The Intellect Around Dramatic Events

The Scientific Method and Rejecting The Narrative

Introduction

I don’t know about you guys, but I get mad and infuriated when events happen — and you try to show “normies¹” a different perspective on things — which would probably be alternate or conspiratorial — and they sit there and spew mainstream rhetoric.

incredibly frustrated trying to wake show someone something new now arguing with them

The other day, I took out an Instagram ad to promote the article “There is No Greater Threat Than Chemtrails.” I did so to spread the word on chemtrails — and I thought I would get many supporters off the platform. What happened was the opposite.

I got hit and bombarded with a large influx of normies who ridiculed the notion of chemtrails and fluoridation in water (thanks,

Lea

, for the support) — and it’s like, “Dang, have you guys never heard of an alternative perspective? Do you sit here and listen to mainstream all day?”

And the fact of the matter is yes — yes, they do. There are really people who really sit there and ingest every piece of mainstream narrative that’s out there.

To me, this is wild — but the fact of the matter is that, most likely, we were one of those individuals, too. But someway, somehow, we snapped out of it.

---

In the ad comments, I’m engaging someone in a pretty civil conversation, and I was asked to provide a scientific study showing that climate change is not real. I responded that I did not need to go that route because I’ve already provided evidence showing that the notion of climate change is faulty and that the data supporting climate is fueled from a financial perspective — which is a point I think we both agreed on.

If we both agree that the foundation of climate change is artificially inflated due to financial narratives, that means that we cannot take it seriously due to the immense amount of bias behind it.

---

Note: Honestly, I didn’t feel like looking for the research. I’m sure it’s out there, but to spend 10 minutes researching on my cell, the universe was not in their favor. And then it hit me, “me looking for actual data to disprove the initial incorrect statement is working in a circular direction because it would mean validating their truth (climate change was real) and then trying to disprove it.”

Honestly, I will go back and look for that data. If anyone has it handy, I’d appreciate it in the comments below.

---

The point of the matter is:

• If point A (climate change is real) is wrong and faulty — since it’s artificially inflated and biased,

• Then there is no point in going to point B (prove that climate change is fake). We’ve already determined and agreed on point A.

That’s how I see things, but I’m open to your thoughts.

But from this thought exercise, I’ve come up with two concepts. The first is “What Is Science?” and the second is “Reject The Narrative.” Below is an exploration of what these two ultimately mean.