@alx Chomsky is another attention seeker. I never found him convincing. There's also a history of left wing issues with child abuse (eg Harriet Harman in the 1970s), not just on the right wing. Power seems to corrupt morality about women and children very fast. Good articles in today's Guardian on all the Epstein issues.

@alx Chomsky seating with Banon, who was hired to rehabilitate Epstein’s “reputation” … it’s oy vey all around

As for your point about the left (or the right) culting around “strong men” (rapists/pedos, Trump and Epstein are the opposite of that, overcompensating for low self-esteem and rejection, ie incels - Epstein is also described as sheepish and his taste in décor gold-ish and vulgar 😬 targeting vulnerable Eastern European girls), we should focus on victims, not deciphering networks we already know exist and operate the same way since … forever. Like what Raja Abdulhaq says: “Epstein was not a conspiracy - it’s just the Western empire doing what it has always done,” extending this to another extreme lawlessness in the shape the #Gazagenocide by the USA and its client state Israel. Lets focus on the victims.

@alx hi, but if you are here attacking Chris for writing this, and the whole book, that would miss the sequence of what he has been doing overall.

Chris' work since the 1960s has been on women's creation of symbolic culture by asserting rules about sex, ie rules against any such abuse by dominant males. So please don't suggest he has not been doing that (plus me and other students).

In order to be able to write a book about how women -- our African Homo sapiens ancestors -- created language itself, the greatest invention of humanity,Chris needed to understand what was going on with Chomsky, his second book.

Later this year with Jerome Lewis, major hunter-gatherer anthropologist, he published his book on 'The Revolutionary Origins of Language'.

So please don't say Chris or RAG have not been dealing with patriarchy. It's just not true, but our focus is on what happened before patriarchy to make us human.

It's not that I don't understand the shock, but really, who cares about Chomsky's psychology.
Probably is my allergy to cult, but to me Chomsky has always felt more like a grifter than a genuine thinker.
He was good on American Imperialism, but lacked any critical analysis of situations like Syria, Bosnia, or Ukraine, and he was totally dismissive of the leftist voices from these areas.
That said, if we see how academia works,"Chomsky loves Epstein" becomes very understandable

2/