It is a given that certain words or phrases will have a very different meaning to people. When you debate an issue with someone, how you come across to them hinges on your choice of language. It always has and likely always will.
Observe how strangers, or as I call them, ‘Avatars’, behave with one another on social media. Discussion becomes personal; alternative viewpoints that challenge the accepted norm, fed to us by mainstream media, gives rise to accusations of unsubstantiated conspiracy. And, yes, sometimes the alternative is without foundation. Other times it is the truth. It comes down to how far a claim has been cross referenced and if the person expressing it has evidence to support that claim.
A fine line – which becomes thicker the more people undertake research – exists between convincing someone of an argument and turning them away from the subject.
The UK’s current ‘In’ or ‘Out’ European Referendum campaign is testament to that. We see claims and counter claims, figures ascribed to the side of ‘battle buses’, all designed to impart enough of an impression in the electorate’s mind that these are facts and should be instrumental in your decision making.
The one aspect that has not been verbally encouraged on either side’s campaign trail is to research every claim for yourself. What we have instead is a hubbub of raised voices. And because words are being spoken aloud at the same time, dusted with a smattering of personal insults, it muddies the waters sufficiently for people to conclude, rightly or wrongly, that neither side is making a case because neither side can be heard.
It is at this point that we make a crucial decision. Do we simply decide that nothing is making sense and vote to remain in Europe on the grounds of safety? Or do we calmly take a step back from the hue and cry and decide to investigate the case for ‘In’ or ‘Out’ on our own terms? That means, essentially, not being entirely influenced by the word of politicians, celebrities, mainstream media and social networks.
If we decide on the latter, then the main course open to us is to delve into alternative platforms. The venue where conspiracy theories, in some quarters, are said to dominate. Said by who exactly? The very same mainstream that made all the noise in the first place to divide and confuse.
Get as far as alternative news sites and, as with the mainstream, it can be just as much of a duel between two faceless ‘Avatars’ determined to prove themselves right on a particular issue.
Today in alternative media, Geoengineering, which is the overarching theme of this blog, remains a divisive subject. It is an entity which is complex and has multiple different strands to it that, when researched, have a habit of connecting back to issues seemingly unconnected.
Take a look at this picture I photographed recently in Ainsdale, Merseyside:
Now imagine someone who sees nothing untoward in the picture. They say to themselves,
‘Those are contrails from an air plane, interspersed with cloud cover.’
Then, someone else interjects themselves into their thoughts,
‘Wrong’, they say. ‘Those aren’t contrails. They’re Chemtrails. They’re poisons that the government are spraying on us to make us sick and to depopulate the planet. Wake up.’
In response, he or she states what a ridiculous, baseless assertion that is, have a little chuckle to themselves and then leave this poor, misguided person to their deluded conspiracy theory.
Now imagine the same scene again, with he or she still believing whole heartedly that the trails in the picture are condensation trails from an air plane.
Then, another voice interjects themselves into their thoughts,
‘Those trails you’re seeing are a consequence of a program called Geoengineering. The trails are not because of condensation vapour from the engines. They contain what are known as ‘Aerosol Particulates’ – in particular, aluminium, barium and strontium – which when injected into the atmosphere form the appearance of contrails, but in fact have a negative effect on our climate, our quality of air and our personal well-being’
A response like the one above stands a far greater chance of starting a conversation. And that’s because it was delivered in a manner which was non-aggressive, thoughtful and articulate. It has the feel of greater authority, seen as how it states with conviction the correct scientific term for the trails (Aerosol Particulates), what is contained within them and what impact they have on ourselves and the planet.
Now contrast that with the term, ‘Chemtrail’. This expression of a weather modification program has similar connotations with a phrase such as, ‘9/11 = Inside Job’. The crux here is that whilst this writer believes ‘Chemtrails’ to be real e.g. There are chemicals in the trails, presenting it as such to someone who is unaware of their existence is destined to cause friction and, most importantly, distance between yourself and the person you are striving to convince.
Beginning that initial conversation is the key. It doesn’t matter if that person is sceptical and unwilling to believe in what you are saying. The point is that they are at least willing to listen. It is then up to the individual in question to develop the confidence, in spite of peer pressure and how family and friends may perceive you, to go out and research the subject for themselves.
If he or she cannot or refuses to do research, then there is nothing more you can do for them. It’s imperative that you move on to others who are open minded to alternative explanation. You cannot force someone into your way of thinking. You can present evidence, suggest where to find information, but if they choose not to follow it up then so be it. It can be frustrating, but for every person that doubts you there exists a person whose eyes remain open.
No activist should ever have to bear responsibility for trying to convince the masses alone. The world is populated by 7 billion people. For truth to spread, it has to be passed on. It has to accumulate. Everyone has a duty, in the end, to disseminate what they have understood to be true. It is sitting on the information that maintains the conspiracy.
But, as well as that, what also maintains the conspiracy is presenting it to people as though it were devised from the script pages of a Hollywood producer. And that’s exactly how it comes across to the unaware when you point to the sky and proclaim ‘Aerosol Particulates’ as ‘Chemtrails.’
To not be taken seriously from the outset means you lose the attention of the person you are trying to engage with. And it is my belief that referencing what we see in the sky as ‘Chemtrails’ demeans rather than enhances the debate on Geoengineering.
What do you think?
Thank you for reading.