If It Bleeds It Leads: Died Suddenly Deception?
And who do I need to blow to get more traffic at this joint?
I highly recommend reading Mathew Crawford’s analysis of the Died Suddenly “documentary” promoted by Stew Peters:
I’ve been meaning to post my review of this “documentary,” but haven’t gotten around to it yet. However, you can get a preview of my feelings in the comments I left under Crawford’s post:
GREAT analysis. But first: "Eerie psychedelic ambiance music segues into a barrage of conspiracy theory topics"...actually, this is PINK FLOYD! Animals, to be exact! So when Animals started playing, my first thought was, did they get permission or pay royalties for this music to be played in this inflammatory documentary? Why isn't Pink Floyd's record company all over their asses?
If the documentary makers DID get permission to use Pink Floyd...then...that actually makes me suspicious. So we are either dealing with hacks who have no clue that they can't just take music (especially from a major band like Pink Floyd) and put it in their documentary without permission...or...these clowns actually got a corporate stamp of approval on their music choice. Hm.
Beyond that...Stew Peters was a nobody prior to covid and then suddenly shot to fame with this slickly produced online TV show. Do I think he's "controlled opposition"? I think it's highly likely. Everything he puts out poisons the well. Either that, or he's a highly successful hack. Unfortunately, he is doing incredible damage to the credibility of the health freedom movement.
Someone claimed my comment was “minutiae,” yeah, I get that…though I replied… “Not minutiae. If they are professionals they should know that they can't use music like that without paying royalties for it.”
It’s more what that choice of Pink Floyd means about the whole production.
Point being: We’re either dealing with either clueless or possibly unethical people who aren’t careful enough to do a documentary legally, or we are dealing with people who are much more sophisticated than they appear on the surface.
And here’s my PS:
As a PS to my comment below about Pink Floyd music, Steve Kirsch looked really weird in the documentary. He had an odd cold sore that wasn't covered up and the camera SPECIFICALLY focused on that side of his face instead of his good side. WHY? It was really bothering me. All they had to do was move the camera to the other side of his head and he would have looked a zillion times better. But the crass white lighting and camera work made him look like he was in the first stages of transforming into a zombie. Purposeful? Or just juvenile directing?
At any rate, the post by Crawford has spurred a discussion about whether we should actually be inflammatory on purpose to “wake people up” - as one person commented:
“The global propaganda masters scream at us to vaccinate, or die. I appreciate those who clearly state that the vaccines are killing millions. Lies that contradict malicious propaganda can save us.”
Sorry, I disagree with this. Why would we ever need to lie to “save ourselves” when the truth is so powerful?
But some people are arguing that “facts and data” won’t win, so we need to be attention grabbing…hyperbolic…and perhaps downright crazy to get people to pay attention.
Unfortunately, I think on some level this might be true, at least in terms of getting eyeballs.…but it’s a double-edged sword. First, the mainstream points to the hyperbole to destroy credibility of the entire movement…and worse…the government may now use this so-called “misinformation” as an excuse to clamp down on free speech.
We need to be careful and strategic.
I have a personal frustration with all this, which I’ve mentioned before. I feel like those of us with more moderate voices get left to the wayside…for example, when I spend the time to do a carefully researched article, and it barely makes a blip on the radar. ARGGH!! Like my post yesterday, How to Evaluate Risk vs. Benefit With Covid Vaccines, which literally took an entire day to research and write. Gosh, how I wish I could make more impact with this stuff.
With so little reward for doing the carefully researched pieces, which take a ton of time and effort, it’s no wonder people turn to the easier way to get eyeballs: blood, gore, and clots galore.
Even if it means taking a video from a heart operation that occurred before the covid pandemic. Why do this, when it discredits the entire documentary? The directors of Died Suddenly basically gave a gift to this guy:
Now, I’m not going to pretend I never use shock videos to make a point. Go see the video I did with Britney Spears dancing, where I show some of the same video snippets of people who mysteriously spin around and then collapse:
In making this video, I had no idea if the people who were having these seizures aka the “death twirl” had developed neurological issues from covid vaccines or some other source.
However, my intention with this video was to criticize all of Big Pharma, including drugs that might be doing this damage. Or drugs that aren’t helping people with this damage. This video was not intended as a documentary designed to prove the covid vaccines were deadly. Still, perhaps I should write a disclaimer under the video explaining that the seizures could occur for a variety of reasons.
I do find, however, that it’s often these stark visual images that get more clicks and shares.
Doing deep and careful analysis is a losing proposition, because it’s time consuming and only a small number of people have enough paid subscribers to make this effort even halfway financially sustainable.
So why bother with being careful when shlocky horror “documentaries” get so much attention?
It’s a question some of us lesser Substackers have grappled with, and some folks have considered quitting, sadly. From Rob D:
In other posts I’ve mentioned that there’s lots of engagement when I talk about “vaccines” and that whole nightmare (and that is an extremely important issue), but if I talk about what we can do to give the middle finger to “the man” and reclaim our lives while we see what direction this insane world is heading… crickets.
That leads me to believe that most of the public, including the liberty community, have been captured and are unwilling to move on with their lives, and unwilling to try doing something to declare their independence in a world gone mad. Is it even worth the trouble for me to rack my brain week after week trying to think of things that I can share with people that can improve their lives and get them ready for what may or may not come? I will answer my own question: Yes, it is worth it. I do this work for me just as much as the general public. When I write, my brain seems to work better. I can put ideas and concepts that are rattling around in my brain into perspective and, many times, while sharing my heart with people via the virtual pen I end up understanding those ideas even better myself.
Thank you, Rob. I agree, especially on the last part. Writing also helps me process the crazy world around me. Even if no-one reads it but me, much of the writing I do here is good for my own mental health.
I want to connect Rob’s comment that “most of the public, including the liberty community, have been captured and are unwilling to move on with their lives” (YES!) with the idea above that we need to be “outrageous” to “wake people up”…and the juxtaposition is this:
I have yet to see any outrageous conspiracy theory actually resulted in concrete, positive action that made a real difference.
Alex Jones has been broadcasting since the 1990s fighting the “New World Order” but the New World Order is alive and doing quite well, thank you very much.
Showing gory videos of blood clots from corpses may get a lot of views and perhaps sales of gold for Stew Peters. And, sure, I’ll concede that maybe some of the more extreme messages have stopped people from getting a shot that might have killed them.
But these extreme videos do not actually lead people to take more positive action in the real world.
Check out this explanation (about halfway through) about how Facebook keeps you engaged - first, by showing you what you want to see, and then by showing you something to piss you off. It all creates dopamine hits but keeps you glued to the screen:
(The Why Files is great, BTW, check it out on Rumble.)
Is it possible that the more extreme the message, the more it conversely makes people paralyzed? Because you might be more tempted to throw your hands up in the air if you think the entire system is so corrupt your trying to do anything is a “waste of time.”
Additionally, the extreme messages about vaccines (i.e., that they contain nanobots to turn you into 5G zombies) are just as likely to push people away from the message that needs to be heard.
I listened to a class recording recently (a yoga training) where a woman from the UK was going on about how she went down a “rabbit hole” about covid vaccines, but because people started to “fearmonger” so much about it, and she was feeling so scared, she decided to “climb back up and out of the rabbit hole.”
I’m not sure if she ever got vaccinated. But I had a similar thing come up in an online yoga therapy training I’m in. I started a private group for yoga therapists who wanted to work outside the Western medical system with a side note about helping the vaccine injured.
One of the new members commented:
I don’t really want to focus heavily on vaccines though, unless we’re talking about how to help someone who may have had injury due to one. Our role would always be to help, not to push fear. There’s too much fear in both sides of the coin, I feel, which isn’t healthy.
Point being…getting too caught in a fear narrative can easily turn people off.
So…the temptation to get more eyeballs is strong.
And to be clear, I am joking when I say, “WHO DO I NEED TO BLOW TO GET SOME TRAFFIC AT THIS SUBSTACK?!”
(I’m not a prostitute, either literally, figuratively, or metaphorically.)
But we have an issue in that people don’t want to slog through a long post taking them step by step through a thinking process.
Maybe analysis is too much to ask for. I’m not trying to blame people. We are all overwhelmed and busy.
But the downside is that we end up with a dopamine fueled world of quick hits and overly dramatic productions that are basically really good fear porn.
As mentioned in the Why Files video about the Dead Internet, the algorithms are pushing the extremes because it keeps people fixated and clicking, which makes people money.
But this discourages middle ground connections and conversations about real solutions. It just keeps people stuck to the screen, in a perpetual anger and fear loop.
Part of the way to fix this is to a) recognize when we get excited about “fear porn” and its sister “doom porn” b) choose to engage on a deeper level c) focus on more productive uses of our energy instead of just blind outrage.
I’m not willing to give up and enable an Idiocracy…where we just communicate with the dumbest, simplest images instead of complex ideas…what about you?
Wholistic is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Very good points Stephanie, and several of which I posted in my two previous articles:
Of course, my post on not everything being a psyop was met with some criticisms which should be expected, but my intention was to argue that fear porn and clickbait drive a lot of the discourse, and as I pondered to you and my readers is it worse that someone is a psyop backed by the government, or is it worse if someone or something intentionally uses bad information if it means getting clicks and notoriety (i.e. is the fame more important than the ethics and integrity)?
To that, you mention this in your post which I will highlight here:
"Point being: We’re either dealing with either clueless or possibly unethical people who aren’t careful enough to do a documentary legally, or we are dealing with people who are much more sophisticated than they appear on the surface."
In short, I will say I have my thoughts as to which direction I am leaning. We have to remember that COVID was a good time for people from all sides to capitalize on the issue...
I've also been growingly critical of how some of the reporting has gone on Substack sometimes, because unfortunately sometimes it can appear that these stories or reports are intended to strike at the emotional side rather than inform.
I absolutely feel Rob's sentiments, because my intent with my Substack is to inform and educate people, but sometimes I feel like the need to just be told what to think can be far more powerful than the willingness to learn and engage with the information. It leaves me feeling rather disheartened in thinking that the only way to have my Substack grow is to engage in clickbait and rile people up. And to be frank if that's what's really needed I'd rather just call it quits, because I'd rather stop doing this than have to mislead or misinform my readers in order to get better engagement.
Similar to your remarks Stephanie, I find the need to be hyperbolic to be ludicrous. Team Skeptic has spent a good deal of time enforcing this notion that we are actually doing a lot of the legwork in looking at the science and figuring out the data. If we have the facts on our side, we focus on the facts. Why would we need to exaggerate if we have the facts, just to get more awareness?
Apologies for the rant. I suppose I should be aware that I've let loose my thoughts more in the past few weeks, but I've been more vocal due to seeing the amount of concern others have in this space.
Good question regarding the music rights. This documentary didn't sit well with me. Some of the montages were in bad taste too considering the morbidity factor. I think a lot of people were looking for something and they wanted this to be that definitive turn in narrative.
You are right about the long posts. I enjoy yours but most of the feedback I have received about my own is about length.