Last Updated: January 18, 2012

Finnish and Related People's History, Culture and Language

Welcome! Tervetuloa!

The Uralic Family of languages is comprised of two branches: 1) Finno-Ugric, and 2) Samoyedic. The Baltic Finnish/Karelian and Estonian (Finnic), Hungarian (Ugric) and Lapp (Saami "saw-me") people belong to this distinct group of linguistically related people. Uralic people are by definition indigenous people of the northern regions between the Urals and Norway. Ancient Finno-Ugric people even hunted in Central Europe at least during periods of glaciation. If this is the case, assimilation of these northern tribes has been going on for over ten thousand years. The process has been so gradual that their language has been preserved though genetically Finns are to a great extent European. The Finno-Ugric language in Europe has died out thousands of years ago, and thus there are no pockets of the language south of Norway and Sweden. The evidence for their European domicile during the last glaciation comes from Mitochondrial DNA evidence. See Finno-Ugric Distribution Theory The Finns are indeed indigenous people not only of Northern Europe but vast areas from central Europe to the Ob river in the east. This is the story of a people who have adapted to a difficult life in the north, with periods of plenty punctuated by periods of famine and hardships. The result is a noble, gracious, tenacious people with a desire to be forever free, not bowing down to anyone and building a culture from a rich heritage of mythology, skilled craftsmanship, heroic actions against invaders - finally resulting in nationhood. Finns are stubbornly independent and cannot be subjugated. The Czars knew that and left them alone, not totally swallowing them into mother Russia when Sweden (1150-1809) lost control of Finland to Russian forces in 1809. They became a valued associate, called a Grand Duchy, rather than a slave. It was easy to tell who the enemy was in those times; today it is not so easy.



Crazy ideas about the origin of Finns have existed for hundreds of years. Some believe that until a thousand years ago, Finland was occupied only by Saami and that Finns migrated from the east and settled there, even as late as the first millennium. This theory has been disproven and now we know that ancestors of Finns have been there and also over a large area much longer, as the agreement between DNA, archeology and linguistic theory has shown. Their traditional lands include everything between Lake Onega and Norway. The Russian government begs to differ; they want their people to believe this all was old Russian lands, justifying their annexation. The Russian people took over most of the eastern province of Karelia in 1944, thanks to Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, who divided Europe amongst themselves, forgetting all about why they joined the war in the first place: to guarantee the sovereignty of Poland. They quickly forgot all about this when Stalin joined forces to beat Hitler, allowing Stalin a free hand with his neighbors. America and Britain, however, did not annex anything like the Soviets. Of course they must return these lands to their owners if they are to comply with agreements that were signed, we know that, but they don't want to know. Many Finns today believe that Karelia, the 1/10 of Finland that was annexed, must be returned, but how to achieve that has been an problematic, and most politicians, except for a few descendants of Karelians, rather stay away from the subject. While they want Karelia returned, Finns want to be in good terms with Russians, showing that they are extremely patient. Today Russians are doing everything they can to justify their claim of "liberating" Karelia from "Fascism" including fabricating information. It has been suggested that Finns deserve what they got for cooperating with Hitler. While Finns cooperated with Hitler for a time, so did Stalin - which cancels out this argument. While Finns did it out of selfish reasons, to save their country, so did the Russians, to try and divide Europe with Hitler, a task in which they succeeded. However, the deception of the "Fascist" Finns is still alive and well. The Finns are in origin Finno-Ugric, not Germanic, so they cannot join in Hitler's plan for racial purity, nor do they have any interest in killing Jews or anyone else including Russians for Hitler's conquest. They were not Fascist. The new residents of Karelia, Great Russians, have regular meetings to celebrate the theft (liberation) of Karelia from the "Fascist" Finns. The propaganda of the Soviet era is alive and well in Russia in the second millennium. This celebration of victory is done with the theme "the Fascist Finns must pay." That is the only justification for annexing Karelia the Russians can come up with. The guilt by association does not work in this case, as the Finns only wanted back what is theirs.




Finns are indigenous to Finland - it is their country that they have defended for over a thousand years. The term "indigenous" has come to mean a minority group within a larger group, but this may not be accurate in some cases. If that group should grow in numbers (due to agriculture for example) compared to another group, or mixing with Swedes, could it cease to be "indigenous", like the Finns for example? Some people believe that because they aren't living in tents. Who should we include as indigenous, and should we redefine the term? Is the term politicized to preclude certain groups because of statistical numbers, skin color or culture? Here is one definition of the term: "Indigenous peoples are people, communities, and nations who claim a historical continuity and cultural affinity with societies endemic to their original territories that developed prior to exposure to the larger connected civilization associated with Western culture." This definition is in relation to "Western Culture." When some people claim that Finns are fairly recent settlers, (around 1000 ce) they mean that Finns are not indigenous. Obviously this definition does not fit every situation either. If everyone came from somewhere at some time, when do we call someone "indigenous?" How long must they reside in the area? The Jews immigrated to Canaan "Israel" at the time of Abraham, around 2000 BC. It was given to Abraham and tribe at that time. It was not given to his half brother, Ishmael, who was banished into the desert, and became associated with Arab nations. Israel was the little corner of the globe that belonged to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This included Jerusalem. Arabs beg to differ, but on what basis? We as these questions to start the process of considering the subject of who is entitled morally to occupy and benefit from any piece of land on the earth. Should the basis for land ownership be based on ancestral, indigenous rights? Does anyone have the right to take it away?


Based on these facts, are Jews indigenous to Israel? Which group has rightful claim to Israel because they are indigenous? Are Arabs entitled to claim all the land in the area, and if so on what grounds? These are questions that need to be answered if the issue of land entitlement is to be solved. Americans, Canadians, Australians and Russians will have a hard time defending any position regarding who owns "stolen" land; they walked into other people's land and killed as many as they could, at took the land. If the Jews and Arabs are joined together by a mutual ancestor, why do they fight each other for land? What has this got to do with Finns? Finns have been fighting over land that belongs to them as well, and we believe we are entitled to all of Karelia, St. Petersburg area all the way to Lake Onega. That is our ancestral land. Finns will never stop trying to get it back one way or another. Perhaps this government doesn't want to touch the subject, but one day these liberal rulers will be history and another more patriotic leader will emerge and the subject will be reborn as it was in 1941. Patriotic Finnish rulers have become extinct, but we are still hoping. We are hoping that if it is right for Palestinians to get "their" land back, then why not the Karelians who had their land taken twice: 1939 and 1944? This includes the Poles, Japanese, and anyone else that lost land to the Soviets by 1945.


Although Saami consider themselves distinct from the majority culture, in fact the Finns and Saami have coexisted in and around present Finland since the last glaciation. Of course the majority Finnish population has seen genetic drift from neighbors but so have the Saami. So, we can consider the Finnish majority as not only indigenous to Finland but to Europe as well. Like Finns, the Saami are indigenous to large territories of Northern Europe and today's Northwestern Russia, both having inhabited the area ever since the last ice age, ending approximately 11,000 years ago, but perhaps already long before that as well as recent archeology has shown.


The Canadian Indians are called "First Nations" so perhaps who got there first can claim the territory on historical grounds. Reclaiming it though can be difficult or impossible, but it can be done. Imagine if the UN approved the return of much of Russia to their former owners. We believe that some of the land taken and its resources should be restored to the owners so that these people (displaced Baltic Finns in Ingria, Karelia and Eastward to the bend in the Volga), can move forward in prosperity and culturally like the Slavic majority. The only people that should be granted separate treatment within a nation are indigenous people. All others, such as immigrants, do not have ground to stand on if they want separate treatment because they chose to come to a country with existing laws and culture; nobody forced them to come. If they don't like it, as a grown child in your home that cannot live your way, they can always leave. They can't order you around and make demands for you to change what works for you. We will discuss this in relation to Shariah Law demands by Muslims, later.


If Russia began a process of firstly listening to the grievances of these people, they would certainly receive a positive review from the international community. But what if the native Indians of North America were not the first to arrive? Could we still call them "First Nations?" It seems that Finns or someone closely related to them, arrived first. This confirms my own theory that Finns traveled in an East-West direction, following fish and game, during the last glaciation, even ending up in America. When the ancestors of present day Indians arrived in North America, these Europeans disappeared. Were they killed off, or absorbed, or a little of both? The native Americans are preventing proper analysis of these finds claiming all bones older than 5000 years as their dead ancestors. But the scientists protested that these skeletons were not their relatives.


Kvenland.org



The Russian government's position is that they are just as entitled to the land as the Finns, but actually they are squatters on Finnish land rather than the other way around. Russians claim the land on historical grounds, but their history goes back hundreds, while the Finno-Ugric history goes back thousands of years. That is why Russian historians don't want to recognize that Finns have lived in Finland and Karelia for thousands of years, preferring the theory that they arrived there at the same time as themselves, sometime around the 12th-13th Century. International precedents have been set, as in Canada, whereby it is acknowledged that indigenous people are entitled to their land and the resources on it, that they can develop and benefit from as they see fit. Russian governments in the past have simply raped the resources and left the people with nothing but a destroyed environment, while practicing genocide on the people. The goal was to reduce the indigenous population and increase the Russian, while confiscating their trading posts at various rivers throughout the North. In more recent times, in the last several hundred years, this was done by killing them or banishing the people to distant places and leaving them there to fend for themselves, sometimes in the middle of winter. Stalin practiced genocide on a grand scale, but also banishing people to distant camps only to die of hunger and over work. You see, you had to earn your scrap of bread, and if you were too sick, you didn't get fed and died. These have been the actions of this "civilized" nation. We do not keep a grudge about these events, but we do want the world to know because there is still hope of setting these things right. It is a chance for Russia to prove that it is finally civilized, as it appears to be moving in that direction.


Nuclear testing in northern Russia has spread radioactive debris all through the north, and much of it has reached Finland and the rest of Scandinavia as well. The result has been a lot of birth defects. Canadians (the author's present domicile) are beginning to become more civilized, at least on paper, but the follow-through has been slow and often default has been the outcome. However, on APTN, the native TV channel in Canada, we can see that the people have made great strides in many areas including restoring their native languages. This must happen in Russia too to the Finno-Ugric languages.


It has been suggested that Finns are not European, but Asian. Anyone who watches hockey on TV will not agree. Finns have a distinct European, Nordic stamp. The writer's own theory of Finno-Ugric occupation of the North has solid research backing which opens the door to even greater possibilities in the quest for ancient origins of Finns. Certainly the Finnish population will have certain inclusions of Asian genetic influence - it would not be rational to conclude otherwise. However, to place the Finns as "Asians" or "Mongolians" (as some, such as H.G. Wells, like to do) has no basis in present scientific evidence. Mongolian influence, or genetic drift, has been active westward for millennia, all over Europe and Russia. H.G. Wells writes in his book "The Outline of History" that "To the Northwest the Finns, a Mongolian people, had long been established as far west as the Baltic." He probably never even met a Finn. This incorrect view has been propagated by earlier writers and repeated by many other historians. There is no way that northern people of the world can not have any eastern elements, as genes flowed east and west along the ancient ice melt, but to say they are a "Mongolian people" is misrepresenting the Finnish people.


Certain physical and Mitochondrial characteristics attributed to Finns and Saami (formerly called Lapps) were probably already present in the aboriginal Europeans, which we now believe included the Finns and Saami. (Origins of Saami in left column)


Why did the prehistoric Finns have to travel, and how did they do it? The estimated resource area per person is between 0.1 - 0.5 sq. km. to survive in the north, and this meant travel in the vast Boreal Forests. Boat People Theory To traverse the huge numbers of lakes in the north during the long winters, early Finns invented ice skates. Later, when agriculture reached Finland, famines were fairly common as crops failed. The latest big one was in the latter half of the 17th Century, when Europe's weather took a deadly turn for the worse. In Finland, families even gave their children to the nomadic Saami to save them from starvation. Many ended up all the way up to the coast of Norway, as these nomads followed the migratory routes of their reindeer to the higher summer pastures in the mountains. Unlike the caribou of the Northwest Territories, that migrated from the treeline to the Barren Grounds in Canada, the migratory paths of these reindeer was east-west. The Saami were taxed by the Finns, but they also benefited from Finns. The Finns got furs and in return, the Saami got steel items that sometimes were traded all the way from the Middle East via the Volga River to Bjarmland.


There are many related groups in the former Soviet Union, most of which are quickly being assimilated into the dominant Russian language and culture. This has lately begun to be reversed, but it is a gigantic task. Just as the western Finns have had Germanic influence, the eastern Finnish cultures have developed with many Turkic/Indo-Iranian and Slavic cultural, religious and linguistic influences. The eastern Finnish languages cannot be understood by Finns today as contacts to the east have been more or less cut for eight hundred years of Russian history. At times, glaciers also separated the Eastern Finno-Ugric people from their relatives that once extended from the Netherlands to the shores of the Black Sea in the South. So of course Finns would have some "Eastern" genes since their hunting and trading range to the East may have reached Siberia.

Place-names which stretch all the way to the Ural mountains are ancient Finnish related in origin which can be seen in the map section. Many place names have similar prefixes although they might be several thousand kilometers apart. Finno-Ugric place names based on the root "sum" and "sam" testify to the large area Finns once called their land. "Suursuomi" movement or the idea of rebuilding a larger Finland that Slavs conquered, gained strength in 1941 when the Finns set out to take back land Russia annexed the year before. Stalin had grossly underestimated Finnish ingenuity, determination and stamina.

Many Finns and Estonians have a keen interest in their relatives to the east with whom many still feel some kinship ties. Recently, due to events in Russia against Finno-Ugric people by Moscow, there has been increased interest in this topic from many countries.



Finnish culture is very Scandinavian in style, but Finno-Ugric origins make the people distinct in many ways.

Who are the Uralic people? Where did they come from? Where do they live? What is their language and culture like? And more specifically, who are the Baltic Finns? This web page explores these and many other questions relating to Uralic people: their past, present and future. We cannot do anything about the past, and the present is now, but we have the power to affect the future of the Finno-Ugric people, and the Finnish people are no exception. That is why I devote a section right here to analysis of what direction Finland has taken, which I believe to be good, and which I believe could destroy the culture.



Islam in Finland


The most educated nation in the world, bar none, is Finland. So it is a wonder that this country that builds the largest cruise ships in the world, which has the best engineers in the world in communications and just about everything else, and in general has a people with a great attitude toward life, has apparently missed learning about Islam. The liberal news media, such as YLE sings the praises of Finland's Muslim immigrants. It all boils down to the misguided notion of a utopian society that thinks by homogenizing societies in the world, peace will be the natural outcome and presto, we will have Utopia at last. Finnish people have been divided on the subject of building a utopia before, the previous one being in 1918, during the War of Independence, when the country was divided into the Communist held south and the Democratic north. We no longer have that threat, but the ideas are still there - the did not just disappear, but the popped up under different names. Multiculturalism, which has been tried already in many countries has proven to be a great disappointment. The Netherlands scrapped the idea in 2011. Other countries want to, but have gone into it too deep to get out of it without causing a riot. Now Finland wants to give it a shot.

Immigration in moderation does not impact a country, since the numbers are kept manageable. But when it is done at the level I have seen in Europe and North America, it impacts those countries, and quite detrimentally at that. We love Muslims but what they have brought with them, is something else. A good axiom about anything is to study it first before deciding any important policy. This has not been done. We have been sold a lie about Islam itself - that it is a harmless religion we should embrace gladly, and if you don't there is something wrong with you, like you must be racist, maybe even a Nazi! We do not all believe in Communism, but nobody calls us racist for that, and USSR found out only after 80 unnecessary hardships that...what do you know, it doesn't work! This will also be the case with inordinate amount of Muslim immigration, because Islam does not work. There is no Muslim country that is truly free. All are slaves to that religion, and all other religions are banned. What I am espousing here, is the result of much investigation. Most information in the media of what I've witnessed, comes, not from investigative journalism, but from Muslims themselves, and interviews on TV are a weekly event. Taqiyya, is an Islamic way of misleading non-Muslims for the purpose of spreading the religion, and is allowed, because they are supposed to be at war against infidels, and Muhammad said war is deception. This is true, after all how many of us would tell an enemy the truth if we can get away with it. What Muslims were saying about Islam was different from what I found out about it. Why didn't Finns know these things? Why do they just accept what some Muslim tells them? Make no mistake, Christians are enemies to Islam, they cannot coexist. One believes in democracy, the other is a totalitarian political system controlled by Islamic, in most cases, fanatics. Christians do not automatically treat Muslims as enemies, they are trusted until proven otherwise. My in depth study of Islam has proven otherwise, and it is impossible to know when they are speaking the truth about their religion, so I tend to discount interviews altogether. My sources are PhD's in Islamic studies and those who have spent years studying the religion, or have defected from it, under the threat of death. What has amazed me is that despite the huge amount of evidence, people still refuse to believe that Islam is essentially, doctrinally, violent and horrible in many ways. The Qur'an prescribes exactly what to do with likes of you and me, when the opportunity arises, and - it isn't pretty. You will have to find out for yourself, space does not permit to do so here even if I wanted to. All I can do is raise the red flag! But are infidels really enemies of Muslims or is that just propaganda? It is not; every Muslim is supposed to promote Islam any way possible, including violence if necessary. Dying while fighting for Islam is a ticket straight to heaven and the sexual rewards Muhammad promised. You get 72 virgins. Wow - no wonder they aren't afraid to die! But lying is something that every Muslim can do even without taking up the sword. Muhammad claimed to receive the Qur'an from the angel Gabriel. The Christian Bible says that Satan can appear as an angel of light. So you decide after finding out a bit more about who this Allah really is. Be careful, and don't ask a Muslim.


A perfect example of Islamic lying is an interview of Ahmed Abdul Karim in Finland, who states that anything casting women in an inferior position in Islam is only due to cultural values, not the Qur'an. (their holy book)

"Siksi naisilla on aikojen alusta ollut Jumalan edessä samat oikeudet kuin miehelläkin, mutta triarkaalinen kulttuuri, mustasukkaisuus ja pikkusieluisuus ovat tehneet tehtävänsä perusteellisesti vieden naisilta joissakin islamistisissa maissa ihmisarvon kokonaan."

Translation: "This is why women have since the beginning of time, enjoyed the same rights as men, but the culture, envy and small mindedness have done their deeds to the core, taking away in some Muslim countries their human rights." Source This is an outright lie, and contradiction of what Muhammad actually said. What Muhammad said about women surprises even our scholars, but horrifies the women of Finland, who have always been free. Answering Islam


During WWII, when Russia attacked Finland in 1941 and continued the Winter War of the previous year, Finland ended up on the Germans' side by default. Germany was allowed to attack through Finland in the North, and this gave Finland the "Fascist" label by the Allies, though Finland has never agreed with Hitler's concept of master race, nor totalitarianism, and Finns are not Germanic, but Finno-Ugrian. For Russia, it was a convenient excuse for aggression. Perhaps because of this, Finns are more ready to accept Muslim immigration, to "prove" they are not Fascist. But this may make Finland vulnerable to Islamic Shariah Law in the not too distant future. Having followed post 911 events and how governments around the world have responded, I noticed that what the leaders told the people did not agree with the facts that I was beginning to uncover from my own research into Islam. As in Britain and United States, the Finnish government has told the people "the big lie" about Islam, and the people seem to have believed it. They all said exactly the same things, as if they all sat down together and came up with what to tell the people. I would like to explain to you what this lie is all about and why it has been spread by world leaders. The truth is getting out slowly, but not by the governments, but by the people. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." When you deliberately mislead the people in a serious matter affecting the very future of the country, you lose the moral authority to be the leader, in fact you may lose the right to be one of the people. Today there exists Americans, who are not Americans, Finns who aren't Finns and they believe in being citizens of the world, and as such do not look after the interests of their own people. Those people are in the world leaders' club, their own "nationality" whose secret goals are different from those of their own people. Not everyone that has Finnish citizenship like myself, is a Finn. Finnishness is much more than that. Unfortunately, Tarja Halonen (on her way out in February 2012, thank God) and her predecessor, Ahtisaari have betrayed their own people, and facilitated the massive influx of Muslims into Finland. Were the Finnish people consulted, no. How would you like it if your husband or wife told you one day, I am bringing in some people to live with us, perhaps Muslims? That could be a marriage ending decision. So it is with any country - consultation is the key to a happy country. It is my belief that you look after your own people before anyone else. They failed in that regard. The best that can be said about their actions is a quote by Napoleon: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." (or ignorance) A Finn, as I see it, would not allow a dangerous religion to proliferate in their country. My people, the Karelians, have always been the first to meet any enemy because we live(d) closest to the enemy. I think this still holds true - we are the real Finns, first to defend our country, and proud of it. Let me explain this thing about Islam, that many seem to think is what the Finns would call "hu-hu" or "BS." When I first stated my concerns in 200I, I was contacted by one of the Finnish newspapers to tell me that what I am espousing is nonsense, and that he knew several Muslims and they were very nice people. Of course all people are nice people, that is missing the point. We do not for a moment believe Muslim are not "nice" people, but it does not follow that their religion is, and what might be a reality when their numbers, and influence, increase. We should treat Islam as a political party, not a religion. Would you agree that Communism is a good choice for Finland? Of course not, but millions did back in 1918. So, we Finns have been wrong before; we have barked up the wrong tree before. That was beaten down by force, and freedom won over slavery. Today freedom is again assaulted and again millions of people are on the side of slavery: Islam. How shall we conquer this one?

President Tarja Halonen is actually making Finland a safe haven and base for the assault of Islam on Europe. Liberalism is sweeping the globe within government circles, but as we have seen recently, the people are taking back what is theirs. It has been argued that Islam itself is peaceful, and that all the violence has nothing to do with the religion. We don't believe that anymore. This theory has no foundation in fact, and it is the reason I feel it necessary to bring it up here. There are almost 50,000 Muslims in Finland now, making it a population explosion of the North, and a real threat to the Finnish lifestyle in the not too distant future. For one thing, no other religion has the goal of radically changing the culture and laws of their host country, not immediately but that goal is in the back of the minds of every Muslim because our way of life is an abomination to their religion. Eventually the demand for Shariah Law will raise its ugly head from their midst. It is no reason to hate Muslims, but it is a reason to understand thoroughly the religion. To do otherwise is unthinkable. Unfortunately space does not permit this writer to elaborate, so you can find the information easily on sites dedicated to the subject. I will touch on the main points only beginning with the main and most important question: is Islam a peaceful religion as for example Christianity? What is the religion really all about and why do we hear so much about Muslim violence against Christians around the world, such as the recent killing of almost 300 people in Nigeria? Is that too just the work of a few misguided terrorists or did their prophet Muhammad tell them to do these things? These are vital points that every person in a non-Muslim country should know off by heart. It is no different than knowing what the goals of World Communism are, or Fascism, since Islam is largely a political system. As long as we are aware of this fact, we can evaluate it without those rose colored glasses.


Islam is mostly a political system, not a religion. Of course it has religious elements, but no real religion advocates harm to anyone, except Islam, the religion sold as "peaceful." This is not an assertion, it can be easily verified right in their own Qur'an, from the mouth of Muhammad himself, except most people don't bother to do so. It is discouraging to hear how many people believe that Islam is a religion of peace, especially since it comes from politicians that make laws. The Qur'an has peaceful verses, true, but the tone begins to change when Muhammad gains more power, and the peaceful verses turn into violent verses. This is the reason they can point to the Qur'an and lie to us about Islam. I am saying this, not to spread hatred of anyone, but we have to know these things. We have to know that laws are being made to prevent these truths from being spread. They do not want you to know because then the enemy will be able to counter their moves. Every day we hear of violence that some Muslim group or government is doing around the world. A peaceful religion? You decide. While you are doing so, at the time of this writing, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani in Iran is facing execution. Did he kill or rape someone? Perhaps he robbed a bank? None of the above; he is innocent of all crimes, except the crime taught by Muhammad, of turning his back on Islam. If you come from a Muslim family, you must stay there or die. That is the real face of Islam. The whole Christian world is praying that this man be spared, while Muslims just want what Muhammad would want, death. If you still defend Islam knowing all the violence being done against Christians around the world, as in Nigeria and Iran, it is your shame, and you have chosen your the side you are on. Tarja Halonen has chosen the side she is on. Shame on those defending this religion. Yet people parrot the party line that Islam means peace. Muslim concept of peace is when the world belongs to Allah, not the peace you are lead to believe. It is a religion with two faces, just like the moon: one you see, and the one you don't. By coincidence, the moon is their symbol. Accorded the full status of a religion, it is no wonder that Islam is again moving forward in the world, because they can now use the state and the freedoms in democracy, to crush it. Listen what a former Muslim has to say about what is in store for all those who treat Islam with the same privileges as a religion.
Let us have common sense and not defend a religion that has shown us that it is on the warpath.

You would be surprised to see what Islam is really about: Start with permission for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims. Ask yourself whether you agree that this religion is similar/as good as Christianity, which is what we are told.

Netherlands dumps Multiculturalism




Finland and the Finnish People



One cannot understand Finnish language, history and culture without some knowledge of related people. Finnish history and culture are presented against a background of the other Finno-Ugric people, the original Europeans. (Fin.) Finnish written history is only from the second millennium, but fortunately the Finns have a strong oral tradition going back to the ice ages. Finns, and Karelian tribes in particular, had a strong oral tradition of rune singing their history of their ancient shamanistic beliefs, myth, magic, love and war. These traditions survived in Karelia probably because of the relative isolation from the early Finnish church. These stories were collected in the 19th Century and compiled into one story, composed of a masterful collection of epic poems that reveal the daily life of the people over millennia. Karelia, the land of the writer's ancestors, has a long history going back over eight thousand years. Today, Finns love their Kalevala which is read and enjoyed as a rich historical and mythological legacy of their ancestors. One reason for this is that Finns know that they have a glorious past that has been buried by official versions of history propagated during the time Finland was a part of Sweden and continued today in schools. The true oral tradition of the Finns survived in the backwoods of Karelia. We view the whole history of the Finnish people as open to revision by scientific multidisciplinary investigation.



As for the reliability of the information contained here, of course there may be some outdated material as some sources are very old. One of the greatest values in historical study is that the further back we look, the further forward we are able to see. The more cultures and religions we understand, the better we can manage our own cultures and religions, or what we believe to be true. Too little knowledge about important subjects is a dangerous thing, and here I try to open up your desire to know more about certain subjects that are timely and urgent so you can decide for yourself, while at the same time giving my own honest opinion. At the same time, we hope to discard some of the old assumptions we cling to passionately, which may be false.


The Finnish tribes ruled the North since the last Ice Age. A thousand years ago, Eastern Slavs began intercepting Karelian trade with the Norwegians and Volga traders. The map section shows the areas they used in their wilderness trips. When the population exploding slavs came and took over the key trading posts to the East, they forced the inhabitants to move West. Timing is everything; the Slavs were two hundred years too late. By the time Slavs arrived, the Perm ivory trade was in decline as new sources became available in Africa. Trading posts in the Northwest Finno-Ugrian Nation that were established by Finns were reestablished by Russians (e.g. Ustjug). Most of them were taken from their original owners by force after they made several friendly visits. Finns joined the Swedish Army to prevent Russians from occupying all of Finnish lands. Though the Russian Chronicles state that they were fighting Swedes, the truth is that they were fighting Finns trying to keep what is theirs: their lands. You see Swedes never tried to turn Finns into Swedes, but Russians have been Russifying Finns from the time they entered their lands back in the 11th Century. It was providential that the Western Finns were "protected" by Sweden for 700 years, which gave this nation the opportunity to become what it is today rather than suffer genocide and absorption - which was the intention of mother Russia. Both Sweden and Russia fought for control of the land between Lake Onega and the Baltic, but the real owners of this land are Baltic Finns themselves, mainly Tavastians, Karelians (Eastern and Western), Veps, (Southeastern Karelians) and Ingrians who live between Estonia and Karelia.



Since the last war, misinformation flooded the world's knowledge base and many false teachings have been spread about the Finns, Karelians, their rightful heritage in the north and the Second World War. These must be set straight. Viipuri (Vyborg) for example, which is not far from St. Petersburg, on the Gulf of Finland, was established by Finns and built by Finns - not Russians. Russian pamphlets and a plaque on a wall near the Viipuri fortress state that the natural harbor city of Viipuri is an old Russian city (when Finland was for a time a Russian Grand Duchy with an autonomous government, and for a time long ago when Finnish Viipuri was part of the Novgorod trade group where Finnish goods were traded with the Slavs to the east, before Russia even existed). It was part of a trading block, similar to the German Hanseatic League and now it is "back with the rightful owners." Finland "belonged" to Sweden a lot longer than it did Russia, including Viipuri, in fact about 700 years. The fact is that Viipuri and indeed all of Karelia (to the shores of Onega), Ingria (the area where St. Petersburg is today) and Finland belong to the Finnish people. Finns were deported from these areas when the Russians moved west to the Baltic, especially during and after Peter the Great established St. Petersburg in 1703. After the WWII, Russia settled newly occupied areas of Karelia vacated by Finns, who were escaping Marxism and Stalin, with people from all over Russia. Gradually all buildings suffered neglect and Karelia began to look like rundown Russian town. A Finnish site has documented all the lies told to the Russian people about the Second World War. Russian Manufactured Truth, not much different from the old Soviet reality. (Fin.) As always, the Finns are the "Fascist" aggressors. Come back to this site and I will have some translations for you.


The world has a lot to say about how Israelis are settling occupied territories on the West Bank. Russia has been occupying occupied areas for a thousand years, right up to 1944. (Karelians want their land back. The Japanese want their Islands back. Poles want their land back etc.) Sure, by international diplomacy these people are being polite, "forgiving" and not being demanding enough, but they do want their land back and that will never go away. President Reagan's famous quote was "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." That was a start in the right direction. Now we must hear another one, such as, "Mr. Putin, (or whoever is in charge) give back the land Stalin stole." There are other people in the world wanting land back, such as in the Middle East. Where is the news about how the Poles or the Finns want their land back? The ethnic Slavs are in control of resources that should belong to the dozens of ethnic groups in today's Russia. Everyone, and this includes the Finno-Ugric Nations (Republics) in Russia, should benefit from their own resources; to do otherwise perpetuates a colonial system that has been somewhat abandoned by most western countries. International precedents have been set in Canada for giving back land that was simply taken by treachery, and these talks should begin between all the Finnish tribes and their Russian masters. It is a colonial system whose time has come to finally close. Can we make any comparisons between what is happening in the Middle East and Finland's claim on territory taken by Russia?


The world news is full of how the Israelis must give back land they "took" from the Arabs, even though a lot of it was purchased desert land that the Arabs considered useless, until the Israelis showed how to make it blossom. There were few Arabs in the Palestine lands before the Israelis began to turn the desert into green belt. Those that were there did not know how to use the land properly, and it was basically wasteland. Arabs thought these Jews were crazy for buying that land, that they were only too glad to sell believing that they had sold worthless land to a Jew, laughing all the way to the bank. Now that Jews showed them how to take care of the land, they suddenly want it back. Their violent Jew hating leadership incited this violence when they all could have lived peacefully side by side! The Arabs had every possibility to develop the land before the Jews ever arrived, but they did nothing. Why could the Jews settle there then but not now? Shouldn't they live in peace together? The Arabs live in Jewish areas without the Jews protesting, until they start their Jihad violence. The hatred of Jews is deeply ingrained in Arabs, and the Arabs have wanted to kill all Jews since Muhammad, and even before. Most people don't know that Muhammad approved lying to advance Islam (this is being practiced a lot today) when he started killing Jews. Since "peaceful" Muhammad killed all the Jews on the Arabian peninsula, Muslims have been in constant strife with Jews. Yet Muslims swear Muhammad never killed anyone unless in self defense. Arabs curse Jews. Maybe that is why they are poor, not because of something the west has done. What has the west done to them that they have not done to all countries? Can they blame their poor economic performance on the west? Not likely.


The Bible says, "I will bless those who bless, and curse those who curse Israel." "...you will be a blessing to the world." (Gen. 12:3). Notice that American economy started to slip badly when Obama came in, a man that said he was Christian, but who changed his mind after he was elected, to reveal a Muslim. This was the Muslim lying that is permissible. America can be healed, but it must not abandon Israel. When will the Arab nations prosper under such a curse? That will happen only when Muslims stop cursing the Jew, and live in peace and harmony, instead of trying to annihilate them. (I believe that Russians too will not prosper until they honor the land God gave their neighbors, which they coveted and took for themselves. Until Russia gives back Karelia, there is little chance they will ever be as rich as the Finns.) The history of the Jews goes back over four thousand years when Abraham, from Ur, in Babylon, settled the land of Canaan, which is Israel. God gave that land to Abraham and told him to go there. Who can say that Jews cannot own their own land that God gave them? And who can take it away? Apparently the Arabs, Egyptians and Persians, and now American president - and for what? Pure hate; it's not just about how badly the Israelis treat anyone. In a territorial dispute going back thousands of years, who can claim to be right today? It is much more than something Jews have done, and it began with Ishmael the out-of-wedlock son of Abraham. I was asked by a friend, "why does everyone hate the Jews?" The answer is complex but a simple answer might be something like "they are jealous of them." That is one of many answers. I was told by a recent visitor to Israel that you can see clearly the demarcation between Arab zones and Israeli ones. The Arab areas are run down and look like slums. The people are lazy and spend most of their energy blaming someone else, Jews in this case. An Arab barber asked me why the Jews appear to be so progressive, and if the Arab was "stupid" or something. The answer to that is in Ishmael, and the Bible says his hand will be against everyone:
"He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility toward[b] all his brothers.” Gen. 16:12



One Israeli is worth 1000 "Palestinians" (a term coined by the Ottomans, but who did not exist before that) as was shown in the prisoner swap in December 2011. The ratio of Nobel Prizes is skewed almost totally toward the Jews, that have .2% of the world's population, but have won 22% of the coveted Prizes. Muslims have 1.5 billion people, and have won 6 Nobel Prizes. Be careful which side you're on. If Finland now believes that Muslims, sworn enemies of Jews, have a place in Finnish society, that they are basically the same as Christians, I shudder to think what future lies in wait.


The history of Finns in Karelia goes back to the ice age, when Slavs were still down in the warm south. I believe that this land was given to the Finns and they should have control over it. The Slavs are occupying it at the moment, but who knows what the future will bring. The writer's father always believed that he would have his home back, which was taken by Russians in 1944, along with the demand for over $500 Million dollars worth of war indemnity. The Russians undervalued everything so the number is much higher. To the Russian's surprise the Finns paid it off in a few years and became a manufacturing powerhouse. There was a clause that Russians would get more land if the Finns defaulted. Apparently they still had not learned their lesson: they weren't dealing with an ordinary people here. These were Finns.


Shouldn't everyone get their land back? Of course the Slavs would have nowhere to go then. We Finns did not sell our land, it was taken by force. As far as the owners are concerned, they still own it and it is under occupation, as is the land in United States by this definition. That land was taken, not once but twice between 1939 and 1944.


Is there a comparison between Finns and Jews? In some ways. The brilliant Israeli scientists made the desert bloom, and now the ones who sold them land want it back! Then, when attacked by neighbors, they expanded. Only Jews have to leave land they have purchased or settled because it is called "occupation." The area has been the home of Jews for thousands of years, and there is no reason to believe they do not belong there, like the Finns belong in their ancestral lands. Like the Israelis, the Finns almost always end up victorious against their main enemy through history - Russia. They are both blessed with knowledge of warfare tactics that offset the uneven numbers. Traditionally Russians just took and killed everyone or sent them off to Siberia as slaves - then Russifies the population. This is genocide. They also turned the Eastern Finns to the Orthodox Religion, to drive them away from their brothers and into the Russian fold. It seemed to work. Russians want desperately to join the world economic system, or they cannot move forward. First they should make good and give back the land, not just to the Finns but all the small defenseless countries they preyed upon especially at a time when everyone was in crisis. To justify these annexations, the Russians now resort to changing history, or omitting it altogether. Russia's land grabs. The Arabs never forgive the Israelis, and they never really move forward either. Finns know how to forgive the Russians, and therefore they have moved forward and became one of the most prosperous countries in the world. The Bible teaches forgiveness; the Koran teaches the opposite as we have seen with the various Muhammad artists and the resulting killings and riots. We have here two polar opposite philosophies trying to coexist. Then Russians must restore their integrity and trust, which takes a long time to establish. After that, they must prove themselves trustworthy.