An important topic of the contemporary world is a lack of courage for us. Israel needs real solidarity of other states without conditions, President Milos Zeman said during his speech at the site of the famous Jewish Foundation Gershon Jacobson Jewish Continuity Foundation in New York, taking the Bojovnik Award for the Truth.
Photo: Hanka Brozkova – KPR
Popisek: President Milos Zeman receives the Fighter for the Truth award
President Milos Zeman was honored in the New York City at the prestigious meeting of American and world Jewish community representatives on Monday night with the Fighter of the Truth Award. The head of state appreciation won for the lifetime support of the State of Israel and Jewish ideas in general.
Our presidents on the podium in front of VIP audiences celebrated the celebrated American billionaire, philanthropist and president of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald Lauder, celebrating a speech full of superlatives about the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia and Zeman himself.
Milos Zeman began to finish magnificently for the stormy applause of standing. “We face the threats of the current world, and the word” solidarity “is not enough,” Zeman said in a thank-you speech at the foundation of the foundation. “We have to ask what are the risks and threats and which also pose a risk to the Jewish state of Israel,” Zeman said. According to Zeman, such a risk is Islamic terrorism, about which he intends to stand at the UN plenum.
“An important issue is lack of courage. Let’s talk about cowardice, hesitancy, hypocrisy, “Zeman said. “But we are also talking about solidarity with the conditions,” he added in a narrative of how some other states are coming to the state of Israel. All democratic countries, according to Zeman, recognize that every sovereign state needs a capital city, a safe border. Only in the case of the state of Israel some countries have a problem with Zeman and add the word “but”. According to them, Jerusalem is not the capital of the state of Israel, Zeman said. Just as Israel does not have the right to react militarily to missile launchers of Palestinian radicals from the Gaza Strip. Such an approach, according to Zeman, is that “solidarity with the conditions”.
“But we need solidarity, without conditions,” Zeman said. “We need a new candle against darkness, concrete actions and not just words,” he added. One such candle would, according to Zeman, be the relocation of embassies of democratic states from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “I proposed the Czech embassy a few years ago. We need concrete steps towards real and unconditional solidarity, “he said.
The whole speech by Milos Zeman at the gala evening “4th Annual The Algemeiner Jewish 100”:
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, a shawl!
Thanks for the nice invitation. I’m very glad to be here. Two years ago at the AIPAC Congress, I was paraphrasing the famous John Kennedy slogan: Ich bin ein Berliner (I am a Berliner). And I said, I am a Jew (I am a Jew). And Jehudi. Anyway, this is not enough. Faced with the risks of the contemporary world, only the verbal form of solidarity is not enough.
What is the risk of the current world facing the Jewish community and the state of Israel? First, it is Islamic terrorism, about which I will speak at the United Nations General Assembly tomorrow. And because I am not polite, I will not talk about international terrorism, but about Islamic terrorism. But the topic that is important to our debate is different. Let’s talk about lack of courage. Let’s talk about cowardice, hesitation, hypocrisy. About solidarity that is conditional. I call her “solidarity, but”. I will give you some examples: Yes, of course, we support the state of Israel, but it is not the Jewish state of Israel. Yes, we encourage each country to have its capital, but we do not support Jerusalem as the capital. Yes, we fully support the right of Israel to secure borders, but the Golan Heights can not be part of Israeli territory. And so on, and so on. Every killer from Palestine is a fighter for freedom. And if someone sends a missile from Gaza to Israel, we condemn it, but you can not react by bombing the Gaza Strip yourself. This is solidarity, but, but …
And these absolutely contradict what solidarity is. We need solidarity without but. In other words, we need unreserved solidarity with the Jews and the State of Israel. What should we do today? Now we need a candle against the dark. We need concrete actions rather than words. And such a candle could be the relocation of embassies of democratic states from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I proposed this relocation of the Czech embassy four years ago during my visit to Israel, and Prime Minister Netanyahu said to me then: If it does, I give you my own house. I hope that his promise is still valid. After a similar thing to me, Donald Trump promised, it may be a good impetus for some daring countries.
So, this is a concrete solution, a concrete gesture, a concrete step towards true solidarity and not just the word. Dear friends, let me end with the last sentence of the old Jewish prayer: next year in Jerusalem! Thank you!
The Czech Republic is the clear winner in a ranking of European countries where Trumpism holds the most appeal
The European edition of the U.S. political server Politico has introduced the first “Trumpability Index” examining every country in Europe to see where Donald Trump might get elected.
The 45th American president is considered to be broadly unpopular worldwide, at least according to Pew Research Centre stats that say barely a fifth of Europeans are confident Trump will do the right thing (“including Trumpophiles in Russia”).
But those numbers, say the index authors, don’t tell the whole story:
“If you look at his most recognizable personal characteristics (arrogant and intolerant to the other side) and his signature policies (opposed to free trade and open borders for migrants)…Trumpism holds more appeal in the Old World.”
The index assessed 13 categories associated with Trump’s brand of politics including an adversarial approach to free media and an aggressive approach to slashing regulations. Countries were then evaluated on a scale of 1-10 depending on how they corresponded with each characteristic.
Andrej Babiš / Photo: Wikipedia @David Sedlecký
Andrej Babiš / Photo: Wikipedia @David Sedlecký
The Czech Republic made it to the top of the Trump chart, writes Politico:
“Like in the States, the dissatisfaction with traditional political parties…has created an opportunity. If someone like Donald Trump was to run for office, they would have a strong chance of being elected – and in fact, someone does. Andrej Babiš, who is likely to be elected prime minister in October.”
This wouldn’t be the first time Babiš, a billionaire businessman with no prior political experience, has drawn comparisons to Trump. The ANO party leader is renowned for making politically incorrect comments, many about migrants who he thinks should be kept out of the country not merely with a wall but a full-on fortress.
Even the response Babiš gave to frequent Trump comparisons is Trumpian in nature, saying that “Trump has gone bankrupt several times … I [have] not.”
The article failed to mention the fact that the country has already elected (going by the traits set out by its own index) a Trump-like figure. Last year, Foreign Policy magazine even put together a quiz Who Said It: Zeman or Trump?
These are the top ten EU countries where Trump would likely triumph:
France and Great Britain
The full article you can read at:
In general, the nation’s obvious interest in any country (any collective entity, community, tribe, cluster, genus) is an effort to maintain, persist, reproduce itself in the territory that this group of people is living.
In Europe (unlike other continents) we have national states, and therefore national interest usually coincides with the interest in maintaining, persisting, reproducing in which nation state. This must be regarded as the most general expression of the Czech national interest.
We have – as opposed to Hungary – the advantage of being a territorially sophisticated country. This is a great advantage.
Our peculiarity is that for thousands of years we have solved the problem of the survival of a small country that is a neighbor of the continental hegemony of Germany . What is more is that we are currently addressing this problem in the age of our membership of the European Union, in a specific construct that increasingly suppresses European nation states and strives to become an alternative. That is why the question of Czech national interests in the situation of today’s EU organization is considered de facto to be a bad question, politically incorrect, a question inappropriate.
The fundamental dilemma that has persisted since St. Wenceslas is how a small country behaves against a great neighbor, what institutional (or contractual) arrangement it should pursue. We have solved this – with various successes – for a thousand years. There are at least the following variants:
– The Czech Republic, as a separate, sovereign state, which has no ambition to conclude and isolate, and therefore wants to seek friendly and cooperate willing partners on a contractual basis;
– the Czech Republic as a satellite or an extreme version of Germany, seeking a chance of survival in this type of relationship;
– the Czech Republic, as a member state of a full-on-equilibrium, full-continental institution (or organization), on an equal footing of all member states (ie without any hegemony);
– the Czech Republic as a member of today’s real, not a hypothetical European Union, which is characterized by the ever-increasing hegemonic status of our neighbor, Germany;
– Czech Republic as a member of another, non-European, definitely looser organization, composed of fewer countries (type V4, Mitteleuropa, formerly Austria-Hungary, etc.).
Czech politics must decide democratically about which of these variants to pursue. Some are easy and achievable, others are completely unrealistic, if not utopian.
1. The idea of the European Union, based on an equitable status of the member states , is quite unrealistic , which would allow the so-called balancing of Germany and the abolition of its naturally created hegemonic position. This might be an acceptable solution, but it is not a reality, and it all suggests that it can not be. Today’s European Union is an equilibrium group. The idea, the dream or the illusion that membership in the European Union will eliminate our problem, the problem of a small country next to a large country, and the argument that we are joining the European Union just to achieve this has proved to be completely wrong. Still, many people in our country do not want to give up ideas of such idyllic Europe (or the EU).
2. The relevant question today is whether or not to be in the hard core of the EU , which is nothing more than a variant of becoming a satellite or even part of Germany. It must be clearly stated that the question of our participation in the so-called hard core of the EU is a matter of the Czech Republic’s being and non-existence , respectively. meaningfulness or nonsensiveness of the introduction of the theme of Czech national interests. They will not be implemented by one or the other voting within the EU.
3. Many people will say that the first option, an effort to stand alone, is totally unrealistic and will also lead to slipping into one of the other variants. Still, it might be worthwhile to strive for it. Its sub-option is the search for a grouping of countries with which to create a smaller than the all-continental integration group . It is a pity that more than forty years ago, EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which – it seems – has no chance for re-creation. However, a smaller grouping is certainly a variant.
4. Necessary, although for me, a “forced” or compulsory branch to Russia . Some listeners or readers will feel that a critical view of all five previous variants calls for a variant with Russia, which is a complete mistake. Nothing like that has ever occurred to me. We should finally begin to act on the consciousness that a close link to Russia in the second half of the twentieth century was a unique, unrepeatable episode of our history. Russia is not our neighbor, nothing needs to be promised, but there is no need to fear it (and do not even abuse this concern for internal political manipulation).
In any case, it is clear that all these options should be publicly debated and that they should become the topic of the October elections to the Chamber of Deputies. That’s the only way we can get a step further. Let everyone say aloud which option will be enforced after the elections.
Run to the bank, dear EU citizen. Everything is surrendered, the EU is planning. Everything will be taken from you, you will be a hostage to the state, warns Pavel Kohout and suggests a bad thing!
Next year, the European Commission will publish an impact assessment of the EU-wide cash limitation, which suggests that this will happen if the cash payments are not even completely disallowed. Economist Pavel Kohout rejects the rationale for this intention because the financing of terrorism is practiced by the European Union itself, and money laundering is seen as a minor problem compared to the misuse of European subsidies. Analyst Patrik Nacher finds it ridiculous for the state that issued money to forbid them to use, as well as forcing someone to save money and set up an account.
The European Commission has published the results of the consultation on the limitation of cash payments aimed at getting public opinion on possible measures by the European Union in the field of restrictions on cash payments of larger volumes. It therefore took note of its communication to the Council and the Parliament of 2 February 2016 on an Action Plan to further intensify the fight against terrorist financing, which is largely used for cash payments. Limited cash payments, together with the reporting of cash and other anti-money laundering measures, should make it more difficult for terrorist networks to operate and limit further crime. At the same time, it would simplify the course of further investigations to trace the financial operations that occurred in the terrorist activity. In 2018, the European Commission will publish an Impact Assessment stating the follow-up steps.
This may not be a long way from limiting or completely canceling non-cash payments. However, it must be remembered that by transferring all of his financial life to a bank above him a person loses full control. It is a mistake to execute or suspect of crime and immediately falls into existence problems, regardless of your income and financial reserves, because the bank account is a matter of a matter of seconds. While cash represents an immediate and final transfer of value between two parties, electronic payments are, on the contrary, performed by a third party – an intermediary whose credit risk must be accepted by the client and paid to him. If people could not use cash, central banks would have absolute control over money, and people would become the subjects of their experiments. Negative interest, when a person has to pay the bank for having the money deposited with her, becomes a viable decision.
The European Union itself is the most concerned about the financing of terrorism
Economist Pavel Kohout considers payment of cash payments a bad measure against ordinary consumers and completely rejects the rationale of combating terrorist financing and money laundering. "But for God's sake, the financing of terrorism is the very thing that the states themselves are doing, or the European Union itself. European Union Member States pay social benefits to potential suspects, or even returning terrorists from the Islamic State, as is the case with Sweden. If there was no support from the states or the European Union, terrorism would not be so much a problem. The limitation of cash payments has nothing to do with it. And as far as money laundering is concerned, it is such a minor problem compared to how European subsidies are abused, that it does not make sense to talk about it, "Pavel Kohout told ParliamentNews.com.
The bank's analyst and banking expert, Patrik Nacher, is also behind the planned cash cuts. "I am a long-standing critic of artificial, unnatural restrictions on cash payments because I think that in this case, development is authentic. Individual businesses, be they consumers, individuals or companies, companies, naturally aim at the cheapest and safest way of financial transactions. This means that it does – but naturally – increase cashless operations, make more use of payment cards, or make more transfers from account to account. Coming with some artificial regulation when cash is or not to be used, that's something I disagree with, "Patrick Nacher says for ParliamentaryListy.com.
By the system, we are forced to request a service with a commercial subject
He points out that there are situations when one wants to use cash. "Or are people who have no confidence in cashless payments. It is beyond any understanding that the state as a money-issuing institute is also forbidden to use it. That seems totally absurd to me. Just man has some means and it is on him the form of their distribution chooses. Forcing someone to save money and set up an account, I find it terrible. That's every thing he wants to take precedence. When you have cash, you answer for yourself. At the moment you operate non-cash, you are forced to open an account somewhere, having a credit card somewhere. In essence, that law tells us that we need to seek service with a commercial subject. And I do not like it either, "admits Patrick Nacher.
"Many people, for various reasons – and they can be absolutely legitimate reasons – prefer cash. Cash constraints or, ultimately, a total ban on money that is often spoken of could lead to a person becoming a hostage of the state, and if we had any savings, the state would be able to deprive those savings of all their impunity. It could introduce a tax on savings. After all, we have already seen something similar in the case of Cyprus. It could introduce a negative interest rate, which is also a thing that has already occurred, and could continue to do so. So I'm definitely keeping the cash and I do not agree with her limitation. If someone suits cashless payments, why not, I do not mind, I myself often pay cashlessly, but I certainly would not be for any violent restriction of the money, "insists Pavel Kohout, his economist.
Big brother, but masked in the fight against terrorist financing
According to Patrick Nacher, the cash payment for a regular user has one advantage. "It is clearly proven that when paying in cash and not by credit card, a person – consumer – is much more economical, modest. In other words, cash payment means that a person suddenly becomes more aware of the value of money and of having to earn them, so he has a much less appetite for nonsensical spending. It is a natural feature that one does not like to give up, he gives money, he slips, he can reach them, they create a relationship, so I do not want to adore it. I'm just describing that when a person issues money, he wraps his wallet visually. And so much more thinks what they spend. While working with virtual money, such as a credit card, it puts something on it, even money does not see, there is no bond. Non-cash payments lead to much more spending. It has this moment too, "notes the bank analyst.
The cash payment limitation compares with the limitation of arms possession. "If the black money is a problem, let it happen very vigorously. But because people promise people to make dirty money, or promile people distributes money for terrorism, buzzing all of them comes unfair. Because of the negligible number of entities that break something, rules are created that apply to everyone. Only those who have done in this area will simplify the job by ordering something for everyone. We do not have the natural course of choice for people to choose what is better, more effective, safer than they are to be ordered under such an embarrassing fight against the financing of terrorism. That makes me really smile. Let them say straight away: we want to have more control over what people spend on how they behave, that is, the Big Brother 'on the move, than to play that we want to control the financing of terrorism or tax evasion. It's really funny, because it's about the promile of people, "notes Patrick Nacher.
Cash deserves protection, threatening destructive impacts on the economy
They do not even talk about restricting cash payments, but also banning them, or reporting money. "At present there are anti-money laundering regulations that apply to banks, investment companies, insurance companies and similar financial institutions, which also to a certain extent limit cash receipts. But I do not know if there is any other suggestion in this direction that would tighten up the existing measures even more, but I think that what is already today is sufficient or even exaggerated. And I'm not in favor of it continuing, "Pavel Kohout, economist at Economist, told.
It is good to keep in mind the risks pointed out by Slovak economist Juraj Karpiš, a loud supporter of cash payments. "If all of your payments are electronic, then there is data about your financial life that can exploit criminals, the state, or a combination of them. From your bank account, you will also be able to see where you are moving, when you go on holiday and what cosmetics you buy. When there is no cash, it is also significantly easier to tax everything in the economy. An exotic proposal also emerges in Slovakia: to tax every electronic financial operation, ie the withdrawal from an ATM, as well as payment of the payment or payment of yogurt. Such a tax is masked at a low rate, but it has a more destructive impact on the economy than direct or indirect taxes. For all this, cash deserves protection, "explains Juraj Karpiš, who could also expect us to be in a purely non-cash payment world.
Uruk said to had become famous as the capital city of the king Gilgamesh, the Ancient ruler and hero of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
It is believed that Uruk was the biblical Erech from Genesis 10:10, the second city founded by Nimrod in Shinar.
The Epic of Gilgamesh – written by a Middle Eastern scholar 2,500 years before the birth of Christ – commemorates the life of the ruler of the city of Uruk, from which Iraq gets its name.
Uruk went through several phases of growth, from the Early Uruk period (4000-3500 BC) to the Late Uruk period (3500-3100 BC).
The city was said to have been formed when two smaller Ubaid settlements merged. The temple complexes at their cores became the Eanna District and the Anu District dedicated to Inanna and Anu, respectively.
In 2003 just prior to the Iraq invasion which toppled Hussein, astonishing discoveries were being made in Iraq, culminating in one of the most extraordinary claims anywhere for centuries.
A claim which American forces have been strongly accused of confiscating, subsequently becoming the prime suspect as the driving force behind a complete suppression of these astonishing discoveries within the country.
In the April of 2003, Jorg Fassbinder, of the Bavarian department of Historical Monuments, in Munich, told the BBC World Service’s Science in Action program, quote,
“I don’t want to say definitely that it was the grave of King Gilgamesh, but it looks very similar to that described in the epic.”
“We found just outside the city an area in the middle of the former Euphrates river, the remains of such a building which could be interpreted as a burial,” Mr Fassbinder said.”
In the book, Gilgamesh is described as having been buried under the Euphrates, in a tomb apparently constructed when the waters of the ancient river parted, following his death.
He said, the amazing discovery of the ancient city under the Iraqi desert had been made possible by modern technology.
“The most surprising thing was that we found structures already described by Gilgamesh,” Mr Fassbinder stated.
“We covered more than 100 hectares. We have found garden structures and field structures as described in the epic, and we found Babylonian houses.”
But he said the most astonishing find was an incredibly sophisticated system of canals.
Here predictably is where the story goes silent… due to conflict within the country it was largely believed the excavations had been halted,
However, it seems that the discovery of King Gilgamesh may not have been made in isolation, and apparently some onlookers were able to record the event.
This footage was supposedly leaked to numerous places across the internet, and has largely been put down as authentic footage of the find, shortly after this was taken reports state that American forces moved in and seized the find.
Why do The Powers That Be see fit to suppress such discoveries, the very real tombs of characters long thought to have been mythical?
Osiris being but one example among many which have undoubtedly been hidden from the public. Maybe some clues to why his tomb has been hidden, lay within the epic, and the immense powers Gilgamesh was said to have possessed.
He was the 5th king of Uruk and his power was so mighty, many believe that the stories surrounding him are just myths, that were built around his seemingly super human strength and endurance.
However, serious scholars concluded that the story of Gilgamesh was nothing more than a fairy tale due to the astonishing story.
In The Epic the great king is thought to be too proud and arrogant by the gods and so they decide to teach him a lesson, sending the wild man, Enkidu, to humble him.
Enkidu and Gilgamesh, after a fierce battle in which neither are bested, become friends and embark on adventures together.
When Enkidu is struck with death, Gilgamesh falls into a deep grief and, recognizing his own mortality through the death of his friend, questions the meaning of life and the value of human accomplishment in the face of ultimate extinction.
Casting away all of his old vanity and pride, Gilgamesh sets out on a quest to find the meaning of life and, finally, some way of defeating death. In doing so, he becomes the first epic hero in world literature.
The grief of Gilgamesh, and the questions his friend’s death evoke, resonate with every human being who has wrestled with the meaning of life in the face of death.
Although Gilgamesh ultimately fails to win immortality in the story, his deeds live on through the written word and, so, does he.
Is this below leaked footage of the tomb of Gilgamesh?
Regardless of its authenticity, why all the secrecy?
Are we as a species not capable of being presented with things, which test our core beliefs, without erupting into chaos?
It seems for now we may have to wait to find out…
While financial experts say they country could sign up as the general conditions are right, leader Milos Zeman has said that the people are against the move.
“We have been fulfilling the Maastricht criteria, but there is a mental barrier to its adoption. A mere 30 per cent of Czechs are in favor of entering the eurozone.”
The governor of the Czech Republic’s central bank, Jiri Rusnok, has also said that the country is ready to adopt but added that it might be better to wait until wages and prices approached those of the bloc’s core members.
According to Mr Rusnok, the Czech Republic is ready to give up the koruna but many believe it will not happen for at least five to 10 years.
He added while wage rises in some of the leading European economies are almost zero, the average salary increase in the Czech Republic is currently around five per cent.
Currently the nominal rate of wages rises in the country was 5.3 per cent in the first half of the year with average wages equivalent to €10 an hour.
Why these nations could leave the Eurozone
Heavily indebted Greece has no acute shortage of money,but will need money again from the ongoing aid program this summer.
But Athens is not the only shaky candidate of the Eurozone.
These are the other countries causing worries
Across the European Union countries though the figure is around €25 with this rising to €30 in some eurozone countries.
Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said:
“For us to remain at the core of the European Union, sooner or later we will have to respond to the question of not whether, but when the Czech Republic is capable of adopting the single European currency.”
The move comes after the latest economic data indicates while the eurozone countries are showing some signs of life they are continuing to struggle.
IHS Markit’s latest monthly health check across the countries have indicated, while the private sector has recorded signs of improvement, the rate of growth has slowed.
A statement from the company said:
“Although the rate of growth waned to a five-month low, high order book inflows and elevated levels of business confidence meant job creation remained one of the strongest recorded over the past decade as firms continued to expand capacity to meet rising demand.
“Price pressures eased, however, largely reflecting lower global commodity prices.”
JP Morgan took a more positive approach to the eurozone stating:
“The macroeconomic momentum appears to have eased somewhat in June, in particular in the Services sector.
“In light of the sharp improvement we have witnessed in the past nine months, this pause is not really a surprise and, in our opinion, should not be interpreted as an indication that the economy is about to roll over.
“Activity in the Eurozone remains at very healthy levels and consumer confidence is at its highest level in 16 years.
In addition, despite the recent drop in commodity prices, inflation dynamics remain supported by a large backlog and supplier delivery delays worsening to the greatest extent for just over six years.”