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

Should the Dutch Do Something About the Fact That Immigrants Don't Tolerate Visiting Jews?

One of the greatest public secrets of our time is that not all people and cultures are the same. We received a tangible example of this yesterday, when groups carrying Palestinian flags attacked Jewish supporters of the visiting team after a football match in the Netherlands, causing significant harm. Even non-Jewish tourists found themselves in difficult situations.

Naturally, Dutch police intervened and detained at least 60 rioters, and ultimately the Israeli government planned to send planes to bring Israeli football fans home from the Netherlands. The question, of course, is how such incidents are possible in a country that, just a few decades ago, was known for its exceptional freedom and liberal values.

I’m confident that my esteemed readers understand the answer to this question even without my explanation. However, I’m less certain whether this understanding extends to the decision-makers in politics. And whether they’ll reach the consensus that similar incidents will recur if immigration policies in the EU are not significantly altered.

So, we’ll see whether, in this case as well, the event will be lamented for a while, the attackers of Jewish people will receive minor punishments, but the real issue will be left unaddressed. Or will the Dutch government show the resolve that voters expected from it in the 2023 elections? And take actions that would halt the growth of problematic immigrant groups in the Netherlands, in the EU, and thus also in Finland.

That is at least what Geert Wilders demands, as he wrote on social media, "A pogrom in the streets of #Amsterdam. We have become the Gaza of Europe. Muslims with Palestinian flags hunting down Jews. I will NOT accept that. NEVER. The authorities will be held accountable for their failure to protect the Israeli citizens."

Never again.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Palestinian Youth Require More Understanding, Less Aggression
A woman's logic, Putin's test, and the Netherlands' change
The Rwanda Law of Britain paves the way for the future of Western Europe

Javier Milei of Argentina Called England a Dystopian Socialist Nightmare

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, faced a crisis after several white girls were stabbed, followed by demonstrations against British immigration policies that included some violent individuals. Then, he—or his cabinet—made a major mistake by adopting a two-tiered approach, favoring Muslims and targeting British rioters.

As a solution, the courts started to impose strict punishments on people for their social media posts. According to the Argentinian President, Javier Milei, this indicated that England was transforming into a dystopian socialist nightmare.

Milei: "we are undertaking a change of paradigm, not only economic, but also social, political and cultural. And with this change we are going against the direction that in recent times many countries in the world are undertaking. While other countries propose censorship, we propose freedom of expression.

Look at just what is happening in England, since the socialists came to power, they are putting people in jail for posting on social networks.  Well, the journalists here would also like it because, let's say, they don't like that they have lost the mic, the monopoly of the microphone and to be able to use that tool to distort and dirty, slander at no cost.

The social networks send them invoices and they don't like it. Stop looking for ghosts. They are receiving the same thing they did, but nothing more than people do it organically because they realized that many of them are criminals. In turn, while others are getting closer and closer to falling into cultural and religious wars, which will eventually expel people from their countries of origin, we invite the rest of the free world to participate in a country under reconstruction."

Well said and truthful, but it's unlikely to ever be reported in the Finnish mainstream media. And perhaps not in the English media either?  

I would not have believed this could happen in Western Europe. And I am happy that in Finland, there is no fear of the authorities because of social media posts. That's why I dare to bring this matter to your attention, my esteemed international and Finnish readers.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Freedom of Speech in Danger
Swedish TV Did Not Learn Anything From the Riots in the UK
Elections in the UK: A Shift Toward Hand-Waving Politics?

The UK Prime Minister Took a One-Sided Stance on the Country's Protests

A knife attack by an immigrant-background individual at a children's dance event has led to escalating protests in the UK. You can get a fairly comprehensive picture of these protests from this social media thread.

According to the thread, violence has been committed by anti-immigration protesters—some of whom are far-right extremists—as well as Muslim immigrants. Additionally, it appears that "woke" leftists have also been involved in the violence.

However, this does not change the fact that the majority of protesters have not engaged in any violence but have simply wanted to express their dissatisfaction with the immigration policies being practiced in their country. These people are most likely ordinary Britons.

* * *

A separate issue involves the attacks on two hotels housing asylum seekers. In Tamworth, a town with a population of about 80,000, there have been incidents of rape, some of which were committed by individuals with immigrant backgrounds, though not all.

Rotherham is a slightly larger town, known for a child abuse ring that operated for about 30 years, during which Pakistani men sexually abused around 1,400 girls and women.

Authorities have been aware of this situation since at least 1990, but the operation was not shut down until 23 years later. This delay was due to a combination of factors, including race, class, religion, and gender.

There was fear that the ethnicity of the perpetrators would lead to accusations of racism, as well as contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the primarily working-class victims. Additionally, authorities were concerned with protecting the town’s reputation, their training was inadequate, and they struggled to find the resources to investigate the matter.

Therefore, it is extremely interesting that Rotherham has now come to the forefront of these events, with an attack on a hotel doing business with migrants from developing countries. And I can fully understand the reasons why the town does not welcome immigrants who come solely for the high social welfare in the UK.

* * *

The UK's newly appointed Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has naturally commented on the events. According to him, people in UK have the right to feel safe, and yet we have seen Muslim communities being targeted, mosques attacked, other minority communities persecuted, Nazi salutes made on the streets, police officers attacked, and baseless violence used alongside racist rhetoric. So, he has no hesitation in calling that as far-right hooliganism.

However, referring back to the social media thread I linked at the beginning, it would have generally been better if the Prime Minister had not taken sides at this point, but rather condemned all forms of violence. This is true even though the violence was undoubtedly initiated by anti-immigration young men, whom Starmer likely meant by the term "far-right."

A more neutral stance has indeed been taken by some. For example, Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Donna Jones, who is also a Conservative politician, condemned the rioters but also criticized the Prime Minister’s actions.

According to Jones, Starmer’s actions have led to accusations of two-tier policing, which has incited protesters who claim to be fighting for Britain’s sovereignty, identity, and to stop illegal immigration. She also mentioned having spoken to people on both sides and called on the government to recognize the underlying causes of the unrest so that it can be stopped.

It remains to be seen what political solutions the UK will ultimately adopt and whether these will lead to changes in the country’s immigration policies or even serve as the building blocks for future—and possibly even more severe—social crises driven by changes in the demographic structure.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Were Violent Protests Acceptable for George Floyd but Not for the UK Child Murders?
Elections in the UK: A Shift Toward Hand-Waving Politics?
A white family does not represent real Londoners