Feminists, Woke, and DEI People Justify Violence Against Women

The International Boxing Association (IBA) demands that Imane Khelif be stripped of the Olympic medal she won in Paris in 2024 in the women’s over 60 kg category. I wrote about this individual at the time, stating that it is unethical to allow a man to compete in a women’s division.

The boxing association now bases its demand on information indicating that Khelif has both X and Y chromosomes in their karyotype—meaning that, genetically, Khelif is male. In my view, allowing such a person to compete in women’s boxing is no different from a man committing domestic violence against his wife—except that in this case, it has the approval of the International Olympic Committee.

In fact, I find it quite puzzling that neither feminists nor their organizations have spoken out much about this issue. Nor have the woke and DEI-enlightened public figures, who are usually very particular about ensuring their views on gender matters are broadly acknowledged in society.

In this regard, an interesting exception is the Finnish trans woman and former high jumper, Jade Nyström, who has clearly stated that trans women should have no right to compete in women’s sports. Her view is easy to agree with—and it also raises the question of whether the so-called woke crowd is, for some reason, unable to see that even the rights of sexual minorities can go too far—and even justify violence against women.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women
Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports
Everyone has the right

What Would It Take to Make Peace in the Holy Land?

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, wrote the following on social media regarding the situation in Gaza:

"The suffering of civilians in Gaza must end.

Finland calls on Israel to assume its responsibilities under international law and to ensure access for humanitarian aid. The UN and humanitarian aid organizations must be allowed to operate fully and impartially. Humanitarian aid must not be politicised. Forced displacement of populations is a war crime and cannot form part of any solution.

We call on Hamas to release hostages and encourage the parties to return to the ceasefire.

Israel's security must be guaranteed in accordance with international law. Peace negotiations must be started immediately on the basis of a two-state solution."

* * *

I am pleased with the President’s statement because he addressed both sides of the issue. And sadly, this stands in contrast to the remarks of nearly all other politicians who have taken a stance on the matter—especially those directly involved.

If the leaders and influential voices - as well as all ordinary people - within both Jewish and Palestinian communities of the Holy Land were to read Stubb’s comment and abide by it, the problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that this will happen. For the Palestinians, it would mean accepting Israel’s right to its current borders and ensuring that no more rockets are fired from Palestinian territories into Israel, nor any other terrorist acts committed.

For the Jews in the region, it would mean treating Palestinians—whether independent or part of Israel—as equal neighbors, with whom trade and interaction would be conducted as with any other people. Furthermore, it would require ensuring that no one—such as Jewish settlers in the West Bank—is granted any rights to touch Palestinian property, except through fair, voluntary transactions based on mutual agreement.

* * *

Regrettably, I doubt this will come to pass after nearly 80 years - with roots going even much further in history - of hostility. There always seems to be a small group of people who refuse to accept the status quo and take justice into their own hands, especially when they feel they have been wronged.

Of course, the problem described above would be “resolved” if Israel were to carry through with the idea of forcibly displacing the population of Gaza to completion. Or if the Palestinians, by some miracle, succeeded in destroying the Jewish state.

But the reality is that neither of these outcomes would be in accordance with international law, nor would they respect human rights, and therefore they are not justifiable in any way. And that’s why I fear that, despite Stubb’s principle—which, tragically, is disarmingly simple in theory—we are likely to witness another 80 years of hostility in the Holy Land. And the overwhelming majority of both Jews and Palestinians will continue to suffer because of it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Could Mohammed Sinwar’s Death Mark a Turning Point Toward Peace
Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons
Understanding of Facts is Increasing in the Middle East

UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court has ruled that not all women's rights can be granted unless one is biologically female. Such a right includes, for example, the use of women's restrooms, which are no longer accessible in the island nation to men with a feminine gender identity.

The court’s decision is, of course, appropriate and reasonable, and I have no objection to it whatsoever. What I do find strange, however, is that such self-evident matters need to be clarified in court. 

Then again, we all remember last year’s Olympics, where a person — at least partially biologically male — won in two women’s boxing divisions. Would it be wrong if the right of these winners to compete in the women's division were challenged in court, even retrospectively?

Time will tell how the UK’s decision will affect women’s rights in other countries. Will they also follow clear common sense, or is there still some corner of the world where women’s status is willingly undermined to appease the demands of people with differing sexual identities?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
A Fair Game or Unfair Judgment?
Everyone has the right

Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare

The immigration of people from developing countries has become a major problem for EU countries, as a large proportion of them have not wanted to adapt to the European way of life. Regarding Eastern EU countries, it must also be noted that Russia seeks to use people of developing country backgrounds as a tool of hybrid warfare by transporting them to its own or Belarus's eastern border to attempt to cross into the West.

For this reason, Finland has enacted a temporary border security law, based on which the border with Russia has been closed to traffic. Therefore, it was interesting to note that former European Court of Human Rights judge Pauliine Koskelo commented on the ongoing parliamentary debate about extending Finland’s border security law.

According to the judge, it is evident "that with respect to border situations, the only scenario considered in interpretive practice is that anyone attempting to cross the border outside normal passport control, appearing to be a 'civilian', is a potential asylum seeker who must be allowed into the country so that they have an opportunity to seek asylum. The question is, how far can such an approach based on a single fundamental assumption — one that leaves no room for, for example, the protection of national security — be extended?"

She continued that "this alone should require that the contracting state retains a real possibility to repel actions by a third state that would unlawfully funnel unknown people with unknown intentions across its border... The idea that the need to protect national security should have no significance even when a foreign state begins to 'push' unknown individuals across the border — while at the same time controlling who these people are, how many there are, where they may come from, what their intentions are, and the risk situation posed on their side of the border — seems difficult to defend, especially if there are signs of hostile state motives behind the circumstances."

She concluded her view by stating that "if even in such a scenario the contracting state would have to allow free entry to anyone solely on the basis that they declare themselves as asylum seekers or create a first impression suggesting so, it could be reasonably assessed that the limits of interpretative acceptability would be seriously tested."

Koskelo’s view matches my own and undoubtedly also that of almost all other people. Therefore, it is astonishing that there are still people in Finland who seem to firmly believe that Vladimir Putin has the right to push as many people as he wishes across the Finnish border, simply because international human rights treaties could be interpreted that way. Not long ago, even Finland's Constitutional Law Committee included three such individuals: one from the Left Alliance, one from the Greens, and one from the Social Democrats.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?
Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further
Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law

The Dire Wolf and the Rights of Extinct Human Species

The Americans have announced that they have brought back to life a dire wolf that lived during the Ice Age. Or, more precisely, they have created a hybrid — a cross between a gray wolf and an ancient dire wolf.

This was made possible by two things. First, the genome of the dire wolf has been successfully determined from fossil material. And second, the general advancement of methods for modifying the DNA of living organisms.

The case is the first of its kind and particularly interesting because the animal species in question is not actually very closely related to the wolf. Instead, it belongs to an entirely different genus within the canine family. Thus, quite a lot of genetic modifications had to be made, and the resulting animals may not — or even likely will not — behave like the original dire wolves.

It remains to be seen what will happen to these hybrid animals in the future. Will they become free predators roaming the North American wilderness, or — as I rather suspect — exhibition pieces harnessed for profit in zoos or even in some kind of traveling shows? It will also be interesting to see whether this revival of the dire wolf will be followed by attempts to bring back other extinct creatures, like mammoths or thylacines.

One thing is certain, however: the creation of these animals will spark lively debate about the ethics of science. And there is little doubt that the most heated discussions will center around humanity’s own relatives.

After all, with the methods that have now been successfully used, it is possible — at least in theory — to also bring back extinct human species. Such as Neanderthals, Denisovans, or even Homo erectus.

If that were to happen, difficult questions would arise. For example, regarding whether they should be granted the same human and civil rights as everyone else.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Historical Merging of Human Groups
Number of Predators is Increasing in Russia
African female and Persian male ancestors

Finnish Trans Woman Speaks Out on Transgender Rights in Sports

In the United States, one of Donald Trump’s goals is to ban trans women from women’s sports. The issue is real, as demonstrated by last summer’s boxing matches at the Paris Olympics, where men won two women’s Olympic gold medals.

In this context, it was interesting to notice that a Finnish trans woman and former national-level high jumper, Jade Nyström, has taken a stand on the matter. And it has nothing to do with DEI or wokeness.

Nyström stated, “I fully support the idea that, in my opinion, biological men who are trans women should not compete in women’s categories... There’s a very clear advantage they gain. Hormone therapy alone does not change the entire person, especially if they’ve gone through puberty in their biological sex. It’s not fair to switch competition categories at that stage. This is not about discrimination or taking away rights – it’s more about realism.”

He also expressed a wish: “At the very least, I hope this moves in a direction where the sports of biological women are not ruined. This is not about discriminating against or taking rights away from trans women; it’s more about thinking rationally... I’m not going to switch to the women’s category because I think it would be unfair, and it wouldn’t feel right for me personally.”

It would be wonderful if the perspective of this Finnish athlete gained worldwide recognition. And if its inherent wisdom were understood by international sports leaders, including those at the International Olympic Committee.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Homosexual Rape Underscores the Need for Change in Immigration Policy
Everyone has the right
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?

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

A Finnish MP Resigned After Straining Finland-Russia Relations

Chairman of the Finnish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Kimmo Kiljunen (Social Democrativ Party), met with representatives of a Finnish-Russian association in October in the Parliament's premises. During the meeting, he reportedly advocated for the opening of Finland’s eastern border despite the risk posed by Russia's hybrid operations.

This stance may be connected to the fact that Kiljunen’s wife has a Russian background. However, when meeting with the association representatives, he emphasized his position as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, highlighting the access it grants him to information typically unavailable to regular MPs.

Additionally, he expressed his intention to arrange a hearing within the Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss the situation of Finnish-Russians and border-related issues. He also claimed that the closure of the eastern border was no longer a temporary solution and that keeping it closed constituted a human rights violation against Finnish-Russians.

The Finnish-Russian organization told Kiljunen that Finnish media portrays Finnish-Russians and dual citizens negatively. Kiljunen agreed, accusing Finnish tabloid newspapers of promoting Russian hybrid influence.

Kiljunen also criticized plans to ban real estate transactions by Russian nationals in Finland, expressing concern over a growing atmosphere of suspicion towards Russians in the country. 

Russian media outlets have also reported on the case. For instance, the headlines of publications such as Lenta and Gazeta on Thursday evening stated that Kiljunen had been “forced to apologize.” Meanwhile, the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today reported that Kiljunen had faced criticism from his party colleagues. In other words, the Kiljunen case further strained relations between Russians and Finns.

As a result of these developments, MP Kiljunen has today stepped down as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Speaker of Parliament, Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party), commented that Kiljunen was echoing Kremlin narratives, suggesting that the closure of the eastern border and restrictions on Russian real estate purchases were driven by racist motives. Halla-aho likened this to serving a "perfect pass to the blade of the Kremlin's hockey stick."

If one seeks a positive takeaway from this situation—beyond the fact that it came to light—it is the clear condemnation of Kiljunen’s actions from within his own party, the Social Democrats. This demonstrates that, with few exceptions like Kiljunen, Finns remain united against the persistent threat posed by Putin's Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It Is Time for Vladimir Putin to Acknowledge the Facts and Do Dmitry Medvedev a Favor
Russians are, Intellectually, Spiritually, and Morally, a Deficient People
Putin's useful idiots in Finland

Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability

Israel apparently destroyed virtually the entire Iranian air defense system in an attack about a month ago. At the same time, Iran's military capability proved to be a paper tiger, unable to compete in the same arena as technologically superior Western countries. This fact might have intriguing consequences.

The first of these relates to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has unsettled Tehran after the attack by releasing two video messages urging the Iranian people to rise up against the country’s Islamist regime. This raises the question of whether the regime’s time has come to an end.

This view is supported by the fact that the fall of the government would be an excellent outcome for almost all Iranians, and especially for women. However, the Islamists hold power and with it the means to continue terrorizing their citizens far into the future.

Thus, a revolution would require both unity and courage from Iranians, but it would not be impossible. The West could, of course, assist if necessary, but I fear that the memory of the failed 1980 Operation Eagle Claw strongly discourages interference in Iran’s affairs.

Therefore, I sadly suspect that Iran’s regime will not fall for a long time. And women will continue to long in vain for their human rights.

The second consequence of Israel's attack concerns Russia. Iran's air defense has been based on Russian systems, which proved ineffective against Western equipment. This might influence Putin’s policy toward the West or the war in Ukraine.

In other words, the attack will undoubtedly increase the caution of Putin's regime in relation to the West. This, in turn, reduces the risk that - as a result of Western arms systems being supplied to Ukraine - Russia would escalate by deploying weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, this dynamic is unlikely to work in both directions. Despite recognizing the inadequacy of Russian weaponry, the West is unlikely to decide to end the war by providing Ukraine with the kind of military power that would neutralize Russian missile and air strikes. For this reason, the bloodshed in Ukraine will continue, at least until the new U.S. President Donald Trump begins advancing his promised peace deal.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It Is Time for Vladimir Putin to Acknowledge the Facts and Do Dmitry Medvedev a Favor
Will Trump Push Ukraine Toward Peace by Breaking U.S. Promise?
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

The Green Movement is Withering – And That’s Not a Bad Thing

The Green movement has gained strength since the 1970s in many countries. At the same time, it has transformed from an environmental movement that defied the traditional left-right classification into a broadly left-wing radical movement.

In many countries, this development has led to a decline in support for Green parties. For example, in Finland, the party reached its peak popularity in August 2017, with as much as 17% of eligible voters backing it. Today, however, its support has dropped to just 8%.

This has resulted in the rise of less left-leaning figures within the party, who continue to advocate for environmental issues but are more cautious toward far-left ideologies. An example of this is when three Green politicians – including the party's relatively new chairperson – proposed investing in Finland's defense industry.

This immediately sparked a backlash, casting doubt on the party's future. The Green youth organization declared that the defense industry does not represent Green values or "jointly agreed" policies.

The chair of the youth organization further stated that "sustainable, just, feminist, and human rights-based foreign policy is the core of Green security policy. Therefore, we are deeply disappointed with the party leadership's statement and do not support it."

Since the future of established parties – such as the Finnish Greens – is always reflected in their youth organizations, it seems that the fate of Finland's environmental movement will be to wither away along with other far-left movements. This is not a bad outcome for ordinary Finns or even for the environment.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Are Finns pragmatic and practical people?
Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost

Why aren't People Interested in the Rights of Iraqi Girls?

In recent years, there has been concern in Western countries for issues like the rights of sexual and gender minorities. A sign of this was, for example, when two men were allowed to box against women in last summer’s Olympics.

It is therefore strange that Iraq’s plans to allow marriage for nine-year-old girls have not sparked much opposition, even though these children would, in practice, be forced to fulfill the misguided desires of their pedophilic husbands.

So far, this issue has led only to remarks from the UN and human rights organizations, but not to major reactions from ordinary people, such as protests or demonstrations. It remains to be seen, however, whether people in the West will take notice if this law is indeed passed, subjecting little girls to legalized exploitation. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Responsible Development Aid and New Priorities: Finland's Development Cooperation Reforms

A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women
Everyone has the right

Managing Societal Change with a Growing Muslim Population

Of the "vulnerable" refugees who have come to Sweden, 79 percent have returned to vacation in the country they fled from due to distress and persecution. Additionally, 81 percent of those who have arrived from outside Europe intend to remain in Sweden for the rest of their lives, regardless of how the human rights situation develops in their home countries.

There are no similar statistics for Finland, but I believe they would be quite comparable. Thus, it is clear that both Sweden and Finland - as well as most other European countries - will have to continue living with a growing Muslim population that tends to avoid adopting the Western way of life.

It would be wise for the political leaders of these countries to recognize this issue, so they can take corrective measures. In my view, key steps include reducing the pull factors for those considering coming from Muslim countries and improving the conditions for societal success for those who have already arrived in the Nordic countries.

In this regard, I consider the most important issue to be reducing the prevalence of consanguineous marriages - which are typical in many immigrant groups - through education and legislation. This is because it would reduce the mental and physical health problems that - due to recessive gene traits - occur more frequently in immigrant communities than in the general population.

It is also important to ensure that special attention is paid to women’s rights and status in the education of immigrant children. This should start in preschool and continue in schools, making it clear that all people are equally entitled to the same rights.

As a sign of this, the wearing of face-covering garments should be banned, and there should be no special services for women, such as separate swimming times, which are in reality aimed at Muslim women. These services are specifically rooted in gender inequality.

Third, I would address immigrant crime by ensuring that any immigrant convicted of a crime with a maximum sentence of over a year in prison is always and without exception deported back to their country of origin. This should be done even if the person has already acquired citizenship in their new home country. This could reduce the disproportionately high rates of drug, sexual, violent crimes and homicides among immigrants.

Fourth, I raise the issue mentioned at the beginning of this article about refugees vacationing in their home countries. Such behavior should naturally be seen as an indication that the person no longer needs refugee status, and it should be revoked. 

This is especially important if children have been taken back to their former home country to learn the customs of their own culture — and, in fact, to experience violence and/or be married off to a relative. In these cases, however, I would not send the child back to their home country, but would instead arrange for the parents themselves to return to their childhood homeland.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Society, Genetics, and the Impact of Consanguineous Marriages: At the Intersection of Education and Heredity
Drugs, Zombies, Girls, and Killers, as well as Swedish Deportation Flights
Important Changes Ahead: What You Need to Know About Finland’s Quota Refugee Selection

Hezbollah Uses Human Shields While the Green-Left Looks Away

According to World At War, a source active on social media, the terrorist organization Hezbollah has asked civilians not to leave the area where Israel has announced it will attack - and that attach occurred today. This is nothing new or surprising, as another terrorist organization, Hamas, operating in Gaza, has similarly used civilians as human shields.

Additionally, Hezbollah’s leaders clearly intend to exploit the civilians who may die or be injured in a potential Israeli strike for their propaganda war, claiming it was a terrorist attack. At the same time, following Hamas’s example, they fail to mention that they are actively contributing to the high number of civilian casualties.

In other words, these terrorist organizations are committing war crimes by sacrificing their own citizens. Unfortunately, this strategy works as long as people in Western countries fail to understand the irresponsible sacrifice of their populations by these two terrorist organizations for the sake of propaganda victories.

The problem lies in the fact that the Western political green-left movement - for reasons I personally cannot comprehend - remains locked in a Cold War mindset (example and another), where people with a socialist worldview consistently supported the side backed by the Soviet Union in international conflicts. The Soviet Union may no longer exist, but the memory of its strong support for Muslims in their efforts to destroy Israel remains alive.

This persists despite the fact that the Islamic world represents almost everything the political green-left claims to support: equality between genders or religions, freedom of expression, or the avoidance of corporal punishments—none of which exist in the Islamic world, as is well known by everyone in the Western world.

It remains to be seen how the green-left will once again protest when Israelis defend their existence by attacking the terrorists based in Lebanon, despite the human shields they use. And how they will demand punishment for Israel over the casualties that would not have occurred without Hezbollah's active involvement.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Will Israel Benefit on the Explosions of Hezbollah's Communication Devices?
What Does the Failure of Hezbollah's Attack Tell Us?
The first casualty of war is the truth - but whose truth?

A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

A Muslim woman said on social media that, "Western women are harassed for dressing like shameless women. With the hijab and niqab, they would have more dignity and respect!"

The comment is problematic in (at least) two ways. Firstly, it reduces all men to mindless animals who are incapable of controlling themselves when they see a woman’s skin. This may hold true in some cultures, though in European culture, it is a marginal—if not outright sick—phenomenon.

Secondly, it shows that this woman has so deeply submitted to the violent threat of Muslim men that she doesn’t even have the solidarity to keep quiet out of respect for her own gender. I’m referring, of course, to those women who, for example in Iran, are risking their lives just to dress as they choose. And who, as a result, are subjected to the violence of the ape-like men of their own culture.

What I find particularly incomprehensible is that in Western countries, it is precisely women who support such immigration, which brings among us such ape-like men. This is especially evident now in the United Kingdom, but the phenomenon is clear elsewhere in Europe as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044
A young woman skiing in a swimsuit caused a controversy among women

A caliphate was demanded in Germany

Last Saturday, a demonstration was held in Hamburg, demanding the establishment of a caliphate in Germany. Joe Adade Boateng, the leader of the organizing Muslim Interaktiv organization, stated in his speech that a caliphate would be the best way to correct the image of Muslims portrayed in the media.

The incident unpleasantly evoked memories of the events in Syria and Iraq 2010´s, where the authoritarian rule of Muslims violated all possible human rights. This is despite the fact that in Germany in 2020, there were "only" 5.5 million Muslims, which is just under seven percent of the population.

However, the number of Muslims living in Germany is rapidly increasing, and it is estimated to grow to as much as twenty percent by the mid-century. Germany, however, is not the only European country with a large Muslim population. Sweden serves as an extreme example, with approximately one million Muslims, projected to constitute around thirty percent of the population by 2050.

It remains to be seen whether Muslims will adapt to secularized European societies or whether they will engage in conflict, as indicated by last Saturday's march. Additionally, how the rapidly aging, low-birth-rate, and consequently shrinking native population of the continent will react to their increasing numbers is a question for the future.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
In Germany, immigration policy changes are being planned
Sweden already in trouble - Finland following
Riots in Sweden: what next?

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

Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel

Ancient Persia was a powerful empire of its time, stretching from Macedonia and Libya all the way to the borders of India. In contrast, modern-day Iran is a backward theocracy led by religious fanatics, where the people - especially women - are subjected to the yoke of medieval religion.

In recent years, the country has witnessed an incomprehensible drama by Western standards, where women have refused to comply with the demands of the morality police, despite being raped, tortured, and killed in large numbers.

Undoubtedly, all of this has affected every Iranian in one way or another, polarizing society. For example, many Iranian opposition figures in exile have stated that the recent airstrikes by the ayatollahs on Israel do not have the support of the entire nation, even though they were in response to an Israeli operation in Syria that resulted in the deaths of three Iranian generals.

The Iranian strike itself had little military impact, as Israel's air defense successfully intercepted the hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles sent by Iranian and Yemeni Houthi forces. Reports do not mention any casualties from the strike, but they do note that some people were wounded - including one child victim.

It remains to be seen how Israel will respond to Iran's attack. At this stage, the only certainty is that the consequences are significantly more serious for the Persians than what was seen in Israel last night.

All of this could have been predicted well before Iran's attack. And so, it begs the question: why was the attack launched last night, even though the outcome was known to be dismal for the aggressor?

One possible explanation could be that, as a result of the violence faced by women, an increasingly large portion of Iran's population is fed up with the clerical regime. Consequently, the country's religious authorities have decided to exploit Israel's strike in Syria to foster national unity and sweep the discontent raised by human rights issues under the rug.

Using military action to overcome political difficulties is an old and tested method. The most famous example is, of course, Margaret Thatcher's initiation of the Falklands War, which boosted her political approval rating from 25 percent at the start of the war to 59 percent within a couple of months.

And let's not forget the unity of the Finns who had just fought a civil war only two decades earlier when the Winter War began with the Soviet Union's attack. Nor the Ukrainians coming together to resist the Russians after they violated the young state's independence.

If indeed the strengthening of leaders´ domestic political position is behind Iran's attack, it is a bold gamble. Even though the people will undoubtedly rally behind their leaders after Israel retaliates, the mullahs will find themselves in a precarious position after a losing war when searching for those responsible for the defeat.

And that - in the best-case scenario - may even lead to a revolution, resulting in Iran's transition from a theocratic regime to secular power. And Iranian female students may look quite different from what they do now.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The demands of the vandals
Ayatollahs in Iran demonstrated their ridiculousness
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

Immigration is an asset in the USA, but in Europe, it's just a burden

People criticize immigration, but it is a source of economic growth, said Michael C. Burda, an economics professor at Humboldt University in Berlin.

So, does this mean that we should accept all immigrants trying to come to Finland? And at least keep the eastern border open to grow our economy?

No, because the professor continued his thought by noting that people coming to the United States do not receive welfare benefits, it is not possible. It is very difficult to get money for free in the United States.

In other words, immigration alone will not save Europe's economy; in addition, newcomers should be integrated into a productive economy by preventing them from having an alternative lifestyle offered by European social democracy.

And this, precisely this, is the reason why humanitarian immigration is only a burden for Europe and not the asset one would hope for.

* * *

Yesterday's terrorist attack on the Moscow concert hall was exceptionally bloody, claiming 60 lives and injuring a staggering 145. The perpetrator has identified itself as the Islamic ISIS organization, though its motives remain unclear.

It is also unknown whether the perpetrators were born in Russia, had migrated there, or had simply entered the country for the purpose of carrying out the attack. However, US intelligence had prior knowledge that a terrorist attack was imminent in Russia.

In this context, it is important to emphasize that terrorist attacks are never acceptable, and there is no reason to rejoice even when they target the dictatorship led by Putin. Instead, it is concerning to note the resurgence of the ISIS organization, the consequences of which will undoubtedly be felt sooner or later in Western democracies due to the human rights and immigration policies pursued therein.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty
The Rwanda Law of Britain paves the way for the future of Western Europe
Are we going to allow ISIS women to ride on their children?

The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty, according to Wikipedia, is dishonesty in thought or communication. This includes advocating for a viewpoint that one knows to be false or misleading, or advocating for something whose veracity one has not bothered to ascertain, or omitting relevant facts that one knows to be essential.

According to the same source, rhetoric is intellectual dishonesty when it is used to reinforce one's own agenda or important beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. This comes to mind repeatedly when I read news related to humanitarian immigration.

Today, it happened when I came across a headline stating, "EU will soon pay Egypt to contain the migration flood – concern over two borders." These borders are the borders with Sudan and Libya, through which people travel through Egypt towards Europe.

Behind this are the human rights treaties signed by European countries, according to which all people in the world have the right to seek asylum if they manage to reach the border. If and when this happens, asylum must be granted whenever there is no evidence of its undesirability.

And that's not all, because after granting asylum, the receiving country must provide various services to the arrivals, from maintenance to healthcare. Instead, they are not obligated to undertake specific duties themselves, such as financing their own lives through work or adopting the language and culture of the receiving country.

In other words, through the international agreements they have signed and their practical measures towards asylum seekers, EU countries have done everything they can to make themselves as attractive as possible to developing country migrants seeking a better standard of living. And at the same time, they intellectually dishonestly spend money to ensure that these people could not present their asylum applications.

Otherwise, this wouldn't matter much, but bribery of transit countries to keep borders closed is costly (in Egypt's case, €7.4 billion by the end of 2027), there are still plenty of arrivals despite the bribery, and they cause exorbitant costs in their destination countries. And most importantly, the intellectually dishonest Union could change its immigration policy by its own decision, so that it would not attract economically motivated migrants who are unable to adapt to society.

Key points here could be 1) transferring the burden of proving the need for asylum to the applicant, 2) limiting positive decisions to those who have personally experienced persecution (and not, for example, due to general chaos in the country of origin), and 3) making maintenance contingent on work, learning the language and culture of the receiving country, and giving up harmful aspects of previous lifestyles. Additionally, it should be ensured that applicants with rejected decisions are either returned to their home country or isolated from the receiving society in other ways.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Strong statement or intellectual dishonesty in COP27?
Most useless organisations of our time
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?

Finnish general to Scholz and Macron: no reason to negotiate with a terrorist

A former oligarch,  Mikhail Khodorkovsky, tweeted that "Putin stole (1) part of Ukraine´s territory. He got sanctions for that. To remove them, he stole (2) more, killing thousands of people. Got sanctions. Then he stole (3) all the grain, blocked the ports & threatened to create a famine, demanding the sanctions be lifted. Am I getting this right?"

A retired Finnish general commented on Emmanuel Macron´s and Olaf Scholz´s request to warlord Vladimir Putin about serious negotiations. According to him, there is no reason to negotiate with a terrorist. In his opinion "the only correct solution is to send the sixth fleet of the US navy reinforced by Allied units to escort grain ships and at the same time detain Russian ships carrying stolen Ukrainian grain".

To me it is unbelievable that it takes a Russian refugee and a Finnish general to clarify facts about the dictator of Russia to the two most important leaders of the West-European countries. That is: facts about a  dictator, who has just violated all possible agreements between sovereign countries and is responsible on a disgusting neglect of human rights by his army. 

I think Scholz and Macron should take a look at a mirror, and recognize ugly faces of thoughtless puppets of the most dangerous dictator of our time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Tractor course for Ukrainians
Place of the Free Ukraine
Military specialist: Russian plan in Ukraine was incredibly poor