“No, I want to go to Europe”

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.  

Whose ‘Boat People’?

The BBC, it must be said, often has a rather peculiar manner of phrasing things. By way of example, take yesterday’s online BBC coverage of the ongoing influx of predominantly North African Muslim migrants into the EU via the Italian island of Lampedusa. How would you describe them? Economic migrants perhaps? Settlers? Colonists? Well, all of these terms, which I would contend contain at least a strong if not overwhelming element of facticity, are evidently beyond the pale of ‘polite’ BBC discourse, because although truthful, they smack far too much of what ‘Auntie’ might term ‘intolerance’ for its liking.

Such an accurate characterisation of this process would be certain to elicit something far shriller from the Guardian and other media outlets of its ilk: shouts of ‘racism’, with plenty of stigmatising baseless imputations being made with respect to the character and moral worth of anyone who dared name and detail this process of colonisation. For such a person, the Guardian possesses an arsenal of derogatory epithets, including ‘far-right’, ‘fascist’ and, should the breach of ‘moral’ decorum be deemed to be exceptionally excessive, ‘Englishman’. Granted, I was being facetious with respect to that last word, but I am certain that anyone who so chooses to consciously acknowledge the fact of their ethnic Englishness and not be ashamed of it would not be seen as a ‘right-thinking’ (dreadful phrase is it not?) individual. Anyway, I digress from my original subject to which it is now time to return.

Which geographical/cultural adjective or adjectival phrase might you use as a headline for an article dealing with boatloads of migrants issuing from North Africa and landing on the shores of Lampedusa? North African? African? Arab? Maghrebian? Muslim? If one were to employ the genitive, would they be North Africa’s, Africa’s or the Maghreb’s boat people? Well, the BBC was of the opinion that none of these characterisations would do, and instead judiciously selected a genitive phrase which spelt out where it clearly believes these people belong. Its full headline was ‘Italy is rocky shore for Europe’s boat people’. Note its elision of Europe and the EU as is its wont, for its output would seem to be guided by a desire to deliberately equate being anti-EU with being anti-European. These are of course two separate matters altogether. I, for example, am strongly pro-European and anti-EU. The BBC on the other hand, is strongly pro-EU whilst being viscerally anti-European (witness its constant demonisation of Poles and neighbouring Slavic and Baltic peoples when reporting on immigration).

So, the BBC has decided that the African colonists belong to the continent of Europe. I would beg to differ, but I shall perhaps refrain from employing a term that a certain Muammar Gaddafi has used to describe his people whom he exhorts to migrate to Europe: “locusts”. It must be said however, that I would laugh heartily were the BBC to use such a term in a non-ironic fashion in describing this mass migration.

Only Mad Dog Gaddafi and Cameron go out in the Libyan Sun

I was hoping that Russia and China would this evening block the quixotic idiocy about to be unleashed by the Prime Minister, but alas, this hope proved to be unfounded. These two key permanent members of the UN Security Council abstained over the vote which has now been passed 10-0 in support of employing “all necessary measures” excepting a ground invasion “to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas”. Still, perhaps it will be in their favour, because it will hasten the terminal decline of the United Kingdom and thereby bolster their international geopolitical influence.

As our planes could be enforcing a no-fly zone within hours, there are a number of questions that must be asked. What key national interest does the UK have at stake in Libya? The answer is quite straightforward: we possess no such interest in Libya. As Kelvin Mackenzie rightly noted on Question Time this evening, if we are to use military force against Libya, then why not against Bahrain and Saudia Arabia? Why not against Zimbabwe and numerous other states that we find disagreeable and which maltreat significant sections of their populations? Rational answers came there none, for there are none. The UK’s armed forces should be employed exclusively to protect our territory and our people. There may have been a case for an air strike against Libya in the immediate aftermath of Lockerbie, but there is no such case today.

The UK and France have stepped forward to proffer their air power in the first instance. Is this a case of senile former great power sibling rivalry? What are our respective governments doing? What do they hope to achieve? Are they really viewing the Libyan civil war through a grossly distorted, simplistic and moralistic prism? Do they seem to think that this is an unambiguous Manichean-style conflict between the forces of good and evil (i.e. Gaddafi versus ‘democratic’ rebels)? What denouement do they foresee? I see a swarm of Libyan refugees being given succour in the UK and France, swelling our hostile Islamic colonies and becoming a permanent unbidden and resentful presence. Do I see a stable Libya functioning as a Western-style liberal democracy? No. No I do not. I do not pretend to see anything, but I do not believe for one moment that the majority of the Libyan people are ‘just like us’ and ‘want the same freedoms as us’. Some will do, but most of them probably will not, and will instead cleave to the atavistic barbarous appeal of a Shariah-based state.

Do I wish Gaddhafi well? No. Do I wish the rebels well? Some of them, undoubtedly; others, certainly not.

The stance of the Conservative-led government with respect to this intervention demonstrates that something has gone deeply wrong with our foreign-policy establishment. From Blair to Brown, to Cameron and Clegg, the thread is unbroken; their foreign policies are seamless: military interventionism, globalisation and sovereign surrender to the EU and other transnational agencies. The leading lights of our governing parties are but the UK’s arm of an ugly, unresponsive and unaccountable globalist oligarchy. The time has come to kick them out. Only democratic nationalism can bring an end to this rot. There will soon be a viable political alternative, but in the interim, what further travails must we endure at the hands of these out-of-touch fools who dare to see themselves as our governing class?

As Iraq finished Blair, so shall Libya finish Cameron.

Who should determine the Future of Libya?

This evening, the panellists on Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze' debated the pros and cons and rights and wrongs of potential military intervention in Libya. Much of the debate thus centred upon a cluster of issues connected to state sovereignty, international law, Just War Theory and human rights. Ultimately, it was a debate that revolved around the central question of 'who should determine the future of Libya?'

For me, there can only be one answer to this question: the Libyan people themselves. Libyan sovereignty is under contention, with Gaddafi attempting to retain the state as his personal domain, whilst a popular uprising seeks to wrest control from him in the name of the Libyan people. Clearly, for a democratic nationalist the right to determine the future lies with the latter, not with a despot and his clique. What is equally clear however is that it is up to the Libyan people to determine that outcome and to establish their own post-Gaddafi government; it is not the business of the UN, NATO, the Gulf Co-operation Council, members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference or any other nation individually or in league with others to determine the future governance of Libya. Those who seek to overthrow the Gaddafi order have made it quite clear that they do not want foreign intervention, and any contravention of this request constitutes a violation of national sovereignty and democratic right.

The clamour for foreign intervention against Gaddafi is growing, emanating from a number of governments and those who advocate the deeply flawed approach that goes by the name of ‘humanitarian interventionism’. Unfortunately, the British government is foremost amongst those advocating military intervention, and David Cameron has made clear that all military options are under consideration including the deployment of ground troops. My primary objection to such an approach has already been made: any such action would constitute an intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation-state, but there are many more good reasons not to intervene:

• Firstly, there is no British national security interest at stake in Libya.  
• Secondly, any intervention by the UK, NATO or any other Western state or coalition thereof would be used by Gaddafi to rally Libyans to his cause by pointing to this as evidence of a ‘Western imperialist’ plot to depose him and subjugate Libya to their interests.  
• Thirdly, the argument that we should intervene upon so-called ‘humanitarian grounds’ is spurious, for if such grounds are to be used as justification to wage war on regimes around the globe, might not equal or better cases be made for war against North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma or China?  
• Fourthly, Western intervention in another Muslim majority state would recruit even more zealots to the international jihadist movement.  
• Fifthly, once Gaddafi was toppled, what objectives would any intervening power or coalition possess with a view to the reconstitution of the Libyan political order? Might it not prove to be as intractable and violent a quagmire as Iraq or Afghanistan? Where are the clear strategic objectives? There appear to be none. 
• Sixthly, military intervention always involves ‘collateral damage’. Given this, even Libyans who might conceivably call upon outside powers to intervene, could subsequently come to hate and resent them.  
• Seventhly, we are bankrupt and our armed forces have just been slashed and are militarily overstretched.

The case for the UK's potentially disastrous intervention in Libya appears to be driven by a fundamental lack of clear-headed strategic thinking regarding our national security. The Conservative Party, the FCO and RUSI all appear to have been infected by the globalist bacillus and its affiliated virus of 'humanitarian interventionism'. Our national security priorities should above all be national. We should thus focus upon securing our borders, eradicating pirates (yes, the pirates themselves, for without pirates there can be no piracy) and maintaining a suitable deterrent to ensure that we are never attacked by another state. Withdrawal from NATO should also be a top priority. We have no right to interfere in the affairs of other states, just as they have no right to interfere in our sovereign affairs. Libya for the Libyans, and Britain for the Britons. Show me someone who objects to that, and I’ll show you an anti-democrat.  

Camp of the Saints Nightmare Scenario Looms Closer

As suggested in the recent post on Lampedusa, the 6,000 Tunisian illegal immigrants who appeared on its shores in a matter of days, appear to have been but the harbingers of a mass human wave that will surge out of North Africa and the Middle East and into Europe. Into our already rapidly fracturing European societies this will inject a vigorous and aggressive Islamising impulse, and embolden the incomers’ established co-religionists to become more strident (in the language of our governments and special interest lobby groups -‘assertive’) in demanding privileges within their host states.

Just as in the Camp of the Saints, an appeal is being made to our better natures; to our compassion for our fellow human beings, in the face of the bloody tyranny of Gaddafi. Some 1,000 Libyans we are told, have lost their lives in recent days thanks to Gaddafi’s brutality. Already, 22,000 have fled Libya for Tunisia, and a further 15,000 for Egypt. Now, United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has waded in to instruct the European nations ‘to keep their borders open to people fleeing Libya.’ If our borders are opened, those that come are highly unlikely to ever return to Libya. They will instead stay, and then demand that their immediate and then extended families are brought here to live in perpetuity with full citizenship rights. And we shall have to pay for them; accommodate them; acquiesce to their ‘cultural sensitivities’, and put up with an ever-increasing demand for Sharia compliance.

Instead of admitting an influx of Libyans, Libya’s neighbouring nations should consider enforcing a no-fly zone over the country. We however, should not be involved in such intervention. Humanitarian assistance in the form of food, tents and medical supplies should be supplied to those areas of Libya which have already sloughed off Gaddafi’s rule, but Libyans should not be admitted into European nations. We have no holding facilities, and our legal and immigration systems are set up in such a way as to make it exceptionally difficult to enforce automatic deportation of incomers once the situation in their countries of origin has stabilised.

Admitting Libyans and Tunisians as ‘refugees’ will simply lead in the medium term to a mass permanent influx of Algerians, Egyptians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Jordanians, Syrians, etc into Europe which will deal a devastating blow to the freedoms and way of life of European peoples in our own countries. We will be barraged in the days, weeks and months ahead by propaganda in the mainstream media – particularly in the BBC – aimed at undermining our national sovereignties and admitting these outsiders. If this is permitted, this will inflict irreparable damage upon our societies, unless that is, the indigenous peoples of Europe react to show that they will not tolerate these people in their midst. Why should we surrender our lands, our liberties and our way of life to this de facto hostile colonisation?

Ban Ki-moon addresses the UN on the Situation in Libya