When far right rioting was reaching its peak (hopefully) in parts of the UK, the dailydot.com and various online chat groups reported that arch misogynist and darling of the conspiratorial far right, Andrew Tate, had himself become the subject of speculation among the conspiratorial far right.
There’s something deeply Foucault’s Pendulum about it. In the 1988 novel by Umberto Eco, an academic researcher investigating the murky world of conspiracy theories – long before the world of conspiracies became dominated by the far right – finds himself caught up in the very theories he himself inadvertently unleashed. Whoops! The book serves as a cautionary tale for anyone thinking of using the world of conspiracy theories for personal gain.
Outnumbering extremism
Police sources were quoted as saying that over 100 far right events were being planned, mainly in the North of England. But also that only around 30 anti-fascist, anti-racist protests had been organised. The situation was looking pretty grim to some.
Yet those with direct experience of countering the far right know something important. What is discussed in far right online chat forums is not necessarily what is likely to happen on the ground. They are simply possibilities carrying differing levels of risk that need to be corroborated and assessed.
Anti-fascist activists know that going public with unverified intelligence is irresponsible. But with police and media sources sharing unverified intel and other information into the public domain, it’s little wonder that people get sceptical and turn instead to less formal online sources of information, including those propounding conspiracies.
Despite being cautioned by public and authority figures against holding demonstrations in response to the far right threat, in the event they greatly outnumbered those members of the far right who did turn out, and sent a clear message across the country.
Nations of sanctuary
It was the diverse community line that proved to be the significant deterrent to further racist violence. In most instances the small number of fascists who did turn out were met by communities of love, compassion, and sometimes samba!
This love and compassion stands in stark contrast with the rhetoric that has been allowed to seep into our public discourse. Rhetoric that has been actively pushed by those who thought they could unleash and control the language of division and hatred for political gain. We even see politicians continuing to pander to the far right, while also punishing its worst excesses.
What we have witnessed in recent weeks is what happens when such language is used as a deliberate tactic to win marginal vote shares. Those who set out to create a hostile environment for migrants and refugees have in fact succeeded in stirring up racial tensions, creating a hostile environment for everyone who values diversity and peace.
It’s worth noting that, in Wales and Scotland, both self-declared Nations of Sanctuary, we did not see anywhere near the same levels of violence that we witnessed in many parts of England. That’s not to say of course that these nations are racism-free. But it is nonetheless a testament to years of quiet work to address the divisions that others have sought to widen in our communities.
First they came for …
When those in positions of influence do not actively speak out against racism when it raises its head, or they fail to explicitly stand with marginalised groups, then they fail to adequately douse the flames of hatred. This requires greater care than the quick and easy grasping at conspiracy and populist rhetoric.
The word ‘thug’, for example, is problematic, and not only because it tacitly avoids using the term ‘racist’ to describe racist rioters. It is also because the term came to popular usage in English through Britain’s colonial occupation of India. Thug, thuggee. It’s awkward and inappropriate.
So, let recent events serve as a cautionary tale for those who seek to manipulate the world of online conspiracy theories and the language of hate for their own nefarious ends. But also for those who do not explicitly call out misinformation and hatred for what they are, or explicitly stand in solidarity with their victims.
There are those, like Andrew Tate, who have deliberately set out to unleash the language of division and hate for their own personal gain. But once spoken, this language can all too easily turn on those who speak it too. (Even if you’re not charged with sex trafficking and other appalling offences). So to those engaged in the unleashing, I ask: when the forces of hate turn on you, who do you think will be left to speak out for you?
