Come on, what do we really think of Chomsky now...
Posted by Ed on February 7, 2026, 6:57 pm
...real feelings without throwing the bathwater out with the baby. Having a hard time with this."I won't dignify the attacker's words by repeating them, they are horrific and vile."
Re: Come on, what do we really think of Chomsky now...
Keeping an open mind.The last working-class hero in England. Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ??? - 4 November 2021 Georgina the cat ???-4 December 2025
Re: Come on, what do we really think of Chomsky now...
Lately I've been thinking about one of my favourite Chomsky quotes:
'If you are not offending people who ought to be offended, you’re doing something wrong [...] if I was asked by the New York Times to write op-eds regularly, I’d think I’m probably doing something wrong, because obviously they would be seeing what I’m doing as supportive to the power systems that they try to defend. And that’s not what I would like to be doing.'
The financial aspect of his epstein relationship whereby it seems that because a lot of other MIT staff were using him for money problems, he thought he'd do the same makes me think that he never really applied the above line of reasoning to academia or the institution which employed him. It all seems so cosy and chummy, all the old boys helping one another out, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, "don't worry Noam, I know a guy who can help you out with that" etc. He seems comfortable being part of the furniture there, and doesn't appear willing to subject what goes on there to his otherwise formidable critical scrutiny. Institutionalised, in other words.
Why did he never cause offense at MIT enough for them to bounce him out? More to the point, why did he not find anything in epstein that he needed to offend? I guess it's an irresistible part of being a social animal that we can't go through our whole lives alienating the people around us - there's always a strong need to smooth things over and make compromises or sacrifices in order to make things easier for the group we find ourselves in. But you still have the choice of the group you want to belong to. For all that Chomsky befriended the oppressed and undeniably kept them at the forefront of his thinking, he made also the choice to tie himself long term to the elite, MIC-adjacent institution of MIT. I think what we're seeing in the epstein files is evidence of what that choice resulted in.
That's the crux of the matter, Ian. The MIT funded his work on linguistics for decades...they wouldn't have done that had his theories not been compatible with the military-industrial complex. I saw Chomsky speak twice in the same week when I lived in London years ago. He spoke at 'The Rebellious Media Conference' where the audience were mostly activists and a lot of anarchists were there. He seemed ill at ease, a bit rushed and irritated by some of the questions. A few days later he had a lecture at Kings College London on Geopolitics (Changing contours of World Order, or something) but he was sharp, in a good mood, flowing, articulate, his encyclepedic knowledge on full display...much more at home in an academic setting amongst academic types. Might've been that he was still jet-lagged at the first talk but the difference was night and day and always stuck with me.
Re: Come on, what do we really think of Chomsky now...
Interesting observation, Fionn, thx for sharing. I can believe the difference in his demeanour between the 2 events you describe, and also wouldn't put it down to jet lag. He's just more at home in those circles. Fair enough, I guess, but it becomes a harder sell if you're still trying to call yourself an anarchist! I had a re-read of Darren Allen's critique, fitting him into the socialist/statist category and also taking issue with his lack of critique towards academia, and more of it rings true after these revelations. (His attitude towards the unvaxxed was the real eye-opener for me.)
Good video from Dore. It's devastating. Many things irked me about Chomsky but his work chronicling the crimes of Empire and nature of power were enough for me to maintain his image as an essential thinker in a culture which treated as taboo much of the truth he exposed. But as Allen stated, his thinking and writing had disastrous limitations. What's worse is the likelihood that these limitations were deliberate and nefarious rather than blind and innocent. Did we on the 'radical left' really spend the formative decades of our lives as sheep carefully penned in a deadend by this clever establishment sheepdog?
He was my teacher at primary school. He taught me about narrative, he taught me about pattern, about myth...about religion...and how to really to see outside the box. He taught me more than anyone really and I owe him
Yet when surrounded by the middle and upper classes I find his attitude to them beholding...almost craven. I don't really understand how someone who taught me to be the way I am could be so obsequious to mere money and power.
-And I don't understand Chomsky in this either, but I think I can say I've seen this pattern before.
I recall an interview with Monty Python members in which the interviewer tried to assert some new intellectual paradigm in comedy. I recall the response, from Palin or Cleese as “I think all we were really doing was blowing a big raspberry at the British establishment”. Kudos to them.
For some decades, to his credit, Chomsky was able to persist in almost single-handedly blowing a big Raspberry at the US establishment, which was entertaining to behold.
Well it turns out Chomsky had a soupcon of behind the scenes establishment aspirations himself, and now the Epstein files in this regard have successfully blown a big raspberry at Chomsky. Thank-you Epstein files.
With the exception of academics who genuinely suffered, like Parenti and Finkelstein, always toss away the person and keep the idea. Its a central precept of academia - its what they would do to you.
on February 7, 2026, 6:57 pm