I want to explain how I see the situation, and why I fully support Reza Pahlavi playing the key transitional role.

The Bigger Picture

The end of the Islamic regime is something many Iranians and supporters of the Iranian people believe is fast approaching. When that moment comes — when the revolution is truly in full swing — Iran will have to emerge intact on the other side.

History shows that revolutions are dangerous moments. They create opportunity, but they also create instability. Every revolution requires some form of clear direction if the country is going to emerge whole.

Without that, power vacuums appear. Competing factions begin fighting for influence, and the results can be devastating.

Iran cannot afford that.

Pushing separatist ideas in the middle of a revolutionary moment could cause enormous pain and bloodshed that simply does not need to happen. At a moment like this, the country needs unity and stability above all else.

Iran needs to remain intact.

Before anything else can happen politically, the country needs to stabilize.
A nation does not magically transition from dictatorship into a functioning democracy overnight.

Why Reza Pahlavi?

One of the most important things to understand about his position is that he is not presenting himself as the future ruler of Iran, nor is he demanding that the monarchy be automatically restored.

What he has consistently argued for is something much more limited: a transitional leadership role whose purpose is to guide the country from dictatorship to democracy.

He has repeatedly stated that his goal is to function as a bridge—helping Iran move from the collapse of the Islamic Republic toward a democratic system chosen by the Iranian people themselves.

Part of this effort includes a 100-day transition plan, designed to stabilize the country and create the conditions necessary for a democratic process to take place.

To me, this distinction is critical. The goal is not to decide Iran’s future for the people, but to create the environment where the people themselves can decide it.
Whether that ultimately becomes a republic, a constitutional monarchy, or another democratic system — through a national referendum.

The Principles He Is Putting Forward

Another reason I support this approach is the set of principles he has consistently spoken about — principles that many Iranians, regardless of ethnicity or background, can rally around.

These include:

1 — Iran’s territorial integrity

Iran must remain one country. One people under one flag. Not a fragmented nation where different factions fight over their own pieces of territory.

2 — Separation of religion and state

After nearly five decades of clerical rule, this is simply essential. A democratic Iran cannot exist without separating religion from government.

3 — Equality of all Iranians

Regardless of religion, ethnicity, or gender, every Iranian should be equal under the law.

4 — A democratic process

The Iranian people themselves must decide the type of government they want. That decision should come through a democratic process where all citizens are represented.

To me, these principles form a healthy foundation upon which a new Iran could be built.

A Unifying Figure

My support for Reza Pahlavi also comes from what I’ve been seeing and hearing from Iranians themselves.

During protests — both inside Iran and across the diaspora — his name is the one being called in the streets. It has become a rallying cry for the many who are demanding the end of the Islamic Republic.

There is no other figure whose name carries that same weight or functions as a unifying call across the movement. None.
People in Iran were calling his name at the risk of death, imprisonment or torture. They came out to protest by the millions when he asked them to.

If that doesn’t count for something, then I don’t know what does.

Iranians from every background have suffered enormously under this dying regime for decades. This moment represents a rare opportunity for the country to move toward something better.

In my view, now is not the time to start drawing dividing lines.

Now is the time to unite around one vision and one flag.
A free Iran.

Unity First, Politics Later

Political disagreements will inevitably come later — and they should. That is what healthy democracies are built on.

But those debates should happen after the Iranian people have regained their freedom and political voice, not while the country is still trying to escape an authoritarian regime.

To reach that point, Iran needs a safe landing.

It needs stability during the transition.

It needs someone who can help guide the country through that fragile moment.

To my eyes, Reza Pahlavi is the person best positioned to do that.

A Chance for a Different Future

Iranians have endured extraordinary suffering under the Islamic Republic.

The coming years may offer a rare opportunity to finally build a country based on freedom, equality, and democratic representation.

But moments like that require unity.

The regime has spent decades trying to divide Iranians against one another. Avoiding those divisions during a revolutionary moment will be critical.

Iran will need stability. It will need a clear path through the dangerous period between dictatorship and democracy.

There is only one figure who already carries the legitimacy, recognition, and unifying pull to help guide that transition.

In my view, that figure is Reza Pahlavi.

Subscribe now

Where are the humanitarians, who for 2 years, tried to convince us that they cared so deeply for human lives? Where is Greta Thunberg and her ‘deep’ desire to help people living under oppression?

How about the celebrities who never miss an opportunity to virtue signal?

Where are they?

Why is the mainstream media so eerily silent?

During the Israel-Gaza war, a Palestinian couldn’t sneeze without journalists tripping over themselves to publish a story about it. Yet, on the day it was reported that at least 30 000 Iranians have been brutally murdered by the Islamic regime — networks like the BBC had nothing on their cover page about it.

As someone who works as an assistant for a Member of the European Parliament, I can tell you this: there is a flavour of left-wing ideology that is incredibly dangerous. It almost betrayed the Iranian people and it will destroy Europe if left unchallenged.

A Regime, Not a Country

Iran is run by the Islamic republic. A theocratic, Islamic regime that took power during the 1978 revolution. Iran wasn’t always a sharia law hell hole.

One that subjugates women. Executes gay people. Imprisons and kills dissidents. A regime that takes money from the people and funds terror across the Middle East.

Propping up terrorist organisations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

They’ve been holding the entire Middle East hostage for years.

Not to mention, groups like Hezbollah have an international footprint.

In South America, Africa, and yes, Europe.

This regime has given money and drone technology to Russia — who themselves are committing terror in Ukraine.

If you want a basic idea of the ideology this entity has, I’ll give a quick example.

During the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988), there were entire fields filled with landmines.

But the Islamic regime didn’t want to risk its capable fighters. So it came up with another plan.

Iranian child soldiers — some as young as 9/12 — were gathered up and given plastic keys. Keys they were told opened the doors to paradise.
They were then told to walk through the landmine infested fields.

They used the bodies of these young, indoctrinated children as minesweepers.

This regime is a death-cult.

Now you know the type of people we are dealing with here.

The Protests

In late December protests in Iran started. They began out of frustration.
The economy sucks. The infrastructure is crumbling.
Mostly because the regime uses the people’s money to fund terror and to line their own pockets.

This isn’t the first time massive protests have erupted in the country.

The Iranians, unlike most of the surrounding Arab countries, are not majority Muslim. And they are not Arabs.

They’ve been living under this brutal dictatorship for 46 years and most hate this regime and view it as an occupation.

The protests grew. Millions across the country were coming out. But their chants began to change. They were no longer simply asking for a better life. They were asking for the end of the Islamic Republic. They were demanding a change of regime.

The thing that made this protest so potent and dangerous for the Ayatollahs is the name they were calling on the streets. Reza Pahlavi. Their exiled crown prince. Their Shah. That’s another name for King.

They were chanting Javid Shah. Long live the King.

You must understand how dangerous it is to do such a thing in Iran.

You cannot do that without reasonable expectation of imprisonment, torture and death.

Reza Pahlavi — whose father was the Shah before the revolution — has been planning and drawing up the diplomatic infrastructure to transition Iran from a dictatorship to a democracy, for years. In the case that the regime comes to an end.

He’s offered himself up as a transitional leader. To get the country to a point where they can vote for the type of governance they want. Be it a Republic, a constitutional monarchy — as long as it respects the values of freedom, separation of church and state and a united Iran.

Once the Islamic regime falls, you need such a figure to step in and fill the void.

At the height of the protests, with millions coming out on the streets. It became very clear that Reza Pahlavi was the leader of this new revolution. The protestors carried his picture in the streets. They followed the instructions he gave from exile in America. He is the man that the people are looking to for a better tomorrow.

The Crackdown

But as things began to heat up, the Islamic regime did what they always do. They started to crackdown in the most brutal ways possible. So, to hide their crimes, they shut off the internet. It’s been down for almost a month, as of filming this.

The only way any information makes it through, is via Starlink.

It’s here where things go from dark to pure, unfiltered horror.

Because during this internet shutdown, the regime brought in militia from places like Iraq with one order: To end the public protesting by any means necessary.

You can imagine what happens next.

I’m not going to go into details.
Think of it as October 7th multiplied thousands of times, with no IDF coming to the rescue.

The people are completely defenseless, with nothing but their bare hands.

As of writing this, an estimated 36 000 young people were brutally murdered in a day or two. To be clear, this is one of the lower estimates. It could easily be double that number, or more.

Iran is currently a prison of 90 million people.

Something to keep in mind is that the United States is amassing military assets near Iran as we speak. It’s my belief that the US recognizes the regime has never been so weak in 47 years, and they’re preparing to take advantage of that. Trump promised the people of Iran that “help is on the way”. Whether you like him or not, means absolutely nothing to the Iranian people.

No one but the US or Israel would (or could) do anything.

Europe’s Ideological Blindness

Like I said earlier, I work for an MEP. So I get to see some of the inner workings of the European Parliament. What I saw shocked me.

Left wing ideology in the EU is unhinged.

A resolution passed in the European Parliament a couple weeks ago, with overwhelming support.
One that expresses the EU’s full support for the Iranian people.

It condemns the violence and brutality of the regime.
It calls for diplomatic pressure and sanctions.
It pushes for the IRGC to be recognised as a terrorist organisation.

That’s good.
But there’s a dark underside to all of this.

A resolution is basically a political statement.
And the EU, as an institution, contains many different political views inside it —
Left, Right, and Centre — and they don’t agree on everything, as you might imagine.

Before a resolution is adopted, political groups can propose changes.
These changes are called amendments.
Each amendment is voted on separately, and if it passes, it becomes part of the final text.

This amendment process is the engine room of how the European Parliament works.

In this case, the ECR — a centre-right political group in the European Parliament — proposed an amendment.
Calling for Reza Pahlavi to be invited to address the Parliament.

This is incredibly important to Iranians.

A revolution needs both military action and diplomatic action to be successful. Legitimising Reza Pahlavi as the opposition would be an unbelievable blow to the regime.

However, that amendment was rejected.
The vote was 132 in favour, 387 against, and 96 abstentions.

That alone is revealing.
It’s almost certain that the majority of left-wing groups voted against it or chose to abstain.

But it gets worse.

Some of the amendments proposed by left-wing groups — which were ultimately rejected — included calls to:

• exert pressure on the United States and Israel not to intervene,

• undermine or lift sanctions pressure on Iran — while they’re still butchering people.

• and condemn any external interference in Iran’s affairs.

Think about that.

The people of Iran are almost completely defenceless in the face of this brutality.

This isn’t simply a difference of political ideology.

This is being actively anti human.

It means there’s a group in the European Parliament who would watch Iranians get murdered, maimed and raped.

And not only would they not intervene, if they had their way, they would stop anyone else from intervening.

This is unambiguously evil.

The IRGC has now, thankfully, officially been proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

If you look online you’ll find that the loudest pro palestine voices are silent on Iran. Why? Well, because groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are funded by this same regime. So admitting that they are dark and twisted would mean recognising that these terrorist groups are cut from the same dirty cloth.

This does not compute smoothly in their minds.

For a certain flavour of left wing ideology, an oppressor can only be from the West. They can only be white. Or Jewish. Even though Hamas executes Palestinians on the streets and controls the people with fear — they are not the oppressors. It’s Israel. Even though the Islamic republic butchers people, destabilizes the entire region. Maimes women and so much more. The real oppressor is America.

In London, there was a pro Palestine march a couple weeks ago. They were openly waving Islamic regime flags.
That’s an unambiguous supportive act towards a murderous dictatorship, on the streets of a Western country. They also openly denied the massacres, just like many did after October 7th.

Support My Work ☕️

What I’m trying to say is this.

Europe has become a breeding ground for terrorist support. It’s wrapped up in this “oppressor - oppressed” narrative born out of Western self-hate. It’s spreading like a poison. It’s making its way into governments, the European Union and onto the very streets we walk on.

It makes us vulnerable and weak at fighting against ideologies and cultures that are not compatible with ours. It makes people accept the brain dead idea, which is: all cultures are equal. No. No they are not. That’s painfully obvious.
Ignoring that fact is incredibly dangerous.

That’s why Iran is such a stumbling block for many with this ideology.

Islam took a country that was pro West and making significant, modern advancements, and turned it into a Sharia Law hell hole. One with a dead economy and crumbling infrastructure. It’s become one of the most sanctioned countries on the planet, with one of the most backward social systems — rivaled only by Afghanistan, perhaps.

The Iranian people want out. They want to be pro West and live free. Islamic culture has been a nightmare and brought only pain and death. Their oppressors are the Ayatollahs. Not America or Israel. On the contrary, the Iranians view them as their possible saviours.

This is very confusing for those who convinced themselves of a certain narrative.

Thanks for reading!

Let me know your thoughts.
Subscribe to my substack, or buy me a coffee if you want to support my work!

Watch the Youtube video HERE

Europe is at a crossroads.

There is one issue dividing the continent to the point of almost tearing it apart. It was one of the main reasons the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union. It is also why political movements once considered fringe have become mainstream across much of Europe.

That issue is immigration.

Depending on who you ask, concerns about immigration are either wildly overblown—little more than a convenient cover for racism—or they represent an existential threat: one that will eventually undermine public safety, erode culture, and strain welfare systems beyond repair.

So which is it?

I’m an immigrant myself, living in Finland—a country I call home, among people I’ve come to see as my own. I didn’t come here to change Finland. I respect it for what it is. In fact, I want to see it remain exactly that.

That places me in a somewhat unusual position. I can speak both as someone who moved here, and as someone who has come to understand how European societies actually function—and what happens when those systems are pushed beyond their limits.

To understand why Europe’s attitude toward immigration has hardened so dramatically, you have to go back to one specific moment.

2015: The Year Everything Changed

In 2015, more than one million people fleeing war and instability in the Middle East arrived in Europe in a very short span of time. Most came from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Many crossed the Mediterranean by boat, arriving first in Greece via Turkey. Others reached Italy by sea. In a matter of months, hundreds of thousands of people reached European shores.

This was not just a humanitarian crisis. It was a systemic shock.

Europe simply wasn’t prepared. Existing safeguards failed. Refugees were unevenly distributed across EU member states. Sweden alone took in around 160,000 refugees in a single year—roughly eight migrants per 1,000 inhabitants. Germany accepted close to half a million. France, Austria, Hungary, and the United Kingdom absorbed hundreds of thousands more.

The European Union’s principle of free movement made containment nearly impossible. Although EU law requires asylum seekers to be registered and processed in the country of arrival, in practice this often did not happen. People moved freely across borders.

The result was a demographic shift that permanently altered Europe.

When very large numbers of people arrive rapidly, often unvetted and destitute, and from societies with different norms around authority, religion, gender, and social behaviour, problems are not just possible—they are inevitable.

And they surfaced quickly.

When Europe Lost Control

Countries such as Sweden and Germany learned, almost immediately, how difficult it is to integrate large numbers of newcomers—especially at that speed.

This wasn’t a question of goodwill. It was a question of capacity.

Where do you find the housing? The teachers? The doctors? The language training? The jobs? The funding?

I want to be clear about one thing. I don’t blame people for fleeing war in search of safety. I would do the exact same thing. So would you.

But Europe’s inability to manage the scale and pace of the influx fundamentally altered how immigration was perceived, regardless of the original moral impulse behind accepting refugees.

Before 2015—particularly in Nordic and Scandinavian countries—immigration was often framed as a moral good. Multiculturalism was widely celebrated.

After 2015, immigration stopped being an abstract moral debate and became a concrete systems problem.

And systems have limits.

The Welfare Contract Started to Break

European countries are well known for their welfare states. In the United States, politicians on the left often point to Nordic countries as models to emulate.

I live and work in Finland. Every month, a significant portion of my salary never reaches my bank account. That money doesn’t come from nowhere.

And I don’t resent it. I’m happy to contribute—because when the system works, it works remarkably well.

But a welfare state is not a buffet line. It is a social contract.

Everyone contributes, and everyone benefits: education, healthcare, infrastructure, and support during hard times so people can get back on their feet.

Problems arise when large numbers of people enter a country, draw heavily from that system, and are unable—or unwilling—to contribute to it for extended periods of time.

Nordic societies, in particular, are built on high levels of social trust. Their welfare systems function because people broadly share expectations about work, contribution, and responsibility.

When mass migration overwhelmed those systems, an imbalance emerged: more people drawing from the pot, fewer people filling it.

That imbalance cannot be sustained indefinitely.

When Daily Life Got Worse

Over time, ordinary people began to feel the effects.

Healthcare systems slowed. Doctor’s appointments that once took days began taking weeks or months. Schools faced new pressures: teaching in multiple languages, diverting resources to basic integration, and managing classroom tensions amplified by cultural misunderstandings.

Social housing became harder to access, even for citizens who had relied on it in the past.

Safety and predictability—core features of life in Northern Europe—also began to erode. In several countries, migrants from specific regions became overrepresented in certain crime categories, including gang violence and sexual assault.

In Sweden, for example, gang shootings increased significantly over the past decade. Explosive attacks, once virtually unheard of, became disturbingly common.

It is difficult to argue that these societies are safer today than they were fifteen years ago.

Is it wrong for a local to notice this and call it out?

Or do we just call him racist?

The Political Reckoning

Across Europe, support for right-wing parties surged.

This development is often misunderstood—especially by American commentators. “Right wing” in Europe does not mean the same thing it does in the United States. Yet European politics is frequently interpreted through an American lens, with large segments of the population dismissed as “far right” for expressing concerns about immigration.

That strategy has failed.

Reality has a way of asserting itself, regardless of how uncomfortable it may be. Europe is learning that lesson now.

Denmark is a telling example. It has a left-wing government with some of the strictest immigration policies in Europe—and it is popular. Not because Danes suddenly became racist, but because voters wanted order, continuity, and limits that matched capacity.

Culture matters.

Coming from South Africa, I know what life looks like outside Europe’s relatively safe and stable bubble. Culture shapes trust, institutions, and everyday behaviour.

When a culture changes, the country changes with it.

I have a family here. My daughter is only a few months old. Like millions of Europeans, I find myself asking what this country will look like in twenty years. Will it still be safe? Will social trust still exist?

Those questions do not make someone racist.

They make them serious and aware.

Governments need to take these genuine concerns seriously, or things are going to get much worse — before they (hopefully) get better.

Most people in Finland don’t care about race. They care about how you behave once you’re here.

In my view, that is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

Watch the full youtube video HERE

As an immigrant in Finland, I’ve noticed a gigantic problem.

I see echoes here of something that’s already tearing other Western countries apart — scenes from Los Angeles, London, and Berlin where crowds wave flags and chant slogans about belonging, yet everything about those protests shows how divided the West has become.
Behind all of it sits a strange idea: that all immigrants are one people who ought to think and act the same way — that our allegiance should be to our “community,” not the country we now call home.

It’s a rotten idea that’s quietly ravaging much of the West.
If left unchecked, it will destroy the very trust that holds our societies together.
It’s already fanning the flames of anger, frustration, and division across multiple countries.

If things continue the way they are — and if saner minds don’t start speaking the truth — it will only get worse.

We are not one people.

Allegiance Over Identity

I moved to Finland six years ago. It’s my home now.
I have a family here, and it’s in my interest to make sure this country continues to thrive.

My allegiance is first and foremost to Finland — not to some vague immigrant community.
In my view, that’s how it should be.

The “us versus them” mentality being pushed politically is insane. Some immigrants get drawn into it, often cheered on by locals full of self-destructive “empathy.”

And this isn’t unique to Finland. The same mindset exists across Europe and in the United States — people who move to a country, benefit from everything it offers, and then campaign for ideas that stand completely against the culture that gave them stability in the first place.

The Backlash

When I began talking openly about integration, Finnish culture, and what it means to belong to this society, I noticed something strange.

People flooded my comments calling me a traitor.
A traitor to what? To who?

Some even had the audacity to call me a traitor to black people. Others accused me of “sucking up” to Finnish people for attention — a grifter, an Uncle Tom.
Anything positive I said about this country — or its people — was enough to provoke outrage from a small but loud subset of immigrants and locals who think I’m saying “the wrong thing.”

So what exactly is so wrong about what I’m saying?

What They Expect

The basic assumption seems to be that because I wasn’t born here, and because I’m black, my main priority should be “protecting” others like me.

Let’s put aside the fact that black people and immigrants don’t need my protection in Finland.
Let’s also put aside the fact that here, I’m equal under the law and can benefit from the same resources and opportunities as anyone else — provided I’m here legally.

In the minds of these people, my goal should be to reshape Finnish society — to mould it into something that feels more comfortable for outsiders. Even if that means changing the very character of Finland itself.

And I’d be applauded for it.
If I spent my time digging up stories of discrimination, victimhood, or a so-called “black struggle,” I’d be rewarded with pats on the back from the “tolerant” and “empathetic” crowd.
Some people seem to relish the idea of calling their own countrymen racist.

The Victimhood Trap

For certain immigrants, this narrative offers an easy escape.

If every difficult or unfamiliar experience can be explained away as “probably racist,”
then there’s no need to learn the culture.
No need to understand how Finns think.
No need to work through the natural discomfort that comes with adapting to a new land.

Integration is hard.
It’s awkward.
It can feel lonely.
But it’s necessary.

When people dismiss that process by framing every cultural difference as prejudice, they rob themselves — and the country they live in — of something essential.
That’s why I reject everything about this premise.

Share

Perspective Changes Everything

Moving to Finland from South Africa gave me perspective.
I couldn’t believe the quality of life people enjoyed here.

Living here hasn’t always been easy.
One of my biggest mistakes was not learning the language intensely from the beginning. There’s a reason for it, but it’s not a good enough excuse.

Because of that, I had to play the integration game on hard mode — and I had no one to blame but myself.

Even during those early, awkward months, I could already see the truth: the quality of life here is unlike anywhere I’ve ever been.

I remember seeing people begging on the streets with nicer iPhones than I had.
I’m half-joking, but it’s true.

Everything people fight for in countries like the United States already exists here:
universal healthcare, free education all the way up to university, affordable and efficient public transport.
I pay around sixty euros a month and can take buses and trains all over the city.

All of this is available regardless of skin colour or ethnicity — as long as you’re a citizen or a legal resident.

No Excuses

In the U.S., people often argue that inequality stems from a lack of access — that minorities struggle because they don’t have the same financial opportunities.
Let’s put aside the fact that some minorities, like Asians, actually outperform white Americans — for the sake of argument.

In Finland, those barriers don’t exist.
So what’s the excuse if you don’t perform well?
What’s stopping anyone from succeeding?

There was no slavery of black people here.
No Apartheid. No segregation.

And yet there’s still a visible performance gap between students with immigrant backgrounds and ethnic Finns — one that persists into the second generation.
That’s something we need to confront honestly, because there are no excuses left.

What Real Disadvantage Looks Like

I know what actual disadvantage looks like.
In South Africa, my family was dirt poor.
I often went to school hungry, watching classmates eat lunches we could never afford.

Public high schools were terrible.
If you wanted a better education, you had to pay for it.
South Africa remains one of the most unequal countries on Earth, and that inequality is still visible along racial lines.

I would have done anything to have the opportunities people here take for granted.

Here, every student gets lunch.
Your parents’ income doesn’t determine the quality of your education.
University is free.

That’s why I have little sympathy for those who constantly complain about Finland.
Where else on Earth can you go that’s better?
If you can’t make it here, you’ll struggle anywhere.

Culture, Not Colour

The solution is simple — though not easy.

Everyone, on all sides, needs to understand a basic truth:
success has nothing to do with skin colour,
but everything to do with culture.

Integration has to be front and center.
It should be expected — and Finland shouldn’t feel ashamed for insisting on it.
Cultural or religious values from elsewhere must take a back seat to the ones that built this country.

That might sound harsh, but it’s about self-preservation — and giving people the best possible chance to succeed.

Finland has done well for itself, despite everything it’s faced.
This country was once dirt poor.
It fought wars, endured famine, and resisted colonisation.
And yet today, it’s one of the best places to live in the world.

That didn’t happen by accident.
It happened because of culture.

Standing With Finland

That’s why, despite being born elsewhere, I stand with Finland completely.
I want to protect and promote what makes this place what it is — because it works.

When a place becomes your home, you defend it.
You look after it.
You add to it.

I am part of Finnish society, and I want to see it continue to thrive.

Watch the Youtube video HERE

Share

A Gift Turned into Betrayal

Milan Jaff is an Iraqi-born immigrant who moved to Finland at the age of sixteen — alone. Instead of taking the incredible opportunity he was given, he chose a life of crime. A life that earned him widespread hatred in this country.

From rape to attempted murder — and a string of other crimes — he’s done it all.

He arrived in Finland in 2017 on the basis of subsidiary international protection. That means the Finnish Immigration Service may grant you a residence permit even if you don’t fully qualify for asylum — as long as your risk of bodily harm in your home country is deemed credible. You could call it an act of kindness. You’re not quite a refugee, but you’re still being looked after.

Another part of this protection, as I understand it, is that it has to be renewed every year. Each year, the authorities re-evaluate whether the reasons for protection still apply.

Today, Jaff is sitting in prison, and the Finnish Immigration Service has ordered his deportation back to Iraq. Online, many are celebrating the decision. People were simply done with his antics.

He made rap music glorifying gang life — and lived exactly the kind of life he bragged about. In 2023, he was charged and found guilty of rape, and aggravated rape of a child — a thirteen-year-old. Photos from the hearing show him smiling, smug, completely unremorseful. He looked almost proud of what he’d done.

So you can imagine the rage people felt — not just toward him, but toward a system that allowed him to be here in the first place. Finland already has problems. It doesn’t need to import more.

The System That Couldn’t Protect Itself

One massive question remains: how did it take this long for deportation to even be on the table? He was brought to Finland to be protected from bodily harm in Iraq. But what happens when such a person consistently inflicts bodily harm on others — the very people who gave him safety?

What’s even more outrageous is that his protection status isn’t automatic — it has to be renewed every single year. Meaning that every year, someone looked at his record, saw what he was doing, and still decided to renew it. The system had a built-in opportunity to fix the problem — yet somehow, it kept approving him. How does someone like that not instantly lose protection and get kicked out?

He’s currently serving ten years in prison for leading an organised criminal group — the so-called Kurdish Mafia — responsible for multiple violent incidents around Helsinki. Think about that: a Kurdish Mafia. In Finland.

When Countries Import Conflicts

This is one of those uncomfortable truths about immigration that we cannot afford to ignore. If a country isn’t careful about who it lets in, it will eventually import other nations’ conflicts.

And when that happens — when a country imports another’s problems — those same divisions don’t magically disappear. They just move to new soil. You see it across Europe.

When tensions between India and Pakistan rose, the UK grew nervous — with large communities from both sides, they feared those tensions would spill onto British streets. You see the same thing with Israel and Palestine. European countries with large Muslim populations host the biggest anti-Israel protests. These demographic realities start influencing politics — even shaping what governments dare to say.

In the UK, they now talk openly about the “Muslim vote” — a bloc that can sway elections and bend policy. It’s creating real tension in the country.

What starts as cultural tension eventually spills over into violence. Sweden is proof of that — it’s now facing a gang-violence epidemic it can barely contain.

Sweden’s Lesson — and El Salvador’s Example

One of the most notorious networks is Foxtrot, led by Rawa Majid — nicknamed The Kurdish Fox. His family moved to Sweden when he was a baby. Now he’s wanted internationally for drug trafficking and murder. He bought Turkish citizenship to avoid extradition and now lives comfortably there, running his Swedish network from abroad. Turkey refuses to hand him over. How they’re still in NATO is beyond me.

Now organised crime has become part of daily life in what was once one of the safest countries on Earth. And it’s not the only network tied to foreign actors. Sweden let the cancer grow out of empathy — and now it has metastasised. They don’t know how to kill it.

The only cure left is radiation. El Salvador is a perfect example. Before President Nayib Bukele decided to go to war with the gangs, the gangsters ruled the country. People were killed, abducted, and extorted daily. Ordinary citizens lived in fear. It was one of the most dangerous places on Earth — and during all that, humanitarian groups were silent. No one came to help them.

But the moment the government finally fought back — hard — those same Western organisations suddenly found their voices. They rushed to condemn El Salvador for human-rights violations.

Bukele said it best: “Where were all these humanitarian organisations when our people were being gunned down in the streets? Where were they when our children were being kidnapped and murdered? It’s only now, when we finally have peace, that they care.”

That’s what I mean by suicidal empathy — a compassion so misplaced it ends up protecting the wicked instead of the innocent. It’s the disease of the modern West: we think kindness is the highest virtue, even when it puts the people we love in danger. We’re terrified of being called racist, even when it’s completely untrue.

The Danger of Over-Explaining Evil

When I look at someone like Milan Jaff — a criminal who’s harmed people — I notice a tendency to over-analyse. We keep looking for reasons behind evil, as if every monster must have a tragic backstory or a medical label to excuse it. But sometimes the truth is simple: he made bad choices, he hurt people, and now he must face the consequences.

Of course, there’s nuance too. Some people do come from regions ravaged by war, where trauma and violence are normal. Some do struggle with mental health. But even so, it makes one thing clear: Finland — and other European countries — must be ruthless about who they let in, and just as ruthless about who they remove.

Those who come here should contribute — not consume. They must buy into this culture, want to protect it, and see it prosper. You don’t have to be ethnically Finnish to love this country. Anyone can learn to love it — and be a blessing to it — if they choose to.

But that’s only possible if they don’t carry ideologies that make that love impossible.

Home Is Worth Defending

I get a lot of heat for saying things like this. People call me a traitor to immigrants. That’s the problem right there — “immigrants” are not a monolith. We’re not a single people.

Yes, I came from a different country. But this is my home, and I want to protect it. I don’t care who you are — if you’re against Finland, then I’m against you.

That’s the real point of the Milan Jaff story. He was given an opportunity millions would die for. Instead, he chose to be a gangster — from rape, to attempted murder, to public menace.

I have zero sympathy for him. All my sympathy goes to the people he hurt.

If this story serves any purpose, it’s to remind Finland what happens when it lets its guard down.

Watch the Youtube video HERE

Share

Recognising a Palestinian state today doesn’t bring peace. It rewards terror. It doesn’t help Palestinians — if anything, it makes their lives worse.

But that hasn’t stopped countries like the UK, Spain, or Australia from rushing to do it — just so they can pat themselves on the back and feel like they’ve done something meaningful. This is the sickness of our age: confusing looking good with doing good. Because actually understanding this conflict is uncomfortable.

So let’s take off our kid gloves, put aside comfort, and get a proper understanding.

It’s Not Just About Land

The Western mind keeps trying to “Westernize” this conflict — imagining it’s just about borders and territory. But this isn’t Europe. This is the Middle East — and outside of Israel, every country in this region runs under Islam as the ultimate authority, not democracy.

And this is the part most of the West refuses to admit: this is a religious and ideological war. For centuries, Jews in the Muslim world lived as dhimmis — second-class citizens, tolerated but never equal. The Qur’an speaks harshly of Jews. Generations were raised to see them as cursed, treacherous, and subhuman.

Accepting a Jewish state wouldn’t just mean living next to Jews as equals — it would mean accepting that Jews can rule themselves, on their own land. And for many in that worldview, that is unthinkable.

This conflict has never just been about land. The media frames it that way, activists repeat it, but that misses the heart of the matter. There is something deeper at stake here — something most people don’t see. And understanding that is the key to understanding why this war shakes the West so deeply.

There is no doubt that there is great suffering in Gaza. War is terrible and I truly pray that it finally comes to an end. I want the hostages released and a new beginning for innocent civilians caught up in this war. They deserve to live in peace and dignity.

However, the pain we see in Gaza isn’t unique — not even in the region — unfortunately. But the world’s reaction to it is.

If this was really just about suffering, death tolls, or displacement, we’d see far more outrage about Yemen, Nigeria, or South Sudan. In Yemen alone, more people have been killed or displaced in the last 10–15 years than in the entire history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict since 1948. Millions are starving in South Sudan — more than half the population. Nearly 17 million people in Syria need humanitarian aid. Thousands of Christians are massacred by jihadists in Nigeria every year.

But there are no protests. No Nigerian flags in bios. No emergency sessions at the UN.

Why?

Because this conflict isn’t treated as one tragedy among many — it’s treated as the moral crisis of our time.

Peace Was Offered Again and Again — and Rejected

From the very beginning, Palestinians were given a choice — not just to live alongside a Jewish state, but to join it.

When David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, declared independence in 1948, he said:

Even while under attack, Israel invited Arabs to stay, to become citizens, to help build the country together.

The very next day, five Arab armies invaded in an attempt to wipe the Jewish state off the map. They lost — and they’ve lost every war since.

But even then, Palestinians were offered a state of their own again and again — in 1947, 1967, 2000, 2008 — and each time their leaders said no. Not because the borders weren’t generous enough, but because accepting those offers meant accepting a Jewish state next door — and that was the one thing they could not accept.

After 1948, Egypt ruled Gaza and Jordan annexed the West Bank for 19 years. Neither created a Palestinian state. There weren’t even serious calls for one.

Fast forward to today: Gaza is ruled by Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews everywhere. They’ve held no elections since 2006, allow no free press, and crush dissent. They often do public executions.

The West Bank is run by the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas, who has refused to hold elections since 2005 — because Hamas would probably win, even there. And while the PA poses as a moderate peace partner, it still pays monthly salaries to terrorists who kill Israelis, names schools after suicide bombers, and refuses to condemn attacks on civilians.

These are the people Western leaders are so eager to reward with recognition.

What a joke.

Gaza Was the Test — and It Failed

In 2005, Israel made a massive gamble for peace. They withdrew every soldier and forcefully removed every settler who refused — as seen in the picture. They even dug up and reburied their dead in Israel proper. Billions of dollars flowed into Gaza. It could have become a thriving coastal economy — Singapore on the Mediterranean.

Instead, Hamas staged a coup, threw rivals off rooftops, and turned Gaza into a terror base.

And then came October 7th.

October 7th wasn’t just a terror attack — it was supposed to be the start of a regional war to wipe Israel off the map. Hamas coordinated with Hezbollah, who were to attack from the north, and Iran, who was prepared to fire thousands of ballistic missiles. By some twist of luck, Hamas jumped the gun and the other actors hesitated.

Imagine if that had worked. Thousands of rockets and ballistic missiles raining down. Massacres in every town. The end of the Jewish state — real genocide. Not the fake one people are attempting to libel Israel with.

And yet, Western leaders rush to talk about recognising a Palestinian state. Hamas believes this recognition is happening because of October 7th — proof that terror works.

The Unholy Alliance

And here’s what makes it even stranger: the very people in the West who shout the loudest about human rights, women’s rights, gay rights — are the ones defending regimes that would throw them off rooftops.

On paper, radical Islam and the progressive left are ideological opposites. One imposes strict religious law, the other demands total sexual freedom. One subjugates women, the other waves feminist flags. Yet they stand side by side because they share one goal: tearing down the West and everything it stands for — starting with Israel.

What’s at Stake for the West — and for Finland

Israel is the beacon of freedom in the Middle East. It’s the only place where Arabs, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and atheists have equal rights — where women can vote, speak, and lead; where you can love who you love without fear.

Israel shows what the Middle East could be — and for some, that’s exactly why they hate it.

This conflict is a mirror — and it’s reflecting the West.

It’s forcing us to ask whether we still believe in the things that built our civilisation.
Because the West wasn’t an accident. It was built on two great pillars.

The first was Greek philosophy — the idea that truth can be sought through reason, that ideas can be debated, that logic matters more than power.

The second was Judeo-Christian morality — the belief that every human being is made in the image of God, that even the weakest have dignity, that justice is not just a social contract but a moral duty.

Those two together gave us the framework for everything we call “the free world.”
Human rights. The rule of law. Equality before the law. Freedom of speech.

Israel is the physical link to that remarkable story.

But look around — those foundations are being attacked from every angle.
Not just from jihadists who openly say they want to destroy the West, but from within — by people who have been taught to hate the very civilisation that gave them the freedom to hate it.

That’s why this war matters.
Israel’s enemies are our enemies — whether we like it or not.

Finland has not yet recognised a Palestinian state — and that is the right choice. Doing so now would send a message that terror works. That barbarism earns legitimacy.

Lets not do that.

If we get this wrong, we won’t just betray Israel — we will betray ourselves. Because the same forces that want to destroy Israel hate the West too — and if we don’t stand firm now, we will face them on our own soil.

Watch the Youtube video HERE

Share

Like many of you, I watched the horrible video of Charlie Kirk being assassinated. At first, I didn’t believe it. It seemed crazy that someone would shoot a political commentator just for his opinions.

Even then, I thought he would recover — and one day tell an unbelievable story.
But to my absolute horror, he died.

That shook me. And it made me reflect: on what’s happening in America, what I’ve seen online, and what lessons Finland needs to take from this.

Respecting Someone You Disagree With

I once made a video debunking Charlie’s take that “Finland is very Russian.” That critique wasn’t about him personally — it was about how American commentators often misunderstand Europe, especially when it comes to Russia and Ukraine.

I had even hoped to debate him one day about that terrible take. Now, I never will.

But here’s the truth: I respected him. Not for his every opinion, but for the fact that he put his ideas out there and tested them in public. He lived a life in service of something bigger than himself — in his case, God — and believed family and responsibility matter for society. On those points, I agreed with him.

He was a conservative. Millions resonated with his message. Millions disagreed. But he wasn’t a radical.

When Death Is Celebrated — and Covered Shamefully

So imagine my shock seeing people celebrate his death online. To them, he wasn’t just wrong — he was evil. And if you believe someone is evil, then their death isn’t a tragedy… it’s a victory.

That logic is unhinged.
Because it means: if you don’t have the “right” opinions, your life doesn’t matter.

Iltalehti — one of Finland’s biggest newspaper tabloids — covered the tragic assassination in a shameful way: By drawing a comparison to the 1933 Reichstag fire in Germany which Hitler then used as pretext for gaining ‘emergency powers’.

The headline Iltalehti ran was: The Killing of Trump’s Supporter May Have Scary Consequences - Expert Highlights Hitler Connection.

Absolutely shameful.

The Same Seed in Finland

Now, Finland isn’t at American levels of division. Not yet. But I can feel the same instinct bubbling under the surface.

Disagree politely, raise an uncomfortable truth, or use the “wrong” words — suddenly you’re branded “racist,” “fascist,” or even a “Nazi.” Even if you are none of those things.

And here’s the problem: if someone truly was a Nazi or fascist, wouldn’t violence against them seem justified? Wouldn’t demonising them seem natural?

That’s why slapping those labels on everyone who holds a different view is so dangerous. It leaves no room for nuance, no space for flexibility, no possibility of good faith debate. Everything becomes black and white. Left or Right. Good or evil.

Finnish Politics Isn’t American Politics

What makes this worse is that being “Right wing” in Finland is not the same thing as being Right wing in America.

Here, even conservatives support things that Americans would call “socialism”: universal healthcare, the welfare state, high taxes to pay for it all. In fact, both the Left and Right here defend those systems. The real debates are in the nuances:

• What kind of immigration should Finland prioritise?

• How important is it to maintain Finnish culture, and how?

• In tough economic times, are budget cuts logical, or authoritarian?

These are disagreements about policy, not about abolishing social services or treating women as second-class citizens.

That’s why it’s insane to import America’s language of demonisation into Finland. It’s not only dishonest — it’s dangerous.

A Warning Finland Must Hear

This is what I believe: Finland’s future depends on how it preserves its culture, integrates newcomers, and protects what makes this place one of the safest, most trusted societies on earth.

But if ideology starts overruling reality, if we start demonising one another like Americans do, we will face turmoil. Look at Sweden. Look at the UK. Do we want that here?

So yes — I will keep speaking, even when it makes people uncomfortable. If that earns me the label “ultra-Right wing,” then maybe the labels themselves have lost all meaning.

Because Finland doesn’t need more labels.
It needs honesty.

Thank you for reading!

If you want to support my work financially, you can Buy Me A Coffee.

Apart from that, a like and a subscription is fantastic!

Asking the Question

Should Finland ban the Burka? The Niqab? The Chador? And while we’re at it — what about the Hijab?
To some, even asking that question is “hateful” or “Islamophobic.” But it’s not. It’s a question about culture, values, and the kind of country Finland wants to be in the future. It’s the difference between protecting our future or sleepwalking into a crisis. If we can’t even talk about this, then Finland has already chosen comfort over courage — and once a nation does that, it never ends well.

My Position

Here’s where I stand. The Burka and the Niqab should be banned outright. No hesitation. For security reasons, for social cohesion, and for women’s rights. Even if hardly anyone wears them today, that’s no reason to ignore the issue. Because small issues left unchecked become big problems.

They add nothing to Finland — in fact, they undermine what the country stands for. If your religion requires that even a woman’s face must disappear from public life, then in a country like Finland, it’s your religion that needs to adapt or moderate. Not the country’s responsibility to change. We don’t have to be apologetic about that.

But I don’t think every head or face covering needs a total ban. With the Hijab or the Chador, restrictions — in some cases — make sense to me. Schools. Certain jobs. Spaces where communication and trust matter. I’ve seen young girls that couldn’t be older than 12 wearing Hijabs. Was that really their choice? Or are they already subject to the same type of social pressure placed upon women in countries that are backward in the way they treat women? Perhaps we need to be looking at age restrictions for some of the others.

Freedom vs. Endorsement

Because yes — freedom of religion should and does exist. No one should be harassed for what they choose to believe in. Ever. But freedom doesn’t mean endorsement. Finland doesn’t need to celebrate coverings as “diversity.” That’s a slippery slope.

Symbols of Oppression Abroad

And let’s not forget what these garments symbolize elsewhere. They are not neutral. In Iran, women risk prison or death for resisting the Hijab. In Afghanistan, the Burka is a prison. Women are not allowed to speak. Their voices are gone. They are powerless. Across the Middle East and Africa, these garments are the uniform of gender apartheid.

Is this what Finland wants to co-sign and endorse? For the sake of “diversity,” are we willing to ignore this horror? Are other people’s chains now a fashion accessory? Something to be marketed as “empowerment” in the West? That’s not diversity. That’s a disturbing perversion of truth.

The Risk for Finland

So forgive me for having reservations about how these garments take root here — and the message Finland sends by being too afraid to confront the issue head on.

What happens when — or if — wearing a Burka or even a Hijab stops being a choice for girls growing up in Muslim communities in Finland? How do we know they’re free, when community pressure is one of the most powerful forces in the world? How would we even deal with that? Will we shrug and say, “It’s their culture”? Or will Finland, one of the most equal countries on earth, actually take a stand?

Learning From Others

Finland is lucky to be “late to the party” at times. Because we can look at other countries, see their mistakes, and make better choices. Other European countries are already dealing with this issue on a much larger scale. But it’s not only them.

Look at the evidence. Even Muslim-majority countries have taken steps. Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria have all restricted the Burka in different ways — from banning it in government offices to removing it from workplaces and shops. Uzbekistan went even further, passing a law that bans full face coverings in public altogether.

And in Europe? Finland would hardly be the first to ban or restrict the Burka. Around a dozen countries have acted — France, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Norway, the Netherlands, and others. Some bans are total, others partial, but the point is the same: they all recognized that face coverings don’t fit with their values or their way of life.

These are not fringe states. These are mainstream democracies — and even Muslim societies. They all came to the same conclusion: some practices don’t fit. Just because something is “diverse” doesn’t mean it’s good.

Answering the Counterarguments

Now, what are the arguments against bans or restrictions? Three, usually.
It’s Islamophobic.
It’s undemocratic.
It’s not important, and we shouldn’t worry about it.

Here’s why I disagree.

Is it Islamophobic? No. Finland already welcomes Muslims. This is not about rejecting people — it’s about rejecting practices that contradict our values or erode social cohesion.

Is it undemocratic? No. Democracy isn’t chaos. It’s freedom protected by rules. You can’t drive 150 km/h on the highway. Driving without a seatbelt is illegal — even if some could argue that it ought to be a personal choice. Laws exist so freedom doesn’t eat itself alive. They create the boundaries that make society safe.

And what about when people say it’s not important? Wrong again. Culture is everything. It’s the glue that holds a society together. Ignore it, and society cracks — and eventually crumbles into the chaos of lost national identity.

Why Finns Feel Uneasy

That’s why many Finns feel uneasy when they see certain coverings, especially in growing numbers. Not because they hate any religion or people, but because it looks like a refusal to integrate. Like someone walking into Finland holding up a sign saying: “We live here, but we will not live as you live.” What people wouldn’t feel some way about that?

The Real Danger

And here’s the real danger: if Finland can’t show clarity on these small contradictions, how will it ever show strength on bigger ones? If every cultural clash gets brushed aside as “just diversity,” the foundation weakens. You don’t see the cracks right away. But one day, the wall gives way. And then it’s too late.

The people will start feeling like their values are secondary to the will of foreigners. Look at the UK. Many ordinary people now feel their culture is an afterthought — because leaders were too timid to draw lines early on. Finland doesn’t need to make the same mistake. We can see where that road leads, and we can take the off-ramp before it’s too late.

The Bottom Line

This country must never be ashamed of what it has built. Freedom. Equality. Trust. Fairness. These are not decorations — they are the foundation. They must be protected and promoted above all else. This is one of the best and safest places to live. If someone doesn’t like the way we live here, they can always move. It’s a free world.

People who move here and add to society should be welcomed. But assimilation is not optional. Everyone can pray how they like, believe what they like, practice their religion — but only if it doesn’t contradict the fundamental values of this country.

The Burka and Niqab are one test. There will be others. And each time Finland hesitates, the cost grows.

This is not about fabric. It’s about Finland’s courage. Does this country have the backbone to defend itself culturally? Or will it trade strength for the cheap comfort of being liked?

Because the day Finland stops defending its own values is the day Finland stops being Finland. And that would be the greatest loss of all.

Share

If you enjoyed reading this, you might enjoy watching the Youtube video HERE

At the beginning of August, a story broke that was so absurd I thought it had to be a joke. It wasn’t.

One of the Moomin characters — Stinky, also known as Haisuli in Finnish — was removed from an exhibition in New York. Why? Because someone thought he might, somehow, be perceived as racist.

Yes, Stinky. A mischievous little furball with a red nose and antennae.

A Beloved Character

If you’re Finnish, you already know how deeply loved the Moomins are. If you’re not, here’s the short version: Tove Jansson created these characters in the 1940s, and they’ve since become a cultural icon. You see them on mugs, toys, TV shows, and even at a theme park.

There isn’t a Finn I’ve met who doesn’t light up when talking about the Moomins. Kids and adults alike speak of them with warmth. They’re woven into Finnish identity the way Dragon Ball Z or Naruto was for me growing up.

Which makes it all the more bizarre that anyone would look at Stinky and see… racism.

The Absurd Complaint

The exhibition at the Brooklyn Public Library was meant to celebrate 80 years of the Moomins and honor Jansson herself. But according to Roleff Kråkström, CEO of Moomin Characters:

“One of their supporters had thought Stinky could be seen as a racist symbol.”

Instead of pushing back, he replied politely:

“We see this as a healthy societal discussion.”

But how is this healthy?

If the first thought you have when looking at a children’s story full of fantastical creatures — white hippos, trolls, and a mischievous furball — is “this is racist”, I’d argue the problem is with you.

When Sensitivity Becomes Madness

This isn’t just about Stinky. It’s about the way hyper-racial awareness works. Once you start seeing everything through the lens of race, you find it everywhere — even where it doesn’t exist.

That kind of worldview doesn’t just distort the present. It rewrites the past. It teaches people to look at history with a single, negative filter. To only see what was wrong, and then use that as a broad brush to paint an entire society as rotten.

“Finland is a racist country.”

That’s the danger.

And let’s be clear: Tove Jansson was not a closet bigot. She was a lesbian living at a time when being openly gay was taboo — a queer creative pioneer. Her work is filled with themes of tolerance, belonging, and radical acceptance. To claim she was smuggling racist caricatures into her stories is insulting to her legacy.

Laughing at the Absurd

So what do we do with stories like this?

We laugh.

In Harry Potter, there’s a creature called a Boggart. It hides in a chest, takes the form of your greatest fear, and the only way to defeat it is to laugh at it — to cast the spell Riddikulus.

That’s how we should treat claims like this. Laughing strips them of power.

A Finnish Perspective

One of the things I’ve noticed living in Finland is how little “whiteness” matters here. Finns don’t primarily describe themselves as white — they describe themselves as Finnish. That’s all they’ve ever wanted to be.

When the Russian Empire tried to Russify them, Finns fought to preserve their identity. That was the battle — not skin colour.

Of course, there’s debate about the Sámi people and how they’ve been treated. But Finland never had an overseas colonial empire like Britain or France. It doesn’t have a history of slavery or institutionalised racial laws. It’s a different history, and a different context.

Which is why importing America’s racial neuroses into Finland is so dangerous.

A Final Word

No country is perfect. Finland has its share of ignorant people, like anywhere else. But as a rule, if you live here, contribute, and respect the norms, not many people care about the colour of your skin.

That’s why this whole Stinky episode matters. Not because one American complained, but because of how quickly institutions validated it. That’s where the real danger lies — giving ground where none needs to be given.

So yes, the idea of Stinky being racist is hilarious. But it’s also a reminder: Finland should protect its cultural confidence and refuse to be bullied into carrying guilt that doesn’t belong to it.

Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed this, consider subscribing or sharing this post. Sometimes the best way to fight absurdity is to laugh at it together.

If you want to watch the Youtube version of this, you can do that HERE

Share

President Stubb joined EU leaders in the United States — alongside Zelenskyy — to discuss how to bring Russia’s war against Ukraine to an end. Seeing our president so well respected and prominently featured makes me feel proud — and I know that pride is shared by the whole country.

America’s Turning Point

This was an incredibly important meeting. I’ve been an open critic of how President Trump has handled Ukraine. He has oscillated between recognizing that Ukraine is the victim and blaming them for starting the war — an outrageous idea with absolutely no truth behind it.

For now, at least, Trump seems to have adopted a fairly positive stance toward Ukraine. If you’ve followed the news, you know how antagonistic he’s often been toward America’s closest allies. Trump is famously mercurial, so who knows how long this “honeymoon” will last. Hopefully he hasn’t reverted to calling Zelenskyy a dictator before this article even goes live.

America remains the leader of the free world — whether we like it or not. It rebuilt Europe after World War II and emerged as the dominant superpower. Fascism was defeated. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, communism was defeated too. Churchill once described fascism and communism as opposites like the North and South Pole: they may have different animals roaming about, but the climate is the same — cold, bleak, and barren.

Fortunately, democracy emerged victorious. The Western world — with all its flaws — is still a far better system to live under than the alternatives. Despite what the activists calling for the “abolition” of capitalism might claim.

That’s why the infamous Oval Office meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy was so disturbing. It felt like a turning point — as though the United States was abandoning everything it had built and claimed to stand for.

Zelenskyy had refused to leave his country when it was invaded. President Biden had offered him a ride out. He replied: I don’t need a ride, I need weapons. At that moment, when the whole world thought Ukraine was doomed against Russia’s might, he chose to stay and fight. He embodied everything America says it values. Yet sitting in front of the U.S. president, he was shouted down, told to “say thank you,” and almost blamed for the illegal invasion of his own country.

So yes, it’s encouraging to see Trump change his tune. Meeting European leaders to discuss giving Ukraine security guarantees is a complete 180. I hope it continues. I’m not overly optimistic — we may still be just one phone call away from Trump switching sides again — but I hope nonetheless.

Finland Steps Up

As much as this meeting matters, what fascinates me is how involved our own president has been. Somehow, Stubb has made a small country like Finland a meaningful player on the world stage. Of course, our long border with Russia and his role as commander-in-chief are significant factors. But the deeper story — the one that makes me so proud — is that through language, wit, and historical perspective, he has reshaped how the world sees Finland.

Watch any interview with President Stubb and read the comments. It’s rare to see a politician so widely respected. Even here at home, those who disagree with him on policy still give him credit. No one can deny his influence in shaping world politics — and possibly the future of the transatlantic partnership. It’s fitting, since he openly describes himself as a true believer in that partnership.

After that Oval Office debacle, the relationship between Trump and Zelenskyy seemed broken. That was devastating for Europe, because the way this war ends will shape the future of the Western world. I felt hopeless then, as though geopolitics were unraveling into something grotesque. But behind the scenes, who was working to repair the damage? President Stubb.

Not alone, of course — other European leaders played their parts. But Stubb’s role was crucial. Not long after, he hosted Zelenskyy in Helsinki. It was the perfect contrast: warm, respectful, hopeful. They laughed and joked. Finland felt his burden — the weight of carrying his nation’s survival on his shoulders.

When Stubb treated him with such dignity, it felt as though Finland was speaking through him — and even as someone who’s become Finn(ish), I shared in that pride.

Soon after, we learned that Stubb had spent several hours playing golf with Trump. The unannounced meeting stunned Finland. Since when was our small country casually “in the room” with the big powers? They discussed many issues, including Ukraine. Stubb spoke frankly, warning that Putin cannot be trusted, yet managed not to alienate Trump. And then, almost casually, he secured American interest in buying Finnish icebreakers — at a time when Trump seemed hostile to nearly everyone except Putin. Trump even posted on Truth Social about strengthening ties between Finland and the U.S.

And now, at this latest summit, Trump’s tone is completely different. Even after meeting Putin, he speaks of giving Ukraine security guarantees alongside his European allies.

Why It Matters

Seeing our president at the table with the world’s most powerful leaders is exhilarating. Whenever he speaks, he is articulate, coherent, and brimming with historical depth — which he distills into words anyone can grasp.

Finland knows what it’s like to fight alone. In the Winter War, we faced the Soviet Union by ourselves. No one came to help. It feels fitting that today we refuse to let another nation face a similar struggle alone. And we’re proud that our president is helping to lead that effort.

Thanks for reading.

Share

Finland needs to remain Finnish. With all its unique quirks, its reserved nature, its odd but charming social norms — the things that make this country what it is. I’m not talking about race here. Yes, most Finns are white — and that’s perfectly okay. That’s not the point.

What I’m talking about is culture.

Culture is the foundation of any society. It’s the invisible glue that holds everything together. If Finland wants to protect what makes it safe, functional, and peaceful, then it must protect its culture. The same goes for any country that wishes to retain its identity.

There is so much beauty in that diversity. True diversity. If I go to Japan, I want it to feel like Japan. If I go to Botswana, I want it to feel like Botswana.

The Immigration Question

Immigration should be built on a simple idea: bring in high-quality people — people who love the country, who respect its way of life, who are willing to contribute and integrate. And I’ve seen firsthand that Finland is overwhelmingly accepting of people like that. Myself included.

But if European countries don’t get this right, they risk walking into disaster. And it’s not a vague threat — we’re already seeing some of this happen.

Sweden’s Cautionary Tale

Sweden went from one of the safest countries in the world… to one plagued by gang violence, grenade attacks, and rising inequality. There are now more explosions in Sweden than in any non-war zone. Criminal gangs recruit children because they know the legal system treats minors more leniently.

It’s absolutely unhinged.

How did that happen? What kind of governance allows a country to unravel like that?

Now they’re stuck with a problem they can’t easily fix — if they can fix it at all. No-go zones. Parallel societies. Entire neighbourhoods where Swedish values have been replaced by imported ones. And this despite the opportunities Sweden offers its citizens.

The UK: A Warning From History

And then there’s the UK — a country with a rich history and centuries of tradition. What happened there?

How do you go from that… to a country where people chant “Death to the IDF” at Glastonbury, a music festival?

How does a society allow a scandal involving the mass grooming and abuse of thousands of young girls by mostly Pakistani men — and then ignore it?

It’s coming out now that both police and politicians knew. But they were afraid. Afraid to act. Afraid of being called racist.

So they said nothing.

These girls — many from poor, working-class neighbourhoods — cried out for help. But their cries weren’t heard.

Only now, after years of silence, is the UK launching a national inquiry — and only because Keir Starmer, who previously opposed it, is feeling political pressure. On Twitter he’s suddenly making statements that are 180 degrees from his previous statements just a few months ago. It’s almost comical. The people are frustrated.

How do you allow your own people to be sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism and inclusion?

The Rise of Suicidal Empathy

This is what I call suicidal empathy — and it’s spreading.

It’s a condition of the modern Western world. From Sweden, to the UK, to France — and yes, even here in Finland.

It’s the inability to see the world clearly. The refusal to understand that not all cultures are equal.

I know that’s a triggering statement for some people. But think about it.

Would you want to live in a country where child marriage is legal? Where women are banned from getting an education? Where dissent is punished, where blasphemy laws end lives?

No, you wouldn’t.

Yet there are some people who will defend this kind of cultural relativism even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work or would be terrible to live under. Just because they want to be seen as “inclusive.”

This is not me saying that democracy, our values or capitalism doesn’t have its problems. They sure do. Many of them. But in my eyes, it’s way more preferable than any other system. By a mile.

The Instagram Exchange

I remember posting something on Instagram — saying that I didn’t want Finland to go down the same path as Sweden. A girl responded, insisting that those neighbourhoods I mentioned were “inclusive” and “multicultural.” When I pointed out the gang violence, she admitted it was bad — but quickly blamed it on inequality.

She was ready to blame everyone and everything except the actual criminals, and the failed integration.

This kind of thinking is dangerous. The inability to see things as they are will lead this country — and others — down a road that no one will enjoy. And it’s not hypothetical. We are watching it unfold in real time.

Coming from South Africa, I never had the luxury of being naive. Reality always punched you in the face. Hard.

Universal Values Are Not Universal

It’s important to remember that the world is not as simple as many would like to believe. Ideas like freedom of speech, women’s rights, democracy — these are not universal values. They’re not respected or even understood in large parts of the world.

We’ve convinced ourselves that other cultures want what we want. That deep down, they are all the same.

But that’s a fantasy.

Try preaching women’s empowerment in Afghanistan. See how far you get. Women there are banned from education. They’re silenced.

The same people who go on and on about apartheid in Israel — conveniently ignore the actual gender apartheid all across the Middle East. Women simply don’t have the same rights as men. Try holding a Pride parade in Saudi Arabia. Try getting drunk in public in Dubai. You’ll be arrested — or worse.

And you know what? They have the right to enforce their laws and protect their culture. Because it’s their country. If I ever went to visit, I wouldn’t go there to change anything.

So why is it that we — in the West — seem so ashamed of doing the same?

Why do we hesitate to say:

“This is our culture. This is how we live. If you come here, you need to respect that. If you don’t, you can leave.”

We should be able to say that with our chest.

Culture ≠ Race

Here’s the part where people get uncomfortable. They hear “culture” and they think I’m talking about race.

That’s absurd.

Culture is not the colour of your skin. Culture is history, language, religion, art, education, values, and yes — sometimes ethnicity. In the same way your personal memories shape who you are, shared culture shapes a people. It creates social cohesion and trust.

The key difference is: Culture can be learned. It can be adopted. Race is fixed. Culture is flexible.

I’m Black. That’s not going to change. And I wouldn’t want it to.

But I’ve also embraced many aspects of Finnish culture. I’ve learned from it. I respect the social norms.

What’s at Stake

If Finland — or the UK — wants to remain what it is, then it needs to make sure that the people coming in hold views that are compatible with its way of life.

That’s not xenophobic. That’s just logical.

There’s a reason I don’t fear being stabbed when I walk through Helsinki.

There’s a reason I’ve lost my wallet or laptop in public and still believed — with some confidence — that I might get it back. And often, I do.

That’s not magic, or luck. That’s culture.

Finnish people are raised with values that make things like petty theft rare — not impossible, but rare. Yes, bikes still get stolen. And yes, someone broke into my apartment storage once and stole some stuff. But the point is, it’s not normalized.

Compare that to South Africa, where the chance of recovering anything you’ve lost is next to zero. If you’re not careful, you will be pickpocketed. Your phone will disappear. Walk in the wrong area and you might be robbed — or worse.

It’s a completely different world. And most people living in peaceful countries have no idea just how fragile peace really is. They have no idea how scary it is for someone like me to see them defend bad behaviour from a place of naivety.

Integration Over Multiculturalism

Immigration has always been a part of the human story. People move. Cultures mix. New things are created. That’s good.

But societies have the right to choose what they absorb — and what they reject.

Integration matters. Especially for European countries who are relatively new to mass migration.

If someone’s religion, customs, or ideology contradicts the core values of the society they’re entering — then it’s that person’s job to adapt. Not the society’s job to bend. After enough bends, that country changes forever.

You can thrive in Finland. People are welcoming. But they expect you to respect their values.

Multiculturalism for the sake of it — without shared values, without integration — leads to tension. Social tension. Social mistrust. And eventually, societal breakdown. This isn’t me being an alarmist. This is me being realistic.

The people who will get angry at what I’m saying are the same people who will defend their world view even if things got bad. Like that woman on Instagram.

Let Finland Be Finland

Finland is a unique place. Its history is inspiring. The Winter War still gives me chills.

Centuries under the Swedish Empire. A century under Russian rule. And yet — Finns remained Finns.

They rejected Russification. They refused to be conquered. And they built a country that is safe, prosperous, and proud.

Their motto at the time said it all:

“The Swedish we are not. The Russians we do not want to be. So let us be Finns.”

I may not be a Finn. But I sure do love this country like one.

Thanks for reading.

Share

They try to qualify my words:

“Yes, yes, I’m happy for you… BUT…”

Some call me a traitor. Others claim I’m invalidating the experiences of other Black people in this country.

There’s a certain ideology — especially in some activist and political circles — that seems determined to paint Finland and its people in the worst possible light. But here’s the truth, based on my lived experience:

There aren’t many places on Earth as unfazed by the colour of your skin as Finland.

Of Course Racism Exists — But Let's Be Honest

Let me be clear:
I’m not saying there’s no racism here. It exists. It always will. This isn’t heaven.

But compared to most places I’ve lived or visited, the barrier racism creates here is low.
You can live peacefully in Finland — regardless of your skin color.

And yet, you wouldn’t know that from the narrative pushed by some people.

“Finland Is a Racist Country”?

I saw this narrative up close during my campaign for Helsinki City Council.

Two Members of Parliament ran on the message:

“Finland is a racist country.”

This messaging shocked me — and frankly, it irritated me.

To me, that kind of framing is extreme, destructive, and disrespectful. Yet many people eat it up. Some seem to want to believe it. That racism is everywhere. That it’s hidden. That you just can’t see it — but they can.

Apparently, some people have developed the ability to see into the hearts of strangers.

And it worked. They got elected. So there are clearly people in this country who truly believe that message.

But from my perspective, it’s a narrative that’s completely detached from everyday life.

You’d think being Black in Finland means dodging stones in the street or being targeted by racist laws.
It’s not just inaccurate — it’s unhinged.

In response, a friend of mine — who was also running — posted a simple message:

“Finland is a wonderful country.”

The reaction was overwhelmingly positive.
People were relieved to hear someone with darker skin say something they felt but were afraid to express.
Because these days, if you’re white and say you’re not racist, apparently that just makes you extra racist.

I Came Prepared for Racism

I moved to Finland in mid-2019. I didn’t know what to expect.

I watched hours of YouTube videos to prepare myself. But let’s be honest — you can’t fully understand a country or its people from YouTube.

Still, I came ready. I knew I was walking into a new, unfamiliar culture.
And I was prepared to face racism. I’d seen it. I’d lived through it. I was ready to weather the storm.

Life in South Africa

I grew up in South Africa — a beautiful country still haunted by the legacy of Apartheid.

In my view, one of the reasons it struggles today is its inability to stop looking backward and start building forward.

Race was everywhere.
It was often part of conversations — serious or joking.
It shaped how people saw the world, how they treated each other, and how they lived their lives.

I was born in the Democratic Republic of Congo. My family fled when I was a baby.
I grew up in South Africa — and for some people, that didn’t matter. Xenophobia was real.
I remember violent anti-immigrant riots that left people dead.
Thankfully, my family was never directly affected. But the message was clear: racial and ethnic tension was normal.

I learned early that survival meant growing thick skin.
I trained myself not to look for racism in every interaction — because if I did, I’d find it.
Still, I had amazing friends of all races. I loved my life in Cape Town.

But race was always in the room. That was just how life worked. And I dealt with it. I wasn’t a victim — and I didn’t want to live like one.

Then I Moved to Finland

A nearly all-white country. I expected suspicion. Side-eyes. Store security following me. Maybe even biased systems.

But what I found was completely different.

My skin colour played almost no role in how I was treated.

It was like I’d been holding my breath my entire life — and finally surfaced for air.

It reminded me of a moment from my childhood.
I was struggling to see the board in school and slowly moved closer and closer to the front.
Then one day, my sister let me try her glasses. I was stunned.
For the first time, I saw every leaf on every tree. The stars weren’t blurry blobs — they were crisp, distinct points in the sky.
That moment blew my mind.

That’s what moving to Finland felt like.
I didn’t know what it was like to live without racial tension until I did.
It wasn’t the absence of people — it was the absence of suspicion.

That freedom — the freedom to not have to think about race — was the greatest gift I didn’t know I needed.

Speaking Up — and Getting Backlash

So I started making videos. I spoke about my experience — from a place of joy.

I wanted to shed light on what I’d found.
I thought it was amazing.

But something happened I didn’t expect.
Some people got angry. They still are.

People told me my experience was invalid. That I was betraying some unspoken narrative.

One of my most viral videos on Instagram and TikTok triggered that exact backlash.
Some were outraged that I had the audacity to say good things about a country that’s mostly white.

But here’s the thing:
Finns don’t see themselves as white. They see themselves as Finnish.

Their skin color didn’t give them historical privilege. What built this country was values — and courage.

The Demoralization Campaign

Today, I see a dangerous push to demonize Western cultures from within — not just in Finland, but across much of the Western world.

Voices like mine — voices that celebrate what works — are not amplified.

Negative stories spread faster. They attract more clicks, more outrage, more airtime.

But where are the stories of people like me saying:

“I love this place. It gave me peace. It gave me dignity.”

There’s a campaign of demoralization — and Finland must not fall for it.

I’m doing my part to make sure it doesn’t.

I’m About to Be a Dad

Soon, I’ll be a father.
My child will be born in this country — and I’m so grateful for that.

I’ll teach them to have thick skin. To recognize that there are shallow people out there who judge based on appearance.
But I’ll also teach them to find peace. To surround themselves with good people.
To seek dignity and live with courage.

Finland isn’t perfect. No place is.

But it’s worth protecting. It’s worth being proud of.

This country wasn’t built by accident.
It was built with intention — through hard work, unity, and shared cultural values.

Final Thoughts

So no — Finland is not a racist country.
Yes, there are racist people — just like everywhere else.
But Finland is my home.

And I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else.

We can always improve things. But let’s never forget what makes this place so rare:

Trust.
Order.
Peace.
Culture.

And yes — pride in what came before.
That doesn’t require shame. Even as a foreigner, I can say that with love.

Share

The Push to Recognize a Palestinian State

Across Europe, leaders like Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron have condemned Israel and called for the recognition of a Palestinian state. Here in Finland, members of the SDP—the Social Democratic Party—along with other left-leaning parties—are doing the same. They’re pushing for Finland to formally recognize a Palestinian state right now, in the middle of an active war.

Here’s what one Finnish MP recently wrote (translated from Finnish):

“Finland's foreign policy is now expected to have courage and a clear way to act according to its values. Respect for human life, the right of all to live in peace and freedom, are things that must be defended in practical action. Finland cannot stay on the wrong side of history in this regard. Therefore, at yesterday's SDP party council meeting, we presented that: addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the recognition of the Palestinian state must be brought to Parliament.”

At first glance, this might sound like justice. Like compassion—even. But the reality is far more complicated. In fact, it betrays a catastrophic misunderstanding of the situation—on almost every level.

Because by doing what the SDP suggests, we are not ending the conflict. We may actually be ensuring that it lasts forever. Worse, we may be rewarding—and encouraging—the use of terror as a political tool.

The Gaza Withdrawal and the Rise of Hamas

Let’s rewind to 2005. That year, Israel did something drastic: it withdrew entirely from Gaza. Thousands of Israeli settlers—some of whom had lived there for decades—were forcibly removed by their own government. It was painful. Emotional. Controversial. But to many, it was seen as a step toward peace.

The hope was simple: Palestinians would govern themselves. The world would help them build a future. Billions in aid poured in. Infrastructure projects began. For a moment, a kind of de facto state was taking shape—governed by the Palestinian Authority.

But the peace didn’t last.

In 2006, Hamas entered politics and won a surprise victory in the Palestinian legislative elections. It shocked the international community. And then, in 2007, they turned their guns on Fatah—Palestine’s other major political party—and violently seized full control of Gaza in a bloody civil conflict.

That’s when everything changed.

From that point on, Hamas became the uncontested ruler of Gaza. They diverted international aid, stockpiled weapons, and rapidly expanded their tunnel networks. Instead of building a peaceful future with hospitals and schools, they built bunkers and bomb factories. Instead of protecting their people, they used them as shields.

Rocket fire into Israel—which had already existed—skyrocketed after 2007.

Then came October 7th.

The world watched as Hamas launched the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Their targets weren’t soldiers. They were families. Children. Festival-goers. Civilians.

And here’s what makes it worse: many of those killed were peace activists. Left-wing Israelis who worked with Palestinians. Some even helped children from Gaza receive medical treatment in Israeli hospitals. They were butchered just like everyone else.

Hamas was so proud of what they had done, they filmed it. Live Streamed it. And after the massacre, they promised to do it again. And again. And again.

This is why Israel is hellbent on destroying them. Ripping out their roots. Burning them out completely.

War, International Law, and the Reality on the Ground

Let’s talk about war.

War is gruesome. No sane person should celebrate it. But unfortunately, we still live in a world where war is sometimes necessary.

After World War II, the international community tried to make war more humane. They established laws to protect civilians, to prevent total destruction.

These rules had to balance two opposing needs:
1 - Minimize unnecessary suffering.
2 - Allow states to defend themselves.

That’s where terms like proportionality come in. If a strike eliminates a valuable military target, some level of civilian harm may be legally tolerated—if it’s not excessive. It’s uncomfortable to talk about. But these are the realities of war.

And these rules only work if both sides follow them.

Hamas does not.

They fire rockets from hospitals and schools. They store weapons under mosques. They dress like civilians. They use ambulances for cover. They embed themselves in apartment blocks.

They do this on purpose—to provoke civilian casualties and turn the world against Israel. Because when Israel strikes back, what the world sees is rubble. What they don’t see are the rocket launchers hidden beneath the rubble. Or the snipers on the rooftops.

And yet, despite these challenges, the IDF often delays strikes. They drop leaflets. They make phone calls. They use roof-knocking bombs and smaller munitions. They risk their own soldiers to avoid civilian casualties. Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. When it attacks to eliminate fighters, it’s called genocidal. When it tries to move the population out of harm’s way, it’s called ethnic cleansing. All lies, by the way.

Still, Gaza looks devastated—because Hamas has militarized every inch of it. Apartments and buildings are booby-trapped and riddled with tunnels. Many of these buildings must be demolished.

And yet, even in this hellish environment, Israel’s combatant-to-civilian casualty ratio remains lower than any modern army fighting in dense urban terrain.

Is that a reason to celebrate? No. Every civilian death is a tragedy. But this isn’t genocide. It’s not mindless bombing. It’s war—against a death cult that uses international law as a trap. And it’s one of the most complex, morally exhausting military operations of our time.

Share

Finland’s Role and the Future

This is why I worry when I hear Finnish politicians calling for recognition now.

Because recognizing a Palestinian state while Hamas still controls Gaza would send the worst possible message: that terrorism works. That if you slaughter civilians, use your own people as shields, and hide behind international sympathy—you’ll be rewarded with legitimacy.

That’s not how peace is made. That’s how violence becomes permanent.

Right now, Israel is executing a ground strategy known as Gideon’s Chariot. Unlike previous operations, this one isn’t just “hit and leave.” They are holding territory, creating safe zones, and working to permanently dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure.

For this to succeed, the way aid is delivered must change. Up until now, Hamas has been stealing humanitarian aid and reselling it to its own people at inflated prices. That system cannot continue.

If Israel succeeds, it might be the first real chance for Gaza’s people to rebuild—without the boot of extremism on their necks.

That future isn’t guaranteed. But one thing is clear: Recognizing a Palestinian state now will not bring peace. It will only prolong suffering—for both sides. It will also damage Finland’s ability to help Palestinians in the future.

Israel will see us not as neutral, but as enablers of terror. That’s already happening with Norway, who recently recognized Palestine. It’s done nothing to help Palestinians—and everything to damage relations with Israel.

We all want peace. But peace without truth isn’t peace. It’s theatre.

And in Finland—a country that values order, truth, and moral clarity—we should know better.

I remember thinking, there aren’t many phrases that could truly anger most Finnish people… until I heard those words.

This kind of thinking is a problem I’ve seen with many American commentators.
They act like they know how the whole world works—as if the American perspective is the only one that truly matters.
Sometimes, they even try to bring “nuance” to global events—but it’s nuance that exists only within an American worldview.

But if you know anything about Eastern Europe, you'd never make such a wild statement.

And that’s why so many Americans still don’t understand how important the war between Russia and Ukraine is—to Europe.
How critical it is for Ukraine to remain independent and preserve its cultural identity.
To avoid Russification.
Because other countries have faced that very same threat—including Finland.

Now I know, I’m picking on this guy based on a small clip. But I’m using it as an example.

You’ve probably heard of Johnny Harris—a big YouTuber. And he’s really good at what he does. His videos are entertaining and informative.
But a while ago, he released a video explaining why Russia invaded Ukraine.
He tried to, in his words, explain it from the Russian perspective.
But in the end, it looked and sounded like straight-up Russian propaganda.

You know the game:
“NATO expansion provoked them.”
“The West is the bad guy.”
Blah blah blah.

That video triggered an enormous wave of anger and pain from Ukrainians and other Europeans. The backlash was so intense that he had to take it down—and make an apology video.

The problem is that the “American or Western narrative” often strips agency from countries that aren’t part of “the West.”
To them, it’s never about nations that simply want to break free from Russia.
Who are ready to pay for their independence with blood, sweat, and tears.
No—those people are just pawns, manipulated by America, being pulled away from their natural home in the safe bosom of “Mother Russia.”
It’s insane.

And it’s frustrating.
Especially when you hear similar tone-deaf comments coming from even the President of the United States.

A Brief History Lesson

Eastern Europe has struggled against domination by Moscow-led empires for centuries.

That started with the Russian Empire, ruled by tsars, which expanded aggressively across the Baltic and into Finland.
That empire collapsed in 1917, after centuries of autocratic rule.

In its place rose the Soviet Union—a communist superpower that retained many of the same imperial instincts, only now with Marxist ideology as justification.

Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union fell.
What emerged was the Russian Federation—what we now call “Russia.”
But while the flags, slogans, and leadership changed, the behavior remained chillingly consistent.

From tsars to Soviets to oligarchs—the desire to dominate neighbors never truly died.

Countries like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia didn’t wait for someone to tell them what to do.
They wanted independence.
They wanted to shape their own future.
To lead themselves.
To modernize.
To become part of the Western world.

They weren’t manipulated—they were proactive.
That’s why they wanted to join NATO.
Because NATO was—and is—the largest military alliance in the world.
It was their only protection against a Russia that never truly lost its imperial hunger.

That’s why calling Finland “very Russian” is more than absurd.
It’s an insult.

The Finnish Story

Finland's story is one of resistance.
Of independence.
Of protecting its identity.

In the 12th century, Finland was colonized by the Kingdom of Sweden.
Then in 1809, it was captured by the Russian Empire.

That’s when Finland became an autonomous region known as the Grand Duchy of Finland.
And for a while, things were relatively stable.
They were allowed to keep their language, culture, and institutions.

This captures something essential about Finnish culture—even today:
They just want to be left alone and for their culture to remain intact.

But in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Russian Empire changed its strategy.
They began a policy known as Russification—a slow but deliberate erasure of non-Russian cultures.
The Grand Duchy began losing its autonomy.
New laws were passed that favored Russian interests.
From the empire’s perspective, it was time to take full control.

That’s when Finnish nationalism truly awakened.

They had a powerful motto:

“Swedes we are not,
Russians we do not want to be,
So let us be Finns.”

And in 1917, with the collapse of the Russian Empire, Finland finally declared independence.

The Winter War

In 1939, just before World War II, the Soviet Union demanded land from Finland.
The Finns knew—if they gave in, more demands would follow.

So they refused. And the Soviets invaded.

The plan was simple: conquer all of Finland and turn it into a puppet state.
But it didn’t go as planned.

This was the Winter War—a true David and Goliath story.

Finland lost over 26,000 soldiers—a devastating cost.
But the Soviets lost over 126,000.
Another 200,000 were wounded, and 5,000 captured.

The Soviet Union was humiliated.
And it’s believed that this humiliation led Adolf Hitler to believe he could conquer the Soviets easily—a mistake that cost him dearly.

The Era of Finlandization

In the decades that followed, Finland adopted a careful strategy known as Finlandization.

The idea was: don’t provoke the bear.
In exchange for neutrality, Finland avoided invasion. That was the deal.
But there were limits on what it could say or do.
Freedom—but conditional.
Necessary—but resented.

And through it all, there was a hope—a fragile hope—that the Soviet Union would honor its side of the bargain.

But time and again, Moscow showed it could not be trusted.

Subscribe now

A New Era

After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 by the modern Russian Federation, both Finland and Sweden abandoned neutrality.
They joined NATO.

Finland is no longer neutral—in any way, shape, or form.

They understand the reality of living next to a hostile neighbor.
They understand the importance of military deterrence.
They understand what’s at stake.

So when someone says, “Finland is very Russian,”
They’re not just wrong.
They’re insulting the memory of those who fought and died to prevent Russification.
They’re dismissing the centuries-long struggle to preserve an identity, a culture, a nation.

Thank you for reading.

Share

Zelenskyy came to Finland.
I knew because… my bus didn’t arrive when I was trying to get to work.

But on a serious note, the contrast between his meeting with President Stubb and the one with Donald Trump was night and day.

A Changing World Order

The war in Ukraine is not just a regional conflict. It’s a turning point for the world. How it ends will shape the future of NATO, the EU, and the entire geopolitical order. Is America still the leader of the free world? What will become of its global influence? Will the hegemony of the U.S. and Europe evolve—or collapse?

Before the U.S. elections, it felt like something was shifting. Dictators were growing bolder. Terrorism was being applauded—or at least defended—across parts of the world. The world needed leadership. Real leadership.

The American Dilemma

Joe Biden was... old. And honestly, things felt grim. Then Kamala Harris stepped up to run against Trump. But the problem with Harris was that she never said anything of substance, or demonstrated that she knew anything about, well, anything. The Democratic party as a whole had been lost in identity politics for a while, and seemed more focused on appeasing the radical fringe elements instead of listening to the people.

Trump, on the other hand, was a wild card—but confident. He promised to remove identity politics from government. He said what many considered basic, reasonable things, like: “Let’s protect women’s sports.”
And on Ukraine, he made bold promises like: “I’ll end the war in 24 hours.”

Now, sure—most of us knew he was lying, or wildly exaggerating. But he was lying with confidence, and to many Americans, that was more appealing than the alternative.

Even some of us outside the U.S.—myself included—were cautiously optimistic.
Here was someone, imperfect as he may be, who might just be able to lead the world into a better future, if he played his cards right.

Boy, was I wrong.

A Disturbing Shift

Maybe I was naive. But I didn’t expect Donald Trump to come across as surprisingly sympathetic to Russia.
Not just in words, but in actions—and especially in the way he speaks about Putin, versus how he speaks about Ukraine. If you live in Europe, you understand how important the war in Ukraine is—especially for countries quite close to it. Like Finland.

The Oval Office meeting between Trump’s administration and President Zelenskyy sent shockwaves across the world.
It also changed my view of America forever. It made us wonder whose side America is on. A country that prides itself in standing against dictators and standing up for democracy.

There had already been red flags. Trump had called Zelenskyy a dictator—something truly absurd, considering Ukraine is literally defending itself from an actual dictator.
It felt incredibly wrong. We all saw that tweet. It was disheartening. But I tried to brush it off as Trump just being Trump.

Then came the meeting. It started off relatively calm, despite shade being thrown at Zelenskyy for not wearing a suit.
Condescending. Unnecessary.
But I brushed past it again, hoping the actual conversation would be productive.

Boy, was I wrong—again.

The Mineral Deal With No Security Guarantees

The discussion revolved around a potential mineral deal between the U.S. and Ukraine.
I don’t know the full details, but in simple terms, America stood to make a lot of money by mining resources in Ukraine.
Trump claimed it would be a way for Ukraine to “pay back” the billions America had spent—repeating a wildly inaccurate number: $350 billion. A number that is provably false.

But here’s the real kicker: there were no security guarantees in the deal.
Security was simply inferred, not promised.
And Ukraine had good reason to be skeptical—because back in 2022, American companies were already operating in Ukraine when Russia invaded… and that didn’t function as a deterrent to Russia. They did not care.

During the meeting, a reporter asked a simple but critical question: "What if Russia breaks the ceasefire?" Trump's reply was flippant and dismissive: "What if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head now?" He followed up by saying, "They broke ceasefires under Biden because they didn’t respect him. They respect me."

It was a moment that said everything about his approach—not grounded in realism or responsibility, but bravado and personal ego.

Share

The Historical Context

Let’s rewind a bit.
Ukraine, as part of the former Soviet Union, once had nuclear weapons.
In 1994, it gave them up in exchange for a handshake deal of sorts between the U.S., the UK, and Russia. It promised Ukraine its sovereignty.
This agreement—known as the Budapest Memorandum—was designed to make the world safer by reducing nuclear weapons, while protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty. Everything was peachy.

But in 2014, Russia reached out its hand and simply took Crimea.
Claimed it. Annexed it.
And in 2022, as the world knows, Russia launched a full-scale invasion.
This is the context Ukraine lives in today.

The spark that set the meeting ablaze was when JD Vance interjected and claimed that now was the time for “diplomacy.” It wasn’t necessarily what he said that was the problem. It’s what he was implying that frustrated everyone.

He was speaking as if diplomacy hasn’t already been tried—over and over again. As if Ukraine and Russia are somehow equal players in this war. As if Ukraine should be blamed for defending itself against an unprovoked invasion.

That’s why Zelenskyy asked the question that turned the spark into a raging flame:
What kind of agreement can we make with Russia? With Putin?
We want peace. We want to be part of the Western world. This is their war—not ours.
They break every single agreement they make. So what kind of ceasefire—without real security—could ever hold?

And that, my friends, is when everything went crazy.

The world watched in horror as JD Vance and Donald Trump shouted down a president fighting for his country against a ruthless dictator. A president who had every opportunity to flee, but instead chose to stay and fight alongside his people. A man who stood for the very values the West claims to defend. And yet, in that room, America belittled him. JD Vance smugly asked when the last time Zelenskyy said "thank you" was. It was a moment that changed everything.

Most of us here in Europe understand something very basic…

Ukraine wants lasting peace.
A peace that will outlive Donald Trump.
Zelenskyy’s frustration—his emotion—is something much of Europe shares.
Because right now, the so-called leader of the free world is willing to condemn everyone except the actual aggressor.

Trump even suggested that Ukraine started the war.

How delusional do you have to be to make such an insane statement?

When that meeting ended, I had a pit in my stomach.

Europe’s Responsibility

Now look—Europe isn’t off the hook here.
For too long, it has relied too heavily on the U.S. for defense, security, and leadership.
This old continent has a choice to make:
It can stop complaining and start leading.
It can invest, innovate, and rise again—if it truly wants to.
Or, it can remain dependent and accept the disrespect being shown to it. But I think things are changing.

That said, that Oval Office meeting was a disgusting stain on America’s image as the leader of the Western world.
Because the U.S. of today appears to be hard on the weak and soft on the strong.

Putin literally turned down Trump’s 30-day ceasefire plan, basically slapping it aside.
And yet, Trump still treats Russia with kid gloves.
There is something deeply broken in this moral compass.
The aggressor is pampered.
The aggressed is blamed. It’s hard to watch.

Finland’s Quiet Leadership

So when Zelenskyy came to Finland and was treated with honour, it said something powerful about who we are.
President Stubb—poised, articulate, and gracious—was a stark contrast to everything we witnessed in that Oval Office.

During the meeting, President Stubb pointed out that Finland, because of its history with Russia, understands Ukraine’s position better than most.
It understands Russian propaganda.
It understands the danger of appeasement.
And it understands what it would mean for the world if the U.S. walked away from its global responsibilities.

After World War II, America helped build a world where dictators couldn’t just grab territory whenever they felt like it.
Despite its flaws, America made world trade safer. It brought some stability.
People trusted its word.

If that trust is gone—what happens next?
Why wouldn’t every country in the world start pursuing nuclear weapons again?
Would that make the world safer?

I don’t think so.

That’s why now, I put my hope in Europe.
It has to rise up.
Not just to protect Ukraine—but to protect the values we all say we believe in.

Thank you for reading! Watch the Youtube video version HERE

When Russia launched its brutal invasion of Ukraine, the world watched in shock. What was expected to be a swift victory for one of the world’s largest militaries turned into a grueling war of resistance. Three years later, Ukraine still stands. Yet, shockingly, the victim has been increasingly demonized, blamed as though it is an equal participant in the violence.

Let’s frame it differently. If you are walking down the street and someone attacks you with the intent of taking everything you own, are you equally to blame if you fight back? What if your attacker is bigger and stronger? Are you foolish for not handing over your possessions?

This absurd reasoning has seeped into political discourse. Some argue Ukraine provoked Russia, or that the war is an inevitable consequence of NATO expansion. These are narratives rooted in ignorance or disinformation.

A Divided West

The rhetoric coming out of the United States has been particularly confusing. On one hand, America has provided Ukraine with crucial military aid, helping stave off Russian domination. On the other hand, leading figures like Donald Trump and certain conservative voices have suggested Ukraine was unwise to fight at all. More baffling, Trump recently lied about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling him a dictator. This is outrageous and deeply disturbing. Zelenskyy leads a democratic nation fighting for its survival, while Trump casually undermines him with baseless accusations.

Adding to the confusion, some American politicians publicly declare what they will not do to aid Ukraine, effectively signaling to Putin that certain lines won’t be crossed. This is a bizarre strategy for any negotiation. If you can even call it a negotiation.

To be clear, not wanting to be overly involved is a reasonable position for the U.S. It’s the messy, often contradictory way this stance is communicated that raises eyebrows. Announcing limits before negotiations is the opposite of strength.

Europe’s Role

Ultimately, this is not a burden America should shoulder alone. Europe is the region most affected by Russian aggression. History is littered with examples of Russian expansionism. From the Tsarist empire to the Soviet Union and now modern Russia, the goal has been consistent: dominance over its neighbors.

NATO membership has proven to be the one reliable shield. No NATO country has been invaded. Those who joined found stability and security. Ukraine, left in the gray zone between Russian influence and Western integration, has been punished for aspiring to freedom.

Despite this, Europe was slow to recognize the threat. After Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, NATO and the EU largely returned to business as usual. Germany and other nations continued relying on cheap Russian gas, fostering economic dependence on their greatest geopolitical threat.

The Current Shift

Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 was a wake-up call. Countries like Poland and the Baltic states had been warning about this for years. Finland and Sweden abandoned their long-held neutrality, joining NATO because they understood what was at stake. Russia had proven itself, once again, to be an untrustworthy and dangerous neighbor.

There are encouraging signs that Europe is taking this more seriously. Leaders across the continent are meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, discussing deeper cooperation. There is hope that these talks will lead to action, not just rhetoric.

Propaganda and Public Opinion

One of the most unsettling aspects of this conflict has been the effectiveness of Russian propaganda. Early on, even I found myself feeling oddly sympathetic towards Russia. Without realizing it, I had absorbed narratives suggesting NATO expansion was the root of the problem. Only when I began seriously researching the history and realities of Eastern Europe did I realize how wrong this view was.

Russian disinformation is subtle. It doesn’t scream lies; it nudges you toward doubt, playing on existing frustrations and fears. The goal is to erode Western unity and foster inaction.

Share

The Truth is Simple

This war could end tomorrow if Russia withdrew its troops. Ukraine is not asking to conquer Moscow. It is asking to exist as a sovereign nation. The pressure should be on the aggressor, not the victim.

Telling Ukraine to surrender is easy. Confronting Russia requires courage. The world must decide whether it values freedom enough to stand with those who defend it.

Europe must step up. America can assist, but the ultimate responsibility lies with those who share a continent with Russian aggression. History has shown what happens when that threat is ignored.

Let’s hope this time, the lessons stick.

Watch the video version of this post HERE

JD Vance just called out the EU in a brutally honest speech about AI, censorship, and innovation. He basically told Europe: stop over regulating and start innovating. And honestly? He’s right.

We’re going to break it down together. But in case you’re in a rush –

In a very nice way, he said:

Stop being little b*tches with all your regulations and start innovating. We (the US) can either be a friend that will help you reach new heights or a wall you will break your bones on.

It felt so good watching this speech. The EU needs a wakeup call. Like it or not, America is moving fast. There’s a new energy in the country, a patriotism and confidence fueling innovation. You can feel it when you look at their tech sector, their AI breakthroughs, or even their attitude toward growth.

Meanwhile, Europe seems hesitant—afraid to take risks, afraid to lead.

That’s why this speech hit home. JD Vance articulated what many of us living in Europe already feel: we are stagnating.

Some countries in the EU hesitate to show too much pride or national strength—worried about their history or scared of being called racist. Others are simply drifting—stuck in an identity crisis, seemingly accepting that decline in some parts of society is inevitable.

America, on the other hand, is coming across like a confident big brother. A leader worth following.

Vance’s message was clear: The U.S. is moving forward with or without you. Are you coming?

Europe’s Innovation Problem

There’s a meme I’ve shared before, and it sums up the situation perfectly:

• China has DeepSeek.

• America has OpenAI, Meta AI, Grok, and more.

• Europe? Our biggest "innovation" is bottle caps that won’t come off.

Yes, it’s a joke. But it captures a real feeling—a frustration that Europe is falling behind.

Of course, there’s innovation happening here, but it’s in limited spaces. And if you live in the EU, you can feel the drag. We’re overregulated, hypersensitive, and painfully slow to act.

Meanwhile, the AI race is on. This is the next great frontier of human development—with real, practical, world-changing effects.

And countries like China and Russia? They’re racing forward aggressively. Ethics? Safety? They’ll figure that out later—maybe.

The danger for Europe is clear: Get left behind, and you may never catch up.

This is the backdrop for Vance’s speech. He offered Europe a way forward—an olive branch from the U.S.—but it comes with conditions.

The Offer from America : Follow, or Be Left Behind

Vance’s message was blunt: Join us. We’ll carry you. But you need to stop clutching your pearls. Take risks. Move forward with confidence. And stop treating adults like children.

What does he mean by that?

Vance was calling out Europe’s culture of over regulation, especially when it comes to speech and tech innovation.

Take social media as an example. I’ve personally tried to view tweets that are blocked in the EU because of compliance issues. It’s frustrating.

America, on the other hand, has the First Amendment. Free speech is their foundation.

So, if Europe wants to partner closely with the U.S. in this AI revolution, it’s going to have to align more closely ideologically. That means less censorship, more risk-taking, and more trust in citizens to think for themselves.

But it’s not just speech. U.S. tech companies are fined billions by the EU every year—Meta, Google, Apple—you name it. And while it might look like Europe is holding Big Tech accountable, the truth is, it’s also suffocating startups.

If you’re a small innovator in Europe, how do you even get started when the first thing you face is a wall of legal costs and compliance headaches?

And then there’s energy.

Europe’s Energy Problem

This part hit hard because it’s something we’ve all felt—especially over the past few years.

While Europe is shutting down factories and chasing green policies, we’ve outsourced our energy needs to countries that don’t share our values.

Until recently, Russia was a major supplier of gas to Europe. That didn’t just create a cost problem—it made us vulnerable.

Vance called this out directly. He made it clear: You can’t lead in AI—or any industry—without reliable power.

AI demands massive energy consumption. Factories need to stay online. Data centers require constant, stable electricity.

But instead of building that future, Europe is busy tying its own hands.

The Bigger Picture: This Is Geopolitical

There’s one more layer to this—and Vance didn’t dance around it.

He was talking about China.

This isn’t just an economic race. It’s a power struggle.

The U.S. is making it clear to the EU: Partner with us. Stand with the West. Or risk falling into China’s orbit.

Technology isn’t just about convenience anymore. It’s the new battlefield.
The next dominant AI superpower will shape the future of global influence.

And Vance’s message was simple:
The U.S. is leading. You can come with us—or you can fall behind and risk getting left under China’s shadow.

Share

Final Thoughts: Europe Needs to Wake Up

I’m a believer in the Western world. The U.S.-EU partnership has made the world safer. Sure, there are problems—but Western values matter, and they need to survive.

But survival requires strength. And right now, Europe is not strong.

Vance’s speech was a wake-up call.

Europe needs to get off the sidelines.
Start playing the game.
Because if we don’t? We lose.

Period.

Let me know your thoughts!

Donald Trump signed an executive order banning transgender athletes from competing in women’s and girls’ sports at— in his words—“virtually all schools” across the nation.

The funny thing is that the left have somehow turned this man who—according to them—is literally Hitler, into the protector of women’s spaces. How did that happen?

How Did the Left Lose So Badly on This Issue?

This should have been an easy win for progressives. No one cared about the trans debate until it became political. But then it turned into this virtue-signaling cesspit of nauseating fake sympathy, censorship, and borderline insanity.

We were told to ignore the evidence of our own eyes. A woman was not allowed to complain about having to compete with transgender athletes. In fact, if she did, she would be called intolerant, a bigot, or something worse.

That’s exactly what happened with Riley Gaines, a swimmer who was forced to compete against a biological male. Her story turns even more sinister when you learn that she and her teammates were forced to change in front of this person. They weren’t allowed to feel uncomfortable about it. They just had to accept it.

The Problem Isn’t Trans People—It’s the Movement

The fact that we even have to talk about this is madness. And I want to make something clear—the problem isn’t transgender people.

Trans people have existed for a long time. Gender dysphoria is a real condition, and from what I hear about it, it’s not fun. It’s a mental state that most people don’t have to deal with. And most trans people just want to live their lives in peace and dignity.

But the movement that formed around this issue soured many people’s perception of it. It became a pseudo-religious political movement. One that would come down hard on you if you didn’t affirm every single bit of its ideology. It radicalized people on both sides.

You had to reject science. Even hyper-rational thinkers like Neil deGrasse Tyson had to do mental gymnastics to keep up.

The left has always portrayed itself as the protector of women. Believe all women! they would shout. But strangely, when it came to this issue, everything was turned upside down.

Suddenly, men and women were equal in strength. In fact, there were very little differences between them at all. A biological male walking into a women’s changing room with his privates out was no longer a big deal—as long as they simply claimed to be trans, even if their body said otherwise.

Biological women losing medals and scholarship opportunities to biological men was somehow seen as fair.

Trump’s Easy Win

This is such an easy win for Trump.

On this issue, he actually has the moral authority. And I’m personally confused as to why the Democrats just ceded this ground so easily.

Now, let’s be real—compared to other issues plaguing America and the world, this is a tiny one. But people reacted so powerfully to it because it just came across as so unhinged.

This ideology has gotten very serious and educated people to ignore biological reality.

A small issue though it might be, for a lot of people, it speaks to a deeper mental rot. A seed that, if allowed to grow, would corrupt society.

Many left-wing people have tried to shrug this off as a non-issue. But clearly, normal people thought it was an issue. It was a road they didn’t want to go down.

Share

Final Thoughts

I believe that it’s important for people—no matter who they are—to have dignity and respect. We are each of us valuable. I will always want to promote kindness and respect.

But you cannot force people to ignore the evidence of their eyes.

So, this was a big win for Donald Trump. And hopefully, the Democrats learn from this. They need to stop appeasing the most radical elements of their side. It’s a losing strategy.

If you want to watch the video version of this article, do it HERE

Thanks for reading!

The EU Study: Is Finland the Most Racist Country?

Some comments brought up the EU study that claims Finland is the most racist country in the EU. I’ve started reading it—about a quarter of the way through—and I’ve got to tell you, I’m not convinced.

Here’s why:

• The first page reads less like an impartial study and more like an emotional piece written by a social justice activist. To be fair, I don’t read many studies, so I’m not sure if this is normal.

• The study doesn’t account for cultural differences.

• It allows participants to decide whether incidents were racially motivated, making the results almost entirely subjective.

• Interestingly, it notes that a portion of the supposed racist incidents were caused by other minorities.

• On top of that, the sample size is relatively small.

If this study is one of the main reasons people label Finland as racist, I’d be very surprised. Yet, whenever polls are taken here, the majority of Finns say they believe racism has no place in the country.

What Do We Mean by a “Racist Country”?

Some people disagreed with my last video, and that’s completely fine. But the real question we should ask is: what do we mean when we say a country is racist?

What I don’t mean is that Finland is a place where no one will ever be mean to you—whether it’s because of your religion, appearance, weight, or, in this case, your race. Expecting a place where no prejudice exists is unrealistic. It’s insanity to hold any country to that standard. I say this often: wherever you live, someone, somewhere, will hate you for who you are. That’s just reality.

Hidden Racism? Why Should I Care?

Some comments said things like, “Finns are racist because behind closed doors, friends or family say racist things,” or, “There’s a lot of hidden racism here.”

Honestly, I find these kinds of claims strange. Why should I care what’s hidden in someone’s heart if it doesn’t affect my life?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that every Finn secretly harbours hate toward me because of my skin colour. Yet, in practice, they treat me no differently. I can work, rent an apartment, make friends, live safely, and get treated the same by doctors and other professionals.

Now, imagine after all this, they go home and say something racist about me in private. For instance, the doctor might tell their spouse, “I had to treat another Black guy today. Ew.” How does this affect my life in any tangible way? If this is what “hidden racism” looks like, I say let’s export it to the rest of the world!

This kind of “purity test” is bizarre. People are going to talk behind your back regardless—probably about things unrelated to race.

Personal Experiences of Racism

Other comments were angrier and more personal:

• “How can you say it’s not a racist country when I had to file a police report after a skinhead threatened me?”

• “A drunk person said something terrible to me once.”

These are valid personal experiences, and I sympathise with anyone who feels threatened. If you’re in danger, you should report it—just as you would with any other crime. Racism and other forms of hate need to be opposed.

But does encountering an extremist mean the entire country is racist? No. That’s a catastrophic conclusion to draw. Most people here would oppose such behaviour, and the laws protect everyone equally.

The Role of Culture

For every story about a racist incident, I hear many more from immigrants who are amazed at how peaceful life is here and how little judgment they feel based on their skin colour—especially when they make an effort to integrate and respect the culture.

Culture is everything. Watch any YouTube video about foreigners documenting their experience in Finland. The comments are overwhelmingly positive and encouraging. Look at videos of people learning Finnish or trying Finnish food—it’s always warmly received.

Personally, I don’t think about my skin colour very often here because I’m living in an environment that doesn’t constantly remind me of it.

Why I See Things Differently

Who am I to make these claims? I’m a South African who’s lived in Finland for almost six years. I know what it’s like to live in a heavily racialised country. Moving here felt like exhaling after holding my breath for years.

In South Africa (a country I love, by the way), I was always a bit tense, bracing for xenophobia or racism. Here, I noticed that, in almost every situation, my skin colour simply doesn’t matter.

Racism vs. Xenophobia vs. Cultural Criticism

The real issue is that people often conflate racism, xenophobia, cultural preferences, religious criticism, and immigration concerns. These are different conversations, but they’re often lumped together under the umbrella of racism—which is insane.

Criticising Islam’s impact on Finnish culture, for example, isn’t inherently racist. There are valid concerns that deserve to be heard. Neither is advocating for better immigration and integration policies.

Using such a broad brush to describe specific issues creates unnecessary confusion and tension. Calling an entire country racist might feel like you’re fighting the good fight, but it’s dishonest and intellectually lazy. It implies that millions of people are terrible human beings.

Gratitude vs. Complaining

If you move to Finland and constantly complain about the country, I’m tempted to ask: where are you from? Nine times out of ten, it’s a place with far greater issues.

I’m not saying you can’t criticise Finland—I just think it’s important to temper your complaints with perspective. For example, if a bus is five minutes late, it might annoy me, but compared to South Africa, where buses sometimes don’t show up at all, it’s not that bad.

The same goes for Finnish natives who constantly complain. If you’ve never lived elsewhere, you might not realise how good you have it here.

Final Thoughts

Finland is an amazing place. Yes, it can improve in many areas, but there’s so much to be grateful for. Sometimes the lack of gratitude I see makes me roll my eyes.

Thanks for Reading!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure to:

• Subscribe to my Substack for more content like this.

• Follow me on X for updates.

• Check out my podcast, Easy Vibes.

• And subscribe to my YouTube channel if you haven’t already.

Until next time, chow!

“Listen… There’s a reason I’m so against calling a country like Finland racist. It’s because I see how distorted and cherry picked those accusations are! It’s infuriating.

Finnish people get grouped as racist because they are overwhelmingly white. People honestly think the Finnish culture is a one to one copy of other historically white countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their history is incredibly different.

Finnish culture is really strange - if you’ve never experienced it

I’ve heard someone say Finns are racist because they “ignore him” in public. Bro, they are literally showing respect for your personal space! Also, they ignore everyone. That’s the vibe out here.

A complete misunderstanding of the culture will have you thinking all sorts of things.

I’m not against having nuanced conversations. But by constantly attempting to paint an entire group as racist, you will ironically cause racial tensions to rise, where there was none.

There are racist individuals everywhere on the planet. Just like there are people who hate women, overweight people, gay people, etc. We live on planet earth. Not heaven, unfortunately. Someone out there hates you for who you are.

In my experience, respecting the cultural norms will earn you respect and welcome- from the vast majority of Finnish people. If you so wish, you can live in peace and prosper in this country.

How about we share more stories of success! Of triumph?? There is so much good here worth celebrating.”

This post on X gained a lot of attention, and it even caught the eye of a journalist who reached out to ask me a few questions. So, I decided to write a blog to answer those questions and share my perspective on why I believe Finland, while not perfect, is a great place and not a racist country. I'm speaking from the experience of living here for almost six years now.

1. Are you saying in your post that there’s no racism in Finland, and the Finnish culture just gets misunderstood for racism?

I have never said (in this post or anywhere else) that there is no racism in Finland. Racism exists everywhere, in every country. There is no escaping it, just like any other kind of bigotry. Someone, somewhere, will hate you for who you are. That’s life. You can’t read someone’s mind or magically look into their heart.

This challenge becomes even harder when trying to interpret the intentions of people from a completely different culture, history, and tradition. Finnish culture is indeed different when compared to other predominantly white countries. Some cultural norms here can easily be mistaken for racism. For instance, if you jump on a bus, you’ll notice how few people are eager to strike up a conversation.

To reiterate, there are indeed racist individuals in Finland, just as there are anywhere else. But I firmly reject the notion that Finland is a racist country.

2. What is your background? Have you ever experienced racism in Finland?

I was born in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), but my family moved to South Africa when I was about three years old. That’s where I grew up, during a time when Apartheid was still fresh in everyone’s minds. Growing up in South Africa then was interesting. Race was a major part of most conversations, and there was a lot of racial tension. Generations of racism and prejudice influenced our politics, sports, and daily lives.

I experienced both racism and xenophobia. But as I grew older, I built a strong community of friends and developed thicker skin. Racial tensions eased somewhat over time, though they didn’t disappear entirely.

In Finland, I haven’t experienced blatant racism. I can’t pinpoint a specific moment where I felt someone was being overtly racist toward me. Perhaps one debatable instance a few years ago, but I can’t be certain.

3. How would you describe Finnish people and culture from an immigrant’s point of view?

Finnish people and culture are often misunderstood, especially by newcomers. At first glance, Finns can seem distant, cold, or reserved. Over time, you realize this is rooted in respect for personal space rather than unfriendliness. Finns generally avoid unnecessary interaction—not because they’re avoiding you specifically, but because they value privacy and prefer to be left alone.

Culturally, Finns are straightforward and practical. They don’t waste words, and their actions often speak louder than their expressions. This can be surprising for immigrants used to more overt displays of warmth or social interaction. However, once you adjust and understand these cultural differences, you start seeing them as unique strengths rather than flaws.

Finnish society is also incredibly fair and inclusive. As an immigrant, I’ve experienced the same legal protections and opportunities as any Finnish person. The culture is built on principles of equality, hard work, and preserving traditions, all of which contribute to the country’s success. While some may initially struggle to adapt, embracing these differences leads to a deep appreciation of what makes Finland so special.

4. What kind of response has your post had on social media?

I feel that my post has received mostly positive feedback on X. Many Finns are tired of being labeled as racist for having valid concerns about immigration, integration, and other societal issues. Internationally, Finland often gets negative attention in the media.

So, a post like mine—which is simply my personal opinion and lived experience—is refreshing for some people. Living in Finland has been life-changing for me. This country has taken good care of me. I’ve felt incredibly welcome, and I deeply admire Finnish culture. It seems my post resonates with those who are afraid of being unfairly judged for their views and are relieved to see someone else expressing positivity about Finland.

5. What would you say to people who say they have experienced racism in Finland?

I would never want to invalidate anyone’s experiences. Racism is an ugly thing, and it exists everywhere. It needs to be opposed. According to polls, most Finnish people believe racism has no place in their country.

If someone experiences overt racism, I’d advise them to confront the person if it feels safe, leave the situation, or report it—especially if it’s in the workplace or becomes dangerous.

I’d also remind them that for every one racist person, there are thousands of good-hearted, honest, and hardworking people. Personally, I reject broad claims that Finns are a racist people. That’s absurd. I’ve never felt freer or less judged by my skin color than I have while living in Finland.

Not everything in life will work out as we want. Not everyone will treat us how we think we deserve. Every country has its issues, including racism. But having lived in South Africa, I can confidently say Finland handles these challenges better than most places on the planet. There’s always room for improvement, but here, it’s possible to live well and peacefully.

That was about it. I could go a little deeper into each question, and maybe I will in other blogs.

The Finnish people are currently fairly “colour blind”. Meaning that the average person doesn’t really care what you look like. They’re more concerned about your actions. If you’re chill, and act within their cultural norms, no one cares.

But this is my warning.

If Finland begins pushing identity politics; calling people racist for being uncomfortable with certain cultural practices - that are alien to them. Or amplifying negativity against Finnish culture as a whole... This country (over time) will become increasingly race conscious.

As a South African who calls Finland home, trust me, you do NOT want to go down that road. Let’s not create problems that are not here. Let’s keep pushing the idea that humans are valued only by the content of their heart, not the colour of their skin.

I will oppose this destructive narrative trying to be built here.

But otherwise, thank you for reading. Follow me on X, and checkout my podcast called Easy Vibes. Feel free to watch the video version of this Substack on Youtube HERE