Inside Cuban Dissidents’ November 15 Plot: Unpacking the Archipiélago Facebook Group

If readers believe that the attempt by the counterrevolution to provide a “left” image to the movement is an exaggeration, below is an Archipiélago post that quotes Fidel Castro’s famous statement that “Revolution is to change everything that needs to be changed.”

The quote is almost verbatim from Fidel, minus the words “Revolution is…” Nonetheless, one should not take this lightly. After all, Cuesta Morúa and Yunior were probably trained to use “left”-sounding phrases to recruit sections of Cuban society, especially intellectuals.

Sadly, the fact is that some “pro-Cuba” intellectuals and artists in Cuba also use this Fidel phrase to push for their interpretation of change such as capitalist reforms, a multi-party system and a more “open” Cuba policy toward the US, as if the decades-long Cuba-US standoff is the fault of both the US and Cuba. Every indication is that these elements are already indirectly on board with the colour revolution by “both siding” the events: they are opposed to the violence of the colour revolution and that of the Cuban government.

These Cuban intellectuals living in Cuba are not ashamed to complain that the current post-July 11 period is plagued by “two extremes” – the Cuban government (which they now casually describe as a “regime”) and the agitators, with no room for a “reasonable perception.” They also promote the November 2020 San Isidro Movement that arose out of a wide-open debate and polemic in Cuba regarding Decree 349 on the Cuban government’s policy on culture and involved in November 15.

Junior was featured in this San Isidro Movement along with other US-supported individuals. It was the forerunner of July 11 as, and according to some intellectuals, a “made in Cuba opposition.” Of course, in order to remain in the good books with the elites in the West, the intellectuals abundantly use the buzzwords “cracking down hard” and “repressive violence” in reference to the Cuban government.

For a very precise analysis of how these intellectuals operate in Cuba and abroad, see the video presentation in a recent Geopolitical Economy Research Group webinar on Cuba by Cuban revolutionary blogger Iroel Sánchez, with English subtitles. This 15-minute YouTube is worth viewing in its entirety, as Iroel is not one of the “go to” Cubans sought after by the mainstream media and academia. The exact portion where he deals with these intellectuals is from 5:03 to 5:15.

Furthermore, in carefully diving into the pages of the Archipiélago Facebook group, one notices, for example, that it features some out-of-context left quotes from Martin Luther King. Furthermore, its main spokesperson Yunior said in an interview with the Miami Herald, “I am calling on the left worldwide, which is usually complicit and unfortunately usually behaves in a hypocritical way, to tell them that there are no left or right dictatorships, good or bad, there are dictatorships, and we must oppose them all.”

Why does Yunior feel confident in appealing to the left? Does the adage “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” apply? Are some on the left – and not only abroad but also in Cuba –sympathizing with the Archipiélago movement? Yes, indeed, we have seen above how some Cuban intellectuals on the island have quite an affinity with colour revolution. However, how does anyone reconcile being “progressive” and “left” while hobnobbing with those whose policies favour Cuban annexation to the US?

Every country must be analyzed on its own merits. For Cuba, being left or, more precisely, being communist, or pro-communist or respecting Fidel Castro and his legacy is based solidly among not all but the majority of the population since the early 1960s. Thus, it does not matter how much the Archipiélago folks scream anti-communist slogans, flash “down with the dictatorship” placards or grossly insult their leaders past and present. Not only does this go over like water off a duck’s back for the majority of Cubans, but it actually consolidates and deepens their appreciation of their ideological/political outlook, which they see as the safeguard to maintaining Cuba’s precious sovereignty, patriotism and dignity.

Hard facts and figures speak volumes. For example, in the 2019 constitutional referendum vote, which included a clause to safeguard the ultimate goal of communism (on the insistence of the grassroots), here are the results:

Thus, of those voting, over 86% voted in favour or their economic/political “communist” system. This ratio coincides with my own experience living in Cuba for extensive periods of time on and off since 1997: not all, but the vast majority of the population supports and works for their system. Even though the Archipiélago will not admit it, they must deal with this situation. Thus, at times, they must attack the system from the “left,” as Yunior does above and Cuesta Morúa also with his #DefundThePolice.

Is it an exaggeration to extrapolate from the Archipiélago pages and Yunior’s interview with the Miami Herald to claim that they use left rhetoric to cover up their goals of pro-US regime change? It does not seem to be a fabrication. However, readers can come to their own conclusions. On October 30 (appropriately the day before Halloween), in another attempt to explain his telephone conversation with the terrorist Ramón Saúl, Yunior dressed up as a virtual “firebrand leftist.”

In chameleon-like fashion, he said in the above recording that he was against “savage capitalism” as an option for Cuba. At the same time, he asserted that there is “no socialism” in Cuba but rather a “primitive, ferocious state capitalism.” To make himself even more palatable to some of the left in Cuba and abroad, he stated that he had signed a petition to President Biden demanding the lifting of the blockade. (Notes taken by the author from the El Toque recording and translated into English.)

This latter revelation is not very impressive. First, in the interview with the Miami Herald cited above, he said that “they always complain about the ‘blockade, he said, referring to the U.S. embargo. ‘There is no worse blockade than the internal blockade on every Cuban citizen in this country.’” Second, as we have seen above, an Archipiélago post called on Biden to increase the blockade sanctions.

To add to his “left credentials,” Yunior said in the same recording that he is “against apartheid.” Okay, but where? In the US racist state, or in Israel, perhaps? No, in Cuba as he refers to its “ideological apartheid” that prohibits thinking outside the official ideology. (Notes taken by the author from the same audio interview with El Toque, one of the main subversive outlets and, of course, fully involved in 15N, as can be seen below, where it is promoting Archipiélago and its coordinators such as Yunior.)

El Toque is based in the Netherlands and its stated goal is to target countries where “freedom of expression is limited.”

However, while it is increasingly difficult to get people inside and outside of Cuba to swallow the “left” narrative, who comes to the rescue to provide Yunior with “left” credentials? The CNN Havana correspondent on November 4 provided him with the ultimate certification as a “left-leaning playwright.” This is not all. We see in the report based on an interview with Yunior in his home with his bookcase in the background, the two volumes by Fidel Castro, The Strategic Counter Offensive, detailing the epic struggle in the Sierra Maestra leading to the January 1 victory.

We do not know if the playwright, with a natural flare for drama, placed the Fidel volumes there to impress CNN in order to buttress the usual narrative of turn coats being former “supporters” of the Revolution but later “disaffected by the outcome.” One such example of betrayal is Samuel Farber, born in Cuba and having participated in the anti-Batista movement, emigrated to the US in 1958. For quite some time, from the “left,” he is supporting the US narrative against the Cuban leadership by writing among others for a “left alternative” pro colour revolution outlet in Cuba, La Joven Cuba.”

In any case, in the course of scouring Yunior’s Facebook group Archipiélago, one of the most important recurring features of the “left-leaning” Yunior is the utter disdain and hatred for Fidel accompanied with the most insulting cartoons and photos, surpassing anything that can be seen ­– even in the extremist hard-core anti-Castro Miami press.

The Yunior posture of being “neither left or right,” also known as the “end of ideology,” is a particular minority feature in Cuban political culture. It rears its head at every important turning point in Cuban history in recent decades. My 2017 article titled “The End of Ideology in Cuba?” on this controversy is more relevant than ever. I wrote, “Objectively, this so-called neutrality against extremes consists in throwing a life jacket in support of capitalism. The real defiance is against socialism.”

We have touched on the role of the “left face” of Cuban subversion. What about annexation to the US? Likewise, each country must be analyzed on its own, as we have briefly done above with regards to socialism and communism. Now, with regards to US projects to dominate countries in Latin America, for example, the US is threatening the sovereignty of Venezuela and Nicaragua, Bolivia and Peru.

However, for obvious geopolitical reasons, outright annexation is not part of their plans in these countries. The situation that Cuba faces is very different. Think of Puerto Rico. Given Cuban historical ties to the US since the 19th century, even when it was fighting Spanish colonialism, annexation to the US was a secondary part of the political culture on the island and it still exists today. Thus, while Archipiélago does not openly advocate annexation, the movement it is fostering does indeed lead to some kind of 21st-century Cuban “annexation” to the US.

In fact, among the Miami terrorist groups it solicits help from, annexation is still a goal, as they dream of another Playa Girón-like invasion, but one that succeeds in order to convert Cuba into another Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the Archipiélago trove contains innumerable photos comparing in a favourable light the situation that existed before the Revolution compared with today. What was the US–Cuba relationship before 1959, especially in the 1950s under Batista? Cuba’s neocolonialist status was as close as possible to actually being “annexed” to the US. In fact, while painfully navigating through Archipiélago, one cannot help but notice how it is so impregnated with sycophantic pro-US prejudices, that it reminded me of what José Martí said regarding his long exile in the US just before being killed in action in Cuba in 1895: “I have lived in the monster and I know its entrails.”

Controversy arose from my article cited above (“The End of Ideology in Cuba?”) around this statement:

“I have always maintained that the most dangerous opposition to the Cuban Revolution comes from the so-called left, and not from the openly right-wing annexationists.”

Most readers praised the article, while many others participated in the serious debate. Only a few strongly objected to it, mainly singling out that sentence about the “most dangerous opposition.” In responding to detractors, my second piece was penned in Spanish as a columnist for Cuba’s Prensa Latina (and published in English, titled Cuban “Left” Opposition and Annexationists: Two Wings of the Same Eagle).

This piece created more controversy, as well as complaints, and thus in the third installment of this trilogy, I wrote:

“Their common main complaint has been that my articles do not name individuals. Some of their social media accounts even try to dictate to me in referring to the dissidents’ posts. They ‘are asking for names’; ‘Name names!’ they demand. They are oblivious to the fact that by so doing they name themselves and that they do not, and cannot, in any way shame me into citing names. Perhaps the most remarkable proof that there is no need to name names, since worms will surface after rain, comes from Miami. On Feb. 2, 2017, the US-financed CUBA NET published a front-page article on the controversy provoked by my two columns.”

See the screenshot below, for my original Spanish version of the piece published in La Pupila Insomne, edited by Cuban blogger Iroel Sánchez. Perhaps the best example of the boomerang effect is the attack by the CIA-financed and extreme right-wing Miami-based CubaNet against my person and articles, while defending the Cuban “left,” titling their piece: “The Annexationist Left: Arnold August Is the New Agent of Castroism,”.

Thus they inadvertently prove my point that Cuba’s “Leftists” and Annexationists are two wings of the same eagle, and why, as can be read here: I do not name them.

The concern about the ideological/political annexationist war being waged against Cuba in the current period goes back to at least 2016, as my piece in Black Agenda Report points out:

“What does it mean when American flags appear on the streets of Havana? Is President Obama winning his war against Cuban socialism by non-military means? Obama confirmed once again that the US is dispensing with openly antagonistic tactics, in favor of diplomatic tactics that he hopes will attain the goal of snuffing out the Cuban Revolution. The Cuban people, themselves, are engaged in a great debate about their future – and ours.”

The Left in North America: Where Does It Stand?
Given the fully documented proof that, despite all the rhetoric, the 15N is not peaceful but is in fact US-driven – even to the point of threatening a military intervention – what can we do to defend Cuba?

The left in the US must be applauded. Virtually all the left alternative independent web-based media in the US has unconditionally opposed the US narrative on Cuba, including Black Alliance for Peace, Black Agenda Report, MintPress News, People’s Dispatch, The People’s Forum, Code Pink, Lee Camp – Redacted Tonight, The Socialist Program, BreakThrough News, The Grayzone, Popular Resistance, CounterPunch and others.

The only major holdout is the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), which serves as the virtual official organ of regime change in Cuba. A guide to the alternative left can be found here. NACLA is not listed, yet it is not clear if it is because of its right-wing swing toward Latin America. In any case, it is good thing it is not included.

Here in Canada, we are not blessed with this situation. In fact, the contrast with the US is startling. Only a very small number of outlets stand unconditionally against the US “colour revolution” narrative, while the vast majority either buy into the US agenda or are ominously silent on one of the most important issues for the left today: the Cuban Revolution. Is there a reason for this? Is it perhaps due to Liberal poster boy Justin Trudeau’s barely concealed support for colour revolution in Cuba, which was so appreciated by Archipiélago. Trudeau: “Cuba deserves democracy and freedom?”

It proudly displays the latest feather in its cap, listing Canada among its supporters along with other countries such as Colombia, US, Sweden, Germany, Uruguay and Spain. The article was taken from “Radio and Television Martí,” the US-funded subversive media based in the US. This position by Justin Trudeau, given the current US-led subversive context, is perhaps one of the most right-wing reactionary statement taken by any Canadian government on Cuba since 1959.

It is far from being “ambiguous,” as some Trudeau apologists would have it. The US-trained Yunior and company have possibly been trained in capturing dog-whistle diplomacy, that is, hearing what music to their ears is, amplifying it while discarding the rest. Not one member of the Canadian Parliament – all the parties, including the social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP) – has yet to take a public stand against Trudeau encouraging colour revolution for Cuba.

After the July 11 event, the first out of the gates against the Cuban government was Canadian Dimension. The Canada Files produced an extended YouTube video based on my presentation at the August 29 panel on Cuba, organized by the Geopolitical Research Economy Group. We completely deconstructed the two Canadian Dimension articles written by Cuban dissidents and its related Trudeau position. Since then, Canadian Dimension has largely stayed clear of Cuba after publishing these two hit pieces. This is hardly a positive step in light of those dangerous precedents. A “left” publication that is neutral at a time that the Cuban Revolution is under attack, more than ever since 1959, is not encouraging. More on that below, as this Canadian disease of “neutrality” is rampant.

In any case, two other “Canadian left” media outlets picked up the baton from Canadian Dimension to try outracing each other, as to which one could cross the anti-Cuban Revolution finish line first.

First, there is Rabble. In a July 19, 2021 article, readers were confronted with several key pro-US regime change stereotypes:

“As a result of horrific conditions there and very likely [emphasis added] American provocation (the U.S. spends tens of millions annually on anti-government media and on-the-ground and social media campaigning), Cubans are demonstrating en masse against the government… They are blaming the Cuban government for the country’s state of affairs, claiming it is caused by Cuban leaders who are enriching themselves at the expense of the public… There are many things not to like about Cuba’s government. It isn’t democratic and there is widespread corruption, but other countries with un-democratic or corrupt governments are not bullied and starved by the U.S … I personally know people who can’t feed their families regularly, who stand in lines in the hot sun for hours every day to meet basic needs, who can’t rely on their excellent health care system anymore and who now fear absolute chaos. An orderly transition to some form of democratic government is impossible to imagine. Chaos is more likely, with widespread poverty, inequality and insecurity.”

Rabble may not realize it, but this “chaos and failed state” mantra was applied to Cuba by Biden, but ripped to shreds in The Canada Files YouTube mentioned above.

In another Rabble article, dated July 23, 2021, the litany of nonsense goes shamelessly beyond the pale by comparing Haiti to Cuba.

“Cuba, you might say, has in recent days had the same problem [as Haiti] – dissent – but in a very different setting [mild concession to Cuba]… Like its sheer longevity: despite a crippling US economic blockade, it has lasted as a one-party communist state, for only about a decade less than the Soviet Union did. Health care and education have been impressive, including a COVID-19 vaccine, though production is hampered by the blockade. Its flaws are many, among them repression of dissent – including the unprecedented current rallies and marches. The government says all economic trouble is due to the blockade, and protests are down to U.S. plots.

Now, one may be tempted to excuse Rabble for this, as this second one was reprinted from one of Canada’s flagship corporate media outlets, the Toronto Star. On the other hand, if Rabble can reprint from the Toronto Star, why did it not attend the two Geopolitical Economy Research Group (GERG) webinars on Cuba, on July 26 and August 29, to report on them and/or republish reports on them? The Rabble accusation above of Cuba as being guilty of “repression of dissent” rings somewhat hollow as our “dissenting voices” against the mainstream narrative on Cuba right here in Canada is repressed. Unless, of course, Rabble knuckles down in the future and reprints articles from The Canada Files on Cuba. Nothing yet.

Moreover, on November 1 it carried an article encouraging Canadian tourism to the island to be inaugurated on November 15. It did this without mentioning the US-led November 15th attempt to disrupt just that. Nor did it take a stand against the Canadian government’s treacherous stand lending credibility to the US-backed colour revolution narrative.

In addition to Rabble, The Breach outdid them all in an October 22 article:

“Well, I don’t think people like Blair and Clinton deserve any kind of left label. The people who understand themselves as being on the left, who are actively part of left campaigns, and who’ve really accepted an End of History narrative, are I think those people who don’t believe we can do any better than the defense of states like China, Syria, Cuba, and sometimes even North Korea, as building blocks in a feeble global antagonism against the overwhelming dominance of American power… When workers in Cuba are concerned about a year of economic brutality caused by both the imperialist American blockade and the collapse of tourism revenues – because of COVID and by mismanagement by a bureaucratic elite that lives a more luxurious life than ordinary Cubans – they can only be imperialist agents… So we oppose, for example, the American blockade on Cuba, but we don’t oppose it in the name of defending the state that these imperialists oppose. Instead, we oppose it in the name of supporting a politics of human freedom against imperialist power, above all, but also against those perverted and deflected forms of supposedly socialist politics that are bureaucratic states.”

However, the supposed rebuttal to this from what amounts to the “left” of Canadian Dimension, Rabble and The Breach is that it is wrong to lionize a leader simply because they are being attacked by the U.S. These words, paternalistically warning people in the North against glorifying Third World leaders, may fly under some of the left radar. It is very convenient for the middle-of-the-roaders.

Thus far, they refuse to purge themselves of the White Man’s Burden complex or US-centric notions that stop them from taking an unconditional stand in favour of leaders who are actually leading their peoples in fighting US imperialism, such as Miguel Díaz-Canel in Cuba.

Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro left me with this impression: “Ready to sacrifice his life.”

This “left” seems to be incapable of bringing itself to overcome the ingrained superiority of the “left” in the comfortable North, which cannot refrain from being “father knows best” for the leaders in the South. Thus, their difference with The Breach’s stark anti-communist, or anti-revolution stance, is just a matter of degree: how far can each of them go to avoid differentiating themselves from the leaders in the South who are vilified by the mainstream media, while maintaining the veneer of being “leftists”?

Is this exaggerated? Not so. How else can one explain that the current three most important Canadian left media – Canadian Dimension, Rabble and The Breach – have all taken stands in favour of a colour revolution in Cuba, while The Tyee and Ricochet have not yet carried any post-July 11 articles on Cuba at all.

On the other hand, The Georgia Straight, L’aut’journal in Quebec and The Canada Files (leading the way by a long shot) have carried favourable articles on Cuba. Aside from The Canada Files, not one of the independent “left” media outlets has taken a stand against Trudeau’s pro-colour revolution statement. Let that sink in: Cuba is being bled by the US now more than ever, and some “leftists” cannot take a stand? However, it is not too late. Now is the time, as the US and its allies are preparing a major offensive for November 15 against Cuba, as my recent article in The Canada Files points out. It is not too late. As Howard Zinn indicated, “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train.”

RELATED CONTENT: Cuban Leader: The US Government is the True Organizer and Promoter of the Provocation Planned for November in Cuba (+Video)

15N: What Are Cubans at the Grass-roots Level Presently Saying?
Even if we show without a shadow of doubt that 15N is being US-driven and supported, in recent telephone conversations with some of my Cuban colleagues, they all say that the situation is complicated. Let these Cubans speak for themselves on 15N:

Havana:

1)    “Some think it is not US manipulation but rather coming from the base. Others are of the opinion that it is planning destabilization and change in government. I do not think that it will succeed. Last July was a surprise, not now, the government is prepared.”

2)    “Many people ask questions, and they are not those who take to the streets to protest or shout offenses against revolutionaries but rather working men and women who see no future anywhere, and brother, they feel they are being let down.”

3)    “All those who reside here (a two-generation household) say that regarding all those involved (in 15N), we have already accumulated enough ‘merits’ for them to be detained and accused of collaborating with a foreign power, punishable by our laws. I think we all agree on that here in the house. I really do not know ‘what card’ we will have up our sleeve to face these provocations if in the end they decide to take to the streets. And in these things, as Fidel always did, you have to be one step ahead, not act or riposte blindly. And I do not think that everything that we disseminate here on TV and others, the acts of reaffirmation, etc., have the repercussion that we need them to have outside of Cuba, because I think the propaganda outside is very strong, and people believe everything that the media says.”

4)    “There must be a different preparation by the leadership of the country (for 15N) and I think that people were also a bit surprised about 11J. What worries me are the actions to face 15N.”

5)    “One member of the family says that they should not be imprisoned now, because they would start a campaign against us, but I think that the campaign to bring them to court will take place at any time convenient for us; the measures should be taken that politically WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THEM.”

6)    “We were not prepared for 11J. However, for 15N we are. Let us see how it unfolds.”

7)    “Hi Arnold, I haven’t heard anyone talk about 15N in my neighbourhood. It is not a matter of concern. Today I was in a queue to buy oil, and the neighbours commented on the length of the queue…Chicken is available, and that there is mincemeat for the month’s quota at the butcher shop. However, I saw everyone in their daily routine, as if there is an event to celebrate and that it’s the day (15N) that the students will resume face-to-face classes in the schools [in-person school attendance was suspended as a result of COVID-19]. And that is happiness for everyone.

8)    Since the latest revelations on November 1 by agent Fernando proving without a shadow of doubt that Yunior and Archipiélago are a of creation of the U.S. to foment violent regime change, some Cubans are asking: “if it may be true that some people were confused and joined in the July 11 anti-government protests, will they be confused on 15N?

Just in from Santa Clara and elsewhere on the island:

9)    “Taking into account the complaints that have been made public, including the uncovering of a Cuban security agent Fernando who was infiltrated in that group, I believe that if there was someone confused with the true objectives of the supposed ‘march’, it has already been clarified and I do not believe that they can manage to deceive many people to continue with their plans. If they continue, they will be accumulating crimes for which they can be prosecuted and convicted in Cuba according to the law.”

10) “Characters like these have no opportunity to carry out their subversion plans in Cuba, even if their trolls, influencers and bots on social networks want us to believe otherwise. The reality is that it is our revolutionary organizations can mobilize thousands of people in a short period to come out in defense of the Revolution.”

11) “These people are either paid, or they are fascists, or they are not really Cubans. I will never understand the hatred they have for us when we only want the best for all humanity.”

12) (It is no secret, in general terms, how the supporters of the Revolution act in a situation such as November 15.) Several sources across the island, especially in Havana, indicate for example that “the Cuban government is well informed about the activities of the counterrevolutionary media activists, the most known of whom is Yunior in Havana. The CDRs (Comités de Defensa de la Revolución- neighborhood committees) are organized with the intention of following them if they leave their houses, so that any action would immediately have revolutionaries on the streets to outnumber the counterrevolutionaries.”  It confirms what other sources have stated as quoted above: “our revolutionary organizations can mobilize thousands of people in a short period to come out in defense of the Revolution.”