
CIA Link to Cuban Pig Virus Reported (1977) - simonebrunozzi
http://www.maebrussell.com/Health/CIA%20Pig%20Virus.html
======
elipsey
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program#Cuba)

An interesting but contested claim by an anonymous intelligence source, that
CIA (or an asset) used African Swine Fever as a bio-weapon in Cuba two years
after the Nixon administration publicly ended US bio-weapons programs, and a
few years before the international bio-weapons convention. Apparently Chomsky
promoted this claim as well. This seems perhaps no so far fetched considering
other US intelligence shenanigans that were evidenced to have occurred at the
time in that region, but this particular event doesn't seem to be publicly
evidenced.

I went as far as attempting to confirm that at least the _claim_ itself is
broadly recognized, and the article was really published by SF Chronicle,
because... well, in 2020, what is even real? :p

------
nix23
Why i am not even amazed about that?

------
hinkley
I was watching a BBC2 show doing a historical re-enactment of building a
castle and was reminded that bioweapons have been used for most of recorded
history. From putting rot/poop on an arrowhead or a musket ball, to throwing a
dead animal in a well.

Not defending the practice, more saying we've been assholes to each other
forever.

~~~
TheGallopedHigh
Hurling diseased bodies over the walls was another.

------
GordonS
The CIA has surely been one of the most devisive and destructive organisations
in the history of humankind.

I know it's impossible to quantify, but it's interesting to think about all
the death and misery they have sown at home and abroad, often in the name of
patriotism.

~~~
rurban
not in the name of patriotism, always in the name of fascism, internally
called anti-socialism.

~~~
grugagag
I wonder why the fear of socialism always cropped up in American media. Is it
an early strawman? If socialism "doesn't work" why fear it? Or if capitalism
is better why fear socialism?

~~~
gowld
Socialism led to the USSR and modern China, the USA's greatest rivals, due to
their combination of large population, non-trivial wealth, and expansionist
tendencies. Hence, the association of "socialism" with USA's enemies.

~~~
grugagag
>Socialism led to the USSR and modern China, the USA's greatest rivals, due to
their combination of large population, non-trivial wealth, and expansionist
tendencies. Hence, the association of "socialism" with USA's enemies.

China doesn't have a classical communist type of centrally planned system and
it has a very large private sector. Isn't that very much like capitalism?

USA's greatest rivals actually kept USA in check from ever expanding and it's
funny how you phrased that in terms of socialism. You have no idea what
socialism is and mix it freely with whatever sounds good to your point.

And don't forget, it's our western capitalistic system which gave China
everything on a tray in the pursuit of profit with no regards to long term
goals.

It is our western capitalism who shipped tens of millions of jobs to China
with no regard to national security.

~~~
pessimizer
The point of the comment is that the most important competitors to the US
during the period of its strongest anti-communism both called themselves
communist. It's not whatever one thinks "real" communism is or should be.

~~~
grugagag
So communism and socialism are now the same thing?

------
aaomidi
This is why I can't judge Cuba's actions as a country. How do you effectively
fix a country when the world's strongest economy and military is using
biological weapons against you and your people?

What do you do when the massive amounts of disinformation campaigns remove any
sort of international solidarity from you?

~~~
rumanator
> What do you do when the massive amounts of disinformation campaigns remove
> any sort of international solidarity from you?

Have you talked with anyone who lives there? The problem is not propaganda or
poor PR.

Same goes for Venezuela nowadays.

~~~
codeadict
I was born and lived there until 2016. The problem is both things, there is a
huge malfunctioning of the government and the society has became conformist of
what they have. But, you cannot discard the US as a pretty bad influence on
how things are over there. More so in recent years since Trump. I always say
if the US gets out of the way, Cubans will free themselves. When there is
nobody to blame, people will question the system. When Obama lifted some
restrictions over the island I visited there and saw a huge change on people's
mentality and there was an entrepreneurship spirit, down that path things
would have changed a lot. Now people are more blocked, more hungry, with less
resources and with state media blaming the US, they will not think about
anything else than survive. I say all this as somebody that doesn't like
communism but neither the system in the US, they are both brutal in different
ways imho.

~~~
rumanator
Your comment calls out a couple of US presidents by name but does not come
close to mention Cuba's regime, let alone any of his leaders, a single time.

Do you believe that the US has most of the responsibility while Cuba's
dictatorship has none at all?

~~~
aaomidi
That's a wild implication you're making there based off of a person's
comments. And is likely against HN rules.

~~~
rumanator
> That's a wild implication you're making there based off of a person's
> comments.

The parent poster commented on Cuba's current state but never mentioned any
active role of Cuba's ruling regime, which single-handedly rules the country
with an iron fist for over half a century.

Instead, he commented on a couple of US presidents, including the current
acting president which was elected over six decades of continuous rule of
Cuba's acting regime.

If we are honestly discussing who is responsible for Cuba's current state, can
you try to explain to me without resorting to ad hominem attacks why are the
two last ruling US presidents relevant but Cuba's very own regime isn't even
worthy of a side reference?

Because I'm pretty sure the Castro brothers were the ones calling the shots
for over half a century, including how and where to jail political dissidents.

~~~
kls
Not to mention the blame on the current administration for the current
situation, when it is well known that US diplomats and dignitaries where
routinely targeted with microwave weapons, some of which, have as of so far,
suffered permanent brain damage, time will tell if they will fully recover. As
well the previous administration killed wet foot / dry foot.

It's pretty customary to break off relations with a country when diplomats are
attacked, it goes against the very fabric of diplomatic immunity. Sure
everybody tails them, everybody spies on them, but physical attacks are so far
outside the norm, that I was actually surprised that it took as long as it did
to disconnect the small ties that had been established. I have my issues with
the current administration but to chalk one up against their side after US
diplomats where attacked is wanting at best.

There is no doubt the US meddles and sometimes (maybe even most times) for the
worse, but to attribute Cuban or even Venezuelan strife to primarily the US is
an overreach. The US has backed some bad players in response to communism
(Pinochet comes to mind), but to attribute the misdeeds of the ones that
actually went left, to the US is more of this fantasy-land, we want to try
communism again and this time we will get it right thinking.

What someone says, when they say, "if it where not for the US and capitalist
influence it would have succeeded" is actually that they are saying: that they
are smarter than Engle, Marx, Lenin, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin
and the rest of them; if we just implement their non-dictator, non-western
influenced, idea of communism things will be great this time. The problem is,
all the above mentioned thought the same thing.

I lived thru communism (had family that lived under it in East Germany,
father-in-law was a refuge from Castro), I never realized it would only take a
generation to completely forget how bad it was.

Honestly what scares me more is, I always thought Fascism and the Nazis had
run their course and there would be no way anyone could make that mistake
again. Now watching the apologizes for the failings of communism, I am really
not so sure, now I realize if these fringe Nazis find the right voice, appeal
the the right social triggers and pull on the correct emotional strings, they
could actually become a force to recon with.

~~~
aaomidi
You didn't live through communism. A lot of the left rejects Cuban, or Russian
(USSR) communism.

You lived through a dictatorship. Very different things.

There are various leftist thoughts that are more libertarian than whatever
system we have right now.

The fact that you're equating nazism which isn't even an economic school of
thought to communism, which is, means you frankly don't know what you're
talking about.

Your experiences are valid, and I would hate to live in USSR or Cuba, but your
experiences aren't the end-all of communism.

~~~
kls
I know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to communism and Fascism
as they have always been, when implemented, a direct path to central planning.

Fascism absolutely has an economic model you could call it socialism lite. The
Nazi's slid from full socialist to Fascist (the Chinese did the same thing,
they represent somewhere between a socialist and Fascist state now, because
communism does not work, as well, the US has had it's slide towards it,
Prescott Bush was a known Fascist and wanted the US to trend towards it):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#:~:text=I...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20fascist%20economies%20were,upon%20service%20to%20the%20state.&text=Historian%20Gaetano%20Salvemini%20argued%20in,the%20blunders%20of%20private%20enterprise).

The Nazis where first and foremost national socialist and then softly migrated
to Fascist. As far as political spectrum libertarians are to the extreme
right, with Anarchist being the end of the spectrum to the right. What the new
speak definitions of left/right are trying to do is interject economic, social
and emotional issues into the spectrum, because communism cannot be sold in
it's original form so now it is being packaged with social issues and plays to
emotions. That being said, historically left/right was in systems of and the
authorities of governance, the further to the right, the less authority the
government had. It historically has not entailed economic models nor social
issues like abortion, gay right, etc. You technically could have a far right
communist utopia but given the limit of government authority, it would not
last long as communism has to be enforced, thus back to central planning, thus
back to the left.

The left is defined by reliance in government and the desire for centrally
planned governments, the right is towards the limitation or abolition of
government. The Republic is a little to the right, Democracy is further right
than that, confederation is further right than that and finally no law is the
extremity of the right.

We can certainly state that I lived thru communism, the fact that they all
became dictatorship speaks more to the flaw of the system than it does that it
did not get a fair shake.

I would also certainly say I know what I am talking about given that I am well
studied in geopolitical affairs, worked in the field and have extensive
experience with the horrors of communism. The fact that you did not know that
the Nazis where socialist and slid towards a Fascist economy means you frankly
don't know what you are talking about or further that libertarians are
extremely right and cannot be left as per their desires to limit government,
as per historic and classically defined political pendulum analysis. As well,
you most likely have had no experience with a real communist government as
most people that even have peripheral experience with communism are wary of
government overreach and would not look for a reason to argue or advocate for
it. You would realize it's not something to get right.

Your theory of we will do it better than Marx or Lenin puts millions of
peoples lives in the balance. It's not going to work this time, central
planning always leads to totalitarianism. That is what caused it, not the CIA
not KSK not MI6, while they have had their meddlings they did not set up death
camps, gulags or oppress dissidents for the communist (every communist regime
that has come into existence mind you). It will not bring equality for the
oppressed and will bring nothing but suffering for the majority under it's
rule. The leaders of the movement, disillusioned with it not working out, will
develop a final solution to fix it, which generally means getting rid of some
people. This is the way it went down every time, and even before the US
started meddling in their affairs.

As further reading I would point you to the chronology of US and USSR spying.
As you will note, the USSR had an established agency, propaganda network and
sources before the US, and where actively meddling in US affairs, many
agencies where formed in light of this new reality, the USSR had a active
policy of world wide spread of communism, because Lenin believed in Marx as a
profit and Marx was emphatic on the fact that for communism to succeed it
would have to be a world wide revolution, Lenin is the text book example he
implemented Marxist vision to a T, and honestly out of all of them he was
probably the best example but it was the communist according to their core
doctrine, that said the capitalist has to go. They painted a mark on people
not the other way around. When the capitalist went and it still did not work,
someone else had to go, in the case of the UUSR, it was the intellectuals then
portions of the Bolsheviks, then the artists. the US response was to contain
that spread after the fact, somewhere along the way, that commission changed
and the CIA decided it was going to get into nation building, but that does
not excuse communism for it's spectacular failings:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_espionage#Chronology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_espionage#Chronology)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Im...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Immediate_predecessors)

~~~
aaomidi
> I know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to communism and
> Fascism as they have always been, when implemented, a direct path to central
> planning.

Right so you're specifically talking about your flavor of communism you went
through. Which is exactly missing the point of what I said. Please tell me
what part of this is centrally planned, or has a strong state:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-
communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism)

> The Nazis where first and foremost national socialist and then softly
> migrated to Fascist.

Yes, they were nationalist. AKA fascist. But we already knew that didn't we.

> with Anarchist being the end of the spectrum to the right.

You're actually trying to use the political spectrum to discuss politics? You
understand there are nuances involved, right? I'm tired of people falling for
the political compass meme thinking they've understood politics in a 2 or 3
dimensional grid.

> The left is defined by reliance in government

Okay what? Where was this definition?

> and the desire for centrally planned governments,

You're literally making stuff up now.

> We can certainly state that I lived thru communism, the fact that they all
> became dictatorship speaks more to the flaw of the system than it does that
> it did not get a fair shake.

You lived through ONE flavor of communism that was authoritarian. Not every
flavor of communism is authoritarian or centrally planned.

> I am well studied in geopolitical affairs

Yet you use a political compass to describe politics.

> worked in the field and have extensive experience with the horrors of
> communism

Yes the horrors of communism. Specifically your flavor of communism.

> The fact that you did not know that the Nazis where socialist and slid
> towards a Fascist economy means you frankly don't know what you are talking
> about or further that libertarians are extremely right and cannot be left as
> per their desires to limit government, as per historic and classically
> defined political pendulum analysis.

Uh huh. What part of the nazi economy was worker owned and operated? Do you
just pick up on the name of something and say "ah yes they called themselves
socialist therefore who am I to question them?"

> peripheral experience with communism are wary of government overreach and
> would not look for a reason to argue or advocate for it.

Except you're wrong here and plenty of people who have lived through USSR are
still advocates of communism, just not stalinism :)

> central planning always leads to totalitarianism.

You're the only one bringing this one up mate.

> not the CIA not KSK not MI6,

Yeah they didn't do anything to destabilize countries, no sir. Wonder if the
situation was as bad as you're talking about, why did they get involved?

> death camps, gulags or oppress dissidents for the communist

No but we have the modern prison industry complex to do that for us. Same
shit, different name.
[https://twitter.com/chloedontsurf/status/1277422601061744640](https://twitter.com/chloedontsurf/status/1277422601061744640)

> As further reading I would point you to the chronology of US and USSR
> spying. As you will note, the USSR had an established agency, propaganda
> network and sources before the US, and where actively meddling in US
> affairs, many agencies where formed in light of this new reality, the USSR
> had a active policy of world wide spread of communism, because Lenin
> believed in Marx as a profit and Marx was emphatic on the fact that for
> communism to succeed it would have to be a world wide revolution, Lenin is
> the text book example he implemented Marxist vision to a T, and honestly out
> of all of them he was probably the best example but it was the communist
> according to their core doctrine, that said the capitalist has to go. They
> painted a mark on people not the other way around. When the capitalist went
> and it still did not work, someone else had to go, in the case of the UUSR,
> it was the intellectuals then portions of the Bolsheviks, then the artists.
> the US response was to contain that spread after the fact, somewhere along
> the way, that commission changed and the CIA decided it was going to get
> into nation building, but that does not excuse communism for it's
> spectacular failings:

This is the wildest justification of the redscare that I've read. You're
acting like Marx somehow invented communism or that his version is the only
version out there.

I'm sorry you lived through an authoritarian state, it sucks, I know because I
lived through one as well. But if you take your head out of the dirt and
actually go understand that not all of the left want a strong central
government, maybe then we can have a better conversation.

~~~
kls
And I too am sorry that you suffered thru whatever your government put you
thru, I mean that sincerely. Just so we are clear, and for the record I was
not painting all of the left with the same brush, just Communism. I have no
issue with Democratic Socialism, should the people choose it, though I am
completely fine with the traditional capitalism, we had before Kennedy was
assassinated and we started the slide towards fascism.

Communism and Democratic Socialism are different beasts but that is also where
the danger lies, many communist see socialism as the palatable step to their
end goal. It's not a red-scare, history is littered with the dead proof and
human wreckage of the failings of communism. You would be hard pressed to
convince me to give communism no matter how it is dressed up a try again,
there are just too many failings and bodies along the way, many of which I
have seen with my own eyes, to risk "getting it right, this time".

------
catsdanxe
The lack of media coverage of the Epstein story is very telling. No reporters
appear to be doing any real investigation. What is stopping people from asking
basic questions to our government? A simple query to the cia asking if
epstien/maxwell/wesner were part of any intelligence operations would be news
worthy. Go watch the netflix documentary on epstien. It's four hours long.
They discuss epstiens initial arrest and light sentencing, but they fail to
include any notion of the reason for it. Acosta said that the light sentence
was because Epstein was above his paygrade and belonged to intelligence. How
about looking into why John McCain's wife said that everyone knew what Epstein
was doing and turn a blind eye. Our intelligence agencies are out of control.
The largest story of the decade is being pushed under the rug.

~~~
kziemio
You spent four hours of your life thinking about a rich guy that likes to have
sex with young women and underage girls?

At most, he was working for intelligence agencies creating blackmail material.
Not even the story of the year, let alone the decade. Even if he was actually
murdered in prison by powerful people or an intelligence agency it wouldn't be
very interesting. There's no broad trend. No betrayal of public trust. Just
run of the mill spy stuff.

The strongest result of the Epstein incident is that it will serve as a strong
warning to powerful men not to put themselves in a compromising position.

~~~
grugagag
What are you talking about?

------
santoshalper
I have no idea if socialism or communism could really work and am generally
skeptical, but it is clear that no real experiment has ever been conducted
without severe, aggressive interference from global capitalism led by the
United States.

~~~
dilap
I think China and post American-war Vietnam both provide examples; each of
them internally decided to make significant reforms in the direction of a
market economy.

Ultimately what matters is incentives, and I do wonder what kind of utopian
scheme you could come up designing specifically for that...

~~~
claudiawerner
>Ultimately what matters is incentives, and I do wonder what kind of utopian
scheme you could come up designing specifically for that...

It's an interesting question, but it should be worth examining the framing;
_why_ do incentives matter so much in the discourse? Is social incentivizing
the core (or should it be the core) of an economy? What have incentives looked
like in pre-capitalist societies? Were they always monetary, or different for
different classes, genders, or other groups of people?

The literature from sociology, anthropology and social psychology in the last
twenty years has shed some light on those questions, so I'd also be interested
to hear about them. There's a moral dimension too - do we want to create a
kind of society where the incentive to work for a great proportion (or perhaps
even a majority) is held over their heads by a wage they need to live, or
defer to the totalizing administration of the state's welfare policies? Even
welfare has transformed; since the 80s there's been a trend toward what's been
called "workfare".

~~~
rumanator
> There's a moral dimension too - do we want to create a kind of society where
> the incentive to work for a great proportion (or perhaps even a majority) is
> held over their heads by a wage they need to live,

It seems you failed to register that life under communist regime also fits
into the "wage slave" pattern you're describing, moreso than in democratic and
capitalist societies.

In fact, back home the local communist party is rather insistent in referring
to people as "workers", to underline that that's precisely their raison
d'etre.

The only difference between communist regime's and non-communist regime's
regarding how resources are allocated is the communist rhetoric that tries to
classify the resources syphoned by the state into the regime's pocket as the
people's income.

