What do Gilad Atzmon and Lady Michèle Renouf have in common?
The book defends the double standard of support for Jewish supremacy, combined with hostility to any suggestion of white gentile identity, under the guise of liberal humanism. In short, anti-fascism.
Hope not Hate is a “respectable” anti-fascist organization. That means it doesn’t openly advocate violence against people whose opinions it disagrees with. It prefers to use the technique of discrediting them by classifying them into ominous-sounding categories:
Categories of Holocaust denial
- Holocaust denial
- Holocaust revisionism
- Right-wing revisionism, which seeks to rehabilitate the Third Reich
- Left-wing revisionism, which is part of an anti-Israel discourse
- Holocaust relativism
- Ordinary, everyday relativism
- A “more sinister form” of relativism – the “yes, but syndrome”
- “Double genocide” relativism – popular in Eastern Europe
- Holocaust negationism
- Softcore negationism
- Hardcore negationism
- Holocaust minimising
- Holocaust banalisation
- Holocaust trivialising
The book does not cite the arguments put forward by members of the above categories, and there are no references. Instead, it attacks their alleged motives. This should always arouse suspicion, since we cannot read other people’s minds. It uses its own conclusions to explain why some people reject them. Thus, in principle, these conclusions are not subject to falsification. This is the sign of a politically-motivated cult, not a group of serious researchers.
Another logical fallacy it employs is argument from authority. For example, “David Irving has no academic qualification“. History isn’t something you accept because of someone’s qualifications – it’s too politically charged to trust anyone on. You have to understand the methodology and do your homework.
These logical errors do not prove that the book is wrong, and the people it denounces are right, but it certainly raises a reasonable suspicion. If the authors of this book could refute the claims of the revisionists, why didn’t they do so?
Mark Weber was America’s leading revisionist.
Unlike Irving, Weber really did used to be a National Socialist. As “Rewriting History” explains, he gave that up, and became a mere Holocaust Revisionist.
Finally, after reading a scholarly analysis of why America supports Israel – The Israel Lobby by Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer – he abandoned revisionism and became primarily a critic of the Lobby and its influence.
Weber has climbed a mountain, all the way from supporting racial oppression, to opposing it. A consistent anti-racist would welcome this pilgrim’s progress.
But Hope not Hate isn’t anti-racist. It’s part of anti-fascism, which is not the same thing at all. I described it as a “hypocritical, self-righteous, discriminatory, racist perspective” (2) which provides cover for the only racial oppression left in the Western world – Zionism – by smearing and persecuting its critics.
1. Rewriting History, David Williams, Hope not Hate: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/shop/rewriting-history.pdf
2. The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism, Jay Knott: http://www.pacificaforum.org/mass