Introduction:
Prior to the 2016 Presidential election, mainstream news outlets were deemed to be a credible source of information but over time that credibility has crumbled. Since Donald Trump was elected President, mainstream media outlets have altered their means of “reporting” news. Media outlets have become overly political and the blatant distortion of facts have unequivocally brainwashed the general public. The feeble minded masses will literally believe anything that the tv tells them to. The willingness to believe anything that coincides with the given narrative, has created an extremely ignorant and volatile society.
The premise behind this article is to provide perspective on how tech companies and mainstream media pundits have deliberately coordinated and planned to control the flow of information, in order to negatively shape public perception. This coordinated effort was designed to intentionally distort reality and program individuals to believe a fictitious reality created through deception and manipulation. The distortion of reality has created division between the people and has resulted in an extremely polarized society. This article (Volume 1) will provide the framework needed to fully understand the level of deception perpetrated onto society by the media. Volume 1 of this series is written to provide perspective and to provoke individuals into doing research and to start asking questions. In Volume 2 of this series, I will provide various examples of intentional deception and lies by the mainstream media which has programmed individuals to believe an alternate version of reality. The purpose of this series is to highlight the political propaganda, deception, lies, social conditioning/programming and manipulation, perpetrated onto the public by big tech and the mainstream media.
How would your views change once you realize the extent of the deception?
Will you continue to allow cognitive dissonance to dictate your reasoning after coming to the realization that you have been deliberately misled and lied to?
Why do you believe big tech and the mainstream media have your best interest in mind, when in reality they are solely pushing an agenda driven narrative?
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. - Thomas Jefferson
Color Revolutions:
In order to understand what is truly going on in our country, one must understand the playbook and framework of Color Revolutions. Color Revolutions are a relatively new form of state destabilization, with the sole purpose of destabilizing a sovereign state through mass chaos and idealogical subversion. All Color Revolutions closely follow the same playbook through many complex factors such as: ideology, finance, social, training, information and media. All of these factors work synergistically to further an agenda and ultimately achieve complete destabilization of a sovereign nation. Color Revolutions are designed to invoke regime changes of political elites through elections, which are subverted by the various complex factors of the alleged “revolutionary” effort.
Framework of Color Revolutions:
Ideology:
Ideology is arguably the most crucial aspect of Color Revolutions and the driving force of change in societies around the world. The term ideology has been increasingly used in the United States, particularly in the months that led up to the 2020 General Election. Our country has been divided into two primary ideologies: Right (Conservative) and Left (Liberal), which has led massive division within the United States. Mainstream media and establishment politicians have played a role in this divisiveness due to leftist mainstream ideology having been imposed on society and which has led to “do and believe what we say, otherwise you’ll be cancelled.” Conservative ideology has been demonized, vilified and censored, which has resulted in a mainstream leftist propaganda echo chamber.
Ideology is thus the initiator of all Color Revolutions. It presents an opposite form of development for a domestic society, and it motivates sympathetic segments of the population to engage in tangible demonstrations to demand change. It will later be seen that the vast majority of these active protesters may not even be aware that their activities are being orchestrated by a higher power (NGO, foreign government). Rather, most of them, as a result of a heavy-handed information campaign promoting the destabilizing ideology, have truly been led to believe that their actions are spontaneous and ‘natural’, and that they represent the inevitable ‘progress’ that all areas of the world are bound to experience sooner or later. The ideology of the individual over the collective (the social aspect of Liberal-Democracy) empowers each and every protester to feel that they are making a unique and significant impact in bringing about this change.
Finance:
The financial aspect plays a pivotal role in the implementation of a Color Revolution. Foreign actors and external contributors of Color Revolutions primarily fund these revolutionary efforts and the most notable financial contributor is the infamous, George Soros. In the United States, a few examples of necessary financing include: funding BLM riots, paying off politicians to cooperate with the defund the police initiative and Mark Zuckerberg pumping millions of dollars into various key swing states during the 2020 General Election. The demands for socialized healthcare, government subsidies and stimulus checks also fall into the finance category of Color Revolutions as examples of idealogical subversion.
Finance allows the Color Revolution to firmly establish itself in society, as well as disseminate its ideas throughout. The more finance, the greater the number of institutions/organizations and the people that they employ. Taken in combination with Social Infrastructure, it is directly supported by Ideology.
Social:
The social aspect of Color Revolutions is broken into three levels: 1. Core (Vanguard), 2. Cohorts (Workers), 3. Civilians (Sympathizers). The core level of this aspect includes people in control of institutions and organizations that aim to bring change through the imposition of Liberal-Democratic ideology. The most notable examples of individuals at the core level include: Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley and Cori Bush. Cohorts, are those that carry out orders from individuals of the core, are the faces of these organizations and institutions, who are deeply rooted in their ideological activism. Examples of individuals at the cohort level include: Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi (BLM founders), Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo and Rachel Maddow. Civilians comprise the third level of the social aspect and enter the playing field when they begin to sympathize a given cause.
Core: These individuals are the vanguard of the Color Revolution. They are the people who control the institutions/organizations that are set in bringing about the Liberal-Democratic change. They are highly trained and maintain direct contact with the external patron (ideological and/or financial).
Cohorts: They carry out administrative or recruiting tasks under the employ of the institution/organization. The Cohorts are the ‘face’ of the organization that most civilians will initially come into contact with. They also perform most of the work for the institution/organization, thereby making them the labor backbone.
Civilians: The Civilians are the regular citizens who the Cohorts come into contact with. They enter into the Social Infrastructure only when they become sympathizers to the cause.
Training:
The concept of training in Color Revolutions is imperative to the success of these revolutionary efforts. The training aspect directly coincides with the social aspect, which further solidifies the destabilization efforts. Training directly increases the capabilities of the information, finance and social aspects of a Color Revolution. Without sufficient training, the odds of success significantly decreases and can hinder the movement from reaching its full potential. A prime example of training: Patrisse Khan-Cullors (co-founder of BLM), described herself as a trained Marxist. Cullors, a protégé of Eric Mann (well known Marxist activist), spent years absorbing Marxist-Leninist ideology that ultimately shaped her worldview. “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”
An institution/organization without effective training is incomplete, handicapped, and incapable of reaching its full potential.
Information:
The informational aspect of Color Revolutions plays a definitive role in the ideological dissemination, the shaping of public perception and stoking division between the people. Social media has completely changed the societal landscape and has provided instant access to individuals all over the country. The use of ideological dissemination via social media has resulted in major division throughout the country and has ultimately created ideological echo chambers. An example of ideological dissemination would be: Corporate censorship on social media of a given ideology (conservatism) and the demonization of those that question the official narrative. The use of propaganda also plays a definitive role in the information aspect. Propaganda is a form of communication with the goal to further a given agenda and shape public perception. Examples of propaganda would be: “Donald Trump is a fascist!”, all conservatives and or white people are inherently racist, Ivermectin is solely a horse dewormer and the claim “pandemic of the unvaccinated!”
This level of infrastructure deals with ideological dissemination, and it is extremely important in assisting with Social Infrastructure recruitment (Cohorts and Civilians). It has two primary elements:
Social Media
Propaganda Materials
Information Infrastructure is also responsible for the following:
Creating software and strategies to map/plan upcoming protests
Connecting the Institution/Organization with other likeminded ones within the country or abroad
Choosing the most symbolic national symbols/songs/nationally significant monuments, squares, parks to associate with the Movement
Media:
The media aspect of Color Revolutions can be best described as the “tipping point” of these destabilization efforts. The use of media helps bring a sense of legitimacy to the movement and further solidifies public perception. Individuals around the country seem to believe that since the tv told them what to think, it has to be credible and true. This mindset has resulted in the cognitive dissonance currently plaguing the country and has created two alternate versions of reality.
If the Traditional Media does report on the Movement (either as a result of New Media pressure or via Movement-friendly outlets), this would make unaware Civilians cognizant of the social civil war ahead of them and provoke a government counterstatement/media response. The government, of course, will not be in favor of any Movement aimed at overthrowing it, so it is compelled to publicly proclaim its opposition to it. This enables the Movement to frame the events in a way that makes the government appear to be ‘suppressing’ the political opposition. Such accusations carry heavy weight in the Western arena of public opinion and can serve to undermine the government’s support among on-the-fence civilians.
‘The Event’:
Color Revolutions are triggered by an “event,” which is a culmination of the momentum generated from the frameworks of the movement (listed above). These events are generally controversial and polarizing, which are intentionally exploited to further the ideological framework and to falsely shape public perception through an agenda driven narrative. The event is used to create chaos and stoke division within a sovereign nation.
Examples of Events are the following:
A rigged election
The jailing of an opposition leader
The signing of (or failure to sign) a controversial piece of legislation
A government crackdown against the opposition or the imposition of martial law
Declaring or being involved in an unpopular war
The above are but a few of the examples of what can constitute the Event. It is not important that these events actually occur in fact or not. What is pivotal is how they are perceived, framed, and narrated to the public at large. Allegations, not proof, of the above are what is most important in creating the catalyst for an Event. It must always be remembered that the Movement can provoke any of these events (or the perception that they had occurred).
Given this information on the framework of Color Revolutions, an open minded individual can begin to form the conclusion that the United States has been in a Color Revolution for the last 18-24 months. To come to this realization that this is happening throughout the country, an individual must view past and current events from an aerial perspective. Attempt to view things from a 40,000ft aerial view rather than face value, doing this will make everything make a lot more sense. Mainstream media intentionally plays on the emotions of the public, which disrupts logic and critical thinking.
Color Revolutions Explained:
In order to further understand Color Revolutions, we need to apply the framework of Color Revolutions to various events that have unfolded throughout the country. Read the contents of the chart provided below and compare to the events that have unfolded in our country from a 40,000ft aerial perspective. If an individual can apply the contents of the chart to the events listed below from an aerial perspective, the purpose of this section will start to become evident.
Excerpts from this article help tie together the framework of Color Revolutions, with various events that have unfolded throughout our nation and should provide a sense of clarity behind the purpose of this section. A 40,000ft perspective is vital when attempting to understand what is happening throughout the country. Were you able to read the contents of the chart objectively, take a step back, then apply the chart to various events that have unfolded? If so, the remainder of this article will further peak one’s curiosity and should prompt individuals to begin questioning and researching everything the media has said in the last 18-24 months. If not, Google’s 6-part plan for information dominance should get your attention.
Whistleblower Exposes Google’s 6-part Plan For Information Dominance:
Zach Vorhies, a former senior engineer at Google, spent almost nine years working for the tech giant. In June of 2019, Vorhies released 950 pages of internal documents that outlined Google’s 6-part plan for complete information dominance, through an interview with James O’Keefe and Project Veritas. These internal documents outline Google’s “Machine Learning Fairness” project, which has led to mass censorship on Youtube, Google’s search engine and various news products. Vorhies also released Google’s blacklists and page rank scores for media sites that has led to the manipulation of public opinion. The information that has been censored is primarily from Trump supporters, conservative media pundits and anyone that challenges the narrative, which ultimately proves Google’s political bias. In other words, they are programming people through algorithms that re-rank and censor the internet. Google is manipulating people into believing what they want them to believe, regardless of any factual basis or truth behind the information they push. If you don’t think this is an issue, I encourage you to brush up on how Stalin, Mussolini, Mao and Hitler all came to power with the help of state run media.
Website Blacklist:
Google’s website blacklist shows hundreds of websites and media outlets that were censored in news searches on the Android app, Google Now. Some of the websites include: The Gateway Pundit, Louder with Crowder, Glenn Beck, Redstate, The Conservative Treehouse, and even Total Frat Move. Google’s censorship primarily targets one political ideology, similar to “fact-checkers” suggesting that anything that goes against the narrative is “misinformation.”
Youtube Search Query Blacklist:
Youtube’s blacklist shows hundreds of search queries that have been censored on Youtube. After the release of Project Veritas’s three part “exposing the truth behind the vaccine” series, Youtube decided to remove any video that mentioned any information about the vaccines. Has anyone noticed that if you question the vaccine, you will be censored? Youtube’s blacklist covers a wide variety of topics and demonstrates Google’s power over the flow of information. Something peculiar about this list, is that virtually everything related to the Las Vegas shooting has been blacklisted. In my opinion, this implies that the public doesn’t know the truth about what really happened in Vegas (more than one shooter?). Has the combination of censorship and major push to “force” people into compliance to get the vaccine, made people begin to question the true motive at hand?
Google ‘Single Point of Truth’ for the Definition of ‘News’:
An internal memo from November 27th, 2017, highlights Google’s ambitions to establish a “single point of truth” for the definition of “news,” in efforts to combat “misinformation.” The memo mentions Revamping News Corpus to mitigate the risk of low-quality sources and misinformation, then mentions their Trust Project initiative to develop transparency standards to help people assess what Google claims to be “quality and credible journalism.” Further down the memo, Project Purple Rain: Crisis Response & Escalation is mentioned. The goal of Project Purple Rain is to establish and streamline news to detect and handle misinformation during crises and to install a 24/7 team to monitor these processes. My question is, who ordained Google to be the arbiter of truth?
People Are Programmed:
In the Google powerpoint presentation Fair is not the default, the company talks about the role humans play in machine learning. The presentation talks about how Google’s algorithms are programmed from the collection of training data elicited through “unconscious bias.” Next, the media is filtered, ranked, aggregated, or generated, which leads to “people (like us) are programmed.” Further in the presentation, it discusses how “unconscious bias” leads to “unfair” human perception and outlines their goals to correct (for lack of better words) this “unfair bias.” An example of “unfair bias” provided in the presentation: Female drivers are 47% more likely to be severely injured in an auto accident because, until 2011, female body-type crash test dummies weren’t required by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Are automakers intentionally trying to harm women? Rather Orwellian ideals, but this is to create a hive-mind perception within the general public.
This section is designed to provide perspective for the remainder of the article. Zach Vorhies leaked internal documents that proves Google has intentionally filtered the flow of information and has created a “group think” society based on false perceptions. The media has programmed individuals into the belief of an alternate version of reality solely based on lies, to further their agenda. This is one of the many reasons why I have been adamant about not trusting mainstream media and to turn off the tv. If you believed the majority of the news cycle in 2020 that consisted of: BLM’s “peaceful riots,” Antifa is a “right wing” organization, lockdowns and masks work against the spread of Covid, Covid originated from an animal wet market, Covid is the greatest public health threat to the country, that Trump’s a fascist, the 2020 election was free of fraud, Biden garnered the most votes for a U.S. President, and that the CDC and Fauci truly have your best interests in mind (all of which, are lies). You were programmed to believe a fictitious version of reality, whether you want to believe it or not. It’s not difficult to manipulate people into believing anything, as long as you repeat it enough.
‘Fact-Checkers’ or Paid Propagandists?
Over the past several years, the use of “fact-checkers” has become increasingly prevalent in today’s society. The main purpose of “fact-checkers” has been to attack and discredit anything that challenges the narrative, primarily Trump and conservatives, otherwise known as dissenting speech. Fact checking sites are notorious for manipulating the verbiage of claims, in order to classify said claims as “false,” “misleading,” or “lacking necessary context.” In other words, manipulating context in order to maintain an agenda driven narrative. In this section, I will show how “fact-checkers” are paid propagandists and how they are tied to Color Revolutions.
Politifact:
In December of 2016, Politifact joined a coalition of “fact-checkers” that agreed to help Facebook counter alleged misinformation on people’s news feeds. Shortly after the conclusion of the 2016 General Election campaigns, Facebook introduced a new feature that allowed users to flag posts as a “false news story.” Think about that for a second, Facebook created a feature that allowed regular citizens to determine what is true and what isn’t. If a post garnered enough “false news story” flags, Facebook would send the post to “fact-checkers,” which includes Politifact, Snopes and Factcheck.org. Make note of the date, one month after Donald Trump was elected President. Coincidence? After this feature was introduced, Facebook altered algorithms to suppress a given post from further being spread on the website. Facebook unilaterally decided that they are the arbiter of truth and allowed “fact-checking” companies that they help fund, to ultimately determine what is true and what isn’t. The interesting thing about the concept of “fact-checkers,” is the fact that everything they allege is “false” or “misinformation” directly contradicts the mainstream narrative, meanwhile everything they claim is true coincides with the mainstream narrative. I shouldn’t have to say this, but it is statistically impossible for both of those factors to perfectly align on every news story. This directly implies a coordinated effort to filter the flow of information to the public, thus the public only really knows what big tech wants them to know. Otherwise known as corporate censorship of the internet. History tells us similar measures to control the flow of information were utilized by dictators such as, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao.
Yet, the project has seen substantial criticism. It has been called censorship of the Internet (it’s most certainly is not). It has been seen as being unable to deal with the scale of the problem (a point that has merit, and that I have some thoughts about). And it has been labeled ineffective to cope with the lightning speed in which false news stories start and spread (more work is definitely needed).
What if Facebook could teach its algorithms to spot when the same false or misleading story is being republished on dozens or hundreds of different websites?
As we look ahead to 2018, it’s important to remember how quickly this all came together. The Facebook fact-checking program was up-and-running five weeks after the 2016 election, and four weeks after fact-checkers openly asked Facebook to do more. I say that, because, 2017 was in many ways a beta test.
The information about the partnership between Politifact and Facebook, implies that the implementation of “fact-checkers” was a coordinated effort to control the flow of information, which took place shortly after Donald Trump took office. Politifact claims their work isn’t censorship of the internet, meanwhile they are serving as an arbiter of truth on the internet. Who ordained “fact-checkers” to be the ultimate authority of information and truth? Facebook introduced a feature that regular people can use to label posts and stories as “false,” since when does Karen possess the credibility to determine what’s true and what’s false? Based off of this article, it’s rather apparent the implementation of “fact-checkers” was to negatively shape public perception about Trump and conservative values, with the intention to ensure the 2020 election resulted in a different outcome than the 2016 election.
Politifact: Nonpartisan or Partisan?
Politifact claims to be a nonpartisan fact-checking website to help sort out the “truth” in American politics. On the contrary, Politifact’s 2020 annual report actually implies that Politifact is strictly a partisan media pundit. Keep in mind, Facebook’s “fact checking” program was up just five weeks after Donald Trump was elected in the 2016 election and the partnership with Politifact was formed shortly after.
In the 2020 annual report, Politifact highlights their efforts in the 2020 General Election and their “Trump-O-Meter” tracking efforts. Any media company that has a tracking meter solely for an opposing political candidate, is clearly partisan. Politifact’s claim of being “nonpartisan,” is nothing further from the truth. It’s rather apparent that Politifact pushes a politically driven narrative and the company has a politically motivated agenda.
Explaining the Color Revolutions:
I began this article by providing insight into the framework of Color Revolutions and that it is imperative to view everything happening in the country from an aerial perspective rather than at face value. Before I dive into who funds Politifact, I want to revisit Color Revolutions and highlight one of the main contributing players to these “revolutionary” efforts. A research paper examined various Color Revolutions that have taken place since the year 2000 and dissected the four criteria that must be met for the revolution to succeed. The second criteria discussed, highlights how anti-regime (establishment politicians and leftists) forces are influenced by mass-media and foreign influences.
Make note of the four criteria of Color Revolutions, specifically the second criteria listed. Also make note of the private philanthropist named, George Soros and the organization Open Society Foundation.
Politifact Funding:
Now let’s dive into who funds “fact-checking” pundit, Politifact. The media outlet primarily relies on financial support from the Poynter Institute but also receives funding from major foundations, private donors and social media giants, Facebook and TikTok. Social media giants Facebook and TikTok account for more than 5% of Politifact’s total funding. From 2013-2020, Democracy Fund a “bipartisan” foundation, awarded $1.3 million in grants to expand the “fact-checking” efforts of Politifact. Follow the money, it’s the key.
Democracy Fund Grant to Politifact: (One example)
Democracy Fund Joint Funding Efforts:
Democracy Fund has various collaborative funding effort partnerships, including a partnership with NetGain. The importance of this partnership will be highlighted below.
NetGain Supporting Partners:
NetGain is supported by seven partners: The Ford Foundation ($300,000 in grants to Politifact), John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation ($542,500 in grants to Politifact), Mozilla Foundation, Omidyar Group (Pierre Omidyar founded Politifact), Open Society Foundations and the Wallace Global Fund. Does one of these sound familiar?
Open Society Foundations:
Since 2016, Open Society Foundations has awarded Democracy Fund over $2.8 million in grants. Keep in mind, Democracy Fund is the largest foundational donor of Politifact. Remember how I mentioned to make note of George Soros and the Open Society Foundations?
From Color Revolutions to awarding grant money to foundations that directly help fund “fact-checking” media pundits, an individual that seems to find himself in the middle of it all, is none other than George Soros. Starting to understand why I choose to include the framework of Color Revolutions in this series? For the last 18-24 months, global elites like Soros, have perpetrated a Color Revolution onto the citizens of the United States.
This section highlighted a coordinated effort by big tech and “fact-checking” media pundits to control the flow of information and ultimately act as the arbiter of truth within the country. Facebook’s “fact-checking” features were implemented five weeks after the 2016 election, to counter alleged misinformation that doesn’t coincide with the agenda driven narrative. Politifact joined a coalition of “fact-checkers” to work in coordination with Facebook, with the intention to help sort out the “truth” within American politics and society as a whole. Politifact claims to be a nonpartisan organization, but the coordinated effort to attack anything that Trump and conservatives say and the use of a Trump-O-Meter significantly proves otherwise. Politifact is funded in part by Facebook and various other foundations, which includes Democracy Fund who has direct financial ties to George Soros and Open Society Foundations. Soros and the Open Society Foundations are notorious for the involvement and subversion of democratic processes in numerous countries around the world and are best known from the utilization and implementation of Color Revolutions.
Do you get it yet?
KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov:
In an interview from 1985, KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov explains how the KGB manipulated U.S. public opinion through the use of idealogical subversion. This interview helps further explains the utilization of ideological subversion in present day United States. The topics discussed in this interview directly tie into Color Revolutions and the events that have unfolded in the United States over the last several years. Bezmenov explains that this “brainwashing” process is divided into four basic stages.
Demoralization: “This step takes 15-20 years to complete due to the minimum number of years it takes to educate one generation of students through the exposure to the ideology of the enemy. Marxism and Leninism ideologies are pumped into the heads of at least three generations of students without being challenged by the basic values of American Patriotism. The programming of these individuals is irreversible.”
Destabilization: “This step takes 2-5 years and focuses on essentials. Destabilization primarily targets defense and the economy.”
Crisis: “It may only take up to 6 weeks to bring a country onto the verge of a crisis.”
Normalization: “A violent change of power, structure and economy, that may last indefinitely. This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all of the shmucks to bring the country to crisis. To promise people all kinds of goodies and a paradise on Earth. To destabilize the economy, to eliminate the principle of free market competition and to put a “big brother” government in Washington D.C. with benevolent dictators.”
If you listen to what Bezmenov explains, it’s not difficult to see these things playing out in real time in the United States. Demoralization through the indoctrination of students with socialist and communist ideologies that promise people “all kinds of goodies and paradise on Earth,” Bernie Sanders refers to this as “Democratic Socialism.” Meanwhile, Democratic Socialism doesn’t exist. Destabilization through the destruction of the economy and disruption of our defense with the military being divided with vaccine mandates. The United States is on the verge of a complete supply chain collapse which will lead into a national crisis. And normalization through the emphasis that vaccine boosters will be needed on a consistent basis, the demonization of anyone that questions the narrative and the push for a digital banking system that is tied to a digital vaccine passport.
I encourage everyone to watch this video and compare to the events unfolding in America today. This should scare the hell out of everyone. We are headed down a dark path but only if we allow this to happen. This video will also be extremely applicable to Volume 2 of this series.
Final Points:
The purpose of this article is to provide insight into how the mainstream media, social media and big tech companies have colluded together to filter the flow of information in the United States. Understanding the framework of Color Revolutions is imperative when trying to make sense of the immense polarization and division within our country. Google’s very own internal documents explicitly state that their goal is to achieve information dominance by establishing a “single point of truth” and redefining “news.” The tech giant’s documents also show the company is intentionally programming individuals to unequivocally think like “them.” Facebook introduced “fact-checking” features just five weeks after the 2016 General Election and shortly after, Politifact joined a coalition in cooperation with Facebook to counter alleged misinformation and to sort out the “truth” in American politics. Politifact’s 2020 annual report clearly indicates the “fact-checking” media pundit is a partisan organization fueled by a politically motivated agenda. Democracy Fund, the main source of external funding for Politifact, has direct financial ties to none other than George Soros and Open Society Foundations. Soros is most notably known for his involvement and subversion of countries democratic processes, through the utilization of Color Revolutions. Starting to make sense yet?
The purpose of this article was to provide the perspective framework needed to fully understand the level of deception coordinated by big tech and mainstream media outlets on the general public. I have been adamant about not blindly trusting mainstream media and to turn off the tv and this article should provide clarity as to why I have been so adamant about this. In Volume 2 of this series, I provide information that suggests big tech and the mainstream media have coordinated to program individuals into the belief that the 2020 election was the safest and most secure. I also show connections between various foundations that have planned to subvert American Democracy and how they all tie back to George Soros and the Open Society Foundations.