N O W , L O O K H E R E !(publicistics)Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2001 ...— — — — — [ Remark: As far as the book is enormously big it is published here, by old habit, in small booklets amounting to about 50 (to 100) KB, containing normally from three to five papers. In this booklet are some rather new things for journals. To add also that the footnotes, again by established here habit, are marked with "*" and placed immediately after the paragraph in [ ... ] brackets. ] — — — — — Contents Of Section "For Journals" Essay on the common sense About the turn to the left How much has to win a company in order to have no gain? Our people again hoarded goods by higher prices Too good is not good! Are we free, or on the contrary? Political gratitude Neo-Malthusianism, or rational judgment Myths about democracy About the ownership and its future Just injustice In ovo e veritas Oh, 'manci, 'manci -pation! What we want to tell the world? In Bulgaria everything is quiet Political parties in Bulgaria About the degradation of morality Is it possible moderate communism in Bulgaria? Essay on the common sense — II ... new for journals — — — — — IN BULGARIA EVERYTHING IS QUIET 1. So, I have been silent and silent for a dozen of years, but then decided to raise again my voice, and it is necessary to explain now why I have not written for such a long time any publicistic. Well, the reasons are several, but they are related. For one thing, at the turn of the century, roughly speaking, or with the coming to power of the King's party, the things have begun to stabilize and it has begun to happen by us so like on the West, with this difference, of course, that it becomes more and more clear how terribly poor we are. And why are they stabilizing, ah? Well, because, first of all, we have reached the bottom, so that there is nowhere more to sink, what happened with the establishing of Currency Board by us, which has fixed us to the bottom, but also because we have abandoned at last the bipolar model, where the ones always spit on the others, and vice versa, where both poles are as much right, as well also wrong — it depends on the time and the viewpoint. But this is practically clear, and the more interesting question is the following: why exactly our King has begun to settle the things? Not that he has not wanted to do this, but his party was just a heterogeneous crowd of all more moderate right-wing (because the immoderate ones have dispersed themselves, and there has emerged also one "Haiduk Sider" — i.e. Volen Siderov, but "volen" means free, like a haiduk —, who has taken with him all right-wing ... lumpens, of course, or mostly youngsters, like there has existed earlier "Hitler Jugend") politicians, i.e. of conjunctural such, who had nowhere to go and a whole decade had sat quiet. But he was neither too much left, nor too much right (well, more right-wing, obviously, for he is strong, he is a King, at any rate, although uncrowned). And he has come also from the West and there people from long ago don't like extremist in politics, and his years, too, were not such to make him do some excesses, what was clear to the population, though we naively have thought that he does this because he is a King. Yeah, but the "guy", has come to take his land and other possessions, as all were very well able to see, and has begun to do what only he wants, having in mind that he holds the majority of places in the Parliament, and was born as King, too, and was in advanced age, so that the people soon have begun not to give much respect to him. But also his party was formed in extremely short time, for two months, so that its members have not even succeeded to change its name and it remained so as "Second Simeonian" Platform (NMSS, National Movement Simeon the Second), i.e. with working name, the only movement then to which three letters did not suffice (and now, too, for the GERB party, although this is also abbreviation, but as a word "gerb" means ensign, emblem). What I want to say is that this man, and also all his people, have not given much efforts, they just wanted to "cash in" on the power, without some special ideas, still, it happened so that he gave the impulse for bettering of the things, mostly with his moderation. For this reason or not, but it turned so that those, who very much wanted to better the things, the right- as also the left- wing, have only worsened the situation the more they wanted to better it, where those, who have not striven especially hard, have succeeded to give us the proper impetus, am I right? This is crystally-clear paradox (although it often happens so, also in other cases), but we, as country of paradoxes, can do the things only in this way, ah? Id est that the "point" here is that not the politics can better the things by us, but, as I have stressed this in other places (not pretending, though, to "discover America"), the economics, the usual routine, and often egoistical, work. It is good to understand this, because this party, if it has been built as party with some platform and name — for example "Western Model Party" or "Alliance for Normal Capitalism", or, if you want, "Party of Moderate Actions" — could have continued its existence (I mean that it also have retained its influence over the masses, because with less than 5% of the votes this simply does not count). On the other hand I have ceased to write because I have not seen special purpose in this, when now (to the end of the century, after a decade of turbulent changes) there have not remained unmanipulated newspapers, or really free press, but only some sponsored by large business groups (I am not interesting exactly which, yet this is obvious, for the reason that all the left, including also party newspapers "Duma"-"word" and "Democracy", have ceased to exist — only that on the West each party has its newspaper, right?). Well, they manipulate those who ... can be manipulated (because me, for example, nobody manipulates for the reason that he can't), i.e. the people got what they wanted, like on the West — it is this, about what we are speaking, that by us it begins to happen like on the West —, so that this groups are right, in their own way. When the people want to be deceived (what in Latin is: Mundus vult decipi, i.e. "The world wants to be deceived"), then there will always be found someone to do this, say: advertisements, politicians, PR-cadres, physicians, teachers, etc., who manipulate in some way the corresponding people. So that is what most people do, but I am not such person who likes to deceive or manipulate the others, and I have given up to intervene. But then, when a decade have passed and it turned out that the Internet gives some opportunity to say things to the people, if not exactly in Bulgarian then in other languages (for I can use a pair), I have decided to raise a voice from time to time because I have nothing else to do, i.e. I have not at all work being unemployed (for the reason that I have studied long, I'll tell you). So that in Bulgaria everything is quiet, in broad lines, there are no changes in general political course — transition to more and more harder and right-wing capitalism, and this even from the part of so called left-wing parties (because, for example, the flat income tax is one as possibly utterly right-wing economic decision, more right than this there is nowhere, nobody would have accepted that from the poorer was taken more than from the wealthy, but it was silently approved by the left-wing and only somewhere in 2010 they have raised voice, but not so much because they did not like it, as because they wanted to find something for what to accuse the "Duce Boiko"). And in the economy there are not big changes, the stronger Western economies continue to press us and we continue not to unite with more weaker in economic regard countries (because we now can't do this, being included in the European Union). And that in the morality, I want to say, in its absence, there are also no changes, is more than obvious, but such are likewise not to be expected (because, for to give examples, there is not one interesting TV series, or whatever other TV broadcast watched with interest by the audience, where is no cursing, sex, or they don't deal with homosexuals, as if there are no more normal in this respect people left, or where is no violence — and to remind you, just in case, that in the times of Oscar Wilde the expression "to make love " meant purely to show interest to someone from the other sex, speak with him or her, show courtesy, and as "cursing" was taken to say ... "the hell" or "damn it", for in this way one showed disrespect to God). So that I want to say that our "normalization" is in no case normal, but terminologically, and I think also so, some commonly accepted and average situation is taken for normal, even if this is something bad (say, it is normal that corruption existed, normal that there were fought wars, and so on). 2. So, everything is OK till now, remains only to clear the point which political forces are for normalization or moderation or centering — because, if you ask me, or even if you look at the ancient Greeks, the moderation is a matter of common sense —, and then see whether we can move in this direction and what is our future, in political, but also in economic, regard. Which parties are centrists, then? Well, if you exclude Bulgarian "Ataka"-attack party, maybe all the left, because now even the UDF (Union of Democratic Forces, SDS in Bulgarian) long ago (i.e. after its popularity has strongly fallen, somewhere around the turn of the century) is not ultra-right, and the last really convinced socialist (or communist) of high rank was Zhan Videnov, after him the people there keep only the name "socialists", as a trade mark so to say. Well, the "Ataka" is fascist, what at least on the West does not cause any doubts, and they are so called in foreign, English, texts, but there are little things in Bulgaria that are called with their proper names, right? This, that such party existed, on one hand is terrible, but on the other hand this is not at all so, and it is maybe even necessary, in order to channel their protests (in the same way as various fans of numerous stars raise different slogans). I don't like to go into details about this question here, because in this way we go astray from the theme of quietness, but as far as this is its antipode then it is necessary to say a pair of words about them, too. Now see, first of all they are very few people, they have started with some 8% and now are somewhere about 5, what, surely, is little, i.e. they can speak whatever sort of nonsense they like — because it is clear that their plans are absolute utopias, or rather dystopias, as is now said —, for if something from their propositions could be turned to reality this will be another catastrophe! But this will never happen because they will never seize the power. They can "bark", this they can, but not "bite". And for this reason the West has left them to "bark". Besides, they are party of, let us call them so, post-teenagers, i.e. somewhere from 18 and to 25 years at most, in Komsomol age, as it was spoken before, and these "youngster" just need their "actions", doesn't they? They are immoderate simply because they are young, and as far as there is no morality any more there is nobody to tell them that they behave bad (but it, to remind you, even when there was morality, in one highly moral country like Germany, and when some have said to such youngsters that they do not right things, then they, again, have behaved how they wanted, so that now this is beyond hope!). This is the next "childhood disease" of our democracy. The proper centrist party, and this for many years, since its emergence as party, is only our ethnical party, the MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, DPS in Bulgarian). And here we again have paradoxes, so that let me explain the things in some extent. For there are not many those who can answer correctly the question: why (and when) a given ethnical party is centrist, because their party is ethnical, whatever they alone are not saying (for the obvious reason that nobody will admit officially that he is doing something against the law), and they are centrists (if not for other reasons, then because all Governments have resorted to them when this was necessary, i.e. with them is possible to take compromise decisions, they are not fanatics of whatever idea — to cite, for example, the "great" slogan of UDF: "Compromises with whomever, only not with the communists!"). Well, listen here, they are first of all not ethnical party of the majority, for to be able to do harm and evil, let be clear on that point. They are party of some minority, and then, why them not to try to become a bit stronger? So, for example, they have wanted to be in position to give themselves names like Assan, instead of our Assen, and they can do this now. I personally don't see what so good is hidden in the name Assan, but, maybe, they relate it with their aslan or arslan, what means lion (this has to be some snarling, like by the bears, which animal is called ursa in Latin), so that it is their right, in the end, to bear whatever name they want (and why should someone be able to call himself, say, Uy Min — and in Bulgarian huy, often pronounced as uy is what you call penis, sorry —, and not Assan, ah?). But, then, why are they centrists? I don't know whether these people are aware about this, but the answer to that question is obvious for me — this is exactly because they are ethnical party, i.e. they do not divide in some property, or intellectual, or professional, or other principle! They are performing one proportional sample of the population — well, of Turkish origin, but the Turks are like the Bulgarians (or Germans, Russians, Hebrews, etc.), i.e. there are among them all sorts of people, and one party that wants to please everybody must be centrist, else there will be needed at least two such parties, how it is with the other layers-parts (for this is the idea of the word "part" — strata, side, layer). But a minority party, which hardly gathers 10% of the voices, has no rights to split in two parts, am I right? More so in more than two parts. That's the point. So that it turns out that an ethnical party, at least for us, is a very good thing (because for me is obvious that the center is always something good, at least for the reason that this is so hard to be reached, as far as everybody aims at extremities). Now, if it arises some time ethnical Gypsy — ah, sorry, Roma's, as they insist to be called — party, then there may arise some frictions, but otherwise there is no danger, except on the part of "Sider-Jugend", but we have all once been young (and silly, of course). There also our King was, inasmuch as this was possible, center, because he is "King" of all Bulgarians, and it is necessary to remind, or cite, for I am not convinced that people by us are aware that the social measures can be equally well proposed by aristocrats and Monarchs, where as typical, though rarely used, example I may mention the fact that the social security was introduced initially in Germany (and understand also in Europe, and in the whole world, I suppose) by some Otto, and in addition von and Bismarck, who surely was not left-wing, right? And due to all this has arisen the directly "extraterrestrial" coalition of former communists, the King, and the Turkish party, because it was possible, and there were no other more or less centrist parties. This, what I still don't like in our movement to the center — because, as I have said, both the right- and the left- wing parties are centering —, is that there, is no fight and competition in the left political space , it is united and monolithic, all efforts to split it are doomed to failure by the simple reason that the left are on the whole not so powerful for to allow themselves to split, or then they are more intelligent. But the right ones split for 20 years now, there the entire UDF has "peeled" exactly like an onion head, even has begotten shortly also "Duce Boiko" as I have mentioned, who has "prodded" "Haiduk Sider", because there can't be two "Duce" (literally duce in Italian, what means a leader) in one and the same time and place. So that, hmm, if you care for our center, either become supporter of the left-wing, in order to allow them to split and to begin there some political fight, or back MRF (what, I think, is pretty hard to be done by a real Bulgarian), or else form some new centrist party (say, of transport workers, but all of them, or teachers, or homosexuals — they are also of any soft, i.e. representative sample). There is one more variant, almost fantastical, but not to excluded in the future, to which we shall come in the end. 3. Let us focus now for some time on the leading in the moment party, in order to make our review more actual. This, what can be said is that "GERB" can continue to exist for about five to ten years, but no more than this, after what it will follow the fate of NMSS, i.e. some of its members, succeeded to push themselves upward, will remain, or change their party, respectively form their own parties, but our "Duce" will be left alone by himself with a pair of percents of the electorate. Well, a general is not a "head of onion", as we say, but he also will spend himself, or at least people will become bored by him, because this, with what the democracy is good, is not the very choice, but the changing of parties, and if there is not some platform, which will remain after the person at the top comes down from the scene, then the party very soon will fade away. And that his talks about the image of Bulgaria are nothing more than variant of (pre-electoral) advertising, I think, must be clear to everybody. Because, for one thing, our image is all the same bad, for another thing, it is not created for five years but at least for fifty, and, for some more thing, — corruption has always existed and will exist, and, correspondingly, the fight with it. Let us explain a bit these things. The image of Bulgaria is bad somewhere since the middle ages, if not earlier, and also of all Slavs, who for the West are assimilated with the ... slaves — compare the English Slav and slave, but as far as the Bulgarians are near to them than, say, the Russians or Ukrainian, then this applies mainly to us. I personally think that the Western people confuse the Bulgarians with the ... Serbs — obviously —, because they relatively recently have one more time proved that, even if there is not especially important cause, when only they have some possibility they will find something to fight for, for the simple reason that them, hmm, said in Bulgarian, "gi sarbiat razete" (to fight), what means literally that their hands are itching, have to be scratched, but is used as idiom for to want something eagerly! This thesis might be questionable, and etymologically here it goes not exactly about itching or scratching, as about sickles or "serps" in Russian, i.e. curved sabers, scimitars, which names already from the Sanskrit sound in similar way ("krpanas", something of the kind), but this is to the same idea. Anyway, let me not expatiate here too widely, but we all in Bulgaria, either know, or remember, or have heard, or then learned, about the circumstances with our Georgi Dimitrov and the Leipzig court trial back in 1933 (because: where to find better person for arsonist than a "Bugarin", how the Serbs say?), and about the case Antonov (because: who else will take into his head to shoot at the Roman Pope if not a "Bugarin"?), or also, who else will agree to kill innocent children in Libya for little pocket money, except some Giaour-infidel like all Bulgarians. This, surely, are sucked from the fingers, or rather from the subconscious mind, justified with nothing insinuations about the Bulgarians, but there can't be said that it is not true that with the coming of democracy a big number of Bulgarians have run to the West, and have reached also to the United States, and the whole Europe screams with terror from us, and for that reason after pulling down of Berlin wall become necessary to erect the Schengen one (even if it isn't exactly wall in the direct meaning of the word; or not only the Bulgarians are such, for there live in Europe also Romanians, for example). So that our image is obviously bad, this isn't good for us, but it can't be bettered for a pair of years, just raising the slogan "Amend the image!" For reaching of this goal are necessary many efforts, as from the part of the top (I can remind you about one "Princess", Liudmila — daughter of Todor Zhivkov —, who in her time has traveled all over the world with various exhibitions, but what else can a princess do?), as well also from the part of the masses (for example, with some nice folk songs from the region of our Rodopa mountains, or with Nestinar dances barefooted on burning coals, or with weightlifters, if you like, and so on). But in order to better the image first of all is needed morality, a thing which is very difficult to be shown by a nation that is not much religious, and the time in which we live is entirely amoral. We may be very good people (in sense of our genetic makings), but we are quite savage, somebody must teach us to behave properly, and this can be obtained primarily by the usage of a ... whip. Earlier, in the totalitarian years, there was who to swing it and our savagery was not so easily to be seen, but with the coming of democracy this become the first, and still the primary, thing, which catches the eye in Bulgaria. Everything, the dirt on the streets, but also in the nature, the lacking of elementary social measures (just as an example: from the moment when our Central bath in Sofia, with mineral water, known since 5th century, was privatized it ceased to exist as such, only the water flows as before; or to my knowledge there are no public spots for washing of clothes, laundromats as you say; or the buses up to Mount Vitosha, near to Sofia, have stopped to go anymore; and many other examples), and the covering up of big apartment houses with patches on their facades, the so called sanitation (because such things on the West are not to be seen — there either the whole building is coated and painted, or nothing is touched), and the "wild" prices of transport, milk, and other wares, all these are things that does not exist in the normal countries; there the people do not think that some of them are to rummage in garbage bins and other ones can cry "Long live the democracy". When there is no morality and religion it is quite hard in the country, but we have also not one common vision (as we also have begun to say) about this what is good for the state and what not; each new Government carries out its own course, which reduces to this to throw at least half of its efforts on denial and destruction of what was done by the previous Governments (like: to strike out the communism totally, or to declassify the dossiers of employees of former State Security, or to give back the agricultural land in real borders, no matter whether it will be used or not, and other things which does not happen in normal Western countries). If we do not manage to moralize our country from above, to expect that this will happen from below, in a country like our, is almost beyond hope. The Bulgarian "functions" good on the West because there he is in minority and takes example from the majority, but in our country he is who "calls the tune for the song" and it, naturally, comes out of tune. Besides, the fight with various negative moments in our development is not platform for one party, but obligation for all of them, so that when on the West they speak that we are lagging behind in the fight with these moments of governing, i.e. that we are quite savage and barbarous people, then this is because there has to be found some excuse (as back in the times of Turkish yoke the then rulers have spoken about "dish-hag" of "teeth-tax" for the reason that: what can be answered to one who asks unnecessary questions? — they have required money from the wealthy, for the latter were able to give some to them, they would not have asked from the poor, for example, like it seems to happen nowadays by us). And also the fight with corruption can't be used as goal for a single party because the corruption is a matter of ... level of ripeness of society (thesis which I have discussed in my other papers, too), and, for example, the capitalist society, more than obvious, at least for me, but also for many other persons, is corrupted (if not for other reasons than because it is run by money). The corruption exists if it can show itself, if the system requires it, otherwise it disappears by itself. Saying this in a slightly different way, it is an addition to the government, because the latter can't provide this, what a big number of people want — for example: prostitution, narcotic drugs, organized crime (for the judicial system, absolutely clear, is not good enough in a big majority of cases). I don't say that the corruption must exist, but, for example, what hinders us to require that all state officials of high rank (in order not to say "statesmen", for there are now many "stateswomen"), were on state's keep and received no salaries at all (or, well, let it be so, received three minimal salaries, or one average such, something of the kind), and also remained under financial surveillance for the next at least 5, but better 10, years after leaving their posts, and this to be valid for their direct relatives, too, in view of finding of cases of misuse of their social position? Such people are, really, not so many, not more than 500 persons for a country like Bulgaria, and if only a hundred of them was under control this also would have carried some benefit to the country. But we have not a right view on the question that high ranking governmental officers, in principle, must work for the sake of work, not for money, and on the West people also don't have one meaning, but there in many countries, at least in the USA, exists property qualification (or cense) and the people pay out of their own pocket for to be able to rule. The common people, however, don't understand this and, for example, when in Italy somebody from the politicians was media magnate, they say that this is bad, but he at least does not earn via the power, am I right? And not only there. All confusion comes from the fact that the payment, quite naturally, must be tool only for securing of normal life, not for governing, for obtaining of power over the masses, but the entire capitalism is based on money; denying the money we come to the communism, which is not much liked due to its bad realization till now, but accepting the money we come to the capitalism, commercialization, corruption, and so on, which are things that also are not much liked by the population as a whole, because these are immoral things. There, where the religion has influence, people are satisfied with this, that who lives now good will on the "other world" get what has deserved, and vice versa, but with what can we properly be calmed? By some decent living standard there also is possible not to bother much that the "big sharks" eat the small fishes, because the small "fiches" can live decently, if only they want to, but in a country like ours, the poorest in the whole European Union, and hoping to become second in poverty only if Albania becomes included in it, people become much more amoral than in totalitarian years, when especially big corruption simply could not have existed for there was everything under surveillance, and also the money has not this power as it has now, then only the power has the power, so to say. In short, let it be clear that the GERB party can do nothing of big importance, it is party of the "good bully", and this will do the work for some time, but, surely, will bore the people sometimes. And he is not much moderate or centered; well, he is not like the old UDF, but also not such like MRF (the Turks), or like (at least some ideal) BSP (socialists). He, though, pacifies the people, because, passes some time or other, and the "whip" begins to flap, and our folks, as humble horses, pull the chariot. For the moment. But the curious moment here — there are only curiosities in Bulgaria, as I have mentioned — is that in spite of economic crisis we are as if more quiet and stable, than in other Western, i.e. former capitalist countries (like Greece, but Spain, too, Italy, and others), as well as in some Eastern (say, Ukraine, Poland), or that the crisis by us creates almost no problems, for the simple reason that we are living so miserable that worse than this is almost not possible! Id est, in Bulgaria, really, in broad lines, everything is quiet. In view of this our "Duce" practically can not "entangle the skein" anymore. He does nothing especially reasonable, he once accepts and then denies some old settings (be it about nuclear power plant in Kozloduy, be it about oil pipeline from Russia, or about some highway, or shale gas, or taxes, etc.), but speaks always with conviction and firmness and is liked by the population, most of all by women, but also by men, at least in the region around the capital Sofia. He has almost no platform, but being, still, a general (not feldwebel like some Adolf), is not silly, holds the masses, and the things are in order. That our situation is bad, it is bad, but as far as we are in this condition a long time, then the present-day situation up to some extent quietens us and we work a little, that's that we work (well, those who have job, of course) much, but for little (money). We wait and wait for the crisis to end, it does not end, though, and we are like domestic livestock led ... to be slaughtered. We neither try to better something, no think what to do, but just stay there meek and docile (and who can flee abroad does it). In general — oasis of stability in Europe. And this, however strange, can little by little begin to better our image (but again not because we want this, merely as side effect of our desperate poverty). 4. The future, naturally, can not be exactly predicted, but, still, let us try to meditate a little about this, what can be expected to happen after the GERB, in political as well as in economic aspect. Well, the economy is clear, we will continue to be outsiders within Europe, more or less on equal level with Romania, and a bit higher than Albania, in spite of the fact that we are capable and distinctive people. This is so because we have nothing more left to be privatized (to expect that there will be influx of capitals from the West), nor have alone capitals (for we are poor like beggars), nor also have some general line for development of our own industry (as we have had in the times of totalitarianism). When every Government denies the achievements of the former we are skidding (in the mud) and do not bother much about this. Morality we also do not have, we are not religious, so that here we are left to our fate. But in the nature everything is mutually related, so that it is not excluded that exactly the lack of morality will force us to try to have it, little by little, such moments can already be remarked (for example, by some forms of charity), but this is very slow process, and on the background of our current-day decaying of capitalist society (for it is so good in many countries by the simple reason that is already overripe) we will need quite much time, but maybe Europe will somehow succeed to integrate us, when we do not fight with one another, like it happens in other countries (i.e. to spend money, instead of to pacify us, for raising of our living standard). More interesting is to guess about politics. It is clear that the socialists, however much they were not such, will from time to time come to power, but I don't believe that they will be able to rule alone, because — again a paradox, I'll tell you — the better one nation lives (and we will gradually rise to the surface, for some 10-20 years, and will reach the level of living from ... the times of our "Bai Tosho"), the more to the right it bends. The left-wing, as a rule, are not loved, and — another etymological excursus — in Italian (i.e. in Latin) the word sinister means left, but it is perfectly obvious, at least for the English speaking people, that this means also bad, evil, brutal. If you have not yet given a thought to this phenomenon I can explain it to you: the left-wing, or those who think about the others, not about themselves (or at least think that it has to be so, and for that reason, or for another one, live poor), are not much loved because everybody knows that such behaviour is right, but they alone can't behave so (for the man, whatever was not said about, is egoist by himself, and even must be such in the nature), so that they are simply feeling ashamed, that the others, poor, humble, good-for-nothing, etc., exceed them with something! That is the essence of the things. Of course, there is also this moment, that the more poor are also more vile, mean, etc., but they are just compelled to be such, for otherwise they will never succeed in this life, while the wealthy and successful can easily speak about human honour and morality, when receive everything ready. In other words, the "bad" ones are such, because they are forced by the very life, and by the society, too, and the "good" ones think only about themselves and find that that is why they live good and that it has to be lived like them, but deep in themselves they know that this isn't so (and that, for example, they will not find good place in the "other world" with this, that here on this world have lived good). But I have spoken about this, that the left-wing will hardly succeed to take the whole power on their own, unless it begins fight in the left political space, what, however, in a barbaric country like our, does not happen, at least for the moment. Where the right-wing, they split for a long time and have already split, and there is nothing else to invent there (for we have spent the ideas about the King, and about NATO, and the businessmen, and the farmers — not that it was some powerful idea —, and the strong people in general). The center, on the other hand, is hard to be reached, and when we reach it, or it is served us on a plate, than we begin not to like it (for we want actions). For the moment I see some escape for a time only in the ... women! In the sense that we have not yet tried to build some strong feminine or feminists party, because all women are like all Turks, they represent the whole nation, and they are also as if more meek and quiet, and more mediocre and everybody will understand them (for, if you give some thought to the matter, we are not governed by philosophers, and will not be governed in the future, too, despite the fact that Plato before roughly 25 centuries has come to the conclusion that this is the most correct decision). If this could not be realized than we can only hope to find some foreign rulers (not only come from behind the border, but also with foreign citizenship and ethnicity, say: Germans, Englishmen, Frenchman, Japanese), or on coalition governments and specially of weak parties (what ruling is very insidious, I think, but we may live long enough to see such one), or on caretakers governments, or (in what I don't believe much, but, still, it is not entirely excluded) on some totalitarian ruling (say, of dynasty of "Boikists" — descendants of Boiko Borissov, the leader of GERB party —, if such dynasty exists). September 2012 P.S. Well, as it turned out after less than half an year, not everything in Bulgaria is so quiet, but (for it isn't possible for the author to make errors, is it?) this is even for the better, because — now, judge for yourself, the whole world is already ten years or so in economic crisis and the people everywhere are discontented with this, only we, and being the poorest in European Union, keep silence like sheep. So that I am glad that we have shown that we are not entirely sheep, and I also continue to be right about the expressed in the paper moments. But because there are many things to be said about 2013, then I will dedicate to this question another material — for it turned out that the year was, primarily, guilty for our situation. April 2013 — — — POLITICAL PARTIES IN BULGARIA (political analysis) Such kind of analyses are usually done for one party, but I intend to spend some time for each of the parties (or as a group of similar ones) in Bulgaria in the democratic years, i.e. after 1990 and up to 2012, what has its advantages, as also its disadvantages. The latter ones are in this, that I will not be much precise (for otherwise a whole book will not be enough, and I am also not a specialist politologist), and the advantages, which (how it is normally to suppose) are related with the disadvantages, are in this that, when I am compelled not to be very extensive, I may allow myself to be interested only in the spirit of parties, in the ideas, with which they come to (and then leave the) power, and in this way the material will become popular enough. To recompense the impreciseness my review will have rather philosophical character, be nontraditional, not tied (where this is possible) to concrete personalities, and to profound analyses (which often turn out to be made "without the innkeeper", as we in Bulgaria like to say). Well, let us begin then, hopping that the fingers on both hands will suffice us. 1. BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party). The former communists, using just a pair of words, have tried to cope with the situation, i.e. to reform themselves, but have not much succeeded in this, except for some objective reasons, chiefly because of the bad influence of their antipode, UDF (Union of Democratic Forces). To some of the readers this may seem prejudiced, but it is so (as also the reverse influence, but this time rather positive, of BSP over UDF), for the simple reason that the political environment is one, and our nation is one, and especially by the bipolar model is impossible that the two poles don't influence one another. But by this, as you surely know, the bad example is contagious, i.e. people, want this or not, but copy first of all the worst (as also we with the capitalism, of course, for we have begun with the legalization of prostitution, penetrating of drug addiction, increasing of criminality, etc.), so that soc-communists (or com-socialists), too, willy-nilly, have begun to "rejuvenate", and take hasty decisions, and stubbornly contradict the requirements of UDF — as it happens in almost every family, where each one wants to appear more superior and makes many things only on the contrary to the other. About the age, which, by God, is impossible not to be some measure for experience in life, it is perfectly clear that for the top echelon has dropped with nearly 30 years, for the former Politburo has have average age of about 60, and many of them were also older than 70, where the new democratic communists were in the average age of 30 to 40 (rarely) years. This just can't not to be the cause for many errors, though they were necessary up to some extent, because the old ones, as a rule, don't want to accept the new tendencies, so that some changing of echelons were inevitable, but surely not with such immense difference, surely not from one pole and directly to the other. But such were the UDF members, in general, due to the fact that they were people non-succeeded to become top communists before, and first of all in Komsomol age. Hastiness also must be obvious, if you remind yourself (who can, of course, but then read old newspapers — if you've nothing else to do), that it was at least one ASA, Alternative Socialist Alliance (ASO in Bulgarian, for the last word is "obedinenie"), but also other parties, not mentioning the 3-4 communist parties (up to 1992), as Social-Democratic Party, too, but it happened so that they all did not manage to reach some popularity, i.e. all outside BSP have doomed to failure. But in Russia still exists Communist Party, and with influence, which even 20 years after the transition to democracy takes part in the elections (to say nothing about China and Cuba). And the Social-Democrats also have not succeeded to get through (notwithstanding the fact that they were not so extreme as the communists), although once they lacked only some 5 hundredth of a percent (if I am not mistaken) for to exceed the threshold (of 4%) in the Parliament. There were also other left-wing parties (I have not been much interested in this for I have never been communist myself — and will also never become such, as is sung in one song in Bulgaria), but not a single of them succeeded to "enter the game". At the same time, if there were not the UDF — at least I am convinced in this, although it can't be objectively proved — for some 3-4 years, at worst for five, BSP would have succeeded to reform itself and forget about, eventually to split in a pair of major parties, and continue to rule, either directly, or as opposition. But they have not had time, the right-wing have poked them, so to say. And about the stubbornness and acting on the contrary, I think, the things are obvious. Almost sure the communists (well, let them be socialists) would have agreed with some privatization earlier, maybe also with some reasonable Money Board, until the US dollar was still at least 200 - 300 levs, not when it become 1,800 lv, and similarly with other measures. But how to lead normal dialog with people who, by their own words, said: "Compromises with everybody, only not with the communists!", or also "45-years are enough" (and let us now strike them out and return with as many years back in the time, as it, really, happened, at least in regard of our standard of life). But there are also objective reasons, and they are mainly in this, that people do not much like the communists, because they preach moral to them, and nobody wants to be thought how to live. For this reason people don't like much the priests, too, but if there exists strong religion then they at least listen to them and behave. And I will give here one ... etymological proof, the word "left" in Latin (as well as in contemporary Italian), which is sinister, means also bad, evil, sinful! What better confirmation than this for the thesis that the left-wing, weak, poor (because the left hand is weaker, surely), are at the same time sinful and bad people? And in this case look at the right-wing and strong, they are paragons for behaviour — and this not because the strong say so, but because everybody wants to be one of them. So that there is nowhere to run away from this, and it explains to a great extent (maybe does not excuse, but explains) the strong discipline under the communism. While now millions of people just rejoice that they may have, for example, either their own petrol station, or a chain of shops, or a bank, or a space shuttle, if you want, et cetera, although even one out of million people will hardly have sometime such possibility, and they alone know this pretty well, but still hope and say themselves "What if ...". So that I explain popularly the contagiousness of right-wing ideas (in which, otherwise, come to think of this, there is no sense — the strong is not right, he is just strong), and the justness of left-wing is proved by the very life (for they have emerged already in the primitive societies, and also among the animals, i.e. living in herds), but they, as a rule, are not liked by the population, especially by the young ones. Well, surely can be pointed out errors also of the very BSP members, but let us not go into details. Their errors would have been such in order to oppose the aforesaid, not as principal errors (because there was not terror — "the tanks have not come", how the UDF had insinuated in one of their electoral advertisements —, nor even they wished to continue the old line of ruling — for the simple reason that the transition has begun from the very top, they have dethroned Bai Tosho, right?). 2.UDF (Union of Democratic Forces, SDS in Bulgarian). The new democratic association have not succeeded to make anything good, because they turned out to be mostly people without ideas, only exalted screamers, thinking that the market will settle by itself and that the democracy will heal everything like a miraculous ointment. Well, in the right-wing idea, generally speaking, there are almost ... no ideas, because, as we said here, the strong are not right, they are just strong, but there is some reason in this to listen to the strong, for this creates quietness in the country. But the right-wing thought that only with cries "Ooh!" and "Down!", i.e. only with destroying (and don't think that I exaggerate because I have been once at UDF meeting) everything will blossom and bring fruit, but this is not a way to pull state's chariot. And not only that they have done nothing good, but they have done not a little bad, for they have destroyed working structures (for example, have given back agricultural land not requiring from the owners to work it; or have introduced Currency Board when it was absolutely unnecessary, our lev has begun to stabilize and have started to go up, but they have fixed it to the bottom; and other things like: safeness, morality, and others, have been damaged, due to unneeded freedoms). And what is even sillier — I beg to be excused, but it is so — they have done bad to themselves, too, because the communists, sorry, socialists, passes some time or other, and take the power for a while, even in "extraterrestrial" coalitions, but UDF now a decade or so have remained on the level of 2-3% of the votes. Besides, it can be said that they have "peeled out" from themselves even the fascists (because it is clear that the latter ones have never accepted the communist ideas), but well, let us not add more sins to them for they are full with such). It is clear that, in theory, there was some reason in this to build strong opposition to the communists, in order to help them to reform themselves (for they, anyway, have ruled over us nearly half a century, and were not "pure water" politicians — what means, if you ask me, that they have learned to deceive the people, yet in their own interest), but the bad thing came when they have tried to take the power, and even a pair of times more later. What I means is that, if they have appeared as party (well, coalition, but this is not important, as political power) which wants to destroy, than they would have always stayed in opposition, but never try to govern, when they can not. But let me not expatiate more about this causa perduta (lost cause), because I criticize it also in other places. 3. MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, DPS in Bulgarian). It has emerged as political power which must support and unite the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, but very soon it has transformed in one stable and permanent center. Now, let us not discuss here the point, are they or not ethnical party, because all, at least on the West, have already answered this question (just look in which regions they win their votes), but let us find the answer, why are they center (for nobody disputes this). Well, they are centrist party first of all because they are ethnical party, but as far as by us this is not clear, and people continue to say that it is bad to have ethnical party, let us give here some explanations. Being ethnical party of all Turks in Bulgaria, they are simply compelled to represent equally good, i.e. as compromise, the interests of all these people, without any difference of age, sex, material status, education, religion, etc., aren't they? In this way they form one representative sample of Bulgarian population, because all Turks are like all Bulgarians (or Hebrews, Germans, Russians, and other nations in the world), with slight differences (regarding the names, for example), which are not essential what concerns the balance between right and left wing, i.e. the conditions for developing of capitalism, for enrichment of some minority, from one side, and creation of decent social living conditions for the majority, from another one. And they are doing this more than 20 years now, subjected to criticism and spat upon by many. So that it turns out that, despite the objections of public opinion (not only by us, but also on the West), one ethnical party can, definitely, play positive role for us (inasmuch as for me is obvious that one moderate centrists platform is always something positive, if not for other reason then because this rarely happens — people want actions and thrillers, right?). And why is this so, ah? Well, it is quite simple, because they are ethnical party of a minority, not of the majority (like "Herr" Adolf in his time in Germany, or, if you like, as "Haiduk Sider", leader of our fascists, now in Bulgaria). The minority is, in general, weak, it will not begin to create disorders (for they even — to give some examples — have not tried to "repaint" monuments, or break windows of our National Assembly, or disturb the service in Christian churches, but other parties have done such things), so that some strengthening of them does not do much harm. Besides, we must not doubt here, they do not at all want splitting of Bulgaria and annexing of some part to Turkey (as many Bulgarians have thought earlier); they don't want such things because Bulgaria is in Europe, but Turkey isn't, and now we are even in European Union, so that — why should they be so silly to want to run away from this? They wanted to bear names like Ahmed and Mehmed (all men like, hmm, ... med-honey — what means mead, of course, where the root comes from the Sanskrit), or also Assans (like the Turkish lion called aslan /arslan), or Gül-something (i.e. roses), or Sedefs (pearls), Sevdas (beloved women), or, maybe even Aishas (what is a Gypsy name, but comes also from the Sanskrit, where aksha meant an eye, i.e. they cherish her like eye-pupil), and others. In the end — it's up to them, how they want, this shouldn't have become political question, but when the communists in totalitarian time have messed the things, so it serves us right. 4. Social-Democrats and other left-wing parties. This powers simply can not come to power in Bulgaria (they have tried once and might have succeeded but failed because of parts of percent less than the minimum), and this is very bad, I think. This is bad because, as you have heard, there is no victory without fight, and fight in the left political space we have not, yet in the right space we have, more than necessary. This, at least, does not balance good the left and the right, but it also hampers the left to evolve good. According to the meaning of quite many people, to which this time I join, the left are such mainly pro forma, as a trade mark, but are not at all such in reality (after the last "Mohican", Zhan Videnov). And there could have quietly existed several left-wing parties with influence, which could make coalitions for the elections, if they want, but otherwise remain separate parties. There is nothing bad also if we have one communist party with influence (like, for example, they have in Russia), because the ideas of communism are right — they, the ideas, are even ... divine, if you ask the Ancient Greeks (idea = i + dea, where the second, obviously, is a goddess) —, only their realization limps, but the realization of capitalism by us is at all "in wheelchair", so to say. For me the lack of some "significant" Social-Democratic party is a big omission, which surely can be mended, but the soc-communists, by their old habit, think that must exist only one power, for to be a real power. Well, we have touched this question, but something must be done in this regard, and this is work for the masses (when on the top they don't want), i.e. they must begin to want some other left party. OK, let it be so, I will propose to you some names (with implied platforms): New Left Force, Moderate Left Party, Capitalist Left Model, People's Left Party, Party of Left Ideas, Labor Party (like in England), Party of Social Capitalism, even SOCI, if you like, what can be decoded as "Social Otnoshenia-Relations and Civilized Institutions". 5. Peasant parties. The emergence of such parties was another misunderstanding, yet they have emerged and have "muddied the political waters" for some time, but it is good that they have not succeeded to reach the Parliament. Now look, for one thing the peasants (or farmers, this sounds better) have never been, and will never be, united power, and for another thing they have decreased significantly in their numbers as a strata (I mean here exactly the farmers, those who produce agricultural things, not just live in the villages), where in Europe they are on the average about 10% of the population, but in some countries, in the United States, for example, they are even 4%. Well, we might have had some such parties for assortment (say, Farmers Party), but not to expect to have success with them. They have emerged, maybe, because of our former, from totalitarian times, Bulgarian Agrarian National Union (BZNS in Bulgarian), but this party was, more than obvious, subdivision of our communist party, with functions of a screen, for nobody could have said that we have single-party system. There, you see, not only the farmers have become less, but also the workers as such, i.e. those working in factories, are now not many (again roughly 10, maybe up to 15%, if they are correctly measured, from the employed population). The major part of those engaged with work, according to the author, are people of the sphere of services, if there enter, really, all those who provide for us some services, i.e.: transport, education, police, a heap of institutions (say, telephone operators and /or the Internet and /or cable TV), the classical services (like shops, hotels, restaurants), medical care, and possibly others. We all serve each other. The working class was one momentary phenomenon (of approximately half a century), when the capitalism was still very green and there were needed many workers (like it was before with the peasants, or the artisans, or, if you like, with the drivers of cars and earlier coachmen). We can divide us on spheres of activity, but not on workers and employees, because then the major part will be employees or servants (as far as they serve meekly to some boss, don't work for themselves, on their own account). But this was a small deviation from the theme of politics. 6. Businessmen. Such parties also have emerged by us, but hastily and for opportunistic reasons, not as real parties of businessmen, and due to this one such party (BBB, Bulgarian Business Block) just entered in our Parliament and disintegrated and gone out of it. Surely the businessmen are even less than the peasants or the workers. Can be spoken about party of small business, for example, but I am afraid that with such party also nothing much different than with our peasant parties will happen. They will not be united, and can't have some special political ideas, which could not have been defended by any self-respecting political power. The real layer of large-scale businessmen, even in developed Western countries, does not count more than 3% of the population, and what can be said about the poorest country in European Union. This is "throwing of dust in the eyes" of people. 7. Fascists. Here the things are quite equivocal, so that it is necessary to pay some attention to them. On one hand it is clear that worst idea than this of fascism in the current-day society is hardly possible to be found (the communism, despite the book "Fascism" of our Mr. "Yelyo Yelev" or "Zelyo Zelev" or "Zhelio Zhelev — what, written so, we read as 'z-h', to be sure — etc., it depends on the transcription, because the nice letter "zh" — like in "measure" — is mutilated on the West how they only like, is not the same as the fascism, how he states in his book, I beg him to be excused; it is not the same, if not for other reason, then at least because not a single Hebrew can become Aryan, can not change his or her gene or ethnicity, while every wealthy one can easily become proletarian — what is necessary is just to take away his property, right?). The world, well, at least Europe, for a long time now does not argue on this question, especially after 9th of June have become day of Europe (the day of victory over the fascism). But, on the other hand, our fascists must not at all be taken seriously! They are youngsters, kids, post-pubers, "Sider Jugend". They are impudent enough (I don't see why I have to excuse myself for something really true) to chant sometimes even — this was shown by our TV and was pretty clear to be heard — "The Gypsies to soap?", but they don't at all think what they are saying! They are to such extent dumbfounded by the media, ads, and Internet, that take every possible fable for reality, as also vice versa — don't believe in proven and unquestionable facts (I personally remember a talk with a relatively intelligent girl of about 15, who has said to me that in all this, what was spoken about gas chambers and the Hebrews, she does not believe!). Id est they are sick, schizophrenics, something like that, they can't distinguish between facts and fictions, don't live in this world, are not adequate to their environment. I can not excuse them, obviously, but it is necessary to show some understanding to such undeveloped personalities, because we all have once been young, and when there pass, so, 5 to 10 years, they will heal by themselves (how in this day you will hardly meet a person who will admit that he /she was sometime UDF supporter, but they have won more than half of the votes, and this by 90% electoral activity, and were all young people, so that it can't be said that they have already left this world). If only they do not make special disturbances it is necessary to endure them. And here comes another viewpoint: when they are legalized, then the things are in some extent channeled, it is known who are they, nobody hinders them to imagine whatever they want, and in this way is relatively reduced the danger from them (for the reason that one shows perseverance to do all sorts of trouble exactly when is contradicted to him). Possibly because of this the noise about them (which in the beginning was pretty strong), not only in Bulgaria, but also on the part of Europe, subsided, because — it is so, right? — one of the psychological advantages of democracy is that one can "shout" a bit and after this feels better. They will change nothing around themselves, but will change something in themselves. But here is also another moment, on which I would like to turn your attention, on the ground for fascism in Bulgaria. Priory their emergence I personally was convinced that there is no ground for fascism by us (no matter that there were earlier fascist parties, i.e. they were at the power), for the simple reason that the fascists assert, roughly speaking, the following: we are good nation, capable, have had our own empire, look, how many things we have done, we are concordant and united and can do even more things, but we are hindered in the state by bad elements, by foreign individuals, and that is why now we live so bad; let us take them away and you will see how all will blossom and bring fruit! While the communists assert, for example: all hard-working and capable people live bad, because the wealthy ones hinder them; let us take away the wealthy, free the labour slaves, and the things will blossom. Id est, the fascists show as root of evil some ethnical minority, where the communists think that the economic minority is guilty; the fascists go from one industrious and united nation, which is exploited in their own country by foreign "bloodsuckers", but which has given many examples for domination in the world, while the communists start from the idea that the simple and hard-working population lives bad because of robbing from the wealthy individuals, but the people have not yet unfolded themselves and shown what they can do. So that there is a difference. And, really, look where the fascism has "given sprouts" during the Second world war: Germany is obviously a super-disciplined country (as is said, and I beg the people there to be excused, but they without permission will not ... go even to the toilet, they can crap their pants on their posts), the Japanese are fanatics of the idea for their domination, because they are forced to, due to their excessive overpopulation (maybe they are the most densely populated also today, and this in evidently seismic region), and the Italians, well, they are Catholics, and this, in some cases, unites more than the communism (I can give as an interesting example that I have read some Italian juvenile books of the genre ... "religious science fiction", what kind I have not met anywhere else till now). But in all those cases these are countries with proven success in the industry, or wherever it can be, they have had mighty empires in the past, and now, too, they demonstrate "wonders" in their development, and are extremely united (at least the Germans and Japanese have rebirth literally like the bird phoenix after their defeat in the Second world war). Where we, the Bulgarians, are quite savage and barbarian country, whatever we were not officially stating, and if we have had sometime "kingdom and state" then the other nations around us have had not smaller such, but we, obviously, are utterly disunited and can begin to kill one another if there is not somebody to bring us to reason (just recall to you, those who can, how in the first years after the coming of democracy we have poked out the eyes of candidates for MP, or have depicted "something" to their mouth). From what follows that there is no ground for natural emergence (in times of war this, as a rule, is not counted, it was imposed to us) of fascism in Bulgaria. But look, it has come "Haiduk Sider" and has organized fascist party and it turns out that I was wrong. Yet this is not so (for, after all, how can I make a mistake, ah? — rhetorical question, the answer is clear), because this party gathers not many people, on the average about 5%, and this predominantly among young and silly ones, so that this situation has to be valid, maybe, for each country. Conditions for effective fascism by us do not exist, and have never existed, we maybe do not like much one another (for example, I personally can not say that I am just "overflowing with love" to the Gypsies, or Hebrews, or, Negroes, or ... Americans, no matter that there are not such living in Bulgaria), but we would have not risen to perform raw physical violence against them (where we have examples even for the contrary — for saving of Hebrews during the fascism, or for accepting of many Armenian refuges before this). We are savage, but quiet and meek, people, and this that some youngsters push up to express themselves with something — for there is nowhere now to show our "heroism", there are no wars, no revolutionary situation, no even special interest to live, because life is significantly easier than half to one century before — well, it happens so with people, as I have said, these are illnesses of growth, something like the pimples acne (which word, to "educate" you a bit, means something "akano" in Bulgarian, or caco in Latin, what are ... the faeces!). 8. The Tsarist party (NMSS, National Movement Simeon the Second, NDSV in Bulgarian). It has come nearly like a bolt from the blue, as is said, was organized in a pair of months, and if there was not the quite clever Solomon (who has passed us to the Atlantic, because his very name was such, Passi), it wouldn't have had the possibility to see the white world (and there were also a big number of many more or less right-wing politicians who have grasped in time that UDF will only "entangle the skein" and have run out of it long ago, so that they just waited where to enter). This party was entirely opportunistic, practically without ideas (like everything right-wing, as I have said), if one does not count the subconscious comprehension of everyone that if something comes from the West then it must be good, and also when Simeon was born to be King, then, maybe, it is worth to try with him, too. Yeah, but he has come to take back his land possessions, has behaved as a King, i.e. have done what he wanted (when has won the majority of votes) and, as far as he was also in years, withdrew later from the politics. And in addition (and I think, but maybe I just think so, that I have tried to tell this to these people — but what prominent personality will read all the correspondence which receives?) they even have not succeeded to correct their name, but have remained with the "working name" NMSS, i.e. only to them three letters for abbreviation of their name have not sufficed (because GERB party, although this is some abbreviation, as a word in Bulgarian means ensign); when at the end they have decided to change their name this has become useless, the King has withdrawn. Where they could have named themselves, for example (to give them post factum some hints — for I, contrary to many, have enough brains but little money): Moderate Western Party, or Party for Moderate Capitalism, or Turn to the West, Strong Right-wing Alliance, or whatever they have alone chosen, only not this unfinished name for playing hide and seek under one (olden) "hat". But don't thing, however, that I am not contented with them; I in principle don't like whatever party, because it defends its partial (from "part"), not some common for the country, interests, but I think it's a shame that they had very good chances and have simply wasted them. They had chances, at least, because they were not extremely right, like the UDF, but also because ... hmm, for the simple reason that they had no special ideas for ruling, they just wanted to "cash in" on the power. Here many of the readers might have thought that I have entangled myself in my reasonings, but this is not so — because life is entangled, the dialectics require it, see? So they were moderate at least because otherwise BSP, however much it was socialistic only on words, have had no other choice for forming of coalitions except with parties close to the center, and these were only MRF (the Turks) and this King's NMSS, and they have done this — simply unbelievable! But we are discussing the tsarists party, which has succeeded — it is true, as a side effect, at least I think so, but has succeeded — to break the bipolar model, which only exhausted our country, and have marked the beginning of our pulling out of the swamp, slow, hard, but still pulling out and moving to the West. It is right that this Western model is not much suitable for our poor country (the poorest in European Union), but it was our nation that wanted this Western model, wanted not to look to the East, i.e. toward Russia, so that they have given it (us) this, what it (we, as a whole) wanted (then and now). And for those, who still can't understand how people without special ideas, and in addition also opportunists and careerists, can make quite good successes, let me add, that it pretty often happens exactly so among the "sapient homos". Id est those, who defend very actively some ideas and are ready to fight for them, they usually ... well, want to fight, right? And those, who look at their own interests and are relatively moderate in their wishes, they exactly show themselves as good professionals and achieve success in life, for the reason that the middle point is exceedingly important thing on this world (and maybe also on the "other", I don't know). So that this opportunistic party, in principle, has succeeded to begin to better us, it, so to say, has marked the beginning of our way to real democracy — with a delay of a decade, due to the whooping and incompetent UDF. 9. GERB party. This party was also unexpected, even for the soc-communists (and primarily for them), also right-wing and opportunist, also without special ideas, but — how to put it? — brilliantly setting on the subconscious in the humans! Have I put it good? I want to say that they have come to power with some, but entirely sucked from the finger, understandings, that the "good bully", or "Duce Boiko", whose very name is so "boikoe" (in Bulgarian, what means not so much jaunty or buoyant but brave, courageous), will defeat the corruption and raise our image before the world, which image is "stained" at least for centuries, but especially since the coming of our democracy. And this, that the image of a nation can't be "cleansed" for a few years but at least for half to one century, that this isn't done with swishing of a whip but with the use of moral (which, especially in country practically without any religion as ours, and in unmoral time of collapse of civilization as this in which we are living now, isn't clear from where can come — more so after we have rejected the exaggerated communist moral), and that the corruption has ever existed and will exist, because it is a matter of addition to the official ruling, for it is not enough ... ripen, and so on — to all these questions our population, neither could, nor wanted, to give answer, the people just run away from the "extraterrestrial" coalition, as I mentioned this earlier. But he has set brilliantly on the subconscious by the people thanks to his good PRs, or because he alone was clever enough — a general, still, not "a head of onion" —, for he was shown nearly 5 years everywhere en gros, and with a big head. Saying it otherwise, this was one ... hmm, phallic advertisement! But if the cult to the phallus was not hidden deep in the subconsciousness of people, then it wouldn't have emerged before millenniums (for you have not heard about a cult to its antipode, to the Latin putta, or French putain, have you?). As a joke or not, but this man indisputably is liked by the greater part of women (I personally have once heard how a young girl, when it come to this Boiko, has said with a happy smile, "ah, Boicho" — and this is building of diminutive in Bulgarian, what usually means liking), and probably is willingly accepted (well, not that they really like him so, I suppose) also by the majority of men, especially in the region around Sofia. The strong bully is always popular and he has very well known this and set on it. Otherwise his ideas — and what ideas? The corruption in Latin means decomposition, breaking (and probably with some crushing and squeezing, for they said corrumption), but this is adjustment to the environment, I'll tell you, because you know very well that the tomatoes are eaten when they become ripe, while the cucumbers when they are green, or that the capitalism is like a medlar and is good when it begins to decay (like it is now, not like what was a century ago). And it is an addition to the system, as also the prostitution, organized crime, etc., are (for if the people did not have needed them then they would not have existed, as far as all, even the sluts — I beg the women, and, maybe, now also the men, to excuse me — know well that they are doing something unmoral, but they do it because there is demand on this). So that, if the system is good, then it wouldn't have needed such additions, but as far as the entire capitalism rests on money, which according to each religion are something bad, i.e. an amoral things, then one can not do without corruption. This, what can be done in the given situation, and is also done, is ... hmm, that the state corrupted itself instead of the people and companies, i.e. the state collects taxes for something, what, anyway, is amoral! But there is also something else — especially in the politics there is often something else, another view to the things — bad or not, bully or not, with ideas or without such, only speaking and often contradicting himself or not, but he quietens the masses, because we (and all other nations) are like horses, we want to hear the whip to snap and then we pull the cart, but otherwise resist. In this sense he is also embodiment of the strong hand in the government, what neither is a new idea, nor is valid only for our country, nor will some time disappear (on this is based the right-wing government, as I mentioned). And note the precise (in order not to use the same epithet again) matching of other big political figures around him: the mayor (or rather "mayeress", for it is "she") of Sofia now is one modest and mild-looking woman; almost all other persons from the government (with the exception, maybe, of the foreign Minister) are also dull, unpleasant, and /or featureless; and our new President is "berry of the same field" ("bird of a feather" for you), too, absolutely faceless, no matter that he is man and President. For the reason that — it is so, isn't it? — the "Duce" (in order not to say again the other word) can be only one, and the others must only listen and execute. Well, I don't say that it is easy for him, "the royal crown is heavy", as the folks say (and he, really, looks in the recent time somehow wearied and bored by the power — if he does not play all this on purpose, yet even if so), but it isn't easy only with bare words — well, almost — to keep the entire nation in subjection. (I can add a pair of sentences more about our current President, "rosen-presen" how is said in Bulgarian (what means fresh and with dew), and he, either is from town Pleven, or his great-great-grandfather has had somewhere plevnia-barn — really, because he is named Rosen Plevneliev — but sometimes, it depends on the angle, he has a bit, hmm, moronic view. Apologies to him, for I have no intention to offend him, but he is so confused with his new position, and how he was used till the elections only to stand to attention, like the dogs, and now can also command, then he just looses himself sometimes; he could have been good "chef de salle", how "Haiduk Sider" says, but to be President is too much for him in the beginning. But he is not at all silly, because have learned very well the science to speak much and say nothing. This definitely isn't easy, I'll tell you, because myself, for instance, no matter how I have tried to say empty words, still, will sometimes make an error and blurt something reasonable. Generally said, he is a good example of Latin proverb "Ars est celare artem.", what means "Art is in this, to hide the art.". Well, he at least does not treat all people like retarded, which was the manner of our former President "George the First" (Georgi Parvanov in Bulgarian, and parvi is first). So that "the guy" is confused, has not at all suitable for the post appearance, but ... he will justify the confidence, almost sure, and in all probability will be not worse than out former Presidents.) But the curiosities does not end with this, because his people are good rulers, they perform their work, at least about the mayeress nothing bad can be said and the people have reelected her, and the Government is also good, for despite the protests of opposition (especially of that who "already-become-boss" — I mean Stanishev, the head of BSP, due to my funny observation that his name splits in stani-become + shef-boss), and this, mark, in conditions of crisis! It turns out almost so that we "function" even better under conditions of crisis, than under normal conditions, because the whole Western Europe has suffered, to say nothing about ever discontented Greece, or about classical (now) discontented between the ex-communist countries, Poland and Ukraine. It is true, there are objective reasons for this: we are living so miserably, that there is nowhere worse (at least in the Euro-Union), so that this, that now also others are in bad conditions, as if pacifies us and we "pull our cart" still and quiet, but who knows how much quiet we would have been if we were still governed by the old coalition (having in mind that people don't like the socialists, and that they do practically nothing in really socialist spirit)? And in addition to everything else this real "Duce" as if has pressed the self-proclaimed "Haiduk Sider", because the "shares" of the latter have significantly sunk. So that I personally may not esteem "phallic" politics, but it works by us and I accept it. In spite of his feverish and incompetent at first sight governing he, as is said, is the most suitable for the time and the place politician in Bulgaria. He draws funds from here or there, builds highways in order to do, still, something, to reduce the unemployment, and on the West nobody criticizes him, and, to all appearances, he will be reelected. Well, but till here, no more. I give him 5 to 10 years of reign, and after this — adio ensign (i.e. "gerb"), adio Duce! Because it isn't possible that a party without ideas (practically, as I've said), built around a personality, has existed for a long time; a personality, sooner or later, becomes exhausted. There will remain only some succeeded to push themselves up persons (in order not to say antipodes of the phallus, have I said it?), how it has happened with NMSS (the King's party). This isn't, say, liberal, or Christian, or conservative, etc., party, there is nothing else that can remain after it (except if they will not form some dynasty, but as if there are no such perspectives). 10. Other new parties. Well, the fingers on our hands have finished, but we have nothing more to add. Here, obviously, can only be guessed something, so that let us also do this for some time. It would have been good if we have had fight in the left political space, as I have said, but there is nothing of the kind by us, so that I have almost lost any hope that this will happen sometime. I don't know, is it not exactly this the main drawback of the left-wing, that they don't allow other opinions, especially if they slightly differ from their own, maybe it is so; and if it is so then it is quite possible that they, sooner or later, will come to this conclusion and will correct the things. Let us hope. But the new parties, which emerge, they are all more or less right-wing (as if more "more"). Though I can't imagine what new can emerge, after "Boicho", on the political arena, because we have used the ideas about: business, peasants, the King, strong hand, Western influence, our image, and so on. We have not used to the end the religious idea, but we are not much religious. Now, I see two possible directions of moving: one is to build some centrist party, what is the right course, but we will see of what kind it can be, and the other course is to come to the next "dead-end" like the fascist Ataka-attack (say, some other ethnical party, either Turkish, or Gypsy, or Macedonian). The dead-ends will not help us so that let us leave them. The centrist party, however, is not easy to be built (people want actions and thrillers, don't they?), so that it can happen chiefly as concomitant element (take MRF as example, and up to a certain extent also the King). Can be supposed that will be built some party of the small business, for example, but with some influence, so that it could have succeeded to enter the Parliament, or some professional groups (say, of transport workers, or builders, or teachers — whether I know, the SDS-UDF has started with pop singers on the head, so that nothing can be stated with certainty), but as if there are not such examples in the world. Well, something nearly fantastic got into my head, but, as is said "sure thing but who knows". So that we have not used to the end the idea about the... emancipation. I mean, we still have not some feminist party! Such party would have its advantages, because, for one thing, the women are the mediocre sex (let us not enter here into details for I do this on other places, but these things underlie every religion, and religions are based on life experience of the whole humankind), and in this case they will be exactly centrist; for another thing they are more mild or soft (and in Latin and Greek "sophia /sofia" lies the wisdom, it is good to remind you these linguistic moments), and if so then with them will be easier to work, they will be more submissive, more given to compromises; and for a third thing the women build a representative sample of the population, and exactly of its middle part, so that they just can't not be a good center. This is my brilliant idea, which I make known to you at the end. Help God it will give some useful germ, because the world has long ago suffered enough from the brute masculine force (the machoism), since the time of Christ (what means also before him, for to make him to raise this idea). Else, if this will not be the women, then, maybe, we will be forced to take refuge to ... the homosexuals, ah? Well, I personally prefer, if it must be, to be commanded by women than by gays; how is it with you, though, I don't know. September 2012 P.S. Well, it turned out that I have significantly increased the ruling of "Duce Boiko", but in broad terms I have been right in my analysis. Anyway, there will be another material about the fatal for us 13th (at least after ... Bin Laden, ah?) year. April 2013 — — —
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/ |