>>4949472

>This is the comped Baker always posting this garbage every night!!!

Nope, baker doesn't post stuff, Anons do. I'm the anon that posted the documentary posts. Bakers' job is just to put things in notables that are relevant to Q Research and contain factual information, especially those posts which anons also nominate or show interest in. Anons show interest when this documentary is posted, and the documentary is well-sourced with factual primary documentation and is directly relevant to Q Research. Baker's just doing his job. The problem you have is with the Anon who posted it, and with the anons who showed interest in it, and, it appears, with factual, well-sourced information.

If you have a problem with the info posted presenting a narrative you feel is misleading, you are free to do what all anons do, which is to post well-sourced, factual info you also think is relevant to Q Research in rebuttal, which anons also find interesting.

But calling baker "comped" to get your way is coercive bullying. It's not using logic or fair play. That shit doesn't get you far here.

>>4949329

Hey fren, I'm still awake obvs but I shouldn't be kek. But if you need to bolt I can gather a half hour or so until NWB gets here. Oh WAIT…

>>4949536

Perfect, was just about to post above. Ty, NWB.

>>4949546

Re: these shills, Jesus, was wondering what had 'em stirred up, even b4 I posted. It's because they'd figured out these were posted same time each night, the disgusting faggots.

There's one more installment, but I'll wait a day (or 2 or 3 – gotta keep 'em guessing) to calm their shit down. But they still haven't figured out that their kvetching only proves our case, only shows newfags that they'd employ how many agents to spend night after night on here suppressing this truth?

>>4949629

>found it strange that you include hitler propaganda,

You call it "Hitler propaganda" but it is a well-researched, widely viewed, and widely praised by any that aren't biased against the conclusions – that our history books in recent times haven't told us the whole truth regarding this war, or Hitler and the Third Reich's role in it. Even IMDB gives it 4/5 stars. Many anons here have seen it and vouch for its veracity and worthiness, meaning, we anons have vetted it, it passes the test of grass-roots journalism. It's been translated into at least a dozen languages, and has been viewed by countless people world-wide. It's the definite documentary on WWII history that presents the other side to the cabal's standard Fake News narrative. Pics show the first reviews that come up on IMDB

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3526810/reviews

>seems weird, as this piece corresponds well with the q posts.

There is no evidence that your piece represents Q's meaning anymore than the one noted, only slander words from your personal opinion. What we do know, is that no legit anons here have seen or vouched for it, but one anon last night got 30 sec. into it and found unsauced disinfo. And it's not even listed on IMDB, much less commented on so intelligently, genuinely, and positively.

>>4949712

>I watched the first part and it is a joke.

"a joke" (Appeal to Ridicule fallacy)

>An insult to intellect.

"You're stupid to watch it!"

More Appeal to Ridicule

>It is even worse than mainstream documentaries, because it has a propaganda stench,

>propaganda stanch

Slander terms not backed up by fact or explanation

>>there is no evidence that you piece corresponds well to what q said.

>Actually there is:

Proceeds to provides wikipedia as source – more cabal-controlled mainstream Fake News

Some anons will watch the documentaries I posted no matter how hard you try to convince them not to, and they will decide for themselves whether all the source material in it, and the 5+ hours of real footage, give them a fuller, truer picture than your wikipedia entry.

>>4949788

> I try to post REAL info, important info and it is all lost because Baker is focused on the rampant Jew hating shit!

Oh my, sounds serious.

>>4949813

>4949813

Yes anon, I'm interested in knowing this too. Perhaps you're just too focused on the one notable some "anons" seem upset over. Have you noticed all the other notables of good digs on other topics that bakers include in notables? Why don't you try reposting your dig now so Anons can nominate and baker can vet?