I care! And I assume you do too. We dont need Chomsky for that

We dont need them we need each other

It’s not like his daughter isn’t the VP , and the president is BongBong Marcos, the son of the previous dictator.

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” --Samuel Johnson

Here is a video of Chomsky from 2020, before the connection between JE and Chomsky had been revealed. He gets a little indignant and defensive about Epstein, interesting flavor info.

Heres the business insider article from 2023 https://www.businessinsider.com/noam-chomsky-mit-wsj-wall-street-journal-jeffrey-epstein-2023-4

And then you have the latest revelations https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/22/noam-chomsky-jeffrey-epstein-ties-emails

Chomsky, 96, had also reportedly acknowledged receiving about $270,000 from an account linked to Epstein while sorting the disbursement of common funds relating to the first of his two marriages, though the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor has insisted not “one penny” came directly from the infamous financier.

The banality of evil: how Epstein’s powerful friends normalised him Read more The emails disclosed on 12 November by the Republican members of the US House oversight committee generally detailed the correspondence Epstein had with political, academic and business luminaries, including the Bill Clinton White House’s treasury secretary Larry Summers and Steve Bannon, the longtime ally of Donald Trump. Further, they reveal Epstein and Chomsky were close enough to discuss musical interests and even potential vacations.

Perhaps the most telling of the Chomsky-related documents in question was a letter of support for Epstein attributed to Chomsky with the salutation “to whom it may concern”. It is not dated, but it contains a typed signature with Chomsky’s name and citing his position as a University of Arizona laureate professor, a role he began in 2017, as first reported by the Massachusetts news outlet WBUR.

I guess it depends which side of the float you are standing on, like is the writing only on one side, or both? But digging into the comparison is interesting because both leaders are Hitler/Stalin in their own ways.

no comparison of current events with past events can be fully accurate

Right, but I criticize on the basis that its not clear what abstraction is even being used to make the comparison. A common method of propaganda that confuses is comparing two things but not establishing a basis for the comparison. It is an empty signifier, to be filled with whatever political meaning one chooses.

I see it all the time, among political allies and opponents. I’ve never seen it deliver a greater degree of understanding or engagement. I think we use abstraction unconsciously so much, so seamlessly in our conception of meaning, that we can’t tell if an abstraction is faulty or valid. Our brains just go “sure seems right” and we go along with it, but dont consider in what ways the abstraction is faulty or valid. Art has a way of revealing hidden connections or meanings, propaganda has a way of obscuring.

I appreciate other posters helping me to recognize the connection between Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop and Ukraine in our current day. But I still dont see the connection being made here and I dont like obscurative or vibe-based political messaging.

Any artist knows that you can’t just depict a feminine form and call it art. There is like 10000 years of history in that depiction, and it is taken very seriously, referenced very carefully. Why can’t a similar level of care be taken when considering a political subject? I think I might be a little obstinate on this point, but I’m really just trying to engage with the subject from my own perspective

I honestly hadn’t first considered the Ukraine similarity when I wrote the first comment. That tracks tbh. I’m probably reacting to how much confusion there is generally about the Nazis and the USSR, where most people don’t have their own developed views but have appropriated some posture through hegemony, which has its own biases and incentives to confuse understanding. I also didn’t see i was posting in a Euro comm or i would have probably stopped myself.

Tbh the Ukraine similarities track, but the issues around that war are very confused as well. In general, I’d say people dont understand how western forces destabilized and used Ukraine to agitate Putin into invasion and war, likely to draw them into a protracted , draining, no-win conflict like Viet Nam. Then people who are aware of that tend to think of Ukraine as US imperialist puppets, and end up buying much of the Russian framing of the issues. Germany was more than happy to keep burning Russian natural gas before the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up, although I think its probably disingenuous to flatten this artist’s protest message into the geopolitical maneuvering of German establishment.

I guess I would prefer something more explicit toward acknowledging the incredible hardship this war has created in a country that has known nothing but hardship and exploitation, if that is the intention of the work. By my account, taking all of that and framing it as Trump+Putin=Stalin+Hitler (seriously who is Hitler and who is Stalin in this formula) misses the mark, but I appreciate the challenge and engagement.

Okay, i have adhd and often miss things. You got me. Now can you answer my question? I dont mean to be defensive and I want to be educated.

What is the modern “pakt” between Trump and Putin that this refers to? In what ways does this supposed pact differ from the historic one? How are they similar?

Sure I get the reference. Do you think it is a reference to the proposed peace plan for Ukraine that cedes areas occupied by Russia to the Russians? So that Ukraine is Poland in this example? Specifically what is the connection to Molotov-Ribbentrop? I’m against confusing these complex issues more than they already are.

Trump creates chaos in political discourse by confusing people using false comparisons. I dont think doing the same dance with a different outfit actually changes anything, inaccuracy in abstraction leads to authoritarianism, full stop. Being inaccurate against the guys we dont like is not progress, it is stuck in the mud of the past. Political art should educate and stimulate real reflection on the part of the viewer. If it confuses an issue I dont think its art, I think its propaganda. Personally, I am not for propaganda, even if it is for causes I believe in and work toward. And different people have different views toward that, lots of people I work with consider themselves “propagandists,” clinging to the word Lenin used in the early 1900’s. I’m not even against Lenin’s definition of the word, since Bolshevik demands were reflective of actual political conditions, and Lenin was explicit on how and why Bolshevik messaging was composed and to whom it was directed. It wasn’t propaganda like we think of it now.

But now, after decades of developed critical theory and reflection of the 20th century i think we have to have a higher standard. Naming two contemporary villains after two historic villains (that people dont understand anyway) isnt educating, it is confusing. It is agitating but where does that agitation lead? If it changes nothing then it means nothing.

It reminds me of this old Chomsky video https://m.youtube.com/shorts/AnFUWrjr25A

“I’m sure you believe what you are saying but if you believed something different you wouldnt be sitting here.”

Really calling the kettle on this

Hitler - Stalin 2.0

Totally incomprehensible gibberish. Is Trump Hitler or Stalin? Do details just not matter anymore? Is ignorance of history an excuse to misappropriate it and distort its relevance?

Otherwise nice work. Ive known other carnival artists and they’re extremely talented and prolific, though maybe not the most politically coherent

Well, as a leftists I think its just extra disappointing. Like I’m not a syndicalist or anarchist, he wasnt my guy, but he was a left voice. He was critical of imperialism and shined a light on corruption and injustice.

Like when Chris Tucker appeared in flight logs its like, “oh the comedian? Weird,” and maybe if I was a comedian I’d feel different. But CT also denied any actual associations. Chomsky’s just like “yeah he’s my friend, its none of your business” honesty is a virtue and all that, but the way he has attacked and criticized other leftists over the years, to see him defend this literal avatar of abuse, corruption and imperialism, is quite revealing.

But my personal orientation toward Norm hasn’t changed much. I had read a couple of his books but he’s kind of meh imo. Obviously a very hard working and prolific academic, though academics can be disappointing from a leftist perspective. I doubt he had much time or interest to engage in the kinds of abuse that made Epstein notorious.

I think Norm knew about the abuse and corruption, and definitely about his role in geopolitics. And maybe Epstein helped him out once personally in a way that deeply affected him. People are complicated, and Chomsky’s loyalty is maybe admirable, though such circumstances are speculation. But if I found out my best friend was hanging out with Jamie Dimon, Donald Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, as well as a cavalcade of notorious villains and literal monsters, that he had created a global network of underaged women who he exploited for sex 3 or more times per day, literally anything that we’ve found out about JE, I would cut them off immediately. And if I found out a different friend was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein and was unrepentant, I’d cut them off too. That’s all I need. The association is bad enough that I dont need further evidence, personally.

Other than being a fuckin loser? I haven’t heard of any deep associations between JE and Dawkins. I have to go back to check what Gladwell’s associations were as it has been a while since I heard about their connection. It’s possible that I’m over stating his connection because I really don’t like his dumb books and he looks like such a fucking creep

Epstein collected intellectuals. He bought whole science departments at MIT, and kept a brothel of soft intellectuals like Malcolm Gladwell (imo definitely participated in some extra curriculars with Epstein), Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker (whom JE voted off the island (heh) because he wouldn’t corroborate JE’s eugenicism) and many others.

Norm (I call him Norm now) Chomsky is a guy who will just like answer any emails that come to him. He’s not difficult to get a response from. I think Epstein was good at handling intellectuals, and had a lot to offer researchers like Chomsky who wanted to know how to follow the money, and where the bodies were buried. Epstein’s connections and insider knowledge to the CIA, Mossad, and Les Wexner are all legitimate enough reasons to spend time talking with him.

This isnt to shift blame or culpability away from Chomsky, just to say that Epstein and associates had developed a concrete basis for power and influence among intellectuals. It wasnt just taking advantage of underage young women for personal pleasure, but all rivers seem to run into that sea.

To me though it really illustrates how Chomsky was really an ivory-tower elitist. If there was ever proof that left wing ideas only matter when they lead to taking effective action in the struggle for liberation, then Chomsky’s unrepentant associations with Epstein are a shining example. As if many of his “left wing” positions weren’t already problematic enough, he made sure to put on full display whom is the real subject of his work, and it isnt the toiling and exploited classes. I have some ideological differences with him, but thankfully we don’t need to worry about that. His actions speak to the actual nature of his ideas, so we need only gesture toward this photo as proof of how he demolished his own legacy, and how he doesnt deserve a place among those who actually struggle to educate people about the truth of our conditions.

May his work be forgotten. What a sad, pathetic man.

Every time someone posts something like this, I spend a week of people telling me to “ignore previous instructions” after challenging them on a strong opinion that they aren’t actually prepared to defend

Tell them you love them lots, tell them they have to love their siblings, that family is important because family will get you and support you when none else will, when they’re a little older and fighting really bad, walk past them and tell them something like, “you know you two are best friends right?” Celebrate differences, try not to compare, make value judgements or set expectations based on personal value.

Hey its a good question, and its one that a lot of reforming liberal democrats like yourself, and myself at one time, struggle to understand. A revolution is necessarily violent and authoritarian, right?

Well, kind of, maybe. I’m a Marxist and Marxists tend to think of revolutions as a change in the fundamental relationship that humans have to production. What gets made, who makes it, and why. A group of revolutionaries who seize control of the government but do nothing to change those fundamental relations are not revolutionary. Its just the same system with new leaders, maybe a new flag or something. The capitalist revolution took a solid 250-300 years with about 250-300 years of development beforehand. Kings and queens were replaced by industrialists, the divine right replaced by the social contract, church and god replaced by corporations and profits. The capitalist revolutions were hella bloody, with the exception of maybe the American one, which was based partly on the institution of slavery.

But what ended the divine right of kings wasnt the guillotine, it was taking their shit and redistributing it to the bourgeoisie. The slaves weren’t freed by killing their masters, they freed themselves and went over to the union armies. The changes that made real lasting effect were not cold blooded murderous action, in fact the French revolution didn’t last 15 years. It was social, cultural, political change. It was people changing themselves in order to change the world.

The bourgeoisie will use heinous violence to protect their interests, fascism is one of capitalism’s immune responses from mass organization and revolutionary activity. There are others, but that’s the big scary one we are dealing with now. Revolutionary change in the world begins with revolutionary changes to ourselves, and to each other, a cumulative historic project of liberation of the oppressed from our oppressors.

Deposing the bourgeoisie is not to become a new bourgeois. We can’t do what they do to become something that isn’t them. We will have to defend ourselves from violence but violence will not bring the changes that are necessary to create a better world. There will have to be justice for crimes against humanity, and what that justice will look like will be orders of magnitude more humane, and this bears out in historic examples from the Paris commune, to the Russian revolution (which was almost entirely bloodless until the civil war) to the Cuban revolution, and so forth.

The DSA libertarian socialist caucus has reinvented itself the last year or so, they put out some good solid analysis prior to convention, and is doing a lot of work to build a libertarian socialist plurality within the org.

Right libertarians arent politically coherent, their lack of coherence means they are shot through with Nazis who exploit unprincipled movements yo plant the seeds of hate. A libertarian could be your uncle who smokes weed but listens to Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan podcast, or it could be a school shooter, a transhumanist tech accellerationist who always brings up Rokos basilisk after a couple Busch lights, or a neo-Randian objectivist.

As a left-Hegelian, I like discourse around human freedom, but people never concretize what they mean by freedom, and we always end up back to Marx:

Do not be deluded by the abstract word Freedom. Whose freedom? Not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but freedom of Capital to crush the worker.