This segment with Historian and Associate Professor Dr. Tarik Cyril Amar is one of the most uncomfortable—and necessary—conversations I’ve had in a long time. Tarik’s point is simple but devastating: the Epstein context isn’t a “minor glitch” in Chomsky’s life. It goes to the core of Chomsky’s brand: power,... propaganda, networks, consent. And when someone who built a career exposing elite manipulation ends up giving image advice to Epstein, you’re forced to ask what else gets re-read differently. Then Tarik goes further: he says Chomsky’s line on Iran—“first internal participation, then we talk colonialism”—isn’t just naive, it’s weaponizable, because it hands talking points to the very people who justify coups, subversion, sanctions, and intervention. And the historical punchline Tarik drops is brutal: Iran had participation in 1953, then the US/UK coup destroyed it. So separating “democracy” from “colonialism” isn’t wisdom. It’s amnesia. Watch this clip. If you still think the “dissident intellectual” industry can’t be captured, this will change your mind. .Tarik Cyril Amarshow more

He makes many good points but Chomsky can’t respond to defend himself - to defend the integrity of his positions which are now being reinterpreted in the light of his email exchanges with Epstein. Areas of past disagreement in his positions are now regarded as proof there was more to Chomsky’ prior positions than the Epstein emails ‘prove’. Unfortunately Noam had an insatiable appetite to engage people in dialogue, to try to find common ground where there is any and to explain the basis of differences. I say that as someone who had to wrench him away from what felt like an interminable exchange with ‘captains of industry’ who had just returned from Israel, hammering him after an In Conversation with me - his appetite for engagement was insatiable and he was indefatigable. I’m certain he would have happily engaged in email interactions with the most extreme of them and where he could have made a statement in an email that appeared to contradict his public position - but it would be a layer of the onion he peeled. A layer we were free to disagree with, but now he is incapable of speaking, has condemned him. Thank you @KevorkAlmassian Your guest has provided the most reasoned analysis of this perspective on Chomsky, in Noam’s own tradition of intellectual pursuit. I’m probably one of the few journalists - along with @aaronjmate for whom it does not quite stack up.

WATCH our full conversation here:

READ @TarikCyrilAmar's Substack here:

It was and is so obviously a sting operation to compromise one of the most effective and radical critics of US imperialism. It is hard to believe that both of you fall so easily for this shit. Kevork, Tarik, please don't keep on with this nonsense. It does not reflect well on you.

Noam Chomsky's wife responds to Epstein controversy

I couldn't watch much of this. Chomsky was 86 when he met Epstein. Anyone who has been around people of that age understand why scammers do so well with old people. Was Chomsky perfect? Absolutely not. The world was very different in 2015--very, very different.

I never trusted Chomsky - he's just a gatekeeper His stance on 9/11 alone will tell you that

Chomsky’s brand? Ridiculous. Did he sell tshirts? 🤡He was an intellectual. Made arguments. Came to conclusions. Expected criticism. It was okay to disagree with him. Reread him. Don’t see how Epstein changes his decades of work

Well, I listened to the clip, and I must say I had a hard time recognizing anything -- anything -- that Chomsky advocated. Even apart from that, the "critique" appeared forced, indirect, and insubstantial, politically. Basically, a lot of hot air.

Chomsky is an agent of imperialism. Zio-American imperialism has full spectrum control over the propaganda dimension. Chomsky handled tiny spot of the spectrum aimed at lefties. He has done an excellent job for his masters. Epestein was his reward for long service. What a cheat.

"Charlie Sheen!" 😂

epstein and chomsky's discussion of venezuela is hugely revealing. And this is a very good dissection of the whole thing.-

Brilliant analysis! Chompsky has always been a a demagogue of sorts using sophistry and language to mask his own contempt for the masses…..

To repeat myself...

In the same talk where Noam talked about the Iranian protestors, he said that it also needs to happen in the US. Noam never said anything about invading Iran. He was critical of US punishing the Iranian people.

Building Facts on the ground for 79 years. Kurtz's darkness (Congo) is embodied in Kipling's ambitions! The White Man did it! So says the people of the Old Testament. My lord, I despise these people! Good faith and fairness repurposed for ulterior motives.

For me I was surprised on his take on 911, and freewill, more because his reasoning was irrational rather than just disagreeing with his positions! But he's been useful 🙃

I think the New Atheist movement also had epstein backing. It emerged after 9'11 to justify illegal war & the brutal operations going on. Steven Pinker also comes out bad.

… the dogs of the Zionist Trauma Cult always return to their vomit 🤮

He makes some great, devastating points. Hard to disagree.

May I drop this here?

Total crap Tarik says we have discovered that Chomsky was heavily involved with the nexus of power and money, exposing his career as a fraud, because in his very old age, whilst going through a bitter probate dispute with his kids, he was put in touch with a financier who turned out to be a criminal. His friendship with Epstein is totally bizarre and out of character. It does not render his 60 year career as an activist "fraudulent" and it does not indicate he was somehow colluding with the Israelis as "controlled dissent".

Maybe reflect that people in general are far more concerned with who was friends with pedophiles than who the pedophiles are, what their crimes were and getting justice for their victims.

German intellectual traditions "have gone to the dogs."

In Being and Nothingness (1943), Sartre describes “the Look” (le regard): when another person gazes at me, I become an object in their world, reduced from subject to thing. This creates shame, conflict, and a struggle for dominance.
Epstein’s system weaponized this on a massive scale—trafficked girls were reduced to sexual objects for the gaze and use of elite men, stripped of subjectivity and turned into instruments for others’ transcendence. The Respectful Prostitute (1946), he examined how power, race, class, and gender intersect in sexual exploitation, manipulation, and false justice.
He would likely see Epstein’s trafficking not as mere “vice” but as a violent assertion of freedom at the expense of others’—using sex to dominate and degrade.

this question has always grappled me. There are those that say, be honest about your opinions, and others who say, GEOPOLTICAL calculations are paramount, so be quiet. Also 3rd group who will purposefully not analyse country A as they do others if its geopoltically inconvenient.

Wat Tarik sez is obvious is not. & so his justification 4 a sweeping interp of Chomsky’s role, at least the last decades, constitutes hyperbole. Certainly nothing that is remotely self-evident. U cud focus on bringing the rapists to Justice, & then fight about tactics w frauds🙄

Wow. Tarik nailed. This segment should be bookmarked and shared widely.

On a broader point, if my own personal opinion of the internal dynamics of country A is bad, should i say that out loud, or should i according to rules of PR be quiet, even if thats my honest opinion, IF that means others who have imperialist aims will use that to invade county a

Thank you for this analysis.