodoxing the idea Watson ignited the flames of anti-Semitism against Frank through his press organs, Watson's magazine, and the Jeffersonian weekly newspaper. With regular inflammatory reporting and analysis, Watson is said to have stoked Gentile blind rage in the multitudes, brewing-up an A-team lynch-party, which assassinated the "innocent Jewish civil right icon" Frank, not because of his ghoulish sex murder, but because of his religion, Judaism. Jewish activist Steve Oney likened the lynching mob to a state-sponsored hit squad because it included a former Governor of Georgia, state congressmen, sitting judges, mayors and some of the leading men in Atlanta-Marietta social circles.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth when we apply common sense to the circumstances surrounding Leo Frank's demise.

First, every level of the United States legal system from the Georgia Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court rejected Frank's embarrassingly frivolous appeals, despite his having the best legal minds money could buy at the time. At every step of the way, Frank had teams of big money lawyers behind him, men who were well connected.

Second, if the prominent citizens of Georgia's government and society, who constituted the Mary Phagan vigilance committee were motivated by anti-semitism, they had easy access to literally thousands of Jews in Atlanta, they did not need to drive in a caravan of eight automobiles, some 300 miles round trip, on circuitous, pothole-ridden back roads, to retrieve Frank from a penitentiary in the middle of bumble-phuck, Georgia (milledgville, Ga.).

Third, Governor Slaton -- who commuted the capital punishment sentence of death by hanging for Leo Frank to life behind bars -- owned 25% of the law group which represented Frank at his trial and appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court. Slaton had committed the ultimate sin of corruption and ethics violations, commuting the death sentence of his law partner's wealthy criminal client, Frank. Slaton's action was an unspeakable betrayal to the Georgia and U.S. constitution, he should have been disbarred for the egregious act of using his executive privilege to nepotistically save a pedophile sex killer from the gallows. But as everyone knows today, as they knew a century ago, we live under a two-tier system of justice, one for the rich and one for everyone else. In this case, the Governor commuted the death sentence of his own lawfirm's client.

The truth is this: Tom Watson was only articulating what everyone in Georgia was thinking and talking about concerning the Leo Frank trial. I ask everyone with an open mind to listen to all five of these 21st century audiobooks, produced at the centennial of Leo Frank's lynching (1915-2015).

You decide if Tom Watson's description of Jewish media control is accurate then, as it is today more than a century later.

You decide if Tom Watson's analysis of Leo Frank's behavior and physical features accurately reasonably describe a man who looked like a bisexual pervert and pederast.

You decide if Tom Watson's analysis of the Leo Frank trial is fair, reasonable, commonsensical and logical.

Please listen to these five audios, and you decide if Tom Watson was a crazed and deranged anti-Semite as the Jewish supremacists claim, or was he a brilliant man who explains the impossibility of Frank's innocence?

Watson's Magazine, 1915, issues: January, March, August, September, and October.

January 1915: The Leo Frank Case
https://www.nationalvanguard.org/aud..._1915-full.mp3

March 1915: A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case
https://www.nationalvanguard.org/aud...e%20Full-A.mp3

August 1915: Celebrated Case of State of Georgia versus Leo M. Frank
https://www.nationalvanguard.org/aud...eo%20Frank.mp3

September 1915: Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert
https://www.nationalvanguard.org/aud...%20Pervert.mp3

October 1915: Rich Jews Indict Georgia the Whole South Traduced
https://www.nationalvanguard.org/aud...0a%20State.mp3
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Old June 8th, 2019 #131
LeoFrank
Member
 
LeoFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 412
LeoFrank
Default

The American Mercury Original Series on the Leo Frank Trial

Leo Frank: The Coroner’s Inquest Into The Mary Phagan’s Murder Mystery, May 1913
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2015/0...oners-inquest/

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins, July 28, 1913.
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/0...-frank-begins/

The Summer of 1913 Leo Frank Trial Week One
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/0...rial-week-one/

The Summer of 1913 Leo Frank Trial Week Two
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/0...rial-week-two/

The Summer of 1913 Leo Frank Trial Week Three
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/0...al-week-three/

One Hundred Years Ago Leo Frank Mounts the Witness Stand on August 18, 1913.
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/0...akes-the-stand

The Summer of 1913 Leo Frank Trial Week Four (final week of trial testimony)
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/0...ial-week-four/

Leo Frank Trial Closing Arguments, August 21st, 1913: Luther Rosser, Reuben Arnold and Frank Hooper, 1913
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/1...ld-and-rosser/

Closing Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey at the Leo Frank Trial, August 22, 23, 25, 1913
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/1...icitor-dorsey/

Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL): One Hundred Years of Jewish Hate, October 1913 – 2013
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/1...years-of-hate/

An Empty Grave in NYC at the Mount Carmel Cemetery: The Amazing Story of Mrs. Leo Frank, aka Lucille Selig (1888 - 1957).
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2015/0...mrs-leo-frank/

Leo Frank Pardon Without Absolution or Criminal Exoneration (1982 - 1986): The Astounding Alonzo Mann Hoax and
ADL of B'nai B'rith led Half-Baked Posthumous Pardon of Leo Frank, culminating March 11th, 1986.

WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2015/0...nzo-mann-hoax/

God's Eye View: Leo Frank Case Analysis, Centennial of Mary Phagan Murder (April 26, 2013): One Hundred Arguments Why Leo Frank is Guilty (and remains so more than 100 years later, even though the Jews are still working behind the scenes to get him exonerated).
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/0...ank-is-guilty/

Jewish Activist Professor Emeritus of Judaic Studies: Leonard Dinnerstein’s Racist and Anti-Gentile Pseudo-history About The Leo Frank Case
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2012/1...seudo-history/

Review of Fake-News Journalist Steve Oney’s "Definitive Book on the Leo Frank Case", called:
'And The Dead Shall Rise' and the response to it: Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case?

WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2012/1...n-murder-case/

Authorized Audio Book: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan-Kean (1989), read by
Vanessa Neubauer at the centennial year of Leo Frank's lynching (2015)

WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2015/1...e-mary-phagan/

Leo Frank Case Audiobooks Read by Vanessa Neubauer at The Internet Archive:

The American Mercury's Leo Frank Trial Audiobook Series Published at The Internet Archive, Read By Vanessa Neubauer
WWW: https://archive.org/details/leo-fran...arguments-1913


* * *


U.S. Congressman From Georgia, Tom Watson, Five-Part Series on The Leo Frank Case in his magazine, Watson's Magazine, 1915:

Why Was Leo Frank Lynched on August 17, 1915? Announcement of Five New 21st-Century Audio
Books of Tom Watson's Leo Frank Case Magazine Articles, Read By Vanessa Neubauer

WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2017/0...frank-lynched/

A Mercury Exclusive: Introduction to Tom Watson on the Leo Frank Case, audiobook read by Vanessa Neubauer
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2014/0...eo-frank-case/

Tom Watson: The Leo Frank Case, January 1915, audiobook read by Vanessa Neubauer
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2014/0...eo-frank-case/

Tom Watson: A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case, March 1915, audiobook read by Vanessa Neubauer
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2014/0...eo-frank-case/

Tom Watson: The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank, August 1915, audiobook read by Vanessa Neubauer
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2014/0...-vs-leo-frank/

Tom Watson: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert, September 1915, audiobook read by Vanessa Neubauer
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2014/0...a-jew-pervert/

Tom Watson: The Rich Jews Indict a State, October 1915, audiobook read by Vanessa Neubauer
WWW: http://theamericanmercury.org/2014/0...ndict-a-state/

* * *

2015 Centennial Audiobooks About The Leo Frank Case by future U.S. Senator From Georgia, Tom Watson, Read by John de Nugent

1. January 1915: by U.S. Senator from Georgia, Tom Watson, published in Watson's Magazine, Read By John de Nugent, audiobook:
WWW: https://archive.org/details/WatsonFrankCaseFinalAudio

2. March 1915: Full Review of The Leo Frank Case by U.S. Senator from Georgia, Tom Watson, published in Watson's Magazine, Read By John de Nugent, 2015, audiobook:
WWW: https://archive.org/details/FullRevi...rch1915_201504

3. August 1915: The State of Georgia Verses Leo Frank by U.S. Senator from Georgia, Tom Watson, published in Watson's Magazine, Read By John de Nugent, 2015, audiobook:
WWW: https://archive.org/details/State-of...1915-audiobook

4. September 1915: by U.S. Senator from Georgia, Tom Watson, published in Watson's Magazine, Read By John de Nugent, 2015, audiobook:
WWW: https://archive.org/details/Thomas-W...vert-Sept-1915

5. October 1915: by U.S. Senator from Georgia, Tom Watson, published in Watson's Magazine, Read By John de Nugent, 2015, audiobook:
WWW: https://archive.org/details/WatsonFrankJewsIndictState

Audiobooks by Margaret Huffstickler About Leo Frank Case

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan-Kean (1989), read by Margaret Huffstickler (Authorized Audiobook)
WWW: https://archive.org/details/TheMurde...PhaganKean1987

The Leo Frank Case: Georgia's Greatest Murder Mystery (1913) by Anonymous, read by Margaret Huffstickler (First Book Ever Written About The Leo Frank Case)
WWW: https://archive.org/details/LeoFrank...ery1913_201503

Audiobooks by Alex Linder About Leo Frank Case

NOI's 'Secret Relationship Between Black's and Jews, Volume 3: Leo Frank, A Guilty Man Lynched', read by Alex Linder
WWW: https://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=543551

Abridged Leo Frank trial Series From The American Mercury, Read By Alex Linder (2016):
WWW: https://archive.org/details/07LeoFra...entsHughDorsey

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, Read By Alex Linder (2015)
WWW: https://archive.org/details/10Phagan...12AfterwordEND

B'nai B'rith Audiobook by Pastor Eli James

Atlanta B'nai B'rith President Leo Frank and ADL of B'nai B'rith Founding, Read By Pastor Eli James, Part 9 of B'nai B'rith Series

WWW: https://archive.org/details/PastorEl...LeoFrankAndADL

Audiobook by Veronica Bouchard AKA Evalion

100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty of Murdering Mary Phagan, Read by Evalion
WWW: https://archive.org/details/100Reaso...ringMaryPhagan

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith founded in July 1913, announced its official formation circa October 1913:

100 Years of their Anti-Gentile Hate, Lies and Racism by Valdis Bell, Read by Evalion
WWW: https://archive.org/details/ADLAntiD...100YearsOfHate

The above audiobooks will help vaccinate people from the 100 plus year relentless campaign of anti-Gentile disinformation by Leo Frank's jewish supremacist defenders.
__________________
Jews have aggressively dominated the false narrative of the Leo Frank Case since 1913, but as of 2013 you can finally learn everything the Jews have tried to censor & suppress at The Leo Frank Research Library: http://www.LeoFrank.org
 
Reply

Tags
abe foxman, adl, jew lies, jew on white, jew pedophile, jew propaganda, jew rape, leo frank, mary phagan

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:14 AM.
Page generated in 0.31488 seconds.