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.
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.
@DoubleD
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.