The voters of London have elected a new mayor. Sadiq Khan is the first Muslim mayor of the Imperial Capital City, indeed the first elected mayor of any major Western Capital. The Drudge Report is aghast as is some of the right-ish media. I am not.

Drudge. May 7, 2016.

I have been a harsh critic of the mass migration/invasion of Europe and the West by incompatible third-worlders, particularly by radical Islamists. I am not as pessimistic (realistic, maybe) as Taki; I think the problems are far-gone but not gone too far just yet. It was with this perspective that I analyzed the London election. Things are not always what they seem on the surface. As far as it goes, I rather like Mr. Khan.

First, consider the demographics behind the election. London is a massive city with nearly 10 million residents centered in a metropolitan region of nearly 15 million. Status-wise it is a combination of New York City and Washington, D.C. Until the rise of those cities in the previous century London was the financial and political center of the world (it still vies heavily for the title). London, unlike its American relatives, is an ancient city; Londinium was settled by the Romans in 43 AD. It was fully resettled by Island natives two centuries before William swept across the Channel (with a certain Lovett in train, by the way).

London was the capital of an Empire which controlled vast swaths of the Americas, Africa, and the East, near and far. Over the past five decades from its former colonies have come a multitude of non-Westerners. The City is now about half non-white, non-native British; more than 40% of the population is foreign born. This recent sea-change explains, partially, how a Muslim named Kahn could get elected.

Now, let us look at the man who was elected. Khan’s parents are Indian, by way of Pakistan (both former British colonies). The family arrived in London in the late 1960s. Sadiq was born in 1970, the fifth of eight children.

Khan, like many immigrants prior to the welfare/terrorism/”refugee” hoards, was a hard worker from an early age. He ran a paper route and worked construction before going to law school. After school he worked as a solicitor (trial attorney). His specialty was human rights.

Some of his cases handled as a solicitor have an American-sounding slant. In Bubbins vs. The United Kingdom, [2005] All ER (D) 290, European Court of Human Rights, (Mar., 2005), Khan successfully represented the family of an unarmed Britain gunned down by police snipers (sound familiar, America?).

Khan, not particularly dangerous looking. Wiki.

Politically, Khan has held various elected and appointed positions including powerful shadow offices. Under the British model, the out-of-power party always maintains a shadow government, inactive but ready to assume operation unless or until called in via a political change, which can occur rapidly under the parliamentary system.

Khan is a British Liberal’s liberal but not necessarily a Muslim’s Muslim. His stance in favor of gay “marriage” earned him a death sentence and led an Imam to declare him no Muslim at all. It appears his politics will suit the current flavor of London well. If he maintains his defense of human rights, he may be a breath of fresh air.

Now for a brief glimpse at the competition. In Britain, as in America and other places, many cheer on “their” party and candidates with psychotic fervor. Labor and Tory are nearly synonymous with Democrat and Republican. The “conservatives” usually demonstrate one can’t spell “conservative” without “con”.

Against Khan the Tories ran one Zacharias Goldsmith (nee Goldschmidt). Like many Tories, Goldschmidt says the right things for the wrong reasons. London is a major finance center. Zac opposes tax increases, not because they amount to theft, but because he desperately wants to protect banksters. He has good reason as his extraordinarily wealthy family is in league with the Rothschilds. The Gold-Ss (whatever money-changing term in whatever language) also immigrated to Britain – having  crept in during the mid Seventeenth Century.

Whatever his conservative positions are, behind them one will expect to find that Zac holds them out of expedience and only to promote his family’s interests. He is of a class Cato once equated with murderers. He, unlike Khan, has never done manual labor and likely doesn’t give a damn about human rights. I may be wrong but I doubt it.

I have not in too deeply investigated the election beyond the news stories. If I lived in London and if I bothered to vote, I would have likely supported Peter Whittle or some other UKIP candidate – I relish throwing away a good vote. Between the two major parties the people seem to have picked the better man, certainly the lesser of two evils.

Now for the clean up if you happen to know what my title means.