Twelve theses on the distorted representation of the communal conflicts raging throughout the United Kingdom

On the politics of fear pursued by the British Government and its collaborators in the media and the NGO complex

Riots tend to display the worst instincts of the human spirit. Even when

motivated by a sense of genuine grievance or an understandable cause,

rioters can lose all sense of proportion and behaviour in ways that

dehumanise both their targets and themselves.

Rioting is a volatile lashing out. In itself, it tells no story and often turns

attention away from the issues that have sparked the actions. It is the

mainstream media that decides how a riot is framed and interpreted.

In 2020, the media had no problems with the Black Lives Matter riots. As

far as it was concerned, these riots were not an explosion of violent anti-

social and, at times, criminal behaviour but simply justice motivated

protests. Some intellectual supporters of these riots even justified acts of

destruction and looting. The contrast between the response to the BLM

riots and the contemporary explosion of communal violence in the UK is

striking. The media and the dominant elites are not interested in

understanding the motives of the British rioters. Their response is to

demonise, pathologize and repress and ultimately rid society of a group of

people they regard as vermin. As far as they are concerned these are riots

without any comprehensible or justifiable cause.

To understand what is going on in the UK it is essential to take a step back

and investigate the social and cultural conditions that have created a terrain

on which civil conflict can flourish. It is also essential to question and

demystify the dominant narrative promoted by the BBC and the

mainstream media and their friends in the political Establishment.

1. Contrary to the media presentation of events these riots were in the

main driven by local participants whose behaviour was fuelled by the

conviction that enough is enough. According to reports around 70 per cent

of the participants and of those arrested were local people. It was the fear of

becoming aliens in their own place of birth that led many of them to lash

out against what they perceived to be the forces responsible for their

predicament.

2. Media claims about the role of outside agitators were entirely

speculative and were integral to the attempt to present these essentially

disorganised riots as the outcome of a well-co-ordinated and organised

project.

3. The claims that these riots were orchestrated by the English Defence

League (EDL) and other far-right groups and individuals were based on a

conspiratorial mindset. It underestimated the genuine strength of

spontaneous outrage creating a dynamic that led to the spread of essentially

small-scale localised rioting during the 2-3 days following the stabbing of

children in Southport.

4. The media narrative that endowed the EDL and various right-wing

individuals with formidable organising resources was and remains the

invention of the propaganda machine of the British Establishment. No

doubt right wing activists posted provocative statements on the social

media and a handful participated in rioting. But their influence has been

blown out of proportion to inflate the role and the threat posed by the far

right.

5. If anyone is responsible for fanning the flames of unrest during the

days following the initial riots it is the propaganda promoted by the British

political class. It adopted a classical form of the politics of fear and

constantly communicated an alarmist narrative about the scale of the threat

posed by the rioters to the fabric of society. For example, warnings about

the possibility of 30 riots erupting because of the activities of the far right

are paradigmatic in this respect. There was no organised timetable for

orchestrating riotous protests.

6. The goal of the Government’s propaganda activity was to silence the

views of protestors and rioters and displace their concerns with the claim

that minority communities were facing an unprecedented attack by

politically motivated groups of racists. In effect the Government launched a

disinformation campaign that sought to represents the riots as a form

terrorist activity designed to intimidate minority communities. In this way

anyone who signalled their understanding of the concerns of the rioters

could be labelled as a far-right sympathiser. In particular, anyone who

dares to draw attention to the downside of uncontrolled mass migration is

liable to become a walking target of multi-cultural identity policing.

7. One of the most remarkable developments of recent events was the

speed with which the media, the Government and a network of NGOs

joined together to invent a story about a nation confronting the threat of

fascism. Nick Lowles, of the NGO Hope not Hate, personifies the approach

adopted by this coalition. Lowles was forced to admit that his widely

publicised story about an acid attack on a Muslim was a work of fantasy.

But the promotion of fake news about the threat posed by the riots was

rarely exposed to media scrutiny.

8. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government has and

continues to use the riots as an opportunity to institutionalise a repressive

political culture. It seeks to represent its critics as far right activists that

must be placed under a political quarantine. In this way two-tier policing

will continue to be normalised. It is likely that the meaning of the far-right

will continue to expand to embrace anyone concerned with the erosion of

the British way of life.

9. The riots have been a long time coming and the murder of the girls in

Southport was merely a catalyst that brought to the surface tensions that

unfortunately prevail in many communities. Communal tensions and

conflict prevail in many parts of Britain and people who perceive

themselves as British or English feel marginalised and ignored by the

institutions of the state. They feel that their voice is ignored and that they

have in effect become dispossessed of their cultural legacy and way of life.

They have no place in a world where Identity is everything. Tragically, some

of them have responded to their predicament by embracing the identity of

being white. In the current conjuncture, where public life is intensely

racialised, a white identity will always come across as hyper-racist.

10 No doubt many of rioters communicated their sentiments through the

language of racism. Racism in any form has no place in a civilised

democratic society. But the real problem is not the small groups of white

disgruntled racists, but a culture that racializes public life. The

politicisation of identity, with its promotion of a racialised discourse,

means that community conflicts always contain the potential for the

manifestation of a racist rhetoric.

11 It is likely that the Government and its allies in the media and the NGO-

world will succeed in imposing on the public the authoritarian narrative of

protecting society from the far-right enemy from within. Its fictitious

narrative notwithstanding, the power of these institutions ensures that

their version of events can gain hegemony to the point that their opponents

will be silenced and marginalised. Expect a series of ‘anti-hate’ protests

which are designed to popularise the narrative of stopping the onward

march of the far-right. Potentially, the organisation of anti-hate and anti-

fascist marches and activities can provide the Government with a

constituency that can compensate for the effect of its declining support

more generally. Even King Charles got in to praise the supposed

‘community spirit’ represented by the stage army of anti-haters.

12 It is essential that those of us concerned with the future of Britain, its

way of life and historical legacy, do not allow ourselves to be placed under a

political quarantine. No doubt the rioters should be condemned and

punished. But in many ways the Government response to these rioters

represents a far greater problem than the small number of individuals who

participated in the riots. Its response ensures that ethnic tension and

conflict will become an integral feature of its version of the ‘British way of

life’.