Most Finnish Journalism Students Lean Toward the Ultra-Liberal Far Left

Finnish journalist Sanna Ukkola published on social media results from the not-yet officially released Nordic Journalism Students 2025 survey. According to it, among “Finnish journalism students” studying at university, 78 percent vote for left-wing parties (Left Alliance 44%, Greens 20%, Social Democrats 14%).

If—and assuming—the figures reflect reality, the outlook for the future of Finnish journalism is bleak. To understand this, one must note that 64 percent of future journalists support—not just the left in general, but an ultra-liberal far-left in terms of values, namely the Left Alliance and the Greens.

* * *

Of course, it has already been known that the ideological outlook of Finnish journalism students leans politically to the left. However, I had not previously understood the students’ attraction to outright far-left ideology, which has left a rather dark footprint in both Finnish and global history.

It may, of course, be that not all journalism students—and even those who have already graduated—are familiar with the roots of the ideology they support, or they imagine that today’s green-left somehow differs from its historical predecessors. And thus they act more like—borrowing a term attributed to Lenin—“useful idiots,” who believe they are acting morally right, while in reality they are fighting for an Orwellian society.

This is also reflected in the fact that many journalists, instead of striving for impartial journalism, want to steer people’s opinions and change the world in the direction they prefer. For some, the desire to influence public opinion has even been a central reason for becoming a journalist.

This situation is, of course, unfortunate for these students, for the people who read and listen to the results of their work, and for the future of Finnish society. This remains the case despite the fact that, with age, some journalists come to realize they had supported totalitarian ideas and move away from the far-left camp. But unfortunately, only some do.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
When Free Speech Is Prosecuted: Päivi Räsänen’s Case Explained for Americans
Is Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle Using Taxpayer Money to Mislead?
Terrorism Landscape in the EU Contradicts the Narrative Presented by EU Politicians and Media

On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

A Wake-Up Call from Trump to UNESCO

The United States has once again withdrawn from the UN’s cultural organization UNESCO. The reason cited was the organization’s focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, as well as its promotion of socially and culturally divisive issues — and continued focus on them.

According to a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, such a globalist and ideological international development agenda is in conflict with the America First foreign policy pursued by the Trump administration.

According to UNESCO’s own statement, it operates as a global laboratory of ideas in the fields of education, science, culture, and communication, and as a catalyst for international cooperation. It declares its values as follows: "Our #SharingHumanity campaign reminds us of our global values, culture, and knowledge. By strengthening these ties, we build the foundations of peace between people and nations."

It remains to be seen what impact the U.S. withdrawal — similar to what happened during Trump’s first term — will have on the organization’s operations. Most likely, the impact will not be overwhelming, since only about 8 percent of UNESCO’s budget comes from the United States — less than what most UN agencies receive from the U.S.

Nevertheless, it would be beneficial if UNESCO — and its supporters — would also openly examine whether the Trump administration’s claims have any basis in reality. And if such a basis is found, that the organization take steps to address the issue, in order to better and more cost-effectively fulfill its missions in the future than it does at present.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres? 
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless

Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity

The President of Argentina, Javier Milei, criticized phenomena related to feminism, DEI principles, environmental radicalism, and gender ideology at the World Economic Forum meeting. He described mass immigration and the cultural shame of Western nations as self-destructive and called for a historical shift in the West.

By this, he primarily referred to traditional Western values, such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity. In contrast, he viewed their recent challengers—woke ideology and state interventionism—as questionable and as the root causes of the West’s current problems, arguing that they rely on collectivist ideology and work against individual liberty.

Instead of contemporary value liberalism, Milei identified the pillars of Western civilization as respect for freedom and private property, a free market economy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. He stated that these values inherently include personal responsibility for one’s livelihood, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity.

According to the Argentine president, each fundamental pillar of our civilization has been replaced with a distorted version of itself, leading to a situation where luxuries acquired at the expense of others have become human rights, and institutions have taken on the role of punishing dissenting opinions.

Thus, in Milei’s view, the DEI movement, immigration, environmental radicalism, and gender ideology serve only the expansion of the state and distort Western ideals. Feminism and gender ideology, he argued, have become detached from equality and now promote a struggle between the sexes instead of advocating for the equal treatment of men and women.

He also questioned why Westerners today see themselves as responsible for all the world’s evils and believe they must atone by opening their borders to everyone—even if this leads to reverse colonialism and the collective suicide of Western nations.

In the short term, the primary beneficiaries of this development are political movements that push a distorted worldview, but ultimately, they too will collapse as societies crumble.

* * *

According to Milei, we are now at a turning point, where a historic opportunity for great change is emerging. It remains to be seen whether the West will seize this opportunity.

Winds of change have already swept through Milei’s Argentina, my home country of Finland, Italy, and the USA. Next, it will be up to the German people, who will elect a new parliament on February 23.

At the moment, it appears that the election in Germany will be won by AfD and CDU/CSU, with the former in particular aligning closely with Milei’s stance on immigration. Meanwhile, the green-left coalition advocating progressive liberal values seems poised for a crushing defeat.

It remains to be seen whether change will take place in Germany and across the West. And even if it does, will the people push this transformation far into the future, or will the 2020s be remembered as just another fleeting anomaly on the path of Western decline—much like the era of Constantine the Great in Roman history?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Friedrich Merz Needs the AfD – A Precedent from Finland
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044
A white family does not represent real Londoners

Russian Strategy to Take Control Over the USA and the World Has Succeeded Shockingly Well So Far

Two days ago, Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, rolled back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, joining a growing list of major corporations that have done the same after facing criticism from conservative activists. Even before this, companies such as Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s, and Tractor Supply had already taken similar steps.

This reminded me of a strategy described in the recent book by Finnish top communication professionals Markku Mantila and Jouni Mölsä, which the Russians have allegedly used to influence Western nations. According to them, a Russian defector, Yuri Bezmenov, revealed back in 1984 that the Soviet Union’s goal was to alter the perception of reality in the United States to the extent that its population would no longer be able to draw rational conclusions about the reality surrounding them.

The first stage of this strategy was demoralization, which involved steering students toward Marxist-Leninist thinking. According to Bezmenov, this phase was already complete 40 years ago. 

In the next stage, lasting about 20 years and referred to as destabilization, the Russians’ aim was (in Bezmenov's time, "would be") to increase disagreements between different groups in the United States. As examples of destabilizing themes, he mentioned homosexuality as well as women’s and children’s rights—translated into today’s language, themes that have gained traction in recent years through DEI policies.

The third stage in the Russian strategy is the crisis phase, in which citizens look for saviors by demanding strong leaders and governments, while expressing their discontent with societal chaos.

According to Bezmenov's ideas from 40 years ago, the Russians’ ultimate goal is "normalization", which refers to a situation similar to what happened after the Prague Spring in 1968, when Czechoslovakia was ruled by a puppet government installed by the Soviet Union, subordinate to Moscow and receiving its instructions from there.

All of this is detailed in Mantila and Mölsä’s book. From my perspective, it seems that the Russians have shockingly succeeded in achieving the goals of the first two phases. However, it remains to be seen what the collapse of corporations and, subsequently, DEI policies will lead to.

In this matter, ordinary Americans play a decisive role. Will the resistance faced by DEI deepen societal polarization, eventually leading to the crisis Bezmenov described? Or is this merely part of an ideological shift, one that is leaving DEI policies behind and, in doing so, discarding Russia’s long-term objectives into the trash bin of history?

Finally, I conclude that it would be beneficial for American (and Western) politicians to equip their citizens with the means to counter Russian hybrid influence. In this regard, it is particularly important to ensure a strong foundation of basic knowledge through quality education, the reliability of the political system, the adherence of information channels to facts rather than fostering political discord, and the media literacy of citizens. 

Strengthening social cohesion and fostering a sense of community could also play a vital role in making societies more resilient to external manipulation. And cooperation between Western nations is equally crucial, as countering hybrid threats often requires a unified response and shared strategies.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin Set a Goal — Failure Would Be an Embarrassment
Swedish TV Did Not Learn Anything From the Riots in the UK
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

What Does the Failure of Hezbollah's Attack Tell Us?

The terrorist organization Hezbollah planned to send 6,000 long-range rockets and drones to Israel. Israeli intelligence apparently uncovered the organization's intentions, resulting in the Israeli Air Force conducting a preemptive strike.

As a result, Hezbollah was able to launch only 320 rockets and drones, most of which were destroyed by Israel's air defense. The outcome was therefore entirely expected.

Expected because there are no intelligent people in Hezbollah's ranks. Instead, there are hordes of fanatical Muslims who, at best, are only capable of making themselves a laughingstock. And that’s exactly what the outcome of the operation showed!

At the same time, they demonstrated that Iran also has no real capability to harm Israel in any significant way. And despite recent bluster, Iran is not going to carry out a major attack against the Jewish state.

Or if they do, it will only prove that they are some kind of monkeys, with no understanding of their own capabilities. But could anyone expect anything different from the leadership of a country whose ideology is fundamentalist Islam?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women
The End of the Holy Soldier of the Arabs
Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel

According to the Israeli army, Hamas cannot be defeated

Israel is stuck in its war in the Gaza Strip. As a result, it has also had to admit that terrorism and the terror-driven Hamas cannot be ideologically destroyed.

According to the army spokesperson, "Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party. It is rooted in people's hearts. Those who think we can destroy Hamas are wrong." He concluded that the only way to overcome Palestinian terror is to find an ideological alternative to it.

Against this backdrop, it was interesting to see an anti-government demonstration in Tel Aviv yesterday, which perhaps had as many as 150,000 participants. The former head of Israel's internal intelligence service also spoke at the event, stating that he considers Netanyahu the worst prime minister in the country's history.

The demonstration, which included rather wild situations as evaluated from a Finnish perspective, demanded two things: new elections and the release of hostages. In other words, the fall of the current Israeli government and goodwill from the terrorists.

The news report did not mention who the participants were, but based on the pictures, they appeared to be Israeli citizens. Thus, the unity of the Jewish state against the enemy seems to be breaking down more seriously.

It remains to be seen how this will affect the ongoing war and its outcome for the Palestinians, the state of Israel, and the hostages. However, it is clear that increasing opposition to the war will not improve Netanyahu's position in the eventual peace negotiations, nor will it improve the situation of the hostages.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack
University of Helsinki gained an anti-Semitic reputation
The first casualty of war is the truth - but whose truth?

Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth

Finnish political media reported that a survey conducted in March revealed that the greatest concern among European youth is the mass migration directed towards our continent. This is considered the biggest worry by 36 percent of the 5,874 German, French, Polish, Greek, Spanish, and Italian youths aged 16-26 who responded to the survey.

The concern over mass immigration is particularly high in Germany, where it is the biggest worry for half of the survey respondents. The restriction of immigration, on the other hand, was most supported by Polish and Greek youths.

Although the survey included many other questions, I highlight only immigration here. This is because it shows that the planned tightening of asylum policies by Finland's current government aligns with the views of the continent's youth.

This is a good thing in itself, but it also shows that the ideologies of young people continue to change from generation to generation, just like other fashions. The key point here is to understand that the prevailing fear of the future will - for the next ten years only - guide population policy in the same way that the previous generation's fear of climate change and its consequences has shaped political actions in recent years.

On this basis, the demographic future of the European Union - and consequently its societal development - looks somewhat brighter than before. In the best case, the youth's concern, combined with the weakening dependency ratio, may even lead to a long-term increase in the currently low birth rate.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change
The Finns rewarded a mass murder with 213,000 euros
Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult

The Guardian misleads its readers

The internationally acclaimed Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, has decided to step down as the leader of the Social Democratic Party of Finland. At the same time, she announced that she will not seek a position as a minister in the upcoming government or run for president.

I have previously expained that despite her international success, Prime Minister Marin has been an inadequate leader. While she is certainly able to present herself convincingly, in the last few years she has been unable to maintain Finland's economy in good condition. Additionally, she has displayed inappropriate behavior by attacking her coalition partners and encouraging voters from other left-wing parties to vote for her own party.

Therefore, it was incomprehensible that the Guardian got excited about writing about Finnish misogyny in Marin's case. If this were the case, could the top three candidates in the elections have been women, or not?

It remains to be seen what kind of government will come to Finland in the coming years. However, it is clear that the voters did not want a new left-wing government: after all, the environmental and left-wing parties only received a third of the votes. And the same amount of seats in the Parliament.

Therefore, it would be appropriate for Finland to have a government that represents the will of the people, with the two largest winners of the election, namely the National Coalition and the Finns Party. It should also be noted that the latter party is not associated with the right-wing ideologies of the parties in the 1930s as insinuated by the Guardian. Instead, it is a conservative and market-oriented popular movement.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is quickly losing her national credibility
Elections in Finland enlight journalistic views
A notable difference between Social Democrats in Sweden and Finland

China is betting on scientific excellence

There are two great powers in the world. That includes both military and economic strength - and the two powers are USA and China. 

Still today USA is much stronger in its economy and also in military force, although statistics still claim Russia would be in the second place in the latter dimension - a claim shown to be wrong by Ukraine. Therefore it was interesting to read about ideas of Xi Jinping in China.

According to the article, Xi opened the Communist party meeting - where he was nominated to his third period as a president of the country - by saying that "regard science and technology as our primary productive force, talent as our primary resource and innovation as our primary driver of growth". That is: China has become to a situation, where they aim to increase their technological readiness above all other countries in the world.

Actually they have been looking for that already for quite a while. During the last years their intention has been to increase the R&D intensity by at least seven percent every year, and if that continues until 2035, it could reach the average of 2,7 percent for countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from the current 2.4 percent of gross domestic product. 

There are, however, obstacles in China´s way towards the leading power of the world. Russian attack to Ukraine has warned political West from relying too strictly on Chinese products, which may reduce monetary income and investments to Xi´s empire. And at the same time, restrict the spread of western innovations to China. 

Even more difficult obstacles might appear from the Chinese cultural tradition restricting criticism towards elder colleagues, which decelerates the spread of novel innovative ideas. Also the decrease of Chinese population due to former one child policy may increase burden to people in working age and cause serious instability in the society. And that would certainly affect negatively also the scientific realm. 

Despite all these obstacles, in my opinion Xi´s decision to bet on scientific excellence is wise. Even if any of the fears turns real, scientific approach is the the best option to find solutions. 

That should also be remembered in the USA, where many universities have fallen to a crisis caused by ultraliberal ideology ("wokeism") questioning even many scientific facts and demanding their replacement with politically correct beliefs. Even though the purpose of liberals may be good, they have forgotten the fact Chinese have realized: a stable, competitive and ultimately fair future can only be built on scientific truth. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
The main consequence of Putin´s attack to Ukraine
Trump is leaving Africa

A new justification is needed for environmental activists

Biodiversity crisis is one of the big environmental issues today. Although the problem is worst in the low latitudes, the topic is intensively discussed also in the European Union, which is in a process of preparing a stringent legislation to save the environment. 

In its current form EU biodiversity strategy would have serious effects on the Nordic forestry, which in Finland gives work to almost 100 000 people, and forms the basis of almost 20 percent of the export value. Despite these economic facts, a considerably higher amount of wood is growing in the Finnish forests now than was hundred years ago.   

One of the keystone species for biodiversity in North-European forests is bilberry. It is a valuable berry that many people are picking in forests, but it also is an extremely important source of food for many wild animals, especially birds - but also the king of the forests, bear. 

The environmentalists have for decades claimed that current forestry practices are reducing the amount of bilberries, and through food chain many other animals (example). The scientific basis supporting their claim are old investigations that showed bilberry area to have reduced between years 1950 and 1995. 

Now a new investigation is ongoing and its first results show that the forest area covered by bilberries has not reduced since 1995, but in contrast it has increased. Therefore the bilberry does not suffer from Nordic forestry, which has intensified between all those years, but may even have benefited on its current practices. 

Neither will many birds suffer from the lack of bilberries, but their reducing numbers result from some other causes. And those may or may not be related to forestry.  

In my opinion this little example demonstrates extremely well the problem typical to fanatic single topic movements. They have decided beforehand - based on their ideology - what is the problem they are opposing, and thereafter they search for evidence supporting their view from wherever that can be found. 

Therefore I do not expect truth about bilberries in Finland to change the opinions of environmental organisations towards commercial forestry. Instead, they will find other issues that seem to support their ideology. And use them against economic activities, that they have decided to oppose. That is, the Nordic forestry.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
Climate change raises dishonesty in the Finnish media