Did the Soviets Find Life on Venus?

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Verena 13

(Research and Translation by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

The authoritative Russian astronomer and Chief Researcher of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences – Leonid Ksanfomality – has published an article in which he asserts that there may be life on Venus. The scientist analysed images transmitted from the surface of this planet by the Soviet space probe Venera-13 in 1982. On a series of successive frames (9 pictures), he discovered several objects that appear and disappear.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The object Leonid Ksanfomality called a ‘scorpion’.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘Scorpion’ appears only at time interval of 87-100 min (number 1). Before and after this, it is not in the pictures.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The ‘Scorpion’.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

A ‘Black Patch’ under the arm of the probe 0-13 min but not thereafter.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

A ‘disc’ object that changes form.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Leonid Ksanfomality. Criticism of this idea (i.e. ‘life on Venus’) is built on the presumed fact that life on Venus is impossible due to its harsh conditions. This is ‘terrestrial chauvinism.’ After all, no one has proved that there cannot exist forms of life under conditions that are fundamentally different from those on Earth. In the near future, the astronomer is going to publish new data proving the existence of life on Venus.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.

Russian Language Source:

http://fototelegraf.ru/103584-rossijskij-uchenyj-obnaruzhil-zhizn-na-venere.html

The Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army (Рабоче-крестьянская Красная армия (РККА)

_20171114_060116

The Eternal Red Army! The ‘Red Army’ is our army. It is comprised of the people – and fights for the liberation and progression of the people (wherever Socialism develops). No other army in history has been like this. Bourgeois armies only fight for the limited objectives of capitalist governments – and do not care about the people. The Red Army only fights wars of self-defence and is a vehicle for any and all cultural development. Its purpose is not only for success in warfare – but also strives to develop the minds and bodies of the people to their maximum capacity in the service of humanity. The Red Army is an expression of Socialist and Cmmunist reality where equality and progression exist simultaneusly, and it is understood that te individual is only safe and secure within an advanced collectivity. Finally, the Red Army seeks to end all wars and establish peace and Socialism in a new era for humanity.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Военный парад на Красной площади

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

DSC_1304

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Bolshevik Revolution in Stamps – 100th Anniversary (2017)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

USSR: Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture (1928)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Author: Stcherbatskay F.I. – Title: Theory of knowledge and logic according to the teachings of later Buddhists. Part 1: Dharmakirti’s “Textbook of Logic” with Dharmottara interpretation.

The Soviet Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture (INSBC) was first proposed in 1927 as a coordinated academic project by scholar FI Stcherbatsky, and supported by his fellow academics SF Oldenburg and MI Tubyansky – all of whom professed an in-depth interest in Buddhist thought.  On April 4th, 1928, at the 7th meeting of the Department of Humanities of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, FI Stcherbatsky reported that the Council of People’s Commissars (responsible for the creation, development and function of Academic Institutions within the Socialist State), had formally approved the establishment of the Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture (a decision included in the Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR dated March 13, 1928 – entitled “On the Composition of Scientific Institutions of the Academy of Sciences USSR”) and discussed the desirability of taking measures to immediately start the organizational work of academically developing the Institute. When discussing the report, it was supposed to FI Stcherbatsky that he assume the temporary duties of the Director of the Institute (a post he accepted and held between 1928-1930). During its academic activity of developing a sound interpretation and understanding of Buddhist philosophy and practice throughout the Soviet Union (and the world), the INSBC organized a number of important scientific expeditions, and produced many ground-breaking papers, books and journals, etc.. In 1930, the INSBC was structurally incorporated into the Institute of Oriental Studies, as part of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

Russian Language Source Article:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Институт_буддийской_культуры

Институт буддийской культуры (ИНБУК) был создан как скоординированный проект, предложенный академиком Ф. И. Щербатским совместно с академиком С. Ф. Ольденбургом и М. И. Тубянским в 1927 году. «4 апреля 1928 года на VII заседании Отделения гуманитарных наук Академии наук СССР Ф. И. Щербатской доложил об утверждении Советом Народных Комиссаров в составе Академических учреждений Института по Изучению Буддийской Культуры (Постановление СНК СССР от 13 марта 1928 года “О составе научных учреждений Академии Наук СССР”) и о желательности принять меры к началу организационных работ Института. При обсуждении доклада было положено просить Ф. И. Щербатского взять на себя временно исполнение обязанностей Директора. За время своей деятельности ИНБУК организовал ряд научных экспедиций. В 1930 году ИНБУК структурно был включён в состав Института востоковедения АН СС

 

 

Defending the Red Flag: Rules and Regulations for Official Flag Bearers

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Definition: A flag-bearer is anyone – male or female, young or old – who either volunteers to carry the Red Flag (with a golden hammer and sickle, golden star, or any other identifying Marxist-Leninist Communist or Socialist symbols), or who is ordered to carry the Red Flag by an Official of the Communist Party (or another individual – either civil or military – who is suitably empowered to issue such an order). The Red Flag should be affixed to a suitable flag-pole, or hung in a correct manner from a window, door or wall. Whether carried on a pole, or placed on a building or other object (either stationary or movable), generally a single flag-bearer should is responsible for the cleanliness, state of repair and safety of the Red Flag. Secondary flag-bearers are often selected to theoretically take-over these duties, should the primary flag-bearer be incapacitated or otherwise unable to meet these duties. It is an offense of the highest order to wantonly ‘abandon’ a ‘Red Flag’.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Red Flag Defined:

The Red Flag is ‘red’ because it represents the blood of the Workers sacrificed all over the world to secure rights, justice and freedom for the ordinary people. The tradition of a ‘Red Flag’ may have began during the 1871 Paris Commune. The ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ hammer represents industrial workers, whilst the ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ sickle represents agricultural workers. The ‘golden’ or ‘yellow’ colour represents a ‘New Dawn’ for the International Proletariat. Within the Soviet Union, the Red Flag was ‘red’ with a yellow hammer and sickle emblem on each side – but in 1980 – a new flag was instigated. This Red Flag was ‘red’ on both sides, but only carried the yellow hammer and sickle on one =-side. This 1980 Red Flag did not invalidate the pre-1980 version – with both types being regularly flown.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Rules & Regulations:

  1. Never relinquish control of the Red Flag unless officially ‘relieved’ of this duty by a suitably qualified individual.
  2. The Red Flag must never fall into the hands of the fascists.
  3. When carried in public, the Red Flag must be held high and be easily visible.
  4. The flag-pole must be suitable for both the Red Flag and venue within it is flown.
  5. When marching, the Red Flag must be permanently on display and not ‘wrapped’ around the pole (due to the wind).
  6. The Red Flag must be held either vertically or diagonally and not be allowed to ‘catch’ in surrounding obstacles.
  7. The Red Flag must be kept in good repair and a clean state.
  8. Verbal challenges to the Red Flag must be met with either a crushing silence, or dialectical clarity.
  9. A Red Flag bearer must be progressive of nature and suited to this task.
  10. The Red Flag represents the power of the combined Working Class,
  11. Unless otherwise stated, Red Flag bearers are unarmed.
  12. The Red Flag represents the blood of the Workers spilt in the name of greed by the bourgeoisie.
  13. If a Red Flag is discovered on the ground, it is the duty of every Communist to pick it up and assume responsibility for its welfare until relieved.
  14. The Red Flag represents the power of Marxist-Leninism and the spirit of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong (as well as other Revolutionaries).
  15. The Red Flag represents the International Communist Party (and all its contemporary factions), with impartiality (regardless of any personal allegiance of the Red Flag bearer).
  16. The Red Flag represents Proletariat Unity and rejects Bourgeois Division.
  17. The Red Flag (of the Soviet Union) represents all oppressed people.
  18. The Red Flag symbolises universal hope for the masses.
  19. When the Red Flag is lowered (for whatever reason), it must be folded with respect, and suitably placed in storage for safe keeping.
  20. The Red Flag is imbued with the dialectical power of Socialism and Communism. In times of warfare, unless otherwise ordered, the Red Flag bearer advances upon the enemy positions ‘unarmed’.

“Glory to the Soviet troops, who hoisted the banner of victory over Berlin!”0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

My family have carried the Red Flag for decades – and now it is the duty of myself and my partner:

20170701_130443

20170701_122804

Soviet Red Army Liberates Manchuria (North-East China) August-September – 1945

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

At the behest of the United States under President Roosevelt – the Soviet Red Army Declared War on the fascist Empire of Japan in 9.8.1945 – and fought their way into the Chinese city of Harbin not long after. Although the Japanese Authorities hinted that Japanese Forces (in the form of the 700,000 man Kwantung Army) would offer little resistance, in reality however, Japanese resistance was very strong in places, leading to many Soviet casualties. The Imperial Japanese had been agitating in ‘Manchuria’ (i.e. North-East China) since at least 1931, and their forces had committed continuous atrocities against the local Chinese population, and prisoners of war. The Japanese plan was to eradicate the Chinese presence from North-East China, and use this ‘new’ space to accommodate millions of Japanese migrants. This strategy reflected that of Adolf Hitler and his plans for a ‘Greater Germany’ in the Soviet Union (by eradicating the Slavic race). Following the bloody and brutal Battle of Okinawa, President Roosevelt was not keen on the idea of further large scale conventional battles with the Japanese Imperial Forces, and certainly did not favour the idea of a conventional US military invasion of the Japanese homeland. As he had been discussing with Britain’s Winston Churchill about the possibility of encouraging the destruction of the Soviet Red Army by bleeding it dry against Nazi Germany – a plan was hatched to try and bleed it dry against the Japanese. The problem was that instead of bleeding it dry – the Soviet Red Army grew ever stronger with each campaign and victory! As matters transpired, the Red Army was spectacularly successful in China and the islands off the North-Coast of Japan. The local Chinese population welcomed the Soviets with open arms, and when the campaign was complete, the Soviets handed the captured area over to Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China (together with all its captured Japanese industry and weaponry). This acquisition allowed the CPC to consolidate power in North-East China, and eventually defeat Chiang Kai-Shek in the South. As a consequence, and contrary to the English wikipedia pages that still espouse false US Cold War propaganda as ‘fact’, there were no atrocities committed by the Soviet Red Army in China. There are no Chinese language texts, Japanese language texts, or indeed Russian language texts recording any untoward behaviour. As can be scene from some of these photographs (all gathered from the Russian language internet), there were even Westerners present in Harbin during the Soviet ‘Liberation’ and not one recorded any incidence of bad behaviour on the part of the Soviet Red Army.  It is remarkable today, to witness in the West a pro-fascist mentality developing which attempts to re-write history and present the perpetuators of world fascism as being the ‘victims’ of those who fought back against the real atrocities. The Nazi Germans (who committed the holocaust), and the imperial Japanese that pursued a genocidal policy against the Chinese – are falsely packaged as being the real victims! This is nonsense and nothing but a rightwing attempt at clearing its own conscience that has the deaths of countless millions upon it.  The historical evidence is clear – Nazi Germany and fascist Japan both thought that they could eradicate large swathes of humanity from the earth through military aggression – and both failed due to the strength of the Soviet Red Army and the resistance to invasion Of China by the CPC. I include a documentary with these pictures that clearly describes the Soviet campaign in Manchurian. The Soviets recorded 9 ineffectual Kamikaze attacks – with Japanese troops surrendering en mass after each defeat suffered. Of particular note is the successful use of Soviet paratroops to quickly ‘liberate’ forward areas before being relieved by Soviet infantry and tanks within 24 hours.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Islington Museum: Statue of Lenin (24.6.2017)

20170624_143727

Visiting Islington Museum

I was contacted recently by a friend living in Russia, who had found a very interesting article on the Russian language internet (celebrating the 95th Anniversary of the Russian Revolution), featuring photographs and brief descriptions of Lenin statues around the world. (see: 95-й годовщине Великой Октябрьской социалистической революции посвящается)  He was surprised to see a photograph included, of a Lenin statue in the heart of London (probably taken in the 1930’s) being respectfully admired by British Socialists – and guarded by a British police constable! This is the photograph in question:

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The Russian language text accompanying this photograph reads:

‘‘Бюст Ленина в музее лондонского района Ислингтон. Ранее он стоял на Холфорд-сквер, но после начала холодной войны его убрали в хранилище.’

This seems to state in English translation:

”Bust of Lenin in a Museum situated in the London area of Islington. Previously, he was standing on Holford Square, but after the start of the Cold War, he was removed to the vault.’

I have been informed that the photograph above is in fact the Lenin statue in Holford Square (Kings Cross) – where it was placed in a frame at eye level. The bust is now on display half a mile away in Islington Museum on St John Street, Islington. The original bust was placed outside the modernist housing development ‘Lenin House’, designed by Soviet (Georgian) architect Berthold Lubetkin. He named the housing project after Lenin because it is opposite the site where Lenin and Krupskaya lived when they were in London in 1907. The bust of Lenin was attacked and vandalised by British fascists throwing black paint on it when it was first erected. Eventually it was moved to safe keeping in Islington Town Hall, and is today in Islington Museum. After WWII, the housing block was renamed ‘Bevin House’ after the Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin. These are the photographs we took of the Lenin statue during our very enjoyable visit to Islington Museum yesterday.

20170624_145727

 

 

 

20170624_153611

20170624_143932

Pravda: Stalin Deconstructs Trotsky’s Duplicitous Letter (15.12.1923)

zmdS-fxrcizu3704160

Full Article – JV Stalin – UK

Trotsky’s Letter

The resolution of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission on internal Party democracy, published on December 7, was adopted unanimously. Trotsky voted for this resolution. It might have been expected, therefore, that the members of the Central Committee, including Trotsky, would come forward in a united front with a call to Party members for unanimous support of the Central Committee and its resolution. This expectation, however, has not been realised. The other day Trotsky issued a letter to the Party conferences which cannot be interpreted otherwise than as an attempt to weaken the will of the Party membership for unity in supporting the Central Committee and its position.

Judge for yourselves.

After referring to bureaucracy in the Party apparatus and the danger of degeneration of the old guard, i.e., the Leninists, the main core of our Party, Trotsky writes:

“The degeneration of the ‘old guard’ has been observed in history more than once. Let us take the latest and most glaring historical example: the leaders and the parties of the Second International. We know that Wilhelm Liebknecht, Bebel, Singer, Victor Adler, Kautsky, Bernstein, Lafargue, Guesde, and others, were the immediate and direct pupils of Marx and Engels. We know, however, that all those leaders—some partly, and others wholly—degenerated into opportunism.”. . . “We, that is, we ‘old ones,’ must say that our generation, which naturally plays a leading role in the Party, has no self-sufficient guarantee against the gradual and imperceptible weakening of the proletarian and revolutionary spirit, assuming that the Party tolerates a further growth and consolidation of the bureaucratic-apparatus methods of policy which are transforming the younger generation into passive educational material and are inevitably creating estrangement between the apparatus and the membership, between the old and the young.”. . . “The youth—the Party’s truest barometer—react most sharply of all against Party bureaucracy.”. . . “The youth must capture the revolutionary formulas by storm. . .

First, I must dispel a possible misunderstanding. As is evident from his letter, Trotsky includes himself among the Bolshevik old guard, thereby showing readiness to take upon himself the charges that may be hurled at the old guard if it does indeed take the path of degeneration. It must be admitted that this readiness for self-sacrifice is undoubtedly a noble trait. But I must protect Trotsky from Trotsky, because, for obvious reasons, he cannot, and should not, bear responsibility for the possible degeneration of the principal cadres of the Bolshevik old guard. Sacrifice is a good thing, of course, but do the old Bolsheviks need it? I think that they do not.

Secondly, it is impossible to understand how opportunists and Mensheviks like Bernstein, Adler, Kautsky, Guesde, and the others, can be put on a par with the Bolshevik old guard, which has always fought, and I hope will continue to fight with honour, against opportunism, the Mensheviks and the Second International. What is the cause of this muddle and confusion? Who needs it, bearing in mind the interests of the Party and not ulterior motives that by no means aim at defence of the old guard? How is one to interpret these insinuations about opportunism in relation to the old Bolsheviks, who matured in the struggle against opportunism?

Thirdly, I do not by any means think that the old Bolsheviks are absolutely guaranteed against the danger of degeneration any more than I have grounds for asserting that we are absolutely guaranteed against, say, an earthquake. As a possibility, such a danger can and should be assumed. But does this mean that such a danger is real, that it exists? I think that it does not. Trotsky himself has adduced no evidence to show that the danger of degeneration is a real danger. Nevertheless, there are a number of elements within our Party who are capable of giving rise to a real danger of degeneration of certain ranks of our Party. I have in mind that section of the Mensheviks who joined our Party unwillingly, and who have not yet got rid of their old opportunist habits. The following is what Comrade Lenin wrote about these Mensheviks, and about this danger, at the time of the Party purge:

“Every opportunist is distinguished for his adaptability . . . and the Mensheviks, as opportunists, adapt themselves ‘on principle,’ so to speak, to the prevailing trend among the workers and assume a protective colouring, just as a hare’s coat turns white in the winter. It is necessary to know this specific feature of the Mensheviks and take it into account. And taking it into account means purging the Party of approximately ninety-nine out of every hundred of the Mensheviks who joined the Russian Communist Party after 1918, i.e., when the victory of the Bolsheviks first became probable and then certain.” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 13.)

How could it happen that Trotsky, who lost sight of this and similar, really existing dangers, pushed into the foreground a possible danger, the danger of the degeneration of the Bolshevik old guard? How can one shut one’s eyes to a real danger and push into the foreground an unreal, possible danger, if one has the interests of the Party in view and not the object of undermining the prestige of the majority in the Central Committee, the leading core of the Bolshevik old guard? Is it not obvious that “approaches” of this kind can only bring grist to the mill of the opposition?

Fourthly, what reasons did Trotsky have for contrasting the “old ones,” who may degenerate, to the “youth,” the Party’s “truest barometer”; for contrasting the “old guard,” who may become bureaucratic, to the “young guard,” which must “capture the revolutionary formulas by storm”? What grounds had he for drawing this contrast, and what did he need it for? Have not the youth and the old guard always marched in a united front against internal and external enemies? Is not the unity between the “old ones” and the “young ones” the basic strength of our revolution? What was the object of this attempt to discredit the old guard and demagogically to flatter the youth if not to cause and widen a fissure between these principal detachments of our Party? Who needs all this, if one has the interests of the Party

in view, its unity and solidarity, and not an attempt to shake this unity for the benefit of the opposition?

Is that the way to defend the Central Committee and its resolution on internal Party democracy, which, moreover, was adopted unanimously?

But evidently, that was not Trotsky’s object in issuing his letter to the Party conferences. Evidently there was a different intention here, namely: diplomatically to support the opposition in its struggle against the Central Committee of the Party while pretending to support the Central Committee’s resolution.

That, in fact, explains the stamp of duplicity that Trotsky’s letter bears.

Trotsky is in a bloc with the Democratic Centralists and with a section of the “Left” Communists—therein lies the political significance of Trotsky’s action.

Pravda, No. 285, December 15, 1923

USSR: Forgive Us Class of 1967 (Soviet Time-Capsule Opened!)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Original Russian Language Article By: Olga Basurova

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Yesterday, my Alma Mater – the Ryazan Radio Engineering University – opened a time-capsule buried 50 years ago, containing a message from the student body of 1967, to their descendants half a century later – in 2017. What can I say … Read it for yourself:

‘Dear comrades (of the future Soviet Union), We, the participants of the Student Conference entitled ’50 Years of Soviet Radio Engineering’ – held on May 13th, 1967 in the Assembly Hall of the RREI – send you our greetings to the (Soviet) students of the 21st century. We have gathered together to assess the over-all development of Soviet Radio Engineering in the last 50 years (since the 1917 Russian Revolution). We hope that you will gather in the future, to also assess the great Soviet Achievements 50 years later in your time, understanding how fortunate you are to live in the world’s first Communist State which for you is now 100 years old! How has Soviet Radio Technology moved forward and progressed between 1967 and 2017?

Our Ryazan Radio Engineering Institute was founded in 1952. Now, it trains about 5000 students in the usual full-time academic manner, supplemented by both evening and correspondence faculties, where a further 2000-1000 students respectively, are now being trained.

The Institute has five faculties (not counting the evening and correspondence courses), which train engineers in 14 specialities. The faculties are entitled: radio engineering, electronic engineering, automatics and telemechanics, automatic control systems, and radio equipment design. These specialities span 31 departments. The Institute employs over 500 teachers (mostly young people), including 120 professors and associate professors.

For the years of its existence, our progressive Socialist Institute has produced about 4,500 Specialists in the latest branches of technology. They work in almost every city of our great Soviet Union. Scientific candidates for training at our Institute, are prepared through attending graduate school.

We enjoy very interesting lives. We have very good and varied amateur interests, facilitated through various clubs and interests groups. Many of us participate in the scientific work of all the departments. We love sports, theatre, and cinema. During the entire academic year, we work hard in classrooms, laboratories, and reading rooms. In the summer we leave for the collective farms and for the as of yet uncultivated lands, where we help build clubs, houses and various other structures (as a means to further the development of Socialism).. This is our work semester. A more complete picture of our life (and study) will be provided to you through the enclosed photographs and newspapers.

We are sure that in the year 2017, our progressive Institute will represent an even larger and perfect higher educational system in the USSR, training engineers of the 21st century – a century of new scientific discoveries and achievements. Therefore, we are envious of you, our future Comrades. However, you must not be conceited about this, and remember that we, (and our fathers), by labour and sacrifice, have created your great (Soviet) future in which you now live and prosper!

With Comradely Greetings.’

Published by Olga Basurova, 05/16/2017 at 10:33 am

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.

Original Russian Language Reference Article:

ПРОСТИТЕ НАС, СТУДЕНТЫ 1967 ГОДА…

Вчера в моей Альма Матер – Рязанском радиотехническом университите вскрыли заложенную полвека назад капсулу с посланием студентов 1967 года своим потомкам через полвека. Что тут сказать… Прочитайте сами:

Дорогие товарищи! Мы, участники студенческой конференции „50 лет советской радиотехники“, состоявшейся 13 мая 1967 года в актовом зале РРТИ, шлем вам, студентам XXI века, свой студенческий привет. Мы собрались, чтобы подвести итоги развития советской радиотехники за 50 лет. Надеемся, что и вы будете тоже подводить итоги, но уже за сто лет, и оценивать, как шагнула вперед советская радиотехника.

Наш Рязанский радиотехнический институт основан в 1952 году. Теперь в нем обучается только на дневном отделении около 5000 студентов. Имеются и вечерний, и заочный факультеты, на которых обучается соответственно 2000-1000 студентов.

В институте пять факультетов (не считая вечернего и заочного), которые готовят инженеров по 14 специальностям. Факультеты называются так: радиотехнический, электронной техники, автоматики и телемеханики, автоматических систем управления, конструирования радиоаппаратуры. Они объединяют 31 кафедру. В институте работает свыше 500 преподавателей (в основном это молодежь), среди которых 120 профессоров и доцентов.

За годы своего существования институт выпустил около 4500 специалистов по новейшим отраслям техники. Они работают почти во всех городах нашей Родины. Готовит институт и научных работников через аспирантуру.

Живем мы очень интересно. У нас хорошая самодеятельность, различные кружки. Многие из нас участвуют в научной работе кафедр. Любим спорт, театр, кино. Весь учебный год мы напряженно трудимся в аудиториях, лабораториях, читальных залах. Летом уезжаем в колхозы и на целину, помогаем строить клубы, дома и различные сооружения. Это наш трудовой семестр. Более полное представление о нашей жизни и учебе дадут вам прилагаемые фотографии и газеты.

Мы уверены, что в 2017 году наш институт будет представлять еще более крупное и совершенное высшее учебное заведение, готовящее инженеров XXI века — века новых научных открытий и свершений. Поэтому мы по-хорошему завидуем вам, товарищи. Но вы не особенно зазнавайтесь и помните, что и мы, и наши отцы своим трудом создали то великое будущее, в котором вы живете. С товарищеским приветом.

Опубликовала Ольга Басурова , 16.05.2017 в 10:33

 

Paul Robeson (Поль Робсон): A Full Human-Being in the USSR!

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

“In (Soviet) Russia, I felt for the first time like a full human being – no colour prejudice like in Mississippi – no colour prejudice like in Washington. It was the first time I felt like a human being!” – Paul Robeson

Paul Robeson at Russian Embassy Party

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

 

%d bloggers like this: