News from Nowhere: HOPE Not Hate’s 2025 Report

HOPE Not Hate (HNH) are a British organization monitoring and reporting on what is described in the UK as the “far Right”. They are the British equivalent of America’s Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and fulfil a similar function, that of unofficial government adviser. That may well change for the SPLC under President Trump, but HNH are quite safe with the Starmer government in Britain as they are on-message. For the left, since they have created a totally dysfunctional society, it can only be about hope — the ever-elusive goal of a multi-ethnic utopia that is just around the corner if we could only destroy and de-legitimize White people’s interests.

In fact, they could be said to produce a large part of the message. HNH produce an annual report entitled State of Hate (SoH), and the 2025 edition has just been published. With an 11-strong production team and solid funding, SoH is lavish and exhaustively researched. It can be downloaded, but is also available in glossy magazine form. It might make a nice coffee-table ornament, an office I’m sure it will perform in parts of north London.

As a serious journalistic source, should you happen to be writing about the British far Right, SoH is first-rate. But all it really is in essence is an almanac with a very disapproving tone. The allegations are largely petty indiscretions, the “problematic rhetoric” is very often just facts unpalatable to the Left, and simply appending the phrase “far-Right” to anyone of whom you disapprove is an ideological parlour-game Orwell exposed in 1946 in Politics and the English Language.

Also, when people whine about “rhetoric”, it’s likely that they have never read Aristotle’s ars rhetorica in their intellectually sheltered lives, this being too classical and therefore too White for them. But these midwits are more powerful than one might think, and are taken extremely seriously by those who fund them. Then again, so are many writers of fiction.

Like the SPLC in the US, HNH are not officially the government’s advisers, and Starmer would rather keep things as they are. That way, HNH are deniable should they do anything too crass, which they almost did last summer. At the height of the rioting following the attack in Southport in which three young girls were butchered, HNH CEO Nick Lowles posted on X that a Muslima had had acid thrown in her face. This was simply untrue and, viewed in context, with a number of volatile situations in progress and armed Muslims taking to the streets, incredibly irresponsible. HNH were fortunate that no charges were pressed. Fortunate, or something else.

Their status as a NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) notwithstanding, HNH seem to derive a fair portion of their funding directly from governmental sources—as DOGE is finding out in the U.S. The London Mayor’s Office, under the long reign of Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan, gave money to HNH in 2019, and under the previous supposedly conservative government, HNH sent paid advisers to the Home Office to lecture its staff about extremism.

But SoH is its central pillar, and it is worth remembering that all of the various characters who appear in the 140 pages of the report have one thing in common, in the opinion of HNH; they hate. They are “haters”. Hatred is their natural habitat. Hating, of course, is what children do. “I hate you, Mummy!” It is also what ethnic adversaries do, and perhaps ethnicity is the greatest driver of genuine hatred, rather than that confected by HNH. In SoH, of course, the word “hatred” and its cognates are just stage props in a production as theatrical as it is ideological. The word “hate” itself is carefully manipulated by HNH, although hatred is an emotion understood by all. One thinks of the Messerschmitt busts which show hatred and other disagreeable emotions. This is how HOPE Not Hate wish us to be pictured in the mind’s eye of the great British public. So, let the hatred begin.

The report’s cover features two of HNH’s bêtes noires, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, the leader of the rapidly rising Reform UK, and effectively a political prisoner respectively. As always, they both have large sections of SoH dedicated to them.

Robinson having been in prison for some time, there is not much to report on him (absent the fact that the deep state is trying to kill him in jail, which HNH are unlikely to mention). Thus, being something of a veteran of these reports, I detect a fair bit of cut-and-paste in the production of SoH 2025. But, as noted, it is exhaustive, and the updates maintain the illusion of what I called the “Pepper’s Ghost” of the British far Right, here at The Occidental Observer three years ago. Not much has changed.

HNH’s mission statement accompanies a request for donations:

“We take on and defeat nazis.

Will you step up with a donation to ensure we can keep fighting the far right?”

This is an old advertising technique as well as more evidence of the little-league neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) which infects every ward of the Leftist sanitorium. Association, verbal or typographical, is a device the Left use consistently, and they like to link certain familiar images in the minds of their followers. Nazis, far-Right, fascists, radical Right; these smear-phrases must be kept in circulation, melding and conflating into one single meaning.

As the report progresses, certain phrases recur. Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer whose crime sparked last year’s riots in England, is mentioned three times in the first 12 pages of SoH, each time with a variation on this theme:

“We are also seeing rising numbers of young men who through ideologically fluid means — picking elements of different and even contradictory ideologies — are drawn together through a desire to commit extreme violence. The Southport killer fitted this mould…”  (p. 6)

Decoded, this means that Rudakubana’s being a Muslim was, if anything, a very minor and insignificant factor in his murdering three small girls. The way HNH work is by association, whether it exists or not.

Because of this methodological need to make links in a chain, HNH particularly like structure. This is from Lowles’ editorial introduction to SoH:

[The Southport riots] were primarily a product of the ‘post-organisational’ far right. Most of the disturbances were planned organically, often by local people unaligned to any formal organisation, but who were plugged into decentralised far-right networks online. (p. 12).

Unless cretinism is either a condition you actually suffer from, or the hobby it seems to be for many on the Left, this is nonsense on stilts. What does, what can, “post-organizational” actually mean? What are “decentralized far-Right networks”? If those of us on the political Right don’t know it yet, much of our battle takes place on the terrain of language, and the ex cathedra terminology of Critical Race Theory has allowed the Left to exercise their apparent right to use language as though it were malleable and has meaning only as subject to the requirements of the user.

HNH have their own lexicon, and it is every bit as semantically fluid as one would expect:

We use the term ‘trigger events’ to describe incidents that generate large-scale reactions. These reactions spread beyond the individuals involved in the event to those in the in-group attacking the out-group: what some social psychologists call ‘vicarious retribution’.  In the case of anti-migrant hatred, trigger events are most commonly crimes committed or alleged to have been committed by people of migrant backgrounds. (p. 84).

The Southport killings are thus reduced to the status of a simple causative formula rather than the massacre of White girls by a second-generation immigrant. Language is once again co-opted in order to smear perfectly understandable reactions to horrors which are becoming increasingly commonplace across Europe.

Language is also key to the self-damning of its “far-Right” users, although the bar is set low enough to challenge the doughtiest limbo-dancer, and is not confined to political pariahs:

But crucially, this [language] is not only confined to Reform or Conservative politicians. Although far less common and extreme, Labour have at times dipped their toes in this rhetoric. In 2007 Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced a ‘British jobs for British workers’ policy, which many viewed as nativist and contrary to anti-discrimination laws. (p. 24).

As for the cast of this stage-play, hell is empty and all the devils are here. Farage and Reform UK, Elon Musk (despite not being British), Andrew Tate, GB News, Patriotic Alternative; the gang’s all here. But there are some new faces in this hall of shame.

One of the high-profile media arrivistes in this year’s SoH is Professor Matt Goodwin. He is a Jewish professional statistician with an academic background, articulate and forthright, and has found himself a target for HNH:

He [Matt Goodwin]… emphasised that the Cardiff-born murderer [Rudakubana] was ‘the son of immigrants from Rwanda’, in a clear attempt to frame the horrifying attack as a result of immigration. (p. 46).

The attacks were a result of immigration, literally and de facto, but HNH are not going to let facts stand in the way of a good story.

Goodwin merits four pages and has, it seems, been “radicalized”, another word which has been requisitioned and genetically modified by HNH. The word is immediately associated with Islamic terrorism, and HNH know this perfectly well. Thus, an equivalence is set up between a mild-mannered academic and a screaming jihadi with machete or backpack-bomb.

HNH are not entirely politically illiterate, and make the occasional astute observation. The endorsement made by Laura Loomer and Steve Bannon of Tommy Robinson’s “Unite the Kingdom” rallies in London (successful, well attended, and entirely peaceful so far, and with another planned for September) has something of an internal problem:

While Bannon and Loomer’s presence will undoubtedly excite Lennon’s [Robinson’s real name] supporters, one person who will not be impressed is Elon Musk. Bannon and Loomer have nothing but contempt for the billionaire and have been leading the MAGA campaign against his influence. (p. 43).

Musk has previously helped fund Robinson’s legal team, and HNH have correctly pointed out a potential cause of future conflict.

In the quaintly named “Rogues Gallery” section of SoH, we see all 23 White human oddities convicted last year for terrorist offences. Many of these miscreants were jailed, at least partly, for offences concerning terrorist literature. This is another flexible category, despite being defined in the UK Terrorism Act 2006:

Section 2 makes it an offence to distribute a terrorist publication with the intention of encouraging acts of terrorism. A terrorist publication is one which could be useful to a person in the commission or preparation of acts of terror, and the maximum sentence in respect of this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment.

These “terrorist publications” could be The Anarchist’s Cookbook (and often is), or it could be The Turner Diaries.

It is a racing certainty that, should you be White and in possession of proscribed literature, you will go to jail. But UK Counter Terrorism Police arrested 248 people under terrorism laws last year, including those involved in three “late stage” attacks. Who were the other 225 not mentioned in HNH’s report? From SoH:

The offences of those who were arrested range from suspicion of possessing a firearm, to those who have allegedly shared terrorist material online, and to those who were thought to be preparing acts of terrorism. (p. 68).

The faces in the Rogues Gallery speak of snake-eye genes and sub-85 IQs, but HNH are determined that these dropouts be seen as representing the vanguard of a wave of terror which could break over the righteous at any moment.

Race science is also in HNH’s crosshairs, and Edward Dutton —  of this parish — makes an appearance, something which is becoming a badge of honor for those questioning the narrative, like a duelling scar at an old German public school. HNH only recognize state-endorsed science.

If HNH’s portrait of the British far Right is in any way accurate, then what a diverse bunch they are. Odinists rub shoulders with Conservative Woman magazine. Bubbly feminist Posie Parker mingles with the skinheads of Blood & Honour (who haven’t actually existed for some time, although no one seems to have told HNH). Affable, elderly YouTuber Simon Webb, of the channel History Debunked, shares the limelight with the UVF. That’s right. This extraordinary document actually finishes its inventory of far-Right organizations with the Ulster Volunteer Force. Strange times.

I can’t recommend SoH 2025 highly enough, and for two reasons. Firstly, and as noted, it is an exhaustive inventory of anyone in the UK even vaguely to the right of Mao Zedong. If you want new pen-pals on the British political Right, this is effectively one of those old-fashioned telephone directories. I shall certainly be contacting some of the groups who have merited inclusion since SoH 2024, with a view to interviews. Thank you for the contact list, HNH.

Secondly, this document is an extraordinary snapshot — like one of those MSI brain-scans — of the pathology of the British Left and, by extension, all Westerners of that persuasion. I hope that those readers who actually know a fair bit about psychology will forgive me, but I can’t resist a bit of a layman’s prognosis. I think Lowles and most of his crew (although I would bet not all) know perfectly well that SoH 2025 is a Potemkin Village. The frontage is impressively and meticulously decorated, but there is nothing behind it. Lowles is a snake-oil salesman, a used-car dealer who understands the importance to profit of counterfeit parts and the necessity of occasionally filing the number off an engine-block. HNH is a laboratory in which is produced controlled cognitive dissonance. It is also, to use a term taken up by those who understand the mechanics of the race industry, a grift.

The best grift I ever saw was 40 years ago on Guy Fawkes’ Night (aka Bonfire Night) at a crowded railway station in England. It was traditional when I was a boy to make a dummy of Guido Fawkes, the man who attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, and often wryly known as “the only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions”. Boys would stuff old shirts and Dad’s work trousers with rags, make a papier maché head, and toddle off to the town centre to cry “Penny for the Guy!” in the hope that passers-by would throw them a few coppers for their artistic efforts. The boys at this bustling Brighton station full of commuters returning home from work in London were doing just that, but when they asked me for money, I asked them something which was troubling me:

“Where’s the Guy?”

They looked at me with feral distrust and sloped off to ply their trade elsewhere. There was, of course, no Guy, but people still gave them money without bothering to seek out the famous effigy. This is a perfect metaphor for HNH and SoH. It is also (to me) a nice irony that the website doing much to expose HNH’s troubles is the notorious Westminster insider Guido Fawkes.

As a source of juvenile revenue, a penny for the Guy has rather dried up now, as Bonfire Night is one of several celebrations smothered by the British version of the deep state (far too many White people enjoy, or used to enjoy, the fireworks and celebrations). But HNH are also seeing a bit of a dip in their revenue stream. Their last financial report shows that they took in £417,000 last year, compared with £715,000 the previous year, and over £1 million the year before that. It will be of interest to see the next figure in the wake of the forensic accounting President Trump’s Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) is carrying out, and we perhaps discover that some of USAID’s money was finding its way across the Atlantic. In terms of HNH’s status as an employer, in place of their previous long-term contracts for employees and interns, they are increasingly offering contractual terms as short as four months.

So, another year, another SoH report. But how long can HNH and Nick Lowles maintain the illusion? And, if the grift is done, who will save us from the imaginary monsters of the British far Right?