Stefano Fallokratis

Libertarianism UK

Housed in a fine Victorian building, the Manchester Art Gallery has charge of some fine Victorian paintings. It has Hylas and the Nymphs by John William Waterhouse. It has a fair bit of Millais, and some Holman Hunt. It also has, for whatever he may be worth, a lot of L.S. Lowry. You might suppose a stuffy, provincial institution, somewhat changed since the death of Queen Victoria, but not much changed in the time of anyone now alive.

You would be wrong. Have a look at this caption, fixed to the wall beside an Empire Marketing Board poster of the 1930s:

In 1930 Britain dominated vast areas of the globe: around 70 countries were aggressively controlled through invasions and colonisations. Entire economies and their resources were forced to serve the needs and polluting industries of the UK. Sustainable systems were destroyed and appropriated, tens of millions died and livelihoods were made precarious. All of this was justified by the British sense of racial superiority. [Written by Kooj Chuhan]

Or take this, explaining a group of similar posters:

These posters were created during the British government’s brutal rule of Nigeria…. [Written by Kofo Kego Oyeleye]

What to say about these captions? What to say about dozens like them? Or what to say about the placement of exhibits? Or about the choice of what to display and what to hide away in reserve? What to say about them?

I could call them a misuse of the taxpayer’s money. The Manchester Art Gallery is supported by various branches of the British State. Its most reasonable function is to display its collection, and to tell us who painted the pictures and when, and a few other useful facts. It is not to tell us what to think about politics and history and science.

Or I could call the captions knowing falsehoods. If we conquered an empire, so did many other peoples. The British imperial adventure was not the most bloody – not at all, on any objective grounds, the most worthy of condemnation. Indeed, we spent much of our time in the sun putting down slavery and human sacrifice and cannibalism, and building railways, and establishing systems of liberal and reasonably accountable government. We then mostly left before we were asked to go. Sometimes, we left when most people there wanted us to stay.

But neither of these is a relevant objection. The modern British State takes and spends upwards of £1,000,000,000,000 of our money every year. Almost all of this is at best wasted. Whatever goes to the Manchester Art Gallery is not even petty cash by comparison. As for the claims of British wickedness, Messrs Chuhan and Oyeleye may be ignorant of common facts, but those who commissioned the captions are not. They know the truth, and they have what they think good reason for ignoring it. No one responsible for those captions is open to any history lesson that will bring them to a better view of their duties. They are, to put things bluntly, our enemies.

The relevant objection to these captions is that their sole purpose is to spread hatred of, and self-hatred among, the British. There are powerful interest groups in Britain that want a demoralised and therefore a docile population – a population without rights or property or the shadow of financial security, a population that is cold in winter and kept at all times from moving about, and hungry unless it will eat processed bug pulp. These facts are obvious. You need to be blind not to see them. Why they are true is more open to argument.

I sometimes like to believe in a single explanation for these attacks on our freedom and identity – a single cause, you might say, of which all other explanations are effects. The truth seems to be that there are many explanations. One is that the very rich want to destroy Britain as it used to be and to remake it as a financial casino with nice shops and a few grouse moors. This needs a demoralised and docile population. Of course, we are not the only people facing this kind of culture war. There are the Americans, and the Canadians, and the Australians, and most of the Europeans. Only we have a ruling class of dead-eyed rentiers for whom the City of London is compensation for a lost Empire. So, while the implied or declared wishes of the very rich need to be taken into account, they are unlikely to explain the whole of what is happening.

Another explanation – more relevant at least for those captions, is the ethnic replacement of the past few generations. Britain has become much less securely British that it was. The British are already a minority in all the big cities, and a dwindling majority in the country as a whole. Mixed populations are always a recipe for zero-sum competition over territory and resources. Perhaps the time has come to see anti-racism less as a plea for fair treatment of differences, than as a euphemism for anti-white racism.

Another explanation is some reasonably autonomous madness or madnesses among the non-entrepreneurial wing of the bourgeoisie. These people have always been a nuisance – always eager to support any ideology to legitimise their living off the taxpayers. Most of these plainly do believe in anti-racism, even when it becomes anti-white; and they are fanatical about the greenist lies. They believed in the Lockdowns. They believe in the vaccines. They will greedily accept any lie that justifies more spending by the State on people like themselves, or more privileges that amount to the same. So long as they believed they would stay alive, most would probably accept a ninety per cent depopulation of the planet.

I think the immediate cause of those captions is anti-white racism, brought on by various kinds of ethnic grievance – real or imagined. But the whole environment within which anti-white racism can become official policy is an effect of numerous causes. Every agenda resulting from these causes is advanced by saying something like this to the British:

You are a race of thieves and murderers, of slavers and parasites. You are destroyers of better civilisations than your own. Every time you so much as breathe out, you help to destroy all other life on this planet. Your past is a record of the blackest evil. No apology can be adequate. No reparations can ever be enough. Your only punishment must be oblivion. Until then, you must suffer. You are scum!

This justifies ethnic sadism and vicarious ethnic masochism. It justifies high fuel and food prices. It justifies compulsory veganism. It justifies endless interventions and taxes and nagging, self-righteous lectures. In short, it justifies an unlimited state, with jobs and power for all the usual subjects. And it pleases the very rich, who are no longer blamed for all the problems of the world: instead, the little people blame each other; and the rich get a free pass, depending on how loudly they shout a few easy slogans.

Now, if I were writing for a supposedly conservative newspaper like The Daily Telegraph or The Daily Mail, I would stop here. The purpose of supposedly conservative newspapers is to tell their readers that they are losing and will carry on losing. Proposing solutions might give people hope; and the purpose of these supposedly conservative newspapers is to advance the agenda of demoralisation by ineffectually grumbling about it. But I am not writing for The Daily Telegraph or The Daily Mail, and I will suggest a solution.

It is not an easy solution, I grant. The fact that several dozen overlapping and well-funded and well-organised groups are all pushing to break us as a people does not make a favourable correlation of forces. But I do believe that we only have a choice between trying my solution and learning to live as bug-eating serfs. I suggest a revolution.

Now, a revolution has two critical stages. The first is a seizure of power. The second is a set of sweeping and irreversible changes. Without the first, there is no revolution. The first without the second is not a revolution but a peasants’ revolt. How to pass the first stage is a matter of circumstances unknowable in advance. It may be some turn of electoral luck: who would have predicted Brexit or Donald Trump? Or it may come about through less regular means. But I will not dwell on this. The second stage is much less a matter of chance. Donald Trump was elected because of his promises. He came into office with no idea of how to keep those promises, and spent the next four years giving orders to people who ignored him, or working through people he felt he had to employ, but who despised him. Not surprisingly, his presidency was a failure in terms of everything he promised. He promised a revolution. He delivered a peasants’ revolt. This ended in the usual way: a restoration of the established order, and exemplary punishments of everyone who failed to disperse at once.

A revolution is not made by changes of positive law and changes of policy. It is made by the destruction of its enemies. These are the sweeping and irreversible changes I mention. In the French and Russian and Iranian revolutions, among others, this meant killing people. I do not expect a revolution in this country to involve anything so unpleasant. The changes I have in mind include abolishing every institution funded by the taxpayers that is not needed to provide the people with desired services. It means closing down the BBC, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, hundreds of regulatory agencies, and perhaps half a dozen ministries. We should also switch off the funding for several thousand fake charities. These can all go without leaving any painful gaps in the lives of ordinary people. They must go because they are set up and run by our enemies for the purpose of destroying us as a free and sovereign people. They must be closed down within days. Their buildings and other assets must be sold. Their records must be published. Those working for them must be sacked on the spot, and often deprived of all pension rights. Some of the purpose is to save us from a petty bureaucratic tyranny, some to save our tax money. The main purpose, though, must be to ruin our enemies. Passing laws to order them to behave other than as they do, or appointing different senior managers, will do nothing. These people will continue just as before. The only sure way to stop them is to strip them of income and status, and send them out of fight over jobs pushing trolleys in supermarket car parks.

But our enemies are not concentrated in just these expendable institutions. They have also permeated institutions that need to be retained. This brings me back to the Manchester Art Gallery. The “Senior Creative Lead” there is Dr Inbal Livne. She only took up her job this year, and she may not have commissioned those captions. Even so, she has kept them on the walls, and her various public utterances suggest she is not unfriendly to the sentiment of the captions. I would not wish to shut down the Manchester Art Gallery, or other similar institutions funded by the taxpayers. But many of the people employed there are enemies. Here is the purpose of the arbitrary power that I mention above. The BBC can be abolished by revoking its Royal Charter. There is an end to the harm it does. Combing through hundreds of thousands of employees in places like the Manchester Art Gallery and the National Health Service, deciding who stays and who goes, cannot be done in a hurry. We need to know in advance whom to sack.

For this, I suggest an on-line listing of enemies. This should begin today, and grow to maturity over one or two years. It needs to be reliable in its facts and reasonable in its definitions. It needs to be compiled by people who do not spend all their time talking about chemtrails or Jews, or how the King has a crashed flying saucer in one of his stables. It needs to be a full and continually-updated listing of enemies – names, positions, reasons for inclusion on the list. It might also suggest punishments. For the sake of example – though the details are for discussion among the compilers, I suggest these levels of punishment:

1. Immediate sacking or withdrawal of taxpayer funding;


2. As above, plus a ban for some period to be decided on any earnings funded by the taxpayers;


3. As above, plus loss of pension rights;


4. As above, plus confiscation of assets by way of a specialised bankruptcy order;


5. As above, plus some period to be decided of hard labour on the land;


6. None of the above, but an opportunity to recant, followed by some period of probation, to be decided.

All present and past Members of Parliament should be at levels 4 or 5. More than usually oppressive police officers and social workers should be at level 4. Level 6 is for those offenders who have skills that would be hard to replace. Though the Russian Revolution was more statist than the one I have in mind, it was based on a set of utopian promises of a total break with the past. Even so, the Bolsheviks continued the employment of every state functionary who was willing to accept the new masters. I have many fewer exemptions in mind, but accept there must be some.

Where might Messrs Chuhan and Oyeleye fit on this scale? How about Dr Livne? For the first two, I suggest a level 2 punishment. I have looked at their Internet presence, and I cannot see what they do as less than a waste of the taxpayers’ money. I feel at least an unconscious anti-white racism. On both grounds they are enemies, but not the worst kind. Therefore, level 2. For Dr Livne, I have no idea. She may have skills in the management of art collections that are hard to replace. She may belong at level 6. I suspect, though, she belongs with Messrs Chuhan and Oyeleye at level 2.

But these levels and applications are only an example of how the on-line listing might work. They also illustrate the need for compilers who are not stupid or insane. We need compilers who will set recommended punishments on some reasonably objective scale. We also need men who have the intelligence to manage a principled inconsistency of listing. The effect of such a listing would be immense. Its basic idea would be to provide an authoritative list of enemies long in advance of a seizure of power. The sooner we can demolish the country we do not want, the sooner we can turn to creating the country we do want. Even before then, however, it would be useful.

You may notice a certain mission creep in what I recommend. I begin by suggesting an on-line list of people working for institutions that should not themselves be closed down. I have moved to a general listing of enemies, regardless of where they can be found. The lesser option is the minimal option. The larger option, though, is preferable. Even when they proceed without bloodshed, revolutions are messy things. Sacking several hundred thousand people in a hurry cannot, at the time of sacking, involve due process. It must be an exercise of arbitrary and unaccountable power. This being said, revolutionaries still have some obligation to make sure that those who suffer deserve to suffer. A listing in advance, together with reasons, of who is to go, will be some attempt at justice.

It will also multiply the opportunities for a seizure of power. Some years ago – I choose not to remind myself of the details – a pregnant Italian tourist arrived in Britain. She made a feeble joke to the passport clerks. She was promptly arrested and taken to hospital for a forced delivery. After this, her baby was stolen for others to adopt. The Italian Government complained, but got nowhere. The woman was a victim of a system that is there to oppress and terrify the native population. The authorities saw no reason for making any exception. There was much discussion of this in the alternative media. Then it vanished. But imagine that all those involved in this gross act were fully listed, with a description of their acts. Imagine that all the gross acts of those in power were fully listed for all to see. A searchable database filled with several hundred thousand like stories would reveal for all the irremediable rottenness of the existing order of things. The present news is a stream of infamy, washing across our television screens and emptying into a memory hole. Suppose it were to empty instead into a display cabinet of infamy. If that did not promote a revolution, we would not deserve a revolution.

Let me come back, though, to what I called a principled inconsistency of listing. Once the on-line listing has reached a certain scale, we can expect any number of enemies to hurry forward, all trying to make a deal – all putting extenuations, or offsets, or claiming they acted under duress, or offering services valuable enough to justify a level 6 punishment or no listing at all. Most of these would have nothing to offer, except perhaps the joy of publishing their correspondence on their listing pages. Some, though, might have useful deals to offer. These deals might be useful for the moment of seizing power. Before then, the simple knowledge that some limited deals were on offer, and were being made, would spread fear and distrust through all our enemies. They would never again sit round a table without wondering whose mobile telephone was set to record. Once again, I hope you can see the need for compilers of good sense – people whose choices may not always be acceptable to whoever might have power after a revolution, but whose choices will have been made to a consistent and comprehensible set of principles.

Do not suppose this kind of project would be freely allowed. Our enemies would go furiously after the compilers of the list. These would get the full Russell Brand or Lawrence Fox treatment. They would lose their bank accounts. They would be demonised by The Guardian and BBC. They would be accused of Nazism, or incitement to murder, and of outright terrorism. Every police state law made since the 1980s would be thrown at them. They might also risk murder by the security services. For this reason, the compilers would need to be not only of good character and judgement, but also outside the reach of the British or American State. They would need to move to Russia or Iran, and stay there. That means finding the right people, and providing them with lavish and open-ended funding.

But, oh – the right people! Oh – the money! If only we had either. On the other hand, the money I have in mind would be a pittance of what has been lavished on the risible GB News. As for the people, you never can tell who might come in. I have said enough, though. Here is my considered response to a morning in the Manchester Art Gallery.