HnH's own supporters agree with Bloom and oppose burning of books

Evidence of the widening gap between Hope not Hate and their own supporters continues to emerge in the comments following HnH's latest articles.

On Friday, Nick Lowles blog featured an article on former UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom's new book, "A guinea a minute" which was ripped off without attribution from the Huffington Post UK. Entitled 'Godfrey Bloom's best quotes from 'A guinea a minute', HuffPo contributor Asa Bennett had managed to whittle the book down to reveal the very best.

Designed as a piece to elicit mockery of Bloom whose trenchant views are already widely known, the responses from Hope not Hate supporters were revealing when it was posted on their Facebook page. Just 5 people 'liked' the article, while 6 commented upon it. Of the 6 comments, 4 were supportive, including a comment by one of the 'likers'. They said:

 

 

There was yet more disappointment for Lowles and his motley crew as the comments thread also developed on the story we covered a couple of days ago on his enthusiasm for overcoming political opponents by simply burning their books in best National Socialist style. While some agreed with HnH's desire for the censorship of opposing political views no matter how absurd or easily disproved, the vast majority of comments showed that HnH's support is hardly foursquare behind them, while many noted the closeness between Lowles position and that of Goebbels, as we noted in our article: that banning books is just one step away from burning them.

 

 

 

It is worth noting that these are not messages from people who appear to be supporters of the far-right or of holocaust denial. Rather these are people who seem to be waking up to the agenda behind Hope not Hate's words and actions. Increasingly comments are appearing beneath their articles which should give any organisation a reason to pause for thought, although that is unlikely to happen with Hope not Hate. A more likely cause of action will be the disabling of the comments threads, or an even heavier handed censorship of what is posted. They already remove anything which appears to be written by persons whom they consider 'far-right'. It is one thing to remove the comments of political opponents, but could Lowles and Hope not Hate be forced to start removing the comments of their own supporters to hide the growing uneasiness within the ranks? It can not be long coming. After all, no dictatorship can survive for long once it permits internal dissent.

Hope not Hate's take on democracy - shut down the opposing argument by name-calling

Hope not Hate are busy salivating over a series of comments which they claim prove UKIP to be 'misogynist'.

The carpet in their offices must be positively wet with all the dribbling, as last week they focussed on comments by UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom relating to aid being sent to 'Bongo Bongo Land'.

While attacking Bloom's comments, they naturally failed to address any substance within his comments, particularly as details came to light of aid to India and Nigeria (who have their own space programs) and F/18 fighters to Pakistan (as we continue to scrap our own fighter aircraft). Naturally, had any of Hope not Hate's armchair warriors actually travelled to areas which receive aid, they might have had a better perspective, but as most of their experience is gleaned from pages from the 'Guardian' newspaper it can hardly be expected that they know what they are talking about.

Today, they are up in arms over comments made by UKIP Treasurer Stuart Wheeler and UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom during a debate at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London on the subject of plans to impose a quota on the number of women represented in boardrooms.

For Hope not Hate's benefit, here is a dictionary (the Oxford English Dictionary) definition of a debate:

"a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote"

In practise, this works by openly debating the matter at hand, something which Hope not Hate are not keen on, probably because it smack of, well, democracy, and other 'right wing' tendencies.

In their moralising, Hope not Hate have yet to mention how an open debate can be held on whether quotas on the number of women in boardrooms should be held if only one side of the debate - the side in favour - is allowed to participate, of if those who oppose the idea of 'affirmative action' (which did so much to harm race relations in the United States) are castigated as racist/sexist/misogynist/Nazi (delete as appropriate).

This is what Hope not Hate mean by 'democracy', I suppose. Just out of interest, how many women do Hope not Hate employ? One? Out of how many?