Noam Chomsky is and always has been A SPOOK

by Miles Mathis

First published November 29, 2015

As usual, this is just my opinion, arrived at by personal research. If you can't swallow it, join the club. I couldn't swallow it for years, either.

Also as usual, all the information I give you in this paper was found on easy searches on the internet, most of it from mainstream sites and the bulk of it from Wikipedia. I have no inside information or mainstream contacts, I just notice things other people apparently don't and compile it for you. I am a very close reader and have a good memory: I see connections and contradictions that are not always obvious. My critics try to tell people Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but on topics I cover like science, biography, and history, it is as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Often the pages at both places appear to have been written by the same people, or are copy jobs from the same source. The truth is, on important pages like Chomsky's bio, the page is written by professionals in government or academia. The page is then locked and policed hourly, to be sure no outside information is added. Most of the data is footnoted, and I check the footnotes to be sure I am not repeating hearsay. So these things I find are not slander added to the page by trolls, they are documented. Since a large part of Chomsky's bio comes from his own lips, a great deal of my information here was supplied by Chomsky himself. He does not deny it. It is part of the public record.

That said, my conclusions drawn from this record are admittedly not mainstream. Some are speculative and are based on a compiling of what would be called circumstantial evidence. You may draw different conclusions from the same evidence. However, I feel it is long past time someone put this evidence in front of the public in its proper form, so that they can judge for themselves. For too long all such evidence—on Chomsky and everything else—has been presented in a highly spun format, so that all pertinent facts and clues are buried. I see my job are de-spinning history and dragging the clues back into the open. If, at the end, you think I am applying my own spin, that is your prerogative. No one has to agree with me, since this is free opinion in a free country. If you don't like my style or conclusions, you are free to dismiss them and quit reading my papers, of course. In fact, if that is how you feel, I suggest you do so immediately, because the facts I compile in these papers will lodge in your brain, eating away at your surety. If you don't quit reading and go back to watching TV, you may find yourself coming uncomfortably close to reality.

That's right, I didn't say he looks like a gatekeeper to me, I said he looks like an agent. A spook. It took me a very long time to figure that out. I needed to collate several decades worth of information to figure it out, and still I didn't want to look at it. Why? Well, why does anyone resist changing their mind about something important, or resist losing a hero? It hurts. It hurts because you have to admit you were a fool for a long time. I was a big fool, since I wrote Chomsky's name in for President twice, in 1984 and 1988. I was only 21 in 1984, so I have the excuse of youth, but it doesn't help much.

This is how hard it was for me to look at: I have to admit that today was the first time I actually looked closely at Chomsky's bio, looking for red flags. Yes, today. Even though I have been suspicious of Chomsky since about 2003, due to 911; and even though I have known he is misdirecting on that and other topics since about 2006; and even though I have been partially outing him for several years now, I have not wanted to really look closely at him even so.

I think what finally pushed me over the edge was doing my own research on Karl Marx. I never cared much for Marx, so he was easy to be objective about. It wasn't on political grounds I was uninterested in Marx, since I wasn't and am not a Capitalist or a cheerleader for the USA. I simply found his theories illogical. Even in college, I found him to be a poor philosopher, a poor economist, and a poor writer. That said, going into that research I had no clue Marx might be an agent. It was not even a thought in the back of my head. But it didn't take long to come to that conclusion from studying his bio. Everything he did screamed “mole!” That big card falling then created an avalanche, as you might imagine. Unfortunately for Chomsky, his bio is inundated by that avalanche in many places—as we will now see.

The first red flag we find in Chomsky's Wikipedia bio is that he was appointed to Harvard's Society of Fellows in 1951, at age 22. This is a strange society, in that you don't have to be going to Harvard or even planning to go to Harvard to be nominated or appointed. Chomsky never went to Harvard, getting all his degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. You will tell me Chomsky was physically on Harvard campus for three years during his fellowship, but he had absolutely no requirements while there:

Junior Fellows are selected by Senior Fellows based on their potential to advance academic wisdom, based upon previous academic accomplishments, and are generously supported fnancially for three years to do independent research at Harvard University in any discipline, without being required to meet formal degree requirements or, indeed, to be graded in any way. The only stipulation is that they remain in residence in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for the duration of their fnancial support.

That should look highly suspicious to you. In my experience, things don't work that way in real life, so I read this as just another lie. I suspect these Fellows are actually initiates, and they are probably put through some sort of training while at Harvard. My guess is it is some sort of spook training. You will see much (admittedly indirect) evidence for that below.

To start with, this Society of Fellows was founded in 1933 by Abbott Lawrence Lowell. Note the date. The number 33 will come up many times in this investigation. Also note the name. These are the Boston Brahmin Lowells who have come up in my papers before. See my paper on Ted Bundy for perhaps the most interesting find concerning this family. The Lowells were related to the Bundys, the Bundys also being Boston Brahmins. You will tell me there is no paper trail between Ted Bundy and the Lowells, and that is true. It has been shredded, as far as I know. But the family links between Lowell and Bundy are many. In this case, I mean between people like McGeorge Bundy and the Lowells. The links there are easy to find, since they are admitted in the mainstream encyclopedias. We find the link again here in this story, since McGeorge Bundy was appointed to this same Society of Fellows at Harvard as Chomsky.

Who is McGeorge Bundy? Well, since I just mentioned his genealogy, I will start with that. His mother was Katherine Lawrence Putnam. Note the name Putnam, we will see it again, since that is yet a third prominent Boston Brahmin family. Her mother and therefore McGeorge's grandmother was Elizabeth Lawrence Lowell. This Elizabeth was the sister of Abbott Lawrence Lowell. So, the founder of the Society of Fellows at Harvard was the great-uncle of McGeorge Bundy. I guess we know how McGeorge got appointed. McGeorge was later appointed Dean of Arts and Sciences at Harvard at age 33, the youngest Dean ever there. Note his age. They tell you he was appointed at age 34, but that is a fudge. He took office at age 34, but was appointed at age 33. Even earlier, at age 29, McGeorge became a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. He was appointed National Security Advisor by Kennedy in 1961. He was also President of the Ford Foundation. His Wikipedia bio scrubs his CIA career, only briefly mentioning that he served in Intelligence during WW2. What they don't tell you is that McGeorge was one of the founders of the CIA at its birth in 1947. He remained one of its top officers his entire life. You can see that at Wikipedia where they tell you he was Chairman of the 303 Committee, responsible for coordinating government covert operations. He was involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion (which was faked) and the Cuban Missile Crisis (ditto). So that is just one of Noam Chomsky's fellow Fellows at Harvard.

But back to the Lowells. Abbott Lowell's brother was Percival Lowell the astronomer. Most don't know that Percival was also very interested in Japan, spending much time there and writing several books on it. One of them was curiously titled Occult Japan, or the Way of the Gods. Even curiouser is that this is the same time Jack London was going to Japan. See my previous paper outing London. This is pertinent to our research here, because this was the time of the Sino-Japanese War. The war was for control of Korea, and Percival also spent much time there. At only age 28, he was appointed counsellor for an important Korean diplomatic mission. Korea has been a hotspot for a long time, and not a lot of people remember that. Anyway, Percival was in Korea or Japan the entire decade before the war started in 1894. That's a strange place to find an astronomer, I would say. Before that, he ran a cotton mill for six years. He didn't start working in astronomy until he was almost 40. He immediately founded an observatory, the famous Lowell observatory in Flagstaff that still has his name. Again, that seems sort of upside-down, doesn't it? To found an observatory at the beginning of your career in astronomy, before you have done any important work. He wrote several books on Mars, popularizing the idea that there might be life there. Through his telescope, he claimed to see canals and many other non-natural features. Larger telescopes soon proved him wrong. He also claimed to see features on Venus, but was probably seeing features of his own eyeball. Percival also worked on Pluto, and his bio gloss makes you think he did something important. He didn't. He thought Pluto was planet X, the cause of the anomalies in the orbit of Neptune. It wasn't, although that wasn't proved until 1978. Pluto was discovered from the Lowell observatory, but not by Lowell. Lowell's real legacy is all the Martian science fiction of the 20th century, which borrowed heavily from his books, including H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds, Edgar Rice Burroughs' The Gods of Mars, Robert Heinlein's Red Planet, and Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles. I assume all these guys were also spooks, although I won't divert into that here. I am already far enough off the main thesis as it is.

Abbott Lowell was also the brother of poetess Amy Lowell. Amy was an obese cigar-smoking lesbian whose poetry was so bad even the talentless Ezra Pound couldn't stomach it. Here's a sample:

To a Friend

I ask but one thing of you, only one,

That always you will be my dream of you;

That never shall I wake to fnd untrue

All this I have believed and rested on,

Forever vanished, like a vision gone

Out into the night. Alas, how few

There are who strike in us a chord we knew

Existed, but so seldom heard its tone

We tremble at the half-forgotten sound.

The world is full of rude awakenings

And heaven-born castles shattered to the ground,

Yet still our human longing vainly clings

To a belief in beauty through all wrongs.

O stay your hand, and leave my heart its songs!

Hallmark sentiments and rhymes. And I am not a Modernist. I like rhymes and meter, but not these easy rhymes and not this limping meter. Just study the first two lines. She repeats “you” and “one” to no effect. She tries to slant rhyme one and on, which is not the boldest slant rhyme I have ever seen (or is she slant rhyming to “tone” seven lines down?—either way it doesn't work). She breaks meter in the second foot, for no reason. “I ask but one thing of you” doesn't scan, “but one” scanning either long- long or short-short and tripping us up before we even get in. And what is a heaven-born castle, besides another thing that doesn't scan?

Like the rest of these people, she was published only because she was an insider. We have seen her name come up already in a couple of papers, since she was linked to Frances Stonor Saunders' The Cultural Cold War. Saunders tells us a Lowell was on the committee to award the first Bollingen Prize, and implies in her index it was Robert Lowell. It wasn't, it was Amy. I mentioned her in that paper on Saunders as well as my paper on Hemingway and Pound, called The Stolen Century. There we found her voting the first Bollingen Prize to Ezra Pound in 1948. The editor of Poetry magazine at the time, Karl Schapiro, said, “Eliot, Auden, Tate, [Amy] Lowell—all voted the prize to Pound. A passel of fascists.” It looks like they forgot to pay him off, though he appears to have received his check somewhat later. The Bollingen Prize was indeed a fascist prize, or more precisely a CIA prize. We are told in many places that Paul Mellon underwrote the prize, but it is now admitted that it was underwritten by CIA front organizations, which were and are ubiquitous. Paul Mellon himself was a sort of CIA front organization, since we now know he worked for them [Saunders, p. 34]. And Pound was also an agent, as I have shown. He and his pals had been underwritten back to the first World War by John Quinn, among others, and Quinn was British Intelligence. Amy Lowell, like the rest of the poets of the 20th century, was published first in literary journals, and as it turns out all of them were underwritten by US or British Intelligence. Saunders tells us this was a Cold War ploy, but she and others admit the influence predates the Cold War by several decades at least. The fact that so many of these poets come from prominent families is indication of that by itself, without further documentation. We find the same families controlling Intelligence, art, poetry, literature and of course just about everything else. Under their control, art, literature and poetry were most often turned into propaganda. Below we will find they were also in control of linguistics.

In 1953, both William Carlos Williams and Archibald MacLeish were awarded the Bollingen Prize. Both have since been outed. I outed MacLeish in my paper on Karl Marx. Williams is outed by his links to The Others and the Dadaists, as well as to Pound and Ford Madox Ford. Of course he can also be outed directly via his Bollingen Prize and this link to MacLeish. Remember, MacLeish was working for the OSS in the 1940s, being an admitted propagandist. For more on Williams, see my paper on Wendell Berry.

But let's return to Chomsky. Before we move on from the Harvard Fellowship connection, I wish to point out one more thing that is curious, and that I take as a signal. On Chomsky's Wikipedia page, we of course find many footnotes. What do you think is the number of the footnote that goes along with this Society of Fellows mention? If you guessed 33, you win the prize. Want to hear something even stranger? The day after I wrote that, I went back and the sequence of footnotes had changed. The footnote on that mention changed to 32. That was before this paper was even put up on my site. Which means the spooks knew I was writing this paper while I was writing it. Hello spooks! Hope you like it.

So who else besides McGeorge Bundy was in the Society of Fellows at Harvard? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He also has markers all over him, including being a professor at Berkeley and interviewing physicist Niels Bohr the day before he died (see below for more on Bohr). He was also at Princeton and then MIT, where he was the Rockefeller Professor of Philosophy. Save us from Rockefeller Professors of Philosophy. Kuhn is mandatory reading at the

CIA. See this paper at cia.gov called Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, which links to Kuhn in chapter 14. Also see Steve Fuller's books on Kuhn, one of which can be read in part at Google Books. On page 167 Fuller ties Kuhn to the ideas of Harvard's Pareto Circle, and then points out that one of the members of that circle, Talcott Parsons, did indeed become a known informer for the CIA and FBI [Heims, 1991, p. 183-4]. I highly recommend Fuller's book, because although he doesn't out Kuhn as an agent, he does out him as an anti-science pawn of some cabal or another. I was about to launch into a short deconstruction of Structures of Scientific Revolutions, showing it is a dishonest broadside against Karl Popper, but I will let Fuller do it for me. In a section entitled The Harvard Strategy for Resisting a New Deal for Science, he says,

Several of the conference participants were interested in finding ways of making scientists more open-minded, fexible, and risk seeking. Kuhn devoted his contribution to scuppering this aim by arguing that radical change is licensed in science only as the last resort once a series of incremental changes of the established tradition have proven inadequate.

There we see Kuhn doing precisely what he was trained to do at Harvard during his Society of Fellows indoctrination. This is of paramount importance not only in regard to this paper, but in regard to all the papers I have up now on my science site and the mainstream reaction to them. The radical changes I have offered there have been blocked by this program that Kuhn was fronting in his time, and that of course is still ascendant. It is as if Kuhn's masters saw me and all like me coming, and prepared early and fully for our arrival. They have spent decades and many billions making sure their entrenched theories remained unassailable by any real science.

But this ties into my current paper on yet another point. Chomsky's bio in the late 1950's is strange in many ways, not the least of which is the speed with which his ideas replaced those of Bloomfield. The transition to Chomsky's new linguistics took less than five years. But Fuller's analysis of Kuhn reminds us there were huge walls already set up in all fields to prevent exactly that. Revolutions in science were not welcome in 1951, as they are not welcome now. So how did Chomsky leap that wall with such ease and speed? Since Kuhn was still at Harvard in 1951 when Chomsky arrived, I suggest they were part of the same program, that program having to do with “scuppering” the scientific method one way or another. I am not the first to claim that, regarding Chomsky. The great French linguist Gilbert Lazard has said that ditching Chomsky and returning to structuralism in linguistics is “the only course by which linguistics can become more scientific”. Even Chomsky's Wikipedia page unwittingly admits it, where it says that Chomsky “contributed substantially to a major methodological shift in the human sciences, turning away from the prevailing empiricism of the middle of the 20 th century”. Seeing that science is based on empiricism, I would say that is a curious (but accurate) way of putting it. We see this just by skimming the page of Chomsky's predecessor Bloomfield and then Chomsky's page. Whatever else he did, Bloomfield did incredible amounts of research in the field. Compared to Bloomfield, Chomsky did almost none.

For a more recent example of a Junior Fellow at Harvard, we can look at Leon Wieseltier. Unwinding these things becomes easier the closer to the present we go, since Intelligence gets sloppier every decade. Wieseltier finished his fellowship in 1982, and his bio is just one long red flag, his career transparent as thinnest glass. He edited and introduced a volume of works by Lionel Trilling. Of course he did. Frances Stonor Saunders outs Trilling on many pages of her book, as a writer for Encounter (CIA front), as a member of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (CIA front), as a founder of the Farfield Foundation (CIA front), etc. Wieseltier was also an editor at New Republic, which has been an Intel front since the beginning (see Walter Lippmann in my paper on John Reed). Wieseltier is currently a Fellow at the Brookings Institution, a fascist think tank founded by billionaire industrialist Robert S. Brookings at about the same time as New Republic. Joshua Muravchik and George Packer have called Wieseltier liberal, but that must be a inside joke of some sort. He is about as liberal as Pol Pot. While cheerleading for the Iraq War, he begged not to be confused with neoconservatives doing the same thing, while failing to show us any differences between his cheerleading and theirs. For a lighter deconstruction of Wieseltier, I recommend Spy magazine.

So anyway, these are some of Chomsky's fellow Fellows at Harvard, and these are just the Junior Fellows. In the important Senior Fellows list, we find “liberals” like Larry Summers, James Watson, and John Dunlop. If you want to read some world-class misdirection, go to Dunlop's Wikipedia page, where you find this:

[Dunlop is] more at home with a plumbers’ convention than with the Harvard faculty. He even sort of looks like a plumber, the way he always wears bow ties.

As usual, they are trying to sell this fascist as a man of the people, but when was the last time you saw a plumber wearing a bow tie?

Other Fellows at Harvard include David Politzer and David Gross, Nobel Prize winners for asymptotic freedom in physics. See my paper on that on my science site. Also B. F. Skinner. Also Jeffrey Sachs, now of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Beware of him. This article at Salon from 2013 asks the right question in its title Why Does Anyone Listen to Jeffrey Sachs? but gives you the wrong answer. Or, the answer is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. The real answer is that Sachs is a mole. Like the rest he is controlling the opposition. The name “Earth Institute” alone is a red flag, since the environmental movement has been completely hijacked by big business at least since 1970, and the fake Earth Day. They deny Sachs is related to GoldmanSachs, but I for one don't believe it. These Jewish families have been sure to scrub all their genealogies, so you have to take their word for everything. I don't. Just from this paper alone, you can see why I wouldn't trust anyone who had been appointed a Harvard Fellow.

Another Fellow was Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Prussian Jew, Intelligence Analyst in the OSS, full professor at Harvard without earning a PhD, close friend of OSS officer John Kenneth Galbraith (see below), co-founder of the CIA-front Americans for Democratic Action, and Kennedy propagandist.

Also Daniel Ellsberg, Ashkenazy Jew, Marine, RAND corporation analyst, holder of top security clearance, Special Assistant to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and spook. Ellsberg was famously charged with espionage for leaking the Pentagon Papers in 1971, but of course skated. Due to “governmental misconduct” all charges were dropped. Right. Ironically, his PhD thesis in 1962— which he worked on while at Harvard of course—was on decision theory, and it was

based on a set of experiments that showed that decisions under conditions of uncertainty or ambiguity generally may not be consistent with well defned subjective probabilities. Now known as the Ellsberg paradox,[5] this formed the basis of a large literature that has developed since the 1980s, including approaches such as Choquet expected utility and info-gap decision theory.

Of course it was. You see how they are toying with your mind? Ellsberg was involved in a major faked event, and also created a paradox that bears his name concerning conditions of ambiguity. You see, the leaking of the Pentagon Papers was a controlled leak, created by the Pentagon itself as misdirection from the unfolding Watergate project—which was also not what we have been sold. So I am not saying Ellsberg was a spook because of this faked espionage trial. I am saying he was a spook because he was working for the government all along. He acted as a mole into the anti-war movement, and continued that role for decades. His is misdirecting you to this day, telling you partial truths about the government in order to keep you away from any real information.

After all that, you may want to ask how Chomsky fits in with all these people? Would the same Society groom people both on the far right and the far left? Is that how prominent societies would logically work? You may tell me they didn't know Chomsky would turn out to be a flaming liberal, but don't you think they vet these people? Of course they do. They knew who he was going in. Chomsky admits he was a Communist or Anarchist from the time he was 12, and if that had been true the guys at Harvard would have known that. He wasn't hiding it, according to the bios. So why would this cabal of fascists at Harvard choose the young Anarchist Chomsky? No one ever asks that question.

I am outing a lot of Jews here, so as usual some will take this opportunity to peg me as an anti-Semite. I'm not. I don't like discovering these things, since I have had many Jewish friends over the years, dated a couple of Jewish girls, and I believe my great-grandfather was probably Jewish. My family denies it, but I have always laughed at that because his name was Moses Mordecai and he was involved in banking. I asked them with a smile, what was he, a Mormon? Anyway, he could have been a Martian or the Man From U.N.C.L.E for all I know. I never met him and the old people in my family never gave me any decent information beyond what I just told you. I still assume he was Jewish, just so you know, not that I think it matters a whole hell of a lot. Plus, remember, I started this by admitting I wrote Chomsky in for President twice when I was a younger man. Would I have done that if I were an anti-Semite? I am just a pro-Truthite, and the facts are the facts. I didn't make them up to suit myself.

As an undergraduate, Chomsky studied Arabic. OK. Of course there are historical links between Hebrew and Arabic, but normally when Jewish people study Arabic they aren't as interested in the historical links as they are in other things. For example, those in the Mossad study Arabic, but they don't study it for historical or linguistic reasons. They study it to infiltrate and destabilize the enemy. You will say that Chomsky had pretty obvious and provable interests in history and linguistics, and that is true. But I still consider it a red flag. Taken with all the other things we will discover, it is an interesting piece of circumstantial evidence.

Chomsky was supposedly awarded his Fellowship at Harvard for his MA thesis, which we are told was a revision of his BA thesis “The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew.” Really? First of all, it is not usually allowed to present an MA thesis that is just a reworking of a previously presented paper. So the story is already suspect. Even stranger is that we learn that Chomsky's father's PhD dissertation was on the same subject. In that interview he says,

When I was maybe 10 or 11 years old, I was actually reading the proofs of my father’s doctoral dissertation, which was on David Kimhi’s Hebrew grammar.

Wow, I would call that a big clue. We will return to it, but first I want to quote you another story Chomsky tells in that interview:

Back in the 1980s I attended a conference in Jerusalem, and on the way out of the country you have to go through security. There were two of us, and the other guy was a friend who I don’t think is Jewish, and they opened everything in his suitcase, took out his dirty socks. There were things in my suitcase I didn’t want them to see. It was during the First Intifada and I had managed to break curfew a couple of times and get into places under curfew until we were picked up by soldiers. I had found a container for a grenade that had stamped on it the name of some place in Pennsylvania, and I wanted to bring that home. I also had a lot of illegal pamphlets. Israeli security could never fnd out how they were circulating these pamphlets. In fact it was young kids jumping over rooftops. So I had a collection of these pamphlets that I wanted to bring home, and I was hoping I wouldn’t get inspected. When I got to the inspection, the woman security offcer took my passport, and said, “Oh, you have a weird name.” I said, “Yeah.” She said, “Do you speak Hebrew?” So I said, “Yeah.” Then we went on to have a discussion in Hebrew. “Did you visit your relatives, did you have a good time.” And she never bothered to look in my suitcase.

If you believe that you need to cut your dose of Zoloft. Israel has had the tightest security in the world for many decades, including the 1980s. Chomsky would know that and wouldn't even attempt to smuggle grenade containers or illegal pamphlets. After all, he was already famous then, and if what we are told about the Zionists hating him were true, they would have used that as an excuse to slap him in jail—and not just overnight. The rest of the story is equally absurd. Any officer in Israeli security would have known who Noam Chomsky was in the 1980s. And why would she say he had a weird name? In Israel, Noam Chomsky would be a perfectly ordinary name, and no Israeli would say it was weird. And if she thought it was so weird, why would she then ask him if he spoke Hebrew? Obviously, she must have thought the name was Jewish, else why would she ask him if he spoke Hebrew? And if she thought the name was Jewish, and she was Jewish, why would she think his name was weird? Beyond that, security officers in Jerusalem don't let American Jews pass on sight, whether they speak Hebrew or not. She could tell he was from the US from his passport, and he was accompanying this non-Jew who was being inspected. So there is no way she would let him slide. The story is an obvious concoction. After that, I wouldn't believe Chomsky could speak Hebrew until I heard him do it.

In support of that, we find this strange exchange in the same interview:

DS: Did you imagine yourself as a navi, a prophet, when you were a child reading those texts alone in your room or on Friday night with your father?

NC: Sure. In fact, my favorite prophet, then and still, is Amos. I particularly admired his comments that he’s not an intellectual. I forget the Hebrew, but lo navi ela anochi lo ben navi — I’m not a prophet, I’m not the son of a prophet, I’m a simple shepherd. So he translated “prophet” correctly. He’s saying, “I’m not an intellectual.” He was a simple farmer and he wanted just to tell the truth. I admire that.

“I forget the Hebrew?” The interviewer had to put it in for him? The same Chomsky who we are told used to teach Hebrew? If he can remember the English, he should be able to remember the Hebrew, or at least attempt a word-for-word translation. This makes no sense.

Now, about his father. No one appears to have tripped over the fact that Chomsky wrote his dissertations on the same things his father did. Do you see why that is a potential red flag? It is a potential red flag because Chomsky's father could very easily have written all his papers for him while Noam was being recruited as a spook. For one thing, this would explain why Chomsky was never very interested in linguistics. As soon as he could, he quit talking about it altogether, which has always seemed strange. He also quit writing about linguistics in the 1970s, which—curiously enough—is when his father died. It would also explain why MIT didn't expect him to do any linguistics work after a certain point, despite being in that department: they knew he was a high-ranking spook doing what was considered to be important work for the State. I am not saying that is what happened, since we need considerably more evidence than we have, but I leave the question open as I proceed. Of course nothing I can discover would prove it, short of Noam admitting it, so the best we can do make a guess based on surrounding facts. I mean, even if we did a close analysis of word usage, sentence cadence, and so on between Chomsky and his father and found a match, that still wouldn't prove it, since we would expect a father and son to have similar speech patterns. We would have to compare handwriting, and I doubt we are going to be given handwritten manuscripts. But I think you have to admit it is curious the possibility even exists. How many people write their dissertations on almost exactly the same thing their father did?

Now we return to his Master's thesis. That paper doesn't sound too earth-shattering to me. Do you really think that was one of the most promising masters papers of 1951, in all fields? Morphophonemics is “the study of sound changes that take place in morphemes (minimal meaningful units) when they combine to form words”. Since he hadn't yet expanded that into a theory of generative grammar in 1951, it is difficult to understand how anyone, even a professional linguist, could predict magnificent additions to culture based on that paper. Chomsky didn't publish his book on generative grammar, Syntactic Structures, until 1957. Even his PhD paper didn't come out until 1955. Only then could anyone argue that he may (or may not) have been onto something important.

Nonetheless, he was already lecturing at the University of Chicago and Yale in 1954. Remember, that was before he was awarded his doctorate and before he was hired by MIT. Those with only a masters in the humanities aren't normally hired to lecture by major universities. Plus, if his PhD thesis was so ground-breaking, why wasn't it published until 1975? I guess we are supposed to believe this thesis was already completed in 1954, and that it was so awe-inspiring he was being hired to speak about it all over the country. But if that had been the case, one of the academic presses would have published it either immediately or as soon as he received his PhD in 1955. They didn't.

The quick acceptance of his “revolutionary theories” also doesn't make sense. His first book “radically opposed the Harris-Bloomfield trend in the field”. The response to the book from the mainstream was “either indifferent or hostile”. And yet we are told that in less than five years Chomsky became the de facto head of American linguistics, being the plenary speaker at the 9th International Congress of Linguists. This was only a few months after gaining tenure in 1961. So he already had tenure at 32 and was the prince of American linguistics at age 33. Note the age.

But that isn't all. By 1957-58, he was also visiting professor at Columbia and a Fellow at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study. [The IAS has many spook connections, but I don't have time to get into it here. You will have to research that yourself.] He was just 28 and he had only one book on linguistics that had just hit the shelves. Others apparently see this as a sign of his genius, but I see it as a probable sign of something else. It isn't that easy to revolutionize an entire field. Even if you have incredible ideas, it takes longer than that to sell them and turn the mainstream your way. We are told that in 1959, at age 30, he founded the graduate program in linguistics at MIT. This would lead you to believe that linguistics was still an embryonic field until about 1960. Was it? No. The Indian Panini had an advanced Sanskrit grammar in the 4th century BC (although Bloomfield's page tells us it was the 6 th century BC). Both Bloomfield and Chomsky have bowed to Panini. Von Humboldt started the modern field in the early 1800s, and that was updated significantly by Saussure around 1900. In fact, Wikipedia tells us,

Saussure posited that linguistic form is arbitrary, and therefore that all languages function in a similar fashion.

But wait, isn't that also the heart of Chomsky's thesis? Yep. Doesn't this also sound like Chomsky?

According to Saussure, a language is arbitrary because there is no objective relationship between the sign (e.g. the letters that make up the word "cat") and the thing it refers to (the actual cat). Meaning emerges from the word "cat" not because of any objective link between these letters and the animal they are indicating; rather, meaning emerges from the word "cat" by comparing and contrasting it to other words, such as "car" and "mat." This is what Saussure means by the argument that language is self-referential.

That, along with the previous quote, already lead us to a universal grammar, don't they? If all languages function in a similar manner and form is arbitrary, then logically there must be an underlying principle of all those languages, which we might call a universal grammar. We will come back to Chomsky's linguistics later.

After Saussure, we find Bloomfield. Leonard Bloomfield was head of American linguistics from the time of his book Language in 1933. Note the date! I suggest that Bloomfield fell so easily to Chomsky because the transition was planned. It now looks like the field of linguistics was already controlled by Intelligence by the 1950s, and probably much earlier. The entire field of art had been coopted by Intelligence before that (say, by 1910), and we could say the same of poetry, literature, and just about everything else. And with linguistics obvious use in propaganda, we should not really find it surprising that Intelligence had gobbled it up as well. The was after WW2 and after the creation of the CIA. The propaganda departments were huge during the war and were not downsized at its end. They would have very clear uses for linguists.

But we should look for evidence for that assertion, rather than just state it. It isn't hard to find. Like Chomsky, Bloomfield was another Jew with connections to Harvard. His uncle Maurice Bloomfield was a prominent linguist and philologist at Johns Hopkins, and also had connections to Yale and Princeton. Maurice had translated Max Müller's Sacred Books of the East, was the first to edit the Kauika Sutra, and published a Vedic Concordance. In addition, he published a book on comparative mythology, Cerberus, the Dog of Hades. To see why these are red flags, you have to read my paper on Theosophy, where I show it was created by Henry Steel Olcott, a high-ranking spook from the War Department. Its main goal was to undercut Western Religion, especially Christianity but also Judaism and any others, by importing purposely bastardized Eastern texts and gurus. You also have to read my paper on River Phoenix, where I out Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell followed Maurice Bloomfield's lead in publishing this so-called comparative mythology, which acted to undercut contemporary religions by making them seem arbitrary and thereby false. Remember, Chomsky did the same thing, though more indirectly. He often talks about his atheism in interviews. He talked about it in that interview I linked above. I suspect he is required to insert his disbelief in God into all interviews, if humanly possible.

Some who have started their reading with this paper will tag me as a distressed Christian after that last statement, but I'm not. Well, I'm distressed, but not a Christian. Not a Jew, either. I may seem to be protecting Christianity or organized religion in many new papers, but that is just a side-effect. What distresses me is lies. I don't like to see these covert projects targeting anything, whether I agree with it or not. What I started out protecting was art, because I am an artist. I discovered the covert project against art and artists, and it naturally made me furious. When I then discovered a similar project against religion, it made me furious even though I don't really support the old religions. I believe in meaning and higher powers, but don't know much about it beyond that. But even that was enough to make me distrust the atheists, who don't believe in either one. Regardless of that, I don't like cheaters, and covert operations are the operations of cheaters. If you don't like Christianity, fine, have your say against it. I have had my say against Christianity, Buddhism, and everything else. But I do it in the open. These covert operations against everything are just cowardly and pusillanimous. The strong should not have to run lying programs against their enemies. They should win on their merits. Which is another reason I choke when anyone in Intelligence mentions Nietzsche. Covert operations betray a slave mentality, not a noble mentality. If these old families were really superior, they wouldn't think to stoop to such levels. If they were really superior, they would lead by example.

OK, back to Bloomfield. We have seen that Maurice Bloomfield was an earlier Joseph Campbell, although a bit more scholarly. He was running the Theosophy project via the university. While Blavatsky and Besant were selling it to the masses via sensationalism, Bloomfield was selling it to the literary and the academic world via a pushed scholarship. His nephew Leonard was doing the same thing, I assume, although in his own ways. His page throws up fewer red flags and is harder for me to deconstruct. He did a lot of work with Native American languages, which could either be a good thing or a bad thing. It will take more research for me to unwind it. The only serious red flag I could find on his Wikipedia page was his work in 1925 for the Canadian Department of Mines, allegedly doing linguistic field work on the Plains Cree. He was recommended for this work by Edward Sapir, and everything I say about Bloomfield would also apply to Sapir. What makes me suspicious is that word “mines”. Sapir's page is more careful to call it the Canada Geological Survey, but Bloomfield's page admits this was a subsidiary of the Department of Mines, giving us the clue. We now know that scholars and academics were sent into the reservations ostensibly to study their languages and customs, but were really there as spies. And of course one of the things they wanted to get from the Natives even after they had penned them in on the reservations was minerals. We found later that their lands were above huge natural resources, and we also found we could tap those mines without necessarily moving the Natives off one more time. We could just pay them a paltry sum, since they didn't know what we taking or what it was worth. I have no evidence either Bloomfield or Sapir was involved in this, but I am sure one of my readers will send me to the right place. I suspect the evidence is out there.

In a quick search for that, I stumbled on something related. In David H. Price's 2008 book Anthropological Intelligence: the Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology, parts of which can be read online at Google, he tells us on page 76 that

Leonard Bloomfeld set aside pressing research on mathematical approaches to linguistic analysis to work for the American Council of Learned Societies' wartime language program, where he supervised young linguists and produced wartime language manuals for soldiers in Dutch and Russian.

That doesn't sound so bad on a first reading: he was just a patriot, right, working for his country during the war? Maybe, maybe not. These language manuals were called ILPs, intensive language programs, and they weren't for regular soldiers in the field. No, they “were written and produced under condition of great secrecy”. It was Rockefeller Foundation funds that underwrote this project, so you can be sure the ILPs weren't your run-of-the-mill crash courses in French or German. There would be no reason to have the Rockefeller Foundation involved in that, or professional linguists, or for great secrecy. It appears they were mainly for OSS and Signal Corps. So you see one of the uses Intelligence had for linguists.

Also remember what we discovered on Archibald MacLeish's Wikipedia page:

Archibald MacLeish also assisted with the development of the new " Research and Analysis Branch" of the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency. . . . Academic specialists from fields ranging from geography to classical philology descended upon Washington, bringing with them their most promising graduate students, and set up shop in the headquarters of the Research and Analysis (R&A) Branch at Twenty-third and E Streets, and in the new annex to the Library of Congress. During World War II MacLeish also served as director of the War Department's Office of Facts and Figures and as the assistant director of the Office of War Information. These jobs were heavily involved with propaganda, which was well-suited to MacLeish's talents.

Notice that it says “classical philology”, which is closely related to linguistics. Linguists were no doubt among the range of academic specialists who set up shop in the Library of Congress annex.

I also found that one of Bloomfield's students at the University of Chicago in 1942, Thomas Seboek, became Director of the Air Force Language Training Program for the OSS.

Next I found that Leonard Bloomfield's genealogy appears to have been scrubbed. I couldn't find any information on his family beyond his father and mother. Could his brother, cousin or nephew have been Samuel Bloomfield who worked for OSS?

We'll have to return to Bloomfield later. For now it is enough to state that the lightning quick turn of academic linguistics from Bloomfield to Chomsky in the late 1950s is probably unprecedented in the history of ideas. We have seen in many papers that things happen that quickly only when they are controlled. Think of the early career of Ezra Pound, for instance, or of John Reed, or of Bob Dylan, or of many others we have looked at recently. Only the children of the wealthy and connected advance this quickly, and only when they are helped along by Intelligence.

With that in mind, let's back up a bit. I find it curious that we are denied any information about Chomsky's maternal grandparents. We know nothing about the Simonofsky family, not even what Elimelech did for a living. There is an extended bio of Chomsky's mother Elsie online, published by Brandeis University, but it conspicuously leaves out all the expected information in her early life. They admit that Elsie “left a sparse paper trail”. But it goes far beyond that, since she also left a non-existent oral trail, and so did all her progeny including Noam. We are told where Elimelech davened (prayed) but not where he worked. We would also like to know what he did before in Russia. This is very important information in an investigation like mine, and it is important to find it denied. However, I was able to discover that there was a Simonovsky District in Babruysk, where the Simonofskys lived. It looks like the spelling has been changed to throw us off that realization. This means the Simonovskys were very prominent in the town, of course.

This is important to my investigation, because I suspect we have been lied to about Chomsky's lineage. He is sold as middle-class, with no special connections, but his early bio belies that. I suspect his grandfather was a prominent banker or merchant in Babruysk, and that the family continued to have money and connections after the move to the US. But whatever the truth of that, it is a red flag to find all this information scrubbed. If the information does not undercut the Chomsky story, why scrub it?

We get conflicting accounts even in the same bio, since Wikipedia tells us Chomsky was born to a middle-class family, but then admits a few paragraphs later that he was born in the affluent East Oak Lane neighborhood in Philadelphia. We are told the Chomskys were the only Jewish family in that neighborhood, which of course would indicate they were among the wealthiest. It is wealth that allows you into such neighborhoods despite being from a minority group. We know his father had a PhD and taught at the University. Such persons are not normally considered middle-class. They are upper- middle at worst. If they live in an affluent neighborhood, they are probably upper class.

Now let's move on to Chomsky's influences. He tells us he was influenced by Rudolph Rocker and George Orwell, both gigantic red flags. First of all Rocker's mother was from the Naumann family, which may have been Jewish. That is denied, but I take the denial for what it is worth: nothing. It is given weight by Rocker's career, which his bios admit quickly became heavily influenced and surrounded by Jews. Before he was 20, he was living in Paris with Jews and attending their “anarchist” meetings. He then went to London, doing the same thing, living in the Jewish quarter and immediately joining Arbeter Freint. Why would a German from Hesse do that? He then joined his common law wife Milly Witkop, also a Jew. This is when we get the silly story about the pair arriving in New York and being refused admittance through immigration because they weren't married. We are told the story made the front pages across the country. Why? Are we supposed to believe they were the first unmarried couple ever to get off the boat into America? C'mon, this is such a manufactured story. We are told

The Commissioner-General of Immigration, the former Knights of Labor President Terence V. Powderly, advised the couple to get married to settle the matter, but they refused and were deported back to England on the same ship they had arrived on.

Oi. We are expected to believe the Commissioner-General of Immigration would get involved in this petty rules application, and advise the couple personally? Who were they, royalty? Did Powderly also get involved every time someone refused to present ID or allow his suitcase to be inspected?

So Rocker and Witkop moved to Liverpool instead, where Rocker became the editor of a Yiddish paper, even though he was not Jewish and didn't speak Yiddish. The things they expect you to believe!

Note that I am not criticizing Rocker for being Jewish. I am criticizing the entire story for not just admitting it. If they are hiding that they are probably hiding a lot of other things.

What are they hiding? Well, you may not have noticed this. Rocker's bio says he is from Mainz, Hesse, which is in the Palatinate. But wait, where have we seen that before? Who else is said to be from the Palatinate? The Rockefellers, remember? I did a long search on the Rockefeller genealogy at the end of my paper on the Kabbalah. The mainstream sites tell us the Rockefellers are German, coming from the Palatinate. Which should jog something in that pretty head of yours: Rocker, Rockefeller. We are being led on another wild goose chase here. They are once again throwing obvious clues in your face, knowing the clues won't stick.

Then we have Rocker's mother being a Naumann, and Rockefeller the first marrying a Spelman. Both Jewish names. Top it all off with Karl Marx, whose maternal uncle was from the billionaire industrialist Philips family from Belgium, and whose father was from a family of rabbis. I have already shown the entire Marx story is a hoax, with Marx being sent in to destabilize the Republican revolutions of 1848. So we may assume this entire Rocker story is more of the same. It reads as poorly. Being from Germany, Rocker should have known Marx was a billionaire industrialist mole. And being from a family of Zionists, Chomsky should have known the same thing. So why is he still promoting this false history? Chomsky has called Alan Dershowitz a terrible liar, but Chomsky is no better. Chomsky is only more convincing in his part.

All these prominent people claiming to be Marxists or Anarchists are simply part of a long con. There is no chance they weren't aware it is a con. Some midlevel people might claim to be fooled, but I don't see how the leaders could claim that. Did they just never read Marx's bio? We are supposed to believe Chomsky is a genius, but despite being inside the whale he never once took its temperature? He never saw signs of the con?

Orwell is another red flag. Although I intend to out him fully elsewhere, I will do a quick job on him here. You probably thought Big Brother was based on Hitler, with that mustache. Nope, Big Brother is a portrait of Orwell himself. Strange that Orwell had that mustache throughout the war, don't you think?

And he wondered why he never had any success with women? Just notice that we get all the same signs with Orwell that we got with Jack London. Orwell is always sold as gritty and on-the- ground, willing to get his hands dirty with the common folk. But if we study his bio, we again find he is from vast pools of wealth. His real name was Eric Blair, and on his father's side the Blairs were descended from the Earl of Westmoreland. So he was an aristocrat on his father's side. But his mother's side is more hidden. Even greater wealth came from that side, since she was a Limouzin, rich French timber merchants in Burma. Francis Mathew Limouzin was a millionaire many times over. We are told Orwell's family had slipped into poverty, but that is a myth. The Blair side had slipped a bit, though not into poverty. But the Limouzin side was still very wealthy. His childhood friend from next door was Jacintha Buddicom, and she married a peer. So they had to have been in a very posh neighborhood. She was related to billionaire industrialist William Buddicom, who manufactured locomotives for England and France. Interestingly, he was caught up in the revolutions of 1848, when workers tried to burn his holdings in Rouen.

Orwell wrote for Horizon magazine under Cyril Connelly. This was an Intel front like everything else. Stephen Spender was involved in its founding and funding, and he is a key player in Frances Stonor Saunders' The Cultural Cold War. Soon after this (1951) he became the Chairman of the British Society for Cultural Freedom [see p. 109], the counterpart of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, both Intel fronts. He was also involved with Encounter, later admitted to be a CIA front. Ramparts magazine outed them in the 1960s, and I have since outed Ramparts. Chomsky wrote for Ramparts in the late 1960s. For more evidence, we find that Horizon also published Ian Fleming, who is admitted to have been from Naval Intelligence as well as from the Fleming Bank. In 1947 he wrote an article on his home in Jamaica for the magazine. That's interesting in itself, since Orwell's ancestor the Earl of Westmoreland owned huge plantations in Jamaica.

Horizon was funded by Peter Watson, who—like many we have studied recently—was involved in the destruction of art history and its replacement with Modernism. He collected Miro, Klee, and Picasso, and funded Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud. The son of a Baronet, Watson commissioned articles on artists like Balthus and Klee and hired gallery owners like Kahnweiler to appear in the magazine and push their artists directly. Although many women were said to be madly in love with Peter Watson, Watson was in love with the world's most expensive male prostitute, Denham Fouts. So that is who we are dealing with here.

If you want to know what the world's most expensive male prostitute looked like, there he is. Peter Watson is in the second photo. I don't have anything against homosexuality, but am not too keen on prostitution. That is what I meant by “that is who we are dealing with here”. We are dealing with people who are prostituting one another and the rest of the world all the time. Fouts is said to have died in 1948 at age 34, but it looks like another faked death to me. Since the CIA was founded the year before (Fouts was therefore 33 in 1947), and since he was probably already with Intelligence, they likely found some decent work for him and installed him in another project.

Orwell also wrote for Partisan Review, which has also been outed as an Intel front. The magazine started as a house organ of the John Reed Club, but since both Marx and Reed were fakes, the magazine was also perforce a fake. Before the Second War it had a strange motion from Leninist to anti-Stalinist, and after the war it was basically bought outright by the government at the behest of spook Sidney Hook and funding of spook Henry Luce.

Orwell's principal tutor at Eton was A. S. F. Gow, a fellow from Trinity College, Cambridge. This is a red flag because Trinity College is the academic center of the universe for Intel in the UK. We have confirmation of this concerning Gow himself, since his Wikipedia page now includes the admission he has been outed by Brian Sewell (who just died) as the fifth man and master spy of the Cambridge Five.

Of course Eton is the same sort of red flag, being one the most expensive and exclusive private schools in England (although they call it public). It has its own nuclear bunker, used as propaganda. It has produced 19 Prime Ministers, and the current princes William and Harry went there. So Orwell's claim to be impoverished and a man of the people doesn't hold much water. After Eton he joined the Imperial Police in Burma, which of course is where his rich grandparents were. He was soon promoted to District Superintendent in the district that just happened to house the Burma Oil Company. Suddenly at age 24, he quit the police to become a writer. That was 1927. His first book came out in 1933. Note the date. It was called Down and out in Paris and London. Although he was supported during those years by his rich family, he dressed as a tramp and infiltrated the poorer quarters. We are told this was due to his desire to understand the repressed lower classes, but it looks more like spying to me. It is an obvious precursor to Jack Kerouac's On the Road and the whole fake Beat Generation that took it up immediately on Orwell's death in 1950. There is lot more to say about Orwell, but that is enough for my purposes here.

This all goes to say that Chomsky's mention of Rocker and Orwell as influences is not all it is cracked up to be. It may impress you, but it no longer impresses me.

Let's skip ahead a bit. We are told Chomsky refused to pay half his taxes in 1967. Right. And the IRS was fine with that? They let this vocal radical who was published in the New York Times that year criticizing the Vietnam War just skate? Not believable.

We are told Chomsky founded RESIST in that same year with Dwight MacDonald, among others. Remember, this was the late 1960s and the FBI and CIA have now admitted in declassified documents that they were running many covert projects then in the US, under the headings CHAOS and COINTELPRO. They just don't bother to tell you what the actual projects were. We have seen that the Tate murders were once such event. Woodstock was another. The Chicago Eight was another. Well, as it turns out, RESIST was yet another. With hindsight, we can see that Dwight MacDonald is another obvious spook. He got his start at TIME and Fortune magazines, working for Henry Luce. He was married to Nancy Rodman of the wealthy Rodman family. He then edited Partisan Review from 1937 to 43, so we have that connection again. As an editor he worked with Lionel Trilling, Mary McCarthy, Orwell, and so on. More Intel connections. He was the associate editor for Encounter in 1955, which his own Wikipedia page admits was outed as a CIA front. They try to whitewash him by saying he was unaware of it, but of course all those denials were garbage. The CIA reversed field and outed all these people in the 1960s, saying they knew very well where their money was coming from. See CIA program director Tom Braden's Saturday Evening Post article of 1967, which you can read online for free. MacDonald was also a staff writer for the New Yorker, not exactly a leftist mag. He was the movie critic for Esquire magazine in the 1960s, and he also reviewed movies for the The Today Show. So what exactly were his qualifications for founding RESIST? Are we supposed to think he was some kind of radical?

Other founders with Chomsky were Mitchell Goodman and Denise Levertov. Goodman was one of the Boston Five supposedly tried for conspiracy for an open letter published by RESIST in the New York Review of Books. However, this trial now looks like another sham. Goodman was from a rich Jewish family and graduated from Harvard, earning a deferment early in the war even though he was a second lieutenant. How does that work? It only works if you go into Intelligence instead, which most of the top qualifying candidates did. Although Chomsky was one of the primary signers of this famous RESIST letter, he was not charged. Why not? I guess he didn't wish to be part of the fake trial. Of course all those taken to trial eventually skated, just like the Chicago Eight. Two convictions were reversed on appeal, and the other three were sent back to the lower court. The Justice Department then declined to pursue the retrial. So convenient.

Also curious is that at Goodman's death in 1997, The New York Times misspelled Denise Levertov's name as Leverton. Nineteen years later, it is still online and they have still not corrected it. But she is supposed to be a famous person with her own Wikipedia page. How is this possible? Are these even real people, or just made-up names? Also of interest is that Amy Goodman of NPR may be related to Mitchell Goodman. Her bio is curiously scrubbed, but both are prominent Jews from New York involved in the media. They are linked through Harvard as well, since Amy went to Radcliffe. Both are also connected to Maine, with Mitchell spending the last part of his life in Tempe, ME, and Amy attending college for a time in Bar Harbor. Also remember that the Goodman family married into the Vanderbilt clan. See Benny Goodman, the famous clarinettist. This means Amy Goodman may be related to Anderson Cooper.

Another player in this saga was William Sloane Coffin, Jr., one of the Boston Five. His own Wikipedia page now admits he was a CIA agent! In 1968, he was said to be chaplain at Yale, but once CIA always CIA. He was also Skull and Bones. Also Glee Club. He was not only CIA, he was from a family of rich New York industrialists. His great-grandfather was billionaire William Sloane of W. and J. Sloane Co. His father was President of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This William Sloane Coffin, Sr. died in 1933. Note the date.

The picture above is often published as Coffin, Jr.'s mugshot in 1968, but it can't be, since he was 44 in that year. Also notice it is in Montgomery, Alabama, not New York. Finally, the picture tells us what year it is, 1961. According to his bio, he was supposed to be in Puerto Rico in 1961 with the Peace Corps, at the behest of Sargent Shriver.

According to this same bio, when his dad died in 1933, the family “moved to Carmel to make life more affordable”. The things they expect you to believe! Again, this was a rich family. Are we supposed to believe Coffin, Sr. died dead-broke? The President of the Metropolitan Museum of Art died and his family was left begging from in-laws? C'mon. And since when was Carmel, CA, a cheap place to live? From the beginning it was a retreat for the very wealthy. You will say this was during the Depression, but again, only the poor got poorer during the Depression. As now, the rich got richer. Coffin, Jr. was soon sent to Deerfield Academy, one of the most expensive prep schools in the country; and then the family went to Paris, where the 15 year old William was taught the piano by some of the best instructors in the world. I guess they also moved to Paris because it was affordable? They then moved to Geneva, because, like Carmel and Paris, it is known for its affordable housing. William later married a Jewish woman, daughter of Arthur Rubinstein. This is curious seeing that William was allegedly a Presbyterian minister. Everything is a covert operation with these people. They can't even go to the bathroom without creating a cover story.

It is rather curious, is it not, to find people like this involved in this famous trial of dissidents? And it is also curious, is it not, to find Chomsky involved with so many CIA agents and CIA front organizations?

Now let us look briefly at his debates. Chomsky is supposed to be a great debater, but I have never seen any evidence of that. His debates are always set-ups with other spooks, and they dodge all important questions. We could say this about any debates of the past half century. For instance, I vividly remember watching the second Buckley/Galbraith debate in 1982, when I was 19. It was one of the greatest disappointments of my life up to that time, and acted as one of my first clues of the MATRIX. I had been expecting an important discussion but all I saw were chummy jibes. It was like watching two men with no sense of humor try to convince an audience they were Woody Allen. It was awful in its lack of content. I have since learned that Buckley was CIA, having worked in Mexico City with E. Howard Hunt. This is now admitted in his mainstream bio, though it certainly wasn't then. He was also an informer for the FBI.

Was Galbraith also CIA? Probably, although it hasn't been admitted yet. We do know he was supposedly given a classified briefing by the CIA in 1961 on their Tibetan operation to support the Dalai Lama against China, an operation he allegedly did not support. As the US Ambassador to India, Galbraith would be unlikely to be in the need-to-know category for such an operation. Ambassadors normally know little more than your average person about such things. Galbraith was born Canadian, and got his start when he was recruited for Berkeley in agricultural economics. To understand this, we have to track his Giannini scholarship, which was then under the control of Carl Lucas Alsberg, a biochemist from Harvard Medical School who ended up heading agricultural economics at Berkeley and running the Giannini scholarship. This program at Berkeley was also connected to the Institute of Pacific Relations, which was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Foundation. In 1933, the international headquarters moved to New York. Note the date. The IPR was involved in the continuing Sino-Japanese conflict over Korea, which we have already seen come up (see Percival Lowell, above), which is why the Rockefellers and other spooks were involved. Galbraith was at Berkeley in 1933. He was hired immediately after graduation by Harvard and also taught at Princeton. In 1937, he spent a year at Cambridge on fellowship, probably at Trinity College.

Although we get a long section in his mainstream bio on his time with the Office of Price Administration during the war, we also get an admission he was with OSS after this, as one of the directors of the Strategic Bombing Survey. That is our CIA connection right there. Although we are told Galbraith was against the final bombing decision, that is unlikely being that he was a director. The final decision included massive bombing of civilian populations in Germany, including of course the famous Fire Bombing of Dresden. Strangely, we were never told of that connection to Galbraith back in 1982. In my opinion, it should have been part of his bio gloss before the debate.

He was later an editor at Fortune magazine, like Dwight MacDonald. He formed Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) with Eleanor Roosevelt and Humbert Humphrey in 1947. Note the date: year one of the CIA.

But back to Chomsky. One of Chomsky's most famous debates was with Michel Foucault. Most of it is posturing. The opening parts are no more than short squishy history lessons, with Chomsky especially just enumerating a few things he knows. Foucault has nothing to add until he deftly corrects Chomsky on the creativity of Descartes, telling him that Pascal and Leibniz would be better examples. Here we get the first taste of something real, and the first sign of a debate—the first thing we could call a score on either side (it is also the last). The Frenchman Foucault scores a tiny hit on his superior knowledge of 17th century French philosophy, but given that these debaters are being sold as intellectual titans, we had expected more. Why are they allowing themselves to be diverted into the

17th century? They never get around to debating anything about that time, so it looks like misdirection. Any why is Chomsky already talking about physics and action at a distance and electromagnetism, things he knows little about? He appears to be nervous and is just waffling, bringing up Newton just to drop his name.

It is also curious to see both men pushing occultism. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it obscurantism or umbralism: they are both arguing that the fundamentals of linguistics can't really be known, and selling that idea by extending the argument out into physics and science in general, implying that other scientists don't really know what they are talking about either, on a mechanical level, and never did. Chomsky argues that scientists—rather than really answering questions—have simply broadened their definitions to allow in many ideas that couldn't have been allowed in before. That is true, but rather than argue as I do that we should re-tighten those definitions and demand old rigor, Chomsky is arguing the opposite: that we should broaden definitions even further so that we will have something to say about things we had little to say about before. In this way, he is proving what Gilbert Lazard has said about him: while appearing in some ways to return to the past, Chomsky is really disconnecting from the past in the way of all other Modernism, allowing all sorts of slippery concepts into the history of ideas, simply to keep them fresh and novel. Just as I have shown physics no longer bothers with the old questions like action at a distance or cause and effect, Chomsky is arguing that linguistics may need to expand what is allowed in order to continue to have anything to add to the dialog.

This is a dangerous argument, in my opinion, because it can only lead to a further watering down and bastardizing and Bowdlerizing of all fields. I had not understood this back in the 1980s when I began reading Chomsky's linguistics. I had been excited by his trashing of Skinner and behaviorism—which is not an example of the sort of rigor I am talking about. I agree that behaviorism is arid and misguided and I have never liked Skinner. [He is another one I could see through back to my college days, at least as far as his theories went.] I also thought and still think Chomsky's points about creativity and innate structures are true—I just no longer think they are deep. They were always fairly obvious and I doubt that the old structuralists before Skinner would have disagreed with them. For instance, in the gloss of innate structures in linguistics, we are always told the story about the baby and the kitten exposed to the same words; but while both may induce meaning to some extent, only the baby will acquire the language. I doubt that anyone before Chomsky would have disagreed with that.

Chomsky labeled that ability the Language Acquisition Device, and told us part of that device was a universal grammar. Again, true, but mostly insignificant. He is just giving new names to things linguists have been aware of for centuries or millennia. I have to think Panini was aware 2,400 years ago that children learn languages quickly and in a “mysterious” fashion, one that could only be explained by an innate capacity. Chomsky's ideas could only look revolutionary following a period that promoted some sort of “blank slate” theory of learning, but it is difficult to imagine what sort of scientists that theory appealed to. How could scientists in the same generations promote animal response and action as entirely innate, and promote man as just another animal (Darwin), while giving humans no innate structures, beyond the ability to respond to stimulus? Of course humans have innate abilities, and that has been generally understood throughout history, minus some times of mass idiocy like the 20th century. It is clear that the only reason these innate abilities were downplayed at times is because some scientists wished to assign all our differences from the animals to our brains. They argued that we were better because we were smarter. But it has always been obvious we can do things other animals can't because we have innate abilities they don't have, like vocal cords and the ability to use them in advanced ways. They also have innate abilities we don't, like smell and so on.

At any rate, it would have been interesting to see Chomsky debate with someone who strongly disagreed with him, or who at least had something to say against his theories. It is difficult to understand why Chomsky and Foucault were paired, but I suspect it is because it was known they wouldn't land any important punches on one another.

Before we go back to the debate, I wish to point out that although Chomsky's theories of innate structures are sold as revolutionary, they are actually quite conservative, even in the ideas they do address. As I have said, he basically states the obvious in complex lingo, but he doesn't go very far even in stating the obvious. For instance, he has promoted the universal grammar, but children have far more than a universal grammar. In fact, they seem to know most things without being taught them, including a basic vocabulary. We don't teach them ideas, for instance, we just give them a set of words to express an inner language they already have. Let me give you an example. In my family history, one of the funny stories is the blue grandmother story. As a toddler, I called one of my grandmothers “blue grandmother”. Children make vocabulary mistakes like this all the time, and this was one of mine. As it turns out, I thought “blue” meant “other”. My mother asked me to hand her a sock, I handed her the wrong one, and she said, “No, the blue one”. I mistook her meaning, thinking she meant the “other” one. So I substituted “blue” for “other”. When it came time to go to grandmother's house, I said, “Oh, I thought we were going to the blue grandmother's house”. Meaning, the other grandmother's house. This is important in the question at hand, because it means I already knew what “other” meant without being taught. All I needed was a word to attach to the idea. Which must mean that kids already have an internal vocabulary that they either had at birth or intuited directly from experience. A child could not be taught what “other” meant unless he already knew what “other” meant. It turns out that a very large percent of what we call learning is of this sort. It is giving children a set of common tools that they can use to express what they already know. Even more complex expressions are just combinations of these simpler ones, in most or all cases. In this sense, most people aren't creative at all, since they aren't creating either the innate ideas or the societal tools. They have been given them by Nature or by society. Yes, children are sometimes creative in that they stumble upon rarely used combinations. And most creativity by adults is of this kind as well, although in the case of adults it isn't always a stumbling. Sometimes they are searching for new combinations. But for the most part, children aren't creative at all. They are simply fitting ideas in their heads to structures given them by the adults around them. But they created neither the ideas nor the structures.

Another story from my childhood, even more indicative, is the simple train I drew when I was four years old. Although it is hardly more than a doodle, with nothing to recommend it as art, my mother saved it nonetheless due to an oddity she noticed: the caboose is noticeably smaller than the engine, with the cars getting smaller as they go from front to back. She asked why I drew it that way. I answered nonchalantly “because the caboose is further away”. My parents are not artists and I had not been taught perspective. It was simply something I noticed and tried to copy. But take note that I not only saw the phenomenon, I understood what caused it! Without being taught. I don't think this is so extraordinary. I suspect many children see and understand to the same extent. Not all do, as we know, but many do.

To explain my knowledge of perspective as a child we then have various possibilities. Had I been an artist in a previous life? Or was I tapping into the memory of our species? Or was I simply noticing things and drawing correct conclusions? The third possibility might seem the most likely—because it requires fewer assumptions, if for no other reason. However, it still begs the question of innate intelligence of a rather complex sort, since the ability to infer correct conclusions from raw data is not straightforward in itself. How, precisely, did I do that? It would seem to require the collation of a broad range of knowledge, knowledge that would not necessarily be expected to fall out of a child's limited experience with such ease.

Chomsky rarely gets into this, since he has mostly limited himself to the generative grammar, and trying to understand how children fit an innate grammar to a real grammar. But the understanding of grammar is only one small part of the innate kit of children. What I would say is a more interesting question is where does this kit come from? If we could understand that, we might have some chance of solving Chomsky's problem. But until we understand that, I would say we have no chance of understanding Chomsky's problem. For instance, two answers to my question historically have been

1) the knowledge is prewired or stored in the brain or nervous system somehow, and is directly inherited. In this way all these ideas are a memory of the species. 2) There is a soul and the soul has memories and abilities that do not depend on the body or brain. Number 2 has always been seen as unscientific, since no one could see how an incorporeal soul could have memories or ideas. However, modern science is discovering things about light and photons that may bear on this question. Quantum physicists have discovered structures in light that do not seem to be dependent on matter. That is, light and charge can form structures on their own, without the presence or focusing of matter. Since structure is what allows for information to be stored and transmitted, we now have evidence light and charge can store and transmit information. Since that is so, there is no longer any scientific reason for dismissing 2) out of hand. In fact, the soul was always suspected of being some kind of light structure, so it may be that the common interpretation is not far wrong. I am not promoting that theory, understand, just putting it back on the table.

I mention this because either 1) or 2) would greatly simplify Chomsky's question. If either one could be demonstrated, it would mean the question is not as mysterious as it now appears. If a child is tapping either memories of the species or of a soul, then the mysterious pretty much evaporates. The mystery pertains only in the case you dismiss both 1) and 2) out of hand, and then try to understand language acquisition without either one. In that case, Chomsky is correct: the question is supremely difficult if not impossible. In that case, to even begin to create an answer, we have to broaden all our definitions and expectations, and in short allow the sort of unconscionable fudging we have seen in Modern physics to invade linguistics.

It is informative to see Chomsky talking about action at a distance, in this regard. He says in the debate with Foucault that action at a distance was seen as occult even by Newton, who used it as the basis for his gravitational field but was never happy with it beyond that. But Chomsky admits we have simply decided to accept that, without necessarily understanding it any better than Newton did. [That isn't exactly true, since we would have to discuss Einstein and curved fields and so on—which dispense with action at a distance to a certain extent—but Chomsky is roughly correct.] A lot of the old problems have been swept under the rug, and this sweeping has been defined as progress. What is informative is the way Chomsky suggests in the debate that linguists may need to do what physicists have done, sweeping some of the old demands of science under the rug. He doesn't put it that way, but that is the gist. However, I have shown on my physics site that this sweeping hasn't been necessary. Those like Bohr and Heisenberg told us via the Copenhagen interpretation (1926) that physicists had to undergo a revolution, not allowing themselves to ask the old mechanical questions. This is why I red- flagged Thomas Kuhn's late interview with Niels Bohr, above. Bohr didn't just accidentally make an appearance in this paper, since he is connected to all the things we have been studying. All of science has been of a piece in the 20th century, and I am showing you how and why Chomsky is following the lead of physicists and those controlling physicists. In all fields, these Modern fudges have been required for any number of reasons, but one reason is that scientists were forbidden from asking certain questions or studying certain possibilities. We have seen that Chomsky's atheism—which is a prejudice just as vicious as any others—prevented him from looking at what I would say are the two most likely causes of language acquisition. In the same way, Modern physicists have been prevented by the rules promulgated by previous dogmatic and prejudiced physicists like Bohr from researching the most likely causes of various phenomena such as charge, E/M, gravity, and so on. This is what has caused havoc in the field, not the irrationality or incomprehensibility of Nature. If you wish to short-circuit science, the most efficient way is by sealing off all paths to the truth.

Of course this is just one cause of havoc, and perhaps not the primary one. I have shown that the intrusion of Intelligence into every field is the more likely cause of most meltdowns in sense and reason. I no longer think Chomsky is just accidentally promoting atheism, for instance, or that Bohr was just accidentally promoting non-materiality, non-causality, or other spooky forces. Those behind all the spooky forces of the 20th century were spooks. They were promoting all the things they were promoting because these things allowed them a broader and finer control, as well as a larger profit margin. This would mean that Chomsky was misdirecting on purpose through both his politics and his linguistics.

Foucault is also misdirecting, as we see in his next long comment, where he talks of Newton and Mendel. He is obviously trying to downplay the part of creativity in the history of science, by which he means the part of genius. He tries to sell the idea of revolutions in the history of thought not as new discoveries, but as “grids” which “leak old and collect new knowledge”. This couldn't be more obscure and diversionary. Such grids, even if they were shown to exist, would have to be created by a person or group of people. Grids don't create themselves. Foucault's entire comment barely surmounts the inane, but its purpose in the debate is clear: sell the idea from an “intellectual titan” that intellectual titans don't exist. According to Foucault's argument, Foucault himself is just the outcome of grid, and he is being sifted as we speak.

Chomsky agrees with Foucault, but only in being equally squishy. He says there are topics that have been repressed in the 18th and 19th centuries, but doesn't bother to tell us exactly what those topics are. He implies the 20th century was a time when that repression receded. I would say the reverse is true: the major repression of topics in the sciences didn't hit full gear until the 20th century. In physics, at least, this is clear. The 19th century was a time of incredible expansion in all subfields, and that expansion only ended in the early part of the 20th century, when it was stopped cold by people like Bohr. Physics has been in an accelerating tailspin ever since. The same can be said for other fields I know something about, like art, poetry, and literature. All have been purposefully obliterated.

But Chomsky's daring reversal of history's actual progression apparently wakes Foucault up from his sifted stupor, because he then begins to wax truly ineloquent. He says,

Indeed, there exist in fact only possible creations, possible innovations. One can only, in terms of language or of knowledge, produce something new by putting into play a certain number of rules which will defne the acceptability or the grammaticality of these statements, or which will defne, in the case of knowledge, the scientifc character of the statements.

What? Surely that was mistranslated. The first sentence is gibberish, and contradicts itself. For the rest, a meaning can be found with a lot of unwinding, but it is again a piece of anti-science. Foucault is telling us that new knowledge is created by manufacturing new rules that redefine what knowledge is. That is not only dangerous misdirection, it is absolutely false. New knowledge has nothing to do with rules. New knowledge is both new and knowledge only if it better describes reality. Talking about new rules is just a dodge into metaphysics, by which Foucault is trying to convince you we can build a better science simply by defining the failed science we have as successful. This is what physics has done and it is what both Foucault and Chomsky are recommending for linguistics and the rest of the sciences. It is precisely what Bohr did in defining Quantum Mechanics as an advance, despite the fact that it couldn't answer any of the old questions. He told us 1) it was the best we could ever expect to have, given what Nature was, 2) it meant we had to quit asking the old questions, 2) it required a total redefinition of science, jettisoning all the old rules and expectations. So although all rigor and solidity had just leaked from physics, that didn't matter as long as we could manufacture a new set of rules in which the “scientific character” of the new creations was simply defined as superior. Although any child could see that the new science was inferior, existing on a pile of fudges, that didn't matter to those in control, since they were prepared to school these children on the opposite idea. These children would be brought up creatively, taught that inferior was really superior and that anti-science was really science. That is what Foucault's gibberish really means, once you untangle it. And it is no accident that Foucault is promoting this misdirection, since that is precisely what has happened in all the arts and sciences during the 20th century. While a debased novelty has replaced real art and science, it has at the same time been defined and promoted as more artistic and more scientific. It could be sold this way because the new rules allowed it.

You would expect Chomsky to disagree with that, since he is after all supposed to be the opposition. If you can't find something in Foucault's thesis to disagree with violently, I don't see how you can call yourself a true intellectual, or at least not an honest one. Does he? Nope. He takes about 640 words to agree, adding nothing substantive, but only unloading another pile of mud. He finishes with this:

Personally I believe that many of the things we would like to understand, and maybe the things we would most like to understand, such as the nature of man, or the nature of a decent society, or lots of other things, might really fall outside the scope of possible human science.

That's a convenient belief for someone promoting anti-science.

But that's not enough for Foucault, who wants to muck this up even more. He says,

Where perhaps I don’t completely agree with Mr. Chomsky is when he places these regularities within the sphere of the human mind or human nature. I would like to know whether one cannot discover this system of regularity and of constraint, which makes science possible, somewhere else, even outside the human mind: in social forms, in relations of production, in class struggles, etc.

The system that makes science possible is in relations of production or class struggle? You have to be kidding me. This is first-class Marxist misdirection: science isn't what real scientists do, it is what forms and classifications do. Grids and abstractions create science.

The “debate” pretty much devolves from there into make-believe arguments about Leninism and the Soviet Union and oppression and so on, but the important things have already been said. We have seen both Chomsky and Foucault paid to create diversions and destroy any solidity of thinking. This becomes especially clear when you read the transcript. Watching the live debate can be deceiving, since you have been programmed to believe these guys must be important, or that their statements must at least have meaning. But when reading the transcript, you realize that a large part of their utterances are just a long drawn-out way of saying nothing. And when a clear meaning can be gleaned, it is the meaning I dug out above: anti-science, anti-past, anti-reason, and mostly anti-sense. Almost nothing of substance is said, and the little substance we find is anti-substance. That is, they are trying to convince the audience that everything is misty and unknowable, and that it is impossible to speak and think with more clarity than they are speaking and thinking. If you buy the claim that they are great men, you will then pattern your own thinking and speaking on their examples—which is precisely what their handlers want you to do. If you do that you will immediately be unable to form any clear and distinct idea, much less act on it.

Now let us look briefly at the Chomsky-Dershowitz debates, which unfortunately have been limited to Israel. Although we find lots of disagreement here, and a (somewhat) more straightforward presentation from both sides, it is easy to see that both are being paid to make sure no agreement is reached, either between them or between Israel and Palestine. After more than 30 years of this, I began to catch on to the underlying script, which is written by Israel. Chomsky is, as usual, the controlled opposition, seeming to criticize Israel sharply, but consistently playing into their hands. The last thing Israel wants is peace, and for the same reason the US doesn't want peace: it doesn't pay. What is wanted by everyone involved here is constant conflict, because conflict is profitable. With Israel in constant conflict with its neighbors—much of it now faked like everything else—there remains the apparent need for US presence, US intervention, US funding, and a vast diplomacy. This conflict also seeds a gargantuan and airy literature and debate all over the Western world, by which intellectuals and sub-intellectuals can be constantly diverted. After all, if you are arguing or reading about the Arab- Israeli conflict, you aren't thinking about how the Industrialists just stole all your money, destroyed art history, destroyed science, torpedoed the male-female relationship, polluted the food and water supplies, filled the oceans with oil and Corexit, and pumped your children full of toxic vaccines for profit. The Arab-Israeli conflict is another promoted intellectual circus, since even if it is based on something real, we now know there is no will to end it. In fact, we know all the will is for prolonging it as far as possible into the foreseeable future, where it can continue to enrich the fascists and their fascist children for generations to come.

The amazing thing about this circumstance from the point of view of Chomsky is that in his position he doesn't have to lie much at all. The rule of all such projects is to tell as much truth as the plot will bear, and in this case it will bear a lot, at least from Chomsky's side. I still assume that a lot of what he says about Israel is true—not that it makes any difference. Chomsky's role here isn't to lie, it is to divert. He takes Palestine's side, knowing that Palestine isn't making any of the decisions here. It doesn't matter that he is taking Palestine's side, since they are the pre-defined losers. His taking their side will never do them any good, since he has no power to do them any good. Being a cloaked Zionist, he doesn't intend to do them any good. He is just their pretend benefactor, spouting a lot of hot air about things we now know will never get done. Palestine will continue to lose in this story until Israel decides it no longer has a use for the story. So it simply doesn't matter what Chomsky says or how much truth he tells. What matters is that Chomsky sticks to the narrow script, telling all the truth he wants about a very discrete list of issues. He can't say what I said above, for instance, about any of it being faked. He can call Dershowitz a liar but cannot bring up anything outside the debate as evidence of that, such as Dershowitz' part in the faked O. J. Simpson trial. He cannot point to anomalies in Dershowitz' bio, which no doubt show he is a spook. Chomsky can't do that for pretty obvious reasons: it would tear the curtain and the entire project would be in jeopardy.

So you never see a no-hold's-barred debate. These Chomsky-Dershowitz debates may sometimes appear vicious, since they are allowed to scratch and claw a bit; but you will never see anyone go for a pin. You will never see anyone taken by the throat and tap out. If I debated either one of these guys, I would go for the jugular in the first round, showing they were puppets and shining a light directly on the strings. But they always stick to the game plan, which is to keep the conflict at precisely the right temperature. They want you just mad enough to write a letter to Congress or to the newspaper, but not mad enough to do something meaningful, like actually wake up from the MATRIX and tell both Chomsky and Dershowitz to fuck off. People like this aren't even worth debating: they should simply be shunned as menaces to the general sanity.

This is why 911 was such a danger to Chomsky, and why he knew it was. For him it was completely off-the-script. It pointed at hoaxes and fakes, and being a hoaxer he can't let you go there. I emailed with him very briefly in about 2006, and one of the things I found most amazing—beyond the fact that someone of his stature would post his email on the web and chat with strangers like me—was that he said he was spending four or five hours a night answering email, much of it on 911. So he was in major damage-control mode. He could no doubt see that his entire long-term reputation depended upon walking the right line on 911. He was right, but I have to say he failed, at least as far as my opinion of him goes. To be fair, he was put in a no-win situation by 911. I think his only hope was to have become a leading Truther, misdirecting there in the same way as everywhere else. But he clearly didn't want to take that on at his age. He was angry, but I don't think he was mainly angry at Truthers. He was mainly angry at his handlers who had put him in this position. At his age he had no intention of learning a whole new script and didn't feel he should be asked to. He had already memorized at least two vast scripts, and was known as the leading authority on both. And now this new project was coming up which would ruin all he had worked for. You can see why he was a bit put out.

He apparently thought he could avoid the whole thing by resting on his reputation and going into denial mode. According to him, there was nothing especially interesting or suspicious about 911. It was what it was, as seen on TV. But his rude dismissal of Truthers was a terrible miscalculation, since these were his people. He was spitting on his own choir. He had been considered the premier Truther of his time, and here he was telling his acolytes not to trust their own eyes. It was a recipe for disaster, and he will not survive it.

We can tell that just by looking at the daily headlines, which are promoting Chomsky ever more shrilly as the greatest intellectual of our time. If anyone still believed it the media would not have to be saying it all the time. You only have to sell things that aren't selling themselves. It is not just Chomsky who doesn't want to go down. It is the mainstream that doesn't want to lose their greatest opposition point man. But you should find the current promotion as strange as everything else. Why would the corporate media be so keen to promote this old man who is sold as their worst enemy? If he were who they say he is, shouldn't they have been trying to marginalize and discredit him all along? If he were really the enemy of mainstream Israel and US policy that were are told he is, why is his Wikipedia page a long paean to genius and courage, rather than the blackwashing we would expect? You will say the page was written by his fans, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is controlled like everything else, and it is written from the fascist government and academic cubicles. When it comes to pages like Chomsky's bio, much of it is written from Langley and the Pentagon and places like that, as was proved recently by computer experts who tracked the edits back to their sources* (that was proved generally, not specifically concerning Chomsky's page, you understand—I have seen no tracking data on Chomsky's page, although I would like to). Normally the mainstream media whitewashes its friends and blackwashes its enemies, as you would expect. So why is the mainstream media whitewashing enemy number one Chomsky? Chomsky has written several books telling us the media is manufactured, remember? Are we supposed to believe it is manufactured except when it is telling us he is the premier intellectual in the world?

Even Alan Dershowitz appears to do this in first sentences in their last debate, making sure to tell you Chomsky is “the world's top public intellectual”. That's odd, since you can be sure Dershowitz doesn't believe Chomsky is the world's top anything—except maybe the world's top pettifogger. Also odd is that Dershowitz gives us a clue in the very next sentence:

My connections to Noam Chomsky go back a long time. In the 1940s, I was a camper, and he a counselor in a Hebrew-speaking Zionist camp in the Pocono Mountains called Camp Massad.

Strange, don't you think, that the connection between these two goes back not only that far in time, but to a Zionist camp with the name Massad? Would it be more of a clue for you if that were spelled Mossad? Think about it. To clarify this, I searched on Massad, but according to mainstream sources it is not a Hebrew word. It is a name, but one that is normally Lebanese. The founders of Camp Massad were not named Massad. Since the camps actually precede the foundation of Israel, and the creation of the Mossad, is it possible Massad is just a variant spelling? If so, it is highly curious that Chomsky and Dershowitz went to the same camp Mossad at the same time in the 1940's, just a couple of years before the Mossad was established in Israel as a spy organization. It is also curious that Dershowitz would say that to our faces in his opening statement. It just shows you how incredibly smug these people are. They are sure you won't be able to figure any of this; or, even if you do, so what? What are you going to do about it? Write a letter to your Congressman? Hah-hah!

In that debate, Chomsky starts his comments about as peeved as he ever gets, but I suspect it is due to the Camp Massad admission more than all the lies Dershowitz is telling about him (such as the one- state garbage). He seems pissed that Dershowitz is toying with the audience to the extent of using the word Massad. Chomsky is nowhere near as flamboyant as Dershowitz, and such showboating no doubt makes him uncomfortable. It goes against Chomsky's nature, and you will never see him throwing clues in your face to see how stupid you are. He is far too circumspect and careful for that. It is not that he thinks anymore of his audience, it is that he simply isn't a risk-taker like that. It doesn't amuse him to bat the mouse around like a cat, even while he is killing it: he will always retain the fear the mouse might bite him back. Which has turned out to be a valid fear. It just did.

*See the app called WikiScanner. However, it was developed by a guy at Santa Fe Institute, which is another place I do not trust. So we are probably having some screw turned on us even as they hack themselves. I will have to try to sort through this later. It is possible this Virgil Griffith is what I have called Old Intel, and he may be outing New Intel, as we have seen with Snowden outing NSA. Or it may be more complex than that.

Addendum, January 11, 2016: I received an interesting email about a week ago from someone who had been in the graduate linguistics program at MIT, though I won't say how long ago. Although he is no longer involved in linguistics, he asked me not to use his name, since he doesn't wish to be involved in the squabble beyond throwing his two cents in. He simply wished to give me some inside confirmation, which I do indeed find valuable. Since you may find it valuable as well, I have reprinted the email, with his permission. I myself edited out a couple of things which I thought might point back to him.

Dear Mr. Mathis,

I appreciate your many instructive essays, but none more so than the recent one about Noam Chomsky. I had an association in years past with Course 24, the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Your analysis suggested answers to many questions I had from the start of my time there.

The following things long puzzled me:

1. Why did Chomsky, having begun his research program with a study of modern Hebrew, never make much use of Hebrew in his later writings on syntax? He would thereafter draw his data almost exclusively from English, except for some scattered points made about Italian or French or Basque or whatever data his foreign students provided him. Hebrew is syntactically interesting, but apparently not to Chomsky since the 1950s. One might think that a scholar of Universal Grammar who had facility in a language so different from English might buttress his arguments by an appeal to Hebrew. But that's not what we fnd.

2. Why did Chomsky—having had two well-received publications in (morpho)phonology (his thesis on modern Hebrew and Sound Patterns of English, co-written with Morris Halle)—-thereafter never return to that subfeld again? With the exception of a couple of short, early, co-written articles, phonology seemed no longer to interest him at all, despite the many insights it might offer on the interface between deep structure and surface structure (per the earlier theories of Generative Grammar). See http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/chomsky_articles.pdf and http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/chomsky_books.pdf.

3. Why does his writing style vary so greatly across his career? His political writings have a measure of directness that his later syntactic publications never come close to. His very early syntax works (The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, Syntactic Structures, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax), while not eloquent, have a workmanlike prose that can at least be followed; his later works (Lectures on Government and Binding, Concepts and Consequences, etc.) approach impenetrability. None of these seem to be written by the same person who reviewed Skinner's Verbal Behavior with a surgical precision.

4. Why was Howard Lasnik (frst of UConn-Storrs, now of Maryland) so tight with the MIT Linguistics Department? He was there all the time, despite it being an hour-and-a-half drive from one campus to the other (in good traffc). Lasnik was far more visible in the halls and get-togethers than Chomsky, and somehow found his way, offcially or unoffcially, on the dissertation committee of everyone writing in the feld of syntax. When I attended a course by Chomsky, Lasnik sat in on every lecture.

On the occasions when Chomsky had to miss class for some other engagement, Lasnik stepped in and lectured on the topic at hand. How does that work in a graduate-level class in "cutting-edge" linguistic theory? Did Chomsky leave his lesson plan in the offce for the substitute teacher to work from? But of all people … why Lasnik? There were other highly-regarded syntacticians available, either in the department or at closer schools in the Boston area.

To some of us, Lasnik seemed like something of a clown. He was the king of co-authorship, seeming to need a second or third collaborator just to compose a shopping list; and so much of his writing had to do with curiosities and trivialities—not the Big Picture stuff that Chomsky was advancing, and not the Big Picture stuff that Lasnik's own earliest work was about. Except ... in the end, Lasnik was generally the one appointed to write the "standard primer" on the newest form of the

theory that Chomsky had been articulating, whether it be Government and Binding or Minimalism. http://ling.umd.edu/~lasnik/lasnik%20publications.htm

5. For that matter, why did the Institute tolerate Chomsky's almost complete detachment from the Linguistics Department? If you were a grad student in the program and taking his class for credit, you got one 20-minute appointment with him in mid-semester to talk about your proposal for a term paper, and you might be allowed a second short appointment towards semester's end for a follow-up. When people ask me about Chomsky was as a teacher, I tell them that he is like two different people: the Chomsky who speaks on politics is enthusiastic and compelling, while the one who lectures on linguistics checked out long ago and is just marking time in front of a chalkboard, bored and irritable. I honestly thought at one time that Chomsky would never publish again in linguistics; but somehow he overcomes his boredom and keeps churning out new theories and new books. I can't fgure how such a manifestly uninterested person manages this feat.

Well, your article suggests the answer to these puzzles …

If Chomsky is a creation of Intelligence, then his linguistic successes were supplied for him from the labors of others. Like you, I found it strange that his landmark thesis on Hebrew morphophonemics covered a subject matter similar to his father's work. Most sons, especially brilliant ones, want to establish themselves as independent thinkers, not a chip off the old block. Certainly, Chomsky's personality does not exude the flial piety that would be expected of someone who made his thesis just like daddy's.

This would indicate that the different writing styles may refect different hands of authorship. Actually, I always thought that Sound Pattern of English was Morris Halle's voice through and through. Just take a stroll through Halle's earlier work, Sound Pattern of Russian (https://books.google.com/books? id=jkTVyZw6TtAC&pg=PP4&lpg=PP4&dq=the+sound+pattern+of+russian&source=bl&ots=h6W20T Merp&sig=ZDsmz9cSoevNUqdyUlGF9l8Sc7k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcjeGomZPKAhUM6yY KHWLIAtUQ6AEIVTAO): the manner of exposition is identical.

I could never fathom what what Chomsky had contributed to SPE ... and such as to get frst billing, too! The way that ideas and arguments are laid out in SPE is Halle, not Chomsky. I used to think that Chomsky's name got tacked on to generate sales; but after your article, I suspect that the intent was to raise Chomsky's scholarly cred.

I wonder if, for the later syntax work, Chomsky's ghostwriter was not in fact Howard Lasnik. Or, maybe Lasnik came up with fresh ideas, ran them by Chomsky, and then Chomsky wrote them up in his own irksome prose. I often thought that the Chomsky's exposition was similar to that of a frst-year grad student who could toss around the right buzzwords but didn't really get the inner logic of the system. He circles around the point at length like an airplane trying to fnd a runway

in a hurricane. The binding on my copy of LGB is compromised from being thrown across the room several times in absolute frustration with the poorly developed explanations. I am not saying, of course, that Chomsky didn't write some of his linguistics stuff; just that he didn't write all of it. I sensed this while at MIT, but your article gave me the courage to articulate the idea for myself.

Lasnik's public persona as a dilettante might also have been misdirection. If you don't quite take him seriously, you won't suspect that he is the mind at the cutting edge of the feld, supplying new ideas to the Great Man. And maybe Lasnik was at all the lectures just to be the safety net; in case Chomsky had to feld a diffcult question, Lasnik was right there to pipe in and save face for the star of the show. And by getting his name on the papers of others, Lasnik would still appear to be somewhat productive in the feld and thus not call into question his day job at Storrs.

This arrangement would also explain why Lasnik remained so long in a nowhere linguistics department like UConn, when as an anointed Chomskyite, he could have gotten a post at UCLA or Stanford or UMass-Amherst or any of the other leading programs at the time. Storrs was close enough for Lasnik to carry Chomsky's water administratively and auctorially, but far enough so as not to raise suspicions that this was the case.

Lasnik, by the way, used to be pretty much an English-data guy, just like Chomsky. I think he studied Japanese and appeals to it sometimes ... in about the same measure as Chomsky's writings do … And like Chomsky, he doesn't have much to say about Hebrew.

I don't know if these notes are useful to you, but they may provide some corroborating evidence for your thesis. I offer them as a way of saying thank you for opening my eyes on this matter and many others.