This is a thorough, methodical, etymological, philosophical, yet also popular and funny essay or study about especially Bulgarian barbarity, with many examples and comparisons between us and the other countries. It is long, I warn you, but it is so untraditional, that I think that is worth the efforts to read it; this is very sharp critique of barbarity, but at the same time also tribute to it, because who can predict the intentions of God, even I can't, so that when the Bulgarians exist they have to be created with some purpose. It is not forgotten also the funny traditional poetical Appendix after the end.
0. Introduction and definition
To tell you the truth, I have thought about writing of this essay for about 5 years or so, but have never managed to come to it because there were all the time some more important things to do first, and this idea was shifted to the back of the stack. I have done this because for me, as also, I suppose, for every intelligent Bulgarian — not that there are many such persons, but probably a pair of thousands could have been gathered together by some thorough search — is, or must be, obvious that we are, unquestionably, barbarians, yet, not only that, if you could excuse me now, the own ... excrements do not smell, but there are also some unbelievable pluses of this situation, and some barbarians, i.e. we, the Bulgarians at least, are in several aspects preferable before some of the most civilized countries! Yeah, really, neither the Devil (for He is Deo evil, after all, He must be capitalized) is so black as He is pictured, nor (I'll tell you, but I suppose that everyone in his heart suspects this) the very God is so good like we would have wished Him to be.
So that the things are, for one thing, obvious, but, for another thing, misunderstood, and, for one more thing, must not be kept hidden in the heads of some gone ahead of their time thinkers, they must be made known to the people (all around the world). Because of this I am doing this now, yet I must confess that I have long ago forgotten my initial ideas, or some of them have turned to be difficult to be done, but it is better to produce one version of my ideas than no one at all. Still, these are only excuses, and if you all take for granted that with the years I continue to become more and more intelligent — though this is hardly possible, ha, ha, so that look at these my words like at a figure of speech —, then this current version will be in no case worse than the initially considered by me; having in mind also that there are no previous versions preserved you can as well take this my work (too) as second to none, right?
Now let me continue with my unique thoughts, let me define what I will understand here under barbarity, because there are different views at the matters. For one thing, chiefly etymological, one can say that the barbarians are people who do not speak our language, or can say just blah-blah or 'byra-byra", where the latter is in Bulgarian and the letter "y" here (when in single quotes) has to be read like in English "girl" (hence written here as 'gyl' or rather 'gyhl', or then 'gyrl' if we were in the times of Shakespeare). ( Yet do not get distracted by this special i-bulgaro letter, which I use already in many materials; the basic paper about writhing of all words is my "Myrski's English Transliteration", and I introduce a morsel of it here because it is often necessary. ) With what I want to say that this is some sign of uttering of incomprehensible words, what can be confirmed by the relation of barbarian with the ... barber in many Western languages (I have explained nearly everything from etymological standpoint in my enormous "Urrh, cum commentis"), meaning that the words of a barbarian are muffled by his beard (probably because he has not yet learned to shave himself). The same is the idea or Slavonic (Russian /Bulgarian) 'jazyichnik /ezichnik' as barbarian, where 'jazyik /ezik' is a tongue; similar in a way to this is German idea that the barbarians live in deserted places, in the fields, not yet in towns, because for them the necessary word is Heide ('hajde', and "j" here is like in "May"), what means also some wild grass, and from where comes your heathen as the same wild man. Yeah, but this is not what I have in mind here; I am telling you this because I want to show you that I have given thoughts to this long time ago, for the reason that, especially with the coming of our democracy, the first thing that we showed to the world was exactly our barbarity.
And what I mean then under barbarian, ah? Well, in order to show you that I am really very clever, enlightened (and, hence, ready to leave this world, right?), I will say that I understand, roughly, this what ... all people on the West (i.e. in Western Europe, and my uniqueness consist in this that I take the commonly accepted beliefs as right, don't invent some unreal things) understand, that we are unbelievers, or heathens, or ghiaurs according to the Turks (they write it now as gavur, where this 'gjau', come to think of old roots, has to be some cry with which one ... drives animals, surely), believing in nothing, in what people living in civilized countries believe! Only that this is too fuzzy definition, one can not go to all people of Western Europe and ask them what they think about this or that, neither ask someone arbitrarily chosen each time, and this will always be questionable. And because the religions are, after all, different, and the point is not exactly in this but in the behaviour of such people, and there can be also atheists who are not at all barbarians (at least I insist on this), I have long ago, before about a quarter of a century (nearly in the first pair of years of my appearing as writer), come to one working definition of any religion, and from here the barbarians can be defined as people who are not like the other believers (in this sense)!
So what is this working definition of religion (which for me proved to be so simple and universal, that I now can't think of any other better than it)? Ah, it is that the religion is a system of beliefs invented with the purpose to unite the people in the space and in the time! Because that is how it is, the religions have to make all people to act as one single, where each one can lean on the others, in order to find some prop or support in case of need — what the very word religion tells us, for it surely comes from the verb to rely (on)! And about the uniting: in the space means with the people around us, our near or not really neighbours, and in the time is between the generations, honouring our forefathers (and foremothers, too). If you scratch a bit your head you will see that this is what each religion teaches us, to unite, because this world is quite severe to people with unique minds (like me) or unique behaviour (like my brethren Bulgarians), and then there can be two ways for uniting: with people near to you (in territorial, or linguistical, or national, etc. aspects), or with foreign (in whatever aspect) people. But at the uniting with foreign people has never been looked at with understanding because this usually supposed some master - slave relations, so that it remains the near to the common sense uniting with the neighbours and the generations. Looked in this way it turns out that the religions teach us something quite useful and logical in the general case, yet in different ways for each of them; as well it can be seen that this my definition of religion is pretty universal and may include also the atheists and various other systems of beliefs (and I myself have begun my literary activity with one atheistic religion, and later have added a pair of others, also under another pen-name).
OK, the uniting and the religions are very nice things, yet ... at least not always and not for everybody or in everything, because there is also the selection, the wish to differ with something, so that there are not only contras against the barbarity but also some pros, to what I will come to the end of the material, but let me squeeze here one funny example of "barbarity", the ... family of one world-known opera singer, Nicolai (in fact 'Nikolaj') Ghiaurov! This surely is not a traditional example, but is shows that some "ghiaurs" can be really great, and it must be unquestionable that his forefathers were named so for some reason, it can't be otherwise, and this is not usual family, neither is considered as something flattering, so that you better be quiet and read till the end what I will produce here for you (and me). And if I, in order to clear the faces of my compatriots, will first cover them with mud — well, this is not a new method of healing, all women usually first smear their faces, and then they look better, don't they? Or at least I will hope to do exactly this.
Now about the plan of the essay. First I will give some (well known) examples that we, the Bulgarians, are really barbarians, according to my definition of disunity and maintaining of bad relations exactly with our neighbours, adding also some excuses and explaining why and where the barbarity arises. Then I will come to our newest history, the democratic period after 1990 where we practically trumpeted to the world that we are the best and only barbarians at least in Europe, showing bunch of unnecessary examples of anti-people's behaviour on the lowest and highest level in the state. Then I will make several comparisons with some other ex-communist or not countries, in order to accentuate our unique barbarity in the most civilizes part of the world. After this I will change the leitmotif and show you that many civilized and well organized countries can nevertheless give examples of inhumanity and not civil behaviour, which can be much more harmful to the others than our "simple" barbarity. Thereafter I will stress on Bulgarian quite civilized barbarity, which harms nobody but us. After what will come some conclusive explanations. And as addition to the essay will be included the traditional poetical Appendix, worth by itself alone to be read, I suppose. So this is how it will be, and if you are inclined to some profound and philosophical and funny, and original etc. look at the given topic you can continue to read further, or else exit from the material. The choice is yours.
1. Historical proofs and climatic excuses
As I said, we are barbarians because, according to the widely spread beliefs of many European nations, we are disorganized tribe where each one cares only for him- or her- self, does not honour the predecessors, neither the other people of the own nation, what with less words can be said that we are unbelievers. And here are some historical examples about this in the relatively new history. There was one Leipzig trial in the winter of 1933 against one Georgi Dimitrov who was chosen as suitable victim for putting of their Reichstag (Government building, Parliament) to fire, a fabricated law trial like many similar (say, like a bunch of trials in Russia during the Stalinism, or like some trials in USA for espionage). Such things happened and happen also today, but the point is that he looked a suitable contemptuous figure in the eyes of the populace, the people there believed that when it goes about some Bulgarian then everything is clear, everything can be taken for possible, because we are just monsters — like the communists, or fascists, etc., or like the witches, who were hunted despite that there was not a proper definition of what is this a witch and is this or not possible at all.
Then there was one later case with some Antonov who must this time have intended to shoot the very Pope, because he is from enough barbaric country; there were no reasons at all, neither real proofs, but he was kept for some years in prison and nobody, neither the common people, nor the high ranking figures, said, hey, people, you must be crazy, you try to think first! Or then somewhere in 1998 in Libya happened (still not known how exactly) that several hundred Libyan children were infected with HIV virus in one hospital, and now, see, there were Bulgarian nurses working there, let us say that they have done this on purpose. It is unimaginable why they should have done this deliberately, probably for some pocket money, but when it goes about Bulgarians then this is possible, and in this was convinced the entire Libyan population (they have performed some voting), the Government, the law Court, they were prosecuted according to the laws (well, there was some little torture applied to them, but for such monsters this is nothing, of course). That is it, people believe that we are barbarians, and we give them reasons, from time to time about this; they believe without proofs, but we are barbarians nevertheless, what we prove in other ways (I will dig here for some time more)! Peculiar moments, really.
Now see, we show signs of barbarity in many cases, and because of this people begin a priori to think that we are always barbarians, according to their understanding of monstrosity, what we are not, we are just nice unhappy barbarians, what is a different thing, and because of this I am writing this material. Yet we are barbarians, no mistake, because are disunited, unbelievers, don't value our own people, and some of us, who have happen to have lived for some time abroad, are ashamed that are, nor exactly barbarians, but merely Bulgarians, and constantly are trying to escape in foreign countries for centuries. There are historically preserved proofs that we were ashamed of this at least from 1762, when one Paisius of Hilendar monastery has written his "History Slavonic-Bulgarian", in which he exclaimed "Why, oh foolish people, you are ashamed to call yourself Bulgarians?", yeah, what first of all proves that we were (and are, I should add) ashamed! And further he explained that we have had once quite strong state, and have had access to three seas, and such things, but this means not that we are not barbarians, and even if we were not really barbarians in the 7-th or 12-th century — but let us not return so many centuries back because these were simply barbarian times — then we are such an least in the last pair of centuries.
Then there are mixed several ideas here, our image suffers not only because of us, but also because of the class of Slavonic people to which we belong, inasmuch as the Western people are inclined to believe that all the Slavs are ... slaves, of course! This relation is hidden in many languages (starting with the Latin), and is due to the bad (if you ask me) understanding that if you are not ready to fight for — in fact, for nothing —, just for the case of fighting, then you are coward, have slavish (and now you tell me: comes this latter word from Slav or from slave) mentality. I am not inventing fables, I am telling you things hidden in the languages, because there is, for example, one Latin bellum, what obviously is a belle-nice thing, but is given equal to their duellum, what again obviously is the duel (but there is used also in English the word bellicose = belligerent as military or warlike). I have mentioned this in my Urrh, and also that the Slavs have built their ... pride, which is 'slava', from their very name, but the root of the evil (if you ask me) lies in the Ancient Greeks, who have not so much passed to the West the wisdom of ancient Arabic and Persian etc. civilization, but have rather stopped old Eastern influence to the West. This fighting for nothing can be seen also in the French cock as their emblem.
So that we are not fighting nation, what is generally true for the Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, probably Poles, Ukrainians, etc., but not for the Serbs, for example, who are people whose hands often ... itch (exactly 'syrbi me' in Bulgarian) to fight with somebody, what is figurative expression meaning that they want eagerly to do something, here to fight, to kill other nations — or else (if you think that I am inventing things) their name comes from some Sanskrit 'krpanas' as a sword, saber, Malayan cris (a knife curved like a sickle), where is also Slavonic 'syrp' meaning a sickle — , what they have obviously proved one more time (in addition to being a formal cause for the World War One) around 1991 - 93, when they fought with the Croats (whose name in turn is from some dying wheeze — they are 'hyrvati' in Bulgarian and 'hyrkam' is to snore, or 'hriptja' is to wheeze). So that there are many peculiar moment hidden is some words, but the people are inclined to believe in whatever, so that it is good to know these things. Also that our neighbours, the Greeks, call us 'vulgaros' and you know that nobody likes to be called vulgar; the Serbs, for their part, call us 'bugari' playing around the word "bug", I suppose, in the meaning of sodomites (to do it like the bugs)! Well, these last things are pure inventions, but such were the three above-mentioned cases (beginning with the Leipzig trial), too, and we have to laugh at them sometimes, but have also to take care to better our image (which we have directly worsened with the coming of democracy, but about this I will dwell in the next point).
Now some words about our name, Bulgarians ('bylgarin' in sing.), what has to mean something, but is not officially clear what; not that this is really important (because, say, the Russians are 'rus'-red meaning the colour of the heads, the 'nemtsi'-Germans are 'nemi'-dumb for us, etc.), but you saw that some of our neighbours have frivolous fantasy, so that let us be clear as much as this is possible. Here I can't see more that 2 possibilities for the root, namely: either 'bul', or 'vul', which can be, after all, united because the difference has arisen due to the Greek letter beta, which now is read 'vita', but there can be some different ideas. The one, 'bul', may be meant either as some loud cry, where are the words: Russian 'balagan' as a fair-market, hullabaloo, their 'balagur' as a clown, German Balg as a water-skin, belly, or noisy child, and probably others, or as something big (what is a bit puzzling for me because we are small nation, about 1/1000-th of the world population, but maybe exactly for this reason, that we mean us for big thing), where are, say: Russian 'boljshoj'-big (where the first "j" is for softening of the previous consonant), Turkish bulluk as many things, some mixture, German Buhle as a dear one, beloved (but mainly meant as sexual partner), Turkish 'bulamach' as something without any taste, badly cooked, also their bulgur (= bulgul) as cracked rough wheat (something done with hard hitting and smiting), the very Balkan mountain (as big), the ball (as swelled, not only big), and others.
Yeah, but there appears also French bougre as a barbarian or sodomite, where is your bug, what has come here probably with the idea of some coupling, agglomerating, or making of some hunch, and here appears at once Russian 'bugor' as a hillock, hump. In this way it turns that we alone have given this bugging idea with our name but here nothing can be done, this is just something funny and not serious. And as to the 'vul' this might be the same phonetically, but the idea is of some ... popping of eggs, of populating, and Latin volva = vulva was an envelope, membrane, vagina, so that the vulgar things (vulgata) are meant as widely spread between the populace. Anyway, the name is just a name, it may mean something but this must not be taken seriously. More important is why we are barbarians, and what other nations can be our brethren? And here I think (what isn't my personal opinion, I have heard this once) that the cause is chiefly ... geographic! Yeah, we live in hot (yet not exceedingly such) places, where much unity or solidarity is not necessary, people can survive somehow.
And it as if is really so, the southern countries (looking somewhere from the middle of Europe, say, from Vienna) are generally more disunited, not like in the north (in the Scandinavian countries), and if they are not religious, like us, then the barbarity is as if unavoidable. Officially we are not unbelievers, we name ourselves Christians, even orthodox such (what means traditional, mainstream, not of some peculiar revisions — like of the 99-th or whatever Day), yet we are not great churchgoers, maybe, methinks, the water in which we were baptized was too dirty, or we were smeared with barbarian mud up the ears, but we don't stick much to the Christian dogmas. And mark that I am not saying this because I am a churchgoer, nop, I am an convinced atheist, but, well, I am an exception (with 2,5 University educations, know 3,5 foreign languages, etc.), and mean myself intelligent enough to stick to the common rules of peaceful coexistence and moral behaviour — because this is the purpose of religions, of all religions, the concrete fables are for the uneducated populace —, but my poor countrymen are unbelievers and this grieves me much. Because, let me repeat it again, maintaining of good relations with the people around us and before (resp. after) the current time is an indispensable prerequisite for big achievements of our own people, this is necessary somewhere from the times of Babylon and much more so after our Christ was crossed.
But let me continue with the southern barbarians, the countries of which must have been many and many, but it turns that I am hindered to list at least one more such nation. Because, let us cast a look around: the Turks are religious, the Arabs ditto, the Spaniards and Italians even more religious, also the other countries around us, and if we do not look to the East there remain only the Gypsies. Year, but there are Gypsies and Gypsies, as is said, and they live for such long time everywhere, that they (although they do not mix, as a rule, in marriages with other nations) must be counted as part of each country where they live; i.e. I think one can bet that, say, the Italian Gypsies are fervent Catholics, where ours are the same unbelievers like the common Bulgarians. The communists have tried to implant brotherhood between all layers of society (at least between the factory workers and the farmers) but with the coming of our democracy everything was washed away like last-year's snow in the spring. Probably our barbarity is simply genetic!
So that the Gypsies have to be excluded as separate nation, and then, if we move to the East, there are a bunch of nations from the South of the former USSR, like: Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc. (probably the Ukrainians, too), then Mongols, Bangladeshis, Burkina-Fasoans, Zulus, and you-name-them. But why should I condemn innocent people about whom I know nothing? What I know is that not only in EU, but in the whole Europe (probably including also Asia Minor) we are not only the top barbarians but the single such nation, sorry guys and girls compatriots. And now I will move to the next point for many concrete examples of our barbarian behaviour.
2. Democratic propagation of barbarity
Dear readers, you may like or hate the communists (where I personally have, if not exactly hated, then at least convicted, the communist rulers for many contradictions to the common sense, but when the democracy came in Bulgaria I became more and more convinced that they were right, after all, the common people must have been deluded in many cases for their own good), so that no matter what you think about the communists but they deliberately stopped or repressed our barbarity to swell and to blossom, so to say, because the totalitarian ruling was, in a way, selected, educative, righteous ruling, it was not: you, people, will have what you only want, no, it was: listen, people, there are things that you can have, and such that you can not have. Because, what is the democracy, ah?
Well, I have written probably about 1,000 (surely more than 500) pages about it, I have understood something. The most succinct answer will be, I suppose, that it is just another name of ... vulgarocracy! Because, etymologically looked, this is the proper Latin word, vulgar, and in order not to show the naked truth to the people (who like to look at naked bodies, yet not to hear really true things) was used this old Greek root demo-, which can be met as if only in demography (because, say, in demolition, or demobilization, or demonstration, etc. de- is prefix, it is not to the root). In this way the democracy was the chief reason for us to begin to cry to the world, hi people, we are barbarians, and there was nobody (inside Bulgaria) to tell us that there are things that is not good to do in civilized and /or religious countries. This is one between many reasons why I think that the democracy is bad social order, at least for barbarous like us nations.
I will recall to you (or, then, inform you about) some of our crazy barbarous exhibitions, with which we began our democratic march. Our first steps were: legalization of prostitution (the bad inhuman communists who prohibited such nice thing), shocking prices for basic goods (food, communal expenses, etc.) which appear every pair of years anew (even now, in the end of 2018), paid medical care and education and surely before finding of ways for helping of those in need, free market for our Lev (currency unit) what led to 1,800 times devaluation of it, and to emptying of the pension fund (which even after a quarter of a century is still not like in the normal Western countries), unnecessary returning of agricultural land in the hands of its owners, but without requiring (financially at least) to work it, demolishing (I can't find better word for this) of our nearly whole (well, 2/3 to 3/4, but sometimes 9/10 or so) industrial and scientific institutions and workers, and so on, leading as consequence to brightly expressed and unmistakable anti-people's democracy (because we, the silly common folk, did not like the people's one). I will speak about these (and other) moments a bit more detailed, but let me stress that the things that contradict to the usual practice, to whatever religious moral, to the interests of the whole nation, to the common sense, etc. can nearly always be qualified as barbarous, so that I am not just giving air of my outmoded and communist views, because I have never been communist, and can promise you that will also never become one.
Now, let me skip the purely moral questions, like spreading of prostitution and porno, parading with homosexuality, disappearing of the families, and probably something else, because here we can't stick out with anything, neither good, nor bad, before the other nations in the world (on the background of current decaying society); and if we take for granted that the capitalism is a society of ... free or total prostitution (where everybody sells something: hands, legs, brain, voice, smile, etc.) then this is normal to expect. But the constant shocking prices are not so ordinary thing met everywhere, they are met only in countries where bad or even no social policy exists. And let us return back to the devaluation of our currency 1,800 times, what was pretty much, surely, but such things happen now and then, yet they are compensated somehow, with the interest rates, with using of some hard currency for calculations, with bans for changing of big sums in national currency, yeah, this is not really new situation.
I wanted here to make some comparison with some other countries (say, Poland, Russia), but this is difficult to do using only the Internet, and is also unnecessary waste of time when nothing can be repaired and done anew; yet I have done my scrupulous checking (I am mathematician, don't forget this) putting some sum of money in one account and then trying to invest it in the best possible way, and all the time comparing everything with hard currency equivalent of the sum. This was not so easy, because when we have had once 300 % interest rate this was for yearly investments and just for a couple of months, so that if one has tried to brake his old account and make this new one he would have lost more than if has left the old situation, I am not such gullible person, I have checked this in practice and thoughtfully (or sometimes using government securities, what was better). And do you know what turned in the end? Ah, it turned that our Lev has devalued roughly 1,800 times, while the compensation which all previous governments have succeeded to propose via the bank interest are reduced to approximately 30 times, what means that the common people have remained with about 1/60 part of their savings, i.e. with pure loss 60 times! Do you think that this isn't barbarity?
But there surely were obvious ways out of the difficulties, like banning the changing of big sums in Levs, yet as far as I remember there were times when everyone could have changed up to 2,000 US$ yearly, where one minimal salary was about 20 to 30 dollars, the average being somewhere about 60 dollars, what are obviously wrong ways for salvation; allowing to change for some period everything more than 1 minimal salary is not a right step, and here we have surpassed the reasonable limit about 6-7 times. And /or we could have done alone some money board because even 1/3 of the salary or pension in hard currency would have satiated the hunger for such money, and providing that the salaries in an average company amount usually to about 10 % this means that only a pair of percents of the turnover (in the state) would have been necessary. And /or we could have calculated the salaries and pensions in hard currency but paid them in national currency according to the last month's rate; this surely could have been done, yet we preferred to declare explicitly in our Commercial Law (Article 4, if I don't err) that all calculations in whatever company have to be held in national currency (what, if is not barbarity, is then insanity).
And there can be added also that however severe the shocking prices of the free market were the latter has, still, some negative feedback (put in technical language), what is a very positive thing, the market can adapt, it is stable system, there always can be found better alternative ways (like, say, soya beans in the sausages, or gluten in the bread, or glue-like dextrin in the bouillons, or the newest "hit", emulsion of pork skins put in the cheapest salami), but there are worse things than the market. Worse is the situation with the communal goods, like petrol, electricity, water, central heating, healthcare payments, education taxes, city transport, and the like, which are regulated by the state and government, and in barbarian countries like Bulgaria they are badly, sometimes even extremely badly, regulated. Because of this in my country arises some apartheid for education, for healthcare, and so on, meaning that some people can afford these things, but many others can not, and remain only with their wishes (and /or curses). For example, in order not to say that I am just leaving bubbles, and say nothing concrete, I will cite that in the moment 1 (one) bus (or whatever) ticket in the capital Sofia costs 0.8 Euro, and I personally spent a bit less than this (say, 0.7 E.) daily for eating and drinking (properly measured for a month, or rather averaged for an year)! Yeah, this is our democratic way, where I can add that I am forced to do this because my pension reaches to 80-something Euro monthly what gives daily about 3 such tickets for all expenses (I have begun with about 2.85 tickets daily pension and now it is about 3.65). Nice living, ah, but it serves me right, nobody has driven me to finish 2 and a bit more tertiary educations, the other people have it better, some pensioners have by 5 and even 6 bus tickets daily.
Ah, and do you know why this is so — if not the chief reason then one of the core ones? Hmm, one of the principal causes for existing of miserably living people in Bulgaria is our flat income tax, what means that if one receives, say, 300 E. monthly he pays 10 % income tax, and if he receives 3,000 E. he pays the same tax. And now, look, this is the utmost right-wing tax, and from here financial policy of the state (and maintained for decades, by all however left- or right- or middle - wing Governments), because more right-wing would have been, say, from those with 300 E. to require 20 % (and probably from people with income less than the minimal salary to require 30 %), while such with 3,000 E. must pay only 10 % (and probably those with higher than 5,000 E. income to be exempt from this tax at all)! In short: in the most miserable of all countries in EU exist not the most left-wing or socialist policy, but the opposite most right-wing income tax and social policy.
And about the pension fund, which was nearly emptied with this crazy fiscal state policy (and of all colours of governments, because I am not accusing one political party, I an accusing our democratic system as the most barbaric European financial system), it has to be obvious that this happened because of our uncontrolled devaluation process (because, if you can't guess alone, these money were collected in national currency); just for information I can add that there were times when our pension deductions were about 31 - 33 %, while now they are relatively normal, about 17 %; but have also in mind that the men live on the average about only 5 - 6 years after their retirement (we have record low life span, for men about 70).
Then the returning of the arable land in private hands was not a care for the people. No, this was washing of the hands (like one Pontius Pilatus before 2 millenniums), because people who have lived in towns all their life will never become farmers, surely. As a result of this our agriculture was hit and from here the whole population began to suffer; and I am personally witness that we have begun to sow anew some pieces of arable land after nearly 20 years of no use at all. You see, I have hinted, but let me repeat that only the market is not enough to satisfy all layers of population, there are necessary other measures, and in Bulgaria we have just ceased to work, you go in the shop and will see: beans (what is our traditional food) from Poland, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, and I think also Zanzibar, eggs from Estonia and Poland, many culinary products from Poland, sunflower oil from Romania, Poland, Hungary, even apples and tomatoes from somewhere abroad but not our own. This means that the people are poor, but in spite of this they do not want to work more than the minimum, because there are no stimuli, and the latter has to be provided by the state, they will not fall from the sky. In the same way we have ruinated nearly the whole industry; not that we were really well developed — for example, we have never managed to produce our own cars, but all ex-communist countries have made their own —, yet we had at least metallurgy, machine building, and military industry, not only food industry, and under the democracy we have not even good enough food industry for ourselves, what means generally no cares, no perspective planning, no unity.
About the bad ability to unite under some common platform (what is exactly the opposite of barbarity) is clear from our political life, where we have had for a whole decade incessant changing of extremely left- and right- wing parties and then again and again (and not like, say, in USA, where exist republicans and democrats, but one can bet that the first are not against the democracy, neither the second are against the republic). One can say that we are really unique nation, what we are, I don't deny this and will dig more about this further, but out chief uniqueness is basically the barbarity. And our intellectuals we have also neglected, and this has to be one of the major causes for our last place in EU because this layer of people works not so much for money as for the honouring of the others, yet not without money at all; these people have simply changed their work, or have gone abroad; the former have survived somehow, but the country has lost them as qualified workers or scientific cadres, and the latter will do something good for other countries, not for ours.
And let us also not forget some necessary services, which were neglected because are required too much money, but earlier was not so, these things existed, because our people's democracy was not really democracy, yet it was for the people. While now we have not, for example, cheaper eating places, laundromats, public baths, and similar things, or, if we have some, then they are luxurious and not for the common people. Say, in Sofia existed one old bath with mineral water, placed in historical building, in the centre of Sofia, known from Roman times (about 5-th century), and after its privatising it ... ceased to function! So that's it, the market mechanism, the bath is not rentable, and if it will begin sometime to function it will be only for "Western guests", I suppose, because the old totalitarian price for a common bathing was about 1 or 2 ... eggs (because the egg is the simplest consumer basket, I have explained this somewhere), while I have heard that in some town existed one bath but the price for the same was about 20 eggs! The similar is the situation with our Vitosha mountain, placed just to the capital, where in the old times a heap of people, especially in the weekends, went in summer and in winter, but somewhere around the end of the past century all bus lines were closed.
But people, the city transport was introduced somewhere in old Roman times, there were horse carts there, but they were called omnibuses, meaning something for omni-all (there was Latin phrase, or rather slogan, "Omnia omnibus", meaning everything for everybody). And one bus fare in them surely has costed not a bit more than a former scientist spends daily for eating and drinking (including some self-made aqua vita, I have explained this, too), this was managed somehow by the town Municipality (or the old Roman equivalent of the latter). Yeah, but in barbarous countries like Bulgaria such things are not possible, they were possible under the totalitarianism, but when the people are free to express all their inner wishes, they say (indirectly) that they don't want this, that they don't care about the common people (and this now directly). So that here, in all appearances, as I mentioned this, it goes about genes, not just southern blood. In view of this I have one plea to the genetical scientists: dear well-fed colleagues (as brain-workers), please, try to find the gene of barbarity, it must exist, and a bit quicker, if possible!
3. Comparisons with other countries
Ah, it turns out that this is not so easy as I have expected, especially outside EU, for example in Russia, because there the prices are different, they are converted to Euros but this is not the same, there exists the so called purchasing power parity (PPP), which makes the real picture different. What I have found about Russian standard of life can be reduced to about 160 E. (11,163 Roubles, 1 E. = 75 Rbl. in Nov. 2018) minimal monthly salary (MMS) in the middle of 2018, and average salary (AMS) about 550 E., what makes 1 AMS = 3.44 MMS, and this is hardly believable. This can't be right because, for one thing, in Russia people can't live worse than in Bulgaria — nowhere, at least in Europe, a nation can live worse than in Bulgaria, for if so they would have made revolutions, only we can do this because have endured 5 centuries Turkish yoke —, and for another thing because there, surely, exist differences in PPP. The latter is motivated by the differences of petrol prices, where is said that on some Aug. 2018 the average petrol price was 45.28 Rbl., while the average price for the world on this day was 106.13 Rbl, what gives 2.34 times cheaper in Russia. And I would have added one more reason for the improbability of such low MMS, namely that the normal quotient of AMS / MMS (call it Myrski's coefficient, if you like) is roughly 2.2, in broader limits between 2.0 and 2.5, but when it is outside these limits there is something wrong, either in the method of calculation of the average, or also in the real meaning of MMS, it is used chiefly for taxation purposes but nobody works for such little money (e.g. for taxi drivers, or waiters, etc.); we have had for some time this quotient reaching nearly 3 but never more.
Due to this I have met on another place that one-bedroom apartment (what, by the way, we call 2 rooms flat, like my own) needed about 20 E. per month for services payments and by us one will hardly have a bill for less than this sum only for electricity, but the sole heating in winter amounts to more than this (and there remained the hot water, cold water, mobi-phones, Internet, such things); also is said that the average transport expenses are about 10 E. monthly where by us this is twice more or a bit over this (a monthly card). And if one puts some amount of petrol in the consumer basket (providing it is watertight, right?) and makes the correct calculations, it may as well turn out that this will give about 30, if not more, percents decrease (because such big communal expenses, including the petrol, can make up to 60 percents of the income). Anyway, all prices nowadays are based on the prices of petrol (resp. electricity), and there remain a heap of other social payments like healthcare, education, and so on (say, in Bulgaria the dental care is excluded from healthcare insurance, one must pay for everything there).
Otherwise I looked at the prices in some supermarket chains in Russia and saw that they are like by us and everywhere in Europe, but these were proper natural products, they are about 3 (at leas 2.5) times more expensive than the things that an average Bulgarian can afford him- /her- self to buy (say, by us are sold sausages for 1.5 E. per kg., where the real ones have to be about 4 E.). And also there remains the free market, the private produced food and home-made spiritus (because a litre of whiskey or Campari is like everywhere), and other things, the Russians have experiences for centuries in living under tight financial conditions; also the prices on cigarettes have remained until 2017 including about 2 times cheaper. What gives me all reasons to believe that the Russians live at least 1.5 times better than the Bulgarians. And don't tell me, please, that the minimal living standard is not a measure for organized and /or civilized country, only in barbarous ones can exist such absolute disinterestedness of the rulers about the life of the low circles of population, especially when it turns that these miserably living persons are mostly ... good and moral people, they don't want to cheat the others, or are hindered in some way to be like the others, or are often cheated by the others, or are old and have not passed well the transitional period to democracy (which never ends, for nearly 30 years not), or were occasionally higher educated (like myself).
Then we can look at the prices of cigarettes, that also can tell us something. It is given that a 20-pack for EU was sold in 2017, in Euros, beginning from the top with England for 11.13, then France for 6.37, Germany for 5.46, Czechs republic, Slovenia, Hungary for 3.37, and so on, and in the end stays Bulgaria with 2.61, adding that in Russia in 2016 they were 1.1. This means only that we can't raise higher the prices because otherwise people will stop buying them officially and turn entirely to the black market (where now, if one fills alone the cigarettes and buys the tobacco illegally, this gives about 0.5 E. for 20 pieces, what some heavy smokers do, and are allowed somehow to do this by the state, because they will never be in position to pay 5 times more, and they will rather kill but not stop smoking).
Or let us take in focus also the transport tickets in the cities (in some capitals), where I will not use tables, because there are everywhere differences which have to be explained. In Bulgaria, in the capital Sofia, one such ticket (no matter for what kind of transport) costs 0.8 E., one day ticket for all kinds of vehicles is 2.0 E., and monthly card for everything is 25 E.; then in Berlin a single ticket, but for 2 hours to everywhere only not back, is 2.8 E., for 1 day is 7 E., and for 1 month is 81 E.; then in Vienna single ticket, only that this time for 1.5 hours to everywhere, is 2.4 E., but for over 62 is 1.5 E., and for 1 month is 51 E.; then in Paris a single ticket, again for 90 min is 1.9 E.; also in Rome single ticket for 100 min is 1.5 E., and for 1 day is 7 E.; and in London just single ticket is 1.68 E. (1.5 GBP), and for 1 day is whole 13.5 E. (12 GBP). There are other peculiarities everywhere, say in London are some peak hours, which are only in the morning from 4:30 to 9:30 a.m., and they count the day as if to 4:30 in the nigh of the next, but one can became used to these things; also the tickets are usually bought in advance but must be validated before entering the transport vehicle.
Looking at this one can say that in Bulgaria everything is cheaper and I am just spitting at our nice democracy, but the truth is that I am spitting with reasons, and by us the tickets are cheaper chiefly because of the ... population of the cities (and in Sofia live 1.236 mln.), because Berlin has 3.5 mln., so that it is natural for the transport to be about 3 times more expensive, what it also is, Vienna has 1.87 mln., and everything is 2.5 times more expensive (but this is Vienna, people, and even so the cards for a month are only 2 times higher), Paris has 2.2 mln., and the prices are correspondingly higher, Rome has 2.8 mln and the prices are 2 - 3 times higher, and London is mastodon city, it has 8.2 mln., more than our whole country (the last data is 7.1 mln.), while a single ticket is just about twice higher. And, after all, we are unquestionably the poorest, the prices have to be at least 2, but better 3 times cheaper, because this is communal transport, this is not for those who have their own cars and don't give a dam about the price of one thicket. What reduces again to no cares about the common people, what reduces in the same way to us being barbarians! And just for comparison, in Moscow, where live nearly 12 mnl. people (significantly more than in London, or also New York, where are given only 8.6 mln.), one single ticket is 0.47 E. (36 Rbl), and for 90 min. with transfers is 0.75 E. (56 Rbl), so that if we take into account my guess about the population dependency, and start with 1 mln. - 1 E. for a single ticket, the price of such ticket in Moscow must have been about 12 E., but it is 24 times cheaper (if you can imagine this)! And only for this reason (but there are others, surely) I say that we are barbarians but the Russians are not.
And the last look in this point, at the MMS. Here is what says one EuroStat: "The absolute outsider in EU is Bulgaria with ?261 as of January 2018. Followed by Lithuania (?400), Romania (408 euros), Latvia (430 euros), Hungary (445 euros), Croatia (462 euros), Czech Republic (478 Euro), Slovakia (480 euros), Estonia (500 euros) and Poland (EUR 503). In five other member States located in the South of Europe, the minimum wage ranged from 600 to 900 euros a month, namely: Portugal (677 EUR), Greece (684 Euro), Malta (748 euros), Slovenia (843 euros) and Spain (EUR 859). ... The best salaries are in the Northern and Western countries of the continent, where the minimum wage in the UK was 1401 Euro (but I say it also about 1,500 E.), Germany and France — 1498 euros, Belgium — 1563 Euro, the Netherlands — 1578 Euro, Ireland — Euro 1614, and the absolute leader is Luxembourg with 1999 Euro per month. ... And for comparison the minimum wage in the United States was 1048 euros per month in January 2018". No comments, ah? Yet I will add something, that a minimal wage for 1 hour in Germany is 8.5 E., what gives 68 E. for 1 working day, and my pension for a whole month 2 years back (when this German minimal wage should have been the same) was exactly 67 E. (and I will not mention once again that I have more than 2 University educations, got in 3 different countries, nothing related with the politics, simply in the exact sciences, and have been for a while Research assistant in our Academy of sciences, no, I will keep silent about this, right?).
4. Civilized inhumanity
Ah, but now I will begin to spit at the non-barbarian nations, to be sure! Because, as I said in the very beginning, it is not so that the barbarians are bad and the others good, no, there are many bad nations between the others, which still did not deserve the right to be called civilized, and the very barbarians are more civilized in some aspects. So that I will detach now a category which I will call inhuman nations, and I want not to be one of them (but don't know about you, it depends). Then I will define also one special category based on my own tastes, which I do not value high, and I will call them unworthy. Only then will remain some, not big, category of civilized nations, to which I am willing to add also the Bulgarians, but as according to my definition this is not possible, I will use the word "civilised" only as additional characteristic for us. Yet about this in the next point, here I will explain what means inhumanity (according to me), and also why I don't value much some other nations; those who will remain (if any, right?) will be those whom I like, but first of all let me explain what means civilization, because this is ancient view, but, I am afraid, not shared by many of the people (for one or another reason).
Now, the civil (from Latin civilis) people are such who are not military (like French gendarme, having come from their gens d'arme saying literally "from the gender of the armed" men), but the point is that we simply love the strength or power, and for this reason exists the word "military", who are just 'mili'-nice (in Slavonic) people! I can't explain everything everywhere so that who does not believe me can look in my mentioned Urrh, but this root is sound imitation of some 'mmy' or 'amm', and there is the Western milk, the mild weather, then the big numbers like million and milliard, and many others. While for the civ- root I can mention the ... septic (and antiseptic) things, that stick to something, like ... young chickens to their hens! This is so because in Russian 'tsyipljonok' is a chicken, and 'tsepljatjsja' is to stick or adhere to something, and the little chicken usually chirp (or peep etc.), or say 'chiv-chiv', what the Turks have remarked long ago, yet they only write it as civ-civ, but read as 'dzhiv-dzhiv', because the Latin alphabet is very restricted one (not like the Cyrillic, to what I must also come in the next point). And if some of you can say: "Au, how clever is this Myrski!", I will say: "No, my readers, I am not, I have just mastered a feeling as to what people (in the Hindu-European languages) can mean by this or that syllables, simply comparing various words in many languages". Not that this is really very easy, but if one can compare — what also many, so called, computer robots can do, so that this is rather silly activity, like the parrots do —, and if knows some possible changes of one letter with some other (like 'm' with 'n' and v.v., 'r' with 'l'', 's' with 't', and others), and is unprejudiced enough, can also make. But the point is that in this way one can learn the psychology of the people of various, or all, nations.
So that the people have to be civilized yet they are quite often not such, and the bigger and stronger one nation is the more it is inclined to acts of cruelty and inhumanity; exception of this can make either some genetical or traditional, deeply placed characteristics of the people, or their smallness, which does not allow them to be really cruel! While the best human reaction is to be fine, like, say, the fin of a fish, what is the idea of the ... finances, (no killing, just imposing of some fines)! For these reasons practically all Western European nations are guilty for some cruelty, say: Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Spaniards, Italians cum Latins, even the Holandeses-Dutch, because they have either begun wars much outside of their borders, or have had colonies, what is in no case defense, it is offensive. And surely here have to be added also the world-gendarmes, the Americans, who have occupied what only they can occupy (look at the map of Northern America and you will see that all areas around both oceans were caught by the USA), and have first in the world begun to throw atom bombs as new year's firecrackers, and use bacteriological weapons, and so on. So that the Americans and the Germans hold the "palm of the championship", but some Napoleons, or Macedonians, or Cortesses, are also not to be excluded, such nations are between the leaders, too. Then add also some Muslim and Arab jihadists, who may be very peaceful people but up to some point; then there are the old Mongols - Moguls or Genghis Khan-ists (because of whom the peaceful Chinese have built the great Chinese wall), or some Egyptian or African tribes, or others, and there will almost not leave other decent nations, except, the barbarians, the unworthy people (to which I am coming), and some occasionally leading civilized life, but not much known tribes.
The unworthy nations (in my view) are such who does not act really inhuman but in a way ... silly, or cause often disturbances, or whom I not like because they as if try but can not become genuine barbarians, like in my Bari-Glari Land. In Europe such nations are: the Poles (they are peaceful as Slavs, but are always unhappy for one or another reason, and have also disfigured a bit the nice Slavonic languages in phonetical sense), the Croats (who are the cause for the Serbs to become inhuman), the Romanians (because, as far as I know, they were driven from Rome in the times of Karl the Great, and surely for something, and in the recent years they showed unnecessary cruelty to their former dictator Chaushesku), the Greeks (who have not only stopped the old Eastern influence to the West, but have shown bad influence over the ancient Latins in phonetical sense), and probably some others (like some tiny states-towns). Then I think that for one or another reason (let me try to be a little more succinct) here have to be included also: the Ukrainians, the Moldovans, the Georgians, the 3 Baltic nations, some middle African tribes, the Chinese, the Hebrews, and many others (but my knowledge about the Far East is practically missing).
The Chinese I don't like much because of their enormous multiplication, I mean: let them copulate but this does not mean to give birth so often, to me they are like, I beg to be excused, the plant-lice, they come in Bulgaria (or elsewhere) and the first thing they begin to do is to begin to make children, this is a kind of invasion, really, and I have a suspicion that they are even subsidized by their state (because nearly all of them exercise some business, this requires money); otherwise they have to be peaceful nation but this is not correct behaviour. And the same can be said about the Hebrews (if they were not prosecuted for millenniums they would have become multitudinous like the Chinese). This is generally a trait of all Southern nations, but there has to be some measure, I suppose. Here have to be included also the Hindus, because they are running after the Chinese in their number of people and must surpass them soon, but they don't emigrate, they want to check, probably, when they will suffocate of overpopulation; besides, I like, in a way, the Gypsies, which they are, in general sense, I feel them as brethren barbarians. And so on.
So that there are not much really civilized nations on the world. Say, beginning with Europe: the Swiss, the Czechs, the Finns, the Slovaks and Slovenians, then the Eskimos (because they are glad to live under very hard conditions but not to conquer other nations), then the Chileans (for the same reasons), the Russians (because they are wide away from inhuman, and nobody can call such a big empire unworthy), probably the Armenians, some Far Eastern nations, and this is all (would the Hindus stop to propagate so intensive, I will put them also here). So that I want strongly to add here the poor Bulgarians, at least with the qualification of civilized barbarians, because we have fought only with our neighbours, and such things happen in the best of "families", as they say, but about this in the next section. I beg all mentioned nations to excuse me, but my behaviour is quite natural, after all, from times immemorial people judge about the other nations and invent funny names (like I suppose that Russian Southern word 'ichak', used for the donkey, is invented because of the Hebrew ... name Isaac; like also that the Hebrew word goyim, used for non-Hebrews, is meant in old times like some fatty ... beast, because 'ugojavam' in Bulgarian, or 'goitj' in Russian means to fatten, say a pig).
5. Civilized barbarity
I want to begin this point with one unexpected question, namely: why exist the wild things, vegetation and animals, when already exist their cultured brothers, i.e. why we still like the wild things, and the dear God also preserves them, ah? Well, for one things, because they are interesting and different, and for another thing, because they are resistant and survive easier, right? This has to be roughly the reason why God allows existence of such barbarous nations like the Bulgarians, because we are just necessary, providing interesting varieties of the dull and disciplined nations, and in this way we serve as necessary genetical bank, did you get it? And if you think that I am joking, then I will tell you that, well, I am often joking, but there is quite often hidden truth in every joke (what is a Russian proverb). So that I will, in my usual manner, give you some etymological "proofs". There is French-Latin not very nice sounding word cretin (read 'kreten'), which is taken for synonym of idiot, and it is derived officially from Latin creare-create, i.e. this is just some nice beautiful ... creature; and if you think that this is something funny and accidental then I can mention also Slavonic 'tvar(j)' as the same creature, coming from our 'tvoritj' (or rather v.v.) meaning the same to create. So that when we call some, say, bug a God's creation, we may not like it much but God has created it with some reasons.
Because one (even God) never knows what conditions will come and what mutations will be necessary and those near to the wild nature are more adaptable than some cultivated plant or animal or nation. Let me give you another as if totally unrelated example. Before many years (probably 40) I have been for a pair of days in Eastern Germany and I saw once one guy (or maybe girl) walking a dog, but this was extraordinary disciplined dog (as you will see), more disciplined than whole Bulgaria, taken together, so to say, because it walked about 10 meters ahead, unleashed, and came to a crossing of the street, and stopped there by itself, because it was red light, and waited for the lights to change to green. But the street was some small one, about 6 meters or so, and there was no traffic at all, yet the dog was well bred and stopped, while I went ahead because there was no traffic, and I think that some 60 -70 % of Bulgarians would have done the same. From the standpoint of an average German (what for them must mean, I suppose, 95 %) my behaviour was just one more barbaric act of some barbarian, with what I am forced to agree, yet I judged that a pedestrian poses no danger to the cars moving on the street, especially when there are no cars moving there.
But on the other hand, when Bulgaria was for some time (after 1941) ally of Nazi Germany, we succeeded somehow, via mass protests (under fascist rule!) to stop the deportation of tens of thousands Bulgarian Hebrews to the concentration camps; I don't know more details, yet this proves eloquently that there can be some use of barbarous nations like us. And if you have still not got the quintessence of my narration I can add explicitly, that, for one thing, we think with our heads, and, for another thing, we commiserate with poor and deprived persons, so that our genes are, really, necessary for the world! This is more so, because we count now (in 2018) 7.1 mln., but before a decade we were 7.35, and somewhere about 1980 were nearly (without some 50 ths) 9.0 mln., i.e. we decrease and are now less than 1/1000-th of the world population, given as 7.7 billions! It might as well be that we just try to save ourselves outside of our borders (when here the living conditions are utmost poor — and this because of our right-wing democracy, of course), because I have heard once that only in Chicago lived about 100,000 Bulgarian, and because of this we decrease in number, but I think that is suitable to look at us as at ... endangered species! And till the end of this point I will give some examples about our uniqueness and originality in various aspects, and this not because of some centralized (hence supposedly more intelligent) ruling, but by ourselves, because we are barb..., sorry, here I meant Bulgarians.
Probably to begin here with the easiest, our folklore. Surely each folklore is unique with something, but our is unique between the most unique, because we have not only 7/8 time in music, but also 15/16, and even 31/32, this is very vivace-enlivening, like some Negro jazz; and I am telling you this not because I like our folk music much, no, for I get bored by one and the same, but were I not Bulgarian then I would have liked it much. Then we have preserved some old dances barefooted over glowing charcoals, called Nestinar dances, that go back to the Thracian people (in Strandzha mountain in the South of Bulgaria and in Northern Greece, which was earlier part of our lands), and no matter that it is explained that this is not more dangerous than some performances in the circus, one must just make tiny steps and run really fast, trying to be chiefly in the air than on the ground, but you try sometimes to make even one step on such fire, and the usual diameter of the fire is 5-6 meters, so that they make about 10 steps before coming to cold grass around, and then back and so on. And of course also the songs, which are something worth to listen to, even on the background of other nations on the Balkans (like Turks, Greeks, Serbians, Gypsies, Romanians, etc.), and the other dances too, the national costumes, everything.
Yet the folklore is not all, you look at some musical performers and /or opera singers, if are in the know in such matters and you will see that from about a pair of hundreds (surely not more than this) world-known musicians more that 10, or even 20, will be Bulgarians! We have not world-wide known composers, but singers and violinists or pianists we have not less than 10 known in the moment. And what this means? Ah, this means that if instead of 1 to 1000 people, how it must have been if on the average, here we have about 1 to 20 (if there are 10 out of 200), and then 1000 divided to 20 gives that we have 50 times more known musicians than is "proper"! Yeah, really, say, the Americans, like also the Russians, are by about 300 mln. people, and we have not less known such persons than each of them, but they are about 40 times more populated than us. This is just incredible, people, I would have been glad if this quotient was only 5 times, but it is far more than this!
Or you cast a glance at our faces and figures, I find them really nice and interesting. It is possible that I am somehow blinded by the usual surroundings, but I don't thing so, because I am normally unprejudiced in whatever only field, and our faces are not something extraordinary, yet they are different, each one of us with something own, we don't look like made by one matrix (how many pure nations look, let me not give concrete examples), we are one pretty interesting blend — in the deep antiquity of probably 15 % proto-Bulgarians, some small amount, say 5 %, of Thracians, and majority of Slavs, but nowadays we have roughly (because this can't be objectively measured) 30 % Turks, and 20 % Gypsies, and probably less than 5 % of any others, so that we have never pretended to be pure nation —, and the mixing is what is necessary for a nation, otherwise degeneration may occur. Similar blending happens in USA, Brasilia, I suppose in the South of Russia, and this is, now scientifically proved, bettering of the gene, I am not exaggerating.
Then I come to my beloved (for about 5-6 years) theme, the Bulgarian language. Here my thesis is simple: our language is the best one in the whole (at least civilized) world, hence, most suitable for world language! I will try to be succinct here, because have expressed these things in my "Bulgarian Lessons" and other 2 materials from the folder "For Arabs etc." (there was before this Russian version in the folder "For CIS-people"), and will only mention some of the aspects, which are: alphabet, phonetics, grammatical cases, genders, tenses, words, then why world language is necessary, why of a small nation is better, and even political aspects.
Let me begin with the alphabet. It is called Cyrillic because was created by Cyril and his brother Methodius in 9-th century, and even from here one can come to the conclusion that it has to be better than the others (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arab, etc.) because in many cases is better to be optimist and take for granted that what is near to our days is better (than, say, in the times of Roman empire, or the Pharaohs, or in Babylon). But there are reasons for this, because it was composed from various old, chiefly Latin and Greek, characters, and are included many widely used up to current days vowels and consonants, yet not explicitly present in Latin and Teutonic and other languages. These are, say: all "warm" letters, 'zh', 'sh', and 'ch' (and I think that my transliteration used here is obvious), but also this letter which I mark here with "y", and some other varieties of various "donkey" sounds (like old Greek upsilon, Russian "eri", which I have written here as "yi", one "dumb e", several special letters that sometimes can be read in one way but other time otherwise, some combinations of letters, and others). So that this alphabet is at least extended, richer than the Latin, yet it is extended not only with some peculiar combinations of sounds which the Slaves are keen to pronounce, but with quite necessary sounds, because the phonetical apparatus of all people is the same; it was revised several times and the last alphabet, and used exactly how the Bulgarians use it, is really perfect!
Now let me say with as little words as possible (else look in "Illiterate world", "For the Arabs", "Myrski's English transliteration", and some other places), that I divide the vowels in three main categories: basic, modified, and combined. Basic are not only the basic Latin vowels "a, e, i, o, u", but also this i-bulgaro (marked with the unnecessary in Latin alphabet "y"). Then the modified vowels are formed from 2 vowels when one wants to say one thing but in the end says some other vowel, like the just mentioned Russian "yi", or the classical Western "ae", or like in your "but" ('byat', because this sound is not exactly like in 'gyl'). The combined (usually diphthongs) vowels, for their part, are just inseparable combination of 2 consecutive vowels (like also classical 'aj' as in "may" or "boy", or your "pear" pronounced as 'pae|y'). And there can be just adjacent vowels (like in Italian pronunciation of "piano", or in German "bearbeiten"). Similarly for the consonants we may have simple, but where are added these 'zh', 'sh', 'ch', like in the Cyrillic, then modified are 'ph, th, dh, gh, bh', or 'vh' for "w", or 'nj, rj' like softened letters, combined is English 'dzh' as "j" (also Italian but written as "g" and sometimes read so), and simply consecutive can be like in "marmalade". The only additional effort to write the words from all (I suppose) world languages is to make distinction between modified and combined chars, what can be done properly with the use of special modifiers (in "Illiterate ..."), or not much properly but passable using indexes (in "Myrski's ...").
And why I am telling you this? Ah, because only the Bulgarians make the best use of our alphabet, even the Russians, say, write "e" but read 'ie' as modified, don't use this precious 'y' but their donkey 'yi', and so also for the Ukrainians, Serbs, and others. We have all 6 basic vowels, no modified vowels at all, and only the classical combinations (diphthongs) with 'i' (like "may"), and read always (i.e. if educated) how we write (or v.v.), and you simply can't imagine how nice this is! And mark, please, that this language, especially its phonetics, is something what was created by the very people, this is not what the grammaticians have said, the alphabet was introduced centralized but everything else is work of the common people, of the whole nation. And our phonetics is better than even that of the Italians (they also like to use 'ie', elongate the vowels in old ... Gypsy manner, lack not only 'y' but also the basic 'zh', etc.), and the Italian language is unanimously considered as the best sounding language, but if the Bulgarian is better, then it is the best world language! Understand me right, please, I don't deny the beautiful sounding of the English, or French, or Italian, or of some other language, but all this nice things are done on the price of introducing of many many difficulties, while in the Bulgarian everything is as simple as possible and forks perfectly!
Now let me move to some grammatical aspects. From all Slavonic languages (and they are about 10) only in Bulgarian we have no grammatical cases, where in the others they are usually 6 (even the Germans have less, 4), and all Latin ones have also no cases. Now, the existence of cases is an ancient business, they were introduces — this is my guess — chiefly to make it more difficult to speak the given language, and from here to distinguish the educated minority of rulers and priests from the uneducated populace, probably not exactly on purpose, but because using cases one has to apply more profound thinking, to tie all words properly, to show that he (she) is supreme in one more way. Yet the incessant democratization (probably from Renaissance times, I don't know precisely) has begun to impose easier languages, and all Latin nations have abandoned the cases at once, eradicated them totally, but not the Slavs, with the exception of Bulgarians (and you explain me why this is so, if not because we, in our barbarian way, do not like much to obey to some unnecessary rules — my street-crossing example; and if all Latin nations have also behaved like us this must not mean that my explanation is wrong — you have just to take that I am like the very God, I never err — but because in other nation also lie hidden barbarian seeds and they can give sprouts also under well organized central ruling). Because, surely, it is much more easy to use prepositions instead of to remember all endings in various cases and to think what action a given word performs in the sentence, or also whether something moves or stays on its /his place.
But there are more problems with the languages, there are also the genders, which exist in all languages with exception of the English, and they must exist (look also my latest funny "Fantasy in Ety Mol"), where the problem is to be able easily to guess the gender of each word (not to fill your brain with difficult frames-pictures about each noun), and in Bulgarian this, really, is so, with very few exceptions (due chiefly to the influence of Russian language). This influences also the endings of all adjectives, what poses enough problems in, say, Russian or German (when there exist cases). Then there are many other things that in Bulgarian are better, meaning easier, and as if the single thing that puzzles the foreigners is that we put the definite articles at the ... end of the words (nouns and adjectives) and even glued to the word! Say, from 'masa'-table we make 'masata' as "the table", from 'stol'-chair make 'stolyt' (this is a bit confusing, but we do not pay much attention to this form and use the next) or 'stola', and from 'pole'-field — 'poleto'. But do you see this as so difficult, ah? Because I think that in this way it is much better and more compact. Yet until some recent time I thought that this is only our invention, but it turned out that this was something old and preserved in some form in the contemporary Italian, where they use, for example, one single word, smettetela, to say "you stop (with) this" (where smette is "stop", the next te is you, and la means here "(with) this"). So that you have seen also another example why I think that our language is better than Italian, because what they do is much more difficult (and they also will never say "in the", where "in" is the same preposition, no, they will say nello, nella, negli — and I still can't get used to this).
Then there come the tenses and here we are also the best, because we have only 4-5 such (it is said that they are 9 but this is not really true, we can express some modalities about past or future times), and real tenses with tables of forms which one has to remember and think always which form to use, we have only 2 (two), namely for present and for past tenses. And all Latin languages, as much as they have eliminated resolutely the cases, have remained with pretty difficult grammar, and, for example, in Italian they have 14 tenses, where only the past ones are 5, and this without continuous tenses (they imitate them with the use of participle form of some verbs), with only some limited modality, and without passive tenses. Now, there are some problems here, there has to be not a single language with really simple tenses, but our is just the simplest, at least because there is no such thing like strong or irregular verbs by us, all verbs are simple.
The one peculiarity here is that we make some difference in the past tense between whether we have seen something (have been witnesses) or not (say, "was" for us is 'bjah', but when we can't vouch about this we say 'bil', and the forms for the other persons), but this is some modality or conditionality; respectively we can say that somebody 'bil bil'-as-if-was, or that I 'bih bil'-would-do or -would-have-done; still, this matters only in conversational speech, in official language this — what I mean by world language — should not be of big importance. Then the next grammatical peculiarity is that in the Slavonic languages (I suppose in all, but at least in Russian and Bulgarian) we have not continuous tenses but have continuous or not verbs, what is done with changing of the root, say: to fulfill is (to) 'ispylnja' if meant once and we call this finished type of verbs, and 'izpylnjavam' if meant repeatedly what we call unfinished type, in what I can now see some Latin influence (because in Italian leggere-read in present is leggo, leggi, legge, etc., but in imperfect is leggevo, leggevi, leggeva, etc.). Plus this we make also difference in the past tense (what is not so in Russian, they don't make this difference) between worked once ('pabotil') and worked many times ('pabotel'), what for some verbs can be done but others can not, there are several types of conjugations, yet these are nuances about which one never thinks, and I can't tell you the exact grammatical rules, this is done automatically, or then is not done at all, and if one cares about this he adds some additional word (like "once" or "used to" or the like).
So that I don't think that our grammar is difficult, and also the phonetics, and it can easily be mastered by foreigners, what some do good, and others not. For example the Russians always have problems with our phonetics (because their is more twisted) and with the articles (because they have no articles at all, if you can imagine this, they somehow substitute them with case-endings), while on the other hand the Arabs speak pretty good Bulgarian (a bit more hard, but not much); and the Chinese, surely, can't speak good Bulgarian, there one is directly awful (but they can't speak good whatever language). If we reverse the things it turns out that the Bulgarians can speak very well whatever language, even English (because of our pure phonetics), and as if the Hindus can speak good English (because there have to be old Sanskrit sounds somehow preserved in the English), the Japanese too (so maybe their basic vowels are also simple), but the Arabs and especially the Negroes (like the French, the Italians, and others) have practically awful pronunciation of this funny language (what the English is — uneducated mixture of German and French, I'll tell you).
And now let me come to the word pool of our unique language (for more details see my Lessons). It is chiefly Slavonic, to be sure, yet much better than, say, the Russian, because we have more Greek and also some Turkish words, which are chiefly old Arabic or Persian; besides the Slavonic words are for their part mostly Latin (this is not seen at first sight because of our endings, but it is so). In short, Bulgarian language is not like Hungarian, of Finnish, or Estonian, it is relatively well understandable for any European. Then, look, there is this thing that there is not good substitute for the (hateful, ah?) English, because, from European languages, the French was rejected before about a century or a bit more (due to their pretty peculiar pronunciation, I suppose), the German was rejected before about half a century (because of the decreasing influence of the Germans after the Word War Two, and the increasing one of the Americans), the Italian is not a bad choice but people somehow don't like much such mafioti), the Spanish is chiefly in America Latina, and these are the most spoken languages. To this has to be added that the English is not a good choice, this is ... botched language (I have mentioned this several times, and the people don't like the world gendarme USA), Spanish or Italian (or Portuguese) are not very good either (because of the difficult grammar, bad phonetics, etc.), Finnish is not much like the others, Russian nobody wants to speak, it sounds like Chinese, Arabic the Europeans and the world will never accept as something modern, the same about Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, and so on with the other countries.
Yeah, but foreign language is always necessary, this just raises the intellect, people! You look at some bilingual countries, or bilingual nations (like, say, the Hebrews), they are always more clever than the other "grey" majority in each country. And this language has to be as simple as possible, surely, yet not artificially created, there was Esperanto but at it is looked like at some curiosity, some Hebrew invention (what is right). Mark also that the nation whose language is taken as official (like, say, the Russian in their former USSR or today's CIS, or the German in the old Austro-Hungary, or the English in United Kingdom or in USA, or the Latin in the antiquity, and others) begins after some time to lose by the by the power, and other bilingual guys and girls begin to take the ruling hand! Think a little about this and you will see that it is so (and I can give as example the incessant increasing of native non-Americans in USA, or how you call them, what I see now in the field of classical, yet also pop, music, you begin almost not to see white people's faces, and this is not bad because they are pretty good). Probably here is true one of my (clever, naturally) observation that those, who push strongly ahead, are usually people with small ... defects, what makes them to compensate with something, to be more persistent and work harder in whatever field! For example: women with not much feminine physique (usually small or no breasts), left-handed persons, of low height, physically weak man, immigrants, and similar examples.
What has to say that if as official language is chosen that of some world power, then this nation will faster come down from the scene, than if it was the language of some other nation; also when it is native language of bigger nation then more people will turn to be loosing, that's it! So that I make quite motivated proposition (in About the Arabs), and probably our unique language is the core reason for our originality in other aspects, who knows, or rather who can disprove this? Because the perversities never come singly, they group like, hmm, like the arbitrary numbers, they are not proportional to the interval, they tend to build packs; or take also the homosexuals, they have stronger feelings what turns to be of big importance in some areas, like in the art; and our barbarity is, surely, a kind of perversity! So that I am leading you little by little to the conclusion that our barbarity can ... save the world, no less and no more! If the world will accept our unique language, only we will be the losers in linguistical aspect, but all other nations will be winners. Also our barbarity may simply be necessary in the abundance of normal, inhuman or not much, but well organized nations, as necessary as a ... clown or jester has turned to be necessary in each King's court from very old times. You can never have good and stable system if you reject entirely the other pole, here the heathen or unorganized or self thinking nature of some people! Because we may not be able to organize ourselves, but under foreign ruling we behave good, the point is only that there were not much barbarians, but about a pair of percents.
And let me return to the intentions of God, which we can never understand clearly. I state openly that our barbarity is one very mild form, little necessary defect, civilized or cultured thing, not dangerous to the other, but only to ourselves. What can be paraphrased that we simply sacrifice ourselves in the name of all people, of the humanity, we only look as bad but otherwise, in our hearts we are better than the organized countries, which can be very effective, not denying this, but can also often come to dead end, sticking to some outmoded principles, while some small amount of salubrious perverse barbarians may be all that you need sometimes! Yeah, I suppose that I have made myself clear, at least I have made desperate attempts to whiten our smudged face or image before the world.
6. Conclusive explanations
Now, one is right to ask: why was necessary this masquerade, why I have not said that we are nice peaceful people and were absolutely undeservedly accused of barbarity? But well, there is no need to return to the beginning, I have explained everything, taking even more time than have expected. What I can add is that I wanted us to become used to the bad words about us and to begin to better us, little by little, yet not entirely or radically, because there is a good grain in the barbarity, it is necessary sometimes and in some measure. In a way, I have used one very old approach, used before 2 millenniums by the very ... Christians! Yes, because what is this to select the most debasing symbol, the crossing of somebody for some very bad offences, to raise it high above, and to say that we are not only not ashamed of this, but are very proud with it, we take this as sacred symbol for us, because it turned out that if our Christ has not died at the cross He would have never succeed to resurrect, and so on, if not the same approach to pacify us for the reason that our defects are simply unavoidable, hence we must not feel debased by them?
Because, come to think of it, Christ was punished because such was the will of the populace in that time, this was first (and surely not last) proof that the democracy has many drawbacks and can be often used against the silly people. And the very name of Him was Jesus (or Issaa in Islam), this "Christ" has come from the cross, obviously. And He was punished, practically, for the sins of the common people, He died for the people, hoping to make them better, yet for 2 thousand years this has not happened, and there are all reasons to believe that this will also never happen in the future. The bad lies in us, we can never change radically our nature, but we are bound always to try to do this (because, in brief, when we are bad to the others then they in their turn are bad to us, and this means that we are bad, factually, to us alone). And here I simply state that barbarity is something natural, we must not be ashamed of this, because in many cases this may prove better than the opposite, but we are bound to try not to come to excesses, in whatever. Because the civilized and organized and religious people often do exactly this, they come to extremities, they become fanatics, but if one believes in nothing, so to say, oversimplified, one can never become fanatic, really, in what, in his unbelieving, ah? So that you also are free to be unbelievers in your own way, say the barbarians.
Then I have surely exaggerated the things in many places, nothing is so simple as I have put it often, there are not barbaric nations as such, everything is more dynamic, the truth is that each nation has bad moments when it behaves utterly uncivilized, sometimes barbaric, sometimes silly, in most cases out of good will yet producing bad results, and so on, but, on the other hand, the whole human history, the industry, commerce, art, sciences, religions, everything is just exaggeration until some limits are reached, and they can be felt or recognised or registered as such only when are exceeded, when everything is already overdone. But enough philosophising, and enough with everything, because this makes people tired. I want in the end only propose you one funny symbol of barbarity, used as sign, or greeting gesture, or the like.
Now, what is the barbarity, it is something twisted, perverse in a way, isn't it? And there is one twisted symbol used in the digits (see "Reflections About the Numbers"), this is the "8", what is so because this it is the first (except the trivial 1) and last between the 10 digits cube, and there everybody says 'au' or 'ou' seeing it (e.g. in Latin it is octo what is 'oho', "wow, how nice"), so that it is twisted but nice. My proposition is simply to twist it one more time making three leafs, or you take an elastic ring and choose 3 equidistant places and glue them together, which can be placed either with the one leaf up (and 2 down), or with one pointing down, what is more unstable (as if perverse) and because of this I propose the latter variant. And the point is that this can be easily done with fingers, closing them in a fist, and then opening the first 3 with the thumb below. That's it guys and girls, no matter of what age (including also the homosexuals), if you are keen with the barbarity you can greet some of your chosen friends in this way, opening the first 3 fingers to them, but if you are not very enthusiastic about this, then you can put the thumb ... between the two others, and I hope you see, what I mean.
[ With the remark that the char "º" is used below for making of additional syllable, similarly to the apostrophe ("'") used for missing of one. ]
TRIBUTE TO ... BARBARITY
I say, do you want to be barbarian?
'Cause this isn't so hard, as it may seem.
You have to be born just as ... Bulgarian,
And be common, egoistic, mean!
Still, this may for you have some advantages,
Ofºten you'll be left to live alone.
And what better thing on this world can exist,
Than to have it your way, on and on?
You will meet with no compulsion of religion,
We are unbelievers like, say, dogs and cats,
We've no communist or atheistic visions;
Ouºr faith-'s the owºn guzzle, you may bet!
We've no families, the newborn are most bastards/*,
Neither honour we the old, or, then, the young,
Ouºr wishes are for us the only masters,
Life begins with us, and theºre's no beyond.
[ * According to the census for 2010 for Bulgaria 55 % of newborn children are extramarital. ]
Yet we have some precious genes, that make us unique,
Not with purity but like some coffee blend,
We show differences, nice piquantness, beauty,
And this the innate barbarity amends.
'Cause we harming one another have selected
Better beings filling various niches,
Other nations have not harmed or else affected,
But have done this what each nation wishes!
Id est we are not so bad as seems at first,
More than this, because we can't unite
To do harm to other peopºle, kill and burst,
We unconsciously do what is ... right!
Right from standpoint of some god or all the world,
Leaving th'others peacefully to live,
Each of us prefers to lie in his shell curled,
Doing just what pleases him, and if.
Wheºre nations organized, well, they feel strong,
And enforce the way of life on-th' others;
This variety diminishes, is wrong,
If succeeds to spread itself much farther.
Hence, we sacrify us, for the world to better,
And the other nations must protect us, yeah!
In the long run such as us are those who matter,
And I, having told this, am so glad, ole!