Media Lies Archives - Tree of Liberty Society

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.

Why Does Discrimination Matter In The Fight For Freedom?

Rod Klingler — Thu, 19 Jun 2025 03:00:46 +0000

???? Mister bluebird’s on my shoulder…???? And guess what? He hates red birds! Is he a dirty, filthy, racist who should be shunned by society? Find out!

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

The importance of discrimination and that might sound weird to folks, but hopefully it makes sense after we’re done tonight. And it’s a focus of the conspiracy is this attack on discrimination. And so we have to understand we have to ask ourselves that question that’s going to bring up a lot tonight is, you know, sometimes we don’t have available information to answer the question fully.

We’re going to introduce the answer. I think we have the answer to this pretty well, but just in general, I want to help us to understand the principle. Even if we don’t have it, we can identify a problem. If the conspiracy is focused on something, even if we don’t understand why they’re focused on it, we can say if they’re focused on it, that means it’s important to them, and we need to start digging why is it important to them? Why are they focusing on it, either for good or for evil, because they do not attack or promote something positively without an agenda, without a purpose behind it. And so why is this such a big thing?

I’m going to get more into it. And this really breaks down to the important, you know, helping us to understand the principle of freedom of association and freedom of speech. The government should to interfere positively or negatively with our ability to associate freely or with each other or to force us to associate with people or to silence our speech, to do anything that would make it so we would not be able to say something or to force us to say something. ‘Cause both ways are going on now, We see these things and so these are things that are controversial, right?

Well, this is kind of a little bit more funny Like this is a bus sign that says no riders unless you’re a brunette blonde or a redhead everybody else were banning To give rides to This one is help wanted the Irish need not apply. So this was something a business said, you know We want some employees, but if you’re Irish, we have no desire to associate and to work with you to have you as an employee This one is because colored only, no whites allowed. So this was a business that said we are only going to cater to colored. And we have this one, no dogs, Negroes, or Mexicans, kind of an interesting combination there. It’s interesting they start more of the other than the other two, that’s a little interesting. But that’s what they decided to have for their business. Probably a butcher shop.

And We have Catholics in this place, you know, the other one said we want workers, but no Irish, this one says we need workers. But if you’re Catholic, we don’t want to do anything. We don’t want anything to do with you. And so this might come as a shock, but you know what, I say thumbs up to all these, you know, not that, not that all these are all things that I would do. But I’ve got no problem with working with Irish, for example. But But we all have the freedom right if somebody said you know no six foot tall white guys can shop in my store I’d be like hey you know that stinks for me I can’t go in there but I do not want to interfere with your ability to associate with those that you want to associate with this is not a bad thing.

Okay, we need to get We all discriminate in one way or another every single day. When we decide which grocery store to go to, we’re discriminating by not going to all the grocery store options. We’re discriminating, okay? We’re saying we are choosing one of them and we’re saying no to the rest. So instead of saying, right? The other one said, no riders unless you’re blonde, we’re saying no groceries unless it’s at Walmart or Safeway or you know whatever it is. And so we’re discriminating. We’re saying no to the others.

The same thing when we go to buy something, right? If it’s food, we’re buying a can of carrots, we’re saying no to the other things that we’re not buying. If we don’t buy everything in the store, we’re discriminating. But nobody would say that you’re crazy or that you’re evil or that you’re mean or that you’re, you know, bad Because you chose to not shop somewhere or because you chose not to buy something. Those are just preferences, right?

We go through the the dictionary. What that means is what is discrimination the act of distinguishing The act of making or observing a difference a distinction as the discrimination between right and wrong Anybody calls that you know bad kind of unreasonable and they say so distinguishing discernment discrimination Discernment, the act of discerning, also the power or faculty of the mind, by which it distinguishes one thing from another as truth from falsehood, virtue from vice, acuteness of judgment, power of perceiving differences of things or ideas, and their relations and tendencies.

The errors of youth often proceed from the want of discernment. We have judgment, the act of judging, the act or process of the mind in comparing its ideas to find their agreement or disagreement and to ascertain truth or the process of examining facts and arguments to ascertain propriety and justice or the process of examining the relations between one proposition and another.

Okay, so We have these things that people say we shouldn’t do but when you look at what these things are No reasonable person would disagree with us or say that we don’t all do these things every single day Okay, no when we say we’re discriminating against something we don’t like something. I don’t like chocolate doesn’t mean I’m gonna go in the store and Destroy all the chocolate bars Now my That just means my wife gets more chocolate, okay? So when we don’t like something, doesn’t mean we’re gonna destroy it.

When we’re discerning, even if it’s not that we don’t like it, we just don’t want it. Doesn’t mean, just ’cause we don’t want it, doesn’t mean we wanna destroy it, right? That there’s a difference between actual physical harm and just not associating, okay? That’s, these aren’t the same thing. And that’s what the conspiracy wants to promote as the idea If you don’t like something, if you don’t want to associate it, that means you want to destroy it, and that’s a false idea that we have to reject and ignore.

So what it just means is no thanks, right? I’m not in your cult. I don’t want any part of that. No, thank you. It’s all that it means. And the Muhammad Ali did a video discussing this topic when it comes to discrimination that we’re hearing more and um being focused on in the media today and so I wanted to play this this clip from Muhammad Ali I think he makes some really good points and because he’s black it’s he can say these things without getting in trouble apparently apparently if you have any colleges here and out here can’t tell what’s saying oh okay on the it is so muffled okay we’ll fix that

Because let me tell you something if you have any colleges here where black people go to college have an assembly or something and watch and see all the jamaikers are the trinidadians or westerns they’re just naturally tuned together everybody like we do this on you see some blue birds going this way red birds flying this way they might get all mixed up but they’ll all come out together and see the tigers with the tigers the monkeys with the monkeys the lions with the lions the giraffes with the giraffes they’re all animal cats but they got different hangouts you see the eagles over here the pigeons over here the buzzards over here the the all -type blue birds the red birds the owls they all are birds but they got different little cultures you got your English talking your English food, and you and the man in Germany are both brothers, but your cultures are different. You and the man in Russia are even more different yet.

I was in the Zaire home of my brothers, but the food and the way to talk with the dance, I was when I’m not home. Do I get back to Harlem to the brothers? Yeah, baby. So you understand, ain’t nothing wrong with wanting to be with your own kind. What’s wrong with me wanting to be with my kind?

So that’s a key principle that is, as he pointed out, I would dare say is a natural law. He pointed that out with just observing nature. When you observe nature, you observe this idea.

The post Why Does Discrimination Matter In The Fight For Freedom? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Why Did Debbie Wish She Never Transitioned?

Rod Klingler — Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:00:16 +0000

Why do people attempt to transition from one gender to another? Why do they decide to transition back? Let them explain in their own words! This clip contains excerpts from a longer video, which you can view here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDi-jFVBLA8

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

Thank you to our sponsors