Wallonia - Independence, union with France or Union with the Netherlands?

[Payens]

What's scary with your deluded, one-sided vision of history is that it is believed by soo many flemish I spoke to

Because it is factual. This isn't patriotic blabbering, it is choosing right above wrong.

[Tchek]

Walloon politicians claim territory to ensure Brussels as their own in case Belgium would fall apart, this is a fact.

Flemish politicians are geopolitically isolating Brussels into Flanders by splitting BHV, under-financing it etc... to ensure Brussels as their own in case Belgium fall apart, this is a fact. Actually much more factual than what you claim Wallonian politicians are allegedly doing... because "walloon" politicians don't actually want the country to split, while most Flemish politicians do. Walloon politicians want Brussels to be the capital of all Belgians. They just want Wallonia to be close to Brussels because it is still the capital of Belgium. It's totally natural for a region to ensure connections towards the economical center of the country in order to stimulate its economy. In any country.
Unfortunately, with the purposeful growing isolation of Brussels into Flanders, the city is "drifting away" from Wallonia thanks to all the little sneaky tactics the Flemish governement is doing so Brussels fall into their hands like a ripe fruit.

We refuse a referendum because we have surpassed the days when independent city-states were powerhouses. Brussels is a city, one that is overestimating itself hugely, spits in the face of the autochthon population while asking more autochthon money to support their lousy governed town.

Brussels spits in the face of the autochton population? (and who are the autochton population? the Flemish?)

[Tchek]

"The first principles of a good administration are based upon the exclusive use of one language, and it is evident that the only language of the Belgians should be French. In order to achieve this result, it is necessary that all civil and military functions are entrusted to Walloons and Luxemburgers; this way, the Flemish, temporarily deprived of the advantages of these offices, will be constrained to learn French, and we will hence destroy bit by bit the Germanic element in Belgium."

So, yes, stolen is a huge understatement. Not only is Brussels stolen, more correct would be to acknowledge that Flanders was stolen from the Netherlands by a Walloon/French coalition. Even today the holiday of the French Community in Belgium is on the 27th of September, the day the Dutch forces had the retreat (under international pressure) from Dutch soil.

So yes the Flemish should give a big fuck you to the Wallonian and French imperial monster.

The pro-French stance (whether you admit it or not, Flanders was not anti-French at all, and they hated the Dutch for religious reason, some gladly spoke French) only lasted until World War I, when the invading Prussians (you should love them) imposed the Flamenpolitik which is a set of pro-Flemish laws that were actually never withdrawn since then.
The Prussians are the inventor of modern Flanders. Moritz von Bissing more exactly. It was a geopolitical invention meant to create a germanized strip of land linking Western Prussia (via un-flemish Limburg) to the port of Antwerp, strategical port for an offensive towards England.
From then on, Flanders never lost its advantage given initially by the Prussian occupation (the second world war was a the last nail in the coffin of Wallonia)
In 1917, Von Bissing drew a line in the middle of the country (absolutely identical to the modern division), declared Brussels the capital of the newly created region of Flanders, and Namur the capital of Wallonia. Brussels was given to Flanders in order to give the north of the country a geopolitical advantage.
This politics reappeared decades later during the federalisation of the country when the linguistic frontier was fixed, where most of the Flamenpolitik points reappeared! The same lingustic line, the same capitals! That's why Flanders suddenly went uphill and Wallonia downhill right after respectively WWI and WWII ended!

Bottom line: Belgium was beneficial to Flanders after both german occupations.

All stolen :

Houtem, Waasten, Neerwaasten, Komen, Herzeeuw, Luingne (Lowingen before Walloon annexation and colonization), Moeskroen, Dottenijs, Orroir, Rozenaken, Amougies (Dutch : Amengijs), Bierk, Sint-Renelde, Neerheylissem, Sluizen, Zittert-Lummen, Opheylissem, Korsworm, Wauteringen, Rukkelingen-aan-de-Jeker, Bitsingen, Wonck, Eben-Emael, Ternaaien.

I will not discuss French Flanders stolen by your brothers.

French flanders are not my brothers.

The fact those places possess also a Flemish name doesn't mean they should be Flemish. Liege should be German then: it's called Luttich too!
What about Limburg? It was part of Liege for 1000 years, why is it in Flanders today? Stolen? What about Paris? Dutch name=Parijs... OMG it must be Flemish then!

The irony is that you are calling French speakers "imperialists" while you are actually the imperialist-minded one!

We have been oppressed, and even today the situation for the Dutch speaking people isn't healthy, honest and right. We have struggled against a nation that was out to destroy our ethnic identity (literally!), and even today the international perception that Belgium is indeed a French speaking nation still stands.

This is wrong. As I said before, Flanders actually BENEFITED from Belgium, as the region was built and prospered *within* its very context! It's a Flemish nationalist myth that Belgium "oppressed" Flanders! As I said above, there was no oppression of Flanders after 14-18, quite the contrary (all your "historical proofs of flemish oppression" are, nowadays irrelevant, pre-WWI references). Now Belgium had its time and became a bit "useless" for Flanders and want to get rid of it. In order to manipulate the Flemish population into radicalism, a mediatically fed "flemish victimhood" propaganda has been religiously imposed towards its population for a decade now, and you are a good priest of it.

The issues of Belgium revolve around Flemish money, Flemish territory, Francophone expansion and Francophone privileges. And even up to this moment, 180 years later, the Flemish are the ones giving up those objects. What did Wallonia lose in Belgian context, other then their illegitimate supremacy over the Flemish? Did they lose or gain territory? Lose or gain money?

What did Wallonia lost? Wallonia went from one of the richest to one of the poorest region of Europe within Belgium!

[The Lawspeaker]

O.K.. aangezien het een topic betreft over onze Nederlanden schakel ik over op mijn eigen taal. Payens: ik ben het niet helemaal met je eens dat je alles maar bij de Walen in de schoenen schuift te meer omdat Vlamingen EN Walen het slachtoffer zijn van dezelfde politiek - en van dezelfde vijand. De vijand in dezen is Frankrijk die gaarne zijn grens naar het noorden probeerde te verplaatsen en lokale culturen heeft verpletterd en prijsgegeven aan het centralisme en aan de willekeur en uitbuiting door zijn elite.

De mensen die de Vlamingen hebben onderdrukt waren niet de Walen maar een ver-Franste elite .. soms zelfs van Franse afkomst die OF door de Fransen tijdens de Middeleeuwen werden aangevoerd, OF tijdens de Revolutie OF die gewoon als collaborateurs werkzaam waren.

Wallonië mocht dan wel tijdens het begin van de twintigste eeuw het rijkste stukje van continentaal Europa zijn.. de gewone Waal heeft daar nog geen sou van gezien - hij mocht slechts tevreden zijn met een kleine chomage nadat de mijnen en fabrieken werden gesloten --- en de banen verplaatst naar lagelonenlanden. En toen de mijnen er nog waren werden Italianen of andere buitenlanders ingevoerd om de lonen te drukken. Investeringen in veiligheid ? Mais pourquoi ? Ik noem maar als voorbeeld de mijnramp van Marcinelle in 1956.

De grote opstanden waren dan ook in Wallonië en niet in zozeer in Vlaanderen. De grote werkstaking van 1893 is daar een zeer typisch voorbeeld van of anders wel de Jacquerie van 1886 - of recenter de algemene werkstaking van 1960-1961. De gewone Jean in Wallonië heeft dezelfde sociale ellende moeten doorstaan als velen in de grauwe industriesteden van Groot-Brittannië.

Misschien geld voor zowel jou als voor Tchek - die mooie Amerikaanse uitdrukking: you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Tchek]

O.K.. aangezien het een topic betreft over onze Nederlanden schakel ik over op mijn eigen taal. Payens: ik ben het niet helemaal met je eens dat je alles maar bij de Walen in de schoenen schuift te meer omdat Vlamingen EN Walen het slachtoffer zijn van dezelfde politiek - en van dezelfde vijand. De vijand in dezen is Frankrijk die gaarne zijn grens naar het noorden probeerde te verplaatsen en lokale culturen heeft verpletterd en prijsgegeven aan het centralisme en aan de willekeur en uitbuiting door zijn elite.

De mensen die de Vlamingen hebben onderdrukt waren niet de Walen maar een ver-Franste elite .. soms zelfs van Franse afkomst die OF door de Fransen tijdens de Middeleeuwen werden aangevoerd, OF tijdens de Revolutie OF die gewoon als collaborateurs werkzaam waren.

Wallonië mocht dan wel tijdens het begin van de twintigste eeuw het rijkste stukje van continentaal Europa zijn.. de gewone Waal heeft daar nog geen sou van gezien - hij mocht slechts tevreden zijn met een kleine chomage nadat de mijnen en fabrieken werden gesloten --- en de banen verplaatst naar lagelonenlanden. En toen de mijnen er nog waren werden Italianen of andere buitenlanders ingevoerd om de lonen te drukken. Investeringen in veiligheid ? Mais pourquoi ? Ik noem maar als voorbeeld de mijnramp van Marcinelle in 1956.

De grote opstanden waren dan ook in Wallonië en niet in zozeer in Vlaanderen. De grote werkstaking van 1893 is daar een zeer typisch voorbeeld van of anders wel de Jacquerie van 1886. De gewone Jean in Wallonië heeft dezelfde sociale ellende moeten doorstaan als velen in de grauwe industriesteden van Groot-Brittannië.

Misschien geld voor zowel jou als voor Tchek - die mooie Amerikaanse uitdrukking: you're barking up the wrong tree.

^ Except for the fact that I'm not as anti-France as you are, I mostly agree.

[The Lawspeaker]

Ik geloof niet in het uiteenvallen van België. Dat zou betekenen dat wij dus met VIER Nederlandse staten (vijf als je de Afrikaanders meetelt) te maken gaan krijgen terwijl de Nederlanden een zouden moeten zijn.

Voor de buitenlanders: een Nederlander is niet een op klompen lopende kaas- en haring-vreter die zijn tulpen verzorgd en zijn molen nog eens een keertje poetst maar een bewoner van de lage landen.

Terwijl de geschiedenis hem cultureel aaneen heeft gesmeed en later voor een gedeelte weer verdeelt heeft dezelfde geschiedenis hem politiek verdeelt. Slechts weinigen beseffen nog dat België en Nederland in principe precies hetzelfde betekenen: het betekent de Lage Landen. Ook tijdens de Zeventiende Eeuw was de latijnse naam van onze Noordelijke Nederlanden Belgica -- Belgica Foederata (Belgische Bond / Belgische Federatie), Foederatae Belgii Provinciae (de Geünieerde Belgische Provincies) terwijl wat nu België heet bekend stond als Belgica Regia. Onze taal werd in het Latijn omschreven als Lingua Belga - ons nationaal embleem als de Leo Belgicus (de Belgische Leeuw).




Noord en Zuid gingen samen de onafhankelijkheidsstrijd in en we kunnen zeggen dat de Nederlanden de oorlog niet hebben gewonnen (hoewel Orangisten en calvinisten nu anders zullen beweren): het Zuiden ging verloren.

De Verenigde Nederlandse Staten/ Verenigde Belgische Staten van 1790 was een ander typisch voorbeeld van een onafhankelijkheidsstrijd. Het Zuiden zocht aansluiting en steun bij het Noorden.. het was toen Oranje (dat geheel samenwerkend met Pruisen, Oostenrijk en Groot-Brittannië) onze volksgenoten in het Zuiden liet barsten. 1830.. was een groot drama. In een vlaag van waanzin, aangestuurd door een stupide politiek van Koning Willem I EN Franse ambities, gingen Nederlanders uit Noord en Zuid elkaar te lijf.

Het huidige Nederland en België zijn twee rompstaten. Noord- en Zuid-Nederland. Noem het een soort Oost- en West-Duitsland minus muur en communisme maar even verdeeld.

[Payens]

Flemish politicians are geopolitically isolating Brussels into Flanders by splitting BHV, under-financing it etc... to ensure Brussels as their own in case Belgium fall apart, this is a fact. Actually much more factual than what you claim Wallonian politicians are allegedly doing... because "walloon" politicians don't actually want the country to split, while most Flemish politicians do. Walloon politicians want Brussels to be the capital of all Belgians. They just want Wallonia to be close to Brussels because it is still the capital of Belgium. It's totally natural for a region to ensure connections towards the economical center of the country in order to stimulate its economy. In any country.
Unfortunately, with the purposeful growing isolation of Brussels into Flanders, the city is "drifting away" from Wallonia thanks to all the little sneaky tactics the Flemish governement is doing so Brussels fall into their hands like a ripe fruit.

This is a preservationist forum for European peoples, their land, history, culture and identity. Perhaps you are not in your element here.

You are claiming land, history and culture that wasn't yours, isn't yours and will never be yours while you destroy by doing so the identity of my people. You are a thief, destroyer and an imperialist, that is the naked truth.

Brussels is isolated within Flanders, true. Don't see your point. As it is a Dutch city, frenchified within Dutch territory. True true true. The rest of your argument equals to the murder of truth, logic and reality. But fine.

a) Splitting BHV : Brussel Halle Vilvoorde is about Francophone privileges, opportunism and a good dose of arrogance really. It is the only arrondissement in Belgium - with the exception of bilingual Brussels (part of it) - where politicians of the other community can collect their votes, giving their little colonizers within Flanders no reason to integrate and respect Flanders and the Flemish as they can vote for Francophone parties with imperial Francophone interests and intentions.

To illustrate this reality, see the imperialist dogmas spread within unilingual Flanders by the depute prime minster of Belgium under flag of the Union des Francophones.

"« Les candidates et les candidats MR s"engagent à vous défendre, à refuser toute scission des arrondissements judiciaire et électoral de Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde, à exiger l"application de la Convention-cadre sur la protection des minorités nationales, à revendiquer l"élargissement de la Région bruxelloise aux communes où vit une communauté singnificative de francophones, à combattre les plans flamands visant à l"assimilation linguistique et culturelle des francophones de la périphérie.
S"il y a une patrie à donner aux francophones, s"il y a une patrie à leur faire aimer, c"est une patrie francophone, une Belgique francophone. »"

Reminds me of "La Belgique sera latine ou ne sera pas" by Rogier. Fuck Belgium if this shouldn't be clear already.

BHV non surprisingly is located within Flanders. There is no such arrondissement nor reality within Wallonia. Therefore it is by definition a privilege for the Francophone community. A non constitutional privilege as ruled by the Constitutional Court of Belgium (2003). It provided to the walloons to vote across the linguistic border within unilingual Dutch territory. For the Flemish no such luck of course. Mind you both the linguistic border as well as the unilingual communities came at request of the Walloons. Fearing the Dutch speaking majority within Belgium. The first uprising of the Flemish cultural and social struggle resulted in Vive la séperation administrative in the Belgian Senate in 1910.

BHV equals a unconstitutional construction that encouraged the frenchification of Flanders.

b) financing Brussels

Brussels doesn't want to belong to Flanders. Though it will patronize the Flemish and disrespect the language legislation in Belgium. Then why would we pay even more then now for a city full of Arabs and negroes governed by A, Francophone imperialists (FDF) or by B, the marxists of the PS. You tell me.

Walloon politicians want Brussels to be the capital of all Belgians. They just want Wallonia to be close to Brussels because it is still the capital of Belgium. It's totally natural for a region to ensure connections towards the economical center of the country in order to stimulate its economy. In any country.

The Flemish region and her community should give up their modern and historic territory for this bs argument? What people would do so?

Brussels was is and will be ours, nothing you can do about it. A disintegration and split of Belgium will result by international law in two new nations along their linguistic borders. This is the real reason for the imperial demand of the Walloons.

Build your new capital in the Ardennes for all I care.

The pro-French stance (whether you admit it or not, Flanders was not anti-French at all, and they hated the Dutch for religious reason, some gladly spoke French) only lasted until World War I, when the invading Prussians (you should love them) imposed the Flamenpolitik which is a set of pro-Flemish laws that were actually never withdrawn since then.

Not true. Antwerp was praised for its loyality to the House of Orange.

I do love the Germans for it. The Flamenpolitik gave us the first Dutch university in Belgium in the city of Ghent, my university . Absolute horror indeed.

The Prussians are the inventor of modern Flanders. Moritz von Bissing more exactly. It was a geopolitical invention meant to create a germanized strip of land linking Western Prussia (via un-flemish Limburg) to the port of Antwerp, strategical port for an offensive towards England.
From then on, Flanders never lost its advantage given initially by the Prussian occupation (the second world war was a the last nail in the coffin of Wallonia)
In 1917, Von Bissing drew a line in the middle of the country (absolutely identical to the modern division), declared Brussels the capital of the newly created region of Flanders, and Namur the capital of Wallonia. Brussels was given to Flanders in order to give the north of the country a geopolitical advantage.

I am not sure about the interpretation you use for the term invention. How can modern Flanders be merely and only a geopolitical invention when it covers the Dutch speaking ethnicity. He made the cut along the already on ethnicity depending linguistic lines that existed in this region since the time of Rome and before.

Firstly Flanders, or so you insist, the Dutch speaking North of Belgium is only part of Belgium because of Francophone separatism and the social and cultural suppression of the Dutch people in the North. So this notion that Brussels was given to the Dutch speaking population by a German for his geopolitical invention is a manipulation of reality and a disregard of history. Brussels was already our capital within the Belgian context of 1830, the Dutch context before it and long before this during the 17th century as capital of the Southern Netherlands, the 16th century as capital of the Netherlands and perhaps I didn't mention it as a city within this Dutch speaking part of this globe.

The border can not be absolutely identical to this border as the linguistic border of this day is a construction of a Walloon request in 1962. Nor do I see why you are so tense, this separation of administration in 1917 is exactly what was asked for in the Francophone Belgian Senate in 1910.

The linguistic border was from its own nature more southern positioned then it is at this juncture within the Belgian context.

This politics reappeared decades later during the federalisation of the country when the linguistic frontier was fixed, where most of the Flamenpolitik points reappeared! The same lingustic line, the same capitals! That's why Flanders suddenly went uphill and Wallonia downhill right after respectively WWI and WWII ended

If you believe this nonsense then you are mistaken. Flanders will be richer, more prosperous because of its mentality, innovation, education and culture.

The Flamenpolitik doesn't force the modern Walloons to vote for the PS and its socialist culture. It is not Bissing who forces Walloons to strike on every good or not so good opportunity or event.

Bottom line: Belgium was beneficial to Flanders after both german occupations.

Today after 180 years of La Belgique sera latine ou ne sera pas this Flamenpolitik is to be considered as a short but more then welcome breath of fresh air. Truth, if the Walloons wouldn't be have been so much in favor of constructional and cultural genocide in regards of the Flemish this Flamenpolitik wouldn’t have been in existence.

The fact those places possess also a Flemish name doesn't mean they should be Flemish. Liege should be German then: it's called Luttich too!
What about Limburg? It was part of Liege for 1000 years, why is it in Flanders today? Stolen? What about Paris? Dutch name=Parijs... OMG it must be Flemish then!

The irony is that you are calling French speakers "imperialists" while you are actually the imperialist-minded one!

You are childishly naive. They shouldn't be Flemish, they are Flemish regardless of their position in regards of the border. They are so because these towns were founded by people of Germanic speech. And while perhaps the Walloon region believes in cultural and linguistic supremacy and assimilation as ground for citizenship and territory regardless of ethnicity, I for one believe in ethnic nationalism. These are areas where in recent times the local, historical and cultural language was replaced by the non native French.

For example the Low Dietsch area in what is now Liege where the cultural language was always a form of lowlandic Germanic speech.

The danger in defining a people and nation in the manner you do lies in the fact that you will have to accept blacks and arabs as they recently learned to speak your tongue.

This is wrong. As I said before, Flanders actually BENEFITED from Belgium, as the region was built and prospered *within* its very context! It's a Flemish nationalist myth that Belgium "oppressed" Flanders! As I said above, there was no oppression of Flanders after 14-18, quite the contrary (all your "historical proofs of flemish oppression" are, nowadays irrelevant, pre-WWI references). Now Belgium had its time and became a bit "useless" for Flanders and want to get rid of it. In order to manipulate the Flemish population into radicalism, a mediatically fed "flemish victimhood" propaganda has been religiously imposed towards its population for a decade now, and you are a good priest of it.

The emancipation of the Dutch speaking Belgians is always objected, corrupted and destabilized by the French establishment. Although it is more provable and out in the open within the first 100 years of Belgium, and much more complex and political after it.

The reality of our economical success isn't part of post ww2 Belgium, but of anti socialist sentiments and strong entrepreneurial activity and a strong and high educated middle class before the first ww. A middle class restricted from legitimate power because of the anti Flemish Belgian construction.

We have to get rid of Belgium because its purpose and birth is against us. We have to get rid of Belgium because although we are the majority living in a center right political entity we have to compromise with a socialist region that has in regards of its numbers a disproportional influence. We have to cope with a walloon/socialist enforcement of the right for immigrants to vote and a immigration policy for which we didn't choose, but the Walloons.

We have to get rid of Belgium because we have to pay for it under the false flag of solidarity. Flanders gives the French community each year about 10 billion Euro without any conditions attached (5% Flemish GNP) The Netherlands give the European Union around 3 billion Euro (0.5% of their GNP). This is a unhealthy situation within any federation.

[gandalf]

I heard that belgium parties made a new reform
increasing power and autonomy of regions .

Will it end the threat of a partition of Belgium ?

[The Lawspeaker]

Unlikely. It means that Belgium will remain Belgium for the foreseeable future.

[Albion]

Unlikely. It means that Belgium will remain Belgium for the foreseeable future.

...Hurray?.....