[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
“Lies have to be covered up but the truth can run around naked.” Whether or not Johnny Cash came up with that entirely on his own is unclear. What’s crystal clear is that it’s consistent with his character. Equally unmistakable is that the person behind those words in the title has none (as he makes millions politicizing and weaponizing our Federal Government). And that’s a fact: “truth verifiable from experience or observation.”
Does his patently obvious history of hypocrisy and lies change the truth when he tells it? The truth should be honored even when the source has no honor.
“Understand the links between ideas”
These were career people in the intel community. They gave honest assessments. Then all of a sudden it ends up in the hands of the leadership, the deep state as we call them, and what happened to it. Can you explain what the process and what these documents reveal?
No, but I can explain what these documents reveal on the biggest & costly lie in modern history (which shaped everything you see today). In a nation of “people who have politicized and weaponized our Federal Government” — it was impossible to have this conversation back then and still is. Forgive me for questioning your commitment to “honest assessments” — since I’ve been practically spit on for decades of sharing them.
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. Speaking of separate uranium isotopes: 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? So when you’re unfairly accused of being “racist” and whatnot for valid criticism — perhaps you should have thought about that when behaving the same way on matters of world-altering consequence:
“Identify inconsistencies and errors in reasoning”
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?
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). That sounds worthy of consideration, don’t ya think? But in a world where “people have politicized and weaponized our federal government”: Defenders of the indefensible cling to calcified convictions that cannot survive even the slightest scrutiny.
On that note, it was Sean Hannity who said those words in the title. So outraged by “career people in the intel community” having their “honest assessments” blown off by the leadership:
Guess how many times he talked about the tubes that took us to war:
Preach Responsibility and Take None!
The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause. Yet Republicans went batshit crazy after 9/11: Setting the world ablaze and browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly. On that fiasco for the ages: 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!
In a nation that no longer understands how to understand (coming down with a case of amnesia the moment reality doesn’t instantly align with your interests): Just where do I go to find those willing to endure the demands of thinking things through?
I didn’t say they shouldn’t get their act together!
I said your hypocrisy is staggering and so is the other side’s. I’ll get to the Left’s lunacy in the bit, but right now — we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about this (which critical thinkers would come to understand — created the conditions for a helluva lot of that):
Trillion Dollar Tube
If you have absolutely no idea what’s going on in the technical materials before you, on what basis are you so doubt-free? As I said in my doc: It’s astounding how the mind can pull off psychological gymnastics that allow us to believe what we say without any sense of accounting for it.
My surgical specificity in that clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone. 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 clips 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.
Mount Everest of the Obvious is dedicated to connecting essential ideas and insights on complex topics such as uranium enrichment and the ramifications of the Iraq War. They offer a variety of documentaries, articles, and reports that dissect intricate issues, emphasizing the importance of reason and evidence in public discourse. The intended audience includes those interested in understanding the deeper narratives and implications surrounding critical geopolitical topics. Through poignant storytelling and rigorous research, they aim to provoke thought and inspire intellectual inquiry.
I didn’t write those words and I don’t know who did, but I couldn’t have captured it better myself. Someone challenging accepted beliefs about how airplane wings generate lift, said the following: “They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I think a 3D prop of some kind is probably worth a million or a trillion words.”
I couldn’t agree more!
Especially since he was talking about a topic that’s “controversial because we’ve all been taught how this works incorrectly when we’re younger.” A lot of that goin’ around!
“Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas”
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 and probably generations to come.
“Never heard of him!” I’m not surprised — in a country that can’t even get the self-evident straight (over 20 years later, no less):
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.
You had no trouble understanding a discussion around materials on Titan (with countless millions chiming in with sensible observations in sync with expertise). But when the topic turns to the debacle that tore this country apart in more ways than you can imagine: Apologists turn into imbeciles to believe some of the stupidest shit imaginable.
And lo and behold — paved to way for the other side to pull the same stupefying feats of psychological gymnastics when going for gold in the Gutter Games of Government. 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).
Speaking of Life at the Bottom — while being mired in the murky (by design):
“Approach problems in a consistent and systematic way”
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). To conform to fact — we must agree that he was carrying a watermelon drink and consider what it means: Maybe nothing, maybe everything. But you pollute the debate when you won’t even acknowledge the irrefutable.
Worse than that — you poison your purpose (on that front and all others).
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.
“Reflect on the justification of their own assumptions, beliefs and values”
Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . . They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.
When we dig deeper, we understand better. We can compare different outcomes, examine, tear apart, and make cognizant judgments that are derived from different mental models
deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences
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 too! 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: Is apples & oranges as it gets when compared to the transactional nature of news and social-media norms.
Understanding how seemingly unrelated events impact one another takes time and effort to digest. You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite — which is why even now . . .
What could not be more crystal clear is clouded to your Liking:
People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.
— Thomas Sowell
DOE’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 CIA seized on as evidence in their favor.
One DOE 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
Between Sowell’s words and mine — which ones strike you as glib?
My words and illustrations seem awfully specific for someone simply “attacking” Sowell, don’t ya think?
Not to mention this . . .
Your pursuit of truth and accountability seems awfully one-sided, Mr. Sowell. Once again, that’s a fact — and no amount of flooding the internet with his fancy quotes to float is gonna change that. “The thing about Thomas Sowell is he doesn’t hit you with emotion. . . . No conjecture. Just facts.” Never mind his “opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork: While flagrantly ignoring irrefutable facts of mathematical certainty (of world-altering consequence, no less).
Speaking of fancy quotes that amount to fortune cookies for followers:
Not to mention this picture:
Critical thinkers wouldn’t need me to numerically illustrate my points to point out the principles upon which they put Sowell on a pedestal. They’d simply follow the facts to find he didn’t! Take note of this trite & trendy language that follows. Strikingly in sync with Sowell’s, don’t ya think?
CIA is not the all knowing God of the Bible. The CIA could do everything 100% correct but still not know everything.
There’s another reason why they wouldn’t know everything: Nuclear scientists don’t work there — they work at the Department of Energy. And that — is what this is all about: You’d know that had you watched Trillion Dollar Tube instead of trying to educate me on things you know nothing about.
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.
The Russians said so.
The British said so.
Bill Clinton said so.
Leaders of both political parties said so.
a.k.a. Glib:
But why consider the holes in Sowell’s history when you can criticize the holes in my jeans? Speaking of truth “truth verifiable from experience or observation”: Unlike your “National Treasure,” I really do have a lifelong record of unwavering commitment to the truth and objective scrutiny to find it.
As I said in my doc:
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
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 . . .
In light of that — how do you explain this:
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.
“Recognise, build and appraise arguments”
That the reaction is not to think it through, not to question, not to assemble facts, not to make arguments — but instead to wave banners and spout slogans such that you could hardly distinguish what they were doing from a manifesto that would come out of [does it matter?]
— Glenn Loury, Tucker Carlson Today
When the context suits you, such words are solid gold. What you do when it doesn’t — determines the worth of your word. Speaking of which, Sowell says, “Consequences matter or should matter more than some attractive or fashionable theory.”
I couldn’t agree more! Except there were no consequences on the fiasco for the ages driven by this manifesto:
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. Alas, he wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task. Such high praise from Loury 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!
Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books — go ahead. I’m listening.
— Glenn Loury
You confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you — and stand by that. How noble of you!
Sowell’s fanatical followers would have no trouble understanding that picture — if they’d simply apply the principles upon which they perennially pounce on the opposition for this picture:
Critical thinkers would come to find that Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell a larger 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. 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:
Sounds of Silence:
The Deafening Noise of a Nation Decades in Decline
As in what it takes to understand every single story, slide, image, title, caption, quote, and how it’s all connected in the video above (which captures the essence of what I’m out to say and do). But you’re busy — you’re always busy (forever defending beliefs that have no bearing on reality):
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.
That physicist is talking about the people pushing the aluminum tubes fantasy that took us to war — and I’m talkin’ about you: “The People Who Have Politicized and Weaponized Our Federal Government”:
- A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary
- Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument
- Something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true