Raising Awareness Using Digital Media (Part 1): Hashtag Activism

It’s true, digital media or “new media” has made the world more connected and much smaller. It has also made the world less private, enabled more open dialogue and allowed for an increased awareness of the world we live it.

But, as with traditional media, digital media can be manipulated, distorted, twisted, monopolised, propagandised and even weaponised. “Fake News” has been around for as long as news itself, from Greek myths of gods and goddesses, medieval tales of witchcraft and the occult, fishermen’s tales of the one that got away, war propaganda, to historical records that generate a particular view of how the world was, and is.

Likewise, there have always been those who have used these same forms of media to promote change, raise awareness, to gain the attention of those who would otherwise look away and to inform communities about important information. Writers, anarchists, artists, musicians, campaigners, everyday people, hell, even some of those who are part of the establishment have used media in one way or another to share a message.

Here are some tips that may help you to get your message out to the wider digital community. While these tips do relate to OpChemtrails, I have tried to keep them generic so they are also relevant to other awareness campaigns.


Hashtags


Despite the fact that hashtags can be heavily censored, they are still an effective way of communicating information. Hashtags can be used on most social media platforms and are basically a way of filtering search results. OpChemtrails has used the #OpChemtrails hashtag on various platforms to raise awareness about geoengineering, the tag allows likeminded people to share information, images, videos etc. with other people who follow the tag (although for censored hashtags users will have to adjust their quality filters, sensitive information filters and tailored information filters, most platforms provide instructions on how to do this).

Hashtags can be expanded to cover specific topics. So for example, OpChemtrails currently uses these hashtags: #OpChemtrails, #OpCImageGallery (images and video), #OpCMediaWatch (mainstream media on geoengineering), #OpCLibrary (pdfs, articles, reports). While the #OpChemtrails hashtag is the primary #, the account also uses other tags such as: [#]geoengineering, SRM, SAI, MCB, SolarRadiationManagement, Sulfate Aerosol Injections, MarineCloudBrightening, CloudWhitening, SkyWhitening, Environment, Health etc.

Sometimes the tags are used in conjunction, other times individually, this helps to maximise the exposure of information. Using upper and lower case should not affect search results, but if you are having trouble finding information under a specific hashtag, simply run a key word search (e.g. without the ‘#’).

Chemtrails: the taboo word

Its a word which rouses an array of responses. From blank stares, laughter, eye rolling, criticism, curiosity and sometimes even looks of excitement when the people you are speaking with realise you use the word ‘chemtrails’ too. Obviously, the latter is my favourite response, like finding a kindred spirit that speaks your language and with whom you can finally have a rational conversation with about the subject.

But is it okay to use the word chemtrails? After all it is said the word originated from the U.S. Military. Or does using the word chemtrails discredit you and the information you provide?

The simple answer is, it depends on your audience. The word chemtrails is descriptive and is an apt description for the ‘chemical trails’ we witness in our sky more days than not. Moreover, the word chemtrails encompasses technologies such as solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB); technologies all based on deploying man made atmospheric chemical trails (visible or not) in an attempt to ‘engineer the climate’.

Then again, if you are talking to someone who will instantly shutdown once you say the word, is there any point speaking to them at all?

The word chemtrails is now part of pop culture. Meaning it is a word known and used by the masses. Moreover, numerous articles and papers have long suggested that the man-made clouds produced by aircraft (aka chemtrails) are indeed already geoengineering the atmosphere [1, 2, 3] (a whole other topic in and of itself, deserving of its own post).

Image by Piotr VaGla Waglowski
Despite this, the word chemtrails is often cited as one of the top 10 ‘conspiracy theories‘ and when you search the word chemtrails, most search engines turn up page after page of debunking sites before anything resembling an anti geoengineering or chemtrails website appears in the search results (if they show up at all). Even many of the larger anti geoengineering activists frown upon those of us who dare use the word.

Language is a funny thing like that. Certain words or phrases provoke prejudice, hostility, passion… sadness etc. Trigger words are analysed by psychologists, monitored by governments, and used by politicians, marketers, the media, internet trolls, and yes, even everyday people.

However, irrespective of one’s position in society, cultural background or educational status, one way or another we seem to adapt to the language which surrounds us as much as the language which surrounds us adapts to us. And as history illustrates, those who speak the language deemed to be ‘proper’ or ‘noble’ will always look down upon those of us who dare to use slang, defy the rules of grammar or digress from the hodgepodge of prescriptivist jargon which they deem appropriate.

Having said all that, as for the word chemtrails, for me when I am talking to friends and family I do not hesitate to use the word chemtrails. I sometimes even use it to trigger a reaction from certain people. But when around strangers or peers I will often use terms like weather modification, climate engineering, geoengineering, solar radiation management.

Those who are already familiar with these terms will often respond with “oh you mean chemtrails?”, but if they don’t I will usually continue using the mainstream jargon. If they ask for more information I tell them to visit the opchemtrails website and library (or if I think they are going to be super anal about the word chemtrails, I will point them to other credible sites). From there it is up to them.

Again, whether or not you use the word chemtrails is up to you, and really depends on your audience and how clearly you want your message to be received.

___

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.

The Big Geoengineering Squeeze: time for political pressure

Governments and academic institutions vehemently deny such programs exist, yet the fact that for decades our atmosphere has been geoengineered by aircraft trails and ship trails is increasingly understood and acknowledge by a majority.

Although the recent news coverage on Harvard’s geoengineering circus and American State University was a double slap in the face to many anti geoengineering activists, concepts such as or similar solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) are finally being discussed by the broader community. More importantly is has caused many people to question what they have already been witnessing in their sky.

Personally, I believe Harvard formally announced its’ ‘hypothetical’ plan to dim the sun (problem) to generate a flood of public concern (reaction), which will enable them to implement their plans for global governance of geoengineering programs (solution). Despite my personal opinion, the recent mainstream coverage concerning geoengineering may in fact be a positive development.

How on earth could it be positive?
We all know that voting systems these days are questionable to say the least, but now that geoengineering has been propelled into the mainstream arena political parties can be pressed to affirm the political party’s view on the matter (in black and white).

Ask your local representatives about their level of understanding and opinion on geoengineering; do they support research and/or future deployment? If a representative is found to endorse geoengineering technology, this can be used to launch a social media campaign which will inform voters that if they vote for ‘X’ they are voting for geoengineering. If representatives are unaware of geoengineering, this would be a perfect time to provide them with information.

Even if your local representatives deny the ongoing geoengineering programs we currently witness in our sky, they can no longer deny that governments and members of academia, adorning their sophisticated facades and passive aggressive mentality, are and now openly, but coyly, calling for the ‘official future deployment’ of geoengineering technologies and for the creation of a global governing body.

Academics keep the public bewildered by claiming geoengineering is only in the research stages, yet, the same people often fail to mention that some of these research projects last for almost as long as Smith and Wagner’s conjectural ‘SAIL’ program, which has a projected deployed lifespan of 15 years. Another detail which is often neglected is the fact that scientists and academic institutions were conducting outdoor experiments as early as the 1950’s.

Also, it is well documented that for a decade or more psychologists, sociologists, public relations experts and even philosophers have been employed by governments and academic institutions to research public opinion, reactions, apprehensions and knowledge regarding geoengineering. Is such research into human behaviour and psyche what is driving the geoengineering narrative now promoted by mainstream?

More Information
Below is a list of relevant information and websites you may like to share with your local representatives (or anyone who would like to learn more about geoengineering).

Artificial Clouds [website]: http://artificialclouds.com/

Weather Modification History [website]: https://weathermodificationhistory.com

Hands Off Mother Earth: Manifesto Against Geoengineering [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/504

Evidence of Clear-Sky Daylight Whitening [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/499

The Belford Group Report: Case Orange [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/491

Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (1978) [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/522

Additional Resources:
OpChemtrails Library: https://opchemlibrary.blogspot.com/

Links to informative websites: https://opchemtrails.com/home-2/welcome/links-info

___

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.

Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

Finding Wally

Media outlets and online scientific communities came alive this week, with headlines such as “Could an anti-global-warming atmospheric spraying programme really work?”,  “100 Special planes and $2.5 Billion per year for sulphate geoengineering” and “Solar geoengineering could be remarkably inexpensive”.

This buzz of activity surrounds findings of a ‘new’ study, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment”, by Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner. The study looks at the hypothetical possibility and costs of conducting a global geoengineering program. Interestingly, and perhaps in an attempt to deflect from questions surrounding ongoing aviation induced cloud cover being reported by citizens worldwide, the study also looks at  whether the SAIL (Stratospheric aerosol injection lofter) program could be deployed secretly, concluding that it could not. This conclusion will be explored by examining existing relevant documentation relating to SAI technologies and by comparing US air traffic statistics to the SAIL deployment statistics provided by Smith and Wagner.

I would also like to note, that when looking closely at many of the scientific papers relating to geoengineering, certain names and institutions keep popping up. As highlighted in the article “Harvard Science = Mad Science”, the pro geoengineering community appears to be dominated by a top down (vertical) hierarchy. Meaning a small group of people are using various types of capital to influence the many. Any observer has to wonder why Harvard  appears to have developed a propensity for publishing pageant articles related to ‘geoengineering and secrecy’.

Download >> Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gf4ONSETZQG5VDJQl1di0jtVF-Z14AnP/view?usp=sharing