User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Immigrant HuntingWith Syria at war, Syrian emigration became a real problem for EU countries. Some of them will “generously” grant entry up to 1 million people while others (such as Finland) will show their humanitarian side by allowing about 30.000… give or take. Of course, we don’t care why Finland is behaving as such a penis (we would have said “dick” but this isn’t polite enoug). What we care about is the raging war of arguments for and against immigration in Finland. And why do we care about those arguments? Because they are utterly stupid and they have been resolved ages ago by Libertarianism (for a primer see Immigration Policies Are The Ultimate Monopoly). If you are interested in the whole story re: Finland, you can read it in “Migrant crisis: Finland’s case against immigration” from the BBC News. To task.


The prime minister Juha Sipila offered to give one of his houses to migrants. The snag in this proposal is that his political partners (the Finns Pary) is anti-immigration. And so politics will trump again. A person who is willing to give his personal property won’t be able to do so due to politics. So much for democracy.


Leading the charge against immigration is the Finns Party who stated (through one of its parliamentaries) that “the [Finnish] society begins to play by the rules of the Muslim minority rather than expecting the minority to play by the rules of the society”.

OK. So much stupidity in so little space.

Let’s begin by stating that democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which in reality translates as the tyranny of an oligarchy (this is so because Social Contracts Are A Scam). In these conditions why would anybody in their right mind actually want to “play by the rules of society” which translates as “the rules of the oligarchy”? Which happens to be a minority!!! In other words, those people are saying that “Muslims” (a minority) must play by the rules imposed by other minority. Right! Because it is obvious that minority “A” trumps over minority “B” because… because… camon… help us here… because???

Then we have the issue of “Society”. As we have stated in multiple occasions, there is no such thing as “society”. At least not in the sense in which politicians use it (see for example Do Not Talk To Us About Society). As such, why would any “minority” wish to obey the rules of a fictitious entity?

Then we have the issue of “society” playing by Muslim rules. So… people’s self-determination and the freedom to make choices is out, right? Because the Finns Party says so. Because they operate from the Principle of Authority from which all government authority originates. Because they say so (the clever reader may have noticed the circular argument in there). We are not saying that playing by Muslim rules is OK and/or wise. And on the same token, we are not saying that not playing by Muslim rules is OK. What we are saying is that every person has a choice to make. Granted. The choices that they may make may be incredibly stupid, but it is still their choice! It is this very choice that the Finns Party is removing from people’s hands. As such, who is producing the greater damage to “society”?


Yet another luminary of the Finns Pary stated “this nightmare called multiculturalism”.

Let’s begin by saying that no culture is pure. The concept of a “pure” culture is as bogus as a partial pregnancy. All cultures have lifecycles. They are born, they exist and then they die. We know this because we read history books. Greek culture? Gone! Roman culture? Gone! Aztec culture? Gone! And so forth. Throughout their lifecycles cultures change all the time. This is clearly reflected in the evolution of languages. No language stands still. They all evolve, adapt, include new terms and concepts and exclude obsolete ones. This is a natural cycle. To go against it is to attempt to preserve existing conditions in a vacuum. It’s like trying to freeze-dry your views and opinions while the world marches on. Ridiculous!

And what has this to do with multiculturalism? Good question.

Multiculturalism is something that never existed. It is something that politicians created not to lose votes. Immigration can be classified in three types:

  1. Insulation
  2. Adaptation
  3. Absorption

These three types also represent the typical lifecycle of cultures. When a culture enters another, they typically isolate themselves as a survival reaction against foreign ways of living. However, over time, they begin to adapt to the host culture. Eventually, the migrated culture is absorbed into the main culture, both undergoing modifications. This is nothing to be afraid of. It is the cycle of life. It is perennial change.

However, voters are typically stupid. We know this because a Finnish poll found that most Finns would rather live next to an alcohol rehabilitation centre than a mosque. Voters don’t understand that trying to stop cultural change is pointless. Therefore politicians must come up with seemingly intelligent explanations to allow emigration but placate voters at the same time. Basically, a lie. Enter multiculturalism. This concept is designed around the idea that incoming cultures can remain isolated from the main culture forever. Therefore we end up having “multiple cultures” co-existing side-by-side, essentially forever. There. Problem solved. Minor cultures never get to “contaminate” the main (or host) culture. Right! And my half-pregnant cousin's aunt's friend's sister is decided if she wants to go "full pregnancy". Right!

Yet, for brain-dead politicians, not even this concept is enough. They demand that cultures are kept “pure”, thus the statement “this nightmare called multiculturalism”. The notion here is that not even multiculturalism is isolationist enough. The idea is that multiculturalism “leaks” and at the same time is an insult to the “main” culture which happens to be the “national” culture, which happens to be the “righteous” and “correct” culture “for people like us”. You know. The enlightened, the pure, the superior “us”.

From those idiotic concepts come statements such as "We will fight until the end for our homeland and one true Finnish nation." OK. Question. What exactly is “one true Finnish nation” and precisely why “our homeland” seems to be in danger? Oh well… those concepts are too elevated for you, dear reader. You wouldn’t get them. We cannot tell you because we don’t want to confuse you. But trust us. We know what we are doing… for the greater good.


Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It