oyvindstrommen.be traktningar

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, 4 and 5. And read my article on that black rat as well.

-

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.

For ikke lenge siden leste jeg en donaldhistorie der onkel Skrue kræsjlander på en avsidesliggende øy. Der faller han ned i en vulkan, og mens han ramler nedover puster han inn en mystisk gass som gjør ham mikroskopisk i størrelse.

Da han senere kommer til seg selv igjen er han omgitt av øyas lokalbefolkning, en gruppe raringer som er overbeviste om at Skrue er en Gud som har tatt steget ned fra himmelen for å hjelpe dem. Lykketiøringen, som selvsagt ikke har krympet, har for dem blitt en gigantisk lykkeamulett. Endelig har hellet snudd. Selvsagt blir Skrue etterhvert stor igjen, og han drar tilbake til Andeby. Likevel velger han sympatisk nok å komme tilbake med diverse godsaker til de små vulkanboerne.

“Våre historier er bedre enn dine?”. Yeah, right. Absurd nok er donaldhistorien basert på en virkelig historie. Og med unntak av den mystiske mikrogassen er virkeligheten kanskje enda rarere.

Les resten i min spalte hos Fri Tanke.

The first post of 2008 is simply a YouTube-video: an American anti-fascist film produced by the US authorities in the wake of WWII. Its argument is just as timely and relevant today.

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!

An anonymous Dutch blogger has written an interesting piece about me (yes, me!). In fact, I’m quite honoured. He also supplies me with some nice nicknames for myself that I can add to the list. I already have “Bolshevik”, “vile communist animal”, “Bizarro Fjordman” and several other juicy ones. Now, I can proudly call myself an “infiltrator” and a “foaming fanatic”. I really enjoy that latter one; and I am – I admit it already – fanatically opposed to fascism.

You never saw this symbol! And Belgium does not even exist!

As usual, instead of attempting to refute the points I make, the writer – calling himself bottehond – attempts to link me with radical AFA-activists, the very same activists I have noted as being “hard left with a strong tendency towards violence”, using methods that are not only counterproductive, but also “morally wrong”.

Unfortunately for bottehond, I speak Dutch – the language of his hit piece. That means I can reply to his claims that I have “infiltrated” Little Green Footballs (this is in itself, is an interesting choice of words); although I am quite sure it is a waste of time.

Bottehond has – amazingly! – discovered the most common research tool of bloggers, Google. Googling my name; or reading something written by someone else who has googled my name, he has discovered that I am a member of the ECPR Standing Group on Extremism & Democracy. This is indeed the case. In spite of not being a political researcher (I am a journalist); I have been able to join this group, which is mostly made up by researchers focusing on political extremism in a variety of forms.

Unlike what bottehond seems to believe, being a member of this group does not mean that I meet secretly with other members to discuss how we are going to beat up members of SIOE. As far as I know, I have never even met another member of the ECPR Standing Group on Extremism & Democracy; my membership simply means that I receive an email with the group’s electronic newsletter every now and then. Spooky, I know! Thankfully for those who think that the group is a congregation of anti-democratic evil-doers planning on how to infiltrate Little Green Footballs; these electronic newsletters are also available on the web. The “Book Notes and Book Reviews”-section is my favourite, lots of interesting literature to find!

Now, I would not at all mind meeting other members of this group, as many academics with interesting fields of study are members. For instance: James Babb, who is a specialist on Japanese politics, Michael Barkun, who has done research on American extremist groups such as Christian Identity, Martin Bastl, who has done research on Anarchists and extreme left-wingers in the Czech republic and Steven Leonard Jacobs, a researcher on religious fundamentalism who has also written about the Hamas’ and their use of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (here’s an article which some of the European left-wingers supporting Hamas directly or indirectly definitely should read).

When I first saw that people at the Gates of Vienna and elsewhere tried to disregard my arguments because of my membership in the ECPR Standing Group on Extremism and Democracy, I reacted by laughing. You have to be looking quite hard for a sinister conspiracy to see this is a problem.

By the way, I really hope no one discovers my connections to the Illuminati.

Bottehond continues by noting that Bart Spruyt (his real name is Marc Spruyt) is also a member of the group, and suggests that Spruyt is a friend of mine.

As a matter of fact, I have never met Marc Spruyt, and I have perhaps exchanged three or four emails with him (with this as a basis I have concluded that I have an amazing number of friends. Especially in Nigeria, since Nigerians keep emailing me all the time).

I have – however – published a few articles from blokwatch.be on eurofascism.info; as these articles were well-researched and provided valuable information. I have also used Spruyt’s books on the Vlaams Blok as sources for my research, but have treated his work no different from my many other sources; meaning that I have checked the information with other sources, and also researched them independently. Unlike bottehond, I am concerned with facts – not with fairytales. This means that I have chosen to leave out a number of claims that I have not been able to substantiate and dropped those I have found to be wrong.

I will once again deliver my oft-repeated challenge to those who criticise my works on Eurofascism: Scrutinise my sources. Research my claims yourself. Check the facts I give in my blogposts on Vlaams Belang, on Sverigedemokraterna or on any other group, individual or historical event. Actually, I would highly appreciate people doing so! But please don’t just deliver rubbish.

Towards the end of his article, bottehond notes:

The lizards have been infiltrated [by] foaming fanatics who will stab you with their “fascism”-mantra. There are also many Europeans amongst them who claim not to be very leftist. But there are also lizards who constantly feed Johnson with a tsunami of “evidence”. All of it gathered for years by the Oyvind Strommens and Bart Spruyts (sic!) of the world. I have also discovered Flemish amongst them. Well spoken [people] who defend their bridgehead in the hearts and minds of Americans.

Oh, the horror! Flemish people who are critical of Vlaams Belang! Thank God bottehond discovered ‘em for us.

Updated: Also read what Charles Johnson writes about the Super-Secret Sinister Conspiracy infiltrating LGF.

Here’s my take on the “refutations” posted on Gates of Vienna and vigilantfreedom.org, where they criticize LGF. I have already replied to what they say about myself here and discussed their claims on Sverigedemokraterna here. Furthermore, I have looked at Vlaams Belang’s connections to Holocaust denial here and on their connections to Vlaamse Jongeren Westland and “solidarism” here.

In this post I will discuss two different topics – links (as in internet links) and symbols. Neither of these topics are the most interesting in connection with Vlaams Belang or with other Eurofascist parties.

Some people see the references to racist symbolism as a smear against Filip Dewinter and his party. As I have noted before, it is not necessary to point to internet links or to the usage of symbols to “smear” Vlaams Belang; nor is it necessary to make guesses about why Dewinter keeps a Celtic Cross in his bookshelf. The interesting part about this whole discussion is not a symbol in a bookshelf, but rather the kind of distortions the Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna and others have delivered as excuses.

When it comes to smearing, Vlaams Belang is fully capable of smearing itself, since they have both feet solidly placed in the tarry substance of fascism.

In fact, they have been busy smearing themselves since the party was founded – as Vlaams Nationale Partij – in the 1970s. They have smeared themselves through their close ties with the violent private militia VMO, and through their ties with groups such as Voorpost, through their connections to Holocaust revisionists. They have smeared themselves through their racist political viewpoints, throught their support of the apartheid regime, through their extreme nationalism. They have smeared themselves by travelling to Lommel to honour fallen Flemish SS soldiers.

“I don’t think there is any question at Gates of Vienna that the British National Party and Le Pen are unacceptable”, comment at Gates of Vienna. Screenshot from BNP site.

They have also been smearing themselves through their obvious reverence for a number of Flemish Nazi collaborationists and pre-WWII Flemish fascists. They were smearing themselves when Frank Vanhecke wrote a column on their “new” party at the BNP website. They have been smearing themselves in their cooperation with people like Jean-Marie Le Pen, Alessandra Mussolini (a woman which did not inherit merely her last name from her grandfather) and Volen Siderov.

And they continue to smear themselves. Every day.

Consider what Jurgen Verstrepen, a former VB politician who is now a member of Lijst Dedecker, mentions on his own blog. There he criticises the VB president, Frank Vanhecke, for not having dealt with the “young skinheads and neo-Nazis at certain VBJ (Vlaams Blok/Belang Jongeren, my note)-parties”. Verstrepen should know. He was a guest-DJ.

I have been called a “Bolshevik”, a “notorious leftist”, “an enthusiastic apologist of Islamofascism” and a number of other interesting things for providing people with factual information on the Vlaams Belang. Does that little factlet make Verstrepen “a notorious leftist” too? Is he perhaps a “vile communist animal”, or maybe a Bizarro Dewinter, too?
Within this frame of reference links found on the Nazi site stormfront.org and symbols turning up in bookshelves and membership magazines are not that interesting. They carry little weight. They are of little importance. If have stumbled upon this web site while researching Vlaams Belang, I would recommend to you to read the articles linked to in the introduction instead. Or – even better – read them, scrutinize my sources and research my claims independently. In short: back to Google with you.

If you are – however – studying Fascist Symbology 101 you might find the below to be of some interest.

(P.S: No, the Coronado Naval Base is not Nazi-inspired – and the “New World Order” of Adolf Hitler is not going to be implemented by George W. If you think so: Please turn off your computer and go outside for some fresh air! When you have spent a few months hiking in the mountains (feel free to visit Norway), you are more than welcome to come back and read this)

Sorry about that long introduction – now let us move on to the “refutations” of CVF:

LGF wrote: “Exhibit 4: we don’t only find support for Vlaams Belang at Stormfront. Here’s a post at the ‘Pan Aryan National Front,’ with links to many VB videos.

CVF Suggested correction: “The fact that Storm Front or other anti-Semitic groups link to Vlaams Belang means nothing; Little Green Footballs itself is often linked by groups with whom I disagree. Some anti-semitic forums link to Vlaams Belang to criticize the VB support for Israel.”

As I have noted in an earlier post CVF is quite correct to conclude that a mere link on someone else’s web page hardly can be considered proof of a connection. I have found Nazis linking to the Norwegian blogger VamPus, who happens to be a member of the Norwegian Concervative party. Obviously that turns neither her nor the Conservative Party into fascists. Thus, exhibit 4 in this post by Charles is a weak argument.

And yet, it is not completely meaningless to point out that a number of fascist web sites link to Vlaams Belang and that they often speak positively – approvingly – of the party. Indeed: a considerable number of comments are written by people who say that they are voting for the party and who recommend others to do the same.

One Stormfront-user – dorien_14 – tells of his mother’s reaction when he joined the Vlaams Belang Jongeren. That same poster has (had) David Lane‘s 14 words as his signature. In another debate I found this comment:

I am still a member of Vlaams Belang and I think I will continue to be so. Most members are of the opinion that [...] creating an independent Flanders comes first, and that considering world politics such as the Jewish question comes later. I can surely understand that. When it comes to the rapprochement between Vlaams Belang and the Jews, I don’t really know what to think: on one side I start doubting that the leaders are aware of the Jewish threat and their anti-nationalist Marxist views. On the other hand I think that the rapprochement is a trick, and that they [the Jews] can be handled as soon as [Vlaams Belang] has power. But I do not know, what I do know is that most people who think like I do (being for an independent Flemish republic and also against the Jews), will vote for the Vlaams Belang, because we can only work on one of the issues (solving the Jewish problem) as we at least have power and stand strong (Flanders), and the rapprochement towards the Jews therefore seems to be a strategic choice to me.

Now, in spite of examples such as these, I consider the LGF argument as weak in this case. But if CVF believes that it means nothing when neo-Nazis endorse the views of VB politicians, they are wrong. And if they believe that it means nothing when people who themselves claim to be members of VB, Vlaams Belang Jongeren or Voorpost comment on Stormfront or similar web sites; then they are also wrong. Surely, both things mean something.

In addition, reading Dutch-language posts at forums such as Stormfront can be a bit of an eye-opener for what kind of ideas are still alive in Flanders and the Netherlands; in the outskirts and backwaters of the Eurofascist movement.

-

“Either – or” – the Sun Cross in Norwegian Nazi propaganda from WWII. The cross was the symbol of Vidkun Quisling’s fascist party Nasjonal Samling.

-

LGF wrote: “…here are some more videos on the Flemish Vlaams Belang party and Filip DeWinter, to further support my case that the European anti-Islamization movement is making a mistake by allowing this group to participate.Exhibit 1: a recent video of an interview with Filip Dewinter discussing Turkey and the EU, where we see what is undoubtedly a white power statue on his bookshelf. It’s near the end of this short clip.”

CVF Suggested correction: “The design on Filip Dewinter’s bookshelf (known as ‘Odin’s Cross’ or a ‘Celtic Cross’) is not primarily a ‘white power’ symbol. It has a long and respected history as a symbol of Flemish patriotism and of links to Irish and Brittany nationalism as well.”

The symbol placed in Filip Dewinter’s bookshelf (as seen in this video) is indeed not only a “White Power” symbol (here’s a suggestion for CVF: check out what VB politician Rob Verreycken thinks of ‘White Power’). It is a Celtic cross, and variants of Celtic crosses are found in cemetaries, in churches and even in quilting and cross stitching patterns. It carries a wide range of meanings and in some cases carry no meaning at all.

That is equally true for the Solar Cross in the poster above. It is also true for the swastika.

And yet, in the above picture the Solar Cross carries an obvious political connotation. Just like the swastika carries an obvious political connotation on the t-shirt of this woman.

There is a difference between the swastika as a Hindu religious symbol and the swastika as a Nazi symbol. There is also a difference between the Celtic Cross as a cultural symbol and the Celtic Cross as a political symbol. In the context of modern-day European politics the very specific stylized version of the Celtic Cross found on Dewinter’s bookshelf carry very specific connotations. It is, indeed, primarily a symbol of “White Power”, or – to be more precise – of extreme ethnic nationalism. It is important to note that this is not the same symbol as the “heldenhuldezerkje”-symbol found at the Ijzertoren and elsewhere – in spite of the sorry attempts made at some blogs to claim otherwise.

In Flemish use the stylized Celtic Cross which is today used by for instance stormfront.org, also has a much more specific history. Amongst the groups that have used it is the radical nationalist student group NJSV – founded as Vlaamse Scholieren Aktie Groep in Brugge in 1976, by Paul Beheyt, Willy Vincke and Filip Dewinter.

“Leftist scum should stay at home, because… NJSV”. NSJV fighting for freedom-of-speech in their very own way. This poster is probably from the 1990s.

NJSV publication from the early days. Same symbol. Note that the responsible publisher is F. Dewinter.

This stylized version of the Celtic Cross is today used by a wide range of racist groups around the world. This is also the reason it is found in a presentation of “Unauthorized and/or inappropriate tattoos” (PPT format) at this Marine Corps web site. Let me quote the US military – a vile communist source, I am sure:

• This is one of the most popular tattoos or symbols for neo-nazi and white supremacist groups.
• Known as Odin’s Cross (Celtic in origin) and represents international white pride.
• Popularized by the KKK in the 1920’s.
• The display of this symbol caused a race riot in North Carolina in 1971.

In the “refutations” of CVF there is also included a point on “the black rat”, where the CVF excuses are even more ludicrous than in regards to the Celtic Cross.

LGF wrote: “So, since I want to try to avoid that astonishingly authentic-appearing Belgian government disinformation, let’s go directly to the source this time, with some images from the Vlaams Belang youth magazine (published online as PDF files).”Frequently appearing in this magazine is De Striprubriek, a column about comic strips. The logo for this column is a rat with a fountain pen.And a lovely White Nationalist Odin’s Cross armband.”

CVF Suggested correction: “The Black Rat is a widespread symbol of youthful rebellion, used in both Flanders and Wallonia by groups of varying political persuasions. As I acknowledged earlier, the Celtic Cross or Odin’s Cross is not primarily a ‘white power’ symbol in Flanders, but rather a symbol for separatism and independence. This fact, plus the absence of any other evidence supporting such a connotation for the cartoon, leads me to conclude that there is no basis for referring to it as a ‘white power rat’.”

“A widespread symbol of youthful rebellion?”. This is rubbish. I will not discuss the black rat in detail here – simply because I had already posted an article on that topic well before the CFV “refutations” came along. Obviously, their daring researchers (who checked out my web site without discovering that my book on Eurofascism is already for sale – see large banner above) did not discover this article. Let me be an arrogant “Bolshevik” and quote myself:

Gates of Vienna tries – of course – to turn those black rats found in the VBJ publications and on the web site of Vlaamse Jongeren Westland into a cute (but evil) cartoon rat.The rats found in these publications are however not the rats of Macherot, they are the rats of Marchal. And the funny thing is that GoV itself quotes VJWestland’s web site, which indirectly states the very same thing.

Here’s my take on the “refutations” posted on Gates of Vienna and vigilantfreedom.org, where they criticize LGF. I have already replied to what they say about myself here and discussed their claims on Sverigedemokraterna here. Furthermore, I have looked at Vlaams Belang’s connections to Holocaust denial here.

Now, for the next “refutation” on the list:

LGF wrote: “Exhibit 2: a White Power flag at a Vlaams Belang rally this month. The other flags are Flemish nationalist flags, and the one partly visible behind the White Power flag is typically used by Vlaams Belang.”

CVF suggested correction: “When I referred to event with the photograph of the flag as a ‘Vlaams Belang rally’, I was mistaken. The event in question was in fact a VJW (Youth of West Flanders) rally in Brugge. VJW is an entirely separate organization and has nothing whatsoever to do with Vlaams Belang.”

Today: still Anarchy! Tomorrow: the New Order!

Vlaamse Jongeren Westland-poster.

In this post I will be addressing the connections to Vlaamse Jongeren Westland, a miniscule Flemish group of “solidarists”. To do so, it is – however – necessary to discuss some history. It might be worth starting with a comment made at the Brussels Journal, and also quoted at the socalled Center for Vigilant Freedom:

Solidarism is a kind of socialism popular with some fringe groups on the right — sadly still also with some in the Vlaams Belang, but in a way similar to the economic thought of the average Christian-democrat. But these guys are something else: virulently anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Israel et cetera. So they’re not even really rightwing, at least not in any way Americans would understand the term.

Parts of that comment is very true. VJW is doubtlessly an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic organisation. As a “solidarist” organisation it is also critical of capitalism; the Vlaams Belang-members who consider themselves solidarist can hardly be considered as market liberalists either! Parts of the comment is more disputable, but a discussion of whether “solidarism” is a variant of “socialism” or not is hardly an exercise worth spending time on.

Instead, let us go back to an earlier solidarist movement, Joris Van Severen‘s party Verdinaso. The full name of that pre-WWII political group was Verbond der Dietse Nationaal-Solidaristen, the Union of Diets National-Solidarists. Its ideology was heavily inspired by fascism, and combined nationalism, anti-Semitism and “national-solidarism”, a variant of corporatism.

Verdinaso’s political programme from 1931 tells us how all the organs of the “Dietsch people” must be connected with each other “in harmonic work founded on organic solidarity”, with a state fully corresponding to this “organic-solidaristic” understanding of society, and led by “a responsible personality” who can inspire the necessary force to “protect and forward the common good of the Dietsch nation”.

This healthier Dietsch nation is to be protected “against her enemies, internal and external”, which include “the foreigners; which try to hurt the integrity and health of the nation, at this time mostly the French, the Walloons and the Franskiljons (French-speaking Flemish, my note – compare with the discussion here)”, “the powers which want to control the Nation to their own benefit: Capital and the Freemasons” and “the powers undermining or trying to tear apart the nation: liberalism, the party system, Marxism and class strife-propaganda: the materialist view of life in all its’ expressions”.

It’s quite a mouthful.

Then consider what Ortwin Depoortere – a Vlaams Belang-parliamentarian- noted in the Vlaams Belang magazine of February 2005, an interview still available in PDF-format on his own web site:

If he had still been alive, I would really like to discuss ideas with Joris van Severen, leader of the Verdinaso. In my eyes, he was the largest visionary that the Flemish movement has ever known. I have also known Jef Francois (his faithful wingman) personally, who even at the end of his life spoke with passion about “his leader”. Apart from the aspect of militarism of his time (which was also present in Leftist movements – historians much too often try to obfusciate this), he was far ahead of his time. He did not only bring all groups and levels together around one ideology, he also gave his followers a brave attitude and style. Sobriety, faithfulness, discipline, order and neatness should not be bad today either, I consider.

Were Di-propaganda from 1983. Were Di was a Flemish nationalist think-tank of sorts, and was close to Vlaams Blok, today’s Vlaams Belang.

The ideas of Solidarism where not merely the ideas of Verdinaso, but where also central to the early Vlaams Blok. The political fundament of the Blok (Grondbegijnselen) actually rested on three pillars. One of them was “Solidarisme”. The political platform included this statement (here from the version used from 1990-2004, available in full here):

As a solidaristic party the Vlaams Blok is demanding the renaissance of the rechtsstaat against the dictatorship of parties, lobbying groups and persons. As a solidaristic party, the Vlaams Blok opposes the Liberalist capitalism of exploitation and the Marxist and Communist systems of force.

The programma of Vlaams Belang (Vlaams Blok v.2.0beta) does not contain any references to “solidarisme”, but I consider the long history of this variant of corporatism is necessary when we consider the relationship between Vlaams Belang and Vlaamse Jongeren Westland. Let us repeat what LGF stated, and what CVF demands as a correction, because in this case – they both are wrong.

LGF wrote: “Exhibit 2: a White Power flag at a Vlaams Belang rally this month. The other flags are Flemish nationalist flags, and the one partly visible behind the White Power flag is typically used by Vlaams Belang.”

CVF suggested correction: “When I referred to event with the photograph of the flag as a ‘Vlaams Belang rally’, I was mistaken. The event in question was in fact a VJW (Youth of West Flanders) rally in Brugge. VJW is an entirely separate organization and has nothing whatsoever to do with Vlaams Belang.”

The picture is most likely not taken at a Vlaams Belang rally, but also not at a VJW-event. Rather, what the picture shows is an attempt by these radical Flemish nationalists to hijack an event in connection with the Flemish National Day, 11. July, for their own purposes. Little Green Footballs and Charles Johnson was, therefore wrong.

But so is CVF. They claim that VJW is an entirely separate organisation from Vlaams Belang – which is correct – and that it has “nothing whatsoever to do with Vlaams Belang”, which is – well – false.

As noted here, Pieter van Damme is one of the dots connecting the two organisations. Van Damme, who allegedly has been an active internet poster under the nick “Gunerius” (posting some really nasty stuff), has played a central role in this “solidarist” organisation. At the same time, he was a member of the regional board of VB in Bruges. But wait, there’s more.

According to former VB-member Marleen Denecker, who is quoted at blokwatch.be, Dieter van Parys, another VB-politician, is also a member of Vlaamse Jongeren Westland.

In an interview with Leftist daily De Morgen he denies being a member but admits having led a song event (!) arranged by them. He also notes that “you [de Morgen] write that VJW is neo-Nazi, they say that is not true”. In their article, De Morgen points out that they have pictures from the event where it is obvious that “notorious members of Blood & Honour” also took part in the event, “people that are well-known in the extreme-right scene of Brugge”.

VJ Westland poster advertising for another event. Note the name of the Dutch band Standrecht.

The group Vlaamse Jongeren Westland has also been demonstrating together with a number of groups close to Vlaams Belang, including NSV, KVHV-Gent, TAK and Voorpost. On this VJW-blog, Björn Roose, a VB-employee and a spokesman for Voorpost – a group involving a number of VB politicians – turns up to “protest”, because the blog had failed to mention that Voorpost was also taking part in a demonstration against the French-speaking politician together with them.

The mistake was soon corrected.

VJW has “nothing whatsoever” to do with Vlaams Belang? Bullshit.

Here’s my take on the “refutations” posted on Gates of Vienna and vigilantfreedom.org, where they criticize LGF. I have already replied to what they say about myself here and discussed their claims on Sverigedemokraterna here.

Let’s move on to the next point:

LGF wrote: “It’s important to note that not all the people who are hitching a ride on the anti-Islamization movement are doing it for honorable reasons. There are serious issues around the participation of Filip Dewinter (of the ultra-nationalist Vlaams Belang party, successor to Vlaams Blok).”

CVF suggested correction: “It is not dishonorable for the Flemish citizens to organize politically against the Islamisation of their own cities. In fact, those real-life political efforts may be the real anti-Islamisation movement, on which bloggers are hitching a ride.”

Michael van der Galien has written a piece which mostly focuses on the “Hitler-groet”.Now, I disagree with him in the importance of Maria van Berlangeer’s arm gesture, which may very well be understood as something else than a Nazi gesture (indeed, the French-speaking, Christian Democratic mayor of Jette – the municipality in Brussels were this took place – has stated that the attacks on van Berlanger were unfair and that she did not bring out such a greeting). The implications of Filip Dewinter’s arm gesture and his references to the Roman greeting are much more worrisome.

Why do I mention this? The reason is simple. The reason I’m highly critical to Vlaams Belang is not an arm gesture. Also, I do not define Vlaams Belang as a Eurofascist party because of symbols such as the Celtic cross, eventhough these symbols in a Belgian context are difficult to interpret as anything else than a racist symbol. The reason I am calling them a Eurofascist party is:

- Their political past, which includes close contact with various post-WWII fascist groups, close contact with an eventually outlawed private militia (many of today’s VB politicians were part of this militia), VMO. This group was behind a number of violent attacks on immigrants, leftists and French-speakers.

- Recent and present connections to a range of radical groups, including Voorpost (feel free to read the whole debate under the post linked to here, it contains several eye-openers), Vlaamse Jongeren Mechelen, Vlaamse Jongeren Dilbeek, the Dutch NieuwRechts (Michiel Smit´s party), etc.

 

Michiel Smit partying.

 

- I’ll have my cake and eat it too. Smit and Dewinter.

Here’s what one VB politician, Rob Verreycken, wrote on his own web site (quoted by Björn Roose, no longer available on Verreycken’s own blog, which seems to be moved or defunct).

In this case De Morgen starts with claim A, that I am good friend with the Dutch politician Michiel Smit. This is correct; Michiel is a brave man which was once chosen by Pim Fortuyn for his list. Michiel also visits right-wing youths that hang up “white power” flags; and I do not have a problem with that.

White Power is a slogan which means “witte kracht” (ØS note: This is a direct translation to Dutch), it is the opposite of Black Power in the United States. It is no movement or association, and the slogan is used by many different kinds of youth groups, and surely in the Netherlands where extreme-left terrorism prevents the creation of a large right-wing party.

De Morgen then puts forward claim B: There are groups of neo-nazis which also use the slogans and the symbols of White Power. Yes, this is sadly true, and I don’t have anything good to say about these groups. I do not share their nostalgia for the Nazi ideology, I do not share their anti-Semitism, nor do I share their anti-US and anti-NATO sentiments. Everyone who knows me are aware of this, and Michiel Smit si – as far as I know on the same line.

No further comments needed.

Why do I begin my second look at the “refutations” of Vigilant Freedom by noting these things? Simple. They have not addressed the central issues. And the central issue in this whole ruckus is this:

If you sleep with dogs, don’t feign surprise when you’re bitten by fleas!

That is what Michael van der Gelien notes as well, and this part of his article is well-worth repeating:

Some American bloggers like Charles seems to understand this and try to distance themselves from people like these European bigots. On the other hand, there are also, still, American conservatives out there who don’t seem to realize just who they’re dealing with and who have no problem talking to Vlaams Belang and its supporters.

That’s a problem. Both for American and European conservatives. Why? Because once American conservatives are branded fascist enablers it’ll be very difficult for European conservatives to work with them on any number of issues.

While certainly not being “a Bolshevik” and “a vile communist animal”, as I recent hatemail I received claimed (the charming writer also added that I was the “ultimate trash of humanity”), I am also absolutely not a conservative; I’m more of a centrist radical .

If American conservatives want to get poop in their face through cooperating with Eurofascists, they should feel free to. But it will definitely not be beneficial for them to walk around covered in poop. The only ones who will benefit from such a union are the Eurofascists.

Therefore, to conclude in regards to the non-refutation given by CVF here (what are they actually refuting? Nothing whatsoever): You want to march together with fascists? Fine. March together with fascists. But don’t expect that no one will notice.

Next one:

LGF wrote: “Exhibit 1: in 2005, Vlaams Belang MPs shunned a resolution condemning the Nazi death camps.”

CVF suggested correction: “Vlaams Belang voted against the 2005 EU Parliament Holocaust Resolution because its wording contained support for an EU bill that would criminalize criticism of Islam. Vlaams Belang and the Flemish Parliament passed a resolution the following day commemorating the Holocaust, and an open letter to the Jewish community explaining the EU Parliament vote. Vlaams Belang has taken a strong stance on behalf of Israel and is the most pro-Israel party in Belgium.”

The relevant EU parliament resolution can be found here. Please do read it. The EU bill referred to by the CVF is this one. Read that one as well.

It is obvious that it can be explained that the Vlaams Belang voted against this resolution. The backdrop of the anti-racist legislation mentioned above is not without importance. There, CVF is entirely correct! Still, it is hardly true that the law would criminalize criticism of Islam – that is a distortion. To underscore that point, note that the suggested legislation differs little from the paragraph in the Danish Penal Law regulating racism. Denmark is hardly a country without criticism of Islam.

But there is another backdrop here, too; and this backdrop explains why there were many reactions in Belgium on Vlaams Belang’s refusal to support this resolution. It has to do with Holocaust denial – the claim that the genocide of Jews during WWII did not occur in the manner or to the extent which has been proven an endless number of times.

And here’s the deal: Vlaams Belang (the renamed Vlaams Blok) has a bit of an ugly track record when it comes to Holocaust denial, in spite of voting for the approval of the Belgian Anti-Negationism Act.

One thing is the fact that Karel Dillen, one of the founders of the party, translated “Nuremberg ou la terre promise” – a Holocaust denial classic – into Dutch in the fifties; and then kept in contact with its’ author, the self-declared fascist Maurice Bardeche for many years (a picture of the two of them together is found here).

Another thing is that several Vlaams Blokkers have expressed views very close to Holocaust denialism, including Roeland Raes, the then Vice President of the party. He said this on Dutch TV in 2001:

Het is systematisch gebeurd dat ze vervolgd zijn, dat ze weggesleept zijn, maar of het systematisch was of of het gepland was dat ze allemaal zouden omkomen tijdens de oorlog, dat is een andere kwestie.

My translation:

The Jews were systematically persecuted, pulled away, but whether it was systematically planned that they were all to die during the war, that is another question.

Roeland Raes has been working with a number of publications throughout his political career.

In the 1970s he worked on Haro, together with Siegfried Verbeke – who is, today, one of the leading Holocaust denialists world-wide – and Xavier Buisseret – who later was a member of parliament for VB. In fall 1979 the magazine had a special issue posing the question “Holocaust… for how long?”, put together by Verbeke, but with Buisseret as publisher. The magazine was filled with denialist articles.

In another magazine where he contributed, Dietsland-Europa, Raes noted the following about the Haro issue:

A revisionist work was necessary for our language-region, as well. This is surely true since scheming business people come with classic arguments such as the disappeared six million Jews through the holocaust fraud.

And:

[It is] a fitting answer anti-German and anti-rightwing agitation inspired by Leftists and Israeli circles.

It is also worth noting that VMO, where Xavier Buisseret was a central figure, published a Dutch translation of Richard Harwood‘s “Did Six Million Really Die?”.

This, too, is part of the political backdrop which must be considered when discussing Vlaams Belang. I do not think the Center for Vigilant Freedom is that vigilant, at all.

Here’s my take on the “refutations” posted on Gates of Vienna and vigilantfreedom.org, where they criticize LGF. I have already replied to what they say about myself here (but do check out this one as well). In these posts I will take a closer look at each of their refutations, and I will also provide some links so people can continue research themselves.

I will begin with discussing the Sweden Democrats, and here’s the first “refutation” of CVF.

LGF wrote: “As for the other party I identified as problematic for the anti-jihad movement in this post, Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats), the web site expo.se has a gallery of photos of their links to neo-Nazis, including this image from 1996:” [photo of a woman in a Nazi-type uniform]”If you research these groups, it’s impossible to miss these disturbing connections.”

CVF Suggested correction: “The assertion that the photograph of Tina Hallgren Bengtsson in a Nazi uniform was taken at a Sverigedemokraterna rally is untrue. At the time this photograph was taken, Ms. Bengtsson had already left the Sweden Democrats, and joined the Nationalsocialistisk Front (NSF), i.e. the Nazi Party. The event depicted in the photograph is most likely an NSF rally. Sweden Democrats continued to purge the party of other members with neo-Nazi sympathies, with a clean break by 2000.”

It is very likely correct that Bengtsson had left the party at the time the picture was taken. However, it is worth noting that Bengtsson, who later left the racist movement entirely, was interviewed in the Swedish daily Aftonbladet on 2. December 1999 – in connection with a series of articles that newspaper ran on the threats to democracy posed by fascist groups.

Here’s the original Swedish text on Bengtsson from that article:

Tina Hallgren Bengtsson, 35, fick ett av sverigedemokraternas fem kommunala mandat vid valet 1994.
Samtidigt som hon satt som ledamot för sverigedemokraterna i Höörs kommunfullmäktige aktiverade hon sig i nazistorganisationen Nationalsocialistisk front.
– Det fungerar som ett nätverk för de här grupperna.
– Man träffar samma personer här och där. Man hoppar lite hit och dit, säger hon till Aftonbladet.
Hon deltog bland annat när Nationalsocialistisk front firade minnet av Adolf Hitler utanför Karlskrona 1997.
– Jag vill inte säga att jag var aktiv i Nationalsocialistisk front. Jag var mest inne och nosade lite på det där.
Hon påpekar att hon inte har haft med den nazistiska organisationen att göra på över ett år.
– Jag har börjat om på nytt. Jag väntar barn vilken dag som helst.

In my translation:

Tina Hallgren Bengtsson, 35, was one of five municipal representatives elected for the Sweden Democrats in 1994. At the same time as she was a member in the local council of Höör for the Sweden Democrats, she was also active in the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistk front (NSF, as mentioned by the CVF).
– It works like a network for these groups.
– You meet the same people here and there. You jump a bit from one to the other, she says to Aftonbladet.
She took part in – amongst other event – the Nationalsocialistisk Front celebration of Adolf Hitler’s memory outside Karlskrona 1997.
– I would not say that I was active in Nationalsocialistisk front. I was mostly there sniffing it for a bit.
She points out that she has not had anything to do with the Nazi organization for over a year. – I have started all over. I will give birth any time.

Other former SD members have also pointed to the connections of SD and various racist groups, also well after year 2000.

That said, it is important to note that the Sweden Democratic party has moderated considerably since the 1990s, illustrating both the moderating power of democracy and the lacking saleability of Eurofascist thinking in Sweden. A number of people have been purged from the party for various reasons, ties with Nazi organisations and personal conflicts included. The extremist wing of the party, which was not without influence only a few years ago, have left for a party which is clearly Eurofascist, Nationaldemokraterna. This is a party with obvious connections to Nick Griffin (BNP), David Duke and other prominent modern-day fascists.

It is worth noting that Nationaldemokraterna has been described as a Nazi group even by the Sweden Democrats. The split took place in 2001, one year after the “clean break” mentioned by CVF.

LGF wrote: “I received an email from Ted Ekeroth, an active politician in the Sweden Democrats, asking me to reconsider my opinion about his party.”If you haven’t noticed yet, I have serious misgivings about both Vlaams Belang and Sverigedemokraterna.”Ekeroth included the following documents with his email, and because I have an enormous respect for the group intelligence of the lizard army, and because I’m trying to be fair even while the hackles rise on the back of my neck, I’m putting them online and inviting comments. (And of course, I’ll form my own opinions as well.)”

CVF Suggested correction: “The Sweden Democrats of today have made a clean break with the past. The leadership of the party is all changed, and problematic members have been expelled. There are no disturbing connections to be found today. The standards should be no different for the Sweden Democrats than for all the other Swedish parties, all of which have disturbing Nazi connections in the past.”

The claim repeated by CVF is the classical defense of Sweden Democrats. It is also blatantly dishonest. I challenge anyone to prove “disturbing Nazi connections” found in the last 15 years in any other Swedish party of some size (Nationaldemokraterna and a number of even smaller grouplets are thus excluded). To claim that all Swedish parties have connections comparable of those of SD is a very daring claim. Anyone who is willing to take the challenge could start with the Swedish Liberal People’s Party.

While it is fully possible that you will find individuals in other parties with such ties in the past; in SD you will find that such discoveries is a trend which goes back since the party was founded in the 1980s. In fact the party’s heritage can be traced to Bevara Sverige Svensk, a group whose activists for instance translated Derek Holland’s “Political Soldier” into Swedish.

Applying the same standards to SD as to other Swedish parties consequently means that the party should be met with a great deal of scepticism.

In Sverigedemokraterna there are numerous examples of connections to fascist – and in some cases Nazi – groups to be found. A number of rather well-documented examples are found in the English wikipedia entry on the party. Some more information on both SD and ND can be found in this post.

I have concluded with the following in my book:

It would be a lie to say that all of Sverigedemokraternas members and activists are fascists. In fact, the party calls itself both anti-Marxist and anti-Nazist, and although words like that are often meaningless, a number of more radical members have either left or been excluded from the party. At the same time it would be a lie to say that the party has no connections – historical and present-day – to openly fascist organisations.

One disturbing example of thinking still present in the SD, is Björn Söders recent attack on gays. A quick translation from Swedish:

Some years ago I wrote an article on the moral decay in Sweden based on an event the mass media and parliamentary politicians push on for, Stockholm Pride, where gays, bisexuals and transsexual people are seen both half- and completely naked. Pride is revered amongst the politically correct elite which – together with the quickly advancing and increasingly influential gay lobby – try to normalise their sexual deviance.

And:

Who says that this socalled normalisation will end with gays, bis and transsexuals being “normalised”? Why not people who have sex with animals or pedophiles?

And:

The Swedish society is in total decay. The pendulum has gone all the way. What is not normal is suddenly seen as normal. The morals in society are gone. The question is whether the bottom has not been reached and whether the pendulum does not have to start going in the other direction again. Sweden needs a moral rearmament to once again become a healthy society.

It is also worth noting that the party remains deeply nationalist. In their program, the party notes:

The most important factor in creating a society in safety, harmony and solidarity is the common identity, which presupposes a high degree of ethnic and cultural homogeneity in the population. Therefore, the principles of nationalism – the principles of one state, one nation (in an obvious ethnic sense of the word, my note) – is fundamental to the politics of the Sweden Democrats.

This leads to the party opposing any religious building in an architectural style foreign to “Swedish building tradition”. Ritual slaughter is also to be banned, and importing meat products from animals ritually slaughtered is also to be illegal. For Jewish readers, it might also be interesting to note that the party wants to ban circumcision of boys under the age of 18. All this can be found in their programme on “immigration politics” – which is available in Swedish here.

This is getting good.

In addition to being the Bizarro Fjordman and “an enthusiastic apologist of Islamofascism” I am not only a “notorious leftist“, I am also “a raving lunatic” which Charles Johnson uses because – note this one – “he can’t come up with a reasoned defense”.

Did I mention my personal favourite? I am also “a red-green asshole”.

Ah, the delights of the blogosphere. Always intelligent reasoning. Always eloquent writing. Always a reasonable discussion based on factual information.And still – there’s not a soul who has challenged the facts I have presented about the Vlaams Belang or about the Eurofascist movement in general.

Except Björn Roose of Vlaams Belang and Voorpost, of course, who actually has the decency to discuss with me and to point out that he wants the “stolen territories” taken back from France (and from Wallonia) (see below exchange), and further to underscore that Olivier Maingain is actually a Flemish who has ceased to be a Flemish, as he is a foreign agent, guilty of high treason.