If you have the slightest ambition to become one of London’s movers and shakers these days, a certain degree of anti-whiteness is non-negotiable – particularly if you happen to be afflicted with the disease of whiteness yourself. This is most clearly visible in that den of ambition, Westminster. Take the Liberal Democrats – a party bereft of policies, but unshakeable in their faith that anti-whiteness is the key to delivery.
The ashen-faced Nick Clegg claimed there were “Too many white men in Westminster”; whiter-than-white Tim Farron espoused the view that Shamima Begum would have been treated differently “If she was white and she was called Sharon”; pale-faced Jo Swinson thought the best way to emasculate her opponents was to classify them as “Six white men stuck in the past”; and the practically bleached Layla Moran kept it short and sweet, dubbing her own voters “Too old and white”.
Don’t be fooled into thinking such declarations are limited to the House of Commons however, the canker has spread. Every pillar of Britain, no matter how permanent, is now judged first and foremost by its degree of whiteness. Our parliament, our church, our universities, our schools, and our sports’ teams are now decried for their apparent lack of ‘diversity’. Even the Royal Family, having survived a millennium of internecine savagery, is nonetheless ‘terribly white’.
While the grievance industry provides a nice little earner for many, King of them all is London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who uses his considerable platform to promote and encourage ‘diversity’ – the shorthand for which it seems, is anything which ain’t white. It’s not exactly well-disguised, either. Before his election in 2016, Khan openly voiced concerns about the number of white men on the board of Transport for London:
“Thirteen of them are white men. Thirteen! Think about it. It only has three women on it. That’s less than one in five. ”
While it’s reassuring to know that Khan can count, the same numerical approach does not appear to complicate his thinking in other departments. You’re unlikely to hear him balk at the disproportionate Muslim population of Tower Hamlets and its concomitant propensity for vote fraud; neither will you ever hear him criticise the black population for monopolising both sides of the knife crime figures.
No. The white population appears his exclusive concern, which is why he flushed gammon-pink when white, bikini-clad models were erected all over the Tube, demanding to know whether Londoners were ‘beach body ready’. Naturally the Mayor couldn’t have that, and the adverts were promptly banned for the crime of ‘body-shaming’. The same reaction was mysteriously not triggered when the next scantily-dressed models turned out to be black: a welcome sexual display, which loosened the mayoral purse strings to the tune of £500,000 for ‘diversity in advertising’.
Indeed, Khan appears to prioritise diversity in all settings – with one exception: villains. Yes, it was by some extraordinary coincidence that the wrong’uns chosen to spearhead the Mayor’s 2022 ‘Have a word’ and 2023 ‘Maaate’ campaigns against misogyny were both white, working-class men, whom Khan appears to hold in particularly low esteem. What were the odds?
Last month’s Freudian slip however, illustrated an emboldened level of anti-whiteness from City Hall, as the Mayor’s official website (www.london.gov.uk/) published a photograph of a white family walking along the Embankment, alongside the extraordinary claim that it ‘doesn’t represent real Londoners’. By all means, read that again.
The photograph concerned was included in a guide entitled: ‘Look Book – Mayor of London Brand Guidelines’, and opened promisingly with the words ‘A city for all Londoners’. The guide further doubled-down on the pledge to appeal to ‘everyone no matter, their age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability or family make up’ – before writing white families out of the equation altogether. The rubric went on to explain that the Mayor should be ‘shown interacting in real and relatable environments’, highlighting the need to avoid ‘staged’ and ‘set up’ photos. The ‘unstaged’ example given was the Mayor centre-stage, basking in the adoring gaze of 13 United Colours of Benetton extras, only one of whom was white (albeit, admittedly female).
Understandably, such a story provoked anger from London’s unrepresentative white population. Rather than face the fire, the Mayor it seems was otherwise engaged; leaving it for his spokesperson to do the customary scapegoating: ‘The photo caption was added by a staff member in error, and doesn’t reflect the view of the Mayor or the Greater London Authority.’ But this is extremely unlikely to be true. For a start, where would such a faceless ‘staff member’ get the idea from?
Social media perhaps? Take a cursory scroll down the London Mayor’s selfie-obsessed Twitter feed (which he either runs, contributes to, or at least approves of), and you will find beyond the token white face, white families and white people in general are no longer representative of Londoners – at least those with whom Khan voluntarily comes into contact.
It is noteworthy that the only occasions which genuinely excite Khan, are ones which have little to do with London and indigenous Londoners. Take the highlights of this year’s mayoral calendar, which saw Khan delighting at the first ever Ramadan illumination in the West End; the Notting Hill Criminal Amnesty (sorry, Carnival), and the latest exercise in division, ‘Black on the Square’ – a celebration of Black Londoners. In other words, anything non-white.
Put simply, the Mayor’s job is ‘To make London a better place for everyone who visits, lives or works in the city’. But it appears Khan is using London as a base from which to celebrate non-whiteness, in increasingly brazen displays. A divisive figure for Mayor bodes ill for a cosmopolitan city such as London – but one who openly disapproves of the native population is willingly sowing the seeds of discontent.
I am firmly of the view that Khan is anti-British and anti-white. I have no objection to that, apart from the rather obvious disclaimer that this ill suits him to the London mayoralty. I would however, like to see him come out and declare it openly – he might be surprised at how much support he gets. In the meantime, perhaps the unrepresentative masses could offer Khan the following tried and tested advice: “Maaate, have a word!”
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
There’s a certain shared comfort in being discriminated against. As an ageing white male I find it curiously warming to be described as an “old sexist gammon”. The fact that this is completely untrue, that indeed I spent my life supporting the oppressed of whatever sexual inclination, gender dysphoria or pantone variety, is somehow a proof and a vindication of my post-war cultural background – the Deconstruction of the Theatre of the Absurd. All that matters now is the shared community of victimhood. As Meursault on the scaffold, all I feel is the awesome freedom.
Bring it on.
Pingback: A Very Hypocritical Khant - The New Conservative
Pingback: A Very Hypocritical Khant - The Truth Report