Welcome to the Daily D.O.G.E. Dive
This Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) Research Thread has been created by the moderation team as a central location to collect research and analyze D.O.G.E. related news, information, and happenings.
Purpose
The purpose of this thread is to:
I. Facilitate Research: To encourage Anons to perform high quality detailed digs into D.O.G.E.'s operations, initiatives, and impacts.
II. Centralize Information: To keep all D.O.G.E.-related discussions in one place, preventing the board from being cluttered with repetitive posts.
III. Maintain Clarity on GAW: To keep The Great Awakening focused on high effort research oriented posts by isolating daily D.O.G.E. related discussions here.
IV. Foster Community Engagement: To provide a platform where Anons can collaborate, share insights, and discuss findings related to D.O.G.E.
Rules
I. On-Topic Posts Only: All comments must be directly related to D.O.G.E. Off-topic comments will be removed.
II. Source Your Information: Always provide sources for your findings. Direct links or references are encouraged.
III. Respectful Discourse: Maintain respectful and constructive dialogue. Personal attacks or derailing discussions are not allowed.
What is the D.O.G.E. ?
The Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.), led by Elon Musk, is an initiative aimed at streamlining federal operations, reducing waste, and enhancing fiscal responsibility. It focuses on government efficiency, finance, budget balancing, and cutting down on bureaucratic inefficiencies to optimize public spending and governance processes. Additionally, D.O.G.E. is tasked with revealing corruption, fraud, and money laundering within government operations. In the end, we Anons of The Great Awakening hope that the work of the D.O.G.E. will culminate in the demolition of the Federal Reserve and a return of financial sovereignty to We the People.
Note from Moderation Team
We encourage all Anons to participate actively in this thread to expand our collective understanding of D.O.G.E. and its impact on on The Great Awakening. Please adhere to the rules to ensure this thread remains a valuable resource for our community. Remember, this is a research-focused environment, so let's keep the discussions informative and insightful.
In the coming days the moderators of GAW will be creating additional topic oriented threads as we near the eye of the storm where the happenings will undoubtedly quicken. GAW is our ship in this storm. We cannot allow for it to take on water. With happenings come many threads, often repetitive, off topic, and lacking in substance and research.
Remember our mission Anons. You can find it in the sidebar.
"We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES."
The incentives have been different for a long time. The average Russian is much less trusting of the Russian MSM than is the case in the US. They don’t have a huge moat supporting them and they need journalistic credibility to be trusted. I am not saying they’re perfect but they are, and have long been, in a situation much more conducive to accurate reporting than their western and globalist counterparts.
I’m not saying to trust every word — I have been interviewed by Russian media and had narrative inserted into my own story — but just that it’s quite a different creature and very useful for A/B comparisons of coverage of a story.
I agree fully with your assessment. I think critical thought, i.e., criticism of an acceptable sounding narrative, has been subverted in the West, by "Critical theory" in academic literature over here. A true intellectual would engage in critical thought as the basis for furthering science, intelligence, military might, or anything really.
When one investigates where "critical theory" lies in research it is spat upon, or embraced, depending on the institution. Yet "critical thought" is used when questioning theories or hypotheses - which is used, before developing ground-breaking (and what one would assume would be relevant) hypotheses. This is fundamental to science. Yet 'critical theory' lies in some shady subjective world, that might as well be introspective, a la Carlos Castaneda, and is heavily discouraged as any sort of basis in theses.
I believe the demonizing of criticism was seeded in the 1950's or thereabouts, to craft the belief of 'true science' - partly to cover up a certain, shall we say, lack of achievement. Yet, Science was never meant to be set in stone.
So, we have the ludicrous situation that the very basis of scientific work: i.e. criticism of a mainstream belief, is taken away by fake narrative control (i.e. mistakingly equating critical thought with critical theory). One is admonished in universities for spending too many words on thinking, and instead is expected to make an objective essay, with 'results' as the end product. The result is that whenever 'qualitative' work is done, it is expected to be Secondary work. One is expected to produce 'quantitative' results. And this leads to 'reporting' on surveys, with lots of graphs. When data is qualitative, one is to SAY it is Secondary, and STILL do primary work. There are only a minority of papers that are truly qualitative.
Actual logical thought is discouraged, on the whole.
I am listening to Brian Berletic at the moment - re: USA's Asian foreign policy. He critisizes of the USA, regarding the base in Thailand.
Nice.
I’m interested in the “levels of thinking” popularized by “hoe_math” (I forget who the author is, my fault as HM does loudly credit him). Levels 1, 2, and 3 are survival. Level 4 is group membership and identification. Level 5 is where science happens. Levels above that deal with broader understanding, larger goals, and ethics. It sounds like you’re describing a struggle or confusion between levels 4 and 5. (Anyone who says “trust the science” is at level 4 missing the whole point, of course.)
I recommend the work of Joaquin Flores if you’re interested in Berletic.
Thanks, I'll have a look at Joaquin Flores.
Actually my struggle happened at level 8/9. And yes, it should have been about ethics, but the dunderheads insisted it must be objective. No guidance at all of remaining ethical, IRL. As you say, the 'science' happens at level 5, so it was frustrating to have the head of department waffle on about 'concerns'. The really cutting edge research was coming form Russian and Chinese sources. Translated, so would come through wonky, but one could get the gist. However, there was some good Polish and Finnish material, also, especially as these countries made an effort to have English translations side-by-side, and even some from Lvov, which is Ukrainian/Polish. The latter have a 'School of Logic', for example, which is where one would find this sort of work. and The Finns started a 'Philosphy of Humanities' course, adjacent to a 'Philosophy of Science' one, which is standard fare, in philosophy departments. And really, Philosophy of Science is an oxymoron, when no logical thinking is allowed, if actually applied to science. Suddenly the philosphy of science = follow this recipe for successful thesis. Oh and limit the subjective stuff.
The "humanities" have been demonized in the West as well. It is very hard to get a job with a philosophy degree, for example. (not mine) One has to re-train and become something else, essentially. Furthermore, for such Secondary research as Religion, those degrees are just about a piece of paper at the end, that is unusable IRL, except for personal satisfaction - and some people do it for that reason alone. Law, Philopshy and Religions are hold-outs in thinking. But even Law can read awfully dull, even as they are wrestiling with ethics.
And funnily, the leftie pink-hairs have invaded the space, so one will find the wonkiest 'circular economies' theories floating about - to further dicredit any Pragmatism.