Movie Review: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

by Alex Linder

7 August 2004

Unlike most people, Michael Moore the man cannot be categorized and dismissed. But his beliefs certainly can. They're doctrinaire peace-love-and-brotherhood leftist, no biology or history need apply. As the Moore-bought and -sold myth has it, the profit-seeking corporate-racist white man holds down the rich-but-poor coloreds and white working/unemployed classes, preventing all humanity from living together in Kumbaya, cap city of Utopia. "F9/11" comes from Moore's Dog Eat Dog Films, with a brief animation showing an agreeable small pooch suddenly gulping a big mean dog. Millionaire Mike wants you to know that the Man forces the Many to live in slums, then offers them a way out with a catch - they must serve as cannon fodder in His wars-for-profit halfway around the world. Tied with funny pictures, decontextualized sound bites, and MTV songs, and mediated through the smooth and pleasant offices of the slob next door, the Grand Illusion becomes plausible. "F9/11" is entertaining and effective and will make its mark in the minds of the sub-analytical masses.

But as I say, if beliefs were all Moore had to offer, he's be ignorable apart from his films' effects on the audience. But to VNN readers and analytical Aryans in general, Moore's beliefs are the least of it. What Moore has worth pondering and studying are two.

First, he has the energy to get off his fat ass and talk to people, to find out what's happening in the world, rather than sit around in his library, talking to himself, looking down upon the actives from his perch as Footnoter General, taking a cautious peep between the blinds every few hours to see if the inevitable decline has finally made it to his window, to his horrified satisfaction. Moore isn't ponderous and overburdened with self-importance, at least as he presents himself in public. This is decidedly not to say he is honest, let alone straightforward. He is selectively honest. If the facts push his story, they're in. If context and explanation push his line, they stay. Most often they don't. And so they go by the wayside. We get the stumble, the goofy look, the superzoom to goosepimple music. Moore's favorite technique is to make some true or false statement about the object he seeks to demonize, then cut to a shot of it laughing or lazing or looking shady, as if it were deliberately mocking outraged us. New scenes tend to open with a pop kick.

Moore works out of the Mencken playbook, substituting 'stupidity' for 'taste' in the line that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." If he lacks facts and honesty, Moore also lacks the didacticism and smugness of the conservatives. He sounds like he's right, but he isn't. He doesn't lecture his audience, he empathizes with it, effectively drawing the viewer to his side by affecting that he's an everyman just as lied-to as you are, telling you something you would find if you looked into it yourself, and persuasively assuming we're all operating off the same assumptions and judgments. He's able to lie more or less organically, where the jew must manufacture his shtick and sell his schlock, always brazening, always bristling with chutzpah. None of that with Moore, who successfully plays the little obese man. Where Hymie makes jew with utterly synthetic "outrage" and mock-appalled wailing and hypocritical demands for your reform to dry his glub-glubbing, Moore exhibits a gently gibing way that suggests he expects you'll clear up the situation as soon as you see the absurdity of it, as when he tries to get the Congressmen to take Marines brochures to get their sons to enlist. This is effective, but even if it weren't, it's appropriate, good and -- no one else is doing it. The reaction of the Congressmen show you far better than words we're dealing with an extremely self-important overclass cynically trading and shading in the name of the people. Moore and his class have no interest in the elections that really were stolen, such as JFK's, and no interest in the fact that Bush's was not. They're liars beholden to a false ideology, and vicious in a pinch, no matter their everyman posturing.

Nevertheless, it can't be denied that Moore's "just-folks" persona works. He may be disingenuous, sly, hypocritical and obese, but these flaws come across as honest flaws. He's honestly dishonest, if such a thing can be. His premise, that men are equal and can exist without hierarchy is mistaken, although he doesn't know it. He has Aryanly stumbled on the jewish insight that a lie that lives long enough becomes functional truth, and in his humble, dishonest way, he selects and edits and composes and arranges to advance his agenda. He seems to take an honest, immoral pleasure in making Bush look bad by selective editing. I found most off-putting his pretense that the election was stolen in Florida. That simply is not true. The idea that blacks suffer from stolen elections rather than steal them themselves, with help from the jews who control them, is ludicrous. I recall the Ellen Sauerbrey race in Maryland in the nineties. She won, but her victory was stolen late in the night by the niggers of Baltimore, aided by the jews. It was around that time I gave up voting as a waste of time and exposure to jury duty. When the papers and the pols all pull one way, there's little the people can do. They suffer a system they cannot reform by means of the legal apparatus established to accommodate such.

I disagree with most libertarian and other reviewers in that I don't think this movie makes Bush and his cronies look bad. I didn't expect that going in. Wolfowitz spit-wetting his comb and -styling his hair is very of the shtetl, almost jew-gemütlich, if jews were appealing rather than ugly and disgusting. I regret to inform you that, against everything I possibly would have thought, Ashcroft's home-made song is well sung. He actually has a good voice. The lyrics are pure Limbaugh, but no more ridiculous than some leftist in a zoo city pub. He was humanized by the clip, more than anything, as were all of them. The real arrogance and cunning and malevolent disregard for true American interests lie in the paper writers and policy jews producing the Bush administration and the 911 wars; much more than in the bushy frontmen themselves.

Bush comes across as a typical member of a certain set: high-level WASPs; men who seem more interested in making money more than anything else. Men who do not see the jewish ideological imposition as a threat to honor and nation, but as one of many political facts that must be taken into account. In Class, Paul Fussell says that the upper class has very few beliefs, perhaps only two: that capital should not be invaded, and that coat and tie must always be worn. This seems quite the case with the Bushes' tier. Life to them is about men and money and manners. They're 'all about' connections, not causes. Principles, indeed abstractions of any sort, I suspect are things they're instinctively suspicious of. It's not good business to take too close a look at some of the swarthies handing out oil concessions, for example. These WASPs make rote appeals to certain fundamentals their handlers think best will play to whichever audience they're performing for every four years, and the muddled masses regularly take these as Belief, conservative or religious, but they aren't. These men's hearts and brains lie elsewhere. This is English politics, rather than German. Germans take ideas far more seriously than glad-handing, Anglo-Irish, jew-produced AmeriKwa. The proper way to go is to observe factual reality as closely as possible; then to generalize -- think -- about it; and then act on one's conclusions. To close the loop, compare the results of your actions to observed, reflected upon, and acted upon reality. Adjust accordingly. Treating men as individuals makes sense on one level, and no sense on another. The same is true of morality. Perhaps many other things are like this. Reality seems to be odd and ironic and complex, intricate without being tricky.

The Bushes and their crowd, the men of the Carlyle Group and Halliburton, evince an easy sort of cosmopolitan cronyism. A man is seldom so innocently employed as when he is trying to make money, as I believe Chesterton said. There is some truth to that, but at the level of the Bushes, honest labor has long since given way to contracts acquired through connections, and fat retainers in exchange for advice and kept appointments. Those at the Bush level specialize in contract acquisition more than the work itself. Their core competence is their connections, not their construction. The giant DOD contractors reap the windfall profits from their political connections, while the actual work tends to be performed by subcontractors. Not that the subcontractors aren't well paid, but that the truly staggering amounts accrue in the accounts of the politically connected. This is all pretty standard, and more or less inevitable under any system. What Moore and leftists will never grasp, thinking people are divided into good and evil, is that a percentage of graft and greed and corruption inhere in the process by which things are got done; the process by which the 'drainage' is taken care of, as Shaw had it. I look at it this way. The word 'corporate' is used as an epithet by the left, which refuses to accept that corporations, like any other institution of Aryan devising, are a form we find necessary, rather than the vile excrescence of mortal monsters. At this stage of the game, those calling others evil for seeking profits are simply ignorant; welfare-state socialism does not work. More interesting than passing judgment on forms Aryans produce to purvey the necessities of life is studying the politics these supposedly all-powerful corporations are forced to adopt by the real rulers of society, the ones the corporations must not cross in order to keep the shekels flowing. Who, for example, forces corporations to run commercials stuffed full of the black-and-blonde-as-natural-partners meme? Moore, of course, is incapable of conceiving such an analytical framework since it violates the tenets of his religion of human equality.

There is no Aryan artist as capable as Moore putting out genuine documentaries today, but any Aryan filmmaker who used the events and people and period Moore covers could substitute our themes and evidence and come up with a film that while perhaps not as captivating to the minds of the masses would be more effective in the minds that matter. Moore is a victim of the same jew-controlled media that will print neither pictures of coffins, nor videos of American soldiers being killed or killing Iraqi non-combatants. Nor will they report on the jews who produced the lies about the nonexistent WMDs, the war plan to destroy Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and quite possibly 9/11 itself.

Imagine we could hire Moore to make a real documentary taking our line -- i.e., reporting what really happened. We tell him to include the Carl Cameron Fox series on the captured Israeli spies, and the way the Mossad was tracking the accused 19 WTC hijackers the week before the attack, and the way these Israeli jews were spirited out of the country. We discuss the facts Cameron compiled, then we discuss the treatment of the messenger. What better graphic than a saved screen of Fox's This story no longer exists, which replaced the story about the jewish infestation of our government at the highest levels? Grasping at straws about bin Laden relatives; pointing out, yawn, that contractors will make money supplying services to Iraq -- what are these next to the open plan of scheming jews to coopt America's Aryan warriors into carrying out the racist jewish agenda of Israel? Keep in mind that jews Bob and Harvey Weinstein were two of the three executive producers of "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Moore spends his time talking not about the Israeli connection but the fact that many members of bin Laden's family were allowed to depart the country after Der Tag without FBI exams. Fair enough, but it will only sustain my interest if you come up with a scintilla of evidence these people had anything to do with 9/11. Moore does not, because there is not.

Moore spends much of the film going after the evil Saudis, just like the neocons who produce mainstream media such as National Review and mainstream wars such as the one in Iraq. Perhaps Moore sees the irony, perhaps he does not. Perhaps he really believes lust for oil profits and longtime Bush-Arab oil connections explain everything. I'd guess he's less interested in covering up the truth than in bashing Bush and looking good in the eyes of his liberal friends.

But no matter what he understands or intends, Moore and his film function to mislead viewers about the nature of 9/11 and the "American" response. The truth about 9/11 and our response to it does not even make the level of rejected explanation. Don't you find it surpassingly odd that there's literally not even a mention in "F9/11" that "some point to Israeli incentives to rid the world of potential threats to their Middle-Eastern hegemony"? I do. It sure is odd the way mainstream mediamongers left and right go out of their way not to use damning direct quotations from today's jews today in preference for undamning unrelated quotations from yesterday's Arabs. Why show Bibi Netanyahu talking about how good 9/11 was, then quickly catching himself, when you can show George Bush Senior glad-handing heads of rag back in the eighties? There is literally nothing in "Fahrenheit 9/11" about Israel's interest in taking out Iraq as a motive for our war. This movie contains not a sentence, not a quote, not a single picure of Sharon. Not a single word about the jewish nexus is ever uttered or appears on screen in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Moore's second virtue is a certain ability to manufacture awkward street scenes that turn out amusing and revealing. His extroversion and exhibitionism are valuable and uncommon qualities. Any White filmmaker who sees this film will be drooling at the thought of what can be done in what we might loosely call the MM manner, but pursuing the Aryan rather than Leftist agenda.

* * *

I saw "F9/11" at the 10:35 showing at Century 16 in Salt Lake City, on 8/03/04, ticket price $7.50. At my showing there were only 16 in the audience. All white, all quiet. As we left, I overheard a young guy, with his friend and a couple girls, say calmly: "It was propaganda. The Iraqis we saw were all happy to see us." But a friend who saw the film up in Canada with three females said they were all stirred up against the president. It appears, overall, that Moore has achieved his goal of Bushverhetzung. "F9/11" is effective propaganda. It tells a simple story. There are bad guys and good guys and a clear storyline. If you aren't too thoughtful, and accept people like Moore at face value, you're going to buy what he's selling.

The raw audio/video Moore has assembled is a lot more impressive than his attempt to make sense of it. My favorite part of the movie is the bloodlust of the Aryan in attack mode. Moore's camera depicts what he and his peace-buddies can't compass: war is hell and a hell of a lot of fun. So a bunch of old paunchies in Fresno can gather round munching cookies bemoaning what sleek agressive young men are up to in Iraq, i.e., playing real-life video games, i.e., hooking their CD players into their tank mikes and playing "The roof...the roof...the roof is on fire.... We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn. Burn, motherfucker, burn." The look in the soldier's eyes as he sings the lyrics tells you there ain't gonna be peace on this planet anytime soon. Just crying and dying and lying, like we're used to, and good at.

It's the lying the film's concerned with, primarily, but also where it's weakest. Moore drives off the standard leftist paradigm, in which evil corporate fatcats, all white, all interconnected, create wars to benefit Halliburton. The poor white slobs and useless nigges of Flint are fodder to be deployed by the profit-seeking Man. The film has some good stuff with two white Marines recruiting, mostly jigs. Whatever your interest, the Marines will hook you up: basketball? David Robinson. "You hear of Shaggy?" The black kid nods emphatically. "He's a Marine." Aggressive, forceful, sure, they make their case, set up their appointments.

The truth is that the army is a good option for lots of these otherwise useless niggers. Moore is barred from observing that because it's against his religion to take race into account when explaining black failure. Blacks are never responsible for their lives. They exist to serve as fodder for the Man and proof of his racism. Moore really seems to believe that conditions in Flint are the result not of nigger-by-nature but of some malign entity seeking to keep 'groids in slum conditions by forcing them to smoke crack and not clean up their yards, and accept government checks for large amounts of free money. Moore has ideological shades on that keep out those harmful reality rays.

Many reviewers have said he tracks inordinately one Lila Lipscomb, whose son was killed in Iraq. I did not find this so. She's a social worker in Flint, a conservative Democrat. Plain of face, fireplug of body, she's a fair representative of millions of midwestern Americans. Her white son named Pedersen is killed in a Blackhawk. Now she's married to an old black guy, surrounded by jiglets of varying shades as she reads and reenacts her reception of her dead son's last letter. She puts out an American flag on her home daily.

Ugly and not very smart people like this Lipscomb love Jesus, Bush and all established Authority. These folks, the substance of any country, have little to fall back on mentally, physically, or fiscally. They have to be part of the winning team -- another name for authority -- or they will not be able to survive. To call them lemmings is both accurate and inaccurate in that functionally they must be taken that way, yet the connotation attributes a degree of choice I do not believe most of them are capable of. Moore does not accept this. He has a line in the film to the effect that hierarchies are not natural but are imposed by some groups on others who would otherwise be equal. He believes, as nuttily as a Christian Scientist that disease is a function of 'mortal mind' and not an independent reality, that hierarchies exist to suppress equality, which is man's natural state. He needs to spend a little more time watching Animal Planet. Like almost every other creature out there, man instinctively recognizes hierarchies. Because men are, in fact, not equal. This hatred of reality/hierarchies seems to be the latest in anti-racism. The young editor of the local Kirksville paper who interviewed me said almost exactly the same things Moore does, in explaining why he must reject my racist views. A belief unsustained by evidence is no less powerful for all that. It could be Moore in "F9/11," it could the young Filippino convert, leading a tour at Temple Square here in Salt Lake, relating the story of the heroic seagulls swooping down to save the Mormons' crops from marauding crickets, scooping them up in their bill and "dropping them in the Great Salt Lake," as she told us. Use your illusions, as Guns and Roses said. The only problem is that these problems bring real pain to the rest of us living in the real world.

What we can take from Moore's work is not thought or analysis but tone, perhaps, and certainly pictures and sound clips we wouldn't have otherwise. Moore's work reveals just how controlled America and its media are, and how childish the American people have become as a result.

We 'Kwans aren't allowed to see:

- the bloodlust of the American attacker

- the pain of the bombed Iraqi normals, and their rage

- the violence of the actual killing, and actual reprisals; the screams of the life-departing

- the soldiers who doubt

- the soldiers who are horribly maimed, mentally and physically.

But above all we are denied:

the name and nature of the jew producing 9/11, the war, and the coverup.

In the broader context, Moore's film leads one to reflect that Americans in 2004 are commercial and cannon fodder, and really nothing else. They have no rights to speak of; they are denied the truth by the media, which function as a syringe filled with neutralizing fluid wielded by Dr. ZOG, prepared instantly to poison any inmate who threatens to raise hands.

Until things change, they'll stay the same.

And that's part of what this trip west is about.

If Michael Moore can do it, we can too.

ALEX LINDER

Back to VNN Main Page