Truth and Myth About Christmas

This morning, the rush of Christmas preparations is already almost over, and around midday Finnish people go to listen to the Declaration of Christmas Peace, which dates back to the Middle Ages. Later in the evening, at the festive table, the Christmas Gospel is read, telling how the child Jesus was born to Mary, who had become pregnant as a virgin and who, together with her betrothed Joseph, had gone to Bethlehem to be registered for taxation.

This story, familiar to all Westerners, is a rather beautiful narrative. In addition, for many people it is associated with such childhood memories that they wish to revive them even if their worldview is not theistic. If anything, this shows how extremely important traditions are to people.

* * *

As most of you—my esteemed readers—are probably aware, many Christmas traditions are much older than Christianity. One of their sources is the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which was celebrated for a week around the time of the winter solstice.

The description of Saturnalia given, for example, on Wikipedia sounds very familiar, although there are of course differences beyond the Christian nature of the celebration. During the festival, people gave each other gifts, and there was plenty of festive food, games, and merrymaking. It is also interesting that in the Roman temple considered the center of Saturnalia, the cult statue of Saturn had its feet unbound.

On the other hand, Saturnalia was led by a carnival king chosen for the occasion, and slaves were granted the freedoms of free people. This meant that they were allowed to gamble, become publicly intoxicated, cast aside the cloak of restrained behavior, and even act insolently. The streets, too, were filled with boisterous celebration.

These latter Roman customs do not belong to the Christmases of my generation, but I have noticed that, at least in terms of celebrating, Finland is gradually changing. Not everyone spends Christmas at home anymore; instead, people set off on boisterous holiday trips to the south or the north. And perhaps nightlife, too, is livelier than before even in cities where people’s homes are located.

* * *

The ancient Romans had neither Christmas trees nor Santa Claus. The origin of the former is not known for certain.

According to Estonians, the first public Christmas tree was erected in Tallinn as early as 1441, but Latvian archival sources claim that the Brotherhood of the Blackheads brought the Christmas tree to Riga in 1510. In addition, there is a well-known account according to which the Christmas tree originated in 16th-century Germany, in the area of present-day Strasbourg.

What is certain, however, is that the Christmas tree tradition does not originate from Finland or even from the Nordic countries, since spruce trees began to appear in people’s homes here—initially among the nobility—only in the 19th century. Among the common people, the Christmas tree became widespread only about a hundred years ago.

* * *

Santa Claus, of course, lives on Korvatunturi in Finland (the name translates as “Ear Mountain”), together with Mrs. Claus and his elves. This is so despite the fact that some who have lost their faith in him believe that Santa Claus originated as a kind of successor to the tradition of Saint Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra who lived in the 4th century.

Even more absurd is the idea held by Americans that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and travels around with flying reindeer—as if they did not know that there are no reindeer living at the North Pole at all. And even if there were, they certainly would not know how to fly.

In Finland, however, there have always also been relatives of Santa Claus: the Nuutti goats and Kekri goats. They are known to have gone from house to house, first drinking the alcoholic beverages offered to them, second distributing gifts to well-behaved children, and as a third option handing out birch twigs to the naughty ones.

Fortunately, in recent years Santa Claus has reduced the first and third of these pastimes and has instead focused more on listening to Christmas songs sung in children’s clear voices and on distributing gifts.

With these words—taken more or less seriously—I wish you, my esteemed readers, a very good and happy Christmas!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Different Kind of Christmas
Christmas gift to the Holy Land
Merry Christmas!

The Frog in the Pot: Russia’s Baltic Strategy

According to Ukraine’s intelligence chief, Putin is planning to seize the Baltic states as early as 2027. According to him, “the Russian Federation was supposed to be ready to launch operations in 2030. Now the plans have been adapted and revised so that the deadlines have been shortened to 2027.”

As Putin’s motive, the intelligence chief cited a somewhat undeniably mysterious idea that an empire must “always be moving somewhere in order to expand its influence and territories.” He believes the selection of the Baltics as the target of an attack, in turn, is due to their weakness in the Arctic region compared to the United States and China, which Russia would face in other directions.

* * *

The fact, however, is that all three Baltic states are members of NATO, and as such they enjoy the security guarantees of the world’s most powerful military alliance. According to Article Five, "the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all".

It further states that “each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

* * *

However, Article Five does not define the level of force with which an attack against a member state would be answered. It therefore does not state that an attack on a member state would be met with sufficient force, or with NATO’s full military power, or that tens of thousands of NATO troops would be deployed to the Baltics after an attack.

Let alone that the attacker would be threatened with full-scale nuclear war in such a situation. Instead, Article Five merely states that the response will consist of actions deemed necessary.

* * *

Therefore, the key question from Russia’s perspective—if it wishes to attack the Baltics—is the nature and scale of the actions that NATO countries would deem necessary. And I do not consider it impossible that Russia might—most likely only after the war in Ukraine has ended—want to find out.

This could of course occur through a large-scale offensive or by carrying out—successfully—a blitzkrieg (“special operation,” po-russkii), in which the Baltics would be occupied in a matter of days. Such an approach, however, would involve enormous risks—even the possibility of nuclear war—which Russia would more likely seek to avoid by using the so-called “frog in a pot of water” method and increasing its power in small steps.

The beginning of such actions could already be seen in past hybrid operations exploiting migrants from developing countries, airspace violations, balloon flights, and most recently armed border guards entering Estonian territory. For this reason, especially in Europe, it is necessary to closely monitor whether increasingly serious border violations are directed at the Baltic states in the future. And if they occur, to raise the level of readiness.

In my view, the most sensible course for NATO would be to make it clear that it will use sufficient force in all attacks directed at NATO countries to stop the attacker’s army—i.e., that it would, if necessary, ensure by all available means that the attacker is halted.

* * *

Unfortunately, there are good reasons to doubt that all NATO member states—particularly the strongest one under its current administration, or the states of Westernmost Europe—are willing to make such a commitment. And even if they were, Putin’s Russia might still choose to observe how the “frog” reacts to cautious measures to heat the pot.

For this reason, the Baltic states, other countries bordering Russia, and—next in line to attract the interest of Russian dictators—their western neighbors must themselves ensure that any potential aggression by the Moscow regime is met decisively. And they must ensure that their military capabilities are sufficient for that purpose.

Only by acting in this way can it be made clear to Putin that Russia should not even consider taking the kind of risk that Ukraine’s intelligence chief spoke of.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Should Ukraine Trust Donald Trump After Being Let Down by Barack Obama?
Estonia Needs Its Own Air Force
Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine

Concern About the Future Is Growing in Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin held his annual media spectacle, the propagandistic rambling of which was reported with varying emphasis by the Finnish media (Yle, Helsingin Sanomat). This morning, I then came across a post on social media by the Ukrainian Anton Gerashchenko, who is known for sharing his views, and whose content may have been more important than any information conveyed by Finnish news organizations.

According to him, as many as eight percent of the questions submitted for the program concerned Russia’s economic crisis, making it the third most popular topic—previously it had not even made the top ten. People wanted to know when the “bad period” of the economy would end, when price increases would stop, and why the government is raising value-added tax.

Sixteen percent of Russians also wanted to know when their standard of living would improve, and 21 percent were interested in when the war would end. These are likely rather uncomfortable questions for Putin.

* * *

In the same post, Gerashchenko also said that according to a recent opinion poll, 39 percent of Russians believe that the economic situation in their regions will worsen, compared to 33 percent a year ago, 34 percent in 2023, and 29 percent in 2022. The share of Russians who believe that life in Russia will deteriorate next year has also reached its highest level since 2022 (17%).

In other words, the consequences of the war in Ukraine are increasingly beginning to show in Russians’ everyday lives, even though—at least so far—there have been no visible (or at least serious) protests against the war. It remains to be seen at what point ordinary Russians’ concern about their own situation will lead to visible resistance against Putin’s war policy.

Or will it ever?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?

The Surprising Story of Europe’s Hippos

Hippopotamuses are the largest land animals living today after elephants and rhinoceroses. Today, the species occurs only in Africa, but remains have also been found in Europe.

They have been assumed to originate from the last interglacial period. This assumption is based on the fact that the hippopotamus is considered an indicator species of temperate climates and is thought to have gone extinct north of the Mediterranean at the onset of the Weichselian glaciation around 115,000 years ago.

* * *

A recent study by Patrik Arnold and his colleagues has now brought surprising new insights concerning European hippopotamuses. The researchers analyzed Central European hippopotamuses by sequencing the genome of one individual, which revealed a close genetic relationship between these animals and modern African hippopotamuses.

In addition, they determined six other partial mitochondrial genomes, which confirmed that the European fossils belonged to the same species as present-day African hippopotamuses. The species therefore once had a much wider distribution than today and was not always restricted to sub-Saharan Africa.

The researchers also conducted radiocarbon dating of the fossils and were greatly surprised to discover that they were much more recent than previously believed. The remains dated to the middle phase of the Weichselian glaciation, a period beginning before 47,000 years ago and ending around 31,000 years ago—that is, during the later stages of the last Ice Age.

Because radiocarbon dates of woolly mammoth and woolly rhinoceros fossils from the same sites fall within the same time range, these animals also inhabited Europe at that time. Consequently, the fauna of our continent was very different from what had previously been assumed or from what we know today.

The researchers also analyzed genetic variation in the now fully sequenced hippopotamus genome and found its genetic diversity to be low. It is therefore likely that this individual belonged to a small population that lived in isolation from other hippopotamuses.

Previous thoughts on related topics:
Deep Roots of Violence and Disregard for Human Dignity in History
The Dire Wolf and the Rights of Extinct Human Species
The Historical Merging of Human Groups

Is Hamas Running Out of Intelligent Leaders?

In my piece – written in Finnish – last year I was right in guessing that Israel has decided to eliminate Hamas leaders whenever possible. This time it was the turn of the head responsible for weapons production in the organization’s military wing.

It remains to be seen whether the Jewish state will succeed in withering the organization through this strategy. One would nevertheless assume that even if it fails to do so quantitatively, it would achieve results at least qualitatively. It is obvious that if and when assuming leadership positions in Hamas has turned into a death trap—rather than a path to ordinary enrichment—only the most thick-headed fanatics would seek them.

If I am right, this means a rapid decline in Hamas and its terrorist capabilities. And as a consequence, in the longer term—perhaps—also a decline in the organization’s popularity among ordinary Palestinians.

Thus the question is whether the logic I am applying from a Western frame of reference is correct. Or is the Muslim worldview so different that what I have written above does not apply?

In the latter case, Hamas will continue to succeed in attracting intelligent people to its leadership. If so, it leaves us Westerners to ponder what this says about Palestinians and their intellectual capacities.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Foreign Minister Explained Why the States That Have Recognized Palestine Are Well-Meaning Fools
Optimism and Reality of the Gaza Peace Proposal
An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views

Reflections on the Terrorist Attack in Australia

Today in Australia, a terrorist attack was carried out against Jews celebrating Hanukkah. At the moment it appears that 12 people have lost their lives and 29 have been injured in this senseless act.

One of the attackers is a ‘Sydney man,’ Naveed Akram, which points to an Islamist motive. Of course, this can also be inferred from the choice of target.

What makes the incident unusual is that an Australian in civilian clothes took a weapon away from one of the terrorists. After that, another person even threw something at him—apparently a stone. Well done to both, although such civilian bravery cannot be recommended to anyone, as it can turn out badly.

On a general level, this case once again demonstrated the risk posed to the native population by the Muslim population living in Western countries. At the same time, it reinforced the negative stigma often attached to all Muslims. For this reason, it would be sensible and wise, for the sake of the Islamic community living throughout the West, to ensure that such attacks no longer occur.

Therefore, the lesson of the Australian case is clear from Europe’s point of view: it is not advisable to increase our country’s Muslim population beyond its current size. This is not changed by the fact that Australian Muslim communities have condemned the attack, because the act seen here was unfortunately not an isolated case, nor was the group of perpetrators random.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal
Just Another Case of Multiculturality in Manchester, UK
Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The Outbreak of the Continuation War Between Finland and the Soviet Union

In recent days, Finland has been engaged in a discussion about the outbreak of the Continuation War between Finland and Russia as part of the Second World War. The debate began when Finland’s largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat (HS), published an article with a headline claiming that “Elina Valtonen forgot the Continuation War on television.”

It claimed that Finland had attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, at the beginning of the Continuation War. This stirred up a lot of debate—and perhaps even some lipstick-splashing—because it is an indisputable fact that the Soviet Union initiated the hostilities of the Continuation War.

* * *

The Finnish-language Wikipedia states the matter—immediately under the subheading “The war begins”—as follows:
“The Soviet Union’s attacks against Finland began on 22 June 1941 at 6:05 a.m., when the Soviet Union opened artillery fire from the Hanko base at Finnish targets in the archipelago and on the mainland, and launched air raids against Finnish ships at sea. On the same day, the Soviet Union carried out several artillery strikes on the eastern border.

According to the same source, ‘after this, on the same day Finland participated in the mining of the southern Gulf of Finland. Germany had launched Operation Barbarossa at 3:00 a.m., and German aircraft that had conducted mine-laying flights from East Prussia to the Leningrad region landed at the Utti airfield on their return journey to refuel. The Soviet Union continued its air and artillery strikes against Finnish military targets in Finland. Finland refrained from returning fire and attempted to assert its neutrality in the new war.’”

And again, quoting Wikipedia:
“On 25 June 1941, the Soviet Air Force bombed Helsinki, Turku, Heinola, and Porvoo as well as a dozen other localities with about 500 aircraft, of which 27 were shot down over Finnish territory. Based on these bombings and previous events, in a communication submitted to Parliament the government concluded that the country had entered a state of war. Parliament accepted this position. Later that same day, 25 June, Prime Minister Jukka Rangell stated on the radio that Finland was once again at war with the Soviet Union…. War was declared on 26 June 1941. The Finnish Army and German troops stationed in Finland began the land offensive.”

* * *

HS has later attempted to correct its mistake with an addition stating that “Finland declared a state of war only after the Soviet Union had bombed Finland, but Finland had already before this made extensive offensive preparations to join the war alongside Germany. Finland’s objective was to occupy large areas of the Soviet Union beyond those that had been lost in the Winter War.”

This correction is indeed in the right direction, but it is still misleading. It was the Soviet Union that unambiguously initiated the Continuation War. And, incidentally, it committed what would today be considered a serious crime against humanity, since terror bombings—even against countries allegedly preparing for war—aimed at civilian populations are indisputably such acts.

The Red Army Air Force bombings of 25 June were unquestionably exactly that—state terrorism. And it is equally indisputable that Finland began its own offensive operations only after those attacks.

For the first three days of the war, all Finnish military operations had been defensive. And that’s not all: as can be seen even from the Wikipedia excerpts I cited above, Finland had refrained even from some defensive actions.

* * *

It must of course be acknowledged that German soldiers had arrived in Finland. It is also well known that many of Finland’s political leaders at the time wished to avenge the defeat of the Winter War.

I personally find Heikki Ylikangas’s view quite plausible—that this idea had been adopted, as a result of Hermann Göring’s persuasion, already at the end of the Winter War.

However, this does not change the truth that Finland was not the aggressor in the Continuation War; it was Stalin’s Soviet Union. It is also a fact that since history is not an experimental science, we cannot turn back time and see whether Finland would have attacked the Soviet Union without the war initiated by Stalin.

Furthermore, one should understand about the nature of the Continuation War that although Finland’s offensive into the Soviet Union—beginning several days after the Red Army’s military actions—was undeniably a war of conquest, it was not an existential threat to the communist state. This is because Commander-in-Chief Carl Gustaf Mannerheim refused to launch an active offensive against Leningrad and did not order the continuation of the conquest beyond the three isthmuses stretching from the Gulf of Finland through Lakes Ladoga and Onega to Lake Seesjärvi. Yet conditions would have been favorable for such an advance at the time.

* * *

Based on all this, I must deeply wonder why HS, even while correcting its article, failed to present an accurate picture of the events of June 1941. Instead, it gave support to the false propaganda spread across social media in recent times by Putin’s Russia and its trolls (example), claiming that Finland was a Nazi state that attacked the innocent Soviet Union. The fact is that Finland never had a Nazi party in its Parliament; the only far-right party represented there, the Patriotic People’s Movement, was relatively small and not a Nazi party.

* * *

At the same time, it is necessary to correct the notion—indeed, an urban legend—that the Soviet Army was not prepared for Germany’s attack. In fact, its forces had been massively strengthened after the Winter War, so that in the summer of 1941 it was—at least on paper—much stronger than the German armed forces. And Hitler’s intelligence had failed to discover this fact.

I even consider it possible that this very fact—the presumed strength of the Soviet Army—explains the Red Army’s attack on Finland immediately after the start of Barbarossa. It is, after all, irrational that Stalin opened a new front—against a new enemy—after being forced into a defensive war against the Germans.

I justify this by arguing that Stalin may have imagined his unprecedentedly strong Red Army capable of stopping and destroying the attacking German forces, unlike the French the previous year. And as we know, that is ultimately what it did—although only after years, and with the support of massive American aid packages.

The Finnish Army, on the other hand, Stalin failed to defeat, and Helsinki remained unconquered. And therefore our history does not include a 50-year period of misery under communist dictatorship.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

Free School Education for Foreigners Ends in Finland

The Parliament of Finland approved the government’s proposal according to which students from outside the EU and EEA will in the future pay an annual fee in upper-secondary schools (lukio) and vocational institutions corresponding to the actual cost of their education. We are not talking about small sums: for example, the cost of one year of upper-secondary school can exceed 10,000 euros.

According to Statistics Finland, in 2022 there were about 35,000 foreign nationals studying in vocational education and about 3,400 in upper-secondary schools. These figures also include people from EU and EEA countries, to whom the legislative change does not apply. The largest groups in vocational schools were Estonians (around 4,500), Russians (around 4,500), Iraqis (around 3,500), Afghans (around 2,200) and Filipinos (around 2,000).

In Parliament, the proposal was opposed not only by the left-wing parties—the Greens and the Left Alliance—but also by the Centre Party. It would be interesting to know what the party’s voters think about the matter at a time when public services have been cut and will continue to be cut drastically—if not from foreigners’ services, then from Finns’.

This was also noted by MP Joakim Vigelius, who additionally stated—quite correctly—that "Finland cannot be the world’s educational hub, nor a global social service office, health centre, care home or prison. The money will not be sufficient if the number of those to be served expands to everyone crossing the border without conditions, fees or responsibilities."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Attitudes Toward Immigrants Are a Problem in Schools
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Laitavasemmisto ja Keskusta haluaisivat Suomesta koko maailman ilmaisen koulutuskeskuksen

Independence and the Sword of Damocles

Finland became independent exactly 108 years ago. Has that been a long or a short time?

One way to look at it is that Finns of my age have lived through and experienced most of the country’s independence. And our grandparents were born in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland within the Russian Empire.

On the other hand, Finland’s independence has lasted as long as the time it spent as part of Russia. The Finnish War was fought in 1808–09, and in the ensuing peace agreement the eastern parts of the then Kingdom of Sweden—those along the Gulf of Bothnia and in the north along the Tornio and Muonio rivers—were ceded to Russia.

During its 108 years, the autonomous Grand Duchy had only five grand dukes. The first was Alexander I, who decided to make Finland autonomous and incorporated into it the territories east of the Kymi River that Russia had previously conquered. Our last grand duke was Nicholas II, who set out to dismantle Finland’s autonomous status—something that caused widespread dissatisfaction and ultimately led to Finland’s independence.

Independent Finland has had thirteen presidents and seventy-seven governments. At the beginning of independence, strong powers were granted to the president because there was considerable monarchist sentiment among the people. Since the 1980s, however, constitutional reforms have made the government and its prime minister the country’s de facto wielders of power—excluding foreign policy, where strong presidents Sauli Niinistö and Alexander Stubb have kept the reins firmly in their own hands.

* * *

History belongs to the past, and although it is pleasant to recall, the fate of our people will be decided in the future. And so our descendants will see whether Finland is still Finnish after another 108 years—that is, in 2133.

As history shows, a great deal can happen over such a long span of time, and predicting the outcome is impossible—just as it was in December 1917. Few people back then could have imagined our life as members of the European Union and of the Western defence alliance 108 years later. And such long-term foresight is hardly possible today either.

Nevertheless, there is reason for confidence in the future, because Finland is a democracy, and as such the country’s fate lies in the hands of its people. Yet hidden within this fact is a kind of Sword of Damocles: with good decisions, the future of Finns can be at least as bright as the past 108 years, but poor decisions could lead to national decline and a harsh future for generations to come.

That is why we—and future Finns—must exercise our rightful power with care and wisdom: to secure the success of our homeland and its Finnish people.

Despite all this — or perhaps precisely because of it — I wish all of you, my esteemed readers, a very happy Finnish Independence Day!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gender identity and the future of Finnishness
Finns - Among the World’s Best
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Itsenäisyys ja Damokleen miekka

Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.

You don’t have to—nor is there any reason to—like Donald Trump or everything he has done. There is, however, one thing for which he must be given credit.

His administration has suspended the processing of immigration applications from citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Sierra Leone, Togo, Equatorial Guinea, the Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Chad, Sudan, Libya, Eritrea, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, and Laos. The reason for this is that an Afghan who had gained entry to the country recently committed an act of terrorism by shooting members of the National Guard.

* * *

Over the years, Finland has also learned that people with developing-country backgrounds commit more violent and sexual offenses than others. That is why it is good that Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s (National Coalition Party) government has tightened immigration policy.

As a result, the number of immigration applications on the basis of international protection from citizens of countries with the highest crime risk has been clearly lower last year and this year than at any point since the major migration year of 2015.

* * *

One can only hope that this development continues in the coming years and that the next government of our country does not start dismantling the progress achieved. Instead, one may hope that future policymakers will find a philosopher’s stone for how to get the developing-country immigrants who have already arrived here to adopt Finnish culture and way of life, and thereby take responsibility for their own lives here under the North Star.

One way to advance this goal is to develop criminal law in a direction that reduces the interest of crime-prone newcomers in coming to Finland, while at the same time encouraging those who are already here to live in Rome as the Romans do. In these matters, it is worthwhile to follow practices that have proven effective in other countries—including the immigration policy measures of Donald Trump’s administration—and make use of their experiences in the development of Finnish legislation.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal
Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Väkivalta- ja seksuaalirikollisuuden seuraukset

Leninism Echoes in Germany and the UK

This morning, two articles by the Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle caught my eye, both shedding light on the underlying mindset of those connected to the political left—a mindset which still carries a significant amount of Leninist heritage. This refers to professional revolutionary activism, meaning undemocratic and violent transfer of power, which in its time also led to the Finnish Civil War.

The first article that drew my attention reported that the German left, anarchists, and anti-fascists want to prevent the youth of Alternative for Germany from organizing under the wings of the party’s democratic leadership. According to the article, the left explicitly intends to disrupt the AfD meeting by preventing attendees from reaching the venue, making their lives as difficult as possible, and if necessary, to ‘set Giessen on fire’.

It is likely that this will lead to violence, in which Leninist actors will be confronted by AfD supporters and possibly also by extremist elements who support Nazi ideas, the latter being no more respectful of democracy than the communists themselves.

* * *

The second Yle news story that raised my eyebrows concerned the Irish author Sally Rooney, whose books may be withdrawn from sale in Britain. This is due to her support for the Palestine Action group, which is banned under British anti-terrorism laws.

The group engages in direct action to disrupt the UK arms industry. The key targets of its acts of terrorism have been the British factories of the Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems, as well as the RAF Brize Norton airbase.

Palestine Action has used protests, occupations of premises, property destruction, and vandalism in its campaigns. As a result, its members have been arrested and brought to court, charged among other things with aggravated assault on police officers.

Rooney has certainly not expressed any understanding of the British decision, but instead has portrayed herself as a victim, declaring that banning her works is an extreme form of state interference in artistic expression. In doing so, she has reinforced her Leninist mode of thinking by supporting violent rebellion to achieve her aims.

* * *

As a side note, I would also like to mention one more observation about Yle itself. In the article on Rooney it was stated that ‘since July, British police have arrested hundreds of demonstrators who have shown support for the group’. Meanwhile, according to Wikipedia, ‘British police have arrested at least 2,269 people for supporting the Palestine Action movement’.

This left me wondering: was Yle attempting to downplay left-wing violence? Or did the journalist simply fail to notice that supporters of Palestine Action have been arrested in many other situations besides the one described in the article linked?"

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Diversity Beats Doctors: Three UK Healthcare Realities to Make Stalin Envious
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Vallankumouksellinen vasemmisto kylvää väkivaltaa ja niittää tukea

Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal

This morning’s news feed reported that a 29-year-old Afghan who moved to the country in 2021 has shot two members of the United States National Guard. The incident took place in Washington, the capital of the USA – and reportedly very close to the White House.

President Donald Trump has called the event an act of terror and referred to the perpetrator as an animal. In addition, he has vowed that the Afghan will pay a very high price for his actions.

It remains to be seen what the criminal investigation will ultimately conclude regarding the shooting incident. However, it is already generally clear that the case can be linked to the broader issues associated with the migration of Muslim people from developing countries to Western democracies.

It is equally certain that this case will not halt the so-called humanitarian immigration policy, but that it will continue as before. As a result, Western culture will gradually transform into a more polarized society, in which the ethno-cultural character of the population differs significantly from what it was before the turn of the millennium.

It should be noted, though, that this development is ultimately the result of political decisions. Therefore, the development I described above is not a law of nature, but rather the choice of Western people themselves. And as such, it – and its outcome – can be changed, should that be desired.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Just Another Case of Multiculturality in Manchester, UK
The Cost of the East Jerusalem Attack for Palestinians — and Its Echo Worldwide
Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The original blogposti in Finnish:
29-vuotias afgaani ammuskeli

Why Should Ukraine Trust Donald Trump After Being Let Down by Barack Obama?

The Trump administration has assured that a possible peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia would “fully safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty.” This is of course a good thing in principle, but it appears in a strange light given that Ukraine’s sovereignty was, in theory, already secured by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

In that agreement, Ukraine gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its territory, and in return the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom promised not to use or threaten to use economic or military means to coerce Ukraine or alter its borders. France and China later joined them.

As a result of these great powers’ “commitment,” Ukraine interpreted the memorandum as guaranteeing its security and handed over the nuclear weapons in its possession to Russia. This led, in 2014, to Putin deciding to risk Western reactions and annexing Crimea to Russia.

* * *

Putin’s gamble paid off, as the Crimea operation—carried out by Russian soldiers known as “little green men”—did not lead to practically any consequences. This was despite Russia clearly violating the Budapest Memorandum, using as a pretext the obvious falsehood that Ukraine’s government was illegitimate.

At that time, the United States was led by Barack Obama, who did impose some sanctions on Russia but decided not to intervene further in the aggression. In doing so, he ended up convincing Vladimir Putin that no strong U.S. counterreaction should be expected from a military attack, even when he violated existing international agreements that were interpreted as security guarantees.

* * *

The question, then, is what now guarantees that Ukraine will receive sufficient Western support under a new agreement, should Russia at some point decide to continue its military campaign? Would Donald Trump or one of his successors act like Obama did in 2014? In other words, if a new attack occurred, would political condemnations combined with some sanctions and limited military aid again be considered sufficient?

Given all this, I fully understand why Trump’s assurances do not appeal to Zelensky and other Ukrainians. And instead of the agreement he is now proposing, Ukraine demands for its security NATO membership—which Trump’s peace proposal forbids—since it would at the very least significantly increase the risk for Russia that the West might use military force if it embarked on a new offensive.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Why Do Russians Tolerate Broken Infrastructure?

Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?

Based on the latest news, it now appears that the EU will have to decide whether it is a significant actor or merely a paper tiger in world politics. I mean that the United States has pressured Ukraine to accept a peace plan dictated by Russia—or at least one that appears to be so—circulating under the name of Donald Trump.

According to media reports, the pressure has taken the form of threatening Ukrainians with a reduction in American military aid and intelligence support if the plan is not accepted. This is a serious situation, because—as I understand it—it is perfectly clear that Ukraine cannot continue the war in its current circumstances without U.S. intelligence assistance, when survival against the enemy is already hanging by a thread.

If Donald Trump is serious, Ukraine is left with two options: either to accept a peace agreement highly similar to the one effectively forced upon Finland in 1944, or for Europeans to step in and fully replace American support.

That does not mean that Germany’s Merz, France’s Macron, and Britain’s Starmer can simply continue to offer verbal reassurances of their support. The major EU countries must now genuinely commit to large-scale assistance for Ukraine, because the shoulders of the Baltic states and the Nordic countries alone are in no way sufficient to stop Russia. Otherwise, Ukraine will be handed over to the Russians.

Based on current information, a decision will be made by next Thursday, as Trump is waiting until then for Zelensky’s answer. After that, he—possibly due to some form of blackmail related to his past trips to Moscow—will abandon the Ukrainians to their fate.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Will Trump Finally Stand Up to Vladimir Putin?
Questionable Achievements of Donald Trump's Foreign Policy

The Finnish far left has difficulties with terrorism and antisemitism

Fresh news reported that the United States has classified the German Antifa group as a terrorist organization. What makes this newsworthy is that Li Andersson (Finnish Left Alliance) has visibly supported its activities.

It remains to be seen how prominently the Finnish mainstream media will report on the actions of our Member of the European Parliament. So far, I have not observed this happening.

For my part, I note that this case should be taken seriously within the Left Alliance, and that a thorough discussion should be held about the party’s stance toward various organizations. This would demonstrate a commitment to peaceful democracy.

There is also an excellent opportunity to take the first steps in this direction right now. Andersson and the party chair Minja Koskela could clearly state that they do not approve of their youth organization’s chair Pinja Vuorinen’s recent demand to make Finnish society unsafe for Jews, and take action to replace her with someone who shows greater respect for human rights.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values
Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean

Ukrainian and Finnish Cases of Desertion

Financial Times published a report on Ukrainian soldiers deserting the front. According to it, as many as 60,000 charges have been filed this year alone against soldiers who have abandoned their posts.

For this reason, I would like to remind you – my esteemed readers – that Finns faced similar problems in 1944. However, they were resolved swiftly and effectively, which demonstrates that desertion can be brought under control quite quickly – if there is the will to do so. Undoubtedly, this applies to Ukraine as well.

* * *

During the Winter War, Finnish soldiers held their positions admirably, and morale remained high. But when the Karelian Isthmus front collapsed in 1944 under the pressure of the Soviet Union’s massive offensive, many Finnish soldiers also abandoned their posts. As a result, it was estimated in June 1944 that around 30,000 soldiers had gone missing from their units – some lost, but many deliberately fleeing.

This led Parliament to enact a law strengthening the military penal code, allowing for the death penalty for “cowardice in battle,” that is, desertion. This resulted in summary judgments by field courts and, in some cases, officers taking justice into their own hands. Consequently, roughly fifty Finnish deserters and war resisters met their end at the hands of their own countrymen.

* * *

These events have later been condemned with the infallible morality of hindsight – or, as Veikko Huovinen put it, with the “sweetest and most self-satisfied kind of wisdom.” The fact remains, however, that it was precisely those summary punishments – and the word of them spreading rapidly through the ranks – that brought desertion among Finnish soldiers under control.

Thus, swift and sufficiently firm action against desertion made possible, among other things, the defensive victory at Tali–Ihantala – the so-called Miracle of Ihantala, which stopped the Red Army’s great offensive and saved Finland’s independence. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?
Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Ukrainalainen ja suomalainen rintamakarkuruus

Ukraine Must Defeat Corruption Before Joining the EU

In addition to waging war, Ukraine is also striving to root out the rampant corruption in the country. And no wonder — in 2024, the nation ranked as low as 105th on an index measuring corruption levels. That means Ukrainians are slightly more corrupt than those in Morocco, the Dominican Republic, or Serbia, but still less prone to bribery than people in Algeria, Brazil, or Malawi.

Incidentally, the least corrupt countries in the world were Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and New Zealand. At the very bottom of the list — in positions 178 to 180 — were Venezuela, Somalia, and South Sudan.

* * *

Let us return, then, to Ukraine, which is fighting desperately for its independence against the Russians, with strong support from Western nations. Its leadership has also expressed a firm desire to join the European Union.

In my view, the EU — which itself struggles with corruption — must, despite all sympathy toward the Ukrainians, firmly maintain that this goal cannot be achieved unless corruption is thoroughly eradicated from the country. In this respect, Ukrainians are on the right path, but unfortunately still far from the finish line.

It was therefore rather foolish that President Volodymyr Zelensky tried during the summer to limit anti-corruption investigations — a move that raised doubts, both in me and surely in many others, about whether Ukraine can ever leave behind its Slavic legacy of corruption and one day embrace a Western way of life. 

To be sure, he quickly reversed course, but it is clear that the damage was already done and the stigma of corruption attached to Ukrainians only grew stronger. Erasing that image will not be easy — it will require revelations and punishments that may also reach into Zelensky’s own apparently corrupt inner circle.

It remains to be seen how Ukraine will tackle corruption in the future — and whether the problem can ever truly be brought under control so that the country’s EU membership might one day become even theoretically possible.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure?

James Watson, Great Scientist and Victim of Liberal Ideology, Has Died

One of the most significant scientists of the past century has died at the age of 97. I am referring to the American Nobel laureate James Watson, who—together with Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin—unraveled the structure of DNA.

Watson and Crick in fact determined the structure of DNA without authorization, as they did it alongside their official work, correctly interpreting Franklin’s X-ray crystallographic data. This story is fascinatingly told in Watson’s book The Double Helix, published in the late 1960s, which anyone interested in the history of science should read.

* * *

The great scientist who has now passed away was raised Catholic but later described himself as “a refugee from the Catholic religion.” In his words: “The luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn’t believe in God.” Thus, at the age of eleven, he stopped participating in religious rituals and instead embraced “the pursuit of scientific and humanistic knowledge.”

Watson completed his PhD at Indiana University in the United States, then moved to Copenhagen for a year as a postdoctoral researcher before taking another postdoctoral position in the United Kingdom. He made his breakthrough discovery concerning the structure of DNA while working at Oxford.

* * *

After these formative years, Watson later returned to his home country. There he became politically active, taking a stand against the deployment of American troops to Vietnam and later opposing nuclear technology, warning of the risk that radioactive materials could fall into the hands of terrorists.

Watson also directed the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, earning recognition for “transforming a small institution into one of the world’s leading centers for education and research.” By launching a program to study the causes of human cancer, scientists under his leadership made major contributions to understanding the genetic basis of cancer.

In 1990, Watson became head of the Human Genome Project. He was, however, forced to step down after opposing the patenting of its results. As he stated, “The world’s peoples must understand that the human genome belongs to the world’s people, not to its nations.”

According to press reports, in 1997 Watson stated that “if you could find a gene that influences sexuality, and a woman decided she didn’t want a homosexual child, she should be allowed to make that choice.” He apparently meant freedom of choice rather than advocating the abortion of homosexual fetuses.

In subsequent years, Watson made other remarks that drew attention and criticism from many quarters. In 2000, he said that “whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.”

Later, he publicly supported genetic screening and genetic engineering, claiming that stupidity is a disease and that the “really stupid” 10% of humanity should be cured. He also suggested that beauty could be modified through genetic engineering, saying in 2003: “People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.”

* * *

As these examples show, Watson had an interesting way of seeing things. The same could be said of his opinions on many other subjects.

According to Watson, stereotypes about race and ethnicity had a genetic basis: Jews were intelligent; the Chinese were intelligent but uncreative because of conformity; and Indians were servile due to caste-based endogamy. He further claimed that “all our social policies are based on the fact that their (Black people’s) intelligence is the same as ours (White people’s) — whereas all the testing says not really.”

These views provoked widespread protests and ultimately led to Watson’s retirement, even though his stated intention had been “to advance science, not racism.” Unfortunately, the world was not ready for such discussions then — and perhaps still isn’t.

* * *

Adding an intriguing note to his story, Watson sold his Nobel Prize medal in 2014 after being branded a “nonperson” because of his views. However, he did not keep all the proceeds; part of the money — $4.1 million — was donated to support scientific research. The Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, who bought the medal, later returned it to Watson.

I conclude this obituary by saying that James Watson was not only a great pioneer of science but also an honest defender of scientific knowledge and its freedom — a stance that ultimately pushed him to the margins. Not because his views were inconsistent with scientific knowledge, but because they did not fit the increasingly value-liberal dreamworld that has come to dominate the Western world.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?
Sexual harassment and bullying in working life

The original blogpost in Finnish:
James Watson – yksi aikamme suurimmista tiedemiehistä on kuollut

A Professor’s Ten-Point Plan to Fix Europe’s Immigration Policy

Finnish emeritus Professor Vesa Kanniainen has made a list related to immigration policy.

1. The EU member states must abandon the universal social security model throughout Europe.

2. The processing of asylum applications must be moved outside Europe.

3. Financial aid must be stopped for those countries of origin of refugees that refuse to take back their citizens who have not been granted asylum and whose return would therefore not violate the Geneva Convention.

4. Those who have received a negative asylum decision must be required to cooperate and be housed in return centers while waiting for their journey home.

5. Crossing European borders by land, sea, or air must be criminalized when a person does not have a positive asylum decision or valid travel documents.

6. Transport vehicles (such as boats in the Mediterranean) financed by criminal organizations must be confiscated.

7. International cooperation with various countries must be strengthened in order to relocate refugees outside Europe.

8. Visits by those who have been granted asylum to their home country must be prohibited.

9. Family reunifications of asylum seekers must be prohibited or frozen.

10. All foreigners who have received an unconditional or conditional prison sentence must be deported, regardless of how long they have lived in an EU country.

I think the professor’s list is quite good. So good, in fact, that it should be implemented as it is. For that reason, all its points should serve as guiding principles both in the humanitarian decisions of the current European Commission and in Finland’s immigration policy program after 2027.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two Men Sentenced for Raping Underage Girls
Is Immigration Driving the Nordic Countries Apart?
Why is Somalia unwilling to meet Finland’s conditions for continuing development cooperation?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
https://professorinajatuksia.blogspot.com/2025/11/vesa-kanniaisen-lista-kannattaisi.html

Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime

Finnish media usually mislead Finns when reporting crimes involving people of foreign background by failing to mention that the perpetrators are immigrants. That’s why it was gratifying to see that Uutissuomalainen published this morning a crime report written in a very factual and professional manner. According to the article, “In downtown Jyväskylä, a group of about ten young people of foreign background followed the underage victim in order to rob them.”

By factual, I mean that the reader doesn’t have to guess whether the issue at hand stems from a failure in upbringing or in immigration policy. Instead, it becomes clear that the political responsibility for what happened lies with those parties and politicians who have been steering Finland down the same path as Sweden.

Toward the end of the article, it is also mentioned that the authorities have a good understanding of who belongs to this group of about ten immigrants, who have also committed other similar crimes. Therefore, the problems they cause are likely to be dealt with in the near future. Helping in this effort is the fact that – according to Detective Inspector Eeva-Maria Tahvanainen – “The Police Department of Inner Finland now has an entirely new unit focused on combating street crime, which will take charge of cases related to such offenses.”

I would like to thank the people of Inner Finland for this initiative and, sitting here contentedly behind my keyboard, wish the Central Finland Police the best of luck and success in pursuing violent criminals! I also wish that Finland’s ministers and members of parliament would recognize the facts and use common sense when making immigration policy decisions.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle Using Taxpayer Money to Mislead?
Terrorism Landscape in the EU Contradicts the Narrative Presented by EU Politicians and Media
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good

Gender identity and the future of Finnishness

Suomen Uutiset, the news outlet affiliated with the Finns Party, reported that the share of young people in the United States who identify as nonbinary or as something other than heterosexual has fallen significantly since 2023. According to the article, this suggests that the phenomenon is more likely a social one produced by the rise of the woke movement rather than a hereditary tendency.

The conclusion is logical in the sense that nonbinary identity or homosexuality can easily be seen as negative in terms of reproduction and therefore as a phenomenon that would, through natural selection, tend to be weeded out — even though it is, of course, known that genetic factors may also play a role. However, this does not necessarily mean that people who experience themselves as sexually non-conforming do not genuinely feel that they are what they identify as — in other words, it is not primarily about pretending or acting.

* * *

From the standpoint of a nation’s renewal, various gender deviations are naturally detrimental because they often lead to childlessness. That, in turn, is a major problem especially in Europe, where the demographic structure of the native population is rapidly aging, meaning the proportion of the active population is shrinking even as the number of elderly people in need of care first increases and then the population begins to decline.

In Finland, this is clearly visible in Statistics Finland’s report describing the numbers of different age groups since 1900. At that time, only 5.3 percent of the population were aged 65 or older. By 2000, the figure had risen to 15 percent, and by this year it has reached as high as 22.7 percent of the total population.

Conversely, those under 15 years of age made up as much as 35.1 percent of the population in 1900, only 18.1 percent in 2000, and just 15.6 percent this year. Of the latter figure, a significant portion are of non-Finnish or even non-European descent, meaning that the share of Finland’s original population has in fact decreased even more rapidly than the statistics suggest.

This means that in addition to the aging of Finland’s population, its genetic composition is also changing rapidly — a development that will affect the nation’s culture insofar as heredity and the parents’ own cultural heritage shape people’s behavior, values, and attitudes.

Unfortunately, much of this — especially the parts related to genetics — has long been a forbidden topic in human research. As a result, we lack up-to-date, researched information that would allow us to reliably anticipate the future of Finland and Finnishness.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Eviction of Inhabitants for Incoming Immigrants Sparks Controversy
Eurovision Song Contest Funding Faces Pushback Due to Woke Ideology
A National Rally election victory does not mean that France will become like Finland under the Finns Party

Finns Give Their Government a Green Light to Ban Face Coverings

According to a new public opinion survey, 54 percent of Finns support and 26 percent oppose banning face coverings in public places and public services. This view is especially common among supporters of the Finns Party (92%), the National Coalition Party (70%), the Centre Party (62%), and the Social Democrats (54%). Thus, only the supporters of the left-wing parties (the Greens and the Left Alliance) are, on the whole, opposed to such a ban.

In fact, support for banning face coverings among different parties is even higher than the figures above suggest. For example, 14% of National Coalition supporters did not express an opinion, meaning that only 15% of them opposed the idea. Moreover, among those Green Party supporters who did state a view, around one-third supported a ban on face coverings.

There are at least two main justifications for prohibiting face coverings. First, they complicate criminal investigations.

Second, wearing a face covering is not always voluntary, since in certain cultures women are forced to cover their faces against their own will. Therefore, a ban could promote gender equality and the rights of girls and women.

That is why I now ask whether Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s (NCP) government, together with the Social Democrats, could ensure that the will of the people on this matter is implemented as soon as possible. Drafting such a law should be fairly straightforward, as Finland could follow the example of countries such as Norway, the Netherlands, or France, where such bans are already in effect.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Managing Societal Change with a Growing Muslim Population
A young woman skiing in a swimsuit caused a controversy among women
Did police have the right to strip women

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Hallitus sai kansalta valtakirjan kasvojen peittämisen kieltämiselle

Will Orpo’s Government Repeat Milei’s Miracle and Restore Finland’s Values?

In Argentina, President Javier Milei has been fixing the country’s economy with a firm hand. As a result, his party suffered a defeat in the provincial elections of the Buenos Aires region in September.

This morning, however, we learned that the president’s party is nevertheless set to win the parliamentary midterm elections—and by a considerable margin over the opposition. It therefore appears that, in Argentina as well, the political “climate” of the capital region differs from that of the rest of the country—just as in Finland.

For Argentinians, the outcome of the midterm election is undoubtedly a good thing, since abandoning the economic reform halfway would most likely have led their homeland into another downward spiral, from which Milei has only just managed to lift it. Now, he has the people’s mandate to complete his economic recovery program.

Although Argentina is far from Finland, its economic situation is by no means irrelevant to us. After all, we too have a government that has sought—albeit with extreme caution—to reduce state spending.

And that’s not all, because the task will also fall to the next government, if its members have even a shred of responsibility. Finland’s public finances have been chronically in debt since 2008, and nowadays the payment of interest alone consumes roughly three and a half billion euros of the state budget every year.

It remains to be seen whether the Finnish people will act like the Argentinians in the parliamentary elections to be held in 2027. In this regard, the development of Finland’s economy over the next year and a half will be a crucial question.

What matters most is that if the country’s economy and employment rate begin to grow as a result of the government’s actions, and the accumulation of debt can thereby be halted, then the current Orpo cabinet coalition will have a good chance—like Milei—to renew its mandate to lead the country. That, in turn, could put Finland’s economy back on a healthy footing.

At the same time, we could continue to repair the value base of our society toward realism. In this respect, immigration policy is a significant part of the whole.

* * *

In that light, it was interesting to read in this morning’s Helsingin Sanomat article that among the humanitarian immigrants who arrived in Finland in 2015, those who came as unaccompanied minors have fared the best. By contrast, those who arrived here as adults have unambiguously become a heavy burden on society.

The HS article suggested that the young people who came alone might have been unusually resourceful individuals, which could explain why they have succeeded in Finland better than other humanitarian refugees. That may partly explain their success, but I strongly suspect that culture also plays a role here.

More specifically, the transmission of culture from parents to children. It is clear that young people who live with their families and share the values of developing countries preserve their own cultural background more strongly than those who live alone. Therefore, they adopt Western attitudes and habits that lead to social success much less readily than those who arrived unaccompanied.

Against this background, it might make sense to make a complete U-turn in our current refugee policy and redefine Finnish humanitarian immigration—at least with regard to quota refugees—so that priority would be given to unaccompanied young people. At the same time, we could abolish family reunifications altogether, since they undoubtedly have harmful cultural consequences as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Toistaako Orpon hallitus Milein ihmeen ja korjaa suomalaisen arvopohjan?