CONTENTS
Zeroth year
First year
Second year
Third year
Fourth year
Fifth year
ZEROTH YEAR
Contents of This Year
0.00. Why This Book?
0.01. Why This Title? About The Difficulties
0.02. About Bulgarian Deplorable Conditions And Barbarity
0.03. About World Population
0.04. More About Bulgarian Barbarity
0.05. About Emancipation
0.06. About Going to Pension
0.07. About Future Social Allowances
0.08. About Exploitation
0.09. About Communism and Fascism
0.10. About
Gloria Mundi
0.00. Why This Book?
This is quite natural question, and it is necessary in this case, because the title sounds a bit intriguing and may mislead some of my rare readers that they have to read it, what is
not true! No, this is not an action or thriller, or love story, or gay literature, or fantasy, or something what the majority or readers may want to read, but rather something for a
minority of readers, for the thoughtful of them, who have to be not more than about 5 percent. That's it, so that you probably skip it, in order not to be disappointed later.
And, having in mind my whole publicistic works, beginning with my "Communism As Religion", and ending with, say, my "Open Letter to God Almighty", here are to be expected: philosophical judgements, profound thoughts about everything, a bit commiseration with this silly being called human, some even etymological investigations (in order to discover the unperfumed thinking of the people), common-sense reasoning, probably some verses here and there (I have not decided this), moderation in whatever, and such rare qualities, that are not to the likeness of the common readers. Not that these people are bad ones, no, but we, the remaining ones, who think like myself, are ... even better, ha-ha!
Now about the title. I have come to it before a pair of years (probably even before about 5), when have been
hit by the thought that the less serious problems we begin to have the more trifling ones we appear to invent, but not to try at last just to live happily (as we have ever dreamed). This is very curious moment for me, yet I will discuss it in the next material, because it requires a little more thinking. And the materials themselves will be not very long, I will not go too deep in the matter, more so because I am already 70, so that if I try to jump too deep I may not be able to go to the surface, ah? Hence these things will be not really scientific articles, neither essays, but something in the middle, something what the Italians like to call
saggio (meaning exactly wise judgements).
This citing of foreign words reminds me to give some explanations about the reading of the words which I will mention. This topic was good elaborated in my "Myrski's English Transliteration" but I can give some short explanations also here. Let me begin with the natural idea to use "" quotes for exact citing of the word, and '' ones for the way how it has to be read. Then the major stress comes on purifying of English and other languages to some pure Latin, what diminishes a bit the letters and enables introducing of some very important sounds from other languages, for what purpose English "j" will be read as 'dzh', and 'j' will be used both, for softening of the previous consonant, and as means for building of diphthongs like the traditional (at least in German) 'jo' like Johan(-nes) and 'aj' like in your "may". There will be used also consecutive vowels for marking of
modified vowels, like in "man" read as 'maen', German "böse" read as 'biose' (what isn't exactly 'bjose'), and in other cases, but the exact answer of the question, is this modification or just consecutive vowels, will be left
unsolved (this can be cleared with using of upper and lower cased letters, but we will leave this as details here); in the same way can be modified consonants, like the traditional ph, dh, th, and others. The usual 'zh, ch, sh' remain the same, and "c" will be marked with 'c' or 'k' or 'ch' according to the language, and 'z' will be like in "zero", but 'c' like in Cesar. Then together with the softening with 'j' will be marked also hardening in the sound with 'h' (like in Slavonic "r" which is rather 'rh', but I will probably not mark this). Then the basic vowels from 'a, e, i, o, u' are extended with the very important (in the old and new languages) sixth vowel like in your "girl", marked with '
y' as 'gyrl' (and on the elongation of the vowel we pay here no attention, or mark with 'h' or ':' or doubling of the vowel -- hence we can write 'gyhl' for the last word). You may think of this vowel like
i-bulgaro, because we use it quite often in the Bulgarian, and then the Russian so called "eri" will be marked as 'yi'. As if this suffices for the moment. Hence the Italian
saggio will be read as 'sadzhdzho'.
The sections here are titled with the sequence numbers of the years in which they were (or will be) written, where the 0th is this from 2020 (which ends on 0), and I expect them not to be more than 5 (yet also not less, because I don't want to invent new books each year). In this way we come to the question, why I have though of writing the book, in the first place? Because this is a work of not much read genre, and when so I could have just forgotten about this, right? Now, there are several reasons for writing of it.
For one thing I think (have thought, and continue to think) that my works, despite the small number of readers, are
necessary for a big number of people, for at least the half of them, but supposedly for the 3/4 (or 4/5) of all humans. This is so due to the fact -- for me this is an obvious fact, but was it seriously proved or tried to be proved I don't know -- that the less one knows the more he does ...
not want to know more! Why? Ah, in order to be comfortable with his conscience, not to regret that he knows so little! (The Russians have even the saying that: the narrower the forehead the broader the self-esteem.) And this is one of the proofs (or here the first one) that the human beings are not really thinking animals, but only such who are
able to think (yet do this rarely, when have tried all
unreasonable ways to solve the problem and have failed); and for those of you who may object that this is, still, something, people try, let me remark that we all are also able to, say, ... piss, yet we do not boast being
pissing animals, right? So that I take for my duty to remind and explain to the people all obvious for me (yet not for the masses) common-sense-reasoning thoughts, to which I have come with the years -- because I have not known them from the beginning, I have reasoned for some time, observed and compared the things.
Then, for another thing, I
can't not to explain the interesting things, just to sit and, e.g., watch TV, or listen to the news, or make bets, or boast with luxurious life, etc., no, I am bound to ponder about something. This is a kind of ... illness, so that show a bit of
commiseration with me, this is how I was made (or God has made me, or, then, to what the silly democracy has led me), I am, like I prefer to say,
introversal person, look more often in me, instead of around me, while the majority of people are extroversal, they are more interested in what happens around them, not to what thoughts they alone have come or may come. But I am, after all, also a poet, maybe not traditional, yet I can't avoid the pondering, or else am a born philosopher, such people appear from time to time. In my real life I have come to become a research assistant, so that this is natural for me, but such people are not many. If not pondering about some processes I must write verses and I have already written about 30
thousand lines and in 3 languages, so that
allow me to philosophize!
And for a third thing I am bored with this incessant translation from one language into another, I want to write only in one language, and this will be the English, and on themes which I like best, not exactly what I feel bound to write, but to what I have come by myself; I do not assert that the English language is the best (I have rather explained that it is almost the
worst of all contemporary languages, and have showed which is the best at the moment), but it is widely used, so that I will stick to this acceptation. Writing in one only language I will just enjoy the writing; in this way there will be less checking for errors, but, as you know,
errare humanum est, so that there can happen some typing errors, yet I hope not logical ones.
Well, as if this is all. I begin too late in the year to write this book, but I have written nearly ... 10 poetical booklets in this year, so that this is when I have at last found some time for this long postponed work.
Nov. 2020, Sofia, Bulgaria, EU
0.01. Why This Title? About The Difficulties
As I mentioned in the introducing article I have chosen this title because it is just funny that the less we have to worry about, the more we worry about silly things, we
invent problems in order to have about what to worry! This is in a way like the market follows the consumer wishes and if the masses want something then it hurries to offer this to them, no matter is it really necessary or moral. Because we are silly, we have never done, or even wanted to do this, what is necessary to do, no, we do this, what we
can do, and if this is something forbidden for us we want it even more eagerly! For this reason we need some pastors or herdsmen and the democracy not only does not offer them to us but lulls us with the idea that this is not true and we are those who have to chose our pastors, yet this is from another "opera", as is said, and I will come to this question some other time.
This is natural, come to think about it, but it is nevertheless funny, we behave like ignorant children who know only to want, and if there is nobody to punish us we become spoiled, according to the proverb. From dialectical point of view also has to be clear that we have to maintain some moderation, not to go to extremities, because the nature is in one incessant movement and dynamical equilibrium, and
has to be in it, and if we can succeed somehow to come to some endpoint, then there
must arise new contradiction, new juxtaposition of notions, there is no go otherwise! Yeah, but who is to study the dialectics nowadays, we, all the nations, reject it as if it is communist theory, when the communists have just taken some useful ancient philosophy coming from the Buddhism and maybe earlier. Let me add also (as I have done this many times) that here is useful to think about the dialectics like about two (or more)
elastic fibers which pull some small ball to the both sides and it vibrates incessantly, and these elastic things in Bulgarian are called 'lastik'-s, so that it is, in fact, dia
lastiks!
But if I spit, figuratively said, against the common people this does not mean that their behaviour is entirely unjustified, no, it is because ... one has to be pretty
elevated in order to feel necessity to use his (or her, I will not repeat this more) spare time, in order to want to free time from his everyday activities for something more proper than eating, drinking, f#cking, boasting, and immoderation in everything! This is very difficult for wider majority of people (and even some extraordinary people -- like myself, ah? -- have wanted in their young age to copulate time after time, at any costs). There is a known theory that the human beings are
wanting animals, and their wishes are ordered, beginning with the lowest level, for the following: food, shelter, continuation of the gender (read, sex, usually), pushing themselves up or making of career, and self-fulfillment or giving out of themselves the utmost possible. The first 3 lower levels have to be always fulfilled, and I think they were fulfilled even during the slavery (according to the capabilities in the moment), the career-making was not so easy during the totalitarianism (I mean outside the lines of the ruling class) but still possible if you have not wanted to rule over the masses, yet the last level of finding of everything hidden in you and taking it out to the world is just
not given to all; most of people, probably about 85-90 percents (in any case not less than 3/4, I suppose) have just not what to take out, there are only piggy or porno wishes, alas!
Exactly due to this mass inclination the majority of people simply invent new wishes in order to have what to want, and if something is available to them they say at once: "I want it" -- why should this or that one have it and I not? The real necessity here has nothing to do with the matter. ( Just to give an example: before about half a century to have a phone in your home was not always possible, to say nothing about to carry such thing everywhere with yourself, and nowadays without mobile-phones are only such eccentrics like myself, somewhere about 5 to 10 percents of all. At the same time the people do
not discuss anything important, they just lead a conversation, while waiting for the bus to come, or while traveling. The important conversations is rightly to carry by email, where something always remains, or then in the evenings, when one is at last free from the everyday work and can plan something for the next day -- and this was how it was done in old times, but not now. This possibility is -- obvious for me -- additional
loading, this may lead to more stresses, this has to be even
forbidden, but it isn't, no, the young children begin to use such phones from an age of, probably, three, and this leads to lack of self-dependence, the children grow to big simpletons, that's all. And similarly about listening to music, not singing or playing alone, and about watching -- TV, sporting events, porno, and you name it -- but not doing it by yourself. )
So that I am sure that the society ... degrades, and nobody cares -- because: what else have the people to do with the current industrial abilities? And surely the right way is not to go to the other pole and really forbid many things (say, the iphones, or impose on them significant excise duties), though some things can always be forbidden or sold taxed for the state on much higher than their real prices (like firearms or alcohol), but to take some measures for imposing of some
difficulties in having them by everyone (like it was in some cases in totalitarian times with many products -- building of some queues, waiting of some time, setting of limits, moral propaganda, and other possibilities). What I mean is that there has to exist some relation of the easiness to have some product and the real necessity to have it, what has existed in some, probably perverse, but, still, way, under the totalitarian rule, where existed Commission on prices like a Ministry. These things have to be carefully considered, but not to leave to the market to take the whole responsibility, for this can lead to, like I like to give as example, killing of almost all ... whales in the oceans. Everything has its moral value, this must not be forgotten.
In the nature many things have their counteractions, the difficulties arise by themselves (say, a man can normally not have more than 5 erections daily, or one can not find easily very caloric food, or spend more money than he has in the moment, but in the contemporary affluent society many of these things can be overcome somehow). The money must
not be considered as one and only solution, because in this case can be done all unmoral things, and they
are done quite often in the current times. When our abilities, or some situation, have changed (grown or fallen) roughly speaking more than
2, at most
3, times, there have to sit for a long time various commissions and ponder about the changes, lead they to something good or bad, yet, as I said, nobody cares. In old times, though, it was not so, there were instances that cared, probably not in the best way, but cared. ( To give as example the known Galileo, as defender of Helio-centered planetary system, who at the end refused to insist on his statements about the Earth rotating around the Sun, and said, probably, in my interpretation, that he could have been mistaken -- because he was a good Catholic, and has seen that the masses are probably not ready to have his knowledge; and the Church was in its way
right, to defend the belief --; more so, suppose I, because the defending or denying of such assertions do
not change the real truth, it just remains as it is. Yeah, so that Mr Bruno has been burned for nothing, and the truth has showed itself later, and the same Church continues to exist and have millions or even billions of followers. )
And there are many, many examples for changes in much more than a pair of times in something and, sorry that I am repeating myself, nobody cares. Take for example the airplane flights, which have grown, in number of passenger-kilometers, or ton-kilometers, in the last one century (i.e. since 1920) about, a priory,
100 times! And what happens. Ah, happens this, that nobody cares is this good or bad; when we can afford it then this is good, let's do it! Id est, we
care, naturally, only in the
wrong way, there are led Gulf Wars, yet we don't want to diminish the travels. Nobody thinks nowadays, that when my parents could have done without this or that, then I can also do without, no, we think: to hell with our parents, they are dead and buried, but we are still alive and why should we wait any longer (with whatever it may be)? And it is not only this, it is also the global warming, which is not, according to me, real warming, but is ...
stirring of the atmosphere, what turns to warming of the winters and cooling of the summers. And other similar activities (to which I may come again sometime), until we have come to the current 2020 year with its pandemic Corona virus, and were
forced to take some measures -- which we could have taken long ago (say, a pair of
decades earlier), but have done nothing because we did not care! And surely there are no problems to lessen the air-travels with, say, 5 percents yearly.
Or take the World war one (the number two is a bit more understandable, this was war between two political
systems, the communism and fascism, and
religious wars are difficult to be avoided), which was entirely
unnecessary and it solved nothing, just that there have fallen about 10 millions or more people in it. Or take the current zero bank interests, which have
never existed (up to my mind) before, and all this just because the common people are not feeling safely in order to spend their money; they have them (like even I, with my funny "income" of about one hundred Euro monthly have
some savings -- in amount of around 2-3
yearly pensions), and this causes stagnation -- you bet it! Or, then, take our Bulgarian outsider position in the whole European Union, we are living nowadays worse than in some third-world countries, and this on the background of worldwide spread affluence -- only because of our transition to the democracy! Yet this is another topic, so that I finish with this my current article
cum essay.
0.02. About Bulgarian Deplorable Conditions And Barbarity
I will clarify here the condition and situation in Bulgaria in 2020, but it is the same for at least 10 years, or rather for nearly 30 years, with the very coming of democracy, where it turned out at once that we are, put in two words, very
poor, and in addition to this also utterly
unorganized as nation, plus our, mark, not bad, yet, still,
barbarity! That is, and for these (and some other secondary) reasons we have occupied the last place in European Union already with our inclusion in it and, in all appearances, for ever! All these reasons can be as well reduced to a single one, to our stepping on the way to
democracy, due to the fact that we have chosen bad democratic
model, such of utmost
right-wing democracy, that has existed before at least half a century, but better before a whole century, like in one America in 1920; because, see, earlier, in our totalitarian times, neither our poverty, nor our barbarity were seen, we were poor but not miserable communist country, and nowadays we are probably better than Albania, but even this is not sure. This means that the democracy in Bulgaria has succeeded to
ruin totally our country,
worse than a military war can do this (because there are nowadays not 30-years long wars, right?), or that we have stepped from people's democracy into brightly expressed
anti-people's democracy! I am sorry if I disappoint some of the readers, but that is how it is.
Yet I can put this in a little poetical manner, starting with our
nature, which is very nice, we have mild climate, not so hot like in Greece and not so cold like in Central Europe, but the nature is feminine (
la natura in Latin) and hence, according to me, it can
not be at the same time also strong or intelligent or rich or capable or just, no, it is either good, or any of the left! And don't say, please, that this is not true, because I am convinced that in most of the cases, probably in 90 percents, this is so; if a woman is strong, or intelligent, or just, etc., then she is not observed as nice looking, she may be valued higher for all these exceptional features, yet she will be never taken for nice one (i.e. sexy looking). And our nature is nice, despite the fact (as I have heard this) that in all Balkan countries the guides tell to the tourists that their country is a peace of paradise (because God has forgotten for their country when giving to all nations this or that land and was forced to give a peace of paradise garden in order to please them).
And the real facts are that we have no important natural resources, and are rich only with good surroundings for living. The matters can somehow be related, because in order for gold or diamonds or petrol or rich ore or similar things to appear there must happen some extraordinary conditions, the nature must be harsh there, yet this is as if a rule. So that we are deprived of richness, but we have also
self-deprived us of solidarity and unity, we live like savages in a wilderness, alas, and this is what is usually called barbarity! We may not like this, but that is how it appears in the eyes of other nations.
OK, now let me ponder a bit about all this, because this is what I have promised to you, to ponder (philosophically etc,) about various problems. That we are poor there is no need to ponder much, because we are placed on the crossroads to the Orient, in such places there happened to be many thieves and bandits, and even if we have succeeded to hide some precious things they were long ago taken away from us during the 5 centennial Turkish (usually called Ottoman) yoke. Then we are disunited not only out of barbarous inclination, but because the Russians have led several wars with the Turks, and the western countries did not liked the increasing of Russian power in the region and have made all possible to
divide Bulgaria in several areas (Northern and Southern), and there were Macedonians, whose language is practically the
same as Bulgarian, these are dialects, we shouldn't be really different countries, but the Macedonia was divided even in
3 parts, lying in Bulgaria, Macedonia (now, and before this was part of Yugoslavia), and Greece. Besides, we are, in any case, small country (now, but let us not return thousand years back), and as consequence of this weak and poor.
Yeah, but, as I said, poor means not compulsory miserable, we were poor and still proud of being old (existing for 13 centuries) nation with many rare customs and habits. And what is important in this connection is that during the totalitarian ruling we were valued by the Russian "big" brother very high, higher even than the really rich and strong countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Eastern Germany, what means that we were the highly valued of all ex-communists. That this was so must suffices the fact that
only in Bulgaria there were
not Russian troops (Yugoslavia has to be excluded as not member of Warsaw Pact), which were placed also in Cuba (and maybe in Mongolia, I can't vouch about this). I think that you have to believe me, because I have studied 5 years in Saint Petersburg in the end of 60-ies and beginning of 70-ies in the last century and know the situation well. We were quite often taken for the so called 16 Republic of USSR, yet we have never been it in reality. ( And I can tell you one peculiar moment from my personal life, that somewhere in 1990 I have written a letter to ... Australia, to their emigration authorities just to get some information -- I have never really thought to go so down and under, as it is said --, and they have addressed their envelope with a small leaflet in it as:
USSR, Bulgaria, Sofia, etc.! )
There are, naturally, reasons for this friendly relations of the Russians to us, first of all because of the Cyrillic alphabet which we both use, but not only this, we have been living, according to them, a bit better than they, because we were smaller country, distanced from them, have not to carry on our backs such big responsibility for the peace in the region -- seriously, it was so, the King's crown weighs much, you must have heard this! And, for example, despite the fact that our shops were much worse supplied than those in Czechoslovakia or DDR with food, and in their big towns like former Leningrad and Moscow they had better supplies than we in Bulgaria had, there were various trifles that they have not had in those times -- like good clothing (say, sheepskin coats, modern blazers, even women's ... nylon socks) --, but we have succeeded to manage their production. So that they bought from us one things and we another ones (like TV sets, even electric irons), and both nations were happy to be friendly. They suffered more than us, but to such tiny and well-inclined to them nation like us they were ready to help. Like I have said (probably in my firs book about the Communism as religion, before some quarter of a century) the communist countries were one common
team of horses harnessed to a cart, and in such conditions the stronger horses do the bigger part of the work, while the weaker ones just run with them for company, hence we were those who have got more advantages out of this common "journey". Yet the democracy came and there was put an end to this political symbiosis, so to say.
Because -- this is strange, but true -- the left-wing parties and people in Bulgaria are all Russophiles, while the
right-wing are unanimously Russo
phobes; and the strangeness comes from the position that one has to take on the ... geographic map if wants that his left hand was pointed at East and his right hand at West, which is the contrary to the normal, it is as if he stands on his head! And -- now the difficulties begin -- we are the most poor of all European countries, it is just
unnatural to
want such right-wing capitalism; and turning our backs to Russia we have lost the
most suited for us
market, both very big and
commensurable with us (Russia is an empire and has enormously big industrial potential, yet it continues to lack the affluence of the Western or American or Japanese markets, they stay nearer to us and v.v.); and we could have pretty well prospered also in a common with the ...
Arab lands and the Turks market (because we, still,
are in Europe, while they just
die to enter in it), but we do not like the Turks (having been for half a millennium under their yoke); and there is
no other possibility because we are wide away from the
critical mass for to build self-standing market (like the Russians), but for the West-European one we are like gnomes, nobody considers us for people; and when there are only emigrating from us to the West, chiefly ethnic Bulgarians, and the only incoming nations are the Arabs and the Chinese, we are moving with stable steps to our
disappearance as country; and so on.
I will not tire you with deeper analysis but can make only one
prediction (which I have made also under another pseudonym), which is that in about the middle of this century in Bulgaria will live not more than 5 mln people, where the ethnic Bulgarians between them will be not more than 2 mln, the left people will be Turks, Gypsies, Arabs, etc., and other Slavs will be also less than the Hebrews, for example, i.e. wide away from many! And we have ever considered us as Slavonic country, yet it will turn out that the joke from the 1990-ies that: the way to Europe goes through the ...
Bosphorus, will become true! This is unavoidable, because I see that there
are born children in us, but we diminish with rush rates, about 1 % per 1 year (or 30 for 30 years), those ethnoses that chiefly bear children are the Turks and Gypsies, and those that come to us are the Arabs (and Chinese and Negroes, but not in such big amount), and somewhere in 1970 was given that the Turks are about 20 % and the
Zigeuners-Gypsies were about 15 (or, then, v.v.), but they are now surely somewhere about the half, yet avoid to declare themselves as such.
In short, for this or that reason (and chiefly due to our disunity and barbarity), we are becoming
state with disappearing functions, unquestionably (the only question here is
why this happens, because the official propaganda does not like to confess that the core reason for all this is our barbarity, we are behaving, more or less, according to the known, I suppose, at least between the Russians, saying, that your own ... sh#t does not smell). And in the villages and small towns have left only some Gypsies and Turks, all others are hurrying to the big cities and the capital, and this is not the right way, not for such nice land as ours.
On the other hand I am
not saying that this is such mournful disaster as somebody may take it, no, because we do not die, do not disappear as people, as Bulgarians, we continue to exist and prosper in the diaspora, as is said, so that the whole world even gains something, our precious genes are not lost, they are mixed with those of other nations, and the only loser is our poor
country, Bulgaria! And that this is true can be proven at least with the teeming fascist parties in our Parliament (at present only 3, but I expect emergence of a pair more in the next elections). In short, it is as one Shakespeare has said in his time: as you like it!
0.03. About World Population
I have spoken about this problem more than 20 years before (in the "Neo-Malthusianism") yet I can't refrain myself from catching again this topic, because I continue to think that it is the
most important problem in the near centuries, until we or the nature finds some way for solving it, and also because it seems that in this Corona year, so to say, the nature has gone on the way to solving it (because I don't believe that the Chinese have invented it on purpose, right?). It is the most important because all other problems, beginning with the wars, terrorism, drug addiction, homosexuality, and other social conflicts, can be reduced to this, can be observed as sequences of the overpopulation. We may not feel this with necessary strength but it is so, because: you just imagine that, for this or that reason, in some year the world population has diminished to the
half of that from the previous year! What will be the most important characteristic in this case, what will we feel as direct consequence, apart from some mourning for the disappeared people? Ah, surely we will feel us twice wealthier than before, both the rich and the poor, on the average! And if so then why should we lead wars, or get at drugs, or try be bad to the others?
We will become used to this after some time, surely -- the Bulgarians, for example, have long ago become used to their botched democracy, in spite of the fact that for those remaining in the country it turned to be positively
worse than the totalitarian ruling (or, then, worse than that condition to which we
would have come now, if the old ruling has continued, because it has been changed, after all, the very communists initiated the change) --, but there would have remained some difference for many years ahead. And let me add, that we lead wars chiefly for
economic reasons, we may not feel this, yet we want wider territories, more natural resources, bigger markets, reasons to be proud with our heroism, such things, so that I am generally right. ( There are also other reasons for leading of wars, which as if nobody -- except me, that is -- bothers to mention, namely the
psychological, that we just
want to meet with risks, we get bored by peaceful life, this is why we like actions and thrillers, but when there will be no reasons for risks we will probably become more moderate with the time. )
So that, I think, nobody will object to the statement, that there have become too many "monkeys on the branch", hence the major question is: how many "monkeys" are there allowed on our "branch" called Earth? And this is exactly what I have calculated in my old paper, in 3 different ways. The one way was looking back in the history, where is said that till our Christ there have lived about 100 million people, probably twice more, or twice less, yet around this number, and later even till about 1800 there lived still less people than one milliard (or billion, for the Americans, when they insist on this). And in those times people have had practically
everything necessary for good living, just
not for all of them but for a tiny minority of rulers. So that this was wide away from the cave era, this was civilization, and a pair of hundred millions are enough for this purpose. Then the second way was looking at an average country, not very small (like Bulgaria, for example) and not very big (like USA). Such countries are, say: Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, some Arab countries, some Eastern countries; even Russia or USA can somehow be included here as parts of their territories. And one such country is a world sufficient to represent the whole globe.
Then I
invented a third way for calculation of this number (I am not bad in inventing
reasonable things, to tell you, because I was research assistant in Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, I had to have some thinking abilities above the average), going out of the goal, to lead interesting and
full life, not how many people we can feed, or clothe, or shelter (this is silly approach). This way was (in short) to find the average number of professional areas where people want to work, to be occupied with interesting passing of their time, and also the average number of people working in them. I, as scientific worker, have taken that nearly everybody
wants to be occupied with such activity (yet not everybody can be of some use in it). I have made also division of the
relations of people with one another, and have come to 4, as I called them,
ranges of acquaintances, and said that in the area of career-making there are acquaintances of third degree, which was 10 to 3-d degree or 1000 persons! Yeah, but I took also the areas of knowledge for another 1000 and multiplying them come to
1 million people, who were the
necessary creative workers: various professors, master sportsmen, artisans, musicians, et cetera. These people, naturally, can not live by themselves, neither every person is in position to become such, so that we have to increase this pool significantly. Normally with creative work are occupied 3 to 5 percent of the population, but this is now, and in the future can as well be expected that their percentage will grow, so that if we take it to be 10 %, this means that we have to multiply by 10 for to get the whole population, what makes
10 million people on the globe. Yeah, but I could have made some mistake somewhere, these are approximate calculations, and if we work in decimal logarithmic scale this means that 10 times more will give the upper boundary, i.e. 100 millions. And that is it, the optimal population on our globe called planet is from 10 to 100 mln persons, or centered as 50 mln, but a pair of times more will not cause big problems. Today, with all these fast like lightning communications, the whole world is one single state (or will be in this very century). Yet to speak about billions is just crazy!
So this is the right approach to the things, first to formulate the desired solution, and then to try to make the real one, changing what has to be changed and added, but not forgetting the ideal goal. Like, for example, what is the main goal of a bisexual animal, including the human being, how has proceeded our dear God? Well, surely the main function of the animal in the multiplication, hence we have to make one ... walking penis and one walking vagina, and the task is completed! Yet in reality is necessary to solve the energetic problem, the chemical transformation of food, the breathing, the movement, and other moments, so that the "vagina" grows about 50 times, while the "penis" grows, say, 150 times, but there is no go otherwise. And I am telling you this because -- who knows? -- you may happen to be employed to do the work of God, and you have to be prepared, right? Hm, and I have calculated that if we can reach constant decreasing of the population each year with only 1 percent, after 4 to 5 ... centuries we will reach the desired 100 or so millions, but probably stronger measures have to be taken because this is quite a long "distance".
OK, but together with the population arises the question about the life span and here my brilliant (for -- how else?) decision is to couple it with the number of generations (until children are born), and I have accepted (at least in one of my SF stories, but I think in one more place) that this number is 2.5, or in wider limits between 2 and 3 generations (i.e. between grandchildren and great-grandchildren), yet not more! And here is it where we have begun to make errors in the current days (after, say, French revolution). Because the length of one generation today is somewhere around 27 years, what means that we have to live about 70 years, but in many countries (yet not in my poor Bulgaria) the life span is already above 80! Did you get it? The old people just don't die, but they can't work with the same effectivity as those about 25, so that they are sent out of their working places and become fattier, drunkener, more annoying and disgusting for the others, yet supporting the higher population. And, look here, there came the nice (as number, surely) 2020 year, and they have begun to die with much more rasher pace!
( I can't be sure here, probably because I was not interested in this affair, I don't follow the news at all, yet I have occasionally heard that on some pick days, in Nov 2020, there were about 60 persons died only of this virus in one day in my poor Bulgaria. Then, as mathematician, I asked myself the question: how many people
have to die daily in my country, and taking for granted that the average life span by us is given about 74 years, in what I don't believe much, by us everything is somehow faked, so that I took it as 72, and also that this has to mean that one whole Bulgaria has to disappear for this amount of time, and we are in the moment as if very precisely 7 mln persons, so that dividing 7,000,000 by 72 and by 365 I got 266 deaths daily. Still, this is not only not very precise, but there must be made some corrections, because in our country live predominantly old people, while the young are very often abroad, so that the real number has to be, probably, lessened a bit, so let us take it for
250 persons daily. Yeah, but this means that this virus has raised the number of deaths with about 25 %, and even if this is not the average value, we may as well take that this very virus takes the responsibility for at least
10 more % of death cases! And I think that we are not between the countries strongly hit by it, so that we must, in a way, ...
thank this virus for the nice work! )
Yeah, we have to be thankful to the virus making us to do some reasonable things, which we otherwise do
not want to do. Why? Because are silly, naturally, and can't organize us, and there is
no God to make us to obey (or He prefers to just sit and look at us and laugh in His hand). I don't mean that we have to walk constantly with gas-masks, but we can surely lessen the air flights, do many work from our homes, even the teaching, what we
do now, and not meet at stadiums because can as well look everything from our homes, and travel less (because to drive a car is additional ...
stress for us, surely), and so on. I have made my propositions and prognoses (I have spoken about global warming, about our future working activity, etc.), and in this article about the Malthusianism I have invented in the end various possible and funny disasters (like increasing of the number of our ... fingers, with the time -- say, in order to be more artful -- but this will begin to make problems with the hitting of the keys, when our fingers come to be more than a dozen), yet I have never believed that the nature (or God -- strike out the superfluous) can invent such nice
selectively working virus, this was for me from the domain of SF, but the reality is more interesting and unexpected than all our fantasies!
Ah, I an continuing this essay longer than usual, but the topic is very important, it is the
most important one for us (as I have said), so that I will continue it for a bit more, yet maybe not so seriously. There is the question:
why exactly we do not want to lessen the population rate? Well, in short, because we can't adapt! We can't adapt to the drastically changed living conditions and level of medical science, which has lead to practically zero death rate for babies, where for millenniums it was somewhere about 1/3 of all born. Then there is nowadays also in-vitro conception and giving of birth, what was not possible even before several decades. Then there are the utterly (for good or bad, or rather,
and) religions, which do not want to adapt at all (as if only Islam adapts a bit, because it is thought-through religion, it is not blind believing in the parables of holy books) and the Catholicism as if (I just don't know this) still rejects the abortion as a rule (and even says that the copulation is allowed mainly with the purpose of child conception, not as pleasure and necessity for the organism). But this can't continue anymore, there must be held some Church Councils, or people have to
cease to believe more (at least in the Christianity, which is utterly naive for the current times). In any case the explanation that the parents love much to have children and need somebody to care for them in their old age doesn't hold water (as is said), because one loves the children when they are little and
helpless (in order to show his or her supremacy -- more or less for the same reason why we like animal pets), not when they begin to show their own views and contradict to the parents (especially in our highly dynamic times), and for the old people there are provided cares for the last century or so, after the pensions introduced by one von Bismarck, if am not wrong (even in such barbarian country like Bulgaria these things exist). And 1 or 2 children by a pair is one thing, this
is necessity or duty, but by 4-5 or more this looks even
perverse today.
Then there is one psychological reason (and I like such reasons because they are usually left outside the scope of observations), which is that there are elegant feminine types in some northern countries, usually, and there are majestic looking women, chiefly in hot countries, on the south, with quite big ... asses -- if you'll pardon my French -- and, respectively, big breasts -- which things go usually together, in order to maintain good equilibrium (i.e. to hinder them to fall, either to the back, or to the front). And for such
assy and
breasty women (say, Indian, Arabic, Hebrew, African, etc.) there are no problems to give birth to a child, no, for them this is like emptying of the
bowels, more or less, so that they even
like it to bear children, and the men there like such types, and the church there acclaims this, and if there a woman has not born at least 3 children there exist a danger to be ... stoned somewhere as bad woman (well, this is what I have heard, or, then, dreamed). While, on the other hand, in Bulgarian exists the saying, that: the big breasts
distract the f#cker (from his work) -- or, then, the
consolator, because this is what the man does to the woman, he consoles her (or at least I have always done
it for this purpose, as my duty to console the unhappy women, who have not our magnificent "scepter", the
highest God's invention).
Now, some of you may think that I am joking, what I am doing, naturally, but in every joke stays a grain of truth, and it is, really, a matter of habits, and if the women will be actively persuaded to change the
habitat (or receptacle) of masculine semen to their mouths, then this will be one secure contraceptive way, which costs nothing but woks without fail! As you see, all is a matter of tradition and the traditions can be built, and, after all, I have never seen a woman spitting out children from the mouth -- have you seen such? So that it is not enough to proclaim to make love but not war, it is also necessary to teach the women to put it in the mouth (from child age, I suppose), right? And this will be now the end of this essay, where I have prepared to add also one little poetical impromptu, for which I have to give my usual (for 5 or more years) remark, that, because in the English the question with diphthongs stays not strictly cleared, they are usually pronounced in 1 syllable, but this can be done also in 2, so for this reason I am using the sigh "º" for adding of a syllable (usually as Bulgarian 'y'). Now the verse follows.
Oh, women of all nations,
Just ... suck with exaltation,
The
croºwn of Creation,
Instead the penetration
Low down, for generations!
0.04. More About Bulgarian Barbarity
My dear readers, it is not that I am so glad to spit against my countrymen, no, I still continue to
like our barbarity because it is a kind of
originality, we don't hinder us to be different (we just
don't care about the others), yet in the recent pair of years I become more and more convinced that the only way to
help my people is to show their ... shitty bottoms, figuratively said! This is so because, as I said, we don't care (but have to, because our image is not good). On the other hand I have touched this topic a bit earlier here, and have written an, hm, unforgettable essay exactly "About Bulgarian Barbarity", with its pros and contras, and with its unsurpassable poetical Appendix, so that I am a bit in doubt what I have to add here, yet I think I will succeed to make the material interesting.
First of all let me stress on the fact that the important thing is the
degree of some quality, and if we imagine the human beings, like also all animals, as
intelligent terminals, i.e. as some "gadgets" able to work autonomously for themselves, or else for the others, for the whole nature, according to what God (no matter whether you believe in Him or not, and use Him only as useful idea for everything existing) has "told" them to do (i.e. put in them as rules of behaviour), you are bound to see, that the middle point in this axes is to think about yourself, yet not to forget about the others. So that there can't be pure egoists or barbarians, like there can't be pure altruists, thinking only about their brethren. And the Bulgarians, even if they wanted to be utterly barbarous, will be somehow hindered (by God or nature) to do this, and to take care for the other people around, simply due to the fact that joined efforts increase the strength of the group, not really as many times as there are individuals in it (because we often hinder one another) but significantly.
Yet the point is that we not only are not such monsters as
ideal barbarians, but our barbarity is a very
nice one, and we hinder only
ourselves, yet behave pretty well to the other nations. How is this possible, that we act against the others around us, and in the same time show us good to the other nations? Ah, it depends on the
vicinity, and our near neighbours, those with whom we live and work, are bad people in our eyes -- because we
know them, have come in contact with them and seen that they are ready even to stick a knife in our back, if we do not defend it --, yet the other nations are away from us, so that we have no reasons (unless for some of them we
have reasons) to be prejudiced to them. As simple as that, and this knowledge is fixed even in the Bible, where is said (as I have heard, not that I am from the, as is said, bible-readers) that:
nobody is prophet in his own land (where is meant our Christ, and that in his native place nobody listened to him, but when he grew up and went to Jerusalem he found a big number of followers -- and even young girls ready to, hm, let me say kiss his feet).
So that we are not exceptions, only that, being not very religious -- what may as well mean that have well set heads on our shoulders, that like to
think, are not easily bamboozled to believe in fables, mark this --, we have not yet grasped that have to care for our brethren even more than for the foreigners, because this is our
duty, this is the way to
defend our
exceptionality as nation, that's it! We, like everybody, must care first for our neighbours (no matter that we know them and have ... smelled their sh#t, so to say), and then for the others. This is a thing which every religion teaches, this is written over the entrance of our National Assembly (what is the Parliament), namely that "In unity is the power", we have our old fable for Khan Kubrat, who has showed to his sons how easy it is to break a wooden branch but if there are many such branches then this becomes hard to do, this is (it turns out so) old Latin fable, because
il fascio (read 'fasho') means (also in contemporary Italian) a bundle, and from this fable comes the fascism, but we just don't care (in spite of our 3 fascist parties in our Parliament, and others intending to enter in it). But this is also common Balkan habit, I think, existing as well in almost every nation, and for this reason in many countries -- say, Germany, Italy, former Yugoslavia, ancient Europe (and the current one), etc. -- are highly honoured the persons, Monarchs usually, who have succeeded to do this (like Charles the Great, called
Carlo Magno, 'manjo', in Italian, or the "druzhe Tito", etc.). This is, in fact, the only reason why empires are necessary.
Yeah, but the disunity is pretty natural, and it is as if wider spread on the
South, not on the North, for the simple reason that when the weather is nice people usually succeed to survive without help from aside, and because we are Southern tribe then the situation is as it is. And this
helps in many cases, one lives
freely in such circumstances, there is no monstrosity at all in this. But then the reaction of other nations to such barbarous nations like our is also motivated, yet
not much good speaking about
them, I'll tell you! And what is it, why they react so? Ah, they
judge by themselves, and because they -- even if do not confess this in the open -- know that, put with my words, their own sh#t smells, they expect that we, being barbarians, will surpass them in atrocities, yet we
underpass them! Also why? Ah, for the simple reason that barbarous countries, being disunited, are not strong, and we are not so silly to expect that if we do some nasty thing to the other nations they will sit with crossed hands and weep but do nothing, that's it! Yet I suppose that we, valuing our own freedom, value also that of the others, and just do
not want to be bad to the others, can show commiseration, while the strong and united nations don't care about the others, caring more for themselves. Did you get it?
And because you might have not got it I will give fast some examples. Say, there was our Turkish yoke lasting 5 centuries and at the end of it we were "pissed" by this and raised one revolt, having killed -- well, I can't vouch for this, but -- probably a dozen Turks. And what happened, could you guess? Ah, happened this, that the moderate and moral and believing and so on Turks have sent some troops who have killed all the people in these areas, including the women, children, and sucklings, yeah! And do you know how? Ah, they have given them very "humane" death, they have thrown them in the air and killed them falling down with one blow of the sword. That's it how the believers react, nice, ah? And this was not the single example with that "moral" nation, they have killed probably a million Armenians -- or they could have been
only a pair of
hundreds of thousands, I may be mistaken. And there were much earlier before this some crusades, I hope that you have heard about this. And some Bartholomew nights, and especially later some Crystal nights, too, ah? And there are, I suppose that you have heard also about this, some great nations that like to throw here and there by an atom bomb, to
teach some folks, yet killing again women and children and babies. And so on, right? While, if we have fought with some nations, this were only our neighbours, what is part of neighbouring
relations, so to say.
And relatively recently, in 1990-ies, happened that several hundred thousand Bulgarian Turks have shown eager wish to emigrate to their ancient land, to Turkey, and why? Ah, because they know perfectly well what they usually do with some nations when want to punish them, and thought that we, the Bulgarians, will return to them with the same "coin", yet they were mistaken for the simple reason that we
are barbarians, and do
not kill those who believe in something else! This, what we wanted, and what was
in principle right, was only for them not to choose
silly names, which no Bulgarian can pronounce or grasp their meaning, but a name is
not human life, or is it? And who does not believe me can cast a look at the so called Movement for Rights and Freedoms, MRF, and see for himself that these are not only not Slavonic names, these are also not Hebrew names, not German or French etc, names, they are even not
Arabic names (like Mustafa, Achmed, Mohammed /Muhammad, etc.), because the Turkish language may have many Arab and Persian words, but it is
special language (like the Greek is such), they sound just funny in whole Europe; we have, surely applied a wrong method, yet we were right, and nobody drove them away (how later, some of them, having at last grasped this, returned to Bulgaria).
But in the same time we are barbarians, as I have repeated this many times, and passes some time or other, we give new examples of our barbarity (I am coming to this), and the nations all around the Europe (at least) have no doubts about this, and exactly this is why I am so bothered about the question. There are at least 4 peculiar moments in 20-th century where many people, whole nations, have shown their strong conviction that the Bulgarians are just monsters, and as consequence of this any evil doings by them are to be expected and there is no need of proofs because everything is obvious. As if the first moment was the Inter-allied War between Bulgaria and
all its neighbours, or the so called Second Balkan War in 1913, then there came the Leipzig trial in the winter of 1933 against one Georgi Dimitrov who was chosen as
suitable victim for putting of their Reichstag (Government building, Parliament) to fire, then in 1981 in Italy was a gun shot against the very Pope and some Bulgarian, Antonov, was chosen as best possible culprit for the case, and later, in 1998, was the case in Libya against a small group of Bulgarian medics, convicted even to death penalty for
deliberately infecting several hundred Libyan children with HIV virus in one hospital. There is no need to fall in explanation of the cases, everything was sucked out of the fingers, yet the high prosecutors thought the conviction for quite possible and the common folks were practically
sure in the deeds, no questions as to
why Bulgarians have to be involved, because they are known barbarians.
The fact that we do
nothing to better our image gives me the idea that similar moments will continue to happen and I can even predict the following one: somewhere in 2039 (it must be bad year, 3 times 13, or the devil dozen) some passers-by will vouch that they have seen in Londoner Hyde Park one Bulgarian sitting on a bench and devouring (with gusto, they will say) a big plate with baked ...
human embryo filled with rice and vegetables; they will give evidences that he was Bulgarian because they have asked him something and he answered, gulping eagerly a piece of the dish, that he can't help them because he is a guest from Bulgaria, and they will add also that coming near to him they have seen that in the mouth of the embryo was stuck a carrot with hanged two olives to it obviously imitating masculine penis! Wait, my dear readers, and you will see that I will turn right in the end.
Hm, and now to some examples of our barbarity, of our not giving a damn about our neighbours. Let us take the wages. The minimal salary for a month (MMS) in Bulgaria for the last year was not only unquestionably smallest, but with whole 55 % behind the next, the Romanians, who are a pair of times behind the Czechs and Poles, who are behind the Germans and Frenchmen, who are still not the best but very well. Put it a bit differently, the MMS in Bulgaria is about
7 times lower than in Germany, and we are in one really common market with
equal prices for everything, and if you can't imagine what means 7 times less then just think about eating
one only day in a ...
week (or then, if in another direction, instead of having, say, 5 erections daily, to have ... 35, ah?)! Then our pensions are much lower than in some
third-world countries (say, in
Uhruburuland), while we are, still, Europe, and I personally, because have 2 and a half tertiary educations etc., receive another
7 times less than the average monthly salary. And if I
can survive with a bit less than one ... bus ticket daily for eating
and drinking many of my countrymen do this on about 2 such tickets and are discontented. But the MMS is some social
umbrella, and -- mark this! -- we maintain such salaries
not because we can't raise them, but because we do
not want to raise them (in order to have high level of exploitation)!
The same is true also for the pensions, and I will cite you how
my pension (i.e. I do not invent things) has risen this very year, after the non-ceasing protests. In about March it was 176 lv (1 lev is exactly 0.5 Euro), in May it was 186, in July become 212, and in August was already 262 lv, what gives an increase of about
50 percent for one (in fact for half an) year! So that we
can, only we don't want to, because we don't care! And it is not only this, of course, there are some
integration money paid to some poverty- (rather misery-) stricken people, who can be pensioners, but can also not be such, that are not included in the pensions or whatever allowance money, but have to! In totalitarian times such extraordinary measures have not existed, yet now they exist and do not suffice and the people protest, and such persons can as well be about one whole million (when the pensioners are 1/4 of the population and this means somewhere near to 2 millions.
And a heap of other examples, which I have given in several places (also under another penname), and which are just shame on the background of common affluence and banks overbrimming with money. On the other hand we a pretty nice and commiserating barbarians, as I have said, and there was once a situation when we have saved several thousand Hebrews from sending them to concentration camps during the Second world war, and this even
under fascist ruling in Bulgaria in those times, could you believe it? And I am spitting freely at our barbarity but nobody says me nothing, I just can't publish in Bulgaria. And we are
not able to organize even one ... genocide (neither against the intelligence, nor against the Turks), everything is done
amateurish. While, take the Chinese before some decades -- there were their Hongweybins or the like (we like to call them '
hujvejbins', because 'huj' in Bulgarian and Russian means ... a penis) and they decided to send university professors to some factories to cleanse the toilets there, and have done it with no remorses; or take then some Germans during the Second world war -- they have come to the conclusion that the Hebrews have to be liquidated and have found their gas cameras and have done a good job out of this; or take also some Northern Americans -- they have decided (in one painted entirely in white house) that the Japanese must be taught to behave and,
voilà, have thrown 2 A-bombs and the task was completed; and other examples.
So that when I tell you that I just
love my barbarians, you have to believe me! And we obviously better the genetic bank of the world, we are clever, nice looking, our language is a bijou, and so on. The only thing that I want is to
lessen a bit the degree of our barbarity, not much, probably ... dozen times! Because, look here, in totalitarian times we were the most valued in the eyes of the Russians, who are the major inhabitants of Northern Asia, which is the core of the biggest Asian continent, which is practically the single primordial continent, hence we were counted for nearly the best people in the whole world. And now we are the poorest of all former communist countries in Europe, which is taken for the ancient and most valuable part of entire world, hence we have come to the last step from all countries in the world. Let us set as our immediate goal to be
not more than 5 times behind the Germans and Frenchmen, and this nearly at once, in a decade time, then to the middle of this century to remain only
4 times behind them, and to the end of the century, and with the help of God, to stay only
3 times behind them! More than this is surely impossible, we are so "original", but this could have been reached somehow. Amen.
0.05. About Emancipation
This topic is beloved for me and I have written a pair of things about it (a material in my "Now, look here! (publicistics)", one social essay, "Search for the woman", an essay in the "Cynical essay", "About the woman and the man", and probably some other pieces), and have also personal experiences (I have been married to a Russian girl -- I have somehow found her in
Bulgaria -- and she has waited for me to remain jobless and has at once discovered that has never really loved me and must divorce me, and -- mark this --, for
my guilt, not without guilt), so that I am not inventing. ( As it turns out I have to be even counted as
victim of Bulgarian-Soviet ...
friendship, yet let me leave this question aside here. ) My main statement in this topic is that the movement for freeing of women from as if the yoke of men was not only not grounded, but happened when there were
least of all reasons for this, what was a dishonest act on their part, but also a
silly thing because they became the chief
losers from the changes, and have caused a havoc in the social life of the society. Yet, on the other hand, when the men, who
are and
must be more intelligent than the women, have shown an utmost silly behaviour during the last century, having led two absolutely unnecessary wars out of misunderstood bravery and pride, and led to about 50 mln dead victims, while the women have not caused real deaths, they caused only
troubles and chiefly to themselves, then why the women have to remain behind them? So that one can take that with this act both sexes are quit.
Yes, surely, yet I, as former scientific worker, can never excuse the stupidity, no matter what has caused it; I think that every human being is bound to behave reasonably. So that let me begin to dig here and there. You all know that there were times when the women were equalized more or less to home animals, they were sold and bought like slaves, and were taken even for unworthy to be ...
punished like the men were punished, with ... crucifixion! Yeah, I have come also to this conclusion (when have posed the right question to myself), because I have never heard of crucified women (have you heard?). And let me also remind you my etymological researches that the word "daughter" is related to some ...
milking in the Sanskrit (exactly 'doja' in Bulgarian), while the son is obviously related with the sun, and these are words used by the very women, they are not invented by the men. Also you know about the ancient cult to the
lingam-phallus, but have you heard about similar cult to the
puta-vagina? And in spite of all this the women in antiquity behaved and listened to their men, and it must have been said also in the bible that the wife has to listen not to her parents but to her husband.
And exactly when the women were entitled with rights to vote in the elections (what has happened, if you ask me, because the men have begun little by little not to want to vote, seeing through the deceits of the rulers), and were allowed to study in the universities (what was impossible before for the simple reason, chiefly, that the latter were to monasteries and: how can monks and nuns live together?), and have begun to work in the factories for the same wages like men and for the same hours, and so on, exactly then they decided that must want something more -- i.e.
everything, women are never moderated in their wishes --, what was mere boldness and ingratitude. Yet, in my hurt masculine pride, I say now that what happened as result of this serves them right! Because let me cite only this moment, that in totalitarian times the women in Bulgaria went to pension in 55 (and the men in 60), while now both sexes do this in 65 years, hence the women have received 5 more years as consequence of their equality! But, by God, could you imagine a 60-something year old women to compete with 20 year old boys and girls, this is just
cruel, yet it is logical consequence of their silly wishes.
And the silliness is expressed first of all in their wish to seek equalness there, where the God alone has put the biggest
differences between the humans and animals. Surely the sexes are not, and will
never be equal, and, as I have explained long ago, the equal conditions -- because it is clear that all notions are not clearly formulated, it goes not about equalness but about equal
conditions, what is not exactly the same -- can lead only to direct proof of the
non-equality, when there is no equality! Yeah, surely, like we liked to joke earlier: all are equal, yet some are more equal, only that here the women are just
less equal! And it depends where and for what, naturally. In the
society women have to be recognised as equal to the men, and they were recognised as such in many cases somewhere from ... Renaissance times, yet, still, not to put them to the same strain like the men, to make some corrections for their sex.
But, on the other hand, in the contemporary highly equipped with various powerful machineries world, they become even
more preferable before the men, exactly due to their sex, because they are nicer, softer or milder, more apt to
uninteresting and boring work, more servile, more liked by all men and by half of the women, and having in mind that nowadays the major part of working activities is in the sphere of
services (at least according to me) they have already begun to
shift the men from their working places! Surely, this is so, there are more jobs, especially not much qualified, that the bosses prefer to give to women, they do better work and obey more. So that it is time to speak about masculine emancipation, or rather about
cares for the men, who are more inclined to various stresses, die earlier, et cetera.
Yet in the family, or in the group of together living individuals engaged in bringing up the posterity -- because the families obviously disappear today, this is no more secret for everybody, and this is chiefly consequence of the emancipation --, the situation is quite different, and mainly for ... arithmetical reasons. Did you get it? Ah, because there are only
two sexes, while in the society there are many persons, there can be used some kind of voting, many meanings can be taken in consideration, while between 2 persons in half of the cases can't be taken decision (when the meanings differ), and in the other half (when they are equal -- supposing a simplified binary choice) it doesn't matter whose voice is counted! Hence, either other, foreign persons are necessary, or one of them has to fulfill the role of
supervisor, because there can be used some dividing of the domains of decision making, but one has to make this very dividing and take the responsibility for this.
And, naturally (but again according to me), there are two
kinds of rulers, the strategists and the tacticians, and I have long ago explained that the strategist, who says
what has to be done, who knows only to
want, is, surely, the woman, while the tactician, who has to do what has to be done, has to be more capable, objective, unprejudiced, and so on, this is only the man! Well, as a rule, of course, for there are always exceptions, which, as is well known, only confirm the rule (with their exceptionality). One should not blame the women for their partiality, and from here for their inaptness to take unprejudiced decisions concerning their family and especially children, for the simple reason that the children are
parts of their body (I have given etymological proofs about this), and this can also be of use sometimes -- the perception in the living matter is not objective, it is
distorted in order to stress or concentrate on important for the organism information, the decisions are practically
prepared in advance, if situation similar to something dangerous happens, I have pondered also about this (probably in my Cynical Essays, about the Creation) -- yet this is the situation, and because of this they are not suitable to become rulers, not in the family at least. As you see, till now everything is motivated, I don't say that the women are bad, I say only that they are different from the men, hence they are not equal.
And when they are not equal but state that are equal this means that they -- unless they fake this and are again just pulling the blanket to themselves, as we in Bulgaria say, what is perfidious on their part (but also generally true) --, hence this means that they are only too silly, with what I have begun this article. Because of this I have long ago coined the word emancipat
ess for she-emanci
pat, but the funny moment comes in Bulgarian, where the right building of feminine from masculine 'emancipat' is 'emancipat
ka' and the pun here is that 'patka' as a word means ... a
goose (rather a duck, but I prefer to say goose because the gender of it is feminine)! So that, bluntly put, only gooses can state that the men and women are equal, when the real and
desired thing is their difference! People, it is so obvious that I am feeling a bit ashamed to explain such elementary things to you, you have not obviously to be nearly all simpletons, because it is clear that we want the different, what we do
not have, not the same as ours! Think just a little: even between homosexuals or lesbian there is
specialization in their functions; they can as well say: "Ah, dear, let
me this time be the buck or the dame (according to the wish)", but they rarely do this, they stick to the role of everybody (I suppose, I can't know this for sure).
One has to be "soaked" with Eastern view to the life as something not good and not bad but
just, if you look at the things from various points, if you
meditate about everything -- not that I have really done this, or studied some Eastern theosophy, but maybe I am simply
intelligent enough in order to
feel the things --, in order to see that the differences, the
variety of the things is the most important feature of Creation, and to try to kill this, or simply to reject it, to oppose to it, has to be even punished, or at least rebuked. Yet, of course, nobody cares, like I have repeated many times. And there is another moment, too, there is the fact (at least for me this is obvious fact) that between equal individuals can arise only
competition, to see who is better, not affection or
amicitia-amity, this is disuniting force, between unanimated objects this causes rejection, splitting, and between animated ones causes fights and wars. Only the differences -- even if it goes about master-slave relations, mark this! -- can glue, solder, or cement the group of persons, and here the society.
And going to the end of this material let me make also some propositions about the families, the dividing of children, and even about their names, what are related questions, as you will see. I will propose
nothing exceptional, nothing to what every one of you can not come alone, applying a bit of common sense, yet the fact is that these things are not yet realized; they will most probably remain so for many generations, but I feel as my duty the necessity to say what I have to say (following the rule that: man proposes women disposes, and here: the clever proposes, the silly one disposes).
So about the families. I think that they must
continue to exist, if you want simply because they exist, in a way, as constant couples, by many animals, by birds, for example. Only that they have to be signed for a
fixed period of time, like various fixed-term contracts, and later continued automatically, with the possibility to be stopped by any of the parts! My proposition is to exist some defaults, like: initial length of 3 years (in broader interval from 1 to 5 years), each continuation to be of 1 year (in broader interval from 6 months to 3 years), the ownership of everything old to be personal, yet what is acquired during the marriage is common property, with some exceptions of minor things or specially fixed owners of bigger ones, and everything has to be simplified up to such extent that to be able to be solved even by computer robots (as is said nowadays). Small things are personal things like attire, books, means for production according to the profession, and big are, say, cars, yachts, village homes, etc, for the buying of which have to exist documents for the owner. The children have
also to be "owned" by each of the parents, I will explain how, where some changes can be made later according to the laws. But every party of the marriage couple has the right to apply a wish for breaking of the contract till, say, 1 month before the end of the current term, in the required office (municipality), and the other person must receive information about the deed. That's it, generally speaking.
Now about the fixing of every child to
one only parent. Well, this must be obvious, this simplifies much almost everything, but is not done because (if you ask me) the lawyers will lose their chunk of money for solving of this practically invented problem! Together with this must be taken account for not exceeding of the allowed number of children to each of the parents, because it is necessity such number to be introduced, nowadays to have more children than the allowed has to be taken as ...
crime against the society and somehow punished (including free euthanasia for the convicted person!). And what is allowed is just
one child per a parent, but not more than two if so decided, or when can't be known in advance whether the child will belong to this or that parent. What I mean is the following: if both of the marriage pair have no children at all (no matter from this or former marriages) the child is given to the parent with the same sex, what is quite natural after, say, 3 years of the child, yet there can be different (i.e. opposite) rules but this must be set in advance; if one of the parents has already a child but the other not then the newborn child is given to the other parent, no matter of what sex. If we are more liberal and allow a second child to everybody, then with the new one is proceeded in the just explained manner, but if even this number of children is exceeded then the child has to be given for adoption by other people, thereafter have to be imposed severe fines, and only by third child for a person has to be come to euthanasia after some time, say 5 years. Yet there can happen situation when in some family are born 2 children of one and the same sex, they are given to each of the parents, but later is born child from the other sex, so that in this case some child can be
reassigned if the parents agree about this. More or less this is the core of my idea.
And now about the names. This also is natural, and when in many countries exist 3 names (name, surname, family) then it has to decided that the name is given by that parent who will own the child, but this continues till the age of 12 for the child (children grow fast nowadays, it is no need to wait more), when he or she not only can change it, but
must decide about this. The second name is the family name of the
other parent, not of that owning the child, yet I suppose that this name can be allowed simply to be
chosen by the other parent, not obligatory to be taken his or her family name. It remains that the family name is the family of the parent who owns the child, with similar addition to be chosen by him or her. I think that have explained this procedure in one SF story of mine.
So that is, dear readers, and pay attention, please, that if there is more liberty allowed, here the right of every party in the marriage to stop the contract with advance notice, there will be
less wishes to get divorce, naturally, because if something is hard to get one makes it his ambition to do it. And if marriages still exist, this imposes more responsibility on the parents, everything is regulated, it is not worse than by the animals. Let me remind you my ... brilliant, of course, sentence, that the marriage institution is invented
by men (naturally, in those times the women have no rights at all) but
in the interest of the women (because they are those, who want to have children, to boast, so to say, with them)! This is how it is, while the men can be taken for ... bees, who just jump from one flower to the other.
And one last remark about the hidden wish of every woman to
rule over the man -- count this for the next stupidity in global scope! Men are more vulnerable, more exposed to nervous deceases, they die earlier (and with about 10 %, not just a pair), and the women are not tacticians, they can
want but not do the governing, they are partial, and one more reason -- nowadays more important is
not the survival of the humans but their
bettering, and when there the survival was endangered (how it was in very old times, during the matriarchy), then the women could have plaid more important role but today, when the point is to better the
selection, surely men have to be supervisors and the tactics is more important than the strategy. Hence the men have to retain their ruling position for at least some
thousand of years ahead. really.
0.06. About Going to Pension
I have come to the right proposition here also by my personal experience, when have gone to pension recently, and have put it in one social essay ("The right way to get old") just before a pair of years, so that I should not have repeated myself so often. Yet I will do this because: the idea is very important and I have not heard even a hint about this; then in the current peaceful days we have enough money in the banks doing nothing (hence we can be a bit more generous to the people); then this allows the persons to do something more for themselves beginning to
study something even in old age; and it is well tied with the next material about the future social cares ("About future social allowances"); and even if officially not introduced one can
imitate it somehow (if has enough brains -- i.e. building of some inclination of the people is necessary, they have to begin to want this, what I propose); and there are, after all, no reasons for me to wait till I come to the "other world" and be at last appraised.
Now the idea in two words:
partial pensioning! Id est, one has to have rights after some age (say, 40 or 45 years, somewhere in the middle of his or her life), to begin to work little less,
by steps, and in the same time to receive something from his pension, freeing some portion of his time for purpose of his personal
development, what will be only nice (if one is not really lazy). But this must be only
possibility, not forcing people to work less, just allowing them to do this if they alone wants it! If nobody will become enthusiastic about this, then nothing bad will be done, right? Yet I have the presentment that at least 15-20 percents of the people will like the idea.
If we take for granted that the average age of dying, i.e. the life span, is now 80 and above, then the middle of this is 40 years. Looking a bit to the future we can take the first step to be applied at age of
45, when to everybody has to be allowed to work only with 1/8 of the time less, what is, in fact,
1 hour daily. In principle this can be done also from 40 years, how it is done for some professions (in the army or the like), but earlier will not be suitable because one has to heap some labour service, at least 15 years. This lessening is so slight that it can as well remain unnoticed, and I would not have been surprised if the productivity of the person will remain the
same, because he will not become too tired! Yet this is some economy (everything more than 10 % is
something), and this does not necessary mean that one must work each day by 1 hour less, there can be other schemes, say: 4 * 8 + 3 = 35 = 7/8 * 40 hours weekly. To recompense the little lessening of the salary one will receive something from his pension, what can be roughly taken for the half of the salary, but even if this will be only 1/3 of the wages for the work, the losses will not exceed 8 %, and he can as well get something more from the company where he works (with the increasing of his length of service, or just something from the company for showing of good example -- for this will allow new workers to be employed, this must be taken for desired by everybody). And, after all, why must one need more money when he in all cases receives more than before, say, 10 years (because one needs more money exactly when he is young and there are no reasons to be well paid)?
Then after 5 more years, from 50, one will be allowed to work another 1/8 less, or 1/4 in all, what means 30 hours weekly, which can be done, say, 5 * 6, or 2 * 8 + 2 * 7, or 3 * 8 + 6, so that one can have 1 day weekly free. The losses will also be partially compensated and one will free already 1/4 of his time, to begin to do something what he has long ago wanted. Like what? Well, there are different possibilities: one can take some piece of land and begin to grow there some vegetables of his own, or begin to exercise some ... sport -- why not? People, I am telling you my experiences, and I have begun at 55 just to jog, in my home, once in a week, before going to take a shower, and have begun with probably 80 jumps, it was not so easy, but now, in my 70, I do more than 2,000 jumps; also some push-ups, where I have come to nearly 40, but now fell down to about 30 (it isn't easy at 70). Or one can begin to study some foreign language, or rather to restore one language which he has studied at school but later entirely forgotten (and this is what I have done with my German). Or begin something entirely new, till 60 this is still possible, believe me, and I have explained this better in my "Brief an die Zuni-Guni Uni", but in German.
See, people, after 50 one is simply
bound to begin to think about his old years; if he waits to go on pension he will be then fast
defeated by the amount of ...
free time, which he will at once have in his disposition, yet in time when he will
not be able to use, mark this! The most difficult from 2 levels is exactly the
transition from the one to the other, I have got (or heard) this before about 30 years in relation with our transition to democracy (which can still not be finished because was utterly badly prepared); you all have, naturally, right to do your own ... errors, I understand this well, but it isn't bad to give an ear to some intelligent and wise man like myself. Or then, you can begin to write something, memoirs, remembrances, verses, if you want, like myself, this helps much, it fills the time. And why I give all the time myself as example? Ah, an easy question -- because I have fought with the time, with the boredom of doing nothing for more than a
quarter of century, I just
must have big experience.
But let me continue further, what is now easy. From 55 one has to work 3/8 of the usual time and from 60 to go exactly to a half day basis, what has to be officially declared and proclaimed, yet, as usual (with my propositions) nobody bothers to listen to me. Bur 60 is an
age, believe me, nobody can compete with the young blood that comes after us, we have just to take cares about ourselves alone. And from that point further, from the moment of going to half day work, and reaching 60 (or even 55, if we begin with 40),
everybody has to be allowed to go
entirely on pension, if he wants, yet
not be forced, but by his
own wish. I can predict, that if one has the possibility to do this, he will do it quite rare, probably in about 10 to 20 percent of the cases, when he is not feeling well, and in such circumstances he usually is pensioned for health reasons, while if he can work not full day -- and it must be allowed to work even
less than this, only more has to be considered as bad behaviour -- then he will be more useful with his lessened working day than not at all.
Then after 65 one works only 3/8 of the time or 15 hours daily. what can well be done in 2 days, but at most in 3. And he will feel himself as pensioner, the greater part of his income coming from the pension, yet he is still working, and this is what practically everyone wants to do after going to pension, and this is exactly the current age for going to pension, so that you see for yourself that all is well tied together. Then after 70 one will be allowed to work only 1/4 of the time or 10 hours weekly, what he can manage in 2 days in the week (and I am 70 and work at least 5 hours in the day, though at home). It is supposed that till this time the major part of the people will be entirely on pension, yet we can continue a bit more than this. After 75 some people can be allowed to work 5 hours in a week, what means just one day, to go and meet with colleges and stretch his old bones a little. And the final and ultimate pensioning will be at 80, even if one so wishes to work more, probably with little exceptions, but
without payment.
That's it, guys and girls, and do say that this is not very reasonable approach! And at the same time this is practically what has
been done for centuries, when there was not working on some place off (i.e. in offices) and everyone worked till he can stand up from the bed and walk around, what is also the most suitable moment to die, doing something useful for himself and the others, not, say, watching TV, drinking heavily, and cursing the government and all the young "sprouts" for doing everything not how it was done in his early life.
0.07. About Future Social Allowances
Dear readers, I have come to some fuzzy ideas in this area pretty recently, before less than 5 years (maybe for the first time in my funny "Open letter to Microsoft", or thereabout under another penname), yet with the time I become more and more convinced that this must be the way how it will happen. This process is roughly similar to what the dialectics says, that:
quantitative accumulations lead to qualitative changes, because (in my interpretation) somewhere something in the totally interwoven nature has exceeded its critical mass and begins to show its influence over other things. Or, if from another standpoint, on the basis of some obvious tendencies I have done the most probable
extrapolation (and in result of this have as if looked in some water, meant like magical mirror -- there is such Russian saying about looking in the water). But, however it is, I think that my thoughts walk on the right path.
More precisely, somewhere in the last century, or a bit earlier (around the time of Marx), the peasants from the villages have begun to move en masse to the towns, have made a new power called working class, have given strong push to various industries (or v.v., the industrial increase has caused this mass movement of people -- this process is cyclical), but detached from the Earth-mother they have begun to need some help from the state in order to survive in the towns (and support further the industries). About this time were introduced pensions for all workers (by one von Bismark), sick leaves from work, payments during maternity, have arisen working Trade Unions (or Syndicates of workers), all kinds of stipends, too, so that many people have begun to count on such helps and require new ones. Well, something is done, I don't say that it isn't, especially in the totalitarian years there were many social allowances given to the people, yet nowadays, when we have returned to the crude capitalism (especially in the poorest Euro-land, Bulgaria), these helps are wide away from always sufficient, and they are planned by some
add-hock (for the case or the moment) activity, without global sight at the matters (like our Bulgarian Integration money, which are paid to some people, who have not enough money to buy, e.g., their medicine).
And what is more natural in this case to imagine than some global
initial payment of something, some
minimal allowance to everybody, with its subsequent
subtracting from the income, but
if there is some income? Am I not right, people? I think that I am, yet I have heard from nowhere similar ideas; probably all take this for some utopia (next after the defeating of communism), but I can't see what is more utopian in this idea than introducing of, say: paper money, state's interest rate, minimal salary, electricity, television, plastic bottles, cell phones, or maternity payments, allowances to military widows, and so on. And, after all, I am
not communist (and have never been one, I, to tell you the truth, have always wanted to receive invitation to enter into the lines of communists, and to give them an answer that, thank you, but I
don't want this, I don't like meetings with silly common workers, or the like); and there are also no such proposition coming from (nearly) communist countries like Russia, China, and probably others.
What I support is that, if the necessary calculations are done correctly, this will help much to the
state, to each state, not only to the people, in various aspects (I will clear this point), and there will be known in advance how much money must be given and to whom exactly, so that the money can be made ready for the following year! And, after all, I don't say that this has to be introduced at once everywhere, even not in a whole country (although Bulgaria is about only 1 percent of European Union, so that is very suitable for experiments), and this can as well be tried in one small town, with about 100 to 200 thousand citizens, and everything will be seen and analysed. Because I propose simply a
cap above all social payments, an instance which will collect all paid to the moment money, from various funds, in order to restore what is given to the persons, and
initiate new kinds of payments (like, say, this integration money for disintegrated -- by the fault of democracy -- citizens)! And this must also stop all possible social protests, because -- don't tell me that to have a global sight over the social condition in some country (more so over the
misery in some of them) is worse than not to have such sight!
Now, let me go to more details. For the concrete payments I am using again myself as miserably living for more than a quarter of century under Bulgarian democracy (because have, hm, studied too
much, surely), so that such payments as proposed by me can suffice, on the average, if one has more highly valued goals for which to live -- like: looking after sick parents or other relatives, interest in studying of something, some personal disabilities or illnesses, et cetera. Id est, it is a matter of priority of values, it is hard to endure this, but it is possible. And what are these allowances, how big? Ah, from
1/3 of MMS (Minimal Monthly Salary) to 1/2 of it at most, that's it! Less than 1/3 MMS is deep misery, I have tried it, every state has to be ashamed if on its territory live such people (even if these are convicted prisoners), but more than half MMS is just not proper to give for
nothing. Because, as I said in the beginning, this is
allowance, it will never be returned back if the persons have not enough income, averaged for an year, these are money given for nothing, and to
everybody in need!
Yeah, this is
better than communism, because the communists sent you to work (sometimes to quite unpleasant one), while I simply say: if we can allow us to help the people then we
must give this help, because below this income lies the misery! And nowadays, with the banks full with money, we surely can allow us this; and there has also flown one whole
century from the revolution of Lenin, so that our capabilities surely must be bigger, we must be already able to pay even for nothing. So that let us do it! And if such measures are not enough than
at least these measures are absolutely necessary. And as to this, that some persons may begin to
like it and want to continue to do nothing -- well, I have mentioned somewhere before that my income is practically
7 times less than the average (if we take the average to be 2 and 1/3 MMS, what is 7/3 MMS, what is roughly true always, and I put as lowest limit my pension of 1/3 MMS), and as far as one normally wants always more, it can be taken that you suppose that some persons will be glad to have roughly
10 times lesser income than they can have, or at least 5-6 times, right? Ah, but in such case either you are pumpkin head or suppose that the people are en masse pumpkin heads, what is silly; I said, it is a question of priority of values. ( Let me again give as example that 7 times less means that one can live eating once in a week! )
OK, so these money are to be given in the beginning of each month -- say, from 3-rd to 7-th -- and through one central banking institution -- say, Central Allowance Bank, CAB, and
all, I repeat, all salaries and personal payments are to go via this bank, what will allow later the prepaid allowances to be subtracted. ( There are possible some special exceptions if one is sure that he receives always at least 5 times more monthly and does not want to be subject of this monitoring, yet these are details.) This method, obviously, will be very useful for each state in order to enhance the monitoring of money flow in the state, and will be met with open arms by every revenue agency. And this CAB will be in condition to do all kinds of useful analyses of financial situation of the citizens, to discover new groups of people needing help and to form new funds for the purpose. And it will use one more banking card for each person of age in the state.
And now it begins, because, in this way everybody will have personal account, to which can be sent any money, there will be unlimited possibilities to use this. Have in mind, please, that in current days it is known for everybody what is his income, by months and for all years before; these data may not be in one instance, but from now on they will be present in this bank in their fullness. In this way will be momentarily known the average income for each person, and people could be categorized in groups (say, from 1/3 to 1/2 MMS, then to 1 MMS, then to 2, etc.), where this can be done, e.g., taking the previous year twice and the year before the previous, and dividing by 3, and this actualized each month; this can be computed taking also the depending persons (i.e. the children) into account, what is the correct way for measuring of the income (but done nowhere till the moment, as far as I know). And this will allow personal help to people from given category, not to sell, e.g., the bread of some sort (or the soya salami etc.) a bit cheaper to all, but only to those with income below 1 MMS. This is of
enormous importance if we want to built one just state with personal social care for everybody! This is
better than the communism, people, this will be something of the kind how somewhere in the African desert are ... watered the olive trees -- there come water tubes to
each tree! In this way poor countries may require and get money helps because, I am convinced in this, everybody is ready to give something to those in need, but if he is sure that the money will go directly to them, not get lost in some organizations.
Yet the title here says that these are measures for the future, because it may be questionable whether my proposition is applicable in the moment, but that it can be applied soon, after a pair of decades, at most in the next century, there must be no doubts. And this has to be done sometime because we all want to live -- where? Ah, in the paradise garden, where, if one feels hunger, he just enters in a shop and takes something (say, the so called salami with pork-skin emulsion, soya beans, potato puree, something like this), and so on. And, after all, when many animals can be brought up so that to behave (at least the more intelligent ones, like dogs and horses) then why must the humans always become behind, why not to give them the possibility to work for their own pleasure, for those around them, this is entirely possible, there are millions of creative workers who do exactly this, under condition that are fed a bit in advance. And also let me remind you the known English saying about the stick and carrot approach. Wasn't exactly the "carrot" approach which caused the falling of the communism? So call this my proposition for the future ...
Myrskivism -- to feed and shelter etc. all born people for nothing, expecting after this that they will want to work free, even without payment, even to ... pay themselves but to be allowed to do something for the others (I have evolved this idea in one SF story)! For me this doesn't seem strange because I am doing more or less this. The young people, till about 30 will, surely, prefer rather to f#ck than to work, but this time will pass, and they will begin to want to work for the others. Let us give them this possibility!
0.08. About Exploitation
This is very important topic and entirely wrongly understood by nearly all people, with little exceptions of some clever ... cynics like me. Usually is thought that it is a bad thing and has to be avoided and abolished, especially by left-wing persons, and the right-wing don't say that it is a good thing but accept it with open arms, where I, as
intelligent ... laic (as I call myself) have come to the conclusion that it is not only unavoidable, but is also quite
necessary! And I mean here exactly this, what is usually understood by it, taking of everything out of somebody, of his soul, what the very word "exploitation" says to us, taking ex-out the
ploi-
plua or everything! Where the bad thing is not the exploitation as such, but such exploitation or behaviour which is
not wanted or allowed by the exploited person! There are differences, surely.
Because some exploitation exists everywhere in the life, between plants, animals, between humans, this is obvious. Naturally one wants to be he the exploiter, where he can do this, but it he can't, then he agrees very often to be exploited for something (money, usually), or, then, to find some suitable form of
co-exploitation, where one uses somebody for something but is used in turn by some other for something else. ( By the way, exactly this is what the contemporary capitalism does with the people, or under it live good only those, who have found way to be exploited by others, or cynically put: who are ready to ... lick -- and it is supposed the bottoms of -- the others, in order to get enough money to pay to others to be licked themselves in turn -- or then to wipe the bottoms, more decently said. ) But, people, the exploitation is with what has begun our human society, with the emerging of first professions, that of the soldier and that of the prostitute (meaning she, of course). And think about love or sex, isn't it such place where everyone wants to take everything from the other, and if this can happen then
both are
happy, not when they just copulate indifferently? And then the children exploit their parents how they can, but also in the reversed order; and the bosses their workers and v.v., and the home animals, too, exploit in some way their owners, like the latter do this; and other examples. I have just begun to compare and think and seen in the roots of the things.
So that if we begin to call the things with their names then there is nothing bad in the exploitation, if the exploited object (or subject -- here both words are right), agrees with this and is not destroyed or harmed in any form. I have expressed similar thoughts (I think) even in my "Cynical essays" before 20 years, in the exceedingly clever -- there is no need to be too modest, and when the others do not praise me then I have to do this alone -- Appendix to the book, "Constitution of Cynicland". And standing on such sound (albeit cynical) positions I have seen also that the next step in the hierarchy of exploitation is the ...
self-exploitation, and it is hardly imaginable higher exploitation than this, so that this is the last step! What. surely, is so (at least for the moment, if we do not involve some SF ideas), but wide away from all people are the so called
workaholics, so that we, the society, has to help the people to come to this shining height of self-exploitation to which come usually the creative workers, some sportsmen, some aristocrats or members of the high-life, being well ensured and searching what interesting and honoured to do in their life. Because the most of us have to spend their whole live with unwanted form of exploitation in order to earn their living.
This is how we come, in fact, to the communism, or the socialism, as milder form. Yet with this I do not want to say that there was not exploitation under the totalitarian rule, no, of cause there was, the biggest exploiter there was the state, which used all the people nearly as slaves (with good intentions, of course). But the communists -- because of their hypocrisy about the non-existing exploitation, I'll tell you -- have not come to my brilliant idea about social allowances to everybody (well, also because of the difficult life before a century, surely, yet they come not to it even today), so that my
Myrskivism is much better than their communisms! And all this for the simple reason that I am looking at myself and at similar to me creative workers, and am raising the exploitation as a basic
right of everybody; yeah, I think that every one has the right to be exploited, but in the way he alone wants! Because this is the only way that will allow good self-exploitation.
Even if this will increase the number of lazy young bums who will try to live singing on this lousy allowance of 1/3 MMS I see nothing bad in this. Because: how they will do this? They can build some collectives, like Hebrew kibbutzes, and go to the province where almost nobody lives now (at least in Bulgaria), and probably these are all possibilities (unless they are not really teenagers and bums and want to study something, or learn new profession, or care for sick relatives, etc.). But what of it? This will be very good,
retour a la nature is pretty actual slogan nowadays (and I have pictured somewhere living
along the roads, in small 2 story buildings and growing vegetables and keeping home animals etc.). But, people, this will be exactly self-exploitation, about which I plead. So that let them do this.
The only moment that causes some fears by me is that, hm, the increased self-exploitation will increase too much the ...
progress in all areas, and it is a thing to which all religions, practically unanimously, object, they know that this will worsen the internal spiritual life, and people already become robots, stupid mechanisms, they have not time to think (and to pray, surely). And I think that till now you have got it that I am not a religious person, so that: why should I bother with the religions? Ah, because I do not believe, but the
others, who are not such ... giants of thought like me,
need the religions! But maybe my worries are not grounded, because it must not be expected that people will begin to increase the scientific knowledge (what is today also not possible to be done by enthusiasts working alone, the knowledge is already productive force), no, they will rather prefer to make their contribution to some arts, and this is something quite different, the arts are practically inexhaustible and don't hinder the spirituality of the persons, so that the influence (of increased self-exploitation) will be only desirable.
And let me in the end again stress at the moment that there is exploitation and
exploitation, as is said, bad one and good one, where the bad one is which is not desirable by the exploited person, but also such that leads to nothing good, that is only tiring the organism, and the major part of our exploitation nowadays is not necessary, it is result of vogue and we only suffer from it! What I mean is, e.g., the turmoil of our days, when we are always hurrying somewhere, the nervous stress, the high speed of everything, the lost time for traveling, especially when we alone drive the car, the unnecessary luxury which gives us not more pleasure than the satisfying of some basic needs, et cetera. But if we try to self-exploit us we will do this (I suppose) not hectically but with feelings, this will be the other, better exploitation. So that, people, I think that I raise important problems, yet you have your rights to continue your flight through the life like, I beg your pardon, fly without head.
0.09. About Communism and Fascism
The communists defend communal things because each individual is by himself weak, but when they unite they become stronger. While the fascists defend stronger personalities, and insist on uniting under the stronger figure. So that as to the uniting both, extreme left- and extreme right- wing, have something in common and
could have been united, but they never do this! And if people are not left-wing or the opposite, if they are moderate and defend middle positions, they still can and like to unite in some mobs, because the humans are herd animals. In this way is seen that there must not exist big differences between people, that all is as if matter of taste, but it isn't so, and there are led even wars defending in most cases
wrong positions -- because if the one is right and the other is wrong this is exactly every second being wrong, but there can be both sides partially wrong, so that people fight in many cases because they just like fighting. I have stressed on several places on this
psychological reason for fighting and waging wars, in addition to the economic reasons, as well as some others.
Now let us have more profound look at the differences, yet never forgetting that, in principle, the right is the right of the right hand, which is stronger than the left one, so that the right-wings are, it turns so,
not right but only stronger! While the left-wings are, from the position of majority, positively right, but they are weak, hence they are
forced to want uniting. In this way I come to the conclusion that right are the left-wings, while the right-wings are wrong, what seems to me unquestionable, but this can be a prejudiced meaning because I personally am left inclined or oriented, and I am such person because I put
it in the left ... trouser-leg! The only thing that causes some doubts here is the direction of this conclusion: whether from the left trouser to the left parties, or from the parties to the trouser-leg, but the relation seems pretty sound. Well, I am joking, but, on the other hand, who knows? This does not seem less probable than the influence of stars over the character of humans (and, probably, animals).
And I am joking because for me is obvious that the left-wings are right -- in principle, mark this, not in the ways for reaching of uniting, but that we all have to be united, or at least to take care about the people around us --, yet there never cease to appear right-wing, i.e. wrong people, pretending to be right, what seems silly to me. Yes, but in the last time I have begun to think that this is not question of intellect, as it is of ... badness, egoism,
not-careness about the others! Yet however it is, the left-wings impose uniting with force, what is not liked by the (silly) people, and because of this not liking them and weakening them, they use even bigger force for uniting (more so feeling, like I feel this, that they
are right, after all)! While the right-wings do not use force for uniting, there people by themselves want to unite, this is a
natural process, like building of, say, ... snowflakes, or of sedimentary stones, or, like there is a saying, flies on honey! So that the silly are not silly, they are the
fittest, ah?
Probably so, and in this way we come to the question of
necessity of bad things, but this is from another "opera", to which I can come some other time. What is important for the moment is that all are bad, in some aspect, one in one aspect, the other in another. And that we have to chose the lesser evil, which is the ... communism, you bet it -- or some mutation of it, surely! People, I have begun my publicistic work with my "Communism as religion", and I continue to propose new ideas, like my Myrskivism with allowances for everybody (but what of it, the point is whether we can
allow us this or not, and I have heard that in Kuweit before the war every citizen received something from the state, about 1,000 US$ in an year, because they were immensely rich). And because of this I think that the best thing in our political life will be to begin fight, i.e. competition, in the left-wing space, for this will cause emerging of new left-wing parties, their bettering, this is elementary, but they are probably still feeling
weak, in order to permit such luxury, yeah.
The left-wing are good (for something) even in their
worst case, like the Stalinism, I have pondered about this, and in one place ("Hundred years later") have expressed the though that without Stalin would have been, probably, no Gagarin! Because he thought himself as bound to defend the system, with every possible means. And also do not forget that the communists have
not set impossible requirements for everybody to become communist or socialist -- the poor citizens were accepted with open arms, and who was wealthy could have given his property to the state (what one wealthy tradesman, Eliseev, has also done in the early revolutionary years, and due to this his name is known even today and his shops in Petersburg and Moscow exist). While no one Jude-Hebrew have been taken in the Nazi party, or could have cease to be Hebrew from some moment further. So that, as you see, there
are differences.
Still, as I just mentioned, the communists are not loved, because they
teach us, say that one has to be good to his neighbours, differ not much from them (and it really existed equalizing of all people under the totalitarianism, what some persons, feeling themselves stronger, did not like). Yeah, that's it, we want to be deluded but not taught how to behave, and for this reason, chiefly, we like the democracy, which is right-wing governing (while the people's democracy, being left-wing, was not liked), and even in Bulgaria, where the democracy is the ... sh#ttiest possible from whole Europe, we still find all possible excuses to delude ourselves that they are the reasons for our mournful condition. See, the communists were bad guys (and girls), and 46 years in Bulgaria were enough, while the fascists are, well, maybe not the nicest neighbours, but much better than the communists, surely -- say the followers of our UDF (Union of Democratic Forces), which now can not gather even half percent of the votes, but were times when they collected 50 and something percent, and this under 90 and something voting activity! So that I am inventing nothing, there are bad good guys, and there are good bad guys!
Yet this does not mean that Bulgarian fascists are real danger for the peace in Europe, no, they are not, they just want their
happenings, to wave flags, cry slogans, show off like brave man, more or less in the way how little girls play with their dolls! These are young boys and girls, in
Komsomol age, and we have now no more this organization, and nature, as you have to know, does not love empty places (the nature is a
femme, and she hurries to fill with something every niche or
slot that appears, ah?). One has to be afraid of extreme right movements in extreme strong or wealthy states (like Germany, Japan -- ah, these Japs, Italy -- ah these mafiosi, Americans from USA -- ah, these world gendarmes, etc.), not in the poorest EU country, which is to all this also well known barbarian land, incapable to unite at all (no matter for what), and being also member of NATO,
nop! Like also one has to be afraid of extreme left in a left-oriented country, like in the times of mentioned Stalin, but not now. Not that the left-wing in a right-wing (i.e. wealthy) country, or the right-wing in a left-wing (i.e. poor) country are paragons, no, but they are the lesser evil.
Anyway, I have dug enough on the left and on the right, so let me dig a little in the middle, around the centered or centrist parties. Well, they are better than the extremities, this is generally so, but they are bad at least from two viewpoints. For one thing they are to be cursed that have not shown enough strength in order to prevent the coming to power of the communists or the fascists, because it is so, really, the fascism in Germany has come to power in peaceful conditions but the parties in the -- as if golden -- middle have not given the people the desired (shows) by them; similarly the communism in tsarist Russia has come quite easy due not only to the brilliant organization of the great Lenin, but also because the moderate parties have had no solution for the problems in the country. This must never be forgotten, that one comes to extremities when the moderate measures can't help. And, for another thing, the parties in the middle are chiefly ...
moderate, they do not enthusiast the masses, people want exactly extreme things and feelings; plus this these parties are also opportunists, they agree with this and with that, stick to no principles, this looks slippery.
In addition to this in my poor Bulgaria the centrists, from their emergence and till current days, after 30 years, continue to be only the Turkish minority party MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms), and we don't like the Turks, and with reasons. So that to us all ways are closed, and we are simply waiting: the young to emigrate to somewhere (be it even to Alaska), and the old to go to the "other" world; so that I can repeat my prognosis, that in the middle of the century in Bulgaria will remain about 5 mln people, where ethnic Bulgarians will be about 1/3 of them.
What means, all in all, that
all parties are
bad, but those in the middle are a bit better. Where the solution of governing problem lies in changing of the very democratic model to something similar to my last proposition "Hurray, is it possible?" in my book with dozen Manifests, i.e. there have to be introduced new
moral or wise or strategical body in the Parliament, and the old institution must be divided in: ruling body, consisting of
specialists, not politicians, and a representative selection of whole nation, chosen by some
arbitrary method, which persons will
not rule but just say their
vox populi as assessment of the decisions taken by the rulers. If in the centuries back of human history such ideas were observed as utopias, nowadays, with the contemporary means for mass-communications, all kinds of votings can be performed, not only such that are used to confirm some silly procedure of choice used -- as I have long ago formulated this -- as artificial
teat or baby's pacifier for the "mouth" of populace. That's it, my readers.
0.10. About Gloria Mundi
I hope that everyone has heard the Latin sentence saying how (fast or silly or unavoidable etc.) passes or fades or goes away the world glory, namely:
Sic transit gloria mundi! All the same I'll use it as topic for this last for the 0-th year essay and will begin with some etymological explanations first of the very phrase.
Mundi (beginning from the end) is the mono thing which the whole world (or moon, for the Germans,
Mond) is, and the
gloria, except being a nice feminine name, is something that we want just to
gulp at once -- 'gyl-gyl' in Bulgarian is sound imitation of drinking of something tasty or exhilarating, 'glotatj' in Russian is to swallow,
Glück in German is happiness, and your "glad" is in the same heap, so that this word also is cleared. Then "transit" is something that goes through, where is Italian "tra /fra" as between, i.e. something got with swishing of a stick or sword (or phallus, if you ask me), and we come to the as if unharmful
sic-this, what, though, sounds peculiar to me, because there is Turkish
sic used as ... curse (when followed by
ana-mother), and your sick as ailing, and German-French
Schikane-treachery, and Hebrew
shiksi as non-Judaic woman, and your sh#t, which is German
Scheiße, and Bulgarian 'shibam' most often as to f#ck, and many other words around the world, so that this is something bad, like when a ... snake passes by you!
With what I want to hint that this is how the glory passes usually, as if this was some snake. But well, this is when it simply passes by, yet there is one really f#cking aspect of the glory which requires, hm, mathematical education in order to mark it. I mean the
maximum or the pick, summit. Because when you reach the high pick, your Olympus, from where you can look proud at the other tiny as ants common humans, and they look at you as at a paragon for themselves, so from that moment on you have simply
nowhere higher to clime! You have to stay put there for ever, but it is not good for whatever thing to stay for a long time on one and the same place, so that in such position you must feel glad if you will ...
die soon and disappear, for else you will only worsen your image!
So that the glory as if is not such good thing, ah! Probably it is better not to try to reach it, ah? But then, what to do in your life and with your life? Well, let us leave nothing unchecked and use the usual binary division, and take firstly the switch to leave something behind us, some
trail, or not to leave, and then if to leave then what kind of trail, good or bad, supposing that we know what is good trail and what isn't? Now, this not leaving a trail is not so bad business, as it may seem, because this is what
all, not only
animals, but even plants do, it is supposed that they live how they can and leave nothing deliberately, consciously. Because, who knows what has to be done and what not, and if you are, say, a ... cockroach what kind of trail is preferable for your kind, for what "glory" you may aspire? And even being a human being it is in many cases better to leave no trail behind, than to leave some trail which may turn, at least later, to be wrong. And this is, more or less, what the religions teach us, that the ways of God are inscrutable, so better not try to understand them, and that, whatever we do, we are always sinful and make errors, and have to cry "miserere", but our God is so good to us that will always exonerate us.
Not that I am religious man, but there is some logic in following the instincts put in us in order to prevent bigger errors in the efforts to do something good, and to this meaning is the proverbial phrase that: the ways to Hell are strewn with good intentions. And what can be our trail if not, quite often, a wave in the ocean, there is seen something for some small portion of time but later it disappears, and to leave some trail behind us is in many cases like to, as we in Bulgarian say, to make a hole in the ocean. And also, let me dig a bit around the word durable, what may be related to some Greek
doyra as wood or plank, but there is the known in Russian (Polish, etc.) word 'durak' as ... simpleton -- and I'll tell you why this is so (according to me), because not to change with the time is not so good quality, it is, like we have one funny saying: when he was born he was a little calf, but now has grown to a big ox (or bull). So that for one big majority of people it is better to leave no trail behind, and I will mention here one more sophisticated judgment, one
scientific point, that, when we take for true the theory of big bang and the expanding Universe, there the most probable conclusion is that sometime, after billion of billions of billions of years, it will begin to shrink, and everything will disappear in the end (in order to expand anew as virgin Universe some time after this). So that this is one possibility, not to aim at whatever glory, and be sure that you will worsen nothing in the equilibrium of the things.
But if you want to leave some trail, be it even some ...
droppings -- because, from some funny viewpoint, we all, the animals, including the humans, are just
factories for sh#t, if you'll pardon my French --, then you have to chose of what kind. Roughly speaking it can be good or bad trail, where good is (I suppose that this is accepted by all) this, what is good
to the others, to your environment, to the nature, right? Why so? Ah, because everything must be assessed from the point of view of the whole, and then, as a rule, with quite a
big number of exceptions, this good for the others turns to something bad for us, we usually suffer in result of this. This is obviously known by everybody, and because of this we abstain of doing good deeds, but there's one brilliant thought, said to be old Hebrew proverb, which states something stronger than this, it is the following: no one
good deed on this world has remained ...
unpunished! So that, people, let us do bad deeds and everything will be OK with us, ah?
What, naturally, must not be so easy,
nothing in this life is easy, we have to ponder about nearly everything, because the bad deeds
ricochet back and may hit us, or, according to another saying, when the bull digs in the earth with his horns, he throws the earth on his back. But even this is not the right observation, no, the worse thing here is that quite often
not the person alone suffers from his bad deeds, suffer those around him, and those stronger related with him suffer more often. All this in the end gives no fame, surely. But we have to try to do good things to the others also because this is what we ...
want to do! Ah, how is this now, did you get it? Well, this is conclusion to which I have come
alone, I have read it nowhere, yet I insist that it is correct, so that we have to do good to the others because in this way we will be happier! And, really, if you observe your home animals or pets, or also the children, you will see that they want to play games, to be liked, to be useful, and so on. See, it is not that the necessity to do good is entirely new, but it is proclaimed as good behaviour, that it is not moral otherwise, while I, as born cynic, pay not much attention to the moral, I think about the
reason! More precisely I come to the moral out of the reason, not because some deity with dubious origin has taught us this.
And we want to do good things to the others because of the same ricocheting of our deeds, coupled with the fact that we, like many other animals, are
herd animals, and living with others want to be liked by them. If we, doing good to the others, succeed to raise higher our fame and in this way receive additional pleasure, then this will be very nice, yet this is an exception and in the most cases behaving good to the others we are only punished by them, but in spite of this we must continue to try to make good things, because otherwise we will most probably suffer much more. Still, it is not so easy, because the others are
many persons, and they have also different tastes. so that most often happens that we are doing good to one people, to our nearest relatives and acquaintances, but it turns to be bad to others, and here more precise calculation of the goods and bads are necessary, what is practically
unsolvable problem -- because we have no quantitative measure for different
qualities, neither are impartial, etc. --, yet I will not indulge in such boring reflections.
And now about doing bad to the others (in order to do good to us, at least to raise our self-esteem, to feel better
on the contrast with the others. Although I don't believe much in evildoers, doing bad for the sake of it, how they are pictured by fiction writers, such persons, alas, exist, probably 3 to 5 percents, not much, but exist. They do this, surely, because don't know
how to be good, or have strongly
changed their behaviour from extremely good to extremely bad to some people -- what is quite common situation, the opposite ends meet (conscientiously or not, I have spoken about this on various places), and we doing this move perform small change, where the big one would have been going to full
indifference (but most of the people can't do this, they are not taught to behave so) --, yet such behaviour is wrong, and such persons have to be pitied, because, as I have said, doing good is more satisfactory to us.
So that, as you see,
gloria mundi always passes soon, and the best reactions are: either not to care at all about it (what is a good behaviour for
animals, but they have pretty good instincts, and in this way just do what Got, or nature, respectively, have made them to do, but for people this is not a good behaviour), or try to be good to the others around (because only in this way the good feelings are returned to us), but try always to defend yourself in doing good (in order not to became easy prey for the others), and also not to hurry too much, in order to reach the top around the end of your life. Let me add also this touch, that all animals live via their feelings and psyche, so that the important thing is to
delude us with what we are doing, and even if we must be bad to somebody, or life has no meaning (because nobody will remember us, or there will begin sometimes shrinking of the universe, etc.), doing good we will just feel us better (in the long run, because the evildoers begin sometimes to feel remorse, they see that were wrong, this is part of the punishment).
And I personally, being not much read, because don't want to delude the readers, do not offer them their beloved genres, will obviously
not succeed to reach the glorious mountain of fame while alive (I've begun my publicistic work at 40, I have lost at least 20 years), and in this way I always make new efforts, invent something more interesting (to me alone), and am always, so to say,
on the move! And, see, I think that this is one useful way to be happy, not to become famous but be just happy, being constantly on the move to some further development of your personality! So that probably some of you will try this trick, ah? I am doing this living miserable life in my poor country and this helps me to live interesting life, but in a rich country this must be the perfect solution.
END OF ZEROTH YEAR