The media and special interest groups are rallying to protect another pedophile and criminal.
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has revealed many things about the current state of our nation and the elites who run it. While anyone with common sense and a cursory understanding of the law could see that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in a clear case of self defense, apparently that is not what matters. To the ruling class due process and constitutional rights don’t matter; what matters is ideology and liberal orthodoxy. The fact that the prosecution did not and could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyle murdered anyone also does not matter.
The outcome is the only thing that matters to these absolutely ruthless people. The rallying around and defense of a pedophile criminal like Joseph Rosenbaum and the lauding of him as a “hero” tells you all you need to know. Not since 1913 has the Jewish community rallied around a criminal and used their overwhelming power over the corporate media with such zeal to try to smear an innocent person to protect said criminal.
This is exactly what the Jewish elites did to protect a man named Leo Frank who raped and murdered a little girl. Writing for the Unz Review about the power of the ADL, Ron Unz describes1 how they do this:
In our modern era, there are surely few organizations that so terrify powerful Americans as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a central organ of the organized Jewish community.
Mel Gibson had long been one of the most popular stars in Hollywood and his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ became among the most profitable in world history, yet the ADL and its allies destroyed his career, and he eventually donated millions of dollars to Jewish groups in desperate hopes of regaining some of his public standing. When the ADL criticized a cartoon that had appeared in one of his newspapers, media titan Rupert Murdoch provided his personal apology to that organization, and the editors of The Economist quickly retracted a different cartoon once it came under ADL fire. Billionaire Tom Perkins, a famed Silicon Valley venture capitalist, was forced to issue a heartfelt apology after coming under ADL criticism for his choice of words in a Wall Street Journal column. These were all proud, powerful individuals, and they must have deeply resented being forced to seek such abject public forgiveness, but they did so nonetheless. The total list of ADL supplicants over the years is a very long one.
Given the fearsome reputation of the ADL and its notorious hair-trigger activists, there was a widespread belief that my small webzine would be completely annihilated when I first launched my recent series of controversial articles in early June by praising the works of historian David Irving, a figure long demonized by the ADL. Yet absolutely nothing happened.
During the next three months my subsequent articles directly challenged nearly every hot-button issue normally so fiercely defended by the ADL and its lackeys, so much so that a friendly journalist soon described me as the “Kamikaze from California.” Yet despite my 90,000 words of text and the 13,000 comments I had attracted, the continuing silence of the ADL was absolutely deafening.
The worrisome incompetence of ADL researchers becomes particularly alarming when we consider that over the last couple of years that organization has been elevated into a content gatekeeping role at America’s largest Internet companies, helping to determine what may or may not be said on the most important Social Media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
My local paper is the San Jose Mercury News and a couple of weeks ago it published a major profile interview with Brittan Heller, the ADL Director tasked with policing “hate speech” across the America-dominated portions of the Internet. She seemed like a perfectly pleasant young woman in her mid-thirties, a Stanford English major and a graduate of Yale Law, now living in Silicon Valley with her husband and her two cats, Luna and Stella. She emphasizes her own experience as a victim of cyber-harassment from a fellow college student whose romantic overtures she rejected and the later expertise she had gained as a Nazi-hunter for the U.S. government. But does that resume really provide her with the god-like knowledge suitable for overriding our traditional First Amendment rights and determining which views and which individuals should be allowed access to some two billion readers worldwide?
There is also a far more serious aspect to the situation. The choice of the ADL as the primary ideological overseer of America’s Internet may seem natural and appropriate to politically-ignorant Americans, a category that unfortunately includes the technology executives leading the companies involved. But this reflects the remarkable cowardice and dishonesty of the American media from which all these individuals derive their knowledge of our world. The true recent history of the ADL is a remarkably sordid and disreputable tale.
In January 1993, the San Francisco Police Department reported that it had recently raided the Northern California headquarters of the ADL based upon information provided by the FBI. The SFPD discovered that the organization had been keeping intelligence files on more than 600 civic organizations and 10,000 individuals, overwhelmingly of a liberal orientation, with the SFPD inspector estimating that 75% of the material had been illegally obtained, much of it by secret payments to police officials. This was merely the tip of the iceberg in what clearly amounted to the largest domestic spying operation by any private organization in American history, and according to some sources, ADL agents across the country had targeted over 1,000 political, religious, labor, and civil rights organizations, with the New York headquarters of the ADL maintaining active dossiers on more than a million Americans.
I know of no other private organization in American history that has been involved in even a sliver of such illegal domestic espionage activity, which appears to have been directed against almost all groups and prominent individuals—left, right, and center—suspected of being insufficiently aligned with Jewish and Israeli interests. Some of the illegal material found in the ADL’s possession even raised dark suspicions that it had played a role in domestic terrorist attacks and political assassinations directed against foreign leaders. I am no legal expert, but given the massive scale of such illegal ADL activities, I wonder whether a plausible case might have been made to prosecute the entire organization under RICO statutes and sentence all of its leaders to long prison terms.
Instead, the resulting government charges were quickly settled with merely a trivial fine and a legal slap on the wrist, demonstrating the near-total impunity provided by massive Jewish political power in modern American society.
Of course if this were any other organization, like a Chinese one for example, they would have been immediately shut down and charges would have been filed. Why is it that the Jewish community and agents of a foreign nation, Israel, are allowed to do this on American soil? The article continues:
Although I had long recognized the power and influence of the ADL, a leading Jewish-activist organization whose officials were so regularly quoted in my newspapers, until rather recently I had only the vaguest notions of its origins. I’m sure I’d heard the story mentioned at some point, but the account had never stuck in my mind.
Then perhaps a year or two ago, I happened to come across some discussion of the ADL’s 2013 centenary celebration, in which the leadership reaffirmed the principles of its 1913 founding. The initial impetus had been the vain national effort to save the life of Leo Frank, a young Southern Jew unjustly accused of murder and eventually lynched. In the past, Frank’s name and story would have been equally vague in my mind, only half-remembered from my introductory history textbooks as one of the most notable early KKK victims in the fiercely anti-Semitic Deep South of the early twentieth century. However, not long before seeing that piece on the ADL I’d read Albert Lindemann’s highly-regarded study The Jew Accused, and his short chapter on the notorious Frank case had completely exploded all my preconceptions.
First, Lindemann demonstrated that there was no evidence of any anti-Semitism behind Frank’s arrest and conviction, with Jews constituting a highly-valued element of the affluent Atlanta society of the day, and no references to Frank’s Jewish background, negative or otherwise, appearing in the media prior to the trial. Indeed, five of the Grand Jurors who voted to indict Frank for murder were themselves Jewish, and none of them ever voiced regret over their decision. In general, support for Frank seems to have been strongest among Jews from New York and other distant parts of the country and weakest among the Atlanta Jews with best knowledge of the local situation.
Furthermore, although Lindemann followed the secondary sources he relied upon in declaring that Frank was clearly innocent of the charges of rape and murder, the facts he recounted led me to the opposite conclusion, seeming to suggest strong evidence of Frank’s guilt. When I much more recently read Lindemann’s longer and more comprehensive historical study of anti-Semitism, Esau’s Tears, I noticed that his abbreviated treatment of the Frank case no longer made any such claim of innocence, perhaps indicating that the author himself might have also had second thoughts about the weight of the evidence.
Based on this material, I voiced that opinion in my recent article on historical anti-Semitism, but my conclusions were necessarily quite tentative since they relied upon Lindermann’s summary of the information provided in the secondary sources he had used, and I had the impression that virtually all those who had closely investigated the Frank case had concluded that Frank was innocent. But after my piece appeared, someone pointed me to a 2016 book from an unexpected source arguing for Frank’s guilt. Now that I have ordered and read that volume, my understanding of the Frank case and its historical significance has been entirely transformed.
Mainstream publishers may often reject books that too sharply conflict with reigning dogma and sales of such works are unlikely to justify the extensive research required to produce the manuscript. Furthermore, both authors and publishers may face widespread vilification from a hostile media for taking such positions. For these reasons, those who publish such controversial material will often be acting from deep ideological motives rather than merely seeking professional advancement or monetary gain. As an example, it took a zealous Trotskyite leftist such as Lenni Brenner to brave the risk of ferocious attacks and invest the time and effort to produce his remarkable study of the crucial Nazi-Zionist partnership of the 1930s. And for similar reasons, we should not be totally surprised that the leading book arguing for the guilt of Leo Frank appeared as a volume in the series on the pernicious aspects of Jewish-Black historical relations produced by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI), nor that the text lacked any identified author.
Anonymous works published by heavily-demonized religious-political movements naturally engender considerable caution, but once I began reading the 500 pages of The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man I was tremendously impressed by the quality of the historical analysis. I think I have only very rarely encountered a research monograph on a controversial historical event that provided such an enormous wealth of carefully-argued analysis backed by such copious evidence. The authors seemed to display complete mastery of the major secondary literature of the last one hundred years while drawing very heavily upon the various primary sources, including court records, personal correspondence, and contemporaneous publications, with the overwhelming majority of the 1200 footnotes referencing newspaper and magazine articles of that era. The case they made for Frank’s guilt seemed absolutely overwhelming.
The basic outline of events is not disputed. In 1913 Georgia, a 13-year-old pencil company worker named Mary Phagan was last seen alive visiting the office of factory manager Leo Frank on a Saturday morning to collect her weekly paycheck, while her raped and murdered body was found in the basement early the next morning and Frank eventually arrested for the crime. As the wealthy young president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, Frank ranked as one of the most prominent Jewish men in the South, and great resources were deployed in his legal defense, but after the longest and most expensive trial in state history, he was quickly convicted and sentenced to death.
The facts of the case against Frank eventually became a remarkable tangle of complex and often conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony, with sworn statements regularly being retracted and then counter-retracted. But the crucial point that the NOI authors emphasize for properly deciphering this confusing situation is the enormous scale of the financial resources that were deployed on Frank’s behalf, both prior to the trial and afterward, with virtually all of the funds coming from Jewish sources. Currency conversions are hardly precise, but relative to the American family incomes of the time, the total expenditures by Frank supporters may have been as high as $25 million in present-day dollars, quite possibly more than any other homicide defense in American history before or after, and an almost unimaginable sum for the impoverished Deep South of that period. Years later, a leading donor privately admitted that much of this money was spent on perjury and similar falsifications, something which is very readily apparent to anyone who closely studies the case. When we consider this vast ocean of pro-Frank funding and the sordid means for which it was often deployed, the details of the case become far less mysterious. There exists a mountain of demonstrably fabricated evidence and false testimony in favor of Frank, and no sign of anything similar on the other side.
The police initially suspected the black night watchman who found the girl’s body, and he was quickly arrested and harshly interrogated. Soon afterward, a bloody shirt was found at his home, and Frank made several statements that seemed to implicate his employee in the crime. At one point, this black suspect may have come close to being summarily lynched by a mob, which would have closed the case. But he stuck to his story of innocence with remarkable composure, in sharp contrast to Frank’s extremely nervous and suspicious behavior, and the police soon shifted their scrutiny toward the latter, culminating in his arrest. All researchers now recognize that the night watchman was entirely innocent, and the evidence against him planted.
The case against Frank steadily mounted. He was the last man known to have seen the young victim and he repeatedly changed important aspects of his story. Numerous former female employees reported his long history of sexually aggressive behavior toward them, especially directed towards the murdered girl herself. At the time of the murder, Frank claimed to have been working alone in his office, but a witness who went there reported he had been nowhere to be found. A vast amount of circumstantial evidence implicated Frank.
A black Frank family servant soon came forward with sworn testimony that Frank had confessed the murder to his wife on the morning after the killing, and this claim seemed supported by the latter’s strange refusal to visit her husband in jail for the first two weeks after the day of his arrest.
Two separate firms of experienced private detectives were hired by Frank’s lavishly-funded partisans, and the agents of both eventually came to the reluctant conclusion that Frank was guilty as charged.
As the investigation moved forward, a major break occurred as a certain Jim Conley, Frank’s black janitor, came forward and confessed to having been Frank’s accomplice in concealing the crime. At the trial he testified that Frank had regularly enlisted him as a lookout during his numerous sexual liaisons with his female employees, and after murdering Phagan, Frank had then offered him a huge sum of money to help remove and hide the body in the basement so that the crime could be pinned upon someone else. But with the legal noose tightening around Frank, Conley had begun to fear that he might be made the new scapegoat, and went to the authorities in order to save his own neck. Despite Conley’s damning accusations, Frank repeatedly refused to confront him in the presence of the police, which was widely seen as further proof of Frank’s guilt.
By the time of the trial itself, all sides were agreed that the murderer was either Frank, the wealthy Jewish businessman, or Conley, the semi-literate black janitor with a first-grade education and a long history of public drunkenness and petty crime. Frank’s lawyers exploited this comparison to the fullest, emphasizing Frank’s Jewish background as evidence for his innocence and indulging in the crudest sort of racial invective against his black accuser, whom they claimed was obviously the true rapist and murderer due to his bestial nature.
Those attorneys were the best that money could buy and the lead counsel was known as the one of the most skilled courtroom interrogators in the South. But although he subjected Conley to a grueling sixteen hours of intense cross-examination over three days, the latter never wavered in the major details of his extremely vivid story, which deeply impressed the local media and the jury. Meanwhile, Frank refused to take the stand at his own trial, thereby avoiding any public cross-examination of his often changing account.
Two notes written in crude black English had been discovered alongside Phagan’s body, and everyone soon agreed that these were written by the murderer in hopes of misdirecting suspicion. So they were either written by a semi-literate black such as Conley or by an educated white attempting to imitate that style, and to my mind, the spelling and choice of words strongly suggests the latter, thereby implicating Frank.
Taking a broader overview, the theory advanced by Frank’s legion of posthumous advocates seems to defy rationality. These journalists and scholars uniformly argue that Conley, a semi-literate black menial, had brutally raped and murdered a young white girl, and the legal authorities soon became aware of this fact, but conspired to set him free by supporting a complex and risky scheme to instead frame an innocent white businessman. Can we really believe that the police officials and prosecutors of a city in the Old South would have violated their oath of office in order to knowingly protect a black rapist and killer from legal punishment and thereby turn him loose upon their city streets, presumably to prey on future young white girls? This implausible reconstruction is particularly bizarre in that nearly all its advocates across the decades have been the staunchest of Jewish liberals, who have endlessly condemned the horrific racism of the Southern authorities of that era, but then unaccountably chose to make a special exception in this one particular case.
In many respects, the more important part of the Frank case began after his conviction and death sentence when many of America’s wealthiest and most influential Jewish leaders began mobilizing to save him from the hangman. They soon established the ADL as a new vehicle for that purpose and succeeded in making the Frank murder case one of the most famous in American history to that date.
Although his role was largely concealed at the time, the most important new backer whom Frank attracted was Albert Lasker of Chicago, the unchallenged monarch of American consumer advertising, which constituted the life’s blood of all of our mainstream newspapers and magazines. Not only did he ultimately provide the lion’s share of the funds for Frank’s defense, but he focused his energies upon shaping the media coverage surrounding the case. Given his dominant business influence in that sector, we should not be surprised that a huge wave of unremitting pro-Frank propaganda soon began appearing across the country in both local and national publications, extending to most of America’s most popular and highly-regarded media outlets, with scarcely a single word told on the other side of the story. This even included all of Atlanta’s own leading newspapers, which suddenly reversed their previous positions and became convinced of Frank’s innocence.
Lasker also enlisted other powerful Jewish figures in the Frank cause, including New York Times owner Adolph Ochs, American Jewish Committee president Louis Marshall, and leading Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff. The Times, in particular, began devoting enormous coverage to this previously-obscure Georgia murder case, and many of its articles were widely republished elsewhere. The NOI authors highlight this extraordinary national media attention: “The Black janitor whose testimony became central to Leo Frank’s conviction became the most quoted Black person in American history up to that time. More of his words appeared in print in the New York Times than those of W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, and Booker T. Washington—combined.”
Back a century ago just as today, our media creates our reality, and with Frank’s innocence being proclaimed nationwide in near-unanimous fashion, a long list of prominent public figures were soon persuaded to demand a new trial for the convicted murderer, including Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Jane Addams.
Ironically enough, Lasker himself plunged into this crusade despite apparently having very mixed personal feelings about the man whose cause he was championing. His later biography reveals that upon his first personal meeting with Frank, he perceived him as “a pervert” and a “disgusting” individual, so much so that he even hoped that after he managed to free Frank, the latter would quickly perish in some accident. Furthermore, in his private correspondence he freely admitted that a large fraction of the massive funding that he and numerous other wealthy Jews from across the country were providing had been spent on perjured testimony and there are also strong hints that he explored bribing various judges. Given these facts, Lasker and Frank’s other major backers were clearly guilty of serious felonies, and could have received lengthy prison terms for their illegal conduct.
With the New York Times and the rest of the liberal Northern media now providing such heavy coverage of the case, Frank’s defense team was forced to abandon the racially-inflammatory rhetoric aimed at his black accuser which had previously been the centerpiece of their trial strategy. Instead, they began concocting a tale of rampant local anti-Semitism, previously unnoticed by all observers, and adopted it as a major grounds for their appeal of the verdict.
The unprincipled legal methods pursued by Frank’s backers is illustrated by a single example. Georgia law normally required that a defendant be present in court to hear the reading of the verdict, but given the popular emotions in the case, the judge suggested that this provision be waived, and the prosecution assented only if the defense lawyers promised not to use this small irregularity as grounds for appeal. But after Frank was convicted, AJC President Marshall and his other backers orchestrated numerous unsuccessful state and federal appeals on exactly this minor technicality, merely hiring other lawyers to file the motions.
For almost two years, the nearly limitless funds deployed by Frank’s supporters covered the costs of thirteen separate appeals on the state and federal levels, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the national media was used to endlessly vilify Georgia’s system of justice in the harshest possible terms. Naturally, this soon generated a local reaction, and during this period outraged Georgians began denouncing the wealthy Jews who were spending such enormous sums to subvert the local criminal justice system.
One of the very few journalists willing to oppose Frank’s position was Georgia publisher Tom Watson, a populist firebrand, and in an editorial he reasonably declared “We cannot have…one law for the Jew, and another for the Gentile” while he also later lamented that “It is a bad state of affairs when the idea gets abroad that the law is too weak to punish a man who has plenty of money.” A former Georgia governor indignantly inquired “Are we to understand that anybody except a Jew can be punished for a crime.” The clear facts indicate that there was indeed a massive miscarriage of justice in Frank’s case, but virtually all of it occurred in Frank’s favor.
All appeals were ultimately rejected and Frank’s execution date for the rape and murder of the young girl finally drew near. But just days before he was scheduled to leave office, Georgia’s outgoing governor commuted Frank’s sentence, provoking an enormous storm of popular protest, especially since he was the business partner of Frank’s chief defense lawyer, an obvious conflict of interest. Given the enormous funds that Frank’s national supporters had been deploying on his behalf and the widespread past admissions of bribery in the case, there are obviously dark suspicions about what had prompted such a remarkably unpopular decision, which soon forced the former governor to exile himself from the state. A few weeks later, a group of Georgia citizens stormed Frank’s prison farm, abducting and hanging him, with Frank becoming the first and only Jew lynched in American history.
Naturally, Frank’s killing was roundly denounced in the national media that had long promoted his cause. But even in those quarters, there may have been a significant difference between public and private sentiments. No newspaper in the country had more strongly championed Frank’s innocence than the New York Times of Adolph Ochs. Yet according to the personal diary of one of the Times editors, Ochs privately despised Frank, and perhaps even greeted his lynching with a sense of relief. No effort was ever made by Frank’s wealthy supporters to bring any of the lynching party to justice.
So this Jewish community was well aware of Frank’s guilt and even privately acknowledged their disdain for him, and yet they still defended him publicly and created the Anti-Defamation League to try to proclaim him innocent. They resorted to bribery and perjury and outright lies to try to create a false alternate history, spending millions of dollars to pervert the courts and bend people to their will. It was the Jewish community, money and media that turned him into a martyr and “hero” turning his case into a national affair. We know that the Talmud calls non-Jews “sub-human” which perhaps explains why other members of the community would defend a horrific criminal and pedophile — inasmuch as they did not see the victim as a real person.
The ADL was quite literally founded to pervert justice in America and the control of the narrative and flow of information by the same group of people has had profound and deadly consequences. And in this current public square, the Anti-Defamation League now wields control over the internet and what American citizens are allowed to talk about.
It should be noted that the truth of the innocence of the janitor and of Leo Frank’s guilt was squelched to such a degree that even today this truth has not caught up to many reasonably well-read people. There are countless articles about Leo Frank and what he did to Mary Phagan, I recommend anyone who is unfamiliar read “Mary Phagan Was Raped and Murdered by Leo Frank of B’nai B’rith on April 26, 1913”2, “Leo Frank: Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case?”3, and “Making an Impact: ADL Narrative Highly Questioned on Twitter”4.
The ADL is once again doing exactly what it was founded to do, with the gleeful assistance of the corporate media and their allies in big tech. Judeo-Marxists have seized upon the Kyle Rittenhouse case in an attempt to make self-defense illegal in America. This trial seemed to be less about the events that occurred the night of August 25, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It appears to be a proxy for the regime to assert that you are not allowed to defend yourself against the foot soldiers of the regime. They think you should be forced to stand there and let yourself get killed if that is what the mob demands.
They pulled out all their usual tricks, including attempted jury intimidation to attempt to pervert justice again. When this failed, they began to rage online seething and screeching and wailing about “white supremacy.” Death threats have been issued to Kyle Rittenhouse, Judge Bruce Schroeder in the case and his children as well as the lawyers and now the jury. They are demanding the federal government initiate an “investigation” into the case already and demanding the Department of Justice intervene, all to ruin Kyle’s life.
MSNBC has lost its grip on reality entirely. They seem to now believe that sleeper cell Manchurian candidate Rittenhouses are being installed nationwide all waiting for the “final dogwhistle” to signal some cataclysmic event.
The media has created a total inversion of reality and truth in their disgusting attempt to crush any White man who dares defend himself from criminals about to kill him.
They made false claims that Kyle “hunted” people, as if he just started shooting indiscriminately which supposition was proven to be totally false. Kyle exhibited remarkable restraint in the face of a frightening roving mob, chasing him and trying to murder him.
The Jewish Chronicle of Wisconsin came out in defense of Joseph Rosenbaum, a child predator and criminal who assaulted his partner in an act of domestic violence earlier that same day, and had just been released from a mental facility. While they claim they believe all people are made in the image of God, I would ask them why the Talmud claims the exact opposite.
Joseph Rosenbaum sodomized and molested five little boys under the age of 12 but is being called a “hero.” If that doesn’t make you feel sick, I don’t know what would. This is the clearest example of the problem with the Anti-Defamation League and a tribal and supremacist group who defend their own even when they are horrific criminals.
Pedro Gonzalez, one of the few real journalists in existence today makes a very good point that the media must be held accountable or the lies will continue and grow worse.
Which is the group that exerts overwhelming editorial control and ownership of the media?
Right wing extremists have been praising Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old who is charged with murdering 2 men at a social justice protest in Kenosha, WI. Glorification of murder in any form sets a dangerous tone. More from our experts:
The ADL began setting the stage with their lies about this case and attempting to influence it back in October of 2020 before anyone had the chance to view and examine all of the evidence.
The ADL continues to glorify, protect and defend child predators and criminals. Personally I find that behavior very “extreme” and disgusting.
This image was posted in response to the ADL post. If you say Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong, which is objectively true, you will get banned. But if you say that Antifa can kill “fascists,” you will get boosted online.
Well the ADL released a statement following the verdict on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial calling the celebrations to the acquittal “troubling & extreme.” It’s good to see that the ADL is upholding its 100-year tradition of protecting the most persecuted group in society: pedophiles
I am not the only one noticing the pattern of the ADL ,protecting pedophiles, the worse criminals in society.
Sydney Watson @SydneyLWatson
Man, imagine being so low IQ that you hold up signs saying that a convicted pedophile is a “hero” https://t.co/EYMd3JP6Wm
The good news is people are starting to notice and the ADL is getting seriously ratio’d in response to their hyperbolic tweets.
When the FBI was uncovering a deep penetration of American intelligence that had high ranking Zionists passing security secrets directly to Israel through AIPAC, the ADL denounced the investigation as anti-Semitic and AIPAC pressured Congress into denouncing the investigation.
Keith Woods ☘️ @KeithWoodsYT
The US should have outlawed AIPAC in 2006. They discovered someone who worked at the Office of Special Plans under ultra-Zionist Douglas Feith was passing U.S. National Security secrets to senior AIPAC officials. The officials walked and the traitor got only a brief house arrest. https://t.co/rZPF6J1jfS
The ADL is also tied to foreign influence and spying operations like AIPAC and have defended their anti-American and criminal conduct as well.
It should trouble us all that extremists – from white supremacists to anti-government, from QAnon to the Proud Boys – are celebrating the verdict. ADL is monitoring and will share more details from our Center on Extremism soon. https://t.co/LEmCgWkVGX
This is sadly true, that is the function of the ADL and other “special interest” groups like it.
Maurice Pinay @MauricePinay
Americans are celebrating the acquittal of an innocent American. The unregistered foreign agents of the ADL are monitoring the situation https://t.co/NBFu0BLtQO
This is why the ADL pushes so hard to censor the internet and any criticism of them, they don’t want people learning the truth about them and why they were founded in the first place.
It should trouble us all that extremists – from white supremacists to anti-government, from QAnon to the Proud Boys – are celebrating the verdict. ADL is monitoring and will share more details from our Center on Extremism soon.
The verdict in the #KyleRittenhouse case is a travesty and fails to deliver justice on behalf of those who lost their lives as they peacefully assembled to protest against police brutality and violence.
The NAACP, who often works as foot soldiers for the Jewish elites refers to Huber and Rosenbaum as “peacefully assembled protesters” rather than the violent rioters that they were.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a supposedly “non-partisan” “civil rights” organization is upset that a defendant is free after the state failed to meet its burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The kvetching will not stop.
Fun fact: the ADL was established by Jewish Freemason sect B’nai B’rth to defend child rapist and murderer Leo Frank. So if you take your opinions from the ADL, you’re essentially a pedophile sympathizer.
This is correct, if you listen to the ADL you are essentially siding with pedophile defenders and sympathizers.
In light of the Rittenhouse verdict, a reminder that the A D L was created after the JUSTIFIED lynching of Leo Frank, a j-wish pedophile who raped and killed 13 year old Mary Phagan, a white child labourer in his factory. A D L stands for defending j-wish pedos. Always has.
The ADL and its allied organizations are subversive agents of a foreign power seeking to undermine western civilization and overthrow it. They are revolutionaries who wish to remake society in their sick image. We saw what it looks like when the same forces orchestrated the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. Millions of people end up dead in their secular pursuit of a false utopia.
We must begin to organize and get serious about this, because our enemies want us dead.
Self defense is NOT a crime and that has been affirmed once again, despite the wailing of the media.
Let them seethe and let a thousand Kyles bloom.