Originally published at: Jeffrey Epstein "moved $270,000 for Noam Chomsky" | Boing Boing
…
5 Likes
technically illegal. the best kind of illegal
22 Likes
“Epstein gave me advice on how to transfer funds from one account of mine to another,” Chomsky told Insider in an emailed statement. “The simplest way was to pass it through his office.”
I have bank accounts in 4 countries. I have never felt the need to use a convicted Sex Offender’s bank accounts to move my money anywhere.
48 Likes
17 Likes
Christing fucking jesus.
I read his fucking books when I was in college, and I hope to hell that I never turn out to be this big a scumbag.
10 Likes
Remember, people like Epstein groom everyone around them. Chomsky would never want to admit to being hoodwinked and manipulated by Epstein. Instead he becomes part of the protective layer of respectability that these people cultivate around themselves.
20 Likes
Carnac The Magnificent voice
“Noam Chomsky, Woody Allen, and Jeffrey Epstein.”
(sotto voce Ed McMahon “Noam Chomsky, Woody Allen, and Jeffrey Epstein.”)
opens envelope
“Who are three people who know about manufactured consent?”
22 Likes
honestly, it’s pretty easy. don’t hang out with known pedophiles, don’t travel on their private planes, and don’t have them launder money for you.
ethical behavior in three simple steps!
i don’t think grooming is the best framing, and rarely is.
epstein forced children into sex and prostitution. it’s not “soft” the way grooming makes it sound. it’s violence. it’s rape.
meanwhile, all of these adults that were involved were capable of, and had the power to, make their own decisions. at best, they chose to support epstein; at worst, they joined in.
whatever chomsky’s done, he has only himself to blame
19 Likes
“The simplest way was to pass it through his office.”
By 2018, anyone claiming to follow current events should have known that Epstein’s office was engaged in very shady practices (the child abuse was an open secret before then). The claims of Chomsky and the president of Bard College that they were innocent babes in the wood when they had financial dealings with him are … unconvincing.
17 Likes
16 Likes
I’d be inclined to use a different term(and be inclined to be very skeptical of anyone who claims that they were totally against the idea but Jeff somehow used his sinister charisma powers to turn them); but I have to imagine that there’s a process of careful approach involved if you are looking to issue invitations that are also confessions and want to make sure that only interested people get them and whatever initial overtures non-interested ones get are deniable or likely to be dismissed as innocuous; and there may also be some convincing involved (despite the fact that you are telling the truth in this case) in terms of getting across just how much impunity is really available.
None of this is intended to be exonerative: at a minimum Epstein’s pals failed the “maybe don’t be good buddies with a known child rapist” test; and it seems very likely that a distinctly nonzero percentage of them failed the “maybe don’t join the known child rapist on his cushy rape island to do some rape” test; but just to note that determining who will take you up on an incriminating and morally compromising offer and convincing them that that offer is both entirely serious and actually one you can deliver are both nontrivial exercises in social approach.
4 Likes
Nothing about the situation is flattering period; but it seems extra weird given the rough orders of magnitude involved in terms of the wealth of the various players and the specific money being moved around.
Chomsky is hardly plutocrat tier; but he’s had a solid, not-expendable-adjunct, tier academic job for decades; a solid number of books in publication, not sure if he’s expensive to get a speech out of; but absolutely the sort of person whose financial planning needs would go beyond “fill out 1044-EZ, moron; if that’s too much for you try H&R Block”; Bard College is also the sort of outfit that isn’t exactly scraping by on $10 and $20 individual donations; they have certainly dealt with, at least from time to time, Real Money gifts from especially successful alumni or similarly interested parties; plus, while $270,000 is not small change; compared to pretty common things like house purchases and sales and inheritances it’s an amount of money that even fairly little-people retail banking establishments are going to be in a position to have to assist customers with on a regular basis.
Maybe hitting up your pal who someone has massive money despite lacking visible means of support is just how people better at money than I am do things; but the scale seems odd: it’s enough money that having it sloshing around is suspicious; but it’s little enough money that “oh, I had to handle it through my fancy financier buddy’s office…” is also suspicious.
8 Likes
GOP: How do you like Chomsky now, cucks?
Dems: Lock him the fuck up IDGAF
GOP: Wait, we…
21 Likes
Doc you’re not gonna believe this but I about to take a shower and then slipped on a pure technicality and landed like this…
7 Likes
related to distributing funds from a previous marriage.
So he hid his assets from his wife’s divorce lawyers?
7 Likes
it’s not really that difficult i don’t think.for one, rumors of epstein’s behavior was well known, even before his arrest. ( ie. men already knew, and could bring it up with him. ) and two, american “politeness” culture ( especially among white americans ) means people are rarely called out when they transgress social boundaries
that politeness culture allows stuff like race and gender based micro and macro aggressions to thrive - but for stuff like this? we’ve seen plenty of cases in hollywood - everything on the spectrum from louis ck or joss whedon to weinstein - happen in plain view and go unchecked
unfortunately, the impunity is party of our culture
6 Likes
Facts.
He did a crime, he should do time.
I also just realized BOTH he and Epstein are famous for wanting to put kids on islands.
2 Likes
I don’t think Chomsky was ever popular with most Democrats, so this response would be the expected one unless you are a neo-feudalist Republican.
He isn’t even popular with anarchists anymore (He hasn’t been for a few years now because he defended genocidal regimes among other things.). The only reason they aren’t saying “Lock him up” is because they don’t believe in prisons.
12 Likes
9 Likes
I was working on the GOP assumption that we’ll protect liberal icons like they’ll protect Santos and Trump, but we actually won’t because, unlike the right, we’re ethical… mostly.
7 Likes
