Thomas Sowell: The Religion

I wrote a 5-part series on Sowell that consolidates the various pieces I wrote about him — and added a great deal more. Then I wrote Behold the Legacy of Your Beloved Sowell: Disciples on Duty:

To persist in the fantasy of this fraud, you have to entirely abandon the principles upon which you worship him.

Instead of kissing the hand of your Godfather of Follow the Facts — why don’t ya follow ’em?

On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, he didn’t go anywhere anywhere near the facts — opting to peddle party-line hackery utterly devoid of key evidence in question.

Doesn’t sound like a “maverick” to me.

Oh, I see — you wanna confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you, and ignore anything that doesn’t.

A lot of that goin’ around

Glenn Loury once seemed like a great man to me — and in some ways, he still is. You can’t take away the gift of inspiration he gave by inspiring this site.

I wrote I Don’t Do Slogans last summer and he saw it:

A year later, this is what he had to say about my site. This comment was the catalyst for my Two Sides of the Same Counterfeit Coin series.

And along the way, I discovered the religion around Thomas Sowell.

The likes of Loury and McWhorter know nothing about Iraq WMD, but from what I’ve seen — they never claimed to.

Sowell did

I would not hold him to the same level of commitment and analysis on that subject as I would expect within his wheelhouse.

But it damn well better be in the spirit of it.

It’s not even in the same universe.

I’ve repeatedly explained that throughout this site, but this post will act as a summarized version of Call Sign “Maverick” and the rest around Sowell.

What McWhorter said below is simply not true — and there’s no two ways about it. But they see Sowell only through the prism of their world and what they know.

And that’s all they wanna know — which is a gross breach in the reality-based beliefs they preach.

How you handle what you don’t know — speaks to whether or not you’re a follower of the principles that Sowell espouses . . .

Or just a believer

For the purposes of this post: A believer is someone who only adheres to principles when it serves them. A follower is someone who abides by them whether it serves their interests or not.

I don’t take Thomas Sowell to task just for the fun of it. There’s a reason behind it — which is explained in the 2-part finale of Two Sides of the Same Counterfeit Coin: Part 12-A and 12-B.

Glenn Loury refused to consider the inconvenient evidence around Sowell — and What a Fool Believes He Sees is my response to that refusal.

Thomas Sowell is key to an idea I have in mind — and had Loury listened, Sowell could not only become the “great man” he believes him to be — but could also be the catalyst to turn the tide.

It just doesn’t compute with his army of loyalists — that if their hero were the genuine article, he would want them to hold him accountable.

My efforts to expose him is to demonstrate the danger, destruction, and self-delusion of blind belief — and that admitting when you’re wrong, could be more important than all your years of being right.

And I would know

With rare exception, I am met with smug resistance and snippets of certitude from all those who see Sowell as a National Treasure.

The irony is — if I could somehow have a conversation with him, I don’t think he would treat me like any of his disciples have.

That’s one of the reasons why I chose him over someone like Larry Elder — who acted like a child in response to being challenged on this topic 2-1/2 years ago:

This bit below is polite compared to what I’m used to. Nevertheless, the person provided me with an opportunity. Had he read my other comments, he’d know that I’ve already answered this question.

Rather than point that out, I decided to seize the day and write this summary.

In this image alone, you should know something’s off. Colin Powell did not go to the UN with “The Russians said so. The British said so. Bill Clinton said so. Leaders of both political parties said so.”

Powell presented a case — and anyone acting in good faith would be willing to address the evidence within it.

Sowell had no such notion

George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.

Not in my world, Mr. Sowell: I call a spade a spade — they all lied.

As the person who wrote and produced the most comprehensive documentary ever done on this subject — I would know. All others combined don’t even come close to the granularity of mine.

For the people who love Thomas Sowell: Is “said so and so” in sync with the standards you would expect from him? Wouldn’t you expect him to say the same thing I just did about examining evidence on the merits?

Wouldn’t the maverick you see — say that it’s critical to consider the evidence Powell presented?

So why didn’t he?

It would be extremely beneficial to watch the entire 7-part series totaling 2 hours and 40 minutes.

But I’ll settle for this 5-minute excerpt:

That should strike you as someone with a command of the material.

In the piece below, Sowell states. . .

What are the known facts about Saddam Hussein’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

We know that, at one time or other, he was either developing or producing or using such weapons. Back in 1981, the Israelis bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility, to the loud condemnation of many nations.

From the get-go, you go back to 1981 to establish “known facts”?

That would never fly by his own standards or any standard of sound argument.

The very fact that he started with something so weak — speaks volumes right off the bat. He’s not following the facts — he’s painting a narrative, and he damn well knows it.

To follow the facts, you must start with evidence in the present — not Iraq’s decades-old history of behavior. If you wanna bring that up as part of your argument, fine — but you can’t float a narrative and leave it at that.

Not if you’re honest, anyway.

A go-to tactic of apologists is to lump everything together to conflate and confuse. What they’re doing is a magician’s maneuver — redirecting the discussion to one of indiscriminate “justification” . . .

Clouding the issue by design.

Never mind this

Seduced by the Secretary

There’s no war without the image of a “mushroom cloud” — and the most clear-cut evidence can be found in the nuclear claim.

That is how you ascertain the truth — by beginning with what’s clear and working your way through it.

People who aren’t after the truth are easy to spot — as they start with the murky and muddy the waters all the more.

And what was crystal-clear gets lost along the way — by design.

And whad’ya know — Bush apologists never address the nuclear charge with even a hint of what the debate was about. Not a single piece written by Sowell even mentions the aluminum tubes.

No biggie — just the basis upon which we went to war, and f*#%@d up the future of the entire world.

Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate, and there was never was.

They just made it up.

Making It Up As You Go

Half of America ignores the word of world-renowned nuclear scientists — in favor of professional know-it-alls who won’t go anywhere near this topic and never have.

If you can’t see why that’s problematic — I don’t know what to tell ya.

Hmm, so the dimensions exactly match the tubes used in Iraq’s history of manufacturing the Nasser-81mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa).

Be quite a coincidence if they weren’t . . .

Ya know, connected

Wilkerson is a master at doing the Potomac Two-Step around the fact that both he and Powell were complicit in marketing the war to the public.

You don’t get a pass for flagrantly failing to ask the most basic questions when you’re well aware of the unscrupulous environment you’re in.

Moreover, as the aluminum tubes were debunked by the A-Team of experts using crystal-clear science — the only possible way that someone wouldn’t recognize the truth is because they didn’t want to — making Powell’s speech as insincere as it gets.

— Richard W. Memmer (Epilogue)

As Insincere As It Gets

By the time of that July 10, 2004 article above — this is some of the key information that was publicly available:

On a matter of this magnitude . . .

He starts out with “What are the known facts? — and shortly thereafter, he’s talking about the Manhattan Project, Iraq playing cat and mouse with inspectors, and “old tricks” that “could pose a major threat.”

Just once, could we have a conversation about the actual threat — instead of what you imagined it to be?

What does any of this below have to do with whether or not a centrifuge rotor with a 3mm wall could maintain 90,000 RPM to make highly enriched uranium?

Speaking of inspectors — take a look-see at what Sowell conveniently left out of that “cat and mouse” claim:

Lo and Behold

If this were one of those “Select all squares with traffic lights” deal — which ones would you choose that sound related to nuclear weapons?

Holy War

Mr. Sowell:

Could you tell me why the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) — got an equal say on the aluminum tubes for the NIE vote?

An agency that does imagery analysis of the Earth?!?

Same for NSA and other agencies that had no expertise in centrifuge physics.

And why wasn’t JAEIC allowed to weigh in? You don’t know what JAEIC is?

Allow me

DAVID ALBRIGHT (RWM): An alternative method to resolve this conflict would have been for the DCI to ask for the judgment of the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee (JAEIC for short)  which is officially part of the NIE process. JAEIC has been a standing DCI technical intelligence committee for several decades.

WASHINGTON POST (April 1st, 2005): The CIA refused to convene the government’s authoritative forum for resolving technical disputes about nuclear weapons. JAEIC proposed twice — in the spring and summer of 2002 — to assess all the evidence. The CIA’s front office replied that the CIA was not ready to discuss its position.

RWM: For a year and a half the C.I.A. was ready enough to shovel its certitude to the White House. Turner was ready enough to arrogantly dismiss the conclusions of all the world’s top centrifuge scientists. And yet somehow the C.I.A. was never ready enough to openly debate the issue.

DAVID ALBRIGHT (RWM): This polarized debate was formalized, but not resolved, in October 2002 with the NIE  In this process, roughly ten intelligence agencies each had one vote, which pitted one agency against the other in a drive for a majority, vote.

RWM: Only DOE and INR dissented. The CIA won a majority vote with agencies that had no business being involved in the discussion — which is where Colin Powell’s empty assertion of “most U.S. experts” came from. What does satellite surveillance and phone tapping have to do with centrifuge science?

Even the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency got an equal say on the aluminum tubes — an agency that does imagery analysis of the Earth.

Only DOE and INR dissented

INR — as in Colin Powell’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department. They were stuck in their old-fashioned ways — as they agreed with the Dept. of Energy (ya know, the actual experts).

Powell conveniently ignored his own intelligence shop.

I cover all that in detail in the documentary — and a great deal more.

His case at the UN revolved around 3 WMD claims:

  1. Chemical
  2. Biological
  3. Nuclear

Defenders of the Indefensible invariably ignore #2 and #3 and distort the hell out of #1:

That you even think that something so complex and convoluted could be explained away so easily — is a monumental problem all by itself . . .

The North Star

Then there’s the fact that Sowell brazenly ignored the debauchery in his own camp to politely pounce on the other.

I’m not defending Democrats — I’m calling this man out for the hypocrite that he is.

For nearly 20 years — I’ve faced nothing but contempt for correction and “hostility and hatred” on this matter of world-altering consequence.

And this pompous son of a bitch acts like I imagined it all:

Meaningless Majority

My documentary put it all on a silver platter (showing how both liberals and conservatives behave when their interests are at stake).

It’s all there for anyone who wants to know the truth — but I can’t make you wonder if you’re unwilling to.

Allow me to break down how egregiously out of whack this response is — and how it’s a gross breach in the very foundation upon which these people put Thomas Sowell on a pedestal.

This is prejudice by definition — not to mention classic cognitive dissonance:

Fill in the blanks for where this guy fits in . . .

I didn’t say you would in the public domain. Its not his area of expertise, so unsurprisingly, I’ve never heard him comment about ; war, Iraq, WMDs, or anything of that sort until I read your post.

I imagine it’s just not a line of questioning an interviewer with limited time would typically think to ask Sowell.

Central to Sowell’s beliefs are responsibility and accountability — and his followers should know that better than I do.

So the notion that simply because no interviewer asked him about Iraq WMD — that this magically absolves him of owning up to his massive mistakes . . .

Is preposterous

I openly admitted my mistake about using this image of the wrong Trayvon. I discovered I was wrong and said so, as I always do.

No matter how right I am about everything else in my doc, it was sloppy and stupid to use this ridiculous image in the montage that follows.

Even if it had been the right one — I’d still hate the image and regret it.

It’s just so goddamn cheap

I’m embarrassed by it — and yet it was just an honest mistake. I don’t care how honest it was — I’m better than that.

Sowell has no such notion — and his actions on Iraq WMD are everything but an honest mistake. No objective observer would argue otherwise.

Anybody can offer a token nod to accountability like this bit below. It doesn’t count unless you follow through — as in following the facts and taking the trail no matter where it leads:

If the current charge that President George W. Bush deliberately deceived Congress about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were to be taken seriously, it would be grounds for impeachment, if only as a warning to future presidents.

Thomas Sowell

Rather than look at Sowell’s record on this issue, and how it flies in the face of everything you believe about this guy:

You’re gonna fabricate a hypothetical scenario in which someone asks him about it — and surely then he would admit that he got it wrong.

That’s it?

Out out all you’ve supposedly learned from Sowell — this fail-safe fantasy is the best can do?

Nevertheless, given the man’s clear forthrightness and honesty, I stand by my comment that IF someone were to bring up those historical comments and ask him to comment on them in retrospect, I would be shocked if he didn’t admit to calling that one wrong.

Because of his history of “clear forthrightness and honesty”? Except for that history you didn’t know anything about until I brought it up.

That doesn’t count, does it!

That’s a bullshitter by definition:

[B]ullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

These people act like they have no understanding of human nature — as they flagrantly fail to factor for motive. This guy has made his living being embraced by the Right.

You really think he’s gonna go against ’em when it comes to war in the aftermath of 9/11?

Every word he wrote is exactly aligned with party-line talking points. Does that strike you as a “maverick”?

The Man Who Knew

But this Thomas Sowell below seems like a “maverick” — or anyone using their brain.

How comes he’s not such a “national treasure” in his spot-on assessment of Trump in 2016?

Oh, I see — you just ignore all that and latch onto the Sowell that suits you.

A lot of that goin’ around

Oh, you’re concerned about propaganda – me too:

Some circles call that evidence — I call it cowardice

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

— Hermann Goering. (Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler’s designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich)

All this was inspired by the principle — which is quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134)

That’s assuming your references are even correct and they are quoting him accurately.

Almost everything I found was written in articles by Sowell.

Any quotes outside of those, were verified from his own articles. So unless someone else wrote this stuff under his name and various sites published it — my material is pretty solid.

And this is just priceless

Even if he said that stuff, you entire diatribe smacks of the now classic modern progressive tactic of tacking a single mistake by anyone whose views they don’t like and using that one error in judgement to try and discredit ALL their work. Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.

Who said I disagreed with his work?

Outside of butchering the debate on Iraq WMD — and his partisan hackery in flagrantly ignoring his own camp’s abominable behavior, record of recklessness, systematic lying, and hypocrisy that knows no bounds . . .

I haven’t come across anything I object to.

Writing a 13-part series called Two Sides of the Same Counterfeit Coin should clue you into the fact that I don’t play sides.

I wouldn’t care if this guy cured cancer: You don’t get a pass for basking in baseless beliefs that cripple the country — and have the bottomless nerve to talk about responsibility to boot.

Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.

That doesn’t cut it when you miserably fail to acknowledge that poor judgment:

Particularly when you’re pouncing on others about theirs.

His Name was Joe

And there’s no way in hell that someone of Sowell’s intellect and passion for “following the facts” — just happened to entirely abandon his principles simply out of “poor judgment.”

Even if you allow for the possibility that it was “just a mistake” — how do you reconcile that with him having no record of acknowledging it (despite preaching responsibility)?

No “great man” would allow this lie to persist and poison our culture. No “maverick” would perpetuate party-line talking points on the most world-altering decision of our time.

And no “National Treasure” would have his egregious hypocrisy plastered all over my website.

By his own standards, you’ve got nowhere go — all you can do paint people in a light that suits you..

You see us as you want to see us — in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions.

It seems people like to say, “diatribe” — just like George likes to say, “Gore-Tex.”

You like saying, “Gore-Tex,” don’t ya!

It doesn’t matter what you tell these people or how you tell ’em — they don’t wanna know the truth.

It’s that simple — and it always has been.

No one sincerely interested in the truth would show such disdain for it. So they sling these insults to make themselves feel better about their bullshit.

And they love to feel important.

Where do you think Mentality of a Mob came from? Do you think I wrote this poem from my imagination 17 years ago?

It’s not anti-war — It’s pro-thinking

That type of “smear campaign” dog simply won’t hunt with Sowell, my friend. He’s just too damn good and right on the money so much more often that not. You’re pissing up a rope and should quit while you are ahead.

smear campaign?

As I wrote in What a Fool Believes He Sees (from my email to Glenn Loury):

If you do what I’m asking — Sowell’s name will be known to the entire world for good, and “the bad” won’t matter.

It won’t matter that Sowell 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.”

That’s exponentially more powerful than had he been right in the first place.

It’s time to start solving problems instead of endlessly talking about them and getting nowhere. In fact, you’re actually making it worse — as explained in Part 12-A and 12-B.

Do what I have in mind — and your reputations and status will soar worldwide.

That shouldn’t even factor into it — all you should care about is doing what’s right. But this is human nature, so I know the obstacles involved.

Jason Riley has rendered an enormous service by providing a compelling . . . biography

It’s not compelling at all when you look at the whole story.

It’s just preposterous to write a biography and blatantly ignore a huge hole in its premise.

So he did a colossal disservice by adding to the illusion around this man (dumbing down the minds of those who blindly follow).

Self-delusion is driving this nation into the ground. Don’t help it along.

Thank you for your time.


Richard W. Memmer

To fully understand Part 12-B, I implore you to start with 12-A.

It’s impossible to overstate how dangerous and damaging it is to place blind faith in purveyors of poppycock.

Never mind the harm to the unseen who suffer and die from your folly . . .

But by refusing to hold your own accountable, you do them a grave disservice — as they do the same to you.

Like O’Reilly writing off Rumsfeld’s responsibility like he just ran a red light — that’s exactly how Sowell’s apologists absolve him . . .

Red Light District

The man is brilliant and has predicted much of what has transpired over the past 30 years well in advance of anyone else, with incredible detail and accuracy. 

Just how brilliant could you be and blow it on something this big and glaringly obvious?

This isn’t about intelligence, it’s about ulterior motives.

But if he really were brilliant, shouldn’t he have the foresight to recognize the inherent holes in those motives? That however well-intended they might be, catastrophic consequences tend to come with endless lying and ineptitude.

Not to mention the poison of partisanship to absolve it all — running the nation into the ground while you’re at it.

At what point does it dawn on your beloved genius — that blind loyalty to that cause will be colossally counterproductive to his own?

Look around

I’m not brilliant — and I figured that out all by myself.

Somebody brilliant — would damn well know that America’s March of Folly into the Middle East comes with consequences.

Hard to Imagine

I spent $19.47 to prove a predictable point: Not one word on WMD — and fittingly, Iraq shows up only once in a footnote.

Mr. Riley — it’s just precious that you peddle his prescience — while conveniently ignoring his role in creating chaos that feeds the very polarization he predicted.

Quite the self-fulfilling prophecy, don’t ya think?

Sleight of hand

I’m often amazed for someone who writes about so many controversial issues — not just race — how little real criticism I get.

That’s convenient — most people don’t know who this guy is (I didn’t until over the last year or so). So the notion that nobody challenged him on WMD is preposterous — since few would have known about him or even bothered to if they did.

And it’s not like he didn’t know there was massive disagreement on the matter — where he could have “engaged” to welcome a challenge to his claims.

Why bother — when you can chalk it up to “Weapons of Crass Obstruction” — and still be seen as Sherlock Holmes . . .

Free from partisan “seasoning” and “tribalist” talking points — “purely objective” in hot pursuit of the facts with his “white lab coat” flapping in the wind.

Push the man as a “maverick,” a “nonconformist,” a “national treasure,” and that’s all he’ll ever be in your eyes.

And along comes the youth to follow in your footsteps — buying myth over merit.

This — is Conformity 101

Ice-cold partisan hackery wrapped in the warmth of a “white lab coat” . . .

The Cloak of Loyalty’s Lies

And the self-importance of people like Sowell just kills me — how they sit there acting like they’re Senators from Krypton.

That’s not knocking appearance just for kicks — as the look and the language is all part of . . .

The Presentation

He has the kind of record regards accurate prediction of future events in his area of expertise that demands respect. Those that don’t at least seriously consider his words are simply proving themselves fools who like to do things the hard way.

You don’t have to treat what he says as gospel, see your own points and above paragraph for why, but everything he says at least deserves serious consideration.

If you truly followed Sowell’s principles — you would know that it’s not about following his arguments, it’s about the consideration of any sound argument.

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

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.

And Around and Around We Go

In one glance at this picture below — I’d think, “This guy’s not f#@%*!` around.”

I’d instantly know he’s up to something I’ve never seen before — and I’d have to find out what that is. That observation isn’t about this photograph — it’s about how you observe anything.

I was bored to death by the professor in that World History class at Purdue — so I started flipping through the pages.

It was a life-altering moment the second I saw that sculpture.

You don’t have to care about art or be uplifted by it — but isn’t there anything that goes off in your mind to wonder . . .

Hmm, I’ve never seen anything like that before. He’s saying something with it.

That information tells you something about the sophistication of somebody right off the bat.

Props mounted on lamps. A motorized turntable (serving a practical and symbolic purpose). Black & white outfits. Silver masks.

There’s a sophisticated design here — and not only would I instantly know that, I’d be fascinated by it. I wouldn’t care what I thought I knew.

I’d just know that this guy knows something I don’t.

The artistry in the images below. The names of the sites. The dots between “The Deal.” Trillion Dollar Tube. The story on the postcard’s back.

Most of America is so bogged down by baggage and bullshit — that none of these things even register.

This guy pays attention to detail — and I’d see that inside of 60 seconds. That ability comes from a lifetime of practice and appreciation of excellence in any form.

It comes from having a cup that will never be full.

Once again, this isn’t just about my work — it’s about having the courage and courtesy to sincerely listen to those who challenge you.

This whole site is about listening and learning.

Look around

The United States is now a country obsessed with the worship of its own ignorance. . . . we’re proud of not knowing things. Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially of anything related to public policy, is an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything.

It is a new Declaration of Independence: no longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.

We no longer have those principled and informed arguments. The foundational knowledge of the average American is now so low that it has crashed through the floor of “uninformed,” passed “misinformed” on the way down, and is now plummeting to “aggressively wrong.” People don’t just believe dumb things; they actively resist further learning rather than let go of those beliefs.

I was not alive in the Middle Ages, so I cannot say it is unprecedented, but within my living memory I’ve never seen anything like it.

John & Abigail would not be pleased

They are not aware when life asks them a question . . .

I’ve always been aware

And fortunately, I’ve had plenty of people who put that to the test.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises … in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.

— Francis Bacon

I don’t roll that way. I love the demands of difficult and discernment. I’ve spent a lifetime embracing criticism that gets me to see something I didn’t.

For following the facts on this world-altering topic, I’ve been met with nothing but excuses and/or belligerence right off the Rolodex of Ridicule.

Those that don’t at least seriously consider his words are simply proving themselves fools who like to do things the hard way.

I was a follower of “follow the facts” over 40 years before I ever heard of Sowell or that saying. His army of sycophants bow to a false idol who flagrantly failed to live up to the very foundation upon which which they worship him.

And it doesn’t bother them one bit.

Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.

Once again, how do you reconcile Sowell failing to acknowledge that poor judgment? Seems to be a key tenet of his belief system.

So there’s that

You can find examples of me broadcasting my blunders throughout this site. They’re all honest and mostly minor mistakes, but I acknowledge them anyway.

On a matter of world-altering magnitude, Thomas Sowell has a record of gross negligence, egregious hypocrisy, peddling party-line talking points, and going nowhere near the facts . . .


Had he come clean and admitted his “mistakes,” you could argue that he wasn’t lying.

But it’s really a stretch to rationalize something of this enormity — where the truth is so obvious and demonstrably provable.

That he made no effort to acknowledge error of any kind on this front — that’s flat-out lying, no matter how you slice it.

He protected his interests — that’s all there is to it.

A “great man” would not be so small — especially when countless people have paid the price for his greed:

Death, destruction, and suffering on a scale you will never know — or even care to. Jesus, if you’re gonna go to war — at least be smart about it.

But no, we got stupid — and apologists excused that too.

And why not, it’s tradition:

This nation and the world continues to pay for that stupidity and systematic deception on multiple fronts. America has become a clusterf#@% of a country — crippled by baggage and endless bullshit on both sides.

But hey, why take responsibility for your role — when you can just blame somebody else?

On that note

So we can talk about race and responsibility till the end of time — but heaven forbid we have a single conversation about war and responsibility.

And since you seem utterly oblivious to the reciprocal relationship between the Left and the Right, you can’t seem to comprehend how you help create the very problems you’re fighting against.

Same goes for the Left

Had the Right held its own accountable on Iraq (along with holding Democrats accountable) — there’d be no Obama presidency . . .

Which means no Black Lives Matter

To be sure, Democrats would still have manipulated these events with Hillary in the White House — but that’s just run-of-the-mill race card.

By Obama even half-heartedly endorsing this horseshit — it was like taking a flamethrower to race relations.

He pissed away his presidency the moment he said, “If I had a son” . . .

Setting off a chain of events that’s been doing damage on a daily basis ever since.

And while I can’t prove it . . .

Given the tight margins — there’s not a doubt in my mind that these ploys put Trump in the White House.

It’s quite possible that Comey’s cover-his-ass actions in the 11th hour tipped the scales. Given the possibility that a single event like that could alter the atmosphere of an election — what do you think pouring fuel on the fire for years did?

And the Right treating Bush like the Second Coming of Christ, set the stage for the rise of the Rock Star they spent the next 8 years railing against.

I don’t understand the math in your methods:

You pay untold millions to political strategists — don’t these people do any cost-benefit analysis on the long-term impact of endless lying and ineptitude?

You gleefully mocked anyone who questioned your beloved Bush — and when ya came up empty on WMD, you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch.


About as astute as Sowell’s army of religious-like loyalists. These people march in the Follow the Facts Parade — as long as it goes where they want it to.

And when it doesn’t, it’s mantra over merit. So you get the “benefits” of believing you’re following the facts, even when you’re not.

How you pull that stunt so easily is a stupefying feat of psychological gymnastics.

And all that jazz about responsibility — that’s for other people.

Who’s the fool?

Look around at the world we live in. It doesn’t look anything like my ways, but it looks a helluva lot like yours

This Land Is Your Land

This Land Is My Land

Loury & McWhorter made sweeping assumptions outside their lane in order to praise him . . .

Would they step back out to correct him?

Of course not

Loury chose to protect Sowell’s reputation over the good of the nation — so he’s no different from those he’s spent his life calling out.

They protect their interests — he protects his.

These guys are in the myth-busting business — but by perpetuating the myth that Sowell is some kind of Sherlock Holmes in anything he touches, they help perpetuate the most dangerous, destructive, and costly myth in America.

Not to mention the world

While the WMD delusion derails everything they’re trying to do . . .

As they bring comfort to countless millions who march to mantra over merit — singing out to Sowell as the Godfather of Facts Over Feelings.

Never mind his record — and never mind theirs.

Preach responsibility and take none

The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause. Yet they went batshit crazy after 9/11: Setting the world ablaze — and browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.

On top of belittling anyone who challenges them — this is their answer to everything on all-things Iraq . . .

And all accountability to boot (as they lash out at the Left for doing the same).

McWhorter rightly knocks anti-racism as religion — while he conveniently ignores his own in the band of Immaculate Intellectuals‘ blind faith in Thomas Sowell.

Utterly ridiculous:

But that’s the free-for-all nation we’ve become — where nothing matters but faith-based belief.

You wanna have it your way . . . and Anything Goes to get it.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s