Dr. Dennis Cuddy -- The Power Elite’s Planned Dialectical "Crisis"

THE POWER ELITE'S PLANNED DIALECTICAL "CRISIS"

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
July 2, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

In previous articles, I have explained that the power elite uses a dialectical process in order to achieve its objectives, and I thought it would be helpful to explain how this has been used giving a specific historical event � the Cuban missile crisis. Most people believe the Soviets tried to place offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba, and they only backed down when President Kennedy discovered what they had done and forced them to remove the missiles. What REALLY was going on was a dialectical thesis of missile placement, followed by a PLANNED discovery (antithesis), and a synthesis of both the Soviets and the U.S. withdrawing missiles from near each other�s nation, along with a U.S. guarantee not to invade Cuba. This was the dialectical goal all along, so that Cuba could be used as a revolutionary training base for Central America and Africa. The following is a detailed explanation:

At the conclusion of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis between the United States and the Soviet Union, the withdrawal by the U.S.S.R. of offensive missiles from Cuba was heralded as a great victory for President Kennedy. But in exchange for this withdrawal, the President guaranteed the safety of Castro�s Cuba from additional invasion attempts from the United States. What a few of us have asked since that time is, what if the guarantee was what the Soviets expected all along?

In late January 1989, top-level Soviet, American and Cuban officials who had been involved in the missile crisis held a two-day conference in Moscow in which Sergei Khrushchev, son of the late Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, admitted, �Even in event of an American invasion or air strike, Soviet officials in Cuba had no orders to use the missiles.�

That only stands to reason, because what sense would it have made for the U.S.S.R. to risk nuclear confrontation with the United States just to obtain offensive missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from the American mainland, when nuclear-armed Soviet submarines would come even closer to our Eastern, Southern and Western coasts? Would it not have made more sense for the Soviet Presidium to conclude that because the United States was militarily superior, there was no way to win a nuclear fight?

However, since American missiles were still in Turkey (despite earlier orders by the President to remove them), this gave the Soviets an excuse to place missiles in Cuba. Of course, this would be followed by an American objection to their presence, and the U.S.S.R. could then appear conciliatory by offering to remove the missiles in exchange for the removal of ours from Turkey, along with a guarantee for the safety of Castro�s Cuba from American intervention.

[Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"]

But what evidence is there that the Soviets expected an eventual withdrawal of missiles from Cuba in exchange for the safety guarantee? The evidence is as follows:

In his excellent work, Essence of Decision, Graham Allison stated: �Missile deployment and evidence of Soviet actions toward d�tente poses an apparent contradiction.�
The Soviets knew of Cuban U-2 flights.
The missiles were left uncamouflaged.
The Soviets did not coordinate installation of the medium-range ballistic missiles with the completion of the surface-to-air missile covers.
The Soviet Union had never before placed missiles in any nation beyond its borders, not even in its satellites in East Europe.
Cuba hypothetically could eventually expel the Soviet technicians (as Anwar Sadat later did in Egypt) and do whatever it pleased with the missiles � perhaps take actions that would result in World War III (a situation not to be encouraged by the U.S.S.R.) or perhaps allow American acquisition of the missiles if friendly relations were re-established between Cuba and the United States.
The United States had already attempted one invasion and would certainly succeed with a second one if it so chose.
The Soviets desired to avert a nuclear confrontation, yet wanted to use Cuba as a training ground for Latin American revolutionaries.
And perhaps the best argument for this hypothesis is the post facto one of recent history � the missiles were removed in exchange for the safety guarantee, and Cuba has been used for the training of revolutionaries.

Some have objected that the expectation of missile removal does not square with the secretive Soviet method of transporting the missiles to Cuba and from the docks there to their ultimate launch sites. But I would maintain that this behavior squares exactly. What good would it have done for the Soviets to announce that they were going to send missiles to Cuba, or that the missiles were on the boats either on the way to Cuba or at the dock there? What concessions from the United States could have been gained?

The United States could have more effectively quarantined Cuba or made surgical air strikes more confidently, among other alternatives. With the missiles already in Cuba, and at their sites, on the other hand, a quarantine would not have removed the missiles there, and even surgical air strikes would have hit civilians and placed the U.S. in an unfavorable light in world affairs, especially in Latin America.

In case you think the U.S. was oblivious to Castro being a Communist in the 1950s, the American ambassador to Cuba at the time, Earl E.T. Smith, in his The Fourth Floor (1962) related that he informed U.S. officials such was the case. And in Dr. Stan Monteith�s 1980 interview with the Ambassador (see Radio Liberty�s video �The World Revolution�), the latter says the U.S. helped bring Castro to power anyway. Also, power elite member David Rockefeller�s daughter is a good friend of Castro, as is European Union power elite member Javier Solana, who was brought to power by Rhodes Scholars Bill Clinton, Strobe Talbott, and Richard Gardner.

And remember, the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis occurred about 7 months after CFR member Lincoln Bloomfield's March 10, 1962 study Memorandum No. 7 from the State Department (headed by Rhodes scholar Dean Rusk) regarding how a "world government" would come about. He stated: "If the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government."

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

This is how the power elite works. And that the U.S. is controlled by the power elite is obvious. Why else would the U.S. overthrow Saddam, who was replaced by a Muslim-controlled government, which allows Christians to be constantly persecuted? This is right after the U.S. intervened in the Balkans because Kosovo Muslims were being persecuted; and now the U.S. supports Kosovo independence even though it would become a breeding ground for the Al Qaeda, which is also killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq today! Logically, it doesn�t make sense. But the power elite wants conflict (dialectical thesis versus antithesis) so that it can bring its (New World) Order (synthesis) out of it in the form of a World Socialist Government with a New World Religion (common faith), with which all can agree (that would eliminate Jesus as Savior, because some disagree).

[Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"]

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available

Home