Although I have strong political views, some of those who think differently from me I genuinely like. One is Alex Kane. Another is Malachi O’Doherty. That doesn’t mean they don’t talk/write tosh. Let’s confine ourselves to Malachi for the moment.
In a recent Belfast Telegraph article, titled “Michelle O’Neill has dashed hope of new republican thinking”, Malachi laments that a woman who could have led a fresh generation of republicans with fresh republican thinking has blown it. “She will not do for Sinn Fein what Khrushchev did for the Communist Party when he broke with the legacy of Stalin.” Which is an odd thing to say. Krushchev was in power in 1962, and was the author of the Cuban missile crisis, which took the world to the brink of nuclear war. He was also, if I remember, the Russian leader who took off his shoe in the United Nations and hammered it on his table-top, to emphasise a point. I’m not sure any unionists, let alone republicans, would want Michelle to do either of those things.
But Malachi’s main disappointment with Michelle is that she doesn’t disown the IRA’s entire campaign, starting with Loughgall. At this point, if I didn’t like Malachi so much, I’d be tempted to whip off my own shoe and hammer something or somebody. Republicans commemorate their military dead just as their opponents commemorate their dead. It’s been happening for hundreds of years. The solemn ceremonies at present being conducted in commemoration of the Battle of Messines, with Irish and British politicians lining up to say how noble was the ‘sacrifice’ of these brave men, is impressive if also depressing. The men who died in that battle and the other many battles of the First World War died for a delusion – a delusion deliberately fostered by imperial powers. If you doubt its futility, read Wilfred Owen or other War poets from the time.
Yet no one in the republican community, as far as I know, has denounced these very public ceremonies. No one has written articles calling on politicians to turn their back on such glorification of slaughter. In fact, some republicans have attended these ceremonies.
Maybe instead of denouncing Michelle O’Neill for failing to denounce the IRA campaign, Malachi should denounce unionist politicians for not sending representatives to the Loughgall ceremonies. Otherwise he’s left holding an argument that suggests one kind of mass killing is heroic and worthy of remembrance while commemoration of those cut down at Loughgall is shameful. (Yes I know Virginia – it is confusing. You’d think if anything that those who took life at Loughgall would be the shameful ones. It is indeed a funny old world.)
But I still like Malachi.
A cara Jude, you can like Malachi all you want, he is, to brit media based in Belfast, simply the acceptable voice, he certainly does not have a face for television, of Fenianism.
Now, I’m sure he gets well remunerated for his agenda promotion, probably why he can afford to live close to me but, this does not make him right.
The problem for Irish reunification seekers like myself is, there are thousands of citizens, living in the occupied territory, who have no, or lack of, analytical ability, therefore they can be swayed in their voting support when instructed.
Roll on Friday.
Malachi O’Doherty perhaps needs to read up on History. Khrushchev was a member of Stalin’s government during his reign of terror. Khrushchev was responsible for sending 6,000 Russian tanks into Budapest and murdering 30,000 people in 1956 a year after he denounced Stalin. He was also responsible for the continuation of communist rule in Eastern European countries against the wishes of many people in these countries and building a wall across Berlin that was a symbol of communist oppression. Khrushchev threatened to nuke the US over events in Berlin in the 1950’s. And, as you mention, Jude, the Cuban Missile Crisis. In ensuring the continuation of the Iron Curtain it would seem that Khrushchev continued the legacy of Stalin. And to make the analogy to Michelle O’Neill – what is Malachi on about? Does he even know?
“But Malachi’s main disappointment with Michelle is that she doesn’t disown the IRA’s entire campaign.” The main disappointment is that Malachi actually thinks that Michelle O’Neill should do this – Why? She has been on record defending her stance on this. Michelle O’Neill has as much right remembering Republican dead as British people have of remembering their dead, loyalists have as remembering their dead … even as much right as Enda Kenny has in remembering Michael Collins.
I totally agree with John Finucane’s take on the issue of remembering the past at the North Belfast Hustings yesterday, “I don’t feel threatened one iota by those who commemorate their dead from a Loyalist or a British community. Commemorations are an entitlement by a community to remember their dead.”
To compare the IRA to ISIS is utterly ridiculous. To compare the IRA to Stalin is even worse lol
BTW is this the same Stalin that the British Government had as a friend? Who they helped carve up half of Europe and leave under a Stalinist dictatorship? the same British Government forged the “Sword of Stalingrad” and Winston Churchill himself presented to Stalin as a tribute to his victory at Stalingrad?? The same Stalin that is responsible for maybe 50-70 million deaths??
Unfortunately for Malachi, I know a lot about Joseph Stalin having read books on his life in the past. The man was a genuine Psychopath from an early age. He even killed his beloved wife’s family after she died, torturing them and working them to death in Siberian camps beforehand, of course. When his son tried committing suicide by shooting himself in the head, Stalin stood over his body and said “he cant even shoot straight”. The same son later was captured by the Germans and the Germans offered to exchange him. Stalin refused saying “I’m not trading a Field Marshal for a Captain. War is War”.
The IRA fought for a social and democratic and united republic with equality for all. Stalin fought for and won a Soviet Communist dictatorship and the British Government (you know, the one the IRA was fighting?…) was his greatest pal at a time when he was bringing millions of Eastern/Central Europeans under a brutal dictatorship that millions of Russians and Asians were subjected to for decades before. Oh, and who could forget the 2 million German women Stalin’s soldiers raped when they invaded Germany. As these refugee’s were fleeing the Red Army, Winston Churchill bombed the city of Dresden killing over 100,000 of them.
Yep, officially the greatest Briton of all time bombed 100,000 fleeing refugees. But that’s ok, they spoke German. But remember, the IRA were bad. They wanted to undo centuries of British colonialism and unite their own country. How dare they…..
It is of course a false equivalence between those who died in the 2 world wars and those who died in an illegal organisation with little support.
A better comparison would be if unionist politicians were commemorating loyalist paramilitary dead such as Billy Wright.
No doubt someone will tell me some of them do. If so that would indeed be reprehensible.
SF leaders are going to continue to do this sort of thing and their supporters either like it or tolerate it so that is fair enough.
Finucane, sadly, seems to be more of the same.
I can’t see it winning them many new voters though, which I think is Malachi’s point.
Gio, The French resistance against the Nazis was illegal. When you have an oppressive regime telling you what is illegal it doesn’t carry much weight.
If the IRA had ‘little’ support they could not have operated.
You can’t compare Loyalist violence to the armed actions of the IRA- completely different levels.
Getting new voters should never be a raison d’tre for parties- if it is they will melt away to insignificance. The real trick is to sell your policy/agenda/ideology- if you drop these you don’t deserve a vote and voters know it.
Emmet,
When the Red Army was approaching Warsaw near the end of WW2, the Polish Resistance launched the “Warsaw Uprising” and attacked Nazi forces. These same Polish soldiers, defending their own country and fighting the Nazis, were labelled “terrorists” and “criminals” by Stalin afterwards. Obviously they weren’t. Unionists are engaging in the same logic as Stalin, they are simply making judgement based on their own political viewpoint, not on rational or logical arguments.
Unionists always use the wafer weak argument of “legality”. Why they use it I don’t know because it falls so easily. Legality means nothing. Its definitely has nothing to do with morality.
So if the IRA are criminals or terrorists to Gio, then by the same logic the Polish/French resistance must be too. Both were “illegal”. Both were defending their country. Both were involved in political violence. Both killed people, soldiers and innocent civilians.
Emmet, it was the hun who thought the resistance illegal, now, I wonder if there’s a likeness?
”It is of course a false equivalence between those who died in the 2 world wars and those who died in an illegal organisation with little support”
Obviously the above comment would be your own personal opinion Gio. Any chance you would like to expand on it, especially the part about having little support. My personal recollection would be quite the opposite. Amazing that peoples’ viewpoint on things can be poles apart when, to use a medical term, dissecting the same subject.
James, you’ll soon get tired of Gio’s *******, lord knows he bores ***** me.
WT – please. No more of that.
James
I say they had little support because that is how it appeared to me.
There was routine and widespread condemnation for the IRA activities, from other parties including nationalist parties, including those from the South, churches, local business communities, other governments and so on.
SF routinely polled around 12% (from memory) in council and Westminster elections during the heyday of the IRA. Only when peace processing began in earnest did their vote start to rise.
Yes they had support, but it was from a minority and of course in tight knit nationalist communities people would not have been too eager to speak out against them.
They were illegal so I don’t think that requires any expanding.
How do you think the media would react if Arlene was to take part in a commemoration of the UVF or the UDA? I would suggest they would have something to say about it.
“They were illegal so I don’t think that requires any expanding”
I think it does need expanding Gio.
Many DUP members have attended commemorations of UVF/UDA members. Indeed Paisley even carried out sermons at many of their funerals. Peter Robinson and Sammy Wilson carried, I believe, John McMichael’s coffin, he was a UDA Leader. One DUP member shared a platform with Billy Wright when, at that time, he was actively involved in a campaign of sectarian murders. The same DUP MP even made a threatening speech against nationalists after he lost his seat to Martin McGuinness. Of course Unionist politicians were openly working with Unionist paramilitaries during the strike in the 1970’s. Some people were even murdered during this strike, I know one was a Protestant Bus driver who refused to leave work. His wife was given a UDA card with a ten pound note as an apology, not because it was wrong to murder her husband not because they thought he was a Catholic and not a Protestant (source: Northern Protestants by Susan McKay).
No where near as much outrage from the media at these incidents than what SF have done. The Double Standards are extreme.
Ceannaire
You may or may not be right about Malachi.
The point is it would be better to argue against what he says rather than just have a go at him.
People often accuse Jude of spouting SF propaganda but so what?
They should argue with the content if they can.
Don’t waste your time falling into the trap comparing the IRA with unionists terrorists. The IRA were fighting British state occupation of Ireland; unionist terror groups were but a mere instrument of British state occupation. Irish republicans are disheartened and disappointed that some folk still feel it necessary to honour and pay respects to British soldiers that died in imperialist war. These people need to move on and try and prevent more suckers taking part in further imperialist violence. Normalising this sort of activity will not save our children from suffering a similar fate in the future. Btw, Irish republicans couldn’t care less what politician ‘pays their respects’ to unionist terrorists; couldn’t care less in the slightest. In fact we should applaud their honesty.
Ryan
You are digging back a bit there.
Michelle attended that IRA commemoration a few weeks ago.
Do you think the media would have nothing to say if Arlene attended a commemoration for Billy Wright next week?
Odd that they didn’t attack Martin McGuinness when he attended Loughgall commemoration…Is it because she’s a woman? Or some other reason?
”There was routine and widespread condemnation for the IRA activities, from other parties including nationalist parties, including those from the South, churches, local business communities, other governments and so on.”
Gio, are you that naive to think that the disapproval of the above mentioned would have had any impact on IRA activities. Every one of those you mentioned had their own reasons for feigning outrage and dare I say it, none of them were at the cutting edge, or on the receiving end of those running the orange statelet, easy to condemn from a distance. So, not sure if I can put this politely, but, as far as I would be concerned, they could shove their routine and widespread condemnation where the sun doesn’t shine. On the question of legality Gio, in my book morality trumps legality every time. Just because something is legal does not make it right.
James
Your question was about how much or how little support they had.
I do not claim that widespread condemnation had any impact on them at all as zealots are generally immune to public opinion.
I am simply saying there was a range of condemnation across the board from all parts of society and that includes the public on whose behalf they claimed to be acting.
You may be be right about morality over legality.
In my view the PIRA were not only illegal but they were acting immorally, and unjustly.
Gio, – If I am not mistaken the British remembrance day includes the UVF.
And as you are aware Arlene is a regular attender!
“It is of course a false equivalence between those who died in the 2 world wars and those who died in an illegal organisation with little support”
Why is it a false equivalence Gio?
What has something being illegal got to do with anything? you’re confusing morality with legality. The slave trade was once legal, was that right?
Gio, the IRA campaign could not have lasted for over 30 years if it had “little support”. Did Bobby Sands have little support when he was elected to Parliament? Or when the other Hunger Strikers were elected to the Dail?…..
“I can’t see it winning them many new voters though, which I think is Malachi’s point”
Gio, SF just had their best Assembly election back in March, coming within 1 seat of the largest Unionist party and are predicted to win 1 or maybe even 2 extra seats on Thursday….not to mention they outpolled the SDLP in Foyle in March and are catching up in South Down too….
Ryan
Bobby Sands (and the other hunger strikers to a lesser degree) represented in my view the moment when the IRA campaign achieved its greatest appeal to sympathy from the nationalist community.
Not through bombing and killing and destruction,but through self sacrifice.
Even then SF were only getting 10% in the following election (Assembly 1982) and 13% in the following Westminster election.With a turnout of 72% that equates to about 10% of the population.
And that is not taking into account those who voted SF even whilst not supporting the PIRA campaign.
Gio, I think the ‘self sacrifice’ was always there even during the bombing and killing. 10% is a lot when you consider the nationalist vote was on 38%. Also, as I have said before substantial numbers of nationalists did not see a point in voting. It is just the hunger strikes got attention form the media that the British had no control over because foreign media outlets started taking note.
Giordano, people have a right to remember their dead. The first world war was one of the biggest act of mass murder on this planet. The people involved in the 1st World War contrary to popular belief were not all saints and were involved in some pretty horrific stuff both during the war and after the war here in Ireland as members of the infamous Black and Tans. I don’t like what happened during the 1st World War but I recognise people’s right to remember their dead.
Malachi was writing this for a unionist audience.
Not out of principle,just for the pay check. That’s Malachi!
Tony
That is just pure manplaying.
Not to worry though; that sort of thing is pretty well received around here.
But what Tony said is true, Gio. When weighing up any article or document you first look at the source. So say, Jude links to an article in An Phoblacht. Are you saying you would just accept this as evidence of something? Are you saying it wouldn’t even enter your mind that it’s An Phoblacht and that you would look beyond it?
The article was written for the BT – which has a predominantly Unionist audience.
Malachi was paid for his piece.
Malachi may well have written what he did due to his ‘principles’ but, as most of us know, his ‘principles’ don’t extend to writing about violent Unionism or British actions here. His obsession with the IRA is creepy.
Ceannaire
You may or may not be right about Malachi.
The point is it would be better to argue against what he says rather than just have a go at him.
People often accuse Jude of spouting SF propaganda but so what?
They should argue with the content if they can.
I don’t think that’s particularly man-playing, gio. It’s arguable that he was writing for a unionist audience and it’s undeniable that he gets paid for it.
And the part about not out of principle but ONLY for the paycheck?
And the fact that Tony only took aim at the writer and paid no attention to the content.?
Whatever, Jude.
Gio – you’re beginning to sound like Trevor Ringland. I remember asking if the GAA scrapped the tricolour and the national anthem, would unionists then feel the GAA was an open door? ‘Well…It’d help”. Nothing is ever quite enough for you.
Jude
I just think people should address the content of what is said.
Is that asking too much?
It’s your blog at the end of the day.
But if was to put up a comment saying
“Jude Collins was talking on the Nolan Show, but he says what he says not from principle but simply because he gets paid for it”
Would you consider it a useful contribution?
Perhaps this the only reason Jude writes controversial articles such as Boys Brigade etc just to pocket the commentary fee from the BBC.
If we are making allegations on people’s motives and not the substance of what they say….
Scott
Exactly so.
For the record I am fairly sure Jude genuinely believes what he says (just like Malachi) and the BBC like to use him as the ‘the acceptable voice’ of republicanism ‘though he certainly does not have a face for television’.
Some might call him an ‘uncle Tom’ for taking a reward from the unionist BBC, or they might even suggest a likeness to a ‘hun’, but not me.
I also believe Jude is genuine in his commentary but I was just illustrating the point that claiming someone is only doing something for the dough is wrong.
Seems to be that another insult that’s acceptable on here.
Gio, perhaps it’s “satire”. Remember that old chestnut you cracked last week?
You played the man back then and called it satire, but this week when someone else does it you have a problem.
Getting an awful whiff of inconsistency here – there is a word for that isn’t there…
Gio – I’ve been called worse things, and accepted that that was the opinion of the critic. There are people who’d say I run this as a propaganda-machine for SF (helllo, Danel McCrossan) but while I don’t agree with him he’s entitled to his point of view on me, as I on him. But as a general principle I do accept that issues should be addressed, not individual character. However, these have an annoying habit of interweaving. I think Donal’s SDLP article is focused with some considerable irreverence on Daniel McCrossan, but it does so on the basis of a number of accusations. Mr McCrossan, like some others, has responded by simply engaging in name calling. I repeat YET AGAIN – anyone who disagrees with the content, tone, target or anything else of a long blog should put their thoughts in an equally vigorous response AND I WILL PUT IT UP. I WANT this blog to be multi-faceted. Which is why I wish regular commenters like yourself would develop your ideas into a blog rather than always firing shots (if that’s an acceptable parallel) from the ditch…
I’d love to read a blog by you Gio, I think you make some good points when you comment. You are clearly intelligent and witty and thought provoking. You have a knack for seeing another alternative which the author may not have considered. I think you’ve something to add to this site, more than merely a comment on someone else’s thoughts.
Jude
I am sure you have been called worse. That is not my point.
All the stuff I put in quotes in my last comment came from comments here about Malachi O’Doherty.
A west Brit (because he challenges the SF point of view) who does not have a face for television!
Is that the level of discourse you are looking for?
Kieran
Thanks. I will take your comment at face value in the hope it was not satire!
I do admire those who put in the time and research to write articles and open themselves to criticism. Fair play to them all. Even Donal.
I am not sure I have the necessary work ethic…but maybe sometime.
It really is a crazy thing to imagine that anyone should not remember and commemorate a dead loved one. Even crazy buggers like Ian Brady or the Shankhill Butchers had mothers, fathers and family who might want to remember them. In a place like Ireland where so much of history is openly disputed, there should be no real confusion as to how many perceive the rightness or wrongness or the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the State.There should be no doubt that many still see Ireland as a country occupied by a powerful neighbour which has imposed its own idea of legitimacy on the country. Their sense of legitimacy is seen as bogus to almost half the population of the little statelet that was chopped out of Ireland. That is simply the way it is seen and it is the way it will increasingly be seen as Britain continues to call the shots .Now Brexit has exacerbated the situation one more time , leaving us with the choice between future membership with the EU in a re-united Ireland or possible decline while in the hands of future British governments who haven’t a clue …. and their own odd decisions. Those same odd decisions sent a generation to their deaths in World War One. Those men that are still remembered and commemorated were simple collateral damage in a game of empire -builders.There was no glory for them ….only deaths , many in unmarked graves of glour. They all had families too who remember them when the politicians shut their doors and hide behind foolish words.
In a little known cemetery outside Berlin lie the remains of an elite brigade of Nazis. The odd thing is that these men, lauded by Hitler, were all Zionists and were fighting for the Third Reich. It seems that they were promised a Zionist homeland after the war. They were mostly despised by their kinfolk and were used as cannon fodder in unwinnable battles. After the war they were despised by everybody and their gullibility was laughed at. From a report in “Der Faik Neues”
Sounds just like how Irish soldiers (north and south) were used by the British governments as cannon fodder, and afterwards dismissing their efforts and sacrifices!
indeed sherdy – see here how catholic ex-servicemen were treated in Ulster!!
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/catholic-ex-servicemen-dont-count/
Yesterday on TalkBack SF candidate for North Belfast John Finucane condemned all (including IRA) violence during the troubles.
This is a first for any SF member from my memory. Heartening to hear this at last from a SF candidate.
Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness said they condemned all violence (so did many other SF members), McGuiness said he regretted that anyone had to die. SF condemn the system that brought about all the violence in the first place, this is where the real responsibility. Condemning is easy, we should have the truth about Britain’s dirty war first in my opinion.
“This is a first for any SF member from my memory. Heartening to hear this at last from a SF candidate”
You must have been sleeping for the past 20 odd year’s Scott because I have heard numerous Sinn Fein and even IRA members (like the Brighton Bomber) saying they regretted all violence. What some people want them to do is specifically condemn the IRA’s campaign and that is what they wont condemn because they see it as a reaction to the British states violence.
In fairness Unionist paramilitaries have said they also regretted all the violence (despite 90% of their targets deliberately being civilians, the majority Catholic and a minority Protestant). But we haven’t yet heard the British Government, RUC or the mainstream Unionist political parties regretting the violence or its causes. Indeed when challenged by Stephen Nolan if he wanted to apologize to Catholic’s for Unionist discrimination Gregory Campbell got outraged and replied: “Apologize for what?!”. Indeed there was more outrage from Unionism when former MLA John McCallister apologized for “Unionist failings” during the troubles when he spoke at a Sinn Fein Conference.
PS: No, David Trimble didn’t apologize to Catholics when he got his Nobel Prize, he simply acknowledged that Unionists made NI a “cold house” for Catholics and almost seemed to be justifying it by claiming Unionists feared Catholics wanted to “pull the house down”.
Scott
He did.
But he looks uncomfortable on the question of the IRA.
It was interesting to hear him and Dodds as they both used carefully rehearsed forms of words to avoid condemning specific actions or groups, in the one case the IRA, in the other the UDA/LPRG.
The use of the phrase ‘I condemn all violence’ seems to be the get out clause now.
What’s the issue with the “I condemn all violence” phrase, Gio? How’s it’s a get out clause?
Uncle Tom O’Docherty has made a career out of being from West Belfast but of being all right now. He coached the ruc/ba on how best to smile while simultaneously oppressing nationalists/republicans.
Basically what Malachi is complaining about is the fact Michelle O’Neill doesn’t agree with him when it comes to the IRA’s campaign. He basically wants Michelle O’Neill, a Republican, to condemn the IRA because he condemns the IRA. Sorry Malachi but that’s not the way the World works and, worst of all, we all know you already knew that, so why waste your time on articles in the vain attempt simply to damage Sinn Fein politically? we seen this going on decades by Unionist politicians, journalists, commentators, etc and it has simply failed because people, particularly nationalist people, can see through the lies, the hypocrisy and the agenda at play. There’s a reason why Sinn Fein get more and more popular despite Malachi, poor Ruth DE, Eilish O’Hanlon, etc decades long agenda against the shinners in the newspapers because people can see these journalists for what they are.
What we haven’t heard at all from Ruth Dudley Edwards, Eilish O’Hanlon or Malachi is the fact active terrorist groups such as the UDA, UVF, etc are openly supporting the DUP and UUP. Can you imagine the reaction if the dissidents advocated voting for Sinn Fein? They would be having a field day. But when it comes to active, murdering, drug dealing groups like the UDA/UVF backing DUP/UUP candidates RDE/EO’H and Malachi are very strangely silent. Better still, why aren’t these same people who bash SF at every opportunity demanding UDA/UVF members, who are even on radio talking about politics and meeting DUP leaders, be arrested? last time I looked the UDA/UVF are terrorist organisations still openly involved in murder and drug dealing. Still no articles from Malachi or poor Ruth on these obvious facts.
That’s why Ruth or Malachi’s articles make no dents on SF’s electorate, because their hypocrisy and agenda is there for all to see.
There is one glaring mistake in your well-argued demolition of the Pompous M O’D. Khrushchev was not ‘The author the Cuban missile crisis. The Kennedy”s were although the narrative may have been written by CIA Spooks.
Well, Brian, I’d never want to champion the US involvement in Cuba, but Krushchev was the head honcho in the USSR at the time and they did plan to instal missiles in Cuba. I think.
Correct but he did not try to invade Turkey where the US missiles capable of striking Moscow. There never would have been any attempt to install missiles in Cuba had the US not attempted to overthrow the Cuban Government inter Alia by the Bay of Pigs fiasco and numerous attempts to assassinate Castro. Khrushchev, thus driving Cuba deep into the Communist camp. was certainly a participant in the narrative but the US was inisputably the author. Still is.
Sorry for typos written in haste.1 Line 2″the US had missiles capable of striking Moscow. Remove the word Kruschevfrom its current position and place it at the beginning of the last sentence.Slan tamall.
You are correct, Brian but don’t forget Castro moved closer to the USSR as a trade partner after nationalising industry, banks etc and with US refusal to buy Cuban exports. The US didn’t like the fact that Castro’s leadership pushed US economic and diplomatic interest out of Cuba. Obviously the USSR became a natural ally for Cuba, my “enemies enemy is my friend” and no doubt the USSR were quite happy to help Cuba out to close to the USA. 42,000 soldiers, guns etc sent in to protect Castro from future US invasions of Cuba. But even before the Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev had threatened the US with nuclear war over events in Berlin – Namely the mass movement from the East to the prosperous West which concerned Khrushchev.
For a brief but powerful synopsis of the US aggression towards Cuba over nearly six decades, Google “Cuba in the Crosshairs” by Noam Chomsky.
TheHisy. And why would not Cuba, in the early 1960’s – now a sovereign nation and no longer a brothel for the US Mafia – “nationalise its banks industry etc. rather than leave them in the hands of the American Fruit Compania, the Mafia and Batista?
Never mention Joe Stalin – he was The Wickedest Man (‘Person’ if you’re being Politically Correct – the phrase has been resurrected in Trump’s Murica) In History.