Finland is a vassal state controlled by Western political, economic and financial powers, and is only superficially independent. Even during the Cold War, Finland's independence and economic development were based on geopolitical balance between the various great powers.
The more options offered by the policy of neutrality naturally meant greater influence and independence in geopolitics and our own trade.
The West has made Finland its submissive raw material reserve by distorting the historical understanding of Finns and breaking their awareness of the importance of geopolitical balance for Finland's rise as an independent and prosperous state.
Politicians from Finland's pro-Western parties and the mainstream media have done a great job in ensuring the success of the information warfare campaign.
As the US Secretary of State Colin Powell former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson has revealed that the United States generously funded political election campaigns in neutral countries in Eastern and Northern Europe in order to get them to join NATO. This probably also happened in Finland.
There have been two main trends in Finland's foreign policy history: Westernization and neutrality. In today's one-truth Finland, only the Westernization is allowed. The mainstream media actively participates in the slander of the second main trend in our foreign policy history, neutrality, and its supporters.
Official Finland, for which the United States and the EU are now the only option, has made our country completely dependent on the West. This, in turn, makes it easy to subjugate Finland to the West.
Finland did not humiliate the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As an independent state, Finland pursued a mutually beneficial bilateral policy and commercial cooperation.
Finland had its own legislation, its own border controls, its own currency, its own foreign and trade policies. After the transfer of the Porkkala lease area, Soviet armed forces never again entered Finnish soil, for example for military exercises.
During the Cold War, Finnish companies created wealth for Finns and Finland did not make large-scale income transfers abroad. The difference with the current situation is great.
The USA-EU-NATO-Finland, which has surrendered to the West, currently imports a significant part of its legislation from outside, i.e. from the legislative machinery of the European Union. Finland no longer has an independent foreign, monetary and trade policy, Finland no longer controls all its borders and receives all customs duties. Finland has to pay income transfers to other EU member states. Finland has handed over 15 bases on its territory to the United States.
Finland is forced to privatize its state-owned companies after becoming indebted to the West. Foreign mining companies are repatriating financial profits from Finland and leaving mining waste behind.
Why can anyone support this miserable reality for Finland and Finns?
Is your Finland Urho Kekkonen Finland or by Alexander Stubb Finnish?
9 comments on the post “Sakari Linden: Why is Finland lost?"
Reply
You must log in to comment.
Below is a quote from today's 20.5. 12.05. Yle issue. Can a journalist sink any lower? And this kind of "journalism" is what Finnish taxpayers have to pay for.
"..Banda, boasted about feeding his political opponents to crocodiles. During Banda's time, Malawi was the Kainuu of Africa, where Kekkonen, who had risen from a son of a smokehouse to a fierce maniac father, was a good fit, showing others where to hide,"
“Knowledge is power” was stated by a philosopher as early as the 1600th century. “Parta-Kalle” refined it to the form: “Ownership of the media guarantees power”. After all, YLE has had its own poet for years, Jari Tervo, who has had “free hands” to produce programs that disparage the UKK and his foreign policy. So it’s no wonder that Finns are “riding with the wind”. There was a period (1965-1994) when the (Parliamentary) Yleisradio’s program was diverse, (almost) permissive, and people were allowed to take a stand on any issue. Back then, there were social discussions that people watched avidly. What will happen now..?
Could it be that Tervo's knowledge of history is not enough even for those fabrications that distort Finland's recent history? Most of Tervo's TV series are written by Marjo Vilkko. I also used to like Tervo's witty humor in the Uutisvuoto series. At that time, jokes were still made at the expense of the "big shoes".
Now the situation has been turned on its head. The millionaires who rule Finland also dictate what Tervo should say – or rather what (no one) is allowed to say on YLE. In other words, the "big shoes" are making fun of the Finnish people.
Yle operates at its level with its editorial staff, and its output is also in line with that...
Now I got my computer back from the repair shop. Better this way.
I have tried to think about where Finland would find the “New Kekkonen”. I believe that “Kekkonen” is hiding somewhere, but for some reason is not coming forward. But “Kekkonen” is not hiding in Parliament, at least not now. But where, is that the question?
The simple answer to the question in the title is that Finland is lost because its political decision-makers are lost. They have been for a long time, the effects of which have accumulated in the current circumstances.
Our decision-makers do not understand that the ongoing “joint project” with the so-called “West” is a playoff game, in which potential competitors are beaten down in order to benefit from the growing economies of the East. It is only a matter of time before the products of Western civilization and the world of values become concrete in the form of interludes and soloing past the decaying E-community. The technological superiority of the West is today a forgotten dream. In practice, one manifestation of the playoff game is increasing defense spending as a result of deliberately created illusions. For Finland, this development is already well underway, and the Finnish economy cannot withstand it, but the impoverishment continues with additional debt. The naive idea of a united West rising to its new heyday is a complete delusion, but the common, courageous goal imagined by Finnish politicians still exists.
In political liturgy, it continues
hanging around in one-sided value worlds and projects in the hope that some crumbs will fall into the bottom of the bag from joint efforts. So far, nothing has come of it but expenses. The hopes of dismembering Russia and seizing its natural resources with the available resources are utopian madness that seems to have already become chronic. I would like to ask the decision-makers in Suonen how else are you going to lift Finland out of its current state of decline other than by continuing with that model, and if there are no other options, then how are you going to survive the situation at all. Isn't there a perception that something is fundamentally wrong and that there is an advantage in the goals and the ways in which the goals are pursued?
“The United States generously funded political election campaigns in neutral countries in Eastern and Northern Europe to get them to join NATO. This probably also happened in Finland.”
This is probably what happened. From the inside, you just don't see the events of the "color revolution" in the media pool's comp. What is interesting about this is of course the price at which Finland was sold, i.e. who got what? Time will tell how cheap it was, and who rose.
"The USA-EU-NATO-Finland, which has submitted to the West, currently imports a significant part of its legislation from outside, i.e. from the legislative machinery of the European Union."
The most remarkable thing in this context is that Finland does not actively comply with the international agreements it has ratified, especially those that guarantee individual rights for citizens.
The top Finnish politicians have been scheming against Finland for decades, and have achieved nothing but bankruptcy and moral decay in government organizations, such as the judiciary. There are others.
Economic development in a population of just over five million, whose well-being should have been taken care of, has been catastrophic, even though the starting points were good. Good relations should have been maintained where they really matter. E-unionism has not guaranteed anything other than the consequences already mentioned above. At the same time, China, India and Russia have risen to the top of the world's economic development on many levels from massively different circumstances. For some reason, China in particular seems to be a thorn in the side of Foreign Minister Valtonen. Is it that China knows how to do everything that is needed in the world, and also knows how to behave in foreign policy relations. Does that make Valtonen fat, or is it Bilderbergism?
Have our politicians lost the keys, or simply put them in the wrong holes, in places where turning them around will not produce nationally beneficial results?
As for the question of Kekkonen vs Stubb, the latter does not represent any values that I would consider nationally desirable, even though he is well dressed, has good language skills, is able to travel and his teeth shine. But he can't, because he is a product of the globalist ideology and is saturated with it. The most important thing is not language skills and commuting around the world, but what he says there and what he does afterwards. That matters.
So far, he lacks orientation and actions for the good of Finland, and development does not seem to produce credible efforts in this regard. Kekkonen was from a different country. Kekkonen had the mental capacity and desire to listen to the voice and ability of his citizens and the desire to act for the good of his nation, starting with the grandmothers in the cottage. Finland's current political administration has instrumentalized its nation and its citizens to pursue its own political interests.
I believe that Kekkonen and Kekkonen's Finland, perhaps slightly refined, was and would still be a better option. But it was abandoned by political decisions, either voluntarily and/or under pressure from the West, and the end result is now visible. A lost, non-independent Finland that does not decide on its own affairs or the well-being of its citizens and matters that are vital to it.
And even then there are still "bumps" in the needles.
I support the Finland of Kekkonen's time. And I support a Finland that does not buy weapons for a single euro and does not manufacture weapons for anyone. Industry should be created on a basis that is beneficial to the seller and the buyer. A country whose well-being is mainly based on the manufacture of weapons builds its own well-being on the malaise of the buyer country, as the USA does today. Ukraine's industry is also largely based on the manufacture of weapons, although the payers for them are mainly the stupider, stupider EU countries.
My Finland is definitely Urho Kekkonen's Finland! "I wouldn't change a single day,.-.."
I support Finland's neutrality, but I've never really liked the word neutral. It brings to mind the idea of unwillingness and even humiliation. I think Finland should be, firstly, independent (not in the EU) and, secondly, militarily unaligned against anyone (out of NATO and other military agreements). I can't think of a better word than neutral.
Non-aligned could be a good word. Yes, one could take a foreign policy stance, but not in a sharp manner and especially not in advance by taking sides with a group like today. The current era of confrontation is stupid (especially for countries like Finland) and disgusting. Truth, justice, diplomacy, acting as a peace broker and promoting good-willed international relations would guide the foreign policy of a non-aligned Finland in my Finland.