by Iain Davis
Fact checkers have been created as watchdogs for the core conspirator's Ministry of Truth. They use infantile terms like "bad information" because their whole raison d'être is founded upon the infantilisation of the public.
We are too stupid and incapable to check the evidence ourselves. We can't possibly make up our own minds and decide what to believe and what to reject. They are telling us that they possess all the facts and truth exists only as they define it. Most of the time their claimed facts aren't facts at all.
Fact checkers are being used by the GPPP as their authorised information controllers. The term Orwellian is overused but the very concept of a "fact checker," some officially approved third party who will do your thinking for you, can justifiably be described as such.
Full Fact were given charity status [39]. The UK State franchise Charity Commission accepted Full Fact’s charitable purpose:
“To provide free tools, advice, and information so that anyone can check the claims we hear about public issues.”
Fact checkers make money by fact checking on behalf of State franchises, multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations [40] (NGO’s), wealthy charitable foundations and the mainstream media. The GPPP in other words.
Full Fact's list of financial backers [41], clients and partners, reads like a who's who of globalist corporations and philanthropic foundations. They are official fact checking partners of Facebook, receive generous support from Google and, among others, are backed by Luminate.
Luminate are part of the Omidyar Group (and Network) the philanthropic, tax exempt foundation of billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. They are concerned about what they call an extinction event [42] for independent media, by which they mean the MSM not the news media.
Luminate partner with globalist think tanks like the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) who are equally worried [43] about the survival of what they also disingenuously call independent media: the MSM they control.
Full Fact's corporate members [44] include the City of London Corporation [45] (the centre of the UK financial sector and a global hub for international finance), the global corporate law firm King & Wood Malleson, St Jame’s Place Wealth Management (a huge global capital investment firm), and the defence contractor Rolls Royce. Their board of trustees include former BBC Director of News and Current Affairs James Harding. James was responsible for one of the most egregious pieces of fabricated war propaganda in modern history, when he oversaw production of the BBC’s fake documentary Saving Syria’s Children [46].
Chair of the board of trustees is Conservative Party donor Michael Samuel and he is joined by fellow Conservative Lord Inglewood and Labour Peer Baroness Royal. The political power elite are well represented when it comes to making sure we have the right facts from Full Fact.
Another Full Fact trustee is Lord Sharkey. He is a Liberal Democrat Peer and the former strategic adviser to once UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Clegg joined Facebook in October 2018 to become Facebook Vice President of Global Affairs [47]. Purely by coincidence, in January 2019 Full Fact became approved third party fact checkers [48] for Facebook. Subsequently, again by coincidence, in September 2019 the former politician Nick Clegg announced that Facebook would not “fact check” politician's statements.
While keen to attack disinformation spread by the news media, Facebook's fact checking doesn't include any scrutiny of the political statements parroted by the MSM. Providing of course they are favourable political statements. When they aren't they will certainly be fact checked.
Another Full Fact trustee Tim Gordon was also an advisor to Nick Clegg. He co founded Best Practice AI [49] which was the first UK AI firm invited to join the World Economic Forum’s (WEF's) Global AI Council (GAIC). The GAIC bring together representatives from tech giants including Microsoft , IBM and Google’s Chinese division.
GAIC is one of six WEF global councils focused upon technology and the fourth industrial revolution. Their stated purpose is:
“….to provide policy guidance and address governance gaps.”
Full Fact's automated AI fact checking [50] is fully funded by regular WEF attendee Pierre Omidyar, with the full support of GAIC members Google, and is therefore completely independent. Their automated pseudopandemic facts can be trusted, they are an authoritative source and so you have no need to do any critical thinking. Full Fact will do that for you.
At the time of writing Full Fact are advertising two posts. One for a policy & government relations and another for a policy & parliamentary relations manager [51]. In those advertisements Full Fact state:
"Full Fact, [is] an independent charity and team of campaigners and fact checkers.. you’ll play a central part in our work to stop the harm caused by bad information.. The pandemic has shown how this work has never been more important.. You will be a key team member in our campaign on the forthcoming Online Safety Bill, making sure we have the relationships with the government and other relevant organisations, as well as building policy propositions to influence this key legislation."
Full Fact are not independent of their wealthy GPPP backers and they will continue their work with the State franchise to develop policy. They are campaigners and are, by definition, biased. There is nothing wrong with activism or campaigning, but to do so while pretending you are an independent and objective fact checker is the height of hypocrisy.
Full Fact's government manager will be tasked with influencing State franchise "legislation, regulation, policy and practice" and their parliamentary manager will "gain the support" of UK MP's for whatever policies Full Fact's backers want. With their extensive list of multinational corporations funding them, financial resources to grease the wheels for “gaining support” won't be a problem for Full Fact.
Their human intelligence operation is little different from any other alleged fact checker's. There is nothing particularly innovative or unusual about the skill set they use. In an opinion piece published in the New York Times [52], advocating that we should forego critical thinking and just believe whatever we are told, the honed expertise of the fact checker were revealed.
A digital literacy expert from Washington State University, Michael Caulfield explained the painstaking research he had undertaken to discover that the lawyer and activist Robert F. Kennedy was spreading dezinformatsiya. Using techniques he claimed to have developed, he analysed an Instagram post sharing information from Robert Kennedy, Mr. Caulfield then walked the Times journalist through the diligent fact checking process:
"He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google......He navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist."
Requiring nothing more to satisfy his fact checking curiosity, this was enough for Mr Caulfield to pronounce that Mr Kennedy was spreading disinformation. "Googling it" and a quick check of a Wikipedia, a process he invented, was enough information for Mr Caulfield. The New York Times were very impressed with his efficiency. Mr Caulfield is a highly paid academic researcher.
However, while the New York Times' opinion piece was mind numbing propaganda, it did at least link to the academic research supposedly backing up the claimed fact checking practice of "lateral reading." For those interested enough to look, which of course you wouldn't be if you followed the advice given in the opinion piece, this took you to an academic article by researchers at Stanford university [53]. This lifted the lid off the fact checkers' lateral reading strategy.
The research highlighted the work of a fact checker called 'C.' They said his approach exemplified lateral reading. The researchers noted:
"He typed the organization’s name into Google. He clicked on Wikipedia’s entry about the College and read that."
The Stanford academics concluded:
"What did fact checkers do that allowed them to quickly and a
ccurately discern the trustworthiness of information?...Fact checkers relied on a robust knowledge of sources to inform their decisions.....they mined Google’s snippets for the wealth of information they contain........The immensity of the Internet makes it impossible to be familiar with every entry Google spits out."
The fact checkers lateral reading of reliable sources means they "Google it." Just like everyone else who doesn't know any better. They then use completely unreliable sources like Wikipedia as positive proof of whatever claim they wish to make. Wikipedia can be edited by virtually anyone and, beyond basic information such as dates and names, it is someone's opinion.
Like all approved fact checkers Full Fact are members of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Network [54] (IFCN). Signatories to the IFCN code include Politifact, Full Fact, Stop Fake and AP Fact Check, to name but a few. Poynter’s major funders [55] include the Charles Koch Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Omidyar Network (Luminate), Google and the Open Society Foundation.
It is a fact that the IFCN, the official trade organisation for approved fact checkers, is funded by, among others, the multinational corporation Koch Industries, the C.I.A (NED), globalist venture capitalists (Omidyar), aggressive internet monopolists (Google) and globalist currency speculator and self-declared social change agent George Soros (Open Society). However, Poynter are also scrupulously independent.
In May 2019 Poynter were forced to issue an apology [56], of sorts, to a number of news media organisations after they issued an index of ‘unreliable’ media sources. When some of the listed news media organisations inquired about the basis for Poynter’s unfounded accusations, requesting Poynter and the IFCN provide some evidence to back up their claims, Poynter quickly removed the proffered “blacklist.”
Having not checked their facts, Poynter’s managing editor, Barbara Allen, said the purpose of the blacklist was:
“…..to provide a useful tool for readers to gauge the legitimacy of the information they were consuming……We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology. We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report.”
This was tantamount to the IFCN admitting they chose who to put on their list based upon their feelings. When we look at who funds the IFCN it’s pretty clear who those feelings lean towards. When requested to evidence their decision the IFCN, guardians of the fact checking industry, couldn’t provide any because the evidence didn't exist. They had no reasonable basis for their opinion and they were falsely claiming something was a fact when it was nothing of the sort. However, you can trust them because they call themselves fact checkers.
The social media companies are allegedly under political pressure to employ fact checkers and devise ways of stopping the spread of dezinformatsiya. However this is itself a duplicitous story. The biggest social media platforms are corporate members of the GPPP. We are going to discuss how this network operates as we explore the core conspirators motives for the pseudopandemic. However, membership is by appointment and, while there are undoubtedly disagreements between factions, the GPPP's ambitions are shared by all stakeholder partners.
By making the big social media players the focus of proposed legislation we are encouraged to think of them as an important part of our lives. They are being presented to us as if they are "essential." They are not. They are just websites, we don't have to use them. We have been corralled into ever smaller groups online, accessing information via a tiny handful of dominant social media corporations. This allows the hybrid warriors to concentrate their fire and gives the fact checkers a fertile environment in which to operate.
If we decide we don't want to bother with them any longer, that will be the end of their business and social control model. Remember Friendster? Exactly!
During the pseudopandemic, Facebook's platform Instagram worked with fact checkers [56], including Full Fact, to deploy a rating system. They applied a rating “label” telling users what was true, partly false or false.
Information rated as partly false or false was then removed from search results and associated hashtags denied. Once the label was activated Facebook and Instagram bots sought out all “matching” content and labelled it accordingly. Thus effectively removing any challenge to the pseudopandemic from that particular corner of the public domain.
Users were redirected to the State franchise approved information provided by the GPPP's fact checkers. Facebook stated:
“…..If something is rated false or partly false on Facebook, starting today we’ll automatically label identical content if it is posted on Instagram (and vice versa). The label will link out to the rating from the fact-checker and provide links to articles from credible sources that debunk the claim(s) made in the post.”
Many people pointed out that this seemed to rule out any questioning of the WHO or any critique of political statements. The GPPP fact checkers were then dispatched to censor these posts and misdirect the public to the official dezinformatsiya.
You may think that people who question vaccines, the wearing of face masks or the global pandemic should be surveilled and censored by the military, intelligence agencies, corporate approved fact checkers and the political establishment. Perhaps you think their opinions are a risk to public health and should be removed. However, the hybrid war isn't limited to anti-vaxxers or lockdown sceptics. It is being waged on all information that runs contrary to the States franchise's narrative.
Defending the pseudopandemic may be the current objective, but you have no way of knowing what future issue may require you to exercise your freedom of speech. Only to find it is no longer possible. The danger this cancel culture [57] represents cannot be overstated.
In 1935 in “The Doctrine of Fascism” the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini wrote:
“The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian.”
And:
“The Fascist State ……makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.”
And in “Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions” he said:
“The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.”
A Fascist State is a totalitarian public-private partnership where all policy, speech and expression, economic activity and production is controlled via a beneficial arrangement between government and a network of non-governmental organisations such as Unions, think tanks, private corporations and “official” charities. Elections are either banned or meaningless, as those who make policy decisions aren’t elected.
A technocratic elite of appointed scientific, economic, corporate and political experts meet in committee halls and board rooms to decide policy. The individual is removed from all decision making. There is no diversity of opinion and all information is controlled by the Fascist State.
Any dissent or questioning of the doctrines of the Fascist State is considered to be disinformation and is censored. The Fascist State attempts to control opinion through propaganda, censorship and a system of punishment and reward.
Anyone who promotes this form of corporate state, who advocates the corporate censorship of information and decrees that the only source of truth is the public-private State and its representatives; those who propose
that the free exchange of ideas, freedom of speech and expression be limited by this corporate State; people who call for those who question the “official” truth to be punished, ostracised or identified as “other” can accurately be described as Fascists. Equally, any state formed through public-private partnership which assumes all authority and then enacts policy to further the interests of the state is a Fascist State.
In a free and open democratic society, that values freedom of speech and expression, the dialectic can be used to exchange logical arguments to arrive at new knowledge and understanding. This is not possible in the Fascist State. Opinions are censored to protect the interests of the public-private partnership.
Sources:
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200331115409/https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/projects/emergence-hybrid-warfare
[2] - https://in-this-together.com/who-are-isis/
[3] - https://in-this-together.com/islamist-extremists-proxies-of-the-west-part-1/
[4] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101050104/https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/brief/projected-poverty-impacts-of-COVID-19
[5] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201104042537/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30238-2/fulltext
[6] - https://in-this-together.com/wgTe/JRFPovRep.pdf
[7] - https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20200203104056/https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/news/alex-aiken-introduces-the-rapid-response-unit/
[8] - https://www.gov.uk/government/people/alex-aiken
[9] - https://www.wpp.com/about/our-history
[10] - https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-27th-january-2021
[11] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210130095439/https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-01-27/debates/6775A7DF-70AE-4198-8F00-57D12516675D/Covid-19Update?highlight=deeply+sorry