Thank you Norman for your honest and passionate contribution to civil discourse.
Try as people may by implicating Professor Chomsky in the travesty of the behaviour of the Epstein class, nothing will diminish his leading roll in explaining and exposing the machinations of power and the corruption in the twentieth century and beyond.
He will always be a legend in my eyes and many many others.
Chomsky admonished the left for caring about the JFK assassination or the massive coverup behind 9/11. His legacy is the personification of the CIA, Epstein-class approved Acceptable Left.
Photos of him yucking it up with Bannon and on a private jet should be more than enough for anyone to re-evaluate their priors.
Ahh the usual empty grand conspiracy approach. Why should he not meet Bannon by the way? Had I the opportunity to talk to him I probably would. yukking it up is your projection too. Standard conspiracy theory crankery.
Chomsky had little time for that garbage. I learnt well from his example. I won't be continuing a discussion with a keyboard warrior on this by the way. So be well, and in the five minutes you need spend on it, vote Democrat next election and let's try to move forward instead of into the fantasy world you inhabit.
Holy moly. My comment was from January 21. ie Before the latest massive tranche of emails, including so many from Chomsky to Epstein which vindicate me completely. Did you even look at them?
No they don't vindicate you, I did look at them. They don't vindicate you at all. However I should have more sense than to reply to an old comment, especially one with an idiotic 'nym. I suppose you have some grand conspiracy around the Kennedy assassination. Good luck with that.
Shut up, retard. If you don't know that organized minorities select people who threaten them you're a fucking retard. Probably another dishonest Jew like him.
it's ironic don't you think, that those damning Chomskys defenders as 'hero worshipers" expect him to have spent every day of his life crafting his image as a hero, to be worshiped? And never for a moment does it gel in their cancellation consciousness that if it was his intention to preserve that phoney image, the last thing he would do is compromise it by associating with such a person.
I never new the man but I suspect the profile as gregarious, unassuming, unsuspecting, generous man.
He was. I can attest to it personally. I don't normally go there but I will this time. I can personally attest to Noam Chomsky's integrity, kindness and generosity. Including financially. He could have been a multi millionaire on book sales alone; as it was he barely got a decent pension for Valeria. Whatevs we won't go further on that route.
I was destitute, I mean that literally, due to illness at one time, chronic condition not expected to resolve, decades ago now. I obviously was not attached to an University as a consequence.
Dirt poor and unlikely to ever see anything different. My old University, though in later years I did get some assistance from other academics, ghosted me on some technicality. "Too busy old boy, sorry..." I decided that I would continue my academic inquiries as best I could, just 'in case' as it were.
I did get ONE reply to academic queries I made, a complicated and naive one, that was from Noam. In other words ghosted by some mid level academics, fair enough, I got a reply from THE giant in our field, and a detailed one, which must have taken up a lot of time. I say again, there was no possible way Noam could have seen any benefit at all for himself, reputationally or otherwise in this exchange. Not even a good graduate student as things stood. Not that he was ever short of applicants of top quality.
I continued for years in occasional correspondence with him. Eventually he was, not by me, asked to give me a reference. He knew nothing about my background beyond our interchanges. He gave me an enthusiastic and over generous one all the same on trust as it were. He did I will add, influence my political views a lot as time passed. Initially I was totally opposed to what he said. He never wavered though in answering my technical questions.
I know for a fact, he replied to every query he got, sometimes four hours a day it took or longer.
I am sick of these gossips and third rate journos making insinuations and so on, cherry picking quotes from a pile of emails of all kinds.
Again it works both ways. The logic, I am wondering how much there is regarding anybody regarding what I now see more and more as a 'grand conspiracy'.
By the way, I did take Noam's lead, I do exactly what he did, if I had a email from Bannon or Epstein, I would have answered it to the best of my ability. It doesn't take me 4 hours a day though I promise you. Thanks for that you made my day: I shall not forget you. 😁
You elicited from me, by your own generosity of spirit a pitch perfect account of my own experience that I would not have found otherwise. Just like Noam did on some topics. He would be and will be pleased to hear the tale.
Thank you Professor, I am honored and grateful that you returned your good colleague's letter of recommendation, and I feel very lucky to have played a minor role in an exchange between two great men I have long admired.
Just one comment. A lot of his current detractors are young and don't know the measure of the tide he stood against, and how much he turned it. They only know it wasn't enough and they blame that on him, maybe because he was a giant of his age.
John, Chomsky is very unwell at present. He is very old. I assure you that if you had written to him, he would have replied to you too like he always did. In your case with enthusiasm in my opinion and for sure! No they have no idea of the struggle regarding Vietnam or the potential sacrifice in terms of career and, in fact, a real threat of jail, that Noam faced.
You give zero honest arguments. You resort mostly to ad hominems. Denial is a river in Egypt. Your pal Chomsky is heavily compromised. He is a limited hangout agent. You don't even understand what this means. It may be time you learned about the 24 logical fallacies.
Oh my your knickers are in a twist. You keep repeating yourself. Good bye, you can quit following my comments round too. You make yourself look more and more foolish. "limited hangout agent", wheredja get that one from 😂
It is cringeful to witness your naivety and gullibility. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
I did look at it, five minutes was enough and the fools in the comments section.. whew! "I don't want to come across as arrogant" they guy says, well he did, he is a fool too. "Rothschilds" FFS, gimme a break.
It has to be said that the Middle East is the mothership for cranky conspiracy theories. I undertand it to some extent, nobody could believe the horrors inflicted on Gaza and elsewhere could come about by anything other than a deeply hidden Evil. However the reality is that they come about due to us, our electoral choices and our politics and our refusal to accept the realities of foreign interventions and so on.
Epstein and so on serve as scapegoats to some extent, and then become vehicles for anti semitic myths like these you linked.
OMG... you don't understand the concept of deep state actors and the permanent state. You are such a fool. The loon link you sent me is as credible as the "for profit" Fact Checkers propagandists you gullible believe. Is there anything you believe that you were not told to believe? Is it possible there is a critical thinking neuron inside your cranium? Dr. Shiva is infinitely more intelligent than you.
Regarding the Great American Loons site. A lot of what they talk about is something I know a lot about, virology really. The Shiva guy is totally insane. However I don't expect the public at large to have enough professional knowledge about biology to fully understand why, though most of them do really. anti vaxx grand conspiracy thinking, showing actually how all of these fairy tales start to merge together somehow.
Infinitely more intelligent than me. I am sure he is, that makes him very very clever. He should go on "Jeopardy", he could get rich too. His scams or 'alternative health' enterprises probably bring him some cash already.
I know, I need to understand the permanent State, you know the one with a DOJ and Congress that voted unanimously to 'open' this dump of miscellaneous private correspondence, photos and goodness knows what, inviting endless dot joining, which will be here for decades now. The MSM that never stop on about it, milking it to death too. Oh and the British Royal Family who are allowing the Andrew formerly known as Prince to be stripped of title and reputation and now arrested. Very deep state.
The main protagonists in the 'transparency' law, being grandstanding Democrats in Congress, and Congressional loons, like MTG. Yeah very 'deep state'. Oh and the FBI material there, a lot of it idle and unsupported gossip and salacious lies from... well from loons like you really. That's it from me.
This is the problem, Shiva was actually defended up to a point by Noam at one time regarding a complicated dispute about who invented 'email', depending what one means.
Since he is also a loon, Shiva that is, regarding things that I know about scientifically as it were, I am not inclined to take him seriously to be honest. A Great American Loon, in a proud tradition. Do you swallow anything as long as it is 'unofficial' as it were?
Shiva is totally and utterly deranged now. Ask Shiva? gimme a break and just in passing I am tired of that rhetorical trope, "ask so and so", it is arch and irritiating. Any as for the loon in question
In fact there is a pattern here. I, like you, am a pattern seeker in a complex almost unintelligible World, in the blooming buzzing confusion of empirical reality.
I didn't look at your link, I have been dealing with 'morons' who push this 'controlled opposition' baloney for some time. Most are conspiracy grifters. Actually Mossad don't need much of a presence in America, the Dems and left do most of their work for them in case you hadn't noticed? In what way, do the American Left, and the Dems as a whole, fail to do anything that a Mossad 'controlled opposition' would have to do? Blackmail the full on Zionist Alan Dersowitz to do what he is already gleefully doing for example? 😉
I digress, back to the pattern seeking.
The pattern is that most of the those clutching their pearls regarding Chomsky's tangential contacts with various people have some other beef with him. I get something similar I will say, I get the same thing at a far milder level, since I too, refuse to conform to unfounded and distracting concerns and grand conspiracies. Notably 911Trutherism.
Cenk Uygur, is the latest audience captured leftist to start entertaining it again. Merging it at some point, to be swallowed whole by his fans, with the X files or Epstein Files, neither of which actually exist really. Cenk's 'hook' is a couple of passports, remaining intact while Twin Towers burnt. The terrorist's passport was a Saudi one, while America attacked in revenge Iraq: what were the deep state thinking of!!!? How careless, they must have been 'morons'. Any you know since birds of a feather do flock together...?
The critics actually have some other beef with Noam invariably. "Holocaust denier' being one of the other major ones: 'self hating Jew'...
I could go on and on. Often the beef stems from his refusal to acknowledge or give any cred to 911Truther and other fantasies. Owen Jones, who I had some time for, recently, in regard to this supposed scandal interviewed Chris Knight, without consulting anybody, as far as I know, who knew any linguistics. Chris Knight is a fool, knows nothing about the Linguistics but presents himself otherwise as an analyst of the 'two Chomskys'. Owen Jones fell for it.
One commentator recently on Mehdi Hasan's site has it that 'Chomsky is a man', that's that then 😆
Well he didn't as far as I can see and in fact on what I know of him personally. What on Earth do you mean? How much more prominence can you get than being the most cited living intellectual, with honors nearly hard to list? Acknowledged as founding a whole field in science, or transforming it into something new: Linguistics.
You do couch it as a hypothetical, 'if he sold... ", he didn't that I know of.
And the next step, always, after the Conspiracy loons have walked into it and shown that they have loony beef with Noam and they always do when they pretend they are 'disappointed' and so on in his interactions with Epsetein, is to then accuse the defenders of Noam, as it were, of 'Shilling for Mossad' or whatever.
I won't treat that as the veiled threat it is and report it. Since I provoked it and you, frankly, fool that you are, walked into it. Again thanks for confirming my view of this as a grand conspiracy on the lines of 911Trutherism and so on. However I have taken up enough space and indeed helped clutter Norman's useful and helpful blog.
Guess he didn't know anything much actually. To be honest that is what I think. I know I should jump to my own favored conclusion like everybody else. Again nothing to do with my original remark and a reply like so many onine designed to push your own rather smug remark. Do you believe in your own greatness? You seem very confident about your insights?
I have been in similar postitions to Noam actually. I don't police check every person I engage with actually. Maybe my bad.
We should maybe move towards that and a society even more paranoid and guarded than it is now.
He didn't believe his own fame in my experience, far from it in fact. A man of great humility and personal generosity. The I experienced it directly you didn't I suppose.
OMG, it just occurred to me that Chomsky‘s second wife might’ve been an Epstein plant! Oh my God that would be so horrible! But, Chomsky would still be a saint. Lol
It is also quite unlikely don't you think. Why don't we let this grow into a full blown Grand Conspiracy like 911Trutherism? Oh dear me, we are already...
I heroized him too until I saw him shoot down a young man who questioned a certain narrative about the towers. He is a gatekeeper, selective in his outrage.
Not really, far from it. The Grand Conspiracy round the towers was a distraction and still is, that sucked a lot of energy away from real politics. He by the way didn't shoot people down. He generally just refused to engage on some topics after years of hearing the same things, and in one case I was party to, to so so would allow the whole discussion and talk to become dominated by idiotic grand conspiracy talk which, on the most simple analysis falls short.
I think we need to start by saying that whatever his personal conduct or associations may be, it doesn't affect the quality of his work. We should not insist that Chomsky can't be implicated because some would use that to try and delegitimise his political contributions. They stand or fall on their own merit.
Personally I think that a large amount of Chomsky's contributions stand up to the test of time (particularly those criticising capitalist media systems, and the USA's imperialism), and are correct regardless of whatever he did. I'm also of the opinion that his associations with Epstein and Steve Bannon reflect poorly on him.
He writes as someone who has a moral perspective of the world. Morality cannot be confined to one specific area, especially not politics ! Morality should permeate every aspect of one's life, associations and actions. Otherwise it's shallow window dressing.
I don't really care about this 'association': I did read Valeria's statement about it. Meh. I wouldn't have gone as far as her. Partly because I think the Epstein case is being wildly mis represented and has turned into a moral panic and resembles in some ways 'Russiagate', that last major Nothingburger that did nothing to change anything, or had anything we didn't already know about. Further it is also a version of QAnon, incredibly 'crossing the aisle' and, in a similar way, incredibly the main 'target' remains totally untouched.
One wonders when somebody will start thinking about the 'release' and narrative the Trump DOJ have been able to weave using this tranche of miscellaneous material. Under pressure from QAnon loons and the whole of Congress forced into a fit of pearl clutching by media and other pressures.
I did look at the 'Chomsky' parts, that's all really, a lot of it was not as it has been presented even by what I thought were quite good journos. However I am not interested in cataloguing a bunch of tedious journalistic, even click bait, errors. A lot of it self serving in the 'look how good and pure we are we police our own' way that Leftist Pearl clutching has acquired as a norm.
Myself, were I asked to meet or share a panel or anything with Bannon I likely would. Then I am considered off the pale by a lot of 'leftists' here, so that isn't really much in Noam's defence I don't suppose.
I hope I'm not being too conspiracy minded but during this genocidal lull, while there is still a lot happening toward it, which could inspire some actual reporting in the mainstream, the Epstein scandal has been remarkably omnipresent on cable TV. Maybe I'm crazy but I think we look at the coercive side of Israeli influencing and give diversion of attention with "news dumps" little thought. What's happening over there right now is the culmination of a lifetime of Israeli "deep state" conserted effort by millions of actors over the years, to rid Israel of nonjews, and I'm not sure why the Mossad wouldn't dump something guaranteed to supply our media mills ample grist for salacious distractions.
I wonder too about the insertion of natl guard and even marines into blue cities with a particularly active blm presence. I don't know, that might be a little far-fetched but then if demos against the genocide did gain steam, same logic, the media have to report on them, meaning reporting on what's really happening while Trump's golden council's 'Board of Peace' is convening.
I don't think our media need much help though!? I think, personally, that the Trump DOJ took the opportunity, given to them by the Dems, to edit the material. They didn't actually find much but by then couldn't somehow drop the story. I totally agree with you about 'media mills'. The New York Times has struggled with it, even publishing a sensible opinion piece as to why the material should never have released. They couldn't resist the drama though.
I agree with you in outline really. It is disappointing though to see so many left outlets suck it up, including this one. Trying to squeeze meaning and a critique of... , well of something out of it. It is also an opportunity to be "Brave and Bold" to show how we would fearlessly follow leads and 'evidence' where ever it might lead. So both the media and Dems can grandstand on it, as well as keyboard warriors and show how 'objective' they are.
I don't think some of the material is 'genuine', depending what one means. Norman Finkelstein mentions one 'letter', which is obviously not in Noam's style. It though could, and most likely was written by Epstein staff, not inserted by Mossad or DOJ after this ridiculous 'transparency law' was passed. Now routinely attributed wrongly though.
You are basically right to be suspicious I think, because in true Orwellian style 'transparency' has meant the opposite 'throw a cloud of confusion', 'dot joining' and frankly distraction from four major crises, at least four, The board of Peace, Iran and Ukraine and, as you say, the focus on Blue regions militarily here.
I think what is obvious is enough!. I don't totally discount your disquiet though and really the line between propaganda and diplomacy is now very blurred regarding Israel as to be non existent.
My point in a nutshell is that there is no conspiracy. Maintaining one in the media or Washington would be like trying to hold water in a sieve, a sieve is designed to leak. The media are designed to reveal but there are interests that prefer some things not be. Most journos want to break a good story but are trained to avoid Israel in favor of almost anything else and if they don't, they end up in Substack. So during this genocide it's more that reasonable to assume little pushes have been given to keep Epstein at the top of the story board, not 'even though' history is being changed illegally and horrendously in the ME but 'because it is'.
If that isn't the case then it becomes difficult to explain the sieve holding its water so tightly. It implies all those journalists are intentionally ignoring rather than just competing over the same material.
Will some media connect the dots between regime change in Iran and conducting a genocide, all illegally? Not if the past is any kind of predicter.
OMG, it just occurred to me that Chomsky‘s second wife might’ve been an Epstein plant! Oh my God that would be so horrible! But, Chomsky would still be a saint. Lol
Chomsky said the midi obvious shit anyone who wasn't a retard would know. You people are fucking midwits. He never accomplished anything and thousands of people are better analysts than he ever was. Fuck him, typical shitlib Jew.
OMG, it just occurred to me that Chomsky‘s second wife might’ve been an Epstein plant! Oh my God that would be so horrible! But, Chomsky would still be a saint. Lol
Until Rabbi Meir Kahane came along, the Jews from Arab states, indigenous to the region, unlike the Zionist Ashkenazi who excluded them from deliberations that were guaranteed to reshape their lives, were assigned to the lower ranks of the Jewish world ladder, but were encouraged to come to Israel to serve the Ashenazi as the former saw fit and it was often ugly. I have seen no literature or documentation by the Zionist regime prior to the declarations of Kahane that the Mizrahi and Sephardim had been "ethnically cleansed" from their homelands in greater number than the indigenous Palestinian Arabs from what had been their home and homeland for centuries. It was a lie. And any examination of offical Israeli government immigration records of Jews from the Arab to Israel reveals, year by year, to have been largely a trickle. Another Big Lie that goes largely unchallenged.
Let us, OTOH, remember that Epstein's complex personality is unwisely reduced to his glaring failing (pedophilia) - but there was more to him, which surely made him interesting for someone like Noam Chomsky.
P.S. Those that do not understand the comment need not ask - as they are incapable of reading and understanding human character - which remains the final intellectual challenge - beyond morality.
Epstein was obviously a world class first grade ass kisser, for one thing. He probably found out what technical problems Chomsky was interested in at the time and had someone feed him some insightful comments and questions about that. No academic can resist that kind of thing, especially when it's from a guy who delivers you the former prime minister of Israel and Woody Allen with his wifedaughter for dinner mates.
“Wifedaughter” is offensive and not true. You take away what credibility you might have, and at the same time denigrate an honorable woman as though she was a mere accessory. Soon-Yi Previn was never remotely a daughter or any other relation to Woody Allen. She has also been a loving wife and companion to him for over thirty years. Can you not find a way to make your point without disrespecting two people who have done nothing wrong, apart from following their hearts?
Have you heard Woody brag and praise himself over all the things he exposed her to that she never would have experienced without him? Woody is a sick puppy. I've loved his work but not the man, not anymore.
I really don’t want to pursue this any longer, but I have to ask…how is any of this your business, (or mine)? They seem like a very stable, happy, couple. That’s as far as my interest go, and as far as I feel they have any right to go.
The man turned 90 years old this week, and he’s been making people laugh for 75 of those years, (he started writing for television while in high school). He got caught in a web of personal tribulations and has weathered the storm with dignity. I really don’t think it matters at this point who thinks he’s ’icky’.
I don’t care about vulnerable young women, or strong young women, or anyone else. I have my own problems. They were both of legal age and if you have nothing better to do than be a busybody about something that happened 35 years ago… might I suggest knitting?
I find myself unwittingly in your camp having trawled through the saga. It's interesting.
I've been trying to find a way to continue to love Woody's films in the way I always have and I think there just has to be a separation 'twixt man and art. The grubbiness may rub off on the art however.
There is no grubbiness in a relationship that has proven itself during 34 years as serious, harmonious, faithful and productive, leading to marriage and happy parenthood.
The grubbiness is in the demeaning comments made by badly informed outsiders, who *love* to spread the falsehoods that Soon-Yi was a kind of 'daughter' to him, that he 'helped raise her', that he 'groomed' her as a child, and that he 'cheated on his girlfriend Mia'. None of this is true, as the known, easily verifiable facts have proven long ago.
Soon-Yi and Woody have found happiness, and pass on their happiness to those around them, like their two grown daughters Bechet and Manzie. They are easily the best thing that happened in each other's lives.
I agree with Sera. No I hadn't heard Woody bragging about anything. They seem to me, as very happy couple as Sera says. You and the public seem to me to take way too much interest in people's private sex lives actually.
Quite notable, the number of QAnon loons who have been indicted for under age sex crimes is quite large already. Weird really.
It's accurate. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of his then girlfriend. They lived together. She was a CHILD. He groomed her. He was a father figure. No grown man should be having a relationship with someone he knew as a CHILD. You are supporting pedo behavior. There is absolutely NO reason for a 57 year old man to be with an 21 year old girl (the "official age" they started). Especially considering he'd known her as a child. He was literally WAITING... he's old enough to be her grandfather.
I absolutely agree with you. Any child under his roof was a child and should be off limits forever. If he marries her when she comes of age, it is the result of grooming. That they have had a stable relationship for 35 years, or whatever else people here are commenting, is beside the point really. Good for them, but it is still wrong to marry an adoptive child who lived in your home as a child.
Why is it wrong? I accept that legal limits on sex must be held to. All of America they aren't though, hundreds of times every day. Often with full consent among people whose behavior should anyway be legal, two sixteen year olds for example and even Florida recognizes 'Romeo and Juliet' modifications to the busy-body sex laws.
I appreciate the points about 'grooming', however that can also be rhetorical. There was consent, oh well that does't count cosa 'grooming' it is stupid and unexamined concept. Did your husband 'groom' you, or just 'court' you. Or neither?
How can you possibly find the time to write notes about people you don’t know, whose history you have no idea about, who have broken no laws, and who have been happily married for over 30 years? How can you justify this effort? It’s truly sad.
I don’t know if you exist or if you’re an AI bot, but there are dozens like you who I have met. And…what a waste of time! They’re happy together. What would it take to make you happy? Why don’t you go work on that?
It took all of 60 seconds to leave a comment about a pedophile. You have spent all of your time defending the indefensible. It doesn't matter how happy they are. She was groomed. It's like you don't know what that means. I think you need to do a little bit of research on what grooming is. It's like you don't understand the concept of molding a child's brain so that they grow up to the person you want to date. That's what he did. That's all anyone needs to know.
An adult man took a minor and slowly molded her to be his sexual partner.
That took 2 minutes and I took a phone call in the middle of typing.
There is plenty of reason. Love. In my view, since you asked, the age of consent is way too high. Though maybe what it should be to deal with 'grey areas. Prostitution in all US states is also illegal except in a limted way in Nevada. That too should be changed, protecting sex workers.
It was only in 2020, in the State of Pennsylvania that it was no longer possible to marry at the age of 12. Historically that was routine, history doesn't make it 'right' of course. Let's though go back to the time of the Scarlett Letter shall we.
I have to say I didn't know a lot about the details of Woody's sex life, you seem inordinately interested in it. He is hardly a catch though, so leave him in peace to enjoy what seems a very solid marriage with Soon Li is it?
Noami Campbell was also an associate of Epstein's, or 'in the files' as the idiotic narrative has it. Guess she was having trouble getting dates? 😂
He never lived with Farrow. He was neither a legal guardian nor a parent. From Wikipedia: "Previn has said that Woody Allen "was never any kind of father figure [to her]" and that she "never had any dealings with him" during her childhood, when Allen was dating Mia Farrow.[15] A judicial investigation carried out during the custody trial between Farrow and Allen determined that before 1990, Previn and Allen had rarely spoken to each other.[18] According to Previn, her first friendly interaction with Allen took place when she was injured playing soccer during 11th grade (1989-1990) and Allen offered to transport her to school. Following her injury, in 1990, Previn began attending New York Knicks basketball games with Allen." Allen was 59 at the time of their first "friendly interaction." Is there an "ick" factor to their relationship based on their age difference? Obviously, but that's all it is.
Mia Farrow had not been Woody's girlfriend for *four years* when the relationship with Soon-Yi started.
According to the custody trial reports, which are in the public domain, Mia had withdrawn from Woody in 1987. She did that when pregnant of Ronan, a child Mia would later admit is 'possibly not Woody's' (but Sinatra's).
If we believe Mia, it is *she* who cheated on a lover in 1987. Definitely not Woody in 1991, as Mia had not been entitled to his love for *four years*.
Tell you what, you don't become romantically involved with x, y or z as is your right, and otherwise mind you own business. It is amazing how a lot of this moral panic gets more complicated as you examine it away from the simplified and contrived Dem/GOP QAnon narrative isn't it?
Why are you asking me about defending a 35 year relationship? You're the one making unsupported assertions. I'm not the one with a bug up his backside.
Pffft. Woody Allen himself says he was like a father to her and that she responded to his "fatherly" figure. So when your "defense" is directly destroyed by his own words then its not much of a credible defense, is it?
Oh come on. All God's Children got a 'Daddy' complex.
It is even in the vernacular, "Big Daddy', "Baby", "Honey Chile" I could go on. In fact, one of the Hookers that Matt Gaetz was involved with, who was such a poor witness they had to abandon the indictment of this 'Brooks Brothers Riot' jackass, got here start on a website called 'Sugar Daddy' or something. She, with nobody forcing her, had signed onto it, lied about her age of course, and for money. That is what a 'Sugar Daddy' is. The term is harmless enough and we all know the meaning.
You are searching around in the complicated and huge terrain that is human sexuality looking for hooks for what is frankly, in America, prurient interest in other people's lives. Scarlet Letter 1600s style.
It is out of hand actually and I hadn't realized until now actually, how much of a part it plays in these fictitious 'files' and how many left commentators and pundits have fallen into it.
It seems that you really like sex trafficking and think politicians, sex abuse lawsuits and the world of prostitution really are the greatest measures of character?
Well, I wouldn't say that any case that has "Matt Gaetz fucking a minor for money" is my moral compass ("oh! He was totally innocent because the CIA-controlled politician DIDN'T necessarily know the underage prostitute he bought for sex parties was actually lying about her age! What an upstanding innocent individual!". So that makes it one of us.
If I had any idea what you were trying to say, I might reply.
No I don't 'like sex trafficking' or prostitution for that matter, or whatever you are trying to imply. Fact is that any attempt to get off the MSM narrative on this tends to be met by the kind of hysterical moralizing that you seem to be on. I am done.
The point was that mere association or correspondence with Epstein, shows nothing and doesn't imply any wrong doing. End of story.
Such researcher you are with strong opinions and no knowledge?
Woody Allen said Soon-Yi Previn, responded to someone "paternal" in a 2015 interview with NPR.
The exact quote from the interview was: "I'm 35 years older, and somehow, through no fault of mine or hers, the dynamic worked. I was paternal. She responded to someone paternal"
How he has to make obfuscations about how "there's no fault of him", lmao
I just have one quick question which you don’t have to answer. Can you read? Can you add dates together? Okay, that’s two questions. Do you understand that his quote was from when she was an adult? Okay, three questions. Like arguing with a child, this has gotten awfully tiresome. Good bye.
I think everyone should do that. I did. My parents did. What’s your objection? It’s sweet, and it’s led to a long happy life for both of them. Are you saying you have a better system? Don’t be so judgy!
Sorry my replies are so late. This happens here sadly, sometimes you think a thread is new and it is quite old. I have appreciated and been inspired by your courage in yourconvictions. Which are correct as far as I can see. Reminding me of my own rather cowardly silence in regard to what is a moralizing and moral panic.
I am coming to wonder if the Epstein non existent files have anything much to do with anything beyond aiding a new prurient intrusion into people's private behavior and making that a State concern. That is the pattern with Trump's admin for sure.
Including intrusion into reproductive and other rights.
“Previn has said that Woody Allen "was never any kind of father figure [to her]" and that she "never had any dealings with him" during her childhood, when Allen was dating Mia Farrow.[15] A judicial investigation carried out during the custody trial between Farrow and Allen determined that before 1990, Previn and Allen had rarely spoken to each other.[18] According to Previn, her first friendly interaction with Allen took place when she was injured playing soccer during 11th grade (1989-1990) and Allen offered to transport her to school. Following her injury, in 1990, Previn began attending New York Knicks basketball games with Allen.[3] A judicial investigation from the Farrow-Allen custody trial concluded that Allen and Previn began a sexual relationship in December 1991.[18] As Allen and Farrow had never married, and as Allen had never adopted Previn, their relationship was not illegal.”
I tend to agree with your pov - keeping in mind that some of USA's greatest idols are utterly evil, and obviously so. There's no sharp distinction between good and evil - and those that condone what's going on can't really expect to be taken seriously when the suddenly get all worked up - whether from tactical intent - or intrinsic fickleness. I foresse that one day, everybody will have known that Trump is far more evil than Epstein - but many of those voted him in.
The raccoon faced woody Allen groomed his adopted daughter at a very young age for a very long period. He was the only one foe filled his rotten heart, she will never see straight too long down the rabbit hole.
Well in fairness, and I know personally this is true, Chomsky answered queries from anybody. At one time spending about four hours a day doing so, wearing himself out by the later years frankly.
I think if a letter were hate filled enough, he would bin it, by and large any missive was answered. I know of one who asked him about some detail of autistic language use in Pennsylvania and the devices used to aid non verbal people. Just a 'regular' mom with a very disabled kid.
Chomsky did answer in detail including an account of how he, himself, didn't really 'know enough' to give real advice and apologized for that. I was impressed.
My initial correspondence with Noam was very preliminary, ignorant, uninformed and even hostile. Noam won me round over the years.. I argued heavily against him publicly regarding the propaganda model. "give such and such a try" suggested Noam. He was right, I was wrong, that was during the Yeltsin coup, supported to the hilt by the USA.
I did see, in the files, that are constantly mis represented by journalists, some exchanges on linguistics. My reading of them is that Noam was gently correcting some quite standard errors that Epstein was making. In the way he did with me and many others.
Seems Epstein didn't take the cues. Mostly on the "Language of Thought" discussion if I remember, he actually mentions Jerry Fodor. The style and tone was, I have to say, familiar to me and to be honest a style I have learnt to use myself. Including the habit of answering or engaging with anybody and everybody. Which is, as far as I am concerned, part of an intellectuals job, what they are paid for.
Mostly Noam did it for free. Providing me with, I estimate about 300K Dollars worth of guidance for nothing. Thanks Noam.
Sorry the reply is so late. I had no idea such nonsense was being spoken on Norman's excellent site.
Dershowitz is often cited in regard to that hogwash. Why is it hogwash, because it makes no sense. Dershowitz and millions of other American Jews and others, are already fervent, even zealous Zionists. In what possible way could a 'honey trap' be of any use?
What if we do understand the comment and aspire to understand human character, but would like you to develop it a little? For example, what exactly you feel made Epstein interesting to Chomsky? Most of us are caught in the binary, good-guys/bad-guys web of the media. How do we find out more about Epstein's complexity?
Tbh, I only go by all the news flying around, mainly from various sets of released/leaked mails - and piece together a profile from them - which is bound to be lacking, but they do show "there was more". Therein his alignment with Israel and Zionism and his immorality (which is linked to the preceding) as well as ruthlessness are not unusual (which is why he bonded so well with the powerful), but his ability to rise to the level of an independent global power-broker/fixer is - not least in demonstrating what's possible in that role (beyond any government) and how he gamed the governments of his time based on a deep understanding of the reigning geopolitical system emerging from modern culture. You can be sure others will attempt the same (which you may or not want to ward against) - but in a balanced view he was probably less (morally) evil than Trump ("I have met some very bad people,, none as bad as trump. not one decent cell in his body.. so yes– dangerous") - and, arguably, more capable. Finally, those are always the building blocks of human nature: traits motivating you and your capability to assert them.
He entrapped powerful people who he videotaped having sexual encounters with underage women. Even if you can't yet acknowledge this, more well read people know that was one of Epstein's roles. The man was not particularly intelligent and would unlikely have anything interesting to discuss with Noam. Epstein did, though, serve as a connector between powerful factions who Noam may have thought he could benefit from.
Just because you're assertions come from "the news flying around" doesn't mean that more informed people are forming their conclusions based on the same junk news sources.
No I read the exchanges, the video remarks are irrelevant to Noam anyway.
Personally I doubt there were any regarding other people, it is part of the growing conspiracy theory around this and is mostly gossip, anyway who cares. Who knows of course and some people like to film themselves for thrills. The Epstein cohort did have a lot of sex workers of course and who knows?
Sorry the reply is so late, it took some to work thru some material.
The emails I saw between Noam and Epstein are standard replies he gave to inquiries about linguistics very often. Interesting ones and Epstein was by no means a stupid man. Noam is, as he did so often, trying to steer Epstein in the right direction regarding some very counter intuitive science. I do exactly the same with anybody who asks about it. My own view was that Epstein's interest was limited and like so many, only up to the point where it went the way he wanted it to go. Noam, as always, was not inclined to let him do that, however he neither preached or demanded his view be accepted.
I am reading quite a bit too into what were really quite a small number of emails and interchanges. Very few in fact, fewer than the reporting mostly would suggest. I know this is old hat now but this dreary grand conspiracy is going on and on...
Whoever they are I reply, in fact I acquired that on Noam's example. I sometimes miss comments here of course, or avoid ones that are clearly 'hate mail' or direct threats .
Since you haven't been paying attention, this is a demonstrable conspiracy involving several hundred people who were aware of it. Including Chomsky advising a convicted pedophile of how to launder his reputation in the face of new (and true) allegations of more pedophilia and see trafficking.
A conspiracy theory is needed to make sense of a conspiracy.
Not so he didn't advise on how to 'launder' reputation, some people Eps knew did, some possibly believing that Epstein was innocent, or innocent of some of the charges at least. For some of them, not Chomsky, they are professional PR people, that is their job. Similar to the Congresspeople who are playing this for what it is worth.
You are getting into a MSM knot there too aren't you. I will finish this reply with a remark about 'conspiracy theories'.
I did actually go to the raw material. Noam doesn't so advise in the context you imply. Some of the material, by the way, attributed to Chomsky is not by him at all.
Some of it is a kind of forwarding by Epstein, sometimes it is hard to tell even, in some cases I think the words are not directly Chomsky's or anything related to anything he said or wrote. Epstein was a master of Trumpy style attribution actually.
At worst that advice could have been better stated in some ways. I have given similar myself, on the basis, of course that one believes the accusations are FALSE. In Chomsky's shoes I probably would have accepted that at the time. I don't double and triple check every interlocutor I ever get. I couldn't possibly do it on time alone. Chomsky's involvement with Epstein is, though there was a real connection, vastly over stated. Especially to those of us who knew how he operated as it were.
I had the same advice from him regarding fall out from my own defense, not of the content but of the free speech rights of Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier and a book he published about it. I forget the exact details. If you look up Noam's left detractors you will find them jibber jabbering about it, among other lies about 'controlled opposition' and so on they think makes them so clever.
The anti-Chomsky gossip sphere, mostly composed of grand conspiracists, and my own critics, often quite separately, re-translated defense of Faurisson's speech rights to 'Self hating jew', "Holocaust denier' and so on, "Nazi", and that stupid term 'controlled opposition'. How that squares with 'Mossad agent' was hard to see, but they often went hand in hand.
Noam's advice was 'ignore it, if it is false it will die away'. In Epstein's case, on a slightly different set of accusations Noam was arguably wrong and even gullible to believe the denials from Epstein. I think advice to 'ignore it' suggests he took it to be online gossip, like yours and most of what we get online and in MSM, rather than a serious accusation anyway and I doubt Noam gave it much thought.
I am not sure, I don't think he had any reason to doubt Epstein at the time frankly. Neither you or anybody else knows the insider details or how secret Epstein's behavior was or who it was revealed to. Few of the women involved are fully reliable and neither are many of Epstein's other contacts. They often contradict each other and at least two of them have been in litigation against each other on those grounds. That is Rina Oh and Giuffre, who has passed away and I think the litigation is also stopped. Though as in the case of Epstein, money seekers can also sue the estates.
I would have done what Chomsky did. So would you have. Chomsky did say he regreted allowing his words to be used as a preface to Faurisson's Holocaust denying book. I probably would have too. Though I hold with what I said at the time. Velaria Chomsky also says, and probably for similar reasons, they both regret knowing Epstein, you can take that a lot of ways. I don't regret defending Faurisson, then I didn't have words of mine used as a preface to the book.
France's speech chilling laws had more to do with collective guilt for Vichy than anything else. The over reaction, to my mind showed that in fact. A nation of anti semites and cowards, with a small number who resisted, now you would think everybody did.
I don't actually believe a lot of the charges against Epstein myself, however since prostitution is, other than in Nevada, illegal in the US, the matter becomes tricky as to what exactly the crimes are. I don't think, in fact, that Maxwell had a fair trial. Whatevs that is nothing to do with Noam and don't fold it in, that is MY view. Nothing in the supposed 'files' has shed much light on anything to date.
So you are wrong even on that example which is now trotted out again again. It is even arguable and I would accept criticism that Noam and me too, overstate or should reconsider what we take to be over reaction and 'cancel culture' really and certainly I wouldn't use some terminology myself again frankly, I admit that. However I am not going to second guess every mis interpretation possible of every casual remark I make.
I have seen claims regarding harassment and abuse that I consider unfounded and even malicious. No doubt harassment and abuse is also real. There is no contradiction there and no reason that I should advise somebody accused by the generally salacious and lying MSM in some contexts, if the accusations are unfair, to 'ignore it'. If I believe the accusations, well of course I would say 'turn yourself in Clyde, its the right thing to do'.
There are conspiracies, that is why I use another term for the concocted ones like 911Truthers and 'The Epstein Files'. "Grand Conspiracies". There are other terms in use, many feel a specific one should be decided on.
I have absorbed some commentary on Epstein, some from Ryan Grim, some from Will Menaker, that paints a picture of Epstein as a man who came from nowhere, a man who was a construction of the elite sex predators who used him as their date-maker, an almost Judge Holden like character in his lack of knowable personal history and his power to move through the world unencumbered by normal standards of conduct. He comes off as seeming like not a real person, because he was a creation of the perverts who rule the world, as perverted by their accumulation of wealth and power as by their predation of the powerless. One could say the two are just different faces of the same impulse.
You're forgetting that he was coordinating foreign policy of the Israeli government as well as hosting active Mossad agents at his house. The sex predator piece is important but without this context it's just a regular crime. This is much larger.
We need to consider that Epstein compromised Chomsky—a leading critic of Israel’s apartheid state. Would be interesting to do the math when he met Epstein and if he then softened his views on Israel or just shifted to focus his political views elsewhere. Would not be the first victim of classic Mossad honey trap.
There was no honey traps and nothing that sinister there. As it happens and for the record, Chomsky was very infirm during this period, and constantly accompanied by Valeria. The interactions where, now I have had time to read the actual files, were marginal and pretty unimportant regarding Noam. Chomsky never 'softened' his views on Israel, what on Earth are you trying to say?
"Do the math", gimme a break, you don't know any math, neither does hardly any body talking about this. Two minutes network analysis, or 'degrees of Kevin Bacon' would show it for the mirage it is. I don't expect that. It helped me a lot with it of course but I don't expect the gullible click bait QAnon, now BlueAnon crowd to get it.
I asked the question—did Epstein manipulate Chomsky? Reasonable as Epstein was a likely Mossad agent. He looked fine in the jet with Epstein, did not see Valeria, and remind me why he was hanging out with a convicted pedophile? No passes for pedophilia or legitimizing pedophiles.
No you didn't ask 'did Epstein manipulate Chomsky', I think he did to some extent. You asked did he 'compromise' Chomsky. The implication being that he had something 'on him'. The further implication being that it was a 'honey trap'. You really are a revolting gossip. Like most pretending you have high moral standards. I don't think Epstein was a Mossad agent actually, where do get evidence for that? Let us know.
When challenged, like most gossips, you retreat to a 'just asking questions' stance, or, "just sayin'" and 'coulda' and the 'who knows' demand from fools that we prove a negative.
It also happens that photos don't always show everybody in a situation. Are you yourself an infant, do you think people disappear when YOU can't see them? I have no idea actually about that photo, where or when it was or who else was present. As I said, I do know Valeria was with him always, no doubt she sometimes used the bathroom...
As I have said to others, basically mostly I find that people who take the line you have, usually have some prior beef with Chomsky. What is yours?
As for the heavily loaded pearl clutching 'hanging round with... ', we all hang around with all kinds of people... often unwittingly. I don't know what Chomsky thought or knew about that so I can't comment or why he either missed it or even might have believed a lie by Epstein about it. I have no insights and can't help you.
I didn't know anything much about Epstein myself until recently, even regarding the initial offense and would't probably have ostracized him on the basis of it. Since I think actually making prostitution illegal fails to protect sex workers, not vice versa and I don't agree much with the laws. Which are really to assist prudery and interference in other people's business by the State and police. America is notorious for that, Comstock and other acts...
Let me know what crimes, including 'soliciting a minor', which can be a 17 year old in Florida, one must consider suitable to warrant permanent ostracizing.
That is my personal view. It is that once a crime is punished... well fill out the rest. I thought it was how our justice system works.
In fact pleas deals are used to get difficult convictions and convictions that shouldn't happen in the first place. Epstein might well, given the unreliability of witnesses in his earlier case, failed in jury trial to get convicted, in fact that now seems likely.
You and others, and this typical of grand conspiracies, assume a lot that you really shouldn't assume.
Frankly I am bracing myself for there being a lot less here than it now looks.
It is pretty clear that Trump himself is not implicated in any crimes. Partly because I think he did break with Epstein when he said he did.
To my surprise actually. Though the Biden admin. slow walked the prosecution that should have taken place for Jan 6th, instead of setting a precedent that anybody's private correspondence, even if no crimes are indictated, can end up in the public domain and subject to empty gossip like yours.
The fact that you feel this generational Epstein scandal is somehow a left vs right battle shows how unlettered you are. Primitive thinkers fall into the Overton window of allowed dissent: left vs right. Idiot. Chomsky has been sabotaging anti-establishment dissent for decades, after he earned our trust with his legitimate anti-vietnam protest. Then he turned full Zionist. Come back to this discussion with the adults when learn what Limited Hangout and Controlled Opposition are.
I will add, before you get back. Though you and other conspiracy loons imagine you are brilliantly penetrating into the workings of some mysterious cabal, and that is the root of QAnon and the BlueAnon Epstein Files shtick, you can't even penetrate what's in front of your own eyes.
For example what I am doing.
I will tell you. Every time I see somebody pile in on the Chomsky connection with Epstein, it is because they have some other beef with him, often of a grand conspiracy kind that he wouldn't go along with at some point. Or some cranky idea that he is a 'gate keeper' 'self hating Jew', 'holocaust denier', 'controlled opposition' and so on. Or sometimes just that he disagrees with them on some marginal, often technical linguistic points.
That 'controlled opposition' is in fact an idea he outlined himself along with Ed Herman to some extent ironically, there is one to some extent, though it isn't under the kind of cabalistic control you imagine in your fantasies.
It is called the Democratic Party and the source, along with the loony wing of the GOP, of the current Epstein distraction. However it by no means operates under conditions that it decides itself and can and will collapse in my view. This Epstein crock will hasten that in my view.
Every time I probe a bit, to test my own thesis, or to show really other people what is going on, clowns like you rise to the bait. Thanks for doing it this time and letting us know what the real beef with Chomsky was.
That remark bears no relation to what I said, it is you talking to yourself. really, which is what most loons are doing. Another loser. Chomsky the Zionist. 😂😂😂 gimme a break.
That's a good point - but my gut-feeling is that while Epstein had a clear allegiance to Israel he was an independent power-broker, see how he played with Ehud Barak (not as his minion but as his mentor) - and so pending such evidence as you suggest or proof of Chomsky actually having been customer of Epstein's sex-trafficking I continue to think Chomsky was interested in exactly that "independent power-broker" role, as an intellectual foil and for access to powerful people he obtained via Epstein.
I don't think Epstein had any particular relation or much influence really. Israel, as a feature of American foreign policy, has been supported in very much the same way now for decades. Not even obscure. Basically a 'battle ship" in the middle east and a means to keep a pan Arab entity, or a secular entity of any kind from developing. That is my view, close to Noam's and I think Norman's? What is interesting is how it maintains itself from admin to admin. Very little explains it fully. It might even be contingent in some ways.
I also think you are over thinking and over stating Chomsky's relationship with Epstein. Chomsky had no need, by the way, to need Epstein for 'access' to anybody.
Part of the relationship was about quite small scale financial advice, Chomsky having neglected his own affairs over most of his life. The sums involved were marginal too. Epstein was a smart guy, however most of what I saw of the intellectual exchange with Noam was quite standard guidance on linguistics that Noam gave routinely. Trying to get some counter intuitive ideas across and he often settled on the exact same formats and even wording. You can see that in the exchanges with Epstein. However the exchanges and relationship is far smaller than the narrative is now suggesting, quite marginal in my view.
I suspect Noam was interested in Epstein's knowledge of finance, which, despite conspiracist nonsense, is actually not well understood, in Noam's view, and, in fact, in mine.
Noam was a clear and consistent opponent of Zionism especially in its current "Judea" form. Period, there is really no need to speculate in the way you are.
There is no suggestion that Chomsky, and several others were 'customers' or that indeed there were any "customers". You need to look at the obvious a bit more. My own view, as I look into it more, is that there is less and less there than I initially thought in fact. Reminds me of Russiagate in fact.
I have to say, I am disappointed in the level of discourse on this on Norman's site. I really am.
Yes, I am also very disappointed - but one keeps learning - and I have meanwhile realized theat discussion is futile - one could as well talk to one's dog.
It was in fact quite welcome to have the discussion with you. I just don't fully agree, nothing else meant. Some of the comments here are quite shocking, given that the standard that Norman sets.
Diagreement is in principle something valuable, as ist shows one has different inforation, or did a different analysis of the same information - the key is how one handles disagreement, which could be in the spirit of dialogue (see my Note “The Supercharger of the Art of Wisom”) - or in the spirit generated and maintained by “The Poison-Machine” (another note). So where would you place yourself on that spectrum?
What you call glaring failing is what drove him, just as it did Jimmy Savile, for another (among far too many). All of Savile’s “good” works were merely a beard; he did them in order to be able to indulge his wickedness. And as we are learning, this is what the most horrifically ambitious do. Even if we accept the adage that the ultimate aim of ambition is to be happy at home, once we add Hobbes to the calculus we realize that great and devious machinations may be an essential part of securing the home front, especially if one defines happiness as exerting power in the most extreme manner: ie abusing and murdering innocent babies.
Please choose a different descriptor than “glaring failing”; it puts the most offensive dehumanization imaginable on a par with a gambling habit.
I appreciate your reply, which is a level above the inanities my comment generally was responded with. I think you are actually moving to where I am: Morality is a hoax, predation (on all fronts) is the name of the game - and the only thing of importance is to understand the human disorder, wherein we fall for the hoax and all too often become predators. This is what Chomsky was studying in Epstein - and he also developed a human connection to his "research object" - who was really a rare specimen of the "sovereign predator", albeit grounded in Zionism.
You can read all you want but all you will absorb in that pea brain is what you want to hear. You’re a wast of time especially when it comes down to understanding morality compass.
I agree. To reduce him to one thing is to misunderstand the whole gestalt of the saga, as it were. “People are a mix of good and bad,” as Barack Obama once said.
Imo everyone should get a fair shake.. but if no even investigations (considering everyone involved) come out of this, it would be disappointing imo.
IMO the normal level of morality is by now so low among public figures (including Obama) that “fairness” is not the issue - rather one must understand what they are doing - also with others - which may be very different for Epstein re Chomsky than re Trump (who was, by Epstein’s own opinion, as immoral as it gets). Expecting Chomsky, OTOH, to be perfect is delusional - but he was a person of remarkable insight - far beyond all the morons that now point fingers at him.
Absolutely as always attempting to explain to people. The complexities of human personality there's always more to a person than just one aspect Professor Chomsky would no doubt he would have found him interesting and he was obviously exceptionally charming.
… and he was a pioneer in the political role he played - though arguably playing ANY political role in today’s geopolitical framework is a bad sign - at least this is my opinion, but one needs to get there. Tellingly, very few of those now pointing fingers at Epstein and Chomsky have any problems with the political class as a whole - though it was Epstein’s client on several planes (sex-slaves, finance, political power).
Not sure whom/what you are replying to, but I'm certainly not hairsplitting on whether it was pedophilia in your sense (or any other) or not - it's irrelevant to my comment.
I understand, you're wannabe smart and now you feel called out on being stupid, so kow you're lashing out. It's cool bro, keep using the wrong words, we know what you mean. 😉
Oh, of course, you have the same inclinations and understanding as your president - what's good for him must be good for you - and anyone who disagrees is a nutcase - and will be nuked if he doesn't shut up😁
I understood your post perfectly. Don’t mistake disagreement for an inability to read. Your P.S. said more about your attitude than anyone’s comprehension, and the rest of the thread only made that even clearer, whether you noticed or not.
Your way of expressing your "disagreement" conclusively proved you understood nothing - which was the point of the P.S. But you are in large company - as the rest of the thread showed.
Yeah if people don't agree with you they are stupid. Except you are the dumbass on this topic. Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky has already identified him as a controlled opposition agent. Get your head out of your ass: see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm ... some people are so naive
I'm sure that in your world Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai is an unquestionable authority that makes your "argument" unassailable. It's just that I chose the real world instead, benefitting from true Indian wisdom, the kind you studiously avoid.
... and I wouldn't want any of my three highly-gifted and well-developed daughters anywhere near a person like you with suppressed pedophilia and 0 culture - or in your primitively fascist country, for that matter
Well developed? Sounds like something a pdf file would say about his own daughters, lol that’s pretty gross, you shouldn’t be commenting on the development of the bodies of your daughters you sick freak, im glad your not in my country, do your daughters partake in rolling in cow shit to or is that just when your dot head side comes out
Always projecting😁 I know what you are (and well-developed for you only means ready-to-fuck) - and you have to distract from that - but that doesn't work with me.
There is “more“ to most evil people‘s personalities, that does not mean you overlook the evil in order to engage in your pleasure. All the elite that surrounded this man were guilty of enabling his behavior which was vile in the extreme. You demonstrate your lack of concern for young women and girls when saying aw, but he was so interesting. He was committing crimes and they were facilitating that with their friendships. I’m not saying Noam Chomsky raped young girls, but you don’t know that he didn’t either just because he came up with some good left-wing ideas. He certainly doesn’t mind that Jeffrey Epstein was raping young girls as it seemed to be apparent to everyone who knew him.
I once had a close friend whose wife left him and THEN (the wife) revealed to me that he had been having affairs most of the time - and that ended that old friendship, By the same principle the elite you speak of, and, more generally, “good Americans” are distasteful to me - but I scoff at their hypocrisy of virtue-signalling while condoning all the evil in their society and, most of all, their leaders.
Epstein was a pedophilic pimp and trafficker for decades. He may have had a complex personality and maybe even multifarious talents—although surely not as complex and multifarious as those of Hitler and Stalin (also “beyond morality”), which have absorbed biographers and historians for nearly a century. And thus, according to your pontifications, being a cosy clandestine buddy with Hitler or Stalin, after casting MORAL excoriations on countless public figures for decades (as Chomsky did), would be beyond reproach for hypocrisy.
The evil of Trump is irrelevant. You are deflecting from the issue, which is the evil of Epstein and the hypocrisy of Chomsky, who spent decades excoriating public figures for their moral failings, yet had a cosy and secretive friendship with a proven pedophilic rapist and pimp. Only discombobulated minds continue to rant about the evil of Trump (and whether excoriations “hurt”) when the post concerns the hypocrisy of Chomsky.
Like your personal jealousy of Trump? The reference to Hitler and Stalin made the point by way of analogy that taking an interest in someone who “is complex” does not necessitate becoming a close buddy of his, and directly addresses your pompous prattle about Epstein, whereas your inanities about Trump address nothing pertinent to the topic of Finkelstein’s post, which is the moral implications of Chomsky’s friendship with his traveling and dining companion Epstein.
This is how Israel/Mossad/CIA act, they implicate innocent parties and then make them co-conspirators. So they have no incentive to expose their ops/acts.
Thank you for this statement, Norman. As Chomsky’s assistant for 2 ½ decades, I observed his total dedication to humankind. He barely slept, had to be reminded to eat. He was patient with those who didn’t understand, or misinterpreted, his statements, all based on facts. He forged ahead despite detractors, was ethical and honest, working to exhaustion to expose and share truths.
Having seen hundreds of rec letters he sent out, I can say with almost complete certainty that he was not the author of the letter in circulation. That Epstein had this letter in his files doesn’t mean Noam had a hand in it. It seems that Greenwald, who highlighted the rec letter early on, was more interested in highlighting his own social media than considering the flimsiness of an unreliable letter - unaddressed, unsigned, undated. Most likely unsent.
I’m not a sycophant. I knew little about Chomsky when I first worked for him. What I witnessed was life-changing. Now, it’s hard to be silent when I see wild accusations being thrown at such an honest and dedicated man.
I studied at Z media institute under Chomsky and corroborate everything you've said. More humble and generous than anyone with such a pedigree I've ever met. He would sit down at the end of each month and sign cheques to support the many dissident and humanitarian organizations he believed in.
If he was dedicated to anything it was protecting Israel from the punishment it deserves by placing all the blame for Israel's endless crimes against the Palestinians and Lebanese on the US government, repeatedly claiming, without substantiation, that Israel did nothing without US approval. At the same time he ignored the actions of those presidents that confronted Israel who would pay for it at the polls, namely Ford, Carter and GHW Bush, and JFK who paid for doing so with his life. And, more than anything, he dismissed the actions, even the existence of the Jewish Political Establishment AKA The Israel Lobby, never mentioning AIPAC, American Jewish Committee, WINEP, or JINSA in his writings, writing, in an email to me, "I don't write about it, I don't talk about it." That happened to be true unless he was responding to someone who disagreed with him at which point he became very nasty.
He was telling American audiences that they have the most power to influence Americas government and americas policy.
If you are an American and don’t like Israeli war crimes against Palestinians then you should get YOUR government to stop sending them weapons and aid and giving them diplomatic support.
Chomskys analysis was absolutely correct. If you feel accountable for Israeli war crimes then good you should. That’s where your tax dollars go. We all have the ability to change that. It’s called taking responsibility and fixing our country.
Do you believe that Greenwald or anyone else, made up Chomsky's comment to the Wall Street Journal that having "served" a one year sentence in a Florida prison, only having to check in at night, for sex trafficking, gave him a "clean state" under American "norms"?
It didn't, unless you think having to register as a sex offender in Florida and Virgin Islands, was no big deal.
I think the misinformation, judgments, assumptions, and lack of reasoning and critical thinking have made this whole thing into a circus. Such brave people to knock Noam down when he can’t speak. The articles and statements I’ve seen by self-righteous sheep sicken me. I knew Noam well. He lived a selfless life. He hated socializing. He wore a filter to block out gossip, hearsay, and anything that wasn’t confirmed by non-mainstream media. So YES, it is very, very possible that he didn’t know what Epstein was doing. Don’t forget who Noam has always been. This should be a no-brainer.
He also trusted everybody. Do you think this new gang of detractors, added to the same old ones will believe that? They didn’t know him, though they loved him when he agreed to co-write books with them or share a stage with them. And once that association appeared to be a negative one, they ripped it away as quickly as they could, without giving any thought to what the so-called evidence actually pointed to, if anything. At the risk of sounding like somebody’s grandmother, shame on them.
He worked endlessly. In his late 80s he married a much younger woman who wanted to live a social life, the last thing on his radar. His favorite people to be with were students, young activists, and working people. His new wife corresponded with Epstein a lot, and she managed Noam’s email accounts. Those are the facts.
After more than a month of sleepless nights, pages of notes, struggling to publish a new Substack post, I can now sit back and eat bonbons. This video is perfection. From Hedges’s clairvoyance to Finkelstein’s shoot from the hip honesty to Vijay Prashad’s claiming to be a longtime friend of Chomsky‘s. Thank you! Please write me at bevstohl@gmail.com. You might want to read my substack asking WWNS and WWND? Bev Stohl’s substack
Big deal. So you knew him. Did you know Epstein also? see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
Well said, thank you. There is something very opportunistic about this and incredibly flimsy. It is as if a quiet industry has evolved using Epstein's name to tarnish people, to target them, for no good reason. It is a rather sad side of human nature that seems to be flourishing due to World events.
Big deal. You worked with him and watched him send emails. Epstein also corresponded a lot of emails. What does this prove. Both were prolific workers. But what matters is ethics and morality. see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
My heart sank when Noam Chomsky's good name first appeared in this context. My gut said such an intellectual and honourable man, whose life's work has always been to inform, demystify and expose the machinations of Capitalism and how language is used to minimise, mask and obscure the real agendas of the most powerful.
As a previous comment pointed out. There was more to Epstein than your average paedophile. He undoubtedly had persuasive social skills, high level (albeit covert) support and international contacts at the very top, many of whom were/are still, only too happy to be friends
Seriously? Were you his accountant? If you knew him, you would know this kind of behavior would be far off of his radar. When his first wife died, he didn’t know where his bank account was held, or how he received his retirement money.
Denial os a river in Egypt. One can see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
"The smart way to keep people passive & obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum"
Which Mr. Chomsky did state or inform others of. That does not say he wouldn't use "The smart way [....] limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion" for himself or those he wants to protect or defend. Believe me, I want to trust Mr. Chomsky. However, he really did understand how the ruthless uses human nature to control human nature for one's own purposes.
I haven't come to any conclusions about Mr. Chomsky and I strongly appreciate that this is being debated openly.
Here's the tool Assange downplaying questioning 911. He also talked on democracy now how WikiLeaks was not focused on 911 because they were going to release info on the big banks... Which they never did. No wonder why WikiLeaks said nothing about the COVID fiasco.
Look more deeply, and you’ll see his point, whether or joy you agree. One downfall of his was giving too much credit to the reasoning and deeper thinking of others.
You seem to be exactly the kind of idiot i incline to becoming in my worst moments of cynicism at the value of humans, especially males. Good luck with your civil war fantasy, imbecile.( Ps read some books!)
I have read many more books than you, son. And I have no fantasy about civil war. Right wingers like you deserve the death penalty, plain and simple. I’m just sorry I’ll probably never get to see you hang.
Norman, you here only comment on the letter. What about the in-person meetings including the dinner in Manhattan? It seems that such events are as important to comment on as the letter. Also, can you offer some explanation for your conclusion that the letter does not sound like Chomsky? Also, if it was not written by Chomsky --we know from recent releases that Epstein sometimes wrote character letters for himself but for others to sign -- how are we to explain the letter being ostensibly issued by Chomsky? Did he agree to sign it? If so, why? Your critical analysis on this matter is needed.
Glenn Greenwald said the letter sounds like Chomsky. My own guess is that it was real. Hard to explain, though. Either way, Chomsky is a legend and a force of nature and nothing will ever change that.
Chomsky may be a "legend and a force of nature", but he is very Jewish. Nothing wrong with being very Jewish (e.g. only accepted that Hebrew was spoken in his house, as Finkelstein himself once pointed out), except when that extends to supporting the existence of the illegitimate genocidal ziofascist Sewer. Note: if I am not mistaken even Finkelstein himself supports its existence.
It is very easy to talk and criticize, but ask him if the illegitimate entity deserves to exist and he'll bite your head off for even asking the question.
In other words, criticism is meaningless without the criticizer walking the talk.
You’re more than welcome, I appreciate the response.
Chomsky is a hard case to follow, and his contradictions are many, but on this he’s spoken in a straight line since before the existence of Israel.
Coincidentally, my own father, born a few years before Chomsky, was in Palestine at the same time, and told exactly the same first hand stories of Arab villages being bulldozed, and of Zionist terrorist attacks. I myself spent some time with these criminals, and in 1968 heard firsthand their bragging about things like killing two Arabs with one bullet. They started as terrorists and they are terrorists to this day.
Whether Israel is legitimate is another debate. It is entirely possible to defend Israel's legitimacy (at least where international law as expressed in the UN resolutions is concerned) and condemn the behaviour of the successive Israeli states, as both Chomsky and Finkelstein have done and continue to do.
Legitimate and legal are not the same, you confuse the 2 issues. "israel" lacks legitimacy: no genocidal state can claim legitimacy.
As for Chomsky and Finkelstein's condemning the genocidal Sewer's behavior: so what???? It is so easy to criticize and condemn, but they unconditionally support the existence of it, which means they support zionism, which means they support a deeply racist political ideology, which in this case means they support genocide despite their so-called condemnation.
I saw your responses to Sera and congratulate you on your willingness to admit that you're wrong. You did have grounds to make your comment: after all, didn't Biden make a show of condemning Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" of Gaza at one point?
When I mentioned Israel's legitimacy I was positing an erroneous equivalency between legality and legitimacy. Thanks for pointing it out. In any case, the "legality" of the UN resolutions is being diluted by the UN's recent record of voting on the Trump "peace" plan. But it's just not accurate to say that Chomsky and Finkelstein "unconditionally support" Israel.
Going back to The Fateful Triangle, his signature book on the topic, Chomsky has insisted that Israel has done what it has to the Palestinians only following US orders and therefore, it is the US that should take the blame for Israel's crimes, e.g., the planes that attack and kill Palestinians are American planes with Israeli pilots. He has never supplied any evidence for this statement BECAUSE NONE EXISTS.
This is the same with his insistence that Israel is supported by the US because it serves as a strategic asset for Washington in the region, but he has never been able to provide a single comment from any State Dept or Pentagon official affirming that because, clearly, there aren't any. Nevertheless, Chomsky has been able to purvey this BIG LIE to critics of Israel and supporters of the Palestinian struggle over the years because, as Israel Shahak told me in a personal letter (before email), they are too intellectually lazy to do investigations on their own.
Going back to Fateful Triangle, Chomsky blames the US for everything Israeli does while offering no basis or ANY US government source, civilian or military, for that opinion, while IGNORING the actions of presidents who have challenged Israel openly, e.g., JFK, Ford, Carter and Bush Sr., while using the hearsay of a Zionist singalong's claim as a footnote that Eisenhower came to regret having ordered Israel to withdraw from Egypt in 1956.
Can anyone, without sacrificing their integrity, explain what benefits the US has obtained from Israel's occupation of the West Bank or the genocide in Gaza? And please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pointing to the weapons gifted to Israel which have been a drop in the bucket compared to US arms sales worldwide. Or the gas under the waters off Gaza from which the Israelis have been profiting with little attention from the MSM which is also Zionist controlled.
Listen to Jeffrey Sachs, Lawrence Wilkerson, Ray McGovern whose real world experience dwarfs that of Chomsky and they all acknowledge that Israel controls US Middle East Policy.
Norman has said in recent times, 'the only right Israelis have is the right to pack their bags and leave Israel's. That doesn't sound like support to me. You could get nominated Antisemite of the Week for saying that.
His statement does not mean he does not support the existence of the genocidal Sewer. If that is indeed what he meant, he should state out straight, explicitly, like his former mentor Chomsky did.
As for being nominated "Antisemite of the week", that is a joke as the Jews love to use the "anti-semite" platitude to close down any criticism about them or their beloved genocidal Sewer.
There is a line of thought that that Israel could effectively be re-created as the State many believed it would be and sometimes was at first. It would have to be very different, with perhaps a new or hyphenated name, with equality for all. Way back, from before/around the end of WW2 in 1945, Extremist Zionists who had been pally with the Nazis right into the beginning of the war in 1939, misrepresented the notion of Israel to the World as a safe, peace loving State,- and the leaders of the West well knew this, as the campaign built towards the end of the war. Why go ahead, even despatching their own on-the-ground advisors? Possibly US war loans. There were also full on Zionists hidden in the UK Govt and elites and in the US. Whatever the reasoning, it seems Truman was very uneasy about it, as were many British MPs. However, we now have generations born as Israelis in a State whose citizens have been programmed, indoctrinated,to fear aggression from all. The irony being that Israel's governance determinedly created a nightmare State. But there are good Israelis there who abhor the cruelty to the Palestinians and Palestinians also want peace and a better life. It would take the end of US/UK backed rogue Zionism. Its days are numbered.
> The irony being that Israel's governance determinedly created a nightmare State.
That is only an apparent irony because the reality the basic principle of the entity was, and still is, for it to be based on fear as that is the only way to keep members of the Tribe going astray, intermarrying and generally assimilating with the rest of society.
Of course, there are still Jews who go astray, according to the wsihes of the Talmudists, but the battle is on to keep them in line, hence the increasing number of psyop "anti-Semitic" incidents, most of which are staged to both keep the Tribe together and to distract from what the genocidal Sewer is doing and never stopped doing despite Trump’s Extermination Plan.
You think the Sewer’s days are numbered: I fervently hope so, but I am not convinced it is the case. You see, the West, and even China and Russia, have too much at stake, the Sewer is an important component ffor them.
Except that Chonsky is an intelligence agents could change this. Moron. see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
“[Epstein] quickly became a highly valued friend [of Chomsky’s].”
Like all the politicians that Chomsky once condemned as murderous war criminals and who were never prosecuted by corrupt, power-worshipping judicial systems, Epstein had a clean-slate.
So according to Chomsky, a clean legal slate from corrupt judicial systems equates to a clean moral slate, and Chomsky would happily have unprosecuted war criminals and murderers as highly valued friends with whom to have cosy social dinners. It’s doubtful Chomsky would have felt the same for a pedophile who only exploited Jewish girls (as Epstein only exploited Gentile girls), or if his daughters were among the girls exploited.
I was very active politically while in law school, and my last political act there was to sponsor a speech by Dr. Chomsky regarding the situation in Palestine. This was 2005. What I received for my efforts were harassing and threatening emails from "good" zionists who objected to something as basic as the First Amendment guarantees of free speech. I was given a tee shirt that proclaimed "We are All Palestinians" and wore it proudly. One of my professors, who was a good solid leftie in every way except for the issue of Israel cornered me while wearing it, telling me why my shirt was wrong and why I was wrong.
I would not be surprised at all if some/all of the talk about Chomsky and Epstein was planted by zionist operatives. In any case, I will continue to support Professor Chomsky.
I’m puzzled why Norman Finkelstein, a scholar known for rigorous, evidence-based analysis would even engage with this. Being asked to comment on Chomsky’s past encounters with a dead man of shady reputation seems inappropriate. Even if Norman isn’t adding to the rumor mill, his response elevates it just the same.
That Chomsky would have crossed paths with Epstein over many decades isn’t surprising. I’d be surprised if Norman himself hadn’t. Are we to believe NYC’s circles of celebrity, academia, and business don’t overlap? That’s naïve.
Why should anyone have to explain past chance encounters? Must we now be accountable for every person we’ve ever met? This toxic form of “accountability” works by forcing humiliating public confessions for “guilt by association.” It’s outrageous.
In my opinion, Mr. Finkelstein should have refused the premise of the question. Rejecting this illiberal, coercive tactic isn’t just defending an individual, it’s defending reasoned discourse itself.
That said, I have the luxury of commenting on his comment. I don’t know the circumstances of the request, but it troubles me that he felt he had to respond.
Yes, I absolutely agree with your assessment, for this statement by Norman may very well be, to my knowledge and appreciation of him and his work, the only time that he has stated something without actually saying anything of substantial, fact based relevance.
It reads almost like a statement from a politician's spokesperson.
And as such, as this thread reveals, offers nothing but junk-food for anything but reasoned, i.e. fact-based dialogue.
Because Finklestein is friends with 2-faced Chomsky a controlled opposition Mossad agent running limited hangout for 5 decades on unsuspecting generations of authentic activists... deceiving both the left and right.
Yes, I agree in part, Finkelstein is also fallible human, whether or not they would call each friends, they Finkelstein and Chomsky orbited within the same plane of existence, you have help me see what I failed to see prior, that which I stated troubled me, thank-you
Naive fool. To see you are so gullible. Credulous moron. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
Thank-you for being so gracious , please accept this as an official receipt, for your generous and ever so precious contribution to the discourse, and mankind`s collective pool of knowledge.
One question , why did it you take you 2 & 1/2 months to share your wisdom ?
You are welcome. It took me 2 1/2 months to ask A.I. if Finklestein had weighed in on his friend Chomsky... which led me to this Substack link. I knew these professors were friends. The mainstream public sheep may take 3 - 5 years to ask the same question.
Thank you Norman for your honest and passionate contribution to civil discourse.
Try as people may by implicating Professor Chomsky in the travesty of the behaviour of the Epstein class, nothing will diminish his leading roll in explaining and exposing the machinations of power and the corruption in the twentieth century and beyond.
He will always be a legend in my eyes and many many others.
Chomsky admonished the left for caring about the JFK assassination or the massive coverup behind 9/11. His legacy is the personification of the CIA, Epstein-class approved Acceptable Left.
Photos of him yucking it up with Bannon and on a private jet should be more than enough for anyone to re-evaluate their priors.
Ahh the usual empty grand conspiracy approach. Why should he not meet Bannon by the way? Had I the opportunity to talk to him I probably would. yukking it up is your projection too. Standard conspiracy theory crankery.
Chomsky had little time for that garbage. I learnt well from his example. I won't be continuing a discussion with a keyboard warrior on this by the way. So be well, and in the five minutes you need spend on it, vote Democrat next election and let's try to move forward instead of into the fantasy world you inhabit.
Holy moly. My comment was from January 21. ie Before the latest massive tranche of emails, including so many from Chomsky to Epstein which vindicate me completely. Did you even look at them?
No they don't vindicate you, I did look at them. They don't vindicate you at all. However I should have more sense than to reply to an old comment, especially one with an idiotic 'nym. I suppose you have some grand conspiracy around the Kennedy assassination. Good luck with that.
Shut up, retard. If you don't know that organized minorities select people who threaten them you're a fucking retard. Probably another dishonest Jew like him.
it's ironic don't you think, that those damning Chomskys defenders as 'hero worshipers" expect him to have spent every day of his life crafting his image as a hero, to be worshiped? And never for a moment does it gel in their cancellation consciousness that if it was his intention to preserve that phoney image, the last thing he would do is compromise it by associating with such a person.
I never new the man but I suspect the profile as gregarious, unassuming, unsuspecting, generous man.
He was. I can attest to it personally. I don't normally go there but I will this time. I can personally attest to Noam Chomsky's integrity, kindness and generosity. Including financially. He could have been a multi millionaire on book sales alone; as it was he barely got a decent pension for Valeria. Whatevs we won't go further on that route.
I was destitute, I mean that literally, due to illness at one time, chronic condition not expected to resolve, decades ago now. I obviously was not attached to an University as a consequence.
Dirt poor and unlikely to ever see anything different. My old University, though in later years I did get some assistance from other academics, ghosted me on some technicality. "Too busy old boy, sorry..." I decided that I would continue my academic inquiries as best I could, just 'in case' as it were.
I did get ONE reply to academic queries I made, a complicated and naive one, that was from Noam. In other words ghosted by some mid level academics, fair enough, I got a reply from THE giant in our field, and a detailed one, which must have taken up a lot of time. I say again, there was no possible way Noam could have seen any benefit at all for himself, reputationally or otherwise in this exchange. Not even a good graduate student as things stood. Not that he was ever short of applicants of top quality.
I continued for years in occasional correspondence with him. Eventually he was, not by me, asked to give me a reference. He knew nothing about my background beyond our interchanges. He gave me an enthusiastic and over generous one all the same on trust as it were. He did I will add, influence my political views a lot as time passed. Initially I was totally opposed to what he said. He never wavered though in answering my technical questions.
I know for a fact, he replied to every query he got, sometimes four hours a day it took or longer.
I am sick of these gossips and third rate journos making insinuations and so on, cherry picking quotes from a pile of emails of all kinds.
Again it works both ways. The logic, I am wondering how much there is regarding anybody regarding what I now see more and more as a 'grand conspiracy'.
By the way, I did take Noam's lead, I do exactly what he did, if I had a email from Bannon or Epstein, I would have answered it to the best of my ability. It doesn't take me 4 hours a day though I promise you. Thanks for that you made my day: I shall not forget you. 😁
You elicited from me, by your own generosity of spirit a pitch perfect account of my own experience that I would not have found otherwise. Just like Noam did on some topics. He would be and will be pleased to hear the tale.
Thank you Professor, I am honored and grateful that you returned your good colleague's letter of recommendation, and I feel very lucky to have played a minor role in an exchange between two great men I have long admired.
Just one comment. A lot of his current detractors are young and don't know the measure of the tide he stood against, and how much he turned it. They only know it wasn't enough and they blame that on him, maybe because he was a giant of his age.
Thanks again!
John, Chomsky is very unwell at present. He is very old. I assure you that if you had written to him, he would have replied to you too like he always did. In your case with enthusiasm in my opinion and for sure! No they have no idea of the struggle regarding Vietnam or the potential sacrifice in terms of career and, in fact, a real threat of jail, that Noam faced.
Let’s say he didn’t know what Epstein was but he surely knew who Ehud Barak was, and thats enough to show a “cut” into his morality
You give zero honest arguments. You resort mostly to ad hominems. Denial is a river in Egypt. Your pal Chomsky is heavily compromised. He is a limited hangout agent. You don't even understand what this means. It may be time you learned about the 24 logical fallacies.
Oh my your knickers are in a twist. You keep repeating yourself. Good bye, you can quit following my comments round too. You make yourself look more and more foolish. "limited hangout agent", wheredja get that one from 😂
It is cringeful to witness your naivety and gullibility. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
I did look at it, five minutes was enough and the fools in the comments section.. whew! "I don't want to come across as arrogant" they guy says, well he did, he is a fool too. "Rothschilds" FFS, gimme a break.
It has to be said that the Middle East is the mothership for cranky conspiracy theories. I undertand it to some extent, nobody could believe the horrors inflicted on Gaza and elsewhere could come about by anything other than a deeply hidden Evil. However the reality is that they come about due to us, our electoral choices and our politics and our refusal to accept the realities of foreign interventions and so on.
Epstein and so on serve as scapegoats to some extent, and then become vehicles for anti semitic myths like these you linked.
OMG... you don't understand the concept of deep state actors and the permanent state. You are such a fool. The loon link you sent me is as credible as the "for profit" Fact Checkers propagandists you gullible believe. Is there anything you believe that you were not told to believe? Is it possible there is a critical thinking neuron inside your cranium? Dr. Shiva is infinitely more intelligent than you.
Regarding the Great American Loons site. A lot of what they talk about is something I know a lot about, virology really. The Shiva guy is totally insane. However I don't expect the public at large to have enough professional knowledge about biology to fully understand why, though most of them do really. anti vaxx grand conspiracy thinking, showing actually how all of these fairy tales start to merge together somehow.
Infinitely more intelligent than me. I am sure he is, that makes him very very clever. He should go on "Jeopardy", he could get rich too. His scams or 'alternative health' enterprises probably bring him some cash already.
I know, I need to understand the permanent State, you know the one with a DOJ and Congress that voted unanimously to 'open' this dump of miscellaneous private correspondence, photos and goodness knows what, inviting endless dot joining, which will be here for decades now. The MSM that never stop on about it, milking it to death too. Oh and the British Royal Family who are allowing the Andrew formerly known as Prince to be stripped of title and reputation and now arrested. Very deep state.
The main protagonists in the 'transparency' law, being grandstanding Democrats in Congress, and Congressional loons, like MTG. Yeah very 'deep state'. Oh and the FBI material there, a lot of it idle and unsupported gossip and salacious lies from... well from loons like you really. That's it from me.
I see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
This is the problem, Shiva was actually defended up to a point by Noam at one time regarding a complicated dispute about who invented 'email', depending what one means.
Since he is also a loon, Shiva that is, regarding things that I know about scientifically as it were, I am not inclined to take him seriously to be honest. A Great American Loon, in a proud tradition. Do you swallow anything as long as it is 'unofficial' as it were?
Shiva is totally and utterly deranged now. Ask Shiva? gimme a break and just in passing I am tired of that rhetorical trope, "ask so and so", it is arch and irritiating. Any as for the loon in question
https://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Shiva+Ayyadurai
In fact there is a pattern here. I, like you, am a pattern seeker in a complex almost unintelligible World, in the blooming buzzing confusion of empirical reality.
I didn't look at your link, I have been dealing with 'morons' who push this 'controlled opposition' baloney for some time. Most are conspiracy grifters. Actually Mossad don't need much of a presence in America, the Dems and left do most of their work for them in case you hadn't noticed? In what way, do the American Left, and the Dems as a whole, fail to do anything that a Mossad 'controlled opposition' would have to do? Blackmail the full on Zionist Alan Dersowitz to do what he is already gleefully doing for example? 😉
I digress, back to the pattern seeking.
The pattern is that most of the those clutching their pearls regarding Chomsky's tangential contacts with various people have some other beef with him. I get something similar I will say, I get the same thing at a far milder level, since I too, refuse to conform to unfounded and distracting concerns and grand conspiracies. Notably 911Trutherism.
Cenk Uygur, is the latest audience captured leftist to start entertaining it again. Merging it at some point, to be swallowed whole by his fans, with the X files or Epstein Files, neither of which actually exist really. Cenk's 'hook' is a couple of passports, remaining intact while Twin Towers burnt. The terrorist's passport was a Saudi one, while America attacked in revenge Iraq: what were the deep state thinking of!!!? How careless, they must have been 'morons'. Any you know since birds of a feather do flock together...?
The critics actually have some other beef with Noam invariably. "Holocaust denier' being one of the other major ones: 'self hating Jew'...
I could go on and on. Often the beef stems from his refusal to acknowledge or give any cred to 911Truther and other fantasies. Owen Jones, who I had some time for, recently, in regard to this supposed scandal interviewed Chris Knight, without consulting anybody, as far as I know, who knew any linguistics. Chris Knight is a fool, knows nothing about the Linguistics but presents himself otherwise as an analyst of the 'two Chomskys'. Owen Jones fell for it.
One commentator recently on Mehdi Hasan's site has it that 'Chomsky is a man', that's that then 😆
My gullibility? 🤓
i agree. there is motivation for many to discredit him. but if he sold out his soul to his prominence and fame i am beyond disappointed.
Well he didn't as far as I can see and in fact on what I know of him personally. What on Earth do you mean? How much more prominence can you get than being the most cited living intellectual, with honors nearly hard to list? Acknowledged as founding a whole field in science, or transforming it into something new: Linguistics.
You do couch it as a hypothetical, 'if he sold... ", he didn't that I know of.
You are Shilling for AIPAC / MOSSAD / ISRAEL. Be careful where you tread.
And the next step, always, after the Conspiracy loons have walked into it and shown that they have loony beef with Noam and they always do when they pretend they are 'disappointed' and so on in his interactions with Epsetein, is to then accuse the defenders of Noam, as it were, of 'Shilling for Mossad' or whatever.
I won't treat that as the veiled threat it is and report it. Since I provoked it and you, frankly, fool that you are, walked into it. Again thanks for confirming my view of this as a grand conspiracy on the lines of 911Trutherism and so on. However I have taken up enough space and indeed helped clutter Norman's useful and helpful blog.
oops. guess he knew a lot more than we thought. doesn’t take away Chomsky’s work. only from his humanity. he believed his own fame and greatness.
His wife has made an apology and excuse for their relationship with Epstein. The relationship continued after Epstein’s first conviction.?
Guess he didn't know anything much actually. To be honest that is what I think. I know I should jump to my own favored conclusion like everybody else. Again nothing to do with my original remark and a reply like so many onine designed to push your own rather smug remark. Do you believe in your own greatness? You seem very confident about your insights?
I have been in similar postitions to Noam actually. I don't police check every person I engage with actually. Maybe my bad.
We should maybe move towards that and a society even more paranoid and guarded than it is now.
He didn't believe his own fame in my experience, far from it in fact. A man of great humility and personal generosity. The I experienced it directly you didn't I suppose.
OMG, it just occurred to me that Chomsky‘s second wife might’ve been an Epstein plant! Oh my God that would be so horrible! But, Chomsky would still be a saint. Lol
It is also quite unlikely don't you think. Why don't we let this grow into a full blown Grand Conspiracy like 911Trutherism? Oh dear me, we are already...
I heroized him too until I saw him shoot down a young man who questioned a certain narrative about the towers. He is a gatekeeper, selective in his outrage.
Not really, far from it. The Grand Conspiracy round the towers was a distraction and still is, that sucked a lot of energy away from real politics. He by the way didn't shoot people down. He generally just refused to engage on some topics after years of hearing the same things, and in one case I was party to, to so so would allow the whole discussion and talk to become dominated by idiotic grand conspiracy talk which, on the most simple analysis falls short.
I think we need to start by saying that whatever his personal conduct or associations may be, it doesn't affect the quality of his work. We should not insist that Chomsky can't be implicated because some would use that to try and delegitimise his political contributions. They stand or fall on their own merit.
Personally I think that a large amount of Chomsky's contributions stand up to the test of time (particularly those criticising capitalist media systems, and the USA's imperialism), and are correct regardless of whatever he did. I'm also of the opinion that his associations with Epstein and Steve Bannon reflect poorly on him.
He writes as someone who has a moral perspective of the world. Morality cannot be confined to one specific area, especially not politics ! Morality should permeate every aspect of one's life, associations and actions. Otherwise it's shallow window dressing.
Yes, Kathleen - you’ve couched this in perfect prose.
Good points. I concur really.
I don't really care about this 'association': I did read Valeria's statement about it. Meh. I wouldn't have gone as far as her. Partly because I think the Epstein case is being wildly mis represented and has turned into a moral panic and resembles in some ways 'Russiagate', that last major Nothingburger that did nothing to change anything, or had anything we didn't already know about. Further it is also a version of QAnon, incredibly 'crossing the aisle' and, in a similar way, incredibly the main 'target' remains totally untouched.
One wonders when somebody will start thinking about the 'release' and narrative the Trump DOJ have been able to weave using this tranche of miscellaneous material. Under pressure from QAnon loons and the whole of Congress forced into a fit of pearl clutching by media and other pressures.
I did look at the 'Chomsky' parts, that's all really, a lot of it was not as it has been presented even by what I thought were quite good journos. However I am not interested in cataloguing a bunch of tedious journalistic, even click bait, errors. A lot of it self serving in the 'look how good and pure we are we police our own' way that Leftist Pearl clutching has acquired as a norm.
Myself, were I asked to meet or share a panel or anything with Bannon I likely would. Then I am considered off the pale by a lot of 'leftists' here, so that isn't really much in Noam's defence I don't suppose.
I hope I'm not being too conspiracy minded but during this genocidal lull, while there is still a lot happening toward it, which could inspire some actual reporting in the mainstream, the Epstein scandal has been remarkably omnipresent on cable TV. Maybe I'm crazy but I think we look at the coercive side of Israeli influencing and give diversion of attention with "news dumps" little thought. What's happening over there right now is the culmination of a lifetime of Israeli "deep state" conserted effort by millions of actors over the years, to rid Israel of nonjews, and I'm not sure why the Mossad wouldn't dump something guaranteed to supply our media mills ample grist for salacious distractions.
I wonder too about the insertion of natl guard and even marines into blue cities with a particularly active blm presence. I don't know, that might be a little far-fetched but then if demos against the genocide did gain steam, same logic, the media have to report on them, meaning reporting on what's really happening while Trump's golden council's 'Board of Peace' is convening.
I don't think our media need much help though!? I think, personally, that the Trump DOJ took the opportunity, given to them by the Dems, to edit the material. They didn't actually find much but by then couldn't somehow drop the story. I totally agree with you about 'media mills'. The New York Times has struggled with it, even publishing a sensible opinion piece as to why the material should never have released. They couldn't resist the drama though.
I agree with you in outline really. It is disappointing though to see so many left outlets suck it up, including this one. Trying to squeeze meaning and a critique of... , well of something out of it. It is also an opportunity to be "Brave and Bold" to show how we would fearlessly follow leads and 'evidence' where ever it might lead. So both the media and Dems can grandstand on it, as well as keyboard warriors and show how 'objective' they are.
I don't think some of the material is 'genuine', depending what one means. Norman Finkelstein mentions one 'letter', which is obviously not in Noam's style. It though could, and most likely was written by Epstein staff, not inserted by Mossad or DOJ after this ridiculous 'transparency law' was passed. Now routinely attributed wrongly though.
You are basically right to be suspicious I think, because in true Orwellian style 'transparency' has meant the opposite 'throw a cloud of confusion', 'dot joining' and frankly distraction from four major crises, at least four, The board of Peace, Iran and Ukraine and, as you say, the focus on Blue regions militarily here.
I think what is obvious is enough!. I don't totally discount your disquiet though and really the line between propaganda and diplomacy is now very blurred regarding Israel as to be non existent.
My point in a nutshell is that there is no conspiracy. Maintaining one in the media or Washington would be like trying to hold water in a sieve, a sieve is designed to leak. The media are designed to reveal but there are interests that prefer some things not be. Most journos want to break a good story but are trained to avoid Israel in favor of almost anything else and if they don't, they end up in Substack. So during this genocide it's more that reasonable to assume little pushes have been given to keep Epstein at the top of the story board, not 'even though' history is being changed illegally and horrendously in the ME but 'because it is'.
If that isn't the case then it becomes difficult to explain the sieve holding its water so tightly. It implies all those journalists are intentionally ignoring rather than just competing over the same material.
Will some media connect the dots between regime change in Iran and conducting a genocide, all illegally? Not if the past is any kind of predicter.
absolutely. 'little pushes', perfectly expressed.
OMG, it just occurred to me that Chomsky‘s second wife might’ve been an Epstein plant! Oh my God that would be so horrible! But, Chomsky would still be a saint. Lol
Chomsky said the midi obvious shit anyone who wasn't a retard would know. You people are fucking midwits. He never accomplished anything and thousands of people are better analysts than he ever was. Fuck him, typical shitlib Jew.
guess he was his own victim to his own work.
OMG, it just occurred to me that Chomsky‘s second wife might’ve been an Epstein plant! Oh my God that would be so horrible! But, Chomsky would still be a saint. Lol
Until Rabbi Meir Kahane came along, the Jews from Arab states, indigenous to the region, unlike the Zionist Ashkenazi who excluded them from deliberations that were guaranteed to reshape their lives, were assigned to the lower ranks of the Jewish world ladder, but were encouraged to come to Israel to serve the Ashenazi as the former saw fit and it was often ugly. I have seen no literature or documentation by the Zionist regime prior to the declarations of Kahane that the Mizrahi and Sephardim had been "ethnically cleansed" from their homelands in greater number than the indigenous Palestinian Arabs from what had been their home and homeland for centuries. It was a lie. And any examination of offical Israeli government immigration records of Jews from the Arab to Israel reveals, year by year, to have been largely a trickle. Another Big Lie that goes largely unchallenged.
Let us, OTOH, remember that Epstein's complex personality is unwisely reduced to his glaring failing (pedophilia) - but there was more to him, which surely made him interesting for someone like Noam Chomsky.
P.S. Those that do not understand the comment need not ask - as they are incapable of reading and understanding human character - which remains the final intellectual challenge - beyond morality.
Epstein was obviously a world class first grade ass kisser, for one thing. He probably found out what technical problems Chomsky was interested in at the time and had someone feed him some insightful comments and questions about that. No academic can resist that kind of thing, especially when it's from a guy who delivers you the former prime minister of Israel and Woody Allen with his wifedaughter for dinner mates.
“Wifedaughter” is offensive and not true. You take away what credibility you might have, and at the same time denigrate an honorable woman as though she was a mere accessory. Soon-Yi Previn was never remotely a daughter or any other relation to Woody Allen. She has also been a loving wife and companion to him for over thirty years. Can you not find a way to make your point without disrespecting two people who have done nothing wrong, apart from following their hearts?
Have you heard Woody brag and praise himself over all the things he exposed her to that she never would have experienced without him? Woody is a sick puppy. I've loved his work but not the man, not anymore.
I really don’t want to pursue this any longer, but I have to ask…how is any of this your business, (or mine)? They seem like a very stable, happy, couple. That’s as far as my interest go, and as far as I feel they have any right to go.
The man turned 90 years old this week, and he’s been making people laugh for 75 of those years, (he started writing for television while in high school). He got caught in a web of personal tribulations and has weathered the storm with dignity. I really don’t think it matters at this point who thinks he’s ’icky’.
If you don't care about vulnerable young women, just say that.
I don’t care about vulnerable young women, or strong young women, or anyone else. I have my own problems. They were both of legal age and if you have nothing better to do than be a busybody about something that happened 35 years ago… might I suggest knitting?
Both Woody and his wife are some sick pups ....
I find myself unwittingly in your camp having trawled through the saga. It's interesting.
I've been trying to find a way to continue to love Woody's films in the way I always have and I think there just has to be a separation 'twixt man and art. The grubbiness may rub off on the art however.
There is no grubbiness in a relationship that has proven itself during 34 years as serious, harmonious, faithful and productive, leading to marriage and happy parenthood.
The grubbiness is in the demeaning comments made by badly informed outsiders, who *love* to spread the falsehoods that Soon-Yi was a kind of 'daughter' to him, that he 'helped raise her', that he 'groomed' her as a child, and that he 'cheated on his girlfriend Mia'. None of this is true, as the known, easily verifiable facts have proven long ago.
Soon-Yi and Woody have found happiness, and pass on their happiness to those around them, like their two grown daughters Bechet and Manzie. They are easily the best thing that happened in each other's lives.
That is what counts for me.
Did you ever watch this?
https://youtu.be/WH_LtT0JT54
There are, of course, also responses to it that will probably be recommended as well.
It does matter since Chomsky is a controlled opposition agent running Limited Hangouts and other CIA type operations for Mossad.
I agree with Sera. No I hadn't heard Woody bragging about anything. They seem to me, as very happy couple as Sera says. You and the public seem to me to take way too much interest in people's private sex lives actually.
Quite notable, the number of QAnon loons who have been indicted for under age sex crimes is quite large already. Weird really.
It's accurate. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of his then girlfriend. They lived together. She was a CHILD. He groomed her. He was a father figure. No grown man should be having a relationship with someone he knew as a CHILD. You are supporting pedo behavior. There is absolutely NO reason for a 57 year old man to be with an 21 year old girl (the "official age" they started). Especially considering he'd known her as a child. He was literally WAITING... he's old enough to be her grandfather.
I absolutely agree with you. Any child under his roof was a child and should be off limits forever. If he marries her when she comes of age, it is the result of grooming. That they have had a stable relationship for 35 years, or whatever else people here are commenting, is beside the point really. Good for them, but it is still wrong to marry an adoptive child who lived in your home as a child.
Why is it wrong? I accept that legal limits on sex must be held to. All of America they aren't though, hundreds of times every day. Often with full consent among people whose behavior should anyway be legal, two sixteen year olds for example and even Florida recognizes 'Romeo and Juliet' modifications to the busy-body sex laws.
I appreciate the points about 'grooming', however that can also be rhetorical. There was consent, oh well that does't count cosa 'grooming' it is stupid and unexamined concept. Did your husband 'groom' you, or just 'court' you. Or neither?
How can you possibly find the time to write notes about people you don’t know, whose history you have no idea about, who have broken no laws, and who have been happily married for over 30 years? How can you justify this effort? It’s truly sad.
I don’t know if you exist or if you’re an AI bot, but there are dozens like you who I have met. And…what a waste of time! They’re happy together. What would it take to make you happy? Why don’t you go work on that?
It took all of 60 seconds to leave a comment about a pedophile. You have spent all of your time defending the indefensible. It doesn't matter how happy they are. She was groomed. It's like you don't know what that means. I think you need to do a little bit of research on what grooming is. It's like you don't understand the concept of molding a child's brain so that they grow up to the person you want to date. That's what he did. That's all anyone needs to know.
An adult man took a minor and slowly molded her to be his sexual partner.
That took 2 minutes and I took a phone call in the middle of typing.
There is plenty of reason. Love. In my view, since you asked, the age of consent is way too high. Though maybe what it should be to deal with 'grey areas. Prostitution in all US states is also illegal except in a limted way in Nevada. That too should be changed, protecting sex workers.
It was only in 2020, in the State of Pennsylvania that it was no longer possible to marry at the age of 12. Historically that was routine, history doesn't make it 'right' of course. Let's though go back to the time of the Scarlett Letter shall we.
I have to say I didn't know a lot about the details of Woody's sex life, you seem inordinately interested in it. He is hardly a catch though, so leave him in peace to enjoy what seems a very solid marriage with Soon Li is it?
Noami Campbell was also an associate of Epstein's, or 'in the files' as the idiotic narrative has it. Guess she was having trouble getting dates? 😂
That's his daughter bro
He never lived with Farrow. He was neither a legal guardian nor a parent. From Wikipedia: "Previn has said that Woody Allen "was never any kind of father figure [to her]" and that she "never had any dealings with him" during her childhood, when Allen was dating Mia Farrow.[15] A judicial investigation carried out during the custody trial between Farrow and Allen determined that before 1990, Previn and Allen had rarely spoken to each other.[18] According to Previn, her first friendly interaction with Allen took place when she was injured playing soccer during 11th grade (1989-1990) and Allen offered to transport her to school. Following her injury, in 1990, Previn began attending New York Knicks basketball games with Allen." Allen was 59 at the time of their first "friendly interaction." Is there an "ick" factor to their relationship based on their age difference? Obviously, but that's all it is.
No. You don't become romantically and sexually involved with your girlfriend's adopted daughter. This is and always will be a sick relationship.
Mia Farrow had not been Woody's girlfriend for *four years* when the relationship with Soon-Yi started.
According to the custody trial reports, which are in the public domain, Mia had withdrawn from Woody in 1987. She did that when pregnant of Ronan, a child Mia would later admit is 'possibly not Woody's' (but Sinatra's).
If we believe Mia, it is *she* who cheated on a lover in 1987. Definitely not Woody in 1991, as Mia had not been entitled to his love for *four years*.
Says you. The law says otherwise. They've been together for almost 40 years. Mind your own business, you tiresome choad.
Tell you what, you don't become romantically involved with x, y or z as is your right, and otherwise mind you own business. It is amazing how a lot of this moral panic gets more complicated as you examine it away from the simplified and contrived Dem/GOP QAnon narrative isn't it?
What do his other kids say? Bizarre thing for you to be defending there Hugh
Why are you asking me about defending a 35 year relationship? You're the one making unsupported assertions. I'm not the one with a bug up his backside.
Well, if you think I’m your “bro’, then it’s not surprising that you think Soon-Yi is Allen’s daughter.
You can imagine what I think you are but no point in telling you about it. Move along.
Pffft. Woody Allen himself says he was like a father to her and that she responded to his "fatherly" figure. So when your "defense" is directly destroyed by his own words then its not much of a credible defense, is it?
Oh come on. All God's Children got a 'Daddy' complex.
It is even in the vernacular, "Big Daddy', "Baby", "Honey Chile" I could go on. In fact, one of the Hookers that Matt Gaetz was involved with, who was such a poor witness they had to abandon the indictment of this 'Brooks Brothers Riot' jackass, got here start on a website called 'Sugar Daddy' or something. She, with nobody forcing her, had signed onto it, lied about her age of course, and for money. That is what a 'Sugar Daddy' is. The term is harmless enough and we all know the meaning.
You are searching around in the complicated and huge terrain that is human sexuality looking for hooks for what is frankly, in America, prurient interest in other people's lives. Scarlet Letter 1600s style.
It is out of hand actually and I hadn't realized until now actually, how much of a part it plays in these fictitious 'files' and how many left commentators and pundits have fallen into it.
It seems that you really like sex trafficking and think politicians, sex abuse lawsuits and the world of prostitution really are the greatest measures of character?
Well, I wouldn't say that any case that has "Matt Gaetz fucking a minor for money" is my moral compass ("oh! He was totally innocent because the CIA-controlled politician DIDN'T necessarily know the underage prostitute he bought for sex parties was actually lying about her age! What an upstanding innocent individual!". So that makes it one of us.
If I had any idea what you were trying to say, I might reply.
No I don't 'like sex trafficking' or prostitution for that matter, or whatever you are trying to imply. Fact is that any attempt to get off the MSM narrative on this tends to be met by the kind of hysterical moralizing that you seem to be on. I am done.
The point was that mere association or correspondence with Epstein, shows nothing and doesn't imply any wrong doing. End of story.
I haven’t come across that quote. Perhaps you could specify the date and context.
Such researcher you are with strong opinions and no knowledge?
Woody Allen said Soon-Yi Previn, responded to someone "paternal" in a 2015 interview with NPR.
The exact quote from the interview was: "I'm 35 years older, and somehow, through no fault of mine or hers, the dynamic worked. I was paternal. She responded to someone paternal"
How he has to make obfuscations about how "there's no fault of him", lmao
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/woody-allen-says-his-wife-soon-yi-previn-responded-to-someone-paternal/mbr8se1q3
I just have one quick question which you don’t have to answer. Can you read? Can you add dates together? Okay, that’s two questions. Do you understand that his quote was from when she was an adult? Okay, three questions. Like arguing with a child, this has gotten awfully tiresome. Good bye.
Woody Allen fucked his kid after grooming her. End of story. Because she is damaged enough to stay shouldn’t let him off the hook
I think everyone should do that. I did. My parents did. What’s your objection? It’s sweet, and it’s led to a long happy life for both of them. Are you saying you have a better system? Don’t be so judgy!
By the way Shad, if you know any nice sheep named Daisy, I have a doctor friend who’s looking to start a family. Thanks!
Sorry my replies are so late. This happens here sadly, sometimes you think a thread is new and it is quite old. I have appreciated and been inspired by your courage in yourconvictions. Which are correct as far as I can see. Reminding me of my own rather cowardly silence in regard to what is a moralizing and moral panic.
I am coming to wonder if the Epstein non existent files have anything much to do with anything beyond aiding a new prurient intrusion into people's private behavior and making that a State concern. That is the pattern with Trump's admin for sure.
Including intrusion into reproductive and other rights.
Get facts straight.
“Previn has said that Woody Allen "was never any kind of father figure [to her]" and that she "never had any dealings with him" during her childhood, when Allen was dating Mia Farrow.[15] A judicial investigation carried out during the custody trial between Farrow and Allen determined that before 1990, Previn and Allen had rarely spoken to each other.[18] According to Previn, her first friendly interaction with Allen took place when she was injured playing soccer during 11th grade (1989-1990) and Allen offered to transport her to school. Following her injury, in 1990, Previn began attending New York Knicks basketball games with Allen.[3] A judicial investigation from the Farrow-Allen custody trial concluded that Allen and Previn began a sexual relationship in December 1991.[18] As Allen and Farrow had never married, and as Allen had never adopted Previn, their relationship was not illegal.”
I tend to agree with your pov - keeping in mind that some of USA's greatest idols are utterly evil, and obviously so. There's no sharp distinction between good and evil - and those that condone what's going on can't really expect to be taken seriously when the suddenly get all worked up - whether from tactical intent - or intrinsic fickleness. I foresse that one day, everybody will have known that Trump is far more evil than Epstein - but many of those voted him in.
Honorable ! She blamed a 15 yr old for leading on a grown man in emails with Epstein - Anthony Weiner....
The raccoon faced woody Allen groomed his adopted daughter at a very young age for a very long period. He was the only one foe filled his rotten heart, she will never see straight too long down the rabbit hole.
Can you read? Then read. Every point has been addressed in previous posts. Stop wasting people’s time.
You can use the time to work on your insults. Most people I know think raccoons are adorable.
Sera, in fact he said he attended the dinners solely because his guests were so enthralling
You're far away from being up to the challenge I mentioned in the PS.
I agree it's possible. I don't know the facts regarding the relationship. And what is OTOH, of the top of your head?
On the other hand😊
Four fingers and a thumb 👍
👊
Well in fairness, and I know personally this is true, Chomsky answered queries from anybody. At one time spending about four hours a day doing so, wearing himself out by the later years frankly.
I think if a letter were hate filled enough, he would bin it, by and large any missive was answered. I know of one who asked him about some detail of autistic language use in Pennsylvania and the devices used to aid non verbal people. Just a 'regular' mom with a very disabled kid.
Chomsky did answer in detail including an account of how he, himself, didn't really 'know enough' to give real advice and apologized for that. I was impressed.
My initial correspondence with Noam was very preliminary, ignorant, uninformed and even hostile. Noam won me round over the years.. I argued heavily against him publicly regarding the propaganda model. "give such and such a try" suggested Noam. He was right, I was wrong, that was during the Yeltsin coup, supported to the hilt by the USA.
I did see, in the files, that are constantly mis represented by journalists, some exchanges on linguistics. My reading of them is that Noam was gently correcting some quite standard errors that Epstein was making. In the way he did with me and many others.
Seems Epstein didn't take the cues. Mostly on the "Language of Thought" discussion if I remember, he actually mentions Jerry Fodor. The style and tone was, I have to say, familiar to me and to be honest a style I have learnt to use myself. Including the habit of answering or engaging with anybody and everybody. Which is, as far as I am concerned, part of an intellectuals job, what they are paid for.
Mostly Noam did it for free. Providing me with, I estimate about 300K Dollars worth of guidance for nothing. Thanks Noam.
Somehow I think I could resist that.
Framing is wrong. Epstein was an Israeli asset running a honey trap.
Who happened to be a pedophile which was useful to Mossad/Maxwell’s (handlers)
Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
One's choice of framing reflects one's character and intelligence - and also reveals it.
As you so elegantly have illustrated!
Wow, you really go to bat for Epstein. I see what you mean about framing. Are you a rapist?? I can’t tell by your framing.
Reported that, you troll.
Hmm. Still can’t tell if you are a rapist or not. Your framing reflects your character, no doubt.
Of course you can't, coz you're an ignorant troll.
Sorry the reply is so late. I had no idea such nonsense was being spoken on Norman's excellent site.
Dershowitz is often cited in regard to that hogwash. Why is it hogwash, because it makes no sense. Dershowitz and millions of other American Jews and others, are already fervent, even zealous Zionists. In what possible way could a 'honey trap' be of any use?
What if we do understand the comment and aspire to understand human character, but would like you to develop it a little? For example, what exactly you feel made Epstein interesting to Chomsky? Most of us are caught in the binary, good-guys/bad-guys web of the media. How do we find out more about Epstein's complexity?
Tbh, I only go by all the news flying around, mainly from various sets of released/leaked mails - and piece together a profile from them - which is bound to be lacking, but they do show "there was more". Therein his alignment with Israel and Zionism and his immorality (which is linked to the preceding) as well as ruthlessness are not unusual (which is why he bonded so well with the powerful), but his ability to rise to the level of an independent global power-broker/fixer is - not least in demonstrating what's possible in that role (beyond any government) and how he gamed the governments of his time based on a deep understanding of the reigning geopolitical system emerging from modern culture. You can be sure others will attempt the same (which you may or not want to ward against) - but in a balanced view he was probably less (morally) evil than Trump ("I have met some very bad people,, none as bad as trump. not one decent cell in his body.. so yes– dangerous") - and, arguably, more capable. Finally, those are always the building blocks of human nature: traits motivating you and your capability to assert them.
He entrapped powerful people who he videotaped having sexual encounters with underage women. Even if you can't yet acknowledge this, more well read people know that was one of Epstein's roles. The man was not particularly intelligent and would unlikely have anything interesting to discuss with Noam. Epstein did, though, serve as a connector between powerful factions who Noam may have thought he could benefit from.
Just because you're assertions come from "the news flying around" doesn't mean that more informed people are forming their conclusions based on the same junk news sources.
No I read the exchanges, the video remarks are irrelevant to Noam anyway.
Personally I doubt there were any regarding other people, it is part of the growing conspiracy theory around this and is mostly gossip, anyway who cares. Who knows of course and some people like to film themselves for thrills. The Epstein cohort did have a lot of sex workers of course and who knows?
Sorry the reply is so late, it took some to work thru some material.
The emails I saw between Noam and Epstein are standard replies he gave to inquiries about linguistics very often. Interesting ones and Epstein was by no means a stupid man. Noam is, as he did so often, trying to steer Epstein in the right direction regarding some very counter intuitive science. I do exactly the same with anybody who asks about it. My own view was that Epstein's interest was limited and like so many, only up to the point where it went the way he wanted it to go. Noam, as always, was not inclined to let him do that, however he neither preached or demanded his view be accepted.
I am reading quite a bit too into what were really quite a small number of emails and interchanges. Very few in fact, fewer than the reporting mostly would suggest. I know this is old hat now but this dreary grand conspiracy is going on and on...
Whoever they are I reply, in fact I acquired that on Noam's example. I sometimes miss comments here of course, or avoid ones that are clearly 'hate mail' or direct threats .
Since you haven't been paying attention, this is a demonstrable conspiracy involving several hundred people who were aware of it. Including Chomsky advising a convicted pedophile of how to launder his reputation in the face of new (and true) allegations of more pedophilia and see trafficking.
A conspiracy theory is needed to make sense of a conspiracy.
Not so he didn't advise on how to 'launder' reputation, some people Eps knew did, some possibly believing that Epstein was innocent, or innocent of some of the charges at least. For some of them, not Chomsky, they are professional PR people, that is their job. Similar to the Congresspeople who are playing this for what it is worth.
You are getting into a MSM knot there too aren't you. I will finish this reply with a remark about 'conspiracy theories'.
I did actually go to the raw material. Noam doesn't so advise in the context you imply. Some of the material, by the way, attributed to Chomsky is not by him at all.
Some of it is a kind of forwarding by Epstein, sometimes it is hard to tell even, in some cases I think the words are not directly Chomsky's or anything related to anything he said or wrote. Epstein was a master of Trumpy style attribution actually.
At worst that advice could have been better stated in some ways. I have given similar myself, on the basis, of course that one believes the accusations are FALSE. In Chomsky's shoes I probably would have accepted that at the time. I don't double and triple check every interlocutor I ever get. I couldn't possibly do it on time alone. Chomsky's involvement with Epstein is, though there was a real connection, vastly over stated. Especially to those of us who knew how he operated as it were.
I had the same advice from him regarding fall out from my own defense, not of the content but of the free speech rights of Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier and a book he published about it. I forget the exact details. If you look up Noam's left detractors you will find them jibber jabbering about it, among other lies about 'controlled opposition' and so on they think makes them so clever.
The anti-Chomsky gossip sphere, mostly composed of grand conspiracists, and my own critics, often quite separately, re-translated defense of Faurisson's speech rights to 'Self hating jew', "Holocaust denier' and so on, "Nazi", and that stupid term 'controlled opposition'. How that squares with 'Mossad agent' was hard to see, but they often went hand in hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair
Noam's advice was 'ignore it, if it is false it will die away'. In Epstein's case, on a slightly different set of accusations Noam was arguably wrong and even gullible to believe the denials from Epstein. I think advice to 'ignore it' suggests he took it to be online gossip, like yours and most of what we get online and in MSM, rather than a serious accusation anyway and I doubt Noam gave it much thought.
I am not sure, I don't think he had any reason to doubt Epstein at the time frankly. Neither you or anybody else knows the insider details or how secret Epstein's behavior was or who it was revealed to. Few of the women involved are fully reliable and neither are many of Epstein's other contacts. They often contradict each other and at least two of them have been in litigation against each other on those grounds. That is Rina Oh and Giuffre, who has passed away and I think the litigation is also stopped. Though as in the case of Epstein, money seekers can also sue the estates.
I would have done what Chomsky did. So would you have. Chomsky did say he regreted allowing his words to be used as a preface to Faurisson's Holocaust denying book. I probably would have too. Though I hold with what I said at the time. Velaria Chomsky also says, and probably for similar reasons, they both regret knowing Epstein, you can take that a lot of ways. I don't regret defending Faurisson, then I didn't have words of mine used as a preface to the book.
France's speech chilling laws had more to do with collective guilt for Vichy than anything else. The over reaction, to my mind showed that in fact. A nation of anti semites and cowards, with a small number who resisted, now you would think everybody did.
I don't actually believe a lot of the charges against Epstein myself, however since prostitution is, other than in Nevada, illegal in the US, the matter becomes tricky as to what exactly the crimes are. I don't think, in fact, that Maxwell had a fair trial. Whatevs that is nothing to do with Noam and don't fold it in, that is MY view. Nothing in the supposed 'files' has shed much light on anything to date.
So you are wrong even on that example which is now trotted out again again. It is even arguable and I would accept criticism that Noam and me too, overstate or should reconsider what we take to be over reaction and 'cancel culture' really and certainly I wouldn't use some terminology myself again frankly, I admit that. However I am not going to second guess every mis interpretation possible of every casual remark I make.
I have seen claims regarding harassment and abuse that I consider unfounded and even malicious. No doubt harassment and abuse is also real. There is no contradiction there and no reason that I should advise somebody accused by the generally salacious and lying MSM in some contexts, if the accusations are unfair, to 'ignore it'. If I believe the accusations, well of course I would say 'turn yourself in Clyde, its the right thing to do'.
There are conspiracies, that is why I use another term for the concocted ones like 911Truthers and 'The Epstein Files'. "Grand Conspiracies". There are other terms in use, many feel a specific one should be decided on.
see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
I have absorbed some commentary on Epstein, some from Ryan Grim, some from Will Menaker, that paints a picture of Epstein as a man who came from nowhere, a man who was a construction of the elite sex predators who used him as their date-maker, an almost Judge Holden like character in his lack of knowable personal history and his power to move through the world unencumbered by normal standards of conduct. He comes off as seeming like not a real person, because he was a creation of the perverts who rule the world, as perverted by their accumulation of wealth and power as by their predation of the powerless. One could say the two are just different faces of the same impulse.
You're forgetting that he was coordinating foreign policy of the Israeli government as well as hosting active Mossad agents at his house. The sex predator piece is important but without this context it's just a regular crime. This is much larger.
Sure, of course their claim to being more well-read and informed - is all their own😁
So is yours you piece of shit.
Willfully ignorant
Projecting😁
Epstein's "Complex personality"? More like an intelligence honeypot. Yeah, very "complex"
You remind me of my daughters at the age of 5 or so, proud to have learnt a new complex word they didn’t understand😁
Indians are in love with Jews, and Jews hate Indians but they use them
Keep going, vomit out all your scum - show everyone that you are subhuman👏
Subhuman? What an uniquely nazi word...
You smell like curry and shit
it's a lot less complex than you would think: epstein lied, cheated and stole as needed.
We need to consider that Epstein compromised Chomsky—a leading critic of Israel’s apartheid state. Would be interesting to do the math when he met Epstein and if he then softened his views on Israel or just shifted to focus his political views elsewhere. Would not be the first victim of classic Mossad honey trap.
There was no honey traps and nothing that sinister there. As it happens and for the record, Chomsky was very infirm during this period, and constantly accompanied by Valeria. The interactions where, now I have had time to read the actual files, were marginal and pretty unimportant regarding Noam. Chomsky never 'softened' his views on Israel, what on Earth are you trying to say?
"Do the math", gimme a break, you don't know any math, neither does hardly any body talking about this. Two minutes network analysis, or 'degrees of Kevin Bacon' would show it for the mirage it is. I don't expect that. It helped me a lot with it of course but I don't expect the gullible click bait QAnon, now BlueAnon crowd to get it.
I asked the question—did Epstein manipulate Chomsky? Reasonable as Epstein was a likely Mossad agent. He looked fine in the jet with Epstein, did not see Valeria, and remind me why he was hanging out with a convicted pedophile? No passes for pedophilia or legitimizing pedophiles.
No you didn't ask 'did Epstein manipulate Chomsky', I think he did to some extent. You asked did he 'compromise' Chomsky. The implication being that he had something 'on him'. The further implication being that it was a 'honey trap'. You really are a revolting gossip. Like most pretending you have high moral standards. I don't think Epstein was a Mossad agent actually, where do get evidence for that? Let us know.
When challenged, like most gossips, you retreat to a 'just asking questions' stance, or, "just sayin'" and 'coulda' and the 'who knows' demand from fools that we prove a negative.
It also happens that photos don't always show everybody in a situation. Are you yourself an infant, do you think people disappear when YOU can't see them? I have no idea actually about that photo, where or when it was or who else was present. As I said, I do know Valeria was with him always, no doubt she sometimes used the bathroom...
As I have said to others, basically mostly I find that people who take the line you have, usually have some prior beef with Chomsky. What is yours?
As for the heavily loaded pearl clutching 'hanging round with... ', we all hang around with all kinds of people... often unwittingly. I don't know what Chomsky thought or knew about that so I can't comment or why he either missed it or even might have believed a lie by Epstein about it. I have no insights and can't help you.
I didn't know anything much about Epstein myself until recently, even regarding the initial offense and would't probably have ostracized him on the basis of it. Since I think actually making prostitution illegal fails to protect sex workers, not vice versa and I don't agree much with the laws. Which are really to assist prudery and interference in other people's business by the State and police. America is notorious for that, Comstock and other acts...
Let me know what crimes, including 'soliciting a minor', which can be a 17 year old in Florida, one must consider suitable to warrant permanent ostracizing.
That is my personal view. It is that once a crime is punished... well fill out the rest. I thought it was how our justice system works.
In fact pleas deals are used to get difficult convictions and convictions that shouldn't happen in the first place. Epstein might well, given the unreliability of witnesses in his earlier case, failed in jury trial to get convicted, in fact that now seems likely.
You and others, and this typical of grand conspiracies, assume a lot that you really shouldn't assume.
Frankly I am bracing myself for there being a lot less here than it now looks.
It is pretty clear that Trump himself is not implicated in any crimes. Partly because I think he did break with Epstein when he said he did.
To my surprise actually. Though the Biden admin. slow walked the prosecution that should have taken place for Jan 6th, instead of setting a precedent that anybody's private correspondence, even if no crimes are indictated, can end up in the public domain and subject to empty gossip like yours.
The fact that you feel this generational Epstein scandal is somehow a left vs right battle shows how unlettered you are. Primitive thinkers fall into the Overton window of allowed dissent: left vs right. Idiot. Chomsky has been sabotaging anti-establishment dissent for decades, after he earned our trust with his legitimate anti-vietnam protest. Then he turned full Zionist. Come back to this discussion with the adults when learn what Limited Hangout and Controlled Opposition are.
I will add, before you get back. Though you and other conspiracy loons imagine you are brilliantly penetrating into the workings of some mysterious cabal, and that is the root of QAnon and the BlueAnon Epstein Files shtick, you can't even penetrate what's in front of your own eyes.
For example what I am doing.
I will tell you. Every time I see somebody pile in on the Chomsky connection with Epstein, it is because they have some other beef with him, often of a grand conspiracy kind that he wouldn't go along with at some point. Or some cranky idea that he is a 'gate keeper' 'self hating Jew', 'holocaust denier', 'controlled opposition' and so on. Or sometimes just that he disagrees with them on some marginal, often technical linguistic points.
That 'controlled opposition' is in fact an idea he outlined himself along with Ed Herman to some extent ironically, there is one to some extent, though it isn't under the kind of cabalistic control you imagine in your fantasies.
It is called the Democratic Party and the source, along with the loony wing of the GOP, of the current Epstein distraction. However it by no means operates under conditions that it decides itself and can and will collapse in my view. This Epstein crock will hasten that in my view.
Every time I probe a bit, to test my own thesis, or to show really other people what is going on, clowns like you rise to the bait. Thanks for doing it this time and letting us know what the real beef with Chomsky was.
That remark bears no relation to what I said, it is you talking to yourself. really, which is what most loons are doing. Another loser. Chomsky the Zionist. 😂😂😂 gimme a break.
That's a good point - but my gut-feeling is that while Epstein had a clear allegiance to Israel he was an independent power-broker, see how he played with Ehud Barak (not as his minion but as his mentor) - and so pending such evidence as you suggest or proof of Chomsky actually having been customer of Epstein's sex-trafficking I continue to think Chomsky was interested in exactly that "independent power-broker" role, as an intellectual foil and for access to powerful people he obtained via Epstein.
I don't think Epstein had any particular relation or much influence really. Israel, as a feature of American foreign policy, has been supported in very much the same way now for decades. Not even obscure. Basically a 'battle ship" in the middle east and a means to keep a pan Arab entity, or a secular entity of any kind from developing. That is my view, close to Noam's and I think Norman's? What is interesting is how it maintains itself from admin to admin. Very little explains it fully. It might even be contingent in some ways.
I also think you are over thinking and over stating Chomsky's relationship with Epstein. Chomsky had no need, by the way, to need Epstein for 'access' to anybody.
Part of the relationship was about quite small scale financial advice, Chomsky having neglected his own affairs over most of his life. The sums involved were marginal too. Epstein was a smart guy, however most of what I saw of the intellectual exchange with Noam was quite standard guidance on linguistics that Noam gave routinely. Trying to get some counter intuitive ideas across and he often settled on the exact same formats and even wording. You can see that in the exchanges with Epstein. However the exchanges and relationship is far smaller than the narrative is now suggesting, quite marginal in my view.
I suspect Noam was interested in Epstein's knowledge of finance, which, despite conspiracist nonsense, is actually not well understood, in Noam's view, and, in fact, in mine.
Noam was a clear and consistent opponent of Zionism especially in its current "Judea" form. Period, there is really no need to speculate in the way you are.
There is no suggestion that Chomsky, and several others were 'customers' or that indeed there were any "customers". You need to look at the obvious a bit more. My own view, as I look into it more, is that there is less and less there than I initially thought in fact. Reminds me of Russiagate in fact.
I have to say, I am disappointed in the level of discourse on this on Norman's site. I really am.
Yes, I am also very disappointed - but one keeps learning - and I have meanwhile realized theat discussion is futile - one could as well talk to one's dog.
It was in fact quite welcome to have the discussion with you. I just don't fully agree, nothing else meant. Some of the comments here are quite shocking, given that the standard that Norman sets.
Diagreement is in principle something valuable, as ist shows one has different inforation, or did a different analysis of the same information - the key is how one handles disagreement, which could be in the spirit of dialogue (see my Note “The Supercharger of the Art of Wisom”) - or in the spirit generated and maintained by “The Poison-Machine” (another note). So where would you place yourself on that spectrum?
What you call glaring failing is what drove him, just as it did Jimmy Savile, for another (among far too many). All of Savile’s “good” works were merely a beard; he did them in order to be able to indulge his wickedness. And as we are learning, this is what the most horrifically ambitious do. Even if we accept the adage that the ultimate aim of ambition is to be happy at home, once we add Hobbes to the calculus we realize that great and devious machinations may be an essential part of securing the home front, especially if one defines happiness as exerting power in the most extreme manner: ie abusing and murdering innocent babies.
Please choose a different descriptor than “glaring failing”; it puts the most offensive dehumanization imaginable on a par with a gambling habit.
I appreciate your reply, which is a level above the inanities my comment generally was responded with. I think you are actually moving to where I am: Morality is a hoax, predation (on all fronts) is the name of the game - and the only thing of importance is to understand the human disorder, wherein we fall for the hoax and all too often become predators. This is what Chomsky was studying in Epstein - and he also developed a human connection to his "research object" - who was really a rare specimen of the "sovereign predator", albeit grounded in Zionism.
You can read all you want but all you will absorb in that pea brain is what you want to hear. You’re a wast of time especially when it comes down to understanding morality compass.
I agree. To reduce him to one thing is to misunderstand the whole gestalt of the saga, as it were. “People are a mix of good and bad,” as Barack Obama once said.
Imo everyone should get a fair shake.. but if no even investigations (considering everyone involved) come out of this, it would be disappointing imo.
IMO the normal level of morality is by now so low among public figures (including Obama) that “fairness” is not the issue - rather one must understand what they are doing - also with others - which may be very different for Epstein re Chomsky than re Trump (who was, by Epstein’s own opinion, as immoral as it gets). Expecting Chomsky, OTOH, to be perfect is delusional - but he was a person of remarkable insight - far beyond all the morons that now point fingers at him.
Absolutely as always attempting to explain to people. The complexities of human personality there's always more to a person than just one aspect Professor Chomsky would no doubt he would have found him interesting and he was obviously exceptionally charming.
… and he was a pioneer in the political role he played - though arguably playing ANY political role in today’s geopolitical framework is a bad sign - at least this is my opinion, but one needs to get there. Tellingly, very few of those now pointing fingers at Epstein and Chomsky have any problems with the political class as a whole - though it was Epstein’s client on several planes (sex-slaves, finance, political power).
Epstein was a pedophile? Really? Were any of his victims prepubescents? That would news to me.
Not sure whom/what you are replying to, but I'm certainly not hairsplitting on whether it was pedophilia in your sense (or any other) or not - it's irrelevant to my comment.
It's not just not pedophilia "in my sense", it's not pedophilia in any sense. And I'm not arguing, I'm just educating.
I understand, you're a wannabe pedophile😁 ... and want to educate people that it's OK👍 Try harder.
I understand, you're wannabe smart and now you feel called out on being stupid, so kow you're lashing out. It's cool bro, keep using the wrong words, we know what you mean. 😉
Oh, of course, you have the same inclinations and understanding as your president - what's good for him must be good for you - and anyone who disagrees is a nutcase - and will be nuked if he doesn't shut up😁
Nice try, complex personality my a..!
You really didn't have to show me that you couldn't read as far as the P.S.😁
I understood your post perfectly. Don’t mistake disagreement for an inability to read. Your P.S. said more about your attitude than anyone’s comprehension, and the rest of the thread only made that even clearer, whether you noticed or not.
Your way of expressing your "disagreement" conclusively proved you understood nothing - which was the point of the P.S. But you are in large company - as the rest of the thread showed.
Yeah if people don't agree with you they are stupid. Except you are the dumbass on this topic. Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky has already identified him as a controlled opposition agent. Get your head out of your ass: see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm ... some people are so naive
I'm sure that in your world Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai is an unquestionable authority that makes your "argument" unassailable. It's just that I chose the real world instead, benefitting from true Indian wisdom, the kind you studiously avoid.
I wouldn’t want you anywhere near children pdf file !
... and I wouldn't want any of my three highly-gifted and well-developed daughters anywhere near a person like you with suppressed pedophilia and 0 culture - or in your primitively fascist country, for that matter
Well developed? Sounds like something a pdf file would say about his own daughters, lol that’s pretty gross, you shouldn’t be commenting on the development of the bodies of your daughters you sick freak, im glad your not in my country, do your daughters partake in rolling in cow shit to or is that just when your dot head side comes out
Always projecting😁 I know what you are (and well-developed for you only means ready-to-fuck) - and you have to distract from that - but that doesn't work with me.
You worship cows
Keep going, let everyone see what a gutter-scum you are😁
There is “more“ to most evil people‘s personalities, that does not mean you overlook the evil in order to engage in your pleasure. All the elite that surrounded this man were guilty of enabling his behavior which was vile in the extreme. You demonstrate your lack of concern for young women and girls when saying aw, but he was so interesting. He was committing crimes and they were facilitating that with their friendships. I’m not saying Noam Chomsky raped young girls, but you don’t know that he didn’t either just because he came up with some good left-wing ideas. He certainly doesn’t mind that Jeffrey Epstein was raping young girls as it seemed to be apparent to everyone who knew him.
I once had a close friend whose wife left him and THEN (the wife) revealed to me that he had been having affairs most of the time - and that ended that old friendship, By the same principle the elite you speak of, and, more generally, “good Americans” are distasteful to me - but I scoff at their hypocrisy of virtue-signalling while condoning all the evil in their society and, most of all, their leaders.
Epstein was a pedophilic pimp and trafficker for decades. He may have had a complex personality and maybe even multifarious talents—although surely not as complex and multifarious as those of Hitler and Stalin (also “beyond morality”), which have absorbed biographers and historians for nearly a century. And thus, according to your pontifications, being a cosy clandestine buddy with Hitler or Stalin, after casting MORAL excoriations on countless public figures for decades (as Chomsky did), would be beyond reproach for hypocrisy.
Yeah, those excoriations hurt, didn’t they😁 … and so you now need to deflect from having a president who’s FAR WORSE than Epstein.
The evil of Trump is irrelevant. You are deflecting from the issue, which is the evil of Epstein and the hypocrisy of Chomsky, who spent decades excoriating public figures for their moral failings, yet had a cosy and secretive friendship with a proven pedophilic rapist and pimp. Only discombobulated minds continue to rant about the evil of Trump (and whether excoriations “hurt”) when the post concerns the hypocrisy of Chomsky.
And smiling face emojis don’t constitute wit.
Says the master of deflection - to Hitler and Stalin - and away from his personal jealousy of Chomsky🥱
Like your personal jealousy of Trump? The reference to Hitler and Stalin made the point by way of analogy that taking an interest in someone who “is complex” does not necessitate becoming a close buddy of his, and directly addresses your pompous prattle about Epstein, whereas your inanities about Trump address nothing pertinent to the topic of Finkelstein’s post, which is the moral implications of Chomsky’s friendship with his traveling and dining companion Epstein.
Still waiting for you to say something relevant to my simple comment🥱
This is how Israel/Mossad/CIA act, they implicate innocent parties and then make them co-conspirators. So they have no incentive to expose their ops/acts.
Chomsky used Epsteins accounts to tax evade.
That's the first thing of value added to this conversation. Do you know the background of how they were put together?
Noam Chomsky and tax evasion? Couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Thank you for this statement, Norman. As Chomsky’s assistant for 2 ½ decades, I observed his total dedication to humankind. He barely slept, had to be reminded to eat. He was patient with those who didn’t understand, or misinterpreted, his statements, all based on facts. He forged ahead despite detractors, was ethical and honest, working to exhaustion to expose and share truths.
Having seen hundreds of rec letters he sent out, I can say with almost complete certainty that he was not the author of the letter in circulation. That Epstein had this letter in his files doesn’t mean Noam had a hand in it. It seems that Greenwald, who highlighted the rec letter early on, was more interested in highlighting his own social media than considering the flimsiness of an unreliable letter - unaddressed, unsigned, undated. Most likely unsent.
I’m not a sycophant. I knew little about Chomsky when I first worked for him. What I witnessed was life-changing. Now, it’s hard to be silent when I see wild accusations being thrown at such an honest and dedicated man.
I studied at Z media institute under Chomsky and corroborate everything you've said. More humble and generous than anyone with such a pedigree I've ever met. He would sit down at the end of each month and sign cheques to support the many dissident and humanitarian organizations he believed in.
If he was dedicated to anything it was protecting Israel from the punishment it deserves by placing all the blame for Israel's endless crimes against the Palestinians and Lebanese on the US government, repeatedly claiming, without substantiation, that Israel did nothing without US approval. At the same time he ignored the actions of those presidents that confronted Israel who would pay for it at the polls, namely Ford, Carter and GHW Bush, and JFK who paid for doing so with his life. And, more than anything, he dismissed the actions, even the existence of the Jewish Political Establishment AKA The Israel Lobby, never mentioning AIPAC, American Jewish Committee, WINEP, or JINSA in his writings, writing, in an email to me, "I don't write about it, I don't talk about it." That happened to be true unless he was responding to someone who disagreed with him at which point he became very nasty.
He was telling American audiences that they have the most power to influence Americas government and americas policy.
If you are an American and don’t like Israeli war crimes against Palestinians then you should get YOUR government to stop sending them weapons and aid and giving them diplomatic support.
Chomskys analysis was absolutely correct. If you feel accountable for Israeli war crimes then good you should. That’s where your tax dollars go. We all have the ability to change that. It’s called taking responsibility and fixing our country.
Well said, Lukas.
Do you believe that Greenwald or anyone else, made up Chomsky's comment to the Wall Street Journal that having "served" a one year sentence in a Florida prison, only having to check in at night, for sex trafficking, gave him a "clean state" under American "norms"?
It didn't, unless you think having to register as a sex offender in Florida and Virgin Islands, was no big deal.
I think the misinformation, judgments, assumptions, and lack of reasoning and critical thinking have made this whole thing into a circus. Such brave people to knock Noam down when he can’t speak. The articles and statements I’ve seen by self-righteous sheep sicken me. I knew Noam well. He lived a selfless life. He hated socializing. He wore a filter to block out gossip, hearsay, and anything that wasn’t confirmed by non-mainstream media. So YES, it is very, very possible that he didn’t know what Epstein was doing. Don’t forget who Noam has always been. This should be a no-brainer.
He also trusted everybody. Do you think this new gang of detractors, added to the same old ones will believe that? They didn’t know him, though they loved him when he agreed to co-write books with them or share a stage with them. And once that association appeared to be a negative one, they ripped it away as quickly as they could, without giving any thought to what the so-called evidence actually pointed to, if anything. At the risk of sounding like somebody’s grandmother, shame on them.
He worked endlessly. In his late 80s he married a much younger woman who wanted to live a social life, the last thing on his radar. His favorite people to be with were students, young activists, and working people. His new wife corresponded with Epstein a lot, and she managed Noam’s email accounts. Those are the facts.
You would appreciate this video Bev (by the way greatly enjoyed your book):
https://youtu.be/_rycZwFXPwo
After more than a month of sleepless nights, pages of notes, struggling to publish a new Substack post, I can now sit back and eat bonbons. This video is perfection. From Hedges’s clairvoyance to Finkelstein’s shoot from the hip honesty to Vijay Prashad’s claiming to be a longtime friend of Chomsky‘s. Thank you! Please write me at bevstohl@gmail.com. You might want to read my substack asking WWNS and WWND? Bev Stohl’s substack
Big deal. So you knew him. Did you know Epstein also? see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
You’re getting into the weeds in the wrong swamp.
Well said, thank you. There is something very opportunistic about this and incredibly flimsy. It is as if a quiet industry has evolved using Epstein's name to tarnish people, to target them, for no good reason. It is a rather sad side of human nature that seems to be flourishing due to World events.
Just because you worked with him and knew him does not mean he was not a double Agent. He is Mossad running limited hangout on Goyim.
Big deal. You worked with him and watched him send emails. Epstein also corresponded a lot of emails. What does this prove. Both were prolific workers. But what matters is ethics and morality. see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
My heart sank when Noam Chomsky's good name first appeared in this context. My gut said such an intellectual and honourable man, whose life's work has always been to inform, demystify and expose the machinations of Capitalism and how language is used to minimise, mask and obscure the real agendas of the most powerful.
As a previous comment pointed out. There was more to Epstein than your average paedophile. He undoubtedly had persuasive social skills, high level (albeit covert) support and international contacts at the very top, many of whom were/are still, only too happy to be friends
at least in the beginning.
I choose to trust my gut and back Chomsky.
Chomsky trusted his gut and maintained a relationship with a convicted pedophile.
Chomsky used Epstein and epsteins accounts to tax evade.
Seriously? Were you his accountant? If you knew him, you would know this kind of behavior would be far off of his radar. When his first wife died, he didn’t know where his bank account was held, or how he received his retirement money.
Do more research. I can see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad agent. Also watch this: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
There is no accusation that could ever tarnish the prophetic body of work Mr. Chomsky gave to the world.
I’m reminded of your reply when accused of being a ‘self hating Jew’; What, you rightly asked, does that have to do with the facts?
Denial os a river in Egypt. One can see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
There is no limit to the dirtortions of zionists and right parties gossips.
"The smart way to keep people passive & obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum"
-Noam Chomsky
Which Mr. Chomsky did state or inform others of. That does not say he wouldn't use "The smart way [....] limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion" for himself or those he wants to protect or defend. Believe me, I want to trust Mr. Chomsky. However, he really did understand how the ruthless uses human nature to control human nature for one's own purposes.
I haven't come to any conclusions about Mr. Chomsky and I strongly appreciate that this is being debated openly.
Please keep this analysis going.
Chomsky is evil for many more things than this.
He goes along with the bullshit official story of 911 and the JFK assassination.
He went along with the COVID shamdemic.
Others like Julian Assange/WikiLeaks and Snowden did the same thing.
Limited hangouts....
https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/Limited_hangout
9/11 is the litmus test. Anyone that parrots the official line is suspect.
Bingo...
Here's the tool Assange downplaying questioning 911. He also talked on democracy now how WikiLeaks was not focused on 911 because they were going to release info on the big banks... Which they never did. No wonder why WikiLeaks said nothing about the COVID fiasco.
https://rumble.com/v5hk0rp-assange-downplaying-to-question-the-911-official-story..html
Look more deeply, and you’ll see his point, whether or joy you agree. One downfall of his was giving too much credit to the reasoning and deeper thinking of others.
It was very disappointing and surprising to me to see his response to Covid. I wasn’t aware that he didn’t question 9/11 either. ☹️
It’s crazy that traitors who deserve the death penalty follow decent folks and force us to read your filth.
You seem to be exactly the kind of idiot i incline to becoming in my worst moments of cynicism at the value of humans, especially males. Good luck with your civil war fantasy, imbecile.( Ps read some books!)
I have read many more books than you, son. And I have no fantasy about civil war. Right wingers like you deserve the death penalty, plain and simple. I’m just sorry I’ll probably never get to see you hang.
Norman, you here only comment on the letter. What about the in-person meetings including the dinner in Manhattan? It seems that such events are as important to comment on as the letter. Also, can you offer some explanation for your conclusion that the letter does not sound like Chomsky? Also, if it was not written by Chomsky --we know from recent releases that Epstein sometimes wrote character letters for himself but for others to sign -- how are we to explain the letter being ostensibly issued by Chomsky? Did he agree to sign it? If so, why? Your critical analysis on this matter is needed.
Poor Finklestein is in denial his lifelong friend and idol is compromised.
Epstein pulled the John Baron trick?
I love your work: thank you. What we are fighting for is common humanity, the concept of I and Thou.
Glenn Greenwald said the letter sounds like Chomsky. My own guess is that it was real. Hard to explain, though. Either way, Chomsky is a legend and a force of nature and nothing will ever change that.
Chomsky may be a "legend and a force of nature", but he is very Jewish. Nothing wrong with being very Jewish (e.g. only accepted that Hebrew was spoken in his house, as Finkelstein himself once pointed out), except when that extends to supporting the existence of the illegitimate genocidal ziofascist Sewer. Note: if I am not mistaken even Finkelstein himself supports its existence.
Chomsky has been an outspoken critic of Israel for decades - with them calling him antisemitic and a self hating Jew
It is very easy to talk and criticize, but ask him if the illegitimate entity deserves to exist and he'll bite your head off for even asking the question.
In other words, criticism is meaningless without the criticizer walking the talk.
"Israel should not
continue to exist, and I say this as a Jew."
~Noam Chomsky
Excellent point. I was wrong and retract what I said about him re the existence of "israel". Thanks for pointing that out.
I googled that statement, and came across these 2 outlets that confirmed it:
https://x.com/Aljarmaqnetnews/status/1958496648344076558
https://www.threads.com/@brics_countries/post/DNhYw6HSrXP/breaking-news-noam-chomsky-declares-israel-should-no-longer-exist-renowned-lingu?hl=en
I add that important inf to to my personal wiki database.
Thanks for setting me straight.
You’re more than welcome, I appreciate the response.
Chomsky is a hard case to follow, and his contradictions are many, but on this he’s spoken in a straight line since before the existence of Israel.
Coincidentally, my own father, born a few years before Chomsky, was in Palestine at the same time, and told exactly the same first hand stories of Arab villages being bulldozed, and of Zionist terrorist attacks. I myself spent some time with these criminals, and in 1968 heard firsthand their bragging about things like killing two Arabs with one bullet. They started as terrorists and they are terrorists to this day.
Whether Israel is legitimate is another debate. It is entirely possible to defend Israel's legitimacy (at least where international law as expressed in the UN resolutions is concerned) and condemn the behaviour of the successive Israeli states, as both Chomsky and Finkelstein have done and continue to do.
Legitimate and legal are not the same, you confuse the 2 issues. "israel" lacks legitimacy: no genocidal state can claim legitimacy.
As for Chomsky and Finkelstein's condemning the genocidal Sewer's behavior: so what???? It is so easy to criticize and condemn, but they unconditionally support the existence of it, which means they support zionism, which means they support a deeply racist political ideology, which in this case means they support genocide despite their so-called condemnation.
I saw your responses to Sera and congratulate you on your willingness to admit that you're wrong. You did have grounds to make your comment: after all, didn't Biden make a show of condemning Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" of Gaza at one point?
When I mentioned Israel's legitimacy I was positing an erroneous equivalency between legality and legitimacy. Thanks for pointing it out. In any case, the "legality" of the UN resolutions is being diluted by the UN's recent record of voting on the Trump "peace" plan. But it's just not accurate to say that Chomsky and Finkelstein "unconditionally support" Israel.
Going back to The Fateful Triangle, his signature book on the topic, Chomsky has insisted that Israel has done what it has to the Palestinians only following US orders and therefore, it is the US that should take the blame for Israel's crimes, e.g., the planes that attack and kill Palestinians are American planes with Israeli pilots. He has never supplied any evidence for this statement BECAUSE NONE EXISTS.
This is the same with his insistence that Israel is supported by the US because it serves as a strategic asset for Washington in the region, but he has never been able to provide a single comment from any State Dept or Pentagon official affirming that because, clearly, there aren't any. Nevertheless, Chomsky has been able to purvey this BIG LIE to critics of Israel and supporters of the Palestinian struggle over the years because, as Israel Shahak told me in a personal letter (before email), they are too intellectually lazy to do investigations on their own.
Going back to Fateful Triangle, Chomsky blames the US for everything Israeli does while offering no basis or ANY US government source, civilian or military, for that opinion, while IGNORING the actions of presidents who have challenged Israel openly, e.g., JFK, Ford, Carter and Bush Sr., while using the hearsay of a Zionist singalong's claim as a footnote that Eisenhower came to regret having ordered Israel to withdraw from Egypt in 1956.
Can anyone, without sacrificing their integrity, explain what benefits the US has obtained from Israel's occupation of the West Bank or the genocide in Gaza? And please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pointing to the weapons gifted to Israel which have been a drop in the bucket compared to US arms sales worldwide. Or the gas under the waters off Gaza from which the Israelis have been profiting with little attention from the MSM which is also Zionist controlled.
Listen to Jeffrey Sachs, Lawrence Wilkerson, Ray McGovern whose real world experience dwarfs that of Chomsky and they all acknowledge that Israel controls US Middle East Policy.
" Chomsky blames the US for everything Israeli does while offering no basis or ANY US government source, civilian or military"
Can you cite a few sources, with actual quotes from Chomsky?
I did not know Finkelstein supported the existence of the state of israel. How disappointing.
Norman has said in recent times, 'the only right Israelis have is the right to pack their bags and leave Israel's. That doesn't sound like support to me. You could get nominated Antisemite of the Week for saying that.
His statement does not mean he does not support the existence of the genocidal Sewer. If that is indeed what he meant, he should state out straight, explicitly, like his former mentor Chomsky did.
As for being nominated "Antisemite of the week", that is a joke as the Jews love to use the "anti-semite" platitude to close down any criticism about them or their beloved genocidal Sewer.
Never mind...just read down below, Sera's quote from him...good to know.
Unlike Chomsky, AFAIK Finkelstein has not explicitly stated "israel" should not exist. If you have different info please let me know.
There is a line of thought that that Israel could effectively be re-created as the State many believed it would be and sometimes was at first. It would have to be very different, with perhaps a new or hyphenated name, with equality for all. Way back, from before/around the end of WW2 in 1945, Extremist Zionists who had been pally with the Nazis right into the beginning of the war in 1939, misrepresented the notion of Israel to the World as a safe, peace loving State,- and the leaders of the West well knew this, as the campaign built towards the end of the war. Why go ahead, even despatching their own on-the-ground advisors? Possibly US war loans. There were also full on Zionists hidden in the UK Govt and elites and in the US. Whatever the reasoning, it seems Truman was very uneasy about it, as were many British MPs. However, we now have generations born as Israelis in a State whose citizens have been programmed, indoctrinated,to fear aggression from all. The irony being that Israel's governance determinedly created a nightmare State. But there are good Israelis there who abhor the cruelty to the Palestinians and Palestinians also want peace and a better life. It would take the end of US/UK backed rogue Zionism. Its days are numbered.
> The irony being that Israel's governance determinedly created a nightmare State.
That is only an apparent irony because the reality the basic principle of the entity was, and still is, for it to be based on fear as that is the only way to keep members of the Tribe going astray, intermarrying and generally assimilating with the rest of society.
Of course, there are still Jews who go astray, according to the wsihes of the Talmudists, but the battle is on to keep them in line, hence the increasing number of psyop "anti-Semitic" incidents, most of which are staged to both keep the Tribe together and to distract from what the genocidal Sewer is doing and never stopped doing despite Trump’s Extermination Plan.
You think the Sewer’s days are numbered: I fervently hope so, but I am not convinced it is the case. You see, the West, and even China and Russia, have too much at stake, the Sewer is an important component ffor them.
Except that Chonsky is an intelligence agents could change this. Moron. see you are gullible. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
Greenwald made assumptions about an unsigned, undated, unaddressed, unsent letter.
“[Epstein] quickly became a highly valued friend [of Chomsky’s].”
Like all the politicians that Chomsky once condemned as murderous war criminals and who were never prosecuted by corrupt, power-worshipping judicial systems, Epstein had a clean-slate.
So according to Chomsky, a clean legal slate from corrupt judicial systems equates to a clean moral slate, and Chomsky would happily have unprosecuted war criminals and murderers as highly valued friends with whom to have cosy social dinners. It’s doubtful Chomsky would have felt the same for a pedophile who only exploited Jewish girls (as Epstein only exploited Gentile girls), or if his daughters were among the girls exploited.
I was very active politically while in law school, and my last political act there was to sponsor a speech by Dr. Chomsky regarding the situation in Palestine. This was 2005. What I received for my efforts were harassing and threatening emails from "good" zionists who objected to something as basic as the First Amendment guarantees of free speech. I was given a tee shirt that proclaimed "We are All Palestinians" and wore it proudly. One of my professors, who was a good solid leftie in every way except for the issue of Israel cornered me while wearing it, telling me why my shirt was wrong and why I was wrong.
I would not be surprised at all if some/all of the talk about Chomsky and Epstein was planted by zionist operatives. In any case, I will continue to support Professor Chomsky.
That’s an interesting approach, and I repeat, Chomsky is in poor health at 97 years old, and cannot speak in his own defense.
So what. If Chomsky dies tonight it does not erase his deceptions.
I’m puzzled why Norman Finkelstein, a scholar known for rigorous, evidence-based analysis would even engage with this. Being asked to comment on Chomsky’s past encounters with a dead man of shady reputation seems inappropriate. Even if Norman isn’t adding to the rumor mill, his response elevates it just the same.
That Chomsky would have crossed paths with Epstein over many decades isn’t surprising. I’d be surprised if Norman himself hadn’t. Are we to believe NYC’s circles of celebrity, academia, and business don’t overlap? That’s naïve.
Why should anyone have to explain past chance encounters? Must we now be accountable for every person we’ve ever met? This toxic form of “accountability” works by forcing humiliating public confessions for “guilt by association.” It’s outrageous.
In my opinion, Mr. Finkelstein should have refused the premise of the question. Rejecting this illiberal, coercive tactic isn’t just defending an individual, it’s defending reasoned discourse itself.
That said, I have the luxury of commenting on his comment. I don’t know the circumstances of the request, but it troubles me that he felt he had to respond.
Yes, I absolutely agree with your assessment, for this statement by Norman may very well be, to my knowledge and appreciation of him and his work, the only time that he has stated something without actually saying anything of substantial, fact based relevance.
It reads almost like a statement from a politician's spokesperson.
And as such, as this thread reveals, offers nothing but junk-food for anything but reasoned, i.e. fact-based dialogue.
Very unusual to be sure;
Maybe he was experimenting....
Because Finklestein is friends with 2-faced Chomsky a controlled opposition Mossad agent running limited hangout for 5 decades on unsuspecting generations of authentic activists... deceiving both the left and right.
thank-you, and this time its genuine.
Yes, I agree in part, Finkelstein is also fallible human, whether or not they would call each friends, they Finkelstein and Chomsky orbited within the same plane of existence, you have help me see what I failed to see prior, that which I stated troubled me, thank-you
It's not who you met, it's what you did that matters.
Naive fool. To see you are so gullible. Credulous moron. Ask Dr Shiva Ayyadurai who worked with Chomsky @ MIT and claims Chomsky is Controlled Opposition / Mossad. Also watch this moron: https://www.youtube.com/live/itdB4Kbwpt8?si=1euRsh8aLVZJkTDm
Thank-you for being so gracious , please accept this as an official receipt, for your generous and ever so precious contribution to the discourse, and mankind`s collective pool of knowledge.
One question , why did it you take you 2 & 1/2 months to share your wisdom ?
You are welcome. It took me 2 1/2 months to ask A.I. if Finklestein had weighed in on his friend Chomsky... which led me to this Substack link. I knew these professors were friends. The mainstream public sheep may take 3 - 5 years to ask the same question.
How do you come to know that they are friends? No doubt their paths crossed by , but friends?
The only conclusion possible at this moment: Not enough information. Yet.
Now we have enough information…
I’m ok with discriminating against a billionaire Zionist pedophile Mossad agent. Wtf.