The recent riots across the UK may be considered the first great convulsion in politics since the accession of the new Labour government to power. A horrific crime in Southport became an instrument for the dissemination of a mass of distortions and falsehoods: the assailant, it was alleged, was a Muslim; he was a recent immigrant; and the native community of this island—by which was meant, the white community—had to take a daring stand against the outrage. There followed a series of violent disturbances: arson; racist acts of terror; looting; and all the accompaniments of such disorder. In fact, Axel Rudakubana, the accused Southport assailant, was British; he was born in Cardiff to Rwandan immigrants; he was not Muslim; and his motives remain obscure. The public has been induced to ponder how a single incident could precipitate such terrible consequences, and a number of explanations have been produced by the nation’s most influential voices.

          The explanation preferred by the present ministry is social media; and social media regulation, their preferred remedy. It is evident that social media can ease the transmission of lies and hatred, and that it may be used to coordinate malicious enterprises with a speed that was formerly impossible; but it is equally evident that social media is not a primary cause of riots. We had such disturbances long before we had the internet and smartphones; and it would be astounding if the rioters were moved to act solely because of exhortations and falsehoods circulated online—if they had not already been educated in the school of bigotry and fear, then a single incident in Southport would not have sufficed to plunge several communities into distress. As to the principal agitators, among whom was English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson, their office is not to produce violence ex nihilo, like a conjuror produces a rabbit from his hat; they work upon a set of prejudices that they find already existing, and use them to attain their ends. The question, therefore, is, What happened to the minds of those who participated in the late riots, to prepare and induce them to act as they did?

          An alternative explanation has been proposed by the commentators of the Right: they say that the riots are the expression—albeit an appalling one—of public dismay at immigration. If only governments had listened, they counsel, and stemmed the flow of people to this country, and thus assuaged the fears of white, working class Britons, the riots would never have occurred. One implication of this argument deserves our notice: it is that the white population of Britain are congenital racists; that they find the sight of individuals whose skin happens to be of a different hue so intolerable, that they are virtually compelled to react with dreadful violence. A more insulting aspersion against the white inhabitants of this country could scarcely be imagined; and neither is it correct, for the great majority of the British people abhor what the rioters did, and believe in the practicability of a peaceful society composed of many different races and ethnicities. There is one truth, however, suggested by the commentators’ argument: namely, that the rioters’ opinions, though they are the opinions, as we said, of a minority, are shared across a range of social classes. The Faragite banker does not, in any important respect, differ from the street hooligan in his prejudices: they differ only in the words they employ, and the means by which they would accomplish their ends. The hooligan, uncouth as he is, sets upon the asylum seeker directly; the refined Faragite, however, prefers that the unfortunate refugee be stuffed into a van, marched into a plane, and deported according to parliamentary regulations.

          There is yet another party of disputants, who aver that the authorities are to blame for provoking indignation by their system of two-tier policing, wherein white Britons are punished more harshly for the same offences as non-white Britons, owing to the police’s fear of being called racist. It is, perhaps, superfluous to say that there is no persuasive evidence of such a bias; and, indeed, that the evidence we possess implies that the police are more likely to abuse racial minorities; but facts have always been remarkably irrelevant to political discussion. It is sometimes said that the police have treated the Left-wing Palestine solidarity marches with more lenience than Right-wing protests; and on this point I agree. I am daring enough to say that policing should be proportional: overwhelmingly peaceful Palestine protests should not be policed in the same manner as violent gatherings of xenophobes. The best advice I can offer to the Right, if they desire not to attract such a forceful police response, is to forswear violence and hooliganism; but to this, they seem unlikely to assent.

          The common explanations, we have seen, are remarkably inadequate to the purpose. What, then, is the true explanation? The first observation to be made is, that there is no solid wall between the opinions of the Tories, and the opinions of the far Right; what we find between them is rather a highly porous sponge, which admits of the constant exchange of ideas. This circumstance has been particularly evident in the Tory response to the Palestine protests, where ministers made such declarations, in reputable venues, as would not be out of place in the ravings of the wildest bigot. We have the statement of a recent home secretary in The Telegraph, where she wrote: “We need to wake up to what we are sleep-walking into: a ghettoised society where free expression and British values are diluted. Where sharia law, the Islamist mob and anti-Semites take over communities. We need to overcome the fear of being labelled Islamophobic and speak truthfully. Enough of the hand-wringing and apologies. Turning a blind eye to fanatics has got us into this terrible situation: it needs to stop.” Or perhaps we should turn to the words of former Tory immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who said in Parliament (and quite naturally, without evidence) that “We have allowed our streets to be dominated by Islamist extremists, and British Jews and others to be too intimidated to walk through central London week after week. Now we are allowing Islamist extremists to intimidate British Members of Parliament. This is wrong. It has to stop.” This is not the sum of the Tories’ affinity with the far Right, or nearly so: a tolerably complete survey would have to advert to the Rwanda scheme; the slogan “Stop the Boats”, which, it must please the former prime minister to know, has attained wide currency among Fascists; and the Tory Party’s own membership, of whom six in ten believe that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation—and, incidentally, it is these fine folks, these country squires and old City boys, who will choose the next leader of His Majesty’s Opposition.

          The Labour Party has played its own part in the demonisation of Muslims and asylum seekers, as even a cursory study of New Labour’s policies, and the arguments produced to support them, will show. Sir Keir Starmer and the deposed Labour MP Jonathan Ashworth called loudly for the faster removal of Bangladeshi migrants at the last election; and in the past, Sir Keir has gone to the extreme of affirming Israel’s “right” to deny water to the people of Gaza—a remark for which he has never apologised.

          Whence we may conclude that Islamophobia is an ordinary feature of British politics: it is a corollary of the alliance with the United States, and our subservience to its foreign policy. We cannot think a man to be a human being, while we supply bombs for the obliteration of him and his children. In reply to the Roman lawyer’s question, Cui bono? no member of the British political class—nobody, at least, who contends for rapid elevation to office—can benefit from an ardent battle against Islamophobia: for that battle would require the amendment of such aspects of our foreign policy as the Oligarchy cannot bear to see amended.

          We must also look to the social and material causes of the growth of far Right sympathies. It is not to be doubted that poverty and economic stagnation are great sources of recruits for the politics of hate: minorities are always found easy to blame for national ills. The duties of Socialists here are, to elucidate the oppressive class relations that produce enormous wealth for the few, and misery for the many; to set forth a strategy for freedom and justice for all; and to stand firmly against far Right violence. In proportion as Socialists discharge these duties well, the far Right’s influence will diminish.

          The path before us, then, is easy enough to perceive. As the denigration of Muslims, migrants, and refugees is a sport enjoyed by both the dominant political parties; and as this dangerous game, together with years of declining living standards, has been potent enough to induce a small minority of the public to riot; one expedient for preventing such disorder is sufficiently obvious: overthrow the Oligarchy.