MovieChat Forums > 1864 (2014) Discussion > Ingolf Gabold: "1864" was a political st...

Ingolf Gabold: "1864" was a political statement against DPP

posted 8 years ago by larsped
7 replies | jump to latest

Ingolf Gabold, the former head of drama productions by the national broadcasting giant DR, claims that "1864" was made as a political statement against what he calls the "neo-nationalism" expressed by the Danish People's Party:

http://politiken.dk/kultur/filmogtv/ECE3047211/gabold-1864-var-et-slag-mod-df/

DR is funded by a mandatory licence fee on all Danes.
DPP is the second largest party in Denmark. The main aims of the DPP is to limit third world mass immigration into Denmark and to limit transfer of Danish sovereignty to EU.

Director Ole Bornedal denies that "1864" was political. 'But of course '1864' is political in the way that it rejects nationalism. I reject nationalism in the same way I reject violence towards women and children.'

So there you have it. A cultural marxist propaganda piece in the usual mold. Funded by a tax on the same people that it is directed against.

But why does Gabold admit to this? He feels safe, because he has retired. He also knows that DR is untouchable. Any attempt from politicians at cleaning up DR and make it less biased could be swiftly counteracted by hit-piece programming by its journalists. And the EU would do what it could to shame Denmark, in the same way that Poland was treated recently.

[–] ThomasJeff 8 years ago

How is violence towards women and children the same as nationalism?

Nationalism exists to protect the nation and unify disjointed groups together under one flag.

Violence towards women and children are only for harm.

Nationalism has its dangers just like your kitchen knife has its dangers if used incorrectly.

[–] larsped 8 years ago

Yes.
Nationalism only makes sense for mono-ethnic states. It is an expression of commitment between people with the same ethnic background who historically inhabited the same land for sometimes thousands of years.
It can be a great foundation for creating a state, which by nature requires support from its people in order to justify its monopoly on using violence.

In multicultural states like the US the people do not have a shared history or ethnic or cultural belonging so they have to make do with patriotism around less deep-rooted symbols like the constitution.

We don't know yet what will be the result of creating new multicultural states through immigration, or new federations or empires like the EU, but we know what happened to previous ones such as Nazi Germany, USSR and Yugoslavia. They all broke apart (or were broken) violently, and nation states became the more stable result.

With the new ideology of mass immigration, and the old idea of multiculturalism it is likely that a state of low-level conflict and war will become the norm in previously peaceful countries, or that higher levels of state oppression will be needed to keep the peace in such societies.

Ironically, creating new nation states along ethnic and cultural borders has been proposed as a solution to conflicts in the Middle East and other places, while European states are becoming more like the Middle East.

[–] billycan 8 years ago

Nationalism is racism, pure, simple and evil and should be rejected accordingly.

[–] indigo942 7 years ago

"Nationalism is racism, pure, simple and evil and should be rejected accordingly."

So you would, therefore, agree that the Irish nationalists of 1916 were deserved of being crushed by the British empire, and the Indians nationalists of the 1940s should have had their bid for an independent nation rejected accordingly?

[–] billycan 7 years ago

That was not the sort of "nationalism" I had in mind and I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. Both of your examples were fighting against an occupying foreign military force not demonstrating against and demonising migrants/refugees.

[–] skyline-21695 7 years ago

If you think nationalism is about demonizing foreigners than you might want to buy a dictionary. Nationalism doesn't mean racism.

[–] billycan 7 years ago

One inevitably leads to the other. If you don't think so, you are extremely naïve.

Just look at the US. They have elected another racist psychopath as president because in his zeal to "make America great again", he's going to put up a wall to keep out the Mexican "rapists" ignoring the fact that the jobs the Mexicans are supposedly taking are the ones the lazy, fat, patriotic Americans won't take. He wants to suspend immigration from Syria, all while the US is bombing it back to the stone age, having caused the refugee crisis in the first place.

Britain has voted to leave the EU because of fears that they will be swamped by middle eastern refugees while they have also had a hand in the problems that started with the invasion of Iraq.

Australia (my country) locks up those refugees on Pacific islands till they either die, attempt assimilation on those Pacific islands or request to be returned to the war torn countries they fled from.

All are examples of racist policies that came from a belief in nationalism that says it is alright to invade another country to steal their natural resources because you feel superior.

So you show me a nationalist and I will show you a racist. They will be the same person. If not now, very soon in the future.