Finnish Immigration Policy Limits Freedom of Expression

According to the national security review published by the Finnish Security Intelligence Service on Tuesday, homeschooling may, in the long run, increase security threats related to the fragmentation of society. This risk is heightened by the fact that it is extremely difficult for authorities to monitor the teaching that takes place in homeschooling and in informal homeschooling institutions.

The parliamentary parties also share concern about these security threats. Their proposed solutions range from more effective oversight of homeschooling to an unambiguous compulsory school attendance requirement, with exceptions granted only for extremely compelling reasons.

It is therefore likely that the next government programme will include more or less radical restrictions on children’s homeschooling. At the same time, this would reduce people’s freedom of choice regarding the upbringing of their children.

In practice, this change is occurring as a result of the immigration policy pursued in Finland, because it has brought both radical Islamism and—partly as a reaction to it, as well as to other forms of “wokeism”—far-right extremism into our society. According to the head of the Finnish Security Intelligence Service, Juha Martelius, these are precisely the kinds of undesirable phenomena that are increasingly being promoted in homeschooling environments.

It remains to be seen, however, how well the negative impact of immigration on people’s freedom will be recognized in Finnish public debate. That is, on the constitutional right which states that “everyone has the right to life, personal liberty, integrity and security.”

The debate about compulsory schooling described above is, of course, only part of this process. It is also connected to, for example, threats and fears related to safety—especially for women but also for young people—as well as restrictions on freedom of speech in accordance with an Orwellian understanding of language.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Jimmie Åkesson Is Sweden’s Most Widely Accepted Politician
On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk
Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Maahanmuuttopolitiikka rajoittaa ihmisten valinnanvapautta

Donald Trump Called a Shooter an Animal

This morning’s news feed reported that a 29-year-old Afghan who moved to the country in 2021 has shot two members of the United States National Guard. The incident took place in Washington, the capital of the USA – and reportedly very close to the White House.

President Donald Trump has called the event an act of terror and referred to the perpetrator as an animal. In addition, he has vowed that the Afghan will pay a very high price for his actions.

It remains to be seen what the criminal investigation will ultimately conclude regarding the shooting incident. However, it is already generally clear that the case can be linked to the broader issues associated with the migration of Muslim people from developing countries to Western democracies.

It is equally certain that this case will not halt the so-called humanitarian immigration policy, but that it will continue as before. As a result, Western culture will gradually transform into a more polarized society, in which the ethno-cultural character of the population differs significantly from what it was before the turn of the millennium.

It should be noted, though, that this development is ultimately the result of political decisions. Therefore, the development I described above is not a law of nature, but rather the choice of Western people themselves. And as such, it – and its outcome – can be changed, should that be desired.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Just Another Case of Multiculturality in Manchester, UK
The Cost of the East Jerusalem Attack for Palestinians — and Its Echo Worldwide
Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The original blogposti in Finnish:
29-vuotias afgaani ammuskeli

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

An Economist’s Fact-Based Response to Polarizing Tax Claims

A social democratic think tank recently sought to fuel polarization between low- and high-income earners by claiming that the government’s decision to slightly ease tax progression would only benefit the very highest earners. To support this argument, the think tank used euro-denominated comparisons, which naturally make the differences appear large—especially between the very top earners and the rest of the population.

This narrative was swallowed whole by Finland’s two biggest media outlets—namely the publicly owned Yleisradio and the privately owned Helsingin Sanomat. Both repeated the claims without any critical scrutiny, effectively acting as a loudspeaker for a politically aligned left-wing think tank. Their coverage was soon challenged by Sami Pakarinen, Chief Economist of the Confederation of Finnish Industries, who presented a series of facts on social media.

* * *

According to Pakarinen, “Finland will lower its top marginal tax rate at the beginning of next year from 58% to 52%. This has been recommended for years, as Finland’s top rates are among the very highest in the world.”

He elaborated by noting: “In 2017, the IMF recommended that the top marginal rate should be capped at 44%. The OECD average is around 35%. Even after the reform, Finland remains well above this ceiling.”

Pakarinen also reminded readers that “the top 14% of earners pay 49% of all income taxes. When it comes to net public transfers, the top decile shoulders the lion’s share.” In fact, he emphasized that “Finland redistributes income through taxation more than any other OECD country.”

Furthermore, contrary to the social democratic think tank’s claims, he argued that “the self-financing ratio of the tax cut is very likely above 100%. In other words, by lowering taxes, the state will actually collect more revenue. Recent research points in this direction, and there is finally a growing consensus among economists.”

* * *

For international readers, it is worth noting that research shows the majority of journalism students in Finland lean toward the green-left. Perhaps this helps to explain why Finland’s otherwise exceptionally free press—at least in international comparison—can nevertheless appear remarkably one-sided. In practice, it often leans toward planned-economy thinking and value liberalism, as this very case illustrates.

As a result of all this, one is entitled to ask: what exactly are Yleisradio and Helsingin Sanomat aiming at by repeating the left’s polarizing and misleading claims as if they were facts? A society divided along American lines—or even outright revolution?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Jesuit Morality in Crime Reporting on Immigrants
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?

Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts

The world has changed significantly in this millennium. What used to be considered normal, even self-evident, is today not always even acceptable.

A startling example of this change appeared in Finland when two schoolboys got into a fierce fight, throwing punches and kicks at each other. A teacher tried to break it up by ordering them to stop, but to no avail.

So the teacher finally grabbed one of the boys and lifted him out of the situation. The hitting and kicking stopped, and no one was seriously injured.

But then something completely unexpected happened. One of the parents filed charges against the teacher, claiming that milder methods could have been used. What those methods might have been—given that the teacher had already ordered the boys verbally to stop—has never been explained publicly.

In any case, at the parents’ initiative, a legal process began that lasted a full year and a half before the prosecutor decided that the teacher’s actions would not be taken to court. It is clear that this time was extremely difficult for the teacher.

We can only guess how such a case will affect teachers’ willingness to intervene in schoolyard fights—not in a positive direction, surely. And for that reason it must be said that, as a consequence of the case I have described, school life likely became a little less safe than it once was.

For my part, I see this case as yet another indication that the value shifts of the 21st century—BLM, DEI, Woke culture, intersectional feminism, and so forth—do not make the world a better place. Instead, they seem to be leading to a decline in care for one another, double standards, less openness, and increasing social polarization in all kinds of ways, despite the fact that the stated aim was the exact opposite.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Library Scrubs Queer Creator’s Character from Moomin Exhibit
Why Finnish Youth Are Abandoning the Green Party

Newsom Rising, Unity Fading

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s chances of becoming the next President of the United States increased significantly after the current head of state, Donald Trump, decided to use tough measures to quell the riots in Los Angeles.

If—and when—this happens, it will mean a further deepening of the divide within the United States. This is because Newsom belongs to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and will likely face off against a Trump-aligned Republican. 

This does not bode well for the global superpower that has led the world for a long time, and which is increasingly being challenged by China economically, militarily, and politically. Nor is it good news for Western Europe, where people have, for far too long, operated under the assumption that the U.S. will selflessly take care of global security matters without EU countries investing in their own defense to the same extent.

That’s why it is important for Americans, after the Trump era, to succeed in finding more common ground rather than allowing politically opposed leaders to dig even deeper trenches between different segments of the population. And neither Newsom nor his potential Trumpist opponent is the right person to lead such a unifying process.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ego at the Altar
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?
Europe Needs Leadership and Urgent Defense Actions

Acts of Vandalism Against a Political Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police Ban Public Fight Between Neo-Nazis and Street Gangs in Finland

Humanitarian immigration has led to the polarization of Western societies. This is also the case in Finland, which has, in many ways, followed in Sweden's footsteps, repeating the mistakes made there one after another.

In this context, an interesting piece of news emerged, reporting that Finnish neo-Nazis and street gang members were planning an event where they could fight each other. The matches would end with a knockout, surrender, or interruption. Participants could kick opponents who were down on the ground, and there would be no rest rounds. However, eye-gouging and causing damage to areas such as the groin would not be allowed.

The idea of the event was essentially a brutal bare-knuckle fight, and the organizer believed that bringing opposing groups together in the same event could reduce confrontation. Tickets for the fight had already been sold, and the organizer expressed a desire to turn such fights into international events.

However, the authorities intervened and banned the event, stating that, according to the police, "it did not appear to be a sports event… The compliance with rules and the health risks involved in the event could potentially constitute a criminal offense."

As a result, Finland will not follow Sweden's example in this case. In Sweden, such matches have reportedly already been held. However, I am not aware of any data on the extent of health consequences or the alleged reduction in conflict between neo-Nazis and street gangs. In any case, it’s a relief that Finland refrains from adopting every foolish idea the Swedish society might offer.

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

A Major Victory for the Freedom Party in Austria's Regional Elections

The ultra-liberal immigration policies of Europe’s traditional parties are heading for a dead end. One sign of this is the local elections held in Styria, Austria, where the immigration-critical Freedom Party achieved as much as approximately 35% of the vote.

The Styrian conservatives received 26.8% of the vote, and the Social Democrats 21.1%. Thus, these parties have the possibility to form a majority coalition if they ally, for example, with the Greens or the Liberals.

In such a situation, smaller parties would have a disproportionate opportunity to influence policy. However, such a solution would not diminish the policies that 35% of voters opposed. Moreover, forming such an "unholy alliance" against the Freedom Party would intensify societal polarization.

A similar situation applies across Europe. In Finland, democracy has been taken seriously, meaning that the immigration-critical Finns Party has participated in responsible governance as part of a coalition led by the National Coalition Party. As a result, immigration policies have been rationalized in many ways and will continue to be so until the end of the government’s term.

However, it appears that in many European countries, normal democratic practices are being opposed by labeling parties with support from tens of percent of voters as unsuitable for cooperation. This, in turn, continues to polarize society, election after election. I wouldn’t call such an approach either reasonable or constructive.

Previous thoughts on the same topics:
The Fall of Germany’s Government Could Open the EU’s Path to a Better Future
Cancellation of Taylor Swift's Concert in Austria Was a Success for the Terrorists
French Election Results: A Deep Dive into Tactical Voting and Its Implications

Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

The President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, was interviewed on the Fox channel, which aligns with the US Republicans. However, he did not comment on the relative merits of the presidential candidates but stated that regardless of who leads the United States, Finland will get along with him.

Stubb also noted with satisfaction that an increasing number of NATO member countries have invested the agreed two percent of their GDP in defense. He gave credit for this to the former US president who brought up the issue at the time.

Instead of addressing specific issues, he mentioned that the political discourse in the US has become toxic, and he does not want the free world to emulate it. This can also be interpreted as a comment on Finland's domestic political debate, which also has become unnecessarily polarized in recent years.

He also suggested that the US and Finland could deepen their defense cooperation, for example, in the field of icebreakers, as 80 percent of the world's icebreakers are designed and 60 percent are manufactured in Finland. However, it remains to be seen whether the Pentagon will take up this offer.

Overall, I was quite skeptical of Alexander Stubb's ability to serve as president after he was elected. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that, in my view, he has performed his duties very well thus far, as also evidenced by the interview seen on Fox.

One can only hope that this continues in the future. And that the US also gets a political leader in the upcoming elections who exceeds the expectations of the voters.

* * *

At the same time, the presidential race in the United States is intensifying. The latest development was an assassination attempt on a candidate, resulting in the death of one likely Donald Trump voter, as well as the shooter. Additionally, at least two people were seriously injured.

However, it is likely that Trump's support among voters has rather increased than decreased as a result of the assassination attempt, given that Trump himself sustained a minor injury. This is partly because, during the heated campaign, some Democrats have carelessly expressed wishes for violence against Trump - a fact his supporters are not shy to highlight.

The incident is also serious in terms of freedom of speech. The central question is whether last night's shooting would have occurred without the Democrats' violent rhetoric. Or were those statements ultimately irrelevant, with the shooter's motive emerging from "ordinary" political discourse, which is, in any case, extremely polarized in the United States.

We will never get a definitive answer to these questions, as the shooter is not here to tell. And this will not change, no matter how much the background of the incident is analyzed by any group of political commentators.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine can and will stop Putin
Finns want a border law
Biden's dementia and Trump's speeches may improve European security

The future of all Europe is at stake

Europe has long been undergoing significant change. Amid their prosperity, the continent's original inhabitants have had fewer children, while at the same time, a diverse array of people have been flooding in from developing countries.

As a result, numerous political parties have emerged in European democracies that are critical of the ongoing changes. These include parties like Finland's Finns Party, Sweden's Sweden Democrats, Germany's Alternative for Germany, and Italy's Brothers of Italy.

Many of these parties performed exceptionally well in the recent EU parliamentary elections. This was also the case in France, where the success of the National Rally prompted President Emmanuel Macron to call for new elections.

The first round of those elections takes place today and could have a significant impact on Europe's future. The latest opinion polls predict that the National Rally could garner as much as 35-37% of the vote, while Macron's forces could come in third with about 20-21%. The united left is positioned in between.

If the election results follow the polls, it would mean significant polarization in French society, where these forces, unwilling to cooperate with each other, would try to find a solution on how to move the country forward.

Thus, it remains to be seen – if the election results match the predictions – how French politics will shape up in the coming years. Will they take examples from countries like Finland, where immigration criticism has been included in the government program by building effective cooperation among the right-wing parties in parliament, especially the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party?

However, France's situation differs from Finland in two ways. Firstly, its Muslim population is significantly larger – around ten percent – and secondly, it has not been customary to seek pragmatic consensus between different political forces.

It is already clear at this stage that the immigration policies practiced in Europe have led to a new political situation in France – and the entire continent – which will ultimately define the kind of world the descendants of the cradle of Western culture will live in the future. Therefore, it can be rightly said that the stakes of the French elections are the future of all of Europe.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Marxist far-right and bullies
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
Prediction: Sharia law in force in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and France by the year 2044

Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry

In recent times, there has been an ongoing debate in Finland, where the country's leading newspaper - Helsingin Sanomat - has unearthed old social media messages of ministers that are alleged to be racist. The purpose behind this is to bring down the right-wing government, in which the second smallest party - the Swedish People's Party - is struggling with these issues.

As this has continued for a sufficient period, even those supporting the government have started to search for similar writings from Helsingin Sanomat journalists. The latest revelation includes a few years old social media post by the newspaper's executive editor-in-chief's spouse, Saska Saarikoski. In that post, there was a demand for the then British Prime Minister's head to be placed on London Bridge to dry. Saarikoski has not apologized for his writing.

In a previous case, a nearly ten-year-old article from Helsingin Sanomat was also brought up, in which readers were encouraged to come up with derogatory nicknames for Estonians. The newspaper's editorial staff has not apologized for this message either.

It remains to be seen where this exchange of words will lead. However, it is evident that such confrontation is not beneficial for either the development of Finnish society or its reputation abroad.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
An ignorant mediahouse failed again in historical facts
Why a journalist was unaware on the number of Stalin´s victims?
Climate change raises dishonesty in the Finnish media
 

History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people

This is the third part of a blog series in which I go through the significant phases of Finnish history. In the second post, I described how Finland became a part of an early modern state, where the power was concentrated in the hands of the king, who also had the means to use it.

After Gustav Vasa, there was a long power struggle in Sweden. First, the throne was inherited by Eric XIV, then John III, and his son Sigismund. Finally, after various twists and turns, Dude Charles, i.e., Charles IX, came to power. During this power struggle, the Swedish nobility tactfully maneuvered between the different parties and thus managed to improve its position, which was also strengthened by the wars that Sweden was fighting at the same time - after all, the nobility was ultimately a military class.

The longest of the Swedish wars was the war between Sweden and Russia at the end of the 16th century, which was preceded by a heated exchange of words. This 25-year-long conflict, known as the "Long Wrath," ended with the Treaty of Tyavzino in 1595, in which victorious Sweden's power expanded to include areas from the depths of the Gulf of Finland to the desolate borders of Lapland.

Sweden fought the war using a mercenary army, as was customary at the time, and the maintenance of this so-called castle camp was a burden on the peasants. There were widespread abuses associated with this, resulting in people having to sell their valuables and even their land due to financial difficulties. Thus, the wealth gap between the estates grew rapidly.

After the Treaty of Tyavzino, the peasants assumed that their burdens would end, but this did not happen. Instead, Klaus Fleming, the governor appointed by King Sigismund Vasa - who was staying in Poland - and effectively the dictator of Finland, kept his army ready. This provided the nobility and the wealthiest segment of the peasant population, the cavalry farmers, the opportunity to continue to increase their profits during peacetime as they had done during wartime by equipping the cavalry.

Since the maintenance of garrisons had severely impoverished ordinary peasants during the long war, the future seemed extremely bleak for them. This created a tremendous fear among the people of becoming tied to their estates as serfs, as had happened earlier in Central Europe.

As a result, Finland's first civil war, known as the "Cudgel War" erupted, and Fleming's cavalry brutally defeated the peasant armies: nearly 3,000 peasants were killed, a remarkably high number considering that there were less than 30,000 farms in Finland at the end of the 16th century. The outcome of the lost war was the formation of a class society, in which the legal and economic status of the common people was weak, and the position of the nobility was even stronger than before.

The original blog post in Finnish:
Kansan aseman oikeudellinen ja taloudellinen heikentyminen

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future

Riots in Sweden: what next?

Sweden has had the most liberal immigration policy of all EU countries. As a result, the country has a notably large population of people with their roots in developing countries, some of the world´s highest records of sexual crimes and poor results in PISA-tests. 

During the few recent days many Swedish towns have faced incredible riots with police being violently  attacked and its vehicles damaged. The unrest started as a Danish right-wing politician announced he would burn Quran, and Muslims responded again as Pavlov´s dogs, and started their violent behavior against the Swedish society as expected.

It remains to be seen what happens now in Sweden as the riots have been more serious than ever before. Are they able to find and punish those responsible on the damages? Will they narrow the freedom of speech and expression? Or will they change their immigration policy, and perhaps effectively return criminals and people without a residence permit to their home countries?

And most importantly: will any of those actions - if conducted - change anything? Or has Sweden gone over a kind of a borderline of no return, and will continue towards a highly polarized society, where people and their neighborhoods are divided by religion, language and skin color?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The arrival of caliphate citizens must be prevented
Rape statistics in Finland and Sweden are breaking prejudices