Belgium: Natural NOT Artificial

About a week or two ago someone sent me an article from the Brussels Journal about how Belgium is an “artificial state”, an “invented” state just put together for political reasons, doomed to failure and which never should have existed in the first place. Why this was sent to me? Maybe to see my reaction since going to school in Texas everyone at home thinks I’m becoming a far-right extremist. I don’t think so but my friend and native Texas the Mad Monarchist did worry me when he said that Texans were like the Klingons of the United States. Yikes. Anyway, everyone should probably know already my opinion on this and I feel like I have said it a hundred million times but the “artificial state” and “invented state” accusations just keep coming. I do not think that is true but additionally I do not understand how anyone else could think it is true. It goes against all of history, and that I have tried to talk about on this blog. Regardless, it is still repeated and it makes me depressed. Also I have been depressed by how many Belgians are so quick and calm to criticize their own country. A good friend of mine said when the burqa ban was passed that Belgium must be the most racist country. We really put down ourselves too much. Seriously, if Belgium was really so racist then I don’t think so many other races would want to come live in Belgium.

Back to the point, Belgium is not “artificial” or “invented”. How do people think this? I know, part is because of the quarreling between the French and Dutch speakers communities but do they really think these two were just put together in 1830? Do they think before that the space on the map was empty? The two regions had been together when we were part of the United Netherlands Kingdom, when we were the Austrian Netherlands before that, when we were in the larger Spanish Netherlands before that and when we were Burgundy before that. There had always been this area, not always an independent country, but always definitely not French, not German and not Dutch. Even in those days people still called the whole area “Belgium” and it was Belgium even all the way back in Roman times. So, why don’t people understand? No one “invented” Belgium! Belgium has always been here, right where it is today! There has always been Belgium, there have always been Belgians. This is not disputable, this is a fact of history.

Look at the brief period between the first effort for independence (United States of Belgium we talked about) and the country being taken over by France and Napoleon. That was when we were, again, the Austrian Netherlands but war was already about to happen with France so military forces had to be ready and they formed a unit, part of the Austrian Imperial Army, with green and yellow uniforms with cool crested helmets that had the big letters “LB” on them. What did that stood for? “Legion Belge” or the BELGIAN Legion. This was going back before 1814, so how could there be a Belgian Legion when these people keep saying Belgium was just invented in 1830 by a bunch of countries? Why do I have maps from back to the Renaissance period and the Roman Empire with a big area labeled “Belgium” on them if the country was only “invented” in 1830? So why do they keep saying that? It is ridiculous and I do not understand them!

The people always had different languages and different customs, not just in the regions, but town to town. However, in the past most everyone also had a common language if it was Latin or later French and everyone always had the same religion. Today it is more rigid and one area is for speaking Dutch, the other French and a little bit German and no changing! That has hardened feelings I think, not like the way it was in the past. In the past there were language issues also, no denying that, but there were also more things that all Belgians had in common in those days and today there is less of that. But artificial or invented we are not. The area of the country has been a distinct unit since hundreds of years and the people living there knew they were not French or Dutch or Germans, but Belgians!

News, Important, Not Fun

S.M. King Albert II has met again with Elio Di Rupo, leader of the francophone Socialist Party about the government-building efforts. This was said on Friday. Di Rupo met the King at Laeken Castle for another report on the progress of the cabinet, trying to bring together Christian Democrats and Socialists. The idea that the Flemish secessionists could be included in any government is considered atrocious by most patriots. As one blogger put it, would you hand the keys to your house over to someone who said openly they wanted to loot and destroy it? Yet, the secessionists cannot be isolated. Their agenda has been helped all along the way by the immoral leaders of both language communities. They have been helped by the prejudice-fueled politics pushed in Flanders by politicians wanting power. They have been helped by ignorant politicians in Wallonie who hang on to failed policies and blame Flanders for the problems caused by their own failures in order to hang on to power. Anyone can see the similarities.

I have heard from people lately, good people, who are showing signs of resignation and discussing the possibilities of becoming Flanders and French-Belgium. That is sad because it should be unthinkable. Perhaps I read too much about the past but I cannot help but feel that if Belgians part company they do not understand others will not welcome them. I know there are some Dutch who think if Flanders leave Belgium they can annex them to realize the "Greater Netherlands" dream. However, I cannot believe that the secessionists of Flanders would be any happier in the Netherlands. Many of these secessionists just want to be the center of attention anyway, they want people bending over for them and they would not want to be in another country where they would not be treated as "special". In the same way I cannot forget all the history, because of those in Wallonie who think France will be a new home, that the French have often been unfriendly toward Belgium regardless of language.

It also seems so ridiculous that while the country is being overrun by immigrants of a completely alien nationalities, culture and religion the two peoples of Belgium continue to argue with each other while the country, the economy, is in crumbles. But, that is because of the same power seeking politicians who continue to try to win favor by being prejudiced to prove how "devoted" they are to their language community and who continue to try to gain power by blaming all problems on the "other" side. They just care about the next election and they do not even care about the consequences of their vitriol to spread division and possibly bring the ruin of the country by setting Belgians against their brothers. Some people are in poor spirits and I hope that improves like past trends. But I think it is clear this situation cannot go on. This nonsense has to stop!

The First Crusader

Today the Muslim population is exploding in Belgium (no joke) both because of laws, Belgian and EU, favoring immigration from Africa and Asia and also because they are just have many more babies than the native Belgians. This is already leading to big problems of assimiliation and social cohesian and we see this in the burqa ban and other laws. It is ironic that while politicians continue to try to encourage the divisions between the Flemish and Walloon populations, even endangering the country itself, they encourage acceptance of diversity and more immigration that means soon all Belgians, Dutch or French speaking, will be outnumbered by Muslims. This should not be allowed! Nothing could be more contrary to the history and culture of Belgium which is a country of Christian religion, love of life, love of liberty, and love of beauty. If there is a Muslim majority in the country the Kingdom of Belgium will not be one anyone will recognize any more from the country that has always been.

What makes this even more outrageous is that the first Crusader of history was the Belgian noble knight Godfrey de Bouillon. His example shows that the current viewpoint of the Christian armies that fought in the Middle East is totally wrong, that they were good men but like many good man they are attacked today for that basic reason. During the First Crusade there was no official leader but 2 or 3 gradually emerged and the greatest of these was Godfrey de Bouillon who led the knights from Lorraine, Belgium and other 'Low Countries' area. Even though they had every disadvantage the Catholic Crusaders, small armies of Christian warriors, captured Nicea in April 1097, Dorylaeum in July and Antioch the next year. In 1099 they moved to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims and Godfrey de Bouillon led the attack, the final attack, in a siege tower that he had to support with his own back when a holding beam broke and fell!

Godfrey and his Belgian soldiers smashed through the Gate of St Stephen, as the shock troops of the army, so that the French knights of Raymond of Toulouse could charge in to take the city. Then there was the infamous "sack of Jerusalem" where some of the Christian knights got out of hand and killed some civilians and destroyed some parts of Jerusalem. However, Godfrey de Bouillon took no part in that action and condemned it for being behavior unworthy of the Catholic religion. He was such a great warrior and such a respected man of integrity that he became the first King of Jerusalem. Are modern people really that aware of this great historical hero?

If Godfrey de Bouillon could see Belgium today, what do you think he would say about the large and growing Muslim presence? If King Richard 'Heart of the Lion' could see England today what would he say? Religion used to be something that the large majority of Belgians had in common, even if not everyone carries it out the same way or to the same extent, but being a Catholic country was something that united the people because most everyone had that in common with each other. How can a growing Muslim population do anything but cause even more division to the country? How can such a population ever really fit in to a country that is so directly opposed to what they are all about? The culture of Belgium and the culture of Islam are opposed to each other and if things continue as they are one will have to win and one will have to lose, one will dominate and the other will be suppressed. I know which side I support! Vive le Belge!

Exit King Leopold III

King Leopold III was a great man in the history of the Belgian monarchie. But on July 16, 1951 he abdicated the throne which had been "empty" since the ending days of World War II when the King was taken away by the Germans and Prince Charles was named regent (they are seen here together). This can be seen as a confusing situation to many people and it was a confusing situation for Belgians as well. Leopold III has been misrepresented by every party since the Second Great War. He was accused by the Allies of surrendering too soon, but that is not true, he fought on until he was totally surrounded, saving the British army in the process. He was accused of treason by some politicians in exile, but that is not true, he always stood firmly for independence and the national sovereignty of Belgium. He was accused of collaboration with the Germans, but that is not true, he was their prisoner the entire time, even being taken by force out of Belgium at the end.

S.M. King Leopold III was a great man and, I believe, the country would have been much better off if he had simply taken affairs into his own hands to rule the country himself. However, this could only have happened if the Germans had remained victorious and the Germans showed little or no support for Belgium even existing if they had won the war. They were more inclined to support the breakup of Belgium since many collaborators in Flanders and Netherland supported the "Greater Netherlands" idea. Yet, when the sad day of abdication and the crisis called the "Royal Question" came up, most conclude that Leopold III had more support in Flanders than in Wallonia. None of it really makes any sense. The King was supported by most people after the war too, and I would have liked him to have returned and dealt with opposition firmly. But, the King was more kind than I and he abdicated because he put his country's peace and unity first and if it would cause discomfort for the country for him to remain as King, regardless of most supporting him, he would be obligated to abdicate his throne.

It was an unfair and terrible thing to do but the King was guided by compassion to do it, which action itself should show how untrue were the lies his enemies said about him being someone who wanted to be a dictator-royale. I think it would have been better for him to do just that! Let the purge happen if necessary, but, the King was a compassionate man who did not want to put his people through any more trauma. That is the great and special bond that exists in Belgium because of the monarchie populaire, the King is not the ruler of a government or a piece of land but King of a people and the people were the first concern of Leopold III. But this is exactly why his abdication and loss was so bad, for that same reason, that he was a man to do that proves that he was the monarch of that type who is most needed.

The politicians who were often in opposition to the King, even before the war to be truthful about it, encouraged the opposition against him just as they encouraged division in their country because they would do anything to increase and maintain their own hold on power. This proves, again, how vital the monarchie is. Just as Francis Balace said, "Face aux politiciens de plus en plus discrédités, le Roi a l'avantage d'être le seul dont l'homme de la rue puisse jurer que son intérêt personnel coïncide avec celui du pays".

The Queen's Congolese Diamonds

The story is getting around the webs about the controversy surrounding some gifts given to Queen Paola from President Joseph Kabila of the country previously known as the Belgian Congo. Royalty in the News has the details and this is my comment. To me it does not really matter what exactly the Queen was given. The point is that they were gifts. I am sure the people who are being critics now would be just as critical if she had not accepted them. How could she even have done that? If someone gives you a gift you do not throw it back in their face. She would be criticised all around the world for being rude if she did such a thing. If the gifts were too expensive to afford for the Congolese government then Kabila should not have given them. But this is all a distraction anyway, something meant to cause trouble for the Belgian monarchy just because everyone gets so uptight when they hear the words "Belgium" and "Congo" in the same phrase. Whatever the cost of the jewels or watch or whatever it was, obviously they were already in the gift of President Kabila so it is not as though this money was robbed from someone just to benefit the Queen Paola (who has handed them over to the government in any event). Kabila had already got them by some means or another and they were his to give away or keep, if there was any wrongdoing in their acquisition that was already done a long time ago and had nothing to do with the Royal Family who could not have known and would surely never be so outrageous as to ask a host leader where he got them or how much they were worth. So this is just ridiculous and an absurd effort to find some way to be critical of Queen Paola and the Royal Family. Once again we see the media blaming the royalty first rather than the independent government of the former colony who are never held responsible for anything.