Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Danish Artist Group 'Foreigners Please Don't Leave Us Alone with the Danes!'

  1. #1
    Senior Member Heinrich Harrer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 7th, 2018 @ 06:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    786
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    77
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Danish Artist Group 'Foreigners Please Don't Leave Us Alone with the Danes!'


    http://www.cphpost.dk/plea-to-foreig...hilosophy.html
    Plea to foreigners mixes politics and philosophy

    Artist group hopes their eye-grabbing posters will lead to a questioning of identity and attitudes


    Throughout town, amongst handbills and flyers promoting upcoming concerts and performances, a bright orange poster grabs the attention of passers-by.

    “Foreigners, please don’t leave us alone with the Danes!” it says in large block letters.

    It’s a message that’s bound to draw the eyes of Copenhagen’s sizable international community, as well as make Danes wonder what the message says about themselves and their culture.

    “It’s intended to bring out the question of what it means to be Danish and what it means to be a foreigner,” Jakob Fenger of the Danish artists’ group Superflex, who are behind the signs, said.

    Superflex, which was formed in 1993 by Fenger and two other partners, focuses most of its efforts on creating what Fenger described as “artworks as tools”, such as a biogas system known as Supergas, and an energy drink called Guarana Power developed with farmers in the Amazon.

    While peppering Copenhagen with posters may seem a departure for the group, Fenger said that the ‘Foreigners’ sign also serves as a tool.
    “The signs can function as a tool for different people in different contexts,” he said. “For some it might be a political tool, for others a philosophical tool.”

    The political function is perhaps the more overt. Superflex first debuted the ‘Foreigners’ sign in 2002 as a reaction to the increased political debate surrounding foreigners in Denmark.

    “The main question in the 2001 election was the issue of foreigners,” Fenger explained. “So when Denmark hosted the EU summit the following year, we put up the signs to draw attention to Denmark’s attitudes.”

    Now nearly a decade later, the country is on the verge of another election and the signs have found their way back onto Copenhagen’s streets. The timing is no coincidence.

    “Unfortunately, immigration is still a main issue in Danish politics today,” Fenger said. “If you look at the politics of the last ten years, nothing has changed. In fact, things have actually got worse.”

    Fenger pointed to the recent release of figures estimating that immigration costs Denmark some 16 billion kroner as a sign of how foreigners can be made to feel uncomfortable, or even unwelcome, in Denmark.

    “Stories like that point out foreigners as a problem. If you look at the costs of the recent Amagerbanken crash and various banking bailout packages, you’ll see there are many things that are costing the Danish state money. I think it’s disgusting to put a price on people like that.”
    According to Fenger, Denmark’s attitude towards foreigners stems from an outdated model that has the potential to create severe problems for the country.

    “The notion of a nation-state is an old idea,” Fenger said. “There is a need for foreigners no matter where you are. Denmark needs to be more open. If the country starts to close itself, it’s going to collapse.”


    Beyond the political debate of immigration, Fenger points to a more philosophical debate raging about what exactly it means to be Danish. While some may look to language, cultural attitudes, or even food as areas that can define what it means for one to ‘be Danish’, the entire notion is muddied at its core by genealogy.

    “Generations back, many Danes were actually Germans or Swedes,” Fenger said. “So what does it really mean to say someone is – or is not – Danish?”

    Likewise, the artist group hopes to spur reflection on what it means to be a foreigner. The feeling of being in a different land and culture is one the three Danes behind Superflex are familiar with.

    “We do most of our work outside of Denmark, so most of the time we are foreigners,” Fenger said.

    “So, if you look at the sign, it brings up three questions: who are the ‘foreigners’, who are the ‘us’, and who are ‘the Danes’?”

    That these questions are difficult to answer is precisely the point. It’s also why Superflex chose street art as a mode to spur discussion.

    “Normally you talk with people you agree with,” Fenger said. “When you put it up in the street, it’s more public and you get different reactions.”
    I remember that long ago someone from the green party said almost the exact same thing (probably Joschka Fischer) (http://www.welt.de/print-welt/articl...draengnis.html, "Ausländer, laßt uns nicht mit den Deutschen allein" - "Foreigners, don't leave us alone with the Germans").

    And they seem to tell the same nonsense in every country: that there are no Danes/Germans/English etc. and we're all just mixed immigrants. And of course that our nations or the EU would collapse without immigration.

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ingvaeonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, July 12th, 2019 @ 02:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English/German combo
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Posts
    1,752
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    12
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    16 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinrich Harrer
    I remember that long ago someone from the green party said almost the exact same thing (probably Joschka Fischer) (http://www.welt.de/print-welt/articl...draengnis.html, "Ausländer, laßt uns nicht mit den Deutschen allein" - "Foreigners, don't leave us alone with the Germans").

    And they seem to tell the same nonsense in every country: there are no Danes/Germans/English etc. and we're all just mixed immigrants. And of course that our nations or the EU would collapse without immigration.
    It's a pathetic effort at being smartarse funny. The idiots think this is being clever and they are making some sort of ironic or satirical statement about Danes or Germans etc, as the case may be. And Jakob Fenger and Superflex are over-intellectualising a matter that is in fact quite simple and straightforward. It is a typical academic approach that overcomplicates the issue and it is an approach that most people would not feel any real empathy with or sympathy for, even if they do understand the motives for what is being done.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 03:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,920
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    “Unfortunately, immigration is still a main issue in Danish politics today,” Fenger said. “If you look at the politics of the last ten years, nothing has changed. In fact, things have actually got worse.”
    This is an attestament to the difficulty of solving the immigration problem once it has become a problem. Even in a country where there is intense debate and discussion on the issue, the issue is difficult to solve in today's world. Even though Denmark has perhaps cut down on its flow of immigrants (though I don't know the exact numbers involved), immigration is still occurring and the immigrants already living in Denmark continue to be a problem. This is the unfortunate reality at hand. Mass-deportations would be needed to solve the problem, but this policy alternative would be unthinkable in the current international situation.

    Fenger pointed to the recent release of figures estimating that immigration costs Denmark some 16 billion kroner as a sign of how foreigners can be made to feel uncomfortable, or even unwelcome, in Denmark.

    “Stories like that point out foreigners as a problem. If you look at the costs of the recent Amagerbanken crash and various banking bailout packages, you’ll see there are many things that are costing the Danish state money. I think it’s disgusting to put a price on people like that.”
    The differences between an economic bail-out of a certain institution on the one hand (as undesirable and/or avoidable as it may be) and the continuous economic drain and dismantling of the social fabric of society on the other, should be obvious for anyone to see.

    Banks can be fixed, regulated, saved. There are known and established ways of doing so, and our prefered line of action will be based heavily on functional values and considerations. We want a functional banking system.

    When it comes to human interactions, the maintaining of a society, social dynamics, culture, nationhood, identity, there are not merely functional considerations but also diverging preferences. Even if we could pursue a policy of social engineering that would pave the way for a functional multi-racial society, we might prefer a different scenario.

    And so one must decide which kind of society one wants to see, which society one wants to live in and which society one wishes to pass on to one's children. Functionality alone cannot be considered when deciding immigration policy, there are other aspects to consider. Yet there is also diverging views when it comes to functionality also, one might view the homogenous society as functionally superior to the multi-racial/multi-cultural/multi-ethnic society apart from being more pleasing to one's own cultural preferences.

    More fundamentally, what is the imperative of our existence, the existence of our society? Is our imperative to secure and ensure the life of an ethnic community within set territorial boundaries in an orderly and functional society where the ethnic community and its members feels at home and at peace? Or is the imperative of our societies to be a territorial "shell", to be filled with various ethnic, religious, racial, national groups and individuals? What goals do we pursue as a nation, a nation state, a people? Are there conflicting goals pursued by different segments within our own people?

    As the above referenced article shows, this is certainly the case. In my opinion, we cannot have it both ways and we must decide which goals we are going to pursue, the goal should be to ensure the maintaining of an orderly and functional society within our territorial boundaries to the benefit of our own ethnic group. The nation state is the culmination of a struggle for sovereignty and self-determination, a nation lacking an established territory over which they hold sovereign control will be at the mercy of foreign nations/powers/groups. An empire is a state where one group of people holds power over other constituent groups. Throughout Europe's history, different nations have fought to achieve sovereignty over a territory of their own whilst incorporating and absorbing other ethnic elements within these territories in order to form a cohesive societal foundation.

    This is a process of assimilation and ethnic formation, but it is a process with obvious limitations. Sweden assimilated Danish subjects living in areas acquired through conquest from the Danish kingdom, they became Swedes for all intents and purposes over time. The Sami on the other hand did not become Swedes yet reside within our nation's territory. The sami represent a nation that has lost control of its own destiny as they do not hold control of their own territory, their own nation state. They find themselves at the mercy of the Swedish nation state whilst living within its borders. This is not an ideal situation for them, just as it would not be ideal for Swedes to be living in a territory not controlled by ourselves. Thus the nationstate is an achievement for us as an ethnic group, it grants us greater control over our own destiny. It is something to be appreciative and proud of. The work and sacrifice of generations of Swedes ensured the existence of Sweden as a nation state.

    So on the one hand we have assimilation of the formerly Danish subjects and their descendants, on the other hand separation between Swedes and Sami on an ethnic level (apart from individual assimilation through intermarriage). This gives us an idea of the limitations inherent in a process of assimilation. Groups of a similar culture, ethnicity, race are possible to assimilate into our nation. Danes, Norwegians, Germans of various ethnic belongings, Walloons, Finns have all participated in this process throughout our nation's history and been absorbed into the Swedish people. Other groups such as the sami, gypsies and jews have not achieved this due to them being incompatible and undesirable, here the limits of assimilation as a process has manifested itself. Achieving assimilation of these groups was undesirable and unworkable for various reasons. This situation is applicable to today's immigration of ethnic groups from outside of the western-European sphere that have shown themselves to be an undesirable and functionally problematic element in our respective societies.

    Assimilation is unworkable and thus a different approach is needed for these groups if they are to be a part of our society. It becomes necessary to compromise and dismantle the entire social and ethnic structure of our socities to incorporate these groups into our societies in a meaningful way. Here thus a choice emerges, an important choice which will have profound consequences for our socities, our populations, our culture, our future etc. Do we defend what we have or do we embark on a new path into an uncertain future? Diverging from the beaten path will inevitable be riddled with problems. Selling the idea to the native population is difficult, you will not get the support of the entire population and so there will be division. Making people live the idea is even harder, it is one thing for people to accept the authority of a political decision, it's quite another for them to behave in accordance with this decision. For example, if the politicians want to see integration, and there's a high degree of acceptance for this policy, you might still see, as we see today, white flight and conscious segregation by Europeans that might officially declare their support for the policy, which of course means that the policy has failed. A modern, democratic liberal state lacks the coercive measures needed to make such a policy work. In the absence of such coercion, the result is like trying to mix oil with water, the two will separate and exist side by side without much interaction. The policy will not achieve assimilation, since that policy is unworkable for these groups, and it will not achieve some type of imagined integration, the people as a whole will not go along with ideological projects of this magnitude, they will simply opt out and live their lives in the new context created by the policy.

    If I am to cast my own judgement on the policy of diverging from historical experience and embarking upon a new path for the country, the nation and its people, it seems to me that it is folly. It cannot and will not be made to work. It is a failure in progress, and as time progresses the failure will expand in its scope and consequences. There is no workable or more desirable alternative to nationstates based on ethnic cohesion and assimilation of ethnically compatible elements in small numbers over time. For individuals of certain ideological persuations there will be plenty of workable and desirable alternatives (existing in their own minds or in the as-yet-to-be-realized future), but for the people as a whole there isn't.

  4. #4
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    10 Hours Ago @ 06:57 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,873
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,150
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,267
    Thanked in
    537 Posts
    I think it’s disgusting to put a price on people like that.
    I rather find it disgusting to camouflage a planned and intended genocide with polemics like this one

    Reminds me on these retarded slogans "no human is illegal".....


    Quote Originally Posted by Patrioten
    And so one must decide which kind of society one wants to see, which society one wants to live in and which society one wishes to pass on to one's children.
    Indeed. Our ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt said: "a multicultural state is by necessity a totalitarian state, otherwise it doesnt work".

    Let's not be mistaken, he's one of the founding fathers of the EUSSR madness and supports the dissolution of the nation states, but at least he is a pragmatic and every now and then drops out some truths like the one above.


    I just wonder if ever one of these people who push this totalitarianism for the sake of the multikult answered, or even pondered the question why multiculturalism should be a desireable form of society at all. Guess not....
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  5. #5
    Senior Member Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 03:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,920
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    I just wonder if ever one of these people who push this totalitarianism for the sake of the multikult answered, or even pondered the question why multiculturalism should be a desireable form of society at all. Guess not....
    It's an interesting point to consider. The political experiment and project which is the multicultural society is not based on a vision that has mass-appeal, it is based on emotional appeals meant to discourage critique of the ongoing process of mass immigration that is required for this vision to be realized. The European voter does not stand to gain anything from this experiment and project, he is merely to participate in facilitating its creation and realization. This I find to be truly fascinating. A national mission or project of no gain to its inhabitants. There are appeals from behalf of the political class and the media for generosity, tolerance, obedience from the Europeans, but why are we supposed to accept this and want this? Here is where the multicultural experiment takes on a level of secterism that is truly amazing. It's all about deflecting and neutralizing opposition or critique to the policy but why am I supposed to defend this policy and the vision of society which underlines it? I'm only told that I cannot and should not oppose it since the policy constitutes whats right and opposition to the policy constitutes what's wrong and or evil, but again the appeal of the policy escapes me as a European.

    A policy, any policy, is meant to change things, it does change things, and things are not meant to stay the same as before as a result of a policy. But there's usually an appeal to the desirability of a policy, not just a command that it is the right thing to do. A change can be good or bad for me, for my ethnic group, for my country, so what is it that we stand to gain from this policy? Why are we better off with this policy than without it?

    Why do we have laws and prisons? To protect the lives and property of citizens and protect society against those that threaten it. Why are we pursuing multicultural policies and multiethnic-immigration? Because it is the right thing to do and to not pursue this policy would be wrongful. There's a gap there where a promised improvement or good ought to be. And not only that, it is presented as the only option.

    For whom are we pursuing this policy? Ourselves or others? If we pursue it for others, does this mean that the policy has detrimental effects to ourselves or that there is an alternative course of action which would be better for us? Is there a trade-off between what is good for us and what is good for them? Can I choose what is good for us over what is good for them?

    If I can't, then it seems that those in power are working not for my good but for the good of others, and are prohibiting me from choosing what is good for me (i.e my own ethnic group and our own country). This should then lead me to conclude that their policy, which benefits others, not us, is appealing and that I should support it? To me it seems like this should lead me to question not just the policy itself but those who want to pursue this policy and seek the removal of these people if they hold any power in this nationstate of ours.

    What is absent from the debate is the choice we make by adopting and continuing the policies of multiculturalism. We have not chosen this policy, we have not been given the choice, it has been decided for us and so our preferences did not have to come into play or be considered. It is however a choice and that choice has consequences. Those who promote and defend this policy have not made the case for their policy, it has not been necessary for them to do so as no vote has ever been held on this issue, and so we find ourselves in a situation where the choice has already been made for us, without presenting or explaining the choices for us, without allowing for us to take the consequences of the choice into consideration, and now when the choice has been made we are being trained, taught and told to defend and accept this choice in retrospect.

    We could have chosen to defend our nationstates, we could have chosen to protect the homogenity of our countries, we could have decided that we felt comfortable with what we had, we could have decided that we prefered for things to stay the way they were, we could have decided all of these things if we had been given a chance to do so. But the decision wasn't ours and wasn't made by us and so the fact that there are no reasons as to why we should support the policy makes sense, because we weren't involved in the decision making process in the first place, our interests were not considered in the planning or execution of the policy.

    The entire multicultural society rests on the whim of those in power, they wanted it and so we got it. As long as they want it we'll have it. Plain and simple. What we want, what we think does not matter. Continue to vote for the same parties, continue to work and pay taxes, that is the role of the European. Vote, work and pay taxes so that the project can go on and be completed.

  6. #6
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, April 6th, 2012 @ 12:58 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    Celtic-Norde(Wales, Denmark & Germany)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Queensland Queensland
    Gender
    Family
    Single Young Fella
    Occupation
    Student/Casual Work
    Politics
    Native National Socialist
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    These are the same half-wits who deserve Hard Labour Camps for Treason that are in Australia. Though their time is gone with many of "our brothers" turning to be utter dogs and advantageous scum as any immigrant who comes from a do or die society would. And worse still these buggers and their 2 or 3 wives + Truckload of kids get Welfare GALORE

    It should be simple and it will really is. We are a nation and the people of the nation dont want Immigrants or these type + Democracy = No more immigrants policy styled Government. For fellow blood Danes I suggest quite simply tell these halfwits that You only get out what you put in. And if they dont believe you tell em to talk to Nyborg if they think they can be "intellectual"!

    The greatest thing the Danes have got going for them is they are Indigenous! They have the right to tell them to Knick Off because the only Danes are Native Danes! or Nordics! A African or Arab is not a Dane so end of story.
    In Australia we have Aboriginals and they are sometimes considered "the first peoples" and they have the right acknowledged by Every Lefty to Self-determination so Why cant the Native Danes have the same right?

    and as for this "cant do it under current international situation" I am getting not just a little confirmed in my suspicions but impatient to what right a few winging loonies + 1 or 2 nations have on a soverign's people's right to demand their own future? I take it they are paying their Danish taxes!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: Monday, May 16th, 2011, 04:39 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 31st, 2010, 04:55 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 10th, 2009, 09:16 PM
  4. Danes welcome foreigners with open arms
    By Gefjon in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, January 4th, 2008, 12:15 PM
  5. Danish Language Meetup Group
    By Theudanaz in forum Denmark
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 08:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •