An alternative view. Don't agree with her downplaying of the epstein files or with the attempted normalisation of their relationship - if that's typical behaviour of uni faculty towards donors in the US, then shouldn't someone like NC be criticising and refusing to participate rather than enthusiastically joining in with the rich boys' club? Also, if Chomsky was socially illiterate and unaware of epstein's sexual deviancies (quite a feat in itself), how could he not know that he was politically an arch zionist very probably in the pocket of mossad?
Anyway, if the point is don't throw away Chomsky's work and don't engage in a performative social media show trial, then fine, I agree.
cheers, I
PS: Michael Tracey the only person looking into the epstein files 'objectively'? (per the footnote) Not what I've heard, mainly from DD. Though I couldn't stick to their debate with him for longer than 5 mins admittedly...
In Defense of Noam Chomsky Against the Tabloid Left & Stalinoid Political Snuff Theatre Frenzy Tara van Dijk Feb 11, 2026
Jimmy Dore Show, Due Dissidence, Bad Faith & Alan MacLeod, Bad Empanada, Chris Hedges, Mint Press News, Syriana Analysis, TYT, Propaganda Inc, and Red Scare
With Comrades like these?
A fresh dump of “Epstein files” chum has served up Professor Noam Chomsky, 97 and in hospice after a massive stroke, for another round in the pillory. The Left is feasting. Soon there will be nothing left of the sacrificial elder; the bones will be picked clean.
What are we to make of this political snuff theatre? A historical analogy, the Stalin-era show trials, helps clarify the Left’s appetites: the lust for purges, purity spirals, virtue signalling, public recantations, and the rest that now goes under the rubric of “cancel culture”.
First, I will lay out the basic facts for readers unfamiliar with the basis on which Chomsky’s alleged political and moral crimes are being constructed. I will also share a few remarks from others who knew him about his character and his approach to dealing with detractors and “enemies”, to use Chris “Vyshinky” Hedges’ terminology in his summary judgement of Chomsky’s “betrayal”. Given how loaded the name “Epstein” is now, compared to 2015–2019 (the period in question), I will refer to him as “Mr. E”.
Pertinent Background
Noam Chomsky was a linguistics professor at MIT (from 1955) whose work helped found modern generative linguistics, with wider influence across cognitive science and philosophy of language. He became a prominent public dissident during the Vietnam War era, beginning with “The Responsibility of Intellectuals,” and went on to publish extensively on US power, propaganda, and international relations.
He knew much about the world’s evils, yet didn’t know what Saturday Night Live was when he was invited on. He was a workaholic under constant, relentless demand. Read the memoir of his longtime secretary, Bev Stohl, for a sense of what his everyday life was like. He also assigned the royalties of his books to others at signings. - Greg Grandin
It is an incontrovertible fact that Professor Chomsky met and corresponded with everyone. He didn’t discriminate; that was his modus operandi. That disposes of the bulk of the accusations leveled against Professor Chomsky. - Norman Finkelstein
How Jeffrey Met Noam
Mr. E was a significant donor to MIT, and patronage at elite institutions includes access. Donors want to meet and socialise with prominent professors and scientists. Universities facilitate this through events designed for precisely that purpose. Faculty are often expected to participate when they can. The amount of “donor-facing” time can be informal, or it can be part of the institutional expectations attached to one’s role. It was at one of these events that the ill-fated relationship began.
Emails, photographs, and Valeria Chomsky’s recent statement indicate that a friendly relationship developed. Given Chomsky’s long-standing work on Israel–Palestine, Mr. E arranged a meeting with Ehud Barak. The Chomskys attended a few dinners hosted by Mr. E, including one with Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn, and another at which Steve Bannon was also present.
There were also emails involving a distressing set of issues around Chomsky’s retirement and the family trust that followed his first wife’s death, which strained relations with his three adult children. Mr. E helped the Chomskys sort this out. In that context, even the much-cited letter of recommendation begins to look less like ideological treason than ordinary reciprocity: returning a favour.
Much performative outrage has been made of Chomsky writing that he was “fantasising” about a Caribbean getaway. If they were, as stated, under financial and famial stress at the time, that line reads less like a smoking gun than clickbait alchemy.
Finally, Chomsky replied to an email in which Mr. E asked for advice on handling a media firestorm in 2019. The reply, insofar as it can be characterised on the record, was generic counsel rather than anything resembling professional crisis management. Anyone not combing through the “files” for gotcha lines can see he wasn’t offering to be an Olivia Pope for the embattled Mr. E. But of course the tabloid Left isn’t interested in facts or nuance. Exhibit A: the correspondence made the apparently credulous, and clearly cowardly, Vijay Prashad “shudder” (insert the most massive eye roll here).
Show Trials as Political Communion Ritual
Stalin’s show trials were public proceedings in which guilt had already been decided. They were political theatre. The allegations supplied the rising action, the confession the climax, and the self-recriminations and recantations the falling action. The verdict, delivered at the end, had been determined in advance.
The courtroom was converted into a perverter of truth. Everyone knew it was a performance, yet everyone performed anyway, including the wretched soul on trial. That shared compliance is the point. Everyone is in on it.
Show trials served a deterrent function, of course. But they were also pedagogical. The public humiliation of the accused teaches the audience what loyalty to the Party means in practice. Most importantly, they functioned as political communion, an interpellation ritual. When the Party, embodied in Stalin, hails the prosecutor, judge, accused, and audience, each answers in the proper register and plays their part.
Today’s cancellation campaigns share more with Stalin era show trials than guardians of the Left can admit. The gulag, the bullet, and the noose are replaced by reputational annihilation. In Chomsky’s case, your entire contribution to politics and culture is “re-evaluated”, demoted within the canon, or purged in total if the Stalinoid Marxist–Leninist revivalist sects have their way.
The Chomsky show trial
Chomsky is not implicated in any of the ever-expanding, ever-more-salacious crimes now being attributed to the conveniently dead Epstein.1 The dead can’t sue for libel or defamation, nor can they have their day in court. Yet Chomsky is being prosecuted in absentia for a series of unfalsifiable crimes against the Left. The allegations range from hypocrisy to “controlled opposition” to being a witting intelligence asset to being a “pedo defender”. The maximum sentence is reputational liquidation: purge the “compromised” corpus, exile the “pathetic fans,” and make the name itself, Chomsky as signifier, radioactive.
This carnival of condemnation, revision, and bargaining is not taking place in a court. It is distributed via social media and tabloid-left media churn consisting of: petty prosecutors and judges; former colleagues, collaborators, and friends performing distancing (“no excuse, but…”) and bargaining (“he was 90”); base virtue signalling; threads of decontextualised tidbits arranged into the most damning (and often absurd) post hoc narratives; ad hominem and revisionist outbursts from Stalinists and other campists; guilt by association; and sentencing delivered in advance. The one thing their behavior agrees on is that Chomsky is guilty of some fluid and plastic offense.
Remember him for nothing else than that photo with Epstein, now elevated into the wringleader of a “global elite Satanic paedo cult” that obviously exists and rules us all. Chomsky’s role, naturally, was to play the “reasonable” or “designated” Left to fool you. Sounds legit, right? Don’t think. React and enjoy the bonding ritual.
For the Stalinoids, the goal is the Trotsky treatment. Elevate Chomsky into a designated traitor whose ritual denunciation binds the cadre. This performative show trial, staged as “revelation,” “unmasking,” or “purifying the Left,” isn’t about truth. It’s about control. It is an interpellation ritual into a political libidinal economy, a form of political enjoyment. Fail to comply, as dictated by the self-appointed Central Committee of the feed, and you’ll find yourself in the virtual dock.
The inquisitors weaponise the ongoing “Epstein files” to settle old scores, farm engagement, or give sermons from their YouTube channels. Where argument would require evidence, historical record, logic, and moral reasoning, the show trial offers something easier and more libidinally gratifying: contamination, denunciation, and obliteration.
Self-Destructive Delights of the Late-Stage Cannibal Left: I’d Prefer Not To
The Left is a zombie, but leftists remain in denial. The jolts of enjoyment they get from purges, purity spirals, and endless relitigations of the past, whether last week or over a hundred years ago, are treated as proof of vitality. They are not. Their words say “join us”; their actions say “members only.” Many exceptions apply, and yes, we burn witches here.
Trots or tankie? WGAF outside those sects. Culture war or class war? Both, obviously. They are two sides of the same coin. Who is the best “working-class” whisperer, ventriloquist, teacher? Wrong question. The question is what it is about the Left today that puts so many people off, rightly. But I suppose it is too much to ask those who bang on about “the dialectic” to apply it to themselves, and to the historical moment they are in.
Please let this tragic-farcical grotesquerie—this political snuff theatre frenzy of Professor Chomsky—be the end of the Left’s long death march, so that something new can be built from the ashes.
In a follow-up out this week, The Show Trial of Noam Chomsky Cast & Playbook covers the cast of characters, the their roles (denouncer, distancer, bargainer, infantiliser, cynic, umpire) the standard fallacies and sophistries and the Epstein quiliting point. Not about Chomsky’s legacy, but the mechanics (and delights) of the pile-on that wants to rewrite it.
1
It is beyond the scope to go into the “Epstein Files”. Michael Tracey is one of the only people looking at this story, and the files, objectively. Seems that there maybe lots and lots of smoke but only an ember or two. Truth will out.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
I have always admired the severely factual nature of Mr Bs analysis. Of course his comments page is filled with virtuous opinions and puerlie gibes. But that is true everywhere. gb
'Jeffrey Epstein was notoriously involved in sexual activities (not intercourse) with female teenagers. In the known cases the youngest was fourteen at the time of her first encounter with Epstein (but had been told to lie to Epstein about her age before meeting him). There is no suspicion and no credible allegation that Epstein did ever do anything sexual with prepubescent children.
The girls were paid by Epstein to perform massages on him while being bare breasted or naked. While they were doing so he tended to masturbate. These contacts were consensual. No force was applied. The girls received $200 to $300 for each session. That’s a lot of money for an hour long effort for someone at that age.
It is certainly a weird habit for Epstein to have but it had nothing to do with pedophilia.
[...]
One wonders why girls who were paid to do consensual massages are suddenly classified as ‘survivors’. There are no allegation that any of them has ever been forced or threatened. These weren’t ‘survivors’ and not even ‘victims’ but service providers.'
Posted by RaskolnikovX on February 11, 2026, 6:06 pm, in reply to "'service providers'"
I'm caught somewhere in the middle on this. From the start I've said the media had tried to limit the story to these women and were using "paedophille" and "sex-trafficking" as emotive descriptions to make people angry without really thinking. Technically, at least as far as we know, there was no paedophillia involved (although I'd bet that there probably is some that hasn't come out yet). The "sex-trafficking" is lawyered language based on the old Mann Act and Florida's high age of consent (taking a "minor" across state lines for immoral purposes). So whenever one of these women who was under 21 went out of Florida with Epstein this was technically sex-trafficking.
None of that excuses them raping 14, 15, 16 year-olds and I would like to see all the perpetrators buried under the prison but there was definitely some overstatement when it came to V.G. and some of the other high profile, Gloria Allred superstars. They were being given modelling contracts, art shows, money, etc. and M.T. is (mostly) correct about them not being held against their will (there was one case which didn't get to court where she was taken to some ranch in Arizona or something like that and held in a room for three days. The rapist was some high-level politician, an ex-state governor iirc). I realise there are lots of other ways to coerce people than force but a lot of the women who were asked to go to his Florida mansion could have just refused the next time it came up. The usual rebuttal to that is he was rich and powerful, we didn't know what he could do to us, which is very true for the under-eighteens but for the street-wise adults after the first time you
Having said all that, and not feeling good about it, Tracey takes it way too far the other way. He really does seem to have some sort of hangup about accusations of sexual abuse and his constant framing of them all as making everything up is nuts.
I'm conflicted about a lot of it; part of me thinks V.G. should have been charged seeing as she was one of the main recruiters in Florida and she knew what she was getting them into.
I'm probably falling into any number of chauvinist traps here but there some truth to what MT says but he's way over on the other extreme and definitely gives me the ick.
Of course we always have to bear in mind, these releases are what we're seeing after it's been curated for god knows how long. They've obviously planted some stuff that's clearly not true as poison fruit than can be used to try and discredit everything if anyone ever tries to use it and the really damaging stuff has probably been destroyed a long time ago. The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
Re: 'service providers'
Posted by Jackie on February 11, 2026, 8:45 pm, in reply to "'service providers'"
“Puke...“
Ditto.
This is reminiscent of most high profile cases of sexual assault and exploitation. It can’t be proven and the women or girls end up looking like flakes.
Recruiting kids from the school yard, then getting them to strip and give you a massage while you jerk off. What’s wrong with that?
Vulnerable youngsters are fair game for powerful predators. Reminds me of Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Dr Zhivago, the European guy who raped hotel maids 20 years ago or so, and many other similar stories. When the rich guy is tired of them, they are tossed away and disdained for being so weak.
The phenomenon is real but who cares what happens to poor dumb kids and women? Who are they to accuse a rich man?
There's no doubt that an organised campaign is under way to denigrate, diminish and suppress what has been done and to whom. That people could choose to join transgressive groups is depressing, such things are as banal as they are wrong. Grown women have more psychological power to perform as adults than adolescents; I suppose that is why they are perpetrators rather than victims.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
I guess the strength of the Tracey argument, such as it is, rests on the lack of convictions when it comes to epstein. The problem with #metoo was the way it encouraged people to 'believe women' without having claims tested in court after going through the necessary evidence. That's probably what Chomsky had in mind with his depiction of cancel culture feminazis, or whatever phrasing he used. Conveniently epstein missed out on his trial for all the worst accusations and the 2008 conviction was a backroom sweetheart deal that let him - and potential 'co-conspirators' off the hook for a token year-long sentence after pleading guilty to assault or 'trafficking' the 'nearly 18' girl.
The trouble for that argument is the huge, multi-year police and FBI investigation which collected testimony from around 80 girls who were 14, 15, 16 years old at the time, all of whom gave nearly the same story, with near identical details for how the abuse took place. As far as I know (not having followed the case at all closely, correct me if I'm wrong) these are the case files that haven't been released, thousands of pages of them. However, they were seen by the Miami Herald reporter, who also interviewed relevant police & legal people, all confirming the overwhelming likelihood of the truth of the allegations.
So yes, the accusations haven't been tested in court and all the evidence hasn't been brought up and cross-examined before coming to a verdict. But it's dishonest of Tracey & those like him who use this fact to dismiss the testimony of the 80 young girls and the entirety of the police file that was built up by the police & the FBI over the course of many years, insisting that 'there's nothing to see here'.
Feel free to correct the above or add any bits I've missed.
cheers, I
PS, Jackie said: 'The phenomenon is real but who cares what happens to poor dumb kids and women? Who are they to accuse a rich man?' - Indeed, I wasn't aware that epstein deliberately sought out poor, underprivileged girls before getting them to groom their schoolfriends, but it stands to reason from what I've heard about other sexual predators picking off the most vulnerable, the least likely to kick up a fuss. From the article:
'Most of the girls came from disadvantaged families, single-parent homes or foster care. Some had experienced troubles that belied their ages: They had parents and friends who committed suicide; mothers abused by husbands and boyfriends; fathers who molested and beat them. One girl had watched her stepfather strangle her 8-year-old stepbrother, according to court records obtained by the Herald. Many of the girls were one step away from homelessness. “We were stupid, poor children,’’ said one woman, who did not want to be named because she never told anyone about Epstein. At the time, she said, she was 14 and a high school freshman. “We just wanted money for school clothes, for shoes. I remember wearing shoes too tight for three years in a row. We had no family and no guidance, and we were told that we were going to just have to sit in a room topless and he was going to just look at us. It sounded so simple, and was going to be easy money for just sitting there.” '
The Moon of Alabama comment is disgusting for making it sound like this was just a smart way these girls chose to earn a little bit of pocket money. It ignores the power dynamic, the impressionability of kids at that age, the vulnerability of being brought by yourself to a strange, wealthy man's house, etc etc. It's almost like he's trying to sell the 'woke' line about 'sex work' being an empowering female decision of how to earn a living in modern capitalist society.
Anyway, I need to go and look at cat videos or something to pull my head out of this sewer...
I remember that video. Tracey has got even worse from then, which takes some doing. There's been some manipulation and some of the adults had enough agency that you can say they were entering into a transactional relationship and the media, or at least those controlling it, did try to limit the Epstein story to those women, probably because that conclusion would tend to lessen the impact of the story.
To look at the entirety of the evidence and just dismiss it as women conning rich men as Tracey does while pretending he's somehow the only one who is looking at the evidence is wild. The fact that he's relying on the "official" record is in itself not the great brag he thinks it is given how much they are going to be sanitising everything.
He also has some balls to try and dismiss Julie Brown's work as she almost single-handedly tried to break the story and kept pushing it until people started giving a fuck.
Tracey's defense of this has gone from a strange quirk to the behaviour of someone who is compromised in some way.The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
Who is this Tracey?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
Very trollish, sometime investigative reporter who has recently become obsessed with trying to "nothing to see here" the whole Epstein mostly by accusing all the victim of lying for profit and stating that "there is nothing in the official record that shows that" for pretty much anything else leading people to question his motives.The corporate media are complicit in the Gaza genocide. Never forget what they did. Never forgive them for it.
Ah, thanks.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
Thanks Rask, that sounds about right re: Tracey and his attempted dismissal of basically the whole case. Sounds like he might be on firmer ground questioning the truthfulness of claims made by Virginia Giuffre and other adult women, as you say, esp when this combines with tabloid sensationalism. Needs proper investigation, not just accepting at face value. However there's enough evidence emerged from the emails so far to suggest that the claim of an international child trafficking ring and/or kompromat operation is IMO the likely truth of the matter, and certainly can't be dismissed outright at this stage.
on February 11, 2026, 3:32 pm