What The Hell Was Noam Chomsky Thinking - His Epstein Link Explained

THIS INTERVIEW OF CHRIS KNIGHT who has written about Noam Chomsky critically from the left,  someonen who revealed things about his extensive ties to the milirary industrial complex as well as being supportive of his leftist politics AND, also knowing a good deal about the collapse of Chomskys theory of universal grammar, is the closest I've come to hearing or reading anyone come up with an explanation of how he could associate with and write supportively of the most notorious child rapist, trafficker and almost certainly blackmailer perhaps in human history.    Owen Jones chose the one to come up with something like an explaination well.   

I would like to read or hear someone go in to the deep relationships that a smart though hardly qualified con-man had with many of the figures in real as well as pseudo-sciences (and linguistics is, actually one of the latter) because I think that would not only tell us a lot about how someone like Chomsky could be successfully courted and compromised by him but how so many within the post-WWII materialist-atheist-scientistic academic world were far less confusingly compromised by him.   I think that that relationship tells us a lot about the character and nature of that ideology and how it melds so easily with the world of anti-democratic politics, high finance and the modern cult of media driven celebrity. 

One of the more insightful things I recall hearing Chomsky explain was how the French cultural and establishment that made figures such as philosophers promoted and brought to fame and inluence and celebrity - as I recall he called it "vedette culture,"  movie-star culture.   And a lot of those who Epstein wooed and won, to some extent, fall into that category here as well as in Britain.   Even some of those who had actual academic and even scientific careers.   Some, such as those within the old Scienceblogs crowd were made such stars with Epstein-Maxwell-Wexner money.   

As for the failure of Chomsky's "universal grammar,"  since it was based on the wildly over-sold and over-imagined ideas of mid-20th century evolutionary biology,  including the things that evolutionary-psychology and sociobiology were based in,  it's no wonder that it was just another of those edifaces of unevidenced science that grew, matured, decayed and was abandonned as academic pseudo-science went on to the next big thing.   If Chomsky had died in his sixties or seventies instead of approaching a centenniel, he might have avoided witnessing that.   E. O. Wilson is a similar case in that he came to publicly doubt kin selection, one of the the bases of his own claim to fame, Sociobiology, the extent to which a flock of his evolutionary-psychology academic heirs howled in protest when he expressed those doubts,  some of whom also were charmed or came near to the orbit of Jeffrey Epstein,  Richard Dawkins being foremost among those.   

I will note that I'm skeptical of all theories deriving from natural selection which I think is an ideological theory and was never properly scientific due to the impossibility of observing the actual evolution of species.    As with the the acquisition of and use of language being an undeniable phenomenon,  the evolution of species is abundently supported by the geological and genetic record, its reality is not currently credibly denied.   Someone may want to do basic science about how evolution happened,  the strength and universal desire of biologists to have knowledge of how it happened,  in the worst cases insisting that there must be one universal mechanism by which that happened.   That doesn't stop almost all of them from pretending that they've got that mechanism when they have no such a thing.   Chomsky's desire to find the equivalent in his chosen field of linguistics - which is as opaque as the billions of years of the history of the evolution of speices - cannot be made truly scientific for similar reasons.   There is no way to make the necessary observations, measurements and honest analyses needed to produce science, no matter them making believe they can at MIT or the Pentagon. 

Chomsky owed us an explaination of this and, if Knight is correct, he is too disabled to be able to give us one even if he was willing to do so.  It is sadder than the implosion of his academic theory that his legacy as one of the major figures of moral criticism of governmental and corporate and oligarchic evil in our lifetimes fell under the sway of an evil, likely Israeli intelligence connected con-man who certainly was nothing like a friend to him.   It is shocking that Noam Chomsky couldn't see through him even at close proximity to his evil doing.  That's his tragedy and a tragedy of the secular left.