?>

Calls for Discernment: Died Suddenly, Ancient Apocalypse, and El Sicario

I recent­ly watched a doc­u­men­tary called Died Sud­den­ly, which has been doing the rounds on the inter­net recent­ly. It has been both wide­ly dis­sem­i­nat­ed and wide­ly crit­i­cized. I found the film impact­ful: dis­turb­ing, apoc­a­lyp­tic, even mov­ing, but also quite excit­ing, and hence a lit­tle ques­tion­able. Should some­thing this hor­rif­ic also be this enter­tain­ing? The images of peo­ple sup­pos­ed­ly react­ing to the mRNA jab, spin­ning around with their arm in the air and then falling down, in com­bi­na­tion with footage of hor­ren­dous Cthul­hu-like blood clots being removed from corpses, and the var­i­ous embalmer and mil­i­tary whistle­blow­er inter­views, all adds up to an out­stand­ing piece of con­spir­atain­ment. But is it true, and if so, shouldn’t such mate­r­i­al be han­dled more sober­ly and care­ful­ly? The answer is some of it is true, but not all, and yes, it should.

Here are a cou­ple of arti­cles, both well-con­sid­ered, both for and against. From Mark Crispin Miller (most­ly for): https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/p/died-suddenly-is-all-about-those

From Josh Guet­zkow (most­ly against): https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/died-suddenly-is-typical-trash-from (points out four areas of pos­si­ble misinformation).

I sug­gest read­ing these before watch­ing the doc­u­men­tary, if you haven’t already seen it. I def­i­nite­ly rec­om­mend watch­ing the doc­u­men­tary, despite my mis­giv­ings, because much of the mate­r­i­al deserves to be seen, and con­tem­plat­ed. Embrac­ing the film too quick­ly is a mis­take, but so is jump­ing onto the oppo­site band­wag­on and decry­ing it as a psy­op (the rea­son­ing being that the film is a well-poi­son­er meant to dis­cred­it the truth and the truth-tellers in the film, by asso­ci­a­tion.)  What it clear­ly is an exam­ple of, at the very least & IMO, is slop­py report­ing, pre­ma­ture con­clu­sions, and counter-pro­duc­tive, if not self-sab­o­tag­ing, pre­sen­ta­tion methods.

The film also makes sev­er­al ref­er­ences to meta­phys­i­cal evil, as the con­text for the evi­dence it presents. Fair enough, except that this under­scores the dan­gers of “unearned wis­dom,” or too much knowl­edge with­out the nec­es­sary psy­cho­log­i­cal (or spir­i­tu­al) prepa­ra­tion. The film seems designed to incite a kind of apoc­a­lyp­tic fer­vor, zeal, and out­rage in the view­er, which leads to forms of action that are like­wise counter-pro­duc­tive, if not self-sab­o­tag­ing (such as ham­mer­ing peo­ple online when their friends or rel­a­tives die, blam­ing the mRNA jab and mak­ing fren­zied demands to check the bod­ies for blood clots).

If a lot of peo­ple are dying cur­rent­ly, I am start­ing to won­der why I am not hear­ing about it more direct­ly, from the peo­ple I know? Admit­ted­ly, I don’t get around much these days, it is just us, the cats and chick­ens, and the occa­sion­al work­man. But I still check my email and send out this newslet­ter, and as yet I have heard very lit­tle about sud­den deaths. So, if you think you know peo­ple who have fall­en vic­tim to the mRNA gene-hack, please let me know, that way I can tal­ly the score, and real­i­ty-check this apoc­a­lypse scenario.

Next up, for more counter-pro­duc­tive if not self-sab­o­tag­ing pre­sen­ta­tion meth­ods, there is Gra­ham Hancock’s Ancient Apoc­a­lypse, the first episode of which I watched last night. I had heard that it was con­sid­ered “dan­ger­ous” TV, but with­in 5 min­utes I knew the only dan­ger it pre­sent­ed was of per­ma­nent­ly demol­ish­ing (what­ev­er remained of) my inter­est in ancient arti­facts and civ­i­liza­tions. I man­aged to make it through the whole half-hour (only because my wife is big on archae­ol­o­gy), and I came away think­ing that there could hard­ly be a bet­ter way to dis­cred­it ancient arti­fact dis­cov­er­ies than to get Gra­ham Han­cock togeth­er with Net­flix to present the evi­dence to us. Almost every last shot was drip­ping with Dan Brown-style histri­on­ics: slow-motion shots of the intre­pid explor­er, omi­nous music rum­bling and whoosh­ing on the sound­track, flash cuts and glid­ing over­head shots, CGI recre­ations of the “orig­i­nal” struc­tures, com­plete­ly unsup­port­ed by evi­dence, all of which ensured that the relent­less­ly pumped up medi­um-as-mes­sage total­ly drowned out any nat­ur­al inter­est the sub­ject mat­ter might have had for me.

After suf­fer­ing it none-too-silent­ly, I skimmed the Guardian piece, titled and bylined, “Ancient Apoc­a­lypse is the most dan­ger­ous show on Net­flix: A show with a tru­ly pre­pos­ter­ous the­o­ry is one of the stream­ing giant’s biggest hits – and it seems to exist sole­ly for con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists. Why has this been allowed?”

Is this the old one-two effect? Hit them with some over-cooked spicy enter­tain­ment pro­pa­gan­da, and then fol­low it with some “sober” (actu­al­ly equal­ly hys­ter­i­cal) “con­sci­en­tious” (even more uncon­scionable) coun­ter­pro­pa­gan­da, to val­i­date the spice ~ like bland hot sauce with a pic­ture of Satan that says “Dev­il­ish­ly Hot!”? Could any­one real­ly seri­ous­ly con­sid­er a tawdry lit­tle show like this dan­ger­ous? Well, maybe some woke retard at the Guardian who just got his third boost­er shot and feels deeply, per­son­al­ly threat­ened by the first whiff of “ques­tion the sci­ence” (the Guardian’s “argu­ment” is sim­ply that the show rests on the Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ry  that main­stream sci­ence is repress­ing the truth ~ ergo, is Dan­ger­ous). But I am more inclined to smell a rat than spy a woke-tard (not that it is either/or), and sus­pect the old good cop/bad cop rou­tine, with usu­al-sus­pect Han­cock* promis­ing the juicy fruit, and the Guardian step­ping in to for­bid it, there­by mak­ing damn sure we con­sume it, all the more obses­sive­ly and guilti­ly. (* Entheogen-advo­cate Han­cock has been on “the team” since at least 1990s, see Pris­on­er of Infin­i­ty p. 154. see also ISGP on Han­cock)

Iron­i­cal­ly, I have no trou­ble believ­ing the premise of the show, or that of most of Hancock’s books (not that I have read any, besides Super­nat­ur­al). But nor do I con­sid­er it espe­cial­ly inter­est­ing, with­out a suit­ably deep and dark con­text to ren­der it rel­e­vant. How many decades have we heard about Atlantis/a pri­or civ­i­liza­tion com­ing to ruin through mis­use of tech­nol­o­gy? How many gen­er­a­tions have grown up on this stuff (which may well be true, but that’s not the point), with­out it mak­ing a lick of dif­fer­ence to any­thing, besides steadi­ly low­er­ing the aver­age man and wom­an’s lev­els of dis­cern­ment? (A bit like UFOs.)

On the oth­er end of the rev­e­la­to­ry spec­trum, I also saw this week a refresh­ing ~ and typ­i­cal­ly for­got­ten ~ doc­u­men­tary called El Sicario: Room 164. It is shot on one loca­tion (room 164), with one per­son, their face cov­ered with a big black hood, and one prop (a sketch pad and a mark­er pen) to pro­vide touch­ing­ly child­ish illus­tra­tions to an ex-Car­tel mem­ber’s chill­ing account of life in the dark lane. I have uploaded it to my YT chan­nel, see below. (It may be tak­en down since i do not have copy­right, in case it does, you can DL it here.)  As I tweet­ed, I watched three doc­u­men­taries that (very rainy) day. The first was about a famous rock n’ roller (Lev­on Helm); the sec­ond was about a famous magi­cian (the amaz­ing Randy); the third was about a sicario with a price on his head. The sicario was the one who got the clos­est to God. At least one per­son found the tweet dis­turb­ing. But you have to see the film to under­stand that I was mere­ly stat­ing a fact (at least if El Sicario is a true account).

I hope to spend more time keep­ing up this newslet­ter, and pro­vid­ing more audio con­tent, in the near future, and I am now offer­ing “con­trib­u­tor” access for any­one who makes a dona­tion of 5.55 euro or more (per month).  To be hon­est, this is a very loose ship I run, so one dona­tion might get you more than a month’s access, depend­ing how reg­u­lar­ly I update the con­trib­u­tor sec­tion. If you want a 6‑month or year’s access, offi­cial­ly, just make a dona­tion to cov­er the peri­od required.

I am just now fin­ish­ing up The Kubrick­on audio book (which will be avail­able when the book is; you can pre-order Kubrick­on now; full descrip­tion + invite to reviewers/interviewers here). After that I will make an audio book for Vice of Kings, and then for Seen and Not Seen. I am also going to make my old audio book of Homo Ser­pi­ens avail­able, since it is now sell­ing for $80 online. First of all, I have to record a disclaimer! 

Bless­ings,

Jasun

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *