The Co-Opting of a Movement, Part I: Has the Chemtrail/Geoengineering Movement been Co-opted?
By Michael J. Murphy
19 July, 2014
Michael J. Murphy presents the first of three articles on infiltration: a handbook for activists to survive subversion by the ‘authorities’.
These trails occlude clear skies and are said by authorities to be caused by normal commercial air traffic. However, commercial flight-paths have spacing laws which prohibit such close flying.
“Because we, as humans, have the power and ability to stop these damaging programs, it is not the geoengineers who are the greatest threat but those within the movement who create division.”
The definition of coopt is to divert or use in a role different from the original.
Like most issues that threaten the agendas of the “global elite”, it is common when having mass awakenings about destructive programs or agendas, to see divisiveness and co-opting of even the most powerful movements. When the activism of those who are leading the charge of bringing truth to the public threatens the establishment and cannot be discredited, it is then that we see the most cunning of infiltrations that include personal attacks and divisive arguments. These are usually brought in to slow down or even halt the progress that threatens the agendas and consolidation of power that activists are seeking to expose. Whether brought in by mistake, emotion or agenda, the same strategy of division usually appears from the same people who often use tactical character assassinations and/or bring in divisive arguments that can tear down the cohesiveness and progress that has been made. It is only by these means can those who are not “called” then rise to the top of movements, get public attention and then control which often leads to co-opting and divisions in groups.
People who co-opt movements can often be compared to a bully on the top of a mountain that push anyone off who disagrees or is threatening their specific beliefs, goals or agendas. With a great increase of division in the chemtrail/geoengineering movement, we must ask, what tactics and issues are being used to slow down the massive awakening that is occurring?
Character Assassination as a Divisive Strategy
Character assassination is a common and effective tactic used by those looking to take power, authority and control away from another person within a group or groups. Character assassination is defined as a vicious personal attack, especially one intended to destroy a public figures reputation. While the attacks are rarely related to the issue that a public figure is addressing, they often come in the form of criticizing the figures private lives, personal affairs or different beliefs. Many of these attacks are made public or in the form of gossip and end up diverting the movement and the people involved from its common goal.
Examples of character assassination are calling another person an adulterer, wife beater, liar, drug addict or other damaging names. A person who uses character assassinations attempts to persuade the group from supporting another by using an emotional appeal rather than addressing the specific work that an individual has contributed to a group or movement. While sometimes true, these assassinations rarely hold merit and are usually made without supporting evidence.
An example of this is someone telling the group in a public manner the following: “In order to protect the group, I am saddened tell you that Carl has been having an affair. While we wish this wasn’t true, it could have dire consequences to our efforts. We can only pray that Carl will change his behavior and get the much needed help for his recovery.” This specific example is used when the attacker is trying to convince others that if they continue their support of another, something terrible might happen to their cause.
Commercial aeroplanes do not make such flight-paths, except when banking to land, which means at altitudes too low for condensation trail formation, let alone persistence.
While very unethical, especially in a group setting, the attacks are usually not initially identified due to their manipulative manner and the emotion caused in the members of a group; both towards the emotion the group has about the attacker (because the attacker is usually a friend or respected member of the group) and the emotion the attack causes against the target (because of the nature of the attack). The key point is not whether the name or label a person being attacked with is true or untrue, it is that the label or character assassination is is not productive to the group’s objectives.
The following study examines different types of character assassinations and how covert, manipulative and damaging they can be:
A Common Strategy
Divisive strategies will usually be observed originating from the same people over and over again. When one member of the group seems to have been effectively demonized and removed from the group, it is common to see the same pattern of behavior as the person using these strategies will move on to the next targeted individual by attacking anyone who becomes a threat to their authority, beliefs or position within the group. It is common to see group members in denial about unethical behaviors with the thought that the person attacking others would never turn on them, however, it is usually those closest to the attacker that become future targets. Character assassinations are an effective strategy for co-opting groups and movements because it takes the targeted individual away from his or her activism and puts them into an area where they are forced to defend themselves about issues that are not related to the group’s cause or common purpose.
The definition of usurped authority is to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right. The person who usurps authority will usually look for a weak point in the person who holds a position of interest to them. This weak point is usually exploited to the group in public dialog or in the form of gossip. After a group member is effectively demonized by a character assassination or other means, it is usually then that we see the attacker take the targeted individuals power, authority and influence within the group. While usually done in a cunning and covert but public manner, the person who usurps authority within a group or movement often finds themselves in a position where they are not qualified to effectively lead the group in which they have manipulated their position. This usually leads to them pushing the very people away that they are trying to reach. (This will be addressed later in the article)
Controlled opposition, COINTELPRO and Other Corporate/Government Infiltration Programs
Because the chemtrail/geoengineering movement focuses on an issue that many believe to be the most effective way to consolidate monetary and political power into the hands of a few at the expense of all life on our planet, it would seem likely that the governments and corporations who gain from these damaging programs would seek to gain control.
COINTELPRO is the covert, and at times illegal, projects that are conducted by the FBI, which are aimed at surveying, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations. When a political party or movement threatens the corporate/governmental agendas, it is common to see COINTELPRO and other forms of infiltration used. COINTELPRO and other programs utilize paid government informants to enter into a movement and cause disruption for the purpose of ending progress that has been made.
Black Panther, Fred Hampton. Murdered in a COINTELPRO operation.
An example of when the U.S. Government used its COINTELPRO program to slow down a group’s progress can be seen by looking at the history of the Black Panther Party. While many of the methods used against the Black Panthers most likely remain in secret, some tactics used by agents was the creation of gossip, strife and division among members. According to the late Ted Gunderson who was head of The Los Angeles FBI, a divisive tactics used to divide the group was the sending of love letters to members of the group with the false signature of another member’s girlfriend and/or wife. This, of course, caused a considerable amount of strife between members and thus interfered with the group’s objectives.
Other tactics used against the Black Panthers were the spreading of gossip, interfering with family issues and the false representation by the mainstream media. While COINTELPRO is a very effective way to slow down movements, there are many others including MK Ultra, Cognitive Infiltration and other controlled opposition programs that are currently being used including those that believe the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. (More about the prudency of addressing this in the chemtrail/geoengineering movement will be covered in Part II of this article)
Are All Infiltrations Corporate/Government Sponsored Programs?
A common belief among activists, especially those in the truth movement, is that those who bring about divisions in movements are all agent provocateurs. While it seems likely that programs like COINTELPRO or other disinfo campaigns would infiltrate the chemtrail/geoengineering movement, it’s not always the case. As a matter of fact, according to Dr. James Tracy, Communications Professor at Florida Atlantic University, divisions are a common occurrence in most group settings ranging from social clubs to political movements.
To understand some of the emotional reasons for groups being co-opted other than by planned corporate/governmental programs, it is necessary to discuss Cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is defined as the anxiety or feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. Social Psychologist Leon Festinger initially proposed the theory, which states that people, especially in groups, try to reach internal consistency in beliefs. He suggested that people have an inner need to ensure that their beliefs and behaviors are consistent. Inconsistent or conflicting beliefs in relationships and groups produces disharmony. When inconsistencies arise, the disharmony can be very uncomfortable, especially if a “leader” of a movement is a popular, influential or in the case of most co-opted movements, tyrannical.
If a leader is especially ego driven or has other false motives, he or she may use their position of authority to align the group with his or her beliefs about sub or unrelated issues. (More will be covered in part II) This often results in members of a group being either persuaded to align with the belief system or face the consequences of being bullied or publically ridiculed if inconsistent with the leader. This, of course, leads to arguments and thus, division and often leaves a “well meaning” leader operating in cognitive dissonance towards feelings of loneliness, rejection and most times, in their denial, completely unaware of the damage that they have done to the group members, the movement and its common goals.
Fear, Emotion and Division, Three Psychological Components
While it would seem likely that all members in a group would be able to identify negative behavior and disassociate from a “tyrannical leader”, many continue to follow. This usually leads to further divisions and damage within a group. There are psychological components or templates that lead people to continue in uncomfortable and, unhealthy relationships. If initially impressed with a leader of a group, when unethical tactics are used, a member might have an inner conflict with his or her belief system. This can and often will lead to the denial of the damaging behavior that is being projected onto others in the group, especially if the leader is a friend, has many positive attributes or initially appeared to be a person of integrity. This denial by members can manifest in three distinct ways in a group’s dynamics.
Fear. A group member might become fearful of being rejected by a leader or others in a group for expressing their true beliefs if inconsistent with a tyrannical leader. This is especially true if a leader uses his or her position of authority to publically ridicule or bully a person who holds a different belief. Members of a group can and often will be fearful of losing their relationship with the leader and the acceptance of others in the group. Because most unethical leaders also contribute several positive qualities to a cause, it is also common for members to fear that if they confront the leader about his or her behavior, he or she might leave the movement and thus, take all of their positive attributes from the group.
Emotional connection. Many leaders are very likable and thus, influential people. Because of their popularity and perceived friendship, there often is an emotional connection of those in groups to people who lead them or are in authority. After the true nature and character of a leader or member of a group is exposed. (Example: continued character assassinations or other unethical behavior), often times a member will reject the truths they observe about the leaders character flaws because they are inconsistent with their initial beliefs about the person. This is related to cognitive dissonance, which causes an inner conflict and most often leads to denial. There are other emotional connections such as friendship, admiration, dependency, (especially if person has been supportive with vital information to the cause) and other similar dynamics that can keep people attached to a leader who is using their position for reasons other than for the benefit of a movement.
Division. When one overcomes their denial and accepts the truth about the integrity, unethical behavior or loyalty of a leader, they are faced with the choice to either make changes within the group or to withdraw. Because making changes within a movement can be both emotional and challenging, people at this stage usually end up withdrawing. This is what usually creates division and thus destroys a group or movement.
The use of agent provocateurs is standard practice.
Unresolved Personal Issues
Another source of conflict in groups or movements stem from unresolved issues. An unresolved issue is a problem or dispute that has not been settled in the life of an individual. An example of an unresolved issue is when anger, fear or other emotions from a past trauma are projected towards another.
If a leader or group member has an unresolved issue, members of a group often become targets as the person with these issues often project their pain, rejection or feelings of abandonment on others instead of at the person who caused the pain or in avoidance of the need to address their own personal emotions.
A person with unresolved issues can usually be identified when they seem overly obsessed or overly critical with the personal behavior of others. An example is someone who has been traumatized by a parent’s adultery and has not healed from the event or events. This person might publically express their anger, ridicule or gossip about another in the group who has cheated on a spouse. While few movements or groups have the common goal of focusing on the private lives of others, a person with an unresolved issue will often bring these issues into a group’s dynamics and thus, create problems.
Unresolved issues can also be projected on the very subject that a group or movement might be addressing. Anger is a common manifestation of an unresolved issue. While this can be a very strong motivator and at times, beneficial to a movement, because it is driven by personal emotion, it can and often will result in activist engaging in excessive conflict with others. This is ego driven and usually manifests in a person getting overly angry or upset with others who are unable to grasp or do not believe in the issue being addressed. Often times it pushes the very people away that the person is attempting to reach.
The Roman Empire Form of Leadership
The Roman Empire used a very aggressive form of leadership that literally beheaded anyone who disagreed with the authority. While it is rare to see physical harm directed towards others in groups or movements, when a leader is operating out of fear or other negative emotions, there is often harm done to the group or others. Essentially, if a leader is using his or her position to project anger, fear or other personal issues, it will usually manifest in an aggressive style of activism. Because this type of leadership is usually ego driven, it is common to see attacks on others who might be a perceived as a threat to the leaders knowledge or position. They will usually carry out these unethical forms of behavior in the name of protecting the movement, however, in their denial of their own personal issues, they usually create more harm in the long run.
This form of modern day “beheading” usually comes in the form of public criticism or the posting of negative articles about others who address an issue but might not completely agree with the leader. An example of this might be a media outlet or other public figure who covers the issue with a slightly different belief and are then subsequently ridiculed because of their different view. This is the essence of oppression.
This is especially damaging because it can cause people of influence, some who have large audiences, to completely stay away from an issue out of fear of being publically ridiculed if they are not in complete agreement with an oppressive leader. Because the chemtrail/geoengineering movement is still in its developmental stage, it is vital that we build relationships with everyone of influence whether they agree with our issue or not. Often times, the most skeptical people come to see the truths in our work when we earn the right to speak to them. Because of this, however, it is crucial that we not accept disinfo or other damaging information to infiltrate our movement. The manner in which we address it is critical. (More about this will be addressed in part III of this article)
No matter how well meaning, informed, active or persuasive an activist or leader may be, when using a position of authority other than for the benefit of a movement, division will always occur. While none of us is perfect, it is important that we compartmentalize our issues and keep them out of our activism or risk infecting others in our group. If unable to compartmentalize our traumas, it often leads to a self-replicating template of division that is played out by others in the group who might feel the behavior is acceptable, especially if the one bringing it in is a leader.
As leaders and participants in our movement, we have a responsibility to both our audience and to others who are bringing fourth vital information. To violate the basic concepts of this responsibility is not only imprudent, it is disrespectful to all life on our planet. As activist, we should never engage in divisive arguments or issues that could create divisions within our movement. While we might not agree with each other on every aspect that we cover, we should never focus on faults, personal lives or disagreements. Effective activism is about building relationships so that we can win others over to our cause. Because no one is perfect, we should spend more of our time critiquing ourselves rather than pointing out what we believe to be the wrongs of others. Leadership is about leading, guiding and empowering others so they can build upon our successes. The future of humanity is dependent upon us coming together to reach the masses with our vital information.
Remember, no one is perfect and private issues, no matter how bad they might seem are just that, private and should never end up on websites, blogs or in public dialog. If someone in the movement is struggling, it is our duty to assist them.
Whether the person creating division does it knowingly or unknowingly, if engaged in it, admit that you and them have both been deceived and that further acceptance and reinforcement of the behavior is damaging to our cause.
When hearing gossip, character assassination or discussions of divisive issues, recognize them as a threat to our movement and all that we have accomplished.
Kindly tell the person bringing in these sometimes subtle threats that you will not engage in this type of conversation and encourage them to get back on topic.
Recognize that all of us have probably been a part of gossip and/or character assassinations at one time or another. The important thing is that we learn, grow and change our behavior.
Do not spend time debating whether a person is a paid infiltrator or not. Destructive behavior is damaging and unacceptable no matter what the motive.
While “calling people out” is sometimes part of our activism, it should never be done to those within the movement or to those who have the potential to address the issue in an ethical manner.
Focus your criticism on yourself and not on others. We should be looking at our mistakes and how we can self-improve to become more effective at bringing this vital message.
Bad mouthing or attacking other activists because they do not agree with our beliefs about geoengineering is destructive. Because we need everyone, especially those with large audiences to get on board, attacking and badmouthing them could close the door to them ever realizing the truths about chemtrail/geoengineering programs.
An effective leader earns his position by speaking the truth with integrity while a poor leader gains his position by fear and manipulation. Ask yourself what kind of leader you want to be.
Because our activism should inspire others, it is essential that we, as activists allow others to arrive at their own conclusions rather than demanding that they come in to alignment with ours.
Part II and Part III of this series will focus on divisive issues, effective leadership and how we can work together to restore our growing movement.
Michael J. Murphy is President of the Campaign Against Geoengineering, an award-winning filmmaker, and an Honorary Member of PIPR.