Kerby Anderson
While most Americans were focused on the election, the BRICS nations had a conference in Russia that we should not ignore. In case you are wondering, BRICS is an acronym for some of the world’s leading emerging market economies. BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
At the conference, there were 9 members and 13 new “partner nations” who were accepted. That means that the GDP of the BRICS nations is now greater than the GDP of the G7 nations. The population of the BRICS nations is more than 3 billion.
Some pundits have wondered if a BRICS currency would threaten the status of the dollar. Until recently, the assumption has been that would be unlikely since the diversity of the various foreign economies. They wouldn’t likely settle on one currency.
But Matthew Sigel (Head of Digital Assets Research, VanEck) reminds us that three of the new members are now mining bitcoin with government resources. He explained that there is an urgency in the BRICS nations to find some way to circumvent the irresponsible US fiscal policy. Russia’s Sovereign Wealth Fund is going to invest in a regional initiative to build bitcoin mining and to build AI infrastructure throughout the BRICS nations with the goal of being able to settle global trade in bitcoin.
Sigel predicts that when President Putin dies, some of these countries may reintegrate into the world’s financial system. He says these BRICS countries will be trading with bitcoin and then wonders what the US will be doing at that time.
The US dollar has been the world’s primary reserve currency for over 60 years. Now, these countries are pursuing a policy of de-dollarization that will reduce the use of dollars in world trade and financial transactions. Congress and the incoming president need to take note.

Penna Dexter
Election day was almost upon us — the editorial endorsing Kamala Harris had already been written — when William Lewis, CEO and Publisher of The Washington Post announced the paper would not be endorsing a presidential candidate, ending a 50-year tradition of doing so.
Immediately after the announcement, The Post began bleeding subscribers — 250,000 of them within four days. Several staff members resigned in protest. Longtime opinion writer Ruth Marcus titled her column, “The Post, the wrong choice at the worst possible time.”
Owner Jeff Bezos wrote his own column explaining that The Post can no longer ignore polling that reveals falling public trust in journalists and the media. “What presidential endorsements do,” he wrote, “is create a perception of bias.” He said, “Ending them is a principled decision.” Other newspapers — The LA Times and USA Today – took the same action citing awareness of their own “lack of credibility.”
The Washington Post is not profitable and is becoming less so. Subscribers are turning to smaller, independent news outlets and social media. But, to do good investigative reporting, a news organization needs a large infrastructure. Covering the U.S. government takes a huge staff. The Post has these things. But, Mr. Bezos wrote, his paper and The New York Times “talk only to a certain elite” and increasingly “only to ourselves.” It would be good to have a centrist DC-based paper. If The Washington Post took serious steps away from its role as purveyor of leftist propaganda, it would be better for all of us.
Mr. Bezos also reportedly told The Post’s management it needs to hire more conservative columnists. Radio host Erick Erickson suggested that, if Mr. Bezos is serious about creating a balance, the paper should also add conservative editors and reporters “to break the leftwing worldview infused into the news product they produce.”
It would take deep structural and ideological shifts for The Washington Post to shed its reputation for extreme bias.

Kerby Anderson
The crisis of men and boys is well known and well documented. My radio interviews with Dr. Warren Farrell about his book, The Boy Crisis is but one example. Jordan Peterson has been speaking and writing about his concerns for many years. The latest warning comes from a David Brooks op-ed in the New York Times and the publication of a new book by Richard Reeves, Of Boys and Men.
For example, boys are struggling in the classroom. “American girls are 14 percentage points more likely to be ‘school ready’ than boys at age 5, controlling for parental characteristics.”
“Men are struggling in the workplace. One in three American men with only a high school diploma — 10 million men — is now out of the labor force.” And men are also struggling physically. They account for nearly three out of four “deaths of despair” (suicide and drug overdoses) in our country.
The new book by Richard Reeves provides more concerning documentation of a crisis of men and boys. One surprising finding was the boys are much more hindered by challenging environments like poverty or broken homes. He also explains that the many policies and programs designed to promote social mobility work for women, but not for men. For example, government programs like early childhood education produced significant gains for women but did not for men.
When we had a roundtable discussion of these issues, we concluded that these authors did a good job of identifying the problems but could not offer a solution to a society still searching for a “modern masculine ideal.” Therefore, pastors and men in the church need to provide a biblical foundation for manhood and must teach it to the boys and men in the church. We need a biblical answer to a major crisis in our culture.