Archive for the ‘Anti-Jewish’ Category

What is anti-Semitism? – Anti-Defamation League

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

Hostility toward Jews dates to ancient times, perhaps to the beginning of Jewish history. From the days of the Bible until the Roman Empire, Jews were criticized and sometimes punished for their efforts to remain a separate social and religious group – one that refused to adopt the values and the way of life of the non-Jewish societies in which it lived.

The rise of Christianity greatly increased hatred of Jews. They became seen not merely as outsiders but as a people who rejected Jesus and crucified him – despite the fact that the Roman authorities ordered and carried out the crucifixion. By the high middle ages (11th –14th centuries), Jews were widely persecuted as barely human “Christ-killers” and “Devils.” Forced to live in all-Jewish ghettos, they were accused of poisoning rivers and wells during times of disease. Some were tortured and executed for supposedly abducting and killing Christian children to drink their blood or to use to it in baking matzoh – a charge known as the “blood libel.” A large number were forced to convert to Christianity to avoid death, torture, or expulsion, though many secretly practiced Judaism after their conversions. (In recent times, the Catholic church and other Christian churches have rejected these anti-Semitic falsehoods.)

In the 18th century, as the influence of Christianity began to lessen during the Enlightenment – which celebrated the rights and possibilities of men and women to a far greater extent than ever before – religiously based hatred of Jewishness gave way to non-religious criticism: Judaism was attacked as an outdated belief that blocked human progress. Jewish separatism was again targeted. As European countries began to take modern shape in the 19th century and national pride grew, Jews, who were still usually deprived of civil rights and lived throughout Europe as outsiders, were subjected to further hostility. This hostility resulted at times in deadly persecution, as in the late-19th century Russian pogroms — violent attacks on Jewish communities with the aid or indifference of the government.

At the same time, in response to the decline of Christian belief and the growing number of Jews beginning to join the mainstream of European society (a trend known as “assimilation”), anti-Semites turned to the new “racial science,” an attempt, since discredited, by various scientists and writers to “prove” the supremacy of non-Jewish whites. The opponents of Jews argued that Jewishness was not a religion but a racial category, and that the Jewish “race” was biologically inferior.

The belief in a Jewish race would later become Germany’s justification for seeking to kill every Jewish person in lands Germany occupied during World War II, whether the person practiced Judaism or not. In fact, even the children or grandchildren of those who had converted to Christianity were murdered as members of the Jewish race. The Holocaust, as this systematic mass extermination between 1939-1945 is known, resulted in the death of six million Jews — more than a third of the world’s Jewish population. While the rise to power of the Nazis (Germany’s leaders during World War II) in the 1920s and 1930s involved numerous social and political factors, the views that helped turn anti-Semitism into official government policy included belief in the inborn superiority of “Aryans,” or whites; belief that Jews destroyed societies; that Jews secretly worked together to gain control of the world; and that Jews already controlled world finance, business, media, entertainment, and Communism.

In the half-century since World War II, public anti-Semitism has become much less frequent in the Western world. While stereotypes about Jews remain common, Jews face little physical danger. The hatred of Jewishness and the conspiracy beliefs of past eras are for the most part shared only by tiny numbers of those on the fringes of society (although as the World Trade Center and Oklahoma bombings showed, even a handful of extremists can carry out acts of great violence). There are exceptions, of course: disagreement over policy toward the State of Israel has created opportunities in which the expression “Zionist” – support for Israel as the Jewish homeland – is often used as an anti-Semitic code word for “Jew” in mainstream debate. Holocaust denial and other recent re-writings of history – such as the false claim that Jews controlled the Atlantic slave trade – lie about the events of the past in order to make Jews seem underhanded and evil.

More seriously, many nations in Europe and in the former Soviet empire are struggling, mostly due to unsettled or chaotic economic and social conditions, with movements opposing “foreigners” – including recent immigrants and traditional enemies. These movements champion racial or national supremacy, and call for the type of charismatic, authoritarian leader that historically persecuted Jews and other minorities.

But while parts of Europe remain caught up in racial unrest, the Middle East is home to the harshest anti-Semitism in the world today. Nazi-like language is regularly expressed by the media and governments in the countries that oppose Israel and the West. And as dozens and dozens of terrorist incidents have demonstrated, there are many in Middle Eastern countries willing to act on these beliefs.

The rest is here:

What is anti-Semitism? – Anti-Defamation League

Fair Usage Law

June 14, 2016   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

Anti-Jewish Code Lurks in Popular Software – snopes.com

Apparently “q33ny” supposed to be the flight number of one of the crashed planes gives an aeroplane, two buildings, a skull and crossbones and the star of david. Again, no comment, although whether this is in fact the number of one of the planes seems unlikely.

I’ve heard a few people suggesting that this is a sign that Microsoft were involved in the terrorist attack.

When Microsoft developed a new graphical font, Webdings, in 1997, Kuresman said typographers took pains to ensure that the image corresponding with the capital letters NYC was a pleasant one. Users who type in that string of letters in Webdings are greeted with graphics for an eye, a heart and a city skyline, symbols for the message “I Love New York.”

A computer consultant discovered the diabolic message while installing Microsoft’s new Windows 3.1 software for a client yesterday.

The consultant was testing a mailing-address use of the program when he noticed the letters “NYC” had been replaced by a hateful message – a skull and crossbones, the Star of David and an approving thumbs-up symbol.

Microsoft strongly denies any hidden message. Others disagree.

“There’s no way it could be a random coincidence,” said Brian Young, a friend of the consultant, who does not wish to be named.

“It’s pretty scary. I was pretty shocked by the whole thing.”

Computer owners who use Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word or any other Microsoft program containing a print font named “Wingdings” can duplicate the anti-Semitic message by typing the letters “NYC” on their screen.

Microsoft said “Wingdings” was designed by Bigelow and Holmes, an outside vendor, and denied that Microsoft intentionally designed the secret message.

Prof. Charles Bigelow confirmed that his company provided the symbols, but insisted that Microsoft made the final “mapping” decisions assigning his symbols to specific keys on the keyboard.

But a senior Microsoft spokesman said the charge that the fonts contain a hidden message is “outrageous.”

“It’s like saying that if you randomly type out characters on a keyboard to spell ‘Satan’, you can do that, but it’s incredible to say that there’s anti-Semitism in Microsoft or one of its vendors,” said Charles Hemingway.

But Young, who discussed the matter with other computer consultants, isn’t so sure it’s just a coincidence.

The “Wingdings” font contains no letters just 255 symbols.

Young calculated the odds of three letters of the alphabet being combined with 255 symbols, and said he found that the odds of obtaining the message were less than one in a trillion.

“It’s mind-blowing,” said Young. “Somebody’s responsible for this. This is very offensive.”

“I found it hard to believe some of the stories about the resurgence of Nazi sympathizers but this puts things back into perspective.”

At the simplest level, wingdings and webdings are much like an alphabet of characters and provide thousands of potential combinations from which a person could choose. Changing the character set would create an impact of unknown scale on existing data and code using the affected font. Again, using the example of the alphabet, what would happen to existing documents and applications if we switched around a handful of letters? The likely result is that we would create significant issues for people, cause some unintended humorous moments and several offensive ones. For that reason Wingdings has been left unaltered since its inception.

“We have enough symbols and combinations that it’s almost inevitable that you’ll find something that’s a little sinister,” he said. Although it’s common for designers to include one or two deliberate messages usually something innocent like a logo it’s safe to assume that the image strings on Wingdings were randomly generated.

Hosek said he has known the creators of Wingdings Charles Bigelow and Kris Holmes of the font design firm Bigelow & Holmes for more than a decade and is convinced that they had not intended to offend anyone.

“These are two of the most peace-loving people on the face of the Earth,” he said. “There’s no way it was anything other than an unfortunate coincidence.”

The last coincidence mentioned in the example quoted at the head of this page, that the arrangements of symbols corresponding to the string “Q33NY” in the Wingdings font is a “sign that Microsoft were involved in the terrorist attack,” is purely a contrived one. Although typing the characters Q-3-3-N-Y in the Wingdings font does produce the string of images shown below (an airplane, two vertical rectangular shapes, a skull and crossbones, and a Star of David), none of this has any real relevance to the 9/11 attacks: Q33NY was not the flight or tail number of either of the planes that were crashed into the World Trade Center that day, the rectangular shapes represent pieces of paper with writing on them, not buildings, and the terrorist attacks were neither perpetrated by nor targeted against Jews.

Additional information:

“MS Denies Wingding Thing, Again” (Wired News)

“I Heart My Dog’s Head” (Penn Jillette)

Last updated: 11 December 2005

Read more from the original source:

Anti-Jewish Code Lurks in Popular Software – snopes.com

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2016   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

Un-American Subversive Theatre: Parade the Leo Frank Broadway Musical Becomes International Cult Sensation

If you asked any of your friends, acquaintances, or family members, whether or not
they’ve heard of the Jewish activist musical called ‘Parade’, chances are most people
would likely shake their heads and say something along the lines of, “No, I’ve never
heard of it before”. Yet amongst theatre fans around the world, ‘Parade’ is a cult
classic. In fact, ‘Parade’ has been a major thespian feature in nearly every Western
nation across the world, including even far off Australia and New Zealand. Moreover,
what’s most striking is even though this Musical is more than 15 years old, it continues
playing out in new theaters across the United States, Canada and Europe to much fanfare and
rave reviews by leftists, social justice warriors, Anti-Gentile Jews and other people who
embody the universal force of entropy and regression to the mean.

If you don’t feel like wasting $$ on a ticket to see the show, you can watch it for free
on most major video sharing web sites like YouTube, but before you do, read up about the real facts of
this case from the The Internet Archive.

The Leo Frank Case Refuse to Gather Dust: The Celebrated Double Strangulation.

‘Parade’ the Broadway Musical, first launched in December, 1998, by two anti-Gentile Jewish
supremacists Jason Robert Brown (why the long face?) and Alfred Uhry (Jabba the Hutt), &
it uses a raped Christian teenage girl, who was strangled to death and mutilated in 1913, as a
cheap plot device, to humanize, lionize and rehabilitate a sadistic sexual predator and convicted
child-killer — Leo Frank the Toilet Strangler — because of his ethno-religion: Judaism.

Newspapers, Magazines and Internet: Media Reports Summarize the Affair.

The repeated theme of advertisements and reviews about this musical makes the Jewish
racial subtext clear and contentious, centering around the premise that Leo Frank
was suspected, indicted, convicted and hanged, because of widespread anti-Semitism,
not the facts, evidence, exhibits or testimony presented presented at his trial.
Fortunately however in 2010 the primary sources about the criminal case were published
online revealing what really happened and exposing generations of Jewish perpetuated lies
about the affair in the mainstream media and academy.

In the Wider Social Context: Jewish-Gentile American Culture War Born in 1913

For more than 100 years, the Frank-Phagan affair has been a fanatical cause celebre for
the well organized Jewish community, who believe the case should be perpetually retold
in the mainstream media and popular culture as an anti-Gentile morality tale, to remind Jews
and Gentiles alike that “not too long ago”, hate filled anti-Semitic European-Americans and
African-Americans from the “Old South” destroyed an innocent and nice Jewish boy from
Brooklyn. Also blamed by the Jewish Supremacists as part of the false narrative are newspaper
frenzies, police corruption, political ambition and bigotry. It’s the same old blame “the other”
strategy endemic to Jewish culture, used as a smoke screen to hide what really happened and
put people on the defense.

Since 1913, more than a dozen books have been written about the murder of Mary
Phagan and Lynching of Leo Frank, including several Hollywood style movies, a made-for-TV
miniseries (1988), docudramas (2009) and treatments of the affair in every modern media format,
with the expressed purpose of shaming European-Americans for their once prevailing cultural
ethnic solidarity — and oddly enough — this message is being pushed aggressively by the
most ethnocentric people since the dawn of civilization, who have a history of instigating
racial strife between different ethnic groups and causing financial problems in the countries
they choose to occupy: Jews, the parasites kicked out of 100+ countries over the course of many
centuries.

Downtown Atlanta, Georgia, 1913: Southern State Holiday During the Jewish Sabbath

On Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, inside a dingy shuttered factory
at the heart of Atlanta’s industrial sector, an infatuated serial rapist-pedophile, viciously
assaulted one of his teenage employees. The victim had rejected her boss’s creepy sexual
advances for the last time and paid the price with her life after being sexually assaulted.

In 1913, there were no clearly defined and established mainstream words for: acts of
sexual harassment, sex offenders, sexual assault, sadistic predatory child molesters or
serial rapist-pedophiles, other than some of the commonly used contemporary terms such as:
libertine, lustful, lecherous, rake, satyr, pervert and lascivious.

Little Mary Anne Phagan: Earned her nickname “Little” because she was less than 5 ft tall.

13-year-old child laborer, Little Mary Phagan (Born June 1, 1899), had been temporarily laid
off because the brass sheet metal had fully depleted on Monday morning, April 21, 1913, and
a new shipment had been late in arriving. Without this essential production material, there could
be no brass bands created for attaching at the ends of pencils, and therefore Phagan couldn’t
use the knurling machine at her work station in the machine room (known colloquially by factory
employees as the metal-room) to insert rubber erasers into them.

A Throw Away Detail? Monteen “Iola” Stover

An important detail rarely mentioned in nearly every retelling of this case is that not only
Mary Phagan, but four other girls had been furloughed until the delivery of materials was
slated to replenish supplies the week following the Confederate Memorial Parade. One of
those girls was a critical witness at the grand jury hearings and Leo Frank trial, named
Monteen Stover, who is represented as the naughty Iola Stover in this theatrical play.

National Pencil Company: The Machine Department AKA “Metal Room” on the 2nd Floor

Mary’s job was a business critical dependency in the factory’s manufacturing operations,
because securing erasers into the base of pencils was the last production stage, before they
were placed as neat bunches in waxy tissue paper, packaged inside rectangular monogrammed
boxes, before being loaded and shipped off for distribution nationwide in large crates.

During an average week in 1913, the National Pencil Company (NPCo) was grossing
between $2500 and $5400, which was rather impressive for a company born only five
years prior. The NPCo factory’s official founding date was: April 8th, 1908
(Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, April 8, 1908, The Internet Archive).

Major shareholders in this industrial venture were: Jewish stationary magnate, Sigmund
Montag, treasurer of the NPCo, and Leo’s wealthy uncle Moses, a shrewd cotton-oil
speculator, who entrusted his young Cornell educated nephew to manage the factory’s
business critical operations and accounting. Leo Frank began formally working at the
National Pencil Company on Monday morning, August 10, 1908, after spending nine
months in Germany, doing a pencil manufacturing apprenticeship for Eberhard Faber.
On Monday, September 7th, 1908, Leo Frank was promoted to the rank of Superintendent
at the National Pencil Company.

Saturday, April 26, 1913, Noontime: Five Years After the NPCo was Founded

At the National Pencil Company headquarters, located on 37-41 South Forsyth Street,
where the newer Sam Nunn building stands today, Phagan entered the anteroom of Leo
Frank’s second floor window front office at just minutes after high-noon. Standing in the
door frame, Little Mary Phagan said, “Mr. Frank?” and Leo’s lion-heart began thumping
quickly as he recognized the voice and gazed up, especially because now he was all alone
with the attractive child laborer who was dressed gaily in lavender dress trimmed with white
lace, one whom he had a crush on for so long and she had blossomed far beyond her tender
age.

Many Violent Crimes of Passion are Over Jealousy: Beauty vs the Beast

Leo had fired the 6’4” tall and strikingly handsome payroll manager, James Milton Gantt,
about two weeks earlier, because of a $2 shortage in the petty cash payroll box, but it was
nothing more than a ruse. Leo knew Mary was very much into James, as she looked up
dreamily into his sky blue eyes, like he was her Knight in shining armor, and James looked
after Mary as well. Gantt had known the Phagan family very well for several years and kept
an eye out for Mary, since sweatshop factories that employed child laborers were notorious
for being places where sometimes young girls and boys were targets of predatory older men.

So the superintendent got the prince out of the way, so the jealous dragon could play!

An Infatuated Pedophile: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Mary was the one employee Frank was infatuated with, and couldn’t have because
of Gantt, she had spurned lecherous Leo’s obnoxious pesterings and subtle innuendos
since the Spring of 1912, humiliating his arrogant ego and making him ever more determined.
For an upstart like Leo Frank, who rose to the heights of leadership in Atlanta’s Jewish
community in such a relatively short amount of time — becoming Atlanta B’nai B’rith president —
he was a man who didn’t like taking no for an answer, so now he would finally get even!

Frank said “Hello Mary” in a nebbish voice with a Brooklyn-Yiddish accent. Phagan immediately
requested her pay envelope of $1.20 and inquired if the ordered metal supplies had arrived yet.
She was naturally concerned, because she came from a poor family with five siblings and
depended on the money. She curiously wanted to know if, whether or not, she should return
to work on Monday morning April 28, 1913. Leo Frank said inquisitively, “No, I don’t know” as
he pushed back his wooden chair screeching against the floorboards and stood up briskly.
While walking together into the machine room, located just down the hall, opposite from
Frank’s office, they made small talk about wondering if, Mr. Darley, had received the brass
shipment yet in a timely fashion, and stocked the closet next to the lady’s dressing room
where these supplies were normally stored, located just diagonal to the wall where the lathe
work station was situated in the metal room.

Although Leo Frank initially said “No, I don’t know”, in truth his requisition papers indicated
otherwise. Leo’s hand written business ledgers indicated the ordered shipment wasn’t to
be delivered until early in the following week. Saturday was Confederate Memorial Day, an
important Georgia State holiday, most of Atlanta was shut down and no deliveries would be
made because of the Parade. Outside the factory, the streets were filled with lively revelers,
walking to and fro. Most people were dressed in their “Sunday’s Best” and despite the somber
mood this holiday represented, there was excitement in the air under chilly overcast skies.

Most Jewish-American accounts of the Mary Phagan murder case
leave out the facts and details about what happened next…

After the 5’8” tall and 155lbs., Leo M. Frank, lured 4’11” tall and 107lbs., Mary A. Phagan,
into the metal room on the pretext of determining whether or not she would need to report
to work on Monday morning, April 28, 1913 at 6:30 o’clock a.m., however “upon realizing”
the metal hadn’t yet arrived, he used her temporary laid off status as a species of sexual
coercion, but something went very wrong, and took a violent turn.

Inside the metal room, Frank’s heart began to throb as he said to
Phagan — while his effeminate hand gently caressed her shoulder —
“Mary, If you still want to work here, I want you to be with me”. Phagan
became grotesquely horrified and said, “NO!” while she tried to swiftly
pass by Frank at his left side and run out of the metal room, but he checked
her like he was playing basketball for his class team at Cornell, as he
had done so many time before during all four years of college (1902 – 1906) —
blocking her escape attempt, and closing ranks, this time there was no
where to run, and there was no where to hide. She was cornered and there
would be no escape.

Flustered, Frank seized her with both hands, but Phagan jerked her torso,
yanking away and told him “I’m not that kind of girl, take your hands off me!”

At this point the incident had crossed the line and could no longer be played off as a
joke, as it had been in the past with so many other female child laborers (19 girls would
later come forward to provide affidavits and testify to his lascivious character).
Jewish pseudo-scholars for nearly a century would claim these girls repudiated their
affidavits, until they were proven false when Atlanta archivists in 2010 released the
Georgia Supreme Court Records showing otherwise.

It was then at that exact moment, when she spurned the ultimatum of her lecherous and
bug-eyed superintendent for the last time, denying the desires of an effete cockalorum,
who had earned himself a bad reputation as a libertine, amongst the child laborers at
the factory.

Terror Unfolded!

In an explosion of rage, like a bucket of bricks falling out of the sky, Leo Frank clenched his
left fist as his gold wedding band tinkled in the dim gray light falling from the grimy factory
windows, and then he pivoted, growling like a lion, swiveling, pitching a fist curve ball into
Mary Phagan’s right temple as she reeled back screaming in absolute horror. In a precipitous
storm of fury, his angry knuckles began hailing down in a flurry against her delicate feminine
cheek bones like sledge hammers on the chain gang.

Jim Conley who was idly seated on an old wooden crate next to the
staircase at the factory’s first floor lobby, while the assault was
occurring upstairs in the metal room, eerily described to Police, weeks
later, the sound of Phagan’s bone chilling echoing cry of mortified
agony: As a stuttering laugh that broke off into a shriek and then
absolute silence.

Leo Frank kept pounding Mary Phagan’s face in, blow after blow, while
the back of her head slammed against the the lathe workstation
belonging to machinist Robert P Barret, leaving behind bloody tresses of
her dark strawberry-blond hair tangled around its solid iron handle that
was shaped like an “L”. Why it was never cleaned up after the murder
tends to sustain the bespectacled Leo Frank’s irrational state of mind
and short-sightedness.

Phagan crumpled to the floor, passing out at the feet of Leo Frank
towering above, whose heaving chest was rapidly breathing in gulps of
stale air, as he looked down upon her with vengeance. Frank’s face was
flushed with blood and shivering with tantalizing sexual intensity as his
bulging black dilated eyes were exaggerated outward from underneath
his wirerim glasses. Frank immediately dragged Phagan by the shoulders
to the doorway of the bathroom in the metal room, tossing her over on the
old waxy wooden floorboards like a sack of potatoes.

Kneeling down, Frank then ripped off a 3 inch wide strip of Phagan’s
petty coat midsagitally, tearing upward vertically at first from the hem of
her dress up to her crotch and then turning across horizontally, followed
by tearing down to the hem again, he put the bunched cotton material
behind her head like a sponge, to soak up the slowly leaking blood from
the lathe wound on the back and side of her head.

Next Frank frantically hiked up and pealed open her torn dress, spread her tender
baby fat thighs, ripped and carved open her knitted underwear across the vulva
with a small pocket knife, all the way to the right seam, unbuttoned his pants, pushed
his dirty underwear down, and hocked a thick disgusting loogey of coffee and tobacco
phlegm into his left palm, right onto his wedding band, and moving the thick snot-like
spittle around in circles with his thumb, before massaging it all around the tip of his
rock hard, STD infected, 4” erect penis.

Then the Vicious Psychopath Raped Mary Phagan.

Her innocence was torn away, bleeding. Phagan woke up disoriented in
dizzying pain from unconsciousness, putting her arms and hands over her
black and blue eyes, sobbing and crying out repeatedly, “No, No, No”,
with tears showering from her swollen face, trying to roll away under Leo
Frank was impossible.

In a moment of shame and humiliation, Leo Frank was unable to ejaculate, and
seeing his whole life pass before his own eyes in Phagans tear-drenched face.
Knowing his reputation in the widely assimilated German-Jewish community of the
South would be irreparably harmed if she told anyone about what happened. Knowing
his wife from a prominent Jewish family would surely seek divorce in the aftermath of
this unforgivable incident. Acknowledging the certainty his family in Brooklyn would
without a shadow of a doubt disown him for his unspeakable crime… In a flash of
frightened clarity and fear, Leo Frank knew he would be disgraced if anyone ever
found out, and that he would likely be living out his life breaking rocks on the chain
gang or worse, strangled at the end of a hangman’s noose, so there was no other
way out, but to permanently silence Phagan, so she couldn’t tell; and that’s just what
he did…

Frank stood up quickly looking around the room, he frenetically pulled himself
together in a moment and grabbed a nearby 7 foot long jute cord hanging off a
nail on the adjacent wall. With white knuckle fists flexing, he strangled Mary
Phagan to death, burying the cord 1/8th inches deep into her tender throat.
He got up and stepped backward from the scene, looking upon what he had
done as Phagan’s unseeing eyes stared hideously into the dusty emptiness.
His mind racing, he stood there transfixed to assess the situation and later called
his Negro Janitor, James “Jim” Conley, to help him remove the body from the metal
room and dispose off the cadaver in the oversized basement incinerator. Though
things did not happen as intended.

Leo Frank’s Deliciously Conspiratorial Racist Anti-Black Sub Plot:

However Conley refused the final step of stuffing Mary Phagan into the cellar
furnace and instead he agreed to ghostwrite death notes on behalf of Leo Frank,
framing the newly hired Negro nightwatchman that nobody really knew, named
Newton “Newt” Lee of Afro-Caribbean descent.

Newt Lee in his trademark faded blue overalls, was an old, honest, married,
dark complected, balding, tall and slim African-American man with no criminal
record to speakof, who had spent most of his life as a lanky graveyard shift
security guard, doing his rounds, shuffling his feet in slow motion with a smoky
lantern, seemingly bobbing in the inky darkness.

Leo’s gambit was secure after he promised Jim $200, if he kept his mouth shut.
Because of the White segregationist culture of the South, Leo Frank thought
that in the prevailing racial separatist South, even if Conley ever blabbed, no one
would ever believe the word of a Negro employee over a Whiteman who managed
a prominent factory. Conley would surely hang or likely get lynched if there was even
a shadow of a doubt he participated in the rape and murder of a teenage White girl!

The Shocking Discovery in the Cellar by the “Night Witch”:

On Sunday morning, Newt Lee — who the racist Jew Leo Frank tried to frame for the
murder — punched the time clock at 3:01 o’clock a.m. at Frank’s second floor office,
as he was required to do every half hour during his rounds. Lee feeling the call of nature,
went down to the basement to use the racially segregated “colored toilet” for “dropping
the cosbys off at the pool” and upon completing his “bidness”, he went to check the backdoor
service ramp. It was then in the gloom at 3:15 o’clock a.m., he discovered the mauled body
of an unknown child, dumped in the rear corner of the basement, at the location where
garbage was normally placed, before being burned in the cellar’s massive furnace-incinerator,
regularly used for heating the drafty four-floor building.

Lee shuffled briskly to the head of the basement, shimmied up the ladder to the first floor lobby,
in the inky darkness and then clambered up the creaky wooden steps, hustled into Leo Frank’s office and
used the wall telephone to contact his sleeping superintendent, but after 8 minutes of trying with
no answer, he hung up the phone and called the police. 18 minutes later a hammer fist was pounding
on the glass door at the entryway of the factory.

First Responders

When the police arrived, they followed Lee into the lobby and down the 14 ft ladder below
into the 80 foot wide, 200 feet long, Stygian catacomb-like tunnel. With primitive flashlights,
immediately found tracks indicating Mary Phagan had been dragged 140 feet from the elevator shaft,
across the hard dirt cinders of the basement floor, before being finally dumped diagonal to the
incinerator.

The body was removed by a wicker basket to P.J. Bloomfield’s mortuary just before 4 a.m.
Upon examination by the mortician, astonishingly, the deep pocks and scratches on her
face, from being dragged in the basement, didn’t show any signs of bleeding! This curious
medical detail, forensically suggested to the Coroner, and undertaker that she might have
already been dead before being taken to the basement. Physicians had known for centuries
that when the heart stops beating, the bleeding-scabbing cascade in the healing process
on the epidermis (skin) no longer occurs. It was an unfortunate detail the murderer had
never anticipated, when trying to make the basement look like the initial crime scene.

The Fiendish Pervert

Phagan’s underwear that was still attached around her hips, was
soaked in dried blood and discharge. Her dress was moist from top to
bottom in urine, suggesting that someone had pissed all over her entire
body. Wrapped around her neck was the strip of her blood soaked petty
coat, hiding what was underneath, the 7 foot jute cord cinched in a loop
around her neck, snugly buried 1/8 inches deep into the throat.

The knot was found on the front right side of Phagan’s neck, suggesting a left
handed man had strangled her. Only a fraction of the population is left handed,
narrowing down the suspects, it was later determined that Leo Frank was left
handed and Jim Conley was right handed.

Phagan’s face appeared purple and contorted, and her tongue stuck out from her
mouth through her teeth one inch. There were wounds on the side and back of her
head, and two below the knees. The upper side of her shirt at the chest level had
be torn open revealing her left breast. Her hair and entire front part of the body were
caked with coal cinders, dirt and debris, presumably from being dragged while faced
down across the hard earthen floor of the basement. Oddly, her arms were reverently
crossed over her bosom.

Phagan’s pocketbook made from German silver was missing and the red flowers attached
to the front of her pale cobalt blue hat were also missing. Her parasol was found at the bottom
of the garbage strewn elevator shaft tray, a few feet away from a coil of human excrement,
laid by 27-year-old sweeper Jim Conley. Members of the Jewish community would crassly claim
for more than a century that the feces at the bottom of the elevator shaft is what indisputably
exonerates Leo Frank, this BS theory (pun intended) is now commonly referred as the, ‘Shit
in the Shaft’ (Steve Oney, 2003, 2004).

Police tried all night long to contact the sleeping Frank, but he didn’t answer the phone, even
though the telephone was located in the dining room, directly below him on the first floor and
ringing obnoxiously under the wooden floor boards of his second floor marital bed chamber.

Finally the police were able to reach Leo Frank on the phone in the early dawn hours of
Sunday, April 27, 1913, letting him know they would be at his home shortly. When the police
first arrived at the Frank-Selig residence located on 68 east Georgia avenue, Leo was acting
very nervous, shivering, struggling to put on his collar and tie. The half dressed Frank kept
delaying the process of leaving his home, asking repeatedly for a cup of coffee, but the police
insisted he come with them immediately.

Inside the squad car, Leo Frank nervously claimed he didn’t know his employee Mary
Phagan or any of the other girls at the factory who worked for him, and denied knowing
Phagan’s name when he saw her mutilated corpse on a cooling slab at P.J. Bloomfield’s
mortuary.

When did Mary Phagan collect her pay?

On Sunday, April 27, 1913 at 8:26 a.m., after police and detectives took Leo Frank to
his second floor office at front section of the Pencil factory, he opened his four foot
tall iron safe, removed the payroll ledger, and told the accompanying officers he had had
paid off Mary Phagan at about 12:03 p.m. on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday,
April 26, 1913.

The next day (Monday morning, April 28, 1913) in the presence of his elite
lawyers (Luther Rosser and Herbert Haas), Leo Frank made a stenographed
deposition to detectives and police at the Atlanta station-house that Mary
Phagan came into his office between “12:05pm and 12:10pm, maybe 12:07pm”
on Saturday, April 26, 1913 (State’s Exhibit B, Leo Frank Trial Brief of
Evidence, 1913).

What Leo Frank did not know at the time of the sadistic rape-murder
is that 5’2″ tall, 14-year-old Monteen Stover (Iola Stover),
another little girl who had been laid off early in the week for the same
reason as Mary — because the brass sheet metal had run out — was
waiting inside his office all by her lonesome self. According to Monteen
Stover, she waited in Leo Frank’s business office from 12:05 p.m. to
12:10 p.m. based on his wall clock, hoping to collect her pay envelope,
but she left after waiting for 5 full minutes, because she thought the
building might have been deserted due to the state holiday.

Leo Frank’s Alibi From Sunday, April 27, 1913 to Monday August 18 1913

For 3.5 months, Leo Frank swore to the alibi that he never left his office
when Phagan arrived, until 12:45pm that fateful day, to go upstairs to the
fourth floor, but then on the witness stand at his trial on Monday afternoon,
August 18, 1913, he —- Reversed himself —- making a newfangled and never before
heard, ineluctable admission to explain why Monteen Stover had found his office
empty during the exact same time he had told the police Mary Phagan was with
him in his office (State’s Exhibit B, Monday, April 28, 1913; Monteen
Stover’s Testimony, Brief of Evidence, 1913).

Taking the Stand During his Month Long Trial: Leo Frank Changed His Alibi

Frank seated comfortably on the stand, said, “NOW GENTLEMEN”, looked
the jurors in their eyes and announced to a packed courtroom, that he
might have gone to the bathroom in the metal room to use the toilet or
urinate — at that critical time (12:05pm to 12:10pm) — and that those were
things that a man does “unconsciously”. (He would re-assert this incriminating
admission in a jailhouse interview published in the
March 9, 1914 edition of the Atlanta Constitution).

It was deliciously ironic for unbiased observers who simply wanted to
arrive at the truth, but for Leo Frank’s detractors, it was the equivalent of
an inescapable murder trial confession, because Frank had contradicted
and entrapped himself beyond escape in the metal room, where all the
forensic evidence (hair and blood) indicated a deadly encounter had occurred.

Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann (August 8, 1898 – March 18, 1985)

Leo Frank’s defenders would spend generations suppressing this testimony about
his “unconscious” metalroom bathroom incident and claim that all the best evidence
at the trial and modern analysis, indicates that Jim Conley assaulted Phagan in factory
lobby on the first floor, where there was no evidence found after the murder discovery,
except for seven decades later, when a senile octogenarian named Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann
(August 8, 1898 – March 18, 1985) — who was formerly Leo Frank’s office boy in 1913 for
three weeks — in 1982 came forward 69 years after the verdict, claiming he saw Conley
carrying an unconscious Mary Phagan and moving toward the Lobby’s scuttle-hole, thus
suggesting the disposal of the victim was by the stairs, instead of the elevator as Conley
stated, contradicting Conley’s testimony at the trial, where he admitted carrying the corpse
of Phagan to the basement for Leo Frank by elevator. Alonzo Mann’s revelations added
no new evidence to the case other than only changing the disposal path, and Mann lacked
veracity, because he testified to leaving at 11:30 a.m. in 1913, not Noon as he claimed in
1982. Alonzo Mann, also claimed Jim Conley threatened his life if he told anyone and this
is where his story began to defy commonsense when questioned about what happened thereafter.

70 years after the murder, Alonzo Mann, told journalists at the Tennessean newspaper
that he originally told his parents what he saw on that fateful day and they told him not to
say anything. It left most people incredulous, what White family would tell their son, not to
report a murder conducted by a Negro in the racial separatist South. And why would White
parents allow their son to report to work the following Monday morning, if their child had his
life threatened by murdering Negro. Why did Alonzo say nothing to police after Conley was arrested
and there was no threat of Mann being harmed? We can only speculate, but commonsense
tells us that Mann is lying. It was claimed that Mann was given a lie detector test, but the
video of it and the results from the machine’s printer where never shown to the public and
allegedly “lost”, before they could be scrutinized by independent experts.

The Subversive ADL of B’nai B’rith and Alonzo Mann, 1986

However, The racist Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and powerful Jewish groups of
the American-Israeli Lobby used this questionable evidence given by Alonzo Mann, to secure a
posthumous pardon for Leo Frank on a technicality, thus the pardon was *without exoneration
for the crime* – a detail usually left out in most retellings of the Leo Frank Case. Though Frank
was not officially absolved of his crime, Jewish groups make it a point to leave out this salient
fact when they put historical markers at 1) Mary Phagan’s grave and 2) Leo Frank’s lynching site.

The Prosecution’s Theory: The Metal Room at Back of Second Floor.

The “unconscious” toilet revelation by Leo Frank on the witness stand was an earth
shattering retort to Monteen Stover, because earlier in the trial, Jim Conley said he
found Mary Phagan dead in the bathroom area of the metal room at the behest of
Leo Frank, who according to Conley, confessed to Jim about murdering her (Phagan)
there, because she refused to “be with him” (have sex with Leo Frank).

Forensic Evidence: Blood on the Floor and Hair on the Lathe

Employee witnesses for the defense and prosecution had already testified
to finding a 5 inch wide dried blood puddle diagonal to the bathroom door in
the metal room and about a lock of Phagan’s bloody hair tangled around
the solid metal handle of the bench lathe in the same room.

So it all came together at the trial when Leo Frank testified for nearly four
hours, rambling away and making numerous incriminating statements.

Had you been sitting in the Jury box or behind the judge’s Rostrum on August 18, 1913,
listening to Leo Frank’s explanation for why his office might have been empty, when he
had formerly claimed to the police he was in his office alone with Mary Phagan at that
exact same time, you would have involuntarily shivered as cold chills spilled down your
spine, but for more than 100 years, the Jewish community continues to wage an anti-White
racist defamation campaign against Gentiles, claiming Southerners framed Leo Frank,
indicted and convicted him because he was Jewish and later hanged him because he was Jewish.
The narrative that anti-Semitism was behind it all, has been perpetuated aggressively in
the mainstream now for more than 100 years and has become the popular culture dogma and
orthodoxy in the academy, but is the tide changing? Are Jewish lies finally disintegrating?

The Leo Frank Case has evolved into the longest running anti-Semitic Hate
crime hoax and anti-Gentile blood libel slander in the history of the United
States of America.

The conviction of Leo Frank galvanized the formation of the Anti-Defamation League of
B’nai B’rith in October, 1913, after the 500 member strong Atlanta B’nai B’rith voted
unanimously, (Atlanta Constitution, September 24, 1913), to re-elect their “wrongfully”
convicted and death-row inmate President Leo Max Frank to a second term as their beloved
leader.

Leo Frank ran the affairs of his B’nai B’rith chapter behind bars until September
of 1914, when he was not re-elected again for a third presidential term and as
his appeals were falling apart, primarily because of the criminal activity leaked
publicly involving bribing and coercing witnesses to change their testimony
(Georgia Supreme Court Records, 1,800 pages, 1913, 1914).

Jewry’s Racist Anti-Gentle Hate Crime Hoax

Leonard Dinnerstein (PhD Dissertation 1966 to 2012+ almost 50 years), Abraham Foxman (Op Ed
August 18, 2005) and ADL have been at the forefront of perpetuating the hate crime hoax that
people were loudly chanting “hang the Jew” and “Kill the Jew” outside the Leo Frank trial courtroom
that had all of its windows wide open during the proceedings, because of the hot summer days. This
is a viciously racist anti-Gentile Big Lie perpetuated by ADL and Abraham Foxman, Leonard
Dinnerstein, and many other hatefilled Jewish domestic extremists, spreading bigoted racially tinged
smears against European-American Southerners. (see the articles about Abraham Foxman’s hatecrime
hoax and Leonard Dinnerstein’s pseudo-history)

The Last Taboo of the Jewish Community: Pedophilia

Why anyone would transform a fiendish child molester and convicted
child killer into a martyr of anti-Semitism is incomprehensible, but
Jason Robert Brown and Alfred Uhry have made millions of dollars with
their musical ‘Parade’ performing literally globewide, falsifying
the official records of the Leo Frank Trial and rehabilitating a violent
child molester, who would be a registered sex offender today and likely
would be gang raped by HIV+ inmates in prison.

A dead little raped teenage girl, is used as a cheap plot device to
wage a vicious racist culture war against Southerners. Many people are
asking: Are these the treacherous people we want determining our popular
culture? Are these the people we want determining the theatre curriculum
in our public schools and colleges? Is this the group of people we want
dominating our mainstream media?

A broader question we might ask: Are these the kinds people we want as
our politicians, judges, teachers, professors, and civil rights leaders?!
Especially when they are so able and willing to lie?

Jews calling the Leo Frank Case an American Dreyfus Affair, or comparing the
Frank-Phagan affair to Menahem Mendel Beilis, for more than a century is more than
unconscionable chutzpah, its an act of racist insolence. The Leo Frank trial is being
relentlessly used as a morality tale for the purpose of shaming and deracinating
European-Americans into denying their tradition of ethnic solidarity and wrongfully
making Americans think they destroyed an innocent and noble man because he was
Jewish. This is the old mask of anti-Gentile defamation that began in 1913, with a
turn of the the 21st century face lift.

Lucille Selig

If you have even any doubts about Leo Frank’s innocence or guilt,
then listen to the silent echo in time and space from the spirit of
Lucille Selig Frank (February 29, 1888 – April 23, 1957).

If you ever get a chance, go to the Mount Carmel Cemetery in Queens, New York City,
visit Leo Frank’s grave, and look to the left of it and stare at the empty grave.
The empty grave was reserved for Lucille Selig, so ask yourself, why is it still
empty in 2013? If you have doubts that grave is still empty, go to the cemetery front
office at the gate entry and ask them if it is indeed empty or not, because they will
tell you it is absolutely empty.

You can actually write an official letter to the cemetery requesting
information about the Frank-Stern family grave site and they will
respond on letterhead, this is if you want more than just verbal proof, but
official proof about the emptiness of grave plot #1 located immediate left of
grave plot #2 where Leo Frank is interred.

You would think otherwise after reading all the insistent, shrill denials in
mainstream massmedia for the last 100 years; books, made-for-TV movies,
miniseries (Murder of Mary Phagan, Jan 24 and 26, 1988) and docudramas
(2009), including heart-tugging plays (Knights of Mary Phagan by
Jesse Waldinger) and even a Broadway stage musical (Parade by Jason Robert
Brown and Alfred Uhry) in New York that continues to spread globally like
wildfire – that suggest Lucille’s love for her husband Leo Frank was
eternal and lasted till the day she passed away and beyond her death.

So, once again, why did she specifically not want to be buried next to
Leo Frank? (She requested an Atlanta Park according to her Nephew Alan
and Harold Marcus, sons of Sarah Selig (sister of Lucille) and Charles
Marcus).

See: Georgia Magazine, Steve Oney, Features, Up Front, March 2004: Vol. 83, No. 2.

Finally, why were Lucille’s ashes not spread or buried next to Leo Frank?

Because Lucille was no feather brained step-ford wife when all is
said and done. If she really loved Leo Frank eternally, beyond the dog
and pony show of appearances, she would have been buried in, or
requested her ashes spread at, the empty grave next to him that was
reserved for her at the Mount Carmel Cemetery, but she left her own
verdict on the Leo Frank trial from the passing of her life, and the silence
speaks deafening volumes ever since she died long ago on April 23, 1957 of
heart disease (broken heart), just 3 short days before the 44th anniversary
of the Mary Phagan murder.

If you want to learn what really happened at the Leo Frank trial,
visit The American Mercury
on the Internet and read their August,
September, and October, 2013, Leo Frank Case reports. The
American Mercury
has published an absolutely superb multi-part
series on the centennial of the Leo Frank trial. It’s chock full of
images and thoughtful analysis, you would never get from other
sources, who erroneously and willfully go out of their way to
intentionally distort what happened in the Fulton County court
house 100 years ago (July 28, 1913 – August 26, 1913). Read
the articles in the American Mercury about Steve Oney and Leonard
Dinnerstein as well, uncovering their pseudo-history.

The Jewish Daily Forward www.Forward.com and Abraham Foxman www.ADL.org
are rabidly foaming at the mouth about the American Mercury and Leo Frank
research websites, because 100 years of lies that have aggressively been
pushed into the orthodoxy of social history are slowly disintegrating. Some
members of the Jewish community never dreamed the 1,800 page Leo Frank
Georgia Supreme Court archives would end up being published online at
the centennial of the Mary Phagan murder, April 26, 2013, available for
the whole world to read, but now there is no escape from the disturbing
truth revealed within these official records about Frank’s defenders.

100 Years of Jewish Censorship Coming to an End

Soon the world is going to find out about another child laborer Leo
Frank sadistically defiled, one year before Mary Phagan was raped and
killed. After the Leo Frank trial ended another little girl came forward
with descriptions of a harrowing incident… In 1912, Leo Frank raped
another one of his child employees, and when he was done ravaging her,
he slithered down between her legs and bit her so hard on the inner thy
adjacent to the vagina, that he permanently scarified her, but this
didn’t come out until Leo Frank’s appeals, because the girl had gotten
pregnant and was thereafter shipped off to a home for unwed mothers!

This is the story of a sadistic pedophile, who has been used as a seditious
bludgeon for a century to attack, defame, smear, slander, blood libel, and hate
hoax Americans! This is the man being held up as a holy religious martyr
of anti-Semitism and Gentile injustice. Phagan is the girl whose virgin blood and
strangled corpse gave birth to the financially and politically powerful
ADL, the racist anti-Gentile hate group masquerading as a civil rights
organization, who honor Leo Frank as heroic and whose trial is a
reminder that “not too long ago anti-Semitism, not the facts, convicted
an innocent man”.

We will never forget Mary Phagan and we will never stop fighting for
her honor until our very last dying breath. We will never stop fighting
against the century old culture defamation and race war waged by the
Jewish community, ADL, Jewish Groups and SPLC, against the South,
Southerners, European-Americans and all of Western Civilization.

Visit the American Mercury now and read the Leo Frank Trial Transcript
Analysis: www.theamericanmercury.org

Source: www.tumblr.com/blog/leomaxfrank (Warning Graphic Content,
Viewer Discretion is Advised, Must be 21 or older to view)

From Wikipedia:

Parade is a musical with a book by Alfred Uhry and music and lyrics by
Jason Robert Brown. The musical was first produced on Broadway at the
Vivian Beaumont Theater on December 17, 1998. The production was
directed by Harold Prince and closed 28 February 1999 after only 39
previews and 84 regular performances. It starred Brent Carver as Leo
Frank, Carolee Carmello as Lucille Frank, and Christy Carlson Romano as
Mary Phagan.

The musical won Tony Awards for best book and best score (out of nine
nominations) and six Drama Desk Awards. The show has enjoyed a U.S.
national tour and numerous professional and amateur productions in both
the U.S. and abroad.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parade_%28musical%29

The whole conspiratorial premise of Gentile anti-Semitism woven
through the 21st century production of, ‘Parade’, is to mask the Jewish
racism against African-Americans and European-Americans inherent
in the Leo Frank Case, which has become an agitation campaign to spread
indignation, insecurity and fear amongst Jews.

For numerous generations now, Jews have manipulated the Leo Frank case
into a fraudulent Jewish persecution themed fiction, meant to demoralize Gentiles,
especially European-American Gentiles. Some Jews according to the Holy
Talmud, don’t consider it a crime, if one of their own racial kinsmen pounds
in the face of a little White Christian girl, before ripping her clothes open and
savagely raping the child, moments before strangling her to death.

Parade is a Disgusting Mockery of Legal History

What this re-engineered Broadway play does NOT tell the audience is
Leo Frank botched a most diabolically racist intrigue, a poorly
orchestrated attempt to have the murder of Mary Phagan framed on two
African-Americans. That’s the dirty truth about the Leo Frank Case that his
defenders tried to suppress for 100 years. The other dirty little secret is
that Leo Frank changed his alibi on the witness stand and placed himself
at the scene of the crime, where and when the murder occurred.

Alleged Pedophile Alan Dershowitz and other powerful members of the Jewish community,
would arraign the Jury, accusing them of being blinded by prejudice, because they
convicted a Jewish Pedophile.

The Ugly Racist Jewish-American Culture Wars Continue…

More excellent sources on the Frank-Phagan Case include:

0. The Leo Frank Case (Mary Phagan) Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery 1913

The first neutral book written on the subject. Very interesting read.

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean
(Available here on http://www.Archive.org). Written by Mary Phagan Kean, the
great grand niece of Mary Phagan. A neutral account of the events
surrounding the trial of Leo Frank. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is
well worth reading and it is a refreshing change from the endless number
of Jewish and contemporary books turning the Leo Frank case into a
neurotic race obsessed tabloid controversy.

2. American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Lawson
Tends to be biased in favor of Leo Frank and his legal defense team,
this document provides an abridged version of the Brief of Evidence,
leaving out some important things said and details when it republishes
parts of the trial testimony. Be sure to read the closing arguments of
Luther Zeigler Rosser, Reuben Rose Arnold, Frank Arthur Hooper and Hugh
Manson Dorsey. For a more complete version of the Leo M. Frank trial
testimony, read the 1913 Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence.

3. Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank
Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the Jury at the
end of the Leo Frank trial. Only 18 Libraries in the world have copies
of this books. This is an excellent book and required reading to see how
Dorsey in sales vernacular ‘closed’ the panel of 13 men, the trial jury
of 12 men plus Judge Leonard Strickland Roan.

4. Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error.
In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913, Brief of
Evidence. Extremely rare, only 1 copy exists, and it is at the Georgia State Archive.

It is available on www.Archive.org

Three Major Atlanta Daily Newspapers: The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta
Journal, The Atlanta Georgian. The most relevant issues center around April
28th to August 27th 1913.

5. Atlanta Constitution Newspaper: The Murder of Mary Phagan, Coroner’s
Inquest, Grand Jury, Investigation, Trail, Appeals, Shanking and
Lynching of Leo Frank Case in the Atlanta Constitution Newspaper from
1913 to 1915. http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseInTheAtlantaConstitutionNewspaper1913To1915

6. Atlanta Georgian newspaper covering the Leo Frank Case from

April though August, 1913. http://archive.org/details/AtlantaGeorgianNewspaperAprilToAugust1913

7. Atlanta Journal Newspaper, April, 28, 1913, through till the end of August, 1913, pertaining to

the Leo Frank Case: http://archive.org/details/AtlantaJournalApril281913toAugust311913

Leo Frank said Mary Phagan had been with him in his second floor, window front office on April 26, 1913,
between 12:05pm and 12:10pm (States Exhibit B). Leo Frank confirms he might have been in the toilet
where Phagan was found dead, at the time Monteen Stover said his office was empty (12:05 p.m. to 12:10 p.m.):

See the Atlanta Constitution, Monday, March 9, 1914, Leo Frank Jailhouse Interview

Tom Watson

8. Tom Watson’s Jeffersonian Newspaper (1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917) and
Watson’s Magazine(1915). Tom Watson’s best work on the Leo M. Frank case
was published in August and September 1915.

https://archive.org/details/the-jeffersonian-050714-may-07-1914-volume-11-issue-19-pages-01-03-05-09-10

Watson’s five major magazine works written collectively on the Leo M. Frank topic, provide
logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with the superb
reasoning of a genius criminal attorney.

These five 1915 works are absolutely required reading for anyone
interested in the Leo M. Frank Case. Originals of these magazines are
extremely rare and very difficult to find.

Jan 1915:

8.1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson’s Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case.

Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source

March 1915:

8.2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20.
No. 5. See page 235 for ‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’.
Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source

https://archive.org/details/TheFullReviewOfTheLeoFrankCaseMarch1915

August 1915:

8.3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson
(August 1915) Volumne 21, No 4. See page 182 for ‘The Celebrated Case of
the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank”. Jeffersonian Publishing Company,
Thomson, Ga., Digital Source

Tom Watson: The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank

September 1915:

8.4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson
(September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for ‘The Official Record
in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert’. Jeffersonian Publishing
Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source

Tom Watson: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert

October 1915:

8.5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo
Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301.
Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source:

Tom Watson: The Rich Jews Indict a State!

Tom Watson’s Jeffersonian Newspaper

9. The Tom E. Watson Digital Papers Archive, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: http://www.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson

There are Leo Frank cult members (Frankites) posing as neutral reviewers who do not want you to read Tom Watson’s five 1915 magazine works on the Leo Frank trial, read them and find out why! They are the controversial forbidden fruit of truth in the Leo M. Frank case that have been censored for more than 100 years. Because Jews are making up lies about Tom Watson, we need people to download Tom Watsons five articles about the Leo Frank case (Jan, March, August, Sept and October, 1915), translate them into every language and upload them to every online library in the world. (The March 1915 issue was “accidentally” deleted by the staff of www.Archive.org The Internet Archive, so that means download it, and then upload it to all the different free online libraries in the world, translate it to every European language)

Tom Watson Brown, Grandson of Thomas Edward Watson

10. Notes on the Case of Leo M. Frank, By Tom W. Brown, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1982. (This was “accidentally” deleted by the staff of www.Archive.org The Internet Archive, so that means download it, and then upload it to all the different free online libraries in the world, translate it to every European language)

Leo Frank trial analysis and review of books about the case of Mary Phagan:

11. 100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty by Bradford L. Huie

Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Record Archive:

12. Leo Frank Trial and Appeals Georgia Supreme Court File (1,818 pages).

http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914

Read two dozen articles about the rape-strangulation of Mary Phagan by Leo Frank the toilet strangler at http://www.liveleak.com/c/jambo2010

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 2016   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Hate Crime Hoax, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, Zionism  Comments Closed

Kill All Pedophiles by John de Nugent

Please contact YouTube and get this video deleted, before someone uses www.ClipConverter.cc to download this video and upload it to all the video sharing web sites on the Internet.

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 2016   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Hate Crime Hoax, Hate Speech, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Extremism, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, John de Nugent, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

Download Frazier Glenn Miller’s Book “A White Man Speaks Out” While You Still Can; Miller Arrested As Person Of Interest In Kansas Shootings

Most readers undoubtedly know that 73-year-old longtime white racial activist Frazier Glenn Miller, who media outlets are also identifying as Frazier Glenn Cross, has been arrested as a person of interest in the shooting of three different people at two different Jewish centers in the Kansas City metro area on April 13th, 2014. The shooter first fatally shot a 14-year-old boy, Reat Griffin Underwood, and his grandfather, William Lewis Corporon, around 1:00 P.M. in the parking lot at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City campus located at 5801 W. 115th St in Overland Park, Kansas, then gunned down a woman, Terri LaManno, at the Village Shalom senior living facility at 5500 W. 123rd St, just several blocks away. The shooter, who’s believed to have been packing a shotgun, a handgun and possibly an assault weapon, reportedly shot at two other people but missed.

Police caught up with a man who matched the description of the shooter at Valley Park Elementary School near 123rd Street and Lamar Avenue, and arrested him as a person of interest at 1:28 P.M; they later identified him as Frazier Glenn Miller. They also impounded the car, a white Suzuki, and said that although there were other items in the vehicle possibly of evidential value, they would not give specifics. Miller is currently being held in the Johnson County Detention Center on premeditated first-degree murder charges. He is currently listed in Johnson County jail records as Frazier Glenn Cross, and his first court appearance is scheduled for April 14th at 1:30 P.M. Miller’s wife has been getting calls from the media and the SPLC and is reportedly distraught.

Although the media is playing the Jewish card, presumably because of Miller’s reputation, it turns out that none of the three victims are Jewish. Reat Griffin Underwood and William Lewis Corporon were members of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, and Terri LaManno is a longtime member of St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Kansas City.

Censored Book, Download it and upload it to other sites before its censored:

 

Miller’s motivational book, “A White Man Speaks Out”, which chronicles his history as an activist and provides an insider’s description of the 1979 Greensboro Massacre which was originally triggered by Communists and their allies. Miller’s book is available on PDF in two separate parts; download and save to your hard drive because his website could be taken down anytime:

The original Chapters 1 through 23:

http://solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/A-White-Man-Speaks-Out.pdf

 

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2015   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Hate Crimes, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, Judaism, Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazi, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, Southern Poverty Law Center, Terrorism, White Nationalism, White Power, White Supremacism, William Luther Pierce, Zionism  Comments Closed

Antisemitism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antisemitism (also spelled Anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious, or racial group.[1][2] A person who holds such positions is called an “antisemite”. Antisemitism is widely considered to be a form of racism.[3][4]

While the conjunction of the units anti, Semite and ism indicates antisemitism as being directed against all Semitic people, the term was popularized in Germany in 1873 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (“Jew-hatred”),[5][6] although it had been used for at least two decades prior,[7] and that has been its normal use since then.[8] For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered “hatred toward Jewsindividually and as a groupthat can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity.”[9]

Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs, state police, or even military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Although the term did not come into common usage until the 19th century, it is now also applied to historic anti-Jewish incidents. Notable instances of persecution include the pogroms which preceded the First Crusade in 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the massacres of Spanish Jews in 1391, the persecutions of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, Cossack massacres in Ukraine of 16481657, various pogroms in Imperial Russia between 1821 and 1906, the 18941906 Dreyfus affair in France, the Holocaust in German-occupied Europe, official Soviet anti-Jewish policies and Arab and Muslim involvement in the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

The origin of “antisemitic” terminologies is found in responses of Moritz Steinschneider to the views of Ernest Renan. As Alex Bein writes “The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his ‘anti-Semitic prejudices’ [i.e., his derogation of the “Semites” as a race]”.[10]Avner Falk similarly writes: ‘The German word antisemitisch was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider (1816-1907) in the phrase antisemitische Vorurteile (antisemitic prejudices). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterise the French philosopher Ernest Renan’s false ideas about how “Semitic races” were inferior to “Aryan races”‘.[11]

Pseudoscientific theories concerning race, civilization, and “progress” had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. He coined the phrase “the Jews are our misfortune” which would later be widely used by Nazis.[12] In Treitschke’s writings “Semitic” was synonymous with “Jewish”,[citation needed] in contrast to its use by Renan and others.

In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet, Der Sieg des Judenthums ber das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet (The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective.)[13][pageneeded]&/or[need quotation to verify] in which he used the word Semitismus interchangeably with the word Judentum to denote both “Jewry” (the Jews as a collective) and “jewishness” (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit).

This use of Semitismus was followed by a coining of “Antisemitismus” which was used to indicate opposition to the Jews as a people[citation needed] and opposition to the Jewish spirit, which Marr interpreted as infiltrating German culture. His next pamphlet, Der Weg zum Siege des Germanenthums ber das Judenthum (The Way to Victory of the Germanic Spirit over the Jewish Spirit, 1880), presents a development of Marr’s ideas further and may present the first published use of the German word Antisemitismus, “antisemitism”.

The pamphlet became very popular, and in the same year he founded the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Antisemites),[14] the first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by the Jews and their influence, and advocating their forced removal from the country.

So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte, and Wilhelm Scherer used the term Antisemiten in the January issue of Neue Freie Presse.

The Jewish Encyclopedia reported: In February 1881, a correspondent of the “Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums” speaks of “Anti-Semitism” as a designation which recently came into use (“Allg. Zeit. d. Jud.” 1881, p.138). On 19 July 1882, the editor says, “This quite recent Anti-Semitism is hardly three years old.”[15]

Original post:

Antisemitism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2015   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

Anti-Jewish laws – The Holocaust

A teacher explains the Nuremberg Laws to high school students.

Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933. In elections held weeks later in March, the NSDAP further increased its numbers in the Reichstag, the German legislature. It did not take long for the NSDAP to move against Germanys Jewish population.On April 1st 1933, just weeks after Hitler became chancellor, the Sturmabteilung (SA) initiated a campaign to encourage boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses. Across Germany, small Jewish stores were daubed with Stars of David or painted with slogans like Kauf nicht bei Juden (Dont buy from Jews). SA troopers lingered menacingly outside larger businesses owned by Jews, including department stores, cinemas or banks. There were several instances of Jews being assaulted or property being destroyed. The boycott was reported as being the work of the SA rather than the Nazi government; nevertheless the government did little to halt or restrain it.

Days later, on April 7th 1933, the NSDAP controlled Reichstag passed theGesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (or Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service). It was the first of dozens of anti-Semitic laws, edicts and decrees introduced by the Nazi regime during the 1930s. This lawabolished the employment rights of Jewish public servants and banned non-Aryans from holding state jobs. In effect, it prevented Jews from working as judges, doctors in state-run hospitals, lawyers in government departments and teachers in state schools. It was a controversial move that invited criticism from German president Paul von Hindenburg, who was appalled that Jewish veterans of World War I might be disadvantaged.At Hindenburgs insistence Hitler amended the law to exclude war veterans, though he withdrew these amendments after Hindenburgs death in August 1934.

Between mid-1933 and the early 1940s, the Nazi regime passed dozens of laws and decrees that eroded the rights of Jews in Germany. Some were seemingly insignificant, such as an April 1935 edict banning Jews from flying the German flag; or a February 1942 order prohibiting Jews from owning pets. But others withdrew the voting rights of Jews, their access to education, their capacity to own businesses or to hold particular jobs. In 1934 Jews were banned from sitting university exams; in 1936 they were forbidden from using parks or public swimming pools and from owning electrical equipment, typewriters or bicycles. Jews were also subject to cultural and artistic restrictions, forcing hundreds to leave jobs in the theatre, cinema, cabaret and the visual arts.

But even the extraction of Jews from German economic and cultural life was not enough for some. Hardline anti-Semites in the NSDAP talked of taking tougher action against the Jews, with or without the backing of Hitler and his government. The summer of 1935 saw an escalation in spontaneous violence against Jewish people and property, conducted chiefly by SA troopers. In August 1935 Hitler ordered a stop to these individual actions not to protect Jews but to prevent disruption or damage to the German economy. By the NSDAPs annual rally in September 1935, Hitler was under considerable pressure from party hierarchs to order a more decisive response to the Jewish problem. The radicals who instigated anti-Jewish violence wanted the government to legitimise their actions, to provide legal immunity from prosecution or civil action. There were calls for sweeping laws to restrict Jewish economic influence; to prohibit interracial marriage or sexual relations; even to limit or remove the citizenship of German Jews. Some Nazis demanded the government issue clear legal and ethnological guidelines, to provide certainty about who was Jewish and who was not.

Drafting anti-Jewish laws

German societys allegiance to the necessity of written laws was recognised by the Nazis when they came to power, and the recognition that policies had to appear to be law-based persisted through the peacetime years of Nazi rule. In 1938, when the number two Nazi Hermann Goering suggested in the course of a discussion that German travellers could always kick Jewish passengers out of a crowded compartment on a train, the propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels replied: I would not say that. I do not believe in this. There has to be a law.’ Jonathan Friedman, historian

The NSDAPs seventh annual rally, dubbed the Rally of Freedom, began in Nuremberg on September 10th 1935. During the course of the rally Hitler summoned key Nazi officials and ordered them to draft anti-Jewish laws for presentation to the Reichstag. Hitler himself spent 48 hours trying to formulate an adequate racial and legal definition for a Jew. He was unable to make up his mind, so left the matter to his officials. On September 15th, Hitler addressed the Reichstag, then temporarily convened in Nuremberg. He announced two new laws to clarify and define racial identity in Germany. His draft legislation would alsooutline and restrict the relationship between Jews and Aryan Germans:

Extracting Jews from German society

These two acts became collectively known as the Nuremberg Laws. They were received well at the rally but they did not satisfy extremists in the NSDAP and SA, who believed Hitlers laws did not go far enough. Despite their brevity, the two Nuremberg Laws were worded so broadly that they legitimised a wide array of anti-Semitic policies over the coming years.Sometimes this persecution was officially sanctioned and promulgated by the government; at other times it was unofficial, carried out by agreement rather than by law.Between the mid-1930s and into the first years of World War II, the Nazi regime passed a torrent of laws and regulations that eroded Jewish civil rights. More than 2,000 anti-Semitic decrees were passed at national, state and municipal levels. Some of these measures were seemingly minor, while others affected a significant number of people. The following timeline contains a sampling of these anti-Jewish decrees:

See the rest here:

Anti-Jewish laws – The Holocaust

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2015   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

The development of anti-Jewish laws – The Holocaust …

Local descrimination

Encouraged by centrally organiseddiscrimination, local people, employers and organisations in towns and villages all over Germany began tovictimiseJews and expel them from employment and to deny them membership of cultural and leisure organisations.

Shops, hotels and restaurants began to put up Jews not welcome signs. Local councils also placed signs on park gates and benches informing Jews that they couldnt use them.

Gradually the civil rights of Jews across Germany were taken away for example: being banned from being members of sports clubs in April 1933 and not being able own a dog from May 1942.

At the beginning of April 1933, the Nazis passed theLaw for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which began the exclusion of Jews from professions. Under this law people who had at least one Jewish grandparent were classed as Jewish. It took the Nazi Party over five years to completely expel the Jews from professional and business life in Germany.

TheNuremberg Laws

The Nazi governmentlegalisedits anti-Jewish policies with the passing of two laws: the Law for the Protection ofGerman Blood and Honour and also the Reich Citizenship Law(theNuremberg Laws) on 15 September 1935.The first lawforbadeinter-marriage and sexual relations between Jews and Aryans, the second robbed the Jews of their citizenship and all legal rights.

These laws were based on the premise that Jews were a racial group rather than a religion. Those who had three Jewish grandparents were classed as full Jews; those who had fewer Jewish grandparents were labelled Mischlinge (half-breeds).

Excerpt from:

The development of anti-Jewish laws – The Holocaust …

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2015   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

Is Christianity Anti-Jewish? – Hebrew for Christians

MANY OF TODAY’S CHURCH LEADERS seem to hold views about ethnic Israel that express institutionalized prejudice and an “anti-Jewish” bias. But how did the church get so far removed from the Jewish roots of the faith? Is Christianity essentially anti-Semitic in its perspective? Is it possible to be a sincere Christian and yet be anti-Jewish?

In a sermon I heard recently, a well-known American Evangelical teacher announced to his congregation that he would prefer to have the church “fix his car” rather than get a “free trip” to Israel for his 30th anniversary. He further stated that he’s never been to Israel and has no desire to ever go there, expressing an almost callous indifference to Israel’s past, present, or future.

Now this might strike you as rather insignificant, hardly worth mentioning at all, but there are certain theological assumptions lurking behind this sentiment that should be alarming for Christians who hold faith in the veracity of the Jewish Scriptures. What would cause a pastor of a large, Bible-believing church to apparently disdain the idea of going to see the land of Jesus — and to suggest that ethnic Israel is essentially irrelevant? How could someone who regularly studies and preaches from the Jewish Scriptures believe that Israel – past, present, and future – is functionally meaningless for those of the Christian faith?

To understand some of this mystery, we have to back up and think about theological presuppositions. In particular, we have to revisit the basic assumptions theologians make when they read the Jewish Scriptures. Many Christian theologians assume a “New Testament priority” when reading the “Old Testament.” Simply put, this means that they apply the terms of the Greek New Testament as they “read backwards” to the Old. As I have said elsewhere, however, while it’s possible that the Old Testament is true and the New Testament is not, it’s impossible for the New Testament to be true if the Old Testament is not. In other words, we must first take pains to understand the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures — and especially the Hebraic mindset — before we draw our conclusions about the meaning of the New Testament. It is just common sense to read things in context, after all. “To the Hebrew first, and then to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; 3:1-2).

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” – The Prophet Isaiah

Theologians all bring assumptions and biases when they read the Scriptures, but ideally the goal should be to discover the author’s original intent as it was communicated to his audience. In other words, they should always try to read in context, taking into account the historical situation of the author (including the historical usage of the words and grammar) as well as the culture of those who would read his words. Violating this basic principle invites “reading into the text” things that just aren’t there. That means, among other things, that if you are a Gentile theologian steeped in Western Greek traditions, you better be careful to remember that you are reading Jewish literature. Both the “Old Testament” as well as the “New Testament” are writings from Jews predominantly to fellow Jews. Failure to realize this blindingly obvious fact leads to bizarre and misguided interpretations of the Scriptures.

Of course, within the Jewish literature of the Bible there are different genres (types) of writing. There are historical narratives (prose), legal codes, genealogies, annals, poetry, prophecies, prayers, laments, proverbs, miracle stories, parables, didactic letters (epistles), apocalyptic visions, and so on. In addition to the overarching fact that we are dealing with Jewish literature, then, the Bible interpreter must understand the type of literature he or she is reading. We do not read the Bible’s poetry as prose, after all, and conversely, we shouldn’t attempt to find allegories and symbols in historical accounts. The use of logic is essential to ascertaining the meaning of a text.

The study of interpretation theory is sometimes called “hermeneutics.” In Talmudic Judaism, for instance, various compilations of rules and methods for determining the meaning of Scripture were devised. In addition to studying the diction and grammar of a given text, Jewish tradition adds the techniques of logical deduction and rules of inference, the critical study of the Masorah (i.e., the scribal transmission process as well as the stylization of the text), the use of “gematria” (Bible codes), but most importantly, the use of precedence in interpretation (i.e., the communal dialog of the Oral Law). This general approach, it should be noted, is vastly different than the Hellenistic theology of Philo and the Jews of Alexandria in the second century B.C. who attempted to synthesize Greek philosophy (i.e., Plato) with traditional Judaism by means of allegorical interpretation methods.

Read the original here:

Is Christianity Anti-Jewish? – Hebrew for Christians

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2015   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

What is anti-Semitism? – Anti-Defamation League

The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews. Hostility toward Jews dates to ancient times, perhaps to the beginning of Jewish history. From the days of the Bible until the Roman Empire, Jews were criticized and sometimes punished for their efforts to remain a separate social and religious group – one that refused to adopt the values and the way of life of the non-Jewish societies in which it lived. The rise of Christianity greatly increased hatred of Jews. They became seen not merely as outsiders but as a people who rejected Jesus and crucified him – despite the fact that the Roman authorities ordered and carried out the crucifixion. By the high middle ages (11th –14th centuries), Jews were widely persecuted as barely human “Christ-killers” and “Devils.” Forced to live in all-Jewish ghettos, they were accused of poisoning rivers and wells during times of disease. Some were tortured and executed for supposedly abducting and killing Christian children to drink their blood or to use to it in baking matzoh – a charge known as the “blood libel.” A large number were forced to convert to Christianity to avoid death, torture, or expulsion, though many secretly practiced Judaism after their conversions. (In recent times, the Catholic church and other Christian churches have rejected these anti-Semitic falsehoods.) In the 18th century, as the influence of Christianity began to lessen during the Enlightenment – which celebrated the rights and possibilities of men and women to a far greater extent than ever before – religiously based hatred of Jewishness gave way to non-religious criticism: Judaism was attacked as an outdated belief that blocked human progress. Jewish separatism was again targeted. As European countries began to take modern shape in the 19th century and national pride grew, Jews, who were still usually deprived of civil rights and lived throughout Europe as outsiders, were subjected to further hostility. This hostility resulted at times in deadly persecution, as in the late-19th century Russian pogroms — violent attacks on Jewish communities with the aid or indifference of the government. At the same time, in response to the decline of Christian belief and the growing number of Jews beginning to join the mainstream of European society (a trend known as “assimilation”), anti-Semites turned to the new “racial science,” an attempt, since discredited, by various scientists and writers to “prove” the supremacy of non-Jewish whites. The opponents of Jews argued that Jewishness was not a religion but a racial category, and that the Jewish “race” was biologically inferior. The belief in a Jewish race would later become Germany’s justification for seeking to kill every Jewish person in lands Germany occupied during World War II, whether the person practiced Judaism or not. In fact, even the children or grandchildren of those who had converted to Christianity were murdered as members of the Jewish race. The Holocaust, as this systematic mass extermination between 1939-1945 is known, resulted in the death of six million Jews — more than a third of the world’s Jewish population. While the rise to power of the Nazis (Germany’s leaders during World War II) in the 1920s and 1930s involved numerous social and political factors, the views that helped turn anti-Semitism into official government policy included belief in the inborn superiority of “Aryans,” or whites; belief that Jews destroyed societies; that Jews secretly worked together to gain control of the world; and that Jews already controlled world finance, business, media, entertainment, and Communism. In the half-century since World War II, public anti-Semitism has become much less frequent in the Western world. While stereotypes about Jews remain common, Jews face little physical danger. The hatred of Jewishness and the conspiracy beliefs of past eras are for the most part shared only by tiny numbers of those on the fringes of society (although as the World Trade Center and Oklahoma bombings showed, even a handful of extremists can carry out acts of great violence). There are exceptions, of course: disagreement over policy toward the State of Israel has created opportunities in which the expression “Zionist” – support for Israel as the Jewish homeland – is often used as an anti-Semitic code word for “Jew” in mainstream debate. Holocaust denial and other recent re-writings of history – such as the false claim that Jews controlled the Atlantic slave trade – lie about the events of the past in order to make Jews seem underhanded and evil. More seriously, many nations in Europe and in the former Soviet empire are struggling, mostly due to unsettled or chaotic economic and social conditions, with movements opposing “foreigners” – including recent immigrants and traditional enemies. These movements champion racial or national supremacy, and call for the type of charismatic, authoritarian leader that historically persecuted Jews and other minorities. But while parts of Europe remain caught up in racial unrest, the Middle East is home to the harshest anti-Semitism in the world today. Nazi-like language is regularly expressed by the media and governments in the countries that oppose Israel and the West. And as dozens and dozens of terrorist incidents have demonstrated, there are many in Middle Eastern countries willing to act on these beliefs.

Fair Usage Law

June 14, 2016   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

Anti-Jewish Code Lurks in Popular Software – snopes.com

Apparently “q33ny” supposed to be the flight number of one of the crashed planes gives an aeroplane, two buildings, a skull and crossbones and the star of david. Again, no comment, although whether this is in fact the number of one of the planes seems unlikely. I’ve heard a few people suggesting that this is a sign that Microsoft were involved in the terrorist attack. When Microsoft developed a new graphical font, Webdings, in 1997, Kuresman said typographers took pains to ensure that the image corresponding with the capital letters NYC was a pleasant one. Users who type in that string of letters in Webdings are greeted with graphics for an eye, a heart and a city skyline, symbols for the message “I Love New York.” A computer consultant discovered the diabolic message while installing Microsoft’s new Windows 3.1 software for a client yesterday. The consultant was testing a mailing-address use of the program when he noticed the letters “NYC” had been replaced by a hateful message – a skull and crossbones, the Star of David and an approving thumbs-up symbol. Microsoft strongly denies any hidden message. Others disagree. “There’s no way it could be a random coincidence,” said Brian Young, a friend of the consultant, who does not wish to be named. “It’s pretty scary. I was pretty shocked by the whole thing.” Computer owners who use Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word or any other Microsoft program containing a print font named “Wingdings” can duplicate the anti-Semitic message by typing the letters “NYC” on their screen. Microsoft said “Wingdings” was designed by Bigelow and Holmes, an outside vendor, and denied that Microsoft intentionally designed the secret message. Prof. Charles Bigelow confirmed that his company provided the symbols, but insisted that Microsoft made the final “mapping” decisions assigning his symbols to specific keys on the keyboard. But a senior Microsoft spokesman said the charge that the fonts contain a hidden message is “outrageous.” “It’s like saying that if you randomly type out characters on a keyboard to spell ‘Satan’, you can do that, but it’s incredible to say that there’s anti-Semitism in Microsoft or one of its vendors,” said Charles Hemingway. But Young, who discussed the matter with other computer consultants, isn’t so sure it’s just a coincidence. The “Wingdings” font contains no letters just 255 symbols. Young calculated the odds of three letters of the alphabet being combined with 255 symbols, and said he found that the odds of obtaining the message were less than one in a trillion. “It’s mind-blowing,” said Young. “Somebody’s responsible for this. This is very offensive.” “I found it hard to believe some of the stories about the resurgence of Nazi sympathizers but this puts things back into perspective.” At the simplest level, wingdings and webdings are much like an alphabet of characters and provide thousands of potential combinations from which a person could choose. Changing the character set would create an impact of unknown scale on existing data and code using the affected font. Again, using the example of the alphabet, what would happen to existing documents and applications if we switched around a handful of letters? The likely result is that we would create significant issues for people, cause some unintended humorous moments and several offensive ones. For that reason Wingdings has been left unaltered since its inception. “We have enough symbols and combinations that it’s almost inevitable that you’ll find something that’s a little sinister,” he said. Although it’s common for designers to include one or two deliberate messages usually something innocent like a logo it’s safe to assume that the image strings on Wingdings were randomly generated. Hosek said he has known the creators of Wingdings Charles Bigelow and Kris Holmes of the font design firm Bigelow & Holmes for more than a decade and is convinced that they had not intended to offend anyone. “These are two of the most peace-loving people on the face of the Earth,” he said. “There’s no way it was anything other than an unfortunate coincidence.” The last coincidence mentioned in the example quoted at the head of this page, that the arrangements of symbols corresponding to the string “Q33NY” in the Wingdings font is a “sign that Microsoft were involved in the terrorist attack,” is purely a contrived one. Although typing the characters Q-3-3-N-Y in the Wingdings font does produce the string of images shown below (an airplane, two vertical rectangular shapes, a skull and crossbones, and a Star of David), none of this has any real relevance to the 9/11 attacks: Q33NY was not the flight or tail number of either of the planes that were crashed into the World Trade Center that day, the rectangular shapes represent pieces of paper with writing on them, not buildings, and the terrorist attacks were neither perpetrated by nor targeted against Jews. Additional information: “MS Denies Wingding Thing, Again” (Wired News) “I Heart My Dog’s Head” (Penn Jillette) Last updated: 11 December 2005

Fair Usage Law

June 10, 2016   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

Un-American Subversive Theatre: Parade the Leo Frank Broadway Musical Becomes International Cult Sensation

If you asked any of your friends, acquaintances, or family members, whether or notthey’ve heard of the Jewish activist musical called ‘Parade’, chances are most peoplewould likely shake their heads and say something along the lines of, “No, I’ve neverheard of it before”. Yet amongst theatre fans around the world, ‘Parade’ is a cultclassic. In […]

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 2016   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, B'nai B'rith, Hate Crime Hoax, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Multicultural News, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, Zionism  Comments Closed

Kill All Pedophiles by John de Nugent

Please contact YouTube and get this video deleted, before someone uses www.ClipConverter.cc to download this video and upload it to all the video sharing web sites on the Internet.

Fair Usage Law

April 26, 2016   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Hate Crime Hoax, Hate Speech, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Extremism, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, John de Nugent, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

Download Frazier Glenn Miller’s Book “A White Man Speaks Out” While You Still Can; Miller Arrested As Person Of Interest In Kansas Shootings

Most readers undoubtedly know that 73-year-old longtime white racial activist Frazier Glenn Miller, who media outlets are also identifying as Frazier Glenn Cross, has been arrested as a person of interest in the shooting of three different people at two different Jewish centers in the Kansas City metro area on April 13th, 2014. The shooter […]

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2015   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Hate Crimes, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, Judaism, Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazi, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, Southern Poverty Law Center, Terrorism, White Nationalism, White Power, White Supremacism, William Luther Pierce, Zionism  Comments Closed

Antisemitism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antisemitism (also spelled Anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious, or racial group.[1][2] A person who holds such positions is called an “antisemite”. Antisemitism is widely considered to be a form of racism.[3][4] While the conjunction of the units anti, Semite and ism indicates antisemitism as being directed against all Semitic people, the term was popularized in Germany in 1873 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (“Jew-hatred”),[5][6] although it had been used for at least two decades prior,[7] and that has been its normal use since then.[8] For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered “hatred toward Jewsindividually and as a groupthat can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity.”[9] Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs, state police, or even military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Although the term did not come into common usage until the 19th century, it is now also applied to historic anti-Jewish incidents. Notable instances of persecution include the pogroms which preceded the First Crusade in 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the massacres of Spanish Jews in 1391, the persecutions of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, Cossack massacres in Ukraine of 16481657, various pogroms in Imperial Russia between 1821 and 1906, the 18941906 Dreyfus affair in France, the Holocaust in German-occupied Europe, official Soviet anti-Jewish policies and Arab and Muslim involvement in the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. The origin of “antisemitic” terminologies is found in responses of Moritz Steinschneider to the views of Ernest Renan. As Alex Bein writes “The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his ‘anti-Semitic prejudices’ [i.e., his derogation of the “Semites” as a race]”.[10]Avner Falk similarly writes: ‘The German word antisemitisch was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider (1816-1907) in the phrase antisemitische Vorurteile (antisemitic prejudices). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterise the French philosopher Ernest Renan’s false ideas about how “Semitic races” were inferior to “Aryan races”‘.[11] Pseudoscientific theories concerning race, civilization, and “progress” had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. He coined the phrase “the Jews are our misfortune” which would later be widely used by Nazis.[12] In Treitschke’s writings “Semitic” was synonymous with “Jewish”,[citation needed] in contrast to its use by Renan and others. In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet, Der Sieg des Judenthums ber das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet (The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective.)[13][pageneeded]&/or[need quotation to verify] in which he used the word Semitismus interchangeably with the word Judentum to denote both “Jewry” (the Jews as a collective) and “jewishness” (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit). This use of Semitismus was followed by a coining of “Antisemitismus” which was used to indicate opposition to the Jews as a people[citation needed] and opposition to the Jewish spirit, which Marr interpreted as infiltrating German culture. His next pamphlet, Der Weg zum Siege des Germanenthums ber das Judenthum (The Way to Victory of the Germanic Spirit over the Jewish Spirit, 1880), presents a development of Marr’s ideas further and may present the first published use of the German word Antisemitismus, “antisemitism”. The pamphlet became very popular, and in the same year he founded the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Antisemites),[14] the first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by the Jews and their influence, and advocating their forced removal from the country. So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte, and Wilhelm Scherer used the term Antisemiten in the January issue of Neue Freie Presse. The Jewish Encyclopedia reported: In February 1881, a correspondent of the “Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums” speaks of “Anti-Semitism” as a designation which recently came into use (“Allg. Zeit. d. Jud.” 1881, p.138). On 19 July 1882, the editor says, “This quite recent Anti-Semitism is hardly three years old.”[15]

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2015   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

Anti-Jewish laws – The Holocaust

A teacher explains the Nuremberg Laws to high school students. Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933. In elections held weeks later in March, the NSDAP further increased its numbers in the Reichstag, the German legislature. It did not take long for the NSDAP to move against Germanys Jewish population.On April 1st 1933, just weeks after Hitler became chancellor, the Sturmabteilung (SA) initiated a campaign to encourage boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses. Across Germany, small Jewish stores were daubed with Stars of David or painted with slogans like Kauf nicht bei Juden (Dont buy from Jews). SA troopers lingered menacingly outside larger businesses owned by Jews, including department stores, cinemas or banks. There were several instances of Jews being assaulted or property being destroyed. The boycott was reported as being the work of the SA rather than the Nazi government; nevertheless the government did little to halt or restrain it. Days later, on April 7th 1933, the NSDAP controlled Reichstag passed theGesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (or Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service). It was the first of dozens of anti-Semitic laws, edicts and decrees introduced by the Nazi regime during the 1930s. This lawabolished the employment rights of Jewish public servants and banned non-Aryans from holding state jobs. In effect, it prevented Jews from working as judges, doctors in state-run hospitals, lawyers in government departments and teachers in state schools. It was a controversial move that invited criticism from German president Paul von Hindenburg, who was appalled that Jewish veterans of World War I might be disadvantaged.At Hindenburgs insistence Hitler amended the law to exclude war veterans, though he withdrew these amendments after Hindenburgs death in August 1934. Between mid-1933 and the early 1940s, the Nazi regime passed dozens of laws and decrees that eroded the rights of Jews in Germany. Some were seemingly insignificant, such as an April 1935 edict banning Jews from flying the German flag; or a February 1942 order prohibiting Jews from owning pets. But others withdrew the voting rights of Jews, their access to education, their capacity to own businesses or to hold particular jobs. In 1934 Jews were banned from sitting university exams; in 1936 they were forbidden from using parks or public swimming pools and from owning electrical equipment, typewriters or bicycles. Jews were also subject to cultural and artistic restrictions, forcing hundreds to leave jobs in the theatre, cinema, cabaret and the visual arts. But even the extraction of Jews from German economic and cultural life was not enough for some. Hardline anti-Semites in the NSDAP talked of taking tougher action against the Jews, with or without the backing of Hitler and his government. The summer of 1935 saw an escalation in spontaneous violence against Jewish people and property, conducted chiefly by SA troopers. In August 1935 Hitler ordered a stop to these individual actions not to protect Jews but to prevent disruption or damage to the German economy. By the NSDAPs annual rally in September 1935, Hitler was under considerable pressure from party hierarchs to order a more decisive response to the Jewish problem. The radicals who instigated anti-Jewish violence wanted the government to legitimise their actions, to provide legal immunity from prosecution or civil action. There were calls for sweeping laws to restrict Jewish economic influence; to prohibit interracial marriage or sexual relations; even to limit or remove the citizenship of German Jews. Some Nazis demanded the government issue clear legal and ethnological guidelines, to provide certainty about who was Jewish and who was not. Drafting anti-Jewish laws German societys allegiance to the necessity of written laws was recognised by the Nazis when they came to power, and the recognition that policies had to appear to be law-based persisted through the peacetime years of Nazi rule. In 1938, when the number two Nazi Hermann Goering suggested in the course of a discussion that German travellers could always kick Jewish passengers out of a crowded compartment on a train, the propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels replied: I would not say that. I do not believe in this. There has to be a law.’ Jonathan Friedman, historian The NSDAPs seventh annual rally, dubbed the Rally of Freedom, began in Nuremberg on September 10th 1935. During the course of the rally Hitler summoned key Nazi officials and ordered them to draft anti-Jewish laws for presentation to the Reichstag. Hitler himself spent 48 hours trying to formulate an adequate racial and legal definition for a Jew. He was unable to make up his mind, so left the matter to his officials. On September 15th, Hitler addressed the Reichstag, then temporarily convened in Nuremberg. He announced two new laws to clarify and define racial identity in Germany. His draft legislation would alsooutline and restrict the relationship between Jews and Aryan Germans: Extracting Jews from German society These two acts became collectively known as the Nuremberg Laws. They were received well at the rally but they did not satisfy extremists in the NSDAP and SA, who believed Hitlers laws did not go far enough. Despite their brevity, the two Nuremberg Laws were worded so broadly that they legitimised a wide array of anti-Semitic policies over the coming years.Sometimes this persecution was officially sanctioned and promulgated by the government; at other times it was unofficial, carried out by agreement rather than by law.Between the mid-1930s and into the first years of World War II, the Nazi regime passed a torrent of laws and regulations that eroded Jewish civil rights. More than 2,000 anti-Semitic decrees were passed at national, state and municipal levels. Some of these measures were seemingly minor, while others affected a significant number of people. The following timeline contains a sampling of these anti-Jewish decrees:

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2015   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

The development of anti-Jewish laws – The Holocaust …

Local descrimination Encouraged by centrally organiseddiscrimination, local people, employers and organisations in towns and villages all over Germany began tovictimiseJews and expel them from employment and to deny them membership of cultural and leisure organisations. Shops, hotels and restaurants began to put up Jews not welcome signs. Local councils also placed signs on park gates and benches informing Jews that they couldnt use them. Gradually the civil rights of Jews across Germany were taken away for example: being banned from being members of sports clubs in April 1933 and not being able own a dog from May 1942. At the beginning of April 1933, the Nazis passed theLaw for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which began the exclusion of Jews from professions. Under this law people who had at least one Jewish grandparent were classed as Jewish. It took the Nazi Party over five years to completely expel the Jews from professional and business life in Germany. TheNuremberg Laws The Nazi governmentlegalisedits anti-Jewish policies with the passing of two laws: the Law for the Protection ofGerman Blood and Honour and also the Reich Citizenship Law(theNuremberg Laws) on 15 September 1935.The first lawforbadeinter-marriage and sexual relations between Jews and Aryans, the second robbed the Jews of their citizenship and all legal rights. These laws were based on the premise that Jews were a racial group rather than a religion. Those who had three Jewish grandparents were classed as full Jews; those who had fewer Jewish grandparents were labelled Mischlinge (half-breeds).

Fair Usage Law

May 19, 2015   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed

Is Christianity Anti-Jewish? – Hebrew for Christians

MANY OF TODAY’S CHURCH LEADERS seem to hold views about ethnic Israel that express institutionalized prejudice and an “anti-Jewish” bias. But how did the church get so far removed from the Jewish roots of the faith? Is Christianity essentially anti-Semitic in its perspective? Is it possible to be a sincere Christian and yet be anti-Jewish? In a sermon I heard recently, a well-known American Evangelical teacher announced to his congregation that he would prefer to have the church “fix his car” rather than get a “free trip” to Israel for his 30th anniversary. He further stated that he’s never been to Israel and has no desire to ever go there, expressing an almost callous indifference to Israel’s past, present, or future. Now this might strike you as rather insignificant, hardly worth mentioning at all, but there are certain theological assumptions lurking behind this sentiment that should be alarming for Christians who hold faith in the veracity of the Jewish Scriptures. What would cause a pastor of a large, Bible-believing church to apparently disdain the idea of going to see the land of Jesus — and to suggest that ethnic Israel is essentially irrelevant? How could someone who regularly studies and preaches from the Jewish Scriptures believe that Israel – past, present, and future – is functionally meaningless for those of the Christian faith? To understand some of this mystery, we have to back up and think about theological presuppositions. In particular, we have to revisit the basic assumptions theologians make when they read the Jewish Scriptures. Many Christian theologians assume a “New Testament priority” when reading the “Old Testament.” Simply put, this means that they apply the terms of the Greek New Testament as they “read backwards” to the Old. As I have said elsewhere, however, while it’s possible that the Old Testament is true and the New Testament is not, it’s impossible for the New Testament to be true if the Old Testament is not. In other words, we must first take pains to understand the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures — and especially the Hebraic mindset — before we draw our conclusions about the meaning of the New Testament. It is just common sense to read things in context, after all. “To the Hebrew first, and then to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; 3:1-2). “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” – The Prophet Isaiah Theologians all bring assumptions and biases when they read the Scriptures, but ideally the goal should be to discover the author’s original intent as it was communicated to his audience. In other words, they should always try to read in context, taking into account the historical situation of the author (including the historical usage of the words and grammar) as well as the culture of those who would read his words. Violating this basic principle invites “reading into the text” things that just aren’t there. That means, among other things, that if you are a Gentile theologian steeped in Western Greek traditions, you better be careful to remember that you are reading Jewish literature. Both the “Old Testament” as well as the “New Testament” are writings from Jews predominantly to fellow Jews. Failure to realize this blindingly obvious fact leads to bizarre and misguided interpretations of the Scriptures. Of course, within the Jewish literature of the Bible there are different genres (types) of writing. There are historical narratives (prose), legal codes, genealogies, annals, poetry, prophecies, prayers, laments, proverbs, miracle stories, parables, didactic letters (epistles), apocalyptic visions, and so on. In addition to the overarching fact that we are dealing with Jewish literature, then, the Bible interpreter must understand the type of literature he or she is reading. We do not read the Bible’s poetry as prose, after all, and conversely, we shouldn’t attempt to find allegories and symbols in historical accounts. The use of logic is essential to ascertaining the meaning of a text. The study of interpretation theory is sometimes called “hermeneutics.” In Talmudic Judaism, for instance, various compilations of rules and methods for determining the meaning of Scripture were devised. In addition to studying the diction and grammar of a given text, Jewish tradition adds the techniques of logical deduction and rules of inference, the critical study of the Masorah (i.e., the scribal transmission process as well as the stylization of the text), the use of “gematria” (Bible codes), but most importantly, the use of precedence in interpretation (i.e., the communal dialog of the Oral Law). This general approach, it should be noted, is vastly different than the Hellenistic theology of Philo and the Jews of Alexandria in the second century B.C. who attempted to synthesize Greek philosophy (i.e., Plato) with traditional Judaism by means of allegorical interpretation methods.

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2015   Posted in: Anti-Jewish  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."