Only later did the truth come out: tens of millions would perish under communist rule. But by then it was too late. “China was lost in Washington, not in Peking or Shanghai,” critics said, and they were right.

It wasn’t the last time Americans would be misled. In the 1950s, the press swooned over Fidel Castro, calling him the “George Washington of Cuba.” Some knew better and sounded the alarm, but Washington repeated the same tragic pattern. Before long, Castro had Cuba in a chokehold and was exporting communist revolution across Latin America.

Why did our government keep making the same “mistakes”? Were America’s leaders simply gullible? Or was something deeper at work?

The Businessmen Who Weren’t Anti-Communist

Most Americans still hold on to a comfortable assumption: wealthy businessmen—our so-called capitalists—must be the natural enemies of communism. After all, don’t they have the most to lose under socialism? Yet reality tells a different story.

Take David Rockefeller. His Chase Manhattan Bank was the first American bank welcomed into Moscow and Peking. It financed a Soviet truck plant on the Kama River, the largest of its kind in history. Instead of fighting communism, Rockefeller was doing business with it.

This wasn’t charity. It wasn’t idealism. It was power. Some businessmen seek not freedom, but control—and communism offers the ultimate prize: political power over all.

Meet the Insiders

Who are these people? President Jimmy Carter had a name for them: the insiders. On the campaign trail in 1976, Carter promised to drive them out of Washington. Voters cheered. Yet once in office, he surrounded himself with the very men he had railed against.

Two names stood out: Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Both men were not only establishment veterans; they were pillars of two little-known organizations that have shaped U.S. policy for decades—the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission.

The Council on Foreign Relations

Headquartered in a Rockefeller-donated building on Park Avenue, the CFR has quietly dominated American political life since 1921. Its founder, Edward Mandell House, was no ordinary adviser. He was President Woodrow Wilson’s “alter ego,” a Marxist at heart who openly wrote about creating socialism in America “as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”

House plotted to control both political parties, establish a central bank, and force the United States into world government. When his League of Nations scheme faltered, he built the CFR as a vehicle for the long game.

By the 1940s, the CFR had taken over the State Department. Soon, its members were running the New York Times, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek—you name it. Its influence stretched into universities, foundations, labor unions, and the military. Today, it counts hundreds of U.S. officials among its ranks, though most Americans have never even heard of it. And that’s no accident: nearly two hundred journalists are CFR members themselves, and they don’t write about the organization.

At the top sits David Rockefeller.

The Trilateral Commission

If the CFR is the old guard, the Trilateral Commission is its younger partner. Conceived by Rockefeller in 1973 after reading Brzezinski’s book Between Two Ages, the Commission set out to link North America, Western Europe, and Japan. Its goal? Nothing less than world government, with “advanced communist states” eventually joining the fold.

Brzezinski himself praised Marxism as “a major advance” in human thought. He declared America “obsolete.” And yet, he became Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Carter wasn’t the only insider. His administration teemed with trilateralists: Vance, Mondale, Blumenthal, Brown, Andrew Young—the list goes on. And when Carter fell, others picked up the torch. Reagan denounced the insiders on the campaign trail, but then tapped George Bush, a member of both CFR and the Trilateral Commission, as his running mate. The faces changed. The policies didn’t.

The Consequences

Look around: wars without victory, allies abandoned, communists embraced. Trade deals that send American wealth overseas. Domestic policies that inflate the dollar, bury the nation in debt, and tie down industry in red tape.

This is not drift. It is design. Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation, admitted as much in 1953 when he told a congressional investigator that he and others were working “to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.”

The ultimate goal is world government. What would that mean for ordinary Americans? A forced redistribution of wealth. Regimentation in daily life. No private property, no free speech, no independent press. A socialist nightmare enforced by global power.

What Now?

The insiders count on one thing: that you will do nothing. That you’ll dismiss this as paranoia, flip the page, and get back to your routine.

But history has shown what happens when Americans are misled. China fell. Cuba fell. Vietnam fell. How many more losses can freedom endure?

The John Birch Society believes the answer is education. Tell the truth. Expose the insiders. Show Americans who really holds the levers of power. If enough people know, the insiders’ grip can be broken.

The question is whether enough will act in time.

Help us fight this Satanic conspiracy by joining the tree of Liberty Society today!

Delve deeper into the conspiracy by checking out our Secret Combinations resource page here:

https://treeoflibertysociety.com/resources/secret-combinations/ 

The post The Insiders: How Power Really Works in America appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

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

https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/

https://www.dentistry4health.org

http://www.highercallingfirearms.com

http://www.americanappliancehvac.com

https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html

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.

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

https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/

https://www.dentistry4health.org

http://www.highercallingfirearms.com

http://www.americanappliancehvac.com

https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html

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

1. A secret plot
2. A group of conspirators
3. Supporting evidence
4. The idea that nothing happens by accident
5. A belief that the world is good vs. evil
6. 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.

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

Thank you to our sponsors

https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/

https://www.dentistry4health.org

http://www.highercallingfirearms.com

http://www.americanappliancehvac.com

https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

Iran is consistently presented as the “globalist boogeyman,” especially with recent events. This isn’t new. An article from 17 years ago shows Dick Cheney and George W. Bush threatening to act on Iran, with the President unwilling to leave the conflict unresolved. This agenda has been in the works for a long time. In 2004, Condoleezza Rice, another Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, stated that “Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms,” warning that President Bush would use “all the tools that are available to him to stop Iran’s program”. The message is clear: Iran is not allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

This narrative continues. In 2012, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was “on the brink of a nuclear bomb in six to seven months”. Just two days ago, another article echoed this, with Netanyahu declaring an operation necessary to “roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival,” stating that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon “in a very short time” if not stopped. This “boogeyman” narrative has persisted for 20 to 30 years.

They constantly bring up arguments about Iran being a “Muslim dictatorship” that does “horrible things to women and children,” and how they “shout death to America and death to Israel,” thus justifying their inability to have a nuclear bomb. But who is promoting this narrative? Those in the Satanic Conspiracy, along with its members and associated roundtable groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations.

So, why is the conspiracy so fixated on disarming Iran, even if they never truly intend to act, perhaps using it as a distraction? We need to understand the real goal when one nation dictates another’s right to possess weapons. Ask yourself: What would happen if Iran, or Russia, or England, or Israel, or any other nation, told the United States it wasn’t allowed to have nuclear weapons anymore? We’d tell them to “pound sand,” right? This is the mindset they’re trying to instill – that certain nations aren’t allowed to defend themselves.

Who Wants War with Iran?

The Satanic globalists want war with Iran. We must understand this when we look at the news and the scare tactics used to garner support for efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

War with Iran is an extension of the “Freedom from War” agenda. This is a U.S. State Department document, “Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,” State Department Document 7277, released in September 1961.

State Department Document 7277: The Disarmament Agenda

Let’s delve into State Department Document 7277. It states the goal is “to contain and reduce the nuclear threat,” meaning nations that haven’t agreed to a treaty prohibiting nuclear weaponstesting shall do so, and the “production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped”. The ultimate goal is to ensure that all nations, without approval from the United Nations, are not allowed to produce any means of self defense.

Stage two of this program outlines “progressive control disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law” to a point “where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN peace force”. One of the primary goals is to prevent any nation from opposing the UN army. They use Orwellian “double-speak” by calling it a “peace force,” but it’s clearly a UN army.

The final phase of the disarmament program aims for a world where “States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and they would also “support and provide agreed manpower for a UN peace force”. This means nations would either not develop anything beyond what they currently have, or they would be forced to get rid of armaments, keeping only what’s necessary to quell dissension against the New World Order within our nation’s borders. If a nation “needs help”, the UN Army can be called in to stop any “rebellion”. Essentially, they want to disarm both nations and individuals to prevent opposition to the UN and to tyrants within their own borders.

Furthermore, the manufacture of armaments for a nation’s internal use would be prohibited, except for “agreed types and quantities to be used by the UN Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order”. All other armaments would be “destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes”. And like all good communists, “peace” means not opposing the New World Order.

This document, State Department Document 7277, is the current policy of both the United Nations and the United States. The conspiracy’s goal is to disarm individuals and nations, taking away their means of self-defense and their ability to declare war on anyone not in compliance.

The Principle of Self-Defense

What’s happening with Iran is a direct reflection of this. The United States, in partnership with Israel, is essentially telling Iran it has “no sovereignty” in terms of what weapons it can possess, and that they will enforce this by force and by death. The principle here, as outlined in State Department Document 7277, is that the UN will be able to disarm any nation so they can’t compete with the military, the United Nations”. This principle also applies to individuals: if the government has the right to disarm nations, then in principle, it has the right to disarm individuals. They’ve explicitly stated this.

This State Department document, 7277, is shocking and still in force. We can see its implementation with what’s happening now with Israel and Iran. This isn’t just about Israel and Iran; it applies universally. The fundamental principle is the right of self-defense. Just because I don’t like my neighbor’s church doesn’t mean I get to take away his guns.  We need to understand “the law of nations“.

The core point is the right of self-defense. You can’t just claim your neighbor is doing something you don’t like and take away their guns. “Self-defense against unjust violence is not only the right, but the duty of a nation and one of her most sacred duties”. “Self-defense being authorized by the law of nature,” it “naturally belongs to everyone and requires no permission”. (See Emer De Vattel, Law Of Nations, 1758)

We don’t need UN permission to defend ourselves if attacked, just as an individual doesn’t need to call the police for permission to defend against a robbery. It is a natural right, and anyone that tries to take it away from you is a tyrant. This applies to nations as well as individuals.

Cato’s Letters, another foundational text for the Founding Fathers, states that “the great principle of self-preservation, which is the first and fundamental law of nature calls for this procedure”. “Whatever is necessary to the public safety is just”.(Cato’s Letters 1:94) “All men have a right to defend themselves”. “There is no law that can be legitimately passed that prevents you from defending yourself”. In fact, “Whoever violates this primary law of nature ought by the law of nature to be destroyed”. (1:291-292) This principle must be applied universally: if someone says another doesn’t have the right to defend themselves, “they’re wrong and they should be destroyed”.

Joseph Smith, in an 1844 letter to his wife, Emma, said: “There is one principle which is eternal. It is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of their household whenever necessity requires and no power has a right to forbid it”. This is an inherent right for both individuals and groups. He also strongly stated that “Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a bastard,” (Words of Joseph Smith, BYU Religious Studies Center, pg. 162) emphasizing that self-defense is not just a right, but a duty for individuals and nations.

George Q. Cannon urged, “it is also for your salvation to equip yourselves now”. He suggested having weapons readily available, stating, “there is nothing that the devil is so much afraid of as a weapon of death”. This highlights that the conspiracy fears self-defense, which is why they push for gun bans and promote the lie of “peaceful resistance”. (Journal of Discourses 5:164-165)

Brigham Young similarly stated,

“By what means did [God] keep the mob from destroying us? It was by means of being well armed with the weapons of death to send them to hell cross lots. We must be so prepared that they dare not come to us in a hostile manner without being assured they will meet a vigorous resistance, and ten to one they will meet their grave. I am my own policeman, and have slept, scores of nights, with my gun and sword by my side, that is, if I slept at all. I am still a policeman. Now is the day to watch.” (Journal of Discourses 1:171-172)

Pointing out that the modern local police department is a relatively new invention, and historically, individuals were responsible for defending themselves against mobs.

The End Goal: Global Disarmament under the UN

When we support denying any nation or person the right to defend themselves, we are supporting the “satanic conspiracy’s agenda of disarmament”. The goal, as we’ve seen, is the disarmament of nations. When world leaders say a country “cannot be allowed to own nukes,” they are following this State Department document. They are either knowingly or ignorantly, but most likely knowingly, implementing the New World Order agenda of allowing only the United Nations to have weapons, except for what’s needed to quell internal rebellion.

We need to understand this because many people are acting emotionally, supporting nations like Israel, even when they’re “claiming to be Israel when it’s not”. They say we must “stop these bad guys” because “they have a religion that I really don’t like” or “they’re doing things that I really don’t like”. While Iran may “shout death to America,” if they attack us, we have the right to defend ourselves, and they have every right to defend themselves if attacked. I will protect everyone’s right to defend themselves.

Enslavement and disarmament go hand in hand; ultimately, the goal is to disarm to enslave. Any church that advocates for disarmament is essentially advocating the enslavement of mankind. The arguments often heard on conservative media about Israel and Iran are problematic. They suggest killing people based on their “thoughts” or what they “say they want”. It doesn’t matter how bad the thought is; “nobody should be killed or murdered for their thoughts”. When Iranian comments about wiping Israel off the map are taken in context, they often mean that Israel is an “illegitimate nation” due to its foundations and “war crimes,” not a desire for a new Holocaust. While some may sincerely want that, it is “no grounds to murder somebody”.

The Wisdom of the Founding Fathers: Mind Our Own Business

What was the Founding Fathers’ position on engaging with other nations? It’s encapsulated in John Quincy Adams’ words: “America goes not abroad in search for monsters to destroy”. She is a “well-wisher to the freedom and independence,” but “she is the champion and vindicator only of her own”. We don’t vindicate or champion anyone else’s cause. America “will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice and the benign sympathy of her example”.

Adams warned that “by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence,” America “would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and entry of individual avarice, envy, and ambition”. The “fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force”. No matter the argument for intervention, the natural result is force. (John Quincy Adams, 4 July 1821)

This is precisely what we’re seeing: the implementation of the United Nations program to disarm the world, allowing only the UN to control global weapons, thus preventing resistance to their tyranny. It’s crucial to understand these principles, not just for current events, but to be aware and beware of the lies promoted by so-called conservatives promoting the globalist agenda. Anyone advocating to “stop Iran from having nuclear weapons” is part of the New World Order, or at least promoting their agenda. They expose themselves as a mouthpiece of the conspiracy and should not be taken seriously.

The post The Surrender of Sovereignty: What ‘Iran Can’t Have Nukes’ Really Means appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.