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):
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.”
Borrowing from Theodore Dalrymple’s Life at the Bottom. And how fitting for a country that can’t even get the self-evident straight . . .
Even 20 years later:
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.
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.
Never mind this . . .
But who cares about that:
When you’ve got this . . .
“Watch again”
How fitting for the world you wallow in:
And now, even now . . .
The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!
And now, even now . . .
Never mind all that and this . . .
Not to mention this . . .
A young man sittin’ on the witness stand
The man with the book says “Raise your hand”
“Repeat after me, I solemnly swear”
The man looked down at his long hair
And although the young man solemnly swore
Nobody seemed to hear anymoreAnd it didn’t really matter if the truth was there
It was the cut of his clothes and the length of his hair— Johnny Cash
What is Truth
Note the “Nuclear” in the name:
False pretense? I’m, as a GWOT veteran myself, and a CBRN assigned to 3rd IDrd Marine Division, we did find WMD in Iraq, but in 2010.
It seems that someone qualified in that field of defense would consider the nuclear component of the equation — as opposed to the wishful thinking that started a war and weaponized systematic self-delusion for decades. And there’s no end in sight, because countless millions still cling to this crap after 20 years.
As now, even now — they “insist upon ‘affirmation independent of all findings’” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).
Something’s not right!
Start with those 3 little words of wonder and you’ll be amazed at the clarity that comes with it. Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate, and there never was.
They just made it up:
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:
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
There’s no willingness to say, “I’m wrong.” I mean, you have to take a 2×4 to these people, basically — to get ’em to, sorta, knock ’em down and admit they were wrong.
— David Albright
That physicist said about the people pushing the aluminum tubes fantasy that took us to war.
And I’m talkin’ about you! . . .
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 You make it impossible to have this conversation within a single frame — let alone the bigger picture!
After all — you’re busy!
You’re always busy . . .
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.
— Ann Baker, Critical Thinking: A fading skill in the age of information overload
Perfectly put — except for the “fading” part. In our Age of Unenlightenment — “fading” is an understatement for the ages. What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? It’s become a pastime for people to take endless delight in advertising their immaculate critical thinking skills. But the second they’re challenged on anything that is even perceived as threatening their interests:
Don’t do any of this . . .
What I do takes work — time & effort to think it through. If you’re unwilling to work in the interest of truth, understanding, and problem solving — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well. 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!
My surgical specificity in this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone. I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell (quite the contrary). Stick around — you’ll see. But in the meantime, lemme put it in terms you’ll understand: If he stepped into a debate with me on this matter, the beating he’d take would be biblical. If you think you can challenge me on that, I invite you to try. I’ve been inviting you for a really long time.
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.
Case in Point:
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
Your pursuit of truth and accountability seems awfully one-sided, Mr. Sowell. And that’s a fact: “truth verifiable from experience or observation.” Just as my lifelong record of unwavering commitment to the truth and objective scrutiny to find it. Sowell’s disciples have no such notion, as defending the faith is all matters in following in his footsteps.
And at every turn, the faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.
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!
“Remember what the Dormouse said”:
If I came into this cold, I’d know that’s important — just as I’d know that blurring out #1 and crossing out 2 & 3 is key to the story. I’d recognize that the imagery is about correlating events. And if I didn’t understand all that — I’d damn sure want to.
Just as I’d be intrigued by someone clearly out to tell a larger story about the decline of America and how we can right this ship.
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.
I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth. It’s as outside-the-box as it gets (but rooted in timeless truths America made outdated). There’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future.
A.K.A. Learning!
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
To the uneducated, abstract ideas are unfamiliar; so is the detachment that is necessary to discover a truth out of one’s own knowledge and mental effort. The uneducated person views life in an intensely personal way — he knows only what he sees, hears or touches and what he is told by friends.
As the unknown sage puts it, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
But more than ever, even the most educated minds act in an uneducated manner in service of their interests — and do catastrophic damage by doing so. Even the best of the bunch are part of the problem they’re trying to solve.
I didn’t get the memo:
When did acquiring knowledge become: “I don’t understand everything — so I can act like an imbecile who can’t understand anything“? Would you browse a textbook then blame the teacher for your failure to understand the material? If you’re gonna blow right by illustrations and clips at the crux of the story:
Don’t complain that you can’t understand what you didn’t stop to consider.
Are you telling me . . .
That I can grasp this — but you can’t grasp that?
JavaScript programmers would get the joke but I wonder if they’d get the point (and what they’d do if they didn’t). Allow me to share my process when learning from people who’d run circles around me in writing code. One picture is worth a thousand words:
Which image below would you choose if you wanted to understand a fairly complex coding construct?
For me, it’s whatever it takes to get me where I wanna go. I wish I were smart enough to read the language spec and pick it up all on my own. Then again, I love the demands of difficulty and overcoming obstacles.
But I can’t do it alone . . .
I need the help of amazing minds from my multitude of sources that increasingly grows the more I learn and advance my skills. When I returned to this topic awhile back, I almost got it in the first video. In the face of such phenomenal work (or any sincere effort, for that matter): It would be unthinkable for me to blame the source because I gotta work a little harder.
I was equally impressed by the 2nd video. He furthered my grasp on my question — and enhanced my overall understanding to boot. And the icing on the cake: He taught with this magical tool I’d never seen before.
This — is pure gold . . .
3rd and 4th tries:
Found that amazing graphic and a guy who ranks with the best I’ve ever seen in any discipline. My gap paved the way to pay dirt — but only because I kept digging. Now I’m tapped into the internals, and I’ve got new tools to advance my knowledge on that front and many more.
The answer was there all along — I just needed to train my mind to see it.
Works the same way here . . .
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
The caption bubbles below are especially fitting for times: In a bubble of binary beliefs — possession of principles equates to embodying them. Never mind that their calcified convictions cannot survive scrutiny. But when you can deny the undeniable among the Like-minded:
Anything Goes . . .
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 I did cartwheels on TikTok to tell this story — you’d take issue with my form. We’ve created a culture that gripes over “flashy graphics” while worshipping liars in the images. Constant complaining has become a virtue — where everything of value is gain you get in the moment:
And easy is all the rage!
If I came across someone so clearly in command of this material — I wouldn’t give a f#@k about format. They could write it down on napkins and I’d roll with it. I don’t need somebody to babysit me with just the right formula for me to carefully consider something.
I’m happy to put some time and effort into working it out on my own (and asking questions on anything unclear).
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 image — and yet have the temerity to bitch about my website. Anything Goes for apologists trying to preserve what they perceive.
I know their Rolodex of Ridicule rabbit-hole routine — all too well:
And Now for the Weather . .
Not the tiniest trace of reasoning can be found in anything I’ve come across in decades of dealing with the doubt-free on WMD. And of all those I’ve challenged — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.
Funny how there’s always an excuse:
Back in the day — there was no website with an array of illustrations to gripe about. I was just sharing Trillion Dollar Tube to all these fine folks flaunting their badge of beliefs so F.A.I.R. In that clip, there’s no correlating of multiple contexts to tell a larger story. No long story to take up your time. Just 5 minutes of your life to look at argument that obliterates the bullshit that took us to war. But without watching one second of my work:
I’d suggest heading on back to that backwater school, Purdue, for a little more indoctrination, er, I mean education.
“BACKWATER SCHOOL“
To call the Cradle of Astronauts “backwater” is award-worthy for asinine statements.
The “arguments” of “Expert” By Association — taking cue from his kin on Rolodex of Ridicule:
- “You use words like honor, courage and commitment as punch lines at liberal cocktail parties” — ripping off A Few Good Men and thinking I wouldn’t notice
- The “Get help!” routine
- “Academia”
- “I’ve stood on the wall — have you?” — Jesus, why not toss in “You weep for Santiago” while you’re at it?
What does any of THAT have to do with the price of tea in China — or THIS?
About those NAVY Core Values
That “Expert” By Association holds so dear:
Or Not . . .
Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
Stirring Defense!
But who cares in your echo chambers of choice — where you can act like a child and be applauded for it. In a world where you’re constantly reinforced by a fellowship of fury — you can promote principles in one breath and abandon them the next. And get away with it with ease — because you’ve got friends:
The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.
— When Prophecy Fails
Or as I coined it . . .
None of these boxes of beliefs are entirely wrong, but bonding within them makes you think you’re entirely right (on everything). The mirror image reflects how you see yourselves — and the behavior below embodies your reaction to anyone who dares to burst your bubble.
As disgusted as I am by it all, I feel sorry for the lives of hermetically sealed minds. You’ll never know how much more the world had to offer you:
And how much more you had to offer it!
I don’t understand. I don’t understand. It’s all so incoherent and confusing with all these things I have to stop and think about.
That’s because you wallow in a world of paint by numbers — where people telling you what you wanna hear every single day: Package it all neatly into nursery-rhyme narratives (turning your mind into mush). “Text, graphics, graphics, text, short paragraphs” . . .
Well you tell me . . .
And yet somehow . . .
This Sowell supporter below had no trouble understanding my site (and even politely replied with the makings of what real conversation looks like). To be sure, he could have investigated it further and asked some questions on that front, but to get the ball rolling — this will do:
And is worlds away from what I’m used to.
- He acknowledges the marque evidence driving the story
- While he already knew the truth on the tubes — he’s keeping the door open on Sowell (as to whether he “fell for it or lied about it”)
- It’s the most clear-cut case of lying by omission imaginable, but right now — all that matters is that he’s allowing the conversation to breathe (which means we can build on it)
- Genuine conversation is a journey — and along the way in this pursuit of truth & understanding, are glorious discoveries in the willingness to be wrong
- By acknowledging that you’re wrong (in part or in whole) — just might create a hairline crack in the convictions of your interlocutor (enough to shed some light on the truth you have to tell)
- And through that exchange — perhaps they’ll come around to realizing they’re wrong (in part or in whole)
And all that sounds a lot like this:
In over 3 years of telling this story on Thomas Sowell, that’s the first time I’ve seen a supporter express any disappointment at all.
Are you telling me . . .
That the Sowell supporter above and a handful of others — just happened to have a Rosetta Stone to reason through what you can’t? Would a reasonable person blow right by critical evidence at the beginning — so you can cite website style as your reason to outright reject it by the end?
I’m not a fan of comic books — but because I’m not keen on that kind of layout, is that a valid excuse to say I can’t comprehend it? I’ve written this story a hundred different ways when one Tweet is all it should take: Thomas Sowell flagrantly failed to follow the facts on Iraq WMD — opting to peddle partisan hackery that poisons political discourse & butchers debate to this day. Here’s my 7-part documentary that exhaustively details the WMD Delusion (taking on both parties to boot — on that issue and then some).
If you don’t like my illustrations, go read the bone-dry reports for yourselves: And I’ve got plenty more material to add to your reading list. But that takes work — and why bother when you can just ridicule those who did it for you.
One picture is worth a thousand words:
When you don’t want the pictures and you don’t want the words — what would you have me do?
And once I did it:
We both know your next move . . .
Sowell had his own moves in mind. Funny how none of ’em went anywhere near the evidence. Hmm . . .
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?
And 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 (or anything else of substance on this endless saga of absurdity). 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?
You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
“As you watched yourself gavotte”
A Conflict of Visions . . .
And then some!
You had me several years ago
When I was still quite naive
Well you said that we made such a pretty pair
And that you would never leave
But you gave away the things you loved
And one of them was me . . .
Well I hear you went up to Saratoga
And your horse naturally won
Then you flew your Lear jet up to Nova Scotia
To see the total eclipse of the sun
“Well you’re where you should be all the time”
And all the girls dreamed that they’d be your partner
They’d be your partner and . . .
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.
I couldn’t agree more . . .
But there’s another reason why so many people misunderstand so many issues. Professional know-it-alls like you pull stunts like this while peddling lines like that as cover . . .
To whitewash your record of patently obvious hypocrisy and lies. What would you call someone who shoots their mouth off without addressing the evidence — but banks on their fabricated reputation to create the impression that they did?
“And the sign said”
“The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls”
Part II
