There are betrayals that anger us.
And then there are betrayals that leave us quiet.
Noam Chomsky belongs to the second kind.
For more than half a century, Chomsky stood as a moral compass in an age without direction. He taught generations how power lies, how empires manufacture consent, how language itself becomes a weapon in the hands of elites. He spoke for the voiceless when it was costly, unfashionable, and dangerous. For many of us, he was not merely an intellectual—he was a refuge. Proof that clarity could survive corruption. Proof that integrity could endure.
Which is why this moment does not feel like scandal.
It feels like mourning.
Chris Hedges is right to frame the association between Noam Chomsky and Jeffrey Epstein not as gossip or moral theater, but as a rupture—a crack in something we believed was unbreakable. Epstein was not simply a criminal. He was the embodiment of everything Chomsky spent his life exposing: elite impunity, predation disguised as philanthropy, power shielding itself through money, prestige, and access. Epstein did not corrupt the margins of society; he nested at its center.
And Chomsky knew that world.
This is what makes the stain unbearable—not that Chomsky was “fooled,” not that he exercised “poor judgment,” not that he was “overly trusting.” These are excuses that might apply to lesser minds. They do not apply to a man who dedicated his life to unmasking the ruling class. A man who warned us, relentlessly, that power does not act innocently and that elites do not offer gifts without chains.
To suggest that Chomsky did not understand Epstein is to deny everything Chomsky ever taught.
The tragedy is not merely association. It is silence.
Silence in the face of crimes that Chomsky knew existed.
Silence in the presence of victims who had no access to private jets or Manhattan apartments.
Silence while prestige softened the edges of monstrosity.
This silence did not erase Chomsky’s work. His critiques of empire remain devastatingly accurate. His analysis of propaganda still explains our world better than most contemporary commentary. His warnings about corporate power and state violence remain prophetic.
But legacies are not arithmetic. They are moral narratives.
And this narrative now carries a wound.
What hurts most is not that Chomsky fell, but where he fell—into the very world he warned us never to trust. Into the warm, perfumed rooms of elite hospitality where crimes are rendered invisible by wine, conversation, and influence. Into proximity with power that dulls even the sharpest conscience.
Hedges calls this stain “unforgivable” not because redemption is impossible, but because some failures cannot be offset by brilliance. Some silences cannot be explained away by illness or age or delegation to others. When the vulnerable are being crushed, neutrality is not restraint—it is complicity.
And yet, this is not a call to erase Chomsky.
It is a call to learn the hardest lesson he himself taught: that no one is immune to power’s seduction. That even the most principled can be softened by access. That the ruling class does not merely repress dissent—it absorbs it, flatters it, and neutralizes it.
If Noam Chomsky could be drawn into that orbit, then none of us should imagine ourselves invulnerable.
This moment asks us to hold two truths at once:
That Chomsky’s intellectual contributions remain foundational.
And that his moral failure here is real, painful, and enduring.
Grief, not denial, is the honest response.
Because when a moral giant stumbles, the loss is not personal—it is generational. We are left not with rage, but with a quieter, heavier question:
If even those who see power clearly can be seduced by it, what does resistance truly require?
Perhaps the final lesson is this:
The distance we keep from power is not arrogance.
It is survival.
And the work of justice, as Chomsky himself once insisted, is not to dine with the powerful—but to dismantle the conditions that allow monsters to thrive unseen.
That lesson remains.
Even now.
Comments