The Wisdom of the Phone Book

One will not likely find many people in the Boston phone book who would prefer to join the foreign army than their own in the event of a war between the United States and a foreign nation. In Europe, that certainty no longer exists.

Last week, my good friend David Brooks reminded us of a famous saying of the late Bill Buckley. As Buckley said, he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty.

There is usually more common sense, indeed wisdom, in the opinions of the common man than in the theories of intellectuals and even of professional politicians.

On opening the Brussels phone book and browsing through its first 2,000 names, however, one quickly realizes that to advocate Buckley's advice in contemporary Western Europe would lead to the installation of rulers with names reminiscent of Arabian Nights, names such as Aarab, Abbas, Abdel Kader, Abdellaoui, Al Mahi, Al Maghreb El Jadid, ...

The face of the old continent is changing faster than many realize and the repercussions are already being felt in Europe's elections. In many countries the Muslim vote is on the brink of tipping or has already tipped the electoral balance. Most immigration into Europe has been welfare immigration. Hence, it is no wonder that the immigrant vote favors the Left.

In the Netherlands, 70% of the immigrants participated in the 2006 Dutch general elections, with over 80% of them voting for the left. In the 2005 German general elections, 94% of the Germans of immigrant (mainly Turkish) origin voted for the parties of the left - Socialists, Greens or "Post"-Communists – who gained 51.1% of the national vote. In France, a country with over 10% Muslims, their electoral clout has become so important that even the far-right Front National tries to attract part of the Muslim vote.

The new generation of immigrant politicians cater for their fellow Muslims. They have little in common with the former Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born immigrant who was a Muslim apostate advocating anti-islamic legislation. Ms Hirsi Ali left the Dutch parliament in 2006 and moved to the United States.

The newly elected immigrant politicians, on the contrary, represent a growing and demographically young electorate that insists on asserting its Muslim identity. Their loyalties lie more with their countries of origin than with the Dutch nation, which they look upon mainly as a welfare distributing Santa Claus. In Belgium, Ergün Top, a Turkish-born Muslim politician who ran for the Senate last year, admitted that he feels more loyalty towards Turkey than towards Belgium. He told an audience of Turkish-born Belgian voters that if there ever were a war between Belgium and Turkey, he would join the Turkish army and fight Belgium.

This indicates that turning the tide of Islamization in Europe will be very difficult. So here is a new statement to replace Bill Buckley's famous words: If the first 2,000 names in the phone book sound more exotic than the university's faculty staff, elections are likely to be won by the Left and Sharia law is just around the corner.

 
Paul Belien is an Adjunct Fellow of The Hudson Institute. This article was first published at the website of The Hudson Institute New York

True Brits

There's a new book on the market at the moment (see link below) that gives amusing examples of British names from the past.The one thing the reader will notice when thumbing through its pages is the inherent "Britishness" of those names and the people who 'owned' them. If somebody should bother to 'write' a similar book in, say, fifty years from now, I wonder if the Briton of that time will find it as funny? Or, will the toxic combination of multiculturalism, political correctness and Islamization  have finally succeeded in killing that unique sense of "Britishness", too?  

 

http://www.pottyfartwellandknob.com/

 

Agreement

@ KO and Snorri Godhi

Thank you for clarifying comments. We basically agree. 

 

more (or less) loyalty

Hi Marcfrans: my comments are generally limited to the bits that I disagree with: when I do not comment on the main point of an article, that suggest that I agree with it.

OTOH, going back to the article, I see that the only loyalty which is explicitly mentioned is that of immigrants to their country of origin. As an immigrant myself (albeit within Europe), let me say that immigrants should be honest with themselves, and admit that the country where they live is better ON THE WHOLE than their country of origin; or else they must admit that they are idiots for having moved to a worse country.

No excuses here: our countries of origin can be better in SOME respects, but there must be something wrong with them IF the choice to leave has been rational. This "something" can be very serious, e.g. the threat of starvation or of capital punishment for political crimes, in which case it is simply insane to say: "I would be dead if I did not emigrate, but I wished I had stayed in my homeland."

Loyalty, indeed

I am somewhat perplexed, KA, that you questioned my point about loyalty, and then proceeded extensively to make more or less the same point (the "insane delusion etc..." in your words), although I would have phrased it quite differently.

Proximate Cause of Immigration Catastrophe

The purport of your terse comment, Marcfrans, as I understand it, was to steer the discussion back to Mr. Belien's article. What I jumped on was the notion, common among the elite who oppose any rational immigration reform, that the cause of the current social catastrophe in Western Europe and the U.S.A., and of the incipient civil conflict, lies in the failure of the immigrants to fully assimilate to and cherish their host societies. Left-liberals blame the moral defects of the hosts, right-liberals the moral defects of the immigrants and the left liberals who oppose assimilation. The proximate cause of the disaster, however, is the idiotic government policy that allowed the numbers of immigrants that have come. It was idiotic because it could only be expected to result in distress and conflict by anyone with any common sense, meaning an appreciation of human nature--education in history and ethnography not required. But liberals set aside common sense: left-liberals because they want to destroy white majority societies; right-liberals because a steady flow of cheap labor increases profits and prevents demands for higher wages, and because it feels good to look liberal to the left-liberals instead of being called a nasty racist. Indeed, we may conclude that these same liberals continue even now to value the benefits they seek, demographic revolution and cheap labor, more highly than the increasingly obvious high costs of their immigration policies. Lack of loyalty is the problem, indeed, and I should not have written as though I were taking you to task, Marcfrans. But the cause of this lack of loyalty is not a deficiency in the immigrants or the hosts, but of the policies that allowed the immigrants to come in the numbers they came and from the places from which they came. Those policies must be reversed so that Western nations may have immigration that adds to their wealth, security, and liberty, not immigration that breeds poverty, discord, and fear.

Who's to blame?

KO said: "Left-liberals blame the hosts, right-liberals the immigrants. The proximate cause of the disaster, however, is the idiotic government policy that allowed the numbers of immigrants that have come."

You won't find anyone who blames immigrants and cannot see the government responsibility in bringing them here.

"But liberals set aside common sense: left-liberals because the want to destroy white majority societies; right-liberals because a steady flow of cheap labor increases profits and prevents demands for higher wages, and because it feels good to look liberal to the left-liberals instead of being called a nasty racist."

The reason why an employer finds it economically rewarding to employ immigrants is that he is not made to pay for the full cost of their presence in the country, and he knows he won't have to pay any fine for hiring illegals. But I think the collective interest of employers is to stop immigration. It is only for an individual firm or a particular branch of the economy that it may be advantageous to hire immigrants. In other words, the self-interest of every individual and every firm is to cheat the system for self-profit. But I wonder why employers do not get together to stop immigration and protect their common interest. It should also be the job of government to enforce the law and defend the common interest against particular interests.

Blaming employers is almost as futile as blaming immigrants. If we blame employers, we should also blame immigrants, since they know they are not wanted.

Snorri Godhi said: "my comments are generally limited to the bits that I disagree with"

Me too!

Ostriches?

@ Snorri Godhi

You are entitled to your own prejudices, of course. But, I think it sad that no one commented on the main point in Mr Belien's article, which was the matter of "loyalty" and its necessity for any society to be able to survive.  

Loyalty?

Lack of loyalty is not the first thing that comes to mind in reading this article. Rather, what is striking is the insane delusion of an entire population that believes it can claim the loyalty of complete cultural aliens just because they inhabit the same soil. A country needs a certain level of conformity and unanimity to create an atmosphere of security in which freedom and creativity can grow. Naive left- and right-liberals who think everyone is the same (and infinitely malleable) don't understand this and flood Western countries with unassimilable aliens. Western countries need to adopt policies to secure outmigration of aliens. That will lower the temperature for the native population. The few aliens who remain will also be much better off. You can't be ghettoized if there are too few of you to fill a ghetto. You won't be jihadized if you're the only Moslem in town.

Too much diversity is tyranny. Too much diversity is weakness. There is no formula for optimal numbers of strangers. With Moslems, 1% seems to be a reasonable maximum. The optimum may be somewhat less.

Delusion?

KO said: "Rather, what is striking is the insane delusion of an entire population that believes it can claim the loyalty of complete cultural aliens just because they inhabit the same soil."

There is no widespread delusion. Most Europeans (common people taken from the phonebook) have always been against immigration.

"Naive left- and right-liberals who think everyone is the same (and infinitely malleable) don't understand this and flood Western countries with unassimilable aliens."

Most politicians realize what is going on but do not care enough, or lack the courage to dissent. They do not want any trouble with the media and with vicious far-left pro-immigration organizations. The philosophy of most politicians can be summed up as: after me, the deluge. They hope they will be dead before things turn nasty. I don't know exactly what are the motivations of the media and of pro-immigration organizations, but malice certainly plays a bigger part than misguided idealism. Idealistic morons who think that every race is the same are only a small minority. Knowing who owns the newspapers will also give a few indications as to the source of the problem. Another element of explanation is that, among leftist organizations, there is a sort of vicious circle where, in order to get to the top, you have to be the most unprincipled person and denounce every comrade who expresses doubts.

"They need to adopt policies to secure outmigration."

Well said.

why Boston??

If I had to choose 2000 Americans to rule, I certainly would not look to Boston.

Following is a comment that I posted on Pajamas Media not long ago (with small changes).

Off the top of my head, here is a list of people I’d like to be governed by, in order of decreasing preference:

1. a random selection from any Alaskan or Albertan telephone directory;
2. a random selection from any Dutch telephone directory;
3. a random selection from the Boston telephone directory;
4. a random selection of Italian fascists and/or Italian communists;
5. a random selection from the Ivy League.

The first UK phone book

The first entry in the first phone book in the UK was John Adam & Co, 11 Pudding Lane in the City of London. In 1916, Buckingham Palace appeared as Victoria 6913. And in 1925 Winston Churchil could be contacted on Paddington 1003.

Boston phone book

The Boston phone book probably contains many foriegn names now, so Buckley's saying may not be true anymore.