Brussels 9/11: the end of free speech

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Tuesday, 18 September 2007 20:11.

Those who frequently roam the streets of Brussels can remember hardly a day on which there isn’t a demonstration for or against something outside one of the European offices.  We’ve even had the garbage men whose brooms were the wrong size.  On average, five hundred demos a year are approved in the European Union capital, approximately two per working-day.

As one would expect of a liberal democracy, only about once a year is a demo actually forbidden, and then only where the direct incitement of a felony is involved,  and by felony I mean murder, child abuse or genocide.  Otherwise, the most bizarre and absurd demos are routinely permitted.

Nevertheless, Brussels mayor Freddy Thielemans forbade a demo for the 11th of this month, the anniversary of the attacks on New York and Washington.  The demo, which included a minute’s silence for the victims of 9/11, had been announced as a protest against the on-going Islamicisation of Europe, and specifically against the introduction of Shariah law.  It’s not an unpopular cause in Brussels – or in many other places.  The ban didn’t go unnoticed (in German) in Europe and in America.  Nor did the fact that, embarrassingly for mayor Thielemans, only two days earlier a demo by United for Truth, an organisation that claims that the US government and Mossad were behind the 9/11 attacks, had been permitted.

As political symbolism it’s a disaster, of course.  In the “capital of Europe” the citizens of the European Union are prohibited from expressing concerns almost any sane man would consider valid, and with which he would probably be sympathetic.  The picture of an utterly ruthless and detached autocracy emerges, and it is not attractive.

For his part, Thielemans explains his behaviour by raising the possibility that Muslims will feel insulted and could become violent, from which all manner of excess might ensue.  And in addition, adds the mayor, the organisers of the forbidden demo don’t believe in “the compatibility of Islam and democracy”.

So that’s it.  To be allowed to demonstrate in the capital of Europe we Europeans must demonstrate the correct belief “in the compatibility of Islam and democracy” ... along with a profound inability to notice the lack of similar beliefs in Saudi Arabia or Iran, I suppose.  At least then we couldn’t be accused of being racists and xenophobes, both charges he brought against the demo organisers.

The background to the scandal is straightforward: Brussels has acquired such an extensive Muslim population that Flemish policemen who don’t have an extensive “immigration background” are given strict instructions not to eat or smoke in public during Ramadan.  Right in Thielemans back yard, the very “Islamicisation of Europe” that the demonstration organisers sought to protest is advancing steadily.  It’s a tragedy of which MR readers will know many other examples.

What’s in it for Thielemans, of course, is that by banning the 9/11 demonstration he can strengthen his political base among Brussels’ Muslims.  But to his Flemish voters he proves what he denies: that a reaction to the Islamicisation of Europe could be neither racist nor xenophobic, but justified.

But there is more.  The whole thing reminds us of that other “forbidden” demo in Brussels ... the one against the Danish Cartoons, when thousands of Muslims marched through the streets of Brussels, proclaiming their hatred of the West.  That time mayor Thielemans turned a blind eye to the ignoring of the ban, and the police were ordered to remain in the barracks.

For a time it seemed that something similar might be arranged for the 9/11 demonstration.  But it turned out to be a police trap. - a fact which can be verified via this rvt-television (the official Flemish broadcast) news report.  Although the 9/11 demo remained forbidden, the police stated in advance that the demo would be “tolerated” if there would be no violence and if the demonstrators would simply stand still, and did not try to march through the streets of Brussels.

Then this happened at Schuman Square, in the shadow of the European parliament (video in Dutch).  Meanwhile, mayor Thielemans had summoned police reinforcements from the city of Liege in French-speaking Wallonia.  By the way, Liège’s nickname is the “ardent city”.  This is no accident.

As you can see, the interviews by Frank Vanhecke, Vlaams Belang president and MEP, and by Filip Dewinter presiding MFP, were suddenly and brutally interrupted by the same French-speaking police from Liège.  And while they were arresting the VB leaders these ardent enforcers of the law shouted “dirty Flemings” (“sales flamingants”) at their prisoners.  More creepy details can be read in the Washington times . The injuries have been recorded on medical certificates.

I will take a moment now to address the friction perceived between SIOE and Vlaams Belang.  In my opinion, and speaking as a non-Vlaams Belang member, but a Fleming and a free speech activist the call from SIOE for VB not to fly the flag of the Flemish nation, while all other European demonstrators apparently were allowed to fly their own national flags, seems discriminatory to me.  Indeed, it’s not the fault of the Flemish that in Brussels the flying of the flag of the Flemish nation is more sensitive than elsewhere, and that the Muslim’s pejorative name for a fellow-Muslim who holds down a normal job instead of living off a mix of social benefits and “black economy” labour is “a Fleming”.

A more specific assessment of mayor Thielemans’ justification for his ban on the 9/11 demo was published by the Wall Street Journal - full text below.  In addition, it should be understood that the mayor “mislaid” the original SIOE application, written in English, for the 9/11 demo in Brussels.  Under Belgian law the language of the first document prevails, and determines the future route of actions through the legal process.  With SIOE, the case could easily be “directed” to the French-speaking chamber of the Belgian State Council, instead of the Dutch-speaking chamber.  This was taken to be detrimental to the English-speaking proponents’ case for free-speech, and they lost their bid to overrule the mayor’s decision.

‘The Trial’ in Brussels

04-09-2007 - Editorial - Wall street journal

Belgian justice brings to mind a certain novel by Kafka. Last month the mayor of Brussels banned a demonstration planned for September 11 under the slogan of “Stop the Islamization of Europe.” An administrative court upheld that decision last week. So much for free speech and freedom of assembly in Europe’s capital.

The organizers from Germany, Britain and Denmark had expected about 20,000 people from all over the Continent to protest what they called the “creeping” introduction of Shariah law into their societies. The rally was supposed to end with a minute of silence for the victims of the terror attacks on the U.S. six years ago.

True, the organizers’ goal of “preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe” and their claims that Islam is incompatible with democracy are provocative. But the question is not whether one agrees with the message but whether the message is within the bounds of protected speech, which it clearly is.

Mayor Freddy Thielemans, while making no secret of his dislike for the organizers’ political views, says his decision was based entirely on security concerns. The police, he says, had warned him of a possible breach of peace.

But Mr. Thielemans isn’t worried that the organizers or their followers would turn violent. Instead, he fears that some Muslims and, in his words, “democrats” and “peace activists” might stage counterprotests on that symbolic day and perhaps clash with any racists who might infiltrate the demonstration. In other words, the mayor decided to ban an otherwise legitimate rally for fear of possible violence by people who are not linked to the demonstrators.

On their Web site, the rally organizers reject any association with racists and violent groups and called on the police to take care of potential troublemakers. It is the police’s job, after all, to maintain law and order, which includes the right to peaceful demonstrations. Otherwise, extremists, be they skinheads, radical Muslims or “peace activists,” could prevent any demonstration they disagreed with by the simple expedient of announcing they planned to show up.

Late Wednesday the administrative court in Brussels refused to overrule the mayor. It said the plaintiffs had failed to show “irreparable damage,” such as those that result from contractual obligations. The court also suggested the demonstration could perhaps be held another day—a rather speculative remedy as the mayor has not said he would allow such a rally on a different date. Besides, the organizers chose September 11 for its historic significance.

The judges overlooked that if law-abiding citizens are not allowed to express their opinions on any given day, it causes irreparable damage to the plaintiffs’ rights and Belgium’s democracy. Perhaps the civil court to which the organizers have appealed will give more weight to these arguments at tomorrow’s hearing.

For those who are interested, the original speeches of the forbidden Brussels demo can be read at the Stop the Islamisation of Europe site (SIOE) (Posted on September 16th, 2007).



Posted by John on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:40 | #

The Muslims in Europe are the cat’s paws.


Posted by SIOEBelgium on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:11 | #

I share your concerns about banning flemish flags , a lot is to be explained through inadequate knowledge of the Belgian status quo. And by thinking that the flag represents a political fraction rather than a people.

We would offcourse not make the same mistake twice…

Thanks for your article,


Posted by Matra on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:29 | #

Here is an interview about the situation with Moroccans in Belgium.


Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:31 | #


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:42 | #

Picture below from the good-natured scoffing Flemish weekly ‘t Pallieterke,

The one in the incoming aircraft is Brussels mayor Thielemans of the Parti Socialiste.
The “tower” on the left is Mr. Frank Vanhecke and the right one is Mr. Dewinter.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:08 | #


In the news today: Glenn Audenaert, director of the federal police in Brussels says that there are (at least) 1,000 “holy war veterans” in Belgium, see


Posted by Matra on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:37 | #

I passed through Brussels last winter and noticed quite a few Arabs working at the airport. Ditto Charles De Gaulle in Paris.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:16 | #


to geographically localize the Muslims in Brussels, look at the map with the income distribution in Belgium: 
The darker, the richer people are. In the centre is Brussels. The (north-)west of Brussels + downtown is light coloured: this is Muslim country, dangerous and expanding. To a large extend Brussels’ Muslim country lays at the west of the Canal of Charleroi, which is situated north-south alongside the little river Zenne (completely in pipes).  The rich east side of Brussels is on a hill at the other side of the canal.

If outside the rush hour you would take the underground in the Muslim part of the city and they would recognize you as an American or British, then something like this might happen to you:

By the way, geographically, it is the opposite in Paris. In Paris the east is Muslim country, while in Brussels, such as said, it is the (north-)west.


Posted by Matra on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:10 | #

When I stayed a weekend in Brussels a couple of years ago I went on a bus tour of the city. There were several areas that were almost entirely made up of brown people, presumably Muslims. Yet those areas still had bars and beer advertisements. The brown youths who arrived in groups in the city centre at night were often carrying cans of Jupiler beer. I thought they took their religion more seriously.


Posted by Proofreader on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:26 | #

“Flamand” (Flemish), as a derogatory term is (or used to be) widespread in the French-speaking areas. It was roughly equivalent to “peasant, bumpkin,  boor (the latter form shares of course a common origin with Flemish “boer)”.
Or so I´m told by my Belgian acquaintances.

I had no idea Moroccans in Belgium used “Flamand” the way North Africans in France derogatively call the natives “Gaulois”(Gauls). Or do I get it wrong?

Anyway, there´s a lot of misdirected animosity between Walloons and Flemings, which seems to go both ways. I suspect there´s a Flemish equivalent for “Flamingant”, isn´t there? LOL! If only they could use that energy to expel all of those disgusting foreigners from Belgium!

Luckily, Wallonia seems to be largely free of the Muslim invasion, unlike Brusssels and Flanders. Am I correct as to the situation there?


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 03:53 | #


For a professional description of the situation in Brussels see the article:
“Brussels commune ‘fundamentalist recruiting ground’ says journalist”

About the suppression of alcohol, I only have information about Antwerp (Borgerhout), see
I suppose the same to happen in certain parts of Brussels.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:41 | #


Indeed, Moroccans in Brussels use “Flamand” the way North Africans in France derogatively call the natives “Gaulois”(Gauls).

The origin of this abuse probably is that “Flamand” (Flemish), as a derogatory term, used to be widespread in the French-speaking areas. And actually? Because of the Muslims overrunning the French-speaking schools in Brussels, making a mess out of them, most French-speakers have no other choice as to send their children to a Flemish (Dutch)-speaking quality school. This new situation, among those French-speaking Belgians, possibly may have tempered their original animosity towards the Flemish and their Dutch language. BTW, among the Flemish, meanwhile English has replaced French as their first foreign language…

You suspect there´s a Flemish equivalent for “Flamingant”?  There isn’t such an equivalent for calling the Walloons. The Walloons don’t want independence. Why not? They simply want to continue as long as possible the yearly financial transfers of 13 billion euro (18,2 billion $) from Flanders to Wallonia, instead of starting to work and becoming rich by themselves such as for instance the Slovakians did after their independence.

BTW, altough no proof exists, there are strong indications that those Muslims were attracted to Brussels to change the demografic balance to the disatvantage of the Flemish, making it more difficult for Flanders to become independent.

In Wallonia there are problems too with the Muslims, but not to the extend of Brussels. In Brussels, the Muslims are at the brink of taking over the city. The former “Muslim allies” of the French-speakers get out of control and now they want to found some kind of their own “Caliphat of the North”. With the help of “useful idiots” such as Thielemans they might be succesful!


Posted by Proofreader on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:16 | #

Johan, thanks for the info on the ground.
I´ve read of the political breathroughs of Muslims in Belgium but I didn´t know they were such a large percentage of the population as you suggest. Are they 20 % now?

BTW, I´m all for a partition of Belgium and the independence of Flanders. Although it raises two problems: what to do with Brussels, which is largely French-speaking, and what to do with Wallonia? Walloons won´t willingly join France if it means paying more taxes and less hand-outs. Brussels could either become a free state or join Flanders. There´s no easy way out.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:37 | #


In the following article I read that the percentage of Muslims in Brussels actually is estimated at 17%, see (in French) But 75% of them are concentrated in 5 out of the 19 municipalities of Brussels. Moreover, the number of Muslims is expected to double in ten years, see

One of the reasons for this rapid growth is the generalised (80% up to 90% or so for the Moroccans, bride AND groom) family “reunion” with people from for instance Morocco.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:48 | #

“There’s no easy way out.”  (—Proofreader)

“There’s no easy way out” is exactly what the other side wants everyone to believe — “You can’t fight it, it’s a force of nature,” and so on.  Absolute lies, every bit.  Of course there’s an easy way out.  It’s as easy as pie, as we Yanks say:  1) Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels humanely but uncompromisingly emptied of all non-Euros and all Moslems, with complete restoration of each one’s racial/ethnocultural status quo ante (Can’t be done?  But the reverse was done, and not only done but accomplished for the most part in the space of only about fifteen years, right?  Well, What can be done can be undone!), 2) Flemish and Walloon independence, 3) a re-white-ified Brussels remains with Flanders as its capital, 4) Luxemburg Province and the German Eastern Cantons join the Grand Duchy with iron-clad guarantees of cultural and linguistic autonomy and ABSOLUTELY NO RACIALLY/ETHNOCULTURALLY-UNLIKE IMMIGRATION, 5) the newly independent Flanders and Wallonia, both monarchies, remain in the E.U. or not as their populations wish based on clearly-worded plebescites but if they remain, they do so only with draconian restrictions on the E.U.‘s control, and explicit rejection of all immigration/multiculti/anti-racist/race-replacement laws, rules, and directives and other elements of the hidden Jewish/communist/globalist-capitalist plan to wipe out Euros racially from the continent of Europe.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:59 | #

The FR"G” Entity had a reimbursed repatriation scheme for Turks in the early ‘80s that about a quarter of a million Turks voluntarily took them up on, accepting their offer to go home with a bundle of cash in their pockets and relinquish their right to re-immigrate.  With such a program, easy as pie to set up, requiring only political will, Brussels could completely restore its racial/ethnocultural status quo ante in less than five years, and I’m not even bringing into the equation the “push” half of Steve Sailer’s “push-pull” concept for getting incompatibles to go home, the rescinding of all laws, rules, and directives granting favored status to immigrants over the native population, granting them the right to generous welfare benefits, and so on.  With both “push” and “pull” policies in place the racial/ethnocultural restoration of Brussels would be assured in something like three years.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:24 | #

What a quarter-century of official race-replacement has brought France:

I am at the head of a state that is in a position of bankruptcy. I am at the head of a state that for 15 years has been in chronic deficit. I am at the head of a state that has not once passed a balanced budget in 25 years. This can’t go on.”

If France has bankrupted itself under official race-replacement, where has all its money gone, all of France’s wealth?  Who’s gotten his paws on it?  Simple:  it’s gone into the pockets of those pushing race-replacement:  the Jews, the communists, and the globalist-capitalists.  Why else would they be pushing it?  They’re all making a killing.


Posted by Proofreader on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:38 | #

Good ideas! But once you kick out the Muslims and othe non-Euros you´ll still be left with a 80 % majority of French speakers. What do you suggest, deportation to Wallonia?
BTW, I may be partial here, but Wallonia belongs in France, as a “département”.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:42 | #


The last 27 years the number of Flemish (Dutch-speaking) kindergartners in Brussels increased with 256%, see first table:

Before the Second World War,  the majority in Brussels still spoke Dutch. Afterwards, for several reasons, many turned to the French-speaking school system, but the majority of those inhabitants de facto at home stayed bilingual French/Flemish dialect. Now the Flemish (Dutch) school system has recuperated those “bilingual” people who flee for the Muslims. Even an ever increasing number of French-speakers follow their way to the Flemish school system.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:39 | #

“Wallonia belongs in France, as a ‘département.’ “  (—Proof)

What, so the Jews and globalist capitalists in Paris can racially mongrelize yet one more French-speaking region of Europe they way they’ve already mongrelized France?  Haven’t they mongrelized enough? 

I say to Wallonia that joining France would be national suicide for her.  Wallonia must remain independent, ruled by a king, duke, prince, prince-bishop, or what-have-you (the heraldry experts can figure that out), and retain its independence from France and its unique identity.  (I happen to know Wallonia, Flanders, and Brussels extremely well, and I dearly love all of them.)


Posted by Proofreader on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:40 | #

Yes, I know that old stock “Brusseleers” were bilingual in the old days. Still, there´d be plenty, say 30 to 40 % of “Bruxellois” who won´t be willing to join Flanders.
Why not keep Antwerp as the capital of Flanders and have Brussels as an associate but free state, much like Andorre?


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:12 | #


Your question:

Why not keep Antwerp as the capital of Flanders and have Brussels as an associate but free state, much like Andorre?

The answer:

Apart from economic/geopolitical interests, for the Flemish, Brussels first of all is an emotional issue. I suppose neither would you aks the Jews to give up their Jerusalem to the Arabs?

But there is more. How did the French-speakers predominantly make Brussels a French-speaking city? These days it is by “importing” French-speaking Arabs, but in olden days other “methods” were implemented. These “methods” were different from the “reasons” the French-speakers like to cite, completely different from their Napoleontic rubbish “progress” propaganda about the superiority of French culture.

In fact it already started with the “phantom trains” at the beginning of World War Two, see

After the war it became worse. The Belgian war courts “in the field” were dominated by French-speaking prosecutors. For the Flemish this meant hundreds of executions, tenthousands of imprisonments or “economic” fines that completely impoverished people and forced them to emigrate. Of course among those convicted were some real Nazis, but these were a minority and the main direction of the convictions was against ordinary Flemish. And in that atmosphere, typically in Brussels, in the weeks after the “liberation”, entire Flemish (Dutch) school classes simply got another new and FRENCH-speaking teacher and no Flemish father or mother dared to protest…


Posted by Proofreader on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:57 | #

Thanks again, Johan, for your reply. What do you suggest: deportation of French-speaking Bruxellois, the same fate, presumably awaiting Moroccans and their ilk?
Don’t they deserve better than that (the Bruxellois, I mean)?


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:03 | #

Proofreader, any “old-stock” Brussels folk who were bilingual were Flemish-speakers at home, in other words, Flemings.  No, repeat no, “old-stock” Brussels folk who were bilingual were French-speaking Walloons at home.  None.  Not one.  Didn’t exist.  They were only Flemings.  What bilingual ability there was among Brussels folk cannot be counted as either Walloonish bilingualism or “the bilingualism of Brussels folk,” according to the view that there was a third category of Belgian, namely Brusselsfolk, who were distinct from both Flemings and Walloons.  That’s a myth invented to serve Walloon interests.  There was never really any such category:  they were Flemings, Flemings who were willing to speak French, as the Walloons were unwilling to speak Flemish even when they could.  Those Brusselsfolk who could speak both languages were one hundred percent Flemish.  The Walloons, even when they remembered a smidgen of Flemish from their lessons in elementary school, enough Flemish to, in principle, get by on the street in Brussels, for simple things like buying french fries from a kiosk, or buying something in a store, or asking directions in a trolley car, refused to speak it.  They made believe they understood not a word even when they had a basic knowledge of the language.  How do I know this?  Because innumerable times I was standing right next to them as they did it.  Afterward I would ask them about it, about their refusal to use what Flemish they had acquired from elementary school, and they pretended not to remember any.  But if they were forced they would use it, such as one time when I was with a young woman of my acquaintance who had to try to reach her fiancé, who was abroad, over the phone, who got a Flemish long-distance operator, and had no choice but to use Flemish if she wanted to reach her fiancé through the operator, and she switched into what was very passable Flemish — not fluent but certainly enough for her to use every day in speaking to Flemings on the street.  This same gal always without exception refused to talk to Flemings on the steet in their own language, and I was amazed suddenly to see her talking over the phone quite passably in that language.  It was Flemish she remembered from lessons in elementary school. 

The Brussels Flemings in those days (this was the early ‘70s to the early ‘80s) resented Walloon refusal to speak Flemish, so not a few turned around and would refuse to answer Walloons in French, making believe they didn’t know any when of course they did. 

But they didn’t expect people to be fluent in their language.  Whenever I spoke to Flemings in Flemish on the street in Brussels, Antwerp, Leuven, anywhere, they were so flattered and touched to see an American making the effort (they could hear by my accent where I was from) that, to my relief, they’d switch unasked into English after my first few clumsy sentences just to get the communication going more smoothly (all Flemings speak English fluently or nearly so).  But the important thing, in their minds, was they saw I’d at least made some effort to speak with them in their own language in their own country, and were instantly satisfied, so that part was over and we could get down to actually communicating, for which English was better given my poor Flemish. 

When I would explain this to Walloons:  just speak enough Flemish to show you’re at least making the effort — that’s all they ask, and they’ll be so flattered and so satisfied, they themselves will switch into French for you, unasked, just to get the communication going better — when I’d explain this to the Walloons were always without a single exception unimpressed and dismissive.  They flatly refused to make any effort to speak Flemish even when they could. 

This was in marked contrast to the older generation of Flemings who were always deferential toward the French language, politely putting theirs second in importance.  At one time I had a Flemish landlord, who lived in the same building I rented in.  He would switch from Flemish to French or English in my presence when talking to a third party.  So would his wife.  Say I came into the building’s entryway just when she was getting her little grandson’s coat and scarf on, preparing him to go outside, and talking to him in Flemish.  She’d switch immediately to French or English to continue to talk to him, her little grandson, because it was considered more polite in my presence!  (And these particular self-deprecating Flemings were important people:  my landlord was Chief Judge of the Commercial Court; his wife was a cousin of the king’s.)

“What do you suggest: deportation of French-speaking Bruxellois?”  (—Proof)

Forgive me, but what a strange question.  Of course not “deportation.”  Why would there be any need of that?  Brussels is properly a Flemish city, and all the Flemings ask is that it remain so.  French speakers residing there are more than welcome, and aren’t by their presence going to detract from that.  With time they’ll likely dwindle in number, in the normal course of things, but whether they do or not makes no difference.  The important thing to establish is that Brussels is a Flemish city.  I’m talking there about Walloon and other white French-speaking Brusselsfolk.  As for the Moroccans, that’s an entirely different story:  they’re a different race, one that can’t be absorbed without changing the native race, and therefore it is imperative they be humanely but firmly encouraged to leave (and more than “encouraged”:  their departure will become mandatory).  They were let in by the socialists; let the socialists take the blame for any resulting disappointments or hardships.  But depart they must.  Brussels is not going to be made into a second Rabat, not culturally, not racially, not in any way.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:25 | #


I fully agree with Fred. BTW, I also lived in Brussels and for several years. Not one Fleming asks for revenge against the French-speakers of Brussels, mainly immigrated Walloons and their descendants, demanding them to go “home” to a home that doesn’t exist. Neither does the patriotic Vlaams Belang. Vlaams Belang wants to give them language guaranties in Brussels itself, see  (Vlaams Belang platform). So the language legislation wouldn’t change in Brussels.  But I also agree with Fred that in the course of time their number probably will dwindle in a natural way, the more because to practice their natural art of ruling, from then on they will have to do it in Dutch/English.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:40 | #

Incidentally, on the income-distribution map posted by Johan look at the higher-income area bordering the Grand Duchy in southernmost Wallonia.  That’s the city of Arlon but those high incomes aren’t generated by that city’s commerce:  there’s not enough of an economy in Arlon to support that.  Those can only be Belgians living around Arlon who work across the border in Luxemburg City (a major center of international finance), making the good incomes shown on the map.  My point?  My point is Paul Belien and others have commented on the tendency of Walloons to not only vote socialist but to adopt a socialist mentality toward everything, to the point of neglecting enterprise and entrepreneurship, with the result that the Flemings have pulled ahead of them economically.  Well, the Luxemburgers are, like the Flemish, also ahead of the Walloons, and happen to be a type of German.  And with their Germanic mentality goes their greater entrepreneurship, the results of which are reflected in this map.  It’s also of interest that the Arlon region was originally Luxemburgish and if I’m not mistaken there still exist pockets of native Luxemburgish-speakers around that city.  So in a sense that map of income distributions reflects different cultures, even different races to an extent.  Finally, in light of the foregoing it would seem all the more fitting for Luxemburg Province (of which Arlon is the provincial capital) to break away from Wallonia when Belgium breaks up, and join the Grand Duchy (which it used to be part of).

Lots of things are starting to fall into place ...


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:48 | #


For Arlon (in English), see:

But in Dutch, we read other things, namely that around Arlon the common people’s language still is the Luxemburgish language, see (in English) and that in Arlon in recent years much street names were changed bilingual or even to monolingual Luxemburgish.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:47 | #

Johan, thanks for that.  That’s extremely interesting, and tends to support my suspicion.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:10 | #

From the Dutch Wiki article linked by Johan:

In het gebied rond Aarlen (het Arelerland) is de volkstaal van oudsher het Luxemburgs, dat ook in het aangrenzende Groothertogdom Luxemburg wordt gesproken. Het Luxemburgs (Frans: francique) is in 1990 door de Franse Gemeenschap als regionale taal erkend. Het gemeentebestuur van Aarlen heeft de afgelopen jaren wel veel straatnamen tweetalig of eentalig Luxemburgs gemaakt.

It says,

In the region surrounding Arlon ([a region called] Arelerland) the traditional spoken language of the people is Luxemburgish, also spoken in the neighboring Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.  Luxemburgish (in French called “francique,” [meaning “Frankish”]) was recognized by the French-speaking community as a regional language in 1990.  In recent years the communal administration of Arlon has changed several street names to bilingual or unilingual Luxemburgish.

Also, that other Wiki article linked by Johan, on the Luxemburgish language, is extremely interesting and will be much appreciated by all fans of the general subject of Germanic languages.  I read it quickly just now, and will come back later to study it in greater detail.  Thank you, Johan!


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:34 | #

Erratum:  in my comment above, where I translated the French linguistic term francique as “Frankish,” a more correct and much more common translation would have been Franconian (strictly speaking, “Frankish” is also correct but is used way less often in linguistic parlance, almost never).  These languages, Luxemburgish, some eastern Flemish dialects, and related languages are directly descended from the mother tongue of the Franks, the tribe which stopped the Moors at the Battle of Tours, brutally forced the pagan Saxons to convert to Christianity, produced the great leader Charlemagne, and basically held Germanic Europe together as the Middle Ages emerged out of the Dark Ages.  Listen to one of these people speaking these languages today and you’re hearing what Charlemagne, Pepin of Herstal, and Charles Martel sounded like when they talked to family members at home.  You don’t need a time machine to go back in time to hear what they sounded like when they spoke:  you can hear it today.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:12 | #


For the case you ever again would come to Brussels, in nearby Landen (for the etymologists, compare to “London”), in Flemish Brabant, there is the Rufferdinge Visitors Center concerning ancestor/dynasty founder Pepin of Landen. “Pepin’s tomb hill” (not to take to literally) is on the picture, see in Dutch (but for you that’s no problem)
More pictures here:


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:46 | #

Johan, thank you for those links.  They are very interesting, especially so the second one. 

I love Flanders (and I love Wallonia) and I want to say something to you and to all Flemings, and it’s this:

Never allow anyone to change the Flemish culture, languages, or race (yes, race, for there is such a thing, absolutely, most definitely; don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise), never let anyone change any of those three sacred things, whether the ones trying be the Jews, the Americans, the French, the Dutch, the Walloons, the Germans, the E.U., the communists, the globalist capitalists, the Socialists, the university professors, no matter.  No matter what anyone tells you, don’t listen:  you as a people must preserve yourselves into the future forever.

That’s my wish for the Flemish people, a great, great, great people, nation, culture, and race (yes, race, and don’t ever change your race no matter what anyone says, no matter what anyone tries to make you do!).  You are one of history’s great races though you don’t know it!  People outside looking at you know it.

Preserve yourselves! 

Long live free Flanders!


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:18 | #

Pat Buchanan summarizes the Belgian situation with complete accuracy (apart from spelling the Vlaams Belang wrong):  good reporting by him on this issue.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:28 | #

From SIOE Belgium, see

Hubert Buysse writes concerning the maltreatment:

I have never been so ashamed as a chief of police…

Neither was I a softy, but if one sees how Vanhecke is cowardly gripped in his genitals by a police officer, while he is being kept in check by four other “heroes”, then this seems far beyond the admissible to me …


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:17 | #

Johan, that was a powerful article you linked. 

Those images of what happened on that day, which we all saw on YouTube thanks to Paul Belien’s site ( and other sites, are burned forever into the memories of many:  those images will never fade from our memories. 

The Socialists thought they won, on that day.  They were so proud afterwards.

They lost.

Flanders won.  (And, though the Walloons don’t realize it yet, Wallonia won too, and every nation laboring under the tyrannical “modern” E.U. mentality won.  Truth won.)

I think that reality is dawning on the Socialists now (the Socialists and the ten of eighteen Brussels city council members who are Moslem foreigners).  I think they wish they could do that day over again, doing it very differently this time.

But they can’t. 

And the situation that made that day inevitable is going to be rectified.  At long last. 

Long live free Flanders!


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:15 | #

Brussels’ city counsel (bench of aldermen not included – for them see link “burgemeester en schepenen”):

PS means Parti Socialiste

BTW, Terry Davis is a socialist too (the one Mr Buchanan is referring too, see )


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:30 | #

Thanks, Johan.  I had seen a shorter list (it wasn’t on the official web-site).  But among the following twelve names from the official site you linked, I count ten likely Moslem foreigners and two “questionable” (Maingain maybe not, but I kept him in, “just in case”): 

Fatima Abid (PS)
Mustafa Amrani (PS)
Samira Attalbi (PS)
Mohammed Boukantar (PS)
Saïd El Hammoudi (CDH)
Nestorine Kimbondja Kalengi (CDH)
Fabian Maingain (MR/FDF)
Bertin Mampaka (CDH)
Mounia Mejbar (PS)
Lydia Mutyebele (CDH)
Mahfoudh Romdhani (PS)
Sevket Temiz (PS)

Given this large proportion of such names among those running the city of Brussels it’s easier to understand what happened on Sept. 11, 2007. 

When I lived in Belgium (I left in the early ‘80s), not one such name would have been on this list of council members.  The present civilizational disaster has all happened since then.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:55 | #


Kalengi looks like a name from Congo, idem Mampaka.

Fabian Mangain is probably white and as he is party member of the radical French-speakers, the FDF, probably family of the notorious Olivier Maingain.

But don’t forget the bench of aldermen (in Dutch: schepen), see

Mind you, Brussels’ minister Pascal Smet’s substitute is Ahmed El Ktibi (PS)…

I agree with you, reality sometimes goes faster than imagination in Brussels.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:41 | #

Some additional comments on
Pat Buchanan’s article   :

In fact the situation is even worse than this. More dazzling info about the economic differences between capitalistic Flanders and socialist Wallonia can be read in an article from the financial newspaper “de Tijd”, see in Dutch :

-In Flanders 20% of the active population works for the government or some public agency, but in Wallonia it is 40% (FORTY percent) who “work” for some kind of public service.
-Flanders actually “gives” 6,6% of its GDP to Wallonia. To compare, between former Western and Eastern Germany the financial solidarity was never more than about 3%.

But the worst of all is that this Flemish-Walloon financial “solidarity” didn’t solve any problems in Wallonia. In fact the money just “disappeared” in a drum without a bottom.

Independence is the only cure against the Walloon love of money. And after the independence of Flanders, with or without the Netherlands, Flanders will also be in a better position to fulfil its international obligations, the military included.


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:54 | #

Wise lessons from the Daily Telegraph (see below). But if the Walloons think that with the help of Al-Qaeda et al. they can keep the Flemings in slavery, then the Walloons are making a big mistake.

… the main purpose of Belgium seems to be to provide …  a social welfare blanket for Wallonia, whose state sector serves only to mask the true un-employment figures in the formerly industrial south with a plethora of bureaucratic non-jobs – to do all this requires access to the tax revenues of the more vibrant Flemish economy.

All in all, while the Flemish probably, and deservedly, want out of this unequal relationship whereby they are expected to subsidise the malfunctioning economy of their Walloon ‘brothers’ it would probably prove more hassle than it is worth trying to dissolve Belgium through any official mechanism. Indeed getting all those myriad parties and parliaments (federal, regional and even linguistic), to agree what the official mechanism for dissolution would be could be in itself a whole world of unnecessary pain.

Perhaps the best way to kill the Belgian state would be for the Flemish people en masse to ignore it, to cease paying taxes, to stop voting, to stop utilising whatever facilities still remain within its remit. These past 111 days have proved that a country can survive without a functioning government or at least under an impotent caretaker regime. The Flemish do not need to declare their formal independence at this stage all they need to do is to stop the flow of monies to Wallonia and to treat the Belgian government with the contempt and scorn that it merits, and in doing so they will provide a salutary lesson to us all that governments exist only so long as we are willing to put up with them.


Posted by Matra on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:43 | #

Are Walloons waking up?

Belgians agree on one issue

This 177-year-old nation came a step closer Tuesday to averting breakup after its squabbling linguistic communities managed to agree on the one issue that increasingly unites them: fear of immigrants.

Unfortunately the proposals don’t sound very tough:

Under the agreement, migrants from outside the European Union will be able to come to fill jobs only if there are not enough EU candidates. The parties agreed to stricter rules for immigrants who want to join family members in Belgium, including proof that they have sufficient income. The accord also would reserve Belgian citizenship to those who have spent five years uninterrupted in the country and who speak one of Belgium’s three official languages - French, Dutch or German.

The agreement only goes into effect if a government is formed. Surely at this late stage it would be a mistake for the Flemish to accept anything other than the break up of Belgium, no?


Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:15 | #


Surely the Walloons are afraid of a break-up of Belgium for losing the Flemish money.

But if you read the above link, then you should understand that the Walloons simply cannot be trusted and that for the Flemish it will be a very long way to get what is written down in the “agreement”.  And indeed, such as expected, only one day later, CDH president Joëlle Milquet already started to question the exact meaning of certain aspects of the “accord”: for her, the immigrants to speak “sufficiently” one of the languages of Belgium should be enough, BTW without specifying that it should be the language of the concerned region…so I suppose for an immigrant to be able to speak two words French in Dutch-speaking Flanders is enough for Milquet?

But on the Vlaams Belang web-site I read something more scary (in Dutch)
The conditions to regularize individuals would become more flexible. Now already more than 10.000 a year, but the next minister of Home Affairs could expand this number…creating another outlet to Walloon desires.

Perhaps the Walloons hope that by the time the Flemings will open their eyes, the biggest Flemish opposition party is already strangled financially?


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:05 | #

For those with some Dutch here‘s a video discussing the prospects for and significance of an eventual union of Flanders and Holland (something I oppose — I think free Flanders should remain independent and should be a monarchy).  Yes, yes, I know with the events of the recent few weeks Flemish independence is suddenly once more “on hold.”  But it’ll come.  That’s certain.


Posted by Armor on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:05 | #

Independence would be a triumph for Flanders, but wouldn’t change much for Europe. Except if the Flemish decide to kick out their immigrants. Doing so would be a source of inspiration for everyone.

I think it no longer matters how the European Union should ideally work. I used to like discussing the subject, but the EU thing has now been hijacked by the same people who have hijacked most institutions in every Western country. I think every country should now get out of the EU as soon as possible. I hope we will get rid of our current governments and expel the immigrants. Afterwards, in fifty or a hundred years, maybe we can create new European institutions in a European spirit.

In Barcelona, last week, there was a huge demonstration of over one million people for the independence of Catalonia. I wonder what are the arguments given by the opponents of independence, both in Flanders and in Catalonia. I suspect they have none. It’s just timidity and stubborn conservatism. It is the same timidity that keeps people from taking action against our anti-European “elites”.

the splitting up of Belgium would be a triumph for the European Union, showing that countries don’t need to be big in Europe anymore to avoid being trampled on the battlefield or isolated economically, and can now afford to reduce themselves to sizes more congenial to honest, effective self-rule and national affirmations. But, that’s too sophisticated of an idea for Euro-elites. (—Steve Sailer)

Everyone already knows that smaller countries are richer. This is especially true of Iceland, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. Southern Ireland has also benefited from becoming independent from England. No country that gets independence ever renounces it.

The EU has recently adopted a pro-immigration and anti-European ideology that totally contradicts the Flemish aspiration for preserving its national identity. But even so, I don’t think the EU keeps Flanders from seceding. I’m sure many people in Flanders still oppose independence.

In the case of Brittany, the oppression comes from Paris, not from Brussels. I think the EU institutions in Brussels would try to alleviate the harm done by Paris if they had the power to do so. The main problem with the EU thing is that it now supports the replacement of white people.

In Brittany, we have a lower per capita income than both Flanders and Wallonia. I know that we would greatly benefit from independence in every field, but I’m beginning to think that it no longer matters. We are probably going to disappear as a nation as a result of the race replacement policy. So far, we have fewer immigrants, but their numbers are increasing, and many French people are taking refuge in Brittany at the same time. In the near future, it will become impossible for the Bretons to cling to their particular identity. They will simply see themselves as white people besieged by non-whites.

They’ve been trumpeting themselves for 60 years as “burying cultural disparities and centuries of feuding,”  (—Steve Sailer)

The EU never deliberately tried to bury cultural disparities.

Post a comment:

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Previous entry: Geography 101 for Hispanic Students

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


Ieva Baltmiskyte commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:39. (View)

Are The Finns European? commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:44. (View)

Green Sleeves commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:40. (View)

Jerry Cantrell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:59. (View)

Nutshell commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:41. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:32. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:29. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:16. (View)

Blue on Black commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:12. (View)

2016 commercials commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 06:27. (View)

Like a bad neighbor, State Farm is there commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:40. (View)

2018 Olympic Hockey Tournament commented in entry 'Winter Olympics not diverse enough for US media' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:38. (View)

Taken For Granted commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 02:42. (View)

Commercials: "resistance is futile" commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:10. (View)

The Mountain Between Us commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 23:27. (View)

Kristy Boden commented in entry 'Two more London attacks' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:54. (View)

JF interviews Todd Lewis commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:26. (View)

The Rooster commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 11:06. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:23. (View)

Nikolas Cruz commented in entry '"What We Don't Know - Motive." Likely: revenge against societal incoherence, lack of accountability' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 02:09. (View)

Maccabees commented in entry 'The alternative right's big tent, already too inclusive - includes Jews as well' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:57. (View)

Max Musson article mapped commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:14. (View)

8,606 fake refugees so far in 2018 commented in entry 'More Than A Thousand Illegal Immigrants Reach Europe In First Week Of 2018' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:52. (View)

Orson commented in entry 'Serial killer white-out' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:58. (View)

Toba commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 11:02. (View)

Allman, Wetton, Coryell, Holdsworth commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 10:14. (View)

Invisible men commented in entry 'Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:28. (View)

Uncomfortable Bear commented in entry '4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 07:23. (View)

Twins, one black, one White commented in entry 'Euro-DNA Nation' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 02:02. (View)

Distributist vs JF commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 00:22. (View)

Reactionary Expat commented in entry 'The New Religion Exclusively for Those of Indigenous European Extraction' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:54. (View)

On the Obama portrait artist commented in entry 'Obama portrait artist's past work depicted black women decapitating white women' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:39. (View)

KM on proprietory modules of mentation commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:32. (View)

Andrew Torba at RI commented in entry 'FCC doubles down on dead-wrong definition of how internet works' on Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:26. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Corrected: After sorting confused language: check points of hermeneutic of racial stasis/homeostasis' on Thu, 15 Feb 2018 18:15. (View)