Are Fact Checkers Really Fact-Checkers…or Something Else?
Fact-checkers aren’t neutral and not independent. They’re not referees. And they’re definitely not here to “protect” you.
In this investigation, I break down how Western “fact-checking” has quietly merged with NATO’s cognitive-warfare strategy — a system that targets public perception as a battlefield. We go into the doctrine, the networks, the money, and the soft-power ecosystem behind it all.
From the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) — the U.S. government’s velvet-glove influence machine — to the EU’s East StratCom, the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, and the Pentagon-linked Graphika and Moonshot teams, this is the infrastructure that decides what you’re “allowed” to believe.
And as if that wasn’t enough, we look at Israel’s Esther Project — a covert influencer operation paying up to $150,000/month to slip propaganda between latte art, skincare routines, and makeup tutorials. That’s not accidental. That’s cognitive warfare in its purest form.
If you’ve ever wondered why certain narratives get labeled “misinformation” the moment they threaten geopolitical interests, this video lays out exactly how the machine works — step by step, without euphemisms.
👇 Full investigation with sources, documents, and receipts
(The long-form exposé includes names, funding trails, and the architecture behind the “truth-management” industry.)Are Fact-Checkers Really Checking Facts, Or Telling You What to believe?
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
My rule of thumb is that the Bourgeosie follows the formula of one fact supported by two lies. A triangulation of data designed to dominate the citizen at the point of contact. The two lies, however, change the fundamental structure of the one fact – so that it becomes conveniently distorted. I have a book from Birmingham University dated to 1980 – which states Soviet scientists cannot be trusted because they are loyal to the Communist Party. The same book says nothing about Western scientists being loyal to the capitalist system. Furthermore, it’s initial statement makes no sense and contains no academic relevance or merit – and yet it was used to educate a generation of British students.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a powerful example. The key is how the ‘one fact’ (a Soviet scientist’s party affiliation) is fundamentally distorted by ‘two lies’—the first lie being the omission of any mention of Western scientists’ loyalty to the capitalist system they operated within. This omission then leads to the second lie, which is the conveniently distorted conclusion that one system produces untrustworthy results while the other is pure.
This is precisely the double standard that underpins fact-checking funded by capital and the US government. The Bourgeoisie demands that its adversaries prove their neutrality against an impossibly high standard, while simultaneously treating its own ideological position—supported by corporate and state funding—as the unquestioned default of objective truth. The source of the funding, and therefore the underlying bias, is only a disqualifier for others.
LikeLiked by 1 person