rattlesnake

No.

The claim I replied to, "The narrative was NEVER that it will stop the virus from spreading", is false.

I don't know one person who didn't take the shot and regretted it.

April 2021: Pfizer, Moderna vaccines stop infections in real-world study CDC report suggests shots cut transmission, not just illnesses https://www.tbsnews.net/coronavirus-chronicle/pfizer-moderna-vaccines-stop-infections-real-world-study-238285 CDC Data Suggests Vaccinated Don’t Carry, Can’t Spread Virus https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html

Well I wouldn't expect people who have had multiple shots of the stuff to say any otherwise, that is an integral part of the problem, people just don't like admitting they were wrong.

Yes, but what I was referring to when I mentioned speculation-based capitalism were the subsequent layers of financial instruments (such as the credit default swaps invented by Blythe Masters) which consist in creating money out of thin air. Debt is the root of all problems and in this respect, Putin did pretty well after taking over a country left in bad shape by Yeltsin's pro-Western policies. A reminder from 2005: Russia pays off IMF debt early On January 31, Russia ceased being one of the IMF’s five largest debtor countries when it repaid its remaining $3.33 billion debt. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/023/0034/002/article-A004-en.xml

I have provided references to four fundamental and universally recognised books on the matter, anyone is free to do their own research on them and read them to develop their knowledge and understanding. This topic is far too complex to be illustrated with single, all-encompassing quotes.

I think it is this concept of one "economic world power" which is disappearing (even if the Western political and media establishment pretend it isn't), as outlined by Putin's speech at the BRICS summit last August: All of us here are proponents of a new multipolar world order with a genuine balance of interests and taking into consideration the sovereign interests of as many countries as possible, while enabling them to follow their own development models and helping them preserve their diverse national cultures and traditions. It is obvious, however, that the emergence of a new world order, which is an objective process, has its fierce opponents who are seeking to stall this process and avert the emergence of new, independent centres of development and power around the world. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/72096

Absolutely, as demonstrated by the fact that he is supported by over 80% of Russians. In January 2024, over eight out of ten percent of Russians approved of the activities of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia/#:~:text=In January 2024%2C over eight,partial mobilization in the country. Putin's approval rating up to 85% in November, Russians happy with the country's direction https://www.intellinews.com/putin-s-approval-rating-up-to-85-in-november-russians-happy-with-the-country-s-direction-303876/

Libya was destabilised by the US military-industrial complex, for the same reasons it has occupied and destabilised a multitude of countries and regions for decades. This article sums it up nicely. Libya: another neocon war Liberal supporters of this 'humanitarian intervention' have merely become useful idiots of the same old nefarious purposes https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/21/libya-muammar-gaddafi

Production-based capitalism vs. speculation-based capitalism. The latter is at the heart of all the world's woes.

It depends on whether or not you serve the interests of the Global Regime. My deep respects to Gonzalo Lira and Julian Assange.

If you are serious in your endeavour to understand the inner workings of deep world politics, then you probably know how important it is to read books on the matter. There are dozens one could list, but regarding this particular topic, in addition to the two I mentioned earlier in this thread, I strongly recommend reading: - Anthony Sutton: Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler - John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

"She went to the studio as a tattoo model for the artist and received the service for free."

The US government, as part of its defence activities, purchases equipment (uniforms, weapons, vehicles…) from private firms. These contracts are very lucrative as the US defence budget amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. These private defence contractors, which are very close to the government through very influential lobbies, de facto have an incentive to influence foreign policy and encourage military interventions for financial gain. This is what is colloquially referred to as the military-industrial complex, the business of war for private financial profit, never in the interest of the nation.

The military-industrial complex and high-level stakeholders will be weakened, certainly not the average person who has zero benefit in their tax dollars being spent on forever wars, nor in an open, unregulated market.

Still significantly lower than G7 countries, but increasing fast nonetheless. https://www.statista.com/chart/30641/gdp-per-capita-in-brics-and-g7-countries/ https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita Another important metric is the debt level: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-by-national-debt To me, however, the most significant change brought about by BRICS is on a geopolitical and diplomatic level.

Essentially trade and political agreements, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or the Belt and Road initiative. Also diplomacy, for instance Saudi Arabia recently signed historic diplomacy deals with Iran and Syria, brokered by China and Russia. Also, an important addition to what I said earlier about the Quincy agreement: Saudi Arabia has announced a plan to accept payment for oil in Chinese yuan instead of US dollars.

Multilateral agreements precisely aim to safeguard individual nations' interests, based on protectionist and sovereign approaches, without supranational interference.

It isn't openly strategic, but it de facto has strategic implications. Its recent expansion to include Saudi Arabia and the UAE (the Arab world’s two largest economies) will create new investment opportunities and increase its influence. It is interesting to note that Saudi Arabia was historically pretty much under American control (cf. Quincy agreement).

The BRICS now hold a total of 32 percent of the world's GDP, compared to 30 percent held by the G7 countries.

Yes.

Yes, I believe it is an excellent development as I am a firm believer in protectionism, which is why I also support Trump.

America has already lost its preeminent standing in the world. As I said earlier, Pax Americana is over and we are entering an era of multilateralism. Legacy Western media outlets (which seem to be the sole source of information of this forum's users) are entertaining the fantasy that Western powers still have significant influence on the world stage, while the truth is they are bankrupt in every sense of the term. Below are two examples from the Financial Times which perfectly illustrate the level of denial the West has reached: March 2022: Running a siege economy: Russia prepares to endure pain of sanctions Deep recession is expected as country begins to diversify and rely on trade with allies https://www.ft.com/content/47121812-621a-404a-b60f-e2a7f62c5236 February 2024: The surprising resilience of the Russian economy The Russian economy’s resilience has stunned many economists who had believed the initial round of sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine nearly two years ago could cause a catastrophic contraction. https://www.ft.com/content/d304a182-997d-4dae-98a1-aa7c691526db

Yes I am.