By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A reply from an account labelled Noam Chomsky states that the “vultures” are seeking public response to create an opening for attacks, often from publicity seekers or cranks. This highlights a strategic element in public discourse, where engagement can be exploited for negative purposes. The intent behind such responses appears to be the creation of a platform for unwarranted criticism.
Read the original article here
Recent revelations from previously unsealed files have shed light on an unexpected and frankly concerning communication between Noam Chomsky, a widely recognized linguist and intellectual, and Jeffrey Epstein. The disclosed messages suggest that Chomsky offered Epstein advice on how to navigate what he described as “horrible” media coverage and public perception. This advice came a full eleven years after Epstein had already pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor, a detail that makes Chomsky’s engagement with him all the more perplexing.
The nature of Chomsky’s advice, as purportedly conveyed through texts attributed to him and sent by Epstein to a lawyer and publicist, focused on ignoring negative press. He apparently expressed that he himself had contended with “tons of hysterical accusations of all sorts” and that the “best way to proceed is to ignore it.” He further elaborated, emphasizing that this strategy was particularly pertinent in the current climate of “hysteria that has developed about abuse of women,” where he felt that even questioning an accusation was tantamount to a crime far more severe than murder.
This revelation has inevitably led many to re-evaluate Chomsky’s public persona and his seminal work, “Manufacturing Consent,” which critically examines how mass media can shape public opinion and serve the interests of dominant elites. For some, these communications lend a disquieting new dimension to his ideas, suggesting a potential disconnect between his public critique of power structures and his private dealings with an individual accused of heinous crimes. The fact that Chomsky was offering such counsel to Epstein, especially after his conviction, has prompted accusations of naiveté or, worse, complicity from various commentators.
The context of Epstein’s conviction is crucial here. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to charges involving sex with a minor. Any association or communication with him after this point, particularly offering advice on public relations, raises serious questions about the judgment and ethical considerations of the parties involved. The notion that one could simply “ignore” the intense public scrutiny following such a conviction, especially when victims are involved, strikes many as profoundly insensitive and out of touch.
Furthermore, this emerging information has brought renewed attention to past controversies and criticisms leveled against Chomsky. His historical positions on geopolitical conflicts, including accusations of genocide denial concerning the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and his critiques of Western foreign policy, have resurfaced in discussions surrounding these newly revealed documents. Some interpret his engagement with Epstein as further evidence of a pattern of problematic associations or a selective application of his critical faculties.
The commentary surrounding these files often expresses shock and disappointment, particularly from individuals who have long admired Chomsky’s intellectual contributions. For many students and academics, his work in linguistics was foundational, and his political critiques were seen as vital. The current revelations, therefore, feel like a betrayal of that intellectual legacy, prompting a difficult reassessment of his overall impact and credibility.
The specific advice to “ignore it” when facing “hysterical accusations” is particularly jarring when viewed through the lens of Epstein’s victims. This approach seems to dismiss the gravity of their experiences and the need for accountability. While Chomsky’s supporters might argue that he was unaware of the full extent of Epstein’s crimes or that he was simply offering general advice on media management, the timing and context of his communication make such explanations difficult to accept for many. The argument that “not trusting the news” is a sufficient reason to maintain a relationship and offer advice, especially to a convicted sex offender, is seen by many as a flimsy justification.
The broader implication of these communications is that they expose a potential moral blind spot in a figure often lauded for his sharp critique of power and injustice. The idea that Chomsky might have been “deluded” about Epstein being merely “smeared” or that he “didn’t know shit” is a common sentiment expressed, suggesting that a cursory glance at news reports or court proceedings would have offered sufficient warning. The fact that this communication occurred a decade after Epstein’s guilty plea underscores a persistent engagement that is difficult to reconcile with a genuine concern for the victims or a clear understanding of the severity of Epstein’s actions.
Ultimately, these files compel a difficult conversation about how we engage with public figures whose actions and associations may contradict their espoused ideals. The revelation that Noam Chomsky advised Jeffrey Epstein on managing “horrible” media coverage, particularly in light of Epstein’s conviction for sex offenses involving a minor, has undoubtedly tarnished his image for many and forced a critical re-examination of his legacy. It highlights the complex and sometimes uncomfortable intersections between intellectual influence, personal conduct, and public perception.