One of Noam Chomsky’s guiding principles is deceptively simple and very profound, running something like this: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Here is a new article of his.

For many decades, he has been attempting to apply this to what he sees as the U.S.’s global empire, with mixed results. He is usually ignored or derided (but by a small minority, worshipped and imitated). Few people address the depth of his arguments, and I don’t know if I’ve achieved the desired result with these lines from the article:

“The major principle is that an invader has no rights, only responsibilities.” Do the troops who constitute this definition of invader have any rights?…for example an American soldier faced with an insurgent willing to kill?

“The first responsibility is to pay reparations.”Who determines the reparations and payment of them? If it is the American government, would this not increase its size and thus the potential lethality of this institution, according to the argument?

“Dismissing history is always a convenient stance for those who hold the clubs, but their victims usually prefer to pay attention to the real world.” Aren’t the victims also subject to similar deceptions and mistakes as the clubholder? and isn’t neither in possession of a more “real world” than the other?