Ralph Leonard

Noam Chomsky’s correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein, including a 2019 email advising Epstein on handling negative publicity, is presented as a serious moral and reputational failure. Although there is no suggestion that Chomsky participated in criminal conduct, the article argues that he should have recognized the overwhelming evidence against Epstein, especially after the Miami Herald’s 2018 exposé, and that the damage to Chomsky’s standing as a moral authority on the American left may be permanent.

The piece condemns Labour MP Tahir Ali’s call in the House of Commons for laws prohibiting desecration of religious texts and prophets, arguing that blasphemy laws have no place in a liberal democracy. It also criticizes Keir Starmer for responding ambiguously rather than rejecting the proposal outright, and recalls Naz Shah’s similar comments in 2021. Although most of Britain abolished formal blasphemy laws in 2008, the article argues that intimidation and threats of violence have created a de facto taboo around religious criticism.

The piece argues that the left’s proposal to build its own version of Joe Rogan is unlikely to succeed. Donald Trump and JD Vance used Rogan and other popular podcasters to reach disaffected young male voters, while Kamala Harris relied more heavily on celebrity endorsements and established media appearances. Although Rogan’s direct impact on the election remains unproven, the campaign demonstrated the influence of alternative media platforms and exposed weaknesses in liberal political communication.

The piece argues that recent debates over Englishness have blurred the distinction between civic and ethnic conceptions of national identity. It highlights a dispute between Ash Sarkar and Matthew Goodwin over the classification of a Wales-born Southport attacker as the child of Rwandan immigrants, interpreting Goodwin’s response as revealing an ancestral rather than civic understanding of Englishness. The article contends that ethnic language is increasingly being used to preserve racial distinctions without explicitly invoking race, while noting that most people do not define Englishness by skin colour or phenotype. The revival of the argument reflects unresolved anxiety over national identity and has been exploited by reactionary politics.