Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The terrorism situation and trend report published by Europol showed that jihadist terrorism was once again the deadliest form of terrorism in the EU in 2024. It claimed five lives and left 18 people injured.

During 2024, EU member states reported a total of 58 terrorist attacks. Of these, 34 were carried out, five failed, and 19 were foiled. Attacks were reported in 14 different countries. Of the attacks, 24 were considered to have been committed by jihadist terrorists. In 21 cases, the perpetrators were left-wing or anarchist terrorists.

On the other hand, a total of 40 attempted attacks were prevented in the European Union. Of these, 18 were jihadist-motivated, 21 left-wing or anarchist-motivated, and one far-right-motivated. The foiled jihadist attempts targeted in particular large public events, whereas the left-wing and anarchist attempts were mostly directed at industrial and private-sector targets.

I believe these figures speak for themselves about the consequences of European immigration policy, without me having to spell them out. Such an understanding would be especially important for left-wing and value-liberal politicians, who have been active supporters of this development.

Unfortunately, however, I am skeptical as to whether they would be able—or even willing—to draw logical conclusions from the figures I have presented, since immigration has long since ceased to be a fact-based issue and has instead become a kind of religious confession, in which dissent automatically leads to exclusion from one’s own reference group—and thus to the end of a political career.

Previous thought on the same topic:
Burning a Man Alive Led to Life Imprisonment
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?

Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator

Probably every one of us knows what a compulsive gambler is like. A person who plays games of chance, losing again and again. Yet they imagine that luck might turn if they just play one more round — or two — and that they might win back the money they've lost.

This came to mind when I read the news that Israel announced the establishment of 22 new settlements in the West Bank. And the country’s defense minister even spoke of turning the area into a Jewish state.

And no, I didn’t mean that Israel, its defense minister, or the Jewish citizens of the country were the compulsive gamblers in this story — rather, the Palestinian Arabs. In 1947, they would have received about half of what is now the territory of Israel. But this was not acceptable to them, and they decided to take a gamble.

That meant launching a war, with the help of surrounding Arab countries, with the aim of driving the Jews into the sea. As part of that effort, Palestinian Arabs were asked to leave their homes, resulting in a large number of Palestinian refugees who have since been barred from returning to Israeli territory.

In the years that followed, several wars broke out between Israel and Arab states. The plight of the Palestinians was not always the direct cause, but in most cases, it was at least a background factor.

Then came the years 1993–2000, during which the Oslo peace process offered the Palestinians the possibility of an independent state comprising the West Bank and Gaza. However, their leader Yasser Arafat refused to sign the agreement that had been reached — because he wanted borders based on the 1947 plan. And so, once again, he and the Palestinians he led decided to roll the dice and continued down the path of various terrorist acts.

As my esteemed readers know, Palestinian terrorists were especially "successful" in their October 2023 attack, which led to Israel taking control of the Gaza Strip. As a result, Israel recently even threatened to evacuate its entire population.

And now, most recently, came the defense minister’s comment about the West Bank: “we will build the Jewish-Israeli state on the ground.” If that plan goes through, the situation would resemble that of a typical compulsive gambler who has already lost all their money, their spouse has left, the job is gone, and even the house is about to be sold off to pay the debts.

So what the Palestinians do in this situation? Well, like all other compulsive gamblers, they naturally decide to play one more round in a game where they, in reality, have virtually no chance of winning — except in the imagination of the compulsive gambler. 

* * *

Incidentally, perhaps the greatest harm to the Palestinians has been done by Western leftists, Greens, and feminists who have, year after year, supported them ever more fervently. Without this constant encouragement, reason might have prevailed even in the mind of a compulsive gambler.

The massive shows of support may have appeared to Palestinian leaders as signs of hope — that although the fronts keep delivering defeat after defeat, perhaps a power shift in the West might someday bring Western countries to their aid.

And maybe, after enduring all that I’ve described above, they might still hit the jackpot — and drive the Jews into the sea. Isn’t that a possibility to believe in, especially when Palestinian flags and banners with clear slogans like “from the river to the sea” wave ever more prominently on Western university campuses, streets, and squares?

In other words, the pro-Palestinian activity in the West resembles a scene from a Western movie, where the shady backroom figure running the saloon’s card table keeps urging the stranger to stay in the rigged game until he’s lost his last dollar.

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, it seems to be too difficult for the Western left, Greens, and feminists to understand this. And there is no noble hero riding into the saloon to shoot the cheating card shark and the filthy-rich saloon owner.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Hamas Exploited Aid and Lost the Support of Many Palestinians
What Would It Take to Make Peace in the Holy Land?
Why Hamas Is Unwilling to Give Up Its Weapons

Finnish Artists Embarrassed Themselves Over the Eurovision Song Contest

Over the weekend, Finland selected a representative for the Eurovision Song Contest. However, I don’t know what kind of song she sings because I stopped following the competition a long time ago.

I decided to write about it today, though, because many well-known Finnish artists with leftist leanings—Eija Ahvo, Eero Ritala, Minna Haapkylä, and Sara Meller—are demanding that Finland’s national broadcaster boycott the contest if Israel participates. Israel’s representative is Yuval Raphael, who survived Hamas’s terrorist attack on the Nova music festival on October 7, 2023, by hiding in a bomb shelter under dead bodies. Despite this, she still has shrapnel in her head and leg from the attack.

To me, the demand made by these Finnish artists in this situation says everything about their morality. In short, it is murderous, criminal, cowardly, utterly rotten, and downright stupid. And for that, I feel deep secondhand embarrassment on their behalf.

However, everyone is responsible for their own words and actions. And it is not the fault of the rest of us Finns if someone wants to showcase their support for terrorism.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Eurovision Song Contest Funding Faces Pushback Due to Woke Ideology
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed
Palestinians: acknowledging facts is the beginning of wisdom!

Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

Yesterday was an important day for Finland and all of Europe, as the parliament approved the so-called return law with a vote of 167-31. In this way, our country has shown our hybrid war-fighting neighbor that Finland will not submit to its victimization.

With the new return law, asylum seekers attempting to enter Finland can be prevented from entering the country, submitting asylum applications, or removed from outside the borders when they are being used as tools of hybrid warfare. Thus, the law is not about violating human rights but about a means to prevent the misuse of the asylum system when its purpose is to destabilize or blackmail the security of Finland and/or Europe.

Unfortunately, 31 members of parliament decided to express with their voting behavior that promoting the hybrid activities of our eastern neighbor is more important to them than the safety of their own people. Therefore, I considered it appropriate to make a list of them so that the irresponsible actions of these politicians would remain in the memory of social media for a long time to come.

The members of parliament who voted against the return law are Li Andersson (Left Alliance), Eva Biaudet (Swedish People's Party), Fatim Diarra (Greens), Tuuna Elo (Greens), Bella Forsgrén (Greens), Timo Furuholm (Left Alliance), Elisa Gebhard (Social Democrats), Pekka Haavisto (Greens), Timo Harakka (Social Democrats), Atte Harjanne (Greens), Hanna Holopainen (Greens), Veronica Honkasalo (Left Alliance), Inka Hopsu (Greens), Saara Hyrkkö (Greens), Krista Kiuru (Social Democrats), Mai Kivelä (Left Alliance), Anna Kontula (Left Alliance), Minja Koskela (Left Alliance), Johan Kvarnström (Social Democrats), Merja Kyllönen (Left Alliance), Laura Meriluoto (Left Alliance), Krista Mikkonen (Greens), Matias Mäkynen (Social Democrats), Maria Ohisalo (Greens), Aino-Kaisa Pekonen (Left Alliance), Jenni Pitko (Greens), Nasima Razmyar (Social Democrats), Jussi Saramo (Left Alliance), Hanna Sarkkinen (Left Alliance), Oras Tynkkynen (Greens), and Sofia Virta (Greens).

Of the people on the list, 23 or 74 percent are women, and the remaining 26 percent are men. In other words, female members of parliament are significantly more inclined than their male colleagues to act as Vladimir Putin's helpers or at least his useful idiots.

Among them, Eva Biaudet belongs to a government party, so there will likely be consequences for her voting behavior. Otherwise, those who have chosen to act as Russia's stooges represented the extreme or slightly more moderate left.

It was also significant that all three members of parliament with a developing country background - Diarra, Forsgrén, and Razmyar - supported Putin. This suggests that Finland's security is not important to them, or they are unable to understand the threat posed by Russia. This is, of course, unfortunate, because one would especially expect them to appreciate the security of their current home country.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and Western Europe: Effectively at War
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
Change of immigration policy and development cooperation