A Few Hopefully Non Redundant Ruminations On Epstein, Chomsky, and Us
A Few Hopefully Non Redundant Ruminations On Epstein, Chomsky, and Us
Jeffrey Epstein was a horrifying but oddly “talented” specimen of humanity. He had some combination of “qualities” that facilitated his assembling an intimidating array of contacts and a huge armory of financial assets. Visit Wikipedia to see his “list of connections.” It is surreal.
Epstein is also the central subject of massive media attention. Since 2019, mainstream media has included hundreds of thousands and perhaps a million Epstein-focussed items. I think the only subject to attract more attention has been Trump. Not rape, not child trafficking, not racism, not war, not exploitation, not even run away climate, not devastated ecology, and certainly not positive programs for even marginal much less fundamental social change. Epstein isn’t the essence of capitalism. He isn’t the essence of patriarchy. He was one very seriously bad man. Does that simple fact and not sincere concern for the situation of all women and children explain mainstream media’s Epstein overload?
Point being, to endlessly rail at Epstein may generate momentum to aggressively seek more perps for prosecution or more associates of perps for cancellation. To endlessly rail at Epstein won’t engender wide discussion of the banks and other financial institutions that overtly profited from and enabled him. It won’t cause wide attention to the familial, religious, economic, political, and other bulwarks of sexism, misogyny, and all types of gender violence. Have you seen serious work even on the dynamics of how judicial review ignored the testimonies of so many women and gave Epstein a sweetheart deal his first time through? Have you seen serious proposals for even modest new policies much less fundamental institutional transformations? It is said that Epstein and his cohorts may have had as many as 1,000 victims over their multi-year run. Estimates also suggest that at least 1,200 and as many as 2,000 women in the U.S. are forcibly raped each day, of whom about 40 percent are under eighteen. Do you hear about that, daily?
Have you noticed the rise of the label “the Epstein class” to name his contacts and even to stand-in for the labels “capitalist class,” “ruling class,” and what some of us call the “coordinator class”? Epstein’s contacts feature heads of state, corporate executives, and mega financiers, but does this new label focus us on the structural sources of all that? Or does it turn our attention away from institutions and onto individuals?
This is not to say individuals don’t matter. Especially as facilitated by institutions. Recently, for example, consider Nick Fuentes. Nick is an aspiring agitator of fascistic desires who has openly called for the mass criminalization of all women and girls. Yes, you read that right. During an episode of his America First livestream on Rumble, Fuentes declared, “Just like Hitler imprisoned Gypsies, Jews, communists — all of his political rivals — we have to do the same thing with women … They go to the gulag first. They go to the breeding gulags.” If media is sincerely gender alert, why isn’t it widely focused on Fuentes? You might think, “why bother, Fuentes is irrelevant, an outlier. His ideas are nowhere held.” Some thought that about Project 2025. Some still think that about Trump. Why not ask what breeds Fuentes and his support? Why doesn’t mainstream media focus on what breeds Fuentes and 1,200-2,000 forcible rapes a day?
From its start, the most militant component of Trumpism has been wildly misogynist. Institutional pressures produce misogyny. Could Epstein’s massive media attention owe mostly to the fact that criticizing Epstein has become an allowed and even a celebrated way to write and publish articles that will garner profit, claim moral high ground, and have at most modest consequences other than to perhaps bring down Trump? Could the incredible volume of Epstein attention exist because it mainly implies a need to eradicate monsters but not structures? Rapists but not rape culture? Individual perverted rulers but not the division of society such that a perverse ruling class lords over the rest of us? I do not question Trump and Epstein’s personal disgustingness. That’s evident. I question the frenzied attention which delivers endless words but very few proposals for change.
Epstein’s island wasn’t a nature preserve. Names appear in his files. Many get redacted. Is that random? Not a chance. Some names surface and get attention. Some of those may in turn be implicated in vile practices. A few of those may pay a price. Other names appear only as bit players or less. But if to attack someone named will have no adverse implications for centralized corporate and state power but will instead serve them, those few will be especially highlighted.
All that is familiar but here are some less familiar viewing angles. From Trump saying “lock her up” about Hillary Clinton, we have “graduated” to Fuentes saying “Lock ‘em all up.” Every last woman. The public mindset isn’t yet that misogynistically bent, but the “Epstein experience” has gotten many citizens to say “don’t bother me with legal noises about innocent until proven guilty.” “Don’t bother me with criticisms of advocating guilt by association. Lock up whoever’s name appears.” To love Trump has largely normalized ignorance, callousness, and cruelty in high places. Will to hate Epstein largely normalize fascist jurisprudence throughout the land?
We have also gone from government and corporate agencies assembling a mind boggling level of data—which surveillance all leftists correctly critique—to many people, including some leftists, eagerly rummaging through private emails. Is the Epstein case not only normalizing fascistic jurisprudence, but also the unwarranted public display of private lives? Are even people who rightly rail against spying, now in some cases clicking through other people’s private communications as if for the government to publicly display those communications was warranted?
Consider Noam Chomsky—a lifetime enemy of mainstream media, the state, and corporations, and a model of journalistic, academic, and historical truth telling—who has endlessly unveiled subterfuge and violence undertaken by all manner of elites while he has focused our eyes on the institutions that produce such subterfuge and violence. Chomsky is not redacted. Yes, he had some social contact. He received some advice. He dispensed some “advice.” Should we impute guilt by association? Despite nearly complete ignorance of contextual factors, should we extrapolate from private family communications as if to do so reveals truth? Worse, is it okay to release private communications as if privacy is passé?
Some have already taken down videos. Are books next? Should we remove seventy years of heretofore easily visible radical service? Some say yes, of course we should. Really? Some who distance themselves from Chomsky are not media moguls who eagerly take long-sought shots. Some are not spies for the state and corporations. Instead some are incredibly smart, sane, caring leftists. Some of those even yell “Chomsky pedo, Chomsky pedo,” and urge cancellation, as if they have some serious idea what they are talking about. Integrity? Dismissed. Dignity? Demoted.
Others who are more thoughtful, say no, no, don’t cancel Chomsky, but then they write words that feed the cancel mindset. For investigators to read private emails to uncover essential evidence where there are serious criminal claims is one thing. But what about when there are no serious criminal claims. Even DAs seem to understand that the survivors’ private lives should be protected. So why do we discuss the private lives of even our own mentors as if to be given such material and do so is nothing unusual?
The details of “revelations” concerning Chomsky have been addressed in many articles. Here though, just as I asked why Epstein has attracted so much attention and vehemence, I think I ought to ask the same question about Chomsky. Why has he attracted so much attention?
I believe the mainstream attention is roughly, “Oh, boy, let’s demolish Chomsky’s reputation. Let’s broadcast his private letters despite zero accusations of criminal behavior. Let’s do it like we have never broadcasted his massively documented critiques of our criminal actions. Let’s get his work canceled to keep new eyes away from his words. Let’s cause mayhem on the left.” I get all that. It is just mainstream interests being mainstream.
Next consider progressive people who are disconnected from Chomsky but who rush to aggressively attack him. I think I sort of get that too. I suspect most such detractors don’t know Chomsky’s lifetime of constantly radical work. I suspect most hear attacks on Chomsky and figure the attacks must be meaningful. They hear someone who wrote with him reject him. They think, we should reject him too. These critics are sincerely outraged at Epstein and at violence against women. Their anger rebounds to this particular guy. Their outrage toward this guy sometimes gets even louder and more hostile than the energy they generate for others, arguably even for Epstein. Why? I am not sure but I am strongly inclined to think that such folks ought to jump on the cancellation express a little less quickly. They ought to note when there is zero reason to claim criminality and decades of reasons to conclude a person wasn’t fellow traveler. They ought to note when there is zero reason to claim someone shared views that he demonstratively hated. Even so, I sort of get it. But I hope that in coming months most in this group will maintain and even enlarge their opposition to misogyny, of course, but also jump off the cancel Chomsky express.
All this has recent analogs. For example, not long ago loud media noises asserted that Chomsky was a closet Nazi or at least a holocaust denier due to his defending all peoples’ right to free speech, including Robert Faurisson who was an actual holocaust denier. Before long the downright stupidity of the holocaust denier claim faded for all but Chomsky’s most duplicitous mainstream critics plus a few manipulative “leftists” who use the assertion to dismiss what they do not like in Chomsky’s work, his criticism of authoritarian organizations of all kinds.
Similarly, Chomsky was called a genocide abettor for contextualizing and seeking clarity about the horrors perpetrated by Pol Pot. Before long this accusation too disappeared, again save for duplicitous mainstream critics and manipulative “left wing” detractors.
Finally, most recently, and in some ways I think most like what is now happening, we had many leftists who had earlier learned from Chomsky about the two parties that were actually, as Chomsky urged, one corporate party that has two wings. Some progressives vehemently and dismissively called Chomsky a sheepdog for one corporate wing, the Democrats, because he urged us to vote for Democrats against Trump in contested states. It didn’t matter that before, during, and after those campaigns, Chomsky relentlessly and mercilessly critiqued Democratic Party dynamics and crimes. Amazingly, some still hold this dismissive opinion of Chomskys anti Fascist voting advice and some of them now pile on to urge that Chomsky was perhaps a pedophile and certainly a wolf in sheep’s clothing all along. I suppose however crude, wrong, and self destructive I consider such “thinking,” I sort of understand it too.
But then there is another group of current critics who are by their own account long-time friends, long-time admirers, long-time students and even long-time partners of Chomsky in various pursuits. People who have deeply or at least broadly known his life’s work. People who have liked, learned from, and even loved that work and who—I suppose by extension—have even loved him at least until the Epstein information and especially others’ reactions to it caught their attention.
I am of that category. I have been for sixty years a friend of Noam, admirer of Noam, student of Noam, and partner of Noam in various pursuits. I assume such critics feel they are facing facts, being honest, avoiding hero-worship, and refusing to deny faults. But when I face facts, seek truth, reject hero worship, and refuse to deny faults, I find myself feeling about as far as I could be from these other friends of Chomsky who are distancing from and condemning him. So how do I understand their choice? Do I think they feel ignored, slighted, and hurt by the ramifications of the leaks about Chomsky and Epstein? Do I think they are angry about the reverberations? Yes, but I feel like that too. What I don’t get is how such feelings lead to denunciations of their admired friend, teacher, and even partner. How does it lead to their even digging into personal details to attack the human source of much of what they believe? And what causes some of these critics to be so self-righteously, aggressively, and passionately dismissive of Noam?
Back when cancel culture was rising and some students canceled their teachers, I remember some critics guessed that many of the students’ criticisms owed to feelings of powerlessness. Students saw a nearby target to attack. They realized they could gang up against a teacher and get a “win.” Did a desire to have an impact sometimes fuel unwarranted cancellations? I think so. And once a target was attacked, did some people pile on mainly to be on a winning team? I think that sometimes happened too. And did some people not so much agree with the assaults, or like the assault team, but instead want to avoid being attacked for their not assaulting the target or for their having earlier been allied with the target? Did some people try to avoid their own “guilt by association” by deciding others were guilty by association? Did some people team up with their potential accusers to distance themselves from the accusers’ target?
I find myself thinking about such explanations for the people who did know Chomsky and whose denunciations of him seem to me to be wild extrapolations of little information despite their being aware of massive contrary information from their own experiences of the person they suddenly divorced themselves from, Chomsky.
For many reasons, I wish Noam could speak and write his own response. But if he could, I am confident he would speak and write about Mideast genocide, Trumpian fascism, ecological calamity, and nuke-rattling over Iran, and he would not write about himself. And I am also sure a great many of those who are now distancing would instead be reading and learning from what he would be writing.
I hope Chomsky’s dismissal over imputed “pedophile protecting” or “elite fellow travelling” will dissipate, like Chomsky’s dismissal as holocaust denier, as genocide abettor, and as sheepdog manipulator have dissipated. I hope attention to institutional reality and positive program gains prime attention. And I hope this time, we learn to escape our own tendencies to rush to self-harming judgments even as we also avoid hero worship.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donatehttps://znetwork.org/znetarticle/a-few-hopefully-non-redundant-ruminations-on-epstein-chomsky-and-us/
11 Comments
The reactions that are now coming in to Chomsky’s relationship with epstein were entirely predictable, even in 2015, before what would come to be known as cancel culture and me-too. As such, my view is that any feelings about any dismissal of his work should be directed at Chomsky himself.
If Norman Finkelstein had the good sense to reject anything to do with epstein in 2015 for engaging in dehumanizing and criminal behavior, Chomsky should have as well.
Chomsky’s activism in no small part centered around examining and reminding people about their responsibility and agency (both of which he had a ton of) and justice, but neither of his own statements reflect any of those things.
Chomsky’s reaction in 2023 was “none of your business” and “What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence. According to U.S. laws and norms, that yields a clean slate.”
Chomsky’s reaction in 2026 (since Valeria Chomsky issued the statement on his behalf, we have to assume that that statement does in fact reflect Chomsky himself) was that he was “ensnared” into a friendship and that his statement in 2023 “failed to adequately acknowledge the gravity of Epstein’s crimes and the enduring pain of his victims”.
The 2023 statement “…that yields a clean slate” clearly means he doesn’t view this as a matter of degree. The 2026 statement “…failed to adequately acknowledge…” implies that it was a matter of degree. But how can it be if the former is literally saying epstein had a clean slate.
And the term “ensnared” absolves Chomsky of any agency in the matter.
I am not “cancelling” Chomsky. I still find his writings on a variety of matters incredibly valuable and refer to them often. Again, any feelings about any dismissal of his work should be directed at Chomsky himself.
This comment may very well fall into the “Others who are more thoughtful, say no, no, don’t cancel Chomsky, but then they write words that feed the cancel mindset.” category, but I find this line akin to when people who lament that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a war crime that was predictable are called Putin puppets. It doesn’t matter that you say that it was a war crime, the fact that you add that it was predictable is what makes you a puppet.
I’ll also add just for good measure that I overwhelmingly find Michael Albert’s societal and activist analyses, and those of most znet contributors invaluable. So let’s walk and chew gum here.
Those who are familiar with the details of the matter are clear that Valeria’s statement does not reflect Noam Chomsky’s views. In fact, her role in the situation appears to go far beyond what many are willing to say publicly, particularly since Chomsky’s children have chosen not to comment.
Chomsky’s response to The Wall Street Journal, “None of your business”, was accurate and appropriate. He was not evading the issue; he was declining to engage with what he regarded as intrusive or hostile journalism. He was not going to be pressured into responding on their terms. At roughly the same time, however, he was reportedly quite open about the matter in private correspondence with ordinary interlocutors, and those emails are publicly available.
There is no contradiction here. If Chomsky says he did not know, then the reasonable position is to take him at his word. The suggestion that he was being disingenuous reflects more about his critics than about him.
As for Professor Norman Finkelstein, admiration aside, people differ in temperament and judgment. Chomsky has long maintained that individuals who have served their time, regardless of the crime, should be reintegrated into society, and that maintaining contact with them is not inherently wrong.
It is also worth emphasizing that Valeria appears to have led the relationship. At ninety years old, Chomsky may not have exercised the same level of “agency” people assume. History offers parallels: Vladimir Chertkov’s influence over Leo Tolstoy in his later years, Ralph Schoenman’s relationship with Bertrand Russell, and Pierre Victor’s proximity to Jean-Paul Sartre. In each case, observers later debated how much influence these figures had over aging intellectuals.
Hello Nic,
So you are aware, Noam has been unable to communicate in any degree at all, zero, since a stroke in June 2023.
To all, what I wrote was at most minimally about Noam. Instead the focus was the scale and motives of the response to Epstein and the character of the response regarding Noam, plus concerns about issues of innocence until proven guilty, guilt by association, and the right to privacy.
You know much more about Chomsky’s ability to communicate than I do. I would have assumed that Valeria Chomsky knows more about his ability to communicate than you do, but since I really don’t have any idea about her or their relationship, I’ll accept what you say and dismiss her statement completely as speaking for Noam in any way.
Of your 2,444 words, 1,492 deal with Chomsky. If you say that’s at most minimally about Noam, that’s fine by me too.
I was not saying that Chomsky was guilty of any crime. And I’m not disagreeing with the example of Faurisson or the like. Chomsky rightly stood up for his right to free speech. And epstein gets far too much attention and the attention should be about justice instead of scandal.
Chomsky also absolutely had the right to be friends with whoever he wanted to be friends with, including epstein. That’s absolutely true.
Another thing that’s absolutely true and is completely predictable (and was even in 2015) is that if you develop a friendship (a “deep and sincere and everlasting” friendship, according to Chomsky himself) with a guy who you know is a convicted sexual offender, who now has a “clean slate,” and that that sexual offence was with a minor, that lots of people would be absolutely horrified by that. Just by their friendship, nothing else.
We know that lots of people would be horrified by this because, as Chomsky himself often said “we live in this world, not in some world we would like to imagine.”
But again, that was without any doubt whatsoever Chomsky’s right. And he exercised that right. And now his work is being widely and predictably (and unfortunately) dismissed as a direct result of it.
Anyhow, it should go without saying, but you obviously don’t have to take any of my thoughts to heart or to consider them valid in any way. But there are lots of people who agree without “cancelling” him.
Now I’ll get back to writing my book, which deals with social responsibility and agency and encourages people to become active participants in society and our collective decision-making. Inspired in no small part by Chomsky (and you!).
Unfortunately, since we live in this world and not some other, Chomsky’s inspiration has now been extinguished for many other people for who knows how long to come.
” that that sexual offence was with a minor, that lots of people would be absolutely horrified by that. Just by their friendship, nothing else.”
And those people would be wrong, because they would be missing the full context.
1. Chomsky’s friendship with Epstein formed in a context where everyone around him in the scientific community was also at least friendly with Epstein. He was busy funding programs, arranging conferences and the like. In this context, why should anyone be shocked by the friendship?
2. The horror you describe arises from hindsight bias, Epstein didn’t have even the fraction of infamy back then that he has now. If he did, then you can bet Chomsky wouldn’t have befriended him.
3. The tradition of normalizing former criminals – even sex criminals – is a major tradition of the left, namely the abolitionist tradition. Normalization means accepting without prejudice. If you’re horrified by the friendship, then perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the abolitionist literature.
If you, like many others, see your inspiration from Chomsky diminishing, then I submit that your former inspiration from Chomsky never meant much, since I don’t think you understood his values or what he stood for.
I believe Michael is being too kind here. I have some thoughts about the leftists he refers to in this video: https://youtu.be/_rycZwFXPwo (titled Throwing Chomsky under the Bus)
Secondly, I’m exhausted by the cliché of “hero worship.” It’s become as reflexive and self-satisfied as saying “correlation is not causation.” Yes, we all understand the distinction, and while correlation isn’t causation, as one scientist wryly noted, the two are often correlated!! So let me dutifully perform the expected ritual and solemnly proclaim that we should avoid hero worship. But there is a meaningful difference between blind adulation and genuine respect. Feeling deep admiration and gratitude for someone whose achievements and contributions surpass the collective contribution of his current critics, including the sanctimonious Chris Hedges and the spineless Vijay Prashad, is not hero worship. The phrase itself has become a scare term, used to shut down appreciation rather than to illuminate excess. It’s a label we’d be better off retiring.
Hi,
I am unsure what was too kind. And, well, too kind for accomplishing what? I tried to communicate here partly about the whole Epstein conversation and where it can lead, but also with many people I disagree with regarding some norms of judgement, I guess we might call it, in a way that might be heard. Both those elements bear as well on how people now consider Noam.
For me, well, the problem with “hero worship” is the word “worship.” If I remember right, I addressed that in a prior article “Chomsky Reassessed?”
Yes hero worship is bad. I agreed but I was saying something more
Epstein was a shrewd, deranged, merciless, predatory puddle of human slime who knew how to target people and then ooze himself into their lives so that he could violate them. Chomsky was one of his victims. End of story.
Michael and Raghav
Thanks for some balanced commentary on the ‘Chomsky/Epstein’ saga; selective targeting as a means of deflection and retribution.
What appalls me is how eager many, who designate themselves as being of ‘the left,’ jumped on the denunciation bandwagon.
Some did so, I consider, as a means of self-preservation, distancing themselves from any perceived blowback of fallout they feared may be directed their way due to previous alignment with Noam and his work; even though he was influential in shaping their political maturity.
I wondered about mentioning some individuals whose finger-pointing and adoption of the high-moral-ground sickened me, but they’re really not worth it – moreover their individual body of works and contribution, some extremely valuable, are yet to amount to much in comparison to their former mentor they’re all to willing to cast to the lions.
Makes them little different to those in the MSM who have stuck the boots into Chomsky – perhaps that’s who the critics on the left are all too eager to please: the legacy/corporate outlets?
The denunciations of Chomsky also have a significant hindsight bias. If Epstein had the infamy that he has today, I am pretty sure Chomsky wouldn’t have befriended him to the extent of getting his help on a family dispute. The denunciations also omit the fact that Chomsky was shocked to learn about Epstein’s crimes after his arrest, so his ignorance of Epstein’s crimes (and possibly belief in Epstein’s ignorance) lasted only until his arrest. Third, Epstein was clearly smart. Lawrence Krauss in his description of his relationship with Epstein describes how Epstein was known in the scientific community as an unusually smart non-expert, capable of asking penetrative questions, and offering advice that many scientists appreciated. You cannot just show up and arrange conferences involving Stephen Hawking even if you have lots of money. All of this co-existed with his depraved criminality. People seem to have a very hard time accepting this reality.
Also worth adding that at this moment in time, the Epstein saga is entering the world of conspiracy theory. The idea that there is a pedophilic ring of elites of whom Epstein is a central figure – that is QAnon redux, and there is no evidence for it so far. It is a conspiracy theory that appeals to the right because of the QAnon parallels, and the left because there is something very appealing about the idea of a Zionist cabal of billionaire pedophiles. And the cancel culture that ensues is helping Trump with his project of eroding civil liberties, with glee.