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 continue the 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 OVO E VERITAS (or "Egg Economy") In the interest of truth, the idea of this material is not of the author but is borrowed by Mark Twain, from his book "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", but well — that's the purpose of classicists, to learn from them. Though, on the other hand, the things are creatively applied, and, besides, to Mister Samuel Clemens, most probably, someone from the ancient people has suggested something, because the egg is a thing at which people since deep antiquity have wondered, and for that reason its name in most of Hindu-European languages is just ... an exclamation, like for example in German it is das Ei (read 'ay' like in "mine"), in French it is oeuf (i.e. "oh", what is similar to the Latin ovo, what is near to Russian ogo, what means "ah"), the English "egg" has to be something like "eh" or "yeah", in Russian it is "yaytzo" (what you would have written, I suppose, as "iaitzo", but in many European languages it will be "jajtzo"), what is some "ay /yay" (obvious exclamation), in Bulgarian is nearly the same ("yaytze"), and so on (where in Sanskrit it was aksha, what is again "ah"). Naturally, here it goes not about etymology, but about economic usage of the egg as a coin, yet from the exaltation about it to the idea for such usage, the way is not very long, so that, if the eggs have not become spoiled so fast, they would have been long ago used as units for exchange. But the idea is still actual (and will be such for a long time more), due to the fact that, despite the enormous power of contemporary technologies, the eggs are still not synthetically produced, and even if they were synthesized this would have hardly changed significantly the situation, because artificial diamonds exist long ago but the price of natural ones has not fallen. So that, let is imagine that there existed such money unit — one ovo, which is equal to the price of one egg. Then, expressing with it all products we will have one constant for each time, as also universal for all countries, price! However simple this idea can be, it is very convincing and for that reason we have created here one table with the basic foodstuff and other products, adding also the salaries in different periods of our newest history, as also for one Western country (Austria), which will be used for comparison. On the basis of this table (in two parts, for it does not fit in the page) we can draw interesting conclusions, so that let us begin (the order is not important).
TABLE 1A. COMPARING OF BASIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR DIFFERENT PERIODS IN EGGS.
TABLE 1B. (CONT.) COMPARING OF BASIC PRODUCTS AND SERVICES IN EGGS.
Well, this is all, dear readers. The truth for us is not in the democracy, or in the free market, or in the private property, or in the "swimming over the Atlantic" (for nato in Latin means to swim over, and that is why such abbreviation was chosen also for the Atlantic Pact), but in one tiny and insignificant egg. So that, here is an advice from the author: keep at your home hens laying eggs and you will live good. If you have no place for them but have central heating then put one cage in the drawing room, on the table before the TV set (or even behind it, or above it) and feed yourself a pair of laying hens there (cock may be kept one for several neighbours from the entrance of your building). The egg is the purest protein, and we are protein creatures, so that we can not do without it. If, on the other hand, you have disconnected your central heating (as is said that nearly 30 thousand people in one only Sofia have done), well, then you at least will save money for eggs, because, by the prices in winter of 18 cents for an egg, and by on the average 90 levs for heating in month, this gives whole 500 eggs per month for central heating, or by 16.67 eggs daily, and exactly so many eggs (to reveal one secret to you) make one kilogram eggs per day! If you have so many money, that can freely allow yourself to break by 17 eggs each day, only in order to live comfortably in your home, then this means that you have no need of laying hens. People on the West have not such need. In Bulgaria before was also so, but with the coming of democracy ... So, with the coming of democracy, it is high time for us to understand that not the democracy leads to wealthy way of living, but the good standard of life leads unavoidably to democracy! It was so 25 centuries before in ancient Athens, it becomes so also since 18th century and to the present day all around the civilized world, it happened so in Bulgaria, too, when we rejected the totalitarianism. So that — less democracy but more eggs for the people! October 2001 P.S. The columns for 2008 were added later, but we have attached them to table 1.B. for greater convenience. Here not only the dollar continues to be with abnormal rate, but it happened also dry year, and we have again become "dumbfounded" with our entering in the European Union, and have decided by old habit that everyone must "pull the blanket" to oneself and boycotted the price policy of the Board, in result of which is observed the next (unjustified) rising of prices, or another shocking therapy (for they, our people, behave only when shocks are applied to them). In any case, by eggs of middle (M) size of 0.20 lv and the dollar on the average by 1.30 lv we have now 1 ovo = 0.15 US$. But otherwise out tendencies, by calculations in ovo, remain, because, for example: the milk (on the average) is 1.40 lv /l or 7 ovo (where it was 5.7 in 2001, and 6 and a bit more on the West), the white cow cheese is about 4.80 lv. or 24 ovo (against 20 from the prognosis for 2006); the cheese is about 9.00 lv or 45 ovo, the bread by 1.30 lv for a kilo (not 800 g.) is now 6.5 ovo, the sunflower oil is exceedingly high by 16 ovo, the coffee is 60 ovo per kg, on the street is 2 ovo, the cigarettes on the average are 12 ovo, the raki /vodka (0.7 l) is 30 ovo (as you see we are catching up with the West); the beer is 4.5 ovo, et cetera. The minimal salary became 220 lv or 1,100 ovo, and the average — 460.00 lv or 2,300 ovo (what is again less than under the totalitarianism, and about 7 times less than in Europe). And other comparisons. 2008 — — — OH, 'MANCI, 'MANCI -PATION! There are so many things that can be said against the emancipation of women that one just does not know where to begin. Because it has started not in some Muslim country, or in Bangladesh, or Rwanda-Urundi, to give some examples, but in countries like America, England, France, et cetera. And also not a pair of centuries, or even more, before, when also according to the American constitution the women have had no rights to vote, but roughly before a century — and since that moment it goes as if from top to bottom (used as modification of "more or less", which in Bulgarian is built like "up or down"), if we do not take this tendency for historical necessity, to what we shall return at the end of the paper. And this means that once more time the people (more precisely, the women) are doing not this, what is necessary, but that, what can be done in the given moment. Only that some things that can be done (say, to stick one's finger in the nose, with an apology) is not always good to be done, right? And then, when this was necessary to be done, they have not done it — for a number of historical, but to a great extent justified for its time, reasons. This "liberte", you see, is a double-edged sword, on which the humankind from ancient times cuts itself (as we continue to cut ourselves on our democracy, but the author speaks amply on that matter on other places). So that the done not in its proper time emancipation at least does not give much honour to the women, if the notion of honour by them is understood in emancipated sense, not in the olden religiously-sexual meaning. And, in addition to the harming of their reputation, this is also quite silly, because they have won nothing with the emancipation, but have definitely lost many things! For example, they have lost the respect or veneration from the part of men about this, that they are the weaker gender, or the more beautiful half of humankind, as have lost also the privilege to sit at home and not to include themselves in the not very pleasant competitive work in the society, and similar things. And this about the "weaker" gender becomes more and more understood by many people, because, if one does not count the extreme burdenings, the women are more endurable than the men — on stresses, on insufficient feeding, on monotonous work (which becomes the bigger part of work in one high-technology environment), and as to the life span they beat the men at least with 5-6 years (and according to the statistical data for Bulgaria with whole seven years, or with 10%, because for 1999 the average life expectancy for men was 67.6 years, where for women — 74.6). Then this about the more beautiful half of mankind is not very actively popularized, but it is true, i.e. it is right that the men are more beautiful, looking in a wider period of time, not only between 15 and 25 years, roughly speaking. And this is intuitively perfectly clear to the women, because they are those who use at least five times more cosmetics than the men, and when something (or someone) is really beautiful, then this thing does not need any additional corrections (what proves your word "make up", which is, in fact, French, maquillage — to add something, to correct). And the possibility for one of the family to sit at home and take care about the children, prepare the food, and make what one only likes in his or her free time, is a thing which begins nowadays to become main desire for the people in the current-day dynamical and stressing competitive society. If a pair of centuries before this might have been dull and boring then now, with all the media, including the Internet, everybody just dreams to sit at home, but there are not many those people who can afford this, for one must earn ones living. But before the emancipation the women have sat at home, where now they can't anymore, or then don't want, to do this. And in the same time it is well known, at least on the West, that if one eats where one finds (in snack bars and taverns, or else buys ready-made food), alone washes his (or her) clothes, cleans his rooms, etc. (or pays to somebody to do this for him), than he spends practically as much money as for two persons. Even only by buying of food, if one has enough time to tour around the shops, one can economize at least 10%, and all this is money. Similarly with the housing, the difference between such for one person or for two is not big. Well, if the women have worked as before in the field, or have looked after the animals, then the things might have been different (but how many are those who work in the field nowadays?). But exactly then, when the women were really quite overloaded, exactly at that time they have not raised their voices, for there was no emancipation then, but now they just lose — because the latter is in effect. Though this about the families begins little by little to become old, because according to Bulgarian statistics the total coefficient of divorces is 0.20, what means that on five marriages there is only one divorce. But this is only for the moment, where the tendency is such that in very near future (say, after 20-30years) we will come to three marriages on one divorce, then to two, and to even less. Already in the moment in many countries and regions (in the big towns) such proportion exists, So that the family comes down from historical stage, as direct consequence of the emancipation! Because, really, the sexes are only two (and this is hidden in the very Russian word pol meaning gender, because, if one begins to think about this, there is also the word polovina but shortened to the same pol and meaning half), and if both sexes have equal votes then exactly in the half of the cases would have been impossible to achieve consensus, and without consent what is the reason of this artificially set in society limitation of freedom of the individual (be it man or woman)? Let us not doubt that the family institution (or marriage) was introduced by men (for in the antiquity, when it was justified, nobody has asked the women), but predominantly in the interest of women (for they are those who want to keep some man for themselves, where the men, as a rule, prefer to tour around from woman to woman like the bees visit different flower pistils). But then to what this reduces? Well, it reduces to this, that the women simply cut the branch on which they are sitting. And in this case we must ask ourselves: but why are they doing this? Well, because of the euphoria of freedom, else there remains only the possibility that they have not much brains — choose the preferable for you variant. Because equal rights mean also equal obligations, isn't it so? For example, that the women, too, do military service, or work in mine shafts, or pay their bills in restaurants, or have to pay alimony in case of divorce, or receive pension on equal with the men age, and similar things. This, that the men have not yet emancipated themselves, does not mean that they will not do this in a near future! Like for example: that by divorce the children, when they are boys, were given to the father, and to the mother only the girls, what is entirely natural, at least after the age of three (but also earlier, because the mothers who breastfeed their children can nowadays be counted on fingers, and to lead his child to a kindergarten can also a father). Roman law has established that the children were given, as a rule, to the mother, but there was not emancipation at those times, and if it exists now then the law can be changed. And that the mother also must pay alimony and see her children (if they are boys — but such is the secret desire of each mother) once in two weeks for a pair of hours. Well, if that is what she wants, and if the father agrees to bring them up, then there is nothing bad in this, but what will she gain from this is not at all clear, because the women, at least up to the present moment, have not expressed such wishes. And in general, what is this emancipation? Well, this means, of course, freeing (from the yoke — although now not existing — of the husband), but usually this is understood in the sense of equality. But to speak about equality there, where "dear God" has created the biggest inequality between individuals, is at least silly! We can speak about equal rights of men and women, what is quite logical and normal thing. A pair of centuries before it might not have been normal for a woman to learn in a university, but this was because the universities were something like monasteries, and what will do a few women between hundreds of "monks" (not that the author can't imagine what they could do, but for those times this was something highly sinful)? Or also another now anachronism: according to the rules of Islam the women received twice less inheritance than the men, but then the women were bought and for that matter was natural that the men received more inheritance for to buy more brides, and why should be given more money to a woman when she, anyway, would not have dared, in those times, to buy herself (another) husband? So that, to cut the long story short: the woman must have equal rights with the man in the labour process. Well, and why not? What man will object that his wife goes to work, when she "craves" to do this? And why not in the sports, too? But this not only in chess and artistic gymnastics, also in wrestling, boxing, weight lifting, at cetera. Yeah, but together with the men, not in separate categories! For, when there will be equal rights, then let them be really equal, not only on words. And do you know what will happen then, when (and if) a real emancipation of women comes in effect? Well, it will happen so, that the real rights will allow to prove the inequality of different sides! Because nothing else simply can be proved. Well, not always, for there are known examples of women rulers, shown themselves not worse than the men, though then nobody has spoken about emancipation. Even nowadays in the business and politics there is very good place for the women, for various reasons. The role of the manager, or the "magic of ruling", is not always clear, and for that reason exists rulers, and hidden rulers, or, hoping to make the things more transparent, let us speak about: tactical or operative ruling, on one hand, and strategical setting of the goals, on the other. The tactical ruling, as a rule (not denying the exceptions), is normally to expect to be work of men, while the strategy, very often, can be performed by women. This is so because also in the family, if we make such division of the functions, we will come to the conclusion that the tactician is the man, while the woman is the born strategist! What concerns this question our people say that the man is the head but the woman is the neck, and this corresponds to the truth because the woman, most often, knows only to require, and the man must know how to do it (it is not her business, right?). So that in that sense it is entirely admissible for the women to occupy ruling posts, and this is done in a number of companies, where are many women managers. This does not necessary mean that her intellectual level must be higher than that of the other men whom she commands, but for the strategist the tactical ability is not necessary! It is especially praiseworthy the entering of women in the politics and public relations, because there the point is not so much in the higher intellectual level, as in the softness of ruling, as far as the firm hand, particularly in democratic ruling, has many disadvantages. At least, due to the traditional relations between the sexes, one (be this man or woman) will hardly refuse to comply with the wishes of a woman than of a man, if strong compulsion is not applied. Alike is the situation also in many scientific areas, where the wide inclusion of women is justified, again not because of some higher intellectual capacities, but for the reason that, in the era of technologies, more and more scientific activities become monotonous, lose their creative character, and as consequence of this become quite accessible for the women and even are performed better by them, because men are not much capable in doing routine things. So that the author does not at all state that the woman must not take part in the social life on par with the man. She can and she must! But only in the social life, not in the family, because, as we have said, the sexes are only two. Now, if they were 17 (or something of the kind), as it were according to Kurt Vonnegut on the planet Tralfamadore, then the emancipation would have positively been justified also in this form, in which it is spreading in the recent years. And there is another moment, which no emancipatess or emancistess (or, maybe, emancipatka or even emancipatiza in Bulgarian — but mark that the noun patka or patiza there means ... goose) will admit, but surely thinks so: the question is not at all in the equality or having of equal rights, but exactly on the contrary, i.e. in the inequality, only that as ruling of the women or neo-matriarchy! The author's opinion, a priori, is this, that at least 90% of all emancipated women don't want to be equal with the man, but that they ruled over the man, what now is not good. This is not good not because the author is a man, but because this will put, according to the English, "the cart before the horse", and it happens exactly so in many emancipated families, and soon after this the marriage is dissolved. In the human history has existed matriarchy but this was in deep antiquity, i.e. when the society was pretty primitive and/or the life was very hard. But what has the level of development to do here? Well, it has to do because of the strategical role of the woman in the family, and the creative one of the man. The woman (or the feminine individual, also between the animals) is who stays closer to the harsh reality, to the life, because she gives it, even, I beg to be excused by the young women, to the animal. She is the most conservative sex, for the simple reason that her biological function is to preserve life in the next generation. This is long ago known in the sciences and there is no need to dwell more about the matter. While the man (i.e. the masculine exemplar) is the creative individual, who must not only prolong the life but modify and enhance it with the use of genetic code, and also via the upbringing of generation. Even the sex of the child is established by the father, where the mother plays very passive role. These are naturally settled things and we can not (at least for the moment) run away from them. OK, good, but what follows from this that the man is the creator and the woman is the "preserving container"; what has this to do with the matri- or patri- -archy? Well, the point is that when the existence and survival of the generation is endangered, and from here of the whole gender or kind of species, is quite normal that the conservative sex takes the command, that it requires and gives orders; while in times when there is no such danger, but instead of this creative evolvement of gender in the posterity is necessary, then the man must take the command. Pure and simple, isn't it? That is why matriarchy has existed in underdeveloped primitive communities, but today, naturally, would have been anachronism. In current times the human race encounters no danger of extinction but on the contrary — of overpopulation. A propos, about the overpopulation. It turns out that there is another moment, emerged synchronously with the emancipation, and it is high time for the people to mark the relation between both things. What we mean is the another boom of homosexuality, be it among men or among women. Today the question is not about, let us call it, traditional Islamic or, generally, by hot climate, homosexuality, nor about compulsive such (in army conditions, or in boarding-schools), but about the modern tendency for homogeneous sex, which, if we give credence to some Western authors, has not yet reached the half of the population, but is moving toward that. And this is impossible not to be related with the emancipation, although not in a direct way! But why? Well, if a given man (in addition to being of the weak sex) cannot command at least his wife (because at his work this is not possible for the majority of men), i.e. if he isn't the boss even in his house, neither he has chances to look after the children when the divorce, which now becomes a rule, comes, then why should he at all conclude marriage? If the matter is in having sex, then why not to practice one, really, based on equal rights sex (because it is not at all necessary for the homosexuals to be specialized in masculine or feminine role, they can perform both of them), or even if he is not set under equal conditions and he is that who plays the role of woman, then why could he not be commanded (sexually, but in the usual meaning, too) by somebody of his own sex? And the same is true also from the point of view of the woman, with this only difference that she is not weak gender, but also in many cases would have preferred to stay under the command of individual like she herself, and not under entirely different one (which, according to the women is good only to ... piss on the toilet ring). So that is how the things stay with the non traditional, but with tendency to become such, sexual practice. And the sex quite easily will become such after a half to one century, for the reason that in this form of sexual relations at least the result, i.e. the posterity, is entirely separated from the pleasures or feelings, by the simple reason that there is no result at all! But there are feelings, and they are even stronger, because there is no other hidden goal, no care about the posterity (unless they decide to adopt a child for them), no strong differences between the partners. All in all, perfect harmony — only that this is against the nature. But whatever this may be we must be aware that we are moving in this direction, and will be moving until the emancipation walks in seven-league boots. Though, as our folks say, there is no bad without some good (or as the English put it, there is blessing in disguise), because the homosexual sex is the only effective method for restraining of birth rate. Well, if we look so at the things, as at a historical necessity, then maybe the emancipation will turn out to be positive phenomenon, or, rather, will be neither positive, nor negative, but unavoidable phenomenon, Then the birth rate will diminish, and the family will dissolve itself. And this is pretty real danger after a century, because till now the emancipation reduces chiefly to "exertions" on part of the women, to wishes to prove the unprovable, but it may become provable when (and if) the extrauterine conception becomes common practice (and one home incubator will cost, approximately, after coming in mass production, about one dish-washing machine). Because, see, the woman is not equal with the man not for some other reason but in view of her biological destination as birth box — or putting it more nicely: the woman is the mailbox of the man to his posterity —, and if this her function moves in background, as it happens after the climacteric age, or is before the sexual life, then there are no other limitations that may hinder her to become equal with the man in her makings! In other words: nothing hinders the woman to become equal with the man, except this, that she is a woman, and if she does not insist on the second thing there are no obstacles for the first one. The point is in this, on what the woman insists? If she insists on the maternity and the family then she must be against the emancipation, or at least against the massively accepted in the moment understanding of the question; but, on the other hand, if she wants to make career on a par with the man, then they are not the men who will interfere with this — only that she will not be then a woman, at least in the classical meaning of the word. It is, so to say, even so, that the woman is, in some sense, more suitable than the man for making of career, because, as shows the last word , i.e. the relation between the professional career and the stone quarry (and in Bulgarian both words are written exactly the same), it consists mainly in scattering of the others with elbows, like stones on a slope of the mountain, i.e. in bright antagonism to the others and dissatisfaction with them — something opposite to the collectivism. But the man, as a rule, is a "herding" sex, he is that who likes to gather in groups — be it to watch football, be it to go hunting, or to war, or in the club and the pub, and so on. While the woman is that who chiefly hates her rivals! Well, the things are not so idealized (neither is this something bad or good — this is just natural setting), but such simplification is useful for understanding of the general case, which is reduced to this, that: the man does evil deeds out of love, and the woman — good deeds out of hatred! And in our case she would have been the ideal careerist. Maybe not exactly ideal for to be really ideal, but, still, quite suitable for the sphere of production. While at the same time the man could be also very good host and father, if this has to be done, and with the advantage that if he happens to become free of work he can make something useful at home — either put new wallpaper in the apartment, or make a greenhouse in the garden (if he has the latter), or will begin to teach alone his children, or will make cheaper purchases than the wife, or something else. So that all depends on the goals and tasks. If the families disappear as social units, how the tribal communities have disappeared, and if each individual (be that man or woman) will be in position to bring up the allowed to him or her one child (for it is clear that some time this thing about the one child on a parent will become a law, in order to stop the population boom, which has begun primarily two centuries ago) in his or her home incubator, then there are no problems for the both sexes to have equal rights in the productive, and in every other (when there are not families) activity. Even in the moment are needed very little efforts in the legal procedure for establishing of optimal equal rights for the man and the woman — the mentioned dividing of the children by the parents, the question with their naming, about the inheriting (by this dividing), and some other small items. Under naming here we have in mind that the family name is still established by the father, but there is also second or middle name. And here the decision in extremely simple — when we have three names (as it is now almost everywhere, but if there are two names a third one can easily be added), then it is possible for the second to be mother one, and the third to be father one, where this can be the family name for the corresponding parent, but it may be decided also entirely free by this parent. Or else, if we insist that each parent has obligatory some own "property" — because at the children, at least when they are little, is looked exactly in this manner — then it is possible that all names are established by one of the parents (and he or she will, eventually, form the other name in accordance with the other parent) depending on the sex of the child, where it can be established also before the birth (or "hatching"), or even ordered under the artificial insemination. The questions are not difficult and they can be quickly solved, and if this has not yet happened then this is only because, at least on the West, people do not yet look seriously at the emancipation, because it is not very consecutive (how it could have been expected when it is feminine invention), and hope to preserve the families (at least for as long as it is possible). Besides, the men have not yet raised voices about real equality, because they hope that the women will "kick" for a spell and then come to reason that it is time to stop this, as far as, as is said, they will not jump higher than the head. This is the cause why the things are not yet settled, not unwillingness on part of the men to give to the women equal with them rights, because they are given to them long ago (at least for a pair of centuries). In any event, the problem is complicates and full with social disturbances and the author's advise is not to hurry much in this hasty time but to rely more on the proved for centuries forms of patriarchy and monogamous marriage. If we will introduce something new then let us thing seriously about it before, not in post factum. April 2002 P.S. Maybe it is worth adding in the end that the things have evolved pretty fast and according to the population census for 2010 in Bulgaria from all newborn children a bit more than the half (55%) are such who earlier were called "unlawfully born" or illegitimate, and now are called "extramarital". It turns out that the men (for, who else?) have thought better and have begun to apply the simplest decision, because if there is no official marriage then there can't be a divorce and dividing of property. This suits the men, for lack of other alternative, they live together with a woman, pay as much as they can, and does not deny their paternity; more than this, in such case the very women are more endurable (is supposed), when nobody attaches them to some "macho", i.e. they are, de facto, free. The children this, surely, must not suit, but as far as they have no basis for comparison, and when the other children are in the same conditions like them (or their parents already live separately), then they do not disagree much. The women just reconcile with this, when they want to have children, but, I don't know, I think that if I were a woman, I would have been uncomfortable with this, I would have been ashamed to live so like the animals, and also to return some 4-5 thousand years back in human history; I would have tried to find some better solution (similar with the proposed in other materials variant of concluding of marriage for some preset period, with established in advance dividing of the children and attaching of each child to one of the parents, and with other details). The word is given to the women, for they are those who boycott the Roman law. — — — WHAT WE WANT TO TELL THE WORLD? (About Bulgarian symbols and the spirit of Bulgarians) What we want to tell with our coat of arms? Because there were no lions on our lands for thousands of years, i.e. already before the establishing of Bulgaria, and in remote geological epochs there might have been also dinosaurs but this isn't important. Usually as national symbol on the West, though also on the East, i.e. in Russia, is chosen some eagle — with two heads, to make it more interesting, or as twice all-seeing (or, as the children say: for you to ask and me not to tell you) — but this is not only mighty (resp., cruel) animal, it is also a bird which flies high, hence, stays above all the others. Well, the lion is mighty animal, but it is ... hmm, you know that this is a Hebrew symbol! And even today in some temples in Baalbek can be found stone frescoes with images of lions, but they are from the times of early Christianity and in such case inherited from the Jewish religion. There, surely, in ancient times were deified what only not animals (the Chinese dragon, for example, or Arabian ibis, or the bull, becoming later golden calf, and others), and also all possible combination of parts of humans or animals (the six-armed gods of Buddhism, the Greek centaurs, the Greek-Arabian harpies, and many other Arabian, Indian, and different divine beings), so that why not to choose for oneself also a lion, which is proud and strong animal before which one must simply bow down? Yeah, it is so, but this, that the lion is symbol of one not numerous eastern nation — the Hebrew one — is hardly accidentally, because he, the lion, is quite calm (if he is fed and nobody pulls him by the tail), and from the family of cats, right? One such charming little lion-cat can be symbol of weak people, but who extremely want to be strong — like a lion. And as far as we are not numerous nation — approximately one pеr mil of the population on Earth — so we eagerly want to wave our flag (or waggle with the tail, when someone stronger than us makes us angry), so that isn't it this, what we want to tell the world? Because: proud animal, yes, but how much proud it is? What if it is unreasonably proud, ah? Because the unreasonable pride, for which the Russians have single word, "gordinya" (where the usual one is gordost), is one of the Christian sins, which is very subtle sin (if we use this now grown old variant of the error — "greshka" in Bulgarian, where the sin is greh /griah), exactly because the sin /error isn't explicitly antisocial at a first sight (even at a second one), isn't like to desire the bride of your neighbour, said as an example (what also can not be a sin but just a pleasure, if she wants the same, and her husband, respectively, lover, in addition to this does not disagree to change from time to time his sexual partner, so that at least on the background of diversity takes some rest from her). In relation with the unreasonable pride is good to remind the very fitting Russian proverb: "The narrower the forehead, the wider the self-esteem!". And there is simple explanation for this psychological phenomenon, namely, that one must motivate oneself somehow in the process of his activity, and this can be done in two ways: either through reasonable assessment of the situation, or via ... underestimating of all others and everything else. In other words: either realizing his insignificant position in the circulation of things in nature (what gives strength, not because his position is insignificant, but because knowledge and real estimation bring, by themselves, satisfaction and conviction), or refuting the right of others to live, as well as all reasonable arguments, except his personal (and unreasonable) desire. In short: the smaller one nation is, the more prouder it feels, in which way, in accordance with the above-said, it only emphasizes its insignificance! And we emphasize it, so to say, in two ways, because it was not enough for us to have one lion (which sufficed to our revolutionaries Vasil Levski and Christo Botev in the time of our Renaissance, yet not to out present-day rulers), but we have heaped up whole three lions in our coat of arms — something like Christian Holy Trinity: lion-father (on the left, supposedly), lion-son (on the right), and a lion-spirit (in the middle), fenced in something like a shield, but it must be rather some bubble or pail, because a spirit cannot just stay free and by itself, he will dissipate and dissolve himself in everything, and in our case will not be seen on the emblem. Well, and on the top, of course, stays the crown, not necessarily royal, because our tsar-king was at that time in Madrid, but, still, some heavy state's crown. So that, it was clear that we (being small state, etc.) were bound to be very proud and plant a lion on our state emblem, that one lion is too little for us now, but two things (flowers, for example) are put only for the dead, so that we come to the number three, and four and more lions would have caused international precedent, and in that case would have been wrongly. Well, that is how the great Bulgarian (read also Balkan) decisions are born. By the way, about the Bulgarians, where this name, obviously, splits in bulg-, + -ari, only that -ar was popular suffix for building of plural in ... Tartar language (for example: aga — agalar, what means master, boss; this word exists in Turkish, and, hence, is known in Bulgaria, and in Greek agape means beloved). But traces from that -ar exist in other languages, like German, for example, where -er is often used exactly for making of plural (Kind — Kinder, Wort — Wörter, etc.), and in Netherlandish, where the word "hill" is holm (how exactly it is in Bulgarian and Russian), and its plural was holmar (and you must not doubt about the meaning of the holm because they have there one very central "holm", which has grown to a town — Stockholm). And the mentioning here of Tartar language is nor occasional because the thesis about out Tartar origin is more and more making its way in scientific circles. Well, this has not to be understood in the sense that we are heirs (of the precursors) of Genghis Khan, but we (i.e. the old or proto- Bulgarians) have proceeded somewhere from the Pamir and Altai region, around the Himalayas and Hindu Kush, have picked up something by the Kirghizs, Bolhars, Tartars, Mongols, Afghans, and others, and even — what sounds unbelievable — the phrase "I love you", which in Bulgarian is "obicham te" (and is not Slavonic for in Russia it is entirely different) in Mongolian was "bich-ham-te"! And now let us return to the "bulg"-root, what must be pronounced not exactly so but with that vowel like in the English "bird" (let us mark it here as "å"), and this vowel is liked much by us (though not by Russians, or Ukrainians, etc., note this), but also on the East (Turkish, Arabic, etc.), and on the West (like in English, though also in German endings like Lehrer, what is read as 'lehrå'), and there it transforms to Latin "u" (what in Slavonic alphabet is written with the same letter like your "y"), and it, for its part, has come from Greek upsilon (υ), which sound is very "mysterious" and often is used there to modify the preceding letter, where they even don't have our (and Western) "u" but write it with omicron + upsilon (ου), calling us now "vulgaros" (and in the old Greek "bulgaros", but if we were at those times). This, as we call it "big er", which, though existing in Russian alphabet, is not at all read in this way (it is used as you use the apostrophe in the words; although they have their "mysterious" sound "eri" which is modification of this "å" to "i"), but in Turkish, using the Latin alphabet, it is usually written with "i". So that what means then this bålg- /bulg- (i.e. what is hidden behind it)? Well, probably the etymologists also do not have single view on the question, but looking as imitation this is some banging on a drum, rattling, or swelling /inflating, where we can cite some similarly sounding Bulgarian words, like: bulgur (groats, peeled wheat), and bulamach (trash, tasteless concoction), which are or Turkish origin, then Russian balagur (clown, fair screamer), or balagan (fair, noise), then German der or die Buhle (what now is given as beloved, but in olden times was used for imitation of copulation, hitting of a kind; to hit in Bulgarian, what is Eastern, is chukam, and this in jargon use is exactly your f#cking), and others. But here is also the ... ball, where bol- is a world root because the Russians say bolshoy (big), the Turks bol (much), the ball is German der Ball, but this is also the ball as dancing (where people rotate like balls), also our Balkan mountains (in the middle of Bulgaria, and from here giving the name of the whole peninsula, as something swollen or at least hard and straight like baton or baguette), then the French balcon-balcony, too, or German die Burg (castle), because at least for the West r-l often mutually mutate. On the other hand, the bag or inflated bubble does not disappear, because there is the Latin volva /vulva which has given all vulgar things, as something bred in abundance, what is exactly the Greek sounding of the name of Bulgarians. So that, like we this or not, but we are some fast breeding and vulgar tribe, or Balkan inhabitants, or ... ha, ha, empty bubbles or mere water (aqua nuda in Latin, by the way)! It is not that we don't know what we resemble, but we were speaking here about what we want to tell the world, right? Well, nothing good we are telling it, alas. Or then let us take our national flag. This, that it is tricolour is clear, but what mean this colours, because we like, doesn't we, that everything ours has, an even deep, meaning. Well, the white colour is pure and good, the green one this is the fresh newly grown grass (or that maybe we are ... "meadows unmowed", ah?), and the red — well, that's the point, that this colour must symbolize the shed blood in our battles for freedom, but in no case must have something in common with the communism and the fight against fascism, because we have renounced the communism, have directly scratched it out of our history, have torn that defamatory page and thrown it away. This surely is so, but here we, in author's opinion, were not enough consecutive in the total negation, have not acted entirely in the spirit of our UDF (Union of Democratic Forces). We should have at all taken away this red band from our flag and basta! But then, see, we have not done this for in that case we would have had "ducolor", what is simplification of our symbols and a kind of decadence, but also, having taken away the white colour, too, because it has another meaning, we would have remained with only the colour of meadow; or else, if we take away the "meadow", will remain only the white colour of mute surrender, what, of course, is true — our people have already grasped this — but it, somehow, is not suitable to declare in the open. And if they have asked the author in advance then he would have told them that it was necessary first to take away the green colour, together with the red one, and then, seeing us before one entirely white flag, we would have guessed that some other colours must be added. And what colours, would you ask? Well, certainly it is necessary to have at least one blue band, because this is the colour of the sky and the sea and the blue blood (and the UDF, of course, but let us not make difference between blue and gray — the colour of the "tsarist" party —, because from aesthetical, as also from political, point of view they stay in a good harmony), also the colour of the freedom, the democracy, united Europe, and so on, or, as it was sung earlier in one popular song: everything nice on this world is blue, even your precious eyes. And now, proceeding from the blue colour, it is more than obvious that the red one should not be present on our banner, for it may happen that we will again come near to the Russians, and this, God forbid, must never be done! Well, and what colours remain then? Of course green and yellow, there are no others. And exactly one light yellow, some such, a but like the colour of a young duck, but not to come close to the toilet colour khaki, for then the world may decide to think that we have pooped our pants — I beg your pardon. Besides, the yellow and green these are colours-twins, they are such also in phonetical aspect, because in Russian they say zholtiy for yellow, but this is the colour of the zoloto-gold (not "zholoto"), and the green one is zolotoy, and similar is the case in Polish, Bulgarian, and in other Slavonic languages. So that one good proposition for our national tricolour is: blue, green, yellow. But we can approach the question in another way, so that not only to stress on the democratic-aristocratic blue colour, but also to exceed the limitations of the tricolour. The idea is simple (as everything told by genius) and it is the following: one blue band above (symbolizing the sky), another blue band below (this time for the sea), and in the middle on the same width, but this time in vertical direction, to place one tricolour in yellow tinge beginning from left to right with light yellow (to the stick of the banner), then orange, and at the end bright red, which this time will symbolize not the shed blood but the rising (democratic) Sun, which gradually will warm us all. This will be, on one hand, tricolour, on the other tetra-colour, and even penta-colour, and nobody will have such banner, where our tricolour is widely used in the world (with some permutations of the bands). And the sky-sea introduces another, more profound, nuance, because ... well, because the world is a sea, i.e. the world is behind the seas and oceans, what is not only geographically right (2/3 of Earth's surface is occupied by seas), and not only etymologically correct (in Russian the world "mir" means both, peace, as in other Slavonic languages, and also our world, and the connecting idea between these notions is hidden in our more-sea or in the murmuring Latin mare-sea, by reason of ... well, the cause here is the name Vladimir, which in Russian means "ruler of the world" but in Polish is Valdemar, where the mare is evident), and in addition to this the idea is entirely in the spirit of ..., ah, of NATO (what is abbreviation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but nato as verb in the Latin means swim, swim across, so that everything is clear)! Anyway, when we have begun, to make propositions then let us return to our coat of arms, because the lions, as we have discussed this, are not our national element, and let us try to invent something unique and suitable for one, as we eagerly wish this, "Balkan Switzerland", i.e. for a peaceful Balkan country with nice nature. If this has to be some "beast" then why mandatory predator and not something humble and peaceful? The first proposition: ... St. Georgian lamb, which will be white on a green background (to remind us that this is early spring or the day of St. George) and with red boots and horns — bleats itself quietly but when grows can also poke with the horns, and in the same time it is a tasty "chow", because the lamb is positively related with the ... hmm, with the fire! But the fire (ogan in Slavonic, though for you in the Latin form of ignition) comes already from the Sanskrit, where Agni (=Wahni) was the god of fire (and lamb in Bulgarian is agne, or iagne in old Slavonic, or iagnionok in Russian), so that now the fire also enters in our symbolic, and then the red colour will be that of the fire, and as to the question that this colour is good (no matter what the UDF thinks about) there is no necessity to convince ourselves, for the reason that in Bulgarian nice, beautiful is krasiv, or krasiviy in Russian (in addition to the typically Bulgarian hubav, what might not be exactly Tartar word, but it existed also by the Germans — hübsch), and which, obviously (for the Russians), comes from the red colour which for them is krasniy; and then: does it exist in the world such woman who does not want to paint her lips red in order to become "krasnaja krasavitza" (nice beauty)? And the relation of the ogan-fire with the agne-lamb is very rich on ideas, because this, being Sanskrit root, exists also on the West, in view of the mentioned English ignition which is Latin ignis (a fire) or igneus (fiery); and the agne /iagnionok is agnus (a. dei) in Latin, and the point here is about the very process of giving birth of new lambs, of something new, i.e. this is the idea of the ... bird phoenix, which rebirths itself in the fire! In other words, this is the incessant renovation via burning of the old. This idea is good and suitable also for the known "anti"-political power (i.e. the same UDF, which has issued for some years the newspaper just "Anti"). Another proposition: a nice industrious ... ant, standing on its hind legs like a real centaur! Or, for those who like multiplicity of equal images — three ants with jointed forelegs and placed like in Mercedes emblem; or (for the communist-socialists): five ants connected in this way and forming only the rays of their star; or also (a new figure): six ants, placed along the sides of regular hexagon, plus one more in the center, raised "centaur-like" and looking to the right (surely in no case to the left!) with wings and crown (when this is necessary). But who has said that on such emblems can be shown only animals? Some countries picture there trees, other leaves of them, third flowers, et cetera, or even just a circle in the middle — the important thing is to have something unique, right? Well, a red rose is a very nice and unique for us symbol, and in regard to the colours it ties good with our present tricolour, but by known political reasons it and the socialism, as well as the whole Bulgaria, have become a causa perduta (a lost cause). So that let us think out something else, and here is a draft for an unique coat of arms: two crossed like the letter "X" ... skewers, with threaded on them pieces of meat, mingled with pieces of pepper and onion — all this can be in one colour, or meat may be red (preferably also beef, because kravi, exactly like our kravi-caws, in Sanskrit meant meat), onion can be white, and the peppers (supposedly hot, though this can not be seen) can be green. But it might be simpler than this — just one fork with impaled on it kebapche (resp. sausage) lightly curved at both ends! Can be added also drops of fat, but can be combined the skewers with the fork with this kebapche in the middle. Then our message to the world will be ultimately clear — come to us to have a good eating (not forgetting to leave your money by us, for we are in a big need of good currency). But we have, or at least have had, also other symbols. It goes now about the five-rayed star. By God, it is not clear what has made us to take it down from the turret of our former Party House, which could have quietly be again center of all parties (or at least of those included in the Parliament), and which is now part of our Peoples Assembly (our Parliament), at least as ownership. Well, the very building is part of the architectural center of Sofia and nobody has thought to destroy it (like the Mausoleum, e.g., but we have not denied ourselves the "pleasure" to burn it a little — maybe with the idea of the Reichstag in the heads, coming, by the way, at least from Ancient Greece, because: how better for somebody to become "famous" unless to put to fire some temple or symbol, or to defile it in some other way — say, using paint or indecent inscriptions?), but the five-rayed star we have simply disconnected and heaved with helicopter. Yeah, but why? If the red colour was what has worried us the simplest thing was to repaint it blue. Or yellow, for such is, usually, the colour of the stars, or also make it neon-brilliant. It might have been made also with different colours for the rays — for example, from bottom left and clockwise might have alternated: red, yellow, green (on the top), blue, violet; this, for one thing, would have been analogue of the rainbow, and, for another thing, the red colours would have been below, and it would have been also more motley. If we were bothered that this was symbol of another state, then there was not more such state, for the Russians have taken their own star earlier, and on their flag was the sickle and hammer, not the five-rayed star. Well, probably we were not glad because of its five rays, but then why have we not first looked around to see how the things are in the world, in order to convince ourselves of what kind are the stars there? The Americans have not one but whole fifty stars on their banner, yet they are not at all troubled by this and even are very proud with their flag. There are also enough stars on the flag of United Europe, and they will become even more. And who does not believe that the stars have five rays then let him ask in the American Embassy, or let him (or her, surely) take one ten of "lions" (because our money unit is also called "lion", lev) and let him go to change them to five euro, and then sit and quietly look at them with magnifying glass. There is also the Pentagon, and it is, in fact, five-rayed star with cut out rays, i.e. exactly pentagonal figure or pentagram, and this symbol, used for keeping of evil powers away, comes from deep antiquity, goes via Ancient Greece and Rome, and is known on the whole West.. If you, occasionally, have not pondered why this is so, then can be reminded to you how many fingers and toes have people on their extremities, what is true for a big amount of animals (if some of them have not become rudimentary), and also about the petals of most of the flowers. It even our system of counting would have been with base five (and not ten), if this would have not increased too much the number of digits, and if people have not had two hands-stars. And this is symbol of power because the human hand (eventually fist, ah?) is symbol of human strength and might, but these are truisms. And also how many rays is thinkable for a star to have? One, two, and three is impossible, four (square or rhomb) is much rough and has another semantic content, then comes five, the six is Hebrew number (meant as star), and so we come to seven, what is much more difficult to picture than with five rays, and about a bigger number there is no sense to speak, these can be only childish scrawls. So that the five-rayed star is such good symbol that there is just nowhere better! A-ah, if we have not liked that there was only one such star with five rays, then we could have placed on the notorious House a heap of stars more along the border of the roof, or at least two more smaller stars on the sides, but we have taken everything away. But then, we have taken it away exactly for that reason — that it was silly to do so!? If only we, having taken it away, have thought a bit how to finish the turret of the building — either with some horse-tail from the times of our Khan Asparuch, or some weathercock to show us whereto the wind blows (because that is, isn't it, what we are doing all the time, turn ourselves according to where from and where to the wind blows), or some helix or other composition symbolizing democracy — two like the letter "V" splayed fingers, for example, would have been quite suitable to the corner position of the building (they, hmm, two bent fingers, with another one stuck between them, would have also been very suitable — this time stressing on our thorny path to prosperity, but exactly in the center of Sofia such sign, thinks the author, wouldn't have been much fitting). But even a dozen of years after this euphoric inebriation of freedom (of ... pornography, criminality, corruption, possibility to turn off your stream heating in winter, or even to buy bread and cheese, or not to buy, for there is not with what to buy, or to pay for you teeth and medical treatment, or spend hard earned money for the education of your children, and so on), so even after the coming of witty called by the people freedomvolity (I am trying to make new word as variation of freedom to unneeded frivolity, because in Bulgarian this is called slobodiya, where the freedom is svoboda), or anti-people's democracy (because if it has not existed earlier, and does also now not happen somewhere in the world, the communists would not have coined the term "people's democracy", what isn't at all Russian invention, as long as even in English is written "People's Republic", and China, for example, does not bow either to the Russians, nor to the Americans), so, well, even now on the top of this turret flutters only one banner and can be seen extremely clear that in the architectural composition something is missing. Well, maybe this is exactly what we want to tell the world — that we also have something missing (in our heads) and just like crippled things? Or let us take also our Mausoleum. Well, we have taken away the "mummy" — the desecration of deceased in every possible way is even nowadays favorite people's "divertissement", especially in the Near East, so that, in what are we as population better than the people on those places? — but more than five years the Mausoleum stayed scratched and covered with graffiti and used for nothing. And it could have been made there some discotheque, for example (say, "By Bai Gosho"), or then one good (and expensive) ... WC, which could have very well paid back the money spent for it, and each UDF supporter would have "died" with pleasure to take out there his "special device" and heave it; and even UDF supporteresses would have been delighted to take down their slips and other undergarment, am I right? In general, if the best way to avoid temptation is to yield to it (for what reason the media throw up a heap of obviously indecent, but lucrative, things) then this would have been good decision, at least from an aesthetic standpoint (and this, that there are many people who find pleasure to sneer at the fallen — well, that's their own problem, if they realize it, of course). But nothing of the kind have been done, and only when our "King" has emerged, only then we have cleaned up a bit before his windows (but he, the "poor guy", does not sleep there because ... well, the parquet creaked much to him and in this way distracted him of thoughts about national prosperity). Similarly look out the things also in regard of the communists and their greetings, for it is true that the communists have annoyed us, mainly, with their extreme views at various questions, but is true also that we have done everything else, though not have rejected the extremities as such! We, it may be said so, would have transferred the movement on the streets from the right side to the left one, if around almost the entire world would have not been accepted this, what was accepted also by the socialism called communism. We have abolished the death penalty, too, and the taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and other excise goods, and the unpaid (in the moment of need) medical care, and whatnot, and now, little by little, return to the good old and proven) no matter that communist) view on many questions. But what is to be done, the people have always oscillated (and will oscillate) from the one extremity to the other, for the simple reason that the "golden" middle point is a notion which is very hard to be reached, and how one is to search for the middle when the only way to make career, or simply manifest oneself and show one's identity, is to find some (preferably new, or at least well forgotten) extremity? But well, will say someone, where have been our political and other leaders, that they have not told us where is this middle point, and have left us instead to stray away like blind and knock with a stick, till we knock on some wall, sidewalk, or a tree (or do not hit hard our "mugs")? Ah, well, it is true that our politicians also oscillated, but it can't be said that we have not have some left-wing fractions (beginning with ASO, Alternative Socialist Alliance), or social-democrats, but in condition of democracy, i.e. when in general the citizens must choose their "herdsmen" (or "pastors"), we have simply not chosen whoever of the moderate in the Parliament (or the "Talking shop", if we translate this Italian word in Tartar, sorry, in Bulgarian — and here in English). So that, not that our politicians are very good, but — how one has asked so was answered to him, or else: according with the demos goes the -cracy! The communists, definitely, have gone to extremities, and for that reason people on the West don't like them, but ... well, a la guerre, comme a la guerre, and they have come to power exactly in conditions of war, so that a bit of rudeness, mildly said, was a kind of necessity. While our democracy has come in absolutely peaceful and quiet conditions and by us, thanks God, were no civil disturbances, but there were such in "Serboslavia", Russia, and in other places. Well, many ethnical Turks have first gone to Turkey and then returned in Bulgaria, but this were mainly because they (as also we) know their people and know how in Turkey usually proceed with different minorities, including Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, and other Christians, and have decided that we will behave like them (especially on the background of our five centuries Ottoman rule). Yeah, but we have not done like them and then they have returned, in broad lines, to us (at the expense of what later occurred selective emigration on intellectual and elitist principle, but this, as is said, is "from another opera"). Anyway, the author does not sing dithyrambs to the communists, but for them has existed extenuating the guilt idea of social justice, what idea now we don't have (but in the broad world, say in: Germany, France, England, and also in the wealthy United States, it exists, though they do not call it socialism). At the same time by our democracy, hmm, but it is a reality since 1991 (well, we have needed some time to abandon the habit to ... poke out the eyes of candidates on the posters, or to paint something to their mouths — sorry, sorry —, but we were fast bored by this and have unlearned it), and if so, then by it can't be spoken about ideas /ideals, because in the capitalism (or the postindustrial society, if that's how you like it better) there is not at all any idea of justice, it is rude and brutal like ... well, like the very life! Our democracy skids NOT because it is bad democracy — there, surely, can always be wished something better and if this is not so to say that this is not democracy, but the truth is that this IS democracy, and if we don't like it then we behave so naive like when one little child, being spanked on the ... (well, you know where), begins to weep and cry: "Ah, you are not my mother!", but she is, still, his or her mother, no matter that she is bad in this case. So that our democracy is bad not because it isn't such, but exactly because it is such, as also for some other, mainly economic, reasons, but here we again switched to another opera. The bitter truth is that, however bad the communist not were (i.e. used only to swing the "whip"), they, still, if we have left them to continue to pull the carriage (well, after their dethronement and pulling down from the top in 1991-2, for the reason that, if you really like somebody and are worried about him or her or it — be it a girl, or party, or football team, etc. —, then you have to turn your back to him etc. for some time, and if he etc. is a positive phenomenon then all this will be only for his etc. good, but if he etc. isn't such — well, then it serves him etc. right), so that if we have left them to continue to reform themselves internally and again take the ruling, then they, surely, wouldn't have put "the cart before the horse" (as UDF has done, and later on we were forced to call the King, who isn't exactly our King, to pull us out of the mud, but he, too, meets with many difficulties, as you see). But the communism wasn't isolated phenomenon only for our country, it has concerned (and still concerns) many countries, and some of them have coped easily with it (i.e. not more difficult than with the next economic crisis of the next period in development of capitalist state), where we still can not cope with it, and will master the situation only (well, not exactly as our folks say, when "our pattens give blossoms", but only) after one-two generations (of 25 years or so) after the changing of our "Bai Tosho". This is so, because one generation — it can now be seen that it will happen so — is necessary for to reach the average living standard of 1988 (for to be sure that this year has not fallen under the influence of the chaos of transition to democracy but only under the crisis of socialism — because it also has shown that can undergo crises), and one more generation we will need to reach the level, to which we would have come after two generations, if we have continued to go on the path of social-communism (or communal-socialism — who knows what is better?), but this would not have been the same socialism /communism, which was in the 90ies, in the same way as it was not the same like, say, in the 70ies, or the 50ies years, because, however centralized clumsy it was, it, still, evolved (and to the better). Only that the curious thing now is that from all former socialist countries we have won more than the others from the communism, and from the Socialist Bloc (and we liked to use the strange word "camp" for this union of countries), for the simple reason that ... well, just because we were (and still are such, and who knows when we will cease to be) poor and left-behind Balkan (well, not Asian, like Russia, but it is not poor) country, and, in the same way as in a team of horses wins more the weaker horse (for the carriage pull the stronger horses), in the same way we also have felt better than all! Now, there were other poor countries, but they were not Slavs — Romania, for example, who are Romans, although this is the same as Gypsy, but when we turn to be Tartars ("Tatari" in Bulgarian, and the same "tatari" in Romanian means ... ha, ha, this means to curse, i.e. to behave like Tartar, and similar meaning has also the Russian word "AraP", or also erepenitsya what is to persist strongly, but maybe like an Arab), so there is no need to take offense on national themes. There were other Slavs (Czech Republic, Poland), but they were not so weak as us (for they are not on the Balkans). So that we have gained more than all the others from the "Camp" and from the "brothers" and exactly for this reason we were the first who categorically rejected the communism. If one asks us, why, than we will meet with big difficulties to answer this. And there is something more, purely terminological or etymological — the standard communist greeting. If you have not given a thought to this moment then it is interesting to make one worldwide parallel. The Russian "tovarishch" means, in fact ... ah, that's the point! Because it must mean a stevedore, heaver, for the reason that it is derivative from the word "tovar" which means load, burden. And surely to say to somebody: "Hello, porter (or heaver, factotum), what are you doing? They load you and you heave, ah? And how is the lady porter? And the tiny porters? They load them, too, ah? Well, nothing to do, that's how they were born." — well, this is not only funny, but also a bit perverse, don't you find so? But do not think that the Russians are inimitably perverse people because (let us remind you that) the communism has not originated in Russia but in the "navel" of Europe, and the literal translation of Western camerad (in Spanish, resp. camerade in French, and Kamerad in German) is prisoner, convict, or person with whom you are together, but not in an usual room, in some small camera like the prison one, i.e. these are all "labour slaves". At the same time ... well, that's the point, that Bulgarian "drugar", or Serbian "druzhe", are just synonyms of the friend (not in this English variant) or the another one — this is German ander (another), which is also old Greek "anthropos" (this animal who "tropaet"-trots on the "dromos"-path), and to have friends and buddies (where this word in its turn must come from the body) is the best thing in the world (if they only are real friends). The root of the drugar comes from wide away in the time, because in the Sanskrit, according to the Buddhist mythology, has existed some Durga, who (she) was the wife of god Shiva (and she was known with this, that she has had many faces, which she alternatively changed), and if a wife is not the best friend (i.e. she must be such), be of a man, be of a god, then who else will be? This is also the idea that stays behind Russian "dorogoy", what is the same as your English "dear". Something similar to this relation of our communist greeting with some dear and nice thing can be found only by the Germans, where, together with their "comcamerist", existed also the word Genosse with this meaning, where the root of the latter is hidden in the ... gene, i.e. this is a man with good genes (dieser Genosse nesiot-carries good genes!), one with whom you can feel only delighted (geniessen, genoss, genossen), to talk etc. (this idea is similar with the Latin casta — a good present from the gods, what has to be clear in the English because of the meaning of your "casting" of roles). So that it again turns out that we, the Bulgarians, have proven to be the most, sorry, stupid (or, maybe, to say "half-witted" will be less insulting?)! And so on, where can be continued with analysis of our failures on the democratic arena (where we have tried hard to discredit this form of social government, which as an idea, but also from a psychological standpoint, is well-thought and works in many countries, though not by us), but here we have spoken about what we want to suggest to the world about us. Well, maybe the known in totalitarian times jocular slogan: "silly, but ours"! To succeed so admirably to discredit good ideas, so to entangle all the fibers, that even the very God, as is said, not to be in position to help us, to catch us on such, entirely naked, hook (that, for example, when the democracy comes to us we will at once begin to live like in the United States, yeah, but in the US the standard of life is high not because of the democracy but in spite of it, for they have been also slave-owning country, and this at least several centuries after the slavery was abolished all around the left world; well, now we, really, live like in the United States, but like in those States of before a whole century, or at least half of it, and this in, say, Chicago), and on and on — well, for this, certainly, big efforts are necessary (although not in the right direction). Whether for this our Tartar vein is to be blamed, or this is common Balkan syndrome, we will not go in details here, but the facts are well to be seen and the world knows us already. As there goes one Christian saying that: when God wants to punish somebody He first takes away his reason — so has happened also with us. Well, surely, this "birdy" which has "sucked our brains" was obviously with bright blue feathering (i.e. UFD), but then why have we yielded to it and have not said: "Disappear, foul thing!" remains again an open question. And in general, we are good people, but if somebody leaves us in small portions in the civilized world, in order to look around there a bit, and having seen what's what (or, as we say, "where the crabs are wintering"), i.e. what is the official propaganda of those in power, as also what the common people think, then we will cope easy with the things; but just staying in Bulgaria, no matter how many specialist from the West will come to teach us, we will never behave properly, for the simple reason that we are ... well, like concentrated sulfuric acid: it can be diluted, but slowly dripping same acid into the water, not vice versa! And it is clear that the young ones have oriented themselves there and are "diluting" themselves with the West as much as they want. But well, we will put up with the situation, because in this way we at least better the Western people with fresh genetic material (for, if it was not so, nobody would have occupied himself with us), so that we will again make some contribution to the world civilization (and population). Written by Chris Myrski in anno domini (and in the middle of it) 2003th — — —
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/ |