http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis104.htm
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 =C2=AD 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=E2=80=99s nation, al=
ong
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=E2=80=99s 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, 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, =E2=80=9CEven in event of an American invasion=
or
air strike, Soviet officials in Cuba had no orders to use the
missiles.=E2=80=9D
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=E2=80=99s 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:
=E2=80=9CMissile deployment and evidence of Soviet actions toward d=C3=A9te=
nte
poses an apparent contradiction.=E2=80=9D
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 =C2=AD 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 =C2=AD 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=E2=80=99s 1980 interv=
iew
with the Ambassador (see Radio Liberty=E2=80=99s video =E2=80=9CThe World
Revolution=E2=80=9D), the latter says the U.S. helped bring Castro to power
anyway. Also, power elite member David Rockefeller=E2=80=99s 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 1-, 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."
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=E2=80=99t make sen=
se.
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).
=C2=A9 2007 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved
[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=2ES. 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.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
