unsure bloomberg's take of the chinese article re locke is correct, as the assuredly slur if applicable would just be stating the facts as befitting locke and absolutely does not denigrate any race creed colour or faith, but does leave a bad taste in anyone accused of the same as and whenever the accusation holds truth, because the truth hurts. iow, the racist slur is merely a slur, and one would take offence if the charge is true, and the one would only be the person accused as opposed anyone else
unclear where 'racism' comes into it
the original chinese article simply explains the locke story and recounts what he tried to do for his paymasters (presumably obama in this instance and the people behind obama), and how lock's ancestors would be ashamed of their locke should they know the full facts
i have no idea re the veracity of the claims and counter-claims re locke, but can take an educated guess that simply makes me ignore the entire episode altogether
it is however interesting how the bloomberg take does not directly counter the statement of facts in the original chinese language article and instead focuses on the opening paragraph only and the claimed 'racist' angle
should there have been an american ambassador to russia of ukrainian russian legacy, am sure some moscow newspaper would have something to say re ancestors and such
would observe that wsj, nyt, times magazine, cnn, etc etc are willing tools of puppet masters, and nothing more
zerohedge is very often enough very good |
