‘Defamation Factory’ Now Available

Defamation Factory: The Sordid History of the ADL by Kaiter Enless (preface by Tomislav Sunic) from Reconquista Press is now available on Amazon. It is the only book which documents the colorful history of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, from its founding in 1913 amidst the furor surrounding the trial of Leo Frank, all the way up to their present campaigns of internet censorship, in detailed chronological order. The book is presently available in paperback format.

Defamation Factory Full Cover
Full jacket cover for Defamation Factory.

Pick up a copy from Amazon or Book Depository.



Defamation Factory, Part 3: The ADL-Mafia Connection

C h a p t e r – I V

WW II & t h e

A D L M a f i a



At the same time Henry Ford was struggling with the financial instability brought about by the great banking collapse of 1933, a plethora of gangster’s breathed a sigh of relief as prohibition came to an end. One of these men was Morris “Moe” Barney Dalitz, who, in large part, made Las Vegas what it is today – he was also one of the most powerful gangster’s in American history whose legacy of bootlegging, racketeering and shadowy influence still reverberates throughout US history to this very day.

Dalitz was born in Boston in December 24th, 1899, to a gambling father who ran a humble industrial laundry outfit. When Morris was still a babe his father moved the family to Ann Arbor, Michigan. It was there that Dalitz began his myriad criminal enterprises, starting with his affiliation to the Detroit terrorizing Purple Gang who rose to prominence after the establishment of the 1916 Damon Act (or Damon Law) which outlawed the sale of alcohol in Michigan. The Act made Michigan one of the first “dry” states, thus paving the way for an underground liquor trade which was well underway when Prohibition was established nationally in 1920. The Purple Gang were a loose confederation of Jewish toughs who delighted in hijacking motorcars along the frigid Lake St. Clair and gunning down all unfortunate souls therein. The gang was also well known for their racketeering, shakedowns and strong-arm kidnappings (they were even implicated in the kidnapping and murder of 20-month old Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., the son of famed aviator, Charles Lindbergh). The Purples were so ruthless that current estimates state that they killed approximately 500 of their rivals during their brief reign as kings of the Detroit Underground. It was with these bloodstained criminals that Moe Dalitz struck up a business partnership (though he was never formally a member), primarily in the shipment of illegal hooch. This alliance was driven by Dalitz’s friendship with the leader of the Purple Gang, Abe Bernstein, a powerful and ruthless Jewish gangster from Detroit who would later go on to help Al Capone in his efforts to eliminate his arch-rival-in-crime, Bugs Moran.

After the repeal of the oft-disregarded Volstead Act in 1933, Dalitz, unlike many of his co-criminals, determined that post-Prohibition America would increase the demand for bootlegged spirits, rather than decrease it. Dalitz came to this conclusion due to the fact that, though liquor was now legal again, the government was still determined that sales thereof should be reduced as much as possible through increased taxation and various legislative actions. To this end, in November of 1933, Dalitz (then utilizing the name Davis) and several confederates founded a company called Molaska. His benefactors and friends at the time were a venerable rouges-gallery of disrepute, including such big-time mafiosi as Salvatore “Lucky” Luciano and math whiz and Murder Inc architect, Meyer Lansky, who was represented via proxy by his father-in-law, Moses Citron. Both Lansky and Luciano had been mentored by the late Arnold “The Brain” Rothstein, the Jewish criminal who had pioneered bootlegging-as-a-major-business in conjuntion with the British government and the Bronfman Family (Seagram Company) during Prohibition. Other notable associates of Daltiz’s at the time included Jewish mob-man, Abner “Longie” Zwillman and Italian gangster and long-time friend of Luciano, Frank “The Prime Minister” Costello.

Lansky (born Meier Suchowlański) met Luciano when they were teenagers with the headstrong Italian attempting to extort some money from the smallish Jew. Lansky, however, was unintimidated; Luciano was impressed by his tenacity and guts and shortly thereafter, they forged a friendship that would last a lifetime and along the way, laid the foundations for one of the most profitable and powerful criminal syndicates in American history. Lansky had known the Citron family since he was a child and, in 1930, he married Anna Citron, Moses’ daughter. The marriage was not a especially happy one but Lansky and Moses developed a firm friendship, so much so that the elder Citron never asked the Jewish mobster how exactly he made ends meet. Due to this familial relationship, Moses invested $120,000 in Dalitz’s Molaska venture, which was a tremendous sum, especially considering the financial destabilization of the times which had been brought about by the Great Depression. 1000 shares of Moses Citron’s investment were then given to his attorney to be held in trust.

The attorney’s name was Aaron Sapiro, the very same man who had sued auto-magnate Henry Ford for libel some years earlier, the very same man who is lauded by the ADL to this day. Sapiro had also participated in the violent Dryers and Cleaners Wars along with Italian crime-boss and bootlegging overlord, Al Capone. Though both men were indicted, neither Capone nor Sapiro were convicted of anything.

Molaska itself was, ostensibly, a company that produced molasses for use in animal food. Molaska’s true function, however, was as a illegal alcohol distillery producing whiskey and beer which were surreptitiously crafted and shipped all around the country by truck.

Robert Bridges, a government investigator who worked under famous Prohibition special agent, Elliot Ness, began looking into Molaska and discovered a number of curiosities, namely that the building remained constantly under lock and key and that a guard could ever been seen walking the property. He also noticed that strange fumes could be seen coming from the company property during the Winter months – alcohol fumes combined with steam – a sight every former Prohibition agent knew exceedingly well. Despite the Bridges’ investigation, and others, Daltiz and Lansky’s plans remained undisturbed and exceedingly profitable. In 1935 the Molaska partners decided to file for bankruptcy and swindle the system. Not long after this occurred, Molaska was reconstituted and the various operators shifted away, taking their earnings with them.

Several years later, in 1939, the National Socialist German army enacted the Fall Weiss and invaded Poland and initiated the second great intercontinental struggle of the modern age. World War II. At this time, in America, the rambunctious and pro-Reich and anti-Roosevelt German-American Bund (Amerikadeutscher Volksbund) party was at the height of their power. The group had first been formed in Buffalo, New York, 1936, as a successor movement to FONG, (Friends of New Germany movement). The Volksbund was lead by a German-American named Fritz Julius Kuhn who formed a close alliance with the notorious preacher, Charles Coughlin (a notable promoter of Ford’s The International Jew), and leader of the Christian Front.

The German-American Bund was notorious for their gaudy marches and fiery speeches, usually headed by Kuhn himself wherein he oft echoed National Socialist Germany’s disdain for Jewry (Kuhn once referred to Roosevelt’s New Deal as “The Jew Deal”’) and also expressed and championed international white (particularly German) solidarity.

Lansky, who despite his foul reputation and utter disregard for the laws of the land, considered himself something of a patriot, a “true American.” More than that, Lansky, a fervent Zionist, possessed a deep sense of ethnic pride and was outraged at the widely publicized plight of his fellow Eastern European Jews upon the continent. Due these loyalties, Lansky attempted to enlist in the United States army to fight against Germany but was turned down due to his short height (he stood only five-foot, four-inches tall) and age (40). Lansky, however, would not be deterred and so turned to the assistance of a personal friend and neighbor named Walter Winchell. Winchell was, at the time, one of, if not THE, most influential journalist in all of America. The secret to his influence, at least in part, was due a close personal relationship with then-president Roosevelt, who at the time was exceedingly concerned about saboteurs. These fears only deepened when, on the 9th of February, 1942, the French luxury liner, SS Normandie caught fire as it was being converted into a battle carrier for the war effort. First-hand reports stated that a acetylene torch had cause the inferno but some amongst the admiralty smelled a rat – a German scented one. The US Naval office, under the auspices of daring Commander Charles Haffenden, grew wary of Fascist and “Nazi” apparatchiks and decided to enlist the help of a crook by the name of Joseph Lanza – known in the streets as “Socks” due to his proclivity for punching anyone who displeased him – a member of the murderous and exceedingly powerful Genovese Crime Family. Haffenden turned to this particular criminal primarily because Lanza controlled the whole of Manhattan’s Fulton Fish Market, a important strategic area in the Navy’s fight against Fascist and National Socialist infiltrators and saboteurs. Though a fishmonger might not sound like a particularly powerful ally, Lanza’s mundane trade belied his savage nature. With a criminal history stretching back all the way to 1917, including extortion, battery, racketeering, conspiracy and murder, “Socks” Lanza was not a man to be trifled with. Despite his cantankerous nature, “Socks” Lanza jumped at the opportunity to aid the Navy against the Fascists which placed Commander Haffenden in the peculiar position as something of a US sanctioned mob boss. Lanza and his minions proved quite effective at first and, through a number of black-bag operations, helped the Navy uncover numerous German espionage rings. But Lanza’s reach had its limits and he and his outfit alone simply couldn’t secure the whole of the Brooklyn’s seaside territory. Lanza was revered by the Genovese Crime family but was widely detested by the other four crime families which made up the multi-ethnic National Crime Syndicate that ruled the American underworld at the time. One of the other big players who controlled local territory included Albert Anastasia who ran much of the Mafia murder squad at the behest of Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano. Anastasia also controlled the International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA) which was of key strategic importance to Haffenden’s plans. Unlike many other underbosses, Anastasia often participated directly in mob killings. His blood-thirst earned him the grim moniker “The High Lord Executioner.” Lanza feared Anastasia and knew others did as well but he also realized that neither of the two of them, even put together, could move the whole of the docks. Lanza told Haffenden that there was only one man who was capable of “snapping the whip” on the whole of the New York underworld.

Lucky Luciano. The architect of the National Crime Syndicate and leader of the Genovese Family. There was just one problem.

Luciano was on ice.

Serving a 30-50 year sentence in Dannemora Prison (today known as the Clinton Correctional Facility) on numerous counts of prostitution, the scar-faced Italian scion – though still highly respected by The Syndicate which he had created – was in no position to snap the whip on the NYC underbelly; he was too isolated to be giving commands or receiving much information. He needed to be brought into the Navy’s fold, but Haffenden knew the mafioso would be suspicious and wouldn’t exactly jump at the prospects of working for the very institutions that had put him behind bars. Haffenden needed an intermediary. In Meyer “The Little Man” Lansky, he found one.

Unlike with Lanza, Luciano and Al Anastasia, Haffenden knew Lansky’s ethnic-tribal loyalty could be relied upon. The little Jewish mastermind’s regular battles against Julius Kuhn’s bombastic German-American Bund storm troopers all across New York City was a testament to this (the Bund were considered a “subversive” organization by the FBI).

Once Lansky brought Luciano into the Naval-dockside enforcement plan the rest of the New York mafia quickly fell into line. Haffenden now had a shadow army and near complete control of New York’s docks. German National Socialist and Italian Fascist subversion was nearly impossible and the US war machine was bolstered. But there was a cost to the whole affair, one which is scarcely remarked upon by most historians, that being the murder of countless American citizens by Haffenden’s disreputable syndicate agents. One of the syndicate associates under Haffenden’s control, a burglar and psychotic Irish killer named John “Cockeye” Dunn, was sent to investigate two suspected German agents. Instead of following orders the crazed Irishman sent them on the mafias often cliched “one way trip.” They were never seen alive again. Wiretap recordings on Dunn find the fiend stating remorselessly, “They’ll never bother us again.” Such instances were far from singular and it should be noted that those two unfortunate souls were only “suspected” subversives. The navy frowned upon extra-judicial killing but Haffenden’s hackles certainly weren’t raised. If the Mafia were “the bad guys” then the Navy considered the German National Socialists and Fascists “the worse guys.”

Dalitz also jumped into the war effort and enlisted in 1943. Unlike his confederate, Lansky, Dalitz was accepted and served as a officer in the Quartermaster Corps doing laundry for NYC, rising rapidly through the ranks.

While Meyer Lansky and Haffenden’s shadow army seized control of the New York docks for the naval war-time effort and Dalitz folded shirts, the Anti-Defamation League dolled out its own campaign concerning the war.

In October of 1943, a FBI informant named Charles M. Scott, forwarded a most peculiar leaflet to the offices of Bureau agent, Leland V. Boardman. Scott stated that he was concerned about what he called “Semitic propaganda” which he alleged that the little missive contained. The document reads as follows:


The central conference of American rabbis at the 47th American conference, held in New York City , June 26, 1937, declared for, “Exemption of Jews from military service in accordance with the highest interpretation of Judaism.” Our Talmud tells us, “When you go to war, do not go as the first but as the last, so that you may return as the first.”

Why should we, the only truly international people, be concerned with the mutable interests of stupid goyim nations? We must do everything in our power to help the great president who has helped us so greatly in establishing control. Support the draft law when it is presented to the American people. Support England and France, for they are fighting Judah’s greatest enemy, the Goyim German State. You are urged to support United States participation in this Holy War of Judah, without reservation and without fear. We can repeat our triumphs of 1918 if we maintain our united front and the dumb goyim will fight while we profit, with the aid of our friends in Washington.

Powerful Jews will be on all draft boards, and Jewish physicians will protect you from military service. Arrangements are already made to exempt you in case religious exemption cannot be prepared in time.

You are warned to renounce, abjure, repudiate and deny any of this information if questioned by Gentiles, even under oath, as outlined in the Talmud and justified for the preservation of our race.

The Central Committee

Anti-Defamation League BB

At the first, one might begin to feel pinpricks of suspicion, for the language is so unguarded and so over-the-top (i.e. “stupid goyim”) that it seems fairly obvious that the letter is a fake. The FBI’s criminal investigative unit took a keen interest in the letter and began looking into the affair as a matter of sedition. A year later, in 1944, the FBI discovered that the very same leaflets had been distributed in June of 1941 in the Cleveland area. This information came to light via the League of Human Rights, a Cleveland (Ohio) based social justice group. The League of Human Rights stated that the document in question was an absolute fake designed to cause ethnic tension. Their reasoning for this was two-fold:

  1. The leaflet noted that the 47th Conference of American Rabbis took place upon the June 26, 1937 when in reality it took place a year earlier in 1936.

  2. Experts hired by The League of Human Rights determined that the typewriter used to created the Semitically propagandizing leaflets was the very same sort of typewriter utilized by the United Mothers of America, a religious/nationalist organization headed up by anti-war and anti-Jewish preacher and political personality, Father Charles Coughlin, a long-time arch-enemy of The League who was the subject of numerous ADL and B’nai B’rith hit-pieces in their subscription publications.

Yet it should also be noted that during the same year that The League of Human Rights discovered the Semitic leaflets in Cleveland, other, identical mimeographed copies, were discovered in Chicago.

Whilst the FBI looked into the puzzling matter of the pejorative papers the Anti-Defamation League looked on and planned its next move. Scheming. Over the course of several years, they sent agent after agent to try to worm themselves inside the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the better to get at their stockpile of personal information. Yet their schemes availed them not. They were constantly rebuffed.

FBI internal memorandum from 1943-1944 (mostly from SACs – Special Agents in Charge) clearly displays a certain impatience and exasperation, as well as a growing sense of wariness, towards the ADL. Some previous instances of the oft contentious relationship between the ADL and FBI include a 1940s incident wherein a undercover confederate of The League attempted to block and cover-up the ADL’s usage of private investigators from the Bureau and the wider public. The ADL operative stated that, “the Anti-Jewish element has accused the Anti-Defamation League of having private investigators, and the Anti-Defamation League does not wish it to become generally known that they do employ private investigators.” [emphasis mine] Another more interesting incident occurred two years later in 1942 when P.E. Foxworth, then-head of the FBI’s Special Intelligence Service (SIS), the covert counter-intelligence arm of the Bureau, warned the director that the ADL and a group known as the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League were conducting “shake downs” of innocent civilians. Various missives during this period from the ADL also urge the FBI to place less emphasis upon Communist agitators and place more concern upon Fascists and Fascist sympathizers.

In 1942 the ADL offered the FBI a subscription to their monthly, private publication which was meant only for “key men,” key here meaning, “helping the ADL.” One of the 1942 ADL newsletters provided to the FBI (whose top agents were, at least ostensibly, considered “key men”) vigorously defended none other than Meyer Lansky pal, Walter Winchell from a none-to-flattering editorial in The Cross and the Flag penned by notorious dissident clergyman, politician and German sympathizer, Gerald L. K. Smith. It should here be noted that Winchell’s underworld connections extended far beyond just Lansky, he was also an associate of Owny Madden, one of the most powerful gangster of the Prohibition era. Winchell also had a close relationship to the FBI, as he was personal friends with acting Bureau director, J. Edgar Hoover and was instrumental in turning over Lansky associate and Murder Inc member, Lepke Buchalter. In a move of ridiculous superflousness, the ADL tsk-tsk’d the Bureau for mentioning that Buchalter was “of Jewish extraction” (which he was). When the FBI retorted by saying that it was customary (for obvious pragmatic reasons) to mention the ethnicity and race of a suspect and that they did this for Italians, Germans and Irishmen as much as for Jews the ADL fell silent. Winchell also had a reputation as a extremely vindictive man who attempted to ruin the lives and personal careers of anyone who he just so happened to dislike.

The ADL newsletter described Winchell, in no uncertain terms, as an ally.

However, one of the most shocking and scandalous affairs which the ADL tentacles had slithered into occurred on April 4, 1944 when a letter, likewise dated, reached FBI Special Agent, C.W. Stein. The letter was from Oregon Senator Rufus Holman who had contacted the FBI with complaints concerning a high ranking member of the ADL, a man by the name of David Robinson (head of the local ADL branch) who had created a new organization called the Oregon Defense Committee whose stated purpose was to “help service men.” However, Holman noted that the organization did nothing of the kind and was merely a ADL front and that the so called Defense Committee defended no one. Rather, Holman alleged, the ODC (which was really the ADL) went about persecuting anyone and everyone whom they deemed to be “anti-Semitic.” Their favored weapon with which to reprimand Oregon-based “anti-Semites” was the boycott which were easy enough to organize given the power of the ADL and Robinson’s considerable salary ($ 10,000 a year). To Holman, the damnedest thing about the whole affair was that the ADL did not state how it came to determine how a individual was “anti-Semitic.” He went on to state that the ADL had taken particular exception to him (they considered him to be a “anti-Semite”) and that Robinson was attempting to politically railroad him now that Holman was up for reelection. Not only did Robinson put all of his social and political weight (and by extension, the weight of the ADL) behind Holman’s political opponent, Wayne L. Morse, a former Dean of the University of Oregon Law School. Due this, Holman demanded a sweeping FBI investigation of the ADL.

Special Agent Stein informed Holman that disconcerting as his report happened to be, the ADL did not appear to be in violation of any state stature. Unless some evidence could be provided of a violation or complaint of “subversive” activity no action could be taken. The FBI would not investigate.

Stein then turned to his friend and fellow bureau colleague, David A. Silver. Silver, who was of Jewish extraction himself, was a special agent within the FBI who knew Robinson personally as they both lived in Portland. Stein figured Silver’s ethnic outlook as well as his personal connections to the vexing affair would prove insightful. When asked about Robinson, Silver explained that Holman was correct about everything he had said. Robinson was indeed the leader of the local ADL and also had a intensive disdain for Holman whom Robinson believed to be “anti-Semitic.” Silver went on to explain that Robinson also believed that Holman was a potential “American fascist” and that Holman was anti-labor and of generally low intelligence. For these reasons, Silver opposed Holman’s reelection. Agent Silver also relayed that Robinson was attempting to rally and inveigle the Portland Jewish vote behind Wayne L. Morse, the previously mentioned former Dean of Oregon Law. This corroborated Holman. He wasn’t lying. He was being railroaded by The League. The Special Agent also told Stein that two prominent Portland business men of Jewish extraction, Jack Barde and Abe Gilbert respectively, had thrown a dinner for Mr. Holman and were sternly reprimanded by Robinson for their actions (presumably because this indicated very strongly that Holman did not actually have any particular problem with Jews generally speaking which eroded Robinson and the ADL’s credibility with the local community – especially its non-Jewish sectors – markedly).

Shortly after the conversation between the two FBI agents concluded, Holman issued another letter to Stein. He had been boycotted by the local Jewish community. It was so bad, according to Holman, that he and his business partner had to close up shop and sell their assets! Holman, unsurprisingly and quite correctly, blamed Robinson and the ADL. He was so furious about the whole affair that he exclaimed he was going to, “Open up on the S.–O.–B.–s!”

Though Holman did indeed “open up” on his detractors, his isolationist positions and soured reputation allowed Wayne Morse to defeat him at the 1944 Oregon senate elections. After his 1944 defeat Holman would never run for public office ever again and would die shortly thereafter.

The ADL had claimed yet another victim.

Though things might not have went particularly well for Holman, Moe Dalitz was doing just fine after the end of WWII. By 1970s Daltiz was one of the undisputed Kings of Las Vegas. Unlike Lansky, Daltiz had been able to maintain an image of quasi-respectability in his later years to such a degree that many believed he had “gone straight.” Dalitz, ever the wily operator, often attempted to aid his rising image by making light about his bootlegging and illegal casino days, once remarking to a friend, “How was I supposed to know those gambling joints were illegal? There were so many judges and politicians in them I figured they had to be alright.” He also once glibly remarked to a Senator inquiring about his illicit past, “If you people wouldn’t have drunk it, I wouldn’t have bootlegged it.”

During his time as Vegas big-shot, Daltiz made a great number of charitable contributions to various different, ostensibly righteous organizations. One of the groups to receive significant largess from Dalitz was none other than the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. They were pleased and in 1982 award Dalitz with the “Torch of Liberty” award – it would have been harder to think of a more ironic title. Dalitz was not alone in making donations to the ADL, many of his co-conspirators and fellow-travelers publicly made fiduciary assistance to The League as well, including lifetime Syndicate members Victor Posner, Meshulim Riklis, Joe Binsey and Edmond Safra.

The ADL was naturally appreciative to the continued largess of the casino-mogul and his rogues-gallery of shadowy friends, so much so that in 1985 the “human rights” organization awarded Dalitz with yet another award, the “Philanthropist of the Year Award.” Yet today if you were to search “Moe Dalitz” or “Morris Barney Dalitz” on the ADL’s website you’ll be treated to a big, fat, nothing, for Dalitz, as well as any mention of his donations and awards or connections, have been completely scrubbed from the ADL website and shunted down the memory-hole of informational oblivion. At this juncture I was superbly thankful for those programmers responsible for my Snapshot desktop-capture software.

What one man can suppress another can discover.

The truth will out and the truth here is that the ADL, ostensibly a “human rights” organization, was, in no uncertain terms, colluding with killers, thieves, racketeers, flesh-peddlers and all other manner of Jewish-Italian mafiosi.

The interplay, however, between the mob and the ADL ran so deep, in fact, that they even placed Meyer Lansky’s daughter on their board of directors!


Chapter – IV

  1. E.I.R. Volume 19, N. 27, July 1, 1992

  2. Getting to Know Moe: A Racket Boss Reborn by John L. Smith

  3. The Purple Gang: Organized Crime In Detroit, 1910-1945, Paul R. Kavieff (2000)

  4. The Purple Gang: Walther P. Reuther Library of Wayne State University

  5. The Jewish Mafia by Carlos Porter and Herve Ryssen (2016)

  6. The Breaking of a President: The Nixon Connection by Marvin Miller (1975)

  7. Iraq, Lies, Cover-ups and Consequences by Rodney Stitch (2005)

  8. The FBI Encyclopedia by Michael Newton (2012)

  9. Dope, Inc.: Britian’s Opium War Against The US by The US Labor Party Investigative Committee (1978)

  10. Deep Events and the CIA’s Global Drug Connection by Prof. Peter Dale Scott (2008)

  11. The Zionist Network, Sen. Jack B. Tenney(2010)

  12. Zion’s Fifth Column, Sen. Jack B. Tenney (2010)

  13. The Anti-Defamation League, Sen. Jack B. Tenney (2010)

  14. The Anti-Defamation League and its Use in the World Communist Offensive, Robert H. Williams (1947)

  15. The Luciano Project: The Secret Wartime Collaboration of the Mafia and the U.S, Rodney Campbell (1977)

  16. Lucky Luciano: The Real and the Fake Gangster, Tim Newark (2010)

  17. Declassified FBI files concerning the ADL (1930s-1950s)

Defamation Factory, Prt.2: The ADL vs Henry Ford

T h e A D L

v s

H e n r y F o r d



Shortly after the ADL’s formation and the Frank Case’s close, war reared its ugly head – World War I, the first “great war,” of the industrialized age, had begun. 52 year old automotive industrialist and beloved American icon, Henry Ford, upon hearing of the continental strife, was horrified. A pacifistic man by nature, Ford abhorred war; during that time oft remarking how wasteful and hideous the whole affair was. He noted to the Detroit Free Press that American armament creation was “-wasteful and war-breeding.” But Ford was not a man who let things pass him by and so sought to rectify the situation by sailing out to Europe in protest on a “peace ship.” The idea for the venture had come from a Hungarian Jew and idealistic suffragette named Rosika Schwimmer who Ford, a liberal, supported for her stalwart opposition to the war. With Ford’s cry of, “We’re going to get the boys out of the trenches by Christmas!” Ford set off to Europe on the Scandinavian-American ship Oscar II to mediate the belligerent continental powers – yet before the departure a incident occurred which so outraged Schwimmer that she would later proclaim it “-cheap and vulgar.” What induced such emotions in the feminist-crusader was a series of proclamations made by Mr. Ford during a conversation pertaining to the root-cause(s) of the war; Ford said, “I know who caused the war– the German-Jewish bankers. I have the evidence here,” the industrialist slapped his pocket triumphantly,”Facts. I can’t give them out yet because I haven’t got them all. But I’ll have them soon.”

When The War ended in 1918, Henry Ford commissioned his private secretary, Ernest Gustav Leibold to purchase The Dearborn Independent (later it would also be known as The Ford International Weekly) from the previous owner, Marcus Woodruff who had been operating the company at a loss. The used press for the publication was ensconced in the now famous Rouge River Factory in Dearborn, Michigan, the area from which the publication derived its name. Ford maintained several of the key figures of the previous staff such as E.G. Pipp and a former Detroit news writer, William J. Cameron who would write the column known as Mr. Ford’s Page, in addition to many of the seminal pieces in the paper’s canon.

One year later, as the Independent‘s publication formally began under its new owner, Ford took a camping trip with his good friends, Harvey Firestone, founder of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, John Burroughs the renowned essayist and naturalist, and Thomas Alva Edison, the “Wizard of Menlo Park.”

Burroughs recalled in his diaries that during the meeting of these great men Ford spoke a good deal about “the Jews” and their relation to The War. When Edison remarked upon the decline of the United States navy Ford promptly noted that Jewish meddling had brought about this particularly unhappy inefficiency. Somewhat later, at the Ford Motor Company, a executive would find Mr. Ford alone at night, the two striking up a conversation which turned to the “Peace Ship” voyage. The executive asked Ford what he had gotten out of the venture which had ostensibly been a total failure, both in terms of its intended effects and in terms of public perception. Ford responded in a mysterious, knowing fashion,

I know who makes the wars – the international Jewish bankers arrange them so they can make money out of them.” He further added, “I know it’s true because a Jew on the Peace Ship told me.. .That man knew what he was talking about – gave me the whole story. We’re going to tell the whole story one of these days and show them up!”

It was a statement that would prove quite prophetic, for in 1920, Ford issued forth a striking, inflammatory piece in his now well-syndicated publication titled, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. A section of the article reads as follows,

The Jew is again being singled out for critical attention throughout the world. His emergence in the financial, political and social spheres has been so complete and spectacular since the war, that his place, power and purpose in the world are being given a new scrutiny, much of it unfriendly. Persecution is not a new experience to the Jew, but intensive scrutiny of his nature and super-nationality is. He has suffered for more than 2,000 years from what may be called instinctive anti-Semitism of the other races, but this antagonism has never been intelligent nor has it been able to make itself intelligible. Nowadays, however, the Jew is being placed, as it were, under the microscope of economic observation that the reasons for his power, the reasons for his separateness, the reasons for his suffering may be defined and understood. In Russia he is charged with being the source of Bolshevism, an accusation which is serious or not according to the circle in which it is made; we in America, hearing the fervid eloquence and perceiving the prophetic ardor of young Jewish apostles of social and industrial reform, can calmly estimate how it may be. In Germany he is charged with being the cause of the Empire’s collapse and a very considerable literature has sprung up, bearing with it a mass of circumstantial evidence that gives the thinker pause. In England he is charged with being the real world ruler, who rules as a super-nation over the nations, rules by the power of gold, and who plays nation against nation for his own purposes, remaining himself discreetly in the background. In America it is pointed out to what extent the elder Jews of wealth and the younger Jews of ambition swarmed through the war organizations — principally those departments which dealt with the commercial and industrial business of war, and also the extent to which they have clung to the advantage which their experience as agents of the government gave them.”

[The Dearborn Independent, issue 12, June, 1920]

The basic thesis of the sum-total text was that a largely monolithic cabal of Jewish banksters from various different countries, including America, France, England and Germany, had schemed in such a fashion so as bring about the first World War for the purposes of financial gain and their own group’s ethnic and political advancement and were now scheming to do as much again.

Ford had four paperback, feature-length books published via the Dearborn Publishing Company concerning Jewish influence, those being The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem (1920), Jewish Activities In The United States (1921), Jewish Influences In American Life (1921) and lastly, Aspects of Jewish Power In The United States (1922). These various volumes are sometimes all colloquially referred to as The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem and were widely distributed in various versions and languages, both in the US and further abroad.

Despite being a success, the volumes and articles rather predictably whipped up a fervor within the Jewish community and those who sympathized with them. It was a push-back which Ford had predicted when, in The International Jew, William J. Cameron (who penned the majority of the Jewish-critical pieces) wrote,

In simple words, the question of the Jews has come to the fore, but like other questions which lend themselves to prejudice, efforts will be made to hush it up as impolitic for open discussion. If, however, experience has taught us anything it is that questions thus suppressed will sooner or later break out in undesirable and unprofitable forms.”

[The Dearborn Independent, issue 12, June, 1920]

It was a statement that would prove all too accurate, as the articles were widely circulated (The Dearborn Independent had a peak circulation of around 700,000, though some sources place it at 900,000) and also widely read and trusted (especially by European Americans), due to Ford’s popularity as a affable captain of industry and champion of the working man – indeed, it would not be hyperbolic to say that Ford, during the 1920s was one of the best-loved and respected men in all of America. Ford was also one of the richest with a vertically integrated company worth billions (around $ 199 billion, to be precise). He ingeniously engineered cars in such a fashion so as to make them available to the common man, rather than mere playthings of the ultra-rich, as they had been since their inception. Despite his esteem and monumental accomplishments, not everyone was pleased with the industrialist’s work, especially not the Jewish-American community who swiftly began boycotting his products and sending letter after letter of vitriolic complaint to Ford. The most egregiously aroused of these poison-penners consisted of the National Council of Jewish Women, The Central Conference of American Rabbis as well as the still very active, B’nai B’rith, whose current chair was the league’s founder and prominent attorney, Sigmund Livingston.

Outraged that Ford and his agents were able to freely disseminate their “anti-Semitic” opinions, these incensed organizations pooled their efforts and sought out the Anti-Defamation League, demanding prompt and decisive action. The ADL readily agreed that something should be done about the Jewish-critical articles and set itself into a vigorous contemplation of how best to shutdown the publication and tarnish Ford’s reputation as well as his various employees and associates. The League’s first course of action was to set forth a pamphlet entitled, The Poison Pen, which harshly criticized the Dearborn Independent. The ADL’s actions were incredibly effective, so much so that shortly after the publication of The Poison Pen, then-President Woodrow Wilson, as well as former presidents, Taft and Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan, along with other prominent and ostensibly respectable individuals, signed a paper titled, The Perils of Racial Prejudice. The tract vociferously denounced The Dearborn International and vehemently urged public opinion-makers to “strike at” the “un-Christian” and “un-American” publication. All of the signees were notable in that they were all gentiles, that is, non-Jews, they were also all Christians. Continuing on this theme, the Michigan publication was also denounced by the now defunct religious coalition known as the Federal Council of Churches, a ecumencial Protestant organization comprised of thirty-two different Christian sub-demoninations.

Presidents, present and former, and ardent Judeo-Christians, however, were not the only ones to take aim at the publication and Ford himself; the well-known lawyer, Samuel Untermeyer wrote that The International Jew read as if it had been penned by a madman and additionally remarked that the piece had become, “-the Bible of every anti-Semite.”

Despite the increasing ferocity and frequency of the press vitriol against him and his paper, Ford did not back down and instead, continued on with his publications against “International Jewry” (it is here of note that during this time Jews themselves utilized the phrase “Jewry,” generally in a positive communal sense).

Eventually, Ford’s social efforts turned toward the Jewish-lead agricultural cooperation movement and its relationship to American husbandry. The movement was helmed by a man named Aaron Sapiro, a Jewish lawyer and political activist who had received notoriety in 1923 and 1924 for several prominent speeches he had given in the States and the Canadian Provinces, principally, Saskatchewan. Despite his humble origins, short statue (his growth had been stunted from malnutrition) and relatively low social standing, Sapiro’s intelligence, idealism and magnetic charisma inspired both popularity and loyalty. After years of giving numerous speeches concerning agricultural reform and progressive social issues all about the states, Sapiro began coordinating what came to be known as “The Sapiro Plan,” which advocated for agricultural cooperatives that would focus on commodity-specific strategies rather than on territory specific strategy, ideas which were initially espoused by his mentor, Dave Lubin who was a key player in the internationalization of American markets at the time.

In April, 1924, the former rabbinical student, Sapiro, became aware of the Independent‘s section titled, Jewish Exploitation of the American Farmer’s Organizations: Monopoly Traps Operate Under the Guise of Marketing Associations,” which was featured in The International Jew. The piece mentioned Sapiro by name and harshly criticized him and various other Jewish co-op advocates. One section of the piece noted that Sapiro’s meddling had “-turned millions away from the pockets of the men who till the soil and into the hands of the Jews and their followers.” Sapiro, a rather ill-tempered and vengeful man, took Ford to court for libel in 1925, in a federal district court in Chicago. Ford happily obliged despite concerns from his right-hand man Liebold who had, until this time, been the foremost champion of the paper’s Jewish-critical efforts.

Now the trial itself and its principal players bare some deliberation as it was a most curious affair, especially where Sapiro is concerned, for the historical narrative here gets rather polemical. Upon looking the case up online one (especially on the ADL’s website) is given the impression of a wholly one-sided play, with Aaron Sapiro playing a near-helpless yet heroically tenacious, almost messianic figure, fighting against the defamation of his people and Ford assuming the role of a cartoonishly malevolent (or sometimes incompetent) big-money bigot who simply can’t wait to crush “the little guy.”

Obviously, things were a bit more subtle and complicated than all that. One of the people who has done the utmost to bring this particular piece of history to the fore is the research professor for the American Bar Association of Chicago, Victoria Saker Woeste. Ms. Woest has done much work concerning the history of Ford’s legal disputes, typified in her most recent book upon the subject titled, Henry Ford’s War On Jews And The Legal Battle For Hate Speech (2016). From the title alone one understands immediately that Ms. Woeste is, despite her claims to the contrary, engaging in a highly polemical exercise that is painting Ford as a villain from the outset. It is clear that her work is biased from the start against Ford and upon listening to her speak or reading her work one quickly realizes that she has great admiration for Sapiro which is understandable given his accomplishments and obvious intellectual gifts for organization, rhetoric and agricultural innovation.

That being said, Sapiro was no saint and neither was he, as Woeste describes him, “-a nobody from California.” This is manifestly untrue, however. In fact, by 1925, Sapiro had amassed around 890,000 farmers from all across the nation into his cooperative network. The New York Times described him as, “-the leader of one of the greatest agricultural movements of modern times.” Clearly Sapiro was not some random roustabout, not “the little guy” or average Joe, but rather quite a powerful figure, which is not to say that one should hold this fact against him (or Ford, for that matter) but the issue should be clearly and factually stated to better understand the context of what was next to transpire.

Sapiro went for broke and sued Ford for $ 1 million dollars in damages – to put this sum in its proper historical context, then-president Calvin Coolidge was earning only $ 75,000 a year! Sapiro also went further, claiming that Ford had not just libeled him, personally, but that the auto-tycoon had also libeled the whole Jewish race. Unfortunately, for Sapiro, the case in question concerned only Ford and Sapiro himself meaning that any comments pertaining to anyone other than Sapiro were inadmissible since hate speech legislation had not, at this point in time, been wholly instantiated within America’s legal infrastructure. Furthermore, Louis Marshall, a famous lawyer and Jewish civil right’s leader who had been brought into the case by a friend of Ford’s named Earl Davis, was none too keen on Sapiro’s ethnocentric appeals. Marshall, though a supporter of the Belfour Declaration and the then-president of the American-Jewish Committee, never involved himself in cases pertaining to “anti-Semitism.” Instead, Marshall (who had staunchly opposed Sapiro’s libel suit from the get-go) wanted to settle the suit in a way that would benefit all parties involved without overt appeals to ethnocentricity (though, it should be said, Marshall very much wanted things to end in manner which would benefit the Jewish community). To this end Marshall extended his help to Ford under one condition, that the industrialist repudiate his infamous work, The International Jew – this despite the fact that Sapiro’s suit against Ford had absolutely nothing to do with the whole of the publication, but merely a 1924 addition of the paper which mentioned Sapiro by name.

Ford was stretched thin at this point in time given that his new Model A car was slated to be released very soon, additionally he had been run off the road (allegedly) during the course of the trial and may have feared for his life, thus, he readily agreed to Marshall’s plan and allowed a letter to be written which denounced his previous works and praised the Jewish peoples. Upon Marshall’s publication of “Ford’s” letter of apology (which Ford did not write nor sign) the Jewish community (for the most part) praised him. Sapiro was not convinced that his wily foe was truly repentant but decided that he had accomplished all that he had wanted – Sapiro’s legal expenses were also quite considerable, which was another factor which doubtless played into his acquiescence of the apology.

Ford himself, never apologized for the affair nor did he ever see the note of apology according to one of his closest associates, a Jew named Harry Bennett (who signed the Marshall apology). Indeed, Bennet wrote a whole book concerning the affair and Ford more generally, entitled, Ford: We Never Called Him Henry (1950).

Ford and Sapiro reached a out-of-court settlement in 1927. On December the 31st of that same year Henry Ford would close up The Dearborn Independent for good.

Ford was perhaps the most illustrious and well known of the ADL’s targets and one who, in life, they were never able to defeat. Yet in death, the organization continues to defame the great industrialist even as they (begrudging) sing his well-earned praises. For instance, in a bevvy of articles published to the ADL’s main web-page they consistently mention Ford’s name in connection with a host of disreputable and trouble-makers, such as the Nation of Islam’s vociferous racialist preacher, Louis Farrakhan who has, in the past, made a number of bizarre, empirically unverified or unverifiable statements such as, “You [black people] are not now, nor have you ever been a citizen of America. You are a slave to white America,” he has also made the peculiar remark that, “The Mother Wheel is a heavily armed spaceship the size of a city, which will rain destruction upon white America but save those who embrace the Nation of Islam.” For the purposes of clarification, Farrakhan meant the latter comment literally. Regardless of your opinion of Farrakhan, the ADL’s constant mentioning of Ford in proximity to Farrakhan seems to be a way in which to say, “Look, if you criticize ethnocentric Jews you’ll end up believing in Mother Wheels and demons!” This conclusion is somewhat speculative, I will admit, so let use turn our attention to the more fundamental and more empirically demonstrable issue – Ford’s supposed “anti-Semitism.”

Was for a anti-Semite? Well before we can answer that question we must accurately define our terms. Taken literally, anti-Semite seems to mean someone who is opposed to all Semites – that is to say, to all who speak a Semitic language. The problem here is that this definition would include a large array of other ethnic and religious groups, such as Arabs who, in turn, are merely a people who speak Arabic. One never hears Muslim-critical speech defined as “anti-Semitic” nor are the originators of such speech ever described as “anti-Semites.” Clearly, the phrase anti-Semite is not, in common parlance, meant to be taken literally, which, in my opinion, is highly unfortunate as any word which has multiple and non-literal meanings gains the troublesome attribute of identity-amorphism, that is to say, it seems to be a thing when one wishes it to be a thing and not, when one does not.

Given that we are talking primarily about the ADL, let us turn our attention to their definition of “anti-Semitism” for the purposes of further clarification. According to the ADL, anti-Semitism is defined as:

The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them.

It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.

Now this definition is, in fact, even more broad then the literal definition of the term. For where it says, “-to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them,” we must ask who is the “them” to which they are referring? Even though the ADL itself oft complains when any individual looks upon the whole of the Jewish peoples as a monolith, this seems to be, here, precisely what they are doing. That being said, let us see if the ADL’s definition, poor and amorphous as it is, applies to Ford himself.

Certainly Ford did not consider ALL Jews a monolith, for the very title of his book, The International Jew, attests to this very fact. Whether you think he was largely correct or largely incorrect as regards his (and Cameron’s and Liebold’s) theories about this international group is irrelevant to whether or not he believed ALL of the Jewish people acted ever in concert. If Ford really was opposed to ALL Jews in uniformity he simply would have named the book “The Jew,” leaving aside the descriptor “International.” In addition to this, we must also consider the fact that Ford had many Jewish friends and employed thousands of Jews at his factories (which he paid just the same as any of his other employees). Ford himself was shocked at the vitriolic outrage he received from some of his Jewish friends after the publication of his papers, yet many of those very same friends remained by his side all throughout the car-king’s battles with Hollywood, the ADL, Sapiro and various international forces. In fact, Ford was so fond of one of his Jewish friends, a popular rabbi named Leo Franklin, that once, every year, the industrialist would send him a brand new car – free – as a show of appreciation. Yet, once Ford and Cameron began publishing their Jewish-critical pieces, and the next year came, Franklin rejected the car, telling the driver, “I can’t accept that.” Ford, confused and concerned, called his friend, asking, “Rabbi, has something come between us?” Franklin responded, “Yeah, you’re attacking Jews. I can’t accept anything from you.” Ford responded matter-of-factly, “No, I’m not attacking Jews, I’m attacking bad Jews. I would think you’d be supportive of that.”

The rabbi wrote of The Dearborn Independent’s articles,

“Such venom could only some from a Jew-hater of the lowest type, and here it was appearing in a newspaper owned and controlled by one whom the Jews had counted among their friends. It was veritably a bolt out of the blue.”

Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate, Neil Baldwin (2003)

Despite the rabbi’s misgivings, and obvious sense of disappointment and resentment, he and Ford eventually patched up their relationship and remained fast-friends until Franklin’s death in the late 40s. Additionally, Ford was also considered, both at the time and in modern-day publications by most liberal thinkers to be “ahead of his time” on race and gender issues (so long as they were not race and gender issues related to Jews). For instance, Ford employed both women and blacks at a time when very few other companies would – not only that, but he also paid them the exact same wage as his white, male workers.

In his book, Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate, the cultural historian, Neil Baldwin writes that Ford’s social views were indicative of a “-almost bipolar trait.” Yet there is nothing “bipolar” about dichotomizing any given ethnic group into good and bad categories so long as the distinctions made are accurate. Such a principal holds regardless of whether one disagrees or agrees with Ford and Cameron’s conclusions. Indeed, the United States government does as much to this very day, they merely do not call it as such; for why would a government note race-&-religion in crime statistics if those who compiled them were not interested in mapping out and dichotomizing said groups along such lines as good and bad individuals? The answer is clear, they would not, for unlike a think-tank, the government is not collecting such information merely for academic purposes but for future enforcement of law and the safeguarding of their interests. Additionally, many of the Jewish groups which Baldwin seems to think were horribly maligned were doing precisely what he criticizes Ford for (in that many Jews considered Ford to be a bad euro-American) – were they “bipolar?” I shall not put words in anyone’s mouth – one would have to ask Mr. Baldwin to be sure – but it doesn’t seem a stretch to assume his answer would be a resounding, “No.” At this point I am hopeful that the reader will discern that, though Ford, though he certainly made mistakes, was not the ignorant, hateful schizoid who so many scholars seem to make him out to be; nor was he a “anti-Semite” even by the ADL’s own proffered definition of the very word.

Popular opinion held that Ford was the loser of the affair, albeit a fairly gracious one and Aaron Sapiro the victor. Such sentiments, however, betrayed the truth of the matter and all that was later to transpire for the libel case had nearly bankrupted Sapiro who had moved from New York City to Chicago where he was warmly embraced by the Jewish community. More damaging than that, however, was a series of incidents in Chicago that seem to lend some credence to the claims that Ford and William J. Cameron laid out against the Jewish lawyer. On July 28th 1933, Aaron Sapiro was implicated in a Chicago-based racketeering scheme alongside none other than crime boss Al Capone as well as Capone’s likely heir, Murray Humphreys. The Michigan Daily describes the event thusly,

Chicago’s War On Gangsters

NEW YORK, July 27.-(AP)-Aaron Sapiro was taken to Police Headquarters late today, charged with being a fugitive from Chicago, where he was indicted on a charge of racketeering conspiracy.

CHICAGO, July 27.-(W)-Reputable attorneys and industrial arbiters, labor union bosses, plain hoodlums and Al Capone himself were named alike in a blanket indictment today, charging 24 men with bombing, acid-throwing and restraint of legitimate trade through terrorism. A eminent among the defendants were:

AARON SAPIRO, New York attorney, who once sued Henry Ford for $1,000,000. He is a pioneer organizer of the co-operative marketing movement in the United States, named because he was counsel for nearly a year of the Chicago Laundry Owners Association. He quit June 2.

DR. BENJAMIN M. SQUIRES, University of Chicago lecturer on economics, Federal labor mediator who was appointed head of the Master Cleaners and Dyers Institute of Chicago for the announced purpose of eradicating the gangsters.

ALDERMAN OSCAR NELSON, Republican leader of the City.Council, attorney for the Dye House Drivers Union.

AL CAPONE, who might still be the czar of Chicago’s outlaw labor rackets, ruling by the gun, had the Government not put him in prison for 11 years on an income tax evasion conviction.

MURRAY HUMPHREYS, successor to Capone as Public Enemy No.1, business boss of the syndicate, a fugitive now from Federal indictments charging that he dodged his income tax bill.

Sapiro was acquitted of the charges, namely, labor racketeering, but then again, so were all of the 22 defendants, several of whom were then or are now, well known criminals, chief among which is notorious Chicago-based, prohibition era crime boss, Al Capone. It should also be noted that Sapiro’s freedom was only assured after the Illinois attorney general killed himself. Let us also note that a

Sapiro’s affiliation to syndicated crime lends some credibility here to Ford and Cameron’s assertion’s over shady dealings and plans. There is also the fact that Dave Lubin and Sapiro’s plans would have effectively cornered the wheat market across international lines, which, regardless of intentions, was something which wasn’t at all irrational to oppose.

Regardless of whether Sapiro was guilty of the racketeering scheme, his agricultural plan would have done nearly everything which Cameron and Ford accused him of – the principal question here is merely of motivation, was it nefarious or benign? That is a matter still of historical dispute and thus I shall not take pains here to answer it and leave it up to the reader to decide. Instead, I wish to re-direct our attention, for Sapiro was not the only was he indicted on charges of a racketeering scheme (which he may, or may not have been a part of) he also had a very close association with a man whose name conjures up the blackest of villainy.

Meyer Lansky.

Yet Sapiro was the least of the players involved in the Ford affair who were connected to organized crime; the most prominent of them all was none other than the ADL itself.

Defamation Factory, Prt.1: The ADL’s Founding Lie

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Why do we talk of politics? We do we engage in that stressful, brain-wracking contest of ever-warring tribes when we can just ignore the whole damnable mess? I can not, nor shall I attempt to, speak for anyone but myself, and so I shall tell you why I speak about politics. I speak about politics because, on matters of first principal, chaos, entropy, is the enemy of civilization whilst all that moves to order and truth – all that holds chaos at bay – is its soothing balm.

I care deeply, dear readers, about our shared civilization – that is, euro-American civilization – which, it is no exaggeration to say, is the most powerful, profligate and sought after in the history of the world. Most of all, I care for the continued well-being of myself, my family, my friends and fellow countrymen and all their line and all that that line may yet become. These are my first and primary political concerns which informs and directs all of my political positions.

Therefore, when one discovers a dark and terrible entity which runs counter to all hithertofore mentioned values that I seek to protect and advance it would be, not just irresponsible, but downright unconscionable to ignore the profligate, so-called “hate watch” group known as the ADL. However, I shall show you, incontrovertibly, that the ADL is anything but. Indeed, I shall show you that they are the precise opposite of a group looking out for the common good, for the man defamed, I shall show you that the ADL is, in no uncertain terms, a hateful, slanderous and law-breaking guild of ethno-tribalist radicals who stand for everything they decry. It is the height, the very summit of irony that the organization which brands itself as the premier outfit for fighting against defamation is one of the primary, generative machines thereof.


Despite the fact that the ADL ostensibly operates under the auspices of being keen to, “-stop the defamation of the Jewish people-,” the events which lead to the founding of the group had absolutely nothing to do with defamation and absolutely everything to do with a savage, cold-blooded murder. The murder of a innocent, 13 year old girl.

On Saturday, April 26, 1913, little Mary Phagan, a young girl who toiled for the well known National Pencil Company of Atlanta, Georgia, stopped by her place of work to obtain $1.20 in earnings from the company superintendent, Leo M. Frank. She would never be seen alive again.

Her body was later found in the Pencil Company basement, mutilated. Her undergarments were torn and ugly bruises stood out upon her neck and the whole of her body was covered in the ashes of the nearby incinerator. She had been strangled to death with a wrapping cord, likely after the assailant failed to rape her.

It was Confederate Memorial Day.

The murder set the town awhirl. The Southern locals were rightly outraged and demanded justice. After a thorough investigation many were suspected but none more so than the lecherous superintendent, Leo Max Frank. Frank’s guilty verdict was announced on August 25th, 1913. Frank was eventually convicted of the grisly, barbaric crime and sentenced to death by hanging. On October 1913, after Frank’s conviction, Adolf Kraus, then president of the Jewish-American fraternal order, B’nai B’rith, created the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith which issued forth this statement of purpose in their League charter:

The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”

Despite the best efforts of Kraus’ newly formed Anti-Defamation League as well as the masonic inspired, B’nai B’rith, Frank was eventually executed, but not through lawful jurisprudence. Rather, he was let off the hook by a outgoing governor, John M. Slaton, after a great deal of back-door dealing. Frank’s sentence was transmogrified from death by hanging to life behind bars. The denizens of the town were so enraged by this obvious corruption of justice that they decided to take the law into their own hands and subsequently dragged Frank from the courthouse and summarily executed him. He was lynched from an oak tree in Mary Phagan’s hometown of Marietta, Georgia on August 16, 1915. The Phagan Family’s house was the last thing Leo Frank ever saw.

Contrary to the widely held misconception that Frank was the first Jew ever to be lynched, he was far from it. In 1868, a Jewish store owner in Franklin Tennessee named S. A. Brierfield and a black worker, Lawrence Bowman were lynched by initiates of the KKK for supporting The Reconstruction; in 1915, the Jewish writer and convicted murderer, Albert Bettelheim was lynched only two days before Frank himself was slain. What markedly differentiated the Frank Case from the previously mentioned incidents was the enormous media firestorm that ensured and the way in which the case transformed the sociopolitical landscape of the region.

In the many years since the Phagan murder, Leo Frank has become a venerated figured among many Jewish-Americans; so much so that it might be said without hyperbole, that he is viewed by the ADL as their patron saint; as a man whose death serves as a reminder of the depths of depravity to which man can sink when in the grip of xenophobic hatred. This holy martyr reverence shines through in many of the articles written by members of the League that are still archived on the site to this day. To provide some context to the ADL’s feeling about the Frank Case consider this excerpt from their article, Remembering Leo Frank,

During this same time, an event in Georgia made the need for the organization painfully clear. Leo Frank, a Jewish businessman who moved to Atlanta to manage his family’s pencil factory, was convicted of the rape and murder of a 13-year-old female employee, following a trial that was defined by anti-Semitism.

Note the last line, “-following a trial that was defined by anti-Semitism.” This idea is one oft touted by modern historians (especially liberal ones). Given the prevalence of the notion that Frank was innocent of the crime but was hanged due to rampant anti-Semitism, Southern idiocy and the tendency to always defer to perceived authorities, (a tendency which runs counter to many of the claims of American egalitarians – but more on that later) most of the American public tends to believe the blood-libel narrative as well. But is it actually true? Was Frank actually innocent of killing Mary Phagan?

Short answer, no. He was most decidedly guilty. With that said, let us turn our attention to the facts indicating just that.

Pertinent Facts Concerning Leo Frank’s Guilt:

Fact 1 – P.A. Flak, a fingerprint expert who was tasked with investigating the Phagan murder crime scene, lifted fingerprints belonging to two men, Newt Lee, the afro-American night-watchman of the National Pencil Company who had first discovered Phagan’s body and Leo Frank.

Fact 2 – Lee testified in court that Frank had called him at night, previous to the discovery of the corpse, to ask if everything was alright. This, Newt Lee stated, was exceedingly strange, as Frank had never before directly telephoned him.

Fact 3 – Frank explicitly stated whilst testifying at his trial that he did not know Mary Phagan by name yet numerous female employees of the Pencil Factory testified to the fact that they had seen Frank talking with Phagan on various occasions, sometimes putting his arm upon her shoulder. One young woman, a 16 year old named Dewey Hall stated in court that Frank would talk to Mary Phagan “-two or three times a day.” These same women also testified to the fact that Frank was possessed of a decidedly lascivious nature and would regularly make sexual advances upon female factory workers, sometimes slipping away with them into a private room for suspiciously long stretches of time.

Fact 4 – Leo Frank told police that John Gantt, a factory worker who was a friend of Mary Phagan’s, had been “intimate” with the dead girl. This obviously contradicts Frank’s earlier statement that he did not know Phagan at all. For, after all, how could Frank have known Gantt had any ties to Phagan if Frank did not even know Phagan by name? Clearly, Frank was lying.

Fact 5 – Frank and Conley were the two primary suspects and it is believed by many today who think Frank innocent that Jim Conley was the real killer. However, Conley worked on the ground floor for his entire shift, this means that if he had been the killer he would have had to attack Mary Phagan almost as soon as she entered the building where there was effectively zero privacy given the constant stream of people. Conley was not perceived as being particularly intelligent, this coupled with the fact that there was nowhere to kill and effectively hide someone at his work station undetected put him entirely out of the realms of possibility as a suspect. Furthermore, Leo Frank, however, did have a secured area upon the second floor where one could do all manner of things without sight or sound from anyone; Frank also admitted to the fact that he had been alone with Mary Phagan upon the second floor where he (quite a tall man) could have easily killed her without oversight.

Fact 6 – Newt Lee, the night watchman who was an early primary suspect in the case and who had no motives against anyone involved, arrived at the Pencil Factory before Phagan’s body was discovered and found Frank there and told him he would sleep in the basement (where Lee ultimately discovered Phagan’s body). Frank refused to let him and further forced him to leave, saying that Lee had to, “Have a good time.” This was not only extremely odd, it was also against the National Pencil Company’s corporate policy which stated that the night watchman, once he entered the building, was not to leave until he had passed along his keys to the day watchman. What this suggests is that Frank knew Phagan’s body was in the basement and that, if Lee retreated to the factories bowels, the crime would be discovered.

Fact 7 – Lee left as Frank commanded but returned later at six to discover Frank so nervous and agitated that he could not do even the most basic of functions, such as operating his time clock. However, it should be noted that two mechanics who worked at the factory disputed Lee’s story, with both claiming that Frank had acted perfectly normally.

Fact 8 – On April 30th 1913, a friend of Mary Phagan’s, a fifteen year old named George Epps, testified that Phagan was afraid of Leo Frank because he had flirted with the little girl and made several sexual advances towards her.

Fact 9 – May 9th, 1913, a young girl who worked at the factory named Monteen Stover stated that she had arrived to work at the National Pencil Factory at 12:05 PM the day of the murder (near the same time Phagan arrived) and that when she arrived Frank was not in his office. This directly contradicts Franks testimony in which he stated he had stayed in his office the entire time the murder was supposed to be taking place at the factory.

Fact 10 – June 3rd, 1913, Minola McKnight, Leo Frank’s afro-American cook states in a statement to local police authorities that Frank was exceedingly nervous, agitated and also remarked that he drank heavily after he had returned home the night Mary Phagan was murdered.

Fact 11 – The other prime suspect in the case, Jim Conley, though initially one of the prime suspects due to his own admissions of aiding in the murder and history of violence (he once threatened his wife and a employee at gunpoint) was a known serial liar and his story continuously changed throughout the course of the case and often made no sense at all.

Fact 12 – July 30th, 1913, Frank had testified that he had not seen Mary Phagan’s body at the undertaker’s yet a man named W.W. (Boots) Rogers, testified that Frank had indeed been to the undertaker’s and had there seen the body of the young, murdered girl.

Fact 13 – Jim Conley testified that he had often acted as a look-out man for Frank during his liasons with young factory works. Conley also testified to the fact that he had helped Frank move Phagan’s body after the murder (letters found near Phagan’s body were noted to be in Conley’s handwriting) and that Frank had confessed to the killing and was so shaken with what he had done that he had gripped Conley for support. Though many points in Conley’s story changed marked from its first telling, these points always remained consistent. On August 7th a railroad worker named C.B. Dalton testified to the fact that he had often met with women in the National Pencil Factory’s basement and that, during these libidinous ventures, Conley had often acted as the lookout – a fact which only reinforces the veracity of Conley’s testimony. Furthermore, Dalton went on to state that, on numerous occasions during his ventures to the factory, he had seen Frank privately meeting with women. Also, two hundred dollars were known to have been on the premises of the Pencil company, this was the same amount of money which Jim Conley said Frank had showed to him during their meeting after the murder.

Lastly, let us examine this notion set forth by the Frank defense team and carried on by the ADL that the whole arc of the case was carried, in whole or in part, by racial bigotry and lay it swiftly to rest. Contrary to popular belief, the South, at the time, was not anti-Semitic but rather philo-Semitic. The racial animus during the trial was not, principally, directed towards Frank, but rather, towards Jim Conley, a negro janitor who worked for the National Pencil Company. Conley was, admittedly, a drunkard and a liar, a man of low-repute, but the vitriol he received passes all boundaries of decency. For instance, during the course of the trial, Conley was targeted by numerous instances of abuse from Frank’s defense attorneys, Luther Rosser, Rueben R. Arnold and Frank Hooper.

Arnold insisted that Conley was a, “-a drunken, crazed negro, hard up for money.”

Hooper contended that the black janitor was a, “Dr. Jekyll,” who, “when the shades of night comes, throws aside his mask of respectability and is transformed into a Mr. Hyde.”

Rosser scathingly remarked that Conley was, “-a filthy, lying nigger,” who probably snorted, “-tons of cocaine.”

However, the presiding Prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey (whose sister was married to the son of Luther Rosser), took umbrage to the remarks of the defense and also wholly denied that Frank was being tried due to some untoward feelings concerning the Jewish People upon whom he remarked, “This great people [the Jews] rise to heights sublime, but sink to the depths of degradation, too, and they are amenable to the same laws as you or I and the black race.”

The outspoken agrarian populist and publisher, Tom Watson, wrote extensively and critically of the case, paying special attention to the charges of anti-Semitism; His publication, Watson’s Magazine, echoed sentiments similar to Dorsey’s.

In his magazine, Watson wrote,

Far and wide, the accusation has been strewn, that we [Southerners] are prejudiced against this young libertine [Frank], because he is a Jew. If there is such a racial dislike of the Hebrews among us, why is it that, in the formation of the Southern Confederacy, we placed a Jew in the Cabinet, and kept him there to the last? Why is it, we are constantly electing Jews to the State legislatures, and to Congress?”

[Watson’s magazine, Jan. 1915]

Given all these facts we can very firmly establish several concrete truths. Frank lied, often, during the trial. Frank had motive to do the deed, namely, perverse lecherousness, which, once rebuked, reacted with fury that eventually resulted in the murder. Only Frank could possibly have killed Mary Phagan since, as previously stated, he was the only one in the factory at the time who had a enclosed and segregated space to do such a deed unobserved and he later admitted that he had “unconsciously” gone into the very room where Phagan had been murdered. Additionally, anti-Semitism clearly was not the driving force for the case, especially not in the philo-Semitic, Christian South (devout Christians, after all, typically tend to view Jews as fellow people of the good book and as God’s chosen). For instance, when the aforementioned prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, made his remarks about Frank shaming his lofty Jewish ancestors, he was greeted with cheers by the locals once he emerged from the court house for the day which is clearly not the sort of thing you would expect out of a bunch of irrationally heated Jew haters. What “anti-Semite” would cheer for someone who was defending the honor of the Jewish people?

Frank was, in no uncertain terms, a sexual deviant, guilty of the hideous crime; for the great heft of the vast bulk of all the evidence was and is against him. This, the researchers at the ADL know very well, just as they likely knew it at the time, yet despite the obvious, they have maintained Frank’s innocence for over 100 years, all to protect their reputation – who, after all, would take the Anti-Defamation League at their word if they knew the truth that the ADL was founded on a grievous lie?

Sources/further reading:





The Ugly Truth About The ADL by E.I.R. (Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review)

 Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Case Records (1913, 1914)

Atlanta newspaper accounts of the trial and aftermath (1913, 1914, 1915)

Watson’s Magazine (1913-15)

Site Update: Articles Will Be Sparser As TLC ramps up production on new e-book

Greetings and salutations, dear reader. If you have been following the site for some time you will know that I have published one e-book previously (which you can obtain free, here) with the intention of releasing more in the future. Our first original content ebook, Defamation Factory: The Sordid History of the ADL, will shortly be released here on the site. Naturally, the work has required a substantial amount of research and contemplation and has subsequently eaten up a good deal of time. Therefore, articles will be published with slightly diminished frequency until the book is released.

Defamation Factory Cover

Thank you, as always, for your patronage and readership.


K.E. – administrator