Fauci’s diary reveals how the leftist monolith works 88%

By Robert DeMay99%

7/31/2026, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 60% saturation with 322 hits. Analysis detected 1,955 faulty-reasoning hits from 537 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.3% and a BS Rank of 88% (3,319 of 26,723 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.60% of the article peer group.

There was a time when fiction carried the burden of being plausible. 
A novelist had to construct a believable arc, respect the laws of cause and effect, and ensure that characters acted within the bounds of recognizable human motivation. 
Today, that boundary has dissolved entirely. 
The reality we are asked to accept on a daily basis is so far removed from common sense, basic logic, and observed experience that standard fiction no longer has the vocabulary to capture it. 
Truth has not merely become stranger than fiction; it has become so unrecognizable that ordinary citizens find it difficult not only to fathom, but to contend with. 
Consider the narrative arc of the modern bureaucratic public servant. 
In a well-scripted drama, a villain reveals themselves through clear, identifiable motives-greed, malice, or a overt grab for power. 
But in our current reality, the transformation is far more insidious. 
How indeed could an administrative official, shielded by decades of institutional immunity, so completely disguise his activities that he could be crowned the heroic savior of the nation one day, only to be exposed later as the central architect of a devastating institutional betrayal? 
A plot so destructive to the country's core beliefs, individual liberties, and fundamental sense of direction would be rejected by any fiction editor as absurdly heavy-handed. 
Yet it unfolded in broad daylight, driving policy, shuttering businesses, and silencing scientific debate. 
The reason such a grotesque inversion of reality could occur-and endure-is that the modern media apparatus has proven to be more Machiavellian than anyone could have previously imagined. 
Niccolò Machiavelli observed that the prince need not actually possess noble virtues; he merely needs to appear to possess them, using whatever deception is required to maintain state power. 
Modern media has perfected this principle into an industrial science. 
It does not exist to report facts as they occur on the ground; it functions as a narrative management system designed to enforce compliance, manufacture consent, and insulate preferred authority figures from empirical scrutiny. 
When the official narrative collided with real-world evidence, the media did not recalibrate. 
It doubled down. 
It weaponized moral outrage, labeled honest inquiry as "disinformation," and turned the fundamental mechanism of human reason-asking for proof-into a civic offense. 
Through repetition, selective reporting, and outright suppression, it created a mirror-house of artificial surfaces where the signal of virtue completely replaced the substance of truth. 
The most terrifying aspect of this condition is not just that the deception occurred, but that the apparatus continues to thrive. 
Despite being repeatedly caught in contradictions, despite the exposure of internal emails and legislative admissions, the machinery of narrative management marches on without missing a beat. 
It operates without shame, because in a world severed from historical origin and accountability, survival is simply a matter of maintaining the script. 
When fiction loses its tether to reality, we close the book. 
But when truth itself is rendered unrecognizable by an institutional press dedicated to power over reality, the individual is left with a stark choice: surrender to the manufactured illusion, or anchor oneself firmly in the primary ground of observed facts, personal judgment, and unyielding common sense. 
We owe Senator Rand Paul an enormous thanks. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.5%Robert DeMay: 20.0%American Thinker: 9.8%Confirmation Bias23.5%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Robert DeMay: 2.8%American Thinker: 3.4%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 1.9%Robert DeMay: 0.5%American Thinker: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic1.9%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 2.0%American Thinker: 1.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Robert DeMay: 3.4%American Thinker: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias7.1%This article: 8.6%Robert DeMay: 4.7%American Thinker: 6.4%Framing Effect8.6%This article: 2.0%Robert DeMay: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.5%Loss Aversion2.0%This article: 2.2%Robert DeMay: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Robert DeMay: 5.9%American Thinker: 2.3%Pessimism Bias15.3%This article: 60.0%Robert DeMay: 27.3%American Thinker: 11.8%Negativity Bias60.0%This article: 1.5%Robert DeMay: 0.4%American Thinker: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias1.5%This article: 12.5%Robert DeMay: 7.8%American Thinker: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error12.5%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Robert DeMay: 1.5%American Thinker: 3.4%In-Group Bias1.5%This article: 1.5%Robert DeMay: 2.8%American Thinker: 4.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.1%Robert DeMay: 0.3%American Thinker: 1.1%Recency Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Robert DeMay: 0.4%American Thinker: 5.0%Ad Hominem1.5%This article: 1.9%Robert DeMay: 4.1%American Thinker: 3.7%Straw Man1.9%This article: 12.1%Robert DeMay: 6.0%American Thinker: 4.2%Appeal to Authority12.1%This article: 14.7%Robert DeMay: 8.0%American Thinker: 4.2%False Dilemma14.7%This article: 7.3%Robert DeMay: 1.8%American Thinker: 3.1%Slippery Slope7.3%This article: 4.7%Robert DeMay: 1.2%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning4.7%This article: 51.4%Robert DeMay: 39.2%American Thinker: 15.2%Hasty Generalization51.4%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.4%Robert DeMay: 25.0%American Thinker: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion24.4%This article: 5.2%Robert DeMay: 1.3%American Thinker: 2.3%Begging the Question5.2%This article: 15.6%Robert DeMay: 6.0%American Thinker: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.6%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.8%Robert DeMay: 1.2%American Thinker: 3.2%Anecdotal4.8%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.8%Robert DeMay: 2.0%American Thinker: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.8%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 2.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 6.3%Robert DeMay: 1.6%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy6.3%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 37.8%Robert DeMay: 31.6%American Thinker: 20.5%Biased Writer Voice37.8%This article: 14.9%Robert DeMay: 13.6%American Thinker: 5.5%Indoctrination14.9%This article: 10.1%Robert DeMay: 2.5%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 10.2%American Thinker: 13.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert DeMay: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

537 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.