"The Science!"

Two encounters at the Meadows while being the 'wrong person'.

On the 7th September, Tracy Mearns will be showing us how to understand Lawfulness and Self-Sovereignty. It’s free and tickets are here.

I was a bit rude today and, to add to my sins, also sought out conflict unnecessarily. Initially, it wasn’t my intent.

I was walking down Middle Meadow walk at midday, in bright sunshine, after one of the wettest summers in the UK record of weather, when I saw a woman passing out fliers. As a person who has handed out tens of thousands of fliers in the past, I’m always sympathetic to how soul-destroying it is when you face a stream of constant rejection for a message which you at least believe is important.

Therefore, when I went past the lady handing out fliers, I took one and stopped to read it.

The leaflet was about fossil fuels. Probably gratified that someone had taken one, the woman told me there was a march against fossil fuels next week and asked me if I was interested.

I said, “Not really, I’m actually opposed to this”.

The woman replied, '“Is it Extinction Rebellion, you’re opposed to. Stopping traffic? We’re not them.”

“No,” I said, “I don’t believe that the world is going to collapse.”

“The science has agreed that there’s climate change,” said the woman, unruffled - she must have heard this quite a few times before.

“No, science hasn’t agreed that. Did you know the world was 5% greener than twenty years ago?” I shot back calmly, reaching for my shock-and-awe statistic.

“The science…,” said the woman.

“It’s NASA that said that, you can look it up,” I said, waiting for her to look puzzled and start to quiz me.

“The science is quite conclusive,” she said firmly, uninterested in my explosive revelation.

‘Which science? I think you’ll find that it’s not,” I said.

“Yes, it is,” she said.

“What science? Explain it to me,” I said, more pleasantly and less demanding than the actual words read.

“I’m not a scientist,” she said.

“But,” I protested, “Surely you should know something about what you’re claiming?”

“The Science agrees,” she said with finality. “I obviously have given the leaflet to the wrong person,” she continued, her eyes now showing the distance which means disengagement and categorisation both from and of the Other.

“No, you haven’t,” I said.

“Give it back,” she said.

“No, I want to keep it. Let’s debate,” I said, cheekily.

‘No, goodbye,’ she said and immediately moved to another passer-by, reaching into his space to engage with him and escape me. The conversation was over, so I turned, scrunched up the leaflet, put it in my pocket, and went on my way.

It was less than two minutes before I encountered another lady, this time masked with a cloth mask over her mouth and nose, handing out the same leaflets. Whether it was the dissatisfying conclusion to the previous interaction or perhaps it was the renewed donning of masks as people who are unacceptably addicted to fear or irredeemably dim try to relive the best time of their lives (Covid) while edging us closer to a bio-tech feudalistic dystopia, I felt immediately antagonistic towards her, and resolved to gain some sort of satisfactory conclusion.

I stopped beside her and took a leaflet.

“There’s a march…” she began.

'“I don’t believe in this,” I bluntly declared.

“Well, the science is settled,” she said.

“I don’t think it is,” I said flatly. “Can you explain it to me?”

“I’m not a scientist, but the science has agreed that climate change is happening,” she replied politely.

“Is this the same science that tells you that a cloth mask will protect you from a virus, because that’s wrong for a start,” I said, humourlessly and a bit insensitively.

“I’ve given the leaflet to the wrong person,” she took it back from me (there must be a shortage of leaflets, unless they are trying to preserve paper, which is laudatory). “Extreme weather proves the dangers.”

“Can you explain the science?” I said.

“As I told you, I’m not a scientist,” she retorted as she turned from me.

“Fine, you don’t know what you’re talking about,” I said, rudeness combining with irritability, and left. However, instead of feeling dejected, I felt pleased that I’d engaged, pointlessly and ineffectively undoubtedly, but it gave me a better understanding of the shibboleths of climate activism’s approach.

What struck me about both conversations was how little activists knew about their subject. In fact, like any attempt to discuss Covid or vaccines in a rational way over the past three years, the person advocating the point quickly shut down the conversation once challenged with one or two simple facts. They were neither prepared to counter with their own facts or try to digest and rationalise the information given to them for their own purposes.

What was the response instead? ‘The Science!’ No, fact, statistics or logic, just ‘The Science!’ which, for the cultists of The Science, is the final word; similar to three hundred years ago in the way people’s protestations were silenced by the invocation that ‘It is God’s Will’.

As Francis Bacon laid down in The Advancement Of Learning, one of the foundational concepts of science is the rejection of any authority in testing for results - that includes the nebulous and ubiquitous authority of ‘The Science!’ My brief exchanges in Edinburgh Meadows has given further impetus to a sense that has been growing within: the climate change Apocalytes, the gender ideologues and the Covid-cultists are there for the taking, if the Freedom Movement can start to speak coherently and with purpose.

On the 7th September, Tracy Mearns will be showing us how to understand Lawfulness and Self-Sovereignty. It’s free and tickets are here.

(Apocalytes - neologism - people who promote and are sustained psychologically by the idea of an apocalypse or similar disastrous outcomes whether individual or collective.)