National Security State: A Symptom, Not A Cause
By Servando Gonzalez
Browsing the Internet a few days ago, I found
an article with a quite promising title: “The Evil of the
National Security State.”  Its author is Jacob Hornberger,
founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, a libertarian
I have been studying the national security state for many years,
and I agree that it is close to the center of evil in this country,
so I was excited about what the author had to say. I was not disappointed.
The long article begins with a sharp analysis of the so-called
national security state and the evils committed under the guise
of protecting “national security.”
Until that point I was impressed with the clarity and precision
of Honrberger’s criticism of the evils of the national security
state. But then, without a transition, he changed the focus of
his article and begins a long comparison between evil America
under the control of the national security state and Cuba under
“Let’s examine those questions. Let’s start
by focusing on Cuba.”
According to Hornberger, “One of the most demonstrable examples
of the turn that America took toward empire, militarism, and the
national-security state has involved Cuba,” Adding, “Consider
the economic embargo that the U.S. government has maintained against
Cuba for more than half a century.”
After stating that the embargo “has brought untold economic
suffering to the Cuban people,” a point on which I fully
agree, Hornberger mentions that “the idea was that Castro
would be removed from power either by a citizens’ revolt,
a military coup, or abdication by Castro himself. Obviously, the
plan has never succeeded.”
But Hornberger is dead wrong.
On the contrary, the so-called U.S. embargo on Castro’s
Cuba has been a total success. Its secret goal was not to remove
Castro from power, but to provide him with an excuse to blame
the embargo for the total destruction of the Cuban economy, and
it has worked to perfection. Proof of this is that, despite its
lack of effectivity, the embargo has been maintained actively
year after year for several decades by U.S. presidents of both
factions of the Repucratic party.
That is the reason why Castro loves the embargo so much. Former
Spanish president José María Aznar mentioned that,
during a private conversation he had with Castro in 1998, the
Cuban leader himself told him that he “needed the embargo
for this and the coming generation.”  Even former U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reached the conclusion that
Cuba’s leaders do not want to normalize ties with the U.S.
because then they would lose their excuse for the dismal state
of the country. 
Further proof that Castro needs the embargo is that during the
last months of 1998, the ever-faithful liberals in the Clinton
administration, tried again to win Fidel’s love by unilaterally
taking some measures directed at softening the conditions of the
embargo. To everybody’s surprise, Castro’s reaction
was outrage and criticism. 
In his analysis, Hornberger also mentions the widely-accepted
fairy tale of how “The national security establishment engaged
in numerous assassination attempts against Cuba’s president,
Fidel Castro.” According to Hornberger, “ The CIA
repeatedly tried to murder him, in a variety of ways.”
There is a problem, though, with the CIA’s alleged assassination
attempts on Castro: they never happened. Stories abound about
how dozens of CIA-planned attempts to assassinate Castro ended
in failure. In its investigations about the allegations, a Senate
Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church allegedly found “concrete
evidence” of eight murder plots involving the CIA against
the Cuban leader. On the other hand, in August 1975, Castro complained
to Senator George McGovern that the actual number was, in fact,
twenty-four. More lately, however, like rabbits coming out of
the magician’s hat, the number of CIA’s assassination
attempts on Castro has been raised to 638. Like the gang that
couldn’t shoot straight, the CIA couldn’t kill Castro.
This, however, is pure fiction. Evidence indicates that actually
the CIA never tried to assassinate Castro. The problem with the
theory of the CIA’s multiple attempts on Castro’s
life is that the only sources for that information are the CIA
and Castro himself, and both have proven to be very unreliable
sources of information. Moreover, both Castro and the CIA are
known to be unashamed liars.
If something characterizes the CIA it is its duplicity. There
is no doubt whatsoever that CIA officers have consistently lied
to the American people. In the case of Castro, even a perfunctory
reading of his speeches shows dozens of instances in which he
has admitted a posteriori that he has lied. The most known case
is when, while still a guerrilla fighter in mountains, he told
Herbert Matthews that he was not a communist (he was telling the
truth) and then, during a long televised speech on December 2,
1961, soon after he grabbed power in Cuba, he announced to the
world that he was a Marxist-Leninist and would remain so until
the last day of his life (he was lying!). Author Loree Wilkerson,
who wrote probably the best analysis of Castro’s speech,
observed that Castro presented the picture of a man desperately
trying to modify his past so that it would conform to the present.
An analyst of Castro’s political behavior rightly pointed
out that “the Cuban dictator is a liar who confesses the
truth—retroactively.  The fact explains why, writing
about Castro’s unbroken record of deceit, Cuban exile Mario
Lazo, called Fidel Castro “the great dissembler.”
But there is more than meets the eye in the CIA’s alleged
assassination attempts on Castro.
Referring to the many alleged assassination attempts on Castro,
author Ronald Kessler stated, “The ineptitude of the operations
was astonishing.” I would add that it was astonishing
to the point of being incredible. Actually, some members of the
anti-Castro exile community in Florida have mentioned several
times that their attempts to assassinate Castro failed because
the CIA and the FBI either obstructed their activities or alerted
Until very recently those allegations were just rumors, because
nobody had brought concrete proof of these suspicions. But on
May 18, 2010, a true insider gave his support to the allegations.
During an interview for Miami’s Channel 23, Félix
Rodríguez, an ex-CIA operative who participated in many
CIA covert operations, including the capture of Che Guevara in
Bolivia, mentioned that the assassination attempts against Castro
carried out by the CIA were designed to fail.
Now, why I am so sure that the CIA never tried to assassinate
Castro? For the simple reason that, in early 1948, the CIA recruited
Fidel Castro and sent him to Bogotá, Colombia, to act as
an agent provocateur. In a book he self-published in 1995, Ramón
B. Conte, an eye witness who used to do some minor contract work
for the CIA, mentions in some detail how the recruitment of Fidel
Castro took place in early 1948, during a meeting at the mansion
of Mario Lazo. Lazo was an American-educated Cuban lawyer who
represented most American interests in Cuba.
Castro’s main job consisted in planting false clues implicating
that the Communists were behind the assassination of Colombian
leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán and the instigation
of the Bogotazo riots. The riots were used to blow up the threat
of communism and launch the Cold War in Latin America.
Since then, Castro has been secretly working for the people who
control the CIA. This explains why the CIA, so efficient in
assassinating foreign and domestic leaders, has been so inept
in its alleged attempts to assassinate its secret agent Alex —
the pseudonym adopted by Castro.
The truth is that, far from being an enemy of the promoters of
the national security state he claims to hate, Castro is their
best secret ally. Nothing proves this better than his invasion
of Angola in 1975.
Despite all the disinformation that appeared in the American mainstream
media, the invasion of Angola was not a Soviet operation. It was
planned and executed by Castro using the resources available in
Cuba at the time. Actually the Soviets let him go on with his
plans because they were sure the operation was going to be a total
failure. Only later, when to their utter surprise they realized
that Castro was winning the war, they gave him some limited support.
What was the result of Castro’s victory in Angola fighting
“American imperialism”? Did the Soviets profit from
it? Not at all.
A few months after Castro’s troops took control of the country,
Angola became one of the U.S. largest commercial partners in Africa.
Chase Manhattan Bank, Bankers Trust, Citibank, and Morgan Guaranty
Trust, gave large loans to Angola. The business of General Motors,
General Tire, Caterpillar, Boeing, IBM, NCR, Pfizer, Xerox, and
other American corporations, flourished in the country. 95 percent
of Angolan oil was exported to Western countries. Castro’s
soldiers protected the oil refineries in Cabinda from “saboteurs,”
and Castro was paid in dollars for their services. Half of the
production of Gulf Oil in Angola ended up in U.S. refineries.
The consortium De Beers controlled the diamond mines.
It was not a coincidence that Castro’s invasion of Angola
began a little more than a year after Henry Kissinger, a key agent
of the people who control the national security state, wrote the
infamous National Security Study Memorandum 200. Kept secret for
many years, the NSC-200 delineated a genocidal policy of depopulating
of much of the African continent, to allow U.S. transnational
corporations, not the Africans, exploit the continent’s
natural resources — exactly what Castro did in Angola. 
So much for Castro’s “anti-imperialist” and
In another part of his article, Hornberger mentions that, “The
efforts at replacing Castro with a pro-U.S. ruler began with the
CIA’s invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, an action that
took place a few months after John Kennedy assumed office as president.”
Nothing can be farther from the truth.
Before the Bay of Pigs invasion there were more than a dozen anti-Castro
organizations in Florida, a widespread anti-Castro clandestine
movement was active in the main Cuban cities, and guerrillas had
been successfully fighting Castro’s army in the countryside,
mainly in the Escambray Mountains in the central part of Cuba.
Then, under the pretext of coordinating these groups, the CIA
consolidated all anti-Castro organizations in the U.S. into one,
and then destroyed it after the invasion. Also, in the months
previous to the invasion it stopped supplying the guerrillas with
guns and ammo, and left the urban clandestine movement in the
dark about the invasion – which Castro used to his advantage
to destroy both.
Actually, the secret goal of the Bay of Pigs invasion was not
to replace Castro, but to consolidate him in power, and the goal
was reached in full. So, contrary to common lore, the Bay of Pigs
invasion was a total success.
Finally, Mr. Hornberger tells something right: “Never mind
that Castro had no intentions of invading and conquering the United
No, Castro didn’t want to invade or conquer the U.S. What
he wanted to do was to destroy America in a nuclear Armageddon,
and more than once he was dangerously close to fulfilling his
In 1989 General Rafael del Pino Díaz, the highest-ranking
Cuban defector, said that at the time of the Grenada operation
in 1983, Castro ordered Cuban MiG 23 pilots to program their computers
to attack targets in Florida. Among the selected targets was the
Turkey Point nuclear plant, which Castro said had the potential
of producing a nuclear disaster larger than Chernobyl.  According
to Gen. del Pino, Castro’s words were: “I don’t
have nuclear bombs, but I can produce a nuclear explosion.”
In another interview, Gen. del Pino claimed that, in 1968, when
a group of Cubans were authorized to recover a MiG-17 taken to
the U. S. by a defector, Cuban agents secretly made detailed photographs
of Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. The base, Gen. del Pino
said, had been targeted for an air attack by Cuban planes. The
intention of the attack, Castro told the Cuban Air Force officers,
would be to provoke the United States into an even stronger action
“so the Soviet Union would become involved.” 
But that was not the first time Castro tried to destroy the United
On October 3, 1962, a few days before the onset of the crisis,
Castro sent one of his trusted men to New York on a key mission.
The man chosen for the job was a trained terrorist who had just
been appointed to a minor post at the Cuban mission to the United
Nations. As soon as he arrived in New York, he contacted the rest
of his team.
The secret mission of the terrorist team was to accomplish Castro’s
orders to blow up a big portion of Manhattan, including the Statue
of Liberty, Macy’s department store, several subway stations,
the 42 street bus terminal and Grand Central station, as well
as several refineries along the New Jersey shore, including the
Humble Oil and Refining Company in Linden.
But the terrorist’s plan was too ambitious and included
too many people, and soon the FBI, which at the time was not under
the control of the national security state, got word of it and
detained the main conspirators. Had their plan worked out the
way it had been conceived, it would undoubtedly have ignited American
public opinion and prompted retaliation against Cuba. Had it occurred
during the tense days of the missile crisis it may have been taken
for a Russian preemptive attack on the United States and may have
triggered a spasm-like retaliatory strike upon the Soviet Union,
with unpredictable consequences. Fortunately, the plan failed.
Nevertheless, Fidel Castro is a very resourceful man. After his
failed attempt to create a provocation that may have started a
nuclear confrontation between the superpowers, Castro pulled another
ace from his sleeve.
On the morning of October 27, 1962, at the peak of the missile
crisis, a bizarre incident occurred. An American U-2, piloted
by Major Rudolph Anderson, Jr., was detected over the eastern
part of Cuba and a SAM site at Los Angeles, near Banes, in Oriente
province, fired one or several antiaircraft missiles and shot
Several conflicting interpretations have been advanced to explain
the strange incident of the downing of the U-2.
According to Seymour Hersh, there is strong evidence that, on
October 26, 1962, a Cuban army unit attacked and overran a Soviet-manned
SAM base at Los Angeles, near Banes, in the Oriente province,
killing many Soviets and seizing control of the site. Hersh based
his article on information partly drawn from an interview with
former Department of Defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who was
himself citing classified material from a post-crisis study of
the event. The speculation was based on an intercepted transmission
from the Soviet base at Los Angeles indicating heavy fighting
and casualties. Adrián Montoro, former director of Radio
Havana Cuba, and Juan Antonio Rodríguez Menier, a senior
Cuban intelligence officer who defected in 1987 and was later
living in the U.S., later confirmed Ellsberg’s information.
When the news that a U-2 had been shot down in Cuba reached the
ExComm (Executive Committee of the National Security Council),
most members thought that war was just around the corner. In fact
they had decided earlier that if a U-2 were shot down, the SAM
battery responsible would be immediately knocked off. “It
was the blackest hour of the crisis,” Roger Hilsman later
Carlos Franqui, a journalist who at the time was close to Castro,
wrote that Castro himself told him that he had given the order
to shoot down the plane, to see if there was to be war or not.
 Some years later, in his Memoirs, Khrushchev gave his own
version of the event, which confirmed Franqui’s story. According
to the Soviet Premier, “Castro gave an order to open fire,
and the Cubans shot down an American U-2 reconnaissance plane.”
Fortunately, cool heads prevailed and Castro’s second attempt
to push the U.S. and the Soviet Union into a nuclear Armageddon
But wait. This is not the end of the story. Castro had another
ace up his other sleeve.
Late in the night of October 26 1962, Castro visited the Soviet
embassy in Havana and stayed through the early hours of the next
day writing a letter to Khrushchev. The most important part of
the letter is Castro’s efforts to convince Khrushchev that
an American invasion of Cuba was imminent, and his request that,
in case of such invasion, the Soviet Union should launch a preemptive
nuclear attack against the United States. Castro’s words
I tell you this because I believe that the
imperialists’ aggressiveness is extremely dangerous and
if they actually carry out the brutal act of invading Cuba in
violation of international law and morality, that would be the
moment to eliminate such danger through an act of clear legitimate
defense, however harsh and terrible the solution would be, for
there is no other.
Some Castro-friendly members of the National
Security Archive (most likely a CIA front) have tried to deny
the fact that Castro asked Khrushchev to launch a preemptive nuclear
attack on the U.S. But in a letter of October 30, answering Castro,
a terrorized Khrushchev refers to Castro’s request in very
In your cable of October 27 you proposed that
we be the first to launch a nuclear strike against the territory
of the enemy. You, of course, realize where that should have
led. Rather than a simple strike, it would have been the start
of a thermonuclear war.
A few days later, splitting semantic hairs, Castro
emphatically denied that he had ever asked Khrushchev to launch
a nuclear attack against the U.S. But Khrushchev was adamant.
In the Soviet Premier’s clear and specific own words, “Castro
suggested that in order to prevent our nuclear missiles from being
destroyed, we should launch a preemptive strike against the United
Khrushchev’s view is confirmed by other source. In December
1962, the Hearst-owned San Francisco Chronicle and News
Call Bulletin published a UPI cable claiming that
Ernesto “Che” Guevara had told a reporter in Havana
that “to defend [himself] against aggression” Fidel
Castro had planned a nuclear attack on key U.S. cities, including
New York. Though the Chronicle buried the story on page
16, the News Call Bulletin ran a dramatic front-page
headline in big, bold letters: “How Castro Plotted Atomic
Attack on U.S.!”
Finally, Hornberger takes at face value two key points of the
Cuban missile crisis standard mythology:
“Sure, the Soviets had to take their
missiles out of Cuba, but so what? The missiles had been installed
to deter a U.S. invasion of the island. That strategy worked.
And once Kennedy gave the no-invasion guarantee, there was no
further reason to keep the missiles in Cuba.”
The problem with that assertion is that, in the
first place, Khrushchev didn’t want to protect Castro. Actually,
he wanted to get rid of him because Castro had become a liability,
not an asset. Secondly, the presence of Soviet medium-range strategic
nuclear missiles in Cuba was never been confirmed. Thirdly, the
so-called “Kennedy-Khrushchev pact” never existed.
In his memoirs Khrushchev claims that the main
reason for sending strategic missiles to Cuba was because Castro
feared an American invasion. But it is very difficult to believe
that Khrushchev planned to install missiles in Cuba to protect
Castro. In the first place, because Nikta Khrushchev would never
had placed nuclear warheads near the hands of trigger-happy Castro.
Secondly, because in April of 1962, when he allegedly got the
idea, Khrushchev himself had tried to overthrow the Cuban leader
by force. But Castro discovered the plot (most likely with CIA’s
help), neutralized it, and expelled from Cuba Soviet Ambassador
Sergei Kudryatvsev (who also moonlighted as a senior GRU officer)
and a group of his embassy thugs who, in coordination with some
members of the pro-Soviet Cuban Communist party, were conspiring
to overthrow Castro through a coup d’état.
Though initially Castro said that the USSR hds recalled its ambassador,
some time later confessed that “he had expelled Kudryavtsev”
for having engaged in “open and excessive political activities.”
Other sources, however, claim that actually Castro detained Kudryavtsev
and placed him under military custody until he was embarked on
a Moscow-bound Soviet plane.
Moreover, despite a mountain of books claiming the contrary, the
presence of Soviet medium-range strategic missiles and their nuclear
warheads on Cuban soil has never been proved.
According to current Cuban missile crisis mythology, in the morning
of October 16, 1962, CIA photo interpreters showed president Kennedy
U-2 photos confirming the presence of SS-4 Sandal Soviet nuclear
missiles in Cuba. This was the ultimate, incontrovertible proof
that the Soviets had secretly deployed strategic missile bases
But now, both the high-level U-2 photos and the low-level photos
taken by RF-101 Voodoo planes can be downloaded in full resolution
from the Internet. Problem: there are no images of SS-4 Sandal
missiles in those photos.
What the photos show, though, are long wooden crates covered by
tarps, which the CIA believed contained the missiles.
The photos also show some concrete bunkers, which the CIA
believed contained the nuclear warheads for the missiles.
There are also photos of Soviet ships sailing out of Cuba with
long wooden crates covered with tarps on their decks, which
the CIA believed contained the missiles. All the CIA’s
alleged facts were based on beliefs. The CIA sold Kennedy a bill
As I mentioned above, the presence of Soviet strategic nuclear
missiles in Cuba in 1962, much less their nuclear warheads, has
never been proved. But don’t take my word for it.
In a session with newsmen in the Pentagon on the night of October
22, less than an hour after Kennedy’s speech telling the
American people of the situation in Cuba, journalists asked Secretary
of Defense Robert McNamara if the U.S. knew whether the nuclear
warheads for the missiles were in Cuba too. McNamara’s answer
was quite intriguing: “We don’t know. Nuclear warheads
are of such size that it is extremely unlikely we would ever be
able to observe them by the intelligence means open to us.”
Moreover, author Neville Brown pointed out that, “warheads
were never seen in Cuba, so we don’t know what the Soviets
had in mind.”
One of the undying myths about the U.S.’s inability to tame
Castro for so many years is the existence of the secret Kennedy-Khrushchev
Pact —or “agreement,” or “understanding,”
as some people liked to call it. Hornberger repeats it verbatim:
With the world at the brink of nuclear war,
he [Kennedy] struck a deal with the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev,
in which he promised that the United States would never invade
Cuba, thereby ensuring that the communists could maintain their
outpost 90 miles away from American shores in perpetuity.
Contrary to popular belief, however, the famous
Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact never existed.
The problem with the existence of such a document, or even with
such an “agreement” or “understanding,”
is that in any compromise both parties agree to do something.
According to the prevalent myth, Khrushchev agreed to remove the
nuclear missiles from Cuba in exchange for the American promise
not to invade Cuba. But, as I have shown above, the available
evidence shows that no Soviet nuclear missiles were ever on the
island, and no one is going to believe that President Kennedy
was so naïve as to exchange something for nothing.
Moreover, in 1970, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, concerned
over the submarine base the Soviets were building in Cienfuegos,
a port on the Southern coast of Cuba, hunted through the State
Department’s files looking for the written agreement he
was sure President Kennedy had signed with Khrushchev. He discovered,
to his utter amazement, that there was none, either oral or in
Furthermore, if the agreement ever existed, it has the dubious
honor of being one of the few international agreements to have
been applied a priori, long before it was signed, because the
U.S. government’s harassment of the anti-Castro Cubans in
the U.S. began a year and a half before the Cuban missile crisis,
just after the Bay of Pigs invasion.
The non-existing Kennedy-Khrushchev pact is nothing but a concoction
to justify the unjustifiable. If, despite rhetoric on the contrary,
American presidents from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush have
proved unwilling to get rid of Fidel Castro, it is not because
a non-existent pact forbids them to do so, but because of some
hidden motives unknown to the American people.
In another part of his article, Mr. Hornberger expresses his belief
that “In fact, there is every reason to believe that the
CIA was behind the 1967 extrajudicial execution of Che Guevara.”
Well, there is absolutely no doubt about it. Actually, recent
evidence points to the fact that not only the killing of Che Guevara,
 but also the killing of Salvador Allende,  the assassination
of Hugo Chávez  and perhaps even the downing of the
Cuban airliner in 1973  were CIA-Castro joint operations.
I could keep deconstructing one by one most assertions about Castro
Hornberger wrote in his article, but that would made this one
too long. But this is not the main problem with his article. The
main problem is that he doesn’t mention the big elephant
in the living room: the Council on Foreign Relations.
Since President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act
in July 1947, which created the National Security Council, the
Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
effectively officialized the already-existing national security
state, all key positions of these organizations, as well as the
State Department, have been under the control of CFR members.
Actually, since its very creation, the national security state
has been an operation totally under the control of the oil magnates,
Wall Street banksters and CEOs of transnational corporations ensconced
in the CFR. The national security state has been the tool these
people have used to advance their spurious goals under a cover
Now, how can we explain that an educated, well-informed person
like Mr. Hornberger can write an article mostly based on wrong
information? The answer is because he apparently ignores, as I
ignored it until a few years ago, that the national security state
works on two levels: a physical, visible one, evidenced in military
aggressions, political assassinations, promotion of terrorism,
dirty wars and overthrowing democratically elected leaders, and
also on a more subtle and devious mental level, in the form of
carefully planned and executed psychological warfare operations.
One of these consists in distorting the historical record.
As I mentioned above, the available evidence indicates that the
Cuban missile crisis was a hoax. There were never nuclear warheads
in Cuba, among other reasons, because never before or after the
crisis had the Soviets deployed nuclear warheads beyond their
borders. Nonetheless, dozens of books and hundreds of articles
have been written, mostly by secret agents of the national security
state, trying to scare us about how close we were to the brink
of nuclear annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis.
But, if this is true, how can we explain that, at the most critical
moment during the crisis, President Kennedy ordered the removal
of the fuses and warheads from the Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
Also, Why he didn’t order an in situ inspection of the long
boxes on the decks of Soviet ships bound for the USSR? For these
and other reasons it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that,
except for Castro’s efforts, there was no great danger of
a nuclear confrontation during the crisis, and that some people
at the highest levels of the U.S. government knew it.
So, how close were we to the brink of nuclear Armageddon during
the Cuban missile crisis? Well, not too close.
Then, why have secret agents of the national security state devoted
so much time and effort writing articles and books to convince
us of the grave threat of nuclear annihilation we were under during
the crisis? Because, by giving credibility to past, non-existing
threats (the Cold War), they give credibility to non-existing
present ones (the War on Terror). Nevertheless, it is never too
late to set the record straight.
The bottom line is that the national security state is not a cause,
but a symptom. It is just the efficient tool some powerful people
have been using to advance their evil plans of world domination
and slavery, a plan they euphemistically call the New World Order.
These are the same people who put their secret agent Fidel Castro
in power in Cuba in 1959 and have kept him there untouched for
more than half a century. These are the same people who currently
are trying harder to keep Castroism alive and well in Cuba even
after the death of Castro.
1. Jacob Hornberger, “The Evil of the National Security
State,” LewRockwell.com, July 25, 2014, https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/jacob-hornberger/the-murder-of-jfk/.
The article originally appeared in several parts at Future
of Freedom, a monthly journal of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
2. See, “Aznar exige el fin del embargo a Cuba para favorecer
la democracia en la isla,” Público.es, April
11, 2010, http://www.publico.es/209092/aznar/exige/embargo/cuba/favorecer/democracia.
3. See, “Hillary Clinton scorns ‘entrenched’
Cuba,” BBBNews, April 10, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8612765.stm.
4. See Ellis Cose, “Castro no cede un ápice. Fidel
no le ve mucho valor a una iniciativa de EEUU,” Newsweek
en Español, January 20, 1999, p. 17. See also, AFP,
“El régimen castrista rechaza las medidas de EEUU
para flexibilizar el embargo,” La Razón,
January 10, 1999.
5. Loree Wilkerson, Fidel Castro’s Political Programs
from Reformism to Marxist Leninism (Gainesville, Florida:
University of Florida Press, 1965). p. 81.
6. Mark Falcoff, “How to Think about Cuban-American Relations,”
in Irving Louis Horowitz, ed., Cuban Communism, Fifth Edition
(New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1984), p. 547.
7. Mario Lazo, Dagger in the Heart (New York: Twin Circle,
1968), p. 182.
8. Ronald Kessler, Inside the CIA (New York: Pocket Books,
1992), p. 53.
9. See, Ramón B. Conte, Historia oculta de los crímenes
de Fidel Castro (Self-published, n.p., 1995), pp. 15-30.
10. Castro being recruited by the CIA and his active participation
in the Bogotazo riots is explained and documented in extensive
detail in my book Psychological Warfare and the New World
Order: The Secret War Against the American People (Hayward,
California: Spooks Books, 2012).
11. See, Leuren Moret, “Kissinger, Eugenics and Depopulation,”
Rense.com, November 20, 2013, http://www.rense.com/general59/kissingereugenics.htm.
A copy of the NSC 200 can be downloaded at nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/nssm/nssm_200.pdf
12. Ernesto Betancourt, “Is Castro Planning a Preemptive
Strike Against the U.S.?” (Washington, D.C., 1996), p. 4.
13. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, “Is a Stubborn Castro Testing U.S.
Defenses?,” the Miami Herald, March 31, 1991, p.
14. Joseph B. Treaster, “Defecting General Says Cuba Has
Plan to Raid Base in the U.S. if It Is Attacked,” the New
York Times, October 11, 1987.
15. Andrew Tully, White Tie and Dagger (New York: Pocket
Books, 1968), pp. 74-78. Tully mistakenly believes the plot was
a Soviet idea, but it was Castro’s. The plot is also mentioned
in Andres Oppenheimer, Castro’s Final Hour (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1992).
16. Seymour Hersh, “Was Castro Out of Control in 1962?”
the Washington Post, October 11, 1987.
17. Adrián Montoro, “Moscow Was Caught Between Cuba
and U.S.,” the New York Times, November 17, 1987.
Rodríguez Menier in personal communication to the author,
December 20, 1994. Menier claims he heard the story from Gen.
18. Roger Hilsman, To Move a Nation (Garden City, N,Y.:
Doubleday, 1967), p. 220.
19. Carlos Franqui, Family Portrait With Fidel (New York:
Vintage, 1984), p. 193.
20. Nikita S. Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers, translated
and edited by Strobe Talbot (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1970), p. 499.
21. See, Document 45: Prime Minister Fidel Castro’s letter
to Premier Khrushchev, October 26, 1962, in Laurence Chang and
Peter Kornbluh, eds., The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: A National
Security Archive Documents Reader (New York: The New Press,
1992), p. 189. (Castro’s letter reprinted from the international
edition of Granma).
22. See, Document 57,: Premier Khrushchev’s letter to Prime
Minister Fidel Castro, October 30, 1962, in Laurence Chang and
Peter Kornbluh, eds., The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962,
23. Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers: The Glasnost
Tapes (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990), p. 177.
24. See, Lisa Howard, “Castro’s Overture,” War/Peace
Report, September 1983, p. 4.
25. Domingo Amuchástegui, “Cuban Intelligence and
the October Crisis,” in James G. Blight and David A. Welch,
eds., Intelligence and the Cuban Missile Crisis (London:
Frank Cass, 1998), p. 92.
26. “Red Missiles in Cuba: Inside Story from Secretary McNamara,”
U.S. News and World Report, November 5, 1962, p. 45.
27. Neville Brown, Nuclear War (New York: Praeger, 1964),
p. 80.28. Kurt M Campbell and James B. Steinberg, Difficult
Transitions: Foreign Policy Troubles at the Outset of Presidential
Troubles (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2008),
29. Information surfaced in the mid-1970s confirmed suspicions
that Castro, in cahoots with Bolivian Communist leaders, arranged
the betrayal of Ché. According to Dariel Alarcón
Ramírez (“Benigno”), one of Ché’s
trusted men who was part of his guerrilla in Bolivia, previous
to Guevara’s departure for Bolivia, Castro held a secret
meeting with Mario Monje in Havana on December, 1966. Monje, secretary
general of the pro-Soviet Bolivian Communist Party, was instrumental
in Che’s demise by denying the guerrilla any help and leaving
them in total isolation. Benigno is convinced that Monje was following
Castro’s orders when he left Ché in the lurch. See,
Dariel Alarcón Ramírez Memorias de un soldado
cubano. Vida y muerte de la Revolución (Barcelona:
30. Both Castro and the CIA collaborated in destabilizing the
Allende government —the CIA by painting him as a radical
leftist and Castro by openly criticizing him for not being radical
enough. Moreover, if recently surfaced information is true, Allende
did not commit suicide: his Cuban security chief, General Patricio
de la Guardia, killed him, following Castro’s direct orders.
See my article “Fidel Castro: asesino de Allende?,”
31. See, Servando Gonzalez, “Hugo Chávez: Another
Victim of Castro’s High-Tech Political Assassinations?,
32. See, Servando González, The Secret Fidel Castro:
Deconstructing the Symbol (Oakland, California: Spooks Books,
2001), Chapter 3, note 39, p. 383.
Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer,
historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written
books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence,
espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia
herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando,
Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The
Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis
madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas,
all available at Amazon.com.
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council
on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro
Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro,
California, both available at the author's site at http://www.servandogonzalez.org.
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New
World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is
available at Amazon.com.
Or download a
.pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad,
Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA:
The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Amazon.com.
Servando's book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo
y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, appeared last year, and is available
and other bookstores online.
His most recent book, I
Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the
Betrayal of the America, juste appeared and is available
at Amazon.com and other bookstores online.