Vandals of Tampere’s Mannerheim Statue Reveal Their Ignorance

In Tampere, Finland, a statue of Marshal Carl Gustaf Mannerheim—who led the White forces in the Finnish Civil War of 1918 and served as Commander-in-Chief of the Finnish Army during World War II—was erected in 1956. The statue was created by Evert Porila before the Winter War and placed at a location from which Mannerheim himself observed the decisive battles of the Red uprising in 1918. The statue and its surroundings are impressive, and the historical insight behind its placement is excellent. I recommend visiting it to everyone traveling in Finland, as well as to our own citizens.

Iltalehti reported that this statue had—apparently two nights ago—been vandalized with red paint. Writings had been scrawled on the base and side of the statue, which shows poor judgment ability.

* * *

For these vandals, it would be instructive to watch the film “The Eternal Road” (Ikitie), available on the Finnish Broadcasting Company’s Areena service. The film, directed by Antti-Jussi Annala and based on a novel by Antti Tuuri, might help them understand the kind of fate from which the victory of Mannerheim’s White Army spared their grandparents and their ancestors. A “Red Finland” would most likely have been annexed to the Soviet Union, much like Ukraine, which went on to suffer the horrors of the Holodomor.

* * *

Still, every cloud has a silver lining. The Red uprising led to the development of a very strong executive branch within Finland’s democracy—something highly exceptional compared to other European states that gained independence after World War I.

Thanks to its strong executive power, Finland remained a democracy while many other post–World War I democracies—where parliamentary power was emphasized—drifted into right-wing dictatorships. Things were different here under the North Star: communists were banned, and the far-right Lapua Movement remained a historical curiosity.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Politics in Brigitte Bardot’s Obituary on Finland’s Public Broadcaster Yle
Demonstration Demonstrated the Selfishness of the Demonstrators
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war

The Taiwan Question: A Conflict That Could Turn Nuclear

At the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the army of the old regime led by General Chiang Kai-shek retreated to the island of Taiwan. The communists led by the victor, Mao Zedong, did not pursue them, and thus a new poor island state came into being.

At first, Taiwan was unequivocally a developing country, into which large amounts of development aid still flowed in the 1960s. At the same time, it represented the whole of China in the United Nations — and even held a seat on the Security Council — until 1971, when the Taiwanese were expelled from the entire organization and Mao’s communist government took their place.

Over time, Taiwan transitioned to democracy and adopted a capitalist economic model. As a result, the country has become a small economic giant with a significant position in the electronics and engineering industries as well as in petrochemical products — and in semiconductor components it even holds a leading position worldwide.

* * *

At the same time, with the support of the United States, the Taiwanese have armed themselves to the teeth. The reason for this is the threat posed by China, which continues to covet the island and which appears to be a more significant issue for U.S. President Donald Trump than the war in Ukraine.

For this reason, it was noteworthy that Member of the European Parliament and general Pekka Toveri predicted on social media that China would attack the island state in the near future. As a sign of this, he points to extensive purges carried out within China’s military leadership.

If Toveri is right, we will witness a clash between the two greatest military and economic powers of our time, in which the United States will side with Taiwan in a fight against Xi’s army. One can of course hope that this will not happen.

If it does, however, it is to be hoped that the confrontation would avoid the use of nuclear weapons and be limited to conventional warfare. This would certainly be the case at first — but would both sides refrain from nuclear weapons even if one of them were facing defeat?

For this reason, the Taiwan question is extremely important. So far, nuclear weapons have been used against people only at the end of the Second World War, but we do not know whether either Xi Jinping or Donald Trump would be willing to resort to them — if defeat were looming — in order to avoid losing face.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Former President Donald Trump is Also the Upcoming President – But What Does It Mean?
Military confrontation between China and USA highly probable in near future
Once upon a time in China and Taiwan

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Taiwanin kysymys uuteen vaiheeseen?

What’s Next, Iran?

In public discussion, surprisingly little attention has been paid to what would happen if Iran’s Islamist regime were to collapse as a result of the ongoing uprising of its own citizens. Would power be taken—at least temporarily—by the son of the late shah, who ruled the country dictatorially, Reza Pahlavi? And if so, would he, as he has promised, organize free elections, allowing Iranians to establish a democratic system of government? Or would he instead follow in his father’s footsteps, becoming an undemocratic but Western-aligned leader?

Or would the country descend into civil war, with various political groups engaging in armed conflict with one another—an outcome determined partly by Iranians themselves, but also by the amount of support the different sides receive from rival great powers? That is, from Trump’s United States and Xi’s China—but hardly from Russia, bogged down in its own “special operation,” or from a Europe that is disarrayed in every respect.

* * *

Of course, it would be wonderful if Iranians were able, in free elections, to choose an enlightened father of the nation under whose leadership a modern constitution would be created and, on that basis, the rest of the legal system reformed as well. At the same time, religion would be defined as a private matter for each individual, as has been done, for example, here under the North Star.

The question, however, is whether this is what all Iranians actually want. Or do they have different aspirations? Or might the great powers—or neighboring countries, for that matter—have their own spoons in the pot, stirring it in such a way as to push Iranians from a religious dystopia into a secular tyranny?

Unless, of course, the current Islamist regime manages after all to retain its position and continues at the helm of the ship of state, using even harsher methods than before to subjugate its citizens. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?
Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Mitä seuraavaksi, Iran?

Venezuela, Antonio Guterres and the Nature of Great Powers

The United States removed Venezuela’s socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro from power and transported him to the United States to await trial. There, the deposed tyrant will be charged, among other things, with narco-terrorism and the possession of machine guns and other weapons of destruction against the United States.

In Venezuela, power was transferred to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, and there are reportedly no longer any American soldiers in the country. Hopefully, the country’s new leader understands the situation and moves swiftly to arrange honest elections.

In those elections, whoever the majority of the Venezuelan people express their support for should win. And whether that is last year’s Nobel Prize winner María Corina Machado or someone else, may that person receive American support in restoring the country to democratic governance, rebuilding its economy on market-based principles, and orienting its foreign policy toward Western democracies instead of China.

Under Maduro, however, Venezuela has accumulated many serious problems. These include an economic collapse over the course of the 21st century, increased drug-related crime, and now—after the operation just carried out—possible claims by Trump on the country’s oil reserves. For Venezuelans, it is therefore crucial to find solutions to all of these issues that are effective and that enjoy public support.

* * *

In this context, it is worth noting the incomprehensible reaction of UN Secretary-General António Guterres to the events. Instead of expressing satisfaction at the fall of a dictator, he saw fit to be deeply concerned about the U.S. strike on Venezuela, because it does not respect international law.

Did this creep placed at the head of the world organization really imagine that Maduro’s regime did?

The silver lining is that the UN has no real means to influence the Venezuelan case, nor does there appear to be support in Western countries for Guterres’s absurd “concern” or for Maduro’s regime. And even if there were, Donald Trump would hardly care about it any more than about the shit-flies tormenting cattle on American ranches.

All in all, the future of Venezuelans looks—despite Guterres—reasonably bright, at least compared to a few days ago. Of course, dismantling the misery caused by a long-standing socialist dictatorship will take time, but with determined effort the people can get what they deserve.

For now, however, we do not know what that will mean. And so we can only wait to see what the Venezuelans themselves want—once the Trump administration first restores to them the right to decide on their own affairs.

* * *

Finally, it should be noted that some have viewed the transfer of power in Venezuela as some kind of grand conspiracy in which the United States, China, and Russia seek to divide the world among themselves. 

I do admit that in this case certain features of such a scenario can be discerned, but there is nothing fundamentally new about it. Great powers have always sought to maximize their influence—sometimes more openly and sometimes more covertly, but always using the means they have considered most effective at the time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Venezuela Do Not Offer Reason for Optimism
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
Lessons from Venezuela

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Maduron kausi loppu, eikä sen perään jäänyt haikailemaan kuin YK:n Antonio Guterrez

Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?

Iranians are protesting—according to Finnish news sources (Yle, Uutissuomalainen)—because of the deterioration of the country’s economy. According to these reports, the background lies in the sanctions imposed on Iran by Western countries, but I would believe that the unrest has also been influenced by the religious leaders’ earlier saber-rattling toward Israel, which ended in humiliation.

The Islamists who lead the country have resorted to harsh measures against the demonstrators, and the situation has therefore escalated. By contrast, President Masoud Pezeshkian has urged the interior minister to listen to the protesters’ “legitimate demands.”

* * *

An interesting additional dimension to this situation has been introduced by Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who ruled the country before the Islamist regime. For some time now, he has been seeking to stir the Iranian people into revolution. Yesterday he published a message on social media in which he called on “the people of Iran to join in with the nationwide strikes and protests: government employees, workers in the energy and transportation sectors, truck drivers, nurses, teachers and academics, artisans and entrepreneurs, retirees and those who have lost their savings—everyone, unite and join this national movement.”

In addition, he called on “Iranians abroad—from Australia and East Asia to Europe and North America—to redouble your activities within the framework of the ‘Rise Iran’ campaign to amplify the voice of the Iranian people to the media, international institutions, foreign governments, and parliaments.” and declared that “we will win because we are united and we are many.”

As the year changes tonight, I would like, for my part, to express the hope that Iranians will finally succeed in toppling the Islamists from power and move their ancient homeland from medieval totalitarianism toward democracy—and begin a process that, over time, would lead to a weakening of religious fanaticism throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Donald J. Trump
Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?

Independence and the Sword of Damocles

Finland became independent exactly 108 years ago. Has that been a long or a short time?

One way to look at it is that Finns of my age have lived through and experienced most of the country’s independence. And our grandparents were born in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland within the Russian Empire.

On the other hand, Finland’s independence has lasted as long as the time it spent as part of Russia. The Finnish War was fought in 1808–09, and in the ensuing peace agreement the eastern parts of the then Kingdom of Sweden—those along the Gulf of Bothnia and in the north along the Tornio and Muonio rivers—were ceded to Russia.

During its 108 years, the autonomous Grand Duchy had only five grand dukes. The first was Alexander I, who decided to make Finland autonomous and incorporated into it the territories east of the Kymi River that Russia had previously conquered. Our last grand duke was Nicholas II, who set out to dismantle Finland’s autonomous status—something that caused widespread dissatisfaction and ultimately led to Finland’s independence.

Independent Finland has had thirteen presidents and seventy-seven governments. At the beginning of independence, strong powers were granted to the president because there was considerable monarchist sentiment among the people. Since the 1980s, however, constitutional reforms have made the government and its prime minister the country’s de facto wielders of power—excluding foreign policy, where strong presidents Sauli Niinistö and Alexander Stubb have kept the reins firmly in their own hands.

* * *

History belongs to the past, and although it is pleasant to recall, the fate of our people will be decided in the future. And so our descendants will see whether Finland is still Finnish after another 108 years—that is, in 2133.

As history shows, a great deal can happen over such a long span of time, and predicting the outcome is impossible—just as it was in December 1917. Few people back then could have imagined our life as members of the European Union and of the Western defence alliance 108 years later. And such long-term foresight is hardly possible today either.

Nevertheless, there is reason for confidence in the future, because Finland is a democracy, and as such the country’s fate lies in the hands of its people. Yet hidden within this fact is a kind of Sword of Damocles: with good decisions, the future of Finns can be at least as bright as the past 108 years, but poor decisions could lead to national decline and a harsh future for generations to come.

That is why we—and future Finns—must exercise our rightful power with care and wisdom: to secure the success of our homeland and its Finnish people.

Despite all this — or perhaps precisely because of it — I wish all of you, my esteemed readers, a very happy Finnish Independence Day!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gender identity and the future of Finnishness
Finns - Among the World’s Best
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Itsenäisyys ja Damokleen miekka

The Finnish far left has difficulties with terrorism and antisemitism

Fresh news reported that the United States has classified the German Antifa group as a terrorist organization. What makes this newsworthy is that Li Andersson (Finnish Left Alliance) has visibly supported its activities.

It remains to be seen how prominently the Finnish mainstream media will report on the actions of our Member of the European Parliament. So far, I have not observed this happening.

For my part, I note that this case should be taken seriously within the Left Alliance, and that a thorough discussion should be held about the party’s stance toward various organizations. This would demonstrate a commitment to peaceful democracy.

There is also an excellent opportunity to take the first steps in this direction right now. Andersson and the party chair Minja Koskela could clearly state that they do not approve of their youth organization’s chair Pinja Vuorinen’s recent demand to make Finnish society unsafe for Jews, and take action to replace her with someone who shows greater respect for human rights.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Should the Independence of Palestine Be Recognized?
Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values
Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean

Ukraine Must Defeat Corruption Before Joining the EU

In addition to waging war, Ukraine is also striving to root out the rampant corruption in the country. And no wonder — in 2024, the nation ranked as low as 105th on an index measuring corruption levels. That means Ukrainians are slightly more corrupt than those in Morocco, the Dominican Republic, or Serbia, but still less prone to bribery than people in Algeria, Brazil, or Malawi.

Incidentally, the least corrupt countries in the world were Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and New Zealand. At the very bottom of the list — in positions 178 to 180 — were Venezuela, Somalia, and South Sudan.

* * *

Let us return, then, to Ukraine, which is fighting desperately for its independence against the Russians, with strong support from Western nations. Its leadership has also expressed a firm desire to join the European Union.

In my view, the EU — which itself struggles with corruption — must, despite all sympathy toward the Ukrainians, firmly maintain that this goal cannot be achieved unless corruption is thoroughly eradicated from the country. In this respect, Ukrainians are on the right path, but unfortunately still far from the finish line.

It was therefore rather foolish that President Volodymyr Zelensky tried during the summer to limit anti-corruption investigations — a move that raised doubts, both in me and surely in many others, about whether Ukraine can ever leave behind its Slavic legacy of corruption and one day embrace a Western way of life. 

To be sure, he quickly reversed course, but it is clear that the damage was already done and the stigma of corruption attached to Ukrainians only grew stronger. Erasing that image will not be easy — it will require revelations and punishments that may also reach into Zelensky’s own apparently corrupt inner circle.

It remains to be seen how Ukraine will tackle corruption in the future — and whether the problem can ever truly be brought under control so that the country’s EU membership might one day become even theoretically possible.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure?

Just Another Case of Multiculturality in Manchester, UK

A terrorist attack has been carried out at a synagogue in Manchester, UK. The suspected perpetrator was a bald man with a big black beard.

There is nothing particularly unusual about the case, since recent years have shown that as multiculturalism increases, the number of terrorist incidents has also risen throughout Europe. The only strange thing is that the majority of the native population in each country seems to accept the situation without much protest.

That is why it will be interesting to see what the future of an increasingly multicultural Europe will look like. At this stage, one can only hope for the best, but fear the worst. 

And vote in elections to ensure that Europe, despite everything, will remain European—that is, composed of democratic states that respect human rights, and where the violence caused by multiculturalism can somehow be rooted out. If it cannot be achieved by good means, then other measures must be used—measures that will suffice.

It seems this is also the way of thinking in Britain, where Reform UK has risen to become by far the most popular party. One can only hope that if—and when—it wins the next parliamentary elections, it will use the mandate it receives from the people effectively. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians
Multiple Stabbings Reported in Tampere, Finland
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point

Is Immigration Driving the Nordic Countries Apart?

The bigger Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland – are generally seen as a highly unified group of states, where democratic decision-making works exceptionally well. At the same time, however, they have undergone major demographic changes as a result of humanitarian immigration, which will likely have a significant impact on their future.

Sweden, as a former great power, is the largest Nordic country, governed by the local EPP together with a smaller EPP party and a liberal RE party. The government is also supported in parliament by an ECR party outside the coalition, whose immigration policy goals have been included in the government program.

This unusual arrangement stems from the fact that Sweden’s immigration policy has been extremely liberal, which has made the country’s population more multicultural than in the other Nordic countries. At the same time, the related challenges have also been greater.

This is reflected in the support for Swedish parties. The largest party in the country is still the Social Democrats (S&D group in the European Parliament), with around 34% support, but a party belonging to the ECR group that is critical of multiculturalism has risen to compete with the EPP for second place, with about 20% support. The country’s other parties are small.

Denmark is currently governed by a three-party coalition consisting of the Social Democrats (S&D) and two RE parties.

Unlike in the other Nordic countries, Denmark’s S&D has long pursued a strict immigration policy, which has reduced immigration-related problems. This helped their support rise a few years ago to very high levels – even around 35% – but in recent years it has dropped to about 20%. Despite this, the party remains clearly the most popular in the country.

Denmark’s second most popular party has been the Greens (G/EFA), with support around 15%. They are followed slightly behind by the RE-affiliated Venstre party, and behind them an ECR party at about 10%, which is slightly higher than the Danish PfE group, whose support has risen significantly this year. In addition, a large number of smaller parties influence Danish politics, including the smallest RE party in government.

In Norway, the country is currently governed by a minority government of the local S&D party, but parliamentary elections are being held today and tomorrow, after which a new government will likely be formed.

Humanitarian immigration in Norway has been more limited, and thus the related problems have been smaller than in Sweden. Nevertheless, the local ECR group has in recent years competed for the position of the country’s largest party alongside the S&D and the EPP. Meanwhile, the far left (SV) has lost support.

In my home country of Finland, the government is formed by two EPP parties, an ECR party, and an RE party representing the interests of the Swedish-speaking population. The government has pursued a strict economic policy driven by the larger EPP party, while also following the relatively strict immigration policy demanded by the ECR party in its government program.

During the current parliamentary term, the support for Finland’s EPP parties and the language-based party has remained relatively stable (around 20%, 3%, and 4%, respectively). By contrast, the Finns Party’s support collapsed under government responsibility, falling from around 20% in the 2023 elections to about half of that, though in recent months it has started to rise again.

Among the opposition parties, support has grown for the S&D party, which has risen to 26%, making it clearly Finland’s most popular party at the moment. Another recent gainer has been the former agrarian party (around 15%), which for some reason belongs to the RE group in the European Parliament. Meanwhile, the Greens’ support has long been in decline (8%), while the far-left party belonging to the LEFT group has remained fairly stable in 10%.

As this brief overview of Nordic politics shows, there are significant political differences among these countries regarding immigration. It remains to be seen how these differences develop in the future – and especially whether Sweden’s long-standing open immigration policy will lead it to diverge from the other Nordic countries.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
No Low-Hanging Fruits Among Russian Neighbors
Nordic Police Announce: Spread of Gang Violence Cannot Be Stopped
Nordic Nations Unite Against the Growing Threat of Cross-Border Organized Crime

Why Did Finland Remain an Independent Democracy After World War II?

During World War II, Finland and the Soviet Union fought two wars. The first of these was the Winter War, which broke out as a result of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In that agreement, the foreign ministers of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler agreed to divide Eastern Europe between the socialist Soviet Union and the National Socialist Germany.

Despite receiving little help from abroad, tiny Finland managed to resist the Soviet Union’s massive army. Although the peace treaty forced Finland to cede territory far west of the prevailing front lines, the Soviet Union did not succeed in conquering its neighbor. This created a strong sense of injustice among the Finnish people.

After the Winter War, Finland sought a defense alliance with the other Nordic countries, but especially Sweden opposed the idea. Eventually, the whole concept became impossible when Germany, through its blitzkrieg strategy, conquered Norway, and the Soviet Union—pursuant to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact—occupied the Baltic states. As a result, Finland and Sweden became isolated from the Western powers, France and Britain. Protection against the Soviet Union now had to be sought either from Germany—or vice versa. Finland chose Germany, which at the time was considered militarily superior, even though Finland did not embrace Nazi ideology and remained a democracy throughout World War II.

This led to the so-called Continuation War, whose first military actions in Finland were Soviet strikes against Finnish targets. The reason for this was Hitler’s false claim that Finland had joined Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

* * *

The events described above are well known in Finland. Less known is the final battle between the Soviet army and Finnish forces. This took place in the Ilomantsi region, where the Soviets launched an attack with two divisions against the Finns.

The Finnish troops were led by Major General Erkki Raappana, who accepted the challenge and launched a bold counterattack based on a double envelopment maneuver. The Finnish forces surrounded both Soviet divisions in separate pockets in the areas of Leppävaara–Lutikkavaara and Vellivaara–Lehmivaara, then broke them down and destroyed them. The battle was fought over a 40-kilometer-wide and approximately 30-kilometer-deep area.

At the same time, three Soviet marine brigades, a tank brigade, and an engineer brigade attempted to come to the aid of the encircled divisions from the east, but they were repelled. Eventually, the encircled Soviet troops saw their situation as hopeless, and the remnants of the divisions broke out eastward—effectively fleeing the battlefield.

As a result of this crushing defeat of the Red Army, the Soviets left behind heavy equipment, including over a hundred artillery pieces and nearly a hundred mortars, which became Finnish war trophies. The battlefield was left in the hands of the victorious Finns. This defeat prompted Stalin to abandon his goal of conquering Finland. He began peace negotiations and redirected his forces to the front against Germany, aiming to reach Berlin before the Western Allies.

Due to this battle, along with the earlier failed Soviet offensives at Tali-Ihantala and the Bay of Vyborg, Finland remained an independent democracy—unlike other European countries with long borders with the Soviet Union: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why the Soviet Union Failed to Break Finland—And Why Russia Won’t Succeed Today 
Fear Lurks in Vladimir Putin's Mind as He Celebrates on the Wrong Date
When the War Comes Home to Moscow

Getting Populists to Govern Responsibly: What the Netherlands and Finland Can Teach Us

The Dutch government collapsed because the Freedom Party (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, withdrew from the coalition. The reason for this was that Prime Minister Dick Schoof's coalition government failed to implement the strict immigration policy outlined in the coalition agreement quickly enough.

In other words, Schoof and the other coalition parties did want the Freedom Party to support their policies, but they were not, in turn, willing to advance the issues that are of utmost importance to the PVV. As a result, new parliamentary elections will be held in the Netherlands on October 29.

This case is interesting from a Finnish perspective, as Finland also has a government that includes an immigration-critical party, the Finns Party. It has supported initiatives important to the other coalition parties, and as a consequence, has lost much of its support and its position in local politics in municipal and regional elections.

Nevertheless, the Finns Party remains strongly committed to the coalition because the government has, at the same time, pursued a much stricter immigration policy in line with the party’s demands—thus advancing issues crucial to itself and its core voter base. As a result, current, or remaining, supporters of the Finns Party are more satisfied with the government's actions than supporters of other parties.

This is something that should be noted in other Western countries as well. In most of them, immigration policy has been at odds with the will of the people, so a change is bound to happen sooner or later.

This means a stricter immigration policy, in exchange for which immigration-critical parties brought into government understand the necessity of supporting parts of the coalition program they may otherwise dislike. At the same time, forming coalition governments becomes easier and the will expressed by citizens in elections is more accurately implemented.

After all, isn't that ultimately the purpose of democracy? To carry out policies that reflect the will of the people as expressed in elections?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Should the Dutch Do Something About the Fact That Immigrants Don't Tolerate Visiting Jews?
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change
Attitudes towards immigrants are not becoming more positive in Western countries

Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

Assistant Professors of Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics and the University of Helsinki, Jaakko Meriläinen and Matti Mitrunen, have investigated the long-term effects of an experiment conducted in Finland in 1974–75 on fifth-grade schoolchildren.

The experiment involved exposing children to pro-Soviet and Marxist interpretations of history. The educational materials used were essentially copied from Soviet textbooks and emphasized class struggle. The researchers were particularly interested in whether the pupils’ views would shift in favor of socialism.

In 1975, news of the experiment leaked to the public, prompting Finland’s then Social Democratic Minister of Education to admit that the handout used in teaching did not meet the required educational standards. As a result, the experiment was discontinued.

According to the findings of Meriläinen and Mitrunen, the children exposed to the experiment earned approximately 10 percent less over their lifetimes compared to control groups. Statistically, this effect is equivalent to ending formal education a year earlier.

They worked less and were more likely to choose socially-oriented, lower-paid professions such as teaching and nursing, and were less likely to pursue managerial positions.

However, the experiment had no measurable effect on educational attainment, cognitive abilities, or academic performance. The lower earnings were therefore not due to a lack of competence but rather to a conscious choice influenced by the propaganda they were exposed to in childhood.

As possible explanations for the reduced labor participation, the researchers suggest weakened materialistic values and a reluctance to work within a capitalist society. In other words, the findings demonstrate that propagandistic education can have a significant impact on individuals’ later economic behavior, political views, and values—even in a democratic, market-based society.

This study highlights the importance of ensuring that school education is grounded in scientific knowledge rather than political ideology. At the same time, it helps explain the paradox of why socialist societies based on planned economies have repeatedly lost the economic competition to free democratic societies—and why they have time after time produced outcomes contrary to their stated goals.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
May Day Reflections from a President—and a Student
The Increasing Criminality Among Swedish Students Stems from Their Values
An African and an Iranian Immigrant Educated a Woke-Blinded Deputy Mayor

Shock in Berlin: AfD Surges, Merz Stumbles

It may come as no surprise that the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is taking the country's intelligence service to court over its classification of the party as a far-right group. What is a far bigger surprise, however, is that Friedrich Merz was not elected Chancellor in the first vote of the Bundestag, Germany's federal parliament, to lead a coalition government between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.

This is likely to be corrected in the second vote. More interestingly, the AfD has already called for new elections.

The reason for this is likely the party’s rising popularity, now surpassing that of all other parties. This is certainly not only due to the perception that the intelligence service’s classification is undemocratic. The protest mood has likely also been fueled by the fact that no attempt was made—even symbolically—to negotiate a coalition with the AfD, which came second in the election. That, too, can be seen as a sign of broken democracy.

That’s why it will be fascinating to see how support for German political parties evolves in the coming months and years. Will the AfD continue to grow in popularity, or will Merz’s government restore public trust in the traditional parties?

At least Merz has a good starting point: the debt brake has been loosened, and he has pledged to fix Germany’s infrastructure and armed forces with hundreds of billions in additional funding. On the other hand, if Germany's sluggish economy begins to noticeably affect people's standard of living, support could also rise for protest parties other than the AfD.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
AfD Under Fire – But Is Democracy the Price?
Good luck to Chancellor Friedrich Merz!
What will post-migration Europe look like in the future?

AfD Under Fire – But Is Democracy the Price?

The Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has been classified as a far-right group. This conclusion was reached by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, which – according to Social Democratic Interior Minister Nancy Faeser – operated without "any political interference" during the process.

According to the background report justifying the classification, the assessment was based on the fact that AfD seeks to exclude certain population groups – particularly immigrants from Muslim-majority countries – from equal participation in society. The report states that "this is evident from numerous ongoing xenophobic, anti-minority, anti-Islamic, and anti-Muslim statements made by the party’s leading members."

This new classification is not insignificant – it could even lead to the banning of AfD. However, such a ban would not happen automatically. Moreover, it is already clear at this stage that AfD will take legal action against the new classification, accusing it of being politically motivated.

Personally, I am not taking a stance on AfD’s political line here, but it would be rather striking if as much as a quarter of people supported – without a justified reason – a far-right party in a country whose darkest historical chapters include the Nazi party and the Holocaust. Even more peculiar is the fact that no effort is being made to address the reasons behind the views of this quarter of the population. Instead, there appears to be an attempt to block a democratic – that is, electoral – path to solving the problem.

In fact, such an approach would not only be undemocratic but also dangerous. It is clear that if there is a real and fixable reason behind the growth in support for AfD, simply suppressing it will not eliminate the problem. On the contrary: in such a situation, there is a risk that a dissatisfied segment of the population might – at least partially – turn to undemocratic means.

Surely that would not be in the interests of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency? Or would it?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Good luck to Chancellor Friedrich Merz!
Too Many Finns Share Trump’s Inability to Comprehend
What will post-migration Europe look like in the future?

Why Finnish Youth Are Abandoning the Green Party

As my esteemed readers know, Europe is undergoing a major shift as the once-fashionable value-liberal trend is coming to an end. The clearest sign of this development occurred across the Atlantic, where power shifted from the Democrats to Donald Trump’s Republicans.

In Finland, this change has been reflected in the declining support for the Green movement in recent years. Since its inception, the party has been particularly popular among the youth, which has made it difficult for its support to fully materialize in elections. Nevertheless, just six years ago, it managed to secure 11.5% of the vote in the parliamentary elections—about two percentage points less than what opinion polls had predicted.

Less than a month ago, polls indicated that the party's support was hovering just below 10%, marking a roughly 25% drop compared to six years ago. Even more intriguing, however, was the so-called "youth election," in which those not yet eligible to vote could choose their preferred party.

Contrary to everyone’s expectations, the Green party did not perform well; instead, its support remained at a modest 10.5%. In other words, the party is no longer more popular among young people than among the general population.

The phenomenon likely stems from Finnish youths’ concerns about their future. They see and experience firsthand that the Finnish education system no longer functions as it once did. Furthermore, the rapid accumulation of state and municipal debt—exacerbated by the previous red-green government—as well as the public sector’s increasing entanglement in identity politics, do nothing to advance Finland’s economy or secure a better future for young people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?
A Major Victory for the Freedom Party in Austria's Regional Elections
The Green Movement is Withering – And That’s Not a Bad Thing

Millions Defy Erdoğan – The Battle for Atatürk's Legacy Continues

According to the Turkish opposition, up to 2.2 million people gathered in Istanbul on Saturday to protest against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his dictatorial actions. Meanwhile, the government has banned demonstrations and arrested thousands of protesters.

What is essential here is that Turkey still has millions of people who are willing to put their own future at risk to defend the legacy of the country’s first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk—namely, the modernization and democratization of the nation.

Erdoğan, on the other hand, has undermined this legacy by leaning on Islamist forces, which have helped him secure an almost dictatorial position. At the same time, Turkey has gradually drifted toward its ideological past, falling into instability after a long period of economic growth. 

It remains to be seen whether Erdoğan’s administration will collapse and, if it does, whether its successor will restore Turkey to the path laid out by Atatürk. If that happens, Turkey may regain a leading position among Islamic countries and set an example for a better future.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Need for Asylum Among Syrians Disappeared with the Regime Change
The Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs apologized to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs for the words of the woman who criticized the man who exposed his penis
What seemed to be impossible just two years ago is going to happen in very near future

Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, told that he supports British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s initiatives for a new ceasefire plan in Ukraine. According to the president, Europe currently needs leadership, which Starmer is demonstrating.

Stubb also stated that the winner of Friday’s meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky was Vladimir Putin. However, despite this, the relationship between the United States and Europe remains strong.

For this reason, he urged people to stay calm in a very Finnish way—by advising them to take deep breaths, have a cold plunge, go to the sauna, and think things through. He also promised to return to the matter later.

Beyond that, Stubb did not wish to give instructions to Volodymyr Zelensky either. Instead, Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (NCP) stated that all European countries must strengthen their defense capabilities to the maximum extent, with the goal of being able to defend themselves independently within ten years.

He also noted that Europe is unlikely to reach consensus on this matter, so responsible nations must be ready to make joint decisions—even without those who are unwilling to participate.

It remains to be seen whether Europe will succeed in finding its footing in this changing situation, where military security must also be considered alongside the challenges posed by weak economic growth and internal security. A positive signal in this regard, however, is that the European Commission has just decided to reduce internal EU bureaucracy and regulations to enable economic growth.

To me, it is clear that none of the above issues will be hindered by Finland’s current leadership. That is why it would be beneficial for progress to be made quickly, as democracy may once again bring forth political movements or other leaders whose understanding does not always suffice to recognize facts—let alone act accordingly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Political Rhetoric Like Trump-Zelenskyi’s Has Deep Historical Roots
President of Finland Asked Whether There Are Top Politicians With Serious Intellectual Limitations
Finland and the USA: Strong Allies with Shared Interests or a Trade Dispute?

Acts of Vandalism Against a Political Party

Societal polarization is increasing around the world. Unfortunately, the same trend can be seen in Finland.

One recent example of this was an act of vandalism targeting the office of a Finnish governing party, the Finns Party, in Finland's fifth-largest city, Turku. The party's local leader reported that "at around 1:30 AM, two individuals dressed in black with hoods over their heads threw rocks and pieces of concrete at the office window dozens of times."

The rocks pierced the newly installed triple-glazed window, but the perpetrators did not gain entry. However, they left a message on the window containing a grammatical error: "rasisti pellet" (racist clowns).

The same party office has been the target of vandalism before. According to the local leader, "almost every month we experience some kind of graffiti or written messages."

He also rightly stated that "all political parties should condemn such actions. This kind of behavior has no place in Finnish society or politics. Regardless of one’s opinion, it should be possible to engage in politics safely."

The Finns Party’s secretary, for his part, stated that "a police report will be filed regarding the incident. For now, we will let the police do their job and hope the perpetrators are caught." This is the third police report concerning acts of vandalism against this particular office in this decade.

I would also add that I personally expect our country's most prominent media outlets—Yleisradio (the Finnish Broadcasting Company) and Helsingin Sanomat—to clearly and unequivocally condemn this act in their editorials. These outlets have often written very negatively about the party now targeted by vandalism, which has likely not discouraged those inclined toward such actions. This is an excellent opportunity to correct that mistake.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Over a Hundred Child Abusers Caught, and the Far-Left's Paavo Arhinmäki Gains Followers in Finland
The demands of the vandals
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?

The Need for Asylum Among Syrians Disappeared with the Regime Change

The power transition in Syria reportedly occurred partly with the help provided by Ukraine. According to available information, Ukraine had sent in advance 20 drone operators and 150 FPV drones to the rebel organization that took power.

If and when this information proves to be accurate, it highlights the vastly different scale of warfare in Ukraine compared to Syria. In Ukraine, 150 drones have almost no significant impact on the overall course of the war.

From the perspective of Western countries, one of the biggest questions regarding Syria's regime change concerns refugees. After all, they have primarily fled either Assad's regime or the ISIS caliphate, neither of which now plays a significant role in Syria.

For this reason, Finland and many other countries have already suspended the processing of asylum applications from Syrians, as it is apparent that those who fled Assad's regime or ISIS and came here no longer require asylum. Logically, this should mean that even those previously granted asylum would be returned to their country of origin.

Denmark has already promised a €20,000 package for Syrians who return to their homeland. This is logical, as Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen does not want even a single asylum seeker in her country.

On the other hand, Turkey’s three million Syrians have not needed to be incentivized to return to their homeland; even too many of them have already rushed to the border. It remains to be seen whether the rest will follow in the near future.

This, in turn, depends on what kind of role Syria’s new administration takes. Will it adopt a constructive role and unite the nation, or will it prove too weak to prevent rebellions by other factions operating in Syria? Naturally, our hope in the West is for the Syrian people to unify and for the state to develop into a functioning human rights state and democracy.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
On the Consequences of Russian Inability in Syria
Revolution in Syria: What Comes Next?
The Futile Civil War in Syria