No gods, no masters: Facing Chomsky’s Epstein disaster

Noam Chomsky’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein have forced the Left to confront the dangers of hero worship, moral blind spots and selective responsibility, writes Dr Raffaele Ciriello.

THE EPTEIN FILES It would be tiring enough without our intellectual hero among them.

With each new slice announced by the Department of Justice, we are reminded that we live in a world where a handful of rich and powerful men feel they have the right to take advantage of the vulnerability of underage girls to the point of viewing them as a birthright without consequences. And they appear to be clustered across the political spectrum.

In a particularly harsh blow to the left, this cluster now includes: Noam Chomsky – towering figure in linguistics, iconic libertarian socialistHe is a lifelong critic of US foreign policy and apparently a sympathetic correspondent of a convicted child sex trafficker.

This bothers me. Chomsky was not mentioned merely in passing. Reports describe continued contact long after Epstein’s conviction; dinners, phallic jokes and even travel fantasies (‘I really dream of a Caribbean island’).

Most shocking is the sentence attributed to Chomsky advising Epstein to ignore and refuse to investigate the “horrible” press. ‘hysteria about abuse of women‘in such a climate ‘Even questioning an accusation is a crime worse than murder’.

If, Like meYou’ve relied on Chomsky to puncture the arrogance of the elite, which makes discovering Santa Claus feel unreal.

How can the left respond without resorting to denial or defaulting on repeal?

A modest starting point is a revision of an old maxim:

Making mistakes is human.

Chomsky is human.

Therefore Chomsky is wrong.

This is not an excuse, but an antidote to hero worship. The most telling statement may not be the “hysteria” line but Chomsky’s defense of the previous relationship. Epstein had served his sentence and “This opens a clean slate under US laws and norms.”, he said. For decades Chomsky has been challenging the immunity of elites. Here he appears to abide by legal formalism that often shields elites from accountability.

The cancellation reflex is tempting. If he, of all people, couldn’t see that, then what else did he miss?

A dialectical stance is more useful: two opposing propositions can be true at the same time.

Chomsky may be a key critic of US power whose work has enabled generations to see what respected media choose to correct. And she may be morally wrong, even deeply wrong, about the way she talks about the abuse of women, about her relationship with a man who exploited them, and about her failure to recognize her closeness to the entitled elites she has long condemned.

There is a difference between complicity in abuse and blindness. Nothing publicly available proves Chomsky was complicit in Epstein’s crimes. What it reveals is serious enough: a willingness to treat a convicted sex offender as a legitimate interlocutor, accepting his help, socializing with him, and offering advice that resembles abuser reputation management rather than solidarity with survivors.

Chomsky’s political past is not immune from controversy. Skepticism towards early reporting Khmer Rouge persecutionhis Holocaust denier’s defense Robert Faurisson’s framing of freedom of expression and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine Largely instigated by NATO all were strongly objected to. Genius in one field can coexist with tunnel vision in another.

Chomsky did not clarify his position, but his wife Valeria said his ties to Epstein were a problem. “serious mistake” born of carelessness and deception. This recognition humanizes error, but it also reveals that intellectual genius is no inoculation against moral blindness.

If this is uncomfortable, it should be. Political maturity lies in remaining stable amidst complex realities.

What comes from such determination?

First, refuse to be blessed. “There is no God, there is no master” applies to intellectual icons. The aim is not to abandon thinkers, but to stop treating them as moral authorities beyond scrutiny. A politics sensitive to pain cannot rely on cults of personality.

Second, current responsibility. The first question is “What does this mean for Chomsky’s legacy?” When this happens, we have already moved away from the moral foundation. The focus should be on the survivors, not the sages.

Finally, resist tribalism. The Epstein network spans disparate groups and will be weaponized forever. Saying “your side did this too” is deflection, not accountability. If the Left has any claim to ethical seriousness, it must hold its own symbols to the standards it demands of others.

Chomsky’s legacy has been tarnished, not revoked. The lesson here is that genius does not provide moral immunity. The task before us is not to create perfect heroes, but to build cultures in which authority, including intellectual authority, is accountable to the defenseless.

Dr Raffaele F Ciriello holds a BSc in Information Systems from the University of Stuttgart and an MSc and PhD from the University of Zurich (2017). He is a Senior Lecturer in Business Information Systems at the University of Sydney and specializes in compassionate digital innovation.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.