Thomas Sowell: A Fraud Who Fabricated a Fantasyland of Following the Facts Wherever They Lead

With disciples so devout they defend him before they even know what the subject matter is. I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t.

For all his “brilliance” you broadcast — you sure aren’t learning much.

I don’t know how people find the path of least resistance so satisfying — as I love the demands of difficulty and discernment. To not step up my game in the midst of opportunity or challenge — would be tantamount to treason upon my very existence.

Anyone wanting to know the truth — would not behave in ways that ensure they never will. America wallows in a fantasyland of circular certitude — where denying the obvious has become a duty to defend your tribe.

Hiding behind your force field of fallacy:

You win from the start and even more at the end — reinforced by the fellowship of friends cemented in the same standards. No amount of irrefutable evidence & expertise can convince you of anything in your race for satisfaction and insatiable appetite for glorifying those who give it to you.

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 . . .

You all play the same games

Gutting the truth with stupefying feats of psychological gymnastics:

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.

As I said in my documentary

At the heart of why we fail to live up to our potential as a society is because we excel at polluting even the purest form of fact. How can we possibly solve serious problems when we refuse to adhere to some semblance of the fundamentals of making sense?

— Richard W. Memmer: Epilogue

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:

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 offered you overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that exhaustively exposes the biggest and most costly lie in modern history:

Taking both parties to task for it — and then some!

You refused to even glance at the doc while deriding my efforts with pleasure.

I shouldn’t have to point out my fiercely independent thinking for you to consider an argument on the merits. But in a nation that never accounts for inconvenient information — ya just blow right by it.

We’ve created a culture where even a lifelong history of objective scrutiny doesn’t register.

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

Fiasco for the Ages

The endless lying, ineptitude, and unconscionable excuses around Iraq shaped everything you see today. But as this nation never learns — America just casually moved on.

I didn’t — as I knew then what few know now:

The immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong, understanding why, and looking to learn from it. And that not doing so — increasingly compounds the consequences of no accountability.

Look around!


On a matter involving war in the Middle East in a post 9/11 world — the stakes don’t get much higher. For a “Maverick” who’s worshipped for “following the facts” — wouldn’t he take the trail to where they matter most?

As in the marquee evidence used to manufacture this fraud?

I did — Sowell didn’t

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.

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 . . .

Intelligence gathering has seldom been an exact science. 

— Thomas Sowell, Weapons of Political Destruction

Just one problem

Centrifuge physics is an exact science . . .

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. And yet this mountain of information was publicly available before he wrote that article:

How do you reconcile that?

How many lay-people have ya ever came across who wrote and produced a documentary? In nearly 20 years of challenging people on these issues and others, I’ve never met a single one. What road have you taken to lose sight of such things deserving of at least a little respect?

A modicum of courtesy perhaps? Doing your homework used to count for something. How about we just start with that?

Respect is not my concern

But if you showed some — it might be just enough to crack open a conduit to this quaint thing called conversation.

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

The.Deal.Is.That.We.Connect.These.Dots . . .

You see

Imagine!

There are powerful forces that make damn sure you don’t.

If I came across a site called Mount Everest of the Obvious, and I hadn’t done my homework — my first thought would be:

I must be missing something pretty big . . .

If you can’t even see something so glaringly self-evident, what makes you think you’re tapped into the truth on issues not so crystal clear?

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity

— George Orwell

It’s impossible for you to fathom how ludicrous it is to me that people flood the internet with virtues that vanish the instant they’re put to the test.

How do you know where I’m going with that question?

If I scrutinize Sowell on some things, does that automatically mean I don’t support him on others? If following the facts is what this guy’s all about and you’re a fan — shouldn’t you apply that principle regardless of the issue?

Speaking of which

This Tweet is in gross breach of Sowell’s standards. She clearly has no idea what’s in the link. She’s praising it on perception alone — and that is what this all about.

As predicted:

Others followed suit in Liking that link the way she did. I know how your crowd rolls — all too well.

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

— Thomas Sowell

Because he wrote those words

He couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own interests?

Oh my God — somebody’s not who they claim to be — that’s never happened before . . .

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.’” . . .

When is the last time you can honestly remember a public dialogue — or even a private conversation — that followed that useful course?

From the get-go

Almost every post points to an identifiable disconnect — enough to know that something’s not right with people you put on a pedestal.

You could skip the post and go straight to the doc — and watch one at a time for 7 days, 7 weeks or 7 months. You could watch clips and ask questions — exploring in a piecemeal pursuit of the truth in whatever way works for you.

You do nothing of the kind.

You skim my site and breeze on by clips at the crux of the story — as you’re not looking to learn, you’re looking to respond.

And entire industries are engineering that need.

We get rewarded by hearts, likes, thumbs-up — and we conflate that with value, and we conflate it with truth.

“I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” . . . Palihapitiya’s criticisms were aimed not only at Facebook, but the wider online ecosystem.

“The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works,” he said, referring to online interactions driven by “hearts, likes, thumbs-up.” “No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth.”

My generation got off easy

All we were called to do was weigh information — but even that was too much of a burden. As we got more, we became less.

Someone wonders

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

And then he opened the doc . . .

With this site I tried another approach: Interweaving clips in conjunction with the behavior of those who slavishly defend the indefensible.

The documentary is structured to the hilt in 7 segments averaging 24 minutes apiece — so it’s much easier to digest.

But circular certitude is quite the convenient cop-out:

Allowing you to blow off the doc, dish your derision on issues you’re wildly unqualified on — then complain how you can’t follow the format of a site that wouldn’t be needed if you simply watched the doc in the first place.

Nearly two decades into it

Countless hours of research & writing, a documentary, multiple sites — and one little La La La (Not Listening) is what this is all about.

It’s what it’s always about

Probably the most powerful of these group cohesive forces is narcissism. In its simplest and most benign form, this is manifested in group pride. As the members feel proud of their group, so the group feels proud of itself.

A less benign but practically universal form of group narcissism is what might be called “enemy creation,” or hatred of the “out-group.” We can see this naturally occurring in children as they first learn to develop groups.

It is almost common knowledge that the best way to cement group cohesiveness is to ferment the group’s hatred of an external enemy.

Deficiencies within the group can be easily and painlessly overlooked by focusing attention on the deficiencies or sins of the out-group.

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

In other words

Don’t shake your head. I’m not done yet. Wait till you hear the whole thing so you can . . . understand this now . . .

My Cousin Vinny is maybe the most hilariously educational movie ever — and this scene is at the core of our culture’s communication divide:

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 this great man?

Would not be one of ’em. The second you deflect from the issue in question — you’re in breach of Thomas Sowell’s tenets.

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.

Or you could do nothing

And just not being a jerk would be something.

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 from a 2008 article on Salon.com:

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 account 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

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?

Funny thing about information

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

The surgical specificity of the excerpt below puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone. Imagine what I did with 160. But why bother when you can counter with “there’s no there there” — without even going there.

Trillion Dollar Tube

“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)

Look around!

If I did cartwheels on TikTok to tell this story — you’d take issue with my form. We’ve created a culture that gripes over “flashy graphics” while worshipping liars in the images. Constant complaining has become a virtue — where everything of value is gain you get in the moment:

And easy is all the rage!

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

They just made it up

The 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?

we can infer that Zippe used rotors with wall thicknesses that range from I mm to approximately 2.8 mm.

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

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

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

“Seems”

Speaking of sleight of hand

The administration had its hands on 60,000 tubes — and yet not one of them was presented by Powell.

There was even talk of Powell holding up one of the tubes for dramatic effect. But a veteran communications strategist in the room balked. “If you do that, it will be on the front page of every paper the next day,” noted Anna Perez, Condoleezza Rice’s chief of communications.

“Do you really want to do that?” Perez had a feel for these things; she had worked for Walt Disney, Chevron, and a top Hollywood talent agency.

This would, she thought, be an awkward visual. Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute. Everybody would focus on that. The idea was scrapped.

Think about that

You’ve got 60,000 of ’em — but rather that put a single sample of your hard evidence on display for all the world to see . . .

You put it a PowerPoint?

And it just makes me laugh that they tossed that tape measure in there for effect. The sheer sloppiness of it all — it’s just pathetic. I’ll put my presentations in COM 101 against this crap any day.

But strictly speaking . . .

Purely on the principles of persuasive speech: Since their goal was to manipulate the masses — she was spot-on by concealing what they displayed.

Hide and Seek

The question comes down to whether or not you’re basing your belief on something in the realm of reason — not some fail-safe fantasy that allows you to believe whatever you want.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act III

A passionate observer shares his way of preserving one of our most cherished freedoms — to pursue the truth, no matter how tough the issue, through honest, open, and unflinching discussion.”

— Parade

“Parade” — how fitting!

[The O’Reilly Factor is] a one-hour program that runs 5 days a week — and yet in its entire history, O’Reilly has never even uttered the words “aluminum tubes.”

It just doesn’t register with the likes of O’Reilly that what Clinton and Cohen thought is entirely irrelevant to the tubes — but smugly circulating invalid arguments is the way of the world now.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV

How do I know the numbers on O’Reilly and the rest?

I had access — to everything

On this story: 10 pages of reading trumps 10,000 hours of TV — cable clans & broadcast to boot.

And that’s a fact — I did the math. Who cares about 10 pages when “you can’t believe everything you read”? Same standard to snub someone who’s read 10,000 — on world-altering affairs you snicker at.

And I noticed “you can’t believe everything you read” only applies to words you don’t like.


This isn’t guesswork, shooting from the hip, or hyperbole: I know, for an absolute fact — that O’Reilly never even uttered the words “aluminum tubes” on his show.

In another lifetime, we could acknowledge those things — and operate somewhere in the realm of sanity.

Or at least agree on math — and I know the numbers . . .

These professional know-it-alls breathlessly bitch about issues on a daily basis: And yet somehow on a matter of war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11 — they just forgot to mention the marquee evidence Powell presented to sell it?

And the second a guest brought up the tubes, O’Reilly instantly shut down the discussion (never to be brought up again) . . .

Red Light District

Citing outdated and generic claims from Democrats is an emotional response to outright reject opposing arguments in a wholesale manner.

THAT . . . is the epitome of spin — to engineer an illusion — to make you believe that something meaningless has substance.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV

Just what would it take

For “O’Reilly never even uttered the words ‘aluminum tubes‘” — to register as something worthy of consideration?

Which image below would you choose if you wanted to understand a fairly complex coding concept? For me, it’s whatever it takes to get me where I wanna go.

I wish I were smart enough to read the JavaScript language spec and pick it up all on my own. Then again, I love the demands of difficulty and overcoming obstacles.

But I can’t do it alone

I need the help of amazing minds from my multitude of sources that increasingly grows the more I learn and advance my skills.

When I returned to this topic awhile back, I almost got it in the first video. In the face of such phenomenal work (or any sincere effort, for that matter): It would be unthinkable for me to blame the source because I gotta work a little harder.

I was equally impressed by the 2nd video. He furthered my grasp on my question — and enhanced my overall understanding to boot. And the icing on the cake: He taught with this magical tool I’d never seen before.

This — is pure gold

3rd and 4th tries

Found that amazing graphic and a guy who ranks with the best I’ve ever seen in any discipline.

My gap paved the way to pay dirt — but only because I kept digging. Now I’m tapped into the internals, and I’ve got new tools to advance my knowledge on that front and many more.

The answer was there all along — I just needed to train my mind to see it.

Works the same way here

Einstein borrowed from the one below:

The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection. Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.

— Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

Are you telling me . . .

That I can grasp this — but you can’t grasp that?

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 aluminum tubes)?

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

Everything that guy just said is bullshit!

Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done (especially when they’re as empty as what he’s shoveling).

And 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.

Speaking of assertions

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”?

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.

Meaningless Majority

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 have 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.

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 threw down the gauntlet 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.

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

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 this — is just priceless:

Even if he said that stuff, your entire diatribe smacks of the now classic modern progressive tactic of taking 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 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.

The rolodex of excuses around Sowell is off the charts. There’s a faction for forgiveness — by people who have nothing of the kind for their enemies.

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 make a living pouncing on others about theirs.

On top of all that

They have no idea of the depths of deception involved here — but have no qualms about issuing instant forgiveness for it.

Faction for the hybrid model

  • No big deal
  • No authority
  • Forgiveness

If your strongest criticism of him is that he was wrong on the Iraq war, I’d frankly say “big deal.” Millions of people were wrong about that shit back then. He had no political authority or say on the matter, so I think he could be forgiven for that mistake. (Assuming that you’re right of course, I’m still waiting for you to supply the evidence).

He has no idea what the deal is

But is perfectly satisfied in blowing it off as “no big deal.”

And right on cue:

I’m still waiting for you to supply the evidence

There are countless people saying the same things in the same old ways — with channels, sites, and substacks that conform to the formula.

No offense to the fine work that many people provide on those platforms: But I find those environments unimaginative, unfulfilling, and of questionable efficacy.

Not to mention this:

But we’re all here because we share some important things in common: a commitment to reason, curiosity, independence, decency, and a hunger for honest conversation. In our upside-down world, holding fast to these ideals can sometimes feel lonely.

More than ever, we crave the company of people who share our core values.

— Bari Weiss, Some Thoughts About Courage

It’s a nice gesture for Bari to bond with her audience. But what people crave is the company of those who see themselves as they do — never mind their record doesn’t remotely reflect their claims.

How can you expect anyone to admit when they’re wrong if you won’t? And every time you allow emotion to run roughshod over reason, you further calcify habits at the other end of the spectrum from these:

Rather than assert that 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

Without “commitment” and “holding fast” — it’s just wishful thinking, and it shows! Decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government has crippled this country.

By being in bondage to baggage and baseless beliefs — painfully obvious lies become calcified as fact. We could do something about that:

But you’re busy

Clockwork: How Cognitive Dissonance Consumes You

Whatever I think of Sowell . . .

I’ve never seen him act like a child. I cannot say the same for his fanatical followers:

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.

You deserved to be treated that way! You’re a moron and pathetic character assassin

Your reply shows me you have no such experience and knowledge. You played yourself, and you lost. Sorry, read some Thomas Sowell

By Sowell’s own standards

Dismissing argument by attributing bad motives behind it — is against the rules:

And believe it or not

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

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?

One Tweet is all it should take:

He & his followers preach

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:

And that — is an opportunity

How do we make people realize they’ve been lied to? You have to knock down one small pillar that’s easier to reach.

The people who Tweeted those lines I combined from a conversation I came across — had no idea that they perfectly captured the principle of my Clear the Clutter plan.

I’ve got the perfect pillar

As exposing Sowell is my bridge to expose it all

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. The ever-rising ocean of partisan pettiness is gluttony under the guise of concern.

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.

Just for kicks

Couldn’t we try somethin’ new for a change?

And it’s about time we ditch the desire for the so damn easy.

Courage means, first off, the unqualified rejection of lies. Do not speak untruths, either about yourself or anyone else, no matter the comfort offered by the mob. And do not genially accept the lies told to you. If possible, be vocal in rejecting claims you know to be false. Courage can be contagious, and your example may serve as a means of transmission.

We are living through an epidemic of cowardice. The antidote is courage.

— Bari Weiss

I’ve seen no such courage in her community or any other. Following facts going in the direction you desire doesn’t count:

Anybody can do that

You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell

As this story is also

About the behavior of the echo chamber around Sowell — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem.

This crowd thinks they’re part of some revolution in reason by ceaselessly Tweeting the tenets of Thomas Sowell. Never mind they instantly abandon them the second he’s under scrutiny.

It’s just pathetic

Not the tiniest trace of reasoning can be found in anything I’ve come across in decades of dealing with the doubt-free on WMD. And of all those I’ve challenged — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.

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 “Get help!” routine
  • “Academia”
  • “I’ve stood on the wall — have you?” — Jesus, why not toss in “You weep for Santiago” while you’re at it?

What does any of THAT have to do with the price of tea in China — or THIS?

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

Once you quit hearing ‘sir’ and ‘ma’am’ — the rest is soon to foller

The article that “Expert” By Association so proudly replied with below — doesn’t even imply what he thinks it says. And as someone who’s read 10,000 pages on the topic, it was not news.

And take note of how he smugly cites the source as a way to bolster his baseless beliefs: A go-to tactic of people who unconscionably ignore clear-cut connections to merrily make up their own.

Mr. [“Expert” By Association], as you must know, yellowcake is worthless until it’s turned into uranium hexafluoride (the process gas for enriching uranium).

As for that 550 metric tons of yellowcake in that article — that had been under IAEA seal since the 90s and was no secret to anyone in the intelligence community with any knowledge on Iraqi nuclear matters.

Moreover, the bogus Niger-yellowcake story (the “16 words” deal) has nothing to do with the yellowcake in that article.

In short, it’s meaningless — particularly because Iraq has never had UF6 conversion facilities, nor a production centrifuge cascade. They had plans for both in 1989, but the Gulf War and inspections throughout the 90s terminated the program.

The “Get help!” routine

You obviously need to change therapists because the one you’re using isn’t helping you at all

The “I have a life” — “Hope you find happiness” crowd

Gosh, I just overheard all this. If I didn’t have a life, I might have joined in. I hope you are fortunate to find happiness one day

Jolly Ol’ Phil

The “Promotional” Program

And ah yes, “Expert” By Association’s “promote your little video” ploy:

Every single thing we share on social media is promoting something (even if it’s cupcakes you just baked). Nothing wrong with promoting a little goodness — whether it’s right out of the oven or white-hot truth:

And steel is strong because it knew the hammer and white heat

About those NAVY Core Values the “expert” holds so dear:

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:

And Now for the Weather

This unquenchable thirst to think you’re right about everything under the sun is what has become of America.

You see it yourselves — but never in yourselves.

And that’s what this story is really all about: How far people will go to protect their interests and cement how they see themselves.

Never mind the damage they do in the pursuit — even to those interests they so desperately defend.

The United States is now a country obsessed with the worship of its own ignorance. . . . [W]e’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.

I know the feeling!

I put it all on a silver platter . . .

But you won’t consider 160 seconds, let alone 160 minutes. You think I wanted to chop up my doc into clips to accommodate America’s attention span?

But still that wasn’t enough. I do all the work, you do nothing and consider nothing — then blame me for failing to convince you. In slinging your insults, you’re insulting your intelligence far more than you’re insulting me.

I’ll swim across a river of insults to get to a meeting of the minds on the other side. But we’d get there a helluva lot faster if you’d just show a little grace in the give-and-take of information.

As I said in my doc

Undeniably, the exponential increase in self-righteous certitude is tied to technology. Instead of becoming more worldly with our exceptional tools — our conveniences are eroding our ability to think things through.

In our brave new world, we seem to thrive on being dismissive, distracted, distant, and shortsighted.

After all — who has time to be thoughtful anymore?

— Richard W. Memmer: Act V

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 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:

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

“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 Martin and the damage you did by doing so.

What does it say about a country that can’t even establish that much — on a matter of world-altering magnitude?

And the party that recognizes that:

Has no qualms about denying this:

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 this one

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.

For nearly 20 years on this matter of mathematical certainty:

I’ve been shown nothing but contempt for following principles those same 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.

But the contempt for the truth back then was tame compared to now. In the last 18 months, I’ve seen savagery beyond anything that drove me to do the doc. 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.

This nation does nothing in the spirit of exchange, give & take, and arguing in good faith. Talk about being “triggered” (since that’s the lingo you love): Instantly firing off “Where’s your facts?” — in the face of maybe the most detailed documentary ever done on any subject:

is raw emotion

It would be unthinkable for me to refuse to look at someone’s work — and fire back with your “Where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton because they don’t instantaneously appear.

Let’s get real: That’s a stunt (like smugly slinging “I’ll wait”) — not a genuine inquiry in the interest of truth.

And the only thing you’re “waiting” for is fodder to fuel your next fix.

If you operated anywhere in the same galaxy of these claims below — the mountain of material I’ve written over decades wouldn’t exist.

It’s all marketing

If he were the genuine article — those books would not be so one-sided.

And for my commitment to balance — I suggest you look around:

The notion that feelings over facts is limited to the Left is ludicrous. If you were trying to solve a problem instead of sell books and boost your popularity — you’d be fair-minded by addressing how this behavior applies across the board.

If it were truly about following the facts, you wouldn’t need slogans — and wouldn’t want ’em.

Your record would speak for itself.


Then again

Do these people really wanna solve problems anyway? Do you?

Man is at least as much a problem-creating as a problem-solving animal. Better a crisis than the permanent boredom of meaninglessness.

— Life at the Bottom

But even if you look at it from a purely political viewpoint:

Had you held Trump to higher standards, he might still be in office. Same goes for the other side — had they not wallowed in woke and played their tried and untrue games on race, Trump would not have won the White House in the first place.

But keep the faith

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

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 . . .

Preach responsibility and take none

The Left institutionalizes weakness — and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. You weaken the very people you’re trying to strengthen — branding weakness to boot.

And right on cue, the Right is ready to pounce.

I don’t blame ’em — except for the part about them being weak while branding strength.

Conservatives have put on a masterclass of complaining for 30 years — but because the intelligentsia on the Left perennially pumps candy into that piñata: They beat the hell out of you — while unconscionably ignoring the debauchery of their own behavior.

Sailing away on Scot-Free . . .

Then there’s this

America obsessively concerns itself with symbols — fixating over a missing flag pin on a politician’s lapel, for instance.

So — these people can:

  • Incessantly lie
  • Manipulate the hell out of you
  • Start dumb wars and never finish them
  • Drag their feet forever
  • Obstruct as if not doing your job were a virtue
  • Take off all kinds of time after accomplishing nothing

  • Waste mountains of money while touting concerns about spending
  • Spend enormous amounts of time & energy assailing the opposition while absolving their own at every turn
  • Broadcast beliefs that have no bearing on their record or yours
  • Rile you up with red meat to savagely scorn the other side — as you sail Scot-Free on an ocean of bottomless lies and hypocrisy . . .

Never in doubt — while you fret over flair:

I didn’t write this poem from my imagination

It’s not anti-war — it’s pro-thinking:

Conservatives control the narrative about responsibility and think that magically translates to taking responsibility. Republicans pounce on the Left day in and day out — as if the Right’s record vanished off the face of the earth.

It’s all about framing the narrative — and the Left institutionalizing weakness is a gimme for the Right to rail on ’em.

That the Left brings it on themselves is another matter.

And the icing on the cake

Sincere intellectuals justifiably calling out universities, woke ways, racially rigged incidents and such: Providing endless fodder for the Right to rip people for behavior that pales in comparison to what they’ve done for decades.

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.

That — is faith-based belief at its best . . .

The Left’s anti-racism religion, woke, and whatnot — they’re amateurs. I didn’t write Mariana Trench of Mendacity from my imagination either.

But the Right is not always wrong

And the smart move is to agree with them when they’re making sense. It’s also the right thing to do.

The right thing tends to be the demanding thing — the difficult that can’t be captured in slogans, kneeling, and knocking down monuments. I don’t care if Kaepernick kneels — I care that you can’t solve multidimensional problems with one-dimensional gestures.

I ask a different question . . .

I do that a lot:

What if Kaepernick kneeled and acknowledged that they need to do their part while asking the police to do theirs?

Hold the phone — you want us to share some responsibility?

Chris Rock didn’t come up with this sketch out of thin air. But for me to suggest this is the entire problem — would be as preposterous as you denying it’s part of it.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Nothing in the atmosphere of America is improving on any front:

But hey . . .

We’ve got 24 million visitors to our website, an email list of 2 million & growing, fundraising on the rise, and a million actions taken.


If you wanna start solving problems instead of perpetuating them . . .

It’s gotta get ugly — or as ol’ Bill perfectly put it:


Kneel, but couple your message with Kobe’s — and you change the dynamic of the debate.

I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American. That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American, we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American.

The Right would still fuss over it — but they might cut ya some slack if you’re kneeling with a shared purpose.

Protesting in a wholesale manner shows you’re not serious about recognizing the realities of a problem. It says you want to see it only from your perspective.

That — will never work

And lo and behold — neither will this:

Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving:

It’s the mark of a market

Like Black Lives Matter — they’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of their efforts.

Blunt instruments


These communities operate under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them. 

And this — is where my Clear the Clutter framework comes in:

We’ll get to that

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

— Someone on Quora

Whad’Ya call this? . . .

“No big deal” — just essential to the science, reason and data debunking the biggest and most costly lie in modern history.

But when it comes to questioning your own, you change the rules — doing a cosmic disservice to yourselves and those you blindly defend (never mind the damage to the country and the world).

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

How much can we hope to accomplish in a culture that razes reason for fun? Short or long: On any comment that doesn’t conform to the formula on Safe-Space Central — I’m almost invariably met with this madness.

On matters of mathematical certainty, no less.

And this gem

So, on an issue involving 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”?

by the way

Decorating your points with special punctuation does not make meaningless crap magically have merit.

I wonder if anyone wonders why I blur out their names. This is about accepted behavior across the country — not specifically targeting these people.

My aim isn’t to make you look bad — it’s for you to stop looking bad. Ridicule just rolls right off me anymore. I’m not dealing with individuals — I’m dealing with a collective machine that’s been programmed to put me down.

My job is to jam up the gears — and get these gears going again:

I like the cut of your jib, sir

And then there are those memorable moments when someone surprises you with the simplicity and elegance of a line like that.

In a sea of insults, one kind comment is like wind in your sails.

Excerpt from I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road — a piece Glenn Loury called “brilliant”:

That was then — this is now

When I told someone that Anti-Racism has Become Religion — But Fighting that Religion has Become Another Religion — instead of considering the case:

He opted for the standards of social media:

Where you can apply a follow-the-facts standard in one breath and abandon it the next.

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.

Francis Bacon was onto this game a long time ago:

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.

In one form or another

It’s all religion anymore . . .

And they already belonged to one before that . . .

McWhorter & Loury-like communities are operating on narrative, not principle. It’s a sign of the times that you could celebrate “follow the facts” and refuse to go anywhere near ’em.

I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave — not what they believe.

If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere. Not in the right direction, anyway.

about that narrative

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.”

— Russ Hoyle, Going to War

If you’re not gonna do your part and accept responsibility for the damage you’ve done and dishonesty baked into your beliefs — 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, Glenn?

She also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.”

Wooden-headedness, said Tuchman, was finally — “the refusal to benefit from experience.”

The refusal to benefit from experience

I’m an entertainer . . .

When Rush Limbaugh said that long ago, I didn’t believe him. Now I think it’s the most honest thing he ever said. So when I came across this question below, it really hit home. I had asked a similar question before I found this one.

His was better. Not only was it more direct, but it also shed light on something I hadn’t thought of . . .

And I love that

I wanted to believe — and it’s easy to get lost along the way. But I never get lost for long, and this question kickstarted my turnaround:

My version . . .

Across those communities

I’ve never seen anything with even a hint of the questions we asked. And what they miserably fail to recognize is that their efforts act like a firewall by unwittingly providing an unlimited supply of candy to that piñata.

I’m not suggesting they stop — I’m suggesting they reframe the debate by broadening it. Someone really “looking at the deep questions” — would have the courage to consider mine.

By not deviating from your lane — you don’t understand the roadblocks within it that were created outside of it.

It would be extremely difficult to reach the Left no matter what you do. But by feeding that firewall, you’re building in barricades that block you from reaching them in ways you might be able to without the Right sailing Scot-Free.

By the way

The right often accuses the left of exaggerating victimhood, turning a blind eye to reality, and distorting language to do so. The left, it’s often said, harbors “snowflakes” and the like who are beset by a victim complex. Lately, however, this frame of mind knows no party or political affiliation. Especially since the Capitol riot, assorted conservative figures have embodied a fragility of the right.

Lately?

Mr. McWhorter — I’ve been in the trenches dealing with these chronic complainers a helluva lot longer than “lately.”

First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview with Brian Williams. In talking about take a wild guess, he said . . .

He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement

A lot of that goin’ around

[Y]ou repeatedly cite false reasons for the support Sowell has from so many people.

I thought the lead-in for the bit below was just because of the context of that conversation. But you’re saying that these rules only apply to the Left? So he’s hailed as a fair-minded folk hero — but he doesn’t have to be fair-minded by objectively applying his own rules?

Did Sowell follow the facts on WMD — and on what basis would you make that argument?

Just what would it take

To have that conversation?

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?

Compared to What?

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

Percentage of Sowell supporters who abide by “Compared to What?” on Trayvon’s “Iced Tea”:

Same crowd . . .

On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history:

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 what could not be more obvious.

For all these geniuses you love to laud — you sure aren’t learning much.

Thomas Sowell’s Politically Incorrect Legacy Is Built On “Following Facts Where They Lead”

Lemme get this straight

Sowell shot his mouth off on WMD without any effort to ascertain the truth — not even bothering to address the marquee evidence that Powell presented.

But because he’s not known for foreign policy — he’s free to flagrantly ignore the facts, peddle partisan hackery, reap the benefits for it:

And be honored for issuing opinions outside his wheelhouse — but not be held accountable to them.

  • You’re instantly forgiven for being “wrong” — and you don’t even have to admit it
  • An army of believers belittle anyone who questions their beloved Sowell — while they promote principles I followed to find he didn’t
  • You only follow the facts going in the direction you desire
  • You can flagrantly fail to follow your own standards on matters of world-altering magnitude — then followers who didn’t follow the facts any more than you did, instantly absolve you with membership in the “everybody got it wrong” club
  • Then you and your camp can turn on a dime to pounce on people for refusing to examine evidence — while your disciples dutifully copy & paste your fancy quotes to float for good measure
  • And as the Discount Deal knows no low: What do we have for the guy who put these manufactured lies on a silver platter?

You couldn’t carry Sowell’s jockstrap!

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: Weapons of Political Destruction

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

[I]t would be grounds for impeachment, if only as a warning to future presidents.

In his lofty language, he’s floating the impression that he’s a serious and fair-minded person on the issue. And the icing on the cake is how he framed it within the reference to Vietnam.

Sowell didn’t budge one bit in the interest of truth and accountability on Iraq.

But hey, he’s the Godfather of Follow the Facts, a “great man because of his books,” he’s “brilliant,” he’s got some fancy quotes for slinging virtues — and loves to rip on the Left for failing to follow ’em:

That’ll do . . .

For the Nonconformist National Treasure fearlessly following facts in a white lab coat — lighting the way with sense in Maverick’s immaculate pursuit of truth.

ascribing to dishonesty what might simply be the info everyone had . . .

Well, if you’d watch the doc you were kind enough to compliment — you’d know that’s not what happened.

Or we could have had an actual conversation like I did with this guy — who decided that “might simply be” doesn’t cut it.

Fact:

truth verifiable from experience or observation . . .

“It’s your title — that’s the problem”:

Not the events that led to this cesspool of certitude America has become.

But that takes time & effort to digest. Why bother when you can just blame the person who takes you to task for the bottomless bullshit you’re willing to believe.

Poisoning the waters of possibility with pride.

As disgusted as I am by it all

I feel sorry for the lives of hermetically sealed minds. You’ll never know how much more the world had to offer you — and how much more you had to offer it.

Some real winners here:

Wow!! You have to be one of the biggest idiots out there. What an unbelievably obsessive diatribe of baseless, unsubstantial vomit! You are literally too stupid to make even a coherent accusation. You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell, and you repeatedly cite false reasons for the support Sowell has from so many people. You also give completely false descriptions of Sowell’s principles and standards.

For someone to be so unhinged as to write such an unbelievably lengthy piece filled with nothing but personal attacks, unexplained claims of lies, unsupported accusations of sinister motives, and just a bunch of incoherent tangents is remarkable indeed.

Careful or you might just drown in your bathtub next time you get in it if you don’t remove that one-ton chip off your shoulder. Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, write your own views; don’t throw up a flashy, confusing, exceedingly long pictorial of others’ work as a diatribe against people you don’t like. You only make yourself appear jealous of the target(s).

Defending the faith . . .

Is all that matters to Sowell’s echo chamber of affirmation — as they spread the gospel by mindlessly countering with boilerplate beliefs that have no bearing on the issues in question.

What works with them would never fly with me.

If you oversimplify an issue that clearly calls for careful examination, I know you’re hiding something. If you constantly complain about the other side and defend your own at every turn — you’re not playing by the rules you rail on others for failing to follow.

Occasional criticism of your own party doesn’t qualify as having a history faithful to objective scrutiny.

On that note

How come Sowell’s not a “National Treasure” for his spot-on assessment of Trump in 2016? If you wanted to honor him as a Maverick in this instance — here was your chance to deliver, as he did:

Well-crafted common sense

Advertised and delivered:

Advertised:

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 and your ever-growing audience of dittoheads.

You called my writing “brilliant” in I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road — and you’re “blown away” by my site: As long as I don’t challenge you to live up to the principles you preach when it comes at a price.

Got it!

When you see a sentence like “Not a trace of Thomas Sowell’s ‘follow the facts’ claim to fame can be found on the most world-altering topic of our time.”

I have no idea what you’re talking about . . .

Is not the mark of an intellectual giant — or an intellectual on any level.

What part of “WMD,” “biggest and most costly lie in modern history,” and “most world-altering topic of our time” — do you not understand?

Perhaps an inquiry or two for clarification was in order?

“It was time to take stock”

The Civil Rights Movement is over” — in 1984!

That — took guts!

And that — is the Loury I was looking for. You said 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. Maybe you don’t know Sowell as well as you thought you did, and heaven forbid you hold him to the same standards pushing your popularity.

You asked them to take stock — just don’t ask 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. 

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.

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.


Sowell has a habit of headlines oozing in partisan pettiness.

On two of the biggest events in history — Sowell seems pretty tribal to me:

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.

Desperate and Ugly in Florida

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?

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.

A person who shows independence of thought and action, especially by refusing to adhere to the policies of a group to which he or she belongs.

Not only did Sowell flagrantly fail to follow the facts on all-things Iraq — he brazenly ignored the debauchery in his own party to politely pounce on the other. Showing Sowell’s piece that follows Hughes’ has nothing to do with defending the Left.

This is about his record being wildly out of sync with reality on the Right.

On that note

It’s preposterous that I have to point out that I’m using an image of his own words to frame a point about his principles. But even after explicitly stating it — it still doesn’t register:

Showing Sowell’s piece that follows Hughes’ has nothing to do with defending the Left

What more do you need?

this — is Conformity 101:

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

Hard to Imagine:

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

Sowell’s celebrated as a statesman for smugness under the guise of civility.

He has a habit of painting the Left in the worst possible light — while acting as though “hostility and even hatred” are completely uncharacteristic of conservatives. It’s all about framing the issue in a way that allows him to conveniently ignore the same behavior in other forms.

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans?

I’ve been met with almost nothing but belligerence and belittlement for decades on WMD — but because I wasn’t shouted down in the streets, it doesn’t count?

And this gem

It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate

So you can manipulate the nation into war — make up more lies to rationalize those lies, pit half the nation against the other in a post 9/11 world, and on and on:

But as long as liars don’t raise their voice — there’s no call to be angry about it?

That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.

Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

“What is surprising, however

Is that your crowd treating me with nothing but contempt for the truth for 20 years — slinging baseless beliefs with “hostility and even hatred”:

Doesn’t constitute a “way of life” to you, Mr. Sowell.

It’s painfully obvious what this guy’s up to: He’s engineering an illusion — and you bought it.

What hard evidence do you have?

— Thomas Sowell

Hard enough to drop the hammer on you a hundred times over.

Consider yourself lucky that concrete evidence of mathematical certainty doesn’t qualify with your flock when it comes to protecting you and their shortsighted interests.

Nor does any notion of responsibility and accountability: Those things only apply to people you don’t like.

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

Chuck Lane: This wasn’t an isolated incident, Caitlin. He cooked a dozen of them, maybe more . . .

Caitlin Avey: No, the only one was Hack Heaven. He told me that himself

Chuck Lane: If he were a stranger to you, if he was a guy you were doing a piece about, pretend that guy told you he’d only did it once. Would you take his word for it? Of course not! You’d dig and you’d bury him! And you’d be offended if anybody told you not to.

On that note

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” . . .

And that’s already been proven by his utterly ridiculous claim that “hostility and even hatred” is limited to the Left as a “way of life.”

Speaking of which . . .

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?

— Thomas Sowell

While I don’t subscribe to the silencing of anyone, it’s not simply about how “often” — it’s the magnitude that matters most. World-altering events rank a bit higher in importance than preventing people from speaking at college campuses.

A fair-minded argument would at least acknowledge that the Brooks Brothers Riot happened in the aftermath of the Florida 2000 election. You can share their concerns and still say it was wrong to behave like this.

That they were Republican operatives makes it even worse than people off the street (as it shows the machinery involved to make this happen).

Even if I agreed with them, I would be against this kind of conduct.

Sowell may be right about what he wrote about Florida — I’d have to thoroughly research the issue before I would weigh in on it. And even then, that subject matter’s so murky that it would be hard to say with certainty.

I glanced over a couple of his articles on the voting debacle. While he knows more about it than I do — for an event of such colossal importance, I’m not impressed.

It’s just too simple and slapdash for my taste — ya know, like WMD and “stuff.

And why should I trust someone who so flagrantly ignored the most obvious and clear-cut evidence imaginable — on going to war in the Middle East, no less?

That I don’t trust him doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong on Florida 2000 — it just means his word is unreliable.

In the film, Larry Elder describes Sowell as the “greatest contemporary living philosopher and notes that he causes people to “rethink their assumptions.” Rethinking and questioning our assumptions has long been en vogue in the academy, and if you really listen to what he has to say, few scholars will make you rethink your assumptions like Sowell will. If you’re looking for a one-hour introduction to one of the great minds of the last century, Common Sense in a Senseless World is exactly that.

— Art Carden

Next to zero

Number of Sowell’s disciples willing to “rethink their assumptions” — about the “greatest contemporary living philosopher” who “causes people to ‘rethink their assumptions.’”

Opening line to my doc:

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity

The rest of Orwell’s quote goes as follows:

When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

I obliterated the basis of Maverick

And all of you have a vested interest in denying reality to preserve a belief that is glaringly false. Riley flagrantly ignored the totality of Thomas Sowell’s record to manufacture a “maverick.”

It took me all of 10 minutes to size up Sowell — and on WMD, it took 2.

I’d never done any journalism when I interviewed that nuclear scientist, but I was striving for the best of what it’s supposed to be.

My Prime Directive

  1. No leading questions
  2. If this man wants to talk — scrap the script and keep my mouth shut

Because of that — I obtained information that nobody else did. But I wasn’t trying to tell a story that served me — I was trying to tell the story.

The likes of Riley don’t roll that way. I spotted Sowell’s questionable patterns of behavior with ease. Are you gonna tell me that someone of Riley’s experience, position, and connections couldn’t discover the disconnect in Sowell’s record if he really wanted to?

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.

“Just stuff”

Like flagrantly ignoring evidence so you can peddle partisan hackery on world-altering wars — and stuff.

That doesn’t count? And in Sowell’s rock-solid brilliance as a Monument to Intelligent Insight — he’s oblivious to his own camp’s long history of “hostility and even hatred”?

Thomas Sowell’s Politically Incorrect Legacy Is Built On “Following Facts Where They Lead”

Well then — Trayvon was carrying iced tea after all . . .

And I stand by that

To believe he’s a “great man” and “fearless” “maverick” with what you knew of him — is one thing. To continue to believe it in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence:

Is pure fantasy

Anyone worthy of this ridiculous hero-worship wouldn’t want it — and they’d have a helluva lot higher expectations of their supporters.

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, gross negligence and lies plastered all over my website.

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

Are you telling me . . .

That I can comprehend the Call Stack — but you can’t comprehend Call Sign “Maverick”?

And now, even now

The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!

Work is a journey on which you welcome challenge . . .

Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects.

Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.

Work works its way through material that is not easy.

Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem.

Work does not defend before you consider

Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency.

Work comes with the willingness to be wrong.

Work is not self-satisfied. Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits. Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.

Work respects your intelligence by using it — and shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out.

And if you wanna start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.

Speaking of work

I’m looking for fiercely independent thinkers for an idea that could turn the tide. If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having meaningful conversation — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well.

Please contact me through the site or DM on Twitter — as I no longer respond to Tweets or superficial fragments of any kind.

Thank you!

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