A contemporary of Dr. Eisler was Dr. Mirija Gimbutas, a Lithuanian-American archeologist known for her research into Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of “Old Europe”, or Europe during the period when Black humanity dominated Europe. In the book African Presence in Europe by Ivan Van Sertima, the author contends that during this period Africans were Europe’s “masters.” These Black people taught the Europeans civilization. From historian Martin Bernal, the author of Black Athena, we learn that the ancient Egyptians taught the Greeks the names of the gods and how to worship them, just as the Holy Quran (2:31-35) teaches us took place.
Hence, Cannon’s depiction of those who lack melanin as savage and bestial is based on scientific and historical facts. They are on the opposite end of the spiritual divide. This point of view is not at variance with what the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan said during his July 4th Message to the World. He said: “They were made to rule. So White people, wherever you find them on our planet, it doesn’t make any difference what their entity or their ethnicity is, they’re the same way by nature. So, wherever they are in relationship to people of color, they always dominate with tyranny.”
Cannon said, “The people that don’t have melanin don’t have the power of the sun, then the sun started to deteriorate them…” He proceeded to say that White folks’ lack of melanin causes them to display less compassion toward humanity. Therefore, the only way they can act is evil. So then these people who don’t have what we have (melanin) they had to be savages.” Add to this discussion the contributions of Dr. Francis Cress Welsing.
Dr. Keith Cheng: “…lighter-skinned people, whether they are Europeans,
or Asians, like me, were actually mutants of the dark-skinned people.”
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
More NOIRG articles on the Leo Frank Myth:
LEO FRANK: HAVE YOU EVER SMELLED A NEGRO?
JEWISH PLAY PARADE HAS BLACK ACTORS TELLING WHITE LIES
LEO FRANK AND PARADE: A JEWISH FAIRY TALE GONE BAD
JEWISH FORWARD TAKES ON LEO FRANK MYTHOLOGY
Note: The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews Series can be purchased here: https://noirg.org/store/
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.
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…”
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…”
The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 1:
The Jewish Role in the Enslavement of the African
“I HAVE BEEN VINDICATED!”
The Honorable Louis Farrakhan discusses Black/Jewish relations
The Final Call, May 4, 1992.
EDITOR’S NOTE: For seven long years, since he came to the defense of Rev. Jesse L. Jackson during Rev. Jackson’s 1984 presidential campaign, the Honorable Louis Farrakhan has been a target of attacks by members of the Jewish community and unjustly branded as an “anti-Semite.” Minister Farrakhan granted this interview to respond to those attacks in light of the recently published book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a research project by the Nation of Islam which documents Jewish scholars testifying to their own crimes against Black people and validating many of the truths that Minister Farrakhan spoke publicly.
FC: You’ve said you’ve been vindicated by the publication of the book The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews. Please explain what you mean.
MLF: Since 1984, I’ve been charged by members of the Jewish community with being an anti-Semite or, to be more specific, anti-Jewish. I have taken offense at that bigoted statement, for it appears that anyone who is critical of Jewish, or Israel’s, behavior is labeled an anti-Semite.
This is done to frighten the person or persons who are critical of Jews or Israel into silence. But Jews have the freedom to write or say what they please about anyone or anything. In the last several years, especially, people dare not speak out against any outrage done by Jews.
I am vindicated in that some of our brothers in the Nation of Islam saw how I was being treated by Jewish members of the press, the media in general, Jewish leaders of organizations, rabbis and teachers. Our brothers did the research and came up with evidence from highly respected Jewish scholars and rabbis that proves that Jews were involved in bringing our fathers into this shameful and wretched condition. Jews were involved in owning the ships and plantations, the sale and misuse of our people and women, the destruction of our minds; and they were involved in keeping us in the sad state in which some of their fathers put us. Jews, therefore, were opposed to and worked against every Black leader that came truly for our liberation. And, as it was in time past, so it is today.
So, my comments and statements were not anti-Semitic. They were the truth about Jewish involvement in our enslavement and in keeping us in the wretched condition that we find ourselves in today. That’s why we say that we are vindicated.
FC: Why is it important to point out the involvement of Jews in our enslavement and our condition today?
MLF: Jewish writers and scholars have pointed out to us and the world the involvement of Arabs, Africans and other Europeans in our enslavement, but there has been a deliberate effort to hide the hand of the Jews and their involvement. Our enslavement greatly increased the wealth of the Jewish community in the New World. We published this book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, not out of hatred, but out of a concern that our people know the truth and that Jews, particularly the Jewish youth, know the truth; so that an old relationship that is not beneficial to us might possibly be changed into a relationship that is more equitable, fair and just.
FC: You speak about an old relationship that has not been beneficial to us. Can you define what the Black/Jewish relationship has been in the past and what it is today?
MLF: In my judgment, the old Black/Jewish relationship has been that of a master and slave. We have always gone to members of the Jewish community with our hat in our hand looking to them for substance.
Jews helped found most civil rights organizations. It is interesting to note that none of these organizations founded by Jews, or aided in its founding by Jews, dealt with the economic problems of Black people. The NAACP, the Urban League and others were steered away from economics and dealt mainly with social problems, vis-à-vis, breaking down social barriers.
Therefore, Jews fought alongside Blacks to break down barriers for Blacks, but we, in a weak economic position, were not able to take advantage of the breaking down of those barriers. But the Jews were able to do so.
In effect, they were our allies, but we were the vanguard of breaking down the barriers and they (Jews), women, gays and lesbians were able to take advantage of the breaking down of these barriers while Blacks, economically and socially, have gone backwards. Since the passing of the Voting Rights Bill and the Public Accommodations Bill, Black people have noticed a serious decline in the financial support of Jews supporting Black organizations.
Then came the Bakke decision and other decisions which clearly flew in the face of laws that Black folk felt were progressive for us. That which Jews called quotas, we called righting the wrongs or opening a door to areas such as medical schools that we were not privileged to have access to in sufficient numbers.
So, Blacks and Jews were at odds during this period of time and, of course, in 1983 when Rev. Jackson decided to seek the nomination of the Democratic party for the presidency of the United States and we aligned ourselves with him, then the great pain in Back/Jewish relationships fully manifested.
In fact, if we go back to before 1983 and observe what happened with Andrew Young when he was the UN ambassador and he visited the PLO representative, the Jews saw to it that Andrew Young was pushed out of office and this angered Back people.
Then, with the Rev. Jackson’s political thrust, we came fully into the picture. The Back-Jewish relationship at that point had soured and was steadily souring. With my emergence and speaking the way I spoke, Jewish leaders put pressure on Back leaders to denounce me and this made us painfully aware of how much control leaders of the Jewish community have over the spokespersons of Black people: preachers, politicians, educators, doctors, lawyers, businesspersons, artists, and our athletes and entertainers.
So, any person who could be an effective spokesperson for our hurt had to tie into the agenda of the Jewish community or they would be effectively silenced.
FC: How should leaders of the Jewish community respond to the writings in this book?
MLF: If Jews are aware of how they profited, and still do, from our wretched condition, and if they are aware of what some of their fathers did to bring us into this condition, then a Jew that has some conscience or a real disposition toward fairness and justice might be moved to aid in the redressing of this grievance. However, what will be the response of the Jewish community? If they follow their pattern historically, they will be even more incensed and work even harder for the destruction of the leadership of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
FC: What about those who would say, “The enslavement of Black people was done by my forefathers and that has nothing to do with how we feel today”?
MLF: I could agree with that if the present generation of Jewish leaders were not so hostile to those Black leaders whom they do not control. The present generation of Jewish leadership is fighting the liberation movement of Black people tooth and nail. The present generation of Jews control the wealth of musical, artistic and sports talent in the Black community.
Jews control the medical associations, the bar associations, the Psychiatric [sic] associations, and all of the major educational and scientific associations. Blacks who are trying desperately in these associations to move up, find they are fighting Jews at the top. And unless they submit totally, they are in serious trouble within these associations.
So, the present-day Jews have benefited from what their fathers did to our fathers to put us in the mental and psychological condition that we are in, and their writers, teachers, scholars and movie producers, businesspersons and script writers work to keep us in the psychological and mental condition of subservience. I can’t say that this generation has shown that they are any better than their fathers. However, I believe if the younger Jews knew the truth, they might do better.
FC: During the period of slavery there was a lot of savage treatment of Black people…
MLF: I think that that’s a true statement. …. [Jews] were a part of the mechanism that brought us into slavery, they share in the guilt of the savage mistreatment of us… If you read what they have written, for example, Jewish slave owners degraded our women and were not slack in the sexual mistreatment of our females. How much more brutal can you get? If you don’t whip me with a lash, but you take our women and daughters and abuse them, that’s abuse….
Many of the Southern Jews would rather have seen slavery maintained than abolished. They fought against the abolitionists. They fought for slavery, because slavery maintained their position of economic strength and power, particularly on the East Coast and in the South. Many Jews today will fight the liberation movement of Blacks for precisely the same reason, to maintain their position of wealth and power.
FC: The Honorable Elijah Muhammad was your teacher and of course he received some opposition from the Jewish community, but it didn’t seem to be as extensive as the opposition that has come against you or as vocal and violent. Why has this been the case?
MLF: The Honorable Elijah Muhammad never mentioned Jews directly in his criticism of white people. He classified all whites as devils, regardless of their faith.
Many Jews opposed him, but they opposed him through the Black organizations and leaders over whom they held control and influence. Jews at that time did not have to come out themselves and attack the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, nor did he attack them.
Now most of those organizations don’t have the power that they once had, nor do the leaders of these organizations have the same degree of the power over the masses that their predecessors once had. Plus, Black leaders are more enlightened today than were their predecessors.
I am different in that I defended Rev. Jackson in what he said and then got into a direct confrontation with members of the Jewish community. They see me as more of a threat to them specifically than they did the Honorable Elijah Muhammad.
FC: Has the focus in recent years on the Black/Jewish relationship benefited our people?
MLF: We helped to make manifest something that Blacks in leadership have known all along: that practically all of our leadership has been and is today controlled by members of the Jewish community. This is not good for us as a people.
The fact that some Jewish leaders and politicians were not able to get Black leaders to condemn or repudiate me in the manner they decided frightened those Jews, causing them to charge that the Black community gradually was being filled with the spirit of anti-Semitism. However, as you read the history of Black-Jewish relationships, you can’t find Black people painting swastikas on synagogues or defiling the religious houses of Jews in any manner. You can’t find us attacking Jews or boycotting Jewish stores and trying to do things to hurt the Jewish community. You just can’t find that in our history. But Volume 1, 2 and 3 of our research will show that we have more right to paint Jews as anti-Black than they have to paint any of us as anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. We have overwhelming proof that they have worked against the best interest of Black people, while they have no proof at all that we have worked or are working to deter their legitimate progress in any way.
FC: The term “anti-Semitic” has been used to paint a broad stroke over anyone who speaks contrary to what Jews would like for them to speak. Can you define for us what you think the term “anti-Semitic” really means and how does it differ from the way Jews use the term?
MLF: The term as it is used now is bigoted, because the Jews are acting as though they are the only Semitic people. If the Arabs are Semites, and they are, and we have friendly relations with the Arabs then wouldn’t it be proper to say that we are anti-Jewish rather than anti-Semitic?
The term is conveniently used by members of the Jewish community to stop criticism, as I said earlier, and it changes in its definition as the need arises. Many of those who are referred to as Jews are not Semitic people at all; they are Europeans.
FC: Where does the current situation then leave Blacks who also claim to be Jews?
MLF: Most Blacks who are Jews with whom I come into contact feel the suffering of their people and they feel the racism directed against them by their brethren in faith who are Caucasians. We feel the same thing as Muslims.
There are some of our Arab brothers who just don’t have good feelings for Black people and there are some of our Indian brothers who are Muslims who don’t necessarily like Black people and vice-versa. So, we have this racism in Islam, Christianity, and in Judaism. It is an ugly thing that has to be uprooted today in all religions in order for us to relate to each other as brothers.
FC: In your lectures, you have dealt with the question of Jews being the chosen people. Who are the chosen people? And if those who claim to be the chosen people are not the chosen ones, then why are they making such claims?
MLF: A man may choose a wife and if that relationship does not work out, he may divorce that wife and choose another. God chooses people to serve as instruments of His Will. Maybe in this way, the Jews were chosen. However, when you are chosen you have a responsibility. If you do not carry out your responsibility, God doesn’t keep his choice there. He takes His choice somewhere else. It seems as though all of those who have been chosen to carry the light of God to those who walk in darkness have in some way failed.
The Jews have not shared the light of God that they received freely with the Gentiles. So, God raises up others. Here you have a Christian population, and I am speaking mainly of Caucasians, who have spread the gospel all over the earth, but with what intention in mind?
So the cross, or Christianity, has been used as an instrument of white supremacy. They have spread the gospel, but not for the Kingdom of God; more for the maintenance of the kingdom of white supremacy.
The Arabs came into the light of Allah and the Qur’an and spread Islam to the known world at that time, but they became corrupt and began to lose their power and a new hemisphere was discovered and now it is populated with over a half a billion people or more who have never heard the message of Muhammad and have a version of the message of Moses, Jesus and the Prophets that contains truth, but it is not altogether true.
As a result, the Western hemisphere has grown up as a bastion of white supremacy and racism that has seen the darker people, or the original inhabitants of this hemisphere, just about destroyed.
So, now God takes His choice from a people that were no people at all. They were rejected and despised according to the Scripture. The Scripture says that they would be a foolish people, but God would choose them and make them His people and He would be their God. He refers to them in the Scriptures of the Bible as “the lost sheep.”
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), said that the sun of Islam would rise from the West in the latter days and we know that Prophet Muhammad was born in Arabia, not in the West, but yet Muhammad, in the Qur’an, was called a “light-giving sun.”
That means there would be a Muhammad coming up out of the West from among a people who were no people, foolish, despised and rejected, and God would choose them for His glory.
We believe that that people are the Black people of the Western hemisphere and specifically the Black people in the United States of America. We have been chosen by God, not to walk around with our chest puffed out in arrogance and vanity, but chosen out of our suffering and affliction that we, in whose hearts is a love for God and humanity, might do a service to the totality of the human family after a service is done by God for us.
This is why Jesus’ first mission was to the lost sheep and then he told his disciples to, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.” I believe that that good news is among us today and that good news will have to be preached by us after our hearts are purified of the rancor and bitterness that comes from our sojourn in slavery and our evil mistreatment.
We must now come up out of that and recognize that that was our furnace of affliction to purify us for God’s ultimate service.
FC: Do you fear any retribution for your position with regard to Black/Jewish relations?
MLF: The Jews refer to me as Hitler, and any Jew who knows what Hitler did to members of the Jewish community would believe that I had that same thought in mind for them because I am critical of them. Any Jew who would feel that I am a new Hitler would want death for me.
I am not only hated by Jews, but what does Mr. Bush and the government and its powers think of me? What does the Arab world, the leadership in particular, think of me because I believe in Elijah Muhammad and in Master Fard Muhammad as the great Mahdi? There is a whole camp of hatred against me.
The scriptures refer to our people, and most all human beings, as lost sheep, easily led in the wrong direction but hard to lead in the right direction. The wickedly wise are not good leaders of the sheep, they are evil misleaders of the sheep and this is why Jesus is referred to in the scripture as the “Good Shepherd.” He leads the sheep in a direction that is beneficial to the sheep and out of harm’s way.
I can definitely say I am in the valley of the shadow of death and if God is not with me I am finished. But He, Allah (God), has prepared a table for me in the midst of my enemies. My cup runneth over and He (God) anoints my head with wisdom until my cup runs over. I don’t fear that evil will come to me. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life and I plan to dwell in the house of the Lord.
FC: Is the relationship between the United States and Israel detrimental to the United States?
MLF: I would say that any lobby that effectively sways the representatives of the people against the will of the people is robbing the people of true representation and is robbing the people of democracy.
In that case, these lobbies are detrimental to the democratic process and any person who uses their monies and organizational strength to punish those whose views are different from theirs, even though that leader’s views may be representative of his own people, those kinds of persons are detrimental to that group and are ultimately detrimental to America. My personal feeling is that the way the Senate and Congress responds to the needs of Israel and the way Congress fails to respond to the needs of the American people shows that the strength of the Jewish lobby is detrimental to the good and well-being of the citizenry of the United States.
FC: Are there any closing comments?
MLF: This book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, is being sent to Jewish leaders, to Black leaders and Black politicians for an honest comment in hopes that a proper dialogue will begin based on truth.
What I am in favor of creating through this writing is an honest dialogue where a new relationship, if any is to be formed, can be formed based on equity, justice and fairness; a relationship that’s mutually beneficial and profitable to both Jews and Blacks.
For members of the Jewish community to say that this book is slander when it came from their own pens shows the lengths to which members of the Jewish community will go to hide the truth.
The truth will come forward as both the Scriptures of the Bible and Qur’an teach. The Bible teaches that nothing that is done in the dark will remain there, it will be brought out into the light.
The Qur’an says, “Though it be the weight of an atom hidden in a rock and the rock buried in the earth, yet will Allah bring it forth.”
This is the day when all of our defects will be manifested and you will find nations kneeling down before the record of their deeds and we have to bow down before the book of our deeds as well. The Jews, Arabs, Africans and America as a nation will have to kneel down before the record of their deeds, for we are living in the Day of Judgment and justice.
So, those whose deeds of good are light and their deeds of evil are heavy, it is they who should tremble today in the presence of God. But those whose attempts are to do good and yet have evil in their lives, if our good outweighs our evil then God promises that He will admit us into His mercy, and hopefully, we will be able to see the hereafter.
FC: Thank you, Minister Farrakhan.
Click Here to Download the PDF: IHaveBeenVindicatedInterviewFC1992a
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.
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.
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.
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?
Rosser: Then, wouldn’t the odor of blood have killed the odor of “nigger”?
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/
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 scholars—compellingly 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:
LEO FRANK: HAVE YOU EVER SMELLED A NEGRO?
JEWISH PLAY PARADE HAS BLACK ACTORS TELLING WHITE LIES
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.
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.
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 Frank’s 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 Atlanta’s 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 today’s 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 Frank’s main appeals attorney, Louis Marshall, was also the “main legal advisor” for the eugenics movement’s 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 Black–Jewish 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.”
‘Termite’ Is EXACTLY Right, part 2
(Read Part 1 here)
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan’s speech in Detroit on October 14th was a powerful example of the pure divine power of a man presenting unexpurgated truth—whilst simultaneously exposing the open treachery of Allah’s open enemies and offering spiritual guidance to Allah’s chosen people. Since that 2 ½-hour lecture to a very warm and welcoming Detroit audience, the Jewish media have chosen to focus on but 17 words: “When they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, call me an anti-Semite—stop it: I’m anti-termite.”
It all centered around a tweet by Chelsea Clinton in which she expressed shock at what she claimed she heard The Minister say: she said, he “compared Jews to termites,” such a statement being both “dangerous and wrong.” And on the word and authority of the daughter of two washed-up politicians the media launched their latest anti-Black, anti-Farrakhan attack. The four-woman panel of ABC’s The View, led by comedian Joy Behar, launched into their own canned outrage.
So in the twinkling of an eye white women—who yesterday were enraged by the Brett Kavanaugh appointment to the Supreme Court—were using the false and deceptive claims of Chelsea Clinton to lead the anti-Farrakhan “termite” campaign. This is an important nuance that shines light on the behind-the-scenes ADL/Mossad operatives, who obviously compelled Clinton and the women of The View to make their racist attacks on the Minister and the Nation, and here is why. Listen again to The Minister’s speech in Detroit—it contained the most powerful affirmation of the woman’s role in the world that has ever been spoken by ANY public figure. In fact, many have said that the subtitle of The Minister’s Detroit lecture might well be, in his own words: “There’ll never be a change in the world until women rise…”
The Minister spoke of how he reacted to the poignant words of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who testified of the Supreme Court nominee that she alleges had tried to rape her:
When I saw that woman give her testimony…tears came in my eyes because no man should take from a woman what a woman does not want to give. And when that woman stood up and went through the horror of what Mr. Kavanaugh is alleged to have done to her, she had to relive it. That kind of experience, you don’t forget. It is seared into your memory. You may put it behind you and think it’s gone somewhere. But when you least expect it that thing will come out and make a problem for you.…
One of the worst things that a man can do is abuse a woman, take advantage of a woman….Women are Sacred. If you don’t see yourself as sacred, it’s because Satan has robbed you of the knowledge of who you are and ripped you off from your divine destiny.…I want you little sisters to listen. You’re not some cheap thing for men to use for pleasure and discard you. You’re the Woman of God. You make a future for us. We have no future except that future comes through a woman.…You are a Sacred Woman. Every prophet of God came from your womb. Every scientist, every great mind, every great man, every great woman came from your womb.…The Bible says a Virtuous Woman is more valuable than silver and gold. Sisters, you have to recognize your sacredness…
Imagine how the Jewish lies about Farrakhan would have crumbled had the women of the world (and The View) heard those words. This was a man who was in Detroit—for the second time—to honor Aretha Franklin and to eulogize her spiritual greatness: “Aretha was the Queen of Soul. Soul meaning the Essence of Our Being that comes directly from God.”
Such words of praise for women are unknown in this world, and so the ADL/Mossad schemed to have their “condemnation” of The Minister come from the mouths of women, who, to their dishonor, allowed themselves to be manipulated and used. Notice how the ADL/Mossad fake-news outlets used Chelsea Clinton as their mouthpiece and their tool:
Jewish Telegraph Agency: “Chelsea Clinton calls out Louis Farrakhan over anti-Semitism”
Newsmax: “Chelsea Clinton Slams Farrakhan for Comparing Jews to Termites”
The Forward: “Chelsea Clinton To Farrakhan: Jews Aren’t Termites”
The Tablet:“Finally, a first daughter brave enough to take on Farrakhan”
Haaretz: “Chelsea Clinton Says Enough Is Enough”
Pushing women out front to fight their battles—and Gentile women at that—is in clear and obvious contrast to the way of the Nation of Islam. Had The Minister’s words of exaltation been allowed to be broadcast uncensored, ALL women might see the glaring and unambiguous difference between The Minister’s championing of women’s rights, and the steely silence of the Jewish leadership as one Jewish man of power and influence after another, after another, and another is charged with Harvey Weinstein-like sexual abuse of women. As their Jewish holy book Talmud teaches, a Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: “Thank you God for not making me a heathen, a woman or a slave.” Chelsea Clinton and Joy Behar are both married to Jewish men.
Joy Behar & the Jews Who Owned Slaves
As part of her “anti-termite” rant Joy Behar made a profoundly ignorant statement on ABC’s The View that poses another problem for Jews altogether. She was referring to The Minister when she stated with certainty:
“I mean, what is his problem with Jews? The Jews did not own slaves—I don’t know what his issue is.”
When the ADL chose Behar to front for them, they did not expect her to introduce that crucial slavery caveat. For if the Jews did in fact “own slaves,” her “problem” would be with the Jews—NOT with The Minister. To Joy Behar, the un-crossable line in the sand, the point of no return, the unredeemable evil, is Jewish slave-owning. According to Ms. Behar’s own beliefs, once it can be shown that Jews DID own slaves, the debate about Farrakhan and the Jews is settled, over and done with, decided for all time—in Farrakhan’s favor.
What if Ms. Behar and The View found that Jews not only owned slaves but also
- owned, insured, and financed slave ships and outfitted those floating dungeons with chains and shackles for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade;
- that Jews owned sugar, cotton, and tobacco plantations with thousands of Black slaves;
- that when their slaves escaped, Jews tracked them down and murdered them, and cut off their hands to give to each other as trophies;
- that Jews were slave auctioneers, brokers, and sellers of whole plantations—slaves and all;
- that Jews became wealthy marketing all the products of forced Black slave labor;
- that Jews placed advertisements in American newspapers to break up families and sell Black women and children?
Let us offer Ms. Behar and her co-hosts and the audience of The View the words of Jewish scholars and rabbis from the books they have written on the slave-owning history of Jews. For instance,
- Dr. Arnold Wiznitzer described the early Jewish presence in Brazil, where 9 out of 10 enslaved Africans were shipped: “[Jews] dominated the slave trade…The buyers…at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices.”
- Dr. Harold Brackman wrote that during the 1600s “slave trading in Brazil became a ‘Jewish’ mercantile specialty in much the same way it had been in early medieval Europe.”
- Dr. Jonathan Schorsch: “Jewish merchants routinely possessed enormous numbers of slaves temporarily before selling them off.” Jews became the major traders in “refuse slaves”—Africans who were weak and sick from the Middle Passage voyage. Jews bought them, “fattened them up,” and sold them at a profit.
- The Jewish Encyclopedia adds that “Jewish commercial activity” in this time included a “monopoly of the slave trade.” If a slave auction fell on a Jewish holiday, it was postponed because of a lack of buyers and sellers!
- Dr. Marcus Arkin wrote that in Surinam Jews used “many thousands” of Black slaves, and Jews gave their slave plantations Hebrew names such as Machanayim, Nachamu, and Goshen. The Jewish militias murdered escaped slaves and cut off their hands to award as trophies.
- Rabbi Herbert I. Bloom added that the “slave trade was one of the most important Jewish activities …” In 1694, Jews owned 9,000 Africans, and by 1791 there were 100 “Jewish mulattoes” in Surinam—the result of the rape of African women by their Jewish enslavers.
- Dr. Cecil Roth wrote that the slave revolts in parts of South America “were largely directed against [Jews], as being the greatest slave-holders of the region.” Jews set up militias with the sole purpose of fighting the Black Maroons, the escaped Africans who were fighting to free their enslaved brethren.
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is mis-labeled as “anti-Semitic” because he agrees with Jewish authorities such as these. His Jewish detractors are actually ignorant about what their own scholars have written on this very subject!
But wait—there is much, much more!
In the real estate now known as the United States,
- Jews were twice as likely to be slave owners as the average Southerner.
- American Jews sold slaves on layaway, providing slave-owners with the credit to buy Black men, women, and children.
- American Jews were involved with slave-breeding, even “breeding” girls and women for sexual purposes.
- Jews served as constables, sheriffs, and bounty hunters in the American slavocracy, imprisoning and punishing escaped Black Africans.
- Thousands of American Jews fought for the Southern Confederacy.
- Southern rabbis owned and rented slaves!
- The Jewish Encyclopedia was clear: “[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.”
Rabbi and historian Rabbi Dr. Bertram Korn, the acknowledged expert on 19th-century Jews, wrote:
“It would seem to be realistic to conclude that any Jew who could afford to own slaves and had need for their services would do so….Jews participated in every aspect and process of the exploitation of the defenseless Blacks.”
In his 1983 book Jews and Judaism in the United States, Rabbi Dr. Marc Lee Raphael, the longtime editor of the most prestigious Jewish historical journal, wrote one of the more definitive statements on Jewish involvement in the Black Holocaust:
“Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated…”
In New York—where both Ms. Behar and Ms. Clinton live and where The View is produced—the earliest European settlers decided to enter the slave trade, so, according to records, they contacted “the jobbers and the Jews” of Brazil, who were the recognized international slave dealers. Further, the largest shipments of Africans arriving in New York in the first half of the 18th century were commissioned by two Jewish slave traders!
Whites and Jews today must come to grips with the fact that the immense wealth generated by their brutal and wicked Black Holocaust over five centuries is absolutely the foundation on which all of western society exists. And it is the foundation of white supremacy—a system that cruelly continues to oppress the descendants of those millions of forgotten African slaves. Jews are the single wealthiest class of white Americans and their dominance in the slave trade accounts for that position.
Long, long before Joy Behar pointed out the economic significance of Jewish slave-trading to today’s race relations, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan insisted that the discussion of Black–Jewish history take an intellectual tone. He has released nearly two-thousand pages of verifiable scholarship that is dedicated to shedding historical light on a subject that Jewish leadership has deliberately mired in ugly rhetoric, base name-calling, and rude deception. That light uncovers some extremely troubling realities about who and what have eaten away—like termites—at the Black man and woman’s social, economic, political, and spiritual foundations.
Turns Out that ‘Termite’ Is EXACTLY Right, part 1
Sura 114 – Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of men, The King of men, The God of men, From the evil of the whisperings of the slinking (devil), Who whispers into the hearts of men, From among the jinn and the men.
There couldn’t have been a more potent demonstration of rank ignorance than Joy Behar’s tour de force statement on ABC’s The View. She was referring to The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan when she let fly this monstrous absurdity: “I mean, what is his problem with Jews? The Jews did not own slaves—I don’t know what his issue is.” Meghan McCain quickly added a “Yeah,” thus compounding the offense. They were both in a state of agitation over The Minister’s now famously upsetting but—it turns out—deadly accurate use of a metaphor when he said
When they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, call me an anti-Semite—stop it: I’m anti-termite. I don’t know anything about hating anyone because of their religious preference.
That statement stands alone as a response to the age-old nonsense that ALL Black leaders who criticize white and Jewish behavior are “haters” and “virulent anti-Semites.” As we will see, not only is there plenty to criticize, but the utilization of the termite metaphor is so absurdly common in political discourse that one must ask the mischief makers: “Is that all you got?!”
The Minister himself has used the termite metaphor at least two times over his 60 years of divine service—both times are recorded in the Final Call — wherein he was referring to the corrosive effects of adultery and corruption. In neither case was he referring to the Jewish people or the Jewish religion; instead, he was describing a condition of the mind and heart.
It is important to note here that the very core Teachings of the Nation of Islam deal most powerfully with the condition of the human mind and heart. We are taught that the most significant categorization IS NOT a racial one, but a spiritual one. The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad has said to The Minister: “Brother, the best religion is, ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.’ When you look at all of the teachings of Jesus, you can boil it down to this basic principal, ‘Do unto others.’” One is either a believer in truth or a promoter of falsehood. It is as simple and as complex as God versus Satan. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has ALWAYS been dedicated to that principle. Indeed, in his very language in Detroit he was drawing this divine distinction: I am not anti-Semitic—I am ANTI-EXPLOITATION and a defender of my people against ALL who are exploiters. And just as with Jesus, his “hard teachings” have rankled many an exploiter’s feathers.
Minister Farrakhan was obviously and purposely misquoted by a wicked interpreter in order to feed the corrupted hearts of the increasingly desperate Jewish racists, who are only now coming to grips with a destructive and exploitative history that will be covered at length in Part 2 of this article. Their slanderous behavior has made them even more perfectly analogous to the nature and behavior of that little milky white creature, the termite.
Before we move on (in part 2) to debunk Joy Behar’s shocking historical ignorance about the Jews in the African slave trade, let us first clear out some embarrassing hypocrisy. The first to make an issue of The Minister’s self-defense was none other than Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who as senator referred to Blacks, the voting base of her Democrat party, as “super predators,” an insulting animalization of Blacks that lost her the election. Her racism was fueled by the wicked incarceration policies of her husband William, the 42nd president, who during his two terms in office put more Black men in prison than the combined presidencies of Reagan and Bush1. Chelsea, who was so anxious to begin her political career with a racist anti-Farrakhan tweet, has never tweeted about either of her parents’ capital crimes.
Meghan McCain’s only apparent claim to fame is that her father was the recently deceased Arizona senator John McCain, whose white supremacy she has inherited. During the 2000 presidential campaign the senator was asked by reporters why he continued to use the ugliest of racial slurs when referring to Asians: “I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live…” His bigotry wasn’t limited to “gooks”:—he hated Blacks too: McCain supported the rescinding of Martin Luther King Day; he endorsed George Wallace, Jr., a favorite speaker among white supremacists; and he fought to keep the Confederate battle flag flying over South Carolina. Daughter Meghan—like Chelsea—has learned her race hate from the best.
Termites as Political Metaphor
Make no mistake, these women are being pimped from behind the scenes by the Anti-Defamation League/Mossad, which is determined to hide their own hate and racism by artificially creating “black racists,” inflating words, symbols, and signs over the Jews’ long, long, long history of anti-Black deeds. Today they use “termites,” a few months ago they used the 2005 photo of Obama with Minister Farrakhan, and for years their M.O. has been to fill the news with a fake record of recriminations that will stand in history as justification for his planned assassination. But each time the Jews plan (HQ 3:54), Allah—Who IS the Best of Planners—plans, and fewer and fewer people are swayed, and the Jews’ open deception is further exposed.
The metaphorical use of termite has been deployed frequently throughout time. Richard Perle was the Jewish Neoconservative that is most responsible for the Machiavellian “War on Terror.” To prepare the world Perle sent out his Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with anti-Muslim rhetoric like this: “They essentially, like termites, hollow out the structure of the civil society and other institutions for the purpose of creating conditions under which the jihad will succeed.” Frank Gaffney was not run off social media; he writes for the Washington Times and the Jewish World Review. You can find him here, tweeting filthily: https://twitter.com/frankgaffney.
Spero News columnist Father Thomas Collins is a Catholic priest in Virginia who wrote in a similar vein about “The termites that are eating away at America’s soul,” and he assailed the promotion of abortion and sexual promiscuity and the destruction of family values.
Some of the most racist language and policies from the Trump administration are the work of a Jewish man named Stephen Miller, who according to Esquire magazine “Is Waging War on … America….from the shadows.” It is Miller who is credited with the policy of separating the families of illegal immigrants. Esquire describes Miller’s political tactics: “He’ll install allies in federal agencies to act as ‘termites,’ eating the structure from within to prevent it from providing services. That’s part of a larger effort to operate in the shadows.” Esquire’s intact account can be found here: https://twitter.com/esquire.
Going back a bit, the 1941 book Scum of the Earth, by the famed Jewish writer Arthur Koestler, contains a quote graphically describing the breakdown in French society after the Nazi takeover:
“…A planter enters his house after an absence of five or six days; everything is apparently as he left it, nothing seems changed. He sits down on a chair, it collapses. He grabs the table to regain his balance, it falls to pieces under his hands. He leans against the central pillar, which gives way and brings down the roof in a cloud of dust.”
Koestler is quoting from Maurice Maeterlinck’s Life of the Termites in order to establish in his readers’ minds a salient political point. Not only does Koestler find the termite to be the most accurate metaphor for society’s decay, but his other book, The Thirteenth Tribe, debunks the claim by the white Caucasian Ashkenazi Jews that they are Jews at all! His careful, scholarly, and historically accurate 1976 study found that the white people we think of as Jews—the Netanyahus, the Jonathan Greenblatts, the Alan Dershowitzes and the rest of them—are imposters with no genetic connection to the holy land or holy people of the Bible; they are not even Semites! Koestler proves that their Caucasian tribal ancestors converted to Judaism sometime in the 8th century. So the charge of “anti-Semitism” constantly leveled at Blacks and their leaders has no actual meaning at all.
The Southern Israelite, serving Jewish segregationists in the Jim Crow South, was using the “termites” metaphor to describe its enemies in a 1940 front-page article titled “Nazi Termites Fomenting Unrest; Press and Radio Subsidized.” It is an eerie foreshadowing of the racist scare campaign that the ADL is running at this very moment through social media.
The American Hebrew magazine from 1946 followed suit, publishing an article by Rabbi Leon Spitz titled “Exterminate Anti-Semitic Termites As Our Ancestors Did 2,500 Years Ago,” in which he admits just in the title that Jews committed genocide—and he views this with pride.
In 2018, several “news” centers that now feign outrage at The Minister’s use of the word “termite” were using the very same metaphor in the very same way, with no adverse blowback of the Chelsea Clinton variety.
A veteran Environmental Protection Agency scientist profiled in the Washington Post described the Trump administration—or, as the Post called it, “the current regime”—in these words: “These people are like termites, gnawing at the foundation.” The WP Titter page remains unscathed: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost.
Earlier this year investigative reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning author David Cay Johnston was promoting his new book, in which he makes the very same termites analogy. He has been interviewed and his book reviewed by a wide range of media outlets, including the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun, and Democracy Now, despite the Jewish publisher Simon & Schuster’s description of his book posted on Amazon.com:
“Bestselling author and longtime Trump observer David Cay Johnston shines a light on the political termites who have infested our government under the Trump Administration, destroying it from within and compromising our jobs, safety, finances, and more.”
White conservative gadfly Michael Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan, tweeted his outrage at Minister Farrakhan’s Black use of the “termite” metaphor, attempting to shame Twitter for not “banning” him from its platform. But not too long ago Reagan had this to say about “liberals”:
“If you can think of the liberals, think of them as termites eating away at the foundations of your home each and every day….See, that’s what they do every day. See, we can’t afford to let them keep doing that…”
The man is still tweeting his hypocrisy at https://twitter.com/ReaganWorld.
Former Obama official and political analyst Van Jones took great pains to connect the federal government with “termites” wherever he appeared on the air. On CNN he said, “When you’ve got termites eating into every pillar of your government, that is a dangerous thing.”
Over and over, the use of the word termites in an obviously political context has been seen as a very apt and useful metaphor. Where was Chelsea Clinton when Fox News editorialized about her mother’s health right before the 2016 election:
“Before you purchase a house you inspect it for termites, before you purchase a car you look under the hood. Is it too much to ask for a health examination and report of all presidential candidates? I’m no doctor and I truly hope she is healthy but I believe the American people deserve to have Ms. Clinton’s full medical records open for examination.”
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has been pilloried for using the termite metaphor with laser accuracy. His extraordinary wisdom and his vast knowledge of world history have made him the most perceptive analyst on today’s racial and religious dynamics that have brought the world to the brink of extinction. When he speaks of this society and its racism using the metaphor of termites, it is best to stop, listen, and then think.
For those who chose to listen that day in Detroit, The Minister went on to describe in its ugly detail the exploitative and damaging nature of the Black–Jewish relationship that began on the slave ships of European Jewish merchants and continued in the Detroit city streets with the Jewish criminal narcotics mob known as the Purple Gang—all of whose crimes infested and ate away at Black life. Significantly, other scholars have made the very same point. University of Sussex Professor Clive Webb, Ph.D, is an expert in the field of Black–Jewish relations and wrote that the Jews traded in socially destructive commodities, such as beer, wine, and liquor. And in so doing, the Jewish merchants “were not so much providing the lifeblood of the black community, as injecting it with poison.”
Now, what insect does that sound like?
By the way, Dr. Webb is still tweeting at https://twitter.com/Clive__Webb.
Learn more about termites here:
Part 2: Joy Behar gets a Jewish slavery lesson.
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.”
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
For the past month, Women’s March Co-organizer Tamika Mallory has faced relentless criticism for doing what millions and millions of African-Americans have done for decades and generations of their lives: she attended a speech by Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan.
While speaking, Minister Farrakhan made remarks which have been criticized for being anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). When asked about these statements, Ms. Mallory stated: “I think people have to ask Minister Farrakhan about his views. I’m not responsible for Minister Farrakhan, nor am I a spokesperson for him.” 
She continued by stating, “What I do know is that I’ve worked with Minister Farrakhan for many years to address some of the ills in the Black community, where we’ve transformed lives… In those areas we have been able to work together. As it relates to some of the statements he has made and some of his personal views, people have to ask him about that.” 
Organizations such as the ADL refused to accept this and took to Twitter and other social media to criticize not only Ms. Mallory but other Black leaders who would dare share the same breathing space as Minister Farrakhan.
The ADL has further called for Ms. Mallory to resign from her position in the Women’s March. The ADL complains, ”Tamika Mallory, one of the leaders of the Women’s March, who got a special shout-out from Farrakhan and who regularly posts laudatory pictures of him on her Instagram account — as does Carmen Perez, another leader of the March.“ 
Yet, former ADL director Abe Foxman has appeared in several photographs smiling with Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres, a man who offered to sell apartheid South Africa a long-range missile called the burglar. 
After signing a defense agreement with apartheid South Africa in 1975, Peres proudly posed in a photograph with Hendrik Van Den Berg, who was known as the most feared man in South Africa due to his role in mass-murdering Black, anti-apartheid activists. 
Why didn’t the ADL attack Peres with as much tenacity for taking a photo with Hendrik van den Bergh, as they did Ms. Mallory for uploading a photograph with Farrakhan?
Despite Peres appearing in a photo with a mass-murderer of Black people and his role in arming apartheid South Africa, the ADL once hosted a celebration where they provided Peres with the distinguished statesmen award, claiming Peres changed the world for the better. 
Foxman asserted, “Just think of the diverse contributions Shimon Peres has made to mankind.”  It would appear the ADL does not hold itself to the same standard it seeks to impose upon Ms. Mallory. Foxman has also shared platforms and taken photographs with former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who believed that the racist white settlers in apartheid South Africa needed,”more modern weapons.”  Was there any outcry about this appearance? No.
ADL’s role in Anti-Black Violence
In the Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, Sasha Polakow-Suransky writes: “As the anti-apartheid campaign turned its attention to Israeli links with South Africa, the ADL entered the propaganda fray, publically attacking Nelson Mandela’s ANC with arguments that mirrored those of hardline security officials in Pretoria.”  Indeed, instead of repudiating Peres for signing a defense agreement with Apartheid South Africa, in 1986, the then national director of the ADL, Nathan Perlmutter, co-authored an article defending apartheid and South Africa’s President P.W. Botha, while denouncing Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress as “totalitarian, anti-humane, anti-democratic, anti-Israel and anti-American.”  If the ADL had been aware of Nelson Mandela’s photograph with Minister Farrakhan, given their history, the ADL would have probably used that to call for Nelson Mandela to step down from his position.
The ADL even dispatched spies throughout the United States to monitor groups working to end apartheid in South Africa.  Working as a spy for the ADL, Roy Bullock passed on data he collected on anti-apartheid activists to the racist intelligence agency of Apartheid South Africa. 
After this repugnant history, it’s absolutely absurd for the ADL to even posture as though it’s a credible civil rights organization when they have not made any acknowledgment or amends with Black communities for their decision to support white murderous rule in apartheid South Africa.
The Israeli Defense Force vs the Nation of Islam
Whilst criticizing Ms. Mallory for associating with the NOI, the ADL in events such as “National Counter-Terrorism Seminar in Israel”  demonstrates it is more than willing to associate and even promote the Israeli defense force, an organization that has a demonstrated track record of actual physical violence against Black people.
A 1984 U.N. report titled “Recent developments concerning relations between Israel and South Africa” states that the Israeli defense force’s “Collaboration with bantustans in military and police affairs is alarming because the racist regime of South Africa has utilized the bantustans as tools of oppression and suppression against the people of South Africa.” 
The Bantustans were systematically designed to confine the socio-economic mobility of Black people and ensure that Black people remained a permanent underclass and cheap labor source for white people. By any objective standard, the Israeli “defense” force should be classified as a hate group for policing the bantustans of apartheid South Africa.
The ADL is upset that Ms. Mallory attended a Nation of Islam event, an organization whose members are forbidden to carry weapons—even a pen knife. In contrast, Peres provided apartheid South Africa with brutal weapons used to kill Black people.
A CIA memo titled ”Israel’s relationship with Apartheid South Africa” revealed that Israel under Peres’ leadership provided apartheid, South Africa with piloted reconnaissance drones, galil assault rifles, 155m howitzer kits, and the Israeli defense force provided technical assistance to modernize apartheid South Africa’s mirage 3 fighter aircraft. Israel also provided riot control equipment, including gas masks and tear gas training programs, to apartheid South Africa.  These weapons were utilized to kill Black people.
The Nation of Islam is currently characterized by the ADL as a “hate group,” despite a lack of history of actual hate crimes. In contrast, the Israeli defense force, whom the ADL is affiliated with, has a documented and undeniable history of facilitating state terrorism against Black people.
During the height of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Lekgau Mathabane, the head of Soweto’s Committee of Ten, an anti-apartheid civil rights organization, proclaimed: “A friend of the South Africa government cannot be a friend of the Black…. Israel also supplies arms to South Africa and South Africa uses those arms for killing Black people and even children three years old. You don’t expect any Black person to be happy with that type of thing.” 
Why is it acceptable for Foxman to snap photos with Peres but a Ms. Mallory instagram post with Minister Farrakhan results in a national uproar? Given the anti-Black violence of the Israeli military, the ADL’s decision to promote the Israeli defense force is far worse and worthy of condemnation than Ms. Mallory’s decision to attend a Nation of Islam event.
Anti-racist activist Tim Wise stated, “Perhaps when white folks begin to show as much concern for the bigoted statements and, more to the point, murderous actions of white political leaders as we show over the statements of Louis Farrakhan, then we’ll deserve to be taken seriously in this thing we call a ‘national dialogue on race’.” 
When Will the ADL condemn the Anti-Black Zionists?
Another immense double standard was revealed when Chief Rabbi of Israel Yitzhak Yosef referred to Black people as “Monkeys.”  The characterization of Black people as monkeys is no light matter; it is rooted in Black people being portrayed as subhuman, and it is the very ideology that rationalized colonialism and the enslavement of Black people.
Yet the most the ADL did was issue a watered-down tweet claiming it was “racially charged,” as opposed to explicitly anti-Black.  There were no calls for any particular individuals who were in the audience who attended the speech to resign from their places of employment. Moreover, the ADL has devoted a significantly larger amount of tweets indicting Minister Farrakhan, compared to one watered-down version condemnation of Rabbi Yitzhak. There was not even a call or pressure by the ADL to have Rabbi Yitzhak step down from his position as chief rabbi of Israel.
While Zionist Lobby groups have called for Senator Maxine Waters to resign for a video showing her warmly embracing Minister Farrakhan, there have been no calls for Netanyahu to step down as Israeli prime minister for photographs showing him shaking hands with the anti-Black rabbi, Yitzhak Yosef.
The reality of the Anti-Black Zionists
The anti-Black zionist groups such as the ADL place the state of Israel over Black lives. Given the ADL’s role in supporting apartheid in South Africa , it is not to be taken seriously as a civil rights organization. The ADL has no authority to tell Ms. Mallory or any other Black leader who they can associate with. Instead of focusing on her decision to attend a speech by Minister Farrakhan and stalking her social media for Minister Farrakhan photos, the ADL should be seeking forgiveness and atonement from the Black community for their complicity in being anti-Black.
[The NOI Research Group thanks Brother Hakeem Muhammad for permission to publish this article. The original is posted here: https://muhammadhakeem.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/tamika-mallory-the-adl-the-hypocrisy-of-the-anti-black-zionists/]
 Refinery29.com. (2018). Women’s March Organizers Accused Of Anti-Semitism—Again. [online] Available at: https://www.refinery29.com/2018/03/192438/tamika-mallory-nation-of-islam-louis-farrakhan-speech-2018-anti-semitism-womens-march?bucketed=true [Accessed 29 Mar. 2018].  IBID  “Women’s March Leaders Refuse to Condemn Farrakhan after Antisemitic Speec.” The Jerusalem Post | , 4 Mar. 2018, www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Womens-March-leaders-refuse-to-condemn-Farrakhan-after-antisemitic-speech-544074.  The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms and why By Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, pg. 63.  “The Tall Assassin Sparks New Interest in Apartheid Atrocities.” Penguin SA @ Sunday Times Books LIVE, /.  Presentation of the ADL Distinguished Statesman Award to Shimon Peres.” Anti-Defamation League, www.adl.org/news/article/presentation-of-the-adl-distinguished-statesman-award-to-shimon-peres.  IBID  Middleton, Drew. “SOUTH AFRICA NEEDS MORE ARMS, ISRAELI SAYS.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Dec. 1981, www.nytimes.com/1981/12/14/world/south-africa-needs-more-arms-israeli-says.html.  Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 209  Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 234  Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 209  IBID  “National Counter-Terrorism Seminar in Israel.” Anti-Defamation League, www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-organization/signature-programs/law-enforcement-trainings/national-counter-terrorism-seminar.  Special Reports of the Special Committee Against Apartheid: Recent developments concerning relations between Israel and South Africa. http://repository.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/64451/A_39_22_Add.1%3bS_16814_Add.1-EN.pdf?sequence=21&isAllowed=y)  Israel’s Relationship With South Africa, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP06T00412R000606480008-9.pdf  Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 187.  “Farrakhan Is Not the Problem: The Arrogance and Absurdity of America’s Racial Litmus Test.” Tim Wise, 24 Aug. 2010, www.timwise.org/2008/05/farrakhan-is-not-the-problem-the-arrogance-and-absurdity-of-americas-racial-litmus-test/.  Osborne, Samuel. “Israeli Chief Rabbi Calls Black People ‘Monkeys’.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 22 Mar. 2018, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-cheif-rabbi-black-people-monkeys-yitzhak-yosef-talmud-sephardic-a8267666.html.  IBID  Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 209