“In Russian czarism there is belief, but no truth. But God does not love belief. He loves the truth.”
Does anybody think Peresvetov could write these 'immortal words' in 16th century? In Russian? In any case, he wrote something different.

It is now clear that the authorities have no intention of limiting the distribution of pseudo-historical propaganda through the central channels of power.

Ah, when was that not clear? It’s been clear since day one, but not to those that have decided not to accept reality. Even more clear to those that decided to hear the defectors and then check what they were asserting against speeches in Russia. Hmmm… they jive, and so its no surprise given that there wasn’t any de-stalinization or de-communization.

And Nashi and Mishki are too much like the Nazi Socialist lebensborn programs (of which the boy scouts and girl scouts is nothing of any similarity contrary to old soviet propaganda).

The “Yukos affair”, the authors believe, “decisively buried the oligarchs’ hopes of preserving their control over the Russian government.”

So we better not hear propaganda that states that they are still in some form of control. that statement above makes it history, the past, that they HAD control. but even that’s an assumption. When an owner takes his dog off the leash to run around, and the dog does all afternoon and come back, did the dog really control his day? When the leadership of russia took the leashes off the oligarchs and such, they ran around and did what oligarchs do, but the fact that they could just call them in and imprison and replace them, meant that there never really was any control for the oligarchs. Just enough semblance of control to make them the patsies.

I came to the inescapable conclusion that this was without doubt a paid-for textbook, written on someone’s orders, phony all the way through.

That’s ok, the text books in America are the same way… so now what?

it is based on one very dangerous idea, which can be summed up succinctly as, “The State is everything, the individual nothing.”

That’s ok, that’s what our democrats are saying and other similar things too.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." -- Bill Clinton

“Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” -- Hillary Clinton

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” -- Hillary Clinton

After all, its about convergence right?

America became more like the soviet union so we could all merge into one government, but they didn’t accept, think, want, or care that russia could turn around and go back, an the US couldn’t do that once it went half way to fascism from freedom towards communism.

Russia lied and said it will turn itself from a pickle to a cucumber. And so it watered itself down and became less sour, but it can’t change from a pickle to a cucumber. The west said ok. We will turn ourselves from a cucumber to a bit of a pickle. The problem was/is that the US can’t turn itself back now that Russia reneged (Again) on an agreement!

So what’s the inevitable when the dangerous thoughts in a Russian text book for kids is the policy of the leading candidates for president and openly the point of one of the two parties (and a hidden point of the other one)?


Individual's Day Is Over, Says Geo. W. Perkins; And the Process of Curtailing His Privileges in Favor of the Community Is Still Only in Its Infancy, According to Him
April 1 1917
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9907E4D8143AE433A25752C0A9629C946696D6CF


http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2001-ma/forum.shtml
excerpt


The next grand movement of the 1930s is the social reconstruction movement. Now we have had the child-centered movement, which is highly individualistic and non-conformist, giving way to the social reconstruction movement. And this happens because in the late 1920s there's a discussion group at Teachers College, and the leading
progressive educators
they are very upset about the direction of American society. It's too conformist; it's too bourgeois; it's too self-interested. All of these sorts of things--and it's puritanical. There are all of these terrible social movements in the country.

So they began to look with interest about where we could find a better society. And
John Dewey goes to visit the Soviet Union. John Dewey returns from the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, and he writes a series of six articles about what he has seen.

[Bella dodd pointed out that they infiltrated the US schools (she was head of the New York State Teachers Union and CPUSA national council and in a position to know), and that pragmatism, and progressive education was a key to hiding communist indoctrination. She denied Dewey’s philosophies were communist, but never knew that later Dewey, the father of American education, turned out to be a communist spy as detailed in the venona transcripts. (more was found out from the mitroken archives and from defectors and converts like dodd. Just read her School of Darkness where it details the conspiracy. Dodd also points out that the feminist movement was also a soviet construct in the US]


And he's absolutely bowled over. This is a very exciting place-because guess what? It turns out not to be an economic revolution, not to be a political revolution. It's an educational revolution. And educators are leading the revolution. So he thinks this is really good, because now you have educators planning and leading this new society, and young people really caught up in the idea of reconstructing society and building this new social order.

And Dewey's enthusiasm is very contagious. So his disciple, William Heard Kilpatrick, goes to the Soviet Union. He also is very taken. The first thing that he discovers is that everyone in the pedagogical institutes is reading his books. That is a turn-on for an academic, let me tell you. He knows this is a good revolution because they're reading him.

And then Kilpatrick is followed by George Counts. Counts is a prairie populist on the faculty at Teachers College, a sociologist. And Counts is just bowled over. He goes there, he schleps a Ford to the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, and he travels thousands of miles across the Soviet Union, talking with people in rural areas and in the cities.

[its from this that Ford family started working for one world government and communism. They created the Ford foundation which kicked the capitalist part of the family out and is the largest not for profit working the west. He also created the council of foreign relations, of which every president has been a member and ALL current candidates are as well. they also started the trilateral commission that uses a trisckelon, if you look at it. the organizations are fascist since they marry the state and corporate interests which coporatism is fascism, not capitalism]

And he comes back and he writes a book called A Ford Crosses Soviet Russia, which is a wonderful book that I highly recommend; it's very entertaining. But he becomes totally enthralled with the Russian Revolution, and he begins writing books about the need for collectivism. He gives a famous speech at the Progressive Education Association in 1932- here's the Progressive Education Association devoted to child-centered education, to individualism, to non-conformity, to the teacher as a guide and not a teacher, a facilitator not an instructor. We've all heard that.

[this destroyed Americas lead in education, engineering, business, and politics]

So he comes to them and he says, "Dare the school build a new social order?" And he chastises them. He says, "You've all been selfish. You've all been devoted to the welfare of your own children and you've all been too individualistic. The age of individualism is over. The age of collectivism is now opening. Are you prepared to do what's necessary to build this new collective social order and stop worrying about indoctrination? Don't worry about indoctrination. We must indoctrinate children." George Counts is a very powerful writer, a powerful speaker.

The meeting stops. They cancel every other session. This is the only thing that matters. Dare the school build a new social order? Well, a new journal is founded at Teachers College called The Social Frontier. And in the educational world, at least that part of it that reads The Social Frontier at Teachers College and Chicago and Stanford and Harvard, everybody is all engrossed in this idea. Can we now indoctrinate children? Is it right to indoctrinate? What are the ethics of indoctrination? Is it time for collectivism? Why isn't the American public interested in what we're saying?



Dewey was a spy… the progressive education was to create indoctrination in our schools and so forth. which is did. So really is the soviets going back to the group a problem, or is the fact that they are doing it after America has started caving the problem?
‘

If one listens to Golitsyn, then one might be concerned that the soviet union became freer as the US lost its rights and freedoms and copied the laws and schools of the totalitarian state (before it showed its colors). After all, no fault divorce, and the other things are an invention of lenin within 2 years of the revolution and resulted in children being raised in creches and being available for birth to death indoctrination sans parental interference in things like KGB or GRU schools.

Now that the US has gotten rid of most of the pesky laws of individualism, habeus corpus, posse commitatus, internal passports, kelo makes no more private property (but since it’s a fascist state, its taking the property for companies. A bit of change and it takes it for itself), delegation of powers in violation of the state, a progressive tax (bet you didn’t know that was soviet), and more…

Maybe the reason they are going back is that they don’t have to hide it any more. after all, once gun control is in, and a few other points, there will be no way for the American people to fight the conversion. And they certainly are not fighting the change.

Basically the idea now is to make health care and such so expensive that the baby boomers who did not save a dime like their parents will suffer, and since the baby boomers are dying off their attitude is that they don’t care! ask them if you don’t believe me, they are still trying to party like their childhoods.

75 million baby boomers is enough to create a socialist America… after all they are the socialist generation that came after the generation that gave them freedom and such from Hitler. This is why they were mentally destroyed, made flabby, stupid, falsely idealistic, and so forth.

We let it happen… (and feminism was THE major push since with the eradication of family, everyone gets fat, the state gets the kid from cradle to grave, the state gets more workers, health declines as no one is watching it at all, divorce and such destroys dynsastic power the only threat, etc).

ANONYMOUS:

Our Original Translator responds as follows:

I appreciate your concern for the accuracy of the quote/translation, but it was unclear to me which you were challenging. The Russian was as follows: «В русском царстве вера есть, а правды – нет, а Бог не веру любит - правду». I will be the first to admit that 16th century Russian usage is sometimes as baffling for me as Shakespearean English probably is for you. If you could edify me with a better translation, I would be eternally grateful. On the other hand, if your disagreement is with the author, please let me know, and I will attempt to look up the original text by Peresvetov.

I did a little digging, and came up with the following scholarly analysis of the quote in question (http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/cherniavsky.html), which I think should put to rest the doubts of "anonymous" on both points -- translation and authenticity -- of the quote:

From "Ivan the Terrible as Renaissance Prince" , by Michael Cherniavsky, Slavic Review, 1968, 195-211:

*****

The chief function of the ruler was pravda, justice, according to Peresvetov. Justice, however, meant more than judging quickly, impartially, and sternly all those who come to seek it. It was not just legal but also social; it meant protecting the poor against the rich and powerful, it meant the extermination of corruption, it meant rewarding the worthy, those who served the state well. And Peresvetov placed it completely outside the traditional medieval Christian context: His example was the Islamic sultan, Mohammed the Conqueror in the "Tale of Mohammed," who was made to say, "God loves justice above all things"; Peresvetov went even further when he made a Christian prince, Peter of Wallachia, exclaim, "God does not love the faith [of the prince, He] loves justice."

*****

However, I am grateful to "anonymous" for having led me to learn about the evolution of the meaning of the word "pravda" in Russian over the years. I imagine it would probably help explain a lot about Russians' sometimes eccentric views about what constitutes the truth. (Simply "that which leads to what I think is a just outcome?" -- Could be!)

Warm regards.

OT

Why does nobody openly quote this textbook, if it is so shocking? Can one imagine a situation, when a witness simply repeats 'He did such a terrible thing, you honour!' and everybody finds this evidence sufficient?

Because it's in Russian and the Kremlin is not happy to talk about its propaganda.

Why does nobody openly quote it to defend it, if it is not shocking?

Free access to the book on the publishing house's webpage:
http://www.prosv.ru/umk/istoriya/index.html