I honestly can't tell if Dinesh D'Souza is an intelligent conman who is profiting off of the gullible, or if he is genuinely a moron and his "documentaries" give insight into his warped thought-process. Considering how he contradicts himself almost immediately on multiple occasions throughout "Death of a Nation," I'm going to say he's genuinely a moron.
This "documentary" is filled with the same basic drivel that propaganda-spewing right-wingers have been preaching for years, done so in the most contradictory and uninteresting of ways.
D'Souza claims that the left tried to impeach Trump; cue clip of Senator Kamala Harris answering a question from a reporter about impeachment but not actually advocating for it. D'Souza claims liberals are too politically correct; cue the controversial Kathy Griffin photo. D'Souza claims that Trump's victory made people unhinged and freak out for no reason; cue clips of reactions from anti-Trump people whose fears and criticisms have been proven right every day since the election. Those are just a few of the obvious examples of how much D'Souza contradicts himself immediately, but then there are arguments that just don't make sense.
D'Souza claims that white supremacist Richard Spencer is actually a liberal because he and Trump have different opinions on immigration, yet Spencer also has a different opinion on immigration than liberals do. So how can Spencer not be a Trump supporter because of a difference in opinions, yet he is secretly a liberal despite a difference in opinions?
Not only that, but historians have also come out and negated all of the points that D'Souza made in "Death of a Nation" (along with all of his other works). In fact, one historian in this documentary, Robert Paxton, even alleges that D'Souza misled him as to what the documentary was actually about. If D'Souza's points are so articulate and factual, why do people with no agenda other than to study history call him out for being inaccurate, and why did he have to trick an expert into being in his film?
The filmmaking is on the same par as the information--worthless and terrible. The sets that are used during historical reenactments are atrocious, D'Souza has no charisma and is just a bore to listen to, and there's nothing creative about any element of his work.
This "documentary" is filled with the same basic drivel that propaganda-spewing right-wingers have been preaching for years, done so in the most contradictory and uninteresting of ways.
D'Souza claims that the left tried to impeach Trump; cue clip of Senator Kamala Harris answering a question from a reporter about impeachment but not actually advocating for it. D'Souza claims liberals are too politically correct; cue the controversial Kathy Griffin photo. D'Souza claims that Trump's victory made people unhinged and freak out for no reason; cue clips of reactions from anti-Trump people whose fears and criticisms have been proven right every day since the election. Those are just a few of the obvious examples of how much D'Souza contradicts himself immediately, but then there are arguments that just don't make sense.
D'Souza claims that white supremacist Richard Spencer is actually a liberal because he and Trump have different opinions on immigration, yet Spencer also has a different opinion on immigration than liberals do. So how can Spencer not be a Trump supporter because of a difference in opinions, yet he is secretly a liberal despite a difference in opinions?
Not only that, but historians have also come out and negated all of the points that D'Souza made in "Death of a Nation" (along with all of his other works). In fact, one historian in this documentary, Robert Paxton, even alleges that D'Souza misled him as to what the documentary was actually about. If D'Souza's points are so articulate and factual, why do people with no agenda other than to study history call him out for being inaccurate, and why did he have to trick an expert into being in his film?
The filmmaking is on the same par as the information--worthless and terrible. The sets that are used during historical reenactments are atrocious, D'Souza has no charisma and is just a bore to listen to, and there's nothing creative about any element of his work.