I was listening to the show from last night, and I don't understand something that TFM was saying: I don't understand the logical leap made from what is currently happening to BRICS will fall to the West.
If I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), because Russia hasn't dropped the hammer on Ukraine and because the western media is talking openly about tactical nukes and how Iran is smart for not attacking Israel, therefore the non-west will not retaliate and surrender.
Furthermore, why does it matter what the media is saying, even if the media is an accurate reflection of the Regime's thoughts on the state of the world?
They're effectively a wife telling her friends that she wears the pants in the relationship. Who cares what she says? Who pays the bills in this analogy: Who still has the economic and strategic advantage right now? BRICS.
I hope someone can explain this because I don't know what I'm missing with why TFM took this angle.
I'm also not saying that "Russia hasn't had their facilities destroyed yet; therefore it will never happen."
Obviously, Russia could allow their critical infrastructure to be bombed, but they might also not.
Given all that is happening, I don't see why their present actions indicate so strongly that they are simply going to allow it. What am I missing? It is my inexperience with geopolitics? Do I rely to heavily on what is happening vs looking forward to what is implied by actions?
It came across to me as a combination of petulance and "you didn't listen to me and now it's all ruined so you're just cowardly cucks." As if calling them chicken will provoke them into action.
I'm on board with most of his geopolitical descriptions, i.e. that this is in some fundamental sense a war of American empire vs BRICS, a resource war in other words, but in my opinion his atheism also makes him blind to an entire class of analysis based in metaphysics, ethics and ontology.
Those non-material claims are in essence father to the material actions we see played out in current theaters of war.
Israel is the perfect example. Their batshit crazy actions are only made clear when viewed through their metaphysical/ontological claims to their Divine right to genocide.
The nearly 1 million settlers in the West Bank even call themselves Judaea, and they wield significant political influence.
Alastair Crooke, a repeat guest on Judge Nap understands this.
@UncleIroh I agree!
Every tool should be available for analysis, especially if it could give you an insight into how someone else thinks. Understanding the other person's worldview provides a great deal of information.
Part of knowing thy enemy is knowing their ontological foundation and their personal cosmology.
Exactly, but having a materialist worldview that dismisses these things out of hand as useless baggage means viewing the world in black and white terms, or at the very least as undervaluing these things.
Peoples and their religion come with a telos and sometimes an eschaton that has to be reckoned with if you are to take nuclear geopolitics seriously.
This is a battle of worldviews as much as it is resources.
@UncleIroh @DoubleD
Expanding to that, religion also explains the Ukranian war:
Israel wants to kill/sacrifice most slavs and goyim in Ukraine by throwing them against Russia so they reclaim their european homeland which the soviet union eventually confiscated.
TFM is right that the regime never dreamed they would lose so badly the war against Russia and now, they are scared shitless that Putin might actually have balls to completely take over their country. Putin might be a jew though...
Mostly agree, except the "Putin is a Jew" part.
The Ukraine war has a massive blood-libel grudge backstory involving Khazars and Orthodox Christianity going back centuries.
It's no coincidence that Victoria Nuland has ancestral ties to Ukraine and bears a deep commitment to hatred towards native Russians.
If only we had an authorized English translation of "200 years together" by Solzenitsyn, more people would understand these underlying currents.
@UncleIroh
Given these countries' behaviors, it seems they do not feel compelled to act with haste, which makes sense. They do not seem to emotionally expect or need the "touchdown", "knockout punch" victory.
Even if Russia and Iran know that nuclear war is on the horizon, since time is on their side, why would they not continue to bleed the Regime? What have they to gain by striking now?
Mostly nothing, except as TFM puts it, the appearance of "cucking" in the West's eyes as their respective red lines are continually crossed.
Yes, weakness does indeed invite aggression, but that only holds IFF the West genuinely believes that the BRICS alliance is weaker.
If we cannot provoke them into a war then the true test will be the expected false flags that we deploy to force a fight. Out "leaders" are out of time & resources and thus desperate for any legitimate casus belli.
@UncleIroh I'm happy to see someone use IFF correctly.
I think he was claiming that Iran wants the U.S.A, or Israel to attack them overtly in plain sight in a way that is apparent to everyone first so that if Iran attacks the U.S.A. or Israel then it will be overtly and clearly apparent that it is self defense to members of the public
BRICS can win economically if they have the infrastructure to do so. What has NATO done to destroy Russian critical infrastructure?
"Ukraine" has done things such as hit oil refineries nearby with drones, yes. (e.g. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/several-people-injured-drone-attack-industrial-sites-russias-tatarstan-agencies-2024-04-02/)
I can see why TFM would be disheartened, but if Russia is winning strategically as he said, why would they feel the need to rush to end Ukraine? They aren't at risk to lose infrastructure yet. To me it seems they're not worried about winning the larger war.