Stop Funding Hate are fascists

boycott-jews-650

Currently we are seeing riots from the ironically named Democrats because they lost the US Presidential election. Similar left wing loser riots followed the Conservative General Election victory in the UK last year. This is a feature of socialism, they have no respect whatsoever for the voting public or for democracy, unless they get the results that they want. The same often applies to lefties and to freedom of expression, they try to prevent opponents having their say. There are plenty of photos and videos of “Democrats” tearing down Trump election signs. And here in Britain the left are trying to wage economic war against the news media that disagrees with them.

Stop Funding Hate are a lefty Social Justice Warrior (SJW) organisation seeking to censor non left wing views in the British Press. You will find them on Twitter as @StopFundingHate and on Facebook as https://www.facebook.com/stopfundinghate/ . Their tactic is to hit the income of certain newspapers by political action against the advertisers in these newspapers. Their Twitter profile says: “Don’t hate the media – change the media. Help us take on the divisive hate campaigns of the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express”. You can see quite clearly that they are specifically targeting the non lefty press. Divisive hate campaigns are OK in the Guardian (who are regularly accused of anti Semitism) and the Mirror. Because what Stop Funding Hate mean by “hate campaigns” are anything that THEY disagree with.

charlie-hebdo-650

Basically this is blackmail. Newspapers are being held to ransom by extreme left wing activists who are saying to them that if they oppose socialism they will be hurt financially. In January 2015 twelve journalists of the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo were killed by Islamic extremists who objected to what was being published. Stop Funding Hate are exactly like these Islamic extremists, except that they are lefty extremists. You have to wonder what British laws are being broken

Their evil campaign already has a victim, Lego have withdrawn from promotions with the Daily Mail. If Lego want to play at political blackmail like that then perhaps all non lefties (the vast majority of us) should switch to buying Mega Bloks instead of Lego. Quid Pro Quo. Stop Funding Hate are trying to stop Waitrose advertising in the Daily Express and multi millionaire SJW Gary Lineker is lobbying Walkers crisps to end their relationship with The Sun. Maybe Walkers would be better off ending their relationship with Gary Lineker, he is politicising their brand as a left wing product, something most marketing experts would see as being brand toxification, already many people are boycotting their crisps. But the BBC will be happy with Lineker, they love SJW lefties spouting propaganda at the public.

It is worth noting here what author and socialist J K Rowling has to say about this sort of behaviour: “If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed a line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justifications”.  Another author and socialist, Noam Chomsky says “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”. And socialist George Orwell, prescient as always, said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. Obviously authors are brighter than ex soccer players

Stop Funding Hate put a lot of prominence into the fact that some newspapers are either owned by or controlled by millionaires. But they don’t tell us who owns, controls, finances and runs Stop Funding Hate. So they are massive hypocrites. There appears to be a lot of money spent on staffing, professional videos, professional PR, social marketing etc. You would wonder where the money would come from to finance such left wing extremism. Some people have suggested that it is an offshoot of the extremist lefty Hope not Hate, but that is a model of transparency in comparison. If you have more information on Stop Funding Hate please add it to the comments below.

Members of the public who support Stop Funding Hate very obviously haven’t thought it through. If the campaign succeeds then the inevitable end of the road is this organisation controlling everything you see and hear in the media, according to their criteria. And as they travel down the road to this objective every single one of us loses more and more of our rights and freedoms. Yes, it really is fascism. Another thing any gullible public should try is this, just go and buy one copy each of the Sun, Express and Mail, list all the advertisers, then refuse to buy from all of them. Surely that is what the moral obligation is. And they would find it impossible to survive. So the campaign is cherry picking just a few advertisers. Morals don’t come into what they are doing, they are just exercising power by blackmail.

Also Stop Funding Hate (and/or their supporters) have put a lot of work into blocking the @Bruciebabe Twitter account which is exposing them for what they are, they are mass reporting Tweets that they disagree with. So Twitter locked the account. Further proof that social media is not your friend. And that Stop Funding Hate is your enemy.

You have to wonder why they are doing this, going to all this trouble and expense right now. What is their motivation? There is no election coming up and May’s position is not going to be dinted by this,  just as Corbyn’s dire position is impossible to improve. Then it all becomes obvious. They are going after the Brexit press, it has nothing to do with any supposed real hate. Stop Funding Hate are Bremainiacs and that is where their money is coming from and that is why they are acting now. Not only are they haters of free speech, they are also haters of the British people and their democratic choice. They must have been fuming when the Article 50 judges had their decisions debated by the press.

This makes yet more sense when you realise that Brexit will return control of our borders to us. Most extremist lefties think that not having open borders is “hate” and “racism”. Yes, they seriously think that 17,410,742 British voters are “racist”. Whereas in the real world the majority of British people know that their local social cohesion is being destroyed by mass immigration. They want to control it, not because they are “racists”, but because they don’t want their own culture and way of life destroyed.

So Stop Funding Hate are not just socialists, they are middle class, metropolitan elite, Frankfurt School, cultural Marxists. These people want the complete overthrow of all our political system, to be replaced with a dystopian socialist hell driven by utterly retarded dogma.

As you can see Stop Funding Hate are quite simply Fascists, they would happily make bonfires out of books, like Hitler did. They do not believe in our human rights, in our freedom of speech. They believe in having only their views heard by the world. They deserve all the derision and contempt that we can pour upon them. Advertisers subject to their campaigns should not only not give way, they should double their spend. And all of us should go out and buy the Sun, Mail and Express out of solidarity with these bastions of our rights and freedoms.

hitler-book-bonfire-650

74 Comments


  1. Hi, Bruce – if you can’t see the difference between this and Fascism, you really are a bit thick. Or maybe you just need to read more history. Or politics. Or anything. And by blurring distinctions you take away the power of language to achieve anything.

    Reply

    1. Hear, Hear Tony. This article has more holes than a sieve. A journalist he is not. I guffawed particularly loudly at the assertion that the ‘vast majority of us are not left wing’… data? Clearly an angry and ill-informed member of the electorate.

      Reply

      1. Al B

        The data that most of us are not left wing is the 2015 General Election result.
        Other than that your comment is just as hominem. Which proves that you have no valid points to make.

        Reply

  2. That’s a neat way to avoid my point. I was saying that if you believe these things, then you’re a bit thick, not that because you are thick whatever you say must be false. You see, I’ve judged you based on your opinions. You do understand that, don’t you, Brucie? Now, maybe you could address the substance – if you think these people are Fascists, it means you don’t understand Fascism, or just can’t ‘do’ language very well. But I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. I see you’re a gentle soul, and easily upset.

    Reply

    1. tonymcgowan

      Perhaps I can help you with your problem.
      Below is the pyramid of intellect. As you can see you are currently at the bottom.
      Maybe you can try and work your way up. Possibly one step at a time, if that isn’t too much.
      If you go to the library and ask the librarian you could get the right books to read, maybe you will get to read some that I have studied.
      Then you will stop coming here and being rude and abusive, because you will learn just how wrong you are.

      Reply

  3. To refute the central point – I think your central point is to say that stop funding hate are worse than Hitler. However, Hitler burnt books whilst stop funding hate is about the consumer exercising their power over market forces by lobbying companies to stop using the money generated from their purchases to advertise in newspapers which subvert the truth or use opinion mascarading as fact in order to sell their papers by stirring up hatred.

    Reply

    1. existingstateofthings

      This bit “newspapers which subvert the truth or use opinion mascarading as fact in order to sell their papers by stirring up hatred” is your subjective opinion.
      The Guardian are just as bad at stirring up hate against the non SJW world.
      SFW are using strongarm blackmail tactics to suppress views with which they disagree. Just as Hitler did.

      Reply

      1. OK, make my comment objective by putting the full stop after newspapers. (Your comment about The Guardian is your subjective opinion so allow me another subjective point that the stirring in the left wing press does less damage than that in the right wing press) On your point on strong-arm blackmail. If the people lobbying the companies are merely minority extremists then why are the companies bothering to listen to them?

        Reply

  4. You seem to be saying that hatred for Jews and scapegoating of an entire religion/people is the same as asking advertisers if they are happy with their content appearing next to targeted hatred against minorities. This isn’t comparable.

    Asking Lego if they’re aware their content is appearing next to a story that pours scorn on immigrants and insights anger isn’t fascist, the fact they looked into the situation and agreed shows that they do not want their brand associated with hatred.

    The aim of ‘Stop Funding Hate’ is to ask a company if the headlines they endorse with ad revenue, match the ethos of their brand. So far Lego has said no. The Co-Op is reviewing the situation.

    I’d like to see where The Guardian and other newspapers on your list insight hatred, as I agree with you that if they’re also guilty of generating stories that encourage their readers to hate then they should also be reviewed.

    I would also like to understand your definition of evil a little better. How is their campaign to change a negative spiral of hate from the mainstream media evil? Do you deny that some newspapers are purposefully engaged in guiding the hearts and minds of the nation towards a specific dangerous and negative agenda?

    Reply

    1. Richard Bass,

      All interference with free speech is evil. And that is precisely what SFH are up to. They are trying to blackmail advertisers not to advertise by applying a number of pressures.
      SFH is not trying to “change a negative spiral of hate from the mainstream media”. This is prevarication from you. They are trying to move the tone of the entire British media to the left. And you know it.
      No advertising company can possibly know, never mind agree, with all the editorial policies of all the media they use.
      However the Mail is very good to advertise in because it reaches a very large, very well educated, affluent demographic. Any company that allows themselves to be blackmailed by SFH would be failing in their duty to their shareholders. So any UK plc doing it would find themselves under pressure.

      Also I think that SFH might find themselves on the end of legal scrutiny. Trying to censor the press does not go down well.
      And yes, the Guardian can be seen as just as nasty and hateful as the Mail. Just not from where you are sitting. From where I am sitting the Guardian are worse. And if you look at the relative circulations of these newspapers you will see that the majority of people agree with me.

      Reply

      1. Free speech is one thing. Inciting hate through lies and compromising the safety of millions of innocent people is another.

        Reply

          1. They are not doing anything of the sort. They, and the people who support the campaign, are questioning whether companies who claim inclusivity and diversity as their top values should advertise with newspapers who promote hate against foreigners and all people who support them. Many right wing people support the campaign as well. They don’t target the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express because they are right wing, but because they invite and promote racism. And none of the racist headlines of said papers are lies – they are there for all to see.


          2. Sodapop,
            It is very obvious that they are doing exactly as I say.
            All MSM takes political positions. You are campaigning against media which has a political position that you disagree with.
            You call stuff you disagree with “hate”, a deliberate pejorative choice. But it is not hate. It is merely an opinion that differs from yours.
            Let’s take controlling our borders. Extremist lefties see this as “hate” and “racism”. Yet the vast majority of sensible people in the country see it as important to maintain cultural cohesion in their societies, as we just saw with the Brexit vote.
            A distressing feature of the extremist left is that it is extremely authoritarian. You are not just happy to have your opinions and to apply them to your own life. No, the extremist lefties demand to force them on everyone else As we are seeing with SFH. This really is morally repugnant and goes against all our human rights.


          3. No, I am not calling “hate” everything I disagree with. I am calling “hate” everything that targets people because they are different. Wanting control of the borders and leave it at that is a respectable opinion, whether I agree with it or not. Villifying the foreigners who are already here, implying of explicitly staying that they are responsible for all the problems of the country, is hate. Calling people who are entering the country liars is hate. Calling EU citizens to pack and go (implicitly) is hate. And the same goes with previous posters who called you an idiot because they disagreed with you. Stop Funding Hate is calling for people to express their opinion in a civil manner. I wouldn’t have the right to ask you to reconsider your stance on anything if I called you every name under the sun, would I?


      2. A good example of the left wing bias is Donald Trump. All the lies printed about him and the refusal to print the truth about Hillary Clinton has people thinking he is Hitler and calling for his assassination. He wants to deport illegal immigrants so they say he hates Mexicans. Like it’s ok to pick and choose what laws you follow. He doesn’t want to bring refugees into America because terrorists are coming with them and that makes him Islamophobic. Someone who works for him refused housing to a black guy so that means he hates black people. I’m sure if they only printed the truth there’d still be plenty of negatives you could say about him but they went further and now there are riots and his supporters are being targeted. And they say the left wing bias isn’t harmful. Utter madness.
        Trying to shutdown newspapers because you don’t like them is not good. Who’s to say that’s where you’ll stop? They’ll keep going until they’ve forced their beliefs on everyone and Brexit and Trump was a big fuck you to all of them. And just so you know, I don’t read any of the papers mentioned. Never have.

        Reply

  5. What tripe. Tell me you’ve never engaged in a boycott. Otherwise this is just sensationalist hypocrisy. As for your dirty bigoted rags, I sat down to eat my lunch and found the Sun at the table – I threw it in the bin. The vile rot printed in the Mail is inaccurate, deliberately inciteful and frankly poisonous.

    Reply

  6. Erm. Hang on. If I stop buying products from companies that advertise in publications that have an agenda I don’t agree with, that would be…freedom of choice? I’m not blackmailing anyone, I’m simply choosing which companies I am happy to support based on whether their ethics clash with mine. They can then choose whether that loss of revenue means they need to consider their position.
    I do like your pyramid though, I bet it helps you out as much as Godwin’s Law. I would not consider abusing you personally. I will say that you are a fascist. Perhaps it might help if you find out what a fascist is.

    Reply

  7. So what is your source for that image? Since all your article seems to be the standard right wing hate and not an actual fact based article of investigative journalism, I’m happy to chuckle about it. If you want me to take it seriously, then let’s have a few facts and citations.

    Reply

      1. M,

        Because this is dealing with ideas. Specifically the Nazi like bad ideas of SFH.

        Reply

        1. So it’s just an uninformed opinon piece? Compelling indeed.

          Reply

          1. M,

            No, it’s an informed editorial piece.


  8. The Daily Mail regularly attempts to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of debate, particularly in and around the seemingly xenophobic core political aims of its billionaire owners. It is regularly racist in nature and has historically attacked liberalism of behaviour around rights of sexual expression, for instance, and has actively argued against free movement of people, such as those within Europe, based on a notion of national identity. The whole point is that publications like this portend toward both the racist and fascist more than they do towards liberal or discursive. So, Bruce, how can opposing them be fascist? How can opposing something which tends towards the fascist itself be fascist any more than boycotting the fascist press in 1930s Germany or the apartheid press of South Africa in the 50s, 60s and 70s be fascist? If I give money to organisation A, who then give some of that money to organisation B, which uses it to promote racist and homophobic behaviour, then telling A I can no longer buy its products unless it changes its behaviour is not only a right – I would argue it is a duty. It is a defence against the fascist and one that each of us should not just applaud fully, but adopt entirely. The lessons of history show us what will happen if we carry on in silence.

    Reply

    1. Kandinsky

      Not really. You see the world through a very red lens.

      Reply

      1. According to the pyramid of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement you yourself posted, you have avoided dealing with the core issues at stake. Your response is, on that model, at best, level four by barely hinting at the opposing case with no support evidence… and at worst, Ad Hominem and attacking the perceived characteristics of the author using notions of ‘leftie’ and suggesting my views are formed by seeing the world ‘through a red lends’. I’m even not a red voter. My views on the world are formed on scientific, and research-based foundations. Perhaps you can tell me why you refuse to deal with the core issues I raised? Perhaps you wish to avoid dealing with uncomfortable historical facts? Perhaps you wish to avoid going beyond the rather simplistic binary polars your arguments seem muddled around? Taking a stand against fascism within our society isn’t fascism and the suppression of boycotts you wish to engage without supporting arguments does seem to be. Moreover, denigrating those you disagree with using semantics of ‘lefties’ and ‘reds’ is a parochial approach at best. I believe you should deal with the core issues if you want to be taken seriously.

        Reply

        1. Kadinsky

          “The Daily Mail regularly attempts to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of debate” LIE “the seemingly xenophobic core political aims of its billionaire owners” LIE. “It is regularly racist in nature” LIE “has actively argued against free movement of people, such as those within Europe, based on a notion of national identity” GOOD “publications like this portend toward both the racist and fascist more than they do towards liberal or discursive” LIE.

          See, just a pejorative diatribe from you. Basically you disagree with the views of the Mail so you want to force them to change. Even though they are right and you are wrong. You have no respect for free speech, which makes you a fascist.
          As for bandying the word “racist” around. This is the standard lefty tactic to close down debate. Wanting control over your borders and wanting social cohesion is not racist. People who use the word racist are themselves fascists.

          Then “attacking the perceived characteristics of the author using notions of ‘leftie’ and suggesting my views are formed by seeing the world ‘through a red lends’. I’m even not a red voter.” Your views are self evidently left wing extremist, as I have proved above. I think you are not a red voter because you are still, self evidently, a child. People like you are the problem, you want freedom of speech for your views but not for opposing views. You are obviously both emotionally and intellectually immature, with little real life experience. I would put you as a 14 year old student who has been brainwashed by their teachers. Don’t worry, if you have any real intellect you will grow out of it.

          And that is the end of our discussion, I have far better things to do with my life than educate children.

          Reply

  9. Didn’t you once join the Labour Party just so you could muck up their leadership election? How do you explain this sudden change in your views on freedom of expression?

    Reply

    1. Bruce dislikes opinions that arent the same as his. Bruce is a fascist.

      Reply

      1. Thatchersrat.

        Every comment appearing here has to be approved by me.
        Which proves you to be completely wrong.

        Reply

      2. It’s literally mind boggling reading the comments that attempt, yes ATTEMPT, to justify socialism and communism and everything that is included within it. Do YOU even know what the definitionS of RACISM RACIST COMMUNISM SOCIALISM FASCIST SLAVERY and so on are? And I’m not referring to your commie definitions, I’m referring to history and dictionary definitions of these terms. Try reading a book written prior to 1990 you might get a rude awakening. You don’t like being OFFENDED and when you do you attack with big words you do not understand. It’s really sad but really funny to read comments by wanna be dirty versions of a hippies. Bruce, I love your blog and articles, I’m in America and I can’t wait until I get to watch the socialist idiocracy leftist actually go to a job and omg work for what they want. Arguing with these morons is like arguing with a marshmallow.

        This is to all you utopian believing sad idiots out there:
        The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. (Socialism and communism have never succeeded) chew on that one. Oh and you have to go work get paid and get your own food to chew upon.

        Reply

        1. The left constantly do this, I am not sure if they are unaware of it or will fully ignorant. It’s so frustrating….it really is thinking devoid of basic logic and common sense.

          Reply

  10. The Daily Mail were forced to renounce their support of Hitler and fascism in the 1930’s not because they disagreed with the terrible oppression against the Jews (they didn’t) nor because hundreds of thousands of lives were being lost fighting such fascism, they stopped because they were losing advertising revenues. The “Stop Funding Hate” campaign isn’t about preventing freedom of speech it’s about stopping those that hide behind the freedom of speech to incite hatred, this includes but is not limited to the Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Sun. If you can offer examples where other publications incite such hatred I would join any campaign against them too.

    Reply

    1. NSand

      I am not interested in the 1930s. And yes vilifying Jews is odious.
      But far more odious is SFH objecting to people supporting Brexit in our democracy and using blackmail to try and prevent it.

      Your idea of “hatred” is political opinions that you disagree with but that many others do agree with.

      Reply

      1. The day after we remembered the millions of lives that were given fighting fascism you say you’re not interested. How convenient of you to forget why so many gave the ultimate sacrifice.

        I know what hatred is, you can wrap it up and disguise it however you like, I’ll still oppose it. For you to say that as a supporter of Stop Funding Hate that I support fascists just proves you have no idea what fascism is.

        Reply

        1. NSand

          I suggest that you go and read Orwell’s 1984.
          What Stop Funding Hate are engaged in here is Newspeak.
          They want to censor everything that YOU are allowed to see and read. To filter out everything that THEY don’t like.
          Stop Funding Hate don’t believe that you are grown up enough to make these decisions for yourself.

          Reply

          1. You are yet another person who has openly demonstrated they are “not interested” in facts and at the same time suggest I should go and educate myself. It doesn’t matter what you or Stop Funding Hate believe in, what is important is what I believe in and I base that on what I myself have learned to be what is right and what is wrong and what I believe it means to be a decent human being (and I’m a grown up). Your article more than any other has made me feel I am more right than ever. Thank you. Adios!


          2. NSand,

            A decent human being does not seek to harm the rights and freedoms of everyone else by handing control of the press to a gang of extremist lefty activists.


          3. I get it Bruce…gosh it is tiring listening to the lack of common Sense and logic of the people who argue with you. They will try and argue semantics and the tiniest things they see as inconsistent but never allow the opposition to them argue against the fact their entire paradigm and main ideas are hypocritical and illogical.

            The left by and large are the ones that behave like despicable thugs to people they disagree with. They always accuse others what they are guilty of, and are constantly walking around with a chip on their shoulder


  11. Bruce. Right wingers express their anger by spitting on muslim women wearing a head-dress or worse still, by murdering female MPs whilst shouting ‘death to traitors’. stopfundinghate express their anger by threatening to ship elsewhere. Even you must agree there is a difference.

    Reply

    1. jodyredmires,
      You have, very obviously, got it the wrong way round.
      Look what lefties get up to.
      Here: https://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2016/07/05/images-caring-left-british-politics/
      And here: https://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2015/04/05/labour-really-are-the-nasty-party/

      And which Eagle sister got a brick through her window? And how much spitting is there by lefties outside Conservative conferences?

      Can you list these female MPs (plural)?
      Or do you mean just Jo Cox, killed by a loner nutter?

      Reply

      1. Angela Eagle didn’t get a brick through HER window. A window in a communal hallway of a building she shares with many other people was put through. Just saying.

        Reply

  12. Hey Bruce

    When the Sun orchestrates calls for the BBC to sack Gary Lineker for tweeting his views, are they not overtly attempting to silence a contrary opinion?

    When the Mail criticises judges who have opined on a matter of constitutional law for being “openly gay”, isn’t that simply an ad hominem attack.

    It’s hard to see how these are examples of anything more complicated than a deliberate attempt to intimidate, punish and cow anyone who does not share their views.

    It seems to me (and it is only my opinion) that we live in a country that allows free association, and that is driven by market forces, so if people wish to express their personal distaste for the editorial ethics of a widely distributed newspaper, they are free to do that. It doesn’t make them Nazi’s , or lefties…or anything necessarily

    Instead of directing your own ad hominem storm at them, why not engage in positively explaining why you disagree, and why you think the Sun and the Mail fulfil an important role in our society?

    Reply

    1. smallax3

      Firstly I suggest that you actually read the article.
      What you postulate has no moral equivalence.
      Free speech is an absolute. The papers can and should say anything they want, no matter how offensive it is to some people.
      Otherwise we lose our freedoms and become slaves.
      And SFH want you to be slaves to them. Which you have fallen for.
      Sad.

      Reply

      1. So let me get this straight:

        When the Sun calls on the BBC to sack Gary Lineker for exercising HIS right to free speech, that is simply a The Sun exercising THEIR right to free speech.

        It’s not censorious and they stand, like you for his absolute right to say anything he wants, no matter how offensive it is to some people

        And presumably, since you are postulating that Free Speech is an absolute (which is not a view supported in law btw) then logically that holds true even when it is used in a way that you don’t like by people with whom you disagree. Like SFH?

        Because you wouldn’t want them to lose their freedoms and become slaves.

        Reply

        1. smallax3

          Yes free speech is an absolute, if you do not understand why then you do not understand basic human rights and freedoms.
          Stop Funding Hate want to take away free speech in Britain and to replace it with what they think you should be allowed to read.
          This makes them the enemy of everyone in this country just as much as Hitler was.

          Reply

          1. OK, so I’ve tried to understand your position, but your just repeating your free speech mantra like some kind of weird angry monk. I suspect you do this to avoid having to listen

            Free speech is not an absolute. Never has been. As a society we put limits, established by consent over many centuries on our behaviours.

            We are and should be absolutely free to mock, argue, offend and disagree, but we don’t allow public speech that incites murder or violence for the simple reason that it is incompatible with the more fundamental right of people not to be murdered or assaulted.

            The problem with absolutes is that they leave no room for other points of view. That’s why they’re generally the preserve of fundamentalists

            Good day to you, sir


          2. smallax3

            The Mail, Express and Sun are not inciting murder or violence.


  13. Seriously, Bruce. You must understand that Stop Funding Hate is not trying to completely shut down these companies (The Daily Mail, The Sun etc), they are simply trying to put the, completely warranted, pressure on them to change their divisive headlines and content. This is not about whether you are ‘left’ or ‘right’, or a Socialist or a Conservative or anything inbetween, this is about the tactics they are using to target particular minorities and to create division and xenophobia all across the UK. Freedom of speech is obviously important and there needs to be an opposing opinion to the views of the left, but you can’t seriously think that the papers in question are giving real, honest, factual, substantial views to express the opinion of those on the right? You can’t honestly think that their language to describe minorities when using their free speech doesn’t NEED to change? I agree with many of the worries of people on immigration, but how can headlines such as “The ‘swarm’ on our streets” and cartoons of refugees entering the UK amongst terrorists and rats, not be considered unnecessarily racist at best and unconditionally vile at worst?

    Reply

    1. Tom Potter

      So you are happy to go through life with Stop Funding Hate deciding what YOU are allowed to see and read.
      This is what you are saying and it doesn’t sound very grown up to me.

      Reply

      1. Sigh, I didn’t say that did I?

        Me being glad that there is an organisation out there putting pressure on these forms of media doesn’t mean that I want them to decide for me what I read…. I’ve already for the last 8 years completely avoided The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Express and I’m 26, so even at 18 I was able to work out on my own that these papers are horrendously divisive. Regardless of whether some readers like them and read them, that doesn’t mean that what they put out is OK does it?

        Everyone has the freedom to choose what they read, this campaign and any other campaign isn’t going to ever change that, but this campaign will AND SHOULD, put pressure on these papers to consider if some of the stuff they post is really warranted, regardless of whether “some people agree with it”. Simple as that. Technically, everything THEY are saying and writing is within their freedom of speech and you are suddenly against it, and round and round we go infinitely.

        Reply

          1. Come on buddy, give me a real response that shows some balls and intellect! I know you won’t post this message though will you? “Under moderation”.
            If you do post it, then please only do so if you’re going to give me a real answer, not some fruity stuff that avoids questions / points x


  14. Interesting piece Bruce.The only people i know posting about this campaign are all left wing , Greens, Corbyn supporters and not found one yet who wasn’t a remainer.
    That’s not a scientific study but i’ve seen the SFH ad video on a friends fb and out of around 20 people that usually comment or like his things, it got 1 like from a very left wing pro remainer and i did find it interesting.
    Could be everyone else is ignorant, didn’t agree with the message/campaign aims or whatever else.I’m a former lefty , voted Greens last election but i have to say this campaign makes me feel uncomfortable as to it’s lack of regulation in deciding what’s ‘hate’, what’s in the public interest and the risk of politically biased targetting of certain publications.
    Whose the barometer for the campaign? How do you measure ‘hate’ or know when/if it has all receeded? Everyone buying the Guardian?Everyone voting Corbyn,Greens?Hate crime figures?.
    It might be a well meaning campaign, i don’t wish to strongly judge against that but it leaves a lot of room for an anti-hate message/boycott to morph into a politically motivated one.
    It also gives an interpretation that those who are pro-EU and pro open borders are somehow on a moral high ground to any who are opposed to that , no matter how strongly ,which causes division and has already in part led to Brexit and Trump victories.

    Reply

  15. Bruce, Thank you for speaking up. Very concerned about the current aggressive and bullying tactics this organisation seems to be dialling up a notch on Twitter. This has all the hallmarks of a George Soros NGO. Any one studying Wikileaks will know how these organisation work. Soros has used NGOs all over the world to disrupt and dismantle Countries. His method of social engineering. Worried this could escalate into Soros paid thugs appearing at Supermarkets around U.K. The aggressive nature on Twitter also has hallmarks of paid Soros trolls. Really need to raise awareness of the nature and intent of this organisation. If it is Soros funded then it should be made clear and transparent

    Reply

  16. Someone who holds such viewpoints is clearly spouting “utterly retarded dogma” and should be ignored rather than encouraged.

    Reply

    1. Elizabeth,

      Here is the pyramid of intellect. I will leave it to you to work out where you fit on it:

      Reply

  17. You seem to imply that the goal of SFH is censorship and I would say its the total opposite. Sensationalist tabloids operate on profits not democracy and central to that is attracting readers. I notice 2 patterns. 1) Shock the reader by grabbing their attention and keeping it or 2) Cram as many boobs into the right hand side bar as possible. But focusing on 1, there is no prerequisite for honesty/integrity and recognising that most people will slow down when passing a car crash, the Daily Mail ect. are following the deplorable tactic of appealing to our darkest emotions. No, the 17.4 million brexiters are not racist and no not everyone who is concerned about immigration is racist. But relentlessly attacking a group of people that are weak by spreading lies and exaggerating is something I find disgusting. Yes people will read the article, not because they hate but because they cannot look away from the car crash. And unfortunately some people will take these lies and exaggerations as facts and alter their own opinions. We live in a capitalist society and corporate advertising is the mechanism to instil product awareness to the public, therefore what we read in the most popular papers are going to be driven towards what gets the most clicks/reads ect, but it is only looking one layer deep to assume that number of clicks = democracy. SFH is simply trying to introduce ethics and standard into the sensationalist profit model. In the long run this would allow the sensationalist press to profitably report on a wider array of views than just extreme right/car crashes, because that gets the most clicks. They are doing this by promoting transparency, i.e. making people aware of where their money is going. I am a tax paying immigrant and I also love this country. I take offence to the anti-immigration generalisations in these papers, so I will try to direct my money towards corporations that follow the vision of Britain that I believe in as best i can. I appreciate the transparency that SFH is providing and I will consider my purchases in that light. I hope others do the same.

    Reply

    1. glade90,

      Try reading the Mail for a week. It isn’t how you say.
      And your comment is a very feeble attempt to justify censorship because you don’t agree with something.
      This is not how a free society works.

      Reply

      1. I actually have a friend that writes for the mail. I regularly read the mail and especially the comments and that is where I base my opinion. What you don’t seem to realize is the daily mail is currently being sensored implicitly by its profit model. Suppose I am a daily mail reporter and I want to write an article on a tory scandal that is comming to light. My boss probably won’t want me to pursue that story. I will be assigned a story about how refugee children may secretly be 35 years old. I may have to exaggerate and lie in order to get as many clicks as possible. I will be encouraged to spin any neutral story to appease my readership. Do you at least admit this is the practice? Are you aware of how journalist performance is measured? Restriction of journalism to what the reader wants to hear or what grabs attention. That is censorship. Organizations like SFH are trying to break this model which is causing the daily mail etc. fail in their responsibility to provide accurate information and inform the public. No one wants to shut these papers down. They just want the sponsors to stop incentivising the practice of misleading the public. FYI the guardian is just as bad.

        Reply

        1. glade90,

          Of course news media spin their news.
          But more than half of the total news reach in Britain is left wing, spinning the news their way.
          So the BBC, C4, the Guardian, the Mirror, the New Statesman, the Observer etc are all presenting their content so as to represent their political views.
          You want to censor the press that isn’t left wing, but leave the left wing media, with all their lies and brainwashing, alone.
          This is disgusting.
          Here are 159 pages of evidence of BBC left wing bias: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1086521
          Why aren’t you campaigning to have the BBC forced to report the news accurately, instead of giving us their left wing version?

          Reply

  18. Well Written Sir,

    Cultural Marxism could be the return of fascism and the downfall of civilization as we know it.

    I miss the open debate where you give each other space to speak instead of just shouting any opinion that not fits into your bubble down…

    Reply

  19. Bit confused here. You tweet before you were banned about hating the Israeli treatment of Muslims (I agree) and how misogynistic it is (I agree) but you do it in such a bile filled rage.

    And then you come up with “Trousers” and say you were just trolling.

    You also hate gays. Why? You cannot justify your opinions with tenuous links that support them.

    Happy Christmas Bruce and here’s hoping you spend more time with Mrs Bruce and less time being horrible on the internet x

    Reply

  20. Woah Bruce! Now Islam is the new evil?

    UKIP are idiots? Now you love them?

    You’re confused. Genuinely concerned. Is Mrs Bruce aware? Heart ok?

    You’ve even not managed to unsuspend your Twitter account. Got me worried 🙁

    Reply

    1. Mark,

      You make no valid contribution to the debate.
      But you attack me personally.
      Nearly every time this is all the left are capable of.
      Nastiness and bitterness.

      Reply

  21. How am I attacking you?

    I’m just pointing out your lack of consistency. Also see: you despite homosexuals but then accuse Islam of being nasty homophobes, when you are one yourself.

    You also lambaste Islam for misogyny – having once described women as “snakes with tits” yourself and been banned for posting misogynistic comments on Gamesindustry.biz(the threads are still there to see).

    Not nasty or bitter – just curious as to how you can be so contradictory.

    Reply

    1. Mark,

      You aren’t doing very well here.
      You post is full of basic spelling and grammatical mistakes.
      You continue with personal attacks.
      I have never been banned from Gamesindustry.biz
      As for homosexuality, I don’t like the idea for myself but am perfectly happy for others to do it. This is a very far cry from the 10 Muslim countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. But the difference seems lost on you.

      Reply

Leave a reply