In Economics, one of the biggest things we learn is to think in terms of what doesn’t happen.

The most obvious concept of this is “opportunity cost”, defined as the value of the next best alternative forgone. Whenever you choose to do A, you forgo B–and sometimes B is lost forever.

The second biggest thing we learn, perhaps, is to consider whether something catastrophic might have been prevented.

For example, when a government does policy X, the results might have been terrible. But can we really evaluate this policy as such–“a failure”? Because results could have been more catastrophic than the existing terrible, and you should be thanking the government for a bad result, instead of something much worse.

The next question to ask is subsequently–what if the government simply chooses not to do anything? What we see currently may be bad, but what if the worst is yet to come–and the government allows it by not doing anything so that they can’t be directly blamed?

Without a doubt, what we are currently witnessing in Europe is migration on an unprecedented scale. It’s madness. Imagine thousands and thousands of foreigners streaming into your country suddenly…of course it is difficult for locals to suddenly get used to it. Imagine native young girls “suddenly” getting raped and the media, in the spirit of sensationalism–stirs up coloured news of refugees raping young girls, while news of white natives raping girls go unreported.

I can understand why natives do resist the taking in of refugees. Prolonged recession, opportunistic media, and basically tons of fear and fear mongering. It’s a vicious circle.

Yet, in spite of the various trade-offs, it is probably slightly shameless on the Finnish government’s part to over-promise, and subsequently disappoint. Is it not hypocritical to claim on the one hand to be “fair and equal” ; and on the other hand allow the burning of asylum houses and Neo-nazi groups to randomly patrol the streets to check out for suspicious darker-skin foreigners?

The way I see it, this is only the tip of the iceberg–the worse and worst is yet to come. This outcome is a clear, logical result of choosing to be passive by the Finnish government, which is not even consistent in pursuing their goals.

Oh well, I guess at least we see the prevailing attitudes towards immigrants and refugees. Not that it is “wrong”, but if being unwelcoming is indeed the prevailing attitude by a good part of the natives, then at least don’t pretend to be all nice and equal and noble.

Because not taking a clear stand is being hypocritical.

Silence is always a political choice. And so is passivity. I can’t respect both in this case. But well–if this is the country natives want, then foreigners should seriously reconsider their options.

Judge it with your own eyes. =)