From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2012-02-15 22:34:33
Well, here’s another piece of history we hear little about… Thanks to Dan for forwarding it! From: Sent: 15 February 2012 01:30 To: ad.johnson@ntlworld…. Subject: Fw: Fidel Castro’s speech on 11/23/63 about the JFK assassination Andrew, I don’t know how I got on this guys list but he in includes here Castro’s 11/23/63 speech about the JFK assassination and US corruption – mostly on the right. Very interesting. —– Original Message —– From: Robert Morrow To: Morrow321 Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:22 PM Subject: Fidel Castro’s speech on 11/23/63 about the JFK assassination educationforum.ipbho… Everyday something new comes out on the JFK assassination. As far as I know, this posting (on 2/13/12) is the first time that Fidel Casto’s speech on 11/23/63 (deconstructing the JFK assassination in real time) has been posted on the internet. Castro was obviously very concerned that the JFK assassination is a provation deception by US national security state to promote and justify a military invasion of Cuba . The only book that I know Castro’s speech is in is the superb “History Will Not Absolve Us” (1996) by Martin Schotz. “History Will Not Absolve Us” also has a lot of Vincent Salandria, who is one of the highest quality JFK assassination analysts of all time. Castro’s speech is printed in Schotz’s book from pages 53-86. I suggest folks post this web link and speech by Fidel Castro all over the internet. It deserves a much larger audience. In fact, someone could package it and sell it as a book on Amazon Kindle as well. The sad fact is the Fidel Castro along with Russian newspapers have given FAR more accurate accounts of the JFK assassination than has our CIA/CFR controlled American media for 48 years. The New York Times coverage of the JFK assassination has been the equivalent of 1950’s Stalinist propaganda as the CIA controlled “paper of record” refuses to accept and report the facts of the 1963 Coup d’Etat. Ditto the rest of the MSM. I suggest reading Castro’s speech with what we now know about the secret overtures that John Kennedy was making at that time with the Cubans about normalizing relations with Cuba . I am referring to JFK’s use of William Attwood to approach the Cubans about this. I am also referring to JFK’s use of American ABC News journalist Lisa Howard, who was in fact having an affair with Fidel Castro. My personal opinion – unconfirmed, but just using “critical thinking skills” – is that JFK was also having an affair of a sexual nature with Lisa Howard. In any event John Kennedy was using Lisa Howard and William Attwood to do an end run around that State Department (and CIA and Pentagon) who no doubt would have been enraged to find out that JFK was contemplating a deal with Cuba that would leave Castro in power. Those guys wanted to kill Castro, not make a “peace deal” that would keep Castro in power. This, along with JFK’s war with Lyndon Johnson, could be the 2 big reasons for the JFK assassination. 1) “History Will Not Absolve Us” (1996) by Martin Schotz: www.amazon.com/Histo… 2) “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years” (2008) – David Talbot www.amazon.com/Broth… Martin Schotz: “The following is the text of a speech/commentary delivered by Fidel Castro on Cuban radio and Tv, Saturday evening, November 23, 1963, one day after the assassination of President Kennedy. The speech 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.” CONCERNING THE FACTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE TRAGIC DEATH OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY November 23rd, 1963 by Fidel Castro 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 consequences. 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 war. 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 events. 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 circumstances. 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 systems. 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 warlike. 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 peace. 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 type. 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, everywhere. 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 President. 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?