I'm not a member of the VB, but I've voted for them all my life and I know many people involved with the party. None of these people are closet nazis or anything even close to that. Of course, they're not all small-government conservatives like Alexandra Coolen or Gerolf Annemans. That's exactly why it used to be called the Vlaams Blok: blok meaning "block", in the sense of a bundling. It was originally created as a bundling of two fractions, one being 'real' nationalists and the other being conservatives in a more traditional sense. What binds them is their desire to bring about the end of Belgium, and being fed up with the absolute dominance of leftwing to extreme leftwing agendas in all aspects of life in Belgium -- of which the green card given to creeping Islamization is just one thing. What separates them are many other things.

I find it almost a trivial thing to say that I don't agree with all opinions or exploits of all the big cheeses in the VB. I didn't like it when Filip Dewinter invited Jean-Marie Le Pen to Antwerp. I personally don't give a hoot in hell for some VB members sympathizing with the "Nouvelle Droite" or with these crazy paganist pseudoreligions. But these people are in turn not fully satisfied with the VB adopting an economic program that's more free market oriented. Probably the people at LGF don't agree with all the personal views of all the Republican presidential candidates either -- Ron Paul just to mention one name. All VB members and voters do stand behind most of the official party platform, which is not racist at all but which is perfectly sensible, decent and most important: which is very relevant for our times. 30% of all Flemings seem to agree with me on this, and if the VB didn't want to bring about the end of Belgium, that would probably be 30% of the entire Belgian population.

And who knows, when the Right has finally recovered from its long long slumber, the Flemish "block" might break up in its various factions. But if such a time comes, we will still owe much of it to the fighting spirit of the VB, including Filip Dewinter who seems to have that spirit in spades.

The difference between the Nazis and the Communists? The Nazis had a better sense of fashion. And better beer. 

You are making a very good point. I look forward to getting an answer to this question as well. 

Here is a link to a recent text published in Foreign Affairs on how Communism was saved by WWII: 

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701fareviewessay86413/donald-sassoon/seeing-red-why-communism-really-failed.html

WWII has been the great alibi of Communism. Hence the myth that the Left is good because it will protect you, whereas the Right is evil and selfish and will destroy you.

Referring to the Nazis as Far-Rightists is neither exaggerated, nor deserved, or whatever. It is simply wrong. The word "NaZi" comes from the term "NAtional- SoZIalismus".

The German Workers Party's name was changed by Hitler to include the term National Socialist. Thus the full name was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) called for short, Nazi. The Nazi ideology was not (and is not) compatible with that of any party promoting classical liberalism (conservatism). 

Therefore Nazism has everything to do with the Left, not the Right, nor the Conservatives.

Communism and Nazism are two totalitarian ideologies that found their roots essentially in Leftist doctrines. In essence, they're one and the same. Only some of the means are different, but the results sought are identical. It would take too long to demonstrate this here, all the more so as it's not the purpose of these comments. 

So both these Leftist ideologies fought each other during WWII. Eventually Socialo-Communism "won" and, as we know, there were lots of Socialo-Communists in the (French) Resistance.

Consequently, after the Liberation, Western Europe felt that it owed a tribute to Communism and Socialism for "victory". 

In fact, Western Europe had a narrow escape. For example, in 1944, several Communist groups wanted to re-establish the Commune de Paris Regime in France. They were stopped before they could organise a large-scale purge to rid France of all "traitors" (of course, arbitrariness would have been the only rule, as you can imagine) and eventually seize power.  

Today, most Western European countries described themselves as social democracies. This phrase really makes me sick. They have not learned anything from the recent past.

Fortunately, and I see a lot of hope there now, Eastern Europe is now recovering and doesn't want to hear anything about socialism any longer. They have already paid a huge price for its terrible failure.

The next victim of socialism should be Western Europe and I look forward to seeing that day when the entire social system will collapse. The end is near.

The current social system must be reshaped into a more efficient structure where the individual would have the possibility to choose what is best. This also regards immegration, of course.  

     

Today, Patrick Janssens (the mayor of Antwerp) was in the news. He appologized for the collaboration with nazi Germany, by politicians and the police around 1942.
Some "sorry" video was broadcasted on a jewish conference. Yeah a video, because he's in commu China at the moment I believe.
I'm bad in history, but I assume it's good that he appologized for the bad things that happened. But I missed that for things that are -happening-, and where he's really responsible for. Indeed, expansionist Islam is one, if not the most important of them.

I tried to post a comment about this article on her blog, but couldn't get in, so I'll try it here.

Ms. West,

I have no doubt about your commitment to the values of Western Civilization. And right now, for the moment, I'm giving Paul Belien the benefit of the doubt.

But I cannot reconcile this with what I've learned over the past few days of Filip deWinter. I just can't. Can you? Tell me how. Please.