There were a grand total of 1,890 men of Uzbek nationality in Sweden in 2016.
There were a grand total of 1,890 men of Uzbek nationality in Sweden in 2016.
In a recent, widely shared Facebook post, Margarita Simonyan, the ethnic Armenian chief editor of RT, has asked what exactly a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnicity did to get Russian citizenship while ethnic Russians from the wartorn Donbass struggle to even get a residency permit:
The nurse of my children and her family, whom we evacuated from Donbass after having massed a vast thicket of queues, insults, delays, examinations, etc., can’t acquire a Russian residency permit after three years. This is despite my “administrative resource,” which, I freely admit, in this particular case I freely used. This family are simply Russian people with a Russian mentality, language, faith, biographies, and connection to the Motherland. Hard-working people who would be of GREAT USE to our country where, as is well known, there is a demographic crisis and a shortage of people. Fuck them, no residence permit! But here comes Akbarzhon Jalilov, who received Russian citizenship five years ago. CITIZENSHIP!
I have two questions in this regard:
1) Who, and under what circumstances, provided this citizenship. Perhaps at the time he was just a nice schoolboy, who had solid reasons for getting citizenship in my country. Or perhaps not, especially on account of consequent events. I don’t want to judge without first knowing all the details. But I do want an answer.
2) For how long will Russia continue to be embarassed to give citizenship to Russian people just on account of them being ethnic Russians. Like how it is done in “respectable” countries from Israel to Germany. I don’t understand.
This note of protest is especially striking in light of the fact that Margarita Simonyan is the quintessential Putinist Russian patriot, and as such, an object of loathing from the pro-Western liberal opposition, who simply hate Russia and Russians, to the more extreme Russian ethnonationalists, who hate her for her Armenian ancestry and for her status as a “stalwart of the regime.”
Putin once called Russians – specifically, ethnic Russians – the “biggest divided nation in the world.” But the time has come for back up his words with actions. He can now either take the side of the Russian people, or double down on the friendship of peoples project that will eventually lead to either Navalny or Greater Turkestan.
Total new citizenships: 265,319. (USA: 653,416 people in 2014, so about equal in per capita terms).
It is utterly absurd that in per capita terms, there are as many Tajiks (0.27% of their population) getting RF citizenship as Ukrainians (0.24%), and three times as many Armenians (0.74% of their population). There is no humanitarian crisis in Tajikistan or in Armenia, whereas the population of just the LDNR – at war, under Ukrainian blockade – is greater than Armenia’s.
If Putin was truly the Putler of the Western imagination, Russia would be giving away RF passports like confetti in the LDNR. In reality, he is more of a Putlet.
|TOTAL by country||265,319|
|Moldova, Republic of||17,397|
|PERSONS WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP||11,042|
|Syrian Arab Republic||334|
|Iran, Islamic Republic of||33|
|Palestine, The State||30|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||22|
|United Kingdom (United Kingdom)||15|
|Bolivia, a multinational state||7|
|Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of||6|
|The Republic of Macedonia||4|
|Korea, Republic of||3|
|North Korea (North Korea)||1|
|United Arab Emirates||1|
|Tanzania, United Republic of||1|
Here is why the US needs a Big Beautiful Wall in one graph:
Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua are the top four source countries of illegal immigrants to the US.
The American White percentage of the population has been dropping relentlessly for more than half a century, in large part due to immigration itself.
Here is the same graph compared to just US Non-Hispanic Whites:
Let’s play with some simple, easy to understand numbers (also the necessary autism-borne disclaimers: No radical life extension, no artificial wombs, no singularity, etc).
A very loose but useful rule of thumb in demographics is that the steady state future population (minus migration) equals the numbers of births per year times the life expectancy.
Life expectancy can be set to 80 for everyone.
The steady state population of the US, with around 4 million yearly births in recent years, is therefore around 320 million, which is exactly what it is today (this makes intuitive sense, since the TFR is around the replacement level rate).
Of that number, about 160 million will be Whites, down from 200 million today, and the other 160 million will be minorities, up from 120 million today.
With annual births stabilizing at around 2.5 million, there should eventually be around 200 million people in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, up by about 60 million people relative to today.
Trump’s Wall will play a big role in determining the geographic distribution of that future 200 million north or south of the Rio Grande.
Well, apart from the Gulf states – thanks in large part to coming from such a low base that even subcontinental coolies are an improvement over the natives.
Otherwise, the cognitive impact of immigration – at least as proxied by the differences in performance on the PISA tests between the national average, which includes immigrant children, versus only native children – is almost entirely negative for its supposed beneficiaries across the entire world.
Even those few countries with expressly “cognitively elitist” immigration policies see only the most modest of benefits: Singapore: +0.7; Canada: -0.1; Australia: -0.2.
Otherwise, the only countries not to be significantly affected are those which see little immigration in general, such as Japan and Korea. So perhaps the best way of “winning” the game to attract quality immigrants is to avoid playing it in the first place.
Western Europe is a complete disaster zone, getting a harder cognitive hit even though the immigrant share of their population is considerably smaller than the US, where they constitute almost a quarter of the PISA-taking population. The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants. Moreover, there is no full convergence between first and second generation immigrants. Although one can hope the children of all those Syrian “doctors and engineers” will go on to become productive and loyal citizens, past experience suggests that they will merely bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass.
The situation in the US is actually considerably better than in Europe – the low-IQ Central Americans, who are not sending their best, are counterbalanced by the millions of talented East Asians, Indians, and other intelligent and highly motivated people who still want to make America their home. Thanks to that the world’s biggest immigrant nation only loses 1.3 IQ points due to all the newcomers. Donald Trump is promising a big beautiful wall to stem the rising tide of color from the south, but even if he fails to come through, at least the mestizos have better tempers and aren’t wont to blow up like the Mohammedans. The choice between Eurabian dhimmitude or fusing with La Raza Cosmica isn’t exactly hard.
Russia only loses 0.4 IQ points due to immigration, which sounds surprising low, given that Central Asia appears to be a cognitive black hole – Kyrgyzstan, by far not the worst state in the region, came dead last in PISA 2012, and Lynn and Grigoriev have estimated the IQs of Kazakhs and Uzbeks in Kazakhstan to lie in the 80s (very comparable to the chasm between European America and Central America).
I suspect this is down to the following three big factors.
First, for all the nationalist rhetoric, in comparative terms the demographic inflow into Russia from the “Global South” is still rather modest; (official) annual immigration runs at about 300,000 souls per year, and a big part of that now accrues to Ukraine (in contrast, about 500,000 people immigrate to the UK every year, despite its population being more than twice lower than Russia’s). This is backed up by the PISA 2015 statistics, according to which only 7% of the Russian schoolchildren who sat the test have an immigrant background, versus 17% in both the UK and Germany, and 23% in the US.
Second, I assume that the children of the ethnic Russians who repatriated to Russia in the 1990s – in absolute numbers, they would still easily outnumber the Central Asians and Caucasians who came in the 2000s – are also counted as immigrants, and thus “dilute” the negative influence of the Uzbeks and Tajiks. Finally, it is also quite likely that the Central Asian “immigrant” Russians are brighter than the average Russian who never left: First, it was typically (genuine) doctors, engineers, and other specialists who were sent to develop Central Asia under the Soviet Union, and second, getting out of the place after the Soviet collapse was kind of an IQ test of its own. Both of these points may have served to artificially raise the quality of statistically-defined immigrants to Russia and to thus dilute the size of its hit on Russian national IQ.
The UK doesn’t do too badly – only a 0.9 IQ point hit – because the Anjem Choudarys are partially canceled out by talented and ambitious Europeans. Many of the finance and technological firms in the City of London are majority staffed by talented foreigners. There are 200,000 French citizens in London.
Given the strong dependence between national IQ and economic prosperity, the globalist open borders project presents a serious challenge to the long-term viability of the First World cognitive engines that drive the vast bulk of technological progress – progress that is already threatened by the dysgenic trends embedded in post-Malthusian society and the banal fact that problems tend to get harder, not easier, as you ascend the technological ladder. This is not to even mention the risk of “institutional contagion” from newcomers who are culturally and perhaps biologically incompatible with that unique blend of individualism and commitment to the commonweal that facilitated the rise of European civilization.
As the neoreactionaries have argued, to cultivate a garden, you first need to build a wall. We needed to have started building it yesterday, but late is better than never.
|2||United Arab Emirates||6.22|
|53||Hong Kong (China)||-0.77|
|60||Trinidad and Tobago||-1.10|
PS. A list of native IQs converted from PISA according to calculations by commenter “m”:
Online version with hyperlinks: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ea-and-intelligence-theory/
I am a blogger and independent researcher who is interested in the intersections of intelligence theory, futurism, economics, and geopolitics.
Here is a summary of my ideas relevant to Effective Altruism:
Intelligence is central to explaining the wealth and poverty of nations, so a good understanding of it is central to formulating good EA-based policies.
Important implications for EA follow from this, some obvious – some less so, and some outright controversial.
Obvious: The necessity of IQ-ameliorating interventions, especially in the developing world. There have already been resounding successes on this front historically (salt iodization). Work on micronutrient supplementation and deworming is extremely effective and should continue, as the EA community has long recognized.
Less Obvious: Improving IQ in the developed world, since it is so strongly associated with greater prosperity and performance across all metrics of civilization (which also results in less need for charity in the first place). Unfortunately, all schooling interventions tried to date have been shown to be inefficacious, so we need to be more ambitious. We need to throw more money and brainpower at the genetics of IQ; CRISPR/Cas9 and other gene editing techniques; and more speculatively, neural augs. There are many “intersectionalities” between EA and machine intelligence safety research; more intelligent humans will find it easier to understand the case for caution and help decrease the likelihood of a malevolent “breakout.”
Controversial: It is time to look more critically at the Open Borders orthodoxy within the EA community (Karlin 2015):
Did you find any of this interesting, intriguing, or at least not completely bonkers?
It appears that the elites who have lobbied for cheap labor and lectured us on the benefits of vibrant diversity aren’t so keen on sticking around to enjoy the multicultural paradises they helped create.
At least, these are the obvious conclusions to be drawn from a recently released report by New World Wealth on millionaire migration in 2015.
The country with the single largest outflow of millionaires is France, losing 3% of them last year alone. According to the report, these figures were “heavily impacted by rising religious tensions between Christians and Muslims, especially in urban areas.” I suppose that is one way of putting it. These trends are predicted to accelerate in the next decade “as these tensions escalate,” and similar “religious tensions” are also expected to “negatively affect” countries such as Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the UK “in the near future.” Where is Monsieur MoneyBags taking off to? “Tel Aviv had large inflows from Europe, especially France. Other Israeli cities such as Herzliya, Jerusalem and Netanya also experienced inflows.” Well, no wonder many French nationalists and anti-Zionists are so suspiciously Islamophilic.
London experienced a net inflow of 500 millionaires in 2015, a decrease over previous years because of the rising number of British-born millionaires leaving for other parts of England – “mainly to small towns in the London commuter belt along the Thames” – and to other parts of the Anglosphere such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the US. One would note that these countries tend to have lower tax rates, nicer climates, and if not a lack of diversity, then at least cognitively elitist immigration policies designed to only let the cleverer (or at least wealthier) sorts inside. In contrast, as noted in the New World Wealth report, millionaire arrivistes to London were almost entirely foreigners. It further predicts that “this may be a trend that continues in future as several wealthy UK born people that we spoke to said they were concerned about the way London and the UK in general had changed over the past decade or so.” We ever so wonder what they mean by that. “Australia seems to be their preferred destination.” Presumably, they would rather their children live in Singapore Down Under instead of AfroEurabia.
What’s particularly striking about all this is that France and Italy have more millionaire expats, even in percentage terms, than does Russia – a country whose apatride elites are infamous for buying up properties in London and Florida and sending their children off to British boarding schools. This is frequently cited in the Western media (and the Russian media too) as evidence of well-heeled Russians “voting with their feet” against the legal nihilism and and ideological bankruptcy under Putin, but if so what does it then say about those far richer Western countries where the numbers of fleeing millionaires are surging well past those of Putin’s “mafia state”?
This applies all the more so for China. Although there have likewise been numerous media reports of how rich Chinese are “fleeing” their country en masse – as with Russia, inevitably either to safeguard their hard-earned wealth from the rapacity of government bureaucrats or to stash away the misbegotten proceeds of corruption – the actual numbers for them (relative to the size of their millionaire pool) are actually very modest. It appears that relatively more Chinese millionaires are prepared to wait a few more years for China to resolve its air pollution problems than French millionaires are to wait a few more years for the French Socialists to make another go at introducing an 80% top bracket income tax rate to pay for the rising welfare and prison costs of all those incoming doctors and engineers.
If you are to treat the numbers of Chinese and Russian millionaires leaving as “pedal votes” against the corruption and political malfeasance of their countries, then logic and consistency likewise dictates that you apply the same judgmental approach to the even larger European millionaires fleeing the diversity their governments have been imposing on them. Ironically, of course, just as the elites in Russia or China are at least as much the enablers of the corruption and governance problems that afflict them as they are its victims, so the elite class in Europe has been instrumental in supporting policies that are now pushing them out of their own countries (not that we should be too sorry about their plight: Unlike them, the middle and working classes do not have the means to leave at all. But their money and human capital will be missed).
But for some reason, I don’t see the Western media using this as to bludgeon France or Sweden like they do with Russia or China. After all, the latter two are America’s geopolitical rivals, while the former are loyal servants of the globalist nation wreckers who rule the West.
With the sole exception of Berlin, which is close to rock bottom, the former GDR states along with Bavaria were consistently at the top of the ratings. 50-60 points difference correspond to two years’ worth of learning progress.
Saxony, home of Pegida and known in the Cold War as the “valley of the clueless” because its specific geography hampered Western radio and TV broadcasts, is at the very top.
This is confirmed by the regional PISA results for 2009.
What could possibly explain this?
Who could have imagined?
In reality, East Germans are nothing special academically; they are about mid-range compared to the average ethnic German elsewhere in Germany.
The key difference is that East Germans had yet to be really enriched back when these tests were carried out. The map above shows the percentage of immigrants in the German districts as of 2011.
On a historical note, it’s possible that the roots of the South German – that is, Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg – dominance on the German cognitive scoreboard are pretty old.
Thirty years after the printing press first appeared in Europe, you could already begin to discern three distinct clusters of concentration – Northern Italy, the Low Countries, and South Germany. (The first two, of course, were famous for their respective Renaissances). Back then, there was no independent Protestant pro-literacy effect, so we might expect to see a considerable correlation across Catholic Europe between literacy rates and IQ (though back then climatic factors would had a much bigger influence in suppressing literacy rates in the colder, less urbanized areas of Northern Europe). And it is reasonably to suppose that there was likewise a good correlation between literacy rates and the adoption of the printing press.
Furthermore, unlike the Low Countries and Italy, South Germany is a hilly inland area, an environment that tends to depress IQ (iodine deficiency – the European alpine areas used to be known for having many cases of goitre and cretinism), so their achievement in quickly accumulating such a high density of printing presses nonetheless must have already hinted at a very respectable genotypic IQ.
I seem to recall reading in National Literacy Campaigns and Movements, as in Sweden, there were ecclesiastical reglaments making marriage more difficult for illiterate people in southern Germany from the 18th century. If so this would have been a eugenic policy that helped maintain or increase further those high IQ levels, though the effect would have been attenuated by the Bavarians having one of Europe’s highest illegitimacy rates (something like 27% IIRC).
One of the problems critics of mass immigration face is that there aren’t that many concrete statistics on their crime rates (substantially thanks to European institutions being in the habit of forbidding the gathering of said race/ethnicity data).
But things do leak through every now and then and more often than not they tend to confirm the hateful stereotypes.
Latest example: The German Federal Criminal Office compiles data on “nationality of suspect” across different criminal categories current up to 2014 (see Table 62). In the last year before the Great Migration, immigrants – accounting for less than 10% of the population – were responsible for 18% of rapes and 30% of murders. One enterprising fellow who presumably prefers to remain anonymous compiled a big infographic combining the criminal and demographic data to produce estimates of criminality rates by different crime categories and country of origin. (The infographic is attached at the bottom of this post, which the stats for perhaps the two most important/topical indicators, homicide rates and rape rates, are reprinted).
|Country of Origin||Murder Rates|
|Country of Origin||Sexual Assault/Rape Rates|
Frankly even I was rather surprised by some of these figures – perhaps not so much the figures on rape, but I do find the killer performance of the likes of Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria in the homicide rates to be unduly impressive. After all, according to international homicide rate statistics, the Maghreb is actually rather civilized – 2.2/100,000 in Tunisia and Morocco, and a mere 0.7/100,000 in Algeria (lower than in Germany itself at 0.8/100,000). Lebanon for all its chaos is also at 2.2/100,000. Homicide rates are the one major type of crime that can be reliably measured across countries, so that actually makes them safer than large chunks of Eastern Europe, including Poland before the 2000s. But for some reason when they come to Europe their homicide rates soar by an order of magnitude.
What could be the cause? Lower migrant quality relative to their average population? Being overwhelmingly drawn from ethnic groups with a higher relative proposensity towards violence? (hbd*chick noticed that a disproportionate number of Muslim terrorists in the Paris Attacks had Berber backgrounds; does this extend to “ordinary” criminal violence?). Or perhaps this is one case where it is not so much a case of ethnicity as of culture – namely, traditional and/or authoritarian societies being better at keeping a lid on violent crime than the dissolute anomie of Western urbanism? I don’t know, but this discrepancy has to be explained.
Note that 70% of prisoners in French jails are Muslim. Of course most French Muslims are from the Maghreb. Originally I thought there might be some scintilla of truth to liberal claims that this proves that France is structurally racist towards its Muslim minorities because I was aware that the countries where French Muslims come from aren’t that violent overall so it’s strange so many of them would be in jail. But if they acquire the criminological profiles of American Negroes on coming to Europe, then the preponderance of French Muslims in orange becomes perfectly explainable.
It also becomes easier to see why the latest wave of immigration has been such a shock to Europe and elicited such strong headlines in the right-wing press. The current wave of migrants into Germany and Europe tend to have rape rates around 5x the native German norm according to its own police statistics. Moreover, this refers to presumably established migrant communities – with relatively more women and older people – whereas the current influx has generally been acknowledged to be primarily composed of young males. This means it is entirely plausible for even relatively “small” numbers of those immigrants (the million or so who came into Germany in 2015) to have a hugely disproportionate impact on crime rates that would be noticeable even in a country of 80 million.
Leonid Bershidsky is a democratic journalist who immigrated to Germany from Russia when Putin triggered him one too many times in 2014. Most of his articles deal with Eastern Europe in general and the Eternal Collapse of Russia under Putin in specific (though to be fair he is far from the worst Russia journalist out there). He also regularly makes space on his Bloomberg blog for promoting various other fashionably progressive causes, which in the light of recent events is predictably dominated by immigration and open borders.
Open borders for Europe and especially Germany, anyway. He does not think the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia have to take in refugees because it would dilute the per capita value of their oil wealth and create the “potential for political, ethnic and sectarian tension.” Mass enrichment is a a joy and a blessing that only European countries are worthy of partaking in. Rape? What rape? All Putinist lies!
I still think Merkel is right on refugees + Europe needs more immigrants. No one said it would be easy. Worthwhile things don't tend to be.
— Leonid Bershidsky (@Bershidsky) January 10, 2016
In short, he is a highly representative and articulate voice of the transatlantic globalist elites.
Last week, I was drawn into a debate with him due to a ReTweet of one of his
This is the main reason I have for preserving the “debate” I had on IQ and immigration with him last week on Twitter. Though every bit as tedious as you probably imagine it, it is useful to be reminded every so often of how utterly and willfully uninformed conventional elite opinion remains on these issues down to the banal recycling of the Steve Jobs argument.
Note in particular the struggles of poor Garett Jones (he of the Hive Mind) to communicate basic psychometric findings to Bershidsky while avoiding saying anything that could potentially get him fired.
Before clicking on the image below to enlarge, note that this is a fairly big file (2.5MB).
Feel free to continue this “debate” in the comments section.