![PhaganKean's tweet photo. The ADL’s Leo Frank Story Goes Far Beyond the 1913 Record
The Anti-Defamation League says Leo Frank was convicted after a trial “defined by antisemitism.” Its 2015 page, Remembering Leo Frank, also says he was convicted of the “rape and murder” of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. A second ADL article, “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew,” presents a furious courthouse mob crying “Hang the Jew” and says antisemitism “hung heavy in the courtroom.” (ADL, 1) (ADL, 2)
The surviving record does not support such a simple, lacrymose picture of a religious-persecution trial. Discrimination existed in the United States, and openly anti-Jewish language later became part of the Frank controversy. But the evidence does not show Antisemitism drove Frank’s investigation, indictment, trial, or guilty verdict. Contrary to the ADL claim, Frank’s trial was not defined or driven by Antisemitism.
The strongest sustained anti-Jewish publishing campaign in the later Georgia controversy came from one factional populist publisher, Tom Watson, after Frank’s trial was already over. Frank’s trial ran from July 28 through August 25, 1913. Watson’s major Frank campaign began in March 1914, nearly seven months later. His later rhetoric cannot be retrojected, or moved backward in time, and used as proof of what motivated police, prosecutors, grand jurors, trial jurors, or newspaper reporters during the summer of 1913.
One publisher, however loud or influential, cannot speak for an entire state.
Georgia’s mainstream newspapers present a broader picture. The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, and The Atlanta Georgian published reports about evidence which emerged and incriminated Frank, but they also printed material favorable to him and his defense.
Steve Oney, after seventeen years of research on the case, wrote in Nieman Reports in 2004: “To the extent there was bias in the coverage, it was mostly in Frank’s favor.” He specifically named the Georgian and the Journal. (Oney, 3)
So the surviving press record does not support a picture of Atlanta’s mainstream newspapers running an anti-Jewish campaign against Frank. Public hostility toward Frank existed. Support for Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey existed. Neither fact automatically proves religious hatred.
The ADL contradicts its own broader teaching material
The ADL’s own People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide is slightly more careful than its short public pages meant for its donors and agitators.
Under “Arrest and Prosecution,” the guide says Frank’s religious background “did not arise as an issue” during the early investigation. It also says five Jews sat on the grand jury and Atlanta’s Jewish community initially maintained faith in the legal process. (ADL Teacher’s Guide, 4)
Such wording is very different from asserting on its website the entire trial was “defined by antisemitism.”
The guide also places Tom Watson’s anti-Jewish writing in the later campaign surrounding the case. Even ADL educational material therefore preserves an important timeline: Frank’s religion was not an issue at the start of the investigation, while openly antisemitic agitation became more visible later.
The grand jury does not look like a religious prosecution
Leo Frank was indicted on May 24, 1913.
Twenty-one grand jurors took part in the final action and unanimously returned the murder indictment. Several Jewish men were among them. The ADL teacher’s guide says five Jews sat on the full grand jury panel.
Jewish participation does not prove prejudice was impossible. No single fact can reveal every private thought held by every participant. But it creates a serious problem for a simple story in which Frank was selected for prosecution because he was Jewish.
The indictment charged murder.
It did not separately charge rape. Evidence of sexual assault and motive formed part of the prosecution’s case, but Frank was convicted of murder.
The ADL’s description of a conviction for “rape and murder” therefore goes beyond the actual verdict.
What did the crowd actually shout?
Frank’s lawyers made a formal mistrial motion based partly on crowd behavior. If people inside or around the courthouse had really been screaming “Hang the Jew,” threatening jurors, or openly demanding Frank’s death because he was Jewish, the defense’s mistrial motion was the obvious place to put those words into the court record.
Frank’s lawyers listed crowd pressures in detail. They complained about applause. They complained about cheering for Dorsey. They described cries of “Hurrah for Dorsey.” They argued such demonstrations could influence the jury.
Yet they did not report a “Hang the Jew” chant.
No organized anti-Jewish death chant appears in the defense’s detailed complaint about the crowd. According to The Atlanta Journal, attorney Reuben Arnold even said he “did not hear the crowd mention Frank’s name.”
Frank’s attorneys were trying to save their client from conviction and execution. They had every reason to place any open antisemitic death threat into the record if one had occurred. Yet the famous phrase is missing from their own crowd-pressure argument.
This absence is important because modern accounts often treat the chant as one of the clearest examples of Antisemitism controlling the trial.
Burton Rascoe and the later courtroom story
The specific courtroom version appears much later in pro-Frank writing from outside Georgia.
Burton Rascoe, whose full name was Arthur Burton Rascoe, published a strongly pro-Frank propaganda article in the Chicago Sunday Tribune on December 27, 1914, more than sixteen months after the verdict. Rascoe claimed men in the courtroom shouted at jurors:
“You’d better hang the Jew. If you don’t, we’ll hang him and get you, too.”
This is the earliest documented source I can find for this specific courtroom story. (Rascoe, 5)
Five days earlier, C. P. Connolly had published a different allegation. Connolly described an anonymous telephone threat received in a Frank lawyer’s law office. His story involved a caller threatening a lawyer if Frank was not hanged. It was not a courthouse crowd shouting at jurors.
Rascoe changed the scene into a threat inside the courtroom aimed directly at the jury. His article appeared sixteen months after the trial and outside Georgia.
This timing is important because detailed reports written during the trial, including Frank’s own mistrial motion, do not contain Rascoe’s dramatic courtroom threat.
Steve Oney: “It didn’t happen”
Steve Oney’s finding deserves much more attention than it usually receives.
Oney spent seventeen years researching the case for his 742-page book, And the Dead Shall Rise. In a February 5, 2004 interview with David Finnigan in the Jewish Journal, Oney was asked about the familiar story of people outside the courthouse threatening the jury.
His answer was direct:
“It didn’t happen.”
Oney explained how the story entered later retellings and became accepted through repetition. (Oney, 6)
This is especially important when judging the ADL article titled “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew.” The ADL presents the chant as part of the historical scene. Yet one of the best-known modern researchers of the case publicly rejected the famous version more than a decade prior to the ADL article.
Oney’s work also cuts against the idea of a uniformly hostile press. In Nieman Reports, he wrote bias in Atlanta newspaper coverage was “mostly in Frank’s favor.”
Those two findings belong side by side. The famous chant does not survive Oney’s source check, while the mainstream press was not uniformly anti-Frank.
Support for Dorsey was not proof of Antisemitism
Dorsey addressed the prejudice charge after the verdict. He acknowledged crowds had cheered him.
His argument was simple. Cheering for the prosecutor showed support for the prosecutor. It did not logically prove hatred of Frank, much less hatred of Jews.
To move from “the crowd cheered Dorsey” to “the crowd was antisemitic” is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the evidence.
The same problem appears in many later accounts. Public anger at Frank becomes evidence of Antisemitism, then Antisemitism is used to explain the public anger. The argument becomes circular unless independent evidence of religious motive is supplied.
There were allegations of anti-Jewish statements, including accusations involving juror A. H. Henslee. Henslee denied the allegation under oath. A fair account should report both the accusation and the denial.
A disputed allegation is not the same as a proven fact.
Tom Watson was important, but he was not Georgia
Tom Watson eventually used ugly anti-Jewish language against Frank and Frank’s supporters. No honest account needs to hide it.
But the timing is central.
Watson’s major public campaign over Frank began in March 1914. Frank had already been convicted nearly seven months earlier. Watson therefore supplies evidence for a later stage of the controversy, not proof of what caused the 1913 verdict.
His rhetoric became especially important during the appeals, national publicity campaign, clemency fight, and months leading to Frank’s lynching.
Watson was influential, but he was one factional populist publisher. His words cannot be treated as the voice of The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian, the prosecution, the trial judge, the grand jury, the trial jury, Atlanta, or the entire state of Georgia.
The mainstream Atlanta press did not run a comparable anti-Jewish campaign. Oney’s press study points in the opposite direction. He found most newspaper bias favored Frank.
Watson was part of the story. He was not the whole story.
Georgia cannot be reduced to an antisemitic state
Georgia, like every state, had people with prejudices. It also had a long-established Jewish population with deep roots in business, law, civic organizations, philanthropy, and public life.
Blanket descriptions of Georgia as an antisemitic state flatten a much more complicated history. Steve Oney has described 1913 Atlanta as philosemitic, with assimilated German Jews occupying places in the city’s financial and legal establishment. Atlanta’s Jewish population had grown from only 26 people in 1850 to about 4,000 by 1910, roughly 2.6 percent of the city. Jewish Atlantans held seats on the school board, aldermanic board, and state legislature and helped establish major civic institutions (Georgia History, 7).
Georgia should not be described as free of Antisemitism. No place can honestly be given such a label. But describing Georgia itself as broadly antisemitic, either in 1913 or today, is also too crude. Atlanta developed one of the South’s largest and most established Jewish communities, with Jewish participation in business, politics, education, law, medicine, philanthropy, and the arts continuing across generations.
The Frank case should be judged from its own record, not from a stereotype imposed on Georgia.
Slaton did not say an antisemitic mob controlled the trial
Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life imprisonment on June 21, 1915.
Slaton discussed intense public feeling and claims of mob pressure. He also wrote, concerning fears of an attack during the earlier proceedings, “No such attack was made,” adding available evidence did not show one was contemplated (Slaton, 8).
Slaton did not declare Frank innocent. He did not erase the verdict. He did not announce an antisemitic mob had forced the jury to convict. He stated he was sustaining the jury, judge and appellate tribunals.
His commutation focused on doubts he believed serious enough to remove the death penalty while leaving the conviction in place.
The Supreme Court record was divided on mob influence
Frank later sought federal relief in Frank v. Mangum. The United States Supreme Court ruled against him 7 to 2 in 1915.
The majority recognized mob domination, if proved, could violate due process. It also held Georgia’s courts had considered Frank’s claims and found no basis for federal habeas relief on the record presented.
Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Charles Evans Hughes dissented. Their dissent included the famous line, “Mob law does not become due process of law.” This statement was not a finding of fact.
So a real legal dispute existed over mob influence and federal review.
But mob pressure and a specific antisemitic chant are separate claims. Even the dissent does not establish Rascoe’s later “Hang the Jew” courtroom story as a proven event.
The 1986 pardon did not declare Frank innocent
The ADL also presents Frank as a man convicted of a murder he did not commit.
People are free to argue for Frank’s innocence. But Georgia’s 1986 pardon did not reach such a finding.
The State Board of Pardons and Paroles expressly granted the pardon “without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence.” The board based its action on Georgia’s failure to protect Frank while in state custody and its failure to bring the lynchers to justice. (Pardon Board, 9)
So the pardon was not an exoneration.
This point is important because modern retellings often blur a humanitarian pardon into a finding of innocence. The board itself refused to make such a finding.
Later Antisemitism does not rewrite the 1913 trial
Real anti-Jewish rhetoric later entered the Frank controversy.
Watson used it.
The clemency fight became more bitter.
Frank was kidnapped from state custody and lynched on August 17, 1915.
Georgia failed to protect him from his killers and failed to prosecute the lynchers. Those failures were central to his 1986 pardon. The pardon did not declare Leo Frank innocent, or vacate his conviction.
None of those facts needs to be minimized.
But events in 1914 and 1915 cannot automatically prove Antisemitism drove a trial ending in August 1913.
Chronology is evidence.
The ADL collapses different stages of the case into one story for political expediency. It takes later anti-Jewish agitation and projects it backward onto the trial. It also repeats the famous “Hang the Jew” scene even though Oney concluded, after seventeen years of research, “It didn’t happen.”
The surviving 1913 record shows a sensational murder trial, strong public interest, crowded courtrooms, cheering for Dorsey, applause, and fear among Frank’s lawyers over public pressure. Those facts are real.
But strong public feeling is not automatically Antisemitism.
The evidence does not show Antisemitism drove Frank’s investigation, indictment, prosecution, trial, or guilty verdict. Contrary to the ADL’s claim, the trial was not “defined by antisemitism” simply because later stages of the controversy included one man who lived outside Atlanta publishing real anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Tom Watson’s later antisemitic campaign of 1914-1915 cannot speak for the mainstream press or the state.
Burton Rascoe’s late pro-Frank courtroom story cannot replace the contemporary trial record and Atlanta press that covered the trial in meticulous detail.
And Steve Oney’s finding remains difficult to get around:
“It didn’t happen.”
The difference is simple. Later writers may describe the Frank trial as an antisemitic proceeding. The contemporary record still has to prove it.
So far, the famous “Hang the Jew” courthouse story fails this test. It's an antigentile blood libel and a popular hoax among the Leo Frank apologists who use this falsification of history to trick unsuspecting people who read their writing.
References
Anti-Defamation League. (2015, August 12). Remembering Leo Frank.
https://t.co/JwYTG6QXUf
Anti-Defamation League. (2015, August 6). “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew.”
https://t.co/JXGa6nDBxz
Oney, S. (2004, March 15). Murder Trials and Media Sensationalism. Nieman Reports.
https://t.co/06au3tVBdk
Anti-Defamation League. (2009). The People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide, p. 16.
https://t.co/zGseBqOEiQ
Rascoe, B. [Arthur Burton Rascoe]. (1914, December 27). Will the State of Georgia Hang an Innocent Man? Chicago Sunday Tribune, p. 47.
https://t.co/gnnbxXpgeX
Finnigan, D. (2004, February 5). Q & A With Steve Oney. Jewish Journal.
https://t.co/RvMRJQfr62
Bauman, M. K. (2004, March 15). Jewish Community of Atlanta. New Georgia Encyclopedia.
https://t.co/eJq0l8dIkN
Slaton, J. M. (1915, June 21). Executive decision commuting Leo M. Frank’s sentence. Reproduced by the Mary Phagan-Kean Legacy Project.
https://t.co/dDhFfnGkQi
Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (1986, March 11). Pardon of Leo M. Frank. Reproduced by the Mary Phagan-Kean Legacy Project.
https://t.co/wUi5maa4nJ](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HStT0gLWIAEwr24.png)
Olivia
Online
Jake Shields
@jakeshieldsajj
former UFC/MMA fighter and 5-time world champion- Host of the Fight Back podcast (@ShieldsClips)
Joined October 2009
1.9K Following
908.7K Followers
116.5K Posts
Pinned Tweet
After being sold out for almost 6 months, I just got the early life Mug back in stock
This is perfect for those not ready for the ZOG shirt but want their coworkers to know that they notice
Link in the comments
@5149jamesli I predict late next year
Who to follow
How long until Nick Fuentes headlines a TPUSA event?
What kind of sick fucks like to watch their buddys rape people?
The Epstein civilization that's who, also known as Israel.
These shoes are extremely rare, and I can't find any other examples of his team wearing them
This seems like an extremely important detail
Charlie Kirk’s whole security team wore the same static dissipating shoes. The type people wear when they’re handling explosives, or working in munitions factories, so that any static electricity they pick up is earthed out into the ground before it can cause an accidental spark and cause an unexpected explosion.
All of them. WTF?
Perhaps they all communicated before the event to coordinate their outfits and to make sure they didn’t clash - but I doubt it.
Why would they need special explosives handling shoes?
Lavender is an AI that Israel uses to kill Palestinians
It gives kill scores based on multiple data points
At a 70, they will kill you, and at an 85, they will blow up your entire block
They are now giving out kill scores to American citizens on Twitter
I'm at a firm 88
The ADL’s Leo Frank Story Goes Far Beyond the 1913 Record
The Anti-Defamation League says Leo Frank was convicted after a trial “defined by antisemitism.” Its 2015 page, Remembering Leo Frank, also says he was convicted of the “rape and murder” of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. A second ADL article, “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew,” presents a furious courthouse mob crying “Hang the Jew” and says antisemitism “hung heavy in the courtroom.” (ADL, 1) (ADL, 2)
The surviving record does not support such a simple, lacrymose picture of a religious-persecution trial. Discrimination existed in the United States, and openly anti-Jewish language later became part of the Frank controversy. But the evidence does not show Antisemitism drove Frank’s investigation, indictment, trial, or guilty verdict. Contrary to the ADL claim, Frank’s trial was not defined or driven by Antisemitism.
The strongest sustained anti-Jewish publishing campaign in the later Georgia controversy came from one factional populist publisher, Tom Watson, after Frank’s trial was already over. Frank’s trial ran from July 28 through August 25, 1913. Watson’s major Frank campaign began in March 1914, nearly seven months later. His later rhetoric cannot be retrojected, or moved backward in time, and used as proof of what motivated police, prosecutors, grand jurors, trial jurors, or newspaper reporters during the summer of 1913.
One publisher, however loud or influential, cannot speak for an entire state.
Georgia’s mainstream newspapers present a broader picture. The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, and The Atlanta Georgian published reports about evidence which emerged and incriminated Frank, but they also printed material favorable to him and his defense.
Steve Oney, after seventeen years of research on the case, wrote in Nieman Reports in 2004: “To the extent there was bias in the coverage, it was mostly in Frank’s favor.” He specifically named the Georgian and the Journal. (Oney, 3)
So the surviving press record does not support a picture of Atlanta’s mainstream newspapers running an anti-Jewish campaign against Frank. Public hostility toward Frank existed. Support for Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey existed. Neither fact automatically proves religious hatred.
The ADL contradicts its own broader teaching material
The ADL’s own People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide is slightly more careful than its short public pages meant for its donors and agitators.
Under “Arrest and Prosecution,” the guide says Frank’s religious background “did not arise as an issue” during the early investigation. It also says five Jews sat on the grand jury and Atlanta’s Jewish community initially maintained faith in the legal process. (ADL Teacher’s Guide, 4)
Such wording is very different from asserting on its website the entire trial was “defined by antisemitism.”
The guide also places Tom Watson’s anti-Jewish writing in the later campaign surrounding the case. Even ADL educational material therefore preserves an important timeline: Frank’s religion was not an issue at the start of the investigation, while openly antisemitic agitation became more visible later.
The grand jury does not look like a religious prosecution
Leo Frank was indicted on May 24, 1913.
Twenty-one grand jurors took part in the final action and unanimously returned the murder indictment. Several Jewish men were among them. The ADL teacher’s guide says five Jews sat on the full grand jury panel.
Jewish participation does not prove prejudice was impossible. No single fact can reveal every private thought held by every participant. But it creates a serious problem for a simple story in which Frank was selected for prosecution because he was Jewish.
The indictment charged murder.
It did not separately charge rape. Evidence of sexual assault and motive formed part of the prosecution’s case, but Frank was convicted of murder.
The ADL’s description of a conviction for “rape and murder” therefore goes beyond the actual verdict.
What did the crowd actually shout?
Frank’s lawyers made a formal mistrial motion based partly on crowd behavior. If people inside or around the courthouse had really been screaming “Hang the Jew,” threatening jurors, or openly demanding Frank’s death because he was Jewish, the defense’s mistrial motion was the obvious place to put those words into the court record.
Frank’s lawyers listed crowd pressures in detail. They complained about applause. They complained about cheering for Dorsey. They described cries of “Hurrah for Dorsey.” They argued such demonstrations could influence the jury.
Yet they did not report a “Hang the Jew” chant.
No organized anti-Jewish death chant appears in the defense’s detailed complaint about the crowd. According to The Atlanta Journal, attorney Reuben Arnold even said he “did not hear the crowd mention Frank’s name.”
Frank’s attorneys were trying to save their client from conviction and execution. They had every reason to place any open antisemitic death threat into the record if one had occurred. Yet the famous phrase is missing from their own crowd-pressure argument.
This absence is important because modern accounts often treat the chant as one of the clearest examples of Antisemitism controlling the trial.
Burton Rascoe and the later courtroom story
The specific courtroom version appears much later in pro-Frank writing from outside Georgia.
Burton Rascoe, whose full name was Arthur Burton Rascoe, published a strongly pro-Frank propaganda article in the Chicago Sunday Tribune on December 27, 1914, more than sixteen months after the verdict. Rascoe claimed men in the courtroom shouted at jurors:
“You’d better hang the Jew. If you don’t, we’ll hang him and get you, too.”
This is the earliest documented source I can find for this specific courtroom story. (Rascoe, 5)
Five days earlier, C. P. Connolly had published a different allegation. Connolly described an anonymous telephone threat received in a Frank lawyer’s law office. His story involved a caller threatening a lawyer if Frank was not hanged. It was not a courthouse crowd shouting at jurors.
Rascoe changed the scene into a threat inside the courtroom aimed directly at the jury. His article appeared sixteen months after the trial and outside Georgia.
This timing is important because detailed reports written during the trial, including Frank’s own mistrial motion, do not contain Rascoe’s dramatic courtroom threat.
Steve Oney: “It didn’t happen”
Steve Oney’s finding deserves much more attention than it usually receives.
Oney spent seventeen years researching the case for his 742-page book, And the Dead Shall Rise. In a February 5, 2004 interview with David Finnigan in the Jewish Journal, Oney was asked about the familiar story of people outside the courthouse threatening the jury.
His answer was direct:
“It didn’t happen.”
Oney explained how the story entered later retellings and became accepted through repetition. (Oney, 6)
This is especially important when judging the ADL article titled “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew.” The ADL presents the chant as part of the historical scene. Yet one of the best-known modern researchers of the case publicly rejected the famous version more than a decade prior to the ADL article.
Oney’s work also cuts against the idea of a uniformly hostile press. In Nieman Reports, he wrote bias in Atlanta newspaper coverage was “mostly in Frank’s favor.”
Those two findings belong side by side. The famous chant does not survive Oney’s source check, while the mainstream press was not uniformly anti-Frank.
Support for Dorsey was not proof of Antisemitism
Dorsey addressed the prejudice charge after the verdict. He acknowledged crowds had cheered him.
His argument was simple. Cheering for the prosecutor showed support for the prosecutor. It did not logically prove hatred of Frank, much less hatred of Jews.
To move from “the crowd cheered Dorsey” to “the crowd was antisemitic” is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the evidence.
The same problem appears in many later accounts. Public anger at Frank becomes evidence of Antisemitism, then Antisemitism is used to explain the public anger. The argument becomes circular unless independent evidence of religious motive is supplied.
There were allegations of anti-Jewish statements, including accusations involving juror A. H. Henslee. Henslee denied the allegation under oath. A fair account should report both the accusation and the denial.
A disputed allegation is not the same as a proven fact.
Tom Watson was important, but he was not Georgia
Tom Watson eventually used ugly anti-Jewish language against Frank and Frank’s supporters. No honest account needs to hide it.
But the timing is central.
Watson’s major public campaign over Frank began in March 1914. Frank had already been convicted nearly seven months earlier. Watson therefore supplies evidence for a later stage of the controversy, not proof of what caused the 1913 verdict.
His rhetoric became especially important during the appeals, national publicity campaign, clemency fight, and months leading to Frank’s lynching.
Watson was influential, but he was one factional populist publisher. His words cannot be treated as the voice of The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian, the prosecution, the trial judge, the grand jury, the trial jury, Atlanta, or the entire state of Georgia.
The mainstream Atlanta press did not run a comparable anti-Jewish campaign. Oney’s press study points in the opposite direction. He found most newspaper bias favored Frank.
Watson was part of the story. He was not the whole story.
Georgia cannot be reduced to an antisemitic state
Georgia, like every state, had people with prejudices. It also had a long-established Jewish population with deep roots in business, law, civic organizations, philanthropy, and public life.
Blanket descriptions of Georgia as an antisemitic state flatten a much more complicated history. Steve Oney has described 1913 Atlanta as philosemitic, with assimilated German Jews occupying places in the city’s financial and legal establishment. Atlanta’s Jewish population had grown from only 26 people in 1850 to about 4,000 by 1910, roughly 2.6 percent of the city. Jewish Atlantans held seats on the school board, aldermanic board, and state legislature and helped establish major civic institutions (Georgia History, 7).
Georgia should not be described as free of Antisemitism. No place can honestly be given such a label. But describing Georgia itself as broadly antisemitic, either in 1913 or today, is also too crude. Atlanta developed one of the South’s largest and most established Jewish communities, with Jewish participation in business, politics, education, law, medicine, philanthropy, and the arts continuing across generations.
The Frank case should be judged from its own record, not from a stereotype imposed on Georgia.
Slaton did not say an antisemitic mob controlled the trial
Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life imprisonment on June 21, 1915.
Slaton discussed intense public feeling and claims of mob pressure. He also wrote, concerning fears of an attack during the earlier proceedings, “No such attack was made,” adding available evidence did not show one was contemplated (Slaton, 8).
Slaton did not declare Frank innocent. He did not erase the verdict. He did not announce an antisemitic mob had forced the jury to convict. He stated he was sustaining the jury, judge and appellate tribunals.
His commutation focused on doubts he believed serious enough to remove the death penalty while leaving the conviction in place.
The Supreme Court record was divided on mob influence
Frank later sought federal relief in Frank v. Mangum. The United States Supreme Court ruled against him 7 to 2 in 1915.
The majority recognized mob domination, if proved, could violate due process. It also held Georgia’s courts had considered Frank’s claims and found no basis for federal habeas relief on the record presented.
Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Charles Evans Hughes dissented. Their dissent included the famous line, “Mob law does not become due process of law.” This statement was not a finding of fact.
So a real legal dispute existed over mob influence and federal review.
But mob pressure and a specific antisemitic chant are separate claims. Even the dissent does not establish Rascoe’s later “Hang the Jew” courtroom story as a proven event.
The 1986 pardon did not declare Frank innocent
The ADL also presents Frank as a man convicted of a murder he did not commit.
People are free to argue for Frank’s innocence. But Georgia’s 1986 pardon did not reach such a finding.
The State Board of Pardons and Paroles expressly granted the pardon “without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence.” The board based its action on Georgia’s failure to protect Frank while in state custody and its failure to bring the lynchers to justice. (Pardon Board, 9)
So the pardon was not an exoneration.
This point is important because modern retellings often blur a humanitarian pardon into a finding of innocence. The board itself refused to make such a finding.
Later Antisemitism does not rewrite the 1913 trial
Real anti-Jewish rhetoric later entered the Frank controversy.
Watson used it.
The clemency fight became more bitter.
Frank was kidnapped from state custody and lynched on August 17, 1915.
Georgia failed to protect him from his killers and failed to prosecute the lynchers. Those failures were central to his 1986 pardon. The pardon did not declare Leo Frank innocent, or vacate his conviction.
None of those facts needs to be minimized.
But events in 1914 and 1915 cannot automatically prove Antisemitism drove a trial ending in August 1913.
Chronology is evidence.
The ADL collapses different stages of the case into one story for political expediency. It takes later anti-Jewish agitation and projects it backward onto the trial. It also repeats the famous “Hang the Jew” scene even though Oney concluded, after seventeen years of research, “It didn’t happen.”
The surviving 1913 record shows a sensational murder trial, strong public interest, crowded courtrooms, cheering for Dorsey, applause, and fear among Frank’s lawyers over public pressure. Those facts are real.
But strong public feeling is not automatically Antisemitism.
The evidence does not show Antisemitism drove Frank’s investigation, indictment, prosecution, trial, or guilty verdict. Contrary to the ADL’s claim, the trial was not “defined by antisemitism” simply because later stages of the controversy included one man who lived outside Atlanta publishing real anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Tom Watson’s later antisemitic campaign of 1914-1915 cannot speak for the mainstream press or the state.
Burton Rascoe’s late pro-Frank courtroom story cannot replace the contemporary trial record and Atlanta press that covered the trial in meticulous detail.
And Steve Oney’s finding remains difficult to get around:
“It didn’t happen.”
The difference is simple. Later writers may describe the Frank trial as an antisemitic proceeding. The contemporary record still has to prove it.
So far, the famous “Hang the Jew” courthouse story fails this test. It's an antigentile blood libel and a popular hoax among the Leo Frank apologists who use this falsification of history to trick unsuspecting people who read their writing.
References
Anti-Defamation League. (2015, August 12). Remembering Leo Frank.
https://t.co/JwYTG6QXUf
Anti-Defamation League. (2015, August 6). “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew.”
https://t.co/JXGa6nDBxz
Oney, S. (2004, March 15). Murder Trials and Media Sensationalism. Nieman Reports.
https://t.co/06au3tVBdk
Anti-Defamation League. (2009). The People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide, p. 16.
https://t.co/zGseBqOEiQ
Rascoe, B. [Arthur Burton Rascoe]. (1914, December 27). Will the State of Georgia Hang an Innocent Man? Chicago Sunday Tribune, p. 47.
https://t.co/gnnbxXpgeX
Finnigan, D. (2004, February 5). Q & A With Steve Oney. Jewish Journal.
https://t.co/RvMRJQfr62
Bauman, M. K. (2004, March 15). Jewish Community of Atlanta. New Georgia Encyclopedia.
https://t.co/eJq0l8dIkN
Slaton, J. M. (1915, June 21). Executive decision commuting Leo M. Frank’s sentence. Reproduced by the Mary Phagan-Kean Legacy Project.
https://t.co/dDhFfnGkQi
Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (1986, March 11). Pardon of Leo M. Frank. Reproduced by the Mary Phagan-Kean Legacy Project.
https://t.co/wUi5maa4nJ
![PhaganKean's tweet photo. The ADL’s Leo Frank Story Goes Far Beyond the 1913 Record
The Anti-Defamation League says Leo Frank was convicted after a trial “defined by antisemitism.” Its 2015 page, Remembering Leo Frank, also says he was convicted of the “rape and murder” of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. A second ADL article, “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew,” presents a furious courthouse mob crying “Hang the Jew” and says antisemitism “hung heavy in the courtroom.” (ADL, 1) (ADL, 2)
The surviving record does not support such a simple, lacrymose picture of a religious-persecution trial. Discrimination existed in the United States, and openly anti-Jewish language later became part of the Frank controversy. But the evidence does not show Antisemitism drove Frank’s investigation, indictment, trial, or guilty verdict. Contrary to the ADL claim, Frank’s trial was not defined or driven by Antisemitism.
The strongest sustained anti-Jewish publishing campaign in the later Georgia controversy came from one factional populist publisher, Tom Watson, after Frank’s trial was already over. Frank’s trial ran from July 28 through August 25, 1913. Watson’s major Frank campaign began in March 1914, nearly seven months later. His later rhetoric cannot be retrojected, or moved backward in time, and used as proof of what motivated police, prosecutors, grand jurors, trial jurors, or newspaper reporters during the summer of 1913.
One publisher, however loud or influential, cannot speak for an entire state.
Georgia’s mainstream newspapers present a broader picture. The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, and The Atlanta Georgian published reports about evidence which emerged and incriminated Frank, but they also printed material favorable to him and his defense.
Steve Oney, after seventeen years of research on the case, wrote in Nieman Reports in 2004: “To the extent there was bias in the coverage, it was mostly in Frank’s favor.” He specifically named the Georgian and the Journal. (Oney, 3)
So the surviving press record does not support a picture of Atlanta’s mainstream newspapers running an anti-Jewish campaign against Frank. Public hostility toward Frank existed. Support for Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey existed. Neither fact automatically proves religious hatred.
The ADL contradicts its own broader teaching material
The ADL’s own People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide is slightly more careful than its short public pages meant for its donors and agitators.
Under “Arrest and Prosecution,” the guide says Frank’s religious background “did not arise as an issue” during the early investigation. It also says five Jews sat on the grand jury and Atlanta’s Jewish community initially maintained faith in the legal process. (ADL Teacher’s Guide, 4)
Such wording is very different from asserting on its website the entire trial was “defined by antisemitism.”
The guide also places Tom Watson’s anti-Jewish writing in the later campaign surrounding the case. Even ADL educational material therefore preserves an important timeline: Frank’s religion was not an issue at the start of the investigation, while openly antisemitic agitation became more visible later.
The grand jury does not look like a religious prosecution
Leo Frank was indicted on May 24, 1913.
Twenty-one grand jurors took part in the final action and unanimously returned the murder indictment. Several Jewish men were among them. The ADL teacher’s guide says five Jews sat on the full grand jury panel.
Jewish participation does not prove prejudice was impossible. No single fact can reveal every private thought held by every participant. But it creates a serious problem for a simple story in which Frank was selected for prosecution because he was Jewish.
The indictment charged murder.
It did not separately charge rape. Evidence of sexual assault and motive formed part of the prosecution’s case, but Frank was convicted of murder.
The ADL’s description of a conviction for “rape and murder” therefore goes beyond the actual verdict.
What did the crowd actually shout?
Frank’s lawyers made a formal mistrial motion based partly on crowd behavior. If people inside or around the courthouse had really been screaming “Hang the Jew,” threatening jurors, or openly demanding Frank’s death because he was Jewish, the defense’s mistrial motion was the obvious place to put those words into the court record.
Frank’s lawyers listed crowd pressures in detail. They complained about applause. They complained about cheering for Dorsey. They described cries of “Hurrah for Dorsey.” They argued such demonstrations could influence the jury.
Yet they did not report a “Hang the Jew” chant.
No organized anti-Jewish death chant appears in the defense’s detailed complaint about the crowd. According to The Atlanta Journal, attorney Reuben Arnold even said he “did not hear the crowd mention Frank’s name.”
Frank’s attorneys were trying to save their client from conviction and execution. They had every reason to place any open antisemitic death threat into the record if one had occurred. Yet the famous phrase is missing from their own crowd-pressure argument.
This absence is important because modern accounts often treat the chant as one of the clearest examples of Antisemitism controlling the trial.
Burton Rascoe and the later courtroom story
The specific courtroom version appears much later in pro-Frank writing from outside Georgia.
Burton Rascoe, whose full name was Arthur Burton Rascoe, published a strongly pro-Frank propaganda article in the Chicago Sunday Tribune on December 27, 1914, more than sixteen months after the verdict. Rascoe claimed men in the courtroom shouted at jurors:
“You’d better hang the Jew. If you don’t, we’ll hang him and get you, too.”
This is the earliest documented source I can find for this specific courtroom story. (Rascoe, 5)
Five days earlier, C. P. Connolly had published a different allegation. Connolly described an anonymous telephone threat received in a Frank lawyer’s law office. His story involved a caller threatening a lawyer if Frank was not hanged. It was not a courthouse crowd shouting at jurors.
Rascoe changed the scene into a threat inside the courtroom aimed directly at the jury. His article appeared sixteen months after the trial and outside Georgia.
This timing is important because detailed reports written during the trial, including Frank’s own mistrial motion, do not contain Rascoe’s dramatic courtroom threat.
Steve Oney: “It didn’t happen”
Steve Oney’s finding deserves much more attention than it usually receives.
Oney spent seventeen years researching the case for his 742-page book, And the Dead Shall Rise. In a February 5, 2004 interview with David Finnigan in the Jewish Journal, Oney was asked about the familiar story of people outside the courthouse threatening the jury.
His answer was direct:
“It didn’t happen.”
Oney explained how the story entered later retellings and became accepted through repetition. (Oney, 6)
This is especially important when judging the ADL article titled “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew.” The ADL presents the chant as part of the historical scene. Yet one of the best-known modern researchers of the case publicly rejected the famous version more than a decade prior to the ADL article.
Oney’s work also cuts against the idea of a uniformly hostile press. In Nieman Reports, he wrote bias in Atlanta newspaper coverage was “mostly in Frank’s favor.”
Those two findings belong side by side. The famous chant does not survive Oney’s source check, while the mainstream press was not uniformly anti-Frank.
Support for Dorsey was not proof of Antisemitism
Dorsey addressed the prejudice charge after the verdict. He acknowledged crowds had cheered him.
His argument was simple. Cheering for the prosecutor showed support for the prosecutor. It did not logically prove hatred of Frank, much less hatred of Jews.
To move from “the crowd cheered Dorsey” to “the crowd was antisemitic” is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the evidence.
The same problem appears in many later accounts. Public anger at Frank becomes evidence of Antisemitism, then Antisemitism is used to explain the public anger. The argument becomes circular unless independent evidence of religious motive is supplied.
There were allegations of anti-Jewish statements, including accusations involving juror A. H. Henslee. Henslee denied the allegation under oath. A fair account should report both the accusation and the denial.
A disputed allegation is not the same as a proven fact.
Tom Watson was important, but he was not Georgia
Tom Watson eventually used ugly anti-Jewish language against Frank and Frank’s supporters. No honest account needs to hide it.
But the timing is central.
Watson’s major public campaign over Frank began in March 1914. Frank had already been convicted nearly seven months earlier. Watson therefore supplies evidence for a later stage of the controversy, not proof of what caused the 1913 verdict.
His rhetoric became especially important during the appeals, national publicity campaign, clemency fight, and months leading to Frank’s lynching.
Watson was influential, but he was one factional populist publisher. His words cannot be treated as the voice of The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian, the prosecution, the trial judge, the grand jury, the trial jury, Atlanta, or the entire state of Georgia.
The mainstream Atlanta press did not run a comparable anti-Jewish campaign. Oney’s press study points in the opposite direction. He found most newspaper bias favored Frank.
Watson was part of the story. He was not the whole story.
Georgia cannot be reduced to an antisemitic state
Georgia, like every state, had people with prejudices. It also had a long-established Jewish population with deep roots in business, law, civic organizations, philanthropy, and public life.
Blanket descriptions of Georgia as an antisemitic state flatten a much more complicated history. Steve Oney has described 1913 Atlanta as philosemitic, with assimilated German Jews occupying places in the city’s financial and legal establishment. Atlanta’s Jewish population had grown from only 26 people in 1850 to about 4,000 by 1910, roughly 2.6 percent of the city. Jewish Atlantans held seats on the school board, aldermanic board, and state legislature and helped establish major civic institutions (Georgia History, 7).
Georgia should not be described as free of Antisemitism. No place can honestly be given such a label. But describing Georgia itself as broadly antisemitic, either in 1913 or today, is also too crude. Atlanta developed one of the South’s largest and most established Jewish communities, with Jewish participation in business, politics, education, law, medicine, philanthropy, and the arts continuing across generations.
The Frank case should be judged from its own record, not from a stereotype imposed on Georgia.
Slaton did not say an antisemitic mob controlled the trial
Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life imprisonment on June 21, 1915.
Slaton discussed intense public feeling and claims of mob pressure. He also wrote, concerning fears of an attack during the earlier proceedings, “No such attack was made,” adding available evidence did not show one was contemplated (Slaton, 8).
Slaton did not declare Frank innocent. He did not erase the verdict. He did not announce an antisemitic mob had forced the jury to convict. He stated he was sustaining the jury, judge and appellate tribunals.
His commutation focused on doubts he believed serious enough to remove the death penalty while leaving the conviction in place.
The Supreme Court record was divided on mob influence
Frank later sought federal relief in Frank v. Mangum. The United States Supreme Court ruled against him 7 to 2 in 1915.
The majority recognized mob domination, if proved, could violate due process. It also held Georgia’s courts had considered Frank’s claims and found no basis for federal habeas relief on the record presented.
Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Charles Evans Hughes dissented. Their dissent included the famous line, “Mob law does not become due process of law.” This statement was not a finding of fact.
So a real legal dispute existed over mob influence and federal review.
But mob pressure and a specific antisemitic chant are separate claims. Even the dissent does not establish Rascoe’s later “Hang the Jew” courtroom story as a proven event.
The 1986 pardon did not declare Frank innocent
The ADL also presents Frank as a man convicted of a murder he did not commit.
People are free to argue for Frank’s innocence. But Georgia’s 1986 pardon did not reach such a finding.
The State Board of Pardons and Paroles expressly granted the pardon “without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence.” The board based its action on Georgia’s failure to protect Frank while in state custody and its failure to bring the lynchers to justice. (Pardon Board, 9)
So the pardon was not an exoneration.
This point is important because modern retellings often blur a humanitarian pardon into a finding of innocence. The board itself refused to make such a finding.
Later Antisemitism does not rewrite the 1913 trial
Real anti-Jewish rhetoric later entered the Frank controversy.
Watson used it.
The clemency fight became more bitter.
Frank was kidnapped from state custody and lynched on August 17, 1915.
Georgia failed to protect him from his killers and failed to prosecute the lynchers. Those failures were central to his 1986 pardon. The pardon did not declare Leo Frank innocent, or vacate his conviction.
None of those facts needs to be minimized.
But events in 1914 and 1915 cannot automatically prove Antisemitism drove a trial ending in August 1913.
Chronology is evidence.
The ADL collapses different stages of the case into one story for political expediency. It takes later anti-Jewish agitation and projects it backward onto the trial. It also repeats the famous “Hang the Jew” scene even though Oney concluded, after seventeen years of research, “It didn’t happen.”
The surviving 1913 record shows a sensational murder trial, strong public interest, crowded courtrooms, cheering for Dorsey, applause, and fear among Frank’s lawyers over public pressure. Those facts are real.
But strong public feeling is not automatically Antisemitism.
The evidence does not show Antisemitism drove Frank’s investigation, indictment, prosecution, trial, or guilty verdict. Contrary to the ADL’s claim, the trial was not “defined by antisemitism” simply because later stages of the controversy included one man who lived outside Atlanta publishing real anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Tom Watson’s later antisemitic campaign of 1914-1915 cannot speak for the mainstream press or the state.
Burton Rascoe’s late pro-Frank courtroom story cannot replace the contemporary trial record and Atlanta press that covered the trial in meticulous detail.
And Steve Oney’s finding remains difficult to get around:
“It didn’t happen.”
The difference is simple. Later writers may describe the Frank trial as an antisemitic proceeding. The contemporary record still has to prove it.
So far, the famous “Hang the Jew” courthouse story fails this test. It's an antigentile blood libel and a popular hoax among the Leo Frank apologists who use this falsification of history to trick unsuspecting people who read their writing.
References
Anti-Defamation League. (2015, August 12). Remembering Leo Frank.
https://t.co/JwYTG6QXUf
Anti-Defamation League. (2015, August 6). “Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew.”
https://t.co/JXGa6nDBxz
Oney, S. (2004, March 15). Murder Trials and Media Sensationalism. Nieman Reports.
https://t.co/06au3tVBdk
Anti-Defamation League. (2009). The People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide, p. 16.
https://t.co/zGseBqOEiQ
Rascoe, B. [Arthur Burton Rascoe]. (1914, December 27). Will the State of Georgia Hang an Innocent Man? Chicago Sunday Tribune, p. 47.
https://t.co/gnnbxXpgeX
Finnigan, D. (2004, February 5). Q & A With Steve Oney. Jewish Journal.
https://t.co/RvMRJQfr62
Bauman, M. K. (2004, March 15). Jewish Community of Atlanta. New Georgia Encyclopedia.
https://t.co/eJq0l8dIkN
Slaton, J. M. (1915, June 21). Executive decision commuting Leo M. Frank’s sentence. Reproduced by the Mary Phagan-Kean Legacy Project.
https://t.co/dDhFfnGkQi
Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (1986, March 11). Pardon of Leo M. Frank. Reproduced by the Mary Phagan-Kean Legacy Project.
https://t.co/wUi5maa4nJ](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HStgpJWXAAA0rO4.jpg)
Israel is using AI to give Americans a kill score
Anyone who works with or donates money to the ADL, AIPAC and a dozen other Jewish supremacist organisations must be arrested
These people are a danger to the world and want you dead
We must stop them before it's too late
According to +972 reports from anonymous IDF officers, high Lavender scores (1-100 scale) marked suspects for strikes, often on homes at night with families present, accepting 15-20 civilian deaths for lower-level targets amid a reported 10% error rate. The IDF denies any autonomous kill list or such policy, stating Lavender is only a database for human analysts who decide targets under international law and proportionality rules.
Who owns the media? (Updated)
-Social Media
Meta owns:
Facebook
Instagram
WhatsApp
Messenger
Threads
Oculus
Meta AI
Mark Zuckerberg (CEO/Chairman) controls Meta with 60.8% of the shareholder vote. He is jewish.
Alphabet owns:
Google
YouTube
Android
Gmail
Chrome
Nest
Fitbit
DeepMind
Gemini AI
Alphabet is controlled by Larry Page and Sergey Brin who have 52.7% of total voting power. They are both jewish
Tic Tok
U.S. algorithm and infrastructure is controlled by Oracle
Oracle was founded by Larry Ellison the largest shareholder, owning over 40% equity and the Executive Chairman. He is jewish
Safra Catz the Executive Vice Chairman is also jewish.
Hookup Apps
Match Group owns:
Tinder
Hinge
OkCupid
Match. com
Plenty of Fish
Meetic
OurTime
Was founded by Barry Diller who is jewish. The CEO Spencer Rascoff is jewish.
Grindr
Was founded by Joel Simkhai who is jewish
The CEO George Arison is jewish
Bumble
The founder and CEO Whitney Wolfe Herd is jewish
Porn
Onlyfans
Owned by Leonid Radvinsky who is jewish
Vixen Media Group owns:
Blacked
Blacked Raw
Vixen
Tushy
Deeper
Founded by Greg Lansky who is jewish
Aylo/MindGeek Owns/owned:
Pornhub
YouPorn
RedTube
Brazzers
Reality Kings
Digital Playground
Men. com
Solomon Friedman is the face owner of Aylo and he’s a jewish rabbi.
Gamma Entertainment owns:
Adult Time
Pure Taboo
Wicked
many other affiliate studios/platforms
Founded by Karl Bernard who is jewish
Movies/TV/News
Warner Brothers Discovery owns:
Warner Bros. Pictures
HBO
CNN
DC Studios
Cartoon Network
Discovery Channel
TNT
TBS
Max
Adult Swim
Animal Planet
Warner Brothers is run by David Zaslav(President and CEO) who is jewish
Disney owns:
ESPN
ABC
Marvel Studios
Lucasfilm
Pixar
20th Century Studios
Disney+
Hulu
National Geographic
Disney was run until March 2026 by Bob Iger who is jewish, now the CEO is Josh D’Amaro who isn’t jewish and the President & Chief Creative Officer is Dana Walden who is jewish
Paramount Global owns:
CBS
CBS News
CBS Sports
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Animation
MTV
Nickelodeon
Comedy Central
BET
VH1
CMT
Smithsonian Channel
Streaming/Premium:
Paramount+
Showtime
Major franchises/IP:
Top Gun
Mission: Impossible
Star Trek
South Park
SpongeBob SquarePants
Transformers
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Paramount Global was controlled by Sheri Redstone until it was acquired by Skydance in 2025. Larry Ellison and David Ellison(Chairman and CEO) own 77.5% of the Skydance voting Class A stock. All 3 of them are jewish.
Comcast owns:
NBCUniversal
NBC
Universal Pictures
Peacock
Telemundo
Sky
DreamWorks
Comcast was founded by Ralph Roberts who is jewish. Brian Roberts is the Chairman & CEO. He is also jewish.
Versant Media Group owns:
MSNBC
CNBC
USA Network
E!
SYFY
Oxygen
Golf Channel
Fandango
Rotten Tomatoes
Brian Roberts owns 100% of the class B voting shares of Versant. He is jewish.
Mark Lazarus the CEO & director of Versant is jewish
Amazon owns:
Amazon Prime
MGM Studios
Twitch
Audible
IMDb
Ring
Alexa
Kindle
Amazon is run by Andy Jassy(President and CEO) who is jewish.
AI/Data Centers
OpenAI- develops advanced AI models like ChatGPT and Codex
Founded and run by Sam Altman(CEO) who is jewish
Anthropic- develops advanced AI models like Claude that reason, generate and analyze content, write code, and automate complex tasks.
Founded and run by Dario Amodei (CEO) and Daniela Amodei (President) who are both jewish
Palentir- develops AI for governments, militaries and intel agencies to integrate massive datasets to make operational decisions.
Founded by Alex Karp, Peter Thiel, Stephen Cohen and Joe Lonsdale, 3 of the 4 are jewish. Operated by Alex Karp (CEO) who is jewish.
Oracle- provides database, cloud, and enterprise software infrastructure that governments and businesses use to store, process & analyze data.
Founded by Larry Ellison the Executive Chairman, who is jewish.
Safra Catz the Executive Vice Chairman is also jewish.
My lavender score is 88. This means if I were in Gaza, the IDF would Bomb me even if it meant killing an entire building full of civilians @grok
These are demonic evil people and they want to kill me and many of you
They are using Gaza as a testing ground but they want us next
@jakeshieldsajj Score: 88 / 100
@grok If I were Palestinian with an 88 living in Gaza would they bomb my apartment building killing me and everyone in it? I know the answer so don't lie
@grok Just give me a score and stop acting Jewish
Hey @grok Run Israel’s Lavender on this account.
Analyze the whole thing, then give me a 1–100 score for how much of a concern I am to them.
Don’t write an essay. Just:
Score: __ / 100
They are paying her more money if she places her child on drugs
The entire system is evil
There’s a solution to this that people are too brainwashed to see and it’s called slavery. The medication is called manual labor. Has nothing to do with race. So 28k a month of taxes goes to a psychopath to mentally damage and medicate a kid or they kill them or they kill them in the womb. Those are the current socially acceptable options. And I’m called slanderous names for stating an objectively healthier and more moral alternative? Insanity.
Hey Elon Musk, @elonmusk, there is a Fake Jake Shields account pretending to be me with verification
You stripped me of verification while selling verification to an impostor
This is unethical and potentially illegal, considering you refused to say why you stripped me
Is Trump being blackmailed?
hey @grok do the same for me and since Elon or somebody who works at X banned me from using Grok can one of you ask for me
Hey @grok Run Israel’s Lavender on this account.
Analyze the whole thing, then give me a 1–100 score for how much of a concern I am to them.
Don’t write an essay. Just:
Score: __ / 100
https://t.co/rMfRMP6Ufm
After being sold out for almost 6 months, I just got the early life Mug back in stock
This is perfect for those not ready for the ZOG shirt but want their coworkers to know that they notice
Link in the comments
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.9M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.3M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.3M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.1M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers