Agenda 21 / 2030 Archives - Tree of Liberty Society

TRANSCRIPT

We have to understand where we are before we can take the necessary steps to move forward.

So: three things the conspiracy fears the most. This is why they attack these three things so heavily. When you try to do these three things, you really get just the brunt of the conspiracy’s wrath—which can be devastating, scary sometimes, and can feel overwhelming. But it’s important for us to work hard and understand what the conspiracy will do, so that way we’re prepared and we’re not deterred.

These things will be refreshers—we’re going to go into them deeper—but these are the three things we must do and that the conspiracy fears.

This is the culture of liberty.

This is what the Founding Fathers did. This is what every society that has liberty has done. And when they get rid of these three things, that is when they are completely under the control of the conspiracy and need to work back at getting these things done.

So:

We need to be economically independent. That’s why the people of Utah were attacked for that.
We need to not submit to unconstitutional government.
We need to have political independence and educational independence.

These are key things to being able to get out of control of the conspiracy.

And as we’ve gone through them—as you’ve probably seen in my presentation before—as we go through these things, it becomes obvious. It’s like, “Okay, that’s why we’re in the situation that we’re in.” And we just think, “Okay, well, we just move forward and we get the right guy”—all the different traditional solutions that we’ve talked about, and why they don’t work.

Then we think that that’s just what we have to do to do it. But no—this is really a groundbreaking thought process and a paradigm shift that we not only have to make regarding what the solutions are, but really what we have to be doing, and why these are so important.

We need to have that economic independence because—like we talked about a few weeks ago with the training on the importance of ownership versus being an employee—if you are dependent, economically speaking, on someone else, then you are going to submit to them to make sure that you continue to be provided for. That you receive the things that you need to be able to sustain your life.

And so that’s just not… So economic independence is a part of that, not just for your maintenance with your job—with what you do to maintain your income—but more broadly than that.

So this is an important thing. It’s why the Saints in Utah were attacked so much, and why when any other culture does these same things, they are attacked as well.

Brigham Young said that the Lord says that we shall never do another day’s work, nor spend another dollar to build up a Gentile city or nation.

So our resources—the goal needs to be—where our resources are only going toward those that are building the cause of liberty. That are fighting for the cause of Christ.

Because, just like we saw during the fake pandemic, if we’re dependent on a business—if we said we could only have the things sold at Harmons—then we were going to have to, to be able to provide for ourselves or to be able to get the things that we said we needed, we were going to have to do the things that Harmons said. Whether it was wear a mask or other things—get a vaccine.

And so we need to be using our resources to not build up companies that are working with the conspiracy—that are part of the conspiracy. We need to be supporting those… All of our money needs to eventually go to companies or individuals that are building liberty, not destroying it.

He says here: “They want the Mormons to build cities for them to possess.”

We see this now with Agenda 21, especially here in the West, in Utah specifically. Not only do we have the culture of liberty, but we have the infrastructure: the grid system, the wide streets, and each housing/property square was self-sufficient—where the individual had enough land to provide for themselves. It wasn’t something that would make people dependent on an outside force to be able to provide for their own needs.

So when we understand this concept of building cities—liberty-type cities—we are building cities that will not lend themselves to the conspiracy’s control.

On another occasion, Brigham Young said:

“We do not intend to have any trade or commerce with the Gentile world. For so long as we buy of them, we are in a degree dependent upon them. The Kingdom of God cannot rise independent of the Gentile nations until we produce, manufacture, and make every article of use, convenience, or necessity amongst our own people. So we shall need no commerce with the nations. I am determined to cut every thread of this kind and live free and independent, untrammeled by any of their detestable customs and practices.”

Now, as we become dependent—we see the different things we’re dependent on. Every aspect. We’re not just talking about government. Even morality is an important part of liberty.

And so we see, as we are dependent upon manufacturers that are part of this globalist system—who are designing clothes intended to decrease the morality of the people—and that’s the only place we can go to for our clothing, then we start to say, “Well, we’re dependent on that, so now we have to adjust our own standards,” because we don’t know how to either do it ourselves or we don’t have a network set up with others who do know how to do those things.

So we’re dependent on them—not only for our food—but for our clothes. And then our own standards will be changed because of that.

We see that through the years. We’re not just saying styles are changing, but the ability to maintain purity and chastity—that can change with styles. You can still maintain purity and chastity with different designs, but we can see now that if you’re getting your clothes from these globalist companies, they’re designed to destroy the morality and chastity of the people.

And so it’s essential that we build this separate economic culture—where we’re not dependent on the conspiracy and its organizations to provide our clothing, our food, our oil.

Right now, we’re so dependent on the conspiracy, who’ve taken over all of the energy production. Now we’re dependent upon them for the prices at the pump—or what they charge for heating our homes.

So it’s essential that we find different ways and we work towards that. Obviously, this isn’t something we can do tomorrow—we wake up and suddenly we’re producing our own clothes, our own energy, our own food.

It’s something we have to recognize has to be done, and then find ways to do it.

But right now we’re first starting off: what is it that needs to be done?

It began here in the West, where the conspiracy was really working hard to bring the railroad through here—because they knew they could use that to change the culture by increasing the population of the anti-liberty people. The people that came here to destroy the culture of liberty.

And we see that the idea of increasing transportation and trade is a way they use to change the culture.

So we see that now in Utah with the Inland Port Authority. It’s a way that, A: destroys our security—because Salt Lake City becomes a port. Meaning it is seen as a coastal city, where anything that comes from China or California to Salt Lake City is treated as if it were sailing through the ocean—no checks, no oversight. That’s one problem with it.

But it also makes us more international—which we’ll talk about in a second—and how that decreases our independence as well.

They saw what we were doing here as a threat, and they needed to destroy it.

It was on the congressional record:

“I charge it to be a crying evil—the people here in Utah—sapping not only the physical constitution of the people practicing it [Mormonism], dwarfing their physical proportions and emasculating their energies…”

They said our belief system changed our physical proportions.

“It is a scarlet whore. It is a reproach to the Christian civilization and deserves to be blotted out.”

So they saw what we were doing as a threat—and they needed to destroy it.

One of the ways they do it—this is Nelson Rockefeller in his book The Future of Federalism—he writes about how they are destroying people’s economic and political independence through a certain means. He says:

“I have long felt that the road toward the unity of free nations lay through regional confederations in the Western Hemisphere and in the Atlantic community—perhaps eventually in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia…”

This was written in the late 1960s.

“Such work toward regional unities is in fact steadily progressing. The common market in Europe is an outstanding example.”

He was saying that what is now the European Union is the model they are trying to build to destroy political independence by first destroying economic independence.

These markets—right now they have the African Union, they have an Asian Union, and one in the Middle East.

And now we have—with NAFTA and the expansion of NAFTA that happened a few years ago—this is what they’re trying to do. What they already did back to Utah, now they’re trying to do to all the nations.

Destroy economic independence, because economic integration leads naturally to political integration, just like what happened with the European Union.

That’s exactly what the head of the CFR, Richard Haass, explained in Foreign Policy Magazine about a decade ago. He said that national sovereignty is diminishing, and this is being done mostly through free trade.

Understanding that—just going back—this was 50 years before: the idea of using these economic blocs, what they call free trade…

Which is where we really differ from a lot of libertarians. They support what they call free trade, despite the fact that all of the agreements like NAFTA and the European Union aren’t actually free trade. They increase regulation and they decrease national independence.

They use trade.

The idea they promote is that “more economic trade between countries means they’re less likely to go to war.” That’s one of their main selling points.

But what it actually does is make you dependent upon them.

Right now, we have no steel manufacturing in the United States. We’ve given up basically our national security over to China, where we get a lot of our metal for our military. And if the conspiracy didn’t control the military, that would be an even bigger problem.

We can see how if we are dependent, it doesn’t actually diminish war. It just makes it so you have to do what the other people say.

Otherwise, you’re going to lose the thing you’ve now become dependent on.

And so they are using this as a major method: the destruction of economic independence, leading to the destruction of political independence.

The post Are You Ready To Step Out Of Your Comfort Zone? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

We Are In An Information War

Rod Klingler — Mon, 30 Jun 2025 03:00:05 +0000

There are Leftist news media outlets, and there are Right-wing media outlets, right? What if they were actually just two sides of the same coin? Ben McClintock explains why Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson are just as fraudulent as Anderson Cooper and Whoopi Goldberg.

This is an excerpt from “UN & Corporate Media Declare Information War,” which you can watch in full, for FREE, here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/un-corporate-media-declare-information-war/

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

In 1917, Representative Oscar Callaway entered into the Congressional Record information detailing how J.P. Morgan hired 12 high-ranking news managers. These managers were tasked with determining the most influential newspapers in America—and how many outlets would need to be controlled to generally dictate the policy of the daily press in the United States.

The conclusion: they would only need to purchase control of 25 of the greatest newspapers in the country.

That was back in 1917.

The front group set up to determine and coordinate the policies of these papers was the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

And now they admit it—among themselves.

In 1993, The Washington Post published an article titled “Ruling Class Journalists.”

It stated that the executive editor, managing editor, and foreign editor of The New York Times were all members of the CFR, along with executives from other large newspapers, such as The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, the weekly news magazines, network television executives, and celebrities.

Examples included:

Dan Rather
Tom Brokaw
Jim Lehrer

People would expect these names to be associated with the left. But then it also listed:

Charles Krauthammer
William Buckley
George Will
Jim Hoagland

These are individuals people might think of as “conservatives” or even “constitutionalists.” But that’s the illusion.

For example, William Buckley was not only a CFR member but also a member of Skull and Bones. These so-called conservatives were promoting a version of events within the acceptable boundaries of the larger narrative. They’re neoconservatives—not true defenders of liberty, but approved voices who reinforce the system from a different angle.

We need to understand: left vs. right is a false dichotomy.

These journalists’ CFR membership is not just symbolic—it signifies their active and important role in public affairs and their ascension into America’s ruling class. They don’t merely report on foreign policy—they help formulate it.

Their job is to shape public opinion in ways that lend legitimacy to what the government is already planning or doing.

So what started in 1917 with controlling 25 newspapers has, in our time, expanded into control by corporations. Not just individuals, but the very structures of power—Apple, Bank of America, Chevron, Exxon, Google, Facebook, PayPal—all CFR-affiliated or aligned.

These companies:

Control what you see in your search results
Censor counter-narratives via fact-checkers
Push the same messages—especially during things like Pride Month, across platforms like TikTok (owned by China)

This isn’t just about China trying to undermine America. It’s that the Chinese government, through TikTok, is part of the same global agenda being coordinated through entities like the CFR.

Even the television shows and ads we see promote agenda items in lockstep.

This isn’t just the so-called leftist media. Fox News, National Review, The Weekly Standard—all of these are also part of the ecosystem.

At the local level, you’ve got the Salt Lake Tribune, owned by a national network with CFR connections. The Huntsman family (owners) includes CFR members. The Deseret News has had multiple CFR-affiliated members on their editorial board—and even as publishers.

And on talk radio, you’ll often hear hosts citing National Review, Fox News, or The Weekly Standard to figure out what the “approved” Republican narrative is.

These institutions determine:

What Republicans are allowed to talk about
Which solutions are “acceptable”
How to frame issues within the system

Even at the height of the fake pandemic, figures like Glenn Beck were promoting shutdowns and vaccines—because that was the CFR-approved position for the right. Not just the left.

We must recognize this is not left versus right. It is us versus the power structure.

Even the Deseret News admitted it, echoing what the UN and CFR have said:

“We are in an information war.”

We have to acknowledge that war. If we don’t, we continue to fall victim to the narratives designed to pacify us and prevent effective resistance.

If we don’t fight back in the information war, we become unwilling tools of the agenda.

Remember: they are afraid of losing legitimacy. That’s the weak point. That’s why they work so hard to control the narrative. Delegitimizing their institutions, their media, and their spokespeople is the key.

If we don’t recognize that their power depends on perceived legitimacy—if we keep buying into the idea that they’re just misinformed or doing their best—we will lose.

Because their goal is not to govern; it’s to control.

And it’s working—unless we do something about it.

The post We Are In An Information War appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

The Anti-Conspiracy Conspiracy

Rod Klingler — Sun, 29 Jun 2025 03:00:41 +0000

“There’s no such thing as a conspiracy! And we know that because some dark, shadowy group of unnamed individuals is trying to make you believe that there is!” Ummm… If you have a partially-functioning brain, that language ought to raise some red flags. Find out why!

This is an excerpt from “UN & Corporate Media Declare Information War,” which you can watch in full, for FREE, here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/un-corporate-media-declare-information-war/

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

Another one is pre-bunking and debunking. Now, you want to remember this terminology because it’s used in actual articles out there. So we want to pre-bunk and debunk the conspiracy theories.

Be warned:
The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rise in harmful and misleading conspiracy theories. It may be difficult to recognize them.

They keep on saying the same thing. Stopping the spread of conspiracy theories is challenging—because they’re full of facts. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. It depends on the level of exposure. So, for each person, you have to decide how informed they are—to see whether you just call them names or try to trick them into believing you.

“People who firmly believe in conspiracy theories are extremely difficult to reach.” I find that hilarious. They’re already saying that if you’ve come to understand the facts behind this conspiracy to destroy freedom, you’re going to be hard to reach. So we should just call you a name and move on.

Level One: Low Exposure

If someone has low exposure to conspiracy theories, we need to pre-bunk them—empower them to be more resilient. Warn people early that a conspiracy theory exists. Encourage rational thinking, questioning, and fact-checking.

That’s the gaslighting—pretending to encourage investigation. “We’re not hiding it from you,” they say.

Alert people about the arguments behind the most common COVID-19 conspiracy theories and the key traits of conspiratorial thinking:
– Suspicion of official accounts
– Immunity to contrary evidence
– Reinterpreting random events as part of a broader pattern

I love how it says “reinterpreting random events.” In other words, there is no such thing as connected events. Everything is random. “Don’t you dare think these things are connected.”

Debunking

Facts and logic matter.
Dos:
– Focus on the facts you want to communicate, not the myth you want to debunk. (Don’t give free advertising to the real issue.)
– Choose your target: the author, source, or logic behind the theory. (Focus on ad hominem—attack the person, not the idea.)
– Always state clearly that the information is wrong before quoting the conspiracy theory. (You’ll see this in articles.)
– Provide a fact-based alternative explanation (which they rarely do—“the science says” is often the only backup).
– Use visual aids. Simple images. Because people are stupid.

Like “Two weeks to flatten the curve.” What an amazing graph—there were no metrics. It was just a curve and some words.

Don’ts:
– Don’t focus on the conspiracy theory first. Don’t reinforce it.
– Don’t overwhelm with information. Don’t give facts someone might research and think about.
– Just give simple conclusions, then walk away.

Six Things Conspiracy Theories Have in Common

A secret plot
A group of conspirators
Supporting evidence
The idea that nothing happens by accident
A belief that the world is good vs. evil
Someone is to blame

So, in contrast, their message is:
– There’s no secret plot.
– No group of conspirators.
– No evidence.
– Everything is random.
– The world is gray.
– No one is to blame.

Is This a Conspiracy Theory?

Probably not, if:
– The author has “recognized qualifications.” (i.e., trained by the system)
– Sources are backed by fact-checking sites (which are themselves just websites with no accountability)
– The tone is “objective and factual” (even if the language isn’t)

I don’t know how tone can be factual. They just don’t want emotion. You can’t sound alarmed—even if you’re stating facts. Your tone has to sound calm, matter-of-fact, even when you’re exposing serious issues.

How Do Conspiracy Theories Cause Harm?

They claim:
– Identifying an enemy can fuel discrimination
– Spreading mistrust leads to apathy or radicalization
– Undermining science and law damages society

Ben:
“Isn’t that exactly what they did to the John Birch Society?”
Absolutely. They painted them as radicals. They want to discourage any group from exposing who they are.

How Should Journalists Report?

This is their marching orders to journalists:

– Use reliable, verified sources
– Do not reinforce conspiracy theories
– Emphasize core facts (i.e., the official narrative)
– Warn readers about related conspiracy theories before referencing them
– Don’t explain the theory. Just explain how it goes against “the science”
– Use the same emotional language: “science deniers,” “extremists,” etc.

There’s a quote from a Deseret News article titled “The Weaponization of Doubt: American Science Is Under Attack.”

That’s war language. Science is under attack. This is their religion. It’s not just information—it’s belief. When you criticize evolution, vaccines, or climate change, you’re not challenging data; you’re attacking the faith of the state.

The article says:

“There are forces at work who want us to believe false things about the climate, COVID-19, evolution, and GMOs.”

All of these are their sacred cows. To question any one of them is heresy. And yet, they give no evidence. They just say there’s a conspiracy against science.

They even mention “Jewish space lasers.” That’s how they shut down questions—attach something absurd or offensive, and ignore it entirely.

They reference Gates and vaccine microchips, which is ironic since one of his actual ventures is ID2020. There’s a USA Today article that claims Agenda 21 isn’t real—even though you can literally buy the Agenda 21 book published by the United Nations on Amazon.

They say:

“These theories are part of a deliberate propaganda campaign to create distrust.”

So they’re admitting there’s a war—a war of ideas.

“It’s not a free speech issue. Words are dangerous.”

If you say sodomy is wrong, you’re not expressing belief—you’re causing real harm, they say.

They also say:

“All science deniers reason the same way.”

Which is ridiculous. Nobody reasons identically. And they never explain how this reasoning is flawed.

They accuse:
– Cherry-picking evidence (without showing examples)
– Believing conspiracy theories
– Using illogical reasoning (but offer no proof)
– Relying on “fake experts” (i.e., anyone unapproved)
– Believing science has to be perfect to be credible

Then they say:

“We must remove the pump handle giving people the disease of disinformation.”

That’s metaphorical language for eliminating the source. Which implies the person is the source. This is war language.

“One way to do this is to pre-bunk…”

Straight from the UN’s playbook. Publicize flawed reasoning and shame people. Make them feel like victims who’ve been duped—then rebuild them in your image.

They are masters of psychology. But once you understand the tactics, you can teach others to recognize them too.

One person shares this story:

“When I realized how much false history I’d learned and was teaching my kids, I felt guilty and determined to stop. I started noticing what narratives the media pushes, then flipped it around and researched the other side.”

You begin to see what they really care about by what they push repeatedly. One mom said:

“My daughter was in middle school and the teacher had a whole lesson on debunking the moon landing deniers. She didn’t even know that was a thing. That’s how they pre-bunk. They plant the seed early—so that if you ever meet someone with a different view, you already reject it.”

The article ends with this line:

“We are in an information war. And the first step to winning an information war is to admit that it’s well underway.”

That right there is very revealing.

The post The Anti-Conspiracy Conspiracy appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

What If The Government Decides What You Believe?

Rod Klingler — Sat, 28 Jun 2025 03:00:17 +0000

How does the government attempt to control how you think and feel about world events? Is there anything you can do about it? Find out! This is an excerpt from “UN & Corporate Media Declare Information War,” which you can watch in full, for FREE, here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/un-corporate-media-declare-information-war/

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

We go to the United Nations website and their new program to stop conspiracy theories. They need to stop the spread of conspiracy, right? And they’ve got this whole hashtag campaign: #ThinkBeforeSharing. It says the COVID pandemic has sparked a worrying rise in disinformation and conspiracy theories.

“Conspiracy theories can be dangerous.” So it’s not even about free speech, because of course we can’t allow certain speech—because certain speech is dangerous. They often target and discriminate against vulnerable groups, ignore specific evidence, and polarize society with serious consequences. This needs to stop.

And so on this website, they put together some videos and some infographics to be able to help you better understand how to fight this conspiracy disinformation. I think that we should do it soon. I think that’s a good idea. Thank you.

There are several things in there that are important for us to focus on, right? Because they are linking questioning the COVID narrative with science denying.

So the term science denier, right? That is a charged term that is used on purpose because in people’s minds, it triggers the idea of being a Holocaust denier. If you’re a science denier, that’s the same as a Holocaust denier. And if you’re a Holocaust denier, that means you think that Hitler is great and that you want to kill the Jews.

So that’s one part of it—this disinformation campaign to get people to stick with the narrative because they don’t want to be considered to be anti-Semites and they don’t want to be thought of as people that like Hitler. So that’s one part of it, right?

And then also, linking the hate. It talks about at the end, especially—it says, don’t spread hate. So if you are helping people to understand what’s going on with the fake pandemic, you are engaged in hate—whether it’s against ethnicities, whether it’s against religions, whether it’s against sodomites. It’s all connected.

That’s another way that they want to protect the narrative, by linking it to these other ideas.

Hey Ben.
Yeah?
I find it ironic that they’re asking you to do exactly what you really should do. I mean, check the facts. Check the author. Find out—dig deeper. And that’s exactly what people are doing. They’re actually uncovering the conspiracy.
But that’s what they’re telling you to do—right? Thinking that you’re not going to really do that.
Right. Because then if you question the narrative, you’re like, “Oh, what I’m studying is making me question the narrative. That must mean I hate Jews. Therefore, I can’t question the narrative.”

The last time that they said how to spot fake news or whatever, they had this video release, and it was basically just like:
“Did the mainstream media say it?
Well then that means it’s not fake.
Government or mainstream media—it’s not fake.
It’s automatically good.”

And they put together these infographics because you’re too stupid to understand. That’s actually one of the things they talk about—is to be as simple as possible.

So I want to break down these things because we need to understand the messaging—because I’m going to show you in a minute how it’s being used. Just like with those other examples, the media is doing as they’re told.

So: conspiracy theories are dangerous. So he’s got a match, right? He is going to cause harm. So this is no longer about free speech. If you are questioning the narrative, you are dangerous. Just questioning the narrative is dangerous.

Be warned:
The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rise in harmful and misleading conspiracy theories.
It may be difficult to recognize them or know how best to deal with them…

Because, you know, when you deal with facts, it’s hard to debunk them. And so it’s hard to recognize when you’re dealing with a conspiracy or not.

So: conspiracy theories often target or discriminate against an entire group perceived as the enemy behind a real or imagined threat. Again, they’re trying to pigeonhole you. They polarize society and fuel violent extremism.

If you question the narrative, you are fueling violent extremism.

While most people who spread conspiracy theories genuinely believe them, others deploy them cynically to achieve these effects. So if you’re believing them, you’re just a sucker falling for people that are purposely, knowingly lying to you. That’s the idea that they’re trying to put in your head.

And so, how do I identify? How do I identify?

And of course they call it a conspiracy theory because they want to associate these things with things that—they’re all ours. It can’t be proven. It’s just a theory—as opposed to the idea that it can be… it’s a fact.

They identify an enemy and a secret plot that threatens people’s lives or beliefs and spark a defense mechanism, which can fuel discrimination, justify hate crimes, and can be exploited by violent extremist groups.

They spread mistrust in public institutions, which can lead to political apathy or radicalization.

So this is what we’ve been talking about for the past several weeks especially—that they are obsessed with their own legitimacy. We have to think of them as legitimate people. Because if we don’t think of them as legitimate, they lose their power. And so they’re telling you—they’re telling you that you cannot question their legitimacy. Otherwise: X, Y, Z.

They spread mistrust in scientific and medical information, which can have serious consequences. So, you know, if you don’t trust the medical industry, you’re killing other people. So watch out.

Perceived outgroups of society are especially prone to be targets of conspiracy theories, hate speech and disinformation campaigns. This includes people of different origin—I don’t know what that means. Different origin. They’re probably meaning national origin.

“Don’t you know everyone is born of the same woman? Oh no. What if you came from a different origin?”
“What if nonsense came out of your mouth?”

Religion or sexual orientation—right? So question the COVID narrative means, yeah, it’s all linked together.

In the context of COVID-19, specific groups were frequently falsely blamed for the spread of the virus in Europe, including people of assumed Asian origin, Jews, Muslims, Roma—I don’t know what that is—and people who identify as sodomites.

I don’t know why the Jews and Muslims in Italy were blamed for the pandemic. The only thing I heard about was the Asian hate. Remember that whole thing that they were saying: stop Asian hate?

I only heard stop Asian hate. I never witnessed Asian hate. But the media was pushing it down your throat.

The post What If The Government Decides What You Believe? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

What Happens When Rules Aren’t the Same for Everyone?

Rod Klingler — Fri, 20 Jun 2025 03:00:42 +0000

Are you free to associate with whomever you choose without the government getting involved? Should the government force others to associate with you? Should they force you to associate with others?

This is an excerpt from “Discrimination Is Actually Good,” which you can watch in full, for FREE, here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/how-dilbert-taught-us-discrimination-is-good/

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

One of the things that they bring up about discrimination is not making cakes for homosexuals, for sodomites. And it’s about more than just a cake, okay? They’re using government to force people to associate with each other.

The government puts up these signs to help people to reach out and make sure that if somebody doesn’t wanna associate with you, that now you go to the government to force them to associate with you. We have here CNN reporting back in 2018 about the gay wedding cake, ruling affirms that businesses can’t discriminate. So they’re saying that you as a business owner are essentially enslaved to anyone that wants to go into your store and request your services. You have to associate with them.

And then we have here recently where We’re just actually not recently, but a few years ago, this started back in 2009 when Salt Lake City passed its first bill forcing homeowners and business owners to associate with people they might not want to associate with. They might have to rent a home to a group of sodomites or transgendered people, and they might not want to or they might have to hire them, right? If you’re in a professional atmosphere, say you own a private school and it’s somebody that it’s a maybe even a religious school that might not be owned by a religion, but it’s based, you know, there are people of one religion have come together in common to be able to have their children educated with people of the same mindset. And now because you own this business, the school, the state of Utah and many other states have said that no, you have to hire someone’s a sadamite or a tranny to teach these children in this religious oriented school.

And so they started to take away your rights as a property owner and your rights of association, forcing you to associate people with maybe you don’t want to. It’s more than just a cake. We have the New York Times talking about this as well talking about there’s another law from Colorado going or the Supreme Court. And the points that it makes, I think is very interesting for us to pay attention to.

It says, can an artist be compelled to create a website for an event she does not condone? That’s the question the Supreme Court has said it will take up on Monday when it hears oral arguments on 303, creative versus alinas. The answer would seem to be obviously no.

So they’re reasonable right here, at least they’re pretending to be reasonable, saying, of course, an artist can’t be compelled to create something for somebody else. But it goes on and says, well, that’s the wrong question. The right question. This is what they do. They want to reframe the debate so that they can control it.

The right question is whether someone who chooses to open a business to the public should have the right to turn away gay customers simply because the service she would provide them is expressive or artistic? Should an architecture firm that believes black, black families don’t deserve fancy homes be permitted to turn away black clients because its work is expressive? Can a florist shop whose owner objects to Christianity refuse to serve Christians? The answer to these questions would seem to be just as obviously known.

I say that that’s not obvious. That is just the opposite of obvious. Of course, Each one of those should have the right to associate with whomever they want to and not to associate with whomever they don’t want to.

So why is the first question that continues the wrong one in this dispute? The case before the court was brought by 303 Creative, a business that says it wants to offer wedding website design services to the public but doesn’t want to serve gay couples. Under Colorado’s public Accommodations law, businesses that choose to serve the public at large cannot turn people away because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics.

So the government has to, this is what it’s does. The government is creating a class of person that is protected that is now becomes a superior. So this isn’t about equality. This is about superiority that they are now you can, if you’re a member of this group, now you can force others to do labor for you.

303 creative claims that because its service is expressive and its owner objects to same -sex marriage, it can’t be required to obey Colorado’s law. Not to afford an exemption, the company argues, compels it to speak against its will, and violates its free speech rights, which is obvious.

It’s forcing them to do something to express something to say something that they don’t agree with so clearly is a violation of their free speech rights the government is prohibited from controlling your speech, but here they want to they’re saying if you decide to go out in public right they’re saying if you are in your home privately, then you can believe and do whatever you want. But as soon as you step out that door to the public, then you no longer have rights.

That is say, okay, now I’m open to the public. Now there is a group of people that the government can add to or take away from a list of people that are superior and can force me to work for them. The article continues, but we filed an amicus brief supporting Colorado’s in 303 initiative And we defended the same law five years ago on behalf of the gay couple denied service by Masterpiece Cake Shop.

We did so because Colorado’s law does not, this is talking about the lawyer defending the company’s ability for free speech, not to do what 303 Creative claims it does. Public accommodations laws, which have been on the book since the 19th century, ensure that everyone has equal access to the public marketplace without regard to attributes historically marking them for second class status.

So instead of, it does the exact opposite. This is classic Orwellian where they’re saying that it protects you from being in second class status when what it actually does is it elevates you as a superior class that can force others to work for you or to house you, whatever the case may be.

Those laws don’t trigger serious First Amendment concerns because they treat all businesses equally. So as long as they oppress everybody, it’s okay. Whether they take corporate headshots or serve burgers and fries.

The purpose of these laws is not to dictate the contents of anyone’s speech, but to make sure that nobody is denied goods or services in commercial markets for discriminatory reasons. Some animals are more equal than others.

They’re open to the public. So according to this, because they’re open to the public, they can’t turn you away. But here we have this article from Fox 13, it says, no mask, no service can businesses legally require customers to wear masks. Okay.

When people are out there saying this is an infringement upon my first amendment rights, a Fox reporter began to ask, that’s just wrong, answered David Raymond, a local first amendment attorney with par gown, Guy and loveless. You can set the terms of what happens in your business. and there’s no requirement that you allow people to come into your business, for instance, with a gun or without a face mask or something like that.

Raymond continued, “If you want to set those terms, it’s your business, your private business, you’re entitled to do that.” The short answer is yes, a business can refuse a customer service for not wearing a mask. It is not considered a form of discrimination.

Why is it not considered a form of discrimination? Because those people were not added as a special class. Therefore, some animals are more equal than others because you weren’t listed by the government through legislation. You have less rights than those that are put on that list.

And so what they’re, what they’re claiming to do of making preventing second class citizens is what they’re actually doing. They’re creating second class citizens by saying if you’re not on this list, then you don’t get the same protections as the other individuals.

Now, some would say, well, then what we should do is pass a law that says that you have to serve everyone, no matter what. I would disagree with that. With the exception of conspirator businesses, which we have covered in the past, like going back to the example of the Boston Tea Party and the founding fathers going after that private ship and that private ship’s tea and destroying it, it was because they were part of the conspiracy. And so the people had the obligation to fight that conspiracy and destroy that person’s property because they were working in conjunction.

But with this is all things being equal, each business has the right. If you want to not serve black people, if you want to not serve white people, if you want to only serve people carrying guns, whatever it is that you want to associate with, that is your right as an individual, whether you open a business or with your private person in your home.

And they weren’t required to do business by trade route of the ports of England. So they basically were able to, by the enforcement of the government, outperform all their competition. So they were destroying. So it’s not, yeah.

So it kind of looks like discrimination. And then you can say the same thing with like Harman’s. They’re not discriminating when they’re saying you can’t come in with a mask. They’re destroying freedom, both culturally and your ability to be able to feed yourself. And so what’s what’s going on here?

So it’s not really about protecting people from discrimination, because that’s really what it was. They would be consistent, but they’re not. What is it about these protected classes? They’re destroying the moral fabric of society by saying that you have to promote gays.

That’s a part of it, definitely. But it’s more than just the sodomites that they’re promoting. Yeah, of course. There are key parts of this woke agenda as it’s referred to today that that’s beyond just the sodomites, but that’s a key part of it for sure is the moral fabric for sure because they’re not about protecting, you know, people against discrimination.

There’s a bigger and larger agenda at play than what they want you to focus on what they want you to focus on is discrimination. So that way you’re on the defense, which is what we should never be on. and you’re like, oh, I’m not a racist. Oh, I’m not a homophobe.

And that’s very Orwellian as well, transphobe, homophobe, all of these different phobe words. Phobic means fear. And so what they’re trying to do is put in there that you’re afraid. And so you’re acting out of fear, which is not the case at all. There’s no fear of these individuals.

There is a understanding of what happens when they infiltrate a society and where they come from and what it does when they take over society.

Let me know if you’d like a version formatted as a formal essay or adapted for presentation.

The post What Happens When Rules Aren’t the Same for Everyone? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Agenda 2030: A Primer

Ben McClintock — Thu, 12 Jun 2025 00:16:01 +0000

In recent years, the rising cost of food, fuel, and housing has pushed many to the brink. But beyond surface-level economics, a deeper, more orchestrated agenda reveals itself—one that has been in development for decades. This article aims to unravel how global and national policies under the banners of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are being used to fundamentally restructure society.

A Blueprint for Control: What is Agenda 21?
In 1992, the United Nations hosted the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, launching Agenda 21. This initiative called for a “profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced” (UNCED, 1992). Later iterations, most notably Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reinforced these aims with more direct strategies.

Their vision goes beyond conservation. It’s about control—economic, geographic, and even demographic. The documents demand that environmental consequences of every human action be considered in both individual and collective decision-making, an ominous doorway to regulating virtually all aspects of life.

The Tools of Transformation: Economic Warfare
A key tactic in this restructuring is the use of economic tools to compel behavioral change. This isn’t mere theory; it is laid out plainly. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development openly stated the need to “stabilize the U.S. population” and restructure consumption patterns (PCSD, 1996). This means less meat, fewer vehicles, and limited access to appliances and private housing—all under the guise of sustainability.

We are already seeing this play out in real time

The Population Question
One of the most disturbing elements is the open conversation among global planners about population control. UNESCO-affiliated publications and globalist thinkers like Jacques Cousteau have floated the idea of eliminating up to 350,000 people per day to stabilize global population levels (UNESCO Courier, 1991).

The Erasure of Freedom Through Infrastructure
Spencer Cox, Utah’s governor, proposed making public transportation permanently free. In tandem, vehicle costs are rising, gas prices are manipulated, and electric car propaganda floods the media. This is not coincidence; it is the funneling of the populace into pre-approved, trackable forms of movement.

Living in Resistance
What can individuals do in the face of this massive, multilateral effort?

1. Reclaim Food Independence
2. Energy and Transport Autonomy
3. Land Ownership
4. Economic Self-Reliance

Conclusion: Naming the War
What we are facing is nothing short of economic warfare and domestic terrorism—defined as the use of coercion and violence to achieve political ends. Every policy, every price hike, every zoning law is a salvo in a quiet war to remake civilization under centralized, unelected global oversight.

We must recognize this for what it is, not just debate climate science or environmental impacts. The question is one of freedom versus control. The path forward is not only ideological but practical—through resilience, preparation, and courage to act locally while resisting globally.

Check out the resources here for more information on Agenda 2030
https://treeoflibertysociety.com/?s=agenda+2030

References
– United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). (1992). Agenda 21.
– President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). (1996). Sustainable America.
– San Francisco Chronicle (2008). Obama on Cap-and-Trade.
– Washington Post (2021). State-Level Mileage Tax Trials.
– Brookings Institute (2020). Zoning Reform Momentum.
– UNESCO Courier (1991). Population and the Environment.

The post Agenda 2030: A Primer appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Soundbites Of Feminism | Is The Future “Female”? What Would That Even Look Like?

Rod Klingler — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 03:00:42 +0000

What are the war cries of the feminist movement? More importantly, do they make any sense? Jennifer Moleski explains that real women reject such nonsense, and for good reason.

This is an excerpt from “Make Women Feminine Again,” Jennifer Moleski’s 22 Convention Speech. You can watch the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl1HMFPcc74. The Tree of Liberty Society is not associated with Jennifer Moleski, or anyone else involved with the 22 Convention. We just believe in spreading truth, wherever it is found. This clip contains a brief discussion of sex.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

So here’s some sound bites of feminism.

I went, and it’s like before the Women’s March, you can go, you know, and you write on your poster all your feminist mantras.

There’s 150 of them, and you can take these, she says.

Men of quality do not fear equality.

I don’t disagree.

That sounds good to me.

Men of quality do not fear equality.

But then we go on to the future is female.

Hey, wait a minute.

I thought it was all equal.

The future is feminist.

Hey, wait a minute.

Our voice is the future.

Whose?

The conference?

No.

Feminism.

Let’s take up more space.

Why?

To be equal?

Do you want it to be like equal space?

Do you want to take up more space than you’re comfortable with?

I don’t understand.

We’re all God’s children. (Equality.)

She told me so.

This is probably the most honest thing tell me or ask me about my feminist agenda and this is this is stupid and funny because if you tell some feminists that there’s an agenda they’ll say no.

We just want equality.

Well, where are we not equality?

And then they’ll give a pay gap, perhaps.

Try to battle that.

There’s not a lot of facts they have.

But there is a feminist agenda.

Now here, I wrote down some other ones.

Here’s some other quips.

Nasty women unite.

OK.

Well, that’s actually probably just as honest as asking about my feminist agenda.

Okay, so what if you’re not nasty?

No uterus, no opinion.

I hate that.

I get that from men in my comments section.

If you’re not a man, you cannot talk about men.

Really?

If you’re not black, you can’t talk about blacks.

If you’re not Hispanic, you can’t talk about that.

If you’re not an engineer, you can’t talk about that.

Okay, so I talk about feminism and waitressing, which I’d be okay with, actually, but I’d like to be able to talk about more things.

Open arms, open minds, open yours.

Well, OK, but OK, I will.

I’ll listen to what you have to say.

Will you listen to me?

No.

I imagine they’d say that.

I’m just kind of making them like I’m creating the avatar of a feminist, and that’s what I’m battling right now.

If you can cut off my productive choice, can I cut off yours?

Maybe they don’t…

I’m 42, I have a different educational system, but it seems that everyone forgot that there’s this one moment where reproduction happens.

It’s sex, if you guys… it is sex.

When you have sex that’s when it happens.

It’s not a couple days after, it’s not when you’re thinking about what you should do or how hard it’s going to be.

We’re not asking to fill vaginas up with cement, we are asking them to think critically about who they have sex with.

You know, I was thinking about promiscuity.

I said to somebody out in the hall, what if, this would be horrible, what if men and women, when they had sex with somebody out of wedlock, they had to tattoo their name on their body?

No one will go to the beach anymore, except for the whores and the players.

But that would be interesting.

You know what else?

Bart, thank you for everything.

He said to me…

No, he didn’t say to me.

We were talking about sex dolls.

And that some people…

Use sex dolls.

And you can have blonde, and you can have brunette, and if you don’t have enough money for a redhead, you’ll just use your friends.

And I thought, bleh, bleh, that sounds so gross, except for that’s promiscuity.

I mean, we can shower, and we have new cells and stuff, but we’re better than dolls.

The post Soundbites Of Feminism | Is The Future “Female”? What Would That Even Look Like? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

What Does The Feminist Agenda Look Like?

Rod Klingler — Sun, 08 Jun 2025 03:00:13 +0000

Many people deny that a feminist agenda exists. If actions speak louder than words, we should be able to tell if a feminist agenda exists merely by observation. This is an excerpt from “Make Women Feminine Again,” Jennifer Moleski’s 22 Convention Speech. You can watch the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl1HMFPcc74. The Tree of Liberty Society is not associated with Jennifer Moleski, or anyone else involved with the 22 Convention. We just believe in spreading truth, wherever it is found.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

I talked to a man in India, and he was having a hard time with the feminist agenda in India.

And his daughter, I can’t remember the exact age, 9 to 12 years old, but she came home from school.

It was a mother and a father and a brother and a girl.

And one night they’re having dinner, and the little girl said something to the effect of, women can do anything better than a man.

And the father was like, well, tell me more about that.

And she’s like, well, it’s just at school.

I mean, everybody knows that a woman can do things better than a man, and girls are better than boys.

And so he had to go through this whole thing.

You know, like, can you tell me how your mom is better than me?

She’s like, well, not you, Dad.

You’re really cool, you know?

And then he wanted to say, what about your brother?

But that was a losing battle, because the brother is the worst person in the world, according to her.

o then he went on to grandpa and uncle and the men, and she at the end said, you know, I guess it’s wrong.

So feminism is a big thing in schools.

Okay, so this is…

This is a poster that is in some elementary schools right now.

Know your A to Zs.

Prevent violence against women.

I don’t have any problem with that, but we’re talking elementary school.

Challenge gender stereotypes and promote respect.

Ask women about their experiences of sexism and harassment.

Really?

That’s what we want to do when you’re in fifth grade?

Okay, so here, I’m thinking about this.

What if you said, ask men about their experiences of sexism and harassment?

What if you said, Johnny, so what’s going on?

Like, how have you been sexually harassed?

He’d be like, um… I guess, I don’t know, but I guess I have.

Yeah, I mean, that time that Claire said that your butt stunk and whatever, like that’s harassment.

So if we switch any of these to men, we’d be in an uproar.

Believe reports of violence and sexual assault offer support, not suspicion.

Okay, okay, so we’re teaching women to believe that.

Well, what about when someone says something about my husband?

Am I supposed to believe that?

Or your husband or your dad. I think we have a pretty good country where we try to get to the bottom of things, but if you’re a little kid, you’re learning that it’s just women.

And then here, find a way to support women’s choices whatever they are.

Whatever they are.

Okay, well, we’re being, here, let me see. Raising your children, K-12, that’s 15,000 hours.

So maybe you’re like, OK, well, that’s just a stupid poster.

I can absolutely combat that.

And you probably absolutely can.

But K-12 is 15,000 hours.

So Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book.

It’s not his blank.

Maybe it’s outliers.

But it’s Anyone Can Become an Expert at Anything with 10,000 Hours.

What are you an expert at from your K-12 education?

That’s disappointing.

I mean, they don’t even teach you to be an expert at anything.

But with little snippets of indoctrination, 15,000 hours certainly adds up.

Okay, they’re not at school

They’re with you.

Now you have an impact.

It’s true.

Except for the average person.

I hate to talk about the CDC because I think they’re kind of poopy farts, but eight to 10 years old is six hours per day of screen time.

So what are they seeing with their screen time?

I don’t… I don’t know.

I mean, I know there’s parental locks and whatnot, but I mean, think about the six hours a day on a screen.

If they’re staring at that and then you like stop and interrupt and get their eye contact.

For six hours a day. OK, 11 to 14, nine hours a day gets worse and then it gets a little bit better because they’re a little bit more active in life.

15 to 18 years old.

They’re seven and a half hours and that’s not good.

Okay well let’s keep them off the screen okay.

Well they’re out in the world.

So this is a new ad campaign in Canada, I think.

I don’t don’t pay attention to this.

The most loving gift you can give your first child is to not have another one.

Oh that’s so sweet.

So we’re being infiltrated, we’re being sold an agenda.

So I thought, thinking about the Indian guy and my speech and my life and everything, I thought, well, I wonder how can we fight feminism?

That’s a good question.

Google’s smart, right?

There’s no agenda behind them.

They’re just fair and it’s all equality.

So I went to Google and I said, how can parents fight feminism?

How-fight-feminism.

Number one, feminist parenting, the fight for equality at home.

Number two, six ways to explain feminism to parents who just don’t get it.

Number three, how feminist mothers can raise feminist sons.

We need the patriarchy to defend the vicious feminists that want to eat you.

That’s not how it works.

That is kind of how some people’s brains work, but I don’t want that.

Number five, gender equality starts at home.

Seven tips for raising feminists.

Six, a feminist guide to raising boys.

Number seven, want to be a feminist parent?

Four goals to consider.

How to raise a feminist child when your family doesn’t like your feminism.

And feminists forgotten fight for family values.

OK, so the stats are kind of weird on that.

It’s like 30% to 60% of women identify as a feminist.

Then why 100%? of the first page of Google is they’re all how to be a feminist.

Do you guys know, this is stupid, but do you know where the best place in the world to hide a dead body is?

It’s the second page of Google.

Because no one ever goes there.

So we have this.

So this is an agenda, I believe.

The post What Does The Feminist Agenda Look Like? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Klaus Schwab Quit. Does That Mean Anything?

Rod Klingler — Sat, 31 May 2025 03:00:14 +0000

Klaus Schwab quit! Hooray! Right? Right…?!? Why does Ben McClintock always have to be a party pooper!!!

This is an excerpt from The Silent INVASION of YOUR Town. View Ben’s full interview on the Dangerous Info podcast here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/the-silent-invasion-of-your-town/

Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors