I like when people who posture as rebels are exposed. These people really annoy me. It always seems to be people who are multimillionaires with their own TV shows and a fawning press who claim to be "dangerous" and "edgy." At the end of the day they never are. The real rebels are people like Bishop Williamson and Faurisson, because the establishment is no longer Christian. I remember reading a cutting piece by Cockburn at Counterpunch poking fun at Hitchens in his obit. and the careful image he crafted for himself as a lone maverick fighting against the establishment.


Revisionist Catches Jєωιѕн Film Maker in Flim Flam

I don't want you to get Fred Leuchter fatigue, but the growing controversy
surrounding Jєωιѕн filmmaker Errol Morris' movie about Fred and the
revisionists, "Mr. Death," is not going to go away.

Morris is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand he is telling the
avant garde and the Jєωιѕн community that revisionists are either nαzιs,
αnтι-ѕємιтєs or, as he stated at a Dec. 9 Los Angeles screening with regard
to Leuchter, "insane."

That wasn't what he was saying to Ernst Zundel when he was wheedling an
on-camera interview and it's not even what he told the avant-garde arts
magazine, "Bomb" earlier this autumn (see the Dec. 8 HOFFMAN WIRE).

On the other hand, Morris is probably tempted to hew to the original
artistic impulse that I like to think initially motivated his fascination
with Leuchter and Zundel. He ought to live up to his own press releases
about his supposed fearless iconoclasm, instead of doing an about-face and
pandering to Jєωιѕн zealots out of fear for his own skin.

The fact is, Morris has a problem. However imperfect, "Mr. Death" is not the
usual Hollywood take on revisionism. Morris has given the masses a dollop
of the genuine article, instead of fetishizing and burlesquing revisionist
views through scripted dialogue via actor-mouthpieces.

In an era of overwhelming falsification, even a dollop of truth can make
waves. Such waves can "rock the boat" and destabilize careers, even the
careers of celebrated docuмentarians such as Errol Morris.

And that's where a Catch-22 enters the fray. Morris is a lot smarter than
most of his peers in the entertainment industry. He's ahead of the pack,
since he knows that through the Internet and the dogged persistence of
revisionists themselves, some of the revisionist message has leaked out and
that message bears no resemblance to the version neatly packaged in
previous, highly colored, made-for-TV docudramas and 'news' programs.

On the other hand, the doctrinaire kings of the deal running the show at the
Wiesenthal Center, the ADL and the aptly named "Dreamworks" studio, are so
smitten with their own success and the fawning of their corps of media
dorks, that they don't believe that even a cubic centimeter of reality
should be conceded to revisionism.

If these guys were to make a docuмentary about Leuchter it would be done in
the vintage "Nightline" and 20/20 style--with jump cut editing that would
make nerdy Fred look like the heir apparent to Adolf Eichmann.

But these days such overkill is no longer effective and the smart money like
Morris know it. Still, it took the Israelis 40 years to produce a Jєωιѕн
head of state who finally got it through his head that the Palestinians were
a formidable subject people who could not be h0Ɩ0cαųsted indefinitely if the
Israelis wanted to build anything resembling a modern state. The Zionist
'war hero' who faced that pragmatic reality and did something about--Yitzhak
Rabin--was shot to death by one of his own citizens.

Thankfully, Morris probably doesn't face anything like Rabin's fate, but he
can look forward to the possibility of boycott and the drying up of
production money and distribution outlets if the powers-that-be decide that
"Mr. Death" undermines the slightest sacred tenet of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity.

Morris would want to avoid such a denouement at all costs and his
increasingly shrill attacks on revisionism and even Leuchter himself reflect
the degree to which Morris holds to an axiom that is denounced by media
dorks as "anti-semitic"--that Jєωιѕн power determines the success or failure
of the careers of American filmmakers. If this were not true, Morris would
not be of late calling Leuchter "insane."

"Mr. Death" shows that Fred Leuchter is not a "hater," a neo-nαzι or any of
the other pat categories that religious fanatics are impelled to fit
heretics into. The religious fanatic spends his life running from any
serious consideration of the skepticism of the doubting Thomas and to
justify this flight from reality, the doubter must be blackened as a fiend.

The great danger to Jєωιѕн orthodoxy posted by "Mr. Death" rests in the fact
that it represents a crack in the monolithic dogma which all public Jєωιѕн
figures have maintained about revisionism--that we are all channeling der
Fuehrer, or otherwise possessed by some demonic spirit from the lowest
region of hell.

Along comes eccentric tinkerer Fred Leuchter, one of a long line of Yankee
mechanics and putterer types who are indifferent to the restraints which
politics, race and religion impose on lesser men. Morris did not diabolize
Leuchter in the film. As a result, audiences will inevitably think, "That
could be me." And that's dangerous thinking indeed, just the kind the High
Priests of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity have been seeking to avoid via censorship, social
ostracism and stigma,blacklisting, jailings, bombings and in the case of
revisionist Francois Duprat, even murder.

Morris did not demonize Leuchter in the film, but he is slowly creeping
toward demonizing him outside the film, in order to salvage all those things
which "αnтι-ѕємιтєs" know from experience are destroyed when one confronts
Jєωιѕн power and self-delusion.

Morris has riven the curtain on the holy of holies and he must be sweating.
That's why he re-made the Leuchter film, after its Harvard screening, making
it "tougher on revisionism", as he admitted to "Bomb" magazine, as reported
in THE HOFFMAN WIRE.

Anxiety is no inducement to clear thinking or cool calculation however, and
now, thanks to the Internet and the kind of dynamic activism that the best
revisionists have always embodied, he's beginning to get caught in the
tangled web of deceit he thinks he needs to weave in order to save his
career.

California-based revisionist researcher Russ Granata read The Hoffman Wire
in which I reported that Morris admitted to interviewer Margot Livesey that
he made two versions of "Mr. Death." He confessed that he re-edited it into
a second version (the one now being shown) after the first version was
screened at Harvard and caused most of the audience to begin asking
revisionist questions.

As you read the exchange between Mr. Granata and Mr. Morris as it unfolded
in front of the Los Angeles audience that had just watched "Mr. Death,"
note the haughty condescension Morris exhibits in likening Granata's
legitimate question about multiple versions of "Mr. Death" to a jokey
conspiracy theory about "secret versions."

Ever since 1965 and the publication of Richard Hofstadter's book, "The
Paranoid Style in American Politics" establishmentarians have equated any
searching criticism of the radix of core establishment dogmas with mental
illness.

Hofstadter, the true-believer in the System's infallible goodness, could not
comprehend the populist uprising against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the early American
Republic, in the wake of the 1826 masonic assassination of writer William
Morgan, so he labeled the revolt an expression of "paranoia" and then found
a pattern of this recurring "illness" throughout American history, whenever
any fixture of the establishment faced rebellion or fundamental challenge.

Hofstadter was a flak for the state and what he was really practicing was
the "Imperial Style in Establishment Politics" where elitists speak to an
"in" crowd that has been domesticated by years of TV-spectating and
indenture to liberal colleges and universities.

Errol Morris has adopted this imperial manner in speaking over the heads of
the unwashed to an in-crowd who respond to cues rather than facts and data.
One such cue is to smugly dismiss as conspiracy theories tough questions
posed by doubting Thomases.

This technique worked reasonably well a few decades ago when most everyone
accepted that John F. Kennedy was killed by one lone nut and one very
talented rifle bullet, but the bloom has been off that rose for some time
and such tactics are no longer sufficient for silencing trouble-making
skeptics in 1999, especially when those skeptics are informed by breaking
news from colleagues in the revisionist Internetwork.

From: Russ Granata (bc949@lafn.org): "I rose, and clearly said, 'Mr. Morris
- how many versions do you have of this film?"

"His response was, 'Oh, you mean the 'secret ones' - ha-ha - no, this is the
only version.'

"Wait a minute,' I replied, 'the word is out on the Internet that there was
a Harvard University screening - is what we have just seen the same version
as the one you showed at Harvard?'

"Morris said, 'No.'

"I responded, 'That's what I thought!' and sat down to the sound of distinct
positive reaction from the audience in my favor." <end>

Hooboy! Morris is caught in a lie in front of a large L.A. audience. The
would-be arbiter of what is true and what is a hoax is shown to be capable
of a wee bit of humbug himself, all in order to ingratiate himself with the
powerful moguls that it would be anti-semitic to call Jєωιѕн.

How sweet it is to be a revisionist at the end of this Jєωιѕн century! Our
careers have already been wrecked. We've nothing to lose and we can breezily
tell any commissar to shove it if they don't like the brutal truths we
retail unflinchingly in our own books, videos and websites.

All the money in the world cannot buy the experience of total freedom that
comes of such merry defiance! It is a sensation poor Mr. Morris, with all
his funding and prestige, will never know, unless he too grows himself a
pair of testicles.

Michael A. Hoffman II
Copyright ©1999 hoffman-info.com