For Sadiq Khan, the defense and promotion of “diversity” has become an obsession. Last summer, Sadiq Khan earned the outrage of many Londoners for his expensive focus on this “diversity”; they discovered he now spends annually close to $2 million on”diversity” bosses for London Transport, far more than he does on employees devoted to keeping fares down, or on improving safety in the system.
Here’s some of Khan’s praise of “diversity” from 2019:
London mayor Sadiq Khan told reporters that diversity is one of the British capital’s strengths in the wake of the London Bridge attack, and that all great cities are targets for terrorists.
Not “all great cities” are targets of terrorists. Only those cities where there are significant populations of Muslims are such targets. Such cities as Shanghai, Moscow, Rio De Janeiro, Canberra have very few Muslims, and almost no terrorism. Sadiq Khan is hoping that no one will dare to investigate his claim that “all great cities are targets for terrorists.”
And after the London Bridge attack, Khan had the effrontery to claim that “diversity” is “one of [London’s] great strengths,” when the attack was merely further proof that the “diversity” provided by Muslims in Great Britain had led to more terrorism, from the 7/7/2005 metro and bus bombings, to the macabre murder by two machete-wielding Muslims of Drummer Rigby, to the killing of MP David Arness while he was meeting with constituents, by Islamic State supporter Ali Harbi Ali. Such “diversity” is also responsible for the grooming gangs of Pakistanis who have seduced, drugged, and passed around like candy for the sexual pleasure of their friends, tens of thousands of young British girls, whose lives have been ruined. “Diversity” has brought a world of woe to the people of Great Britain.
“Look, I’m mayor of the greatest city in the world, and one of our strengths is our diversity,” he told reporters shortly the attack by Usman Khan, a convicted radical Islamic terrorist who had been freed from prison on a tag after serving less than half of a 16-year term, which left two dead and three injured.
This insistence that “diversity is our strength” is the byword not just of Sadiq Khan, but of many European politicians, and above all, of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who in just one year — 2015 — allowed one million Muslims into Germany. It is stated as a given; no evidence need be offered. But why should we accept this assertion? Is all “diversity” a “source of strength”? What kind of “strength”? Start asking these questions, and you will not get a coherent answer, but merely self-satisfied and bullying repetition of the mantra — “diversity is our strength” — that brooks of no disagreement. It needs no proof, for there is none. In Seoul, in Beijing, in Tokyo, in Warsaw, in Budapest, there is precious little diversity, and no one in those cities appears to be longing for it to arrive, so that those capitals can be more like the London of Sadiq Khan. London’s “diversity” finds its expression not just in the terrorist attacks that fill Londoners with anxiety, but in the crime wave of stabbings by Muslim criminals, in the “greatest city in the world.” The “diversity” that the 3.5 million Muslims have brought to Great Britain includes, as well, the Pakistani rooming gangs in a dozen of its cities that have destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of English girls, the victims of “diversity” whom Sadiq Khan appears not to have noticed.
“But we do know there are people out there who hate our diversity, hate what we stand for, and are trying to seek to divide us”, he added — although his grounds for appearing to suggest that terrorists despise Britain for being diverse were unclear.
Muslim terrorists don’t hate an abstraction called “diversity.” They hate Infidels not for their views (“what they stand for”), but simply because they are Infidels. No other reason need be given. Muslim terrorists are not killing people because they “hate diversity,” but because they hate all non-Muslims, as instructed by the Qur’an and hadith. The Qur’an teaches Muslims that they are the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings.” Given that, why would any Muslim want to integrate into a society created by Infidels? Even in an overwhelmingly Muslim country such as Pakistan, where there is no “diversity” to speak of, Muslims still have been guilty of terrorizing, and murdering, members of the tiny communities of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and Ahmadis.
Who are the people who are taught to “hate our diversity”? Sadiq Khan thinks it is the British. But the British are the ones who opened their doors to immigrants from all over. They were prepared to embrace “diversity,” and for a time did so. But by now they have been mugged by the reality of Muslim crime, Muslim grifters on the government dole, Muslim hatred of Infidels. The British do not object to other immigrants — Hindus, Chinese, Andean Indians, Filipinos, black Christians from sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. The British now understand the havoc Muslim migrants wreak on government finances, because of the billions of dollars spent on them annually, have noticed the steep rise both in property crimes, and in crimes of violence, including rapes, and murders, for which Muslims have been responsible. They also feel the physical insecurity created by young Muslim men who find it great fun to attack non-Muslims on the streets; it’s even more fun if the victims are Jews or women who are dressed “inappropriately.” Why should Muslims, the “best of peoples,” want to have anything to do with Infidels, “the most vile of created beings”? After all, the Qur’an tells Muslims not to take Christians or Jews as friends, “for they are friends only with each other.” The doctrine of Al-wala’ wa-l-bara’ (Arabic: الولاء والبراء) is a concept in Islam, literally “loyalty and disavowal,” which signifies loving and hating for the sake of Allah. This type of love requires Muslims to love those who are obedient to Allah and to defend and assist them, and to hate those who are disobedient, which means all non-Muslims.
Muslims are thus taught not to integrate into a non-Muslim society but, instead, are instructed in many dozens of Qur’anic verses to fight, to kill, to smite at the necks of, to strike terror in the hearts of, non-Muslims. Is such a population a source of “strength” for British society, or is it, rather, a source of physical danger and societal disarray? We know the answer to this: look at the London that Sadiq Khan has helped create, and what his cherished “diversity” has meant to the social fabric, and to the physical safety, of Londoners.
Sadiq Khan had posted on his mayoral website an official guide on how to portray the “brand” of the mayor and the Greater London Authority. It included a a photograph of a young white family with the words: “’Doesn’t represent real Londoners.”
This nastiness appeared despite the fact that the guide opened with the words: “A City For All Londoners,” and a promise to appeal to “everyone, no matter their age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability or family make up.” Apparently the Mayor’s attempt at inclusivity did not include one group of people — white people in London — whom he claimed are not “real Londoners,” unlike, say, those of Pakistani descent, such as Sadiq Khan himself.
After the fury broke, Sadiq Khan offered as his excuse that he had no idea what appeared as his official guide to London, a guide that he had offered as his own work; he claimed that someone else in his office, without his knowledge, had added the remark “doesn’t represent real Londoners.” I think Sadiq Khan knew exactly what was in the caption; either he wrote it himself, or if an aide wrote it, Khan — famously known to micromanage — would certainly have gone through every word in that guide before posting it on his official website. Of course he knew what words appeared over that photograph.
That is the pass to which the U.K. has now come, thanks to the millions of Muslims who are now in the country, and voting their fellow Muslims – such as Sadiq Khan — into high office, where they have already begun the process of marginalizing the native English by describing them, if they live in London, as “not representing real Londoners.”
When will the voters in London send the intolerable Sadiq Khan packing? What more must Khan do to be unseated as mayor by those he describes as “not real Londoners”? When will the British take back their own country, and its capital?
Kalit says
He’s very crafty and cynical and knows how to keep his constituency happy by throwing taxpayers money at them in strategic ways. Idiot Londoners virtue signal by voting for a Muslim.
John Allan says
Well, even Khan can’t avoid the (re)election process.
Though I’m sure he’d love to!
And it ISN’T the British, per se … it’s specifically Londoners!
As for terrorists …. perhaps the government would care to reintroduce the Capital Penalty!
ESPECIALLY for them!
And the courts utilise it!
ESPECIALLY for them!
John Allan says
‘When will the British take back their own country, and its capital?’
The BRITISH!!?
Try ENGLISH!!
Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, are separate countries; each with its OWN capital!
Wellington says
Actually, they are not separate countries. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all part of one country officially, i.e., the United Kingdom. I understand the often intense pride felt by the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish (especially the Protestant Irish in Northern Ireland) but they’re still part of only one nation. Scotland, as an example, has not been a separate country since 1707 though it did get its own Parliament back in 1999.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I once saw Mark Steyn discuss this w/ historian David Starkey on the British identity. While outside Britain, they have the identity of British, and indeed, that even spreads to other members of the “realm” (the countries that still have King Charles as their monarch, like Australia, Canada, NZ and several others). However, within Britain, it’s English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. Of course, Wales is another conundrum, since it’s a part of England according to some definitions, and separate according to some others. But yeah, it is a legitimate debate
I do think that the UK should splinter up and let England, Scotland and Wales all be their separate countries, and let Northern Ireland decide whether or not it wants to unite w/ Dublin. (I doubt that there’s any Protestant vs Catholic issue there any more: both would be flooded w/ enough muslims to make it a unifying factor ?) After all, the real problem w/ the EU was a super-bureaucracy from Brussels, and I doubt that that gets much better in London, where they still operate like in the “Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister” serial in the 80s.
So forget the conquests of Wales by King Edward I, or the merger of Scotland after James VI became James I, and let all 3 countries be independent, & decide their own policies. If Scotland wants to rejoin the EU, let it – w/o dragging England along w/ it. Similarly, the English too can do what they like w/o having to get okayed by the Welsh or Scots
John Smith says
Infidel
I live in Wales and speak Welsh, but I’d never want to see the country split up. I most certainly would never vote for Plaid Cymru ( Wales is equivalent to Scotland’s SNP party,) They present themselves as putting Wales and its people first, but infact they are putting Wales and its people last. One of their policies is to turn Wales into the worlds first nation of sanctuary for refugees. Would you believe it. They are the most treacherous party on the planet, and their policies would destroy our culture and nation in no time at all.
Wellington says
I didn’t know until now, John Smith. that you spoke Welsh. What a magnificent language it is, and a very difficult language to learn unless one is brought up with it.
My understanding is that Wales became part of England during the reign of Henry VIII and that Monmouthshire was then made the 40th English county although since reverting back to Wales.
Anyway, and though with Welsh, Scottish, English and Irish “divisions” being of long standing, nevertheless all four mentioned above should stand as one against what Islam intends for all four. If I know anything, I at least know this.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
John Smith
Although born in India, I spent something like 4 of my first 7 years as a kid in Swansea. My dad mentioned to me that when he first joined his employer there, his boss said to him, “We pretty much envy you: you all got your independence, but we don’t”. This was in the 70s, long before anyone in Wales had heard of muslims, but based on that, I have always rooted for Welsh independence. As in reversing King Edward I, not as in making it into a Pakistan over the Bristol Channel (I’ve always wondered why it’s called a channel rather than a gulf, which is what it is ?), As for the language, I’ve always marveled at how you seem to drop all the vowels (like in Llywelyn) ?
I would wish that Wales got a true nationalist party that did put Wales first i..e. secede from England, but not throw it open to people from outside, but follow Hungary-like policies of encouraging native Welsh people to have plenty of kids and populate the entire peninsula. I know that Wales has its own assembly, but really wish it could have its own cricket teams as well, instead of being part of England’s. I believe that in some sports, like soccer, you do have your own teams, but it would be nice to see Welsh identity there in all sports, instead of being a part of English in some, & separate in others
Wellington
If I recall right, Wales was conquered by King Edward I of England, not by Henry VIII. Unlike Scotland, which merged w/ England by King James VI inheriting the Tudor throne, Wales was conquered: it didn’t get to put its ruler on the throne in London
Wellington says
You are correct, Infidel, that Edward I conquered Wales in the late 13th century but it was Henry VIII who officially incorporated Wales into England in the 1530s.
The merger of Scotland and England truly occurred when in 1707 England and Scotland technically ceased to exist as separate nations and became the nation of Great Britain. James VI of Scotland coming to the throne of England in 1603 where he became James I of England was nothing more than a personal union because both countries shared the same monarch (the Stuart dynasty).
In 1801 Great Britain and Ireland were combined to create yet another new nation, i.e., the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which became in 1922 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when 26 of Ireland’s 32 counties broke away to form, in effect, an independent nation. This remains the status to this day.
Wellington says
It’s been my observation that the more that diversity is emphasized in any Western nation the more divided that nation is. To Hell with diversity. I’m for unity.
Rarely says
I don’t know what the phrase “Diversity is our Strength” means.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
It’s part of the gobbledygook of our unhinged and giddy globe.
somehistory says
the mozlum’s favorite group are “diverse” in their ways of murdering and terrorizing the rest of mankind.
stabbing, shooting, running over with large vehicles, bombing buses, road bombs, train bombings. hijacked planes, poisonings, acids, and along with those, whining about the ‘backlash, hatred, scarves, phobia, etc. to “divert” attention from what they are “diversely” doing.
Aum says
Londoners please show Sharia Khan the door at next election.
Oldbrummie says
There will likely never be another non muslim mayor of London; muslim voters will ensure it never happens.
VictorMc says
This is so simple.
London has long been a BLACK city. Boris was its last white mayor. Nobody understood that!
PS: I left there with my family 40+ years ago and it’s the best decision I ever made in life.
Sir Peter says
Khan has to be removed
terry says
Diversity in the macabre, surreal world of zombies led by our pontificating self-appointed earth savants, simply means divide and conquer- not engraft and tolerate as they pretend. The words and actions these define the sense of meaning…