On Making "Geo-Strategic" Mean "Peripheral" and on the "Conspiracy Exemption"
Borba100 at aol.com
Borba100 at aol.com
Tue Dec 11 19:57:26 MST 2001
Regarding my assertion that US policy is motivated by goals (going after the
former Soviet Republics) that have long been seen as the reason for seizing
Central Asia, Lou Proyect says:
Okay, this is your argument. Now supply the documentation that would
indicate that this is the purpose of the USA. >>
When I do supply documentation, as I have regarding 9-11, Lou dismisses it on
the grounds that these are mere facts, not "historical materialism," hence
irrelevant. There is actually lots of documentation concerning the
geo-strategic nature of what the US is doing. Lou should read Emperor's
<<Castro is right. It is not just about oil. Vietnam was not just about
rubber or antimony, etc. It is about US imperialism teaching peripheral
peoples who is the boss.>>
No Lou, that's what YOU think. Geo-strategic means "engaging in actions
aimed at seizing some position or positions which greatly increase leverage
in a world wide struggle."
Note that Lou has reversed Castro's meaning. STRATEGIC is dictionary defined
as "Important or essential in relation to a plan of action." Lou has
transformed Castro's "geo-strategic" into a synonym for PERIPHERAL, which
means "constituting an outer boundary" and also "of minor importance." That
is, they are opposites. Philosophically, this is not historical materialism
it is sophistry.
Lou views U.S. policy as purely subjective ("teaching peripheral people a
lesson") and tries to make Mr. Castro his accomplice, though Castro says the
attack on Afghanistan is of CENTRAL importance. Indeed, he ridicules the
notion that the U.S. would be doing this "over" oil - let alone teaching a
lesson to people whom it put in power and kept in power (See
And refused to arrest when they could, (see
BTW, my article mainly discusses a top secret document which reveals the
existence of a conspiracy by the top military leaders and (according to them)
by the State Department as well - that is, this was the whole U.S.
leadership, not a few generals - to fake attacks on Americans (some involved
killing people, some involved pretending to kill them) to justify war.
Up until now, Lou has been saying things simply do not happen. That to argue
that the U.S. ruling class conspires and uses black ops violates the rules of
Now he says, sure the U.S. was conspiratorial BACK THEN - that was because
Cuba was a revolutionary threat.
Thus is historical materialism responsive to Lou's wishes: when someone
uncovers facts that prove him wrong, historical materialism grants an
Lou has made the use of black ops and conspiracies OPTIONAL for those in
power. His opinion as to when they will choose to exercise that option (that
is, he allows that they will do so when they are caught doing so, in this
case in the revolutionary past, but does not allow that they are doing so in
the present!) - his conclusion as to when they will exercise the right to
conspire may not be THEIR conclusion. They may feel that now is JUST AS GOOD
A TIME as 1962 because their interests are not limited to crushing
revolutionary threats 90 miles from home. Those interests may also, in their
opinion, include conquering the world.
If one would conquer the world, one must eliminate the immense military power
of the former Soviet Union. That, as we have said, is being attempted
through a combination of throwing a cordon sanitaire around the former SU,
from the Baltic, through East Europe, through the Balkans, through Turkey,
and now - Central Asia, penetrating through aid and military organizations,
use of terrorist groups to destabilize. None of this is peripheral.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism