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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*.
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?
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 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.
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!
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
Puerile sniping aside, #WeLifelongLearners are behooved to read the great octogenarian author #JamesWDouglass’ just published #MartyrsToTheUnspeakable, subtitled “The Assassinations of JFK, Malcolm, Martin and RFK.”
That's great, you can read books👍 Let's see whether you come to realize that the millions of books written, even the grand teachings (y'know, all those religions, ideologies and such) - didn't stop us from getting where we are - and what you do THEN.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
“[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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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'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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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
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.”
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 👍
👊
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)
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.
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.
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👏
You smell like curry and shit
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.
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.
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.
it's a lot less complex than you would think: epstein lied, cheated and stole as needed.
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).
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.
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😁
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.
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🥱
Puerile sniping aside, #WeLifelongLearners are behooved to read the great octogenarian author #JamesWDouglass’ just published #MartyrsToTheUnspeakable, subtitled “The Assassinations of JFK, Malcolm, Martin and RFK.”
That's great, you can read books👍 Let's see whether you come to realize that the millions of books written, even the grand teachings (y'know, all those religions, ideologies and such) - didn't stop us from getting where we are - and what you do THEN.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
I love your work: thank you. What we are fighting for is common humanity, the concept of I and Thou.
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.
Epstein pulled the John Baron trick?
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.
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.
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....
It's not who you met, it's what you did that matters.
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.