Jewish Subversion of History: Leonard Dinnerstein, part 4
American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 19, 2018Listen to the broadcast
by Kevin Alfred Strom
LEONARD DINNERSTEIN is called an “historian” by the media and the academy. There are better words to describe him. The main focus of his life has been to indict, try, and convict the White people of the South of hysterical, unreasoning, anti-Jewish hatred — and blame these psychologically damaged White people for charging and prosecuting an innocent, angelic Jewish sweatshop operator, Leo Frank, for the sex murder of a 13-year-old White girl, Mary Phagan, in one of the most significant murder cases of the 20th century.
Leonard Dinnerstein, with the help of his fellow tribesmen in the media and elsewhere, got away with his falsification of history — his Judenrating — for half a century. But now that we the people can easily do our own research and read contemporary accounts and original documents for ourselves, we can see that there is a great deal of evidence — overwhelming evidence — that Leo Frank, who was president of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith, was in the habit of treating the mostly teenage girls who worked in his sweatshop as his sexual playthings, and that Mary Phagan was killed by him when she resisted his advances. An additional problem for Leonard Dinnerstein is that — even though he is lauded by his fellow tribesmen as the “great expert” on the Leo Frank case — he is so slapdash and careless in his lies and fabrications that in the end his legacy will be 1) to irreparably harm the cause of Leo Frank he so passionately wanted to help, and 2) to help awaken millions of people to the distortions of history perpetrated, not just by Dinnerstein, but by the entire Jewish power structure.
Dinnerstein does his dirty work mostly in print, but in 2009 he appeared on camera in a pro-Frank (what else could it be?) documentary called The People v. Leo Frank. It’s viewable on YouTube. (Interestingly, a large number of the comments on the video and its trailer show beyond all doubt that people are waking up.) A review of the film states in part:
In this documentary Leonard Dinnerstein is caught red-handed falsifying legal records on camera, about Leo Frank being the first in telling the police [that factory sweeper] Jim Conley could write. [This is important because it eventually came out that Jim Conley wrote, at Leo Frank’s request, the notes that were found by the body.] The official Leo Frank trial Brief of Evidence (1913) and the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Case records provide definitive proof [of how the police found out about Conley’s literacy]. . . .
Leonard Dinnerstein in a video interview segment [at approximately 22 minutes into the film], makes authoritative[-sounding] comments on the interrogation of Jim Conley by the Atlanta Police. Dinnerstein states to Director Ben Loeterman [who is also a Jew]: “They [the Atlanta Police] asked [Jim Conley] about the notes; he said, ‘I cant read and write.’ That happened to come up in a conversation between the police and Frank, and Frank said, ‘of course he can write, I know he can write, he used to borrow money from me and sign promissory notes’ — so Conley had not been completely honest with the police.”
Dinnerstein is clearly implying that Leo Frank was the one who told police that Conley could write, thus putting a major break in the case right in the hands of the detectives. He does the same thing in his book, though the alleged quote from Leo Frank is entirely different, stating on page 22:
The authorities had not considered Conley a serious suspect until they discovered that he could write. The Negro sweeper had originally denied his ability to read and write, but the news that he could eventually reached Harry Scott of the Pinkertons because of a chance remark made in front of Leo Frank. “I know he can write,” Frank said, “I have received many notes from him asking me to loan him money.” Scott immediately confronted Conley with this information. Forced to write, the Negro penned a duplicate of the murder notes that appeared almost identical to the originals.
The problem for Dinnerstein, now that people can read original, contemporary accounts of the case from people who were there, is that his made-up stories can easily be debunked. Here’s the real story of how detective Harry Scott found out that Jim Conley could write, as reported by journalist Britt Craig, who personally interviewed the people directly involved, for the Atlanta Constitution of July 13, 1913:
Conley had maintained that he was illiterate—couldn’t even write his name, and as this seemed the only vulnerable spot in his story, Scott told him he probably was a liar.
At least, it was the only thing about the negro that could plausibly be discredited. On the theory that every negro who owns a wife and home as Conley owned, possesses furniture bought on the installment plan, the two sleuths cast about for some contract to which the black man could possibly have attached his signature.
They visited third-rate furniture stores, business houses and jewelry shops. The search was fruitless. The signature of Conley was as missing as the secret of the sphinx. Scott was prepared to abandon his hunch on the doorsteps of failure, when Fate—not a thirst—took them to the vicinity of a saloon near Five Points.
Providence—and not the bouncer—urged a gentleman in Panama and white shoes, and with the oily air of a collector, gently through the doorway. He stepped to the sidewalk and recognized Black. He greeted and shook a disconsolate hand.
“You’ve got a nigger down at police station I’d certainly like to see,” he announced.
“What nigger?” said Black, promoting conversation.
“That Conley nigger?”
Something bright and dazzling flashed through Scott’s hunch-ridden brain as he noticed the batch of bills carefully folded in the person’s coat pocket.
The hunch told him to collar the oily individual and search his batch of bills. He did, at the oily one’s consent. A single glance revealed a contract issued to Jim Conley. A second glance revealed the negro’s name, scrawled in a characteristic hand all over the signee’s line.
Scott’s hunch had been fulfilled. It had guided him to a specimen of the black sweeper’s handwriting—two words in barely legible script that proved the negro a liar three ways from breakfast. It has since proved the means of lifting the Phagan secret from the mire of mystery.
The contract was signed by Conley more than twelve months ago for a watch he had bought from a jewelry firm. It is now in possession of the solicitor general, and likely will be produced as evidence in the coming trial of Leo Frank.
What followed its discovery was the most successful third degree ever operated at police headquarters. Scott and Black showed the signature to the solicitor general, detective chief and Chief Beavers.
Then, they showed it to Conley.
It was on a Sunday afternoon. Police station was dull and drowsy and a sleepy atmosphere pervaded the building. Even the inevitable newspaper reporter was absent. Scott and Black took the prisoner into the little 6×8 “sweat box” and sat him where the light could play full on his face.
Scott locked the door and threw the key over the transom. Black pulled off his coat, let down his suspenders and put cigarettes conveniently near. Conley blinked at the light and wondered what was coming off.
Scott pulled a mysterious something from his pocket and laid it on the table. It was a folded bit of paper, and he smiled significantly as it left his hand. Conley grimaced and shifted a leg.
“Well, Jim, we’ve got the deadwood on you. Better cough up and tell us something.”
“Honest, white folks, I swear ’fore God and High heaven I don’t know a thing.” His plea was pathetic in its apparent sincerity.
“But we know better. The quicker you tell, the better off you’ll be. Kick in, Jim—kick in. It’s the best for you.”
“I can’t kick,” protested the negro. “I ain’t got nothin’ to kick for.”
Scott stepped to the table and pointed at the folded slip.
“You see that! It’s enough to hang you. You don’t know what it is, and you couldn’t guess in a year. It’s dead-wood, nigger. It’s dead-wood. You’d better kick through or we’ll pull it on you.”
The negro studied the slip intently. He was sorely puzzled. Great drops of sweat rolled down his face and his fingers twitched nervously. His very air betrayed guilt.
“Listen,” said Scott. “Can you write?”
“Naw, sir, I can’t. I never could.”
“Will you swear it?”
“I shore will.”
“Do you know the penalty for perjury?”
“Naw, sir—what is it?”
“Twenty years in the gang—maybe more.”
“Swearing a lie.”
“But I ain’t goin’ to swear no lie.”
“You will if you swear you can’t write. Here! Look at this.”
The Pinkerton man unfolded the mysterious slip. It was the contract. The negro noted the signature with a betraying flash of recognition.
“How could you sign this if you couldn’t write?”
Conley was wordless for minutes. He stared dumbly out the window and twisted his fingers. Suddenly, he exclaimed:
“White folks, I’m a liar!”
(Besides the bill collector, another person who told the police that Jim Conley could write — long before Leo Frank mentioned it — was E.F. Holloway, the day watchman at Frank’s pencil factory.) You will note that there is nothing whatever in the account about Leo Frank being the great hero and letting the police know that Conley could write. It was only later that Frank admitted as much — he and his allies had initially been trying to frame Newt Lee and had been very, very silent about Jim Conley, since they knew Conley was an accessory in the case and could hurt Frank. Frank kept Conley’s literacy a guarded secret until well after Harry Scott had found out about it. When the Frank forces failed to frame Lee and began to frame Conley, however, there was no longer anything to be gained by silence. Reading Leonard Dinnerstein’s supposedly exhaustive and authoritative works, you would learn nothing of this. Dinnerstein is hiding the truth from us.
Dinnerstein also states at about the 52-minute mark in the People v. Leo Frank documentary:
No one in the Jewish community in Atlanta publicly commented about Frank’s innocence or guilt, or about the nature of the trial, even though the Jewish community was incensed.
That’s yet another sloppy and easily-debunked lie from Dinnerstein. Anyone who has read the newspaper coverage in the Atlanta daily newspapers, before and during and after the trial of Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, knows that there are innumerable cases of Jews stating publicly that that Frank was innocent and “couldn’t be guilty,” including some statements made in open court, and including the public statements of Atlanta’s Rabbi Marx who was quoted in the documentary just seconds after Dinnerstein’s whopper — and in fact, in one case the very Jewish Rhea Frank, Leo Frank’s mother, called prosecutor Hugh Dorsey a “Gentile dog” in open court because she objected to a line of questioning that suggested that Leo Frank might have made inappropriate sexual advances on the young girls in his employ. This episode was widely reported and certainly Leonard Dinnerstein knows about it (and all the others). It was even documented by some of the less reckless Jewish authors, such as Harry Golden.
Why are Jews like Dinnerstein so careless and incompetent in their falsifications? Why so brazen? The simple answer is that they overestimate their own considerable abilities, and they massively underestimate us. Many of us are smart enough to figure out their game. Their own hatred and contempt for non-Jews blinds them to the intelligence and discernment and dedication and persistence of the better class of Whites. Their own unjustified hatred and contempt will be their own undoing, as it has been in the past.
So, after learning how a Jewish “academic,” Leonard Dinnerstein, can brazenly lie to you about an important episode in your history — after learning of his shoddy research and his glaring, deliberate omissions, and his laughably unconvincing arguments — after seeing that such a man, whose work doesn’t even justify a passing grade in high school, enjoying a half-century-long career in the history departments of accredited universities (whose faculties and administrations are famously honeycombed with disproportionate numbers of members of his tribe) — after you see such a bumbler and liar treated for decade upon decade as though he is not only an authority, but the leading authority on the Leo Frank case, constantly quoted and re-quoted in books, films, newspapers, magazines, and academic journals (almost all of which are, again, overwhelmingly owned or dominated by members of his tribe) — are you finally willing to admit that there is a Jewish effort here — ham-handed as it may be, but relentless and ubiquitous as it certainly is — to control your thinking and force you to come to conclusions about the Leo Frank case that are starkly opposed to the facts?
What does it tell you about the magnitude of this Jewish effort — or, let’s be totally honest and call it a conspiracy, for what they have done and are doing fully deserves that word — what does it tell you about the magnitude and power and entrenchment of that conspiracy when you see that it began in 1913, half a century before Leonard Dinnerstein became its leading light, and continues to this very day — another 50 years later — with no sign of stopping? What does it tell you about that conspiracy when you realize that until very recently — before the National Alliance and the American Mercury and the Leo Frank Case Research Library and now the Nation of Islam started telling the truth about it — everything you had ever heard or seen or read or been taught about the Leo Frank case was essentially a grotesque inversion of reality? — that you were systematically denied important facts about our history and taught — falsely — that your people, White people, are congenitally psychologically disturbed, hateful, and even murderously evil; that you were prevented from hearing the other side of the case, the side of the juries and the judges in every single court of jurisdiction in the land right up to United States Supreme Court? What kind of power can suppress the point of view even of the leading jurists of this country and prevent you from hearing from them? — prevent you from hearing the evidence that convinced them?
I’ll tell you what kind of power: power in the service of evil. People who will deliberately lie to you about your own history do not have your best interests at heart. And when you realize that this same group — this same tribe — Leonard Dinnerstein’s tribe — is also behind the hushing up of horrible crimes against White people; is also behind the push for open borders; is also behind the “migrant” invasion which constitutes replacement migration — replacement of us with Third Worlders in our own lands; is also behind the demonization and criminalization of any who resist their efforts; is also behind the push to convince our young people to engage in abortion, race-mixing, and sex perversion — to engage in any kind of abnormal sex, so long as it does not result in the birth of White children; when you realize all of these things, when you see the evil that is being done, and you are a man or woman of quality, integrity, and responsibility — you will join with us to fight that evil.
* * *
You’ve been listening to 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 — 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 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. You can also help us by visiting natall.com/donate. Make your life count. Once again, our postal address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.Listen to the broadcast