Pravda gets a lot of attention from American conservatives when they publish pieces that are pro-freedom and capitalism, or criticizing the US march toward socialism. So, is Pravda turning into a great freedom loving publication? Not exactly, as The People’s Cube explains. (But they are still better than much of the US media.)
First, let’s just say that the hard copy version is not the same as its digital namesake. The original newspaper had been started by Lenin in 1912 and shut down by Yeltsin in 1991.
It was later restarted, changed several owners, including some foreign millionaires, and in 1997 became the official organ of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.
At some point during these troubled times, the online edition split from the paper version and left to seek its own destiny. It is now shamelessly whoring for Internet traffic around the world, in an effort to maximize advertising revenues.
Even a cursory glance at the English and Russian digital editions (they have different content, tailored to their respective audiences) reveals a radically apolitical tabloid with a wild mix of real news, conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and contradictory opinions, topped with headlines whose main function is to attract search engine traffic. The other two foreign-language versions — Portuguese and Italian — probably follow the same pattern.
To use the Marxist vernacular of the erstwhile Party Organ, its glorious ideological monogamy has all but withered away, to be replaced by the historically inevitable capitalist promiscuity.
While the old Pravda’s homogenized, truth-free purism made it a respectable but neutered organ with the word “truth” in its title, the new “hands-off” approach allows sporadic diamonds of actual truth to shine through the dirt — a mind-boggling change from what I remember reading on its pages when I still lived in the USSR.
The post later delves into President Obama’s old pal Bill Ayers helped to bring the Soviet model into the American mainstream.
Perhaps the most ironic historical mind-bender of all is found in the United States, where history was much kinder to communist rebels. In the 1960s, the leader of the KGB-supported communist terrorist group Weather Underground, Bill Ayers, repeated Zinoviev’s idea of annihilating ten percent of the population — 25 million Americans — so as to advance the revolution in the United States.
Ayers summed up the ideology of his movement as follows: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents.” Unlike his Soviet role models, however, this communist didn’t have to leave the country or suffer any discomfort. Supported by the left-dominated academic establishment, Ayers became a prominent member of and later vice president for curriculum studies at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), exerting great influence over what is taught in America’s teacher-training colleges and, through indoctrination of a generation of teachers, its public schools.
According to this must-read article by Daren Jonescu, Ayers simply altered his strategy, replacing annihilation with re-education — or, rather, pre-education, thus reducing the number of potential targets. Since then, “the educational establishment has progressed so far that the KGB-supported communist revolutionaries, who received training and funds from Cuba’s DGI, have been welcomed, first as honored guests (in lieu of a prison sentence), and finally as leading members of the establishment.”
Be sure to read the whole thing, especially the last two paragraphs.


Has anyone asked Bill Ayers and Bernadine how many guns they have, and what kinds of guns they are ?
Don’t we love it when the Brits promise that they will provide safety and security, and then the pass laws making it a crime to defend yourself when someone actually does break into your house. And the idiots fall for this balderdash. It sounds just like Bill Moyers, and all the lib blogs I have been looking at for weeks.
In my view, responsible adults know from recent history that if people can not deter abuse, then others see this, and see the opportunity to abuse. It might not be as extreem as Cambodia, or China or the Soviet Union or Hitler Germany, but who wants to end up a serf ? About 95 percent of the role of guns is simply credibility of deterrence, so you are less likely to actually have to defend yourself. There is way too much blabber about whether a gun could have prevented this or that. I do not expect my 90 year old neighbor to use a pistol against a 19 year old punk. Why should she have to in the first place. The neighborhood ought to be safe already.
But the Brits don’t care about that. And neither did NYC. I got there in 1966. It was shabby but decent, By 1968 the place was a war zone. I don’t get that from newspaper clippings, but rather what I saw with my own eyes. It does not take long. I did not choose to live in a crummy place, it was decent, and turned into hell, one surprise at a time. It was definitely the effect of out-of-control immigration. Yet the politicians make their lib noises, and sweep it all under the rug.
Like or Dislike:
1