Chomsky and the Wolf-Pack Discard

“I was never aware of any other option but to question everything.” Noam Chomsky

“Question everything except the more-respectable-than-thou ingroup of pious moralists who can’t tell whether we’re counterhegemonic anticapitalists doing what’s right instead of what we’re told, or religious reactionaries doing what we’re told instead of what’s right. Radical politics are about being right-on inside a codependent tribe defined by the freaks it excludes, and the cleverness of the mind divorced from the intelligence of the heart. Compassion for outsiders and forgiveness for fallibility when it’s not us fucking up is weakness; essentialising and demonising people suddently considered expendable is showing the arrogant bourgeoisie how well we demarcate our opposition by rising above everything we claim to oppose.” – Anarchists who haven’t quite managed to make the revolution yet but still somehow know everything

Bev Stohl || Working as Noam Chomsky’s assistant, and in later years his fellow traveler, the lessons I learned spanned various domains and disciplines, but most valuably, I got to know Noam beyond the pedestal some had placed him on – a pedestal he never wanted.

This statement will be seen by some merely as an act of loyalty. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have grappled, struggled deeply, over this situation, while seeking to remain faithful to the truth. It is in the service of truth – the very thing Noam Chomsky wanted us to hold in high esteem, rather than himself – that I write this.

Thanks for reading Bev Stohl’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

One of the most important lessons I learned from Noam was to question everything –something I believe his most recent detractors have neglected to do. He taught me to never take at face value all that I read and heard, even after several reviews. I continue this practice. Another of his lessons has me remaining relatively silent while the recent wild accusations of his critics spew different versions of the same story in a redundant loop. Redundant because there is little anyone can say to disparage Noam, even if they misunderstand, misstate, misquote, or misinterpret eighty-five years of his dissenting actions to benefit their own agendas, something Michael Albert pointed out in a recent Substack post. This second practice is not so easy for me.

Recent news about Chomsky’s “friendship and socializing” with Epstein has spread quickly; critics of the Left ripped off their connections with Chomsky like old Band-Aids. I question the goals of these sudden detractors who, without a second thought, with a fevered rush to their keyboards, have worked to extinguish the reputation and integrity of a man whom they claimed to be a close friend, whom they respected, revered, learned from, corresponded with at length, and co-wrote books and shared stages with.

I question the motives of Chris Hedges, who just recently, before trashing his long-admired “friend”, stated, “Noam is arguably our greatest and most principled intellect”. [The Chris Hedges Report, 9 Feb 2026]. I suppose those words were meant to guard Chris’s own reputation, given that he and Noam had engaged in joint public discussions, debates, and interviews. But, he states, without evidence, “He knew about Epstein’s abuse of children. They all knew. And like others in the Epstein orbit, he did not care.” He scurried to take him down, destroy his legacy, perhaps to protect his own from being tarnished by association. Hedges did not know what was in Chomsky’s mind.

Hedges spent over a decade teaching in New Jersey state prisons, building genuine relationships with criminals, some convicted of egregious violent crimes, even publishing a book celebrating the bonds he formed with those folks. Like Chomsky’s, his philosophy is rooted in the idea that convicted people retain their humanity and shouldn’t be permanently defined by their worst acts. This is the same principle Chomsky applied to Epstein: the man had served his sentence. Yet Hedges denies Chomsky the same moral complexity he extends to those convicted of murder. This is not journalism.

Such bravery, to condemn the friend you allegedly loved, as he is silenced by illness.

I question Vijay Prashad, who proudly asserted that he and Noam were long-time friends, and that Noam was his mentor, someone he previously regarded as his moral compass. Until a moment later, when he wasn’t. In another sprint to salvation, Prashad wrote that his now-discarded “friend” took a “shameful and inexcusable turn” by associating with Epstein. [Counterpunch, 3 Feb 2026]. Wouldn’t this raise a simple question for Prashad?

Since Noam was forever his moral compass, shouldn’t he take a minute to think, to examine any actual evidence? He could have taken a breath and considered what was being reported, rather than making the assumption that, nearing ninety, Chomsky took an abrupt and inexcusable turn to become a shameful human being who hung out with questionable people.

Prashad doesn’t know Noam Chomsky. Questionable people – mafia mobsters, petty thieves, ex-cons, American and worldwide political leaders (many of them war criminals), people whose world views he detested – had always been in Chomsky’s orbit, as difficult as that could be for him. This is how he gathered information. In that same orbit were students, colleagues, a wide-ranging spectrum of activists, honest journalists, researchers, and struggling, confused, homeless, everyday people whom Noam listened to, questioned, guided and challenged, whether in the safe, compassionate atmosphere of our MIT office, or somewhere across the globe.

Chomsky agreed to co-write a couple of books with Prashad. Co-writing books was never Chomsky’s idea. He sighed deeply each time he was approached with a persuasive idea, then turned to me and said, despite our agreement that he had enough on his plate, “I’ll do it; they’re good people”.

Speaking of plates, since Mr. Prashad is disgusted with his old friend, I wonder whether he’s donating his royalties from their co-written books to the starving people of Gaza, almost half of them children.

Such bravery, to condemn your mentor, as he is silenced by illness.

Glenn Greenwald threw one of the first stones at Chomsky, making broad assumptions about the recommendation letter Noam was said to have written for Epstein. An unsigned, undated, unaddressed, and seemingly unsent letter.

Greenwald claimed that he and Chomsky, with whom he had shared more than a few stages and discussions, were good friends. To prove it, he posted photos of Noam and Valeria (they married in 2014 when Noam was 85) visiting with him during their travels to Brazil. In a video I found online, he said of Noam, “I love him,” as he outlined the role Noam had played in expanding Greenwald’s political, philosophical, and ideological views, teaching him to critically evaluate things we read and hear.

Jeffrey St. Clair is another who recently called Noam’s association with Epstein indefensible, disgusting, pointing to seriously bad judgment from someone who usually makes such considered and thoroughly reasoned decisions.

There are others, as it has become de rigueur for online Left warriors to denounce Noam.

I read thousands of the letters he wrote during my years overseeing his schedules and correspondence (1993-2017), so I feel my observations hold sway, and may interest members of the public who knew or corresponded with Noam; watched his interviews or talks on problems of social justice and democracy; read his books or articles; participated in his quest to understand human thinking and language using scientific approaches.

In 2006, I joined his family and closest friends to see him through his wife Carol’s illness, through her death in 2008 just before their sixtieth wedding anniversary. During the few years that followed, I saw his pain when writing or talking with others about life without her. What I never saw, even in his most vulnerable moments, when sharing his deepest feelings of sadness and regret, was the kind of laudatory language, romantic hyperbole, clichés, and tone of voice found in the cherry-picked letters of recommendation and support that made their way into the released Epstein files.

Those who made self-aggrandizing rushes to judgment failed to do their due diligence, to make a deeper dive to review what was actually being said in those letters, to consider eighty years of Noam’s writing. Did they stop to question whether the messages reflected Noam’s signature voice, phrasing, or cadence? If they had known him, rather than simply having worn their associations like badges of honor, they would have noticed that the letters were out of character, flagrant deviations from Chomsky’s usual concise, precise writing style, related tangents notwithstanding.

Here, and in general, the concepts of discussion, debate, and meaningful engagement have become victims of fast-paced media news. Will the tarnishing of Noam’s legacy be chalked up to another media casualty? Such sad irony.

How could he not be controversial, not have garnered critics, having generated a voluminous body of work on much-debated issues? As one of the world’s most quoted and prolific writers, he uncovered truths that political and corporate powers would rather have kept out of the public eye. One may not always agree with him, or grasp his point; he spoke in a language foreign to many, one of straightforward truth, not a voice striving for popularity, grandstanding, or social media hits. He did this to exhaustion. At the same time, Noam saw the best in people. He assumed they were good until proven otherwise. When in disagreement, he debated others’ points, not the people themselves – with a few exceptions.

I am somewhat amused, and greatly disturbed, by the assertions I’ve read on Reddit, Substack, and other online venues, that Chomsky was seduced by power and driven by money. Each time we were asked about speaking fees, my reply that we requested only transportation and hotel reimbursements was met with silence. In fact, they often asked me to repeat myself, sure that they had misheard. Noam had to be talked into accepting local organizers’ arrangements for a taxi to take him to their event.

Noam and Carol and their adult children were and remain private, respectful, professional people, a loving family who should never have been drawn into this feeding frenzy. I will add only this: after Carol’s death, Noam came to me, distressed, as he didn’t know the name of his bank, nor how his retirement checks were deposited into his account. Carol had always handled these things.

Other claims I’ve read online, that near his ninetieth year, Noam Chomsky became a party-animal schmoozing with rich and influential people he had scorned are ludicrous. He eschewed socializing beyond close friends and family, even then falling quickly into serious conversation. He wore a filter to block out hearsay and gossip not confirmed through direct correspondence with trusted friends, colleagues, and non-mainstream media sources. Otherwise, how could he have written over one hundred fifty books, thousands of lectures, articles, and essays, decades of class notes, and a thousand monthly emails.

I scheduled office meetings for him three days a week. He taught his own classes, guest lectured for others’ classes, accepted requests for local talks, participated in discussion groups, and lectured worldwide on linguistics, social justice, the media, and the struggle for peace.

Noam Chomsky has stood with the oppressed all of his life. The East Timorese, drawing Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman into the cause. The miners of Iquique, Chile. The families and children of Gaza and the West Bank of Palestine. The Kurds, Turkish dissidents, the Vietnamese. Factory workers in Cork, Ireland. (I was in Cork with him. The meeting brought my partner and myself to tears, not for the first time.) He stood, often literally, with poor and working class citizens, the Joe Hills, Wobblies, folks suffering crimes of hate, race, gender, sexuality, and victims of exploitation and violence. Online videos show Noam vehemently opposing the horrors of pornography, opposing the denigration of women in general.

This is commitment. This is bravery.

Noam won the Sydney Peace Prize in 2011, travelling to Sydney to take part in peace discussions on one of his first solo trips following Carol’s death. I found scores of his awards, including the Kyoto Prize (1988) in dust-covered boxes in the far corners of his sizeable, full-to-the-rafters home office. Nothing honoring his work was displayed. He acknowledged the efforts of the organizations themselves as crucial, but he never wanted his work to shine a light on himself.

Many online are publicly responding, allowing Noam Chomsky the presumption of innocence, balancing his entire life’s work as the context for associating with Mr. Epstein prior to the federal charges that showed the extent of the allegations against Epstein of trafficking, molesting and raping young girls. This knowledge would have sickened him. The writers, like Michael Albert of ZNet, highlight the life, legacy and reputation Chomsky tirelessly earned. To them, his work in science to co-found the cognitive science revolution, and in politics to illustrate the vast suffering that resulted from policies he opposed, stand as beacons of light in an all-too-dark world. I point to some of their writings at the end of this statement.

Noam Chomsky deserves to be judged on evidence, not assumptions. What has transpired in the wake of the Epstein file releases is a smear campaign against a man of integrity who lived in total devotion to exposing truths, seeking them out day and night, often in person, in the darkest of places. He had his head in his work until three or four AM, forgetting to eat, sleeping for a few insufficient hours before getting up to do it all again. Not for the money nor the social media hits, but because he thought all of us in this world deserved his time and effort.

I know, because I saw every message that he sent.

I know, because I was at the other end of the phone, computer, and office from him for a quarter century. I saw the suffering on his own face when he witnessed, even in writing, the torture of an entire country, the suffering of a minority group, or the pain of one individual. Is this a person worth condemning for associating with a horrible human being he in reality knew very little about?

Those who would rather disparage Chomsky might go back and read his words, the ones that moved each of them to see him as their moral compass, the words that elevated him to the level of our greatest and most principled intellect, or to describe him as a person who makes considered and thoroughly reasoned decisions. They should read again the words that made them feel love and respect for him and his body of work. All who have carelessly cast stones should remind themselves who he is and has always been.

NOTES:

I recount in detail some of the vignettes mentioned above in recent Substack posts (bevstohl.substack.com), and in my memoir, Chomsky and Me, OR Books 2023.

I’m thankful to all who took part in lengthy discussions with me so I could keep my head on straight: Kelly Gerling, Norman Finkelstein, Judy Chomsky, Daniel Chomsky, Mark Achbar (Manufacturing Consent, The Corporation), and Sarah Cordery (Notes to Eternity, 2016)

Michael Albert: “Chomsky Reassessed” has appeared on his Substack and other publications. On ZNet (February 24, 2026): “A Few Hopefully Non Redundant Ruminations On Epstein, Chomsky, and Us.”

Greg Grandin writes also on ZNet: (December 15, 2025): “What the Noam Chomsky-Jeffrey Epstein Emails Tell Us”, and has published subsequent articles, originally published in thenation.com.

A Reddit writer posted in February: “The Patriarch in Winter: Grief, Complicity, and the Unraveling of Noam Chomsky’s Final Years.”

Rameez Rahman posted a great piece on YouTube: “Throwing Chomsky Under The Bus.”

Justin Brown’s VegOut article (Feb 9, 2026): “In Defence of Noam Chomsky” is worth reading. Subtitle: The emails look damning. I thought they were damning. But I was wrong.