Hamtramck: A Test Case for Mass Immigration

Surrounded by Detroit, Hamtramck is America’s first Muslim-majority city, although as recently as 1970, Poles made up nearly 90% of its population. In other words, Hamtramck is an example of a European-descended population changing from Christians to Muslims.

This ethnic and religious transformation has not taken place without visible consequences. One example is the decision by the city council, consisting entirely of Muslim men, to rename Holbrook Avenue—one of Hamtramck’s main thoroughfares—as Palestine Avenue.

At the same time, the city’s streetscape has changed. Women no longer walk the streets in miniskirts or with their hair uncovered, but are instead covered from head to toe in black niqabs. Shop signs, too, are written in the scripts used in the new population’s countries of origin, and schools have replaced the Easter holiday with time off to mark the end of Ramadan. And, of course, the soundscape has acquired the Islamic call to prayer, heard several times a day.

The consumption of alcohol has also been banned, while the religious slaughter of animals at home is permitted. And something that members of Europe’s sexual minorities in particular might want to take note of: the all-Muslim male city council has banned the public display of the Pride flag.

* * *

It remains to be seen, then, whether Hamtramck is an example of the future of Western countries—including Europe, which readily welcomes immigrants—or merely a uniquely American curiosity. But whichever it turns out to be, people should be aware of the changes that have taken place there—especially when they support liberal immigration policies.

In Finland, the possibility of taking a position on a future like Hamtramck’s will next arise in the parliamentary elections next spring. After all, we will then have both candidates and political parties whose immigration policies will sooner or later lead to a way of life resembling that of present-day Hamtramck, as well as political movements opposed to such a future. The same applies to other European democracies as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Lessons from the Abdul Ballout Case
The Forgotten Empire That Shaped Modern Europe
Reflections on the Terrorist Attack in Australia

Lukashenko Plays It Safe as Putin Fails in Ukraine

Belarus is one of the last dictatorships in Europe. The country is ruled by President Aleksandr Lukashenko, whose hold on power is supported by Putin’s Russia.

On the other hand, Lukashenko is trying to avoid getting entangled in Putin’s disastrous war in Ukraine, especially now that it is clear that no quick victory is forthcoming. And apparently for that reason – undoubtedly after carefully considering the matter – he congratulated Ukraine on the country’s 35th Independence Day.

* * *

This act appears, at least according to a Finnish political media, Verkkouutiset, to have been too much for many Russian so-called war bloggers. According to them, Russia’s main problem is not its enemies but its allies – who are unwilling to go along with all of Putin’s stupidities.

Lukashenko has acted in much the same way. In 2022, he understood that it was unwise to throw himself wholeheartedly into Putin’s three-day “special operation.” Whether the reason was a lack of capability, an understanding that Russia’s invasion would not go well, or something else, the failed attempt to seize Kyiv in the very first days of the war showed that this was fortunately the right decision for Belarus.

* * *

The war itself has produced no decisive outcomes since then, either. Of course, both sides have achieved small victories and suffered considerable losses. One such development is just unfolding north of the city of Lyman, where thousands of Russian troops are being encircled.

It is, of course, quite a catastrophe for the Russian army, but on its own it will no more decide the war in Ukraine’s favor than the much more devastating Battle of Raate Road decided the Winter War in Finland’s favor. For dictators like Lukashenko, however, it is a clear sign that they should not sink too deeply into Putin’s pocket, but instead try, as far as possible, to maintain some distance from their most important supporter.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is This the Start of Putin’s Final Countdown?
Do Belarusians Have the Will and Ability to Preserve Their Independence?
Turning Points in the War in Ukraine: New Threats and Unexpected Allies

2,731 Years to Conquer Ukraine

At least for me, it has been difficult to understand exactly what has happened in the war between Ukraine and Russia during the current year. Of course, it is clear that the Ukrainians have destroyed Russian infrastructure with drone attacks, while the Russians have continued to destroy Ukrainian civilians in Kyiv and other major cities.

What I have seen less information about, however, is how the situation on the front has developed. Yesterday morning, though, I noticed on social media that Volodymyr Zelenskyy had said: “At the moment, the enemy has captured 990 square kilometres since the beginning of the year, while we have regained control of 820 square kilometres. By the end of 2026, however, we will achieve a balance between these areas.”

* * *

It therefore appears that the success of the two fighting armies varies across different parts of the front. In terms of the overall picture, however, the changes are small, if not downright minimal, since Ukraine has a total area of 603,628 km². In other words, the Russians have managed to capture 0.213 percent of the territory of their victim in just under eight months, while the Ukrainians have recaptured 0.177 percent elsewhere.

Thus, the net extent of Russian advances during this period amounts to 0.037 percent of Ukraine’s territory. Or, to put it another way: at this rate, it would take the Russians 2,731 years to take control of the whole of Ukraine—that is, until the year 3757. Admittedly, they would accomplish it “already” in 2495 if Putin’s army managed to prevent Zelenskyy’s forces from recapturing any territory.

* * *

In my view, all of this underscores the absurdity of the war that has been going on in Europe for years. The casualty figures of the armies involved provide equally stark evidence: according to Wikipedia, almost 1.5 million Russians have been killed or wounded, while the corresponding figure for Ukrainians is also close to half a million.

That means that more than one percent of both Russia’s and Ukraine’s populations have been killed or wounded as a result of Putin’s “special military operation.” The former while taking part in a raid on a foreign country, and the latter while defending their homes and families.

This raises the question: how on earth could Vladimir Putin be made to understand the horror of all this, when hardly anyone would dare—even in Russia, at least—to present him with the figures I have set out here? Would it even be enough if Zelenskyy’s prediction, mentioned at the beginning of this piece, that the situation would be balanced out by the end of the year were to come true?

* * *

The situation is not entirely hopeless, however. Perhaps the Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure will eventually lead—through the worsening everyday misery they cause—to a revolution in Russia. And surely it is not impossible that the relatives of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine will eventually have had enough of seeing their sons and other family members sent to their deaths.

Unfortunately, I always remember in this context the view expressed by an older Estonian colleague of mine: Russians will never rise up in rebellion. This is because they are far too accustomed to their poor living conditions, and because they have potato plots to ensure that they have at least the food they need to survive. Thus, according to my colleague, even Putin can count on the support of his people during his senseless military adventure, however long it may last—decades, centuries, or even thousands of years.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine: Putin's Waterloo, China's Opportunity—and Finland's Headache
Putin's Growing Crisis in Ukraine and an Uncertain Endgame for Russia
Russia's Predicament Awakened the Trolls and Increased the Risk of Nuclear War

AI and E. coli, side by side — what a ride!

The Finnish media Helsingin Sanomat (HS) reported this morning that artificial intelligence, or language models, reflect the values of their developers. The article was based on the same questions that HS has asked candidates from different political parties in connection with elections. This made it possible to compare the language models with the parties and their values.

Most language models lean toward value liberalism and the left – among Finnish political parties, the closest equivalents are mainly the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the Greens, and the Swedish People’s Party (RKP). The Finns Party (Perussuomalaiset), by contrast, is the furthest away.

When reading this news story, it is worth remembering that people probably do not ask language models very much about values, but rather about various facts. As far as those are concerned, current language models are, at least in my own experience, quite reliable.

* * *

Yesterday, I also happened to read a scientific paper about a completely new kind of AI-based approach in which Paul Ahavi and his colleagues used E. coli bacteria as a living information processor by analyzing their natural growth responses in plasma samples from COVID-19 patients. This was done without genetic modification or specialized equipment.

In practice, the researchers classified early-stage plasma samples from COVID-19 patients according to how severe the disease subsequently became. The classification was based solely on bacterial growth data and was analyzed using machine learning, or artificial intelligence.

The study showed that AI could analyze the effects of metabolites in patients’ plasma on the growth of E. coli and link those effects to the subsequent progression of the disease. In other words, by analyzing bacterial growth, it was able to distinguish a disease that would develop into a mild case from one that would become severe – essentially determining who would recover from the infection on their own and who would require treatment.

Based on their results the researchers concluded that “these findings position biological reservoir computing as a robust, scalable, and low-cost platform for intelligent biosensing, diagnostics, and hybrid bio-digital computation, while providing new mechanistic insights into the computational capabilities of living systems.”

The ability of the combination of E. coli and AI to predict the progression of COVID-19 was roughly as accurate as what can be achieved with precise – and extremely expensive – biochemical measurements. This means that the combination would seemingly offer a vastly cheaper way of analyzing large numbers of patients in connection with a wide variety of epidemics – and potentially even in developing countries.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Rain Scald: The Future of a New Sexually Transmitted Disease
Gender Reassignment May Not Help—and Could Even Worsen Mental Health
AI Drones: Ukraine’s New Edge in the War?

How Immigration Has Reshaped European Politics

As my esteemed reader knows, Europe has been undergoing rapid change since at least 2015. It is therefore interesting to see how this change is reflected in opinion polls.

For this reason, I decided to share a few images this Sunday showing the development of party support in different countries. The source of the images is Politico.eu’s Poll of Polls.

* * *

Let us begin with Germany.

The chart clearly shows how, as recently as 20 years ago, Germany’s political landscape was dominated by two major parties, CDU/CSU and SPD. In 2013, a new, small, immigration-critical party, AfD, appeared on the scene. Over the course of the past roughly 13 years, its support has risen in waves to its current level of around 28 percent, making it the largest party in Europe’s largest economic area.

Another significant change is the division of the SPD’s traditional support base between the party and the Greens. At the moment, the Greens are even more popular than the old dominant party of the left.

* * *

Next, France.

The chart beginning in 2017 shows the rise of the immigration-critical National Rally from a medium-sized party to France’s most popular political movement. Two other significant developments have been the consolidation of the previously fragmented left, which has made it the country’s second-largest political movement, and the gradual decline in support for Emmanuel Macron’s centrist party.

* * *

Third, the old world power, the United Kingdom.

The chart shows that the country’s two traditional major parties held their ground for a long time, but that the political landscape has since evolved into a three-party contest involving three medium-sized parties. At the moment, the Labour Party is in the lead, but the Reform UK party, led by Nigel Farage and having risen on the back of concerns about immigration, as well as the Conservatives, are breathing right down its neck. In recent months, however, support for the old major parties has been rising, while Reform UK’s upward trajectory appears to have peaked sometime last year.

* * *

Overall, these party polls tell us a great deal about the enormous impact of immigration on the political landscape of Western Europe’s largest countries. The same has happened in Finland and Sweden — and Italy is governed by the immigration-critical Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. When we add to this the fact that modern mass immigration is not wanted in the countries of Eastern Europe either, it becomes clear that this is a pan-European view among the peoples of Europe.

This view, however, is reflected rather poorly in European politics. The European Union has failed to close its borders, and there is still an open route for harmful immigration in the form of the so-called right to apply for asylum. In addition, there are spontaneous waves of illegal immigration, most recently in Spain’s Ceuta.

It remains to be seen whether the changing views of EU citizens will affect European immigration policy. And if they do, how.

Will the right to asylum, which emerged in the aftermath of Nazi Germany’s atrocities, be abandoned because of excessive abuse? Will European states begin effectively returning the people who have flowed across their borders over the past ten years and who are unwilling to integrate into their societies? And even their descendants born within the EU?

* * *

From the perspective of us ordinary citizens, the important thing is to lay the foundations for a better future for Europe by voting in elections for parties and candidates through whom the population and culture of our continent can preserve their vitality. The development I have described above shows that many Europeans have understood this, but also that not everyone has.

The future is, of course, unpredictable, so let this entry remain as one snapshot of the current situation. And at the same time, let it serve as a reminder to all of you — my esteemed readers — that ultimately, every democratic society becomes what the people living in it want it to become. At least when the people living in these countries understand what is in their own best interests and exercise their right to vote.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish Families Flee Immigrant-Dominated Areas Over School Safety Concerns
Lessons for EU Citizens from the Ceuta Episode
Lessons from the Abdul Ballout Case

Finnish Families Flee Immigrant-Dominated Areas Over School Safety Concerns

The Finnish newspaper Iltalehti published an article about a Helsinki family’s experiences with immigration. According to the article, the parents decided to move away from Helsinki because their son refused to start lower secondary school at a comprehensive school in eastern Helsinki. The reason for this was the sense of insecurity caused by immigrant children, predominantly Muslims and children of African background.

The school in question has a large immigrant population and has also been in the news recently for other reasons, as Helsinki decision-makers have changed school admission catchment areas in order to bring not only immigrant children but also native Finnish children into the school. This has sparked opposition among families affected by the decision.

* * *

In the newspaper article, the mother gave her own account of the students at the school who bullied her son. According to her, some children of foreign background would gang up on others, pick fights, and behave violently. She also described an incident in which a group of bullies had been waiting outside the family’s home with sticks so that they could beat up the boy.

The group of bullies had also mocked the boy’s name while his mother was investigating an altercation that had taken place in the residential courtyard. In other words, they showed no respect even towards adults – or at least not towards ethnic Finns.

* * *

Finland’s Minister of Social Affairs and Health, Wille Rydman (Finns Party), commented on the matter on social media. He asked what “open-borders immigration policy,” “tolerance,” and “anti-racism” mean in practice.

He answered that they mean children becoming victims of systematic violence and learning nothing at school, while ethnic Finns are forced to become refugees in their own country. He further stated that “in many cases, immigration also means that your daughter, or in some cases your grandmother, or even you yourself, will be raped.”

* * *

It is clear that this statement by the minister will either be silenced completely or, alternatively, prominently highlighted alongside accusations of racism. For ethnic Finnish families living in eastern Helsinki, however, this is not a matter of political debate but of their children’s future. And that is why those who have the means and understanding to do so are leaving eastern Helsinki altogether.

It therefore remains to be seen how the school involved in the above-mentioned case and its surrounding areas will change in the coming years. It also remains to be seen whether Wille Rydman is right or wrong when he claims that “mass immigration builds nothing. It is a sweeping destructive force that civilizations always succumb to – history demonstrates this unequivocally. For our enemies, migration is a key instrument for weakening us. For the defenders of our civilization, opposing mass immigration and promoting return migration is therefore a fundamental moral duty. European society and civilization will either survive or fall with it.”

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two Recent Life-Threatening Crimes in Finland
Attitudes Toward Immigrants Are a Problem in Schools
Swedish School Shooting with Automatic Weapon Highlights Nation in Crisis

Swedish Left Politicians Sent Letters to Palestinian Terrorists

The Finnish Broadcasting Company reported that Swedish left-wing politicians had sent letters of encouragement to Palestinian terrorists imprisoned by Israel. One of the recipients was Ahmad al-Moghrabi, who had ordered an attack on a family gathering in which eleven people, including two small children, were killed.

The Swedes had asked Palestinians living in Sweden for a list of people to whom they could send letters, and the Palestinians had provided them with such a list, which included terrorists.

The Swedish politicians are now expressing regret over what happened and blaming the Palestinians for their mistake. The fact remains, however, that even in Israel, people are presumably not imprisoned — at least not for long periods — without good reason. Not even Palestinians.

It remains to be seen whether what happened will have any effect on support for the Swedish left-wing party. And if it does, whether the effect will be positive or negative from their perspective — in other words, whether there is a pro-terrorism sentiment among Swedes of immigrant background who typically vote for green and left-wing parties, or whether they have already adopted the Western view that terrorism is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle Using Taxpayer Money to Mislead?
Burning a Man Alive Led to Life Imprisonment
Who Is Responsible: The Donor or the Recipient of Aid?

Lessons for EU Citizens from the Ceuta Episode

The events in Ceuta have led Europeans to wake up. Or at least almost all of them, since 22 EU countries – Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden – have signed a letter calling for effective protection of the external borders, action to prevent illegal entry, and support for Spain. Finland’s signatory was Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party).

It is regrettable, of course, that five countries have expressed their desire to see the continuation of the modern-day mass migration by refusing to sign the demand. They are Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal, whose motives are – at least to me – rather difficult to understand, because this is not about immigration in general but specifically about illegal immigration.

* * *

The Finnish Government evidently takes illegal immigration seriously, since Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (Finns Party) immediately instructed her ministry’s officials to prepare the measures required for closing Finland’s EU internal borders. According to her, the purpose is to ensure that the “decisions required to close the internal borders can, on the basis of this preparatory work, be made very quickly if the need arises.”

In other words, neither Rantanen nor Finland is unilaterally closing the EU’s internal borders, but rather creating the capability to do so quickly if necessary. This is important because, in the absence of both the necessary legislation – and the political will – the Finnish Government was forced in 2015 to stand by helplessly as large numbers of illegal immigrants poured into our country from the western border.

As a result of the preparations now under way, the steps required to close our country’s EU borders will in future already be prepared in advance, meaning that shutting them can be accomplished with a single order from the Government. And as a result, the internal movement of illegal immigrants into our northern land will come to an end.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether Finland will ever need the legislation currently being prepared. In any case, the events in Ceuta turned out to be a brief episode, possibly caused by organized – perhaps even state-sponsored – crime.

This is because there is no way to get from Ceuta to mainland Europe without border checks. Thus, it was not a route that could have led to a repetition of the events of 2015. Consequently, the Moroccans who had rushed there soon returned to their home country.

In the end, the whole Ceuta episode concluded happily, just like a fairy tale. Instead of the modern-day mass migration taking another step forward, it reminded EU politicians that it is better to prepare in advance than to find themselves searching for illegal immigrants all over the Union.

That is why it is difficult to understand the stupidity demonstrated by the power-holders in Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal by refusing to sign the demand mentioned at the beginning. Perhaps, in their next parliamentary elections, the citizens of those countries will understand that they would be well advised to consider giving their votes to politicians more responsible than their current rulers!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Burden to Benefit: Reforming Immigration in Finland
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Why is Somalia unwilling to meet Finland’s conditions for continuing development cooperation?