Sources of Truth

There’s a booklet length article on Zero Hedge that you will likely find boring: What If the America You Pledge Allegiance to Isn’t the One Running the Show?. It’s loaded with references to legislation and court cases, and some of them are frankly impertinent, if you ask me. I’m still reading through it. It’s the opening paragraphs that grabbed me:

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:

• Legal language and frameworks evolved from natural rights toward commercial principles
• Financial sovereignty transferred incrementally from elected representatives to banking interests
• Administrative systems increasingly mediated the relationship between citizens and government

This echoes what I wrote about Trump not being a politician at all, but a businessman running the US like a corporation. It’s all wholly consistent with the system of US government. It also explains how a technocracy not only could take over the country, but already has. The only real question is who gets to profit from the business.

This article seeks to stir up a renewed commitment to Enlightenment principles of government. A key passage:

In his 1887 essay “The Study of Administration”, Wilson explicitly advocated for a government run by “experts” insulated from public opinion: “The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics… Administrative questions are not political questions.” He argued directly that “The many have no business with the selection of technical administrators any more than they have with the selection of scientists.” These writings reveal Wilson’s profound belief in governance by unelected technical experts rather than democratic processes — a vision that laid the groundwork for the modern administrative state.

This philosophy of governance — creating a permanent administrative class operating independently of elected officials — marks a profound departure from the constitutional system established by the Founders. James Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers explicitly warned against exactly this type of arrangement, where unelected officials would hold unchecked power over citizens. The relationship between Colonel House and Wilson point toward questions about the intentionality behind administrative systems developed during this period. As we’ll see later, this vision would eventually extend beyond domestic agencies to reshape global governance itself.

All true, but largely impertinent to our concerns. Some years ago on this blog I looked at a scholarly paper on the formation of the American bureaucracy. It was the birth of the “weebees”, the bureaucratic response to elected officials: “We be here when you come and we be here when you go.” The elected officials have virtually no real influence on the system. The linked article is simply a clear declaration of what we already know had happened.

What President Wilson lied about was the expertise, which turned out to be virtually non-existent from the start. The hive-mind appeals to the weakest candidates; real leaders and thinkers could not tolerate working in a bureaucracy. This is why our military is so hollow. The majority of the commanders are bureaucrats, not genuine warriors.

Trump has declared an intention of changing this. That part of his message is mere propaganda, a sales pitch. He remains a CEO, not a statesman by any means. The citizens will benefit from a portion of his agenda in the same way any business works better when you cut out the excess overhead. That is, it’s “better” if you think in terms of marketing strategy and consumers instead of governing people.

The biblical principle is to bloat any operation with those under your covering, within your domain. You are supposed to bless as many people as possible inside the operation, spreading the wealth across your household of faith. We should be glad to see the dismantling of systems that exclude the covenant lifestyle, but not so it can be replaced by a heartless and dehumanizing version that simply favors a competing team.

We don’t expect anything really good coming from all of this. It’s simply the routine changes in the background against which we project the gospel message. Under the globalist regime, we faced a broad hindrance of our message, in the sense that every step of the way we encountered friction and vague threats. That evaporated once Trump took office, pretty much connected to clobbering USAid. But we are starting to see in its place a harsh crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism. I’m waiting to see how that develops.

Our community does not support Palestinians, but we also don’t favor Israel. There are no good guys in that conflict; it’s just another mundane human war. If anything is going to bite us, it is our insistence that Modern Israel has zero claim on God’s favor. We remind everyone that Jews rejected the Covenant of Christ and refuse to accept that God ended their covenant on the Cross. They aren’t special at all, just another human nation, peculiar only in their cohesive spite for the rest of the world, and their long noted intent on ruling all of humanity. We don’t hate Jews; we simply don’t trust them because we know they hate us.

It’s possible that the political tension between pro-Palestine sentiments versus Zionism will keep them too busy to notice us. We will take advantage of this opening to press the Covenant message. We envision preparation for greater tribulation, making people stronger in faith through our message so they won’t need us. We aren’t creating a dependent audience, but building a divine empire of faith people who are themselves sources of truth.