Philosophy and views

Well, that's my fad. Philosophy, Queen of all sciences.
So gimme a Theme.

Israel

Dec. 1st. 2004

is a Holy Land. That land gave God to selected Nation, Nation of Abraham and Jacob (Abraham had son Isac with his wife Sarah and before him he also had step-son (with his servant-maid Agar) Ismael. When Isac has been born, Sarah let chase out bot Agar and Ismael to desert where God took care about them and let to origin the Nation of Sons of desert. Arabs receives Abraham as being selected same as Christians and Jews, but their own selectship they derived from primogeniture of Ismael although he was started with servant-maid. God says in Old Testament (Bible) that also from you (Ismael) I will make big nation, as you come from Abraham. Nevertheles that "also" proves the selecting of Jew Nation (to whom who doesn't understand it so far - we Europeans doesn't originate neither from Arabs, nor from Jews, thus regarding to God we are much more farther related). Isak had sons Jacob and Ezaw with his wife Rebecca. Ezaw was born first and thus an inheritor and carrier of blessing and generator of selected nation. Nevertheles he sold his primogeniture for a dish of lentil and therefore an inheritor became Jacob, who God rename as Israel (same as he originaly rename Abram as Abraham). Israel had 12 sons and God estated them the Land of Cannan (present Israel - a part to every one). Particular rulers quarreled among them and didn't accept God, so their country started to make smaller, the most important was central part - around Jerushalaim named according one of those 12 sons Judas as Judea, let's say english Jewea - from that the Jew's name originates).
Jews as selected (blessed) nation were in every branch always better, more clever, more efficient, more tenacious, more sedulous. Logicaly those sillier, lazier and less succesful ones were envious of it. But Jews were also disobedient and God therefore constitute them being big nation being able to to banish environmental Arabs but only a little nation. Arabs had opinion that if they own all surrounding countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Northern Africa) they should own also Palestina (Israel). But it was not God's will. He didn't want to reject his selected nation.
That's a big mistake of atheists that they consider Israel being a state one of others same as Palestina. But it's not it. Jews had one and only state all over the World, Israel. Palestinians are Arabs and there are a lot of Arab states in above mentioned region - other question is whether their "brothers" in other Arab states will accept Palestinian refugees or not.
Why in fact are there Palestinian refugees?
Before finishing of World War 2 Palestina was a british colony having both Jew and Palestinian inhabitants.
Because of suffering of Jews during World War 2 (BTW, do you know you atheists, why are jews being hated all over the world? It is because of above mentioned enviousness but the major reason is that Jews has crucified Lord Jesus Christ!!! That's a "good" reason of people not believing in Christ - BTW only a few among believing anti-sionists notifies that Jesus WAS a Jew) United Nations decided that Jews will be having their state in it's original area and in 1947 State Israel has been established (in present borders without Palestinian territories, there was State Palestina there and Britain resigned on it's dominion on both halfs of country).
Surrounding arab countries (Syria, Jordan, Egypt) immediatally declared a war against Israel but although they had huge majority, they lost it. Nevertheless they keep trying to destroy Israel by all available means including bombing it from Golan Heights on the North of Israel (Syria, Lebanon) and stopping water inflow from Genezaret's Lake (on the north too). That lake waters whole Israel which is desert country suffering by lack of water.
Therefore Israel had in terms of saving his being to occupy Palestinian territories including Golan Heights and part of Lebanon, so called "buffer zone".
In last times, when also some Arabs are listening to Peace and to opinions of UN, the situation started being partly calm, so Israel could returned occupied territories including Golan Heights, buffer zone and Palestinian territories under Palestinian control by pacts.
Nevertheless, Palestinians got all their country but they want to have more - they want to control whole Palestina and they denied right to life to Israel.
Do you know why the pact of Arafat-Barack from Camp-David in 2000 wasn't accepted?
Because of return of Palestinian refugees.
In Jordan and in Lebanon there lives 6 million of palestinian refugees. In Palestinian territories there are about 2 million of Palestinians - can you imagine there beiing 4 times more of them? They would never fit there! And they would ask to have right to live in Israel territories.
Refugees escaped in face of war in 1947. But they didn't need to, Jews didn't persecute them anyhow, but Palestinians feared (probably) that if surrounding Arabs will attack, Jews will revenge on them. Refugees in Jordan lives in refugees camps, separated from Jordan inhabitants. Their life is nothing special but at least, they are free, they can go out of camp. It is much worse in Lebanon, where they are packed in concentration camps and they didn't have a bit of human freedom. And this makes them their own "brothers". Nevertheless in camps in both countries the fertileness is very high between refugees so the original number of them changed during years from 2 to current 6 million - and that number will not fit in Palestina - but still they feel their right to that country.
Because of it Jews are their biggest enemies and Palestinians want to destroy them for any cost (including by giving up theirs lives). Until recently were dynamiters financed by Iraq and Afghanistan. It is thank Heavens over now so let's hope that also a number of dynamiters will decrease gradually.
Whole World is shocked by dynamiters, but is also shocked by fact that Israel intervene against those terrorists by his army forces. Whole World would in place of Jews drew apart his chest and let them kill his sons and ravish his daughters, let occupy his territories. Whole world would maybe did it, but not me in that place.
Poor Palestinian civilians - yes I really regret civil victims - but isn't it a guilt of terrorists that they palmed behind human shields, as also Saddam or Miloschewicz did? For sure there would be none civil victim if terrorists and civilians were divided in area - but they are not - and they also didn't want to be.
I think it was Great Idea to construct a concrete wall between Israel and Palestina, though we are in era when walls are breaking down and nations are coming together - but it's applied in Christian, not in terrostic world. Until the time Arabs will resign for their terrorism (and I personally would gave them a period of 20 years of non-performance of any terroristic action) the walls will be necessary. Certainly, I understand terrorist that they don't like having worse access to explode school buses, I understand it. Even I understand also peaceful Palestinians who are working in Israel (Israel which they are fighting against brings them a lot of job opportunities because they have much lower job potential). But looks ther is no other way - for that hard raging nobs there is need of much harder wall. And World fighting against Wall should tell - you will break down the Wall And we will take care no assassination in your country. That And is very important. If World is not able to guarantee the peace then he has no right to tell to Israel by which means he helps himself to peace.
On the contrary, I don't like hysterical reaction of Jews to movie Christs Suffering. They are afraid of anti-Israel mood because of fact that Jews crucified Christ (in fact those were Romans but for request of Jews). That's true. But the fact is that a lot of people with shallower intellect it understands more emotionally and sees his enemies in Jews because they crucified a Statue what it sees sometimes in occasional visit of church.

Opinion?

Owners of Immovables and Renters

Oct. 15th. 2004

I precedes that I didn't own any realty, but I should do, If I wanted, If I had money.
What's the matter with realty owning?
Imagine, I will get a house in restitution. That house belonged to my family in past. Communists nationalized it and made it a home for gypsies. Gypsies destroyed the house and into that devastated house new renters were moved.
I got at a big glory house of our family from the state now. For free not counting some fees with transfer, proofing of justification and truckling to official who "should not, dear mister, give it over to you!"
Now, after all, the house is mine, I can do whatever i want with it. But first, I must let it repair and when I say must, then I MUST. As a owner I have that duty. State will not pay the value which I must give to get the house to it's original status. I must do it, I'm an owner.
I want it, but no matter if I have any imagine of reconstruction, huh huh huh, I will anyhow do it accordin a commando of conservationsts. "Yes mister, it is yours, but we are here to tell you HOW it will be repaired". "And I want a violet house". "Excuse us mister, but we understand what is esthetic and what not and your house will never be violet".
Yes, it is my house. But it will not be violet. Do you want bow-windows? O.K. acquire a plot in forest, there you can build up your bow-windows... if forest authority will allow you to build-up bow-windows in your own forest... probably not, you can own a forest only to enable safe entering to mushroom pickers, not to build-up on your own forest-lawn some stupid bow-windows... no no no... that's not possible.
I will do a reconstruction under father conservationsts guidance and I will carefully keep the newest hygienic standards of EU - I will install for all renters free of charge contactless water cocks, contactless lavatories, contactless bidets, air condition, ionization of air, fluoridization, decalcification and magnetization of water. Otherwise I would be afraid of renters complaint for compemnsation for calcified washing machine or boiling pot.
But everything cost anything and I think, it is only fair that renters should participate in it by increased rent... "but mister, there is a state regulation, you can ask at renters only what state will allow."
Maybe there should be way to cancel rent to tenants and to rent rooms to some company for more money? MisterMisterMister when you will wake up, when you will understand, tenants are living in housing range and you cannot in terms of preservation of housing fund change housing rooms to non-housing rooms, which are only permitted for company use.
In addition, you cannot cancel rent to tenants only in the case you will need his flat for your mother and that mother must be invalid or at least she must have a health confirmation. And if you will arrange for tenant a flat of same or better class. In case that new rent would be higher, it is your duty to pay him off a diference between old a new rent for at least 36 monthes. And you must pay him separation fee in case that his journey to office is longer for 10 minutes or more.
Don't forget to clean pavements. Though pavements belongs to City, strange people are stepping on it free of charge, but if some of them break his leg there, it is your problem. You are owner. And try to start off on the wrong foot with City by asking a new shovel for winter them!
Is it fair to get something in restitution? And my collegue John, known socialist tells: yes it is, BTW nobody forced you to accept restitution, you should refuse of it, if you weren't interested. And if you want to be an owner, you must do something for this.
I thought that if I got the house, I would get property which I could eventually sell and get some money.
What's the reality? A darker diplomat with glasses has visited me and has offered me that he buys from me the house in current conditions for 5 millions. But that money I must pay to him for his favour that he void me that weight. And he will manage with it, there will be whorehouse, say he has familiar persons in offices and he is sure that tenants will consentingly and fast move out. Without any compensation.
By that sky-high protection of tenants laws we finally forced them to moved out.
Though no socialist John will never explain to me what is it like with that regulated rent. If somebody lives in a flat with regulated rent, he pays some rent which however does not cover service of the flat. Why do I think so? Because there is a market rent which is f.e. twice higher.
How is it possible? Market enforced it. There is a lack of free flats with non-regulated rent. Why is there a lack of it? Because in all others there is a regulated, say low rent.
I think that man who can use both hemispheres understands that it is true. If regulated rent would cover flat service (service and reasonable gain) to it's owners, they would not give different rent for non-regulated flats.
But they must do it - if they want at least to maintain their property they must give substantionally higher rent in non-regulated flat to at least balance their lost from regulated flats.
If in our case sum of regulated and non-regulated rents in given house gave to his owner just a value for covering the service of a house (w/o any gain), then it is clear that person living in non-regulated flat with a contract usually for one year only pays off by his increased rent to his neighbour living in regulated flat, who usually has a contract with indeterminate duration (for eternity).
If owner has a bad luck and has all flats with regulated rent, he loses. And a state disposes of his responsibility. In place of giving targeted benefits to low-income's tenant for rent, he rather determines lower rent to an owner. That then supplies state in his social role. Same as a company, which must pay to it's employee a health benefit because a state cannot watch if an employee doesn't abuse a profuse social system (!!!).
And that is called Justice. They socialists will never confess, but they knows about it. That denial supports them quite well. They though called equalitarians supports inequalitarianity among tenants. They with most lawyers, thiefs, violators and murderers (hope you've seen Atkinson, isn't it? "So this is Hell. Murderers, thiefs line up here, and lawyers stand beside them...") will be fried themselves. It's not so easy to know, doesn't confess and use it to their private benefit on their terrestrial journey...

Opinion?

Equal Tax

Oct. 1st. 2004

Another thought for justice theme.
I alone as not belonging to high-incoming classes cannot agree with progressive taxes (although I should advocate it).
What as a matter of fact tax is? Tax is a necessity for function of (redistribution of) state. State provides us certain service and it wants a tax as an equivalet from us. It provides the service to all inhabitants in the same way and if more to someone then to poor-one. Anyhow, let's say that in the same way to all.
From that results that from all man it should ask same tax. Will police protect a reach man more than poor one? It won't.
Logically shoul both poor and reach administer to state by SAME amount. That means that I having children should pay let's say 10.000 USD a year. A man making 10 million should pay 10.000 USD and that who makes 100.000 should pay 10.000 too.
That's fair, isn't it?
But we will never fill state case by that, isn't it? So we will have to punish those succesfull for their success and for their making more money, that's their fault, they should make less.
Not everybody to give a fix amount, but a relative part from his income, huh? In past there were tithes, so what about 10% from everybody's income!? That poor who can only make 100.000 should give 10.000 again - but that swine who made 10.000.000 - that should kindly pay a million.
But there is still other vitamine needed in state case.
So we will leave to that poor who worked only a little a tax of 10% and to that hardworking swine we increase tax to 50%, poorman will gave 10.000 (and he couldn't go lower because of state-given "minimal tax" even though he could make 5.000 a year only) and a richman will gave 5 million, so in other words that swine is from the view of state budget important same as 500 lazies.
Damned, come, we socialists need for our broad-minded populists programs still more money.
I, financial minister, think that the most justice think will be a 100% tax for everybody and backward transfer of money to each man according his real need (in other literatures it is called as Communism) - it rests on fact that poorman will pay his 100.000 (everything) and a richman will pay 10.000.000 (everything). From those money we will backward transfer to each of them a state-confirmed amount for a man survival - let's say 50.000. We cannot extort more money out of them and nobody will blame anybody anything.
Thus we returned to begining, both men only didn't pay same amount to state, but both will receive same. AND THAT IS ADVANTAGEOUS (for us).
I, face to face to communism, am ready to come up to compromise that propose (not the most symphatic to me) Czech liberal party ODS - an equal 15% tax to everybody.
I'm only reminding to kind readers that the date of Tax Freedom is in Czech an end of June (!!!), from that results that real tax weight of average man is almost 50%, not 10% what we counted so far.

Opinion?

Difference Between Employees and Tradesmen

Aug. 1st. 2004

Another my comment to finances, because it is about money no matter if they go to financial or social office:
Why are taxes being paid to fifty institutions when all of them are state ones? I think that if it was said that it is needed to flow 50% to state, people will uprise. Now when it is said that a tax is 20% and to social and health insurance is to be paid 10.000 (thus non-comparable units) then a primitive worker tells that that's the way it is and according common sense it means a tax of 30% (20+10).
In case he would go deeper to a problem, we confuse him by expressing his social and health insurance on his salary sheet as 2.000 only (and we will calmly ask a rest - 8.000 at employer) and he will be satisfied that tax is 22% (20+2) only.
Seems to be funny to you? But we don't want to listen truth - we let as be employed not to see and not to listen and only people seeing it will be accountants - and those will in their own interest silent.
Do you want a aprticular instance? Is your salary f.e. 20.000 rough and you get 15.000 to your hand?
Then your company will pay for your salary 30.000. That's a fact. If you were a tradesman instead being a employee, your company should pay you 30.000 and you would pay your tax by your own. First you would probably have more money (not so much), but more important is that you would notify the real difference between rough and clean income - 50% will remain you but 50% will stick behind state's nails.
Because a majority of primitive and emotive people is employed, state sponges on them and it also keeps them being in ignorance. And it forces them to bad business' as f.e. health benefit insurance is.
I, when I was a tradesman, could decide wheteher I want to pay health benefit insurance or not. As I can count, i didn't pay it. I counted that what I gave to the system will return to me then and only then if I will have such self-control and I will be sick 3 working days every month - and I'm being sick averagely 14 days each 10 years. Sure it wants to have a self-control forcing me not drink away immediatelly all money I got but save them for case of sickness. Primitive employees has no need to save anything - they are health benefit insuranced no matter if they want or not - it is more expensive for them, but they don't need to care about it.
What is also funny in Czech is that state for which are from a serial of reasons more important employees allow itself to speak about Schwarz-(regards to Misha Schwarz)-system (staff of company is not really employed but each of them is a tradesman getting periodic salary on his invoice) as about swindle. The real swindle is taht state differs between employees and tradesmen.
Why they have different conditions? I would on the contrary promote that Schwarz-system as a default for any company.

Opinion?

Weather

May 1st. 2004

should be prohibited. Respectively, not prohibited, but ordered. Why?
Because I would prefer to have Summer all time.
Weather not. That there'll also be Spring, Fall and Winter.
So I'm sending you, weather! Do on your work please, which consists in continual gradual changes of particular sesons without any expressive fluctuations. That's your job established in Elemental Constitution. That your job is for all times established, BUT, it is also your duty to perform the job well.
For next time not to appear any quibbling away, there are following conditions done:

Opinion?

Ceska verze
:: Kubak.cz » Philosophy and views