I think that you are giving him WAY TOO MUCH credit, if you are calling him the Noam Chomsky of Bitcoin - without getting too much into Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has dabbled successfully in a large number of academic and political fields.
I would characterize Jorge's involvement in this bitcoin dialogue more like a rock star commenting on politics. Sure the rock star is going to know some things about politics, but his/her opinion is NOT any better than the rest of the people - even though the rockstar gets a lot of credit and exposure b/c of his/her status as a rockstar.... even though s/he may be talking out of his/her ass about an opinion that is NOT much different from Joe Blow, off of the street.
So Jorge has been attempting to unfairly bring his rockstar status to this debate to add credibility to his bs... but it gets worse b/c some of the times, unlike a rock star, Jorge seems to be engaging in purposefully misleading approaches... it is NOT innocent opinions but deceptive portrayals... b/c it is pretty clearly that reasonable inferences from the evidence is that he knows better.
Chomski is a linguistics expert and a very good one. It's his dabbling that I have great qualms with. The danger with smart people is that we can reason better, but we can also rationalize better and there's fewer people to call us on our bullshit. I try to have a healthy respect for my own ability to rationalize. If I have an edge, that is it. An academic has tenure, and an author's incentive is to sell books and be influential. Self-awareness is a liability to them. I believe in incentives.