So responded a man to a Radio 4 interviewer who asked him whether he wished to remain in Libya or go to Europe. From the manner in which the question was framed and the response received, one could be forgiven for thinking that the interviewee was a native of the named continent, for why else would the interviewer pose the question in the form of a choice between Libya or ‘Europe’ (by which one assumes he meant the EU)? In fact, that proved not to be the case, for the man was a migrant worker from Nigeria. Knowing this to be so, why did not the interviewer instead enquire “Do you and other migrant workers intend to stay in Libya, or return home?”
That the interviewer should have posed the question in this way displays, yet again, the wearisome bias of BBC journalists, who appear intent upon reducing England to an ethnically and culturally balkanised ‘global village’ in miniature, populated predominantly by non-indigenes. Although such an eventuality may be viewed in indulgent soft-focus by BBC staff and the multiculturalists of our main political parties, this represents an emergent dystopian rather than utopian future, although of course, it would literally result in England becoming a ‘utopia’, that is, a ‘nowhere’. The human lineaments of this ‘nowhere’ are already becoming clearly defined in what was once London. It is up to you, dear reader, to help ensure that in future we do not wistfully refer to what was once England.
The thousands of sub-Saharan migrants who worked in Libya under Gaddafi did so in a variety of capacities, many working for the regime during its dying days as mercenaries. Some of the latter have been implicated in atrocities; others of course, will have been entirely innocent of such wrongdoing. Irrespective of the roles that these migrants fulfilled, for ill or for good, they are no longer welcome in Libya. Where they will head has already been indicated, and as a good proportion of them hail from Anglophone states such as Nigeria, we must expect a surge in ‘asylum’ applications and illegal immigration from this source, which will be accompanied by hard lobbying from various advocacy groups in the UK.
One of the most vocal groups will consist of their ethnic kin who have already established settlements in England in areas such as Peckham, who not unnaturally seek to augment their number within our shores. These will find support from specialist ‘human rights’ and ‘refugee’ organisations as well as from the BBC, the three main political parties and significant sections of the press. David Cameron and William Hague, having abused their control of the RAF to repeatedly bomb Libya, will no doubt seek to allow the ingress of these ‘refugees’ (in reality economic migrants) as a means of expiating their war guilt, which will be projected outwards onto the British people as a whole. “We”, they shall say, “have a duty to these people”. No, we do not.
Those who wish to see the death of England, and of European nations and peoples more generally, will welcome the influx of these sub-Saharan economic migrants, many of whom, by dint of their role in Libya, will be innately violent. Most of us however, will not, for we do not share the ethnically submissive lachrymose sentiments of the interviewer on this morning’s Today Programme. For us, the Libyan tragedy is not yet over, for its long-term repercussions have yet to be fully felt at home; repercussions moreover, which could be avoided altogether if only we had a government which adhered to what governments are supposed to do: to place the interests of those whom it purports to represent foremost.