ence, the killing. And the summaries tend to say things such as there are X number of people who are white supremacists who kill people and there are X number who are lefties who killed people. To which I say I don't know if I trust that.

And so what I asked for on Twitter was I asked for anybody who could give me a list of all the white supremacists or at least by political affiliation what terrorist, domestic terrorist stuff they've done. And then I would compare that to a list of the other side, say left-leaning people, and maybe Islamist to just complete it.

And here's my contention. If you have never seen a list of the one I described, there is no information that's useful here. And what happened was people massively tweeted me things that they thought were the answers to my questions but quite markedly were not. And I'm going to read you some of the responses just so you can see how wild this is. So this is like a really interesting, in my opinion very interesting, psychological experiment.

So what I was doing here is seeing if people had a blind spot and if they could see it. So here was the original tweet. I said, can someone tweet me a detailed list (detail being the operative word) of domestic terror incidents sorted by political affiliation of the perpetrator. And then I said, and here's the fun part, I said please do not, not, not, and each of the nots was in capitals, so please do not, not, not send me totals without details. They're worthless.

How many people responded by sending me exactly what I said in clear language do not, not, not send me totals without details? Quite a few. How many people sent me a list of just the leftists? Quite a few. How many people sent me to a source that talked about the totals without showing them? How many people? A lot. How many sent me to someplace where I could do the research myself? That's not what I asked for. If the only answer is I can do the research for myself that means nobody did the research, which is my hypothesis.

So if you look at the comments they are hilariously blind spotted. So there's some people sent me the Wikipedia link which talks about it but doesn't show them. You know the list next to each other. I guess I would have to research their links and make the list myself. But here's the problem. If you have a list of what Breitbart says is all of the leftist violence and you have a list of let's say what CNN said, just hypothetically, of all the violence from white supremacists or even just people who are on the right, could you compare those two lists and say this one is bigger than this one? No, you could not. You could not. Because the method that those two entities used would of course be different. So you wouldn't know anything.

So people who are sending me one side like, hey I've got the answer for you, and I think there were dozens of people who sent me a Breitbart article showing six hundred some left-leaning acts of violence domestically, what does that do to answer my question? Nothing. It doesn't do anything. It's the same as a blank page. Because if it doesn't on the same, by the same author using the same methodology, if it doesn't show you what's the other side, you don't know anything. Is 600 a lot? I don't even know. It's a big country. 600 might not even be a lot. Is the violence on the right twice as much, half as much? I don't know.

So if you look at the comments it'll blow your mind when you see how clearly I asked the question knowing that either a hundred percent or something close to that would hallucinate the question so that they could answer it in a way that's compatible. Somebody's saying you're being thick Scott. All right, that's cognitive dissonance. So the people who were coming in and just insulting me for asking the most reasonable question anybody ever asked are suffering a cognitive crisis. Because how many people were sure they knew the answer to who where the violence is coming from? Well a lot of people according to my Twitter feed. A lot of people thought that they knew the answer. A lot of people thought they knew. I saw Rose is an evil monster. But when I asked them to show me even the slightest rudimentary reason, even the slightest little useful piece of information, it's just silence. It's nothing.

So here are my preliminary conclusions, which I'm willing to update. So preliminary, I believe that the people who think Soros is a monster don't know anything about him and they don't have an argument to back it up. They do have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of articles in which other people gave their opinion. I've read some of the articles because a lot of people forwarded me stuff. And the articles have things such as Soros wants to destroy Israel or Soros wants to destroy the United States. To which I say, did he say that? Well is that mind reading? You know, where did he say anything like that?

Somebody said why would Hungary ban him? Is that an argument? Is the argument that Hungary doesn't like George Soros and therefore he's bad for the United States? Is that an argument? Because Hungary is not the United States. There are actually different countries with very different things going for them. Hungary, well I would get exhausted if I tried to list all the differences between Hungary and the United States. So does Hungary have a good reason for banning him? I don't know. I haven't heard it. But I've heard a lot of people say Hungary banned him.

Now I believe the issue is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Hungary is very aggressive on borders. I believe they have a border wall. Am I correct on that? Or at least a fence. I believe Hungary closed their border and that Soros is more p