I have long been an admirer, from my college days in Sri Lanka when I first came across his work, of Noam Chomsky, for his tireless support of oppressed people around the world, his deep analyses of the media, and his relentless critiques of the role of the US in creating and perpetuating injustices. He is not just one of the premier public intellectuals, he has been an inspiration of those seeking radical change around the globe.
Hence it came as a shock when the latest release of photographs from the Epstein files showed him flying with him in the latter’s private jet. Noam Chomsky? That Epstein would seek to ingratiate himself with Chomsky was no surprise, since Epstein, when not being an active pedophile, loved to surround himself with renowned intellectuals and used his wealth to buy that access, possible to compensate for the fact that he himself was not one. But what was Chomsky doing with a low-lifelike him? Many former admirers of Chomsky have been quick to to condemn him and Chomsky himself has not responded.
Michale Albert is someone who has known Chomsky well over five decades. Albert and Lydia Sargent founded the progressive magazine Z in 1987 as part of ZCommunications, later changed to ZNetwork. Albert has long been a friend of Chomsky and is possibly the best person to try and explain what happened and he has done so in a long essay that is well worth reading.
The first thing I learned is the reason for Chomsky’s silence. He suffered a devastating stroke in 2023 when he was 95 years old and has been unable to communicate since then. As Albert writes, following the release of the photo of Chomsky with Epstein:
But now, some people—I know not how many, I know not who—are, I have been told, taking a different path, at least regarding Noam. They say that Noam isn’t worth our attention, much less our praise and emulation. Noam, they say, is just another elite male misogynist perpetrator of the system that he only pretended to hate. Is such a conclusion warranted? Or is there something about so easily concluding that that is itself disturbing?
Am I exaggerating? I am no social media maven, quite the opposite, but I don’t think I am exaggerating. People have expressed horror. Anger. Disgust. How could he? Why did he? And have concluded I feel so deceived. So sullied. I have no further respect or time for him. Everything short of incinerating books. And so on.
I think that if Noam could—supposing that he would reply at all—he would say if that’s your conclusion about me, so be it, but please don’t let it deter you from traveling a good and needed activist organizing path. Pushed, I think he might add, I hope your new opinion won’t lead you to dismiss things I have written that might prove helpful to you in your journey.
…Okay, you may say, maybe he still is who I earlier thought he was, but not if there is no other explanation for why he would go on a jet with Epstein, or would stand seemingly laughing next to Bannon. Guilty until proven innocent! What’s left without another explanation? A critic announces it is that Noam liked these barbarians. Or even, he was fascism’s fellow traveler.
…So, here is another explanation. Noam routinely related to all sorts of stuff and people that most of us would never go near. If you asked him directly or in a letter, even seriously tone deaf or antagonistic or hostile questions, you got a serious, careful, civil answer often running to a few pages. He wrote dozens and then more dozens of such letters. Each week. You may have gotten one. And then after replies, he would answer again. Not exactly elitist. [I can personally testify to his willingness to communicate at length with anyone who wrote to him because that is what happened with me-MS]
…But now, some of what I take to be relevant answers. Noam has always hated injustice, hypocrisy, and lying. But he hasn’t very often drifted into hating the perpetrators. Just the system. There were, however, some exceptions. And in every case, his personal hostility would go toward so called “intellectuals,” academics, and elites. He raged at the “cultured” elites. They aroused his hate. Ironic, isn’t it? Seventy years of that and suddenly people claim he is palling around with them.
Knowing him before, during, and after each claimed horrible deviation, I am confident that Noam’s hate for sexism, misogyny, racism, exploitation and fascism didn’t lose even a tiny fraction of its passion and clarity due to his “time spent with” Epstein and/or Bannon. Just like his understanding of the American political system didn’t somehow disappear when he said we should vote for the lessor evil in swing states. And just like his compassion for victims of Pol Pot didn’t decline when he considered the western manipulative hypocritical take on Cambodia’s history. And just like his compassion for victims of Nazism didn’t diminish when he defended Faurisson’s free speech. And of course Chomsky isn’t saying anything now, because he can’t. And as to fooling us, what can I say? He never fooled me. I don’t know about you. He never believed in fooling anyone about anything. Anyone and especially intellectuals and elites trying to fool people with arcane terminology or fancy posturing, and even with blatant lies was another thing Noam hated. More, he absolutely hated and avoided like the plague, perhaps at times even a bit too much, using his high place in people’s estimates, and his considerable clout and platform to benefit himself, or even to benefit friends and others. He shunned employing anything other than facts and reasoning, certainly never reputation or position. He was severely self conscious about abusing his stature. He was even severely careful giving advice, lest anyone accept it uncritically. Finally, Noam did what most others in universities feared to do, over and over. And yes, when he was older and “established,” you might quite reasonably point out that his national and international stature made being fired or jailed unlikely. But when he was younger, during the Vietnam war, he expected to be jailed for a long time, and he prepared his family for what he thought was coming. But he didn’t temper his voice an iota.
I feel sad that the last days Chomsky’s brilliant life are to be colored by perceptions of this episode and I hope that Albert’s piece gets a wider readership.
Chomsky might be redeemable if he stopped contact after Epstein was first convicted, but he didn’t.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/22/noam-chomsky-jeffrey-epstein-ties-emails
the substance of the correspondence would be the most telling or exonerating. like, if he’d gone soft-headed with age and was oblivious to red flag throwers who fluffed his ego, ok. but likely the emails would give a strong idea as to how and where they hung out, and if chomsky was able to see all the girls and *not* gtfo, that’s really bad. the people at that mit lab visit saw them for just a few hours and discussed whether they should call the cops.
I know very little about Chomsky, and I never heard of him being all that relevant or helpful. I’ve never heard him quoted on any subject and thought “Yes, that clarifies a lot!” Nor have I ever got any sort of hint that I should read anything Chomsky wrote if I wanted to better understand anything related to progressive/left/social-democratic politics. I don’t have reason to consider him ignorant, dishonest or wrong — he just doesn’t seem to have anything to add or contribute to moving any debate forward.
Noam has always hated injustice, hypocrisy, and lying. But he hasn’t very often drifted into hating the perpetrators. Just the system.
Which isn’t very helpful, since ANY “system” anyone builds will be run by people, and those people will be real people, not saints or enlightened beings. Anyone who’s studied revolutions and revolutionary movements since 1776 would see this. So again, not very helpful — just like some bloody peasant in a Monty Python movie saying “now we see the violence inherent in the system!”
I think that if Noam could—supposing that he would reply at all—he would say if that’s your conclusion about me, so be it, but please don’t let it deter you from traveling a good and needed activist organizing path.
From what I’ve heard, there’s plenty of good people who’ve been doing just that without Chomsky’s help in the first place. We sure as hell don’t need Chomsky to understand and describe any of the gross injustices, failures and malfeasance of present-day neo-capitalism. Or to propose and advocate real remedies.
Raging Bee @3: I recommend Manufacturing Consent.
PS: I actually think Chomsky’s present irrelevance (IMO) goes a long way toward explaining why he’d fall in with Epstein. (Please note I said “explaining,” not “defending” or “excusing.” Like I said earlier, I don’t much give a shit about Chomsky, and I don’t consider him worth defending.) There are lots of public intellectuals — left, right and center — who never had anything to do with Epstein or anyone like him. They don’t need a Jeffrey Epstein to make them FEEL relevant, because (for better or worse) they already know damn well they ARE relevant.
As for whether Chomsky should have suspected something fishy about all those young women and girls in Epstein’s orbit, maybe Chomsky just wasn’t thinking along those lines at all. He didn’t think of them as “sex objects” (willing or not) because he wasn’t there for the sex. (Was he ever accused of inappropriate behavior toward students or other subordinates?)
Also, maybe he was, in part, an old-school chauvinist who was used to seeing pretty young women all around him and his male colleagues…so maybe he wouldn’t have seen anything all that unusual about all those young women at Epstein’s parties…?
The letters and files will hopefully offer some clarification eventually.
Raging Bee @ # 3: I never heard of him being all that relevant or helpful.
Chomsky did a great deal to open people’s eyes in the ’70s-through ’90s. If he seems irrelevant now, much of that comes from his perceptions having become so widely accepted along the way (much the same as with his -- major! -- contributions to linguistics).
He has also made his share of missteps, eagerly seized upon by agents of the powers-that-be (read: corporate media) as well as leftists apparently seeking to build themselves up by tearing down a towering figure under whose shadow they found themselves. All such errors that I know of have involved signing on to petitions and suchlike for what seemed worthy causes (he has regularly trusted the wrong people without doing sufficient investigation); none have been for or led to personal advancement.
I have spoken with Noam twice face-to-face (three times if you count a Q&A after a talk) and can testify that he dealt with unknowns like me sincerely and without arrogance, paying close attention and asking insightful questions. He certainly did not lech after the young women present (which I say as a man, but one in an aware and critical feminist community, none of whom had anything negative to say after his local appearances).
Raging Bee @#5,
The reason that you did not hear about Chomsky is because he suffered an almost complete blackout in US (and much of Western Europe) establishment media, largely because he exposed how complicit they were in enabling US abuses. The very fact that you had not heard about the person most identified in the rest of the world as the most influential intellectual shows how effective that silencing was in the US. In the rest of the world (such as in Sri Lanka) his writings were commonly available and I was shocked when I came to the US that I had to go to foreign media or buy his books to read his stuff.
I second Rob’s suggestion @#4 of reading Manufacturing Consent for the way the media filters out all voices and views that go against the establishment. There is an entertaining documentary based on the book that is available for free. You can read my discussion of the book and find a link to the documentary here. It is almost three hours long but well worth the watch.
There is no question that Chomsky was tireless in advocating on behalf of oppressed people everywhere and was an inspiration for many people and movements.
Chomsky did a great deal to open people’s eyes in the ’70s-through ’90s…
Examples, please?
If he seems irrelevant now, much of that comes from his perceptions having become so widely accepted along the way…
That’s one plausible explanation for his seeming irrelevance in the present day. Another plausible explanation is that many other people were already perceiving and describing the same things he did, both before and after he spoke out on them, so all of his perceptions were already part of the public dialogue. Again, not saying he was wrong, false or disproven — only that he seemed superfluous.
(I admit I’m speaking from a strong bias here. One major reason for this bias is that so many of the “leftists” or “anti-imperialists” who have mentioned Chomsky in Internet arguments have been idiots, phonies, and quite possibly Russian or COINTELPRO stooges; and they’ve never actually cited or quoted Chomsky in a way that adds to a discussion (YMMV of course). And another reason for my bias is that, IIRC, Chomsky had, at least at some point, identified as a “libertarian.” I knew libertarianism was bullshit and a scam as soon as I first heard about it, in 1978 at age 18. So when a much older man — a professor no less — takes that label for himself, that instantly discredits him as an intellectual or a serious thinker.)
…(much the same as with his — major! — contributions to linguistics).
Such as…?
Raging Bee @10:
You really, really need to educate yourself. You saw the word ‘libertarian’ and jumped to a lazy, stupid conclusion. Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. A very different position from those labelled as ‘libertarian’ in the US media.
If ‘stupid’ is deemed abusive, sorry, and replace with ‘thoughtless’.
Actually, I think it’s Chomsky who should have educated himself regarding what that word had come to mean BEFORE he chose to adopt it as a label. So, aside from being a socialist, how does Chomsky’s “libertarianism” differ from the kind the rest of us know all too well?
Also, I’ve heard several libertarians — the kind of people Chomsky supposedly isn’t one of — try to “legitimize” themselves and their ideology by insisting Chomsky has publicly declared himself to be one of them.
@3 Raging Bee
And so the tradition continues of some FTB commenters rushing out in front of everyone to declare they never interacted in any meaningful way with the ideas of an individual deemed persona non grata. I don’t understand the point of it — does it soothe your cognitive dissonance? Is there some rush of catharsis? Does the fact that I’ve read some Chomsky indelibly mark me and all of my descendants with the curse of Bannon?
Chomsky’s works are still sitting there on the shelf. I don’t think they lose value through this incident. All this news has accomplished is to get me thinking the Epstein files are serving as a tired old distraction from more important things going on in the world.
Actually, the label that Chomsky chooses to apply to his political views is anarcho-syndicalism which he explains here. It is not the kind of libertarianism people currently think of.
@Raging Bee #13
The following text is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Libertarian Socialism. More information can be found there. Use a search engine, or follow the link that Rob provided in comment #11.
Libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and workers’ self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property. Broadly defined, it includes schools of both anarchism and Marxism, as well as other tendencies that oppose the state and capitalism.
file thirteen: What you quoted sounds like a subset of libertarianism, called “liberaltarianism” or “left-libertarianism.” It pretends to oppose capitalism, but then undercuts that pretense by also opposing the only effective means of controlling or regulating capitalism — a powerful state enforcing the people’s will against predatory capitalists. Self-governance and workers’ self-management are good things, of course, but you need a strong state to force the 1% to respect them, otherwise they’d simply brush off all such organizations as “suggestions” they can ignore as they please. This has been a well-known fact of political life since the days of Alexander Hamilton (who was, and still is, hated by capitalists because he understood and admitted this fact). This “anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current” is nothing more than a sub-scam or branch-scam within the larger scam that is libertarianism. What Chomsky advocated (as your quote describes it at least) is wishful thinking and vaporware.
Outside the USA, the word “libertarian” generally denotes a person who is primarily concerned with protecting the liberty of the weak from the strong.
Within the USA, it means pretty much the opposite of that.
Because there is such controversy about Chomsky I made an attempt to read some of his works. I found them impenetrable. Most of this discussion seems way over my head.
I find myself neither surprised or uncaring about seeing the man in Epstein’s presence.
seachange: I’m reading the 1976 interview cited by Mano @16. I wouldn’t say it’s “over my head,” but it’s a lot of abstract discussion/rumination/fantasizing about neighborhood- and shop-level workers’ mutual-aid collective organizations, which is what he seemed to mean by “anarcho-syndicalism.” And he admits he can think of only one serious anarcho-syndicalist revolution, Spain in 1936 — which he also admits was “destroyed by force” — which is to say it failed because the Republican state was unable to protect it against attack by a minority of capitalists and militarists. Which pretty much proves the fatal flaw of all “anarcho-whatever” pipedreams.
He also talked a bit about the Jeffersonian branch of US political thinking, and seemed oblivious to the fact that capitalists have always supported that small-government tradition because it suits their own interests — not those of ordinary people.
As for “impenetrable,” I’d say his comments in that particular interview are a lot of words that, on closer reading, don’t really say much of anything. He’s said things like “this question needs to be answered,” without answering it; or “we have to consider this specific circumstance” without considering it. His commentary isn’t TOTALLY devoid of substance, only about 95% devoid of it. It sure as hell doesn’t make me want to read anything else he’s written.
@Raging Bee #18
I’m not an advocate of it myself, but I have to take your assessment with a grain of salt when you admit that you have only just learned about it. I was just trying to coach you towards educating yourself before asking unnecessary questions when the information superhighway is at your fingertips -- that is what I do. I mention this only because your question came across to me as a leading question if not facetious, which would be a dangerous game to play when the owner of the blog’s policy is “don’t be a jerk”.