?Seems somewhat familiar.. HAVE WE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE????
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (80)
sorted by:
Source. It is not good practice to cite an entire 10 hour documentary for a single event. It was also not present in the first 20 minutes.
Churchill was not the leader of Great Britain for much of that time.
Also, of course Hitler wouldn't want war. He would want to take without any resistance. On top of that all, are you not familiar with lying? When the media says there is no election fraud, do you believe that?
I actually watched more than the first 20 minutes, but it was becoming apparent it was a waste of my time because the information was purely presented in a sensationalist manner; it's overwhelmingly a propaganda piece. The truth doesn't require the nonsense included; it's 10 hours long and I just wonder how much of that is footage from various old films about "the jews plotting" and so on. I will likely watch it through over time nonetheless, but I can't help but feel I will come out of it having wasted 10 hours on a well-produced farce.
If it were really a quality source it would have claims with direct explicit sourcing in the documentary; it does some of this in parts, but it is not done in such a way that lends itself to the user digging. A huge list of authors and links is shown at the end, but that is not good practice unless the quotations and such are directly linked to each source.
They also bring on random individuals to speak without really explaining or verifying credentials.
On top of this all, their claims are progressive or sloping; they'll state something, then restate it later a little more inaccurately or aggressively until it meets their message.
Why would the truth need to go through these practices of sensationalism and obfuscation? We see that crap all the time with mainstream media pieces; we do not see it in quality research and the likes.