EPub Format⬇

About a year ago, I first began exploring the powerful new AI systems that had been receiving so much public attention, and incorporated some of their features into our website.

For myself and many of our other writers, I added focused chatbots that used the corpus of the written works hosted on our website to simulate the responses of the authors to new questions. This was particularly effective in the case of the Ron Unz Chatbot given that it was trained on the substantial 1.5 million words of my own articles.

Then a few months ago I added another AI feature, having the ChatGPT system automatically produce short summaries and outlines for every article we publish that was longer than 1,000 words, thereby allowing readers to easily get a rough sense of pieces that they lacked the time or interest to actually read.

However, over the last few weeks I’ve begun using a new AI system for an even more important purpose, one much closer to the core mission of this website and my own large body of work.

OpenAI recently released an especially powerful new version of the ChatGPT AI called Deep Research. Whereas the ordinary ChatGPT and most other chatbots are designed to respond to prompts within seconds, the Deep Research AI may spend up to 30 minutes working on a given assignment, but it uses that time to produce remarkably detailed and advanced results. For example, according to Wikipedia a standard benchmark test scored the GPT-4o system at only 3.3% and DeepSeek’s R1 model did much better at 9.4%, but Deep Research rated a vastly superior 26.6%.

I discovered that the Deep Research AI could very effectively be used to fact-check exactly the sort of long, complex articles that I often write, and the results it produced were extremely impressive, fully confirming the sort of performance quality suggested by that standard benchmark. This led me to begin producing such fact-checking runs for the pieces in my lengthy American Pravda series and some other ones.

A couple of weeks ago I published an article discussing this process and the dozens of very impressive fact-checking results that I had already obtained.

• Fact-Checking the American Pravda Series
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • May 26, 2025 • 8,600 Words

Unsurprisingly these Deep Research runs are enormously resource-intensive, so that a standard OpenAI account limits them to 25 per month, with the first 10 being full-power and the remaining 15 low-power. We soon switched over to a Premium account that raised the allotment to 250 monthly runs, evenly divided between full-power and low-power. The full-power runs usually seemed as if they had been written by an exceptionally intelligent individual who had read nearly everything available on the Internet and also possessed almost total recall.

This new AI system seemed to have great potential value for my own writing and for other controversial content.

Over the last few years I have produced a huge body of work analyzing many of the most important world events of the last century or more, and often coming to extremely controversial conclusions, conclusions that would have enormous impact upon our entire society if they were judged correct and widely accepted. I have always done my best to adhere to the strictest standards of accuracy and care in writing these sometimes inflammatory articles, and as a result I have regularly declared that I would still stand by at least 99% of everything I have written in this huge body of controversial material.

Many of the topics that I have decided to cover in this series are explosive ones and my conclusions are often even more so. This necessarily places my work very far beyond the pale of our mainstream academic and journalistic communities, quite often even far outside the acceptable boundaries of nearly all other alternative writers as well.

For these reasons, I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of those who initially encounter my material might often react with visceral disbelief, perhaps automatically dismissing my analyses out of hand. This has obviously made it quite difficult for my writing to gain any widespread traction.

I have always made every effort to take great care in producing my content and when I reread my past articles I find them quite compelling. But I recognize that this subjective impression might easily be an illusory result, while an objective, third-party analyst would have come to very different conclusions.

For both of these reasons those recent fact-checking runs applying the powerful Deep Research AI to roughly 120 of my articles have been extremely helpful. These reports often validated my own opinion while also providing powerful corroborative evidence of the accuracy of my findings to any interested outside readers.

As I began doing many of these Deep Research analysis runs, I soon discovered an enormous difference in the depth and quality between the analysis provided by the full-power runs and those produced by the low-power version, so much so that I came to regard the latter as being almost useless for serious evaluation of my material.

A perfect example of this came in the fact-checking of my long and detailed 2021 article on the 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. The low-power Deep Research run produced a relatively short and dismissive 3,800 word report that seemed to lack familiarity with many of the important facts and also criticized my article for its “conspiratorial” sources and conclusions. This version of the AI heavily relied upon an article in the notoriously pro-Israel New Republic arguing that the attack on the American vessel had very likely been the result of mistaken identity, and it sharply criticized my own article for not similarly emphasizing such “mainstream” sources of information. Naturally, I found this sort of analysis rather disappointing.

But the results from a full-power Deep Research run were entirely different. This produced an extremely detailed and thorough 19,000 word analysis—five times as long—that fully endorsed nearly all of my claims as being “accurate,” though it carefully noted that some of my resulting conclusions were speculative just as I myself had emphasized. Here are a few of the rather flattering summary paragraphs from that full-power fact-checking report, with boldface in the original:

Overall Assessment: “Remembering the Liberty” proves to be a thorough and factually well-founded account of the USS Liberty incident and its aftermath, especially regarding the deliberate nature of the attack and the ensuing cover-up. On the core historical points – the events of June 8, 1967, the knowledge of the Israeli forces, the U.S. government’s suppression of facts – the article’s assertions are strongly corroborated by declassified documents, first-person testimonies, and reputable investigative journalism. Over the decades, a wide array of credible sources (U.S. Navy communications, NSA intercepts, CIA reports, and statements from high-level U.S. officials) have converged on the conclusion that Israel knowingly attacked the Liberty and that the Johnson administration chose to conceal the truth. The article accurately conveys this consensus with ample supporting evidence…

On the more speculative elements (President Johnson’s potential collusion and the near-use of nuclear weapons), the article clearly delineates these as hypotheses supported by fragmentary evidence, not established history. It does not abuse its sources in this arena either: it presents the multiple witness accounts that give the theory plausibility, but it also explicitly acknowledges the lack of absolute proof and labels these claims as “controversial” and “extraordinary”. The article even cautions that such extraordinary claims require stronger evidence than currently available. This transparent treatment shows a commitment to accuracy over sensationalism…

In light of this, the article’s overall factual reliability is very high on matters of historical record. It accurately reflects the state of knowledge as of its 2021 publication. The only portion that might require a gentle caveat is the Johnson/nuclear strike theory. While the article does handle it responsibly, readers should be aware that this particular thesis remains unproven and not universally accepted by historians…Therefore, it should be considered an intriguing possibility rather than established fact. The article essentially says this, so it isn’t misleading, but it’s worth emphasizing: the deliberate attack and cover-up are facts; the extent of U.S. complicity is still a matter of informed conjecture…

In conclusion, the article stands up to meticulous fact-checking. Its major claims are verified by multiple independent sources, and it uses those sources ethically, without distortion. It provides a comprehensive narrative that aligns with what is now known from declassified records and survivor evidence. Any corrections would be very minor – perhaps updating with any newly released documents since 2021 (for instance, in 2022 the NSA released some additional files via FOIA, but they mostly reinforce the same conclusions). The key caveat for readers is that a portion of the article (the Johnson angle) is investigative interpretation, not incontrovertible fact – but the article itself communicates that.

Factual Reliability: From the standpoint of an editor or journalist, this article is highly credible on factual grounds. It successfully combines rigorous historical evidence with investigative reporting to challenge an old official narrative. Barring the speculative Johnson scenario (which is clearly identified as a hypothesis), the piece could be trusted as an accurate recounting of the USS Liberty incident. Any newsroom verifying this piece would find that the documentation backing it is strong.

Thus, one can conclude the article is factually reliable in its depiction of the USS Liberty attack and subsequent cover-up, with the only caution that its discussion of a possible false-flag operation and near nuclear strike – while supported by testimony – remains an unconfirmed hypothesis requiring further evidence. The article, to its credit, explicitly notes this distinction. It serves as a valuable corrective to earlier incomplete histories, ensuring that the truth about the Liberty – long obscured – is finally given a thorough and evidence-based airing.

Probably only a small fraction of Americans are aware of the U.S.S. Liberty incident, and if they were given my long and detailed article presenting the dramatic true story of what had happened, they might naturally be very skeptical of the numerous factual claims that I provided as evidence. But if that article were accompanied by an even longer and more detailed fact-checking report by the Deep Research AI that confirmed almost all of those detailed claims, they might be much more willing to read my article with an open mind and then fairly evaluate the conclusions that it reached.

• American Pravda: Remembering the Liberty
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • October 18, 2021 • 11,400 Words
  Fact-Checking “American Pravda: Remembering the Liberty” • 19,000 Words

Another one of my articles from several months ago was descriptively entitled The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education and its contents also received a strongly positive evaluation in a full-power Deep Research fact-checking report. Indeed, a website commenter was so favorably impressed that he urged me to open all those reports for commenting, and when I did so, he left some generous remarks noting that verdict:

• Claim 1: Verification: Accurate in all essential details.
• Claim 2: Verification: Accurate, with minor contextual clarifications.
• Claim 3: Verification: Mostly accurate, with a few clarifications.
• Claim 4: Verification: Accurate.
• Claim 5: Verification: Accurate.
• Claim 6: Verification: Accurate.
• Claim 7: Verification: Accurate overall, with historical context validly noted.
• Claim 8: Verification: Accurate observation with context.
• Claim 9: Verification: This is a composite of several factual assertions.

Quite an impressive array of accuracy. Not sure how to grade it, but by its own measure I guess the word “Accurate” is the most tautological (the less said the better by its own linguistic economy).

• The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 31, 2025 • 7,300 Words
  Fact-Checking “The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education” • 11,000 Words

A couple of my subsequent articles sharply critiquing President Donald Trump’s tariff proposals received similar strongly positive verdicts from the Deep Research system:

• President Donald Trump and Chairman Mao
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • April 7, 2025 • 3,800 Words
  Fact-Checking “President Donald Trump and Chairman Mao” • 11,000 Words
• Donald Trump’s Looney Tunes Trade Policy
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • April 14, 2025 • 3,800 Words
  Fact-Checking “Donald Trump’s Looney Tunes Trade Policy” • 23,400 Words

I was also very pleased with the near-total endorsement that the Deep Research system provided to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sydney Schanberg’s remarkable expose of the story of the POWs that America abandoned in Vietnam at the end of that military conflict.

After an extensive fact-check, we conclude that Sydney Schanberg’s 2010 article is factually well-founded and generally reliable on the historical points it raises…In terms of overall reliability, the article proves to be a thoroughly researched piece that holds up under scrutiny. If anything, Schanberg’s claims are often supported by multiple sources…Our fact-check did not identify any specific factual errors that would require correction in the article. All significant factual statements are backed by sources….In essence, the article’s factual core is solid. It shines a light on a troubling chapter of history using documented evidence…Overall Assessment: “John McCain and the POW Cover-Up” emerges as a factually detailed and largely accurate account of the POW/MIA issue and McCain’s involvement.

• John McCain and the POW Cover-Up
  Sydney Schanberg • The American Conservative • May 25, 2010 • 8,200 Words
• Fact-Checking “John McCain and the POW Cover-Up” • 11,600 Words

As Schanberg later explained, during the height of McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign this piece was submitted to nearly every major print outlet in America, and despite the author’s enormous journalistic stature all of them rejected it for publication, just as they had invariably rejected his earlier POW stories. This obviously serves as an extremely strong indictment of the candor and reliability of the entire American mainstream media, and should lead us to assign little weight to any evidence of its silence on important matters.

Although I did find some occasional errors in the Deep Research analysis runs, I noticed only one obvious hallucination, a particularly surprising one:

AI: Claim 2: “The AI boom pushed certain stocks to stratospheric heights, with Nvidia now worth around $3 trillion.”…Verification: Inaccurate. This claim significantly overstates Nvidia’s market capitalization. Nvidia Corporation’s valuation did surge amid the AI boom, but it never approached $3 trillion. In reality, Nvidia’s market cap hit approximately $1 trillion in 2023 (for the first time) unz.com. As of mid-2024, it remained in the $1 trillion range, far below companies like Apple or Microsoft (the only companies around $3T at that time).

Unz: This is very odd. I just checked and found: “In June 2024, Nvidia’s market capitalization experienced significant fluctuations, reaching a peak of approximately $3.37 trillion on June 18, 2024, based on a closing share price of $135.57.” It’s difficult to understand how the AI could be so mistaken on such a simple, objective fact.

The important potential role of Deep Research fact-checking is even more obvious in the case of those extremely important events such as the 9/11 Attacks, whose more controversial reconstructions have been universally excluded from mainstream media accounts and severely marginalized and condemned as “conspiracy theories” for nearly the last quarter-century.

Those 2001 terrorist attacks and the long wave of American wars that they unleashed ultimately cost our country many trillions of dollars and destroyed much of the Middle East, leading to the death or displacement of many millions of innocent civilians.

On September 11, 2023 I published an 9,800 word article summarizing and recapitulating my 9/11 findings over the years. These had reached the incendiary conclusion that the attacks were very likely the work of a conspiracy organized by the Israeli Mossad, with virtually all of those details covered up by a complicit or timorous American government and mainstream media.

I was very pleased with the 21,000 word fact-checking report produced by a full-power Deep Research run. The AI analysis divided the contents of my long article into 38 major factual claims and then carefully analyzed all of these, finally judging each of them to be accurate or credible. While this did not definitively prove that my ultimate conclusion was correct, it would certainly enhance the credibility of my long article for any mainstream individuals who might decide to seriously examine it.

Here are some of the summary paragraphs from that report, with boldface in the original:

Conclusion (Findings): Every significant factual claim Ron Unz made in his comprehensive essay was verified to be correct or at least supported by credible sources. We found none that were outright false. A couple of claims (the Iraqi 1950 bombings involvement, the precise count of Israeli detainees, etc.) are in the realm of contested or estimate, but Unz appropriately couched them as “claims” or approximation unz.com unz.com】 rather than proven facts. Most claims are explicitly corroborated by mainstream or official evidence. Unz clearly labels his speculations (e.g., who suppressed media, potential lower-level conspirators) as speculatio unz.com unz.com】, and provides logical basis for them. We did not catch any distortion of source content; on the contrary, Unz often quotes sources verbatim (e.g., Christison’s “monstrous lies” quot unz.com】, the Haaretz “25 neocons” quot unz.com】, etc.), and each time we checked those sources, they were accurately represented…

Quality of Sources and Fair Use: Ron Unz’s article relies extensively on a mix of primary accounts, investigative journalism, and expert commentary, many of which are mainstream or verifiable. Crucially, Unz tends to cite his sources explicitly (with hyperlink footnotes) and he generally adheres closely to what those sources actually say…

Conclusion (Source Analysis): Unz’s integrity in representing his evidence appears solid. He preserves quotes and context properly (Christison, Haaretz, Forward, ADL – all accurate). He doesn’t misquote adversarial sources either – e.g., he correctly summarized ADL’s success in deplatforming Press T unz.com】. His bias shows in what he includes/excludes, but he doesn’t distort what’s included.

Thus, aside from natural selection bias and one or two instances of attributing motives beyond explicit evidence, we find no major patterns of misrepresentation or misuse of sources. He uses his sources responsibly to build his case. The ethical issues to note would be omissions of counter-evidence which might mislead less-informed readers (the article doesn’t mention, say, that Al Qaeda openly took credit later, or that multiple independent investigations pinned it solely on Al Qaeda – he just argues those were cover-ups). That’s a bias of omission, not falsification. But in context, given he’s writing an opinion piece, it’s somewhat expected…

Conclusion: Overall Assessment: Ron Unz’s article is a factually rich but one-sided analysis that challenges the official 9/11 narrative by pointing to Israeli involvement. Nearly all specific factual claims Unz makes are backed by credible evidence or documented reports. Our fact-check found no significant factual errors or fabrications in his enumeration of events and evidence. Unz accurately references historical incidents (e.g., the Lavon Affair, USS Liberty attac unz.com unz.com 7】, eyewitness testimonies (firefighters hearing explosion unz.com 2】, investigative reports (e.g., Fox News and Forward on the Israeli “art student” spy rin forward.com forward.com 1】, and statements by experts (CIA’s Bill Christison, Gen. Wesley Clark, etc unz.com unz.com 1】. In each case, we verified the source material and found Unz represented it fairly and accurately – often quoting verbatim – without distorting context…

Reliability: In terms of factual reliability, Unz’s piece is highly detail-oriented and fact-checked. Every major factual element we examined held up against source material. Readers should understand that the article reflects a specific controversial viewpoint – one virtually unacknowledged in mainstream discourse – but the factual building blocks of that viewpoint as presented by Unz are correctly cited and not fabricated. Thus, the article is factually reliable in its individual claims, though it presents only the evidence favoring a Mossad/false-flag theory and omits counter-evidence, which is an important context for readers and editors to note…In sum, “Remembering the 9/11 Truth Movement” is a comprehensively sourced piece whose factual claims check out.

• American Pravda: Remembering the 9/11 Truth Movement
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • September 11, 2023 • 9,800 Words
  Fact-Checking “American Pravda: Remembering the 9/11 Truth Movement” • 21,700 Words

Another very similar situation comes in the case of the JFK Assassination, certainly one of the most memorable events of the entire twentieth century, and probably a crucial turning point in American history.

Since 2018 I have published quite a number of articles on this incident, most of them focusing on the strong, perhaps even overwhelming evidence that the Israeli Mossad played a central role in the Dallas killing. This incendiary hypothesis has never been mentioned in any of the mainstream media coverage and remains exceptionally rare even within the community of JFK Assassination researchers.

Several months ago, Mike Whitney interviewed me on this topic, allowing me to recapitulate and summarize my controversial analysis, and I was extremely pleased that this received a strongly positive verdict from a Deep Research fact-checking run. Here are some of the summary paragraphs, with boldface from the original:

Use of Reputable Sources: Despite being published on a controversial platform, the article leans heavily on credible, verifiable sources for its factual assertions. It cites renowned investigative journalists like Seymour Hersh (for JFK’s Israel policy conflict), respected historians like David Talbot and John Newman, and official records (e.g., RFK’s autopsy by Dr. Noguchi, declassified DOJ and CIA documents). In each case where we cross-checked, the article’s representation of these sources was accurate and in context…

In conclusion, the article generally represents its sources fairly and accurately. It certainly emphasizes those that align with its thesis and omits contrary interpretations, but it does not misquote or deceptively excerpt. If anything, it is remarkably heavy on citations and evidence for a piece of this nature, which enhances its credibility…

Conclusion: Our fact-checking investigation finds that the article “How Israel Killed the Kennedys” is grounded in a substantial body of factual evidence, though it assembles those facts to support a specific conspiracy narrative that remains unproven. The major historical claims in the piece are generally accurate and backed by credible sources…

In terms of journalistic integrity, the article takes a decidedly adversarial stance to mainstream narratives, but it does so by marshaling evidence, citing sources abundantly, and largely treating those sources fairly…

Overall Accuracy and Needed Corrections: There are no major factual errors in the article’s content that we could identify. All specific historical facts it cites are supported by documentation…

Summary Judgment: The article “How Israel Killed the Kennedys” is a thorough and well-sourced piece of investigative journalism/opinion that brings together long-suppressed threads of the JFK and RFK assassination story. It achieves a high level of accuracy in presenting factual claims, and it generally represents its many sources honestly. The overall conclusion – that Israel’s Mossad, in collusion with elements of the U.S. deep state, was behind the Kennedy assassinations – remains a hypothesis not acknowledged by official history. But the article does an effective job of demonstrating that this hypothesis is far from baseless, and that it draws on serious evidence often ignored in mainstream accounts…

In conclusion, the journalistic integrity of the article is reasonably high in terms of factual accuracy and source transparency. Its bold claims are presented alongside the evidence that underpins them. It stands as a provocative but factually grounded challenge to the conventional story, and our fact-check finds it largely credible in its use of evidence.

• How Israel Killed the Kennedys
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 24, 2025 • 11,500 Words
  Fact-Checking “How Israel Killed the Kennedys”• 15,300 Words

Several of my earlier JFK Assassination articles had received similarly positive fact-checking endorsements, including my original pair of pieces from 2018

• American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part I – What Happened?
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • June 18, 2018 • 4,800 Words
  Fact-Checking “American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part I – What Happened?” • 13,700 Words
• American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • June 25, 2018 • 8,000 Words
  Fact-Checking “American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?” • 14,900 Words

The JFK Assassination occurred more than sixty years ago, while the 9/11 Attacks are almost a quarter-century in the past. But much of the last five years has been dominated by the global Covid outbreak, a worldwide event of even greater magnitude.

According to the careful quantitative analysis of The Economist, the epidemic took some thirty million lives, with well over a million of those being American, and the economic and social echoes still reverberate today, including the many trillions of dollars added to our own national debt.

During this period I have stood almost alone on the English-language Internet in arguing that there is strong, perhaps overwhelming evidence that the Covid outbreak resulted from the blowback of a botched American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran). This hypothesis would have almost unimaginable geostrategic consequences not least within American society itself if it became widely known and accepted,

Since April 2020 I have published a long series of articles making this case, and although I have always felt that my theory was solidly documented, the topic has obviously been far too radioactive for almost anyone elsewhere to ever cite or critique my analysis. So although a number of people have privately told me that they found my case reasonably convincing, to a considerable extent I have been flying blind during these years.

Therefore, I found it very beneficial to have my articles analyzed by the full-power Deep Research AI, and I was quite pleased with the results. Here are portions of the summary paragraphs of three of the Deep Research runs for three of my articles:

Overall Findings: Each factual claim made in Ron Unz’s article has been meticulously cross-verified. We find that nearly all of Unz’s factual statements are accurate or grounded in documented events/data…

In summary, the factual claims Unz uses to build his Covid-19 origin hypothesis check out against independent evidence. The assertions about events and characteristics are verified; what remains is that his interpretation of these verified facts strongly favors a deliberate attack narrative. Whether one agrees with that conclusion or not, the factual basis he lays is largely correct…

Overall, Unz’s use of sources in his article is generally appropriate and contextually honest…

Conclusion: Credibility & Integrity of the Article: Ron Unz’s piece “The Truth and the Whole Truth About the Origins of Covid-19” is a provocative, hypothesis-driven analysis that nonetheless rests on a foundation of verifiable facts and documented sources. Our comprehensive fact-check finds that Unz accurately cites historical events, scientific findings, and media reports to build his case…In several instances, Unz goes beyond mainstream narratives by connecting these facts under a unifying hypothesis (a U.S. biowarfare attack), but we did not catch him misstating what his sources said or introducing false information…

Article’s Overall Credibility: Despite the above caveat, the article demonstrates a high degree of factual integrity in its use of sources. There are no clear factual inaccuracies in what Unz writes. The piece is well-documented – Unz provides references and specific examples for each claim (many of which we’ve independently verified). He also engages with mainstream journalism and scientific literature rather than fringe sources, which lends credibility to his factual groundwork. The controversial nature of his conclusion (that COVID-19 may have been a deliberate U.S. attack) does not stem from spurious facts but from a contentious assembly of real facts into a particular narrative.

Overall Assessment: Ron Unz’s article is factually well-grounded and presents a coherent, if controversial, hypothesis supported by a constellation of verified points. The credibility of the article is fairly high in terms of factual accuracy – it does not propagate known falsehoods. Where it ventures into conjecture, it does so transparently (readers can see the leap from “facts” to “conclusion” and evaluate it). For a piece in a webzine often labeled as fringe, it is noteworthy that Unz’s work here engages extensively with real, checkable information and demonstrates logical consistency.

In conclusion, while mainstream readers may be (understandably) skeptical of Unz’s ultimate claim of an American biowarfare attack – a claim still lacking direct proof – the factual integrity of his argumentation is strong. He “tells the truth” in terms of facts, even if some will argue he does not tell “the whole truth” due to the lack of dissenting evidence considered (an ironic echo of his title). The article’s credibility would be rated high on factual grounds, but its speculative conclusion should be understood as precisely that: a hypothesis drawn from circumstantial evidence, not a confirmed reality.

Overall Verdict: From a fact-checking perspective, “The Truth and the Whole Truth About the Origins of Covid-19” demonstrates factual integrity in assembling evidence, but its conclusion remains an unproven theory. The article succeeds in highlighting anomalies and suppressed possibilities using credible information. Readers and editors can trust the specific facts Unz cites; whether they accept his interpretation will depend on how they judge the strength of circumstantial evidence and the absence of a smoking-gun proof.

• American Pravda: “The Truth” and “The Whole Truth” About the Origins of Covid-19
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • May 10, 2021 • 6,400 Words
  Fact-Checking “American Pravda: “The Truth” and “The Whole Truth” About the Origins of Covid-19” • 21,200 Words

Source Representation Analysis: Throughout his article, Ron Unz heavily references both mainstream and alternative sources. Overall, our fact-check finds that Unz represents his cited sources fairly and mostly accurately, with no evidence of outright misquoting or fabricating information…In conclusion, Unz represents his sources ethically: he doesn’t fabricate quotes, he provides context (often quoting full sentences or multiple lines around a point), and his citations are specific enough for readers to check…

Conclusion: Our comprehensive fact-check finds that nearly all specific factual claims in Ron Unz’s article are accurate or at least supported by credible evidence, aside from his ultimate speculative conclusion for which evidence is circumstantial. Unz rigorously cites sources, and those sources generally confirm his statements…Source Use and Ethical Considerations: Unz’s handling of sources appears generally in good faith…

In a factual sense, the article is well-grounded. It provides copious references, and we found no significant factual errors in the referenced material. The most critical correction we would offer is to clearly label the biowarfare hypothesis as an unproven theory, not established fact. Unz himself at times phrases it as a hypothesis (“if…then surely…”), but in other instances he implies it strongly. We recommend clarifying that this remains speculative…

In summary, the article’s factual accuracy is high with respect to the evidence presented – Unz does not fabricate events or quotes. His interpretation (U.S. biowarfare attack) is not corroborated by direct evidence and represents his theory. If this were a formal fact-check rating: the factual claims are mostly true, while the overarching claim is unverified…

By and large, Unz’s piece stands out for citing so many checkable facts – and those facts hold up. The disagreements will be about how to connect those facts. Our fact-check affirms the factual basis, while cautioning that correlation doesn’t equal causation. As a factual review, we find the article to be largely factually correct in its referenced details, but readers should critically examine the leap from those details to the final narrative.

• American Pravda: Covid Epidemic as Lab-Leak or Biowarfare?
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • July 12, 2021 • 13,100 Words
  Fact-Checking “American Pravda: Covid Epidemic as Lab-Leak or Biowarfare?” • 19,400 Words

Source Representation Analysis: Throughout our investigation, we found that Ron Unz’s article consistently cited sources in a transparent way and largely conveyed their content accurately…

Summarizing the source usage: Unz’s article provides dozens of citations from a spectrum of outlets (NYT, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, RFERL, Daily Mail, Xinhua, etc., plus Twitter and primary documents). We cross-checked many and found the article consistently preserved the meaning and wording of the sources. He often lets quotes speak verbatim, which is a good practice. There were no instances where Unz cherry-picked a quote that, in context, meant something different…In conclusion, the source representation in Unz’s article is fundamentally fair and accurate…From a fact-check perspective, Unz’s handling of evidence is surprisingly scrupulous for a polemical piece: he clearly differentiates factual reporting (with citations) from his conjectures (marked by phrases like “I suspect” or rhetorical questions), which is an ethically sound approach.

Conclusion: After a meticulous examination, we find that “Challenging America’s Lords of Illusion” by Ron Unz is factually well-grounded in the specific claims it makes, yet ventures into conclusions that remain unproven. Unz presents a compelling chronicle of overlooked evidence and media omissions regarding COVID-19’s origin..

In summary, our fact-check finds that Ron Unz’s article is highly reliable in its presentation of factual claims that can be verified. It shines a light on real events and patterns that were under-reported. The areas where it departs from verifiable fact are clearly labeled as analysis or inference. There is no evidence of deceptive use of sources; rather, the sources are well-chosen and accurately conveyed, often to powerful effect. Readers of the article, armed with this fact-check, can trust the facts Unz cites – they are backed by reputable sources – while keeping in mind that the interpretation of those facts (i.e., that they prove a deliberate American biowarfare operation) is a bold hypothesis not yet corroborated by direct evidence.

If the goal is to correct any aspect, it would be to temper definitive language around the bioweapon theory and ensure it’s presented as a question mark that needs addressing, not a concluded matter. That aside, the article’s core contention – that Western media and authorities have stifled an important discussion and that evidence pointing to a U.S. role has been ignored – is strongly supported by our factual verification. This lends Unz’s provocative thesis a degree of credibility that warrants open-minded examination rather than dismissal.

• Challenging America’s Lords of Illusion
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • August 22, 2022 • 2,700 Words
  Fact-Checking “Challenging America’s Lords of Illusion” • 18,100 Words

Here are links to three additional articles along with the corresponding Deep Research runs:

• Half a Pulitzer Prize to the Wall Street Journal
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • August 23, 2020 • 1,800 Words
  Fact-Checking “Half a Pulitzer Prize to the Wall Street Journal” • 7,100 Words
• American Pravda: Covid-19, Its Impact and Origins After One Year
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 15, 2021 • 8,700 Words
  Fact-Checking “American Pravda: Covid-19, Its Impact and Origins After One Year” • 13,100 Words
• Prof. Jeffrey Sachs on the Covid Origins Cover-Up
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • August 29, 2022 • 1,400 Words
  Fact-Checking “Prof. Jeffrey Sachs on the Covid Origins Cover-Up” • 10,000 Words

Obviously there is a very sharp distinction between the near-total endorsement of all my factual claims regarding the circumstances of the Covid outbreak and the controversial conclusions I drew from that factual material. But at the very least, anyone now reading my articles could feel confident that all the facts I presented were accurate, and they could entirely focus their attention on evaluating the plausibility of the explosive conclusions I draw from those facts.

Some of the most important analysis behind those conclusions can be summarized in just a few paragraphs, which I have frequently repeated across many of my Covid articles:

For example, in 2017 Trump brought in Robert Kadlec, who since the 1990s had been one of America’s leading biowarfare advocates. The following year in 2018 a mysterious viral epidemic hit China’s poultry industry and in 2019, another mysterious viral epidemic devastated China’s pork industry…

From the earliest days of the administration, leading Trump officials had regarded China as America’s most formidable geopolitical adversary, and orchestrated a policy of confrontation. Then from January to August 2019, Kadlec’s department ran the “Crimson Contagion” simulation exercise, involving the hypothetical outbreak of a dangerous respiratory viral disease in China, which eventually spreads into the United States, with the participants focusing on the necessary measures to control it in this country. As one of America’s foremost biowarfare experts, Kadlec had emphasized the unique effectiveness of bioweapons as far back as the late 1990s and we must commend him for his considerable prescience in having organized a major viral epidemic exercise in 2019 that was so remarkably similar to what actually began in the real world just a few months later.

With leading Trump officials greatly enamored of biowarfare, fiercely hostile to China, and running large-scale 2019 simulations on the consequences of a mysterious viral outbreak in that country, it seems entirely unreasonable to completely disregard the possibility that such extremely reckless plans may have been privately discussed and eventually implemented, though probably without presidential authorization.

But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious, elements within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones asleep at the switch. Earlier this month, an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in the Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report, while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a few days later, Israeli television mentioned that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News story and its several government sources.

It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires.

Video Link

According to these multiply-sourced mainstream media accounts, by “the second week of November” our Defense Intelligence Agency was already preparing a secret report warning of a “cataclysmic” disease outbreak taking place in Wuhan. Yet at that point, probably no more than a couple of dozen individuals had been infected in that city of 11 million, with few of those yet having any serious symptoms. The implications are rather obvious. Furthermore:

As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China’s own borders, another development occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had occurred exactly where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were quite senior. Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hated Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.

Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only political elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran’s top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?

The Iranians themselves were well aware of these facts, and their top political and military leaders publicly accused America of an illegal biowarfare attack against their own country and China, with their former president even filing an official protest with the United Nations. But although these explosive charges were widely reported in the Iranian press, they were completely ignored by the American media so that almost no Americans ever became aware of them.

• Covid/Biowarfare Series
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • 51 Articles • 212,000 Words

For those who prefer receiving the same information in video form, I would recommend several of my podcast interviews, originally released on Rumble but now available on YouTube as well:

Kevin Barrett, FFWN • February 16, 2022 • 15m

Video Link

Geopolitics & Empire • February 1, 2022 • 75m • SoundCloud Audio

Video Link

Red Ice TV • February 3, 2022 • 130m

Video Link .

I was much less satisfied with Deep Research’s fact-checking of my articles dealing with the controversial topic of the Holocaust, but although the uniform responses were extremely critical and dismissive across all of the runs, I do think they revealed an interesting pattern.

This became most apparent in a long article that had mostly dealt with entirely different matters entitled Prof. John Beaty and the True Origin of the Jews. Here are a few short passages from the very negative conclusion provided in that fact-checking report:

Conclusion: Overall Assessment: “Prof. John Beaty and the True Origin of the Jews” is a deeply flawed and misleading article…In conclusion, the factual errors and deceptions in this article are numerous and serious…Given these profound issues, the article in its current form does not meet basic standards of historical accuracy or journalistic responsibility…In summary, the article’s credibility is extremely low.

The Holocaust Reality: The denialist stance is untenable, given the overwhelming documentation from wartime and postwar investigation】. To claim the Holocaust was a “fraud” is not an alternative interpretation – it’s a demonstrable lie…

Recommendations…The Holocaust: Explicitly state that the systematic murder of ~6 million Jews by Nazi Germany is a historical fact established by evidenc】. Remove or rebut claims that it was a “hoax” concocted by Jews, as such statements are demonstrably false. Include references to Nazi documents (like the Höfle Telegram, Eichmann’s testimony, etc.) that prove the genocide happened.

• Prof. John Beaty and the True Origin of the Jews
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • January 29, 2024 • 12,900 Words
  Fact-Checking “Prof. John Beaty and the True Origin of the Jews” • 19,800 Words

I found this reaction of the AI quite intriguing.

Roughly 85% of that long article had focused upon complex and controversial non-Holocaust related matters, and the AI system endorsed virtually all of that important material as fully accurate. That portion of the analysis constituted five of the six sections of the AI’s fact-checking run, including some 27 of the 30 separate claims that it evaluated.

Yet because the last portion of my article drew upon some of this earlier material to express strong skepticism regarding the traditional narrative of the Holocaust, the overall conclusion that Deep Research reached was that my long piece was “a deeply flawed and misleading article…In summary, the article’s credibility is extremely low.” Indeed, it explicitly demanded that the article instead affirm the reality of the Holocaust.

I think this strange mismatch raised very legitimate questions about whether the Deep Research AI had been heavily conditioned by its training program to automatically reject and denounce any written work that raised any questions about the standard Holocaust narrative.

I also found it interesting that the AI system actually produced four separate partial runs of its fact-checking analysis response before it finally finished one without breaking (I only included the complete run). This may indicate that that AI encountered various “internal conflicts” in its training producing those problems, much like a human being might have a difficult time formulating a response to certain very psychologically sensitive topics.

I also noticed a few other examples of such apparent conditioning, though less emphatic ones. For example, the Deep Research AI firmly rejected any claims that the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically-elected Russian-leaning government in 2014 had been the result of a Western coup and also denied that America had destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines.

My own analysis of the Holocaust was aired in a couple of half-hour interview segments that I did a couple of years ago for Iranian broadcast television:

Video Link

Video Link

That same show also broadcast two half-hour interview segments each on my analysis of the 9/11 Attacks and the JFK Assassination:

Video Link

Video Link

Video Link

Video Link

Related Reading:

• Fact-Checking the American Pravda Series
• Fact-Checking “American Pravda: Remembering the Liberty”
• Fact-Checking “The Zionist Destruction of American Higher Education”
• Fact-Checking “American Pravda: Remembering the 9/11 Truth Movement”
• Fact-Checking “How Israel Killed the Kennedys”
• Fact-Checking “American Pravda: Covid Epidemic as Lab-Leak or Biowarfare?”