Will Orpo’s Government Repeat Milei’s Miracle and Restore Finland’s Values?

In Argentina, President Javier Milei has been fixing the country’s economy with a firm hand. As a result, his party suffered a defeat in the provincial elections of the Buenos Aires region in September.

This morning, however, we learned that the president’s party is nevertheless set to win the parliamentary midterm elections—and by a considerable margin over the opposition. It therefore appears that, in Argentina as well, the political “climate” of the capital region differs from that of the rest of the country—just as in Finland.

For Argentinians, the outcome of the midterm election is undoubtedly a good thing, since abandoning the economic reform halfway would most likely have led their homeland into another downward spiral, from which Milei has only just managed to lift it. Now, he has the people’s mandate to complete his economic recovery program.

Although Argentina is far from Finland, its economic situation is by no means irrelevant to us. After all, we too have a government that has sought—albeit with extreme caution—to reduce state spending.

And that’s not all, because the task will also fall to the next government, if its members have even a shred of responsibility. Finland’s public finances have been chronically in debt since 2008, and nowadays the payment of interest alone consumes roughly three and a half billion euros of the state budget every year.

It remains to be seen whether the Finnish people will act like the Argentinians in the parliamentary elections to be held in 2027. In this regard, the development of Finland’s economy over the next year and a half will be a crucial question.

What matters most is that if the country’s economy and employment rate begin to grow as a result of the government’s actions, and the accumulation of debt can thereby be halted, then the current Orpo cabinet coalition will have a good chance—like Milei—to renew its mandate to lead the country. That, in turn, could put Finland’s economy back on a healthy footing.

At the same time, we could continue to repair the value base of our society toward realism. In this respect, immigration policy is a significant part of the whole.

* * *

In that light, it was interesting to read in this morning’s Helsingin Sanomat article that among the humanitarian immigrants who arrived in Finland in 2015, those who came as unaccompanied minors have fared the best. By contrast, those who arrived here as adults have unambiguously become a heavy burden on society.

The HS article suggested that the young people who came alone might have been unusually resourceful individuals, which could explain why they have succeeded in Finland better than other humanitarian refugees. That may partly explain their success, but I strongly suspect that culture also plays a role here.

More specifically, the transmission of culture from parents to children. It is clear that young people who live with their families and share the values of developing countries preserve their own cultural background more strongly than those who live alone. Therefore, they adopt Western attitudes and habits that lead to social success much less readily than those who arrived unaccompanied.

Against this background, it might make sense to make a complete U-turn in our current refugee policy and redefine Finnish humanitarian immigration—at least with regard to quota refugees—so that priority would be given to unaccompanied young people. At the same time, we could abolish family reunifications altogether, since they undoubtedly have harmful cultural consequences as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Toistaako Orpon hallitus Milein ihmeen ja korjaa suomalaisen arvopohjan?

"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections

Recently in Finland, there has been a lot of discussion about racism, but the media has not forgotten about feminism either. The latter also concerns education, where attention has been given to, among other things, the low percentage of women in the highest level of education in the field of technology. This is despite the fact that their proportion among all university students is clearly greater than that of men.

One ongoing topic in this discussion has been the gender distribution of university professors, which still leans towards men. However, it is likely just a matter of time before the gender distribution of students also becomes evident in the composition among our country's professors.

In this sense, it was interesting to note that the membership of the American science academies, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), has undergone significant changes. Over the past two decades, many women have joined this group of top researchers, which was previously almost exclusively composed of men. In recent years, women have made up about 40% of the new members in both academies.

In a recently published study, the merits of researchers in psychology, mathematics, and economics were compared to each other, and the change in the likelihood of women being elected to NAS and AAAS membership from the 1960s to the present day was analyzed.

According to the collected data, in the early years of the study period, women had fewer opportunities to be selected as members compared to men with similar qualifications. However, by the 1990s, the selection process in both academies had become roughly gender-neutral based on publications and citations.

Nevertheless, the development didn't stop at a gender-neutral situation, as might have been assumed. Over the past two decades, a trend of favoring women has emerged and strengthened in all three fields. Currently, women are three to fifteen times more likely than men with equivalent publication and citation records to be elected as members of AAAS and NAS.

In other words, the recognition and status of female researchers have fundamentally changed, at least in the USA, leading to men becoming a discriminated gender in science, with their merits receiving less recognition compared to women, at least within the scientific community's own structures.

The authors of the study in question speculated that this might be due to the fear that women would receive less recognition for their work and thus find it more difficult to get their publications into top-tier scientific journals. To compensate for this, science academies would engage in positive discrimination towards them.

In other words, this would reflect the influence of the prevailing "woke" culture in the USA, with the fear of increasingly strong societal pressures manifesting in the selection of academy members. Consequently, this would have led to significant discrimination against men.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Discrimination against women?
A young woman skiing in a swimsuit caused a controversy among women
China is betting on scientific excellence

Cousin is not just a delicacy, but also a hindrance to social success

As my esteemed reader surely knows, it is customary in many cultures to marry young virgins to male relatives. Such inbreeding causes genetic issues because children inherit the same gene forms from both parents, and each individual carries recessive genes in their genetic makeup, which, when inherited from both parents, can cause more or less serious problems.

In addition to the genetic effects, it has been claimed that consanguineous marriages also have negative implications for societal development. To test this hypothesis, a recent study was published, examining the differences among U.S. states in their attitudes towards cousin marriages.

The study analyzed data from millions of individuals from the 18th to the 20th century and found that cousins who married each other were more likely to reside in rural areas and engage in fewer wage-earning jobs compared to others. On the other hand, bans on cousin marriages resulted in people moving from rural to urban areas, leading to better-paying occupations.

The researchers' findings also indicated that these changes were attributed to the social and cultural impacts of diminished family ties rather than genetic factors. Simultaneously, people's support for their relatives decreased, resulting in a higher prevalence of institutional care for the elderly relatives.

Overall, the study I have discussed here supports the notion that immigration policies should aim to break the tradition of consanguineous marriages within immigrant groups where it is common. This issue should not be seen as a matter of equality or human rights but rather as a natural part of eliminating harmful cultural practices - such as female genital mutilation or blood feuds - in order to promote the social integration and individual success of immigrants.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Discrimination against women?
African female and Persian male ancestors
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?