Now, Look Here (publicistics) — Part Three

Chris Myrski

Here are 3 volumes of my publicistics, consisting of 4 sections: “For Journals”, “For Newspapers”, “Feuilletons”, “Others”, which comprises very big period of time, from about 1990 and till 2017.


Chris Myrski. Now, Look Here (publicistics — third volume).


The Works of Chris Myrski
    Now, Look Here (publicistics — third volume)    

© Chris MYRSKI, 2001 - 2017


     This is the third volume of my publicistic materials and in size about 1/4 of all things, where are the left things “For Newspapers” after 2015 and also two more sections, “Feuilletons” and “Others”. They also begin about 1990 and end in 2017, the topics also being chiefly political yet not only.





(publicistics – third volume)

Chris MYRSKI, 2001 - 2017

     [ There is no idea about the cover, because in this book are gathered great variety of different journalistic materials, it is not a work of fiction, and such books are usually not illustrated. ]



     In the first volume are:


     I. For Journals

     In the second volume are:

     II. For Newspapers — to 2014 including

     In this volume are:

     II. For Newspapers — only from 2015 and after

     III. Feuilletons

     IV. Others






Chris MYRSKI, 2001 -2017


Contents Of This Section

     … continues from the previous volume.

     Thoughts about Ukraine

     Miscellaneous in the year 2016

     Hundred years later (to the centenary of October revolution)



     This is what is said, contemplations about Ukraine, why this, what is done there, though not new as situation, is not good, by what reasons, how the society evolves and to what this can lead, why Ukraine will in any case only lose if the disorder there will continue, what is best of all to do and to what to aim, who is guilty, and other related questions. Id est this is not political commentary, not only because I am not specialist in these matters, not political commentator or special observer, etc., but also because the situation there develops pretty fast, and while I write and multiply this material for several sites, then it will already become old. But my things usually do not age, even after twenty years, due to the fact that my approach is reasonable and a little philosophical, so that also this time I will write so that this material could have been read after, say, fifty years, or hundred, or two hundreds. Anyway, I for a long time, 3-4 years now, intend to write something of the kind and always can not find free time to do this. Well, then let me begin, and see what will succeed to create.

     Although I wish to add in the beginning that I may be wrong in some details. For this reason I will summarize now how I understand the situation there, and you, if you think that the things are not so, the problems are entirely different, and this my idea about the situation there is quite vague, then just exit quickly out of this material. So my understanding of the situation is such: the Ukrainians feel themselves displeased and insulted by this that to them was attributed the role of younger brother, but they are more capable and gifted and more genuine Slavs and Christians, and it is long ago time for them to separate from Russia and unite with the West, with Europe, in order to start living happily among rivers of honey and butter. While in the same time the Russians feel obliged to defend the unity of neighbouring states, as also to exercise military supremacy in the region, and the less states remain in the CIS the harder they will defend its integrity. So that the Ukrainians must simply put up with the situation and try to derive from it as much benefits as possible, because else, if they succeed to separate from Russia, they, in any case, will only lose. That is how I thing in outlines, and as far as the situation in Ukraine is in many aspects similar to that in Bulgaria, at least in regard of the poverty, I have some look at the things, because Ukraine goes, so, twenty years after Bulgaria in its actions of untying from the influence of the "great and indestructible" Soviet Union, and in such case I can give some useful advice. So, and now I begin to explain the things in a bit finer raster.

     Nothing new under the Sun

     Everyone knows this, right? And this, what I have in mind here, is that the bigger amount of controversies arise between related or territorially adjacent people or territories, for the reason that they have similar views to the things, but differ in details, and because they have what to divide. The same is also true about the conflicts between generations, where the genes, in one or another degree, manifest themselves, and it was nearly the same almost 25 centuries back, when certain Alexander Macedonian decided to conquer first the state of Athens on his way to the East. To conquer not because he did not like them, for they had common gods, and the language as if also was the same, but he needed a strong rear. But he had no desire to fight with them, they were those who wanted to fight whatever happens, and they have even used on expenses for weapons and troops some hundred talents of gold from the neighbouring Persians, which the latter have decided to give them as gift, in order that they, defending themselves, stopped this Ksan Macedonian. Well, they have defended themselves, without any necessity, and have lost the battle. And do you know what is this a talent — where from has come also the word used for such gifted persons (like your author, right?)? It turns out that this was approximately 20 kilograms, because this is the usual load which a person can carry out on his back.

     But I give you this example in order to show how the related nations from times immemorial have considered as almost obligatory firstly to fight between them, and later, eventually, to begin making friends. Id est how not necessarily economic reasons, but entirely "human", like excessive stubbornness, unwillingness to comply with reality, desire to show off, and so on, lead to entirely unnecessary quarrels and battles. Because it has to be clear that it is not right that the weak fights with the strong, this is silly, isn't it? Yeah, sure, this is silly, but, on the other hand, this is humanly! Such situations happen quite often, take for example the events in Ireland, or in the beginning of 90ies of the past century in Serboslavia, and in other places. And somewhere in that time when the battles in Yugoslavia were led, I think, I have come to the conclusion that usually, as a rule, in 90 percents of the cases

     guilty are the weaker, but the responsibility carry the stronger.

     I can not boast that read political commentaries, but have not met officially this statement, no matter that there are quite reasonable causes for it. They are fixed even etymologically, as in the English (your "mean" means average, but also bad, evil, etc.) so also in the Italian (their sinister means left, i.e. here weak, but also like your sinister, evil). And such character usually has the feminine reaction in family conflicts, which, obviously, is weak. Id est the women usually provoke conflicts, hoping that either the men will become ashamed, or there will be some public reaction, but they are those who begin the disputes, and the men are forced to apply brutal force since deep antiquity. And the weak side is usually more dishonest for the simple reason that in a fair fight it, surely, will lose the battle, it has no other choice. At the same time the responsibility carries the strong side, because that is why it is stronger, for to find solution, and with applying of as less as possible force.

     So also in this conflict, I think, the situation is, generally, such, the Ukrainians want to defend their independence, this is the right of every individual and every nation, to insist on their language, and on their hryvnia, for else the Russians will assimilate them. And all military bases there, the Russian territories in Crimea, and other things, have to be returned to Ukraine, for to increase its prosperity, think they. The Russians may be similar to the Ukrainians, but not exactly, and their own shirt is closer to their body, as the Russian saying goes, what means that self comes first. Yeah, but when they are weaker, when the Russians are three times more on population, but on territory even about 25 times more, and when the Russians are nuclear state, then they simply must obey them, not to show their own wishes but comply with those of the Russians, maintain common market with them, and then they will only gain by all this.

     But let us proceed. I think that

     independence is one thing, but to change political blocs is not good.

Because we are living now in 21 century, in which all states are independent up to some extent, there are no colonies. Yet military blocs still exist, and as if in the nearest pair of centuries have no intention to disappear. They are still necessary, approximately in such degree in which the parties are necessary in political life, at which I am spitting nearly in every second of my materials, but this does not eliminate the necessity of them. The blocs are necessary for to make us think, before we come to the utmost means (ultima ratio in Latin), before we begin to combat, but also because they are significantly less than the number of states (say, 50 times) and can maintain reasonable relations, can lead negotiations, not to fight each against each. Blocs are power, and the power has to be taken in consideration, this is clear to everybody.

     What means that as if the only reason to leave one bloc is to enter into another one. Very rare some small state can be considered really independent and not tied with military or economic blocs. Let us take Bulgaria. We left the Warsaw Pact, like also Czech Republic, Poland, at cetera, and did not miss (well, there passed 4-5 years, but we have though long ago, even before exiting this Pact) to enter the NATO. I personally am not satisfied with this, for the reason that, judging by the name of this organization (North Atlantic Trade Organization), we have nothing in common with the Atlantic Ocean (neither with the Northern one, nor with the Southern), and have never had, and also nobody has asked the people do we want this or not, but we, after all, are in Europe, and if all states around us are members of NATO, then we also must be such members, there is no other way. Id est, we have acted correctly, because otherwise we would have been forced to oppose NATO, what is not possible, but the case with Ukraine is not such. Ukraine goes, or has for a very long time gone, hand in hand with Russia, and if it can succeed somehow to enter NATO, exactly then it will become at gunpoint of the neighbouring states, i.e. of Russia and its allies, but now nobody aims at it. In other words, the (possible) membership of Ukraine in NATO will only worsen the situation in the region.

     To judge that, you see, the Czech Republic and Poland have become members of NATO, have they not, so that why not to expand this bloc a little more on the east, is very naive, because it can not be expanded forever. Now, Turkey also wants to enter NATO but this, still, does not happen. And I will tell you why the whole Western Europe has decided to enter NATO, if you can not guess. Because the world, especially the Americans, do not trust much the Europeans, after the two world wars, and want to control this center of civilization, but also the very Europe, as if, does not trust itself; people there don't love much the Americans (obviously, for this reason they have tried to unite, in order to be in position to oppose the USA), but they want to be in one military bloc with them because it is more quiet in this way (and what if Russia ...). The Baltic states also have become members of NATO, but they are a bit on the outskirts, this is not the same like with Ukraine, not that the Russian military bases were so near as in Crimea. This is all not the same.

     And in addition Georgia has also confused the situation. I am at least indignant by the behaviour of Georgia, because they should carry some responsibility for the Stalinism, shouldn't they, and he has brewed the biggest mess in the history of whole Soviet Union in the last century, the entire world would not have looked so at Russia and at the communists if Stalin has not existed. And there was also time when the Georgians have written humble petition to the Russian Tsar, Pavel I think, begging him to take them under his protection because the bassurmans oppressed them severely. And, now, the Russians must protect them when they are in trouble, but they have all rights to leave the Russians when the latter have not felt quite well after the collapse of USSR. So that, Ukrainians, Sirs, don't take bad example, take good one, look at the Cossacks, Tajiks, and other southern nations, who are even not Slavs, for them to speak Russian is, obviously, more difficult than for you.

     Then take into consideration, or if you don't know this then listen, that

     a military bloc (say, NATO) can not better the economic situation in poor countries,

it has not such goal and could never have it. It can even worsen it, by the simple reason that it will want money for purchasing of new armament. From the inclusion of poor or suffered country in new military bloc can win only the ... prostitutes and speculators in the black market! Believe me, please, because in my old years I have begun to read in Italian, and (for reasons of bad assortment of books in this language) I was forced to read a pair of books about the time of American occupation of Italy in the end of the Second World War, and there the situation was exactly the same. Then also Bulgaria for now 10 years is a member of NATO and what has happened? In economic regard nothing good — we are on the last place according the standard of life in European Union (and earlier were even on the penultimate place, after Albania). So that, you, Ukrainians, mark this well into your minds, if you enter some day NATO, as result of this your life will become only worse!

     Let me explain a bit this my prediction. For one thing there is a psychological reason, which is in this that the West, and especially the Americans, will look at the Ukrainians as at more inferior beings. In this case I wouldn't say as at white slaves, but as at something of the kind. From point of view of the Americans, like the Russian language, so also the Ukrainian one, is anyway some Chinese, to such people one has not to give much credit. That's it. And also this is, still, Asia, isn't Europe, right? Well, maybe not exactly like in India, but somewhere around. Then comes the market, the competition with other countries, far more developed than Ukraine. For Bulgaria, after all, this has turned to be the major blow as result of our including in the European Union, and even before the inclusion, because their politicians wanted that we have had predominant exchange of goods with them, not with other countries (say, with Russia). And when we are not "on the level" nobody buys our products, we though give all our money to buy something from abroad, not Bulgarian. All this is elementary and obvious, I have spoken about it in various places, the market, no matter, how good it is for some countries, for more developed, turns to be as much bad for the weakly developed countries like Bulgaria, and I think I will not make an error if say that also for Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and so on. To happen to be not on your own market is, ah, how bad!

     So, and now let us turn our attention to the question

     about Ukrainian contribution to the Slavonic world.

     I am not specialist in these matters, but I suppose it is known to everybody that in Kiev was adopted at their time the Christianity, that there was Kievan Rus, which later has shifted to the north, and also separated from the Ukrainians, who have left to the south. And the acceptance of Christianity was very important deed in that time, it signified their withdrawal from the barbarism (however strange this may seem from the standpoint of today's views). And generally, in the tenth century, and even earlier, when Cyril and Methodius have created the Slavonic alphabet, the center of Slavic world was on south, approximately in the region of Bulgaria, there was also the representative and single Slavonic language, although Slavs have lived in the north, in Great Moravia, as well on the east, around Kiev and even beyond the Urals. The very name of this town, too, in my opinion, is related somehow with the delight or ... kief, this is great town, mother of the towns, like for the Spaniards is Madrid, and for the Italians is Rome. In all probability this has to be exactly so, and the Ukrainians have all reasons to be proud with their Kiev, as well with the Christianity, and also with this, that they were its major pillars at least on the east and toward Asia, because the religion is carrier of morality and without it (when there was not universal education) people are savages

     And to all this the very name of Ukrainians has to come, up to my mind (but for me it is obvious) from the border or periphery (okraina in Russian)! Id est these are people on the okraine, they as if are not the major Slavs in the region, but a deep province, agricultural appendage of the great Russia. Their language (to what we will come soon), too, is better than the Russian, and they feed the whole Russia, because on the north even potatoes are hardly sprouting, and despite all this the Russians insult them how they only can, think they. All this is so, yet to accept nationalistic position that, see, we are good but all the others are scum, is not only unethical but also silly and unjustified, because each nation has its achievements. And this, that the nations in their developing are trying all the time to differ with something from the others, especially if they are similar in many aspects, is on the one hand quite natural, this is part of the evolution, but on the other hand pretty oft leads to funny differences, just for the sake to find differences (similarly to various fashion styles of clothing, appearance, etc. — for example, the flower baskets which the great ladies have worn earlier on their heads, or the tin "armors" in which they have confined themselves, or the wigs and men's cylinders, and many other examples). So that, to everybody his own, yet not in the sense that everybody deserves punishment according to his actions (how have interpreted the fascists this slogan — Jedem das seine), but that everyone has his deserts, one some own, but the other also his own, and if the Ukrainians have been pillars of Christianity in their time, then the Russians have been pillars of peace and protection of surrounding countries at their time, and even now are this (don't you think please, that to carry the royal crown and responsibility for everything is easy!).

     In this direction, but because here I want to say many different things I separate it under different heading, comes the question

     about the Ukrainian (respectively, Russian) language.

     As I have said (but not I have come to this conclusion) about 10 centuries back was single Slavonic language, the center of which was approximately on the territory of Bulgaria, because Cyril and Methodius have worked in the monastery of Athos on the territory of today's Greece, and quite near to the contemporary border of Bulgaria (and earlier also on the territory of Bulgaria). And then the question about the primacy of Ukrainians or Russians loses its meaning because first were, of course, the Bulgarians! After all, the Christianity was adopted in Bulgaria in 865, i.e. more than a century earlier than in Kievan Rus, and Bulgarian language was in the basis of Slavonic language, in the sense that contemporary Bulgarian language stays nearer to the old-Slavonic one than the Russian, or else Ukrainian (in it were no Latin letters, like "i", for example). I am laicus also in this relation, have not received linguistic education, but I have quite broad look at these questions (I call myself intelligent laic), for to have the right to pronounce myself on it. So that Sirs, and this time Russians and Ukrainians, there is no need to debate which language is better, I have told you (in my materials in the folder "For all those from CIS", which is in Russian and I don't intend to translate it in other languages but think to compose similar folder only in English for Arabs, Chinese, etc.) that the Bulgarian language deserves to be considered as etalon, standard or benchmark, for all Slavs (and even for the entire world, further more), in many aspects, in grammatical, in phonetical, and in relation to the international politics (now, as one of the languages of European Union). Here can't be whatever discussions, can be only misunderstood preferences due to the inertness of the people, as well also to partiality of judgement ("your own sh. does not smell", I beg your pardon, but this is well known proverb in Russian, not I have invented it, and it is just to the point).

     But this question is very important, it continues now for many centuries, I suppose. In any case, in the 70ies of the last century, when I have studied in Saint Petersburg, then Leningrad, the Bulgarian students in Kiev have complained that in their University they read lectures to them in Ukrainian, what is entirely wrong, after all then existed still the USSR (and approximately 20 years later I have listened to lectures in Austria in English, what was though to be quite proper decision). Id est, understand me correctly, please: the necessary for the Slavs language, to all appearances (or else prove justifiably, scientifically, that this is not so) has to be the Bulgarian one, but if it goes about the territory of CIS, then this has to be the Russian, at least in the official institutions (how people speak at home, or on the streets, or at the pub, etc., is irrelevant). One can not imagine a state where they speak in different languages, the only exception in this case is Switzerland, but it is mountainous country, the different areas are isolated, there was somehow establisher such tradition, and now they all study English so that the problem was resolved by itself. In the framework of European Union there is no official language, but unofficially this role performs again the English, though the problem stays also before them. There is no need to remind you, I think, the fable about the Tower of Babel; in the present days to do without official language in some big group of people is simply inconceivable. But possibly it was so also in the antiquity, because at those times the languages have differed one from the other even less, they are for this reason called Indo-European languages (if not necessary one language then there were a pair of similar ones).

     And now a bit more concrete about the Russian and Ukrainian languages. Although about the Russian I have spoken in the cited folder (there is even newer material in this sense) and it is entirely outmoded (in the original is said even "antediluvian"), with this language there is no entering in Europe (not that they will stop you on the border, but will laugh at you behind your back). The same can be said about the Ukrainian, too, when there exist cases in it, also similar prolonged vowels ("oy", "iy", etc.), and 32 letters are not enough for them and they are forced to use the Latin "i", too. And in political regard it can lead only to splitting, because the very Ukraine is not monolithic, one part of it is for alliance with the Russians, but the other is for uniting with Europe, due to the nearness to the Poles (with whom earlier, of course, they have fought and not rarely). If the "watershed" between the two Blocs must be drawn through the middle of Ukraine this is the worst possible scenario (and because of this I am afraid that something similar can happen — when people begin to do stupid things they never, as a rule, are satisfied with small stupidity, no, they play "all in", and usually lose).

     But, still, the Ukrainian language, from general considerations that it is more southern language, as well also because of some phonetic details, is more correct than the Russian. Say, in regard of the letter "e" or "i" they are right, they say 'divka' (in single quotes I give how the word is pronounced, not how it is written), like in the Latin as also everywhere on the West (diva), what comes somewhere from the Sanskrit, not 'devka' as the Russians say. For this reason they have two letters "i", but not 'ie' like the Russian "e" (i.e. the Russians want to say 'i', but until they take the decision they already give up their intention, and then say 'e'), what in my terminology are modified vowels (like in English 'ae' in the word "back"). And when they are (more) southern Slavs then they must have more southern, understand Arabic or Persian, words. For example, I quite recently have found that they have the word "maydan" as gathering, congregation of people, what is Persian word, exactly 'maydan', and this means the same like Bulgarian archaic word "megdan", i.e. central place in a village where all can gather (if somebody says 'mahay to the maydan /megdan' — this is around the syllable 'may' like in the month May when everything changes fast). And to all this they are nearer to the Bulgarians, they like ... hot peppers, while the Russians — not at all. But in spite of all this, neither the Russian, nor the Ukrainian, are good enough languages, so that they were learned also by the non-Slavic nations of the CIS, and for the Slavic nations using of some other Slavonic language, i.e. of the Bulgarian, would have lessened, a priori, the possible frictions between these nations with about 30 percents, I think!

     So, and from here it is easy to switch to the next theme, that

     the disturbances in the CIS only make each of the parties weaker!

     This is not only because the armament costs money, and all possible destructions in result of the military operations inflict direct damage to the countries, but also because this upsets the normal rhythm of work, this is favorable to no one. What is reduced to this that if the Ukrainians have not "kicked" so strongly against the Russians they would have lived better. And as I have cast a cursory glance in one material on the Internet, it turns out that the Russians propose exactly to maintain or organize common market for Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and other countries of the CIS, if they want this. That is how people act in civilized countries, look at the Arab states, or at the United Europe, or at the Northern America (where are united USA, Canada, and Mexico, if I am not mistaken). Only that the Ukrainians don't want peace, they want disturbances, right? Well, I overdo the things a little, not all Ukrainians want this, but the young ones, who have succeeded to grow up in the democratic time (as also our own, Bulgarian fascists) want exactly this, they want that there were quarrels, battles, actions, in order that they were able to show off with something, because otherwise life seems quite dull to them. They are right in their own way, but this is not the right thing, reasonable people don't behave in this way, the more when the Russians are strongly mixed with the Ukrainians, and there is no sense to stop this process, it goes only to the benefit of gene.

     And now see what happens. Because the Ukrainians want to separate from Russia, but in Ukraine live many Russians, then these Russians want to separate from Ukraine, and then Russia is simply bound to help them. It begins to help them, and then Ukraine begins to cry aloud to the entire world, how badly Russia behaves to them and that it is high time that NATO intervened, and the generals there, nothing highly surprising, will begin to send weapons to the Ukrainians. Yeah, but how you, my Ukrainian brothers and sisters, think, will Ukraine in this way become more rich, or on the contrary, will their economic problems be solved in this way, or will worsen? Do you really want that the Great Powers and world community intervened, ah? But when they intervene they usually "are felling many trees", like the Russians say, or "together with the dry woods burn also the raw ones", as the Bulgarians say, i.e. they usually worsen the things, isn't it so? To remind you that the Great Powers have organized the country Israel, and 10 years after this there have begun the disorders and fights and they do not intend to stop at all. For the Western world, and especially for the United States, is preferable to have conflicts all around the world, this comes cheaper for them, instead of specially to provoke the conflicts. Try to come to reason, else the disorders will never end!

     Well, and now let me give you some considerations of myself why the Ukrainians have to put up with the hegemony of Russia, why they will never succeed to become "older brother" and begin to rule "the roast". Here everything is simple, in my view,

     the civilization nowadays just moves to the north.

In the sense that the nations have firstly moved from east to west, maybe because ... wanted to avoid that the sun shined them in the eyes, I suppose, or this was simply easier, to interfere with China there is no sense (if you start from India or the Himalayas), and further is the ocean, who knows (i.e. has known) where it ends and ends it at all or not? So, have come also to the new world, have discovered America, with their Indians instead of Hindus, and what further? To influence the Chinese is impossible, they are too much. What remains then? Well, it remains to go to the north, in Europe, as well in America, and in Asia, too. In particular, the Russians have made exactly this, some 5 - 10 centuries earlier. And why, how do you think? Well, because it is easier to withstand the cold than the heat! That's it.

     And really, the northern nations, now already a pair of centuries show enviable progress in contrast with the southern ones (say, with the Arabic countries, too much to the south, after the equator, to go is equivalent to moving to the north, so that this is not it). This is because the plants easily withstand the cold, than the heat, and give better results. The winter season, if you ask the southern nations, is not cold but wet, and then everything grows and brings fruit. You all know that today all around the world is sold Canadian wheat or lentil, or something else that grows on earth and is nutritious (tomatoes there as if they do not breed, but they are grown in all countries in hothouses); earlier, in the times of Roman Empire, breadbasket of the world was Egypt, the Nile delta, but now this is Canada. And with the fish the situation is about the same, it is caught more of it in the North. And how is it with the people, ah? Where they withstand the weather easier, how do you think?

     Well, I personally have given a thought to this issue (because I am trying to economize from what I only can, and decided to measure when I am feeling most comfortably, although this is known to the biologists), and it turned out that this is the temperature of 23ºC (maybe 22º would have been more suitable, but I am old man and skinny and I feel cold). And now let us move away from it in both directions and make conclusions when is better, by 13 or by 33? I personally would have preferred 33, but many people (especially in working premises, when one is dressed), and especially the plants and animals would have preferred 13ºC. And further, say by 3º or by 43º? Of course that by 3º, 43º is difficult to endure, the heart becomes overburdened, and extending this diapason further more the conclusions become directly imperatives, because by -3º people live in clover, but by 53º is necessary a space suite or air conditioner, and the latter is quite expensive. Then -13 this is usual winter for us, but 63 this is inconceivable, then -23º also can be endured, -33º harder but still possible, but in the direction of pluses now the protoplasm coagulates. Such are the things. And the plants and animals withstand even easier the minus temperatures than the humans.

     But there is also another aspect, I have thought about this matter. When you want to warm yourself you burn some fire, it raises the temperature of the environment, warms it, too. And when you cool what happens? Well, it happens this, that you cool one place but around it you make it even warmer, this is not real cooling of the environment but only locally, yet this is so because there exists one thermodynamic law that says, that you can not take away energy from some body just so (lowering the energy of electrons, releasing to somewhere the fast electrons and leaving only the slow ones), it can give the heat only if there is someone to take it, but simply so to cool is impossible (though simply so to heat is possible), i.e. the situation here is similar to the ... time axes, it has for us only one direction. Add to this also the possible global warming (about which I have spoken that it is not so much warming as is fast mixing of the air, but little by little we are moving away from the glacial period, so that slight warming exists, after all). In the nearest pair of centuries I simply can't see how something in my conclusions can be changed, the more so on the background of mutated fruits and animals; I am telling you: the cold is better than the heat, for everything alive.

     What naturally, if we return to our topic, means that Ukraine will continue to be weaker in economic relation than Russia, and even in Russia will be possible to grow absolutely everything necessary (even bananas, if need be), so that they will be able to do without the agricultural products that Ukraine can deliver to them. But for the minerals, too, the north seems to be better, for the reason that on the south the major part of them has been already used. So that this my conclusion is obviously correct.

     But let us proceed further, let us speak now

     about the patriotism and fatherland.

     You see, the patria, or the earthen part (-ia, what must be the same in phonetical aspect) is a good thing, but in our days it begins to become more and more symbolical, because if the countries do not oppose especially to each other, if there exists global exchange of goods and services around the world, if one can change his (or her) place of residence and have double (and triple) citizenship, and live where only wants, even in Paris, or in New York, if the laws in all countries increasingly equalize, and the taxes, too, also the wages (in equally developed neighbouring countries, but all world moves to such equalizing), then there is no special difference "which god he will pray", so to say, i.e. what citizenship he will have. This is the reality, and the national flags and currency are of secondary importance, they become now insignificant, we all are humans, there are not best or chosen people, there are (still) only wealthy and poor. So that, my dear adolescents, or also military personnel, enough waving of fighting tomahawk, as the saying goes. Let us become friends, ah? And take into account chiefly the military blocs and the markets, so that there all were approximately equal, don't pay much attention to political differences. Have you still not understood that there is not communism or capitalism? What exists is strongly limited monopolistic production in the framework of capitalism, and more liberal capitalist one, that acknowledges both, monopolies and private companies. The communism, generally speaking, has converged with the capitalism, the difference is only in the level of intensification of labour (respectively, in the exploitation) in some countries, but everything is only a question of time, question of pair of decades of years (and even if it is half a century, what of it?).

     So my dear (when you are only a few, ah?) readers. It is time to wrap it up, but let me say also something in the end

     about the urgent measures in the given crisis,

because some of you are right to object that these moralizing of mine are only nice talk, but when the fire burns there is no need to explain the fire safety regulations, then the fire must be extinguished. So it is, but not exactly. Because we have not yet begun to throw atom bombs around, and what if we come to this? So that the rules for safety and peaceful coexistence must always be explained, even when we succeed to extinguish the fire ii also necessary, in order to know for the future. And then you know that these urgent measures, if we do not count the even bigger rousing of fire in the very process of extinguising (through supplying of weapons from various countries and to various sides of the conflict), is reduced only to applying of stronger force (as I have explained this in several places), in order that the opposing party was horrified and refused to fight (like, say, only to give an example, have done the Americans in the end of World War Two with Japan, or then, how they have acted after the assault of Bin Laden in the very beginning of this century, declaring war to the whole nation), or even to scare both sides (how it was with the bombing in the former Yugoslavia), if intervenes (as if) neutral side.

     So it usually happens when casual spectators begin to help; this what they want is to see some real action, but that the fighting parties give human victims — well, after all, we have not forced them to fight, will say the spectators. So that you, first of all, try alone to help yourselves! Because guilty are both sides, the process has entered in cycles, it can't be said that the ones are guilty and the others are victims. For the reason that, if you give credence to my statement in the very beginning, then in the beginning guilty were the Ukrainians, because they wanted to separate from Russia in uncivilized way, mark this, because they were the weak side in the confrontation Ukraine - Russia, and Russia has carried the responsibility, yet it has done nothing, it has not begun to fight with Ukraine. So that on this stage the apparent guilty side was the Ukrainians (like the "kids", also the old ones). Later, however, when have begun the separatists actions in Ukraine, then the weak side were the Ukrainian Russians, and the strong side was the Ukraine alone, so that then guilty were these Russians, and the responsibility carries the Government of Ukraine, yet it has not dealt correctly, has not required reasonable measures together with Russia, with the intention to preserve this union, or else separate in civilized way. But if Ukraine begins (or has begun) to fight with these Russians then the conflict moves between Ukraine, as weaker side, and respectively guilty (if I am still right in my statement in the beginning), and Russia, which carries the responsibility for (not) solving the conflict. So that now, although Ukraine is as before more guilty, nonetheless both countries are guilty and they both carry the responsibility. Only with tanks the conflict will not be solved, maybe is necessary some common denunciation of both sides, of Russian separatists, and of Ukrainian nationalists, but the important things is that this was common verdict.

     And now about this what means civilized "divorce". Well, this also is obvious, this is how the Czechs and Slovaks have acted in the distant 1993 (I think). If the Ukrainians are such that they always are ready to suspect the adversary in falsifying (and I think that they are exactly such, because that is how in Bulgaria also happens, the weaker ones, judging by themselves, are always unsatisfied, here is actual — I beg the more squeamish readers to excuse me — the aptly comparison, that ... the bad prick is hampered by the balls), then exists obvious decision: has to be performed open voting! It is true that in this way people run to certain risk, but what is this in the end, in Ukraine people either want to be friends with the Russians and stay in the same boat with them, as it was nearly thousand years, or they don't want this; let it be clear who will carry the responsibility for the next even bigger lessening of the standard of life, mainly in Ukraine, but in Russia, too. Or also conduct voting by Internet, and that the results come to both countries, or use as intermediary link some site of European Union and send their meanings to that site, using passwords, and from there they can be sent to the both countries — something of the kind, there are many variants, and it is not at all difficult to choose such, that there were impossible to falsify whatever. And as result of this referendum must be made exact plan how to perform this process, by months and years, but I think that in all cases must be waited 4-5 years till the final separation.

     Or then first outline roughly the separation zone in the very Ukraine on Eastern and Western, where only the Western can enter in Europe. And this also without hurry, because must be taken the necessary measures, by European countries, by Russia, and by other CIS countries. This is not that a single family has divorced, here are millions of families, it should not be acted in a hurry. And even better to conduct a series of votings, two or three, with half an year between them, so that the people were able to think seriously about the things. Or also to set some neutral zone between the votes "pro" and "against", so that, say, the ratio of the bigger to the smaller parts differed with more than 5% (or rather to require initially even ten), and conduct referendums until people show real difference (after all, approximately so is chosen the Roman Pope), so that it was not possible to say later that some error happened. Because Ukraine, even if it is not so big state like Russia, but it is still quite big, this will be nearly as a "fight between dinosaurs".

     Ah, it turns out that I can add also something more, about this

     how the West looks at the might of Russia in the region.

     I can't be quite sure in this case, but up to my mind the whole Europe, as well also the USA, don't want to intervene in open military confrontation with Russia. They don't want because of fears about the many possible victims, but also because Russia is beneficial for them as force in the region, without it would have become worse, it would have been harder to constrain the discontent of entire Arab world (or at least of the Moslem countries), and the fight for supremacy in the region of Himalayas continues to be central point in the geopolitics of the Great Powers! Some of you maybe remember that back in 1968, by the landing in Czechoslovakia, many people hoped that the West will intervene, but it, and this is reasonable reaction, in my view, has abstained to do this, objected for some time, but then considered the matter as internal affair of the countries in Warsaw Pact. I don't understand why now many Ukrainians (I am almost convinced that this is so) think that the West will intervene, I personally don't think so. After all, if the Russia was not so strong, then it would have begun to seek allies, it maybe would have united with India (ancient civilization, peaceful religion), and even with China (obviously also ancient civilization and vast, the most populated country in the world, and, as I have given a thought to the matter, on the whole peaceful, it has not conquered colonies, and even has defended itself from the Mongols in its time, quite worthy ally, and in addition also communist state, will not look at the Russians as at ... monkeys in the zoo, so to say). And if this happens then with such bloc will be impossible to cope!

     So that, gentlemen, think, but be wise. The first think here is to stop fighting and begin to think quietly and slowly. And I dedicate you at parting the following tiny verse, hopping that it will cool a little extremely hot heads.

     He, the Russian — you are bound

        To admit — he knows to fight!

     You, Okraynians, are around —

        That's the truth, my girls and guys.

     Try to fit, or you'll come down

        Even more, that's it, bye-bye.

     Dec 2014



     Now, gentlemen, I have declared to add no more things to my publicistics, yet sometimes something emerges, and this is not some new topic, because I have already covered all interesting themes (and if I have not covered something then this is not a global theme but so, arguing for the sake of it), but there remains to be added here and there something, and as far as to search each time for the suitable old paper and to add to it footnotes in n-places (because each site has its own peculiarities and is necessary its own edition) is a tedious work, then I have decided to write composite papers. As if till now nobody has written such things, but I am an unique writer (and let me squeeze here the funny remark that in Bulgarian "unique" is unikalen, which word I can split in uni + kalen, where the last means ... dirty, but in Russian the meaning is even more unpleasant for it is exactly, sorry, shitty, kal there is faeces), so that for this reason this is allowed to me. I can, naturellement, write short articles or letters, and increase in this way the number of my "works" (in quotes because for me a work is whole book, something independent), yet I just don't like this, and in addition I need not to increase but to decrease the number of my things, in order not to overwhelm the readers without necessity. So that, now, you are bound to become used to such chronicles or reminiscences. I, for my part, will just in case put numbers or subtitles.

1. Bank interests

     This topic worries me by itself, but also because I have said that when the interest percents fall below 2 this means that we are going to exit from the crisis, yet its end is still not coming, at least in Bulgaria it has surely not come. So that here is coupled (yet not copulated) the theme about the world crisis. Id est the question is such: why the bank percents (interest) are so low and how much can be expected for them to fall further down? And, respectively, what is happening with the crisis?

     Because in Bulgaria these percents have not yet reached the zero, but in some foreign banks in our country they have already reached it, ours are now below the one, and on the West they are somewhere negative. And they fall down pretty fast, for one-two years with 3-4 percents. If this will continue so then, say, in 2017 they will be about minus one, in 2018 maybe also 2-3 percents below the zero! Big "frosts" here are not expected, but till 3-4 "degrees" they can come. Even I personally, as super-economical person (by compulsion, of course, and entirely democratic), think that I will endure a pair of negative percents if will be forced to, because there is no way out, small sums I can keep at home, but big I can't — even safes can be opened, and they cost a heap of money. I could have begun to buy gold, it is sold, but ... is not bought back so easy like the money. Id est if you buy gold then by the selling of it you will lose at least 15% (I am not specialist to tell you more exactly), and also it is sold in form of coins or small plaques (about 20 grams) and they will buy it from you at worst as gold, not as ornament, what will lessen the price with about 20 percents more.

     Well, what to do here I will not advise you, there exist dealers for this purpose and they are "feeding" themselves on your money, but they alone don't know what exactly, naturally — the market is generally unpredictable, and the crisis too. I personally would have tried to spend as much as I can allow myself to, what is not only reasonable for the people, but is also a proper influence over the money market and the banks, i.e. the interest is so low because people have money. There is no reason to doubt in this because the banks live from the difference between put and take, and if people or companies want to take money then the interest grows, but if they don't then it falls. In principle it sounds pretty strange how in a country like Bulgaria, the poorest in European Union, people have money, yet this is so, they have, and more than 3 average monthly salaries, what now is a bit much (on the West a new car costs approximately 2-3 average salaries, and if the people there accumulate money they simply buy a new car, or also change the mistress, ah?).

     So that the end of the crisis will raise the bank percents a little, in order to bring them in norm; and the proper situation (according to Myrski, and the economists let dispute this) is that the lowest position on the curve of percents symbolized exiting from the crisis, and growth of the prices indicated a normal situation (i.e. ripening of a new crisis, ha, ha). What means that from here comes one simple conclusion: the end of the crisis will mean growth of the prices, strengthening of the buying of things, and development of the productivity. What in its turn means that ... there is nothing really to be very glad with this! Because, you see, for the poor always is bad, when there is no crisis (the prices are high), and when a crisis exists (no work and money). For this reason I don't wish eagerly that we exit at last from the crisis, because then all my savings will drop down at once (when the prices will grow up), and I will not succeed to benefit from the intensification of the productivity and the market, because one does not begin to work actively at 70. I am glad in both situations (for there is no use only to show discontent).

     Yet it is interesting how can be helped to the crisis, in order to end it, because: how long one can wait? So now, in order that the crisis ended, I explain it in simple words, is necessary that people will be required for the production of something, and then that they will begin to gather money, and will spend them, right? OK, but what to produce, when now already everything is automated and robotized? And, on the other hand, we, the poor people and in poor countries, have not so much money for to allow us to seek only the natural (or eco, or how they name it). On the West, in the wealthy countries the people begin to feed themselves with natural things and this requires simple, and even unqualified human hand, there they will exit faster from the crisis (although they have entered in it earlier, so that there is no big difference). But we continue to feed ourselves with all kinds of substitutes because they are twice (and even thrice) cheaper.

     And here we come to one of my theses, which I have elaborated also in form of utopian story, namely: the wars in some extent help to the production, they solve faster critical situations (ultima ratio or ultimate resort, after all)! I don't say that we have to fight now, this is good only for the nature, not for is, but we have still not learned how painlessly to destroy! Because everything is reduced to this, that we destroy something and create something new. The people are good in creating but to destroy we are not able. So that I don't see possible reasonable influence on this process. We don't want to give up the acquisitions of civilization, and suffer because of this. And the nature, or the dear God, applies its or His own methods, these are natural disasters, wars, and the like. When there are no wars, then arise paradoxes, like negative bank interests. When in this or other way the money (by the poor, naturally) decrease then we will begin to exit from the crisis, and the percents will begin to grow (and God forbid that this happened too fast but so, by a percent in about 5 years).

     Nevertheless I can make a proposition — I wouldn't have been Myrski if I have exhausted all my ideas and propositions. But here everything is obvious, it is in the socialization of the society, in the eliminating of the need to accumulate much money, in the quiet life and ensured work. Well, prove to me that I am wrong. And even if we have now democracy (which for Bulgaria is synonymous with famine) something can be done, although this is more difficult in conditions of disagreements, but is possible. The proposition must be legally regulated, but the idea is that people have to be in position to build some groups, alliances, in which to enter with their own means as percentage of their income (i.e. the poor give less, and the wealthy ones more), exit from them with difficulties and as percent to the common sum of money in the alliance (i.e. you can get more or get less, if you exit after some time from the alliance), and otherwise they are for lifetime and the money or resources remain for the very alliances and for new members. This must be some kinds of communes or guilds, in the end, but organized on better principles, so that one could alone choose the community of people for oneself, not to close all in common "pens", or to submit to family relations because people are born different, with their own interests, abilities, and intellect. There is no need to speak here in more details by the simple reason that people now will, anyway, not want to apply such measures, they have not yet matured to this, but maybe I will elaborate this idea in some science fiction novel (if I will ever come to writing of novels).

     Ah, I can give also advice about the way how to keep money in the banks today, by low and nearly zero (and even also negative) percents, but here also everything is near to the reason and in the spirit of those propositions how to earn more on your money in the banks, which I have given before about 20 years. Hence, if one can now not (or nearly not) earn something, then the important thing is at least not to spend, and the banks, due to the compulsion somehow to exist under the weaker intensity of changing of money, have begun to invent various commissions for whatnot, especially for taking of money from the accounts, and especially if you want to use cash desks instead of ATM machines. It turns out that this commission fees far exceed all possible percents and this for yearly deposits, if you are not dealing with sums of the order of thousands euro, only then the fees enter in the limits of less than one percent. I am informed about this, and worst of all is if you maintain current account, so that you were able to take money whenever you want, and if you have a card for ATM for this also are collected various fees (and if you have not a card, then they collect even more from you on the cash desks).

     So that the solution is simply in this not to maintain current accounts, or to leave only one such account where to transfer money to you from your place of work. But in my opinion it is better to close also it, if you have not a decent salary or pension (approximately of the order of 500 euro), when for you is not so important the loss of a pair of euros in month but the convenience. Otherwise you keep everything on yearly deposits (or even for two years), and also one deposit for 3 months where you can transfer from time to time money, but take from it only once in 3 months. A bit complicated, yet there is nothing to do now. If you are sometime so forced to take money fast, then you can break the more distant yearly deposit (i.e. that whose maturity was recently, and the next term is not soon), in which case you will simply not get the symbolic percents, but will pay no fees for this. And have in mind also this detail, that now nearly all people use bank cards and do not receive money on cash desks (on the place of work) or by the post (for pensions), so that the biggest queues turn to be before the ATM machines in the days of paying of pensions or salaries, so that if you return to the old variant you will win time in staying in queue. Or at the worst choose for yourself some day 3-4 days after this term and think that then you receive the money.

2. Cares for your health

     Well, this is simply my topic, because I, forced by our democracy, which (not that deliberately, but so it happened) performs genocide of intellectuals, although more civilized, of course (without GULAGs and cultural revolutions, but purely leaving us to die of our own death in situation of semi-starvation). So or otherwise but I personally have come to a number of conclusions how one can live not only cheaper but also healthier in city conditions. I have explained pretty detailed these things in my "Survival", and also in other papers have clarified what to eat and how to use the market correctly, but some moments are quite important, and people simply don't want to do this (nowadays the population has begun even less to collect what is possible from the nature because in the shops already can be found everything), so that I think that a little repeating will do no harm. And this will not be exactly a repeating but stressing on more important moments, with adding of new arguments, reduced chiefly to my personal experience, i.e. to checking in practice.

     So, let me begin here with the dandelion. I personally already almost year round put leaves of dandelion in everything what I cook (because there were left no teeth to chew it — the nasty democracy has led to this, that all my teeth have fell out, while earlier, under the totalitarianism, they were good and sound, so that the guilt of democracy is proved with this, right?). I use also this wild onion, which they have begun to sell in some shops in pots (even in one place under the name "Himalayan", although I pluck it in the nearby park). Because of the fact that one my colleague has become such drunkard, that has earned cirrhosis, I decided to look in one book about the healing herbs and it turned out that the dandelion is applied chiefly for healing of liver diseases. And the liver, either because people for long time have been gulping it — I'm sorry for the expression — even raw, for the contained in it blood, or because they have somehow grasped that it is important for the health, yet this has been fixed in the languages, and I by old habit continue to search for relations between the words as proofs for the common sense of the nations. In this case in Bulgarian (the Russian word "pechionka" says only that it is good for roasting it, what it "pech", so that it is not interesting) is known its Turkish, which has to be Arabic, name "dzhiger", what is something very alive ("dzhivoe", where "zhivoe" is alive in Slavonic), or more precisely (by Myrski) the "dzhiger" makes the ... dzhigit (what is a horseman in Eastern languages)! And mark that I don't exaggerate, because the last word is derived from Armenian "dzhi", what means a horse, i.e. something very fast, like a ... jeep, in order to give contemporary sounding to my conclusions.

     So, hence the dandelion is very useful, this is known amidst all nations, yet to the young you give various snacks and colas, etc., and the old are lazy to pluck it. While at the same time now have begun to sell some arugula (or rucola, or eruca), which has similar leaves and maybe is something similar. But the thing is that, as I hinted, those who have money do not collect whatever from the nature, and those who have not much think that it is below their dignity to collect herbs between the lawns (where the dogs have shitted, sorry, by their words, and this, what the today's chemistry "shits" in our food, they do not mark, or don't want to). So that even when there is not fresh dandelion I salt it (with vinegar and salt and practically without water), this wild onion, too, and add to every dish. Also I have begun to use the remnants of cherries (without their stones) from which I make myself wine and add as sour fruit; also wild apples, quince, cucumbers (in the dish that I cook, not only as salad), and so on. Also I never finish my lunch without drinking a pair of swallows of natural wine and not from grapes but from wild fruits (say from: brambles, wild-rose hips and apples, cherries, mulberries, elderberries, etc.). This, surely, is healthier than the bought wines, and because all this is not enough to me then I make myself various jams and honeys (or syrups), where I value especially: honey from dandelion, honey from acacia (all this from the blossoms), jam (or maybe some sugary kind of preserve, in Bulgaria we use different words for different kinds of such things) from cherries, from mulberries, from elderberries, and many others. All this are vitamins, all is natural, and in addition to this is about 3 times cheaper, and there is natural sugar in them, not sweeteners.

     Also the eggshells contain pure calcium, and for this reason are very necessary for young and old, and the most important — they substitute the milk! Hence I already ten years eat all eggshells and simply don't feel any need of milk, and the milk by itself is not very tasty if it is fresh (I recall myself that when I was a child I have not liked it). I eat curds, sometimes white cheese, but milk, even sour (or yogurt) it happens to consume in an year not more than a pair of kilograms. The eggshells are simply collected, they may be from raw eggs or from boiled ones, they are roasted a bit, and are eaten (there is no need to crack or grind them, they can not cut you). The average consumption is the shell of one egg for 5-6 days. Obvious, my dear Watson, like is said. And mark that the calcium is basic building element of the organism, it is necessary not only for the bones, it is necessary also for the joints, and for the blood vessels, i.e. this is also a medicine against atherosclerosis. To me this helps perfectly, and I am thin, old, and have had problems with one of my knee joints.

     Well, and then it is the movement! I don't think that only the woman is movement (the proverbial Italian la donna e mobile, what means not exactly this, it means that she is changeable, yet the root is the same), but that all life in general is movement. It is necessary not only to walk, it is necessary to jump, to jog, then one is for some time in the air, one flies, the muscles are strained. But to walk, too. I personally not only ascend and descend from the 5th floor, I have begun to boycott at all the city transport and to walk at least 10 stops on foot, and as many back, this is one and a half hour (but not less than an hour) of good walk in one direction, this is useful, and this economies much, by the prices now, in 2016, in Bulgaria, this is about 8 eggs for one ticket, and for me this a whole day's board, together with the drink, only one ticket! That's how it is. And in addition I am jogging only once in a week, before bating myself, in the corridor of the apartment, forth and back, or on right angle, but now, in my 66 years, I am making 2,000 jumps, about 20 minutes (and when I have begun I made barely a hundred). And I have long ago given up smoking, for economical reasons, and feel myself already like in my 50 years (well, with the exception of the "girls", but they have abandoned me before decades, when I have no money). This is called rejuvenation or restoring of the youth, i.e. I am turning nearly into some ... Juno, only of masculine gender. Ah, and I make also push-ups; when I have begun they were maybe 10, and now I make, also once in a week, before the jogging, 40 (forty) pieces. Well, you prove me that this is not right. Yet to increase the load more I do not intend, I have even decided firmly that reaching 70 I will begin to lessen everything — after all, I will not appear on Olympics.

     And if you ask me good for health is also the drinking, especially for elderly people. But if in some norm, what for me means 60-90 grams of vodka, and 100-150 grams of wine daily. The wine is natural, like I have said, for the digestion and for vitamins, and the vodka is all kinds of liqueurs or tinctures, i.e. up to some extent this is also a medicine. As I have mentioned in another place, and as some of you maybe know, on the West, in Germany, for example, where is written "Apothecke" are sold liqueurs; also the Italians when say "cordiale" understand some kind of vodka or tincture. My liqueurs are from, say: lemon or orange peel, anise, wild cherry (the grains are big like those of bahar, or then of pea, and are a bit bitter), raspberry, cherry, wild strawberry, ashberry, from stems of dill and coriander /cilantro, and from whatnot else (I have not done, but think that will be suitable also from ananas /pineapple peel, from pomegranate, from blueberry, and others). And pay attention to this fact that I am using non-potable spirit (in Bulgaria potable spirit is not sold and it has to be smoother), but usual bought from the pharmacy ethyl alcohol, 95%, which I dilute in the necessary proportion (3 parts water, 2 parts spirit), having first boiled the water or the tincture. This also has its advantages, because there are no softening additions in it (I put only citric acid, and half tea-spoon sugar on half a liter of ready vodka), and when the spirit is felt then this is better, for one wants to feel something in one's throat, not just to pour there (like, for example, petrol in the tank of a car). And in addition to this I paint it with confectionery colours, change its kind each week, so that it is simply a pleasure, this is the so called night cap.

     In view of all this I have decided that will live at least till 83 years, and better till 86, and it will be just nice if till 88, what is a very good number (eighty-eight sounds nearly like 'ey-ey'). And till 83 I have calculated that must live because have gone at last on pension with only 16 years of service, and a pair of months, and when so then I have to use this pension at least as many years, and when you add this to 66 then it turns that we come to the 83rd year. I am simply bound to live so long, because my pension payments earlier, in totalitarian years, were 20% from my gross income, and now my pension is about 17% (only) of the contemporary average income, what means that there will leave a pair of percents more for the very pension institution. And I move further to 86 and 88 because these calculations are for an average salary, and my was on the average about 1.2 of the average, what gives increase with 20%, or 20 years of receiving of the pension. Well, till 86 this is correct, and 88 is just my plea to the Almighty. But to leave something to the state I think is absolutely unmotivated, I have suffered enough for 25 democratic years.

     Ah, I have almost forgotten: I have no illnesses at all! So that I will be forced to ... die healthy, but there is nothing to do here, when this is so necessary. For the last time I have bought from the pharmacy a medicament (if one does not count by one liter spirit each month, what isn't medicine strictly speaking) somewhere about 5 years back, this was a package of aspirin, and when I heard its price I was horrified and decided not to buy even aspirin, and it lies somewhere by me still unused. So that I do not take any medicaments, and don't visit any physicians, when is necessary to pay for this. Such things, related with the cares for the health.

3. About the cold politeness and the inhuman capitalism

     Not long ago I thought suddenly that in the last several years I am more and more impressed by the fact how cultured has become our people (and I suppose also yours), and especially polite are in the shops, where they simply "sell" or "stick under your nose" politeness as additional service. And it turns out that this makes unpleasant impression on me because it is excessively (or "cherezchur" in Russian, what, when I thought about the matter, is split in cherez-through + chur-curse, what says that people from old times have cursed when something comes out of some limits). And why in my opinion this is bad? Because this is cheating, distracting maneuver, a kind of seducement, this disarms you and you are caught naked, so to say!

     Not only this, many people, especially women, have begun in conversations with acquaintances also to wish to the left and to the right all the best, nice day, in the native language, because this costs nothing and predisposes people. And according to me it is one thing when somebody is really interested how the matters stand with you, or wants that you have luck in your life, and it is another thing when the politeness is simply put on like a modern dress, with the purpose to deceive you in some way. Because of this the English (and Americans etc.) like often to add the word "indeed", in order to convince you that they are honest, what, in fact, with its persistence and ostentation proves exactly the opposite, like also the word "honorable" used in official correspondence to unknown persons, for whom you simply have no reasons to honour them (when you don't know them), or you even despise them (say, the opponents in the Parliament, or in the Court).

     Well, here almost every other person would have said that this is good, yet I notice such things because I hate the hypocrisy. And especially parade with this more ... elementary (in order not to say silly) people (or rather women, ha, ha), in the same way like they show off with a modern haircut or whatever foreign or bought (only not with their own knowledge or abilities). Be it as it may, in our unjust world everybody has the right to show some mimicry, but I an using this observation as introduction to the inhuman capitalism, or democracy of the right-wing (or Western) kind, because this parading politeness is entirely cold, as it befits the capitalism, and especially polite are in such institutions where they can offer almost nothing more than politeness (how, to give an example, they have been with me practically flawlessly polite in the pension institute, where have established that it must be enough for me to receive a little less than 70 euros in a month, what — just so, for comparison — is equal to 85 ... city bus tickets, i.e. almost by three tickets daily for all expenses!). This is like, to give one more example, when one goes to his general practitioner and the latter with smile on his lips says to him: "Ah, this are you, my dear John Johns, I am glad to see that you are looking still very good, having in mind that you have incurable carcinoma, he-he, well, you understand, yes, which will bring you to the grave after approximately two years. But you don't worry, here is nothing to be done, except to give you painkillers. I wish you wholeheartedly happy death, indeed."

     And that the capitalism is inhuman this has to be nearly clear to everyone, because it is like life, and it, as you know, is c'est la vie. But now I intend to express one stronger assertion, I think that the capitalism relatively to its abilities is more inhuman than the previous forms of social order like the serfdom and slave-holding system! Because: what could have done one large-scale slave owner, or, say, a pharaoh for his slaves, ah? After all, he could not have left them free to go where they like because where will they go when there is desert around (or mountains and forests, if we take the feudalism) and there they will die within few months, and he cares for them, he feeds them. If people were able to live fragmented and disunited in those times they would have lived so, but are necessary states, cities, industry, military power, and so on. And then the very slaves (as well also the serves) were entirely uneducated, they were simply more intelligent than the other animals, yet all the same, they were beasts and lived like beasts. And even the very "beasts" have not wanted to live separately, they wanted only that they had good masters. And if from time to time, either here or there, have arisen disturbances and rebellions, then this was simply another kind of ... suicide, i.e. the rebels knew that they will die, yet wanted that others also suffered from this.

     To educate all in those times was not possible, neither to dress all decently, nor to feed, and so on. And, generally, each social order exist in order to exploit the people, I have long ago observed and explained this, without exploitation there is no society, no development, here is nothing to be done, this is so also nowadays. The difference now is in this, that the form of exploitation has changed, the workers are more unfettered, they can move freely, yet they were and remain slaves of the capital, and without this slavery is simply impossible, otherwise the society will dissolve itself, this is for sure. And under the communism or totalitarianism also existed exploitation, i.e. squeezing of everything possible from the people, in the name of common welfare. And that this common welfare is used not by all — well, all anyway can't. But this, what I assert, is that earlier it was simply impossible to make it better (else people would have done this). After invention of the steam engine, though, and especially of the electricity, everything has changed, it has arisen possibility for easy multiplication, it become possible to release a big number of people from the work. And the capitalism has freed them, they have become unemployed. Now the major thing is to find work, to invent it, not to do the unavoidably necessary, do you get the difference? The main aspiration of the good capitalism or capitalist is opening of jobs, finding of working places, not executing of necessary work, there are sought not people for the work but work for the people.

     What in other words means that all needs of the people are on the whole satisfied, there are invented new needs. The people can be elementary fed and placed in homes, but they always want something new and can't harness their reproductive instinct and there become more and more people, unjustifiably much, I have spoken about this, too. But the very fact that are thrown to the garbage goods at least three times earlier than their establishes term of use — personal cars, all kinds of home appliances, homes, furniture, clothes, and also food sometimes — signifies that is produced more than necessary, not that there is shortage of goods. And also don't forget that now almost all food is synthetic, and people buy it willy-nilly because it comes on the average about three times cheaper (compare with the so called "bio" products, which are approximately so many times more expensive). If this was not so then the people would have went hungry, but now it suffices to check a pair of ... garbage cans and one will find something to eat, ha, ha.

     And that this is so, that people can be elementary fed, let me give you some examples, which show that if some are going hungry then others simply wonder on what to spend their money. Say, in the moment in USA, but also in other Western countries if you transfer the money in US dollars, when one enters in a pizzeria one pays for a pizza plus cola or coffee approximately 50 US$ (in any case I know from a witness, that 30 years back, in 1986, the price for pizza in an establishment in United States was about 18 US$, and if you gave them 20 then they used to give you no change, and the prices jump twice roughly in 15 years); while at the same time I personally, forced by the democracy, have become used to spend in a month on food and drinking, approximately 25 US$, and I don't complain about this, it is enough for me (yet I may use another 25 dollars if necessary, but not more)! Another example: I personally in the moment of writing of this material am using computer Pentium-3 where is 1/4 GB of RAM memory and the disc device has 10 GB, and this is quite enough for text processing; while I am not sure what is the latest novelty in this area, but I think that the RAM has grown to 4 GB, and discs with less than 200 GB is hard to find and I don't know what people do with such machines (most probably they use such modern software products which on purpose use on an order more memory than necessary). Or take for example the last "hit" in culinary industry, the so called emulsion of pig skins, that is put en masse in the sausages (or dextrin instead of bouillons, mutated fruits and vegetables and so on) — because when the pork skins do not go for shoes then why not to give them to be eaten by the people? But as a result of such tricks everything is cheap and suffices for all.

     In addition to this let me remind you that the pension insurance, introduced before more than a century (I think) in Germany by Bismarck (who, surely, was not a communists), exists already all around the world, and, no matter that in Bulgaria this is a weak, but it, still, is a help, if one is healthy and cooks alone and has a home etc., and the average pension in Bulgaria is about three times more than the very minimal one, while in the normal countries it is 5-10 times higher. Hence the money are found. Or also that one bus ticket for the city transport costed earlier half an egg (in order to use maximally simplified consumer basket) and now it costs 8 eggs, or 16 times more, and the tendency is for it to become 10 and 12 eggs, like it has to be on the West, what can be interpreted also that the prices of the tickets can be decreased at least 10 times (if the service will be worsened, but people especially want more expensive things). Also the healthcare was free of charge, and the education, and this means that we can again reach this if we express a wish. And at the same time have in mind that the banks are literally "bursting" with money, so that the money is also present.

     And I can propose you also one mental experiment, or more precisely the following: imagine that somehow, better in peaceful way, of course, if such exists, people on the Earth have reduced in their number at least twice (and I have calculated earlier that this has to be about 200 times). What will happen then, ah, do you grasp it? Well, it will happen this, that on the average everybody will have twice more of everything! Really, it is true that after some time the production of goods has to decrease, because there will be also twice less people to produce all the things, but I am not so sure in this, it might as well turn out that it will not lessen but will even be increased more. Because now everything is in abundance, anyway the food and the clothes are synthetic, in any case there are many robotized productions, so that it can quietly happen so that there will not at all be needed people in not very distant future, say, after a century (I have mentioned this in one of my science fiction stories).

     With one word, if the capitalism shows a wish, if the democracy sets for itself the goal to satisfy all basic necessities of the people, independently of this whether they work or not, this can be done relatively easy (in the next section I will speak about this). This is all the more possible, because now everything is much better organized and manageable than in the times of pharaohs, and all measures can be rapidly executed for the reason that now even the technical revolutions in some areas occur after 20-30 years, i.e. everything is very dynamic. So that the inhuman capitalism, or our Bulgarian anti-people's democracy, which has come on the place of former people's one, can be made more human, if only the society, both the wealthy and the poor, say that they want this. Yet the society simply does not want this!

4. How to better the capitalism?

     I have discussed this topic when have spoken about moderate capitalism and the BUM-bank, as well also when have spoken about the social Ministry in Bulgaria, and I think that have shown clear that the capitalism can be bettered preserving the form of ownership, preserving the exploitation, supporting the existence of poor and rich, but just reducing it to a more moderate and higher socialized form. Now I will propose another alternative variant which reduces to this, that can be introduced one more kind of deductions from the salary similarly to those for pensions and use them especially for bettering of the communal expenses; this can be easily done and in this way will be possible to fight also the monopoly of some services (say, the heating), because there, where a market exists, it adapts itself somehow to the abilities of the buyers, there are sold cheaper imitations, but the monopolistic services that are established in centralized way do not suit the population in the poor countries. I will express my proposition but let me in the beginning answer the set in the end of previous section question, why the population does not want to live more justified? I mean first of all in the poor and not very developed countries, yet also in the wealthy, like USA. I think that have tossed similar thoughts somewhere, yet it is not bad to collect all this in one place, because people as a rule do not ask themselves such questions, they know only to show discontent, but don't understand the core of the things, and without this it is very difficult to fight with the problems.

     Hence, firstly is important to note that the cares for the poor (for various reasons) and socially weak are better performed in wealthy countries, and in poor countries — worse. In principle this is obvious, because in the wealthy countries the governments have more money also for the poor, and they do almost everything they can if only they don't touch considerably the interests of the wealthy. But they do this for the reason that everyone in his heart wants to do good, under condition that he will not suffer much from this, I have spoken long ago that the people (as well also the animals) are born good, but they become bad under the influence of the society, and this is why exactly it has to be bettered. It turns, though, that in the trivial things are hidden important moments, because look now what happens: in the poor countries the poor live worse because they live in poor countries, isn't it so?

     Well, such situation is called, this time in Italian, circolo ('ch...') vizioso, or vicious circle in English, but for technically oriented readers it is maybe better to speak about positive feedback, which is directly a scourge for any system because it can not stabilize itself, it all the time amplifies the signal until in some sense it does not burst. And it this case this means that nobody will help the poor in poor, like Bulgaria, countries. Because of this I think that "comrade Lenin" in his time has said that, you see, Marks may be right that the capitalism moves to socialism and in the wealthier and better developed countries it will come faster to the latter, yet this does not make us warm, we have to fight, we must make revolutions; id est the dictatorship may be a bad thing but this does not concern the dictatorship of the proletariat, because there is no go without it for us. I, by God, have never thought or dreamed that will be put in situation to defend Lenin, yet when I gave a thought to the matter it turned out that he was right, the vicious circles have to be bursted, otherwise it is impossible to get out of them.

     Though do not think, please, that I call for revolutions, nowadays this is entirely excessive, especially in Europe, this can be done using the finances, they offer much finer solution, and also by the eventual support from the West. But in order to exit from the vicious circle is necessary stronger influence, otherwise we will be forced to wait, me thinks, another 50 or so years, somewhere till 2070, and maybe even longer, till the very end of the century. Why I think so, ah, how I have calculated this? Well, there exists an interesting assertion that the companies exist mainly three generations, because the first creates them, the second expands them, and the third tries to spend the money. Here it goes not about company yet the model of judging is approximately such, that one generation tries to do something new, to build the democracy in this case, the second generation expands this undertaking, and the third becomes finally disappointed or tired by the ideas with which was brought up and wants something new (like, in fact, has done Gorbachev in his time and exactly in the third generation). And from the year 1990 till the current moment has passed exactly one generation, it was calculated earlier to approximately 27 years, but it might have grown a little in the last time, it may now near the 30 years. We (in spite of all my efforts, ah?) still think that the democracy is a good thing and will solve our problems, while it is just a means or environment for reaching of the goal, it by itself is not yet a solution. Without decisive actions we will not cope with the poverty, we can only bring to power the fascist, who will entangle even more the things. The West, even if it wants, can not help us, because here is necessary to change the model of thinking, is needed to grasp that to aim only at the big money is not a goal in life for reasonable people, we must outlive and reject the morality of newriches — because ancestral rich person is one thing and newly enriched one is the scourge of God.

     So, and the next moment is in effect for all countries, for the rich, too, I have stressed on this and have given even ... etymological proofs, and it is in this that the people don't like the left-wing. They don't like them because we are living in a world of the strong and if someone preaches to take care for the weak, to unite the weak, he either pretends or has gone mad, such people can't exist. Because of this in the wealthy countries people want to become rich, not to fraternize with the poor, and in Bulgaria people also want this, the more so because in Bulgaria there are no communists, neither real socialists, our socialists just ensure for themselves the support of the elderly people, but they, too, are rich or want to become such. Well, the rich people can stick to left-wing ideas, this is not at all novelty, this (like I have pointed out) is so for the simple reason that there is an idea in the leftist doctrine, it is just, while in the rightist one there is no idea, it is the rough reality. Such people exist but they are exceptions, most of the people simply don't like the equality, putting it otherwise, they want that they alone were on the top, even not to be first between equals, how the old Romans have said, and then the other people let be equal, if they want this so much. Yet this is a question of sound judgement, and of good morality, too, and all religions (in my opinion without exceptions) preach the futility of worldly goods and cares for the poor and deprived. Only that the Bulgarians are not religious people, and this worsens even more the situation in our country, at least during the first and second generations.

     Well, there are other reasons, too, but they are not so significant. So for example always can be added also this, that people just want to be deluded (I explained this many times), want to believe in unreal things, say, that when they can buy in the supermarkets expensive things then they live good, while in the chain-shops everything is mass consumption, this is not refined taste. Or also they want to receive much, in order to be able to spend much, then people have higher self-esteem, not when they alone have made something important. Because of this people will hardly like much my idea about communal deductions from the salaries, but I think that if the things are not much exaggerated, how it was under the totalitarianism, then people can be convinced in the necessity of such measures. So that I move to the very idea.

     Hence, when we have already established, that the most difficult for the people, and especially in poor countries, is to pay the communal expenses, which earlier for us were either entirely free (like the education and healthcare) or with symbolic price (like the city transport, communications, electricity, medicaments, and others), then is needed somehow to help for lessening of this exactly prices. My proposition is reduced to introduction of communal deductions — it is not very suitable to speak about taxes, because I have in mind deductions from the personal income before the imposition of taxes —, in the way like for the pension payments and of the same order, 20%, but this is as maximum, and maybe 15 or less percents. This must not affect the especially reach people, the capitalists, because this is not an additional tax on their enterprise but only on the salary which they pay to themselves, other unearned income (like rental or other charges) must not enter here. This money comes in, let's call it so, communal fund, and later it is distributed as subsidy to all companies that deliver these services, which are included in the circle of these communal expenses (this circle can change, some services can enter in or exit out of it); the very distribution is performed in accordance with the turnover or the amount of offered services in money equivalent. As idea this is everything, but mark that this percents are not equal to the percents of cheapening of the given communal expenses, they just stay in some relation with the percents of collecting, yet are different from them, the cheapening has to be with more percents for the simple reason that it affects only part of the expenses of the population, but is collected from the whole income of the people.

     For approximate evaluation of the proposition is necessary to have an idea about this, what is the part of these communal expenses, as well also what exactly enters here. I think that in full form here have to enter: the city transport, the central heating, the electricity, the water, the communications (phone, internet, letters), payments for education in colleges and universities (and maybe in kindergartens), medical care, medicaments, and maybe also part of food products of basic necessity (say, bread and milk) and some learning tools (say, more common computers). In minimal extent, though, must enter three basic for everybody expenses, namely: the city transport, the heating, and the electricity. Now about the part of these expenses. Well, I think nearly a priori that they are about 40%, for very poor they have to reach 50% (very, very rarely 60), and for quite affluent they fall down to 30%. But conducting of pretty exact calculations for the state must not be a problem because the companies supplying them are not so many, and for the minimum of three expenses they are monopolistic and for each city by one such company, which in any case stand in the center of public attention.

     Now can be expressed chiefly the objection that this money is gathered from the working ones, but are used by all living in the country (or the region), but they are beside the point, because all deductions are taken from the working people, and the pensioner or students, as well also the unemployed, in any case, are carried on the back of the working force. Here I also can give approximate numbers, and they are that half of the people work and half don't; in well organized countries for some time can happen that work till 60%, and in the worst case they are about 40% (though in Bulgaria has happened that the working were of the order of 30% but this is not normal, this is anomaly). So that it turns out that one working person will pay the communal expenses for one more dependent person, yet here nothing can be done, this is normal. Only that this is on the average, i.e. if we take the average working salary, but if we take the minimal salary for poor persons, which is normally 2 times (or 2.2, but rarely more than this) less than the average, then we can calculate also on the basis of minimal salary and one person in a small flat and by straitened circumstances.

     So, but let us initially narrow the proposition to 10% communal expenses and only for the transport, heating, and electricity, in order to make more precise calculations, as well also to begin at a smaller scale. We will use calculations based on immediate observations of the author, and by minimal salary in the moment of writing of the material of 420 лв. (in euro this will be twice less), and for this reason for a single person. A card for the city transport in Sofia for a month costs, let it be, exactly 42 lv (the real price is around this, it varies), what gives 10%; the heating for one-bedroom flat (we call this two-rooms, in order to look bigger) in an year for me, by super economies is about 250 lv, but really is 350, or by 30 lv per month on the average, though this is without hot water, and if we add the traditional 2 cubic meters then are added 12 lv more for heating of the water, what gives again 42 lv or 10%; and for the electricity by me the expenses in winter are 20 lv per month, but I have long ago turned off the refrigerator, which spends on the average 8-9 lv monthly, and even the TV set does not work, there are no other appliances except the electric stove, so that the real thing is not less than 30 lv, and most probably 35, what with some approximation can be taken again for 10%. In sum this gives 30%. If the salary is average, then the flat can be bigger, smaller is almost not met, and then for the transport the expenses can grow with about 50% (because the children and pensioners use discounts), the same about the electricity, and the central heating will increase even less (for the same flat), yet then will emerge other expenses (if in the full variant) like education, medical care, medicaments, and so on, so that the communal expenses for two people and for doubled or average salary will give roughly the same. Yeah, but if are deduced 10%, and if they are distributed over 30% of one and the same income, then this means that will be covered 1/3 of the communal expenses, or at least 30%! Because of this I think that 20% of such deductions will cover very quietly half of all communal expenses, so that maybe even 15% will be sufficient.

     Well, I see no shortcomings, except this that the state can complain that it will not get its money from the income tax on these percents, but here are two choices: either it will take it from those sums which it sends to the companies performing these communal services (what is not correct, because these are not received personal incomes), or will somehow manage without this money (in the name of the welfare of the population). And if there will be chosen some town of about 100 thousand people for the experiment then can be made also the final conclusions to enter this proposition in practice or not. I, after all, like have said, don't propose revolutions, but fine financial regulation of the unbearable for us communal expenses. It is true that people will receive a bit less, but for this reason they will pay much less for the communal expenses, i.e. this is a variant of organizing of socialism in conditions of capitalist economy and ruling.

     So, and then one of my more clever readers is right to ask me: "Yeah, my friend Myrski, when all this is so elementary like you show it, then why you do not look for some political power, in order to implement your brilliant proposition, as well also other of your similar things, but place them before us, nonprofessionals and without influence in the society?". To what I can answer that there are several reasons for this, more important of which are the following: I want not to lose my objectivity and independence as anonymous author, I don't want to take into consideration the interests of any political powers, then in Bulgaria (but maybe in any country) are no political parties for reasonable propositions, and, besides, the people must in all cases be taught, educated, forced to think and to doubt in everything what say to them those who are at the helm of power. And in addition to this I like the ideas, the solving of problems, this is like solving of tasks, I am a mathematician, and not the practical realizations, because the fasts are in their core ... faecal (I have spoken about this somewhere, in etymological sense), so that I prefer, like God almighty, to sit aside and watch the silly human behaviour, this role is suitable also to my age.

5. About the eggs and the bus tickets

     Well, here we will laugh a little, because the ideas are simplified and exaggerated, and about the eggs in the role of money I have spoken long before, about 15 years earlier. Only that here we will do without tables, because we are interested just in a pair of lines in them, like the price of city bus tickets and the minimal and average salaries in eggs. So back then, in the year 1988, as the last stable year before the chaos of changes, one ticket was 0.5 egg (I will shorten to "eg"), the minimal monthly salary (MMS) was 1,230 eg, and the average (AMS) — 2,690 eg; then in the middle of 2008 one ticket was 5 eg, MMS — 1,100 eg, and AMS — 2,300 eg; now in the middle of 2016 one ticket costs 8 eg (I think that an egg size M is exactly 20 stotinki — st, these are our cents —, because it varied from 18 to 22 st), MMS — 2,100 eg, and AMS is about 4,500 eg (the year has not yet finished), and will add also that the average pension is 1,600 eg; and "in a kingdom, in a state" (how the Russian fairy tales begin) on the West in 1993 one ticket was 11.4 eg, MMS — 6,400 eg, and AMS—14,280 eggs.

     So-o, and now let us translate all from eggs in tickets and let us see what we will get. We will get that MMS in Bulgaria now instead of 2,100 eg will become 262 tickets (we divide by 8) or 8.75 tickets per day, for all expenses, mark this. But let us first choose a new name for this new ticket money unit and I propose to use the same word ticket, only that in English will write it with capital letter and shorten to "tc". Hence one MMS gives nearly 9 tc per day, the average pension (for people with 40 years length of service) will be exactly 200 tc in month or 6.66 tc in a day, and the minimal pension will be 100 tc /mt or 3.33 tc /d (and for me personally it is 85 tc /mt or 2.85 tc /d). As you see, our democratic development is splendid, yet here is nothing to do, the voice of the people is like the voice of God, right? For comparison, in this fairy land (Austria) MMS will be 561 tc /mt or 18.7 tc /d; and even earlier in totalitarian Bulgaria MMS was 4,200 tc /mt (though this is not real, because the city transport was subsidized). But however it is we can express everything in Tickets, because there is no go without them, practically everybody uses them, so that let me give you some prices of food stuffs expressed in Tickets.

     So, one egg will be 0.125 tc, a kilogram bread "Dobrudzha" (which is the massively eaten bread in Bulgaria) will be 0.68 tc (and the usual loaf of 650 g — I don't know why they have chosen this standard — will be 0.44 tc, and if of 830 g, where the reason for the weight is again unclear, will be 0.56 tc), a liter of fresh milk is about 1 tc, 400 g sour milk /yogurt is about 0.5 tc, what means that a kg will turn to be about 1.2 - 1.4 tc, more or less decent sausages are about 2.5 tc /kg (yet there are also for 1.5 tc), the same for a whole hen, the mackerel is about 3 - 3.5 tc /kg, and that tiny fish, which we call "tsatsa", is now 1.5 tc /kg, further a kilo meat with bones or a good mincemeat is about 4 tc, our vodka a liter will be about 7 tc (and 700 ml — 5 tc), a pack of cigarettes will be 3 tc, and so on.

     The major advantage of this money unit, however, will be that there will be no necessity to raise the prices of city transport — when they, anyway, are established centralized, will be needed simply to reduce a bit the salaries in Tickets and be done with it! And this can be made also once in half an year or more often, not to wait until this has to be done with a jump, respectively, to decrease the salary; though nobody hinders us to raise the salary also in Tickets (like in eggs, too). More than this, when not only the prices of city transport, but also of all products (food and others) in different countries tend to equalize, like also the laws and other indicators of development of the society (only not the cares for the poor, alas), then these Tickets will become universal for the entire world! In the sense that various countries can print their own money and make own coins but they will be equal everywhere, in USA, for example, and in France, and in Bulgaria or Bangladesh (more so because the standard of life is also nearly the same there), as well also in Bujumbura (which name I simply like, it sounds exhilarating).

     So-o, and now I will express my idea about the design of these money units, because I see no reasons not to apply this brilliant idea in practice. We will begin with the coins, where the "silver" or white will be with values of 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, and 1 Ticket. Even here can be seen that 25 Ticket-cents will be the best value in the middle between 10 and 50 cents, what also by itself is an interesting innovation and equalizes the differences between various countries. And then there are no problems for the yellow ones or "coppers" to set values of 1, 2.5, 5 and 10 cents, and that till now there was in no country a coin of 2.5 cents is not at all argument for rejection of my brilliant idea, right? After all, I am not proposing a coin with value of, say, square root of 17 (yet further one root will appear), the half is a very good number, it as if allows specifying with precision of half a cent.

     With the banknotes we can proceed similarly, beginning with that of 2.5 tc, then 5 and 10 tc, a little bigger will be the banknotes with values of 25, 50 and 100 tc, and more bigger will be the ending 250, 500, and eventually 1,000 tc, yet for countries like Bulgaria there is no need to issue the last banknote when there on the average even for 3 months will not be accumulated so much salary. A little bigger in the size of banknotes means on 5 mm more in each direction or on 1 cm longer and wider, and the same for the biggest compared with the middle ones. We will clarify next also the colours and what will be pictured on the banknotes. So on this of 2.5 tc will be pictured a hen (for the reason that it costs approximately so much) and the colour will be yellowish (but especially here nearly pure yellow), on 5 tc will be pictured a pig (because a kilo of pork meat, as well also veal, comes about as much) and the colour in this case will be reddish (or nearly pure red), and on the banknote of 10 tc will be a bottle of vodka (but also other bottles) and in this case the colour will be silvery (but here pretty light). In order to standardize and alleviate the people we will preserve these typical colours also for the bigger banknotes, but will make them more dark, and then they will be the following: 25 tc yellow but darker, a bit to brown, and will be pictured clothes, or more precisely trousers and skirt (as roughly corresponding in their price), 50 tc red to brown, on the picture will be a screen of monitor, as symbolizing the electronic and other not expensive appliances, and 100 tc in silvery but darker, and will be pictured a bicycle. Further for the last triple will be preserved the idea of means of transport and the colours be made darker, and we will have respectively, 250 tc with a personal car, 500 tc with an airplane, and 1,000 tc with space rocket.

     Now let us return to the coins, where for the "silver" ones everything is obvious, going from the possibility to buy for this money what is pictured on them, namely: 10 cents this is an egg, 25 cents this is a cup of steaming coffee, and 50 cents this is a curved sausage (or the so called "kebabche" for the Bulgarians) better impaled on fork, and on 1 tc will be a loaf of bread and a pot of yogurt. With the smaller "coppers" the things are more complicated, because there is almost nothing that can be bought for such pennies, so that my proposition in decreasing order is the following: 5 c with a candy, 2.5 c with a biscuit, and 1 c with a pair of cherries. Hence all this is pictured on the front side of the coin and on the left of the number for the value, and on the right will be special emblem, which will be valid also for the banknotes, and there also will be on the right side and below, in a small circle, and which we will explain now.

     You see, when Myrski proposes this idea, universal for the entire world, then this emblem must be somehow related with his name, must it not? So that I propose the following: for the ones etc. (1 c, 10 c, 1 tc, 10 tc, 100 tc, and 1,000 tc) will be stylized image of the very Myrski, with his inimitable intellectual beard and mustaches, with a bit curved long nose, nearly like by the Hebrews, yet shorter, with grizzled (from thoughts about the people and society) hair, and with radiating (where this is possible to show, but at least on 1,000 tc this must be possible) shine (from excess of intellect, of course, it has to find its way out of his head, otherwise it will burst) eyes. This must be embossed and palpable, not only on he coins, there this is obvious, but also on the banknotes, because nowadays it is done so, as help for the blind, but also for higher security as protection against simple copying. Further on the fives (5 c, 50 c, 5 tc, 50 tc, and 500 tc) will be, again in a circle for the banknotes, shown ... the fingers of the right palm of the hand of Myrski with calluses on them — as a result of hitting of the keys —, where the calluses must be also embossed (yet it is not necessary to show the papillary lines on them even on the big banknotes), i.e. with small points on the fingers for the coins. And there remained the new values, 2.5 (2.5 c, 25 c, 2.5 tc, 25 tc, and 250 tc) where must be another symbol related with Myrski and this is ... the whole earth globe — when Myrski (in Slavonic) is world ("mirski") writer —, which can be given either as a view centered on Europe, Asia, and Africa, or as unwrapped globe (what as if is unusual, this can't be seen from the space), or simply in two adjacent circles (on the notes this is easy to be done).

     Now let us add the mentioned a bit earlier square root: I propose that this circle with the emblem on the middle banknotes (in 25 tc, 50 tc, и 100 tc) was with diameter of 1 cm, and on the biggest was in square root of two bigger (this is 1.4142, nearly one and a half times), and respectively on the smallest notes was in root of two less (than the 1, what will be 0.707). Well, the very design of the banknotes I leave to the designers, but it is good if the proposed by me pictures are placed symmetrically on the face side, and then can be some varieties, say: a hen (on the left, this is important, this is the weak side) and a cock (on the right), or a cow on the left and a pig on the right, or a skirt on the left and trousers on the right, or simply doubled pictures. On the back side will be state symbols, on the coins coats of arms, on the banknotes some important symbols for the countries issuing these money and so on, yet not specific persons but just so, landscapes; the water marks with emblems related with Myrski and the ribbons with the value will be as they should be. In principle is possible the 2.5 tc to make also like coin of two metals, this is done nowadays, and then the banknotes will begin with 5 tc; the colours may also be changed, but it is always good when exists some standard, in order that people do not become confused; the emblems, though is no need to change, they are suitable enough for the whole world.

     Ultimately, the idea to relate the money with specific goods, not with persons or objects, although not used till now, but is more suitable, it is apolitical, the pictures do not age (people will always eat, dress, travel, the goods remain). It might have been used also the egg, but it is on an order smaller than the Ticket, and as you alone have seen with the Tickets it is better, they are as if securities; the salaries can really be changed a bit if the transport changes, but it should not, I think that 10-12 eggs for a ticket this is the ceiling — in Bulgaria still continues the transition to democracy, I have spoken about this, and for this reason are this jumps —, the very transport companies will not want to change the prices of the tickets when the whole economy depends on this (and, besides, I will give at the end one variant of painless changing a bit, establishing, so to say, a standard ticket).

     But the egg is present here as 10 cents, we have not thrown it away. I can even propose you such comparison, in order to feel better what heavy burden is the city transport for the poor countries and in conditions of democracy of Western type. You imagine that climbing on the bus (etc.) you begin to extract from the bag real eggs end throw them in some container in this way: bam, bam, bam, a dozen times in succession! Yet in order that they were possible to be used somehow (say, for making of egg powder — the transport companies will become the largest producers of this product, ah?), you, cracking the eggs, separate the shell and toss it in special basket on the right (for producing of calcium), pour the egg in the container on the left, wipe with a finger each shell so as not to waste unused albumen, and when you break all the dozen (or the ten, how it will be decided) of required from you eggs, you take a scented paper napkin from the near stand, wipe you palms, and move further for to allow the other passengers also to "pay the fare". And this only in one kind of transport, but after this most often follows a second, sometimes a third, and everywhere by a dozen, and on the way back, too, in this manner there will be gathered about 50 eggs daily, could you imagine this! How many people can be fed on these eggs, ah? (And how many hardworking ... hens have stretched their bottoms in order to lay them, ah?) But they are swallowed by the insatiable throat of the city transport.

     Well, jokes are jokes, but by me all this is realizable, as you see, it is a question only of desire. And now about this how I personally imagine the payment of the fare in quite near future. Here everything is simple, with phone cards, how already some people by us do, loading in a bulk a lot of tickets by reduced prices, and then in the bus leaning the card against the reading device, this is surely an European system. Only that I have in mind a natural extension of this idea, where the card will have the unique number of the person, and in the system will be read this number, the date and the time of the journey, the city (in order to universalize this), the number of transport line, number of the bus, number of the stop, direction of movement, the number of already traveled stops, and maybe something else. This is necessary for to allow to set limits on the time — till one hour exactly — and on the stops — till 12, or at least till 10, yet not in one only means of transport! Do you get it? The idea is not entirely new, but now it is fully realizable, and this will be the standard ticket, which can be varied a little. It will be necessary only to lean the card to the reader twice, by entering and by exiting, where on the entrance is obligatory, and on the exit is desirable. In the sense that if you have not checked yourself on the exit, then after elapsing of the hour the ticket will be taken for used, but if you have not yet spent the allowable limit of stops then you can change the transport and continue to use this ticket.

     Then on the entrance will be firstly checked whether goes a current ticket by you or not, and if not then it is opened, but if yes and you can continue to use it then it is continued. On the exit is checked firstly the number of stops and if they have exceeded the limit then the ticket is ended, then is checked the time and if there is left also time then the ticket is continued; if you have not closed the ticket then after a pair of minutes after the elapsing of the time it will be closed. On the other hand if you have entered the bus before the elapsing of the hour, then you can travel also above this time until the last stop in this direction. So that one can travel a pair of stops in a tram, for example, then 4-5 stops in metro, and then to sit in a bus and travel even an hour only in it and all this with one ticket. Or then to go somewhere in the shop, to buy fast something and then return within an hour. But one may not succeed for this time and then another ticket will begin. This is enormous advantage. And the transport company will lose almost nothing, because in this way the people will use more actively the transport and will not only curse this enterprise. Because in fact a card for a month (or a week, or a day) gives you this possibility, but this is if you travel often, and if you go out a pair of times in a month, or during vacations, and so on, with tickets is better. And it is also more justified, people value the justness. And the system should not be too complicated, it will be necessary also on the stops to erect special columns so that everybody could check how much more he can travel, like also the number of tickets, such things. The filling of the cards with tickets can also be done easy, from bank cards, too, and for money, can be allowed some overrun (say, up to 5 tickets), everybody will be allowed to have several such cards, in order to give the children or the old parents. Not only this, it will be possible in the end of each day to calculate the travels also from other towns (or villages) and exchange information and transfer the money. And can be also discount tickets, not only cards for a whole month, this exists in some countries, yet not in Bulgaria. But I think that it is enough on this topic.

     So that, my dear readers, as you see the year 2016 is prolific in regards to the themes, and I have succeeded to put them all in one material, pretty long, as it befits Myrski, right? I again declare not to write more publicistics, but who knows? And the 16th year of the century in Bulgaria was, in principle, good, there were not new elections (till October, in November will be Presidential elections, but they are not interesting, either will be chosen again the leading party even if only 30 % of the people vote, or else this will be the beginning of the end of its ruling), the year was warm, at least in Sofia, the winter ended early, in the summer, even if there were not rains the sky was often covered with clouds, i.e. there were not big heats, the prices have ceased to grow more (if one does not count the tickets, of course, yet the cards remained the same), even have maybe fallen somewhere a little, our population as if does not diminish more, I see that children are born, grow up, there are thrown more and more unbroken things on the garbage, the unemployment as if has fallen down a bit, well, everything is like on the West, if one does not take into account that the salaries are about ten times (if not more) lower than there. And even some hereditary intellectuals like your author have gone on pension (for the moment with less than three Tickets per day, but I think that it will not elapse an year and they will be whole three Tickets, every day, I will be even in position to save about ten tickets in a month). And then, when also the year is 16th — and this is the first hypercube, 2 to the fourth degree —, and I have earned my pension for 16 years, and have till now no serious illnesses, so I think that am simply bound to live for another 16 years, am I not? So that I will prepare myself for the death somewhere in the 33rd year of the century, a suitable year for this purpose, I think.

     Oct 2016



(To The Centenary Of October Revolution)


0. Introduction

     This is my next, and maybe last, apologetic of communism in my traditional, what meant entirely untraditional, stile of reasonable and impartial observation. I have, in principle, decided not to increase more my publicistical works, because they are quite voluminous, yet in this case just noblesse obliges, as is said, i.e. that for such a big anniversary the great demo-critical realist Chris Myrski had missed to say his word is simply improper. Because I as if will say nothing new, will review the things from the standpoint of a normal left-wing but non-party member (because on the right there is no idea, there works the rough force, I have spoken about this), will defend the communists, but in the same time I usually defend debasing, or debase elevating — it is so in the dialectics —, so that in some aspects my ideas from the time of my first book ("The communism as religion") have evolved, and some details have appeared, and they all, as I definitely hint, are not at all obvious for the majority of people, for the right-winged, as well for the left-winged, or for whomever.

     So, and the plan of this material will be generally the following: first about the Revolution, then about Lenin, then Stalin, then the communism with its basic principles, about the future of communism (which has not gone away, don't be misled), where the principal moments are the kind of exploitation, kind of communes, most probable evolution of the communism (inasmuch as for me one Pentaism is not enough), and some comic ideas about the spirit of communism. Yet comic ideas will emerge all the time, don't worry, I myself get bored to say only serious things. These judgments nowadays, in the time of virtual reality, are necessary, because the people are up to such extent used to listen to every kind of fabrications, that they are simply dumbfounded, they don't know what to believe and what not to (I personally have met one intelligent high school student, who has said to me that all this, see, about the fascist concentration camps and the massive killing of Hebrews, are things which he does not believe — because this is incredible). But you all remember, I think, what was the beginning of the third millennium from the point of one "good" guy with a nice "stature" — this here needs explanation because 'ladnyj' in Russian is good and 'osanka' is a stature, appearance —, and I hope you can guess who he might be?

     With what I mean that if the necessary changes do not come in reasonable way, they will come in unreasonable, believe me, please. And our society of general affluence (in the whole world I mean) leads not to abundance for all, but to more deprivation for some of us, to more drug addicted, suicidal persons, etc., i.e. to more inconsistencies, which do not exist in the nature, surely, we for a long time, a pair of centuries already, if not more, suffer significantly more as a consequence of our own errors, than because of the inhospitable to us nature. Because, to give an example, I see sometimes, in my poor Bulgaria, thrown to the garbage entirely suitable (or will be such after little repair) furniture, that as new is sold (I have seen this occasionally) for 500 lv (whatever these levs can be worthy, and they are worthy half an euro), what still exceeds one minimal monthly salary (in 2017 it was about 400 lv), and at the same time some of us (myself, for example) live on — if you do not know this you will not believe it (as with the gas "showers" for the Hebrews) — 3 (three) bus tickets daily for all expenses! (But, well, I have studied much and worked little for the democracy, but the others, approximately 20 % of the population, have not studied, there are no "excuses" for their contemporary democratic misery —  except the rejection of the communism.)

     So that sirs, as well also girls and madams, and young children and babies, I advise you to pay the necessary attention to me, while reading this long (as I expect that it will happen) material about the communist revolution, what is bed or good in it, and were it possible to conduct it better.

1. About the Revolution

     Listen, people, avoid applying unsuitable measures to the things, in another scale they can look entirely different (and I, an mathematician, can tell you that in logarithmic scale the logarithmic curve, that is pretty decently curved, looks like straight line). You try to feel the spirit of time. Somewhere since the time of Karl Marks, or of a heap of bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe, or also the liberation of Bulgaria from Turkish (or Ottoman, as you like it) yoke in 1878, or at least the Eiffel Tower of 1899, or the Ford conveyor of 1905, or the discovering of electricity around 1900 (to say nothing about the radio, television, computers, and so on of later time) the society has begun not to correspond to the means for production, the people could have had significantly more than earlier, but they have had even less than this. Because of this they have begun to rebel, for it is not proper when some swim in luxury and others — and these are usually the better ones, don't forget about this — almost not make the ends meet; it is one thing when, for example, only in emperor's court people could have bath tubs with hot water, but that they can be in every home yet it is far away from this. People's masses can suffer and accept the supremacy of the top rulers if they are convinced that not all can have everything, but when all can have it this is quite anther matter. And the throwing away of food stuff in seas and oceans has arisen somewhere about this time, because people produce but there is nobody to buy the things, and not because the other people don't want to. (Now we all consume, things that are produced en masse, but this is not at all what we need, people must feel satisfaction from the fight with surmountable difficulties, to have before them some hard-to-reach ideals, not just to fill their guts and acquire all sort of illnesses in the name of empty life, so that also in the current days the abilities of society do not correspond with the social organization in many countries.)

     For this reason then all nations have simply lost the right road, and they have still not come over this confusion, they don't know why they live, they think that they must — due to some atavistic (and known only to the God almighty) reasons — fight for selection of better people, of better nations! Or at least for better organization in the country. Because, what was the purpose of the World war one, ah? Well, there was simply no purpose! People just fought in order to show one to the other who is better, say, the Germans or the Frenchmen, and in order not to fight each with each they have split themselves in two groups. (Like also the French word pari, a bet, presupposes some parity, finding of the pair, or contest, what in Italian is scommettere and says "let us split in two commands".) You check at least when it has ended, if I am not wrong, exactly at 11 hours, 11th day, 11th month, as if this is some game, or a magic formula. And because it has not resolved the contradictions in Western Europe, then people have waited about one generation, to accumulate enough born soldiers, and have begun anew to fight in the Word war second for better selection of people. And this are the same people who are so strong in order to raise an 300-meter tower in Paris just so, out of bragging, to hit their breasts — look what brave "cocks" we are! And let us design new world map, catch colonies, yet the nations are now not so really wild, and this is also not a solution, this is only temporary. These wars are like — I have long ago come to this conclusion, although there is nothing difficult in it for everyone —  bloodletting, which for centuries were applied in the medicine and … it helped in many cases!? Id est, if we can build useless towers then why not to kill ourselves for the sake of actions?

     Then comes the next moment, this is the spirit of terrorism! At that time the terroristic acts were a kind of fashion cry, it is in this way how the World War one has begun. I have spoken somewhere and before many years, that the terrorism is the most bloodless war, and that is why it is applied, but in it die innocent people, and, well, a pair of dozen humans more or less is not so terrible sometimes — all this is sh#t compared with the world revolution (there was such remark in Russian), ah? — yet the point is that this does not solve the problems, it only raises them! So that one can come to it when there is no other stronger power, when the problems can't be solved but can be set in the open (how has done this ladnyj-nice person, because it turns out that after the war in Persian Gulf the living standard in Arab lands has fallen four times — this is more than even the average decreasing of standard of life in Bulgaria through the fault of the transition to democracy, which I estimate in 2.5 – 3 times, before 20 years as well nowadays, our transition lasts forever, and to all appearances will extend itself up to 50 years). And Mr. Lenin — because the Russian word tovarishsc-comrade, if not a cursing is at least improper (I have discussed this — alone with myself — in one multilingual verse) —, having stood on the pedestal of Marxian communism, has felt strength in itself, has begun to believe that the common people, under proper organization, might be capable to resolve the problems, not only to declare them, that while the civilized nations in the center of Europe kill one another, one whole big nation, even enormously big concerning the territory, has nothing to eat. From what follows that Lenin has had not a big choice, the terrorism just did not solve the problems.

     And which were the problems, principally? Well, the poverty and misery, of course, because, you see, the earth has fed the humans for many centuries, but after the technical revolutions and accumulating of proletariats has turned out that people have begun to starve, they for one thing have become stronger and could have allowed themselves a heap of new things, but for another thing they have allowed them even less than before, living away from the nursing Earth. These are elementary conclusions, yet they are not so trivial for the common people, but for some great brains they turned out to be obvious and necessary, i.e. obviously necessary, up to such extent necessary that if people could not succeed to make them it would be worse, that's it. For instance, the social security, or rather the pensioning, turns out that has been introduced firstly in Germany by Otto von Bismarck, who was not much loved by the people in his time, yet he tried to do what is possible from the high throne where he presided, and this being in no way communist, to be sure, because otherwise the disturbances and discontent among the people increase and all this … well, just hinders moderate, set for centuries, exploitation, of course. Id est, this is perilous in equal measure for the rich and the poor.

     But let us continue about the poverty. It, see, is not a sin, but is yet a dirty business, isn't it? And by this to starve are forced people who have deserved with nothing this "God's punishment", to starve must one mighty, possibly the mightiest, at least what concerns the territory, empire, the Russian one, which comprises the main part of Asia, and Asia is the main part of the Earth, the center of primeval continent, which over millenniums, scattered in different directions, forming in this way one insignificant appendage called Europe, which has begun to teach the world how to live, ah? Because the word "Europe" is old Greek and means something wide away, broad, not our lands (take in consideration that earlier it was pronounced 'oiropa'), and under this name the old Greeks have understood initially only the territory a bit away from Athens, and later this has become the whole continent, but this continent is no more and no less than an usual peninsula of Asia.

     So that, dear readers, if I was on the place of Lenin I on no price would have agreed to wait a pair of centuries, or in the best case half a century, until the capitalism in Russia developed itself enough — how has said Marx, and with what I entirely agree, the capitalism simply moves to the communism, or to bigger socialization and communization (for the simple reason that it can move to nowhere else, else leaves only its demise, its tomb). And then till the West succeeds to solve its own contradictions, which, as you see, it has begun to manage only to the end of 20th century, and it can't be said that has managed them entirely, it as if lives more civilized than USA, yet this is questionable, and the Americans, again as you see, are not much loved by the nations in the world, but until West (of Europe) will succeed to cope with itself what will do this great empire, ah? So that it was necessary to act, not to postpone and not to rely on the terrorism, such is the reality. And when for to be able to give somebody something, this something had to be taken from somebody, well, and how else, trust in God, ah? But the clever people say: trust in God, but help also yourself alone, if you can, so that he has made no errors, he has organized and conducted this epochal revolution.

     Then about the very revolution, because my personal views at this have also changed a bit, and I suppose that many people have still preserved wrong opinion. So I have not liked this, that, how Lenin has explained, the revolutions are not good, it is always better to have smooth evolutionary development, but our socialist revolution is even very good — because it is our own, of course. This is judgment by the model, I beg your pardon for the expression, "your own sh#t does not smell", what generally is so, it does not smell, yet is a sh#t all the same. But I have made (in my young years) the excusable error that have given free interpretation of his words, where he must have had in mind that revolutions are worse than evolutions, yet there comes time when it is necessary to make revolutions, when it is simply impossible to wait! And when something is a necessity, is required by the situation, here is no place for arguing.

     And then, my God, what revolution was this, were there big fights, have there fallen many people? No, of course, this was practically bloodless coup d'etat, what often happens when the situation is entangled and all simply wait some power to which to resign and obey. And as far as all wait some changes then they don't bother much, well, not this king then somebody else, it doesn't matter much, the point is that was a stable ruling. Because practically every ruling is better than the chaos, gentlemen! This is so very much chewed phrase, that I don't think necessary to give it more attention, I will only remind you (or tell you my own opinion), that on this is based the right-wing ruling, on the strong fist: it is not so bad that the boss can make a heap of errors, the important thing is that all went in one direction, not everybody in his own, and that fought not everyone with everybody, but only with one single recognized enemy. I personally do not agree with this, I think that it is always necessary to search the right direction of movement, but if we accept the hypothesis for impossibility (or uncertainty) of the right direction, then this is really better, otherwise we have to stay and think like a Buridan's donkey (I don't know why in English people prefer to use the word "ass" here) what to do first (and doing nothing in the meantime).

     So that the revolution was very peaceful, all disturbances began after the revolution, but nobody can state with certainty that they wouldn't have been more if the revolution was not really performed, because it was performed in order to avoid them. Anyway, in the last time, what means some 20 years already, I have begun more and more to believe in the ancient Eastern view at the things and the whole world, that if something happened, than this means that it was necessary to happen exactly this, that was realized one of the parallel possibilities, we live in one of the parallel Universes. Sometimes this is pretty delicate statement — for this means that, say, the atom bomb over Hiroshima was necessary (in order to seriously scare the Japanese), or that the attentat of Laden was necessary (to teach to bullies-Americans), or that (in order to give example with inanimate causer or agent) the appearance of AIDS was necessary (for to punish us for our boundless lechery), or that all this artificial food (like the latest hit in the culinary industry — sausages from potato flour and emulsions of ... pig skins), or also this boom of homosexuality (to what has led, so by the way, the emancipation of women), all this was absolutely necessary (when we can not reduce the birth rate to several percents in a century, and not twice in 35 years), and other examples. Such kind of reasoning must always be approached with caution, but in all appearance it is justified and should be adopted, at least due to the impossibility to have exact criterion for the usefulness of a given event, because the factor time must always be taken in consideration, for when enough time passes the situation changes radically and to look at it in the old light is simply wrong (like to judge about the October Revolution from contemporary "democratic" positions).

     Well, sirs, I don't know, but if I was in the … boots of Lenin (as you like to say in English), or in his pants (I would have entered in them, I am slim — on 3 tickets daily for alle xpenses one can not put much weight), and if I could have organized all this so brilliantly like Lenin (what I could have not done, I may be not a very bad theoretician, yet I am worthless as practitioner working with big human masses), than I would have conducted the same revolution and in the same (or similar) way! Because I have many ideas about bettering of the communism, or capitalism, or religions, and so on, but these are naked ideas, they must be first discussed (what usually means spat at — it is so, don't be misled, the Latin word "discussion" means tearing in pieces with teeth and nails, how the dogs do; and shortly I have come to similar conclusions about the word "disput", because in Italian sputare is to spit), for a long time, and only after this destructive deliberation to begin to think how to implement them. And for implementation of something useful, for convincing the people to do something without what is no go, what is simply necessary for all (like, say, that there were no beggars, relatively poor this is possible — and as if even necessary — to allow, but not really miserable), for this our palette is pretty meager and there exist only two effective ways: either compulsion, or delusion (with some fable, like about the nice capitalism, when one dies with desire to be exploited)!

     In my first "Communism" I have extended them to 5, yet the remaining are not pretty effective (like, for example, upbringing), so that Lenin has really virtuously used both, the delusion and the compulsion (like in the humorous phrase that "Kolkhoz is a voluntary business, if you don't want to, we will force you to"), he tried to reform the military-time communism introducing the NEP (new economic policy), what has made also Gorbachev in his time, and not to rely only on the force, this was Stalin who relied predominantly on the force. I repeat, I have made later many propositions about bettering of the communism (or capitalism, what in many cases is reduced to practically the same), but I don't see what could have been done in those remote times before a century, and in that left behind (obviously, for me, yet then) Asian (like I have said) country. Many can object against the nationalistic policy of Lenin, but this is chiefly in the times of Stalin, and was dictated by elementary considerations of territorial security, and everything is questionable, because this that Georgia, for example, renounced the alliance with Russia (and this when its "steely" man — because this is what the pseudonym of Stalin means — has spoiled as much as he could have there), or that the Baltic countries also have rejected the alliance (no matter that the very Russians have always looked at them as at a kind of aristocrats), or then Ukraine also does not know what it wants, and how much of the Ukrainians are for this then as much are for that (I have expressed similar meaning on this question), but during the Revolution I simply don't see errors, and the times were very hard, and without the Red Army there was no go, the chaos would have been much more, obviously. So that let me finish with this point and move to the next.

2. About Lenin

     Gentlemen, Lenin was a genius, this is (now) obvious for me, but this, what in some extent disgusted me then (before about half a century), was that everywhere was spoken about him, i.e. in every town was raised a monument to him, and I am a person with sense of proportion. But such am I, not the others, and then there all the time are born new people, they must be brought up, so that I don't know, from the standpoint of PRs (i.e. public relations, contacts with the masses, what is reduced chiefly to manipulation) probably all was according the canons! Because you look today at the ads, at the official policy, at the activity of whatever religion, and so on, and you'll see that everything reduces to the this, i.e. to the phrase that "every many times repeated lie becomes a truth"; I would have proposed that at least the words were changed when retaining the same meaning, yet it is not so, everything is exactly in the repetition of one and the same phrase, in the mantra, in the self-suggestion, such is the human material, we are not much better than the parrots.

     So, but I personally was misled for some time thinking that he is just an evil genius, like also Marx before him, yet this also is not so, he is a man good by nature — when nobody contradicts him, naturally, I am also such person, because one may object, but if substantially, not just out of love for contradictions —, and do you know why? Ah, I, in fact, am a pacer, with my own steps, nontrivial person, and I often apply … linguistic proofs, and here I mean his, well, pseudonym, "Lenin"! Do you understand, it means only that this is a person from around the river Lena, but here also the very river is probably quiet, when it carries such peaceful and feminine name, this is not the turbulent or thundering Don or Danube, or the crying Niagara, and so on, it is probably like the river Po, sings (what is 'poiot /petj' in Rusian) or murmurs to itself noiselessly. And this pseudonym implies no power (like, say, Stalin, or then Genghis Khan, or the "hit" Hitler, etc.). Here the things stay a bit like with me, Myrski, for I am simply a peaceful and worldly (in Russian 'mir' means both, peace and world) person, and everything that I propose is reduced to peaceful changes, and is applicable in the entire world (and people have begun, little by little, to read me, in various languages). And the name, gentlemen, is a very important thing, it determines the behaviour of the person, he adapts himself somehow to his name. (Like, for example, the name Masoch, where from come the masochists, it has become such interesting because the root here is old Greek and Latin and this is the woman's breast, mazos, mastos, mazecto- sometimes, also Sacher is not like by other people, so that it has become denominative for the simple reason that — what is to be expected by some "breast squeezer"?)

     Then Lenin is also a moderate man, and this in my view, from the pedestal of my nearly 70 years, is the main symptom of intellect. Yet this is not my personal view, of course, I like to reinvent the "wheel", as is said, this is the ancient slogan "Nothing excessive", which is old-Greek but also Sanskrit in some measure, this is in fact dialectics, because everything must try to stay somewhere in the middle of the "elastic string" on which it is hanged and away from the very ends, from the extreme point. And he is moderate because 10 years after the revolution he has begun to think how to make more moderate this military-time communism, has begun to introduce the NEP; and also when he has taken the land from the big-owners, the kulaks, he has left something for them, has not made them paupers, and he avoided the terrorism, too, and has not thought to export the revolution (and you just compare with some religion, even with the Christian: were there not Christian missions in all countries, where this was only possible?). So that Lenin was not an extremist, and if he has made use of a bloodless revolution then this was only due to the simple necessity.

     But for my error somewhere in the 90-ies about his malice was important the meaning of some of our prominent UDF-leaders (from the Union of the Democratic Forces, the "single" democrats, if one believes their bravado pretensions), who stated that, see, he has written in one letter to Maxim Gorki that some intellectuals were not intellectuals but mere sh#t. This is probably so, but, gentlemen, I have needed to work in the publicistic genre for more than 10 years, and have begin to translate myself in more foreign languages (from Bulgaria first to Russian and then to English), in order to grasp the elementary truth that the word "sh." is not a cursing, it is so, a strong word, yet used quite en masse on the West (i.e. in the whole world) cultural expression, in order not to use more harsh and uncivilized words. He has lived all over the Europe in the beginning of the previous century, he has known what is accepted by the people.

     (The word "sh." is German Scheisse, what is much better than "f#ck it" or pitain et cetera. I can even teach you one Italian cursing that nowadays all Italians, young girls and teenagers including, especially the latter, use nearly on breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and by 5 times daily between the meals, this is their vaffanculo, where is clear only the end, culo, what means, I beg your pardon, ass, and about the beginning is explained that this comes from the main verb vado /vadere, or punctually va in 3rd singular, and a variation of their massively used verb fare meaning to do, yet -fan- is entirely incorrect, and the meaning of the whole is reduced to Russian or Polish "go to the ass". Do you think this is cultural speaking? Of course not, but people use it. This is, well, self-expression, so to say — read Eilenspiegel, he liked to do this, to leave his excrements anywhere, on a bed, in a bible, etc.)

     And about this, that some intellectuals chiefly only parade with something indecent, but catching the eye of people, I can cite as example, say, the so called art consisting in painting over a … naked women body, on the breasts, bottom, everywhere. I don't say that this is easy, here some talent is necessary, but this is a sh., if you'll excuse me, this is not serious. And not only this, you take our first democratic actions consisting in the legalization of prostitution — Lenin in his first decree solves the question with the land for the poor peasants, and our democrats have in the very beginning legalized the most amoral behaviour according all religions — these are side effects, they can have their place in one tolerant society, yet not in conditions of an absolute boycott of the whole West against the young Soviet state, what obviously threatened the very existence of this state, here are needed activities for saving of life, so to say, not showing of naked bottoms (not that I know about what it went in this letter of Lenin, but most probably this was something in style of the popular Russian humorous "chastushki" — without rhyme here — saying: "by the home of my mother in low I never go quietly, or shove my prick in the window, or then show my bare bottom"). Such non-serious art may have place only in conditions of (decaying) democracy, like this in which we now live (and in which I alone can allow myself to write humorous limericks, and other pretty vulgar verses, yet even this after having written a heap of serious materials).

     So, but I think that I have one significantly good reason for assessment of Lenin's intellect, and this is again related with the languages. I mean simply that he has known 3-4 European languages, and not by the textbook, because he has been in London, in Berlin, in Paris, and somewhere else. Now, see, I explained this also in another place, but if in short then the very languages are considered even from Ancient Greece as logical actions (not that this is exactly so, but if one speaks educatedly then this, probably, is so), and in the brain are formed language spots (in plural if one knows several languages). I am not quite sure that they are really spots, i.e. that they are localized in the space, but when they are several they begin to correspond between them! They do this because everything one studies he studies in some language, and when he must later express this in another language he must think, must build frames, like is said, and this is very hard work for the neural endings. This is, first of all, making of links between one brain area and some other, between different words, but every word is described by its own frames, tables, lists, relations with other words, it is not just written somewhere, for this are necessary thousands and thousands of intersections of neurons.

     The very thinking has complicated biochemical basis, it consists in exchange of … ions, say, one ion says to the other in one synapse: hey, give me some calcium ions, and I will give you for this … import pantyhose, if I allow myself to use the jargon from totalitarian times in Russia. But the important thing is that the neurons are interested in this exchange, and in this way through them pass impulses, and if intersect only 100 neurons with other 100 of their brethren, then this makes already 10,000 joints. So that this is, for one thing, necessary activity for the brain, but for another thing also further thinking, improving, additional processing of information, producing of new knowledge, and this is all the time when you translate something in your head, incessantly! I will give you an example, because I have been doing linguistic researches for more than 10 years, maybe whole 20, and I have learned something during the time. Let us take Slavonic word "sreda", which means in English (but not only) two different things, to which one can come only trying to translate it, these are core or middle, and the environment, so that here are hidden, in fact, two frames, two notions, and this is old Eastern (if you ask me) inheritance.
     Did you get it, this is strongest dialectics, this is dualism, this comes from the Sanskrit, I explain this in more details elsewhere (if not anywhere else then in my Urrh surely). Or take the relations of usual sexual intercourse with various semi-decent words used in various languages (like your screw, or Russian "trahat", or scopare in Italian). All these are new and interesting ideas, and in every language there are its own idioms, they may look a bit similar, but they also differ strongly, so that learning a new language one acquires a new psychology, tries to find compromise solutions, because he sees that all nations are in their way right, and this unquestionably makes the person wiser. Until one can not get rid of his own mother language and rise above it, see the things also through the eyes of other nations, he can not become wise enough, believe me. I know this by my own experience, because I use already 4 foreign languages, beside my Bulgarian, I don't read for long time books in Bulgarian, this is boring for me, so that we with Mr. Lenin are colleagues in some sense, we understand one another from a half-word, or sometimes even without words. Yeah, but I have come to this knowledge when I am approaching 70, where he was such already in his 20-s, at most 30-s, that's how it is.

     And, generally, if Lenin could have lived for another 20 years, or at least 10, then positively everything would have been better, he probably would have found way also for better centering of the communism, i.e. for its nearing to the capitalism, and for more suitable exploitation (because this, with what the capitalism turned out to be better than the socialism or communism, this is first of all the better exploitation under the capitalism, this is obvious for me), and maybe would have succeeded to better also the form of communes, were this in the villages or in the cities, but all these are question to which I will come to the end of the material. So that I move to the next point.

3. About Stalin

     Well, here I will not absolve him especially, yet will give some extenuating circumstances. I will begin with his pseudonym, this that he is a steely man (because some Dzhugashvili is not very nice name for making of career in Russia, and is also long, and says nothing to the people). So that he has come to the steel, yet here is important when this has happened, somewhere in the years of Second world war or a bit earlier. And how I have read in one book he has begun to sign with this pseudonym somewhere around the 1920th, when till the Supreme Commander was very very long, it was not at all clear could this have been expected or this were only dreams. Id est, the man has lived under the sign of this name, he has eagerly wished this (like myself, who has chosen my pseudonym approximately in 1995, but then I have neither thought nor dreamed, that will become the greatest — for this is so, right? — demo-critical realist of the 20th and 21st century). This is very important, I think, he has alone made himself such, which he wanted to become.

     And which he wanted, ah? But of course greater communist than the very Lenin, the greatest possible communist, to the marrow of his bones (and to the fingertips, and to the end of the hairs, etc.). This is his essence, gentlemen, he is not villain and not tyrant, he is just the true communist, and for this reason he has discredited so heavy the system, the system of communism, and nowadays people in the West under communism understand Stalinism, because this suits them, what is so and also isn't so. As blind following of the ideas this is so, but from the standpoint of a normal man this is distortion, perversion of the communism, I would have said barbarization of the communism! Do you like this expression? But have in mind that I know something about the barbarism, for I am intelligent enough to have a sight in such things, and am also Bulgarian, so that I have to know in what the Bulgarian spirit itself expresses. And we very quickly succeeded to discredit the democracy and the contemporary capitalism, which is bad, surely, I curse it, it can be and must be better, yet it is nowhere else so bad like in my poor Bulgaria, ergo without our guilt there is no go, we can't hide only behind objective circumstances (that we are poor country, without enough democratic experience, and so on, as well also that the communists have stolen everything, over what they could have put their hands, and have exported it in foreign countries, what now it quite away from the truth), because exactly in the poorest country from half-milliard people in the united Europe we have built the most right-wing capitalism, so about the times before the First world war.

     And when I have already digressed to the Bulgarians and the barbarism, I can briefly define what is a barbarian: this is a person who lives alone by himself, does not take the other people in consideration, neither in the space (i.e. around him), nor in the time (i.e. with the past and future generations), and in the same time the less he know the more he thinks that knows everything. The barbarians can have ideas and convictions, but they draw them out of themselves only, and they are as extreme as possible. Roughly in this way has acted with the communism the comrade Stalin, who stuck to the letter, because this allowed him to differ from the others, but not to some idealized communism, to what I am going, and which stayed put at least in the head of Lenin (for he introduced after all the NEP, and this is exactly rejection of the communist ideas and returning to the capitalism and private property). In the same time Stalin has pursued unswervingly his extremal ideas about the communism, where everyone has to think only about the others, and in no case about him- or her- self. The extremal solutions are synonymous with stupidity, in my opinion, yet here the point is not only in restricted intellect, I don't intend to state that Stalin was uneducated, no, he was simply a fanatic, and a person who places himself between the others can't be fanatic, he will unavoidably become realist and moderate, because all people are weak or sinful.

     But, gentlemen, on the other side — it is only the surface of Möbius that has one only side (yet it is obtained with the use of trick, it is not quite real) — Stalin to some extent also helped the communism, preserved it, maybe with quite violent measures, yet he has acted properly in the atmosphere of disorders and aggressive plans of Western states! He has become that "stone", about which is spoken in Slavonic proverb that "the scythe has run on a stone", he has not only defeated the fascism, but has also developed the economy of backward Russia, because this country was obviously much behind in comparison with the countries of Western Europe. I don't know, maybe to some of you the following statement will seem quite tendentious, but I can at least express it, and if somebody wants he can dispute and deny it. It is the following: without Stalin would have been no … Gagarin! How's this, ah? Look at this Myrski, will some of you say, but I find it pretty plausible and if it can't be proved, we can at least judge unprejudiced at it. Because now the very Americans use the Russian space station Mir, also Russian space rockets, in spite of the fact that they are communist, ah? And then, when now also the Russians have atomic weapons then maybe for this reason the Americans (as well the Frenchmen, and others) don't throw more atom bombs, because they are very fond of this!

     As you see everything is mutually tied, there is no bad without good, as well other way round. I don't say that the Stalinism can be repeated, or that it is a glorious page in the history of communism, but when it has happened, then it was, in some extent, necessary and unavoidable, i.e. it would not have happened if the West did not wanted to fight, if there were not these World wars, if people from all the world had begun to help the Russian state, at least for the fact that there the people live (i.e. lived) bad, in the name of better future of humankind — and if somebody of you will begin to deny that thanks to the communist experiment the capitalism all over the world (with the exception of, maybe, only the gone astray Bulgaria) today is significantly better than that capitalism from the times of Eiffel Tower and Ford's conveyor etc., then I simply will pay no attention to him, because he is either an insane person, or another fanatic of his idea. The Stalinism nowadays is unquestionably wrong, but in the times of Stalin — God (or devil) knows this.

     The conclusion, how to avoid such situations, people have made long ago, this is the existence of the rule for two mandates, yet here also can be argued, and there can be exceptions (say, in conditions of wars). And then this rule exists only for Presidents, but not for all political figures, and, after all, it can always be somehow got around it. People, don't forget the statement of Machiavelli in his "Prince" or "King" that the big statesman, especially Emperor or Pharaoh (or Generalissimus) must stay in power as longer as possible, in order that people become used to him and obeyed seeking no faults with him. Here one can do nothing, such is the the psyche of people, and of animals, that if they are in conditions to change something they also try to do this, no matter is this necessary or not, they just can't stay idly without work, not that they are always bad, this is simply a thirst for activity. The democracy applies one quite original method, it asks about things about which it is better not to ask, in order that later people felt themselves somehow bound by the obligation to obey, but they all the same want to change the rulers as often as they can, and this really happens not infrequently.

     But in the same time people alone want somehow to support the strong fist, that will not allow them not to obey. If somebody of my readers thinks that here Myrski contradicts himself let him or her forget about this (for the simple reason that Myrski can't contradict himself, or then must contradict himself — such is the dialectics, gentlemen), because you all have heard about some "Presidential" families, like Gandhi in India, or Kennedy, or even Bush (if I am not wrong) in USA, and others, and on the love to the strong fist is based all right-wing parties (as also the left-wing). In addition to this the Russians have shortly proved — you know, this is a country of records, to some extend, of revolutionary ideas — that the rule of two mandates can be bypassed easily if you have a trusted subordinate who formally (or not entirely) will substitute you for one mandate, and then everything from the beginning.

     And generally, about the rules and the exceptions, I will give you now this maxim: every stable system of rules has to contain at least one rule that allows to change the rules of the system! That's it, in Myrski's manner. Id est, the restriction to occupy responsible state posts must exist, but it must allow exceptions (like Napoleon in his time succeeded to go round the rule, that the Supreme consul, or how he was called, must not be younger than 40 years). And then, gentlemen, you imagine what is it like to be Generalisimuss, ah? For I personally can't imagine this exactly, this is something like the dear God, or the Roman Pope, or Pharaoh (guiding … light or lantern, if you ask me, because a headlight in Slavonic is 'far' what is Latin, Greek, and older), or Emperor, he is not like the other people, not a mere mortal. And then even gods can make sometimes errors, or at least nobody has proved the opposite.

     And now let us judge a little about the punishments of Stalin, about the GULAG, the terror in which lived people in those times. That it was hard this is obvious, yet the times also were hard, the conditions were extraordinary, or at least it was so from the point of view of infallible Stalin, but now I will raise the statement that the victims themselves are also to be blamed (that they have happened to be between the suffering ones)! Why I think so? Well, for one ting because the official acknowledging of something does not make it true! This is simply a proof for the obedience of the person, what usually is the important thing (in order that people did not contradict and did not interfere with the movement of the state's cart). This is not Jesuitry, this is an obvious fact. Take for example the case with some old scientist Galileo, and some young guy Giordano, it was Galileo who discovered that circles after all the Earth around the Sun and not vice versa, how was written in the Holy Scripture, yet he, wise with the experience of his years, decided that there is nothing difficult for him to deny this statement, when the interests of Church require this, while the stubborn (like all young men) Giordano simply was burned at the stake. So it is. And do you think that, when Galileo has renounced his statement, the Earth has stopped to move around the Sun, ah? But Giordano simply wanted to show how unshakable he is, wanted to become a martyr, and he succeeded, of course, nobody hindered him in this, least of all the uneducated people's masses, for the sake of which he struggled.

     With what I want to say, that the heroism, when it leads to something, is one thing, but the unnecessaru bragging and defending of even obvious ideas, though against the officially accepted in the moment dogma, is quite another thing, these are useless efforts, the posterity can remember their names, yet at least in the moment of their deed they will change nothing. And then comes the next moment, namely, that exist truth and truth, i.e. that there is a hierarchy of truths, and some truths can be more important than others, and, in the end, everything is relative, we will never reach the absolute truth. And more important can turn to be more general truths, like, say, the obedience of the masses. Because the most important question in the social management (according to Myrski) is the question how to make those, who do not understand the necessity of implementing of some reasonable for all in the moment behavior, to obey, and this can be done only in two ways, like I have said in the beginning, with compulsion, or with delusion. And in the name of necessary delusion one (intelligent) person can sometimes renounce his beliefs and some specific truth.

     Add to this also the fact that those, who were caught in GULAG, were chiefly communists, or intellectuals, not common workers, so that in this sense Stalin has done this, what also any other form of barbarism does, hindered its own people, weakened the very communism (in his eager desire to strengthen it — the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, right?). This is a sad story, but if the people have had more sense then the sufferings would have been less. And then, Heavens, don't forget that at the end this man was simply sick, and there was also that spy Beria, to whom he trusted, and as it often happens, one suffers more precisely from his friends, while from the enemies he defends himself somehow. So that I, as far as possible, has "whitened" also Stalin, his mustaches, nails, and everything else. What I am doing because I also am inclined to compromises (in my old years) and because have heard the sentence, to which I fully subscribe, namely: that an intelligent person accepts every ruling (for it helps to avoid the chaos), while the common and uneducated one opposes to any (even the best) ruling.

     Well, as if it is enough to discuss this "martyr" of communism, and is time to move to the next point.

4. About The Communism

     To tell you the truth, my dear (being not many, right?) readers, I have not thought first to include this point, because this as if is clear to everybody (what is this communism, and how it is to be "eaten", like the Russians like to say sometimes), but maybe this is not so clear, maybe people confuse the desirable with the real, or approach formally the question, do not understand what is more important, so that I decided to give you also my viewpoint at that phenomenon. Here will be the following subpoints:

     a) Alpha and Omega

     The communism, gentlemen, this is the alpha and omega of all human desires, from deep antiquity and to current days! This is to what people have aspired in the primitive societies, and at what aims each religion, this is the paradise on Earth, not more and not less! Because, judge for yourselves, with what it is characterized? Well, with this, that to everybody was given according to his needs, isn't it? And that to be taken must be according to his abilities then this is simply justified. And it was (or will be) so also in the paradise, if one gives credence to whatever religion. For example, one feels desire to put something in his guts, then he only stretches his hand at the nearest fruit tree (excluded the forbidden one), tears a fruit, and gulps it, I mean chews until is sated, right? Or he is caught by thirst, then he drinks water from the nearest brook and the thing is done. Or he must dress himself a bit — takes a vine leaf, of from a palm tree, as well also a maple one, what is at hand, and covers with it what must be covered, or then manufactures a plaid or whatever. Or wishes to do some copulation for a while (if God allows, what He could have allowed, had not Adam and Eve begun so shamelessly to practice the entire Kama Sutra before His indignant eyes), then he lies down somewhere and begins quietly to test all the organs, because there could have happened some defect somewhere. And things similar to this.

     And now it is not so, even in the (filthy) rich America one must think at least not to forget the bank card, because without it in no super will give him anything for eating or drinking, and with the clothes and the housing is much worse, and with the healthcare not all is set as it must be, and with the education, and with the communication with the others is not so (if you are not like the others around you are everywhere shunned, and the girls do not agree), and so on. And however much the human society will not develop after the post-industrial, the people will always want to satisfy their basic needs, which (and this according Western criteria) are the following: food, roof, continuation of the gender (i.e. common sex — without sado /mazo). After this comes the career making, wish to move forward, and on the fifth and last place stays the wish (if one succeeds to come to it, and if knows how) for enhancement and improvement of himself (say, to … move the ears — surely far away from all can do this —, or dance boogie-woogie, or draw pictures, sing, learn foreign languages, solve mathematical tasks, and so on). The only thing that one does not necessarily want, but what he needs, if you ask the psychologists (or Myrski, he knows everything), is that he encounters difficulties on his way, yet such that he can surmount; to what can be added, maybe, also the usual luck (say, not to happen to come in the way of a falling from the roof tile).

     In this sense it is simply impossible to run away from the communism, whatever society only existed it can be united with the ideas of communism. Say, primitive-communal, or religious, or monarchical, and in the days of Pharaohs or serfdom people have wanted to eat and drink enough, and have at some extent the other elements of communism, which follow.

     b) Ownership

     The question with ownership is the main question in each society, and it is still not resolved properly, and to all appearance nobody intends to solve it. Here is useful to come from time to time to parallels with the life in paradise or between animals, because there was no private ownership in the paradise, and also between the animals such things do not exist, with the exception of obviously necessary, i.e. the place of habitation, housing. In the contrast with this between the humans it existed, and is justified, I don't say that it is not. Take for example even the old religious requirements that only the firstborn son becomes owner of everything, not the second or third, and not a daughter. The ownership is justified because, how the Serbs say, in someone else's hand only the … penis grows, it is so, and one cares more about it than if it belongs to someone else, of if this is something that grows in the woods. On the other hand, though, the property is given just so, for there was someone, who will own it, but not at all to those, who will care more about it and will multiply it, or at least keep it in good condition. That when one is born it is not clear what kind of person he (or she) will become, this is obvious, yet he develops himself, often is seen who is more capable, but no, the money has its own laws and it accumulate in heaps, sticks to another money, and if the sums are insignificant then one simply never will succeed to become wealthy.

     So that the question is complicated, but it is in no way insoluble, I think, we simply have not the habit to think reasonable, we want to outsmart the others. And as result of this with the ownership or property happens so like with the right of the stronger, it is taken that the stronger is right, what far away from always is so, and the money remains by that one who has had it, has inherited it, do not go to that, who will make a better use of it. Here exist some self-adjusting mechanism — I don't see everything in black, I try to think — and usually it happens so that, when one has not money he wants to have it, but when he has so much that, as the Russians say, even chicken don't peck at it, then he tries somehow to distribute it, to do good with it, but just to take the money and begin to give it on the left and on the right, with this will be helped nobody, because people, as I have said, want to have some surmountable difficulties, and this, what is given for nothing, is not valued much (like in one old anecdote about some Georgian in Russia, who has brought home an easy-going girl and she quickly undressed and jumped in the bed, but then he said: stay up, dress yourself, and resist me!). Due to this some nations have the clever saying, that the firms exist mainly 3 generations, where the first creates them, the second expands them, and the third begins to squander them. I have my meaning in this regard and will express it shortly in the next point about the future of the communism.

     c) Communes

     Here also not everything is as it has to be, but I will first mention that communes exist from ancient times, have existed in all religions, and whenever some time passes they appear again. Because all sciences and education — I think nobody will begin to deny this — have begun to develop in communes, to monasteries (or in the so called madrasah to Turkish mosques), where the proof for this is again etymological, the word Dean (of an Institute) and Dean /Deacon (in a church), also in other languages. Then also the caring about people's health, as you know, have begun to apply first under the aegis of churches (the Red Cross, or Crescent), and shelters for homeless children were firstly built to monasteries, and so on (the majority of social activities are taken by the churches, because else there is nobody who will occupy with this). What is so due to the fact that the communes help people when they are weak, obviously, only when they begin to feel themselves stronger, get rich, only then they start kicking and don't want to enter into communes, what is a thing remarked already by Platon before some 25 centuries.

     So that I can with clear conscience state that bad are not the communes by themselves, but the bad communes! And what means good or bad? Well, such that correspond to the productive forces, would have said the communists, what I find a bit hazily and would have said: such that allow better exploitation, such exploitation which people like! Because that is how it is, it exists such exploitation which is well rewarded and one alone aspires to it — say in the sex, where every woman wants that was "worked" by a man, that her sexual organs were exploited, and she in her turn does the same with the man, sucks all his strength out of him, and he likes this. I have come long ago to this conclusion, and for this reason I do not reject the exploitation, this word is not as bad as it seems, and then, to say that: society begins to exist with the appearance of dividing of the labour and creation of conditions for exploitation, and by the communism it at once will disappear, is the same as to say that the communism is an idealized society, which do not exist in the nature.

     Well, to the better exploitation I will come shortly, but the communes are done not only for this purpose, they tie the people together, and the human is herd animal, he can't exist in isolation. Then they care about the weak, so that it is quite natural that they will require from the members of communes to do something for the very communes. So that, as you see, people both, don't want the communes, yet also want them, everything depends on the kind of communes and on the moment. Then do not forget also the following important fact, some groups of people must always exist, but we have today neither big tribal communities, nor closed rural life, where people help themselves with what they can, nor even countries, nationalities, everything becomes multinational (say, everywhere is full of Chinese and Arabs, not counting the Hebrews, or Gypsies, etc.), and for about half a century there are already no families, they have nearly disappeared (I don't know how it is in other countries, most probably the same, but in Bulgaria, according to the census for 2010, 55%, i.e. more than the half of live born children are out of wedlock!). This is the reason why the alienation of people is increasing more and this leads to various disorders, to losing of meaning of life, to drug addiction, and so on. Something has to take place of the families and /or communes, yet I will dwell on this in the next point.

     d) Relations with the society

     Here I mean the relation of communism with the other social structures, because to take that all will be convinced communists is simply unrealistic, this can exist only for some time when everything is seething and life has not yet adapted to the new situation. In this regard the communism, and especially the Stalinism, had not the right approach, and because of this has happened this, what has happened in 1989th and 90th, but, on the other hand, maybe it must have happened so, because the common people are ungrateful and silly, alas. I mean that, of course, it would have been better if we have found some compromise solution, so that there were different forms of property, both paid and free education and healthcare, etc., but in all appearance this is very difficult to manage, and how shows the experience of long-suffering Bulgaria, if people have the right to choose they choose exactly this, what is not for them, they are really like silly children. But well, when we have returned to the mainstream of capitalism, then we must think what can be done under this conditions, to what I will come quite soon, but here I thought chiefly about the correlation of communism with the Church, with people's traditions, with the monarchy, with small business, and so on, which was not quite tolerant, not to say more.

     Yet, see, all depends on the nation and the developed in it conditions and traditions. For example, I want to explain why only the Frenchmen have begun to kill their aristocrats and feel proud before the entire world with their guillotine, while in other countries the people were nor so acerbated. I have quite recently come to this conclusion when reading again one children book about the Middle Ages, where everything, in order not to digress much, has begun from the history with their … Joan of Arc, who has saved France from the raids of neighboring England, has really begun together with her knight's army to beat the Englishmen, and had never thought to seize the power of the king, but the aristocracy has literally betrayed her and given in the hands of the enemy, have closed the gates of the fortress, when she has gone out to fight with the foe, and then did not let her back! Such doings the people do not forgive many centuries.

     Well, to the aristocracy sometimes must be added also the Church, which has had different attitude to the revolution, and because of this in Bulgaria and Russia the attitude towards the Church on the part of the communists was different, in Russia the communist terror was far away stronger than in Bulgaria. And in Italy, for example, exists even now the party of communist catholics, or vice versa, and in Bulgaria was not long ago Government of directly incredible triple coalition of: the socialists (or former communists), the Kind's party NMSS (or NDSV in Bulgarian), and the ethnic party of Turkish minority (called enigmatically MRF) — and nothing, they have ruled not worse than the others, even better in some aspects. The most important for one stable, established society is the tolerance to all groups of people, that differs in something from the massively accepted (like, say, to homosexuals), otherwise such society will not last long. And, generally, the ability to make compromises, to find moderate solutions, is the basis of any skillful governing. So, and now let us move to the future (of communism).

5. About the Future

     Well, this topic also is as if not related with the Revolution, but as far as it proposes revision and development of communist ideas in a new light, then it is proper here, and also principal according to the author. Why? So because I have a heap of propositions, they are put in other of my materials, yet the world evolves, something is changed, and I alone have also not thought through some details, and nobody reads me entirely, so that some repetition, or rather accenting om more important moments, is even very necessary, methinks. Here the sub-points are motivated by the sub-divisions of the previous point.

     a) Exploitational minimum

     My dear readers, the money fulfils two functions, it is necessary for satisfying of personal necessities, and for organization of some productivity, what is related with exploitation of workers, and however difficult it were to draw a clear boundary line between these two functions, some boundary must exist. I have decided that a sum of 1000 MMS (minimal monthly salaries), and measured exactly in this way, so that it was not necessary all the time to change it and adapt to the conditions in every country, is quite sufficient both, to provide any person with all necessary even for his entire life, and also for organization of some business, and is one round number, too (although it can be adjusted, maybe). This means that, for example, in one Bulgaria, where in 2017 the average MMS in month is 200 euro, this sum will be 200,000 euro, what is quite sufficient for beginning of some business, even the half or one quarter of this sum is enough, and in the same time, if there are 12 months in an year, then this gives 80 years by one MMS each month, on what one can quietly live even without any other income; in one USA, however, where for round calculations we can take that MMS equals 2,000 euro (or US$, how you like), this will give now 2,000,000 euro.

     Of course one can win giving for rent one room of his one-bedroom (what we call two-rooms) apartment and this will be some kind of business, but can also have three apartments (say, in New York, Paris, and Istanbul), and a pair of country houses (in Switzerland and the Canary Islands), also 3-4 cars, yacht, own little airplane, etc., and use all this only for himself, where the second will be at least 100 times more expensive than the first, but we will use 1000 MMS as 1 EM (exploitational minimum), because this is convenient, and will take that both, the first and the second, are exceptions, and an average person will own on the average 0.1 – 0.3 EM. It is really so, and in normal conditions nobody will begin to do business not having in his disposition at least a hundred MMS. But this EM has special importance by … inheriting of money or property, when will be applied a drastical tax, that will reduce the sum so that, how I propose, from 10 EM for the person will remain only 2 EM, and this by exponent, where 1 EM remains on its place and everything less than this also!

     You see, this is absolutely justified, for many reasons. On one hand there is taken nothing from anybody during his life, and everybody can pass any property to somebody of his (or her) close relatives even when he jumps over 50, and especially when reaches 70 years, under condition that they will allow him to manage this money while he is alive (if they will not "forget" about this). Id est, everybody can accumulate as much as he wants, become a real big capitalist, yet if he can, and he alone, but not his sons or daughters or wife or mother-in-law or whoever else, they will be forced to be satisfied with only 1 EM. On the other hand the most unjustified circumstance, which obviously violates the equality of people, this is inheritance of big property, this is what makes ones to be princes and others beggars, and absolutely not in relation with their own abilities. This is what makes people resent, not this, that somebody has had luck in his life or business, if he alone has reached this people take it like God's justice, what is really so, but enormous difference between individuals only as result of some lottery of genes is now absolutely unmotivated, such things in the world of animals do not happen, there everybody is responsible for himself and everybody reaches everything alone. Id est, I have come to the conclusion that the root of evil is not in the capital as such, but in the inheriting, and I propose measures for avoiding of this.

     Then, on some other hand, from this may suffer only very big companies, the small and middle-sized will pass in the old way from one hands into another, and there is the real competition, there the capitals live, where the big enterprises (where work hundred and more workers), in one extent or another, must be, if not directly state owned, then municipal, or ownership of some group of people (some commune, to what I am coming), or at least must stay in the spotlight of attention of the state (because their destiny affects many people — they are in some way like the banks, which are independent, but not entirely, there exists some state's control, security of the deposits of citizens, and this is a thing which no one calls communism, though it is exactly so). And at the end, if you believe in what I have said about the three generations in life of every company, then this measure will even help the company, causing some forced diminishing of its size, will lead to its dividing in several smaller and more manageable companies.

     For more details seek my specific material, but also think the ideas through alone, yet the most important is that this is idea which will allow to put as more as possible communism in the capitalism, and this is my primary desire, this is very important compromise.

     b) Minimal Income for Everybody

     This also is an idea about communization of capitalism, and my contribution is only in some fixing of the minimal sum and in the way for paying it to everybody. Here the calculations are also in MMS, and I think that the normal minimal pension or allowance, advance for everybody during his whole life, beginning even with the very birth, but at first let it be after 12 or 14 or 16 years, this is 1/3 MMS, in the worst case (in such miserable countries like my Bulgaria) 1/4 MMS. This does not cancel all other paid sums to some citizens, like pensions, stipends, sickness benefits, allowances for birth and rearing of children, etc., but simply stands like cap, on top of all other allowances, and because of this is put under aegis of the state, and is done via some bank, which I have christened BUM-bank! You take that this is some advanced sum that is paid in the beginning of each month and to everybody, I repeat. Then, when the month expires, is done a recapitulation of the received sums and this advance is subtracted from the received sums, if this can be made, and if it can't be, then, like the Russian proverb says, "there is no punishment for no".

     Now, look here, these sums are not so big as it seems at first sight and they concern normally about 10 percent of people, at most 20 in such outsider, in the sense of poverty, countries like Bulgaria and Bangladesh (and maybe also Bimbinistan, ah?). Very poor people, with personal income (respectively recalculated when there are dependent persons, like children etc.) below 1/3 (especially below 1/4) MMS must not exist in whatever state, yet usually there are some 10 percents. If we add also all children, from the very moment of birth, then this percent, obviously, will increase, but this can be left for a later stage, and there also something is subtracted, because there are children allowances, and the society can reorganize itself in a different way, when the children also will have income. Besides, more than the half of the people, in any event, receive something from the state, really, so that the bigger part of the people has already went in this direction. Well, judge alone: the pensioners are 1/4 (at least in Bulgaria they are so much), children must not be less (although at the moment far away from all of them receive a stipend), then come the ailing people, leaving work during the rearing of little children, allowances for unemployed, maybe something more (because there really are necessary less and less people, you look around, there are heap of professions just in order to find work for the people), and the number of employed people is usually about the half of the whole. So that it has left not much, why not to introduce one common rule?

     See, this is necessary if we liken the communism with the paradise, where everybody can pick the necessary fruit and eat it, and when this is needed then it must be done. But this will also facilitate the monitoring of property status of the whole population (when something is given then there will be also a better control about this to whom is given and why, and must not this be transferred to some other fund), and the collecting of money by the tax authorities, too (because the paying of money to all citizens must be done initially via this BUM-bank, by an unique personal number, as if now called everywhere PIN-code); this bank, after paying out the money, will search from what fund to restore the paid, when possible. And then this is a new, communist right on minimal allowance for all citizens, it is fully motivated by the contemporary state of economy in the entire world, and will be even easier to be performed in the wealthy capitalist countries, but must be in the beginning experimented exactly in the poor and in limited amount, say in one town of the order of 50-100 thousand citizens. The important thing is that this task is completely in the capacity of contemporary computing systems and according with the abilities for global organization, which were not present even half a century before.

     c) Communes or Patrons

     The communes have to be organized on professional principle, I suppose, like a kind of guilds, yet not excluding any other variant. I decided to call them Patrons, because the people as if are fed enough by the word commune, and this is the idea of the patron as defender of the person, so that such has to be the purpose of these Patrons, to defend old people, to accept and educate new members, and take the place of the obsolete now families, i.e. to become voluntarily chosen families! I think that you already feel that this idea is worth a Nobel prize, but I can accept it only under some conditions (I will give below one of them). Here by me everything is still quite raw, but I am not a lawyer, I can not very precise formulate the requirements, yet there is no need to fix them pretty exactly. The important thing is that one must easily enter in such Patron, even be member of two or three, but be more difficult to exit out of them; otherwise said one must by entering take some obligations to pay part of his income, but by exiting he will receive, and probably not personally, but to be transferred in another Patron, a sum proportional to the people in the Patron with their ranks, something like this. Id est it may happen that he will pay more and receive less than paid, like also vice versa. And then, after his death, his part in the Patron will remain for the other members, this will be the inheritance!

     More concrete I imagine this so: an young person (a girl, too) to the age of receiving of his passport, or however later, of course (this is not obligation), must choose some Patron that will become his second (if not first, who knows how people will come to this world after a pair of centuries) family, submit the necessary documents, and after (the most probable) approval begin to live either on the territory of this family or on his own, and work or be educated either in the framework of the family or not, but pay part of his income, say 10%, as a kind of payments for his insurance. I mean that, in the same manner how one pays taxes to the state and it carries some responsibility for him, in the same way he can pay also to some more concrete organization. He can even ensure himself in two families, yet this will be done usually in adulthood, when one will begin to think chiefly about the others and what to leave them, not about himself.

     If we take that the contributions will be of 10% (although there can be small differences), then paying these percents he will receive full insurance, quite similar to the pensioner, proportionally with the years in this Patron, and if less, then proportionally less. But can be, and it is right that there were, some scores or ranks of membership, depending on the position in the Patron (say, in the management, or in training and patronizing of the young, or in another field, or even in no position of this Patron). In recompense of this he will pay reduced prices using the services of his Patron, also in relation with the years of membership or of his rank. Id est nothing revolutionary, how it is often done also today in a number of cases (one big part of the decent big companies offer to their workers something more on the top of their salaries, and not only how much coffee they want, or cheaper lunch, but also a company car if necessary, semi-paid vacation in some resort, et cetera, these are the so called perks benefits).

     This is a very important thing for the life of everybody, gentlemen, because every collectively owned property comes cheaper than the one's own, and is used more fully (it is not thrown to the garbage materialized human labour); this that the contemporary consumer society takes for justified that each one has to have his own things, no matter how thorough he uses them (living quarter, car, but be it also a washing machine or coffee maker), is dictated ultimately from the increased exploitation, of course, in order that one earns more and consumes more. But the point is not only in the prise, when people live together this is more interesting. And if everyone will choose alone his Patron-commune or –family then he will like it, or if will not, then will leave it and move to another one, as well to the central, of the municipality, state, country. In addition to this the proposed measures will make life of everyone more quiet and ensured, because there are many things, which are profitable only for the bigger owner, they have a critical mass, and below it they are non-rentable.

     For example, what kind of money to keep and where to keep them? As if in the banks, but even there if you have small sums they look at you awry, and for a bank sums less than even hundreds of EMs are still small. I will give you again one etymological proof, the term "real property" used for the unmovable property means exactly that the other property is not real, it is just so, toys for children. And you see that it often happens so, either goes a knocking-down inflation, when the central interest rate becomes 500 and more percents, or comes such stagnation, which has not existed not only under the communism but also under the current right-wing capitalism, when in 2017 in many banks the interest rates are a bit negative and if you want to keep your money there you have to pay percents, not to receive (I personally am a witness of changing of the interest rates from 700 to 0.3, and they continue to fall down). And for whom and to what purpose to keep money, when there are no more families today, and nobody has taken his savings to the other world, they always remain here. But the communes are another thing, there some people work and support the others, and the others can help with something, can produce things between themselves, the money is not so necessary for them. However one looks at the communes, I can't see anything better than well organized communes, that will not hinder their members to express themselves, but will chiefly help them, because all, what such people will earn, will remain for the very communes.

     So, and the condition which I will put, if people will want to give me a Nobel (or some other) prize for my brilliant invention of voluntary chosen families (or for some other of my numerous proposals), this is to erect a monument to me — during my lifetime, or course, after this I will not see it, and what if they will deceive me? — on the square before the General Assembly of UN, as well also by a monument in all countries of this community, with the following composition: I, the brilliant Myrski, sit at my desk and write something with a goose feather (by tradition, in this way will be clear what I am doing), to my right stays Mr Lenin, who has put patronizingly his hand on my shoulder (as sign of approval and participation), and to my left peeps into my papers the very Miss Democracy, who can be recognized by her divine breasts and obliquely put ribbon where is written "Democra…" (it is not necessary to show the whole text). Yeah, but I have inclined my head so, that have put my right ear close to the brilliant mouth of Lenin, an in the same time with my left hand, and not looking at the semi-goddess, I show her … the sign of fig (or figue, fic, fico, depending on the language; and my left fist can be a little zoomed to be better seen).

     d) Communist Morality

     Gentlemen, this is also very important, this gives the face of the communism (even for non-communists, like myself, because I have never showed any desire to become such, when this was place chiefly for careerists, but now, when have seen that the democracy carried far beyond the worst careerists from the past, have begun to spit at it, from my awakening in the morning, during the whole day, and in the night falling asleep). The communism in this idealized form like I describe it, not like reality with all its minuses, but like (divine) idea — the ideas are always divine, they come from the deo /theos — this is first of all this, to what one aspires and will always aspire, this is only the good, here is nothing bad. Because of this people of the future must try always to be good, while, for example, to work for money this, surely, debases the person, this is a shame, and as result of this all want, along with the things that they buy, make also presents to their friends and acquaintances, regale them, live like colleagues, isn't it? Or also to try to deceive everybody selling him something, while every commerce is in its core a swindle, in order to by from you not from some other person of shop (which, in conditions of saturated market, offer the same thing, he /she /it can't offer something else). Or to pay crazy money for the most necessary things, like health, education, basic foodstuffs, and so on (and the money, surely, can be crazy, when somebody somewhere, like myself and in Bulgaria, receive a pension in the amount, as I have said, of 3 bus tickets daily for all expenses). In the same time under the real socialism — I have lived 40 years in such conditions — all prices were coherent with one another, and the ruling was directed to satisfying of the needs of population, first of all.

     And then let me propose you one new name, not communism, but … communionism, from the Latin and catholic communion, because there the idea is the same, the idea of a commune of all believers! Gentlemen, let us not spit at the good ideas of communism, but try to make it better, in conditions of communism, as well also in other condition (when this is the everlasting dream of humankind). Because the ideas of communism, really, have intersection with quite different ideas, with the religion, with the monarchy, with the capitalism, and with anything; I personally want to see uniting of the communist (or socialists) with the fascists, because they are the universally recognized two poles, yet I don't exclude the possibility for such uniting, taking into account that if some movement is tolerant enough to the differences, then it should try to make any allowable compromise. Say, there are not problems for organizing of practical socialism under conditions of right-wing capitalism, this was done in the Scandinavian countries in the distant 70-ies or there around. Nowadays there are no problems to perform monitoring and reallocation of funds, with the help of modern organizational techniques, in conditions of exploitation, not eliminating it, but only softening it a little in special cases. If we look at the idea, then we can implement it in nearly every conditions, but if we stick unswervingly to the letter of the communism, then it turns out that it is only temporary social order in times of war or crisis. This is it.

6. About the Spirit of Communism

     Ah, I have put you, my readers, to many tortures, with this long material, yet I am nearing the end, I will only make you laugh a bit with ideas about how looks like this notorious spirit of communism. Because there must be raised somewhere monuments to it, it is no go without any monuments, yet not dedicated to specific individuals, who will, surely, begin after some time not to be liked by the people, for everything changes, ages, only the spirit of communism can't grow older, being this all the good that we can imagine. Well, this spirit can look different, as to who how likes it! Here can be any abstract forms, this is without saying, straight or curved lines, planes, figures, regular or deformed, every sculptor will have his own ideas, even my brain has born one little idea.

     See, this is an inverted tetrahedron, on the sides there are four equilateral triangles, yet it is put not with a plane down but with a vertex, do you get it? This will be unstable, but then could be explained that this symbolizes the difficult process of reaching of dinamic equilibrium in the society, and fix it in this way, so that it will not fall down, people will somehow succeed. Yet this isn't enough for me, I want that on the top platform stays an usual pot with flower, metallic, of course, but this is not whatever flower, this is communistic flower, because it will have exactly five opened buds each of which with five petals (called from Ancient Greece petalons because they are pente-five, as well also in form of a … heel, which in Slavonic is 'peta /pjatka', I have explained this somewhere long ago). So that this will be five-tuple glorification of pentagonal star of the communism, think over this, gentlemen.

     But nobody hinders the sculptor to show even atomic nuclei, or power transmission lines, or space satellites, or rockets, airplanes, helicopters (only not guns and cannons, please), or limousines, lathes, computers, any product of industry, even baby prams. There always will be possible to explain that this symbolizes something very important for the communism, like every … national flag means something (no matter that it does not mean anything, this is just a  symbol, icon). Or there can be various kinds of food, tomatoes, cucumbers (at least one cucumber with two tomatoes, what forms an understandable "sculptural composition"), eggplant, pepper (be it hot or not), all sorts of fruits, and so on. Or also animals, in "fresh" form, or baked, food products, sausages, anything. Why this will symbolize the communism? Well, because this is something good, necessary for us, the food is the basis of our existence, like also the sex, naturellement. This latter for the reason that exists the notion hedonism, what in Greek and Latin includes all kinds of pleasures, gustatory and carnal, and because this comes from the ancient name of paradise like Edem (or Eden), and in addition to this exists the well known Slavonic word, I beg your pardon, 'eblja' in  Russian or 'ebane' in Bulgarian meaning exactly copulation, what according to the great Myrski is just the same like Greek edone (with Latin chars), due to this, that the Greek letter delta is written in the same way like Cyrillic 'b', that's it.

     And when it so, then there can be a monument to the great phallus (as symbol of communism, and why not?), only in order to communize it a bit I think that it will be better to equip it with five egg's "belongings" (if you see what I mean). And then it is proper to place around also five "homological" feminine organs, so in the spaces between the "balls", and make then in form, either of water taps, or like armchairs, or also as outlets selling soft drinks. It is possible also to make these balls elastic, so that by kicking them slightly with a foot they will throw out water splashes upward. Nice, isn't it? Or simply a naked girl standing on the left (this detail, naturally, is important) leg and having heaved the right leg under right angle and pointing to the East — of course, on the West nothing good can appear, it can only repeat distorted ideas of the  East, let us leave it to rot calmly —, who with her right hand covers with a big red star the place in question between her legs in front, and with her left hand either waves to somebody, or makes herself wind with a fan.

     These monuments must be called monuments of the Spirit, or of the Communism, or of the Naked Idea, and if there will be several of them in the given town then will be additional qualifying adjectives, like: northern, or large, or old /new, or vegetable, sexy, industrial, and so on. Can exist also monuments that will release fragrances in the air, and there will smell around, say, in Monday of raspberry, in Tuesday of orange, and further in this manner, the children will like to promenade there, especially if the monuments are in public gardens, and in this way will from young age become acquainted with the communist ideals. And do not laugh, please, because it is so, if one has lived to this to be able to giggle over something own, this means that he takes it light-heartedly, without malice and discontent, and the hunting of communist "witches" is still widely spread in the world, some people are fiercely defending obsolete dogmas, while others spit at them without offering something better, just out of eager wish to contradict. We, in the whole world, have not commonly accepted morality, and the idea of non-perishing good can comprise anything.

     Or also can be a monument that is animated object, say a nice tree! And why not? The important thing is not to forget to leave around roughly so much place as for the crown also for its roots under the earth (though they can be covered with something, not to trample on the ground), This can be a slender pinus /penis, or something Japanese or Chinese, or decorative, or fruit trees, but then let this be a combination (I think this must be possible to realize) of five different trees, say: apple, pear, plum, peach, apricot. Or combination of flowers. Or some sundials, playgrounds, et cetera.

     Well, you see, the spirit is spirit, the communism these are all aspirations of the mankind taken together, it can't be rejected, errors were and will be, but it is impossible to live without ideals, we must always try to lead righteous life, and reform the society, when necessary (but it is always necessary, yet let we do this not quite often, once in a century as if is enough), seek compromise solutions, resolve the problems centralized, and leaving some place for possible corrections in the specific case, take the egoistic human nature in consideration, but also strive to diminish the amount of "human material" (as well any biological matter), don't forget that in the world everything is related, and that it is dynamical and imperfect, and if we could not succeed to resolve the problems reasonable, then we will again solve them, yet on the cost of absolutely unnecessary victims. After what it remains for me only to pay the necessary tribute to the main initiator of the new changes exactly one century earlier in my traditional (already) style, i.e. with a short acrostic (in English, for universality).

     L_et it be that all try to be happy,

     E_ven when don't personally win.

     N_ot success is this what matters, rapid,

     I_n the end important's not to sin!

     N_ew ideas are the same old epic.

     Oct. 2017






Chris MYRSKI, 2001 - 2017


Contents Of This Section

     About the sunflower seeds and the people

     The extremal solution

     For reforming of Bulgarian language

     To contemporary Bulgarian language

     New laws — old policy

     Heads up, Bulgarians!

     Are you ready for the elections?

     Nomen est numen! (to name is to define)

     How to fill the treasury

     About the usefulness of cockroaches (scientific feuilleton)

     Better not to live to pension age!



     So I am speaking about the sunflower seeds, about the same seeds out of which the sunflower oil is made, that has again disappeared somewhere, as well also has risen 'a little' in prices. But how is it not to disappear when it was eaten already in form of seeds, so to say! It isn't that we have not peeled seeds in totalitarian times, we have peeled them, surely, but not as totally as now. One goes to the stadium to watch football — so this isn't opera hall for to sit there peaceful and quietly — and it comes time for the seeds: one gobbles and spits, spit ant stuffs again, and from time to time one can also leave a curse for diversity. Or then to light a cigarette, or also candies, pistachios, such things. We were democratic in our behaviour in those times and each one of us made rubbish in one's own way.

     But now how the things stay, ah? You stand in a queue — you peel seeds, you travel in the tram — you peel seeds, you make money on the job — you gobble seeds again! Earlier only the 'swarthy Bulgarian women' sold them but now only those who have work do not sell something, yet such people become more and more less.

     I am travelling one of these days in a tram and what I see — each third person peels seeds. One just spit at once, another — through the window, and the 'more cultured' gather the husks in their hand and later throw them under the seat. In one word — democracy! But to me this smells a bit of totalitarianism, because if someone does not chew something then the others look at him with suspicion — id est, is he really so poor that has no money even for some seeds, and otherwise, look — has put on jeans, as if is going to a concert.

     I have heard some time ago to say that Europe ends where people begin to drink boza. It might be so, but it is long time when they have ceased to make good boza, for there are not many those who can afford to buy it, but with the seeds it is surely so. It as if is not so bad — why not to peel seeds 'in the basement of European House'? — but it turns out that their basements, too, were not like ours. So that, who knows, what if they will not allow us to enter even the basement?

     Unless the European Community, or then some fund or bank, for example, does not decide to send us some humanitarian aid, but such that it was accessible to socially weak, and could have been put in the mouth, and in addition could remove the emotional stress. Though it will not be easy this thing. Just nothing comes to my head, except what one girl friend has confided once to me, that is doesn't matter whether you will swallow it or spit it — the major thing is that it gives you pleasure — but this, maybe, was about something else.

     So that the democracy is a difficult thing and each demos gets it in its own way. Now, for the Bulgarian, the sunflower seeds are the major thing. And when they are such then I think, why not to build one new party, 'Party of Human Seedeaters (United)', and to raise the slogan: 'The semen above all!' — this is both uniting and reconciling, as well also apolitical?

     1992, 1995

     P.S. Some 20 years later it turns out that is necessary to add here one remark for the younger people, who may think that the things here are exaggerated and we eat now, and have eaten then, the same amount of sunflower seeds. Yet this is not so, because we don't eat now more seeds than in the old totalitarian years, while in those turbulent 'democratic' years we have 'gulped' them with wild passion, so that we have really eaten some decent part of sunflower oil in form of seeds. And if one asks, why was this so, then the answer is elementary: because of hunger for proteins. Although hardly one out of hundred persons was aware then what was the real cause for this phenomenon.

     July 2013



     Because for every Bulgarian has become obvious, that thanks to the decision of Mr. Berov to set the price of sunflower oil to approximately 40 lv, in order to avoid that it was sold by 60 lv, it is now nowhere to be found even for 80 lv, and while the crisis is solved (via importation or in other way) its price, without whatever compensation for the citizens, will reach, most probably, 100 lv (due to the fact that this oil is product of relatively long endurance and every Bulgarian, who succeeds, can quietly hoard for an year or two ahead), it is clear that it is not necessary to discuss the 'competency' of the decision. Here we will try to prove something stronger, namely, that every other decision would have been better, in the sense that it would have allowed to an averagely taken Bulgarian to buy enough sunflower oil for personal consumption on prices lower that the current 80 lv for a liter. In mathematical language this means that the decision in question has extremal character.

     Firstly let us convince ourselves that we have here local maximum of silliness (resp. minimum of reasonability) for the decision. We use the well known from the secondary school course method, moving a little in both directions of the price of 40 lv, in order to see that this will lead to better decision. And really, if the price was, say, 50 lv, what is near to the normal market price, this could have forced some new and striving merchants to sell this oil even with a slight loss, in order to attract buyers, and to write the expenses, so to say, for advertising. On the other hand, if Mr. Berov has said that the price of this oil must be 30 lv a liter (and it will be sold for as much), then every Bulgarian, from the pre-school age and above, would have simply laughed at this and would have given no credit to such manipulation, and in this case this decision would have not been accepted, so that there is no need to observe it (this is equivalent to restriction from below of the price, so that the local extremum will be reached at the lower border of reasonability of 40 lv). So that, if the intervention is only in regard of the price, then 40 levs give the silliest decision.

     Now let us see whether there is not another way of influence. Here we can also move, either in direction of strengthening of market mechanisms, even to such extent that not at all to intervene in them, or to their lessening. In the case of increasing of market mechanisms this means weakening of the control on prices of this oil, as foodstuff of basic necessity, and it is well known that when there are no bans there is also no interest in trespassing them, i.e. when the speculation with it will not be unlawful, then it will become uninteresting and low profitable (in near future) and this variant will reduce to the next. And this next variant in this direction is exactly total non-interference by the Government, what, by prices on the international market of 600 US$ for a ton, and prices on the internal market in the majority of Western countries of about one US dollar a liter, as also by price of the dollar in Bulgaria in this period of time of 52-55 lv, would have led to some initial jumping of the price of oil to about 60 lv and subsequent setting on 50-55 lv, a thing which already has begun to happen, if there was not this decision of Mr. Berov.

     The last variant of weakening of market mechanisms means some way of centralized control of the amount of bought sunflower oil by everyone, i.e. a variant of introducing of a system with coupons, what would have been worse than the non-intervention, but, despite of this, if it was conducted properly, would have led to better decision than the current one (yet this, too, has not been done). With this we consider proved, assuming continuity of the decisions in a closed interval (here, of silliness), that the decision of Mr. Berov is the most silly one from all possible.

     Still, the situation is not so despairingly bad for Mr. Berov, for the reason that there exists also the principle ... of limitlessness of human silliness (or stupidity), which states that there are no limits for the human stupidity (on the contrary with the intellect)! Hence, for each stupid thing can be found another stupid thing that is a little bigger then our (similarly to the natural numbers, which are unlimited). If we accept that this principle is correct then the decision in question is not extremal, because there is no maximum for the stupidity (or the interval is not limited), what is a significant consolation against his slanderers.

     1994 ?



     Abstract: Here, maybe to the possible disappointment of foreign readers, we have to do with only some retelling of the feuilleton, because the cuisine of Bulgarian language is quite specific for the readers in English, and we would have been forced to explain many things with footnotes, to say nothing about the mutilation of English language. The idea in broad lines is the following: in the beginning, taking the English as model, we have to move to one grammatical gender only, which for us (as well also for other Slavonic languages) is more suitable to be the feminine one, because practically for all words we are able to build feminine nouns (and in this process are given many examples of various words, also in German language, which examples are, in one or another aspect, funny — say, you have only one bottom, but we have masculine, as well neutral, and the Russians have feminine one); from this moment onwards the narration continues in a broken 'new' language, where all nouns are of feminine gender.

     The next point is reduced to moving of all definite articles before the word (which by us, as also by almost all languages, yet with the exception of the Russian one, exist, but the peculiar moment is that in Bulgarian they stay at the end of the word and are concatenated with them — say, 'the table' will be something like tablela). On the third place comes simplification of all forms of verbs to just two forms, for singular and plural (where we, naturally have six forms), and, sure thing, the further narration continues in this spirit. In the end this universal feminine gender is extended not only to inanimate objects but to all (say, the man becomes also feminine — what is not so strange after all, because the word 'papa' has feminine ending but is masculine). The feuilleton ends with the slogan (in some Latinized English) 'La Bulgariana languaga — la worda etalona for la twenta firsta centura'.

     In principle it is possible to translate this material in English, but I have no time for such foolishness; I rather think for mutilating of the English in some way, introducing genders, more verb forms, etc., and calling this English Myrskanto, if I will live long enough to do this scientific joke (or, maybe, not exactly joke but tedious 'improvement' of the language).

     1994, 1997



     Abstract: This proposition can be observed as alternative to the previous. Here, too, we will limit ourselves with retelling only, because the things are significantly tied to Bulgarian language, and the narration is pretty detailed and tedious for translation. It goes about Americanization en masse of the language, that this is performed not sufficiently consecutive and that we must not only introduce here and there a pair of new words, but accept also a heap of new idioms and expressions, consecutiveness of the words, the intonation and punctuation, and this leads in the end to a humorously mutilated pseudo-Bulgarian language.

     This topic is very actual and it concerns all world languages, and the natural (i.e. vulgar) acceptation of new words is far from being the right method, because are taken not some learned words, as it was before with the Latin and Greek, but mostly some insignificant jargon words.

     1994, 1997



     Experienced people are the communists, one can not object to this! They knew quite well that if you want to take something from somebody he will resist, but when you give him — most often he takes it. And if you decide to defend him, then even with not much brains you can take from him, as is said, his mother's milk. Well, it is so, if you begin to explain to a sheep, that you intend to milk her to make yourself cheese, she will not understand you, but if you graze her for a pair of weeks, then you'll be able to milk her, and shear her, and also take away some of her children now and then for a barbecue and she will still bleat happily. The same is true also for the cows. Yet for the people a pair of weeks is not enough, but 50 years — unquestionably!

     So that the protection is a good thing! Quite rarely someone will tell you that he does not want to be protected, but if this happens then it will be because of pride. And when so, if one has a little of our levs in some nice banks, then why not the 'dear people' (id est the communists, for this is their common addressing of the masses) not to guaranty them to him, especially when this costs them nothing, because this, what they must give to the citizens, they will take from the companies (there is 50% protection of their investments), but there is also nothing at all to guaranty, because one takes his money from one bank and runs to another (state owned), due to the fact that the inflation is tremendous, and the dollar has lost its senses to be bought by one. So that the thing is sure and, as is said: the wolf is satiated (and who is he, ah?), and the sheep are whole!

     It remains only to accomplish the affair competently, like communists! It is clear that people seek protection when they are under some danger, so that it was necessary in the beginning to frighten them, right? ( And even earlier was the period of 'lulling', in order that the people were able to put their levs and hard currency in the banks, not to hide them at their homes, but this was in the previous year. ) Then there was necessary that here and there 'burst out fires'. The 'pyramids' have already 'set the mat' of many persons 'on fire', so that there sufficed quite small state intervention (of the party, or state, Bulgarian National Bank, BNB). There was, for example, one good firm, called 'Financial Trading House FTA', which has already had for 3-4 years permit for currency transactions, took money (and levs, too) in deposits, sold Government bonds, and had a number of offices through the country. One morning, though, having just awaken, the Director of BNB decided to take back its licence (because there was needed 'kindling for the fire', so to say) and after a pair of days he also did this. Not that BNB has only then found out about this firm, but then become necessary to knock it over, the more so because it offered fixed interest rate on the deposits (as it is in the 'normal' countries), not floating and tied to the basic interest rate (BIR), determined by BNB (how it is in Bulgaria), so that this served as one of the reasons for taking back of its licence. And so, 'fires burst out', somewhere some people 'burned', others were frightened and already began, in the open or tacitly, to ask for protection.

     The intervention from above, though, continued, because the banks hold the front. 'Now, let us see how long can they hold it?', said to themselves the communist leaders and meanwhile began to nationalize, pardon me: to 'defend the deposits of the citizens', in several banks. It was clear that there was little sense to begin with banks like 'Capital Bank', for example, where from January (and at least till August) have not changed the bank interest rates and the bank was so insignificant that people did not even know that it existed — such bank was not good for the competent politicians and specialists. Another thing was the 'Mineral Bank', for example, because it was wealthy, as also well known on the West, and the deposits there in hard currency were current, but with good interests (6-8% in an year) and they were added each three months. It is true that in the 'normal' Western countries people don't have monthly deposits (more so weekly), or they do not use them much, while their term deposits are for one, two, and three years, and for shorter periods exist current deposits, but we are also not Europe, after all! Well, we have compromised ourselves a little before the West and have closed us even more, as is said, but this was one of the purposes of the task (the communism can't vegetate by open doors to the West — it 'catches cold' — so that it was necessary to close the financial doors).

     Another Bank — 'First Private Bank'! Even if it was the most poor of all banks it must have been closed because the mere name of it irritated the communist ear. But it was quite prosperous and well known abroad, and, in the first place, nobody supposed that the bank of 'Ventsi', for whom have voted half of the voters of Sofia, can go bankrupt. Though, a bank more or a bank less, what of it (or 'what here some person can mean?', as has said our poet Nikola Vaptsarov) — when it is necessary for the party, there is nothing to be done!

     But, if all this has ended for a pair of weeks, then one could have taken this for natural disaster and soon forgotten about. Because of this was necessary that the things lasted at least a pair of months, so that other banks (without participation of the state) were set under permanent danger of closing and did not pay the people more than 30,000 lv without prior notice (how it is according to the rules), and also more than 10,000 lv (i.e. 50 US$), and even with prior notice of a whole week also was not possible to get the money (some banks gave not even 1-2 thousand levs), because the BNB has 'protected the savings' of the citizens. To say nothing about hard currency — in principle was possible to take (other banks were not declared bankrupt), but in practice came nothing from such efforts. And if somebody wanted to change a hundred of dollars for levs, because of the high interest rate (in those times 'only' 108%), he would have hardly dared to do this, because he neither could have saved his levs, nor the dollar has calmed down.

     For this reason they decided to close additional couple of banks. Recently — another five or six, and those banks which BNB does not close they will alone go bankrupt, for the simple reason that the banks exist if there are people or companies to credit them! But the people now don't want to give credits to the banks (unless the bank is state owned). There can't be said that in Bulgaria don't exist private banks, but they just can't survive! Well, surely this is not communism but state-monopoly capitalism (according to the old communist terminology, yet it could have been called also financial socialism (for change), or in some other way, but this is not significant. The major thing is that the people wanted to be 'protected' and put alone their head in the harness.

     After this comes the next protection (especially under the current prices on basic food products) — the system of coupons. The only problem is that by the contemporary copying techniques well-protected coupons would have costed quite much. ( Just imagine how more expensive will become coupons with pressed into them metal ribbons with inscription 'protection of the citizens' on them, or: 'Zhan' — from Zhan Videnov —, small lion, 'Zhan', small lion, and so on, but it is possible also to put crossed fibers, like a grid. )

     The next step will be paying of the salaries in dollars, and maybe, to vote a law about the 'minimal minimal working salary', establishing that the minimal salary can't be less than one US dollar a day, what, after all, will be better than in the year 1900, for example (or maybe not?). The important thing is that the population was convinced, that it is well protected. The pensions will be corrected every month according to 'scientifically based norms' for consumption of one pensioner, which, surely, will not be enough for covering of all communal expenses for one or two rooms (not just bedrooms) flats, to say nothing about food and, God forbid, medicaments.

     Well, it is true that money in the banks have, in fact, the poor citizens, not the wealthy! Not the socially weak but, still, poor ones, because they have had not enough money to buy something valuable — if not 'real' estate, as it is said in English, then at least a movable one. So with his 100,000 or 200,000 levs (i.e. 500 - 1,000 US$, resp.) one can't buy even well preserved second hand passenger car, because, if he could, he would have bought himself one, instead of to keep his money in banks. To say nothing about a living apartment or half to one decare (0.05 - 0.1 hectares) land around the town. So that this 'financial slap' for the Bulgarian people was even not according to the communists, i.e. to take from the wealthy and give to the poor ones, but exactly on the contrary!

     But, after all, the communists are now socialists, they have centered themselves. Why not then to centralize the finances? For example, now the 'most state' bank, Bulbank', gives generally the highest interests for deposits in levs and good interests for hard currency. Similar is the situation also with 'Biochim', OBB (United Bulgarian Bank), Post Bank, even with DSK (State Saving Bank). To say nothing about Government securities, which in the beginning of October give about 450% (!) per year, and the money enter directly into the state treasury, eliminating even the state owned banks. So that around the New Year about 90% of the deposits of citizens (in levs and in hard currency) will be collected in the state banks and the operation will be finished with success and competently, where in Bulgaria will remain 4-5 state owned banks, 4-5 foreign banks (for assortment), and about ten more banks in process if liquidation. The main thing is that the people wanted to be milked, excuse me, protected!

     Oct 1996

     P.S. This material needs some commentaries, because it is true, but also questionable, i.e. the facts given here are true and Zhan Videnov, really, has provoked bankrupts of the banks, but in order to preserve our currency, as far as this was possible, and this was the best method for stopping of inflation with our own means, and, as the people later have convinced themselves, nobody has lost his money in this banks and the periods were preserved and continued profitably (only that the invested in levs capitals were eaten by the inflation, but they would have been eaten by it in any case). Social protection of deposits exists also in some Western countries and the West takes this method of 'centralized governing' of the banks for justified, and our UDF people did not object against the law, and it is still valid. But this does not mean that such law is not socialist, and, if we are consecutive, then it should not exist in a free capitalist market (because this is blocking of the bank before the court case for insolvency, i.e. the state acts as instance above the legislature).

     All confusion in Bulgaria came again because of lack of coordination between the political powers, because, either was necessary to admit before the people that such rude totalitarian method was necessary (but then leave Zhan in peace and take measures for some our national money Board), or then defend till the end the freedom of market (but then not to introduce Money Board, which is obvious anti-market mechanism, but with the use of which the UDF simply washed their hands for similar rough measures later). At least was necessary to allow applying of the existing law also to similar to FTA financial houses, which have accepted deposits of the citizens, for the simply reason that for the clients they were some kind of banks. But neither the blue, nor the red, have done something similar.





     I don't understand Bulgarian people in the recent times, I'm telling you. They are not happy when necessary, but always walk with drooping head. Now, the pensioners are again discontented that the ruling will increase their pensions only with some 4-5 thousands in month. But then these are thousands, people, bons, as we also say. Has earlier some of you thought that he will see hundreds of bons in one heap, the more so each month? Neither thought, nor dreamed, and now the most daring of our dreams became reality! This is democracy in action, not like the previous demagogy of the communists, that they have always cared about the people, but the highest pension of that time was less than now one patty costs! And the people, instead of to rejoice, have drooped their heads.

     And they say: yeah, but when they take from you 60 bons for the central heating and also for the electricity and the water, then you money is already finished. Only that they forgot the most important thing in the world, forgot the freedom, which they have now in their disposition, but which they have not earlier! Because now, if you only want this, you can stop your central heating, switch it out, and earlier this was forbidden by the communists. Earlier they said to you that, when you live in a centrally heated home, you must pay your heating, too, like all the others, but now, with the coming of democracy, you have your own choice. Now you can choose everything: who is to govern you, and to have heating or not, and to eat cheese (or curds), and to buy yourself meat (or duck 'lantern', i.e. a skeleton with grease), and many other things. It even these duck lanterns earlier were not sold at all but now they are free everywhere.

     But you see that our people do not appreciate what they have, they are always discontent. The more freedoms you offer them the more discontent they become! Now, for example, you can every time pay for your medical treatment to whomever physician you want, to whom you think is the most capable, and in every hospital that you choose, whether in Bulgaria, whether even in France or in Switzerland, or where you like, while earlier you were forced to go only to those who the 'Party and Government' have chosen for you. The same also with the education — if only you have decided to give some education to your sons or daughters and you can at once do this, because the education by us is now free! But our people are again dissatisfied, because free, you see, they say, was not entirely free, it was for money, yet this is so because they don't value the most precious thing in the world. And when it is the most precious then it must also cost more than everything else!

     Or also the workers complain that their salaries will be raised with only about 10 percents, but they simply do not know the basic arithmetics, because this is 10 percents each month, and when we multiply them by all twelve months in the year, then we get already hundred and twenty percents! And if even this is not enough for them then let them compute the increase for, say, three years. And, besides, nobody hinders them to strike, if they want to. But well, it's of no use, they say, and don't think that the point isn't in the benefits but in the freedom! Let them go for a while to the streets, let them cry a bit, let them worm themselves, and return later cheerful and happy to their work. The strike is, in a way, a democratic happening, and this does not necessarily mean that the Government has to pay attention to it, because it has all sorts of worries. When the people have elected their rulers then they must like their Government, and when they like it then they have to listen to these persons, not like it was before, when we were commanded by various elderly persons, about whom nobody has asked us do we want to listen to them or not.

     And also, if you are so much dissatisfied with something than you can always go to the President and he will listen to you very attentively and with vivid interest. Only that, because there were so many who wanted to speak to him, he received only those, who felt themselves so bad that were not able to come to see him. But what is to be done, he is not a sun to warm everybody. If the President can not worm you then you can always go to some church and worm yourself there, and earlier this was not allowed (or maybe some bandit may hit you on the head, if you have just taken your salary or pension, and you will worm yourself).

     And what is so bad with our President — shapely, young, talented, and with charming smile, not with some hooked nose, like it was by our Bai Tosho. A real man of the people, with common blue shirt and with working hands. And, first of all, having achieved all by himself, not lowered to us from above. Earlier, in order to take some post in the Political Bureau, for example, was necessary to crouch for ten years before all party members in order to be taken in the party, then to crouch another ten years before your party bosses in order to be appointed somewhere in the ruling of some enterprise, then another more ten years to stoop before the local bosses until you come to municipal level, after another ten — to regional, and after ten more years to national level, and when you find yourself there then you will be already senile old man. And our contemporary President, if we put our hand on our heart, is young and handsome man!

     Or, on the other hand, if you are so jealous of him then nobody hinders you also to become President, right? The method is simple and free-to-all. In the beginning you make yourself somewhere a photo to the waist, dressed in something old (some blue shirt left from your young years in the Komsomol, if you can find such, will do quite well), then you print it in 2-3 millions of copies, adding in the upper right corner our national banner, and in the upper left — a pair of small lions, twisted like on a ring for wrestling) the more lions, the better), so that everyone could see it from afar, departing in the morning for work or returning in the evening from it. Ah, I have almost forgotten, it is necessary also to write 'This is the President' or something of the kind, so that nobody could have thought that he is 'an onion head', and this is all. When there pass, so, five-six months you will see that you will also be elected, because this is it, the real democracy, in action.

     Also I heard the other day in the tram how a woman complains to another one that her children have become very naughty where earlier they were not such. But surely they will not be such, dear woman, would I have told her, because they are from the new, democratic generation, and the new, it is for this reason new, that it is not old! And what is this 'earlier'? The communism was long ago rejected everywhere in the world so that we must simply scratch this time through, throw it out from our history, and compare with the 30es years of the century, for example, not with the time under our Bai Tosho. This is the right look at the time, not only to say ahh and ooh, how bad everything has now become! Because, have in the 30es existed television and video — no, they haven't; were then such passenger cars like now — no, they weren't; were then so many millionaires like now — no, there weren't; were in that time 'Coca Cola' in Bulgaria — no; or 'Kentucky Fried Chicken' — again no; and other examples.

     OK, say some of us, but people now have nothing to eat. Yes, but not exactly! Because, were earlier so many pasted on the streets ads about various loss of weight diets like now, or there were not, I ask them? And why should one nation want to lose weight, if not because it has eaten too much since the coming of democracy? Under the totalitarianism our people did not feel necessity to lose weight for the simple reason that they have eaten insufficiently, while now they give their eye teeth, as is said, only to be able to lose a bit of their weight. And how not to want to lose weight when our lukanka (special flat dry sausage) has emerged earlier in shops only on the eve of May Day and Ninth of September (our day of freeing from fascism, which was then our national holiday), and now is so full with all kinds of meat specialties at any time. Hence people buy them and it is full for this reason, because under the free market this, what is not demanded, is not sold. Think properly, gentlemen, not in the totalitarian way!

     And sometimes I hear even more bizarre things on the streets. Some people say that there have emerged also new, democratic dissidents, but this is obvious demagogy! Because a dissident may exist when there is someone to sponsor him (or her), so to say, from abroad, for in his own country he is not respected. The earlier dissidents were supported by the Western democracies, and how it has become clear now, for their own good, because they have already sat on positions of responsibility and have ceased to be dissidents any more, While the new dissidents, if there are such people, who can support them now? You think, maybe, that this is Russia, or Mongolia, or Cuba, or even China? Nobody supports them, I will tell you, and this means that they just don't exists!

     But there are also people who are not satisfied with the freedom of pornography, prostitution, drug addiction, and so on, yet they are unsatisfied not with these things but with the freedom at all! Because it, either exists, or does not exist, and if it exists then it can't be to have freedom of speech, for example, and not to have freedom of, say, pornography. Who thinks that this is possible, then he still thinks in the old totalitarian way, but the new time, the new order, the new laws and democratic norms of behaviour require also new relations in the society. Who does not like this — well, nobody blocks him the road to the other world! Because it is so, it can't be that the wolf was satiated and the lamb also remained whole, as all of us know.

     And if we so much want to speak about the old time, then where is our 'bright future', I ask you? We haven't seen it and will never see it, what means that the communists only deceived us, for to make us work for them! While now nobody forces us to work, if we want, we work, but if we do not want, then we don't work — exactly this is the freedom, ladies and gentlemen! Freedom not only on words, but freedom in reality! Earlier we were exploited compulsory, while now nobody forces us: if we want, we work for the others, but if we want, then they work for us. Everything is a question of free choice and professional abilities. The more capable live better than the others, so that if you have still not succeeded, then either you have tried not enough hard, or you are not quite able. This is the situation, because everybody is alone 'smith' of his fortune, as we say, and not only to wait to receive everything ready from the state.

     And the last thing: earlier our people had just no purpose in life and they simply vegetated somehow, like puppets, which were pulled by strings by the loathsome communists, while now we have one very important goal, the most important goal at all — the survival of everyone of us, as well also of the whole country! And who or what has given us this goal? Well, the democratic reforms, of course, when under the totalitarianism it was not standing before us and now it stands! This is the most cheerful consequence of democracy and we have to welcome it enthusiastically and meet with open arms! This is the greatest and worthiest goal in the world. And this is our bright ideal, a real ideal, because, to all appearances, we will not be able to come soon to it.

     So that there are no reasons for worries and alarms. We are in an enviable position and must be only grateful to those who have led us to it. Heads up, Bulgarians!

     Jan 1999



     As can be seen, there again come elections, how you say in English, and we still don't know what this word means. Although it isn't that we have not heard one Latin word with a bit intimate use, namely ... erection! Well, will somebody say, but there is nothing in common between both words, and he will be wrong, because every logopedist will tell you that the sounds 'r' and 'l' are pretty similar and often interchangeable. And you know that the English (as well also the Americans), instead of to strain their tongue making it to reverberate for the 'r', just draw it a bit deeper in the throat and pronounce something very near to that sound like in the word 'girl', because it is easy in this way for them. So that these two words are like twins, in the sense that both mean some 'heaving'. For it is really so, because what are the elections, if not some elevation of eminent political figures on the high arena called Parliament? Or, putting it in simple words: The people make the election, and the politicians get the 'erection'! That is how it is, because the politicians know well where is the 'honey', and it is always good to be near to the barrel with it, or to the state pie.

     Yet let we leave the chosen people in peace and think about what we can do for the 'lifters' or electors, because the choice is not at all an easy thing. Some nations have even proverbs for such cases, where the Germans (as well also the Austrians) say: Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual, what in English means that 'the choice is a torment'. And this torment was known to the people already since Roman times, for the reason that the word 'quality' in English (as well also in Australian, right?) comes from the same torment (to obtain good quality). But, torment or not, the people must choose, so that somebody must help them in this. And exactly this is our task now — to help the people, offering them some simple algorithms for choosing.

     1. Algorithm of the wife

     It consists in this, that two or three days before the elections the husband asks his wife for whom she is going to vote. As far as in our situation there are usually two leading parties, then after she names the one party he simply chooses ... the other one! This rule is known already from Roman times and usually gives very good results in cases of electoral torments of various character. For single living men, naturally, there are not problems to ask their girl friend (or favorite feminine colleague), so that this nearly solves the problem for the masculine half of the population.

     2. Algorithm of the husband

     It, for its part, is based on the natural orientation of the man, expressed in the most masculine in him. In the election day, when the husband gets from the bed, washes himself, breakfasts, and becomes dressed, for to go out to vote, his wife simply looks at him attentively, in order to find out ... in which direction of his trousers he has put his masculine part! In this way she now knows whether she must vote for the left-wing or the right-wing parties, and if occasionally sees that it stand by him in the middle, then she votes for the most powerful centrist party. For unmarried women there are no problems to spend the night before the elections with their beloved man, or, if this in the moment is difficult to be done (for some physiological or other reasons), then to call him in the morning by the phone and ask him about this with the inherent for their sex coquetry. Even if this surprises in some extent the man, then this surprise will be only pleasant for him.

     3. Algorithm of the home pet

     This algorithm can be applied with little dogs, kitties, hamsters, or with a small child which still crawls on the ground. On small pieces of paper are written the initials of 5-6 parties, between which one is in doubt for which one to vote, then they are rolled in small balls and put in the middle of the room, or on a small rug. After this you retreat a bit away, in order not to disturb the natural curiosity of the pet, but watch it carefully, and when it begins to play with some of the balls you take it from the pet, unfold it, and read what you have written on it. In this way your choice is done for you in an objective and impartial way, though it is necessary, of course, to approach the matter fair, not to allure the 'independent voter' with paper pieces where earlier was wrapped something tasty for it (or him or her). If you occasionally have neither little crawling child, nor animal pet, then you just make a visit to some of your friends who have it, and you can be sure that you will spend an interesting and pleasant meeting with them.

     4. Algorithm of the gentleman

     As it is known, the gentleman usually defends the weakest party (because the strongest has no need of defence), and in this way he makes his contribution to the creation of more just social order. The weakest party in this case are such parties that have no chances to reach the first place, but at the same time they have interesting platforms or leaders. For this reason the gentleman rejects the first 2-3 leading political powers and votes for some between the weaker ones (eventually using one of the other methods of choice), so that even if his party will not enter the Parliament he remains with a clear conscience that he has done the right thing.

     5. Algorithm of the flock

     It is directly opposite to the previous method and consists in this, that is voted for those who will win the elections, according to some preliminary examination of public opinion. In this way the elector is sure that he has not wasted his vote and has made full use of his right of voting, but if he still has some doubts about the exact political power from the first three possible then he can apply also some other from the given here algorithms. This is a very good strategy for our country because it unites the population, instead of disuniting it.

     6. Algorithm of the proportional choice

     It consist in the following: on a cardboard circle with diameter about 25 cm are painted circular sectors with different width, but proportionally to the preliminary prognoses for the parties in the elections. These sectors may be coloured with felt pens or colour pencils, and in the middle of the circle is made a hole (preferably with some sharp tubule) and with the use of a nail inserted in this hole the circle is fixed to the door of the room. This is the electoral target, and in addition to it is needed also some small dart, but if you have not such thing you can make yourself easy one using a bigger needle and passing though its eye a long thread about half to one meter, so that the needle was able to fly straight ahead. You can exercise yourself for days with this target, but in order to have more independent choice is necessary to learn to rotate it, and when you retreat at about two meters, only then to throw the dart. In the day of elections it remains to you to do the final and decisive throw. This algorithm not only alleviates your choice, but also turns it into an interesting and pleasant activity.

     7. Algorithm of the enigmatic

     This algorithm is based on deciphering of the hidden meaning of some (seemingly unrelated with the elections) texts like, for example: your horoscope from the day preceding the elections in the preferred by you newspaper; some liked by you culinary recipe about something tasty; some publication on the sports page of the newspaper; interesting (or on the contrary, annoying) advertisement; 13th (or first, or last) page of the book that you read; and so on. Then you begin to read the text letter by letter, trying to get the initials of 5-6 parties between which you hesitate. These letters is hardly to expect to go exactly one after the other, and for that reason you write on a piece of paper the minimal distance between the first and the last letter of each of the parties, for which this became possible to happen. If occasionally you can not succeed to get some initials, then try in reversed order, or read every second letter only (or third, etc.). With enough perseverance and patience it is impossible not to succeed to read sometime something, what the mere fate has predestined as your choice, and in addition to this your time will pass interesting and meaningful.

     Well, this is all, dear readers, choose the preferred by you method, or some combination of the given here, and go boldly to vote, without the usual torments and sufferings to whom to give your vote. And if you feel yourself capable, then why not to invent some own algorithm? Take care only that it was sufficiently easy for applying, objective and independent from your moods in the given moment, so that you will not regret later that have lifted not the right politician, not the proper political power which was necessary to be lifted. And don't forget also that if you will not lift the leaders on the high arena, there is nobody else to do this, so that: help at least those people!

     April 1999



(To name is to define!)

     For a long time nobody in Bulgaria has whatever doubts that we are country of miracles, if you want only because in spite of the democracy we still exist, i.e. no matter that we are now a democratic state we are still far behind in regard of our living standard, compared with the situation under our 'Bai Tosho', and in the near 10-20 years 'from nowhere our eyes can see a hope coming' (as the poet has said). But there is nothing to wonder, for it turns out that everything was because of the ... names* of our politicians!

     Well, judge for yourself: was it not clear that Sofianski will become mayor of Sofia, because it (the city) is, in fact, his, isn't it? But we have wasted our time on various elections and have spent a heap of money and nerves, while the people would have chosen him even five times, if this was possible, for the above reason. Or that Videnov, being 'viden' (what is eminent in Bulgarian) man, must stand at the head of the communists, sorry — socialists —, and he took the lead (and the consequences did not delay). Or also that Parvanov must be that man now — because who else if not Parvanov must be 'parvi' (or prav in Bulgarian, what is first), ah? ( Or maybe it will be better to introduce here the letter 'å', like that in your 'girl', and then the name will be Pårvanov, and the adjective pårvi or pråv. ) But this, will somebody object, are simply random coincidences. Well, then you count them on you fingers, when you think so, and when your fingers run out then continue with the toes, or take also the hands of your beloved and continue with her fingers (as well also move to her legs later), because two hands here will surely not suffice, and we will continue meanwhile with our survey.

     Let us take, for example, Stoianov — a good name, and the man is also good, he is obviously chosen to 'stoi' (i.e. stand) on a high place, and because he is also Petar (Petår, more precisely), i.e. petronimus, what in Latin means earth or stone (where from the petrol has come), then the man has stood like a stone on his place (of President) and everyone sees and hears him at least three times in a day, what is more than even the talks about our former 'dad' or 'uncle' or 'bai' (Tosho /Todor Zhivkov) on the media. And he, this 'bai' /'uncle' was named Zhivkov, right? And because of this the man has 'zhivia' (i.e. lived) for quite a long time on the throne, and in general (and give God to everyone so much, for how our nation has begun to grow younger, when now people can not reach even 70 years and die, and the young ones only reach their 25 years and are already out of the country, then it can well happen that the average age by us will, maybe, come close to the Christ's 33 years).

     Or look at the Zheliu (Zhelev), was it really not clear that he is 'zhelezen' (i.e. iron) man and will smash the communism to smithereens, right? But he was not so very 'steely' like Stalin and because of this he succeeded not to the end. This is so, but here is not only this, because he was also Zhelev, where we find the usual 'shele' (jelly), and this was a thing that his people have noticed and for this reason wanted to change him. They, surely, succeeded in this, but, after all, not earlier than the end of term, because along with this jelly there was also some iron, so that he withstood his mandate till its end, and now wishes to be chosen again, if only there will be found people willing to vote for him.

     Ah, there was also one Sabev (Såbev), who ... had a grudge (and we say a 'tooth', which in Bulgarian is 'zab' /'zåb') against nearly everybody — against the communists, against the Holy Synod (for he was a priest), and as if also against the whole Bulgaria, because in the recent time is heard nothing about him and he could have moved to other 'humans' across the ocean to spread the word of God. But there is also one Trenchev (boss of Trade Unions), who, as could have been expected from his name, has blossomed like a 'trendafil' (what is a rose in Turkish and known as archaic word in Bulgarian) in our democratic garden , and how he has not fought for place around the state's dining table so he has already secured it, because they invite him often to have a 'chat' (or 'laf-moabet' in Turkish, talks during a drinking bout) on different labour matters.

     Or let us take one clever man — one Solomon! He has abandoned his exact sciences (mathematical logic), because with them one can not earn much 'bread', and as far as he was also Passi, then he has made several 'passes', in order to pass us to the countries around the North Atlantic, no matter that, however great Bulgaria was in old times, it has never reached to the South Atlantic (to say nothing about the North one). But as far as the 'passing' was in his name then he simply will pass us to those states and his Solomonic eye will not even blink (how it happened, because he built even earlier the Atlantic Union in Bulgaria, and later become Prime Minister during the ruling of Tsarist party).

     And one, really, good man, has failed only because he was named Slabakov (he was a known actor), and have pulled down with him one viden-eminent person, because, well, how is it possible that a reasonable homo can decide to make coalition with some 'slabak' (or slab, what means weak), ah? Coalitions are made only with strong persons, for otherwise people will not respect them at all. And have you asked yourself sometime why one Attorney General must be named Tatarchev, ah? Well, because everyone is afraid of the Tatars, and when so then he respects (as much as this is possible under democratic conditions) the Attorney, as well as our laws, of course. It is not that we all, the Bulgarians, are, in one extent or another, Tatars, what is well seen in our debates in the Talking Shop, ouch, pardon me, — in the Parliament — but, maybe, exactly for this reason we choose such persons who are greater 'Tatars', than we are. Now we have on this post one Mr. Filchev, who is also good, because this means that he is very precise and exact (fin in Bulgarian, what is 'fine' because the word is Latin), i.e. filigreed in regard of applying of the laws, and this, that he is also Nikola, i.e. heir of the name of Greek goddess of victory, Nike, only makes him honour (among the criminal underworld). In general, for such persons is not so important that the people loved them, than that they were afraid of them, and these do their hard work.

     And in order not to think that this naming is valid only for politicians, then look at one Asparuchov (known footballer from the past): would he have been such if he was not descendant of the brave warriors of Khan Asparuh (or Isperih — and the 'h' is pronounced —, from the First Bulgarian Kingdom already in the 7th century), who have raised 'steam' (what is 'para' in Bulgarian or 'par' in Russian, but the root is ancient Greek) everywhere where they passed, or have 'razpariali' (torn, split) any defence, however good it only was? Or also Christo Stoichkov (present-day's known footballer): would he remained to 'stoi'-stand for so long like the brightest star on our football horizon, if he was not also one Christ for Bulgarian football?

     But it can't be that you do not know one Ganchev, right? ( Well, outside of Bulgaria he might not be known, but he has quite successfully tried to enter the politics  ) He confuses us a little with his family (as well also with his first name, which in one passport was Georges, but read with 'zh', and in another one Georgi, and this time with 'g') but if you substitute in his family the leading 'g' with the similar 'h', or rather with the hard 'kh', how they write in on the West, then it is seen that he is one 'Khanchev', i.e. Khan of the Bulgarians! That is how must be looked at this person, and, nothing surprising, that it comes out exactly so, because this is written in his name and the names do not deceive.

     Because when his candidacy put various 'ovchari' (shepherds, coming from Bulgarian ovtsa what is your sheep), i.e. Ovcharovs /Ovcharovtsis, you see well that they can not win elections. Yet not this is strange, that they do not win, but that they put their candidacy at all, because nobody in the world has succeeded going against his name! While some of us, whom the very fate were predestined to wield bosdugans (or buzdugan, mace or cudgel with spikes, this is Turkish word), like Dogans (Akhmed Dogan the leader then of the Turkish ethnic minority party in Bulgaria), for example, wield them for ten years quite successfully with one small party, which can not gather together even 10 percent of the seats in the Parliament.

     Or we can take also one Simeon (our hereditary King, only not crowned). It may seem to be a good name, only that the English, when you say to them 'simian', understand something like the human, but not exactly, and most often an ape! They, surely, are cultured people, and will never say this to the person in the eye, but will think so. We also, here, do not say that this is true, we only fulfill our duty to him, id est not him to think that with this name he can become our King! For he can otherwise imagine this, looking at us, seeing how we only quarrel and show obvious need of somebody, who could unite us as nation, yet not around some parties and unions, but under one ancient institution, which has withstood the test of passed centuries. Only not under such name, but, probably, under some Dragan (where 'drag' is dear, i.e. that one felt simply glad to chose him), or around some Boil (where 'boia se' is to have fear, so that one will be afraid of him and listen to him), or also Petar /Peter (stony), or Stoian (stable), or Manol (with hard manus-hand), or Teofil (in Latin Theophilus, loving God), and so on.

     Then let us take Blagovest (Sendov, mathematician, was earlier Chairman of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and later, in his old age, moved to politics), is one such name that at once says you that he is a clever and reasonable man, because he carries only 'blagi vesty' (i.e. good news) and, although he is officially member of no party, he lived well during the totalitarian years, and now also lives not bad; while his brother (who is also mathematician), because he is only some 'dar ot boga' (gift from God) for his parents, or Bozhidar (bozhi is from God and dar is a present), continues to remain unknown to the general public, due to the fact that not those people have engendered him. As well also Kostov (economist, from UDF) informs us right away that he engages himself only with things that can be sold (the English to cost comes from German kosten, and is also Latin), or who have costuema-costing price, as is said (or, maybe, it has to be said now 'kostovena' price?). He, really, does exactly so, sells everything that can be sold, and to anyone who gives more, even if it goes about a whole country, because in the world of capital everything is sold, countries too. And also with this Ivan as first name, what comes from the Russian 'iva' (what is a willow), what says that he has flexible back (and the willow is flexible) and bends to where the wind blows, so that not to be harmed by bad climatic conditions, he has all chances to endure another ten years on the political arena, so that you see how very indicative are the names. ( And don't discard, please, this hypothesis of mine about the name Ivan, because I think the same idea is hidden also in the ... ivory; don't be confused with the fact that Ivan is biblical name, because it does not sound like John, nor like Yonah, nor also like your Ivanhoe, because we pronounce is as is written, 'ivan', and there is this piercing cry 'iii', and it curves, modulates. )

     Then there is one Blaga Dimitrova (a feminine writer), and why has she so rapidly been moved in the dead track? Well, because she was too 'blaga' (gentle, gracious) and is also a women, which has 'dumala' (thought in Russian) too much! From the 'dim' (a smoke, in Bulgarian, or also similarly in Russian) was formed the Russian duma and from here comes the name Dimitar (Dimitår, in Bulgarian, or Dmitriy in Russian), which was not much honoured in Bulgaria already from the times of 'Gosho' (i.e. Gergi) Dimitrov (our, as well international, eminent communist leader). We are not like the ancient Greeks, for to be impressed by some words — to us give actions and thrillers — and because of this also the newspaper 'Duma' (of BSP, Bulgarian socialists-communists) was barely able to collect cents in order to be issued, while some other newspapers like 'Hours' (24 Hours, 168 Hours), 'Trud'-labour, and 'Standart'-standard, are read so that even 'smoke rises', as we like to say. And one more Dimitrov has also become not specially famous, though this not because of his family of thinker, but because his mother and father have given him the name Filip /Phillip (fervent UDF leader, i.e. destroyer of communism, only without whatever creativity, of course), and it is the same as Russian filin, what means — I beg his pardon — simply an owl. Yeah, though a party that puts 'owls' at the head, even if it is not party but coalition, will not reach too far, at least until it does not change them with others.

     While at the same time Alexanders are not deprived of chances for success, because their name is derived in the easiest way from German 'alles', what means 'all' and, sure thing, was known to the ancient Romans already in the times of Mr. Macedonian. These are all persons who want to have everything and in such case they choose to stay at the head, either of an army, or of a Parliament, or of Government, or of something else of the kind. There is also Mr. Karakachanov (the youngest politician, maybe), who has set himself similar goal, but: where to with this family, boy? Who nowadays respects the karakachans (practically extinguished nomadic tribe in Bulgaria that lives in the mountains and breeds cattle), or who will respect them in the future? It is clear that the man is pretty green (he is Leader of the Green Party) and because of this makes this errors. When he matures and reddens enough, or maybe becomes blue (i.e. goes to UDF) like an eggplant, and if he changes his family, then, with this Alexander in front, maybe 'his parachute will open' (idiomatic for to succeed in Bulgarian), yet for the moment the 'all' is quite away from him. And another man with the same name — Tomov — will also hardly succeed much, because the Doubting Thomas is a name known since biblical times, and it is seen that he is neither with the red, no dares to become blue enough. This is one very unstable, at least for a politician, name. If he decides to change it to, say, Lomov, what comes from the breaking and smashing (lomatj, with soft ending 't', in Russian) then he will see how the tings will become at once better, because people honour those who break outdated norms (even if they have nothing better to offer). Or then to Tomboliev — then people maybe will choose him, for everybody likes to play in tombolas or lotteries, and it may happen that they will suddenly win something for themselves, with his help.

     Or there was one young boy — Emil — who never succeeded to come to terms with the 'komshuluk' ('komshiia' is a neighbour in Turkish) in our country and went to the States and now lives there not bad and does not complain. But it turned out that the snag was in his family Koshlukov, what is as if shortened from Komshulukov, and if it was some other then he, probably, would have remained in Bulgaria and would have built the democracy as thousands of other politicians, because his first name was Emil, what is a very 'milo' (i.e. nice) name, isn't it? Or take also one Reneta, who has a very nice name — like a juicy apple (a sort of apples, I suppose) —, and if it was not this Indzhova after it, which makes a heap of Bulgarians to put ahead of it the letter 'm' (and 'mindzha' is Turkish or Gypsy jargon for, I beg your pardon, vagina), she would have entered already in real Governments, not only in such that last 'from the morning till the noon' as the saying by us goes (i.e. temporary, for a month, I think).

     And now look at Mrs. Mihailova: one may say that she has run after the 'mihalia' (the expression 'run after the mihalia' means to 'chase the wind' and I suppose it is distorted from mistral) with this family of her, yet as far as she is Ekaterina /Katharina /Catherine, what means that she can well 'kateri' (climb up, this is something Greek because they have many word beginning on kata- there) — just like a squirrel (which for this reason is 'katerichka' in Bulgarian) — has already climbed high enough, and it will be nothing surprising if she will put her candidacy also for President, because the climbing is in her blood. Similar things with another dame with the same family — Nadezhda. When one hears this name one can not fail to be delighted, because she may as well warrant one's hopes (a 'hope' is exactly 'nadezhda' in Bulgarian, Russian, and others Slavonic languages), and even become Minister (for we, anyway, live only with hopes — 10 years earlier we hoped that when there arise many parties, or companies, the things will begin at once to go smoothly hereafter, but it turned out that the point wasn't in their number, but in their quality and magnitude; now, on the contrary, we hope that their number will at last decrease, in order for them to become larger, like by the totalitarianism).

     And what can be said about Mr. Simeonov, who, except that is like a monkey (according to his family, of course), but is five times more such, because is named Petko (and five is 'pet' in Bulgarian, also Friday, as fifth day of the week, is petak /petåk)? A good man, but the name is bad, and when so then he is not suitable for politician, no matter that is liberal (i.e. of the Liberal Party). And there is also Mr. Beron, who was born to earn ('bera' in Bulgarian is to gather, and here come all English berries, and the root was Sanskrit, some bhas) the fruits of his labour, but when you connect him with this stone (Petar, and the stone is Latin) in front and it turns that he can at the best 'earn' some stone on the head. In fact, with this family, even if his parents have christened him Gosho, he could have, still, reached something big is his life, but who was there to tell this to them in their time? The communists have looked with contempt at such 'nonsense', according to them, like nomenology, and you see now the deplorable results for our democracy.

     Or let us look for a while to the farmers, or rather to the peasant parties. Milan is a very good name, as we have already said (mil-nice), but what are doing here these 'drenki' (cornels in English) after it (meant that his family is Drenchev), ah? Maybe this is allusion that he is a big thorn ('draka' in Bulgarian) and it is better to have nothing in common with him, or else this is again blunder, but this time of his great-great-grandfather? By some of the others occur one more time the name Gosho, what, after all, sounds bad (what is 'losho' in Bulgarian and it rhymes here)! And the not unknown lady Anastasia, suffers mainly because people can not grasp who she really is, Ana or Stanka, and such instability on the political arena can not bring her the adoration of the populace, right? And in addition to this her family Moser sounds for us even more enigmatic and also frightening, because it reminds us about some Mausers, and we are peaceful nation, due to the fact that the Turks have thought us this for five centuries of yoke, where the Serbs, as you see, because their hands always 'sarbiat' ('sårbiat', are itching in English) to begin to fight with somebody (you know that there is such belief when your hands are itching that you want to do something), have barely waited that the democracy gave them this possibility and began at once to combat.

     But as far as it is time to finish then let us make also our proposition for the ideal politician, from the viewpoint of science nomenology, which we have mentioned above. There are, naturally, many variants, and they depend on the political climate in the moment, on the sex of the person, on the external features and the character of him or her, but, still, let us propose several names. For example, what is bad with one Alexandar Stoichev as President or Prime Minister, because he will ustoiava-withstand all attacks (mainly of his people, because those of the others, as a rule, are slighter)? Or also Miroslav Krastev (Kråstev), who for this reason is so christened ('krasten /'kråsten' in Bulgarian), because will become famous ('slaven') all around the world ('mir')? Though the name can also be Dimo Kratski — both, short name, and easy to be remembered, and which has sucked into itself the quintessence of democracy, so that, in whatever party he does not enter, he will move upward, until comes at the head of the entire country, because he was born to be democrat and will remain it (unless he makes the error to change his name). Or also Slavi Bozhkov, ah? He will always slavi-glorify God, or he alone will be the slava-glory of God, what is good seen on the example of our Ivan Slavkov, who was famous under the totalitarianism (he become son in law of Todor Zhivkov), and now people think he is nearly a god (what in Bulgarian and other Slavonic languages is 'bog', and the word was of Persian origin, baga), because stands at the head of BOK (what is Bulgarian Olympic Committee)! And could you imagine what would have been if he was named Bozhan Slavkov? Ah, then there would have been no need to held elections for President, right?

     Prosecutors and judges, on the other hand, must stake on the brute force and perseverance, on the fear, power, health, quickness, et cetera. And for the women, because the political arena starts to become more and more their field of career, what is easily explainable with the fact that the women are, as a rule, more mediocre personalities, who must listen to what the others say to them and make this in a sweet, pleasant, and non-confronting way, what is entirely justified also for the politicians, as resonators of the voice of people (even if they sometimes turn to resound ... hollow), we can propose the following names: Milena Govorliyska, Slavka Balgaranova, Ivanka Hubcheva ('hubav' is like German hübsch and means nice, agreeable), Padka (or also Radostina — 'radost' is joy, happiness) Emilova, Svobòda Iskrenova ('iskren' is honest) or Rumiana ('rumen' is rosy, ruddy) Stoianova (quite neutral names and suitable for all Cabinets), Stanka Liubenova (where is possible also masculine variation as, for example, Liuben Stoianov; 'liubim' means beloved), Nartasha Matseva (no Russophobe will reject her — for the reason that 'matse' is like German Mietze and means a girl), Zheny Miroliubska (the family means that she loves the world), Lili Dimova (evokes associations about smell of liuliak-lilac and smoke of domestic hearth), Petrana Blazheva, Eleonora Moneva (or the lonely Eleanor — both neutral and a little exciting), and many others.

     June 2000

     P.S. The question with the names is, obviously, very important for a politician, or generally for some star in whatever field, and for this reason many choose pseudonyms for themselves that would say something (subconsciously or without realizing this) to the people. For the passed nearly ten years can be added also: Stanishev (leader of the 'social-communists'), who, it is absolutely clear, has always dreamed to 'stane shef' (become boss, exactly so), because such was the message of his parents to him; the perky Volen Siderov (leader of our, however sad it is, fascists — but there is nothing to fear, because he has never gathered more than 6-7% of the votes), who probably hopes that his electors will appraise how free-thinking he is (because 'volno' means free), as well also will make association with one hayduk Sider, about whom in the old days were sung songs; the shyly blinking (to blink is 'migam' in Bulgarian) Miglena (from the Tsarist party, which now has almost ceased to exist),but also Kuneva and with pretty skillful hands ('kunka' in Bulgarian is children jargon for a hand), so that was able to move anywhere; and surely also others.





     Let us first express our gratitude, ladies and gentlemen, to the Chief Financial Officer of the Republic for his decision from 18 Dec 98 about this, that from Jan the 1st 99 already

     one minimal salary is equal to two such salaries,

in the sense of social insurance. Many people underestimate the epochal meaning of this fact, but it opens unexpected horizons before our economy and finances, because in this way any number can be equaled to any other! For this purpose suffice only two rules, namely: 1 = 1, which can be named rule of the common sense (RCS), and 1 = 2, which we will name rule of the Finance Minister (RFM). In view of the symmetry of equality, i.e. that it is true in both directions, RFM means also that 2 = 1, or 1 = 1/2 . For example, let us now prove that 5 = 9. This is done easily splitting the five in 4 + 1, and then for the first number applying the RFM, and for the second — RCS, and the achieved results are added. In similar way can be redefined also the arithmetic with common fractions, working separately in the numerator and denominator, as well as that with decimal fractions, where we are working with their integer and fractional parts, and after this they are glued together.

     This is discovery of genius and the world will only now recognize it, but it alone is not enough to fill the state treasury, pillaged by the communists during their totalitarian ruling, and because of this it is duty of every patriotic citizen (as well also villager) to make his or her contribution for establishing of new taxes and payments for the state. The modest contribution of the author consists of ten variants, some of which have been applied in the human history and, hence, have proved their expediency, and the others can become our national contribution on this subject. So that let us begin.

     1. Toilet tax

     For each toilet (WC) in the home has to be paid tax of 1 lev per day, and for a toilet in the yard — half of this sum*, independently of the number of persons who are using it. As far as in an average family of 3 persons the toilet is used as minimum 10 times in a day, this would have made only by 10 cents for one usage, what, after all, is at least twice (or rather 3-4 times) cheaper than the public toilets in the streets, more hygienic and convenient for the citizens, and would not burden especially the family budget, but, on the other hand, a sum of 360 lv in an year would be a good inflow in our state budget. Yet because we live in a free society everybody must have also the right to decline using of his (or her) toilet, filing a request for its sealing, where there are no problems for him to conclude an agreement with his neighbour to use his, paying him part of the amount.

     2. Shoe tax

     Every Bulgarian citizen must pay yearly a tax in the amount of 10 lv monthly if he wears shoes on the street and other public places, during that time. The tax is paid as yearly, but if somebody wants in some months, say, in June, July, and August, to go barefooted then he must declare this in the Municipality, till the end of the month preceding his barefoot walking (in our example till the end of May), and then he will have to pay for the year only 90 levs. Must be provider, though, fines in ten-fold amount, if it will be proved that someone has filed request for exemption of the tax, but all the same was seen during that time to go on street in shoes by at least two witnesses.

     3. Sweet excise

     On all sugar products (with sugar content of more than 20%, in order that this does not affect the diabetics) must be paid excise duty in the amount of 50 cents per kg sugar, what is justified because the sweet corrupts the teeth, it is not vitally necessary like the proteins and milk products, neither is so caloric like the fats. Such excise exists in Poland, and it is simply not clear why it is not yet applied in Bulgaria, having in mind that a kilo sugar costs nearly as liter milk, and sugar is consumed at least five times less, so that the pockets of the citizens will not suffer much.

     4. Teeth tax

     It is time to resurrect again the known in the past teeth tax (during our Turkish yoke, although not officially and as excuse for begging of money by the Turkish governmental officers), yet now going out of the equality of all before the law. It has to be paid on a yearly basis in the amount of 5 lv per live tooth, where for such is counted that, which is preserved more than on the half (according to assessment of health authorities), but in this case the milk teeth are not counted. By an average teeth loading of the human of 20 teeth this will give in an year only 100 lv, approximately as much as costs a single dental prosthesis, and in this sense such law will help for reaching of some democratic equality of people with healthy teeth with those with prostheses, but not harming neither of them. At the same time it is clear that everyone will prefer to pay this tax (and fill the treasury) instead of to pull out his teeth (paying for the prostheses).

     5. Tax on life

     As far as the most precious thing in the world is the human life, then for it, naturally, must be paid tax to the state. Our proposition is the following: every Bulgarian citizen who has reached age of majority must pay a lump sum in the amount of ten minimal working salaries for the female sex, and twenty for the male one, where this tax can be paid in installments during five years with some minimal added interest, after what this interest becomes punitive. Divided to the average life span this is one ridiculously small sum yearly for such precious asset.

     6. Sexual tax

     Because people make sex predominantly for enjoyment, not for continuation of the gender, it is wholly justified to impose tax on this activity. Our proposition is to pay by one lev per intercourse, applying the following fixed base: for persons between 15 and 25 years — by one intercourse daily, for those between 25 and 35 years — by four intercourses weekly, from 35 to 45 — by three times in a week, from 45 to 55 — by two times in a week, and for the left till 65 years — once in a week, and those older than 65 years are entirely exempted of this tax. Of course, everybody who wanted can refuse the paying of this tax under condition that he /she proves before medical authorities that is impotent /frigid, or moves in the next lower category, by notarized declaration of three witnesses confirming the reduced number of intercourses, measured during at least one month.

     7. Anti-corruption tax

     In connection with the increased corruption in our country we think that it is necessary to create an Anti-Corruption Fund (ACF), which must be filled by means of this tax in the amount of half minimal monthly salary in an year from each citizen of age. In this case every senior public officer, to whom some bribes and other benefits are offered, beyond those according to his labour contract, man apply to ACF declaring the offered sum and asking higher from the Fund, but yearly not more than the doubled amount of his official income for the previous calendar year. This is fighting of corruption on the principle 'fight fire with fire' and is expected that it will give good results on our native ground.

     8. Sun tax

     Because it is well known that the Sun not only shines but also warms us, and is main cause for the growth of animals and plants, it is right that every citizen paid also tax in accordance with the number of sunny days in the year. They must be declared in the beginning of every year for the past one, by regions of the country, and every citizen of a given region must pay tax in the amount of one percent of the minimal monthly salary for sunny day, or half percent — for foggy one. Of course, the days with solar eclipses must be excluded from this number, in order not to burden excessively the population with unbearable taxes.

     9. Working tax

     Every citizen with permanent work, or paying his insurance as working for the given period, must pay also tax in the amount of: 5% of the salary (or that on which basis he is ensured) for the first five years on this working place, 4% — for the next five years on the same place, and only 3% for more that ten years on one and the same place. The significance of the job for the life of everybody is obvious, what necessitates this tax.

     10. Democratic tax

     Because the democracy is the most significant achievement in the social area in the present days, for it, as also for everything good on this world, must be paid dearly. From this standpoint is justified paying from each citizen of age and to the reaching of him (her) 70 years of one common democratic tax in the amount of half minimal monthly salary in an year for his right to live in our dear homeland. Double citizenship does not give grounds for exemption from this tax, but sick days and staying in medical institutions can be later restored to the person in proportion with the time. Surely also must be allowed that people with permanent injuries, unemployed, and disabled were exempted from this tax in the name of humanity.

     With timely applying of major part of these taxes even in this year is obvious the unavoidable development and improvement of our democratic society. Only in this way the young democratic sprouts will grow up and begin to bear fruit, what in turn will express itself in an incessant enhancement of the welfare of our nation now, and in the bright democratic future. Thank you for the attention.

     July 2000




(scientific feuilleton)

     Well, there are many reasons exactly about the benefits of our constant companions in our homes nowadays and because of this I quietly say that I am feeding cockroaches at home, for it turns out to be really so. I am looking at them, as cares about them (because, if I was not there, then they also would not have been there, at least not in such abundance), but also as watching them (will I this or not, where necessary — if it is at all necessary somewhere, even if I don't understand clearly where exactly —, and where not), in all time, but especially in the evenings and nights (approximately before the beginning of the dawn) and mostly in the kitchen joint. So that let me explain to the readers why they are so useful, in order to dedicate them this material.

     The first consideration is that once God has created them then they must exist, otherwise they wouldn't have existed! This is iron logic, of the type of ancient Eastern view, that this world is the best one from all possible (for if there was some better one then it would have been settled long ago). If some of you don't like the word 'God' then substitute it with 'Nature', i.e. the cockroaches are part of the whole ecological cycle on Earth, especially in the hot areas, so that if there was not necessity of them then they, surely, would have disappeared (say, in our climatic zones there are not white bears, right, but in the North they exist, yet there are no cockroaches). In general case this is correct also for many other insects (for the flies, gnats, spiders, and others), but the next things are already more specialized, and the idea is that they multiply exactly where is felt some necessity of them (because otherwise they would have not done this, to remind you this again), and if we don't understand clearly their significance (i.e. God's intentions), then this is our problem.

     The second consideration is that they exist from deep antiquity, far before the mammals, and when so then they have rich experience and well-tested instincts; regardless of their antiquity, though, when it becomes necessary, they mutate easy (like also the other insects), what is confirmed by the fact that now are met mainly ones smaller, reddish (rather reddish-brown) and elongated, not those that were 20-30 years before (black and spherical, although such also are met sometimes. But it is possible that exactly the reddish are the classical type, because your word 'cockroach' means 'reddish cocca' or 'kuka' (in Bulgarian, what is hook, meant as something curled). These nasty creatures — but, to remind you that this word comes from ... the creation, or v.v., of course (and the same is the situation in Slavonic languages, where in Russian they are tvari and to create is tvorit), i.e. they are also God's creations, like the other animals (a thing that was present also in the Western, or rather French, and from there also English, word ... cretin, which has arisen from Latin creare what is to create — and I may add that this must be so because this thing is usually done in deep bowls named in old Greek kraters /craters).

     So that these God's creatures are practicably indestructible, and as if the most reliable method is ... the cold, i.e. if you stay in cold premises, below 20oC at least in the winter, then they decrease in their number to the possible minimum. Otherwise, when you sprinkle with something, then they run away for some time, but one thing is that they run to your neighbours, what is not solving of the question in it's fullness, but also after some time they return back, if they like it by you, i.e. if it is hot, you cook and spill here and there some food, if there are cupboards and /or boxes (and in what home they are missing?) where they can hide and multiply, and especially in older homes, where are some cracks in the walls or plastering, although I wouldn't have said that they will refuse to settle in a good and new brick home. In order not to separate this as new point I can add here also that they are big ... patriots, i.e. they like their places, where they have hatched (even if they don't know their father and mother, of course), so that if you drive them away for some time, they return again later.

     The third consideration is that they are not poisonous, don't bite and don't even buzz, they are quiet and humble 'home pets'. Actually, the 'classical' home fly is far more annoying than one well bred and bashful cockroach (for they, as a rule, are afraid to appear before your eyes, they wait until you go out of the kitchen and then begins their time), not to mention the gnats, spiders, as also the home ants (which can bite, if necessary). Well, it is true that in the night they walk around, and if there are some greased with something boxes (say, styrofoam packagings of meat products), then they begin to scratch them, in order to clean them (no matter that you have not begged them specially about this), or it may happen that they can walk on ... your forehead, in order to 'wipe your sweat' or fat, so to say, but when you do not guess to do this, and when they suppose that you are sleeping, then why should not the insects make a little walk? In the end, they are living in your home, so that why not to visit you, ah? Indeed, if you have a dog or a cat, or small child, does it not happen that in the night he /she/ it comes to you as to a more secure place; take it that the cockroaches also seek protection by you from their nightmares (because, who knows?).

     The fourth consideration is that they are not at all dirty, like many of us think, but on the contrary, they like to walk around the toothbrush or the sponge for dishwashing, i.e. even if they don't have teeth (I, honestly, have never looked what they have in the mouth), but like the disinfecting aroma, wash at lest their paws, and would have never hidden in dirty corners if you have offered them clear small boxes (as I said, they are shy, they don't like that you watched them when they sleep or, hmm, do these things that do also the humans when the hormones chase after them). So that, as a variant, you could leave for them one kitchen cupboard, or at least a pair of small boxes where you can throw any empty packs (say, out of safety matches, or medicaments, whichever you have, they are not pretentious, but the smaller their size is the better), or these can be simply paper pieces (used tram tickets or cash checks will also do), but don't touch them there and don't try to deceive them, beginning a genocide against them, because they, as we will see later, a quite clever. If in addition to this you pour them in the evening some fresh milk (but natural, do not torture them with dissolved milk powder, they have not deserved this) in one saucer, it can be in the bathroom, or even before the door of the apartment, then, in the end, — as I have heard the Hindus had the habit to do — they would be glad, and you too (because they will not scratch where you don't like to).

     The fifth consideration is that they even cleanse your home of various greasy and fermenting products, stains on the floor, around the sink, on the oven, even around (and possibly also inside of) the refrigerator! Jokes aside, they process these liquid remains in solid product — such very small, like a head, or even a top, of a pin, but otherwise hygienic black balls, which in fact are their faeces (if I can allow myself to contaminate your hearing or eyesight with these words). Well, it is true that they stick to everything, where they have left them — and they leave them everywhere —, but this is a natural thing, so to say, and how to reprimand them, when also the little children, as well as the home animals, do the same thing, and their things also smell. Where the cockroaches, as I have said, are clear animals, and if they leave something after them, then it is well processed, with assimilated all possible protein substances, or fats, or milk products, but they don't look with contempt also at sweet things (although are not much greedy at them — while raw minced meat, even if with addition of soya, is another thing).

     And because this is popular scientific presentation then let me explain to you some moments about the spoiling of products. Now, there are two kinds of spoilage, one is to preserving, and the other is to destroying; the first is to some kind of fermentation, i.e. oxidation, but is possible that initially goes also some sugarization, because the sugar easily becomes sour (it needs only some water and time), and the other kind is towards the alkaline. This must be confirmed by every chemist, because there are only acids and alkali (if you don't count the neutral substances, but they are only delimiting and unstable state). But this, what hardly some chemist will explain to you, is why the alkali is named so (and don't be confused with some etymology from Arabic, this isn't to the point), yet I have myself a version about this matter, I suppose that the alkali is more or less the same as the Russian word 'kal', what are the mentioned faeces. If you doubt about this Russian influence on the chemistry, then compare with these Latin faeces (and take into account that in Latin 'c' before 'a' is read as 'k'), which are split in two syllables (ultimately every word splits in syllables) and the first is some contemptuous (or spitting) fi- /fu- /tfu- or /phu-, and the second is this very 'kal', which comes from the old Greek, no matter that there it means something good, καλο, and from there is also Bulgarian 'kal', which now is not so bad a thing as in Russian, it is simply a dirt, like mud. So that I am not in error (but let me not go here into details about this why the root 'kalo' can be both, something good and also something bad), and in this case the cockroaches, as also many other insects, collect everything sour and /or greasy, what they can find, and process it (inasmuch as all animal species process, to some extent, the products, as also the plants, but they do this mainly with inorganic substances) in solid alkaline faeces. Id est, the cockroaches don't eat sh##, as many can possibly think, but are very clean insect-creatures.

     The sixth consideration is that they are extremely intelligent creatures, and nearly always more clever or smart than the humans, more so taking into account that they have almost nothing, i.e. their 'brains' are with dimensions of tip of a pin, and this by older exemplars, to say nothing about the 'children', and their eyes are faceted, i.e. they see only spots, something like nearsighted with at least 10 diopters. You just imagine how you would have felt if were forced to watch your favorite TV series on a circular screen (the size does not matter) with about 50 spots, probably in one colour. And in spite of this they almost always guess your intentions, and when you just stay and look at them they stay quiet, but only you decide to stretch your hand and grasp something in order to kill them, and they have already disappeared. Such rapidness and precision of reactions, by such primitive structure of their organisms, is directly fantastic, and such are the cockroaches, amazing creatures, just to feel remorse to kill them! And it is even not clear, when we destroy them with different chemical agents, don't we do them something ... good in genetic regard, forcing in this way new and better suited mutations (to say nothing about the physical destruction — this is simply survival of the fittest, i.e. we select them in this way!).

     The seventh consideration, which is penultimate in our list (or last in a more serious aspect), is that they are unusually slender and beautiful insects, at least the elongated reddish ones, in good physical condition, directly acrobats, clime the walls, and sometimes even walk on the ceiling, were it only sufficiently warm (higher than 20 degrees Celsius), for the reason that the insects lack yet control of their body temperature. ( And for some time I have looked that one my toothpick, or rather a fragment of such, as if is not on the same place where I have left it the previous day — I am living alone and there is nobody else to touch it —, but thought that maybe I am wrong, yet when this happened several times I came to the conclusion that these creatures simply ... are exercising sports in the night, they are lifting weights, ah? But maybe this 'cockroach-boy' — because in Bulgarian this insect is 'she', or then 'girl' because in Russian it is 'he', i.e. I mean that the sex may be different from the usually accepted, although in English the usual things sometimes sound unusually —, so maybe this 'guy' or 'girl:' is simply angry at me that I have left nothing on the toothpick, whether I know, but one Bulgarian intellectual cannot allow himself to leave tasty bits even on the tip of a toothpick, so that let this 'insector' or 'insectoress' forgive me. )

     But if they can't regulate their body temperature, then they can lay eggs, which survive the cold times, so that it again turns out that they are built physically very well. Besides, they can cling to practically any surface (plaster, paint, wood, faience, etc.) if only it is not extremely polished, and if you think that they sometimes fall from the table — because this has to be the idea behind the Russian name 'tarakan', i.e. that they do 'trr' when they flop to the ground — then you are wrong, they simply jump! Id est they know that they can't fly, but they are light, the reddish ones (and the black ones have hard shell, and surely keep balance better than the cats, so that they land on their paws), and jump from a height of one meter, even of two (what, compared with their dimensions, means that a human jumps from 100 - 200 meters, and without any parachute, maybe only opening a little the flanks of his overcoat!). And they are quite beautiful — all insects are directly perfect in their structure —, and the healthy body leads to healthy ... sex, of course, in every time, like by the humans, so that: how one can not admire them? ( In fact, if there is something for which I don't like them much, this is that one just can't ... swear at them properly, because, you see, with a cockroachess, and more so if it is 'he', isn't the best thing to imagine. )

     Well, on parting we can add an eight consideration about the usefulness of cockroaches — this, that they can be quite useful as ... food! Id est, they maybe are not very tasty (I, for my part, have always felt pity to kill them for this purpose, so that I personally have not tasted them), but they contain fats (it is seen when one smashes them with a good hit), proteins (when they are so agile, because we eat mainly muscles, the so called striated, which are some long fibers and with hooks at both ends and they cling to one another), and also contain calcium, because they have chitin shells and non-developed wings (what is nearly equal to ... milk products, for we eat milk and milk products chiefly because of the calcium in them, that is necessary especially for the young and the old). So that here is one such recipe:

     Cockroaches with rice a la Myrski

     You take one glass jar for stewed fruit, 700 - 800 ml, pour in it half coffee cup of rice (50 g), add a coffee cup of fresh milk (100 ml), pour also a little (10 ml) sunflower oil, put very little salt and sugar (maybe also black pepper, if you have accustomed them to more spicy food), curl around the jar some handkerchief (it might be also used, so is even better) and fix it with elastic band to the orifice, so that it hung down and reached to the floor, but otherwise left the jar open, and put it in the evening in the kitchen or the bathroom, where the cockroaches like to walk. The handkerchief is not obligatory, or can be used also some narrow piece of cloth tied like a cravat, which stretches on the floor, but it is necessary to have something similar in order to alleviate the rising to the top for these little animals, after what they jump — voluntarily, i.e. you do not compel them, this is quite democratic approach — inside, eat as much as they can, but can't climb back out. If for one night there will not accumulate enough — they have to be about 50 -100 pieces, otherwise the meal will be very meatless — then leave the jar for a second (or third) night; don't be afraid that the milk will spoil, it will firstly try to preserve itself through some kind of souring, or add a little vinegar (this may attract even more insects). In the day when you decide to cook this meal you just pour quickly the contents in the saucepan, where you have first fried a little grated union, in more oil, add water for the rice, put the preferred by you spices, but do not forget finely chopped celery, parsley or dill, and after half an hour of cooking (the cockroaches will quickly be ready, they are too small) add, if possible, some grated parmesan. After fife more minutes the meal is ready.

     Well, this is portion for one person, so that if you are more people, or if you expect guests, then put several such jars, or even ask some of your neighbours to leave for a night a pair of jars by them; usage of bigger jar with increased dose is also a variant, but don't fill much a small jar (maximum till 1/3 of the it, but preferably till the 1/4), because the food can run away by you. This dish can be prepared also in clay pots, and then instead of parmesan you can knock on top by one (tiny, it can be from quail) egg, but there is no necessity of other meat additions, in order to be able to feel good the taste of the insects.

     Well, bon appetite!

     And love the cockroaches, they deserve this!

     Sep 2012



(tragicomic saga about Bulgarian pensions)

     Now, gentlemen, the situation with the pensions in Bulgaria, frankly speaking, is tragic, but as far as the tragic and the comic, according to the ancient Eastern sages, with whom I agree, often touch one another, and to laugh, after all, is better than to cry, then I am writing this material as feuilleton. To laugh is especially good when one has nice teeth, even if they are false or bogus, which one can show to everybody, or when the person, or rather the woman, has stuck in her tongue some gold or gilded push-pin, or something very like this, only with a small ruby or some other precious stone, and because of this opens so wide her mouth that is seen her insatiable (for pleasures) throat, or her tonsils, if she has still not cut them off. Well, if one has not teeth (like, say, your author), then he can smile ironically or cynically, and this, all the same, is better than to pour rivers of tears.

     Because our transition to democracy, which continues for more than 25 years now — and it continues because we still live on the average 3-4 times worse than under the totalitarianism — for some of us proceeds good, but for others it is quite probable to finish only to the end of 21st century. Yet let us move in succession. But have in mind that I am just now going on pension, so that I have learned something, these are pretty exact calculations, it isn't guessing on coffee grounds.

     So that we will begin with this, that in order to go on pension in Bulgaria one has to have nearly 40 years length of service (38, but this is in the moment, and they increase gradually and after a pair of years will become 40), and have at least 64 years (I round the numbers a little for easy calculations). If one has still not so much service then after a pair of years, now it is nearly 66 years, he or she can go on pension even having only 15 years service. So that, gentlemen, grin, rejoice, because it turns out that even with 15 years length of service one can, thanks to our democracy, retire at last.

     Though this is not exactly so, naturally, this is the so called half pension, for which before, id est under the bad and inhuman totalitarianism, for this were necessary only 10 years (if I am not wrong). And for normal retirement in the last century was required age of 60 years for the men and 55 for the women. So that for 25 years (to round the calculations) the pension age for men has increased with 5 years, and for women with whole 10 years. Calculate now, children, under this same rate of growth of age, on what age will retire men and women after one century (or in 2115). Well, I don't know how you calculate, but for the women this will make more than hundred. That's it. And this is normal situation, but we have had in Bulgaria even more "normal" (understand, abnormal) situation in the first years of the transition, somewhere maybe up to 1995th, when men could retire on 57 and women on 53, because, you see, our eminent UDF persons, i.e. the only real democrats, from the Union of Democratic Forces (which union nowadays cannot get even one percent of the votes), thought that the old people only hinder in vain the young ones to make career and due to this, the sooner we will get rid of them, the better.

     Further the system of calculating of the pension is relatively simple and, as is said, transparent, because is calculated the gross income for everybody for all years of his (or her) service, it is related to the average income for the country, in tables, all decent and properly, and in this way is obtained the individual coefficient (IC) for the person. Then the average salary in the moment — mark, in the moment, the pensions are perpetually corrected, just unbelievable (or at least in the beginning are calculated correctly, I have not yet enough statistics for to state this firmly) — is multiplied by this coefficient and is obtained the basic income for calculation of the pension. After this the last income is multiplied by the percents obtained in the following elementary (and smart) way, counting each year of service for one percent (say, 20 years and 6 months gives 20.5%), where with PLS will denote these percents of length of service. Then comes one ... mysterious coefficient, which we can denote as MC, and which now in Bulgaria is 1.1, and the obtained PLS, or as income multiplied by PLS, is multiplied by this coefficient and this gives the percentage or amount of the pension. Even — I have grasped also this — exists some social threshold, called minimal pension (MP), which enters in force if the calculated pension turns to be less than this threshold.

     It can be said that this is one directly brilliant system. And if it is such than it most probably is borrowed from the West. Our democratic development, in the framework of European Union, goes directly in European manner, rejoice gentlemen, as well also ladies (especially when your pension age now is equal with that of the men — an absolute emancipation, directly emanciabsolutization, right?)

     Perfectly. I have no words. Yet it is better not to live to pension age, as you will understand now. Because .exist a pair of hooks or catches, on which are caught the democratic optimists. Most significant of them are two. The first is that the minimal pension does NOT correspond with the minimal income, not on your nelly, gentlemen! The minimal pension correlates with the average income and is a bit (about 10 percents, yet everything is individual) HIGHER then the average income, this is a social umbrella. It exists even a maximal pension which is not more an umbrella, but a hit on the head (with the handle of the umbrella, I suppose), which enters in effect when one has gained too much and something has to be taken back from him. So that if you are an average worker, with average income, with IC exactly equal to 1, then you will receive 1.1*PLS from your salary (which is equal to the average). Id est if you have worked 20 years, then you wil receive 22% from the average salary, or the minimal, what from both sums is higher.

     Well, very well, yet there's nothing well in this, as was sung in one song (Russian), because 40 years service this is not 10 and not 20, this is an awful lot of years, there are not many people who live to this, and the young ones simply don't believe that they will live to such age. Some 20 or 25 years is good, and it was so under the totalitarianism, then 20 years sufficed, and now 40 are needed. Enviable social achievement, of course. Well, some may say that it is so also on the West, as with the equal age of pensioning for men and women, too. Yeah, but this is firstly worse than it was under the (bad, don't forget) totalitarianism, and then it is with "national differences". Because if our average person has worked during this awfully long period of 40 years, then he (or she) will receive at best 44% from his salary. And 44% is far away from 70%, how it has to be on the West, and how it was (or at least it was said so) in Bulgaria earlier, under the "people's" democracy, in contrast with our current, definitely, anti-people's one. It was even spoken earlier that about 60% receive such people with big salaries, and those who have smaller, then to them is given close to 80% (for what I can not vouch).

     So, and now let us look more precisely how much will receive a person if he has worked 40 years, what, as we already said, is pretty much. Well, this will give 44% of the average salary, which in March 2016 was 730 lv, or 320 lv (1 lv = 1/2 euro, for reference). Is 320 lv much or not (it has already, after half an year, become a bit more) is another question; for living in Bulgaria this as if is not a little, when the minimal monthly salary (MMS) is 420 lv in the same time, but here we compare the average with the minimal, what is not correct. And by this incorrectness we have that 320 / 420 = 76% (what would have been good if we have compared average with average, yet by us this is not so), and in addition is given that the average pension in Bulgaria in this time is 340 lv, what means that the average number of pensioners have worked nearly 41 years, in what I, by God, just don't believe! The people, you see, die, little by little, and quite a big number of them live not to pension age, say, a priori, about 15 percents, and then in the first five years of receiving of their pension leave for the other world another 15, if not 20 percents. Only those who exceed 70 years they die gradually. This must be so, when the cards for city transport for pensioners are still pretty expensive, like those for school and university students, somewhere about the half of normal cards, but after 70 they drop at once another 2.5 times (and earlier it was more than 3 times). So that in the best case this average pension of 3/4 of minimal salary is computed for 85% of those who have paid pension contributions nearly 40 years and after 5 years they will remain 70% of all from whom money was transferred to the pension fund.

     But here also must be some catch — there is no way without this in Bulgaria —, like for example that the average pension is calculated for those who retire by this paragraph, with service of more then 38 years, but there is a way also with less years of service (to what we will come), as well also many people — say, about 15% — can not at all get whatever pension (even 15 years work is not so little), and they either receive some social pensions, or receive nothing at all. So that most probably this average pension concerns roughly half of the pensioners with service more than 38 years, because somewhere is cited that 1/4 of all pensioners receive the minimal pension, and then maybe another 1/4 of them receive pension bigger than the average bur smaller than the maximal. In short, don't you think that our pensioners receive on the average about 3/4 of MMS, what is relatively decent, no, the average pensioner, if we average over all who must receive pension, then he or she will hardly gather more than half MMS, and many others will get significantly less than this (as you will see now).

     So that let us begin to decrease the years of service, because exactly then it becomes interesting (and tragic, of course — the funniest thing in life is when the others suffer, right?). In my view the average must be about 30 years of service, what also in not a little, and such person will receive 33% from the average salary of the same 730 lv, what gives 240 lv, what is nearly twice less than the minimal salary. And if he has worked 25 years, then he (and surely also she) will have 27.5% or 200 lv, what now is definitely less than half of the MMS. But if he has 20 years of service then his 22% will give 160 lv, and exactly then comes in effect the minimal pension (and for this paragraph), which in March 2016 was 157 lv. In other words, the minimal pension is received with 20 years service, which in the totalitarian years sufficed for receiving of pension and must have given about 80% from the personal salary, but at least 60%. This is now the second important "national peculiarity" — lessening thrice of the minimal pensions in comparison with the bad totalitarian years. Do you begin to grasp a little or still do not? Well, if you don't, then I will add that the media cite somewhere that the minimal salary in ... Africa, and more precisely in the country Gabon turns to be 2.5 times higher than in the (democratic) Bulgaria. Hurray, gentlemen!

     And let us now laugh (or, as I said, weep) over the situation of such people, like your author, who have barely scraped together 15 years of service for a half pension. Well, there everything falls down, there is another table, and because of this the threshold named minimal pension (and which correlated with the average one) is already (in March 2016) not 157 but 133 lv, what is now 18% from the average salary (of 730 lv in this time), and what can be named super-minimal pension (SMP). If we put this SMP of 133 lv in proportion even to the MMS of 420 lv, then we will get 31%. If you are interested how is it possible to live on 18% of the average income (or just a bit below one third of the minimal one), then this is another matter, I have discussed it in various places, and specially for intellectuals (like me) this is not directly impossible, because they are used to live poor, this is difficult mainly for the common people, but let us not diverge with this here. Let me better explain to you my fundamental error by calculating of my IC, or the next trick of our specialists in social welfare. So it is said that one can choose only three consecutive years from his period of work, and applying the necessary document for the received during this time money, and dividing this money to the total income for this time, from tables, he will get his IC. Well, my IC, of Bulgarian intellectual, with tertiary education (rather with two such educations and a bit more than this), research assistant, turned to be in the chosen by me period 1.28 (and on the average about 1.2), what is quite decent.

     Yet it is not so, naturally (in Bulgaria nothing is so like it has to be, I think you have already grasped this), because there were three years in the very end of the century when it was allowed to pay alone some payments for the pension fund, and when I have paid something for 2 years and 3 months, but I personally have not worked then and have not required to include them, still, our specialists think that they also have to take part in the calculation of IC. So, and now try to guess what turned my IC to be, ah? Ha, ha, ha, laugh gentlemen, this is terribly funny, because my common IC became 0.943, for the simple reason that during the time when I paid alone contributions it was ... 0.5 (even with one percent less)! So it is, dirty intellectual, it is not enough that you have studied in university twice, but in addition have not at all worked for our national democracy, so that it serves you right!

     Well, by such IC, and for 16 years service, it comes to about 18% but from already diminished average salary, what gives 123 lv, yet because our Bulgarian democracy cares also for "dirty intellectuals", then I received the minimal pension (on this table) from 133 levs (less then 70 euro, and for a month, not a day). Though it grows a little, so that while I write this material it has become already 137 lv, and it is not excluded that till the end of the year it will become 140 levs. So-o, well, when it is so then your author, as person with mathematical education, decided that it is possible to require recalculation of the pension, not for 16.25 years of service, bur exactly for 15 years (and nearly one month above this) adding only 1999th year from the self insurance, and then his, i.e. my, IC will become 1.082, what is more or less decent, yet because the length of service falls down a little then the total sum grows up to 131 lv, but is still less than 133, so that this recalculation is of purely theoretical interest. It is so, yes, but mark that for smaller length of service in Bulgaria you can get bigger pension! And now, say that we are not a country of paradoxes, ah?

     So, in short, the pensioning in Bulgaria, for those who have nearly died of working 40 years, gives minimal pension of 80 euro in month, what is 2.5 times less than in Gabon, and average pension (for those half-dead people) of 160 euro, but for those who have worked only 20 years, how it was required under the totalitarianism, the minimal pension is 67 euro, and the average (with the same length of service) is again 80 euro and again for a whole month. And in addition to this now all retire approximately 10 years later than it was under the bad totalitarianism. And the age of retirement grows incessantly and will grow until it reaches 67-68 years (even with 40 years service). And how one 67 years old grandpa or grandma will work 8 hours daily is their own business, right? The democracy gives them the right to accept or to refuse, so that how they want.

     OK, we have laughed, or have cried, depending on the people, and now let us cast a glance at this how the individually accumulated sums in the pension fund are used. So in the moment the payments only for pension (without sick leave) amount up to 20% from the working salary, roughly speaking, though there were periods when was necessary to pay 30 and more percents, and not from the minimal, but from twice increased one, what had to correspond to the average. Further the calculations are easy, and if you have also an average income, then for 40 years service, by 20%, accumulates in the pension fund as much as you can use for 20 years by 40%. Similarly 30 years by 20% you can use for 20 years by 30, alike also 20 years by 20 gives the same 20 years by 20%. So that if you receive pension for 20 years more everything is more or less justified, but the thing is that we have very low average life expectancy, it is on the average 75 years now, and if you retire on 65 (those with 40 years service retire on 64, and those with 15 on 66, what on the average gives 65), then you live twice less than it was supposed and half of your money remains in the fund or goes to the state. Well, then try to live longer, yes?

     Exactly this is the main conclusion — the important thing is not the amount of pension but how long you will receive it. So that if you work less then you have more chances to live longer, for you have spent yourself less, like your author. Further, if you alone pay your pension insurance, then you better pay no installments at all, only try to gather somehow the minimal necessary number of years, because if you pay little, then your coefficient falls, and to pay much out of your own pocket is directly unethical and indecent. The pension, anyway, is not for the wealthy, it is for the poor, and however small it was this is better than nothing. Even this super-minimal pension, which I decided to call "zor-zaman" pension (this is Turkish dialect that means "on the off-chance", yet it is not used as adjective, here your author improvises), is better that nothing, and if you have where to live, if you are healthy et cetera, then it is substantial help in your old age.

     This what is murderous for the pensioners in Bulgaria is not the amount of pension, but the prices on communal expenses and on medicaments, this is what does not correspond with the pension. Because if the pensions by us have fallen 2-3 times in comparison with the totalitarian years, then the communal expenses, such like central heating, electricity, transport, and so on, have grown at least 10 times, also the medicaments at least 5-6 times, also the subsidized food products like bread and milk about three times, like also the entire medical care, which earlier costed nothing, yet it can't be said that was worth nothing. Even with minimal pension but healthy the remaining years can be lived better, than with average one, but with average expenses on doctors and medicaments, or also with maximal, but with maximal such expenses. Due to this it is better not to live to the pension age, because we are the most right-inclined than the wealthy countries, or when we must have the possibly left-oriented capitalism we have the possibly right-oriented, in Bulgaria, in the country of paradoxes. Yet when I have lived to this time, then I can do nothing, right? I will simply try, when I have put for 16 years money in the pension fund, to use my pension at least 16 years, what means to live till 83. Well, a bit much, but not that this is directly impossible. I will try. Not for myself, naturally, but for my readers. Ha, ha.

     Sep 2016






Chris MYRSKI, 2001 - 2017


Contents Of This Section

     Actual political dictionary

     An open question

     About the trees and the people (forest allegory)

     Dozen questions for deliberation

     Could one cope with it?!

     Idea about new calendar

     Reflections about the numbers (popular etymology and more)



     Politician — insulting nickname for a person who states that he knows all, but the only thing that he does is to "beat his breasts" always when there are people around him.

     Good Politician — there is no objective criteria for determining of this, and for that reason is used the rule that who is the most spat-upon is the best.

     Bad Politician — a politician who no one condemns.

     Independent Politician — a politician who does not want to tell on whom he is dependent.

     Political party — Partial group of people with equal views about manipulation of the masses, equal inability for logical thinking, equal short-sightedness on given matters, as well also equal goals for personal benefits.

     Political tolerance — admitting the hypothesis that the political adversary is also human being.

     Political reorientation — political games, aiming at total confusing of the voters, so that the latter voted for new parties but for the same persons.

     Adherence to political principles — mental illness which is expressed in defending of ideas which no normal person will defend to the end.

     President — chosen for fixed term "father" of the nation, what is necessary because the people are like naughty children and there must exist somebody to punish them and whom they must obey.

     Good President — President who outlives on the political arena the party which has proposed him.

     Monarch — lifelong "father" of the nation, and due to the lifetime every monarch is good.

     Democracy — the sacred right of the people to express the opinions of those politicians who have manipulated them best of all.

     Balkan syndrome — Balkan variant of the statement that power corrupts the man, namely: power acts as purgative.

     National Assembly /Parliament / "Talking Shop" (translation from Bulgarian) —tribune designed for entertainment of the people, as well also for avoiding of street collisions between differently thinking.

     Representative of the Peoples— chosen by the people politic, who has high opinion of himself, mediocre intellect, and primitive emotions.

     Oppositionist — person who is convinced that the other is wrong even before he has heard what the other will say.

     National concordutopian unanimity which is expressed in lack of opinion on questions for which everybody has his definite opinion.

     Caretaker Government — Government that serves to the State, in contrast with the other Governments that serve to the people and parties in it.

     Constitution — main law in countries where the common sense is missing, or is questioned.

     Freedom of speech — the right of everybody to read about the others things, which he will not agree that they have written about him.

     Journalist — specialist in spreading of mass rumors.

     Good journalist — journalist whose rumors turn to be true.

     Police — institution for armed protection of property and social inequality between the people.

     Legal Courts — institutions where against payment are proved allegations, which later are taken for true.

     Legality — legalization of the innate wish of everybody to deceive or cheat his neighbour.

     Religion — allowed (and recommended) opium for mass consumption.

     Communism — popular religion of 20th century, gained spreading mainly in Eastern Europe and Asia.

     Social justice — advocating the idea that everybody has the right to live below the social minimum.

     Shocking therapy — popular method for loosing weight between some more savage nations.

     Educational qualification — the reason for which the "learned" can't receive as much money as the "unlearned".

     Highlife — chosen part of the society, which does nothing useful for it, and because of this is taken by it for a sample.

     Market economy — changing of the economy with the market.

     Merchant — person who takes goods from people who don't need them, and money from people who have not enough of it, gaining by this from both parties.

     Capitalist — person having substituted the concerns for ensuring money for his personal needs, with the concerns for multiplying of money in which he has no need.

     Wage-earner — contemporary slave of capital.

     Unemployed — the sole free person in the contemporary society, who has paid dearly for his freedom.

     Millionaire — polite addressing by us in the near future*.

     Good payment — the surest way for compensation of human stupidity.

     Private property — everything what one, on the contrary to his intellect, can buy or sell.

     1993 ?




to the representatives of all political powers: parliamentary, extra-parliamentary, dependent and independent, individuals, unions, parties, blocs, platforms, coalitions, and confederations

     Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

     This is standard test, intended to enable Bulgarian people, based on your answers to non-traditional question, to orient themselves better about your political views in the complicated political situation in our country.

     Question: in one hot sunny day, around 17 hours, an adult citizen begins, I beg your pardon, to masturbate on the square before our National Assembly, where always stay police guards and are many passersby. If you were in place of the police officer and had freedom to take decisions what you would have undertaken (mark one of the possible answers, which you would have preferred)?

     a) You pretend not to notice anything, because in free and democratic country everything that is not forbidden is allowed, and up to your knowledge there is no special law that deals with such casus (liberal variant).

     b) You use your radiophone to call urgently 5-6 of your colleagues with intention to border, hand in hand, some semicircular space in front of the citizen, to avoid that he, inadvertently, spattered some Mrs. or Miss, who has not noticed him. Your conclusion is based on the judgement that in a democratic country the police should not restrict the freedom, but, still, must protect the citizens from one another, avoiding in this way conflict situations (democratic variant).

     c) You call by radiophone the First Aid in order that qualified medical personal could provide first aid to the citizen and, if needed, make him injection with bromide. You ground you judgement on the fact that we all are human beings and must help one another when necessary (Christian variant).

     d) You use the radiophone to call police car, for to transport him to the police station, where must be filed a report and initiated a case against the violator of public order. In the court, though, turns out that the person in question presented no danger for the citizens, because he has taken all necessary measures in order to avoid splattering somebody accidentally, having providently in his left, unoccupied, hand perfumed handkerchief, a think which you, as principled guardian of order, acknowledge before the court (lawful variant).

     e) You make a phone call by your radiophone calling police car and personally push him rudely into it, "educate" him on the way to the police station, and work for his sending to correctional labour for two weeks. Your judgement is based on the fact that his amorality is evident and he must be punished, regardless of the letter of the law (totalitarian variant).

     f) Special meaning — write what exactly:




     Thank you for your responsiveness, dear democrats.

     1994 ?



(forest allegory)

     There are various trees in the forest. Some of them, when you bend them to one side, say, to the left, and hold them so for about 40-50 years and then leave them, they don't at all try to straighten themselves, or do this so slow, that they die without being able to straighten themselves. These are the hopeless trees.

     Some others, when you leave them free, begin to straighten little by little their wooden body, but because have suffered long enough they don't hurry to straighten at once. Such trees, if you leave them for some 10-15 years, will rise directly up without almost no deviation, neither to the left, nor to the right. They know that it is best of all to look up, towards the light, and for this reason are called clever trees. But there are not much of them in the forest so that they as if almost don't exist.

     Another kind of trees are such, that, when you leave them, and begin at once to straighten themselves, but because they very much wanted to straighten up it turns out that, before they mark this, they have already bent to the right, and then, even if they have marked this, they continue by inertia to bend farther to the right. They stop only when bend to the right roughly as much as have been bent earlier to the left. Then they realize that, if the point was to stay bent, then they could have as well remained bent to the left, and then throw themselves with the same impetus to the contrary side and again surpass the middle point upwards. And so on — once to the left, and once to the right —so that, until they remain straightened, many trees die and many new are born. They are called common trees, or also vulgar, and they are the most widespread in the forest.

     And some young and green trees simply don't know what is better, and they bend so fast to the right, then to the left, then again to the right, so that looking at them one remains with the impression that they don't care at all in which direction to bend, only not to stand straight up. But there's nothing to be done, the damned youth can't wait, and who knows whether it is really so good to stand straight up? They, the elder trees, say so, but maybe this is because they have already lost their youthful flexibility. So that these trees are simply green. There are also many of them in the forest, and will always be many, because no tree was born knowing.

     So that, when one looks at some forest, he never knows in advance what kind of trees he will find there and in what extent of bending they will be. For this purpose, in order to establish what kind of trees are prevailing in the forest, usually are held elections.

     1994 ?



     1. If the democracy was such a good a thing then why was there necessary to wait whole 25 centuries for it to come to Bulgaria, when we are their immediate neighbours?

     2. If the dictatorship was such a bad thing then why in the times of our "Bai Tosho" we have lived significantly better than now?

     3. If the capitalism was such a good social order then why was it necessary to invent the communism and the fascism? And if they were not realized wouldn't have the capitalism still remained in social regard on the level of before World War One?

     4. If the communist block have not turned to be more effective than the capitalist one then why the wealthy capitalist countries have changed the policy of the "stick" with that of the "carrot" (according to your proverb), i.e. instead of to continue to turn their backs to us they have decided to give us a hand (or why they have not given it earlier)?

     5. If it was necessary to renounce the utopian communism then why was it necessary to return back in time to the period of "green" capitalism, instead of to converge gradually to the existing on the West for a long time socialism (although not called so there)?

     6. If it was so necessary to sell us to the wealthy Western countries then why we sold us on the possibly lowest price (when our minimal salary has reached 10 times lower level than by the totalitarianism, and our levs have become smaller than stotinki-cents)?

     7. If in order to build ourselves new "home" was necessary to destroy the old one, then must we all this time until we build it live "in tents"? And was it at all necessary to destroy everything to the foundations without securing us at least the "bricks" for the new one?

     8. If the purpose of democratic elections is to find the best party /coalition and if only it must carry the responsibility for the successes /failures during its time, then why in the Parliament are present roughly as many representatives of the "bad" parties and in addition to this all MPs receive equal salaries? Or: does it exist any other competition where the winners and the losers receive equal prizes?

     9. If by the democratic elections each (if only he is of high opinion about himself) can set his candidacy, and by this showing no document for his proved "ability" to rule, nor even sufficient age (as reason for accumulated living experience), does this mean that to rule is an easy thing? And if it is so then why we make so many errors, when having long ago reached the "bottom" continue, still, to "dig" further deeper?

     10. If the paid education is such a good thing then why in many Western countries it is free of charge, and there, where is isn't, those who alone pay for it are really a few? Similarly for the healthcare?

     11. If by the capitalism the money goes to the more capable people, not to the wealthier ones, then wouldn't it have happened so, that the latter would have hired those more capable to multiply their (of the wealthy) money, and wouldn't this have been more profitable also for the capable ones? But if so then wouldn't the big money go to the wealthier, not to the more capable ones.

     12. If the democracy was not the newest weapon, or "Trojan horse" of developed capitalist countries, in their fight with the poorer but strong and free countries, then why have they so easily succeeded to conquer us now, while earlier them have helped neither cold, nor "hot" wars?

     And in general, if it is true that our Bulgarian nation is genetically gifted, then would it not be better if we sometimes try also to think a little? For otherwise it turns out that what we alone make to ourselves nobody can make to us, because the democracy has this basic drawback, that: According with the demos, goes the "-cracy"!

     1996 ?




     According to the recent decisions on the front of social insurance everybody who pays alone his insurance (and he almost always pays alone his due payments there for the simple reason that can not find employer who will pay him salary and insurance payments), must pay at least 32% if he wants only to receive after the necessary time pension. Payments to insurance that cover also sick days and maternity leave come to about 35%, which, plus another 6% for medical care make 41% of one minimal monthly salary (MMS), but as far as the relevant authorities don't allow the people to insure themselves on lesser basis than 2 MMS, then it turns out that each self-insuring person (was he individual entrepreneur, artisan, artist, commercial agent, etc.) must pay every month at least 82% of MMS.

     Till here everything is good, where we will not discuss now is this much or not (or for whom is it much and for whom is a little) but will only mention that since we come under the aegis of the Board our living standard stopped to fall down, but it also does not rise up, i.e. occurred the normal for every stable society stagnation). This means that if the inflation stays about 5% in an year, then so much will be also the basic interest rate (BIR), and if one puts today on a deposit, for example, 100 lv then after 15 years he will have approximately 200 lv, but in their purchasing power they will be equal to the former 100 levs. In the same time, if one receives today income of 100 lv in a month then after the same 15 years for the same work he will receive already 200 lv per month, and together with his incomes will grow synchronously also MMS. In other words, if we express everything in MMS (how it is done in the world, as also in Bulgaria under the totalitarianism) there will be no changing.

     On the other hand, in all normal countries the average amount of pensions and student scholarships moves somewhere around 70% of MMS (in wider limits between 65 and 75%, yet never outside 60-80% of MMS; well, for the pensions it can happen that some receive more than one MMS, when their salary is bigger, but then the percentage of pension also falls down, so that this is not significantly higher and this is not a frequent thing, neither it is correct, and there must be taken also taxes, and the sums are rarely actualized, and after all — the pensions are not for wealthy people, they are for the poor and average citizens). There are only few those who think that we are normal country now, one decent percent thinks that earlier we were such one, but hardly somebody doubts that in the future we must become such country. This future is very relative and some say after about a decade, where some others come even to half a century, but one acceptable variant is, say, 20 years.

     So then it turns out that those, who now pay alone their insurance payments, giving each month 82% of MMS, will after 15-20, or 25, years receive pensions of 70% MMS (because then 1 MMS will not be equal to 2 MMS)! Possibly our rulers think that our people are to such extent "mere water", that can't do even such elementary calculations. It can be so for the most of people, but at least the author of this correspondence has done them. And mark, please, that the today's amount of payments in the insurance exceeds this, what people will receive after a time (speaking on the average), even on the basis of one to one, i.e. one year work for one year pension! Only that, in accordance with the new pension law, one must have approximately 40 years length of service in order to be able to retire on due time (i.e. at about 60 years), and by our statistical average life span lower than 70 years (for the men is even 67.6, according to the latest data), he has average chances to receive this pension about 5 (five) years (if he retires in age of 63)! Even if we accept that our future will be again bright (as the communist have convinced us before), then the average pensioner has no chances, after the corresponding 20 years, when his time comes, to receive his pension more then 10 years, at the maximum. In other words, the overpaying of payments in the social insurance in the moment is, in numbers and words, at least 5 (five) times.

     In this case quite naturally arises the question ... (see the title).

     March 2000




     I think it is clear that our calendar has so many flaws, that it is high time to be changed, and for that reason I have heard that there were a big number of ideas (maybe hundreds, I don't know) for a new one. Well, I make my own idea, which I have given in one or two places, but here will evolve it in more details.

     This new calendar is solar, i.e. it is tied to the Sun not to the Moon, what I think is long ago recognized to be the right approach. In addition to the year (the time for circling of the Earth around the Sun) it sets also on the day (the time for rotating of the Earth around its axis), and everything else (months, weeks, as well as hours, minutes and seconds) is different. Moreover, it is decimal, i.e. wherever possible is used base 10 (not 12 or 60), what also is obvious for me, so that it is not excluded that I "reinvent the wheel", with some minimal modifications, but let me, still, explain the idea, because it might be that my additions are not so obvious for everyone, and however many propositions there are there is not yet a new calendar, so that, I suppose, the forum is open, so to say.

     1. Long intervals (longer than a day)

     These, surely, are the months and the weeks. But firstly, where should we start, because our current calendar has somehow confused the things, for it sticks to some allegedly God, not to the Sun, and begins the year not from the right place, but somewhere around the point of the winter solstice. Well, in principle, when we have a cyclical process (how I have mentioned also in other places) there is not especially significant where we shall begin, but if we have suitable good reason for this, because the cycles of the seasons, i.e. the duration of shining of the Sun, and from there also of the temperature (for a given place and in the North hemisphere) is something like sinusoid, and it begins from the moment of transition through the zero (i.e., in our case, from the equality of the day with the night, on 22 of March); while our old calendar begins at nearly lower dead point (because till then was deadness, but now, after the new old God has been born, i.e. the Son, everything will blossom and flourish, yet it turns that only for half an year, for after this the things again worsen; in the South hemisphere, though, it happens that exactly in the beginning of the year the things start to worsen, it begins to cool). But if we begin from the point of spring or autumn equinox, then everywhere around the Earth this will be beginning, where the difference will be only in this whether it begins bettering or worsening of the weather (but, anyway, one can't please everybody, and in the northern hemisphere live more people, there is the biggest Eurasian continent).

     In any case, there is no need for many discussions on the question, it is quite clear that we must begin from 22 of March, if only because such is the tradition, so begin all Zodiacs, and they come from ancient times. But if you ponder a bit about the months (which are Latin), and if we jump over the major part of them, where are put other ideas (I discuss this somewhere but let us not diverge here from the main topic), we will come to four consecutive months where in the beginning is one digit in Latin, and after this there is some trembling (because of the cold) "brr", i.e. I mean from September to December, where the September, quite obviously, must be seventh month (then the eighth is October, etc.), but it is with the number nine according to the present-day calendar. How you think, why the ancient people have made this mistake? Yeah, but they have made no mistakes, because if March is the first month, then you just count and will see that on seven you will come exactly to September, so that everything is clear (only that our Christ has messed the things).

     Now we come to the months, which, when we must have decimal calendar, have to be ten, there is no other way! Then 360 : 10 = 36, so that the number of days in every month must be such, with small exceptions (because the days in the year are not exactly 360, they are even not 365 or 366, but come to so many) These 5 (or, resp., 6) days, because I don't think that we must change the additions for the leap years, they are good enough and we could hardly contrive something better (the number, anyway, isn't integer), we can disperse by one day to each even, or then odd, month, but I personally propose they to stay in one week (but what we shall see after a while) in the end of the year! And now, before to criticize the non-symmetry of both halves, remind yourself that in the old calendar they are not as possible symmetric, for it is not at all necessary for the February to have only 28 days — and why in February, ah? Because there (as if) the year ended, for this is the last month before March, so that this is one more reason for the actual beginning of the year.

     When all these additional days are put in one place they can be somehow ... not counted! Id est, they are something additional, what that, really, are, and can simply be taken for official holidays, for something given to us (by God, if you like it better so). It even becomes very good this, that they will never exceed the number six. This will turn to be important because now we come to the weeks, which will not have by 7 days. Why? There is very simple reason for this, because 36 is not divisible by seven, and it would have been nice if it were divisible. But it is divisible (and even twice) by 6, so that the new weeks (which in Bulgarian, by the way, are called "sevens", only the stressing is on another syllable), will be "sextets"! In this situation the additional days in the end of the year (Christmas holidays, if there will be Christmas, or just yearly holidays) will give one nearly full week, and in leap years — i.e. in such that are jumped higher than the others (and in Slavonic languages their name is translated as with higher bones) — this week will be exactly full. This is very good, because in this way each day of each month will correspond in the same way with one number of the "sextet" (the remainder of division of the number of days in month by modulus 6, said in mathematical language)! For example, 17.4 (in European standard, first the day and then the month) could have been written also as 5.3.4 (or v.v.), i.e. the 5th day, of the 3rd "sextet" of the 4th month.

     And now let us say something about their names. Well, if in some country people don't intend to rename them in their own way, I propose some universal English-French-Latin names, namely: onmon, dumon, tremon, fourmon, fifmon, sixmon, sevmon, achmon, ninemon, and tenmon, where they can be signified with digits, and even instead of from 1 to 10 we can mark them with 1 to 9 and then 0 (for the 10th month), in order to use one decimal position. Each month will have six groups or sextets, which will be called: ongroup, dugroup, tregroup, fourgroup, fifgroup, and sixgroup, with the exception of the last, tenmon, where will be also an exgroup, which prolongs it; in each group will be respectively six days, called: onday, duday, treday, fourday, fifday, and sixday.

     But in addition to the non-symmetry because of the exgroup, which concerns the half-year, is imposed one more asymmetry for the quarter-year, which can not consist now of three new months. Some may again hurry to object, but I think that it is not significant that there are not four equal seasons, for the simple reason that they, in fact, are not equal! Id est, the major and longer seasons are the summer and the winter, which can freely be counted by 3 new months, and the demi-seasons spring and autumn will be by 2 new months. Let us look what we have got, having in mind that 1 new month is 1 old month + 6 days. The year begins with the spring, which continues from 22.3 (onday, ongroup, onmonth) till (22.4 no, 22.5 no, but 12 days more, or, if we count all old months for 30 days, then to) 4.6. "old style" (what is onday, ongroup, tremon), I want to say that the latter is now the first day of the summer (and for the last day of the spring subtract one day); then follows the summer (till 36th fifmon, or the next season begins from the first sixmon, what means) till 22.9 "old style" (how it should have been expected); then is the autumn (in the northern hemi-sphere, of course) till 4.12; and then is the winter till 22.3 again "old "style".

     As you see, this is even better dividing in seasons, because the spring, really, ends to the end of May, June is already full summer, and even from the very beginning, and so until 22 of September, and the autumn continues, again really, till the beginning of December (or the end of November). If there are some alterations of the beginning, depending on the geographical latitude of the place, then they are symmetrical also in the end of the season, which either prolongs itself or shortens. Because, see, the Sun begins to shine longer on 22 of March in the current calendar, but this does not yet reflect on the temperature and affects it with a month and something delay, due to the inertness of heat transfer (which is quite a slow process), so that happens one proportional shifting of all seasons, and if they are taken for equal but are not such, then this will give distortions in all seasons (like, for example, on 22 of June the sun is the most stronger but this is wide away from the hottest time, which falls in the august month August), and if we make the seasons unequal, according to what I have said about the major and transitional seasons, then by an equal shifting we may find quite a good correspondence in the temperature, as it also happens, because the middle of the sinusoid for shining of the sun (the spring equinox) turns to be still quite near to the low dead point in regard of the temperature. In short, there will not be the obligatory dividing in four equal seasons (in view of statistics and reports, i.e. formally), but one natural dividing will exist on the base: 2, 3, 2, 3.

     Well, the lunar phases will not be marked, but they are missing also from the current calendar. And for those interesting in Zodiacs (because they, surely, will not disappear) will be provided small tables with the beginning days of each of them. ( By the way, let me remind you that the months as lunar ones, surely are not 12 in the year, they are with exactness of only one day 13, i.e. 28 * 13 = 364, so that here the things are also adjusted, in order to be possible to divide the year, and if it is 360 days, by as many numbers as possible, i.e. by 2, 3, and 4, or by 12 )

     2. Short intervals (shorter than a day)

     Here we will be more concise, where it is clear, that in order to have decimal subdivisions of the day, we must make the whole day to have 10 hours by 100 minutes, each one by 100 seconds. This makes 100,000 seconds instead of 24*60*60 = 86,400, so that the new second will be a bit shorter than the old, but in recompense of this the new minute will be about 1.5 times longer than the old (it will be 1/1000 of the day, while the old is 1/(24*60) = 1/1440 ), and the new hour will be 2.4 times longer. This, of course, is of no importance and is only a matter of habit, but it is simpler and more suitable to use everywhere the decimal system. Let us add also that here the counting begins again in the old manner, i.e. from 0 to 9 for the hours, or from 0 to 99 for the minutes and seconds. There will be possible to have one more division of 100 units (or then of 1000), as subdivision of the seconds, which parts ("tretunds", maybe?) will be given as fractional part of the seconds, because are so small that one will not be able to feel them and for that reason there is no need of special name for them, i.e. here is nothing new.

     3. Other advantages of the idea

     Look, here we will speak mainly about this how much time we are to work, because 6 is better to be divided, i.e. by 2 and by 3, while 7, in fact, is not divisible by whatever, it is prime number. A group of seven days was convenient only because this is part of the lunar month, but if you imagine that there were no Moon (and nowadays we don't pay much attention to it), or you live on another planet, or something of the kind, then there are no reasons for such divisions, where from a standpoint of dividing of our time 6 is in many aspects better — even before 5 (although we have not 6 fingers on our hands), because 5 is also prime number. So that, if we fly to another planet, then even there we may use sextet groups for dividing of the months, where the latter can be again 10, only that the sextets will not happen to fit integer times in the month, but even in this case we could again begin to count each month from onday-Monday, because so is quite suitable (and there will remain some part of the week as holidays, probably, but for the month).

     Yet let us consider now the working days. How much time we work, but as part of the day, because only it has remained on its place from the smaller divisions (as part of the year it is very twisted)? If the working week is 42 hours, but by so much time nowadays work almost nowhere (the people have no jobs, so that they wonder how less to work), then this gives 6 hours per day (42:7), or 6/24 of the day, i.e. 0.25, but if they work 35 hours (what is nearer to the normal situation, or at least to the desirable quite soon), then this gives 5 hours per day, or 5/24 of the day, i.e. 0.208333, what is about 21%. Well, if in the new six-days group we work 4 days by 3 hours (new), or the same but reversed, i.e. 3 days by 4 new hours, i.e. 12 new hours, then this taken from 6*10 = 60 hours "sextetic" or "sixtetic", i.e. in the group, makes exactly 1/5 or 20%, what equals 34 hours today's working week. I personally think that this is just ideal perspective for quite near future (after 20 - 30 years).

     So, and if 1 new hour is 2.4 old hours (2 h and 24 min), then 3 new hours will be 7.2 old hours (7 h and 12 min), where 4 new hours will be now 9.6 old hours (9 h and 36 min). Well, 9 hours and a half is quite a long working day, but this if we have worked like now, 5 days out of 7, but if we work 3 days and rest 3 days this won't be so bad as it seems, where 4 days by nearly 7 hours daily, and after this 2 weekends (not 5 and then 2) is very good, isn't it? I want to say that it will be considered according to the nature of the work and/or the wish of people, but nowadays more and more activities turn to a kind of watches without much special pressure, and under the condition that thereafter one will rest exactly so many days as one has worked, this will be pretty good in increasing number of cases, because now, too, exist places where are given rosters even by 12 hours (and in my proposition they are less than 10), and then is rested for as much, and then again these duties, until come some days of rest. Some similar fifty-fifty dividing of the working week has existed earlier in Germany (and/or Russia, I have read it in some books), where the peasants (during the serfdom) have worked 3 days for their master and then 3 days for themselves, and on the seventh day have rested; only that now thew will work only 3 days and rest again so many days.

     What regards the schools then there, as also by more strenuous activities (in the healthcare, transportation, police, etc.), will be reduced working time of, say, 2.5 new (exactly 6 old) hours in 4 days out of 6. But there is  another significant moment on which I would like to turn your attention: by one dividing in halves will be made possible for the people to ... sleep where they work! This is so elementary, that I don't know why nobody till now has pondered about these things, but there are no special problems, even just now, to make so that to every bigger enterprise (factory, big shop, or service) to be available some rooms for overnight stay, as well also a decent parking lot, where one can come with one's caravan and sleep in it. There are necessary also some service rooms, which, anyway, must be present in the big enterprises, and then it will turn out that if the people will work by 4 new hours, then they will have whole 6 hours more for rest, more than the half of the day. Everyone who has tried to work something at home, and now more and more activities become such that to be possible to perform them from the home by Internet, is convinced that there are no problems to work even by 12 current hours, the half of the time, a day, without much tiredness (because, for example, if he gets up at 7 he can begin to work at 8, rest a bit twice by half an hour, and 1 hour for lunch, or 2 hours altogether, to work pure 12 hours, and to finish at 10 in the evening, after what in 23 to lie down and sleep whole 8 hours; and here I speak only about 10 old hours, what is, as we say, "to work and to sing".

     By this situation the school students can quite easily be mainly on board, for 3 days out of 6, as also their parents (or at least one of their parents, because two parents in one place are now hardly to be met), or else to go to school or college or university only one day in the group of six days, for classroom courses, and the other time to study before their computers. As you see, the dividing in half is quite fitting thing. And this not only for the work, no, this will economize also time for transport, and it is not at all little nowadays — by averagely 1 hour there and 1 back (and in many cases, in the big megapolises, it is at least with 50% more), four unnecessary times in the current week, this gives 2*4=8 hours, or 1/3 of a day (and even to 1/2 and more in some cases) just thrown to the wind. Add to this also the economy of fuel, which in not only money, it is also ... clean air, less need of energy, so that the effect, in my view, will be enormous (and in spite of this, as far as I know, only in some police departments exist rest rooms for the staff, and this with 5 to 10 times less beds than the people working in one shift).

     4. When to begin?

     Well, we have missed the beginning of millennium, and it was the best moment. We can wait till the next century, but it is quite away from now, where my idea can be applied literally starting from tomorrow — surely, after some years of considering and preparation. But, having pondered a bit about the things, I came to the conclusion that this moment of transition, ... hmm, it isn't important at all, we can do it starting at what only year we want, from 22 of March (best of all, but even this is not obligatory), only ... backdated, of course! In other words, when will be decided that we will go to this calendar, are just to be recalculated all important dates after 22.Mar.2000 (of birth, marriages, etc.) by one pretty simple procedure (calculating first the consecutive number of the day from the beginning of the old year, subtracting from it the days before 22 Mar, if this is possible, and then the received number is divided by modulus 36, where the fractional part gives the new day of the month, and the integer part + 1 gives the new month; if there goes about days before 22 Mar then is added the exact number of days from 22 Mar last year till its end, and is proceeded in the same way as above, only that the year will be with 1 less). In this situation I would propose, say, the year 2020 as the nearest and suitable for this purpose, but dated back from the year 2000, as I said.

     And the last moment: where, i.e. in what country, or continent? Well, most properly would be to do this transition all over the world at once, but it can freely be done also in one bigger country or union, commonwealth (only in a small country like Bulgaria this will look funny). After all, different calendars exist, they are used in parallel (like the degrees of Celsius and Fahrenheit for the temperature), so that this should not make any difficulty. Besides, there are no problems for 5 or 10 years to use in parallel both, the new and the old dates. There are no problems, except the desire of people, what, as the social practice shows, is reduced to exceedingly high inertness of the big groups of people, where the problem is not in the inventing of a new and better solution, but in the rejecting of the old (and worse) one. I, personally, remember that the introduction of the unified system of weights and measures, SI, on its time, was not a small problem for many countries (like, say, England, where people and vehicles still move on the wrong side of the street), but under a good organization of the things and conviction in the appropriateness of the change, this proposition is wholly realizable, as I said, from tomorrow.

     October 2012



(popular etymology and more)


     Here it goes about different ideas, that are hidden behind each digit, its graphical representation, the meaning of its name in one or another (or a third) language, about some special bigger or very big numbers, about some bordering, if I can call them so, numbers (like Russian 4, till which the numbers are in singular but later on they are in plural; or French 16, till which firstly goes the second number and then the first, as also in many languages with 11 and 12, but later is on the contrary), as well also about the very name of the digit in various languages. The questions are obviously complicated, and lost in the darkness of centuries, as it is accepted to say, but the very ideas are not difficult, because they were invented and used by the common people, only that these layers in out minds have now entirely disappeared.

     To all of the things explained here I have come alone (what means that on some of them might be argued, yet, as you will see, I am sufficiently convincing with my cumulative proofs, so that I don't advise anybody to begin to argue with me), but this was possible for me because of my mathematical education, where for the common readers, I'm afraid, the guesses will be very hard and downright impossible (in any case, I have tried with some school students, as persons with more awakened and non-rigid model of thinking than the adults, and they have guessed about almost nothing). And the theme is interesting practically for everyone, because there is nothing really scientifically, this is reflection of ordinary human thinking and views to the world. Every symbol means something, but in most cases this is a matter of insinuation, that it must mean something — take for example the national coats of arms or banners —, like the letters, for example, which are many and have come though so many variations and rotations, and writing from left to right, or from bottom to top, and so on, that it is now hard to guess something simple and clear about them (for instance, the letter "A" was a bovine eye, but do you find it like it?; and if it is similar then why of a bovine?; etc.).

     The letters carry some ideas, and in some cases, and on some places, I cite some of them, but with the digits it is easier, they are only 10, where the 0 and the 1 have obvious ideas (although here, too, something can be added), for the numbers 2, 4, and 7 the ideas are easy (for the 2 there is even something written in some children's primary books, but without explanations why), the 8 is a bit more difficult, but the ideas hidden behind the 3, 5, 9, and especially 6, are in such extent concealed — though very interesting, at least for me it was quite interesting to detect them — so that hardly one out of a hundred persons (maybe even one out of a thousand is nearer to the truth) would have guessed about them. I have explained this in two other places (in one multi-lingual dictionary with about 12 thousand chiefly roots of words; as well also in one big book in English) but these works are pretty large and are also not published officially. For this reason I decided to explain popularly what I can on some 20 pages here.

     Because the digits, as I said, are part of our everyday life, and it is not bad to know how the ancient people — the Arabs, but they have only carried them from Ancient India, so that the digits are from the Sanskrit — have looked at them, this is simply interesting and mysterious (and this reasonably mysterious, not indoctrinated mysteries like the zodiacs, for example, where something reasonable exists, but this, surely, are not the stars — though let us not be distracted by this here). So that I advise you to scratch a bit you head (or what other place you are accustomed to scratch when thinking intensively) and see to what you can come alone. Let us add to the these digits also the big ones, the thousands, millions, and some smaller, 40, 16, 4, as well also 12 (i.e. why the months, and the apostles, too, must have been exactly 12 — at least this is very easy). And begin to think but stop to read further! After a month or two you return to this material, in order to check yourselves. And in order not to be pretty easy for you to look ahead I will begin first with the word about the very number.

     The number

     Well, this word has several variations, at least Slavonic and Western. As a Slav I think to begin with the Slavonic number (or because I am translating this paper from Bulgarian, what is also important reason), but let me first clarify some things, namely: normal citation of foreign words I will give in double quotes ("so"), especially if this is on the language of narration (here the English), but when the words are from foreign languages I will almost always miss them and will be content to apply only Italic font, although it can be used also for emphasizing (yet I hope you are intelligent enough to make the difference), and if there will be used Greek letters then surely without quotes (it is clear that the word is foreign); the single quotes I will use to mark how the word is to be read (in the nearest to the language of narration way) and will usually miss the Italic if the word is given in such quotes, but also very often 'this' quotes will be used when I am citing words in different from the Latin (usually in Cyrillic) alphabet (and then I normally will put Italic font to stress that the word is foreign); and the bold font is for underlining, something like subtitle.

     Now about the reading, because there is no universal standard, the way out is to use some language with simple phonetics, like Italian (or rather Latin, and maximally simplified, say -ti will be read as 'ti'), or Bulgarian, but we have another alphabet, so that it is not suitable to be applied here; there is also one newest method that I have invented (in "Myrski's English Transliteration) but I will abstain from it here (because this paper was written earlier). Hence, if there are several adjacent vowels they must be read somehow so, with only this addition on new basic letters: "þ" is the so called soft sign in Russian and means softening of the previous consonant (like in the Spanish canyon-'kanþon'), and the "å" is this vowel like in your "girl"; it is supposed that "sh", "ch", and "zh" are obvious, "c" is like in Caesar (but in order to avoid any doubts this sound will be given as 'tz'), "j" is "yot" /"jot" what in English is usually given with "y" (or just "i", but there's a difference, the 'j' is not full vowel), your "w" remains for the moment, maybe something else (I am not very precise here in order not to bore you), and French nasal words will be marked with "~". And by "somehow so" I mean that, say, your "year" will be 'iår', "where" will be 'weår', etc., but the second vowel can have meaning of modifier, like also in Russian 'måi' what is "we", or their 'åokno' what is "window', or your "but"-'båot'. Well, and because there will be met many times names of various languages, I will shorten them to 3 (sometimes even to 2) letters, about which meaning you will be quite able to make the right guess; also lang. will mean "language". If there will be something else I will explain it on the very place.

     So, and the Sl. number, which is 'chislo', has to be simply something pure ('chist' in Bul. or 'chiståij' in Rus.), and here is our 'chetà'-to-read (what we use not only for letters bur also for numbers, what is not correct); this is so also from mathematical point of view because the number, really, is some abstraction, numbers as such can't walk on the streets, figuratively speaking. And in order not to think that this root is only Sl. (and I am teaching you here something useless), let me tell you that here is also Eng. "gist" like (quint-) essence, Fr. geste ('zhest') as gesture (in the Lat. gestio means to make something, to launch), or Ger. Gestalt ('geshtalt'), what means kernel, image, essence, or also Tur. 'dzhaskam' as to hit, shove, push, or if you want also the Ar. ... jin /gin (or cin in Tur. but read again 'dzhin') as spirit, and others, what is to say that the 'chislo' is something squeezed, compressed, or abstracted.

     The Western number, for its part, i.e. Lat. numerus, or Ger. Nummer, could be said that is something like Rus. 'nu' (or Eng. "now", or Ger. na, etc., particle for attracting of attention) + Ger. mehr (or your more, what ultimately is related with the mare-sea as something big), i.e. "something more"; or at least I think so, because this is how the numbers are built, with adding of one more. Well, specially one number in Eng. is digit, what is directly taken from Lat. digitus, only that it means a finger or fingernail, but this surely tells us that people have counted on fingers (or that the digits are as many as our fingers are, ten).

     But if we make difference between one number as digit and many numbers, then in Rus. etc.(Sl.) a digit is 'tzifra', what is old Heb. word, cefir, and Ar. chifr, and from there also Fr. chiffre, Ger., etc., what is the cipher, something twisted, hidden, again some essence of the real things; and, when it begins with 'sh' or 's' then it can easily become 'tz' like in the Sl. langs; and here turns to be also Eng. "zero", maybe as the first "ciphered" thing. Let us, though, not go into many details because the very numbers are quite more interesting.

     The zero and the one

     The zero, obviously, is the "feminine" number, the "hole", naught, nothing, and for a long time if was not counted for number, because it is not natural number (and one number is natural, as I like to explain popularly to the school children, if it can ... run, otherwise it simply does not exist in the nature, i.e. the 0, the negative numbers, and the fractions of any kind, are not natural numbers), and in old Gr. was absent their contemporary word νουλα (read 'nula' because the Greeks — can you imagine this? — just have not a letter 'u' and are forced to combine 2 letters). This zero comes from the Skr. (for Sanskrit), where it is nullah, but the point is that this does not mean there zero, it means a valley, lowland, and then I think that here has to be added one ... river. Did you guess which? Well, as far as the nulirane in Bul. /Sl. (zeroing) often becomes nihilirane (nihilus in Lat.) or an- /nihilate in Eng., then we come to the root 'nil-', or to the river Nile. ( By the way, only the syllable 'ni-' in the Skr. means something low, lowland, valley, because is said — for the author does not know Skr. — that nivar meant lowland — where from must come Bul. 'niva', what is a field (sown with something) —, and udvar meant height, hill, something cocked up, like, hmm, like the cited in Rus., out of decency, hoping the people there will not understand an once that this is some cynical word — as it also happens — Ar. 'ud', what in Bul. and Rus. is written with 3 letters, but in Eng. with 4, and means something utterly masculine, or said relatively decently, a cock. Well, when I translated this in Eng. I saw that in Ar. is given some oud or ud as stringed musical instrument, and the Sl. ud is old Sl. but both things have to be related to the Skr. ud, in my opinion. ) And to the zero being the Heb. cefir, this really has to be so because in Tur. sifir means also zero, although this is a bit strange for this is the most insignificant digit, but when it is the first one, then this has to be so.

     The one in Rus. is 'odin' (or 'edin' in Bul.) and it has to be the same also on the West, though this is not clear to everyone. This is in the sense that here is also Eng. "one", Ger. eins, old Frisian an, en, Hol. (for Holland or Dutch or Netherlands) een, and so on, and old Greek οιοσ (but now is ενα), and Avs. (this is from the sacred books of old Persians, called Avestas, i.e. nearly old Per.) aeva, and Skr. ekas. Though, if you think what we will run away from the "cock" you are wrong, because even in Ger. the prefix ein- (read 'ajn' — yet not 'adzhn' of course) is the same as Eng. (and Lat., too) in-, what means into, to enter somewhere (in the "zero', to be sure). And in addition to this, why must Sl. odin has this letter 'd', which is in the 'ud' (for there is no such letter in uno, eins, ενα, ekas, etc.)? Obviously because 'odin' is the masculine digit, and to confirm this let us mention also one well known on the West ... god, the Scandinavian Odhen or Woden (which in Rus. is given again as Oden), and somewhere in the etymological dictionaries is said that I.-E. (for Indo-European langs) root wodh- meant to burn, or to inflame, excite, cause erection.

     Although the letter 'd', or the root 'od-', is also massively met on the West, for example in Ger. Öde (a desert, bare land), Eng. "odd" (as not even but the idea is that of the number 1, i.e. when you begin to count them by 2, first and second, then one number will remain alone, without brethren), or Heb. od (what means 7, and to which we shall come later, but 7 also is odd number), and here — for the Slavs this should have been now obvious — is the Sl. 'ad' what is a hell (and it has to be somehow related with our 'jad' what is an ire, rage, and it eats us — jade in Bul. — and makes us alone, like in the desert, what contacts also with Rus. jad what is a poison)! This Sl. ad-inferno is old Gr. Αδησ (Hades), but there is also one god of death, 'Aid' in Rus., who was son of Cronos and Rhea and ruled in subterranean kingdom, i.e. in the ad (so that the jad as rage or as poison can also not be accidental here, no matter that the jad-rage is related with the jadene-eating). We may add here also Rus. 'odnako' (but) as some objection, single exception, here most probably is the known ... poetic "ode", too, as something for singular or exceptional personalities, and (in my opinion) also the ... jod /iode /iodine, because it burns us like in the hell, and other things.

     But together with 'od-' / 'on-' there is one more Western root for the 1 and this is 'mono-', where is Fr. monde (world, earth), Ger. Mond (this time the moon), Ger. Monat-month, Gr. μοναχοσ (monk, surely, i.e. lonely person), even your monarchy as well as the monarch (what is Lat.). And if you ask yourself what is the common thing between the Earth and the Moon (Fr. and Ger. "mond"), then this is that both things are something tight, single, and from here is the idea of monism in the philosophy. ( On this place, if you allow me — and if you do not allow me this then jump everything till the end of the paragraph —, I would like to squeeze a remark about this, why ... are given as presents only odd number of flowers to living persons, and, resp., for the dead only even number. This comes from the meaning of "perfect" as finished, in some way even, there is nothing left or sticking out when one has died, and while the person is still alive he changes all the time, he is not perfect, like also the imperfect times. Yet in the Sl. langs this sounds better because in Bul. we have the word 'svårshen' as finished, and also 'såvårshen' exactly as perfect; similarly also in Rus. Now people don't take the numbers so seriously and may think that these are silly things, but the ancient people, in old Greece and not only, have even deified the numbers, especially the Pythagoreans, and the first difference between them is whether they are even or not. )

     The two

     The two, which in Bul. is 'dve', in Rus. 'dvoe' etc., can mutate a lot, changing to 'tv-' (in Eng. "two") or 'tzv-' (in Ger. zwei, 'tzvaj'; where some old Frisian "twa" can explain this Eng.-Ger. mutation), or in Lat. duo, or in old Gr. δυο ('dio'), or in old Heb. bina, and in the Skr. it was dwan. This, that here are all binary things, like It. bicicletta or Eng. "bicycle" and so on — ah, also the "bio"-things (βιο in Gr.), because everything living divides, and prior to this it copulates or makes couples —, is clear, but before we proceed to some religious aspects (and also to the picture of the digit) let us explain what does here the Sl. ... door, which in Rus. is 'dverþ', or also Bul. court, which is 'dvor', what seems puzzling. But it just can't be otherwise (although I personally have not guessed about this before the etymologists have told it to me). Ah, the point is that the court divides the space in two parts, our and foreign (and for that reason it is surrounded with fence), and the same does the door (in Bul. it is 'vrata' and tells us that it rotates, 'vårtja', but it also divides, it has two sides).

     The religious aspects must be clear, this is the god-two or pair, because it is Deos in Lat. (resp. dea is a goddess) and Θεοσ /Theos in old Gr., and this is so in accordance with Bul. saying that "he who knows 2, knows 200", i.e. when one exceeds the one, himself, then he comprises everything! And the graphical image of the two is, as it is given in some primers, the swan's neck! It is so, but nobody explains to the children (neither later, to the grown ups) why this is so, why the swan is the two. This surely is not because it is a nice bird, but because it is ... simply a bird! In the sense that since the swan is nice bird we say that this is its neck, and it is sufficiently characteristic for to symbolize the digit, but behind this beauty hides any bird, and behind every bird, say, behind the hen, which is 'kokoshka' in Bul., is hidden, hmm — what is hidden, in your opinion? Ah, there are hidden two things (which in the end reduce to one thing), it is hidden the syllable "ko", respectively co in Lat., and from it comes Sl. "co" — because in Cyrillic (Cyr. for short) the letter 's' is written exactly like the Lat. "c" —, what means "with", or very often just the Cyr. "c" means this, but together with this also the ... act of copulation, obviously! Well, at least for me it was quite obvious (after the swan's neck), and phonetically this fits well with the "co-co" of the hen, so that it remained only to explain why the ancient people have taken for such representative example the hen, not the pig, say, or the sheep, the bull, the dog, if you want, and so on?

     Well, shortly, because the hens are under our noses. Id est hens were in every courtyard, while cows were far away from everywhere, and they are grazing during the day, the sheep for a whole season are outside, the pigs, in fact, stay in their pigsty, but all those animals, hmm, they copulate significantly less than the birds. So that thousands of words, even in one and the same lang., have started from these animals, like, for example: copulation, correlation, cooperation, coalition, Rus. kolkhoz (if you want), i.e. collective, congress, conspiracy, constellation (and, resp. in Rus. 'sozvezdie' where star is 'zvezda'), also the ... constipation (some tightening of the bowels), and what not else, plus Rus.: 'sojuz'-union, 'skleivanie'-gluing-together, 'svjazåivanie'-tying, and so on. And as to words for the hen and related with her things these are, say, Rus. 'kura'-hen, which goes in parallel with Ger. Hure, what is not a hen, it is a prostitute, then Fr, coquette ('koket', i.e. like a hen, because coq-'kok' is a cock), then Ger. Vogel (a bird — for the reason that it flies like a 'foga' as we say, I'll tell you, what means very fast, and the word surely is twin with your "fog"), but then vögeln is already to copulate, to "screw", and then it is necessary to mention also Bul. jargon 'kopele' what is translated as "son of a bitch" and is the direct result of copulation. In the purest form, however, this root is presented in Sp. where coño ('konjo') is exactly vagina (and because of this those people have the hard curse "el coño le tu madre").

     The three

     By the number three the idea about its graphical image (to which I came at once, but till now have not met someone who has succeeded to find it) is simply a ... woman's breasts! Now, this is not cumulative proof, for it is only one and it isn't a proof at all, but in such cases I draw my strongest trump card and say: "But what else can it be, ah?". And really, what else can relate two semicircles if not two bursting female "peaches" (like the Arabs have the habit to say)? And the breasts of a woman, obviously speak already about a child (because the men can "use" them sometimes, but this is not their direct purpose). So, and what concerns the names of this digit, then in them always is present some friction, like in the triangle (which may be love one, but may also not be such), where Bul. /Sl. 'tri' /'troe' becomes drei by the Germans, tria /tre /tres in the Lat. langs, τρε in Gr., and trdyas in the Skr.

     Hear are a heap of word, like the: triumph (thriumpus in Lat.), tribune, Christian Trinity, triangle, triviality (only three things, not much work, used initially for the 3 compulsory  learning subjects: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric), but also the ... tree in Eng. (which is not exactly old Gr. dendro but is a 'derevo' / 'dårvo' in Rus. / Bul.), and the curious thing is that in the same Rus. / Bul. 'trava' / 'treva' means not this but only ... grass (yet it has to here, too, there is no other possibility, right?), and the grass usually begins to grow with three leaves, if you have marked this, i.e. it has not pairs of opposed leaves. The 'treva'-grass is not at all accidental here, and there is also Eng. "thrive" (throve, thriven), as to grow, prosper, i.e. something like to triumph, and in Ger. this becomes treiben ('trajben') what is to move, spur, incite (where from Treib means instinct or drive, most often sexual, i.e. some driving force; this is derived from some Teutonic, Teu. further, dreiban as to sow, initiate). Somewhere here is also the rubbing of hands ('trija' in Bul.; in the Eng. may be mentioned the "try" as effort to push something), Ger. treten as entering (like your "trot"), their treffen as to meet, It. trovare (also to meet — just as one 'tropa'-trotts-stamps on the "dromos"-path, I'll tell you, and 'tropam' is in Bul.), old Gr. τριβω (read then as 'tribo'), what means to rub, ruin; we can add also the known Fr. travail ('travaj', to work), what is as if spitting image of Eng. "travel" no matter that it means something else, and surely others.

     Generally speaking the three is very important number, the most stable body in the plane (which is defined by 3 points), and it is used in many other places. For example, I strongly suppose (but can't prove this) that the meaning of number three is the reason to be 3 Eng. feet in their yard, and not, say, 5 or 10; in addition also one Eng. mile is about 5/3 of a kilometer (1,609 m), although here the things are a bit more twisted, i.e. (I suppose) that when one goes on foot one makes for 1 hour usually 5 km, and if this distance must consist of some 3 parts, then they have to be by 5/3 of it.

     The four

     The graphical image here is trivial, this is a square, eventually with a handle, in order to carry it raised. Phonetically, though, there is significant difference between Western and Sl. views on the matter (in sounding), because in Eng. it is "four", what is Ger. vier, and it as if has nothing in common with Sl. 'chetiri' (in Bul., in Rus. is 'chetåire'), but also with Lat. quattro (in fact in It.), what is the square. Only that in old Heb. this number was gevura, and it signified strength, courage (the hardness of diamond, which is pictured as rhomb). Yet here I recall myself Tur. ... gevrek (known also in Bulgaria) what is a circular bun in form of a torus, i.e. something twisted, curved, and to the gevrek, obviously stays also the 'cheverme' (in Tur. çeverme, what is something that not only is roasted on fire (on a grill) but is also rotated (because çevre, 'chevre', in Tur. means circle — and then maybe this is the hidden meaning of Bul. archaic 'chevråst' as agile, quick, moves to everywhere, like a top-toy)! For the moment let us not digress to this how (and why) the square can sometimes become circle (and vice versa), and continue with similarly sounding words, like Bul. ... 'chervej', what is a worm and we maybe think that it is red ('cherven'), yet not this is the point here, but that it curves or rotates (well, also twists and writhes, but this is something similar for the common person), which word has to be here due to the fact that in Rus. it is 'chervþ' or 'chervjak' where the latter is the known in mechanics worm-gear, which spins like a worm and rotates the cogwheel in perpendicular direction.

     Well, but when we begin to rotate then arise new words and ideas, because here is Lat. roto (to rotate, and from here comes Bul. 'rota' as military company, for the reason that they are three and rotate by 8 hours during the day), then Ger. werken (which has given also Eng. to "work" and means the same, yet also Bul. ... 'otrertka' as screwdriver, as well as the jargon 'chovårkam' meaning to do something insignificant, to repair — nearly the same as the 'cheverme'), then (or before, don't formalize about the time, I'm moving in it, I am such person) in old Gr. the 4 is τεσσερα, and in Skr. is catvaras, what can lead us to 'katr', what is Fr. (quatre), but also vier /four now comes nearer to the old Heb. gevura, where our Sl. 'chetiri' can be derived directly from catvaras (i.e. the Russians sometimes take their words directly from the ancient Hindus, without being forced to go to the Latins). Well, but from "gever-" we can reach also to "kver-", and to "skver-", too, what is Rus. 'skver' (small garden), which is supposed to be square.

     And here is the moment to explain you why the Russians take the numbers up to 4 for small (for they say "2, 3, 4 cheloveka" — in singular), while from 5 and above they become at once big ("5, 6, etc. chelovek" — in plural). Now, you have to look mathematically at the things, like in counting on ... fingers, of course, for the reason that when one counts he curls the fingers (beginning from the last one) and when he reaches 4 he has only the thumb left and he decides that this finger, as well also anything bigger than 4, will mean "much"! This is the idea, though the Russians will never explain it to you, because they have forgotten these rudimentary things, which earlier were inculcated in their heads, and today they say "2, 3, 4, goda" for years, and after this at once "5 let" for the same word "years", so that it turns that the 'godini' (this is in Bul.), although are synonymous with the 'let'-s, are as if smaller than the latter (which, in my opinion, though not only mine, simply fly, because this verb in Bul. is 'letja' — well, it might be that I imagine things, and here maybe the summer comes in play, which in its turn involves Lat. ... laetus as fat, well-fed, pure, etc., but let us not go in deeper details here). More than this, the relation of 5, or this what is after 4, with the "many" can be found also in Ger., where the number 4 is vieR, and "many" is vieL (what is built not in the usual way, because in comparative it becomes mehr and then meisten, so that I hardly imagine wrong things).

     But let us continue with the 4, which, as we have remarked, in result of the twisting can sometimes look like circle (like 'gevrek', which, by the way, in Rus. is 'bublik', something swollen, like the Eng. bubble-gum). Well, the task for finding of the quadrature of the circle has tormented the minds from deep antiquity, but this can never happen for the reason that in the circle enters one unit that can't be measured with the digits and their parts, the number π, which is such "beast" that with whatever measuring stick you try to measure it, it can't be measured exactly even with fractional parts (as much as we fracture then, even to the infinity — this is something that both, children and adults, know, but don't understand, do not feel it). But the twisting remains, and because of this here are, for example, the following words: Tur. and Per. ... 'gjaur' /'gjavur' (gâvur), what is unbeliever, one who has gone "awry" from the proper faith, then Bul. ... 'gavrja se' (to hurt, abuse, in a way, like a 'gjavur', but which is also Western word because here is Fr. gouverner-governor and Lat. guberno (to rule, govern), respectively the governesses (who, as it turns, often 'se gavrjat'-abuse the naughty children, ah?). As far as all this is derived from old Gr. κυβερναω (to rule, govern), then here has to be also the ... cybernetics, which begins with 'si-', and the cyborgs, and even the ... shiffres-ciphers (in old Fr.), because they are also twisted, aren't they?

     Generally said, the 4 can have two opposed aspects (what is wholly dialectical view), of something very good, square, double, diamond, or then of something very bad, twisted, made to a square (you see, now it turns that the circle is very nice thing, while the square is simply angular). We can add more "square" words like: Bul. 'gabårche' (a tack, and it can't be from the tree 'gabår' what is hornbeam, which, surely, is pretty twisted, something similar says us also the Eng. name), Bul. obsolete word 'guberka' (big needle), maybe also ... angel Gabhriel in Lat. ('Gavrail' in Bul., who probably 'se gavri'-abuses somehow, i.e. governs), and then maybe also our Sl. ... 'govor' (speech, talking, and this is in Bul., in Czech will be hovor, and in Pol. gwar), because the speech is a kind of command (as also Gabhriel, he might have been quite garrulous "man", or then uncompromising, who knows?). This, surely, is guttural sound, but it is very ancient, and in the Skr. gavate meant to sound (somewhere nearby is the known guru) and this does not preclude that there was also some twisting or rotating (i.e. rotating of the tongue in the throat).

     And that around this fuzzy root there are many words in the world (with their own ideas) has to be clear. For example, there are old Gr. tetrarchs (τετραρχοσ), who were great rulers (either of 1/4 of some lands, or of the four directions of the compass, I suppose), then comes old Gr. (and Bul.) ... τετραδα ('tetradka') as notebook, because it is only one folded in four piece of paper, then is the tetrahedron (in Lat., or τετραεδρον in Gr., i.e. something with 4 sides, "edri"-s in Gr.), the tetragon or quadrangle, the ... cathedra (maybe), because it is quadrangular and raised up, Bul. 'edår' meaning big, surely (this isn't Sl. word, it is absent in the Rus.), as somebody with many (understand big) sides-"edri"-s. But there is also something else, there are "kaisers" (Keiser in Ger.) or 'kesarþ'-s in old Sl., what is Lat. Caesar ('tzezar'), obviously, and he might have been taken exactly for equivalent of old Gr. tetrarchs. There are also Lat. "teselations", something like "teslations", maybe, where the Tur. (also Bul.) tesla, meaning this useful axe-like tool called in Eng. adz, comes in play, the adze is used for cutting of pieces, so that the tessellation, what means covering (or dividing) of some area with equal figures, most often squares (though they might be also hexagons, and others; for triangles is used the word triangulation). And here, naturally, is also Sl. etc. 'kvartira'-quarters, the quadrangle in which we live, various square-carres (which can be also pieces of meat), the known old Eng. title esquire (which, in fact, is Fr., and will say simply one who owns some piece of land, which is supposed to be quadrangle), the squadron /escuadron, the It. squadra (which is squadron and some other things, but also football team), and other words. But in order not to think that I have forgotten about the bad, twisted "squares", let me tell you also that there is old Sl. word 'skverna', which is very similar to their 'skver'-garden, but means bad stain, shame, disgrace.

     The five

     The image of five, I am sure, you have not succeeded to guess (you might think that have, but surely haven't), yet it is very simple. This is ... a pendulum in Lat. ('mahalo' in Bul., or 'majatnik' in Rus.), where pendeo is to sway, dangle! As some combination of 'mahalo' and "pendalo" in Bulgaria is heard the word 'mandalo', but this mixing of roots have to come from quite ancient times because this is the Skr. 'mandala' (sacred circle). Be it as it may: why the five sways, ah? Have you guessed it? Well, until you "switch on" I will give you some other words, like: Eng. "depend" (and you rightly say "on", for it is hanged on something, where in Sl. it is "from" what isn't very correct), Bul. jargon 'pajantov' as ramshackle or unstable, also Bul. 'panta' as door hinge (because it hangs on it), Tur. (and archaic Bul.) 'pendari' as golden coins, yet not any such coins but only the swinging ones, those that are strung on a cord and are pending (or rather pendeo in Lat. meaning of the verb) on the bosoms of young brides (together with this on what they lean), the very number five in old Gr. which is πεντε, and from here also Bul. 'pet' or Rus. 'pjatþ' as five, until we come to the Skr. where this number was pañca (read 'pancha'). So till the moment it became clear where from is Sl. five, but Ger. fünf ('fjunf') or Eng. five are not from there, though in old Heb. it was tiferet and meant beauty or abundance, where is heard some 'fit- /fet-'.

     Good, let us tell now why the five sways, because there are also other ideas and we must not become confused without necessity. But this is the idea of the wrist of the human hand, with its five fingers, that simply sways easy, right? And that is why it is perfect and abundant (in old Heb.) Yet here arises some mixing of 4 and 5, maybe as adjacent digits, which is quite old, because in old Gr., as we said, 4 is τεσσερα, what is pretty similar with old Heb. tiferet (5), and what may be the reason for the mentioned Ger. relation vier - viel, and, in general, for the names of these two digits in various Western langs (e.g., in Ger. vier - fünf, in Eng. "four" - "five", in It. specially fourth and fifth are quarto and quinto, what must not be accidental). And the five, when it is beautiful and flexible like our hand, is symbol of strength and security, because the pentagram lies in the basis of ... Pentagon, to be sure, and of the five-rayed star (as much as it is not liked now by many people), because all stars are pictured usually with five rays (if we don't count the Heb. Star of David, built from two interwoven triangles).

     So that the five is the wrist of the hand, but also the span of the hand, or the sole of the foot, and from here are all "pedies"-children (as well also those who like children but not just so — i.e. the pederasts, what is well known word in many langs, yet in the Eng. people prefer to say homosexual men), but the curious thing (even for me) was that the ... heel of the foot must also be here, which in Rus. is 'pjatka' and in Bul. 'peta' (i.e. the relation 'pjatþ - pjatka' or 'pet - peta' simply cannot be accidental). Well, the heel surely is part of the "span of the foot", it is stamped on the earth by walking, but in it for the first time is seen the curvature in the picture of five, because the wrist is just torn, like a rag (what also is not accidental, for in Ger. the rag is Lappen, and the foot-sole is Fußlappen, where Fuß is foot). ( Here emerges also the ... petal, or Lat. petalum which is old Gr. πεταλον, but it will be too much for you to digress now also in this direction. )

     And one more small addition: many digits are written stylized with as many strokes, as there signifies the very digit; it is so with: 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8. And, because many school children confuse 2 with 5 as fractions, let us explain this, too, it is so because 1/2 = 0.5, and 1/5 = 0.2, so that it turns as if the 2 and the 5 are mirrored images (if you put the mirror below the 2); this is consequence of arithmetic, but it has also found its reflection in the pictures of these two digits.

     The six ...

     Here, naturally, is the place for the six, but because it is so important and interesting we will ... jump over it at the moment. In order to give you more time to think about it. Well, let me give you one important hint: what is the relation between six and ... sex?

     The seven and the eight

     We discuss them together because there is not much to be said about each of these digits, but also because in some cases they are related. First the simplest moment, the image of 7 is, of course, ... a banner, on a long handle, which undulates (with the "iron" argument that: "And how else?)! Ah, but have you guessed why? Well, a Hebrew thing, in two words. God has created the world for 6 days and rested at the 7th, but this is 1/4 of a lunar month, so that there are reasons for its usage, and this is also prime number (and the ancient people have paid much attention to such numbers, although it can happen that in them are hidden ... secrets of the creation, more precisely in the distribution of big and enormous prime numbers towards the infinity). So that in old Heb. the 7 was od, what is exactly your word for odd, but to me personally it sounds like ... "Oh (said "daddy God", I have finished at last — and wiped the sweat from His forehead)" (yet let me remind you that we, the Bulgarians, bur also many other nations, read the "h", so that there is not big difference from 'oh' to 'od'). While the 8 in the same old Heb. was yesod /'jesod', what now must be "yeah + od", but however we split it the 8 is subjugated to the 7, is formed with adding of something to the 7.

     Now, it is true that this is a Hebrew thing, but it turns out that also all Slavs now already thousand of years think in the same way, because, really, in Bul. 8 is 'osem' and it is close to 7 what is 'sedem' (i.e. osem = do-to + se(de)m), and in Rus. it is also so (vosemþ-8 = vot-here + semþ-7), what is not justified because the 8 is very good number (as we will see soon), while the 7, at least according to the West, is one ... well, rotten number! Is it so? Yeah, it not only is so, but the people there tie the 7 to the 6, not to the 8, because, for example, in Ger. we have sechs ('zeks') - sieben ('ziiben'), in Fr. six - sept — and this is rotten due to the fact that it is septic —, in Hol. is zes - zeven, in It. is sei - sette, and so on (and exactly this is cumulative proof, by the way, with many examples). This "septic" (attracting of all bacilli, cocci, and whatever may happen) by the 7 exists also in the ancient langs (without Heb.) where in old Gr. it was επτα (and now maybe is εφτα), and in Skr. was sapta.

     While look at the 8, very twisted thing, twisted torus, what is so because it is the first cube (2^3), and its name on the West is simply an exclamation of astonishment and delight! Let us check this: in Ger. it is acht ('aht', i.e. "ah", and as a verb achten means "beware"), in Eng. it is "eight" what says 'ej', in Fr. is huit ('jui', i.e. something like your "gee", in Bul. I would have said 'uhaa'), in It. is otto (exactly the thing, so to say, ottimo there means excellent), in Sw. is atta, and so on, and in old Gr. is οκτο (something like "oho", what has gone unchanged in the Lat.), in Skr. is aštau ('ashtau') and in Avs . ašta, what is directly ... astounding. So that, as there is a phrase, "to the court everything is clear".

     The nine

     Yeah, but the 9 is not reversed 6, as you most probably have decided, because there is no logic in this (from mathematical standpoint). No, it is not this, it is rather one ... "no"! But let us look around firstly on the West, where we have: Ger. neun ('nojn'), your Eng. "nine", Sw. nio, Hol. negen, Fr. neuf ('njof'), It. nove (but 9th is nono), Sp. nueve — maybe enough "cumulating", ah? — and in the old langs respectively εννεα in old Gr., and in Skr. and Avs. nava. If you still have not grasped why the 9 means "no", then look that in some langs it means also something new. Does this help you? Well, if you are of those people that watch the ads then this surely will say nothing to you, but if you still can think a little, you are bound now, if you close your eyes, to see why the 9 is symbol of the new. Right? Because with it the digits finish, and we must begin again (in another decimal position, as it is by the meters). And for this reason the graphical image of 9 consists of ... two digits — the first two, the 0 and the 1, where the 0 is above, and the 1 is below. This is the whole philosophy here (i.e., we have begun with the 1 and have reached to the 0, as a 10).

     And what is the situation in the Sl. langs? Well, again so, because, in this situation (but not otherwise — without the above explanations one would have hardly guessed this), Bul. 'devet' or Rus 'devjatþ' mean that the digits have ... gone somewhere ('djavam se' in Bul. /'detþsja' in Rus. is to disappear, to hide somewhere) — the bloody digits, ah! Id est this time we are wondering, like the West wonders at the 8, only that we do this with the 9, because where is 'devjatþ' there is also the 'deva'-virgin or 'diva'-beauty (this is Skr. Diva or Deva, meaning also a goddess), and our 'divak' (in Bul., a savage, yet also 'diven'-marvelous creature, if you make this relation, that everything alive is marvelous and beautiful God's creation), and Rus. 'devatþ' (to put, but the meaning is of wondering where to put is, to take it away from here), and so on.

     The ten

     Well, the ten is not a digit, from point of view of mathematics, but can sometimes be counted for such (especially if we do not begin with the 0). Anyway, let us say something about it. Here also exists mixing of ideas, for in Eng. it is :ten", in Ger. zehn, in old Gr. δεκα (dieci in It., decem in Lat.), and here are the "deans" ('dekan'-s or 'djakon'-s in Sl.) and the "decades" and the ... "doctors" or "docs", as well as the "docents" (for doceo in Lat. is to teach). Then we may add here also the various "doctrines" (or "doxies") together with the ... "paradoxes" (this what is around and out of the "doxy"), and the orthodoxes (exactly according to the "doxy"-norm), which come from old Gr. δοξα ('doksa', a thesis, account, name, reputation, etc. — in the ancient langs one word often has quite different meanings, for the reason that the people have started from the hidden in it ideas, which can be found in different things, in this case this is the essence of the thing), as well also from Ger. decken what means to cover. Look, in short this is the idea of the "cap"-hat, which, now as Gr. letter (καππα, kappa in Lat.) is exactly the tenth, and it simply crowns the things. Because of this here is Fr. chapeau ('shapjo'), Eng. "cap" and "cape", and even "cup", Lat. capito, the Capitolium, the "captains", the "capitalism" (i.e. the capital is the main thing, not the human), and a heap of other words. And the ancient word was old Heb. keter meaning crown or wreath, from which has left at least the first letter, though it meant 0 (i.e. this is some circle which is put on the heads of people, on which is worth to put some circles, in order to distinguish them from the others).

     Now, the roots are pretty mixed, at least 'kapa-' and 'doks-' are entirely different things, more so zehn or ten, but at least our Sl. 'deset' is the Lat. deci-, and the "cap" came here due to its tenth place in the order of letters. The Ger. zehn is something pulled out (from their ziehen, i.e. climbed above, if we take the ten as last digit), or then, what seems more logical, is related with their counting, zahlen, to what we will come later again (though it is possible that it has something in common with their ... Zehe as a toe, i.e. something wiry, strong), and from there also with the Eng. ten. ( I personally, however, don't exclude entirely the possibility that the old Teutons have made their zehn taking the second syllable of Lat. deci, for the simple reason that have thought that "de" is a kind of prefix. )

     Other special numbers

     About the special position of the 4, eventually of the 5, we have already spoken. Then comes 12, what, quite obviously, is a very nice number because it divides by first four numbers (2, 3, and 4), and from here come the hours, apostles, minutes (they are divisible also by 5), and there existed some ancient systems of counting based on the number 60. There also the "dozen" ('dusina' in Bul.) is something like a cap, from the root "doc-". Together with 12 become special also 11 and 13, the first number because it is before 12, and the second — after it. But here are other moments, too, because 11 is simply beautiful number, it can give also ... 1001, what likewise looks beautiful, and in addition is divisible — this even mathematicians nowadays don't know, because have not thought about it — by 7, 11, and 13 ! So that, when we take the two adjacent prime numbers around 12 (and such two adjacent primes are not many, they are the nearest possible, like 29 and 31, and this is interesting by itself), and when multiply them, and once more time multiply this by the previous prime number, we get 1001, what, if we take away the zeroes, gives exactly the middle number of those 3 primes, 11. This is part of the magic of numbers, in the old times, but also nowadays, it has filled the heads of the people. In addition to this 1001 is good number in the present days for the Hindus, because they don't like to sell (or buy) something for round amount of money (these are a kind of "dead" numbers, remind yourself the even number of flowers), and with 1 less there simply something of the number is missing, so for this reason they prefer to be 1001, 12001, and other similar variants. And when 12 is such beautiful number, then 13 can now be unpleasant, right, and for that reason the Russians (but surely also other nations) call it "devil's dozen".

     Well, and 16, what for the Latins (at least in Fr. and It. this is so) is the limit till which we say first the second digit and then the first, while later it becomes on the contrary, is also remarkable because it is the first (if we don't count the trivial 1) fourth degree (of the 2). The Germans, though, change nothing in the reading of the digits even to ... 99, and who does not know this will look at it as at something quite perverse. Well, this is so, but for the reason that the other nations don't do this (but the English until two centuries ago, in the time of Charles Dickens, have done this, say, they have said that somebody is on "6 and 50 years"), but otherwise there is some reason in this, for when we add the numbers we begin with the last digits and then come to the tens; this, what is not convenient, is that for all numbers bigger than 100 this is already not so, yet 100 is quite a big number, and for this reason the English say, for example, not 1984th year digit by digit, but "19 hundred and 84th", and the money they also count in this way.

     In the Eng. there is one "score", what means literally a stroke, but with the numbers it means 20, archaic. So why is this so, how do you think? Well, this is obvious (how Sherlock Holmes would have said), this is because we have finished all our fingers, including the toes (which are named also fingers in the Sl. langs), so that when there is nothing on which to count further we put a stroke somewhere and begin anew. The English have "gotten" this bad habit, surely, from the French, who even nowadays can't say, for example, 80, but say 4*20, or do not say 96 (even not "6 and 90"), but 4*20+6+10, yet when they reach 97, then they say 4*20+10+7. Here the points can not be in the special position only of 16, but of 6, too (to which we will come soon), but that's that. By 70, though, they decide that 60 is quite a good number (divisible by: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and call it 60 + 10 (soixante-dix). The number 60 is strongly attracting, and for this reason the degrees in the circle are 360, not 100, what would have been more correct, but here comes also the period of our rotation around the Sun, so that 1 degree is one day, and by one minute a day increases (or decreases) the length of the day in each of the directions (i.e. by 2 min). Yeah, such curious moments, which nowadays are pure rudiments.

     Big numbers

     Well, here we can start with the 100, but firstly in the Western variants. Ger. hundert speaks about some ... dog (Hund), what might have meant earlier something important, or big amount (in any case they, as also the Russians, have the saying: "This is where the dog is buried", in the sense of something important, the core of the things). And the Eng. thousand, which is from Ger. Tausend (obviously), hides some hitting, crashing — from the throwing of the money (eventually with the purse) on the table, I suppose —, though the etymologists give some old Teu. forms like: tusund, dusund, dhüsundi, Sw. tusen, and others, and explain that this was combination of dhüs + hundi, meaning many hundreds, but, as you see, the "dogs"-hundreds are again here. And what concerns the hitting and thumping (dhüs), this was some I.-E. root meaning inflating, swelling, and there was their thumb (Daumen in Ger.), only that for me the thumping is more convincing than a possible inflation. Be it as it may, this is near to Rus. 1000, 'tåisjacha' (for where is 'djus-' there is also 'tåis-'), and in addition the root 'djus-' is simply the 2, which leads us to the dozen, where we can add also Lat. duodenum what is some special bowel, so that the point hardly is in the inflating.

     And here we come to the 'djijm', which is Rus. (and Bul.), but means the same as Eng. "inch", and also the same as Ger. "tsol" (Zoll), so that let us clarify the things a little. Well, the 'djijm', in my view, is simply Sl. variant of pronouncement of the ... Eng. "thumb", where is necessary the following explanation: this is not the length of the last phalanx of the thumb, but the thumb looked athwart (which is normally broad about 2.5 cm), because in this way can be put thumb to thumb and to measure. And when you arrange in this way 12 "thumbs", this must give exactly 1 foot, i.e. sole of the foot, and I personally measured it and by me it turned nearly so (11.5 thumbs, i.e. on the 12th the sole ends)! So that these relations are not at all arbitrary, they may be adjusted a little, but are quite close to the truth, for an average man (by the women the hands are finer).

     The very inch (for me obviously) means that this is something that is put "in" something what we measure. And the Zoll had come from Lat. telonium (what is not at all obvious, but has to be so, for the reason that 't' can easily become 'tz' by the Germans, I'll tell you), what was from old Gr. τελωνια and meant a tax or charge, but this is so because here the idea is of some dividing (compare with Ger. Teil, 'tajl', as part). So, but the more important thing is that from the Zoll we can come directly to Ger. zahlen (to count), or the variation zählen (to pay, understand, paying the money), which was entirely Heb., namely tsoln, what meant to count. So that the Zoll is a measuring stick, where the root is not only Lat., but first of all Heb., and from here quite easily can come the Ger. ten (zehn), and the very counting. ( Ah, there is something more here, by the thousand, here is a relation with the Rus. ... 'tuman', what is your fog, and this root is quite spread in the world, but the idea is for something that is very 'gåsto' (in Bul., or 'gustoj' in Rus.), what is closely, very thick, because the ancient people believed that the darkness is something that conceals the light, but it is not the place here to indulge in such digressions. )

     And the millions and milliards, more so the Am. variant billion, are something very ... — but you surely will not guess this, ah? Well, the root 'mili-' is just something very nice, exactly 'milo' in Bul., what is related with the ... honey, which is 'meli' in old Gr., and there is something Ar. of that kind, and also in the Skr., because out of honey was made from quite ancient times the alcoholic beverage mead, and in Bul. (and other Sl. langs) 'med' is exactly bee honey (while the mead is 'medovina'). Here I also have not the possibility to digress, but can add at least that in this heap are all ... military people, i.e. 'mili hora' (in Bul., and 'hora' is people)!

     Yeah, but we have almost forgotten about Bul. 1000, which is 'hiljada', and this neither is something 'milo'-nice, nor is swollen like the thumb, so what can it be then? Surely nobody could have guessed, and such things are not written in etymological dictionaries, because this word is typical Bul., not Sl., and in such case has to be something ancient that has come to us, either from Per., or from ... Mongolian, or from the Skr. But we can relate it easy with one Bul. jargon, ... 'hilja se', what means to smile happily, or rather to giggle! Yet in order not to think that I am inventing something with the ancient langs then compare it with Lat. hilarious (merry), or with Ger., rather Tyrolean 'ailaripi' (what isn't exactly a word, but then with their heil-'hajl', only without Hitler). And the idea about this giggling number — well, it, naturally, giggles not the very number, but we, that see so many money at once (because the people, usually, think about money) — gave me one Pakistani word, Naulakha, which meant 900,000, so that if the beginning is related with the 9 /neun /nine, then the "lahing" has to symbolize the 1000 (and in Ger. lachen-'lahen' is exactly to laugh, where the root is very ancient at least because ... the wife of Vishnu was Lakshmi, and she was pretty hilarious "girl", and had many faces). So, and here can be added also Tur. (and Bul., too) laf, what are usually funny stories told at the table during the eating and drinking (what leads us to your Eng. laugh, of course).

     And what about our Sl. 100, which is 'sto' (in Bul., or 'sotnja' in Rus.)? Now look, the etymologists derive it from old Gr. εκατον (where we can mention also Lat. ... hecatomb, hundreds of vaults-tombs), and include in this heap also the hundred, and Lat. centum, but this may be so only because we want it to be so, for the reason that it means the same, yet the ideas hidden behind the words are different. In the ekaton there is some musical "tone", and " let us not make here guesses about what says to the Greeks the "eka"; in the centum is hidden some ... tinkling, clanging, like by the cents, or like also by the weighing scales which are centenarium in Lat., which was Gr. κεντηναριον (and from there we can go to Bul. archaic 'cantar' as the same scales — they are iron, they clang); and in the word 'sto', in my view, is hidden simply ... the exclamation "stop", i.e. enough (hundred hits with a rod, for example, ah?). For us 'sto'-hundred is not a few, and similar idea, only that twisted enough around the 4, exist by the Russians, who call the ... centipede exactly 'sorokonozhka" (where 'sorok' is 40 and 'nozhka' is a small foot). If you so much want more ancient root then take the Skr. or Avs. satam, or some pre-Sl. 'såto', what is the root of satiation.

     Again the six

     To have guessed what should have been the relation between six and sex I don't believe, but let us first convince ourselves that this is so (cumulating the things from various langs). For example, in Lat. the number is sexis, and the sex (which for many nations means the gender) is sexus, in Ger. the number is sechs, read 'zeks' (what is pure sex, because they read each first "s" as 'z'; the gender there is Geschlecht, 'geshleht', what means a "bad thing", schlecht is "bad", because they are — well, were, I mean — moral people), and in old Gr. the number is εξι ('eksi', what, surely, sounds pretty sexy). But let be clear also on the point that the sex is identified with the sexual organ, and more precisely with the masculine one (because who has counted earlier the women for humans?) so that it turns that this body organ has to be tightly related with the 6. Now it becomes clearer, right? Because, if one decides to look at one such "sex", more so if he is a man and looks at the river, he will see there that it is similar to the 6, i.e. it has its stick and its circle (well, two circles, but in profile they look like one). So that it turns out that from deep antiquity (some 3000 years is a good guess) the number 6 was compared and likened to the male penis.

     But, of course, these are things with mathematical idea in them, because the number six was considered as the perfect number (and that the penis is perfect creation must be clear to all women, and to the men, too), what means that it is equal, as to the sum, so also to the product of all of his simple divisors: 6 = 1*2*3 = 1+2+3. For the prime numbers is clear that there is no other such number because their sum is always with 1 more than the product (which is equal to the number), but for the compound numbers, too, it is intuitively clear that this must be so, because for 4 the sum is 5 and the product is 4, for 6 they are equal, and further more the sum is always less than the product (for 8 the sum is 1+2+2+2 = 7, and the number or the product are 8; for 9 the sum is 1+3+3 = 7; for 10 the sum is 1+2+5 = 8, end so on, where for, say, 100 the sum is 1+2+2+5+5 = 15, and so on). ( Well, this depends on the definition, and I give you the simplest, but in the "Elements" of Euclid was accepted that a perfect number is such for which the sum of all its divisors is equal to the number — now not to the product —, and then, for example, 28 is also such number because 1+2+4+7+14 = 28, and there are also big such numbers like 496, for which 1+2+4+8+16+31+62+ 124+248 = 496 = 16*31, and so on, they are not limited. But even by this definition 6 is the smallest such number and it is only one digit. )

     So that this idea was present in the heads of ancient Greeks and other nations before them, because also the Star of David is with 6 rays, and the die, i.e. the cube, has six sides (and in Bulgaria up to the present day is used six-point grading system in the education, where 6 is the highest grade), what again shows that not the male penis looks like the number 6, but the image of number 6 was so designed in order to symbolize this perfect (maybe the most perfect, or at least most emotionally accepted) organic creation. But these ideas can, up to some extent, be found also in the Sl. langs, for the reason that in Rus. the 6 is 'shestþ' (in Pol. is szešč, 'sheshch', and was some Baltic sheshi), while the ... rod or the stick is 'shest' and: just say now that 'shestþ' and 'shest', and this in one and the same lang., are not related! Besides, the very name 'shest' (so is the number in Bul.) is not very different from "sex", or take It. sei, what, if we read it with 'sh" in the beginning, is quite like in Bul., and in the Skr. this number was šat ('shat', what is practically the same sound that is heard when we brandish some stick) or also šaštiš, what can't miss to ... "shashtisa" you (if you know Bul., where to 'sashtisa', surely of Tur. origin, means to astonish, stupefy), right!? Let us add also that in Tur. the number 6 according to the dictionaries is alti, what is impossible not to correlate with their altin ('altån', for them the Lat. "i" very often is read like Bul. 'å', for the simple reason that they have not a big choice, either so, or with "a"), or rather a golden coin, but in the game of backgammon I am sure that 6 & 5 is called 'shesh-besh', where beş, 'besh', really, means 5, so that this root is not unknown by them. And also don't forget that all Skr. gods, when they look like humans, are with 6 extremities.

     And what concerns the stick 'shest' in Rus., then their etymologists say that there was some old 'shåstå', then Belarusian 'shost', and mention some Latvian shiekshtas as ... tree trunk without branches. Well, but "that thing" is exactly like a tree trunk without branches, isn't it? They, surely, don't explain this, they rather guess, but if so then I can continue with other words, like Rus.: 'zhjostkij' (hard), 'zhestjanka' (a tin), 'zhelezo' (iron), 'zhezl' (a rod, scepter), as well also the ... 'zhele'-jelly, which is liquid, liquid, and at once hardens (well, nor exactly like iron, but nearly so). Id est the iron is a kind of jelly (while is liquid), and there was some old Sl. 'zhelåi' what meant ... turtle (because it is with hard shell), but the very word 'zheljaso'-iron (that's in Bul) corresponds well with Ger. Stahl ('shtahl', steel) or Stiel (stem of a flower). ( We could have thought that the ... 'zhålt'-yellow colour (in Bul.) is also somewhere here, but this is mixing or roots, the 'zhålto' is rather "gålto", or "goldeno"-golden, so that let us not digress with it. ) Ah, the Russians have also the word 'shesternja', what is a cogwheel, what may be so for the reason that the profile of the cogs looks like hexagonal, or may be minded the stick on which the cogwheel is placed (for there can't be a gear without axis).

     But enough accumulating, now everything is clear, the six is a "great thing", like the "thing" of the male. And let us on parting return to the Gr., where their εξι-6 can be written also as εξ, what, obviously, has given the Lat. prefix "ex-" (which is 'iz' in Bul., and in It, only "s-"), as something that jumps at once — so, there is nothing, nothing, and at once something suddenly pops out, ah? This is the 'sashtisvasht'-astounding number six, with which, quite deservedly, we finish our opus about the numbers.

     Oct 2012









Signaler ce texte