The official troubadour Raúl Torres publicly defended Israel Rojas, leader of the group Buena Fe, following the controversial interview published by the independent media La Joven Cuba (LJC).
In a recent post on social media, Torres described Rojas's intervention as a “home run swamp” and launched an attack against LJC, branding it a “counter-revolutionary” outlet that engages in “witch-hunting journalism.”
Torres's text spared no praise for Rojas, whom he described as a “titan of Cuban culture” representing “a new Cuba that breaks archaic chains,” and whose discourse—according to him—does not conform to either dogma or dissent.
"Isra, a hardworking artist, a keen critic... is not afraid to point out both the criminal blockade of the U.S. and our own internal mistakes. That is his greatness," wrote Torres.
Far from a measured defense, the troubadour known for his propaganda anthems dedicated to Castro and Hugo Chávez, used emotional and grandiose language to attack the interviewers, accusing them of attempting to “fish in troubled waters” with “ideologically malicious” questions. According to his interpretation, LJC aimed to elicit a controversial statement from Rojas in order to “feed the counter-revolutionary circus.”
At the heart of his message, Torres fired back at independent Cuban media and their growing influence in the national public debate, stating that what truly bothers them is that Israel Rojas "doesn't fit into their binary narratives," because his discourse "demands change without renouncing the [revolutionary] essence."
This argument, however, has been sharply criticized by segments of civil society, who see in Rojas' recent statements a strategy of image laundering, more focused on testing the social climate than on expressing a genuine self-critique of the system.
One of the most controversial passages of Torres' post is his assertion that the dictator Fidel Castro would have "raised a glass" in response to the interview, because Rojas "defends the Revolution by criticizing what doesn't work."
In contrast to this idealized view of "revolutionary" criticism, much of the Cuban public perceived in the interview with the leader of Buena Fe a belated and superficial attempt to appear tolerant, after years of strict alignment with the official narrative and hostility towards those who expressed themselves during the social uprising of July 11th.
Torres also referenced his personal biography to justify his loyalty to the system: “I am a black man from a family that was once hungry, to which the revolution brought dignity, education, and work,” he wrote, making it clear that his support for figures like Rojas or the current leader Miguel Díaz-Canel is non-negotiable.
In that regard, his message ultimately became an exaltation of dogmatism disguised as openness: “Long live Fidel, long live Raúl, long live Díaz-Canel, long live the Revolution, and long live a free Cuba, but also self-criticism!”
His aggressive tone at the closing contrasted sharply with the call for a debate that he claimed to support: “I’ll generously give away my house with everything inside… but if it comes to that, I’ll take the castle from whoever,” warned Torres, amidst half-joking yet barely disguised threats.
For many, Torres' post confirms that both Rojas' statements and their resonance in regime spokespersons reflect a carefully calibrated narrative from the authorities aimed at creating an illusion of openness that, at its core, seeks nothing more than to preserve the statu quo.
In a country marked by repression of freedom of expression, the instrumentalization of culture for propaganda purposes remains a central pillar of the regime. In this context, both Israel Rojas and Raúl Torres have demonstrated, once again, that their loyalty lies with those in power, not with the people who suffer from blackouts, censorship, and a lack of future.
Lis Cuesta engages Israel Rojas for a debate at the ISA following the controversial interview
Just one day after the controversy, the events director of the Ministry of Culture and wife of Díaz-Canel, Lis Cuesta Peraza, announced on social media that Rojas will participate as a guest in her class at the Higher Institute of Art (ISA) to discuss Cultural Industries. “The Management program will be honored with creators who break barriers,” she wrote.
The gesture has been interpreted as part of a strategy by the ruling party to rehabilitate controversial figures without breaking from the system. Rojas, widely criticized for denying the existence of political prisoners and legitimizing the repression of July 11, faced a strong wave of skepticism after suggesting, in his interview with LJC, the possibility of pardoning some demonstrators. Many saw his words as a calculated attempt to reposition himself without incurring the political cost of genuine self-criticism.
The immediate emergence of Cuesta Peraza to integrate him into an “academic debate” has been regarded as a symbolic maneuver that seeks to frame him as a renewing actor, but always within the confines of official discourse.
The ISA, influenced by the "not first lady," has become a useful platform to promote what those in power attempt to present as "openness," while ignoring the repression, forced exile, and censorship that other critical artists have suffered.
Cuesta Peraza, known for her militant loyalty to the regime and her rhetorical excesses on social media, now seems to play a key role in the symbolic reintegration of worn-out figures into the narrative of Castroism.
Her initiative, however, has been met with the same skepticism as Rojas's interview: as part of an official script to appear as if changes are being made without actually transforming anything.
Filed under: