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 that took us to war, 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!
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 . . .
Check . . .
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, but I’m old-fashioned that way:
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
That you even think that a story so complex and convoluted could be explained away so easily — is a monumental problem all by itself. And without even the most basic insight into anything on this story:
That camp has a habit of glossing over global issues of catastrophic consequences with . . .
“Seems”
About those think tanks . . .
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
And this one . . .
Associated Press, October 3rd, 2004: Rice said she learned of objections by the Energy Department only after making her 2002 comments.
Richard W. Memmer: Are we to believe that the National Security Advisor of the United States was unaware of an intelligence dispute of this magnitude that had been going on for well over a year?
One Congressional investigator went so far as to call it a holy war. And doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that she didn’t bother consulting the DOE before serving up images of a nuclear detonation?
— Act II
Holy War
Sowell’s hailed as a folk hero for calling out problems he helped create (and takes no responsibility for any of it).
A lot of that goin’ around!
Putting aside Bill Cosby’s fall from grace . . .
He was a universal icon of goodness growing up. In just this 5-second scene from Picture Pages — a parallel can be drawn to everything I advocate:
The.Deal.Is.That.We.Connect.These.Dots . . .
You see!
There are powerful forces that make damn sure you don’t. Not to mention a culture of self-congratulations within echo chambers habitually broadcasting beliefs (so eloquently captured in the non-bolded bit below):
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.
What is the basis upon which I am making that claim about Facts Over Feelings? In order to establish that, I should not have to soothe your mind with shared agreement on the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke:
By all means, I welcome that conversation — but I’m out to have a larger one (where we’d actually solve problems instead of forever talking about them). And in order to establish that, I should not have to pave the way with what I think about the Democratic Party playbook:
Rigging race-related incidents for maximum outrage . . .
But now that I have . . .
A critical thinker would take that information into account — as in “stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.” What does it say to you that claims of critical thinking are everywhere and I haven’t found this anywhere?
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.
That was then . . . this is now:
And they already belonged to one before that!
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument. Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality: a.k.a. Wishful thinking!
Wars have started that way:
There 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.
Case in point:
I KNOW . . .
That you know the answer to this question:
Wouldn’t a critical thinker answer that question and consider what it means? That’s how undestanding works — one building block at a time. Anyone wanting to know the truth would not behave in ways that make damn sure you never will. Would a critical thinker 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?
Just how many different ways do I have to write the same story before you’ll do what you say you do?
The imagery 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? But I’m mostly met with a culture that “insist upon on ‘affirmation independent of all findings’” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).
You make it impossible to have this conversation within a single frame — let alone the bigger picture!
It would be unthinkable for me to refuse to look at someone’s work — and fire back with your “Where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton because they don’t instantaneously appear.
Let’s get real . . .
That’s a stunt (like smugly slinging “I’ll wait”) — not a genuine inquiry in the interest of truth. And the only thing you’re “waiting” for is fodder to fuel your next fix. If you operated anywhere in the same galaxy of these claims below — the mountain of material I’ve written over decades wouldn’t exist.
It’s all marketing!
If he were the genuine article — those books would not be so one-sided.
The notion that feelings over facts is limited to the Left is ludicrous. If you were trying to solve a problem instead of sell books and boost your popularity — you’d be fair-minded by addressing how this behavior applies across-the-board. If it were truly about following the facts, you wouldn’t need slogans and wouldn’t want ’em. Your record would speak for itself. Then again . . .
Do these people really wanna solve problems anyway? Do you?
Man is at least as much a problem-creating as a problem-solving animal. Better a crisis than the permanent boredom of meaninglessness.
— Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom
Life at the Bottom — how fitting:
V for Victory & Venom for Values
In this fantasyland where wishful thinking rules: You can win an argument without even knowing what the issue is about. What you do in denying the undeniable daily would be unthinkable for me to do ever.
“WUT”
In my youth, I could not have imagined a world in which even people with PhDs would act like imbeciles in the face of information they don’t instantly understand. That an entire country could take satisfaction in insulting your own intelligence on a daily basis just astounds me.
Adulthood is about spending the time to think before talking . . . Adulthood is about controlling our emotions, learning to take a deep breath and modulating our moments of anger or frustration.
V for Victory is my 15-part series on factions acting as force fields of fallacy for the Left & Right: Shielding you from the whole truth while you’re pursuing part of it believing you’re after all of it. To concisely capture the absurdity that’s canon across these echo chambers: Imagine a club for international travel made up entirely of people without a passport.
Day after day, they talk about their love of going somewhere — with no interest in anyone who’s been somewhere.
Believe it or not, the best way to serve your interests is to first and foremost — hold your own accountable. If you wanna make the opposition look bad, try looking good.
If you wanna have the moral high ground, try earning it:
The moral high ground, in ethical or political parlance, refers to the status of being respected for remaining moral, and adhering to and upholding a universally recognized standard of justice or goodness.
That is not this . . .
We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason.
— Glenn Loury, Tucker Carlson Today
Only for problems that are popular and easy to perceive? Whatever’s in your wheelhouse? Is that as deep as your questions go, Glenn? The likes of Loury & McWhorter (and all of America) — want to have conversations that work for them (as if issues exist in a vacuum).
And where’s all that “emphasizing reason” right here?
The Right wants the Left and the black community to get its act together on matters deeply woven into the fabric of America’s long history of brutality and disgrace: Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, murder, decades of civil rights violations, questionable shootings, and so on.
While the Right won’t even look at the material properties of a tube. What’s wrong with that picture — and this one?
Hmm, so the dimensions exactly match the tubes used in Iraq’s history of manufacturing the Nasser-81 mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)
Like the Left . . .
The Right has gone out of its mind, but they’re not always wrong (far from it). The Right is right on the money on the impossibly stupid pampering of woke:
I don’t see what the problem is!
— Typical Tweeter tapping earth-shattering insight
You don’t see — a lot!
Your track record is not what I would call astute — and the Right doesn’t have anything to write home about either. I fail to understand how you think we can solve anything in a country that can’t even get the self-evident straight:
Incredibly, “critical thinkers” look at that . . .
Coupled with this:
And act like it’s this . . .
Debunking the WMD delusion & Trayvon tale is a conduit for showing how this nation systematically derails debate. We’re well beyond “disagreement” in America — this is madness (countless millions miserably failing to follow even the most fundamental methods of how understanding works). The second you shun evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative you want — you have contaminated your judgment.
Pay no mind to how many times we go backwards by the means in which you move forward.
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.
The road to reality is blocked by detours designed to keep you going in circles. Purveyors of poppycock reroute you with narratives that avoid detail like Black Death. The way out is to start with an inconsistency or two that’s narrow in scope — and take the trail where it leads. 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:
[T]he basic premise of Black Lives Matter — that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false. There was a time when I believed it. . . . . My opinion has slowly changed. . . .
Two things changed my mind: stories and data.
— Stories and Data: Reflections on race, riots, and police
“Stories and data”?
Or just stories and data that swiftly serve a market?
Because this sure looks a lot like stories and data to me:
Alas, Loury wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. He 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:
If you want to rebut an argument you disagree with, you have to understand it first.
What does it mean to say, “Know your opponent’s argument as well as your own” — and then flagrantly ignore facts that fly in the face of your calcified convictions? It’s meaningless — which is why I set out to do something about that 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.
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).
If this 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.
No rational person would repeatedly deny the undeniable, and just minutes into any on post this site, you’d 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!”
You have 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
In the last few years — I’ve seen savagery beyond anything that inspired the doc (and that’s what gave me the idea). Back then, it was about going up against institutions and putting up a mirror to all of America. Now, I just need to get to one man: A professional know-it-all with a cult-like following unlike anything I’ve ever seen. As I’ve been in the trenches battling hermetically sealed minds for decades, that’s saying something.
His disciples see him as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes.
And that — is an opportunity!
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?
Festinger would have a field day with the force field of fallacy that shields this man (who peddled partisan hackery on this fiasco for the ages that shaped all you see today). He’s worshipped for following the facts — never mind he didn’t go anywhere near ’em (flagrantly ignoring irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty).
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
“It would be nice” . . .
If you challenged your audience instead of catering to their cravings. We are never gonna live in the world you want — unless you open your eyes to the world you wallow in: A cesspool of sycophants who have nothing but contempt for any truth that doesn’t instantly serve them.
Sowell’s a well-mannered guy and his fanatical followers act like animals to honor him — and the likes of Loury & Mcwhorter are unwittingly fueling this savagery.
Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.
Along with this hero-worship horseshit:
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview. In talking about take a wild guess, he said, “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.”
A lot of that goin’ around too!
The Left institutionalizes weakness and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. You weaken the very people you’re trying to strengthen — branding weakness to boot.
And right on cue, the Right is ready to pounce.
I don’t blame ’em — except for the part about them being weak while branding strength. Conservatives have put on a masterclass of complaining for 30 years — but because the intelligentsia on the Left perennially pumps candy into that piñata: They beat the hell out of you — while unconscionably ignoring the debauchery of their own behavior.
Sailing away on Scot-Free . . .
Then there’s this . . .
America obsessively concerns itself with symbols — fixating over a missing flag pin on a politician’s lapel, for instance.
So — these people can:
- Incessantly lie
- Manipulate the hell out of you
- Start dumb wars and never finish them
- Drag their feet forever
- Obstruct as if not doing your job were a virtue
- Take off all kinds of time after accomplishing nothing
- Waste mountains of money while touting concerns about spending
- Spend enormous amounts of time & energy assailing the opposition while absolving their own at every turn
- Broadcast beliefs that have no bearing on their record or yours
- Rile you up with red meat to savagely scorn the other side — as you sail Scot-Free on an ocean of bottomless lies and hypocrisy . . .
Never in doubt — while you fret over flair:
Conservatives control the narrative about responsibility and think that magically translates to taking responsibility. Republicans pounce on the Left day in and day out — as if the Right’s record vanished off the face of the earth. It’s all about framing the narrative — and the Left institutionalizing weakness is a gimme for the Right to rail on ’em.
That the Left brings it on themselves is another matter . . .
And the icing on the cake:
Somewhat sincere intellectuals justifiably calling out universities, woke ways, racially rigged incidents and such: Providing endless fodder for the Right to rip people for behavior that pales in comparison to what they’ve done for decades. And what McWhorter & Crew miserably fail to recognize is that their efforts act like a firewall by unwittingly providing an unlimited supply of candy to that piñata. I’m not suggesting they stop — I’m suggesting they reframe the debate by broadening it.
Someone really “looking at the deep questions” — would have the courage to consider mine.
By not deviating from your lane — you don’t understand the roadblocks within it that were created outside of it. It would be extremely difficult to reach the Left no matter what you do. But by feeding that firewall, you’re building in barricades that block you from reaching them in ways you might be able to without the Right sailing Scot-Free.
Thomas Sowell is the Grand Marshal of this lockstep lovefest — and the Admiral of the Scot-Free fleet. You assume that means I’m out to “DESTROY” Sowell — and you could not be more wrong. Hear me out and you’ll see. By the way, assuming bad motives is in gross breach of his own standards.
Why must I remind his fans of what they supposedly believe in?
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.
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!
Exposing Sowell is my bridge to expose it all. It’s the kind of thing that takes “stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving” to undestand:
