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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blame the Philanthropist Or Understand the Facts

Every person who follows current events even a little understands that the mass migration from developing countries to Europe has led to a new type of crime, with extreme manifestations seen this year in e.g. Magdeburg, Germany, or earlier in Paris, France.

More common forms of immigration-related crime, however, include sexual crimes directed at women—sometimes even mass rapes—as well as the formation of gangs among young immigrants and their battles, for example, over control of drug markets. And, of course, the humiliation crimes committed against the native children.

Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone has the understanding needed to acknowledge these facts. This was exemplified—once more—when a book was published in our country, Finland, claiming that the root of the immigrant problem lies with the native people.

The logic of the book's authors is that the arriving immigrants have supposedly been pushed to the margins of society, and their offspring made to believe that they can never belong to the community. This marginalization, the book argues, has been achieved by failing to provide these people with sufficient support upon their arrival.

In reality, however, these immigrants have received more support in Finland than any other group of migrants before them (an example and another). And yet they are the first group to cause widespread and shocking levels of crime. Not even the Ukrainians who arrived afterward have caused such issues.

Therefore, the true reasons behind the problems caused by immigrants from developing countries must be sought within the newcomers themselves. Do they have a culture that is incompatible with Western society? Or is there a pattern of mate selection among them that has led to inbreeding and, as a result, unstable behavior and reduced intelligence?

We all know the answers to these questions, of course. What I fail to understand is why someone has published a book blaming the philanthropist—for that is what taking in immigrants in need truly is—while completely ignoring the other factors leading to the phenomenon in question.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Immigrants, Gangs, Decisions, and Self-Interest
Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?
Should the Dutch Do Something About the Fact That Immigrants Don't Tolerate Visiting Jews?

The Lenin Museum Will No Longer Serve as a Reminder of the Dangers of Political Correctness

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was the leader of the Russian Revolution and the first dictator of the Soviet Union. Among his most notable achievements in this position was the starvation of at least five million people due to his idiotic agricultural policies.

Less well known, however, is Lenin's history in my home country. During his exile, he often operated from Finland.

Lenin first expressed his support for Finland's independence at meetings held in Tampere in 1905 and 1906, in the building that now houses the Lenin Museum. The Soviet dictator did not do this out of goodwill but rather to weaken Tsarist Russia.

After his revolution, Lenin hoped that newly independent Finland would fall into a revolution that would bring it back into the fold of Soviet Russia. To this end, he incited the left, which indeed launched a bloody rebellion in 1918.

Today, it was reported in the Finnish press that the Lenin Museum, which I mentioned earlier, has seen more visitors this summer than in a long time. The reason is likely that the museum is set to close on November 3rd.

Thus, one monument to a time when Finland sought to secure its independence by avoiding provoking the eastern superpower is closing. This strategy was quite successful in that Finland remained independent, but the price was the eventual withering of Western-style democracy and the media's descent into the "woke" phenomenon of its time, where all opinions critical of the Soviet Union were condemned as politically incorrect and heretical.

This fate eventually befell even the largest right-wing party, the National Coalition Party, which subsequently joined the ruling center-left in adhering to the same policy of silence on certain facts. In doing so, it had to abandon the virtues of open democracy and freedom of speech.

All of this is relevant in the current world, where there are also attempts to condemn views based on people's own experiences and understanding as politically incorrect, regardless of their truth. In this sense, it is a shame that the Lenin Museum is closing, as it serves as a reminder of a time when Finland gradually slid into its own "truth," where black was white if the country's political leadership decreed it so in fear of the Soviet Union.

If my dear reader notes similarities in this writing to recent events in the United Kingdom or Ireland, Olympics or the changes in the workplace experienced in many Western countries, they may very well be on the right track.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
A young woman skiing in a swimsuit caused a controversy among women
Nightwish and the Disney Company

The Relationship Between the Professor and Teemu Selänne

On the discussion forum of a Finnish newspaper Uusi Suomi, a Green municipal councilor referred to me by writing that "'Professor' is indeed a Selänne". The perspective was interesting in that I have not been very interested in the life of the former Finnish hockey star.

Then I noticed a small article about Teemu Selänne in Ilta-Sanomat. According to it, he has received US citizenship and has been active on social media. Through the newspaper's reporter, he conveyed a few interesting comments to us Finns.

In the first, he explained his view on Extinction Rebellion: "It's not about not accepting demonstrations. That's not true. The criticism was about how they are organized... In my opinion, demonstrations are a great thing, but breaking the law and making people's lives difficult is not acceptable."

In the second, he commented on the intellectual dishonesty of the green-left: "The whining is quite loud sometimes. It's funny that those who whine demand freedom of opinion and speech, but suddenly differing opinions are not okay."

In the third, he reminded us of the rules of societal debate: "If you have something to say about a matter, it needs to be said. But there's no point in coming to explain that I am an asshole or something about our children. That's not okay."

In the fourth, he addressed the presidential elections in his new home country, USA: "It's vague that in a country of 330 million people, there are no other candidates than two old men... It might be appropriate to head towards younger candidates and a bit of a new style."

In the fifth, he shared his view on society: "I still believe that the state should interfere in people's lives as minimally as possible. Individual power and personal decisions are the most important."

In the sixth, he commented on how the media chooses sides: "It's a bit like listening only to the prosecutor in court. You don't get the right picture. When I started following politics, I was told to watch both channels, CNN and Fox, equally. Those who only watch one side do not have a true picture of what is happening."

All in all, the article in Ilta-Sanomat conveyed Teemu Selänne's societal views in such a healthy way that any reasonably sensible person would easily agree with the thoughts he expressed. Therefore, I do not mind the characterization of myself recorded in the comments section of Uusi Suomi. Not even because that particular Green municipal politician later claimed in his comment that "the professor's thoughts" are not worth reading.

Instead, I suspect that this is precisely why an exceptionally large number of people reading the discussion clicked on the link to my writing - which in turn led me to find out why there had been an unusually high number of readers for that particular writing on Uusi Suomi.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Joe Biden Must Step Aside, But Can a Suitable Candidate Be Found?
Competence of the political left
Correct minister, ridiculous facts

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?

Strong statement or intellectual dishonesty in COP27?

A historical decision was made in COP27 meeting in Egypt. According to that, wealthy countries will pay for developing ones from damages attributable to the climatic change, which is considered to happen due to the wealthy nations.

The decision was made, and I can only accept it. I would, however, like to hear if developing countries are willing to give up those modern things, which were created along the development that led to the compensations decided. That is: vehicles, flights, internet, phones, electricity etc... 

I think that would be a great sign of their willingness to refuse from such a negative developments, that their innovators are expected to pay for their existence. In others words, staying in each nation´s own innovations would make a strong statement on their willingness to stick in a sustainable way of life. 

If no one shows any willingness to give up those harmful innovations, I am afraid that the decision of compensation made in the COP27 meeting looks like intellectual dishonesty and only a new way to transfer money from north to south. Which may or may not be well justified due to some other reasons. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
China is betting on scientific excellence
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
World Resources Institute had an arrogant demand

Most useless organisations of our time

Amnesty International has claimed that Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians by setting up military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals and launching attacks from populated civilian areas. That strongly supports Russian aggression against its neighbor.

The Amnesty´s claim is intellectually dishonest and shows how loosely the organisation is connected to the real world. That was also noticed by its Ukrainian sub-organisation, which decided to resign from the report. After all, Ukrainians are using empty buildings - that hardly endangers anybody´s safety.  

The United Nations has not been able to stop the Russian attack. Instead, the veto-right of Russia has halted all decision making in the organisation. Therefore it is clear, that solution to the crisis can only be based on other solutions. That is, military force.

After all this, the ultimate destiny of the UN may be similar to the League of Nations, which was replaced by the UN after not being able to prevent the second world war. The main problem with UN was that great powers - like Soviet Union in 1940´s - always refuse to make agreements that may turn against them, and therefore included the veto-right to the greatest powers of the time. 

Taken together, right now it looks like Amnesty International and United Nations would be two of the most useless organisations of our time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Pacifism - a respectable tool to support inhumane dictators and warlords
How can Vladimir Putin survive from his propaganda after the Russian loss in Ukraine?
Is Gerhard Schoeder of Germany ignorant, troll or stupid?

Should forbidden questions be answered or not?

In the past, it was common to characterize different groups of people bluntly. For example, about the appearance of the dark-skinned African population, it could be said even in school textbooks that "the negro is black or brown in color, the hair is black and curly like sheep´s wool. The lips are strong, the nose is low and the teeth are crooked."

The characterization did not only concern people´s appearance, but also all kinds of claims were made about the nature of different races. For example someone could have said that "a negro never works if he only has enough to eat". Or "they are never angry, that´s why they are too cheerful. Our rowers also sing and talk from morning to night."

Today such characterizations are not scientifically justified nor acceptable. However, forbidden topics are not limited to words that sound stupid or to inaccurate generalizations, but for example scientific inquiry of mental differences between different human groups or people´s cultures are considered politically incorrect. 

This is despite the fact that we know, for example, intelligence to be inherited quite similarly to height - and that there are hereditary differences in people´s heights between groups of people. Logically it would be concluded -  if that was not politically incorrect - that intelligence differences between different groups of people are highly probable.

These thoughts came to my mind, when I was reading one of the recent news from Haiti. According to it, serious violence is taking place in the country due to increasing prizes of food. The situation was described as "a real battlefield. It is impossible to estimate how many people have died."

As you may remember, when Haiti became independent, a massacre of nearly all the remaining white men, women, children was conducted. In just three months several thousand whites were killed, including those who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population. 

Thereafter, Haitians have had dominantly African ancestry. At the same time, the country is the poorest in the Western hemisphere, and - as now - suffers time after time from violence. Neither have we seen welfare states created by African people in Africa (although the Republic of South Africa has been able to keep and even increase its relatively high standard of living after whites stepped out from the power). The question not scientifically addressed is, that does the genetics or culture of Haitians as Afro-American have anything to do with their poverty?

Naturally I have no answer to that, but in my opinion it would be beneficial if such questions could be subjected to scientific inquiry. If it would be proven that people or culture of a country matters, that information could also be used in finding ways to minimize such an effect if negative. In contrast, refusing research on forbidden topics will only guarantee the continuation of people´s suffering in the future.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
American black population more vulnerable to the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2
World Resources Institute had an arrogant demand
Seeing sex developed novel cultures

Pacifism - a respectable tool to support inhumane dictators and warlords

Former president of Germany, Joachim Glauck, has commented pacifism. He said that it is respectable, but it does not lead to good. It only cements the supremacy of bad people, i.e. inhumane and criminal actors.

He also said that the political systems of Russia and China deprives people from an opportunity to influence political decision makers and thus support power of a small elite. And such authoritarian countries and dictatorships are increasingly questioning the global system based on values and rules.

Also Ville Brummer, an expert of CMI - Martti Ahtisaari foundation founded by the Nobel Laureate Martti Ahtisaari, has commented global situation. According to him "what is happening now in Ukraine is perhaps the result of a longer global trend". 

He pointed out that during the recent years, we have seen that people in many countries have been less dedicated to solve conflicts peacefully and more willing to use of violence.  And listed Nagorno-Karabakh, Ethiopia and Myanmar as examples.

Taken together, it will be of utmost importance that the war in Ukraine will not end in anything that Russia could claim as a success or achievement. Such a result would work as a stimulant to all those dictators and authoritarian countries that could consider war of aggression as a viable option in their politics.

Unfortunately Joachim Glauck is right, and pacifism is only intellectual dishonesty, and has nothing to give for the global peace and justice. Instead, it is an efficient tool to support those people - inhumane dictators, warlords and criminals - whose actions threat the global peace and development.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Gerhard Schoeder of Germany ignorant, troll or stupid?
Finnish general to Scholz and Macron: no reason to negotiate with a terrorist
It takes heroes to avoid genocide