Fact-Checking is the New Pravda

Warning: This article has not been Fact-Checked by trusted authorities

Since the advent of covid authoritarianism in March 2020, I've increasingly come to understand how the phenomenon of Fact-Checking has become the primary tool of propaganda used by the ruling establishment in our time. Because this a relatively new method of perception control (although my understanding is that its use was pioneered in the Soviet Union some decades ago), most people are still susceptible to it.

My decision to write this article came in response to an online debate I witnessed regarding the bombshell David Martin/Reiner Fuellmich interview from July, 2021. The interview in question covers a broad array of issues regarding the lab-origins of SarsCov2, patent filings pertinent to these origins over the course of decades, the creation of the mRNA covid shots, and planning documents predicting a coronavirus pandemic and the recommendation for authoritarian response measures, including vaccine passports and mandates.

In the debate, objections were raised regarding David Martin’s claims by means of a Reuters Fact-Check article which claims that SarsCov2 does not have components of HIV in it (one of the claims made by David Martin). Although this specific claim was a small part of a much broader and more relevant set of arguments made by Martin, the Fact-Checking regarding this particular issue was presented as though it debunked everything said in the interview.

This method of attacking one small part of an argument and then claiming to have debunked the whole argument is, in itself, one of the primary tools utilized by Fact-Checking articles. In addition, as with most Fact-Check articles, the arguments presented in the Reuters piece are completely biased and rife with logical fallacies. I realized it was time for me to specifically address the Fact-Check phenomenon and chose to refer to the Reuters Fact-Check article as a case study of the method.

I recommend viewing the Martin/Fuellmich interview due to its provocative and informative claims, which, if true, expose a scandal of global proportions implicating DARPA, the Chinese government, Dr. Fauci and NIAID/NIH, major pharmaceutical companies, and other important institutions. These claims ought to be investigated in the light of day by law enforcement agencies, by the press, and in the public forum to determine their veracity and to arrive at an appropriate response.

However, for the purposes of this article, which addresses the phenomenon of Fact-Checking, only the Reuters Article is relevant. Please refer to it for context. The Reuters article was not written in response to the Martin/Fuellmich interview; I merely reference the interview here as an example of how Fact-Check articles are not only capable of silencing inquiry in regards to their stated targets, but are also routinely employed to silence inquiry regarding information only tangentially related to the stated targets of the Fact-Checkers.

To begin with, let’s go back in time a few years to recall what mainstream news used to look like. In those days, news would be presented in terms of facts and discussion regarding those facts. Most propaganda was achieved by not addressing or ignoring alternative viewpoints and through curated selection of what counted as news.

Today, fact and discussion are presented as they were in the past. But now, when widespread disagreement exists regarding either the facts presented, or the parameters of the discussion, a new layer of "Fact-Checking" is inserted on top of this. The Fact-Checks are always encountered by the news consumer via internet search; they litter the top search engine hits on any controversial topic, especially if Google is used. The Fact-Checks authoritatively tell the reader what to believe and what is true, rather than providing unbiased exploration of the controversy.

Fact-Checking is like a more sophisticated version of one of my favorite games, the Myth/Fact game. This is the game wherein you make a pseudo-argument by first declaring a statement you disagree with to be “myth,” and then declaring the statement you agree with to be “fact.” It goes like this:

MYTH: Covid vaccines have been shown to cause serious injury and death to some people who have taken them.
FACT: Covid vaccines are safe and effective, and everyone should take them.

MYTH: Facemasks are ineffective at preventing the spread of viruses and can cause physiological and psychological harm.
FACT: Facemasks are an integral tool for stopping the spread of SarsCov2, and they should be worn as advised by authorities.

MYTH: Cats make better pets than dogs.
FACT: Dogs make better pets than cats, and should always be selected as pets instead of cats, subject to availability.

You can play the Myth/Fact game with literally any statement of truth or opinion. It’s great fun. We used to see this tactic in actual use as a propaganda tool by advocacy groups or by anyone trying their hand at persuasion in the absence of convincing evidence. Those were simpler times. Now, the Myth/Fact game has moved into the mainstream news outlets, but it’s been dressed up and disguised as “Fact-Checking.”

To understand Fact-Checking appropriately, it is necessary to understand that the Fact-Checkers are outlets of a program coordinated by the confluence of the State, the Corporate Press, Big Tech, and Philanthropic funding agencies. All of these institutions are massively cross-invested in each other, most notably in the form of megalithic investment firms like Blackrock and Vanguard. Please feel free to Fact-Check me if you find this hard to believe.

The Fact-Check articles promulgated through this program always convert the counter-narrative position into a strawman and then tear apart the strawman they've constructed. This Reuters Fact-Check is no exception. The strawman method is a tried-and-true logical fallacy that consists of misconstruing your opponent's argument, ignoring its strongest points, and zeroing in on the weakest points. This is opposed to the steelman method, which is to argue against the strongest version of your opponent's argument. In an honest an unbiased approach, both sides of any argument are steelmanned.

In the interests of fairness, the steelman approach to Fact-Checking would go something like this: The journalistic Fact-Checking entities are not part of any coordinated agenda. The entities which invest in these entities are irrelevant to the content they produce, as are the enterprises invested in by the Fact-Checkers themselves. The reason Fact-Checkers all reach the same conclusions as each other, and reach the same conclusions promulgated by the mainstream narrative is because that narrative is simply true. Because there is too much freedom of speech on the internet, malicious actors have found ways to promulgate falsehoods and slander like never before. These actors are motivated by the desire to sow chaos for personal gain, cause harm for the sake of sadism, or else have been captured by extremist ideologies due to psychological instability or gullibility. Thankfully, we now have Fact-Check institutions that are motivated only by the desire to promote truth and the common good through sober analysis. Members of the public can now immunize themselves against insidious misinformation and conspiracy theories by ignoring any information or perspectives declared false by the Fact-Checkers.

My apologies if I was unable to fully remove my tongue from my cheek as I attempted to lay out the steelman argument. To me, this argument is patently absurd, and it flies in the face of the principles of freedom of speech and press, methods of honest investigative inquiry, the implications of conflicts of interest, and any understanding of propaganda as employed by the powerful governing and financial interests. I’m unaware of any steelman argument in favor of Fact-Checkers that actually addresses these objections. Even if all of those concerns could be adequately addressed, they would not change the reality of what is actually contained within the typical Fact-Check article: a slew of logical fallacies, slanted reporting, and bad-faith arguments. Allow me to elaborate:

Other logical fallacies besides the strawman commonly applied by Fact-Check articles (including the Reuters article referenced) is to use ad-hominem attacks (apply labels to your target like "conspiracy theorist" or "right-winger"), and appeal to authority ("experts agree that ______" or "authorities have concluded that _____"). In the interests of aiding the reader in developing the skill of spotting logical fallacies in persuasive writing, I will not point out the specific instances in which these fallacies are used in the article. Instead, I encourage the reader to peruse the article and spot the use of these fallacies for themselves.

The Reuters article is rife with the ad hominem tactic, which tells the reader nothing about the argument in question, but defines the argument in terms of an applied label the reader is meant to distrust. Also, even if someone would be correct in distrusting a right-winger or a conspiracy theorist, the deployment of the ad hominem does not define these terms, nor prove that they accurately describe the target. The proclaimed identity of the target is simply announced into existence.

This article is also rife with the appeal-to-authority fallacy. The very argument subject to the Fact-Checker treatment insists that the sources regarded as authoritative in the mainstream press are wrong. So stating that "authorities agree with my position" proves nothing. Also, these numerous appeals to authority say nothing about what makes these sources authoritative, nor whether there are contrary opinions among other authorities. We also witness the ubiquitous appeal to whether or not an argument has been peer-reviewed as another way to ignore challenges to the authority structure rather than address the claims being made.

Another great tactic when doing a hit piece is to repeatedly refer to the claims of your opponent as "false claims" rather than "claims.” This tactic is also employed here. Other adjectives that can be used in this way include “discredited,” “baseless,” and “debunked.” This allows the propagandist to conjure truth and falsity into reality by use of a single proclaimed adjective, eliminating the need to offer evidence of any kind in support of their declaration.

In the Reuters piece, these methods are followed by more strawman tactics—tearing apart the terminology used in the targeted argument rather than referring to the substance or the merits of what is being claimed. In this article, we are then provided with some statements offered by scientists who have a different interpretation of the genetic sequence found in the patents and patent applications as related to HIV and SarsCov2. But the points made are vague and meandering, and don't clearly articulate the nature of the disputed information. This discussion is followed by more appeals to authority without any consideration or mention of the numerous scientists and researchers who hold the opposing view.

Then we are presented with THE VERDICT. The Reuters Fact-Check team has apparently appointed themselves judge and jury. Tellingly, this article is written by anonymous members of a team rather than by a journalist who could be held to account for their statements or challenged to a debate. That’s because this is not journalism. It's pure propaganda. The purpose of Fact-Check articles is to get inside your mind and bully you into agreeing with the predetermined conclusion. That purpose would be undermined if there were an accountable journalist answerable for the piece. It would also be undermined if both sides of the argument were steelmanned, or if representatives from both sides were invited into an honest debate where each side had the chance to address each other’s claims, as occurs in a real courtroom.

In a real courtroom, it is understood that the members of the jury are laypeople, and although they will hear expert testimony from both sides in the case, it is up to the jury to decide which expert testimony is more convincing. As a result, both sides will attempt to present their expert testimony to the jury using terms a layperson can comprehend and will ignore the best arguments of the other side at their peril. If a trial lawyer offered the kind of vague and obscure expert testimony presented in this Reuters article, and then declared (in paraphrase) “lots of experts agree with me,” and “ignore the other side’s testimony because I’m an expert,” as this Reuters article does, they would not fare well in a court of law.

But this is not a real courtroom, this is a kangaroo court. And as the Reuters Fact-Check team confidently announces THE VERDICT, a moment of reflection reveals that the path to this verdict was a bombardment of strawmen, sleight-of-hand, ad-hominem attacks, unsupported proclamations of truth and falsehood, appeals to authority, and a vague sense of threat implied if one chooses not to align with that authority.

One emerges from the experience having been dazzled by a whirling array of such devices, but without any clear sense of what was just read or the reasoning that supports the verdict. There is a general sense that the verdict of falseness rests upon the understanding that lots of authorities have already addressed this issue and concluded that the mainstream narrative is indeed correct: there is definitely nothing fishy about Dr. Fauci, or any possibility that the spike proteins were lab-created, either with bits of HIV proteins or otherwise (even though the covid shots created with mRNA technology were themselves created in labs, and they successfully reprogram people's cells to create these very same spike proteins by the boatloads).

*Side note - if I were to be Fact-Checked right now, Reuters or Politifact or whoever would probably say something like "Raelle Kaia is a well-known right-wing conspiracy theorist who has been propagating baseless claims since the beginning of the pandemic. In this article, she claims that the mRNA covid vaccines produce spike proteins "by the boatloads." In reality, a recipient of the covid shot will not be able to produce enough spike proteins to fill even one small boat. Experts agree that if all the spike proteins produced by the body as a result of the covid vaccine were gathered together, they would fit easily inside a single eyedropper.
THE VERDICT - Raelle Kaia's claims about the mRNA vaccines and the origins of SarsCov2 are false. We rate them as "pants on fire."*

The experience after having emerged from the Fact-Check article is one of being hammered by the self-righteous baton of authority, fueled by indignation and name-calling of those who question the authorities. The message is clear: The Authorities are truthful and doing their best to help regular people and keep them informed. They all agree about what is true and correct, and you should agree with them too. Dangerous people are out there trying to spread falsehoods in order to scare and harm people and destroy society. Don't let them. Trust the Reuters Fact Check Team to tell you when you have been exposed to one of these social contagions so you won't become Part of the Problem. Today, the correct thing to believe is that SarsCov2 is a naturally occurring virus and Dr. Fauci is an honest and upstanding public servant. Stay Tuned for further transmissions about what to believe.

This result is, of course, the whole point. As I mentioned before, the advent of Fact-Check articles is too new for most people to realize what’s happening yet. We’ve gotten used to going on the internet to find out information like “what was the name of that band?” and “what year did that movie come out?” Now we get answers about what we are supposed to believe is true when it comes to disputed political and scientific issues, and we absorb it just the same way we would absorb information about the band or film we’re interested in. After all, the trusted institutions wouldn’t take the bold step of declaring truth on these issues if they weren’t really sure about it, and if it weren’t really important that we don’t get it wrong. Would they?

Just as people didn’t realize overnight what was happening when the Soviet Union released the  news propaganda publication Pravda (meaning “truth”), people in the Western world today don’t yet realize what is happening with our Pravda, the Fact-Checkers. They are announcing “truth” to us, just as Pravda did, but most of us have yet to become suspicious of an authority that tells you what you are supposed to believe to be true. In particular, whereas the Soviet Union was clearly a unitary power structure, it is barely understood by most people today the degree to which the transnational corporations are cross-invested in each other, and networked in with NGOs, foundations, states, and intergovernmental institutions. Big Tech, Pharma, and the corporate press and its Fact-Checkers are all threads of the same fabric. Just follow the money. It all leads to the same place.

Thank you for reading, comrade.