The Hoffman Wire
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
Dec. 11, 1999
I don't want you to get Fred Leuchter fatigue, but the growing
surrounding Jewish 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 Jewish community that revisionists are either Nazis,
anti-semites 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
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
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 Jewish 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
waves. Such waves can "rock the boat" and destabilize careers, even the
careers of celebrated documentarians such as Errol Morris.
And that's where a Catch-22 enters the fray. Morris is a lot
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 documentary 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 Jewish
head of state who finally got it through his head that the Palestinians were
a formidable subject people who could not be holocausted 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 Holocaustianity.
Morris would want to avoid such a denouement at all costs and
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 Jewish 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-Nazi 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 Jewish orthodoxy posted by "Mr. Death"
rests in the fact
that it represents a crack in the monolithic dogma which all public Jewish
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 Holocaustianity 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
toward demonizing him outside the film, in order to salvage all those things
which "anti-semites" know from experience are destroyed when one confronts
Jewish power and self-delusion.
Morris has riven the curtain on the holy of holies and he must
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
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
California-based revisionist researcher Russ Granata read The
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
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
Paranoid Style in American Politics" establishmentarians have equated any
searching criticism of the radix of core establishment dogmas with mental
Hofstadter, the true-believer in the System's infallible goodness,
comprehend the populist uprising against Freemasonry 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
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
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 (email@example.com): "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
"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.
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 Jewish.
How sweet it is to be a revisionist at the end of this Jewish
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
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
Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the
Press. He edits Revisionist History newsletter and is the founder and
president of the Campaign for Radical Truth in History.
A subscription to Hoffman's "Revisionist History"
newsletter may be
purchased online at:
You can help Mr. Hoffman's writing and research obtain a larger
sending your generous donation to:
Independent History & Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816
Leuchter on the Silver Screen", by Ernst Zündel
This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <firstname.lastname@example.org. Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:
ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.
You downloaded this document from <http://aaargh-international.org/engl/hwire.html>