User talk:Jvb/Johan Van Vlaams
Authorisation to use Mr. Johan Van Vlaams’ texts such as represented at: http://www.majorityrights.com has been granted, web-site secretariat at wirebiz@btinternet.com.
A little something about Belgium
[edit]MajorityRights.com Saturday, October 16, 2004
What does the English-speaking world really know about politics and Belgium? If you register our existence at all, is it simply as a rather grey but worthy and pleasantly sensible little country. Or do we, perhaps, seem so burdened by the tragedies of 20th century history and, these days, so communautaire that we automatically eschew anything more divisive than the Federal Government’s consumption of paperclips?
Or do you suspect that beneath all that we might be a nation of ten million Noel Godins – every one an exponent of the whacky, cream-filled theatre of the absurd? Do you see a Belgium of uncontainable anarchism that laughs up its sleeve while consoling poor Bill Gates for his 1998 humiliation by Godin’s followers? (Well, not poor Bill Gates, exactly. I take that back. And, in Godin’s mitigation, what else does one do in Brussels but eat cake?)
The truth, of course, is that there are two sides to Belgium, facing in entirely different directions. But I shall come to that later. For now, you should know that we are neither politically boring nor anarchist street comedians. But our political masters, now that’s another matter. Our political masters know precisely how to deliver a calculated public humiliation with perfect timing and with all the sang froid in the world.
Think back, if you will, to Gulf War 1. Do you remember the urgent request from the British to our Federal Government for vital ammunition supplies? You should. It was a defining moment. Our political masters understood its potential perfectly. There were the Anglo-Saxons, hands outstretched in friendship, completely unsuspecting, convinced that we would be only too happy to make a gesture of European solidarity and … pish! Le moment Godin. No ammo but cream everywhere. And then to finish, the perfect anarchic touch – immediately afterwards we threw away all our bombs as their expiry date had arrived.
Well, what’s so wrong about that, you may ask? One must never loose sight of who one’s true enemies are. What had Saddam’s Presidential Guard ever done to us? And the same for Osama, for that matter.
So fast-forward to early November 2001. The Americans are one month into Operation Enduring Freedom. The Taliban has been bunker-busted. Moslems are resentful. The Stars & Stripes and effigies of Dubya are burning in capitals across the third world, and in Europe. Still only eight weeks since 9/11 this is a time for a united front among EU member states in support of America’s righteous War on Terrorism. Or, at least, you would think so. But already the fingers of Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, are feeling for that cream cake. But it’s at Britain again that he takes aim.
He scoffs at Tony Blair’s perceived theatricality, an easy target after all. The British Prime Minister is guilty of “over-acting” and being altogether “too bellicose.” Blair’s support for Washington had left him with a “bitter taste” in his mouth. Ominously, of the Americans he warns, “there are limits to solidarity.” Not really. There was no solidarity.
Now fast forward once more, this time to those charged weeks before Gulf War 2. There is now more protest on the streets [1] of Brussels. This time the game is different. France, Germany and Russia are in diplomatic conflict with the English-speaking world. But little Belgium can still play the incorrigible rogue. Michel, again, and Defence Minister Andre Flahaut debate a motion on American power before an audience of two thousand students at the Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
“I am beginning to fear the U.S,” says Michel. Belgians, he notes, are starting to look upon the U.S as they once looked upon the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union? Really? SS20’s aimed at the heart of Europe ... all the peoples to the east living in penury under the Soviet thumb!
For his part Flahaut, a socialist, attacks Blair, saying he would do everything in his power to have him expelled from the Socialist International. The comic irrelevance of such a gesture aside, does that sound like the kind of public statement Mr Hoon would make about Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt? Hardly. Only in Belgium do senior Ministers – supposedly mature and responsible politicians – set out at such a time to inflame anti-American and anti-British passions in the young.
Completely unabashed, Flahaut followed this up by threatening to deny Belgian airspace and use of the port of Antwerp to the U.S military. No other EU member state was playing this contemptible game, not even France. But Flahaut actually lobbied in Europe for others to follow suite. His idea of solidarity, I suppose. It must have made the Americans seeth, as it was intended to. Yet far worse was to come.
Since 1993 there has existed a, let us say, unusual War Crimes Law on the Belgian statute book. It provides for Belgian courts to hear charges against anybody in any theatre of war anywhere. Under this provision nineteen Iraqis had brought a suit against General Tommy Franks listing “specific incidents” in which US soldiers and commanders violated the law. Finally, the Americans stirred. The State Department told Belgium flatly not to allow its laws to be prostituted for “divisive politicised lawsuits”, meaning for the purpose of opposing American unilateralism. Senior administration officials warned that issuing indictments would result in real “diplomatic consequences” for Belgium. Donald Rumsfeld was clearer still, threatening to move Nato HQ from Brussels.
Jan Fermon, the lawyer handling the case, retorted, “I think either the US State Department has nothing to hide, in which case it’s very important for them to have an independent inquiry - and why can’t it be a Belgian magistrate - or they have something to hide and that’s why they are threatening Belgium.” Of course, it might also have been that the Americans had had enough of the Belgian rogue. In any case, Verhofstadt bowed to expediency, softening the legislation so that charges under it could be transferred to another legal competency, meaning America.
With that relations improved – just to the point where, last January, Flahaut could stir the pot again. He used an interview with the weekly magazine, Humo. If he was an American, he declared, he would vote Democrat. Of the U.S military he said, “The Americans are throwing so much money at their army that it simply can’t function efficiently anymore. When they have to move 15 men from point A to point B they deploy three planes to make sure it works. We deploy one plane, or better still, first check with an ally whether we can’t take a ride on its plane.” He did not, however, improve his little joke by explaining that the average Belgian soldier is 44 years old and would need a good push from behind to get himself and his kit onboard. But there was nothing funny about the substance of what Flahaut had to say. It was to assert that Washington opposes a unified European defence because internal EU rivalry better benefits the U.S. defence industry. Never mind NATO. Never mind geopolitical tensions and national security. Just business, folks.
That did it. The Americans reacted again, Colin Powell reaching for the telephone and his Belgian counterpart’s throat. Michel felt the pressure. Independently, we are told, Verhofstadt wrote to Flahaut criticising his remarks “as inappropriate towards an ally.”
“Aren’t I allowed to have a political opinion,” Flauhaut protested in the press. But, of course, who could doubt that that is what Flahaut is for.
In April he strode fearlessly back into the firing line yet again. He lent his approval to a 16-page official report on genocide around the world, in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan massacre. It appeared in two forms, first as an exhibit [2] at Brussels’ Monument of the Unknown Soldier and then in a government-sponsored military magazine. Inevitably, it was anti-American. Never mind Hitler or Stalin (who wasn’t even mentioned). The worst – the very worst - genocide committed in the past 500 years has, it said, been the extermination of 15 million Native Americans in what is the U.S today. The report dated the killing from 1492, when Christopher Columbus first set foot in the New World. But it pointedly gave no end-date, implying that there are Native Americans expiring in Bush’s gulags to this day.
At this point you might think that Flahaut is nine-tenths of the problem. But he is simply an opportunist. The policy of the Belgian government is not Flahaut’s policy. But it is a policy with the recurrent theme of opposing the English-speaking world however and wherever an opportunity arises.
The most inviting opportunity, currently, is the plan for an EU army [3] in opposition to the Atlantic Alliance. Now we are deep in the geopolitical scheme of things, where Chirac and Schroeder are maneuvering to advance their national interests through the long-term goal of bi-polarity in global affairs. Belgium out of her league, did you say ? Ridiculous idea. Naturally, she is to the fore again, hosting April’s Praline Summit with France, Germany and mighty Luxembourg in Brussels. For sure, the outcome is quite modest : a military planning cell to be set-up and headquartered in, yes, Brussels. No one can be certain that a real army will emerge from this. There are deep logistical, financial and cultural difficulties. But it is another step on the road of confrontation. It irritates America and troubles Britain and Netherlands, Italy and all the new accession states, which is plentiful reward in itself.
And so we return to the beginning and the dual nature of the political creation which is Belgium. That duality is the wellspring of all these excesses. Because the worldviews of Wallonia and Flanders are irreconcilable one has abbrogated to itself permanent political control, and does not hold back from using it. So this is the story of politically dominant, economically backward Wallonia and prosperous, much put-upon Flanders, and how they differ by race, language, economic output, political perception and ambition. Over the next few weeks I will explore these differences in their political effect inside Belgium, and especially inside Flanders. For now, I will finish on a slightly more hopeful note.
Recently, Andre Michel has had to flee to the European Commission because of a blood-letting in the Walloon political world He was replaced by a good Flemish, Karel De Gucht. The morbid political games and wreckless confrontation are in sharp decline. De Gucht is more interested in economic welfare and in reaching a better understanding with the English-speaking world. So Belgian bad faith, the product of a Walloon elite that has grown arrogant in its familiarity with power, will certainly be scaled down. But fundamentally, De Grucht’s appointment won’t resolve anything. As soon as a moment of decision arises for the Belgian government the weight of Wallonia will tell. As long as Belgium exists it will be a nuisance.
Johan Van Vlaams
comments: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8/
Not just of Flemish interest
[edit]MajorityRights.com Monday, November 15, 2004
It was written in the skies that the Flemish political adventure which was Vlaams Blok would not end with the decision by the Court of Cassation last week. The Party Council, comprising delegates from one thousand local Blok chapters, voted at an extraordinary general meeting yesterday morning in Antwerp to disband their Party. The next vote brought into being a new party: Vlaams Belang – in English, Flemish Interest.
The cost of this historical action is high, put at two million dollars by the old leadership. But that is a small price for freedom of speech and thought in Flanders.
Although it is of course terrible to say so, the recent political murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh has, along with the judicial murder of Vlaams Blok, given a boost to the debate about freedom in Belgium. We all understand that you are free to speak and think or you are not. A partial freedom is not freedom at all, and neither is a freedom that is limited by politico-judiciary chicanery. In Flanders we say you become “mouth dead”.
People abroad don’t always understand why the Blok was so successful, all the more because of the hatchet job that was so skilfully performed on its reputation. In the free encyclopedia Wikipedia it is written-off as a racist and would-be antisemitic party. This is black propaganda, equivalent to claiming that Israelis make seder with the blood of Arab children. It is a sad fact of human nature that when such stories are retailed there are always some who will believe them.
So what is the real nature of Flemish nationalism? Well, read the Party Manifesto (below). If ever it was what the Belgian government claims it to have been, this is now a respectable and modern European conservative party. It is free-market oriented and possessed of many ethical concerns. Moreover, the personnel and the Party meetings are very convincing and enthusiastic. Being serious about power has become a political cliché in Britain. But the men and women who gathered to inaugurate Vlaams Belang are exactly that.
For leftist and French-speaking Wallonia, this seriousness is their worst nightmare. Brussels will be filled with busy groups of Walloon elite trying to find the means to stop the Flemish a second time.
Belgian Eurabia will be no less alarmed. Vlaams Belang’s position on immigrants is that they should assimilate or return. Actually in Belgium there are at least thirty radical imams and half of the Muslim executive is infiltrated by extremists. It is widely considered to be a hotbed of small-scale street terror and bigger political terror. According to the Dutch publicist Paul Scheffer between 3 and 5% of Muslims are personally willing to use violence if circumstances “require”. One is not talking about self-defence here. To put it another way, hundreds of potential terrorists are attended by an entourage of tens of thousands of sympathisers.
This is an urgent problem, alarming to Flemish and Walloons alike. But for the Thought-Police, to say so with any force or clarity invites an instant investigation for racism and discrimination. After all, doesn’t the Muslim traditionally protest any link between fundamentalist violence and his, of course, always tolerant religion? Well, such protest doesn’t impress Vlaams Belang.
Will the Thought Police and the Belgian Establishment leave Vlaams Belang in peace in future? The Establishment was certainly surprised by the international reaction to last Tuesday’s court decision. I quite expect them to lay low for a while. But they don’t have much time left if they intend a repeat performance. And it won’t be easy, even for them. Vlaams Belang begins with a blank legal sheet. But it has the backing of a million Flemish and who knows how many others disgusted by the Establishment’s dirty tricks.
Free speech will return to Flanders. We will keep you informed every step of the way.
Vlaams Belang Manifesto
Principles The Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) is the political mouthpiece of the Flemish Movement as it has developed through time. The party voices the demands of the Flemish Movement on the political scene. … (see external link at Flemish Interest)
Johan Van Vlaams
comments:http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/54/
26,000 times a bleeding heart
[edit]MajorityRights.com Thursday, December 16, 2004
The liberal mind loves to champion an unpopular cause, never more than when it can strike a moral pose. So it is that just as the Dutch have finally determined to expel failed asylum seekers – 26,000 of them - Geoffrey Macnab in the Guardian [4] “meets the film-makers staging a unique protest.”
In fact, the first person Macnab meets isn’t a film maker at all. It is Joost Bosland, “a bespectabled, mild-mannered, fifty year old family therapist” from Den Bosch. Maybe Macnab needs psychotherapy, he doesn’t say. He certainly exhibits all the traits associated with compulsive, bleeding-heart liberalism. Bosland, too, it must be said. He is not remotely sympathetic to his own people, as if they exist purely as a giant human sponge that can absorb all the sorrows of the Third World.
Bosland is also blessed with a highly fertile imagination. How many psychotherapists conceive an idea for a film series? Not many, for which perhaps we must be grateful. Bosland’s conception is a series of short films with the object of personalising the expulsion process. It is, therefore, called 26,000 Faces. Each film is to be two minutes long, filled with “children singing nursery rhymes or standing in a rain-swept playground” and such like. Of course, in the Netherlands it rains all day and all night on every failed asylum seeker wherever he stands, and especially on his twelve children. The weather system is so unfair to these tragic and deserving, intentionally stateless people.
Plenty of liberals think Bosland’s idea is deserving, too. He contacted over one hundred Dutch film makers, and all but one wanted to help. Can you imagine that many liberal film makers in a small country of 16 million inhabitants? It’s a wonder they can find enough perceptions to challenge and enough prejudice to expose. Especially if they only make a two-minute film every time – although, obviously, two minutes drastically reduces the need for rain. Really, though, under the surface Dutch society must be very terrible to provide a living for one hundred liberal film makers.
But the really impressive thing about Bosland is not that he had the appetite to talk to the hundred liberals but the audacity to approach just one other … Theo Van Gogh. I’m assuming this was done whilst Van Gogh was still around to shoot a film. Bosland is a psychotherapist not a spiritualist, as far as I know. Either way, Van Gogh turned him down in “predictably extreme fashion” according to the predictably ungracious Macnab. The wild man of Dutch celluloid said the rejects deserved to be kicked out. Can you credit that? You can? Oh well. “But then,” says Bosland, “he said he thought it a disgrace that the government kept these people waiting for five years or longer. He did support our main goal, which was to give a face to these people.”
That’s Theo-Code for, “OK, give them a face … then kick them out.”
Politically, Bosland hopes to embarrass the Dutch government into repealing a controversial asylum law passed in February. This clears the way to repatriate “failed” asylum seekers, ie those found to have no legal basis for their claim on Dutch society. Seventeen films have already been made and premiered. But as the expulsion list has not been drawn up yet, and as the expulsions themselves will go on for three years, it’s not clear whether Bosland’s film actors are really those who will have to go. Of course, if Bosland is not a psychotherapist at all but is really just a gypsy fortune–teller that could explain everything.
This Guardian article reminds me of another one, no less objective, that I read in May. It is an attack [5] on Vlaams Blok (now Vlaams Belang/Flemish Interest) by Caryl Phillips.
Black and either a socialist or a liberal, he believes in the inevitability of multiculturalism. He also believes it is highly desirable. To whom? Well, obviously to black journalists. Phillips ascribes no force or injustice to its arising. The rights of the natives to be heard on the matter do not arise and have never arisen. Dissent now, at this late stage, is extremism. He, of course, is not an extremist.
Well, neither is he credible as a journalist.
He begins with the story of a Nigerian girl in a bar in Antwerp’s red-light district. Her job is to sell her body to white men. Of these Phillips writes, “many of whom are supporters of the far-right Vlaams Blok party”. Has he done a survey, then? Did he lay under the bed listening for the sounds by which he could identity yet enough Vlaams Blok member saying hello? No, he just writes it because he wants to. This, sadly, is what the Guardian calls journalism.
Phillips’ next stratagem is to besmirch the name of the 14th-century Flemish national hero, Jacob van Artevelde whose statue stands in the centre of Gent.
Every Flemish knows the hero is immortalised swearing an oath of allegiance to King Edward III of England. He is an enduring symbol of national pride and can be referred to as such by Flemish of any political persuasion. But the statue provides an opportunity for Phillips to link Nazism to the Blok, and he does not let it pass.
The Guardian should choose its writers more carefully. Perhaps a liberal Swede should be found to replace Phillips in future. When the Wall Street Journal commissioned a world-wide survey on religion it found that, of all Europeans, those most critical towards Islam are: the Swedes (75%), the Flemish in Belgium (73%) and the Dutch (72%). It seems that the Muslim failure to adapt to European customs and to be a little less violent is noticed by everyone eventually, liberal and conservative alike.
So, why can’t a few of Bosland’s friends document the gangs of Muslims who attack city bus drivers, fire-fighters and ambulance personnel? Why not a few two-minute films on the gang rapes of native Dutch girls. They are a commonplace in the Netherlands now, and it is commonplace also for the offenders to run away afterwards shouting, “Whore!”.
If Bosland insists on films about refugees, how about the subject of Dutch emigration? [6] The number of native people leaving the Dutch inner-cities is reaching record levels. These are people forced to leave the cities they know and love, most commonly for the safety of their children. Do these children, then, not sing nursery rhymes or stand in rain-swept playgrounds?
Johan Van Vlaams
comments:http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/157/
Taking aim at George
[edit]MajorityRights.com Friday, February 18, 2005 (humour)
Next week is a big week for Belgians. President Bush will visit us … well, not just us, of course. The rest of Europe, too. But it could be Belgium he remembers best.
In the past visiting VIP’s have had much to remember Belgium for. Obviously, the President’s security people are, even as I write, nailing Noel Godin’s throwing arm to some passing F15. But they will not find it so easy to deal with the real security threat.
No, I don’t mean the 1,200 active Al Qaeda cells working airside at Brussels Airport [7]. According to Paul Geudens, a journalist writing for the daily Gazet Van Antwerpen, it is more insidious than that.
The President will be received by Belgian Vice-Premier, Johan Vande Lanotte. He is a socialist, not an anarchist. So he is considered unlikely to offer Mr Bush a close inspection of Brussels’ delicious bakery products. But fellow cabinet member and close collaborator Laurent Winnock has found a way to humiliate the President without actually having to be at arms length from the Most Powerful Man in the World. No, he has not developed the world’s first laser guided cream cake. He has designed this self-adhesive tribute to a socialist Belgian’s love for America.
Perhaps you have heard of the Fly Project [8]. Its aim, so to speak, is to assist the Belgian male in the great task of sprinkling our country’s urinals, as intended, rather than our shoes, our neighbour’s shoes, his neighbour’s shoes. Winnock’s little masterpiece has the same humble function. Cafés all over Brussels are handing the thing out for free. In an effort to bring a new meaning to the words, “fly posting”, it is being plastered on porcelain surfaces all over the city. “Go ahead, piss on me!” says the punch-line. Well, it’s about the only opportunity the ordinary Belgian socialist is ever likely to get.
Clearly, the White House security people will be checking every urinal in the President’s path for that potentially explosive moment when the might of America must bow to Nature. I wonder if they have the balls to body-search Winnock for a concealed “weapon”, in case he tries to slide into the men’s room ahead of George.
Johan Van Vlaams
comments:http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/442/