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

Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original blogposti in Finnish:
29-vuotias afgaani ammuskeli

Gun Violence in Brussels After Swedish Massacre

As the investigation into Sweden's Tuesday mass murder is still ongoing, something unusual happened in Brussels. There, two masked men opened fire with assault rifles outside a metro station, though no one was injured.

Based on videos and photos taken at the scene, it appears that this time the perpetrators were individuals who had sought refuge in Europe from war and persecution, or at least their descendants—unlike in the Swedish massacre (as I had previously suspected). However, the motive behind their shooting remains unknown.

In any case, photos of the shooters at the metro station have been published, and the public has been asked to help identify them. This may help bring to justice those who endangered people's safety.

It is, of course, a coincidence of sorts that firearm-related incidents occurred on consecutive days in both Sweden and Belgium. However, it should be understood that these incidents stem from the societal developments of recent decades, which have led to rapid demographic changes in Europe (example) and, as a result, the polarization of different population groups.

Recognizing these facts is essential in order to make the right decisions to halt this ongoing trend. Only then can European societies be restored to what the vast majority of their populations desire: safe for their residents and structured to provide the greatest possible well-being for their communities.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Swedish School Shooting with Automatic Weapon Highlights Nation in Crisis
Marxist far-right and bullies
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044

A National Rally election victory does not mean that France will become like Finland under the Finns Party

The result of the first round of the French elections met expectations. This indicates that the residents' frustration with the current immigration policy and its consequences is now becoming a reality.

An example of these consequences was seen when an attack occurred at a wedding of Turkish background individuals in Thionville, France, where a group armed with assault rifles killed one and injured several people. The incident is reportedly linked to gang conflicts involved in drug trafficking.

If and when such events – and similar ones – occur repeatedly, it is understandable that people accustomed to European order are dissatisfied and thus desire the change offered by the National Rally.

* * *

A Finnish journalist outlined four consequences of the election results. The first, according to her, is the reduction of France's support for Ukraine. This would mean a small victory for Vladimir Putin's Russia and is starkly opposed to the strongly pro-Ukraine stance of Finland's immigration-critical Finns Party.

The second issue the journalist mentioned that can be expected to change in France is the populist economic policy of the National Rally, which threatens to drive the country into an even deeper debt crisis. This is also a significant difference from the Finns Party, which has pushed for strict economic policies in government, causing the political left in opposition to resort to populist outcries.

The third potential change highlighted by the Finnish journalist was France's refusal to pay its membership fee to the EU. This would obviously have a massive impact on the entire Union, potentially pushing it back towards being a pure trade alliance. This would fit well with Finns Party's immigration-critical and EU-critical stance.

Finally, the journalist mentioned that the EU would become more value-conservative. This would mean not only stricter immigration policies but also a more conservative approach to sexual deviations and abortions.

In this respect, the relationship between the immigration-critical parties in France and Finland is not straightforward. In Finland, practically everyone supports the right to abortion, but many immigration-critical individuals view the hype around sexual deviations negatively.

* * *

As my esteemed reader noticed, the message of this blog post is that although the immigration policies practiced across Europe have led to the emergence of large immigration-critical parties in both Finland and France – and many other countries – this does not mean that European politics is changing in all other respects.

This is particularly evident in these parties' relations with Russia and economic thinking, but also in many other aspects. Therefore, no hasty conclusions should be drawn from the first round of the French elections.

Additionally, it must be remembered that an unholy alliance is forming in France between Macron supporters and the left, which, if successful, could prevent the rise of the National Rally to power and thereby block the rise of the immigration-critical Gauls for another term.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The future of all Europe is at stake
Swedish-Somali Offspring, Penalties, and Our Country's Attractiveness Factors
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth

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 British human rights decision led to unwarranted calls

In the UK, a bill has passed which would allow asylum seekers to be sent to Rwanda while awaiting a decision on their asylum application. However, this hasn't been put into practice just yet, as it requires approval from King Charles first, followed by what are known as human rights activists organizing a trial farce, and then there must be a court decision on the matter.

In the future, we will likely see mass deportations of asylum seekers from Europe to Africa. Additionally, according to the new British law, a potential asylum would only entitle the applicant to stay in Rwanda—not to unsettle British society.

What's particularly interesting about the case is that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has directly stated that the purpose of enacting the law was to create a deterrent effect on asylum seekers heading to Britain. On the other hand, there has been skepticism in the opposition about its impact on the numbers of people attempting to cross the Channel.

It remains to be seen how the law will impact the numbers of asylum seekers attempting to cross the English Channel. Will it achieve its goal of redirecting the flow of people, or will the previous trend continue, with the difference being that British taxpayer money is used for the nearly 6,500-kilometer flights of arrivals?

The question is pertinent, as according to Britain's own parliamentary institution, the Rwanda program costs nearly two million pounds per asylum seeker sent to Africa. If this estimate holds true, the bill for combating modern-day migration will be considerable.

On the other hand, if the flows of migrants seeking to exploit European social welfare were indeed effectively redirected elsewhere as a result of the decision, London's administration would save significantly more money. Moreover, the process of demographic change in Britain, sometimes referred to as population replacement, would slow down significantly from its current pace. Consequently, Britain's population would remain predominantly European well into the future.

* * *

Today I got to read an article where it was reported that the United Nations and the EU are urging the island nation to reject the bill.

According to the story, Michael O'Flaherty, the director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), expressed that he is "concerned that the Rwanda bill enables the implementation of a policy of removing people to Rwanda without any prior assessment of their asylum claims by the UK authorities in the majority of cases.

The statement raises the question of whether there is a misunderstanding among influential figures in the UN and EU. The explicit intention of the British bill is that the assessment of the spontaneous asylum seekers' protection will be conducted in Rwanda, and thus there is no rational basis for conducting it first in the UK.

According to the same article, Rwanda has expressed satisfaction with Britain's decision and welcomes any potential entrants. This way, they can find a safe place to build their lives, which is ultimately what the international asylum system is about. It's not about the subjective right of all people in the world to settle in Europe and burden its inhabitants' economy or change its culture.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
The arrival of caliphate citizens must be prevented