Posted on 04/17/2025 12:31:48 PM PDT by Heartlander
What if the America you pledge allegiance to isn’t the one running the show? This investigation examines how America’s governance system fundamentally transformed since 1871 through a documented pattern of legal, financial, and administrative changes. The evidence reveals a gradual shift from constitutional principles toward corporate-style management structures – not through a single event, but through an accumulation of incremental changes spanning generations that have quietly restructured the relationship between citizens and government.
This analysis prioritizes primary sources, identifies patterns across multiple domains rather than isolated events, and examines timeline correlations – particularly noting how crises often preceded centralization initiatives. By examining primary sources, including Congressional records, Treasury documents, Supreme Court decisions, and international agreements, we identify how:
This evidence prompts a fundamental reexamination of modern sovereignty, citizenship, and consent in ways that transcend traditional political divisions. For the average American, these historical transformations have concrete implications. The administrative systems created between 1871 and 1933 structure daily life through financial obligations, identification requirements, and regulatory compliance that operate largely independent of electoral changes. Understanding this history illuminates why citizens often feel disconnected from governance despite formal democratic processes – the systems managing key aspects of modern life (monetary policy, administrative regulation, citizen identification) were designed to operate with substantial independence from direct citizen control.
While mainstream interpretations of these developments emphasize practical governance needs and economic stability, the documented patterns suggest the possibility of more fundamental changes in America’s constitutional structure deserving closer scrutiny.
I stumbled across a peculiar reference to the 1871 Act while browsing on Twitter. The post suggested that the United States had undergone a secret legal transformation in 1871, converting it from a constitutional republic into a corporate entity where citizens were treated more like assets than sovereigns. What caught my attention wasn’t the claim itself, but how confidently it was stated – as if this fundamental transformation of America was common knowledge.
My first instinct was to dismiss it as yet another internet conspiracy theory. A quick Google search led to a PolitiFact ‘fact-check’ dismissing the entire concept as ‘Pants on Fire’ false. What’s striking isn’t just the brevity with which they dismiss a complex historical question, but their methodology. They interviewed exactly one legal expert, cited no primary documents from the Congressional Record, examined none of the subsequent Supreme Court cases that reference federal corporate capacity, and ignored the documented financial transformation that followed.
I’ve noticed that when establishment fact-checkers reject claims with such dismissive certainty while conducting minimal investigation, it often signals something worth examining more carefully. This pattern prompted me to check the actual Congressional Record myself. That first document pulled a thread that unraveled into this investigation. Like finding an unexpected door in a familiar house, I couldn’t help but wonder what else I’d been walking past without noticing.
This analysis unfolds through several interconnected sections: First, we’ll examine the historical context of the 1871 Act that reorganized Washington, DC using corporate terminology, and explore the emergence of three influential power centers (London, Vatican City, and Washington, DC) with documented financial and diplomatic connections.
Next, we’ll trace the transformation of governance structures between 1913 and 1933, focusing on Wilson’s administrative state and the Federal Reserve’s establishment. We’ll then analyze the evolution of legal frameworks that redefined citizenship and the monetary system, particularly the dual identity concept distinguishing natural persons from legal entities.
Finally, we’ll examine modern sovereignty through the Ukraine case study, before offering reflections on reclaiming authentic governance. Throughout, we’ll prioritize primary sources and pattern recognition over isolated coincidences, inviting readers to examine the evidence and draw their own conclusions.
(Excerpt) Read more at brownstone.org ...
(56 minute read)
This should be titled: “The Rise Of The Administrative State”. Constitutional rights were reinterpreted as privileges which the government can ignore as long it declares that it has some “compelling” interest. In short, the government’s good intentions trump the constitutional rights of citizens.
Brought about by the Treaty of Washington:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Washington_(1871)
Bkmk
And Big Bureaucracy is not your friend.
“And Big Bureaucracy is not your friend. “
Big MAGA Bump!
Bookmark
Admin Moderator, please delete the prior post for the significant typo. Thanks
Its actually a really badly put together article. Shame that it comes from Brownstone which often times has really good works.
The glaring hole in the article is that every aspect of progressives is downplayed, as if the progressives are pikers and irrelevant. Except for Woodrow Wilson - he is treated as a “great man” standing entirely outside, entirely one-off, entirely alone.
That is not the case. Progressives have been doing what they do for decades with a string that leads back from Biden from Obama past Clinton, Carter, LBJ, and many others to FDR and then Wilson. This is not one-off.
All of our problems come from Progressivism. Progressivism is America’s cancer. They hate the Constitution and they have openly written it. They have openly stated it.
Why Brownstone feels this need to try to cobble together square pegs and jam them into round holes is bizarre. America’s “hidden” transformation is not hidden at all if we just look progressives square in the face and see the ugliness of them.
bump
Bookmark dittos
Author:
Josh-Stylman
Joshua Stylman has been an entrepreneur and investor for over 30 years. For two decades, he focused on building and growing companies in the digital economy, co-founding and successfully exiting three businesses while investing in and mentoring dozens of technology startups. In 2014, seeking to create a meaningful impact in his local community, Stylman founded Threes Brewing, a craft brewery and hospitality company that became a beloved NYC institution. He served as CEO until 2022, stepping down after receiving backlash for speaking out against the city's vaccine mandates. Today, Stylman lives in the Hudson Valley with his wife and children, where he balances family life with various business ventures and community engagement.
whereas the Government of Her Britannic Majesty claims that such boundary line should, under the terms of the Treaty above recited, be run through the Rosario Straits, and the Government of the United States claims that it should be run through the Canal de Haro, it is agreed that the respective claims of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty and of the Government of the United States shall be submitted to the arbitration and award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, who, having regard to the above-mentioned Article of the said Treaty shall decide thereupon, finally and without appeal, which of those claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846.
Nowhere in the Treaty is mentioned banks or banking. But this was during the time of Monarchies being the common form of government. That does not mean that international bankers were not involved in the settlement.
Here is a version from Office of the (US) Historian:
I think it is almost word for word. but possible easier to read.
Treaty between the United States and Great Britain.—Claims, fisheries, navigation of the St. Lawrence, &c., American lumber on the river St. John, boundary.—Concluded May 8, 1871; ratifications exchanged June 17, 1871; proclaimed July 4, 1871.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1871/d257
Actually, having attacked a similar topic having multiple parallel timelines, I'd suggest cutting Mr. Stylman some slack. He is faced with the following problem: show a sequence of elements illustrating particular principle versus show how those events form a coherent progression citing said principles along the way, each with minimal explanation.
It's a nasty problem for an author, particularly one that has no idea how much the audience knows, with some much better informed than others. Then there is the problem of predispositions inhibiting recognition.
BTW, I think Mr. Stylman misses a central principle: consolidating power via social democracy invariably leads to insolvency that serves primarily the interests of the government's lenders. Decisions are made and favors are sold at bond auctions in return for a bearable interest rate. That's how things really work.
Not something I’d expect from Brownstone!
Its easy.
The sequence of elements starts with progressivism and runs right through today; again with progressivism. It’s even got a whole era named after itself: The Progressive Era. That flashing neon sign is not hard to miss unless you’re trying to hide your face from it.
Mr. Stylman made it hard on himself then ruined the article in that process. What he did was try to put the french fries into the same category as the home depot stores and left himself in a bind as to why it all doesn’t go together with uranium.
If he wants a working article, he shouldn’t be so afraid to write one about the binding cancer; America’s cancer - Progressivism.
No it's not. You missed its principal American designer and implementer.
Almost everybody has. That's why I'm writing a book about him.
The sequence of elements starts with progressivism and runs right through today; again with progressivism.
Well, depending upon what you call the "start," one could go all the way back to Shabbetai Tsvi, but that would be the mid-17th Century, if only because you would have to account for how the consequential Institute for Social Research got here 250 years later, long after the apex of the "Progressive Era." But then, your thesis wouldn't hold together because it isn't that simple.
Of progressivism? I can assure you I did not.
"Well, depending upon what you call the "start," one could......."
Yeah, I know, could.
Look, America has had 9 progressive presidents since Progressivism was created, that is clearly the place to start. - which BTW doesn't include the hundreds and perhaps thousands of progressives which have sat in Congress since the Progressive Era, as well as judges and governors.
We didn't have a huge behemoth leviathan of a government prior to progressivism. It simply did not exist and it isn't something I fabricated. This is absolutely, unmistakably, progressivism's fault.
And the timeline matches. 9 progressive presidents, big huge behemoth government. They rise and exist in the exact same spaces.
Again, the progressives have written it expressly. Why should we ignore all of the evidence? Why ignore such an irrefutable timeline? Personal comfort perhaps? I just can't figure out what the personal comfort could possibly be to not blame progressives for the ills of progressivism. I see it all the time to not blame the progressives but nobody has ever answered why the progressives should be let off of the hook.
What is your reasoning for letting them off the hook? I'm always genuinely curious. (I would ask Stylman but Brownstone has no visible comment section)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.