Another Leftist Smear Job

Our expatriate English correspondent Peter takes a look at HOPE not hate’s scurrilous “research” paper targeting Gates of Vienna and other Counterjihad groups.

Another Leftist Smear Job

by Peter

Several days ago, a report was released to the press entitled, “The Muhammad Cartoons — The Counter-Jihadist Plot To Ignite A Civil War In Britain.” The author, one Nick Lowles, is the Chief Executive of an organization calling itself “Hope not Hate” and both he and his organization have been identified by various blogs and commentators as having acquired a reputation for lies and unsubstantiated smears. The report has been published in the name of Hope not Hate and, contrary to that organisation’s claims, it appears to have been cobbled together in an almighty rush and is nothing more than an orchestrated smear targetted against a number of people of whom Mr Lowles & co disapprove.

Hope not Hate is an interestingly named organization, which does not inspire much hope and most people I know hate it. It was founded in 2004 allegedly “to provide a positive antidote to the politics of hate” according to their website. They claim to “combine first class research with community organising & grassroots actions to defeat hate groups at elections and to build community resilience against extremism.” If this statement were true, how much “first class research” went into writing a shoddy, badly researched “report” like this?

Hope not Hate claims to be funded entirely by membership subscriptions. If so, how do they explain the £66,000 they received as a result of a funding agreement signed by the Department for Communities and Local Government sometime between 2012 and 2013? Do they also expect us to believe they receive no donations from the various left-wing Trades Unions, politicians or celebrities with whom they are associated? No matter.

In their preamble, they claim to report on a meeting that took place between “Anne Marie Waters, who is fronting up the cartoon exhibition, with EDL founder Stephen Lennon, Britain’s most militant counter-jihadist, Alan Ayling, and Jim Dowson founder of the far right, mosque invading party, ‘Britain First’ only three weeks before the exhibition was announced”. The report continues: “They openly discussed using the cartoons (which cause offence to many Muslims) to incite a violent backlash, which they hoped would spark a wider conflict between communities and, ultimately, civil war. They repeat this accusation in various parts of their missive, but provide no evidence to substantiate it, only hearsay.

Are they kidding us? These are serious charges they are making including conspiracy to cause riot, civil disorder and affray. If convicted, the accused could go to prison for many years but not on this “evidence” or any other information contained in this meandering and repetitive document.

They give no date or location when or where this meeting was alleged to have taken place only that it happened three weeks before the cartoon exhibition was announced, and the evidence that it took place at all? According to an article by Breitbart, it was an inflammatory article on the so-called Knights Templar blog by one Peter Mellows, whoever he is. This does not inspire confidence as to the veracity of the rest of the document.

In order to smear the “conspirators” and the “counter-jihad” in general, the authors of the report list what they think we believe in, with the unspoken innuendo that nice people shouldn’t believe politically incorrect things like this. Amongst the items listed are:

Britain’s ‘counter-jihad’ movement believes that Islam is a supremacist and expansionist ideology, which poses an existential threat to the West. They believe there is no difference between moderate or hardline followers of Islam.

There are a lot of Muslims who say the same things such as Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister who has stated on a number of occasions “There is only one Islam” Who knows best, a practicing Muslim world leader or Nick Lowles? Lowles will probably tell you he does. The report continues:

Some ‘counter-jihadists’ believe the only answer is the mass deportation or removal of Muslims from Europe.

In view of what has been happening in Europe over the last twenty years or so, can anyone blame them?

According to the report, the removal of Muslims will take place “through civil war and the ‘genocide’ of Muslims.” I admit I have seen such sentiments on some websites but they are not to be taken seriously. Besides, I have seen similar threats on Muslim websites directed against us, but nobody seems to get very excited by them.

The document continues:

These militant ‘counter-jihadists’ openly discuss civil war scenarios on the internet. One British counter-jihadist has written a fictional account of how this civil war will happen and how — through the mass killings of Muslims — it will end. He has even suggested tactics for paramilitary operations and urban warfare.

This must be a reference to El Inglés’ series of articles posted six or seven years ago, but everyone who read them knew that the suggested scenarios were only notional… didn’t they?

Of course, whatever happens, don’t forget Breivik. Hope not Hate doesn’t. They continue:

This is the same ideology which inspired Norwegian far-right killer Anders Breivik, involving many of the people quoted in his 1,500 page (so-called) ‘Manifesto’. It was this manifesto, and the counterjihad ideas within, that he used to justify his killing of 77 people in 2011.

And there we have it. This would be the ultimate act of guilt by association if they could prove that the Counter Jihad or any of its associates influenced Breivik in any way at all, but they have not done so, at least not in this flimsy document.

The report goes on at length to identify and vilify various people it claims to be part of the counter-jihad but, just like the so-called meeting mentioned above, there is no hard evidence for the accusations and, once again, I believe every person who has been “fingered” in the report has grounds for legal redress.

But why produce a report like this now? The contents of the document provide the answer. It states:

In a week when Prime Minister David Cameron called for action against non-violent Muslim extremists, HOPE not hate also believes the authorities need to do more against these counter-jihadists.

I can only assume that Hope not Hate reacted to the Prime Ministers statements concerning “Extremists” and “Conspiracy Theorists” to jump on the bandwagon of Islamic whingers and grievance mongers and smear people who have done little more than express reasonable reservations about the activities of Islam and Muslims in their countries. There is a suspicion that Hope not Hate did not produce this document at all and they are mere useful idiots being played by HM Government but, without evidence, who could say for certain?

Peter is an English expatriate who now lives in Thailand.

Previous posts:

2014   Sep   19   Why I Left England’s Mean and Unpleasant Land
    Oct   5   Pakistan I: The Blasphemy Laws
        6   Pakistan II: The Hudood Ordinances
        13   Bradistan: Importing a Culture Gap
        18   “I’m As Mad As Hell and I’m Not Going to Take This Any More”
2015   Feb   9   Iran: Strangled by a Gordian Knot

12 thoughts on “Another Leftist Smear Job

  1. “Britain’s ‘counter-jihad’ movement believes that Islam is a supremacist and expansionist ideology, which poses an existential threat to the West. They believe there is no difference between moderate or hardline followers of Islam.”

    And Low, do you believe otherwise? Why? What are the events, riots, slogans, marches, attacks, beheadings, murder, cry for caliphate, . . . etc tell you?

    How did you reach your conclusions? Have you heard about induction?

    That how you reach a general fact from thousands of daily occurrences.

    Is what you write is called freedom of speech?

  2. You at GoV are liberals in the genuine, Jeffersonian sense, which is why you’re opposed to an extremely illiberal religion like Islam. Hope Not Hate are the authoritarians who believe in force and imprisonment as ways of settling an argument. And they’re eager to see lots more highly illiberal third-worlders in the Western world. However, give Nick Lowles of HNH his due: he has been more honest about the Muslim “grooming” scandals than you’d expect. That’s why he came under attack by the anti-fascist Liz Fekete:

    Given the current climate, in which the far Right accuses the anti-racist lobby of imposing a conspiracy of silence about Muslim involvement in ‘on-street grooming’, I was quite surprised to see you similarly accuse the ‘left’ and anti-racists of being ‘too quick to try and silence any discussion’ and of turning a blind eye to the fact that the bulk of perpetrators of what you describe as ‘on-street grooming’ come from the British-Pakistani community. But what I really take issue with is your uncritical, and occasionally slanted, take on Ministry of Justice crime statistics.

    More on Ms Feteke here:

    She has worked at IRR for 29 years. She writes and speaks extensively on aspects of contemporary racism, refugee rights, far-right extremism and Islamophobia across Europe and is author of A suitable enemy: racism, migration and Islamophobia in Europe and They Are Children Too: a study of Europe’s deportation policies. Liz was part of the CARF Collective, and an expert witness at the Basso Permanent People’s Tribunal on asylum and the World Tribunal on Iraq. She is currently an associate of the International State Crime Initiative at King’s College London. Her most recent project, Alternative Voices on Integration in Europe, foregrounded the work of youth groups and innovative anti-racist projects whose initiatives are largely ignored by the mainstream.

    I won’t point out her ethnicity, but I’m sure you can guess.

  3. Felony dissidence! The interlocking and conclusive evidence of contempt for cross-cultural sensitivities may be too hideous for public perusal. But the visceral repugnance afflicting Mister Lowles is the result of the attempt to induce terminal apoplexy. What better evidence is there than the purple hue of Lowles’s neck. Throw away the key!

  4. Maybe time for some folks to lawyer up, and take these @$$-hats for some serious dough…

  5. “Hope not Hate?” What are we supposed to be hoping for? That if we kiss enough Muslim butt they will decapitate us last? Moderate Muslims are irrelevant. Just as “moderate Nazi party members” were irrelevant. When the head chopping starts en masse watch which side the “moderate” muslims take.

  6. “Britain’s ‘counter-jihad’ movement believes that Islam is a supremacist and expansionist ideology, which poses an existential threat to the West. They believe there is no difference between moderate or hardline followers of Islam.”

    First sentence, yes and your point is? Second sentence, I do believe there is a difference between moderate and hardline followers of Islam, the latter are brazen enough to wear their ‘hardline’ views on their sleeves whilst the former are somewhat timid when living as a minority in Western democracies . The former will, however, undoubtedly fall into line when push comes to shove. There will certainly be no resistance from them in the imposition of Sharia law.

    • “whilst the former are somewhat timid when living as a minority in Western democracies ”

      Muslims rioted in Oldham & Bradford (2001). At that point in time, the police in those areas admitted that the vast majority of racist violence was perpetrated by muslims.

      In the late 1980s, the white eastenders in Tower Hamlets voted in a BNP councillor. Muslims rioted again, and the councillor had to resign. Yes, very timid.

      In 2009, SIOE held a one-man demo in Harrow. Again, 1500 of those timid muslims rioted. The media took their side.

      In 2010, EDL managed (they thought) to get an islamo-nazis conference in Tower Hamlets cancelled. EDL called off their scheduled protest. Muslims still rioted. You are right, these moderates are so timid. Here’s a video of these timid muslims:

      EDL and Tommy Robinson are banned from entering Tower Hamlets. Because those timid muslims will riot. Those timid muslims are 21% of the young convicts in the UK (from a population that is 5% of the total).

      I’ve personally seen altercations between a handful of white men and groups of muslims who outnumbered them by 300%. Within 2 minutes another 100 muslims would appear and encircle the small group of white men. Just like in this story, where 30 of them used knives & machetes in a racist attack on 2 white men.

      I’ve seen car drivers get into an altercation with a muslim car driver. Suddenly all the other muslims on the street descend on the kafir car driver, and attack his car. If he’s lucky, he gets away before they drag him out of his car.

      Police know that in muslim enclaves weapons are hidden within easy reach of any altercatio (knives in flower beds, claw hammers on top of 6 foot walls). Definitely the behaviour of timid people.

      There is no essential/fundamental difference between an islamist and a muslim. They are separated by degrees of patience and degrees of knowledge about the sunnah of Mohammed.

      • I’m not sure this doesn’t deserve its own place as a report rather than a comment, but the source isn’t clear.–bJiNkKwaml

        I stumbled on this while looking for something else. This is a series of 100 “trending” stories in the UK; I don’t know if the material is from The Independent itself, but the material sure covers a gamut of information.

        Obviously, the subject of this story – which is quite long – is not something I’ve EVER heard from the Brits themselves. In addition, the exit of ethnic Englishmen from the British Isles was at one point a sure “trend” – do they even keep records anymore??

        Watch your blood pressure on this one,

        10 myths about the UK’s ‘migrant crisis’, debunked

        At the moment more than 3,500 people living in ‘the Jungle’ migrant camp in Calais have tried to cross the Channel in just two days in an attempt to flee bloodshed, persecution and poverty at home, and the government is trying everything it can to keep them at bay.


        Obviously, this is about eastern European immigrants. As one lone commenter noted, Muslim terrorism isn’t even mentioned.

        Amazing blinders…

        Below we’ve taken some of the most common myths and misconceptions about migration in an effort to separate fact from political rhetoric and tabloid fiction:

        1. Yes, immigration levels are high, but that’s not a bad thing

        An estimated 641,000 people immigrated to Britain in 2014, 284,000 of them for work, which is the highest ever annual figure. While the government puts a negative spin on this, the truth is that Britain’s economy has started to grow again, which makes it attractive as a place to seek work – and both right and left leaning think tanks say our growing economy needs them.

        2. Immigrants aren’t stealing your jobs

        After borders in the EU were opened in the mid 2000s, many eastern Europeans did come to the UK in search of higher paid work than they could get at home.

        However: recorded unemployment rates went down between 2003 – 2005, and recorded vacancy rates went up slightly.

        Many of these people work in occupations such as catering, driving, and construction, where wages are often driven down, but Professor John Salt of UCL’s Migration Research Unit told The Independent that “the econometric evidence suggests immigration doesn’t generally impact on the pay or employment rates of existing citizens”

        10. Crime rates fall rather than rise in areas with concentrated migrant populations

        The presence of immigrant communities has no bearing on levels of violent crime, and in some areas, a slight increase in property crime, according to LSE research.

        In areas with eastern European communities, all crime rates have fallen.

        “Immigrants are just like natives – if they have a good job and income they don’t commit crime,” Brian Bell, a research fellow at LSE, said in a statement.

        Y’all want to comment on these 3 letter NGOs making up sharing their research? Does this rise to the level of being worth posting about?

        BTW, I noticed one of the other stories was about the dangers of civilians being allowed guns.

  7. “I can only assume that Hope not Hate reacted to the Prime Ministers statements concerning “Extremists” and “Conspiracy Theorists” to jump on the bandwagon of Islamic whingers and grievance mongers and smear people who have done little more than express reasonable reservations about the activities of Islam and Muslims in their countries.”

    HNH have been doing this for years, probably as far back as 2010 when it comes to EDL (which was only created in 2009). At an EDL demo in November of that year, HNH’s “roving reporter” stated that the muslims (whom EDL was opposing) were praising Hitler and the Nazis. This self-styled “antifascist” organisation then stated they would begin opposing islamo-nazis, but never did so.

    HNH’s existence is almost certainly connected to the first national exposure of the muslim grooming gang phenomenon (around Bradford 2004). It would have been created to bolster the message of the UAF, who were the principal “far left” organisation, who, working with the police force who had turned a blind eye to 15 to 20 years of schoolgirls being raped, managed to get the Channel 4 documentary banned.

    Around 2009 UAF & HNH had a spat, over HNH admitting these grooming gangs existed. Following this spat, HNH fell into line behind the Trotskyyist UAF, and went silent on the grooming gangs until about 2014, when HNH started to claim they’d been in the foreground in exposing these gangs (they had done nothing, and as I say, were probably created to ensure the gangs remained unexposed).

    HNH was originally a part of Searchlight, a jewish/communist run group, supposedly dedicated to exposing Nazism. Obviously, they were never interested in exposing the Exotic Other brown-skinned islamo-nazis.

    UAF & HNH are certainly branches of the state. The BNP and Britain First are also going to be controlled by MI5 (there were core BNP members who came to this conclusion around 2010, and discussed it in a chain of private emails). That Tommy Robinson has been pressured by the state over and over to become an agent of theirs is well known. Moreover, the failure of the police to prosecute any of the 100s of people who have threatened to kill him, his mother, his wife and his children is no doubt a stick to encourage him to become an agent. That he keeps going to prison, that he keeps getting seriously assaulted, serve to show that he has not been recruited.

    As for Jim Dowson. Well, people can judge for themselves whether or not he is an agent of the state.

Comments are closed.