Месечни архиви: декември 2019

Отлагат приемането на Закона за Социалните услуги

Страхотни коментари има. Изключително глупавите и откачени читатели на Дневник, които живеят в ‘хибридна война’, ‘евангелистка заплаха’, громят и трошат комуняги навсякъде, добре си го отнасят от нормалните читатели на Дневник. Не подозирах до този момент, че нормални читатели на Дневник съществуват.

Изключително показателно как на най-големите демократи с европейски ценности, защитници на свободата на словото и правата на човека въобще не им прави впечатление, че смислен дебат и безпристрастно отразяване на толкова важни въпроси не съществуват в Българското медийно пространство. През цялото време показваха на всички какво тоталитарно мислене имат. ‘Свобода и демокрация??? За тъпите бай Ганьовци? Вие луди ли сте?’


Съветския Съюз


Троцки Германски агент ли е? https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/furr.pdf Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/furr.pdf

“Let’s start with the fact that Russians had a good opportunity of getting high education for free and even getting stipend about 1/2 of a modest salary – if academically successful. College and university students studied Marxism no matter what their major was. As a student in electronics engineering I knew quite a bit about communism and similar stuff, even though I didn’t want to.
As a result, many Soviet people knew definitions of communism, socialism, capitalism, etc. For example, communism is about a moneyless, classless, and stateless society with distribution principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” So everyone knew it is about a never existed (except prehistoric “primitive communism”) society, and nobody would call Soviet Union “Communist nation.” It was a good invention of the Western politicians to name it communist, because it helped a lot in ideological war against USSR.
By the way, ‘USSR’ stands for the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” not communist. Though it wasn’t really the case, because strictly speaking, Soviet Union was a state capitalist one: there was wage labor, means of production did not belong to workers, workers were exploited by the class named “Nomenclatura” who managed the resources allocation.
Now I want to tell my opinion about communism. According to K. Marx, communism cannot exist in one country, which makes sense. Imagine a country nearby where everything is for free and there is no state to defend this free stuff from neighbours. We would run there and take everything we can and put it in our garages. I would rent a trailer for this purpose. In no time there would be no communism, just nothing.
So communism, as Marx believed, is a future of the whole planet, when productive forces are developed to the extent that scarcity is not a problem. Imagine for a moment that this abundant society is possible and think about the advantages:
1. You don’t waste time on tax return, banking, looking for promotions, sales, coupons, mail-in-rebates, standing in lines to a register, waiting for a check in restaurant, buying tokens for parking, paying tolls, fines, co-pays, whatever;
2. You don’t have to worry about having something more fancy or expensive than your neighbour – because there is no way of impressing people by having something special. Everyone can have it, so what?
3. You can impress people by your merits, not an ability to pretend you have them. So there is no necessity of lying, making political tricks; instead you can enjoy doing something useful for you and others. It is close to carrying about yourself and your family members. I would say, it’s the same feeling;
4. Instead of constant fighting in competition and being ready to make something that doesn’t correspond to your moral standards but is necessary for survival, you can dedicate your time to self-improvement, learning what is genuinely interesting to you, collaborate with others to make a great achievements in whatever field you like;
5. You don’t have to waste time on commuting to work while realizing how bad it is for the environment – to burn gas, to wear off your car, etc. It’s because possessing a property that is hard to sell and a great headache of buying something closer to work is not a problem anymore. It feels really good;
6. You don’t have to worry about your yacht the whole year round. When you get a fantazy to enjoy it, you take it. When you don’t need it, you don’t get frustrated it grows older;
7. There is no need in having keys, remembering passwords, hiding professional secrets, paying for new music, movies, books, and the like. Everything is yours, all information is free.
So communism is not that bad; what is bad is attempting to implement it without having necessary and sufficient prerequisites for having this order desireable, possible, and stable. Just study “Scientific Communism” (as I did in the university), and you will be not wanting to participate in any bloody revolutionary activities. Unfortunately, young people, having little idea what is communism, are trying to ‘implement’ it, creating disaster.
Now about the life in the Soviet Union.
I lived there for a good part of my life. If I were working there as hard as I do in the US, I would have a great position and a great life.
Without making much efforts, I became a manager of R&D department with a good salary and interesting job. I can imagine what career I could do if I worked there really hard as Americans do.
There was no fear of losing job; one could concentrate on his ideas, make research he liked. After work there was no paperworks like tax return, no need of keeping tons of documents, no need of trying to sell yourself. Just have a rest, and enjoy your time. I remember, all documents for the family of four were sitting in one small drawer; there were passports, electricity/gas bills (that you don’t keep after paying), and basically that’s it. It was simple.
As a kid, I liked electronics and was building portable AM receivers, amplifiers, and the like. There was a good ‘kruzhok’ (circle, group) with a good teacher – electronics engineer who taught kids in this field. All materials, radio-components were offered for free; lessons were free also. I had a great fun without having to ask my parents for financial support.
But again, it wasn’t communism – just a welfare state. All people’s life depended upon the merits of a small elite group, or even one person who had power. It is a Russian custom to believe in a “good king”, and people didn’t actually try to make a change. This stagnation that lead to the fall of the Union was a result of absence of a real powerful leader.
Not sure I’m answering the question as it was intended, but, if there are more specific questions, I’m ready to help.”

“There is an ambiguity in the term “Communism”. The way it had been defined by the theoreticians (as a common ownership, absence of classes, money and state) was never even close anywhere, including Russia. It is very appealing idea not only for Russians, but for many other peoples.

But the word “Communism” in every day use in the western countries, has a different meaning. Soon after Bolsheviks took over Russia, they themselves realized the tallness of their claim, but instead of confessing it in public and stepping down (such moves happened before and after them, albeit very rarely), they decided to keep power in their hands and used the word “Communism” to justify their existence and their demands for the dedicated (almost sacrificial) labor of other members of the society.

Western propaganda picked up on this opportunity and used it to discredit the idea of Communism by applying the word “Communism” to whatever happened in Russia (the Soviet Union, actually), thus aligning with Bolsheviks in adding new meaning to the word “Communism.”

So, what do Russian people think about Communism? They think the same thing as the peoples of other nations: some people hate it (not trying to distinguish between the idea and the meaning of the word in use), some people love it (the idea of just and happy society, which was not implemented yet), some see its impracticability (so, why to waste effort of thinking about it at all), some (very few) are trying to find better theoretical justification, some (even fewer) are trying to find practical ways to achieve it.

As for me, I miss Soviet Union as the time when I – an ordinary person, not having particular reason to conflict with authorities – could do what I loved without worrying about my future (or about any material aspects of life for that matter). But now, after I learned my ways around in a capitalist society, I can do even more than I could then. The price was the ideals lost. It hurts. I cannot feel warm and cozy anymore. Was it worth it? Do I want to turn back the clock? Good questions.”

“Intriguing question. Russians (sic!) I’ve talked to sometimes reveal surprising thoughts about communism. Many have soft-and-fuzzy recollections of their czars, though very few deny that Nicholas had to go. They tend to see the October/November revolution as engineered in part by the Germans (who smuggled Ulianov/Lenin into Russia to take that country out of the war), and a trio of non-Russians: The Gruz/Georgian Dzugasvili/Stalin, the Jew Trotsky, and the Tatar Lenin. Even the group that butchered the Romanov family was composed largely by non-Russian (Latvian?) riflemen.
So “communism” (actually Bolshevism) was, in the view of many Russians, imposed on the peoples of the Empire by outsiders. It brought industrialization, modernization and the eradication of class-based oppression, replacing the latter with ideology-based oppression. Life in Bolshevik Soviet-land was relatively worry-free from cradle to grave, IF you just hunkered down and kept your deep-down feelings to yourself. Many miss that worry-free life, because the New Russia has not delivered for them —- not yet.”

“Russian people are mostly confused on this matter. The sources of confusion are:
The reality of Soviet life
Marxist theory
Nazi/CIA anti-Soviet propaganda
Russia is a traditional society and Soviet socialism was based on Christian values:
“Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?”
Labor was not a commodity in peasant Russia. Farm hands were eating at the same table from the same pot as their peasant employers and even during censuses were often reported as family members. Labor entailed moral obligations. You can not just kick a worker out into the street when you don’t need his labor. You make sure he has other means of subsistence. The same principle was extended to entire society and right for job and right for housing became constitutional right of Soviet people.
On the other hand, Marxist theory that every student in the USSR was indoctrinated with, considered labor commodity and denied any moral obligations . Marx even claims that wife and children are the first property and essentially slaves. Marx reduces family to man disposing of his wife’s and children’s labor. In Marx’s theory both family and the state will die out and all people will become entrepreneurs exchanging their goods in free market. What Marx calls “communism” is in fact supercapitalism.
If you open the “Communist manifesto”, you will see that 2/3 of the book is glorifying capitalism and the remaining 1/3 is smearing all kinds of socialism. Apparently, Marx’s project was to justify worldwide dictatorship of Anglo-American capitalism. Sectarian Anglo-Saxon oligarchy was even presented as the only source of “real” socialism because by ripping people off it creates its “grave diggers” – proletarians, who supposedly will make “right” revolution and build “real” socialism. All other socialisms in Marxist terms are “utopian”.
Soviet socialism, like any other modern socialism borrowed heavily from German socialism: free universal school education, banning exploitation of children, free health care, retirement benefits. Yet Marx specifically opposed all these developments in Germany because they prevent dictatorship of sectarian oligarchy. Government “bribes” workers and delays “right” socialist revolution. Marx wanted to kick German kids out of schools and lock them up in coal pits like in England:
“A general prohibition of child labor is incompatible with the existence of large-scale industry and hence an empty, pious wish. Its realization — if it were possible — would be reactionary”
“”Equal elementary education”? What idea lies behind these words? Is it believed that in present-day society (and it is only with this one has to deal) education can be equal for all classes? Or is it demanded that the upper classes also shall be compulsorily reduced to the modicum of education — the elementary school — that alone is compatible with the economic conditions not only of the wage-workers but of the peasants as well?”
Because Marxist nonsense was presented to Soviet students as an universal theory of everything, they began doubting the reality around them. CIA propaganda broadcast by the CIA owned Russian language radio stations was exploiting the same Marxist/Liberal dogmas and was devastatingly effective. On the other hand, works of scientific sociology/anthropology were not available to Soviet people. Even the seminal “Protestant ethics and spirit of capitalism” by Max Weber, published in 1904 was a big no-no in the USSR. So resisting joined forces of Marxist and CIA propaganda was all but impossible”


“I’m Scottish and even in my early teens I used to ask everyone I knew – family, friends, schoolteachers, anyone – how an unemployed, demobbed WWI corporal who lived in a doss-house and ate in a soup kitchen managed to finance the growth of an entire movement which, a few years later, was in charge of one of Europe’s mightiest nations. Nobody had a clue. The question had obviously never even occurred to them, nor did it worry them.

It took me decades to find the answer. (Thank you, Professor Sutton, Carroll Quigley and Charles Highham!)

Most people still haven’t got any idea but, sadly, they don’t even understand why they should give a damn. And that’s why we’re still in deep trouble today.

What happened in Germany in the 1930s could just as easily happen today in any number of countries.”

“The truth is stranger than fiction. Dr. Brüning was the chancellor of Germany from 1930 to 1932 and then Hitler succeeded him In other words, Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced.
Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937, setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, The six-volume world history. And Brüning said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, ‘I didn’t, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.”
Corbett left out the creation of Israel after the war and its cash cow to pay the bills that has netted it over a trillion dollars so far. ”

“I rarely disagree with anything James says, but his characterization of Hitler being financed “100%” by the bankers is not quite right. Everything else is spot on. Hitler financed his rearmament with Treasury Labor Certificates (Mefo bills) and some of his public works programs with Oeffa bills. Both of these bills were issued directly by the government and were debt free and circumvented the banking system. The banking cartel knew about these debt-free instruments and were copacetic because one of their own, Hjalmar Schacht, was in charge of the Reichsbank. In fact, Schacht founded the Bank of International Settlements and was best friends with Montagu Norman, who was in charge of the Bank of England. The banks wanted the rearmament to take place so another war could be ignited. However, The Nazis neutered Schacht with legislation in 1937. Debt-free money was approximately 40% of the German money supply in 1939 (13 billion Mefo and Oeffa bills vs 19 billion Reich marks if memory serves correct). Just as important, Hitler was circumventing the international bankers through barter — out of necessity because he did not have any gold (or very little) to participate in international trade. More or less a figurehead by January 1939, Schacht tried to pull 3 million Mefo and Oeffa bills out of circulation under the guise of “inflation fears”. Hitler fired him on Janiary 19, 1939. To say that Hitler was a complete bankers’ stooge is a bit strong when one considers that one of the planks of the Nazi party was “the abolition of incomes unearned by work…the breaking of the slavery of interest”. There are some anecdotal stories that during the Phoney War (sept 1939 – may 1940) a telegram negotiation took place between Britain and Germany where Germany just wanted Danzig (and a land corridor connecting it to the Reich), some German colonies lost from the Treaty of Versailles, and the continuation of his international bartering. Great Britain demanded that Germany go back on the gold and usury standards and stop bartering. All of this is covered in Kennedy’s Revenge: The Election of 2016.”

“The Nazis gave the Rothschild bankers the boot, seizing and dismantling Rothschild assets and interests in Germany, France and Austria — and arresting Austrian-Jewish banking kingpin Louis von Rothschild”.

“I have researched fully now and I am sure that Nazis were controlled opposition in more ways than one”


В коридорите на Министерството на Демокрацията цареше небивало оживление. Представители на Партядрото се тълпяха в конферентната зала и подреждаха телекраните, интериора и столовете за гостите от свободните медии. Поводът беше тридесетгодишнината от победата над Комунизма. Изключителна дата! Приготовленията и честванията започнаха още преди година, но кулминацията щеше да се състои днес в тази зала, когато от телекраните на Министерството на Демокрацията щяха да говорят Освободителите. Никой не беше виждал Освободителите до днес и анонсът на Министерството на Информацията, че публиката ще има възможност да види лицата им, предизвика сензация и еуфория, по-голяма от честването на самата дата.

Тридесет години Освободителите никога не предадоха принципите на демокрацията и тяхната мъдрост осветяваше пътя към просперитета от всички билбордове, реклами, витрини, търговските обекти и високоговорители, пръснати по целия град. Излъчваха мъдрост във всяка рекламна пауза по всяка програма и всеки телевизор във всеки дом. Техният светъл идеал и човеколюбиво дело се знаеше, помнеше и напомняше от Министерството на Рекламата, което беше подчинено на свободните медии и отговорно за това мъдростта на Освободителите да достига до публиката вече тридесет години. По нареждане на министерството например всяка реклама беше длъжна да завършва с кратък демократически лозунг. Продаваха се основно три стоки. Бебешки памперси, позлатени брошки със знамето на демокрацията и банани. Но Министерството на рекламата с изкусното си изкуство създаваше толкова голямо разнообразие от стоки и услуги, че публиката винаги оставаше очарована. Благоденствие, образование и мъдрост в едно. Публиката отдавна беше спряла да посещава библиотеките, да работи или да поставя под съмнение рекламните блокове. Всичко, от което имаше нужда, беше поднесено кратко, точно и ясно от Партията. Списъкът с допустимите демократически лозунги беше дълъг и периодично се обновяваше от министерството, защото диверсификацията беше основен принцип на демокрацията.

– Свободата е реклама.
– Не можеш да избягаш от демокрацията.
– Потреблението е пътят към свободата.
– Личният неуспех е истинският успех над Комунизма.
– Хамстерите въртят колелото на демокрацията.
– Завистта към успеха на демокрацията е пътят към комунизма.
– Нещастието ражда комунисти и се наказва според кодекса на демокрацията.
– Щастието е религията на свободата.
– Успешният човек не мисли. Той действа.

Освободителите нямаха директен контакт с публиката, защото през тези трийсет години укрепваха демокрацията и бяха заети с това да пазят победата от настъпленията на Комунизма, който винаги надаваше грозната си глава от клоаките на омразата. Членовете на Партията бяха длъжни да се борят с омразата, завистта и лъжите на комунистите. Затова омразата, неудовлетворението и нещастието бяха забранени. Всички, заподозрени в омраза, нещастие или неудовлетворение, бяха работа на Министерството на Толерантността.

Партията се състоеше от свободните медии, а Партядрото от Освободителите и освободените. Министерствата на Демокрацията и на Толерантността бяха подчинени на Партядрото, а министерствата на Финансите, Рекламата, Образованието, Социалната Политика и Икономиката бяха подчинени на свободните медии. По същество тези министерства бяха еднакви, в тях работеха едни и същи хора от свободните медии и изпълняваха функциите на връзки с обществеността.

Is the society of 1984 sustainable?

From quora:


1984 depicts the perfect totalitarian society. It is absolutely sustainable- this is also shown in the book. How?
The entire world is involved. The countries of Eastasia and Eurasia (real or not) help perpetuate a continuous war that keeps Oceania alive. Any other countries are nonexistent or so hidden they seem to be so. It is impossible to contact outside countries. Everyone is a part of the totalitarian regime of Big Brother.

Surveillance. The telescreens and other forms of surveillance cover the entire world of 1984. It is impossible to escape the eyes of Big Brother. Surveillance ensures that all citizens are monitored and no rebellious thoughts progress.
History is controlled. Winston plays an active role in this. Every day he destroys and rewrites new “historical documents”. No one questions what the “truth” is. Everyone accepts what the Party tells them, and the Party tells them whatever they want.

Children play an active role in government surveillance. “Nearly all children nowadays were horrible… they adored the Party and everything connected with it.” When children are involved in totalitarianism, the future generation is secure. You ask if the society is sustainable. If the next generation is secure, there are little to no threats to the future of a society.

Rebellion is crushed. The example of Goldstein and others being vaporized deters citizens from even thinking rebellious thoughts. Even when Winston believes he is going to “join the rebellion”, he is being played like a fiddle by the Party and O’Brien.

Perpetuation of class tension. When the classes hate each other, no one hates the government. The proles never realize that it is the government who creates their problems. The upper classes look at the proles with disdain. Class tension ensures power.
There are no interpersonal relationships. “The aim of the party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control… The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct.” Children mistrust their parents and parents live in constant fear. Men and women have no safety in marriage. The Party prevents any and all human connection. This ensures that there are no large rebellions.

The government controls the minds of the people. “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four.” The people within this society are constantly controlled by propaganda, education, and more. They don’t even have the freedom to believe that two plus two equals four. Mind control keeps power in the hands of the Party.

This is not the Hunger Games. This is not Divergent. 1984 is the most realistic dystopian novel to date. A single person cannot overthrow a government. They require much more help.

“Power is not a means, it is an end.”

The Party values nothing but power. They have specifically designed the society of Oceania so that they can keep it.

The Party will never fall. With all the safeguards, it is impossible.

Устойчиво Развитие в България

По-долу ще намерите връзка към сайта на ООН, където президентът Плевнелиев прави изложение на усилията на България в изпълнението на целите на Програма 21.

Програма 21 вероятно е нашето бъдеще. Независимо леви ли сте или десни, русофили или русофоби, капиталисти или комунисти и какви точно си мислите, че са проблемите на България. Това няма значение. Целите и политиките на програма 21 не са демократични, прозрачни или по желание. Стратегия за детето 2019 – 2030 година е част от Програма 21 например.

Признавам, че когато за пръв път чух за дневния ред на 21 век имах много неадекватни реакции. По това време все още нямах целия пъзел в главата си. Имах само отделни парчета, които разглеждах сами за себе си и не виждах това, към което водят. Когато ми казаха, че Глобалното затопляне може да не се дължи на хората например и цялата работа много прилича на манипулация, едно от възраженията ми беше ‘няма как това да е вярно, те не могат да измислят толкова сложна манипулация’. Как ще организираш Земята да си разтопи ледниците, НАСА да показва грешни температури, Руснаци, Китайци, Европейци и Американци да изстрелят счупени сателити, всички лаборатории по света да лъжат едновременно, а ЦРУ да си няма идея какво се случва? Твърде сложно, твърде сложна конспирация.

Но точно това са направили. Истерията с климатичните промени е част от много амбициозен план. Аз не мога да кажа дали Глобалното затопляне е манипулация, дали е лъжа, че ние сме причината или не. Аз лично предполагам, че Глобалното затопляне се дължи на нашата дейност в голяма степен. CO2 е парников газ. Не намирам други причини за затоплянето, което наблюдаваме. Ние сме много активни и няма как да не влияем на климата. Няма нормален човек, който да не е наясно с нашето разрушително действие върху околната среда. Но то се дължи най-вече на военните, на корпорациите, на геоинженерството, на същите онези олигарси, които са най-много загрижени за Земята днес. Това, което искат, е ние да платим сметката за разрушителното влияние върху планетата на начина, по който те натрупаха богатството си.

Част от Дневния ред на 21 век е истерията с Глобалното затопляне, Стратегия за детето 2019-2030, дигитализация и технокрация, урбанизация, отнемане на частната собственост, намаляване на населението, по всяка вероятност – икономическа криза, за да бъдат съсипани всички малки производители и каквото е останало от средната класа, присвояване на ресурсите на Земята, регулации, данъци и остеритет. Някои казват, че целта е да върнат човечеството във феодализма. Вероятно нещо такова. Градовете ще приличат на концентрационни лагери.

Сега… На мен все още всичко това ми звучи като фантастичен филм, но се случва. Как успяха да измислят цялата тази свръх амбициозна, високотехнологична и всеобхватна схема?

Не зная… Впечатлена съм.

Превод от изложението по-долу:

“България вече започна процеса на формулиране на механизъм за национално изпълнение на програмата за 2030. Ние правим нашата национална програма за развитие България 2030, като също така активно ангажираме гражданското общество, бизнеса, младите хора, академичните среди и медиите. Съсредоточаваме се върху образованието, високите технологии и иновациите. Нашата цел е развитието на екологосъобразна и енергийно ефективна икономика, която предпазва околната среда.
Един от начините да се постигне това е чрез образоването на по-младите поколения за важността на устойчивостта. От септември 2015. насам много български училища работят заедно с УНИЦЕФ по изпълнението на проект, озаглавен “най-големият урок в света”, насочен към запознаване на децата с Целите на Устойчивото Развитие. Като президент съм горд да кажа, че българските студенти и учители показаха голям интерес към тази инициатива.
Третата важна стъпка към постигането на ЦУР(Целите на Устойчиво Развитие) включва изграждането на по-силна и по-съгласувана система на ООН за развитие чрез засилване на нейната прозрачност, разходна ефективност и ефективност. Панелът на високо равнище за хуманитарно финансиране, съпредседателстван от Европейския комисар по въпросите на бюджета и човешките ресурси г-жа Кристалина Георгиева и Негово Кралско Височество султан Назиин шах на Перак направи безценен принос в тази насока.”

Да обърна внимание, че Кристалина Георгиева заедно с Иван Кръстев са сред българите, гостували на срещите на Билдърбърг.

Плевнелиев продължава:

“Докато работим за изграждането на нашия нов и устойчив модел на развитие, трябва да запомним кои ЦУР са в крайна сметка за децата. По време на междуправителствени преговори по програмата за 2030. България активно работеше за интеграцията на правата на децата във всички аспекти на развитието, поставяйки децата в центъра на програмата. И вече виждаме резултати. През април тази година в София стартирахме новата стратегия на Съвета на Европа за правата на детето. Софийската стратегия е приета по българското председателство на Съвета на Европа.”

Плевнелиев ООН

Първанов и ООН

Национална мрежа за децата промиват мозъците на младото поколение

Национална мрежа за децата предлага промиване на мозъците на цялото население