Two or more generations of left activists have grown up reading Noam #Chomsky's fearless exposure of the US imperium.

@RadicalAnthro it is difficult to construct him as a rabid pro-Zionist like Epstein given his writings against the destruction of Gaza. So I would settle for sybarite.

@ArchaeoIain more and more contradictions

Chris had to write this to work out what connected his science and his politics in complete contradiction. Only then could he start on his latest work on 'The Revolutionary Origins of Language' (Yale UP, due late 2026, with Jerome Lewis)

Here's a free download of Chris' excellent book:

https://z-lib.gl/book/4999344/4bdcce/decoding-chomsky-science-and-revolutionary-politics.html

Chris writes: 'Some... blamed his behaviour on a blindness... to gender issues and.. problems of sexual violence' referring to the horrible email on 'the hysteria that has developed about abuse of women'. And we remember the peculiar historic association, from the classical Greek, of women's wombs with the word 'hysteria'.

Chomsky's politics always lacked a sex/gender component and so does his thinking on the emergence of language. His Cartesian 2nd Cognitive Revolution in linguistics celebrated Mind over matter, with the body completely subsumed.

#sex #gender #violence #Chomsky #Epstein

@RadicalAnthro many thanks to both of you.

@RadicalAnthro That looks really interesting.

@pvonhellermannn yes absolutely. Chris was entirely baffled by the question, why was Chomsky's linguistics effective mumbo-jumbo. There had to be an underlying reason.

@MarciaW yes, that's very true. There is now very limited support on Universal Grammar, but NC was far more political than scientific in debate

@RadicalAnthro Chomsky's assistance in mentoring Jeffrey Epstein should be a wakeup call. His job was to neutralize the leftists and the centrists while providing a road map for the fascists to steadily gain and maintain power.

#Chomsky was a traitor aiding and abetting operatives and assets of the Soviets and Russians.

@RadicalAnthro

There is no dichotomy. Chomsky’s work, whether linguistic or political, has always been the ephemeral fluff of a blowhard. Proclamations without worry about evidence constructed to “feel” right. I recall watching à talk by him about an Israeli atrocity that included a number he pulled out of his ass. He said - you can look it up- and the website included a citation to facilitate that. The citation cited a different source, which looped back to Chomsky making the same claim in an earlier talk. It was true, Chomsky believed, because HE said it was true. To challenge his claim was unthinkable to him. His scientific work, better couched as theoretical speculation, worked the same way. He ignored Epstein’s crimes because Epstein flattered him. It’s that simple. Imho.

@LaNaehForaday I am very sorry to hear what happened to you (I have some serious family dysfunction too).

Of course, we do not justify it.

@pkw Jeffrey Epstein's Russian visa application sponsored by the FSB M00 Vympal leads to the conclusion that he was an FSB asset trained in deep penetration, espionage, and sabotage. Noam Chomsky chose to support his efforts, according to their email exchanges. This is not polarizing rhetoric. It went on for 16+ years!

@RadicalAnthro I'm disgusted. Years ago I corresponded with Chomsky about a moral issue that was bothering me. Now I know that he wasn't worth the effort!

It may be naive of me to ask, if Newton was a rapist, would the theory on gravity still be valid? Would F=m*g where g=9.81m/s^2 at sea level?

Would the theory on value (Das Kapital) be invalidated if found that K.Marx slept with his maid while his wife was dying in the next room?

If I developed a machine that produced clean water, even in a hot dry day, with a tiny bit of power/fuel use, and published the design under GPL, would it matter
who/what I am?

@RadicalAnthro
#marxism #materialism

@yianiris but the difference is Chomsky's supposed 'science' is actually up the wall. He was a huge but absolutely dire influence on cognitive science for the whole second half of the 20th.C. which had a bad bad impact, above all for materialists (we are marxist materialist anthros). Science stands up because it is collective not because it's guided by severe vested interest.

He was the first one to invent 'modularity' with a language module. He opened the gates for rubbish evolutionary psychology. We oppose that by understanding science in a social world. Chomsky completely rejected any social aspect in the investigation of language.

@RadicalAnthro
Please read:
https://www.aaronmate.net/p/noam-chomskys-wife-responds-to-epstein

1 Scientific merit of his theories or lack there of should have nothing to do with his personal life or any relation to Epstein (irrelevant)

2 Marx used an assumption of all civilized humans living in centralized authority/hierarchically structure societies, and the rest were savages. Late in life he begun to develop doubts due to non-hierarchical communal structures as anthro.data kept coming in.

3 It is hard to debate/discuss anything with someone who responds as "we"

@RadicalAnthro

(1/?)

@RadicalAnthro
> Chris Knight explains what lies behind this extraordinary paradox, the Two Chomskys

It's not that confusing. In the late 20th century it was considered normal to separate the public from the private. This was a prerequisite for things like diplomacy to exist. Where one might be horrified by the human rights abuses in a country, but still meet with its diplomats and leaders in a respectful way.

(2/?)

But it's also a prerequisite for academic freedom. Where one might be highly critical of someone's methods, even horrified by the implications of their theories and the applications they put them to. But still be willing to engage in a respectful formal debate, even though that requires sharing space with them.

(3/?)

The rise of social media started to dissolve this public/private membrane, and raised a generation unfamiliar its uses. Leading to a situation where a person's entire creative output can be dismissed out of hand, because of the most flawed thing they've ever done, or even said. Where people's academic work or public activism, regardless of its own quality, can be dismissed on the same basis.