Finland’s Welfare State Model Holds The Interests Of Terrorists Above Its Own People

For a country that has existed less than one hundred years, Finland has had a violent history. The White Guard defeated the (communist) Red Guard in a bloody civil war, which ended in brutal executions of the defeated Reds. Twenty years later, the Soviet Union attempted to invade Finland in the Winter War. Not long after, the Continuation War broke out only to be followed by the Lapland War against the Germans. Through feats of heroic fighting and sacrifice, Finland managed stay independent amidst the fires of the Second World War.

Both my grandfathers (and their fathers) fought in the Second World War for the independence and sovereignty of Finland. Despite the hardships they faced during the war, regardless of the wounds they sustained in combat and the fact that their farms were lost to the enemy, they managed to start a family and live a relatively normal life.


Heroes of the Battle of Tali-Ihantala in the Continuation War

Therefore, Finland and her people are no strangers to war. However, all these events predate the so-called “welfare state” that later emerged. This change turned a once strong and proud nation to a shadow of its former self. The general lack of integrity resulting from the abandonment of the masculine virtues that allowed this small nation’s population to cope with crises of insane proportion, has until now been hard to describe to a foreigner not familiar with the intricacies of modern Finnish society.

While gathering sources for this article, I personally found that inconvenient statistics that had previously been provided by the national statistics institution, “Statistics Finland” (Tilastokeskus) have been deleted. Notably, a study showing the employment percentage of immigrants by ethnicity, which uncovered a shocking truth, that fewer than 20% of Afghani or Somali immigrants were employed. The study also showed the discrepancy these groups had with other immigrant groups such as the Kenyans of whom 83 % had found employed within Finland.

This and other similar studies, which have since been deleted, highlight the problem of too-lavish benefits. As expenses such as accommodation, food, and even hobbies are paid for by the welfare state, why would an individual get a job anyway? Unfortunately, such is the reality of the modern Nordic welfare state; foreign nationals are valued higher than the native population whose labor pays for the lifestyle of these higher value individuals. Any discussion of these policies, however, has been hampered by the standard techniques familiar to any man arguing feminists. Anyone criticizing either immigration or the benefits they receive is immediately called out as a racist, fascist or white trash.

The collapse of our masculine virtues and their replacement by feminine welfare values is nowhere more obvious than in the Parliament’s October 2013 decision not to revoke the social security benefits of individuals who went to fight in the Syrian civil war. The Minister of Social and Health Affairs submitted a written answer that maintained that social security eligibility is based on residence, and therefore the fact that they fight overseas does not warrant further action.

As a direct result, our state is supporting terrorism. The discussion regarding the immense social security benefits which immigrants (hailing from third-world countries such as Somalia) currently enjoy in Finland has been going on for a long time before this decision.

If a “brave” terrorist fighter is injured in the conflict, they will be treated free of charge in our Nordic all-expenses paid nanny state. It is not a secret that Finland has one of the highest tax rates in the world, and due to this, the Finnish taxpayer should have a right to ensure that their funds are used responsibly. Call me crazy, but I do not personally believe treating members of terrorist organizations is a responsible or even sensible use of Finnish resources.


 One could almost question why we let them continue residing in Finland in the first place.

The silence regarding this decision has been deafening. It took over a year for the media to barely cover the topic. The resulting outrage regarding the issue of taxpayer money being used on Jihadists has been rather docile. Similarly to the aforementioned immigrants’ benefit discussion, it is being pushed aside. There can be no questioning of the multiculturalism or xenocentrism our state sponsors. No one shall question the use of his or her taxed income.

The level of insanity inside a welfare state can be conveyed very poorly through a modicum of words. The prevalent attitudes of some of the people and the insidious propaganda that the people are exposed to daily I cannot bring to you via the sources I have available. However, my objective here has been to give a glimpse of the stupidity of the decision-making in our country and the resulting policies for the whole world to see.

These policies in place today are the result of the silencing dissenting opinions, limiting freedom of speech, and the brainwashing our people have been exposed to since kindergarten. It is an open secret that the education system promotes the leftist agenda on vulnerable and impressionable children. Furthermore, media focus is given to matters of no importance to shift attention from the more serious issues at hand.

Examples of shifting focus to non-issues are endless. For example, recently a member of the Finnish Parliament expressed her concern over SpongeBob Squarepants’ detrimental effects on children. Naturally, the story attracted a sizeable proportion of the public’s attention. Never mind the fact we are effectively supporting terrorism through our policies, SpongeBob is much too violent.

Our nation that once fought so fiercely against its enemies is now caring for them. We have betrayed ourselves.

Read More: You’re A Monster If Don’t Support The Welfare State

228 thoughts on “Finland’s Welfare State Model Holds The Interests Of Terrorists Above Its Own People”

  1. Join the club – so does America. The Boston Marathon Bombers Tsarnaev brothers lived well off the American tax payer and repaid that generosity by slaughtering their generous hosts. Given what a SWPL event the Boston Marathon is, one would have hoped that even left wing Americans would have woken up to the problem of unfettered immigration, but looking at Obama’s executive amnesty, I guess not.

    1. Generous fellow citizens is more like it. Dzhokar was a US citizen. That means he’s not a guest and We The People are not hosts. That means he *is* one of We The People.
      Your exclusion of someone from full and equal membership in society because he isn’t a member of the in-group you identify with is as much an affront to individual rights and individual liberty as any feminist initiative enforced by the coercive power of the state.

      1. He was a parasite who had no business being naturalized.
        Why are we handing out citizenship to people who can’t support themselves? Why are we giving ANY kind of welfare to foreigners at all? If they can’t make it here they should go back to their own countries.
        Google the rest of the Tsarnaev family that was given citizenship. They’re all a bunch of crooks, weasels and mooches.

      2. Red Knight is either a concern troll, or lacks basic reading comprehension. His/her reply is an example of a straw man fallacy. Note that nowhere did the OP mention anything about revoking Dzhokar’s citizenship, but that’s the argument that Red Knight seemed to reply to (i.e. “Your exclusion of someone from full and equal membership in society..”). The OP was simply stating that the USA is too quick to give out citizenship to immigrants who provide little or no value as citizens (i.e. “unfettered immigration”).

        1. ProTip: Read the post you reply to in its actual context.
          I was objecting to the choice of words that implied that he and his in-group are the owners of the country, and that Dzhokar is not, despite his citizenship.

        2. ProTip: Read the post you reply to in its actual context.

          ProTip: Read the post you reply to in its actual context.

        3. And you are a fucking pedantic asshole who’s entire approach to reasoning is absurd.

        4. Our in-group are the rightful owners of this country, we are the foundation on which it stands.

      3. In fact, dingus, he came over here because his family sought political asylum fraudulently. We have laws on the books that make this a federal felony and such an act is a basis for terminating his citizenship and all of their green cards.
        How do we know it’s fraudulent? His parents moved back to the old country and he and his brother visited the nation they were supposedly refugees from after entry here.
        Their presence here is an example of the lunacy the author cites. Your comment is evidence of your total submersion in socjusticeprogmarxistradfem delusions and pseudo-intellectuality.
        Citizenship is a privilege that can be revoked when one takes up arms against our nation in any event, so yeah, shut the fuck up. Thanks.

        1. His parents moved back to the old country and he and his brother visited the nation they were supposedly refugees from after entry here.

          Even worse, this parasite’s mother left the US after being convicted on a shoplifting charge. Presumably she used her Russian passport to get out of the country.

        2. No doubt. What’s saddest is how few people track all this back to the overt feminization of our culture. Most men don’t even feel responsible to defend themselves and stand up for their country and people – and most women never even try. They are all so self absorbed and shallow it’s sickening.
          When I point out how socialism really only got legs in the U.S. when women got political power, most men are surprised. It’s never occurred to them. When I point out massive indebtedness of ours society and govt, and how it arose as women became politically and economically empowered they are dumbstruck. Women are largely responsible for destroying classically the limits on govt that classical liberal ideals envisioned.

        3. Yup… exactly how appeals to “it is for the children” or “we have to do this to protect you” work.

        4. what did freddie have to say on this? I know little about his writings, genuinely curious thanks!

        5. He said a lot and I’m no expert. That said, he was particularly incisive when it comes to women – but not particularly kind, hence why he’s painted as merely a misogynist and bigot, but that’s really superficial.
          He predicted that as women attempted to become more masculine and became influential that our politics and public intellectual discourse would descend into a hash of nonsense. The pathetic horseshit that passes for thought by the average radfem would not shock Nietzsche.
          And he was right. We talk about “social justice warriors” as though it’s not gender based, but in fact the entire enterprise is largely held together by women. They have intentionally “re-interpreted” science that conflicts with their idiotic ideas about culture and social systems in ways that have unmoored their entire epistemology from reality.
          You know that feeling you get when you hear an SJW speaking – like you can’t believe that the person actually believes the nonsense they are saying? The ridiculousness of their reasoning and ideology? This is because women do not have the high geniuses that exist in the male population. Their “smart” people are much dumber than men. They also are not rooted in empiricism the way men are – 200k years of hunting selects for those who are profoundly related to reality.
          You should read him. Some of what he says is bizarre but he also is very in line with the entire Red Pill vibe of self improvement and self reliance. Hope that is helpful.

        6. thanks man! seems he and other great thinkers came to the same conclusion. no wonder he was depressed eh 🙂

        7. “If you allow them [women] to pull away the restraints and put
          themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you
          will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your
          fellows, they will become your masters.”
          Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE)

      4. “Dzhokar was a US citizen. That means he’s not a guest. . .”
        Why are you supporting an in group which maintains its status by force and demanding that an individual be included in that in group when you reject the concept in group?

        1. I am supporting civil rights and the rule of law, and I realize that unless it applies to everyone, whether they be of your, mine, or anyone else’s in-group, it is meaningless.
          Do you want the government to have the power to revoke your rights just because a lot of really opinionated people (such as feminists) think you are a super duper bad person who does not deserve rights?

        2. ” . . . it applies to everyone, whether they be of your, mine, or anyone else’s in-group . . .”
          Why do you wish to impose American law on the people’s of other nations?
          “Do you want the government to have the power to revoke your rights . . . ”
          How do you propose to defend them against the government without like minded allies? i.e., by forming an in group?

        3. Rule of law, constitutional rights and due process are hardly uniquely American concepts. They’re acknowledged by pretty much every society built in Age of Enlightenment sociopolitical ideas.
          As for how to defend one’s rights against government, giving the government the ability to revoke them on the basis that someone in the government thinks you are a really bad person is certainly not the way to go. It’s the exact opposite of defending your rights, it’s the enabling of tyranny.

        4. Yes, and in fact the govt does that all the time. Those opinionated people are called juries. In the case of taking up arms against our nation, it’s called treason.
          Go suck a bowl of dicks you pseudo-intellectual fuckwit.

        5. Juries only have the authority to determine whether a defendant on trial is guilty under the law as it is. They don’t have the authority to waive anyone’s constitutional rights. There’s a reason why matters of constitutionality are determined by the Supreme Court, not juries of random nobodies.
          Besides, the topic isn’t conviction by judicial trial, it’s revocation of rights by an act of a branch of government other than the judicial and which doesn’t have the authority to pass legal judgment in the first place.

        6. Why do you artificially limit the scope of your first answer to a minority subset of societies, excluding most indigenous ethnic societies?
          Why does your second answer completely ignore my question?

        7. Fuck “civil rights”. The rule of law is DEAD in this country and you’re a fool for continuing to support it.

        8. The rule of law is the only thing that allows you to post on a politically incorrect website like Return of Kings without getting sent into feminist re-education camp for mandatory pegging sessions.

      5. Your ideology of unlimited individual rights and freedom is a myth. it’s something that can only exist in a culturally and racially homogeneous polity with strong biases against outgroup members. It cannot exist in a society that is being actively subverted by Post-Marxists. Embrace Nationalism or lose EVERYTHING.

        1. Ah, so freedom only applies as long as you don’t use it to deviate from the majority norm. That’s a pretty useless freedom.

  2. Interesting article. Lefties normally hold up Scandinavian countries as models to emulate. They never let the truth get in the way though.

    1. And what is this truth that lefties are ignoring or denying in their idolization of the Scandinavians? Seems to me that adhering to the rule of law even when it comes to the most hated segment of society would count as a virtue and a testament to the greatness of those countries.
      Unlike much of the American right-wing which keeps on blowing its horn about the awesomeness of the Constitution and being outraged over Obama’s supposed violations of it but was quick to agitate for an utterly unconstitutional revocation of US citizenship from American Muslims who have traveled to Syria to fight.

      1. but was quick to agitate for an utterly unconstitutional revocation of US citizenship from American Muslims who have traveled to Syria to fight.

        Incorrect. While most of us have been calling for these traitors to have their citizenship stripped, that’s not the policy that is be pursued.
        We’re simply asking that their passports be revoked. This is perfectly legal under existing law, as Congress has always had the power to govern immigration law, and the Executive branch has historically had the authority to revoke the passports of people who engage in activities that are detrimental to US foreign policy or national security.
        See Haig v. Agee.

        1. On the contrary, Ted Cruz tried to fast-track an actual revocation of their citizenship (not passports, actual citizenship) by an act of congress. It got blocked by some Democrat specifically on the basis of an objection over the constitutionality of it. Ted was not a happy camper about it, making a rant that essentially said “Don’t talk to me about constitutionality, I’ve always been the biggest defender of the Constitution in here, but these are reaaaallly baaaad people so common sense says it doesn’t apply!”
          The Constitution is very precise about what constitutes treason, and none of those who traveled to Syria and/or ISIS-land to fight have fulfilled any of the finite, enumerated conditions needed to qualify as traitors under the law. For that, there would have to be an official state of war between the United States and the entity they have joined, which there has never been. By the time most of them joined, there weren’t even any US airstrikes going on against ISIS.

        2. Ted Cruz’s bill simply adds to existing government authority to revoke the citizenship of people if they engage in activities hostile to national security.

          The entire text of the bill simply amends an existing law that already allows for the US government to strip citizenship of people for engaging in a list of no-nos:

          However, as I stated in my original post, the US government already has the authority to revoke passports of such persons, and we quite frankly should be doing this even without a new law.

        3. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

        4. Why do you, who gives every appearance of being functionally literate, not know what “or” means?

        5. Do you understand the part that comes after the “or”?
          Hint: An enemy is an entity with which the United States are in the aforementioned state of legal, declared war.

        6. Amending an existing law for revocation of citizenship is not contrary to the rule of law, provided that the law is applied to actions committed *after* the law has come into effect.
          Yet, that’s not what he was about in the case I mentioned. He was pushing for the revocation of citizenship from certain citizens for actions they had already committed, at a time when those actions did not constitute a legal basis for the revocation of citizenship.
          Do you understand the difference between the two?

        7. Given your apparent difficulty with the word “or,” it didn’t seem like it would pragmatic to question your understanding of the words “levy” and “enemy.”
          So, why do you . . .
          “An enemy is an entity with which the United States are in the aforementioned state of legal, declared war.”
          Never mind.

        8. I dont dispute that such a change in the law would have no impact on anyone who broke it before the change is put into place.
          But why is changing the law for those who do see things afterwards a bad thing? By killing this change, the democrats gave future terrorists another helping hand.

        9. From how the bill was promoted by Ted & co, it was pretty clear that they intended it to be used to revoke the citizenship of those who had already travelled to Syria and to prevent them from ever returning, not just apply it to future cases.

        10. the statment essentially boils down to “if A or B, then it is treason.” the very fact that the time is taken to distinguish B from A makes it abundantly clear that A =/= B in all circumstances. kind of like all squares are rectangles but all rectangles arent squares.
          you can be an enemy without being at war fucktard.

        11. I’m not feeling sorry for terrorists who align themselves with a group at kidnaps and murders US citizens.

        12. Thank you for demonstrating through your change of the subject that you have lost the original point of argument about the rule of law.

        13. An enemy is by definition an entity with which one is at war, and that has been understood by the judiciary since forever. Which is why, for example, people who spied for the Soviet Union during the cold war were not convicted of treason per se.
          The second clause is there to stipulate that you don’t have to directly join a military at war with the US to be a traitor, you are also one if you provide other kinds of assistance to the entity at war with the United States.

        14. I lost nothing. I still think this president should use his existing power to revoke the passports of the people involved.

        15. Thank you for demonstrating that you lost the argument about the rule of law and had to resort to moving the goalposts.

        16. Have it your way then… you can even give these terrorists free hugs, kisses and blowjobs when they get back to the airport. Roll out the red carpet for them and give them the heroes’ welcome they surely deserve!
          The rest of us presumably want to keep our heads attached.

        17. You fail to see the point that no mention was made about a declareation of war on the part of the US. An enemy are those people that are fighting against you. These terrorist groups will be the first to tell you that they have declared war on the US. That is why they claim POW status, because they are at war with us. Our failure to have a mechanism to declare war on something other than a nation/state is the problem.

        18. And you are assuming that the Constitution means exactly what you think it should mean, as long as it doesn’t directl, explicitly, say the opposite.
          Your position is absurd, and one that would allow for pretty much anyone who did any kind of harm to any American to be deemed an “enemy” or adhering to one. The Founding Fathers understood this, they came from a British legal background where “treason” was so ill-defined that it could mean pretty much anything up to and including simply disagreeing with the King, and thus intentionally defined treason in the narrowest possible terms.

      2. The truth is that being too nice to outsiders isn’t a good thing
        Diversity itself is a problem most countries try to live with, not encourage

        1. You speak as if it were self-evident that letting these fighters return to Finland is bad for Finland.
          The fact that they went to fight for a particular faction in a particular armed conflict does not per se imply anything about what they will do in Finland after they have returned there.

  3. When they originally decided to travel to Syria to fight, was it contrary to any Finnish law that existed at the time? If not, there’s nothing the government legally can, or should, do. Or, does Finland not have a Bill of Rights of any kind?
    What you’re advocating is to have the government punish individuals by revoking benefits simply because you don’t personally like the individuals in question. Did you never stop even for a second to think how letting the government have such power could possibly go wrong? Maybe you should, being on a website like this which promotes unpopular, politically incorrect thoughts.
    Also, the header implies that “terrorists” and “its own people” are two separate groups. Which would be incorrect for any of them who’d be Finnish citizens. But I guess it doesn’t count, once a darkie always a darkie, eh?

      1. I support and stand up for the freedom and self-determination of individuals. Not whatever in-groups said individuals choose to identify with. Individuals have rights, collectives don’t.

        1. Why do you support the use of and thus validate feminist bullshit concepts like “rape culture”?

        2. Why do you believe that the deliberate misuse of a term for political advantage by a minority ingroup invalidates an observable reality which it describes?

        3. Using a term correctly in one place does not validate it’s completely incorrect use elsewhere.

    1. So you think citizens of a peaceful country should tolerate the immigration of individuals who are hostile to it, and seek to undermine it?

      once a darkie always a darkie, eh?

      You sound like a SJW.

    2. The US strips the citizenship of Germans who were Nazis or collaborated with the Nazis, regardless of the fact that they acting subject to German law, not American law as it existed at the time. To the extent that Finland can legally do the same, why should it not, in effect, cut the cancer out? Or should Finland coddle jihadis “of color” to show what good people they (modern Finns) are?
      À bientôt,

    3. The problem isn’t that they’re “darkies”; the problem is that they’re jihadist assholes who want to inflict their particular brand of “Mental Illness As Religion” on the rest of us, and fucktard libs think we should bend over and take it b/c if we don’t we might be ‘racist’. If most Muzzie nutbags where white instead of cafe-au-lait color, then libs would have no problem telling them to GTFO. So who is obsessed with race again?
      À bientôt,

    4. Shrug
      The interests of the ethnostate should always trump rule of law
      See how easy it is?

      1. Yes, I see how easy it is to type such a thing on the keyboard and press the Post button. Doesn’t make it true. Who gets to decide what “the interests of the ethnostate” are?

    1. The various populations of the Eurozone didn’t exactly fight against the EU’s implementation. They let the bureaucrats run amuck and they deserve what they’ve gotten: An immovable socialist bureaucracy overseeing their own downfall.

        1. Peaceful secession should never be off the table for either. Just sayin’. If it starts anywhere in the USA it will start here.

        2. Secession will be anything but peaceful. This is not to condemn secessionism but to make the truth clear.

        3. Actually, it would probably happen first and succeed best in VT. Outside of IBM in Burlington, the state has little to no large corporations providing employment, homogeneous demographic,low population density, traditionally agrarian economy, extremely rural and an ability to feed itself. Combined these attributes make it a state that could easily go it alone.

      1. Nobody deserves this. All (Western Europeans) have arrived at this place simultaneously from the same source. Approximately one hundred years ago progressive white men thought it a good idea to give suffrage to women. Those old gentlemen are all dead and buried and cannot see the results of their handiwork. What took thousands of years for white men to build, white women have destroyed in less than a hundred. However its not white women in particular who are uniquely destructive, as evidenced by Japan. It is simply that women in general, because they are by nature irrational and irresponsible, have brought us to our current state.

  4. Erinomainen artikkeli
    In much of the west, we have lived in peace and plenty for a long time. That opulence seems to lead rather naturally to the creation of a welfare state (see Rome).
    In Finland’s case, as you point out they had multiple generations of very difficult strife…then just seemed to give up, as if all of that hard earned vitality just vanished. Is there any chance for a follow up article on the why of that?

    1. Kiitos
      I am not ruling out the possibility of a follow up, however, it will be quite difficult to write as I am barely 20 years old and I have not really experienced the “glory days” firsthand. On the other hand, it would appear the decline has become more pronounced in the last few years.

  5. Anyone criticizing either immigration or the benefits they receive is immediately called out as a racist, fascist or white trash.

    European countries still have a WWII hangover. They live in this beautifully delusional world where, if we’re just nice to everyone else, then they’ll be nice to us. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to any resemblances of the white nationalism that started WWII and ended 60 million lives, the vast majority of them white Europeans. The difference now is that the bombs and destructive power is potentially much, much more devastating.
    The problem with this line of thought is that it’s sort of an ostrich hiding it’s head in the sand. As beautiful as “world peace” and “loving your enemies” sounds, it’s just flat out delusional. There are people who seriously want to destroy you, your way of life, and rob you of everything you have; and no amount of pandering nor appeasement is going to change them. In primate language, you’re simply communicating to that other ape that you’re weak, and inviting more hostility. As every man knows (or should know) cowering to a bully only invites more bullying, you must stand up for yourself!
    Of course, this is why I love Machiavelli. He cut out the nice-y, nice-y, politically correct bullshit and got down to what was practical and actually worked. The man understood human nature. As sweet and idealistic as it may be, the modern Marxo-Christian worldview in the West is not in line with the reality on the ground. It’s a dangerous weakness that its enemies will exploit.
    “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”

    1. I like the history of Finland. Brave fighters who had a civil war, then fought bravely against Soviet Expansion which has been on going for centuries, they then Allied with Nazi Germany and then the post World War 2 struggles. It is true that most of the time the immigrants from more disadvantaged countries tend to work harder longer hours for lesser money. And this allows the menial tasks for the host country to be completed. Sometimes High Level professionals are given special privileges in the host country as well.
      On Machiavelli the irony is that many of the so called “Marxo-Christian” Societies you name is pretty Machiavellian in their Geo-political negotiations and actions, ask most third world countries and they would agree. On Muslims not all of them are strict practicing Muslims, and many of them do not like Terror groups…many of them want to live their lives peacefully and raise their kids in a healthy society. The middle east region has been in a state of constant warfare after their large Empires were divided and cut. Lastly Sunni and Shia Islam are the traditional examples of Islam, some people are dogmatic in their religious practice many are not. Also Sufi Islam, or Sufism is the loving spiritual side to Islam not always talked about. Sufi Islam believes Allah exists inside all of us, and they are more open and accepting to all race creeds religions and cultural backgrounds.
      I agree many times you do have to get tough and that’s the way the world works, but the majority of people just want to see their kids grow and have opportunities that they didn’t have.

      1. Societies you name is pretty Machiavellian, ask most third world countries and they would agree in their Geo-political negotiations and actions, ask most third world countries and they would agree

        Yes, all that aid that is constantly given to Africa is pure Machiavelli. Of course, certain societies are going to work in their own best interest, why wouldn’t they? Would the third-world be any exception if they had power? Of course not.

        On Muslims not all of them are strict practicing Muslims, and many of them do not like Terror groups…

        NAMALT. Even if they don’t commit the crimes, many of them support them. After the 7/7 bombings, 1 in 4 British Muslims said the terrorist act was justified. We’re not talking about a tiny minority here.
        There’s actually a very simple four step process for conquering with religion in a non-violent way, although it usually takes 3 or 4 generations, and the new religion has been to a decent population size.
        1. Foreign religion moves into new area. Forms isolated communities. Indigenous population is suspicious and hostile. New religion members play “victim card” to gain public sympathy.
        2. Foreign religion is accepted into indigenous community, as new generation of indigenous population knows of no time when imported religion did not exist.
        3. There is an exchange of religious ideas between foreign culture and native culture. A new culture is formed that fuses ideas from the two, and these are accepted by most people.
        4. During the final generation, hard-lined fundamentalists attack “heresy” and force fundamentalism onto entire group.
        Islam is pure mythology, and a cultural disease. It’s NOT a threat only when it’s influence is small. It’s ironic hearing a black man defend Islam, as the Arab Slave Trade was responsible for black slavery. It only ended when the British put a stop to it throughout their empire. The Arabs have a long and deep standing prejudice against the “Zanj.”

        1. Blacks were just as responsible for slavery as whites and arabs, who do you think sold you the slaves? And for Muslims. Islam is the last remnant of resistance against the cultural parisite that is liberalism and feminism. They might be radical but they are effective.

        2. Islam is the last remnant of resistance against the cultural parisite that is liberalism and feminism.

          Islam’s resistance to feminism is not the rational kind, but the irrational kind. Islam isn’t just anti-feminist but anti-intellectualism and anti-freedom. They would throw the West back into another 1000 year Dark Age of religious dogma and superstition. It would be the medieval Catholic Church all over again. While I despise feminism, I wouldn’t do that to the West.

        3. Typical ignorant. Were it not for the Catholics of the Middle Ages not only scientific progress would have stopped completely, we would be Muslim by now.

        4. The Catholic Church was not pro-science. There were scientists who were Catholic, sure, but there were scientists in ancient times who were pagan. There were also scientists who were Muslim. What’s your point? It doesn’t mean the powers that be liked what they were doing. Uh, Galileo? Giordano Bruno? Also, be honest…. are you Catholic?

        5. It’s rational for a tribe trying to survive in an inhospitable desert. But ya, no place for it in the West

        6. Jews only the slave trader ships and much of the tobacco and sugar companies which traded for them.
          Make sure to very carefully not consider Jews as “all whites”. Although the Jews absolutely love it for the purpose of blaming others for slavery.
          Ultimate it was the whites who shed the blood of millions of their race just to remove slavery.

        7. Au Contraire, the pagan Catholic Church put the Bible on the list books prohibited by the common man.
          It wasn’t until men like Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton went in violation of the Vatican’s tyranny and opened the Bible and discovered many scientific facts that written in the Bible BEFORE they were discovered by secular science.

        8. @RedPill Army: Galileo was not burnt at the stake and second Giordano Bruno was NO scientist but a wannabe sorcerer. Actually the Catholic Church clergymen preserved the written word when there was no press to print it and Vikings, Visigoths and other peoples regarded paper and ancient papyrus as fit only as fireplace fuel. There was a time when the thousands upon thousands of words found in a book had to be written by hand. Yikes, in those places and “dark age” the book was invented. Enough said. By the way I am not Anglophone so I am not hoodwinked by the propaganda and the ignorance fostered by your educational system that still regards the French Revolution as a great breakthrough.

        9. If truth be told, the classic Catholic rite (before 1960’s) was the closest thing one could get to original Christianity. Protestantism is a cheap copy at best and completely heathen at worst. By the way Galileo was Catholic, Kopernicus was never opposed by the Catholic church (funny thing is that Protestants were the ones behind the ban of his book supporting heliocentric theory, go figures) and Kepler was a protestant who suffered persecution by his own church for his scientific theories. Newton was a plagiarist and an occultist who spent along with others a great deal of time hiding the fact that Leibnitz was first in his discovery of Calculus.
          By the way, the Bible as you know it is a product of the Middle Ages Church, even its order and it was not forbidden. It was extremely expensive (no common man could afford it as well as any other book) and what was forbidden was its free interpretation and judging by the Protestantism´s tendency to split, such a ban was more than justified.

        10. Hmm, last I checked, the Inquisition wasn’t something a True Christian would support, nor would a True Christian be found praying to statues (idolatry) of Mary or the Saints.

        11. So why didn’t the Catholic Church just clean up it’s act? The Reformation wasn’t for nothing. Your church stunk of corruption and was preoccupied with secular power. You’re conveniently omitting the beam in your church’s figurative eye.

        12. Only 1 in 4? I understand about 50% of people in Britain thought that the destruction of Iraq was justified. 1 in 4 supporting what is a relatively minor atrocity seems pretty good in comparison.

        13. The untold part of the Amistad story is that the freed rebel slave returned to Africa and became rich in the slave trade.

        14. So you think it was justified, along with the gang rapings and everything else? You’re either a Muslim or a terrorist sympathizer. Iraqis are allowed to fight the Western invaders, I assume, but the Brits aren’t allowed to fight the Islamic invaders?

        15. Galileo was not burnt at the stake and second Giordano Bruno was NO scientist but a wannabe sorcerer.

          Galileo was threatened with torture if he didn’t recant. “Eppur si muove,” is a phrase still used by the Italians to describe someone in denial of the truth.
          Bruno was burned at the stake for heresy. Among those charges were “holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith” and “claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds” (i.e. many planets with life). The reason he was executed was because, unlike Galileo, he refused to recant his beliefs.
          Like I said, anti-freedom and anti-intellectual.

        16. Hmmm, someone only reads history from pamphlets and propaganda rags since he will not take the time to read books. First “sacred geometry”, largely invented Egyptian religious notions are not empiric science by any measure. The idea of an infinite Universe with planets et al was espoused by Nicholas of Cusa a century before Bruno was born, his idea was not banned at all and he became a CARDINAL. Heliocentrism in Bruno’s time was not regarded as heresy and lectures about the theory were given at the gardens of the Vatican for consideration. Regardless of your point of few, denying the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus, stating he was just a single sorcerer were crimes punishable with death either in Catholic or Protestant lands, those were the real reasons why he was burned at the stake. Whether you or I think that was fair it is another story but those were the standard practices of that time.

        17. denying the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus, stating he was just a single sorcerer were crimes punishable with death either in Catholic or Protestant lands

          Yes, we’re kind of going on a tangent here and I don’t want to get pulled into a long esoteric debate, so I will bring it back to the statement above. If killing someone for denying “the Holy Trinity and Divinity of Jesus” was a crime punishable with death, then is a Europe where killing for denying “Muhammad is Allah’s Prophet” a world we want to allow? Seems there are several Catholics here who missed my original point because they are eager to defend their religion.

    2. This is why I’ll never understand Europeans. Take the UK for example:
      First they allow their government to remove guns from the hands of millions of law-biding Englishmen because a measly 18 people died in a school shooting.
      Then they allow their government to indiscriminately extended citizenship to the entire Muslim world, who resents their people for decades of colonialism and oppression.
      Now combine the aforementioned with a cowardly, pacifist ideology that has left the average UK citizen emasculated, unarmed and marginalized; Ensuring mobilization against a serious threat is virtually impossible and you get Englishmen helplessly watching Muslims murder British soldiers, in broad daylight, then peacefully walking away (see: Lee Rigby).
      ⊙﹏☉ mfw when brainwashed leftists believe they’ve created a utopia.
      ⊙﹏☉ mfw when indigenous populations dwindle as Muslim populations expand.
      ⊙﹏☉ mfw Muhammad is the most popular name for baby boys in England.
      ⊙﹏☉ mfw when the capital of The new Islamic Caliphate becomes London.

      1. “This is why I’ll never understand Europeans”
        A good percentage of the masculine men have been killed over the years in world wars. And in England’s case, by Vikings and Romans.
        And many of the remainder set sail for the USA

        1. Well then, what the heck happened to the vikings themselves? Norway is a lot worse than England, we have no reason to take in hordes of non functioning, crime ridden 3rd worlders from across the globe with no connection to us in any way. At least England has a reason to feel bad for their colonial past. The asylum insanity in Norway is only beaten by Sweden, a country rapidly becoming non democratic from relentless leftist fascism.

      2. You know you live in Upside-down Land when…
        •A Muslim officer crying “Allah Akbar” while shooting up an army base is considered to have committed “Workplace Violence” while an American citizen boasting a Ron Paul bumper sticker is classified as a “Domestic Terrorist”.
        •Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend more money.
        •A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration class on a college campus is perfectly acceptable.
        •The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.
        •Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of “underprivileged” drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.
        •Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the “State’s” dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.
        •Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing.
        •The government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).
        •Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.
        •Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
        •The rights of the State come before the rights of the individual.
        •Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.
        •You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.
        •You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iphones, TV’s and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).
        •Your government can add anything they want to your kid’s water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.) but you are not allowed to give them raw milk.
        •Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you “safe”.
        •You have to have your parents signature to go on a field trip but not to get an abortion.
        •You can get arrested for expired tabs on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
        •An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burqa is only subject to having her neck and head searched.
        •Using the “N” word is considered “hate speech” but writing and singing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered “art”.
        You know you live in an upside-down land when…
        When the “politically-correct” says that a normal guy doing a double-take on a hot chick is a pervert, while another guy who openly explains to the world how he prefers to have sex with other guys rather than taking a girl as his mate, is considered “normal”.
        When selling military technology secrets to Communist China by the White House (Clinton) is considered ok, but exposing (i.e. via Wikileaks) a “classified” scandal conducted by our own government is considered espionage.
        A business can refuse service to a licensed gun owner for political reasons, but a baker can’t refuse to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple for religious reasons.

      3. Mate, lets be clear. Citizenship was extended to parts of the former empire not the entire Muslim world. That some of these former empire subjects are muslim is incidental. They represent a variety of religions, many of these former subjects being Christian.
        Secondly, Englishmen did not helplessly watch Muslims murder a single British soldier. Englishmen gunned down the perpetrators and locked them up for life.
        Thirdly, it is not unusual for Englishmen to murder Englishmen. I’ve seen it happen. Lets not get excited about the religion.
        Please do not spread misinformation.

        1. 1. Country of origin seems like a moot point point to me, though I’m glad you brought up religion; Are Christians also committing honor killings? Are Christian gangs loitering the streets of London and demanding that passersby conform to Sharia law? Are Christians funding trips to Syria by mugging people in an affluent area of London?
          2. Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale aren’t dead but are serving serving life for killing Lee Rigby. Michael Adebolajo, in particular gave an interview with a bloody knife after murdering Lee Rigby, then peacefully walked away; No one did anything until the cops showed up.
          3. Again, Englishmen are not waging jihad against one another englishbob. Your example is what we call false equivalence.
          It isn’t my attention to offend but let’s be real, the UK is most definitely in a quandary of the muslim variety and haven’t done themselves any favors.

    3. Europe is in no way whatsoever christian. The marxist-christian ideals can be traced to protestantism and the deceitful motives of some its main leaders.
      If it were in any way, shape or form resembling the christianity of times past they would be slaughtering those muslims and invading THEIR lands to take them back.
      People like to blame christianity for their weaknesses but it was the crusaders who stood against these muslim hordes. The bottom line is that the european man is demoralized and defeated in his own lands long before the muslims invaded once again. He has elected the leaders into his governments who then fleece and indoctrinate him into a mutli-kulti crying little bitch of a mangina.
      The problem with the european man isnt his religion. It is his complete lack of religion and utter moral degeneracy. There are a slight few however that are trying to start movements to bring back nationalism and fight for their people but I fear its much too late in the game for that now aside from total collapse.
      Also agreed on the WWII spectre that looms in every euro man’s head and how he recoils in fear at the thought of being a FAAAASCCIST.
      Now you lick your masters boots some more euro men like good little boys.

    4. ” cowering to a bully only invites more bullying. You must stand up for yourself!”
      And win. If you lose you get bullied harder and beat harder.

      1. I disagree. Standing up to the bully even if you get a beating out of it, disuades the bully. Bullies want targets that will not give them trouble. The other aspect is what my hand to hand combat instructor told us, when two grown men fight no matter who wins both get hurt. Bullies do not want to run the risk of getting hurt because for the most part they are cowards. Bullies only hassle those who they know will not fight back That is why feminists leave muslims alone and hassle mostly white western males. When I was a young lad I stood up to a bully and got my ass whooped. I also never got hassled by that bully again.

        1. I will quote a comment:
          September 16, 2013 at 10:28 am
          “Generally speaking, that means you’re
          going to have to get physical at the middle or high school level. Once
          you’ve shown you’re not going to be fucked with, the spell of dominance
          is broken and the bully no longer sees you as someone to victimize.”
          This is the exact approach I took in middle school and the result was
          the exact opposite of what you claim.
          I’m from the generation of boys that were constantly told “if you
          just stand up to bullies they will eventually back down.” I was far, far
          smaller than the group of bullies who picked on me. When I would get
          physical they would beat the crap out of me. I kept fighting back, they
          kept beating me. On and on it went. My parents paid for karate lessons.
          It didn’t mean crap when outweighed by 80 pounds.
          Taking this approach did the exact opposite of breaking “the spell of
          dominance”. It increased their dominance in their eyes, my eyes, and
          the eyes of my fellow students.

    5. “I understand the knee-jerk reaction to any resemblances of the white nationalism that started WWII and ended 60 million lives, the vast majority of them white.”
      The Nazis were not white nationalists. They were concerned with spreading their own ideology, because they thought their own ideology was best suited to improve mankind (and not only the white race; Hitler himself famously wrote that he considered the Chinese and Japanese civilizations to be superior to European civilizations at that point in time). The Nazis employed people of all races in their armies, especially in North Africa and Greece, because they thought that all races except the Jews and the Roma could be saved and improved.
      The rest of your analysis is absolutely correct, I must add. I’m terribly afraid for my own future because the people who are in power in my country think the world will like them if they crawl and cringe before it. They don’t understand that only Europeans will like them for that, and only out of courtesy and empathy. The rest of the world will, and rightfully so, see the compromises that European leaders are eager to suggest as a sign of weakness and an incentive to make more demands.

      1. Ah, a Nazi apologist.
        The Nazi’s were the definition of white nationalists dude, read some history.

        1. No, they weren’t. They were ideologues, and their ideology did not limit itself to white people. They had excellent ties with anti-colonial movemens in the developing world, and they had entire regiments from places like Eastern Turkey, East Africa, Palestine and North Africa.
          That was not just pragmatic, either – the Nazis believed that every race, with the exception of the Jews and the Roma, could improve itself in such a way that it would become culturally and technologically self-sufficient and capable and lead to a ‘better mankind’.
          They were bastards, but to call them simple white nationalists or white supremacists (and not the allies, with De Gaulle forbidding the use of black soldiers in the liberation of Paris because he thought they’d just rape and murder everyone, and Churchill opposing all non-white migration to Britain and proposing the slogan ‘Keep England White’) is a historical mistake.

        2. Definition of National Socialists surely? They were racist no doubt but to call them white nationalists seems to simplify the issue.

        3. An irony then with De Gaulle since the Allies killed thousands with their Normandy invasion and American soldiers were known to rape French women.

        4. Considering they promoted the interest of ethnic Germans (who are white), practiced ‘scientific’ racism against non-whites, and were strongly nationalist, its appropriate to call them white nationalists without thinking its a simplification.

        5. When I hear the term “White Nationalist” I think of those chumps gracing the inside of Federal prisons in the US or some of the primitive minded commentators on this site. Do you have any literature by the Nazis where they refer to themselves as White Nationalists?
          Let’s not also forget that they had plans for other Whites such as the French and Russians. The primary objectives of Hitler were essentially addressing the losses of WW1, and establishing a self sufficient nation that could withstand the threat of the USSR. There was also the ideology (racist) that they believed could be a source of national pride.

        6. I would also argue that promoting the interests of ethnic Germans does not make you a White Nationalist Most nations promote their own self interest regardless of color.
          The Nazi scientists experimented on people of all colors.

        7. Considering that ethnic Germans are white, yes it would be White Nationalism. You are quibbling over small points like somehow the fact that people of other colors existed in Germany implied somehow that they were included in the mobilization and accumulation of privleged status of the Völkisch movement.
          Party membership was largely exclusive to white Germans, and the nationalistic populist mobilization behind the rise of Nazism and the re-establishment of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were directed and controlled by a near-exclusive group of white nationalist ethnic Germans at the center of the Nazi party. Hence, Nazism as practiced within Germany IS a white nationalist movement despite how you might try to twist it

        8. I actually think you are quibbling over small details with your determination to reduce Nazi Germany to this simplistic model of White Nationalism. I have said elsewhere how their objectives concerned much more than promoting a pure race (which went beyond merely being white).

    6. Christ never said you can’t defend yourself.
      When He said, “turn the other cheek”, it was a time when a slap was considered an insult, not an assault.
      Another thing, I would see “standing up to a bully” as a form of “tough love”.

    7. Which European countries have this hangover? Not Britain who have been faithfully bombing the Middle-East along with the US for decades.
      Surveys mate? Really?

    8. One could argue that German nationalism took virtually no lives until the rest of the world fought back militarily. The German annexations into formerly German territory (taken away after WWI) up until Poland were bloodless. The Nazi government’s actions regarding Jews before wartime were based on deportation, not genocide (e.g. Haavara Agreement, Madagascar Plan, etc) and since Jews only made up 1% of the German population at the time anyway, it’s a minuscule number.
      Meanwhile the Soviet Union was aiming for that 60 million death toll well before WWII, with the Holodomor and other systematic starvations, executions, and deportations. But when THEY invaded Poland, Britain and France decided to ally with them, the exact opposite of what they did with Germany.
      Only after Britain and France (and eventually the US and other nations) decided to send their best men overseas to force their way into what could have ended as an isolated European border war, did millions and millions of our best white male youth perish.

  6. A good article, but a few points:
    Finding the employment graph was not difficult. Pages 32 and 33. I’m not vertain, however, if this is the one you’re referring to. Could be a different one.
    As for supporting/giving welfare to people who go to fight abroad; the difficulty lies partially in the tendecy of the legal system to use “ennakkotapaukset” for future cases; revoking citizenship for a born Finn, for example (2nd gen immigrant), might set a bad precendent.
    On the other points, I do agree with you for the most part. Fucking Spongebob.

    1. Cheers,
      The study I was referring to was about the situation in 2008, all I could find after a painstaking search were references to the study in news articles. That being said, good find anyway on that statistic you linked.

  7. “One could almost question why we let them continue residing in Finland in the first place.”
    “could almost” should be changed to “should actively, within the bounds of the law”. For whatever reason, modern liberals suffer from acute Moral Vanity which compels them to show what Good People They Are by abasing themselves before people who would happily murder them for being infidels.
    Dumb, dumb, dumb.
    À bientôt,

    1. Except that most leftists, in the USA at least, would never dream of living among the parasitic riff-raff they work so hard to bring here. Most of them live in walled-off gated communities far removed from the ghettos that they helped to create and the previously habitable neighborhoods that they helped to destroy.
      They would never in a million years send their own children to the same schools as them.

    1. When radical islam starts targeting them they will either convert or be killed so no to will to survive or free whatsoever

    2. That’s why you never help a lefty, let em suffer, let em die
      Better off for the human race

  8. It’s the same in the Netherlands, where I live. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, we fought an eighty-year war against Spain to become independent. After that, this small but fighting-fit nation on the North Sea made a fortune for itself trading in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea later across the Atlantic and Pacific, conquering far-away lands including Suriname, part of the Antilles, part of South Africa and almost all of Indonesia. There was a time when our fleet rivaled the Royal Navy and our armies could keep the French army away from our cities.
    All of that has changed now. We have a nanny state if ever there was one, and the people here are all asleep. When a film maker was murdered in the street in 2004, people all over society (including our Minister of Justice) called for our law against blasphemy to be enforced again in order to ‘give justice and peace of mind to our Muslim community’. Smoking in bars and cafés has been banned ‘to protect the health and safety of employees’, even in small one-person bars. There are government officials for everything, from checking if you parked right to checking if something you built on your house isn’t illegal and shouldn’t be torn down.

    1. Yes, and now the Dutch are caving in like a bunch of spineless pussies, destroying their traditions (“sinterklaas”) just because a couple of obnoxious immigrants didn’t like it.

      1. No joke. If I move to some other country, then it’s my job to adapt to life there, not demand that laws be changed to suit me.
        À bientôt,

    2. Geert Wilders gave a talk to some group here in the USA and the talk show host Michael Savage read his speech on his radio show today.
      This Wilders guy is a brave dude. Talks about the Islamization of Europe. Scary.

      1. Exactly. I used to think that Gert Wilders was a dick but now that I see what’s going on in Europe, he’s absolutely right. If an immigrant doesn’t want to adapt his or herself to their host country, then he or she should just go and kill themselves. Period. And fuck all this politically correct bullshit on immigrants.

      2. The idea a violent 7th century political sect doesn’t belong in a modern, enlightened western nation and the idea that immigrants should adapt and contribute positively to their host country somehow makes one an extreme right radical.
        Wilders is despised by the political elite and their MSM friends in the Netherlands because one is not allowed to speak the truth regarding islam and immigrants.
        The latter are, by the way, not the only things Wilders speaks truth about. The governmental apparatus of the Netherlands is much like the Sheriff of Nottingham: utterly ruthless in squeezing dry its citizens; at the same time squandering money like it’s nothing. Corruption and nepotism are entrenched from local politics and academia to the highest levels of government. Criticism is not allowed.

      3. Someone has to do it, right? Before Wilders, that man was Pim Fortuyn, who could have been our premier after the elections, but he was murdered on a radio station parking lot by a far-left activist.
        And before Fortuyn, there was Hans Janmaat (another member of parliament), but he was convicted for hate speech and the hotel his party meeting was taking place at was set on fire, and his wife lost a leg trying to escape. Janmaat died fairly young and bitter after his health slipped because of the stress and persecution.
        And now Wilders might have to go on trial again for posing a question to his voters whether they wanted more or fewer migrants from Morocco to the Netherlands.

        1. “And now Wilders might have to go on trial again for posing a question to his voters whether they wanted more or fewer migrants from Morocco to the Netherlands.”
          Those Maroccan immigrants appear to have quite the influence on the crime statistics, haven’t they?

        2. By the time they’re in their mid-twenties, sixty-five percent of all Moroccan men in this country (and there are about four hundred thousand Moroccans in this country) have been detained at least once. It’s not even a criminal minority ruining it for a hardworking majority anymore – it’s the criminal majority ruining it for a hardworking minority.

    3. Last time I was in Amsterdam on business and it looked like a third world country
      What the fuck lol

      1. A majority of people in Amsterdam are foreign-born or have foreign-born parents, and most foreigners are either African, Middle Eastern or Afro-Caribbean. Basically, they are people from countries that never developed a peaceful and prosperous civilization of their own, and who seem to be naturally lethargic.
        And then they have, in Amsterdam but also in our other cities, city councils that keep trying to renovate the housing estates where all of these people live, and then we’re all supposed to be surprised when these people ruin and vandalize their own neighbourhoods again within a year or two. It hasn’t even crossed the minds of Amsterdam’s local government that these people might just be replicating what their culture and mindset urge them to replicate, which is a slum in their home country.

  9. The system is collapsing.
    Liberalism has destroyed all incentive to be hardworking and creative and more importantly, destroying individualism.
    This is why the benefit system should have been scrapped altogether. Instead of being treated as a safety net, it is now perceived as a lifestyle choice and yes, believe it or not, the government and politicians encourage people to choose this system, instead of helping to encourage job creation.
    Take for example, many cities in the US and the even in the UK, have a population of welfare scrounging single mothers who exploit the system by having as many children as possible, living in luxury government housing and receiving more money in welfare, than a single hardworking man who is forced to live in a cardboard box and having to pay extorted Beverly Hills rate of rents, even though he is trying to do the right thing and be a contributive member of society.
    Liberalism= punishing hard work and rewarding failure.

    1. The system truly is collapsing, and at a rapidly increasing rate.
      It’s accelerating fast now. Hold on tight. It’s gonna get worse before it gets better.

      1. Depopulation spirals: It’s like a deflationary or inflationary spiral. Consider urban Detroit to see what a depopulation spiral looks like.
        The nation’s only choices are to encourage higher fertility, which is hard to do when the population becomes androgynous, or to bolster the population through immigration.
        Europe chose the latter route, importing Muslim citizens. Well, they got what they got, and it ain’t pretty.
        I’d like to say, Enjoy the decline, but I’m not sure how you do that, save for drinking a lot.

    2. Prior to TRP, I never understood why people would argue against a political leaning that was pushing legislation that would “help out the middle and lower classes” until I realized this was a targeted enabling tactic designed to create a state of reliance.
      It makes perfect sense now. You get the lower/middle rungs of the populace hooked on social programs to the point where want (gaming the system for benefits of free money and no working) becomes need (single mothers having lots of children, etc.) and then BAM, pull out the rug. I liken it to drug addiction. Get the public hooked on governmental understanding through a heavily funded benefit system and then stop the drip cold one day. Keeping the sheep in line by manipulating the basic necessities of life that each individual is supposed to be equipped to meet sans a government entirely. The sad part is these people think they are winning against the government.
      Now that my life is 100% aligned with personal responsibility in all facets, I can see what the U.S. truly looks like and how it operates.

  10. It’s interesting that you choose to tar all immigrants with the same brush (or seem to) as ungrateful lazy violent parasites and yet you have pointed out there are immigrant groups with high employment rates…perhaps Finland’s security services simply need to raise their game. It’s not hard to seize the passports of suspected Jihadis, put them on no – fly lists and ensure they don’t leave the country in the first place. In the UK we even do this with mere hooligans to keep them from making trouble at overseas sports events. Of course we miss a few, but that’s down to ‘libertarians’ whingeing about their taxes, meaning we don’t have an adequate security budget !

    1. Probably because Libertarians recognize that no one should have to pay for security for immigration that isn’t improving the status of the country. So not only are citizens paying for the additional security to restrict immigration, they also have to pay for the support systems that immigrants use at a disproportionate level.

      1. Immigrants and immigrants John. Depends on how much of the nonsense perpetrated by the downmarket press you believe. And it’s pretty obvious in the UK that most immigrant communities are here to work. They can’t ‘steal all our jobs working for peanuts’ and ‘all be on the dole.’

        1. “They can’t ‘steal all our jobs working for peanuts’ and ‘all be on the dole.’ ”
          You are correct, Sir. Those are mutual exclusives.
          However, they can all be stealing our jobs working for peanuts or be on the dole.

        2. In the US they enter the country illegally, take jobs for below legal wage and for no benefits, and still collect government services. It hurts the working and middle classes and increases profits to the elites so they love it.

        3. Yes, they can do both.
          How? By working under the table for below minimum wage, and then collecting welfare because they have “no job”.

      2. Open borders is the only sincerely libertarian policy.
        A state without open borders is nothing but an association of people who have banded together to use violence to prevent some people from living in a certain area, while asserting a privilege to do so themselves. To stop Jorge or Bongo or Ahmed from living in country X is objectively an act of coercion and an infringement on their personal liberty.
        But then, in a libertarian social paradigm, there would be no welfare either, neither for immigrants or anyone else.

        1. As you identified, immigration would cost the citizens nothing. When that isn’t an option, then mitigating the exposure to them becomes the most sensible option.

  11. It’s amazing how liberals are blind to reality.
    Why are Africans and Muslims flooding white societies like Europe and USA?
    Because their own nations and policies are complete shitholes. What do you think they’ll do when they come here? They wont assimilate, yet liberals cater to their bullshit demands.

    1. those two states as well? I remember reading an article on them showing up em masse to get forms for section 8 housing.
      This was in Ohio.

    1. Im surprised another major terrorist attack hasn’t happened in Europe yet.
      They definitely have the numbers and communities to incubate such actions.

        1. Wait you mean Metro London 2008 wasnt muslims? Just go read the Koran, and you will see what this group of people is taught…

        2. London metro 2008 was carried out by muslims, as were 2004 Madrid train station attacks, Mohamed Mera in Toulouse France, Mehdi Nemmouche killings at the Brussels Jewish Museum last year, Boston marathon bombings, and pretty much every other terror attack… what are you talking about? you’re either ignorant or just plain stupid. go suck the prophet’s cock

        3. Needless to say, we have a different opinion regarding the truth behind what we see in the mass media…..
          I could direct you to end less links which claim the exact opposite of what you just said, so basically your argument boils down to the fact that you believe the mass media – apologies for my french, but in my opinion that makes you a fucking idiot…….

  12. European/Scandinavian countries welcoming their own destruction through endless immigration of non euro people. In the meantime Israel has the strictest immigration policy of all. Now why would they promote “multiculturalism” abroad and not at home? Shit like this really pisses me off.

    1. because they’re jews. They play people off against eachother, or rather, they play gullible idiots against eachother

      1. No. 1 I do not see how your conspiracy theory about the Jews has evidence backing it up.
        No. 2 If the jews were responsible. The character defects of people makes them susceptible to manipulation. Hence laying the entire blame on Jews as if they are omnipotent is shirking responsibility for oneself for being so gullible.
        One can blame the Jews until the Cows come home. But that will not stop them from manipulating suckers who have themselves to blame for being such. Crying victim and pointing to oppressors do not a victor make.

        1. LOL Have you heard of Chuck Schumer? A great example. He wants nationalism for Israel but NOT for the US.
          Just another great example of the hypocritical Jew in power. Anti-white.
          In 2012 he voted for S1265 passed almost unanimously to keep Israel as a Jewish state.
          Why would they be opposed to Africans coming in to make it a muslim state? But it’s not ok for the US to want to remain mostly white?
          Why this double standard?

    2. There is a difference between the Israeli Jews and the Non-Israeli Jews.
      Sadly, most Americanized Jews I know are Left-wing, while it’s the opposite for the ones who actually live in Israel.

    3. So Japan and S.Korea are part of your conspiracy? As far as I know, Japan has the strictest immigration policy in the world.
      Maybe the truth is easier than you think. You welcomed them (muslims) – you pay. It’s very dull to think jews and Israel would somehow aid the fluid of muslims in EU, because first of all collapsing of EU would lead to an Islamic calliphate which in it’s turn would harm Israel and jews. Israel would be the only democracy in the continent, not only in the middle east + muslims hate jews more than anything. It would destroy the western civilization to which jews and Israel belong and contribute. Yes. Jews and Israel are part of the western world, while muslims are part of 3rd world.
      If there is any conspiracy at all, I would assume that countries such as Qatar, S. Arabia, Dubai etc. are funding this immigration campaign and bribe your politicians so that they would keep their mouth shut. Isn’t it more sensible?
      And by the way, constant blaming of others for your shitty situation (like you do with the jews) are what pussies do. Not real man. And more BTW. Assume, you theories about jews are right. If you let 20 million people rule over 7 billion population – you are morons with an IQ<50 and you deserve it.

  13. As long as residents of “terrorist states” quite obviously face less restrictions wrt the guns they can get their hands on than “us”, they’re the good guys, and we are the bad. No matter some yahoo on TV pontificating otherwise. Come to think of it, guys in those places have more fertile, yet less slutty women as well. And pay less taxes. So remind me again why I’m supposed to be so against all that they stand for?

  14. The craven leaders of Europe have abandoned reason and wisdom for political corrected-ness and short term profit through appeasement of their globalist masters. Its amazing that the Finish who to the surprise of all, managed to stand up to a multitude of Stalin’s divisions currently can’t keep a few sand monkeys out from ruining their country from within. And to those who say that it is “racist” and what not – I have read a report last week of a sizable number of immigrants deported from Norway resulting in a dramatic drop of crime only a few months later.

  15. “Diversity is out strength (R)”
    It was my privilege to kick those “minority-majority” piece of shit school children in the face at the ballot box. My vote helped defeat an initiative that would have raised my property taxes to “educate” those people.
    The Left wants to laugh about Whitey becoming a minority in his own country, let them. I’m laughing too. This country is nothing more than a fire sale to me. While the womb-as-a-weapon crowd shits out legions of brown useless eaters, I will continue to brown out the landscape, sky and oceans with my consumption.
    Another hottest year on record. Enjoy your Estados Unitos, Jose.
    The bible was right about one thing “With My final breath I shall bare witness to the end of days. ”
    Oh, and one a completely unrelated note; “Mohammad” was the most popular baby name in 1990 in Yugoslavia.

    1. Jokes on you, those neocon bastards are in favor of immigration as well, they sure as fuck don’t want to pay whitey minimum wage to mow their lawns.

  16. “Diversity is out strength (R)”
    It was my privilege to kick those “minority-majority” piece of shit school children in the face at the ballot box. My vote helped defeat an initiative that would have raised my property taxes to “educate” those people.
    The Left wants to laugh about Whitey becoming a minority in his own country, let them. I’m laughing too. This country is nothing more than a fire sale to me. While the womb-as-a-weapon crowd shits out legions of brown useless eaters, I will continue to brown out the landscape, sky and oceans with my consumption.
    Another hottest year on record. Enjoy your Estados Unitos, Jose.
    The bible was right about one thing “With My final breath I shall bare witness to the end of days. ”
    Oh, and one a completely unrelated note; “Mohammad” was the most popular baby name in 1990 in Yugoslavia

  17. I’ve always been impressed with Finland’s innovation, from schools, to health, apparently this is one of the negatives you rarely hear about.

  18. No,no,nono
    Scandi countries are not beyond salvation.
    England is not beyond salvation.
    France is not beyond salvation.
    Germany is not beyond salvation,
    Finland Italy Greece Spain Holland Croatia ,Slovakia etc etc are not beyond salvation.
    Your enemies would think they are,but they are not.
    You only need 50000 Germans,French or English to populate country.
    Fucking black plague killed 2/3 of Europe in one sweep but Europe bounced back in no-time.
    But first,we need to get our bitches in line.
    Once we kill femcuntism,
    they gonna start popping lil bambinos and frauleins like crazy.
    Just like their grand mothers

  19. Two great ‘WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU THINK’ sayings or proverbs:
    1).On cuckolding – If you’re not the FIRST man that she’s gone down on – then WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU THINK that you will be her LAST? (non virgins are the ‘unmarriables’ – only marry virgin – only BRAND NEW WILL DO)
    2).On immigration – If they can’t or couldn’t improve the quality of life in their home country – then WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU THINK that they will improve the host country?

    1. As for 2), you speak as if the quality of life of a country is simply the sum of the independent contributions of all individuals in the country, contributions whose size depends solely on the individual and in no way on the overall context in which that individual operates.
      If you truly think an individual’s contribution to a society can be reduced to that, you fail sociology forever.

      1. The Fins need to stop chopping the men. 100% circumcision rate is a GUARANTEE that feminism will EAT YOU ALIVE. Then you bring in wild unchopped KENYAN DICKS. The Bantu Zulu were the tallest and mightiest of the negroid tribes in tropical Africa. They were the ones who would conquer and enslave weaker tribes, the ones who ended up on the shorter end of the colonial slave trade. WHO PLACED THE ORDER FOR FINLAND TO BE BESIEGED BY FOOTLONG BANTU DICKS? Finland rates in the top 10 of emasculated feminist countries. Not a whimper from the men there.
        The Somalis? Why open the floodgates? That’s a hell of a long distance to justify forced busing. Were the classrooms in Finland offensively too Anglo?
        The people seem to have no say or direct vote on who their neighbors will be. Flooding a country is treason.Is the plan really to wash, reboot and indoctrinate needed replacement workforce? Then universities should be able to request and be granted visas for 100 Pakistani engineers or 200 Indian physicists. Yes countries benefit from doctors, engineers and the like. But is there really a shortage of TOLL BOOTH ATTENDANTS, FLOOR SCRUBBER OPERATORS, TAXI DRIVERS and airport BAGGAGE HANDLERS?
        Home grown apple pie folks would cherish these menial jobs in hard times. Finlands government is as traitorous as the rest. People should directly invite foreigners on an individual basis. If a Finnish man is tired of the feminized Scandinavian divorce culture, then he should be able to pan for a fine Ukranian lady and have her naturalized WITHOUT HASSLE. Or if he gets ‘jungle fever’ and salivates for some Nigerian tornado, well, being a libertarian I’ll say IT’S HIS DICK, NOT MINE.

        1. Vicarious Muh Dikking, huh? When has Finland been “chopping the men”? The USA is the only Western country where male circumcision is significant.

  20. You may want to look into this more carefully but, IIRC, the top class of Somali society is the Samale caste. They, basically, are bandits. The people who farm or work or in other words actually create wealth are the bottom of the heap. Think “Greyjoy” in Game of Thrones. That kind of society. You farm, your raise your crops, then the Samales will come along and take most of it – leaving you just enough to survive till next year and do it all over again.
    It’s not racial. It’s cultural. Some cultures stink.

  21. Good thing you got this online before “Net Neutrality” censorship. Liberals would never tolerate it.

  22. What you see in Finland is the ultimate goal of the feminist state. Turn a culture, society, and all institutions against the interests of the general population.
    It is insane.

  23. And here I thought Finland had more xenophobia and backbone, unlike their pussified scandi cousins

  24. In antiquity, the civilized prosperous nations consolidated their power into empires. It was at their discretion and through their magnanimity that savage tribes were allowed to trade and pass freely through empire controlled territories. If said savages dared disturb the peace and sovereignty of these territories, they were wiped out. Annihilated. Citizenship in the empire was worth a man’s weight in gold. It was rarely, if ever, granted to the foreign born prior to conquest.
    Today, the prosperous nations bow and appease the foreign savage tribes. They are given tax incentives to immigrate their backwards culture and abject poverty into the decaying empires. The former notions of patriotism, nationalism and civilization have become mere matters of political lip-service.
    For the first time in American history, a US President stands ready to bestow full fledged citizenship on roughly 5 million people residing within the country’s boarders illegally. In defiance of the true American population who voted to stop any such unconstitutional action, he says he will proceed.
    Funny to think what our founding fathers would make of this. A collection of colonists who waged war because of an increase in taxes on tea and stamps. Would they not be ashamed to see what their posterity has degenerated into? A nation of fat, lazy and above all timid empty-headed serfs. Being led to the gallows of cultural suicide by their elected cult personalities. Shameful.
    Hopefully, we’ll see the direction France is moving in given their recent foray into socialism ala Hollande and the pain its wreaking there. That’s where this circus is headed here if it continues.

    1. First time in American history? Uh, there was an amnesty that granted citizenship to illegal immigrants already in 1986, under the term of none other than Ronald motherfucking Reagan.

  25. Welp… Good job at coming across both racist and sexist. Also congratulations at coming across as very insecure in your masculinity. You guys are a bunch of pussies puffing up your chests. You probably cry yourselves to sleep at night.

  26. I have 2 close Finnish friends, but they moved away because they can’t stand their state. The rest, I believe to be “nan kids” = nanny kids – raise with no problems and no balls. And you can see it by the way they behave.

  27. The complaints about immigration from my fellow European, and European Americans is silly. All of them are immigrants. And plenty of them are immigrants to other countries into places across asia, latin america, mexico, the carribean, africa and europe and so on. They see no conflict with them talking about going to Brazil or Columbia or Eastern Europe with their different culture and not speaking the language and then turning around and slamming people from the same countries they visit for doing the same. It is childish and silly and wreaks of colonial arrogance.

  28. This article is confused. Fighting in a foreign war does not make you a terrorist. Just because you are Somali doesn’t mean you are a terrorist. Explain clearly how these people are terrorists.
    Secondly, the group now calling itself ISIS has long been directly supported by the US in its war with the Syrian regime. Remember when you call someone a terrorist you are automatically involving yourself with the Newspeak of your government. It seems pointless to complain about the welfare state if you are going to accept the propaganda of the State.

  29. Related: Quite possibly the girl with the best body I’ve ever hooked-up with was 26 years old & from Rovaniemi, Finland. I met her July 2014
    Her lower quarters were toned & sturdy leaving you to believe she could crush a cantaloupe between her thighs as they were stout like a fire hydrant & her upper body was lean & feminine like the top part of a Coca Cola bottle. Her ass could fit onto 1 hand. She ran 10k’s & ate granola. She was polite & adventurous. She loved the cock. I mean L-O-V-E-D it.
    Bang Finland

Comments are closed.