What Noam Chomsky’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein says about progressive politics

Speaking to the media in 2008 after his guilty plea, Epstein used an astonishing metaphor which revealed how he viewed his actions and “prevailing laws and norms”. He “likened himself to Gulliver shipwrecked among the diminutive denizens of Lilliput”, saying “Gulliver’s playfulness had unintended consequences. That is what happens with wealth. There are unexpected burdens as well as benefits”.

In his email to Epstein, we should remember, Andrew signed off with the words “Play more later”. Paedophilic predation is seen by Epstein and his circle as “playfulness”. Epstein saw himself as special, entitled by wealth to “play” with “diminutive people” like underage girls without money or status. The prevailing laws and norms were made by diminutive, small-minded people who could not understand the culture of those so far above their station.

As a public intellectual, Chomsky is seen as a defender of “diminutive people”. But he befriended and vouched for Epstein – and has till date not spoken a word in support of the “diminutive” survivors.

The fact that Chomsky expressed admiration for Epstein’s ability to pick up his phone and connect immediately to the world’s Big People is telling : did he really not think that this ability, these connections, might have something to do with the lightness of his punishment ?

Why did Chomsky even write that testimonial for Epstein addressed “To Whomsoever It May Concern” ? We know that Epstein launched a major PR campaign to rehabilitate himself after pleading guilty to child sexual abuse. Part of that PR campaign included donations to universities and meetings with intellectuals and scientists, all of which helped polish his tarnished image. Did Chomsky write that testimonial at Epstein’s request – his contribution to that PR campaign ? Chomsky wrote that testimonial as a public figure – he owes it to the public now to explain why he did it.

The problem is Chomsky is not an exception. Here in India, I’ve just read rave reviews of a stage performance by Mahmood Farooqui in Dastan-e-Ret-Samadhi adapting the Hindi novel Ret Samadhi (for which the writer and translator, both women, received the Booker Prize). Farooqui was once convicted for rape and his conviction was overturned by a higher court.

The judge who acquitted him agreed accepted the trial court’s assessment that the survivor’s word was credible and that she had indeed said “no”. By the letter and spirit of the “prevailing” law, that’s rape, open and shut. But the judge created a new legal concept, lowering the prevailing laws and norms, to acquit. A “feeble no”, he ruled, could mean a yes.

The very phrase “feeble no” is a reminder that the survivor did say no, which proves that she was, in fact, sexually violated against her will. I hear progressive friends say, “He’s been acquitted, so he’s innocent, so why shouldn’t we platform him, we can’t punish him in perpetuity.”

To each of them I say : you’re free to platform and celebrate Farooqui. But on every stage, every page that you do so, you are emblazoning your ringing endorsement and advertisement of the motto – A Feeble No is a Yes. Like Chomsky, you too are happy to embrace the most grotesque and farcical mockery of judicial norms as your own.

The “feeble no” judge held an educated woman’s no to a higher standard : it was her job to make her “no” forceful enough for the man to understand. But he held the man to a very low standard : despite his mastery of language, literature, performance arts and cinema, this man could not be expected to understand that no actually means no. He could not be expected to use his words if in doubt and ask the woman – you said no, would you like me to stop ?

Chomsky was dazzled by Epstein and his fellow dinner guest “the great artist” Woody Allen (also accused of sexually abusing his own daughter as a toddler). India’s literary and cultural progressives are dazzled by the artistry of the man with the “feeble no” fig leaf.

If you treat sexual assault allegations against a man as irrelevant to your political assessment of his intellect, his art, and his ideas, you are the opposite of progressive. The norms have progressed and you had better catch up or be left behind.

,,,

https://www.cetri.be/What-Noam-Chomsky-s-friendship?lang=fr#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20Chomsky%20explainedwhy%20he%20and%20his,and%20norms%2C%20that%20yields%20a%20clean%20slate.%E2%80%9D