When somebody treats you, warns about media, don't play their rules.

(Picture I)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When somebody treats you and your family, and tell to stay out from media, I would say, that don't play with those person rules. When somebody would want other people to stay out from media, would there be something, what affairs those persons, and this is the reason,  there would be reasonable to tell everybody about those letters and another thing, that somebody has put to the mailbox, and sent to the home.


I would tell you, that if the target of treats would follow the instructions, what those persons give, would that just accelerate their actions. If those letters or comments would be published, that would make breaks for the actions against this person. The reason for cheating somebody in the net is sometimes clear. Those cheaters would want that person stops writings or sharing data, what feels uncomfortable for those persons. When somebody uses physical violence, that would be reasonable to publish, because then also somebody else than police can also see, that happened.


 If you would tell the things about violence to the police, they would start the investigations, but then the attacker might get to the police station, would that person tell the own story about those things and, of course, the problem is that this story would be changed many times during the interrogation, and in those cases, where some gang members are made violent actions against other people, is sometimes happen that those persons would claim, that victim of their assault has been the attacked against their girlfriends or something like that.


And sometimes judges believe those persons. Cheaters would always claim, that blogger or writer is some kind of stupid. And this claiming means, that they would want to close that blog or stopping other publications. Then the person would follow the orders, would the victim of the cheater give, that victims start to act the way that cheaters want. And I think that thing would only accelerate the actions what those cheaters want.


When we are talking about writings in newspapers, where some people blame their parents for drinking problems, what made their home as an hell, we might sometimes ask, what those alcoholics think? And sometimes, we might think, how to feel to read those things from some newspapers? Same times we would say, that those children have cried first about their parents, and now it's other person's time to cry. Those alcoholics didn't care anything about their children, who lived in the middle of broken promises.


And why they would not be allowed to write their own opinions about drinking problems? Those parents didn't hide those problems, and why should children be quiet about those things, what happened in their childhood? Today is many ways to write about things, what might be hurt somebody, and now it's time to tell that thing in the different point of view because there are many times when adults have told their story about those things, that happened the long time ago.

https://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/artikkeli/kauhuja-kokenutta-dubain-prinsessan-auttajaa-tiina-jauhiaista-uhkailtiin-viela-suomessa-kiittaa-nyt-timo-soinia-ja-rohkaisee-suomalaisia-auttamaan/6923270#gs.jbXUG4w

Picture I

https://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Top-10-Halloween-Horror-Movies-To-Watch-In-October-Video.jpg

https://vapaaverkkojulkaiseminen.blogspot.fi/

Working life is not self-evident and kicks off from work doesn't mean the end of the life.

https://pimeakronikka.blogspot.fi/p/working-life-is-not-self-evident-and.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Racism is always mentioned as the European phenomenon, but this is not true. There is racism also among other ethnic groups like Arabs and Black Africans. Also between African tribes like Hutu and Tutsi. When we are talking about slavery, we always forget that hunting of the slaves was handle by Arabs and members of black tribes, who sold people to European slave markets for getting guns and other weapons. When slavery was officially prohibited in 19th. century, transferred European businessmen their cotton plantages to Africa, and that was, of course, needed men, who have guarded those places. The hate between Hutu and Tutsi is from that age because owners of the cotton plantages used another of those tribes for guarding the slaves.



That was because Europeans didn't want anybody knows, what was going on in those places, what could be called as near slavery. Slavery was officially prohibited because priests were justified the trade of humans very clear, but the slavery continued everywhere, where public eye didn't look. Europeans choose the tribe, what was used as guards, by using one method: they must be the minority in their area. That made them addicted to European firearms, and this was caused hate between people of Africa. Those plantages were like some concentration camps, and everywhere were only black persons, who worked in there. The guns were explained to be against predators, and if somebody would become suspicious, could that person shot and left to savanna, where scavengers would terminate the body in a couple of hours. We are living in the world, where every man should be free, and we wish to believe that the time of slavery would be over. But there is still marketplaces, where people are sold for work without payments. And now we are not talking about sex-slaves. There are a million of people in the world, who are working as the cleaners and other works, but they ever see their payments.


In some cases, the payment would go to those workers parents, and those workers would not even see their homes. Those parents have sold their children to the factories to get more money, and the under-aged worker's payroll goes to the pockets of the parents, who might live hundreds of kilometers away from that factory. There are also cases, where the company pays payments, but the money would get back to the pockets of the company owners.  In those cases, the employer says, that they would pay payments, but the worker should live in some "hotel", and then all money goes to living. The idea of this kind of slavery is that the company takes their workers only from some "hotels", what are actually some warehouses, and then the rent of those places would get all the money, what that company paid. It's sometimes kept by the bosses of the company, but sometimes the keeper of those hotels is some labor union guy, who might be the cousin of the owner of that company. Also sometimes the payroll would get back to the pockets of company owners by the very nasty way. The owner or work leader of the company tells that employee have made damages in the work, and then the company can ask payment for those destroyed stuff.


This has been the fate of some young workers even in the Western world.  But there is one model of slavery, what we might see everywhere. That is the psychiatric patients and handicapped people rehabilitation work. Those works are usually very dirty, and nobody wants to do them. And the payments of those works are poor, and they are under-ranked. Sometimes the attitude of those workers is, that their work is so bad, that they would need any payments. Also, their work has been delayed more often than normal workers, even if the quality of the work has been the same. The slavery, where payments would go to the pockets of the parents is the thing, what happens also in the western countries. In some cases, alcoholism or narcomaniacs would send their children for cleaning the roofs or delivering newspapers for getting drugs or alcohol. And those children even get food at home.


There is connecting the question of social media. When some employer claims that person would be kicked off because of the writings in social media, and if those writings were not made,  that person would be kept in the workplace. But this thing is a little bit suspicious. Is it really so, that the employer would be kept the worker in the work if this person would leave the social media? if the employer has isolated the worker, they would ever be allowed those workers to stay in their places. And if the employee writes to social media, would the kicks off be more easy that if that person would be quiet. There are people who claims that it would be easier to keep the mouth shut, but then I must ask one question: would it really easier to keep the mouth shut? And when we are thinking about the situation, that employee has been kicked off, why must that person hide those things?


I have had many work relationships what have been cut for many reasons, and I would say that I'm not an easy person, who just wants to comply everything, what the boss wants. And that have caused problems for me, but when I'm thinking about those situations, that some proud man has said that I'm not suitable in their workplace, I must say that kicks off have been easier than if I was not written about this stories. Sometimes those bosses have not dared to say everything, what they wanted. And the kicks have been coming anyway, so, why should I feel that this situation is some kind of "stigma" for me? If that is the stigma for some work instructor, that is that person's problem, not mine. This has been the nice morning to think about those things and let's go to face the new day and new challenges.

https://pimeakronikka.blogspot.fi/p/working-life-is-not-self-evident-and.html

"Three nice girls and three bad skeletons" from the medieval time

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/three-nice-girls-and-three-bad.html

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/three-nice-girls-and-three-bad.html