The original post is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/97les6/what_is_this_death_of_a_nation_movie_and_why_is/ Here is OP's question: What is this Death of a Nation movie and why is it so controversial, and why is it generating such a buzz online...but not really offline? First of all, here is a post that is inexplicably allowed to say. If you're wondering whether the mods are just "enforcing rules" or if they're enforcing their own Liberal leanings and biases, look no further than this gem of a comment that is somehow totally alright to stay while the mods splashed red over the pad on all the posts they deleted: /u/ImNotTheZodiacKiller >It's a right wing propaganda movie about how the democrats are equivalent to the Nazi party. >From [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_Nation:_Can_We_Save_America_a_Second_Time%3F) > Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? is a 2018 American political documentary film by conservative political commentator Dinesh D'Souza. In the documentary, D'Souza positively compares the 45th President of the United States Donald Trump to the 16th President Abraham Lincoln. The film indicates that the Democratic Party from both eras was critical of both Presidents and analyzes the Democrats' alleged similarities to fascist regimes, including the Nazi Party. Here are the posts that hurt some Liberal fee fee's and were thusly removed: /u/PapaHogey >It says there’s over 288 comments but I can’t find more then two, all of them say deleted or removed. Is this a bug? /u/03fusc8 >The official name of the Nazi party was the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. They were not right wing; they were socialist, anti-capitalism, big money/corporate supporters just like the Democratic party in the US today. The truth just seems like propaganda to someone who is ignorant of the facts. /u/nostromer >Wait, so is this about making the left seem like or equal to the extreme Nazi party? This majorly deleted thread has left me asking the same questions. /u/MartinDeth >The same people that are outraged about this are outraged about everything and everyone that doesn't follow the far left narative that's being spewed by the MSM by the boatload. Also those same people jizz themselves on that other documentary about Obama's last year which is far far worse. Watch it and make up your own mind. My honest friendly advice would be not to give in to any liberal pressure or opinion without thoroughly checking anything out for yourself. God willing, you'll come to the right conclusion. /u/Wulf102 >I think you should go see the movie. >As Hitler said, "If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it". >The R's freed the slaves because the D's wanted cheap labor. This goes against the narrative of "the R's are racist slaveholders". If you notice, the D's still love their cheap labor, only they get it from illegal immigrants now instead of blacks. >The D's then claim there was a big switch of parties at the time of LBJ. The problem is, out of the 1200 Dixiecrat politicians, only 5 switched parties, so there was no switch. >Naziism/Fascism is frequently seen as a right wing thing. However, this isn't the case. The founder of Fascism, Gentile, was a socialist. The first Fascist, Mussolini was also a socialist. Hitler was a national socialist, however, every socialist leader is also a nationalist. Mao, Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Kim Jong Il and others all loved their country and wanted what they thought was the best for it, so they are nationalists as well. >What else do people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Il and others have in common. Their governments sought to control every aspect of the country whether it be education, taxes, social programs, the media and so forth. If we were to put this on a spectrum, what would be the opposite of full government control? No government control would be the opposite. This concept is a fundamental part of Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians. >The modern day democratic party that wants full control of the media citing various places like Fox News being "hate speech" and "racist". You'll hear daily about how people on the left want r/the_donald banned. The most democratic states like California, have high tax rates with huge social programs. The dems feel more government control is the solution to fixing education, while more libertarian minded people like myself ideally want it to be private, leaving the government out of it. /u/Wulf102 >Since someone suggested I answer the questions directly, here you go: >I've been viewing and listening to Dinesh for over a year. He has a youtube channel along with many speeches/debates/videos online. >What is this Death of a Nation movie >A movie by Dinesh D'Souza explaining modern day politics and the history of the Democratic party. >why is it so controversial >I don't find it to be controversial at all, but to understand why, you have to understand the history, which I'll go into below. >why is it generating such a buzz online. >I don't know what this means. r/movies didn't even have a thread for it. >I think you should go see the movie. >As Goebbels said, "If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it". >The R's freed the slaves because the D's wanted cheap labor. This goes against the narrative of "the R's are racist slaveholders". There was not one single Republican who owned a slave one year prior to the civil war. If you notice, the D's still love their cheap labor, only they get it from illegal immigrants now instead of blacks. >The D's then claim there was a big switch of parties at the time of LBJ. The problem is, out of the 1200 Dixiecrat politicians, only 5 switched parties, so there was no switch. >Naziism/Fascism is frequently seen as a right wing thing. However, this isn't the case. The founder of Fascism, Gentile, was a socialist. The first Fascist, Mussolini was also a socialist. Hitler was a national socialist, however, every socialist leader is also a nationalist. Mao, Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Kim Jong Il and others all loved their country and wanted what they thought was the best for it, so they are nationalists as well. >What else do people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Il and others have in common. Their governments sought to control every aspect of the country whether it be education, taxes, social programs, the media and so forth. They are also willing to use violence to achieve such goals. If we were to put this on a spectrum, what would be the opposite of full government control? No government control would be the opposite. This concept is a fundamental part of Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians. >The modern day democratic party that wants full control of the media citing various places like Fox News being "hate speech" and "racist". You'll hear daily about how people on the left want r/the_donald banned. The most democratic states like California, have high tax rates with huge social programs. The dems feel more government control is the solution to fixing education, while more libertarian minded people like myself ideally want it to be private, leaving the government out of it. You will also find many dems and left leaning people here calling for violence to stop people who they declare to be supposed "nazis". >The modern Republican party would fall somewhere in the center. They want less government generally, but not no government. They aren't ready for no taxes like Libertarians, but they do want lesser taxes. Many R's would also have no problem with some social programs to help out the needy, while Libertarians would say to leave that to charity and personal donations. The R's also believe in freedom of speech and gun rights. >The modern day Libertarian party, anarchists and anarcho-capitalists believe in the non-aggression principle, which means no force/violence. They believe in no government at all or as little government as possible. They believe in no taxes, instead they believe people should pitch in together for things like road fixtures and such or not be allowed to use them. They believe in private schools, therefore if someone is not doing well at a school, they are free to go somewhere else. They don't believe in social programs as they believe if people want to help, they can do so directly or through charities. >The Nazi party believed in full government control. This was especially true with the media, education, social programs and jobs. They believed in using violence against enemies and they also believed in using slave labor. They were one of the first parties to fully support feminism as well, emphasizing the role of the woman in the family. They liked the environment too. They taxed the rich high, but didn't tax poorer people as much as they subsidized them with looting of other countries and people. Due to their use of violence and government control, they cannot be labeled as libertarians as those are the two most important parts of Libertarianism and they do fit in well with the far left that advocates for censorship, full government control, social programs, slave labor and high taxes. One way people often claim the nazi's were right-wing is due to "racism". However, racism is something that is possible for big government, small government and no government at all, so it doesn't pass the test. /u/narkokraljevic >[[removed] intensifies] OK, sorry for all the edits. I'm on my phone and keep having to switch back and forth between the thread itself, the uncensored version of the thread, and my comment here.

Simple shout out to /u/Wulf102 for his answers to the thread. Good stuff

I was interested in why it was claimed to be brigaded but then I checked out the mod’s profile and it all made sense

This censored comment is probably the best analysis of the movie I've seen. And I actually saw the movie in the theater, not just spouting shit about something I haven't seen. Courtesy of /u/Steve_Blonde > "What is Death of a Nation? It is a movie by Dinesh D'Souza discussing the history of the Democratic party, the history of the Nazi's and the history of the end of slavery up to the civil war. > Why is it so controversial? This is where it becomes hard to give you a "non-biased" answer. I think if you ask people on the left, they would say the media(news, TV and movies) and academia is in the center and some might even say it does lean towards the left some, but I'm skeptical. I think if you ask people on the right, they would say the media(news, TV and movies) and academia is soft left leaning to hard left leaning. The general media telling of the Nazi's and the Confederates were that they were right-wing parties and that fascism is a right wing concept. This challenges that concept and many people on the far right of libertarianism and the center right of the Republican party would tell you it is the opposite. The key questions to ask are this: * Is racism what defines whether a party is left or right? Can both parties be racist? Can neither be racist? * Can big government be a right wing and a left wing concept? And where do Libertarians, who want no government fit into this? Can a party be both no government and complete government control at the same time? * What is the actual political spectrum? And how do other parties besides Dems/R's fit into it? > Why is it generating such a buzz online but not really offline? I don't think I can give you an answer from either viewpoint that would be completely neutral."

I certainly don't agree that all those comments deserved to be deleted, but after reading through a lot of them it is clear that many violated the rule three in a pretty basic way. Many weren't answering (or even addressing) the question, which is grounds for removal, as all top-level comments must be an attempt to answer to question. Any comments telling OP to watch the film or just talking about censorship definitely break this rule and should have been deleted. Its only a handful of comments that really don't seem to break any rules that were deleted

>I am locking this thread to control the narrative. Well that says a lot doesn't it... Well now I'm interested in checking out Death of a Nation. Thanks ironic censorship!

[deleted]