eurofascism.info

Here’s my take on the “refutations” posted on Gates of Vienna and vigilantfreedom.org, where they criticize LGF. I have already posted four articles discussing these socalled “refutations” in detail: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

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!