Recognize A Brain Wreck When You See One?

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison

Not all folks will, but some of the notable foreign policy officials of long standing do:

"The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power until the emergence of America on the world scene. Imperial Great Britain came close to becoming one, but World War I and later World War II not only bankrupted it but also prompted the emergence of rival regional powers. The decisive new global reality was the appearance on the world scene of America as simultaneously the richest and militarily the most powerful player. During the latter part of the 20th century no other power even came close.

That era is now ending. While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail."

(Toward a Global Realignment, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, emphasis added; cf The Broken Chessboard). The typical conflict: "that can't happen here vs. it could happen" comes to mind.

Yep, it is a brain wreck.

And on top of that it is the typical, historical brain wreck:

"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown."

(A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee). Two historians using similar metaphors ("the means to commit suicide ... or even to prevail") present a repeating historical conundrum.

A historical conundrum emanating from the same, repetitious brain wreck:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.

(James Madison, emphasis added). The visionary who made that statement was the 4th President of the United States, Bill of Rights author, Congressman, Cabinet Member, and who was also called the "Father of the U.S. Constitution".

The above quote is from his "Political Observations," April 20, 1795, in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Volume IV, page 491-492.

Notice, in the quote above, how Madison equated or associated the toxins of power with disease epidemic concepts, saying that the war toxin "develops the germ of every other" anti-freedom toxin.

War enhances the spread of corrupting toxins.

(The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?). Dr. Brzezinski has been an advocate of domination by military power, which I call the bully religion (On The Origin of The Bully Religion, 2, 3, 4; Bully Worship: The Universal Religion, 2, 3, 4, 5; Origin of the Classic Nuclear Bully, 2).

Dr. Brzezinski once advocated the American empire through the lens of military power.

Now rejecting that as a viable, ongoing foreign policy, he still speaks nothing of mutual destruction by way of nuclear winter, nuclear heat, or radiation as a means of human extinction.

Nor does he speak of the other means of "suicide," as do many who have not become myopic to the point of perpetuating the brain wreck that advocates such notions (How Many Minutes to Midnight?).

Another well known observer, however, does mention both available methods of "suicide":

Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to allow the unification of Germany and its membership in NATO, a hostile military alliance. In the light of recent history, this was a most astonishing concession. There was a quid pro quo. President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker agreed that NATO would not expand “one inch to the East,” meaning into East Germany. Instantly, they expanded NATO to East Germany.

Gorbachev was naturally outraged, but when he complained, he was instructed by Washington that this had only been a verbal promise, a gentleman’s agreement, hence without force. If he was naïve enough to accept the word of American leaders, it was his problem.

All of this, too, was routine, as was the silent acceptance and approval of the expansion of NATO in the U.S. and the West generally. President Bill Clinton then expanded NATO further, right up to Russia’s borders. Today, the world faces a serious crisis that is in no small measure a result of these policies.
...
On the issue of nuclear weapons, the record is similarly interesting -- and frightening. It reveals very clearly that, from the earliest days, the security of the population was a non-issue, and remains so. There is no time here to run through the shocking record, but there is little doubt that it strongly supports the lament of General Lee Butler, the last commander of the Strategic Air Command, which was armed with nuclear weapons. In his words, we have so far survived the nuclear age “by some combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion.” And we can hardly count on continued divine intervention as policymakers play roulette with the fate of the species in pursuit of the driving factors in policy formation.

As we are all surely aware, we now face the most ominous decisions in human history. There are many problems that must be addressed, but two are overwhelming in their significance: environmental destruction and nuclear war. For the first time in history, we face the possibility of destroying the prospects for decent existence -- and not in the distant future. For this reason alone, it is imperative to sweep away the ideological clouds and face honestly and realistically the question of how policy decisions are made, and what we can do to alter them before it is too late.

(Whose Security?, Noam Chomsky, emphasis added). More likely than not, "before it is too late" is something that has by now become very hazy in the rear view mirror of time.

In fact, it is so hazy and out of reach that it cannot be returned to (except by daydream believers).

I have been troubled by the ongoing election in a nation that sits on enough weaponry to destroy life on the planet 50 or more times over with just one of the two options: the nuclear war brain wreck.

To me, the election seems to be scripted and choreographed by the Epigovernment (Epigovernment: The New Model, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

But, that is the case not only to me, but even to Dr. Brzezinski's daughter too (she recently remarked on Morning Joe that elections are "not supposed to be this way").

These kinds of plans can't be done in the light of day, they must be hidden from us, according to "the father of spin", a proud American propagandist:

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Edward L. Bernays

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons — a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty [now 320] million — who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
...
It is the purpose of this book to explain the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and to tell how it is manipulated by the special pleader who seeks to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. It will attempt at the same time to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice.

(Propaganda, by Edward L. Bernays, emphasis added). His first client as a professional propagandist was the U.S. War Department (Encyclopedia Britannica).

One has to wonder if he encouraged them to "pivot" and change their name to "Department of Defense?"

But nevermind, it is ok MOMCOM, we the sheeple are only bleeting bleating.

---

The sarcasm of protest music has become the bumper sticker for McTell News ("nothing to see here folks, move along now ...").

---