X Close

Glastonbury’s Kneecap censorship has backfired

DJ Próvaí of Kneecap takes in the Glastonbury acclaim yesterday. Credit: Getty

DJ Próvaí of Kneecap takes in the Glastonbury acclaim yesterday. Credit: Getty

June 29 2025 - 8:00am

The BBC refused to provide a live stream of Kneecap’s performance at Glastonbury yesterday, after a member of the Irish hip hop trio was charged with a terror offense for allegedly waving a Hezbollah flag at a concert last year. It was therefore unfortunate that the preceding act, Bob Vylan, decided to lead chants of “death to the IDF” to crowds saturated with Palestinians flags. Even more embarrassingly for the BBC, the screen behind the two members of Bob Vylan bore the caption: “Free Palestine. The United Nations have called it a genocide. The BBC calls it a ‘conflict’.” Kneecap themselves conducted chants of “fuck Keir Starmer” as a clapback to the Prime Minister saying that their appearance on the Glastonbury stage would not be “appropriate”.

All this only emphasizes how farcical the campaign to censor and criminalize the Belfast group has been. It calls to mind the Father Ted episode “The Passion of Saint Tibulus”, in which the protest against a supposedly blasphemous film, rather than acting as a deterrent, causes more people to want to see it.

In recent months, Kneecap have found themselves in an awkward position. They have steadily been crossing the frontier from a niche radical act into mainstream success and fame, not least thanks to a feature biopic released last year. That ascendance has created contradictions between Kneecap’s radical chic and the pressures that come with being integrated into the mainstream.

It’s easy when you’re an obscure band to bellow “kill your local MP” or bray “up Hamas, up Hezbollah”. You don’t have to be accountable to anyone else, and few are even sufficiently aware of your existence to take umbrage. But once you reach a wider audience, the stakes change. Like it or not, you now have to contend with the responsibilities of public relations.

What’s more, you don’t get to express political affinity with Hamas, the most violent faction of the Palestinian national movement, and Hezbollah, a proxy of the Iranian Ayatollah. Kneecap’s promotion of these groups, seeing them as providing an underdog indigenous resistance to Israel akin to the Irish national struggle against British imperialism, contradicts the otherwise anti-sectarian message in their music. The band’s solution when criticized for this has been to retreat into an outwardly apolitical humanitarianism that just wants Gazan civilians to stop being massacred by the IDF.

Every radical artist’s dream is to somehow pull off having it both ways. That means mainstream visibility, critical prestige, financial success and headline spots on legacy festivals like Glastonbury, and yet, at the same time, not having to dilute the political and artistic principles which initially won over your hardcore fanbase. It’s a hard line to walk, and most fail. This is why the biggest fear of any radical artist is to become “inauthentic” or sell out. Kneecap could defang their rhetoric, but to their core fans that would represent a surrender. If they remain steadfast, they risk being banished from the mainstream. That is their dilemma.

Kneecap are both a bête noire and a cause célèbre. More people in Britain likely have an opinion on the group’s politics than have ever listened to their music. The irony of the effort to censor them is that it has only bolstered their anti-establishment bona fides, while also boosting their popularity and success. Kneecap’s cosplay radicalism may inspire Left-wing activists who see Palestine as a key element of the Omnicause, but they aren’t a threat to anyone, let alone the powers that be. — they’re more cringeworthy than menacing. Censoring Kneecap is not only wrong on principle but makes them seem more dangerous than they really are. Liam Gallagher likely had it right when he dismissed them as “a bunch of squares in knitted face thongs”.


Ralph Leonard is a British-Nigerian writer on international politics, religion, culture and humanism.

buffsoldier_96

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam