Posted by BGD on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:23 | #

PR: more visibility but a higher share of the vote needed to effect change. Death by coalition and compromise.

Posted by BGD on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:31 | #

The elections also brought a severe reverse to Flanders’ xenophobic, Islamophobic and Wallonophobic party, Vlaams Belang (‘Flemish interest’), which saw its share of the vote fall from 12 per cent to just over 8 per cent. From here.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:46 | #

Thank you, BGD.

Analysts said that many of the party’s former voters had defected to the N-VA, whose campaign lacked Vlaams Belang’s racist overtones.

Well, the issue in Belgium isn’t race, immigration, globalism ...  It’s not even independence for its own sake.  It’s the unacceptable terms of the marriage with Wallonia.  So why would VB be the voters’ preferred vehicle?

It’s the same in Scotland and Wales.  The BNP will not be replacing the civic nationalists of the SNP and Plaid, both of whom are in government, any time soon.

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:21 | #

The problem with the Belgique is that their lives have been filled terrible misfortunes….most of which never happened.

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:17 | #

Something you will not read in the English papers: why did the N-VA become so big in such a short period of time?

Let’s say that the Flemish region paid VRT-television wanted to bully Vlaams Belang by promoting another party with a party platform that is close to them…but the apprentice wizards of the VRT-television made a mistake…the impact was bigger than they expected and a political landslide followed.

Now first the Flemish want get rid of socialist Wallonia who want to submerge the Flemish with Moroccans and Turks and then we will set the next step to total freedom from those who only want to live from social benefits and the black market.

Posted by BGD on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:36 | #

NYT: In addition to Mr. de Wever’s party, which got nearly 30 percent of the vote, Flanders gave 12.5 percent of its vote to the far-right separatists of Vlaams Belang and about 4 percent to another populist party, meaning that nearly half of the Flemish electorate voted for separatists.

Fuller results here.

So seems with more votes counted the VB did a little better.

According to a story linked by Gates of Vienna, Belgium MSM journo Anja Otte argues that

Flemish politics are governed by The Rule, which is: the party that “owns” the theme that dominates the campaign wins the election.

so as GW suggests above the VB were not the primary driver of the independence argument, they had other high visibility policies too which may have hurt impacted them.

So two points occur. How do VB change the story to being about racial independence (or must these things always be implicit and not explicit) and now that the ‘populist’ parties could (almost) form a front / coalition and each get significant parts of their longed for policies enacted, will they?

Unlikely. Undoubtedly, the need for a respectable face from the N-VA will no doubt mean they will likely be sniffing around the mainstream parties.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:56 | #

VB’s own judgement:

Vlaams Belang congratulates the N-VA on their landslide victory in yesterday’s federal elections. Our party cannot be satisfied with the result. However, we have not been swept away at all. Vlaams Belang still remains an important factor in today’s Flemish politics. We have sown, and others have reaped.

http://www.vlaamsbelang.org/56/101/

BGD,

How do VB change the story to being about racial independence

They need the civic antithesis to Establishment liberalism to win and become the new Establishment thesis, so that a true nationalist antithesis can be advanced and the national debate shifted rightward again.

Posted by Caspar on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:49 | #

@  Guessedworker:

Sir Arthur Keith argues that the term “race” was originally given to a lineage group; later it was restricted to distinctive varieties of mankind. The term “Nation” designates the lineal descendants of a local group. Nations, although not physically differentiated from one another, remain apart: a nation is in reality an incipient race.

Any group, tribe, or nation which represents the progeny of a common ancestry is a race in the strict meaning of that term. We may, then, legitimately apply the term “race” to each local group; each group is a potential race maker. This is one use of the term “race”; now for its other use. All these local groups, working collectively, produced a population with a certain assortment of physical characters which distinguished it from the populations of surrounding countries. Now, a people which can be distinguished by its physical features is also called a race, but this is a late use of the term. Thus the term “race” came to be applied in two senses: first, to a local or race making group – being as it were the loom on which the genetic threads were woven – and secondly, to the product of evolution, the differentiated people, the woven web. In one sense the term refers to an evolutionary process; in the other to an evolutionary product. Some use the term “race” to mean a people differentiated in a physical sense: the finished product, while Sir Arthur Keith used it to designate a group or a people involved in the process of differentiation. A race, as he seaw it, is a thing which is consciously and vitally alive; race as viewed by physical anthropologists is inert, unconscious, and passive.

As we trace the evolution of mankind towards the present, the evolutionary unit grows in size; the local group is replaced by the tribe, and then the tribe by the nation. The tribal stage was preserved in the continent of Australia up to the latter part of the eighteenth century. The native population was divided into more than a thousand separate territorial units or tribes. Each tribe was a self reproducing, inbreeding lineage a “race” in the original meaning of that term. Each tribe was a race making unit, but the physical type or types produced by one tribe differed in only a slight degree from those of neighbouring tribes. Yet the collective action of all the tribes was to fill the continent with a population which was physically distinguishable from all other peoples of the world. The collective result of the evolutionary process has given the Australian natives a distinctive appearance and won for them the name of “Australoid race.” Of the existence of such a race the native was ignorant; his living interests were centred on his local clan or tribe; for him his tribe was his “race.”

Sir Arthur Keith, A NEW THEORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, ESSAY XXXII: THE MAKING OF HUMAN RACES

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:45 | #

I was curious to learn what stance the N-VA took on migration and citizenship, but have seen little discussion of that in the context of the current elections.

Unlike the VB, N-VA does not offer an English-language version of their website, so I have had to dredge up my Dutch from thirty years ago to come up with the following, which is a (very) rough translation of a communiqué issued in the name of Bart van Wever in 2006. This is featured on the party’s website and appears to be an overall summary of its stance. If there are any native Dutch-speakers around please feel free to correct any errors you notice.

... In his closing remarks, party leader BvW emphasised that N-VA took a positive view of migration:

“We refuse to believe that immigration is necessarily a problem. However we are very mindful of the lack of a proper system under both Verhofstadt administrations. A properly thought-out and effective migration and citizenship process can result in a true society of native and new Flemings.”

Then come the individual policy statements:

Asylum

-  The asylum process will be simpified and must be completed withing six months
-  Asylum-seekers will be accommodated in an open centre while their applications are processed. They will no longer be assigned to an OCMW [uncertain what that is, it may be the local social services]
-  In these open centres asylum seekers will become acquainted with our society through lessons in social orientation, appropriate education and training, and Dutch language lessons.

Illegal migrants

-  Illegals must be either regularised or deported.
-  There will be no further general regularisation (amnesty), individual cases will be decided on legal criteria: effective length of residence, degree of integration, school-age children, length of procedure …
-  An active investigative process will be use to bring this issue to a close.
-  There must be a professionally-executed repatriation scheme.

Family reunion

-  Family reuinion has become a structural channel for migration. A complete application of European guidelines is essential for this to be completed [unsure if this is the right sense here]
-  Both partners must be 21 years of age
-  Only children who are under 18 will be admitted
-  Family reunion can only occur where financial resources and suitable accommodation are available
-  Family reunion is a one-time event. Anyone who enters under the family reuinon provisions cannot apply or anyone else to be admitted
-  In collaboration with the migrant organisations a campaign will be launched to discourage transnational marriages.

Economic migration

-  Economic migration will remain a possibility
-  All EU countries will be treated the same, thus no special restrictions for new entrants
-  Economic migration may only occur where there is an actual job vacancy to fill
-  Economic migration is in principle temporary in nature
-  EU candidates must receive preference in filling any vacant job opening

On the face of it and a few tweaks aside, the emphasis on integration and lack of any real commitment to reduce the numbers of non-Europeans indicate that the N-VA’ objectives are not so very different to the those of the mainstream parties in the recent UK general election.

Posted by Trainspotter on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:34 | #

“They need the civic antithesis to Establishment liberalism to win and become the new Establishment thesis, so that a true nationalist antithesis can be advanced and the national debate shifted rightward again.”

GW, I was thinking along similar lines.  On this side of the pond, we currently have the Tea Party, and secession is in the air in a way that it probably hasn’t been for nearly 150 years.  What will come of these movements is hard to say.  Though they may fail, they do have a role to play, and are harbingers of more significant things to come.

Right now, the pressures applied against overtly promoting white racial interests are, to be charitable, enormous.  The anti-white Left has managed to largely remove our discourse from the mainstream.  However, that same anti-white Left (which now is basically the full Establishment, including the so called conservatives) has so damaged and undermined our respective nations - culturally, economically, socially - that a reaction is finally shaping up.  This, of course, was inevitable.  All it took was for the System to suffer a hard shove, which it did in the form of the economic crisis.  Yet, as we all know, the grievances extend far beyond economics, even amongst regular types.  The current economic crisis is merely the catalyst.  There will be others.  Again, as badly as we are governed, bad outcomes and reactions to them are now inevitable.  It took a couple of generations of extreme misrule, but the chickens are now coming home to roost.   

So what is that reaction going to be, at least at this stage in the game?  I think we are finding our answer: it’s not going to be explicitly racial for the time being.  The penalties that the Establishment is able to mete out for that sort of thing remain to great, and a generation or two of brainwashing has certainly had its effects. 

BUT, just as it was inevitable that there would ultimately be a reaction to the swathe of destruction wrought by the anti-white Left, it is also inevitable (or nearly so, assuming we do our jobs) that it will eventually take on a racial tone.  For example, the Tea Party makes a huge deal about not being racist.  But, whether they like it or not, they are on a collision course with the non-whites.  The non-whites oppose the Tea Party agenda, for the simple reason that they benefit from the very status quo policies that the Tea Party opposes.  Non-whites don’t want more freedom for white people.  Non-whites don’t want government giveaways repealed, instead they want access to even more white tax money, of which they rightly figure to be disproportionate beneficiaries.   

It was both amusing and pathetic to see Rand Paul, after recently winning an important primary victory, immediately attacked as racist.  Don’t pass go, don’t collect $200, go immediately to the charge of racism.  This directed at a guy who is spouting anti-collectivist, libertarian doctrine.  To the doctrinaire libertarian, those of us who care about our people are evil collectivists. 

There is no doubt in my mind that many Tea Partiers would just love it for large numbers of non-whites, particularly blacks, to show up at their protests and sing, hand in hand of course, a stirring rendition of “We Shall Overcome.”  Of course, it’s not going to happen, any more than the non-whites are going to help the nationalists of Europe regain their respective homelands.  The Left already understands the inherent racial dynamics at play, while as usual the befuddled and puzzled “conservatives” have a lot of catching up to do.  Is there a creature more useless than these modern “conservatives?” 

Again, collision course whether they like it or not.  This will, in time, lead to the more overt racialization of the conflict. 

The important thing is to break the Establishment, as there is no doubt that the power that it brings to bear suppresses our numbers greatly.  There are millions of fellow travelers out there, and if the Establishment were to seriously decline in power, our overt support base would explode in numbers.  At that point, there is no question that the debate would shift greatly rightward.  Breaking the Establishment would unleash dynamics that would clearly work in our favor, which is why the anti-whites are so pro-Establishment.  Again, they understand what is at stake, and that the Establishment is their friend. 

In any event, this is why I say that the Tea Party types or the secession guys have their role to play, though obviously things can never work out as they intend.  The main thing at this point is weakening the anti-white Establishment.  As a general rule, anything that does that is good.  This will in turn unleash forces in our favor, assuming that we do a decent job of developing our intellectual foundation and spreading the message.  Our role right now is to assist the radicalization process as best we can.  The further our ideas spread, the more likely they will hit critical mass at the appropriate time. 

While the implicitly white groups have a vital role to play in the ongoing evolutionary process, those of us that are fully aware should not become implicit.  We must remain radical and explicit in the advocacy of our people, laying the foundation for the move to the right.  Our labors will not appear to yield much fruit at first, but that will be deceiving.  Intellectual currents are largely invisible until one day, all of a sudden, they aren’t.  Here’s to working for that day.

Posted by notuswind on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:22 | #

Trainspotter,

I just want you to know that I am a big fan of your longish comments, which are invariably well argued and based on sound political intuition (whether at MR, OD, AR, or Mangans).  I seldom respond to them because I feel like there’s nothing for me to add and that you made your point about as well as it could be made.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:25 | #

The main thing at this point is weakening the anti-white Establishment.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming (as in cult deprogramming)

1.Discredit the figure of authority: the cult leader
2.Present contradictions (ideology vs. reality): “How can he preach love when he exploits people?” is an example.
3.The breaking point: When a subject begins to listen to the deprogrammer; when reality begins to take precedence over ideology.
4.Self-expression: When the subject begins to open up and voice gripes against the cult.
5.Identification and transference: when the subject begins to identify with the deprogrammers, starts to think of him- or herself as an opponent of the cult rather than a member of it.

Posted by Thunder on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:11 | #

Wandrin,

It appears to me, from casual observation, that this deprogramming, as you put it, is becoming increasingly prevalent in more people.  It is also occuring more in different generations of people that were previously unreceptive.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:39 | #

Deprgramming….

One tiny straw upon the camel’s back is a site like antiwhitemedia.blogspot.com. I have no connection to that site, other than leaving a couple of comments.

I keep posting that link here and elsewhere in the hope that a) more people will submit content to their site and b) that sites like MR will link to it. Thus generating greater traffic.

I’m messing about with an idea for a similar site, though different in style. Barely made a start though I have been collecting content sporadically.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 02:54 | #

Thunder,

Yes, i agree.

I’ve been groping at this deprogramming idea for a while and gradually focusing on the first two on that deprogramming list:

1.Discredit the figure of authority: the cult leader
2.Present contradictions (ideology vs. reality): “How can he preach love when he exploits people?” is an example.

When you think about it reality does the same thing. Reality under the multicult presents contradictions all the time and it’s those contradictions which spark once mainstream people into self-radicalizing. As the situation gets worse the contradictions become more obvious and more frequent.

Eventually it will get like the later Soviet Union where everyone is aware of the contradictions and secretly jokes about them.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:01 | #

Lurker,

It’s a good idea - depressing to watch a lot of those ads in one go but it does make the point. It could do with clips of “300 Spartans” mixed in to cheer readers up.

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:52 | #

@trainspotter:
                Well said. An English poet, Markham I believe, cribbed a few lines from Wagner’s
libretto ‘Wieland der Schmied’ (Wieland the Smithy) distilled from the many saga’s of Wieland, found in the prehistoric myths of country’s of Teutonic origin….which unsurprisingly,  are true now as they were true in the days of the Godmen

For all your days, prepare, and meet them ever alike;
When you are the anvil, bear - when the hammer, strike.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:04 | #

Wandrin on June 15, 2010, 01:54 AM

Eventually it will get like the later Soviet Union where everyone is aware of the contradictions and secretly jokes about them.

The people turned to alcohol - life expectancy reduced.

They pretend to pay us we pretend to work.

We all know it’s coming, it’s the damage laid bare in the mean-time.

Will it be recoverable?

This is the tip of the iceburg.

http://www.morningliberty.com/2010/05/16/economic-collapse-martial-law-24-experts-warn-of-2010-meltdown/

In today’s Mail.  Nightmare vision for Europe as EU chief warns ‘democracy could disappear’ in Greece, Spain and Portugal

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286480/EU-chief-warns-democracy-disappear-Greece-Spain-Portugal.html#ixzz0qu19s7Tz

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:49 | #

Perhaps the best that ethno-nationalists in Flanders can hope for is that civicism will deliver separation and facilitate a redefining of the national conversation.

Civicism will end just where Sinn Fein did: kick the English, invite the niggers in.  Something along the lines of the reward the English got for fighting the Krauts - niggers, lots and lots of niggers.

Posted by Going Dutch on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:49 | #

Something along the lines of the reward the English got for fighting the Krauts - niggers, lots and lots of niggers.

The English have had a lot of things coming their way, and will continue to reap the rewards of their actions. Unless the Americans step in to rescue the wretched isle with their marines, I dont see what else could save them. Well, they asked for it.

-A dutchman

Posted by Going Dutch on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:51 | #

The Americans could repay the Brits for settling across the seas and founding the States by stepping in and sanitising the prevailing toxic establishment there.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:15 | #

That was the British Crown, you idiot, not “the English”.  And the Crown was, you know, Dutch.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:22 | #

CC, I realise you are using the word in an aesthetic sense, since you work with same and get by.  But just the same I would prefer less art and more politic.

Posted by GT on Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:23 | #

Off-topic, but FYI

http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-switch-proposed-for-us-339303838.htm

“the Lieberman Bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”“

“another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or websites.”

And that’s that.