Finland Questions

I am giving a talk in Finland next month, and the organizer, Tuukka Kuru, asked me to answer some questions so that attendees would have a better idea of where I am coming from. They were translated into Finnish and posted here.

 *   *   *

Hello Mr.Macdonald! How would you describe yourself to the Finnish audience, most of them haven’t heard about your exciting life and career!

I am a retired psychology professor who became aware of the disaster unfolding for our people while doing research for my books particularly the chapter on immigration in The Culture of Critique (hereafter CofC). Since retirement, I have continued to write on all the issues facing our people. Right now I am finishing up a book on Western peoples, to be titled Western Individualism and the Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future.

2.) You have done years of research on Evolutionary Psychology and wrote several books about group behaviour and group evolutionary strategies. What is the meaning of “group evolutionary strategy”? Is there different kind of strategies for different kind of populations?

A group strategy is essentially a way of getting on the world in which group-level processes are important. These processes include: a.)  How are group boundaries policed? (E.g.: Who can be a group member? Is membership to be based on ethnicity or being a good citizen?); b.) What shall be policies toward ”cheaters”? (E.g., How are people who attempt to be part of the group without paying the costs of group membership, such as observing rules like paying taxes and marrying within the group, treated?) c.) How are group members expected to treat other group members and outsiders? d.) Who are acceptable marriage partners? (E.g., should group members be allowed to marry people from outside the group?)

There are a variety of different group strategies. I describe some of them in my work on Judaism and in Diaspora Peoples which describes the Puritans, Mennonites, Roma and Overseas Chinese. Each of these groups has a somewhat different strategy. For example, Roma have a very different group strategy than Jews or Overseas Chinese.

3.) The Culture of Critique (1998) made you famous person in international nationalist circles and even I have one copy of the book in my bookshelf! Many public figures, like Patrick Little and Mike Enoch, have stated that the book was the turning point in their political life and many anti-racist organizations have labeled it as intellectual basis of modern anti-Semitism. What is Culture of Critique and why it has made such a impact around the world? 

CofC describes various influential intellectual movements centered around ethnically conscious Jews who were attempting to change the culture of the West to serve specific Jewish interests. Several specifically Jewish interests were involved: ending anti-Jewish attitudes, promoting and legitimizing immigration to the West from all the peoples of the world in the belief it would make Jews safer, pathologizing national identities among White people based on race or ethnicity, and de-legitimizing the interests of the traditional peoples of the West in maintaining their cultural and demographic dominance.

I don’t like to call my work ”anti-Semitic.” It attempts to portray Jewish groups and Jewish activism as accurately as possible and to describe the real conflicts of interest between Jews and the peoples of the West. Perhaps ”Judeo-critical” would be better.

4.) Many people have noticed time to time that the Jewish population is greatly overrepresented in various radical and far left-movements. Jewish activist groups have formed intellectual core in various left-leaning human rights groups around the Western world, most clearly seen in USA during the segregation era, South Africa during Apartheid, and nowadays in multicultural Europe. Nationalists have argued whether the overpresentation is just coincidence or a manifestation of Judaism itself. How should we see this connection between the Jews and the left-leaning politics?

This is a complicated area which I discuss in Chapter 3 of CofC. Basically there are several interrelated facets to Jewish leftist activism: Jews tend to have hostility toward non-Jewish power structures, motivated in part by the fact that Jews tend to see their history in the West as one long tale of persecution of blameless Jews—termed the lachrymose view of Jewish history. Moreover, Jews tend to believe, with some reason, that historical anti-Semitism has been more characteristic of the right than the left. For Jewish intellectuals, a major lesson of the National Socialist era in Germany was a belief that non-Jews, particulaly in a genetically homogeneous European-based culture, could rise up against them. Moreover, Jews have often seen leftist activism as a key to obtaining power for Jews by diminishing the power of traditional elites (e.g., Jews supported the 1848 revolutions in Europe and the Bolsehvik Revolution in Russia aimed at toppling non-Jewish elites seen as anti-Jewish). Given that anti-Semitism has historically been more common on the right than the left, once Jews have obtained power, they have typically promoted punishment for actions and ideas they see as anti-Jewish. A good example illustrating this is Jewish involvement in the Bolsehvik Revolution which overthrew the Czar who was seen as a persecutor of Jews. This resulted in Jews becoming an elite in the Soviet Union — an elite hostile to the traditional people and culture of Russia. This in turn brought about an era of mass murder of millions of Russians as well as severe punishments for anti-Jewish ideas and actions.

5.) How would you define the “JQ”, and how should it be discussed in countries which have a really small number of Jews, like in Finland?

The Jewish Question is essentially the question of the extent and quality of Jewish influence in particular societies, as discussed, e.g., in CofC. Ever since the Enlightenment, Jews have wielded influence far beyond their numbers in all the societies of the West, including, e.g., Sweden (here and here) and Australia (here and here), which have very few Jews but where Jewish media ownership or influence and the activism of individual Jews have made a great impact. Jewish influence on issues like migration and multiculturalism can be indirect — an important but underresearched topic. For example, the EU is pressuring all member states to accept migration, including states such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and now Italy which have governments hostile to migration. The EU is dominated by Germany, France, and the U.K. which have a strong Jewish presence and whose Jewish communities have exerted their influence by promoting generous immigration and refugee policies. This would apply to Finland as well since it is an EU member.

Moreover, another indirect effect has occurred because of the power of the United States in the post-World War II era. Once mass migration and multiculturalism became dominant in the US after 1965, it’s not surprising that it filtered into the rest of the Western world. Western culture is significantly international — it is more-or-less characteristic among all the Western nations. Imagine being a Finnish professor attending an international academic conference where, because of the pre-eminence of the English-speaking and especially the American academic establishment, the most prominent people in the field are all on the left and promoting migration and culturalism. There is a great deal of social pressure to adopt similar attitudes. American media, such as the New York Times and Hollywood, also has a significant presence throughout the West as well, particularly among educated people, and American media is decidedly pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism.

6.) You work as a editor of the Occidental Observer, which promotes White identity, interests and culture. Have you always been pro-White identitarian, or has there been some kind of transformation period in your life? What is the biggest reason that made you White Nationalist?

I only became a White nationalist in the late 1990s in doing my reading for CofC. I began to realize what was happening and why it was happening. The current culture of the West is suicidal in the long run. We have to understand how and why this has happened. I emphasize not only Jewish influence but also Western individualism and the liberal, post-Enlightment tradition which I believe have made Western societies uniquely successful but also uniquely susceptible to Jewish activism.

7.) Nowadays its trendy to say that race is just a “social construct” and beneath the skin we are all the same. At the same time David Reich, professor of genetics at Harvard, told to New York Times that race is biological reality. Nicholas Wade made the same statement in his book Troublesome Inheritance in 2014. Why is race is important biological tool to you Mr.Macdonald and how do you justify your point of view?

Like many others who have read the population genetics literature, I have concluded that there are genetic fault lines between peoples who have been separated for thousands of years. These fault lines are not absolute, and they may blur even more in the future because of miscegenation. The West, e.g., is not homogeneously European genetically at this time because of non-European immigration, but ancestral genetic differences between peoples differences are still apparent. Individuals of European descent cluster together genetically much more closely than they do to people from other geographical areas.

8.) Race can be seen as a difficult concept to understand in Finland, and many nationalists have stated that it has no use in current Finnish society, as they are promoting “shared values” instead of shared ethnicity. This same division between the civic nationalists and ethnonationalists can be seen in many countries all around the Western world. What is your opinion about civic nationalism? Do you see it as a workable concept at all?

Civic nationalism is promoted by elites throughout the West as an acceptable way of promoting some sense of social cohesion within a nation while avoiding any sense that nationalism should be based on shared ethnicity. This is the so-called ”proposition nation” concept—that, for example, Americans are united only sharing a commitment to democracy and any and all peoples can participate. The problem with this is that in the long run, the traditional populations of all Western countries will be replaced by other peoples. This is a moral travesty, and the irony (really hypocrisy) is that many of the same people who are promoting migration to the West, deny the existence of race, and promote the proposition nation concept are deeply concerned about advancing their own ethnic interests in doing so by, e.g., getting more of their people to come to the West and obtain political and cultural power. Africa is expected to have 4 billion people by the end of the century, and there will always be pressure for them to settle in Europe and elsewhere in the West because their countries are poverty ridden and politically unstable. In the long run, our people would be dwindling, powerless minority in societies they have dominated for hundreds or thousands of years. This is obviously a maladaptive outcome for White people. We need to have a sense of our ethnic interests in maintaining power in our homelands in Europe, North America, and elsewhere.

9.) The USA has been a forerunner in cultural deconstruction, which have destroyed the mainstream White racial identity and replaced it with other group identites and sub-cultures. It has been stated in CofC that the start of this process goes all way back to Franz Boas, former Jewish anthropologist and socialist/ethnic activist. What are the true reasons behind this deconstruction? Why especially White identity is targeted on these policies?

The answer to this is essentially the answer to why Jews like Franz Boas have been on the left (see above): 1) hostility toward the people and culture of the West because of historical grievances; 2) a desire to end anti-Semitism by promoting punishment for actions and ideas and actions they see as anti-Jewish and historically more common on the right; 3) by promoting theories of anti-Semitism in which anti-Semitism is portrayed as evil and Jews are always innocent victims; 4) and fear that Western majorities could rise up against them, as well as a desire to increase the power of their own group.

10.) Finland became part of the “multicultural experiment” on early 1990’s, when our country accepted the first Somali refugees from Russia. Nowadays mainstream politicians and journalists have stated that “Finnishness is a open concept” and “Finland has always been multicultural”. Its not unusual to see comments which state that there has never been “Finnish nation” and we are all just mixture between all other populations. I’m sure that all of this sounds bit too familiar to you also. Can you tell us some backstory of the multicultural experiment and people behind the concept?

Such claims are common throughout the West these days. In CofC I trace the Jewish promotion of multiculturalism to philosopher Horace Kallen. His ideas were picked up by the mainstream Jewish community, Jewish activists, Jewish organizations, wealthy Jewish political donors, etc. These ideas became more-or-less official dogma among American Jews who wanted an ideology where they could be full citizens of the U.S. but also retain a strong ethnic and cultural identity as Jews.

11.) Numerous Jewish groups have promoted multiculturalism and open migration all around the Europe, and the large portion of those migrants are coming from Islamic countries. There has been numerous headlines from France and Sweden telling us that Jews have faced violence and persecution in the hands of Muslim gangs. Yet they still strongly support the policies that let those non-European people in. Is there some particular reason why the Jews prioritize white nationalist movements over the Muslim ones?

Muslim immigration is indeed leading to problems for the Jewish community, particularly in the U.K. where Muslims are very anti-Israel and are an important part of the Labour Party coalition. Jeremy Corbyn is widely seen as an anti-Semite. So far this has not changed the policies of the big Jewish organizations, but most Jews now vote for the Conservatives, and Jewish financial support of Labour has dried up. Street-level violence by Muslims against Jews is also a problem in the U.K., France, and elsewhere and has led to some emigration by Jews, especially to Israel. But this tendency has not affected Jewish elites. They are not affected by street-level violence and they still have very large influence throughout the West. I don’t see the official stance of Jewish organizations toward Muslim immigration changing any time soon. They tend to see homogeneous White societies as potentially far more dangerous than a multicultural society and they believe that Muslim anti-Jewish attitudes, although hostile, can be effectively managed. They may be wrong about this as the situation in the U.K. suggests.

12.) How do you see the endgame of the current multicultural experiment? Is Europe becoming continent-sized Lebanon or South Africa? What happens to US if we cant change the current trend in next 40 years?

The expected result will be more and more conflict between groups, with White populations coalescing politically on one side and non-Whites (and Jews and sexual non-conformists [LGBTQ]) on the other. I call this the racialization of politics, as traditional politics based on social class gives way to conflicts between various identity groups aligned against the White majority. We already see that in the U.S. and there are similar trends elsewhere. Because Whites will be a minority in these projected societies they will lose power and be at the mercy of other peoples who often have historical grudges against them (e.g., Blacks regarding slavery)—not a good prospect.

13.) What is your opinion on “Pan-Europeanism”?  Do you support little nation states with unique culture, people and language or larger Pan-European empires, as Mr. Richard Spencer does?

Yes, I support Europe maintaining its traditional peoples, languages, and borders. The EU was a great idea until the globalists took over. But there is nothing wrong with having common markets and free travel, although a free labor market has problems because it lowers the wages of native workers. However, I wouldn’t approve of all Europeans being able to achieve permanent citizenship anywhere they want in the EU because that would erode national cultures over time.

14.) Many people who are attending our conference are trying to find the suitable method to save our western civilization and our beloved nations. As we can see, there is no easy way out in the current situation, but we have to win, and we need right tools to ensure that. What kind of actions you propose for the next 5, 10 and 20 years? What is our greatest threat at the moment and how should we respond to that?

Sorry, but I don’t have any sure-fire ideas that can help our cause beyond what we already see. Certainly there are good signs, particularly the rise of populism in Europe, the popularity of the steadfastly anti-migration governments in Eastern Europe and now Italy. The election of Donald Trump was also based on his populist campaign rhetoric, but he has had a very difficult time enacting them and seems to be surrendering on a lot of his proposals, so overall he is a disappointment.

The fact that populism is rising despite massive opposition by elites in the media, corporations, Christian religions, and the academic world throughout the West shows that there is hope for the a White resurgence. We all have to ask ourselves what we can do to further our cause. For me, it is writing and maintaining a social media presence. Some may be able to donate money, and others could become active in nationalist organizations and political parties which now exist most Western countries. In the U.S., where the two-party system will remain dominant for the foreseeable future, activism within the Republican party is a possible option.

15.) How do you define “White Nationalism” and should we see it as supreme identity of all people of European origin or more like short-term alliance between different white nations against the common multicultural threat? Do you see whiteness strictly as a biological entity, or more like cultural and traditional institution?

White nationalism is simply the idea that Whites have interests as Whites in policies such as immigration and multi-culturalism — policies which erode and will eventually destroy the demographic basis of White power throughout the West. In the U.S., there has always been a Black/White racial divide, so it’s natural to make common cause and identify as a White person, as opposed, e.g., to an Irish-American or Polish American. And by identifying as White, they have much more power collectively than in separate hyphenated groups.

Europeans should also realize that they have interests as Europeans but also in retaining national identities. One way to think about this is that Europeans are closely related genetically and therefore share common ethnic interests. But they also share a common culture and have for a long time, beginning in the Middle Ages with the cultural hegemony of the Catholic Church. Europeans have to realize that their culture is unique and uniquely valuable and that it is to some extent a product of European genes — the subject of my forthcoming book. Moreover, for the foreseeable future there will be pressure to migrate to Europe from many parts of the Third World. I don’t see this changing in our lifetime. Africa has a very high birthrate and chronic political instability and poverty. Tens of millions of Africans would love to move to Europe and elsewhere in the West and there will be far more in the future who wish to do so. As noted above, pan-European institutions are a good idea and would definitely help defuse some of the destructive nationalism that has been such a problem in the past.

16.) Many people don’t realize that neoconservatism is strictly Jewish concept, and the founders of the movement were mostly ex-members of the academic Radical Left which separated from the Soviet led state-communism. How did neoconservatism became such a powerful institution in United States and what are the intellectual origins behind the movement?

I delve into this in my paper, ”Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement.” It started with a group of former leftists who became disillusioned with President Jimmy Carter because he opposed West Bank settlements in Israel. They wanted to make pro-Israel policies a bi-partisan issue in US politics and therefore targeted especially the Republican Party because Jews were relatively unrepresented there (~70–80% of Jews consistently vote Democrat). They were also motivated by increasing anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, and Republicans were generally far more hostile toward the USSR than Democrats. In other policy areas, they have not eschewed their liberal positions, particularly on immigration and multiculturalism, although some advocate assimilation instead of multiculturalism. (Multiculturalism and assimilation both result in the ethnic displacement of White populations). The basic result is the the GOP has moved to the left on immigration and multiculturalism.

As with all Jewish movements, neoconservatism is well-funded and has access to the elite mainstream media. They established think tanks and journals, and they developed bases in elite American universities, especially Johns Hopkins and the University of Chicago; wealthy Jewish neoconservatives centered in the Republican Jewish coalition have been an important part of GOP funding. Jobs and positions of influence have been open to people, including non-Jews, who take their policy positions.This has been a big key to their success. It’s not only about Jews, but also about willing non-Jews who benefit one way or another by participating.

Neocons rose to power during the Reagan Administration, elbowing out the paleoconservatives, and have dominated Republican foreign policy ever since, at least until Donald Trump talked about the U.S. disengaging from the Middle East. (Neocons have been strong advocates of American wars in the Middle East and want the U.S. to remain their indefinitely—obviously because of their attachment to Israel. Now they want war with Iran.) As a result of Trump’s rhetoric on foreign policy and immigration, many neocons became Never-Trumpers, but they may try to return if the Republicans change back to their previous positions after Trump is gone.

17.)  What is your opinion on USA-Israeli relations and the power of the Jewish lobby inside the State? Should USA change its policy in Middle East? Do you support isolation policy, or some other doctrine?

The Israel Lobby continues to have a dominant influence on American foreign policy. I have written a lot about this, but see also John Mearsheimer Steven Walt’s The Israel Lobby, a book that was condemned by Jewish activists as ”anti-Semitic” but is a thoroughly researched, honest account of the influence of the Lobby.

American wars in the Middle East have been costly disasters, trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and many thousands of severe injuries — for no discernible benefit to the U.S. The U.S. should withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan and should never have invaded Iraq. Israel is armed to the teeth and is well able to defend itself.

18.) What is your opinion on NATO? Should it be disbanded or expanded from the current state?

Like the EU, NATO is a good idea at its beginnings. It had an important function in creating a military alliance against the USSR during the Cold War. But since the 1990s and with a strong push from U.S. leadership, it expanded into Eastern Europe, antagonizing Russia. Russian hostility is justified because there were promises not to expand to the east after the collapse of the USSR. The entire U.S. foreign policy establishment hates Russia: neocons and the Israel Lobby hate Russia because of Russia’s Middle East policy supporting Iran and Syria. Many Republicans hate Russia as a sort of remnant of their anti-communism. And now the Democrats hate Russia because they see hating Russia as as a weapon against Trump whom they are accusing of collusion with Vladimir Putin. Abandoning NATO is thus seen as selling out to Russia by the American foreign policy establishment. Trump seems to want to leave NATO but at this point he is only asking for NATO governments to pay their fair share.

19.) Leading world powers, USA and Russia, are both becoming increasingly multiracial and prone to inner conflicts in the future, while China has maintained its Chinese majority population. Will this trend somehow affect global power balance?

Having a multicultural, conflict ridden nation—as I believe the U.S. is fated to be and indeed already is—will certainly weaken it in the long run. Russia may be saved by its tradition of autocratic government: these new people and cultures may not be able to exert much power, at least in the foreseeable future. China has many things going for it—a relatively homogeneous population ethnically, negligible immigration, a nationalist government pursuing national interests, high average IQ, and now a great deal of wealth. However, there are things that could hold it back, e.g., a tradition of corruption and a lack of inventiveness.

20.) Name three unexpected things about yourself that isn’t mainstream knowledge!

I grew up during the 1960s couter-cultural revolution and aspired to be a jazz musician. I am now pursuing music as a hobby. My first research was on the personality and behavioral development of wolf cubs, which eventually led to a career teaching mainly developmental psychology of children and courses in personality.


10 replies
  1. Ecoute Sauvage
    Ecoute Sauvage says:

    Horace Kallen was quoted in Huntington’s classic “Who Are We?” as saying: “…however an immigrant may change, he cannot change his grandfather”.

    That’s true – and in a sense it contradicts Huntington’s “creed”. A 1941 analysis by the then editor of The Atlantic however agrees with Ernest Renan and his “man does not improvise himself.”.

    I wonder if the distinction prof. MacDonald makes is closer to Huntington or to Renan.

  2. ValHalla
    ValHalla says:

    Spelling correction: It is Mr. Tuukka Kuru. We have a lot of double consonants here. Typical male names: Pekka, Seppo, Matti, Pentti. A long list. 🙂 [Mod. Note: Thanks! Fixed. Suomi is a great place with a great language.]

    You’re very welcome, Mr. MacDonald. Your message is much appreciated. Even if the number of Jews here is not too high, they wield absolute dominance in the media. You just cannot listen YLE, state media, without an endless holocaust narrative. It is a daily occurrence and it is talked about in such admiration. They are The Victims, the Chosen Ones. And, nowadays, swedish Bonnier (Jews, of course) own a very big part of the so-called media. For instance, they bought the leading bookseller and promptly destroyed it from a high-level bookshop to a politically correct joke. They used their money not to earn, but to take away the voice of reason. Typical.

  3. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    “…They tend to see homogeneous White societies as potentially far more dangerous than a multicultural society and they believe that Muslim anti-Jewish attitudes, although hostile, can be effectively managed.”

    Before Edgar J. Steele was incarcerated and murdered by the Federal Government of the USA, he made the public disclosure that the leaders of Saudi Arabia, namely its Royal Family, was actually composed of Dönmeh Moslems from Turkey who migrated to the Saudi Peninsula some 200+ years earlier.
    I’ve also seen stats showing that 93% of the Saudi Population hates its leadership.
    Moreover, it has been suggested that the (((USA))) arms the Saudi Gov’t to the teeth to keep its own public from rising up against the leadership…, not to mention guarding its oil supply for Jewish and American use.
    Based on the above and the relatively low IQ of Arabs in general (1~2 standard deviations below Whites) and the fact that the “…Religion’s HQ…” is located in Mecca,
    Jews no doubt reckon that they will have no trouble corralling Islamics to go which ever way (((they))) want them to go once Whites are out of the way.
    After all, if Jews can work their way into positions of influence throughout the X-tian (Formerly termed “Christian”) Institutions of the West and turn them into Pro-Third World, Anti-White (Insane) Asylums, then the Islamic World should be a piece of cake by comparison.
    Moreover, Jews are rife as moles throughout the Islamic world and influence public attitudes of the General Islamic Population to be neutral towards Jews or focus on only “…the bad (Mafia) Jews…”.
    It can be suspected that many attacks against Jews in the West are psy-ops to generate sympathy for Jews and antagonize feelings between Christians and Islamics.
    Any antagonism between the two above groups benefits Jews in the long run.


    “…I grew up during the 1960s couter-cultural revolution and aspired to be a jazz musician. ”

    Interesting…, I was born in 1961 but grew up during the 1980’s having almost from birth recognized and spoken openly about the criminality of Jews.
    Consequently, after a youth devoted to high performance athletics, I was almost driven to roaming the world on a loaded touring bicycle as a kind of Vedantic Monk and have as a consequence developed, through training, an extremely deep baritone bass voice that rivals some of the deepest ones in the world.

    I would be honoured to have a jam session with you. I’ll bet you we could make quite a musical hit and it would go viral ! Many people have told me that when I chant or sing they get goose bumps…
    Just a thought as I am in a directional rut lately and could sorely use some positive external stimulus.

  4. ValHalla
    ValHalla says:

    To the moderator: Name is still not yet correct. It is Mr. Tuukka Kuru. Double consonant, that defines a lot of Finnish names, both male and female. I am sure, it is not linguistic by definition, maybe more the way to say words. Tuuka would not sound right, Tuukka sounds right, it sounds more meaningful. 🙂

    As I started, why not comment something else as well.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Roy Albrect and his analysis of the muslim/jewish/christian conundrum. Jews will win, if christians (whites) lose. It is of no significance even if it means that the white countries become poorer and the quality of life goes down. Jews live in a world of comparison. They like it even if they lose as long as the others lose more. Even then they win, as they lose less. Whites, on the other hand, have always tried to improve the well-being of all people, albeit, of course, sometimes failing.

    The other aspect. Of course the Jews want a conflict between us, whites, and blacks/muslims. That is an insurance against our success. All readers of eg. these articles in these pages must have seen this. It is just a method, classic rule and divide. Europe has now the next “revolution” in-built. And we, whites, are now the “bad” people in all our own countries. Talk about subversion…

    Here in Finland the process is not as far as in the genuine jewish countries like, France, Germany, USA, Sweden, but the juggernaut moves ahead with no mercy.

    The so-called conservatives are here now totally corrupt. The EU is built to provide an endless amount of “positions” to pay for the traitors. Just one, but a very good example, Mr. Alexander Stubb, the former leader of the (previously maybe genuinely) right-wing, conservative party and a former Prime Minister.. He came into lamplights, when he tweeted famously “Monikulttuurisuus on rikkautta, ei mulla muuta” (freely translated “Multiculti is a richness, that is all I have to say”), when the arab/african hordes were shipped into Finland a few ears ago.

    That was enough, our great mathematician (he is known to not master numbers very well, but has an impeccable set of teeth and is known as a Tooth Fairy) became promptly appointed as “The Vice General Director of The European Investment Bank”. Look, easy! Now all traitors know that you just have to signal that you are willing to sell your people and your country and, hey presto, you become a banker!

    On the other hand, our precious Prime Minister, Mr. Juha Sipilä, is a lestadian (one form of christian) and they worship money. His party is agrarian and centrist, but nowadays just as well you could say corrupt and centrist. The only leading motivation is money, quickly and easily. And that is what they get, if they follow the lead of the multiculti.

    There are many more parties, the ones called red/green/swedish etc. They are mostly not that corrupt as they do not need to be paid to be traitors. The say it openly: “We want Africa!”

    Mr. Kuru could tell a story or two about his own party, Perussuomalaiset (True Finns). As it is not my job, I will not do it.

    But all in all, in our country, traitor is well paid and doing very well, thank you very much.

    • Ecoute Sauvage
      Ecoute Sauvage says:

      Glad you brought up the True Finns. When they first got elected to Parliament, the horror in Brussels was palpable – the socialist lawmakers’ remark “we do not know these people!” was endlessly repeated. But unlike the Sweden Democrats, fraudulently kept out of the current government, the Finnish government took in some True Finns ministers and essentially strangled their popular support by making them appear as bumbling incompetents. Perhaps they should have stayed out of government – presumably what you are alluding to – in order to preserve their base. Somehow Denmark has managed them better, taking them into government AND changing its refugee admittance policy to absolutely exclude integration. And about half of Norway considers Breivik a hero.

      • ValHalla
        ValHalla says:

        Unfortunately the story of True Finns is much worse.

        True Finns was a party built around the jovial Mr. Timo Soini, who used to say things like this: “Missä EU, siellä ongelma!” (freely translated: “Where EU, there problem!”). He seemed to be the man of the people and he got close to 20 % in the elections. He looked like the Force against EU.

        But no. Timo Soini sold his party as he was offered a Foreign Ministry. Then suddenly he changed to a federalist! He is now The Man. The EU Man. There is talk that he will also become Vice President of Some Bank. Thee are many such for traitors, who need a good pension.

        Timo Soini is the archetypal traitor. He literally pissed on his own people. I could not find a worse traitor even if I tried.

        At that time the True Finns was split into two parties. Now Timo Soini is on this other: The Blue Party.

        Timo Soini (yes, as you can see, I refuse to use Mr. in front of him, he is nothing) is a zionist, he loves Israel, he would sell his mother to help Israel. He probably has already done that.

        But this is only a start of this sordid mess. Now the True Finns is led by Mr. Jussi Halla-aho and Mrs. Leena Huhtasaari. They profile themselves as “True Finns”, yes, and they have learned to talk about muslims, but they are, again, zionists. Mrs Huhtasaari loves to have pictures of here and IDF soldiers posing in Israel. Quite frankly, the party iis in fact, True Zionists. Take my word for that.

        Mr. Kuru has already been kicked out of the party as he “is an xtreme nationalist”. On the other hand, my friends are a bit doubtful on that, but we sure give him the podium and listen.

        True Finns is a copy of Sverigedemokraterna (SD) in Sweden, when one notes the total zionist control. They are both 100 % a zionist project.

        I would love to be wrong on this, but I am sorry, I am right.

    • John McArthur
      John McArthur says:

      Bought and paid for politicians (perfectly legal of course because they make the rules) are the ruin of a culture. Any country that values its culture would never leave its political class so open to purchase or allow the dissemination of news and opinions to be in the hands of mỉnority self-interest groups whose spectacular success recalls the offer of the entire world to Jesus which he refused (Matt 4:8). It wasn’t god making the offer.

      The earliest archtypal historical event which comes to mind is from Ancient Egypt i.e. the Hyksos who appear to have been wandering migrant people (shepherds) who entered as guests but settled and in due time took over, closed temples of the traditional gods of Egypt, and worshipped only one god (Seth/Sutek) whom some scholars see as being the precursor of Satan.

      It is estimated that it took over hundred years to evict them but it led to the glories of the New Kingdom.

      There is a well known text written on the walls of a pyramid which reads today as a prophetic warning regarding an open door policy and the coming of the Hyksos a few centuries later, in which Egypt personified is told not to open her doors.

      The “one world” movement seems like a displaced form of monotheism in which money and material things are a poor attempt at covering over the spiritual vacuum.

      A precept from the glory days of ancient Egypt declares that wisdom is could be found with the lowly at the grindstone i.e IQ was not an impediment. The leader of the high IQ society in the UK revealed a new battery powered vehicle in the 1980’s which a person with well below average IQ could have told him was fatally flawed.

      Ancient Egyptian culture was founded on Maat and not race and that explains its longevity.

  5. A Mayer
    A Mayer says:

    A few years ago, a headline caught my attention. It was brief ‘Igbos in Finland’ I looked into it. It covered the presence of Nigerians in that country when it was stated that the black settlers were enamoured of the blonde, blue eyed Finns. As I drew attention to this, then oddity, a Finn said many if not most Finns despised the mostly women who practised miscegenation. So even that country is not free from black, etc immigration. Good luck on your visit there.

  6. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    First, an enthusiastic endorsement of Karl Nemmersdorf’s comment: “a very nice catechism of your thought.” One might even say that “very nice” understates its comprehensiveness and informativeness.

    Then there’s this:

    … now the Democrats hate Russia because they see hating Russia as a weapon against Trump, whom they are accusing of collusion with Vladimir Putin.

    In light of the music hall spectacle of congressional “questioning” of that honest and honorable New York Jewish lawyer, Michael Cohen, by equally laudable elected officials, it is surely not inappropriate to recall that the unmentioned atrocity associated with the alleged collusion was its bringing to light a great tranche of evidence indicative of the criminality and corruption of Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most degenerate candidate for the presidency in the history of this country. Russians or no, spilling the beans on that horrid but entitled woman is viewed by the (((Establishment))) as unforgivable.

    In other words, (((Democrats))) attack Trump because they do not regard their candidate’s corruption as a legitimate bar to high office, and (((Republicans))) decline to defend him on much the same ground.

    Absent these enemies, would there be any reason left any longer to wish Trump well, let alone defend him?

Comments are closed.