Christine posted this at the CVF blog earlier today. I’ve revised it slightly for the Gates of Vienna context.
In the ongoing and robust debate over whether European right-wing political parties who oppose Islamisation have a right to meet with writers and activists who also oppose Islamisation, a well-read U.S. blog has suggested that the assassinated anti-Islamist Dutch political leader Pim Fortuyn disapproved of the anti-Islamist Flemish Vlaams Belang leader Filip Dewinter.
“Those men say unacceptable things. Dewinter is a fascist. I’m a civilized man. You won’t hear me say: ‘own people first.’ And am I not much more sympathetic than Dewinter?”
The reference to “own people first” refers to the motto of the predecessor political party of the current Vlaams Belang, known as the Vlaams Blok, which was active in the movement for Flemish independence from Belgium. The “people” referred to there are the Flemish. The motto also has some reference to the ongoing debate in Belgium about its completely open immigration policies, a debate that occurs across Europe. In Denmark, France, and in the last week, Italy, policies similar to those proposed by Vlaams Belang on immigration are now mainstream policy.
Fortuyn’s positions on Dewinter may have been that he was a fascist — we would recommend reading Dewinter’s interviews and publications here, to make up your own mind. But he clearly had other views as well about Dewinter’s political party, which provide some context (as supplied by the commenter Cincinnatus here, who also provided the translation):
As an aside (not trying to detract from this article), there is currently some debate about Pim Fortuyn’s view of the Vlaams Blok. The following excerpt of his own words show that he did not liken Vlaams Blok to any fascist legacy:
– – – – – – – – –
Q: Aren’t you glad that Wallage (a politician) is addressing your theme?
A: Listen, it’s much too late. For years he denounced Bolkenstein (a Dutch party leader who first raised concerns about immigration in the 1990’s), when Bolkenstein was trying to put these matters into discussion. And his method was quite vile. He’d go on and on about the Second World War. Also, Kok (a politician) does the same. Always telling us about yet another new monument, a stone monument, that he has opened. And on it is inscribed the counts of the murdered Jews and the murdered Gypsies. So, yet another monument. Holland has gone mad.
Q: Why do you say Holland has gone mad?
A: That everything has to be meticulously detailed out. Give us a break! Holland is full of monuments to the Second World War. And then Kok endlessly goes from today back to then, and the checkered past, and Nazism. I find it entirely invalid to liken these (i.e., the past and present). It just poisons the whole topic (of immigrant issues). I also think the way that Kok describes Haider’s (Austrian politician) views is scandalous. Haider is not a Nazi. And if he is, then he’s no different than many in the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic parties. Sure, (Haider’s party) have a problem with their checkered past, but all the parties do. And who gave shelter to all the “war criminals” after the war? That was the Allied coalition, and not Haider. So what is Kok on about? Also, it’s not valid to talk about the Vlaams Blok in that way, either. It is senseless to be endlessly milking this Hitler thing. Then and now, are two incomparable realities.