Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

My Mistake

Carolyn Yeager has used this platform, which I had provided for her, to attack and denigrate White nationalism and, by extension, Whites as a race:

White Nationalism, Eurasianism, and the future of Western Europe [The audio for this program can be download from http://carolynyeager.net/system/files/tWn_Saturday_Afternoon_with_Carolyn_Yeager_20140412.mp3 – Tan 30 April 2014]

The cause of this break and clues as to her motives, what she really cares about, can be found in the comments of these recent programs:

Germans, Slavs and Men of Action: Aug. 19 – Sept. 21, 1941 – Episode 5

Nature’s laws, N-S not a religion, source of raw materials: Sept. 22-25, 1941 – Episode 6

During her two hour program this past Saturday she demonstrated her ignorance, confusion and hostility toward not just White nationalism, but the very purpose of this web site. What is that purpose? Here’s a reminder for her and everyone else. the White network – About:

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.”

Our mission is to build group consciousness, solidarity and pride among White Americans. One way we do this is by educating our listeners in real history — the history of the amazing achievements of Whites as a race, but also our mistakes and the crimes committed against us. We encourage Whites to be more aware of and assertive about our interests as a group, to speak out and answer slurs and attacks directed against us and our White heroes.

We recognize that different races and ethnic groups cannot live together in peace on the same soil, that Whites cannot and should not tolerate being governed by non-Whites. As White Americans, we affirm our European heritage and common cause with our European cousins everywhere.

Jews are not White. They are obsessed with their own group’s best interests, not ours. Our network is and will always remain by, for, and about the best interests of Whites, and only Whites. We are uncompromising on this point. We do not hesitate to identify and criticize Jews and will not allow them to hide amongst us.

If she or anyone else wants to understand what White means, who we are, she can look to her own network instead of reciting the views of anti-Whites:

She wanted a crash course (with the emphasis on crash) in White racialism and White nationalism, and without looking very hard she found her own understanding reflected in anti-White and anti-White nationalist point of views she found elsewhere on the internet. She read those views so approvingly and uncritically that she didn’t even notice the glaring contradictions in what she was reading.

Even Wikipedia acknowledged the reality that White nationalists are exactly those people in America who have most consistently opposed non-White immigration and the jews, but according to some random site she found, Letter to White Nationalists, KKK Members, Other Morons Pissing Me Off, what White nationalism really means is White internationalism, opening the borders of Europe to immigration because White nationalists are actually just like the jews.

Carolyn seems to realize that this “European Knights” site she likes is full of nonsense, but she’s willing to overlook that because it trashes White nationalism, and she likes that. She agrees also when it says that it is good and right to recognize our connection with and be concerned about our European cousins everywhere, while also recognizing and respecting our distinctions and differences. That’s also what the tWn About page says, and is the spirit of White nationalism too. But it can’t be, or Carolyn can’t admit it, because she doesn’t like White nationalism/nationalists, and so she searched out and found somebody who says White nationalism is actually the antithesis of European nationalism because some gibberish about globalist zionist jews and anti-national socialist national socialism, or whatever.

Carolyn could have gone to Metapedia for a more sympathetic point of view of White nationalism. She should have realized (and even Wikipedia would have told her) that the Fourteen Words represent not only the essence and purpose of tWn, but the essence and purpose of White nationalism. We advocate the blood and soil nationalism that she says she shares, but in ignorance and confusion attacks instead.

The tWn About page is the root of her problem. This is the “White PC” she feels constraining her. Some part of her mind realizes this. At the same time, another part of her mind perceives it only as an obstacle, holding back her progress, a “sacred cow” which she questions without wanting or caring enough to acknowledge and confront directly. She knows this “sacred cow” is what she and I both agreed tWn would be about. But she now sees it interfering with her freedom to go in the direction she wants to go, to say whatever she wants to say about whoever or whatever she wants. So she wants to ignore tWn’s “sacred cow”, or to mold it to fit her agenda. I think she suspected I would be angry about that. She was right about that. I think she thought she could just push past my objections with a combination of bullshit and bluster. She was wrong about that.

She can say what she wants, as she always has. For almost two years I have helped her to do it. That was my mistake.

Pictured above are Carolyn Yeager’s experts on Whiteness and White nationalism: Leonard Zeskind, professional anti-White jew; European Knights Project, run by ?; John Tehranian, author of “Whitewashed: America’s Invisible Middle Eastern Minority”.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off on My Mistake  comments 

What is Liberalism?

The word liberalism has been in common use in political discourse for more than two hundred years. Why is its meaning so ambiguous and changed so dramatically over time?

In short, it is due to a shift away from White/Aryan origins to a contemporary judaized meaning. The word itself is emblematic of the racial struggle for control of Europe.

liberal, at Online Etymology Dictionary:

liberal (adj.)

mid-14c., “generous,” also, late 14c., “selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant,” and, early 15c., in a bad sense “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous” (12c.), from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious,” from PIE *leudh-ero- (source of Greek eleutheros “free”), probably originally “belonging to the people” (though the precise semantic development is obscure), and a suffixed form of the base *leudh- “people” (cognates: Old Church Slavonic ljudu, Lithuanian liaudis, Old English leod, German Leute “nation, people;” Old High German liut “person, people”) but literally “to mount up, to grow.”

With the meaning “free from restraint in speech or action,” liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88.

The original meaning of liberal was noble, and thus synonymous with aryan.


Originally based on two main principles: liberty (freedom from constraints on speech and thoughts) and equality (every human born possessing “natural rights”, ala John Locke).

Contemporary, judaized liberalism is actually the opposite – granting special preferences to “protected classes”, and defining special “hate crimes” for offenses against them.

Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

Liberalism thus developed in opposition to the long-standing socio-political status quo in Europe, overturning and destroying it. In retrospect it was not a natural expression of European nature, but represented a revolution, a turn toward jewish rule and the complete destruction of Europeans which looms today.

The notion that liberalism seeks equality is a fraud. The reality is that it elevates non-Whites above Whites – jews are the archetype, elevated first and highest, above everyone else.

With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word (liberal) acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as “free from narrow prejudice” in 1781 and “free from bigotry” in 1823.[13] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[14] By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicised term for parties and movements all over the world.

The shift in meaning and spread of liberalism corresponds/correlates with the emancipation of jews. Tolerance and freedom from prejudice and bigotry enabled the jews to more easily infiltrate, manipulate and exploit White society. Here we see the beginnings of anti-“racism”.

During the twentieth century, liberal ideas spread even further, as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. Liberalism also survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism.

The jews won those wars – securing and entrenching jewish power while disempowering Europeans. Communism was a jewish project, not an opponent of liberalism. They share major features, including central banking, internationalism, and an Orwellian drive for equality (metastasizing into anti-“racism” and ultimately anti-Whitism).

As such, the meaning of the word “liberalism” began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”

These contradictory meanings reflect a different emphasis on freedom versus equality (which are at odds).

What liberalism supposedly means:

Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions. At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society. Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as being individualist, egalitarian, meliorist, and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism, the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals, the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local cultural differences.

This is the “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society” which Whites are propagandized to believe.


Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.

The real, jewish liberalism is completely different. It is not individualist; it is collectivist (group/bloc-oriented, identity politics, partisan politics). It is not egalitarian; non-Whites are collectively elevated above Whites, Whites are blamed for “racism”/privilege. It is not meliorist; dengeneracy is promoted and celebrated, Whites excelling or progressing is regarded as evidence of “racism”/privilege. It is not universalist; it sets everyone, including Whites, against Whites.

Liberalism, as a “philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society”, has become entangled with democracy.

Liberal democracy:

Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons.

Porter, at The Kakistocracy, describes how it works in practice:

Liberalism is two jews and a black voting on which white to have for lunch;

Conservatism is a well-armed white enforcing the vote.

In 1961 the poet Robert Frost remarked:

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

Political Fallacies

Concerning the dishonest nature of contemporary political discourse.

The Left-Right fallacy: Divide and conquer, political theater, the Orwellian racial meaning of equality and diversity.

The 50-50 fallacy: A deliberately calculated division, brain versus body.

Armor’s comment on Left and Right:

We know that leftism is encouraged by school and the media. But it doesn’t explain why, now and then, we find a real hard-core leftist in our own families, just like sometimes, some parents are surprised to find that their new born child is a redhead. So, maybe the leftist mindset is partly in the genes. But I think that only few people are real leftists. In the population, there isn’t a regular continuum from right to left with half the people on the right and half of them on the left. Rather, I think most people are conservatives, and a small minority is “leftist”, with a markedly different mindset. I think the real leftists are less than 10% of the population, but it is difficult to tell a natural-born leftist from someone who simply goes along with what the media preaches.

I don’t think that support for immigration can be in the genes of leftist people. There is no reason we cannot find leftists who want to defend the white lower class, and who strongly disagree with the race-replacement program. We need them on our side. A century ago, very few leftists would have agreed with our replacement with non-whites. But race replacement is now the main element in the Jewish political program, and the Jews are the backbone of the institutional left.

Even though the leftists are a minority, it seems that everything in our public political life proceeds from the left. In fact, it is the Jewish media that gets to define everyone else on the political spectrum. So, they classify anyone who stands against race-replacement as right-wing, far-right, nazi, racist, supremacist, evil.

My own opinion is that the right is simply made of normal people with the most common mindset. Opposition to immigration isn’t right-wing, it is a matter of common sense. Being called right-wing is like being called antisemite. It is like firemen being called anti-arsonist. Actually, the problem isn’t anti-arsonism.

I disagree with Bertonneau’s comment on one point: the problem doesn’t exactly come from the left. It comes from the Jewish-dominated FAR-LEFT. And in fact, the far-left doesn’t even belong to the left. The left is supposed to be kind, compassionate, and egalitarian, while the right is supposed to be pragmatic. But the “far-left” that controls the media isn’t compassionate. The Jews don’t care about equality. Their motivation is racial and anti-white.

Just like right-wing voters, most people who vote for the left are ordinary, non-politicized, non-ideological people. I don’t think that voting for the left is in their genes.

Yes. To the extent left/right is biological, it is at best a tendency, a preference. The jews and their racial animus drive the anti-White/pro-non-White agenda.

The “far” fallacy: far-right/racist/nazi is code for White, far-left is code for the jews.

French far-right triumphs in local polls that hammer ruling Socialists, 24 March 2014:

According to preliminary results from the interior ministry, the UMP and allies took 47 percent of the vote nationwide while the Socialist party and allies took 38 percent, and the FN five percent — far higher than its 0.9 percent result in the first round of 2008 municipal polls.

Applauding what she said was “an exceptional vintage for the FN”, Marine Le Pen — head of the anti-immigration, anti-EU party — said the polls marked the “end of the bipolarisation of the political scene”.

Although the FN had been expected to do well, the first round results were far better than expected.

What makes Front National “far-right”?

Le Pen took over the FN leadership in 2011 and set about broadening the appeal of a party regarded as taboo by many voters in light of her father’s repeated convictions for Holocaust denial and inciting racial hatred.

As well as trying to “detoxify” the FN’s image, she has attempted to make it less of a single-issue party by campaigning on unemployment, costs of living and crime.

The “single-issue” is what’s best for the French. This is regarded as toxic by jews and other non-French who are themselves toxic to the French.

The post-racial fallacy: Left vs right increasingly openly revealed as non-White vs White.

U.S. Whites More Solidly Republican in Recent Years, 24 March 2014.

The misleading headline is typical. The most striking feature of Gallup’s graph (attached above) is the stark and consistent racial divide.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
6 Comments  comments 

Left and Right

Concerning what everyone knows, or should know, about politics, the game of life, and the important role of lies and deception.

Left–right politics:

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called “the party of movement” and the Right “the party of order.”[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate.

The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties.

The left/right duality seems baked into the White psyche. It springs, I think, from an Old European instinct for egalitarianism and Aryan instinct for hierarchy.

Rather than a synthesis of these essential instincts, producing an orderly movement forward, Whites are instead polarized and divided by jewish influence, resulting in a disorderly shuffle toward oblivion.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

Game Over, Death Squads and Other Lies

More on Ann Coulter’s recent rhetoric about immigration, this time focusing specifically on her appearence at a CPAC-sponsored debate on 8 March which was structured as an homage to William F. Buckley’s Firing Line. (Buckley played a crucial role in drumming opponents of the jews out of conservativism.)

In the news this past week was confirmation and a reminder of what Coulter calls a “strange asymmetry”. College group’s diversity event canceled after excluding white people, Washington Times, 13 March 2014:

An event meant to celebrate diversity and combat racism at a Washington state community college has been cancelled after a flier emailed to guests said white people weren’t invited.

Diversity and Equity Center staffer Karama Blackhorn helped write the invitation and said she stands by her opinion that staff members of color would have a more honest discussion about race without white people there.

“When trying to explicitly talk about race it can be a really difficult conversation for a lot of people,” she told the station.

“That space is not for white people. That space is for people of color,” she said of the center.

As previously noted, the terms “diversity” and “racism” are opposites. “Diversity” is seen as something intrinsically good in “people of color”, which is just a euphemism for non-White. “Racism”, in contrast, is seen as something intrinsically evil in Whites.

The CPAC debate pitted the jew Mickey Kaus, playing the role of liberal/Democrat, opposite Coulter, who played the conservative/Republican. The audio clips in this podcast were taken from a 30:56 long video of the exchange.

@6:14 sets the tone and stakes out the overall theme:

Kaus: The Republican leadership still presses ahead for amnesty, including John Boehner in the House, and I don’t understand why. Democrats have a perfectly good reason to be for amnesty, which is craven ethnic pandering that’s gonna ensure our power for the next two generations.

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Kaus: But what’s the Republican excuse?

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Coulter has no answer. It’s the same pandering to jews in the leadership of both parties. They both must realize it, but won’t openly acknowledge it.

@11:32 Kaus again calls attention to Republicans leaders and their policies:

Kaus: “We’ll only fund healthcare to three times poverty, not four times poverty.”

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Kaus: None of that will do, will do good that will in any way compensates for the negative effect of amnesty on the wages of unskilled and poor Americans. So Paul Ryan says he’s gonna lift them up but he’s pushing them down with the other hand.

Coulter: Right.

Kaus: What is it with your party that’s fallen – the Republican voters don’t like it

Coulter: Right.

Kaus: Look what happened to Marco Rubio when he endorsed amnesty.

Coulter: All of them.

Kaus: He went down in the polls. Why does the Republican party persist in this suicidal rush?

Coulter: It’s baffling. It’s one of those questions like how high is up, why they keep doing this. I mean part of it is you do not hear the truth about immigration or amnesty any place in the media. You can hear I guess on some of the blogs. There is no issue of as much importance to America and Americans that is so hidden from public view as immigration. I mean you’re talking about who votes.

Not only is immigration not profitable to poor Americans, or even Americans on the whole, it’s bankrupting America.

Contrary to what Kaus implies, it’s not suicide, it’s genocide. Contrary to what Coulter claims, it’s not baffling. The media’s bias is a jewish bias.

It is the same jewish media which openly debated for months last winter whether Chuck Hagel would be the best US Secretary of Defense for Israelis.

It is the same jewish media that, last April, before they knew anything else, hoped the Boston bomber was a White Christian.

It is the same jewish media that, last May, was praised by Joe Biden for altering public opinion and promoting immigration, civil rights, feminism and gay marriage.

It is the same jewish media that, this February, flipped their lids and condemned Tom Perkins for having the audacity to equate the merely rich 1% to the jews.

The same jewish moguls who control this jewish media also have political influence. They fund both political parties.

@13:01 Coulter tries again, without success, to explain why:

Coulter: The country does become California. Why the Republicans are rushing headlong into this: Some of it is cowardice, they feel like we lost the last election, and “oh, please hispanics, will you vote for me, will you vote for me?” Well, you know, look at the polls, hispanics don’t care about amnesty.

As Mickey just said, who gets hurt by bringing in more low-wage workers? The million you brought in last year. And the year before. And the year before.

I mean my whole life I’ve heard Republicans hate black people. I’ve never seen any evidence of it until I read Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. We are the party that has always stood up for African Americans. Who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies? It is low-wage workers, it is hispanics, it is blacks.

And the fact that Republicans don’t understand that, can’t grasp it, you say Rubio was hurt by it, it wasn’t just Rubio – McCain, Bush, as you’ve written in your blog, it’s like a zombie amnesty. We can’t kill it. They keep going back to it.

And my assumption is it’s it’s it’s the lobbyists. And it may not be the congressmen or the senators themselves who want the job lobbying, but I think their staff does.

As a professional politcal pundit, Coulter knows that the Republican base is White – not low-wage workers, hispanics or blacks.

Her suggestion that senators and congressmen answer to their staff, who manipulate them in order to get jobs as lobbyists, is ridiculous.

We know that these senators and congressmen don’t answer to their voters on immigration. Their true constituency are the people who control whether they get elected, and whether they stay in office – the people who control the media and fund their parties and campaigns. In a word, jews.

Politicians who might feel some affinity for and loyalty to their White voters are afraid to openly express it. Even Coulter, an unelected pundit with a secure income from her books, purchased by Whites, won’t openly recognize White interests, much less express whatever affinity or loyalty she might feel.

@16:00 Kaus lays a trap:

Kaus: That’s the difference between the amnesty debate and the tax debate – is, taxes, we can always raise them later or lower them later if we don’t like it. Amnesty, there’s no do-overs, once you let people in , they’re here.

Coulter: Yeah. That’s why it’s more important that Obamacare.

Kaus’ point is true in the sense that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The poison is in the same old false claim that “liberal”/leftist policies, once implemented, cannot be reversed. “Can’t turn back the clock!”

Coulter too quickly and easily concedes, showing how and why “conservatives” always manage to lose.

@16:33 Coulter blames insanity, and Kaus once again reminds her of the racial reality:

Coulter: Harry Reid called the anchor baby law, or ruling, insanity. Of course it’s insanity! So yeah, there were some good Democrats but now I guess they just think, oh screw the country, screw low-wage workers, we want our 30 million voters.

Kaus: And it’s the triumph of ethnic politics over economic politics. As an old marxist…

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Kaus: I remember the time in the Sixties when the people came in and said, “No, it’s not the proletariat that counts, it’s the fact that we’re black or hispanic.” And we said, “You’re crazy, we’re marxists, all workers are the same, it doesn’t matter which color they are.”

Coulter: [forced laugh]

Kaus: But they’ve won. They’ve won. They’ve taken over the democratic party.

Coulter won’t confront WHO is screwing WHOM, much less WHY. She returns again and again to voting, even though she knows that what the voters want doesn’t really matter.

Though Kaus won’t mention the jews, he comes closer to the truth, to race, to anti-White animus. He shoves it in Coulter’s face, and all she can do is lamely laugh.

Kaus, like Mark Rudd, understands that “60s marxist” is essentially code for “jews”. Coulter probably does too.

@22:40 Prompted by the question “who’s your pick for 2016”, Coulter launches into a long, incoherent rant:

Coulter: But no, look, I mean Obama is trying to do everything he can. It’s not elected Republicans, it’s the American people who are stopping Republicans, I think that’s probably the best hope for our candidates.

Because again there’s no, to quote Mickey Kaus, I used to think everything was about sex, now I think everything is about immigration. It is, it determines every single other issue, and of course that’s how we’ve gotta pick our presidential nominee. And just you know a little footnote, that’s why Mitt Romney was my favorite candidate, he was the most aggressive on immigration. He was, and in a way that was very appealing.

I mean in that first debate he had one of the best answers, if I had two weeks to write an answer, and it was for illegal immigrants, do you want to give them drivers licenses and in-state tuition. Well half the Republicans on stage had already done that. And Mitt Romney said, “No, I will appeal to hispanics the way Republicans always have. We’re offering freedom, and liberty and a chance at a better life for you and your children. And any hispanics who are here for a handout aren’t voting for Republicans anyway.”

It was a beautiful and perfect answer. I mean they made fun of self-deportation, which I never really understood, except that I think liberals and the media have a capacity, they could turn the phrase “apple pie”, into “ooo, ooo, he said apple pie”, but of course that’s our solution to immigration.

Which is why you can’t believe these fake polls on, oh, most Americans support a path to legalization. That’s because, I look up every one of these polls and the question is always, do you want to, it’s always a binary question, two options: Do you want to round up illegal immigrants at gunpoint, put them on buses, send them home, ripping children from grandmothers?

Or, would you like to put them on a path to legalization where they have to learn English and take lessons in patriotism and pay back taxes of which there are none – they’d be getting money back under the earned income tax credit.

But look, there’s no politician in Washington who’s suggesting rounding anybody up. We didn’t round them up to get them here. We’re not gonna round them up to get em home. We just enforce E-Verify when the jobs dry up, and oh say, college tuition subsidized by the taxpayers.

And now as we know, please every conservative remember this, what Joe Wilson got in trouble for. And everyone was hysterical over Representative Joe Wilson at President Obama’s State of the Union address when he yelled out “you lie”, it was because Republicans had been fighting for two weeks with the Democrats to exclude illegal immigrants from getting Obamacare. And Obama stood up at the State of the Union, “Absolutely, no illegal immigrants will be able to get Obamacare”. And in a moment of passion and rage Joe Wilson yelled out, “You lie!”

Well we found out this week Joe Wilson was right, Obama was lying. He’s has now announced, he’s announced to illegal aliens, “Yes, please, sign up for Obamacare, this will not be used to deport you.”

This is Coulter in fast talk mode, like a snake oil salesman. She knows the Republican leadership is betraying its White voting base. She can’t really explain that, or why any White should still vote for them, but advises it anyway.

In outlining the strongest line Republicans have on immigration, Coulter makes plain just how weak it is. They have no substantial requirements – immigrants will speak English anyway, can’t be taught patriotism, and (as she herself recognizes) won’t be paying any back taxes. They want no forced deportation, only the self-deportation resulting from cutting off jobs and benefits.

It is similar to, but not even as robust as what Enoch Powell proposed in Britain 46 years ago.

Many came illegally, overcoming some resistance. Few will go home if not actively forced to do so.

Coulter’s point about polling biased in favor of amnesty is just a variation on the point she’s already made about the (jewish) media. “Round them up at gunpoint” is an allusion to the jewish holocaust narrative.

She correctly notes that politicians at the highest levels, including presidents, are lying about their intentions.

@30:05 Coulter concludes the debate with a severe case of cognitive dissonance:

Coulter: I mean obviously I’m disappointed in Republicans. The only thing that matters more is immigration. Immigration is forever, it is game over when that happens.

Oh, and by the way, every Republican voted against Obamacare. So there’s no trying to figure out is he going to vote against Obamacare. I mean some are better than others, I don’t really like hearing him say, “We’re gonna keep the good parts of Obamacare.” What is that?

But amnesty is forever. And I think you gotta vote for the Republicans one more time, and just make it clear that if you pass amnesty that’s it, it’s over, then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.

It would be stupid to take Coulter’s radical rhetoric seriously. She doesn’t take it seriously herself. She advocates that Whites, who she won’t even address as Whites, vote for a party she knows has betrayed them, and will continue to do so. She won’t acknowledge the long-term, jewish nature of the project that has wrecked White America. Her “beautiful and perfect answer”, to offer freedom and a better life to any alien who wants it, is exactly how the wrecking was accomplished.

“Liberals”, in general, are relatively honest about the significance of race. “Conservatives” like Coulter, in contrast, deny it. Both favor non-Whites over Whites, because both march to a tune called by the jews.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

Ann Coulter’s Radical Rhetoric

Ann Coulter’s rhetoric about immigration has become increasingly radical since I quoted her in Morality and Identity:

While conservatives have been formulating carefully constructed arguments, liberals have been playing a long-term game to change the demographics of America to get an electorate more to their liking.

There’s a strange asymmetry in how this matter can be discussed. Liberals and ethnic activists boast about how America would be better if it were more Latino, but no one else is allowed to say, “We like the ethnic mix as it is.”

That would be racist. By now no one even tries to disagree.

Identity Politics is based on a very simple rule: White = “racism” = bad, non-White = “diversity” = good.

Latinos will pass whites as majority ethnicity in California in March, Daily Sundial (California State University at Northridge), 4 March 2014:

In Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2014-2015 budget summary, Latinos were projected to eclipse whites as the plurality, or largest racial/ethnic group, in the state by a margin of 39 percent to 38.8 percent, respectively, this month.

Melina Abdullah, Pan-African studies chair at CSULA, agrees the change is significant as it is a more realistic representation of global demographics.

“It’s more reflective of the global society we live in,” Abdullah said. “We have been conditioned to think the white majority is normal, but if we look globally, the majority is people of color.”

The usual “liberal” argument that is “majorities” must defer to and defend “minorities”. Whites have long been a minority globally. Now that we’re being reduced to minorities everywhere the true, anti-White nature of the usual line of argument is revealed.

“Every study has signaled the importance of ethnic studies,” Abdullah said. “The idea that we should have an ethnic studies requirement becomes even more urgent as we have an increasing number of people of color in the state.”

The less Whites, the more urgent and required the indoctrination in favor of less Whites becomes.

“It’s important that we live in a diverse world and you want to understand the racial dynamic, the gender dynamic and the politics of sexuality that are going on,” Masequesmay said. “It will make a more humane citizen of the world, instead of just protecting your own interests at the expense of others. You see how you are implicated in the system of social injustice.”

Abdullah agreed with Masequesmay and also believes the benefits are not limited to traditionally underrepresented ethnic groups.

“It’s true for the success of not only people of color, but also the success of white students who need to have, not only a tolerance for, but an understanding of, people of color,” Abdullah said.

Addressing the Individual Needs of the Latino Plurality

Ayala-Alcantar believes the ethnic studies debate, which was not supported by the CSULA Chicano studies program, illustrates the difference in opinion and background among members of the group.

“It highlights the point that we’re a very diverse group,” Ayala-Alcantar said. “Not all Latinos are in support of the ethnic studies or even know what it means to be a Chicano.”

Whites are “diverse” in a similar sense. But in spite of their “diversity”, non-Whites manage to think and organize as a non-White bloc.

About 65 percent of full-time faculty are white, compared to the 10.7 percent of full-time faculty that are Latino.

“It’s happening more in the K-12 system than higher education,” Ayala-Alcantar said. “If you look here are CSUN, the majority of professors are white males.”

While CSUN’s faculty profile does not accurately reflect the students it serves, Abdullah says the problem is reflected throughout the CSU system.

“People of color are really underrepresented,” Abdullah said. “On my campus alone, of the almost 600 tenured or tenure-track faculty members, there are only 17 black faculty. The numbers for latinos are about double, but still a huge underrepresentation when talking about 90 percent students of color.”

While Pardo understands the challenges the traditionally underserved face in the hiring process, she is still hopeful that talking about the issues can lead to some reform, especially on campus.

“We definitely have resistance, but it’s important to get the dialogue going and hopefully we’ll move forward with some changes,” Pardo said. “As we look at the demographic profile here at Northridge, which we know is 10 percent ‘Hispanic’ faculty, we’re a Hispanic-serving institution, so that’s something we definitely need to change.”

Did I Move?, Ann Coulter, 12 Feb 2014:

We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya — I could have moved to those places, too.

(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)

I’m sure they’re lovely, but I wanted to live in America. Now I can’t. At the current rate of immigration, it won’t exist anymore. The Democrats couldn’t win elections there, so they changed it.

Coulter’s statements at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past weekend sparked controversy.

I’ve Never Seen Evidence GOP Hates Black People Until I Read Rubio’s ‘Amnesty’ Bill:

“I mean my whole life I’ve heard Republicans hate black people, I’ve never seen any evidence of it until I read Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. We are the party that has always stood up for African-Americans. Who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies it is low-wage workers, it is hispanics, it is blacks.”

If Immigration Reform Passes, ‘Organize The Death Squads For The People Who Wrecked America’:

Coulter attacked MSNBC for “celebrating the browning of America.” “But if you don’t celebrate it you’re a racist,” she added. “It’s going to be people who are not from America who are going to be in theory funding older, white people who are getting to their Social Security and Medicare age. I don’t think that can last, at some point they’re going to say, ‘Screw it.’”

“I used to think everything was about sex, now I realize everything is about immigration,” she added later.

Coulter ended with this call to arms: “Amnesty is forever and you got to vote for the Republicans one more time and just make it clear; but if you pass amnesty, that’s it, it’s over and then we organize the death squads for the people who wrecked America.”

Why wait? The destruction has been going on for decades. Coulter seems to be trying to grapple with it, but remains determined to see it through a deracinated left/right, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican lens. She has yet to acknowledge WHO is wrecking WHOM.

Whites who are as alarmed as Coulter is about immigration should educate themselves by reading Kevin MacDonald’s Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. Coulter, as a friend Joe Sobran, probably already knows this, and where she’s heading.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
16 Comments  comments 

Holding the Jews Accountable

A continuation of Misconstruing the Jews.

An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Question – Episode 85, THE INTERNATIONAL JEW:

The Jewish Question has existed for a long time, as the Jew knows and admits, and is a consequence of certain un-Jewish, or rather un-Israelitish ideas held by Jewish persons of power. The disability under which the Jew labors is that he is not a Jew, properly speaking, and does not desire to be. Just at that point is the soil and the root of the Jewish Question.

Tackling the Jewish Question is not congenial work. The Race which this article now addresses has always shrunk from tackling it. Our Race has little disposition to chastise any portion of humanity, to arouse feeling or resist it. We have little taste for this surgical work which becomes absolutely necessary when certain corrupt influences deeply dislocate and seriously injure the common life. Nothing but a clear vision of the danger, nothing but an imperative sense of duty would impel any one of us to embark on a course which is subject to misunderstanding and which must, in the nature of things, wait long for its complete justification. Our Race is too fair, and has always been too fair, to enter hastily into judgement ~ and upon this fairness and long-suffering the offending groups have often seriously trespassed.

Regarded by itself, as a separate entity, the Jewish Power is most impressive. International Jews today occupy literally every controlling lever of power. Building up for centuries, perfecting their teamwork from generation to generation, from country to country, they have practically reached the summit. Nothing but the Christian religion remains unvanquished by them, though through false “liberalism” even that has felt the Jewish assault.

Besides this massive array of power, immovable as it appears, there is the veil cast over the Christian mind as to the supposedly peculiar destiny of “God’s chosen people.” The Christian cannot read the Bible except through Jewish spectacles, and, therefore, reads it wrong. The idea of “the chosen people” is one of the two great biblical ideas, but that the Jews constitute this Chosen People is entirely opposed to the statement of the Bible ~ even of the Bible which the Jews acknowledge, the Old Testament of the Christians.

“But what shall we do?” is the constant question; “How shall we balk this system which surrounds us and infects so much of our common life?”

Observe it, identify it, eschew it ~ that is more powerful than active opposition. The clear eye of the man who sees and understands is something that even the evil powers of Jewry cannot endure.

Also referenced: All-Hosts Get-Together and Puttin da Muhfugging Bullit Throo da Muhfugging Boozeye.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
8 Comments  comments 

Misconstruing the Jews

Is the problem in the White mind or in our genes? I think it’s both, but the problem in our mind has arisen more recently and is more easily fixed. Whites aren’t lacking in either competency or courage. What Whites lack is collective self-awareness, and without it we cannot have a proper sense of moral legitimacy rooted in our collective interests.

This lacking comes from a misunderstanding of life itself – that life is competitive, and in any competition groups trump individuals. Along with this misunderstanding comes the failure to recognize the Other, especially the jews. Also, a tendency toward group solipsism, or Eurocentrism, which manifests as a tendency to see and blame only or mostly ourselves, neglecting the competition from others, especially the jews.

And it is not enough to simply recognize the Other. Hugh Dorsey recognized the jews as a race separate and apart from his own, as good but no better, i.e. equal. This attitude, no doubt shared by many Southern Whites in 1913, represented a failure to recognize the jews for what they are, as hostile and harmful to the long-term survival of Whites, as the enemy.

This failure is part of a broader failure to recognize and associate the influence and actions of jews with the jews. This does not happen by chance. It is the result of very deliberate and persistent jewish effort. This is why control over media and education is important to the jews. Maintaining their blamelessness by always shifting the blame elsewhere is the whole point of the jewish narrative. The same end is also served by their crypsis, the various efforts they take to disguise themselves.

Henry Ford’s The International Jew was a wonderful effort to address this failure – to explicitly identify jewish activities and influence and attach them to the jews. Even so, the tenor and tone was at times too concilliatory, or at least too diplomatic.

I consider the final chapter of TIJ, discussed by Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott in An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Question – Episode 85, a case in point. It begins:

“Everywhere they wanted to remain Jews, and everywhere they were granted the privilege of establishing a State within a State. By virtue of these privileges and exemptions, and immunity from taxes, they would soon rise above the general condition of the citizens of the municipalities where they resided; they had better opportunities for trade and accumulation of wealth, whereby they excited jealousy and hatred.”

— Lazare.

This is, in fact, a recurring pattern throughout history. The privileges don’t just fall into their laps. They whine, bribe, extort, and otherwise lobby for those priviledges. The never stop seeking superior treatment. They mask their push behind the pretense that they and their proxies are uniquely under-privileged and seek only equality.

Bernard Lazare was an apologist for the jews. He could not conceive that the defrauded have no cause to envy their defrauders, or that fraud naturally results in hatred.

From an introduction to Lazare’s notorious book, Antisemitism: Its History and Causes, 1894:

One will find Lazare’s book cited at many anti-semitic websites and in in anti-semitic publications. The reason for this is that Lazare conducted a major reveiw of the history of anti-semitism and, to a very large decree, can be read as having put the blame on Jews themselves.

This, however, is a misreading of his work. From the way he is cited by anti-semites it may come as something of a surprise to note that Lazare, a journalist, was famous as the first defender of Captain Dreyfus – the first Drefusyard. Moreover, he was perhaps the first French Jewish intellectual to commit fully to Zionism as a political solution. Here are comments by Aron Rodrigue.

Bernard Lazare has interested commentators and historians not only for his contribution to the revision of the Dreyfus case but also for his distinction as the first French Jew to make the transition from an almost self-hating endorsement of total assimilation as a solution to the Jewish problem to a full embrace of the cause of Zionism.

In Chapter Ten: The Race Lazare expresses a typically jewish denial of race. Noting that “anti-semites” see the jews as racially distinct, he writes:

Race is, however, a fiction. No human group exists that can boast of having had two original ancestors and having descended from them without any adulteration of the primitive stock through mixture; human races are not pure, i.e., strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a race.

Denial of race is part and parcel of jewish crypsis.

Returning to TIJ:

An Address to “Gentiles” on the Jewish Problem

The heading of this article presents difficulties. The correct use of the term “Gentile” is in question. It is a name that has been given us, not by ourselves, but by Jews, and it is by no means certain that it is accurately given. A very great chance exists that it is not. That, however, is a matter which “gentiles” do not bother to understand; they think, of course, that if one is not a Jew one must be a gentile This is only another instance of the Jewish view being “put over” without the “gentile” understanding or even questioning it.

There is another difficulty: how shall one address “gentiles” collectively?

This scrutinization of “gentile”/jew is interesting to compare and contrast to “people of color”/White.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
8 Comments  comments 

The Murder of Mary Phagan – Part 11

Concluding this series with some final thoughts on Slaton’s commutation letter (see also Carlos Porter’s transcription), and the closing arguments in Leo Frank’s trial.

There is a noticable shift in Slaton’s attitude as his letter progresses. THE STATE’S CASE, from which selections were read the last time, reviews the most prominent evidence against Frank which didn’t involve Jim Conley: Monteen Stover, the Frank housekeeper (Minola McKnight) and her husband, and Frank’s mishandling of Newt Lee’s time slip. The section labelled JIM CONLEY, which comes next, notes the key role played by Conley, and is where Slaton’s tone turns noticably more skeptical and doubtful.

The most startling and spectacular evidence in the case was that given by a negro, Jim Conley, a man 27 years of age, and one who frequently had been in the chain gang.

Slaton adds here another reason to suspect Frank:

Frank put his character in issue and the State introduced ten witnesses attacking Frank’s character, some of whom were Factory employees, who testified that Frank’s reputation for lasciviousness was bad and some told that he had been making advances to Mary Phagan, whom Frank had professed to the Detectives, either not to have known, or to have been slightly acquainted with. Other witnesses testified that Frank had improperly gone into the Dressing Room of the girls. Some witnesses who answered on direct examination that Frank’s reputation for lasciviousness was bad, were not cross-examined as to details, and this was made the subject of comment before the Jury.

The above states very briefly the gist of the State’s case, omitting many incidents which the State claims would confirm Frank’s guilt when taken in their entirety.

Next comes a section titled DEFENSE, in which Slaton lays out his doubts, almost all of which are related to Conley. Contra Porter, Slaton and the other legal minds involved in the case were well aware of the limitations on an accessory’s testimony:

Wherever a physical fact is stated by Conley, which is admitted, this can be accepted, but under both the rules of law and common sense, his statements cannot be received, excepting where clearly corroborated. He admits not only his participation as an accessory, but also glibly confesses his own infamy.

Slaton considered it likely that Conley lied about Frank dictating the notes and lied about where they were written.


Conley admits he wrote the notes found by the body of Mary Phagan. Did Frank dictate them? Conley swears he did. The State says that the use of the word “did” instead of “done” indicates a white man’s dictation. Conley admits the spelling was his. The words are repeated and are simple, which characterizes Conley’s letters. In Conley’s testimony, you will find frequently that he uses the word “did” and according to calculation submitted to me, he used the word “did” over fifty times during the trial.

While Conley was in jail charged with being an accessory, there was also incarcerated in the jail, a woman named Annie Maude Carter, whom Conley had met at the Court House. She did some work in the jail and formed the acquaintance of Conley, who wrote to her many lengthy letters. These letters are the most obscene and lecherous I have ever read. In these letters, the word “did’ is frequently employed. It will be observed that in Conley’s testimony, he uses frequently the word “negro”, and in the Annie Maude Carter notes, he says, “I have a negro watching you”.

The Annie Maude Carter notes, which were powerful evidence in behalf of the defendant, and which tended strongly to show that Conley was the real author of the murder notes, were not before the jury [underlined in pen in the original].

Though they didn’t know about the Carter notes, is it reasonable to assume that the jury didn’t actually consider that Conley might be lying on this point anyway?


This evidence was never passed upon by the jury and developed since the trial. It was strongly corroborative of the theory of the defense that the death notes were written, not in Frank’s office, but in the basement, and especially in view of the evidence of Police Seargeant Dobbs, who visited the scene of the crime Sunday morning, as follows:

“This scratch pad was also lying on the ground close to the body. The scratch pad was lying near the notes. They were all right close together. There was a pile of trash near the boiler where this note was found, and paper and pencil were down there too”.

This is evidence that Conley decided where to write the notes and what to put in them. Did the jury convict Frank because they mistakely thought he dictated those notes, or did they realize Conley was a liar, could very well have been lying about these aspects of the notes, and convict Frank anyway because of the gist of the prosecution’s argument still fit best?

The evidence shows that Conley was as depraved and lecherous a negro as ever lived in the state of Georgia. He lay in watch and described the clothes and stockings of the women who went to the Factory.

His story necessarily bears the construction that Frank had an engagement with Mary Phagan which no evidence in the case would justify. If Frank had engaged Conley to watch for him, it could only have been for Mary Phagan, since he made no improper suggestion to any other female on that day, and it was undisputed that many did come up prior to 12.00 o’clock, and whom could Frank have been expecting except Mary Phagan under Conley’s story. This view cannot be entertained, as an unjustifiable reflection on the young girl.

Why the negro wrote the notes is a matter open to conjecture. He had been drinking heavily that morning, and it is possible that he undertook to describe the other negro in the building so that it would avert suspicions.

It may yet be possible that his version is correct.

The testimony discloses that he was in the habit of allowing men to go into the basement for immoral purposes for a consideration, and when Mary Phagan passed by him close to the hatchway leading into the basement and in the gloom and darkness of the entrance, [handwritten insertion: Mary? ???] he attacked her. What is the truth we may never know.

Slaton put his conclusion in a section titled JUDICIARY. He commuted Frank’s sentence based on a technicality – he purported a procedural mistake had been made in the original trial – that the judge had thought he must sentence Frank to death if the verdict was guilty. So, based on doubts Slaton thought the judge should have had, which in turn were based on evidence which Slaton himself emphasized was not known to the judge or jury at the time, Slaton changed Frank’s sentence:

Under our statute, in cases of conviction of murder on circumstantial evidence, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment (Code Section 63).

The conviction of Frank was on circumstantial evidence, as the Solicitor General admits in his written argument.

Judge Roan, however, misconstrued his power, as evidence by the following charge to the jury in the case of the State against Frank:

“If you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that this defendant is guilty of murder, then, you would be authorized in that event to say: ”We, the jury, find the defendant guilty”. Should you go further, gentlemen, and say nothing else in your verdict, the court would have to sentence the defendant to the extreme penalty of murder, to wit: “To be hanged by the neck until he is dead”.

Surely, if Judge Roan entertained the extreme doubt indicated by his statement and had remembered the power granted him by the Code, he would have sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment.

Slaton claimed the judge would have agreed with the change in sentence, but didn’t think the jury would have changed their verdict against Frank:

In the Frank case three matters have developed since the trial which did not come before the jury, to wit: the Carter notes, the testimony of Becker, indicating that the death notes were written in the basement, and the testimony of Dr. Harris, that he was under the impression that the hair on the lathe was not that of Mary Phagan, and thus tending to show that the crime was not committed on the floor of Frank’s office.

While made the subject of an extraordinary motion for a new trial, it is well known that it is almost a practical impossibility to have a verdict set aside by this procedure.

The evidence might not have changed the verdict, but it might have caused the jury to render a verdict with the recommendation of mercy.

In any event, the performance of my duty under the Constitution, is a matter of my conscience. The responsibility rests where the power is reposed. Judge Roan, with that awful sense of responsibility, which probably came over him as he thought of that Judge before whom he would shortly appear, calls to me from another world to request that I do that which he should have done. I can endure misconstruction, abuse and condemnation, but I cannot stand the constant companionship of an accusing conscience, which would remind me in every thought that I, as a Governor of Georgia, failed to do what I thought to be right. There is a territory “beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT and absolute certainty”, for which the law provides in allowing life imprisonment instead of execution. This case has been marked by doubt. The trial judge doubted. Two Judges of the Supreme Court of Georgia doubted. Two Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States doubted. One of the three Prision Commissioners doubted.

In my judgement, by granting a commutation in this case, I am sustaining the jury, the judge, and the appellate tribunals, and at the same time am discharging that duty which is placed on me by the Constitution of the State.

Acting, therefore, in accordance with what I believe to be my duty under the circumstances of this case, it is

ORDERED: That the sentence in the case of Leo M. Frank is commuted from the death penalty to imprisonment for life.

This 21st day of June, 1915.

An article from The Kansas City Star, DID LEO FRANK DICTATE THE MURDER NOTES?: AN ANALYSIS, dated 17 January 1915, is worth noting. It prefigured Slaton’s rationale for doubt, but used Porter-like terms (“absolute” “proof”) to proclaim Frank’s innocence:

Jim Conley, the negro, murdered Mary Phagan, and he described how he slew her in the two notes he wrote and laid beside her body.

Conley is a low, dissolute, brutal negro. He had been in jail different times. He lived with a negro woman not his wife. He drank heavily and was always trying to borrow money from the girls in the factory, where he was a roustabout. His brutal nature is shown by the glib, grinning manner in which he told of carrying the body of the murdered girl to the basement, dropping her with a “thump” upon the floor, handling the body of the pretty, golden haired girls as coldly as if it had been a dead dog.

He was drunk the day of the murder.

Conley’s bad character was well established during the trial. It reflects poorly on Frank, at whose discretion he was employed. Frank’s own questionable character, particularly a prior pattern of lasciviousness directly relevant to the nature of the crime he was on trial for, was also raised during the trial.

Now mark this, it is proof of Frank’s innocence, that pad had printed on the top of every sheet the name of the pencil company and a date. it was a pad used in the office by Superintendent Becker, who preceded Frank as the factory head. All of those pads were carried into the basement two years before, after Frank became superintendent, and ask had new pads printed. There was no paper in Frank’s office like that upon which that note was written. This disproves absolutely the story of the negro that the notes were written in Frank’s office.

Speculation that Conley lied about the how or where of the notes doesn’t “prove” any specific how or where, and certainly doesn’t “prove” that Conley was the murderer, or that Frank was innocent. Such extreme claims do however “prove” the irrational bias of the person who makes them.

Conley’s propensity for lying was openly discussed and acknowledged during the trial. Conley may very well have lied about who conceived the notes and where they were written. This is not a new consideration, nor does it significantly alter the prosecution’s argument, based on other evidence, that Frank was the murderer and Conley, who was Frank’s helper before the murder, was enlisted by Frank to help him afterward.

The negro’s story is so incredible, so absurd, so inconsistent with all the facts, that one wonders that anyone could believe a word of it.

This evaluation of Conley is in direct contrast with Slaton, who reviewed the same facts and had the same dim view of Conley’s character, but came to the opposite conclusion about Conley’s credibility:

It is hard to conceive that any man’s power of fabrication of minute details could reach that which Conley showed, unless it be the truth.

I’ll conclude my own evaluation with a few excerpts and comments on the closing arguments of the attorneys who argued the case.

The following excerpts have been taken from The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser, by Bradford L. Huie, The American Mercury.

Frank Hooper (prosecution):

You will notice that the defense has pitched its every effort entirely on [James] Jim Conley. I don’t blame them. He was like Stone Mountain is to some highways in its vicinity. They couldn’t get by him. We could have left him out and have had an excellent chain of circumstantial evidence.

All they could say was that Jim had been a big liar. That is true.

Reuben Arnold (defense):

He’s the same sort of a man who believes that there ought to be a hanging because that innocent little girl was murdered, and who would like to see this Jew here hang because somebody ought to hang for it. I’ll tell you right now, if Frank hadn’t been a Jew there would never have been any prosecution against him.

I’m asking my own people to turn him loose, asking them to do justice to a Jew, and I’m not a Jew, but I would rather die before doing injustice to a Jew. This case has just been built up by degrees; they have a monstrous perjurer here in the form of this Jim Conley against Frank. You know what sort of a man Conley is, and you know that up to the time the murder was committed no one ever heard a word against Frank.

In circumstantial cases you can’t convict a man as long as there’s any other possible theory for the crime of which he is accused, and you can’t find Frank guilty if there’s a chance that Conley is the murderer. The state has nothing on which to base their case but Conley, and we’ve shown Conley a liar.

Luther Rosser (defense):

There are several things I don’t understand about this case, and never will. Why old man Lee didn’t find the body sooner; why he found it lying on its face ; how he saw it from a place he could not have seen it from.

I was raised with niggers and know something about them. I do not know them as well as the police, perhaps, for they know them like no one else. But I know something about them. There must have been a nigger in the crime who knew about it before Newt or anyone else. I am afraid Newt knew.

The thing that arises in this case to fatigue my indignation is that men born of such parents should believe the statement of Conley against the statement of Frank. Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying nigger. Black knows that. Starnes knows that. Chief Beavers knows it.

Who was it that made this dirty nigger come up here looking so slick? Why didn’t they let you see him as he was? They shaved him, washed him and dressed him up.

Cut out Conley and you strip the case to nothing. Did you hear the way Conley told his story? Have you ever heard an actor, who knew his Shakespearean plays, his “Merchant of Venice” or his “Hamlet”? He can wake up at any time of the night and say those lines, but he can’t say any lines of a play he has never learned. So it was with Conley. He could tell the story of the disposition of the girl’s body, and he knew it so well he could reel it off backward or forward, any old way, but when you got to asking him about other things, he always had one phrase, “Boss, ah can’t ‘member dat.”

Was it fair for two skilled white men to train that negro by the hour and by the day and to teach him and then get a statement from him and call it the truth? Well, Professors Black and Scott finished with him, and they thought Conley’s education was through, but that nigger had to have a university course!

Scott, you and Black milked him dry; you thought you did, anyhow, but you got no moral perversion and no watching. In the university they gave a slightly different course. It was given by Professors Starnes and Campbell. Oh, I wish I could look as pious as Starnes does. And Professor Dorsey helped out, I suppose. I don’t know what Professor Dorsey did, only he gave him several lessons, and they must have been just sort of finishing touches before he got his degree. Well, in the university course they didn’t dare put the steps in writing, as they had done in the high school; it would have been too easy to trace from step to step, the suggestions made, the additions and subtractions here and there. Professor Dorsey had him seven times, I know that, but God alone knows how many times the detectives had him.

Was it fair to take this weak, pliable negro and have these white men teach him, one after another? Who knows what is the final story that Conley will tell? He added the mesh bag when he was on the stand.

In comparison to the others, the closing argument of Hugh Dorsey (prosecution) was very long. It is available online at Arguments of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Leo Frank Murder Trial, at archive.org.

They have maligned and abused me; they have abused the detectives; they have heaped calumny on us to such an extent that that good lady, the mother of this defendant, was so wrought up that she arose* and in this presence denounced me as a dog.

Prejudice and Perjury! Gentlemen, do you think that I, or that these detectives are actuated by prejudice? Would we as sworn officers of the law have sought to hang this man on account of his race and religion, and passed up Jim Conley, a negro? Prejudice! Prejudiced, when they arrested Gantt and released him? Prejudiced, when they had Newt Lee? No. But when you get Frank, then you have got prejudice at the same time.

Defense First Mentioned Race.

Now let’s see about this thing. These gentlemen were disappointed because this case wasn’t pitched on that theory. Not a word emanated from this side, not a word indicating any feeling against, any prejudice against, any human being, black or White, jew or Gentile. We didn’t feel it, we would despise ourselves if we had appeared in this presence and asked you to render a verdict against any man, black or White, jew or Gentile, on account of prejudice. But, ah! the first time it was ever brought into this case, — and it was brought in for a purpose, and I have never seen any two men manifest more delight or exultation than Messrs. Rosser and Arnold, when they put the questions to George Kendley at the eleventh hour. A thing they had expected us to do and which the State did not do because we didn’t feel it and because it wasn’t in this case. I will never forget how they seized it, seized with avidity the suggestion, and you know how they have harped on it ever since. Now, mark you, they are the ones that mentioned it, not us; the word never escaped our mouth.

Tribute to Jewish Race.

I say to you here and now that the race from which that man comes is as good as our race. His ancestors were civilized when ours were cutting each other up and eating human flesh; his race is just as good as ours, — just so good but no better. – I honor the race that has produced a D’Israeli, — the greatest Prime Minister that England has ever produced; I honor the race that produced Judah P. Benjamin, — as great a lawyer as ever lived in America or England, because he lived in both places and won renown in both places. I honor the Strauss brothers, — Oscar, the diplomat, and the man who went down with his wife by his side on the Titanic. I roomed with one of his race at college; one of his race is my partner, I served with old man Joe Hirsch on the Board of Trustees of the Grady Hospital. I know Rabbi Marx but to honor him, and I know Doctor Sonn, of the Hebrew Orphans’ Home, and I have listened to him with pleasure and pride.

But, on the other hand, when Becker wished to put to death his bitter enemy, it was men of Frank’s race he selected. Abe Hummel, the lawyer, who went to the penitentiary in New York, and Abe Keuf, who went to the penitentiary in San Francisco; Schwartz, the man accused of stabbing a girl in New York, who committed suicide, and others that I could mention, show that this great people are amenable to the same laws as you and I and the black race. They rise to heights sublime, but they sink to the depths of degradation.

The two overarching explanations of this case were fleshed out, debated and decided on a hundred years ago. Either Frank murdered Phagan, and to defend himself he tried, among other things, to frame Newt Lee and then Jim Conley. Or Conley murdered Phagan, and framed Frank, with the aid of the police, the private detective Frank hired, the prosecutors and all twelve men on the jury.

After looking into the details of the case I agree with the decision the jury arrived at. The evidence and argument that Frank murdered Mary Phagan has more merit than any other explanation. It not only better fits the evidence, but better explains why the prosecution proceeded as they did, and the jury decided as they did, in spite of Jim Conley’s bad character.

That Conley was a depraved lecherous brutal lying negro “as ever lived in the state of Georgia” does not imply Frank could not have been the murderer. Why does anyone argue as if it does? Because they have no better argument to make.

Slaton tried to save Frank’s life. He didn’t argue against Frank’s guilt.

The jewish narrative has always been that Frank was innocent, “falsely accused, wrongly convicted, wantonly murdered”. In fact Frank was rightly accused, convincingly convicted, and justly punished. Despite extraordinary efforts to thwart it, the sentence which was very deliberately considered and handed down was correctly carried out in the end.

Leo Frank, and those who defend him, should never be forgiven. Mary Phagan, the girl whose life was cut short, should never be forgotten.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

The Murder of Mary Phagan – Part 10

More on Carlos Porter’s argument, as expressed in LETTER 29 FROM CHICAGO DAVE: SKUNKIE AND THE LEO FRANK FILE:

In most ways, the commutation file is the best.

Read the files, OK, there are 29 of them, but there’s not much text on each page. [Note: I transcribed them.]

Porter’s conclusion:

The circumstantial evidence, in my mind, is inconclusive; so is the character evidence. If Frank had been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, the case would be unclear. The evidence provided by Conley — particularly, the death notes — proves, in my view, that Frank’s guilt is not only out of the question, but absolutely impossible.

That’s the way I feel today, and I’ve felt that way for 30 years.

Porter has left some comments on Part 9. Much of it taken from LETTER 29. This snippet, for example, relates the portion of his argument which he says anticipated mine:

Frank cannot have dictated those notes. At most he could have said, “Hey Jim, why don’t you write a couple of notes and pretend you’re the girl and say a tall slim negro did it, since you’re short and stocky”? “OK Boss”. What would be the point to that? Why would Conley agree to do that — for any amount of money? As soon as the word got out that Conley wrote the notes, it would logically be assumed (under normal circumstances) that Conley committed the murder, and his life wouldn’t be worth a plugged nickel. Unless they believed him. The notes would lead the cops to Conley and Conley would accuse Frank, which is exactly what happened according to the people who think Frank was guilty.

Porter seems not only unwilling to think of an answer, but unable to accept that one has been provided.

The point of Frank requesting Conley write something would have been to direct suspicion away from himself. He may have hoped to cloud the investigation and create exactly the kind of doubt and confusion Porter and others have used to argue in favor of Frank’s innocence.

Porter implies that dumb drunkard Conley would have known that the police could match his handwriting and connect the notes back to him. Porter is unwilling to imagine however that clever quick-witted Frank could have seen any benefit to himself.

It’s not difficult to imagine how either man could have seen value in producing those notes. Frank in a smart and direct way, by getting someone else implicated, and Conley in a relatively stupid way, by helping his boss in order to indirectly help himself. When Conley wrote the notes he was mindful enough to implicate someone else. He was apparently just as mindful when he later lied about being unable to write, and still later when he claimed that Frank had dictated the notes, which very well could have been a lie.

As soon as the word got out that Conley wrote the notes, it would logically be assumed (under normal circumstances) that Conley committed the murder, and his life wouldn’t be worth a plugged nickel. Unless they believed him. The notes would lead the cops to Conley and Conley would accuse Frank, which is exactly what happened according to the people who think Frank was guilty. If you committed a murder you’d leave the body alone, you’d know any note would be linked to the killer.

If it weren’t for the notes it is quite probable that no one would have realized that Conley was even in the factory that day.

People who believe Frank was guilty do not like to discuss the notes in any detail, because logically they prove that Frank was innocent.

To sum up:

There were 2 notes, only one of which mentions the “night wich”. Even if “night wich” means “night watch”, instead of “night witch”, a common element of African folklore, a clear distinction is still made between the “night wich” and the “long, tall negro black”. They are clearly 2 different entities or people. The same note says the “night wich” didn’t do it. What is the sense of that? There were 2 notes, only one of which mentions the “night wich”. Why write 2?

A Negro would automatically be suspected of the crime. What difference would it make to Frank which one?

How would the notes implicate Newt Lee, the night watchman, if they were in Conley’s handwriting? The notes led the police to Conley, who led the police to Frank. Anyone could have predicted this. Or did Frank think the police would think they were written by the victim during the act of rape? “I wright while play with me”. What is the sense of that?

Indeed, there is little sense in this series of rhetorical questions. Porter’s jumble of points is based largely on overlooking or even inverting the reality that Frank was smart and Conley was not. It seems designed to create confusion rather than offer any sensible resolution to the apparent conflicts he brings up.

The fact that the notes are full of nonsense is an indication that they were conceived by the same simpleton who admitted writing them. If Conley lied about Frank dictating the notes, then that is an indication only that the simpleton preferred Frank be convicted of murder rather than himself.

Slaton was a politician and the file contains a lot of double-talk, for the simple reason that he didn’t want to make his constituents any madder then necessary. As it was, he had to call out the National Guard; for four nights, the woods behind his house was full of armed men trying to break into the house

The first portion of Slaton’s letter seems to be a fair enough description of the facts of the case, not double-talk.

The webmaster of the LeoFrank.org site spent about six weeks arguing with me about the case and about those notes in particular. At one point, he admitted to me that “those notes are an absurdity”. I pounced immediately, and said, “so, you admit that you believe in an absurdity?”

You know what he did? He changed the subject. This is what people ALWAYS do when you mention those notes. They run away. That is why I concentrate on them. I asked a question. I want an answer.

Porter also believes in an absurdity. He believe these absurd notes “prove” Frank’s innocence.

I can guess how the exchange with the webmaster of leofrank.org went. For six weeks Porter asked his rhetorical questions, answers were provided, and Porter ignored them.

It is well worth reviewing Governor John Slaton’s commutation letter, not only because Carlos Porter attests to its value, but because it provides a relatively concise and contemporary description of the thinking around the case. By it’s very nature Slaton’s argument was biased in favor of Frank, but his view still comes across as relatively objective, logical and reasonable.

Porter has emphasized select portions of Slaton’s text in his transcription, but it is still somewhat easier to read (not to mention copy and paste from) than the scans of the typewritten original.

Slaton wrote:


The charge against the State of Georgia of racial prejudice is unfair. A conspicuous Jewish family in Georgia is descended from one of the original colonial families of the State. Jews have been presidents of our Boards of Education, principals of our schools, Mayors of our cities, and conspicuous in all our commercial enterprises.


Many newspapers and non-residents have declared that Frank was convicted without any evidence to sustain the verdict. In large measure, those giving expression to this utterance have not read the evidence and are not acquainted with the facts. The same may be said regarding many of those who demanding his execution.

In my judgement, no one has a right to an opinion who is not acquainted with the evidence in the case, and it must be conceded that those who saw the witnesses and beheld their demeanor upon the stand are in the best position as a general rule to reach the truth.

I cannot, within the short time given me to decide the case, enter into the details outlined in thousands of pages of testimony. I will present the more salient features, and have a right to ask that all persons who are interested in the determination of the matter, shall read calmly and dispassionately the facts.

Slaton reviewed several significant details of the case which indicated Frank’s guilt and had nothing to do with Jim Conley. Here he discusses the claims made by Minola McKnight, Frank’s mishandling of Newt Lee’s time slip, and the testimony of Monteen Stover:

The cook’s husband testified that on Saturday, the day of the murder, he visited his wife at the home of Mr. Selig, defendant’s father-in-law, where Frank and his wife were living, and that Frank came in to dinner and ate nothing. The negro cook of the Selig’s was placed upon the stand and denied that her husband was in the kitchen at all on that day. For purposes of impeachment, therefore, the State introduced an affidavit from this cook that on Sunday morning after the murder, she heard Mrs. Frank tell her mother that Mr. Frank was drinking the night before and made her sleep on a rug and called for a pistol to shoot himself, because he (Frank) had murdered a girl. This affidavit was relevant for purposes of impeachment, although, of course, it had no legal probative value as to the facts contained therein. On the stand, the cook declared that she was coerced by her husband and Detectives under threat of being locked up unless she gave it, and it was made at the Station House. The State proved it was given in the presence of a lawyer and said that her denial of the truth of the affidavit was because her wages had been increased by the parent of Mrs. Frank. No details are given as to where the conversation occurred between Mrs. Frank and her Mother, nor is there any explanation as to how she happened to hear the conversation. It will be easily seen that the effect of the affidavit upon the jury might be great.

It is hard to conceive that any man’s power of fabrication of minute details could reach that which Conley showed, unless it be the truth.

The evidence introduced tended to show that on Sunday morning Frank took out of the Time Clock the slip which he had admitted at that time was punched for each half hour, and subsequently Frank claimed that some punches had been missed. The suggestion was that he had either manipulated the slip to place the burden on Lee, or was so excited as to be unable to read the slip correctly.

The State introduced a witness, Monteen Stover, to prove that at the time when Mary Phagan and Frank were in the Metal Room, she was in Frank’s Office and he was absent, although he had declared he had not left his office.

I have not enumerated all the suspicious circumstances urged by the State, but have mentioned what have appeared to me the most prominent ones. Where I have not mentioned the more prominent ones, an inspection of record tends to maintain the contention.

The the jury and several judges decided unanimously that the circumstantial and character evidence was conclusive, beyond a reasonable doubt. Slaton speculated that Frank did not dictate the notes. He did not argue that this, together with everything else he considered, “proved” Frank’s guilt was “absolutely impossible”. That is Porter’s ridiculous leap. Slaton saw and described only enough doubt in Frank’s guilt to justify the legal technicality he used to alter Frank’s punishment.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 
© the White network