How does the Belgian Army work?

Are there separate Dutch/Flemish and French/Walloon brigades etc.?

How about the leadership?

What would happen if the country split?

How about Flemish brigades seizing Brussels. I'm sure Wallonia would be happy to accept a few hundred thousand Muslim refugees. (Just a suggestion) Don't immigrants speak more French than Dutch anyway? I'm sure France would welcome them. They don't seem to care about kowtowing to Islamia.

Or would it be better just to abandon Brussels?

I guess the Wehrmacht and Napoleon's -- oops, I mean Sarkozy's -- Legions would rush in to defend the capital of Franco-Germania ...

Perhaps Wallonia and German Belgium could be offered to Franco-Germania? That would make President Sarkozy-Merkel happy.

Anyway, no offense, but Belgium is known as the most boring country in the world for a good reason. If you're gonna split, hurry up and get it over with. If you keep people waiting, then by the time it actually happens, it'll probably be reported on page 57 of the New York Times.

I know it's not in your national character, but try to be decisive! Dynamic!

Also, the idea that Vlaanderen couldn't manage alone is pure idiocy. You have a coast. The UK, Denmark and Flanders enhance the EU, not the other way round!

The same people who ridicule an independent Flanders also say with a straight face that they believe in an "independent" Kosovo! Gimme a break!

The EU is supposed to be based on values, but then they say that Algeria can't join because it's not Europe.  [As if Turkey is!? The truth is they don't want to tell Algeria, "You can't join cause your country is #$%@ed! and Muslim!"].

It's time (way past time!) to form a real international free trade area based on values.

How about a revival of The Hanseatic League?

Or, remember how prosperous the British & Dutch East Indies companies were?Think big! How about renewing those links without the colonialist aspects? Britain + Hansa Countries + Portugal + Singapore + Taiwan + India + Australia + Canada + Japan etc.

Makes more sense to me than  the EU, the UN or Eurabia.

P.S.

As for Vlaams Belang being retrograde and parochial for primarily caring about "Flemish interests", consider these words of the Eurobeloved Michelle Obama (who would be fawned over in Paris and Berlin!), from her grad thesis: “As a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.”

Wikipedia: Hanseatic League

Wikipedia: Dutch East India Company

Die Hanse

Thanks for your reply. Hitler exploited "the traditional popular view that it is important to protect your nation and your race" in favor of a perverted transmogrification of the nation and a perverted reconceptualization of the race, as unreal (though similarly based in "science") as Marxist classes. He pretended to espouse traditionalist values in the service of a socialist revolution augmented by the Fueherprinzip. (I don't know if the Fuehrerprinzip was copied from the Bolsheviks or the Italian Fascists. It certainly developed a long history under Stalin and Mao, and was interestingly updated by the Ba'athists.) Hitler's dislike of degenerate art could be characterized as Leftist and Progressive, more than Rightist. The Bolsheviks attacked and uprooted degenerate art. Just because Hitler said degenerate art was Jewish and Bolshevik doesn't make it so and doesn't make him a Rightist.

Who are the real Rightists--an excellent question. I have my doubts about the BNP because of their socialist bent and their failure to appeal to the classical and Christian foundations of Western civilization. They are a good popular party and they try to fill a gaping hole in the British political field, but they take their stand on too shallow a foundation. They also perhaps disregard the federative principle in nation-formation. For example, they emphasize the Teutonic and Celtic element at the expense of potential allies in the defense of British tradition. The Saxons invaded 1500 years ago. There have been a few newcomers since then who have fused pretty solidly on to the British-Saxon stem. Why not include Huguenots and Flemings and even Indians who would risk their lives to keep Britain British? I don't think the BNP is necessarily wrong to oppose Welsh and Scottish independence, however. The English, Welsh, and Scots have lived together, shared self-rule and self-defense, for hundreds of years. They have mixed. There could be adjustments in the terms of their cooperation, but it would be tremendous waste of human and cultural capital to sever them altogether. There is an abstractness to asserting national rights, that in its extremes becomes Hitlerian, where nations have mixed for so long they have largely fused. (That is one reason immigration must be controlled. Whom do you want to fuse with?) A true Rightist will try to preserve what is good. The Parliamentarians in the 1640's and the American revolutionaries in the 1770's sought to preserve their traditional rights as Englishmen.

The revolutionary and centralizing cast of French government seems calculated to oppress constituent nationalities like the Bretons as well as individuals. At the same time, the Bretons have been part of France for hundreds of years. Independence appears wasteful and destructive, though the terms of cooperation and cohabitation may need adjusting. If no adjustment is allowed, you have to seek independence, as our forefathers did from Britain.

We and our contemporaries are shot through with liberalism, so it is difficult to identify a political grouping in which liberal principles, which are an appropriate tail on a conservative dog, do not wag the dog. One hears news of popular parties in Denmark, Austria, and Sweden that wish to protect their nations from excessive inappropriate immigration. That is certainly a plank in a real Right platform. The Constitution Party in the U.S. may be a candidate. My idea of sound Right thinking is quite well satisfied by Lawrence Auster's View from the Right website. The Brussels Journal seems to me to be classical liberal in its basic orientation, with a laudable awareness that even classical liberalism is not an adequate foundation for a people, but a tool for bringing greater prosperity and liberty to a people. Thus the things that make up a people (its history, identity, racial composition, religion, culture genrally, habits, traditions, tastes, etc.) are primary, and classical liberalism provides general principles that can aid in the development of that people. It is acknowledged that classical liberalism cannot replace the real identity of a people without destroying the people as a people. The Brussels Journal community thus includes some real Rightists and many potential real Rightists.

KO said: "the Nazis posited an abstract Aryan classification that bore little resemblance to the Teutonic-Slavic-Alpine mix of historical Germans"

But still, I think Hitler's point of view originated in the traditional popular view that says it is important to protect your nation and your race. It is a right-wing view.
Hitler also held right-wing/conservative views in other areas. For example, he didn't like degenerate art.

"real Rightists--who stand for protecting the existence of real historical nations"

Give me examples of real rightists. In France, the Front National headed by Le Pen is a fierce adversary of stateless nations like Brittany. The same is true in Britain. I think many BNP right-wingers tend to be hostile to Scotland's and Wales' independence.

The grandaddy of them all is labeling the Nazis as Rightists, when the Nazis, with their imposition of a rationalistically constructed ideology of race and class on the complex reality of human existence, were squarely in the socialist camp.  It is clever to exclude real Rightists--who stand for protecting the existence of real historical nations--from consideration on the ground that they are allies of the Nazis, when it is really socialists who are allies of the Nazis, as proponents of "national socialism" for the benefit of everyone but those recalcitrants who seek to preserve their own historical identities, customs, relationships, beliefs, property, autonomy, and territory.  It is pitiful how well the Left has succeeded in tarring the true Right with the Nazi label, which they could only have done on the basis of the public's legitimate horror of Nazi crimes--a horror which somehow blots out the horror of socialist crimes.

By rationalist construction of race, I refer to the following:  the Nazis posited an abstract Aryan classification that bore little resemblance to the Teutonic-Slavic-Alpine mix of historical Germans, who federated with other minorities (including Jews) over a thousand-year history.  A real thousand-year "reich" that the Nazis attacked and destroyed, in the best socialist revolutionary tradition!  The Nazis built a system of regulation and enforcement, economic, social, racial, military, etc., on this constructed classification, which was as unrealistic and ill-fitting a basis for a reconstruction of society as the Marxist class (or caste) system. 

Here, the journalist essentially says, "There will be no place for those Flemish Nazis in our liberal paradise."  We should read into this excerpt, "There will be no place in our socialist tyranny for those who wish to preserve, and hand down to posterity, their heritage, their loyalties, their ancestry, their identity, and their liberty.  And to make sure they don't win any sympathy in the coming struggle, we will label them as Nazis, Jew-haters, and savages, so that decent people will march straight into the nationless, faithless, freedomless, cultureless socialist paradise we are preparing for them, rather than struggle to hold on to what is theirs."

You have to love the multiculturalist: in favour of 'diversity' in all things except thought. Flanders could only be so lucky to be thrown out of EUtopia if they split from Belgium. I doubt it would happen that way. For one thing the healthy Flemish ecomony provides too much tax money to EU coffers. Secondly, I'm not so sure what percentage of the Flemish people would even want to leave the EU. My father-in-law is something of a Flemish nationalist who wants independence for Flanders from Belgium. However, he also is a supporter of continued membership in the EU. I've tried to talk to him about it, but he does not see the conflict between those two opinions. I wonder how much of the Flemish population thinks the same way he does?

Typical Marxist/Leftist tactic.  If you can be labelled racist you are an enemy of the state and will/should be stripped of all voting and citizenship rights.

So much for some leftists' and "liberals'"  belief in peoples' right democratically to choose and to decide their own future. I guess all this hubris is in a way good thing -- for all the incessant "racism", phobia-this-phobia-that, and other stale charges thrown around, in reality they do apparently live submersed in complacent illusions of unchangeable European Union, which from now on is going to reflect their "liberal" and socialist dogma for all eternity. EU will have to be changed, then -- to accommodate for free and independent Flanders :)

hehe, those lucky Flemish. They don't even need to leave the EU, but instead are directly and effortlessly thrown out. I wonder if exactly this wouldn't be in the very country's best interest.