Bat Ye’or is 100 per cent right about this. If this now far-advanced scheme comes to fruition then it would in turn lead to the Islamification of the whole European continent.

[...]For us, the closely linked threats of mass Third World immigration and Islamification outweigh all other considerations.

Griffin has also argued that «white nationalists» «should be positioning [themselves] to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media. This is not a matter of dancing to neo-con tunes, but of finding members of the public
who are already used to the sound of that kind of music willing to cross over and dance to our tune».

It is in this light the May 2006 local election campaign of the BNP can be seen, or as their election leaflet stated:

Terrorist atrocities in London, militant marches on our streets and ‘preachers’ calling for the deaths of normal British people simply because they don’t follow Islam. This is not some nightmare vision – but the reality of Islamic extremism in Britain today, yet our government do nothing but pander to these people. The BNP say enough is enough! We are the only people speaking out against the dangers of the Islamification of Britain. If you want to make Blair and Co hear your voice, vote BNP, and use this election as a referendum on Islam.

BNP Election Leaflet, 2006

This attempt at «taking advantage of the growing wave of public hostility» does not mean that anti-Semitism has altogether disappeared from the BNP. In fact, Mark Collett, former Young BNP leader and director of publicity in the party, made the following statement in the Channel 4 documentary «Young, Nazi and Proud», believing that he was not being taped:

I’d never say this on camera, the Jews have been thrown out of
every country, including England. There’s not a single European country the Jews have not been thrown out of… When it happens that many times it’s not just persecution. There’s no smoke without fire.

Collett is also known for describing gays as «AIDS monkeys» and bum bandits» and homosexuality as a «sickening thought».

What the focus on Islam does mean, however, is that a new brand of anti-Semitism has been added to the mix, Islamophobia.

Regrettably, this term is already somewhat exhausted, as some Muslim groups and parts of the radical left have used it to brand a number of people who did not deserve it at all. As the British journalist Johann Hari points out in a 2006 article, the website Islamophobia Watch, serves as an excellent examples of this:

According to them, if you find Iqbal Sacranie – a religious leader who says gays spread disease and that death is ‘too good’ for Salman Rushdie – disgusting, you are an ‘Islamophobic bigot’».

In that very same article Hari strongly criticises the Egyptian-born writer Gisèle Littman and her supporters.

Littman, who is better known under her pen-name Bat Ye’or, «the daughter of the Nile», has written a number of books, including «Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis» (see London Review of Books for an excellent review of the book), summed up by Hari as being «very close to [a] 21st century Protocols of the Elders of Mecca», and giving the story of how Europe is «on the brink of being transformed into a conquered continent called ‘Eurabia’».

Littman’s ideas has undoubtably served as an inspiration for the central conspiracy theories of Oriana Fallaci’s «The Strenght of Reason», and has been described as «convincingly showing how the Euro-Arab Dialogue has blossomed from a minor discussion group into the engine for the continent’s Islamization» by Daniel Pipes, a presumably serious academic. The well-known historian Niall Ferguson has also given the book positive mention.

Considering its contents that is quite amazing. Over threehundred dense pages Littman hunts through summaries from meetings, conferences and political speeches, eagerly looking for signs of European submission to Islam, or rather of a grand conspiracy involving everyone from professors in literature to the Vatican:

Strong ties were forged between the OIC, the Arab and European states, as well as between various factions of the Left, the Vatican, and the World Council of Churches.

They led, under Arab threats, to Israel’s demonisation at all levels of European society as well as in international bodies.

A conference at the University of Venice in 1977 is said to have «paved the way for the large-scale Arab and Muslim immigration into Europe [and] envisioned the creation of a common culture encompassing the north and south shores of the Mediterranean»

What was actually discussed was work to spread knowledge of Arab language and culture, but according to Bat Ye’or it was «no more than a cover for da’wa (Islamic missionary work), which set the pro-Islamic and pro-Palestinian orientation of European universities».

Del Valle, Alexandre: «La Totalitarianisme Islamiste» is the central work of Del Valle mentioned in the reference list of Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia" (Source: book cover)

Intriguingly, Littman also refers to the «revealing book» of Alexandre Del Valle. This prolific writer has written much on Islamism. While of course being anti-Islamic, he is – or was – also notably anti-American, describing the United States as a «totalitarian democracy». In light of Littman’s attacks on the «anti-American animosity that exudes from every sector of activity covered by the EAD» it is somewhat of a paradox that she heavily relies on an author for which the US is a lone superpower intent on preventing any other power from emerging and determined to control Europe.

To Del Valle (a pen name), Islamism is a whip used by the United States against Europe, the Asian financial crisis was orchestrated by Washington to bring down its dangerous rival Japan, and NATO is used to control Europe against Europe’s interests: «The United States has launched a war against the Old World». Del Valle writes of American culture that it «is a culture of subversion conceived to uproot and weaken the peoples that are subjected to it passively. The moral and cultural disintegration of the European nations caused by the Americanization of the minds and mores» is seen as the fundamental problem.

On account of not being «organic», «homogenous» and «natural» the United States is a degenerate nation. The «Epicurean Occidental-American culture» is all-destructive, and fosters «the social and moral disintegration» of Europe. A «renaissance of Europe’s spiritual identity» is necessary, del Valle writes, and will be made possible since the «mcWorld culture [sooner or later] will be doomed to destruction, given its inherently anti-traditional and heterogeneous, fragile nature. Its nihilism generates sterility in all meanings of the word, it appears fundamentally as a culture in decomposition, which is organically necessary to American imperialism».

One of Alexandre del Valle's other works focuses on an alleged Islamist-US alliance to hurt Europe (Source: book cover)

This critique of America is not unique to the far right, but it should come as no surprise that del Valle has had contacts with anti-Semitic right-wing and fascist groups.

Today, he is closer to pro-Zionist Jewish rightwingers. When his past was exposed in an article in the anti-fascist magazine Ras l’Front and a courtcase instigated against the magazine backfired as the court concluded that del Valle had indeed frequented various far right circles, André Darmon, editor of Israël Magazine, wrote:

It does not matter to us if Del Valle took part in meetings of the extreme right. He is one of those who [...) has made us become aware that there exists a Protocol of the Elders of Medina.

The Protocol of the Elders of Zion is a well-known fraudulent text published in the Russian Empire in the early 20th century, purporting to describe a plan to achieve world domination by Jews. The document was a hoax by Okhrana, the tsarist secret police, used to support the wave of pogroms in the country from 1903 to 1906. It was widely circulated in the West from 1920 on, and was used as a propaganda tool by the Nazis. Hitler even refers to it in Mein Kampf:

To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic. [...] the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims.

Even today the Protocols are used as a propaganda tool both by European neo-Nazis and by anti-Semitic forces around the world, notably in many Muslim countries. It is a horrible irony that Jewish thinkers of today’s Europe accept cleverly disguised variants of the same theme.

A quote by Romani Prodi serves well as an example of the kind of the stunt Littman pulls off – sadly with considerable success.

He said that «the peoples of Europe do not believe in any clash of civilisations», and noted:

[Europeans] have learned that security does not come with higher walls or deadlier weapons, but with stronger, more stable relations based on peace and prosperity – the ’soft security’ I mentioned.

Stronger, peaceful relations and exchanges are the only form of security that is
ultimately sustainable. We in Europe have turned our backs on extremism in politics.

In Littman’s eyes this becomes «the dhimmitude of Europe, so well illustrated by Prodi’s preening about about exchanging trade and services for security». She also claims this ‘dhimmitude’ «led him to insult two democracies, America and Israel, for resisting jihadist wars».

In fact, Prodi speaks warmly of the Proximity Policy for a Wider Europe, believing it will provide new economic possibilities, strengthen the fight against common threats and «strengthen good governance, respect for human rights and individual freedoms, the rule of law and participatory institutions». He then goes on to say that «the European Union should stand ready to assist those countries willing to take up the challenge. Not only financially, but also with our full political backing and support for reform», and says that «we have chosen to put the emphasis on cooperation, not just on security» and «that rules out any one-sided, Eurocentric approach and it calls for multilateralism and persuasion, not coercion or unilateralism».

Littman comments «he fails to mention whether Arabocentrism would also be ruled out», making a less-than-subtle hint towards Arab dominance. But in his speech, the Italian minister did the opposite.

He underlined the importance of «the universal recognition of values and principles on which European
integration in particular has been based – starting with human rights, the role of women in society, the media and civil society – throughout the Mediterranean».

In other words, rather than being an example of European submission to ‘dhimmitude’, Prodi’s speech is an example of the attempt at spreading social-liberal ideas and values outside of Europe2. To many of Bat Ye’or readers, that does not matter much. To them, Prodi is a traitor and a fifth columnist.

While her own political conclusions remain unclear (towards the end of her book she does note “One may hope that America’s resolute policy has opened new perspectives and new opportunities for the world to eschew a former order of political connivance with hate and crime. Yet nothing is sure – for it is human beings who are the creators and actors of history”), and while she is widely read outside Eurofascist circles, there is little doubt about the fact that Littman – in spite of her Jewish-Egyptian
heritage – has become a major contributor to the mythos of Eurofascism. 

Another important contributor is Oriana Fallaci. In addition to inspiring each other, their thinking have one thing in common: the references to the colonised Europe, Eurabia. Fallaci central claim:

Europe is no longer Europe, it is Eurabia, a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense.

Many of the supporters of Fallaci and Bat Ye’or simply repeat this mantra, and leave their political conclusions unspoken. However, conclusions in the direction of totalitarian politics are plausible.

The mythos of Fallaci and Bat Ye’or tell a story highly reminiscent of traditional fascist thinking. Europe is being occupied by a foreign cultural-religious force described solely in negative terms. This is the fault of the «liberal elites». It is no surprise that some Eurofascists support an apartheid regime based
on religious adherence, and that they want leading liberal politicians tried for «treason».

"You may never have heard of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, but that only goes to show how powerful it is", writes Thomas Jones sarcastically of Bat Ye'or conspiracy hit. (Source: Book cover)

In late 2005, for instance, a Norwegian blogger – living in one of the world’s richest countries, a country which has repeatedly been ranked as the ‘best place to live’ by the United Nations – called for a stop of all Muslim immigration. He also called for denying asylum to all asylum seekers «of Muslim faith», and for reviewing «all citizenships given by the Norwegian state for the last 40 years». In addition, he noted that «converting to Islam should be outlawed and viewed as cultural treason, and the convert should be banished». All this, of course, is only «a good beginning» and «our long term goal should be to get all Muslims nothing is sure – for it is human beings who are the creators and actors of history».

While this specific blogger was unknown even then and now is forgotten in the digital jungle, similar ideas are increasingly pushed by what could be called the brownshirts of the IT-era. Others, perhaps realising the difficulties of winning through with political demands as those above, resort to politically motivated violence and in some cases even to terrorism.

Footnotes:

* The word ‘dhimmitude’ is a neologism referring to the Arab word ‘dhimmi’. In classical Islamic teaching this is the legal status of a protected non-Muslim subject of a Muslim state. Historically, this has often been an apartheid-like system. In the context of Eurofascism, however, it is the more recent pejorative usage which is interesting. This usage divorces the words from its historical context and applies them to situations where non-Muslims in the West are allegedly championing Islamic causes, or
accepting Islamic influence. The word is often used more or less synonymously with «traitor».

** For an interesting look at this role of Europe, see Rifkin, Jeremy: «The European Dream», 2004

According to Fjordman, I am a “third-rate Islam apologist in the tradition of Karen Armstrong” and a “pro-Islamic writer”. Apparently – in the world of Fjordman – you are either in agreement with him or you are a “pro-Islamic writer”. It makes me think about a Norwegian song, sung by Kine Hellebust: “Vess svart e svart og kvitt e kvitt, då e du blind førr alt, då ser du ikkje lys nå meir, i varmen bli det kaldt. Du blir ein sjakkbrett-mønstrat konstruksjon, med pepiratutat sjæl, vess kvitt førr dæ e berre kvitt, har du slått live dett ihæl”. A summary in English: if black is only black and white is only white, then you’re blind, you become a chessboard construction, you turn your very soul into that pattern.

Thankfully, I do not live in the world of Fjordman. I don’t think I could stand it there. It seems to be a grim and scary place. The Europe I live in isn’t that grim, nor is it that scary.

Fjordman goes on by saying that I’ve ridiculed virtually every anti-Jihadist, and the he mentions Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Daniel Pipes, Oriana Fallaci, Bruce Bawer, Robert Spencer and “even Little Green Footballs”. It almost sounds impressive. Here I am, a third rate “Islam apologist”, ridiculing all of those guys. I almost feel like putting on my superhero suit. Of course, what Fjordman says is a half-truth of sorts (if you read his works frequently, you’ll get used to it). Yes, indeed, I’m highly critical to the writings of Ibn Warraq, Oriana Fallaci and Bruce Bawer. While I truly can’t remember whether I’ve ever bothered writing an article about Ali Sina, I’m definitely not a fan of his, either. My impression is that he’s a firebrand atheist; a combination which is – perhaps ironically – not that uncommon amongst writers on religion who have rejected Islam.

And yes, indeed, I strongly disagree with some of Daniel Pipes’ views. I also have a feeling he knows more about Islam than he knows about Europe (no, there are not 751 no-go zones in France; and anyone bothering to do a bit of research and able to read more than three words of French, should be able to find out that for themselves; the “zones urbaines sensibles” are areas which has been defined as areas to give political priority, because of high unemployment, a low education level and poorer housing standards. Rather than being an expression of French reluctance to tackle social problems, the areas have been given priority to such a degree that the French Eurofascists, Le Pen’s Front National, have been complaining about it). It should be no surprise that I also disagree with much of the analysis of Robert Spencer, and that I often disagree with Charles Johnson and with the army of little, green lizards.

But here’s the thing: It does not matter.

I could be a Bolshevist, an Islamist, a Fascist or perhaps merely a lifelong supporter of Idi bloody Amin, heck; I could even be Idi Amin myself, and it still would not matter. The information that I have provided in a series of articles on this web site (for instance here, here, here and also here) can still be fact-checked by anyone who feels like doing it. It’s not difficult to do. If it’s all bullshit, it could just as easily be refuted. Fjordman has not refuted it. He’s only written a whole lot of blah-blah-blah about other stuff. Over and over again. So has a bunch of other people (*): .

Why is that so? Simple. Fjordman does not want to speak about the facts. He only wants to speak about his own variety of moral panics.

(*) One of my favourite comments was this one, from a kind reader calling himself Thomas:

You Bolsheviks keep kicking the dead horse —fascism— to divert the people’s attention from the bloody terror what your comrades committed in Europe.
How many people died at the hands of the vile communist animals like you and how many died at the hands of skinheads?
How many Communist butcher was ever apprehended or held to account? None.
Fuck you ultimate trash of humanity.

“They’re all about saving our culture!”, is the sobbing comment made by several people under this video. Funny how a bunch of fascists, some of whom even have ties to terrorism, are going to achieve that.

“We’re not racist“. Or maybe you are?

A Dispatches documentary about Mark Collett, once a rising star in the BNP. This video interrupted his ascension, but don’t worry: Mark is back in the track, he’s currently central in the party’s Publicity Department, creating “The Best publicity material ever produced”, to quote a December article on the BNP web site. The documentary comes in six parts on YouTube, this one is the first one.

Admittedly, Tommy Funebo, Guftafs’ source, isn’t the guy I would pay the most attention to in the Swedish debate on Sverigedemokraterna. A former member, he’s involved in constant flamewars with various SD-bloggers. If you understand Swedish, it is amusing (it sure beats most reality TV shows), but not really very informative. Many unfounded claims are thrown in both directions.

In this case, however, Funebo is referring to an interview with Dansk Folkeparti-politician Søren Krarup which was published by the Ritzau press agency, and can also be found – for instance – here. Krarup expresses hope that both parts of Sweden and parts of Germany may, once again, become Danish lands. On German Schleschwig, he says:

- I hope that the Southern Sleschwig population realises where it truly belongs. That it is actually Danish. But that depends on its’ own free decision, says Søren Krarup.

I do wonder what the German “National Democrats” think of this, but I guess they’re too busy trying to figure out how to get Sudetenland back.

Flemish politicians have been scrambling to react to a United Nations report on the ‘wooncode‘. Much ado about nothing, in fact, for it has to be said that this report is not worthy of the front-page”, considers Yves Desmet.

“Even if it is crazy to have to meet more linguistic conditions to obtain social housing than to get into the royal palace, we can also be surprised by the image Flemish politicians are giving the Flanders region. It must not be forgotten that the Flanders region has the biggest far-right party in Europe [Vlaams Belang] and that its new leader considers the apartheid regime one of the best forms of state in the history of the world.

In all large European towns you can see policemen and women with different coloured skins. Here, it is forbidden to wear a veil behind a cash register. Nowhere else in Europe is there such discrimination against immigrants and their children in employment and education.

The editorial is available in Dutch here. It also notes (my translation):

Yes, how is it possible that this region has deserved to be seen as an egoistic and discriminating little country, throughout Europe?

Yes, Yves Desmet is being sarcastic. Perhaps the example of the “wooncode” is not the most valid in this context, but as a foreigner who has lived (in a neighborhood of many Turks and Moroccans) in Flanders, I can safely say that Desmet still has a point. My studies into European neo-fascism has only proven to me that that point is even more valid.

Indeed, there’s something very worrying at play in Flemish society when a party such as the Vlaams Belang can win as many votes as they do and when groups such as Voorpost (read my debate with its’ press spokesman here) can be something more than a negligible fringe group. Neo-fascism and a form of ethnical nativism quite remarkably similar to the apartheid regime of South Africa actually plays a political role in today’s Belgium, only half an hour’s drive away from the “capital of Europe”, Brussels. It’s not in power, but it’s definitely not toothless.

There’s nothing new about Vlaams Belang, Front National, the FPÖ and the Bulgarian Ataka joining up. They’ve done it before. Now, they’re doing it again.

But as they do it again, let’s take a look at Volen Siderov, the leader of one of the parties in the new “nationalist alliance” with -to quote Le Pen – “the small differences that might exist”. Here he is, in a January 2002 revisionist conference in Moscow. You’ll find him on the extreme right. Literally.

Actually, here they all are: our guy Volen Siderov, David Duke, Ahmed Rami, Jürgen Graf, etc. What a fun group of people.

UPDATE: According to the web site of Vlaams Belang, they have not joined the new party. MEP Philip Clayes writes:

The president of the Austrian FPÖ, Heinz-Christian Strache, expressed a wish to establish contacts with democratic right parties in all European countries, so they can support each other in the battle against the politically correct establishement in all these countries.

Vlaams Belang also took part in these discussions. The Vlaams Belang is obviously prepared to have close contact and good relations to like-minded parties abroad. At this time we do however not want to commit to any form of European political party grouping. [...]

We prefer to have bilateral contacts with European friends in spirit, rather than taking part in an umbrella party.

This, of course, does not change the fact that they are choosing to meet with Ataka, a party Paul Belien in the Brussels Journal (hardly a notorious Marxist source) has described as “openly anti-Semite”. It also does not change the fact that they were allied in the European parliamentary group ITS until a few months ago, together with Alessandra Mussolini’s Azione Sociale. She has inherited more than her name from her grandfather.

In the meantime, I am looking forward to further announcements from the new European party group; according to Strache they are in talks with several parties across Europe. It’s going to be exciting which party is the next “democratic right party” which comes along.

A comment on Gates of Vienna, probably a notoriously Marxist source, says it all:

Well, that’s what I call a rather bad company. I’m surprised there’s no word from our national-comunists, Romania Mare.

But after all, the Romanians might be difficult to get to join if they’re also trying to get the Italians back on. Thanks to their lovely radical ethnic nativism, the Eurofascists are not too good at building alliances.

“I’m a victim!”, A. Hitler

The Norwegian political grouplet called Norgespatriotene – the Norway Patriots – would normally hardly be worth mentioning. This group, which is operating under the slogan “A free Norway – a white Norway” is so thoroughly parodic that it is very unlikely to gain any political hearing whatsoever. Having a leader with a recent background from the Nazi-Odinist cult of Vigrid – which is quite open about their extreme anti-Semitism and in their reverance of Hitler – will probably not be helpful. That the same leader has been convicted for making a death threat against a high-ranking member of government probably won’t help either.

Consequently, the best thing Norgespatriotene can hope for is media attention, and even that has been sparse.

That’s probably why the group – which, judging by the links on its webpage (if you absolutely want to visit: google it) considers themselves friendly to both the British BNP, the Flemish VB and the Swedish Nationaldemokraterna – has adopted a very crude media strategy: political shock effect.

Recently they’ve attacked the editor of a leftist Norwegian news magazine for being a “traitor”, “worse than Quisling” (Vigrid is quite open in their support of him, too, so the NP leader might have become more “moderate” since he left the Nazi-Odinists), and saying that they look forward to her and other traitors being penalised in an upcoming legal purge.

One of their articles on this editor, Martine Aurdal, is illustrated with a picture of a gun. The implications are rather obvious, and Aurdal has – understandably – reported the grouplet to the police.

Why do I even bother to mention these guys? Well, because the wording in their attack on Aurdal is remarkably similar to the kind of language Charles Johnson of LGF was met with when he supported freedom of speech for a British blogger, but simultaneously distanced himself from the Eurofascist British party BNP. The blogger, calling himself Lionheart, responded with writing:

Little Green Footballs you are a traitor, nothing less than the equivalent of a Second World War Nazi collaborator who would have been shot because of his treason – Iam sure there are many who would have obliged!

(For relevant LGF posts, look here, here, here, here, here and here).

I support the right of Norgespatriotene, Lionheart and for that matter radical Islamist groups to state their opinions (death threats are another thing). In fact, I encourage it. Freedom of speech helps exposing what guys like these are really all about. If Norway was not a country with a considerable freedom of speech, Vigrid would have had to go underground with their Nazi-Odinist views, operating in all secrecy. Norgespatriotene would have had to wrap their words in cotton and no one would have known about the political past of their leader or of any of their other members.

Freedom of speech will alsom limit (but not stop) fascists from playing the “victim game”; a game even Hitler played. If you claim that you have no freedom of speech and everyone still knows what you wrote on your blog yesterday and what you were quoted on in the local newspaper the day before, you’ll look like the fool you are.

The discussion on freedom of speech aside, it is tempting to look at the meaning of the word “traitor” – what does it mean?

According to my etymology dictionary the word comes from Latin through French and means “betrayer”, or literally “one who delivers”.

To be a traitor – as Lionheart now repeatedly has called Johnson – you have to commit treason against something. Many of the readers commenting on Lionheart’s blog make it perfectly clear what they think Johnson has betrayed: “Charles Johnson is no enemy of the jihadists” and he “works for the far Left” (on top of it all – he’s fat and lazy and has “hippy prejudices”).

In other words: Johnson is an enemy of the West, and willingly so. And this makes perfect sense. If you live in the fairytale world of a Total Idea.

Sadly – many do live in precisely such a world; being completely convinced that there is a massive conspiracy going on, with the intention of turning Europe into an Islamic colony, a conspiracy involving a large number of leading European politicians, media workers, academics, leftist activists and even the Vatican. In this world-view, the enemy is very resourceful and backed by considerable parts of the societal, cultural and political elites. And this enemy is plotting to take over power and turn Europe into an Islamic theocracy; a cruel dictatorship. In fact, if you are to believe many of the believers in this theory, this is already happening, the EU is a step in that direction.
In this kind of context, it will make sense to some people to support neo-fascist groups; because – first of all – what their opponents (who are co-conspirators, “Marxists”, etc.) say of them can not possibly be true, and – secondly – because they are “the only alternative”.

Allow me to refer to a well-known conspiracy theory, largely based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an equally well-known literary forgery. What does this document actually outline?

It outlines an enormous conspiracy which will create societies “creating the impression of freedom of press, freedom of speech, human rights and democracy, all which are subsequently undermined and become mer illusions or deceptive smokescreens behind which actual oppression lies”. Have ever heard similar things stated about the EU? Have you ever heard reasonable criticism against EU legislation turn being turned into this kind of propaganda? The enemy spoken of in the Protocols are to achieve this undermining of traditional society with the assistance of Liberalism and Marxism. Have you ever heard similar things said today?

In the Protocols, the Freemasons are of course in on it, too. And the final goal? A world-wide dictatorship.

What this Total Idea led to should be no secret to anyone, although some Holocaust denialists and some fascist activists still try to propagate similar ideas; sometimes even using the same well-known literary forgery.

Today, we have a different situation. First of all, there is a real threat from Islamic radicals who actually do want a world-wide theocratic dictatorship. These guys – who believe in a Total Idea of their own – are dangerous, but they are most certainly not powerful.

When Oriana Fallaci wrote the below she was wrong. There is no conspiracy.

The most … ideological fraud, cultural indecency, moral prostitution, deception, our time has produced. A conspiracy, a plot, made possible by the bankers who invented the farce of the European Union.

There is ignorance. There is foolishness. There is a lacking will to confront reactionary thinking amongst Muslim immigrants in Europe. There are various shades of troublesome political thinking. In some leftist circles there is so much anti-Americanism and so much anti-Israeli thinkiing that people end up supporting groups such as the Hamas, or the Hizb’allah or even the Taliban.

But all of these things are not part of the same jigzaw puzzle, they are not part of a giant conspiracy. They can not and should not be explained with a Total Idea. Many people say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I’d say that the road to hell is paved with Total Ideas.

Of course, groups such as the BNP are concerned with much more than the alleged conspiracy to turn Europe Arabic.  They are fascists and they are racists – like this video so clearly demonstrates. In fact, their leadership is not that concerned with the threat posed by radical Muslim groups at all. Instead, he is trying to take advantage of (oftentimes understandable) anti-Islamic sentiments amongst ordinary people. You don’t believe me? Well, believe free speech. The below quote is taken from a long article written by Nick Griffin in 2006.

Here he criticises “people” for having “one-track concern about ‘the Jews’”, but the most interesting section is the below:

We should be positioning ourselves to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media. This is not a matter of dancing to neo-con tunes, but of finding members of the public who are already used to the sound of that kind of music willing to cross over and dance to our tune.

For reasons of natural sentiment and neo-con war propaganda alike, the public will not join in any group dance which appears to include Muslims (in Britain and Europe in particular) or A-rabs (in the USA especially). And the more of our boys who come home in body bags, and the more the irresponsible neo-con project inflames the Islamic world against us, the more strongly this factor will affect the political climate.

In the real world, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether the Danish cartoons furore or 9/11 were the work of Islamic fundamentalists with huge levels of support among ‘ordinary’ Muslims (for the record, my belief); or of Muslim extremists who no more represent mainstream Islam than the KKK represents white America; or of CIA or Mossad black bag teams seeking to stampede us into World War Three.

[...]

From the point of view of those of us working and organising to save the nations of the West and the great race that built them from irreversible subjection and subsequent extinction, it really doesn’t matter which group Providence has chosen to drop – at the eleventh hour – a giant spanner into the works of the multi-culti tolerance machine, and of the even bigger debt-recycling contraption that passes for the American economy on which it is perched.

Who dropped that spanner, and why they did so, will be a matter of interest to future generations of historians, and even perhaps the next generation of Western politicians. But for our generation, such arguments are – like putting ourselves in a position where the public could be persuaded that we are sympathetic to the enemy in the now unavoidable Clash of Civilisations – a luxury we cannot afford.

All we need to know is that the spanner has been dropped in among the whirring, clanking cogs and wheels, and that pieces of the multi-racial genocide machine are already breaking and flying off as a result. Sooner or later, one of those pieces may well in turn foul up something in the workings of the debt-recycling machine, and then opportunity will knock for those who are already organised and positioned to take full advantage of it.

If you subscribe to a total world-view there’s a risk you’ll start thinking that Nick Griffin and his mates are part of the solution. And there’s a chance that even Irshad Manji would be considered part of the problem if she had happened to live in Europe. After all, she is a Muslim.

If you subscribe to such a total world-view there’s a risk that you will start considering anyone who disagrees with you “a traitor”, even if this opponent happens to run one of the most well-known blogs critical to Islam on the Internet.

I do realize that many people might be offended when I include criticism of Oriana Fallaci above. Charles Johnson might be, too. In one way, this is understandable. I believe many people remember Fallaci for eloquent statements such as these:

I find it shameful that in Italy there should be a procession of individuals dressed as suicide bombers who spew vile abuse at Israel, hold up photographs of Israeli leaders on whose foreheads they have drawn the swastika, incite people to hate the Jews. And who, in order to see Jews once again in the extermination camps, in the gas chambers, in the ovens of Dachau and Mauthausen and Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen et cetera, would sell their own mother to a harem.

I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop, one with lodgings in the Vatican no less, a saintly man who was found in Jerusalem with an arsenal of arms and explosives hidden in the secret compartments of his sacred Mercedes, to participate in that procession and plant himself in front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. To call them “martyrs who go to their deaths as to a party.”

I find it shameful that in France, the France of Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, they burn synagogues, terrorize Jews, profane their cemeteries…

I have no problems agreeing with Fallaci there. I also have no problems seeing her as the excellent writer she doubtlessly was. But that she sometimes was very correct does not make her general analysis correct. That she sometimes was eloquent does not mean that she always spoke the truth. And that she was brave does not mean that she was always insightful.

I have two major problems with Fallaci. The first problem is that she contributed to the mythos of Eurofascism through propagating a Total Idea, as outlined in the quote above. The second problem I have with Fallaci is how she bent the truth to propagate this very Idea. I hope you will allow me to give one of the oddest examples of this.

In her book “The Force of Reason”, Fallaci writes about Switzerland and a paragraph in their Penal Law which she describes as being more or less designed for Muslim immigrants to win “any private, professional or ideological conflict  through pointing at religious racism or race discrimination”.

While I have serious issues with all laws that are meant to limit free speech, I was astonished when I first read this part of Fallaci’s book, and I remain astonished even today. The reason? Fallaci gives three examples of people who have been convicted because of the mentioned paragraph: Erwin Kessler, Gaston Armand Amaudruz and Robert Faurisson. To me, those three names are connected to something entirely different that criticism against Islam. But Fallaci does not mention who these people are. She merely states that Kessler “like Brigitte Bardot, can not stand halal laughter” and that “Today, it is not allowed to go through History and tell about it in any other way than the official version”.

It fits into her ideological jigzaw. It fits into her Total Idea. But as a matter of fact, none of three men Fallaci gives as examples were convicted because of attacking Muslims or criticising Islam. All three are notorious anti-Semites, who were convicted because of Holocaust denialism or more general anti-Semitic statements.

Robert Faurisson, a former professor of literature at the University of Lyons, is one of the most well-known Holocaust deniers in the world, a man who speaks of “the so-called gassings” as a “gigantic politico-financial swindle whose beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism”, its main victims the Germans and the Palestinians. Notably, Faurisson was inspired by Maurice Bàrdeche, a notable French post-WWII fascist who also served as an ideological inspiration for several Vlaams Blok-politicians. Faurisson interprets the Nazi decree which mandated that Jews wear a yellow star on pain of death as a measure to ensure the safety of German soldiers, because Jews, he argues, engaged in espionage, terrorism, black market operations and arms trafficking.

Jewish kids, forced to wear the star from the age of six, were – according to Faurisson – also involved in “all sorts of illicit or esistance activities against the Germans”. In the United States, Faurisson is somewhat known, because of the socalled Faurisson Affair. To those interested in learning more about his thinking, I recommend Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust – the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory”. Actually, I highly recommend that book in any case.

Gaston Armaud Amaudruz, is also a Holocaust revisionist (and a fascist too). He was convicted, according to the BBC, for an article he wrote, as wel as for distributing 24 Holocaust revisionist books. In the mentioned article Amaudruz stated: “For my part, I maintain my position: I don’t believe in the gas chambers. Let the exterminationists provide the proof and I will believe it. But as I’ve been waiting for this proof for decades, I don’t believe I will see it soon”. He also said it was “impossible” for six million Jews to have been murdered by the Nazis during World War II.

Erwin Kessler (German wikipedia) is less known, but this far right-wing and animal rights activist was sentenced to two months in prison for comparing Jewish ritual slaughter to Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust, saying that there was no difference between Nazi hangmen and the Jews who use the same methods. An Israeli Foreign ministry report states:

Erwin Kessler, a Swiss radical right-wing activist who was sentenced in the summer of 1997 to two months imprisonment for breaking the Swiss law against racism. was found to be once more disseminating anti-Semitic propaganda through distribution of material to mail boxes. In his magazine, Kessler repeats his comparison of Jewish ritual slaughter to the actions of the Nazis in World War II. He also recently attacked the rabbi of the Jewish community in Basel in his magazine.

I find Fallaci’s choice of these three people to be very odd indeed, but I do not think it means Fallaci herself was an anti-Semite or a fascist. What this does prove is a very dishonest argument. And such dishonest arguments are sadly frequent in Fallaci’s latter works, as – I believe – they are necessary to her Total Idea.

Dishonest arguments are also necessary to paint Charles Johnson as guilty of “treason”. But in a world-view solidly rested on a conspiracy theory such dishonesty is the rule, not the exception.

-

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
Ill never look into your eyes…again

(The Doors)

-

This will be the last of my articles on the “refutations”. I consider the evidence I have provided in this series of articles to be more than enough to establish that Vlaams Belang does indeed have ties to fascist groups both today and in the past, and furthermore to establish that Vlaams Belang stands for a dangerous – and racist – ethnical nativism. I also believe that the evidence I have provided shows that the Center for Vigilant Freedom either is stupidly blind or willingly blind.

Perhaps – indirectly - the fault lies with the European left. Perhaps it lies with the American left. After all, Noel Ignatin – his other views aside – made a very valid question in “Fascism – some common misconceptions” back in 1976:

A specter is haunting the U.S. left: the specter of fascism. Where is the measure taken by the party in power that is not branded as fascist? Welfare cutbacks, legislation to abolish compulsory union membership, the passage of a bill curtailing, the legal right of dissidents to organize, efforts to ferret out and suppress those responsible for the bombing of public buildings in the center of large cities, the establishment of a professional army, moves to coordinate autonomous local police departments — all these measures and others which represent the ordinary functioning of government in a society dominated by bourgeois social relations are described as “fascist,” or at the very least as steps toward fascism, by many left-wing organizations.

Today, the Bush administration is called fascist. Income tax is called fascist. America, some people say, is already fascist or is surely becoming fascist. I’d recommend people who seriously believe such claims to read this excellent essay written by Roy Peter Clark at poynter.org. I especially enjoy the below paragraphs:

[Allard] Lowenstein, who would be murdered himself by a crazed assassin, answered an accusation by a student that America was becoming a fascist state. The congressman disagreed, arguing that, in spite of America’s terrible problems, to call America fascist was to misunderstand both America and fascism. Another student stood up and threw something at Lowenstein. It turned out to be a water balloon, but in an era of political assassinations, it was a frightening moment.

The balloon hit the lectern and splattered some water on the speaker, who, with the help of a professor, straightened himself out. He then said something like this: “What do you think would happen in a fascist state to a protesting student who threw a water bomb at a government official? Do you think he would be able to sit down in his seat and quietly listen to the rest of the talk?” The audience burst into applause.

These days, everything is called fascist. Income tax is called fascist. Environmentalists are called ecofascists or Environazis. Feminists are branded Feminazis. Radical Islamism is called “Islamofascism”, which is not as inaccurate, but which stills clouds the issues more than it provides insight. Neither reactionary ideals nor totalitarian thinking nor the support to terrorism is unique to fascism. Orthodox Marxists – too – are referred to as fascists: “red fascists”. Naming all opponents (also those who are not opponents of liberal democracy) as “fascist” has become a very popular thing to do. Fascism has become another way to say “evil” or even to say “wrong”.

That’s why I perfectly understand those people who distrust my use of the word “fascism”. But here’s the deal: In spite of all the misusage of the word “fascism”; fascism is a real, describeable and definable ideological trend. It was in 1935. It was in 1943. It was in 1962. It was in 1982, as well. And it is today. It is possible to trace its ideological development and it is possible to study the political parties, the grouplets, the individuals and the thinking of this trend.

With this being my last article on the “refutations” of the CVF, I have not addressed all the issues raised in the debate between the “LGF school” and the “Gates of Vienna”-school. It is not necessary, and I have some other essays planned (on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, on pre-WWII Norwegian anti-Semitism, on the connections between European fascists and violent radical groups in the Muslim world, on the Eurabia conspiracy theory, etc) that I’d rather use my time on.

It is possible that several of those articles will annoy people who have appreciated the evidence I have presented on Vlaams Belang. It is possible that they will disagree with me. I welcome that.

My views differ from the views of Charles Johnson on a number of areas. Some people think that is a problem for Charles. I don’t think it is. It’s definitely not a problem to me.

Besides, if Charles ever decides to heavily criticise one of my posts and name some of my views – let’s say – Idiotarian, that too will bring new readers and new debate to this site. In a liberal democracy, disagreement is good and debate is essential: as long as one at least attempts to address the points of one’s opponent in an honest manner. Sadly, not all of the visitors coming to my web site have. I could name a few. I won’t.

Instead, I am going to look at one last point of discussion between LGF and CVF. This one:

LGF wrote: Vlaams Belang’s party platform asks for full and unconditional amnesty for people convicted for collaboration with Nazi Germany after World War II. Vlaams Belang claims that many convicts were victims of excesses by the Belgian judiciary system against Flemish nationalists. It also states that it has “equal respect” for the suffering of all the victims during the years of war and the repression afterwards, regardless of whichever side they had sided with, or of whichever side the Belgian judiciary maintained that they had sided with. It states that all other European countries have already granted amnesty, and that the 1961 Belgian “Vermeylen” law is no general amnesty law such as in the Netherlands or France, but only possibly grants amnesty after expressing regret about the actions committed.

CVF Suggested correction: “This position is held by the other Flemish independence parties as well, so it at least should be seen as an issue in Flemish independence rather than some kind of support for Nazism. In 1998, the Flemish Parliament approved state-aid for thousands of collaborators, who were thereafter to be treated on the same legal basis as “victims of war” who suffered or were persecuted by the Nazis. The 60 Flemish MPs who supported the measure were from the Christian-Social CVP party, the Volksunie and the Vlaams Blok.”

Now, what CVF provides here is not a suggested correction. It is a suggested addition. The reason for that is simple. There is nothing to correct. The information LGF provides is accurate. Vlaams Belang does indeed ask for an amnesty for people convicted of collaboration. It does indeed claim that many convicts were “victims of excesses”.

In fact, even the main arguments of the Vlaams Belang is pointed out by LFG in this case. Now, as CVF points out it is true that other parties have also supported a full amnesty. But that hardly changes the facts pointed out by LFG wrote.

Of course supporting an amnesty does not make anyone a fascist. Even I – the “hard leftist infiltrator Marxist-Stalinist-whatever”, have some sympathy for the idea of amnesty.

This sympathy probably is a result of my own (very limited) studies into the excesses of the far-reaching legal purge that took place in my home-country – Norway – after WWII. The fact that the purge was far-reaching has been a discussion topic in Norway for decades, and the more time has passed since the war the more people have landed on the position that it did indeed go to far.

And not only because girls guilty of nothing else than falling in love had their hair shaven off.

If that kind of sympathy was the whole story about the Vlaams Belang and “collaborators”, well – then it would be a political detail not worth mentioning.

It remains a political detail – of little significance even to this debate. But it is worth mentioning, simply because the story told by CVF is not the whole story; something which has repeatedly been proven to be the case. Instead of launching into a long analysis, this time, I will simply leave the research to my readers. I will only provide two starting points – take it from there and see what you find yourself.

First, a YouTube-video – it was put together by a leftist, but it still shows what it shows.

(Update starts:) The video shows first a confrontation between Dewinter and several others, one of them an obvious far left activist (PvdA can probably be described as Maoist, no less). The PvdA-activist criticises Dewinter for borrowing a Nazi slogan against foreign labour. Dewinter denies this, says that he has nothing to do with national socialism and that he only finds it sickening.

Footage from four days later (commented in French) shows him demonstrating with others – including Bert Eriksson (a notorious militant with very obvious ties to fascist groups) – at the German military graveyard in Lommel. They are trying to enter the graveyard to put down flowers at the graves of Flemish SS soldiers. (Update ended) 

Secondly, I will point to the connections between Vlaams Belang-politicians and another interesting little Flemish grouplet, the Sint-Maartensfonds, a group of Flemish WWII-veterans who had fought for the Nazis on the Eastern front – including SS-veterans and veterans from other Nazi-German forces.

Now, that those two droplets of information and Google. Perhaps you too will be amazed by what falls out of the pockets of Vlaams Belang if you just shake the party ever so lightly.

I know I was.

P.S: Oh, and do a Google-search on “Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty“, too. It was such a cozy club.

As Charles Johnson writes on Little Green Footballs, it appears that this series of articles might be hitting some nerves. I only know that they have given me a lot of new things to put on my business card. By now, I have been adding the following titles: Bolshevik, vile communist animal, member of the “destroy-the-West“-movement, infiltrator, evil master-mind (okay, that one was ironic), classic Islam-apologist, hardcore leftist, enemy, uber-lib (I love that one!) and Marxist/Stalinist.

Still, I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed; these titles are just not juicy enough. I have been given juicier names in other debates. A former Norwegian parliamentarian has even blamed me for “spiritual terrorism”, and I have also been called “a pathetic idiot and terrorist”. Besides, 911-truthers have sent me the cutest little emails with better titles after I wrote a couple of articles debunking their conspiracy theory.

I have been called a “right-winger”, too. Once. If you ask myself, I increasingly like to think of myself as a radical centrist.

Anyway, I write this to come with some friendly advice. My first advice is to try discussing the facts I have presented; and not whether I am a hard leftist – or an “uberlib”. This far – as far as I have noticed – no one has even attempted pointing out factual mistakes in my summary of the CVF “refutations”. Instead, there has been one smear after the other.

I realise this first advice might be a bit too difficult for some of my detractrors to follow. After all, they have had some time now. Nothing has come. Just more nonsense. So, what I expect is further attempts at character assassination.

But wait – I have an advice in that case, too: At least base your attacks on facts - not on nonsense. If you want to complain that someone uses the word “fascist” too often, and then go on by calling that someone a “Stalinist”, that indicates that you might need to take a good, long look in the mirror. Unless you are actually able to prove your claim.

Proving that I am a “Stalinist” will be somewhat difficult – since I am not a Stalinist, since I never have been a Stalinist and since I definitely do not have a plan of becoming one. The same thing goes for “Marxist”. Sure, I have read the “Communist Manifesto”, a book which I still consider one of the most boring books I have ever read. Another really boring book? Bat Ye’or’s “Eurabia – The Euro-Arab Axis”.

I suppose it does not matter that I am neither a Stalinist nor a Marxist. First of all (try to read this with a serious and concerned tone of voice) “We only have Mr. Strømmen’s assurances”. And they’re not worth anything! Because he is a Marxist! Stalinist! Commie!

But say that my assurances do matter, and that my highly beloved opponents consequently would want to find another nasty thing to call me. Since it is Christmas time, I am willing to help them out. Here’s the next big exposé at eurofascism.info: the murky political past of Øyvind Strømmen.

As anyone with Google and a bit of knowledge of Norwegian or a whole lot of patience will be able to find out, I have never run for election for any other party than the one I am a member of today: the Greens. I have – however – been a member of a socialist youth organisation – the youth organisation of the left-wing Norwegian government party SV; and I have also written a couple of articles for magazines published by other far left groups (I have also written a couple of articles for the Norwegian equivalent of “High Times”, by the way). In my times as a left-wing activist I mostly worked with a campaign for a country-supported – and self-governed – youth hall. But I also opposed the Iraq war, and I was one of many people who put down much work in campaigning against it.

Unlike others in the “peace movement”, I did – however – never end up supporting the Ba’athist and Islamist “resistance fighters” in Iraq. My support goes to Iraqi democrats. In 2004, I wrote an angry op-ed criticising the nuttiest “peace activists”. And by the time I had written that op-ed, I had pretty much dropped the “wing”, that is – I had “left”.

Irving Kristol got “mugged by reality”. I simply got fed up with quarelling with to many people clinging to bad ideas – and if you wonder what that means in this context: It means Marxism. Sometimes, when I miss the good old days too much, I write a blogpost or two attacking Marxist thinking once again. Or I tick them off by criticizing their support to deeply reactionary and hate-filled groups such as the Hezb’allah and Hamas.

Was I “mugged by reality”? Not quite. I realized that some of my views were wrong, for instance on religion – I used to be quite a dogmatic atheist, and eventhough I should have known better, I did quote Marx in that context. I also realized that I’d rather work with people I think have better ideas and a wiser political program, eventhough fighting for that youth hall was easier when being a pragmatist and joining the young socialists. I realized that I support those who want to make liberal democracy better (and less centralized) and not simply replace it with something they found in a book.

That’s why I am a member of one of Norway’s smallest political parties. That’s why I am a Green.

(…)

Okay, you can stop laughing now.

(…)

No really, stop!

(…)

Being active on the left-wing of Norwegian politics did teach me a few things. First, it taught me about the moderating effect of democracy, an effect which surely is in work also when it comes to Eurofascist parties, the development in the Italian post-WWII fascist party MSI illustrates this.

Secondly, it taught me how to recognise at least some totalitarian ideas as totalitarian ideas even when they are sugar-coated or explained away. That lesson has been very useful in exploring the post-WWII fascist movement around Europe. Today, I will need it again.

But first, a Christmas song:

You are enjoying the music, already? Now, let us look at the “refutation” they gave you over at the Center for Vigilant Freedom (this should also be said in a very stern and serious voice; especially the word “vigilant”). Here we go:

LGF wrote: From 1991 video:Dewinter speaking: “: ‘Yes, the Vlaams Blok (Flemish Block) chooses our own people first (slogan: Eigen Volk Eerst). And yes, the Vlaams Blok chooses a Flemish Flanders. And yes, the Vlaams Blok chooses a white Europe.’

CVF Suggested correction: “Dewinter clarifies his statement in this interview: ‘When I said I was in favor of a white Europe, that was a metaphor. It meant I was in favor of our values, our way of life, our civilization. And yes, it’s a white civilization in the past, I can’t deny that. That has nothing to do with white supremacist or racism, it was just a fact. I am not an ethnical nationalist, I am a cultural nationalist. I believe in cultures and values. I accept that there is diversity now. I accept that other people from other continents live over here, they are part of our civilization now. And it has nothing to do with the color of you skin. It has nothing to do with your race or where you’re coming from. It has to do with your way of life, your values, are you loyal to our civilization …I don’t think Islam is compatible with our way of life, with our values, our European and western civilization. So if Muslims want to live over here, they should accept our values. It’s for them to decide if they can become European and stay Muslim.’ ”

In fact, the CVF even claims that Charles claim has been refuted here; in a post where LGF posts an audio interview done with Dewinter. That is… well… what is that? It’s most certainly not a refutation!

LGF pointed out that Filip Dewinter in a political speech from the early 90s said that he wanted a “white Europe”. The video speaks for itself. LGF tells the truth. In an interview in 2007, Dewinter tries to convince us that it was all a metaphor. He tries to tell us that he did not actually mean what he said about wanting a “White Europe”. That’s pretty much like me saying that I did not mean things I wrote five or ten years ago. Of course I meant them. And in some cases – I was dead wrong.

Dewinter does not admit being wrong. He just claims that it was all a metaphor. Here’s another “metaphor” – this one comes from an old Vlaams Blok magazine:

The cartoon above can be summed up in two words – “ethnic cleansing”. Everything is to become nice, white and clean. Then we will have balloon sellers, rather than dark-skinned people shooting up drugs and robbing elderly ladies.

Today, Filip Dewinter claims (in the same audio interview) that he is against “ethnic cleansing”. He accuses his critics of “demonisation”, an accusation which is hardly a new one. He claims that his opponents are referring to a past of the Flemish radical nationalist movement that lies 60-70 years back in time. He claims that there is “a new generation” now, and “new leaders”.

The problem is that this is not the case. The criticism leveled against the Vlaams Belang by as good as all other political parties in Belgium is not based on things that happened during the WWII, long before the party was founded. It is based on the recent history of the party and also on its’ present-day connections.

The criticism is based on the activism of the party today, and on statements made by central party members – then and now. It is based on the political platform which the party had until it changed name from Vlaams Blok to Vlaams Belang in 2004. It is based on its’ historical connections with parties such as the NPD, which even Dewinter calls a “neo-Nazi” party. It is based on its’ current connections with groups such as Voorpost (do read the debate between me and the group’s press spokesman; I think it could be worth your time).

Now, I can’t know what Dewinter thinks of “ethnic cleansing” today. I am not a mind-reader. But it surely would be easier for me to listen to Dewinter if he admitted the murky past of his party, and if the VB distanced itself from radical groups such as Voorpost. I don’t think either is going to happen.

Instead, he will try to explain it away; just like some of the Marxists I have met will try to explain away oh-so-many things from their own and their parties’ political past. Dewinter will blame his political opponents and “leftist media”, just like the Marxists will blame their political opponents and the “bourgeoise press”. Here’s one commenter in a political internet debate in Norwegian, excusing the formerly Maoist (!) Norwegian party AKP and attacking the “bourgeoise press”:

I can agree that AKP (Worker’s Communist Party) in the 70s did some idiotic things, but hardly as many as the bourgeoise press claims. Moreover, it is more productive to discuss today’s AKP than the AKP of the 70’s.

Yes, AKP is dangerous to the bourgeoise. All those who criticise the foundation of the wealth of the bourgeoise are dangerous.

This is exactly the same method employed by Filip Dewinter; but he does not even admit that “idiotic things” were done in the recent past. He just leaves them out!

“Do not believe what the newspapers write about the Vlaams Blok”, Dewinter once noted, “only believe what we write in our own publications”. Fine. In VB’s own publications a number of things have been made painfully clear.

In 1990, central party member Gerolf Annemans wrote:

The state is the framework of the citizen. This framework is best when it is the framework of his volk and of the homogenically felt ethnicity of which the citizen belongs. The Vlaams Blok stands on the side of the state which shows a strong ethnic connectivity and where one ethnicity in an optimal way can establish its interests.

This ethnonationalist principle has one fundamental flaw, a flaw hat has led to human rights violations, political suppression and totalitarianism more than once: some people are always defined out. In Flanders, the first victims of this ideology would be people of immigrant backgrounds. In connection with this, I recommend people to explore the 70-steps plan of the Vlaams Blok, a plan which has later been somewhat revised, and which today is not official politics of the Vlaams Belang. To my knowledge, the party has not distanced itself from it either. Anyway, here’s the last part of the introduction to the first version:

Als enige politieke partij werpt het Vlaams Blok met dit plan een dam op tegen de gevaarlijke mundialistische en multi-raciale utopieën van de pro-immigratielobby.

My translation:

As the only party, Vlaams Blok – with this plan – puts up a dam against the dangerous globalist and multi-racial utopias of the pro-immigration lobby.

That’s what Vlaams Blok was all about when Dewinter spoke about wanting a “white Europe”. And the whole document is highly interesting, and very revealing. It includes – for instance – an outright refusal of integration, which is seen as the “unrooting of hundreds of thousands of Turks, Moroccans and Africans” and as a threat to the uniqueness of the Flemish people. In fact, in this document, integration – and not the lack thereof – is seen as turning Flanders into a (negative) multi-cultural society.

The plan, which was presented in June 1992 by the party frontman – that is Filip Dewinter – goes on to detail the politics leading to repatriation of immigrants, that is “ethnic cleansing”. Children of non-European immigrants is to be set apart in the education system, which is to focus on their «reintegration into [their] own culture». The Dutch word used is apartonderwijs. It does sound a bit like apartheid, and in fact what the Vlaams Blok goes on to suggest is precisely that: wide-spread and official racial discrimination. While the socalled non-European youth is to be given one set of education, Flemish youth shall no longer be «indoctrinated» by multi-racial ideas (the word used is multi-racial). Instead, they are to be given an education with special attention to national ideas and to «cultural identity».

According to the plan, apartheid (although not named that) was to continue on the work area. Employers that give work to socalled non-European workers are to be taxed extra. Unemployed non-Europeans are not to be allowed to apply for a job in another sector, their unemployment benefits are to be reduced, and if they remain unemployed for more than three months, leaving the country is to be compulsory. And to make sure they get rid of as many people as possible, the VB also wants all naturalisations approved since 1973 reviewed. Thus, even if you are a Belgian citizen having lived in Flanders for decades, you should not expect to be allowed to stay, neither should you expect to be treated justly.

First, second and third generation immigrants are to be «returned», but the latter two groups will be allowed to finish their separate education first.

The whole plan is available in Dutch in both its’ 1992 and its’ 1996 versions on several internet sites – for instance here. It should be an interesting read.

But the VB obsession with monoculture goes further. Even the historical next-door neighbours of the Flemish are to be discriminated against. According to one resolution from the party’s youth wing in the early nineties, political and commercial material in other languages than Dutch (Flemish) should be banned, and in the area around Brussels even cultural activities such as scouting and sporting organisations using another language should be outlawed. “Those who do not wish to adjust”, the resolution noted, “should just leave”.

José Happart, the former French-speaking mayor of Voeren – and hardly my favourite politician either – would quite simply “be considered an unwelcome foreigner and expelled from the country”, an earlier VB resolution notes.

This takes on an even scarier aspect when you consider the borders VB ideologists have dreamt up for their independent Flanders. The front page of a party magazine from 1992 says it clearly: «Once in Flanders, always in Flanders». A number of Walloon towns should thus be taken over by the Flemish republic, regardless of what the people living there wants. Luk van Nieuwenhuysen, another central VB politician (here he is on a recent video), writes the following in 1992:

The choice should not merely be given to the people living in the areas concerned, but rather to the whole of the community they belong to, and to us, that is the Flemish community. [...] The interests of the community come first.

Brussels, too, is supposed to be part of that Greater Flemish republic, in the view of the VB it is «an integral part of Flanders». According to Nieuwenhuyzen, The French-speaking population of the city having a Flemish background need to «find back to their roots», the city is to «be made into a Dutch city again, in appearance, spirit, language [and] culture».

This is all within the recent past of Vlaams Belang. We are talking about the same people, the same generation, the same leaders. Is it demonisation to point it out? I don’t think so. Was the “white Europe” of Filip Dewinter simply a ”metaphor”? For some reason, I am far from convinced.

Now, I’m dreaming of a white New Year’s Eve. And in this case white means snowy. Have a good night (it’s 3:20, I know I should) and a happy new year!