Concerning the Facts and Consequences of the Tragic Death of President John F. Kennedy

By Fidel Castro

The following is the text of a commentary and analysis delivered by Fidel Castro on Cuban radio and TV, Saturday evening, November 23, 1963, one day after the assassination of President Kennedy.

The address gives the reader insight into the immediate analysis of the assassination which a political expert such as Castro was able to make.

This English translation of the speech was released by the Cuban delegation to the United Nations in 1963. It is here reproduced with minor editing of grammar and punctuation.

The address was edited by Robert Morrow in 2012 and previously appeared at The Education Forum.

Always, when something very important has happened,
national or international, we have thought it desirable to speak
to the people, to express our opinions. And in every such case to
express the orientation of the Government, the orientation of our
Party, so that each one of us all know the attitude we should
adopt in each one of these situations.

It is true that we are somewhat accustomed to various types
of unexpected events, important, serious events, because since the
victory of the Revolution our country has had to face a series of
problems, a series of situations that have prepared the people to
carry forward their victorious revolution.

Therefore, because of the events of yesterday in the United
States in which the President was murdered, because of the
repercussion these events can have, because of the role that the
United States plays in the problems of international policy,
because of this, we believe that we should make a specially
objective and calm analysis of these events and of their possible

The government of the United States, the former
administration of Eisenhower and the Kennedy administration,
did not practice precisely a policy of friendship toward us. The
policy of both administrations was characterized by its aggressive,
hostile, and implacable spirit toward our country.

Our country was the victim of economic aggressions intended
to cause the ruin of our economy and the starvation of our
people; it was the victim of all kinds of attacks that caused
bloodshed; hundreds of our compatriots have lost their lives,
defending themselves from attacks of U.S. imperialism, and not
only this. The hostility and the aggressiveness of U.S. imperialism
toward our country took us to the brink of war which was
fortunately avoided, took the world to the brink of thermonuclear

And even when we were not facing a situation like the crisis
of October, and the time of the invasion of Giron [Bay of Pigs],
we were all perfectly aware that if the plots they were planning
against our country had been carried through, that is to say, if
imperialism had been able to establish a beachhead on our shores,
that struggle would have cost our people tens of thousands, and
perhaps even hundreds of thousands of lives.

We have been victims of the constant hostility of the United
States. And among the rulers and the leading men of the United
States, there falls on Kennedy an important responsibility in these

Nevertheless, the news of the murder of the President of the
United States is serious news and bad news. We should analyze
it thoroughly in order to understand it; above all, analyze it
serenely and dispassionately, as revolutionaries should analyze
these things.

I say it is bad news, leaving aside the human question, in that
the sensitivity of man, any man, is affected by an act of this
nature, by a crime, by a murder. I say that leaving these
questions aside, I always react and I am sure that this is the
reaction of the immense majority of human beings – we always
react with repulsion toward murder and toward crime.

We cannot consider this to be a correct weapon of struggle –
no, we cannot consider that. Above all under the conditions in
which it happened, because – like all these things – it is always
necessary to consider the atmosphere, the things, the

In other settings, under other circumstances, whatever they
may be in a normal situation, in a peaceful situation, a deed of
this nature is never justifiable. Especially in the middle of a
crowd, in the presence of women, all these things, which above
all – I say – are the circumstances that lead us to take a
condemnatory attitude toward something, even though some
deeds of a political nature, some crimes of a political nature, may
or may not be justified.

In the circumstances that surrounded the assassination of
President Kennedy, we believe it has no justification.

But analyzing the question from the political, objective point
of view, I also said it was serious news, bad news.

And some will ask why? Why precisely the Cubans, who
have received so many aggressions on the part of the United
States, from the Kennedy Administration itself, why can they say
that it is bad news, why can they take an attitude of this kind in
the face of this news? But in the first place we Cubans must react
as revolutionaries. In the second place, we Cubans, as conscious
revolutionaries, should not confuse men with systems. And we
have to begin by considering that we do not hate men, we hate

We hate the imperialist system, we hate the capitalist system,
but this does not mean that we hate men as such, as individuals,
part of a machine, a more or less important part of a system.

So we should not confuse hatred of a system with the
sentiment we should harbor toward men, which is a different
sentiment; it is not a sentiment of hatred, and much less a
sentiment of hatred which in a case like this would be despicable.

As Marxist-Leninists, we know that the role of man is a
relative role in each historical epoch, in each society, at each
given moment, and we should know the role that man plays in
each society. And above all it is a question of elemental principle:
we do not hate men, we hate systems.

We would be happy at the death of a system; the
disappearance of a system would always make us happy. The
victory of a revolution always makes us happy.

The death of a man, even though this man may be our
enemy, does not make us happy. In the first place, this should be
our attitude as a matter of principle.

And further it is very characteristic of us Cubans, of Latins,
of Spanish-Americans- who are a mixture of races with certain
characteristics – that death always ends our animosity. We
always bow with respect in the face of death, even though it may
be the death of an enemy.

But then, I said that the deed itself could have very negative
repercussions on the interests of our country. But it is not the
interests of our country in this case but the interests of the whole
world that are involved. We must know how to place the
interests of mankind above the interests of our country. I
consider it a negative event for the interests of mankind. And I
am going to explain why.

Because in certain international political situations, at a given
moment, there can be bad situations or worse situations. The
death of President Kennedy has all the perspectives involved in
going from a bad situation to a worse situation: the possibility
exists that from a determined situation, another situation could
unfold and develop that could be highly damaging to the interests
of peace, to the interests of mankind.

Why? Do we perhaps think that the United States holds a
defensible political position in the international field? No, the
international policy of the United States cannot be defended. Its
policy of aggression, policy of violating the rights of other
nations, of interference in the internal affairs of other countries,
of domination, of repression, of bloodshed, of alliance with the
most reactionary sectors of the world, of participation in bloody
wars against the people who struggle for their liberation – as in
the case of South Vietnam – its attitude towards the people of
Latin America, its attitude towards us, and finally its
international position, is in no way defensible from the moral
point of view.

However, within American society and within the policy of
the United States, there are supporters of a much more
reactionary policy, of a policy much more aggressive, much more

And the whole condition of the internal policy of the United
States, the internal struggle for power in the United States, the
currents that struggle within the United States, the assassination
of President Kennedy, tend to convert the present policy of the
United States into a worse policy and to aggravate the evils of
U.S. policy.

That is to say that there are elements in the United States
who defend a more reactionary policy in every field, in
international and internal policy, and these are the sole elements
who can benefit from the events that occurred yesterday in the
United States.

Why? Because in the United States a number of forces, a
number of very powerful bodies within U.S. society, very much
influenced by big interests in the United States, have been
developing, and there is no doubt that a U.S. President possessing
the highest authority implies a situation less serious than a
President without the highest authority, in such a situation.

A President is a political man, who should take into account
many factors, advice, opinions, and influences, who is eminently
political, who without doubt, behaves differently in general than
those who we might say are not professional politicians, who
have other professions, other interests, and those political
reactions are always the worst reactions.

In the United States there are a number of powerful forces:
economic, political, military. Many of these forces have a fixed
policy and more than once we have spoken of this problem.
Take the clash, for instance, between the political currents of the
State Department and the military currents of the Pentagon. We
have often seen the manifestations of this struggle in Latin
America, how there are currents in the United States, above all
military currents that support the policy of military coups, and
there are political currents that defend another type of policy –
not that it is a good policy, but clothed in a civilian government,
even pseudo-liberal.

Unquestionably when [there] is a recognized, accepted, strong
authority in the United States, the dangers that arise from the
struggle of a whole series of reactionary currents within the
powerful organizations of the United States are much less than
when this authority does not exist. And without any shadow of
doubt, Kennedy had this authority in the United States.

Now, suddenly a new situation is created, where a President
who, because of circumstances in which he holds power, that in
being Vice President, and then because of an unexpected
circumstance becoming President of the Republic, independent of
what his character may be, because here it is not a question of
the character of the person or his personality, but [because] of the
circumstances, does not come to power with the same personal
authority as President Kennedy had. And therefore a question
begins to arise in respect to the influence within all those forces,
of the new authority who assumes power, of the new President
who takes over the reins of Government.

In the United States there are very reactionary currents, racist
currents, that is to say opposed to the demand for the civil and
social rights of the Negro population, Klu Klux Klan people,
who lynch, who kill and use dogs, who bitterly hate all Negro
citizens in the United States, who nurture a brutal hatred. Those
naturally are the ultra-reactionary.

In the United States there are economic forces, powerful
economic interests, just as ultra-reactionary, who have a
completely reactionary position on all international problems. In
the United States there are forces that support an increased
intervention by the United States [in] international questions, a
greater use of the U.S. military in international questions. There
are, for example, currents in the United States that are
intransigent supporters of the direct invasion of our country.
In the United States there are partisans of the application of
drastic measures against any government that adopts the smallest
measure of a nationalist character, of an economic character that
benefits its country.

And finally, there are a number of groups that can all be
included in one concept: the ultra-right in the United States, the
ultra-reaction in the United States, and this ultra-reaction in each
and every one of the internal and external problems of the
United States is an advocate of the worst procedure, of the most
aggressive and most dangerous and most reckless policy against

In the United States there are also liberal currents, some more
liberal, some more advanced, other less advanced. There are some
men on the right who are more radical, and other more
moderate. There are certain intellectual sectors that are not
constantly thinking in terms of force, but are thinking along lines
of diplomacy, instead of force, who have a less aggressive policy
– a more moderate policy.

That is to say, in the United States there is a whole range of
political thinking that runs from men of the extreme right to
men of the extreme left, men who are more to the left in their
political thinking.

And in this situation there is a variety of opinion, of more or
less moderate attitudes. There are liberals, intellectual sectors of
the United States who understand the errors in the policy of the
United States, who are not in agreement with many of the things
that the United States has done in international policy.

And what happened yesterday can only benefit those ultrarightist
and ultra-reactionary sectors, among which President
Kennedy or some of the men who worked with him cannot be
included. They could not be placed in the extreme reaction- in
the extreme right.

And even within the situation in the United States, within
the policy of the United States, which as a whole is indefensible,
Kennedy was strongly attacked by the most reactionary, most
aggressive, and most war-like circles.

You will recall that on the eve of the October crisis of last
year, there was a whole campaign, with great pressure, including
laws and resolutions in Congress, pushing Kennedy [and] the
Administration towards war, trying to create a situation of
imperative action.

Everybody will recall that on other occasions, we have stated
that one of the political errors of Kennedy in respect to Cuba
was to have played the game of his enemies. For example, to
have continued the invasion plans against Cuba that the
Republican administration had organized.

And out of all this arose the possibility in the United States
for a policy of blackmail on the part of the Republicans. That is,
Kennedy presented the Republicans with the weapon of Cuba.
How? He continued the aggressive policy of the Republicans, and
they used it as a political weapon against him.

But at times very strong campaigns, powerful movements
within the United States Congress pressed the Administration for
a more aggressive policy against us. All those factors and all these
forces on the extreme right in the United States fought Kennedy
very hard precisely on those points in which he did not agree
with the extreme aggressive policy called for by these sectors.

There are a number of issues that gave rise to constant
criticism by these ultra-right sectors. For instance, the Cuban
problem, the agreement reached at the time of the October Crisis
not to invade Cuba, one of the points in Kennedy’s policy most
consistently attacked by the ultra-reactionary sectors. The
agreement on the ending of nuclear tests was another point very
much debated within the United States, and it had the most
resolute and fierce opposition of the most ultra-reactionary.

Elements in the United States were against agreements of this

Everyone knows what our position was on this problem.
Everyone also knows the reason for our position, regardless of
the fact that we consider that this was a step forward that could
mark the beginning of a policy of lasting peace, in favor of true
disarmament, but a policy that was never applied in our case.
Because while the nuclear test ban treaty was being signed, the
policy of aggression against Cuba was accentuated.

But we are not now analyzing the problem in relation to
what happened in our case, but in relation to what was
happening in the world, and above all in relation to what some
were doing and others thinking in the United States.
That is to say, there were many sectors in the United States,
many ultra-reactionary elements that carried out a fierce
campaign against the nuclear test ban treaty.

There are other elements in the United States that violently
opposed the legislation of civil rights proposed by Kennedy
regarding the Negro problem in the United States.

We are not dealing with the case of a revolutionary law or of
a great effort, because this great effort in favor of equality and
civil rights, especially in favor of the rights of the U.S. Negroes,
has not been made in the United States. But be that as it may it
was legislation that contained a series of measures that, from a
legal point of view, tended to protect the rights of the Negro
population. This legislation was blocked and held back by the
strong opposition of the most reactionary sectors in the United
States, of those sectors in favor of racial discrimination.

And thus, on a whole series of issues of international policy,
there are in the United States elements that support a preventive
nuclear war, who are in favor of launching a surprise nuclear
war, because they stubbornly think that this should be the policy
of the United States. Reactionary and neo-fascist elements
without any consideration whatsoever for the most elementary
rights of nations or the interests of mankind.

And it is a strictly objective fact that there are such types of
capitalists, such types of reactionaries. And there is no doubt that
the worst type of capitalism is nazism; the worst type of
imperialism was nazism. And the most criminal mentality was
the mentality of imperialism in its nazi form. And so there is a
whole series of degrees in these questions.

So analyzing the question objectively, whenever a strong
accepted personal authority is lacking in the situation, ways and
conditions in which U.S. policy is carried out, all these
reactionary forces find a magnificent opportunity, and in fact are
finding a magnificent opportunity, to unleash their unbridled and
ultra-reactionary policy.

And these are the sectors, the currents, the only ones that
could benefit by an event such as the one that occurred yesterday
in the United States.

This is analyzing the automatic result of this event. Independent
of another aspect of the question: What is behind the
assassination of Kennedy? What were the real motives for the
assassination of Kennedy? What forces, factors, circumstances
were at work behind this sudden and unexpected event that
occurred yesterday?

News that took everyone by surprise, something that possibly
no one had even imagined.

Even up to this moment, the events that led to the murder of
the President of the United States continue to be confused,
obscure, and unclear.

And there are some things which are clear symptoms of what
I have been saying: that the most reactionary forces in the United
States are at large.

For instance, the worst symptom is the advantage they are
taking of the event to unleash within the United States a state of
anti-Soviet hysteria and of anti-Cuban hysteria; this, in the first
place. It means that the new administration that is taking over
may find itself facing a situation of hysteria, unleashed in the
United States, precisely by the most reactionary sector of the
country, by the most reactionary press, with the great resources
that powerful political currents have within the United States.

That is to say that already they are combining to create a
frame of mind in the U.S. public opinion, and its worst
characteristic is that they are waging a campaign in the worst
McCarthyite spirit, in the worst anti-communist spirit.

At the time of President Kennedy’s murder, it ran through
the minds of most people . . . and surely it ran through the
minds of the large majority of U.S. citizens, and this was only
logical- that President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of
some elements who disagreed with his international policy; that
is to say, with his nuclear treaty, with his policy with respect to
Cuba – which they did not consider aggressive enough, and
which they considered weak – with his policy with respect to
internal civil problems of the United States. Not many days ago,
the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Adlai Stevenson was attacked
in the same city of Dallas by ultra-conservative elements of the
John Birch Society and counter-revolutionary elements in league
with them. This event drew the attention of us all.

I even thought, what degree of reaction will those people
reach, when they consider that Stevenson deserves attack for his
international policy?

In spite of how reactionary U.S. international policy has
been, there are elements who physically assault Stevenson,
because they consider that U.S. policy is a weak policy, a bad
policy, that it is not a sufficiently reactionary policy.

This ran through everybody’s mind. Did it run through the
mind of anyone that it might be a leftist? No, that did not occur
to anyone. Why? Because the controversy within the United
States today, the fierce controversy was taking place between the
most ultra-reactionary elements, the ultra-right elements, and the
more moderate elements of U.S. politics.

The internal controversy was not characterized by a struggle
of the communists of the United States with the Government of
the United States; it was not characterized by a struggle of leftist
elements or liberal elements. This does not mean that the leftist
elements supported Kennedy’s policy; but the struggle, the battle
waged without quarter was taking place within the United States
between the extreme right, the extreme reaction, and the more
moderate elements, in Congress, in the press, on the streets,

International tension had even diminished considerably in recent
months. These months were not months like the October crisis, not
like the months following the October crisis …. The United States
was not living through one of those stages of McCarthyism
characterized by unbridled persecution of the most progressive
elements of the United States. No, there have been other stages in
which the struggle is between reaction and the progressives. The
main task of reaction was to persecute the progressive elements, and
in such circumstances one might think that a progressive, persecuted
by blood and fierce, a fanatic haunted by his ideas, might be capable
of reacting in such a way. No, the United States was not living
through such a period. It was not living through a period of
unbridled McCarthyism. It was living through a period of fierce
controversy between the more moderate sectors – among which
can be found many of Kennedy’s collaborators – and the ultrareactionary
sector of American society.

Therefore, it was neither logical, nor reasonable, that anyone
could think that it could be a leftist fanatic; in any case it would
be a rightist fanatic, if it was a fanatic at all.

But naturally it was very difficult in the face of an event of
this nature for such unscrupulous people – like many U.S.
politicians- such immoral people, such dishonest and shameless
people as are many of those elements who represent the
reactionary cynical sectors of the United States, warmongers,
irreconcilable enemies of Cuba, supporters of an invasion of
Cuba – although this might be at the cost of thermonuclear war
– it was very difficult for them not to try to take advantage of
this circumstance to turn all their hatred, all their propaganda
and all their campaign against Cuba.

This did not surprise us. I have already said that we were
somewhat used to these things. The struggle, life, have made our
people into a people with iron nerves, a serene people. We have
just lived through the hurricane, and we faced the test with
dignity and honor, we have faced many tests with dignity and
honor. We foresaw that from these incidents there could be a
new trap, an ambush, a Machiavellian plot against our country;
that on the very blood of their assassinated President there might
be unscrupulous people who would begin to work out
immediately an aggressive policy against Cuba, if the aggressive
policy had not been linked beforehand to the assassination, if it
was not linked, because it might or might not have been. But
there is no doubt that this policy is being built on the still warm
blood and the unburied body of their own tragically assassinated

They are people who do not have an iota of morality; they
are people who do not have an iota of scruples; they are people
who do not have an iota of shame; who perhaps may believe that
in the shadow of the tragedy they can take us off guard,
demoralized, weak, the kind of beliefs into which the imperialists
always so mistakenly fall. And sure enough, yesterday at 2 P.M.
the first cable: November 22, UPI … because we should note
this; that of the news agencies, one has been more moderate,
more objective – the AP – and there is another that has been
excessively and unrestrainedly untruthful, a shameless promoter
of a policy and a campaign of slander against Cuba, that is UPI.
But that is not all, because there is a previous series of very
interesting UPI reports, and even a series of UPI campaigns
against President Kennedy himself, which links the news agency
with the ultra-right groups, which are interested in taking
advantage of the situation for their adventurous and warlike
policy, or because these circles are connected with the
assassination of President Kennedy.

And we can see this clearly through the cables: “Dallas,
November 22, UPI- today the police arrested Lee H. Oswald,
identified as the chairman of the Fair Play for Cuba Committees,
as the main suspect in the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy.” Right away Cuba and right away the Soviet Union.
And so they dedicated themselves to carrying out a fierce antiSoviet
and anti-Cuban campaign.

Cable: “The U.S. Embassy today confirmed that Lee H.
Oswald was in the Soviet Union. An Embassy official stated that
Oswald visited the Embassy in November of 1959 and according
to available information he left the Soviet Union in 1962. He
added that it was not known when the man suspected of killing
President John F. Kennedy had traveled to the Soviet Union,
what the purpose of his trip had been and how long he had
stayed in the Soviet Union. There were unconfirmed reports that
Oswald asked for Soviet citizenship and that he could not get it.”

Thus, from the very first cables there is an attempt to suggest
the responsibility of the Soviet Union and the responsibility of
Cuba, as if anyone could believe – anyone who is not a half-wit
– and has a little common sense – that any Government, the
Soviet government or the Cuban Government .. . and if they
don’t want to believe us, they don’t have to believe us; that is
unimportant. Perhaps they will think that we are hot-headed;
perhaps they feel that they have carried out too many aggressions
against us, but to suggest that the Soviet Union could have any
responsibility in this incident . . . can anyone believe that to
suggest that we could have had any responsibility … can anyone
believe that? Anyone who is not a half-wit, who has a little
common sense, who knows when men are working for a cause
and who know which roads lead a cause to victory?

Yet, nevertheless, this was the first thing they tried to suggest.
Listen to this cable “that they did not know the purpose of his
trip and how long he stayed in the Soviet Union.” That was the
first insinuation. And that was what made all this seem
suspicious, because it so happened that the most unexpected thing
– as unexpected as the assassination itself – was that
immediately a suspect appeared who – by a coincidence – had
been in Russia, and-what a coincidence -he is related to a
Fair Play for Cuba Committee. That is what they began to say.
And so, immediately a guilty person appeared: a suspect who had
been in the Soviet Union and who sympathized with Cuba.

Of course, although it is extraordinarily difficult to
manufacture a frame-up of this nature, it is possible that at this
moment they are not pursuing such an objective. They are
pursuing another objective, because they cannot invent just any
kind of responsibility.

They are trying to organize a campaign of hysteria, to excite
the minds of the people and unleash hysteria within the United
States; an anti-communist, anti-progressive, anti-liberal, anti-Soviet,
anti-Cuban warmongering hysteria within the United
States. If they had the slightest sense of responsibility, of
seriousness, or of good faith, they would not unleash a campaign
of this nature, as they have done, as can be seen in all the cables.

Let us read this one: “November 22, UPI- The assassin of
President Kennedy is an admitted Marxist who spent three years
in Russia trying to renounce his U.S. citizenship, but later
changed his mind and got a return trip to the United States paid
for by the United States Government.” That is already a
suggestion of blame to the Soviet Union. He was identified as Lee
H. Oswald, 24 years old, ex-U.S. marine and chairman of the
Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

So, right after that, the insinuation against Cuba. And this is
how they have begun all cables, all UPI cables, all reports,
Through the reports they have twenty times repeated the same
idea and the same thing, using a well-known technique at which
they are masters- to insinuate what they want to insinuate, to
sow the suspicion that they want to sow over this affair, to
slander the Cuban Revolution, to slander the Soviet Union, to
create hysteria against our countries.

It says: “Oswald was captured after a shooting fray when he
hid in a movie house ” … Thousands of reports came in on this,
many of them contradictory.

” . . . The police say that Oswald worked in a school
textbook warehouse in Texas … after the crime the police found
a Mauser rifle in the building,” etc . . .. It says where he was
born, it says that on October the 30th he turned up at the U.S.
Embassy in Moscow, on October 30th of 1959, and told the
officials that he wanted to give up his American citizenship.

“According to reports, he told the Embassy officials: ‘I am a
Marxist.’ The Federal Bureau of Investigations confirmed that
Oswald went to Russia and requested Soviet citizenship.

“Oswald told the Embassy officials that he intended to
disclose to the Soviet authorities everything he knew from the
three years he had been in the Marine Corps.”

Listen to that: “Oswald told the Embassy officials that he
intended to disclose to the Soviet authorities everything he knew
from three years he had been in the U.S. Marine Corps. The
Embassy officials said that Russia never granted Oswald the
citizenship he requested.”

Already they have in their hands a guilty person- true or
false? They have already produced someone who is guilty. They
have him. And now look: you will see the whole course followed
by this campaign.

” … He told the officials that he intended to disclose all the
secrets he knew.” Well, later I will refer to that again.

In February, 1962 Oswald apparently changed his mind and
returned to the United States. He had in the meantime married
a Russian, Marina, had a child. This man, who is charged with
something more than desertion, with being a spy, with confessing
that he is going to disclose military secrets, simply returned
peacefully to the United States- according to them.

It says: “The Embassy officials went over the case and since
he had not been granted Soviet citizenship, they decided to give
him a passport for the United States … ”

Can anyone who has said that he will disclose military secrets
return to the United Sates without being arrested, tried, without
being sent to jail?

It says: “Government records show that he left Moscow with
485 dollars for expenses, which the United States Government
gave to him.

“This year Oswald requested another passport. He told the State
Department that he wanted to visit England, France, ,Germany, the
Netherlands, Finland, Italy, and the Soviet Union; he said he
planned to make a trip in October or December 1963,o r in January
of 1964. The passport was issued in New Orleans on June 25th;
however, it is not known whether Oswald returned the money that
was loaned to him for the first return trip to the United States.

“If he did not pay, the new passport should not have been
issued,” they say. We will use their own reports:

“Dallas, November 22 -another cable -the President of
the United States, John F. Kennedy, was shot to death today.
The police arrested, as the main suspect of the murder, a proCastro
American” . . .

Now we find that the man who murdered Kennedy is proCastro.
We know there are very few pro-Castros-what they
call “pro-Castros” in the United States.

They call them “pro-Castro.” They label as “pro-Castro”
anyone it suits them to according to their propaganda and the
business at issue.

Now we find that the man who was yesterday in the Fair
Play Committee-in the first cable-was then a “pro-Castro”
American who had once tried to become a Soviet citizen. That
is how all the cables go, you will see.

Another cable, “Dallas, November 22, UPI-Police arrested
Lee H. Oswald today, a Marxist supporter of the Cuban Prime
Minister Fidel Castro.”

There is not a single cable in which they do not connect the
action, the name of the individual whom they assure is guilty,
with the Cuban Revolution, with the Soviet Union, with Fidel
Castro, pro-Castro, supporter of the Prime Minister, admirer of
the Cuban Prime Minister.

It says: “A supporter of the Cuban Prime Minister, Fidel
Castro, who tried to obtain citizenship in the Soviet Union,
where he lived for several years, denied any knowledge of the
criminal action. Oswald killed a policeman. . ..” etc.

And later on, in the same cable: ” … although Oswald, who
heads the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a pro-Castro entity in
this city, admitted ownership of the gun with which the
policeman …” They keep repeating this all the time.

This one comes later. The most noticeable item here is the lie
that this gentleman headed a Fair Play Committee. A lie. We
started putting together all the information and statements that
have appeared, to see whether there was a Fair Play for Cuba
Committee in that area of Texas or in New Orleans. They said
that this man … where did they get that? … They said that he
presented himself as secretary of a sectional unit of the Fair Play
for Cuba Committee in New Orleans or in Dallas. Some cables
say that it was in the month of August, other cables say it was
last week. That is what they say.

That is the reason for calling this man “pro-Castro.” And
that he had defended the Cuban Revolution in a broadcast there.

All this is very queer. We had no news of any such statement.
But we looked for reports: Cities where there were Fair Play for
Cuba Committees of which we had knowledge – New York,
Los Angeles, Cleveland, Baltimore, Chicago, Tamp a,
Youngstown, Washington, San Francisco, Minneapolis,
Philadelphia, Detroit – but nowhere is there a Fair Play for
Cuba Committee in Dallas or in New Orleans.

Strange because within their Organization they are superinfiltrated
by U.S. citizens, and F.B.I. and CIA agents. Isn’t that
so? Because everything that the CIA and the FBI do there has
been proved. Later they said other things.

Here it says also: “The Chairman of the National Committee
declared that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee has never
authorized the establishment of a chapter in any city of Texas or
Louisiana. ‘I can say that Lee Harvey Oswald was never Secretary
or Chairman of any Fair Play for Cuba Committee in any city
of the United States.’ ”

But you see, throughout the world, they began to spread the
poison from the first moments, that a Fair Play for Cuba
Committee was involved. Other things appear later on. Later we
will try to analyze who this true or false culprit could be. And
we must stick to what they say, we must base ourselves on what
they themselves say. All right. That was the 22nd …

“November 23, Dallas UPI – Pro-communist Lee Harvey
Oswald was charged today with the assassination of President
Kennedy. Police said that the paraffin test on Oswald’s hands gave
positive results that traces of gun-powder were found ” etc. . . .

Dallas, November 23rd, UPI- The result of the tests made
on Oswald’s face is still unknown. Such traces could only exist
if the suspect had fired a gun.”

So, in the first paragraph they start by saying, “procommunist,”
in the second paragraph they speak of something
else. Third paragraph – Oswald, a Marxist and sympathizer of
the communist regime in Cuba had oatmeal for breakfast … In
other words, in order to say what he had for breakfast, they
repeat that he was a Marxist and sympathizer of the communist
regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Get it? It is clear enough. We
know these people quite well; we have become almost experts in
knowing these shameless characters.

They say: “He had oatmeal, apricots, bread, and coffee for
breakfast, and sat down comfortably to wait for the authorities
to continue questioning him.”

“Dallas, November 23rd, UPI- The local police have proof
that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by CastroCommunist
Lee Harvey Oswald, according to an official
announcement today.” So he was murdered by a Castrocommunist?
Now this man is no longer an American, he is no
longer a Marine, this man whom they taught to shoot and kill in
the Marine Corps, now this man whom they made an expert
shot and sent to all U.S. imperialist bases throughout the world
is no longer a Marine. No, he was no longer an American, he
was a Castro-Communist, even though we never in our life heard
of the existence of this person.

You see how all this propaganda works. An American, a real
American, born there, educated by American society and
American schools, seeing American films, in the American armed
forces, American in every way. All of a sudden he is no longer
this; there is nothing of this in the cables. Now we read: ‘By the

All right, Captain Will Fritz said they were certain of this,
etc. This was yesterday; now this was today in the afternoon:
“Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police, said today that Lee Harvey
Oswald admitted being a communist. And now he admitted it
today; yesterday he admitted nothing. Today it appears that he
admitted being a communist. “Curry added that Oswald
admitted to police officers questioning him last night that he was
a member of the Communist Party.” Now the man has turned
out to be a member of the Communist Party. As time passes
they discover more titles for this man. The true man or supposed
man, this they do not know. Who can … ?

All right. One thing is clear: among all the things connected
with the assassination is the unleashing of a campaign of slander
against the Soviet Union and against Cuba, and a series of
perfidious insinuations that have no other object than to repeat
a thousands times their intrigue and sheer infamy to create an
anti-Soviet and anti-Cuban hysteria among the U.S. people and
in public opinion.

So these gentlemen are playing a very strange role in a very
strange play, and no one knows what sinister plans may be
behind all this.

All right. On the other hand, there is an official statement by
the State Department, issued today, which declares: “State
Department authorities said today that they had no evidence to
indicate that the Soviet Union or any other power is involved in
the assassination of President Kennedy.

“Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine who lived three years
in Russia, has been charged with the crime. When 24 years old
Oswald went to Russia; he announced his intention of giving up
his U.S. citizenship. After changing his mind and returning to the
United States last year, Oswald became a sympathizer of the
Cuban prime Minister, Fidel Castro.” So they repeat themselves
even in the cables where they say they deny they lie. . . . The
cable goes on: “State Department officials say that they have no
evidence that Cuba is involved in what Oswald did.”

Naturally, there is no need for anyone to make excuses for
Cuba. There is no need for anyone to apologize for Cuba. Cuba
is not asking anyone to excuse her, or pardon her, because even
the very idea that we should have to defend ourselves from such
an infamy is repugnant in itself. Repugnant in itself.

So we have no need for anyone to defend us or apologize on
our behalf. Why does the State Department have to come out
today with such a statement? What does this show? It shows that
the U.S. authorities themselves, some people in the United States,
have become aware of the danger of the anti-Soviet and antiCuban
campaign unleashed by the most reactionary and warlike
circles in the United States.

In other words, the State Department itself understands the
danger of such a policy, the very dangerous dead end into which
such a campaign of slander and hysteria can lead the United

So this shows that there are people in the United States who
have understood the need to get out of this situation. This does
not mean that the danger is over, because we do not know what
is behind the assassination of Kennedy. What is behind the
assassination of Kennedy is not known at the moment.

The statement does not eliminate the danger of some frame-up
that could be concocted there, but indicates that there are
already people in the United States who have understood the
danger and risk in such a campaign and indicates that, possibly,
there are people in the United States who do not agree with such
an adventure, with such madness, with such nonsense that is
being carried out in such a criminal and irresponsible way.

All right. The State Department has felt the need to
counteract this policy, because who knows where this policy, this
campaign, may lead.

Later other things have appeared, because all this is very
mysterious. Another cable, this time by Associated Press, says:
“A 1961 letter …” Of course the United Press International has
said nothing on this because its campaign has been one-sided, in one
direction only, but not just the UPI. We were listening yesterday to
broadcasts of U.S. stations and the very same campaign was being
carried on the radio. The name of Castro was mentioned almost
more often than the name of the man whom they charge with the
murder, incessantly repeated over the radio in the United States.

See how these people act and how much they hate the
Revolution. Why should we not suspect that these people could
be capable of anything, from the murder of Kennedy up to what
they are doing now? People moved by such hatred, people who
act with such absolute lack of scruples …

The AP cable reads: “A letter dated 1961 found in Pentagon
files raises doubts whether Texas governor, John Connally, and
not President Kennedy, was the main target of the assassin who
shot both yesterday in Dallas.

“The letter, dated January 31st, 1961, was written by hand in
Minsk, Soviet Union, by Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine,
charged with murdering Kennedy and wounding Connally.

“Oswald returned a year ago after spending three years in the
Soviet Union.

“The letter was addressed to Connally, then Secretary of the
Navy, asking that the dishonorable discharge of Oswald be
canceled. The request was denied, and if it is shown that he is the
man who fired at Kennedy and Connally, the question might be
raised of whom he had more motive to want to kill.

“A copy of Oswald’s letter was sent to Connally, who had
left his post as Secretary of the Navy on December 20th 1961.
Connally briefly replied to Oswald on February 23, 1962, that he
was no longer in the Navy and that he had referred his letter to
the new Secretary of the Navy.

“A copy of Connally’s letter was sent to the new official,
Fred Korth, who referred it to the Marine Corps. The Marine
Corps referred it to a court of appeals which confirmed Oswald’s
dishonorable discharge. Oswald’s letter maintained that his
discharge was a gross error or an injustice.”

There are some other cables here in which they speak about
a threat, cables that say that in the letter Oswald threatened the
then-Secretary of the Navy, that he would take any means to
avenge himself for that injustice. And that very same Secretary of
the Navy was accompanying Kennedy.

So they themselves have now brought up another possible

We have here a report which reads: “District Attorney Henry
Wade declared today that he expects to be able to secure a death
sentence for Lee Harvey Oswald, former Marine, who has been
formally accused of the murder of President John F. Kennedy,
according to reports issued by U.S. new agencies.

The report adds that Wade has been District Attorney in
twenty-four murder cases and secured twenty-three death
penalties. It seems that this District Attorney is a hangman – a
life sentence in the other case.

“Wade added that he is in possession of material evidence
against Oswald, but refused to say what this evidence was. He
said that it has not yet been established whether the Mauser that
was found is the murder weapon.

“In all the questioning Oswald has denied that he took any
part in the murder.

“Captain Will Fritz, Chief of the Homicide Squad of the
Dallas Police, said that in his opinion, Oswald killed President
Kennedy and that for him the case is closed.”

Later we have to try to look at some of the facts on who this
accused man can be, but we want to speak of the campaign
carried on by United Press International.

It just so happens that these events occurred precisely at a
moment when Kennedy was being severely attacked by those
who considered his Cuban policy too weak.

It could not be us, but only the enemies of the Revolution
and the enemies, in general, of a more moderate policy, a less
warlike policy, the enemies of a policy like this who might be
interested in the death of President Kennedy, the only ones who
perhaps could have received the news of the death of Kennedy
with satisfaction.

A few days ago an incident drew my attention. This was
while the Inter-American Press Association Conference was
taking place. It was a scandal, because several governments were
strongly attacked, crudely attacked like the government of Brazil,
by a certain Mexquita, who said horrible things about the
President of Brazil, who even talked about and called for a coup
in Brazil; where statements were also made against other
presidents, against other Latin American countries, there in the
United States, and they made long tirades publishing a whole
series of opinions against the speech delivered by Kennedy in
Florida, because the speech delivered by Kennedy in Florida was
disappointing for a number of persons who favor a more
aggressive policy against Cuba. It was a disappointment for the
counter-revolutionary elements and it was a disappointment for
the warmongering elements in the United States.

And so, a series of cables. Here “Miami, Florida – The
Cuban exiles waited tonight in vain for a firm promise from
President Kennedy to take energetic measures against the
communist regime of Fidel Castro.”

It says: “They waited tonight in vain for a firm promise” .. .
Many met in the offices of the revolutionary organizations and
in their homes, to listen to President Kennedy over the radio.
The Spanish translation broadcast over the radio station of the
exiles. They listened when the President said: “We in the
hemisphere should use all the means at our disposal to prevent
the establishment of another Cuba in the hemisphere.” That is,
they did not accept the fact he said “to prevent the establishment
of another Cuba in the hemisphere,” because they thought that
it carried with it the idea of accepting one Cuba. Many exiles had
hopes of more vigorous statements to liberate Cuba from
communism, but nevertheless, some felt that the U.S.
government was waging a secret war of infiltration against Castro
that could not be disclosed. It says that thousands of exiles
attended an open air rally in view of Kennedy’s arrival, and they
heard criticism because of what they described as a weak U.S.
policy toward Cuba.

Jose Ignacio Rivero,Editor-in-exile of the Diario de La Marina,
the oldest Havana newspaper (he will stay there all his life), and
Emilio Nunez Portuondo, former President of the United
Nations Security council, called for more positive action by the
United States.

Rivero, a member of the Inter-American Press Association,
where Kennedy spoke, expressed his doubts over a sinister
intrigue among international politicians. That is an “intrigue ”
because they want to co-exist with us.

It says: He also said in the meeting that “the weak U.S.
policy towards Cuba and other American nations is an
international shame.” This was said by Ignacio Rivero, this one
from Diario de La Marina, who you know is an ultra-ultra and
who has to be linked to the ultra-ultra elements in the United

So these elements openly state there that “the weak U.S.
policy toward Cuban and other American Nations is an
international shame…

“Miami Beach: Latin American newspaper publishers and
editors in response to the speech delivered by President Kennedy
tonight … said that he had not taken a strong enough position
against the communist regime of Fidel Castro.” That is, that
there, where the most reactionary representatives of the press
within and without the United States met, according to UPI and
AP cables, many of them said that he had not taken a strong
enough position against the communist regime of Fidel Castro …

Augustin Navarre of El Espejo of Mexico, felt that the speech
was extremely weak and that his observations on Cuba were not
sufficient …. He added that “it was necessary to rescue Cuba
under Fidel Castro from Communism and not to maintain the
status quo.” They are speaking against any coexistence. Other
Cuban newspaper owners in exile made similar statements.
A series of cables began to arrive. Here: “The president of the
Cuban Medical Association in exile, Enrique Huerta, stated that
the speech did not clarify any of the fundamental questions
related to the Cuba problem … He wanted a unanimous attack,
a unanimous attack of Kennedy.

The newspaper added that the weak policy followed by the
Kennedy Government in respect to Castro, as a result of the
policy followed by his predecessor Eisenhower, made it possible
for Castro and Khrushchev to cement Cuba into a police state,
where the people have practically no hope of successfully
rebelling without large-scale outside help.

The newspaper continued: “Kennedy now refuses to allow
Cuban exiles to launch attacks against Cuba from U.S.t erritory.”

What is the difference between that way of thinking and
taking advantage of the assassination of their President to carry
out that policy? See what some of those reactionary circles
thought about Kennedy. It says: “Kennedy now refuses to allow
Cuban exiles to launch attacks against Cuba from U.S. territory,
and in fact uses U.S. air and naval power to maintain Castro in
power.” That is to say,t hey accuse Kennedy of using naval and
air power to maintain Castro in power.

“There is a considerable difference,” says the newspaper,
“between this attitude and the daring words about Cuba said by
Kennedy during the 1960 Presidential campaign. We doubt that
many voters have been disoriented by the President’s remarks in
relation to Cuba the day before yesterday.” It says “And many
voters will not have been disoriented.”

So there was observed a current of unanimous criticism
against what the ultra-reactionary sectors considered a weak
policy toward Cuba. And that is how these people think.

And there are cables and more cables and more cables,
because they never wrote so many cables. It is obvious, how the
news agencies made a tremendous propaganda of all the criticisms
made of Kennedy because of his Cuban policy. The UPI
overflowed with information as it had never done before, picking
up all the criticisms of Kennedy because of his Cuban policy ….

Julio Mexquita Ciro, an utterly shameless reactionary who
went there to speak against the President of Brazil to carry on a
campaign against Brazil and to promote a reactionary, fascist
coup against Brazil – see what he says: “Julio Mexquita Ciro,
… who yesterday moved the editors of the IAPA meeting with
his analysis of the economic and political situation in his country,
said it was an error on the part of the United states not to have
realized the danger that the presence of Cuba meant for the
whole continent. Mexquita was in favor of collective action,
armed collective action by the hemisphere against Cuba, because
‘I am a defender of free determination of nations,’ he said.”

Mexquita, Mosquito, Mezquino, all means the same thing; just
see how reactionary he is. The cable adds; “. . . the Brazilian
editor described as primitive President Kennedy’s way of looking
at the agrarian problem of the hemisphere, and he said that the
agrarian problem cannot be measured with the same yardstick for
all the nations of the hemisphere.” Why did he say this? Because
he represents the oligarchy, the big landholders in Brazil, and as
I was talking precisely about different shades of policy. Kennedy’s
policy prompted a type of agrarian reform which is not
revolutionary, of course, which is not revolutionary but which
clashed with the interest of the oligarchs. And it is very strange
that in these days, on the eve of the assassination of Kennedy, a
coincidence as never before had been noted. In the opinion of the
ultra-reactionary sectors within and without the United
States ….

And this individual talks here about Kennedy’s primitive way
of looking at the agrarian problem. And then finally there is
something very interesting – really very interesting …

It says the third editor to express his opinion, Carbo, who is
director of the Executive Council of the Inter-American Press
Association – which is a very important job in the intellectual
sectors of reaction and the oligarchy – emphasized that there
were not strong statements in favor of the liberation of Cuba like
the statements that had been made in previous speeches by
President Kennedy, especially in the one he made after the heroic
battle of Playa Giron -that “heroic battle” where every one of
them ended defeated and imprisoned- forecasting the crisis of
the communist regime of Cuba. He claims in “Cuba the situation
of the government verges on the insoluble, economically,
politically and internationally since Castro is no longer reliable,
not even to Russia.’ ‘

But most important of all is how the statement made by this
gentleman who holds an important post in reactionary intellectual
circles in the United States and abroad as Director of the
Executive Council of the Inter-American Press Association, how
his statement ends -and this is what drew my attention. The
editor of the confiscated Havana newspaper ended by saying: “I
believe a coming serious event will oblige Washington to change
its policy of peaceful co-existence.” What does this mean? What
did this gentleman mean when he said this three days before the
assassination of Kennedy? What did this gentleman who holds an
utmost post in the ultra-reactionary intellectual circles in and
outside of the United States, the Director of the Executive
Council of the Inter-American Press Association, mean in a cable
that is not from Prensa Latina, but from Associated Press, dated
November 19th -AP Num, 254, AP November 19th, Miami
Beach – when he said: “I believe that a coming serious event will
oblige Washington to change its policy of peaceful co-existence?”

What does this mean, three days before the murder of
President Kennedy? Because when I read this cable it caught my
attention, it intrigued me, it seemed strange to me. Was there
perhaps some sort of understanding? Was there perhaps some sort
of thought about this? Was there perhaps some kind of plot? Was
there perhaps in those reactionary circles where the so-called
weak policy of Kennedy toward Cuba was under attack, where
the policy of ending nuclear threat was under attack, where the
policy of civil rights was under attack …. Was there perhaps in
certain civilian and military ultra-reactionary circles in the United
States, a plot against President Kennedy ‘s life?

How strange it is really that the assassination of President
Kennedy should take place at a time when there was unanimous
agreement of opinion against certain aspects of his policy, a
furious criticism of his policy. How strange all this is.

And this man who appears as the guilty person, who was he?
Who is he? Is he really guilty? Or is he only an instrument? Is he
a psychopath, sick? He could be one or the other. Or is he by
any means an instrument of the most reactionary circles in the
United States. Who is this man?

Here we have a report of the New York Times on Oswald
that says, “Last July he tried to enter the Cuban Student
Directory, to take part in the plans to overthrow the
revolutionary regime of Fidel Castro.” It was no longer a Castroplot.
According to the New York Times he was trying to enter a
counterrevolutionary organization to overthrow the Cuban
Revolution. The paper names Cuban refugee sources as the basis
for this information.

Oswald was able to return to the United States thanks to a
loan of 435 dollars and 71 cents granted to him by the U.S.
Government. He succeeded in getting money after an appeal to
Senator John G. Tower, Republican, Texas, and he returns from
the Soviet Union on U.S. Government money through the
intervention of a Republican Senator from Texas.

Oswald has at present a U.S. passport which he obtained as
a photographer who wanted to travel abroad during the months
of October, November, and December of this year and visit the
Soviet Union, Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, and Italy.
How strange it is. Since he was arrested yesterday in Dallas, as a
suspect, the U.S. radio and television have been stressing that
Oswald is the chairman of the Dallas chapter of the Fair Play for
Cuba Committee.

“Questioned in New York on this point the Executive
Secretary of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee denied that
Oswald held such a post, and added that there is no chapter of
this organization in Texas.”

The New York Times, in explaining the contact established
between Oswald and the Cuban counter-revolutionaries, says that
Jose Antonio Denuza, spokesman of the so-called Cuban Student
Directory, had declared in Miami that Oswald met with the
delegates of that anti-Castro group in New Orleans last July.

Denuza – The New York Times added – said that Oswald
said he wanted to aid the Cubans in the fight against
communism, and offered 10 dollars contribution and his help in
military training of an invasion.

Carlos Bringuier, delegate of the counterrevolutionary
organization referred to, said to the New York Times that “at first
I suspected Oswald. I frankly thought that he might be an FBI or
CIA agent trying to find out what we were doing.” So Cuban
counter-revolutionaries are saying that when Oswald tried to
enter their organization he was not accepted because they
believed he was from the CIA or FBI, and that he was trying to
find out what they were up to.

How curious! And this is not what they publish but they say
that he is a Castroite, a communist, an admirer of Fidel Castro.
And now it appears that he tried to enter the organization and
was not admitted because they thought he belonged to the FBI
or CIA. They must know pretty well the kind of agents the FBI
and CIA have since they deal with them a lot.

But for the time being, without affirming anything, because
we cannot affirm anything, since Oswald could be guilty or
innocent, we can’t tell; or he could be a CIA or FBI agent, as
those people suspected, or an instrument of the most reactionary
sectors that may have been planning a sinister plot, who may
have planned the assassination of Kennedy because of
disagreement with his international policy; or he could be a sick
man now being used by U.S. reactionary sectors.

However, there is a series of strange things about this man
who is presented to be guilty, who tried to enter
counterrevolutionary organizations and yet later they say turned
up distributing pro-Castro propaganda – that is what they say
– who later appeared on TV. That is strange … because he was
not a personality, and American television and radio stations do
not call just anyone off the street and present him; much less do
they go around calling the people of Fair Play for Cuba to carry
out campaigns for Cuba. No! They close the newspaper doors to
them, they close the radio and television doors to them. How
strange that this Oswald – who was first trying to join a
counterrevolutionary organization – should turn up now,
resorting to television to defend us. How strange! How strange
that this former marine should go to the Soviet Union and try
to become a Soviet citizen, and that the Soviets should not accept
him, that he should say at the American Embassy that he
intended to disclose to the Soviet Union the secrets of everything
he learned while he was in the U.S. service and that in spite of
this statement, his passage is paid by the U.S. Government on the
backing of a Texas Republican Senator who is considered to be,
as it says here: Texas is considered by them to be . . . Well, I
cannot find the paper, but there is a cable around here where
they themselves say that Texas is the bulwark of reactionary
spirit. And then we find that this man, who says in the Embassy
… who makes a statement in the Embassy that he is going to
disclose the secrets he knows to the Soviet Union, later returns
with money given on recommendation of a Republican Senator
from Texas. He goes back to Texas and finds a job. This is all so

He is not tried, he is not sentenced, he is given money to
return, supported by a Senator from Texas and then, again they
give him a passport to travel. This is all so strange! What is there
behind all this? What sinister maneuver are they scheming behind
all this? Who are those guilty for the murder of Kennedy? Who
will benefit from this murder, who could be the only ones to
benefit from this murder? The supporters of the invasion of
Cuba, the supporters of brink of war policy, and the supporters
of war; enemies of peace, the enemies of disarmament, the worst
enemies of Negro rights in the United States, the worst enemies
of progressive elements and of liberal thought in the United

Who can benefit from this, from this action, from this
murder, if not the worst reaction, the worst elements of U.S.
society? Who could be the only ones interested in this murder?
Could it be a real leftist, a leftist fanatic, at a moment when
tensions had lessened, at a moment when McCarthyism was
being left behind, or was at least more moderate, at a moment
when a nuclear test ban treaty is signed, at a moment when
speeches are described as weak with respect to Cuba were being

It says here – now more things are beginning to come out:
“Dallas, Texas, November 23rd, AP- All his life Lee Harvey
Oswald has been a solitary, an introverted type with communist
ideas, but he was not regarded as a troublemaker. Deep down, his
introverted personality was imbued at an early age by an alien
ideology enunciated a century ago by Karl Marx.”

Dallas police chief Jesse Curry has said that Oswald readily
admitted being a communist. How strange, what contradictions.
He does not confess to committing the crime. It is supposed that
if a fanatic commits a crime of this kind he says so or as someone
said: fanatics fire their revolvers in front of everybody, they run
out with a revolver as the car passes. The strange case of a fanatic
who denies committing a murder, but on the other hand, readily
confesses to being a communist- according to the cables.

” ‘Apparently he feels proud of being a communist,’ Curry
added. ‘He does not try to conceal it.’ ”

All these are new stories which did not appear yesterday.
They are of today. “Although accused of the assassination of the
President, Lee Harvey Oswald has resisted all efforts by the
authorities to make him confess; Oswald has told newsmen: ‘I
did not kill President Kennedy. I did not kill anyone.’ ”

What sort of person was Oswald before his arrest? He was
born in New Orleans on the 18th of October, 1939. “My father
died before I was born,” Oswald said. “His widowed mother
brought the family to Fort Worth. A Fort Worth police officer,
who asked that his name not be revealed said he has known
Oswald since both were in fifth grade, until he entered high
school at Fort Worth. This police officer, Oswald’s former
classmate, recalled the following: he always opposed any sort of
discipline. He seemed to hold something against people there,
against any authority; he was never like the rest of the kids. He
rarely associated with them, but he never was a troublemaker.

“At high school he talked a lot about how things should be.
Oswald – he added – began to be interested in communism
when he was 15 years old, when a Marxist pamphlet came to his
hands. Later, he read Karl Marx’s Capital, the bible of
communism. At 17, Oswald left school only 23 days after the
high school term started, and soon joined the Marine Corps.

“His military career was a failure. On two occasions he was
court martialed for violating regulations. His specialty was as an
operator of electronics equipment. He served in Japan but never
got farther than private first class.

“Oswald’s career in the Marines concluded on September
11th, 1959, when he was given leave to support his mother. He
was transferred to inactive reserve but later on was dishonorably

“One month later, Oswald arrived in Moscow. On October
26th, 1959, he visited the American Embassy and announced his
intention of giving up his citizenship. He told Embassy officials:
‘I am a Marxist.’

“In February 1962, after a study of his case, the conclusion
was reached that Oswald had not acquired Soviet citizenship and
therefore at his request they gave him a U.S. passport and granted
him a loan in order to return to the country.

“Back in the United States, Oswald went to his native New
Orleans. Last June, he requested a new passport to return to the
Soviet Union. In the meantime he was involved in a dispute with
an anti-Castro Cuban, Carlos Bringuier, who said: ‘I suspected
him from the beginning. Frankly I thought he could be an agent
of the FBI or CIA who tried to infiltrate us and see what we
were doing.’ ”

The rest is similar to what we already have read here. But
there are new ingredients. In fact a whole series, a whole
propaganda chain, distributed in doses.

First that he is a member of the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee which was false. Later a man who lived in the Soviet
Union. Afterwards, a whole series of insinuations in several
cables. Today, he is not only all that, he is also a communist and
a very willing communist at that, he admits it. In fact all this is
really very strange.

Their description is not that of a fanatic. But that of an
individual with a number of characteristics that really fit what
U.S. reaction wants like a ring on a finger, that fit the worst
policy of the United States; a person who seems to have been
expressly made for this purpose, expressly made for specific ends:
to create hysteria, to unleash an anti-Soviet, anti-Cuban, anti
communist, anti-progressive, anti-liberal campaign in the United
States; to eliminate a President whose policy collided head on
with the policy promoted by the most reactionary circles in the
country after the nuclear test ban treaty, after several speeches
which were unanimously attacked for being weak toward Cuba.

What can have been the motives for the assassination of
President Kennedy? What can there be behind all this? We
cannot affirm anything because we do not have other elements
for judgment: both the personality of the individual and the
propaganda being carried out are suspicious, everything is

We cannot categorically affirm what is behind all this, but we
do affirm that it is suspicious; that we must be careful, that we
must be vigilant, that we must be alert. Because this man may be
innocent, a eat’s paw, in a plan very well prepared by people
who knew how to prepare these plans; or he may be a sick man
and if so, the only honest thing is to hand him over for a medical
examination and not to be starting a campaign extremely
dangerous to world peace; or he may be an instrument very well
chosen and very well trained by the ultra-right, by ultraconservative
reaction of the United States with the deliberate aim
of eliminating a President who, according to them, did not carry
out the policy he should have – more warlike, more aggressive,
more adventuresome policy. And it is necessary for all people of
the United States themselves to demand that what is behind the
Kennedy assassination be clarified.

It is in the interest of the U.S. people and of the people of the
world, that this be made known, that they demand to know
what is really behind the assassination of Kennedy, that the facts
be made clear: whether the man involved is innocent, sick or an
instrument of the reactionaries, an agent of a macabre plan to
carry forward a policy of war and aggression, to place the
Government of the United States at the mercy of the most
aggressive circles of monopoly, of militarism and of the worst
agencies of the United States. It is in our interest, in the interest
of all people and of the U.S. people that we demand this.

We believe that intellectuals, lovers of peace, should
understand the seriousness of a policy of this nature, a campaign
of this type. They should understand the trend of the events and
the danger that maneuvers of this kind could mean to world
peace, and what a conspiracy of this type, what a Machiavellian
policy of this nature could lead to.

This is the analysis we wanted to make and the things we
wanted to take into consideration; to express our opinion, the
opinion of our Party and of our Government; to make known
the strong antagonisms between the governments of the United
States and ourselves, to make known the more moderate side of
their policy, that least warlike; the policy that is less aggressive
than the policy advocated by the others, or by the other U.S.
sectors. So that we, as revolutionaries, as conscious men and
women, may know how to analyze problems of this nature,
difficult problems, delicate problems, complex problems; because
policy in a country like the United States is very complex. A
countless number of factors are taken into consideration in the
policy making of this country. Very often they are contradictory
factors. But undoubtedly, these things that we have been pointing
out about the campaign are some of the means – certainly the
most immoral – by which policy is worked out.

What are these right-wing circles trying to do? To impose on
the new administration? What is the plan of these circles? To
place the new administration in a de facto situation facing an
inflamed public opinion, exacerbated by propaganda, by the
campaign; a public opinion moved by profound hatred toward
the Soviet Union, toward Cuba, toward progressive ideas, even
towards liberal ideas. That is, this campaign tends to place the
United States in the worst international position, in the most
reactionary international position. And that surely is a serious
threat to peace.

We are not worried about ourselves. We are worried about
the interests of mankind.

We know that the fate of our country depends also on the
fate of mankind; we do not fear for ourselves; we are and always
will be calm. We are concerned about peace and about calling
attention to all these events.

We are concerned to give warning of the dangers of these
events. We want the people to be informed and calm, as they
have always been, as staunch and as willing as always, to defend
the Revolution. That they be ready always to defend the
fatherland, with a morale as high as ever, as high as the Turquino
mountain – as Camilo used to say: that they be ready, alert, and
vigilant as always, facing intrigues and dangers, whatever they
may be!

However contemptible, however infamous, however criminal
these campaigns may be, let the enemies of our country know
that they will always find us unwavering, that they will always
find us alert, with our head held high, ready to fulfill our slogan,
Homeland or Death! We will win!

60 thoughts on “Concerning the Facts and Consequences of the Tragic Death of President John F. Kennedy”

  1. OK, giving press to the brilliant but malevolent dictator Fidel Castro; I know former Cubans who are absolutely infuriated over the reign and confiscations of this notorious dictator who murdered in cold blood large numbers of those resisting his power; and some were fed to crocodiles and alligators and came out as their pellets!

    No I would not listen to what Castro had to say, even Marx has a lot of truth in his major works, as his followers like this also parrot. And you are referencing here Robert Morrow who has quite a history.

    I would wish that Dr. Tracy speak with some of his fellow Floridians for perspective on this issue.

    1. Tom, with his post, I don’t see Dr. Tracy claiming that Castro is some sort of an angel. Castro himself is a vile murdering thug, who has essentially destroyed the nation of Cuba and enslaved the Cuban people for decades.
      The POINT is, however, that in this (much too long) statement, Castro made some accurate points about what was really going on in the US with the assassination of Kennedy. He questioned the narrative, as it needed to be questioned–as many US news-outlets, politicians, and other American sheeple didn’t question it.
      And as an American who loves her country, I think it’s pretty sad that the US gave him the opportunity to make valid criticisms of America at that moment in its history. When we provide our enemies with grist for the mill, it shows how messed-up we really are. Obviously Castro needs to go, and needed to go for a long time; but the secret cabal that engineered the Kennedy assassination needs to go too.
      Acknowledging this fact doesn’t constitute praise of Castro.

    2. Don’t be silly Tom. I feel like Scarlett O’Hara saying she’d dance with Abe Lincoln himself. Castro demonstrates a brilliant mind here, whatever his economic activity. Like anyone who thinks, you have to question whether a person who behaves like a traitor, as Oswald did, of military secrets, can simply waltz back into the US with no consequences whatsoever, with the ability to go on television and express his views, and to have no prosecution and no tail on him. This would have been impossible in a time not so distant from the execution of the Rosenbergs, and in a world where communism was feared as a plague. No, Fidel is hitting all the marks without much of the Marx.

    1. The only difference being that nobody died at the Boston Marathon. Not sure about the MIT policeman angle, but no evidence the Tsarnaev’s were involved and lots of false reports of them in the area which fell once the Watertown event was underway.

      The whole thing could be a movie and the purpose involves a future war with Iran, in which Russia is terrorized into not being Iran’s ally by Chechen atrocities, which we control and manage through our Chechen cutouts.

        1. And let’s not forget, the Boston Bombings started with an explosion at the JFK Library – miles from the finish line. There are many references to the Kennedy assassination in the Boston Bombing. Both incidents took place in public at filmed events involving a roadway and a procession. Oswald and Tsarnaev had been to Russia shortly before the incidents and both had US help in returning. Both were known to the FBI/CIA and both were in their early twenties. Both were killed before they could be brought to trial.

        2. Yes, a lot of chilling coincidence there. As though the scenario writer simply plugged in new characters, knowing how the public bought it the first time. You might sort of call it a remake of a classic, with some updates. Both events had mysterious purposes at work. Wouldn’t it be interesting if both were aimed at trying to dominate Russia?

  2. Kind of an interesting post.

    Whenever leaders (politicians and executives, people who have power and who are in the inevitable pursuit of more) speak or listen to ‘the people’ (those who are considered common and lower in social status) they do so while editing chronically and habitually.

    This is no ‘minor’ editing either. It is filled with blackouts and, alternately, perfumes (the sweetened prose of lies and propaganda). It is aggression, greed and absolute selfishness, in action

    Malevolent (selfish power) minds are never to be trusted and there are many many such minds. It is -umm- a plague on the earth.

    Interesting post, sure wish we had the cure to the plague though.

    Ned Lud

  3. “In other settings, under other circumstances, whatever they
    may be in a normal situation, in a peaceful situation, a deed of
    this nature is never justifiable. Especially in the middle of a
    crowd, in the presence of women, all these things, which above
    all – I say – are the circumstances that lead us to take a
    condemnatory attitude toward something, even though some
    deeds of a political nature, some crimes of a political nature, may
    or may not be justified.”

    This is long, and I may not end up reading the whole, tedious, thing, but when I got to this paragraph, I almost burst out laughing. Especially the part about the impropriety of murdering people in front of women. What a hypocrite! His pal, the psychotic mass murderer Ernesto “Che” Guevara, held mass public executions of “enemies of the revolution.” Hemingway would make thermoses of daiquiris and set up folding chairs right up front, inviting friends to join him as he cheerfully enjoyed the entertainment.

    It was apparently a lot like the Hunger Games.

    1. You must take a statement not for the truth of the matter asserted – that Fidel would never shoot someone down in front of women – and understand what the purport of it is in the context of the longer statement.

      It is simply this, an exculpatory argument that communists would never have done this: if you are trying to convert a population to communism, if your effort in the USA is to appear as a benign alternative, if this is an act of propaganda, it fails because it is horrible and it smears you. There is no assertion by US authorities that Oswald is a right-winger or that the death of Kennedy is due to the obvious right wing control of the area in which he was killed. That would have been the tack of communist propaganda had it been a significant part of the legend of Oswald. But it wasn’t. No, the propaganda developing out of the assassination was about the communists and how (as Jackie put it early on) her husband was killed by a “silly little communist.” That is what Castro is answering, and he does it with reference to the larger picture of what Oswald probably represented to those using the assassination to their own ends. He analyzes the legend of Oswald very deeply and all at once, gathering what was in the wire services soon after the assassination – suspiciously soon I might add.

      The one question is whether the assassination motive (communism) was constructed after the deed or before it. Castro makes a strong case for long before it, but he scratches his head at one point at the complexity of it and cannot quite believe it was such a long-range plot.
      It is pretty obvious – as it was to me as a thirteen year old child who was somewhat precocious – that Oswald had received special treatment when he returned from the Soviet Union. What I later learned was that an American woman who interviewed him there reported regularly to the CIA (which she had supposedly flunked out of joining) and that she was an expert on Russian studies with a father who had been a Midwestern publisher of communist tracts. If that doesn’t scream intelligence operation I don’t know what would. Oswald was possibly a plant of sorts. But anyone with a nose for it could smell it. I knew he wasn’t just that lower class redneck type but someone at 23 with a whole lot of experience of a secret world the ordinary American knew nothing about.

    2. I want you to prove that Patrick. Please give documentation of those allegations other than American intelligence sources. People get killed in revolutions, but hey just ignore all the killings that Batista was responsible for and just pretend that the propertied class in that country got what they had through fair and honest means.

      1. I would be most delighted, Chris. I never say anything I can’t back up.

        This comes from a podcast interview conducted by Ed Driscoll with Humberto Fontova. You can access it here:

        Ed is most helpful in that he includes a transcript. Here is the relevant portion (although I highly recommend that you listen to the entire interview):

        MR. FONTOVA: Right. Ernest Hemingway had chums from going back to the Spanish civil war, Spanish communists, not Spanish leftists, Spanish Stalinists, who were Hemingway’s chums during the Spanish civil war. These Spanish Stalinists then fled to the Soviet Union after Franco’s victory. And those were the first communists that the Soviet Union sent to Cuba, obviously because they were Spanish and they spoke Spanish. And most Cubans are Spanish anyway. And so Hemingway had connections with these guys, the Soviets in Cuba, from thirty years before than most Cubans from the Spanish civil war, and he would actually mix up Thermos bottles full of Daiquiris and bring them to Che’s firing squad massacres, pull out a picnic chair and watch them and gloat as innocent Cubans were murdered by communist firing squads.

        Now, some of our listeners may be going, my god, that’s a crackpot, you know, this Fontova guy — folks, that comes from an eyewitness who heard this and saw this, that is none other than George Plimpton, and that was written in the Paris Review, because George Plimpton was good chums with Ernest Hemingway and used to go to Cuba in ’59 and ’60 to interview Hemingway, and that’s when Hemingway said, hey, come on, Plimpton, I got something to show you, man, this is so much fun. And Plimpton kind of bugged out of it after he realized where they were going. But Hemingway is a long-time chum not only of leftist but of murderous communists.

        1. Plimpton was born into the publishing industry and part of that thing we call the American MSM. Gonna have to do better than that. Pure hearsay.

        2. Well Patrick that is like asking me to believe Obama or Bush or a Sandy Hook parent”; you know just take their word for it. See, I don’t believe known liars.

  4. Yes, Castro had William Morrow Morgan eliminated because he was a rival for attention, and plantations were confiscated, etc., but that doesn’t detract from Castro’s thorough, intelligent analysis of JFK and Oswald so soon after the event. (Imagine W with his pickled brain trying to utter this number of sentences together about anything.)
    Anyone who wants to know how and why the Cuban revolution came about should read the fantastic new bio of Celia Sanchez called One Day in December by Nancy Stout. Celia was Castro’s lover and the guiding force to putting him in power and for reform including education and a medical system that works (her father was a famous MD who treated the poor out of choice.)

    What is galling now is Castro’s refusal to say anything bad about Guantanamo, and he knows but doesn’t say the continued deep freeze on US policy favors US sugar manufacturers. Cuban sugar is sold to Canada very cheaply.

    1. Indeed it has. He’s long-winded and I think the Cubans have heard many a stem-winder from him. But this kind of oral presentation looks like there is not even a wasted or repetitious word. I’m not critiquing it on that basis. But damn – he’s smart.

  5. Marxists talk too much. Even great liberators like Castro, perhaps especially heroes like him, a leader who freed his country from the whorehouse it had become under USA domination. He would never persuade bourgeois academic cretins like professor Marie, who would always characterize him as a ‘vile thug’ after a half century of defending his country politically from US invasion and domination.

    But marxists have always talked too much. When I was a communist organizer on the truck docks of Los Angeles, a comrade once told me (I sometimes get my useful information from rumors) that there were actually THREE volumes to Marx’s CAPITAL. Well, I had never seen them myself, but, based on my experience of marxist polemic, I could well believe it. However, with notable exceptions, I didn’t much remember what was in the first one.

    In the 21st century, in the next world ideology that succeeds marxism, we have to be more concise. People are way too impatient for long speeches, as I am myself. The essay of the 18th century has been succeeded by the comment of the 21st, and you have to get it done in a few paragraphs.

    The academic filibuster diverting the American people’s attention from the homicidal racism of American power will continue and increase, but the people’s truthers must tell the simple concise truth. And then repeat it endlessly applied to specific situations, not to change the minds of the American people, but to transform our souls.

  6. Hi Mark,

    A) Fidel is long winded. But spot on about Oswald. Only one day after the JFK assignation! And how long has it taken the American people to catch up to those ‘facts?’ Why, they are still for the most part oblivious to them. What might that tell you about who the real dissemblers of ‘truth,’ regime wise, might be? I’m not arguing for a revision of history or a canonization of Fidel. Just pleading for a bit of dispassionate, unpartisan thinking over the matter at hand.

    B) People who claim that the poor Cubans have known nothing but unbearable “repression” under “Castro-ism” should provide us with a scholarly (that is, researched and verifiable) ‘comparison and contrast’ of life for the general population under “Batista-ism” versus life for that same segment of the population under the current regime. A good place to start might be here:

    Monthly Review has a lot of ‘data’ and ‘observations’ documented and catalogued by a lot of honest scholars and individuals. Just do a search there of ‘Cuba’ or the ‘Cuban Revolution’ and EDUCATE yourself. There will undoubtedly be things, there, with which you will disagree, but you will come away with a broadened and more accurate comprehension of both the reasons for and consequences of the Cuban Revolution.

    C) Whatever one may think about violence as such, the violence of an oppressed people committed against an oppressive system of rule, however brutal it may be, is not, ethically speaking, the equivalent of the violence of the oppressor “defending” the prerogatives of his illegitimate, oppressive, and repressive rule. The first is the attempt by a victim to escape the abuses of an oppressor; the second is the attempt of an oppressor to keep his victims subjugated. Because the tyranny will kill to retain its power, the confrontation between it and its ‘slaves’ cannot but entail ‘murder’ from both sides. Didn’t something like this happen in the history of America? A struggle for freedom? Something about ‘war’ with Britain? Or was it only the British who committed acts of barbarism? And then, what an interesting list of ‘indiscretions’ we can compile, and all committed in the name of freedom and democracy in behalf of a host of foreigners, even if it meant the creation and bolstering of compliant dictatorships, all friendly to U.S. interests.

    To quote Elul from above,

    “… man’s capacity to forget is unlimited.”


  7. Yes, Norm, but that was last century. In the 21st century it is necessary to project liberation from nation-states to the earth’s people of the world. It is consequently necessary to change the political culture of peoples, and to link aspects of them together to develop a trans-national and sub-national CULTURALISM to supersede the socialism that has been nationalized. Or, in this country, the liberalism that has been nationalized, and used to Proclaim a freedom that enslaves and impoverishes people. This requires generalizing and simplifying marxism to make it more conceptually and ideologically concise.

    And in the world context, it is not class oppression that is the major problem, but racial oppression.

    1. Hi Mark,

      Racism and bigotry are in and of themselves serious and pivotal issues. They are not the ‘only’ issues. To insist that they are is to obscure other sources of social inequity on a global scale.

      The conceptual proof, succinctly stated: you can imagine a situation in which all forms of bigotry and racism have been eradicated while leaving intact a crucial nexus of the currently existing power relations, that is, those power relations narrowly inhering in the enforcement of those ‘claims on property’ — that exclusive and private control over society’s industrial means of collective production and distribution of goods and services — that guarantee the existence of a plutocracy over all forms of labor, the ascendancy of the 1% over the 99%.

      Whitey isn’t the only possible color of the oligarch. The DNA of the corporation isn’t (necessarily) Caucasian. Rather, that DNA is the “bureaucratic hierarchy” together with the “ownership rights” that guarantee the tribute of ‘corporate earnings’ in the guise of ‘profits’ to the plutocrats, regardless of what their race might be. The rich, among themselves and for their own purposes, are for the most part color blind.

      Certainly, the subjugated peoples of the world will have an easier time of joining together to overthrow their primary oppressors if they can shake themselves free of their bigotries and racial prejudices. But achieving this does not resolve the problem of “inter- and intra-” national corporate domination.

      I disagree. It isn’t only ‘race’ or ‘bigotry’ and ‘chauvinism,’ but also and perhaps even primarily the dominance and ascendancy of a globalized ‘corporatism.’

      Get rid of the giant for-profit corporations, and no single race will be able to lord it over ‘all’ of the others. Keep these ‘monster organizations’ alive, and the fascists will in time most certainly prevail.

      But I’m all for the eradication of racism and bigotry. The sooner, the better. But that’s only half of the job that remains to be done.

      1. I have to re-read your comment, Mark. I think I may have missed something important in what you are saying. But I have to be away from this screen and keyboard for the next while. Not sure now that “I disagree.”

      2. After having slept on both of our comments pertaining to the idea that ‘racism’ should be ‘our’ priority of focus going forward, I stand by my original comment: ” It isn’t only ‘race’ or ‘bigotry’ and ‘chauvinism,’ but also and perhaps even primarily the dominance and ascendancy of a globalized ‘corporatism.”

        I see both of these (and many other) issues as being both urgent and of the highest priority. It isn’t easy for me to single out the one problem that must be tackled over all others. There are many overlapping and functionally interrelated factors or phenomena. Many things need to be taken into account concurrently, in so far as we are able. There are limits to what one person can do, but many people working together can manage a great deal more.

        In China, the oligarchy is Chinese. In Latin America, it is Creole. In North America, it is Caucasian. But in each instance, the underpinnings of the overarching control over the collective means of life is ‘corporate capital.’ Clearly, it cannot be that resolving the issue of ‘race’ or ‘xenophobia’ or ‘bigotry’ will by itself result in the liberation of peoples currently enslaved by the unaccountable governance of global capital. ‘Racism’ is most certainly functional to ‘corporate capitalism,’ and vice versa, but we must yet acknowledge that each of these factors also exhibits to a high degree and in many respects the characteristics of unitary, causally independent phenomena. Theoretically speaking, you could resolve one issue without resolving the other, and yet resolving the one will most certainly ease the way to resolving the other.

        So yeah, I do disagree.

  8. Thank you for your comment, Mark. But the human problem is not class- based corporatism; that is only part of the problem, as is racism, or homeracism as well. The major problem is anti-people POWER. This involves class, race, gender and age oppression, and perhaps other agencies as well. I emphasize racism here because it has been most covered up by American ideology and by the Educated classes. But as you point out, their other forms of oppression as well, and they all involve the powerful oppressing the powerless or disempowered.

    American has been based historically on racist violence, and this is the driving force behind the current War on Terrorism. US power has killed hundreds of thousands or dark-skinned Muslims to steal their oil, homes, and other property and power. Indeed, since world war 2, the USA power system has killed literally millions of non-White people in the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghan wars, and in the wars and massacres conducted by its bribed despots of non-White countries.

    But consider; has Cuba solved the racial problem which it inherited. A significant fraction of its people were Africans enslaved to work on the sugar and other plantations. Are dark skinned persons in the leadership of Cuban power in proportion to their population. Did the Soviet Union promote non-Russians to leadership position in proportions to their population. Is China with its emphasis on the Han race, which is largely a cultural creation over 5 millennia, less racist than, say, the USA, although fortunately they are less violent.

    I do not think race is the main form of bigotry, I think age is. We identify with our ancestors rather than our children and grandchildren. But
    Americans are so emotionally poisoned by our unconscious identification with racial violence that we cannot think clearly about anti-people power until it is confronted. And not just capitalist class power, but all anti-people power that must be fought before earthpeople can form a pro-earthperson governance. Which is historically necessary if we are to survive not only as a species, but as a liberated civilization. And the chief ideological obstacle to such world governance, in my opinion, is homeracism.

  9. I made it through about 3/4 of the Castro presentation. He has done his homework, which is more than most Americans can say. He is throwing our history back in our face and asking, why?

    Why? What we do makes no rational sense nor reaps no national gain on the very human level. I once read that Castro, during a meeting of comrades after his victory, asked who here knows anything about economics? Che Guevara stepped up and said he did. But it was later learned that Che had mistaken the term ‘economics’ for ‘communism.’ And thus Castro’s political trajectory was cast. That makes an interesting antecdote, whether true or no. It wasn’t difficult to realize when the array of forces against were in complete contradiction to Castro’s program to free Cuba from imperialism, the alternative was Marxism.

    As to his rhetorical style, I am reminded of the Gettysburg address. The speaker before Lincoln spoke for two hours; Lincoln spoke for about ten minutes. We know now who nailed it with a few words of prose–poetic and memorable. But I give Castro A for his sweep of America’s social
    dilemmas, his canny political observations and handle on global currents.

  10. Marilyn, I often find you sensible and knowledgeable. Not this time.

    First, Dishonest Abe “nailed” nothing but a decided ability to concentrate a vast matrix of lies and historical ignorance in a very short space, when he spoke at Gettysburg. I intended to link to Kirkpatrick Sale’s excellent article on the subject, but decided on the great Tom DiLorenzo’s comment on it instead, because it includes other very good links to articles that take the tyrant down admirably: Why anyone thinks Lincoln is anything but a villain is beyond me.

    As for the monster who destroyed Cuba, he’s certainly in our own late dictator’s league, so it is in fact an apt comparison, but when you say “he is throwing our history back in our face and asking, why?,” it is strictly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    For all Castro’s lies about his voice being that of the Cuban people, everything he accuses America of, he is guilty in spades. His subjects groan under a tyranny rarely seen in modern times Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the tender despots of North Korea certainly come close. Cuba was one of the top five most prosperous countries in the world before he destroyed it, with a vast, happy, middle class. People have spent 50 years risking their lives to escape from the Hell he made of it.

    You write: “Why? What we [America] do makes no rational sense nor reaps no national gain on the very human level”

    This is far better said of Castro’s tyranny. And I’m no fan of the nightmare that the last hundred years ahas transformed America into, God knows. But Fidel Castro represents the Cuban people’s best interests far less than the Federal Reserve and Wall Street and the bureaucrats in Washington represent OUR best interests. “Human”? He has any interest in “the human level”? Are you entirely ignorant of the nightmare he has made of that place?

    1. Patrick, what I am aware of is the passions that surround political issues. And depending upon your perspective, facts are tweaked or twisted according to those attitudes. Someone else pointed out above that Cuba was no utopia under Batista–in the pocket of the mafia AND businessmen who were no stanger to graft and corruption. Prositution was rife–demeaning to women; or don’t they count? Castro used the power of state like any unelected party official to ride herd on dissent.

      With America agitating for his overthrow and any number of social issues found in religion (Marxism is anti-religious, no?) and the constant hue and cry against godless Communism, small wonder the population remained in upheaval and easily redirected against his leadership. He is no saint but then directed me to a politician who is. And shall we recall the economic sanctions imposed on Cuba?

      Of note, the Vatican was in conflict with priests in the Americas who advocated for left-wing ideology. The new Pope Francis is under scrutiny for not defending his priests who preached the new ‘liberation theology’ in Argentina. The lines become blurred.

      Surely you are aware of the sadistic right-wing nationalists of Argentina, Chili, in particular, as well as most every small country in Central America who practiced genocide on their Indian population and democide on any other citizen who dared speak out against the unspeakable atrocities. Our government aided and abetted the carnage.

      Do we have a case of ‘the lesser of evils”?

      1. ” small wonder the population remained in upheaval and easily redirected against his leadership.”

        That’s ridiculous. A small band of evil people stole that country from its people. Anyone who could get out, escaped. Tens of thousands were murdered before they could, or were cast into dungeons. For decades, people who grew up under the tyranny could not stand it, and risked their lives in escaping; many of those were eaten by sharks.

        “Cuba was no utopia under Batista”

        Name a utopia. If you honestly believe that Castro was better than Batista–for the people of the country–we need never talk again, because that would make you brain-dead. Or utterly ignorant. Ignorance, of course, is curable, so, given some learning time, we can start speaking again.

        “Castro used the power of state like any unelected party official to ride herd on dissent.”

        No, he murdered and cast in dungeons the best people in the country (who could not escape), and enslaved all the rest of the people he stole the country from–and stole all the private property in the country, to boot. What planet do you come from? I hope I never have to go there, if that is what they call “politics” there. Who could offer the tiniest bit of defense of such a monster, except a monster himself? Or, in your case, “herself”?

        As for the rest of your remarks, I won’t quote, only address the general tenor, because the thoughts are all jumbled up in your last three paragraphs.

        America’s strange relationship to Cuba is far too complex to discuss in this format. Communism is an undiluted evil, and Castro is the worst enemy of the Cuban people’s health and happiness. If the economic embargo has a justification, it is that we care about the nightmare Castro has subjected his people to, and want it to end. I’m not certain our government ever wanted to get rid of Castro, though. There are strong points of evidence that it’s been a game all along, and our government doesn’t really want him gone, and does not care about those sorry victims. But that, as I say, is a long discussion.

        If you think Liberation Theology is a good thing, and that Jesus is a communist, then you have no understanding of the Bible. The fact that communists infiltrated the Catholic church is a terrible sorrow, but to argue that it should not have been opposed is like arguing that mouse traps should not be placed in the pantry once the house has been infested.

        As for Argentina and Chile, I wonder if you know anything about those places, today. Argentina, a century ago, was tied (with the US) for the second most prosperous country in the world. Communism utterly ruined it. It is a nightmare that can’t be awakened from, today.

        Chile was on the fast track to duplicate Argentina’s path to ruin. The communists were eliminated, and today it is one of the best places on the planet to live. It has the richest, and largest, middle class of any country.

        Communism is a deadly poison. No on can defend it, who loves freedom. Say what you want about the monsters who are creating 1984 in this country; I will top it, in terms of vituperation. But communism is no alternative.

        1. I see nothing but baseless allegations for rebuttals Patrick. The people who left were part of the vicious terrorist cadres known as anti-Castro Cubans. You know, those guys always on the scene during any domestic assassination. Yeah, those were poor little refugees fleeing tyranny, LOL. Why don’t you go see for yourself the types of communities they created down in Miami. Great stand up guys they are. I love how whenever Castro imprisons people they are always innocent political prisoners but the same people making those allegations against Castro never notice the U.S. prison population made up of mostly non-violent drug offenders. So when we pressured Castro to release these innocent little angels who only wanted freedom and they came here, well how did that turn out? I’ll tell you how it turned out. We got Scarface, that’s how it turned out. Now, were there good people who wanted to come here as well. Yeah sure, but that was probably motivated by the economic hardships that came later when the Soviet Union was dismantled by traitors and they lost that support. They did have a hard time for a while, but that’s not proof communism/socialism doesn’t work. On the contrary, the fact that they’ve kept it going with all the sanctions and being an island nation up against the empire shows how good of a system it is. Could you imagine them trying to practice some kind of free market nonsense. They’ve would have collapsed decades ago. Then again, the U.S. would have loved them for that and would have propped up that regime.

    2. Hi Patrick,

      Because I know you back up everything that you say, a quote in support of your claim that perhaps Castro’s biggest lie is that, well, the revolution could ever have been popular with the majority of Cubans (and please do note the source of the quote I’m providing, because it seems vaguely important):

      “The majority of Cubans support Castro…the only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship…every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba…a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”*


      * Office of the Historian, Bureau Of Public Affairs, United States Department Of State; John P. Glennon, et al., eds., Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume VI, Cuba (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991), 885.

      Castro is that good of a liar. He even managed to dupe the United States Department of State.

      What next, Patrick?

      1. I hinted at this, Norm, in my remarks to Marilyn. I said it’s too big a conversation to do here–and it is. But since you insist, I’ll give you a taste.

        There is solid evidence that it is our State Department that put Castro in power. A key piece of that evidence is the testimony of our ambassador to Cuba at the time. He said he was ordered to allow the “revolution” to proceed.

        Certainly, the Bay of Pigs fiasco was intentionally a failure.

        The so-called “assassination attempts” on Castro were so ridiculous that no one can take them seriously.

        I could go on, but I won’t. Too big for this forum.

        So quoting the State Department in this regard, in self-congratulatory fashion, is something like quoting the Warren Commission Report and thinking you are delivering a coup de gras. Not so much.

        I will, for the third time, point out that the best people fled the country as fast as possible, once it became clear that communism was being imposed. If that’s your idea of “popularity,” Norm, let’s say, you are one strange breed of cat. I wonder how “popular” the new regime was with the thousands of people Castro murdered, or those who languished in his political prisons? A strange form of popularity, certainly. And what about those who did not get put in a cage, and were not amongst those Hemingway raised daiquiri toasts as he watched Ernesto the psychopath execute? All they had to deal with was having their property stolen from them; they were allowed to live outside a cage, but forced to languish under communist oppression. I’m sure they absolutely LOVED it! Who wouldn’t? Wouldn’t you?

        But let’s put aside the case of the free people whose property was stolen by the bandits who took over their country, and their grave unhappiness with what was done to them. Let’s take up the case of the people born under Castro’s tyranny. They, too, kept trying to escape, decade after decade. Why do you think that is, Norm?

        Now consider this: how many people were desperate to escape from Cuba before the monster took over the place? How many, Norm?

    3. Lew Rockwell is a joke. As far as Cuba and Castro, is there homelessness in Cuba? Starvation? How about America? You again are making baseless assertions you picked up from right wing media, the John Birch network, and the CIA. Plenty of people have gone to Cuba and report that people there are not afraid to speak their minds, even against Fidel himself. See, a lot of them wanted him to step down and let someone else take over, but they weren’t against the system in general. They supported it. You can actually discern this from articles written in our MSM that were intended to smear Castro. They talk of people openly signing their names to a petition for him to step down. Well, if it were the police state it was made out to be, why would they not be afraid to do this?

      Here’s a good article by Dave McGowan addressing some of these issues regarding leftist leaders. It’s mainly about Stalin but it also talks about Castro.

  11. Now, let us revisit Abraham Lincoln. We had this discussion at length long ago. You did not change my mind, nor did I change yours. Those of libertarian and ultra-conservative bent do not like old Abe and find any number of clever points to discredit his service to the country–remembering he did give his life to save the Union.

    Personally, I am beginning to believe that there is a concerted effort afloat to downgrade or actually denigrate all the Founding Fathers, and many other icons of American history. That includes Andrew Jackson,
    FDR, According to this thesis, all were tyrants. That means they weren’t perfect. They wielded power undemocratically. They made many mistakes. But here we are two centuries later still a democracy–if we can keep it. If we can’t, don’t blame the Constitution or Bill of Rights. According to info in military manuals, now being taught during seminars, the Founding Fathers were terrorists.

    “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.”

    1. “Abraham Lincoln….We had this discussion at length long ago.”

      I remember it fondly, Marilyn.

      “remembering he did give his life to save the Union”

      No, he devoted his life to ENDING the Union. Until he attacked the states that had left the voluntary union they had created, the United States were just that. His war transformed the country into a singular nation.

      “But here we are two centuries later still a democracy”

      Not “still.” We were a republic. Democracy is almost as bad as communism.

      I have written here at some length that I believe that the Constitution should never have been ratified, and that the four British folkways’ regional cultures should rightly have been each their own country; the War to Prevent Southern Independence was inevitable, because that did not happen. The sad thing is that the Yankees won that war of aggression. We would not be in the pickle we’re in if the South had stopped Dishonest Abe in his tracks, and gone their own way.


      The Articles of Confederation was a fine system. But the cultural differences were very compelling, and I doubt that it would have continued for long. Jefferson was asked about the Western states, whether they should create their own, separate, country. Whatever they want to do, he said, was fine with him. Too bad that way of thinking went away.

  12. You’re loony, Patrick. You do respect the value of ideas, unfortunately, however, loony ones. The North did not attack the South, the South attacked the North. The civil war was not a war to end slavery, it was a war to preserve it, but the South lost. A century of Jim Crow racism prevailed instead. The traditional American history is totally perverted, demonstrating Napoleon dictum that history is a lied agreed upon.

    Lincoln abolished slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation, only in those states that were under the control of the Confederacy. Proclaiming abolition while maintaining slavery in the Union slave states.

    The EP has too many syllables. When we get Big Words like this, it is a strong clue that we are being lied to. Your operative defense of slavery, Patrick, under the Orwellian guise of Freedom, is merely preamble to abolishing social security and Medicaid, and helping to operatively enslave the American people, again under the guise of Freeing them.

    The thing is, you appear to be quite sincere. Crazy as a loon. Only in America.

    1. “The thing is, you appear to be quite sincere.”

      Appearances can be deceiving, Mark. As Chris ascertained some time ago, I know nothing of history. I just make it all up.

    2. Couldn’t the victory of the north be regarded in some ways as the first step towards the centralisation and fascism that is presently destroying our liberties? It seems to me that the characterising of the civil war as being about “slavery” and the demonising of the South is a very modern kind of cynicism, in which the US government plays at being liberator and bastion of freedom while ruthlessly pursuing its own dominance. I don’t think the elected government in Washington had an ethical objection to slavery, because elected governments are collective psychopaths for whom ethics are merely fig leaves or arguments of convenience. The war between the north and south was more about the assertion of political and economic centralisation and the question of slavery was merely an adjunct of that debate. The fact the South were stupid enough to adopt it as their raison d’etre only played into the simplistic propaganda which benefited the north.

      And Marilyn – Lincoln wasn’t a founding father, was he?

      1. Everything you say here is correct, for the most part, Hilary.

        I would take issue with this:

        “The fact the South were stupid enough to adopt it as their raison d’etre only played into the simplistic propaganda which benefited the north.”

        The Southern states left the union because Lincoln was elected (in a tight 4-way race). Lincoln represented Yankee bankers and railroad men, and pretty much no one else. He was an acolyte of Henry Clay, who had spent his entire career frustrated that the Southern states blocked all of his grand schemes; Congress was essentially gridlocked for most of the 19th century prior to Lincoln, and it drove the Yankees insane. They wanted the America we got as a result of the North winning–just as you say–but the Southern states had held to the Jeffersonian notion that centralized planning by true federal government, and the growth of federal power is un-American, and blocked the North’s ambition at every turn.

        It is true that some factions in the South “adopted slavery as their raison d’être,” but only after they had assembled in their new Congress, to decide what the new country was going to look like. These men were called the “fire-breathers,” and pressed the assembly to think of slavery as noble, evoking the ancient Greeks, and to have the whole national culture trumpet it proudly. These men were a very small, but vocal, minority.

        Slavery was introduced in all the colonies. (New York, for instance, was largely built by slaves.) It was introduced as a business decision by men in London, who would never visit America. As vast waves of immigration came to America, the Northern states, which were rapidly industrializing after the secession from Britain, the economics of slavery became less and less favorable there. Meanwhile, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, making cotton plantations feasible. Andrew Jackson was more than willing to make room for them in Alabama and Mississippi by removing the Choctaw Indians from their rich, fertile lands (it was called the “black belt” not because of black people, of which there were none at the time, but because of the soil).

        This is why slavery withered in the North and remained viable in the South. Economics. There was no moral element. The North hated blacks; they didn’t reduce their use of slaves because they were somehow more morally virtuous than their fellow Englishmen in the South. Likewise, the South detested the way of life the Yankees were building, and were disgusted by the way Northern labor was treated. They argued that slaves were treated far better than white laborers up North. They made surprisingly compelling proofs of their position, especially as Northern propaganda started to ramp up.

        That is to say, except for the “fire-breathers,” the South’s defense os slavery was in no way simplistic; they compared the number of calories they ate, the number of square feet of living space, their lifespans, how the old and the very young were treated, among other details of workers’ lives, and demonstrated for the most part that it would be better to be a slave.

        I’m not siding with the South here, understand; I’m just saying the propaganda was quite sophisticated, compared with the cartoonish “Simon Legree” pap served up to the newspaper readers of the North.

        Lincoln invaded and destroyed the South for a simple, compelling, reason: taxes. The Confederate States of America was no longer going to collect the tariff (which was the primary source of revenue for the federal government) at their ports, and hand the money over to Washington. It was going to be a free trade country: no taxes on imported goods.

        Lincoln, incidentally, made this absolutely clear, in his First Inaugural Address:

        “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

        Translation: If you try to stop my gravy train I will crush you like a bug.

  13. Welcome to the discussion, Hillary; your analysis is completely wrong. As far as the Southern planters go, the civil war as completely about slavery, and they had induced the White working class, on the basis of skin privilege, to fight for it, even though it was against their class interests. People throughout history have tended to identify with their own oppression. Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy and thus of Southern society, an enormous industry that was the basis of the Southern ruling class and power.

    The White racism engendered by American slavery, and the holocaust against American Indians, continues today in the War on Terrorism, the killing of hundreds of thousands of dark-skinned Muslims to steal their oil, homes, and other property and power. It is part of the White racism of which anti-government comments on this blog are largely an expression, serving the interests of a White plutocracy like the Koch brothers who financed the Tea Party. It is the pluts that are the main enemy of the American people and people of the world; the government is only an institution they have captured to serve their interests.

    More generally, American culture is a product historically of the conflict between the values of the South and the North, Southern values now being centered in Texas. The Founding presidents of the country, with the exceptions of the Adams, were Southerners, largely from Virginia. The Jefferson-Jackson Proclaimed ideology of the Common Man, engrained in the Democratic party, is operatively the racist ideology of the common White man, they both being racist Southerners.

    With the Southern Strategy of Nixon outlined by Kevin Phillips, the Republicans became the major party of White racism, supported by the Dems. But it was initiated by the Compromise of 1877, when the Northern ruling class agreed to the racism of the Southern ruling class. The ideological conflict between the North and the South, what Carl Oglesby called the struggle between the Yankees and the Cowboys, is currently being won by the South, as exemplified in the racism of Patrick’s libertarianism.

    American was built on the operative ideology of violent racist imperialism. This has been covered up by the Proclaimed ideology of Patriotic Freedom&Democracy. I will argue at a future time that the homicidal conspiracies like the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, and Boston Marathon bombings have a racial dimension, concealed in the authorized truth consensus and in the consciousness of the White American people. The American people cannot unite against the terrorist power system being imposed on us by the plutocracy and their agents without candidly conceding the reality-based history of American power.

  14. Glad to see some are reading my posts–if reading personal opinions into the text that don’t always square with facts. I write quickly, only stopping to clean up my copy, hoping to catch typos or other glitches.
    Nit-picking is hardly productive, IMO, simply a way to divert attention.

    It has become a pastime on blogs to tear down the icons of American culture. Please remember, for all our faults,we have managed to raise up one of the more humane societies in human history. And also keep in mind, history is the glue that holds a society together. Kick down those foundations and you might not find the results palatable. Change the worst, keep the rest. (Don’t believe Socialism is the answer.)

    Time to move into the 21st century. I am focused on the New World Order, myself. How it started and how to delay its momentum from swallowing up sovereign democracies. Take forty minutes to review this stark video from a man who knows…The “Plague of misplaced Power” is thematic. Best….

    1. I see this video is not viewable in this format. Google Youtube:
      ‘Rodney Atkinson’s talk before the English Parliament in 2008’
      His resume is deep, his presentation authentic. Don’t let the powers-that-be disuade you from a search for information.

    2. Revisionism is very, very important. The victor writes the history books. many of the icons of American culture deserve absolutely no respect. What is required is a corrective perspective. If we’ve been lied to, we should know it; if we cling to the comforting myth, when it is nothing but endlessly repeated propaganda, we can never gain an accurate understanding of our history. It only serves to reinforce the tyrannical track we are hurtling down.

      It seems that in recent conversations here, particularly Mark, Norm and Chris, the argument is framed as a choice between communism and the New World Order that America has spent the last century imposing on the world. I find that to be a preposterous dualism. What about freedom? Why can’t that be an option.

      I have mentioned here many times that in the four centuries we have been here, the first three were (if you were not black or an Indian) a libertarian paradise. Until 1913, unless you fought in one of the chronic sequence of wars, the only way you would ever encounter the federal government was in the form of mail delivery. State governments were only marginally more visible. Mostly, we were left alone. Marvin Olasky did a study of the history of charity in America (The Tragedy of American Compassion), and found that in the mid-19th century there was an overabundance of charity available to the poor. It was a widespread complaint that no one could fail any more because if it. But this was ALL private giving. The state had no role in it (outside of charity hospitals, which every county had one of).

      Why? Because America was great, as Tocqueville said, because she was good. He also said we’d stop being great once we stopped being good. Dishonest Abe started the fulfillment of that second part. It might be painful to face, but it’s true.

      Another thing I’ve mentioned a couple of times is how the Dulles Brothers spent the 50s conspiring to manipulate the governments of foreign countries to protect the interests of American corporations, and that this protection racket is why they are now multinational, heatless behemoths.

      Here is where I actually sympathies with the communists theta argue their case here: it was only the “democratic” (God, I hate that term) countries that could be successfully subverted by the CIA, by setting up phony political parties, and being resident in the embassies able to easily murder politicians that defended the native interests against American corporate interests. The only ones that had any success at all in warding off the principles American corporations insisted upon were the totalitarians. Chris linked to an article by the great Dave McGowan recently that gives a very good sense of the dynamic.

      But that does not mean that totalitarianism, chiefly characterized by the theft of all private property, is a good thing. If this isn’t a Hobson’s Choice, it’ll do until a better example comes along.

      I’ve made it clear that I have no hope, and also that I think America was as good as it gets prior to Lincoln ruining it. These vast corporations could never have emerged if Lincoln had backed down or if the South had won the war. By ending the voluntary union, and making this a unitary nation, the federal government had no check on its power after the war. The last part of the 19th century was essentially an ongoing process of federal monopoly-granting to favored individuals, and the extermination of the Plains Indians because they stood in the way. This is an undiluted evil that we need to look at with clear eyes. If it means a difficult emotional experience of parting with a cherished myth, then so be it.

      Again, while I sympathize with Americans who despise the thing the Dulles brothers did, and understand that their victims were boxed in, choosing between capitulating or becoming totalitarians, I prefer another option. I believe that human freedom is the most important quantity, even if it’s not possible to reattain. The New World Order, and the tyrannies that successfully hold it back are both evil, and while we can admire the fact that Leviathan on occasion seems to meet resistance, if the only way to accomplish that is to eliminate human freedom, it can’t be applauded. Only the Arabs (and communists, apparently) truly believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      That is, if there are no good prospects, it is best to understand the situation, and never cease pointing out the missing option; batten down the hatches and prepare for the inevitable. But calling evil good (which the communists do when they defend communist tyrannies) and good evil (when they deny the essential virtue of truly free markets) is the exact wrong approach.

      I’ve got to run, so I can’t proof read this long comment; let’s hope it’s not too laden with typos).

  15. Not a racist bone in your body, Patrick, in speaking of “The Arabs,” all 800 million or so, who to a man, woman, and child ‘all’ believing “that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    And no, Patrick, the tenor of your thought, if the overall content of your posts can be taken as any indication, human freedom most emphatically is not to your mind the most important ‘quantitiy.’ That ‘quantity’ would be ‘private property’ and the divine right to make a ‘profit’ — in whatever shape, way, or form.

    And merely to underscore your humanity, since you seem here to be in the mode of appraising the moral qualities of individuals holding to particular viewpoints that can remotely but conceivably be covered by single ‘labels,’ let me quote something to you that you yourself wrote above and that I find intriguing:

    ” If the economic embargo has a justification, it is that we care about the nightmare Castro has subjected his people to, and want it to end.”

    Would you not agree that that mode of “reasoning,” if we can call it that, kind of resonates with this:

    “. . . every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba…a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government”

    (you can find the source for that second quote above)

    I also sense a similarity to something that Madeleine Albright once said in response to being asked whether, knowing that the sanctions against Iraq has caused the deaths of 500,000 children, was worth it. A difficult choice, she hedged. But worth the price. For everyone understands that ‘sanctions’ or ’embargos’ are for the good the people being targeted, to motivate them to ‘what,’ Patrick. Revolt? More killing? Not to mention the added suffering and deepening of the nightmare that is the express purpose and for which the ‘sanctions’ or ’embargos’ are designed. But their is a justification: it’s all in ‘our caring.’

    Now I’m not judging you as a person, Patrick. But I am judging the ‘culture’ that speaks through you. We all have our ‘unreflective’ habits of thought, Patrick. You are not any different than myself or anyone else. Instead of proof reading for typos, you should perhaps proof read for overall coherence of thought and moral tenor. Just a bit of friendly advice.

    Oh, and am I a communist, Patrick? Maybe a socialist? Is there a particular catechism to which I devoutly adhere?

    And I thought I was just a person trying to make sense of a very complicated reality that I admit befuddles and bemuses me to no end.

    1. “Oh, and am I a communist, Patrick? Maybe a socialist? Is there a particular catechism to which I devoutly adhere?”

      People who talk this way: ” That ‘quantity’ would be ‘private property’ and the divine right to make a ‘profit’ — in whatever shape, way, or form,” implying it’s a bad thing, are communists. That’s the word for them.

      You’ve got it all wrong, Norm. The essential proof that one is free is that he can own property and enter into voluntary trades with other free people, without the state’s interfering. Profit should not be put in quotes, as if you are pinching your nose and squinting your eyes, holding the stinky thing at arm’s length. No one, except a communist, thinks that way. One’s time and labor are worth something. That thing is called profit. It is rendered freely by the other party to the voluntary transaction. If the price is too high, no trade will be agreed to. Duh.

      ” in speaking of “The Arabs,” all 800 million or so, who to a man, woman, and child ‘all’ believing “that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.””

      What a silly thing to say. Civilizations have civilizational minds, collections of agreed-upon assumptions about life. Ancient Egyptians agreed that mummification aided your trip to the afterlife, for example. We find that notion ridiculous. It is hardly a controversial observation that one feature of Arabic civilization is the enemy of my enemy is my friend; it is an aphorism quoted millions of times, because it explains the otherwise inscrutable machinations of Arab countries, tribes, and clans. But an Arab can grow up in China, absorbing that unique way of looking at life, just as he could grow up here, absorbing the Western outlook–just as anyone can–and no one sensible would say that his blood imparts to him the cultural assumptions of Arabic civilization. Isn’t that kind of obvious? How stating this obvious fact is in some way an expression of “racism” is beyond my ability to imagine.

      Finally, I honestly have no idea why you misunderstand my remark about the Cuban embargo, and conflate it with Iraq and Mrs. Halfbright. Maybe its that you like the totalitarianism Castro imposed on his people–because you hate the idea that the free Cuban people were once free to own property and trade, and are thrilled that that freedom was stolen from them, and it bothers you that anyone should oppose the slavery that has been imposed upon them. That’s the best I can do, because your comparison makes no sense, at least it has nothing to do with my outlook on these affairs.

      Me, I weep for those people, and am mystified that anyone admires the monster that took everything they had away from them.

      Incidentally, this was a response to Marilyn’s complaint about my rethinking the historical Lincoln, if you remember. I was saying that if not for him, we would not be having this conversation: communism would not seem to be the only alternative to monopoly capitalism. That this binary model of two forms of tyranny is not the only conceivable way to organize society, that before Lincoln we really were free, and we should not love any form of tyranny. Somehow, you missed the point.

  16. Patrick, skimmed your above post; Couple things caught my eye. Marvin Olasky…wasn’t he the man who put a kind face on the ‘shrub’
    agenda (ca 2000)? Trying to think of the term he invented…’loving conservatism’ (that’s not quite right), or some such shtick. Oh now I remember: “Compassionate Conservatisme.” Like you, I am in transition right now so will be brief.

    Have been viewing the G. Edward Griffin lecture on “The Carroll Quigley Formula” Griffin says Quigley, in his analysis of the Council on Foreign Relations, spilled too much information but seemed to agree on theories proffered by the Cecil Rhodes organization–which was the progenitor on this side of the Atlantic of his globalization views.

    In England the society (or network) was called the Royal Institute for International Studies, if memory serves. But both organs are alive and well and have a definite goal–worldwide domination. They have tributaries internationally.

    They are joined at the hip to the Communist philosophy of collectivism and hierarchal power for “the greater good.” Their vision of utopia demands total commitment; lying and cheating are part of the arsenal, considered necessary ‘for the common good.’

    1. Your fragments of memory are mostly accurate.

      It all began with Cecil Rhodes, who gained control over the mineral resources of the southern cone of Africa. He became one of the richest men in the world. This was the latter part of the 19th century. He died young, unmarried and with no children. He had written a series of wills, which were cumulative: each added to the last.

      His vision, layed out in those wills, was the reunion of Britain and America, so as to rule the world. It was a racial thing: the anglo-saxon race was, in his mind, superior, and its responsibility was to essentially make the British Empire the government of the world, and the United States was to be part of that.

      His wills provided for the creation of a secret society to produce that end. That’s what the Royal Institute for International Affairs was (it is also known as the Roundtable Group). Its American branch, as you correctly state, was the Council on Foreign Relations.

      Alfred Lord Milner executed Rhodes’ wills. He gathered around himself a group of happy conspirators that became known as Milner’s Kindergarten. Quigley obviously deals with all this in Tragedy and Hope: a History of the World in Our Time, but that tome clocks in at more than a thousand pages, and although I’ve had it on my shelf for more than twenty years, I can’t find my way to actually read it. I have, however, read his much slimmer volume, The Anglo-American Establishment: from Rhodes to Cliveden, and it is a laundry list of all the characters involved. It’s more bewildering than Game of Thrones. Still, it’s manageably small, but far from scintillating reading.

      Anyway, one of the features of Rhodes’ goal, and the way the money is still being spent, is the Rhodes Scholarship program. Slick Willy was one of those. They identify potential co-conspirators early, and groom them for the job of creating the New World Order.

      Although I think almost everything our fellow commenter, Mark, says about race is too ridiculous to reply to, this is one place I agree with him. The Rhodes vision was openly racist, and he put his money where his prejudice lay.

      I have argued a lot here that the great tax exempt foundations were created to make the Fabian Society’s vision a reality, which is to do what Antonio Gramsci told Stalin was required to convert the West to Communism. If you read Rene Wormser’s essential work, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, you will discover how early the plot was being implemented in America. One of the researchers the book reports on was allowed access to the archives of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Andrew’s scheme to protect his money from the 16th Amendment (not to mention keep using it to ruin the world long after he made his way to Hell), and she was overwhelmed by the volume of material. So she selected just a few years of minutes of their meetings to examine. She found a constant urgency to find a way to create a world war (this was years before WWI).

      Now, how the Rhodes/Milner group coordinated with the HG Wells/Fabian Society cabal, I can’t recall. I’m sure it’s made explicit in The Anglo-American Establishment, but it’s been too many years since I read it. But does it matter? They are both playing their parts, and working toward the same ends.

      1. Thanks, Patrick, for the thorough review of the Quigley scholarship. G. Edward Griffin’s video was over an hour long and most people do not want to sit that long. But he covered all of your points and wet my appetite to go where few bother. There is so much to learn and so
        little time in modern life. But time is running out, thus my own urgency.

      1. Violeta: The Tavistock Institute was founded in 1947. Where its funding came from deserves some futher research.

        Seems it is an application of social engineering with the goal of better
        managing the human side of commercial production or community services, Psychodynamics is a term used to describe the institute’s methodology. This is only a thumb-nail sketch. Since the Royal Institute of International Affairs has its mark on any number of public functions, would not surprise me to find they are deeply involved with Tavistock.

        1. Ah, psychodynamic as in hoaxes? I never thought of 7 July 2005 as a hoax until recently. I’m not saying that it is or not; I haven’t taken the time to really check into it, but it does have some signs. Do you or anyone else know of an earlier hoax?

          Psychodynamics does seem like a good term to describe what is trying to be accomplished with hoaxes, doesn’t it.

Comments are closed.