Thread by @MrGoldstein7

Noam Chomsky is and always has been A SPOOK
🧵🧵👇👇👇👇

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. 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.

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. Also note the name. These are the Boston Brahmin Lowells. The Lowells were related to the Bundys, the Bundys also being Boston Brahmins.

McGeorge Bundy was appointed to this same Society of Fellows at Harvard as Chomsky.

Who is McGeorge Bundy? 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.

He was Chairman of the 303 Committee, responsible for coordinating government covert operations. He was involved in the faked Bay of Pigs invasion and the faked Cuban Missile Crisis. So that is just one of Noam Chomsky's fellow Fellows at Harvard.

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. This was the time of the Sino-Japanese War. The war was for control of Korea, and Percival also spent much time there.

https://twitter.com/MrGoldstein7/status/1429628042045886465?s=20

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.

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.

She was published only because she was an insider. Frances Stonor Saunders tells us in "The Cultural Cold War" 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.
liquisearch.com/ezra_pound/uni…

She voted 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. 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. They were also in control of linguistics.

In 1953, both William Carlos Williams and Archibald MacLeish were awarded the Bollingen Prize. Both CIA. 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. MacLeish was working for the OSS in the 1940s, being an admitted propagandist.

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.

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.

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. cia.gov/library/center…

Also see Steve Fuller's books on Kuhn, one of which can be read in part at Google Books. books.google.com/books?id=ZRmwb…

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. In a section entitled The Harvard Strategy for Resisting a New Deal for Science, Fuller says this about Kuhn.

There we see Kuhn doing precisely what he was trained to do at Harvard during his Society of Fellows indoctrination. They have spent decades and many billions making sure their entrenched theories remained unassailable by any real science.

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.

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 20th 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. 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. 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:

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. 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. salon.com/2013/03/13/sac…

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.

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, 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

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.

He 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?

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.

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. Chomsky had pretty obvious and provable interests in history and linguistics. But I still consider it a red flag.

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,

In the same interview Chomsky tells us this story:

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.

We find this strange exchange in the same interview:

“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 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. 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. 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 6th 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,

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

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.

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 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.

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 understand that Theosophy was created by Colonel 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 know about Joseph Campbell who 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. I suspect he is required to insert his disbelief in God into all interviews, if humanly possible.

Maurice Bloomfield 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. 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. 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.

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
books.google.com/books?id=vRp-m…

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:

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.

The lightning quick turn of academic linguistics from Bloomfield to Chomsky in the late 1950s is probably unprecedented in the history of ideas. Things happen that quickly only when they are controlled. Think of the early career of Ezra Pound, or of John Reed, or of Bob Dylan,

Only the children of the wealthy and connected advance this quickly, and only when they are helped along by Intelligence.

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. brandeis.edu/hbi/publicatio…

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.

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.

Chomsky 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 uppermiddle at worst. If they live in an affluent neighborhood, they are probably upper class.

Chomsky 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 :

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 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!

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?

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. 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.

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. 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?

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-theground, 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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. cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings…

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. nytimes.com/1997/02/06/us/…

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.

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; 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. 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.

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 (it is also the last). 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 being diverted into the 17th century? They never get around to debating anything about that time, so it looks like misdirection. 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. 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 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, 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 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. 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.

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.

Although Chomsky's theories of innate structures are sold as revolutionary, they are actually quite conservative, even in the ideas they do address. He basically states the obvious in complex lingo, but he doesn't go very far even in stating the obvious.

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.

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.

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.

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, this sweeping hasn't been necessary. #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 redflagged Thomas Kuhn's late interview with Niels Bohr. Bohr is connected to all the things here. 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.

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. The intrusion of Intelligence (CIA) 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. He is obviously trying to downplay the part of creativity in the history of science, by which he means the part of genius.

#Foucault 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 his 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, 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:

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? No

He takes about 640 words to agree, adding nothing substantive, but only unloading another pile of mud. He finishes with this:

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 this:

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.

Although we find lots of disagreement in the Chomsky-#Dershowitz debates, and a 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 occupied with the Arab-Israeli conflict, you aren't thinking about how the Industrialists just stole all your money, 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 he 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 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.

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”. democracynow.org/2005/12/23/noa…

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:

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 onestate 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.

@threadreaderapp unroll