Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Aug 2007 05:04 | #

I post this news here because if what is discussed below comes to pass it will bring Norman Lowell’s excellent program of European regionalism a step closer:

We may be very close now to seeing an independent Flanders!

By refusing to join a government led by Mr Leterme, Flanders’ most popular politician, the Walloon politicians yesterday forced him to request the King, who is one of the leaders of the French-speaking establishment, to defuse the situation.  This is perceived by many Flemings as a public humiliation of Mr Leterme.  Today, Flemish newspapers unanimously warn that the Walloons are playing a dangerous game.  Last Wednesday Prof. Em. Robert Senelle, one of Belgium’s most prominent constitutionalists and formerly a teacher of the Belgian Crown Prince, advised the Flemings to annul the Belgian Constitution.  Prof Senelle, a Flemish Socialist, said the Flemish regional parliament should solemnly declare Flemish sovereignty.

Long live free Flanders!  May God forever bless, defend and preserve the Flemish nation!

If Flanders gain her independence it will immensely strengthen the forces wishing independence for the South Tirol, the Kaliningrad Oblast (Königsberg and surrounding parts of East Prussia), England (independence from the U.K.), Wales and Scotland, Alsace-Lorraine, and other Euro-regions, a very good thing and a major hindrance to race-replacement since race-replacement’s success depends very much on central power centers handing down edicts to subordinates at the center and at the periphery.  Break up those power centers and race-replacement will start to dwindle.

Posted by Habilite on Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:59 | #

I just listened to this Lowell guy speak.  I like what I hear.  Can this man be trusted?  Is this legit?  Are people talking about this concept across Europe?  Please, someone tell me about this.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:07 | #

Habilite, you should listen to this also:  his interview on MajorityRadio (scroll down the list of titles to “Lowell Speaks”).  Here‘s the Wikipedia article on him, and toward the bottom, under “External Links,” are two links to his web-sites.  I for one think his concept of relatively decentralized regionalism with full retention of all local racial, linguistic/dialect and ethnocultural particularity and tradition for each region exactly according to the desires of its inhabitants is just what the doctor ordered as Europe’s next step toward recuperation of health and strength.  Note that regionalism does not mean atomisation.  Nothing under regionalism rules out the coming together of regions in cultural unions, military alliances, or supra-regional trading/customs/monetary organizations within which regions retain severally their full sovereignties, particular identities, dialects, and so on.  If done right the result would be a European civilization far stronger and healthier than ever was before, certainly one that could easily vie with United States, Japan, and China, or whoever else, and perhaps even leave them all in the dust, with the added guarantee that never again could Jewish-imposed race-replacement acting, as it always does through centralized authority the Jews have striven hard to gain influence over, threaten the Ancient Nations of the mother continent.  The benefits of regionalism are manyfold.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:01 | #

The breakup of Yugoslavia was of course none other than Lowell’s regionalism working itself out with no one’s help — a demonstration, moreover, of the concept’s rightness, as that part of the Balkans spontaneously found its own way from unhappy to happier, from frustrated to more satisfied, from agitated to calmer, from feverish to improved health, from unstable to stable (actually, from less stable to more stable:  to get lasting stability a few further arrangements will have to be worked out), from weak to stronger. 

After Flanders’ independence from Brussels the new Flemish nation should retain for itself the Belgian system of monarchy and aristocracy, in place since 1830, rather than adopting the Vlaams Belang’s plan to make Flanders a republic, and it should invite a worthy Fleming (or a worthy Catholic Dutchman or Catholic German if one can be found) to accept the crown as the first king of modern Flanders.  King Albert would of course be completely out of the picture, not being a worthy individual though, were his elder brother living, it would be proper to offer the new crown to him, Baldwin, despite his not identifying specifically as a Fleming:  he was a worthy man, a great and good king, and a good Catholic who loved all his people, Fleming, Walloon, and German alike. 

The new nation must include race in its founding documents in such a way that Jewish race-replacement can never again threaten the irreversible undoing of the Flemish people.  Any Flemings who don’t like race being mentioned explicitly in the founding documents are perfectly free to move to the Belgian Congo, to Brazil, or to Indonesia and mix their blood, and that of their children’s children forever inextricably, with those non-European peoples and nations, and any Flemish women who’ll be absolutely appalled at the idea they’ll be kept from bearing all the Negro babies they desire must understand they’ll still be able to bear all the Negro babies they desire ... in the Congo, not in Flanders which is for the Flemish. 

The new nation of Flanders must never fail to assert its historical ties of brotherhood with French Flanders and must always support that region’s aspirations to independence from Paris under a system of European regionalism.  I don’t say French Flanders must become independent in order to attach itself to Flanders, only that its aspirations to independence as an autonomous region must always be supported by the new independent Flanders. 

Once Flanders is independent the Belgian Eastern Cantons must move to gain independence under European regionalism, then the South Tirol must, then England must, then Padania must, and so on.  I’ll throw in that the recuperation of the portion of Turkey lying in Europe, in which is Constantinople, must be recuperated for Europe and revert to its Greek identity.  It isn’t necessary for it to attach itself to Greece, only that its true identity, including its true race, language, culture, traditions, and religion be restored after more than six centuries of occupation by the infidel foreigner.  Spain threw this same foreigner out after seven centuries:  it’s doable. 

One could go on for hours talking about the changes to be made under regionalism, a great concept and the best way forward for Europe by far, and in every way a refusal of Jewish/World-Capitalist plans for Europe’s ultimate irreversible decline, destruction and transformation to a continent of mulatto slaves.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:56 | #

This reduction to abject slavery and planned mulattoization is the future which Europe must, whether through regionalism or other means, avert:

The remaining Jewish oligarchs have been prevented from meddling in politics and big media, like the richest deposed Jewish oligarch Khodorkovsky (8 - 15.2 billion dollars according to different sources), who supported the communists, the liberals and the overthrow of Putin.  Why would a Jewish billionaire support communists?  Part of it is just using communists as a tool, but from the point of view of the elites global capitalism differs little from communism.  Both try to make the masses a largely homogeneous gray mass by mixing [Scroob note:  i.e., planned mulattoization, or race-replacement], where every individual is interchangeable with almost anybody else.  In both, the masses are largely prevented from rising to the top or having power, and the power of elites is made as permanent as possible.  Power is concentrated in the hands of a few.  What wealth, holdings, and power buys for elites in global capitalism, power alone buys more abundantly for communist elites.  Politbüro members had, in the 1970s, a monthly salary of little bit over 2000 dollars, but they could order people to build them almost anything, to use the state’s resources to buy them almost anything they wanted, to take care of their security with small armies, to use any apparatus of state, like military, security forces, economic structures, political structures etc. in almost any way they wanted, could order the killing, imprisonment or general downfall of almost anybody they wanted, etc.

Exactly the above, including of course the part about “making the masses a largely homogeneous gray mass by mixing,” is exactly what’s on the drawing board for Europe at the present time.  Make no mistake, it’s being deliberately and carefully planned behind the scenes:  not a bit of it, not one jot, is happening by accident.  There are painstakingly-drawn-up blueprints for every infernal detail of it, of that everyone can be as certain as that the sun will rise or two-plus-two-equals-four.  Every Negro baby born to a white European mother brings silent joy to the plotters behind the scenes.  Believe it.  Their hope is they can manage to get it all done so fast, before any Euros can organize a defense, that it’ll be a fait accompli no one will be able to reverse, and then they’ll be set for life.  It may sound like science fiction but it’s real life, and those who perceive it’s real life have a chance of overthrowing it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:14 | #

Prominent Flemish author, journalist, and pundit Paul Belien lets the Walloons have it with an unusually frank salvo. 

I know both countries, Flanders and Wallonia, quite well (am married to a Walloon girl, incidentally — well, culturally Walloon, she’s and half-Flemish, half-Walloon by ancestry), and dearly love both countries.  But in this matter Flanders is right, Wallonia wrong, and Flanders must now at long last have independence.  May she succeed!

Long live free Flanders!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 02:19 | #

Meet Belgium’s biggest opponents of Flemish independence, the French-speaking Walloon Socialists:

Meanwhile, the Walloon Parti Socialiste, traditionally the dominant party in Belgian politics, is embroiled in a corruption scandal involving Pierre-Dominique Schmidt, Belgium’s ambassador to France.  France is Belgium’s most powerful neighbour.  If [Belgium] falls apart [with Flanders going her separate way], the role of France will be pivotal.  The position of Belgian ambassador to Paris is a privilege of the P[arti] S[ocialiste].  Belgian diplomats need the patronage of a political party.  As a rule the position in Paris is bestowed on a diplomat who is a PS party member.  He is one of the most important ambassadors in Belgium.

Last Wednesday the Flemish weekly P-Magazine revealed that Ambassador Schmidt had forged Foreign Office documents in order to obtain bank loans to pay for his luxurious lifestyle.  The ambassador has been throwing regular private disco parties costing up to 75,000 euros.  Ambassador Schmidt is a homosexual and a friend of PS leader Elio Di Rupo, the president of the Walloon Regional Government.  According to P-Magazine, Mr. Di Rupo, who is also a homosexual, attended some of Schmidt’s parties.  The magazine writes that the Belgian embassy in Paris is known at the Belgian Foreign Office in Brussels as “la cage aux folles,” after a French 1978 movie about a homosexual couple that runs a nightclub featuring drag entertainment.

On the day the article appeared Ambassador Schmidt was recalled to Brussels.  Today the Parisian newspaper Le Figaro provided additional details about the parties of the gay ambassador “that did not benefit the image of Belgium in France.”  The Belgian judiciary has opened an investigation.  The Ambassador denies the charges of counterfeiting.  His lawyer, Marc Uyttendaele, is the husband of Laurette Onkelinx, the Belgian minister of Justice, who is a leading PS politician.

There, that affords a tiny glimpse of the kind of people running Belgium nowadays.  On the subject of independence for Flanders, stay tuned: 

“It’s not over till it’s over.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 05:09 | #

Good news for Norman Lowell’s regionalism (which I wholeheartedly support — I think Lowell’s exactly right on this).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:05 | #

This is a fair plea for Norman-Lowell-type regionalism, excerpted from a long piece up tonight at BrusselsJournal.com, posted by a Hungarian chap who is a regular contributor there (I disagree with some of the details in this piece — disagree strongly, in a few places — but on the whole it’s a good, valid piece):

Let us admit this:  the maintenance, by international/E.U. pressure, of modern-European multi-ethnic states and their (probably) centralized systems opposed to the wishes of local majorities is senseless.  For decades this had been done in the case of the Habsburg Empire, then the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.  An unwanted but predictable result was a significant contribution to touching off “The Great War” of 1914.  Accordingly, those wishing such states well should nudge them toward more local self-government.  If this is not done the separatist alternative will come about.

By relying on the EU, the role of boundaries should be not only verbally, but also in practice, re-defined.  States that serve as expressions of the grandeur of an ethnic nation and wilfully ignore their multi-ethnic reality do not deserve international support.  The function of borders needs to be reduced to administrative limits and should not serve as artificial barriers to separate identical ethnics from each other.  If we seek stability we need to create units of the state system that offer equity to all groups they include.  This means that regionalism (autonomy, self-government) paired with some form of federalism if demanded, must be institutionalized.  If honestly applied, federal structures facilitate collective self-determination.  The resulting decentralization of power reduces the sway of the “centre” and the group that controls it.  The pride nurtured by depriving others of their rights will suffer thereby.  At the same time localism, whether it is called autonomy or self-government, brings concrete benefits for both the majority and the enfranchised minority.  If this fails, as a last resort the international community should be prepared to admit that what does not fit together should be separated peacefully.  While not necessary a preferred option, separatism is, regardless of what our instincts tell us, hardly an unqualified catastrophe.  Would Sweden and Norway have prospered as they did, had their union been maintained by the superior force of Swedish arms?

Contrary to what those who were educated in the tradition of centralization might feel, federalism is not a construction that results in weak and unstable states.  700-year-old Switzerland might be small but it managed to unite four nations.  Three of these have been perennial enemies beyond her borders.  As the richest sizeable country of the world, her earned wealth is largely a product of a consensual internal balance that would not have been attainable without federalism.  Admittedly, Switzerland’s success was bolstered by a credible defensive capacity relying on a disproportionately large military entrenched in excellent defensive positions.  That a French infantry led by Italian non-coms, supported by Rhaeto-Romanic artillery and commanded by German officers could be counted on was no accident.  Thanks to the highest possible degree of local autonomy all “nations” had reason to feel that the state and the system to be defended was, regardless of their background, theirs. [...] 

Accordingly, the international community needs to overcome its inclination to consider autonomists separatists and the latter, without distinction, threats to peace.  This is easier said than done.  The contrary idea has long served as a pillar of stability.  Even more important, some influential countries uncritically support maintaining existing members of state communities by force.

An excellent opportunity has existed to defuse the problem created by formations that insist upon being homogenous national states though in reality multi-ethnic.  Within the EU’s framework a wise pre-condition for membership could have been created.  It should have asserted that personal liberty includes the right of association and thus collective rights.  Creating self-governing units within existing states could have strengthened these by defusing ethnic tensions.  Meanwhile, applied subsidiarity would have democratized and consensualized countries that have – regardless of their EU membership – remained majoritarian national dictatorships.  As an added benefit, tensions between member states on account of the harassment of “brothers,” would have abated.  It is still not too late to act even if the palliative action advocated has missed the optimal moment.

The European Union is an organization for an unruly continent that has been unable to create its historic systems of order without the anarchy of war.  At its best the EU is an experiment with new approaches to combine unity, order and harmony in a region characterized by cultural, religious, ethnic and developmental diversity complicated by histories of enmity.  Bold action is needed if, regardless of its current doldrums, the Union is to achieve the purpose it was created for.  Many feel that this need to innovate is blocked.  The temptation to rely on a centralized bureaucracy spreads.  This revives an element of our authoritarian tradition.  The new apparat is a response to a growing lack of consensus and it is provoked by the wish to replace (complicated) voluntarism by (easy) regulation.

Replacing the past’s petty states with a super state is accompanied by wanting to stick to another mistake bequeathed by that past that the EU was created to escape.  It is the assumption that the fewer the states making up Europe, the more stable and manageable the union will be.  This may be so.  But it is true only so long as the continent’s component units are at peace among themselves.  Only the respect for and the implementation of collective rights irrespective of borders can secure this pre-condition.  Enforcing an order that is rightfully rejected by those upon whom it is imposed is a gamble against programmed futility and also hardly the business of the EU.

The EU might be set up and contracted by member states.  However, if the organization is to fulfill its intended purpose, it had better consider itself – in the manner of all good governments – the protector of the well-being of all of its member peoples.  If it wishes to avoid the dustbin of failed ideas the EU must not serve the interests of governments that take their inspiration from concepts derived from a past that ended in a collision at the end of a cul-de-sac.  To succeed, the union should enhance rights growing from the bottom up rather than securing the power that flows from the governmental top to subjects at the bottom.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:25 | #

One of those things guaranteed to brighten your mood, quicken your step, and put a smile on your face is seeing tiny glimmers of what could develop into nascent intra-EU Norman-Lowell-type regionalism:

A highlight of the [European Year of Intercultural Dialogue] involves national projects from each of the 27 member countries of the EU, examining linguistic and cultural diversity. Oddly, DPA has noticed, there are 29 of these projects. Why 29? It seems that 26 member nations each contributed one project each. And the last, Belgium, contributed three, entirely separate projects: one from the French-speaking community of Belgium, one from Flemish Dutch-speaking Belgium, and even one from the tiny German-speaking minority that lives in its own enclave in the east of Belgium.

No that wasn’t much, but then again, the mighty oak from the little acorn grew, and the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

The one and only good thing about the EU (everything else about it is appallingly bad, everything but this) is the potential inherent in it, provided the right men can get their hands onto its control levers, to serve as the machinery for bringing about Norman-Lowell-type regionalism on that continent.  If our guys play their cards right, they can put the EU to good use in precisely that way.  This is what Lowell means when he repeats, “We must go to Brussels!  We must go to Brussels!” 

He’s right.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:02 | #

In podcast number four (linked in the log entry) Lowell expresses a degree of what could be called disdain for the concept known as “human rights.”  Here‘s Jim Kalb’s take on matters.  (Let’s just say Kalb isn’t exactly thrilled with “human rights” and leave it at that, shall we?)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:21 | #

Good news for Norman Lowell partisans (and bad for CvH and David Stennett, unfortunately — hey I know, Stennett’s close to Lowell and all that, works with him, and they’re supposed to be on the same side and everything, but they’re not fundamentally on the same side when you really take a close look at things).  (Sorry, DS ... hey in this game you win some and you lose some, what can I tell ya ...  Don’t take it personal!)