In the current year, the reigning ideology being what it is, this declaration of the Danish parliament constitutes a revolutionary act, one that has largely gone unremarked by the Lügenpresse.
Denmark’s long-running, some might say exhausting, debate on just what it means to be ‘a Dane’ has flared up again thanks to the wording of a declaration approved by parliament.
The Danish People’s Party (DF) last week introduced a statement expressing formal concern over the number of residents in Copenhagen suburb Brøndby Strand who have an “immigrant background”.
“Parliament notes with concern that today there are areas in Denmark where the number of immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants is over 50 percent. It is parliament’s opinion that Danes should not be a minority in residential areas in Denmark,” the statement reads.
The official declaration was approved by a vote of 55-54, with government coalition parties Venstre, Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives joining DF.
All opposition parties voted against it, with many taking issue with the use of the word ‘Danes’ in the second sentence. Critics argued that by approving the statement, parliament essentially told Danish citizens who are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants that they aren’t really ‘Danes’. Under their reading of the statement, only someone whose parents are Danish, or at least Western, would be considered one of the Danes.
...DF’s Martin Henriksen steadfastly defended the formulation. “I think that most Danes are outraged that there are places in Denmark where the Danes are obviously a minority,” he said in a heated TV2 debate with Skipper.
“If you look at the official statistics, there are places where immigrants and the descendants of immigrants from non-Western countries are the majority. We in the Danish Peoples’ Party think that’s a problem and we need to talk about it,” Henriksen added.Source
The debate gave rise to an interesting example of self-refutation.
"It is very dangerous to make Danishness a matter of religion,” argued the Social Democrats’ immigration spokesman Dan Jørgensen. “In fact, I think that one of the most Danish things there is is not interfering in what others are thinking and believe in.”Source
So the Danish thing to do is not to interfere with what others think or believe unless they think and believe that ethnic groups should remain majoritarian in their own land, that alien systems of ideas can be threatening to their well-being or that Jews have been kicked out of innumerable countries for good reason, in which case all the resources of the Danish state must be mobilised to counter such evil racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism.
On the Jewish front, the Netanyahu's visit to the United States gave rise to some interesting commentary in the Establishment media. It was pointed out that scrapping the aim of achieving a "two-state solution" to the conflict between the Hebrew Arabs, the Mohammedan Arabs and the Khazars might threaten the maintenance of a Jewish ethnic majority in Israel. Establishment commentators were not shy about suggesting that the loss of their ethnic majority status in Israel might in some way threaten the identity or even the physical safety of Jews. They didn't seem to believe that "People are all the same" or that Jewishness could be reduced to a set of abstract values which could be losslessly imparted to the soon-to-be-majoritarian Arabs through citizenship classes. If the same suggestion was made about the need for ethnic Europeans to maintain their majority status in Europe or European diaspora societies like the USA, however, these same commentators would splutter with indignation.
The only way Jews could preserve their ethnic majority status with a "one-state solution" that involved Israel permanently annexing the "occupied territories" would be to expel the Muslims. There are Israelis who want to do this, including senior politicians, but they are wary of discussing it publicly because of the international indignation it would provoke. It would be a great thing if the Jews did expel the Muslims, however, because this would normalise the "unacceptable", set a precedent European nationalists could then invoke and force Jewish journalists to defend the practice.