h more effective? They say yeah, you're on my side. I mean what's the downside? I just get more money and I do the same thing.

But people give you money on you no matter what your original motivation was. As soon as you start taking money you've got a boss. So basically every leader who might be organic in the beginning ends up getting owned by somebody who has enough money to do that. So I can't see any situation in which a large-scale protest on either side for any reason would ever be organic in the long run. I just can't see it.

So from this point on I assume all large protests are fake. A little bit. Doesn't mean the people might be very sincere. But in terms of what got them all there, probably always fake from now on. I don't think we live in a world in which it can't rapidly go fake because follow the money. The money will always be there. There's always going to be somebody on that side. Even if there's nobody in the United States who wants this protest there's always China. There's always some other country that wants some trouble here. So you can always get it funded.

NPR has launched a what they call a disinformation reporting team. So a group of people who will tell you what's true and what isn't. Here is what I invented today. I call it the Adams law of fact checkers. And it goes like this. All fact-checking organizations are liars by omission and it isn't fixable. All fact check organizations are liars by omission. That's their job. Their job is to lie by omission if you don't know that's the real mission.

So the job of a fact checker is to say, well obviously there are too many things in the world. You can't look at every fact and try to check it. So you have to pick ones. What happens when the fact checkers pick the facts to fact check? Well they're not going to pick the one that's bad for their team. So they just lie by omission. They simply leave out a fact check because it would be inconvenient to have one. And then when you look for the fact check it's well nothing there.

And if you've read any of the fact checks so far, the ones that are obviously fake fact checks and you know which ones I mean, you've seen it yourself. There are ones that are just obviously fake fact checks. You can tell what they left out. You just look at it. You go, well you've left out like a main variable. You haven't even ruled on it. You've just ignored a main variable. That's a lie. If your fact checking ignores what is obviously a major variable in the decision that's a lie by omission.

So in the long run I don't think they can go in any other direction. So all political organizations become corrupted eventually by money and all fact checkers eventually become liars by omission. Now I don't think that they usually lie directly. There might be a case of that but I think that would be rare. You don't see the fact checker say, oh this happened on this date when it didn't. The fact checking tends to be right but they lie by leaving out other fact