The Myth of the Hopeless Young Generation – An Obviously False Narrative

Finland’s national public broadcaster, Yle, speculated that the reason young Europeans are running riot in the streets of European cities is that their parents expect them to get an education, work, and have faith in the future, but offer them nothing in return except insecurity, expensive housing, and political hot air. And the result, according to Yle, is that young people’s belief in a better tomorrow is wavering, and rather than simply waiting for change, they are demanding it in the streets.

Consequently, many cities in France have resorted to imposing curfews to protect people and businesses. In Italy, meanwhile, the government has been forced to send hundreds of army troops to Milan to maintain order.

* * *

Yle’s explanation of the events unfolding across Europe in recent days raises the question of why, for example, Finnish young people did not behave in the same way during the Great Famine of the late seventeenth century, when roughly a quarter or even a third of Finland’s population died of starvation, and those who survived could hardly have expected to enjoy proper meals either. Instead, hunger was staved off with pettuleipä, bread made with pine bark, rather than proper flour.

Nor did Finnish youth run riot in the 1860s, when the Finnish famine killed seven per cent of the Finnish population. One might well imagine that young people back then had even less faith in a better tomorrow than Europeans do today.

There was probably little such faith throughout the seventeenth century either, when Sweden — of which Finland was then a part — waged continuous wars across Europe, and a huge proportion of young men were conscripted into the army. In practice, this meant a very real likelihood of dying either on the battlefield or from some disease. Yet Finland remained relatively peaceful, and young people did not set fire to churches in Turku or plunder the riches of Oulu’s wealthy tar merchants.

Nor is there any need to focus on wars or times of crisis. From the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth, downward social mobility was by far the most common trajectory for boys in particular. Although people generally belonged to the peasant class in the early eighteenth century, following the Great Wrath — the Russian occupation of Finland during the Great Northern War — the family farm almost invariably went to the eldest son. Younger sons therefore typically had to become farmhands or tenant farmers, unless their parents managed to marry them off as sons-in-law to a farm that had no sons of its own.

In the next generation, they moved down another rung on the social ladder. The younger sons of tenant farmers became farmhands or, particularly from the late nineteenth century onward, industrial workers and lumberjacks who felled trees with hand tools. Yet these young men did not engage in the kind of rioting we are now witnessing in France and Italy, even though everyone knew that most of them would have to spend their lives in a lower social class than their parents.

Rebellion did not break out until 1918, when the revolution in Russia created a power vacuum. Two militant organisations — the Red Guards and the White Guards — were formed to fill it. Their eventual confrontation became inevitable, at the latest, when the bourgeois-dominated Senate declared the Civil Guards to be the government’s armed forces. The Red Guard leadership could hardly accept this, and therefore embarked on a military campaign that ended disastrously for their side.

* * *

Similar examples can be found in other European countries as well, since Finland and its young people are not — and never have been — exceptions. I therefore suspect that the current rioting by young people has some entirely different cause than their supposedly bleak prospects for the future.

One reason for this is that, in reality, people’s lives are easier today than at any other point in human history. In Europe, nobody dies of starvation, and everyone has the opportunity to improve their social standing through education, provided they have the motivation and ability to do so. Hardly anyone dies of infectious diseases either, and in Western countries, young men are no longer dragged off to war to fight for the foolish ambitions of their inbred kings or emperors.

* * *

Finally, I would like to record here a social media post published yesterday on this subject by Heidi Hagelin, one of Finland’s leading journalists:

“This makes me quite happy. They stayed quiet for a long time, even as the future kept becoming more uncertain. A home, a job, and a future. Pretty basic things. If it feels like those things are impossible to achieve, then…”

That really left me speechless. I will therefore refrain from further comment, other than to note that the journalist later came to admit herself that she had been stupid.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Forecast of Population Replacement in Western Europe
How Immigration Has Reshaped European Politics

The Forgotten Empire That Shaped Modern Europe

I would assume that most people have at least some idea of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, the Arab Caliphates, the British Empire, or Russia/the Soviet Union and their influence on the course of history. However, I suspect that not many are particularly familiar with the medieval Frankish Empire—let alone its significance for modern Europe.

The story of this realm truly begins in the early 8th century, when the Merovingian kings who ruled the Frankish kingdom began to lose their power to local leaders. One such figure was Charles Martel, whose son Pepin the Short inherited his position.

* * *

Pepin was not satisfied with merely holding actual power; he also wanted formal recognition in the form of a royal crown. Being a clever man, he turned to the Pope and asked: “Who is the true king—the one who has the title or the one who holds the power?” The Pope replied that the one who holds real power is the true king.

After this, Pepin deposed the last Merovingian king—who was sent to a monastery—and had himself crowned King of the Franks in 751. The new Pope Stephen II crowned him again in 754, granting him holy anointing, which made his rule religiously legitimate. At the same time, the idea began to develop that a king’s authority comes from God.

* * *

The coronation strengthened the alliance between the Pope and Pepin, which became concrete when the Lombards in Italy threatened Rome, the center of the Church. The Pope had no army of his own, so he made an agreement with Pepin, who would protect him militarily.

In return, the Holy See committed itself to supporting Pepin’s kingship. Pepin therefore invaded and defeated the Lombards and donated the territories he conquered from them to the Pope. Thus, the Papal States were established in central Italy under papal rule.

Pepin also cooperated closely with the Church in other ways: he supported monasteries, strengthened its position, and reformed religious administration. In addition, he waged wars in Aquitaine (modern southwestern France) against rebellious dukes and against Muslims in Umayyad-held territories, capturing, among other places, Narbonne in 759.

* * *

All of this laid the foundation for the future Carolingian great power, even though Pepin divided the kingdom between his sons Charles and Carloman. After the latter died in 771, Charles became the sole King of the Franks, and the wars of conquest began.

First, Charles—now widely known by the epithet “the Great”or "Charlemagne"—launched a war against the Saxons in 772. This was a long and brutal struggle in what is now Germany, motivated both by Charles’s desire to subjugate the Saxons and to spread Christianity. It also included the infamous Massacre of Verden (782), in which thousands of Saxons were executed.

The Lombard kingdom fell in 774 after Charles invaded northern Italy. He captured the capital, Pavia, and assumed the title King of the Lombards. Thus, his realm extended southward close to Rome.

* * *

Charles also fought Muslims along the Iberian frontier in Spain and in the Pyrenees, where he established a buffer zone against the spread of Islam. This is connected to the famous Battle of Roncevaux Pass (778).

It began when the rear guard of Charles’s army, retreating from Spain, was ambushed in the Pyrenees at Roncevaux Pass. Local Basques attacked and almost completely destroyed it. Among the fallen was Charles’s commander Roland. The event was not militarily decisive, but it later gave rise to the famous epic The Song of Roland, in which the attackers were transformed into Muslims and Roland into a heroic figure.

* * *

Charles also expanded his realm eastward against the Avars, advancing as far as the Danube in present-day Hungary. In doing so, he acquired great wealth and strengthened his position.

As a result, Charlemagne’s empire—or its semi-independent vassal states—extended from the Pyrenees in the southwest to the borders of Denmark in the northeast, and from the Balkans to the English Channel. In other words, a vast empire had once again emerged in Europe.

* * *

All of this was possible because Charles was constantly at war and gave his enemies no time to recover. This, in turn, was made possible by his well-organized army, which was based on a feudal system: Charles determined how many and what kind of soldiers each region had to provide. The wealthiest supplied several warriors, while the poorest provided one.

Heavy cavalry was the most important force in the army. It consisted of nobles or wealthy men equipped with swords, spears, shields, and often chain mail. Their military service was tied to land ownership.

The infantry was composed of ordinary men with lighter equipment. They formed the majority but mainly supported the cavalry and participated in sieges.

* * *

Charles also developed battle tactics: campaigns were usually conducted in the summer, and the army was often divided into several groups that attacked from different directions, making defense difficult. He secured his conquests by building fortifications and supplying his army both from stored provisions and from resources taken from local populations.

Soldiers were motivated both by the fact that Charles often led campaigns personally and by the idea of spreading Christianity. Administration was organized by dividing the realm into counties, whose loyalty was overseen by royal inspectors.

All of this led to—and culminated in—his coronation as Emperor in Rome by Pope Leo III in the year 800.

* * *

A description of Charles survives, written by his courtier Einhard. According to it, he was tall and strongly built, about 190 cm in height, fair-haired, and dignified.

He reportedly ate moderately, favored roasted meat, and avoided excessive drinking. He valued learning, attempted to learn writing, spoke Latin, and understood Greek. He bathed in the Roman manner and often invited friends to join him. As a leader, he was both religious and practical, and he valued order and discipline.

* * *

After Charles, the empire was ruled by his son Louis the Pious, who emphasized Christian morality, repentance, and atonement for sins. He even performed public acts of penance and sought to live as an example. In church policy, he supported monasteries and the Church and worked to unify ecclesiastical discipline and monastic life.

Administratively, Louis followed in his father’s footsteps but was a weaker ruler. He did not carry out major conquests, though he defended the realm against rebellions and external threats. For example, he made an agreement with the Viking leader Harald Klak to secure the coastal regions.

* * *

Louis wished to divide the empire among his four sons. However, this did not suit his older sons—Lothair, Louis the German, and Pepin of Aquitaine—who had a different mother than Charles the Bald. As a result, the empire descended into prolonged civil wars, during which Louis himself was even briefly deposed as emperor.

The decisive battle in this power struggle was fought at Fontenoy in 841. It pitted Lothair, the eldest brother who claimed the entire empire, against Louis and Charles the Bald, who joined forces and later affirmed their alliance with the Oaths of Strasbourg (842), sworn in both a Romance vernacular and Old High German.

Both armies consisted of Frankish nobles and their forces, but neither side had a clear tactical advantage, so the outcome was decided in close combat. The battle became extremely bloody and claimed the lives of a large portion of the Frankish nobility, to the extent that it was regarded as a “tragedy of the nation.”

The result was the victory of Charles and Louis, which ultimately led to the Treaty of Verdun. The empire was divided into three parts, two of which gradually evolved into France (Charles’s share) and Germany (Louis’s share). Lothair received Italy and a central strip stretching to the North Sea, as well as the imperial crown, but his realm was eventually overshadowed by the other two and has no clear successor today.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Is French military history repeating itself in Ukraine?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Palestine’s Statehood and International Law

Many European states have recognized or are in the process of recognizing the State of Palestine. Finland is not among these countries but is instead waiting to see how the situation develops, together with, among others, the USA, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

This is reasonable in the sense that, from the perspective of international law, the existence of a state requires four basic elements – a permanent population, clearly defined borders, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Of these conditions, especially the second, third, and fourth are not met, so a rational person would sooner question the logic of the states that have recognized Palestine than that of the states that have chosen to wait.

Therefore, Palestine should be recognized as a state only when – or if – it one day fulfills all four conditions. In the meantime, every country – regardless of its stance on recognizing Palestine – can act in support of a just peace between Jews and Arabs living in the region.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
An Unexpected Endorsement of Professor’s Views
Abu Obaida’s Death Brings Palestine One Step Closer to Peace

Russia’s Aging MiG Fleet vs. Finland’s Modern Air Power

According to the Finnish Defence Forces Commander Janne Jaakkola, “three MiG aircraft would not stand a chance against F-35 fighters, JAS Gripens or FA-18s. In that sense, there was no military threat. A rapid kinetic response would have been a mistake.”

The statement referred to MiG-31 fighters that had entered Estonian airspace, and it is understandable insofar as this aircraft type is far from new: production began back in 1979, and the first planes were delivered to the Soviet military as early as 1982. In that respect, it is rather amusing that such aircraft are still part of Putin’s active air force inventory.

* * *

The most recent MiG fighter is known as the MiG-35, which, according to its manufacturer, belongs to the so-called fifth generation of fighters, featuring stealth characteristics designed to make radar detection more difficult. However, the aircraft deployed in the war in Ukraine have—at least according to Western sources—been said to be lacking compared to their American counterparts.

The Russians, however, claim that the MiGs flown in Ukraine are still undergoing testing, so that deficiencies can be identified and corrected before mass production begins. Until then, the bulk of the Mikoyan–Gurevich fighter fleet remains the outdated MiG-31s seen over Estonia—still the fastest fighter aircraft in the world.

* * *

The obsolescence of Russia’s aircraft is naturally good news for Finland, which will soon receive its first F-35 fighters. Even the current Finnish Air Force fleet—the F-18 Hornet—is, according to the Commander, superior to the MiGs in question. That said, the Hornet is roughly from the same era as the MiG-31, its maiden flight having taken place already in 1978.

On the other hand, the MiG-31 and F-18 Hornet have never faced each other in aerial combat, so Jaakkola’s statement about the latter’s superiority is not based on combat experience but most likely only on assessments derived from technical specifications. For that reason, it should be taken with a grain of salt—though I myself believe in the superiority of Western technology over Soviet-era production.

Nor, judging by history, is there reason to doubt that Finnish pilots would be more skilled than their Russian counterparts.

* * *

Finally, it should be noted that the most well-known Russian next-generation stealth fighter is the Sukhoi-57, which has been used—and also shot down—in the war in Ukraine. In 2019, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that a total of 76 such aircraft would be procured for the country’s air force by 2028.

It would be interesting to know whether our Defence Forces’ Commander also regards the newer Sukhoi and MiG-35 fighters as clearly inferior to their Western counterparts—or whether he sees them as being capable of holding their own in combat against American and European aircraft.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?
Finns - Among the World’s Best

Hope For a Better Life Is Not an Acceptable Basis for Asylum

Nigerian Mary told Finnish media that she left Nigeria for Italy at the age of 18 in hopes of a better life. She was promised a good job, but upon arrival, she was forced into street prostitution. Behind this were Nigerian criminal organizations that profit from human trafficking.

In Italy, Mary married a Nigerian man who, according to her, was extremely violent. To escape this situation, she traveled to Finland with her two children a little over a year ago.

However, her asylum application was rejected because Mary had already been granted a residence permit based on asylum in Italy and had not disclosed in her initial application that she was a victim of human trafficking. After the rejection, Mary then revealed her story of forced prostitution.

This did not help, as a month ago, the Finnish Administrative Court decided that Mary could be deported. Following this decision, the immigration police took her and her children from the reception center and transported them to another part of Finland.

Hopefully, Mary's story reaches as many people from developing countries as possible, so they understand that coming to the EU solely in search of a "better life" is not advisable, nor is it wise to leave the country that granted asylum to seek new opportunities in another member state. Instead, in the country that granted asylum – in Mary's case, Italy – victims of crime should contact the local police, whose duty is to apprehend criminals.

Acting as Mary did will only lead to marginalization, where one is at best labeled an asylum shopper, whom no EU country wishes to accept. In Mary’s case, Italy, for some reason, made an exception, even though it is clear that the hope for a better life is not an acceptable basis for asylum.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further
Statistics on Sexual Crimes Committed by Immigrants in Finland
Immigration-Specific Violent Crime Increases as Humanitarian Immigration Continues

Europe Needs More Money—and More Will—to Defend Itself

The countries of Western Europe assumed that the collapse of the Soviet Union had made national defense unnecessary. However, the events in Ukraine have clearly shown that this assumption was, at best, naïve—if not outright foolish.

Recently, the issue has been brought back into focus, first by Donald Trump, who has demanded that NATO’s European members allocate as much as five percent of their GDP to defense. Yesterday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also weighed in, stating that European NATO countries must significantly increase their defense spending.

Trump and Rutte are, of course, right in their demands, but meeting them is difficult for most Western European nations. According to the annual report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), these targets are particularly challenging for countries whose economies are already struggling.

The least capable of meeting these demands are, naturally, those countries whose economies are not growing at all. Based on GDP figures, these include Moldova, Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Germany, and Austria. Additionally, economic growth has been extremely weak—below one percent—in Hungary, Italy, Finland, France, and the United Kingdom.

The fact remains that Europeans must recognize Russia as a lasting threat to Europe's security, even if it is currently tied up in Ukraine. Therefore, despite economic difficulties, they should find ways to strengthen their defense capabilities.

Many countries have, of course, already acknowledged this, as evidenced by the fact that the combined defense spending of EU nations increased by 30 percent between 2021 and 2024. Unfortunately, the starting level was so low that even a significant percentage increase has not yet led to a substantial improvement in military security. This is why, especially in the EU’s most strategically important large member states—Germany, France, and Italy—as well as in the United Kingdom, defense budgets must be increased rapidly, as both Trump and Rutte have demanded.

* * *

In addition to weapons, a strong will to defend one's country is also essential. In this regard, it was alarming to see that only one in ten Britons aged 18–27 would be willing to risk their life to defend their country in a war—while 41 percent would not be willing to defend it with arms under any circumstances.

This stands in stark contrast to Finland, where 79 percent of people believe that the country must be defended militarily in all situations—even if the outcome appears uncertain.

If the situation in other European countries is similar to that in Britain, politicians must recognize that perhaps their most important task is to change it. Otherwise, Europe will eventually become nothing more than an easy prey for imperialist Russia—and perhaps even China.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin, Trump, and the Prospect of Peace
Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?
Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat

Mediterranean Taxi Service is Coming to an End

I just noticed information on social media indicating that Doctors Without Borders has decided to end its Mediterranean operations. The organization’s activities have essentially involved taxi-like operations, transporting people from the southern Mediterranean to EU territory instead of taking them to the nearest port on the African side. This has encouraged Africans and Arabs to attempt crossing the Mediterranean in unseaworthy boats, leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths.

The organization is funded through various fundraising efforts, where its activities are described as rescue operations. These appeals attract well-meaning people who want to support the cause without understanding its fundamental nature as a business.

According to the message thread reporting on the cessation of the Mediterranean taxi operations, “We have been forced to discontinue our activities with the rescue ship Geo Barents. Italian legislation and policies have made it impossible to continue in their current form.”

Unfortunately, the organization does not appear to be giving up and simultaneously announced that “We will return to the Mediterranean as soon as possible.” However, one can only hope that Italy and the rest of the EU maintain their now proven approach and ensure the final burial of Doctors Without Borders’ business described here.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Fall of Germany’s Government Could Open the EU’s Path to a Better Future
Change of immigration policy and development cooperation
175 happy winners

A thousand years of unintegrated immigration

After the pro-immigration political left succeeded in elections in both the United Kingdom and France – and also in the European elections in Finland – I recalled an entry I wrote in 2019 on my Finnish-language blog. I have therefore decided to translate it into English. So here it is, dear readers!

* * *

One of the critical issues for Europe in the 21st century is immigration from developing countries. Particularly important is the question of how large the new population, which has a negative impact on its environment, will become. In other words, how many of the newcomers will fail to integrate into European societies and contribute to maintaining its welfare.

In relation to this question, I read an interesting research report that studied the DNA of people buried in the area of ancient Rome over thousands of years. This gave insight into how the population of the area had developed.

Before the development of agriculture, the Romans belonged to the group of Western European hunter-gatherers, but with the advent of agriculture, people of Anatolian and Iranian origin arrived in the area. During the Copper and Bronze Ages, the proportion of the hunter-gatherer population or their descendants increased again in the area, but the Anatolian-Iranian genetic makeup remained dominant.

By 900 BCE, the population had received a significant influx of people from the steppe regions of Eastern Europe and from Iran. Additionally, some people arrived from Western North Africa. This population genetically closely resembled modern-day Romans.

However, Rome grew and its population became more diverse. People came particularly from the east, from the areas of present-day Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Jordan, and Syria, as well as from Anatolia and Iran, to the extent that these population groups made up a significantly larger proportion of the city's inhabitants than the descendants of Iron Age Romans.

The situation changed in the Middle Ages when the genetic makeup of Rome's population reverted to being largely similar to that of Central and Northern Europe. At the same time, the metropolis of a million people from antiquity collapsed into a city of about 100,000 inhabitants. In other words, as Rome fell, its multicultural society from ancient times disintegrated, leaving behind only the original Iron Age-like population, while other population groups moved elsewhere.

* * *

According to the study, a multicultural society is nothing new in Europe, as even in antiquity, large cities attracted people from great distances. Part of that population certainly consisted of slaves, who are estimated to have made up as much as a third of Rome's population, but there must have also been a large number of free professionals among them.

The biggest difference compared to modern times was probably that newcomers to Rome were not known to be pampered with welfare services – unless slavery is counted as such – but had to earn their living themselves. Thus, the disappearance of the population with the collapse of the great empire is understandable as the basis for their livelihood vanished.

Reflecting on modern times, I was nonetheless surprised by the associated population genetic change, as the Roman Empire, and thus also the multicultural city of Rome, lasted for about a thousand years. One might have thought that there would have been a lot of intermarriage between the city's population groups and/or that families from elsewhere would have at least established themselves as respected inhabitants of the city.

If that had been the case, the genetic composition of the city's population should have remained roughly the same when it collapsed. Since this did not happen, it can be concluded that even a thousand years was not enough for the multicultural population of Rome to integrate.

This should be remembered when discussing Finnish - as well as European - immigration policy. If and when we accept large numbers of people from cultural backgrounds different from our own, they will remain a separate segment from the majority population for up to a thousand years, even if they are integrated into the workforce.

As such, they will also leave our northern country immediately if living conditions here deteriorate. Right now, this would particularly mean the deterioration of welfare state services for some of our immigrant groups.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
French Election Results: A Deep Dive into Tactical Voting and Its Implications
Elections in the UK: A Shift Toward Hand-Waving Politics?
The European Parliament elections were a celebration for the far-left in Finland

Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth

Finnish political media reported that a survey conducted in March revealed that the greatest concern among European youth is the mass migration directed towards our continent. This is considered the biggest worry by 36 percent of the 5,874 German, French, Polish, Greek, Spanish, and Italian youths aged 16-26 who responded to the survey.

The concern over mass immigration is particularly high in Germany, where it is the biggest worry for half of the survey respondents. The restriction of immigration, on the other hand, was most supported by Polish and Greek youths.

Although the survey included many other questions, I highlight only immigration here. This is because it shows that the planned tightening of asylum policies by Finland's current government aligns with the views of the continent's youth.

This is a good thing in itself, but it also shows that the ideologies of young people continue to change from generation to generation, just like other fashions. The key point here is to understand that the prevailing fear of the future will - for the next ten years only - guide population policy in the same way that the previous generation's fear of climate change and its consequences has shaped political actions in recent years.

On this basis, the demographic future of the European Union - and consequently its societal development - looks somewhat brighter than before. In the best case, the youth's concern, combined with the weakening dependency ratio, may even lead to a long-term increase in the currently low birth rate.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change
The Finns rewarded a mass murder with 213,000 euros
Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult

Lessons from Italian politics

After the last elections of parliament has Italy obtained a so called populist government led by PM Giuseppe Conte. Looking from here in Finland, that seems to have two consequences.

The first one - and highly appreciated here under the North star - is the reduction of people´s migration over the Mediterranean sea. And the second one - largely irritating Finns - is the loose budget policy of PM Conte, criticized even by the EU leaders and possibly leading to the flow of Finnish taxpayers money to operations intended to save Italian banking system.

In practice, the Italian government is pumping borrowed money into the Italian economy with two wishes. The first one is to keep people in a good mood - in other words keeping their voters happy with the government for at least few years to stay in power. The second one is to use borrowed money for pushing the Italian economy towards growth after many years of cessation. My hope is, that the second aim would be successful - simply because the alternative would be a serious pan-European economic crisis.

A simple analysis of Italian development says that the massive flow of people from developing countries led to a dissatisfaction of Italian citizens, which led them to vote so called populists to political leadership and therefore to form a regime behaving fully irresponsibly in its economic policy.  Or finding a solution to Italian stagnation - although no one considers it possible.

A simple lesson to be learned from Italian development is that any wise government - including the political leaders of the EU - should carefully listen to peoples expectations and views. That was not done by the previous Italian government nor by the PM Juha Sipilä´s regime in Finland, and neither have most of the regimes in our continent understood the importance of refraining from irritating voters. I mean: most regimes in EU have not been blessed with clear understanding of their duty as political leaders in a democracy to serve their citizens instead of a crowd of third world people seeking for a better standard of living in Europe. 

It remains to be seen what happens in Finland in the next elections of the parliament in April 2019. It is, however, clear that a fall of Italian economy to the arms of the EU as well as a new acceleration of migration from developing countries might have unpredictable consequences.

Because there is nothing unclear in this issue, it is surprising how sloppy the immigration policy of PM Sipilä´s government has been. That is because a new wave of humanitarian immigration would result in a colossal price to be paid by both the regime and people of Finland. The latter consequence could, of course, be fixed or worsened - depending on the people´s votes - in the next elections four year ahead.

Thus, the situation in Finland is right now in many ways similar to that in Italy. The difference, however, is that the Finnish party most probably collecting votes from failed immigration, the True Finns, has not shown any signs of irresponsible economic policy like the regime of Italy. Actually, their message has rather been vice versa.

Very interestingly: we learned today that Hillary Clinton of USA advised us Europeans to avoid further humanitarian immigration, because that irrigates people and might therefore favor populist politicians. I think we should listen her advise this time, although there are plenty of things I disagree with the former first lady of her country. 

The original professor´s thought in Finnish:
Italian talous- ja muut opit