Reflections on the Present Disorders

By Anonymous

I have been asked for my opinion on the riots of the past fortnight. When Dr Gabb was Director of the Libertarian Alliance, there would have been immediate and strongly-worded news releases and analytical essays. I have said nothing, and, excepting Michael Wood, who has himself been cautious, no one else has offered to do the job for me. The reason is obvious. We now live in a social credit police state, where dissent is unsafe.

The Government has promised to use all its power to suppress the riots. Thanks to a run of bad laws made since the 1980s, it has almost unlimited legal power to proceed against both physical and written dissent. I do not wish to be dragged out of my bed by the police and pressured into an admission of “terror” offences. For the record, however, I will say that the present disorders, though not in themselves any threat, do mark the beginning of a crisis of legitimacy for the British State.

The disorders are no immediate threat because they have no direction. They have no leadership – no “community leaders” who can be bribed into minimal compliance with the authorities. They have no agenda. I cannot think of any specific action the authorities could take that would end the disorders. When the Gypsies rioted in Leeds the other week, they wanted a child back who had been kidnapped by the social services. The child was handed back and the riots ended. What can the authorities reasonably do to end these white disorders? They could televise the hanging of the alleged murderer of those little girls. But they cannot do that, and I doubt if anyone would really want them to. Also, as said, the murders were an opportunity for disorder, not its cause. This lack of any immediate object shows the fragility of the present disorder. Eventually, it will end. If the authorities have any sense, they will not be too obviously disparate in their punishment of the arrested. They will also go quiet for a while on their culture war against the native population.

But, even if the authorities do have this much sense – and I am not sure if they do – the present disorders may be a warning sign of the crisis of legitimacy that I have mentioned. At the least, they have brought to an end the fact of the past seventy years – that, if others will riot to obtain specific benefits, the native population will do nothing more than grumble in pubs and write letters to politicians, and that these reactions can be ignored. Sooner or later, there will be a specific grievance – something that can be settled by a limited concession by the authorities. There will then be more disorder, followed this time by a show of weakness. We shall then settle into a period of government open to influence by competitive rioting.

At the most, we may be entering the early stages of a revolution. I read Crane Brinton’s Anatomy of a Revolution when I was a boy, and was at once convinced by its analytical approach. I was still more convinced when I used its analytical approach to predict the course of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. If I look at modern England, I see the same warning signs that Brinton identified for the English, American, French and Russian Revolutions. These are:

• Social and Economic Discontent: Brinton emphasizes that revolutions often begin when a large and vocal group feels economically restricted or politically marginalised. These groups may not be in extreme poverty, but feel that their opportunities for advancement are unfairly limited by the existing regime. This discontent creates a fertile ground for revolutionary sentiment.


• Inefficient and Unresponsive Government: A dysfunctional government that fails to address the needs and grievances of its people is a crucial pre-revolutionary sign. Brinton notes that, in the revolutions he has studied, the government was not only ineffective, but also perceived as corrupt or even hostile.


• Intellectual Opposition: The rise of intellectuals who criticise the government and propose alternative systems is another significant indicator. These intellectuals often gain the support of the discontented, spreading revolutionary ideas and providing ideological foundations for the revolution.


• Loss of Legitimacy: The ruling regime starts losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. This can be due to a combination of economic mismanagement, corruption, and perceived injustice.  As the public’s faith in the existing order wanes, revolutionary ideas gain traction.


• Formation of Revolutionary Organisations: Finally, the organisation of revolutionary groups or movements that can mobilise the discontented is a critical step. These groups often begin as small factions but can grow rapidly if the conditions are right.

I suggest that we have reached every stage in this progression except the last. Since, on reflection, I do not want a violent revolution, I hope the Starmer Government contains one or two men with sense enough to offer concessions, even though none as yet has been demanded. But I doubt this, and so I predict that things will now grow steadily and predictably worse.

In closing, I repeat that we live in a police state where freedom of speech no longer exists in the way that it did even a decade ago. For this reason, I will emphasise that I do not approve of rioting. I have done nothing, and will do nothing to encourage rioting or any other disorder. I will also warn our various commenters that I will censor any comments that I fear may bring to us the attention of the authorities.