Sunday, June 11, 2017

Thrice the number of Saudis living in the US today as lived here on 9/11

The Derb, making a crucial and oft-repeated (by him) observation:
The most astonishing statistic of our age is that our country admitted more Muslims for settlement in the fifteen years after 2001 than we did in the fifteen years prior.

All settlement of Muslims should have been ended on September 12th, 2001, and Muslim non-citizens here should have been told to leave.
The following table shows the percentage change in the number of immigrants to the US from the 27 countries whose populations are more than 85% Muslim from the year 2000 to the year 2015:

CountryIncrease
Somalia275%
Saudi Arabia200%
Iraq100%
Morocco100%
Sudan100%
Yemen100%
Uzbekistan100%
Bangladesh90%
Pakistan50%
Kuwait50%
Egypt45%
Syria40%
Turkey38%
Palestine33%
Iran32%
Afghanistan20%
Jordan20%
United Arab Emirates11%
Tunisia11%
Libya0%
Oman0%
Qatar0%
Tajikistan0%
Djibouti0%
Mauritania0%
Bahrain0%
Western Sahara0%

The number of immigrants to the US has increased from nearly all of these places and has not declined from a single one.

The number of Saudis--the country that supplied 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers--living in the US has tripled in just 15 years. That's right--since the worst Muslim terrorist attack in US history, America has nearly quadrupled the number of Somalis, has tripled the number of Saudis, and has doubled the number of Iraqis, Moroccans, Sudanese, Yemenis, and Uzbekistanis living on its soil.

The total population of the US increased 13% from 2000 to 2015. The number of immigrants from these 27 countries to the US increased 60% over the same period of time, from 1.3 million to over 2 million. This truly is astonishing.

Some technical notes: "Immigrant" is defined in this context as someone who has been living in a country other than the one he was born in for at least a year. It only includes first generation migrants, so these increases are entirely a function of more foreign-born Muslims coming here, not from Muslims already living here having children (though Muslims in the US have higher fertility rates than members of any other religious tradition or the irreligious do).

The figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 in most cases (unless there are fewer immigrants than that, in which case they are displayed as "less than 10,000", "1,000", or "less than 1,000").

The countries for which no change is recorded all show fewer than 10,000 immigrants both in 2000 and 2015. My cynical assumption is that the number of immigrants they've sent has grown as well, but from a base too small to show up in these population estimates.

For the United Arab Emirates and Tunisia, Pew reports "less than 10,000" living in the US in 2000 and "10,000" living in the US in 2015. I've conservatively treated "less than 10,000" as "9,000".

16 comments:

akarlin said...

What is it with the international bobo class' love for Somalis from Sweden to Minnesota.

Those people hit the entire trifecta of qualities you do not want to see amongst immigrants to a European nation: Super low IQ, hardcore Islam, Negro race. And if that isn't enough, also one of the most concentrated doses of cousin marriage, honor killings, and FGM in the world.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anatoly,

You treat all of these attributes as though they're bugs when from the perspective of the international bobo class they're very much features.

Sid said...

It's just such an ACCIDENT OF FATE that we live in rich, safe countries, whereas poor Somalis are born into a hellish wasteland full of terror and civil war. Why, we have an obligation to take them in!

That's how it was explained to me by someone who believes in resettling refugees: it's unfair we have it so good and they have it so bad, so we need to share with them.

Dan said...

The stupid thing is that the globalists force us to have a war of all against all.

Is it my problem that the Pakistanis will murder anyone who disagrees with their 7th century ideology. Yes, it is.

I understand the neocon project. If we are going to have a globalist world, we need to have countries that are open the way we are.

Now that the neocon projected has failed utterly, can we all agree that globalism is not workable?

The neocon logic is, we have tried to build an airplane. After 30 years it has no engine and no wings, but the flight must proceed.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

I read a local story recently about some Alt Right cards (flyers I guess, the story didn't show images of them) found at a restaurant. The (white) woman who found them was horrified--HORRIFIED!--by what they said. What was that, you ask? That whites were 90% of the American population 50 years ago and now they're only 60% and that whites need to be aware of their own dispossession.

Dan,

There's a way to prevent that war of all against all, and they know it. No, not that way--by having separate countries for separate peoples--by having a strong, militarized global state that keeps enough peace for consumers to consume and keeps enough diversity to ensure that people cocoon rather than question the primacy of the strong, militarized global state.

Sid said...

In the 1960s, well meaning people had reason to believe racial inequalities in IQ, behavior, and life outcomes were the result of discrimination. 50+ years later, it's clear that whatever solutions were offered in the 1960s for reducing those inequalities have failed, and countless ideas that have been devised since then haven't made a dent either.

Say what you will about Stephen Jay Gould, but he and his colleagues at least tried to make a shabby, pseudo-intellectual artifice for their egalitarianism. Since his death, the egalitarians have only gotten more and more anti-intellectual​. They won't just call you a racist Nazi for making theoretical arguments (such as what is the nature of g or how evolution caused human races to evolve differently over a long enough timespan) - no, they also call you a bigot for citing crime statistics from the FBI or demographic censuses.

Feryl said...

What about modern globalists being incomprehensible fools, because, well, it's not for them to judge anyone who wants a better life (even if it comes at the expense of others). Unraveling eras produce extreme individualism. In the subsequent crisis era, elites have to learn to move on from the outdated mercenary spirit of the previous era. As we can see right now, elite striver relics don't want any kind of crackdown on striving. And all immigrants are strivers.

On immigration, the Goldman brigade/Chamber of cuckerce, largely along with the Deep State establishment is still clueless. It's not the 80's, or 90's, or 2000's anymore. Move on. People are tired of being treated as pixels on a screen. "What do I care about what the rednecks in podunkville think? They're just jealous losers anyway, who don't grasp the growth we get from the dissolution of borders".

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> In the 1960s, well meaning people had reason to believe racial inequalities in IQ, behavior, and life outcomes were the result of discrimination. 50+ years later, it's clear that whatever solutions were offered in the 1960s for reducing those inequalities have failed, and countless ideas that have been devised since then haven't made a dent either.

People are slowly but surely waking up to this reality. Whether that be moving to distant suburbs and exurbs for "good schools", making sure your car, door, and windows are locked tight every night, not being able to go to a local park, etc. Lots of things people can't do now that just used to be taken for granted in the 1950s.

The official narrative is that we need to continue down this route but I think more and more people are just rejecting it outright. The entropy to keep Clown World chugging grows exponentially for rapidly diminishing returns. We just need to keep pointing out how grotesque the current system is and try to force the opposition to explain why this is preferable.

Feryl said...

--by having a strong, militarized global state that keeps enough peace for consumers to consume and keeps enough diversity to ensure that people cocoon rather than question the primacy of the strong, militarized global state.

The main implications for diversity/frequent IC travel/transnationalism seem to be the capability of running a first-rate country. Cocooning happened in non-diverse mid-century America. It goes in 60 year cycles. People get tired of being cooped up, and eventually start to get out more often. After several decades of activity, society enters another hibernation period lasting around 30 years.

Your syntax/reasoning is intriguing because during the last period of not being cocooned (later 60's-early 90's), skepticism of war was strong (even metal bands wrote songs about how much war sucked, Black Sabbath/War Pigs, Metallica/Disposable Heroes and One, Megadeth/Rust in Peace, Slayer/Mandatory Suicide etc. Also, there were a lot of movies about Vietnam, peaking with Platoon and Full Metal Jacket in the later 80's, with a dramatic Vietnam TV show in 1990/1991 (Tour of Duty). Once cocooning started to rear it's head around 1993, 'Nam related productions drastically declined and the few that are made seldom have higher budgets or wider releases (slight exception: We Were Soldiers, made by Mel Gibson whose Bravehart ('95) and beyond filmography suggests that Gibson believes that violence in most contexts is the first and best option.

Feryl said...


"People are slowly but surely waking up to this reality. Whether that be moving to distant suburbs and exurbs for "good schools", making sure your car, door, and windows are locked tight every night, not being able to go to a local park, etc. Lots of things people can't do now that just used to be taken for granted in the 1950s."

Agnostic sez that public areas in general (not just the ghetto shitholes) become havens for bums, druggies, fags, etc. in cocooning periods with weak institutions. When "normal" people stop going to parks, arcades, bars, etc. in cocooning periods, the weirdos take over if there isn't some kind of institutional authority which keeps them locked up or in the shadows, which the well-populated asylums/prisons of the mid-century and the tough(ish) cops of the mid-century managed to do.

I've seen people say that 1992 was the last year in which they remember block parties happening with any regularity. And '92 was a period of: high diversity, high crime, and weak institutional control. Outgoing people have the cajones (or naivete) to ignore red flags in the name of not being a shut-in or a nerd (which are only marginally less disrespectful insults than "fag" or "child molester" in an outgoing era like the late 60's-early 90's). A movie from 1980, called Defiance, has nordic Jan-Micheal Vincent getting stuck in a low-class NYC neighborhood owned by a gang of Puerto Rican thugs. He gradually gets to know the neighborhood residents (classic scenes of people not being shut-ins ensue, like how he and his neighbors frequently look at and talk to each other thru their windows), and eventually recruits and inspires them to take on the gang. One might scoff at this kind of thing as a fantasy, but if you watch the movie, it's all very naturalistic. People basically go about their business, attentive to their surroundings which often include gang members scowling at and otherwise picking on the normies. The normies seem to deal with is they best they can; sometimes they sort of act passively, other times they get wistful about the good ole days (the 40's-early 60's) when it was easier to keep people in line. Fighting back did sometimes happen back then, too. Richard Ramirez was tackled and beaten by East LA normies in the mid 80's, Bernie Goetz, etc.

Most areas are mostly inhabited by fairly normal people; in cocooning periods with low(er) crime, people blow everything out of proportion (even in the 40's and 50's, most people didn't do that much socializing/relaxed hanging out of fear that other people were sinister). Whereas in outgoing eras, no matter how dangerous the streets may be, people are more willing to engage with the outside world and it doesn't necessarily have to serve a purpose anyway. One thing cocooners forget about is just how much time people spend being just, kinda there, around other people in more outgoing times. Cocooners get neurotic about down time; they worry that unless a meeting/discussion serves a specific purpose, the other person(s) might get weirded out.

Sid said...

"The official narrative is that we need to continue down this route but I think more and more people are just rejecting it... We just need to keep pointing out how grotesque the current system is and try to force the opposition to explain why this is preferable."

The transformation is far from complete, but it's certainly underway. After the 2012 election, I wrote a paean on Half Sigma's blog about how HBD would be a persecuted belief system indefinitely. I might not be wrong there, but I underestimated how race and sex realism would spread throughout the internet, helping generate the alt-right and manosphere.

Once you've taken the Red Pill, you can't ever untake it. You can see evidence of racial and sexual differences somewhere on the internet, and at best you can choose to not go down the rabbit hole and not pursue the matter further. But once you've carefully looked at the evidence and the theories, you can't ever unlearn them. You can accept them as we have, or you can deny them and be haunted about it for the rest of your life.

There's no guarantee our movement will win out. In Europe, the French and Germans are looking at the havoc and terror happening every month and are so afraid of what it will mean to uncuck themselves that they're burying their heads in the sand like ostriches. While we won with Trump last fall, we have to fight hard to make sure we don't get soft and get cucked. Even so, I'm far more optimistic now that we won't end up becoming a persecuted minority in our own country, which was what Hillary was promising she'd do to us if she won.

James said...

I'm sure we will soon see an increase in the number of Qatari immigrants, after whatever "social change" is being planned for that country is implemented. Hooray! More religion of peace for the West!

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Do these cocooning cycles roughly equally effect different racial/ethnic groups? In the next outgoing period, we're going to be looking at an under 40 population that is barely half non-Hispanic white, and less than that in virtually all the densely populated places in the entire country.

I wonder, too, if nerds--and assuming the increase in diagnosed neurological disorders like autism reflect a real psychological change in young whites today compared to young whites a generation or two ago--will reemerge in force. It's so easy for an autiste today to bury himself in never-ending virtual world stimulation. I know guys in their 20s who don't ever leave their monitors. Many are pleasant enough in person when I see them at family functions and the like, but that's the only time anyone sees them IRL. Maybe they'll tire of it and maybe they're not that numerically significant. Or maybe not.

Sid,

Once you've taken the Red Pill, you can't ever untake it.

Excepting Jack Hunter, you're right. That, and improvements in genetic sequencing and attendant GWAS that make the underlying red-pill reality harder to ignore, are why we're not going away.

Random Dude,

We just need to keep pointing out how grotesque the current system is and try to force the opposition to explain why this is preferable.

Right, which is why the tactic now is to hamstring our ability to point it out (demonetizing youtube, banning on twitter, shadow banning on Facebook, etc). That's only a temporary stopgap measure for them, though. Alternative platforms are coming online. Trying to shut down the free flow of information is a losing strategy in the long run.

Feryl said...

I don't think people ever quite break from their youthful programming. That being said, they're still affected to some degree by whatever is in the mood at the moment. For example, Gen X-ers in the 80's were more aloof than 80's Boomers, but, be that as it may, that in and of itself doesn't explain why arcades had mostly lost their trendy 80's cache by the mid 90's. 16 yr olds in 1985 spent more time at the arcade than did 16 yr olds in 1995. Same generation, but different behavior depending on the zeitgeist.

With Millennials, the vast majority (late 80's and 90's births dwarf early-mid 80's births) have spent nearly their whole life in a cocooning period. So whose to say what they'll be like 10-20 years from now when people aren't as boring.

They'll have to be more engaged once crime has risen and social stigma about being a dork grows. At the same time, they'll probably never quite shake a neurotic reputation, much like how the previous cocooned generation (the Silent generation) never could quite measure up to resolute G.I.s or charismatic Boomers, both of whom came of age in or near outgoing eras. The G.I.s came of age in the 1910's, 20's, and 30's (with the older Reagan cohort being more street smart). The Boomers came of in the 60's, 70's, and 80's (with the later born ones being the joyful wild childs of the later 70's and earlier 80's, who were getting laid and or/killed in that era's many teen sex comedies and slasher movies, not unlike what was happening to them in real life).

Feryl said...

The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit was published in 1955, just before cocooning started to ebb around 1958. The author was born in 1920, so they were able to have a childhood/early adolescence in an outgoing era. Lengthy enough immersion to remember when people had a lot of fun, but not long enough to fully experience both the pluses and the negatives of getting out more often. The mid-life crisis phenom came about in the 60's/70's because 20's/30's/early 40's births felt as if they'd missed out on.....something....in the late 30's-50's. Earlier born cohorts had their fill of excitement in the early 20th century.

Feryl said...

"Do these cocooning cycles roughly equally effect different racial/ethnic groups? In the next outgoing period, we're going to be looking at an under 40 population that is barely half non-Hispanic white, and less than that in virtually all the densely populated places in the entire country. "

I guess it's possible that we'll all be more outgoing no matter what. It's worth keeping mind that non-cocooners don't let *anything* get in the way of socializing. The degree of recklessness/experimentation differs from one period to another and also different generations will not act the same way. X-ers were debating the latest MTV videos in the early-mid 80's while Boomers began to reckon with the AIDS crisis that was blowback for decades of defying sexual norms.

And NYC and L.A. were teeming with immigrants and mystery meats by the 80's; just the same, people still braved the streets, because, well, we're all gonna die some day. Might as well see more of the world before that happens.

As usual, it's good to look back at 70's/80's movies to see what people did back then, even in more diverse areas. In Scorsese's After Hours, (1985) an average white guy goes out on a date in NYC, then thru a series of misfortunes and weird encounters, has the worst night of his life trying to just get back home. Because it was made in an outgoing era, people have an at times shockingly low-key reaction to dealing with neurotic loners, suicides, weirdo art/music subcultures, criminals, and so on, at least until they get pushed too far (brawls and revenge are after all more common in outgoing eras) . Having a fun or at least pleasant time with somebody is valued to the point that we're willing to take risks, be in a vulnerable or uncertain position in order to be around others.

It's not that people didn't care about degenerates back then, either. In fact, hostility towards weirdos, violence, drug use, etc. is weaker in cocooning eras when people don't encounter such things very often in real life, therefore creating a more cavalier attitude. As in the horror and bondage themed comics of the 40's-early 60's, and the Tarantino school of glorifying thugs and bloodletting (with both perpetrators,victims, and bystanders displaying an off-putting and unbelievable glib attitude towards violence) that became popular in the mid 90's and beyond.