# Hme0401@3 : My Common Publicistic Works : Now, Look Here! (Publicistics) -- Part One -- For Journals : Third Third : 2001 - 2017 : Mirski-Bis

Христо Мирский

Look at the original text, this form is good only for copying.

Keywords: publicistics, Bulgaria, serious works, independently, untraditionally, own ideas, in English.

-->


--> ...


-->


--> -- -- -- -- --


-->


===>*_IN BULGARIA EVERYTHING IS QUIET_*


-->


-->*_1._* So, I have been silent and silent for a dozen of years, but then decided to raise again my voice, and it is necessary to explain now why I have not written for such a long time any publicistic. Well, the reasons are several, but they are related. For one thing, at the turn of the century, roughly speaking, or with the coming to power of the King's party,


=>*_the things have begun to stabilize_*


-|and it has begun to happen by us so like on the West, with this difference, of course, that it becomes more and more clear how /_terribly_/ poor we are. And why are they stabilizing, ah? Well, because, first of all, we have reached the bottom, so that there is nowhere more to sink, what happened with the establishing of Currency Board by us, which has fixed us to the bottom, but also because we have abandoned at last the bipolar model, where the ones always spit on the others, and vice versa, where both poles are as much right, as well also wrong -- it depends on the time and the viewpoint. But this is practically clear, and the more interesting question is the following: why exactly our King has begun to settle the things?


-->Not that he has not wanted to do this, but his party was just a heterogeneous crowd of all more moderate right-wing (because the immoderate ones have dispersed themselves, and there has emerged also one "/_Haiduk Sider_/" -- i.e. Volen Siderov, but "/_volen_/" means free, like a haiduk --, who has taken with him all right-wing ... lumpens, of course, or mostly youngsters, like there has existed earlier "/_Hitler Jugend_/") politicians, i.e. of /_conjunctural_/ such, who had nowhere to go and a whole decade had sat quiet. But he was neither too much left, nor too much right (well, more right-wing, obviously, for he is strong, he is a King, at any rate, although uncrowned). And he has come also from the West and there people from long ago don't like extremist in politics, and his years, too, were not such to make him do some excesses, what was clear to the population, though we naively have thought that he does this because he is a King. Yeah, but the "guy", has come to take his land and other possessions, as all were very well able to see, and has begun to do what only he wants, having in mind that he holds the majority of places in the Parliament, and was born as King, too, and was in advanced age, so that the people soon have begun not to give much respect to him. But also his party was formed in extremely short time, for two months, so that its members have not even succeeded to change its name and it remained so as "Second Simeonian" Platform (NMSS, National Movement Simeon the Second), i.e. with /_working_/ name, the only movement then to which three letters did not suffice (and now, too, for the GERB party, although this is also abbreviation, but as a word "gerb" means ensign, emblem).


-->What I want to say is that this man, and also all his people, have not given much efforts, they just wanted to "cash in" on the power, without some special ideas, still, it happened so that he gave the impulse for bettering of the things, mostly with his moderation. For this reason or not, but it turned so that those, who very much wanted to better the things, the right- as also the left- wing, have only worsened the situation the more they wanted to better it, where those, who have not striven especially hard, have succeeded to give us the proper impetus, am I right? This is crystally-clear paradox (although it often happens so, also in other cases), but we, as country of paradoxes, can do the things only in this way, ah? Id est that the "point" here is that /_not_/ the politics can better the things by us, but, as I have stressed this in other places (not pretending, though, to "discover America"), the economics, the usual routine, and often egoistical, work. It is good to understand this, because this party, if it has been built as party with some platform and name -- for example "Western Model Party" or "Alliance for Normal Capitalism", or, if you want, "Party of Moderate Actions" -- could have continued its existence (I mean that it also have retained its influence over the masses, because with less than 5 % of the votes this simply does not count).


-->On the other hand I have ceased to write because I have not seen special purpose in this, when now (to the end of the century, after a decade of turbulent changes)


=>*_there have not remained unmanipulated newspapers,_*


-|or really free press, but only some sponsored by large business groups (I am not interesting exactly which, yet this is obvious, for the reason that all the left, including also party newspapers "Duma"-"word" and "Democracy", have ceased to exist -- only that on the West each party has its newspaper, right?). Well, they manipulate those who ... /_can_/ be manipulated (because me, for example, nobody manipulates for the reason that he can't), i.e. the people got what they wanted, like on the West -- it is this, about what we are speaking, that by us it begins to happen like on the West --, so that this groups are /_right_/, in their own way. When the people want to be deceived (what in Latin is: /_Mundus_/ vult /_decipi_/, i.e. "The world /_wants_/ to be deceived"), then there will always be found someone to do this, say: advertisements, politicians, PR-cadres, physicians, teachers, etc., who manipulate in some way the corresponding people. So that is what most people do, but I am not such person who likes to deceive or manipulate the others, and I have given up to intervene.


-->But then, when a decade have passed and it turned out that the Internet gives some opportunity to say things to the people, if not exactly in Bulgarian then in other languages (for I can use a pair), I have decided to raise a voice from time to time because I have nothing else to do, i.e. I have /_not at all_/ work being unemployed (for the reason that I have studied long, I'll tell you).


-->So that in Bulgaria everything is quiet, in broad lines, there are no changes in general political course -- transition to more and more harder and right-wing capitalism, and this even from the part of so called left-wing parties (because, for example, the flat income tax is one as possibly utterly right-wing economic decision, more right than this there is nowhere, nobody would have accepted that from the poorer was taken more than from the wealthy, but it was silently approved by the left-wing and only somewhere in 2010 they have raised voice, but not so much because they did not like it, as because they wanted to find something for what to accuse the "Duce Boiko"). And in the economy there are not big changes, the stronger Western economies continue to press us and we continue /_not_/ to unite with more weaker in economic regard countries (because we now can't do this, being included in the European Union). And that in the morality, I want to say, in its absence, there are also no changes, is more than obvious, but such are likewise not to be expected (because, for to give examples, there is not one interesting TV series, or whatever other TV broadcast watched with interest by the audience, where is no cursing, sex, or they don't deal with homosexuals, as if there are no more normal in this respect people left, or where is no violence -- and to remind you, just in case, that in the times of Oscar Wilde the expression "to make love " meant purely to show interest to someone from the other sex, speak with him or her, show courtesy, and as "cursing" was taken to say ... "the hell" or "damn it", for in this way one showed disrespect to God). So that I want to say that our "normalization" is in no case normal, but terminologically, and I think also so, some commonly accepted and average situation is taken for normal, even if this is something bad (say, it is normal that corruption existed, normal that there were fought wars, and so on).


-->


-->*_2._* So, everything is OK till now, remains only to clear the point which political forces are for normalization or moderation or centering -- because, if you ask me, or even if you look at the ancient Greeks, the moderation is a /_matter of common sense_/ --, and then see whether we can move in this direction and what is our future, in political, but also in economic, regard.


-->Which parties are centrists, then? Well, if you exclude Bulgarian "Ataka"-attack party, maybe all the left, because now even the UDF (Union of Democratic Forces, /_SDS_/ in Bulgarian) long ago (i.e. after its popularity has strongly fallen, somewhere around the turn of the century) is not ultra-right, and the last really convinced socialist (or communist) of high rank was Zhan Videnov, after him the people there keep only the name "socialists", as a trade mark so to say. Well, the "Ataka" is fascist, what at least on the West does not cause any doubts, and they are so called in foreign, English, texts, but there are little things in Bulgaria that are called with their proper names, right? This, that such party existed, on one hand is terrible, but on the other hand this is not at all so, and it is maybe even /_necessary_/, in order to channel their protests (in the same way as various fans of numerous stars raise different slogans). I don't like to go into details about this question here, because in this way we go astray from the theme of quietness, but as far as this is its antipode then it is necessary to say a pair of words about them, too. Now see, first of all they are very few people, they have started with some 8 % and now are somewhere about 5, what, surely, is little, i.e. they can speak whatever sort of nonsense they like -- because it is clear that their plans are absolute utopias, or rather /_dystopias_/, as is now said --, for if something from their propositions could be turned to reality this will be another catastrophe! But this will never happen because they will never seize the power. They can "bark", this they can, but not "bite". And for this reason the West has left them to "bark". Besides, they are party of, let us call them so, post-teenagers, i.e. somewhere from 18 and to 25 years at most, in Komsomol age, as it was spoken before, and these "youngster" just need their "actions", doesn't they? They are immoderate simply because they are young, and as far as there is no morality any more there is nobody to tell them that they behave bad (but it, to remind you, even when there was morality, in one highly moral country like Germany, and when some have said to such youngsters that they do not right things, then they, again, have behaved how they wanted, so that now this is beyond hope!). This is the next "childhood disease" of our democracy.


-->The proper centrist party, and this for many years, since its emergence as party, is only our ethnical party, the MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, /_DPS_/ in Bulgarian). And here we again have paradoxes, so that let me explain the things in some extent. For there are not many those who can answer correctly the question:


=>*_why (and when) a given ethnical party is centrist,_*


-|because their party /_is_/ ethnical, whatever they alone are not saying (for the obvious reason that nobody will admit officially that he is doing something against the law), and they are centrists (if not for other reasons, then because all Governments have resorted to them when this was necessary, i.e. with them is possible to take compromise decisions, they are not fanatics of whatever idea -- to cite, for example, the "great" slogan of UDF: "Compromises with whomever, only not with the communists!"). Well, listen here, they are first of all /_not_/ ethnical /_party of the majority_/, for to be able to do harm and evil, let be clear on that point. They are party of some minority, and then, why them not to try to become a bit stronger? So, for example, they have wanted to be in position to give themselves names like Assan, instead of our Ass/_e_/n, and they can do this now. I personally don't see what so good is hidden in the name Assan, but, maybe, they relate it with their /_aslan_/ or /_arslan_/, what means lion (this has to be some snarling, like by the bears, which animal is called /_ursa_/ in /_Latin_/), so that it is their right, in the end, to bear whatever name they want (and why should someone be able to call himself, say, /_Uy Min_/ -- and in Bulgarian /_huy_/, often pronounced as /_uy_/ is what you call penis, sorry --, and not Assan, ah?).


-->But, then, why are they centrists? I don't know whether these people are aware about this, but the answer to that question is obvious for me -- this is /_exactly_/ because they are ethnical party, i.e. they do /_not divide_/ in some property, or intellectual, or professional, or other principle! They are performing one /_proportional sample_/ of the population -- well, of Turkish origin, but the Turks are like the Bulgarians (or Germans, Russians, Hebrews, etc.), i.e. there are among them all sorts of people, and one party that wants to please everybody /_must_/ be centrist, else there will be needed at least two such parties, how it is with the other layers-parts (for this is the idea of the word "part" -- strata, side, layer). But a minority party, which hardly gathers 10 % of the voices, has no rights to split in two parts, am I right? More so in more than two parts. That's the point. So that it turns out that an ethnical party, at least for us, is a very good thing (because for me is obvious that the center is always something good, at least for the reason that this is so hard to be reached, as far as everybody aims at extremities). Now, if it arises some time ethnical Gypsy -- ah, sorry, Roma's, as they insist to be called -- party, then there may arise some frictions, but otherwise there is no danger, except on the part of "/_Sider-Jugend_/", but we have all once been young (and silly, of course).


-->There also our King was, inasmuch as this was possible, center, because he is "King" of all Bulgarians, and it is necessary to remind, or cite, for I am not convinced that people by us are aware that the social measures can be equally well proposed by aristocrats and Monarchs, where as typical, though rarely used, example I may mention the fact that the social security was introduced initially in Germany (and understand also in Europe, and in the whole world, I suppose) by some Otto, and in addition /_von_/ and Bismarck, who surely was not left-wing, right? And due to all this has arisen the directly "extraterrestrial" coalition of former communists, the King, and the Turkish party, because it was possible, and there were no other more or less centrist parties.


-->This, what I still don't like in our movement to the center -- because, as I have said, both the right- and the left- wing parties are centering --, is that there,


=>*_is no fight and competition in the left political space,_*


-|it is united and monolithic, all efforts to split it are doomed to failure by the simple reason that the left are on the whole not so powerful for to allow themselves to split, or then they are more intelligent. But the right ones split for 20 years now, there the entire UDF has "peeled" exactly like an onion head, even has begotten shortly also "Duce Boiko" as I have mentioned, who has "prodded" "Haiduk Sider", because there can't be two "Duce" (literally /_duce_/ in Italian, what means a leader) in one and the same time and place. So that, hmm, if you care for our center, either become supporter of the /_left_/-wing, in order to allow them to split and to begin there some political fight, or back MRF (what, I think, is pretty hard to be done by a real Bulgarian), or else form some new centrist party (say, of transport workers, but all of them, or teachers, or homosexuals -- they are also of any soft, i.e. representative sample). There is one more variant, almost fantastical, but not to excluded in the future, to which we shall come in the end.


-->


-->*_3._* Let us focus now for some time on the leading in the moment party, in order to make our review more actual. This, what can be said is that


=>*_"GERB" can continue to exist for about five to ten years,_*


-|but no more than this, after what it will follow the fate of NMSS, i.e. some of its members, succeeded to push themselves upward, will remain, or change their party, respectively form their own parties, but our "Duce" will be left alone by himself with a pair of percents of the electorate. Well, a general is not a "head of onion", as we say, but he also will spend himself, or at least people will become bored by him, because this, with what the democracy is good, is /_not_/ the very choice, but /_the changing_/ of parties, and if there is not some platform, which will remain after the person at the top comes down from the scene, then the party very soon will fade away. And that his talks about the image of Bulgaria are nothing more than variant of (pre-electoral) advertising, I think, must be clear to everybody. Because, for one thing, our image is all the same bad, for another thing, it is not created for five years but at least for /_fifty_/, and, for some more thing, -- corruption has always existed and will exist, and, correspondingly, the fight with it.


-->Let us explain a bit these things. The image of Bulgaria is bad somewhere since the middle ages, if not earlier, and also of all Slavs, who for the West are assimilated with the ... slaves -- compare the English Slav and slave, but as far as the Bulgarians are near to them than, say, the Russians or Ukrainian, then this applies mainly to us. I personally think that the Western people confuse the Bulgarians with the ... Serbs -- obviously --, because they relatively recently have /_one more time_/ proved that, even if there is not especially important cause, when only they have some possibility they will find something to fight for, for the simple reason that them, hmm, said in Bulgarian, "/_gi sarbiat razete_/" (to fight), what means literally that their hands are itching, have to be scratched, but is used as idiom for to want something eagerly! This thesis might be questionable, and etymologically here it goes not exactly about itching or scratching, as about /_sickles_/ or "/_serps_/" in Russian, i.e. curved sabers, scimitars, which names already from the Sanskrit sound in similar way ("/_krpanas_/", something of the kind), but this is to the same idea. Anyway, let me not expatiate here too widely, but we all in Bulgaria, either know, or remember, or have heard, or then learned, about the circumstances with our Georgi Dimitrov and the Leipzig court trial back in 1933 (because: where to find better person for arsonist than a "/_Bugarin_/", how the Serbs say?), and about the case Antonov (because: who else will take into his head to shoot at the Roman Pope if not a "/_Bugarin_/"?), or also, who else will agree to kill innocent children in Libya for little pocket money, except some /_Giaour_/-infidel like all Bulgarians. This, surely, are sucked from the fingers, or rather from the subconscious mind, justified with nothing insinuations about the Bulgarians, but there can't be said that it is not true that with the coming of democracy a big number of Bulgarians have run to the West, and have reached also to the United States, and the whole Europe screams with terror from us, and for that reason after pulling down of Berlin wall become necessary to erect the Schengen one (even if it isn't exactly wall in the direct meaning of the word; or not only the Bulgarians are such, for there live in Europe also Romanians, for example).


-->So that our image is obviously bad, this isn't good for us, but it can't be bettered for a pair of years, just raising the slogan "Amend the image!" For reaching of this goal are necessary many efforts, as from the part of the top (I can remind you about one "Princess", Liudmila -- daughter of Todor Zhivkov --, who in her time has traveled all over the world with various exhibitions, but what else can a princess do?), as well also from the part of the masses (for example, with some nice folk songs from the region of our Rodopa mountains, or with Nestinar dances barefooted on burning coals, or with weightlifters, if you like, and so on). But


=>*_in order to better the image first of all is needed morality,_*


-|a thing which is very difficult to be shown by a nation that is not much religious, and the time in which we live is entirely amoral. We may be very good people (in sense of our genetic makings), but we are quite savage, somebody must teach us to behave properly, and this can be obtained primarily by the usage of a ... /_whip_/. Earlier, in the totalitarian years, there was who to swing it and our savagery was not so easily to be seen, but with the coming of democracy this become the first, and still the primary, thing, which catches the eye in Bulgaria. Everything, the dirt on the streets, but also in the nature, the lacking of elementary social measures (just as an example: from the moment when our Central bath in Sofia, with mineral water, known since 5th century, was privatized it ceased to exist as such, only the water flows as before; or to my knowledge there are no public spots for washing of clothes, laundromats as you say; or the buses up to Mount Vitosha, near to Sofia, have stopped to go anymore; and many other examples), and the covering up of big apartment houses with /_patches_/ on their facades, the so called sanitation (because such things on the West are not to be seen -- there either the whole building is coated and painted, or nothing is touched), and the "wild" prices of transport, milk, and other wares, all these are things that does not exist in the normal countries; there the people do not think that some of them are to rummage in garbage bins and other ones can cry "Long live the democracy". When there is no morality and religion it is quite hard in the country, but we have also not one common vision (as we also have begun to say) about this what is good for the state and what not; each new Government carries out its own course, which reduces to this to throw at least half of its efforts on denial and destruction of what was done by the previous Governments (like: to strike out the communism totally, or to declassify the dossiers of employees of former State Security, or to give back the agricultural land in real borders, no matter whether it will be used or not, and other things which does not happen in normal Western countries). If we do not manage to moralize our country from above, to expect that this will happen from below, in a country like our, is almost beyond hope. The Bulgarian "functions" good on the West because there he is in minority and takes example from the majority, but in our country he is who "calls the tune for the song" and it, naturally, comes out of tune.


-->Besides, the fight with various negative moments in our development is not platform for one party, but /_obligation for all of them_/, so that when on the West they speak that we are lagging behind in the fight with these moments of governing, i.e. that we are quite savage and barbarous people, then this is because there has to be found some excuse (as back in the times of Turkish yoke the then rulers have spoken about "/_dish-hag_/" of "teeth-tax" for the reason that: what can be answered to one who asks unnecessary questions? -- they have required money from the wealthy, for the latter were able to give some to them, they would not have asked from the poor, for example, like it seems to happen nowadays by us). And also the fight with corruption can't be used as goal for a single party because


-->cent|*_the corruption is a matter of ... /_level of ripeness_/ of society_*


-|(thesis which I have discussed in my other papers, too), and, for example, the capitalist society, more than obvious, at least for me, but also for many other persons, is corrupted (if not for other reasons than because it is run by money). The corruption exists if it can show itself, if the system requires it, otherwise it disappears by itself. Saying this in a slightly different way, it is an /_addition to the government_/, because the latter can't provide this, what a big number of people want -- for example: prostitution, narcotic drugs, organized crime (for the judicial system, absolutely clear, is not good enough in a big majority of cases). I don't say that the corruption must exist, but, for example, what hinders us to require that all state officials of high rank (in order not to say "statesmen", for there are now many "stateswomen"), /_were on state's keep_/ and received /_no_/ salaries at all (or, well, let it be so, received three minimal salaries, or one average such, something of the kind), and also remained under financial surveillance for the next at least 5, but better 10, years after leaving their posts, and this to be valid for their direct relatives, too, in view of finding of cases of misuse of their social position? Such people are, really, not so many, not more than 500 persons for a country like Bulgaria, and if only a hundred of them was under control this also would have carried some benefit to the country. But we have not a right view on the question that high ranking governmental officers, in principle, must work for the sake of work, not for money, and on the West people also don't have one meaning, but there in many countries, at least in the USA, exists property qualification (or /_cense_/) and the people /_pay_/ out of their own pocket for to be able to rule.


-->The common people, however, don't understand this and, for example, when in Italy somebody from the politicians was media magnate, they say that this is bad, but he at least does not earn via the power, am I right? And not only there. All confusion comes from the fact that the payment, quite naturally, must be tool only for securing of normal life, not for governing, for obtaining of power over the masses, but the entire capitalism is based on money; denying the money we come to the communism, which is not much liked due to its bad realization till now, but accepting the money we come to the capitalism, commercialization, corruption, and so on, which are things that also are not much liked by the population as a whole, because these are immoral things. There, where the religion has influence, people are satisfied with this, that who lives now good will on the "other world" get what has deserved, and vice versa, but with what can we properly be calmed? By some decent living standard there also is possible not to bother much that the "big sharks" eat the small fishes, because the small "fiches" can live decently, if only they want to, but in a country like ours, the poorest in the whole European Union, and hoping to become second in poverty only if Albania becomes included in it, people become much more amoral than in totalitarian years, when especially big corruption simply could not have existed for there was everything under surveillance, and also the money has not this power as it has now, then only /_the power has the power_/, so to say.


-->In short, let it be clear that the GERB party can do nothing of big importance, it is party of the "good bully", and this will do the work for some time, but, surely, will bore the people sometimes. And he is not much moderate or centered; well, he is not like the old UDF, but also not such like MRF (the Turks), or like (at least some ideal) BSP (socialists). He, though, pacifies the people, because, passes some time or other, and the "whip" begins to flap, and our folks, as humble horses, pull the chariot. For the moment. But the curious moment here -- there are only curiosities in Bulgaria, as I have mentioned -- is that in spite of economic crisis we are as if more quiet and stable, than in other Western, i.e. former capitalist countries (like Greece, but Spain, too, Italy, and others), as well as in some Eastern (say, Ukraine, Poland), or that


-->cent|*_the crisis by us creates almost no problems,_*


-|for the simple reason that we are living so miserable that worse than this is almost not possible! Id est, in Bulgaria, really, in broad lines, everything is quiet. In view of this our "Duce" practically can not "entangle the skein" anymore. He does nothing especially reasonable, he once accepts and then denies some old settings (be it about nuclear power plant in Kozloduy, be it about oil pipeline from Russia, or about some highway, or shale gas, or taxes, etc.), but speaks always with conviction and firmness and is liked by the population, most of all by women, but also by men, at least in the region around the capital Sofia. He has almost no platform, but being, still, a general (not feldwebel like some Adolf), is not silly, holds the masses, and the things are in order. That our situation is bad, it is bad, but as far as we are in this condition a long time, then the present-day situation up to some extent quietens us and we work a little, that's that we work (well, those who have job, of course) /_much, but for little_/ (money). We wait and wait for the crisis to end, it does not end, though, and we are like domestic livestock led ... to be slaughtered. We neither try to better something, no think what to do, but just stay there meek and docile (and who can flee abroad does it). In general -- oasis of stability in Europe. And this, however strange, can little by little begin to better our image (but again not because we want this, merely as side effect of our desperate poverty).


-->


-->*_4._* The future, naturally, can not be exactly predicted, but, still, let us try to meditate a little about this, what can be expected to happen after the GERB, in political as well as in economic aspect. Well, the economy is clear, we will continue to be outsiders within Europe, more or less on equal level with Romania, and a bit higher than Albania, in spite of the fact that we are capable and distinctive people. This is so because we have nothing more left to be privatized (to expect that there will be influx of capitals from the West), nor have alone capitals (for we are poor like beggars), nor also have some general line for development of our own industry (as we have had in the times of totalitarianism). When every Government denies the achievements of the former we are skidding (in the mud) and do not bother much about this. Morality we also do not have, we are not religious, so that here we are left to our fate. But in the nature everything is mutually related, so that it is not excluded that


-->cent|*_exactly the lack of morality will force us to try to have it,_*


-|little by little, such moments can already be remarked (for example, by some forms of charity), but this is very slow process, and on the background of our current-day decaying of capitalist society (for it is so good in many countries by the simple reason that is already /_overripe_/) we will need quite much time, but maybe Europe will somehow succeed to integrate us, when we do not fight with one another, like it happens in other countries (i.e. to spend money, instead of to pacify us, for raising of our living standard).


-->More interesting is to guess about politics. It is clear that the socialists, however much they /_were not_/ such, will from time to time come to power, but I don't believe that they will be able to rule alone, because -- again a paradox, I'll tell you -- the better one nation lives (and we will gradually rise to the surface, for some 10-20 years, and will reach the level of living from ... the times of our "Bai Tosho"), the more to the right it bends.


-->cent|*_The left-wing, as a rule, are not loved,_*


-|and -- another etymological excursus -- in Italian (i.e. in Latin) the word /_sinister_/ means left, but it is perfectly obvious, at least for the English speaking people, that this means also bad, evil, brutal. If you have not yet given a thought to this phenomenon I can explain it to you: the left-wing, or those who think about the others, not about themselves (or at least think that it has to be so, and for that reason, or for another one, live poor), are not much loved because everybody knows that such behaviour is right, but /_they alone can't_/ behave so (for the man, whatever was not said about, is egoist by himself, and even must be such in the nature), so that they are simply feeling ashamed, that the others, poor, humble, good-for-nothing, etc., exceed them with something! That is the essence of the things. Of course, there is also this moment, that the more poor are also more vile, mean, etc., but they are just /_compelled_/ to be such, for otherwise they will never succeed in this life, while the wealthy and successful can easily speak about human honour and morality, when receive everything ready. In other words, the "bad" ones are such, because they are forced by the very life, and by the society, too, and the "good" ones think only about themselves and find that that is why they live good and that it has to be lived like them, but deep in themselves they know that this isn't so (and that, for example, they will not find good place in the "other world" with this, that here on this world have lived good).


-->But I have spoken about this, that the left-wing will hardly succeed to take the whole power on their own, unless it begins fight in the left political space, what, however, in a barbaric country like our, does not happen, at least for the moment. Where the right-wing, they split for a long time and have already split, and there is nothing else to invent there (for we have spent the ideas about the King, and about NATO, and the businessmen, and the farmers -- not that it was some powerful idea --, and the strong people in general). The center, on the other hand, is hard to be reached, and when we reach it, or it is served us on a plate, than we begin not to like it (for we want actions). For the moment I see some escape for a time only in the ... women! In the sense that we have not yet tried to build some


-->cent|*_strong feminine or feminists party,_*


-|because all women are like all Turks, they represent the whole nation, and they are also as if more meek and quiet, and more mediocre and everybody will understand them (for, if you give some thought to the matter, we are /_not_/ governed by philosophers, and will not be governed in the future, too, despite the fact that Plato before roughly 25 centuries has come to the conclusion that this is the most correct decision). If this could not be realized than we can only hope to find some foreign rulers (not only come from behind the border, but also with foreign citizenship and ethnicity, say: Germans, Englishmen, Frenchman, Japanese), or on coalition governments and specially of weak parties (what ruling is very insidious, I think, but we may live long enough to see such one), or on caretakers governments, or (in what I don't believe much, but, still, it is not entirely excluded) on some totalitarian ruling (say, of dynasty of "/_Boikists_/" -- descendants of Boiko Borissov, the leader of GERB party --, if such dynasty exists).


-->


-->September 2012


-->


-->*_P.S_*. Well, as it turned out after less than half an year, not everything in Bulgaria is so quiet, but (for it isn't possible for the author to make errors, is it?) this is even for the better, because -- now, judge for yourself, the whole world is already ten years or so in economic crisis and the people everywhere are discontented with this, only we, and being the poorest in European Union, keep silence like sheep. So that I am glad that we have shown that we are not entirely sheep, and I also continue to be right about the expressed in the paper moments. But because there are many things to be said about 2013, then I will dedicate to this question another material -- for it turned out that the year was, primarily, guilty for our situation.


-->April 2013


-->


-->*_-- -- -- -- --_*


-->


===>*_POLITICAL PARTIES IN BULGARIA (political analysis)_*


-->


-->Such kind of analyses are usually done for one party, but I intend to spend some time for each of the parties (or as a group of similar ones) in Bulgaria in the democratic years, i.e. after 1990 and up to 2012, what has its advantages, as also its disadvantages. The latter ones are in this, that I will not be much precise (for otherwise a whole book will not be enough, and I am also not a specialist politologist), and the advantages, which (how it is normally to suppose) are related with the disadvantages, are in this that, when I am compelled not to be very extensive, I may allow myself to be interested only in the /_spirit_/ of parties, in the ideas, with which they come to (and then leave the) power, and in this way the material will become popular enough. To recompense the impreciseness my review will have rather philosophical character, be nontraditional, not tied (where this is possible) to concrete personalities, and to profound analyses (which often turn out to be made "without the innkeeper", as we in Bulgaria like to say). Well, let us begin then, hopping that the fingers on both hands will suffice us.


-->


-->*_1. BSP_* (Bulgarian Socialist Party). The former communists, using just a pair of words, *_have tried to cope with the situation,_* i.e. to reform themselves, *_but have not much succeeded in this,_* except for some objective reasons, chiefly *_because of the bad influence of their antipode_*, UDF (Union of Democratic Forces). To some of the readers this may seem prejudiced, but it is so (as also the reverse influence, but this time rather positive, of BSP over UDF), for the simple reason that the political environment is one, and our nation is one, and especially by the bipolar model is impossible that the two poles don't influence one another. But by this, as you surely know, the bad example is contagious, i.e. people, want this or not, but copy first of all the worst (as also we with the capitalism, of course, for we have begun with the legalization of prostitution, penetrating of drug addiction, increasing of criminality, etc.), so that soc-communists (or com-socialists), too, willy-nilly, have begun to "rejuvenate", and take hasty decisions, and stubbornly contradict the requirements of UDF -- as it happens in almost every family, where each one wants to appear more superior and makes many things only on the contrary to the other.


-->About the age, which, by God, is impossible not to be some measure for experience in life, it is perfectly clear that for the top echelon has dropped with nearly /_30 years_/, for the former Politburo has have average age of about 60, and many of them were also older than 70, where the new democratic communists were in the average age of 30 to 40 (rarely) years. This just can't not to be the cause for many errors, though they were necessary up to some extent, because the old ones, as a rule, don't want to accept the new tendencies, so that some changing of echelons were inevitable, but surely not with such immense difference, surely not from one pole and directly to the other. But such were the UDF members, in general, due to the fact that they were people non-succeeded to become top communists before, and first of all in Komsomol age.


-->Hastiness also must be obvious, if you remind yourself (who can, of course, but then read old newspapers -- if you've nothing else to do), that it was at least one ASA, Alternative Socialist Alliance (/_ASO_/ in Bulgarian, for the last word is "/_obedinenie_/"), but also other parties, not mentioning the 3-4 communist parties (up to 1992), as Social-Democratic Party, too, but it happened so that they all did not manage to reach some popularity, i.e. all outside BSP have doomed to failure. But in Russia still exists Communist Party, and with influence, which even 20 years after the transition to democracy takes part in the elections (to say nothing about China and Cuba). And the Social-Democrats also have not succeeded to get through (notwithstanding the fact that they were not so extreme as the communists), although once they lacked only some 5 hundredth of a percent (if I am not mistaken) for to exceed the threshold (of 4 %) in the Parliament. There were also other left-wing parties (I have not been much interested in this for I have never been communist myself -- and will also never become such, as is sung in one song in Bulgaria), but not a single of them succeeded to "enter the game". At the same time, if there were not the UDF -- at least I am convinced in this, although it can't be objectively proved -- for some 3-4 years, at worst for five, BSP would have succeeded to reform itself and forget about, eventually to split in a pair of major parties, and continue to rule, either directly, or as opposition. But they have not had time, the right-wing have poked them, so to say.


-->And about the stubbornness and acting on the contrary, I think, the things are obvious. Almost sure the communists (well, let them be socialists) would have agreed with some privatization earlier, maybe also with some reasonable Money Board, until the US dollar was still /_at least_/ 200 - 300 levs, not when it become 1,800 lv, and similarly with other measures. But how to lead normal dialog with people who, by their own words, said: "Compromises with everybody, only not with the communists!", or also "45-years are enough" (and let us now strike them out and return with as many years /_back_/ in the time, as it, really, happened, at least in regard of our standard of life).


-->But there are also objective reasons, and they are mainly in this, that *_people do not much like the communists, because they preach moral to them_*, and nobody wants to be thought how to live. For this reason people don't like much the priests, too, but if there exists strong religion then they at least listen to them and behave. And I will give here one ... etymological proof, the word "left" in Latin (as well as in contemporary Italian), which is /_sinister_/, means /_also_/ bad, evil, sinful! What better confirmation than this for the thesis that the left-wing, weak, poor (because the left hand is weaker, surely), are at the same time sinful and bad people? And in this case look at the right-wing and strong, they are paragons for behaviour -- and this not because the strong say so, but because everybody wants to be one of them. So that there is nowhere to run away from this, and it explains to a great extent (maybe does not excuse, but explains) the strong discipline under the communism. While now millions of people just rejoice that they /_may_/ have, for example, either their own petrol station, or a chain of shops, or a bank, or a space shuttle, if you want, et cetera, although even one out of million people will hardly have sometime such possibility, and they alone know this pretty well, but still hope and say themselves "What if ...". So that I explain popularly the contagiousness of right-wing ideas (in which, otherwise, come to think of this, there is no sense -- the strong is /_not right_/, he is just strong), and the justness of left-wing is proved by the very life (for they have emerged already in the primitive societies, and also among the animals, i.e. living in herds), but they, as a rule, are not liked by the population, especially by the young ones.


-->Well, surely can be pointed out errors also of the very BSP members, but let us not go into details. Their errors would have been such in order to oppose the aforesaid, not as principal errors (because there was not terror -- "the tanks have not come", how the UDF had insinuated in one of their electoral advertisements --, nor even they wished to continue the old line of ruling -- for the simple reason that the transition has begun from the very top, they have dethroned Bai Tosho, right?).


-->


-->*_2.UDF_* (Union of Democratic Forces, /_SDS_/ in Bulgarian). The new democratic association *_have not succeeded to make anything good, because they turned out to be mostly people without ideas, only exalted screamers_*, thinking that the market will settle by itself and that the democracy will heal everything like a miraculous ointment. Well, in the right-wing idea, generally speaking, there are almost ... /_no ideas_/, because, as we said here, the strong are not right, they are just strong, but there is some reason in this to listen to the strong, for this creates quietness in the country. But the right-wing thought that only with cries "Ooh!" and "Down!", i.e. only with destroying (and don't think that I exaggerate because I have been once at UDF meeting) everything will blossom and bring fruit, but this is not a way to pull state's chariot. And not only that they have done nothing good, but they have /_done_/ not a little /_bad_/, for they have destroyed working structures (for example, have given back agricultural land not requiring from the owners to work it; or have introduced Currency Board when it was absolutely unnecessary, our lev has begun to stabilize and have started to go up, but they have fixed it to the bottom; and other things like: safeness, morality, and others, have been damaged, due to unneeded freedoms). And what is even sillier -- I beg to be excused, but it is so -- they have done bad /_to themselves_/, too, because the communists, sorry, socialists, passes some time or other, and take the power for a while, even in "extraterrestrial" coalitions, but UDF now a decade or so have remained on the level of 2-3 % of the votes. Besides, it can be said that they have "peeled out" from themselves even the fascists (because it is clear that the latter ones have never accepted the communist ideas), but well, let us not add more sins to them for they are full with such).


-->It is clear that, /_in theory_/, there was some reason in this to build strong opposition to the communists, in order to /_help them_/ to reform themselves (for they, anyway, have ruled over us nearly half a century, and were not "pure water" politicians -- what means, if you ask me, that they have learned to deceive the people, yet in their own interest), but the bad thing came when they have tried to take the power, and even a pair of times more later. What I means is that, if they have appeared as party (well, coalition, but this is not important, as political power) which wants to destroy, than they would have always stayed in opposition, but never try to govern, when they can not. But let me not expatiate more about this /_causa perduta_/ (lost cause), because I criticize it also in other places.


-->


-->*_3. MRF_* (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, /_DPS_/ in Bulgarian). It has *_emerged as_* political *_power which must_* support and *_unite the Turkish minority_* in Bulgaria, *_but_* very soon *_it has transformed in_* one stable and *_permanent center_*. Now, let us not discuss here the point, are they or not ethnical party, because all, at least on the West, have already answered this question (just look in which regions they win their votes), but let us find the answer, /_why_/ are they center (for nobody disputes this). Well, they are centrist party first of all /_because they are ethnical party_/, but as far as by us this is not clear, and people continue to say that it is bad to have ethnical party, let us give here some explanations. Being ethnical party of /_all_/ Turks in Bulgaria, they are simply /_compelled_/ to represent equally good, i.e. as compromise, the interests of all these people, without any difference of age, sex, material status, education, religion, etc., aren't they? In this way they form one /_representative sample_/ of Bulgarian population, because all Turks are like all Bulgarians (or Hebrews, Germans, Russians, and other nations in the world), with slight differences (regarding the names, for example), which are not essential what concerns the balance between right and left wing, i.e. the conditions for developing of capitalism, for enrichment of some minority, from one side, and creation of decent social living conditions for the majority, from another one. And they are doing this more than 20 years now, subjected to criticism and spat upon by many.


-->So that it turns out that, despite the objections of public opinion (not only by us, but also on the West), one ethnical party /_can_/, definitely, play positive role for us (inasmuch as for me is obvious that one moderate centrists platform is /_always_/ something positive, if not for other reason then because this rarely happens -- people want actions and thrillers, right?). And why is this so, ah? Well, it is quite simple, because they are ethnical party of a /_minority_/, not of the majority (like "Herr" Adolf in his time in Germany, or, if you like, as "Haiduk Sider", leader of our fascists, now in Bulgaria). The minority is, in general, weak, it will not begin to create disorders (for they even -- to give some examples -- have not tried to "repaint" monuments, or break windows of our National Assembly, or disturb the service in Christian churches, but other parties have done such things), so that some strengthening of them does not do much harm. Besides, we must not doubt here, they do /_not at all want_/ splitting of Bulgaria and annexing of some part to Turkey (as many Bulgarians have thought earlier); they don't want such things because Bulgaria /_is_/ in Europe, but Turkey isn't, and now we are even in European Union, so that -- why should they be so silly to want to run away from this? They wanted to bear names like Ahmed and Mehmed (all men like, hmm, ... /_med_/-honey -- what means mead, of course, where the root comes from the Sanskrit), or also Assans (like the Turkish lion called /_aslan /arslan_/), or /_Gu:l_/-something (i.e. roses), or Sedefs (pearls), Sevdas (beloved women), or, maybe even Aishas (what is a Gypsy name, but comes also from the Sanskrit, where /_aksha_/ meant an eye, i.e. they cherish her like eye-pupil), and others. In the end -- it's up to them, how they want, this shouldn't have become political question, but when the communists in totalitarian time have messed the things, so it serves us right.


-->


-->*_4. Social-Democrats and other left-wing_* parties. This powers simply *_can not come to power in Bulgaria_* (they have tried once and might have succeeded but failed because of parts of percent less than the minimum), and this is very *_bad_*, I think. This is bad because, as you have heard, there is /_no victory without fight_/, and fight in the left political space we have not, yet in the right space we have, more than necessary. This, at least, does not balance good the left and the right, but it also hampers the left to evolve good. According to the meaning of quite many people, to which this time I join, the left are such mainly pro forma, as a trade mark, but are not at all such in reality (after the last "Mohican", Zhan Videnov). And there could have quietly existed several left-wing parties with influence, which could make coalitions for the elections, if they want, but otherwise remain separate parties. There is nothing bad also if we have one communist party with influence (like, for example, they have in Russia), because the ideas of communism are right -- they, the ideas, are even ... divine, if you ask the Ancient Greeks (idea = /_i + dea_/, where the second, obviously, is a goddess) --, only their realization limps, but the realization of capitalism by us is at all "in wheelchair", so to say. For me the lack of some "significant" Social-Democratic party is a big omission, which surely can be mended, but the soc-communists, by their old habit, think that must exist only one power, for to be a real power. Well, we have touched this question, but something must be done in this regard, and this is work for the masses (when on the top they don't want), i.e. they must begin to want some other left party. OK, let it be so, I will propose to you some names (with implied platforms): New Left Force, Moderate Left Party, Capitalist Left Model, People's Left Party, Party of Left Ideas, Labor Party (like in England), Party of Social Capitalism, even SOCI, if you like, what can be decoded as "Social /_Otnoshenia_/-Relations and Civilized Institutions".


-->


-->*_5. Peasant parties_*. *_The emergence of such parties was another misunderstanding_*, yet they have emerged and have "muddied the political waters" for some time, but it is good that they have not succeeded to reach the Parliament. Now look, for one thing the peasants (or farmers, this sounds better) have never been, and will never be, united power, and for another thing they have decreased significantly in their numbers as a strata (I mean here exactly the farmers, those who produce agricultural things, not just live in the villages), where in Europe they are on the average about 10 % of the population, but in some countries, in the United States, for example, they are even 4 %. Well, we might have had some such parties for assortment (say, Farmers Party), but not to expect to have success with them. They have emerged, maybe, because of our former, from totalitarian times, Bulgarian Agrarian National Union (/_BZNS_/ in Bulgarian), but this party was, more than obvious, subdivision of our communist party, with functions of a screen, for nobody could have said that we have single-party system. There, you see, not only the farmers have become less, but also the workers as such, i.e. those working in factories, are now not many (again roughly 10, maybe up to 15 %, if they are correctly measured, from the employed population). The major part of those engaged with work, according to the author, are people of the sphere of /_services_/, if there enter, really, all those who provide for us some services, i.e.: transport, education, police, a heap of institutions (say, telephone operators and /or the Internet and /or cable TV), the classical services (like shops, hotels, restaurants), medical care, and possibly others. We all serve each other. The working class was one /_momentary phenomenon_/ (of approximately half a century), when the capitalism was still very green and there were needed many workers (like it was before with the peasants, or the artisans, or, if you like, with the drivers of cars and earlier coachmen). We can divide us on spheres of activity, but not on workers and employees, because then the major part will be employees or servants (as far as they serve meekly to some boss, don't work for themselves, on their own account). But this was a small deviation from the theme of politics.


-->


-->*_6. Businessmen_*. Such parties also have emerged by us, but *_hastily and for opportunistic reasons_*, not as real parties of businessmen, and due to this one such party (BBB, Bulgarian Business Block) just entered in our Parliament and disintegrated and gone out of it. Surely the businessmen are even less than the peasants or the workers. Can be spoken about party of /_small_/ business, for example, but I am afraid that with such party also nothing much different than with our peasant parties will happen. They will not be united, and can't have some special political ideas, which could not have been defended by any self-respecting political power. The real layer of large-scale businessmen, even in developed Western countries, does not count more than 3 % of the population, and what can be said about the poorest country in European Union. This is "throwing of dust in the eyes" of people.


-->


-->*_7. Fascists_*. Here the things are quite equivocal, so that it is necessary to pay some attention to them. On one hand it is clear that worst idea than this of fascism in the current-day society is hardly possible to be found (the communism, despite the book "Fascism" of our Mr. "Yelyo Yelev" or "Zelyo Zelev" or "Zhelio Zhelev -- what, written so, we read as 'z-h', to be sure -- etc., it depends on the transcription, because the nice letter "zh" -- like in "measure" -- is mutilated on the West how they only like, /_is not the same_/ as the fascism, how he states in his book, I beg him to be excused; it is not the same, if not for other reason, then at least because not a single Hebrew can become Aryan, can not change his or her gene or ethnicity, while every wealthy one can easily become proletarian -- what is necessary is just to take away his property, right?). The world, well, at least Europe, for a long time now does not argue on this question, especially after 9th of June have become day of Europe (the day of victory over the fascism). But, on the other hand, *_our fascists must not at all be taken seriously_*! They are youngsters, kids, post-pubers, "/_Sider Jugend_/". They are impudent enough (I don't see why I have to excuse myself for something really true) to chant sometimes even -- this was shown by our TV and was pretty clear to be heard -- "The Gypsies to soap?", but they /_don't_/ at all /_think_/ what they are saying! They are to such extent dumbfounded by the media, ads, and Internet, that take every possible fable for reality, as also vice versa -- don't believe in proven and unquestionable facts (I personally remember a talk with a relatively intelligent girl of about 15, who has said to me that in all this, what was spoken about gas chambers and the Hebrews, she does /_not believe_/!).


-->Id est they are sick, schizophrenics, something like that, they can't distinguish between facts and fictions, don't live in this world, are not adequate to their environment. I can not excuse them, obviously, but it is necessary to show some understanding to such undeveloped personalities, because we all have once been young, and when there pass, so, 5 to 10 years, they will heal by themselves (how in this day you will hardly meet a person who will admit that he /she was sometime UDF supporter, but they have won more than half of the votes, and this by 90 % electoral activity, and were all young people, so that it can't be said that they have already left this world). If only they do not make special disturbances it is necessary to endure them. And here comes another viewpoint: when they are legalized, then the things are in some extent channeled, it is known who are they, nobody hinders them to imagine whatever they want, and in this way is relatively /_reduced_/ the danger from them (for the reason that one shows perseverance to do all sorts of trouble exactly when is contradicted to him). Possibly because of this the noise about them (which in the beginning was pretty strong), not only in Bulgaria, but also on the part of Europe, subsided, because -- it is so, right? -- one of the psychological advantages of democracy is that one can "shout" a bit and after this feels better. They will change nothing around themselves, but will change something /_in themselves_/.


-->But here is also another moment, on which I would like to turn your attention, on the /_ground_/ for fascism in Bulgaria. Priory their emergence I personally was convinced that there is no ground for fascism by us (no matter that there were earlier fascist parties, i.e. they were at the power), for the simple reason that the fascists assert, roughly speaking, the following: we are good nation, capable, have had our own empire, look, how many things we have done, we are concordant and united and can do even more things, but we are hindered in the state by bad elements, by foreign individuals, and that is why now we live so bad; let us take them away and you will see how all will blossom and bring fruit! While the communists assert, for example: all hard-working and capable people live bad, because the wealthy ones hinder them; let us take away the wealthy, free the labour slaves, and the things will blossom. Id est, the fascists show as root of evil some ethnical minority, where the communists think that the economic minority is guilty; the fascists go from one industrious and united nation, which is exploited in their own country by foreign "bloodsuckers", but which has given many examples for domination in the world, while the communists start from the idea that the simple and hard-working population lives bad because of robbing from the wealthy individuals, but the people have not yet unfolded themselves and shown what they can do. So that there is a difference.


-->And, really, look where the fascism has "given sprouts" during the Second world war: Germany is obviously a super-disciplined country (as is said, and I beg the people there to be excused, but they without permission will not ... go even to the toilet, they can crap their pants on their posts), the Japanese are fanatics of the idea for their domination, because they are forced to, due to their excessive overpopulation (maybe they are the most densely populated also today, and this in evidently seismic region), and the Italians, well, they are Catholics, and this, in some cases, unites more than the communism (I can give as an interesting example that I have read some Italian juvenile books of the genre ... "religious science fiction", what kind I have not met anywhere else till now). But in all those cases these are countries with proven success in the industry, or wherever it can be, they have had mighty empires in the past, and now, too, they demonstrate "wonders" in their development, and are extremely united (at least the Germans and Japanese have rebirth literally like the bird phoenix after their defeat in the Second world war). Where we, the Bulgarians, are quite savage and barbarian country, whatever we were not officially stating, and if we have had sometime "kingdom and state" then the other nations around us have had not smaller such, but we, obviously, are utterly disunited and can begin to kill one another if there is not somebody to bring us to reason (just recall to you, those who can, how in the first years after the coming of democracy we have poked out the eyes of candidates for MP, or have depicted "something" to their mouth). From what follows that there is no ground for natural emergence (in times of war this, as a rule, is not counted, it was imposed to us) of fascism in Bulgaria.


-->But look, it has come "Haiduk Sider" and has organized fascist party and it turns out that I was wrong. Yet this is not so (for, after all, how can I make a mistake, ah? -- rhetorical question, the answer is clear), because this party gathers not many people, on the average about 5 %, and this predominantly among young and silly ones, so that this situation has to be valid, maybe, for each country. *_Conditions for effective fascism by us do not exist_*, and have never existed, we maybe do not like much one another (for example, I personally can not say that I am just "overflowing with love" to the Gypsies, or Hebrews, or, Negroes, or ... Americans, no matter that there are not such living in Bulgaria), but we would have not risen to perform raw physical violence against them (where we have examples even for the contrary -- for saving of Hebrews during the fascism, or for accepting of many Armenian refuges before this). We are savage, but /_quiet_/ and meek, people, and this that some youngsters push up to express themselves with something -- for there is nowhere now to show our "heroism", there are no wars, no revolutionary situation, no even special /_interest_/ to live, because life is significantly easier than half to one century before -- well, it happens so with people, as I have said, these are illnesses of growth, something like the pimples acne (which word, to "educate" you a bit, means something "/_akano_/" in Bulgarian, or /_caco_/ in Latin, what are ... the faeces!).


-->


-->*_8. The Tsarist party_* (NMSS, National Movement Simeon the Second, /_NDSV_/ in Bulgarian). It has come nearly like a bolt from the blue, as is said, was organized in a pair of months, and if there was not the quite clever Solomon (who has /_passed_/ us to the Atlantic, because his very name was such, Passi), it wouldn't have had the possibility to see the white world (and there were also a big number of many more or less right-wing politicians who have grasped in time that UDF will only "entangle the skein" and have run out of it long ago, so that they just waited where to enter). *_This party was entirely opportunistic_*, practically without ideas (like everything right-wing, as I have said), if one does not count the subconscious comprehension of everyone that if something comes from the West then it must be good, and also when Simeon was born to be King, then, maybe, it is worth to try with him, too. Yeah, but he has come to take back his land possessions, has behaved as a King, i.e. have done what he wanted (when has won the majority of votes) and, as far as he was also in years, withdrew later from the politics. And in addition (and I think, but maybe I just think so, that I have tried to tell this to these people -- but what prominent personality will read all the correspondence which receives?) they even have /_not succeeded to correct their name_/, but have remained with the "working name" NMSS, i.e. only to them three letters for abbreviation of their name have not sufficed (because GERB party, although this is some abbreviation, as a word in Bulgarian means ensign); when at the end they have decided to change their name this has become useless, the King has withdrawn. Where they could have named themselves, for example (to give them post factum some hints -- for I, contrary to many, have enough brains but little money): Moderate Western Party, or Party for Moderate Capitalism, or Turn to the West, Strong Right-wing Alliance, or whatever they have alone chosen, only not this unfinished name for playing hide and seek under one (olden) "hat".


-->But don't thing, however, that I am not contented with them; I in principle don't like /_whatever_/ party, because it defends its partial (from "part"), not some common for the country, interests, but I think it's a shame that they had very good chances and have simply wasted them. They had chances, at least, because they were not extremely right, like the UDF, but also because ... hmm, for the simple reason that they /_had no special ideas_/ for ruling, they just wanted to "cash in" on the power. Here many of the readers might have thought that I have entangled myself in my reasonings, but this is not so -- because life is entangled, the dialectics require it, see? So they were moderate at least because otherwise BSP, however much it was socialistic only on words, have had no other choice for forming of coalitions except with parties close to the center, and these were only MRF (the Turks) and this King's NMSS, and they have done this -- simply unbelievable! But we are discussing the tsarists party, which has succeeded -- it is true, as a side effect, at least I think so, but has succeeded -- to *_break the bipolar model_*, which only exhausted our country, and *_have marked the beginning of our pulling out of the swamp_*, slow, hard, but still pulling out and moving to the West. It is right that this Western model is not much suitable for our poor country (the poorest in European Union), but it was our nation that wanted this Western model, wanted not to look to the East, i.e. toward Russia, so that they have given it (us) this, what it (we, as a whole) wanted (then and now).


-->And for those, who still can't understand how people /_without_/ special ideas, and in addition also opportunists and careerists, can make quite good successes, let me add, that it pretty often happens exactly so among the "sapient homos". Id est those, who defend very actively some ideas and are ready to fight for them, they usually ... well, want to fight, right? And those, who look at their own interests and are relatively moderate in their wishes, they exactly show themselves as good professionals and achieve success in life, for the reason that the middle point is exceedingly important thing on this world (and maybe also on the "other", I don't know). So that this opportunistic party, in principle, has succeeded to begin to better us, it, so to say, has marked the beginning of our way to /_real democracy_/ -- with a delay of a decade, due to the whooping and incompetent UDF.


-->


-->*_9. GERB party_*. This party was also unexpected, even for the soc-communists (and primarily for them), also right-wing and opportunist, also without special ideas, but -- how to put it? -- *_brilliantly setting on the subconscious in the humans_*! Have I put it good? I want to say that they have come to power with some, but entirely sucked from the finger, understandings, that the "good bully", or "Duce Boiko", whose very name is so "/_boikoe_/" (in Bulgarian, what means not so much jaunty or buoyant but brave, courageous), will defeat the corruption and raise our image before the world, which image is "stained" at least for centuries, but especially since the coming of our democracy. And this, that the image of a nation can't be "cleansed" for a few years but at least for half to one /_century_/, that this isn't done with swishing of a whip but with the use of moral (which, especially in country practically without any religion as ours, and in unmoral time of collapse of civilization as this in which we are living now, isn't clear from where can come -- more so after we have rejected the exaggerated communist moral), and that the corruption has ever existed and will exist, because it is a matter of /_addition to the official ruling_/, for it is /_not enough ... ripen_/, and so on -- to all these questions our population, neither could, nor wanted, to give answer, the people just run away from the "extraterrestrial" coalition, as I mentioned this earlier.


-->But he has set brilliantly on the subconscious by the people thanks to his good PRs, or because he alone was clever enough -- a general, still, not "a head of onion" --, for he was shown nearly 5 years everywhere /_en gros_/, and with a big head. Saying it otherwise, this was one ... hmm, /_phallic advertisement_/! But if the cult to the phallus was not hidden deep in the subconsciousness of people, then it wouldn't have emerged before millenniums (for you have not heard about a cult to its antipode, to the Latin /_putta_/, or French /_putain_/, have you?). As a joke or not, but this man indisputably is liked by the greater part of women (I personally have once heard how a young girl, when it come to this Boiko, has said with a happy smile, "ah, Boi/_ch_/o" -- and this is building of diminutive in Bulgarian, what usually means liking), and probably is willingly accepted (well, not that they really like him so, I suppose) also by the majority of men, especially in the region around Sofia. The strong bully is always popular and he has very well known this and set on it.


-->Otherwise his ideas -- and what ideas? The corruption in Latin means decomposition, breaking (and probably with some crushing and squeezing, for they said co/_rrump_/tion), but this is adjustment to the environment, I'll tell you, because you know very well that the tomatoes are eaten when they become ripe, while the cucumbers when they are green, or that the capitalism is like a medlar and is good when it begins to decay (like it is now, not like what was a century ago). And it is an addition to the system, as also the prostitution, organized crime, etc., are (for if the people did not have needed them then they would not have existed, as far as all, even the sluts -- I beg the women, and, maybe, now also the men, to excuse me -- know well that they are doing something unmoral, but they do it because there is demand on this). So that, if the system is good, then it wouldn't have needed such additions, but as far as the /_entire_/ capitalism rests on money, which according to /_each_/ religion are something bad, i.e. an amoral things, then one can not do without corruption. This, what can be done in the given situation, and is also done, is ... hmm, that /_the state corrupted itself_/ instead of the people and companies, i.e. the state collects taxes for something, what, anyway, is amoral!


-->But there is also something else -- especially in the politics there is often something else, another view to the things -- bad or not, bully or not, with ideas or without such, only speaking and often contradicting himself or not, but he *_quietens the masses_*, because we (and all other nations) are like horses, we want to hear the whip to snap and then we pull the cart, but otherwise resist. In this sense he is *_also embodiment of the strong hand_* in the government, what neither is a new idea, nor is valid only for our country, nor will some time disappear (on this is based the right-wing government, as I mentioned). And note the precise (in order not to use the same epithet again) matching of other big political figures around him: the mayor (or rather "mayeress", for it is "she") of Sofia now is one modest and mild-looking woman; almost all other persons from the government (with the exception, maybe, of the foreign Minister) are also dull, unpleasant, and /or featureless; and our new President is "berry of the same field" ("bird of a feather" for you), too, absolutely faceless, no matter that he is man and President. For the reason that -- it is so, isn't it? -- the "Duce" (in order not to say again the other word) can be only one, and the others must only listen and execute. Well, I don't say that it is easy for him, "the royal crown is heavy", as the folks say (and he, really, looks in the recent time somehow wearied and bored by the power -- if he does not play all this on purpose, yet even if so), but it isn't easy only with bare words -- well, almost -- to keep the entire nation in subjection.


-->( I can add a pair of sentences more about our current President, "/_rosen-presen_/" how is said in Bulgarian (what means fresh and with dew), and he, either is from town Pleven, or his great-great-grandfather has had somewhere /_plevnia_/-barn -- really, because he is named Rosen Plevneliev -- but sometimes, it depends on the angle, he has a bit, hmm, moronic view. Apologies to him, for I have no intention to offend him, but he is so confused with his new position, and how he was used till the elections only to stand to attention, like the dogs, and now can also command, then he just looses himself sometimes; he could have been good "chef de salle", how "Haiduk Sider" says, but to be President is too much for him in the beginning. But he is not at all silly, because have learned very well the science to /_speak much and say nothing_/. This definitely isn't easy, I'll tell you, because myself, for instance, no matter how I have tried to say empty words, still, will sometimes make an error and blurt something reasonable. Generally said, he is a good example of Latin proverb "/_Ars est celare artem_/.", what means "Art is in this, to hide the art.". Well, he at least does not treat all people like retarded, which was the manner of our former President "George the First" (Georgi Parvanov in Bulgarian, and /_parvi_/ is first). So that "the guy" is confused, has not at all suitable for the post appearance, but ... he will justify the confidence, almost sure, and in all probability will be not worse than out former Presidents. )


-->But the curiosities does not end with this, because his people are /_good_/ rulers, they perform their work, at least about the mayer/_ess_/ nothing bad can be said and the people have reelected her, and the Government is also good, for despite the protests of opposition (especially of that who "already-become-boss" -- I mean Stanishev, the head of BSP, due to my funny observation that his name splits in /_stani_/-become + /_shef_/-boss), and this, mark, in conditions of crisis! It turns out almost so that *_we "function"_* even *_better under conditions of crisis_*, than under normal conditions, because the whole Western Europe has suffered, to say nothing about ever discontented Greece, or about classical (now) discontented between the ex-communist countries, Poland and Ukraine. It is true, there are objective reasons for this: we are living so miserably, that there is nowhere worse (at least in the Euro-Union), so that this, that now also others are in bad conditions, as if pacifies us and we "pull our cart" still and quiet, but who knows how much quiet we would have been if we were still governed by the old coalition (having in mind that people don't like the socialists, and that they do practically nothing in really socialist spirit)? And in addition to everything else this real "Duce" as if has pressed the self-proclaimed "Haiduk Sider", because the "shares" of the latter have significantly sunk.


-->So that I personally may not esteem "phallic" politics, but it works by us and I accept it. In spite of his feverish and incompetent at first sight governing he, as is said, is /_the most suitable for the time and the place politician_/ in Bulgaria. He draws funds from here or there, builds highways in order to do, still, something, to reduce the unemployment, and on the West nobody criticizes him, and, to all appearances, he will be reelected. Well, but till here, no more. I give him 5 to 10 years of reign, and after this -- /_adio_/ ensign (i.e. "/_gerb_/"), /_adio Duce_/! Because it isn't possible that a party without ideas (practically, as I've said), built around a /_personality_/, has existed for a long time; a personality, sooner or later, becomes exhausted. There will remain only some succeeded to push themselves up persons (in order not to say antipodes of the phallus, have I said it?), how it has happened with NMSS (the King's party). This isn't, say, liberal, or Christian, or conservative, etc., party, there is nothing else that can remain after it (except if they will not form some dynasty, but as if there are no such perspectives).


-->


-->*_10. Other new parties_*. Well, the fingers on our hands have finished, but we have nothing more to add. Here, obviously, can only be guessed something, so that let us also do this for some time. It would have been good if we have had fight in the left political space, as I have said, but there is nothing of the kind by us, so that I have almost lost any hope that this will happen sometime. I don't know, is it not exactly /_this_/ the main drawback of the left-wing, that they don't allow other opinions, especially if they /_slightly_/ differ from their own, maybe it is so; and if it is so then it is quite possible that they, sooner or later, will come to this conclusion and will correct the things. Let us hope. But the new parties, which emerge, they are all more or less right-wing (as if more "more"). Though I can't imagine what new can emerge, after "Boicho", on the political arena, because we have used the ideas about: business, peasants, the King, strong hand, Western influence, our image, and so on. We have not used to the end the religious idea, but we are not much religious. Now, I see /_two_/ possible directions of moving: one is to build some centrist party, what is the right course, but we will see of what kind it can be, and the other course is to come to the next "dead-end" like the fascist Ataka-attack (say, some other ethnical party, either Turkish, or Gypsy, or Macedonian). The dead-ends will not help us so that let us leave them. The centrist party, however, is not easy to be built (people want actions and thrillers, don't they?), so that it can happen chiefly as /_concomitant_/ element (take MRF as example, and up to a certain extent also the King). Can be supposed that will be built some party of the small business, for example, but with some influence, so that it could have succeeded to enter the Parliament, or some professional groups (say, of transport workers, or builders, or teachers -- whether I know, the /_SDS_/-UDF has started with pop singers on the head, so that nothing can be stated with certainty), but as if there are not such examples in the world.


-->Well, something nearly fantastic got into my head, but, as is said "sure thing but who knows". So that we have not used to the end the idea about the... /_emancipation_/. I mean, we still have not some *_feminist party_*! Such party would have its advantages, because, for one thing, the women are the /_mediocre_/ sex (let us not enter here into details for I do this on other places, but these things underlie every religion, and religions are based on life experience of the whole humankind), and in this case they will be exactly centrist; for another thing they are more mild or /_soft_/ (and in Latin and Greek "/_sophia /sofia_/" lies the wisdom, it is good to remind you these linguistic moments), and if so then with them will be easier to work, they will be more submissive, more given to compromises; and for a third thing the women build a /_representative sample_/ of the population, and exactly of its middle part, so that they just can't not be a good center. This is my brilliant idea, which I make known to you at the end. Help God it will give some useful germ, because the world has long ago suffered enough from the brute masculine force (the /_machoism_/), since the time of Christ (what means also before him, for to make him to raise this idea). Else, if this will not be the women, then, maybe, we will be forced to take refuge to ... the homosexuals, ah? Well, I personally prefer, if it must be, to be commanded by women than by gays; how is it with you, though, I don't know.


-->


-->September 2012


-->


-->*_P.S._* Well, it turned out that I have significantly increased the ruling of "Duce Boiko", but in broad terms I have been right in my analysis. Anyway, there will be another material about the fatal for us 13th (at least after ... Bin Laden, ah?) year.


-->April 2013


-->


-->*_-- -- -- -- --_*


-->


===>*_ABOUT THE DEGRADATION OF MORALITY_*


-->


-->The idea, which I will elaborate in this material is simple and taken from ancient Eastern philosophy, as also from Ancient Greek dialectics, and it reduces generally to the following: when morality degraded, but to the utmost (and even more than this, as is said), then it will /_emerge again_/, modified. In principle this is so, but the difference is /_in social price_/ which we pay, for the things are not so simple, it is not as to say: "well, let it degrade then". Only the chaos, which in old Greek was written with just two letters, "ha" (or this was the root), was imagined as one big mouth (the letter "h" in many languages is not read, and the Italians, for example, take it at all away, and there the hygiene is /_igiene_/, the harmony -- /_armonia_/, and so on), and then this reduces to one "a-a", and if so then it has eaten everything, but later on all emerged again from the other end and in another form, yet this method leads to much disturbances and shocks. And I am speaking about Eastern philosophy for the reason that in the Sanskrit was stated that our world was something thrice negated: it is /_not constant, not perfect, and not isolated_/! In other words, it not only changes all the time, but is also not finished (imperfect is the same as incomplete; and mark that this is exactly the opposite to what Christian religion says), and is so entangled (with dialectical links) that this, what must happen, it happens anyway, but only after some things change and some cataclysms occur, in order to set them in order.


-->But let us begin and first of all convince ourselves must these things happen.


-->


-->*_1. The degradation of morality_* is practically evident for everybody. It is something in what are convinced even those who welcome it and say to themselves "Wow, what f###ing goes now, not like before!" And it is even not necessary to compare what is now with the oriental countries and a pair of centuries earlier, when the women have not gone out of house without /_feredje_/-veil, no, even on the West, and also in Bulgaria, the decent women have worn veils on their faces, not to mention to show something more than an /_ankle_/, while nowadays they show freely also their breasts (were there what to show, but also if they are not much demonstrable), and even their genitalia, and by the Internet now sucklings, too, can gape at such things as much as they want and enjoy them. But in the times of Oscar Wilde, in the end of 19th century, when they said "to make love" was understood to speak with a person from other sex, to court or seduce, where nowadays this phrase means hard sex.


-->This sexual promiscuity, quite naturally, at least for me, leads to disintegration of the families, because the women, when (or rather /_if_/) they marry and when they give birth to a pair of children, say to themselves "so why should I have a husband anymore (except to ... piss on the toilet ring, ah?)" and decide to get rid of him. So that the question isn't in this, is free sex allowed -- let it be allowed, if it does not interfere with the families, and from here, with the society -- but /_in the consequences_/ from this. Because today hardly somebody, be this man or woman, will come to the idea to ask him- or her- self the question: for what reason earlier the women were obliged to marry still virgins, when the sexual relation is a kind of "knowledge", in the Slavonic languages, but in the Latin, too (and supposedly also in the ancient ones), and if this is so, then it is not clear why some additional knowledge has to hinder the woman? Yeah, but it /_hinders_/ her, for the woman this knowledge (and maybe every other?) is of no benefit, it only unleashes or unbridles her, increasing her already boundless wishes, and it turns out that from this neither she benefits (for goes prematurely to look for vibrator), nor the family, nor the society as a whole. These things I discuss in other materials, but the idea is that the freedom in sex leads to dissolving of the families, and the woman is who wants to have children and family (to clutch stronger some man).


-->In this way the women not only "cut the branch on which they are sitting", in this way suffer the children, too, obviously, though they, having no basis for comparison, can't judge is it good to have a pair of parents, or one is enough. But it isn't the right thing if a boy is brought up by his mother also when he grows a bit (she, really, I beg to be excused by the women, can't teach him even how to ... piss, right?), neither only by the father, especially if these are girls (for the same "toilet" reason, if you want). If the dear God has wanted to be one parent he would not have created the two sexes, or would have left also by the mammals the reproduction with eggs, in which case they could have not at all known their parents. But it isn't so, and this is clear to everyone. It is clear also to the women, but they are extremely biased, and /_for that reason_/ are not in position to make the right decision, not because they are "a bit silly" by nature. If the people could have, like the French, at least according to the hearsay, quietly accepted existence of wife and mistress (respectively, of man and lover), then there wouldn't have been problems, but they, as a rule, can not.


-->But let us not more distract us in this direction, because the sex, however you turn it, is an annoying /_hindrance_/ in life, which brings us some pleasures, this can't be denied, but is, still, a hindrance, with which everybody copes how one cans. But the point isn't in the sex, the latter is /_secondary_/ element of morality! And morality, according to one my old, call it working (but it is true enough, and at the same time not restricting) definition, is a /_set of rules, directed to uniting of people in the time, and in the space_/. The uniting in the space means to know that we don't live alone, that there are other humans around us, and above and below us, if you want, and we can't think only about oneself, because (at least having in mind the mutual tying of the things, but if you so much insist then think that this is because there is some God) this reflects back on us; saying it otherwise, he who looks only at himself, he very often does /_not_/ look rightly at himself, at his interest (for he does not know how), and he who thinks about the others, it often turns that thinks also about himself. Such uniting in the space can be reached also without morality (whose main carrier, till now, were the religions), via the strength and compulsion -- of some King or "Duce", or some other boss --, for the reason that the strong, if he is not very silly thinking about himself only, in fact, cares also about the others, he wants that people respected him, that they remembered him with something good.


-->Uniting in the time, though, can't be reached without morality, and this is joining of generations, relations between children and parents. Why this can not be reached, ah? Well, because if there are not families, then there are not, or almost not, also parents. And if there is not a gender, then very often there is also not a society in worldwide scale. At the same time -- in order not to think that I just "plow the sand" -- according to the data from last population census in Bulgaria in 2010, out of the newborn children /_55 %_/ (more than the half!) were /_extramarital_/, who until recently were called unlawfully-born (now they are lawfully, for the law was changed), and the common people called them just ... bastards! Well, if the major part of children are bastards then this does not hinder them, of course, but comes time and this will begin to hinder somebody, because in this way the moral is quite weak.


-->And don't forget also that nowadays the drug addiction, and already also the terrorism, have significantly grown, much more, maybe tens times more, than in the era of O. Wilde (or Karl Marx, or our liberation from Ottoman rule, in 1876, and other close in the time historical moments), and these things are obviously also related with the lack of morality, because people just /_look for something_/ which is worth living for! Those, who begin in early age to look for drugs, are such because, when there is everything allowed in the sex (sado-, mazo-, etc., as is written in the ads of prostitutes), and also in the absence of strong paternal hand in the lacking family (which hand would have firmly slapped the child's bottom if nothing else helped), don't know what more to require from life, and when food, shelter, and clothes are secured, then what more can these kids and adolescents want except something with which help they can /_escape_/ from this meaningless real world? And those, who bind around their waist dynamites sticks, they think that in this way they will at least leave this word /_purposefully_/ -- for they are not sadists, neither crazy, they are persons with some fixed idea, but it goes out of some moral understandings! On top of all this such people can /_not be punished_/, because they don't live for pleasures on this world, they live for ... the eternity, so to say. So that when there is not a decent moral then people look for some ersatz or substitute for it, because by no means all are ... "calves" or morons or imbeciles or oligophrenics (chose the suitable for you word), which are contented only with the advertisements and the fables for happy life (full with smiles -- as in the ads), there are also restless, searching personalities, who in different circumstances push forward the society.


-->Anyway, let us not comment further obvious things but go to the next point, which in some extent explains why we think that we can do without morality.


-->


-->*_2. Much morality does not lead to moral actions_*. This can look out pretty strange, but by the humans, who, in contrast with the animals, are far beyond the immediate needs in life, or have "jumped over" or overdone their necessities, if you like it better so, out of much morality often come to the exactly opposite of it. This isn't a new moment and all of you surely have heard the phrase that "The path to /_hell_/ is strewn with good intentions", i.e. only with intentions one can reach nothing, but out of strong wishes for something people begin to impose their views on other people, who, however, don't like them and begin to oppose, but the first ones, thinking that they are doing something in interest of the others, especially if it goes about "eternity", i.e. about "the other world", i.e. on religious questions, continue to insist, and in their insisting they come to wars and bloodshed. I personally don't think that there exists religion, that can boast that /_in the name_/ of religion it has not come to human victims, but as if with greatest "asset" in this regard is "famous" the Christian religion. More than this, it gives very bad example to relatively tolerant Eastern religions, to the Islam, for example, how to defend your own convictions.


-->This is really so, because earlier, before Christianity, and also roughly to the 5th century of new era, in the Levant, i.e. in the eastern part of Mediterranean, or in the Arab world, has existed quite good /_tolerance_/ to the other religions, if not for other reason then because there were many and different religions and people were simply /_compelled_/ to tolerate one another. But then begin the Christian crusades, and even much later, somewhere in 19th century, Turkey, as a sufficiently civilized Arab country, which eagerly wants to enter in Europe, and them to be like the Europeans, and introduces family names (for there was said before: Assas, son of Osman, son of Pishman, for example), decides once to conduct the "known" massacre of the Armenians -- because that is how they proceed on the West (and now try to say that on the West they don't do so!). Also in Ancient Rome around the new era was teeming with various cults, but nobody has taken them seriously, until the Christians have come and have given their negative contribution to the development of morality.


-->But in the same way we can "spit" also on the understandings of the common man, who has not agreed that his bride has had other lovers before him, no matter that every man allows himself to do this when he cans (and has money, of course), but only not his wife. Now, look, there is one very good definition (in my view) of the liking, or the /_love_/ to something and somebody, it is in this to think that the object of your feelings is ... /_perfect_/, what means that it is nothing that you can, either add, or take out from it or him (or her)! You just stay there and enjoy, ah? Yeah, but when two people love one another, and this genuine, I don't speak about cases of pretence, then the first thing which each one wants to do is to /_change_/ the other one according to his or her own views, and this is /_exactly the opposite_/ of proper love. What means that we again overdo the things, even without any religion, just by ourselves, because that is how we are.


-->We can continue in this spirit mentioning also the Catholicism, about which the author has no direct feelings, but he has read some books, and somewhere in 15th century in the Western countries people have proclaimed "Better to the Turks than with the Pope!" Because the Catholics intervened in personal life of people in many cases /_worse than the communists_/ (and this of revolutionary times, not of 70ies and 80ies years of former 20th century). Well, nowadays the Pope may "flatter" all nations, saying "Glory to Jesus Christ" on all possible languages, and does no longer instigate wars (because it is not at all necessary to incite Americans, they are always ready to fight with everybody, especially when is necessary to defend their understandings of "democracy"), but in the times of Columbus, for example, he was not so peaceful.


-->So that we, all people in general, really take too close to heart every possible /_delusions_/, and are ready to fight for them, naively believing that if somebody is ready to defend with weapons his view then it maybe is right -- and if he becomes victorious then it surely is right --, while if he does not want to fight then in this way he states the weakness of his thesis. And isn't it so even nowadays? Well, but if one scratches a bit his "mug" he may scratch out the thought that the truthfulness of a given thesis /_has nothing in common_/ with the power that stands behind it or defends it! The power or strength proves only the power, not the truthfulness of this, what is the cause for fighting. But such is our morality. More than this, we think that the duel-fight is a good thing, this lays in the Latin, but we may use contemporary Italian where /_bello_/ means nice, good, but /_bellico_/ is military. As also all militarists, i.e. the military people are very ... dear people, etymologically (the root "mili-" or "meli-" is very old and it means something nice, sweet, like honey or mead; in Russian this is exactly "/_miliy_/", what isn't away from your "mild")!


-->Now listen, as an idea, and at least before the invention of gunpowder, in this view was some reason, because the important thing is the /_du_/el, which proves who of the /_individuals_/ is stronger, this work for the selection of the fittest, so proceed all animals, and this is a kind of submission to "God's commandments". But not in contemporary conditions of fight or war, where one may stay on some safe place and throw out bombs, these aren't duels, this is devastation, this is slaughter. So that our morality stumbles, it has grown /_hopelessly old_/, at least with five centuries, it must be changed, and if this is not possible than be dissolved. It is time for some new morality to come, and will this happen minimizing the bloodshed, or "losses of proteinaceous matter", or in some rough and chaotic way, depends only on us. Therefore let us proceed to the next point and see of what kind must it be and is it possible to reach it without self-destruction, defending "perduted"-lost causes.


-->


-->*_3. _The new moral_* must be first of all /_tolerant_/! Nowadays there in no more need for selection of the best personalities, nor fight for survival, more so of the best, no, today the most important thing is not to shed unnecessary human (and also animal, if you like) blood, because it helps us with nothing. We must simply learn to endure the other one next to us, even if he (or she) does things which, but absolutely, don't appeal to us. We must somehow /_moderate_/ us, when from much "morality" overdo the things. Saying this otherwise, we must /_begin to love_/ people, how Christ has spoken (if we give credence to the fables about him), but also in the spirit of our definition of love and liking, and as the ancient religions have preached, too, stating that this world is /_neither_/ good, /_nor_/ bad, it is simply the best of all possible, but it is /_just_/ (understand, for all -- say, for the wolf and the rabbit).


-->This can be expressed in a bit different way, /_sexually oriented_/, i.e. as masculine and feminine behaviour, and from here also morality. I mean not machoism and establishment of supremacy above the others, but with mild approach and accepting the foreign things, what is the feminine way for establishing of /_supremacy_/. Up to some extent we must turn our back to all evolution of the strong till the moment and look not for dominance, but for mixing of morality, of "moral genes", if I can express myself so, what must guarantee variety of views and bloodless battle of ideas, not leading of direct physical battles! Because one always wants to impose his view, but accepting also the views of the others (not as approving, just as admission of another variant), allows fight, yet in a feminine way; this means that, instead of to fight with weapons for a given cause, let us leave everybody defend his or her positions and see in this way who will turn right after some time, or obtain some averaging of the views. Or peaceful co-existence of different moralities, something of the kind, approaching the things more elegantly and gentle, not brutally and in masculine way. ( I express in various other places my views to the women, now and in the future, so let us not digress here, but the idea in this case is that the imposition can be active and belligerent, but it can be also passive, in a feminine way, yet not less insistent, and that this is the other side of the "coin", and if we want to have some middle point then we must look also from the other side, because they are for that reason two sides, in order to use which one is necessary, when necessary. )


-->But let us return to the tolerance. Say, if some woman (eventually wife) wants so much to have sometimes sex not with her permanent partner -- and, surely, the same thing from the standpoint of the woman about the man -- then why not to do this, but /_not_/ to violate the permanent relation, especially if it goes about family, for the children want also examples in life, and punishments, and cares, and not just in material sense. The children, by the way, don't obey most often /_not_/ because they are bad or ill-mannered, no -- however widely this is not understood by many people --, they just /_want to grasp what is good_/ and what not, and this is learned in the easiest way if you can remain unpunished (because the words, they are /_second_/ signal system, this is so, yet there is also the first one)! In other words, the punishment for the growing children has /_healing_/ effect, it is part of the upbringing, and when the functions of the family are neglected then the children can't learn many important things and continue, for example, to "learn" when they grow up, and want to check whether will be caught if they carried out some robbery, or try some narcotic drug, and other examples, too, So that if there are not families then must be increased the /_functions of society_/, the children have to be given in some weekly boarding schools, which as if have begun to disappear in the recent time, and the children, left without control, in spite of the difficult sciences which they study, remain uneducated in the sense of everyday morality.


-->And take also the contemporary capitalism -- it is amoral from the very foundations, it is corrupted, it rests on money, and there are no money even in the animal kingdom, i.e. in this way we, in some sense, descend with one step /_lower_/ than the animals (because by them succeeds only the stronger instead of the meeker, or hard-working, etc., where by the people also the wealthier, and the more impudent, and so on)! But in the same time all religions deny the power of money, it does not proceed in the other world, God does not judge by the wealth, at cetera, and religions are based on the views of masses and behave, in general, in their interests (even when they incite to bloodshed they do this because people want this). So that it is clear that our society is bad, unmoral.


-->Now look here, I defend the morality /_not_/ out of moral considerations, but out of /_reasonable_/ such! Hardly more than 2-3 % of the population has come to such positions, but the more intelligent inevitably must come to this view, because the conclusions from it does not differ much from those of various religions, only the approaches are different. In linguistic sense, I think, is good to remind you the meaning of English word "moral", which means teaching, lesson (where to be of good moral is moral/_e_/), so that the morality is a kind of system of rules, instructions about life (and linguistically these are just habits, customs, for the reason that in Latin "mores" is plural from the custom -- recall the phrase "O tempore o mores!"). These rules are this, what the young ones want to learn. But ... it isn't that they don't /_suppose_/ them in advance. Id est, I mean, that the people, as well as the animals, have /_inborn sense of justice_/, morality, because all want to be liked by the others (the little children and the animals, in addition to eat, want also to have somebody to play with, that is to make friends, not to quarrel). So that the /_people are good by birth_/ (i.e. they try, as far as they can, to think about the others), the society is what makes them bad (forces them to think only about themselves)! Remember this, please, because this is the obligation of new morality: it must make the /_society_/ more just for the people, must satisfy their expectations (that the bad will receive his punishment, and the good will be lauded, not vice versa).


-->At the same time in the contemporary society, as I have mentioned, is done everything else, but not to ensure some expected and justified punishment for those who have deserved it. More than this, in our time is insisted on successes in business, career, et cetera, which are all transient (according the religions) things, not on selecting of more moral personalities (and forget about the sex, it isn't important). Of course, in this world nothing is isolated, as I said in the beginning, so that one can't avoid to be egoist, but one has also no rights to strive only for dominance over the others (if not for other reason then because one, anyway, aims at this, i.e. exactly on account of this the morality must oppose to it, in order to force the given person to turn to the other side). While there were clans and families, and were many fights between different tribes and nations, there were reasons for selection and establishing of superiority, but nowadays the most important thing is ..., well, /_preservation of the diversity_/ (and even creating of new diversities), what is another way to express again the assertion about tolerance. For this reason is considered as good whatever mixing between nations, between wealthy and poor, if you want, between intelligent and mediocre, and this is the new morality.


-->As if close enough to this view are ... the different sports, because there the personal expression is not related with ideas for hegemony, though there also exist various ways for remuneration of the winners. There are no immediate goals in this area but exist some abstractions, to win the given medal. This, as I have said, looks good to me, but ... . But the bad thing is that this isn't mass phenomenon, this concerns only some 1-2 % of the population (if not less), and it is much specialized, i.e. this not so much develops the body as /_deforms_/ it, in some aspect, so that the sports are also not a model.


-->But something has to be done, there must be /_some_/ families (I have an idea in this regard which is expressed in other places), /_some_/ ethnicities, /_some_/ rules for good behavior, but different from narrow national or racial, or of the caste or family, or some other, interests. And have to be taken into account the /_intentions_/ of people (this is morality, not only the results). And has to exist /_considerable surveillance_/ of (almost) everything and everybody, because we have become now too strong for to leave the things just to take their course (i.e. it is not important who with whom has slept, but who "bears grudge" against whom and for what, what can be done in order that this person, and others like him or her, "drops" this grudge). And everybody must have conditions for development, for more complete unfolding of the given to him by God /gods (or Nature), the more so because, when there are no (or almost no) families, and when the genius, as this is checked many times, is not passed by inheritance, we have to give it (the genius) chance to show itself, still, from time to time. But, if we will continue in this way, we will come in the end to the ideas of communism, and also of Plato from 25 centuries ago, ah?


-->Well, that's the point, that it must happen exactly so, because there can not be morality in the interests of /_all_/ people, and not to go out of some common (of the community) interests. We can't want that people evolved fully, when some are born in wealthy conditions (let us not necessarily speak about family), and others in poor, and if for health insurance and for education must be paid, i.e. they are /_not_/ available for all. So that the new morality, as it seems, will turn to be very old, the morality of each religion. So it is true, but I had in mind exactly the morality of /_each_/ one of the religions, i.e. of all the religions, i.e. (using the language of mathematics) of the intersection of all religions! This intersection, if we succeed to reach it with our egoistic inclinations, will be exactly the quintessence of morality over the centuries. It remains only to reach it. Because if we can not, then there will be "a little" chaos, then "a bit" more, maybe, and after this ... will be again necessary to reach it.


-->It is necessary to have clarity on all these issues when we criticize or accept the degradation of morality. The young ones try somehow to /_survive_/, this is their right. For that reason it turns out that when people have everything, then they haven't, first of all, morality. And they look for it.


-->


-->September 2012


-->


-->*_-- -- -- -- --_*


-->


===>*_IS IT POSSIBLE MODERATE COMMUNISM IN BULGARIA?_*


-->


-->Or in whatever other "-aria", if that is the point, but, for one thing, I live in this country and is normally to speak about it, and, for another thing, it is good to give some concrete examples which are tied to more accurate numbers, for a given country. The very idea about this has come to me, maybe 10 years ago, and I have explained it schematically in other places, but here will try to be more precise and speak with numbers, what can sound more convincing, because this, what must happen, it sooner or later happens -- as I have stated many times --, but the difference is /_in the social price_/! In addition to all this an example with Bulgaria, as the poorest country in European Union, what, in principle (though not in Bulgaria, of course -- by us /_nothing_/ happens properly), is a reason for moving to the left, is quite indicative for the worst case, and, hence, in each other country this will happen easier. Yet it is not without importance also the fact that we are not a big country (now less than 8 millions, with tendency to decreasing, although there are even smaller than us -- Estonia, for example, or Luxembourg, Monaco, some island), and at the end of Europe, too, i.e. in the angle of Balkan peninsula, and if so, then pretty isolated, so that the conditions by us are ideal for similar experiments (were they only be taken seriously by the wealthy countries, which can even decide to help us).


-->But let us begin the narration.


-->


==>*_1. What the author understands under moderate communism?_*


-->So, the most succinct definition would have been the following: *_the moderate communism is this, what could have been called also moderate capitalism_*! Is it clear now? Well, I doubt this, so that let me give some explanations, Firstly, what is this communism (according to the author, for everybody can have his own views on the question, some, for example, may think that this means concentration camps for the wealthy)? So that this is care for the society, for the commune, of course, for the ... communal expenses, if you want, because this is what says the very word; while the socialism is care for the "socio" or "sauce" of the society, i.e. for the prevailing masses, not for the top; from what follows, how it might have been expected, that they are practically synonyms. Here, however, I prefer to use the word communism, because it begins on the same letter as the capitalism, and in this way these extremities somehow more naturally come close one to the other. And the capitalism, obviously, means power of the capitals, i.e. that the "parade" commands he who keeps the money (as it was from deep antiquity, but there is no other power which could have interfered with the money -- there is neither aristocracy, nor priests, nor intellects, etc.). Well, with some stipulations, because there are states, too, but under the capitalism, or the democracy as contemporary capitalism, in the ruling of states, in general, again the wealthy ones have their say (or at least those who are supported by wealthy persons -- the elections are elections, but the millions, and rather milliards of dollars, which are spent for pre-electoral and post-electoral /_manipulations_/ of people's minds are paid by financial circles).


-->Speaking with bit more details, my view to the moderate communism in some country is that it is *_duty of the state to care equally about all_* on some /_minimal_/ level, according with the living standard in the moment. But when this is also moderate capitalism then the money exists, the property inequality, too, there are wealthy and poor, but if someone, by one or another reason -- the reason is of /_no importance_/, mark this --, has not sufficient income in a given moment (which may as well continue for the whole life, for some people), then the state secures it for him (or her, naturally), and all this -- mark this again -- without necessity of humiliating and asking, filling the necessary applications and visiting different instances. This provisioning for the poor, or allowance, is performed in accordance with the capacity of the country in the given moment, which I think can be safely taken to be equivalent to *_half of the minimal monthly salary_* in a month!


-->Now, look here, there is no need to speak about money, for the simple reason that the numbers age very fast (by a normal interest rate of 4 % yearly, for about 20 years, as compound interest, we get devaluation of money twice, and if I have made proposition for something that will not last for 20 years then I wouldn't have done it at all, not me). The minimal monthly salary (MMS) is term which exists in all countries, it is corrected in accordance with the moment, it is measure for this what a person is entitled to receive if he /_works_/ something for a whole month; well, and if he does not work he has rights to have at least the half of this, also for simplifying of the calculations and that's it. One can study, be old, ailing, want to become pop singer, or whatnot (even if he is addicted to drugs, or is criminal), but he must eat and sleep somewhere under roof, travel around the country, and so on. With this only the necessary care for many people is not done, and is entirely possible to have also the corresponding dormitories, cheaper canteens, et cetera, for those who can not afford themselves to pay "normal" prices, but at least half MMS in month must receive everybody just because he (surely, she) has been born. (As an example, I have heard that every citizen of Kuwait received in an year some thousands of dollars only because he is citizen of the country, without whatever work.) You can name these cares some /_social sun_/, if you want, but they must exist.


-->This cares must exist, in the first place, because we /_can now afford them_/ -- when we can throw away a heap of good and working things, then we produce more than necessary, ergo, we are wealthy enough for to be able to care about the poor in the moment. But not only for this reason, also because when we care for them we have (i.e. the state has) more motives to require all kinds of taxes from people who have enough, and also /_reasons to monitor_/ or control /_people_/ more strictly. Because, let be clear on this matter, nowadays people can't be left to do what they only want, for some of them may want to make bombs, blow themselves up, et cetera, surveillance of all and everywhere, little by little, becomes reality (on the streets, during exams, before banks, and where only not -- everything is filmed, and later somebody may look there if necessary). And when everybody receives money from the state, through some instance (we will come to this) then somebody sooner or later may become interested and cast a look at this how long the given person lives at the expense of state, why, could somehow be helped to him (social assistance exists for long time), or then watch him closely, because he is strong and healthy and does nothing. Everybody must have the /_possibility_/ to live even his whole life on this half MMS, but the idea is that there will be not many those who will agree to this, unless they have some more serious reasons or causes (as I said, he may study something, and nobody knows will some additional knowledge be useful for the others, it must be first accumulated and checked for what it is good); so that if some people do not do something proper then, maybe, they do something "improper" (say, sell drugs, or are engaged with prostitution, etc.; they can at least harbour taxes working something without official registration). Id est, this care for the people will be also /_ground for increasing of the control_/ on the part of financial organs.


-->In this way the very capitalism will win, because will know better what resources of labour force it has in its disposition, and also when is paid to the people they abstain from more violent expressions -- what is evident, this is the reason why are paid all allowances (not because of "God's commandments", I suppose). In other words, the moderate communism will be also moderate capitalism, because it will propose more quietness in the country. In addition to all this the instance which will perform this care will mainly /_conduct_/ means from other existing in the moment instances (for pensions, sick leave, etc.), and will provide common view to the things, a matter which the capitalism rarely can boast to have, i.e. in conditions of competitions there exist many competing with one another organizations, but there is no centralized control, which in many cases is very important.


-->


==>*_2. What sums will be necessary for realization of the idea?_*


-->Here we tie ourselves to Bulgaria and will speak about its population of 7,365,000 people, according to the population census for 2011. From them, by official data the /_working force_/ (again for 2011) is /_3,322,000_/, what as percentage of the whole population gives 45, what seems quite low (for example in Russia in June 2012 the economically active population is given as 54 % of the whole), but there are some methods for computing of this (supposedly are subtracted juveniles, students, pensioners, etc.), so that we will take it for true; in addition is given also some coefficient of economic activity about 52 %, what seems better. Well, there are lost 6-7 % by the counting of economic activity, but this is not important for our calculations because these additional percents receive something from somewhere, where we are interested in those who receive nothing.


-->But working force is one thing, and employed population and unemployment is another. On the average the /_employed people_/ in 2012 are given as /_2,150,000_/, what as percent of the entire population makes only /_29_/ %! For them, respectively, the average monthly salary (for June 2012) is on the average 755 lv (or 2.6 MMS, by one MMS after May equal to 290 lv, what is more or less correct, I think; earlier it was worse, it turned to be nearly 3 MMS, what is not normal for many of the countries). In this relation, of exactly occupied persons (having in mind that there exists also partial occupation, and other exceptions) we are holding the absolute "record"; I have compared with data already for 1998 and there the percentage of occupied persons from the whole population in Bulgaria was 31.5%, but for Poland, for example, it was 55, for Russia /_71.3_/, for Hungary 60, and so on, everywhere were big numbers, where with less than 50 % were, except us, only the Czech Republic with 44.4, and Romania with 35.2, and on the average for 12 former socialist countries, including the Baltic States, were 56.7. Now here is an important moment, this, in my view, is the /_hidden unemployment_/, these are people who neither work, nor are counted as unemployed! So in 2012 is given that we have /_unemployed 372,000_/, with unemployment coefficient of 11.2% (but this is attributed to 3.322 mln employable, not to 2.15 mln employed). I want to say that the hidden are those who remain when from 3.322 subtract 2.150 mln, what gives 1.172 mln, where if we take from them the registered as unemployed 0.372 mln, remain still exactly /_0.8 mln_/ obviously unemployed (not only 0.372, i.e. in /_2.1 times more_/ than the officially given), what gives now 10.86 % of the whole population (while else it was 0.372 / 7.365 = 0.0486, i.e. less than 5 %).


-->Well, I don't state that all these 800,000 people work nowhere, no, the major part of them /_somewhere something_/ receive, but they hide themselves and in this way pay no insurance payments, from what win the employers, as well also the very semi-working people. Now, these 0.372 mln officially registered unemployed receive something, it may be less than my proposal, but may also be more than this, let us not bother with them here. From the left 0.8 mln maybe the half also receives something, it, almost sure, is less than 1 MMS, so that they don't hide especially big income, they work only from time to time, here and there (the employers hide what they can), so that let us accept that the most poor make only 5 % of the whole population, what gives again nearly as much as the officially registered, i.e. 0.368 mln, let us multiply this by 0.5 MMS or 145 lv already , and also by 12 for to get for an year -- this gives *_640 mln levs_*.


-->This, surely, is /_not_/ a few, because, for comparison, in the budget of the country for 2012 is given (all in mln lv), for example: the budget of judiciary 260, of National Assembly 50, of state universities 345, for the entire healthcare 946, and so on. So that 640 mln is a lot of money, but ... . Well, you see, this is money which we must only /_be ready_/ to guarantee, for some time, these sums are not necessary to be paid, because when we begin to pay them it must be possible to catch many people, who receive something, what may be less than 1 MMS, in order to pay taxes for it, but even if it is 0.3 MMS in month it will be subtracted from these 0.5 MMS, which will be given to this person. If it turns out that the money is not enough -- and after a pair of months this will be clearly seen --, then it is possible to decrease the paid sum a little.


-->Because there can be done many calculations (which, very often, will turn to be made "without the innkeeper", as we in Bulgaria say, but let us make them, anyway), for example, it may be taken that the real unemployment is 0.5 mln (or 15 % of the working force, or 6.8 % of the population, what looks quite acceptable even for Bulgaria), and not the official 0.372, and then those who receive /_nothing_/, or the hidden unemployment, will be the difference between those numbers or 0.128 mln (or 1.74 % of the population) and if the help will be only 100 lv (i.e. 50 euro) per month -- this isn't much, but for one Bulgaria it is pretty substantial, I'll tell you, each month, not moving a finger -- then there will be necessary 0.128*100*12 = /_153_/ mln lv; even by 0.6 mln unemployed (18 % of the working force) and by the same 0.372 officially registered, there will leave 0.228 mln (3 % of the population) who receive nothing, and if them will be given again by 100 lv per month this will give /_273_/ mln levs. So that the sum has fallen from 2 to 3 /_times_/.


-->Let us take some /_250 mln_/ (what, let me remind you, is for roughly 17 % real unemployment, significantly more than the official 11 %), and look at this in comparison with the revenues. Well, all tax revenues are given as 17,000 mln, so that 250 are /_only 1.47 %,_/ even if we compare with the revenues only from excises, which are given as 4,130, then this will give 6 %. Well, I personally think that sums of the order of 1-2 % of all our revenues, or about 5 % of those from excises, really, are nothing compared with the social significance of this experiment -- in any case this is much better than a new ... revolution, isn't it? Besides, I don't plead at all about experiments in the frame of entire Bulgaria (as in his time /_tovarishch_/ Lenin has decided to experiment in the whole Russia, plus a dozen Republics, right?), no, I think that it can and /_must_/ be performed an experiment in the frame of one averagely big, rather not big, town, with population approximately of /_50 thousand_/, maximally to 100,000 inhabitants, and then the sums will /_decrease at least 20 times_/ (i.e. they will decrease more than 100 times, but there must be /_guarantied_/ also all other sums for social security payments, like pensions, scholarships, allowances for all unemployed, etc., which will be required from the corresponding instances, but they may delay the payment or refuse some part on it, and so on, so that let us be on the save side in our assertions).


-->


==>*_3. How to realize this moderate communism?_*


-->So first of all must be created the necessary instance which will be engaged with this control, payment of allowances, collecting of everything what anyway is paid, respectively all salaries must go through it, and taking back the given initially doles. This, obviously must be banking institution and I propose it to be called *_Bank for Moderate Communism_* (and, as I said in the beginning, some people may call it Bank for Moderate Capitalism). This is really an ideal name! Well, it is so in Bulgarian or Russian where may be formed initials BUM or BUMCO (there "moderate" is "/_umeren_/"), what sounds like ... boom, of course, in this translation it must be BMC, but there may be thought about something similar in English, say from Bank fOr Moderate COmmunism, or Bank Of etc. and have BOMCO. Or if not playing around the boom then around the ... furor -- say, Formation for Uniting or Resources and Official Registration, exactly FUROR, but let us not complicate the things.


-->This, what has to be done, after finding who will sponsor the BUM -- you see, by revenues only from aids and donations calculated to 41 mln lv in our budget for the same 2012, and if we reduce the used above 250 mln /_hundred_/ times (proportionally to the ratio of 50,000 persons to more than 7 mln for the country), there remain really necessary only about 2 mln levs --, so that after this must be legitimized that /_all_/, but indeed all, under pain of heavy fines, payments to the persons from that region -- there are no problems to prepare ordered lists by UCN (Unique Citizenship Number, this is Bulgarian personal ID number) for all of them -- are to be conducted via this bank. Then it will pay each month, say on the 15th, to /_every citizen of age_/ (there are no problems to include here also the children, if they, too, receive something, i.e. if their parents receive something for them, but let us initially include only the persons of age), the sum of, let it be exactly 0.5 MMS (according to its value in the given moment), where in the end of the month it will be subtracted from everything received during the month. Now, there can be operated according the money due to be paid for the given month, but this may delay the system, will remain unpaid old payments for months back, surely (at least in Bulgaria), so that I think it is better to work on the basis of the current month and the received and spent in it.


-->It will not be easy to get around BUM because for each company can be checked where are sent the remunerations for every person working for it (partially, on full time basis, it doesn't matter, that is why the payroll lists exist). This will be made easy because for everybody will exist a number, for example BUM_UCN_No, where to the sums for him (or her) are to be transferred, so that the companies even will /_not pay_/ the salaries /_in banknotes_/, this will be forbidden to them, for the reason that everything has to go via BUM. This will simplify the financial operations in each of the companies, and can easily be controlled. And the people will have cards for this current accounts and will be able to take money out of them when only something emerges there. That is why I am speaking also about moderate capitalism, or, generally, development, because from this will benefit the companies and the business, as well as the state, which will receive more unfailing this, what is due to it.


-->Well, while it will be worked on a level of one town, the things will be a bit more complicated, there will be nonresidents living in other places, it will be needed to make some exceptions, but later on, on the level of the whole country, everything will be extremely clear. But in the frame of a town there will be no problems for every foreign citizen working for a company in this town to perform all his payments also through this bank (as far as BUM /_is_/ a bank, as every other), only that he (or she) will not receive initially half of MMS each month, and will not be monitored, i.e. he will be under simplified control; from here he will be able to withdraw his money when only wishes. This bank will be able to send information also for the annual income declarations for everybody, no matter is he an ordinary citizen or "plays with millions". That is how the communism can be equalized, as much as possible, and in direction in which this is possible, with the capitalism. But this /_isn't_/ control of the bank accounts, only of the incomes; and, in the end, the financial institutions in the state must, anyway, know how much everybody receives (in order to "cash" also something together with him, of course), but will he spend his money, or accumulate them, or make business with them, is his own business.


-->


-->Good, in bare outlines I think the things have begun to clarify themselves: there will be necessary some decent sums in the beginning, but if this, what is paid as minimum, is at such level that each, hmm, normal snob will not be satisfied by this allowance, then there is no danger that some people will begin to rely on this money and will give up working at all, i.e. those, who will cease to work will do this for some important reasons, which can be also checked (for example, a real intelligent must be entirely in position to live on this money and praise the communism in our country, which will somehow win from his brain). This measure is profitable as for the poor citizens, as well also for the state, and the companies, too, to a large extent, will have some benefits, because their financial duties will become easier (for the moment they will only not really pay the salaries, but in the future can be required to perform via this bank also the distribution of all taxes for the given person; for the contemporary computerized systems this is no burden at all).


-->As far as, however, the expressed here ideas, in spite of their revolutionary meaning, are not something entirely new and not used somewhere on local level, it is quite possible to come to them also in other ways. Let me remind you something, what is known by pretty few of the people, but I have met it several times in Western journals, namely the fact, that the pension insurance in Germany, from here in Europe (and possibly in the world, too) was introduced by Otto von Bismarck, who, obviously, was not a communist, and has defended the interest, first of all, of quietness in the country. Well, I propose /_common anti-misery insurance_/, valid for every country and every time, and together with this also possibility for centralized state control of the incomes of the population. But taking something from the people is necessary first to give them something else, for otherwise they will become indignant, and this with reasons. So that think good, before you take this proposition for another of my utopias.


-->


-->October 2012


-->


-->*_-- -- -- -- --_*


-->


===>*_ESSAY ON THE COMMON SENSE -- II_*


-->


-->As it is evident from the title the subject of this material is a social order which contradicts, in some extent, to the common sense of its citizens, only that this time this isn't the communist socialism but the contemporary democracy. I hesitated for a long time to write this paper or not, because it is obvious, and I alone have emphasized this many times, have written whole books, or, if by papers or chapters of books, then more than 50 (rather near to hundred) things, where have explained that, putting it aphoristically, *_the democracy is the most flagrant contradiction to the common sense, and exactly /_for this reason_/ it is the very biggest achievement of humankind in the social area_*! Saying it otherwise, if all people want to deceive one another, then here is the democracy. Your rulers will cheat you so bold that you will even like this. So that from this viewpoint there is no more need to ... "stir with stick the /_guano_/" (in order not to use here indecent English words, but foreign is allowed).


-->So, but my readers in the Internet continue to pay bigger attention to this essay (under the implied now number one), compared with others much more interesting papers of mine, so that I have begun to give a thought to really writing continuation on this theme. Because there the question is posed quite naive, we wanted then that the society was humane, for it is /_obliged_/ to care about people, while now it, even if takes some care, then this is for defending of the pockets of the wealthy persons of this world, for the simple reason that the hungry and discontented people (as also home animals, the situation is similar) perform worse their duties, i.e. there are /_not proper conditions for exploitation_/! But this, too, at least for me, is obvious, and there is no need to "dig a hole in the sea". Still, when 25 years later I have begun to translate myself in English, I have come to the conclusion that it is good to write this second essay, in order not only to state that the capitalism, i.e. the democracy of Western type, that of the stronger in this world, is inhumane, corrupt, and so on, but also to try to point out the /_possible ways for its improving_/, which are much more difficult than in the times of totalitarianism (when it sufficed to reach somehow the ruling place -- not that this was easy, but it sometimes happens -- and then perform changes on a big scale, how, for example, has done Gorby in his time).


-->And, in general, 25 years is not a short time for to allow oneself to raise again old questions, under new condition. So that I will write this review, using initially the same points of the former material, and later something will be added. But I must warn you that this, to what I will lead you, is ... well, to /_vindicate the communism_/, of course, for there were many good ideas in it, only the realization was limping (but under the democracy there is not at all worthy idea or moral -- if we exclude the clever deceiving of the common people). In what there is nothing surprising, because all totalitarian forms of ruling (like, say: church state, Sultan ruling, the idea of aristocracy, and others, the pharaohs, if you want) go out of the assumption that the people are simple and they must be taught, not to put the "cart" before the "horse", as the democracy does, spreading the delusion that exactly the masses must teach their rulers what to do, or, using words from proverbs, the calf will teach its mother. So that I will whiten the communism and blacken the democracy, and if somebody does not like this, then let him not read further.


-->But let us begin.


-->


-->*_1. About the unnecessary prohibitions_*. Oh, God, they become not at all less, they have become now more. Earlier there were predominantly such, where minor servants, hiding behind their posts, have shown redundant zeal, so that the others, if they do not respect them, at least to be afraid of them (we even have a proverb saying that the King permits but the guard doesn't), and now it is shockingly full with such where the jurists "wash their hands" and the "plebs" suffers. Because, for example, when you go in a bank to open a deposit you must sign a document of /_20_/, usually, pages, and confirm that you agree with the conditions, and the same is the situation with protection of rights of given products, and it is pretty funny this to be applied also for some software products or on the Internet sites, where nobody can check is it really so or not (for example, confirm that you are of full age -- certainly one can bet that every adolescent will eagerly confirm that he or she is such, how it is needed), but this forces people to /_lie_/ (that they have read it) if they want that the things move further. This is utterly incomprehensible teaching of honesty through accustoming at an early age to deceive, but it exists, because is "democratically".


-->Or also, that the cigarettes harm the health, even lead to death -- and tell me, please, how one must live in order to /_avoid the death_/, because for me, in my old age, this point is of great concern -- but nonetheless they are sold everywhere; the same also about the prostitution (well, not exactly the same, there they don't warn you that it is unmoral, there you know pretty well how the matters stand, but it exists wholly legally, so that the inconsistency between the said and the existing is entirely obvious); the same also when is advertised some medicament and you are advised, just in case, to read the leaflet with the instructions; or when they proclaim that buying and selling of votes is offense (especially when it does /_not_/ exist, for everyone can promise to vote how they want, and vote how he or she wants, since the voting is anonymous). Id est these are not only prohibitions that are unnecessary, with which nobody complies, but you are even warned what you are not to do, what you, anyway, don't intend to do, with the only purpose that somebody else wins from this. And this, what is necessary, say, that after each advertisement they must be forced to add that commercials are cheating, or something of the kind, is missing, of course.


-->And so on. For example, in the recent time I even become infuriated when in shops and in other public places they are directly "selling" politeness to you, repeating without whatever necessity "thank you in advance" or something of the kind, when this is simply a regular ... advertising, of course, that, look at us, please, how polite we all are, just a feast for the ears, so that go on, come to us again. Earlier we have said that there is nothing so cheap and which is valued so high like the politeness, but then the prices were of almost no importance, and now, when they are really important, this slogan is used to the full, because the politeness, really, costs nothing (yet it cheats the people, like the smile, by the way). Because of this I have come in my "Constitution of Cynicland" to the conclusion, that if we want that everything is honest and frank then it must be written in the Constitution the /_right_/ of everybody to /_deceive_/, that this is basic inalienable right for each civilized society! And isn't it really so? Well, people don't like cynics and, surely, there is no radical way for fighting with the superfluous prohibitions and other annoying elements of life -- and nowadays the most annoying element are the ads --, because this is reduced to moderate way of life, and the /_im_/moderation is main characteristic of the living matter, especially of the young individuals (humans or animals), so that we must cope with this, it is so, but something can be done, if we only want to. Like I have proposed above to mention by the commercials that this is delusion; or to revive the morality and try to raise it /_above_/ the law, because the law can easily be changed, where the morality is more inertial.


-->The morality, obviously, is a very fuzzy notion, but if this is desired it can be concretized by some procedure, I have hinted this somewhere: say, it can exist some Council of Moralists or Elders (what is the idea of Latin Senate, and the sirs and other titles of nobility), but in such way that there were included big number of independent thinkers, and this according to the estimation of the people, i.e. /_there_/ must be expressed the democracy, in the defining what is moral, not in the governing, where there are some procedures, standards, requirements. The simplest variant of such Council is some congregation of all beliefs in the country, plus independent candidates, plus people who have achieved publicity. This isn't easy to be done, but I don't propose things that will be one and the same for thousand of years (like the fascist thousand years of peace, to which they, anyway, have not succeeded to come), I propose dynamically maintained structures. And this Council can easily pay attention also to all kinds of unnecessary prohibitions and complications of life -- after all, there exists a Council (or Commission) for protection of the rights of customers /users /citizens, but it is engaged only with cases where the health of people is endangered, and that somebody have cheated, well, that is what the democracy is.


-->


-->*_2. Initiative and money mechanism_*. Well, here I have judged not very correct before, but I simply wanted to raise the question that /_in addition_/ to the price tables there must exist also some ways for tying with the demand, i.e. not to stay only on one pole, and in this sense I am right. I am right, as you alone can see, because we just jumped from the one extremity to the other, but the things are again not moderated, not properly linked, for there exist obligatory things and moments, and exist also such where must be acted according to the demand; now everything is the same, only in dual meaning, from the standpoint of the other side. Now in Bulgaria, at least in the period of initial robbing (well, let it be accumulating) of capitals, everything is subjugated to the demand, and if, for example, there is no particular demand on intellectuals (when they don't provide actions, thrillers, sado, maso, vaso -- maybe? -- and other forms of delusion, or simply something amoral), then, as a result, they can even die of hunger. It has happened so also by other revolutions, those intellectuals, who were linked up to some extent with the ruling class, by the overthrowing of rulers were overthrown, too. Yeah, but the intellectuals study and are built long time, while they go out of order very fast (approximately for two years, according to Western views by applying for work), lose their form. In the normal Western countries the society tries somehow to take care of all people, especially of the intellectuals, but it isn't so by us. We have destroyed our pro-communist intellectuals and have created just pro-/_commercial_/ such, what, in my view, definitely, is worse.


-->But let us take more concrete look here. I have spoken earlier about the medics, that they have not received good payment; now they more or less provide it themselves, but through advertising and delusion, where inconsistencies can also be seen. For example, in order to go to the physician now one who pays his (her) installments (I am not speaking about uninsured ones) must anyway pay to his JP for a referral to another doctor sum equal to one percent of minimal monthly salary, MMS (what makes roughly about ... 20 eggs, what isn't a few, I'll tell you), for routine paper work. And, in general, all payments for necessary expenditures, like healthcare, education, but also others, do /_not_/ go out of people's /_personal_/ incomes, but these are officially recognized social services without which nowadays there is no go; the only thing that is done in this regard is to outline some groups of people in dire need (say, disabled, with oncological diseases, or of Gypsy origin, etc.) and for them to make discounts, but there are no intermediate levels, what isn't a right way for doing of these things, in this way people may only be debased forcing them to beg (and in many cases even this does not help, because for Gypsies, as I have just said, there are such helps, but for Bulgarians, as a whole, there aren't, this only pours water in the mill of fascists).


-->In regard of stimulation of the young as more initiative part of the society, not only that the things have not bettered, but they have definitely worsened, at least in Bulgaria. Earlier dwelling houses were given for deserves "in the building of socialism and communism", and today they are bought by people with deserves "in the delusion and cheating of citizens", so to say. According to my approximate estimation in Bulgaria the population (for, say, 30 years) has diminished with about 15 percents, the housing stock has increased with about 25 %, what gives real /_global_/ bettering in the living space of 45 % and more (1.25 / 0.85 = 1.47), but this has expressed itself in this, that homes are bought just to be used as /_capital investments_/, i.e. somewhere about one quarter of all homes are, either bought as second homes, or they are simply not yet bought because people have not enough money! Id est the situation with the living space in principle has not changed, the young continue not to have where to live, and when nowadays there were almost not left families, then people can more difficult provide themselves with decent home or flat; this is confirmed with the fact that the rentals at market prices continue to reach nearly one MMS for a decent flat, or they come to this including the communal expenses where the major "weights" are the central heating and electricity, and, besides, all banks for more than 10 years are directly "pushing" offering loans for purchase of homes. Add to this also the paid education (in colleges or universities), as also for healthcare, and you will see how the horizon of the young is darkened to the unimaginable.


-->Ah, in regard of the fight with monopoly of the state -- also nothing is done, we have only changed the monopoly of state with the monopoly of big companies, where roughly half of them are with foreign participation; the small and media-sized business, however, continues to experience great difficulties, but the latter is, at least in my view, the proper business where the competition is good and necessity, by the large-scale companies in any case is needed some control on the part of foreign to the business (i.e. of the state) instances, there such companies are not many, they can somehow reach agreement, make analyses of clients and act reasonably. In addition, as I think (if something has not changed in the recent years, but hardly), the companies are divided in two natural categories according to the paying of VAT (value added tax), in big, which return to the state the VAT from bought raw materials and other expenses, so that for them everything comes about 20 percent cheaper), and in small fry, which either must maintain their own cycles of buying and selling with companies like themselves, what wide away from always is easy to be achieved, or else they buy everything more expensive and their production becomes also more expensive; moreover, they apply also more manufacture production methods what hinders the competition with the big business even higher.


-->But for the communists of the past there are some excuses, they have defended the monopoly of the state for otherwise, by the low prices of majority of goods and services taken to be necessary for the population, without this it was impossible, without this these goods would have not been offered at all. And in the current time I see no reason why people, who -- to put it bluntly -- are ready to lick the other people's bottoms with the purpose to receive more money, receive them really and exercise monopoly on decent homes, on rental prices, on education, if you want, of the young (because when there must be paid then surely not all who want are studying but mostly go immediately after school in the sales), and from here also on the moral of the whole population. The money mechanism is again badly used. And how it can be made so that it will be properly used I speak in my materials on moderate communism or on the social ministry, and in other places here and there (I have also a good idea about better provision of pensions and partially, so to say, retirement).


-->


-->*_3. Questions related with the property_*. Well, after the moment of writing of my first essay I have thought quite enough about the question of property and my views are expressed in other places where I speak about the future of the property. They are reduced mainly to this, that it has to be divided not on state owned or not, but on exploitative, which is used for exploitation of the others, and personal. If we approach so this question then there is no difference between the capitalism and the communism (only that by the latter was one exploiter, and now they are many); the only difficulty for mass application of this my view is expressed in /_psychological_/ aspect, that people don't want to accept the existence of exploitation, but if one goes out of its inevitability in every society, then this view is very fitting, I think. So, and in this regard something is done, the various forms of property are more or less equalized, but this, nevertheless, does not significantly change the things.


-->Why it does not change them? But because there exist large scale and small and medium-scale businesses, I have spoken above about this. If all forms of property are equal then, more than obvious, wins the bigger owner, and this that now in every area of production exist about 10 (rarely more, in one country, especially in not very big one like ours) instead of one universal owner-exploiter does not change the things essentially. About the living premises I have just spoken, that they are not bought by those in need of them, the same is the case also with the private cars, I suppose, because by us it isn't so (like in the USA), that one is able to buy a car for some pennies (say, for half of MMS) and it will work by him and the petrol will cost him almost nothing. By us even the fact that one ticket for city transport costs as much as a loaf (kilogram) of bread for the majority of people means that the transport by us has incredibly risen (and how it will not be expensive when the price of a ticket by us is only twice cheaper than in Europe, but there the salaries are from 10 to 20, and even more, times higher than by us, i.e. by us the situation is about 10 /_times_/ worse). So that, again, it turns out that the old situation was much better than the correct (from the standpoint of the right capitalism) situation nowadays.


-->Ah yes, it has remained the question with the agricultural land. But there we present, I suppose, an example of the worst possible decision compared with all former communist countries, we have given it in real borders after many years of meaningless debates, and who has received it just /_keeps_/ it for himself (and even does nor admire it). Now, whole 25 years later, it continued to be bought (of course pretty cheap, that is why people don't want to sell it) by companies-resellers and we are going to form our new, democratic, kulaks (wealthy peasants), where in a worldwide scale the existence of family firms in agriculture is rejected (and, for example, in USA the quantity of /_all_/ farmers is given as roughly 4 %). Notwithstanding this wide away from all agricultural land is used, and I have told my readers that somewhere about 2013 I have seen that we have at last begun to plow our "democratic virgin lands".


-->


-->*_4. Questions related with the education_*. Here something is changed, but far from being for the better. Id est we have chosen the easiest (and silliest) method for solving of the problem and have introduced everywhere paid education, but without well thought system for paying it from aside, not from the pockets of the parents, because this method, naturally, means that the wealthy retain for themselves the right of monopoly on education; the only good nuance in this relation, in comparison with the situation in 18th - 20th centuries (on the West, what concerns the 20th century), is that nowadays, when there are left almost no families, the parents do not pay for the education of their children, they can not afford themselves this. This can hardly be called good moment, but maybe exactly because of this it will force a decision, which, I suppose, will consist in /_returning_/ to the old system with distributions after the graduation, and complete financing from the part of the state or big companies. What concerns the level of our education in the present days I will not engage myself in asserting now that it is especially low, but when the prices by us for foreign students are equalized (nearly, I suppose) with those in Germany, for example, or France etc., then this will hardly contribute to the influx of students from abroad (this only restrains the migration of our students in those countries, but not much, I think). So that there is again nothing good; who of the young people can go abroad to study he goes, the selective emigration from Bulgaria continues, this explains to a great extent also why our population has decreased, as I said above, with roughly 15 % (even I alone, no matter that I have a pair of tertiary educations, would have departed from here to study somewhere on the West, as I have done this for an year earlier, but at an age of /_65_/ to receive a new tertiary education is at least unethically, isn't it?). Only the question with educational levels and their names is now solved, when we are part of European Union (although the very names do not sound very good to me)


-->And what exactly must be done here, I think, is clear. Every citizen of the state must have the /_possibility_/ (not just the bare right but for money) to study in the major universities of the country, when he (or she, surely) shows on the basis of entrance examinations, and further via his grades during the study, that he does not spend in vain the invested in him money. Only sums of the order of 10 to 20 percents of education costs can be required from the parents and this /_in accordance_/ with their income (i.e. from the poorer less, and even nothing), in order that the students (as also their parents) do not remain with the impression that the education is of bad quality, when there is paid nothing for it. It is possible also, as an exception (though the exceptions are always fraught with various problems), to require payment for such kinds of education where a big influx exists (because of repaying later, after finishing the education), like, first of all, in the sphere of business, but also of law, maybe something else, too; and /or can exist paid education in the usual, people's so to say, universities, for the weak students (when their parents have superfluous money, then why not to take it from them?), as also for such from abroad. In one word, /_nearly_/ to return to the well-tested system in the time of totalitarianism (which needed only some small reforms, not such revolutionary).


-->


-->*_5. Questions of financial policy_*. Earlier I have spoken here that the money gives good one-dimensional scale of values, about hard currency, about taxes and all kinds of contributions to the state, about updating of pensions, lower salaries for intelligence, stimulating of important industrial branches, and about different price discrepancies. Now many things have changed, but, alas, again not to the best (though, still, not to the worst -- I am realist). In the present time we have hard currency, but under the conditions of Currency Board, which I have sharply criticized in various places, and now continue to criticize, because it has taken away our independence as a state, and this in the worst possible moment when our own currency has begun to grow stronger after spending of all totalitarian savings of the population. But in all cases in the current moment, more than 15 years after introducing of this Board, many things have stabilized (on the bottom, surely), and there are not such turbulent changes like in the first, not a pair, but 7-8 years, after the transition to democracy.


-->The questions about updating of the pensions are always actual, so that there is no sense to dwell on them (they as if are updating, but this is not the radical decision, I have spoken about this, I think, somewhere; this, what is necessary to be done, is to establish the pensions /_not_/ in absolute money units, but as coefficient to MMS, and update them even each quarter, or when the MMS is changed). That the salaries of intellectuals were pretty low earlier this is so, but I have never supposed that we can reach nearly to a state of /_genocide_/ to the intelligence! And yet we have come to this, because it became necessary for the small business to support those people, and this was not it its abilities (and it has never intended to do this). We had, if I am not mistaken, about 30,000 scientific workers (including the professors and above, what out of nearly 9 mln people gives quite normal 3-4 per mil), from which, I think, at least 2/3 have simply disqualified themselves (like your author), and the new ones, who have emerged only there, where the students paid for them, are not of the same quality, because the creative worker works in his or her pleasure, not for money, as a rule (though I don't deny that there are exceptions here, but hardly more that 10 %). How the situation is to be bettered, and not only for the intellectuals but also for the whole population, I have given a proposition (surely, what only I have not proposed?), and these are the elaborations on moderate communism, which are reduced roughly speaking to this, that the people must receive each month some minimal sum, and later, in the end of the month, it must be restored in most of the cases subtracting it from the received salary, and that if this is done via some bank then there are no special problems for realization of this.


-->Well, I have touched earlier also questions about stimulating of important industrial sectors, as well of many price discrepancies due to our "soft" in that time currency. It is clear that earlier these questions were badly solved, but on the other hand nowadays they are ... not at all solving! There is no sense to stimulate sectors that are unprofitable, at least under conditions of severe capitalist competition this is in no way necessary. And the price discrepancies continue to exist, only now they are between the established by market mechanisms prices (on foodstuffs, but also on manufactured goods etc.) and the communal expenses (like central heating, electricity, homes, transport, etc.). I do not want to repeat myself but here I also have expressed my view, which is reduced to this, that by us, Bulgarians, there is no social feeling at all, no awareness of the injustice to apply the same prices for communal expenses for people which personal income differs at least 10 times; more than this, we have now the most right-wing from all possible views on taxation, no matter that we are officially recognized as the most poor in Euro Union state (we were before on nearly the same level with Romania, but now I think we are left in the very end). But, by God, the West will not teach us how to live in a well organized state, the social measures are work of each particular nation, if we are so unfeeling to our neighbour nobody is guilty that we stumble at every our step.


-->


-->*_6. Attitude to the nature_*. Well, here was dealt with the environmental pollution, the bad planning of towns, and the same type of high panel houses. Here something is changed and for the best, now the pollution is less, and the towns look better, this is so. Only that this has happened as if by itself, because we have begun to use better means of transport, or have closed unprofitable productions, although we have also strengthen the control of environmental pollution, but nowadays this is just fashionable. I mean that in old times it was accepted that if it goes about industry then there a dust has to rise high (what is exactly the root of your word industry), but the times change and we would have come to this also under the ruling of "Party and Government". Only about the better houses is clear that the private initiative helps, it is more flexible than the centralized ruling, this is obvious, though with the time here, too, the centralized ruling would have come to the right decision, everything depends on the priority of tasks, so that here also are no special merits of democracy.


-->


-->*_7. About political life_*. Well, we have now multi-party system, legal opposition, and competition, but this has led to so many new problems, that now, on the basis of real democracy, I am not convinced that "the game was worth the candles", as is said. Because when there exists opposition the people (and the parties, too) think that they are obliged (or, then, compelled) to show the opposite meaning even when there is no special necessity in this, just in order to show off with something, to be different. I personally, in the conditions of our totalitarian "greenhouse", have never supposed that people can be to such extent ... amoral, maybe, impudent, brutal, et cetera. So that I continue to think that the democratic requirements are necessary in a decent state, but now I simply see well why the communists have not allowed the opposition, because people must be restrained somehow, they have no provided by nature restraints, they come to incredible extremes with the only purpose later on to reject them and ... again come to the other extreme! I have dwelt on this human phenomenon in various places, so that I will not digress here, but I like to stress that the presence of right to vote presupposes at least a good upbringing, as also obligation not to misuse this right in the name of bare egoism.


-->Ah, I have said further something original, that every dictatorship expresses weakness (of the government), what is so, surely, but the democracy is a weak ruling at all, for it there is no necessity to express this! And with the fact that the communism, still, dared to perform such radical changes, the perestroika, it deserves any laudations; the perestroika-change might not have succeeded everywhere (like, for example in Bulgaria), but it was necessary for to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, and it (in Russian it is "she", ends on "a") has succeeded in this. The communists were not at all simpletons, as many people (especially between the young ones) may now think, and where the communists have done errors are guilty the very /_people_/, they would have done even more errors without the communism, believe me! Nothing will convince me that the centralized ruling is worse than the decentralized (to what we will return in the end), everything depends on the correct stating of questions and on the collecting of return information from the public. The compulsory communism, as I call it for to distinguish it from prognosticated by Marx natural communism, which long ago exists in many Western countries (say, in the Scandinavian), has arisen as temporary ruling in conditions of war, and because of this, being a strong ruling, it could have not so easy quit the scene, this must be taken in consideration. And later has come the Second World War, which, obviously has required strong centralized ruling, then has come the cold war, which has not allowed to "loosen the belt", the arms race, the danger of nuclear war, and so on. Please, don't forget these things.


-->I even dare affirm that if the capitalists (chiefly the Americans) had not so persistently wielded the battle hatchet in the 50ies and 60ies (and maybe also in the 70ies, too), then they would have dethroned the communism about 20 years earlier, I have hinted at this moment, so that guilty for the so prolonged existence of the communism are first of all the well developed Western states, in the same way as they are, in outline, guilty also for its emergence! Instead of this, to make efforts to support with what they can and as much as this is possible this great social experiment (surely not less great than the democracy in Ancient Greece, because it has /_bettered_/ the world capitalism -- only look how differs the fight with contemporary economic crisis from those "measures" that were taken in the times of World War One and Two), the wealthy capitalist countries have succumbed to the foolish desire to see the enemy defeated, or at least begging to them on their knees, and such naivety I can't agree to forgive to intelligent or reasonable rulers. But where from will come these intelligent rulers under democratic conditions, ah? They, surely, are bound to "dance" so as the people beg them to, and to the people (i.e. to all nations) you just let to gloat. But at the same time the clever people long ago know (although I personally have not known this earlier) the English rule how to make a horse to trot -- either with a whip, or with a carrot. You will persist only with the whip, you will achieve nothing, as also with the carrot only (I will come soon to this, too, though I have discussed this question in other materials).


-->


-->So that, however you turn it, by the totalitarianism was done this, what was possible to be done, this was not a real democracy, but under the particular international conditions this was the best, what could have been done. I have whitened the communism as much as I could, I wait applauses.


-->Though, hold them a bit, it is a bit early now, I have not yet ended entirely. I have finished with what have written 25 years ago in the spirit of perestroika, and now follow some new (and more mature, I would add) moments.


-->


-->*_8. Each form of ruling is supported by the popular masses_*. If one begins to think (and not I have first come to the conclusion that the important thing is to raise the question, and then the answer will be found), then this is so, every ruling, not only the democracy, is supported by the masses. Id est the dictatorship is supported by the very population not necessarily directly, but indirectly, with their unspoken approval. After all, the humankind leads sedentary civilized (well, as much as this is possible) life at least for 10 thousand years, some date back to this time the development of ... wine making (because it is not possible to lead nomadic way of life and to keep wine or beer or mead to age, this is clear), and from all this time democratic ruling has existed only a pair of centuries in Ancient Greece, and a pair of centuries nowadays, and in the whole left time has existed some centralized ruling, another variant is impossible, ergo, the people like and support the power! Democratic /_elements_/ have existed, they say, even in the primitive communities, where the leaders were chosen by the very fighters, but these are elements, this is not real choice, this is fight between competitors, often real, in duels, like also amidst the animals. In any case this is reasonable. But for ruling of big masses of people are needed strong rulers, like: kings, sultans, tyrants, pharaohs, cardinals and popes, or at least heads of bandits. I think there is no need to convince ourselves in this now.


-->Good, and if this is so then the people have just tried to take somehow part in this strong centralized ruling and to serve the strong rulers. So that the dictatorship is such, which the population makes it, people like or not a given dictator, and if they don't like him then, in the end, they find ways to change him. The dictatorship is the real, strong, masculine ruling, and because of this also nowadays at the first opportunity people try to choose strong "fists", and on this is based, in general, the right-wing, i.e. of the strong hand, politics. Similarly the democracy is also supported by the people, what today is quite natural for us, but in Ancient Greece, when it was introduced, it turned out that was necessary to show a lot of efforts in order to convince the people that this is (also) in their own interest (not only of the rulers, by the way). The end poles, they always touch one another in some other aspect, and here also happens that the democracy and dictatorship are alike in this, that the people approve of them, as well also ... /_not_/ approves of them, of course -- the masses are always a little dissatisfied (just like the women, usually, isn't it so?). For this reason the simultaneous presence of these both poles is necessary, what also exists in some extent, but it also can be improved in different ways, about what I have also dwelt in other places (in my "Manifestos").


-->But the poles also differ (first of all) and when the people support the dictatorship they often overdo the things, "twist" them, go too far, what oft leads to unnecessary cruelties, but, mark, that the major part of the cruelties during the strong centralized governing are result of actions of the very /_people_/, not of the dictator alone (he couldn't have managed to be present everywhere, but I stress that often he does not require big extremities). And in the other case, by the democracy, when the people again overdo, often is come to usual ... /_chaos_/, in result of what by the democracy is not at all diminished the number of police force. And now I personally /_can not say_/ what is better! The big majority of people (say, 90 %) think (and are even convinced) that the dictatorship is worse, but I allow myself to doubt in this. People think that the dictatorship is worse because there exists a concrete person, he stays before all the others, who always (as if there are no exceptions here) later on becomes a scapegoat, while the "demos" is impersonal. It is true that the parties have leaders, and they often suffer afterwards, but with the changing of parties everything is pacified and people forget about vengeance, but the thing is that, after all, the people have chosen these leaders, the latter have danced according to the flute of the public, so that if one looks unbiased here then the very democracy is to be blamed; the very dictatorship as form of ruling also is sometimes to be blamed (for its inborn drawbacks), but under different dictators it is different, it corresponds more closely to the dictator, than the democracy to the demos, isn't it so? And the chaos which comes then can be much worse than the crimes of the dictatorship!


-->Now, I have no intention to dig in this direction, but it is worth reminding, as I have indicated it many times, that the necessity of strong compulsion (or violence) is in this to avoid in this way the necessity of ... even bigger violence! And the dictators usually succeed in this respect. And the chaos generated by the democracy can be regulated as if only with subsequent dictatorship, although it happens also vice versa, the processes are cyclical. In any case the fascism in Germany has come in its time in quite peaceful democratic way, and this, that the communism in Russia has come after the October Revolution, but this revolution was only named so, on a small ship, and the tsarist Government has surrendered at once (it, maybe, would have surrendered even earlier, yet there was no one to whom to do this), but the people, if they were asked, almost surely would have chosen the communists. What does not mean that the people wouldn't have made error, exactly on the contrary, people very often make errors, and because of this they are not to be asked in crucial moments. With what I want to say that the dictatorship may very often be just (to call it good would hardly be suitable), but even when it makes severe errors, even then it is more effective than the democracy, but this is obvious.


-->


-->*_9. What is this "common sense"_*? Well, this, surely, is basic notion which is not defined (like God, for example), but even in such case it is worth to give some explanations, in order to avoid further contradictions, and this, on what I want to stress now, is that the common sense is /_not_/ an averaged view of the population to the things, because the big masses simply "noise" (or suppress) the voice of the reason. No, this is the view of more wiser of the people, i.e. usually of the old ones, so that it is expressed more often in folk sayings and religious teachings. The common people usually know these things, they are thought to the masses, but the latter, or rather the young ones, don't pay much attention to them, they want to make their own ... errors, and they do them, don't doubt in this. In philosophical sense this is right, the young are not to listen to the old, but the old are to teach them, here simply exist struggle between the opposites, as the communist dialectics said.


-->And now I want (again, for this is not a new topic for me) turn your attention to the fact that there exist chiefly two /_effective_/ ways to force the people to listen to the commandments of common sense, or, generally, to do something what they don't want to, and these are the compulsion and the delusion (equivalent to the whip and carrot, about which we have spoken above); the first is the main trump of the dictatorship, and the second -- of the democracy, but, as I have said earlier, it is better to use both these ways. /_In theory_/ there are also other ways, I have made them once to be exactly five, for I have needed this number, but they are simply weak for the masses. They are, say, the genetic code, education, logical reasoning, personal example, our sense organs, and maybe others, they are used from time to time in various places, but they are not so effective. For me personally the reason is the most convincing argument, but I am an exception, don't look at me. The people, as a result of evolution (or God's creation -- as you like it, this /_isn't_/ essential), are first of all animals, and as such they obey the instincts, and the reason is only an addition (a whim of God in the last moment to improve His creation, if you like), it is quite often dubious and does not bring emotions to the people. Where the power is another thing; or the self-conceit, that if they ask me then I am considered very clever. The common sense, as if, stays maximally close to the scientific views, and at the same time is accessible for everybody -- say, that the Sun "runs" around the Earth, we see it every day, after all, and although this contradicts to the contemporary scientific conceptions for the everyday life on Earth this contradiction isn't essential. So also my explanations in the majority of cases are based on the common sense, they may sometimes not correspond strictly to the scientific views, but they seem convincing.


-->


-->*_10. The reasonable ruling is utopia_*. But, after so many explanations, if some of you thinks that when both things, the dictatorship and the democracy, are bad and also good, and when there are better variants, then in the near future we will come to more reasonable look at the ruling and then will reign, as I call it in one of my science fiction stories, "reasonocracy", then I must disappoint him or her because this will happen not soon. In any case not before one /_millennium_/, I suppose, but it might as well make five or ten such time chunks. Because we are people and, up to some extent, we even /_have no rights_/ to be very reasonable! For, from the viewpoint of the God-Nature, what is reasonable, ah? Well, reasonable selection of better species, surviving of most fittest, what is reduced to this, that the "unfittest" must die, there is, after all, enough proteinaceous matter on Earth, and to make children is easy (to give birth is a /_bit_/ more difficult, but the women still manage). And in the name of this /_selection_/ were carried out, come to think of this, the First and Second World Wars, because they, the wars, to what are reduced, ah? They are reduced to this that "we will show now them, to these Germans, of Frenchmen, or Russians, or Japaneses, etc. etc."! For the people is much more reasonable that there were no wars but for the nature this is not so, and because of this something as if pushes us from within to fight and there were wars even from the time when the monkey came down from the tree, and still earlier. But in the previous times there was some reason in such selection, while nowadays, by all these weapons for mass destruction, this is not a selection anymore. Nonetheless, name me some state in which there is no army, or in which the young children are not brought up in a spirit of patriotism, but the latter means, after all, that we, our nation, is better than the others, isn't it so? Well, the defense is one thing and the offense is another, but when the best defense is the offense, then what to do, ah?


-->Or also: what forces us (except some religions and habits) to give and give birth? A pair of children nowadays, surely, suffices, but only look, in China they are already milli/_ard_/ and a third, and in India they are not much less. But it turns out that something in us just pushes us to procreate like flies. And the religions welcome this, because wasn't it said somewhere in the Christianity: "Be fruitful and multiply"? Now my last hope is on ... the homosexuals, for they even if they wish it they can't (well, for the moment, but it might be possible some cloning or mixing of chromosomes, how can I know?) give birth to a child. And generally, taking into account the wars and the overpopulation, I think that somewhere from the times of ... Babylon, not to say earlier (but I have not a well known benchmark) people suffer most of all /_not_/ from the nature but from their own human nature! What is a massive earthquake in comparison with a "decent" war? Or what is a swarm of locusts in comparison with a "swarm" of people, especially looking in the long run? The locusts can't, after all, make themselves artificial meat, or cheese, or butter, and so on, but we can, and produce. And now you count alone, what will happen by period of doubling of the population of 35 years, or three times in a century (i.e. 8-fold increase, "only"), after some centuries. We will settle on the bottom of oceans, I suppose, because the cosmos, anyway, will be much expensive.


-->Or further: all religions state that it is not worth living for material benefits, but we, nevertheless, do exactly this. And we are doing this, mark, not when it is hard for us to find enough food, or clothes, or roof above the heads, not at all. In each country begin to be accumulated regions with unpopulated apartments, and people now often buy themselves a pair of homes -- simply because they can afford this, have extra money. And from all sides they are trumpeting that you have to compete with the others, no matter in baseball, rugby, with personal car, home, haircut, dog, boy- or girl- friend, and so on. But not with something /_really_/ personal, what can't be bought or taken ready, isn't it so? Be different, but with what the busyness offers to you, and that these are differences at the level of psyche of the kindergarten -- but who comes to realizing of this? Let us select ourselves, don't stop competing, for otherwise you are just not living! It is not enough that one aims at this by himself, but the busyness and upbringing, too, and this in the developed Western countries, push him (or her) in this direction. And do you know why? I will reveal this "secret" to you: because this contributes to the /_strengthening of exploitation_/, and, from this, to the increasing of (unnecessary for them, frankly speaking) capitals of the wealthy. And here I even do not defend the thesis that the wealthy people are bad, no, they are just partaking in the game, they can't go out of it, the capitals must be used, multiplied, like the people.


-->But, on the other hand, scratching your head, you are bound to come to the conclusion that to work for money this is ... debasing of human dignity! Look at the dog, for example, it is an intelligent animal, but it does not want money -- and there is no money in the world of animals, right? -- it (or he or she) wants to make something good for its (or his etc.) owner, to be liked by the humans. For it is one thing to live decently (as it is written in Arab fairy tales, at least in translation, of course, I don't understand Arabic: "they ate till were satiated"), and it is another thing to want 5 and 10 times more than one needs. The animals don't behave so, they are moderate, but the humans are not! The humans try to toil, usually doing some services to the others (in order not to say being servile or licking like lackeys), with the purpose to be in position after this to require from the others in their turn to serve to them! Because it is so, the majority of activities nowadays are such that everyone can alone perform them, but it is far more beneficial and /_prestigious_/ if other people are doing this for him or her. Think a little about this, I am not exaggerating, our civilization has evolved to such an extent, that now one can live more or less so like earlier the crowned heads have lived, we can alone do at home nearly everything (wash clothes or kitchen plates, cook, even bake bread, automated and easy, do the work, of maybe five home helpers or slaves), but all this is nothing for us, we want that the others swirled around us, and in this case we, in our turn, must gyrate around the others; and the wealthy on this world gyrate around their money.


-->It is everything a question of moderation, id est of our /_im_/moderation. Naturally there are needed specialists like: physicians, policemen, construction workers, teachers, and so on, but approximately half (I have done some rough estimations) of the activities are absolutely superfluous, and the people could have done them alone if they have had time for them, but it is something that they haven't -- now, with all these home appliances, means of transport, et cetera (but before our era they have had time). And about the money: I don't say that it must be taken away, but each one of us should be able to satisfy his (or her) own needs, and work only for acquiring of luxury goods, if he wants; and the salary must be fixed, with possibility to have about 30 to 50 % bonuses, as it is long ago in the whole world at least for the high qualified and creative workers; id est there may exist stimulus for receiving of something more, but not only on the basis of piecework, and who wants to stay idle and laze then let him do this, but without luxury things he will soon get bored by this, or if he will not get bored by doing nothing then he has his own ambitions, which must be allowed to him to evolve.


-->And so on. From what follows that for the presence of this reasonocracy: must exist a /_single_/ world state; in it must live approximately so many people like in one medium-large state, i.e. roughly speaking from 50 to 100 milli/_on_/s (not -ards); all must have the right /_not_/ to work and receive sufficient means for reasonable life; children must be allowed not more than three on a pair of parents, but be assumed as right till two, and even better if each child is attached to one of the parents, and then each parent must be allowed to have one living child (else there must be fines and other punishments); the governing must be divided in three major directions, where the proper or /_tactical_/ must be performed by highly qualified persons, with the necessary education, chosen somehow from above, by competent commissions, then in it must be present also a representative sample from the population for /_assessment_/ of its decisions, and also some body of moralizers or sages, who must set tasks to the rulers and do the /_strategy_/ and who /_exactly_/ must be chosen by national (but better one, iterative from the very bottom) choice; and maybe also something else. And at the same time our contemporary society (how I have explained in another place) is at the level of organization of ... simpler organisms (say, amoebas), without whatever specialization of the individuals in it, and this isn't freedom, as it is popularized en mass, because the real freedom consist in this, that each one has the possibility to develop fully these qualities, which the God or chance have put in him.


-->And do you know what will happen if we succeed to establish the reasonocracy? Well, it will happen that we will begin to live so reasonable, that for the majority of people this will become uninteresting and they will be simply bored by it! Or that till those times -- several thousand years isn't a short time -- will arise a new, really reasonable man, who will find pleasure not in some actions and thrillers, but in his own evolvement and improvement, as also in the very reason in general. So that, all things considered, we wholly deserve this social organization that we have.


-->This is reasoning in the style of ancient Eastern philosophy, that our world is the only possible, and if there was possible something else then it should have happened (and that, to give an example, was necessary that the kamikaze-"lads" of Bin Laden have blown up the twin-towers in New York, for, if it wasn't necessary, it wouldn't have happened). It may be so, in general, and if you like the contemporary democracy, then so much the better, the important thing is to minimize the bloodshed. But don't forget that these talks about nationwide democracy, or genuine one, and so on, are simply the regular catches of those in power (i.e. bathing in money), these are not essential novelties, which must occur in the democracy, and the improvement measures must be complex, as I have hinted.


-->


-->June 2015


-->


-->*_-- -- -- -- --_*


-->


=>*_END OF THIS PART_*


-->