Eviction of Inhabitants for Incoming Immigrants Sparks Controversy

In Finland, there was news today about a case in which the city of Mikkeli is renting out eighteen terraced houses for use as a reception centre. At the same time, it is evicting the current tenants from their homes. In other words, the Finnish residents of these homes are being replaced by immigrants – something many might associate with the idea — controversial as it is — that some kind of “population replacement” is taking place in Europe.

Right now, it appears that this decision is sparking considerable backlash among Finns. For example, Member of Parliament Jocka Träsbeck (National Coalition Party) commented that “In Mikkeli, the city’s priorities were set using the Tuppurainen method.” By this he was referring to a recent opinion of Tytti Tuppurainen – a Social Democratic politician and chair of her party’s parliamentary group – according to which “putting one’s own people first is harmful".

MP Tere Sammallahti (National Coalition Party) also weighed in on the matter, posing a rhetorical question: “What do you think – will this decision increase or decrease people’s willingness to pay taxes? Or racism?”

It is also worth noting that, in the minds of Finns, Mikkeli carries strong symbolic significance in connection with this change of residents. During the Second World War, the city served as the headquarters of the Finnish army.

It remains to be seen how the situation in Mikkeli will develop in the coming days. Will the social debate flare up into full blaze, or will it remain only a minor episode in the ongoing flow of Finland’s immigration discussion? And if it does flare up, will it lead to any political decisions – especially now, when the country’s leading anti-immigration party, the Finns Party, is part of the government.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland to Cut Off Taxpayer Money for Immigration
Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?
EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed?

Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values

A young Finnish conservative politician, Binga Tupamäki (National Coalition Party), recently expressed her astonishment on social media, asking: “Why is the Finnish left defending an Islamist state that, in the name of jihad, is seeking to develop nuclear weapons?” It’s a valid question—so let us take a look at the values of the Finnish left.

According to the Left Alliance's party platform, the party's "core values are freedom, solidarity, and equality." The Social Democratic Party of Finland lists the same values, albeit in a slightly different order: "Our core values are freedom, equality, and solidarity."

Each reader can decide for themselves how well those words describe the actions of Iran’s Islamist government—or how those principles could possibly lead to the conclusion that such a regime is in any way worth defending by members or supporters of these parties.

And what about Finland’s value-liberal Greens? They don’t have a concise list quite like the Left Alliance, but their platform includes the following description: “We work to stop climate change and the sixth wave of extinction... we fight for an equal, safe, and just future. We defend nature and people.”

Nothing in that list seems even remotely compatible with the defense of Iran’s Islamist regime. On the contrary, based on these statements, one would expect the Greens to be pleased that someone—anyone—is actively trying to stop Iran’s mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Altogether, it appears that when comparing their stated values with their actual behavior, many Finnish green-leftists are not living up to their principles. In other words, they are either intellectually dishonest or, in practice, lack values. Perhaps even both.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Hezbollah Uses Human Shields While the Green-Left Looks Away
The European Parliament elections were a celebration for the far-left in Finland

Friedrich Merz Needs the AfD – A Precedent from Finland

Germany's likely future chancellor, Friedrich Merz (CDU), has promised to implement significant changes to the country's immigration and asylum policies on his very first day in office. From that moment on, entry to Germany will be prohibited for anyone who does not possess valid travel documents or the European freedom of movement—this includes those seeking asylum.

According to Merz, "The state must utilize old barracks and container villages located on isolated properties to house individuals designated for deportation. Deportations of those who entered illegally must be carried out daily. The powers of the federal police responsible for border control will be expanded."

This stance comes in the wake of recent terrorist acts in Germany, the latest of which involved an Afghan illegal immigrant who killed two children with a knife. This individual had been ordered to leave Germany long ago. Merz stated that these knife attacks are a direct consequence of asylum and immigration policies pursued in Germany over the past ten years.

* * *

It remains to be seen, however, whether Merz will follow through on these promises. First, he must win the upcoming elections, and second, he must find a coalition partner. In practice, this would mean that—if Merz sticks to his current promises—the AfD (Alternative for Germany) would need to be brought into the government. This would not be possible unless the two parties secure a majority in the national parliament, as none of the other parties would accept collaboration with the AfD.

At the moment, however, the situation looks promising for Merz. According to polls, the CDU/CSU is projected to win just over 30% of the vote, while the AfD is expected to gain over 20%. In other words, they could govern Germany together.

* * *

The situation bears some resemblance to Finland, where the government is also based on cooperation between an established conservative party (the National Coalition Party) and a value-conservative party (the Finns Party), which has risen to prominence through its criticism of immigration policies. However, the difference is that Finland's government also includes significantly smaller, traditional right-wing parties (the Christian Democrats and the Swedish People's Party).

It should also be noted that Finns Party, apart from its stance on immigration, is a fairly typical conservative party. For instance, Finance Minister Riikka Purra has even pushed more strongly than other government members to balance the state budget by cutting funding for public services. The party was also the first in Finland to clearly recognize the threat posed by Putin's Russia and, as a result, began strongly supporting Ukraine long ago.

By contrast, there are greater differences between the AfD and Germany's Christian Democrats, particularly regarding Russia. The former seems entirely naïve about the threat posed by Russia. Cooperation in government could also be complicated by some AfD members' negative attitude toward Jews, and the AfD's social-populist policies might not resonate well with the Christian Democrats.

The fact remains, however, that in both Finland and Germany, political parties have their differences, but despite these, they must be able to form a common government program. If the CDU/CSU and AfD succeed in doing so, they could govern Germany together in the coming years—and in doing so, they could set an example for the rest of Europe, particularly in rationalizing immigration and asylum policies.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges
Why It’s Crucial for Germans to Vote Wisely

Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Today we saw a textbook example of the rhetoric employed by the political green-left. This concerns the chair of the Green Party, Sofia Virta (Green), who commented on Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's (NCP) statement that the Finnish right wing government will not cut state spending beyond the previously decided nine billion euros.

Virta claimed that "this is purely an election speech" and suggested that the government would resume making spending cuts immediately after the county elections and municipal elections in April. She was supported in this by the chair of the Green Party's parliamentary group, Oras Tynkkynen, who speculated that "if the main government parties go into these elections without revealing everything about the policies they plan to pursue in the coming years, it is problematic for democracy."

Virta also made another odd comment. She claimed that Orpo's statements contradict earlier comments by Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) regarding budget cuts. This was based on a Green Party press release that alleged the Finance Minister had stated in December that further cuts would be needed in the spring budget negotiations.

In reality, however, Purra did not say this. She had earlier noted that additional savings could be made in the spring if necessary but recently added that "this political coalition does not appear to have the capability to identify significantly more savings."

The comments by the Greens and their leaders are an unfortunate example of a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in green-left rhetoric in recent years: outright lying to voters. 

The most striking example of this was seen a few years ago, when the then-chair of the Left Alliance's parliamentary group, Paavo Arhinmäki, told voters that the state never has to repay its debts and emphasized that Finland barely pays any interest on them. The truth, however, is that the Finnish government paid as much as 3 billion euros in interest alone in 2024, meaning that a third of the savings previously made by the state administration was spent solely on that.

However, there’s no need to wonder about the Greens' and the broader green-left's comments, as they have recently helped to boost their support. This is evident in the latest party approval poll, which indicates that the combined support for the governing coalition parties has dropped to 42.4%.

For this reason, rational people should focus less on the green-left’s rhetoric and more on their supporters. In other words, we must try to understand why they allow themselves to be swayed by deceptive rhetoric and, after enlightenment, address the problem one way or another.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

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

Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics

A few days ago, I wrote about the change that is leading to the European Green parties' withering into insignificant political forces. This doesn't seem to be understood, at least among the Finnish Greens.

One could draw this conclusion, at least from the fact that some within the Greens have suggested that the party adopt a positive stance on polygamy and promote the legal recognition of more than one spouse. In practice, this would primarily mean the recognition of polygamous Islamic marriages as valid in Finnish society.

In this way, the Greens would bring Finnish culture a step closer to the medieval demands of Islam. Similarly, society is being steered in this direction by the increasing practice of women-only swimming sessions and by allowing unofficially the wearing of swimsuits in the sauna at public swimming pools. The latter is problematic because sweat gets trapped in the swimsuit during the sauna and later dissolves into the swimming water, fostering the growth of various bacteria, including pathogens.

The national broadcasting company has also taken it upon itself to reshape society according to the demands of immigrants. It has decided to begin broadcasting in Arabic and Somali. By doing so, the company could further reduce the already limited motivation of these immigrants to learn the Finnish language.

The driving forces behind all these changes have been, in particular, Green and left-wing politicians, who have received support especially from the value-liberal politicians of the National Coalition Party and the Swedish People's Party of Finland. Fortunately, the political influence of the Greens is declining, as well as that of the rest of the left.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Rise, Fall, and Future of the European Green Parties
The attractiveness of Finland to welfare-seeking economic migrants reduces
Information for Asylum Seekers in Finland

The Green Movement of Finland is Lost

As my esteemed reader knows, Finland currently has a right-wing government that came to power a little over a year ago. Its task is to address the economic distress created by the previous center-left government, which scattered taxpayers' money with abandon. While the results are still modest, decisions have been made, and over time they promise to balance the public budget and kickstart economic growth, which has stagnated for a decade and a half.

In this regard, the situation is interesting because the Finnish green-left has been unable to do anything but criticize the government's decisions, without offering any alternatives. The most intriguing case is that of the Green Party, which has over the years drifted to the far left.

Its chairwoman, Sofia Virta, has repeatedly stated that her practically sole goal is to bring down the government. In the same breath, she has addressed issues related to humanitarian immigration, such as street violence, claiming that "the Finns Party doesn’t want to solve these problems. Their support is based on them."

This is strange, because it is precisely the Finns Party that has wanted to limit humanitarian immigration to a level where newcomers can be integrated into Finnish society. They have also criticized the provision of unconditional – and thus demotivating – social benefits to spontaneous immigrants.

Additionally, Virta has claimed that "the prime minister probably doesn’t lose a second of sleep worrying about how to get health centers and public services to function." This is, of course, a blatant lie, as it was the previous government—of which the Greens were a part—that carried out a healthcare reform that led to the collapse of the system. The current government has been particularly focused on correcting the mistakes made earlier.

Each individual can draw their own conclusions about the reasons behind the Green Party chairwoman's rhetoric. Personally, I suspect it is a panicked, primal reaction to the fact that the Greens’ support, which at its peak had one in six Finns behind it, has now dropped to half of that.

Sofia Virta will have no political future if this trend doesn’t reverse during her tenure. And, of course, it’s impossible to imagine that happening with the methods she’s currently employing. This is because, in Finland, smearing political opponents has never been valued; instead, constructive proposals and presenting alternatives are appreciated.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?
Healthcare Services for Undocumented Immigrants are a Pull Factor for Harmful Immigration
Putin's useful idiots in Finland

Finland and Western Europe: Effectively at War

In Finland, an interesting discussion has emerged about our current relationship with Russia. MEP and General Pekka Toveri (National Coalition Party) claimed that Finland and other Western European countries are already effectively at war with Vladimir Putin's dictatorship.

He did not, of course, mean a war fought with firearms, but rather that Russia is directing all kinds of aggressive actions against Finland and other Western countries. According to Toveri, "Russia is extensively planning, preparing, and executing sabotage across Europe. For example, weapons depots have been blown up, assassinations carried out, cables cut, and there is ongoing information warfare and cyberattacks. Additionally, the West is threatened with nuclear weapons, the refugee weapon is used, GPS interference is conducted, and so on."

This was picked up by MP Pinja Perholehto (Social Democratic Party), who either pretended not to understand—or worse yet—genuinely did not grasp the matter. She therefore asked on social media, "If we are indeed at war, why don't the President and the Council of State declare a state of emergency under the Emergency Powers Act and enable authorities to act accordingly?"

In the ensuing discussion, Toveri stated that "Russia specifically aims to operate below the threshold of the Emergency Powers Act, making it as difficult as possible to counter their actions," and thus advised, "do not think of war in the old-fashioned way as only kinetic troop warfare. The Russians do not think so either."

Perholehto's comment demonstrated that Putin's Russia has achieved some level of success in its actions. Despite the fact that most of the public understands his actions and intentions, there is complete incomprehension—or at least a desire to score political points from the threat to our country—on the left side of the political spectrum.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The most effective Russian agent in the UK

Putin's useful idiots in Finland
Finnish general praised the Ukrainian air strike

The future of all Europe is at stake

Europe has long been undergoing significant change. Amid their prosperity, the continent's original inhabitants have had fewer children, while at the same time, a diverse array of people have been flooding in from developing countries.

As a result, numerous political parties have emerged in European democracies that are critical of the ongoing changes. These include parties like Finland's Finns Party, Sweden's Sweden Democrats, Germany's Alternative for Germany, and Italy's Brothers of Italy.

Many of these parties performed exceptionally well in the recent EU parliamentary elections. This was also the case in France, where the success of the National Rally prompted President Emmanuel Macron to call for new elections.

The first round of those elections takes place today and could have a significant impact on Europe's future. The latest opinion polls predict that the National Rally could garner as much as 35-37% of the vote, while Macron's forces could come in third with about 20-21%. The united left is positioned in between.

If the election results follow the polls, it would mean significant polarization in French society, where these forces, unwilling to cooperate with each other, would try to find a solution on how to move the country forward.

Thus, it remains to be seen – if the election results match the predictions – how French politics will shape up in the coming years. Will they take examples from countries like Finland, where immigration criticism has been included in the government program by building effective cooperation among the right-wing parties in parliament, especially the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party?

However, France's situation differs from Finland in two ways. Firstly, its Muslim population is significantly larger – around ten percent – and secondly, it has not been customary to seek pragmatic consensus between different political forces.

It is already clear at this stage that the immigration policies practiced in Europe have led to a new political situation in France – and the entire continent – which will ultimately define the kind of world the descendants of the cradle of Western culture will live in the future. Therefore, it can be rightly said that the stakes of the French elections are the future of all of Europe.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Marxist far-right and bullies
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044

The European Parliament elections were a celebration for the far-left in Finland

The result of yesterday's European Parliament elections in Finland certainly surprised everyone following politics. It also surprised me, so a few words about it.

The big winner of the elections was the far-left formed by the Left Alliance and the Greens, which seemed to get the largest share of votes in all elections during Finland's independence. As much as 28.6 percent of the voters gave their vote to them.

This means that the Finnish European Parliament group will henceforth provide even more support for centralization, the migration of people from developing countries, wokeness, and efforts like Euro-taxes. At the same time, the result also means that the Finnish far-left knew how to take advantage of the low voter turnout.

This, however, was not understood by the supporters of the Finns Party. They decided to stay at home, perhaps cursing the entire European Union in their minds or protesting minor issues in the Finnish government's policy, where the party participates.

And they fulfilled my warning from a few days ago that the green-left would get one more representative in the European Parliament if people supporting other political directions did not go to the polls. Thus, the voting behavior of Finnish national conservatives was, to put it nicely, foolish.

* * *

If this kind of thinking had prevailed in all EU countries, the people from Africa and the Middle East seeking to come to Europe for welfare reasons would have thanked and set off in even larger numbers. Similarly, the preservation of raw materials for the Finnish forest industry would have become a real threat, and only imagination would have been the limit to what could be achieved on the wokeness front.

The silver lining was that the national conservatives in other countries were not as foolish as the Finns, but instead achieved an electoral victory while the entire left lost support. Of course, this victory would have been greater if Finnish voters had decided to support the Finns Party candidates instead of the far-left.

With the EPP group, including the Finnish National Coalition Party, achieving an electoral victory at the Union level, we can breathe a sigh of relief and hope to see healthier politics in the EU over the next five years than in the past term. Additionally, we hope that the most idiotic plans of the previous European Parliament will not be implemented.

* * *

In addition to EU politics, the election results will also impact Finland's domestic politics. Within the government, the National Coalition Party's victory in the European elections and the Finns Party's crushing defeat will increase the influence of the Prime Minister's National Coalition Party and decrease the influence of the Finance Minister's Finns Party. Thus, the issues important to the National Coalition Party will progress better than the wishes of the Finns Party.

This will be particularly evident in Finnish immigration and asylum policies, where the lines of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party differ. My guess is that it will be even more challenging to bring related government program policies to the Parliament and thus into law during the current parliamentary term.

The danger, therefore, is that Finnish politics will see a repeat of the phenomenon witnessed during Juha Sipilä's (Centre Party) government from 2015 to 2019. Its immigration policy program was sensible, but ultimately it was never implemented. And to top it all off, a tremendous number of people from developing countries rushed into the country without the government taking any measures to prevent it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed
The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty

The program of the new Finland´s Government is ready, and ministers are being selected

The new Finnish Government has a program in place, although the appointment of ministers is still pending. Nonetheless, it was genuinely intriguing to read about the selection criteria employed by the leaders of Government's two largest parties: Petteri Orpo of the National Coalition Party and Riikka Purra of the Finns Party.

Petteri Orpo selects ministers based on general and substantive expertise, as well as considering general political experience, gender equality, and regional distribution. He explicitly mentioned that he does not have any specific favorites (team members) within his own party.

On the other hand, Riikka Purra emphasizes the overall and substantive expertise of her ministers. She explicitly stated that gender equality is not a central criterion for her, although a balanced composition is desired also in the Finns Party's ministerial team.

It remains to be seen how these principles will be reflected in the final ministerial appointments. However, it is already clear that Orpo will become the Prime Minister and Purra will serve as the Minister of Finance. The success of the government largely depends on the success of their collaboration.

The goal of this collaboration is to respond to the message conveyed by the voters in the recent parliamentary elections to the country's leadership. That is: Finland's economy must be revived, with a focus on promoting growth and reducing debt. Additionally, the internal security, which has been disrupted due to the immigration policies of previous governments, needs to be restored. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The people long for strict economic policy
Reducing taxes, enhancing export and paying the governmental debt
The Center and the National Coalition Party are willing to donate our tax money to the EU