There was a time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” — would look at it when you did. Those days are long gone — eradicated by a world where authenticity amounts to flooding the internet with catchy quotes promoting principles you abandon the second they’re inconvenient.
Then crank out the hate-card when called to account, because you damn sure don’t have an argument.
Never mind this . . .
Behold my shrine of “hatred”
to Thomas Sowell . . .
This chart is misleading in several respects . . . Beams centrifuge never actually worked . . . We can infer . . .
Sounds pretty sloppy to me. Perhaps we should have a conversation to clear up what all this means on issues that have eroded reason beyond recognition?
Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades:
You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? Never mind this story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot.
How so? How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits — but because it’s on the trail to the truth.
And this gem 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.
As for economics, I’m not qualified on that front. Imagine — there are still people who measure their knowledge in such ways.
You cry and cry about being called “racists” to counter your criticism of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke and rigging race-related incidents. And yet, on a matter of mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics — you played the same goddamn games back then as you do now. For such fanatical fans of the man:
Why must I explain his own standards to you?
Not to mention this
“That’s interesting!”
Wouldn’t it be something if ideas that throw you for a loop — piqued your curiosity to probe for more? Have you ever heard of anyone taking someone to task for the purpose of putting them in a positive light that could change the course of history? That sounds intriguing — but that’s me. Believe it or not, Thomas Sowell could turn the tide in a way no other could — and with what I have in mind, it could be done with a handful of people, hardly any money, and in a matter of months.
With run-of-the-mill methods: Even with unlimited funds and resources, that couldn’t be done in decades.
It’s pure fantasy to think that you can ignore key dimensions of a problem and magically solve it. The problems that plague America are interrelated, and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them.
You know what they say: Fail, fail again, fail better, succeed
They say other things too – like “work smarter, not harder.” By all means, keep trying — but examine the efficacy of your efforts and adjust accordingly. Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t cut it.
You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board.
But you all know best
The March of Folly mentality always does:
True folly, Tuchman found, is generally recognized as counterproductive in its own time, and not merely in hindsight. In Tuchman’s template, true folly only ensues when a clear alternative path of action was available and ruled out.
— Russ Hoyle, Going to War
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
Unschooled in Adjustment
The Yellow Brick Road is the path of America’s predictably counterproductive pursuits:
Conventional means have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country. It’s high time to take another approach. If we don’t take a long, hard look at what America has become and how we got here — we will not see a return to some semblance of recognizing reality in our lifetime. As my videographer perfectly put it
We finally figured out what we were doing by the end
If we don’t change course as a country — we won’t. Mark my words: Your ways will seal that fate. And my track record for the truth and seeing the lay of the land is impeccable. There’s nothing earth-shattering about it — I just see things as they are, not as I imagine them to be.
Not to mention a lifetime of living up to my word, being keenly aware of when I didn’t, and owning up to my mistakes so I can learn from them and make amends.
A.K.A.
Before you gripe about my website failing to meet your style-guide standards, is it not possible for you to focus on just a couple of screenshots before blowing right by them along with clips at the crux of the story:
Allowing you to say you can’t make sense out of what you flagrantly failed to consider?
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
I’m not just taking Thomas Sowell to task because he’s got it comin’ — I need this guy for what I have in mind to right this ship. The ultimate irony is that blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights that hero-worship ensures he’ll never go.
So, you’re saying that your plan will elevate 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 he 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.” In a culture consumed with feeling right, wouldn’t it be refreshing to talk about the immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong?
Don’t just tell people how to behave: Lead by example — especially when it comes at a cost! Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right.
There are far worse culprits on all-things Iraq, but I’ve been down that road for decades. Discovering Sowell and the underworld of absurdity that shields him — makes him ideal to put these lies in their place once and for all: And change the dynamic of debate to boot. Elevating him is not my aim, but I can live with it to stem the systematic self-delusion that’s taken this nation totally off the rails:
Left & Right
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.”
She also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.”
You look at that
And act like it’s this . . .
“That makes zero sense”
That you have not developed the capacity understand matters of complexity beyond your current comprehension — doesn’t mean they don’t make sense. And there is no measure for how preposterous it is that people who can’t even get the self-evident straight:
Have the bottomless gall to belittle me on making correlations in 3 dimensions while you wallow in one.
There was a time when newfangled ways of “argument” wasn’t all the rage — 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 don’t roll that way.
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.
He’s lying & here’s why . . .
“That makes zero sense” doesn’t get it done. Instead of griping about my graphics — pick one and tell me what’s wrong with it. But now ya gotta do the work — where you have to examine the evidence and compare said Sowell vs. what I said. That’s the deal — the deal you don’t want any part of:
Because it’s so much easier to broadcast your beliefs than back ’em up.
What is wrong about this image and what is right about Sowell’s that follows? If you wanna tell me something doesn’t make sense, then enlighten me by explaining it with those precious principles you preach.
What does all that have to do with this bit below about Lebron? This buffoon embodies a larger problem in a nation that looks at everything in isolation (making it almost impossible for me explain how all these things are connected). And if you understood those connections — it would be become crystal clear how you harm your own interests by the manner in which pursue them.
Just as Lebron has irreparably damaged his legacy by spending decades trying to manufacture it.
A lot of that goin’ around! Politicians and pundits are not gods. When you treat them as such — you do a cosmic disservice to them, yourselves, the country, and the world as well. Look around!
I play an aggressive game. I don’t flop. I’ve never been one of those guys
— LeBron James
There was a time when it would be embarrassing for a ball player to feign being fouled on the level of theatrics in King James’ court. You’d be laughed off the court for pulling stunts like that in my day. It’s all the more absurd when you consider that even with the hardest-hitting fouls back in the 80s — nobody flailed about like that on impact.
Never mind Lebron’s built like a Tiger tank.
Tiger Tanks Could Withstand a Dozen Sherman[s]
The only way that so many levels of sham and stupidity could be so easily accepted — is that it was normalized little by little over time.
Ain’t that America
His words are pure fantasy . . .
But it doesn’t matter, because that’s the country we’ve become — where words are empty and you can feign offense to avoid having to answer for anything. Believing things that have no bearing on reality has become a plague across America — erosion of reason that took decades of denying the undeniable. Systematic oversimplification has taken over to the point where inconvenient correlations are condemned as convoluted.
And any attempt to have a conversation on issues that clearly call for careful consideration — is hijacked by baseless beliefs beaten into your brain as bedrock fact.
As I said in my doc:
It’s astounding how the mind can pull off psychological gymnastics that allow us to believe what we say without any sense of accounting for it.
Is it “mudslinging” to call this clown what he is? The fact that I even have to explain this is just how clownish our country has become (where things that once meant something, now mean nothing). If this were pro wrestling, this jackass crowning himself The King would be perfectly fine. But in the NBA — there is measure for how classless and cringeworthy this childish behavior is.
The way people play today reminds me of when I would babysit little kids and play basketball with them . . . anytime they got stuck they would just pick up the ball and run as far as they needed to then put it down again when they were ready to attempt a new dribble. I allowed this because they were just little kids learning the game and it was all about fun. No problem.
But now adults pull this crap and have the nerve to act like they have mad skills.
Today’s NBA has been on a steady path of reducing ball handling restrictions to that of toddlers playing on a 3 foot tall nerf court. If that doesn’t personify that things are getting easier I don’t know what does.
Ain’t that America
I could easily switch the context with almost the same wording to show that’s exactly what’s on in a country of adults behaving like children every single day — selling your souls for people who don’t give a shit about you. Like Lebron:
You cry and cry to get your way (bemoaning the decline of America as if you had nothin’ to do with it).
On the videos referenced in that piece: Almost 200,000 views combined to cry foul about how the NBA’s lost its way — but try telling you that you’re all part the same charade, and I’m lucky to get 20. I don’t care about the views — as all I need is one. With the idea I have in mind, the right person is all it will take on an idea that could turn the tide.
The NBA implemented an anti-flopping rule almost a decade ago, but it’s rarely enforced. That such a rule was needed in the first place is bad enough, but then they created one with fines that are a joke — since they miserably fail to follow through. So the saga continues — much like America’s ever-increasing acceptance of the asinine & flagrantly false.
A buffoon befitting of this circus music — that is the legacy he’ll leave behind. He doesn’t concern himself with the future and the harm he does in shaping it.
And neither do you
Before you gripe about my website failing to meet your style-guide standards, is it not possible for you to focus on just a couple of screenshots before blowing right by them along with clips at the crux of the story:
Allowing you to say you can’t make sense out of what you flagrantly failed to consider?
I’m not just taking Thomas Sowell to task because he’s got it comin’ — I need this guy for what I have in mind to right this ship. The ultimate irony is that blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights that hero-worship ensures he’ll never go.
So, you’re saying that your plan will elevate 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 he 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.” In a culture consumed with feeling right, wouldn’t it be refreshing to talk about the immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong?
Don’t just tell people how to behave: Lead by example — especially when it comes at a cost! Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right.
There are far worse culprits on all-things Iraq, but I’ve been down that road for decades. Discovering Sowell and the underworld of absurdity that shields him — makes him ideal to put these lies in their place once and for all: And change the dynamic of debate to boot. Elevating him is not my aim, but I can live with it to stem the systematic self-delusion that’s taken this nation totally off the rails:
Left & Right!
You look at that
And act like it’s this . . .
Debunking the WMD delusion & Trayvon tale is a conduit for showing how this nation systematically derails debate. We’re well beyond “disagreement” in America — this is madness (countless millions miserably failing to follow even the most fundamental methods of how understanding works). The second you shun evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative you want — you have contaminated your judgment.
Pay no mind to how many times we go backwards by the means in which you move forward.
As for the first order of business:
Half the country took the word of professional know-it-alls over nuclear scientists. Your favorite authority figures throw 99 items of shit on the wall to make damn sure you never discuss what matters most. And how eagerly you comply with the contempt they conditioned you to have for anyone exposing the truth and how they gutted it with your help.
And when your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
Shrewd!
Preach responsibility and take none
You can’t seem to comprehend that I don’t care what damage the truth inflicts upon politicians of any brand. I have this crazy idea that across-the-board accountability is always in the best interests of the nation.
As for my frustration — I have this thing about people who regurgitate nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their baseless beliefs.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
And marching to Black Lives Matter with the first black president sitting in the White House — was that a smart move? The answer should be abundantly clear and yet the question is not even considered. I’ve been blocked on Twitter for just politely suggesting that BLM is a counterproductive cause.
Instead of considering how you could fight for justice more intelligently — you act like I’m saying you shouldn’t fight for it at all. And whatever I think of the Right:
They’re right on the money about the impossibly stupid pampering of woke:
I don’t see what the problem is
— Typical Tweeter tapping earth-shattering insight
You don’t see — a lot!
Your track record is not what I would call astute — and the Right doesn’t have anything to write home about either.
Was that smart move?
Instantly firing back with boilerplate beliefs is not an indicator of understanding the premise of that question (or even caring to). Such inquiry requires reflection and the willingness to examine the efficacy of your efforts: And what role you play in harming your own interests by the manner in which you pursue them.
And on that note
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-81 mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)
If I came across someone so clearly in command of this material — I wouldn’t give a f#@k about format. They could write it down on napkins and I’d roll with it. I don’t need somebody to babysit me with the just the right formula for me to carefully consider something. I’m happy to put some time and effort into working it out on my own.
And for anything unclear, I’ ask questions. I’m old-fashioned that way.
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
There is no measure for how asinine these acolytes are in defending the indefensible — automatons devoid of rational thought & manners. Your behavior has not an atom of integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, decency, effort:
Or any virtue of any kind
On evidence involving artillery rockets and material properties of centrifuge rotors — the apostles of Sowell smugly cite his books on economics, race, and whatnot: Anything to glorify him as they abandon any notion of accountability:
Butchering his bedrock beliefs as they dance in delight behind their force field of fallacy.
These people do nothing but question my motives, mock my site, and assault my character — then proudly post quotes of Sowell looking stately as he condemns the very thing they’re doing.
- Repeat slogans: “Everybody believed Iraq had WMD”
- Question people’s motives: Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
- Bold assertions: Russians said so, British said so, Bill Clinton said so, Leaders of both parties said so . . .
No coherent argument, Repeat slogans, Vent their emotions, Question people’s motives, Bold assertions . . .
And yet somehow . . .
This Sowell supporter below had no trouble understanding my site (and even politely replied with the makings of what real conversation looks like). To be sure, he could have investigated it further and asked some questions on that front, but to get the ball rolling — this will do:
And is worlds away from what I’m used to.
- He acknowledges the marque evidence driving the story
- While he already knew the truth on the tubes — he’s keeping the door open on Sowell (as to whether he “fell for it or lied about it”)
- It’s the most clear-cut case of lying by omission imaginable, but right now — all the matters is that he’s allowing the conversation to breathe (which means we can build on it)
- He did something for me and now it’s my turn to respond in kind. Barking back with “No, No, No, he lied” — is not how it’s done
- Genuine conversation is a journey — and along the way in this pursuit of truth & understanding, are glorious discoveries in the willingness to be wrong
- Where you just must find that in acknowledging that you’re wrong (in part or in whole) — just might create a hairline crack in the convictions of your interlocutor (enough to shed some light on the truth you have to tell)
- And through that exchange — perhaps they’ll come around to realizing they’re wrong (in part or in whole)
And all that sounds a lot like this:
In over 3 years of telling this story on Thomas Sowell, that’s the first time I’ve seen a supporter express any disappointment at all. As for his question on the gender gap: I have nothing to say about that or anything else outside what I’m out to do.
Just as I’m making a choice not to get directly involved on your areas of interest, you have the same choice in the face of mine:
As I have an idea that could turn the tide (which would serve your interests whether I agree with them or not): All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thx 🙏
Are you telling me . . .
That the Sowell supporter above and a handful of others — just happened to have a Rosetta Stone to reason through what you can’t? Would a reasonable person blow right by critical evidence at the beginning — so you can cite website style as your reason to outright reject it by the end? I hate comic books — but because I’m not keen on that kind of layout, is that a valid excuse to say I can’t comprehend it?
8. Old information at the beginning of the sentence, new information at the end.
— Steven Pinker
How do you feel about no new information — anywhere?
In what parallel universe does this even remotely reflect anything like that:
A couple of 2-minute reads that never even mention the tubes that took us to war (or anything else of substance on this endless saga of absurdity). Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done: Especially when you make a living selling slogans and catchy quotes about careful consideration.
If you only apply the principles you preach when it serves your interests — they’re just empty claims on a cup and a meaningless mantra touted on a T-shirt.
I don’t understand. I don’t know understand. It’s all so incoherent and confusing with all these things I have to stop and think about.
That’s because you wallow in a world of paint by numbers — where people telling you what you wanna hear every goddamn day: Package it all neatly into nursery-rhyme narratives (turning your mind into mush). Isaac Newton and Einstein were brilliant — partisan hacks and high-minded influencers fueling your fix, are not. And after all that brilliance you broadcast about your beloved geniuses:
Whining about my website and acting like a child is the best ya got?
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— Johnny Cash
What is Truth
There was a time when people understood how to understand — and didn’t blame the source because the material doesn’t magically unfold for standard scrolling with ease. It was a time when you stopped to think about things before breezing on by clips at the crux of the story — then bitching because you don’t understand what you didn’t stop to think about.
If evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? If I came into this cold — on that opening imagery alone, I’d know he has no chance. If you can’t see that something’s not right with Sowell by now, I don’t know what to tell ya. But I suggest you start putting some faith in people who have integrity instead of buying it from those who sell it.
I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell. Quite the contrary! Stick around — you’ll see. Ask some questions, you’ll see more clearly. But lemme put it in terms you’ll understand: If Sowell stepped into a debate with me on this matter, the beating he’d take would be biblical. If you think you can challenge me on that, I invite you to try.
And I’ve been inviting you for a really long time . . .
The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president, and when it comes to ascertaining the truth, neither do I.
In order to maintain such speeds, the material properties of centrifuges are as critical as it gets. You don’t need to interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist to figure that out, but I like to be thorough. And while you sling slogans about “follow the facts where they lead” — I do it for real. That should be abundantly clear on that image above. And if that title doesn’t tell you something my commitment to objective scrutiny, what would?
To claim that Iraq WMD wasn’t a lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon. As I wrote and produced the most exhaustive documentary ever done on WMD, I would know. As for the title below, if I came across this and hadn’t done my homework, on the title alone:
My first thought would be . . .
I must be missing something pretty big!
you have other ideas:
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
“Compared to What?”
That principle is built into the doc imagery staring you straight in the face. And since this issue involves an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter: My answer to “What hard evidence do you have?” is as concrete as it gets. 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.
America lost its way long ago (and you’re right about how some of that happened). But all that pales in comparison to the aftermath of 9/11. Every major problem in America was exponentially exacerbated because of that fiasco for the ages — which Sowell helped sell and got off scot-free.
They all did
As they always do (Democrats & Republicans alike):
America’s in perennial pursuit of ideologies: Warfare waged with galactic levels of baggage & bullshit bolstered by . . .
opinions lightly adopted but firmly held . . . forged from a combination of ignorance, dishonesty, and fashion
— Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom
And thanks to all that and much more: Which Thomas Sowell is a part of while engineering the illusion that he’s not.
Even 20 years later
Half the country still can’t get this straight:
By Design
America Remains Mired in the Murky
What does it say to you: That on evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb — the “debate” was hijacked by 10-second sound bites? Shouldn’t any debate establish what the debate is actually about? What does it say about a country that can’t even establish that much on a matter of this magnitude? As I said in my doc:
All the sarin gas shells in the world would have no bearing on the aluminum tubes and other intel, but loyalists to logical fallacies are not burdened by the inconvenience of FACT.
They will nitpick over pebbles while refusing to even glance at the mountain of evidence that crushes their “convictions.”
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
For the sake of argument: Let’s say Saddam had full-blown active WMD programs on chemical & biological weapons. The tubes would still be a lie — whether the war would have been justified in that scenario or not. I’ll go one further: Let’s say he had a uranium enrichment program in operation as well, but that the rotors were carbon fiber — not aluminum. Once again, the tubes would still be a lie.
Getting lucky in finding something you didn’t know about — does not absolve you from a case that was woven out of whole cloth.
Taking on the entire country by myself is worlds away from what everyone else is doing. In reference to its opening image on Without Passion or Prejudice, I wrote: “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.”
When you instantly make up your mind on perception alone: In what parallel universe does that qualify as critical thinking?
The story I’m out to tell takes both parties to task on the biggest & most costly lie in modern history — along with some other issues at the core of America’s decline. Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell that story (and how his role within it could be harnessed for good).
Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right.
But Sowell’s supporters make it impossible to have this conversation (or even get to the point of what it’s about). Some of ’em even Like my links simply by virtue of his image being included (never mind the context). Making such assumptions, all by itself — is in breach of the standards Sowell espouses.
How far they will go to defend the indefensible is the real legacy that he’s leaving behind (with wildly irrational and childish behavior that never even attempts to address any of my arguments). You proudly refuse to discuss even a single screenshot or watch one clip — and yet have bottomless nerve to bitch about my website: All of which flies in face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
The man’s a magician:
As I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t. Simply by virtue of writing those words, he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own ideals? And lo and behold — sleight of hand is how they pulled it off.
When you have absolutely no idea what’s going on here, on what basis are you so doubt-free?
Funny thing about information:
It can seem incoherent when you don’t take any of it into account. Would you browse a textbook then blame the teacher for your failure to understand the material? If you’re not gonna watch clips at the crux of the story, what’s the point? That the decline of America over the last 30 years in the Gutter Games of Government — doesn’t unfold for standard scrolling with ease, is not a flaw in my argument and array of illustrations:
It’s a flaw in your willingness to work through it — absorbing each building block of information your brain is well-equipped to handle.
Or at least it used to be before information became 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.
I couldn’t agree more
But there’s another reason why so many people misunderstand so many issues. Professional know-it-alls like you pull stunts like this while peddling lines like that as cover: To whitewash your record of patently obvious hypocrisy and lies — all so you can be worshipped as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes.
Even in the face of you flagrantly failing to live up to those fancy quotes you float. If that’s not magical thinking — what is?
What would you call someone who shoots their mouth off without addressing the evidence — but banks on their fabricated reputation to create the impression that they did? But who cares about all that — just go to your corners and crank out the hate-card crap:
Because you damn sure don’t have an argument.
Never mind this . . .
In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, the difference between a 1 mm and 3 mm wall thickness — might as well be 10. Instead of breezing on by this clip so you can say you’re confused by my site, why not stop right here for 5 minutes, consider the evidence, and clear up your confusion by weighing what you see along the way?
As opposed to crying foul that’s my fault you can’t understand everything — so you can conveniently act as though they can’t understand anything.
Trillion Dollar Tube
To take a story this complex and convoluted and boil its essence down to a few minutes was no small feat:
Imagine what I did with 160
“There is no skimming over the surface of a subject with [Hamilton]. He must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on.”
— Major William Pierce (Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton)
Wouldn’t it be absurd to share that quote if my clip contained nothing but trite talking points? Some circles are not burdened by squaring their walk with their talk. They seem to think that advertising virtue equates to embodying it.
Case in point
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?
And these are on the mild end of the savagery I’ve seen:
You couldn’t carry Sowell’s jockstrap!
Seriously? Get a life. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s better than you basically in everything.
You deserved to be treated that way! You’re a moron and pathetic character assassin
Holy shit…. a video of a circle jerks with a nut in the center talking about RPMS. Yet somehow Sowell is a liar.
You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell
As this story is also
About the behavior of the echo chamber around Sowell — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem. And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.
So much for imagining
About that Mathematical Certainty
It’s a sign of the times that even on matters of quantifiable fact as concrete as it gets — there are competing camps for rigging your own reality.
You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? Never mind this story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot.
How so? How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits — but because it’s on the trail to the truth.
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.
The clueless who come marching to mock me — Like to be entertained.
If you don’t like my illustrations, go read the bone-dry reports for yourselves: And I’ve got plenty more material to add to your reading list. But that takes work — and why bother when you can just ridicule those who did it for you.
One picture is worth a thousand words:
When you don’t want the pictures and you don’t want the words — what would you have me do?
And once I did it
We both know your next move . . .
on that note
Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.
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.
And this gem is just priceless:
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.
Which means that the Tweet above and the one below amount to one thing and one thing only: Grade-A horseshit!
And I’m just getting warmed up.
As I wrote in my reply above:
When you have no idea what’s going on here (Sowell flagrantly ignoring irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty — the manipulation of which shaped everything you see today) — but object to my characterization of him: That’s the magical thinking!
Did you need me to point out that you gotta click on my link to understand the basis of the characterization? You thought you could just look at the title and Tweet to issue your refrain of an automaton: Where anything you don’t like can be claimed as “Attacking the person not the argument”? And speaking of argument, what is it?
When you don’t even know what the subject matter is, on what basis are you objecting to a title and 280 characters coupled with this imagery? The thumbnail encapsulates assertions — the arguments are within the body of the work within. It’s demonstrably provable that this man is a liar and a hypocrite, but once again — those are assertions. If I just left it at that, you could justifiably call it “mudslinging.”
But I’m not leaving it at that — you are! How convenient.
About that “mudslinging” . . .
Fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
If you have a history of hypocrisy and lying — you are a hypocrite and a liar. If you don’t like being called those things, don’t do those things. But so typical of the times — nothing has meaning anymore. Calling criticism “mudslinging” is just somethin’ to say to escape scrutiny.
And the irony is:
I’ve received almost nothing but mudslinging for decades — by people who cry foul with counterfeit claims on what they do for real. And let’s face it: You need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not — your binary beliefs are gonna fall apart.
Our culture loves to argue but eschews the rules of argument. It’s high time we appreciate the difference between an assertion and an argument. A perfect depiction of the distinction is on a blog I stumbled across 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.
What are the half-truths in question here? Shouldn’t you have some idea before you object to my assertion (backed by exhaustively detailed arguments inside the story)?
And in the face of imagery about half-truths compared to Trillion Dollar Tube:
Which explains that and this in all of 5 minutes . . .
Do you wanna fuss over philosophical fluff that “there’s no such thing as as irrefutable evidence” — or look at it the light of something that seems awfully specific for someone “attacking the person not the argument”?
What was I thinking?
His infinite wisdom coupled with Einstein’s quote that follows below:
As any proper scientist can explain to you, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence OR mathematical certainty.
Well, since I interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist for my research into a topic you have yet to even acknowledge, perhaps we should discuss what HE said: Instead of the “any proper scientist” as the arbiter of truth?
And there’s more to Einstein’s quote than meets the eye.
But even if there weren’t, what these people miserably fail to understand is that magnificent minds of Einstein’s caliber took pride in keeping the door open. And yet, this crowd latches onto anything that allows them to keep the door closed (without any regard for context or possible gaps in translation).
After all — it says everything you need to know right here.
Except it doesn’t
I’m not at all interested in debating the article above or below. I’m simply saying it took me all of 2 minutes to discover a discussion around a quote that someone was dead certain in sharing with self-satisfied delight.
Which flies in the face of the half-ass point he was trying to make.
I know the type, all too well
They’re as predictable as day and night. As I said in my doc:
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
Hide and Seek
A go-to tactic of the doubt-free is to make damn sure the debate never reaches the merits of the matter. I’ve seen highly intelligent people derail discussions by claiming that “everything’s just an opinion!” Nobody really believes that — it’s just a cop-out. And if you call ‘em on it, they fall back on Old Faithful — “agree to disagree.” How this hijacked-for-hackery catchphrase caught on over the years can be charted with the times:
Where things that once meant something, now mean nothing.
Clearly you think my line of thinking is incorrect and I think yours is wrong also so I would have to say this is one of the spots where agreeing to disagree is appropriate. I know you don’t believe in that but I’m sure it’s safe to say that you aren’t going to change your mind on . . . and neither am I, BUT THAT IS Ok!
— 2011 exchange with a friend
The minimum standard for a “line of thinking” — is to do some thinking. You cannot counter with nothing and say it’s something. AudioEnglish.org does a nice job of defining “line of thinking”:
The process of using your mind to consider something carefully
Exactly zero:
Number of people I’ve challenged on this topic who considered it carefully. But the “everything’s an opinion” peddlers (and their kin who apparently think 2 + 2 is open to debate): Sure love to cling to their quotes. And never scratch the surface of them or anything else that threatens their shortsighted interests.
And they always seems to be the same crowd offering the earth-shattering insight of “you can’t believe everything you read!” I noticed that phrase only applies to words you don’t like.
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.
How do I know the numbers? I had access — to everything:
Are we gonna debate what a “fact” is now?
Is it even possible that at any point it will matter that I asked all kinds of questions and you asked none (and still don’t)? There’s a reason for that — as there’s always a reason why people surrender their intelligence:
People want an authority to tell them how to value things, but they choose this authority not based on facts or results. They choose it because it seems authoritative and familiar — and I’m not and never have been familiar.
— Michael Burry, The Big Short
If that were not overwhelmingly true, this site would not exist. And I would not have been treated with nothing but contempt for 20 years of telling undeniable truth of world-altering consequence. No rational person would repeatedly deny the obvious, and just minutes into any post this site, you’d know something’s not right.
But you find it’s with me . . .
[As] I’m not and never have been familiar
It’s impossible for you to fathom the mountain of childish and spectacularly stupid shit I’ve seen for decades in dealing with the systematic self-delusion of the doubt-free.
They deny the undeniable with glee:
Pulling off stupefying psychological gymnastics when going for gold in the Gutter Games of Government.
Unbelievable!
He blows off the most detailed work ever done on WMD. Offers absolutely nothing to counter anything on the subject matter (and is blindly supporting someone when he doesn’t even know what he said either). Then has the bottomless never to claim I won’t “concede error and gain learning.”
And to top it all off, in response to me steering the topic to what it is, he claims I’m changing the subject (when he’s suffocated the “conversation” to the point where we can’t even establish what it is). Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate, and there never was.
They just made it up
But to “logic lovers” — that means nothing:
As defending the faith means everything — even lowering yourself to this childish crap for the cause:
love to use “logic” to win an argument, and then disappear before they can find out they’re wrong
Oh yeah, I’ve seen the “logic lovers” escape and evasion tactics for decades. I took my mountain of material and put it all on a silver platter for you 10 years ago:
When I Saw the Writing on the Wall
I took on the automatons of the time (Left & Right). No one listened, and lo and behold — automatons exponentially multiplied. Those times were tame compared to today. In the last few years — I’ve seen savagery beyond anything that inspired the doc. The toxicity of venom has been taken to a whole other level with pride.
As it turns out though — that is an opportunity (to take a problem and turn it into a solution).
But the same people who proudly made it impossible to tell that story 10 years ago — are in the way now more than ever (and they’ve got friends). But with what I do, even their enemies are in my way. If you’d all just stop talking and start listening — you’d find that you’re in your own way.
Speaking of the moon
Not the tiniest trace of reasoning or molecule of courtesy 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.
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
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 . . .
Oh, you’re so condescending
Your gall is never-ending . . .Your life is trite and jaded
Boring and confiscated
If that’s your best, your best won’t do
Turns out
You were just fine taking it — and had no qualms about losing it.
Part II to come
I love you so much that I can’t leave you
Even though my mind tells me I should
But then you make me think that you still love me
And all my thoughts of leaving do no good . . .
You’ve got me heart over mind worried all the time
Knowing you will always be the same
You’ll keep hurting me I know but I still can’t let you go
Cause my heart won’t let my love for you change
One Voice Became Two 