Please, No DOGE

 

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a plan to create a government efficiency commission led by Tesla CEO Elon Musk if re-elected president. This commission would conduct a financial and performance audit of the entire federal government. Musk is pushing the idea of the Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.), emphasizing concerns about government overspending.

Subsequent comments set a $2 trillion reduction out of a total federal spending of something approaching $7 trillion.

Some History

A few data points to begin.  When the United States closed the gold window in 1971, unleashing all hell on the idea of money and, therefore, fiscal discipline, federal spending was $210 billion.  In 2007, the year before the great financial crisis, spending was $2.7 trillion.  Then came TARP, and all types of supposedly one-time programs, raising spending to $3.5 trillion in 2009.  I say “supposedly one-time,” because the feds never looked back. 

By 2019, the years before the planned-demic, spending grew to $4.4 trillion, almost all of the growth coming under Trump’s watch (with Republican support or a split congress).  Then, the gusher: in 2020, $6.5 trillion – all the various programs to help those poor covidians (in reality, it was all a financial system bailout – the fake illness was just the pretext; once the scam began, every department found a way to not let the crisis go to waste).  Did the number shrink post-covid?  No, current estimates are $6.75 trillion.

To cut $2 trillion from this amount shouldn’t be so tough – just take government back to 2019 levels.  Before the fake illness, before the fake president.  Does anyone feel like the government was somehow starved then, like we didn’t have enough state?

Let’s start with “Department”

I know DOGE is just a cute name, but names come with a mentality, forming a purpose.  How many government departments, once created, have ever been shut down or shrunk? 

In other words, please don’t form a department.  It will be staffed, and soon enough those on the staff will have a reason to perpetuate the existence of another department.

And this might be the worst department ever to perpetuate…

“Government Efficiency”?

First of all, this is an oxymoron.  In order for any institution to be motivated toward efficiency, a few things are required: revenue from willing customers, and the idea of profit and loss.  The government has neither of these.

The government need not satisfy its customers in order to collect revenue; it doesn’t even collect revenue from its customers in any case.  Those who pay into the federal government do so because prison is the other option.

Further, profit and loss are irrelevant to the federal government.  It can tax, print, or borrow to offset any deficits, and can do this almost indefinitely (with the sole form of discipline being an eventual destruction of the currency, the timing of which is unknown and unknowable).

But there is a bigger problem: do I want the government to more efficiently kill innocents overseas; more efficiently spy on me; more efficiently incarcerate perpetrators of victimless crimes; more efficiently process illegal aliens?  Oh, the list can go on.

Almost all that the government does are things that I do not want the government to do.  So why would I want the government to be more efficient at any of these?

So, Now What?

When Genocide is in Fashion

 

Yes.  The polite company finds genocide fashionable.  It’s all the rage.  A couple of things come to mind due to this evolving social trend.

First, does the polite company think genocide will remain contained 10,000 miles away, in an unknown corner of the world?  If it’s good enough for them, why not us?  The United States government has found genocide a useful and moral tool.  When has any tool available to the United States remained in use only “over there.”

They spy on terrorists over there, only to find soon enough the same tools are used against us over here.  They deploy military men and equipment over there, only to find soon enough that the same equipment is now worn and used by law enforcement over here.  They used color revolutions over there, and in the summer of 2020, they used a color revolution over here.

At least so far, the USG hasn’t dropped a nuclear bomb on a US city…wait.  One way or another there are those in the government who were involved in, or at least have knowledge of who was involved in, nine 11.  So, yeah, kind of.

Second, Christians take a beating over many things in history: the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burning, colonialism, etc.  Set aside the exaggerated nature of many of these accusations – in many cases they are either not true or quite minimal when compared to, say, Genghis Khan or Joseph Stalin.

Fifty or one hundred years from now, Christians won’t be able to hide from the support their parents and grandparent gave to genocide.  This genocide is too well documented.  I used to think it was just evangelical Protestants brainwashed by Scofield that were genocide supporters; Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can’t be this stupid.  Then I read something that said, yes, Roman Catholics can also be so stupid.

From Chuck Baldwin, who has been excellent on this topic of Christian cheerleaders of genocide:

Obviously, there have been diabolical and demented mass killers before, but never have we seen Christian people—almost as a whole—excuse, defend, facilitate and actively support and assist the maniacal, murderous monsters.

The last twelve months have unveiled a racist, bloodthirsty, maniacal Israeli society that looks at people of other races as nonhuman. They are described as animals. The babies born to their mothers are called little snakes. These killers recognize no law but their own—not international law, not Natural law, not moral law, not Biblical law, not even the law of humanity. They kill at will. Defenseless women and children are slaughtered like cattle. They celebrate death and destruction. They are willing to take the world into global nuclear war to achieve their goal of complete ethnic purging of the Palestinian people. They are wholly without conscience.

Yet, in the Christian West, we find abject apathy or even exuberant excitement for this satanic behavior. Our national government protects and defends it. Worse than that: It assists and facilitates this murderous madness by providing money, weapons of mass destruction, satellite surveillance, intelligence, etc., to the Zionist zealots of death.

Make no mistake about it: The United States of America is as culpable in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Palestine as are the Israelis. So, too, are those Americans—including Christians—who in their hearts support Israel’s genocide.

What about the Eastern Orthodox?  I have seen nothing of support for genocide in this community.  I will bet, within the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church is not supportive.  Likely not the Armenians, as they have recent memory of being genocided back when genocide was not in fashion.

Although such memories, real or exaggerated, haven’t impacted today’s genocideers. 

Christians and Politics

 

Roger Mitchell, a regular and valued commenter at both of my blogs, has written a blog post, Should Christians be Involved in Politics?  It is a thought-provoking read, as is much of what he writes.  His answer is “no.”  I offer here his conclusion:

What, then, shall be done? How, then, shall we live? Well, there is nothing to do except to change myself into and in conformance with His likeness, to become holy as He is holy, to accept that there is no other name except His by which I am saved. This alone brings freedom. It is the only path to life. Nothing else will work. Everything else will fail.

You can rationalize all you want. You can make all the excuses you want. You can delude yourselves until the chickens come home to roost. In the end, you are only deceiving yourself.

I offered a comment, as follows:

Roger, I offer a story, taken from an excellent novel on the Spanish Civil War. As you know, fascists vs. communists – although even within each label there were other groups, etc.

Barcelona was more favorable to the communist side. Being a Catholic in this region was almost certain to bring persecution, if not death. Now, I could take a shortcut here – bypassing the more sobering point to the story…well, I will offer the shortcut, then get to the more sobering point.

A Catholic in Barcelona would much prefer the fascists led by Franco. It doesn’t mean they thought godly everything that Franco touched. It just meant relative safety for them and their families.

The more sobering story: before the war broke out, one of the sons of this Catholic family donated blood to a man, saving the man’s life. Turns out this man was a fanatical communist.

He would go on to protect the family during the fighting – with firearms and whatever else – from his fellow communists. He said, to the mother: “not even God can get through me to you.” She would smile, understanding his point even though it was a very poor way to phrase it.

So, I am not sure what I am saying – and, for sure you know how I feel about the lot of them (all the likely winners are supporters of genocide; it doesn’t get more evil than this). Maybe instead of considering it as the lesser of two evils, we consider all as fallen, but some less fallen than others.

Even with this said, I still don’t know how I feel about any of it. The way politics is practiced in a relativist, atheist society, is ugly – even in its least-fallen form.

I have written one post on the novel from which I based my comment, and I offer a couple of excerpts from my post as they are relevant to the point I am offering for consideration:

Gironella [the author] paints a picture of the chaos, turmoil, and terror when one is faced with a situation from which there is no escape – when no avenue offers safety, when no side can be chosen because all sides are violent and repressive, and choosing the wrong (losing) side is just as likely as choosing the right (winning) side; and the “right” and “wrong” sides can change claim to the seat of power, at times even day-to-day.

Throughout the novel, I am struck by the paralyzing nature of the situation – what choices can one make when all choices are bad?  Gironella paints this picture with great nuance and clarity – the lives of everyday people in a boat floating off as it will – with no one able to control it. 

We are not yet at the point of civil war.  But in every way, it seems inevitable that we are headed in this direction.  At that point, will we, as Christians be satisfied if we stayed out of politics?  Before we come to that point, will we rather choose a strongman – say, a Napoleon – to bring order no matter the consequences to libertarian political theory?

Angelo Codevilla was a prescient writer, seeing the divide in America many years ago and where this divide would lead.  I wrote several pieces referencing his work (just search “Codevilla” in the search bar on the right column).  However, I offer his comment most relevant to this topic, written in the run-up to Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016:

Hello From an Old Friend

 

I have missed the voice of Jeff Deist ever since he left the Mises Institute a couple of years ago.  He has popped up publicly a couple of times since then, most recently at Hans Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society annual conference.

At this conference, he gave a talk entitled A New Approach to Hoppe’s “Open Border” Critics.  It is consistent with Jeff’s comments on this and similar topics in the past, as I would fully expect.  Even knowing this, I watched, as it is always nice to hear Jeff speak on any topic.

I have encouraged Jeff to find an outlet to once again bring his voice to the public – a blog, podcast, whatever.  To my knowledge, he has not yet done so.  So, I am left, as with this talk at PFS, with finding tidbits wherever Jeff chooses to leave them!

Christian Mass-Murder Cheerleaders

 

This video: “Judeo-Christian” Was Always A Psyop

The two discussants offered the following parable:

Luke: 20: 9 Then He began to tell the people this parable: “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. 10 Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. 12 And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out.

13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.’ 14 But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’ 15 So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.”

And when they heard it they said, “Certainly not!” 17 Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written:

‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone’?

18 Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

19 And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people—for they knew He had spoken this parable against them.

The interpretation offered (extremely paraphrased): why on earth do many Christians believe that the modern-day state of Israel has anything to do with Biblical eschatology.  The owner (God) of the vineyard (land of Judea) has destroyed the vinedressers (the Jews – not as a people, but as in having to do anything with ongoing expectations) who had killed the owner’s servants and even his son (Jesus).

In other words, the vineyard (the land of Judea) is taken away from the first tenants (the Jews) and given to others (not the Jews, but those who would honor the son).  So why do so many Christians proclaim the legitimacy, and even necessity, of the first tenants to return to and retain the land?

As an aside, I have not yet come to study this parable at my other blog, so we will see what Metropolitan Hilarion has to say about it at some point.

My comment to this video:

First, thank you for taking this on.  The Scofield-dedicated Christian Protestants will one day be remembered just like the Christians in Hitler’s Germany are remembered today – cheer leading enablers of mass murder.

Christians such as these are working to destroy Christianity in the United States, whether knowingly or not.  There is nothing Biblical about this Scofield ideology.

Three thoughts:

Judeo Christian is a made-up term.  It first appeared in the 1820s, and was used to indicate Jewish converts to Christianity.  The modern usage only came to be in the 1950s or so.  Further, today’s “Judaism” and Christianity are both children of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Do we not, instead, have on the one hand a Hebraic-Christian tradition and on the other a Hebraic-Jewish tradition (if one needs to invent labels)?

A note: I looked into this invented tradition about two-and-a-half years ago.

Continuing with my comment: in the video, the gentlemen discussed why it is that today Hitler is demonized and Stalin is, at most, left alone.  They offer that it is because Hitler was on the political right.

Regarding “Hitler was the bad guy on the right.”  That technically isn’t correct.  Hitler led the National Socialist Party, this as opposed to communism, which was an international socialist political ideology.  Both were movements of the left.  The difference between these two leftist movements is that National Socialism recognized differences among and between people – certainly in many wrongheaded and even evil ways, but the issue was that different cultures and traditions are different and the difference is often meaningful.  The international socialists were, and remain, against this reality.

Hitler’s Nazis were socialists, and the communists of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were socialist.  They were all on the left.

Finally, labeling everything we don't like as "Hitler" is convenient, because now no one speaks of sin.  Hitler has allowed society to ignore sin.

How often do Christians speak openly of sin…and hell.  We have come to just say “Hitler,” as if this is the description of the worst hell on earth (it isn’t), let alone the worst hell of which God has warned us.

Conclusion

I have heard at least some bits and pieces of the Scofieldian conversation shifting.  Before, it was “Israel has a right to defend itself.”  But by now, twelve months in, this idea of Israel “defending” itself is unsustainable.  Now I hear: “Well, you either support God’s will or man’s morals.”

What will they say when Israel is both destroyed and, with the aid of the United States, destroys much of the region and the Rapture or Second Coming or thousand years or whatever is nowhere in sight?  I think the answer to that is easy.  There have been other interpretations and understandings of the end times over the last 2,000 years, and the failure of each never prevented the rise of a new one.

How about just always being prepared, as we, the watchful servants, never know when the master will return?