Thank you. It is critically important at the moment to tread delicately with these people who are on the brink of really waking up. Much as I am fed up to the back teeth with it all, it has to be done and done well. I saw with my own husband how careful I had to be. He took one shot and no more - so far. How much this was my doing (resorting to nagging and threats to leave) and how much the fact that he got covid anyway and passed it on to me (I think this shook him a bit as our original conversations were around unvaccinated me possibly passing it on to him). But like many he now just wants to get on with life (as things here in Europe appear normal for the moment) and I can make no more headway. I still don’t think he sees the shots as deadly simply because he sees no-one who has really suffered from them. Therefore any information I do produce has to be absolutely spot-on or I risk complete dismissal.
"I still don’t think he sees the shots as deadly simply because he sees no-one who has really suffered from them." Yes. Under VFR, visual flight rules, most people still see no harm in their circles. I have suspicions of vaccine injury in some friends, but have seen no disability or death. I do believe the truth of various data sets that show harm to people outside my circle; I do believe in the truth of batch variability to put it politely. Coupled with the absolute inefficacy of the covid shots, these data show the shots must be stopped under IFR, instrument flight rules.
Brilliant analysis. I've been wrestling with these issues from Day 1 and occasionally falling foul of the right side of true/not true myself. It's the middle that we need to reach, not the echo chamber. And for that ABSOLUTE rigour is required. Otherwise, as you say, one bad smell, and our compatriots will recoil, perhaps permanently... Rigour above all else.
Totally agree. If you’re going to put yourself up as exposing lies and deception, then you’d better make sure that you’re squeaky clean with the claims you’re making. No room for sloppy journalism on this side. We have to uphold the highest of standards. It calls into question whether the intent is indeed authentic.
The overwhelming majority of those in the middle accept the official 9/11 narrative. Connecting that in any way to the material in Died Suddenly (and there is alot of great material in that doco) is simply an invitation for them to discard what's in the doco. In their mind it creates an equivalency that kills the chance for our message to get through about the vaccines and their harms. That's my view anyway.
That is certainly one interpretation, based on a certain perspective. It’s important, I think, to consider that not everyone shares the same vantage point and assumptions, and may perceive things very differently. This is an important distinction: what motivates one segment of the popular mind may not motivate another.
For example, another perspective may see the series of imagery as a mixture of historic examples of controversy where the truth and untruth were twisted and combined—that group might perceive the film as yet another example of propaganda in a long string of such stories. For some, the imagery might actually prove to be confirmatory.
Stew Peter’s audience, for example, may not appreciate CHD. Fans of Aseem Malhotra may not appreciate Jane Ruby. Steve Kitsch’s followers may appreciate all of the above. The point is, there’s quite a large range.
It’s something to reflect on.
9/11, as we know, is a huge lie—perhaps the only other example even approaching the level of deception we’ve recently experienced. As much as it feels controversial, and may encourage dissuasion, it’s also possible that people will be encouraged to learn more about the *entire tapestry of lies* that we’ve been fed for a long time. Many, for example, have come to question all vaccines in the light of the mRNA shots. Many have come to question long held beliefs about the WHO, the UN, and all sorts of bodies that they may have deemed previously ‘unassailable’.
How those questions form in each person is going to be different—and highly variable—based on beliefs and experience, exposure to different narratives and stories. How we conceive of the broader public’s perception is almost certainly too generalized and uniform, full of stereotypes and tropes.
In showing this film to a dozen or so ‘normies’, my experience has been that they’ve been shocked by what they saw, and want to know more, not less. I sat and watched it with them and was able to point out the half dozen or so bits of the film where the data is a bit misrepresented or where the video footage could be construed as misleading. They acknowledged those bits, but their takeaway was still aghast at what the morticians revealed. About 70% of them are double jabbed. None of them took boosters.
So we can talk about who the ‘middle’ is in an abstract sense, but I think the movable part is not the quadruple+ jabbed folks. The moveable part is the people that took one or two shots and then stopped. It’s a lot of people. Granted, my sample size is very small, but I think the strategy helped. Participate as part of the group and help to offer insight into what is being presented, then let people parse it internally.
I think there’s a bit too much judging from 5,000 feet on this.
Not saying you’re engaged in this, necessarily, but there has been a lot of flame-throwing elsewhere. How would it be if instead of the pre-emptive shaming this film has received, it were praised for what it did well, and comments were added to moderate its errors?
All of the folks I shared it with were glad to have watched it. I’m going to try to put together gathering with a different group. We’ll see how it goes.
Good stuff, thanks. I definitely agree that there is far more good than not in it, and appreciate Stew for giving a voice to the embalmers and James Thorp as just two examples of what is great about it. Yes, the middle is not homogenous, that's a fair point.
Can we agree that the footage of bigfoot was not necessary though?
The only relevant angle I can think of would be that the bigfoot story is one that has been subject to distortion, myth making, and widespread confusion. Those are, to be fair, shared characteristics.
If it was my film, that would not have been included.
Agree totally! It's almost as though these film makers are trying to sabotage their own documentary! Below is a link to what I believe is the best documentary I’ve seen on the subject yet. No one could watch it and not clearly see that they’ve been duped like a fool! But once again… unfortunately it's in dire need of a re-edit!
The film maker needs to get rid of all that 33rd degree masonic stuff you'll see at the beginning! NOT because it isn’t “TRUE”… but because those we're trying to awaken will see that part and go NO FURTHER! Anyway... still well worth watching!
I agree with your assessment on all counts.
Did you know that A Midwestern Doctor has edited the film to take out the garbage? It can be found here https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/what-is-causing-the-died-suddenly
Great, thank you, hadn't seen that.
Thank you. It is critically important at the moment to tread delicately with these people who are on the brink of really waking up. Much as I am fed up to the back teeth with it all, it has to be done and done well. I saw with my own husband how careful I had to be. He took one shot and no more - so far. How much this was my doing (resorting to nagging and threats to leave) and how much the fact that he got covid anyway and passed it on to me (I think this shook him a bit as our original conversations were around unvaccinated me possibly passing it on to him). But like many he now just wants to get on with life (as things here in Europe appear normal for the moment) and I can make no more headway. I still don’t think he sees the shots as deadly simply because he sees no-one who has really suffered from them. Therefore any information I do produce has to be absolutely spot-on or I risk complete dismissal.
"I still don’t think he sees the shots as deadly simply because he sees no-one who has really suffered from them." Yes. Under VFR, visual flight rules, most people still see no harm in their circles. I have suspicions of vaccine injury in some friends, but have seen no disability or death. I do believe the truth of various data sets that show harm to people outside my circle; I do believe in the truth of batch variability to put it politely. Coupled with the absolute inefficacy of the covid shots, these data show the shots must be stopped under IFR, instrument flight rules.
Nice, good model, thanks.
Yes indeed, we do need to tread delicately...
Your work pure gold, as always.
Thank you Teresa.
Brilliant analysis. I've been wrestling with these issues from Day 1 and occasionally falling foul of the right side of true/not true myself. It's the middle that we need to reach, not the echo chamber. And for that ABSOLUTE rigour is required. Otherwise, as you say, one bad smell, and our compatriots will recoil, perhaps permanently... Rigour above all else.
Sometimes discussing things feels like fish are talking to each other in a restaurant fish tank, guessing who is going to be eaten first.
The agenda, including the next potential moves, has been clear for several months:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-shortlist-of-whats-coming
The psy-op, in the meanwhile, is making progress:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-imprisoned-mind-from-fear-and
And what could be done about the end game?
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/circumventing-the-cbdc
Totally agree. If you’re going to put yourself up as exposing lies and deception, then you’d better make sure that you’re squeaky clean with the claims you’re making. No room for sloppy journalism on this side. We have to uphold the highest of standards. It calls into question whether the intent is indeed authentic.
Question: do you believe the official narrative regarding 9/11?
No. Building no. 7.
Ok. There’s much much more to it than Building 7, but good.
So follow up: Can you clarify why you feel it is problematic to include imagery from 9/11 in the Died Suddenly film?
The overwhelming majority of those in the middle accept the official 9/11 narrative. Connecting that in any way to the material in Died Suddenly (and there is alot of great material in that doco) is simply an invitation for them to discard what's in the doco. In their mind it creates an equivalency that kills the chance for our message to get through about the vaccines and their harms. That's my view anyway.
That is certainly one interpretation, based on a certain perspective. It’s important, I think, to consider that not everyone shares the same vantage point and assumptions, and may perceive things very differently. This is an important distinction: what motivates one segment of the popular mind may not motivate another.
For example, another perspective may see the series of imagery as a mixture of historic examples of controversy where the truth and untruth were twisted and combined—that group might perceive the film as yet another example of propaganda in a long string of such stories. For some, the imagery might actually prove to be confirmatory.
Stew Peter’s audience, for example, may not appreciate CHD. Fans of Aseem Malhotra may not appreciate Jane Ruby. Steve Kitsch’s followers may appreciate all of the above. The point is, there’s quite a large range.
It’s something to reflect on.
9/11, as we know, is a huge lie—perhaps the only other example even approaching the level of deception we’ve recently experienced. As much as it feels controversial, and may encourage dissuasion, it’s also possible that people will be encouraged to learn more about the *entire tapestry of lies* that we’ve been fed for a long time. Many, for example, have come to question all vaccines in the light of the mRNA shots. Many have come to question long held beliefs about the WHO, the UN, and all sorts of bodies that they may have deemed previously ‘unassailable’.
How those questions form in each person is going to be different—and highly variable—based on beliefs and experience, exposure to different narratives and stories. How we conceive of the broader public’s perception is almost certainly too generalized and uniform, full of stereotypes and tropes.
In showing this film to a dozen or so ‘normies’, my experience has been that they’ve been shocked by what they saw, and want to know more, not less. I sat and watched it with them and was able to point out the half dozen or so bits of the film where the data is a bit misrepresented or where the video footage could be construed as misleading. They acknowledged those bits, but their takeaway was still aghast at what the morticians revealed. About 70% of them are double jabbed. None of them took boosters.
So we can talk about who the ‘middle’ is in an abstract sense, but I think the movable part is not the quadruple+ jabbed folks. The moveable part is the people that took one or two shots and then stopped. It’s a lot of people. Granted, my sample size is very small, but I think the strategy helped. Participate as part of the group and help to offer insight into what is being presented, then let people parse it internally.
I think there’s a bit too much judging from 5,000 feet on this.
Not saying you’re engaged in this, necessarily, but there has been a lot of flame-throwing elsewhere. How would it be if instead of the pre-emptive shaming this film has received, it were praised for what it did well, and comments were added to moderate its errors?
All of the folks I shared it with were glad to have watched it. I’m going to try to put together gathering with a different group. We’ll see how it goes.
Good stuff, thanks. I definitely agree that there is far more good than not in it, and appreciate Stew for giving a voice to the embalmers and James Thorp as just two examples of what is great about it. Yes, the middle is not homogenous, that's a fair point.
Can we agree that the footage of bigfoot was not necessary though?
The only relevant angle I can think of would be that the bigfoot story is one that has been subject to distortion, myth making, and widespread confusion. Those are, to be fair, shared characteristics.
If it was my film, that would not have been included.
Agree totally! It's almost as though these film makers are trying to sabotage their own documentary! Below is a link to what I believe is the best documentary I’ve seen on the subject yet. No one could watch it and not clearly see that they’ve been duped like a fool! But once again… unfortunately it's in dire need of a re-edit!
The film maker needs to get rid of all that 33rd degree masonic stuff you'll see at the beginning! NOT because it isn’t “TRUE”… but because those we're trying to awaken will see that part and go NO FURTHER! Anyway... still well worth watching!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Yw7gyWKqmrMj/?fbclid=IwAR3fGbKzVOM93o8wnnlfk_-VD4SQd_166rAj9dTUKnsOkMdyrjkWfw1WtOM
Thank you, hadn't seen that one.