> > BORN IN BIGOTRY: The Anti-Black Roots Of The ADL > > The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has an international > reputation as a respected Jewish "civil rights" organisation. > Among other things it keeps track of "hate groups", a monitoring > which, in the cyber-age, has extended to the Internet. In his 1997 > book Conspiracy, Middle East watcher Daniel Pipes speaks > favourably of the ADL claiming that "For relief from these many > hate-mongers, the Anti-Defamation League provides original > research and documentation, primarily but not exclusively about > antisemitic groups..." (1) Pipes is either a dupe, a > mischief-maker or a fellow traveller, for any objective > investigation of the activities of the ADL reveals it to be > anything but a panacea for intolerance, none more so than an > investigation into its origins. > > The inspiration for the Anti-Defamation League was the Leo Frank > case. The story as it is usually related is that the ADL was > founded in response to the anti-Jewish bigotry engendered by the > trial and subsequent lynching of the totally innocent Frank who > had been scapegoated by the wicked anti-Semitic bigots of the Deep > South for a senseless murder which no Jew could possibly have > committed. (2) As with many Jewish tragedies though, particularly > those which emerged out of World War Two, there is a canyon wide > gap between the legend as it is portrayed by a fawningly > philo-Semitic media (and its academic pimps) and a cold appraisal > of the salient facts. > > Leo Frank was a Jew who was convicted of the murder of a young > factory worker at the Atlanta, Georgia pencil plant which he > managed. He was sentenced to death, reprieved, then lynched by a > gang which broke into the gaol where he was being held, and > kidnapped him for that purpose. Jewish author Leonard Dinnerstein > refers to this case as "ONE OF the most infamous outbursts of > anti-Semitic feeling in the United States...", (3) and comparisons > have often been made with the Dreyfus case in France. In fact, the > conviction of Leo Frank for murder - if not his subsequent > lynching - was more indicative of lack of racial bigotry on the > part of White Southerners, and bigotry on the part of Frank's > supporters, many of them Jewish. > > After Mary Phagan, a young white girl not quite fourteen, was > found battered to death in the early hours of April 27, 1913 by > the plant's Negro watchman, it quickly became clear that there > were only two serious suspects: the respectable, upper middle > class and quite wealthy Northerner Frank; and Jim Conley, a low > class Negro of poor character and with a liking for drink. > > Frank was the last person (bar the murderer?) to see the victim > alive, and Conley was the principal witness against him. Conley > claimed to have helped Frank cover up the murder, and in spite of > his antecedents he made a good impression on the jury. It is > doubtful though if Frank's expensive lawyer made such a good > impression because, with his client on trial for his life, he > disparaged Conley in the most vile terms asking the jury how could > they, decent white people, convict a respectable white businessman > like Frank on the word of a black man. It was absurd, he > suggested, that "the word of a 'filthy, criminal, lying Negro' > should be taken in an effort to hang a man". (4) > > "Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have > seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black drunken, lying > nigger...Who was it that made this dirty nigger come up here > looking so slick? Why didn't they let you see him as he was?" (5) > What could be better calculated to alienate a jury of twelve > ordinary decent people? > > Author Dinnerstein doesn't seem to realise the lawyer's folly any > more than Frank's legal team and supporters did themselves, but > another Jewish author, and an uncharacteristically impartial one, > saw things very differently. The distinguished American scholar > Nathaniel Weyl wrote in his book The Jew In American Politicsthat > "Five members of prominent Jewish families were on the grand jury > which indicted Frank and most Atlanta Jews seem to have at first > believed him guilty." (6) This is something which tends to be > forgotten nowadays in the incessant wailing and whining which > always accompanies any allegation of Jewish wrongdoing. > > Another Jewish academic whose commitment to historical truth > outweighs his commitment to fighting "anti-Semitism" is Professor > Lindemann, who in his excellent book Esau's Tearscandidly admits > that "Frank's innocence was less clear at the time of the trial > than many accounts have suggested. Similarly, anti-Semitism seems > to have been of marginal importance in both his arrest and > conviction." (7) He adds too that Frank had a stiff and distant > personality and an odd appearance, (8) which, rightly or wrongly, > clearly leant credence to some of the scurrilous gossip which was > circulated about him at the time. > > Whether or not Frank should have been convicted is a different > matter. Most people, including the current writer, would consider > it dangerous to convict a man - any man - of so grave a crime as > murder solely on the word of a man of the character of Jim Conley, > who had not only admitted to helping cover up the crime but had > lied repeatedly to the police, but the suggestion that a white man > should not have been convicted simply because his accuser was > black would have alienated most jurors, even White Southerners in > those days, especially when couched in such terms. > > There were more than two hundred defence witnesses, most of them > white and of good character, and many of them swore that Conley > was a damned liar, yet the jury preferred the testimony of a low > class Negro to that of a white man of good character. Not even > Doreen Lawrence could find racismin that. > > Just as his lawyer undoubtedly alienated the jury, so too did > Frank's many wealthy Jewish supporters alienate large tranches of > the public by persistently playing "the race card", and drew > comments like: "Are we to understand that anybody except a Jew can > be punished for crime?" (9) and "It is a bad state of affairs when > the idea gets abroad that the law is too weak to punish a man who > has plenty of money." (10) > > Jim Conley was sentenced to a year on a chain gang for his part in > the crime and lived to a ripe old age, apparently unmolested by > the supposedly so bigoted Southerners whom we are frequently led > to believe would lynch a Negro simply for looking at a white girl, > much less for murdering one. (11) > > In those days lynchings were not uncommon, including of whites > (mostly for rape); to this day Leo Frank remains the only Jew ever > to have been lynched in America, and indeed he was the first white > man to be brought to trial in the Deep South on a capital charge > solely on the word of a Negro. (12) > > The police appeared sincerely to have believed Frank guilty, and > uncharacteristically they didn't manufacture evidence of his guilt > as their contemporaries often do today. (13) With regard to the > testimony of Jim Conley, one newspaper questioned whether "this > illiterate Negro [could] have conceived and fitted together such a > set of detailed circumstances without some foundation in fact?" > (14) > > Commenting fifty years after the case, McLellan Smith, who covered > the story as a cub reporter, wrote that a man of Conley's mental > capacity could have been broken if he was lying; he certainly > impressed on the witness stand. (15) As Conley spent a total of > sixteen hours undergoing an intense cross-examination, this was no > mean feat, (16) either he was an accomplished liar par excellence > or he was indeed telling the gospel truth. Dinnerstein himself > cites a letter held by the University of Chicago in the Julius > Rosenwald Papers in which an unnamed author gives cogent reasons > for his belief in Frank's guilt. (17) > > Another newspaperman pointed out paradoxically that "There was a > considerable body of evidence for and against Frank." (18) The > campaign to clear Frank's name - and by implication to clear the > name of the Jew - was eventually successful, although one can't > help but think it was accomplished by sleight-of-hand. > > In 1982, sixty-seven years after Frank was lynched, a supposed > eyewitness came forward. At the time of the murder, Alonzo Mann > was 14 years old. Mann, who was white, claimed to have seen Conley > disposing of Mary Phagan's body but kept quiet at the time - and > for more than half a century afterwards - out of fear. "If you > ever mention this, I'll kill you", Conley is supposed to have > said, according to Mann when recounting his story to a Nashville > newspaper. (19) There is no doubt that Mann was there, he attended > the trial, but just how much credibility can be placed on his > belated Nashville confession? > > One might also ask the rather obvious question "Cui bono?" The ADL > and others continued their agitation, and in March 1986 Frank was > pardoned. (20) Whatever, the claims - echoed by the ADL and its > fellow travellers to this very day - that the trial of Leo Frank > was a calculated exercise in racial bigotry, contains not a grain > of truth, but this is hardly surprising, because the ADL's > prestigious reputation has been manufactured largely by the ADL > itself. > > For many years the ADL's remit has stretched way beyond combatting > "anti-Semitism", which in any meaningful sense has long since > ceased to exist in contemporary America, and has ended up poking > its unwanted proboscis into the activities of bona fide political > and campaigning organisations for the overt purpose of political > and racial gerrymandering. > > One method of perpetuating the phoney struggle against > anti-Semitism is to smear all and sundry as "anti-Semitic". A 1964 > ADL hatchet job, Danger on the right, written by two of its > staffers, attempted to smear "Extreme Conservatives" as > anti-Semites. One fifth of the American population! A 1992 ADL > survey echoed these sentiments; 1 in 5 Americans were said to > "hold strong prejudicial attitudes against Jews". (21) Of the > earlier comment Weyl writes "The Anti-Defamation League supposedly > exists to refute slanders against the Jewish people and promote > tolerance amongst the non-Jewish majority. It is difficult to > believe that the best way of bringing this about is for the > national chairman of the ADL to slander some twenty per cent of > the American people as associates of 'kooks,' 'bigots' and > 'yahoos.'" (22) > > This sentiment is echoed by Rabbi Alan Miller who in an essay on > black anti-Semitism wrote: "Jews, who resent generalized > collective slander, should be hypercautious about making > generalized collective slander where other ethnic groups are > concerned." (23) > > In May 1993 the ADL was caught with its hand in the till when a > former San Francisco police officer named Tom Gerard was arrested > in that city and charged with eight counts of theft of government > documents, burglary, conspiracy and computer theft. Gerard was an > ADL spy, which was reported to have spied on no less that 950 > political organisations and to hold files on 12,000 individuals! > > Many organisations, political and non-political, hold files both > on numerous individuals and other organisations for all manner of > reasons, so the mere fact that the ADL does too is not necessarily > sinister. But the ADL's files included reports on organisations > such as Action for Animals, Peace Now and Greenpeace! (24) The > anti-Zionist Jew Dr Alfred Lilienthal refers to the ADL as a > Jewish Gestapo, (25) an appellation which could be equally well > appended to many other Jewish political organisations. > > Today, eighty-five and more years after its inception, the ADL's > anti-black roots have grown branches. While still posing as a > "civil rights" organisation and the friend of the "oppressed", > including blacks, it continues its spy and smear operations > against all and sundry. In October 1996 the ADL's National > Director published a polemic against the charismatic - if at times > misguided - Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in which he > referred to Farrakhan as "a master of manipulation" who preaches a > "message of hate". (26) Farrakhan is accused of racism, > "anti-Semitism" and all manner of other bigotry. Such allegations > are routinely thrown at white nationalists. Farrakhan has it is > true said some unfortunate things about both Jews and whites in > general, but the odd "anti-Semitic" or anti-white remark does not > make any man a bigot. > > In recent years Farrakhan's organisation has been highly critical > of other blacks, and his famous Million Man March on Washington - > which didn't quite live up to expectations - was a praiseworthy > effort to direct a positive message towards American blacks, in > particular to hammer home the message that black men should stop > killing each other (27) and should behave decently towards their > womenfolk. (28) > > Farrakhan is said to have a "thing" about Jews, one component of > which is "the usual exaggerated belief in Jewish power". (29) > Jewish power - and mendacity - is a reality, and the ADL's > National Director would do well to remove the plank from his own > eye before attempting to remove the mote from Farrakhan's. > > Farrakhan's real "crimes" are to recognise Jewish power and to > speak out against it when he believes it is inimical to the > interests of blacks, with particular regard to the ADL's and > Organised Jewry's war on race. Strange isn't it that all advocates > of racial separatism are smeared routinely as anti-Semitic? > Advocates of all racial separatisms bar one, that is. > > Notes And References > > (1) CONSPIRACY: HOW THE PARANOID STYLE FLOURISHES AND WHERE IT > COMES FROM, by Daniel Pipes, published by The Free Press, London, > (1997), page 201. > (2) The Universal Jewish Encyclopediasays the Anti-Defamation > League of B'nai B'rith was founded in Chicago in 1913 and that it > campaigns against anti-Jewish libels and "to establish the falsity > of the charges contained in scurrilous propaganda". > (3) The Leo Frank Case, by Leonard Dinnerstein, published by > Columbia University Press, New York and London, (1968), page vii. > (4) THE LYNCHING OF LEO FRANK, by Henry Golden, published by > Cassell, London, (1966), page 181. > (5) Golden, The Lynching Of Leo Frank, pages 182-3, (ibid). > (6) The Jew In American Politics, by Nathaniel Weyl, published by > Arlington House, New Rochelle, (1968), pages 89-90. > (7) ESAU'S TEARS Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, by > Albert S. Lindemann, published by Cambridge University Press, > Cambridge, (1997), pages 381-2. > (8) Photographs of Frank bear this out. > (9) Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case, pages 116-7, (op cit). > (10) Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case, page 99, (ibid). > (11) According to Dinnerstein, [page 158, (ibid)], Jim Conley died > in 1962 after a life of crime. > (12) A plate between pages 176 and 177 of Golden's book shows part > of Conley's affidavit; it is captioned "For the first time in the > South, a Negro's affidavit brought a white man to trial on a > capital charge." (13) As I know from personal experience. > (14) Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case, page 45, (op cit). > (15) Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case, page 46, (ibid). > (16) Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case, page 57, (ibid). > (17) Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case, pages 172-7, (ibid). > (18) Final Witness, published in the New York Times, (LATE CITY > EDITION), March 12, 1982, page A28. > (19) See for example After 69 Years of Silence, Lynching Victim Is > Cleared, by Wendell Rawls Jr, published in the New York Times, > (LATE CITY EDITION), March 8, 1982, page A12 and Final Witness, > (ibid). (20) Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, Edited by Charles > Reagan Wilson & William Ferris, published by University of North > Carolina Press, London, (1989), page 823. > (21) This story was widely reported but see for example 1 in 5 > Americans Anti-Semitic, Survey Finds, published in the Tulsa > World, November 17, 1992, page 12, SECTION A. > (22) Weyl, The Jew In American Politics, page 143, (op cit). > (23) From the essay BLACK ANTI-SEMITISM AND JEWISH RACISMin the > book of the same name, published by Schocken Books, New York, > (1972), page 105. > (24) This scandal was widely reported but see in particular the > American (anti-Semitic) newspaper The Truth At Lastissue 365 > (undated), which contains a lengthy article documenting the ADL's > spying activities, and reports in the British newspaper the > Guardian, May 8, 1993, page 15 and May 10, 1993, page 7. > (25) THE ZIONIST CONNECTION: What Price Peace?, by Alfred M. > Lilienthal, published by Dodd, Mead, New York, (1978), page 406. > (26) Why Jews Shouldn't Meet With Farrakhan, by Abraham H. Foxman, > National Director, Anti-Defamation League, was downloaded from the > ADL's website in August 1999; it was said to have appeared on > MSNBC's website, (10/96). > (27) For all the media hype about the evils of racism the most > appalling crime rate in the United States is the murder of young > black men by other young black men, and as I write these words a > series of such motiveless killings has spread to London. > (28) Farrakhan has made two big mistakes in recent years: his > fawning over (now convicted) rapist Mike Tyson and his even more > bizarre endorsement of acquitted double murderer (and miscegenist) > O.J. Simpson. A man like Tyson who lures a six stone black girl to > his hotel room and then rapes her, and a lowlife like Simpson, are > hardly the sort of role models a Black Separatist organisation > should seek to defend, much less promote. > (29) Foxman, Why Jews Shouldn't Meet With Farrakhan, (op cit). > > Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
