Thoughts for the Freedom-Web Weavers

To view other Bronte Baxter blogs, scroll down this page.

I’ve had an idea, inspired by the fact that a number of this blog’s readers, in the four weeks this blog has been up, have decided to start a blog of their own and write about the global agenda. People are excited about this freedom-web idea: whispering the truth of the conspiracy as we know it, lighting our lantern for anyone who may be on the lookout for a flicker of explanation in the night.

The thing is, once you start a blog, somehow you have to let folks know it exists. Otherwise it’s like getting a telephone, not giving anyone your phone number, and hoping your phone will ring. One of the best ways to get your website out there is with back links. Back links are links to your website from other websites of shared interest. The more back links you have, the more the search engines regard your site as an authority on the subject you write about. And the better your reputation with the search engines, the more people will find you when they do an Internet search.

But the main value of back links is that they expose you to the audience you wish to reach. For instance, say you have a background in the health field and are very aware of the way our food is being poisoned, or of the machinations of Big Pharma to keep people sick. Because of your insider knowledge (you may call it “fringe knowledge,” but it’s more than most of us would have in that field), you can cite evidence that shows the conspiracy at work in the health industry, and you can do that better than the rest of us.

If you were to write articles, citing your sources to support your allegations, and if you were to submit those articles to online magazines in your field of interest, and if they published your articles on their website, linking back from there to your own, you would start to gain quite a readership, wouldn’t you? You’d start making a pretty dramatic difference, using your life experience and specialty knowledge to point out evidence of the global agenda in the field of living you have insider knowledge in. We all have a field like this, an area of special interest or experience (for me it’s gurus/ meditation/ religion/ New Age). That specialty area can be your unique channel for spreading information in the world.

I’ve had 11,000-plus hits on my blog site in the 4 weeks it’s been up. What if just 200 of those visitors started a blog of their own, focusing on their area of interest or expertise as it relates to the conspiracy? What if they started sending articles around, and for each article that got published they requested a back link to their site? What if, on their site, they further presented knowledge about the conspiracy, branching out from their specialty area to include information about the global agenda at work in all areas of life? Wouldn’t even just 200 websites doing that make an impact? Wouldn’t people wake up who never had their slumber disturbed before?

You can start a wordpress.com blog for free, as I did, and the set-up takes ten minutes. You need to blog regularly (no less than once a week) to keep up your audience once you get one. If you can forego the ego trip and the tendency we all have to write about “me,” focusing instead on important information and insights you can share, you can become a major spinner of the freedom-web buzz.

When you write, always remember who you’re speaking to. Is the website you’re sending your article to a Christian one that knows about the conspiracy? You’re going to talk with that in mind. Is this second website you’re writing an article for mostly read by people who practice alternative health but who probably poo-poo the notion of an elite global agenda ? You’ll want to write with their understanding in your awareness.

I don’t at all advocate mincing your words to dumb down your message so you can get chummy with your readers. By necessity, what we have to say will be shocking. But we can startle in a way that doesn’t provoke fear or rage, because such emotions cause readers to go into denial and shut out and everything we are telling them. The skill to develop is pressing the envelope, but not so roughly that we rip it. Showing evidence and connecting the dots is more convincing than playing up sensational details (which only turns off intelligent readers). Facts along with reasoned explaining opens the mind. An emotional diatribe generally pigeonholes the writer as a psychotic, bug-eyed conspiracy theorist. That kind of impression won’t get your articles published, either.

When writing or speaking to people unaware of what you know, evidence is everything. Your personal experience counts as evidence, any first-hand experience you have of your subject. Maybe you’re a high school kid, and you think no one will listen to you. But you know what it’s like to be in school, with so many teachers preaching the panacea of globalization. You know about the mock United Nations assemblies, indoctrinating the students in the ideal of one-world government. You know about the tyranny of annual standardized tests. You’ve been there. You have insider knowledge.

Quotes from books count as evidence, and links to online articles, as long as you link to someone who is regarded with some degree of authority. Linking a fact to an article by a prominent researcher or author carries more weight than linking it to your cousin’s My Space page.

First-hand sources are more convincing than secondary sources: if you can quote Bill Clinton saying something revealing that’s more convincing than quoting someone talking about what they claim Bill Clinton said.

I believe that part of the reason the conspiracy paradigm is still ridiculed by many mainstreamers is the way some anti-conspiracists tend to present themselves. When we color what we say with sinister-looking graphics or over-the-top verbage, we get discounted as biased or imbalanced. Often, in the outrage and strong feelings the truth naturally generates in us when we wake up, anti-conspiracists fail to produce the evidence somewhere in the midst of all that biting sarcasm.

People need to know the facts, and they need to know where we got them so they can check to see if what we said is true. Once we show our facts, and the sources of those facts, only then will our commentary be taken seriously. It’s fine to connect the dots for people, but no one will care unless we prove that the dots really exist in the first place.

The more we reach out to the public with what we’ve discovered, rather than just passing it around inside own niche group, the greater our possibility of overturning the global agenda. Once we share information with enough people, and they see for themselves what’s really going on, the minority that controls this world will be exposed and won’t be able to keep on operating, because society will withdraw its collective permission. Revolutions are won by only a minority of the people. Not everyone has to wake up for the global agenda to be overturned.

So our goal must be to reach out with the repressed information we’ve uncovered, and to interpret for people what that information means as we understand it. We have to be willing to wipe off the spit that many will send our way, to get out there and do our talking or writing anyway. To never take the reactions of people personally. To speak what we know, citing evidence and sharing our experience that brought us to our conclusions. If enough of us take up the challenge and do this, imagine the effect our voices will have on the world.

Old hippies and all people with the splinter, it’s time to act. It’s time to start talking and to take back the world from the shadows who control it. Let’s send up a battle cry.

Bronte Baxter

Rebecca MacKinnon’s Cool Idea

Rebecca MacKinnon describes herself as a blogger, journalist and educator. I’d describe her as a lady with a cool idea.

Rebecca is a journalism teacher at University of Hong Kong, and today her blog observes a curious phenomenon: how the Chinese think Westerners are brainwashed by their media while Westerners are convinced of the same thing about the Chinese. Both sides on the Tibet issue are certain that the other side is wrong.

Rebecca suggests people of East and West listen and chat with each other over the Net in order to expand and harmonize their perspectives. She suggests joining Twitter, finding a group that writes in Chinese, and writing posts there in English. Since many Chinese speak English, she thinks there’d be a response.

I think this is brilliant, an expansion of the freedom-web (see blogs below on that subject). And joining Twitter may not even be necessary to do it. At the bottom of Rebecca’s blog, quite a discussion has already ensued between people from East and West. What better way to learn about something, if you can’t be there, than to talk to the people experiencing it?

I posted this comment:

For me, the bottom line comes out to be: every people should have the right to determine their own form of government. If the Tibetans want Communism, they should have it. If they want theocracy, they should have it. If they want democracy or even anarchy, let it be theirs.

Right now it looks to me like they want China out of there. Is this true, Tibetans? Or are most of you grateful that Communism freed you from the theocracy? All I’m seeing and hearing of Tibetans on the news and on the Net is Tibetans rising up for independence. If that’s what they want, it’s their right to have it, despite the fact that I personally think a return to serfdom and Communism would suck.

It’s not my choice, nor is it a choice for the Chinese to make or the Dalai Lama. The Tibetan people should organize a vote and unanimously decide. Then the rest of the world should respect their decision.

P.S. The people here who say Americans have no right to criticize the Chinese when we have invaded and tyrannized Iraq are absolutely right. Whether it’s Communists doing it or Capitalists, forcing yourself into another country is plain wrong. I believe the people of every culture are pretty much controlled by their governments. It sure was not the majority of Americans who wanted to invade Iraq, but did our government care what we thought? Governments run themselves, and they also run the people. It should be the other way around.

These days it looks to me like anarchy, or small groups of people governing themselves and developing a sustainable economy together, is the best form of government any people could have. The more libertarian we can become, the freer I think we’ll be, and we all should boycott our governments when they violate human rights. No one can be free when they’re being bossed around by big government, be it Communist, Capitalist or any other.

That’s my two cents. Visit’s Rebecca’s site, listen, and speak your mind.

Bronte Baxter

The Free Tibet Movement: Evidence of the Freedom-Web and the Smoldering Power of Quiet Discontent

Last week I wrote about the phenomenon I call “the freedom-web,” a conversational matrix that is quietly spun (person to person or through grass-roots tools like the Internet) until it grows to the level of critical mass, where it explodes into public view as protests, civil disobedience and mass outrage. Only then is a freedom movement officially said to be born. In reality, every grass-roots movement lives and grows within the womb of collective opinion long before it bursts upon the world as action.

I cited the black freedom movement in America’s south as an instance of the freedom-web at work. Now, all at once, we have another example in the news: the loud birthing of the Free Tibet movement. Where did all this dissent suddenly come from? It was growing unseen in the mind of mankind for years, as people across the globe slowly became aware of Tibet’s plight. A collective opinion has slowly been taking shape. And when the monks decided to mark the occasion of the genocide anniversary with protests, they triggered answering protests around the world.

This kind of massive dissent, springing up like artesian wells everywhere the Chinese government looks, puts powerful pressure on their policies. The dissent was there all along, invisible. It simply took the anniversary and the Olympic Games coming to China to ignite the fuse on the stick of dynamite.

This wonderful phenomenon of Free Tibet demonstrates the power and importance of talking among ourselves about things we know to be wrong, quietly spreading the word. Tibetan monks have been touring the world for the past few years, offering public performances of their spiritual dance and music. At the end of each show, they quietly tell the audience about Tibet, the country they have lost. The power of these presentations, which I was privileged to view on two occasions, is difficult to describe. By the end of the evening you have a feeling for these monks, their innocence and goodness. When they tell you their country’s story in simple, halting English it goes right to the heart. They ask for your support for their people and your prayers. The audience is so attentive you could hear a pin drop.

The monks make this global journey in order to help free their people. In their humble way, giving cultural gifts in exchange for people’s attention, they quietly transmit their message of Free Tibet. Now their work is paying off.

Imagine if everyone who knows the truth about the global, one-world agenda quietly told just ten open-minded people, sharing substantiating evidence and laying out the facts. Imagine if out of those ten, five took the information seriously and studied up on the subject for themselves, becoming convinced. What if those five told ten more people, of whom five became convinced? How long would it take for the news to spread into every home in the world?

If there were just 3,000 of us, using these ratios, in five years or less a third of the world’s population would be very well-informed about the global conspiracy. A third of the population can trigger critical mass: that’s how many colonists were in favor of breaking with England, and that’s the minority fraction it took to win the American Revolution. Social and political change begin in the human mind, with the collective spinning of a freedom-web.

Two years ago, I launched my own personal Tell-Ten Campaign. It went so well I decided to tell more than ten. I brought up the subject with people I hardly knew, like the produce man at the local supermarket. I inched into the subject, testing people’s level of openness before I sprung the full story, but to my surprise I rarely met resistance. It was amazing to find how many people were already thinking along these lines themselves. They seemed grateful to have someone bring the subject up and talk with them openly about their observations and concerns. When people expressed sincere interest, I referred them to the David Icke books and website for a crash course on Big Brother.

Although I started talking two years ago, I knew about the conspiracy a long time before that. I kept silent because I was afraid of getting tagged a dissenter and winding up dead or in a detention camp one day. I was perhaps even more afraid of being viewed as a weirdo by the people who knew me. Now I regret taking so long to do something. Over time I’ve come to the point where hiding what I know is not an option anymore. We must all reach that point soon if we are to defeat the global agenda.

Winston Churchill had this to say about speaking up:

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

I don’t intend to die as a victim to power-hungry global fascists. I fully intend to succeed with my freedom-loving brothers and sisters in defeating the one-world government before it arrives and then to live in a society that surpasses the best we’ve ever known on Earth. A society of true freedom, perhaps for the first time in human history. But to find the courage to speak about this subject, I had to decide whether it’s worth dying for if it came to that, and if it’s worth being laughed at over. If the global fascist state is a snare that could at any moment be tightened around us, should we really care who laughs at us for alerting people? And isn’t dying a better option than bending our heads and getting shot with a microchip?

Bronte Baxter