The “Fact Check” Scam

SOTN Editor’s Note: SOTN has also recently “received an email from NewsGuard, “an independent organization that rates and reviews news outlets based on nine apolitical journalistic criteria”.  Our editorial staff was asked to respond to similar inquiries as those stated by Paul Craig Roberts in his article posted below.  It’s important to understand that NewsGuard was founded by a couple of Khazarian attorneys, one from Chicago—L. Gordon Crovitz; the other from New York City—Steven Brill.

First let’s take a closer look at Crovitz:

Crovitz is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Chicago.[1] He received a law degree as a Rhodes Scholar from Wadham College of Oxford University and later a law degree from Yale Law School.[1]

Who would ever trust anyone with those hardcore New World Order globalist credentials?!  We’re talking about 5 black marks in just one paragraph from his Wikipedia page … in addition to belonging to the notorious Khazarian Clan.

Next, let’s peer into his co-founder’s background:

“Brill was born to a Jewish family[3] in Far Rockaway, Queens, New York.[4] He is a graduate of Deerfield AcademyYale College (B.A., 1972), and Yale Law School (J.D., 1975).[5]

Brill’s book Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America’s Fifty-Year Fall–and Those Fighting to Reverse It is written from the perspective of an ultra-liberal, Big Government, super-progressive, Democrat-hugging, highly entitled East Coast urbanite and proud professor emeritus of the Northeast intelligentsia.  So, you can imagine how these two Khazarian liars lawyers — Brill and Crovitz — run the NewsGuard FAKE fact-checking operation.

Now let’s see what PCR has to say about these two bad actors and their patently bogus “journalism and technology tool that rates the credibility of news and information websites and tracks online misinformation”.

The “Fact Check” Scam

Paul Craig Roberts

Last Monday I received an email from  NewsGuard, “an independent organization that rates and reviews news outlets based on nine apolitical journalistic criteria.”

The analyst asked me to comment on two statements in my columns  in which I am accused of “advancing false and unsupported claims.”

One  false and and unsupported claim is “a March 2022 article titled ‘Ukraine Hosted Illegal US Biowarfare Laboratories,’ repeated Russian and Chinese propaganda about the presence of U.S.-run bioweapons labs in Ukraine, which has been repeatedly debunked by fact-checking organizations and refuted by U.S. government officials.”

The alleged “fact checker’s” claim that I made a false and unsupported claim is incorrect for two reasons.  One is the fact that a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency produced official US government documents that state that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a component of the U.S. Department of Defense, funded anthrax laboratory activities in a Ukrainian biolab in 2018. The US government’s records also show over $11 million in funding for the Ukraine biolabs program in 2019.

See also:

Apparently, it never occurred to the dumbshit “fact checker” that relying on assurances from a proven liar such as the US government is no way to check a fact.  How, “fact checker,” does the government refute its own admission?  Notice also that the “fact checker” thinks that a statement by the Russian government is  “unsupported,”  but a statement by the US government is considered “supported.”  How does this obvious bias serve to verify any fact?

The second reason the “fact checker” is incorrect indicates that the “fact checker” is incapable of understanding that to report what the Russian government claims to have discovered in Ukraine is not misinformation or propaganda. It is correct information reporting Russian claims.  What we see here is a “fact checker” who thinks or has been trained to see any report, whether or not endorsed by the reporter, of an item in the “impermissible to be mentioned” category as a “false and unsupported claim.”  In other words, all is false except official narratives.

My other “false and unsupported claim” is that 100,000 vote spikes are indications of fraud, a conclusion endorsed by numerous experts.  The “fact checker” alleges that vote spikes “are commonplace and due to the release of large batches of results all at once from solidly Democratic or Republican districts, or from mailed ballots.” What the “fact checker” does not account for is the extreme unlikeliness of a vote dump of 100,000 or more ballots that is all for one candidate, or how votes were mailed in such a way that all Democrat votes arrived in the same delivery.  Perhaps it is statistically possible for 100,000 votes to arrive in an unbroken stream all for the same person, but the probability of such an event is far too low to account for the large number of times it throws a close election to a Democrat. Are there that many voting precincts in which not a single Republican voter lives?  Republican vote spikes are rare and seem to happen when the algorithm of the voting machines has created an unbelievable margin of Democrat victory and has to be narrowed.

In my opinion, “fact checkers” are unintelligent people devoid of integrity who are hired to support official narratives by stamping out truth and dissenting opinion.  Who checks the “fact checkers?”  There is no reason to trust a “fact checker.”  Anyone can set up a “fact check” site to protect any material or ideological interest from examination.  Note that “fact checkers” appeared only after the official narratives became so blatantly false that they had to be protected from examination.  Never before did we have an industry of censors employed to protect official narratives.  “Fact checkers” are the true enemies of truth.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.