The image of Chomsky alongside Jeffrey Epstein is revealing, not incidental. It captures a career defined by proximity to power without consequence. Unlike genuine anti-imperialists who collided with the state—the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, or figures such as Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Philip Agee, or Patrice Lumumba—Chomsky was never arrested, disappeared, exiled, or neutralized. That absence is not a mystery; it is the point. Empire does not protect its enemies. It protects those who help manage dissent. Chomsky represents a class of elite intellectuals whose weapon is not resistance but confusion—dense diction, endless qualification, and moral posturing that drain urgency while never threatening power.
Chomsky’s entire career is built on talk without rupture: books, lectures, prestige, and safe critique converted into personal capital. His “lesser-evil” voting doctrine permanently disciplines voters into a genocidal duopoly; his opposition to BDS undercut one of the few effective non-violent tools for holding Israel accountable; his rigid two-state orthodoxy obstructed a single democratic state with equal rights; his positions on Syria aligned conveniently with U.S. and Israeli objectives; and his minimization of the JFK assassination foreclosed serious inquiry into power blocs—including pro-Israeli nuclear tensions—despite Kennedy’s pressure on Israel over nuclear weapons. On 9/11, Chomsky reduced the event to “blowback,” a framing that prematurely closed inquiry, dismissing or discouraging deeper investigation raised by others into anomalous collapses, thermitic materials, controlled demolition, or advanced weapons claims, while maintaining near-total silence on contemporaneous reports of Israeli nationals detained and later released amid pre-attack intelligence irregularities. Again, his role was not to interrogate power but to define the boundaries of acceptable questioning.
The pattern is unmistakable: acknowledge just enough to appear critical, then enforce narrative closure where accountability would begin. Chomsky does not threaten empire—he stabilizes it. He converts outrage into language, resistance into seminars, and dissent into intellectual theater. That is why he is celebrated, protected, and endlessly platformed. Empires do not reward those who endanger them; they reward those who contain opposition. This is not radicalism—it is intellectual management of dissent, dressed up as critique.
A couple of really interesting articles. Thanks, Esha. More than 30 years ago now, I used NC's Propaganda Model as the theoretical basis for my PhD research into British mass media coverage of a couple of late colonial wars in the 1950s.
I'm a lifelong anarchist communist, more inclined to call myself a libertarian communist these days I suppose. NC's work and connections clearly need to be vigorously investigated. I'm looking forward to reading part 3.
The second question: do you see any similarities between British coverage of colonial wars vs most recent british wars may it be Iraq, Syria or now Ukraine?
None of this is going to surprise you. Most importantly in terms of manufacturing consent, the differences between the notional liberal left and the enthusiastically imperialist right of the British mass media were superficial. The ideology of British power remained unquestioned across the range of possible reporting and commentary. The parallels with recent British wars are striking.
The enemies of British imperialism were relentlessly demonised and belittled. Labelling the Land and Freedom Armies as Mau Mau is a clear example of this. Those who resisted the British were atavistic, childish, brutal, or even communist, and didn't know what was good for them. Acts of resistance were described as criminal atrocities; the actions of British forces were seen as essential, or not covered at all until long after the event, for example the Hola Camp Massacre.
Underlying all of this was the absence of any notion that there might be a possibility of negotiation or retreat from the British position. Even on the liberal left it was simply accepted that before anything else "order" would have to be re-established, that is to say the destruction of the armed resistance was a necessary first step.
What initially surprised me most when I was working on the newspapers and ploughing through the BBC written archives was the strength of this imperial consensus even in the final years of that phase of British imperialism. It wasn't that Britain had no anti-colonial left, it is just that it absolutely wasn't heard in the mainstream.
I didn't pursue a career in academe - I've spent the last thirty years living and working on the land, growing veg and building funky houses - so my views on coverage of Iraq, Syria and Ukraine aren't based on research, but the similarities seem strong to me. The size of the anti-war movement at the time of the invasion of Iraq might have been a cause of optimism about alternative sources of information, but it seems to me that Syria, and especially Ukraine have shown just how dominant mainstream discourse is in these islands today. Against a very different social and economic background, with the collapse of organised labour and the left, and taking into account the rise of new media, the ability of the ruling class to set the parameters of debate remains, it seems to me, overwhelming across these examples. Having a conversation with most people about Ukraine now must be about the same as talking to a Daily Express reader about Kenya in the 1950s.
The genocide in Gaza has obliterated the West’s remaining claims to moral authority, laying bare a system defined by hypocrisy, double standards, and selective outrage. The so-called “rules-based order” functions only when it serves imperial power; when it doesn’t, mass death is justified, ignored, or rhetorically sanitized. What is revealed is not failure, but consistency—a system behaving exactly as designed.
The Epstein case exposes the same architecture of power. Public attention fixates on the spectacle—pedophilia, prostitution, scandal—while the most critical dimensions remain buried: international finance, money laundering, tax-avoidance regimes, and intelligence operations that guarantee protection and silence. Epstein was not an anomaly but a node in a transnational network of wealth and coercion, where spectacle distracts, accountability evaporates, and the machinery of impunity grinds on uninterrupted.
I really appreciate your posts on Chomsky and the historic prouesse in linguistics. It reminds me of the situation with OpenAI/ChatGPT as narrated by Karen Hao in her book "Empire of AI" where we learn of the dangerous methodology of Sam Altman et al extracting everything from the internet including everything horrible that people in other countries had to filter and get psychologically distressed by what they had to cope while earning pennies doing so.
One is allowed to wonder if the whole "dissident" side of Chomsky was not a distraction. A channel through which the intelligentsia could vent and look cool.
Perhaps, in the sense that it was the facade, the reputation, the cover. He has been the best paid leftist on the block working for the enemy. That is what transpires for me at this moment. I might be mistaken...
His linguistic theories are useless for understanding human and machine language as I mentioned in part 2. Yet, he enjoyed tenure, from a university heavily funded by the DOD. Therefore, one has to wonder why? And...
We will have to look at how often, if we weren't blinded by the "Left or dissident" label, we missed the telltale speak, manipulations and connections.
It brings to mind the loyalist D party and R party members that refuse to see the record of these operators and only hear what they want to hear.
I'm no linguistics expert. But, POLITICALLY, Chomsky is an OBVIOUS SHILL - on EVERY important, world-historic question - he's covered for Imperialism !! Covered for the
Kennedy/King/Kennedy assassinations - took a point man role for
intervention in Yugoslavia - 9-11, playing the useful idiot role -
anti-BDS - "all in" on COVID - "unvaxed should be quarantined" - almost
forgot - I called him out 35 years ago at Ohio State for his strident
call for US support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan - said to be
fighting with pitchforks - while receiving BILLIONS in aid, weapons,
intel, etc. LOOK; it's EVERY IMPORTANT ISSUE - he's a rat, an agent.
But, the "innocents" of the fake and wannabe "left" hang on his every
word. Did I mention his Epstein connections - haha - maybe now ? - no, you
won't get it. Most successful Mossad/CIA "influencer" in all history -
The image of Chomsky alongside Jeffrey Epstein is revealing, not incidental. It captures a career defined by proximity to power without consequence. Unlike genuine anti-imperialists who collided with the state—the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, or figures such as Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Philip Agee, or Patrice Lumumba—Chomsky was never arrested, disappeared, exiled, or neutralized. That absence is not a mystery; it is the point. Empire does not protect its enemies. It protects those who help manage dissent. Chomsky represents a class of elite intellectuals whose weapon is not resistance but confusion—dense diction, endless qualification, and moral posturing that drain urgency while never threatening power.
Chomsky’s entire career is built on talk without rupture: books, lectures, prestige, and safe critique converted into personal capital. His “lesser-evil” voting doctrine permanently disciplines voters into a genocidal duopoly; his opposition to BDS undercut one of the few effective non-violent tools for holding Israel accountable; his rigid two-state orthodoxy obstructed a single democratic state with equal rights; his positions on Syria aligned conveniently with U.S. and Israeli objectives; and his minimization of the JFK assassination foreclosed serious inquiry into power blocs—including pro-Israeli nuclear tensions—despite Kennedy’s pressure on Israel over nuclear weapons. On 9/11, Chomsky reduced the event to “blowback,” a framing that prematurely closed inquiry, dismissing or discouraging deeper investigation raised by others into anomalous collapses, thermitic materials, controlled demolition, or advanced weapons claims, while maintaining near-total silence on contemporaneous reports of Israeli nationals detained and later released amid pre-attack intelligence irregularities. Again, his role was not to interrogate power but to define the boundaries of acceptable questioning.
The pattern is unmistakable: acknowledge just enough to appear critical, then enforce narrative closure where accountability would begin. Chomsky does not threaten empire—he stabilizes it. He converts outrage into language, resistance into seminars, and dissent into intellectual theater. That is why he is celebrated, protected, and endlessly platformed. Empires do not reward those who endanger them; they reward those who contain opposition. This is not radicalism—it is intellectual management of dissent, dressed up as critique.
A couple of really interesting articles. Thanks, Esha. More than 30 years ago now, I used NC's Propaganda Model as the theoretical basis for my PhD research into British mass media coverage of a couple of late colonial wars in the 1950s.
I'm a lifelong anarchist communist, more inclined to call myself a libertarian communist these days I suppose. NC's work and connections clearly need to be vigorously investigated. I'm looking forward to reading part 3.
The second question: do you see any similarities between British coverage of colonial wars vs most recent british wars may it be Iraq, Syria or now Ukraine?
None of this is going to surprise you. Most importantly in terms of manufacturing consent, the differences between the notional liberal left and the enthusiastically imperialist right of the British mass media were superficial. The ideology of British power remained unquestioned across the range of possible reporting and commentary. The parallels with recent British wars are striking.
The enemies of British imperialism were relentlessly demonised and belittled. Labelling the Land and Freedom Armies as Mau Mau is a clear example of this. Those who resisted the British were atavistic, childish, brutal, or even communist, and didn't know what was good for them. Acts of resistance were described as criminal atrocities; the actions of British forces were seen as essential, or not covered at all until long after the event, for example the Hola Camp Massacre.
Underlying all of this was the absence of any notion that there might be a possibility of negotiation or retreat from the British position. Even on the liberal left it was simply accepted that before anything else "order" would have to be re-established, that is to say the destruction of the armed resistance was a necessary first step.
What initially surprised me most when I was working on the newspapers and ploughing through the BBC written archives was the strength of this imperial consensus even in the final years of that phase of British imperialism. It wasn't that Britain had no anti-colonial left, it is just that it absolutely wasn't heard in the mainstream.
I didn't pursue a career in academe - I've spent the last thirty years living and working on the land, growing veg and building funky houses - so my views on coverage of Iraq, Syria and Ukraine aren't based on research, but the similarities seem strong to me. The size of the anti-war movement at the time of the invasion of Iraq might have been a cause of optimism about alternative sources of information, but it seems to me that Syria, and especially Ukraine have shown just how dominant mainstream discourse is in these islands today. Against a very different social and economic background, with the collapse of organised labour and the left, and taking into account the rise of new media, the ability of the ruling class to set the parameters of debate remains, it seems to me, overwhelming across these examples. Having a conversation with most people about Ukraine now must be about the same as talking to a Daily Express reader about Kenya in the 1950s.
Two questions: Have you read Propaganda Blitz? That tackles British media particularly.
Thank You Esha
It has been a long time in the making.
The genocide in Gaza has obliterated the West’s remaining claims to moral authority, laying bare a system defined by hypocrisy, double standards, and selective outrage. The so-called “rules-based order” functions only when it serves imperial power; when it doesn’t, mass death is justified, ignored, or rhetorically sanitized. What is revealed is not failure, but consistency—a system behaving exactly as designed.
The Epstein case exposes the same architecture of power. Public attention fixates on the spectacle—pedophilia, prostitution, scandal—while the most critical dimensions remain buried: international finance, money laundering, tax-avoidance regimes, and intelligence operations that guarantee protection and silence. Epstein was not an anomaly but a node in a transnational network of wealth and coercion, where spectacle distracts, accountability evaporates, and the machinery of impunity grinds on uninterrupted.
I really appreciate your posts on Chomsky and the historic prouesse in linguistics. It reminds me of the situation with OpenAI/ChatGPT as narrated by Karen Hao in her book "Empire of AI" where we learn of the dangerous methodology of Sam Altman et al extracting everything from the internet including everything horrible that people in other countries had to filter and get psychologically distressed by what they had to cope while earning pennies doing so.
One company called Builder.ai even joked AI = Actually Indians bout their exploitation in third world countries
One is allowed to wonder if the whole "dissident" side of Chomsky was not a distraction. A channel through which the intelligentsia could vent and look cool.
No. The linguistics was the distraction. This is the main gig :)
Perhaps, in the sense that it was the facade, the reputation, the cover. He has been the best paid leftist on the block working for the enemy. That is what transpires for me at this moment. I might be mistaken...
His linguistic theories are useless for understanding human and machine language as I mentioned in part 2. Yet, he enjoyed tenure, from a university heavily funded by the DOD. Therefore, one has to wonder why? And...
We will have to look at how often, if we weren't blinded by the "Left or dissident" label, we missed the telltale speak, manipulations and connections.
It brings to mind the loyalist D party and R party members that refuse to see the record of these operators and only hear what they want to hear.
I'm no linguistics expert. But, POLITICALLY, Chomsky is an OBVIOUS SHILL - on EVERY important, world-historic question - he's covered for Imperialism !! Covered for the
Kennedy/King/Kennedy assassinations - took a point man role for
intervention in Yugoslavia - 9-11, playing the useful idiot role -
anti-BDS - "all in" on COVID - "unvaxed should be quarantined" - almost
forgot - I called him out 35 years ago at Ohio State for his strident
call for US support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan - said to be
fighting with pitchforks - while receiving BILLIONS in aid, weapons,
intel, etc. LOOK; it's EVERY IMPORTANT ISSUE - he's a rat, an agent.
But, the "innocents" of the fake and wannabe "left" hang on his every
word. Did I mention his Epstein connections - haha - maybe now ? - no, you
won't get it. Most successful Mossad/CIA "influencer" in all history -
by a big margin.
Yes, of course. Very sharp book. That was only one question though :)
Chomsky’s books have radicalized far more people than your sectarian rantings will ever do.
Wait till the next part. The important question is radicalize how? And in what direction?
Why are you reading it then. Scowering the internet for anti Chomsky thought. Leave us alone,idiot.
Don’t worry, you’re already alone.