The mystery of Dewinter’s “unalloyed Fascism”

Here follows my translation and referencing of a well-publicised riposte to Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt and his use of a familiar slur against Vlaams Belang’s leading spirit, Filip Dewinter. The article, was written by Eric Defoort, dean of the History Department of Brussels Catholic University.

Belgian prime-minister Guy Verhofstadt and his Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel De Gucht have portrayed Filip Dewinter as an “unalloyed fascist” (De Standaard 17 December 2004). As an historian specialising in the study of several forms of fascism - National-Socialist, reactionary, ultra-right-wing and far-right thinking and acting - I really don’t know what to make of this. In particular, I don’t know what to make of that word, “unalloyed”. Does Verhofstadt and De Gucht have Marinetti in mind? Or do they perhaps mean Mussolini? But would that be the Benito from before or after the Lateran Treaty? Could it be that they see in Dewinter a kind of d’Annunzio, where Fiume fraternizes with Antwerp?

Perhaps, like a lot of people, they just use “fascist” loosely to mean National Socialist. But then we are left with the problem of that “unalloyed”, because historians invariable hold that the distinctions between Fascism and National Socialism are larger than the analogies. Large parts of Fascism are characterised by a vitalistic-optimistic anthropology. Is that what the two liberal* coryphées see in Dewinter?

Perhaps Luckas Vander Taelen can help us. This historian, who once held a seat in the European Parliament for Agalev (the Flemish far-left, now called Groen, i.e. the Greens), declared in 1995 that he saw no fascism in Filip Dewinter but, instead, a far-right reactionary democrat. This does absolutely nothing to simplify things. But at least, thanks to Vander Taelen, the problem is restricted chronologically: Dewinter’s transformation into what Verhofstadt calls an “unalloyed fascist” must, therefore, have taken place between 1995 and 2004.

But really, if you try to label post-war and contemporary politics with an historically situated, strongly differentiated concept like fascism you will soon find yourself on a very precarious venture. The political personalities you must conflate range from Evita Peron to Pim Fortuyn. You will soon learn, among other things, that inside an “unalloyed fascist’’ lurks a potential “neo-fascist’’ in which hides the promise of a “post-fascist’’ who is at heart nothing more than an “unalloyed gentleman”. You will have to force Dewinter inside a Russian Matrushka doll? This is an issue Minister De Gucht should discuss urgently with his Italian colleague Gianfranco Fini.

But, of course, none of this has been written for the benefit of Belgium’s Prime-Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs De Gucht. They don’t worry about correct and nuanced terminology. Their goal is simply to depict a distorted image of their antagonist, whom they can then scold with missionary zeal. They lose sight of the fact that by acting in this way they take on more and more aspects of the image they so want to scold.

Michel Eyquem, seigneur de Montaigne, already told us long ago - in the sixteenth century, in fact - that he who is a distorter of the meaning of words is also a betrayer of society. And an unalloyed one.

* In Belgium “liberal” means “of the VLD party”. Traditionally, the liberals were Tory in style but just over the last five years they have been blackmailed by the left and corrupted by power, and their Toryism has largely departed. There are influential commentators in Flanders now who contend that Vlaams Belang is the new and genuine “liberal” party.

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Monday, January 10, 2005 at 12:44 PM in European Nationalism
Comments (4) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 10, 2005, 08:58 PM | #

This article by Prof. Defoort is first-rate, and a hilarious piece of political satire to boot. I burst out laughing several times in reading it. I consider this piece must reading for anyone interested in the evolving situation in occupied Flanders, for anyone interested in the definition of fascism, and for anyone fed-up with all this completely inappropriate gratuitious “fascist-this” and “fascist-that” name-calling being done mainly by the left and their useful idiots. Thanks for translating and posting it for us.

Posted by Braveheart on January 12, 2005, 04:46 AM | #

Occupied Flanders? A little bit of explanation.

55% of the Walloons is earning an income. This is composed as follows:
-16% private domain (industry and commerce)
-39% public domain (public administrations, unemployment benefits…)
This is the information N-VA leader Bart De Wever has found in the official public accounting figures. On Sunday he was on the Flemish television in a discussion program. His opponent, the son of (Walloon) Euro commissar Michel was present, but did not deny the numbers.

Flemish workers must work hard for the financial transfers to Wallonia that make this soap-bubble economy possible and they must constantly improve their productivity. And so the consumption of tranquilisers in Flanders is one of the highest in the world. And the worst of all things: nothing changes in Wallonia. With further delocalisation, even Flanders is no longer able to spend money in such a massive way or Flanders will go to hell itself.

But instead of putting all one’s cards on the table and looking, supported by the Flemish, for real solutions by reorganising the Walloon labor market, the Walloons use methods in the sphere of “Stalinism” (no transparency of financial spending, restrictions on free speech, political trials) and Islam immigration as an ally to weaken the Flemish, compare with “Eurabia” (in fact the same as is said/asserted about France and Europe –see Wikipedia Encyclopedia - but locally in Belgium).

Posted by Guessedworker on January 12, 2005, 06:07 AM | #

Eric Defoort should turn his attention to this piece in todays Times:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8305-1436041,00.html

I suppose Martin Samuel is a Jewish writer so he, like Verhofstadt and De Gucht, probably isn’t too worried about a “correct and nuanced terminology” of Fascism. Perhaps Paolo di Canio isn’t either. But a hatchet job is always a hatchet job and that’s what Samuel has written. Say “boo”, watch your enemies go up in flames.

Posted by Braveheart on January 13, 2005, 04:43 AM | #

Sometimes the propaganda machine jams.
Look at (Please copy and paste on the internet field, the direct link doesn’t work properly):
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=15476&name=Ex-Dutch+minister+defends+Vlaams+Belang+party+

Next entry: The U.N.

Previous entry: New blog announcement

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa