|
Movie Review: 'Mr. Death'
by Alex Linder
27 October 2003
You probably know the background on both sides here. The jew filmmaker Errol Morris is famed for close-ups of weird subjects. Fred Leuchter is an
engineer who got embroiled with the jews for reaching the wrong conclusions about widely advertised but nonexistent gas chambers at Auschwitz.
They call this a documentary, but it isn't. They call this a great movie, but it isn't that either. The movie has good things in it, but in spite of the jew director, not because of him. Morris does everything he can to color, rather than clarify. Morris is no Leuchter.
Leuchter is not a mouse, as David Irving calls him in an interview. Nor is he a nerd. He is undeniably a type - the engineer. The pictures on the back and front of the video box are unfair. The one on the front is too close, deliberately arranged to make him look buggy. The two on the back are just as bad. In the bigger, he's super-nerd, everything but a beanie with propeller - classic nerd face, nerd glasses, too-short tie, short sleeves, and arms folded defensively. In the other, he's suited up and cock-jawed on televitz, as though defiantly claiming the "Holocaust" never happened. These have nothing to do with the man himself, rather they are aids to reinforce this purple copy on the back of the box:
From Errol Morris, the award-winning director of The Thin Blue Line comes the provocative and chilling true story of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., the son of a prison worker and a self-taught execution expert who consulted with prisons across the country to make capital punishment more humane. When Leuchter is called in as a high-profile expert in a sensationalistic Canadian trial, his ego, bravado and absurd testimony reach national media prominence. Soon, a firestorm of controversy erupts. Ironically, what Leuchter thought was going to be an apex in his career -- only ruins it!
That's extremely misleading, but we'll leave it for now. Simply put, Leuchter's a guy who sees a problem, then ponders it until he devises a solution. As he grew up with a father who worked a prison-related job, his thoughts ran in that direction. He decided to use his talents to make executions humane, disturbed at botches that fried inmates until the flesh raveled off the bone. As he put it, he is "proponent of capital punishment, not capital torture."
His concern comes across as genuine. Unlike a typical jew prating social justice for death row, but really interested in getting his fuliginous charges back on the street and preying on humans, Leuchter addressed a real-world problem and reduced it. He drained a few gallons out of the ocean-sized reservoir of pain in this world. That is the way genuine progress is made: quietly, patiently, carefully. Leuchter is one of the good guys, no doubt about it. The jews who destroyed his professional career are the bad guys. Errol Morris most definitely belongs to the bad guys.
A native of Massachusetts, Leuchter worked first with electric chairs, determining the proper duration and voltage of shocks required to dispatch the prisoner quickest and least painfully. He describes this to Morris in some detail over the first third of this ninety-minute movie, and his technical ability and concern for the dignity of his fellow man come through. The guy is manifestly clear-eyed, intelligent, rational, and humble. He exhibits the characteristic blue-eyed calm of our people. Everything about him suggests he knows what he is doing. From the electric chair, he widens his ken to include the other forms of execution used today: lethal injection, hanging, and, finally, gassing. I thought it telling, funny, and characteristic of the engineer the way he described a sales conference in which a state prison rep cut it short and awarded him the contract for a lethal injection machine upon learning that he was the man responsible for the electric chair in a different state. As he pointed out, lethal injection machines and electric chairs are completely unrelated. There's the difference between scientific and political man. The common thread, of course, is the ad hominem connection: if Leuchter's the guy doing it, the prison official reasons, it will be done competently. And that appears to have been the case. We never see any concerns raised by his customers about Leuchter's technical qualifications. Nor, as far as we know, are there complaints about the functioning of his finished products on the back end. "Qualifications" only enter the picture after the fact -- as red herrings dragged by whining jews bent on shutting him down for his "bad for jews" findings in Poland. Indeed, it is true that jews will use any means to destroy someone who threatens to upset their profitable scams. Fair or foul are Aryan concepts that do not exist in the jewish mind. As Monica Lewinsky said, "I was raised to lie. It was what you did."
Successful professionally and just married, Leuchter flew to Auschwitz in 1988 to gather rock and brick samples from the supposed gas chambers. He had the trip videotaped, and submitted the materials to a lab for anonymous testing, under the cover story they pertained to a case involving an industrial accident. The finds were negative for cyanide, the gas supposedly piped into jew esophagi in underground kellers. Zundel's team flew the independent analyst Roth into Toronto to present his findings at the trial, but in "Mr. Death," they have him on camera claiming the wrong tests were done, and that the samples taken were too deep, as cyanide only penetrates 10 microns, or about 1/10th the width of a human hair. Who knows what the truth is? My sense is this Aryan-looking Roth is real nervous and would never have gotten involved with the thing if he'd known what was going on. He's fronting, as the niggers say. As the movie doesn't go into the technical details, and there's substantial political pressure on Roth to renounce his findings, it simply isn't enough to quote this guy giving one reason that what he testified to in court should be disregarded.
More interesting than the movie, as is often the case with political movies, is the fact that the makers of the film are part of the story. The movie is produced by a jew and issued by a company that is part of the mainstream jewish distribution network -- the same network, taken broadly, against which Ernst Zundel and Fred Leuchter and VNN are fighting. That is what makes the film a failure as a documentary. To make a real documentary about Fred Leuchter, you'd have to include the information that initial cuts were altered when it became apparent that audiences weren't reaching the Semitically Correct conclusion. So the "Holocaust" agitprop was larded on, to make sure nobody could miss the message. I think they still can. Leuchter comes across as believable. The viewer may not agree with his findings, or may fear them, but the viewer absolutely believes that Leuchter is honest and telling you what he thought and what he found. As the jew should have learned by now, it is always dangerous to turn a camera on an Aryan, because the camera doesn't lie. What jew Morris has done, as I referred to above, and what makes this more an annoying film than a great one, is continually pollute your ears with lugubrious oboes and choked-up clarinets, so auditors know they're dealing with tragic stuff here, real tragic stuff, like how could that nasty man go desecrate the holy holding pen of those poower, poower, suffering jewes. Compound that irritation with interviews with jew-tools like Dutchy van Pelt -- a man paid six or seven figures to back up jew lies about the "Holocaust" at the Lipstadt trial -- and you've got something that is far from a documentary. Ebert can call it "mesmerizing," but what does he know? He's mesmerized by a chocolate eclair.
The problem here is that Morris falls between two stools. He claims he's making a documentary about Leuchter, but Leuchter is only interesting because of the work he did at Auschwitz. Morris only hints at the real story -- the jewing of an Aryan. He discusses in depth neither Leuchter's findings, nor the political pressures that destroyed Leuchter's career. The connection between the fate of the jews at Auschwitz and the actions of the jews in Massachusetts is what strikes my mind hardest, and, of course, it is completely ignored by jew Morris. Any White talent out there, make your own movie: "The Jewing of Leuchter"; or, "The Execution of Leuchter." Surely Mr. Morris must have pondered that last, as the irony would inevitably occur to him at some point. But since he didn't have the something to record the real story here, he can't use the title.
As I say, the purplings of the box-back aren't backed up in the movie. Nowhere do we see Leuchter's ego out of control -- the opposite. He insists he doesn't hate jews at all, he's merely angry at the ones who destroyed his execution business. There is no evidence he was political to start with. All we see on camera representing the jewish hate that destroyed him are a couple unknown jew women representing that most nebulous of categories, "Holocaust" survivors. They get to smear his character. Not a word about their financial and political interests in preserving their legend. Not a word about the curious Canadian laws outlawing free speech, nor the jewish forces that enacted them. Not a word about the amount of money paid to Van Pelt by various jewish agencies to put a goy facade on a jewish house of lies. As always in a jew's movie, what you get you must get between the lines, between the lies. You get to see Leuchter eye to eye, talking to you directly, reasoning with you, explaining to you. To that extent, the film works. Enough that the jews had to haul it back in and re-edit it. There's a glimmer of hope in that they still don't see what the rest of us do: Leuchter is an innocent man hounded by some unknown, unnamed force that is probably the same one responsible for turning the rest of our world to crap, we suspect. The film very definitely is not "good for jews." It may be that they perceive that and think it too late in the game for us to do much with it, or it simply may be that they don't truly understand how Leuchter comes off to the average White, I don't know.
What I do know is that the film left me with two general conclusions:
1) the easiest way to kill large numbers of people is to shoot them.
2) large numbers of jews deserve to be shot.
If Morris were the great filmmaker he's supposed to be, he'd have realized he buried his lead. The story is not Leuchter's execution mechanisms, the story is the mechanism that executed Leuchter. Ah, but then jew Morris would have to turn the camera on himself.
ALEX LINDER
|