When reading the thoughts of far-right politicians like Perussuomalaiset (PS) party MP James Hirvisaari, one of the most vocal white-Finnish-power advocates in this country, one should look for the visible or invisible but in his writing. Migrant Tales fished one today from Facebook.
The PS MP writes: ”Some ‘humanitarians’ are driven by naive utopian ideology: [they claim] ‘let’s do away with borders and mix national groups so we can end all wars…‘ [Here it is: But] I believe that a strong and healthy society can withstand weaknesses and diversity but let’s not make these two matters the norm. Fashionable liberalism can make art from shit in all areas of life.”
That’s not all. A person on the Facebook thread claims that “multiculturalism is a death knell to all [white] Europeans” and “we are now at war.”
At war against whom? Against their stupidity or is it a desperate attempt to lure voters to a sinking political ship called the PS?
Finland will host municipal elections on October 28.
If you have problems grasping how far below the belt Hirvisaaari hits with his far-right thoughts, one way of understanding them is by removing key words from his writings such as “Muslim” or “Islam” and replacing them with “Finn” or “Christian.”
Here is a small example of how I’ve refilled the blanks in one of his recent blog entries:
Hirvisaari writes: When I criticize Islam, I criticize those who hate Jews, humiliate women in many ways…
Refilling the blanks: When I criticize Christians, I criticize those who hate Muslims, Finnish men who humiliate women by killing their wives and children before taking their own lives…
While Hirvisaari lacks the grey matter to be in the same ideological hate league as David Duke, his views on ethnicity are very similar to those of the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard. The big difference between the two is geography: Duke lives in Louisiana and Hirvisaari is from Asikkala, Finland.
What does PS MP James Hirvisaari think about white power and the Ku Klux Klan?
Like Hirvisaari, Duke denies that he is a racist. Instead he likes to think of himself as a “racial realist.”
Contrarily, Hirvisaari sees himself as a ”white Finnish ethnic realist,” who is saving white Finns and Europeans from multiculturalism, a political ideology or immigration policy according to him that permits too many blacks and Muslims to live in Europe.
Youre really grasping straws here. Too bad you didnt notice that “filling out blanks” could be extremely well applied to Abagonds writing you recently published.
I think “multiculturalism” as it now is, is just a tool to break up european national identities.
–I think “multiculturalism” as it now is, is just a tool to break up european national identities.
Jssk, European ethnicity is nothing more than a social construct. Do you still believe that there exists an “Aryan” race? Cultures and ethnicities mix constantly. That’s a fact that will always challenge your national myths.
The interesting question you should be asking is why there are such social constructs. Going down that research path will reveal to you the history of social exclusion in Europe and how challenged we are in this region to deal with issues like racism and social exclusion.
You sound like a racist white supremacist, are you a one? if you’re just do tell us. The question im want to ask you is, what is a solution for multiculturilism? i mean what should we do about all the foreigners living in europe or Finland? i expect from you to tell us a solution for the so called problem ” to you” for multiculturilism.
I’ll bite.
National identities are not predicated on race — they’re predicated on shared history, language, and culture (of which contemporary social norms and religion are component). Advocating against immigration on racial grounds is necessarily racist, but advocating for limited, sensible immigration to avoid the unwinding of the nation state’s national identity (which, again, is not predicated on race) is not racist at all.
It’s easy but not intellectual rigorous to throw the “racist” label at anyone who advocates for limited, sensible immigration. I agree that some of the members of the PS are far-right, and I don’t agree with them, but immigration itself isn’t a left-right issue, and neither is the preservation of national identity (because it bears repeating: national identity is not predicated on race).
This comment fell short of our community standards and was deleted by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
RL 11:10
Another chunk!
Unwinding national identity through limited immigration? What is this? Ramadan – a threat to ice hockey and sausage, our very existence. How dare they. When someone tips a waiter it’s time to remove the safety. Lock and load.
And you don’t find this, erhm, strange need to protect “suomalaisuus” (wtf) a bit silly? Just a bit?
The racism is quite obvious and most finns see through this bullshit. I still fail to see the excuse though. “I’m not racist, I’m just madly ethnocentric.”
By the way beeing a native finn – and also an atheist in a secular society – I find your views on religion quite disturbing. Just another suvivirsi killer that can be excluded from society, eh? 🙂 Just saying.
bacchushelsinki
I would add that national identity is also and equally based on a tapestry of more or less fanciful and generally self-serving ideas of collective character. A substantial proportion of Finnish males unconsciously identify with Hagar the Horrible and a significant proportion of Finnish women are willing to accept this, which helps to explain the popularity of this USAmerican cartoon strip in Finland.
National character is a tapestry and it is also continually evolving. There is no single feature that defines it yesterday, today and forever. Even history itself changes, in the twin senses that we make more of it all the time and we also select various aspects of history to serve as key narrative features that are considered relevant to our present situation. For example it is too simplistic to ascribe social changes to political decisions, because those very decisions were only possible and only had notable outcomes when social conditions were right for them. If you want to stress the role of politicians in your historical narrative, then you ignore social evolution, but it is also possible to take the converse view that politicians are irrelevant froth on a tide of social change.
The Finnish language is also changing in many directions at once (particularly through globalisation and loss of local expressions). One aspect of this change comprises the numerous neologisms coined by the Hompanzees and their Master in an attempt to articulate a foreign political agenda and obfuscate certain authoritarian and racist tendencies, often seeking to find pejorative substitutes for progressive liberal democratic values such as dignity, equity and solidarity. Indeed I could apply precisely the logic of some of our more rabid Hompanzee contributors and claim that nobody whose daily vocabulary includes such neologisms as hyysäri, kukkahattutäti or punamädättäjä has any business calling himself a Finn, because these concepts belong to a fundamentally foreign political ideology. The only appropriate response to such expressions is to tell the user to piss off back to Austria.
Finnish culture has quite obviously changed over the past century, mainly through rapid urbanisation, but also more recently through globalisation.
Finnishness as a whole has evolved quite rapidly over the last century or so and continues to do so. Russian, Balkan and Somali Finns are here to stay, and certainly for followers of the national football team that can only be a good thing. The same applies to many walks of life that have benefited from new blood and new ways of thinking.
Finland already has an official policy of managed immigration and efficient integration. The outcomes of this policy, like any other, depend on practical circumstances. The inability of some individuals to deal with diversity and the cynical exploitation of these insecurities by morally and intellectually bankrupt opportunist politicians is one of these circumstances.
–Finland already has an official policy of managed immigration and efficient integration. The outcomes of this policy, like any other, depend on practical circumstances. The inability of some individuals to deal with diversity and the cynical exploitation of these insecurities by morally and intellectually bankrupt opportunist politicians is one of these circumstances.
JusticeDemon, here’s one of those opportunist politicians, PS MP Juho Eerola, who wrote the following on Hommaforum a couple of years ago: “I am attracted to fascism and in particular to Benito Mussolini’s economic policy. Entrepreneurship was encouraged but it was strictly kept under state control. Foreigners weren’t allowed ownership of large companies of vital corporations and these remained strictly under national control.”
A free translaton of: ”Itseäni viehättää fasismi ja erityisesti Benito Mussolinin harjoittama talouspolitiikka. Yrittäjyyteen kannustettiin, mutta se oli tiukasti valtion kontrollissa. Elintärkeitä suuryrityksiä ei päästetty ulkomaalaisten sijoittajien omistukseen, vaan ne pidettiin tiukasti omissa käsissä.”
Hi Mt and all,
Finns are not aryans.
And aryan is not mean racist, i am aryan but am not racist.
We all should be very happy that we r alive, thats most important, we r alive, thats miracle.
Have apeaceful night UUUU all
Ricky
You left out elintärkeitä from your translation (large corporations of vital importance), though there is evidently some confusion in that remark between a strategically important business and a large company. There is no fundamental size requirement that must be satisfied before an enterprise becomes essential to a national economy. Small specialised enterprises can also be vital in this sense.
Anyway Finland really has no option in this regard, as its enterprises cannot grow to any significant size without access to international capital and major trading blocs, and this comes at the price of reciprocity (or war). We saw this most clearly during the era of “sideways growth” that ended in the early 1990s.
This fascination with State control of the business community is particularly interesting when it comes from rabid anti-communists. Of course the epähiket Hompanzees lack the nous to realise the internal contradictions in their own rhetoric.
OK, JusticeDemon, I got it and changed it.
As you mentioned, it’s incredible that these rabid anti-communists like Juho Eerola are in favor of state ownership of companies.
So whats with the leftists fascination of state control? I dont think anticommunists are fascist, atleast majority arent. I oppose communism, thus im anticommunist.
–So whats with the leftists fascination of state control? I dont think anticommunists are fascist, atleast majority arent. I oppose communism, thus im anticommunist.
Jssk, not all anti-communists are fascists but Juho Eerola states that he is attracted to fascism and liked Benito Mussolini’s economic policy. His economic policy was copied by Juan Domingo Perón of Argentina. The whole idea is state ownership with the charismatic leader being backed by powerful unions.