The Butcher’s Dog

by G. Murphy Donovan (June 2025)

 

A mind is a place where the soul goes to hide from the heart. —Mike Singer

 

Most institutions begin with a good idea until the institution becomes the enemy of ideas.

Once upon a time I was the senior military and USAF Intelligence research fellow at Rand Corp, mother of all post-WWII think tanks. Indeed, RAND likes to think of itself as “Mother Rand.” Today there are at least 1,800 American think tanks, RAND clones peddling volumes of inert paper profitably to governments, foreign and domestic, at all levels.

If think tanks do nothing else, they kill a lot of trees.

When federal or state agencies have unspent or “unobligated” funds towards the end of the fiscal year, those monies often get thrown at think tanks for dubious “research” or studies. Most studies today focus on administrative, managerial, and real or imagined social issues. LGBT, gender bender, gay, and XX studies, take a bow here.

If you believe sex and social kinks have little to do with the strategic premises for which RAND was originally funded by the USAF (nee US Air Corps); you would be correct. Nuclear matters, military readiness, recruitment, retention, and operational effectiveness take a back seat to pronouns and sexual orientation today, not just in Santa Monica but on ground zero, at the Pentagon also.

When the US Army said “be all you can be,” the brass literally meant that they would remove your penis at taxpayer expense and help you become a Venus.

Under Donald Rice, and in the wake of the Daniel Ellsberg Pentagon Papers fiasco, RAND transitioned from iconic strategic to pandering social study, a Pentagon sponsored forum for cutting edge DEI advocacy on issues like women in combat, sexual orientation, and federally funded sex “reassignment” surgery. Until 2024, sex surgery was thought to be a recruiting incentive for the so-called “trans” or gender bender community.

Indeed, RAND Corporation was one of, if not the first, Beltway bandits to have a HQ, federally funded LGBTQ social club. Chez Jays, Samurai Sushi, Muscle Beach, and the S&M Pier were never enough for Left Coast towns like Santa Monica.

Even AI can’t tell you how many sex studies RAND has done for DOD, but at least 30 in the past 15 years might be a conservative estimate. Clearly, anecdotal and survey evidence suggests that the USAF and now the Space Force may be the gayest of all five military services.

Space cadets indeed!

Does all this suggest causality, correlation, or advocacy at USAF or RAND?

Who knows, but ecumenical sex advocacy anywhere in DOD is one study the Pentagon is not likely to sponsor any time soon. Clearly, all those LGBTQ studies may have been motivated by the need to plumb the depths of gay and “brat” America as a solution to human resource and retention woes at Ground Zero. Intuitively, you might not expect the small albeit noisy TQ population to provide answers to military “manpower” problems.

Nevertheless, all those sex surveys at RAND did manage to get words like “manpower” struck from USAF and DOD vocabularies. One consistent and notable finding of RAND gay studies was that there were up to five times as many lesbians in uniform as there were homosexuals. So maybe, we should salute smartly to women for their candor on all matters genital.

To be sure, in any case, XX “science” at RAND seems to be good news for all those hirsute ladies in uniform. The fail unfortunately is that all the gains of gay men and women in the past 50 years have been undermined by the freak fringe; XY “transition” charades and validations from woke shills like RAND Corporation.

And yes, strategic study icons, the likes of Bernard Broody, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter and other patriarchal stud muffins like Daniel Ellsberg, no longer stalk the inner sanctums of mahogany row in Santa Monica—or the E-Ring at the Pentagon.

The breeding male is surely in the cross hairs. Indeed, Doctor Strangelove and General Jack D. Ripper have vacated their VIP quarters in Santa Monica.

Just as an aside, RAND was sited on the Left Coast originally to put strategic thinkers as far away from Beltway mandarins and Washington politics as possible. Little did General Hap Arnold imagine in those halcyon days that California, indeed the entire American Pacific Coast, would become the epicenter of partisan, now woke, political fissures in America.

Today, RAND Corporation has brick and mortar facilities in at least 9 locations, foreign and domestic; including Santa Monica, Washington, Pittsburgh, Boston, New Orleans, London, Brussels, the Hague, and Canberra. These sites alone, along with statist sponsors, pretty much tell you all you need to know about RAND’s current political, if not sexual orientation.

Withal, it would be stretch to call such research science, because there are little or no measures of effectiveness or impact assessments that might evaluate the worth of think tank surveys and studies. Few agencies asses the influence or success of social speculations funded with your taxes for good reason. Indeed, RAND used to be an acronym that meant “research and development,” but “research” is still a maybe and “development” has never been a claim that Santa Monica ever made.

The realpolitik value of think tanks is that they serve as bullpens and well paid sinecures for partisan, out-of-work administrators, academics, and politicians; people like Fiona Hill. Indeed, institutions like RAND, Brookings, or Ivy League schools will often crow about their well placed or well connected and  often politicized staff or alumni.

Donald Rice takes a bow here.

Indeed, the “revolving door” metaphor may have been coined to describe the incestuous cotillion where government mandarins and think tank habitués swirl together perennially, like mating mayflies.

In short, the “non-profit” think tank industry is a racket; one of those government sponsored circle jerks that, like federal, state, and municipal apparatchiks, primarily make spare parts for themselves.

The premise of all think tanks is that they are independent, impartial, scientific, or public services—charitable or educational in nature. In fact, Think Tanks are none of these things today.

RAND Corporation has a $500 million endowment, Harvard has a three billion dollar endowment, yet they both enjoy “tax free” immunities. Lawrence Barrow, President of Harvard, makes 3 million dollars a year, excluding benefits. Mike Rich at RAND made a million plus in his last year in Santa Monica.

If the truth be told, 501(c) is code for “management never has to wear hair shirts.”

Even with private non-profits like Notre Dame, Marcus Freeman, a football coach, is on track to make 9 million dollars per year. Yet, we are led to believe these institutions are somehow “charities” as if NCAA Division I jocks were a public service.

For perspective, an average American taxpayer in a prosperous state makes $60K per annum; the same person in a less prosperous state might make as little $45k a year. You can’t buy a middling automobile for $45K these days.

Coaching salaries at “educational” institutions have a special irony. Black male athletes are the demographic that underwrites highly lucrative NCAA Division 1 varsity cash cows.

Yet, black males are also the demographic least likely to graduate even after six or seven years of matriculating in gym shorts or on the pitch. The graduation rates for four year students (30% or less for black males) are so bad that colleges and universities don’t publish such stats anymore.

So much for justifying the tax-free status of the schoolhouse under the pretense of public service, charity, or timely “education.”

Collegiate exploitation is a kind of bad joke for African American men. Blacks are not valued at Division 1 schools as students, as much they are valued as apprentices for the NFL or NBA.  A black man could have five tutors and still not make the academic cut; but if he can chuck a football or dunk a basketball, he gets a full ride before he defects to professional teams where careers are short, nasty, brutal, and concussive.

You can bet your azimuth that collegiate athletes never have student debt or pocket money woes either.

By comparison, Knute Rockne, legendary player and coach who, when at the top of his coaching career at Notre Dame, made less than $10K per annum ($180K in 2025 dollars). Indeed, the Jesuits required Knute to teach three chemistry classes every week. Today, Kirby Scott, head football coach at Georgia, makes $13 million a year and he probably can’t spell the elements on the periodic table.

The purpose here is not to single out elite schools or RAND Corporation as the best or the worst of their ilk. Indeed, think tanks are a relatively small part of the larger non-profit hustle. There are 1.5 million registered 501(c) (3) non-profits posing as charities, public or educational “services” today. Yes, that number is 1.5 million registered, unregulated non-profits that are pretty much free to do what they will with your donations, corporate grants, and your tax dollars.

The loot for this colossus ranges from $300 to $800 billion a year, a pretty big spread due to transparency veils and shenanigans like the vagaries of horse trading between federal, state, municipal and private funding sources. In the remuneration hustle, a charity CEO is in the same league as think tank or schoolhouse mandarins, academic and athletic.

The non-profit honey pot is a lot like the federal budget. We know the gross dollar figures and the gross deficits, but no one seems to know or care where all the money goes. Withal, measures of effectiveness and outcomes, as with think tanks, are also MIA.

No surprise to learn then that just as RAND was the model for think tanks: the Red Cross, YMCA, the Boy Scouts, and religious associations, like the CYO, were the original icons for public service non-profits. Need we review the abuse track record on those original community “services” today or yesterday?

All 501(c) institutions it seems, given enough time, will put the lie to their virtue semaphores and civic posturing.

Who takes a spritz, a shower, sanctuary, or a bed, at the YMCA these days? Who dares take Boy Scouts for a walk in the woods anymore either? Who doesn’t think the Red Cross enables the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah with fleets of Toyotas and groceries on Islamofascist playing fields like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Lebanon? Surely, ISIS and MABLA could fly under a 501(c) flag today.

Time doesn’t heal all wounds so much as time wounds all heels.

Withal, think tanks and their more numerous, and obscure, non-profit counterparts are like the butcher’s dog. No dog bites the hand that feeds it, government hands that dispense fat, suet, and bones. Or to put it with the cold, objective clarity of an AI search engine:

RAND operates within DOD’s parameters, which may incentivize conclusions that align with policy goals (e.g., inclusion). The studies rarely explore whether DEI emphasis diverts resources or focus from mission-critical priorities, a concern echoed by critics like @GMurphyDonovan1

Indeed, non-profits are created with the assumption that, by fiat, a 501(c) is a public service; an assertion which may or may not be true. Think tanks operate with similar deductive bias, often putting lipstick on preferred social pigs or partisan policy with specious, pseudo scientific surveys and polling.

The butcher’s dog may not bite, but he will leave a pile (of paper, methinks) on your lawn, your carpet, or even on your prayer rug.

 

Table of Contents

 

G. Murphy Donovan is a retired USAF officer who formerly served as an Air Force Intelligence research fellow at RAND Corporation and later at the Pentagon as the monitor of USAF Intelligence projects at RAND. Follow him on X.

Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast