Without immigrants the ageing German population has no chance to keep their social safety net and as we see in the US, even when the social safety net is significantly reduced, the immigrant scarecrow will still have the desired effect for the populists because the immigrants are not the problem, they make, however a phenomenal scapegoat and will always appeal to the general populace. In consequence, focussing solely on immigration won't solve the fundamental problems and certainly won't help when the first waves of hungry climate refugees march north.

The consequences are border tightening and rearming and repopulating the military and marching confidently in the completely wrong direction. Dialog is dead and so is diplomacy.

Re-establish communication, not twitter. Collaborate on a wide front, analyse the data, compile potential solutions, discuss them, etablish them. Talk to Russia, talk to Ukraine, Defang NATO or abolish it. Talk to Iran. Stop the US propagating pseudo diplomacy via Kushner and send real diplomats. Look to invest in R&D for recycling techniques, carbon sequestering, substitutes for plastics, redirect military funding to massively expand renewable energy. Close all European borders the next time the US starts a war. There is so much to do.

No. They want an ethnical homogeneous country, hence their remigration institute. Feel free to educate yourself on the institutes own website: https://www.remigration-institute.com/

Still, a private viewing and light exposure for Peter Thiel, who isn't even a patron of the British Museum, doesn't seem to be a problem.

https://www.londondaily.news/british-museum-faces-questions-...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593762

Points: 23

# Comments: 3

You can go even farther back in time. If the US hadn't massively relieved the famine in Russia in 1920/21 there might have been a chance, Lenin and the Bolshevik regime wouldn't have survived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%9...

    All three dark triad traits are believed to be conceptually distinct, although empirical evidence shows them to be overlapping. They are associated with a callous–manipulative interpersonal style.[8]

    Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.[9]

    Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulativeness, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest.[10][11]

    Psychopathy is characterized by continuous antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callous and unemotional traits (CU),[12] and remorselessness.[13]

The area is sinking. Literally:

"The pressure decline in the field causes compaction in the reservoir which is observed as subsidence at the surface."

https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/372/367/2015/piahs-372...

... The Boomer kids were weaned off violent childhood literature like Tintin and the Hardy Boys and fed a diet of Dr. Seuss.

https://www.harvardsalient.com/p/interview-with-peter-thiel

One specific change that would accelerate drug development would be getting rid of the need for double-blind studies. If a drug is safe, you would just let people use it and not slow things down massively with a double-blind study.

Same link. Theres another interview with him - I can't remember which - where he proposes to test new Alzheimer drugs directly on patients because (paraphrased) they die anyway.

This does not sound like science.

1. This is not the 404 media story you quoted as source

2. Maiberg's answer is most likely a book that has no emotional value. Translation: they do not know

https://www.ft.com/content/d9922d0b-51a0-48be-811b-42e08f909...

Source? You state that in a tone that implies you have verifiable knowlege of this. All the information I found says that the exact number, titles and authors are under NDA.

The dead comment below by AnthonyMouse already pointed out that even in your scenario there's no difference with the status quo anyway. It's insane that it's dead and reeks of astroturfing, as nothing about it is worth flagging.

If you see such a comment, you can vouch for it (small menu point next to flag) and revive it. I did that now because I agree with your assessment - of late I do this very often because even comments which quote articles/laws etc. verbatim and with a link are flagged/voted to death.