On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

As my esteemed reader surely knows, on Wednesday in the United States, Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was shot. The identity of the shooter is not yet known for sure, although one suspect, Tyler Robinson, has been named and arrested. Based on images released to the public, he appears to be a young white man.

The weapon used in the murder has apparently been found, but the shooter’s identity has not been established—or at least it has not been disclosed. Instead, engravings were found on the bullets in the gun, expressing transsexual and antifascist ideology.

On this basis, it has been suspected that the shooter’s motive was left-liberal or at least ideological in nature. Nevertheless—or perhaps precisely for that reason—President Donald Trump has urged his famously right-wing conservative supporters to respond peacefully.

* * *

For my part, I see that although the violent ending of a human life is already in itself an extremely serious crime, the saddest long-term consequence of the murder is its effect on freedom of speech, and through that, on the future of American society. This is because Charlie Kirk was known as someone who was willing to engage in public debate with people whose worldview differed radically from his own.

Thus, despite belonging to the most conservative end of the political spectrum, he maintained cross-party debate in a country where the lines of polarization between people have tightened considerably in recent years. And as a result of this activity, he was killed—instead of rising to become a nationwide political figure.

The risk in this situation is that, as a consequence of the murder, other people who bravely voice their views—that is, those who take part in societal discussion—will also fall silent out of fear, thereby narrowing the dialogue between extremes even further. At the same time, the polarization of American society will deepen, and in the worst case we may end up in a situation where the political movement in power at the time—or at least its supporters—are left without the healthy societal criticism they need.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts
Freedom of Speech in Danger
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The terrorism situation and trend report published by Europol showed that jihadist terrorism was once again the deadliest form of terrorism in the EU in 2024. It claimed five lives and left 18 people injured.

During 2024, EU member states reported a total of 58 terrorist attacks. Of these, 34 were carried out, five failed, and 19 were foiled. Attacks were reported in 14 different countries. Of the attacks, 24 were considered to have been committed by jihadist terrorists. In 21 cases, the perpetrators were left-wing or anarchist terrorists.

On the other hand, a total of 40 attempted attacks were prevented in the European Union. Of these, 18 were jihadist-motivated, 21 left-wing or anarchist-motivated, and one far-right-motivated. The foiled jihadist attempts targeted in particular large public events, whereas the left-wing and anarchist attempts were mostly directed at industrial and private-sector targets.

I believe these figures speak for themselves about the consequences of European immigration policy, without me having to spell them out. Such an understanding would be especially important for left-wing and value-liberal politicians, who have been active supporters of this development.

Unfortunately, however, I am skeptical as to whether they would be able—or even willing—to draw logical conclusions from the figures I have presented, since immigration has long since ceased to be a fact-based issue and has instead become a kind of religious confession, in which dissent automatically leads to exclusion from one’s own reference group—and thus to the end of a political career.

Previous thought on the same topic:
Burning a Man Alive Led to Life Imprisonment
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?

Immigration Policy Should Be Based on Evidence

Finland is one of those countries where the native population has, on average, just slightly more than one child per family. As a result, the number of ethnically Finnish people is set to decline rapidly over the coming decades.

This poses a problem for the demographic structure of society, as the number of working-age people decreases while the number of elderly individuals in need of care increases. This fact is often cited as a key reason for the need for immigration to Finland—a position supported by both the liberal right and the green-left political spectrum.

Only the national-conservative Finns Party has clearly disagreed, advocating for stricter controls on humanitarian immigration, particularly from developing countries, as well as on forms of labor-based immigration where wages are insufficient to support the newcomers, leaving taxpayers to cover part of the costs.

This discussion has been further influenced by the immigration minister of Sweden, a country that has pursued even more open immigration policies than Finland. According to the minister, "there is a dramatic difference between receiving 100,000 asylum seekers and 100,000 highly educated labor migrants."

This fact has often been overlooked by Finnish proponents of immigration. For this reason, I hope they will carefully examine Sweden’s experiences with its immigration policies, listen to the relevant Swedish government minister, and draw the correct conclusions from all of this. 

The fact is that even in immigration policy, Finland does not need polarization but rather an acknowledgment of the facts. And after that, decision-making based on evidence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
10% of Foreign Students in Finland Failed to Meet Residence Requirements
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good
Immigration Policy Must Take Artificial Intelligence and Robots into Account

A Major Victory for the Freedom Party in Austria's Regional Elections

The ultra-liberal immigration policies of Europe’s traditional parties are heading for a dead end. One sign of this is the local elections held in Styria, Austria, where the immigration-critical Freedom Party achieved as much as approximately 35% of the vote.

The Styrian conservatives received 26.8% of the vote, and the Social Democrats 21.1%. Thus, these parties have the possibility to form a majority coalition if they ally, for example, with the Greens or the Liberals.

In such a situation, smaller parties would have a disproportionate opportunity to influence policy. However, such a solution would not diminish the policies that 35% of voters opposed. Moreover, forming such an "unholy alliance" against the Freedom Party would intensify societal polarization.

A similar situation applies across Europe. In Finland, democracy has been taken seriously, meaning that the immigration-critical Finns Party has participated in responsible governance as part of a coalition led by the National Coalition Party. As a result, immigration policies have been rationalized in many ways and will continue to be so until the end of the government’s term.

However, it appears that in many European countries, normal democratic practices are being opposed by labeling parties with support from tens of percent of voters as unsuitable for cooperation. This, in turn, continues to polarize society, election after election. I wouldn’t call such an approach either reasonable or constructive.

Previous thoughts on the same topics:
The Fall of Germany’s Government Could Open the EU’s Path to a Better Future
Cancellation of Taylor Swift's Concert in Austria Was a Success for the Terrorists
French Election Results: A Deep Dive into Tactical Voting and Its Implications