The banner image above is all you need to answer that question, and the more you look — the worse it gets (and not just on Sowell). The story I’m out to tell takes both parties to task on the biggest & most costly lie in modern history — along with some other issues at the core of America’s decline.

Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell that story.

And how his role within it could be harnessed for good. Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right.

Wouldn’t it be something if an idea that threw you for a loop — piqued your curiosity to probe for more? Have you ever heard of anyone taking someone to task for the purpose of putting them in a positive light that could change the course of history? That sounds intriguing — but that’s me.

Alas, you make it impossible to have this conversation within a single frame:

Let alone the bigger picture . . .

a.k.a. Learning . . .

---

America lost its way long ago — and you’re right about how some of that happened. But all that pales in comparison to the aftermath of 9/11. Every major problem in America was exponentially exacerbated because of that fiasco for the ages.

Which Sowell helped sell and got off scot-free.

They all did — as they always do (Democrats & Republicans alike):

[T]here could be no country that makes less use of the accumulated experience of those who have served it — none that is more frivolously neglectful and improvident of these assets — than the United States of America.

— George F. Kennan, Around the Cragged Hill

---

Taking on the entire country by myself is worlds away from what everyone else is doing. Explaining America’s decline from decades of dishonesty and systematic self-delusion in the Gutter Games of Government:

Is apples & oranges as it gets when compared to the transactional nature of news and social-media norms.

In reference to its opening image on Without Passion or Prejudice, I wrote: “Half the country is with me on this — and I just lost the other half. Had I started with the image below — it would be the opposite half.” When you make up your mind on lickety-split perception alone: In what world does that qualify as critical thinking?

When you to stop to process information instead of scrolling right by it:

You establish what’s in question.

With each element being a building block to a foundation for knowledge. Understanding how seemingly unrelated events impact one another — takes time and effort to digest. You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite.

Pay no mind to how many times we go backwards by the means in which you move forward.

“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” That quote’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710):

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.

I know the feeling, all too well!

If that title doesn’t tell you something about my commitment to objective scrutiny, what would?

The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president, and when it comes to ascertaining the truth, neither do I. In order to maintain such speeds, the material properties of centrifuges are as critical as it gets. You don’t need to interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist to figure that out, but I like to be thorough.

To claim that Iraq WMD wasn’t a lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon. As I wrote and produced the most exhaustive documentary ever done on WMD, I would know.

People want an authority to tell them how to value things, but they choose this authority not based on facts or results. They choose it because it seems authoritative and familiar — and I’m not and never have been familiar.

— Michael Burry, The Big Short

If that were not overwhelmingly true, this site would not exist. I would not have been practically spit on for 20 years of telling undeniable truth of mathematical certainty: Painfully obvious deception shaped everything you see today. No rational person would repeatedly deny the undeniable, and just minutes into anything I’ve written on this issue — you should know something’s not right.

But you find it’s with me . . .

[As] I’m not and never have been familiar

If I came across this and hadn’t done my homework, on the title alone — my first thought would be “I must be missing something pretty big!”

America has other ideas:

Button your lip and don’t let the shield slip
Take a fresh grip on your bulletproof mask
And if they try to break down your disguise with their questions
You can hide hide hide behind Paranoid Eyes

My surgical specificity in this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone.

Trillion Dollar Tube 

To take a story this complex and convoluted and boil its essence down to a few minutes was no small feat:

Imagine what I did with 160

“There is no skimming over the surface of a subject with [Hamilton]. He must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on.”

— Major William Pierce (Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton)

Wouldn’t it be absurd to share that quote if my clip contained nothing but trite talking points? Some circles are not burdened by squaring their walk with their talk. They seem to think that advertising virtue equates to embodying it.

I put it all on a silver platter for you 10 years ago:

When I Saw the Writing on the Wall

I took on the automatons of the time (Left & Right). No one listened — and lo and behold:

Automatons exponentially multiplied.

Those times were tame compared to today.

The toxicity of venom has been taken to a whole other level with pride. We’re not talking about your love of talking about your love affair with facts — we’re talking about having a history of objective scrutiny that shows your commitment.

And for people who flaunt their love for facts — you sure have a helluva lot of hate for irrefutable facts that fly in the face of your calcified convictions.

---

What I do takes work:

Time & effort to think it through. If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having meaningful conversation — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well. But if you’re game for good old-fashioned conversation — please contact me through the site, Anchor.Press.gg@gmail.com, or DM (Direct Message) on X:

As I no longer respond to Tweets or superficial fragments of any kind.

---

America’s in perennial pursuit of ideologies: Warfare waged with galactic levels of baggage & bullshit bolstered by:

opinions lightly adopted but firmly held . . . forged from a combination of ignorance, dishonesty, and fashion

—  Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom

For instance:

You’ve probably heard of yellowcake: How about uranium hexafluoride?

Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? Never mind this story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot. How so?

How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits — but because it’s on the trail to the truth.

I’m Not Out to “DESTROY” Sowell Quite the contrary! Stick around — you’ll see. That his followers instantly assume bad motives (issuing rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full): Is in gross breach of the standards he espouses. You’ve been playing that hate-card crap for decades — and I’m keenly aware that the Left plays the same games.

I’ll get to them later, but in the meantime:

They’re not flooding the internet on a daily basis with quotes like this:

In light of that — how do you explain this:

On evidence involving artillery rockets and material properties of centrifuge rotors — the apostles of Sowell smugly cite his books on economics, race, and whatnot: Anything to glorify him as they abandon any notion of accountability:

Butchering his bedrock beliefs as they dance in delight behind their force field of fallacy.

These people do nothing but question my motives, mock my site, and assault my character — then proudly post quotes of Sowell looking stately as he condemns the very thing they’re doing.

• Repeat slogans: “Everybody believed Iraq had WMD”
• Question people’s motives: Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
• Bold assertions: Russians said so, British said so, Bill Clinton said so, Leaders of both parties said so . . .

No coherent argument, Repeat slogans, Vent their emotions, Question people’s motives, Bold assertions . . .

As in — not this . . .

I tend to believe Thomas Sowell. He is brilliant and has worked at a think tank for about 40 years. Sources matter! Yours is from a concerned citizen.

This concerned citizen interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist, corresponded with the key physicist who wrote extensively on the tubes, along with correspondence with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR):

Powell’s very own intelligence agency that he conveniently ignored. INR stuck to its old-fashioned ways by agreeing with DOE:

Ya know, the actual experts!

---

To ascertain the truth on any topic:

If you’ve got something concrete to go on — that’s your point of entry. By all means, keep the door open in every direction. But by nailing down the definitive first, it paves a clearer path to all the rest.

This country does the exact opposite on everything:

Lumping it all together and never even approaching where you should have started in the first place:

Once again — not this . . .

As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”

— Thomas Sowell

The Man’s a Magician

As I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t. Simply by virtue of writing those words, he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own ideals? And lo and behold — sleight of hand is how they pulled it off.

When you have absolutely no idea what’s going on here — on what basis are you so doubt-free?

---

How can you expect anyone to admit when they’re wrong if you won’t? And every time you allow emotion to run roughshod over reason, you further calcify habits at the other end of the spectrum from these:

Rather than assert that all opinions are equal, students in seminar learn to judge opinions on the basis of the reasons given for those opinions.

Nobody ever had to explain that to me. I’m sure you all feel the same.

And yet here we are:

It’s pure fantasy to think that you can ignore key dimensions of a problem and magically solve it.

The problems that plague America are interrelated, and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them. Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t cut it.

You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board.

Across echo chambers where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere. Ann Baker’s article beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:

Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.

“[S]topping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving“:

As in . . .

And that . . .

Is what it’s gonna take — to understand this:

I’m not just taking Thomas Sowell to task because he’s got it comin’ — I need this guy for what I have in mind to right this ship. The ultimate irony is that blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights that hero-worship ensures he’ll never go.

As my videographer perfectly put it:

We finally figured out what we were doing by the end

If we don’t change course as a country — we won’t.

So, you’re saying that your plan will elevate Sowell to worldwide recognition — by holding him accountable? That if he comes clean — he could be the catalyst to turn the tide?

That’s exactly what I’m saying!

It won’t matter that he blew it on WMD or why — all that matters is having the guts to say: “I was wrong and I’m trying to make it right.” In a culture consumed with feeling right, wouldn’t it be refreshing to talk about the immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong?

Don’t just tell people how to behave: Lead by example — especially when it comes at a cost!

There are far worse culprits on all-things Iraq, but I’ve been down that road for decades. Discovering Sowell and the underworld of absurdity that shields him — makes him ideal to put these lies in their place once and for all:

And change the dynamic of debate to boot.

Elevating him is not my aim . . .

But I can live with it to stem the systematic self-delusion that’s taken this nation totally off the rails:

Left & Right!

Case in point:

Stockton Rush’s name will never be forgotten for his folly that took 5 lives in a contraption doomed to fail. That same wishful thinking in totally unsuitable material — was held by a CIA/WINPAC analyst named Joe Turner:

Who provided a path to war that cost countless lives, unspeakable destruction, trillions of dollars & counting, and poisons political discourse to this day & generations to come.  

Never heard of him . . .

I’m not surprised!

In a country that can’t even get the self-evident straight:

By Design

America Remains Mired in the Murky

What does it say to you: That on evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb — the “debate” was hijacked by 10-second sound bites? Shouldn’t any debate establish what the debate is actually about? What does it say about a country that can’t even establish that much on a matter of this magnitude?

As I said in my doc:

All the sarin gas shells in the world would have no bearing on the aluminum tubes and other intel, but loyalists to logical fallacies are not burdened by the inconvenience of FACT.

They will nitpick over pebbles while refusing to even glance at the mountain of evidence that crushes their “convictions.”

— Richard W. Memmer: Act V

For the sake of argument:

Let’s say Saddam had full-blown active WMD programs on chemical & biological weapons. The tubes would still be a lie — whether the war would have been justified in that scenario or not. I’ll go one further: Let’s say he had a uranium enrichment program in operation as well, but that the rotors were carbon fiber — not aluminum.

Once again, the tubes would still be a lie.

Getting lucky in finding something you didn’t know about — does not absolve you from a case that was woven out of whole cloth.

For over two decades:

America has made it impossible to have this conversation: Painfully obvious deception that shaped everything you see today. But we’ve got all the time in the world to talk about Titan.

And you’re all in tune on material properties when you find the topic entertaining:

I’m a retired engineer, electrical not mechanical. You are absolutely correct about technical limits on materials such as this sub design. It’s insane this guy took the sub to its breaking point.  It’s sad but a good lesson to future explorers. Don’t push the physical limitations of the materials and design.

— YouTube user

---

If you can understand baseline information on materials in one context: Shouldn’t you be able to grasp the exact same principles in another? For all those who pooh-pooh expertise these days: Lemme remind you that you had no qualms about appreciating experts when comparing this toy to a craft like Cameron’s. I realize his was designed to go 3 times deeper than Titanic:

But it’s just a striking contrast on the look of seriousness alone.

And so’s this . . .

On a matter involving war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11 — the stakes don’t get much higher. For a Maverick who’s worshipped for following the facts — wouldn’t he take the trail to where they matter most?

As in the marquee evidence used to manufacture this fraud?

I did — Sowell didn’t!

“Without [the tubes], they had nothing”:

And nothing on the tubes (or anything else of substance on this endless saga of absurdity): Is what you’ll find in Thomas Sowell’s articles on Iraq WMD. His fanatical followers are so bothered by how much I have to say: That nowhere in their minds does it dawn on them to wonder why he said so little.

People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.

— Thomas Sowell

D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of “rough indication.” . . . Out of 31 tubes in subsequent testing, only one was successfully spun to 90,000 RPM for 65 minutes — which the C.I.A. seized on as evidence in their favor.

One D.O.E. analyst offered a superb analogy of that contorted conclusion:  “Running your car up to 6,500 RPM briefly does not prove that you can run your car at 6,500 RPM cross country. It just doesn’t. Your car’s not going to make it.”

In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, these guys were playing horseshoes with centrifuge physics . . .

— Richard W. Memmer: Act II

Does Sowell sound like someone following the facts on this subject? Does this look like someone abiding by the principle he preaches?

What happened to all this jazz?

In what parallel universe does this even remotely reflect anything like that:

A couple of 2-minute reads that never even mention the tubes that took us to war. Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done: Especially when you make a living selling slogans and catchy quotes about careful consideration. If you only apply the principles you preach when it serves your interests — they’re just empty claims on a cup and a meaningless mantra touted on a T-shirt.

8. Old information at the beginning of the sentence, new information at the end.

— Steven Pinker

How do you feel about no new information — anywhere?

Your pursuit of truth & accountability seems awfully one-sided, Mr. Sowell — and that’s a fact:

truth verifiable from experience or observation

---

Half the country took the word of professional know-it-alls over nuclear scientists. And when your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:

Shrewd!

Preach Responsibility and Take None!

You can’t seem to comprehend that I don’t care what damage the truth inflicts upon politicians of any brand. I have this crazy idea that across-the-board accountability is always in the best interests of the nation.

As for my frustration — I have this thing about people who regurgitate nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their baseless beliefs.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act II

Or Not . . .

Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party

Stirring Defense!

Anything Goes for apologists trying to preserve what they perceive. I know your Rolodex of Ridicule rabbit-hole routine — all too well:

And Now for the Weather . . .

“Men Who Mean — Just What They Say”

I doubt you’ll understand — but hear me out and you will. An excerpt from the mock interview above.

N.C. State REP. John Blust: If I tell you it was cloudy outside on December 29th, and I believe it was cloudy outside on December 29th, I am not lying to you. If I can find twenty-five others who also say it was cloudy on December 29th, and indeed, it was universally believed it was cloudy on December 29th, that is good, solid, logical evidence that I was not lying when I said it was cloudy on December 29th.

Richard W. Memmer: Dr. Wood is not a meteorologist. Do you mind if we just stick to the evidence that Powell presented?

Do you think an analogy about the weather qualifies as counterargument on artillery rockets and material properties of centrifuge rotors? Do you think being burdened by illustrations is a valid excuse to not consider what’s in them? If you think you can covey this imagery better in plain text, please enlighten me.

But then you’d have to actually understand what’s going on here — wouldn’t ya!

Who’s Zippe? Who’s Beams? What’s a Zippe-Beams hybrid? In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, pointing to 2.8 mm is probably pretty important, don’t ya think?

My words and illustrations seem awfully specific for someone simply “attacking” Sowell, don’t ya think?

---

Anyone wanting to know the truth would not behave in ways that make damn sure you never will. Defenders of the indefensible make it impossible to discuss even a single screenshot — and yet have the temerity to mock my site for failing to meet your style-guide standards. You blow right by illustrations and clips at the crux of the story:

Then complain how you can’t understand what you didn’t stop to consider.

If you’re unclear on anything: Don’t just keep scrolling so you can cite your confusion in how you can’t understand everything — so you can act like you can’t understand anything. Ask a question and I’ll be happy to answer.

The only way you wouldn’t understand is because you don’t want to — and that’s what this is all about.

It’s what it’s always about . . .

Anything by Thomas Sowell!

Great! Let’s discuss . . .

There was time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” — would look at it when you did. It was a time when newfangled ways of “argument” wasn’t all the rage — where you furiously fire off some fashionable form of “You’re wrong!” and dish it all day long: Insisting on “affirmation independent of all findings” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).

I don’t roll that way.

You’re wrong — and here’s why!

That’s the discipline — to have a work ethic in the way you think. Without “here’s why,” you’re just whistlin’ Dixie.

On that note:

Following Facts Where They Lead

“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.

Stirring Defense!

Are you telling me . . .

That I can grasp this — but you can’t grasp that?

The Russians said so.
The British said so.
Bill Clinton said so.
Leaders of both political parties said so.

a.k.a. Glib:

On a matter of world-altering consequence: What does it say about Sowell being glib while criticizing people being glib?

“smooth-tongued” or “slippery” . . .

“The British said so”?

And these are on the mild end of the savagery I’ve seen:

You couldn’t carry Sowell’s jockstrap!

Seriously? Get a life. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s better than you basically in everything.

You deserved to be treated that way! You’re a moron and pathetic character assassin

Holy shit…. a video of a circle jerks with a nut in the center talking about RPMS. Yet somehow Thomas Sowell is a liar.

How do you reconcile that with this?

Sowell’s a well-mannered guy and you act like animals to honor him. After all your posturing and plastering the internet with your precious principles: 

Savagery in Sowell’s name is how you carry the torch for your “National Treasure”?

---

You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell

As this story is also . . .

About the behavior of the echo chamber around Sowell — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem. And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.

If only you’d laid it all out exactly as I like it — then I’d abide by the principles I preach

Is that how it works?

That’s about the size of it. I guess I figured that if you didn’t understand something — you’d try this on for size.

Einstein borrowed from the one below:

The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection. 

Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.

— Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up.

I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters.

I’d like to think a lot of things.

Alas, Loury was not too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task — and neither are you: Which flies in the face the principles upon which you put these pundits on a pedestal.

“Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.”

If only Loury had listened instead of clinging to possession — what wonders he could have worked with what I have in mind. While you should not need an incentive to do what’s right and abide by your own standards: Whatever he’s making on that book . . .

Would be pennies on the dollar had he heard me out on my idea and ran with it.

All ya gotta do — is do what you say you do. And my idea is a framework for debate that boxes you in to do exactly that. You won’t like it — but here’s the deal: Your opposition won’t either. And who knows, you might learn to love embracing challenge, changing your mind, and the fruits from demanding across-the-board accountability.

This — is not that . . .

This is Broadcasting Beliefs About That

You said they had no argument against your [R]ebuttal to Brown University’s letter on racism in the United States. Neither do you on your National Treasure. Instead of listening and learning on things you know nothing about — you let pride consume you.

Maybe you don’t know Sowell as well as you thought you did:

And heaven forbid you hold him to the same standards pushing your popularity. Loury wasn’t about to look at undeniable evidence warranting that he change his mind:

So he changed the rules . . .

Right on cue | Never fails

Living up to his hero who did the same:

A Conflict of Visions . . .

And then some!

Hard to Imagine:

That I have to explain that quote to people who seemingly live to flood the internet with his words. He and his flock incessantly complain about the media — and they don’t make policy.

But the second I scrutinize Sowell — suddenly you have new standards.

180 — how fitting!

At every turn . . .

The faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.

---

More on Loury later. Such high praise from him is a helluva lot of incentive for me to think these people are the “geniuses” their ever-growing audience thinks they are. I don’t roll that way. While I maintain a degree of respect for him — and I’m forever grateful for the inspiration he provided:

If you’re part of the problem, I don’t care who you are — I’m calling you out.

And that’s . . .

I believe in applying the same rules to everyone . . . I seek to treat everyone equally . . . I am open-minded . . I seek to understand . . . I pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry.

— F.A.I.R’s Pro-Human Pledge

Cognitive dissonance doesn’t care that you signed a pledge — and neither did Loury! There’s a classic scene in Seinfeld that delightfully illustrates the divide between declarations of virtue and delivering on them:

Agent: I know why we have reservations

Seinfeld: I don’t think you do. If you did, I’d have a car. 

See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don’t know how to *hold* the reservation . . . and that’s really the most important part of the reservation — the *holding*

Anybody can just take ’em!

---

I’ve always hated Twitter and every long-form version of it (Reddit, Substack, and anything and everything claiming to be something it’s not). When I’m done doing what I gotta do — I’m never goin’ back. Until then, I’m sending out a certain set of messages looking for intelligent life:

Fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them.

Think of my signals as a poor man’s SETI:

I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth. There’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future.

A.K.A. Learning!

All conversations on the country fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thx 🙏 You may take pride in not blocking anyone, but I’m asking you to make an exception (so I’ll never bother you again). Is that really too much of a courtesy to ask?

Thank you!

---

Part 2 to come — and in the meantime: