When the Jew Began to Hate The SouthMorris van de Camp
The Nation of Islam
The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3: The Leo Frank Case
Chicago: Latimer Associates, 2016
One can read a review of the first two volumes of The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews here.
“Why should I hang? I have wealthy people in Brooklyn.” — Leo Frank, 1913
All racial integrators – all those who “don’t see race,” are “colorblind,” and view “all humanity as family” – tend to misread data. In fact, they misread data in a big way, but because these colorblind integrators are well within the norms of today’s decadent society, they don’t get much in the way of pushback. On the other hand, The Nation of Islam (NOI) does get plenty of pushback. The Nation of Islam also sees race.
But NOI doesn’t misread data. As far as black organizations go, it is actually run by blacks – unlike the Jewish-run NAACP, in the latter’s heyday. It doesn’t endorse integration or other forms of race-mixing. NOI also doesn’t commit acts of terrorism, although there was a nasty series of murders by some criminals inspired by the NOI’s message in the 1970s. The NOI isn’t into mooching, and its members don’t participate in typical ghetto crime.
In the third volume of The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews by NOI historians, we discover that the NOI isn’t hostile towards white Southern culture or the Confederacy. An example of this non-hostility is how the NOI refers to Confederate Memorial Day. The NOI writes that this is a holiday “in honor of the dead and aging soldiers who had fought with valor but in vain to maintain America’s most profitable economic institution – Black slavery” (emphasis mine). This sort of sentiment is not unusual even among neo-Confederates. Additionally, the references to Nazism that become obligatory when discussing the Jews run somewhat close to the ideas found in “revisionist” literature. For example, “Adolf Hitler purportedly turned [eugenics] against the Jews” (emphasis mine). And the NOI is highly sympathetic to the white victim Mary Phagan and her family; there is no “get the Becky” that is so prevalent in the mainstream media today. The NOI “spews” less hatred than The New York Times or the NBC Nightly News.
This volume describes the Leo Frank case in depth. Leo Frank was a Jewish factory manager at the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, Georgia. Frank was a highly-regarded pillar of both upper-class Atlanta society and the local Jewish community. Leo Frank also had a number of hobbies. One was being the President of the local B’nai B’rith Fellowship – a Jewish fraternal organization. Another was to engage in sexual escapades with his female employees in his factory office. He was a #metoo sort of Jew, something which seems to be somewhat common among male Jewish managers.
On April 26, 1913, Frank raped and murdered a young, white Southern girl named Mary Phagan, then 13, during a sexual escapade “gone wrong.” The Atlanta Police Department arrested a number of people during their investigation, including the black night watchman who discovered the body and the factory’s black janitor. At a time when Jim Crow social policies ruled in the South, the lynching of black men was tolerated and open racism was considered a virtue; an all-white jury convicted Frank – although Frank was “white” from the perspective of the NOI and wealthy by anyone’s perspective. On the night of August 16, 1915, Frank was taken from prison and lynched the next day in Phagan’s hometown, allegedly by Georgia’s white political elite.
This reviewer won’t do a deep-dive into the evidence in this case. To get the technical, legal, and forensic specifics, one should read this book, or read the transcripts of the trial. The book is probably the better option, as it has very good illustrations of the prosecutor’s scenario, the defense’s counter-scenario, and the actions of the prosecution’s star witness, James Conley, the janitor who was nearest to the murder apart from Frank and Phagan themselves.
This is an overview of the case:
- Leo Frank wanted to have sex with 13-year-old Mary Phagan. She resisted, so he killed her.
- Frank attempted to blame the black janitor, James Conley, for the crime. There were others accused as well, but Conley was Frank’s main target.
- The Atlanta police arrested a number of people, including Conley, but closed in on Frank based on the evidence as well as Frank’s guilty behavior.
- Initially, there were calls for the black suspects, including Conley, to be lynched, but they died away as the truth emerged. The police moved to prevent any lynchings very quickly.
- Apart from the fact that Leo Frank’s trial attracted much public interest, it was quite normal. There were no mobs shouting to “kill the Jew” or other such things recorded in the reports that were written at the time of the trial. Such reports emerged years later.
- Frank was found guilty after a long and expensive trial. The evidence presented during the appeal process was faulty; i.e., the famous “shit in the shaft” issue is shown to be thin by the NOI. It was only after the trial played out that Frank’s fate became depicted as anti-Semitism.
- Frank’s death sentence was commuted by the Governor. The injustice of the situation caused the lynching. No agency moved against the lynchers or those who investigated the crime.
So what can one learn from the Leo Frank case?
Legal Procedures are Easier in a White Ethnostate
If the trial had taken place in an all-white area in, say, northern Ohio, it would only have been remarkable in that a person of such high social class and community standing raped and murdered an employee. Such murders do happen, of course, and in a homogeneous society, the trial and punishment would have been a private catastrophe for those close to the victim and the accused, but not traumatic at the community level. In Leo Frank’s case, it became one of tribal politics due to Frank’s defense strategy. At first, Frank’s strategy was that of an innocent “white man” accused of a “Negro crime.” Frank accused two blacks, especially James Conley. When that failed to work, the case became one of Jewish donors and media moguls employing expensive legal tricks and cries of anti-Semitism to get Frank off. Mary Phagan in turn became emblematic of endangered Southern culture.
The Leo Frank Case Took Place in a Philo-Semitic Environment
The Southern United States is the most philo-Semitic region of the nation. In the past, it was even more philo-Semitic. The first Jewish Senator, David Levy Yulee, was from Florida, and he was an active supporter of the Confederacy and its President, Jefferson Davis. Another Jew, Judah Philip Benjamin, was a senior Cabinet member in the Confederate government. Jewish mercantile power was an established fact of life in Atlanta. And Jews weren’t respected only for their prominent niche in the Southern economy. “Bible toting Georgians had always held their Jewish neighbors in high regard . . .”
The prosecuting attorney in the case, Hugh M. Dorsey, “was not an anti-Semite, nor was he operating in a previously existing anti-Semitic climate. Attacks on Jews had not been used in the past to gain popularity or public office.” Furthermore, “Jews across the South were well entrenched in a Jim Crown court system that they helped develop and on which they relied for their everyday business needs.”
Frank’s defense strategy was based on the assumption that Southerners would not believe black testimony, such as that of the state’s star witness, James Conley, and further that they would only believe that such a brutal crime could be carried out by a black. For those who are racially aware, it turns out that all-white juries, such as was the case in Leo Frank’s trial, can see the evidence through racial invective, even though they might support a system such as Jim Crow. When Frank was convicted, the charges of anti-Semitism began.
The Cry of “Anti-Semitism” and Southern Pushback
Anti-Semitism began to be invoked only after Frank’s conviction, and it was mostly led by Northern Jews, especially at The New York Times, which was then owned by Adolph Ochs. Another prominent Jewish Frank supporter was the advertising executive Albert Lasker. The book goes on to say:
Author Steve Oney, for instance, represents most of the writers in the field when he calls the Leo Frank affair “America’s worst case of anti-Semitism.” Few have dared to challenge that view, but a far more supportable conclusion is that hatred of Jews or of Judaism was not a motivator or a factor in Leo Frank’s prosecution; rather, the specter of antisemitism was more the invention of Frank’s supporters and later writers seeking to create Jewish American folklore instead of endeavoring to analyze the facts of the case.
The campaign to claim that Frank was a victim of “anti-Semitism” made Georgians seem like monsters in the North and around the world. “The layers of evidence that convinced a jury of white men of Frank’s guilt in the murder of Mary Phagan, overwhelming as they were, simply never made it out of Georgia,” the book tells us.
Furthermore, Frank’s Northern Jewish supporters bribed, or attempted to bribe, witnesses throughout the trial and its aftermath. They also hired dishonest private investigators to sew doubt about Frank’s guilt among Atlanta’s law enforcement community. These supporters searched high and low for new witnesses to provide an alibi for Frank. This effort was ongoing as late as the 1980s. And as Frank’s prison accommodations were actually quite nice, it is likely that his jailers were also bribed.
The resistance to this massive Jewish onslaught came in the form of a prominent white Southerner named Thomas E. Watson. While a Congressman, Watson implemented the Rural Free Delivery policy, a significant reform that is still in place today. Watson was also an editor and business manager of several publishing concerns. Seven months after Leo Frank’s trial and the associated “J’accuse” nonsense coming from the Northern Jews, Watson put the State of Georgia’s case into print. It struck a chord throughout the South. Had it not been for Watson, it is likely Frank would have been eventually set free through a series of clemencies, and Mary Phagan’s rape and murder would have been unavenged.
The Leo Frank case is peculiar in that the organized Jewish community didn’t need to weigh in on the case at all. One can only conclude that they are highly sensitive to budding ethnic threats and that these sorts of cases are something like the proverbial canary in the coal mine. When such a canary “died,” so to speak, with Frank’s conviction, Jews came to believe their place in the South was not as secure as before.
There are other aspects to the Leo Frank case which shine light on the Jewish view of their Gentile host societies. While this is speculation, I believe they have the ring of truth:
- Jews need enemies. A philo-Semitic society is actually a threat to them in that Jews could intermarry with other peoples. In such a situation, creating an “anti-Semitic” society helps to keep Jewish barriers to integration intact.
- The other side of the coin is that Jews need victims to support their worldview. If actual victims of anti-Semitism don’t exist, a martyr must be created. The NOI argues in this book that it was good for the organized Jewish community that Frank was lynched after his sentence was commuted. The book says, “Leo Frank as a Jewish symbol could never exist in the same space and time with Leo Frank the flawed and repulsive Jewish man. And so the man became as expendable to Jewish elites as he was to Georgian Gentiles – maybe even more so.”
- In all stories told by Jews, reality is distorted. There are several aspects to this, the first being turning facts on their head. During the trial, no anti-Semitism was displayed, and there was no anti-Semitism in the South generally, but Frank’s mother called the prosecutor a “Gentile dog” in front of the entire court. The Jewish-led response was very anti-black. The timing was also poor. There was no Southern resistance to the Jewish assault on Atlanta until months after the mainstream media’s pro-Frank campaign started. Finally, the anti-Semitism story has gotten bigger with every telling. One must wonder if other Jewish tales of suffering have also been inflated.
In the end, the Leo Frank case is the exact moment when the Jews came to hate the South.
 I don’t know if slavery was America’s most profitable economic institution or not. Slavery plus cotton was extremely profitable in the 1850s, enough so that the South didn’t suffer during the economic downturn of that era in the way the North did. However, slavery was profitable enough that a great many people fought very hard to maintain it.
 The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews, vol. 3, Kindle Loc. 417.
 Kindle Loc. 3642.
 Leo Frank’s actions match a pattern of callous behavior by Jewish managers, from Harvey Weinstein to Max Blanck and Isaac Harris. Blanck and Harris were the Jewish managers of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, which burned down in 1911. Blanck and Harris escaped from the building, but left the doors locked and failed to issue any warning to their workers. More than a hundred people working at the sweatshop perished in the blaze.
 Kindle Loc. 1904.
 Kingle Loc. 2260.
 Kindle Loc. 2217.
 Kindle Loc. 3573.
 Kindle Loc. 5562.
 Kindle Loc. 4739.
The Worst Week Yet: May 28-June 3, 2023
Football’s Race War
The Worst Week Yet: May 21-27, 2023
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Munchhausen: The Third Reich’s Wizard of Oz
Clash of the Billionaire Comic-Book Supervillains
Clash of the Billionaire Comic-Book Supervillains
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 4, Part 2: The Post-War Consensus
E. Michael Jones says the civil rights movement was Jewish revenge for the lynching of Leo Frank.
Seems a stretch, but may have played a big role.
Jones is where I first learned of the Leo Frank case, and indeed the Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 to stir outcry for it, and never stopped into 2018. (Does the NOI book explore the ADL/Frank role?) But it’s telling, that Hollywood never made a “witch hunt” Oscar bait picture about Frank, nor about the Rosenbergs or Pollard. This is comparable to a concession of guilt, yet like Polanski, Leo Frank remains a martyr in their larger conflict against white America. I wonder if Frank is defended in yeshiva?
Ron Unz recently wrote a lengthy article on this case, also focusing on the book reviewed here, and used it to explain how the Frank case in fact prompted the creation of the ADL. Pretty ignominious origin once one understands the facts of this case and the propaganda surrounding it.
In regard to whether slavery in the South was profitable, it certainly was for the plantation owner. He certainly lived a lifestyle fare beyond the simple comfort that most in the South aspired to. But the idea that Southern men, most of whom did not own slaves, would fight for four years and be mauled (25% of those who lived at the end of the conflict were on disability i.e. missing body parts) all so some rich dude could live a lifestyle far beyond what the rich dude needed for comfort … is on its face patently absurd. They clearly were animated to continue fighting for four years for something else.
Whites in the South in general, did not benefit from rich plantation owners using negro slavery, as is so often proclaimed today. One who grew small amounts of tobacco or cotton or sugar cane could not compete in the middle man purchasing markets against the cheaper priced slave/plantation produced commodity.
Let us not forget all the northerners who benefited from use of slave labor in the South. All the ship owners, captains and maritime insurance companies who profited from bringing africans to this continent for slavery. All the textile mills who paid less for mass produced cotton on slave plantations.
I am certain that most southern Whites of the time, not owning slaves, were concerned about negroes being freed and then later demanding citizenship; thus diluting their vote in federal elections. Potentially changing their society (the non slave owning part).
So much of this is forgotten in this day and age of mass media propagandizing with emotion.
Yes. Are you familiar with “Time on the Cross” . A great Jewish redpill takedown of various myths..
But if i recall correctly i’d say many of the Planters most slavishly committed to the economy of the ‘peculiar institution’ were the most resistant to secession seeing in disunion the likelihood of war and in war the likely end of slavery. They felt secure in the implicit protections of the constitution and were default Unionists.
Still, none of these men were reducible to the economic principle. An attack on their way of life was taken personally as dishonoring the spirit of the union. Another factor: The lower South was largely immune to party politics. Lincoln of course was a Party Animal. But in the leadup to 1861 we really have to focus on South Carolina and then also separate the lower from the upper South, though i’ll spare you that spiel..
The main thing is that South Carolina was the most aristocratic and also not coincidentally the blackest–for even though the state as a whole was nearly 60% black the slave areas themselves were 80% black or more. These sober men of honor had no patience whatsoever with the ‘Black Republicans.’ with their denigration of the slave power with their vows to snuff out slavery by extra-constitutional means. So honor piqued were our Aristos that they were defiantly resistant to the argument that War would increase the likelihood that they would lose everything.
Conclusion: Slave Morality: Liberals are beasts without chests or red cheeks and have a hole in their hearts where honor used to be.
Great piece. There were still plenty of based Southern Jews during the civil rights movement–think of figures like Henry Loeb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Loeb
Also it would be interesting to work out the shift from Sephardic to German to Eastern Euro Ashkenazim to their effective consolidation to fight ‘anti-semitism’ .. but there were real tensions and hatreds-wasn’t it the German Jews that invented the slur “Kike” .
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment