Monday, August 12, 2024

 

US elites fail to sink Chinese swimmers

US political and media elites tried but failed to sink the Chinese swimming team at the Paris Olympics.  The Chinese swimmers performed well despite the increased stress caused by media-induced rumors of “Chinese doping”. And now, the tables are being turned as the US anti-doping regime is coming under increasing scrutiny and criticism.

The media manufactured cloud of suspicion

Just a few months ago the NY Times and German ARD media ignited  the controversy with an “investigation” regarding an incident from December 2021. At that time, 23 Chinese swimmers tested positive for a trace amount of the heart medication Trimetazadine (TMZ) during a swim meet for top swimmers from across the country.  The Chinese Anti Doping Agency investigated and learned that all the positively tested swimmers were staying at the same hotel and eating in the same dining room. The amount of TMZ detected was so low that in some cases it was detected one day, and not the next. Testing in the kitchen revealed that TMZ was on the counters and in the vent hood.

The Chinese Anti Doping Agency (CHINADA) concluded that the athletes had been contaminated through food served in the dining room. They reported the facts to the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and the international swimming federation (World Aquatics, formerly known as FINA) . Both organizations concurred with the conclusion that the athletes were innocent and should not be charged with an anti-doping rule violation.

But the NY Times and ARD suggested something shady had occurred and the athletes may not have been innocent. They further suggested that  CHINADA and WADA may be in collusion and covering up mass doping.  .

This story ignited a storm of accusations with the head of the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA), Travis Tygart, leading the pack.  Some prominent international swimmers have joined the fray with suggestions that the Chinese swimming accomplishments at the 2022 Tokyo Olympics were tainted, “not clean,” or based on cheating. The insinuations and suspicions continued into swimming competitions at the Paris Olympics. Many TV commentators at the Olympics referred to the insinuation one way or another. Media kept the suspicion alive by highlighting when a prominent international swimmer said anything about it. American champion swimmer Katie Ledecky said it was difficult to accept coming second behind a Chinese swimmer who might have doped. Legendary US swimmer Michael Phelps said any athlete guilty of doping should be banned forever – “one and done”.

The US Congress got involved with Congressional representatives  to suspend or cancel US contributions to WADA. With the 2019 Rodchenkov Act, the US Congress has granted itself the power to arrest and penalize anyone in the world involved in “doping”.

Paris 2024 Olympics

Swimming at the 2024 Paris  Olympics is now over. The swimming powerhouses US  and Australia won the most medals with 28  and 18 respectively. But China did well, coming third with 12 swimming medals.  China’s Pan Zhanle was one of the superstars of the event, setting a new world record in the 100 m freestyle. He also anchored the Chinese relay team to their victory in the 4 x 100 meter medley relay, an event the US has dominated for 64 years.

Chinese swimmers spoke about feeling additional stress and discomfort because of the accusations and rumors about doping. They were tested much more than any other team, with some 600 doping tests conducted leading into and during the games. There were zero violations.

The superstar Pan Zhanle was not one of the swimmers who tested positive in 2021.

So it was left to some critics to say his performance was not “humanly possible”.

Tables are turned

Chinese and other media are now pushing back and exposing the hypocrisy and double standards of the US anti-doping regime. Even the mainstream Newsweek magazine headlines “China turns the table on US doping accusations.”

More significantly, on August 7 the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) publicly denounced USADA for having “allowed athletes who had doped, to compete  for years, in at least one case without ever publishing or sanctioning their anti-doping rule violations, in direct contravention of the World Anti-Doping Code and USADA’s own rules. The USADA scheme threatened the integrity of sporting competition, which the Code seeks to protect.”

Other international organizations are also reacting negatively to the US efforts to be the global judge and jury. The International Olympic Committee has said that the US may lose hosting of future Olympic Games if the US undermines the global anti doping establishment.

NY Times misleading information.

The NY Times and Germany’s ARD launched and spurred this controversy with misleading reporting. A recent NYT article titled “A Doping Scandal” claims there is “a troubling pattern of positive doping tests in the Chinese swimming program.” Twelve members of the Chinese Olympic team tested positive in recent years for powerful performance-enhancing drugs but were cleared to keep competing.”  They insinuated malfeasance on the part of the Chinese swimmers, China Anti Doping Agency and World Anti Doping Agency.  By implication, the world swimming federation (World Aquatics) was also guilty.

The NY Times claim that Trimetazidine is a “powerful performance-enhancing drug” is false. The medication is helpful for elderly individuals with weak hearts but does nothing for young athletes with healthy hearts.  As noted at SwimSwam magazine, “Dr. Benjamin Levine, a renowned sports cardiologist at UT Southwestern Medical School, says he doesn’t think it provides any benefit.”  If Western athletes doubt this or want to test it, Dr. Levine says they can imbibe RANOLAZINE which is very similar to TMZ and NOT PROHIBITED.

The insinuation that dozens of Chinese swimmers from diverse parts of the country with different coaches were collectively imbibing a prohibited medication risking their careers and reputations does not pass the sniff test. Simple logic would indicate an accidental contamination of the food they were all eating, confirmed by the presence of the chemical in the dining room kitchen. That is what CHINADA, WADA and World Aquatics all determined. The commitment of Chinese swimmers to anti-doping and clean sport is confirmed by the renowned Australian swim coach Denis Cotterell.

The need for thresholds

This incident points to the need for there to be appropriate thresholds for determining a doping rule violation. Currently this is inconsistent. There are minimum levels for some chemicals and none for others. Modern test instruments can detect extremely small amounts – molecules – of a chemical. As a scientist at an official doping test laboratory said, “It is very dangerous to not have a minimum threshold because all sorts of chemicals are in the environment.”

How did the TMZ get in the kitchen?

A very important question remains unanswered: How did TMZ get into the hotel kitchen and the food that was being prepared for consumption by the Chinese athletes?

There is a curious coincidence. During the same month, December 2021, the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva – widely recognized as the best in the world – tested positive for a trace amount of TMZ when she was competing in the Russian Nationals in St. Peteresburg.  However  this was not reported by the Swedish laboratory until February,  just in time to disrupt the Beijing Winter Olympics.  Unlike the Chinese swimmers, Valieva was alone and unable to identify where the contamination seven weeks earlier came from. This one positive test for a trace amount of TMZ resulted in huge turmoil in Beijing, assumption of guilt contrary to common sense, and ultimately the destruction of Valieva’s international competitive career. Her suggestion there may have been sabotage was ignored. The NY Times thinks this case is “how it’s supposed to work.”

Summary

In Paris unlike Beijing in 2022, the accusations were a distraction but not totally disruptive. The fans in the swimming arena were respectful and appreciative of the Chinese athletes. Some international swimmers also  ignored the controversy and did the right thing. They congratulated the Chinese swimmers when they were victorious. Australian Kyle Chalmers congratulated Pan Zhanle.  American Caleb Dressel acknowledged the Chinese swimmers were the best that day they won the 4 x 100m medley.

The attempt to torpedo the Chinese swimmers and undermine China’s international image did not succeed.FacebookTwitter

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist in the SF Bay Area. He can be reached at rsterling1@protonmail.comRead other articles by Rick.

 

AUKUS Revamped: The Complete Militarisation of Australia

There is much to loathe about the AUKUS security agreement between Canberra, Washington and London.  Of the three conspirators against stability in the Indo and Asia Pacific, one stands out as the shouldering platform, the sustaining force, the political and military stuffing.  But Australian propagandists and proselytisers of the US credo of power prefer to see it differently, repeatedly telling the good citizens down under that they are onto something truly special in being a military extension, the gargantuan annexe of another’s interests.  Give them nuclear powered submarines, let them feel special, and a false sense of security will follow.

The August 2024 AUSMIN talks in Annapolis, Maryland, held between US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and their Australian counterparts, Richard Marles (Minister of Defence) and Penny Wong (Foreign Minister) provided yet another occasion for this grim pantomime.  No one could be in doubt who the servitors were.

The factsheet from the US Department of Defense on the meeting is worth noting for Washington’s military capture – no other word describes it – and Australia’s sycophantic accommodation.  As part of the “Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation,” the US and Australia are to advance “key priorities across an ambitious range of force posture cooperation efforts”.  This is merely a clumsy way of describing the deeper incorporation of Australia’s own military requirements into the US military complex “across land, maritime, air, and space domains, as well as the Combined Logistics, Sustainment, and Maintenance Enterprise”.  US military forces, in short, are to occupy every domain of Australia’s defence.

The greedy and speedy US garrisoning of Australia is evident through ongoing “infrastructure investments at key Australian bases in the norther, including RAAF Bases Darwin and Tindal” and “site surveys for potential upgrades at RAAF Bases Curtin, Learmonth, and Scherger.”  Rotational deployments of US forces to Australia, “including frequent rotations of bombers, fighter aircraft, and Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft” are to increase in number.  As any student of US-Australian relations knows, rotation is the disingenuous term used to mask the presence of a permanently stationed force – occupation by another name.

The public relations office has obviously been busy spiking the language with a sense of false equality: the finalising, for instance, by December 2024 of a Memorandum of Understanding on Co-Assembly for Guided Multiple Rocket Systems (GLMRS) – a “co-production”; finalising, by the same date, an MOU “on cooperative Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)”; and institutionalising of “US cooperation with Australia’s Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) Enterprise”.  Everywhere we look, a sense of artificial cooperation under the cover of Washington’s heavy-handed dominance, be it cooperative activities for Integrated Air and Missile Defence, or the hypersonic weapons program, can be found.

In this even more spectacular surrender of sovereignty and submission than previous undertakings, Canberra is promised second hand nuclear-powered toys in the form of Virginia Class submarines, something forever contingent on the wishes and whimsy of the US Congress.  But even this contingent state of affairs is sufficient for Australia to bury itself deeper in what has been announced as a revised AUKUS agreement.  More accurately, it constitutes a touch-up of the November 22, 2021 agreement between the three powers on the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (ENNPIA).

The ENNPIA allows the AUKUS parties the means to communicate and exchange relevant Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (NNPI), including officially Restricted Data (RD) as part of what is described as the “Optimal Pathway” for Australia’s needless acquisition of nuclear powered vessels.

In his letter to the US House Speaker and President of the Senate, President Joe Biden explains the nature of the revision.  Less cumbersomely named than its predecessor, the new arrangements feature an Agreement between the three powers for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion.  In superseding the ENNPIA, it “would permit the continued communication and exchange of NNPI, including certain RD, and would also expand the cooperation between the governments by enabling the transfer of naval nuclear propulsion plants of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines, including component parts and spare parts thereof, and other related equipment.”

The Agreement further permits the sale of special nuclear material in the welded power units, and other relevant “material as needed for such naval propulsion plants.”  Transferrable equipment would include that necessary for research, development, or design of naval propulsion plants.  The logistics of manufacture, development, design, manufacture, operation, maintenance, regulation and disposal of the plants is also covered.

Tokenistic remarks about non-proliferation are then made in Biden’s letter.  The powers, for instance, commit themselves to “setting the highest nonproliferation standard” while protecting US classified information and intellectual property.  This standard is actually pitifully low: Australia has committed itself to proliferation not only by seeking to acquire submarine nuclear propulsion, but by subsidising the building of such submarines in US and UK shipyards.

Marles, the persistently reliable spokesman for Australia’s wholesale capitulation to the US war machine, calls the document “the legal underpinning of our commitment to our international obligations so it’s a very significant step down the AUKUS path and again it’s another demonstration that we are making this happen.”

Obligations is the operative word here, given that Australia is burdened by any number of undertakings, be it as a US military asset placed in harm’s way or becoming a radioactive storage dump for all the AUKUS submarine fleets.  Marles insists that the only nuclear waste that will end up on Australian soil will be that generated by Australia.  “That is the agreement that we reached with the UK and the US back in March of last year, and so all this is doing is providing for the legal underpinning of that.”

Given that Australia has no standalone, permanent site to store high-level nuclear waste, even that undertaking is spurious.  Nor does the understanding prevent Australia from accepting the waste accruing from the fleets of all the navies.  Given the cringing servitude of Canberra, and the admission by the Australian government that they have made undisclosed “political commitments”, such an outcome cannot be ruled out.

Always reliably waspish, former Australian Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating gave his assessment about the latest revelations of the AUSMIN talks.  “There’ll be an American force posture now in Australia, involving every domain.”  The Albanese government had “fallen for the dinner on the White House lawn.”  That, and much more besides.

FacebooTwitteReddit

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.

 

Jeffrey Sachs: US Biotech Cartel behind Covid Origins and Cover-up

Jeffrey Sachs joins The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté to discuss the investigation into the origins of Covid-19. As chair of the Lancet COVID-19 commission, Sachs alleges that SARS-CoV2 originated from dangerous gain of function experiments sponsored and conducted by US biotech institutions. He alleges a vast cover-up of Covid origins, including by former members of his commission, and details the personal attacks he has incurred for speaking out.

Facebook

The Grayzone is an independent news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire. Read other articles by The Grayzone, or visit The Grayzone's website.

 

Look away from Israel’s crimes, they say, blame Iran

They say Iran “masterminded” a Canadian student encampment and is “destabilizing” West Asia. But these crude ‘blame Iran’ claims are nothing more than pathetic attempts to legitimate genocidal Zionism.

Recently, various commentators, politicians and Zionist groups promoted a deranged report Iran “masterminded” the student divestment encampment at McGill. Seeking to frame student opposition to their university’s complicity with Israel’s holocaust as Iranian interference, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Canada Proud, MP Kevin Vuong, senator Leo Housakos, conservative candidate Neil Oberman, influencer Yasmine Mohammed, journalist Sam Cooper, Hampstead mayor Jeremy Levi and others shared an Iran International report headlined “Iran masterminded anti-Israel protest in Canadian university”. Drawing from an analysis by an unnamed official at US cyber company XPOZ, the article claims large numbers of social media posts about the McGill encampment were in Farsi and may have come from Iranian government aligned accounts. A National Post article “Disinformation experts warn Iran, Russia and others encouraging anti-Israel protests in Canada” used the same data though it was slightly more circumspect in concluding Iran “masterminded” the encampment. It was shared by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

As someone who went to the encampment regularly and has followed activism at McGill for a quarter century it’s hard to not laugh at the absurdity. In the lead up to the encampment several students went on a two-month hunger strike to pressure the university to divest and there were a number of large anti-genocide protests on campus during the last academic year. For a decade there have been referendums on Palestine and in November 78.7% of undergraduates called on the administration to sever ties with “any corporations, institutions or individuals complicit in genocide, settler-colonialism, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing against Palestinians.” It was the largest referendum turnout in the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) history.

The broader context in which the encampment grew out of also demonstrates the silliness of the ‘blame Iran’ claim. The students who set up the McGill encampment were quite obviously mimicking the tactics of their US counterparts. And the tactic had little to do with social media. I doubt the reliability of the data quoted by Iran International and the National Post but even if lots of Farsi language Iranian government bots promoted the encampment what impact did this have on a physical occupation of a campus in Montreal?

At a higher level of ‘blame Iran’ idiocy, foreign affairs minister Melanie Joly is claiming Iran is “destabilizing” the region. A statement she released on Sunday regarding rising tensions in the region concluded, “I reiterated our call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, for the immediate release of all hostages, and demand that Iran and its proxies refrain from destabilizing actions in the region.” On July 26 Canada, Australia and New Zealand released a joint statement with a similar formulation. It noted, “We condemn Iran’s attack against Israel of April 13-14, call on Iran to refrain from further destabilizing actions in the Middle East, and demand that Iran and its affiliated groups, including Hizballah, cease their attacks.”

Canadian officials never refer to Israel as “destabilizing” the region even though that country has killed hundreds of thousands in Gaza and stolen ever more Palestinian land in the West Bank all the while repeatedly attacking Lebanon and Syria and assassinating the Palestinians’ main ceasefire negotiator in Iran.

As part of its blame Iran nonsense, Ottawa has ignored Israel’s recent assassination of the Hamas leader in Tehran and top Hezbolah military commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut. But they will no doubt denounce Iran or Hezbollah when they respond.

Four months ago, Ottawa remained silent when Israel damaged Canada’s embassy in Damascus while murdering eight Iranian officials at the country’s diplomatic compound. Then the Canadian government condemned Iran when it responded to Israel’s flagrant war crime.

As part of this blame Iran mantra Ottawa recently joined the US in designating the 100,000-member Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization. Listing the IRGC bolsters Israeli violence in the region.

Canada continues to strengthen Israel as it commits horrific crime after horrific crime across the region. As death from illness and malnutrition grows due to 10 months of IOF barbarism in Gaza, Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich recently said it may be “justified and moral” to starve 2 million Palestinians but the world won’t let Israel do it. At the same time, Knesset members are openly debating the legitimacy of raping the 10,000 Palestinian hostages Israel holds in what a recent B’tselem report refers to as “torture camps”.

But instead of focusing on Israel’s crimes we’re told to look away. At first, we were told Israel’s genocide was all Hamas’ fault. Now it’s Iran that is to blame.

Israel and its supporters are like 4-year-olds caught with their hands in the cookie jar. It’s always someone else’s fault. Except this is not about a stolen sweet. This is about the world watching a genocide in real time and doing nothing about it.

Yves Engler is the author of 12 books. His latest book is Stand on Guard for Whom?: A People's History of the Canadian Military . Read other articles by Yves.


TRI NATIONAL BORDERLANDS
Pantanal waterway project would destroy a ‘paradise on Earth’, scientists warn

The South American wetland, which falls within Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay, would be vulnerable to biome loss and increased wildfires

Losing Noah’s Ark’: Brazil’s plan to turn the Pantanal into waterway threatens world’s biggest wetland


The age of extinction is supported by THE GUARDIAN
About this content

Phoebe Weston
Mon 12 Aug 2024

Dozens of scientists are sounding the alarm that carving a commercial waterway through the world’s largest wetlands could spell the “end of an entire biome”, and leave hundreds of thousands of hectares of land to be devastated by wildfires.

The Pantanal wetland – which falls within Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay, covering an area almost half the size of Germany – is facing the proposed construction of a commercial waterway, as well as the expansion of industrial farming and spread of intense wildfires. A cohort of 40 scientists say the waterway development represents an existential threat to the ecosystem: reducing the floodplain, increasing the risk of fires and transforming the area into a landscape that could more easily be farmed.

Prof Karl M Wantzen, an ecologist from the University of Tours, and Unesco chair for river culture, said the wetland “is a real paradise on Earth. Nowhere else will you see so many hyacinth macaws, jaguars, swamp deer, anacondas, caymans, more than 300 fish species, 500 bird species, 2,500 species of water plants … All of that is at risk.”

The Brazilian government wants to develop the upper 435 miles (700km) of the Paraguay River into the Paraguay-Paraná hidrovia (waterway). In 2022 and 2023, preliminary licences were issued for the construction of port facilities within the Pantanal.

“If the hidrovia project goes ahead, navigation of large train barges in the Pantanal, with dredging in critical reaches of the Paraguay River, will probably mean the end of the Pantanal as we know it,” said Pierre Girard from the Federal University of Mato Grosso and Pantanal Research Center. “Reducing the annually flooded area, [coupled] with climate change and increased pressure on land use in the biome will increase the risks of destructive fires like the catastrophic ones seen in 2020 [when nearly a fifth of the area burned].”


In 2024, fires were the worst on record, with nearly 1.5m hectares (3.7m acres) burning across the Brazilian Pantanal by early August. Since 1985, the Pantanal has lost about 80% of its surface water – more than any other biome in Brazil. If the waterway goes ahead it is likely to further shrink the wetland, making it even more dry and vulnerable to wildfires such as those seen in 2020.

The upper section of the Paraguay River is sinuous and shallow. Making it navigable for 50-metre barges would mean extensive dredging, fixing of riverbanks and construction of ports. This would permanently alter the natural cycle of flooding and shrink the wetland area, researchers warned. Wantzen and Girard are two of more than 40 scientists who wrote a paper, published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, arguing that the waterway must not be expanded into the wetlands.

Wantzen, the lead author, said he and his colleagues published it because “I really want the world to know what’s happening. I wanted to gather people to spell out what the current situation is. It would be a senseless tragedy.”
View image in fullscreenSmoke from wildfires rises into the air in the Pantanal, in Corumba, Mato Grosso do Sul state, Brazil, June 2024. By early August nearly 1.5m ha had burned. Photograph: Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters

“The Paraguay River flowing through the Pantanal is the last large riverscape in central South America that still has near-natural structure. It represents the biocultural heritage of the Brazilian people and the entire world,” researchers wrote.


‘For us, the Amazon isn’t a cause, it’s our home’: the riverside communities stranded by the climate crisis


Dredging this area would result in “severe degradation of the globally outstanding biological and cultural diversity of the Pantanal”, the paper warned. The wetland is also home to Indigenous peoples whose livelihoods would be threatened. The paper said railways would be a more reliable and less disruptive way to transport goods.


The growth of industrial soya bean farming has driven demand for a commercial waterway to transport goods from areas of production in Brazil, Paraguay and Bolivia to the coastal seaports in Uruguay and Argentina. Barges would also carry sugar, corn, cement, iron and manganese. The markets for these goods is North America, Europe and Asia.

The argument for creating the waterway is that barges would be faster and cheaper than transporting these goods by truck. Due to the climate emergency and reduced flooding, even with dredging, scientists believe the water level in the river would be too low to allow navigation.

“Humanity is crazy, destroying everything it can and at high speed,” said Mario Friedlander, who works in wildlife observation tourism and photography in Mato Grosso. “The operation of the waterway in the Pantanal is yet another serious attack against a place that is powerful in nature, but completely unprotected.”

Friedlander said that agricultural expansion had been one of the main developments destroying the area. He said: “We have so many fronts of destruction here, that I no longer know where to start the defence”

Responding to concerns raised by the scientists, the Brazilian Ministry for Ports and Airports said the paper contained “opinions” without “scientific elements to support them”.

Britain: Thousands mobilise to face down fascist rioters

Published 
Mirror front page anti-fascist protests

Thousands of anti-fascists mobilised to face down fascist groups threatening immigration lawyers and mosques in cities across Britain on August 7. This followed widespread fascist rioting on August 4, which included attacks on the lodgings of asylum seekers, mosques, and Black people and Asians, who in some cases were pulled from their cars and beaten.

The rioting, organised by followers of English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), mobilised mainly middle-aged white men, as well as some younger bystanders. This sudden outbreak of racist violence followed the deluge of anti-immigrant and Islamophobic statements by leaders of the right of the Conservative Party (particularly former Home Secretary Suella Braverman) and Nigel Farage, founder and leader of the hard right Reform UK party. They denounce the pro-Palestinian demonstrations as “hate marches”.

The immediate cause of the rioting was misinformation spread on social media about the identity of the 17-year-old man accused of stabbing three young girls to death in a frenzied attack in the seaside resort of Southport on July 29. The alleged perpetrator, named as Axel Rudakubana, was neither an immigrant nor born outside Britain, yet his foreign-sounding name was enough to set social media sites claiming he was a Muslim and illegal immigrant. This triggered widespread rioting, which must have been planned in advance.

Far-right alliances

What was the background to this apparently sudden eruption of fascist violence? It came just three weeks after the British general election in which Labour won a huge majority (410 seats against a disastrous 121 for the Conservatives). In Britain’s bizarre first-past-the-post system, Reform UK won only 5 seats on the basis of 14% of the vote. But they did get into parliament for the first time, and came second in more than 90 seats, most of them Labour. Farage said: “We’re coming for Labour in the next election.”

Reform UK and the Tory right relay the Islamophobic anti-immigrant message, focussing especially on the thousands of refugees who cross the English Channel each year in small boats. In fact this represents only a small fraction of the immigrants to Britain, most of whom are accepted to study or work in the National Health Service and other sectors short of labour.

Farage and Robinson do a double act in which Reform UK appeals across class lines while Robinson’s EDL appeals more to poor whites, especially youngsters, on the so-called “sink housing estates” — hopeless de-industrialised areas where the labour movement now hardly exists. Obviously there is an overlap: some of the rioters vote for Farage and riot with Robinson.

The size of the far right and fascist movements in Britain is a result of years of failure by Labour and Conservative governments to do anything to overcome child poverty, the poverty of single-parent households who have to choose between buying food or heating their houses, the collapsing health service, and vicious cuts to public services demanded by the central government of local authorities. Austerity after the victory of the Conservative-Liberal coalition in 2011 has transparently made the rich much richer and driven the poor into insufferable poverty. The riots reflect the ability of the de facto propaganda alliance that stretches from the Tory right and Reform UK to the fascists to mobilise on the basis of an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim agenda.

Since 2017, the Conservatives have promised a ‘levelling up’ policy of prioritising investment to bring poor areas in the north of Britain more into line with the more prosperous South East. The result of this promise was nothing. In post-industrial towns in the north and Midlands, many have deserted Labour and feel let down by the Conservatives.

But there is something dangerous in the fascist-led mobs who marauded through cities on August 4 – the existence of a “lumpen” culture of male drunkenness, violence, homophobia, misogyny and racist violence. Some very young men get dragged into this culture, in which the typical form of political activity is rioting and violence. In Britain, as is typical of these movements, Reform UK has managed to merge lumpen working class people and sections of the “patriotic” right-wing middle class: it is a typical fascist alliance.

Anti-fascist resistance

The new Labour government, elected by just 21% of those entitled to vote, has a huge majority but is in reality a weak government. Its leader Keir Starmer has purged the left and imposed right-wing discipline on his MPs – at least for the moment. His ministers took to the airwaves on August 8 to praise the police for holding back the fascists, but ignored the much more significant anti-fascist mobilisations. London mayor Sadiq Khan praised both.

The most publicised anti-fascist mobilisation was in the North East London district of Walthamstow, a truly multicultural area in which alliances between socialist organisations and Muslims have been developed over the years, ranging from the Gulf War to racism and, most recently, Palestine. Some of the thousands of people assembled to defend the local Community Advice Centre, which has a legal arm to help asylum seekers, waved Palestinian flags.

In the progressive seaside town of Brighton, home to a large LGBTIQ+ community, police had to protect a small group of fascists when they were besieged by hundreds of anti-fascist demonstrators. It was a similar situation in Bristol. Around the country, socialist, anti-fascist, labour movement and Muslim community groups mobilised.

But there were worrying signs. The progressive city of Liverpool witnessed a significant fascist mobilisation, and it seems that most of them were locals. Racist poison has also spread to Ireland, which has witnessed successive nights of young rioters clashing with police in Belfast.

Starmer’s Labour

The response of Starmer and the new Labour government has been to rely on police repression. Thousands of police have been deployed where fascist mobs might be assembling, and the courts have responded to government requests for rapid action by sending people to jail for up to three years for crimes such as throwing a brick, which in other circumstances might be considered relatively minor.

The Conservative government of the past 14 years passed several laws that gave police extensive powers to ban demonstrations and arrest people for even planning a direct action that might cause disruption. The fact this kind of legislation might be used against the far right should not blind us to the fact that it might be used against radical direct action groups. In July, five Just Stop Oil protestors were given four and five-year sentences for blocking the London Ring Road M25 motorway. For the moment public order laws have not been used to ban pro-Palestine demonstrations, but they could be if the police judge they might lead to public disorder.

Before the general election, Labour criticised the Conservatives for not doing enough to stop immigrant boats from France. Instead of setting up safe, legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees, they promised the formation of a new “command” to police the borders.

The new Labour government promises the poor and disadvantaged precisely nothing. Finance minister Rachel Reeves’ defence of absurd spending limits means there is no new money coming forward to help the NHS, Social Care for the elderly, urgently needed house building or child poverty. Simmering resentment in poor white communities is likely to lead to new racist outbursts. The fascists are not about to give up after one evening of humiliation.

Militant left

One thing is obvious. Whereas there is a party of the radical right, there is no electoral party of the militant left. Part of the responsibility for this lies with socialist organisations wedded to propaganda routinism and reluctant to give up a modicum of independence to build a broad socialist front.

It also lies with those left Labour MPs, holding on like grim death to their Labour Party membership, who are sometimes used as punch bags by the leadership, sometimes paraded as domesticated followers by the ruthless Labour machine. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who was elected as an independent after his expulsion from the party, has failed to move towards building a new mass socialist alternative.

Four other independents were elected in areas with a large Muslim population, mainly on an anti-Gaza war platform. The raw material exists — in the hundreds who have been expelled and the thousands who have resigned from Labour in disgust — to form a new left-wing political formation on a national scale. While the hard right is mobilising in parliament and on the streets, the left is dithering.

The response of Starmer and justice minister Shabana Mahmood is to rely on police repression to suppress the fascists. Already hundreds of rioters have been charged, and a few have given up to three years’ imprisonment. Starmer promises an “army” of police ready to defend public order. These may intimidate a few fascists but will never work in the long term.

Those mobilised by the far right have a deep sense of resentment towards “elites”, a catch-all term which includes, according to circumstances, people with government jobs, people who live in London, left-wing teachers, university workers, media workers, and, of course, members of ethnic minorities they claim are given privileged treatment in houses, jobs and benefits. They are victims of the classic extreme right divide and rule, and a Labour government which does nothing for them will soon be a victim of their attacks.

Farage has promised a hard-right government by 2029. The Conservative Party is in decay, not only because of political divisions but because it is dying out — it is reckoned that 1.4 million of its members will die before the next election in 2029. The Grim Reaper will also come for 200,000 Labour voters, but they will probably be more rapidly replaced than the Conservatives who are deeply unpopular with the young. The result of this Conservative upheaval is that already some are calling for a merger with Reform UK. A survey showed 50% of the membership are in favour of such a merger.

The left in Britain has to get its act together and prepare for a united electoral intervention. Until that happens the radical vote will get split between Labour and the not-very-radical Green Party. In terms of the extreme right offensive, it is time for the British left to get its act together. Anti-fascist activism is no substitute for a mass socialist alternative. It is later than many socialists think. You do not need a weather forecaster to know which way the wind blows.

Phil Hearse is joint author of Creeping Fascism and a member of Anti*Capitalist Resistance.


Paul Mason: ‘How we can defeat the new fascism in the wake of Britain’s January 6’


Photo: Martin Suker/Shutterstock

The riots that followed the Southport murders were not just driven by racism and Islamophobia. They were conceived, both in the minds of the rioters and those inciting them, as a political challenge to the Labour government that was elected on 4th July.

So this is our equivalent of America’s January 6th: a challenge to our values, to the rule of law and to the legitimacy of Labour’s project of national renewal and social cohesion.

While the government has done the right thing – centralising the public order response and mobilising the criminal justice system to deliver swift, tough, sentencing – as a party and a movement we, too, need to adapt.

‘Today’s fascism is networked and global’

This is not the fascism my generation had to confront in the 1970s and 80s. That was a hierarchical, nationalist and largely powerless movement – easily contained by mass, community mobilisations as at Lewisham in 1977, and by big counter-cultural events like the ANL carnivals.

Today’s fascism is networked and global. While the small fascist parties pose a threat, and need to be monitored, far more important are the “influencers”, whose calls to action and racist content can be sent viral by the algorithms of social media, or even their deliberate promotion by Elon Musk. Their targets change by the week; their methods mutate fast; and their actions are boosted by foreign powers, like Russia, and by far right movements in foreign countries.

The challenge for policing is obvious: in the riots of the past, the target of the rioters were either the police themselves, or a government policy or building. The target of fascist rioters is individual people of colour, Uber drivers, minority-owned shops and, of course, Mosques.

That means the public order policing tactics taught to other forces by the Met have to change, and rapidly. Simply dispersing rioters and arresting them later leaves them free to inflict terror on members of the public – a terror which leaves BAME friends and colleagues justifiably apprehensive as they go about their everyday lives.

‘Reform surge driven by racism, ‘anti-politics’ sentiment and exasperation at economic insecurity’

I am hopeful that the swift, tough sentencing – including for those casually inciting arson and murder online – will have a rapid impact. Because it was sparked by viral information, the quicker the tears, regrets and four-year prison sentences of the rioters also go viral, the quicker this might end.

But we need to face an unpalatable fact. If 7% of the British public think these riots are justified (according to YouGov), that’s close to four million people. Most of those people will never riot, but we know that the Reform surge at the election was driven by a mixture of racism, “anti-politics” sentiment and exasperation at the economic insecurity working class communities face.

READ MORE: ‘Celebrating difference isn’t enough. We have to celebrate our togetherness too’

What’s triggered this – beyond all the individual flashpoints – is the sudden realisation by the racist minority of the population that they’ve lost the only government that was ever going to sympathise with their prejudice, and there is almost no route back.

The new fascism is fuelled not just by prejudice but by a theory: that migration is a form of “invasion”, that we, the “woke liberals” are its collaborators, that a shadowy global elite is trying to wipe out the white race, and that it will all end with an ethnic civil war.

That’s why it is so dangerous for the richest and man in the world to broadcast to his 300m followers that “civil war is inevitable”.

Sign up to our must-read daily briefing email on all things Labour

‘We are unwilling combatants in an information war’

Networked fascism calls for a different kind of resistance. The problem in your town may not lie in the small local branch of Patriotic Alternative, or a “football lads” group. It may lie with the scattered followers of a far-right influencer living in Thailand, or an anonymous channel run from Russia, who we only find out about when they leave their bedrooms and torch a law firm.

We are, in short, unwilling combatants in an information war that few of us know how to fight.

In response, we need the government to move swiftly on information legislation. The Online Safety Act is weak: but the biggest problem is that it’s still not been fully enacted. I want to see the government bring its full provisions into force immediately, ending the consultation process. It should demand that Twitter and other platforms take measures to mitigate the distribution of incitement, disinformation and hate speech. There are, in the end, large fines and even criminal sanctions if they refuse.

READ MORE: Thangam Debbonaire: ‘Recovery from race riots can start us telling a new story about Britain if we choose’

On top of this we need to centralise the intelligence response. Remarkably, there is no body in Whitehall with the job of linking what the police see, what MI5 and GCHQ see, and what specialist anti-racist NGOs monitor – in a way that can predict and disrupt the violence. And the Tories left us without a counter-extremism strategy, or the money to pay for it.

Politically, many of the counter-demos called for this weekend are organised by groups that have no chance, on their own, of uniting all communities and faiths. We need a big, national, cross-party umbrella campaign as soon as possible. But that’s no reason to stay inactive: we need, as a party, to stand with those who want to peacefully protect the refugee hotels and places of worship.

We can defeat the fascists – not just with tough law enforcement and community solidarity, but by making Britain a “militant democracy”: a democracy armed in its own self defence. And of course by the speedy delivery of the economic, climate and social justice we campaigned for at the election.