Smelly Media: Come, come, welcome, but your kids go to the camp

Allright allright, am exaggerating.

Thors Proposes Compulsory Preschool Education for Immigrant Children

Since I am of the "fascist" camp saying that "If you will leech off the welfare, and be a net negative to the economy, a burden on society (except for the leftie multiculties who think you enrich this dull culture), do not come."; one may think how I can oppose such a logical idea.

You know, the kids do not integrate, so we force them to toddler school.

Great.

That is freedom.

Yo, what about not letting the non-integrators into the benefit system in the first place.

Ah, yea yea, I know, I am an insensitive non-humanist asshole.

A phrase that I will use quite often: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

When looked at it objectively, not letting someone in permanently without some conditions being met is less fascist than forcing some preschool kids into school; but hey, it is good for the kids.

Ain't it?

Anyhow, makes me always wonder.

Is the Finnish Government's duty to look after its citizens and the productive immigrants living in the country lawfully or is it to look after non-finns living out of the borders; as time will show, to the detriment of Finns and other productive people living inside the borders.

Why have borders, if it is the latter?

Risking making some people feel bad hate speech:

If you have to force people to live in harmony with your culture, maybe, just maybe, they should not be here?

Maybe you should not expect that somebody respects your culture just becaue they are leeching off the benefits given by that culture?

Maybe you should not feel you have the right to force preschool kids into school just because you are giving so many benefits that the mom feels no need to work.

Two parented Finnish families? The kids have to go to pre-preschool because the mom has to work. No super duper benefit to them as long as the daddy is working, whatever shitty wage he might be getting.

Punish the productive by taxing the shit out of them,
Reward the professional welfareists, all under the name of humanism;
And then complain...

 


  

The swedish pure finn, the priestess with the bad mouth

"Your accent. You're not a finn, are you?"
"I am pure finn"

A'ight

"What were yoo doing there? Studying psychology?"
"Noo, I study theology"
"3.30 AM is too late to have any discussion on that, priestess"
":)"

Age comes up, I guess them older than they are, so I sing the finnish song, "Aikuinen nainen"; "Grown woman"

She says:

"Hahaha.. I sang the song in karaoke, and  dont speak finnish"
"Pure finn?"
"Yes, I am finnish, of the swedish finns"
"No finnish?"
"No, I grew up speaking swedish"
"You are like 6% of the population"
"Yes, but"
"And force the other 94% to learn your language"
"Yes but"
"And control 30% of the wealth"
"Yes but"
"And you study theology"
"... ?? Yes"
"OK"

The way the finnish but not finnish speaking priestess told me goodnight wishes after telling me she is busy the next day,

"I hope you get fucked somewhere tomorrow"

Thanks for the kind wishes, your holiness.

Today is tomorrow, Let's see if God listens to her.

How you know you are drunk

Prologue:

You have gone out with your guys, enjoyed the night and had a few drinks.

After the bars close, you hang out in the main street for sometime, and go into McDonalds for an after drinks dinner.

With your eyes barely focusing on the overhead menu, and barely holding your balance, there you see it:

The BigMac.

You order a menu from the young girl, and she puts all your food, yours and your guys' in the same paper bag.

Enthusiasted about the early morning snack you are going to have at home, together with a few more vodkas, you head to the busstop.

Waiting for the bus, you get the urge to pee.

Now to the present. This is where I come in the picture, walking towards home, passing by the said bus stop. Up to this point it was just a made up story, after this is what I saw.

You put the bag on the ground, beside the wall,

Open your zipper, fumble to take your member out.

With a wave of relaxation flowing through your body, you let the pee flow out of your body...

Into the paper bag.

By the time your friends notice and jump on your back to pull you back, it is too late.

Your BigMac is a PeeMac.

Bon Appetite.

Smelly media: How to integrate into a country

Have your own "parliament".

Yup...

"Immigrant Parliament" fails to draw enthusiasm

Plans to launch an immigrant parliament in Finland are proceeding shakily. The organisation has no unified political agenda and election matters remain unresolved

Well, I for one detest this movement.
You see, when I came to Finland, one of the reasons was that this was a country to live in. And one of the reasons for this was that the Finns who built this country and the system did a good job.
I came here, accepting to be under the governance of Finnish rules, and respect for the culture and the society.
Now, a foreign parliament...
Well, people wanting this foreign parliament, most of you are here because your people back home screwed up, your cutlure screwed up, your societal system screwed up, and now instead of working with this somewhat functioning system, you want your own voice heard.
I for one, have no interest in having my voice told through some immigrant.
I came here, not for having my voice told through some immigrant.
You want your own parliament, go back to where you came from, and try to let your voice heard there, or make sensible arguments and get into Finnish politics, may it be the city council, may it be the chuch, or the mosque.

Project organisers say their goal is to promote immigrant affairs by giving Finland's foreign community a voice. Backers of the immigrant parliament venture are calling for a vote to elect an unofficial 50-member parliament for a two-year term. Immigrants and people of immigrant background would be eligible to vote for representatives.

Here is something to make your voice heard:
Statistically foreigners commit more crime per person,
Steal more tax per person,
Rape more per person,
Abuse benefits more per person,
Etc etc..
Stop the ones doing this in your "immigrant community", shame the ones you cannot stop, or even expel them.
Show the Finns that your "community" is willing to work with the society, in peace and harmony.
Then the Finns will want to hear you, they will want you to enrich the culture with your good aspects.

Another way:
Stop making a bonfire in your living room every saturday and sunday, causing the fire alarm and the fire brigade to rush over. without fail, every saturday or sunday around noon, the fire alarm would go off in a "refugee housing", because lunch was made on open fire in the living room.

The government has green-lit the venture, which aims to launch an immigrant parliament by the time the newly-elected Finnish Parliament convenes next spring.

Good.
Another step closer to the drainhole.

Here is an interesting observation.
They talk about the "Immigrant community".
Yes, Somalians attacking Kurds because a Kurdish woman did not wear a scarf, tells a lot about this community.
There is no community, and if one observes correctly, the animosity between foreigners is greater than the one between foreigners and finns.
Most foreginers see Finns as geese to be plucked, while other foreigners are seen as ones demanding a share of the entitlement pie, the pie being women, benefits, or something else.

 

 

Smelly media: Let's every man do a mandatory rape sentence term, just in case

Allright the article does not suggest what my title says, but these people are not far from suggesting that.

Sentencing in just sixteen percent of rape cases

Quotes from the article

Just 16 percent of suspects in rape cases reported to police were sentenced last year.

And

Police and prosecutors say the low level of sentencing is due to the fact that it is often difficult to gather evidence of a rape. There are not necessarily any eyewitnesses. Forensic evidence comes largely from medical examinations, emergency phone calls, fingerprints, DNA samples, clothing and signs of struggle at crime scenes.

And

Collecting such evidence is further complicated when victims do not report the crime immediately. In some cases, reports are filed weeks or even years after the rape has occurred.

And

Optula researchers estimate that nine out of 10 rape victims do not make reports to the police.

So how many convictions were there last year?
 
I could not find the info that I wanted but the number 915 is presented for 2009 in the statistics and wikipedia states that this number means the reports, and it is not clear from the list they got if these are reports, or convictions, or trials. also not clear if statutory rape is included for Finland.  Maybe some Fin can help me?

I think these are reported rapes.

Rape is a crime, and should be punished. To add, the sentences in Finland are a joke. That is not the topic I am adressing here.

I am adressing the "Only 16% of cases are sentenced".

This assumes that 100% of the reported cases are actual rapes. And assuming that only one in ten rapes are reported.

Let's play a numbers game.

Let's say men are more criminally oriented then women by a factor of ten,

Say that a man is ten times more likely to rape a woman than a woman is to lie about rape.

If there are hundred rapes, then there are ten correct reports to the police, and then there are ten false repots to the police.

So even with this assumption of angelic women, the false accusations run at 50% (which is a bit higher than the credible studies, who cite a false rape accusation rate around 40%)

So the actual sentencing rate of rapists is actually 32%, assuming only the guilty are sentenced.

The sentencing rate for women trying to destroy innocent men's life by getting them sent to prison, to be beaten, raped, murdered, lose their loved ones, standing in society, job, living and any future they might have had, 0%.

Once again, rape is a crime, and should be punished more severely than it is right now in Finland.

Now, we continue.

...

"Punishing the false accusers would punish the real victims"

So an innocent man whose life is about to be destroyed is not a victim. What is his crime?

What these people forget is that the false accusers are punishing the rape victims by making a joke of this heinous crime.

Punishing the false accusers would bring justice to the other victims, the men, who are being legally raped by the woman and the legal system who will not hold women responsible for destroying a life.

Punishing the false accusers would increase the percentage of real crimes in the reported incidents, making the police force take any accusation more seriously than they do now.

"Women do not lie about rape"

No?

Next you are going to claim there are unicorns under the rainbow.

...


What is rape?

It is the forced sexual interaction under the threat or use of violence.

It is assault.

But not only.

It robs the woman of choosing who will be the father of the child.

That is the crux of the issue. Rape overrides the woman's choice in whose genes she will propagate in her child.

With the assumption in the newspaper about one in ten rapes not being reported, we run at a number around ten thousand rapes per year. In a country of five million.

10.000.

Keep it in mind.

What is a similar problem for men?

Cuckoldry.

A woman making a man raising someone else's genetic material thinking it is his own.

A woman cutting a man's bloodline without his consent.

A woman making the grandparents love other people's grandchildren.

Ending the man's genetic line.

Ending the man's  and his ancestors' legacy.

If you deem this unimportant, I ask thee,

What would a woman say if they switched the babies in the hospital?

And continue,

What different is this crime than rape, absent the assault?

Telling a man that the kids are not his, after twenty years of loving another's ball juice.

Twenty years of living a lie, a lost life,

What is this, but not pure evil? A pure evil committed solely by the angelic women who we assumed are only inclined to evil at one tenth of the rates that men are.

What are the estimates on the cuckoldry rate?

10% (Do your own research)

10% of kids in the western world are not by the men who think are the fathers.

Allright.

Can men get a DNA test in Finland? Yes, only with the mother's consent.

Does a woman need the consent of the accused to go to the police?

What does 10% mean?

It means that the assault plus denying genetic choice (the heinous crime rape) occurs 10.000 times per year according to the paper (which actually would add up to 500.000 raped women in the last fifty years, one in five women... so if  the two simultaneous assumptions that all accusations are true, and that one in ten rapes are reported is correct, that would mean one every five women will be raped in a lifetime. If this actually were the case, men would get their dicks cut before they were born. Just even the fact that men are not getting their dicks cut from the bud is enough to disprove the claims in the paper), while,

How many denials of genetic choice minus the assault (cuckoldry) is estimated by credible sources? 10%. What does that add up to?

60.000 births per year, 6000 incidences of cuckoldry. Every year. Unreported, Unpunished. Totally provable crime.

A lie a man has to live with if he finds out. A lie the children have to live with if they find out. At any time, 10% of the kids, 5-10% of the fathers a victim of this untold, unspoken crime.

A lie that can result in death of the child if a unknown genetic problem exists.

...

My point?

Rape is a heinous crime, punish it severely.

False accusation of rape is a heinous crime, punish it.

Cuckoldry is rape minus the assault part, if you can't punish it, at least make it possible for the father to seek validation of the kids' DNA without having to face the mother or get consent of the mother.

If you cannot bring the system to punish false accusations for the sake of the accused men, do it for the raped women who are, as is implied, not taken seriously enough.

...

A link of interest:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

Predictability of the female kind

Women. Predictable as the apple on the tree. They will fall towards gravity. 

Woman. I know her latest ex, she knows I know the latest ex. The day we got introduced personally, the ex was already an ex, and I pissed her off by talking about her and her ex. Her disrespect towards her ex was my mark to go in and have fun about the topic at her expense. Woman, "Curls", disses me for some time, totally unfriendly, until she starts dating this one dude who also knows me. Our relationship has made it to the nodding level. But still not on friendly terms.

Women. Amy and Chasey. I was standing by the bar when they entered with two guys, apparently boyfriends, but Amy looked at me, straight, unflinching, and she undressed me with her eyes, leaving me wondering if the king is naked.

Me? Having good time, and have downed a bottle of wine.

On my way back to the dance room, I was passing by the smoking area and saw Amy&Chasey smoking, so I thought, gotta clear something (for the sake of writing a story, you see)

"Hey."

"Oh, hiiii"

"Was wondering something... you girls here with your boyfriends?"

"Yes, we are"

"Cool, bye then"

"Wait, you are not going to stay and chat with us"

"No"

"No?"

"No"

"So you think we are waste of time?"

me, giving a pause, doing some deep thinking, "Yea, actually I you are a waste of time"

Now, the uninitiated man will think the girls lost interest in me, or got angry... The initiated man will know the girls eyes sparked like sunshine sparks of a dead calm sea about to blow into a hurricane...

Just when this conversation ended, Curls came for a smoke,

I turned to her,

"Hey Curls, these girls are now sad that I called them waste of time"

"You did?"

"She said it, I agreed, they got boyfriends, and I am not running social charity here"

During this time the sparks in the other two girls' eyes are almost blinding me.

Few more sentences were uttered and I left.

Downstairs, am bullshitting with one of the guys I know, and Curls comes. The guy leaves to the dancefloor.

Curls, closing her eyes a bit, displaying her neck in a coy way, looking like a damsel in distress, mixed with pursed lips,

"You know there is one thing I don't like about my boyfriend"

 

The dilemma of the shopowner

If there have been numerous times to provide precedence of:

A small number of members of a subgroup* of the society start frequenting a mainstream bar/coffee.
This subgroup sits there for hours no end, and gets maybe one drink per man, during all that time.
The number enlarges.  This subgroup likes to hangout in big numbers, packs.

The hours get longer, the tables get filled with more of this subgroup, spending minimal amounts of money.
A few months passes, the mainstream customers leave the place.
Place either changes hands for a ridiculously small amount of money, or goes bankrupt.

*Subgroup: Any distinguishable group from 100% of the population, i.e.: women; male engineering students, gymgoers, etc...

Even the place I am sitting in now has that history.

Used to be the best place in town 7 days a week.
It was the place to be for two, three years. Packed to the hilt on the weekends.
Subgroup scouts arrived. Subgroup main force followed.

In six months, the place was empty even on saturdays.
When the mainstream customers went, so did the good views, and not much later, so did the subgroup;
But not before the place changed hands as it was loosing money like crazy.

Subgroup had their scouts scattered around town for some months, eventually the subgroup converged on this one year old popular coffee on the mainstreet.
The place did not survive the summer.

The place I am sitting in struggled for few years, and lately it has been getting better again, good music, good decor, good service and good customers. But it all hangs on a thin thread. Once the scouts arrive....

So why am I asking about the shopowner's dilemma?

When I was walking I noticed that another recently well populated coffee bar was now being populated by this subgroup.
Loud, arrogant, aggressive, and cheap; aggressive and not a pleasant view.
The mainstream customers which held to the place so tightly in the last year have apparently given up.

There always used to be a few regular customers sitting in the place, waiting for the train,
Now, nada.
Subgroup has taken over the place.

The dilemma is this:

When you know that a customer subgroup will not spend like the others, will buy one coffee and drink that one coffee for four hours,
And
When you know that a customer subgroup will bring all the pack to the place, with similar spending habits;

Leaving no place for regular customers who bring in the money
And
Repelling the regular customers who would actually squeeze in the one free small table, by being loud, obnoxious, and extensive unwelcoming/harassing eye contact,

Can you take action against that group of customers?

I do not mean kicking them out, (I would favor that, as history shows that survival is at stake)

But enforcing minimum one drink per hour rule or something?

Can't do that. Customer rights.

So the only thing left for a shopowner is to watch the customers closely.

When the scouts arrive, start looking for a buyer.

If the main force arrives, which is inevitable if your regular customer base includes a few good looking women,

If the main force arrives, sell. Do not wait.


If someone accuses the shopowner for being XXXist,
One has to ask those shitheads if they would pay for the shopowners loss, solely brought upon him because of this one group of customers.
One has to ask those shitheads if the shopowner should lose his livelyhood for the sake of XXXance, XXXity, etc...


Before one accuses me of being XXXist,
The shopowner is not running a charity. He/she is running a business.
Where I come from, a shopowner can come to a customer and say "If you are not drinking anything bro, I will ask you to leave", or just leaves the coffee bar's regular drink on the table and adds it to the bill..

If you cannot say that, or if you cannot do that,
The only thing you can do as a business owner is to sell the business at the first sight of destructive customers, if your regular customers have been repelled and these new customers are treating you as a charity house.

Well, ok, nobody is stopping the businessman from selling, but it just feels good to throw shit at the political correctness mercenaries, as being able to kick out these customers or exert extra costs on them would save the business.

Can't do it. Not correct politically.

Ruining a business? Effing capitalists anyway.