American Dissident Voices broadcast of April 28, 2018
by Kevin Alfred Strom
“WHO CONTROLS the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
So said George Orwell in hisÂ 1984, meaning that those who rule over us decide what is written about history — what is omitted, what is emphasized, and what is utterly fabricated — and that, by thus altering our perception of the past, they constrain or control what we think and what we do in the present. And what we think and do determines our future.
Therefore our future is effectively under the control of those who write history.
A somber anniversary
This week marks the 105th anniversary of the death of 13-year-old factory girl Mary Phagan, who was found strangled to death and likely raped in the basement of Atlanta’s National Pencil Company, the Jewish-owned sweatshop where she worked for a few cents an hour.
Her boss, factory superintendent Leo Max Frank, was convicted of her murder — and later lynched by a committee of prominent Georgians when a corrupt governor commuted Frank’s sentence from death to life in prison. Frank was a Jew — and a prominent one, being head of the Atlanta B’nai B’rith, the influential Jewish fraternal organization.
His death has been cited as perhaps the only case of a Jew being lynched in Southern history — something that, even if not unique, is certainly extremely rare.
The Frank case was a major factor in the creation of the Anti-Defamation League (or ADL), still one of the most powerful Jewish pressure groups.
The Jewish power structure organized and exerted itself in depth, like never before, in order to exonerate Frank — an effort that still persists to this day.
2018 also marks the 50th anniversary of the publication in book form of Leonard Dinnerstein’sÂ The Leo Frank Case. His book is based on his 1966 dissertation thesis, which may be read online.
Dinnerstein is Jewish. Dinnerstein is a purported scholar. Dinnerstein is presented by the controlled media as a “respected historian.” Dinnerstein is one of those who, through his own efforts and those of his fellow tribesmen, control our perception of the past. Dinnerstein’s book is one of the central texts upon which the Jewish power structure’s “received narrative” about the Leo Frank case rests.
A false narrative
That narrative tells us that Leo Frank was investigated, indicted, and convicted — and had that conviction upheld during multiple appeals that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court — all because of “anti-Semitism.” It’s a false narrative. And, as we’ve shown here onÂ National Vanguard, aÂ preposterously false narrative.
By controlling the publishing industry and dominating the academic establishment, the Jewish power structure was, for almost the entire century following the trial and conviction of Leo Frank, able to get away with whopper after whopper about the Frank case — Dinnerstein’s prominent among them — with hardly anyone noticing, much less objecting.
But since the age of the Internet began, the people have been able to bypass the Jewish gatekeepers and find the facts for themselves. Real independent investigative journalism has arisen. What we do here atÂ National Vanguard is a part of that.
Now that original source material on the Leo Frank case is only a few keystrokes away, what Leonard Dinnerstein could get away with in 1968 is a huge embarrassment for the Jews in 2018.
So let’s take a critical look at Leonard Dinnerstein’s half-century-long war with the facts.
“History” with a purpose
Dinnerstein is a University of Arizona “Professor Emeritus of Judaic Studies.” Almost his entire career has been focused on the Frank case, Jewish identity, and the “immigrant experience.”
The whole premise of Leonard Dinnerstein’s book, The Leo Frank Case, is to
1) smear the people of the South with the charges of gross corruption and supposed “anti-Semitism”;
2) attempt to frame a long-dead Black man who cannot defend himself — Jim Conley, a prominent witness against Frank — for the murder; and
3) shamelessly rehabilitate the image of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith president, Leo M. Frank, who has been shown by court records, sworn evidence, and multiple judges and juries to be the pedophile strangler and child killer who was guilty of bludgeoning, garroting, and ordering the burning of the body of 13-year old Mary Anne Phagan on April 26, 1913.
The general conclusion of Dinnerstein’s book is that, in the White racial segregationist and separatist Atlanta of 1913, White Southern Gentiles were so filled with anti-Jewish hate that they knowingly and willingly set free a guilty Black man who had just a few weeks before pounded his fists into the face of a little 13-year-old White girl, just before raping, strangling, and mutilating her.
These White jurists and detectives and prosecutors and policemen and jurors, Dinnerstein claims, knowingly let the guilty Black rapist and strangler go free so they could intentionally frame an innocent Jew for the crime.
Topping it all off, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, the Atlanta police and detectives, and even the Pinkerton detective agency hired by Frank’s own company, all worked together to coach James “Jim” ConleyÂ to repeat, like a trained parrot, a very complex story in order to trick the trial jury and unjustly convict Leo Frank.
For five decades now, the organized Jewish community regularly gave kudos and accolades to Dinnerstein for his anti-Gentile propaganda books. Many described Dinnerstein as the “definitive author” of the Leo Frank “epic saga.”
Leonard Dinnerstein’s “hate crime” hoax
Dinnerstein perpetuates the hoax — repeated by Abraham Foxman of the ADL and by dozens of media and academic hacks — that mobs of angry people were screaming “racist anti-Semitic death threats” at the jury through the courtroom windows during Leo Frank’s trial.
These alleged mobs were claimed to have screamed at the jurors “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you!” and other threats.
(See “Leo Frank and the American Jewish Community” in the American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, volume 20 number 2.)
Interestingly, none of the local Atlanta newspapers, some of whom took a pro-Frank stance — and who had teams of reporters inside and outside the courtroom — ever mention this alleged incident, which surely would have been instant grounds for a mistrial.
It was also never mentioned during the trial by Frank’s own high-powered and expensive legal team, who surely would have jumped at the chance to gain a new trial in a new venue for their well-connected client.
The Jewish ADL still uses Dinnerstein’s “hang the Jew” hoax as a major part of its “outreach” on the Leo Frank case.
“Bite marks”? You’ve got to be kidding! But Dinnerstein seriously expects us to believe.
Dinnerstein’s book does not stand up to even the most basic fact checking.
As pointed out by reviewer Elliot Dashfield, Leonard Dinnerstein also perpetuates the Pierre van Paassen 1964 “bite mark” hoax in his book:
For example, he uncritically accepts the 1964 hoax by hack writer and self-promoter Pierre van Paassen, who claimed that there were in existence in 1922 X-ray photographs at the Fulton County Courthouse, taken in 1913, of Leo Frankâ€™s teeth, and also X-ray photographs of bite marks on Mary Phaganâ€™s neck and shoulder [as if one needs to take X-rays of bite marks!] â€“ and that anti-Semites had suppressed this evidence. Van Paassen further alleged â€“ and Dinnerstein repeated â€“ that the dimensions of Frankâ€™s teeth did not match the â€œbite marks,â€ thereby exonerating Frank.
Hereâ€™s the excerpt fromÂ van Paassenâ€™s 1964 bookÂ To Number Our DaysÂ (pages 237 and 238) that Dinnerstein endorses:
â€œThe Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.
â€œI took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frankâ€™s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.
â€œThough, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frankâ€™s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.
â€œThat someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: â€˜Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy.â€™ The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratchâ€¦.â€
Dinnerstein references these pages in his book (page 158 of the 2008 edition), saying â€œIn 1923, at the height of the Ku Klux Klanâ€™s power, a foreign journalist, working forÂ The Atlanta Constitution,Â became interested in Leo Frank and went back to study the records of the case. He came across some x-rays showing teeth indentations in Mary Phaganâ€™s left shoulder and compared them with x-rays of Frankâ€™s teeth; but the two sets did not correspond. On the basis of this, and other insights garnered from his investigation, the newspaperman wanted to write a series â€˜provingâ€™ Frankâ€™s innocence. One anonymous correspondent sent him a printed note: â€˜Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy,â€™ but this did not deter him.â€
Since Dinnerstein is such a lofty academic scholar and professor, perhaps he simply forgot to ask a current freshman in medical school if it was even possible to X-ray bite marks on skin in 1913 â€“ or necessary [today], for that matter â€“ because itâ€™s not. In 1913, X-ray technology was in its infancy and never used in any criminal case until many years after Leo Frank was hanged. Was Leo Frankâ€™s lawyer named â€œHarry Alexanderâ€ or Henry Alexander? Why would the famous attorney who represented Leo Frank during his most high-profile appeals sayÂ he didnâ€™t have his trial yet?! Leo Frank wasÂ notÂ lynched on his way to trial in Milledgeville â€“ he wasnâ€™t on his way to anywhere, and it happened in Marietta, 170 miles away. And it defies the laws of physics, and all logic and reason, to believe that any person driving a motor vehicle in 1922 â€“ when there were virtually no safety features in automobiles â€“ could suffer a direct collision with a â€œfast-moving streetcarâ€ and survive â€œwithout a scratch.â€ Oddly, Dinnerstein says van Paassen â€œwas not deterredâ€ from writing the supposed series of articles, though even the hoaxer himself clearly implies that he was indeed deterred. (Even the most basic online research would also have shown that van Paassen is a far from credible source who once publicly claimed to have seen supernatural â€œghost dogsâ€ which could appear and disappear at will.)
Not only did Dinnerstein completely fail to point out the obviously preposterous nature of van Paassenâ€™s account, but he blandly presents his claims as established historical fact. If this is scholarship, then Anton LaVey is the Pope.
Leonard Dinnerstein’s book and other works on the Leo Frank case are of laughably poor quality, and his falsehoods are growing thinner and thinner, and less believable, with each passing year. Yet Dinnerstein is still cited as a source by the ADL on their Web site, and his work is even a part of a “Teaching Guide” used to inculcate the Jewish narrative in the minds of American children.
Remember Orwell:Â “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
We’ll have more about Dinnerstein and his role as a falsifier of the past next week, right here onÂ American Dissident Voices.
* * *
Youâ€™ve been listening toÂ American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. The National Alliance is working to educate White men and women around the world as to the nature of the reality we must face â€” and organizing our people to ensure our survival and advancement. We need your help to continue. Please send the largest contribution you can afford to National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. You can also help us by visiting natall.com/donate. Make your life count.Â Once again, our postal address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.