"fact checking" is the new propaganda ministry

fact check: mostly true

it has become a near perfect heuristic that any “fact check” by reuters or AP is a lie.

i mean, you’d think they’d at least pick a few to play it straight every once in a while to mix it up.

but they don’t.

and frankly, the hilarity of it is beginning to beggar belief.

“Numerous psychologists have also told Reuters that such a condition is not officially recognized.

“I have never heard of this concept,” John Drury, Professor of Social Psychology and Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange at the University of Sussex, wrote in an email to Reuters.

Jay Van Bavel, Associate Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at New York University, said the term “doesn’t exist as a real academic concept”, adding: “I’ve been studying group identity and collective behaviour for nearly two decades and just published a book on the topic and not once have I come across this term.”

we, the experts, have asked a couple people hand-picked to tell us what we wanted to hear and decided that there is no such thing as the thing we dislike and are now playing a semantic game around a chosen name and descriptor to deny as a matter of lexicography the existence of the underlying mechanism that it describes.

a 24 year old media studies major from vassar who could not get a more impressive job than “anonymous truth minister at a failing masthead” said so.

so, the matter is settled.

i mean, can these purveyors of partisan pablum not hear themselves?

this is not even proper propaganda anymore. it’s starting to feel like some sort of self parody run as a false flag op to discredit the official narrative.

but honestly, they are simply not clever enough.

i think this is exactly what it looks like.

it’s the guilty child trying to stand right in front of the mess they made to hide it.

it’s the murderer staring at the floorboards beneath which the body is buried.

they simply cannot help themselves.

they are too unimaginative and too gormless.

at best, it’s this game of “hey, look over here and not at the case counts exploding as vaccines fail to do what we said they would do!”

these are not sophisticated informational operatives.

these are clowns and the unerring accuracy with which they are leading anyone paying even a modicum of attention or exhibiting even a sliver of discernment to the facts they fear is astonishing.

the song of the streisand effect is deafening.

and the irony can get awfully thick.

no one has a monopoly on truth and even the wise are sometimes wrong. i’m not sure there is any expert with whom i agree on everything. i doubt many find such agreement with me. frankly, i hope not. we need more conversation and refutation for that is the process for harrowing hypotheses into sound theory.

we must proliferate debate, not diktat.

if “experts” are truly expert why do they fear engagement? and if they will not engage, then how are we to take them seriously?

i, for one, have had about as much of what they are selling as i can take…

but some simple truths will always remain:

• the side seeking to censor debate is never the side of science or of reason.

• one does not censor information because it is false; one censors it because it is true.

• know what a man fears by what he will not allow to be spoken.

and this has all become to blatant to miss any longer. all this flak is just unerring evidence of when one is over the target.

past a certain point, attempts at obfuscation become a targeting system.

their guilt is written all over them.

these new ersatz propogandists are not sophisticates.

they’re children playing at being tricky and failing farcically.

and for these naughty niños, there is but one response: