Casting out Castro

The Cuban people will finally have the chance to cast out the dark spectre of Castro, and embrace a brighter future.

“Revolution is a spectators sport. The majority will sit in the stands and watch the factions fight. At the end they will choose side with the team that is winning. ” -George Lincoln Rockwell

December 31st, 1958 and the battle of Santa Clara is raging. Amid the chaos of his collapsing ‘ofensiva’ in Cuba, the degenerate figure of General-President Batista panics and flees to the Dominican Republic. By the 2nd of January, Castro’s forces entered the capital unopposed. Out went the military strongman and in walked the uniquely leftwing spectre of the ‘revolutionary strongman’. Amid great claims of ‘equality’ and a ‘revolutionary national socialist state’ Castro drew up his black lists. Out would go human rights, in would come ‘special detention’. Out would go even a lip-service to basic societal pluralism, in would come a tyranny which would inflict untold human suffering.


26th November 2016, and the revolutionary strongman is dead. Finally captured in the talons of mortality. Havana was broadcasting a capital in silence, holding it’s collective breath. Meanwhile, in ‘little Havana’ in the USA the descendants of Castro’s victims were celebrating. Scenes akin to a street party, festival mood – we are seeing two very different Cubas on display right now. The former anxious, unsure – like a child denied sight of sunlight coaxed nervously into the new dawn. The latter, wildly enthusiastic and filled with hope for a newer, pluralistic Cuba.

But what of Castro? What did he make of his legacy? Well we know he had some regrets, expressing them prior to his death. Apparently the unprecedented waves of anti-LGBT persecution he presided over in Cuba was a ‘regret’. The decades where he tossed thousands of young gay kids into forced labour camps for ‘re-education’ is a ‘regret’. The suppression of generations, the blatant denial of justice was a ‘regret’ for Castro.

I’m sure the generations of ‘effeminate boys’ forced to undergo ‘aversion therapy’ are very thankful Castro ‘regretted’ the brutalism of 1960s-1980s Cuba. But the fact remains Castro’s Cuba was one where gay kids were abused, beaten; told ‘you’re a pervert, sick deviant’. They were literally dispatched from the island and prohibited from representing their country on the grounds they were gay.

And bohemian artists and poets fared little better. There was no room for satire in Fidel’s ‘Friendly Cuba’ image for naive western tourists.

But no admission of failures…

But for all the expressions of regret, don’t be fooled by Castro’s ‘friendly Cuba’ image. His regime was as vile as any other petty autocracy.

Cuba under Castro didn’t just hound the LGBT community until very recently, it also turned its eyes on mum and dad. Castro carried out an implicit Marxist doctrine of ‘abolition of family’ (insane, right?). 1960 saw a ‘great liberalisation’ of abortion rights and divorce rights – but with a twist. The state headed up by Papa Castro and his family would become your parents. For decades now Cuba has suffered under among the world’s worst recorded rates of family breakdown. Abortion and divorce rates in ‘friendly Cuba’ are among the highest in the world. Now while access to divorce and abortion is fine, when they’re used as state policies to literally and figuratively decimate the concept of ‘family’ in order to bring about a ‘workers paradise’; something is sick somewhere.

Ulterior motives and post-truth…

Castro’s niece Mariela makes no secret that she and her uncle saw gay marriage as ‘hugely important’, as a tool to help make the Communist State of Cuba ‘mother and father’. The sheer lack of regret or apology for not merely suppressing the LGBT community for decades; but to then embrace their cry for equality under false pretences is truly wicked.

As a gay man passionately in favour of equal marriage, it offends me to see those who literally sought to do us harm suddenly embrace our ‘rights’. All the more offensive when you consider their rationale for doing so isn’t to correct a historic wrong they inflicted, but to ensure their own perpetuation in power. My gay rights aren’t an opportunity for Mariela Castro to fill her uncle’s shoes in Havana.

Always remember when assessing Castro’s Cuba – it’s a labyrinthine place which most certainly functions as an example of ‘post-truth’. Gays are evil, until their not. Women’s rights are good, but only when it serves the ulterior motives of a dictatorship state.  Nothing is as it seemed in Fidel’s Cuba. The best policy for Havana going forward is to simply cast Castro out. Forget his political deviancy ever happened.


  1. You have a real cheek making those kind of criticisms, Mr Dean of the Party that did bring in Section 28. And then legalised same-sex marriage 20 years later. It was no picnic for the LGBT in 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s Britain either and it is no picnic in many of the British Empire’s former colonial holdings where they still have Imperial anti-homosexuality laws.

    I’m not saying Cuba was a socialist paradise. It clearly wasn’t – and the USA clearly didn’t do the best it could’ve in handling Cuba. I’ll also point out that it probably suited the USA quite well to have a “failed socialist” state just off its shores – reminding everyone of how great, successful, fabulous capitalism is.

    They’re not YOUR gay rights. They are all OUR human rights. As for burying history and pretending it never happened… that’s contemptible on so many levels. We have to accept the historical consequences and figure out how to best move on with life – be it under a form of hereditary rulership or honest-to-god democracy.

    An (unwilling) subject of the Windsor family


    • So you’re basically arguing that we shouldn’t criticise Cuban dictators for deep rooted anti-gay bigotries ‘cos other countries were also engaged in them?

      How is the ‘but other bad boys were doing it too’ defence in any way defensible?

      Further, I’d actually agree with you regarding sec28 and Thatcherism – it was a retrograde step backwards into ‘Victorian family values’. However, she clearly didn’t force gay kids into labour camps, exile LGBT poets or force ‘effeminate boys’ into therapy. Castro was on a different level of anti-gay persecution.

      Unlike you I’m willing to condemn them both for their anti-lgbt policies; sadly you seem obsessed with defending Castro’s ‘friendly Cuba’ with vague arguments along the lines of ‘other people were just as bad’. I’m sure that’s a real comfort to Castro’s victims.


  2. Alan has it correct.

    Now look what your masters are doing. Snoopers charter, DWP going mad killing people. NHS being privatised etc

    1984 Orwellian UK State.

    You Yes yet?


    • Last time I checked it was my Conservative government here in the UK that had ended the tyranny of child detention. My party that introduced equal marriage and raised the minimum wage alongside a policy of taking the lowest paid out of income tax. My party that ring fenced and protected overseas aid and development funding.

      I’m proud of these achievements, and I would have thought you would have welcomed them too.

      (p.s. the NHS isn’t being ‘privatised’, the Tories have actually brought to an end the mad-hatter Labour idea of Public Private Partnership hospitals PPS, it’s a devolved issue to Scotland anyway, so unless the SNP are privatising things Scotland’s NHS is fine)


  3. ‘For decades now Cuba has suffered under among the world’s worst recorded rates of family breakdown. Abortion and divorce rates in ‘friendly Cuba’ are among the highest in the world. Now while access to divorce and abortion is fine, when they’re used as state policies to literally and figuratively decimate the concept of ‘family’ in order to bring about a ‘workers paradise’; something is sick somewhere.’

    When you refer to a source to support a point you are making, that source should provide appropriate evidence or be the words of an expert in the subject under discussion. And even here the expertise should be in an area that is too complex for a reasonably intelligent person to understand on her or his own.

    The article you refer to is by someone called Paul Kengor.

    The article does not provide any statistical evidence – comparative or otherwise – on abortions or divorces. Likewise it provides no evidence that they were used as state policies (although I accept that they might have been). Abortion and divorce statistics are not the stuff of particle physics. We don’t need an expert here. I don’t think we even need an expert to deal with the possible complexity of the effect of higher rates of divorce and abortion on individual and societal well being in an authoritarian socialist state.

    So we do not need Paul Kengor’s expertise. But since you quote him, I assume you must think he is perhaps an expert – or at least someone – whose views are worth quoting. If you have not already done so – and I suspect this is the case – click on his name on ‘The American Thinker’ website and read some of his many articles.

    He appears to be almost completely against divorce, abortion and gay rights. He describes himself as a (Ronald) Reagan scholar (sic). He is a fundamentalist Christian who teaches politics at a faith based college in America. He probably believes in a real Adam, Eve and talking snake. He will possibly think that the theory of evolution is the work of the Devil. And he will certainly believe his loving God is to be praised for His intention to make billions of us suffer for eternity because we do not believe that Jesus died for our sins. Unless he is writing about the strength of his religious belief, is he really the type of authoritative source you want to be quoting? What do you think referring to someone like him does to the credibility of your argument?

    You will note that I have said nothing about his extreme right wing political views. This is because I know they are your views to a certain extent. And as repugnant as I find right wing views, I respect your attempted honesty and your willingness to engage (although I suspect you may have created this site to further personal political ambitions).

    Two points to finish. One, your article lacks any reference to the major context – i.e. constant American involvement in trying to overthrow and destabilise a state which defied US imperialism and capitalism – which would make your conclusion about political deviancy credible. Two, articles can be partial to a particular political viewpoint, but still refer to wider contexts which at least nod in the direction of impartiality and give credence to the writer’s integrity. As an example of such, I refer you to left wing libertarian blogger Thomas Clark’s article on dictators (including Castro) and the right wing’s response to them. Also, he’s generally very good at providing links to appropriate evidence.

    I have been critical above but I believe you will take in the spirit it was intended i.e. to further knowledge and understanding – and to improve your source referencing skills!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s