Sens. Ossoff and Warnock Must Sever their Leo Frank Connection

Sens. Ossoff and Warnock Must Sever the Leo Frank Connection

Jews in America and particularly in the South have been energized by the election of Jon Ossoff to the Senate, the first Jew from Georgia to have that distinction. He was buoyed by the strong appeal to Black voters of fellow candidate the Rev. Raphael Warnock, who, as one commentator said, “had the coattails that delivered Ossoff’s win.” Their victories have given the Democrats a voting majority in the senate that, it is said, will remove legislative obstacles to the Biden agenda. The added benefit is the “rekindling” of the storied Black–Jewish alliance that some claim was the driver of the civil rights movement.

In their self-congratulatory euphoria Jews have promoted an entirely misleading narrative of a collegial history of Black–Jewish togetherness, commonality, and coalition that raises more eyebrows than smiles among rank-and-file Blacks who know better. Their melodramatic dreamscape often casts Ossoff as the second coming of another Jewish Georgian named Leo Frank, the B’nai B’rith president who was convicted of the 1913 murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, one of the many Gentile child laborers at the Jewish-owned Atlanta pencil factory he managed. The murder led to Frank’s trial, conviction, and his ultimate lynching, which is said to be the “worst incidence of anti-Semitism in American history.” The Ossoff cheerleaders have posed the 2021 election of a Jew as a “new era” in race relations that finally “heals the wounds” of Southern Jews who have lived under the pain of the Leo Frank affair for more than a century. Moment magazine’s slant is typical of that sentiment: “The wolves of hate had hunted Black and Jewish Georgians for too long. In 1915, the lynching of Jewish-American Leo Frank…gave way to a resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan.”

Georgia Jewish slave trader Leah Minis

But the Jewish rehashing of the Leo Frank case is simply a cunning corruption of an unfortunate history: raising Leo Frank from the dead may be therapeutic but it also whitewashes a history of Jewish racial treachery in the South that Blacks—and especially Sen. Warnock—should “Never Forget.”

Georgia Jewish slave trader Levi Shetfall

Jews and Black slavery have been connected in Georgia since its earliest colonial settlement in the 1700s. Jews had enjoyed a full freedom in the colony, but abandoned the place, according to historian Rabbi Jacob Rader Marcus, because “Negro slavery was prohibited, the liquor traffic was forbidden.” When the colony’s leaders relented and permitted slavery, Jews returned and bought, sold, and worked enslaved Africans without reservation. Every one of the founders of Georgia’s Jewish community was a slave owner and they regularly placed advertisements in Georgia newspapers seeking to buy and sell human beings and soliciting help hunting down freedom-seeking “runaways.” For nearly two centuries Blacks and Jews in Georgia had a relationship, but it was no “coalition.” According to Steven Hertzberg, “There is little evidence to suggest that any of Atlanta’s Jews desired a greater amelioration in the condition of blacks”; rather, they “clearly benefited from the system of white supremacy.”

By the time of the trial of Leo Frank for the rape and murder of Mary Phagan in 1913, Jews had grown wealthy and satisfied with profits they derived from the slavery and Jim Crow systems, and they saw Blacks as no more than menial laborers and domestic servants. Atlanta industrialist and Chamber of Commerce official Oscar Pappenheimer was also one of the owners of the National Pencil Company, where Leo Frank committed the murder. In 1906, Pappenheimer actually wrote to the Atlanta Constitution to make a “practical suggestion” for “negroes”:

Georgia Jewish slave traders Mayer & Jacobe.

“I propose the registration of negroes in the southern states 14 years of age and more….Each person so registered should possess…a certificate…in which should be entered description, date and place of birth and, at each registration, record of abode, employment, conduct and reference….[T]hese certificates would before long be of great value to industrious, well-behaved people. Let others decide whether it be legal to pass laws bearing on this subject with reference to the colored race only…”

Pappenheimer’s “suggestion” was nearly identical to that which Adolf Hitler enforced against Jews thirty years later. This overt and public race hate from such a prominent member of Atlanta’s Jewish elite represents the racial mentality of the Jews of the South at the time of the Leo Frank case.

The actual racial history of Jews helps us to understand why it was so easy for them to go to such great lengths to pin the Phagan murder on a Black man—indeed, two Black men! They claim that the “real killer” was a Black man named James Conley, a sweeper at the factory, but the ugly reality is that the evidence overwhelmingly points to Leo Frank as the murderer of Mary Phagan.


First, when Frank was suspected of the crime, the wealthy Jewish owners of the pencil factory immediately hired the best attorneys as well as two of the most prominent American private detective firms—the Pinkerton and Burns agencies—to investigate the murder. Both agencies concluded exactly what the Atlanta police had found—that Leo Frank was the murderer of Little Mary Phagan. Frank was indicted by a grand jury that included five Jews, some being prominent members of Frank’s own synagogue.

In fact, Atlanta police began to suspect Frank because a strange series of “clues” popped up that appeared to point to a Black employee of Frank’s named Newt Lee, a night watchman at the factory who had discovered the girl’s body hidden in the basement. Police officers found that “evidence” had been planted to frame Lee and that attorneys and private security personnel working for Frank were the likely culprits. Frank produced Lee’s factory timecard that was obviously and suspiciously altered to show that Lee had time to commit the crime. Only Frank could have engineered that clumsy caper and it fooled no one. Next, police searched Lee’s home and found a bloody shirt in his laundry bin—but it was right after being told by Frank’s attorneys that “evidence” might be found there. The bloody shirt episode became the single incident that solidified police suspicion of the pencil factory manager, and the police arrested Frank and charged him with murder. And the Black man he tried to frame, Newt Lee, became a solid witness for the prosecution in the murder trial.

 

Leo Frank’s History of Racist Hate

As the president of the Atlanta chapter of the Jewish organization B’nai B’rith, Leo Frank was arguably the most important Jewish leader in the South. And so his exoneration became a matter of Jewish national security. Such a high-ranking Jew on trial for the shocking murder of a Gentile child, Jews believed, would be too harmful a burden for American Jews. In 1913, the group’s Anti-Defamation League had just been formed in Chicago and they were seeking a way to heighten publicity and donations for their cause. Such ulterior Jewish motives seem to have blinded many Jews to the actual facts of the murder and the surrounding issues that led Frank’s own detectives to accuse him of such a heinous crime.

The physical and circumstantial evidence all pointed unfailingly to Frank and even the ADL’s own expert, Steve Oney, had to admit, “I think there was a reasonable case against Leo Frank.” So “anti-Semitism” was not the driver of Frank’s prosecution. And as the case against him mounted, Frank made a fateful and hateful decision that his defense against the murder charge would be pure unadulterated anti-Black racism.

Frank publicly and openly referred to Blacks as “niggers.” His defense attorneys used the word “nigger” and other racist slurs dozens of times in court. His main attorney attempted to impeach the damning testimony of Black witnesses by telling the jury: “If you put a nigger in a hopper, he’ll drip lies.” One Black witness, Frank’s lawyers told the jury, “is a plain, beastly, ragged, filthy, lying nigger” who came from “a law-breaking race.”

The defense attorneys tried to explain away the planted bloody shirt incident but only exposed just how deep in the gutter they were willing to go. Luther Rosser was questioning the medical examiner on the witness stand:

Rosser: The shirt had the odor of blood on it when you first got it, didn’t it?

Yes.

Rosser: Then, wouldn’t the odor of blood have killed the odor of nigger?

No.

Rosser: Then, if a nigger had just put on his shirt and had taken it off in an instant, your nose would “get him”?

Have you ever smelled a negro, Mr. Rosser?

Rosser: More than you ever smelled. I was smelling them before you were born.

Frank’s legal team argued in court (and long after) that Blacks should not be believed—simply because they were Black—and that “negro testimony” was by definition inferior and unreliable. Further, Leo Frank argued that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus, as a white man, he could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan. And those arguments—which would have horrified Martin Luther King—were not simply trial gaffes or personal opinions: the national Jewish leadership campaigned for two years after Frank’s conviction using those profoundly racist “arguments” as their legal strategy.

 

Leo Frank: The Harvey Weinstein of Atlanta

But the testimony of Black witnesses was not Frank’s only problem. The National Pencil Company was filled with young women and girls—child laborers working long hours at starvation wages. It seems that Frank had a Harvey-Weinstein-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-like habit of pressuring these vulnerable girls into sexual situations. One hundred years before the #MeToo revolution twenty of the young female factory employees swore under oath to the sexual harassment they suffered at the “lascivious” hands of Leo Frank. They testified that Frank ogled them, brushed up against them, touched their breasts, made lewd and suggestive remarks, and invaded their dressing room without knocking. Their testimony was so powerful that none of Frank’s attorneys dared to cross-examine them—not one. A white man confessed that he and Frank brought women to and had alcohol in the factory after hours.

Eight of the TWENTY #MeToo girls and young women who testified under oath of the “lascivious character” of Leo Frank.

Later, the Jewish advertising magnate who financed Frank’s many legal appeals, Albert Lasker, admitted that after he and colleagues met the B’nai B’rith president for the very first time: “It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he impressed us as a sexual pervert.” Little Mary Phagan, it was proven in court, had mightily resisted Frank’s sexual advances before being knocked unconscious and then strangled.

Of course, none of this Jewish race hate and sexual violence made it into the voluminous Leo Frank literature. But that has changed. The Nation of Islam’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume Three: The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man is a 536-page study referenced with thousands of footnotes and illustrated with maps, diagrams, and graphics that touch on every aspect of this controversial case. And though it was received enthusiastically by scholars of the case, it was banned from being sold on Amazon.com in 2019. Ron Unz offered his view that “It honestly seemed like one of the most thorough and detailed studies of a controversial historical event I’ve ever read, far superior to even the vast majority of top academic works.”

The great niece of the murdered girl is also named after her great aunt. Mary Phagan-Kean has studied the case for years. She wrote a book on the subject titled The Murder of Little Mary Phagan and maintained that Leo Frank was in fact the murderer and that to ignore the mountains of damning evidence is a calumny against her family and the cause of justice. Mrs. Phagan-Kean has endorsed the findings of the Nation of Islam:

“Nation of Islam volume is the most well-researched book published regarding the rape and murder of little Mary Phagan to date. The Phagan family appreciates the detail Nation of Islam brought to the case analysis.”

Those who can find something redeemable in the Leo Frank legend must necessarily ignore the Jewish racism and sexual violence that permeated the case. And that is just the beginning. The history of Jewish racism goes well beyond the Frank case—it was at the core of Jewish life in Atlanta, in Georgia, and throughout the South.

Before Rev. Warnock’s impressive senate victory he had aligned himself with a Jewish man of great character when he said:

“The Nation of Islam is significant….Its voice has been important even for the development of Black theology, because it was the Black Muslims who challenged Black preachers and said that ‘you’re promulgating … the white man’s religion. That’s a slave religion. You’re telling people to focus on heaven; meanwhile, they’re catching hell.’ And so we’ve needed the witness of the Nation of Islam, in a real sense, to put a fire under us and keep us honest about the meaning of the proclamation coming from our pulpits.” (See video below)

Bro. Warnock may not have known it at the time of his stated “significance” of the Nation of Islam but his 2013 analysis mirrors the testimony of the civil rights martyr Andrew Goodman, who was killed in the battle for justice along with James Chaney and Michael Schwerner. Goodman thoughtfully wrote:

…it is true that the white man (and by this I mean Christian civilization in general) has proved himself to be the most depraved devil imaginable in his attitudes towards the Negro race….The source and cause of this need for reaction  can be attributed to white contempt and neglect. The historical contempt that the white race held for the Negroes has created a group of rootless degraded people. The current neglect of the problem can only irritate this deplorable state of affairs. The Black Muslims should constitute a warning to our society, a warning that must be heeded if we are to preserve the society. The road to freedom must be uphill, even if it is arduous and frustrating.  A people must have dignity and identity. If they can’t do it peacefully, they will do it defensively.” 

Rep. John Lewis—as did Rev. Warnock and Andrew Goodman—understood the significance of the Nation of Islam.

Senator Warnock’s witness of the Nation of Islam and the ultimate sacrifice of Andrew Goodman proves that his role models for leadership are solid and enduring. If there ever was a Black-Jewish coalition, Goodman—a very good man—was at the core. In today’s moment of great trauma and division leaders of great moral and intellectual character are desperately needed to correct a nation and a world on the brink of collapse.

Both Sens. Ossoff and Warnock, and nearly all of the unsuspecting public, have been brutally hoodwinked by a disingenuous Jewish leadership that has chosen to make Leo Frank—an unrepentant race hater, child rapist and murderer—into a Jesus figure for the Jewish people. If Jon Ossoff and the Jewish world choose to take Leo Frank as their model of racial climate change—as many Jews have demanded they do— Bro. Warnock and his Black supporters should shake Ossoff off his coattails and sprint in the opposite direction.

 

UPCOMING: Part 2: Before Leo Frank: The Secret Relationship Between Georgia’s Blacks and Jews

Listen to the audiobook produced by the American Mercury of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews, Vol. 3: Leo Frank: The Lynching of a Guilty Man:

Now an Audio Book: The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man, part 1


 

The Rev. Raphael Warnock’s statement on the significance of the Nation of Islam:

 


 

White Supremacist Jews & the Ku Klux Klan

White Supremacist Jews & the Ku Klux Klan

Nation of Islam Research Group


“[T]here can never be any peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the
name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name.”

—The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan

“Lying is your mother tongue.”

—Jesus to the Jews

It was a horrifying scene in Fairfield, Illinois, on that August day in 1924. A 74-year-old Jewish man named Emmanuel “Manny” Steiner, an immigrant clothing merchant, was paraded down the city’s main street by 40 hooded and robed Ku Klux Klansmen as 15,000 whites looked on. They brought the man to a city park in broad daylight and had him stand before them. That’s when one of the Klansmen—a Christian minister—pulled off his hood and spoke directly to Steiner:

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan respect and revere you….As a citizen there is no better….On behalf of the klansmen of Wayne County, who hold you in high esteem and regard, we present you with this token [a basket of 50 red roses], realizing that you are a man. We hope that as you go down the twilight trail you will remember with kindness and generosity the men in the masks.

The Klansmen then knelt and prayed, after which they rose and in solemn procession filed past Steiner to take their turn shaking his hand. The men who the Southern Poverty Law Center declared to be “the historic symbol of racist terrorism” were not there in Fairfield to lynch or burn this Jew alive, or to cut off his body parts to display in a jar at the local Five & Dime, as they had done to 5,000 innocent Black Americans. They were instead honoring the Jewish merchant on his “golden business anniversary.”

“Manny,” as he was lovingly known, was no insignificant figure—he was a city councilor, a bank director, the treasurer of the Masons and the Odd Fellows, and a long-time member in good standing of his people’s St. Louis synagogue. And Steiner received this high honor from the white terrorists as his wife, children, and grandchildren proudly looked on.

August 23rd of 1924 was declared “Steiner Day” and was reported to be “the greatest outpouring of people in the history of Wayne County.” Congressmen and senators sang his praises before all partook in a massive barbeque of 60 sheep, 20 sides of beef and 50 hams (presumably kosher). It was a white supremacist Ku Klux Klan extravaganza for a Jew that even the Klan’s national founder and grand wizard, William Simmons, was never granted. But how could this be?

The history of white Jewish supremacy has been skillfully concealed for generations. And their planned and enforced ignorance has led Jews to an aggressive self-deception that has led them to believe that there were no Manny Steiners in their history. It is a Jewish racial delusion that is today crashing down around them.

The attack on a British rap artist has put white Jewish supremacy under the spotlight. The headline in the Daily Mail was forthright: “Wiley accused of antisemitism after likening Jews to Ku Klux Klan.” Bro. Wiley’s “crime” was as trivial as those “crimes” alleged against the 5,000 massacred Blacks—but no less deadly. He tweeted: “There are 2 sets of people who nobody has really wanted to challenge Jewish & KKK but being in business for 20 years you start to understand why.”

The Jewish reaction was beyond bizarre. Within hours Brother Wiley was banned by Twitter and Facebook, Instagram deleted him, YouTube suspended him, his Jewish manager dropped him, and, most fiendish, the Metropolitan Police opened an official investigation! Jews even forced the respected Black news outlet The Voice to remove the interview they did with Bro. Wiley seeking his perspective! It was all the proof anyone ever needed that the power of white supremacist Jews is all-pervasive and indisputable.

Joe Glaser controlled 70% of the Black entertainers in America

Brother Wiley was addressing two very significant issues that have long been an ugly part of the entertainment industry: (1) the exploitation of Black artists by white Jewish managers, agents, lawyers, and record executives; and (2) the Ku Klux Klan-like racism of white Jews in that business. In his now purged Voice interview the “grunge rapper” was circumspect:

 

“The things that need to change is the way that the system was set up, why all of these families are rich, or all of these people have heritage, not just England, like, worldwide….They still see us as slaves. Slavery hasn’t stopped it’s just dressed up in a million pound record deal …”

The first issue is an old complaint that was voiced most sharply by the early jazz musicians. Jewish gangster Joe Glaser controlled 70% of the Black entertainers in America and robbed every last one of them, including Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, and Duke Ellington. The Jewish Chess brothers robbed the blues greats blind, including Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, and Muddy Waters. Jimi Hendrix was milked by Jewish thief Brian Epstein; murderer Phil Spector ripped off singer Darlene Love and his own wife, Ronny Spector; and Arthur Goldberg infamously stole millions from Little Richard. Prince had epic battles with Warner Brothers and began appearing with the word “SLAVE” written on his face. Michael Jackson publicly called Tommy Mattola (a Jewish convert) a “racist who exploited black talent.” Pharrell Williams complained that “It’s really weird: They own the fields where you and God have laid the seeds; you do the harvesting, but they have the ownership.” Wild & Out’s Nick Cannon claims “I created a billion-dollar brand” for Shari Redstone’s (nee’ Rothstein) Viacom, and “my ownership was swindled away from me….[T]hey have been mistreating and robbing our community for years.”

The problem with all these cases is that none of these Black performers apparently read or understood the real contract terms. In the Jewish world in which these Black gentile artists operate, the ancient Jewish “holy book” Talmud supersedes all other contracts and agreements. The 42-volume Talmud is thousands of years old and all-encompassing and binding in every respect. Its tractate (section) Bava Kamma 113b clearly states that Jews have every right to cheat gentiles in business. Bava Kamma 113a further stipulates that where a lawsuit arises between a Jew and a Gentile, it is permissible for the Jew to use lying and deception to achieve advantage. Blacks are just the latest to get tripped up by these strange Jewish Talmudic codes that have for many centuries caused often-violent rifts between Jews and Gentiles across Europe. There are no known cases of a Jewish manager being ripped off by a Black entertainer, and it is equally rare that a Jewish exploiter ever had to pay a criminal penalty for this open racial larceny, so obviously the more favorable Talmudic law is in full effect. It is only when Blacks come to understand the reality of these satanic Jewish ground rules that Blacks and Jews might come to a better, more equitable, relationship.

“6. He likes the devil because the devil gives him nothing.  7. Why does he like the devil?  8. Because the devil put fear in him when he was a little boy.” —English Lesson No. C1, The Supreme Wisdom

Wiley compared his exploitative business relationship with Jews to the experience Blacks have had with the terrorist Ku Klux Klan—and that exposure is what truly brought Jews to apoplexy. The Jews have been so successful in concealing their history of anti-Black violence and anti-Black hatred that it is found in but one publication—in a 73-page chapter in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews, Volume 2, released by the Nation of Islam in 2010. The chapter is titled “Jews, Lynching, and the Ku Klux Klan,” and it documents from Jewish sources some horrifying truths about their significant role in the American white supremacy movement.

Bernard Postal

But that is not a new revelation. Before the Civil Rights era, Jews readily called public attention to their unkosher KKK connection. In 1928, the Jewish Tribune newspaper actually published an article titled “Jews in the Ku Klux Klan,” in which the Jewish author, Bernard Postala B’nai B’rith official—boasted that Jews have had “a considerably more important hand [in the KKK] than Jews know about…” Postal reveals: [T]he attorneys for the dragons, kleagles and other officials have not infrequently been Jews….[T]here are unquestionably Jewish members of the Klan in many states.

The role of Jews in the KKK is surprising to no one who understands how Jews aided, reinforced, and profited from slavery and the trade in slave-produced commodities like sugar, tobacco, and especially cotton. And they performed their civic duty admirably. Prominent Jews fought to establish, maintain, and strengthen America’s slave codes and later Jim Crow laws. There were over 100 Jewish mayors and literally hundreds of Jewish public officials in the slavery and Jim Crow South. Jews served as police chiefs and as sheriffs, and as elected officials they faithfully upheld and reinforced White Supremacy and racial discrimination.

Reminder: The Ku Klux Klan gave their Jewish supporter “Manny” Steiner 50 roses in broad daylight. This is what they did to Blacks at night.

The Jew Klux Klan

Some important background: The Ku Klux Klan emerged in the post-Civil War and post-slavery era known as Reconstruction. Their role was entirely economic, namely, to force the emancipated Blacks from pursuing anything other than a plantation life as growers, cultivators, and pickers of that almighty crop that generated over eighty percent of the American economy—cotton. It was not easy for whites to wean themselves off a 300-year addiction to free Black labor and the violent means they had always used to maintain chattel slavery. They were not going to accept that Blacks would simply walk away from the central role that had built their world-leading empire.

Jews were particularly interested in how this post-war labor situation would resolve itself. Jewish businessmen flooded into the South to restart a collapsed and war-ravaged economy, with a particular focus on the cotton business. Jewish scholar Dr. Michael R. Cohen confirms and expands upon that core theme in his 2017 book titled Cotton Capitalists: American Jewish Entrepreneurship in the Reconstruction Era. He wrote that “Jews clustered in the cotton industry, and as a staggering number of Jews operated dry goods and general stores, Jews became deeply enmeshed in the nation’s—and perhaps the world’s—most important industry.” And so the re-enslavement mission of the Ku Klux Klan and the business aspirations of the Jews actually harmonized.

But it was even deeper than that. Dr. Cohen’s reference to the “staggering number” of Jewish-run general stores is key, because those ubiquitous country stores became the region’s ATMs—the hub of the sharecropping system in which ex-slaves were forced into low-wage service to the Jews’ cotton economy. The Jewish stores brought in the tools, the mules, the seed, and the finance, and likewise became the regional depots for the millions of cotton bales from Black sharecroppers all over the South. It is the ugly truth of how the Jews got so rich in America, and how the Blacks got stalled in abject poverty. So while the Ku Klux Klan and the Jewish business class were bosom buddies, Blacks were their perennial victims. When Black leaders—like Booker T. Washington, W.E.B DuBois, and Marcus Garvey—spoke up about this nasty economic injustice, they too were bludgeoned with the “anti-Semite” label. Today all those Black truth-tellers would have been banned from social media.

Were the Jews behind the formation of the Ku Klux Klan? Yes.

Early leaders of the Tennessee-born Klan sailed all the way to England to seek investment from an exiled Confederate Jewish banker named Judah P. Benjamin. A Louisiana  plantation owner with 140 enslaved Africans, Benjamin had arranged Jewish financing for the Confederate Army, a financial deal that extended the carnage for more than a year and earned him an honored portrait on their 2-dollar bill! The KKK emissaries told Benjamin of the “negro threat” to the South and that they needed horses and weapons to “control” Blacks and to reestablish the highly profitable slave system. Benjamin eagerly invested.

 

Another Jewish congressman, William M. Levy of Louisiana, said that freeing the slaves caused “despair and danger,” and he warned that “innocent maidens [and] helpless infants” were in imminent peril. It was Levy’s white supremacist rant in Congress in 1877 that put Rutherford B. Hayes into the presidency, ending Reconstruction and Black hopes of ever becoming truly free in America.

The respected Jewish scholar Harry Simonhoff wrote about the KKK with incredible irony. It had “A lingering tradition of religious tolerance [that] made it possible for Jews and Catholics to be members of the night-riding group.” Isaac Hermann of Sandersville, Georgia, was a Confederate veteran and a full-fledged Klansman. A Jewish scholar described him as a leader in the movement to “protect the whites against the Negro…” Philip Isenbaum of Mississippi identified himself as the “Grand Cyclops” of the Ku Klux Klan when he signed an 1871 notice threatening a lynching death for the white officials who had recommended “a big black nigger” for a position of authority. Isenbaum warned them to “beware, beware, beware, beware.” The father of Bernard Baruch, the influential banker who advised presidents from Wilson to Roosevelt, was a proud robe-wearing Klansman. The Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who was himself a Klansman, was invited to join by a Jew.

These are not just Southerners caught up in “southern traditions.” The most prominent Jew in America was New Yorker Rabbi Morris Raphall: he was the highest paid clergyman in America and in his most famous oration he declared to the world that God Himself supported slavery! Another Jewish leader asserted that “the Negro forms the mud at [the] base” of civilization. There were many Jews who believed as did Frank J. Cohen, editor of the Jewish Sentiment newspaper, when he said, in perfect harmony with Klan doctrine:

“The white man will rule by fair means or by foul….God Almighty never created the negro the white man’s equal and even an act of Congress will not change the trend of nature or swerve the white man from his determination to retain his supremacy.”

John Cohen was the longtime editor of the Atlanta Journal. He was the son of a rabbi and described as “high in the councils of the Ku Klux Klan.” He “whipped whites into a frenzy” of race hate that ultimately led to the Atlanta Massacre of 1906, in which 50 Blacks were murdered and 150 were wounded, forcing over a thousand to flee the city. White gangs met and organized at the O.H. Silverman Co. building, and pawnbrokers Morris and Samuel Greenblatt, at 123 Peters Street, supplied guns and ammunition.

In 1905, Cohen’s paper promoted Thomas Dixon’s racist novel Clansman, the book that became the inspiration for the most racially destructive movie ever made—The Birth of a Nation. So vicious was this Jewish-financed film that when it was released in 1915 it became the main driver in the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan. It made so much money for its east coast distributor that he went to Hollywood and started the largest movie studio in history. His name was Louis B. Mayer and his studio was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which became the fount of many of Hollywood’s racist movie images.

In 1896 a Jewish white supremacist named Adolph Ochs (pronounced ox) bought the New York Times and began publishing racist articles and editorials indistinguishable from Klan attitudes and beliefs. The Times freely used terms like “nigger,” “coon,” and “darkey” to describe Blacks, and it made a conscious point of never capitalizing the word Negro. The Ku Klux Klan capitalized “Negro” in its publications years before the New York Times would.

According to scholars, businesses showed their ideological solidarity with the racial terrorists by choosing names beginning with three K’s, and several Jewish merchants are found following that custom, especially in Klan strongholds: Kaufman’s Kampus Klothes, Kaufman’s Kosher Kafe, Harry Karp’s Kool Kwality Klothes, and Kadetz Kosher Kafe. In Columbia, South Carolina, there was Kohn’s Korrect Klothes and in Boise, Idaho, Kirshbaum’s Klever Klothes.

When Blacks gained a measure of political power in Wilmington, North Carolina, Jews were among the leaders that rallied the mob of whites in 1898 that massacred as many as 300 Blacks. According to the Encyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities, Nathaniel Jacobi organized business owners to threaten to fire their Black employees.

“At a public meeting, both Jacobi and [Solomon] Fishblate spoke to a growing mob and supported a declaration that whites should rule Wilmington and North Carolina. This meeting later resulted in the violent Wilmington Race Riot of 1898, in which white mobs terrorized the city’s black population and forcibly installed Democratic Party rule.…Jews like Fishblate and Jacobi supported this effort to overturn ‘black rule,’ showing how much Jews had assimilated into the local culture of white supremacy.”

 

It is well known that the Nazis forced Jews to carry “Jewish passports” stamped with an identifying letter “J”. The most prominent and wealthy Jew in Atlanta, Oscar Pappenheimer, actually proposed a similar plan for all Southern Blacks—30 years before Hitler! His close business associate was a man named Leo Frank, the president of the Atlanta B’nai B’rith. Frank advocated that Blacks be barred from giving testimony in court because, as Frank’s lawyer said, “If you put a nigger in a hopper he’ll drip lies.” When charged with murder, Leo Frank—the Father of the Anti-Defamation League—argued that murder is a “negro crime” and so he, a white man, could not be guilty.

Attorney Dale Schwartz, a national board member of B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League, grew up in a merchant family in Georgia that knowingly sold disguises to Ku Klux Klan members. He said that “whenever we sold a lot of white sheets we knew there was going to be a Klan meeting.” Said one Jewish merchant: “I used to sell ’em the sheets, and Sam the tailor made them into robes. Let me tell you we had a good business going.” A Jewish storeowner reportedly paid the Klan initiation fees for his employees.

 

In the early 1900s the most prominent Jew in America was Louis Marshall. A top attorney, he was founder and first president of the American Jewish Committee. Lesser known was that he was also the “main legal advisor” to the American Breeders Association, a pre-Hitler organization of whites committed to eugenics and the racial cleansing of America. Marshall opposed the anti-lynching bill proposed by the NAACP and fought to undermine it, calling it “unconstitutional” and a violation of “state’s rights.” He defended the KKK as a secret fraternal organization like his own.

The fact is, one is hard-pressed to find any Jew of any historical significance voicing any support for Black freedom, justice, or equality. The reality is that white supremacy is as Jewish a tradition as is corned beef and Hanukkah. Racism works for Jews—it is highly PROFITABLE and has sustained them over many centuries and in many lands. Find those societies in history where Black slavery forms the economic foundation—the Caribbean, Brazil, Mississippi Delta, South Africa, Rhodesia, Surinam, India—and Jews will be there also, not as an oppressed underclass but as a thriving and vital community. White supremacy will continue to uphold Jews and their white gentile partners as long as Blacks continue to play a passive and supporting role, giving them unfettered access to our children’s minds and a controlling interest in our Black talent and labor. 

What we see in Wiley, in Jay Electronica, in Nick Cannon, in Ice Cube, in Tamika Mallory, in DeSean Jackson, in Professor Griff, and what we see in all of those who have endured this latest round of Jewish lynchings, is NOT “anti-Semitism”—but our strongest and most conscious voices demanding to be free.

 


The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews series is available at the Final Call: https://store.finalcall.com/collections/the-secret-relationship-between-blacks-and-jews

 

The Leo Frank Hoax: Interview With the NOI Research Group

Interview With the NOI Research Group:

The Jewish Hoax of Leo Frank

The emergence of Donald Trump after the contentious 2016 presidential election has heightened racial rhetoric and tensions in America. The controversies over the national anthem, the police shootings of unarmed Blacks, and the Civil War monuments have forced a reexamination of the history of racial oppression in America.

Jewish people were particularly incensed by the protesters who displayed Nazi symbols and chanted “Jews will not replace us.” Within the angst-filled Jewish commentary a largely unfamiliar name was invoked over and over. That name was Leo Frank—a Jewish B’nai B’rith leader who was lynched in 1915 for the murder of a young Gentile girl, a crime his supporters say he did not commit. A Black man, Jews say, was the real murderer, and they present Frank as a Jewish martyr who paid the ultimate price as a victim of white racism and bigotry. Frank’s killing is considered by Jews to be “the worst case of anti-Semitism” in America’s history.

But a new book by the Nation of Islam probes the Leo Frank case and casts serious doubt on that century-old Jewish point of view. NOI researchers say the commonly believed story of Leo Frank is based on falsified data, cunning propaganda, and outright deception, and has little at all to do with the known facts of the case. Further, that falsified Jewish history is being dishonestly used by Jewish leaders for political and racial advantage. We sat down with the researchers of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 3, subtitled “Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man,” to learn more about this largely unknown case.

Describe for us the murder and how it developed into such an explosive case.

Leo Frank managed a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia, and he was also the president of the southern regional chapter of B’nai B’rith, the most prominent Jewish secret society. Thirteen-year-old Mary Phagan was one of about 120 child laborers working in the factory. She operated a machine that attached the metal band that holds the rubber eraser to the wooden pencil. 

On Saturday April 26, 1913, when the factory was deserted, the little girl came to the office of Leo Frank to get her pay of $1.20. In very much the same way as Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is accused of doing, Frank used his power as the factory boss to lure her to a back area and attempt to sexually assault her. Mary resisted and in the struggle Frank struck her and knocked her unconscious, and then strangled her to death. He left a trail of clues leading to himself, so within a few days of the murder he was arrested. He was later tried, convicted, and ultimately sentenced to death. After two years of legal appeals Frank was kidnapped from his Georgia prison cell and lynched. He is claimed to be the only Jew ever lynched in America.

Jews also claimed that somebody else committed the crime and that Frank was unfairly tried and that he was the victim of “anti-Semitism.” The case became an international cause célèbre for Jews—as infamous as the O.J. Simpson case. And just as with the O.J. case the story of Leo Frank has immense racial overtones.

You mentioned Harvey Weinstein—his method of targeting young girls seems chillingly similar to the Leo Frank scenario.

Very much so. Frank found himself in the identical predicament that Weinstein is in. According to testimony at his 1913 murder trial, many of Leo Frank’s own female employees testified about how he had tried to corner them and about how he had proposed sexual acts to them. One by one these teenagers took the witness stand and spoke of his lewd behavior. One employee said he had looked through a keyhole to find Frank performing oral sex on a woman—right in the factory! Another said Frank had offered her money for sex. The testimony was so explicit that the judge had to clear the courtroom of women. What’s worse, after this barrage of salacious stories, Frank’s lawyers argued that his behavior was not wrong—that it was a sign of more liberal times! One even said, “Deliver me from one of these prudish fellows that never looks at a girl and never puts his hands on her…” Another telling similarity between Harvey Weinstein and Leo Frank is that all the girls that Frank hunted down were all Gentiles, and that caused much resentment among the white men of Georgia. Weinstein, at least so far, seems to have adopted that familiar M.O. in his targeting of young women.

What does the case have to do with Black people?

The Leo Frank case is much like the Plessy-Ferguson or Dred Scott case is to Black people—it is a pillar of Jewish identity. And from the very beginning of this landmark Jewish case, Blacks were intimately involved. At first, Jews said a Black night watchman at the factory named Newt Lee was the real murderer. He was arrested and almost lynched, until he was found to have an iron-clad alibi. Then the Jews said that the real murderer was another employee, a Black man named James Conley, who was a sweeper at the factory.

The night watchman you mentioned, Newt Lee—how was he implicated in the case?

Newt Lee was working that night and in the early morning, during his rounds, it was Lee who found the body in the basement. He alerted the police and they—seeing a Black man near a dead white body—immediately arrested him. Incredibly, Frank’s own legal team actually planted a bloody shirt at Newt Lee’s home to make him look guilty. At the same time Lee’s factory time card, which gave him a strong alibi, was mysteriously altered to show that he had had the time to commit the crime. Only Frank and his crew of lawyers and hired detectives had the ability to frame Newt Lee like that. When the newspaper reported that a bloody shirt was found at Lee’s home, it almost got an innocent man lynched. Luckily for Lee, Frank’s legal eagles and private eyes did such a sloppy job at planting the shirt that the police were not fooled at all and suspected Frank even more. This is the point in the case where the people of Atlanta came to believe—and rightly so—that Leo Frank was the murderer.

Tell us more about James Conley. What is his involvement in the Leo Frank case?

James Conley was the most pivotal individual in the whole case. He was a 29-year-old Black man and a janitor at the pencil factory, and the Jews say he essentially teamed up with Atlanta, Georgia’s white police and white prosecutors to falsely charge and condemn his employer, Leo Frank. For a century Conley has been portrayed as an enemy of the Jewish people—maybe the first “Black anti-Semite.”

James Conley, falsely charged with the murder of a white gentile girl.

And because there is a Black man in the midst of such a historical Jewish tragedy, it was incumbent upon us to ferret out the truth of the matter. Was Conley a murderer, or was he being set up to take the fall for Leo Frank’s crime? Black scholars—up until now—have left Conley hanging, as it were. He is owed a fair analysis. Is he the first “Black Anti-Semite” or an innocent victim of a Jewish smear campaign?

How did James Conley go from factory janitor to “black anti-Semite”?

Conley says that on the day of the murder Frank ordered him to be a lookout stationed on the first floor as Frank—a married man—“Weinsteined” young females in his second-floor office. Conley said that he had performed that lookout service for Frank several times before, so he was well familiar with the assignment. When an unsuspecting Mary Phagan came in that day to get her pay, she went upstairs to her boss’s office not knowing she was walking into Frank’s trap.

Moments later Frank called Conley upstairs in a panic, explaining that he had accidently struck and killed the girl. Frank then ordered him to help him conceal the body in the basement and swore him to secrecy. As a Black man in 1913 lynch-mob Georgia, Conley did as he was told. But as the case became a front-page sensation, Conley came to believe that Leo Frank was about to scrap their agreement and pin the murder on him. So Conley confessed to the police about his role in helping Frank conceal the body.

His statement was so detailed and the details matched the physical evidence, and thus Conley became one of the strongest witnesses against Leo Frank. It must be noted that a grand jury with five Jewish members (including at least two from Frank’s own synagogue) indicted Leo Frank before Conley came forward. So the evidence clearly pointed to Frank’s guilt before Conley said a word. But once Conley spoke up, Frank and his legal team—and Jewish leaders and scholars for the last 100 years—have used every bit of their wealth, power, and clout to pin the murder of Mary Phagan on the Black man James Conley.

Why is the Nation of Islam interested in this case, a Jewish case?

Leo Frank, the only Jew ever lynched in American history. He murdered a 13-year-old white gentile girl and tried to blame his crime on two Black men.

When studying the historical relationship between Blacks and Jews, we find that the 1913-1915 Leo Frank case is a turning point—a watershed moment. It is claimed that Leo Frank’s lynching caused Jews to feel more sympathy for the oppressed condition of Blacks in America. They say it compelled Jews to join the Civil Rights Movement and caused them to form the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL). They say it led to the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan as an “anti-Jewish” organization.

In fact, none of that is true. But what IS true is that the Leo Frank case is the first use of “Black anti-Semitism” as a Jewish battle cry, and it marks the beginning of a hundred-year campaign by Jewish leaders to aggressively control and curtail Black progress. Jews insist that Blacks ignore the lengthy history of Blacks and Jews prior to the case and begin our relationship with them at the moment of Frank’s lynching in 1915—when we presumably were “united” in this tragedy. And if you examine the literature on the Black–Jewish relationship, it most often begins right at the very point of the Leo Frank case—as if nothing of historical significance preceded it.

Also, Leo Frank was not of the rank-and-file Jewish citizenry. As the B’nai B’rith president he was arguably the most important Jew in the South. Jews considered him as having, in effect, diplomatic immunity within the white rulership of the Jim Crow South, so his arrest, trial, and conviction shocked, offended, and activated Jews at the highest level. And they have sought to exonerate Frank ever since, but at Black people’s expense.

How did all the propaganda affect your approach to this case?

Our first view of the Leo Frank case accepted the prevailing opinion of Jewish scholars that Frank was innocent and wrongly convicted of murder, but there were red flags about how the case was being presented. We had to wade through reams of propaganda in order to get to the raw data, the primary documents. But once we did, it became clear that not only was Frank guilty of the rape and murder of Mary Phagan, but he and his Jewish defenders had taken anti-Black racism to an entirely new level.

There is no real doubt that Frank murdered Mary Phagan. Four separate investigative agencies—including the two detective firms hired by Leo Frank himself—concluded that Frank was guilty of the murder. A grand jury with five Jewish members indicted him. At least two of those Jewish men were members of Frank’s synagogue and one of them was a B’nai B’rith official! A 12-man jury of his fellow white men needed only a couple of hours to reach a unanimous guilty verdict. Once Blacks and whites decide to examine the ample evidence in the case, the conclusion that Frank was guilty is unavoidable.

What makes the Leo Frank trial problematic for Blacks?

Jews worked hard to pin the murder on two separate Black men. And then the Jewish leaders argued publicly and openly that (1) testimony from witnesses was invalid if they were Black, and that (2) Frank was innocent because murder and rape were “negro crimes.” Had the Jews succeeded in establishing those profoundly racist legal doctrines, crimes in America from then on would have been color-coded, and Blacks would be considered legally incapable of telling the truth! The fact that it was the Jewish community that advanced this wickedness makes the Leo Frank case a landmark case and irreversibly alters our understanding of the Black–Jewish relationship. 

Atlanta Constitution newspaper headline. Frank declared murder a “negro crime” and thus pronounced himself innocent.

Plus, the conduct of the trial by Frank’s defense was appalling. During jury selection Frank’s attorneys eliminated all the Blacks because they wanted to have an all-white jury; they attacked Blacks in open court, calling them “niggers” and “smelly” and “liars.” Frank’s attorney said that if you “hang a nigger in a hopper he’ll drip lies.” He asked one witness if he “ever smelled a nigger.” He told the court that they had “never known of a nigger” to leave sausage on a plate. Frank’s attorneys said that unlike the Jews Blacks were “a law-breaking race.”

Their defense appealed almost entirely to the “racial responsibility” of the all-white jury to exonerate a fellow white man. It is a testament to the sheer power of Jews that they were able to take a trial that may have been the most atrocious example of anti-Black race hate in the American judicial system and turn it into their most egregious example of anti-Semitism. Now Leo Frank is even being promoted as a Jewish civil rights icon, even though pure white supremacy was his courtroom defense! Yes, the Leo Frank trial was and is problematic for Blacks.

Was there a cover-up in this case?

A whole lot is being covered up in this case. Most people who have heard of the case have been told that Frank was in effect dragged out of a synagogue and tried at a Klan rally. But that was not the case at all. Frank, after all, was a prominent white man and a respected community leader in Atlanta—and he was treated as such by the police, prosecutors, and press. Jews in the South were honored members of the white community. They helped create the court system that enforced the legal inferiority of all Blacks. They never, ever had to face the racism that Blacks suffered.

Most people are not being told that there was blood and hair evidence, that Frank changed his alibi several times and lied constantly to police, that he was a womanizer who sexually harassed his girl employees, and that he claimed he couldn’t remember simple things. He hired private detectives that went around planting evidence and bribing witnesses to change their testimony. At his own trial Frank refused to be sworn on the Bible. Yes, there is a LOT that Jewish writers have covered up about the case, including Frank playing the race card to play to the white jurors’ prejudices about Black men. Most damning of all are the racist extremes that Frank and his B’nai B’rith associates were willing to go to free Leo Frank.

How did the Nation of Islam Research Group become aware of the Leo Frank Case?

Since at least 1959, Jewish leaders have targeted the Nation of Islam for destruction. And since 1983, Jews in America have ill-advisedly attacked The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, labeling him an “anti-Semite,” and they have unleashed a barrage of hatred and slander against The Minister and ALL Blacks who love and respect him. Minister Farrakhan’s response was to send his scholars into the libraries to examine the actual history of Jews and their historical behavior with respect to Black people, and it is an ugly picture indeed. Their extensive involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the marketing of the products of slavery was documented for the first time, as was their deep involvement in the Jim Crow South. When The Minister published this secret history in 1991 and again in 2010, it shocked most Blacks and Jews.

The reaction of Jewish leaders was to deny, deny, deny—but ironically most of the scholarship used by the NOI had come from Jewish historians, rabbis, and Jewish leaders themselves. We only quoted high-ranking and well-respected scholars like Korn, Wiznitzer, Marcus, Raphael, Brackman and others who had documented horrible truths about Jewish slave-trading, but had only shared that knowledge among themselves.

Even with that damning historical evidence, Jewish leaders insisted that the Nation of Islam was misleading the world. Blacks, they said, ought to look at the Leo Frank case as the BEST example of the plight of Jews in America. And it is they who demand that Blacks view Jewish history through the prism of Leo Frank.

And so we respected that Jewish request and performed the most extensive analysis of the case ever done. But the result is an even more devastating a blow to the propaganda that passes for Jewish history. In 536 pages, we show that most of what is believed about the case is a carefully crafted lie.

What makes the Leo Frank case relevant today? Why should anyone care about this case, this history?

The Leo Frank case marks the spot in Jewish history where they in effect weaponized the charge “anti-Semitism” to punish and destroy their enemies. It is the point when Jews moved to commandeer Black leadership to make Blacks serve Jews’ political purposes. The Messenger of Allah, The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad, says that in effect the civil rights movement was foisted upon us and is really a “hypocritical trick,” used to deceive us and defer our movement toward a full and complete freedom. The Leo Frank case is one of those tricks.

For example, Leo Frank’s crime happened at a very significant time for American Jews. The Federal Reserve was being established, as was the ADL. Both the Ku Klux Klan and the civil rights movement developed with the great assistance of Jews. So the Leo Frank case offered a chance to generate a victim-of-“anti-Semitism” storyline as cover for these other moves they were making at the time.

Was anti-Semitism involved in the Leo Frank Case? If so, how so?

Incredibly, this case is seen as the most egregious case of anti-Semitism in the history of America. Yet the records prove that anti-Semitism was almost entirely absent from the trial and its aftermath. The first time religion was introduced into the trial was through the bigotry of Frank’s own mother. She made a nuisance of herself at the trial, even standing up and cussing out the prosecutor, calling him a “Christian dog.”

We document at least three cases where Leo Frank hired people to incite “anti-Semitism” in his trial so that he could “play the anti-Semitism card” in his effort to free himself. So flagrant is this deception that we must ask how and why it has been allowed to stand for so long. It only proves that Blacks must examine history for themselves, no matter how strongly held the prevailing opinion and dogma may be. How the case has long been spun proves that some of the greatest liars in world history are historians—promoters of the Western world’s fairy tales.

When we Googled Leo Frank we found that he is being constantly referenced in articles and commentaries on today’s issues. Why are today’s Jews so passionate about the Leo Frank Case?

The Leo Frank case allowed Jews to reinvent and redefine themselves in America. Before the Frank case Jews were firmly a part of the slave-trading class of racial oppressors in a society that scapegoated Blacks and accepted the Jewish people as fellow Caucasians. Leo Frank gave them a chance to wipe that slate clean and start over in a biblical role as an American victim—the “despised and rejected” (Isaiah 53:3) for 400 years in a land not their own (Genesis 15:13).

You can’t be a slave-trading white supremacist people and maintain your image as God’s “Chosen.” So Leo Frank as a victim of a brutal lynching allows Jews to claim that the Jewish people as a whole were victims, rather than the victimizers that history proves they actually were. That is why most popular histories ignore the Jewish role in America between Columbus’s voyage in 1492 and the Civil War and Reconstruction of the mid- and late 1800s. They have hidden that history and demanded that we begin noticing the Jewish presence in America in the 1910s. In very much the same way that Jesus started time over again, Leo Frank the martyred hero allows Jews to claim that their American birth certificate reads August 17, 1915—the day Frank was lynched.

The case has been made into a play titled Parade, which seems to be performed all over the world.

Alfred Uhry, playwright and promoter of the Leo Frank hoax.

A society’s founding fables must be constantly reinforced if its citizens are going to react according to the wishes of its rulers. The Parade script provides that reinforcement for Jews. It is written by Alfred Uhry, the same Jewish man who wrote that unwatchable slavery nostalgia movie Driving Miss Daisy. Even in the three-word title, Uhry gives you the Black man’s job and function—a driver—without a reference to his humanity or even to his name. He is a servant to the more important Jewish woman, “Miss Daisy,” who has both a name and a respectful title. This is how Hollywood has misrepresented us, and, again, reinforced racial relationships. Uhry won a Tony for Parade because it tells Jews that they are the primary victims of America, and that Blacks are among their oppressors. He falsely represents James Conley as the murderer of Mary Phagan and he portrays Blacks as having aligned with whites specifically to persecute “the Jew.” Absurd.

Alfred Uhry’s claim to fame: Driving Miss Daisy. Considered to be a prime example of Hollywood’s demeaning racist roles.

Plays have to be examined, just like the Confederate statues. The ADL started out looking at plays, movies, books to ferret out and eliminate the defamation of Jews—it is in their founding charter. So those old movies have to go. Hamilton has to be reassessed. Over time, Black actors—much like the NFL’s Black athletes—will refuse these demeaning negro roles and “take a knee,” as it were. This would force Jews to play those demeaning roles in burnt-cork blackface—just like they used to. Parade defames Black people and cannot be allowed to stand.

 What do you think Alfred Uhry’s motive was?

Parade play is the main source of false Leo Frank propaganda.

Parade is a Jewish fairy tale—no more truthful than the story of Santa Claus or Washington’s cherry tree. In a sense Alfred Uhry does us a service, because Blacks must know how the theater and movies have been manipulated by Jews to effectively scapegoat our people. Parade demonstrates just how far they will go to make Blacks the villains. Leo Frank pointed his crooked finger at two Black men, which almost led to their lynching. He also accused a white Gentile man of the crime, and Frank’s team of thugs tried to hire a Black woman to poison the main Black witness. The lengths they went to free Leo Frank were beyond belief. None of Frank’s criminal acts make it into the Parade fairy tale.

In fact, Parade uses precisely the same formula as the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, which told the world that Blacks were a lethal threat to American civilization. It should come as no surprise that Jews were the financiers, promoters, and distributors of that movie, which is so racist that it is still used by the Ku Klux Klan as a recruitment film.

How many other books written about this case? Any movies? The NOI’s book would make a fantastic movie!

There are about a dozen books and hundreds of articles on the Leo Frank case—nearly all of them following the racist Jewish storyline of an innocent Leo Frank who paid the ultimate price for a rape and murder committed by a Black man. A TV movie with Jack Lemon and Charles Dutton was produced in 1988, and a PBS “docudrama,” The People v. Leo Frank, was made in 2009. A movie that corrects the history and that tells the story of those who purposely twisted the case would make a very powerful feature film.

We’ve always understood that the Jewish people were the “best friends” of Blacks throughout our history. How did we get it so wrong?

If we examine the origin of Black people’s belief that Jews were our friends and allies in our freedom struggles, we find they use the Myth of Leo Frank as their “proof.” Until the Nation of Islam’s books on the Black–Jewish relationship, Black scholars have not dared to look carefully into that claim. Unfortunately, they have allowed Jewish scholars to simply invent a false history and bum rush it into all our history books.

For instance, in many books on lynching Leo Frank is the only person named as a victim, even though more than 4,000 Blacks were brutally lynched in America! And just like that, Leo Frank—a white man—is made the symbol of American racial terrorism. In some books the KKK is made into an anti-Jewish phenomenon and racism is merely an afterthought to the Klan—even though no other Jews were ever lynched. Through the Leo Frank case, Jews have simply stolen our history—like Jacob stole the birthright of his brother Esau in the Bible. They’ve swapped their photo for ours and used our I.D.s, to the point that we, Blacks, have been duped into believing a false history. As Malcolm X once famously said, “we’ve been took, hoodwinked, bamboozled.”

What is most striking about the case is how every aspect of the Jewish community rallied around Leo Frank—from the rank and file with their letter-writing campaigns to the upper echelon of Jewish leadership. Their persistence is to be admired, even though the hard evidence clearly shows Leo Frank to be as guilty as sin.

Yes. For them it was not about his guilt or innocence but in pushing a “cover” narrative that Jews can use to advance their own political and economic agenda. It is a narrative that helps them stick together as a people and—even more important—it runs interference as they pursue their political and economic agendas. It is now clear that most Jewish leaders and supporters may have known that Frank was the murderer of Mary Phagan. But their mangling of BLACK history is unacceptable. For Frank to be innocent a Black man must be guilty—and that is unacceptable.

It is also fascinating how Jews and white Gentiles seem to have split over this case.

Yes. This case marks the point where Jews turned most viciously against white Gentiles. The Jewish people had been so well accepted in the South by the Gentiles that some Jews actually believed that Dixie was the Jewish Promised Land. It was in the South where Jews had made an incredible fortune in cotton and slavery. So white Gentiles were completely blind-sided by this Jewish scorched-earth effort to free Leo Frank at all costs. Jews even slandered the whole state of Georgia with the charge of “anti-Semitism,” which, we found, was non-existent; indeed, our research shows just the opposite: Southern whites have always been philo-Semitic.

For instance, nearly all the previous writings on the case claim that a white mob stormed the trial chanting, “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you!” In many books and articles these are the only words quoted in the whole case. Yet, there was no mob! There was no chanting! Frank partisans simply made it all up. We have a section in the book that lists all the authors that published some version of that lie, including the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and newspapers like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and many, many others.

That ONE SINGLE LIE is what Jews have pointed to for over a century to prove that they faced violent oppression in America. Yet it has no basis in fact at all. Quite remarkable.

Your use of primary documents makes this book groundbreaking—was it difficult in your research to access the original sources?

The original documents of the Leo Frank case are really an unexplored treasure trove that unlock the most confidential operations of the Jews’ highest leadership circles. As the Jewish leaders fought to free Leo Frank, a considerable amount of data about their private activities poured into the public record—information that is so extensive and so revealing that its very existence is unique in the annals of Jewish history. In much the same way as the slave-sale advertisements in our book Jews Selling Blacks unmask Jewish slave-dealing in the harshest way, so too does the Leo Frank case offer a unique window into the thinking and strategizing of the leaders of the Jewish people.

We examined the newspaper accounts, court records and filings, interviews, private investigators’ reports, and Jewish leaders’ private correspondence. Plus, we accessed a significant amount of information held in private archives and libraries, material that previous authors and researchers missed or purposely ignored. All of that is uncovered in the book.

The Nation of Islam goes against the scholarly grain in its revelations about the case—any backlash?

We expect that there will be much Jewish objection, but there is not much that can be disputed, given that the book’s thesis is supported so strongly by official documents and legal records. It is unlikely Jewish leaders will like seeing this history exposed. The Jewish newspaper Forward published an article this summer in which it interviewed Boston University professor Dr. Jeffrey Melnick. He is author of a book about the Leo Frank case, Black–Jewish Relations on Trial. He begins his interview with a surprising admission: “I’m clearly in a strange position of agreeing with a lot of what the Nation of Islam has to say…” In fact, Dr. Melnick was asked directly whether he felt Frank was really guilty. He answered, “I studied all I could and I can’t figure it out still.” Dr. Melnick still has his job, and yet we are still “anti-Semites”! Ironically, Jews falsely throwing around the “anti-Semitism” charge all started with the Leo Frank case.

Our book is so detailed and our range of source material is so extensive that Jews have “chosen” to sit this one out, and they cannot find a negro to push out front to repudiate it. Just as with the two previous volumes of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews series, Jewish historians have shown that they are not equipped to deal with scholarship at this level. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan demands intelligence and accuracy and, above all, TRUTH. While Jewish leaders were viciously slandering him, The Minister sent his scholars into the libraries—not into the gutter. Had we responded from the gutter, it would have been how traditional academia trained us. Min. Farrakhan gave us the intellectual weaponry to prevail in our research.

For those who are already students of the case, what does the Nation of Islam say in the book that is new?

We really bring an entirely new approach to the case. For instance:

  • We show how Frank’s lawyers maneuvered to force “anti-Semitism” into the courtroom where none existed.
  • There were two mysterious notes left next to the body that were written by the murderer. We hired a handwriting expert to analyze the notes and we found many clues that lead right to Leo Frank.
  • We chronicle how the national Jewish leaders took over the case, concocted a public relations campaign filled with racist lies and slander—with the Jewish-owned New York Times at the helm—and foisted it onto the public.
  • We analyzed Frank’s trial defense, which was explicitly racist and openly anti-Black.
  • We look deeply into the shady motives behind Governor John Slaton’s commutation of Frank’s death sentence.
  • We examined in detail not only the dubious pardon that the state of Georgia gave Leo Frank in 1986 but also the dubious claims of Alonzo Mann, who came forward after 70 years of silence to say he saw Conley with the body of Mary Phagan. It turns out that his new statements hurt Leo Frank far more than they help him.
  • We look at the illegal actions of Frank’s hired private eyes, who intimidated witnesses, planted evidence, and even hatched a murder plot against James Conley.
  • We look into the Jewish leaders who came to Frank’s defense and their real motives for taking on this case and a man they knew was guilty.
  • We looked into the group who is claimed to have lynched Leo Frank—The Knights of Mary Phagan—and uncovered some very strange and suspicious details that raise questions about who actually lynched the man.
  • We found that Frank’s stay in prison was almost luxurious—not the “anti-Semitic” nightmare that has been claimed.

Our goal was to introduce the case to a new generation who are more and more interested in this so-called Black–Jewish relationship and how it has affected Black progress. And to do that effectively we had to get to the bottom of who killed Mary Phagan. Was the murderer a Black man or a Jew?

It is only a matter of time before the falsehoods and lies that we have uncovered change the history of the Leo Frank case—and thus the Black–Jewish relationship—forever.

You seem to be saying that Leo Frank may not have been lynched by white gentiles at all…?

We believe that it is still a mystery who actually lynched Leo Frank. Nearly every account of Frank’s lynching says that a vigilante group called the Knights of Mary Phagan committed the act. But beyond a single mention of this group in the New York Times two months before the lynching, no record exists of this group anywhere. The Times was owned by a Jewish southerner named Adolph Ochs, who had actually joined the Leo Frank propaganda campaign. So the so-called Knights of Mary Phagan may have been planted to make a Gentile group take the fall for a lynching that was very likely committed by Jews themselves.

That may seem outrageous, but by the time of his lynching many people—including his Jewish supporters—came to believe Leo Frank was better dead than alive. Frank had such an offensive personality that his main Jewish supporter said that when he first met Frank, he impressed him as “a sexual pervert.” Think about that: Leo Frank was that repellant to his friends and advocates at his very first meeting with them! The man was Albert Lasker and he paid millions (in today’s money) for Frank’s defense, but he privately admitted that he was not even convinced that Frank was innocent. Frank’s repulsive personality just did not jibe with the angelic international image Frank’s public relations team had created for him—that of a humble, innocent, and suffering Jesus figure. That whitewashed image of the man conflicted with the actual character of the man and so, by the time of his lynching in August of 1915, the man himself had outlived his usefulness.

A measure of how expendable Leo Frank was to the Jewish community might be gleaned from his gravesite in New York. It is a remarkably tiny and non-descript headstone for someone who is considered a beloved Jewish martyr. Aside from that, Frank was a president of the B’nai B’rith. One would think that someone who had reached his level of significance would be honored by a grave as magisterial as those surrounding his. We think that it is a sign of Jewish contempt for the man himself. But Frank’s image—as manufactured as it is—lives on.

Are there any surviving members of the Frank family? How do they feel about the NOI’s recent book on the case?

Aside from his wife, Lucille Frank, and mother, there were no other immediate family members involved in the trial. Frank was buried in Brooklyn, where he grew up, and nothing more was heard from his family since.

His victim, Mary Phagan, has relatives who have taken up her cause. They have always believed that Frank was guilty. Interestingly, Mary’s grand niece was named after her—Mary Phagan Kean. As a young girl herself, she learned of the tragedy and began her own quest for the truth. Ms. Kean wrote a book published in 1987 titled The Murder of Little Mary Phagan and she, like us, examined the official records of the case. She concluded that Leo Frank was her great aunt’s murderer. We would venture that the Phagan family might appreciate the detail we have brought to our case analysis. At least we hope they would.

[….]

Thank you!

More NOIRG articles on the Leo Frank Myth:

LEO FRANK: HAVE YOU EVER SMELLED A NEGRO?

https://noirg.org/articles/leo-frank-have-you-ever-smelled-a-negro/

JEWISH PLAY PARADE HAS BLACK ACTORS TELLING WHITE LIES

https://noirg.org/articles/the-musical-parade-corrupts-black-jewish-history/

LEO FRANK AND PARADE: A JEWISH FAIRY TALE GONE BAD

https://noirg.org/articles/leo-frank-and-parade-a-jewish-fairy-tale-gone-bad/

JEWISH FORWARD TAKES ON LEO FRANK MYTHOLOGY

https://noirg.org/articles/jewish-forward-takes-on-leo-frank-mythology/

 


Note: The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews Series can be purchased here: https://noirg.org/store/ 

Leo Frank and PARADE: A Jewish Fairy Tale Gone Bad

 

When Alfred Uhry’s play Parade opened in Chicago this week (May 24 – July 2), its audience was told they would be watching a historical drama. The Chicago Tribune claimed that Parade is telling “a true story of a man falsely accused of murder.” That man is Leo Frank. He was a Jewish pencil factory manager and B’nai B’rith leader in Atlanta who was convicted of the 1913 murder of one of his employees, a 13-year-old gentile girl named Mary Phagan. Frank was ultimately imprisoned and then lynched in 1915, the only Jew ever lynched in America, it is claimed. As the Tribune suggests, many Jews for a century have believed Frank to be the innocent victim of “anti-Semitism,” and the play Parade dramatizes that belief.

“Parade” is a strange title for a play about two horrific murders. In choosing that title, playwright Alfred Uhry was referring to the big event that was underway on April 26, 1913—the last day of Mary Phagan’s young life. It was Confederate Memorial Day and a parade of old rebel soldiers was moving through Atlanta’s main thoroughfares. But in the context of today’s cultural politics, Parade is really about Jewish mythmakers forcing Americans onto the proverbial bandwagon and into believing a deeply troubling fairy tale concocted to give cover to one of the most racist episodes in Black history.

At best, it is a troubling oversight that Uhry and the play’s producers seem to be unaware of the seamier details of this highly racialized case. At worst, they have chosen to ignore how a viciously racist Leo Frank used both immoral and illegal tactics in his effort to avoid prosecution for a heinous crime of which he is most certainly guilty. The details of this “new” assessment are contained in the new Nation of Islam book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3: The Leo Frank Case, which represents the first time Black scholars have examined the case.

The findings in the book are devastating to the long-accepted narrative of Frank’s victimhood and put Uhry’s Parade squarely in the realm of anti-Black racial propaganda—classed with the notorious 1915 Ku Klux Klan recruitment film Birth of a Nation. It now appears that Leo Frank’s misfortune was quickly seen by Jewish leaders as an invaluable propaganda tool by which an invented history of Jewish oppression in America could be forged. Further, the book consults long-lost interviews and rare documents that reveal that some of Frank’s most ardent Jewish supporters not only were repelled by Frank’s abrasive personality but also believed he was in fact the murderer of Mary Phagan. They felt that if the murder conviction of such a high-ranking Jewish leader were allowed to stand, the image of the Jewish community would be dealt a severe blow. The combination of this fear and opportunism motivated the Jewish leadership to take on Frank’s case as a major cause célèbre. So Uhry’s Parade has little to do with the facts of the case: the play is instead crafted to maintain a 100-year fantasy and to satisfy a powerful Jewish community that insists on a sanitized view of their history for public consumption.

Of course, Jews can believe in anything they wish to believe in. Blacks, however, must be extremely cautious about being unwitting servants to this massive Leo Frank illusion. They must never forget that this myth does not exist in a racial vacuum. As the popular story goes, Leo Frank was “wrongfully convicted” for the murder of a defenseless child—but those who have worked unceasingly to exonerate the Jewish man have worked equally hard to pin this heinous crime on a Black man! And that brings this case into the realm of Black history, demanding serious Black analysis. For 100 years the name of James “Jim” Conley has been scapegoated in nearly all the Jewish-produced literature on the case. He was a janitor in the factory on the day of the murder, and he admits to being called by his boss Leo Frank to help move the girl’s body, and he admits to being sworn to secrecy. But later Frank and his supporters moved to pin the entire crime on Conley. Uhry’s Parade casts the Black man as a devious criminal who gets away with murder. Why Black scholars have not been motivated to interrogate this incredible injustice is a 100-year mystery.

 

Made household names of Lucky Strikes, Chanel, Pepsodent, Kotex, Quaker Oats,  Kleenex, Palmolive, Sunkist, Goodyear, and Budweiser.

Albert Lasker’s Nefarious Role

We might start with Leo Frank’s most significant supporter and sponsor—a man who is mysteriously absent from Uhry’s Parade script. Chicago icon Albert Lasker is considered the “father of modern advertising,” whose wide-ranging legacy credits him with being the inventor of the soap opera and with changing the name of America’s eugenicists—the cult that inspired the racial purification philosophy of Hitler—to the much more user-friendly “Planned Parenthood.” He was an early owner of the Chicago Cubs, and as a philanthropist gave all his life to Jewish causes. When Lasker heard of the Leo Frank case, the B’nai B’rith leader had already been convicted of the murder. It was Lasker who financed all of Frank’s post-conviction appeals and orchestrated his international public-relations campaign. Lasker contacted a prominent publisher and a private detective and all went to Atlanta to meet the man they would spend the next two years trying to liberate. Lasker recalled the meeting in Frank’s jail cell:

“It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he [Leo Frank] impressed us as a sexual pervert. Now, he may not have been—or rather a homeosexual [sic] or something like that…”

According to Lasker’s biographer, the men with him during that encounter took “a violent dislike to him [Frank].” Lasker “hated him,” and said, “I hope he [Frank] gets out…and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.

This harsh and condemnatory assessment of the man who would become a Jewish civil rights icon is shocking. Leo Frank impressed his most ardent Jewish supporters and the leading champions of his cause as “a sexual pervert,” who they hoped would die!

Now, how should Blacks view the man who they are told suffered for the crime of a Black man? Frank’s own thinking is reflected in an Atlanta Constitution front-page headline on May 31, 1913: “Mary Phagan’s Murder Was Work of a Negro Declares Leo M. Frank.” The newspaper quoted the B’nai B’rith leader as he sat in jail awaiting his murder trial:

“Here is a negro, not alone with the shiftless and lying habits of an element of his race, that is common to the South….No white man killed Mary Phagan. It’s a negro’s crime, through and through. No man with common sense would even suspect I did it.”

The Jewish leader—today heralded as a civil rights icon—publicly argued that murder, being a “negro crime,” could not have been committed by him, a white man. That was Leo Frank’s defense! Further, he argued, the Blacks who testified against him could not be believed because they were negroes. At trial Frank’s attorney upbraided the all-white jury, who found the testimony of the Black witnesses far more logical and believable than his Jewish client’s story:

“They would rather believe the negro’s word….Oh, how times have changed. I hope to God I die before they change any worse than this…”

Private eye William J. Burns planted “evidence” and bribed witnesses for Leo Frank. His own detectives publicly stated Frank was the murderer.

Leo Frank hoped that his appeal to pure white racism would get him acquitted, but Albert Lasker knew that the evidence that convicted him was damning. He hired a private eye named William J. Burns to plant “evidence” and to bribe witnesses. That tactic backfired so badly that it actually fueled the outrage in Georgia that led to Frank’s lynching. Years later Lasker confessed that Burns “put in” so “much perjured stuff…until it embarrassed our case at times.”

You won’t find any of this in Alfred Uhry’s Parade, but it can all be found, well referenced, in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3: The Leo Frank Case. Blacks have passively accepted a patently false version of history and have allowed themselves to be puppets for Uhry’s production, agents of an odious Jewish propaganda. Parade is the very worst in a long line of racist assaults on truth itself. Just as Lasker and Burns had to fabricate an alibi for Frank, Uhry has put his own mendacious words in the mouths of Parade’s Black characters, slandering James Conley in the most wicked way. But in 1913, James Conley represented his own humanity with an inner strength and dignity that Leo Frank could only achieve via Uhry’s racist imagination:

“I know I will be either hanged or get a life sentence, but I am prepared to take my medicine. I wrote the notes and I helped carry the body to the basement, and I know they can punish me for that. When the judge calls me up before him I am going to ask him not to ask me any questions, but to simply sentence me. If it’s to hang, I’ll stick to my story; and if it’s life imprisonment, there’ll be no change. It makes no difference what the sentence is, I’ll have nothing to add and nothing to take away from the statement I made to the detectives…”
It is THAT James Conley that must speak today. Parade’s Black actors must INSIST that the real words of Leo Frank, Albert Lasker, and James Conley be reflected, lest they be viewed as complicit agents of racist propaganda. The choice is theirs.

 

Two articles on Leo Frank and PARADE:
LEO FRANK: HAVE YOU EVER SMELLED A NEGRO?
JEWISH PLAY PARADE HAS BLACK ACTORS TELLING WHITE LIES

Leo Frank: HAVE YOU EVER SMELLED A NEGRO?

A Jewish Civil Rights Icon Frames a Black Man for Murder

The racial history of Georgia is fraught with blood-curdling violence and the utter extremes of white supremacy. Native genocide, African slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow, lynching, KKK terrorism, and state-sponsored oppression were not only practiced there—they are at the existential root of Georgia itself. Black people can safely say the state motto—“Wisdom, Justice, Moderation”—is hypocrisy.

Source: Jews Selling Blacks: Slave-Sale Advertising by American Jews

Jewish people claim that they shared victimhood with Blacks throughout Georgia history. But in order to make that claim they ignore the extensive Jewish slave trading, such as that of Leah Minis, who was publicly advertising “Sundry Negro Slaves in families” in 1795, or that of Israel Keiffer, who in 1781 was selling “some Negroes, Cattle, and Household furniture,” “property” of the late co-religionist Solomon Zantz. They must ignore the mass Jewish exodus from Georgia in 1740, which occurred not to escape some anti-Semitic violence but, according to Rabbi Dr. Jacob Rader Marcus, to protest that “Negro slavery was prohibited, the liquor traffic was forbidden.” You read right. When Georgia decided to ban slavery, the Jews booked it to find a slave state. They only returned when African slavery was reinstated nine years later.

Source: Jews Selling Blacks: Slave-Sale Advertising by American Jews

To make the case that they have kinship with Blacks in suffering the worst of white American racism, Jews point to a single event—the 1915 lynching of the convicted murderer of a young gentile girl, Jewish leader Leo Frank, who was killed after being snatched from a Georgia prison cell. Based on this one event Jews have claimed a historical oppression equal to that of Blacks, and Leo Frank has been given a sacred martyrdom status in the history of Jews in the Black civil rights movement.

 

A new book by the Nation of Islam delves deeply into the Leo Frank case to meticulously examine this little-known history. Of the dozen or more books and thousands of articles written about this most significant case, it turns out that, strangely, none of those studies are by Black scholars. And the Jewish writers have routinely evaded the extraordinary involvement of Blacks in the case and how they were used and abused in the legal process that led to Leo Frank’s murder conviction. The 536-page book on the Leo Frank case by the Nation of Islam is titled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 3, The Leo Frank Case, and it reveals in graphic detail that the B’nai B’rith leader Leo Frank and his Jewish supporters were no civil rights crusaders: they were staunch proponents of white supremacy and true believers in the racist status quo.

 


Leo Frank Frames a Black Man for Murder

The trial of Leo Frank for the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan was a veritable cesspool of racism—not by the Georgia prosecutors of Leo Frank, but by Leo Frank and his hired defense team! One of the ugliest examples of Jewish racism commenced just hours after the murder. The man who discovered the body in the basement of Leo Frank’s pencil factory was Leo Frank’s employee, the Black night watchman named Newt Lee. Though it was Lee who alerted police to the grisly scene in the early morning hours of April 27th 1913, the police immediately arrested and jailed him, for no other reason than the arrest of the nearest Black person was a long-established American tradition.

But Frank also found himself under suspicion after police noticed that he was unusually nervous and trembling and that the statements he gave to investigators were, to them, less than candid.  One of scores of child employees at the factory, Mary Phagan had come to meet Frank to get her pay, and he admitted to being the last person to see her alive. Leo Frank sensed that police had their suspicions of him, but as the leader of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith organization he had the wealth and connections to obtain the most expensive lawyers and private investigators. And once his legal team was assembled, they seem to have been working zealously and illegally to deflect suspicion away from their client Leo Frank.

Civil Rights Icon Leo Frank and murder victim Mary Phagan

While Newt Lee sat chained in jail, and with the newspapers stoking a lynch-mob fervor against him, someone broke into Lee’s home, found a shirt of his, smeared it with blood, and placed it in his clothes hamper. At the very same time, Frank’s lawyer and fellow B’nai B’rith member Herbert Haas was “informing” police where they might be able to find that damning “evidence” against Lee. But Haas handled his part of the “frame-up” so poorly that police immediately suspected the bloody shirt to be “planted” evidence. The shirt appeared newly washed and not to have been worn at all, and it had been smeared with blood as if someone had used it to wipe a table. Worse, police confirmed that Lee, who was then sitting handcuffed in jail, was still wearing the shirt he had on on the day of the murder.

Further tying this botched scheme to Leo Frank was the simultaneous discovery that Frank had altered his night watchman’s factory timecard to indicate that Lee could have committed the crime. The front page of the April 30th edition (“Extra No. 8”) of the Georgian is titled “SUSPICION LIFTS FROM FRANK; MAY BE FREED,” and quotes detectives: “We now have enough evidence to convict Newt Lee.” Most troubling is the following passage:

Additional clews furnished by the head of the pencil factory were responsible for the closing net around the negro watchman…what suspicion had rested on Frank was being rapidly swept away by the damaging evidence against the black man. It was announced that he [Frank] probably would be liberated tonight or in the morning.”

Atlanta Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford declared to reporters that somebody was blocking the Phagan investigation, silencing witnesses, and ‘planting’ evidence. Chief Lanford understood—as did everyone else following the sensational case—that only one person, Leo Frank, could benefit from these actions against the poor Black night watchman. And it was only Frank who had the resources to mount such an operation.

Frank’s botched attempt to frame his Black employee was actually the final straw for police, who then concluded that Leo Frank was the likely murderer. They arrested him, and a grand jury with five Jewish members indicted Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan. The “bloody shirt” incident came up at the trial and was one of the strongest pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution.

 


Leo Frank’s Racism on Trial

Tampering with, falsifying, and altering evidence are bad enough—indeed, they are all felonies—but when confronted with their crimes at his trial, Frank’s team doubled down and dove even deeper into the mud. His main trial attorney was the South’s premier advocate, the famed Luther Rosser, and in open court he had this incredible exchange with an expert witness who testified that the bloody shirt had indeed been planted at Newt Lee’s home:

Rosser: The shirt had the odor of blood on it when you first got it, didn’t it?

A. Yes.

Rosser: Then, wouldn’t the odor of blood have killed the odor of “nigger”?


A. No.

Rosser: Then, if a nigger had just put on his shirt and had taken it off in an instant, your nose would “get him”?

A. Have you ever smelled a negro, Mr. Rosser?

Rosser: More than you ever smelled. I was smelling them before you were born.

Jewish civil rights icon Leo Frank sat nodding approvingly at his attorney’s cross-examination prowess. For, though Rosser was no closer to rebutting the damning evidence against his client for the serious crimes of rape and murder, he had indeed established himself as the resident authority on the smell of niggers. And so a budding Black-Jewish relationship, which could have held out the promise of equal opportunity, racial brotherhood, and civil rights, collapsed like a 9-11 controlled demolition.

 

Notwithstanding this bizarre and grotesque trial tactic, Newt Lee testified in such a strong, truthful, and dignified manner that even the all-white jury could not be convinced that Lee had committed any crime at all. But that did not deter the Frank team, which argued in court that Lee, and the many Black witnesses that testified, should not be believed—simply because they were Black. “Negro testimony,” they insisted, was by definition inferior and unreliable. Further, Frank advanced the notion to the court that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus by definition a white man (like him) could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan.

Of course, had the Georgia prosecutors pursued an “odor of Jew/Jew testimony/Jewish crime” attack against Frank, such an outrage would ring from every American history book as the very best proof of American “anti-Semitism” in its rudest form. Instead, Leo Frank—a Jewish racist—is “credited” with being the founding father of  the Anti-Defamation League and the Black-Jewish relationship

Today, of the many studies of the case, all have concealed the anti-Black racism of Leo Frank and his supporters. Journalist Steve Oney is the ADL expert on the case. He penned a book of 742 pages yet avoids this “smell-of-nigger” exchange altogether. A stage play by Alfred Uhry titled Parade, which is now touring America, ignores and whitewashes these seedy features of Leo Frank’s alleged civil rights résumé.

All of this hidden history is revealed in unprecedented detail in the pages of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3. What’s more, the attempted framing of a Black man—a framing that Leo Frank had hoped would result in the innocent man’s lynching—is just one of many incidents of racism committed by Leo Frank and his representatives as he tried desperately to free himself from the charge of rape and murder, at the expense of an innocent Black life.

The Jewish role in the early civil rights movement has always been taken for granted as having a strong foundation in truth. Now that Black scholars have conducted a rigorous investigation of the Leo Frank case, the Jewish role in the Black struggle must be seriously revisited, uncovered, and exposed.


See the banned video at https://www.bitchute.com/video/lcUuo9tS2swE/

Jewish Forward Takes on Leo Frank Mythology

Notice recruiting Black actors to perform roles in Parade.

HOW JEWISH PROPAGANDA BECOMES HISTORICAL “FACT”

Ms. Aimee Levitt’s recent article in the Forward asks the provocative question, “Was Leo Frank A Case Of Jews Playing The Jew Card?

The Forward is responding to a series of three articles by the Nation of Islam Research Group questioning the authenticity of the Alfred Uhry musical Parade, which has been performed in theaters across America. Blacks would know Uhry as the writer of the insulting uncle tom drama Driving Miss Daisy. Parade is based on the alleged anti-Semitic prosecution of Atlanta B’nai B’rith president Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old gentile girl who worked at the factory that Frank managed. Frank was lynched in 1915, and his case is considered the worst incident of anti-Semitism in American history. Mr. Uhry’s play Parade promotes the idea that Frank was innocent of the murder and that a Black man named James Conley was the real assailant, who then schemed with Georgia authorities to persecute “the Jew.”

A new book by the Nation of Islam titled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 3—the first book about the case written by Black scholarscompellingly argues that a true analysis of the evidence shows that Frank was in fact guilty and that Jewish leaders know this but are exploiting the case to claim a victimhood in America for their own political advantage. Thus, Uhry’s musical Parade is a flagrant example of Jews playing the “Jew Card.”

To Ms. Levitt’s credit she has consulted two Jewish scholars who have written books on the case: Dr. Jeffrey Melnick and journalist Steven Oney, the latter being the Anti-Defamation League’s resident expert on the case. Inexplicably, Levitt chose to avoid any of the points presented in the three articles that prove that Parade is far more propaganda than fact. The articles can be found at the following links:

Playwright and race propagandist Alfred Uhry.

LEO FRANK: HAVE YOU EVER SMELLED A NEGRO?

https://noirg.org/articles/leo-frank-have-you-ever-smelled-a-negro/

JEWISH PLAY PARADE HAS BLACK ACTORS TELLING WHITE LIES

https://noirg.org/articles/the-musical-parade-corrupts-black-jewish-history/

LEO FRANK AND PARADE: A JEWISH FAIRY TALE GONE BAD

https://noirg.org/articles/leo-frank-and-parade-a-jewish-fairy-tale-gone-bad/

In the Forward article, Dr. Melnick begins his comments with a surprising admission: “I’m clearly in a strange position of agreeing with a lot of what the Nation of Islam has to say…” In fact, Melnick was asked directly in 2010 whether he felt Frank was really guilty. He answered, “I studied all I could and I can’t figure it out still.” Steve Oney’s 2003 book on the Frank case has the distinction of being probably the only book written in the 21st century that still uses the words “Negro” and Negress throughout its pages to refer to Black people. In 2013 Oney wrote: “I think there was a reasonable case against Leo Frank.” Those statements by Ms. Levitt’s scholars effectively throw into question the claim that Frank’s ordeal was based on “anti-Semitism” and not the damning evidence found at the scene of that horrific crime.

Steve Oney, author of And the Dead Shall Rise.

Levitt’s article is titled “Musical Sparks Fresh Tensions With Blacks Over Infamous Leo Frank Case.” But the “tensions” Ms. Levitt refers to are not even between Blacks and Jews—they are between the Jewish ADL and their own expert on the case, Steve Oney. Levitt can today find on the ADL’s own website the claim that a violent anti-Semitic mob gathered outside the Atlanta courtroom chanting, Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew. Scores of Jewish authorities, including Alan Dershowitz and ADL leaders Abraham Foxman and Jonathan Greenblatt, have promoted this claim as proof of anti-Jewish bigotry. But Oney told the Jewish Journal:

“It didn’t happen….Jews were accepted in the city, and the record does not substantiate subsequent reports that the crowd outside the courtroom shouted at the jurors: ‘Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you.’”

Of the men who lynched Frank, Oney writes that they “were motivated by neither bloodlust nor anti-Semitism.” Ms. Levitt might care to referee that serious internecine conflict amongst Jews.

Dr. Jeffrey Melnick, author of Black–Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South

Levitt accurately points out that her paper’s own founder, Abraham Cahan, went to Atlanta in 1913 to interview Frank in jail. She should have revealed that Cahan quoted Frank himself:

“Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel [murder conviction] that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.”

Frank’s wife Lucille, according to Cahan, “supported her husband’s claim.”

So where does this leave those involved in the production of Alfred Uhry’s Parade?

Jews, of course, are welcome to promote any mythology about themselves that they care to. That’s why they set up Hollywood. But Black actors should seriously consider whether they still want to be Driving Miss Daisy for Alfred Uhry, promoting anti-Black bigotry in the form of entertainment. Whilst Steve Oney has dismantled the core of the “anti-Semitism” charge, it CAN NOT be refuted that Leo Frank and his Jewish defenders launched one of the most racist trial defenses in American history—and that is the central argument in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 3.

Should Blacks ignore the fact that agents working for Leo Frank planted a bloody shirt at the home of a Black man named Newt Lee, in an attempt to frame him for the murder of Mary Phagan? Should we ignore that the main argument of Franks trial defense was that he could not have done it because murder is a “negro crime”? In open court his attorneys made such statements as “Don’t you know a nigger never had sausage on the table without eating it?” The Jewish defendant himself, now promoted as a civil rights icon, referred to Blacks as “niggers” without reservation. Dozens of young women testified that Frank harassed them on the job seeking sexual favors. He used the labor of gentile children and worked them long hours, whilst Atlantas Jewish children were attending the best schools in the city; and his factory jobs were segregated by race, with a “negro toilet” in the basement.

Should not Parade actors know that both of Frank’s hired private detectives concluded that Frank was guilty? Should the Parade audience be informed that according to the ADL, there were five Jewish members of the grand jury who voted to indict Frank for murder? Should they know that Frank’s main supporter Albert Lasker said that Frank “impressed us as a sexual pervert…”? And though he spent nearly $3 million in todays dollars on Frank’s behalf, should not Jews be apprised that Lasker privately expressed serious doubts about Frank’s innocence? Should Jewish people who suffered under Hitler know that Franks main appeals attorney, Louis Marshall, was also the “main legal advisor” for the eugenics movements American Breeders Association?

All this and much more is revealed in the 536-page Nation of Islam book, and backed by 1,227 footnotes.

Blacks must be made aware that the Leo Frank case has been used as a ploy to hide a much uglier BlackJewish truth. Brandeis professor of Jewish studies Jonathan Sarna recently confirmed that before the Leo Frank case, Jews had no history of being oppressed in America. Dr. Sarna wrote that if the United States “has not been utter heaven for Jews, it has been as far from hell as Jews in the Diaspora have ever known.” The fact is that Jews in America have a long history of making America a hell for Blacks. Dr. Abraham Peck, at the American Jewish Archives, was unmistakably clear:

“The first two centuries of the Black–Jewish encounter in America were highlighted by a fairly extensive record of Jewish slave-holding. Indeed, during the colonial period, in the small Jewish community of the time, almost every Jewish household of any form, North or South, possessed at least one slave.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia reveals the surprising fact that

[T]he cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.

By the 20th century, Jews badly needed major racial damage control—and so the Leo Frank Myth was born. For a full century Jews have used their immense media power to make Leo Frank the victim of the Mary Phagan Murder Case. And the strategic promotion of this boldfaced “anti-Semitism” lie is the only reason the public believes the Jewish people have been an oppressed minority in America, “just like the Blacks.” But, unacceptably, their 100-year Jewish spin on this tragic murder case is at the expense of Black people.

Alfred Uhry’s Parade is the main vehicle for this pernicious Jewish propaganda. Relatively few people will actually have attended its recent performance in Chicago, but the dozen articles it spawned in the major and minor Chicago press and beyond will serve to spread the myth of Jewish victimhood much, much further. And, along with that, they will spread the falsehood that Leo Frank was lynched for a murder committed by a Black man. Thus Uhry promotes the myth of a “Black anti-Semite” as the source of all American Jewish woes.

The Birth of a Nation, the first Hollywood blockbuster, was also a Ku Klux Klan recruitment film. So rotten were its Black caricatures that white actors in burnt cork blackface had to play some “negro” parts. Black actors must now see Parade in the very same way. Let Jews promote a racist myth as actual history—that is their prerogative. Black participation in our own degradation for a Jewish P.R. campaign is simply a disgrace.

Alfred Uhry probably didn’t mean to be so apt when he was asked by an interviewer, “What do you hope people will bring away from this musical?”

If people are touched, I’ve done my job. This is risky. Sometimes I think, “OK, this time they’re going to catch me, I have no talent, they’re going to nail me for the fraud I am.”

Exactly.

 

 

White Jews Play ‘The Race Card’ Against Black Jews

White Jews Play ‘The Race Card’ Against Black Jews

Black Jews have begun to raise their voices about what they perceive as a hypocritical racial duplicity by their white Jewish brethren. They see white European Jews—also known as Ashkenazi Jews—as on the one hand claiming the historical mantle of an oppressed race, but easily toggling back into whiteness to access the multiplicity of privileges of institutionalized White Supremacy. Meanwhile, from their advantaged position white Jews deny or ignore the racism faced by Black Jews and make little or no effort to truly ameliorate racism or to upset a racially skewed system from which they derive such profound benefits.

A recent op-ed in the Forward by a Black Jew challenged “white Jews” to stop denying that they are “functionally white” and admit that they are unabashed beneficiaries of White Supremacy. This rather mild criticism generated a most fearsome anti-Black backlash—so much of a firestorm that it closed down online Jewish forums, causing some Black Jews to quit in protest: “I got hateful messages, my black friends and I were called ‘racist c**ts,’ and people outright laughed at my fears.” So volatile was this internecine explosion that the Forward had to take a break from cheerleading Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians to cover the rebellion in an article titled “An Oped About Race Sets Jewish Facebook Aflame.”

Lawyer Micha Danzig, an Israeli army veteran and former New York cop, took strong issue with being labeled “white”—and by a Black Jew, no less. White Jews have debated this “Are-Jews-a-race-or-religion?” issue for years, as recorded in Karen Brodkin‘s book How Jews Became White Folks. But when Black Jews venture an opinion, all hell apparently breaks loose. After all, Blacks are, according to Israel’s top rabbi, “monkeys.”

In a Forward response titled “No, Ashkenazi Jews Are Not ‘Functionally White’,” Mr. Danzig insists that Jews are a separate and distinct “race” that has suffered for their Jewishness. But to make his point and to belittle the Black Jews, Danzig propagandizes a fake Black history, contorting three episodes into unrecognizable remnants of actual events. In fact, when placed back in their proper historical context, all three of his examples demonstrate the very opposite of the Jewish victimhood narrative that he intended to promote. His examples instead show that Jews are among America’s most prominent purveyors of white supremacy and that their vicious and hateful reaction to their own Black “brethren” is—historically—not the least bit surprising.

 

(1) WALTER WHITE

Danzig framed his argument via the case of Walter White, a very light-skinned Black man who could “pass for white” and who became an official in the NAACP, not a “founder” as Danzig misstates. According to Danzig, White “went undercover with the KKK in order to investigate and sometimes prevent lynchings in the South. He was a hero.” In this role, Walter White was undoing what many white-skinned Ashkenazi Jews in the South had worked to establish to secure their place in the cotton-based economic infrastructure. Being well-represented among the major cotton traders of the South, Jews had as much or more to gain than any other white ethnic or religious group in ensuring that the Black man continue in the cotton-producing role he had been in for the previous 300+ years.

And that is why the early Gentile leaders of the terrorist Ku Klux Klan sailed all the way to England to secure investment from an exiled Confederate Jewish banker and plantation owner named Judah P. Benjamin. Benjamin had been so effective in arranging Jewish financing for the Confederacy that they put his Ashkenazi face on their 2-dollar bill. When the slavocracy was defeated, Benjamin lost the 140 Blacks he enslaved, and he, like most Southern whites, saw the KKK as a way to terrorize Blacks and force them back into their former roles on cotton plantations. The Jewish Encyclopedia couldn’t be clearer: “[T]he cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.”

 

(2) GRANT’S ORDER #11

Danzig believes that Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s infamous 1862 Order Number 11, in which he calls for the expulsion of Jews from parts of Tennessee, demonstrates that Jews were oppressed and targeted in America. The expulsion order itself was designed to enforce a trade embargo on the Southern Confederacy—just as the world embargoed and sanctioned the apartheid government of South Africa a century later. Israelis and American Jews were among those who secretly supplied South Africa, the most racist government on earth, with material support and even nuclear weapons—despite world outrage at the violent and repressive anti-Black regime. According to Seymour Hersh, Israel’s Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin “gushed over” South African Prime Minister B. J. Vorster, even though he “belonged to one of the most extreme of the pro-Nazi groups—the Ossewabrandwag.”

Photo | South Africa’s prime minister John Vorster (second from right) meets with Israel’s prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (right) and Menachem Begin (left) and Moshe Dayan during his 1976 visit to Jerusalem. (Photo: Sa’ar Ya’acov)

And so it was in the case of the Jewish presence in the American Civil War. As soon as Lincoln heard of Grant’s order against Jewish traders, he rescinded it. But we should understand why Grant and those prosecuting the war against the Confederacy were so frustrated with Jewish merchants, traders, and peddlers. Jews were among those whites attempting (very often successfully) to break the embargo by smuggling cotton out of the South in exchange for gold. This gold was desperately needed to continue the rebellion of the slave states and to continue the slave trade. Danzig apparently expects that we—the descendants of the Black slaves and victims of the slave system these Ashkenazi Jewish merchants were intending to uphold—ignore this incredible Jewish betrayal and see these victimizers as victims?!

Further, the “vicious anti-Semite” Ulysses S. Grant won the presidential election, taking the majority of the Jewish vote and becoming “one of the greatest friends of Jews in American history.” Danzig, in his futile quest to find “anti-Semites” finds only friends. Meanwhile, Blacks are reviewing Robert Rosen’s much more interesting book Jewish Confederates, which is filled with Ashkenazis who were willing to die—to die—to keep the Black man and woman in chains. It is a fat 517 pages long.

 

(3) THE LEO FRANK CASE

In his third historical delusion, Danzig writes that “In Georgia, in 1915, Leo Frank was wrongly convicted of a crime and lynched because he was Jewish.” Danzig is here relying on white Ashkenazi “historians” who for 100 years have fabricated much of the Leo Frank story for the very purpose that Danzig now uses it—to convince uninformed Blacks that the lynching of a single Ashkenazi Jew for a murder he did in fact commit outweighs 360 previous years of Jewish slave-trading, KKK involvement, and Jim Crow collaboration. The Leo Frank case (which began in 1913, not 1915 as Danzig again misstates) is notable because it is credited with initiating the ADL, the racist forerunner of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI COINTELPRO operation.

B’nai B’rith leader Leo Frank was the Harvey Weinstein of his era. He ran a pencil factory filled with adolescent Gentile girls, many of whom testified under oath that Frank often sexually harassed them. Frank cornered 13-year-old machine operator Mary Phagan, who resisted, and in the struggle he raped and killed her. And just as Harvey Weinstein hired Israel Mossad agency Black Cube to clean up his mess and tarnish his accusers, Leo Frank hired two nationally known private investigation firms to help him pin the crime on two Black men. Ultimately, both detective agencies were unwilling to corrupt themselves and they publicly stated that Frank was guilty of the murder.

Danzig couldn’t have picked someone—Jew or Gentile—better suited to prove the utter whiteness of Ashkenazi Jews. At his trial for the murder of Mary Phagan, Leo Frank’s attorneys castigated Black witnesses as “niggers” and demanded that the jury dismiss all “negro testimony” because it came from “negro” mouths. They railed about the “smell of negroes” and argued that Frank, a white man, could not have committed the murder because murder “was a negro crime.”

Danzig should have just consulted the Forward‘s own archives, wherein founder Abraham Cahan interviewed Leo Frank himself and quoted the convicted murderer directly: “Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.”

Danzig presents these cases as “proof” of Jewish victimhood in America. Yet all three prove that Ashkenazi racism is at the very core of the American Jewish experience. Black Jews are now realizing that to embrace white Ashkenazi Jews means they are embracing their own oppression. Their utterly mild Black observations of white Jewish attitudes were met with the most unprintable racial filth, not from David Duke or Richard Spencer or Mahmoud Abbas but from lily-white Ashkenazi readers of the Forward—their own “family.”

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has always maintained that a proper relationship with Jews must begin with an honest dialogue about how one people’s actions have harmed another. To simply deny that such a history of harm exists and that any other Black point of view is “anti-Semitic,” has been the arrogant Ashkenazi position against Black people and The Minister for 34 years. In their identically hateful reaction to the experiences and earnest opinions of Black Jews, white Jews have only helped prove that there is simply no Ashkenazi respect for Blacks of whatever faith, no matter how reasoned their points of view.

Once Black Jews become aware of the massive role their Ashkenazi brethren have played on the oppressor side of the color line—and we have only scratched the surface here—it will give Blacks of the Jewish faith a new meaning for the Jewish seder tradition of leaving the door open for Elijah.

 


 

Read more about the REAL history of the Black-Jewish relationship in the 3-volume series The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, available here: https://amzn.to/2Jqg09x

Jewish Play PARADE Has Black Actors Telling White Lies

Jewish Racism Ignored in Leo Frank Musical ‘Parade’

Rep. John Lewis with the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt 

On August 17th of 2015, civil rights pioneer John Lewis addressed the 100th anniversary commemoration of the 1915 lynching of Jewish leader Leo Frank. Lewis and all the leaders at the event emphasized Frank’s significance to the American civil rights struggle. A theatrical production currently touring America titled Parade reinforces that notion, but John Lewis—as well as the Parade actors and theatergoers—may be unaware of the profoundly racist ways in which Leo Frank and his Jewish supporters attempted to destroy Black civil rights in America.

The legacy of the 1913 Leo Frank case is still potent in the minds of American Jews. At least a dozen books and hundreds of articles have been written on the horrific Atlanta murder of a 13-year-old Gentile girl named Mary Phagan and the lynching of her convicted murderer, Leo Frank. And though the case is largely unknown outside of Jewish circles, it is widely considered to be the greatest example of anti-Semitism in American history. From this one Atlanta tragedy have come, according to Jewish scholars, many significant events in Black history. It is claimed that the terrorist Ku Klux Klan was reignited as a result of the Leo Frank Affair and that the case influenced Jews to partner with Blacks in the early civil rights movement. Frank’s position in Atlanta as the president of B’nai B’rith has bestowed upon him the title “Father of the  Anti-Defamation League,” a B’nai B’rith offshoot that began in earnest in 1913 as a result of the case. Indeed, Leo Frank has become Jewish America’s most important civil rights icon.

In 1913, Leo Frank was arguably the most important Jew in the American South. He was a businessman and managed the pencil factory where the young murder victim was employed. Atlanta police investigated the crime and within days Frank was charged with her murder. The trial in the summer of 1913 gripped the state of Georgia, and its extensive coverage by the three Atlanta daily newspapers even pushed World War One off the front pages. At the end of the longest and most expensive trial in Georgia’s history, Frank was convicted and sentenced to hang. It was a trial, Jews say, that was marred by anti-Semitic mob violence and terror.

Two years of unsuccessful legal appeals followed, when the Georgia governor stepped in to commute Frank’s sentence to life imprisonment. Within weeks, however, an unknown group of armed vigilantes kidnapped Frank from his prison cell, drove him to the girl’s hometown and lynched him from an oak tree. For Jews, that act—the only lynching of a Jew in American history—resonates deeply even today.

James “Jim” Conley, Mary Phagan, Leo M. Frank

A Tony Award-winning musical titled Parade is now touring the country, serving to preserve the case in the hearts and minds of American Jews. Alfred Uhry is the show’s writer, but he is better known as the writer of the controversial racial drama Driving Miss Daisy. He says that his mission with Parade is not to entertain but to infuriate: 

“If those people get riled up, it’s their problem, not mine. History says we’re 99.999 percent sure that Frank didn’t do it, and I’m not going to convince the rest.”

But there is a real problem lurking within Alfred Uhry’s script that Parade’s Black actors must confront, a problem that moves to center stage the racism inherent in the play itself and those who have perpetuated its racially charged message. According to those who so passionately champion Leo Frank’s cause, the “real murderer” was a Black man named James “Jim” Conley, a janitor at Frank’s factory. They say that, by either wily deception or coalition with “anti-Semitic” authorities, Conley’s gruesome crime was pinned on an innocent Jew.

But are Parade’s Black actors as “99.999 percent sure” of Conley’s guilt as Alfred Uhry claims to be? And are those Black actors, who have earned rave reviews for playing Conley as “slippery,” “devious,” and “menacing,” willing to examine the actual evidence in the case, even if it shows Uhry’s narrative to be dead wrong? Let us look at some of the particulars of the case and see if Uhry’s artistic vision has created more racial friction than harmony.

 

What REALLY Happened on April 26, 1913?

On April 26, 1913, the National Pencil Company factory was closed for business, but 13-year-old machine operator Mary Phagan came to collect her pay from Frank, who later admitted he was the last person to see her alive. Investigators believed that Frank set up this encounter in the deserted building hoping to proposition the girl for sexual favors, but when she refused his advances he became violent and in the ensuing struggle his attempted rape escalated into murder. Mary’s body was found the next day and after police eliminated several other suspects (three of them Black), Frank was charged with the crime. 

Several weeks after Frank’s arrest the janitor James Conley stood up to confess that he was also in the factory on the day of the murder, but he was there only at the request of Leo Frank, who had asked him to be a lookout at the front door as Frank rendezvoused with the unsuspecting employee Mary Phagan on the floor above. Conley said that he had performed this sentry role several times before, and so he did as he was told. He watched as Mary came in and went up the stairs to Frank’s office, but soon a panicked Leo Frank called him upstairs and admitted that he had accidentally killed the girl and needed Conley’s help moving the body to the basement. Conley’s very detailed confession—corroborated by the physical evidence—was so convincing that it became central to the prosecution’s case. For his part, Frank claimed not to have any knowledge of Conley or the murder, and his defenders then began their 100-year campaign to make Conley the lone murderer of Mary Phagan.

 

Black & White Actors Must Flip the Uhry Script

Unfortunately for Alfred Uhry and those who promote Frank’s innocence, the case is far, far from a simple “he said, she said.” It is multi-layered, with deep racial implications then and today. Before the next Black (or white) actors pick up Uhry’s deeply flawed Parade script, they must pick up and read The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume Three: The Leo Frank Case, The Lynching of a Guilty Man. Its 536 pages contain over a thousand footnotes, with multiple illustrations, maps, diagrams, photos, and graphics that touch on every aspect of this controversial case. Here are a few of The Secret Relationship’s documented findings (and the page numbers where full references can be found) that not only challenge many of the longstanding but false claims about the Leo Frank trial and lynching but also conflict irreconcilably with Alfred Uhry’s Parade:

• A 23-member grand jury that included five prominent members of the Jewish community voted for the indictment of Leo Frank. (See pages 52, notes 102-106; 88 n. 181; 146-147; 160; 212; 338.)

 Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, presumably a careful legal analyst, claimed that the trial crowds “shouted anti-Jewish epithets and demanded Frank’s death.” Abraham Foxman and Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League maintain that a mob chanted, Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew. But the ADL’s own expert, Steve Oney, told the Jewish Journal: “[I]t didn’t happen.” (See pages 163-164, 165, 173-187.)

• Frank himself told a Jewish newspaper publisher, “Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel [murder conviction] that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.” (Page 142.)

• Anti-Semitism was virtually absent from the case, but anti-Black racism was brutally present: Leo Frank, as leader of B’nai B’rith, publicly and openly referred to Blacks as “niggers.” His defense attorneys used the word “nigger” and other racist slurs dozens of times in court. His main attorney told the jury: “If you put a nigger in a hopper, he’ll drip lies.” (Pages 121-123, 128-129, 131-133, 363.)

• Frank argued in court that the many Black witnesses that testified should not be believed—simply because they were Blackand that “negro testimony” was by definition inferior and unreliable. Further, Frank argued to the all-white jury of his peers that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus, he, a white man, could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan. (Pages 124-136.)

• Frank himself hired two of the most prominent (and expensive) private detective agencies in America and both concluded that Leo Frank was the murderer of Mary Phagan.  (Pages 47-48; 65-66; 91 note 187; 147; 247.)

• Before Frank accused James Conley of the crime, Frank accused the Black night watchman who found the body. Frank’s hired private eyes actively targeted Newt Lee and actually planted a blood-soaked shirt in the innocent Black man’s home, and then told the police where they could find that damning “evidence.” At the same time, Frank altered Lee’s workplace time card in order to make Lee the prime suspect. (Pages 35-44.) 

By now Parade’s Black actors should be able to see why Mr. Uhry left ALL those facts on the cutting room floor. But there’s more:

• Leo Frank’s own Black maid, Minola McKnight, swore that she overheard Frank’s wife and mother discussing how Frank had confessed that he had killed a girl.(Pages 378-79, 423-428.)

• Powerful Jewish leaders rallied to Frank’s defense, but privately they admitted that they could not stand Frank’s personality and that he probably was guilty. Albert Lasker financed Frank’s legal defense. His private view of the B’nai B’rith president was harsh and disturbing: “he impressed us as a sexual pervert. Now, he may not have been, or rather a homeosexual [sic] or something like that.” Lasker said, “I hope he [Leo Frank] gets out…and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.” (Pages 216-217, 254-255, 322.)

• One reviewer of Parade writes of the “young, lying female employees claiming that Frank has sexually abused them,” but Frank’s main attorney admitted in open court that Frank’s lewd behavior was “a sign that we are getting more broad-minded…[D]eliver me from one of these prudish fellows that never looks at a girl and never puts his hands on her…” Twenty adolescent girls and young women gave such powerful testimony about Leo Frank’s sexual harassment at the factory that none of his bevy of highly paid attorneys dared to cross-examine them—not one. (Pages 107-123.)

• Frank supporters tried to hire a Black woman named Annie Maude Carter to slip Conley some poison while he was in jail waiting to testify at Frank’s new-trial hearing. She identified the plotters in open court as prominent members of the Jewish community. (Pages 262-263.)

• Leo Frank refused to take an oath on the Bible, and then refused to be cross-examined by prosecutors. But James Conley withstood 16 hours of cross-examination—under oath. (Pages 92ff, 122, 136-140, 362-382.)

• Uhry’s Parade slanders Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey, but it was Dorsey who allowed Blacks to testify in an American courtroom, a truly unprecedented advancement in civil rights. Leo Frank’s attorneys fought this tooth and nail and did everything they could to keep Blacks from participating in any part of the trial. Uhry’s script does not complain about the all-white jury because it was Frank’s attorneys—not Georgia prosecutors—who used their power to eliminate Blacks from the jury pool. Dorsey later became governor of Georgia, whereupon he forcefully condemned the racial violence in his state and in America. The NAACP declared that Governor Dorsey’s stand “greatly enhanced the significance of the anti-lynching crusade.” Frank’s B’nai B’rith and all Jewish organizations were totally absent from the anti-lynching movement. In fact, Leo Frank’s main appeals attorney, Louis Marshall, the founder and president of the American Jewish Committee, fought to undermine anti-lynching legislation, calling it “unconstitutional” and a violation of “state’s rights.” (Pages 88, 478-479.)

• Several of Frank’s strongest advocates—including his main lawyer and the man who financed his legal appeals—were both Jewish and open and active members of the American eugenics movement. A generation later Hitler would draw inspiration for his anti-Jewish policies from American eugenicists. (Pages 217, 221-222.)

• Mysteriously, in 1982 a “witness” named Alonzo Mann materialized, claiming that he was at the factory in 1913 on the day of the murder and saw Conley carrying the body of Mary Phagan, but Mann had given many conflicting stories—then and now—that are irreconcilable with the known facts. (Pages 435-464.)

• Many Jewish scholars have insisted that the terrorist Ku Klux Klan was rebirthed by the “anti-Semitism” stirred up from the Leo Frank case. But the fact is, the two events—Leo Frank’s lynching and the rebirth of the KKK—had NOTHING to do with each other. The epic movie The Birth of a Nation, released in February 1915, was the impetus for the Klan revival—not the Leo Frank case. In fact, even though it was the most racist movie ever made and the KKK used it as a recruitment film, Jews financed its production, played it at the theaters they owned, promoted it, and reviewed it positively in the newspapers they published. The Jewish movie mogul Louis B. Mayer made so much money distributing the movie that he used the profits to start Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), one of the greatest purveyors of racist Hollywood propaganda of all time. (Pages 309-320.)

Leo Frank may be the “Father of the ADL,” but the B’nai B’rith president was a leader in the effort to keep Blacks in an inferior, marginalized position at the bottom of American society. Evidence shows him to be guilty of murdering Mary Phagan and guilty of attempting to pin his crime on two innocent Black men. James Conley and the many other Blacks who factored in the Leo Frank case have been horribly slandered, and the killer of Mary Phagan—Leo Max Frank—has been allowed to escape responsibility.

Parade’s Black actors are no longer forced into these racist roles, as were our actors of yesteryear. They may believe they are helping Jews to tell a historical reality, but in fact they are helping Jews to spread white supremacist propaganda. Today, Black actors are responsible not just for delivering their lines, but for delivering the truth.

What will Parade‘s Black actors do now?

 


 

 

Birth of a Nation: Undoing Jewish Racism

Most Black Americans would be shocked to learn that it was Jewish investors who financed the 1915 production of the most racist movie ever made—Birth of a Nation—a movie that glorifies anti-Black violence and deifies the Ku Klux Klan.


The new movie The Birth of a Nation is generating immense controversy, but is that firestorm also a deliberate diversion from the ugly history surrounding the 1915 motion picture of the same name? In a vivid big-screen extravaganza, writer and director Nate Parker recounts the 1831 Virginia revolt led by the great Black freedom-fighter Nat Turner. In so doing, Parker boldly snatched the iconic title from the 1915 silent film, a film that did more for white supremacy than any other single force in America. Amidst the growing racial unrest in a contentious political season—including race revolts by NFL stars, vicious anti-immigrant and Islamaphobic rhetoric and violence, and increasing white militancy—the mission of the original Birth of a Nation film seems to have been fully realized.
iu-1

Scene from the new 2016 movie The Birth of a Nation

Around 1915, immigrants from Europe were flooding into an America still smarting from civil war and emancipation. The terrorist Ku Klux Klan of the 1860s and 1870s had done its job in forcing Blacks back onto the cotton plantations as sharecroppers; thus, when Reconstruction ended, the Ku Kluxers retired as heroes and were effortlessly absorbed into the American mainstream. But forty years later, Blacks had had enough of the lynching and violence in force to keep them in their prescribed place at the bottom of white society and were becoming more vocal and militant in demanding their human rights. Whites were not going to tolerate this and so the KKK was re-formed in response. And the driving force behind the reconstituted Ku Klux Klan was the 1915 release of D.W. Griffith’s silent movie epic The Birth of a Nation.

The movie adaptation of the Rev. Thomas Dixon’s book The Clansman was America’s first movie blockbuster, and it effectively presented the Klan’s racial philosophy as righteous, inspirational, and as American as apple pie. The Rev. Dixon’s book is filled with hateful passages like this gem:

“For a thick-lipped, flat-nosed, spindle-shanked Negro, exuding his nauseous animal odor, to shout in derision over the hearths and homes of white men and women is an atrocity too monstrous for belief….We sink to his level if you walk as his equal in physical contact with him. His race is not an infant, it is a degenerate.”fort-wayne-news-and-sentinel-date-04-12-1918-page-8-location-fort-wayne-indiana-birthofanation

Using revolutionary techniques in cinematography, the film captivated the white American imagination and transformed the Klan’s trail of hate crimes into a heroic heritage, all sold—in one viewing—to a massive international audience. As a silent movie it was far-reaching in its effect: Its hateful imagery reached immigrants of ALL languages and cultures and gave them their clearest orientation to America’s racial reality.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s 1991 publication Ku Klux Klan: A History of Racism and Violence accurately describes the significance of The Birth of a Nation:

“So powerful was the impact of the movie in 1915 that it is often credited with setting the stage for the Klan revival that same year. In fact, the man who actually created the 20th century Klan…used the publicity surrounding it to win recruits to his organization….Birth of a Nation is so blatantly racist that it is rarely shown in public theaters today….The racial hatred exhibited in the movie, once acceptable, is now abhorrent to all but the Klan and the most extreme bigots.”

According to scholar John C. Inscoe, Dixon stated openly that his purpose was “to create a feeling of abhorrence in white people, especially white women, against colored men” and that he hoped the film would accomplish his plan “to have all Negroes removed from the United States.”

 

The Jewish Role in Birth of a Nation

The Reverend Thomas Dixon

The Reverend Thomas Dixon

Most Black Americans would be shocked to learn that it was Jewish investors who financed the production of what the SPLC argues was the most racist movie ever made—a movie that glorifies anti-Black violence and deifies the Ku Klux Klan. The Jewish businessmen, nearly all of whom were  mercantile Jews in Boston, could not have been deceived by the movie’s noted director D.W. Griffith, because they invested when the working title was The ClansmanAmong them were lawyer David Stoneman, rug merchant Colman Levin, another jeweler, and even his secretary.

One writer said that the film’s effect was “to arouse in the audience a strong sense of the evil possibilities of the Negro” and that “Mr. Dixon had identified the Negro with cruelty, superstition, insolence and lust.” A Boston judge called the film “three miles of filth,” having no other purpose but to stir up the people of the North so that “they would consent to allowing the Southern programme of disfranchisement, segregation and lynching of the Negro.” Jews were undeterred. According to Jewish film historian Neal Gabler,  the Jewish investors “seemed less concerned about being tainted by the movies than they were about making a profit.”

The Jewish press was of like mind. The American Jewish World dismissed criticism of the film, calling it “a compliment to the black man of today.” The Pittsburgh Jewish Criterion extolled the “great” film in its October 1, 1915, edition. And why wouldn’t they? Like so many notable Southerners, Thomas Dixon was a violently anti-Black racist and an effusively admiring Judeophile. He considered the Jews “the greatest race of people God has ever created.” No parallel existed for the film and the publicity that attended it—until Adolf Hitler’s propaganda ministry began in Nazi Germany a generation later. Jewish promoters greatly enhanced The Birth of a Nation’s distribution worldwide, and the greatest of the Hollywood movie studios, Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM), was started by the famous Jewish mogul Louis B. Mayer with the $500,000 in profits he earned from distributing the film on the east coast. The overt racism in the film only whet his appetite, and the controversy generated by the NAACP protests in Mayer’s mind “would further enhance people’s desire to see it.”

wilson-quote-in-birth-of-a-nation

President Wilson famously said the movie was “History written in lightning.”

The state with the most lynchings was Georgia. The movie opened in Atlanta on December 6, 1915, to rave reviews and general excitement. And most of that excitement was had by the owners of the Atlanta Theater, two Jews—Marcus Klaw and Abraham L. Erlanger—who held a virtual monopoly of theaters in the South. Incredibly, the opening of the movie took place just four months after the Georgia lynching of Jewish businessman Leo Frank, the only Jew ever lynched in America! They made a record $27,000 on the Atlanta showing of The Birth of a Nation ($650,000 today), the most ever in any Southern theater. It is they—Klaw and Erlanger—who staged the hate extravaganza requiring a crew of fifty men, including a full symphony orchestra. Thus 80,000 Georgians saw the most effective Ku Klux Klan recruitment film because Jewish businessmen made it possible.

The Jewish theater owners brought the movie back the next year, and at the opening 1,000 Klan admirers had to be turned away. They even cut the admission price in half so that local Atlanta school children could attend. And though Klaw and Erlanger were based in New York, prominent Jews in Atlanta assisted in the success of the engagement. The Jewish managing editor of the Atlanta Constitution, Jacob Gortatowsky, ran many stories trumpeting the film’s arrival, including a giant 2-page spread with a montage of all the glowing reviews by other newspapers.

louis_b_mayer-bw

Started MGM with profits from distributing the most racist movie ever made.

Accompanying this collection of white newspaper movie reviews were large advertisements by Atlanta’s major Jewish retailers, such as Rich’s, Regenstein’s, and Myers & Miller stores, all displayed prominently next to a story about the local KKK meeting—on the Constitution’s society page. Rothschild’s shoes and L.C. Adler’s ties were advertised right below an article titled “Birth of a Nation Thrills Tremendous Atlanta Audience.” The Atlanta Journal advertised the film on the same page that it announced the 18 newly elected officers of the Jewish Progressive Club. Atlanta’s top pharmacy chain, the Jewish-owned Jacobs Drugstore, advertised that it would be selling Thomas Dixon’s novel Clansman.

All of this is unsurprising, given the fact that thousands of Jewish soldiers fought for the slaveholders in the American Civil War, and a Jewish owner of a 140-slave plantationLouisiana’s Judah P. Benjamin—was not only the secretary of state for the Confederacy but also the financier of the original Ku Klux Klan.

No force in history had a greater effect in glorifying the Ku Klux Klan and imprinting on the world’s mind the negative image of the Black man than Griffith’s Jewish-funded KKK propaganda film. However, the new movie with the same name certainly intends to reverse the effect of the Jews’ 1915 “contribution” to American race relations. In 2016, are those working so hard to undermine the revolutionary message of The Birth of a Nation the very same people who in 1915 made the Black man the scorn of the world?

 


 

[Sources: John C. Inscoe, “The Clansman on Stage and Screen: North Carolina Reacts,” North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 64, No. 2 (April 1987): 148; The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews, Volume 3: The Leo Frank Case].