The Welfare State

http://watch-unto-prayer.org/lgbtq-evangelicals-global-goals.html

This is a very good article. however the presupposition of many conservative Christians,
who correctly spot and denounce the malignant creeping globalism and creeping
totalitarianism, whether of left or right, is that welfare is "socialism" which is A Bad
Thing.

Before I start, let me say that I am not a fan of big government, oppressive taxation, or
crippling regulation not to mention agenda driven (and career fear enforced) quack
science and so forth like man made global warming, which every decade for some
decades now is supposed to kill us all off in ten years.

Ice cores from Antarctica and other sources show that warming always precedes an
ice age, the original scare of an ice age in the 1960's is closer to the truth, but of course
is and was promoted with a view to an excuse for totalitarian and suchlike measures
including depopulation (measures for which include abortion and encouraging
homosexuality). Notice that the talk now is not so much global warming as "climate
change" which allows the purveyors, who by now realize that oncoming ice age is
more likely and that the public is noticing this, to cover their asses when their
predictive abilities as global warming activists get blown out of the water, er, snow.

Now let's unpack this.

"Half-Time is Buford’s brainchild to package the Great Society visions of its architect, John Gardner, (who served in the LBJ administration launching the largest progressive expansion of government and the welfare state in history at the time)."

LBJ was no racial egalitarian or lover of the poor, and in general was unchaste and a total
asshole. A good case is made he had a hand in the assassination of JFK. And being part
of that milieu, in that of MLK. So why did he promote The Great Society?

Probably because if welfare and giving discriminated against, seriously kept down
people a head start is tweaked "correctly" you can have effects that go against the
stated purpose, while you put up with such positive effects as you have to put up with.

Take affirmative action. This says essentially that there has to be a quota of a category
of people, hired, or taken into education or whatever, that is equivalent to their percentage
of the population at large, figuring reasonably enough, that if there wasn't an effort to
exclude them then their percentage in those fields would match their percentage in the
population at large.

however.

1. This isn't much different really from the discrimination that makes damn sure that
no more than that percentage or less get into those fields. (with or without violent measures
to enforce this.)

2. It can be misused to discriminate against qualified individuals who are of those
favored elements, because their inclusion would go above that quota, and of course
"right minded" (racist etc.) people can quietly make sure that the less capable are the
ones who get the slots, making the target group look bad. This also discourages
their own self image.

And it can be used to over represent (as a goal) the targeted (for help) group aiding
both take over revenge attitudes that will cause pushback, and even without such
attitudes unfairly excluding qualified persons of the majority group, who after a while
start comparing notes, getting together and engaging in pushback. Both situations
ultimately favor the previously discriminated in favor of white majority, and potentially
drive the supposedly helped elements down and out, possibly violently, exploiting the
presence of the revenge and take over minded ones.

3. It can be misused to disempower. If a neighborhood isn't safe to leave your kids
in, and laws grow that forbid having your older kids watch your younger kids calling
this child abandonment, and moving kids from your overburdened family to some
relative's family as used to be done generations ago, as child abandonment unless
done by a court proceeding, then you can't go to work safely and if you are a single
mother, either by whoredom (sleeping around, not just sex for money), seduction
and abandonment, seduction then realizing the man is only going to turn your child
into a sleazebag heartbreaker and/or criminal so get rid of him, or by divorce or
widowhood, you need that aid.

Here some will say it should be voluntary and from charities and churches. Later.
(Charity is not voluntary biblically, it was required in OT and in NT we are warned
against not engaging in it, we could end up damned. But if you don't live near
the poor except for a few wandering dopers and scammers but in modern huge
cities like nothing that existed in those days, it helps to have some agency do the
charity for you. of course, this doesn't have to be government. But then, how do
you define government? even the council of elders of several extended families
would qualify as government! get real.)

But the aid is too low to cover all expenses so its still a struggle and the cheap
food is often unhealthy and high carb promoting weight gain and so forth.

ALSO when "traditional" notions of man as provider are in play, and it his
responsibility and no one else's to provide, then when he can't provide you
have to hide him or divorce him whether you keep him around on the sly
or not. I understand this has been modified in recent decades.

Now, while welfare incl. other entitlements can be used to escape a bad family
situation or a horrible marriage, in which case the destructive force against
the family is those people making the family a hellhole, restrictions and so
forth can result in undermining the family.

And for a woman to feel free to sleep around and cheat because the government
will help support the kids, and feel free to divorce is a side issue, ignores that
such a view of marriage as for money is essentially a kind of veiled prostitution,
and that this freedom also means easier escape from an abusive cheating partner,
who isn't wealthy enough to support her and the kids in divorce, and probably
wouldn't much anyway in a cohabitation.

The Great Society and War on Poverty therefore had a hypocritical evil intent
angle, throw a bone to the people making a lot of noise but do so minimally
with as much restrictions in it as would help undermine the black family and
so forth.

One big problematic view of the idea of "undermining the black family" and
the family at large, is that if a woman is the head of the household, by practice
or by fact of being the only adult, this is not a real family. The actual problem
is what KIND of woman she is, same problem as what KIND of man a male
head of household is. In a defacto matriarchal system, a serious risk of
disgusting suffocating almost psychologically incestuous kind of devotion
to the mother and her not disciplining but considering the vile rapist murdering
punk who terrorizes the neighborhood until thank God he's killed or imprisoned
as her "child."

Both sexes can forget they do NOT create life. they are merely the tools God
used to create or continue His creation of life. But the visual effect of the
woman in charge can lead (without serious focus on God as the maker and
owner of all) easily to misviewing her (by herself and others) as the creator
of life. Feminists and even traditionalists talk like this, even Christians who
should know better. Eve knew better and said "I have gotten a man with
the help of [or from] YHWH" it is a bit harder to view the man as creator
or even sole player (though some think of life as from him and merely
incubated in the woman), because there are reproductive related cycles in the
woman time of fertility vs. menstruation, that eventually cease and make
her not impregnatable (most of the time) so a male focused or led or
patrilineal system is a bit harder to use to co opt God's role.

to beat the system, which undermines decency and right education and
tries to enforce vaccination loads at once on infants, that in earlier
generations would have been unthinkable, Christian parents talk of
"parental rights." really, its parental responsibilities. But its easy to slip
into a mode where you give lip service to kids belonging NOT to the
parents but to God, while at gut level your view is that they are your creations
and your property.

Continuing:

 "The idea is taken from Gardner’s concept of “Repotting” oneself at mid-life and finding purpose, not in gaining, but in giving back, i.e. philanthropic social responsibility for individuals who have achieved success. The goal is to consider the greater good and disperse one’s wealth for the benefit of society and the “Common Good.” "


Now, there is nothing unbiblical about this at all. HOWEVER.....

"This mantra is now everywhere in the Church thanks to people like Buford (who was a great admirer of Soviet leader Lenin as “one of the two greatest thinkers of the last century”) and to pastors like Keller and Warren who have helped sell his ideology to the Church.""

Here is the big problem, along with an angle on the Great Society connection.

1. mindless acceptance and promotion of whatever governmental operation is supposedly
taking care of things,

2. mixing it all up in a seamless web with any godawful totalitarian regime's efforts to
forcibly redistribute wealth which usually has the goal of impoverishing everybody except
elites, and with a kind of light trance mental blurment of the followers of such and often
of talking heads and a general state encouraged by media and "faciliators" and other such
trash, and of course creeping heresy.

the new age notion of eliminating all differences all boundaries all distinctions including
and especially that of religion, unity at the expense of truth. and a focus more on the
self than on Christ (Who may be even redefined with some misapplication of biblical
terms as some cosmic whatnot instead of the particular individual man Who is God the
Second Person of the Holy Trinity Incarnate permanently, Who in days of Pontius Pilate
truly physically died for our sins, and truly physically permanently came back to life
ascended in His flesh into Heaven and will come back down from there someday to
rule forever (not just a thousand years, that's a first stage) and eventually overhaul
creation.

hypocrisy: fear of socialized medicine - doctors who used to take an oath (and using a
false god's name to do so which probably spiritually contaminated the whole thing)
that they would NOT take fees for service only such gifts as the patient felt like giving
or was able to give, make tons of money and despise the poor. Also, they complain
they are not allowed to treat their patients the way they want to.

in the case where a doctor is not allowed to separately contract with a patient for
the latter to pay out of pocket for the not covered treatment, which IS an issue
sometimes I understand, this is idiotic. Insurance companies have always excluded
some treatments and pre existing conditions anyway. THAT DOCTORS FELT
FREE TO HIKE THEIR RATES BECAUSE MOST COULD NOW AFFORD IT
IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.

Some years ago a group of doctors made an agreement to never work for a for profit
hospital or clinic. This got back to the AMA. Did they applaud these men? no.
They merely said they would not discipline or sanction them. WHAT?! that option
of negative action should never have even been on their minds. But they are all
now money grubbing scumbags.

"thou shalt not steal" is taken to apply to government by Christians who ignore rather
contrary to such application things in the Bible. God was God AND KING of Israel
and in BOTH roles dictated law, including that the third year's tithe was to go
to the poor and levites, and the producers of wealth who tithed made an accounting
in public that they had done so and kept nothing back. Obviously failure to comply
would result in sanctions, maybe flogging. Definitely the money or crops would
be simply taken from them and distributed by the relevant authorities.

Is this voluntarism? Also there were commands not suggestions, you let a slave
go in the seventh year you give him means to get by on for a while. you HAVE
to be charitable to the poor and buy back your relative who for poverty sold
himself into slavery. and so forth.

Churches and charities as only means of support for the poor - what did Paul
say? that charity begins at home and they should not dump their widows on the
church unless there really is no support that the churches be not burdened. Of
course once the churches had more money they opened hospitals (Christians
started this!) and so forth. But this is also a good excuse to exclude those
who are not Christian, or not of some approved lifestyle or whatever, which
makes some more dangerous and some more trapped and to exclude those
trying to escape the company of bad people, whether those bad people are
relatives or neighborhood or whatever and anyone with a criminal record.
Precisely this used to be done..

And a lot of "charities" merely fund efforts to propagandize globalism and
immorality and atheism either overtly or in stages.

The required tithe mentioned above is a precedent for welfarism from taxes.
The safety laws in OT are a precedent for OSHA etc. but NOT for crippling
regulations that accomplish nothing but make more pay for some who have
to make the changes (and more overhead for the smaller businesses that
have to have the changes made).

Is welfare and entitlements bankrupting the USA? No. the big costs are
because of wild spending on wildly built up costs of military industrial
complex stuff, subsidies and kickbacks and what is generally called
corporate welfare.

Is welfare unknown to Christian civilization before the advent of Marxism
or even a bit earlier the illuminist fueled revolutions screaming about the
poor?

no.

Alfred the Great a Christian king of England is famous for having the
plough tax be applied to help the poor. (it is disputed whether the plough
tax existed before him or not, but he was the one who ordered it be put
to use for the poor.)

Byzantine rulers subsidized Christian hospitals.