Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list



Psychological warfare and political grammar


an appendix to the hir series


0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10





Noam Chomsky: The grammatical keystone of the psychological warfare system

Historical and Investigative Research / Aug 2015 / by Francisco Gil-White

As Maurice Joly explained, power elites in democratic states may keep democracy’s symbolic and procedural forms while undermining the substance—i.e. they may institutionalize psychological (or political) warfare. By creating intelligence services, they may use public money to corrupt the media and political parties, and send their own covert agents as leaders to turn opposition movements—unbeknownst to movement participants—into tools of power-elite goals. All of this requires skillful manipulation of the political grammar via distortions of reality. A curious fact: the most famous grammarian, Noam Chomsky, is also the most visible US ‘dissident.’ But what is he? Revolutionary or covert agent? Liberator or Pied Piper? To answer is to explain the system.


Precisely which intellectuals of the twentieth century were or were not idiots is a debatable point, but it is hard to argue with the definition I once heard a French diplomat offer at a dinner party: “An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out only in others.” …The prime example was Noam Chomsky, a brilliant linguist… But Chomsky was not known as an intellectual until he denounced the war in Vietnam, something he knew absolutely nothing about—thereby qualifying for his new eminence.

—Tom Wolfe, “In the Land of the Rococo Marxists”
(in Hooking Up, 2000)



Geopolitical scholars are like astronomers: they cannot directly perceive their objects of study, so they rely on instruments. Astronomers use telescopes; geopolitical scholars, the media. But instruments cannot be trusted. Astronomers make use of a host of applied sciences that investigate possible biases in astronomical instruments (e.g. imperfections in the lens, optical illusions, atmospheric noise); in this way, they can correct for these biases and get the best possible data.

What about the media?

Noam Chomsky has positioned himself as a prominent student of the media and claims to have identified systematic biases that result from the media’s ideological marriage to imperialist US bosses. If uncorrected, he says, these biases distort our perception of geopolitical processes.

Chomsky has become a favorite of US detractors and is often invited to give speeches and interviews at home and abroad. His books are widely read (or at least bought). For these folks, Chomsky has become a replacement instrument, and they now perceive the world as Chomsky describes it. But instruments cannot be trusted—and that goes double for instruments that powerfully influence people’s political views. Those who wish to be scientific must investigate Chomsky.

I wish here to examine Chomsky’s relationship to the US bosses, which Chomsky represents as adversarial. Is it? To answer ‘yes’ is to support Chomsky’s claim to ‘independence’; to answer ‘no,’ as I will do, is to raise an interesting question: Why is an agent of the power elite so loudly attacking it? What is his grammatical role?

I have concluded that Chomsky—or rather, his public persona—is the system’s grammatical keystone: the wedged-shape piece that holds in place the entire psychological warfare structure. You know him as the academic king of grammar; he is also its performative lord.

To know Chomsky, as I will now demonstrate, is to know the world.


An important Chomskyan theme is that, despite obvious differences, the US exhibits important similarities with totalitarian states. I can cock my eye just enough to call the US, a bit whimsically, ‘sloppy totalitarianism’ (Appendix A), so I believe he has a point. But does that make Chomsky an ‘American dissident’ comparable to, say, Soviet dissidents?

He would say ‘yes.’

“Chomsky often calls himself an ‘American dissident,’ comparing himself to dissidents in the former Soviet Union. He calls his critics ‘commissars’ and says their tactics are familiar to any student of police state behavior. When asked by a reporter why he is ignored by official Washington, he said: ‘It’s been done throughout history. How were dissidents treated in the Soviet Union?’ ”[1]

They weren’t ignored, exactly. More like harassed, exiled, imprisoned, sent to labor camps, tortured, and executed.

But perhaps this is unfair to Chomsky. After all, the US undeniably presents many obvious and dramatic differences with the Soviet Union. Might Chomsky have been the object of milder, American-style forms of persecution and/or censorship?

To answer that, I will investigate how the media and military bosses have treated Noam Chomsky, because Chomsky has made a career of attacking these institutions.

How have US media bosses treated Noam Chomsky?

Chomsky is credited by Wikipedia with developing “the propaganda model of media criticism.” In Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in a Democratic Society, he accuses there is a “state-corporate propaganda system” in which “the media... conform to the requirements of the state-corporate nexus,” spewing forth a “narrow state-corporate ideology” and engaging, as required, in “media self-censorship.”[2]

If Chomsky is to be reasonably compared to a Soviet dissident we should expect to find—at the very least—that the “state-corporate propaganda system” gives him the cold shoulder, for ‘dissident’ requires—by definition—that Chomsky’s discourse be inimical to “state-corporate ideology.” The New York Times, the epitome of ‘establishment’ and ‘mainstream,’ gives the strongest possible test.

On 28 September 2015 I queried the Lexis-Nexis Academic database for appearances of ‘Noam Chomsky’ in the NYT in the 6 months prior. Grand total: 38. Chomsky’s name is appearing between 6 and 7 times per month in the pages of the most influential mainstream news source in the US (and the West). Very few people achieve this. For comparison, the monthly rate for ‘Pope Francis’ is between 7 and 8.

According to Wikipedia it was not always so: “1967 marked Chomsky’s entry into the public debate on the United States’ foreign policy,” but without much initial success for “he was virtually ignored by the mainstream press throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s.” I checked, however, and Wikipedia’s claims are incorrect.

There is no jump in Chomsky coverage after the early 1970s. I queried the New York Times archive for the years 1967-75 and also 1976-84 and found that ‘Noam Chomsky’ appears about as often in either period: once per month. Was he being “virtually ignored”? When a young academic dips his public toe in a field that is not his specialty and overnight is appearing once per month in the world’s most prestigious newspaper, this is saturation coverage.

Chomsky has never been censored—just the opposite.

Sure, the mainstream media sometimes attack him. But Chomsky would agree with huckster, hoaxer, and showman Phineas T. Barnum that, for either of them, “there is no such thing as bad publicity.” Chomsky is a ‘media dissident’—media attacks build his persona.

Now ask yourself: why should the media build it?

If media bosses really disliked Chomsky’s message they could simply never mention him, in which case nobody—outside a small circle—would ever hear his views. (Regular folk don’t go around stalking linguists.) But the media talk about him so much that he is now a rock star: “the most cited author living today.” Not impressed? “Noam Chomsky ranks only behind Shakespeare, Plato and Freud as the most cited author ever.”[3]

So are the media really against him? Opinions could differ...

The New York Times has referred to Noam Chomsky as ‘arguably the most important intellectual alive.’ ”[3]

Whew! A far cry, I would say, from the experience of Soviet dissidents.

If we accept that, in the US, Chomsky’s “state-corporate propaganda system” exists, aren’t we almost forced to conclude that he belongs to that system?

How do US military bosses treat Noam Chomsky?

Chomsky has positioned himself as a strong critic of the US military which, he accuses, lies at the center of everything that is wrong with the US. He calls it the “Pentagon System.”

“He has called [the US military] several times ‘the most hideous institution on this earth’ and declares that it ‘constitutes a menace to human life.’ More to the point, the military has no business being on college campuses, whether recruiting, providing money for research, or helping students pay for college. Professors shouldn’t work with the Pentagon, he has said, and instead should fight racism, poverty, and repression. Universities shouldn’t take Pentagon research money because it ends up serving the Pentagon’s sinister goal of ‘militarizing’ American society. He’s also against college students getting ROTC [Reserve Officers’ Training Corps] scholarships…”[4]

These Chomsky positions are well known. But how does the US military feel about him? Here’s a clue: they have paid Chomsky millions.

Though Chomsky claims to have become a ‘dissident’ when very young, “having determined at the age of ten that capitalism and the American military-industrial complex were dangerous and repugnant,” his very first job, right after getting his Ph.D., was for the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, “which was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations”—in other words, by the “dangerous and repugnant” “military-industrial complex.”[5]

This wasn’t a fluke. In fact, his most famous and influential academic research—which is on grammar—was all funded by the US military.

“He wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army (Signal Corps), the Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research... His next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, was produced with money from the Joint Services Electronic Program (U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force) as well as the U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Division.

Why would the Pentagon fund research into linguistics? ...As Chomsky well knew, his work in linguistics was considered vital by the Air Force and others to improve their ‘increasingly large investment in so-called ‘command and control’ computer systems’ that were being used ‘to support our forces in Vietnam.’ ”[5]

Who was it that hired a young Noam Chomsky to do this research at the Pentagon-funded Research Laboratory of Electronics? That was Jerome Wiesner.[6] I find that most interesting.

Wiesner would soon become Science Advisor to President Kennedy (1961), and by 1966 he was part of a group called ‘Jason East,’ a branch of the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a federal contract research center (FCRC). “FCRCs’ sole customer was the government—in IDA’s case, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense.”[7]

What was ‘Jason’ doing? Helping the US military fight the Vietnam War.

So Chomsky was recruited by a scientist utterly involved, and at the highest level, with the US government and its military establishment. And Chomsky was hired to do Pentagon research needed to fight the ‘anticommunist’ Vietnam War.

Now, it matters that Wiesner hired Chomsky at the time of the McCarthy witch hunts, when true American dissidents—and many who weren’t even dissidents—were branded ‘communists’ left and right and hauled before special tribunals. “Tens of thousands of federal employees... were fully investigated under the loyalty-security program, and some 2700 were dismissed between 1947 and 1956.”[7a] Chomsky was hired in 1955. It is inconceivable that a top Pentagon scientist would hire Chomsky to do high-profile ‘anticommunist’ military research in 1955—during the ‘anticommunist’ McCarthy Red Scare—without a thorough ‘background check.’ But then it follows that no evidence of Chomsky’s radical ‘dissidence’ was found.

Others who had trouble noticing Chomsky’s ‘dissidence’ were the dissidents themselves.

As summarized by Wikipedia, in 1967 activists at Columbia University who had membership in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), an organization opposing the Vietnam War, “discovered documents in the International Law Library detailing Columbia’s institutional affiliation with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a weapons research think-tank affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense.” Soon the organization that Jerome Wiesner—Chomsky’s mentor—worked for became the target of SDS agitation, as they organized the students against the university and demanded that Columbia disaffiliate from IDA. Chomsky did not approve.

“...Chomsky thought their rebellions were ‘largely misguided,’ and he ‘criticized [them] as they were in progress at Berkeley (1966) and Columbia (1968) particularly. Same at MIT, later’ (27 June 1995). ...[Says Chomsky:] ‘It was rather complex because the students generally considered me a natural ally and were often surprised at my skepticism about how they were focusing their protests... Led to considerable conflict, in fact.’ ”[8]

Rather than a true dissident, Chomsky would seem, from this evidence, a creature of the US power elite posing as a dissident in order to sabotage true dissidence. In other words, a COINTELPRO asset.

If he is such, and if the ‘military-industrial’ bosses are also the media bosses, this would explain why, when Chomsky came out publicly as a ‘Vietnam War opponent,’ the “state-corporate propaganda system” did not expose the fact that he had been hired to do research for the Pentagon’s ‘anti-communist’ war, choosing instead to exercise their “media self-censorship.” It would also explain why they gave Chomsky star treatment.

An important test of the COINTELPRO hypothesis lies with an examination of Chomsky’s ‘dissidence.’ If he is a creature of the very system he attacks we should find that his attacks are carefully designed to steer people away from the most damning evidence and the most damning interpretation. We should find that—despite having information for a knockout blow—when he attacks US bosses Chomsky is in fact pulling his punches.


According to Chomsky’s analysis, the mainstream media support the “state-corporate nexus” because:

1)    the most important media companies are themselves big corporations;[9]

2)    media managers have a cultural and class affinity with corporate and government managers;[10]

3)    advertisers demand that media content agree with corporate interests [11] ; and

4)    journalists and publishers are afraid of powerful people.[12]

For those who buy Chomsky books to read them—not just to display on a bookshelf as badges of ‘left-liberal’ political correctness—his analysis must come as a bit of a letdown: a firecracker that hisses and never pops.

Chomsky talks a big game when he accuses there is a “state-corporate nexus,” but his fearsome “state-corporate propaganda system” is in fact decentralized and voluntary. This is radical? This is mild. One is at pains, in fact, to distinguish this from the musings of ordinary Joes pondering distractedly their own vague suspicions of ‘big media.’

In fact, Edward Herman, who co-authored Chomsky’s first presentation of his ‘propaganda model’ (Manufacturing Consent), insists that this model should not be “dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ ” because he and Chomsky have “point[ed] out very carefully in the preface that our model is close to a ‘free market’ analysis and does not rely on conspiracy at all.”[12a] For ‘dissidents’ these two certainly work hard to stay within the bounds of officially approved grammar: don’t you dare propose a ‘conspiracy theory. [12b]

Is Chomsky covering for the “state-corporate propaganda system”? What’s missing?

What’s missing is any discussion of the National Security Act, which authorized US Intelligence to do in secret as it pleased with a gigantic budget, thus giving it the opportunity to corrupt the media (and, by the way, explicit legal authorization to corrupt foreign media).[12c]

What’s missing is any discussion of Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller, the most important corporate networks in the “state-corporate nexus,” and how they have spread their tentacles all over the US government structure and the US educational and research establishments, something that was well advanced already in the late 19th century.

Chomsky’s book Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (1989), contains:

1)    not one mention of the National Security Act;

2)    not one mention of the name ‘Rockefeller’;

3)    only one mention of the name ‘Carnegie,’ in a passing reference to the “Carnegie Foundation for International Peace” (the proper name is the Carnegie Endowment);

4)    not one mention of the ‘Ford’ family of automobile fame;

5)    only two mentions of the Council on Foreign Relations—created by Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller as a means to keep a stranglehold on US foreign policy—and both times the CFR is not the object of criticism but a scholarly source; and

6)    not one mention of the eugenics movement, led by the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller fortunes, which succeeded in turning the movement into German Nazism (Part 5).

Just as interesting is what Necessary Illusions does contain: a passing mention of historian Christopher Simpson’s research on the postwar US employment of (at least) tens of thousands of Nazis:

“In the early postwar years, the United States supported armies established by Hitler in the Ukraine and Eastern Europe, with the assistance of such figures as Reinhard Gehlen, who headed Nazi military intelligence on the Eastern front and was placed in charge of the espionage service of West Germany under close CIA supervision, assigned the task of developing a ‘secret army’ of thousands of SS men to assist the forces fighting within the Soviet Union.”[13]

Chomsky’s footnote for this reads: “Christopher Simpson, Blowback (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988).”

But again, even more interesting is what Chomsky doesn’t say.

Blowback—supporting itself on a treasure trove of official documents that were declassified thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)contains a detailed documentation of how many other thousands of Nazis were not deployed in Europe but in fact imported into the United States, where they were organized by US Intelligence as ‘governments in exile’ and ‘anti-communist exile communities’ that were used to pressure the US Congress in favor of particular policies supporting various fascist constructs in Europe and also the US military build-up. Other Nazis were imported into the US Army and organized into the ‘Special Forces.’ Still others were integrated into the CIA, and used prominently in CIA propaganda activities and elsewhere. (We have reviewed all of this in Part 6.) Not a peep from Chomsky on any of this, even though he has obviously read Blowback.

Chomsky’s awareness of Christopher Simpson is relevant to another point, because Simpson would publish, in 1996, Science of Coercion, where he documents how the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller networks—in collusion with US Intelligence—spent a fortune in the postwar taking control of the educational institutions that train media personnel (Part 1). Chomsky apparently went on record saying that this was “An intriguing picture of the relations between state power and the intellectual community.” Perhaps one of his fans excitedly asked him about the book, forcing him to make a comment that he preferred not to make. That would explain why the search engine at returns not one mention of Science of Coercion or Christopher Simpson.

The media has behaved similarly. The widest possible Lexis-Nexis search found exactly zero mentions of Science of Coercion in mainstream newspapers. So the media bosses want to keep mum about this—which makes sense, because Simpson has meticulously documented the genesis and structure of the “state-corporate propaganda system.” But given that Chomsky has dedicated his entire ‘dissident’ career to explaining this system, his silence on Simpson’s research is nothing short of remarkable.

Unless, of course, Chomsky is an agent of that system. Then it makes perfect sense.

This would also explain why Chomsky’s Propaganda and the Public Mind, published in 2001—long after Science of Coercion—again does not contain one mention of the latter book or its author, and why it also does not contain one mention of the National Security Act, the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller networks.[14]

The point of a COINTELPRO asset is to mislead about the structure of the world. By posing as a ‘dissident,’ Chomsky becomes an effective decoy for other would-be ‘dissidents’ who never learn about the importance of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller networks, and their—quite literally—pro-Nazi policies.

But for those who know that someone is a COINTELPRO asset, a close attention to that person’s role can lay bare the world’s true structure. By scrutinizing what Chomsky says, we can begin to infer what the bosses are preparing. I turn to this next.


Early in his forays into public ‘dissidence’ Chomsky created a bit of a storm in France when he went out of his way to defend Robert Faurisson, a French academic who was getting in trouble for claiming that not a single Nazi death camp had ever existed.

According to contemporary reporting in the New York Times, Faurisson, “a lecturer in classical and modern literature” (i.e. not yet a professor, and not a WWII specialist), held “no particular prominence on the French intellectual or academic scene.”[15] Chomsky in fact helped to make Faurisson’s name.

In defense of his actions, Chomsky wrote:

“I have frequently signed petitions—indeed, gone to far greater lengths [than for Faurisson]—on behalf of Russian dissidents whose views are absolutely horrendous: advocates of ongoing U.S. savagery in Indochina, or of policies that would lead to nuclear war, or of a religious chauvinism that is reminiscent of the dark ages.”[16]

Why would Chomsky sell himself as someone who defends people “whose views are absolutely horrendous”? His point is that “it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended.”[16] Free speech is meaningless unless we extend it to those we disagree with.

I agree with the principle. But if Chomsky’s position is indeed principled (rather than a politically correct way to dig himself out of a hole), then he should defend opponents of a PLO/Fatah state in Judea and Samaria. Why? Because there is an epidemic of attacks against our free speech on US campuses, and there is no question that Noam Chomsky strongly disagrees with us. But Chomsky does not defend our rights.

Why is Faurisson, by contrast, so deserving? Could it be that Chomsky does not really disagree with him? According to Alan Dershowitz,

“Chomsky once told a group of people that he himself was ‘agnostic’ on whether the Holocaust occurred. When professor Robert Nozick, who was part of the group, confronted Chomsky with this outrageous statement following a debate at Harvard Medical School, Chomsky shoved Nozick, saying, ‘How dare you quote an off-the-record remark I made to a small group at Princeton.’ He did not deny making the statement.”[17]

In fact, if Dershowitz’s account is accurate, Chomsky confirmed making the statement.

Chomsky has counter-claimed in print that this is all fabrication, that he never said this. But even if you believe him, it doesn’t matter. A good case can be made that Chomsky is a Holocaust denier just based on how he defended Faurisson (see here).

Chomsky has also been an ardent defender of Norman Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, which claims that Jews have publicly preserved the memory of the Holocaust not as a warning to future generations but, by way of a ‘moral debt’ argument, “to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state.”[18] To Finkelstein, the Jews are sly monsters who slink in pretend grief just so they can lure their victim and kill.

But this is not antisemitic, says Chomsky:

“I can see no antisemitic implications... in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence.”[19]

When asked whether the Holocaust “is… manipulated by the Israeli state to promote its own interests,” Chomsky answers: “It’s very consciously manipulated” and “that kind of manipulation is really sick.” But what “interests” of the Israeli State might be served by this purported manipulation? According to Chomsky, Israel wants “to justify oppression of others.”[20] It is “an aggressive, violent state” that “want[s] to be able to use force freely.”[21] Jews want to punish and kill.

Am I exaggerating? Chomsky is using big words, words that have been used to describe Nazi Germany: “an aggressive, violent state” that “want[s] to be able to use force freely.” And this demonstrates how much the political grammar of the ‘liberal left’ has changed since WWII. Back then, to fight totalitarianism you opposed the Nazis and defended the Jews; today you deny the Holocaust and call the Jewish State a ‘Nazi.’ That’s what ‘good leftists’—you know, ‘progressive people’—are now supposed to do.

And that is what Chomsky has wrought—with a lot of help, of course, from the “state-corporate nexus.”

This simplifies matters for a lot of people. Now that the “state-corporate propaganda system” has turned Chomsky into a ‘leftist’ rock star, the very definition of a ‘radical’ who fights the Establishment, it has become easy for those wishing to consume the identity ‘radical’ (or even just ‘good leftist’) to simply adopt Chomsky’s positions.

Over a half century before Chomsky was even born, the French political theorist Maurice Joly had already figured him out. In Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864) Joly explained that power elites would undermine democracy while keeping its forms—what I have called ‘sloppy totalitarianism’ (Appendix A). The bosses would send covert agents to pose as opposition movement leaders, assisted by a press also covertly in the power elite’s pocket. The fiercest, most vocal, most visible critics of the government would all be covert agents. In this way, the energy for opposition, which must always exist, would be channeled and managed into a stance useful to the bosses. And that’s what Chomsky does.

Or call that my hypothesis: that Chomsky is a COINTELPRO asset.

Can we test it? Yes.

One way is to interrogate US geopolitical activity. If we find that US power-elite goals are undermined by having a lot of agitated ‘leftists’ believing that Israel is the ‘bad guy,’ this counts against my hypothesis. But if it goes the other way, I score an important point.

There are many issues we could consider (see here), but this series has made a special focus of two dramatic US foreign-policy initiatives in the Middle East:

1)    the ‘Two State Solution,’ which means to give PLO/Fatah—or the ‘Palestinian Authority’—a ‘Palestinian State’ carved out of strategic Israeli territory.

2)    the nuclear deal with Iran, which gives Iran precisely those resources it needs to race the final nuclear-weapons lap, coupled with a lax inspections regime that cannot stop Iran from crossing the finish line.

These two key policies appear carefully articulated. PLO/Fatah played a leading role in the Islamist Revolution of 1979 that established the current regime in Iran, led by angry apocalyptic bosses who incessantly promise the violent destruction of Israel (Part 0). In 1979, amid the revolutionary celebrations in Teheran, PLO/Fatah promised to initiate a ‘peace process’ in exchange for a strategic beachhead inside Israel, to be used as a terrorist base (Part 0).

The details in the above paragraph are not widely known, but even so there is considerable resistance in Israel, and in the United States, to both policies. One way to lessen the impact of that resistance is for Chomsky to produce support for those policies among ‘leftists.’ This means convincing ‘leftists’ that Israel is the ‘bad guy.’ Why? Because then, by grammatical symmetry, PLO/Fatah—and even Iran—must be the ‘good guys’ (the deserving downtrodden native victims of foreign colonialism and imperialism, as Chomsky keeps telling us).

These ‘leftists’ are automatically protected from charges of antisemitism because they can say: “Look, I am just repeating what Chomsky, a Jew, is saying.”

And Chomsky—by grammatical opposition—also determines the conservative ‘right.’ Since he is reviled there, ‘conservatives’ reject everything he says. Hence, they defend Israel but also defend the US power elite (and they attack the media, but for having a supposedly left-wing bias).

The psychological warfare of US bosses thus creates two mutually exclusive meme-bundles:

1)    for the left: ‘oppose US bosses’ and ‘oppose Israel’;

2)    for the right: ‘support US bosses’ and ‘support Israel.’

Once people associate a meme-bundle with their particular ‘identity’ (‘left’ or ‘right’) they will defend it fiercely, because defending one’s ‘identity’ is synonymous with defending a ‘correct’ moral view of the world (that’s how ‘identity’ works).

Chomsky is the grammatical keystone holding this binary structure together, for his polarizing effect makes it very difficult for a third option, based on a third (currently almost nonexistent) identity, to emerge:

3)    ‘oppose US bosses’ and ‘support Israel.’

In other words, there is one key hypothesis that, thanks to Chomsky, becomes unimaginable: that perhaps US bosses—the same, after all, who launched the eugenics movement that became German Nazism (Part 5), and who absorbed and deployed great multitudes of Nazis after WWII (Part 6)—are reusing, in broad strokes, the WWII strategy (Part 7); that, perhaps, they now mean to use PLO/Fatah and Iran to destroy the Jewish State: Holocaust 2.0 (Part 8); and that, as before, this is part of a long-term policy of subjugating us Westerners with a new totalitarianism (Part 9).

If this third hypothesis is reasonable, then Chomsky—by short-circuiting the mental processes that would allow us to imagine it—is protecting the system trend that the bosses want. Choose your identity: ‘left’ or ‘right’ it doesn’t matter. Break left, and the bosses get support for their anti-Israel and pro-Iranian policies, which help spread totalitarianism abroad; break right, and they get support for their ‘war on terror’ policies, which impose totalitarianism at home. If they balance it just right the bosses can do both (Appendix A).

I am ready to score my point.

And I can score another if we consider:


Amy Goodman runs a show called Democracy Now!, and Noam Chomsky is featured for interviews on this show as often as possible. The biggest channels for this show are PBS (Public Broadcasting Station) and NPR (National Public Radio).

This deserves a brief comment, for the sake of context.

I saw this with my own eyes when I was first studying and then teaching at American universities: university-educated ‘liberal leftists’ in the US have convinced themselves that PBS and NPR are somehow ‘independent media.’ Watching PBS and listening to NPR in fact builds their identities as skeptical sophisticates with higher education who therefore consume independent and intelligent media. But—by definition—PBS and NPR cannot be independent. They are both in fact—and officially—government-owned media.

Moreover, an NPR link to US Intelligence activities is easy to document. Kevin Klose was president of NPR from 1998 to 2008. When he was appointed, there was some controversy because, as Wikipedia states, Klose “ ‘used to be the director of all major worldwide US government propaganda dissemination broadcast media including VOA, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti.’ ” Those are all CIA operations.[21a] And as Christopher Simpson documents in Blowback (which Chomsky has read) the government radios have employed a multitude of Nazis in the postwar.

Chomsky doesn’t seem to mind.

When Amy Goodman invited Chomsky over to Democracy Now! to comment on Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the US Congress to protest the US-Iran nuclear agreement, Chomsky was happy to oblige:

“For... Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it is—if we believe U.S. intelligence (don’t see any reason not to)—their analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons (which they don’t know), it would be part of [Iran’s] deterrent strategy. Now, [Iran’s] general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.”[22]


The global interpretation is clear:

bad guys: US and Israel;

good guy: Iran.

And again the Chomsky doctrine: US bosses and Israel are joined at the hip; US foreign policy is always on behalf of Israel.

Problem: US and Iranian bosses are signing an agreement that, according to an angry Israeli prime minister, will give Iran the resources it needs to pursue its nuclear ambitions (by removing sanctions and unfreezing assets) and the cover to pursue them (by providing for ‘inspections’ that are nothing of the sort). No matter: Chomsky doggedly explains Netanyahu’s opposition to the US-Iran nuclear deal as follows: “the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate [a nuclear Iran].”

Is your head spinning?

Now, Chomsky does not want to grant that Iranian bosses are seeking nuclear weapons but, supposing they were, he says, this can only be interpreted as a “deterrent strategy.” All they want to do is balance “the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region.” According to Chomsky, Iranian bosses just want to “prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in.”

So let me see. World exporters of Islamist terrorism only want to make peace. For that they need nukes. So Iranian nukes are good for us. QED. Yes, it’s a straight syllogism!

The obvious question is: Why is Netanyahu interpreting so literally the Iranian threat, renewed every month, that Israel will be violently destroyed? Where is his sense of humor? Surely, the Iranians are just being playful.

Take Hashemi Rafsanjani, father of Iran’s nuclear program: he “called... on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them ‘damages only.’ ” According to Rafsanjani, from the Iranian point of view, a thermonuclear exchange with Israel would be entirely reasonable, because Muslims have lots of people to spare and thus “ ‘application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.’ ”[23]

What a tease! That guy kills me. Obviously what he meant was that “anyone with a grey cell functioning” cannot believe that Iranian bosses “would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to.”

And did you notice where Chomsky is getting his expert information?

“...if we believe U.S. intelligence (don’t see any reason not to)—their analysis is...”

Chomsky sees no reason to doubt US spies!

Why should he? Spies inform the public; dissidents trust spies. It’s common sense. If the dissident is Jewish and the spies pro-Nazi, then more so—why would Jews doubt Nazis? It’s not as if these spies are whitewashing gangsters who vow a nuclear Jewish Holocaust.

Can one be Orwellian and Kafkaesque? Chomsky can. He is a great stylist, a top grammarian, and a cunning linguist.

[1] Schweizer, P. (2005). Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. New York: Knopf Doubleday.

[2] Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. London: Pluto Press. (pp.8, 13, 29, 88, 157, 177, 179)

[3] “On US Military Budgets’: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Ira Shorr.” America’s Defense Monitor and the Center for Defense Information. February 11, 1996

[4] Schweizer, P. (2005). Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. New York: Knopf Doubleday.

[5] ibid.

Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures was published with the following notice:

“This work was supported in part by the U.S.A. Army (Signal Corps), the Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research and Development Command), and the Navy (Office of Naval Research); and in part by the National Science Foundation and the Eastman Kodak Corporation.”

Chomsky’s Aspects of the Theory of Syntax was published with the following notice:


This is Special Technical Report Number II of the Research Labora­tory o This work was supported in part by the U.S.A. Army (Sighal Corps), the Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Ail Research and Development Command), and the Navy (Office of Naval Research); and in part by the National Science Foundation and the . Eastman Kodak Corporation. f Electronics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Research Laboratory of Electronics is an interdepartmental laboratory in which faculty members and graduate students from numer­ous academic departments conduct research. The research reported in this document was made possible in part by support extended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Research Laboratory of Electronics. by the JOINT SERVICES ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS (U.S. Army. U.S. Navy. and U.S. Air Force) under Contract No. DAS6-o39-AMC-03llOo(E); additional support was received from the U.S. Air Force (Electronic Systems Division under Contract AFI9(628)-2487). the National Science Foundation (Grant GP-2495). the National Insti­tutes of Health (Grant MH-D4737-D4). and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NsG-496). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government.

[6] Barsky, R. F. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Toronto: ECW Press. (p.86)

[7] Finkbeiner, Ann (2006-04-06). The Jasons: The Secret History of Science's Postwar Elite (pp.36, 65-66). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[7a] “Anti-Communism in the 1950s”; The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History; by Wendy Wall

[8] Barsky, R. F. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Toronto: ECW Press.

[9] “The major media—particularly, the elite media that set the agenda that others generally follow—are corporations ‘selling’ privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers, and the product.”

SOURCE: Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. London: Pluto Press. (p.8)

[10] “those who occupy managerial positions in the media, or gain status within them as commentators, belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well. Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they conform to these ideological pressures, generally by internalizing the values; it is not easy to say one thing and believe another, and those who fail to conform will tend to be weeded out by familiar mechanisms.”

SOURCE: Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. London: Pluto Press. (p.8)

[11] “The influence of advertisers is sometimes far more direct. ‘Projects unsuitable for corporate sponsorship tend to die on the vine,’ the London Economist observes, noting that ‘stations have learned to be sympathetic to the most delicate sympathies of corporations.’ The journal cites the case of public TV station WNET, which ‘lost its corporate underwriting from Gulf+Western as a result of a documentary called `Hunger for Profit', about multinationals buying up huge tracts of land in the third world.’ These actions ‘had not been those of a friend,’ Gulf's chief executive wrote to the station, adding that the documentary was ‘virulently anti-business, if not anti-American.’ ‘Most people believe that WNET would not make the same mistake today,’ the Economist concludes. Nor would others. The warning need only be implicit.”

SOURCE: Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. London: Pluto Press. (p.8)

[12] “To confront power is costly and difficult; high standards of evidence and argument are imposed, and critical analysis is naturally not welcomed by those who are in a position to react vigorously and to determine the array of rewards and punishments. Conformity to a ‘patriotic agenda,’ in contrast, imposes no such costs. Charges against official enemies barely require substantiation; they are, furthermore, protected from correction, which can be dismissed as apologetics for the criminals or as missing the forest for the trees.”

SOURCE: Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. London: Pluto Press. (p.8)

[12a] “The Political Economy of the Mass Media”; Monthly Review;  January, 1989; Edward S. Herman interviewed by Robert W. McChesney

[12b] “What is conspiracy theory? Is this website doing it?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 4 October 2005; by Francisco Gil-White

[12c] “Did the National Security Act of 1947 destroy freedom of the press? The red pill...”; Historical and Investigative Research; 3 January 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

[13]  Chomsky, N. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. London: Pluto Press. (pp.27-28)

[14] Barsamian, D., & Chomsky, N. (2001). Propaganda and the Public Mind: Conversations with Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

[15] “CHOMSKY STIRS FRENCH STORM IN A DEMITASSE”; The New York Times; January 1, 1981; Section 1; Page 2, Column 3; Foreign Desk; 1031 words; By RICHARD EDER, Special to the New York Times.

[16] “Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression”; Appeared as a Preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en defense (October 11, 1980); by Noam Chomsky.

[17]Match Point”; The New Republic Online; June 1, 2007; by Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz

Without Dershowitz’s accusation about what Chomsky allegedly said to Robert Nozick, what basis is there for saying that Chomsky is a Holocaust denier?

Consider again Chomsky’s behaviors on behalf of Robert Faurisson. As we’ve seen, Chomsky defended his actions by saying that “it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended”—in other words, free speech must apply to those we disagree with (or it ain’t free speech).

Since that was his explicitly stated principled argument, included in a preface he wrote to Faurisson’s book, you might think that Chomsky was taking the position that Faurisson’s ideas were “horrendous.” You might be wrong. Chomsky wrote this:

“I have nothing to say here about the work of Robert Faurisson or his critics, of which I know very little, or about the topics they address, concerning which I have no special knowledge.”(a)

But was he at least saying that Faurrison was a “horrendous” guy? Not a bit. Chomsky wrote:

“…[I]s it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read—largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him—I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”(a)

Elsewhere Chomsky came right out and said it:

“ ‘I see no hint of antisemitic implications in Faurisson’s work.’ ”(b)

Now, Holocaust denial is such a famously delicate issue that one shouldn’t have to point this out to a prominent Jew (least of all to an acknowledged genius): it was imperative for Chomsky to find out exactly who he was defending. If Faurisson and his claims turned out to be “horrendous,” Chomsky could still make his defense—if he thought this was a free speech issue—while making it clear that he found the author beyond the pale and did not agree with his claims. Instead of this, Chomsky plunged headlong into the following contradictions:

1)    despite boasting that he routinely stands on principle to defend the rights of “horrendous” people to express “horrendous” ideas, because this is the real test of free speech, he went out on a limb to defend Faurisson’s character, thereby implying that his work was not in fact “horrendous”; and

2)    despite claiming not to know much about Faurisson’s work, Chomsky stated that he saw “ ‘no hint of antisemitic implications in Faurisson’s work,’ ” and moreover “Chomsky signed a petition that characterized Faurisson’s falsifications of history as ‘findings’ and said that they were based on ‘extensive historical research.’ ”(b)

It was actually quite easy to show that Faurisson’s alleged “extensive historical research” was really a fraud. Historian George Wellers took the trouble and demonstrated that the testimony of SS doctor Johann-Paul Kremer, which according to Faurisson demonstrated that no gas chambers had existed, stated explicitly that gas chambers had been used to exterminate the European Jews. Wellers demonstrated, moreover, that Faurisson had not made a mistake but had lied.(b)

Chomsky has said: “ ‘I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust.’ ”(b) This may work if the denier has poor access to the facts, but certainly not for Faurisson, who has been shown consciously to lie in order to deny the Holocaust.

It is hard to escape the impression that Chomsky tolerated his own obvious contradictions not in order to defend Faurisson’s free speech, but to put a ‘kosher’ seal on the man and, by extension, on Holocaust denial.

If lots of people have speculated, on this evidence, that Chomsky himself is a Holocaust denier, can we blame them?

[back to the text]


(a)  “Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression”; Appeared as a Preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en defense (October 11, 1980); by Noam Chomsky.

(b) Dershowitz, A. (1992). Chutzpah. New York: Simon & Schuster. (pp.173-76)

[18]  Finkelstein, N. (2000). The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London: Verso. (the quote is from the Introduction).

[19] quoted in: Dershowitz, A. (1992). Chutzpah. New York: Simon & Schuster. (p.76)

[20] “Israel, the Holocaust, and Anti-Semitism”; Excerpted from Chronicles of Dissent (1992); by Noam Chomsky

[21] Noam Chomsky: Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel’s Goal Isn’t Survival — It’s Regional Dominance; Democracy Now; Monday, March 2, 2015; Interviewed by Aaron Maté and Amy Goodman.

[21a] “One of the matters the NPR Board discussed before hiring [current NPR President Kevin] Klose: how NPR's news staff would react to a boss who had worked in government radio and for the Radios [Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL),], which were CIA-financed until the early 1970s. ‘There was a question as to how the NPR newsroom would receive Kevin Klose,’ says board member Chase Untermeyer, who headed Voice of America [also a CIA operation - FGW] during the Bush years.’ ”

SOURCE: “Kevin Klose: journalist, fan, NPR president”; Originally published in Current; Nov. 23, 1998; By Jacqueline Conciatore

[22] Noam Chomsky: Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel’s Goal Isn’t Survival — It’s Regional Dominance; Democracy Now; Monday, March 2, 2015; Interviewed by Aaron Maté and Amy Goodman.

[23] One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric [sic] called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them ‘damages only’.

‘If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world,’ Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.”

We point out that Hashemi Rafsanjani is not merely “one of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric[s],” but the very father of the Iranian nuclear program.



0. Introduction

The present series of articles amounts to a primer. It contains strategic historical knowledge minimally sufficient to abandon the ‘Establishment model’ of geopolitical processes and to begin constructing an alternative model that will explain and predict the world of international relations. The alternative model agrees with the Establishment model that the Middle East ‘Peace Process’ is important, but disagrees about almost everything else. In the alternative model, the US-Iran nuclear deal makes perfect sense. It may or may not agree with you, but it will no longer surprise you.

1. Psychological warfare, communication research, and the media

PSYOPs originally refers to psychological warfare operations conducted by the military against the enemy. But PSYOPs have domestic applications as well. We review here historian Christopher Simpson’s documentation of how social science was corrupted in the United States so that power elites could bend ‘democracy’ to their will using psychological warfare.

2. Political grammar : ¿How does psychological warfare work?

Psychological warfare is governed by grammatical rules. Power elites with a good command of such rules can deploy psychological warfare to manipulate citizens into doing things they otherwise wouldn’t—even into destroying their own liberties. We here explain the basic operation of Western political grammar, created in 1848, and how it may be manipulated.

3. Principal-Agent Theory (PAT), the citizen, and the State

Principal-agent theory (PAT) examines how ‘principals’ can manipulate ‘agents’ to do their bidding. It has been applied to political behavior but, perhaps not too surprisingly, in such a manner that it will not challenge the perception that Western States are functioning democracies whose governments are duly responsive to the citizenries. Here we explore an alternative picture that takes into account what power elites can do through psychological (or political) warfare.

4. Is US geopolitics meant to strengthen or weaken democracy?

The study of geopolitics is meant to account for the foreign policy behaviors of the various States. However, geopolitical scholars have certain taboos about which kinds of hypotheses may or may not be entertained. In particular, the prevailing political grammar in the Western media and academic system appears to rigorously forbid that anybody question the purity of intention of those making foreign policy decisions in Western states. Why?

5. The goals of the US power elite in historical perspective

The US power elite’s most important players were responsible for setting up the US psychological warfare regime after World War II (Part 1). These same players had a major hand in precipitating the onset of World War II. This information is of some importance in evaluating the probable aims of US power-elite geopolitics today. But it is next to impossible to pursue this analysis because the US power elite role in causing World War II has been almost completely expunged from historical education..

6. US postwar policy toward Nazi war criminals

Few people are aware that the US government recruited Nazis after WWII. And most of the aware believe this was just a handful of Nazi scientists employed in rocket development (Operation Paperclip). In fact, the US government shielded from justice a giant multitude of Nazis—including many war criminals who had bathed themselves in innocent blood—and used them to create the postwar US intelligence infrastructure. This affected both domestic and foreign policy. The self-imposed silence of the Western media on this topic is diagnostic of the psychological warfare regime that dominates.

7. The aims of the US power elite in WWII

Certain important events surrounding the causes and aftermath of World War II may be recruited to defend a model of the US power elite as pro-Nazi. This model naturally needs to provide satisfactory special reasons for important behaviors of the same power elite that appear anti-Nazi. But the same applies to the Establishment model: it must provide satisfactory special reasons to explain why, if the US power elite has been anti-Nazi, it involved itself so intensely with sponsorship and then recruitment of Nazis. We examine these issues here.

8. US foreign policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict

Given US power elite’s sponsorship of the eugenics movement, which became German Nazism, and the same US power elite’s creation of the postwar psychological warfare regime, it is reasonable to ask whether US postwar foreign policy has been consistent with the aims of the eugenicists and the German Nazis, namely, to destroy democracy and to kill Jews. That is the question we ask here.

9. Why do enemies of democracy attack the Jews?

Shoa (‘the Holocaust’) was a horrific slaughter and a Crime Against Humanity, but it was not an historical aberration. As Western historical processes go, the mass-killing of Jews may be the most recurrent and stable. Those who killed the Jews in World War II were enemies of human liberty. This, too, is not new. In the history of the West, whenever the Jews are under attack, everybody’s liberties are in danger. What explains this? One simple fact: for 2500 years, Jewish thought has been the engine of Western political liberation, and Western enemies of liberty have always understood this.




Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list