Mary Phagan’s Family Opposes Exoneration of Sex Killer Leo Frank

Mary Phagan-Kean honoring her great-aunt, Mary Phagan

MY NAME is Mary Phagan-Kean and I am the great-niece and namesake of “Little Mary Phagan,” the thirteen-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by Leo Max Frank, the president of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith Lodge No. 144, on April 26, 1913.

Leo Frank was the manager of the National Pencil Company — a sweatshop factory where over a hundred children labored, and where the Sam Nunn federal building stands today. Little Mary Phagan was 12 years old when she started working there in 1912, and Frank admitted he was the last person to see Mary alive.

In fact, the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming and on August 25, 1913, after a month-long trial in the Fulton County Superior Court, Leo Frank was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and on the next day, he was sentenced to hang for the murder of Mary Phagan.

What followed was an unprecedented effort by Leo Frank and his legal team and supporters to pin this horrific crime on everyone but himself. It is an effort that continues to this very day. The Leo Frank case is no “cold case.” It is obvious to anyone who objectively considers the case evidence that Leo Frank was rightly convicted for this heinous crime.

Today, his supporters have targeted a black man named James Conley who worked as a janitor at the factory. Evidence shows that after Frank beat and strangled Mary he was unable to move the body. He called on Conley and ordered him to help him conceal the crime and swore him to secrecy. After initially concealing Frank’s crime Conley ultimately revealed to authorities the true events of that day. The detail he gave was so shocking and so convincing that he became the state’s star witness against Leo Frank. Frank and his legal team’s response was to accuse Conley of the murder, and that has been their story for a century.

But Mary’s killer was not James Conley, and the state of Georgia proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Leo Frank alone murdered Little Mary Phagan.

The Phagan family has no objection to anyone expressing their opinions about the Leo Frank case, but we do insist that organizations and personal campaigns not distort the truth and facts to use this case for their own political purposes. For over 100 years, each passing decade brought with it dubious revelations of “new historical evidence” falsely claiming to exonerate Leo Frank. The Phagan family has stated since 1982 that if there were clear-cut evidence to clear Leo Frank of this heinous crime, we would be the first to ask for an exoneration. However, such historical evidence has never come to light. Rather, there are considerable data, extensive documentation, revealing archival material, and legal, court, and government records that only support and even strengthen the guilty verdict.

Phagan Family’s Statement on the Latest Attempt to Exonerate Leo Frank

It was reported in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution that on April 26, 2019 [ironically 106 years to the day after Mary Phagan’s murder] that the Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard [defeated by Fani Willis on November 6, 2020] had established a “Conviction Integrity Unit” that he said would review the Leo Frank conviction of 1913. Those named as participants in this move were the following:

  • Former Governor Roy Barnes
  • Rabbi Steven Lebow
  • Attorney Dale Schwartz
  • Melissa D. Redmon, director of the University of Georgia Law School
  • Former Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears
  • Former Court Chief Justice Norman Fletcher
  • Former Cobb County Superior Court Chief Judge J. Stephen Schuster
  • Assistant District Attorney Van Pearlberg

The Family of Mary Phagan believes that these individuals have colluded since August of 2018 to find a way to vacate the murder conviction. ADL attorney Dale Schwartz was quoted thus: “we’re still trying to get a new trial that would, in effect, exonerate him.” [In 1914, several attempts were made to “exonerate” Leo Frank using “new evidence” that included witness affidavits later found to have been forged or obtained by bribery and other illegal means. See the Atlanta Constitution of May 5, 1914, p. 1.]

Clearly, the new agency was a blatantly political scheme that had nothing to do with justice. It was set up, it appears, at the behest of the above-mentioned Frank advocates for one purpose only — to help Leo Frank escape culpability for his crime. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 7, 2019), Fulton County D.A. Paul Howard stated, “The Frank Case helped inspire the creation of the new unit” and that former Gov. Roy Barnes “will serve as a consultant.” Barnes admitted that he “had lobbied the district attorney [Howard] to re-examine Frank’s case.”

Let us be clear what that means. Those statements alone convince us that the Conviction Integrity Unit has already determined the outcome of the Leo Frank case. According to the article, “Barnes said he is convinced that this will happen. ‘There is no doubt in my mind, and we’ll [Who is “we?” — Ed.] prove it at the appropriate time, that Frank was not guilty.’”

For years Roy Barnes has been promoting a fraudulent narrative about the Frank case, and in particular that the 1913 trial was illegitimate because it was “mob-dominated.” He said that “there were just mobs of people. And as the jury would go [to] the courthouse every day, the mob would scream, “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you!”[1]

This charge is a blatant lie that has been disproven by the scholars of the case. It was made up long after the trial by an overzealous writer trying to make a name for himself. Only Barnes continues to repeat it.[2] For this and many other reasons Governor Roy Barnes is simply unfit to participate in any serious inquiry into the Leo Frank case.

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard (with former Governor Roy Barnes) announces “Conviction Integrity Unit” to re-open Leo Frank case. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 7, 2019. Once again, most advocates and so-called experts who determine Leo Frank is not guilty have relied on blatantly false information and politically biased propaganda. Frank’s conviction was upheld by thirteen separate courts and judges in his thirteen appeals from Fulton County to the United States Supreme Court. Every court affirmed the trial was fair and the jury was not “mob terrorized.”

What’s more, driven by the need to exonerate a Jewish leader, they intend to convict an innocent African American man, James Conley — Frank’s employee that he ordered to help move the body. They ignore the 20 young girls and women who testified under oath that Frank sexually harassed them at the factory. Frank’s attorneys refused to cross-examine ANY of them, and later admitted that they were all telling the truth.[3]

Nonetheless, Frank’s advocates spread fabrications, propagandize falsehoods, distort the facts and change headlines of original newspapers to promote the hoax of not guilty. The real miscarriage of justice is that in this time of the #MeToo movement, they seek to override a duly convicted child rapist and murderer’s conviction.

The Evidence Points to Leo Frank’s Guilt

Most people are not aware that there was blood and hair evidence at the murder scene, that Frank changed his alibi several times and lied to police, and that he sexually harassed his young girl employees. Most people are unaware that Leo Frank hired private detectives who planted evidence and bribed and intimidated witnesses to change their testimony. They even hatched a plot to murder the African American James Conley who became a key witness against Leo Frank.[4]

Most people are not aware that the two detective firms Leo Frank hired; the Pinkertons’ National Detective Agency and the Burns Detective Agency concluded Leo Frank was guilty of the murder!

At his own trial Leo Frank refused to be sworn on the Bible and be cross-examined. A lot has been covered up about the case, including Leo Frank playing the race card to play to the white jurors’ prejudices about black men.

In 1915 and under intense political pressure Gov. John M. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life imprisonment. But even as he signed that commutation order he also wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court “found in the trial no error in law” and had “correctly in my judgment [found] that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.”

The fact is that Leo M. Frank was found guilty under Georgia law with facts and evidence, not with political bullying. The good people of Georgia can make up their own minds about Leo Frank’s innocence or guilt by delving into the historical records themselves. Having researched the Leo Frank/Mary Phagan murder case, including spending thousands of hours examining court records, newspaper reports, and private and public archives, I ask you to please consider the following facts:

Sexual harassment by Leo Frank: the Harvey Weinstein of his era

On Saturday April 26, 1913, Leo Frank used the opportunity of a deserted factory and his power as the company boss to lure Little Mary Phagan to a back area of the factory and attempt to rape her. Mary resisted and, and in the struggle Frank struck her and knocked her unconscious, and then strangled her to death. He left a trail of clues leading to himself, so within a few days of the murder he was arrested.

Evidence showed that the murder was sexually motivated, and many of Leo Frank’s own female employees testified to Leo Frank’s history of sexual harassment. They testified that he “got too familiar,” “put his hands on” them, tried to corner them, and proposed sexual acts to them for money.

These teenagers bravely took the witness stand and spoke of Leo Frank’s lewd behavior. Sixteen-year-old Nellie Wood told the court how Frank had pushed himself against her and touched her breast. Fourteen-year-old Nellie Pettisa witness for the defense—recounted how Leo Frank had propositioned her for sex. Twenty girls in all gave similar testimony about Frank’s improprieties. Several male employees described how they had witnessed Leo Frank “rub up against” young female workers “a little too much.” The testimony was so explicit that the judge had to clear the courtroom of women.

The defense attorneys did not even attempt to cross-examine any of the girls who testified at trial about Leo Frank’s lewd behavior. Instead, Leo Frank’s lawyers argued that his improper behavior was not wrong—that it was a sign of more liberal times! One even said in his closing argument, “Deliver me from one of these prudish fellows that never looks at a girl and never puts his hands on her…”

In the South the LOVE of Jews reigned supreme — not anti-Semitism!

“Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.” — Leo M. Frank, interviewed by Abraham Cahan of the Forwardnewspaper

Most people are unaware that the prosecutor Hugh Dorsey first brought his case against Leo Frank before a 23-member grand jury that included five prominent members of the Jewish community (including at least two from Frank’s own synagogue), and all the grand jurors signed the bill of indictment against Leo Frank.

The trial judge, Leonard Roan, was once a law partner of one of Frank’s defense attorneys, Luther Rosser and, according to a confidential ADL memo: “In general, the rulings of the trial Judge had been favorable to the defense.” Leo Frank’s defense attorney even declared after the trial: “[W]e do not make the least criticism of Judge Roan, who presided [over the trial]. Judge Roan is one of the best men in Georgia and is an able and conscientious judge.”

The false claims of anti-Semitism before, during, and after the trial of Leo Frank are simply unfounded and untrue. The detailed daily accounts by the three Atlanta newspapers — the Constitution, the Georgian, and the Journal, each of which had Jewish editors — reflected no anti-Jewish bias at all. Leo Frank’s religion is only alluded to when it is reported that he is the president of ‘B’nai B’rith, and he is written of with the utmost respect for his prominence in the community. In fact, a University of Georgia study showed that the reportage by Atlanta’s three dailies was openly pro-Leo Frank and exhibited a pronounced pro-Frank bias.

Author Steve Oney, listed by the Anti-Defamation League as an expert on the Leo Frank case, reported: “To the extent that there was bias in the coverage, it was mostly in Frank’s favor…” He goes on to state that Atlanta’s newspapers, “evincing the prejudices of the time, ridiculed the state’s star witness—a black factory janitor named Jim Conley…”

It has been claimed that “anti-Semitism” and the “hatred of Jews” motivated Leo Frank’s conviction and lynching. And yet, incredibly, there was no anti-Semitism expressed by police, detectives, prosecutors, jurors, judge, or reporters! There was no “prejudicial trial” or “mob rule” or anti-Jewish bigotry of any kind.

Mr. Oney refutes the claim that there were anti-Semitic mobs shouting “Hang the Jew!” He told the Jewish Journal:

“[I]t didn’t happen. It was something that someone wrote a couple [of] years after the crime, and then it got stuck into subsequent recountings of the story….Jews were accepted in the city, and the record does not substantiate subsequent reports that the crowd outside the courtroom shouted at the jurors: ‘Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you.’” Though there is no record of “anti-Semitism” on the part of the crowd, the courtroom audience, the press, or the prosecutors, that doesn’t mean it was non-existent. As the evidence of his guilt became overwhelming, Leo Frank and his lawyers tried desperately to insert “anti-Semitism” into the trial as a diversionary tactic. They actually staged a courtroom confrontation with a prosecution witness over his alleged previous “anti-Semitic” statements. This officially brought “anti-Semitism” into the trial for the first time. Turns out that witness was working for the Leo Frank defense and was planted to promote their “anti-Semitism” agenda. It was yet another trick by the Leo Frank defense to undermine the court proceeding and to neutralize the evidence of his guilt.

The ADL has been promoting a lie for over a century!

“HANG THE JEW, HANG THE JEW” is what the Anti-Defamation League says was chanted during the month-long trial, but its own expert Steve Oney says it NEVER OCCURRED!

According to Steve Oney, at the time of Mary Phagan’s murder, “Atlanta was a philo-Semitic city. Its assimilated, German-Jewish elite were part of the financial and legal power structure…” Gov. John Slaton in his commutation order also addressed the false claim of an “anti-Semitic mob” surrounding the courtroom pressing to lynch Leo Frank: “No such attack was made and…none was contemplated.” Gov. John Slaton countered the false claim of an “anti-Semitic” atmosphere by reminding Leo Frank supporters that Jews were highly respected and appreciated in Georgia because they had been “conspicuous” contributors to the history and development of the state.[5]

Frank’s Jewish defenders believed he was guilty

By the time of his lynching in 1915 many people — including his Jewish supporters — not only were repelled by Leo Frank’s abrasive personality but also believed he was in fact the murderer of Mary Phagan. Chicago icon Albert Lasker, a Jewish philanthropist and the “father of modern advertising,” paid millions (in today’s money) for Leo Frank’s defense, but he privately admitted that he was not even convinced that Leo Frank was innocent.

Lasker financed all of Frank’s post-conviction appeals and orchestrated his international public-relations campaign that involved media outlets across the nation, including the New York Times. Albert Lasker recalled the meeting in Frank’s jail cell:

It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he impressed us as a sexual pervert. Now, he may not have been—or rather a homosexual or something like that…”

According to Lasker’s biographer, the men with him during that encounter took “a violent dislike to him.” Lasker “hated him,” and said, “I hope he [Leo Frank] gets out…and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.”

Leo Frank’s Trial Defense was one of the most RACIST in American History

Though “anti-Semitism” was not a factor in his trial, Leo Frank’s racism certainly was: Frank’s defense attorneys used the word “nigger” and other racist slurs dozens of times in court. His main attorney told the jury: “If you put a nigger in a hopper, he’ll drip lies.”

Leo Frank argued in court that the many black witnesses that testified against him should not be believed — simply because they were black — and that “negro testimony” — as they referred to it — was by definition inferior and unreliable. At trial Leo Frank’s attorney castigated the white jurors for even considering the testimony of the black witnesses:

They would rather believe the negro’s word….Oh, how times have changed. I hope to God I die before they change any worse than this…”

Leo Frank’s lawyers argued to the jury of twelve white men that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus Leo Frank, “a white man,” could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan. One defense attorney said that “the murder was the unreasoning crime of a negro,” that “It isn’t a white man’s crime.”

Leo Frank’s own racist thinking is reflected in an Atlanta Constitution front-page headline on May 31, 1913: “Mary Phagan’s Murder Was Work of a Negro Declares Leo M. Frank.” The newspaper quoted Leo Frank:

Here is a negro [James Conley], not alone with the shiftless and lying habits of an element of his race, that is common to the South….No white man killed Mary Phagan. It’s a negro’s crime, through and through. No man with common sense would even suspect I did it.”

Leo Frank tried to pin his crime on two innocent black men

Leo Frank’s supporters then and now have played the race card and falsely represent an African-American man as the “real killer.” For over 100 years James “Jim” Conley has been scapegoated in nearly all the literature on the case. He was a sweeper in the factory on the day of the murder who was ordered by his boss Leo Frank to help move the dead body of Mary Phagan. When James Conley confessed to his accessory-after-the-fact role, Frank and his supporters tried to pin his crime on Conley. Leo Frank’s supporters continue to this day to smear James Conley as a devious criminal who got away with murder, but Conley’s very detailed statement—corroborated by the physical evidence at the crime scene — was so convincing that it became central to the prosecution’s case. (At trial, Leo Frank refused to be cross-examined by prosecutors, but James Conley withstood 16 hours of cross-examination—under oath.)

In 1914, Leo Frank supporters tried to hire a black woman named Annie Maude Carter to slip James Conley some poison while he was in jail waiting to testify at Frank’s hearing for a new trial. She identified the would-be assassins in open court as prominent members of the Jewish community. The plot was exposed in the May 6, 1914 edition of the New York Times.

Before he accused James Conley of the crime, Leo Frank worked overtime to pin the murder on another factory employee — the African-American night watchman who found Mary Phagan’s body, Newt Lee.Leo Frank hired private detectives who planted a blood-soaked shirt in the innocent black man’s home, and then Leo Frank’s attorney hinted to the police where they might find that damning “evidence.” When the newspapers reported that a bloody shirt was found at Newt Lee’s home, it almost caused an innocent man to be lynched. Luckily for Newt Lee, Leo Frank’s private detectives did such a sloppy job at planting the shirt that the police were not fooled at all, and it only increased their suspicion of Leo Frank. That is the point when the people of Atlanta came to believe—and rightly so—that Leo Frank was the murderer of Little Mary Phagan.

Alonzo Mann — the man that is supposed to have exonerated Frank in 1982 — would have CONVICTED him in 1913.

I, Mary Phagan-Kean, examined in detail the dubious claims of Alonzo Mann, who came forward in 1982 — after 69 years of silence — to say he saw Conley with the body of Mary Phagan. It turns out that his new statements hurt Leo Frank far more than they help him.

• Alonzo Mann (who died in 1985) was Frank’s “office boy” in 1913 and from the very start he gave many conflicting stories that are irreconcilable with the known facts: In May 1913 as a young teenager, Alonzo Mann told detectives 3 different stories in 3 separate interviews and gave yet another story in his sworn testimony at trial in August. In those interviews and in his trial testimony Alonzo Mann never mentioned seeing James Conley at all on the day of the murder. At age 83, in his 1982 videotaped session before the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, he gave still more conflicting versions that contradict the testimony of Leo Frank himself!

• What motivated Alonzo Mann to break his 69-year silence on the Leo Frank case by pinning the crime on James Conley? The answer was disclosed at the videotaped private hearing in 1982: behind Alonzo Mann’s obviously scripted, wavering “testimony” was a book and movie deal executed by the Tennessean newspaper—the same Tennessean that abandoned the truth and the facts of the case and any trace of journalistic ethics just to exonerate Leo Frank. So Alonzo Mann was induced to come forward for fame and fortune.

Alonzo Mann in 1913: Tells 4 different versions, and 2 more in 1982. The Phagan family was consulted by the Board in the run-up to the 1983 pardon decision, since the surviving members of the family had a great deal of personal knowledge of and documentation about the case and would be directly and profoundly affected by any decision. It was our Little Mary who had been strangled and very likely raped, after all. And the Board denied that pardon application.

The Jewish organizations tried again in 1986, but this time the Phagan family was not consulted. They were told about the upcoming pardon decision after the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) and its well-heeled allies: Atlanta Jewish Federation and American Jewish Committee had been meeting with and lobbying the Board for six months or more. Why the secrecy? Obviously, the Jewish groups — led by Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith board member and attorney Dale Schwartz — didn’t want the victim’s family to have any say on the matter or any time to alert the public as to what was afoot.

Thus, in 1986 the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles issued a posthumous “pardon” to Leo Frank on the basis of the state’s failure to protect him while in custody, but it did not absolve him of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan and Frank’s conviction remained intact.

The state’s 1986 “pardon” did not overturn the guilty verdict

Believe it or not, there are still documents from the Leo Frank case that are being hidden from the public because they have been classified as “GEORGIA STATE SECRETS”! Our repeated attempts to obtain them from the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles were denied again in December 2020. What could they be hiding? What could be so secret about a case that is 106 years old!? And why aren’t the media pursuing this extraordinary government action?

My book, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is available free at:

Sources Banned and Censored

On the 100th Anniversary (April 26, 2013) of Mary Phagan’s rape and murder, the trial Brief of Evidence and appeals records of the Leo Frank case were digitized as well as the voluminous Atlanta newspaper reports about the crime.

These sources — and many, many more like them — use to be available on the internet until very recently. Indeed, the books, videos, articles, and court documents that provide a balanced view of the case have been systematical­ly removed from the internet SINCE THE Fulton County CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT WAS ANNOUNCED!

No Longer Available

  • Original articles from the three major dailies covering the day-by-day progress of the case (removed from
  • Videos from YouTube that challenge the false idea that Leo Frank was “wrongly convicted.
  • Official case documents like the Brief of Evidence, the appeals filings, and the pub­lished trial records have been scrubbed from the internet.
  • Books that prove Leo Frank’s guilt and provide a serious case analysis have been banned and censored. My 1987 book titled The Murder of Little Mary Phagan has been removed from some websites where it was previ­ously available for years. The Nation of Islam’s recent book Leo Frank: The Lynching of a Guilty Man has been myste­riously banned from sale on
  • Google searches EXCLUDE articles and documents that show evidence of Frank’s guilt.
  • When we made an Open Records Request to the Uni­versity of Georgia, they first said 70 records match the request. When we paid to have them mailed to us, all of a sudden, all 70 records vanished with no explanation!

Fortunately for the Fulton County Conviction Integrity Unit, the public and the media will still be able to ac­cess those critical official documents that the Leo Frank crusaders are trying to hide. We have made them available at where we believe they will be safe from the Leo Frank censors and their internet cleansing campaign.

Fulton County District Attorney, Paul Howard was defeated in the last election but the Conviction Integrity Unit he set up is still operating under the new District Attorney Fani Willis. Ms. Fani Willis might do well to ask why the original documents in the case all of a sud­den have been removed from the internet, and who had the power to remove them and why. How can the case be carefully reviewed without them? Indeed, the books, videos, articles, and court documents that provide a full and balanced view of the case have been systematical­ly removed SINCE THE CONVICTION INTEGRITY UNIT WAS ANNOUNCED!!! Obviously, Truth has become offensive or objectionable and has been deemed “hate speech” in order to impose censorship. But FACTS ARE NOT HATEFUL!

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis inherited this corrupt process, but will she bow to the same pressure that was put on her former boss to exonerate a man who raped and murdered our family member?

As of today, no word from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on whether her office will finally give long overdue justice to the victim, Mary Phagan. Can we expect that she will stand by her own words?: “Cases won’t be for sale under my administration. Not for an endorsement, not for money, not for anything.” “You have my word, during my tenure as district attorney in Fulton County, we will become a beacon for justice and ethics in Georgia and across the nation.” “[D.A.] Willis vowed to bring ‘transparency and accountability’ to the DA’s office,” reported the Atlanta Journal and Constitution.

She would be the first to do so. We’ll see.

The Goebbels Award
Hollywood & the Nazis, Part Two

All installments in this series available here

In the last article, I discussed how in the 1930s, Hollywood was reluctant to make any anti-Nazi movies for a variety of reasons — chiefly that the Nazi government might invoke Article 15 of their film quota law to ban the studio that made it in Germany.

So if you can’t make anti-Nazi movies, what about a pro-Jew movie? If you can’t build some animosity against Hitler then maybe you can build some sympathy for Jews. Article 15 said you couldn’t make Germany look bad but it didn’t say anything about making Jews look good. That was the thinking of the two philo-Semitic gentiles behind the creation of the 1934 film The House of RothschildThe House of Rothschild would end up being the greatest unintentional antisemitic propaganda movie of all time. They Live has nothing on The House of Rothschild.You can watch it here.

Darryl Zanuck

Darryl Zanuck

Darryl Zanuck was an ethnic Swiss Protestant raised in Nebraska and head of production at Warner Brothers. He had previously produced two pro-Jew movies that went on to be big hits: The Jazz Singer and Disraeli, which received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture.

One day in 1933, Zanuck announced that he was giving everyone at Warner Brothers a pay raise. Studio boss Jack Warner was furious at this and countermanded Zanuck’s decision. This lead to a falling out between Zanuck and Warner Brothers. Zanuck soon left Warner Brothers to team up with Joseph Schenck of United Artists to start a new studio: Twentieth Century Pictures. Twentieth Century would later merge with Fox in 1935.

With his new company set up, Zanuck managed to persuade three big Warner Brothers stars to come join him in his new venture: Constance Bennett, Loretta Young, and George Arliss, whose performance in Disraeli had won him an Academy Award for Best Actor. Seeing that Zanuck and Arliss had such success with the pro-Jew film Disraeli, they thought it might be a good idea to make another. This was the origin of what would become The House of Rothschild.

George Arliss

George Arliss

British-born George Arliss was enthusiastic about the project as he was himself a great admirer of the Jews. “No one has a keener appreciation of what the world of science and art and literature owes to the Jews than I, and no one has greater sympathy with them in their unequal fight against savagery and ignorance.” Arliss traveled to England in order to research the history of the Rothschild family but not before creating a minor controversy by taking a German ship to get there.

I had never watched The House of Rothschildbefore I started researching this article. I was aware of its existence but I had no interest in watching a movie about Jews, nevermind one that portrayed the Jews as the heroes nevermind one that portrayed the freakin’ Rothschilds as heroes. But then I stumbled upon the factoid that Joseph Goebbels allowed The House of Rothschild to be shown in Nazi Germany with only minor edits, and that got me curious. I decided to watch The House of Rothschild to see if I could figure out what the Nazis liked so much about it and. . . they should have called it The JQ: The Movie. It has all the tropes and quite a few canards as well. Only bluepilled gentiles could have made this movie.

The House of Rothschild opens in 1780 in Frankfurt, Germany. In the opening shot, we see a sign that says “All Jews must be in the Jew Street by sundown. — Chancellor of Prussia.”

In his house on Jew Street, we see family patriarch Mayer Rothschild, his wife, and their five sons. Mayer is counting his stacks of money and business is doing gangbusters. Mayer’s son comes in to tell him that the taxman is coming. So then all the Rothschilds start scrambling to hide all their giant stacks of money. They cover up the expensive pot roast they are cooking and Mayer tells his kids to “look hungry.” When the taxman arrives, Mayer shows him fake account books to make him think that business is going badly. The taxman is not fooled, but for a bribe of 5,000 gulden, he reduced Rothschild’s taxes from 20,000 to 2,000 gulden.

Now, what you’re supposed to think watching this is “Well, why should the Jews pay their taxes to a government that is so mean to them? They segregate them and make them live in that tiny ghetto. I would dodge my taxes, too.” But watching that scene redpilled, you’re just like “Man, these Jews are really greedy. They lie and resort to all kind of deception to avoid contributing to the common good of the nation and when the lies don’t work, will make illegal bribes to avoid paying their fair share. The guy’s a money lender. It’s not like he had to do any strenuous labor to get that money. The guys working the coal mines are paying their taxes. What the hell is this guy’s problem?”

We then see Mayer Rothschild on his deathbed. He orders his sons to split up and start banks in a different major European city. “Work and strive for money! Money is power! Money is the only weapon that a Jew has to defend himself with!”

Honestly, I don’t know what I am supposed to think of this. That society is forcing him to become fabulously wealthy? That he would love nothing more than to be out there digging ditches but it’s a matter of life and death that he loan money with interest? That he engages in usury because people hate Jews and not the other way around?

Mayer Rothschild dies and his sons split up. One Rothschild stays in Frankfurt, one goes to Paris, one to Madrid, one to Naples, and Nathan Rothschild, their leader and the protagonist of The House of Rothschild, goes to London. The Napoleonic Wars break out, and every European country turns to the Rothschilds for funding. The Rothschilds side with the allies over the French. Because the Allies won the battle for Rothschild funding, they are at last able to defeat Napoleon and he is sent Elba.

Now, what you’re supposed to think watching that is “Well, it’s a good thing we have these Jews around to save us from that tyrant Napoleon. Lord knows what that Corsican monster would have done were it not for these Jews.” But watching this movie redpilled, you think “This small clique of Jews is deciding the fate of Europe.”

With Napoleon in Elba, Nathan Rothschild gets word that France is going to receive the largest loan of all time to help them rebuild. All the banks of Europe submit their bids. The Rothschild bank submits the best bid, but to Nathan’s shock, it is announced that the loan has been granted to Barings of London. Nathan demands an explanation, and the antisemitic Count Ledrantz (played by Boris Karloff of Frankenstein fame) tells him that it is because Nathan is a Jew. Nathan then uses his vast wealth to manipulate the stock market in such a way that Barings bonds become unsellable and they are forced to transfer the loan to the Rothschilds at a significant financial loss to themselves.

Now, what you’re supposed to think watching that is “Well, serves them right for being antisemites!” But watching that scene while redpilled, you think “Jews manipulate the stock market for their personal gain and to resolve petty grudges at the expense of gentiles.”

Zanuck’s business partner Joseph Schenck actually did raise some concern about including Boris Karloff’s antisemitic character, because he would afraid that audiences would start cheering for him after his lines.

Boris Karloff as the antisemitic Count Ledrantz and George Arliss as Nathan Rothschild

Boris Karloff as the antisemitic Count Ledrantz and George Arliss as Nathan Rothschild

After that episode, Nathan Rothschild becomes stridently racist against gentiles and forces his daughter (played by Lorretta Young) to break off her engagement to Captain Fitzroy. In retaliation for outmaneuvering him, Count Ledrantz starts an antisemitic propaganda campaign that causes anti-Jewish riots to break out all over Europe.

Napoleon escapes from Elba and regains power. Four of the Rothschild brothers want to side with Napoleon this time, as he is more pro-Jew and it would be the smarter option financially, but Nathan says no. Napoleon is such a tyrant that the Rothschilds must put the good of humanity above their own self-interests. They set up a meeting with the Allies, and Nathan bluffs them that he will back Napoleon unless they call off the riots and grant Jews equal rights. The allies have no choice but to agree.

With Napoleon back and on the move, the London stock market goes into a panic. Nathan dumps his entire fortune into it to keep it from crashing because he is just such a humanitarian. When news of Waterloo comes in, the market recovers, and Nathan, because he bought the dip, becomes the wealthiest man in the world.

Now, what you’re supposed to think watching that is “Thank God for those Rothschilds or else we would all be speaking French right now.” But watching the film redpilled, you think “These Jews become fabulously wealthy off war and human suffering without ever having to pick up a gun themselves. European leaders are forced to grovel at their feet and give in to their every demand or else the Jews will allow them to be destroyed by their enemies.”

The House of Rothschild is a movie that could only have been made by bluepilled philo-Semitic gentiles. A Jew would have known to avoid the tropes and an anti-Semite would have emphasized them in a much more heavy-handed way. The House of Rothschild seems to skip along casually dropping antisemitic tropes blissfully unaware that it is doing so.

When the Anti-Defamation League learned of the plot of The House of Rothschild, they started freaking out. They immediately recognized the tropes. The ADL sent a letter to Zanuck to try to get him to cancel the film:

The impression which will be made is that the concentration of wealth in the hands of one international Jewish family invested that family with indisputable power to determine the destinies of nations. The very fact that Christian nations must beg of the Jewish Rothschild family for money with which to protect their own existence will in itself create a most undesirable reaction.

ADL national secretary Leon Lewis called it “one of the most dangerous presentations” of Jews of the era. He urged Zanuck to get in touch with “those among our people . . . who have been devoting all their energies in the past few months to stemming the rising tide of hatred against the Jews.”

Zanuck responded to the ADL:

I am not a Jew and I have never heard of this “rising hatred of Jews” that you speak about in your letter, and I am inclined to believe that it is, more or less, imaginary as far as the general public is concerned. We make pictures for the broad general public rather than the minority and I will guarantee you that if there is such a thing as a “rising hatred for the Jew in America” our film version of ROTHSCHILD will do more to stop it than anything, from the standpoint of entertainment.

Having no luck with Zanuck, the ADL then turned to the Hays office. In a letter to Will Hays, the ADL stated:

It is important that nothing be done now that might possibly feed the unreasoning prejudice against the Jews which is in some places. A widespread factor in this unfair and prejudiced attack is the false allegation that all Jews acquire money for power, with the inference that such power may be misused. The historical prominence of the house of Rothschild is such that hostile propagandists have tried to make the very name a synonym for sinister, world-wide political power, growing out of accumulated riches. The fact that in the case of the Rothschilds the power of money was rightly used may be overshadowed by the greater impression of the Rothschilds as an example of Jewish power through domination by money.

The Hays office agreed that the film had the potential to cause problems. In response, Zanuck put on some preview performances of The House of Rothschild and sent Hays 175 preview cards from audience members praising the film. The National Council of Jewish Women even previewed the film, giving it their thumbs up. The Hays office was satisfied that people were not picking up any antisemitic vibes from the movie and dropped the matter.

Having failed with Zanuck and the Hays office, the ADL had another option. They appealed to the Jewish studio heads throughout Hollywood to see if they could use their influence to kill the movie. The ADL sent a telegram to Louis B. Mayer, the most powerful man in Hollywood and a majority shareholder in Twentieth Century Pictures:


Louis B. Mayer sat down and watched The House of Rothschild with Harry Cohn, head of Columbia Picture. Neither of them found anything wrong with it. The ADL then went to Louis B. Mayer’s rabbi Edward Magnin to see if he could talk sense into Mayer. According to Leon Lewis, Magnin “lit into” Mayer and told him that

the conditions in the industry were responsible for a great deal of the prejudice existing and that it is ironical that on top of it they should show so little sense as to promote a film of this type at this time. He said they were digging their own graves and that they would alienate the Jews as well.

The ADL also appealed to Jack Warner of Warner Brothers to see if he could do something to stop the movie. The problem with Jack Warner is that Zanuck was his former employee and it would have been a bad look. Zanuck quits Warner Brothers after a falling out, starts a new company, and then Jack Warner immediately tries to kill his new film. Jack Warner would have ended up looking ultra-petty. Plus, Zanuck was a gentile and Warner was a Jew, so that might in itself create an antisemitic impression.

In the end, the ADL was unable to stop the release of The House of Rothschild. It would end up being a big hit for Twentieth Century Pictures and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture where it would lose to It Happened One Night.

As for The House of Rothschild, the Nazis loved it. They would later use footage from The House of Rothschild in their antisemitic magnum opus Der ewige Jude. Twenty minutes into Der ewige Jude, they play a clip from early in the movie and the narrator states “Here we show a scene from a film about the Rothschild family. It was made by American Jews, obviously as a tribute to one of the greatest names in Jewish history. They honor their hero in a typically Jewish manner, delighting in the way old Mayer Amschel Rothschild cheats his host state by feigning poverty to avoid paying taxes.”

After The House of Rothschild, it became the consensus around Hollywood that it might be a good idea not to make any more movies about Jews just to be on the safe side.

In 1937, Warner Brothers would release The Life of Emile Zola, a film about the eponymous French writer and his experiences during the Dreyfus Affair (watch it here). The Dreyfus Affair was a controversy that rocked French society for several years and involved a Jewish military officer who was accused of spying for Germany. Dreyfus’ Jewishness was a pretty central part of the controversy. Anti-Dreyfusards claimed Dreyfus sold out his country to Germany because Jews are rootless cosmopolitans incapable of real patriotism or loyalty. Dreyfusards claimed he was being scapegoated because he was a Jew. But in The Life of Emile Zola, the word “Jew” is not spoken a single time.

It would take several years longer for Hollywood to address the issue of Jews than Nazis. Confessions of a Nazi Spy, Hollywood’s first-ever anti-Nazi movie, mentions that the Nazis are racist but never addresses the persecution of minorities at all.

The first Hollywood movie to address the persecution of minorites in Germany was the 1940 Jimmy Stewart film The Mortal Storm(which you can watch here). But even in The Mortal Storm, the persecuted minority group is never identified as “Jews.” They are only ever referred to as “non-Aryans.”

The original screenplay for The Mortal Stormwas apparently much more explicit about who was being persecuted and even included a scene where a Jewish father gives a speech to his mischling son on Jewish pride. “I’m proud to be a Jew. I’m proud to belong to the race that gave Europe its religion and its moral law — much of its science, too — much of its genius, in art, literature, and music. Mendelssohn was a Jew, and Rubenstein — the great English statesman, Disraeli, was a Jew, and so was our poet Heine, who wrote the ‘Lorelei.’”

This scene was cut out at the last minute — halfway through production, in fact. The reasons are obscure, but all signs point to the decision being made by the MGM big man himself, Louis B. Mayer.

Louis B. Mayer’s rabbi Edward Magnin offered a likely explanation. Magnin was granted a preview of The Mortal Storm, approved of the movie, and was not opposed to MGM’s decision to forego naming the Jew:

One thing in favor of our side now is that people may be sympathetic, (but not much), when they fear and now they are afraid. They hate the thing they fear — that is the answer. They can still hate Jews and still fear Germany!

In other words, it was less important that people like Jews than that they hate Nazis.

The first Hollywood movie to explicitly reference Jews in relation to Nazis was the Fox movie The Man I Married AKA I Married a Nazi (watch it here). This is a funny little movie and completely absurd. In The Man I Married, Joan Bennett plays an American art critic who is married to a good-natured German immigrant played by Czech-born Jewish actor Francis Lederer (who had previously played the Nazi spy in Confessions of a Nazi Spy).

Joan Bennett, Lederer, and their 7-year-old son travel to Nazi Germany. Once there, Lederer reunites with a childhood friend played by Anna Sten. She starts taking Lederer to Nazi rallies, and he immediately becomes a diehard Nazi. Suddenly, Joan Bennett now finds herself married to a raving Nazi fanatic.

The idea that Hitler and Nazi ideas had a magical power to turn ordinary people into hysterical bloodthirsty maniacs was be promoted even back then, before the United States had even entered the war.

The movie has a twist ending that I am going to spoil for you. At the end, Bennett is disgusted and wants to return to America, but Lederer insists on staying in Germany and keeping their son. Lederer gets into an argument with his anti-Nazi father about it and then his father drops a bomb on him: Lederer’s mother was actually Jewish which makes Lederer himself a half-Jew. Furthermore, dad threatens Lederer that if he does not let Bennett return to America with their son that he will report him to Nazi authorities. Bennett gets the kid and goes home.

That is the first time Hollywood explicitly references the Nazi persecution of Jews by name. The Man I Married was released in August of 1940.

We Live In A Fraud Of Unprecedented Dimensions

Paul Craig Roberts

The illegitimate  Occupant of the Oval Office Continues to Spread Disinformation Designed to Cause People to Damage their Health and perhaps Terminate their Lives by having the Covid shots.  The claim that doctors and nurses are all vaccinated is a lie.  A survey conducted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons found that 60% of doctors are not vaccinated: 

There have been many news reports of US medical personnel resisting mandated vaccination by employers and resigning to avoid it.  The same in Europe. Here is a report of a French hospital going on INDEFINITE strike to protest a Covid-19 vaccination mandate. The strike against forced vaccination was announced on Thursday by the CGT-GHPP trade union, and affects some 200 doctors and 1,500 nurses in the southeastern French city of Montelimar: 

The High Number of Covid Cases Is a Fabrication Obtained by Intentionally Conducting the PCR Test at High Cycles that Invalidate the Test. This was not a mere mistake. It was an intentional act in order to spread fear to create an eager market for an untested and unapproved experimental technology.  The World Health Organization is now having afterthoughts as this headline indicates—The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis: 

The Covid mortality reports are also faked as this court ruling in Lisbon, Portugal revealed. Ruling on the evidence, the court found that the actual number of verified deaths due to Covid alone during the period from January 2020 to April 2021 was 152, not 17,000 as government ministries claimed.  The other deaths were for other reasons but were labeled Covid because of the PCR test that WHO now admits gave false positives.

As says, “We live in a fraud of unprecedented dimensions.” 

Efforts are underway to cut through the fraud and to get at the truth. A federal district court has ordered NIH to release the Moderna safety data from Moderna’s Covid vaccine trials that Tony Fauci has been hiding: 

America’s Frontline Doctors have filed a federal lawsuit to stop the emergency use of untested and unapproved vaccines on three groups of people: 

Can the truth get out or are we doomed to be dominated by lies and orchestrated fear?

We Live In A Fraud Of Unprecedented Dimensions