That is your take on this.
My response to this was to point out that dislike of outside interference in elections, should not necessarily be construed as racism. As an example, I asked how you would react to someone from Russia or the Ukraine-or any country for that matter-with a globalist/socialist agenda as Soros has, coming to this country and telling us how we ought to conduct our business. It would not be welcomed, I believe, irrespective of whether the person was Russian, Jewish or whatever. Race would not be the issue. The issue would be outside interference. Furthermore, opposition to such interference would not make you a "bigoted nationalist" would it?
So, in case I wasn't clear enough for you, why is it racism or "bigoted nationalism" when Ukrainians do it, but not so if we were to do the same thing?
You ask the question:And, what does his Jewish origin have to do with the issue?. To me, nothing. You however,seem to think it has everything to do with the issue, for in #26 you state:"No, to understand you must really know that part of the world: this has something to do with Soros being Jewish, and the "fact" that "Jews rule the world."
You introduced the issue to this thread.
Am I making myself clear?
You introduced the issue to this thread.
Yes, of course. But not in the context in which you used it. Time precendence is only one of the artifacts of causality. Someone putting a book into a college library is not responsible for what YOU say about that same subject. Do I make myself clear?
If I understand it correctly, you are stating that Ukranian opposition to his presence is simply racism. No, not at all. There is no Ukrainian opposition to his presence. There is a concerted attempt by certain bigotted groups to promulgate their own anti-Semitic agenda. In fact, this "writer" is in Russia, he is not even in Ukraine. He says there is opposition. He puts words is Soros' mouth. He entitled the article with a word "revolution" in it --- as part of an ongoing effort to "credit" the Jooooos with the communist revolution in Russia --- see, they (Soros) are doing it again.
In sum, this is a hit peace, garbage, devoid of facts of any kind and full of falsehoods.
It is somewhat surprising to see people like you, who see Soros as a "Hungarian Jew," take hit peace as facts. They did the same over a hundred years ago by creating the Protocols of the Elders of Zion --- still a best-seller in many circles.
My response to this was to point out that dislike of outside interference in elections, Of course, no one would like that. But we have no evidence that there was any. Stating an opinion is not an interference --- unless, by rules of diplomatic protocol, the speaker is a member of a foreign government. Soros is not.
should not necessarily be construed as racism. No not necessarily, but in the case of this article and this author it is.
As an example, I asked how you would react to someone from Russia or the Ukraine-or any country for that matter-with a globalist/socialist agenda as Soros has, coming to this country and telling us how we ought to conduct our business. It would not be welcomed, I believe, It would be ignored. It happens all the time.
Furthermore, opposition to such interference would not make you a "bigoted nationalist" would it? No, if there was indeed an interference. Falsifying history in general and clearly in this article specifically (just calling Soros a political leader should've been enough for you) is bigotted and would not happen if Soros were not Jewish. Moreover, you do not know the readership of this newspaper (if you did, you'd not have any doubt whatever).
Now, let me assure you that I personally view Soros as socialist scum. A confused, lost even, soul -- but still a socialist scum. He no friend of mine at all, to put it mildly. But I disagree with him on principle. Pravda uses an altogether different principle --- bigotry. That's all.