Castro has finally joined Che, Mao, Stalin, & Lenin in Hell

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of young people don't really know about Castro beyond the Leftist propaganda. Here's a summary from Carlos Eire, Professor of History and Religious Studies at Yale University.

Farewell to Cuba’s brutal Big Brother

One of the most brutal dictators in modern history has just died. Oddly enough, some will mourn his passing, and many an obituary will praise him. Millions of Cubans who have been waiting impatiently for this moment for more than half a century will simply ponder his crimes and recall the pain and suffering he caused.

Why this discrepancy? Because deceit was one of Fidel Castro’s greatest talents, and gullibility is one of the world’s greatest frailties. A genius at myth-making, Castro relied on the human thirst for myths and heroes. His lies were beautiful, and so appealing. According to Castro and to his propagandists, the so-called revolution was not about creating a repressive totalitarian state and securing his rule as an absolute monarch, but rather about eliminating illiteracy, poverty, racism, class differences and every other ill known to humankind. This bold lie became believable, thanks largely to Castro’s incessant boasting about free schools and medical care, which made his myth of the benevolent utopian revolution irresistible to many of the world’s poor.

Many intellectuals, journalists and educated people in the First World fell for this myth, too — though they would have been among the first to be jailed or killed by Castro in his own realm — and their assumptions acquired an intensity similar to that of religious convictions. Pointing out to such believers that Castro imprisoned, tortured and murdered thousands more of his own people than any other Latin American dictator was usually futile. His well-documented cruelty made little difference, even when acknowledged, for he was judged according to some aberrant ethical code that defied logic....

If this were a just world, 13 facts would be etched on Castro’s tombstone and highlighted in every obituary, as bullet points — a fitting metaphor for someone who used firing squads to murder thousands of his own people.

●He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.

●He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators on earth.

●He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to reckon.

●He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps and prisons at an unprecedented rate, filling them to capacity, incarcerating a higher percentage of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin.

●He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.

●He forced nearly 20 percent of his people into exile, and prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea, unseen and uncounted, while fleeing from him in crude vessels.

●He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.

●He outlawed private enterprise and labor unions, wiped out Cuba’s large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves of the state.

●He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

I feel like venting here because I don't feel comfortable doing so in a more public forum such as Facebook (I have Facebook friends who hold a more congenial view of Fidel than do I).

So here it is. I harbor no positive feelings towards Fidel or his brother, in contrast to Augusto Pinochet who I will admit led a brutal regime but I believe also did some good.

The problem began during the Cold War. The Soviet Union did a very good job inspiring sympathy for itself and its clients amongst "grass-roots" elements in the West. A big success was to create a widespread perception of Fidel as a "humanitarian". This tradition has continued to this day, and has been especially strong in the US's immediate neighbors, Mexico and Canada, for generations (consider Pierre Elliott Trudeau's bromance with Fidel in the 70s). Consider as well the Wikipedia page on Fulgencio Batista, which has been written as a justification of the revolution rather than the sort of factual presentation Wikipedia usually encourages.

Unfortunately for my credibility here, I am a citizen of the US, and will likely be discredited for my views on Fidel as it is generally assumed that they have been warped by exposure to decades of vicious propaganda against the achievements of the Revolution.

I don't know a lot about Batista. It would seem that he wasn't really in power very long. Was he that much more brutal and corrupt than similar strongmen of that era? It is true that he probably had ties to unsavory elements in the US, but that shouldn't be surprising given the geographic proximity. Yes, Fidel's army overthrew him, but it seems clear to me that his regime would have ended anyway, and had it ended by other means, then Cuba would be much better off today. The Trujillo regime in the Dominican Republic eventually ended. How does today's Dominican Republic compare with modern Cuba? (rhetorical question).

As I don't consider Fidel a hero for having overthrown Batista, and I can't see him as a hero for having "stood up" to the US (with the heavily armed Soviet Union looming behind him to back him up), or for sending physicians to work for free in Venezuela and elsewhere (as though they had any choice in the matter), for what reason should I admire him and mourn him today?

Thinking of Cuban physicians that were sent to Venezuela, the fact is that every "social advancement" Fidel achieved was done by fiat and at no cost whatsoever to him. He has exercised 100% unquestioned authority in Cuba for about 50 years. Free medical care happened because he said so. Free universal education happened because he said so. It is easy to bring about such "miracles" when there are no competing interests to deal with. Yes, liberal democracy can be rough around the edges. Only totalitarianism can achieve "perfection".

I am reminded of one news report a few years ago. A hurricane made landfall in western Cuba and the report was that 100% evacuation was achieved, thus avoiding any casualties. Of course, the people had learned years ago to do what they were told. When told to leave (as opposed to possibly riding it out in the hope of preventing their property from being destroyed, as might happen elsewhere), they all left. Was this a great accomplishment?

The fact is, Cuba has been a totalitarian dictatorship with great press relations for many decades. I can't think of anything positive to say about modern Cuba except possibly that they don't have prohibition like they do in Iran (one of their closest allies) and they don't stop people from emigrating the way East Germany did.

Sorry I don't have a big finish for this rant, but there you have it.

IMO, you have some good points, there----ESPECIALLY, these:

I long wondered, if a country like cuba could give all its citizens health care, why not America? what makes us average joes chopped liver in comparison?

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau disgraced himself today by issuing a statement on Castro's death that read in part:

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.

“Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.

“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.


This has spawned a flood of satirical #TrudeauEulogies on Twitter. Some examples:

"Although flawed, Hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals, was a contributor to the arts & proud advocate for Germany."

"Though not universally liked by his compatriots, Mr. Ceausescu was a leader in urban design and affordable housing."

"While a controversial figure, even detractors recognize Pol Pot encouraged renewed contact between city and countryside."

"While a controversial figure, General Tojo brought America into World War II and ultimately helped shorten the war."

"Today we mourn the loss of Norman Bates, a family man who was truly defined by his devotion to his mother."

"Today we say goodbye to Mr. Mussolini, the former Italian prime minister best known for his competent train-management."

"While Emperor Nero was controversial, his dedication to song and writing poetry signaled a Roman artistic renaissance."

"Stalin was a remarkable figure and one of the fathers & innovators of the strict form of diet better known as starvation."

You can find more at:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/trudeaueulogies?src=hash

ok then, considering that he was double-brutal, then how does one explain the Cuban homeland reaction of mourning?

he was not as evil as Batista.

MaxE -

In regard to your question about Batista - Batista had been a right wing dictator who had orchestrated a coup to seize power in Cuba, though he was incredibly enough just a sergeant. I'll have to check to see how long he had been in charge of Cuba, but it was for a fair period of time, during which he had allowed American organized crime to make Havanah the Mafia capitol of the world. Batista got a cut from his mob buddies for allowing their casinos to run without government interference, had allowed for a vigorous drug trade through the island to the USA and the rest of the world, and had been a major center for contract murder, among other things the mob is great at. The ordinary people suffered terribly under both the politically repressive Batista regime, as well as under the American Maffia. A great many of Batista's henchmen were both political reactionaries, and engaged with organised crime. So when various Anti-Batista guerillas (Castro and his following being just one such group) both the US and Soviet governments showed interest in aiding them. Oddly enough, Batista's Maffia buddies, who he had helped make richer, started playing both sides, supporting Batista, and the Anti-Batista fighters. When Castro appeared on the scene, he proved to be such a master manipulator, gaining the trust of both the CIA and the mob, who he then screwed over when coming to power by revealing his true Pro-Soviet sympathies, and nationalizing the American Mafia's casinos after both Batista, and the small d Cuban democrats were out of the way. To show you how politics makes for strange bedfellows, the American CIA, organized crime, legitimately democratic Anti-Castroite Cubans, and the rightwing/mobbed up Batista Cuban supporters ended up conducting a secret war against Castro, which involved the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, and the countless assassination and saboteur plots that came under the codenames of Operation Mongoose and Track33. Some who had tried researching this half knowable mess (as so much of it was conducted underground, and is still classified), and the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, have come to the conclusion that Oswald's little understood relationship, during the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, with Anti-Castro fanatics working as CIA contract agents, provocateurs, and contacts, along with mob support (these people had come to hate Kennedy as much as they hated Castro) might have birthed the assassination plot ending in the life of John Kennedy. But that's a whole other can of worms.