All of your disinformation about Finland must come from a jew source. I like Finland and Finns, and particular like to compare Helsinki with Vyborg, a Finnish city which is now in Russia. There are no two cities in the world which could be more opposite, with Helsinki having the world’s highest income and Vyborg having the world’s lowest.
Rather than waste our time, though, with your trivial insults of the WHITE Race, let’s first pick something that’s so EASY to discredit:
<<< Average Finnish IQ is somewhat below average.>>>
WHAT exactly is your SOURCE for such a STUPID statement? In PISA in 2000, Finland was the only European nation which scored as high as Korea and Japan, which puts their average IQ around 106. CONVERSELY, your little “g-d’s chosen race” called “Israelis” scored a MISERABLE 439 in Reading (about the same as Mexico who’s average IQ is 87), and 454 in Science (LOWER than Portugal whose average IQ is 95), IQ’s which are so low they can’t even be TAUGHT to grow their own FOOD:
It got even WORSE for “Israel” and better for Finland when “Israel” again embarrassed itself by participating in PISA in 2006, along with actual industrialized nations, where it scored 442 in math. This is 78 points lower than Australia, 63 points lower than Austria, 78 points lower than Belgium, 85 points lower than Canada, 68 points lower than the Czech Republic, 71 points lower than Denmark, 106 points lower than Finland, 54 points lower than France, 62 points lower than Germany, 17 points lower than Greece, 49 points lower than Hungary, 64 points lower than Iceland, 59 points lower than Ireland, 20 points lower than Italy, 81 points lower than Japan, 105 points lower than Korea, 48 points lower than Luxembourg, 89 points lower than Netherlands, 80 points lower than New Zealand, 48 points lower than Norway, 53 points lower than Poland, 24 points lower than Portugal, 50 points lower than the Slovak Republic, 38 points lower than Spain, 60 points lower than Sweden, 88 points lower than Switzerland, 53 points lower than the UK, 32 points lower than the US, 34 points lower than Azerbaijan, 25 points lower than Croatia, 73 points lower than Estonia, 105 points lower than Hong Kong, 44 points lower than Latvia, 83 points lower than Liechtenstein, 44 points lower than Lithuania, 83 points lower than Macao, 34 points lower than Russia, 62 points lower than Slovenia, and 107 points lower than Taipei.
No wonder “Israelis” have to steal everything, including their food, from the Palestinians.
From: virginiaf.raines [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:47 AM
To: J Richard Niemela
Cc: Jacob Israel; Jack Stone; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; MsTerri26@aol.com; MSantom629@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Mnaquvi@yahoo.com; email@example.com; MikeGhouse@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Mckinneyhunter@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Mcbeep@aol.com; MAYSB0SS@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; MAJ0718@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Lilbigy659@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; LeeLeesa@aol.com; LANievesGOP@aol.com; email@example.com; Ladywindsor1@aol.com; KSidd37398@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Khafara@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; JuneScotty@aol.com; email@example.com; JUDYFULLER007@aol.com; JReed62254@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; JoelRachmiel@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; JENSEN308@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Jbubbee1@aol.com; JBoyle10@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Ibrahimnegm01@yahoo.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Hubmaster@aol.com; email@example.com; HogPod22@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; HappyCyn1@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Gunner847@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Gerst@mondicsinsurance.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Gaylesafe@aol.com; GaBillyJacks@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Freelancer514@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Finedude01@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; ELLIAJT@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Editor@muslimgirlmagazine.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; EastMeetsWestInc@att.net; EagleNewsTips@aol.com; Eagle95124@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; DoorGunr68@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; DIEMANJIM@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; DeBlaz1217@yahoo.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Coppola50@hotmail.com; email@example.com; ComedyStz@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; CIPRIAN@aim.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; ChasNemo@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; CDogg10552@aol.com; CAWERTHLES@aol.com; Castlect1@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; CAPTR500@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; BootGOP2000@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; BayWife@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; AquilaNegra929@aol.com; APE131313@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Antonialee839@yahoo.com; ANTGNE@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Algae5636@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; alan_b.stard.M.P@westnet.com.au; AJSFan@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Finland trapped in its own "economic success" (lol)
First of all, I don’t have "allies". Some people are relatively supportive openly or one-on-one, others are neutral and/or silent, and others are critical. But my work is done alone.
But, she and her jewish allies display a bit of angst at the Finns for having supported the Germans against the Soviet Jews that were running the Russian forces…and suffering badly at the hands of the Finns during the brief Winter War…Then the Continuation war with the Germans resulted in Finland sending her few Jews to Germany…which also seems to have created more angst as these confused internal aliens display..
You are muy loco en la cabeza.
1. Finns are not Teutonic — i.e., they are neither Scandinavian nor European.
2. The Finnish language cannot be directly connected with any other major language group, e.g., Indo-European or Semitic.
3. The Finns are certainly not Israelites.
4. The Finns have a history of continuous land inhabitation for thousands of years, making them truly "indigenous".
5. The Finns have a large number of rare hereditary diseases.
6. The pre-Christian religion of Finns was polytheistic.
6. The Finns are a poor source for studies of success.
7. Average Finnish IQ is somewhat below average.
8. The Finns were not anti-jewish even during WWII.
9. All told, the Finns are one of the least successful of first world countries (population of Finland is less than 5.5 million
10. Why don’t any of you actually go back and learn, or relearn, history?
The Emperor of the West, Napoleon I of France, and the Emperor of the East, Czar Alexander I of Russia, met for peace negotiations on a raft on the river Niemen on July 7, 1807. The two emperors were very much fascinated by each other. They inspected major military reviews together, they dined together and were involved in hour-long conversations. Soon enormous plans for the future of the entire world started to take form. Europe was divided between Russia and France. In a secret agreement between the two emperors it was decided that Russia should take upon itself the task of forcing Sweden into the continental system. As a prize for his efforts, the Czar would receive Finland, which was at the time, the eastern half of the Swedish empire.
Perhaps the very low jewish population is responsible for such overall failure in a first world, Euro-zone country.
In the beginning of the 1970s, Finland’s GDP per capita reached the level of …. Finland’s income is generated by the approximately 1.8 million private …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Finland – 21 hours ago – Cached –
The Jewish Population of the World
Country Total Population Jews % Jewish of Total Population % of World Jewish Population Finland 5,200,000 1,100 <.05% <.05%
Finnish Nobel Prize winners (BFD):
In 1809, Russia conquered Finland from Sweden in the Finnish War. Finland entered a personal union with the Russian Empire as a grand duchy with extensive autonomy. During the period of Russian rule the country generally prospered. However, in the early twentieth century Russia tightened its grip on Finland, causing wide-spread resentment. When revolution broke out in Russia in 1917, Finland declared independence.
In 1918, the Finnish Civil War broke out between the generally right-wing government supporters and left-wing rebels. The war ended with the victory of the government forces, supported by Germany, and the expulsion of Russian troops.
During the Continuation War (1941–1944) Finland was co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, and dependent on food, fuel and armament shipments from Germany. The country did, however, retain a democratic form of government. During the war Germany and Finland were united by a common enemy, the Soviet Union, yet Finland kept its army outside the German command structure despite numerous attempts to tie them more tightly together.
Finnish Jews were not persecuted, and even among extremists of the Finnish Right they were highly tolerated, as many leaders of the movement came from the clergy.
Of approximately five hundred Jewish refugees, eight were handed over to the Germans. The field synagogue operated by the Finnish army was probably a unique phenomenon in the Eastern Front of the war.
During World War II, Finland was in many ways a unique case. It was the only European country which bordered the Soviet Union in 1939, and was still unoccupied in 1945. Of all the European countries fighting in World War II, only three European capitals were never occupied: Moscow, London and Helsinki.
It was a country which sided with Germany, but in which native Jews and almost all refugees were safe from persecution. It was the only co-belligerent of Nazi Germany which maintained democracy throughout the war. It was also the only belligerent in mainland Europe to do so.
Jewish roots in Finland go back only a century and a half. The first Jews to settle permanently in this northern land were retired czarist Russian soldiers granted the right of settlement anywhere in the empire regardless of religion.
Local tradition says this was in 1858. Sixty years later, in December 1917 — following Finland’s independence from Russia — the country’s Parliament granted their descendants full citizenship.
Finland’s Jewish population rose between the two world wars, reaching approximately 2,000 in 1939.
During the 1940 war between Finland and Russia, known here as the Winter War, Finnish Jews fought alongside their countrymen. But most surprising to those unfamiliar with this nation’s Jewish community could be the fact that Finnish Jews fought in World War II alongside Germany on the Russian front, as their country allied itself with the Nazis.
Even more unusual, the Finnish government afforded Jews full civil rights throughout the war despite strong pressure from the Nazis. Today’s community has a memory of a “field synagogue” built by Finnish soldiers in which they could conduct services alongside SS units.
Most interesting, perhaps, is another local story of a Jewish soldier who defied death to rescue a battalion of SS soldiers pinned down by enemy fire. Offered an Iron Cross he refused, in flawless German.
When a German officer asked where he learned to speak so well, the soldier reportedly answered that he was Jewish, and that since Yiddish was his mother language, it was easy for him to speak German. He then marched out of the deathly silent tent. The Finnish government supported his refusal of the award.
The question of the Finnish government’s wartime alliance with the Nazis — the country was never occupied in World War II — is often misunderstood outside of Finland, says Dan Kantor, executive director of the Jewish Community of Helsinki.
"We allied with the Germans because they were the only ones who could help us, who came to help us against Russia," Kantor said.
Far from betraying the country’s Jews, the death of 23 Jewish soldiers fighting for independence "was really, in a way, some kind of emancipation," he said.
That perspective is supported by the fact that no Finnish Jew was turned over to the Nazis during the war. Eight Austrian Jewish refugees who fled to Finland during the Holocaust were deported.
Finland trapped in its own economic success
neljapäev, 25 Veebruar 2010
Kirjutanud Raivo Murde 8. JULY_SHORT 2009
Two US professors – AnnaLee Saxenien (from Berkeley campus at University of California) and Charles Sabel (Columbia Law School) – find in their study published at the end of last year that while the innovation policy implemented in Finland has until now ensured success and fame for the country, the same approach no longer works in the today’s world with increasingly rapidly changing technology. Unfortunately there seem to be no signs of adaptation to the new situation.
The Finnish world-renowned companies polish their strengths, carry out gradual innovation and optimise the efficiency of processes, but no attention is paid to radical innovation. It can no longer take place in established cooperation networks and own laboratories, but must be done using various sources of knowledge in some novel ways. Like Mikko Kosonen, president of the Finnish National Development Fund Sitra that ordered the study, states in his prologue: “Cooperation with many parties is mandatory in this new competition game”. For some time now, signs of danger have been observed by both the entrepreneurs and the policy makers, who have already started developing a new innovation strategy.
The fall of timber and ICT clusters
The study is based on an analysis of the timber and telecom sectors. Considering the importance of these sectors, conclusions are drawn in regards to the future perspectives of the entire economy. Let it be noted as background information that Finnish companies are in the forefront in the world both in the timber area and the telecom sector and their share makes up 70% of Finland’s export and 8% of GDP. Success has been ensured by the constant polishing of technologies, successful implementation of new technologies into products, well-organised marketing, self-discipline, flexibility and efficiency, which many competitors admire.
Unfortunately, these qualities may no longer be enough in the future. The timber industry is highly likely to receive a blow. The developed markets stagnate and profits are small. The rapidly growing markets of the developing countries are often catered for by their own producers. The paper and cardboard production capability has grown by half in the last eight years namely thanks to Chinese producers. In recent years, the Finns have made large investments into paper production, but the Chinese producers are now already implementing newer technologies or licensing-purchasing-stealing the Finns’ former technologies and designs and improve these with next-generation technologies, thus passing our northern neighbours – just like the Finns did to Americans once. But the Finns have invested the money, which they should invest into next-generation equipment, into expanding their markets and entering new markets, mostly unsuccessfully.
A similar future is in store for the ICT industry. The future of Nokia depends on its success in the Indian and Chinese markets, which in turn requires increasing production efficiency to reduce prices, as those markets rather expect low prices than radical innovation. At the same time, the company has to develop innovative, added value services and software for mobile devices in order to compete in developed countries. Unfortunately, these capabilities have suffered, because for years the company has invested into increasing the efficiency and improving the relevant organisational skills. This is characterised by Nokia’s recent missteps (the late arrival of e-mail and Bluetooth, the failure of the N-Gage gaming device etc).
Even if Nokia holds up another few years, the Finnish economy will probably not benefit from it. While in 1990s Nokia’s growth was based on local resources (public institutions and domestic work force), then by 2000 Nokia has outgrown Finland. Nokia not only hired foreign labour and moved production and development to other countries, but also pulled out of Finnish cooperation networks and started placing emphasis on intellectual property and trade secrets. Nokia’s production units left Finland together with their subcontractors. In conclusion, it can be said that Nokia represents a closed organisational model, which helps maintain the position of the producer of cheapest mobile accessories, but prevents the creation of capabilities necessary for finding alternative technologies.
The weakening of the major companies in these sectors does not benefit the growth aspirations of small domestic companies or start-ups, partly due to the described closed set-up and partly due to the concentration of the national research and development to Helsinki. The domination of one company may not necessarily be problematic, if the company cooperates with local businesses and other institutions. However, the transfer effect from Nokia was not remarkable. On the contrary, there is a scarcity of small and medium-sized companies in the Finnish ICT sector.
Criticism towards policy makers
Saxenien and Sabel analyse the underlying factors of Finland’s success so far and cast doubt on quite a few common beliefs like, for instance, the importance of being on the frontline of technological development, which is emphasised in regards to Finland. Apparently, this is no longer as important as it used to be, because one can never be sure whether today’s skills and knowledge will ensure a position on the forefront also tomorrow. It would be more important to constantly search for new ideas and be responsive in various areas rather than being leader in technology and ideas in one area. The Finnish companies, with their long-standing informal internal cooperation traditions, have to start developing cooperation networks, which would create such a trans-sector capability. They must combine their existing knowledge with knowledge they do not have. And the organisation of successful combinations, external research partnerships and the relevant cooperation requires skills the Finns may lack. At the same time, many are overly focussed on optimising the technologies and processes, which ensured their success so far. But they cannot do both at once. The main players in the Finnish industry cannot be said not to be aware that the idea of a technological frontline has changed and there are risks involved in continuing along their accustomed path. They even make efforts to reach the level of cooperation required by the new situations today in ways they are used to, but these efforts are hesitant and uncertain.
The authors also criticise policy makers, who do understand the need for changes, but have not expressed their awareness in their actions. There are plans, but their connections to the implemented activities are fragile. National innovation systems – like the system in Finland – were based on the need to bridge the gap between the country’s capability and the technological frontline in a particular area. But if the frontline keeps constantly moving, such innovation systems are not that much help anymore. In the worst case, the system may even hamper development, for instance, when people focus on ultra-important problems in one area, which then becomes unimportant due to unexpected cooperation with other sources of knowledge.
Finland needs a policy that does not require being on the forefront of technological development in a predefined area, but takes into account the environment with different possible technologies and ideas, often in areas not really connected with each other. The Finnish national innovation system, which is characterised by state-funded educational and research institutions and well-established horizontal cooperation between researchers in the private sector, universities and research institutions, was successful in supporting innovation in the 1990s, but has depleted itself in the today’s situation.
Low preparedness for breakthrough changes
Both the company managers and other participants in economy are in these unpredictable times more and more scared by the possible success of the so-called breakthrough technologies. Breakthrough technology is the overwhelmingly best alternative to the currently dominating knowledge in a given area. But the most capable producers and the users of the dominating method are blind to the potential of that alternative; they know how to proceed from the ground they are familiar with and are too prone to finding faults in the alternative technologies. Breakthrough technologies often gain a foothold in peripheral markets, which are of no interest to large producers, and develop into dominating producers from there.
The authors say that this is why both the private and the public sector have to give timely consideration to institutional innovation in order to be prepared for surprising developments. Even the best institutions cannot avoid all the mistakes, but they can respond promptly. Decision-makers and theorists have to develop their senses and sensibility in order to feel the approach of a threat and respond to it as promptly as possible when it arrives. Training is provided to such specialists who are tasked with keeping an eye on changes, but the adaptation capability of institutions is still often limited. When companies are trapped in their own knowledge and success, the failure of a necessary response is coded in. And fighting inertia is very difficult also in Finland, where companies are thought to be very flexible and viable and which can be proud of its successful industrial policy traditions.
The authors saw no responses to match the changes in Finland – responses one would expect from a flexible and open economy in the current situation. Instead of concrete realisable activities, there were only a few PowerPoint slides. They are not forecasting outright catastrophe, but fear that the road to new success may start with a failure or, in the best case, with a zigzag.
Looking to the future, the authors emphasise the importance of the regional dimension of innovation policy and place hope in local expert and competence centres, which have the potential to stimulate new relationships, cooperation and experimentation between sectors. They also point to a ray of hope that a crisis and disintegration of large companies will release skills and expert knowledge that can be used in projects, which over time will support the restoration of local innovation capabilities and new possibilities. But the costs of completing this journey will be humongous.
The full study is available at:
Pekka Ylä-Anttila, head of research at the Research Institute of Finnish Economy ETLA; CEO of Etlatieto OY
Do you and the circle of researchers with whom you communicate agree with the main conclusions and analysis logic of the study?
The book is thought provoking and provocative, which is as expected. The main claim, that Finland is becoming a victim of its own success, is good. The two main sectors – the timer and ICT sectors – are among the most competitive in the world in regards to efficiency and productivity. At the same time, the current business model and strategies have been exhausted. Processes are very highly developed and efficient, but we should now rapidly develop new products and business models, particularly in the timber sector. In today’s situation, we could even say that it is already too late – the timber industry will be hit my major structural changes and lose capability.
At the end of the study, the authors state that the prospects of the Finnish economy are relatively disheartening. Have the authors of the study perhaps missed some positive developments or aspects?
It is important to understand that these two sectors are at very different stages of development. The timber/paper industry is catering for the needs of a very mature market with diminishing demand. ICT, however, still has great growth potential. As a corporation, Nokia invests huge amounts into research and development (being the company with the largest research and development expenses in Europe). The ICT sector and Nokia will therefore probably find new products and services.
Half a year has now passed since the publication of the study. It is too early to draw conclusions, but does the reality seem to confirm the authors’ suggestions or rather not?
It is too early to draw any final conclusions. If something has to be said, then the developments of the last 6-8 rather tend to confirm the authors’ suggestions.