In Sadiq Khan’s London, Is Diversity Really Our Strength?

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?