A modern democratic nation, constantly on edge. Its people vote, protest, and dream freely — but shadows linger behind the curtain.
(Inspired by the CIA)
A secretive agency born after the Great War. Officially foreign-focused, it keeps Republica safe. Unofficially, it seeds coups abroad and whispers narratives at home.
Key Tactic: “Feather & Quill” — placing storytellers in key media posts to control the plotline without writing it themselves.
Notable Operation: “Mockbird” — where agents whispered headlines into trusted ears, shaping what the people feared, hated, and ignored.
Modern Twist: Funded a network of independent news “hubs” that subtly echoed official lines with a local accent.
(Inspired by the FBI)
Meant to defend from internal sabotage, but often defined what “subversion” meant based on the politics of the day.
Key Tactic: “Echo Disruption” — infiltrating activist circles and sowing paranoia, false friendships, and betrayal.
Notable Operation: “Harpy” — a campaign to dismantle the Unity March Movement by labeling them enemies of order and peace.
Fallout: The movement imploded from within; the leaders never fully trusted each other again.
(Inspired by the NSA)
A faceless cathedral of code. It doesn’t act — it watches, collects, connects.
“If you whisper, they can hear it. If you think it, they may predict it.”
Key Tactic: “Mind Lattice” — linking data from every citizen into behavioral profiles for “national security modeling.”
Revelation: A rogue technician leaked the truth to the public. Instead of outrage, the people shrugged. “If you have nothing to hide…”
(Inspired by Cambridge Analytica, military psyops, and political data firms)
A private, unregulated lab where public will is melted and recast into programmable segments.
Key Tactic: “Soul Maps” — personalized emotional profiles built from likes, clicks, and idle complaints.
“They don’t sell ads — they sell certainty.”
Use Case: A political faction buys access before the election, deploying fear-based ads to suppress enemy voters and ignite their own.
(A fictional mashup of think tanks, media outlets, and social platforms)
Not officially government. Not officially anything. But its ideas somehow always reach the top.
Key Tactic: “Consensus Sculpting” — the art of turning radical ideas into breakfast-table common sense.
“The people chose it — we just helped them want it.”
Example: A new law restricts protest zones. Within a week, every morning show host is saying “Well, you can’t just let mobs run the streets…”
A small room beneath the Capitol of Republica. No one lives there — but the walls reflect every decision made upstairs.
In the center, a marionette stage, strings dangling. But no puppets.
The message?
“If the people believe they chose the show, do they need to know who built the stage?”
Republica isn’t real. But the shadows behind it often are.
We’re not told to think anymore — just to choose sides.
But when the stage is rigged and the script already written… what good is a vote?
Seeking the Truth as opposed to Affirmation
In an age of rampant misinformation, understanding the distinction between genuine fact-checking and merely seeking evidence to support a preconceived notion is crucial. While both involve reviewing information, their fundamental goals and methodologies are worlds apart. Actual fact-checking is a process of impartial verification, while searching for supporting documentation is often an exercise in confirmation bias.
The Goal: Truth vs. Affirmation
The primary objective of fact-checking is to determine the accuracy of a claim, regardless of the outcome. A fact-checker starts with a question: “Is this statement true?” They then embark on a comprehensive and unbiased investigation, gathering all relevant evidence, both for and against the claim. The ultimate goal is to present a verified and accurate picture to the public.
Conversely, the principal aim of searching for supporting documentation is to find evidence that validates a pre-existing belief or argument. The starting point is not a question, but an assertion. The individual is not seeking to test the validity of their claim, but rather to find proof that they are correct.
The Process: Investigation vs. Advocacy
The methodologies employed by fact-checkers and those simply seeking support differ significantly.
Fact-checking is a meticulous and often lengthy process that includes:
Identifying verifiable claims: Not all statements can be fact-checked. Opinions, for instance, are not subject to this process.
Gathering diverse evidence: Fact-checkers consult a wide array of sources, including primary documents, expert opinions, and data from reputable institutions. They actively look for conflicting information to ensure a well-rounded view.
Evaluating sources: A critical component of fact-checking is assessing the credibility and potential bias of each source of information.
Synthesizing and concluding: After weighing all the evidence, a conclusion is drawn about the veracity of the claim, often with a nuanced explanation of the findings.
Searching for supporting documentation, on the other hand, is often characterized by:
Cherry-picking data: Individuals may selectively choose evidence that aligns with their views while ignoring contradictory information.
Ignoring source credibility: The reliability of a source may be overlooked if the information it provides is favorable to the individual’s argument.
Avoiding contradictory evidence: There is no active effort to find information that might challenge the initial belief.
The Mindset: Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias
At its core, the difference between these two activities lies in the mindset of the individual. A fact-checker approaches a claim with a healthy dose of skepticism and a commitment to objectivity. The goal is to be a neutral arbiter of facts.
In contrast, someone searching for supporting documentation is often operating under the influence of confirmation bias. This is the psychological tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. This can lead to a skewed and inaccurate understanding of an issue.
In essence, a fact-checker’s loyalty is to the truth, wherever it may lead. For someone simply seeking to support their own views, their loyalty lies with their pre-existing beliefs.
Share this:
Like this: