THE COMMUNISM AS RELIGION (popular study) Chris MYRSKI, 1998      [ As far as this is a whole book I will give an idea about its cover. In principle it has to look the following way: on red background, in front under the title there is a picture; in back on the whole page — too.      On the picture in front: the left part is a corner of a room, with tilted red flag to the wall, on a low table or bench before it stands a picture of Lenin in encrusted (with sickles and hammers, if this can be shown) frame and with two burning candles around; before the picture, on the right, is squatted on a small rug (rather straw-mat) a soldier-Budyonovets with lowed down head (the face can't be seen), who has taken off his cap (with red star), which stays on the left of him, towards the head; on the right of him lies a rifle with bayonet; the soldier's attitude is as in a Muslim prayer, he has bare (and dirty, if this can be seen) foots and a patch on his trousers, where his shoes, torn and ripped, are placed on the left near his foots; all manifests fanaticism and misery.      On the picture in back: on the background of cover is drawn a palm of opened left human hand (with the thumb on the left) with unclenched fingers, in the middle of which is a red star with pentagonal hole at the center and around it by a "chick" (or bent line for marking of what is done, with slightly prolonged right part — see chapter IV.3) between the rays on the down-left, down-right, and down-middle (i.e. on the whole 3 chicks). ]       CONTENTS OF THE SECTIONS      Introduction      I. Similarities of the communism with other religions      II. Differences between the communism and other religions      III. Past and future of the communist religion      IV. The pentaism — religion of the future      Appendix — Etymological research (multilingua)             INTRODUCTION      Despite the various discussions about the benefits or disadvantages of the communism, discussions which usually don't lead to undivided conclusions, because each thing depends on the time and place, each medicine — on the dose, each government — on the object of governing, each democracy — on the demos, et cetera, it seems that this consideration is necessary for Bulgarian (and not only) people, or at least for its thoughtful part. It is necessary not so much to find new culprits for the crisis or catastrophe in Bulgaria, but to throw suitable light on the question, because the crisis, as it turns out, has begun after our rejection of communism, and direct proofs for the advantages or disadvantages of it we, still, don't have, because we have not the so called "control group", as the medics say, which has always to be present in examination of some medicament, in order to make justified comparison, i.e. we haven't two Bulgarian countries: one communist and another not, to compare the results. The Germans had two Germanies and nevertheless their situation isn't unquestionable, because they have not possessed equal natural resources, nor were equally big, nor equally destroyed in the war, and in addition the eastern part supported to a certain extent the Socialist Block, by the simple reason that in a common lead of horses more than all other suffer the stronger horses (and win the weaker ones — such like Bulgaria, for example). We have not such proof and can compare ourselves, either with our brethren in destiny: from the former communist countries like Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, etc. — what parallel isn't to our advantage —, either with our territorial neighbours of non-communist type of state like Greece or Turkey — what comparison nowadays also isn't to our benefit. Of course we can compare us with the "severe" cases like Serbia, Chechnya, and other regions, where people slaughtered themselves, and we still didn't (though there are reasons for this — more or less slavish psyche of the Bulgarians inherited as a result of our five centuries Turkish yoke), but in such case why don't compare us with, say, Rwanda, for to feel more elevated?      Our goal, however, isn't to discuss now these questions, but to clear as much as possible the phenomenon of communism, which carries all significant characteristics of a religion, though the difficulty in comprehending this arises because of our nearness in time, and to a social event one has to look, it seems, always from a certain distance, as is the case with pictures and other works of art, where one has to retreat a bit away in order to comprise the things better. The other hindrance in thinking through the mentioned fact comes from our delimited understanding about the religion, in sense of whether it is mono- or poly- theistic, whether there exists reincarnation of the soul or not, whether it requires sacrifices or not (of humans or only of animals), whether the dead have to be buried (with clothes or not), or thrown in the sea, or burned on pyres, or embalmed and left in some buildings (be they tombs, pyramids, or something else), whether men have to perform circumcision or not, whether sexual contacts are allowed only between the married pair, or between more individuals (more men, or more women, or more of the both kinds) et cetera, et cetera. But all this is just a qualification of existing religions, which, as a rule, includes only this what is yet known, and frequently excludes that what is still new and not ordered!      We would have had similar case, when we decide to define, for example, the car as: appliance for transport of humans, set in motion by an engine with combustion, which has four wheels and isolates the passenger from the environmental medium. This is limiting definition because the car may use not such but another engine, or may be moved by pedals, or be pulled by an external power (as much as just slide down), may not isolate the passenger at all, and as to the wheels, they may be any possible number, including zero (if moves on an air-cushion, or floats in the water). The only thing that we may require from the car is to move in the space (and maybe in the time, too, at least in science fiction), and let me in this sense remind you that in many languages a heap of words on "car- /kar-" and with meaning of some movement, such like: Bulgarian karam-to-drive or karutza-cart, Slavonic, Arabic, etc. karavan /caravan, English (and not only) cart /carting, carcass, carry, cargo, Russian karavay (round bun or cake, as something that can roll), German kehren (to turn), and many others, have come from Ancient Greece (but the root is older) and from the mythical Icarus (who even didn't walk on the earth, but flied in the air), where this relation with Icarus is confirmed by the bus names Ikarus and Karossa.      Well, if it's so, then we better begin with our investigation.       I. SIMILARITIES OF THE COMMUNISM WITH OTHER RELIGIONS      0. Definition of the notion "religion"      And so let us try to give some working definition of the word "religion", as: complete social system of notions and rituals, which is based mainly on faith and is devised in order to fortify and encourage people in their everyday activity and especially in their hard moments, giving sense to otherwise meaningless from individual point of view life. This is sufficiently common and comprising definition, which does not exclude any of the existing religions and allows an easy inclusion of new ones. Anyway, more precise definition would be limiting, as the parsing of similar words tells us, say: Russian opredelyayu (to define) splits in o (around) + predel (a limit) + ending, or their ogranichivayu (the same, and granitza is a border), or your (i.e. Latin.) define = de + (make it) final, delimit = de + (set) limit(s), and others, what comes from the understanding that the life is infinitely difficult and we need to cut something away from it, in order to be in position to take and study the piece. We shall observe further more than a dozen main characteristics of the communism as religion, which taken separately are not enough for similar assumption, but their cumulative effect confirms entirely our thesis. Together with their presence in some of the religions we shell view also their appearance in the communist religion, but parallels with national socialism, as far as with other types of social structure, we leave to the imagination of the reader.      1. Faith instead of reason      This is the most important characteristic of each religion, but it isn't the single one, of course. Without discussing which one of both things is more important we shall remark that the only thing that the reason can do in this way is to prove in reasonable way that God must exist, where "must" is to be understood in the way that, if God does not exist, he has to be invented, because the humans just want to be some God, for to be something in what to believe and on what to rely, what, in fact, says the very word "religion" in English (to rely on, lean on something)! Similar etymological confirmation of the said is hidden in the word "pater", which comes from ancient Sanskrit where it have meant "a plank, pillar", and this is the meaning of nowadays rarely used Bulgarian word pateritza (a crutch; the words may differ, looking at their endings, but important is the picture of the situation, because in Sanskrit pater or patir is also a father, and in Latin patera is ritual cup, but they are from the same root). If one wishes there may be observed other words, like: father, which is papa in Russian (or also bashta in Bulgarian, or baba in Turkish, etc.), and this is the Latin pope, Russian priest which is called the same as father (otetz, bashtitze), Slavonic priest which is (also) svjashchennik what means svjatoy-sainted man, to whom one goes when feels a need to be condoled and to whom one may believe, the English God (respectively German Gott), which corresponds with the good and would say "The good (power)" (as much as the devil is, for the common people, variation of "The Evil"), and so on. In any event the religion for the people is what fairy tales are for the children! In it the things are accepted not because they are true, but on the contrary, or at least this is what says the well known Latin phrase that "I believe because it is unbelievable" (or credo quia absurdum in Latin), and this is ... logical, because this, what is probable, what happens and can be proved, that proves, via examples or logical conclusions, and that, about what there are no proofs, can be accepted only by faith.      In the communist religion people believed in the communist victory, in the "bright future" of human race, in the assumption that "all humans are friends and brothers", et cetera. But if the child absolutely wants his or her tale (and it really doesn't matter whether it is a nice one, there may be scaring things in it), then why the communist fable about the bright future should be considered as something worse than the myth of democratic panacea, for example, as far as both can be accepted only on faith and by their realization in practice turn to be fakes or delusions? What matters here is the existence of faith, not of proofs, and if something can't be confirmed in practice there always can be found some excuse, like, say, if the ailing person, despite of the day-and-night prays, still could not become well, this does not mean that there is no God, or that even God cannot help him anymore (what, by the way, means that our God isn't a God at all, isn't almighty), but that the ill one has begged not fervent enough, or has somehow messed the words of the prayer! Mark, however, that the more the reality is worse, the more people believe in fables or tales (and what else is left for them?), and not the faith is to be blamed (that people believe), but the reality (which forces them to believe)! And let us remind you that "the phantom of communism" didn't have started to go around the world from Russia, but from the very center of Western Europe, though in more wealthy countries (like Germany, France, England, United States, Sweden, etc.) small amount of people have believed in the tale about the bright communist future, where in more starved and hungry countries like Russia, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Cuba, etc., there was no other way for the people. In short: faith and reason are both poles of human motivation and there, where the one can't succeed, the other succeeds!      2. Existence of a better world      Each religion presents to the people something better than the existing world, which, as it's known from ancient times, is bad and not just, using for this purpose the notion of the "other world", which comes to redeem the sufferings of the people on this world. It doesn't matter what are out ideas about the further world: whether it is above in the celestial spheres or in the core of the earth, whether it is in another Universe, or is again on our Earth, but in some other time and our soul has another form, whether it is by the gods (be it by the single and "triplicate" God, or by some unknown Allah — pronounced simply as a cry of exaltation and astonishment, where from has to come his name), or the souls, notwithstanding their communications with the deities, live apart of the later (say, they prefer to abide around the places where have lived, or were buried or slaughtered). But all religions are unanimous on the question that the other world is maximally different from this one and exactly in the most significant things, namely: whether this world is finite, the other one is infinite; whether our personal life on this world may influence the other, the "life" on the other world can't show any effect on this one, because the time has only one direction; as much as this is bad and unjust, the other is good and righteous; and what goes to "live" there is not our contemporary body, which is only an envelope for our soul or the most important part of us, but our very essence, the most meaningful information about us, though in another form.      This, what for every religion is the afterlife (or subsequent reincarnation of the soul), for the communist religion was the "bright communist future". But actually looking this is a more contemporary and progressive view, which requires less preceding faith, because one may ask oneself whether the hell exists and is it really so burning hot there (or, if there is literally so scorching hot, then how the souls may endure it; or, if they, still, may endure it forever, then how they don't accustom to that fire and became indifferent to it); or whether it is so good to drink every day one and the same ambrosia (obviously some doping, but perhaps much worse than whiskey); or a person (pardon me, his soul) to be compelled to take part each day in various public events accompanied by choral recitations and laudations to God; et cetera, but in this, that our children will live in the future, everyone believes and it is natural for him to wish to make it better than the present (especially than the 20-th century, as regards its "grandiose" mass murders). And what are our children and grandchildren, if not our incarnation, or out spirit, or our genes, put it in a more contemporary language? Though this is contemporary language, but using old words, because: gene, genetics, γυναικα (read 'gineka') or women in Greek, the jin from Arabic tales closed in a bottle, the beverage gin as inspiring mischievous spirit in the humans, Turkish cingibi ('dzhingibi'), what means flexible or elusive, and if you want also the plant ginseng (which in Slavonic is zhensheс) what translated from Chinese meant "human likeness" (rather "human shadow", if we split the word in syllables; and that is because in Russian "shadow" is teс or seс what sounds nearer), and others, are all variations on the theme spirit or soul.      3. Objects of the cult and temples      Our conceptions of God /gods as object/s of cult evolve in different religions: from the descriptions of their different incarnations in Hinduism, through the many gods in Greek mythology, through the Christian Holy Trinity, and then through the Muslim Allah, who just exists, has always existed, and will exist for ever, and that is all that can be said about Him, till we come to the time of communism from the middle of 19-th century, where God simply vanishes, as creator of material world (defeated by the science) but a trace of him is left in every human soul in form of communist consciousness. And mark that the communist notion about the non-existence of God, and the Muslim view that nobody knows how God looks (He is something like being from the four-dimensional world, if this is more familiar for the readers of science fiction), and the understanding of Ancient Greeks about the agnosticism, as stating that nobody can neither prove, nor disprove, the thesis about the existence of God and, hence, it is a matter of acceptance or faith, and the "geometrical" (i.e. axiomatic) proofs of Ben Spinoza about the existence and various features of God, who somewhere about the third book turns out to be synonymous with the nature, and the notion used by the great thinkers from Renaissance asserting that the existence of God is a matter of hypothesis, which one may use if there's a need in this, but may also not use — all these are analogous and practically equivalent statements. Let us clear the point adding that the existence or not of God cannot be proved by the humans simply by definition, because as far as God is indestructible and omnipotent Creature (or Substance, according to Spinoza) He /It may "hide" from the human beings when and how He wishes, so that the one who thinks there is no God may be wrong, inasmuch as the other who thinks on the contrary! Or we may mention also a citation found in the literary heritage of Michael Ende (Momo, and other books) on a single piece of paper where was written: "If the existence of God can be proved then there is no God!".      All this comes to show that the communist rejection of God, as dogmatic notion, does not mean that under the communism was absent the very idea of God! As far as it is known to the Bulgarian readers our great poet and revolutionary Christo Botev also has spoken about some god, who later turns out to be his conscience; in the same way in the mathematics exists the notion of "infinity" as mathematical equivalent of the ever existing and unlimited, in contrast to the finite variables which we use. Similarly: in the optics is stated that the light always chooses the shortest possible way, what can be used also as "proof" for the existence of God, who comes to show to the ray (whatever it is) which exactly is this shortest way, because the ray cannon know it before has gone by it, but it goes by it after it has chosen it; or the uncertainty principle in quantum theory, which states that it's impossible to know in one and the same time the exact place and velocity of a particle, and if we know the one thing then we are unable to find the other; as well as the basic principle of probability theory, that "the necessity is arbitrary and arbitrariness is necessary" also allows us involvement of the idea of God, who has to make more concrete the characteristics of each single case and not only in a bunch. All in all, there is wide space for the supporters of hypothesis of God, as also for their adversaries, but our goal was to show that the absence of God (and even His negation) could be only a question of definition (or taste)!      While, though, in the communism exists no God, there are saints and stories about them, as also innumerable icons (i.e. pictures, busts, and monuments), as well as cultic buildings (Party Houses), where the religion is to be worshiped. Even if the situation is such, that one cannot carry the temple with himself, he may lay the mat down on the floor, turn to the east (i.e. to the origin of life, it's iztochnik-source in Slavonic where iztok /vostok is east) and unite his soul with his God or saint, what in our case means that the communist will take out the red banner, hang it in a corner of the room, which he will name "Red Corner", place close to it a picture of the leader and direct his thoughts to the bright future, when all people will be brothers (or, maybe, not brothers, because they usually quarrel and are envious to each other, having what to divide or contest, but then just as communists). Soon there emerged also "holy relics" of prominent communists and special places (Mausoleums), where they are to be kept, and to which people are to pay homage by most solemn events (as it was done before the Mausoleum of Lenin by marriage ceremonies in the "great and indestructible" state, which now is destroyed). But with this small remark, that the irony is not directed to the communists, because they simply used that, what all religions in the world have used, namely the human naivety and irrationality, so that: who laughs, laughs over himself!      4. Fanaticism in fulfilling of the cult      The human beings, on the whole, like often to put one notion above the other and to maintain that only their truth is valid, and in this sense, maybe, the greatest sin of the people nowadays is their intolerance! Many religions don't deny the existence also of other gods, but this is only to emphasize the superiority of their own! People never tire to set one single idea before everything else, and in our blindness we don't see that even the slogan "Humans over everything" is outdated (to say nothing about "Bulgaria over everything", for example) and has to be replaced with "Nature over everything", what either does not give us anything new (if we take the Nature for another name of God), or is a nonsense (if must be understood as "everything over everything"). But when we speak about the fanaticism of communists we should not think that it was spread between the "cultic personnel", more than this, in the recent years exactly between them it was not much spread (meaning that they did not much believe in the communist ideals, but in some more practical things, like career making, or achieving of personal advantages), so that precisely the ordinary people suffered most from their fanaticism, because they did not receive any additional benefits and, hence, served only to the idea! And surely, the worst thing in the 20-th century was the collision between the two fanatical religions — fascism and communism — what was plainly a new crusade, though, because of the enormously enhanced power of the mankind in the last century, this battle was the most bloody and destructive. However one looks at the fanaticism, it, really, is the most harmful seed in each religion (inasmuch as all extremities are bad), but remarkably prone to extremities are exactly the masses, not the relatively educated priests and cultic cadres.      This, that exactly the executives of the cult are not between the most eager believers, however, is not a new moment also in various other religions, where many of these people, some of them very sincerely and others just pretending to be such, ask themselves cardinal questions of the kind whether, really, their God exists, and if He was so omnipotent and good, then why He leaves people suffer because of His own faults (i.e. badly performed work during His acclaimed six days of creative labour, or great laziness in the following millenniums). But even in their greatest doubts about the truthfulness of sacred scripts, the priests of the cult remain convinced that for the common people (i.e. for non acquainted, for laics or profanes) this, maybe, deceptions are really necessary! Because if the child had not wanted to listen to fables his parents would have not narrated such things to him; if the ailing person had not wanted to be told that he is all right and there is nothing really serious with him the physician would have not lied to him; if the very people had not demanded to be informed that exactly their way is the one and only rightful way and there cannot be any doubt about this (in spite of the fact that one can never be absolutely sure whether something is good till it did not happen, and even then this is not always indisputable, because it must run some time after that moment in order to appreciate better the things) then their rulers would have not cheated them. What in turn says that the worst fanaticism was not this of the very communists (and even less of those of highest rank in the hierarchy) but of the ordinary people, who forced in old times the inquisition to burn the witches, the democratic Americans to practice widely the law of Lynch, and some ordinary people in the communist countries to declare their relatives and friends as enemies of the communism. And it isn't bad if all these, who are always ready to criticize the fanaticism of the communists, consider first what was the cause for forcing the communism into life (surely the bad capitalism in the given moment) and who were its most fanatical followers (the wide masses of common people, of course).      5. Total penetration of religion in all spheres of life      This is the reason to label the communism as totalitarian order, but such is also each religion, until somebody does not take the initiative to "tighten its reins", as it was for centuries all around the world, before there have not started widespread fights for setting the church apart of the state and social order. Under the communism, up to a certain extent, the church was really torn of the state, because the state began then to be "the Party and Government", and in this way has taken also all functions of the church, where the official church became in a way heretical for the communist religion. More than this, instead of the communion arose the so called chavdarcheta (in Bulgaria, from the name of one chieftain Chavdar), later on pioneers, and so on (Komsomols in Russia, but not only there), instead of different parts of production process come to life the "hermaphrodite" named "Party, Syndicate, and Komsomol administration", even instead of Christian burying emerged an obelisk with five-pointed red star and new ritual of "communist litany" (it is true that only for those who wanted, but the relatives of governmental officers avoided not to want this). And if these and other new practices have not succeeded to establish themselves firmly (because we succeeded to reject them now entirely) this is not on account of them being worse than the others (to which we now return), but just because they were more newer, for one tradition often exists not due to the fact that it is better or worse than some other variant, but because it existed as tradition (as, for example, many husbands endure their wives many years not because they are very precious or don't become older, but just because they are used to them; and the same may say also the wives, of course)!      The bad thing in this consecutive negations of negation is not the very negation but its totality (though this is, as a rule, unavoidable moment) and then we come to the situation for which our people say that "with the dry burns also the soggy". By the way, for the depth of penetration of communist religion, as much as for the totality of negation, may excellently be judged by the post-totalitarian period of "rebaptism" and accepting of new (or returning to the old) values, in which some nations literally in no time rejected the unwanted and in this process showed that under the communist religion for them were other (again religious, but in the traditional sense) ideas and values. These nations now proceed calm and convinced forward. Other nations, between which is also the Bulgarian one, were greatly impeded because the depth of penetration was not at all small and, what is worse, under it in the souls of Bulgarians occurred to be merely nothing (i.e. nothing really valuable, for which is worth living and struggling). Such nations now either kill one another, or still divide in "battle units", or begin just now to perceive the plain truth that one should never deny one religion unless there is another one present, which is more desired!      Speaking about the total penetration of communist religion we should not overlook its influence over all the arts which were, as it's said, engaged, or dedicated to the "great idea", but this theme is discussed many times, so that we shall content ourselves just to mention that each religion also conducts the arts, which must inevitably be morally appropriate (according to its canons), but this, without doubt, dates back to the times of Homer, because then also was accepted that each work of art (be it a sculpture, tragedy, comedy, musical piece, etc.) must in some way show also the life of gods; even the public speeches, important fights, merriments for people, Olympic games, and other sporting events also were somehow set in correspondence with the mythology. Surely even preschool children know that the Olympic games are named so in relation with the mount Olympus in Greece, where they believed their gods lived. And shall we in this case wonder that the communist religion wanted the same out of creators, artists, sportsmen, even of scientific workers (where there shouldn't have been place for bare faith and reverence at all)? More than this, as the first scientific religion (i.e. scientifically developed one) the communism has its own economy, what isn't true for other religions in such extent (there the priests contented themselves to take their tenth part of all produced, but had neither practice nor theory of economical science, what is to be explained, of course, with the absence of such science in the times of old religions)      6. Appearance of the cultic personnel      This section is in a way related with the previous one, if we take that the appearance of cultic workers is result of the total penetration of religion, but on the other hand there are many non-religious institutions which also have some established moral norms and appearance (say, in the army, courts, etc.), so that we put it as separate. Typical for each religion is the asceticism, or rejection of earthly acquisitions in favour of more valuable ideals of the cult. Naturally, the asceticism of cultic personnel does not mean that they are "poor as church mice", as it's said, but they don't use for themselves and for personal benefits the present valuables which the church establishment possesses (churches, cathedrals, Party Houses), but for to obey to God and "work with the masses"! This means that there can't be any religion with influence, which does not possess valuables with great value (because if it has influence over the people then this influence is confirmed by various donation and taxes, which often are converted in valuables), and this applies with full power also to the communism, where the biggest building in each town, and exactly in its center, was a precious Party House (with capital letters, obviously) and all party Congresses occurred with many pomposity and solemnity (as much as the church holidays). But this does not mean that the very priests live in wealthy houses (compared with those of local merchants and bankers, for example), or that they sink in excessive abundance. On the contrary, similar cases of affluent way of life between clergymen were always criticized by everyone (even by the very priests), so that they are just exceptions of the rule, and such was the case with the communist "priests" (where, if we return to our comparison with the merchants, then there an exception would be exactly a poor merchants).      The moral Codex of the communists was, really, very similar to that of other priests and reduced to the assertion that everything on this world is vanity and there will leave nothing of it in the future, excluding this, what is directed to performing of the cult, and, hence, there is no need to surround oneself with material things, as the non-clerics usually do, but to think about saving of one's soul in the future. By this, however, one should not confuse the honour and reverence, with which cultic officers were met, as much as different donations and exemptions, which they received (mainly by foreign organizations), with their personal salaries and acquisitions! Many are the religions where their officers receive free house, domestics, or transport (and the same is true also for many companies), but with abandoning of the post these privileges cease, and precisely the same was the situation with the communist cadres.      But the appearance of the cultic worker, obviously, is not only moral, it is also physical or external, and it, too, as a rule, is extremely different than that of the ordinary people. Often this is achieved with rejection of some specific personal characteristics (like hair and mustache, for example) and adding of special "working clothes" or uniform robe, which must be both humble and emphasize their rank. The communist "priests" might not have had special attire, but they could have been easily distinguished by their komsomol-type head-wear. It's interesting to remind you one typical for all religions peculiarity, namely that their personnel usually cut their hairs "number zero" (in order to stress on their ascetic life style) and this is linguistically fixed back from the times of Babylon. In any case, the English word "monk", although coming from Greek μοναχοσ, corresponds with the word ... monkey, and in Bulgarian these animals are maymunky (maymuna, in sing.), what is related somewhere in the ancient Sanskrit and the region of India (because neither in England, nor in Bulgaria teems with monkeys; and, on the other hand, why the English have to cut the whole first syllable of their word, for in Turkish it is maymun, and in Greek μαιμον?). In other words, the monks cut their hairs or carried hoods and in the eyes of common people looked like monkeys; and as another confirmation of this let us mention the so called Order of Capuchins, and a capuchin is really a breed of monkey. But well, for the monastic appearance there exist some motives, where for different contemporary or ancient modern head-wears there is no other reason, excluding the exhibitionism of the young people (mostly) and the lack of reasoning in their behavior.      7. Common usage of goods or existence of communes      The communes, where from comes the name of the communists, are not a new element for any of the religions. From very old times people have grasped that our world is a world of the strong, and the single salvation for the weaker ones is if they also become stronger in order to survive, but the easiest way to achieve greater power is the joining of many units or individuals in one bigger and more powerful unit with common goals and tasks, as much as with common possession of the material values, without which the life is impossible. At a first glance this may look sufficiently non-progressive, or like returning to the primitive society, but the reasonableness of such decision is undeniable, the whole human evolution is one incessant returning to some previous state, what, on one hand, is necessary for to permit evolvement (not explosion), and, on the other hand, makes it possible to reevaluate the pluses and minuses of some old decision, because on this world the benefits and drawbacks go hand in hand (or, if you will, we may state the maxim, that: "the worst thing in the bad ideas is that there is something good in them — and that is why they excite the people; as much as the reversed statement, i.e. that the best thing in the good ideas is that there is something bad in them — and because of this the things change, don't state on the same place!").      So that the communes were natural decision of the question for the communists and they were applied not only in farming — the Russian Kolkhoses (about which they had the funny remark: The Kolkhos is voluntary matter, if you don't want we shall make you to!"), but also in manufacture, as well as by supporting of party institution, et cetera. One of the main errors of Bulgarians in understanding of democracy and free market was in the underestimation of critical mass of the manufacturing or ideological units, what fell on our heads like sword of Damocles, because by the transition to society with greater freedom and autonomy we did not start from the position of aggregation of our production at the moment, but from the power of the single individual, what was, frankly speaking, pure madness (but what had we to do when various "dissidental chicks" have "pecked out all our brains"?). The freedom, albeit there is much spoken about this, is highly relative notion and one could have felt a lot more free, in different aspects, in one commune, than we feel now in the conditions of unexpected deficiency and misery, because the intention of each state is to make people work one for the other (a problem which has arisen with the emerging of first professions), and not one against the others.      If the commune stays on the one pole, then the anarchy is on the other, and we, fleeing from not at all real communes (as, for example, has stated Plato in ancient times, where all children should have been owned by the commune, not to live with their families), jumped to the other pole only to realize the need of compulsory deprivation from the unneeded freedoms, but now under the dictate of the well developed western economies in the face of the Currency Board, which deprived our lev (the currency unit in Bulgaria) of its freedom, and the working people of their rights to want higher salaries (i.e. standard of life at least as from the times of communist rule), and the small companies of their chances to overcome this monster called market. Because the not unknown Otto von Bismark, who by no means was a communist, had said in his time that "the free market will always be a weapon in the hands of more powerful economies", something in what we now convinced ourselves out of bitter experience! To put it briefly, the question wasn't at all in the avoidance of communes, because the world, anyway, moves to them (the so called multinationals, or European Union, or NATO, the different societies and coalitions), but in making of more reasonable and better motivating the individual groups, united around more effective ideologies, what was the main goal of all religions, and what justifies their existence up to this day, in spite of their multiple minuses.      8. Dogmatism and denunciation of heresies and other religions      As easy it is to accept something by faith and without judgement, so it's perilous to remain long time in tight dogmatic limits, but for each religion this is an unavoidable evil, meaning that the religion is dogmatic just because otherwise it should have been very easy to undermine the very belief! Let us remind you that in a territory, where rules the faith, there is no way for logical or experimental proof whether an assertion is true or not. For that reason in the times of Sacred Inquisition, in order to retain some imaginary experimental acting, as well as because of the unclear nature of the witches, in general, was applied the rule that if the convicted person is a witch, then she will succeed, alone, or with the help of some other ghosts of demons, to flee out of the tortures, what shall prove that she is a sorceress, i.e. it will be at least one-sided proof, and if she isn't a witch — well then, she will perish, the woman, but what have we to do, when there is no other way for examination; it is true that this is a "destructive test", but if she is innocent, then at least in the "other world" her residence in the paradise will be "sealed and stamped", so that she must be even glad. When there is no way to check whether the church is right, then something has to be taken by faith, and it is entirely natural to accept that exactly the church is right! This does not mean that nothing can be proved or examined, on the contrary, may be proved whether some statement can be derived from the sacred books, different Papal bulls and decisions of church conventions, but only this, and nothing more.      Such was the situation under the communism, too, where in the science, in the technique, in various sports, in different arts, in the production — everywhere must have been cited the resolutions of later Party Congress, as also what have stated Karl Marks, Lenin, and the living in the moment chieftain about the question. The ambiguity of criteria for truthfulness was changed with their total lack on account of the dogma for infallibility on the summit! From the height of the gone away years it is very easy to state that this was erroneous (quite more so that this really was a mistake), but this was imposed because of the very nature of the communism as religion, where fundamental was the faith, not the reason; this has followed from the very centralized ruling, where one should not meditate but perform (but isn't it so in army?), and may be thought when and where this is appropriate (say, on a party meeting, or Congress, if one is brave enough to put his head on the cutting log).      At the same time, however, we must add that many of the evils of dogmatic solutions come out of the shallow-mindedness of cultic workers, and not because it is impossible to check whether some now assertion contradicts to major dogmas and if so is heretical, because if the things were taken into more profound and impartial consideration there may, in many cases, turn out that the heresy may be linked with the dogma! So, for example, is stated that Giordano Bruno was burned on the stake entirely needless, because the rotation of Earth around the Sun does not contradict to the existence of God (for God might have made the Universe of whatever kind He wished it to be, and might have deliberately not explained the truth to the humans, because He knows that they are poor and finite beings, and if, in any event, all is relative, then this isn't of special importance for them). But, remorsefully, one of the unwelcome consequences of the dogmatism is that the mere officers of the cult become also fist victims of the dogmatism (though not victims in sense of human lives, but just as mislead), because it, naturally, leads to loosing of the capabilities to think (as far as they are not applied in practice).      In this sense the cultic personnel of communism did not succeed to perceive that the most important was the idea, faith, social justice, national wholeness and reasonableness of this new religion, where the "heresy" of private property, multi-party system, democracy, liberalism, et cetera, are not such bad things, if one approaches the problems in a right way, because, for example: ownership of shares or bonds of given companies does not change the main owner (normally about 60% of each company is kept by one person, because otherwise it becomes ungovernable, and the fact that someone has had 1/10,000 or even millionth part of a given big firm does not at all influence the policy of its management); the common property, in principle, does not exclude the possibility for competition (which, admittedly, makes the production less effective, but in the same time more adaptive); the existence of various parties, which change on the principle of seesaw — one beam propped in the middle and two persons (here parties) seated at its ends (there may be also one in the middle), so that when one of them falls down, the other one is heaved above, and then the other way round (but not because this, who was raised above, is in some way better than the other, just because that, who is below, is the worse for the moment!) — is sufficiently good model of management, and the bad thing in it is only until the politicians become used with the thought that they are like the artists in a theater (or the clowns in a circus, if you like), and if they give slaps one another they may make noise but not cause ache, or, what is even worse, make the people or the country suffer from this; the democracy, however, is a question of lawful establishing and reasonable compromise with the centralized governing (as the worldwide experience and our democratic way in the last years shows) and isn't at all heretical with the communism; the liberalism is a question of historical moment, and in the recent times we are moving to more and more wide liberation, so that there are no problems in legalizing marriages also between homosexuals (the earth globe is, anyway, overpopulated, and if some people have no other worries and it is more interesting for them in this way, then why not?), in a sense that this also does not impede the foundations of communism as religion (and in spite of this there were times when the communists sent to compulsive labour for wearing of miniskirts and forbade listening of The Beatles); and so on.      9. Existence of inquisitional body      If we take for granted that certain religion is rightful, then without some organization for compulsion we would have come to the most unjust thing on this world — the impossibility to force the rightfulness! And even more such body is needed if the religion is not right (because, if the good really wins, then it shall never prevail, but it is our religion)! This has been understood by the personnel of all religious cults from very ancient times and has caused the chase after heretics and burning stakes, the demonstrative persecutions and inquisition, the religious murders and expulsion from church, and other similar things. More contemporary communist and nationalist religions use also some modern methods like concentration camps and/or gas cameras, and as smaller (and palliative) measures — extradition, denial of education, 5-10 years jail sentences, etc., but this side of totalitarian regimes is adequately considered by many authors, so that there's no need to discuss it also here.      It is necessary, however, to turn your attention to one important singularity of the communist inquisition, which makes it differ from the others, and this is the fact that the communist religion sets no obstructions for everyone to join it (without difference of race, gender, age, education, material resources, etc.), a thing that is not true for national-socialist one, for example (because no Hebrew could have became Aryan — without deception or concealment, of course), nor could certain aristocrat in the times of French revolution cease to be such and in this way escape the guillotine (a contrivance with which the French were especially proud then, finding it very humane, in such way as nowadays some find the neutron bomb). In this sense the greater part of victims of communist inquisition are in sufficient extent (though it is not quite appropriate to say so, but there is significant truth in this) victims of their own personal qualities (be this persistence in their selfish ambitions, hate to the poverty-stricken party members, high self-esteem, or at least reluctance to submit to the powerful at the moment, what, frequently, is an indication of unreasonable behaviour). In any case, it may be boldly asserted that a body for enforcement and submission to the central power has existed in all historical times, where even "the biggest" democrats (or at least those who highly boast to be such) in the present times, i.e. the Americans, have their CIA and FBI, their ostentatious law suits and political murders; as also extraordinary martial laws for fighting of racial disorders when needed (they have even battled for several years in order to prove that the Negroes are also people — something what was clear to the people for centuries back in all civilized countries).      It would be very nice if the humanity at last could become civilized enough and cease to use crude power and enforcement in governing of the people, because this is the meaning of the word "civilization", i.e. authority of civil persons and, consequently, not using force but in a cultivated way and via the method of persuasion, education, help, and so on, but, alas — at least at the present day there is no one civilized country (in this sense) in the world, because there isn't a country which does not possess some repressive body for maintaining of internal order, as well as an army for "keeping contacts with foreign countries", when needed! Regretfully, this is the truth, and everything else is an Utopia! So that the question about the existence of inquisitorial body depends, first of all, on the population, after this on the ideology which it defends, and at the last place on the reasonableness of the employees in this body. To influence the population is utmost difficult; if the ideology is total, or if this is some ruling religion, such corpus could not be absent; and what concerns its staff then for this is needed time (for to change gradually the people, and from them also the cultic staff, because they, anyhow, are people from the nation), something what can easily be observed comparing this body in different periods (say, tens of years) of communist ruling (be it in Bulgaria, or in the former USSR, or where you like it better).      10. Censorship, secrecy, and opposition to the knowledge      In order to support the faith, unchangeability of the dogma, as well as out of some moral reasons (which we shall clear soon), each religion takes for its obligation to protect and censor the information, which it possesses. This is unavoidable and dates back to the ancient eastern religions, goes through different forms of Christian beliefs, via the Muslim religion, and comes to the newest communist religion. When the religion dominates everywhere in the society then each knowledge must first pass via its organization, for to check whether this isn't something heretical, and even if it's not, then it is important to decide whether it will be of some use for the masses, or vice versa. The deep and, possibly, paradoxical for many people nowadays meaning of biblical fable about the apple of knowledge isn't at all in its sexual hue, but exactly in the assertion that the knowledge isn't appropriate for God (because it isn't useful for the people, of course)! This is so because of the very human nature, for which the knowledge, as a rule, does not bring happiness, something what is confirmed unquestionably by the whole 20-th century, for which one may debate whether it is progressive or not, but the millions killed speak about whatever else but not about happiness.      Of course, each extreme assertion is perilous and, maybe, we had to explain that it is better to say that each knowledge may be as well as useful for the humans, also harmful for them, or that only untimely received knowledge is harmful, but such sentence tells us nothing definitely, because now isn't clear what means "before its time" and what not. And exactly to make this clear comes the necessity of censorship! No careful mother will permit her 4-5 year old child to play with matches or lighters, or to watch horror or masochistic films, or will leave him or her to travel alone in the town, for example; no self-respected religion will allow to distribute between people materials, which have not received its approval! If something can be done about this question, that it is to search for more educated and cultured censors, and even better if the very populace becomes educated enough for to be in position to censor itself alone using some democratic institutions, and in this aspect the communist religion had more to achieve. If the people, unfamiliar with the Latin, object against the word "censorship", then it could have been changed (and it have not been called so); if the secrecy consists only in efforts not to allow to understand that we were left extremely behind (as it, perhaps, was with our secret organizations), then there wasn't big need in secrecy but in some other measures; if certain knowledge (for instance, about the splitting of nuclear cells) isn't beneficial for the human race as a whole, then some impediments for its propagation must be set (in this case, to hinder the obtaining of actual technologies for producing of nuclear weapons; and let us not forget that the communists wasn't at all between those who first have begun to evolve secret plans for producing of nuclear weapons, nor between those who first became bold enough to use them). Concisely, bad in not the very censorship or secrecy, but the bad and improper censorship and secrecy!      The forbidden fruit is usually more delicious, what is known from biblical times, and that is why sometimes using certain censorship or prohibition to distribute a given information is possible to make people learn something in a pleasant and interesting manner, just overlooking the matter and allowing some leak of information (what often is also unavoidable). It was so with the rotation of Earth, when some time has flown from the discovery of Galilei, in this fashion was maintained the fight against dissidents (in Latin decido means to fall down, sink, i.e. these are people who were discarded from the group of those set around the state's dining table and highly irritated by this) in the 70-ies and especially the 80-ies years of 20-th century, and the known Gorbachev's perestroyka eliminated entirely the unneeded secrecy, when he began to propagate the glasnost-openness. But the paradox is that a decade after the perestroyka the people began to be much less interested in this, what was hidden earlier, than at the time when such things could nowhere be officially read, and in a certain extent even before Gorbachev, in the times of fight with the dissidents (not in the times of Stalin, surely), the population began slowly and gradually to move towards some moderate understanding of socialism, as mush as the very socialism wasn't then the same as, say, in the first years of its existence. In this sense may be spoken about some toleration to the dissidents due to the perception of their positive influence over the society, though not with the power of their ideas but rather having in mind their weak counteracting of the official proclamations, because oil in the fire has to be to dripped gradually, for to prevent arising of big conflagrations, because when the masses begin to deny something outdated they, as it is known from the dialectic of negation, jump from the one pole directly to the other, by the reason that reaching of the golden middle point, alas, is highly complicated thing for the people. But a middle position is always necessary, what is easy to be seen also by the similarity with the sexual freedom, which does not lead to stronger feelings, i.e. a pair of centuries back not naked legs, but a mere woman ankle, and even in a sock, has excited men more than nowadays, I bag your pardon, nude breasts of the girls from the ads for paid sex services.      It is good to add to the above-mentioned also that the absence of special organs for censorship does not mean lack of censorship on the whole, because then is applied the so called vulgar (or common, vernacular) censorship, by which this, what people don't like, is not propagated; as well also the censorship of the capital (i.e. is spread this, for what someone gives the money)! But nobody may be sure that this, what common people or the big business like, is really useful for the people (take as an example the narcotics) and then there arises a need of some special commissions, which must decide on the question. So, for instance, from the times of Freud on the whole West, and now also in Bulgaria, blossoms and spreads (just that it can not give "fruits") the wave of homosexuality, but this does not mean that there were not intensified discussions (some of which still continue) in various Parliaments, as also between competent scientific commissions, in result of which was accepted that it is better to legalize something harmless (for the people around), than to forbid it (in order to increase the interest for it); besides, in the contemporary overpopulated world this is one of the ways for enhancing of birth control (a question, which, according to the author, will be most central in the future 21-st century, unless we self-destroy ourselves, of course). Similarly stays the question with the erotics, which, quite naturally, cannot substitute the sex, but it brings good money, and that is because in present times it is considered legal. So that disrespect to the censorship may show only that one, for whom it is not useful, but this not at all always is the population as a whole.      11. Utopianism of religions      Each religion, in its efforts to change the human nature, becomes unavoidably Utopian! No matter how strong a certain idea is, when it begins with "if ...", then it can not be realized "until ...". In this respect the communism was not an exception, because a human being can not not start from his personal interests, but from those of the others (it may even be said that the main reason why the humans suffer mostly on this world is, not that they don't look for themselves, but that they don't know their interests); nobody can know exactly what is good for the other person (it often happens that this "other" also does not know this, but he has, still, the possibility to feel it in time, if has misguided the direction); in many languages is present the saying that the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, i.e. that the good intention rarely lead to good results. In the same time, however, the Utopias exist from times immemorial, for the humans can't reject all ideals only because they are impossible to be accomplished! People need the ideals as milestones in their movement in the time and don't bother at all about the fact that they are not the very reality, or, said differently: there can't be a reality without ideals and Utopias, at least for the purpose to distinguish the one from the other.      In the first moments of collapse of the communist socialism many communists have thought (or at least pretended to have thought so), that the others wanted to take away their idea, but this was pure demagogy because an idea simply can't be taken away, for it does not exist in reality (i.e. it exists just as an idea)! In this sense even the very failure of real socialism (i.e., of worldwide communist system, because some may argue that this was not yet communism) not only did not take away the Utopian communist idea, but on the contrary — separated the idea from its realization, in order to preserve it for the future! Shortly said: the very utopianism of the communist idea (in contrast to the capitalism, for example, which is pure reality, because there is no idea at all in it), is one of the strongest proofs of the statement that the communism is a religion! Even, if one puts a bit more efforts to think about, in the highly rumoured nowadays democracy there also is no idea for the same reason, because the democracy is just a matter of legal regulations and obeying the laws (but in a situation of total penetration of information media — and that is why, by the way, on the West they call the present-day human beings homo mediaticus — not observing the laws for a longer period is merely impossible). As far, though, the idea is not hindered by the reality and v.v., there are no problems for peaceful coexistence of communist religion and democratic reality.      12. Refuge for the weak      Here is the place to remind you the well known from the Renaissance epoch slogan that "the religion is opium for the people", which remains valid even today just because it is true! The religion, as we mentioned this in the beginning, is something on what one relies when he needs some support, because have lost every consolation and is in hopeless situation, and exactly then to the ailing person is given opium to avoid the pains (caused by the reality). So that this is an entirely normal and useful comparison, or better put: the religion is exactly that opium which the people need (and if some cultic officers don't understand this, so the worse for them)! In other words, this is exactly the refuge for the weak, but the humans are weak, as our God has said, so that why not to seek comfort then? In this sense the communist religion was a refuge for the weak, enfeebled by two national catastrophes, poor and small Balkan people called Bulgarians. This is the main reason why they have believed in this new religion, in which did not believe, neither the Englishmen, nor the Frenchmen, nor the Germans, nor the Americans, et cetera, et cetera. What says that the faith strikes roots there, where the life is unhappy and miserable and people look for some faith, so that maybe there are chances in present-day democratic times even for the Bulgarians to become really believers, after convincing themselves that the capitalism also is bad (or, as they say, have answered Radio Yerevan to the question: "Is there life on Moon?" — "No, there also isn't!").      In the same time we must not confuse the negation from the communists of every (other) religion with the assertion that the communism is also religion, because the former one is simply an unavoidable requirement (as we have said). There is no religion on the world which, albeit it recognizes the other religions and gods, does not state that precisely it is the best one and their gods and saints are the most authentic. And let us not think that if the communists say that there is no God but a Nature this changes substantially the things (as was discussed in section 3). Generally, let us not think that the atheists are unbelievers, because according to the principle of agnosticism, the atheists simply believe that there is no God, ergo, they are believers! And as to the intolerance of communist "priests" may be said that no religion may boast that it has not come to extremities (and even substantially greater then those of the communists) in persecuting of other believers (even Islam, as one relatively moderate and tolerant religion, according to various declaration, has its religious wars, to say nothing about the sanguinary Christian crusades, Bartholomew's nights, etc.). The unbeliever, or the infidel, as it more often is said, is one who believes in nothing and lives for the present day and only for himself, without any thoughts about the future, what in no case may be applied to the communists. And this, that they have not searched refuge in other religions — well, they have their refuge, where to heighten their spirit! Up to a certain extent they were weak (when believed), but at the same time were stronger than the Christians or Muslims, for instance, because they believed in the most plausible.      13. Hindrance of the progress, and stagnation in the evolvement of society and personality      Based on all said till now is clear that each religion, when opposes the reason and knowledge, will hinder the progress (as far as it is not clear whether it will bring happiness or not). In the same way, however, each religion stops also the regress, i.e. it causes stagnation in the society. But wasn't the same situation of throughout (or total) stagnation of progress and evolution in the whole western world after the massive pervasion of Christianity, and this not for a pair of years, nor for a pair of decades, even not for one-two centuries, but for more than ten centuries — obviously recognized by all, lasting many centuries, delay for millions of people (something like the winter hibernation of bears), which has justified, afterwards, naming of this new time Renaissance in French (literally "new birth", a kind of resurrection)? But then, come to think of it (or even not thinking much but just looking how terrifyingly fast now, around 1996, the things in Bulgaria change, so that several Parliaments could not have finished to the end their mandates), one must have inevitably come to the conclusion, that not in vain the exclamation: "Oh, time, wait, the moment is so pretty!" was preserved to the present day, because this, what is good, it becomes preserved (usually, in democratic conditions, but, though not so easy, also under dictatorship or tyranny), when that, what changes very rapidly, it turns not to be very good (because, if it were good, then it wouldn't have changed so fast, right?)!      And wasn't it exactly so also in the become proverbial "years of stagnation" in the communist countries? In any event, the stagnation is unavoidable for each ruling religion, because the totalitarian, or at least centralized, ruling is the most effective one, and the goal of each ruling, were it in the animal or in the machinery (as the cybernetics says) is just to preserve the conditions, the status quo! What has to say that there not only is nothing strange in the fact that the communism caused delay (for such is the goal of each religion), but that there would have been strange if it wasn't so, and that, generally taken, this society has done very well with the task of reaching of stagnation. But there is something else in this case what is essential, and it is that there isn't an indisputable answer to the question, whether a stagnation is something good or bad, and everything depends on the particular situation and before-set criteria (compare, for instance, the restrain in incessant armament, or the delay in developing of certain illness, or of nearing the old age, respectively the end of the civilization, in what moment we nowadays live, for the civilizations are born and die as each living thing). Respectively the progress also may be something good, but may as well be something very bad, however, such is the dialectic of evolution.      Corresponding with the question of development of the society is that of evolvement of the personality, in which case each religion (again), as social system uniting the people not only territorially, but also in the time, unavoidably suppresses the evolvement of individual personality in the interest of society (because the personality goes away and the society is what remains). This question is discussed many times and the only thing that may be done is to search always for the so needed state of equilibrium between the personal and common interests, but for this purpose the person must somehow free oneself from the everyday and inescapable cares for his survival and attend to his development and self-improvement. This follows from the understanding that the human being is permanently "wanting animal" (the Slavs, by the way, feel ashamed to be called animals and use always the word "being") and has five hierarchical levels, which, from the lowest above, are the following: food, shelter, propagation of his gender (what from the point of view of the individual reduces mainly to sex), personal manifestation (i.e. career making, or finding of suitable place under the Sun — or the Moon, for the Muslims), and at the end is development and self-improvement. The author does not think that the communist ideologists were aware exactly of this gradation, but the conclusions are the same, namely: satisfaction of the lowest three levels (which are recognized as basically necessary) for all, and difference between individuals only on the highest two levels. And as far as the satisfaction is always a matter of equilibrium between wishes and capabilities, so there are two fundamentally different methods for its reaching: either delimiting the wishes, or enlarging the abilities.      We must not twist our minds concealing the fact that the communists preferred mainly to constrain the wishes, but this was caused by their capabilities, because: it was easier to say that one must not be careerist, or, if he so much wishes it, then let him make career but first in the party ranges; it was easier when the shops were ill-supplied, so that one felt glad when sometimes (on big holidays) he could find also something better; it was easier if one gave up his ambitions for material benefits, as way for providing his personal manifestation, and in this way finds good self-expression in what the Party and Government have left him as possible, than to prepare for each one enough funds for personal manifestation; et cetera. But, on the other hand, the capitalism does not care at all about the human beings, unless then, when the wealthy ones are forced to take care for their possessions, and if in doing this turns out that they care also for the weak (for to eliminate the unneeded bloodshed, because when one has nothing to eat he is capable of everything), or for the building of one wider group of "middle" citizens (which must have enough money in order to spend them in interest of the wealthy) — well, so much the better. In any case, the greater possibilities for personal manifestation under the capitalism (and this only under the well matured one), than in the times of communist ruling, are explained not with some better qualities of the social order, or with some special cares for the development of personality, but just with better developed economies of the leading capitalist countries (which for that reason are called "leading")!      14. Main goal — happiness of the people      Every religion is invented and exists in order to give some variety of happiness for the people and its main symbols (the Christian cross, the Muslim half-moon, the fascists swastika, the red communist star, etc.) are all symbols of happiness. The dances around the fire, performed by different magicians and shamans in the primitive tribes, the religious mysteries of ancient Greeks, the church rituals, pageants, and carnivals of every religion, as far as the communist and national-socialist mass meetings, are invented above all to bring some entertainment to the people and serve for their happiness by the way of suggestion (or delusion, what is practically the same). In contrast to the common sense, however, which requires changing of the idea, when it disagrees with the reality, the religious fanaticism requires change of the reality with its chimerical similitude!      The Hinduism, for example, having come to the conclusion (and this many centuries back), that the bitter multi-centenary experience of the human race puts in question the meaning of material progress, decides that one must simply change material reality with non-material (and this, according to them, was easily done repeating several hundred times "Rama-Rama ...", or the like) and in this way, via meditation, was possible to reach the "absolute truth" (or the pure love to God). To similar hallucinations have come also different followers of Christianity after long-lasting diets on bread and water, accompanied eventually with self-tortures. Analogous meaning of comfort with your own conscience has the proverbial Christian rule that if one slaps you on one cheek you have to turn to him also the other one, because the world has suffered long enough from the escalation of force (and this twenty centuries ago, and what are we to say now?) and if you may swallow the insult, then you will feel better thereafter.      The same "transcendental Universe" pursued also the communism as religion — constructing of such environment, in which every human being to be friend and brother to the others, and where, if not exactly we, but at least our children, will be happy. This was pure manipulation, but in interest of the people and for their happiness, where the supreme chief behaved in the same way, as would have done also the good physician, who does not tell the patient the truth for his condition and in this way exercises positive influences over him (besides, the suggestion is a known method for medical treatment). The lie or deception, or, even better, self-deception, is a common method for achieving of happiness between the believers, and, though seeming strange from the point of reason, this really very often helps, so that let us stress that it isn't so important whether we are being manipulated (because the present-day media also do this, and very skillful), but in which interest this is performed.      15. Religious moral      Each religion is inevitably moral, demanding such behavior from the believers, which can be called rules for good coexistence. Usually one knows what is good for him in the given moment, but as finite being he can not comprise, neither all other human beings (or rather the whole nature and environment, too), nor all previous and future generations, so that this is the main moral obligation of the religion: to make the individual feel like a part of the whole society, or like a dust-grain of reality flowing in the river of time! Maybe on this place we must give in march one non-limiting definition of the term "moral" as: system of rules intended to unite the people in the time and in the space. If we look now more precisely at the things it will turn out that uniting of the people in the space, at any rate, may be achieved (at least using force), but before the time without the religion (or some primitive moral norms) the humanity simply feels confused! A group of people not united in the space are usually called "savages" (because they may bite through their throats like a pack of wolfs — either for a female, or for a bone, or just to show what "heroes" they are), whether a group of people not united in the time are frequently called "barbarians", i.e. infidels (because they don't know how to act in order to leave behind a good memory for themselves, nor are convinced that they must leave whatever memory at all).      It is entirely obvious that as religion the communism made all possible to unite the people in the space and the time, gathered together under the common goal of building the communism (if possible in the whole world). Was this done via worldwide revolution (or using some existing armed conflict or world war), or by gradual evolution, depended on the specific situation in the moment. This unity, however, set no innate differences between people, so that communism might have arisen also on the Moon, if the situation there have proved to be suitable. But have not Christian missionaries in their time gone really around the globe (and even now by each useful situation try this possibility again)? And if some social system contains also the moral, then nothing hinders it to become ruling one (if this is allowed to it), in the way as in various times and countries for centuries have ruled religious governments, so that the communism sets no precedent in this aspect.      Let us finish with this the multiple similarities of the communism with conventional religions and continue our investigation.       II. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COMMUNISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS      Our main goal was to show the similarities of the communism with other religions, because the differences are easy to be seen, but for completeness of the discussion let us mention also the main differences.      1. There is no God      Under the communism, as we said, there is no God in the conventional sense of this word, i.e. as being made by image and likeness to the humans (no matter whether with two or four hands, or to what incarnations it is capable, or by what method it reproduces itself — was it via breathing, or by making out of some of his own parts, or like the Holy Ghost, via divine "implantation" in a human body), but there still existed the idea for something existing always and everywhere, imperishable and indivisible, what rules the world, from the smallest particles to the cosmic galaxies and black holes, by way of different natural laws (for the bigger part of which we don't know neither how, nor where they are written), and what performs the relation between the past and the future. But, at the end, what is the difference whether we shell speak about the "word", or the idea, or natural laws, or bits of information, when all this is the one side of the things, and the matter or the existence is the other one? For the matter to exist there must be information about how it is to be connected, how to functions and evolve in time, and in order to maintain the information there must be natural objects where it has to be written and transferred. These are the two sides of our world, but with what symbols we shall signify them, is of no principal meaning.      2. There are no wonders      The nature (as communist god) does not need wonders to convince the humans that it exists! The traditional religions need some wonders because they ought to make people believe that their gods are authentic, because may do things which are not in the powers of whatever human beings (for instance, to change their appearance and reincarnate themselves in other beings, to give life, because to take it away the humans also can, to walk on the surface of water, or fly in the air, etc.). The communist god, as one totalitarian god, not only can be everywhere, to see and hear everything, what he wishes, to award or punish whoever he wants, but he just is everywhere and in everything, because the nature contains the whole matter! For incessantly inquisitive human soul there is no need of fables, because the reality is more marvelous than everything what a human being may devise, and that is why the communist religion has no necessity of wonders for simple-minded people. It is true that this conjecture (that the humans are not naive or elementary) is a very bold one, but let us not forget that, after all, the communism is from about one and a half centuries, the Islam — from about 13, and the Christianity — from 20, and there are even older religions, and the multilateral enlightenment of people nowadays is much higher than the level from centuries back, so that if the communists have believed in wonders, this would have made people not to believe in them alone!      3. There are no prayers      If God is really all-seeing and everywhere-present (and if He isn't, so this means that He is not a God) then He must know pretty well who believes in Him (if this is at all of any importance for Him), from what follows that God has no need of our prayers, which we forward to Him! There is nothing apocryphal in this assertion, and if it is not much popularized between the believers so this is for their own good. In any case, the prayers are only for the very believers by two reasons: firstly, as self-insinuation, for soothing of their soul, and simply as a way to find some time to ponder about this, what is good and what is bad; and secondly, to convince also the other people around that they are worthy believers, and if so one may trust them, i.e. out of mere parading! In this sense, if one does not care much about the meaning of others he may pray also at home (before the crucifix, or the red banner, if you like), and if he guides his thoughts to God each evening before falling in sleep, he may not pray at all in the established hours (and for the Islam, for instance, these officially fixed hours just impede the normal rhythm of present-day life). As far as, however, the communist religion has its various means for exercising of the pretentious actions of believers in it (like: party meetings, demonstrations, manifestations, Lenin's subbotniks — nearly compulsive working Sabbaths —, etc.), as also enough ways for insinuation and political manipulation of the conscience, it turns out that the prayers become entirely superfluous! But there was, surely, also the psychological factor that one can hardly pray to some abstract substance or nature, because he has to call it somehow, and because of all this the prayers were substituted with the above-mentioned speeches and meetings.      Maybe there are also other things that are present in the traditional religions but absent from the communist one, but this is not of principal importance, as also it is not because of lack of thinking from the side of ideologists of the communism, but comes from the comparatively small amount of time of existence of this religion, which is not enough for establishing of good traditions. So for example, might have been thought more about the question of traditional uniform of communist cultic workers, maybe with some make-up or mark on the skin of the forehead, or on the right (left) hand etc.; there should have been developed better rituals for births, marriages, funerals, and other important moments in life of the humans; it might have been invented also something similar to the holy communion (some "temporal capsule", for example, like small red pill, but for which might have been believed that it helps for establishing of contacts of the person between past and future generations); as well as other ceremonies related with the periods of year, which must aid for preservation of the environment and the health of human beings, and which are to replace the traditional fasts, red eggs, kurban-bayrams, etc. (why not to have, say, some celebrations of the "Transformation of the Matter", carnivals of the "Descent of the Monkey from the Tree", a festivity of the "Invention of the Wheel", "Pageant of the Genes", et cetera?); it might have been developed and approved some standard for cultic Party Houses (the so called Stalin's style, or communist Gothic, as variation of the widely spread on the West Gothic, was good for the beginning, but this should have been canonized fixing, say, that the building has always to have five wings or cupolas, placed like the rays of a star, and in each wing to be built one central five-sided hall, etc.); it was necessary to further improve and enhance the symbols, finding also special greeting (why not with opening of the fingers of the hand, because to show everybody a fist is at least not very cultured), et cetera, et cetera. As it was already said, the faith does not hinder the reason and vice versa, and it is naive to think that the contemporary educated person would not have accepted some interesting and nice rituals (like the rituals of other religions) without obligatory believing in them, but just as symbols, carnivals, pageants, and so on, though this is a question of further evolution of this new religion.       III. PAST AND FUTURE OF THE COMMUNIST RELIGION      In this chapter is convenient to look at the communist religion, as it's said, in the dynamics of its evolvement. But first we must make clear that it does not arise in the time of theoretical devising of communism by Karl Marx, who makes just a prediction that, wishing this or not, but the ghost of communism travels around the world, and if we take this in consideration, then we shall spare ourselves much unneeded social conflicts! This Marxian communism has nothing in common with the religion, which we investigated, because in it the greater part of the discussed characteristics were not present, for example: it is not based on belief; he does not speak about communist future as about something wide away and unreachable, but as depending on the development of the productive forces in worldwide scale (something that right now is practically accomplished in various Western countries, just that they don't call it so there but in the best case use the world "socialism", as more tender); he has not thought at all about objects of the cult, about Party Houses and Mausoleums; neither about the fanaticism of communists; nor about the totalitarianism of this ideology and its penetration even in the sports, sciences, etc.; neither has thought about Komsomol head-wears (he has not thought about the Komsomols first of all), and has worn big beard and such hair which he liked; there was not a word about inquisitional body, because he has not tried to govern a country (but to foresee the development of the society); nor about censorship; nor about refuge for the weak; et cetera. If Marx has not told what will follow after the communism this does not mean that he has wished stagnation in the society. So that from the above enumerated characteristics of religions remains only this, that he has had nothing against the happiness of people and, naturally, wished that the most valued things from the moral of the people were preserved also in the communism!      1. Leninism — beginning of the communist religion      The Leninism, or "compulsory communism" (also revolutionary, dictatorial, obligatory, and other similar epithets) is what sets the initiation of the communist religion. It is naive to insist that Lenin has realized that he has started a new religion — he has, maybe, just wanted to achieve stronger influence over the masses — but, so or otherwise, one may boldly state that he was the first "communist Pope", as also the first communist saint and martyr. (Generally speaking, similar things often happen, where there are, for example, very few fathers who have made their children deliberately and consciously — they have wished, supposedly, only to make their beloved ones happier, if we put it more genteel.) With the emergence of first communist state, however, in conditions of severe reaction from the part of all other (but much better developed) capitalist countries, on a territory and with population sufficing for a world empire, with personal ambitions (the unsatisfactory results reached by his brother in his efforts for some movement on the way of progress in this, no need to be too modest in such cases, left-behind empire using only terroristic means), there was nothing else left to the "poor being" unless to apply all the best from the millennial history of world dictatorships in the governing of big human masses! But what is one to do when the people do not want to do that, what is for their own good? When a child does not behave (and the behaviour of whole populations differs only slightly from that of the children, by the way), then he (or she) must receive his (her) punishment, right? And in order to have not only punishments there must be also some fables (as nowadays we are told any democratic tales), i.e. faith or religion (and let us remind yor here that the fascist salutation "Heil", and read as 'hayl', is the root of German heilig, what means holy, sacred). That's how it is, alas, because the human may be made to do something, what he doesn't want to do (but what, nevertheless, must be done), only in two ways: either via enforcement, or via delusion (and even better in both ways simultaneously)!      So that nothing happens on this world unmotivated, or better, according to the thesis of probability theory: "the necessity is arbitrary, and the arbitrariness is necessary"! If the political and economical situation in Russia a century back, and especially in the time of World War One, had not been so merciless to the people, then Lenin wouldn't have come to power (and the same may be said also about Hitler in Germany, and in many other similar cases — by the way, this alias means that Hitler was just ... a hit, the top, and otherwise his name was Hucklegruber, I think, what sounds very grubo in Slavonic, or grob in German, or gruff of harsh in English). If the Russian population was not so very behind in economical and social aspect than the Western Europe, then Lenin wouldn't have been forced to invent new religion, when the time of religions has been flown long ago (more precisely, it has been flown in the past the time of ruling, or merged with the state totalitarian religions). If the ideas and methods of Lenin have not been, still, the one and only suitable for its time and place decision, then wouldn't have come the next "steely saint" called Stalin (because his alias in turn comes from the steel, which is stahl in Russian, what is German word), who took as his obligation to continue them and apply firmly, decisively, and to the end! Because the Stalinism was, in fact, one consecutive Leninism, having begun to increase its velocity somewhere in the time of so called NEP (New Economic Policy), when it has become clear, that this new policy could elementary ruin the ongoing (really) grandiose social experiment (as it happened 60 years later, when was performed similar experiment in the time of Gorbachev, but then the conditions were different and this was possible, or must have been allowed)! Of course, it is clear to all that the Stalinism was, and was remembered with, something much more than a consecutive Leninism, turning to severe individual dictatorship, and we do not attempt here to justify the communism for having allowed the emergence of unlimited individual power, but in the 20-ties and 30-ties of the 20-th century many communists really have believed that the NEP was serious retreat from the communism (though it was a needed retreat from the extremities — but could people ever reject the extremities?).      So that is how it became necessary to have belief instead of reason (because the Marxism was just reasonable); that is how the tales about the bright socialist future (where, if not exactly we, than at least our children, would have enough to eat) have arisen; that is how the towering and imposing cultic buildings have emerged, and all this fanaticism, total surveillance, not only of the deeds, but also of the thoughts of people, et cetera. The historical evolution often repeats itself, it became so in this case, too. The religion arose because people needed a new religion, in order to perform this radical change in the conscience, which in turn has to be performed because the wealthy Western countries then themselves fought one with another, for they could not have come to useful agreement who must command whom (or, put it otherwise, have not then come to the present-day multinational financial institutions built on the principle of join-stock companies, where the profits are divided according to the given capital, as it ought to be done under the capitalism, and not according to the dictate of one single country)! But instead of some similar relatively reasonable decision the West has decided "to provide meaning of life" tor the great Soviet country, where, making more hindrances to it (to the people there), forced it (the people) to overcome them alone! That is how this new religion arose.      There must have elapsed wholly two world wars with millions of victims and to wheel away nearly a century from the time of Ford's conveyor, when the humanity at once became very powerful because of the possibility for easy multiplication in the production, for the wealthy countries at last to become bright enough to change the policy of the "stick" with that of the "carrot" (what is a very good western proverb). So or otherwise, but the irony of the situation is that just when the West ceased the cold war and decided, instead of to turn its back, to give a hand to the Soviet Union and its satellites, just then it succeeded to overcome the communists, or at least to disunite them and force the next phase! Though this, that the West caught us (the ex-comms) very easy on the fishing rod, or that we "bit in the carrot" (or the piece of sugar) doesn't speak good about us, but we can't blame the gentlemen there for succeeding to cheat us (not to say "dupe" because the word "dщpe" has derogative meaning in Bulgarian) very honestly. When we have had then little brains, so we must have now strong backs, as we say.      2. Gorbachevism — beginning of the separation of religion from the state      When one ruling and totally penetrated in all spheres of life religion begins to loose its positions, because the state experiences serious difficulties, then some "surgical intervention" is needed in order or to save the religion, as more valuable. The difficulties in social government were, first of all, consequences of the stagnation, which each religion provokes, and such was the case in the period of Renaissance, when the long-lasting lethargy of the whole western world has begun to hinder the social organism, that withered and dried as the saints from the icons. Similar was the situation also in the time of Gorbachev, when the people simply vegetated, but without notable goals and wishes, because the hindrances for individual evolvement of the inhabitants hampered them to work better for the society, too! By this comparison of the Gorbachevism with the Renaissance may be noted the substantial difference in the times of linking with state's ruling for the Christian and communist religions, but this is easily explained with the much more dynamical 20-th century, related with the period of early Middle Ages, and there are no reasons to suppose that the communist religion was rejected very fast (at any rate it is too early for similar assertions). It may be spoken a lot in this connection, but the truth is that the Communist Block just waited some fresh drift, something new and different, so that the change from the side of the West of the policy of the "stick" with that of the "carrot" began to be completed with similar actions also from the side of the USSR. The toleration to the dissidents did some work for the time being, because this provided emotions for the people (the forbidden fruit is sweeter), but this was a slow breeze and it had to come the "Great Gorbi" for the "stormy wind of innovations" to begin blowing, because it is better a tempest than a hurricane or typhoon! And the surgical intervention, which we mentioned, was the separating of the "Siamese twins" — the Party and Government! And so Gorbi put on the "surgical vest".      But it is important to stress here that such operation was not new for the humanity and it was performed in its time by whole Pleiads of thinkers during the Renaissance. The difference is that, as the communism was one really total religion, this operation must have been performed by the very "communist Pope", because otherwise it would have been unattainable. But it is another question whether Gorbachev personally was aware, that his actions caused planned destruction of the system (i.e. slow, in order to avoid greater cataclysms, but consecutive and inescapable destruction), or has believed that the cultic workers will succeed to take the process in their hands and the communist religion will remain leading in the state? The question about the strength of faith of the higher personnel of a given cult, however, is sufficiently complicated, so that let us leave it aside, more so because not the goals are important but the results, and they are well known. Though well known does not mean correctly understood, because the believers condemned him for betraying their faith, and those of another conviction laughed over him for proving to be unable to save the system (although they never wished for somebody to save it). And the truth is that precisely he saved the faith, separating it from the corrupted body of the system, saved the religion taking it apart from the state! There will go many years before this will be comprehended well by the people, but the new conditions of (non-moral and faithless) capitalism, of (irrational and wrongly-understood) democracy, of (brutal and unfair) market economy, little by little, elucidate this question, because the new belief has not arisen on empty place, nor shall leave empty place behind.      Let it be clear that the truth, idea, religion are non-destroyable, because they are non-material! This, what has been rejected, is the communist state of the type of Lenin (and especially Stalin), but not the very communist religion, which has ruled in this countries! And that is why the conclusion that the Lenin-type communism has fulfilled its goal (to create new religion, suitable for moderately and low developed countries on the contemporary phase of decline of the worldwide capitalism) is true, not demagogy, but it really is hard to convince a person, who for a long time has done something, that this is no longer needed, because he, inevitably, thinks that this means that all that he has done till the moment was also meaningless, but the life is one incessant dynamics and in it everything (even our errors, and especially they) has its purpose! And let us not forget that the main purpose (looking in worldwide scale) of Leninism (and if you wish also of fascism) was to make the capitalism better and more endurable for the people (in such way as the main purpose of the wolfs, for example, is to select better breed of hares, and for the hares — more vivacious wolfs, because everything in this world is tied together), and this social order has accomplished this task very well, because the present-day capitalism (in the developed countries, not such like us, where, instead of moving forward to something better, we preferred to return about 50 years back in the time*) is much more different and acceptable than the capitalism, which has forced the emergence of new communist religion!      3. Future of the communist religion      The future of this religion will be like the future of every new religion and must come through two different phases, namely: of separation of the idea from the realization, or analysis; and impersonation of the idea in new modification, or synthesis of better daughter-religions, where these phases may be repeated cyclically and give birth to various different modifications, as the Christian religion does for centuries. Correctly looked at, this is true not only for the evolvement of some religion but also for every social system, still, it is right in our case. In the moment we are at the phase of analysis and have not yet come to synthesis of a new "heresy", primarily because the existence of rough, or "green", capitalism is still very short for to make people to search for something better, but the future will show how it is, considering the fact that the best conviction is our personal experience. The young generation does not believe in stories about worldwide crises of capitalism**, crashes on share-markets, long-lasting periods of mass unemployment (longer than the droughts in some regions of Africa, which usually last only 3-4 years), devastating wars, due to the incapability of civilized-looking countries to find some reasonable solution, and other things, until they fall on their own backs. When this happens then the new heresy will also arise, given that the religion will continue to exist. But as far as the ideas can't be destroyed (they just wait suitable conditions to emerge again) there are all chances to expect that some communist "mutation" will conquer the world before we have reached the end of the civilization of worldwide capitalism.      And this, that the current civilization goes to its end, may be seen by the lack of main purpose in life for the majority of population in the well developed countries. If we return now to the discussion in section I.13 about the five levels of human desires, we shall see that in these countries the people have already reached to forth level of personal manifestation and career making and live only for satisfaction of the fifth level, i.e. for their own evolvement and improvement. But the irony of the situation is that with reaching of this level the wide majority of people reach also their ceiling (set genetically in them) and the manifold improvement of personality for them expresses mainly in improvement of the ways for reaching of physical sensations (i.e. of taste, sensual, sexual, audiovisual, etc.), as much as in intensifying of the emotions (and that is why using of narcotic substances becomes so widely spread nowadays, and exactly between young people), or, with other words, for greater majority of people the new quality is expressed only in greater quantity of old known qualities! Instead of this people must have aspired for reaching of new levels of pleasure, for example: partaking in the world arts or culture (not the mass-culture, of course, like actions and thrillers), physical evolvement of the person (not just to sit before the TV-screen and watch the others run or jump), individual artistic and scientific creativity, learning of foreign languages, cultivating roses or chrysanthemums, if you want, and other similar things. When the ruling class reaches this highest level it (usually) begins to degrade, and as far as by the capitalism this days exists also a large middle class (needed to buy the wares, which are produced incessantly with the purpose to raise the profits of immensely rich, but who are mere 2-3% of the population), it turns out that this incessant degradation (slump, deterioration, or as you name it) becomes entirely global. So in this way, slow and gradually, the world capitalism passes away and the only thing, that can be done about this, is to shift the moment of end far off!      But the next irony of development is that at the contemporary stage exactly the victims of communist religion are those, who delay the end, were it by enabling (and providing) work for the wealthy countries to teach us how to live, were it by becoming new large market for their products, were it by forcing them to pacify us because we are much "wilder" than these civilized countries, but in this way we delay the evolution (or the nightfall of civilization). Briefly, in an alike way as in the beginning of 20-th century the developed countries gave purpose in live to the Soviet empire, and later also to many of its satellites, turning their backs to them and forcing them to pull themselves alone out of the marsh, in which they (for different, mainly objective, reasons) were sunk, in this way now, after the collapse of worldwide communist system, the citizens of former communist countries are those, who provide purpose in life for many of the citizens of well developed countries. More than this, as far as our current civilization extends on several continents, so it can not die away until all the countries reach one equal level or deterioration (or development, if you prefer it so), and the experience of last democratic years has clearly shown, that from some acceptable satisfaction up to the level of personal manifestation, till which all ex-comms have come, now in more or less half of them has come to slumping down by one-two levels (even, hmm, the sex is widely substituted with the so called erotics, by very transparent commercial reasons) and much more than the half of their population fight strongly for their survival. If this is not help for the salvation of civilization, then what is in that case a help? If this isn't result of our transition to democracy, then we neither see, nor understand the things! But, well, whether we benefit out of this situation, or somebody else, is entirely different question, though, what is to be done — such is the dialectic of evolution.      In result of this dialectic the left behind in their development ex-communist countries succeeded to create one new, contemporary, religion, which, maybe, will continue its existence in the future, under some form or other. One such form we present to your attention in the next chapter, which, in fact, is something like utopia or science fiction, but having in mind that our future, from the point of view of the existing reality, is a fantasy, then, if we can add to it also the adjective "scientific", it must only win by this! And, for another thing, after these long and tiresome reflections, the reader has fully deserved some entertainment, so that — why not to offer him some science fiction?       * When this book was written was clear, according to some Western prognoses, and also in accordance with the calculations of the author, that we shall reach our former level of standard of life somewhere after 35 to 50 years, i.e. around 2030, more or less. Today, in 2010 is obvious that this prognosis is, on the whole, true, because we live still about 3-4 times worse than in the times of our Todor Zhivkov; this, that about 10% of the population live better then before, and another 20-25% live equally bad (or good — as you like it), does not change the things.       ** Well, let us hope that it now believes.       IV. THE PENTAISM — RELIGION OF THE FUTURE      1. Subject of the pentaism      The pentaism is religion of atheists, in which is overcome the existing in all other religions opposition between the faith and the reason in one natural way — through their inseparable unity! We invite everybody who accepts our doctrines to believe that the reason exists, and, hence, all can be proved by reasonable way, so that the solace, that our believers search, to be situated in the reason, which for its part can establish the need of the faith; or vice versa — in the faith, which can postulate the existence of the reason. According to us the faith and the reason not only don't contradict one with the other, but they complete one another, so that there, where the faith isn't much, the reason comes to help it, and where the reason lacks, there the faith helps! In this sense the pentaism is the most reasonable religion, and the most religious area of study. There are no problems for everybody wishing to join us, either by way of the reason (that our religion is the best one), or by way of the faith (that it is the most reasonable one), or by some dialectical unity of these extremities, or also by some of the other Ways of Knowledge (see further below).      The pentaists believe in cause-effective relations of the things and know that their contemporary position is impossible without the existence of pre-existential past, in which they are one unrealized post-existential future, so as their present existence is one pre-existential past for their post-existential future. The pre-existential past, as well as the post-existential future, are non-material and indestructible! There are no problems if one wishes to contemplate the pre-existential past as some history, as chain of real and material events, but this is only a representation about it, a kind of record of it, but not the very past, which is only a gist or idea without material medium. This is something like memory of the breed, gender, social group, class, intellect, etc., but only as such thing, not being really this! Similarly, our post-existential future is consequence of our present state and our pre-existential past, and is influenced directly by them, but in one non-material way! The post-existential future of everybody originates with the beginning of his present state and exists forever, where after the elapsing of his present existence remains unchangeable in form of pre-existential past for the other generations until there last, either the faith, or the reason, or both. Of course, we may visualize our post-existential future as some actualized genetic information, using which it can be resurrected as our present in the future, but this only as an image or idea of it, not being exactly this. The past is where we come from, and the future is what we live for. There is no future without present state and this without past, because the effect requires its cause not depending on the matter and the way in which it is passed forward, but there is also no past or present without future, because the cause creates its effect. The existence of post-existential future of the individual, however, does not mean that it contains something valuable (its only filling might have been just the indication that there is nothing in it, or the so called "empty set"). One may conceive his pre-existential past, but can't comprehend his post-existential future. The pre-existential past and the post-existential future are just a kind of information.      The pentaists are atheists and believe that there is no god, but they can't prove this! If they could have proved that god exists, then this means that he does not exist, because he wouldn't have been a god if could have been comprehended by beings limited in the time and the space like the humans; and if they could have proved that god does not exists, then their proof would have meant nothing, because he might have been very well hidden, and for this reason they have concluded that he does not exist. If we take that there is a god, this contradicts to nothing, because he may be, as "proved" by humans, also not proved; and if we accept that there is no god, this also does not contradict to anything, because as a god he is not influenced by our conjecture. That is why the pentaists are also believers, believing that god exists, what also can't be proved! In this way it turns out that both assertions become possible! This is up to some extent alike to the known paradox of Bertrand Russel about the barber, which consists in the following: in one village was a barber who shaved each one, who could not shave himself alone; then the question is: the very barber to which of the two categories belongs — to those who can not shave themselves alone and for that reason go to the barber, because shaving himself he must fall in the group of those who go to the barber to be shaved, or else to those who can shave alone, because he, really, shaves himself alone?      As far as there is no god, so it doesn't matter how we shall call him, and that is why the pentaists call him once god, another time — nature, a third time — substance, or laws, forces, et cetera. He is present everywhere in the time and the space, he is unlimitedly dividable, but always appears as whole and undivided (one may imagine him to be like the magnet, but this is just a conception about him, not his whole entity). He is non-material, but governs the whole matter, acting as idea for the matter. God is the whole information about the objects, events, and the links between them, not only statically, but also dynamically in the time. He is objective and non-depending on our present state, pre-existential past, and post-existential future, but influences each of them. He does not need out knowledge or acknowledging of him, or also our prayers, thoughts, reasoning; we are those who need him, or the knowledge of his different aspects. The pentaistic god can't be destroyed, and even if the whole matter will be destroyed god will remain, in order to reconstruct it again and incorporate himself into it!      God is the truth about everything, including also the truth about the lie, which arises when the truth is not present; the whole truth, however, is always absent for us! God is the true knowledge about what is good and what is bad, as well as the knowledge about the knowledge and ignorance; only god knows when and in which way the good becomes bad and v.v., as well as when the knowledge is ignorance and vice versa! God has unlimited number of aspects and it is not in the ability of the whole human kind to comprehend just one of his aspects, which are linked with countless number of relations and exist parallelly in innumerably many Universes. The notion "countless" or "innumerable" here must be understood in sense that even god, who as god can everything, can't enumerate them, because he knows that, whatever algorithm he decides to use, he will need for this purpose unlimited amount of time, which even a god can't allow himself to throw away! Some pentaists, in fact, assert something very daring, namely that god, taking by some quanta of time from all unlimited number of Universes, and visiting them by a special parallel algorithm with unlimited dimension, can, still, enumerate the innumerable, and even more, he has done this once already, and that is why he can easily establish what in innumerable, but they can't prove their statement, and because of this they believe in it.      The five Ways of Knowledge of our god or of our world are the following: the faith, which allows to everybody to accept as true this, what other people have proved by way of the reason, or reached to it via some of the other Ways of Knowledge; the reason, which can from scanty information get or derive new knowledge; the heredity, which fixes and passes to the generations the most important and unchangeable part of information about the nature; the learning, using which can be developed and enhanced our abilities for movement on the other Ways of Knowledge; and the sensitivity, which is the chief way for accepting and reflecting of the environment in our mind. These ways complement and model one another, building mighty palette for more complete picturing of the different aspects of pentaistic god.      2. Worshiping of the pentaism      The temples of pentaists are in form of five-rayed star, in each of the rays of which there is one big pentagonal hall for discussions around the pentagonal table. The central part of the star is left empty and is used most often for different sports events in the open, as also as parking lot for various earth- or air- bound vehicles. Each of the five rays has high tower with spire on the top (toward the middle of the star), on which are posted sculptural images of some of the aspects of the pentaistic god. As far as, however, nobody knows exactly how these aspects look like there is wide area for creative manifestation of the sculptors, and that is why one shall rarely met two equally toped towers. Because of their form these temples are called Pentadoms, and in them, in addition to the mentioned pentagonal halls, are placed also various rooms with different audiovisual and communicative appliances, halls for recreation, selling stands, eating places, such for sporting games and entertainments, etc., which turn these temples in preferred places for relaxation and personal enhancement.      The pentaists have various cultic holidays and carnivals, which are distributed relatively symmetric throughout the year and are related primarily with the number five, the five-rayed star, and the five fingers of the hand. We believe that god has created our Universe in five stages, which are the following: Generation of the idea, Development of the project, Realization the Universe, Monitoring of its functioning, and at the end Evaluation of the drawbacks of realization. These stages are repeated limitless in each of the innumerable Universes, where at the moment we are on the stage of Monitoring, but how long it will continue — only god knows! We are convinced that the human being must work by five days (more precisely, four and a half — because the last finger is smaller than the others) and after this relax a pair of days, because if he works longer he becomes tired, but if he works less he becomes lazy, and that is why we call each sixth day, after the working ones, day for appraisal and laudation of the gone away five, and each day preceding the first of the working ones, day for planning and preparation for the next five. In this way our life consists of many "pentoletkas"*, called so because the days are small and fly very fast.      In addition to these week-holidays, there are also Days of the Fingers, which are five in the year and are established each year with drawing a lot for the country, where on these days all pentaists are very cheerful and magnificent and carry during the whole day bright red ribbons on their clothing and threads on the corresponding fingers of the left (at least) hand. Twice in an year, in the days of vernal and autumnal equinoxes, there are special Temporal Evenings, when all pentaists, as well as all other wishing, come in mass to our Pentadoms to take the special "temporal pills" (small red pentagonal tablets with specific taste), for which people believe that they help in establishing the link with our post-existent future, refreshing the information for out present state (and, with the help of god, also for our pre-existent past), so that if god decides to stop the stage of Monitoring of our Universe (and when this will happen only he knows) then this information may be used for creating of new realities based on passed away ones, in whichever of the uncountable number of Universes. These tablets refresh the trail left by each one of us in the time, which, though can't disappear at all, is believed that if it will not be renewed at least once in an year becomes unclear as a foggy day, so that the good deeds may look like bad ones, or vice versa, in the eyes of the generations.      Annually are carried out also Carnivals of the Ways of Knowledge, where each year the carnival is dedicated to one of the five Ways, which alternate one another. These carnivals continue five days, which for the non-pentaists are working, but during them to the pentaists is forbidden whatever work with commercial purposes (if the work can't be put aside then it can be done but they are not allowed to take whatever payment for it), so that the pentaists can only amuse themselves and sustain their spirit (and body), in order to work afterward more effective for the post-existential future of their country. Together with these holidays there are also Days of the Martyrs of Knowledge, which are related with one or another pentaist, or with one of the ancient communists, having given the start of our religion, which for centuries were pursued by the wealthy ones of this world, who wished that all knowledge (as also the benefits reached with its help) be used solely by them, and to the others give just the "crumbs", so much as to have enough to vegetate somehow, but not be in position to leave substantial trail in the post-existential future of humanity. These saints are canonized for long time and adding of new ones to them (or excluding of old) is allowed only on Pan-universal Assemblies, held once in 50 years, though each year are announced also five extraordinary Sacred Holidays, related with shortly died contemporary pentaists or with full anniversaries of prominent present-day persons.      Inasmuch as the pentaistic god does not need acceptance and devotion from the part of the believers this religion is the most tolerant of all existing. It does not compel anybody to anything, it just gives: faith, reason, and confidence to everybody, for to conclude quietly left him on this world time, before he transforms into pure information. The cultic workers are tolerant with the laics, because they know that everybody has his right to make his own errors, and the more you convince somebody that he errs behaving so and not otherwise, the more steadily and convinced he continues to make this, so that less errors of all are made when everyone makes only his own errors, not being provoked by the others. The common people, for their part, also are tolerant to the pentaists, because the more confined is a given person the more difficulties he has to grasp the unity of contradictions, and that is why he thinks that the pentaists are a bit silly, and, hence, fit to be pitied. In this way each one is glad and happy!      The pentaism does not pretend to take part in the governing of the country and exactly because of this various ruling positions are taken, as a rule, by pentaists! This follows from the fact that everybody believes in the existence of the nature and the reason, and everyone having taken some ruling position wishes to become pentaist (if he is not yet), in order to leave something in the post-existential future. As far as our religion does not require from the believers not to believe in other deities, i.e. allows "double religious persuasion", many politicians prefer to safeguard themselves in this way, without loosing anything.      For the children wishing to become pentaists in the future, as far as for the very young ones (if their parents want this), there are various preparatory stages, which can spare some of the needed for their enrolling recommendations (see further) and make them from an early age part of interesting rituals and exercises. The very small children, after completing of their third year, can be declared for the so called "larvae" (because they are still tiny human beings and have yet to grow and study how to live), what is performed in the Pentadoms during the "Crawling of the Larva", when they must go through a narrow and short (about meter and a half) gutter, after what they receive one long pouch with tasty things, looking like a larva. After flowing out of five "larvae years", or when they have reached eight years, each child can be announced for "pupa", what is one preparatory period for the future pentaist, and, though not compulsory, it is desirable, because in the Pentadoms are many circles and other interesting activities only for such children. This also is performed with special ritual of "Wrapping of the Pupa", because in this age the children can't yet live alone and must just now grow and evolve gathering sense and reason, and be very endurable until they grow enough having sufficiently brains, for to begin alone to "hop" around like the other beings. There are two age-groups of pupae, but the whole number of the passed in them years must be 10 (or also more), after what comes the ritual of "Uncovering of the Pupa", which symbolizes reaching of maturity around 18 years, when these young girls and boys become "non-winged", because, although unsteady, they can go now alone around the world. They must remain so for at least five years, when may apply to become full-right pentaists.      3. Cultic officers      The appearance of the pentaists does not differ from the other citizens and that is why each believer tattoos on the palm of his left hand small red five-rayed star with pentagonal hole in the middle (i.e. empty pentagon with five red triangles on its sides), which symbolizes the five Ways of Knowledge, namely: the faith, the reason, the heredity, the learning, and the sensitivity. This determines also the form of cultic buildings, as much as also the greeting gesture, which is opening of the five fingers of the left hand (or then the right, if the left in hindered by something). The star, already from the ancient religions, symbolizes the light (or the knowledge, what is one of the entities of the god), and the red colour (which also from very old times was taken for the most beautiful, because the last word in Russian is krasiviy, but this comes from the red colour, which is krasniy) is traditional from the time of the communists, who have used similar symbols, but have acknowledged only two ways of knowledge: this of the delusion (or faith), and that of the compulsion.      The pentaists have simplified hierarchical staircase, which consists of five levels (where the first is the lowest), which are marked symbolically on the palm of the hand, around the five-rayed star, with small stylized "wing" (like the "chick" with which are marked the performed lines of a list). In formal cases, of course, suchlike and nicer wings are put on prominent places of their clothes. These wings are received by the pentaists as a result of attestation, which is performed after five years and is based on personal account for the activity of the individual, having in mind the post-existential future of the country and pentaism, and judgement of specially chosen bureau of believers of the same rank, in which, however, pentaists with more wings may take part, as councilors and consultants. In this attestation each one can either receive a wing, or not (waiting for the next one after at least one year); in extraordinary cases such wings may be given also posthumously to eminent pentaists of national importance. Ruling posts may be occupied only by three or more "-winged" pentaists, where this is done by decision of corresponding Unions of Equally-winged, which are built on local and national levels.      Admission of new believers is done after achieving of age of 21 years and by recommendations of five pentaists with at least two wings, but participation in the bunches of pupas is counted by two years for one, or the ten years there give on the whole five years, what equals to one recommendation, and each five years in the lines of non-winged also make one recommendation. In this way is routine for each one having reached the age of 23 years to be admitted for pentaist with only three recommendations and to receive his first wing (but he may stay another five years as non-winged and then two recommendations will suffice). The admission of new pentaists is performed yearly on the second day of the Carnival of the Ways of Knowledge and goes on in very festive conditions. On the same day is carried out also the "Crawling of the Larvae", the "Wrapping of the Pupas", and the "Uncovering of the Pupas", but in different wings of the Pentadoms. This, as also the subsequent sporting events and contests in the following days, are very popular entertainments, came in place of various old customs, which are met with common interest and participation from each age-groups and religious beliefs, turning the Carnival into a holiday for the entire population.      In favour of the integral human happiness the pentaists agree with the need of some censure, as long as only god may know what is good and what not, but prominent pentaists with four or five wings, naturally, are asymptotically nearer to the divine truth (though they can't ever reach it) and is normally if they censure or give their benediction for the spreading of some information. This, however, in major cases, does not mean hiding of information, but distributing (or propaganda) of such one that is useful for the people, because in any case someone has to decide what to propagate (inasmuch as the point of view of the business or the common people is not at all always the right one). In a similar way we think that it might be held also some secrecy of information (in addition to the cases when this, anyway, is done in the interest of protection of the state), because some secrecy is needful for to raise the interest to what is hidden!      4. Utopianism, shelter for the weak, and morality of the pentaism      As every other religion the pentaism, too, is unavoidably Utopian in its efforts to change the nature of humans, making them to believe that post-existential future exists, and they have to live in interest of it and not for their present state, where in the future nobody has ever lived (because, if he has lived, then it is his pre-existential past, and if he lives there now so it is his present, but by no means a future). Inasmuch, though, the reason proves the faith, and the faith invokes the reason, so the utopianism of pentaist religion does not prevent it from being reasonable, as also the reason in it does not hinder it to be an utopia! In this sense the pentaism is the exact upper limit of useful reason (or its supremum), as far as also the exact lower limit (or the infinum) of useful faith, containing maximum reason and minimum faith for to be this beneficial to the humanity! By illustrating of this assertion we start out from the human point of view, what has to say that the reason is limited and is placed in the inner area, where the faith (or ignorance) is around and unlimited, so that the intention of everyone must be ho increase the closed area of his knowledge. (From the point of view of god, though, the reason is outside and is unlimited, where the belief is inside and is restricted, because even in a divine system there must be a place for the faith, without which nothing substantial can be created, but as far as this is a dual notion, and by this also unapproachable for the humans, so we remain on our previous position.) This limit exists (because the pentaism exists) and is also the only one, because the faith can't go to the side of reason, no the reason to the side of faith, with exception of the very limit, where they touch one another, and which exactly is the pentaism, and if there exists another religion joining the reason and belief it will be the same (or indistinguishable for the humans)! Since the belief and the reason touch in three-dimensional space, so adding of new dimension might have allowed the existence also of other "reasonably-unreasonable" religions, but it is not in the power of humans to live in n-dimensional space, more so if n equals the infinity, what is a prerogative only of the ubiquitous and indivisible god, what proves that this limit is also the only one, and that is what must have been proved.      The pentaism is the best and most harmful opium for the people, because it does not lead to fixation to it and increasing of the dose (or to loosing of the sense of proportion)! As far as our god is the most abstract possible, each of the believers can easily accept whatever specific image he wishes (taking by this also another religious belief), as can also reject at all the existence of god (what we also permit). If the pentaists does not reject their religion this is not because they are so fixed to the opium, that can't do without, but because they don't wish to restrict the picture of god, or to throw him entirely away; if they visit out temples this is not because somebody forces them to, but because they like to spend their time there, and also our rituals are nice and acceptable not only for preschool children And as much as our life has no other meaning, except to leave some information in the post-existential future of the humanity, so the folks inevitably come to us, in order to learn how to do this.      Who else, if not we, can explain to them that the human, although being an enough autonomous unit (what, in fact, means the word "individuum" in Latin, which splits in: in + divido, i.e. something not more divisible), still, is not entirely free and not depending on the other beings and the nature, and this, that the humans don't go tied on a tether like the dogs, does not mean that they are not linked genetically, socially, and temporally (via a kind of remote control, so to say) with the community? Who else, apart from us, can do this, when for such conviction does not suffice the whole belief of whatever other religion, nor the all reason of whichever other science, but only their unity obtainable in the pentaism, through the five Ways of the Knowledge? Who else can explain to the commoners, that in order to exist the live (which is one incessant dynamics) must exist also the death (for to avoid the stagnation), and in order to be some purpose in life then the life should have no purpose — exactly for the reason that they should seek incessantly this purpose (because, if there were some purpose, then we should have found it long ago)? The seeming futility of the post-existential future for the individual gives reason to the need for reaching the purpose of life in the framework of community, group, or nature (which is one of the names of god), and the pure purpose or goal is just some information, which, as non-material, is indestructible! Precisely to explain all this exists the pentaism, which is and will be refuge for the weak humans!      When the progress hinders us, then we must hinder it, what is obvious. This, what is not obvious, is when exactly the progress hampers us, something what, generally said, is and will always remain hidden from the people, because they, as finite beings, are restricted primarily in the time, and the evaluation of the events must not be done statically! Out of most common motives, however, for the reason that we are now on the stage of Monitoring, is clear that it is preferable to have more stagnation, than evolvement, or at least to have planned and evolutionary development, and in this sense we are against the unplanned progress. As far as each individual is only part of the society and his individual post-existential future is only part of the common post-existential future of the humanity it follows that his development must be subdued to the development of the community and not vice versa, though the reverted statement is also true, because the development of the society can not be done without complete development of the personality, and if one thing contradicts to the other then it is taken on faith that there is no contradiction, or is proved by reasonable way that contradiction must exist (what, according to the pentaism, carries the same meaning)! One of the permanent themes for discussions in the pentagonal halls of the Pentadoms is whether some development is good or bad, as much as also whether more freedoms in some direction are more preferable than otherwise (because the more are the freedoms for the individual, the less are those for the society, and vice versa).      The main goal of our present existence is the incessant enhancement of the integral happiness of the community, if this does not hinder the happiness of personality in its post-existential future! With a look at the latter are possible periods of restricting of happiness in the current moment, what is a matter of profound estimation and discussions. Our symbols are directed exactly to the happiness, and the five-rayed star symbolizes the five Ways of the Knowledge, so as also the five fingers of the palm symbolize the human hand, which alone can turn the idea into reality. All five ways are equally suitable and it doesn't matter by which of them the happiness will be reached, so that some individuals may use the belief, others the sensitivity, third the reason, and so on. More than this, the pentaism isn't religion for the chosen by some class, racial, proprietary, sexual, intellectual, or other features, and the gates of our Pentadoms are always opened for everyone wishing to join our lines, so that the happiness by us is free and accessible for all! The existence of post-existential future moves us forward in the time, where from the happiness of the individual must be estimated, and the informational character of this future convinces us in the links with other elements of the society (as also of the nature, via the existence of god), for which this information is intended. This union of believers in the time and the space proves logically the morality of pentaism, but it can be accepted also without proofs, by the way of faith, or may be reached via the studying, too. Only by moral ways one can come near to the divine truth (without, of course, to be capable to touch it) and only the morale may justify the existence of a religion. All religions have led to the arising of pentaism, which has grown out of them so that, without denying them in the common, contains them as idea in itself, as their intersection (mathematically speaking), or as emanation of the moral incorporated in them throughout the centuries human history via the way to the knowledge!      Open your fingers at liberty, choose the preferred for you Way of Knowledge, and join the quintessence of all religions, the most atheistic and contemporary, the freest and most tolerable, the widely spread, anti-dogmatic, reasonably secret and scientifically-utopian, easily accessible for all, and maximally moral religion, offering the best support and opium for all nations in the way to the integral happiness of the humanity!      Become pentaists in order to get the meaning of the meaningless life!      1995 - 1998             * Here some explanations are needed for the readers in English. There were the well known five-year plans (they, as a rule, were fulfilled for three or four years, but that is another matter), which were called in Russian pyatiletka-s (or petiletka-s in Bulgarian), where "years" were leti or godi (the last letter must be read differently but you have no equivalent in English, so that let us not bother here with this). On the other hand, letat (with soft 't' at the end, or letya in Bulgarian) is to fly, so that it is naturally to think that the years fly fast. And now, with the days, they, surely, fly even faster (and are also five).       APPENDIX ETYMOLOGICAL RESEARCH (Multilingua)       * * * [original in Russian] "Привет товарищ грузчик!" "Кому Вы говорите?" "Ну, как же так: 'не грузчик'? Однако же, простите, Товарищ в русском языке Ведь от товар изводится? Ну и понятно, значит, всем, Что к грузу это сводится, К страданьям, мукам, нищетам И прочим унижениям; Товарищ — грузчику чета, И прочь все возражения! Да вот вопросик у меня При этом появляется: Коль скоро это, господа, Перверзностью является, Неужто это Вам — как знать? — Как музыка звучит; И всем кулак под нос совать Ничуть и не претит?" [translation without* rhyme] "Hallo, oh comrade load-carrier!" "To whom, you think, are speaking?" "Buy how's it if 'not a carrier'? Then wait a bit, I beg you. 'Tovarishch' in the Russian language Comes from 'tovar' does not it so? So that it's clear for the people That this reduces to the load, To th' sufferings, and poor life, And misery, distresses, grieves; Tovarishch 's from the 'flock' of load, And there's nothing to discuss! But then a question I just have In th' very same relation: So, having in mind that, of course, This's, anyway, perversion, Does it then — or does not at all? — For you like music seem; And everybody under th' nose To push a fist you die?" * * * [original in Burgarian] "На български туй ще рече, че бяхме ний ... хамали. И кой с това не се гордей не ще успей, едва ли." "Но господине, срамота!", дочувам нейде глас. "При нас другари бяха, да! Не ни лъжете нас!" "Нима възможно е това?", си казвам аз, "Почакай! Дали перверзен е света, или пък е руснака?" На Запад да се устремим във нашето сравнение, та по-добре да преценим туй думово явление. [translation also not rhymed] "Put in Bulgarian this means, That we were all just ... stevedores. And who does not boast with the case Will never forward come, that's true." "But, mister, you should be ashamed!", I hear someone to remark. "By us they were 'drugari', yes, What fellows mean, friends, so don't lie!" "Is this then possible?", I say, "And if it is then let me think. Is just the Russian perverse, or As well the world around, too?" Let to the West we now turn, The comparison to complete, And to be right when we assert Who's perverse then, and who is not." * * * "Well, it is clear for the world — The etymology, the reason — And 'camarad' comes from the word For cell in gaol or prison. This means that all the working class Are prisoners, or just about, And greeting someone between us We glad are he is free, or out. It comes from town French, Marseilles, And states: we were like working slaves. You see, it's now just cliche, For we are strong, and also brave." "Okay, all right, I see it clear, But it's again perversion, Which sane man never wants to hear — Let's call it Western Version." * * * [original in German] "Na, gucken Sie bei uns mal, Herr. Ich weiЯ was mцchten Sie erkunden. 'Genosse', sagen wir, und wer Will das zu dem Gefдngnis binden? Natьrlich kцnnen Sie plдdieren DaЯ auch 'Kamerad' wir sagen. Mein Herr, wir sind zu gratulieren, Weil auch dieses Wort wir tragen. 'Genosse' kommt gleich von ... genieЯen Und sagt uns: 'Ja, ein guter Mensch!', Und weiter, wie vielleicht Sie wissen, Steht griechisches Wort, nдmlich, γεν. Die Meinung ist nicht neu: die Rцmer Dann sagten castum, wir jetzt Kaste — Fьr beste Leute. Gibt es noch mehr: In England — chaste, in Russland — счастье." [similar translation] "Now, look a bit at us, you, mister. I know your question how sounds. We say 'Genosse' and who dares This word with that for gaol connect? You may, of course, say we use, too, The 'Kamerad', that is for sure, But then congratulate us must That we know also this word, yeah. 'Genosse' that is from ... genieЯen, And means 'Ah, what a brilliant man!', And furthermore you, maybe, have heard Comes Greek word, namely, their γεν. The meaning 's old: the Romans used then The castum, and we now the Kaste — For those the best. And there's also The English 'chaste', & Russian schastye**." * * * [original in Bulgarian] "Тъй, тъй. Излиза, че Genosse за немците такъв се счита, кой много добри ... гени носи!", си казвам аз и пак се питам: "Добре, но 'кво му беше лошо на нашето 'другарю', че турихме и него в коша със други дрехи стари? На немски дума 'ander' има, на гръцки ανδροσ е човек, антропологията вземам, и андроида — в ХХ век. Другар е другия до тебе — приятел, скъп, ценен. Другар е винаги потребен — за тебе и за мен. Но при перверзни хора, вари ги и печи, те пак ще видят зора — коет' и ни личи!" Отвръщат ми тогава куп шмекери устати: "Туй всичкото е плява, затуй си още патим! Известно е, че в комунизма перверзността се корени. И след една прилична ... клизма ще отстраниме тез' злини." "Добре, приемам, но при тоз' подход — щом търсим скритата причина —, то пък капитализма даде ход на комунизма — пусна джина! Но номера е, че това проблемите ни не решава, защото нийде по света тъй както е при нас не става. Перверзност шири се навред, но някак-си със мярка, а ние не вървим напред, и сме с акъл ... на ярка." [similar translation] "Well, well. It turns that this Genosse Is for the Germans person such, Who very nice ... genes caries***!", said I To myself, and then ask again: "That's good, but what was then so bad, ah, In our word 'drugaryu', That we throw it in the waste-basket, With other useless matters? In German there's the word ander, In Greek a human is ανδροσ, Then th' anthropology may mention, And now it's the android. Drugar this is that next to you — A friend, who's highly valued. Drugar one always just must have — Must I, must you, must all we. But when the people are perverse, Do with them what you like, Then they will always suffer, yeah — What we exactly do!" And now many fraudulent guys Begin to contradict me: "This all is garbage, shavings, junk, And that's why we are ailing! It's clear, in the communism Perversity is hidden. And after some ... purgation then We'll put aside these worries." "Okay, but then, by this approach — When we the hidden reason seek —, Then the capitalism has caused The communism, released the jin. The point is, though, that all this Does our problems not resolve, Because nowhere in the world Befall such fate another folks. Perversity is all around, But in some boundaries, yes. Still, we are who can't forward move And brains have not more than ... a chick." * * * [original in Bulgarian] Таквизи мисли доста странни, нали, понякога се пръкват. Но тъй като са нежелани, да ги накараме да млъкнат. [translation, now rhymed] Such thoughts bizarre — for such are they — Jump out of my head sometimes, But inasmuch as they are gray Let's make them shut up and sleep nice.      December 2000             * Otherwise it could not have been called "multilingua". Ah, you can try, for the fun of it, to use some of the computerized translators.       ** Read 's-ch...', what is happiness.       *** That is because in Bulgarian nosya means to carry. E N D