Seeing a photo of Noam Chomsky with a pedophile and blackmailer is actually not all that surprising.
First, it was his modus operandi to talk to anyone. Second, both probably were incentivized to form a weird relationship with each other. Epstein (an intelligence agent) probably wanted dirt on Chomsky, or to try to control opposition. Chomsky probably wanted to learn about the global elite, and get connected to powerful people (like the prime minister of Israel, who Epstein helped him meet). Perhaps they both wanted to change and teach and shift the other’s perspective and ideology.
Noam Chomsky is 97 years old and can no longer defend himself. He has been viciously attacked his whole life. He has meant so much to so many people across the world. I’m not saying I worship him as a hero, but I’m also not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
All of his analysis and interpretation of history and power dynamics are basically correct. It remains a good starting point or place of reference for anyone willing to learn about the world, in my opinion.
I didn't know your real life was so exciting! Glad you put your money where your mouth is. It's a good word too about killing your heroes. For a lot of the same reasons, it comes very easily to me. I'm able to compartmentalize, take the baby out of the bathwater so to speak. When someone inevitably disappoints, I just go "alright, they're a complex fallible human, got it" and keep going with whatever drew me to them in the first place.
There is a special kind of anger and grief that comes with disappointing 'heroes' and in the age of social media, where people exploit their following for their ego and money - it takes quite something to stay authentic and humble. This article summarises such an important life lesson. Thank you for sharing this with us in your usual eloquent way.
Excellent framing on the need to decouple ideas from personalities. The observation about how every stage of politcal development requires shattering prior idols really captures something I've experienced moving through different intellectual circles. Once you realize people are just bundles of contradictions with maybe a few good insights, the whole hero-worship thing starts feeling like a trap. The Chomsky-Epstein connection is just the latest reminder that nobody's immune to beingcompromised.
Beautiful piece. If there is one thing from my Protestant upbringing that has stayed with me in a secular form it may well be the belief that you should not worship saints.
Also really loved how you discussed the value people’s ideas can have for your intellectual journey even as you will hopefully outgrow them eventually. Perhaps we can even return to the good bits sometimes: in the case of Chomsky, I had for years ignored him due to his views on Syria/ Ukraine/ Bosnia/ Cambodia, only to rediscover how powerful his critique of US imperialism and mass media can be over the past two years of genocide.
Chomsky has been a turning point for me, in both class consciousness and now, in the realization what idol worship means.
I literally said in one of my class discussions this past semester that "I would go to war for Chomsky", because his quality of the halo-effect he had over me.
I'm realizing the reason why I created idols in people who "could do no wrong" is because of the fear of 'taking up the mantle'. The world is full of imperfect people, and just like you said; some worse off than others. But if I could project all of my needs onto a savior, who is sinless, then I wouldn't need to ever take responsibility for my own civic duties as a human and member of the human race. Christianity has taught me well in this. After all, I'm so aware of my own sins and imperfections, how could I ever feel secure in the ability to inact positive change? I must rely on someone else like Noam Chomsky, right?
But of course he's imperfect. And appart from vague photographs, his bidding with epstien is alleged at most (haven't been through all the epstien files to make a proper conclusion yet). But to the degree to which we find fault, my knee jerk reaction to condemn him comes from my own projection of self hatred. How dare he be associated with an abuser! And I assuringly sooth my ego by renouncing every mistake and sin I've ever committed.
And though I've deconstructed my faith at the start of 2023, I can't help but lean on the moral lessons that have been taught to me for the past 30 years. All of this has become biblically proportionate, despite what the current conservative evangelical discorce says.
With all this to say, class consciousness is just the start. Idolozation has made me complicit by self hatred and fear.
Well framed. I traveled a very different path but this has been my core philosophy about role models and pedestals thanks in part to my father who was a social anarchist. Course, as I noted in sharing the post, one hopes they don't punch their legacy in the dick like Nome but all the same...
Question- if “ you “ or people like you are not the victim or the oppressed of the hero Is it easier to separate?
Not to state the obvious but as a white male there is very little that heroes do to you or your kind.
It’s been more challenging for me and I wonder if it’s due to my experience as a woman.
I’ve been as many women have sexually abused, harassed and assaulted by men. And like most women in those situations I had men who witnessed who said and did nothing.
So when I see my “ heroes “ men who claim to be fighting for women’s rights or at the very least not fighting against women’s rights- it’s not only disappointing, it’s heartbreaking on a level I don’t think you understand.
Because nothing will change with out men’s support, nothing.
When supposed “ champions” end up instead being predators or enablers of predators Clinton, woody Allen, Cosby, cuomo, Weinstein, Chomsky, Lois CK
This is what women mean when we say “ all men”
We know not all men are predators and awful. But an awful lot of men like Chomsky don’t say anything or do anything and let this abuse happen .
My concern with your argument is by separating the person from their brilliant ideas - is that you are encouraging people to do that. To see abusive, or just bad behavior and not say anything because well the man is brilliant.
Women and girls need you to say something, we need our very human like men and all their disappointing ways to speak up when they see other men saying awful things about women, doing awful things to women.
Then you won’t have to be disappointed in your heroes anymore.
In fact that would be a real hero.
Not a brilliant man with ideas. But a man who was courageous enough to stand up and say something in a moment.
Small steps, by many of you would bring big changes and we wouldn’t even need to have this conversation as much.
I think what you’re naming here is real and important. Not that I want to or can speak for him, but I don’t hear your concern as being at odds with what Charles was trying to say even if his position is undeniably easier to articulate from where he sits.
You’re absolutely right that separating ideas from people is not an abstract intellectual exercise when you’ve lived with the consequences of men’s violence, men’s silence, and men’s protection of one another. For many women, (myself included) the “fall” of a hero isn’t just disappointing; it’s retraumatizing, because it confirms a pattern that never seems to break. In that context, calls for abstraction can feel less like moral clarity and more like erasure.
I also hear your worry that “separating the ideas from the man” is often used to excuse, ignore, or minimize harm. You’re right: silence especially from powerful men is not neutral, and in practice it too often functions as complicity. Real change requires men to speak up, intervene, and take risks in moments that actually matter, not just offer good analysis after the fact.
So when I try to understand where Charles was coming from in the essay, it’s not to negate any of that, but to see how his concern might sit alongside it. What I hear him worrying about is how easily movements collapse or excuse harm when they’re built around exceptional men rather than shared principles. De-idolizing thinkers isn’t meant to protect them; it’s meant to make them replaceable, accountable, and ultimately unnecessary as moral authorities. If no one is on a pedestal, then no one is above consequences.
I don’t hear your argument as rejecting nuance or ideas. I hear it as refusing to let abstraction become cover. I don’t think the alternative to hero worship is moral indifference; I think it’s a culture where ideas stand or fall on their merits, and where people especially men are expected to live up to basic standards of courage and solidarity, or step aside. In that sense, what you’re calling for sounds like the same world I’d imagine Charles wants: fewer brilliant men insulated by reputation, and more ordinary men willing to say “this is wrong” when it counts.
If “kill your heroes” doesn’t also mean “stop protecting men,” then it’s incomplete. I also want to say explicitly that I hear you speaking from trauma, and I don’t want my effort to interpret the essay to flatten that. I’m with you in refusing any version of abstraction that protects men or asks women to absorb the cost.
This is all a little misleading, isn’t it? Noam met with Epstein after Epstein‘s conviction and publicly acknowledge that he was meeting with Epstein to discuss various topics. This isn’t new or earth shattering. We like to think of Epstein as a man who acted as a pervert, 24–7, but the man, for all his egregious flaws, did have other interests. I don’t see the issue here. Epstein moved in elite academic circles. 
There’s no evidence Chomsky was involved in or supported Epstein’s criminal conduct.
• There’s no indication that Chomsky was part of Epstein’s sexual trafficking network or participated in any crimes.
• Claims that Chomsky was “friends in a social or hedonistic sense” with Epstein in the context of wrongdoing aren’t supported by any verifiable reporting
I think I agree with everything you said except for one point. You say Chomsky “met with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction” and I don’t think that’s true. Epstein was arrested and in custody in 2019 but “committed suicide” before facing the music.
Technically in 2006-2009 he pled guilty to one count of prostitution, but served his 18 month sentence.
If Noam took this all at face value (which was his position), then he believed Epstein “had a clean slate” under the law, which is true. His modus operandi was to talk to anyone, and when questioned about his relationship with Epstein, he mentioned that he’s talked to war criminals also. Chomsky was never one to allow moral disgust or political differences get in the way of conversation. For as weird as this is to the lay person, and in retrospect it causes serious head scratching when analyzing the Epstein connection, it’s honestly part of a larger philosophy of prioritizing free speech and open conversation to allow the best ideas to win - something Chomsky always practiced and advocated.
My view is that Chomsky, perhaps commendably, thought he could stick to his principles and convince or persuade anyone that he was right, and that the best ideas would win out in the end. His association with Epstein then fits neatly into his overarching philosophy and is not hypocritical as many people are quick to suggest.
Also note Chomsky has faced bitter criticism his whole life in an effort to undermine his ideas, which are dangerous to the ruling elites he railed against. The Epstein allegations are a continuation of the attacks against Chomsky, and now Chomsky can’t really defend himself.
Rather than being eventually disappointed by you, or casually moving on, I like to think that us humans crash into each other and our orbits meet at just the moment we were ready to hear or learn that new thing. That something about the energy you're putting out is attracting the energy of those who are ready to hear you, and how that connection represents a step in that person's journey. It's a powerful thing putting your ideas into the world, consistently and thoughtfully. I've seen a few of your videos on IG, but this is the first of your Substacks that I've read. Your plug for this piece in your Noam Chomsky video worked, brought me here. And I really enjoyed reading your take here, it provoked a lot of deep thoughts, and as a person who is slowly becoming aware of my ADHD tendencies, I resonate with a lot of what you say, so I'm compelled to dive in to your other writings here. As someone raised Mormon in Utah, I really liked the way you described your experience of chipping away at the facade. It's incredibly refreshing to feel reflected in the experience of another, especially in these times, so thank you for your thoughts and your beautiful words 🤍
Seeing a photo of Noam Chomsky with a pedophile and blackmailer is actually not all that surprising.
First, it was his modus operandi to talk to anyone. Second, both probably were incentivized to form a weird relationship with each other. Epstein (an intelligence agent) probably wanted dirt on Chomsky, or to try to control opposition. Chomsky probably wanted to learn about the global elite, and get connected to powerful people (like the prime minister of Israel, who Epstein helped him meet). Perhaps they both wanted to change and teach and shift the other’s perspective and ideology.
Noam Chomsky is 97 years old and can no longer defend himself. He has been viciously attacked his whole life. He has meant so much to so many people across the world. I’m not saying I worship him as a hero, but I’m also not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
All of his analysis and interpretation of history and power dynamics are basically correct. It remains a good starting point or place of reference for anyone willing to learn about the world, in my opinion.
well... "when you meet the Hero, kill the Hero"
(it´s kind of tragic, but someone has to do it!) ࿈
That said, I am actually shocked to learn of a Chomsky - Epstein close association
Like, what the hell
I didn't know your real life was so exciting! Glad you put your money where your mouth is. It's a good word too about killing your heroes. For a lot of the same reasons, it comes very easily to me. I'm able to compartmentalize, take the baby out of the bathwater so to speak. When someone inevitably disappoints, I just go "alright, they're a complex fallible human, got it" and keep going with whatever drew me to them in the first place.
May earth, fire, & turning time bless what we carry forward 💚 have a blessed Yule
Well written, mirrors my current journey though I’m much older than you. I appreciate this article very much and will encourage others to read it.
There is a special kind of anger and grief that comes with disappointing 'heroes' and in the age of social media, where people exploit their following for their ego and money - it takes quite something to stay authentic and humble. This article summarises such an important life lesson. Thank you for sharing this with us in your usual eloquent way.
Thanks for such a kind comment!
Excellent framing on the need to decouple ideas from personalities. The observation about how every stage of politcal development requires shattering prior idols really captures something I've experienced moving through different intellectual circles. Once you realize people are just bundles of contradictions with maybe a few good insights, the whole hero-worship thing starts feeling like a trap. The Chomsky-Epstein connection is just the latest reminder that nobody's immune to beingcompromised.
Beautiful piece. If there is one thing from my Protestant upbringing that has stayed with me in a secular form it may well be the belief that you should not worship saints.
Also really loved how you discussed the value people’s ideas can have for your intellectual journey even as you will hopefully outgrow them eventually. Perhaps we can even return to the good bits sometimes: in the case of Chomsky, I had for years ignored him due to his views on Syria/ Ukraine/ Bosnia/ Cambodia, only to rediscover how powerful his critique of US imperialism and mass media can be over the past two years of genocide.
Yeah, he’s always been a mixed bag for me. But this still hurt
Chomsky has been a turning point for me, in both class consciousness and now, in the realization what idol worship means.
I literally said in one of my class discussions this past semester that "I would go to war for Chomsky", because his quality of the halo-effect he had over me.
I'm realizing the reason why I created idols in people who "could do no wrong" is because of the fear of 'taking up the mantle'. The world is full of imperfect people, and just like you said; some worse off than others. But if I could project all of my needs onto a savior, who is sinless, then I wouldn't need to ever take responsibility for my own civic duties as a human and member of the human race. Christianity has taught me well in this. After all, I'm so aware of my own sins and imperfections, how could I ever feel secure in the ability to inact positive change? I must rely on someone else like Noam Chomsky, right?
But of course he's imperfect. And appart from vague photographs, his bidding with epstien is alleged at most (haven't been through all the epstien files to make a proper conclusion yet). But to the degree to which we find fault, my knee jerk reaction to condemn him comes from my own projection of self hatred. How dare he be associated with an abuser! And I assuringly sooth my ego by renouncing every mistake and sin I've ever committed.
And though I've deconstructed my faith at the start of 2023, I can't help but lean on the moral lessons that have been taught to me for the past 30 years. All of this has become biblically proportionate, despite what the current conservative evangelical discorce says.
With all this to say, class consciousness is just the start. Idolozation has made me complicit by self hatred and fear.
Well framed. I traveled a very different path but this has been my core philosophy about role models and pedestals thanks in part to my father who was a social anarchist. Course, as I noted in sharing the post, one hopes they don't punch their legacy in the dick like Nome but all the same...
The Great Man Theory of history is a tale as old as time. Although this is not the focus of this article, I find it tangentially related.
No hero’s
I didn’t have “hunted deer” on my Charles BINGO card! As a vegan, you have ruined my hero worship /s
good!
Question- if “ you “ or people like you are not the victim or the oppressed of the hero Is it easier to separate?
Not to state the obvious but as a white male there is very little that heroes do to you or your kind.
It’s been more challenging for me and I wonder if it’s due to my experience as a woman.
I’ve been as many women have sexually abused, harassed and assaulted by men. And like most women in those situations I had men who witnessed who said and did nothing.
So when I see my “ heroes “ men who claim to be fighting for women’s rights or at the very least not fighting against women’s rights- it’s not only disappointing, it’s heartbreaking on a level I don’t think you understand.
Because nothing will change with out men’s support, nothing.
When supposed “ champions” end up instead being predators or enablers of predators Clinton, woody Allen, Cosby, cuomo, Weinstein, Chomsky, Lois CK
This is what women mean when we say “ all men”
We know not all men are predators and awful. But an awful lot of men like Chomsky don’t say anything or do anything and let this abuse happen .
My concern with your argument is by separating the person from their brilliant ideas - is that you are encouraging people to do that. To see abusive, or just bad behavior and not say anything because well the man is brilliant.
Women and girls need you to say something, we need our very human like men and all their disappointing ways to speak up when they see other men saying awful things about women, doing awful things to women.
Then you won’t have to be disappointed in your heroes anymore.
In fact that would be a real hero.
Not a brilliant man with ideas. But a man who was courageous enough to stand up and say something in a moment.
Small steps, by many of you would bring big changes and we wouldn’t even need to have this conversation as much.
I think what you’re naming here is real and important. Not that I want to or can speak for him, but I don’t hear your concern as being at odds with what Charles was trying to say even if his position is undeniably easier to articulate from where he sits.
You’re absolutely right that separating ideas from people is not an abstract intellectual exercise when you’ve lived with the consequences of men’s violence, men’s silence, and men’s protection of one another. For many women, (myself included) the “fall” of a hero isn’t just disappointing; it’s retraumatizing, because it confirms a pattern that never seems to break. In that context, calls for abstraction can feel less like moral clarity and more like erasure.
I also hear your worry that “separating the ideas from the man” is often used to excuse, ignore, or minimize harm. You’re right: silence especially from powerful men is not neutral, and in practice it too often functions as complicity. Real change requires men to speak up, intervene, and take risks in moments that actually matter, not just offer good analysis after the fact.
So when I try to understand where Charles was coming from in the essay, it’s not to negate any of that, but to see how his concern might sit alongside it. What I hear him worrying about is how easily movements collapse or excuse harm when they’re built around exceptional men rather than shared principles. De-idolizing thinkers isn’t meant to protect them; it’s meant to make them replaceable, accountable, and ultimately unnecessary as moral authorities. If no one is on a pedestal, then no one is above consequences.
I don’t hear your argument as rejecting nuance or ideas. I hear it as refusing to let abstraction become cover. I don’t think the alternative to hero worship is moral indifference; I think it’s a culture where ideas stand or fall on their merits, and where people especially men are expected to live up to basic standards of courage and solidarity, or step aside. In that sense, what you’re calling for sounds like the same world I’d imagine Charles wants: fewer brilliant men insulated by reputation, and more ordinary men willing to say “this is wrong” when it counts.
If “kill your heroes” doesn’t also mean “stop protecting men,” then it’s incomplete. I also want to say explicitly that I hear you speaking from trauma, and I don’t want my effort to interpret the essay to flatten that. I’m with you in refusing any version of abstraction that protects men or asks women to absorb the cost.
I read this in the same way. 100% agree.
This is all a little misleading, isn’t it? Noam met with Epstein after Epstein‘s conviction and publicly acknowledge that he was meeting with Epstein to discuss various topics. This isn’t new or earth shattering. We like to think of Epstein as a man who acted as a pervert, 24–7, but the man, for all his egregious flaws, did have other interests. I don’t see the issue here. Epstein moved in elite academic circles. 
There’s no evidence Chomsky was involved in or supported Epstein’s criminal conduct.
• There’s no indication that Chomsky was part of Epstein’s sexual trafficking network or participated in any crimes.
• Claims that Chomsky was “friends in a social or hedonistic sense” with Epstein in the context of wrongdoing aren’t supported by any verifiable reporting
I think I agree with everything you said except for one point. You say Chomsky “met with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction” and I don’t think that’s true. Epstein was arrested and in custody in 2019 but “committed suicide” before facing the music.
Technically in 2006-2009 he pled guilty to one count of prostitution, but served his 18 month sentence.
If Noam took this all at face value (which was his position), then he believed Epstein “had a clean slate” under the law, which is true. His modus operandi was to talk to anyone, and when questioned about his relationship with Epstein, he mentioned that he’s talked to war criminals also. Chomsky was never one to allow moral disgust or political differences get in the way of conversation. For as weird as this is to the lay person, and in retrospect it causes serious head scratching when analyzing the Epstein connection, it’s honestly part of a larger philosophy of prioritizing free speech and open conversation to allow the best ideas to win - something Chomsky always practiced and advocated.
My view is that Chomsky, perhaps commendably, thought he could stick to his principles and convince or persuade anyone that he was right, and that the best ideas would win out in the end. His association with Epstein then fits neatly into his overarching philosophy and is not hypocritical as many people are quick to suggest.
Also note Chomsky has faced bitter criticism his whole life in an effort to undermine his ideas, which are dangerous to the ruling elites he railed against. The Epstein allegations are a continuation of the attacks against Chomsky, and now Chomsky can’t really defend himself.
You are absolutely correct on all counts. Thank you.
Rather than being eventually disappointed by you, or casually moving on, I like to think that us humans crash into each other and our orbits meet at just the moment we were ready to hear or learn that new thing. That something about the energy you're putting out is attracting the energy of those who are ready to hear you, and how that connection represents a step in that person's journey. It's a powerful thing putting your ideas into the world, consistently and thoughtfully. I've seen a few of your videos on IG, but this is the first of your Substacks that I've read. Your plug for this piece in your Noam Chomsky video worked, brought me here. And I really enjoyed reading your take here, it provoked a lot of deep thoughts, and as a person who is slowly becoming aware of my ADHD tendencies, I resonate with a lot of what you say, so I'm compelled to dive in to your other writings here. As someone raised Mormon in Utah, I really liked the way you described your experience of chipping away at the facade. It's incredibly refreshing to feel reflected in the experience of another, especially in these times, so thank you for your thoughts and your beautiful words 🤍