BRICS keeps expanding. As new full member, it added Indonesia, 4th most populous country with 7th largest economy. BRICS now has 10 members and 8 partners, making up 41.4% of global GDP (PPP).
I am not an economist or similar...however, my question would be what is the financial/economic strength of the new BRICS members. Cuba? I wish all of them well.
When you understand that fiat currency is backed by nothing and the 3% that is physical currency (promissory notes and tokens) you will understand that there is no need to be an economist.
Go to the Bank of England website and look for 'how is money created'.
Find 'secrets of the federal reserve' by Eustace Mullins.
This is good news. We need more multipolarity in the world and for people to protect their natural resources from rapacious plunderers and imperialist criminals.
Although its not growth of consciousness over the climate crisis nor co2's role in it. Lavrov is doubting the info his scientists are telling him. He's also saying that the green agenda is a plot by the West to control developing countries. The West says the green agenda is a plot by the UN and globalists to control the West. Well played $trillion big fossil fuel.
It really is a shame that the growth of the BRICS is going to be so short lived.
We see nothing wrong with what they say. If you believe in the anthropogenic role in climate change, that is your choice, not an unquestionable truth. It is a broad discourse, and certainly we, on a personal level, agree much more with these positions than the official BRICS positions released in official documents. Brazil's presidency this year is very climate-issue-oriented, so just far from what you think. We, on the other hand, see a growth of consciousness in this different view as well, and we will talk about that in an upcoming video soon. The BRICS will have lasting growth.
Oh dear. It's not question of personal belief. It's a question of evidence and the scientific method. Of course it's not unquestionable. But all the questions have been answered.
'Climate orientated' is not enough. At present we have no transition, only addition of energy. Economic growth based on increased production, be it electric or whatever, is not compatible with a future beyond 2050 for 8 billion people. Even with mutual degrowth; the warming, soil depletion and ocean dead zones set in motion with make life very difficult for millions of humans.
Industry funded propaganda is working well all over the world.I've watched how it works. It helped to convince me in the 'truth' of the climate crisis.
Ben, please tell us your position on this most important of issues.
No no no, dear. It is only your personal belief to believe a particular scientific current, we prefer to believe those who oppose this view. We don't question “pollution of the Planet,” but talking about “absolute truth” for “man-made” climate change, well... no thanks, it is fanaticism and we don't like it. It's boring and zero-sum game.
Should we have a contest to see who can post the most links about his view of “climate change”? No thanks...long live the BRICS! Happy New Year.
And it’s not his view, it’s her view, though neither is it my view- the post is just as much about the opposing view and what that can tell us.
The Industry funded Heartland Institute also likes to put climate change in scare quotes too, you’ve learnt the conditioning well.
I don’t see it as a contest. I see it as a loaded debate about the most important issue facing modern humans. If you don’t want to join in because you find it boring or fanatical, it doesn’t say very much about your integrity.
The only 'man made climate change' is through geoengineering and is clearly seen in our skies, by those who still believe the evidence of their own eyes at least.
Jo Waller, you might want to read MERCHANTS OF DOUBT by Oreskes and Conway. It thoroughly analyses the cynical people and organizations which spread doubt about what Al Gore famously called inconvenient truth.
Unfortunately, one can find scientists with genuine credentials who are willing to proclaim almost any lie to advance their political ideology, or if they are paid money.
I remember days after President Kennedy was assassinated there were people who rejected the official claim that Kennedy was shot from behind the car he was in. The basis of their reasonable rejection was to be found in the Zapruder film of the assassination. The film clearly shows Kennedy's head snapping violently backward as a portion of his skull flew several yards behind the car and landed on the pavement. This is undeniable, positive proof that Kennedy was shot by a bullet coming at him from the FRONT of the car, not behind it. Nevertheless, one of the three TV networks found a physicist who taught at an American college to proclaim on national television that it is possible for Kennedy's head to be struck by a bullet approaching him from behind; yet his head would move TOWARD the source and motion of the bullet---an impossibility. Yet this physicist was willing to prostitute himself on TV, in front of the world and proclaim an impossible event occurred in Dallas.
For some time now anthropogenic climate change is being blurred by those merchants of doubt. I am thankful for the clearheaded work of Mr. Ben Norton. We need more like him.
Yes, there are very few people at the table clearheadedly discussing anthropogenic climate crisis-the very inconvenient and unpopular truth. They're either under it playing with their toys cars and humming to themselves or they're at a much, much bigger table with big oil discussing how to get Africa addicted to oil, or hypocritically greenwashing with the WEF or actively denying it with Trump, Farage, Peterson, Rogan and Lavrov; eating a constipation causing carnivore diet. Or they're under this table with Xi thinking that adding millions of EVs is going to help.
Haiphong, Berletic and the Grayzone may call out Blackrock and Big oil but they don't discuss the climate crisis cos they know they will lose followers.
What's it going to be Ben? Real truth warrior or protector of your platform?
Jo Waller, you blow me down with your response. I was not able to follow all of your references, as my primary training and education are in the social sciences, not climate science.
However, I have participated in real scientific endeavor. The true value of Science is not found in the "facts" it produces; but instead in the epistemological realm.
Science is a method of acquiring knowledge, a way "knowing." Science applies inductive logic to empirical evidence to arrive at conclusions. This is how the scientific method tests the value of an explanation: by comparing that explanation with the empirical evidence. These conclusions are not in any sense eternal or permanent. They are always tentative. They can change in the light of new research. This is why uninformed people believe that a conclusion arrived at by the scientific method is only another opinion. I had a difficult time dealing with this common misconception over decades of undergraduate teaching.
There are other ways of "knowing:"
1) religion 2)unexamined folk knowledge 3) deductive logic.
The two greatest epistemological opponents of the scientific method have been 1) religion 2)unexamined folk knowledge and it seems, we must add.... 3) econo-political institutional forces.
When the overwhelming scientifically-derived conclusions point in the same direction; we must accept them. Refusal to do so can be lethal. It is not an exaggeration to claim the two most pressing problems are the extinction of organized human life by 1) nuclear war or 2)climate change due to human-caused rising global temperature.
Thanks. I learned a lot about Indonesia from your article. Hopefully BRICS+ membership will help all involved.
Very happy to hear this.
🎉🥳🎊
Australia - take note and consider the best options for our future!
I am not an economist or similar...however, my question would be what is the financial/economic strength of the new BRICS members. Cuba? I wish all of them well.
When you understand that fiat currency is backed by nothing and the 3% that is physical currency (promissory notes and tokens) you will understand that there is no need to be an economist.
Go to the Bank of England website and look for 'how is money created'.
Find 'secrets of the federal reserve' by Eustace Mullins.
This is good news. We need more multipolarity in the world and for people to protect their natural resources from rapacious plunderers and imperialist criminals.
Añd *ore to co*e!! sorry laptop 👎. Yet waitiñg ñew oñe. I*becile sold out *ilei got out & señt out
all Argeñtiñe gold reserbes to THE CITY hell's capital-. What could you could e*pect of great-grañdsoñ of the Ñasi Croatiañ *urderer Añte Pabelic?
🤣😂👍I think I got it
BRICS growth means a new consciousness growth
Although its not growth of consciousness over the climate crisis nor co2's role in it. Lavrov is doubting the info his scientists are telling him. He's also saying that the green agenda is a plot by the West to control developing countries. The West says the green agenda is a plot by the UN and globalists to control the West. Well played $trillion big fossil fuel.
It really is a shame that the growth of the BRICS is going to be so short lived.
We see nothing wrong with what they say. If you believe in the anthropogenic role in climate change, that is your choice, not an unquestionable truth. It is a broad discourse, and certainly we, on a personal level, agree much more with these positions than the official BRICS positions released in official documents. Brazil's presidency this year is very climate-issue-oriented, so just far from what you think. We, on the other hand, see a growth of consciousness in this different view as well, and we will talk about that in an upcoming video soon. The BRICS will have lasting growth.
Oh dear. It's not question of personal belief. It's a question of evidence and the scientific method. Of course it's not unquestionable. But all the questions have been answered.
'Climate orientated' is not enough. At present we have no transition, only addition of energy. Economic growth based on increased production, be it electric or whatever, is not compatible with a future beyond 2050 for 8 billion people. Even with mutual degrowth; the warming, soil depletion and ocean dead zones set in motion with make life very difficult for millions of humans.
Industry funded propaganda is working well all over the world.I've watched how it works. It helped to convince me in the 'truth' of the climate crisis.
Ben, please tell us your position on this most important of issues.
Humanity will not have lasting growth.
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
No no no, dear. It is only your personal belief to believe a particular scientific current, we prefer to believe those who oppose this view. We don't question “pollution of the Planet,” but talking about “absolute truth” for “man-made” climate change, well... no thanks, it is fanaticism and we don't like it. It's boring and zero-sum game.
Should we have a contest to see who can post the most links about his view of “climate change”? No thanks...long live the BRICS! Happy New Year.
‘man made’ - so 70s-thankfully we’ve moved on.
And it’s not his view, it’s her view, though neither is it my view- the post is just as much about the opposing view and what that can tell us.
The Industry funded Heartland Institute also likes to put climate change in scare quotes too, you’ve learnt the conditioning well.
I don’t see it as a contest. I see it as a loaded debate about the most important issue facing modern humans. If you don’t want to join in because you find it boring or fanatical, it doesn’t say very much about your integrity.
Go well.
THE MOST important issue right now JO is how to stop the USA bombs and killing.
The only 'man made climate change' is through geoengineering and is clearly seen in our skies, by those who still believe the evidence of their own eyes at least.
Go to US Gov NOAA website and read all about it.
Hook, line and sinker.
Jo Waller, you might want to read MERCHANTS OF DOUBT by Oreskes and Conway. It thoroughly analyses the cynical people and organizations which spread doubt about what Al Gore famously called inconvenient truth.
Unfortunately, one can find scientists with genuine credentials who are willing to proclaim almost any lie to advance their political ideology, or if they are paid money.
I remember days after President Kennedy was assassinated there were people who rejected the official claim that Kennedy was shot from behind the car he was in. The basis of their reasonable rejection was to be found in the Zapruder film of the assassination. The film clearly shows Kennedy's head snapping violently backward as a portion of his skull flew several yards behind the car and landed on the pavement. This is undeniable, positive proof that Kennedy was shot by a bullet coming at him from the FRONT of the car, not behind it. Nevertheless, one of the three TV networks found a physicist who taught at an American college to proclaim on national television that it is possible for Kennedy's head to be struck by a bullet approaching him from behind; yet his head would move TOWARD the source and motion of the bullet---an impossibility. Yet this physicist was willing to prostitute himself on TV, in front of the world and proclaim an impossible event occurred in Dallas.
For some time now anthropogenic climate change is being blurred by those merchants of doubt. I am thankful for the clearheaded work of Mr. Ben Norton. We need more like him.
I have read it, I review. it here https://jowaller.substack.com/p/do-anti-vaxx-and-climate-denial-have?utm_source=publication-search
The only real 'inconvenient truth' is the size of Al Gore's bank balance.
Always follow the money - or keep believing false prophets like King Charles the Turd (Irish title):
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/prince-charles-calculation-just-96-months-to-save-planet/articleshow/4759168.cms
If you are able to work it out his prediction ran out in June 2017.
Yes, there are very few people at the table clearheadedly discussing anthropogenic climate crisis-the very inconvenient and unpopular truth. They're either under it playing with their toys cars and humming to themselves or they're at a much, much bigger table with big oil discussing how to get Africa addicted to oil, or hypocritically greenwashing with the WEF or actively denying it with Trump, Farage, Peterson, Rogan and Lavrov; eating a constipation causing carnivore diet. Or they're under this table with Xi thinking that adding millions of EVs is going to help.
Haiphong, Berletic and the Grayzone may call out Blackrock and Big oil but they don't discuss the climate crisis cos they know they will lose followers.
What's it going to be Ben? Real truth warrior or protector of your platform?
Jo Waller, you blow me down with your response. I was not able to follow all of your references, as my primary training and education are in the social sciences, not climate science.
However, I have participated in real scientific endeavor. The true value of Science is not found in the "facts" it produces; but instead in the epistemological realm.
Science is a method of acquiring knowledge, a way "knowing." Science applies inductive logic to empirical evidence to arrive at conclusions. This is how the scientific method tests the value of an explanation: by comparing that explanation with the empirical evidence. These conclusions are not in any sense eternal or permanent. They are always tentative. They can change in the light of new research. This is why uninformed people believe that a conclusion arrived at by the scientific method is only another opinion. I had a difficult time dealing with this common misconception over decades of undergraduate teaching.
There are other ways of "knowing:"
1) religion 2)unexamined folk knowledge 3) deductive logic.
The two greatest epistemological opponents of the scientific method have been 1) religion 2)unexamined folk knowledge and it seems, we must add.... 3) econo-political institutional forces.
When the overwhelming scientifically-derived conclusions point in the same direction; we must accept them. Refusal to do so can be lethal. It is not an exaggeration to claim the two most pressing problems are the extinction of organized human life by 1) nuclear war or 2)climate change due to human-caused rising global temperature.
JO. What you are missing here is:
A multipolar world will be able to finally address climate controls.
You are living in Lala land IF you think this climate control can be done immediately!
Shame on you Jo.
Study the ideas of BRICS before you comment.
NUMEC – How Israel stole the Atomic Bomb and killed JFK
https://rumble.com/v67t76g-numec-how-israel-stole-the-atomic-bomb-and-killed-jfk.html
Wonderful work Ben!