Month: February 2014

Julian Assange-Sinister or Saint (part1)


In 2010 the world  embraced the image and the existence of one man,someone who made a niche for himself and had a chance to change the history, his name is Julian Assange.

One Australian journalist ,who turned our view of the world upset down within a few days,made a social and media revolution around the world. He made us to think and re-think in what kind of world we live. We only had to look around to see the ridiculous system under which we are govern and we needed someone to make the first step.And he did it gladly and with passion. Making reality and introducing to us his website :Wikileaks (a place where everyone could donate secret information anonymously).As he putted by himself ‘…we help people to get truth out…with a greater chance of achieving positive political reform.’ Reform or revolution?

But who is,after all, Julian Assange? What attributed to his access and popularity?

Many people view him as a hero or even as warrior in this ruthless war of corruption that poisoned the world. For instance ,prof. Robbert Manne from university of La Trobe,Melbourne viewed him as a humanistic anarchist dreaming for a better world. But what is his agenda ,where is his hidden source from which he derive that passion and desire? Does the truth is the answer? Moreover, at the very start of the Wikileaks to perform as a website,right under the logo of the site was putted a proverb which goes like this ‘Three things can hide for long :the Moon ,the Sun and the Truth.’ Siddharta.

Is there a possibility this man to be driven only by the dream of one just society or is it something else? I do not know. But ,in my view, he saw the world in different colours when he was conducting his actions,he was not only seeking the truth, he was in pursuit of revolution and even a war. This rises another question –is it the war or revolution we need now?

And even more important than that is the question whether we are capable of making and achieving such revolution or our chances are against the odds. With his great performance on the worldwide level he urged us to understand the importance of the truth to be spoken openly, for our own good and for the generations ahead. But today ,the mass media communications companies are much more powerful than before ,they manipulate us at our homes ,at work ,wherever we go –they are there. They even do not stop here  , they also tell us what to eat ,what to wear,where to spend our vacations –they constantly promote their ideas which penetrate our minds at that level that they influence our political,religious and ethical belief. In the end we stand against them – unfortunately the odds are not in our favor.

That’s why we need more people as Julian Assange to stand and to find a new ways. He found it- the whistleblower. Oscar Wilde said ‘MAN IS LEAST HIMSELF WHEN HE TALKS IN HIS OWN PERSON. GIVE HIM A MASK, AND HE WILL TELL YOU THE TRUTH.’ Apperantly ,it is a method that works perfectly well regarding the mass-media explosion of information in the website from anonymous donors.

However,the first appearance of the Wikileak took place after revealing the highest rate of corruption in one Swiss bank in Iceland. Consequently, three other Iceland banks failed in 2009 and people ,usually not violent,took the streets in marching orders and riots against this unfairness. Even at that early stage of the plan ,it was painfully clear how dangerous could be the implications of leaking such information. Indeed ,it possessed great treat to the society as a whole ,but there were too many things at stake. And still, today , the things are pretty much the same.

Meanwhile,at the time when that fiasco was happening nobody understood the man who stood behind it, even one of his closest friends appeared to be surprised by his personality. Machial Berg,one great example, who had become the second full time number of the Wikileaks, after a serious discrepancies with Julian took the decision to be not in close contact with him. For instance , according to his book “Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website” he describes his friendship with Julian in that way “ We used to be best friends,Julian and I –or at least something like friends .Today,I’m not sure whether he even knows the concept.Sometimes I hate him so much that I’m afraid I’d resort to physical violence if our paths ever cross again…Never in my life have I known such an extreme person as Julian Assange.” Here we could sense extreme profoundly the bitterness and the resentment from Berg’s side – this ,in my opinion, influences his book in a way that makes it biased and filled with self-reproach and self-condemnation towards the past.

Not surprisingly, the new movie called ‘The fifth estate’, based on Berg’s book ,depicts Assange as arrogan,well-knowing,disrespectful ,malicious and highly manipulative –in other words much more as a villain than anything else. (For everyone who has already watched the movie could easily notice the resemble with the depiction of the Jocker(played by Heath Ledger in ‘The Dark knight’) in the same way Assange explained why his hair was white as the Jocker did about his scars on the face –in the end nobody knows the truth.)

In his book ‘Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography’ ,Julian illustrates his childhood as a happy one despite the constant moving from one place to another. As a matter of fact,his mother was a hippy activist,who had a very open-minded attitude towards life, and despite her loving character and the tenderness with which she loved him ,she might have been responsible partly for the complex character of her son.  For example, as Jilian wrote during one school-camp ‘I decided to express myself without hindrance, so I hit the girl over the head with a hammer’. Indeed ,there is something deeply disturbing in his behavior ,but not surprisingly due to the fact that he had two stepfathers and he changed around 30 different schools. This was a crucial moment. What he needed was a stable grounds on which he could stand ,but the ground was far from  stable and reliable.

Moreover , he continued his life-story by saying ’ School was a problem…Perhaps I was just bred to hate the system and this was the system’. Here we could recognize the first riot-attempts against the system at all, he was on the verge of becoming an anarchist or absolute idealist without being able to compromise with anyone or anything…

What if Danial Berg is not so wrong about Assange…


Druids- vailed in mystery

Druids So little knowledge ,so many mysteries

Who are the Druids or more precisely who were they? According to many scholars ,they appeared in the British Island relatively around 2000 years ago,just to gain more influence in France around 200 AD. The word “druid” is originally Celtic meaning “the knowing or the wise one” and it is highly probably to be related to the Druids ‘ cult to the oak tree,since the Celtic word’s root of tree is “dru” . Moreover ,among the Druid’s society not everyone was granted with the great privilege to be a Druid ,hence this was an important position held by their ‘priest’ or ‘healer’ according to their custom.

However , all knowledge we possess about them is probably based on speculations and vague assumptions ,since it is derived only from the Romans. For instance, Jullian Ceaser said : “” they know much about the stars and celestial motions, and about the size of the earth and universe, and about the essential nature of things, and about the powers and authority of’ the immortal gods; and these things they teach to their pupils.”. From this point it is clear how sophisticated and advance was their society and their pagan beliefs ,how advanced was their knowledge about the world and all that surround us. Religion : Their religion was a hallmark of their existence as a society and they preserved tolerance and sophistication of it together. In the very center of their cult was not only the man himself ,but every living thing,too. Their humanity was extended in the life-circle of every plant and animal. They worshiped everything that breathes and appear to be a living matter. This appear to be in strong contradictions of some scholars ,who defend their theories with overwhelming eagerness ,that the Druids made sacrifices to their God/Gods by killing animals and even humans. These two suppositions strongly exclude themselves ,so that their coexistence is in variance with one another, making series of beliefs based on serious contradictions and uncertainty. Hence ,only one of the ideas must be true. Here the history, mythology and cultural evidences remain silent.

Furthermore, Druid’s system of beliefs ,according to many scholars , was based on the formulation of the very idea of the incarnation. For example,they believed that throughout the body and mind our souls are consisted of many impurities, that’s why we need to refine our Souls and we would have a chance to do so throughout the process of the Incarnation. Much more interesting is the fact that Druids performed a series of practices by rearranging themselves in circles and often danced within them. This was also part of their methods by which they could washed away their impurities and filth from their soul ,by reaching Gwynfyd (Nirvana).For example , in the Circle of Happiness ,they had to let go of hate ,ignorance and injustice and presumably embrace love,justice and knowledge. It is really fascinating how they divided everything in halves-good once and bad once- trying to find the divine contrast between them and simultaneously to let the goodness to prevail over evilness during their existence. That starkly contradicts with the notion of the human or animals’ sacrifices.

Finally , is there possibility that Druid’s history to be grotesques curved under the some Christians scholars ,making them to look like barbarians or evil pagans? Why so many historians remain silent when it is asked whether the Celts embraced the Druid’s religion by force or by their own desire? Like I said,too many questions without answer stood in front of us…


Before a few days ago I’ve came across accidentally on materials concerning philosophical enter’s test of university of Oxford (2008). Here is the following question ,which place so much emphasis on my mind , that I felt a strong compulsion to write something about it . “ The night before Camper is to set off into the desert where a bottle of water will be his only available drink, Poisoner puts a fatal poison into Camper’s bottle. Early the next morning, Spiller maliciously empties the bottle, in complete ignorance of what Poisoner had done the night before. Camper then sets off into the desert, in all innocence, and dies of thirst. Who caused Camper’s death? Explain your answer.”. Great one ,doesn’t it? I find that task not as perplexing as controversial and paradoxical. Let me explain my point. First of all, in desert ,practically the most driest place on the Earth,with only one bottle.Well, here the conscious mind speaks for itself. But there is much more beneath that reckless attitude to Camper’s own existence,he was not aware of the situation in which he put himself.Therefore , it’s his fault,his irresponsibility and probably lack of knowledge regarding the situation. There is no ample justification which could prove him to be a victim, even if his lack of knowledge was influenced by other factors such as stupidity or ignorance (well,if he was with mental disability we could justify his action ,but we do not know). Consequently , he didn’t appreciate the gravity of the situation. Poor fellow! Secondly, the Poisoner had played the role of helper than an enemy. Knowing that Camper’s death is inevitable,we could easily appreciate the action of the poison. If Camper had drunk the bottle ,he could have been spared the agony of his death much more easily. Who wants a slow and painful death after all? The answer of this question is clear as crystal and does not require further observations or explanations.The Poisoner could have helped Camper by giving him a chance of death without so much agony,he could have spared him days of thronging around the sand ,imagining some oasis.He could spare him so much cruelty. Thirdly , we have the last “hero” in the story –the Spiller who diminished the chance of dying without agony and pain.He ,for the reasons pointed above , made Camper’s sorrow greater and miserably painful. Finally, the answer to the question is consisted in the very first action of Camper. He made one reckless choice regarding his own life and existence ,then he bore the consequence of it.The following two actions were above his grasp, he was a victim regarding the fact of how he died ,but not a victim of death itself- he chose to die by himself. That’s my answer.What do you think,then?


Vasil-Levski-12На днешната дата 18сти Февруари (по нов стил 19сти Февруари)  бе погубен един от най-видните българи живели някога -Васил Левски. Този ден е ден на траур за всеки българин ,защото бележи смъртта на една личност ,която е имала възможност да прозре характерът,битът и нравът на всеки един българин по онова време. Имайки кураж и смелост ,той не се е страхувал от смъртта ,за Левски тя била само началото на неговото дело. Затова той е напътствал със същата тази борбеност всеки друг българин да тръгне по неговият път,да прозре,види и разбере истината за своята същност-да бъде ковач на своята съдба.

Левски е притежавал остър и бърз ум за да съзре какво се случва на българска земя и какво искат от нас другите народи ,никой не чува словото на апостола как илюзията на заблудата във времето ,в което живеят българите ‘Кой ли не иска да ги грабне българите,та да му робуват во веки?’ ,кой ли? Само в едно единствено изречение той е формулирал образът ,който другите държави са гледали към нас,изгодата ,която те могат да извлекът от това да бъдем под една или друга чужда власт.

Искайки да предотврати всичко това Апостолът на свободата е търсил нови съюзници в своето дело, карайки ги да коленичат и да се закълнат във вярата си и отечеството си.Опитвайки се да съживи пламъкът в душата на българина и да пречупи робските окови ,той  обикалял село след село,град след град ,търсейки истински и смели сърца,който да обедини под един свод и да нарече тях ‘народ’. Ала ,апостолът е знаел и виждал как делата му ту отиват на добре ту на зле (народната работа върви “като жаба през угар- днес наред,утре без ред ,други ден никаквата’ ). Той съзирал как душата на българина е изкривена под студените и мрачни дни на робството,как малко по малко пламъкът на един народ е горял и пламтял ,ала във времето когато е нужен е бил клечка кибрит. Страх и несигурност е била налегнала тази клета България , чакайки помощ от някой ,някой да я спаси и да я излекува от прокажените турска отрова. Българина е бил отровен ,умът му сломен – там е нямало волята .която е трябвало да съществува за подобно намерение като ‘всенародно български освобождение’. Защо ли Левски изписва “Народе???’ в своето тефтерче със три препинателни знака,защо ли…

Вдъхновена от думите на апостола ,написах няколко куплета .


Февруарски ден,злокобен мрачен-

пропит със кръв и тъмнина.

Последен тътен на сърце в една героична мъжка гръд затуптя-

Отиди си Апостола…

последни думи на уста ‘Отечество,идеали,свобода’!

Родино,ще милееш вечно за тоз гигант,за тоз твой син.

Той падна ,други паднаха след него-

в една борба за правдина.

След тях ,другите дойдоха

потъпкаха те бързо твойта свята гордост, българино!

От роб свободен теб направиха ,

само за да те превърнат в роб с окови нови!

Раздадоха и земята ти ,Българио,

нарекоха те с чужди имена ,по-нови !

После ,плюха и още плюят върху всичко

що Апостолът нарече свято!

Но,спи дълбоко българино,

ти,не дей се буди…

да чуеш как децата ти забравят за дедите си

и как съдбата ти през пръстите ти като пясък все се губи!

И няма вече кой знамето да вдигне

и няма кой веч да се провикне “Смърт тиранино,живей Българио!

Апостол  означава ‘пратеник’ -Апостолът на Свободата,а къде е тя?

Does St. Valentine spoil your happiness ?


Well, it’s 14th February ,a wonderful day calling for celebration ,but what we are supposed to celebrate at all? I want to apologize to all “happily-in love-couples” ,but what is the real fuss about it?Love ,of course ,you might say,but let’s reveal the truth behind that.

There are several speculations about the truth behind St. Valentine.For instance ,according to the Catholic Church ,St. Valentine was a roman priest who expressed his grievance against the emperor Claidious ,who prohibited the marriage between young people.There is an explanation of course , Claudious was a firm believer that unmarried soldiers were better warriors and what was the highest priority of the empire -the army.  As a consequence of that ridiculous presumption of the emperor ,  St. Valentine ventured into marrying young couples and he was eventually caught and tortured for his disloyalty.  The romantic bloom did not stop there , there are other speculation about a blind woman for whom St. Valentine was praying during his imprisonment. The last note the priest wrote to the girl’s father was signed  “from your Valentine.” (How romantic is that?)

On the other hand ,if it happens that you live in ancient Rome ,you will probably celebrate the she-wolf festival of festival of fertility (Lupercalia),but you should bear in mind that your friends who are catholics might not approve it. (no offence ,but the Catholic church does not go so well with the pagans).

With  a stark contrast,today in 21st century, people are stagnated by depression and loneliness in the very eve of 14th February ( except the ones who are in love ). We reach a point in our  consciousness as a human beings when something like “cliche” could provoke in us so much negativism. If you only take a quick  look in google ,you will find along with the happy article about that wonderful day , a great deal of crappy ones with a titles like “how to survive on Valentine’s Day’ or ‘positive celebration of Valentine’s day for divorced women’ or even ‘ Depression on Valentine’s day (among teenagers). Is it only me finding that rather perplexing and alarming or something is not right?

Is the world turning mad?

Well, let’s make this clear , we need to be more careful about our feeling,expectations and the brutal force of the public image pressure on us. Unfortunately , today many people are inclined to think that the existence of “the so-called significant other” might help them to live a better life and initially they are seeking desperately for that one. No,no… I believe in love , in fact ,I’m a hopeless romantic girl,but here I talk about the highest unprecedented level of our expectations regarding the relationship. Among the young people today, the status “single” is almost equivalent of being a witch in the middle ages. Everyone around you look at you and without uttering a word ,they are thinking “what’s wrong with you? “.

My point is that there is too much scrutiny regarding our relationship’s status! Give us a break,ok?!

However ,the ugly truth is hidden under many layers of dust , the secret an answer is our attitude. Being happy with yourself ,you’ll find time,place and way to be happy with someone,do not force yourself too much!

At the end ,if you’re feeling too ” desperate” ,you could grab a chocolate cake and a good company of friends ,but at any costs do not let Sv. Valentine to spoil your day!~

When one ruler fails ,another succeeds -part 2


(Picture: illustrates the style rococo in its original image)

This is the second part of the article that gives brief conclusions how two of the most well-know queens (Marie Anthoinette and Catherina The Great)  reigned during their lifetime.The main aim of the article is not to carry out depth investigation how they rule ,but rather to represent overall description of their attitude as a rulers of two nations . Everyone is in their freedom to jump on any conclusion or possible deductions from the article itself,but do not forget that I only try to depict the actions of the both queens in order to proof how the attitude and the self -interest could cost the destiny of the whole nation .

What did the queen read?

Well,many historians adhere to the belief that Marie Anthoinette had read books and especially Rousseau,but that might have happened in the end of her reign and especially in the period after her power came to fall ,when she was probably between 30 and 40 years age.

However ,it’s widespread belief that she was not a  great book enthusiastic.Moreover ,according to Pierre de Nolhac she was not even aware of the contain of her library. Quite often the young queen had to put up with her mother’s remarks about her lack of experience in the literature ‘s world. Not surprisingly ,her mother scrutinized her daughter and recommend to her books from which she could not only derive knowledge ,but could influence  her understanding of the history (example was Hume’s ‘History of England’). But the ‘bonne et tendre Antoinette’ refused to listen! Much more shocking and provoking was the fact that the Queen of France was for a very long period of time,if not for the rest of her life , illiterate in french-making mistakes in her writings.

What about Catherine the Great ?  First she read ,then she ruled! In comparison with Marie ,Catherine mobilized herself and did not waste her time in needless practices .She knew how to take responsibility for her actions and how to rearrange her priorities. And her main priority while her husband Peter rejected her ,was to become more powerful than him in many ways. Her weapon was the knowledge itself. Due to her education ,Catherine was literate in French,German and later Russian. She held great sympathies for the Enlightenment itself and its writers ,that’s why she often read them ,in addition to many books about Russian history.

It is needless to be said how different were the two queens regarding their thirst of knowledge and literature.But this vividly exposes how they understand the world around them in their position in it- the vision of the growing woman and the woman who refuse to accept the reality and the inclinations of her actions. It is evident how Marie Antoinette did not appreciate the gravity of the situation win its full-scale or at least she made that impression.

The nation and the people :

Why the French people did not praise their queen,why they did not save her from the deadly grasp of the guillotine ?Did they not know mercy at all? The answer is clear -the queen did not deserve their forgiveness because all she gave them was ignorance! And the ignorance is bliss! She did not possess the slightest idea how the people live ,she was ignorant of their misery and life-endless sorrow. She took for granted their love and paid the highest price possible. Indeed,she did not say “Let them eat cakes” ,but she did nothing when a malicious pamphlets were flying around the kingdom ,mocking and teasing her without shame.Instead,she avoided at any cost going to Paris ,which she awfully despised as much as Versaille, and locked herself in the ivory tower of isolation in her ‘maison de plaisir’ Trianon. In short, she did nothing to mitigate the circumstances in which French people lived ,;letting that task to her husband who was surrounded by a bunch of bad consuls ,simply because she was not interesting in the people’s destiny ,neither she was a politic.

Nakaz- Instruction, of Catherine the Great ,the most significant legacy of Catherina’s reign. Inspired by the Enlightenment that document forged the great loyalty between the people and their queen. It declares that everyone is equal before the law and is against the death penalty and the torture of people.That document considers in depths the idea of the law ,the imposing of the law and its practice regarding the purpose of the law. It takes into account the life and rights of the peasants ,also it describes a new structure of society in which different part of it corroborate with each other in the name of the improvement.

That second example ,clearly justifies that the law and knowledge’s power are indispensable parts of being successful ruler.

Lastly ,it is under my observation that from the things above ,Marie Antoinette was not ready to be a queen,she simply was incapable of understand and fully comprehend her role in the history.To me ,she was more like a victim of her time or if I have to put it mildly “The gracious princess of the French Revolution’ .While Catherina without doubt fitted perfectly in the image of the Queen- the queen of straight and determination to conquer the world and to preserve her empire .

When one ruler fails ,another succeeds -Part 1


Name : Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna (better well-known as Marie Antoinette-Queen of France)

Birth: 2 November 1755 /Hofburg Palace, Vienna, Austria

Tenure :10 May 1774 – 21 September 1792

Died :16 October 1793 (aged 37)
Place de la Révolution, Paris, France


Name: Sophie Friederike Auguste (later well-known as Catherine the Great)

Birth: Born 2 May [O.S. 21 April] 1729/ Stettin, Pomerania, German Kingdom of Prussia

Reign : 9 July 1762 – 17 November 1796

Died :17 November 1796 (aged 67)
Saint Petersburg, Russia

Religion: Lutheranism, latter converged to  Eastern Orthodox

Beautiful, charming, gracious,with a lips only for a kiss and magical desire burning in their eyes -two women,but above all women in power! This article will be about one of the greatest women leaders who ever have lived. It’s much more about that , I would like to present how two world-powers like France and Russia changed the course of the history under the protection of their queens. It’s about two women destined to be great ,but how much greatness they achieved in the world of history is a question open to discussion if we are bold enough to consider their achievements ,devotions and contribution  to the people above whom they ruled.We would never be able to understand the measure of the crown’s weight ,neither the pressure which had on their shoulders, but we could explore the vast array of the consequences of their action throughout the prism of the history itself. We are able to see how rightful and wrongful their power was explored by themselves and the people around them.

First of all, both of them were not queens of the countries in which they were born ,Marie was austrian born and bred to be the future queen of France while Sophie (Catherina) was German by origin ,but later the world announced her reign as the Golden age of the Russian Empire. Both of them were brought into their new home due to the ambitious of their mothers ,who had unquenchable desire for power and prestige.From political standpoint the Russian-Prussian relations needed to happen in order Austria’s influence to be reduced while France was in need of another partner in its international relations like Austria. That’s beside the point , despite the fact that Catherine was born as a princess she was out of money and didn’t posses great weight,while Marie was born Archduchess of Austria with quite the opposite status of being well off. From here ,we could observe their first striking difference between them and that was based only on their birth rights and would play a crucial role in their life.

Secondly, both had the undesirable misfortune to be rejected by their husbands. There was a rumour that Peter ,the future Tsar of Russia, was impotent and could not or was not aware how to perform his husband’s duties.Somewhat equal destiny reached Louis XVI of France, with the exception of being not so fatal and irreversible (the Queen ,herself had to waited seven endless years for the consumption of their marriage). Indeed ,the humiliation was disaster which composed an enormous strain on their reputation,but the approach they used  was complete verification of their characters as a person first ,then as a ruler. For Catherine that was an ample evidence that she was supposed to justify her position and status on her own,that’s why she eagerly shared her bed with many lovers and later assassinated her husband.Being ruthless and merciless ,she felt for the first time the weight of the crown on her head -a price that she was ready to pay.She was a woman of passion and determination ,a woman who could calculate with great precision every step she takes. Moreover , as if she had sensed the greatness that was on her path ,she embraced the Eastern Orthodox religion as her own,despite the oppositions of her father. While in response to her own humiliation Maria Antoinatte did only one thing-to wait. That passive-agressive response made her much more immature and incapable of solving the problem on her own. She was too gentle ,too fragile and partly too weak to do so- being rejected by her husband ,being pushed by her mother and surrounded by bad advisers ,she almost being trapped in that ridiculous situation.That’s why she did relinquish from her power in her mind-she had a great desires not for power and control ,but for pleasure ,dancing and flirt. She was young and nobody was able to tame her lust for freedom and to make her much more sensible.She lavishly entertained herself in dancing, gambling and expensive dresses almost every night while her husband was sleeping.Luis and Marie was like chalk and cheese ,the king was much more serious for her taste ,but is that fully excuse her actions? I do not think so!