Jewish Subversion of History: Leonard Dinnerstein, part 2
MAY 5, 2018
Albert Lasker, the Jewish advertising executive who ran the pro-Frank publicity campaign during Frank’s appeals of his conviction for the sex murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. Jewish “historian” Leonard Dinnerstein hides many things about the Frank case in his works, including, significantly, Lasker’s real attitude toward Frank.
American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 5, 2018
Listen to the broadcast by Kevin Alfred Strom
“WHO CONTROLS the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
So said George Orwell of the history-twisters in his novel 1984, and today we’ll continue our look at a history-twister of our own day, Leonard Dinnerstein. Dinnerstein’s specialty, to which most of his life has been devoted, is rehabilitating the image of Jewish sex killer Leo M. Frank.
One piece of information that Leonard Dinnerstein kept secret was the attitude of the man who engineered the nationwide publicity campaign to exonerate Frank during the last two years of his life — between his conviction and his lynching. That man was Jewish advertising kingpin Albert Lasker, the man who has the dubious distinction of being the one who convinced millions of American women to take up the filthy habit of cigarette smoking. Dinnerstein researched Lasker for a special piece he did for the American Jewish Archives (AJA). He went into details of Lasker’s private correspondence. Yet nowhere does he reveal that Lasker disliked Frank after having met him, nowhere does he reveal that Lasker said Frank impressed him as a sex pervert, and nowhere does he state that Lasker deliberately used cagey language when the subject of Frank’s supposed innocence came up.
As I wrote on last year’s anniversary of the death of Mary Phagan:
The head of [the pro-Frank] propaganda campaign was a Jewish advertising and public relations executive named Albert Lasker. He handled the money-men — Jews like Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff and Julius Rosenwald of Sears — and directed the efforts of innumerable writers, editors, and publishers from those working for small local weeklies to giant metropolitan dailies like Adolph Ochs’ New York Times. Lasker was the head of Lord & Thomas, the largest advertising agency in the world.
Over the next several years, Lasker would run the largest and most sophisticated Jewish disinformation campaign ever seen in America, transforming Leo Frank in the gullible public’s mind from a perverted sex killer of a 13-year-old girl to a noble, innocent martyr and the victim of unreasoning and pervasive Southern hatred of Jews.
That Lasker was a Jewish supremacist is clear. He said
The Jews are a superior people. I have a hard time hiding that; I believe we should be patient with non-Jews…. I deeply believe that no Christian civilization can last that removed from it the Jews. That it is the Jew that brings them the pollen.
Lasker’s campaign was wildly successful in changing the minds of Americans — at least Americans who were far from Atlanta and who had not read the day-to-day reporting on the investigation and trial and so were quite ignorant of the facts of the case. Lasker “sold” the American people on the idea of Southern “anti-Semitism” and the “persecution” of “innocent” Frank — just as he sold millions of Americans on the virtues of smoking Lucky Strike cigarettes.
Later in life, though, Lasker regretted making “Southern anti-Semitism” the focus of his propaganda efforts, since Georgians resented the lie greatly and that may have contributed to a new resentment and distrust of Jews — and to Frank’s lynching itself. He said:
[We] indicted the whole people of Georgia; well, then, as was natural, in any group, you solidify…. We put the whole state of Georgia on trial and we did what is so often done, in the cure that we gave for the disease, we increased the disease.
…I made a great mistake. Georgia, which had kept it quiet, resented the pressure from outsiders…. Yes. I want to make up to Georgia for what I did to them then, because there is where our greatest mistake was when we took and flashed this all over the country.
[What I should have said to the newspapermen was: We] don’t want you to print a word; we want you to tell this to people who have economic connections in Georgia, and we want them to talk to the economic leaders of the South. We want them to go down to Washington and talk to them quietly as if nothing was going on…. If we had done that I think we would have saved the boy’s life, but when we put this tremendous pressure on all of them, the state was indicted and there came a unanimous opinion in Georgia that he was guilty; so I handled it badly…. We didn’t understand the psychology…. The boy was commuted and lynched. I got him lynched instead of hung, that is all that happened.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that such second thoughts indicate that Lasker had a guilty conscience about deceiving the people — on the contrary, his regrets are simply based on his failure to save Frank, the B’nai B’rith president and therefore a representative of Jews generally. Lasker’s lack of conscience and cold, cynical value system is demonstrated in one of his first acts on behalf of Frank’s Jewish supporters: he traveled, along with influential Hearst chain newspaper editor Arthur Brisbane, on a strategy-planning mission to Atlanta to meet the Frank defense team, the prosecution team, and Frank himself. He thought little of Frank and even suspected him of sex perversion based on his appearance and manner — but nevertheless carried through the utterly cynical campaign to make him a martyr. Lasker stated:
[N]either Brisbane nor I liked Frank. From our interviews, we found him a supercilious egotist who was enjoying this notoriety. We took a great prejudice against him and we could see… how it would add to the psychology of those against him who didn’t have an open mind.
Both he and I took a tremendous prejudice against the prisoner [Frank]. Like so many, all this publicity had gone to his head — he became a megalomaniac… So we disliked our principle very much, but we determined in our minds that he was innocent and that this was a big frame-up….
Later, Lasker and Brisbane met with detective William J. Burns and Atlanta Georgian editor Keats Speed and together interviewed Frank. Lasker privately stated of this meeting:
It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he [Frank] impressed us as a sexual pervert.
Keats Speed described Lasker’s reaction after the interview with Frank:
And when we got out and started down the courthouse steps — Lasker hated him — he said [of Frank], “Well, I hope he gets out… and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.”
The quotes from Lasker can be found in private letters, interviews, and in his biography, The Man Who Sold America.
So there you have it. The Jewish boss of the campaign to exonerate Frank in the public’s mind was disgusted by Frank, thought him a sexual pervert (and likely a murderer), but nevertheless, in loyalty to his tribe, “determined in his mind that he was innocent” and cynically pushed the image of Frank as a martyr to evil White bigotry, “bigotry” which Lasker well knew never existed. Can you bring to mind any person of your acquaintance who more thoroughly embodies living a lie?
But Dinnerstein tells us none of that. His is a sanitized Lasker, nobly fighting for the truth and to free an innocent, angelic Frank. As he says in his AJA piece:
The amount of assistance given to Frank by influential Jews cannot be overestimated. Aside from Marshall, perhaps the most energetic worker for Frank’s cause was Albert D. Lasker, the advertising wizard from Chicago. Personally informed of Frank’s plight by relatives, he conducted his own investigation in Atlanta. Interviews with Frank and his lawyers convinced Lasker that a monstrous mistake had been made and that the terrible injustice had to be eradicated. Taking a year’s leave from his business, Lasker marshaled nationally prominent people to the defendant’s aid, directed lawyers and investigators in search of new evidence, secured funds from diverse acquaintances, and personally contributed more than $1oo,ooo of his own money to help secure justice.
In his dissertation on the Frank case, Dinnerstein says of Lasker:
In addition to Louis Marshall and other members of the American Jewish Committee, Albert D. Lasker, the Jewish advertising genius from Chicago, contributed his services. Lasker, too, had heard of Frank’s plight and, according to his biographer, John Gunther, “Every instinct he had for justice and fair play, for racial tolerance, for dignity in the courts and good citizenship, was aroused.” He went to Atlanta, interviewed Frank and his friends, and returned to Chicago determined to aid the cause.
Just reading this fluff from Dinnerstein — while knowing the truth about Lasker — leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.
Dinnerstein is so sloppy that he gets the name of a president of the United States wrong, referring to Benjamin Harrison as “President Benjamin Harris.”
In addition to editing out important facts that don’t match his agenda, Dinnerstein’s work is shoddy, unscientific, illogical, and full of unsupported assertions. The very beginning of Dinnerstein’s dissertation, on which his book was based — the very first paragraph — is a good example:
At the beginning of the twentieth century, rural Georgians migrated to Atlanta to enjoy the heralded advantages of industrialization. To their chagrin, they found harsh working conditions and squalid living quarters. Southern traditions, which glorified the Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage, and the bitter memories of the Lost Cause, complicated the newcomers’ reactions to urban life. Unable to retaliate against the industrialists whose colossal indifference caused them many hardships, the new urbanites vented their pent-up aggressions upon Negroes and other vulnerable ethnic groups.
…With the continued influx of immigrants, the new urbanites blamed the aliens for the uncontrollable forces now shaping their lives. The people found it impossible to assume responsibility for their own failure, and were unable to attribute their problems to impersonal forces or to groups with whom they identified. Hence, in a fashion characteristic of those unwilling to face reality, they responded to their difficulties with xenophobic outbursts. . …they seized upon one individual [Leo Frank] to pay for all of the crimes, real or fancied, which they believed had been inflicted upon them by northerners, industrialists, and Jews.
From the very beginning of his work, the highly-cited and fêted (and fetid) Dinnerstein wants us to see the Leo Frank case as an example — not of a perverted sex killer’s lust and rage ending the life of an innocent 13-year-old girl — but as a case of the deep psychological disturbances of “bitter” White Southerners “venting their pent-up aggressions” on “vulnerable ethnic groups.” Some of these mentally disturbed Whites, according to Dinnerstein, then “seized upon” Leo Frank and charged him with the murder of Mary Phagan in order to make him “pay for all of the crimes, real or fancied” that they imagined in their fevered, cracked brains. Can anyone still in possession of his or her senses take such psychobabble seriously, let alone regard it as “scholarly analysis” or see it as actual evidence in a serious criminal case?
Dinnerstein goes on and on about the vicious “anti-Semitism” of White people in Georgia for literally dozens of pages.
Dinnerstein typifies the Jewish fakers of history who honeycomb the academy and the media in the West. The man is vicious. He is prolific. He is verbose. He is backed by all the money there is and by a fake news and real publicity machine par excellence. But he is not credible and he is not even careful. And the courageous truth-tellers of National Vanguard and other alternative media have made major inroads in exposing his lies and the lies of the Jewish power structure.
Censorious, Jewish-run Google has been so enraged by our success in getting the truth out that they have tweaked their algorithms to demote our results when people use their search engine to find out about the Leo Frank case and other issues. Two years ago, our articles were appearing — even starting to dominate — Google searches on the case. Now they don’t. Worthless Dinnerstein does, though. Google has demoted truth-tellers and promoted Dinnerstein. On some non-Google search engines which haven’t (yet) instituted politically- and racially-motivated censorship, truth-tellers’ pages still appear on the first page of “Leo Frank case” search results.
Truth-telling pages, such as those from LeoFrank.info, The American Mercury, and National Vanguard, show up right on the first pages of search results for the terms “Leo Frank case.” It took a lot of hard work to achieve this.
But Google doesn’t feature any truth-tellers in its first page of results for the same search terms. They do, however, make a brazen push for their users to buy Leonard Dinnerstein’s worthless books, even though his name wasn’t included in the search query!
Since 2016, Google has openly admitted altering (that is, faking) its results to purposely disfavor sites to which powerful Jews object.
We are making a difference. The frauds, like Leonard Dinnerstein, are being relentlessly exposed. Our children now have a chance, if we keep up the fight, to know their true history and the truth about the enemies who want to kill them. With your help, our work can continue.
* * *