Why Examine the Holes in Sowell’s History When You Can Criticize the Holes in My Jeans?

Glenn Loury once called my writing “brilliant” and was “blown away” by this site and signed up. If you’re a fan, I’d think that would carry a little weight — at least enough to wonder what he read.

Maybe you don’t like my style, but maybe he sees something you don’t . . .

And maybe I see something that none of you do. On what basis would you believe these people are all-knowing?

On what basis? . . .

Isn’t that central to Sowell’s standards and supposedly yours?

So where are those standards — and why do you treat these people like gods?

You think I just imagined this:

If evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is?

As I said in my documentary 8 years ago — where I take both parties to task for how they let emotion run roughshod over reason:

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.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act V

The measure of your critical thinking skills is not your capacity for listening to people you already agree with — it’s how you handle information that challenges you. It’s become a pastime to heap praise upon “National Treasures” — as you long for conversation that looks like theirs while they follow the facts on the trail to the truth.

But in the face of irrefutable fact that doesn’t fit the formula — you sling snippets of certitude laced with insults, excuses, and baseless beliefs:

Anything to fuel your fix and be Liked for it.

One Tweet is all it should take:

You said follow the facts

Well there they are right at your fingertips. But the Tweet below tells the story of what I almost invariably face in telling the story above:

The second you shun evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative you want — you have contaminated your judgment. How quickly you come to your conclusions — and what you’re willing to ignore to solidify them: That is the underlying message of my efforts.

Debunking the WMD delusion & Trayvon tale is a conduit for showing how this nation systematically derails debate.

And Sowell is my bridge between them to expose it all.

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

So you’re saying that your plan will elevate Thomas 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 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.

And to do that — first we gotta clear the clutter that’s crippled this country.

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 harm them in doing so.

[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.

In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. If we don’t right this ship, we will not see a return to some semblance of recognizing reality in our lifetime.

Mark my words

Your ways will seal that fate.

There is no amount of gain you could give me to believe something to be true that is false. When warranted, I will defend those I despise and call out those I like.

I call a spade a spade, period

To me, the whole idea of looking up to those we admire is to emulate what they represent in some fashion of our own. Whatever issues I have with Sowell, I’ve seen enough to know he would never stoop to the obnoxious behavior I’ve consistently seen by his devout followers.

If you can’t see what’s wrong with that picture — I don’t know what to tell ya.

And this gem — it just never ends:

So, on an issue involving mathematical certainty in the separation of uranium isotopes — you wanna ignore the evidence to show off your math skills by splitting hairs over the meaning of “mathematical certainty”?

You don’t really need to find out what’s goin’ on
You don’t really wanna know just how far it’s gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry . . .

We can do “The Innuendo,” we can dance and sing
When it’s said and done, we haven’t told you a thing
We all know that crap is king


In the Crap is King culture we’ve created:

Infantile insults are celebrated. The doubt-free who don’t do their homework are the experts. Those who belittle and outright reject correction — are the righteous and wise. The ones with courage to admit when they’re wrong — are the weak. Tireless dedication is mercilessly mocked — while intellectual laziness is esteemed.

Original thinking and uniqueness are bashed — while conforming to the trite is trumpeted. Depth is discarded with disdain — while shallowness is embraced with love.

The honest & sincere are shunned — while manipulators & liars are welcomed with open arms.

This is my story — and if you read it in full, you’ll find it’s part of your story too. You’ve all dealt with the same behavior I have — the difference is that I get it from every direction . . .

Which one below looks like he’s on point?

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

— Thomas Sowell

D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of “rough indication.”

And since the entire point of testing should be to replicate the conditions of centrifuges, one would think that the full-blown testing would be performed before the N.I.E. was completed.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act II

Between Sowell’s words and mine

Which ones strike you as glib?


Any 60 seconds of that 5-minute excerpt is more substantive than everything ever shown on WMD across the cable clans and broadcast to boot.

On what basis do you make that claim?

Now you’re talkin’ . . .

But they’re wearing suits and have millions of viewers — you’re nobody. You couldn’t even carry Sowell’s jockstrap.


I defy you to find a single instance of anyone on the Right even attempting to make an argument on the dimensions, material, and quantity of the tubes.

You’ll be lucky to find them mentioned at all.

You think it’s just a coincidence that all the “arguments” on the Right just happen to follow the same pattern (conveniently leaving out the most key evidence presented by Powell)?

That — all by itself, speaks volumes

To anyone who thinks world-altering wars are more important than whining about websites that expose painfully obvious lies, anyway.

Sowell’s cogent & sober arguments . . .

regurgitated garbage

When protecting your interests, most of America’s into the newfangled ways of “argument” — 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 never got on board.

You’re wrong — and here’s why:

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

On that note: Sowell’s articles on the subject are assertions, not argument. It’s high time we appreciate the difference — perfectly defined on a blog I stumbled across years ago called Duane’s Mind: A Christian’s Perspective:

An assertion is just a point of view, an opinion. An argument goes further. An argument is a point of view supported by reasons that demonstrate the view is a good one.

In both my documentary and throughout this site, I address the talking points that Sowell’s efforts solely rely on.

And do so with argument

If apologists were doing the same, they’d take one look at this imagery and think:

So, you did a documentary revolving around the marquee evidence Powell presented at the UN — that was the difference between going to war and not going. That sounds pretty important.

Yeah — so perhaps you should listen to people who addressed the evidence instead of being so quick to defend those who pretend to.

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

“The British said so”? Hmm . . .

What Bill Clinton said is entirely irrelevant to the tubes (that Thomas Sowell never bothered to address — or anything else of substance in this saga of endless absurdity).

So there’s that — and this . . .

The Right ripped Bill Clinton to shreds and seemingly lives to assail democrats — and yet Sowell cites their word as solid gold.

That — is a magician’s maneuver . . .

Well, if they “said so” — it must be true.

So when people you despise ostensibly agree with you — it’s gotta be true, because they’d never do such a thing if it weren’t.

That’s it? . . .

Who cares about mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics when you’ve got the word of people who lie for a living?

It couldn’t possibly be that your enemy has ulterior motives themselves?

Nobody nails Democrats better than Glenn Greenwald’s gold-standard:

Here we have a perfect expression of the most self-destructive Democratic disease which they seem unable to cure. More than anything — they fear looking weak. To avoid this, they cave, surrender, capitulate — and stand for nothing.

Flagrantly failing to factor for motive in Sowell’s “said so and so” in the environment below — is as insulting to your intelligence as it gets.

Never mind it’s all meaningless in the context of the tubes.

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

— Thomas Sowell

I don’t play those games, Mr. Sowell . . .

They all lied

Some circles call that evidence — I call it cowardice

And don’t you find it suspicious that someone of Sowell’s caliber is gonna come right out of the gate with something so weak as:

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.

Immediately followed by:

Back in 1981 . . .

So you found one small crack in Sowell’s character where he defended Iraq having WMD, does that hurt his credibility?

This man muddied the waters of debate to serve himself — on a little matter of war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11. Factoring for his history of hypocrisy and lying on that — along with ripping the Left while shamelessly ignoring the debauchery on the Right:

That “one small crack” is a wide-open window into his character and credibility.

Lo and Behold

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

Remarkable reasoning from this crowd that thinks they’re part of some revolution in reason by ceaselessly Tweeting the tenets of Thomas Sowell.

When you have no idea what the argument is (making no effort or inquiry to understand, no less):

Wrapping quotes around “argument” is as ridiculous as using air quotes incorrectly.

And without even the most basic insight into anything on this story: His camp has a habit of glossing over global issues of catastrophic consequences with:

“Seems”

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity

— George Orwell.

Sowell’s side fabricated this fantasyland where they follow the facts wherever they go. Your record is who you are — not what you believe. If you were the genuine article, it would strike you as curious that Sowell offered such fluff in the face of something so monumental.

Sowell’s 2-minute read is 752 words — not one of which addresses the tubes that took us to war. Compare his piece to my 7-part series that’s 2 hours and 40 minutes (with props on display, no less).

You think I spent $200 on that carbon fiber tube just for the helluva it?

This mountain of information was publicly available before he wrote that article — and not one word about it.

How do you reconcile that?

If these professional know-it-alls threw 99 items of shit on the wall — while you gleefully ignored the information that matters most: Concrete evidence of mathematical certainty:

The entire story of which puts those 99 in the dustbins of delusion.

You’d forever cry foul for my refusal to wallow in meaningless crap that’s engineered to make damn sure that’s exactly what you do.

Given the world-altering consequences of manufacturing a lie to invade a Middle Eastern country in the aftermath of 9/11:

The chances of Sowell being a repeat offender on lying and/or manipulating matters in a manner outside the parameters of a “Maverick”:

It’s indefensible! Don’t you know that?


This bit about Coleman Hughes captures the principle upon which my site and documentary were founded:

[Coleman] Hughes says he formerly accepted the premise of Black Lives Matter — that, in his words, “racist cops are killing unarmed black people” — but now believes that this premise does not survive scrutiny once factors other than race are taken into account.

“But now believes” . . .

“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true? Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind. I changed my mind.’”

“Said so and so”:

And all their ridiculous diversionary tactics to deny the obvious . . .

Cannot survive scrutiny once other factors are taken into account.

like evidence and stuff

“Everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not a valid argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.” By the way, how many of you know what Trayvon actually looked like? It’s not the kid on People magazine I assure you.

I’m not interested in defending Zimmerman — my aim is to expose the irrational behavior of blindly defending Trayvon and the damage you did by doing so.


I think what’s amazing . . . to give you a sense of the lack of danger here — is that the kid weighs 140 lbs . . .

— Cenk Uygur

Lemme tell you what’s amazing, Cenk — you guys making 2 key factual errors in 33 seconds:

The cops made an honest mistake in calling his watermelon drink “iced tea” (simply because of the brand).

That the media advocates reported it the same way at first is understandable. That they never corrected it is unforgivable.

To conform to fact . . .

We must agree that it was watermelon 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).

Is their motive to hide the watermelon because of the stereotype and/or the Lean connection? Likely both, but either way — it’s a watermelon drink and dishonest to say otherwise.

Note: A few years ago, I looked into the stereotype and wrote a bit about it on Way of the Watermelon. I love the process of discovery in the origin of things — as you might have noticed.


If you’re not gonna abide by the rules of rational argument, why should anyone else?

  • When the Right came up empty on WMD — ya just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch: Shrewd!
  • And the Left seeks to eradicate racism while refusing to recognize how they fuel it.

And don’t even get me started on the ludicrous ways of woke. The Right is not always wrong, and they’re right on the money on this horseshit.

I don’t see why renaming it is a problem . . .

You don’t see — a lot

We’re marching to Black Lives Matter with the first black president sitting in the White House.

Hmm . . . is that a smart move?

The answer should be abundantly clear — and yet the question is not even considered. I’ve been blocked by people on Twitter for just politely suggesting that BLM is a counterproductive cause.

The moment Obama caved on the Democratic Party playbook — he put Trump on the path to the presidency.

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?

If the indiscriminate approach of BLM pisses me off: What do you think it did for people gunning to bring Obama down?

You overplayed your hand

He had golden opportunities to take the country forward, but instead of leading the way — he followed his base and went backwards. Given the tight margins — there’s not a doubt in my mind that their ploys put Trump in the White House.

And the Right makes a helluva lot more sense on the homeless too.

The homeless and their advocates say they need more services and homes for the unhoused.

More money + more services = more homeless

That formula doesn’t make sense to me.

You don’t listen and you never learn . . .

A lot of that goin’ around

I’m up against armies of unreachables hiding behind a force field of fallacy.

Like many alternatives, however, it was psychologically impossible. Character is fate, as the Greeks believed. Germans were schooled in winning objectives by force, unschooled in adjustment. They could not bring themselves to forgo aggrandizement even at the risk of defeat.

— Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly

And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains . . .

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

Fools, said I, you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence


“Study: Democrats, Republicans Both Ignore Facts” . . .

To write & produce a documentary around that reality — and same for this site . . .

The challenges I face are exponentially more complex than the transactional nature of news and social-media norms. As the problems that plague America are interrelated, I draw parallels and make correlations that don’t compute in your lickety-split perception.

As I wrote on Without Passion or Prejudice in reference to its opening image:

Half the country is with me on this — and I just lost the other half. Had I started with the image below — it would be the opposite half.

How bout side by side?

How does that register?

At what point does it compute that I really do take the trail to the truth no matter where it leads?

On that note . . .

Guess who else gets exposed in very specific culpability on the aluminum tubes? The guy in the White House right now — Joe Biden.

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

One picture is worth a thousand words. Without passion or prejudice in the way, you would wonder what the image below is about:

And fill in some of the words for yourself . . .

You’d have questions

“Who are you to criticize the great Thomas Sowell?” — would not be one of ’em. The second you do that, you’re in egregious breach of the standards he espouses.

What should go off in your mind is:

“Said so and so” doesn’t strike me as Sowell’s standards. This guy seems to know something about him that I don’t — maybe I should find out what that is.

But you dig in to defend your own and do a cosmic disservice by doing so. You defend before you consider — and the discussion is over before it begins.

I didn’t write Mentality of a Mob from my imagination.

If your “National Treasure” were on Mount Rushmore — it wouldn’t make any difference on this debate. Then again, in how you consider information — it should make all the difference:

After all, isn’t that why you put him there?

If you hail him as a hero, shouldn’t you abide by the principles upon which you put him on a pedestal — even if it knocks him off of it?

Wouldn’t the genuine article want you to hold them accountable to their claims?

In the aftermath of 9/11, did Thomas Sowell have motive to lie in order to support his party in the invasion of Iraq?

I asked that question to the guy running “The Genius of Thomas Sowell” podcast — and he wouldn’t even acknowledge that much. If you’re gonna play these games, fine — Trayvon was carrying iced tea after all.

If you wanna squander your freedom in bondage to a free-for-all America — let’s make it official and get it over with.


That the decline of America over the last 30 years in the Gutter Games of Government — doesn’t instantly unfold before your very eyes, is not a flaw in my argument:

It’s a flaw in your willingness to listen & learn — and do the work it takes to understand.

To claim that Iraq WMD wasn’t a lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon. In denying that reality, half the country helped create a culture where denying reality is now the norm.

Speaking of the moon

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 “therapist” 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?

Out of 31 tubes in subsequent testing, only one was successfully spun to 90,000 RPM for 65 minutes — which the C.I.A. seized on as evidence in their favor.

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

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

— Richard W. Memmer: Act II

You skim my site and instantly issue your “where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton. If you don’t wanna watch my documentary that’s chock-full of facts on this fiasco for the ages, that’s your prerogative.

But don’t bitch about what you don’t see when you refuse to look.


Blind Men Touching an Elephant

If the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan said, “Trayvon was carrying a watermelon drink, not iced tea” — he’d be telling the truth. His motives and reprehensible history do not change that reality, but because you a have a “higher purpose” — you wanna make up your own.

The Right rolls the same way . . .

For nearly 20 years on this matter of mathematical certainty — I’ve been practically spit on for following principles people worship purveyors of virtue for peddling. The second they’re questioned, those precious virtues you promote on a daily basis in the Facts Over Feelings Parade — are rolled right over with your feelings.

You all play the same goddamn games — gutting the truth on the stupidest shit imaginable . . .

I don’t understand the satisfaction in taking endless delight in embracing slogans and simpleminded narratives — designed to make damn sure you don’t look beyond the surface . . .

While mocking my “juvenile” visuals for illustrating timeless truths and anything that might make a hairline crack in your hermetically sealed minds.

It is hard to fill a cup which is already full

  • You could stop reading to go watch the entire doc to make sure you’re fully informed before speaking on things you don’t understand
  • You could watch it in parts and ask questions in between
  • You could watch clips to take it one step at a time

You do nothing of the kind

If you just went on your way, that would be one thing. But you just can’t help commenting on things you know nothing about — without an atom of integrity to uncover the truth concealed by your complicity.

I point you to a 7-part, 2 hours and 40 minutes doc — that distills a story that demanded a massive amount of effort, thought, research, and writing: And you tap a Tweet with a talking point or two — thinking you can inform me.

I do all the work, you do nothing and consider nothing — then blame me for failing to convince you.

People really don’t listen.

People are just either not that interested in what you’re saying, or they are too focused on their own agenda. It’s ridiculous to see two people acting like they can’t really hear each other — by choice.

In “The Significance Principle,” authors Les Carter and Jim Underwood posit that we should listen past where the other person has finished. We should even pause before answering. Let them get their point, their story, their compliment, and even their criticism out. Completely. . . .

The ability to hear is a gift. The willingness to listen is a choice.”

— Mike Greene, ​Why you should first seek to understand — before trying to be understood

You win from the start and even more at the end (all the more reinforced by fallacies and friends who share them). No amount of undeniable evidence & expertise can convince you of anything in your race for satisfaction and insatiable appetite for glorifying those who give it to you.

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 on this site:

Many students resist having their beliefs questioned by invoking the claim that “Everyone is entitled to his own belief” or “All opinions are equal.” The corollary notion is that therefore no justifications for beliefs are necessary. The difficulty with this perspective is that it implies that all disagreements concerning beliefs are personal disagreements or slights.

If there exist reasons for one’s opinions, then a difference of opinions becomes an opportunity for understanding how someone else’s reasoning leads them to a different opinion. If, on the other hand, if there are no reasons for opinions, students are more likely to take differences of opinion as insults or as injuries to their self-esteem.

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

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

And yet here we are . . .

You can’t have “Compared to What?” without comparing what’s in question. In the aftermath of 9/11, what sold a war in the Middle East is as critical as comparison gets.

The Zippe unclassified report discusses several centrifuge rotor designs but does not explicitly state the wall thickness of any of the rotors.

Based on the limited documentation, we can infer that Zippe used rotors with wall thicknesses that range from I mm to approximately 2.8 mm.

Based on the limited documentation”? . . .

Why not just pick up the phone and find out from the “father of the modern uranium centrifuge” himself?


Why would anyone infer a 2.8mm wall for Zippe rotors that were never more than 1mm? . . .


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 in the gain you get in the moment:

And easy is all the rage!

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

They just made it up . . .


Or Not . . .

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

Stirring Defense

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

Disciples worship the word of professional know-it-alls who avoid detail like Black Death. I thought I’d seen it all back in the day . . .

But this crowd takes the cake:

  • 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 . . .

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.

Note: I modified the Intelligence Community image below by overlaying CIA on top of Director of National Intelligence — to show how the IC effectively operated pre-9/11 and before DCI took center stage.

And that — is how the CIA rigged the NIE with the majority-rules vote.

INR (Powell’s own intel agency) — backed DOE (the only real experts on this issue). They were outvoted by totally unqualified agencies (under pressure from CIA).

If that doesn’t raise any eyebrows, what would?

Contrast Thomas Sowell’s loose language of “various nations‘ intelligence agencies” (and anything he said on the subject) — with the surgical specificity of mine . . .

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? What’s JAEIC?

Allow me

Then tell me how he was wrong about one thing that he has no expertise in . . .

lemme get this straight

A layperson with limited resources and no connections:

  • Can do countless hours of research & writing
  • Interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist
  • Correspond with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence — along with a key physicist
  • Spend $15,000 of his own money to write & produce the most detailed documentary ever done on WMD (taking both parties to task for it)

Qualifying me to exhaustively explain how half the country could not be more wrong on this issue of world-altering consequence.

And in response: I’m practically spit on for abiding by the very priciples you peddle: By people who couldn’t craft a sound argument on the subject to save their lives.

But it’s all good that Sowell cranked out this crap that any Iraq War cheerleading jackass could issue in chain-letter lies — topped off with smug sloganeering.

After all — he doesn’t have any expertise in it.

Talk about Thomas Sowell’s vast history of continuously demolishing leftist nonsense.

We’re not talking about THAT — we’re talking about THIS . . .

I dropped the challenge and you have a choice: To ignore or engage. But I have another old-fashioned rule on that front . . .

Show up or shut up!

At every turn, the faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.

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 talking about you

Not long before this Tweet — this guy was condemning my efforts like all the rest that day.

And then he opened the doc:


Funny thing about information

It can seem incoherent when you don’t take any of it into account.

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 anymore
And it didn’t really matter if the truth was there
It was the cut of his clothes and the length of his hair

What is Truth

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-81mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)

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

Ya know, connected

Oh my god . . .

He used an unrelated movie to make a point and tossed in some comedy for effect. What does that say about the quality of his argument?

It says you need to get your head out of your ass — and stop flailing about like an imbecile incapable of understanding anything.

How much can we hope to accomplish in a culture that razes reason for fun?

Whether it was one email, one article, one Facebook post, one YouTube comment, or one Tweet: I’m almost invariably met with this madness.

On matters of mathematical certainty, no less . . .

Yellowcake to UF6 Conversion to Uranium Enrichment

The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president.

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:

You — like to be entertained

And now information is so funneled in a fashion to your liking — you don’t even know what to do with anything that isn’t. It astounds me that wading through unfamiliar territory on this site is somehow seen as complicated as quantum physics.

I assure you . . .

What it took to acquire this information was infinitely more demanding than anything you face here — let alone the complexities in exposing systematic deception at the core of our country’s ills.


If you don’t like me spoon-feeding you illustrations — go read the 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 . . .

The notion that it’s my fault you can’t find your way to the truth through my maze of a website — is preposterous, particularly because you have a choice:

The documentary is structured to the hilt — so it’s much easier to digest.

Why would I repeat that approach — when I’m dealing with your obstinate refusal to watch it in the first place?

  • In a culture that considers a long paragraph to be a burden
  • Where battling it out 280 characters at a time is seen as meaningful debate
  • Where habitually slinging self-congratulations and high praise for people who’d repeatedly rehash the same topics till the end of time before they’d question the efficacy of their efforts

You’re gonna find fault no matter what I do.

With just a little inquiry and an ounce of decency — you could gain some insight into why my material is arranged in ways you’ve never seen. And when you’re seeing it for the first time — you’re unaware of the endless efforts to reach your kin who came before you:

It is as though with some people — those who most avidly embrace the “we are right” view — have minds that are closed from the very get-go, and they are entirely incapable of opening them, even just a crack.

There is no curiosity in them. There are no questions in their minds. There are no “what ifs?” or “maybes.”

— Laura Knight-Jadczyk

So spare me your cries that my site is at fault for your failure to find the truth. I’ve heard it all and I’ve seen it all — as your kind always has an excuse laced with self-satisfied scorn.

On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, a Maverick was needed most. By himself, he could not have shaped the decisions in those dead set on going to war.

But he could have been the catalyst for the kind of debate that such decisions should demand.

And now he can be the catalyst to turn the tide — right after he’s exposed for his reprehensible record of lies and hypocrisy (and not just on the war).

His followers would surely say, “Yes” — but their actions say otherwise. Apparently, his principles below are only to be applied against the Left. I misunderstood, as I was under the impression that Sowell follows the facts whether they lead.

That’s what he said — and so did you.

But I go by what people do — I’m old-fashioned that way.

America’s more into what’s fashionable:

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

— Life at the Bottom

You couldn’t carry Sowell’s jockstrap!

Thomas Sowell is considered our country’s leading living intellectual, with ground-breaking contributions to economics, psychology, history, political science and sociology.

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

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

“The Genius of Thomas Sowell”

Is that this fraud got followers to believe he’s not only a genius, but some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes to boot.

There’s a thing about Sowell that isn’t often mentioned . . . he can step completely outside of the race thing and just express himself about just stuff — which is not the usual.

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

— Thomas Sowell: Desperate and Ugly in Florida

Sowell has a habit of headlines oozing in partisan pettiness. On two of the biggest events in history — Sowell seems pretty tribal to me.

Desperate and Ugly in Florida

And I find it interesting that with Sowell — one reason some people today would find it hard to go with him is that he doesn’t write with that tribalist sense.

Weapons of Crass Obstruction

He’s trying to be purely objective and there’s nothing in him of — here’s what we down here think. Here’s what we’ve been through.

Weapons of Political Destruction

It’s not seasoned with any of that — he’s just trying to have a white lab coat on and look at the facts.

— John McWhorter

If his Crap is King claims on WMD isn’t “seasoned” to you, Mr. McWhorter — what is? Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done (especially when they’re as empty as what he’s shoveling).

Hard to Imagine

And Damn Disappointing to Boot . . .

It’s bad enough I gotta deal with unyielding yahoos who yearn to praise Sowell as if it’s a daily duty to broadcast his brilliance (while butchering his principles in practice).

But to see people I respected fall into the same trap — enabling their “National Treasure” and the echo chamber around him: Good grief!

The crude, dirty “brutes” of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels, by Jonathan Swift. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.

The likes of Loury & McWhorter see themselves as Houyhnhnms — as if they’re immune to irrational behavior in defense of their interests.

McWhorter’s right that anti-racism has become a religion though. From I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road:

But fighting that religion — has become another religion:

And they already belonged to one before that . . .

Someone on Quora politely questioned my claim that “fighting that religion has become another religion.”

They are using science, reason and data to back up their position; something the wokesters steer clear of.

Whad’Ya call this? . . .

I’ve been using “science, reason and data” for decades — and I’ve been shown nothing but contempt. My entire documentary is driven by “science, reason and data” — and I’m mercilessly mocked by people who won’t watch one second.

Of all those in that crowd I’ve challenged on WMD — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.

But earlier times were tame compared to the blind worship I have witnessed in the echo chamber around Sowell. Almost makes me miss the good ol’ days of garden-variety Bush apologists — when at least their contempt for the truth was in the theatre of war.

Sowell’s disciples are a whole other breed of bullshitters who butcher reality — while incessantly bitching about others doing the same.

Bullshitters 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.

— Blurb to On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt

This bit about Coleman Hughes captures the principle upon which my site and documentary were founded:

[Coleman] Hughes says he formerly accepted the premise of Black Lives Matter — that, in his words, “racist cops are killing unarmed black people” — but now believes that this premise does not survive scrutiny once factors other than race are taken into account.

“But now believes” . . .

“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true? Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind. I changed my mind.’”

We’re a university. 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. Instead, it was like a kind of emotional rush — in which . . . the president and provost and the top leadership of my university — wanted to jump on a bandwagon. They wanted to wave a banner.

And I thought to myself, what have we come to at the university — that the first reaction to grave matters — and the rioting in the street after George Floyd died is a grave matter.

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 Black Lives Matter

— Glenn Loury

Remove the references around George Floyd — and that behavior rings a bell.

Now I Remember . . .

As the patriots Never Forget

The aftermath of this

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 . . .

Tuchman alighted on a root cause of folly that she called “wooden-headedness” — defined in part as “assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting contrary information.”

If you’re not gonna do your part and accept responsibility for the damage you’ve done, why should the Left?

Why should anyone?

Ripping on woke is all the rage. And outrage industries of dish it but can’t take it — would talk about race and responsibility till the end of time. But heaven forbid we have a single conversation about war and responsibility.

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.

Only for problems that are popular and easy to perceive? Whatever’s in your wheelhouse? Is that as deep as your questions go?

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

So the rules of argument you espouse on a daily basis don’t apply to you — a lot of that goin’ around too!

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

Sowell sold out to sell those books you stand by — and I wrote “Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That” with the likes of Loury in mind. 

I wouldn’t care if Sowell cured cancer:

You don’t get a pass for basking in baseless beliefs that cripple the country — and have the bottomless nerve to preach responsibility & accountability to boot.

That is a cancer of its own

The poison he pumped into the atmosphere helped destroy the internal organs of America. So we have very different standards as to what qualifies as a “National Treasure.”

A “great man” would not have his egregious hypocrisy and gross negligence plastered all over my website.

Sowell is not a great man — but he could be:

In the infinite wisdom of the guy who disapproved of my attire, I should focus on current events — never mind the culture that created them. Why bother reflecting on the past to learn how we were wrong — when we can be right by reacting right now?

Someone on Twitter once wrote:

Your documentary was ahead of its time

Hmm . . . what does he see that you don’t?

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

Anyone wanting to know the truth — would not behave in ways that make damn sure they never will. In one form or another, it’s all religion anymore.


There is no market for what I do

But there wasn’t one for PCs at one time either.

We could revolutionize the world too — just by using the tools we were given from the get-go:

That’s that lump that’s three feet above your ass!

Shown here is a somewhat dehumanized, life-size bronze figure of a human being of no particular sex, age, race, culture, or environment. Compressed between the two wheels, it seems to present humanity as the victim of its own complicated inventions.

The wheels also symbolize the blind ups and downs of fortune. The date 1965 is inscribed on the base, and the whole sad assemblage seems to say that human history and civilization have not exactly turned out as was once more hopefully expected.

— A History of the Modern World

Remember what it was like to be uplifted by the genuine spirit of America? Maybe it wasn’t as real as I imagined it to be — but that authenticity is worlds away from where we are now.

Thank you for reading!

When you open your eyes to what’s underneath — it intrinsically trains your mind to see with increasing clarity

— Richard W. Memmer . . .

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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