Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä made headlines in September last year for promising to house a “refugee” family in his second home. Though hardly the sort of generosity it was made out to be (Sipilä is a millionaire, besides owning at least two homes and residing in a government-funded one), the commitment was meant to show he would help shoulder the impact of the migrant crisis in a much more direct way than most Western politicians. Fast-forward mere months and the national leader has reneged on his promise, citing security concerns and “heavy publicity.”

What we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Sipilä made his fake promise to sell his noxious half-open border policy. Compared to most European states, Finland is far removed from the migrant crisis. Things could be a whole lot worse. Thankfully for the Finns, migrants going there have to come via places like Denmark and Sweden, as the Baltic states and Russia have something of a zero tolerance approach to pretend refugees wandering through their lands. Too many of them have already arrived in Finnish cities like Helsinki, yet the numbers are nothing like Germany’s.

Finland, however, is already in the midst of a serious recession. Even if the fraud Juha Sipilä had kept his word, the effects on him and his family would have been far less than an average Finnish household not even taking in asylum seekers. Through his wealth and status as a politician, the Prime Minister is untouchable in relative terms. He is surrounded by bodyguards and no migrant in their right mind would attack, rob or otherwise accost him. And if Sipilä needed months to determine whether security concerns would be an issue, discarding for a moment that we know he is a liar, the man is clearly incompetent and not fit for office.

At least 20% of Scandinavians are livid over the fake refugee influxes

Forgivably, we associate Scandinavia (including Finland in this case) with literally the worst strands of feminism and other SJW viruses. Still, this obscures the vociferous anger boiling up within local populations. In Sweden, for example, the Swedish Democrats continue to capture impressive portions of the national vote, especially so in a nation where tenuous coalition governments are the norm. They have also had the effect of pushing nominally center-right parties to comparatively harder immigration policies in a bid to stem the leaking of votes. Additionally, factions within these center-right groups have become vocal in demanding much more restrictive intakes of newcomers, defying their parties’ leaders.

The same goes for Finland. The Finns Party, the coalition partner of Sipilä’s Center Party, has recently called for the stripping of any public funds promoting multiculturalism, the scaling back of Finland’s refugee quotas, and the total rejection of any “sharing the load” agreements championed by people like Angela Merkel, who want to dump their “refugees” onto countries that never invited them. This nationalist organisation presently has 38 of the 200 representatives sitting in the Finnish Parliament. Coalition-building is a necessity in the Finnish system, like its Swedish counterpart, so it is unclear exactly how the Finns Party will proceed. Open rebellion against the Center Party may simply lead to a more leftwing coalition taking the current one’s place.

In fact, I am most likely grossly underestimating the proportion of incensed Scandinavians. My numbers only reflect the rough percentage vote or regular polling numbers of an openly anti-immigrant party in countries like Sweden and Finland. Many more disenchanted Scandinavians, rightly or wrongly, feel they have no choice but to vote for a mainstream candidate. There are oftentimes some credibility deficits in how voters perceive anti-immigration parties, particularly in their proposed management of the economy once common sense immigration policies are implemented.

What all this shows is that the firm base of Europeans willingly to oppose the migrant invasions extends beyond the main part of the continent and Great Britain. Aside from Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, Scandinavia is perhaps the most important battleground, as for decades its countries have staked their entire reputations on an unquestioning subservience to farcical notions of tolerance. If after years of attempted anti-indigenous brainwashing elites cannot sell their policies to the people and make those policies work, what does this say about the whole system?

Paying for a policy does not make the policy right

Let us pretend again that poser Juha Sipilä had actually fulfilled his promise to house fake refugees. Why should his willingness to pay for and accommodate a handful of them legitimize the letting in of tens of thousands of otherwise unwanted migrants? The George Soros-style approach of funding the hell out of things should not be mistaken for a moral obligation for the rest of society to foot the bill for some rich person’s pet political project. Moreover, the price that Sipilä would have paid and the price that Soros does is so insignificant to either of them as to become meaningless. Rather than being a noteworthy personal sacrifice, it is an instance of both men throwing Monopoly money around.

Over the past year, we have constantly seen the chameleon-like lies of European elites. Only five or so years ago, Angela Merkel was calling multiculturalism an unmitigated “failure.” Plus, at that time she was referring to longstanding immigrant communities, notably the Turks, who had arrived decades before, not sudden arrivals. Then in 2015, lo and behold, 1.2 million entirely unestablished migrants were grafted onto Germany directly from the Middle East and North Africa. Sipilä is merely the newest addition to an increasingly long list of supposed conservatives and proponents of immigration reform who have betrayed their countries.

While the average Finnish renter is kept awake at night wondering about how his country has fallen apart so fast, Juha Sipilä will be sleeping peacefully, knowing full well none of the mess he has created will ever touch him.

Read More: Is Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau’s Cabinet Discriminatory Against Men?