ITALY: Italian residents helplessly watch in horror from their balconies, unable to believe their eyes.
“What happened to our country?
Where are we supposed to go now?”
Nobody should have to live like this in their own country.
🚨 UPDATE: A Muslim man just STABBED 3 people in Switzerland and police claim the motive is unclear
He YELLED "allahu akbar!" and went on a stabbing spree
The West DOES NOT HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS
You invite these Muslim savages and they pillage your homeland!
Wake up and get them out! 🇨🇭🇺🇸
@maura4u The old proverb nails it: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Decades of well-intentioned international aid to Africa (over $1 trillion since the 1960s) have too often done the former, creating dependency, distorting local markets and agriculture, fueling corruption, and weakening governments’ accountability to their own citizens.
On rare earths and resources: Many aid packages and loans, especially China’s infrastructure-for-minerals deals, have traded short-term funds for long-term control of critical minerals, with limited local benefit.
The real path forward is building the conditions for self-reliance: secure property rights, trade, investment, education, and market incentives, not perpetual handouts.
I believe the best method is tough love: make them live on their own without endless external help so they can develop the institutions and incentives needed to succeed. If they choose to keep a culture which does not create a civilization (by a more classical definition: continual growth in energy use per person and thus growth), versus just maintaining their culture, that’s their choice, and they can stay that way until a disruption wipes them out.
Can someone here, knowledgeable on the subject, share a brief history of how seemingly well intentioned “international aid” programs to Africa have further impoverished rather than empowered people of the recipient nations?
Specifically, please remark on the exchange various African countries have suffered after receiving “humanitarian aid” for ownership of their nations’ rare earth wealth.
Wow, this is crazy.
We've been shareholders since 2014 and close to all-in since May 2015 (though folks like Amy put us to shame with even longer holds).
His valuation assumes everything goes perfectly, Robotaxi, Optimus, fully de-risked, plus strong growth ahead. That's the absolute bull case. The market today is clearly pricing in higher risks and more uncertainty.
I've never argued that markets are 100% rational in the short run, but as Ben Graham said, they are voting machines in the short term and weighing machines in the long run.
Bradford has added real value for his customers on tax management and options strategies, things that are genuinely tough to handle as an individual. Credit where it's due.
That said, I haven't been impressed with his broader company risk assessments and trade-offs, especially outside of Tesla. Outfits like @CernBasher come across as more rational and better managed.
@CuriousPejjy Has someone collected a list people they are doing this too?
Someone maybe should see about a class action lawsuit.
I'm in Canada and not wealthy so can't fund it. But some very questionable actions here.
This also replaces the historic people and their way of life. Rapid demographic shifts dilute the European-descended majority, erode social trust, and transform daily culture: ethnic enclaves, parallel norms, identity politics in schools/work, and natives feeling like strangers in their own land. High-volume diversity without strong integration turns the mosaic into silos.
There are few, if any, clear examples of successful strong integration at today's scale with culturally distant groups. Earlier European waves in the US/Canada assimilated over generations via melting-pot pressure. But post-1960s/70s inflows (esp. from Middle East, Africa, parts of South Asia) show persistent gaps in Europe and even Canada: higher welfare use, lower trust, parallel societies, and values clashes despite policies. Selective, skills-based + assimilation-focused approaches work better; celebratory multiculturalism often doesn't.
Canada was not historically a multicultural society in the modern sense. Its identity was shaped primarily by European settlers (chiefly British and French) who established institutions grounded in Judeo-Christian values, Enlightenment principles, individual rights, and British common law traditions. The post-1971 official policy of multiculturalism represented a deliberate shift away from earlier expectations of cultural integration toward the active preservation of distinct immigrant cultures.
Not all cultures and religions produce equivalent outcomes in areas such as rule of law, individual liberty, gender equality, tolerance for dissent, or economic dynamism. Treating them as interchangeable ignores observable differences in compatibility with historical Canadian norms.
Large-scale immigration from societies with fundamentally different values and social patterns can transform a country's character, cohesion, trust levels, and political culture. Historical Canada maintained relatively high social trust and lower authoritarian tendencies partly because of cultural continuity. Rapid demographic change without strong assimilation pressures tends to erode that foundation. Evidence from various Western countries shows that higher ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity often correlates with increased demands for speech restrictions, group-based policies, parallel societies, and stronger state intervention to manage resulting tensions, outcomes many find undesirable.
I personally prefer a freer, less managed society with higher social capital and fewer identity conflicts. Preferences for more centralized, authoritarian approaches to enforce diversity are common among some on the left, but they come at a real cost to classical liberal freedoms.