It may sound crazy but the future of a country is often a reflection of the past, with in minds that there are apparently many changes in the positive sense, but in fact everything remains the same.

Our society has over the centuries through the roots of our development shaped into what it is today, and given the roots or fundamental values ​​can’t suddenly change a society can’t be lifted out of base without destroying his foundation. The foundation of our society are we selves and our average development level, a level that is the result of centuries of natural selection that drives each of us to the communities in which we can feel at home and maintain ourselves.

Each community will seek a settlement area where the community is not supplanted by more developed and that based on the level of development can be maintained. Anyone with the appropriate development will be in a community accepted; others are displaced or drawn from their own move away in search of a suitable place to survive. Whereas creating certain homogeneity in the general level occurs, while the extreme outmost are limited to what the community is able to tolerate. Even our political image is also determined by these general values​​. In large population movements in history will find that this always result in either restoring the social balance of the region or to an endless destabilization of the region. It is remarkable that the internal stability of a community is proportional to the livability of the occupied area, allowing the internal peace exhibits the highest stability in favorable areas on the tropical mainland.

We will note that despite the turmoil in the Middle East after the recent upheavals in these areas gradually back into their old folds will fall, and only limited changes will sustain. Around the world we are faced with revolts and revolutions, but always arises from the ashes again and again renewal of the devastated is barely distinguishable.

Europe and especially the Belgian society are more complex than might be expected, and does not rely on a development and natural selection but on two diverse and conflicting selections and associated developments.   On the one hand we have the Western European development of coastal peoples on the basis of better social development, the best parts of continental Europe knew to win and less developed to the north, the northern islands and inland repressed. The western coastal areas, however, were at the out coming of metallurgy and metal swords  by tribes of the central and northern hinterland, known to us as Germanics, be conquered in the wake of Huns. The second important and influential developments were this of the Germanic ruler who obscured their low social development of standards of decency deem, embellished with delicate use standards or etiquettes. They would deem a better place gradually as developed and refined class, to ennoble themselves. The Aryans are related to families that are the ancestors of the current West European nobility, and our regions to date on the basis of extreme egocentrism continue to dominate, but this is through suppression of the bourgeoisie against the interests of the bourgeoisie. The influence of these Adel is numerically much lower situated, but stands firm on the basis of looting of the subordinate population and power attached to the money, while the inheritance associated with power and wealth, only to the eldest of the family to transfer as power and ability to maintain a social highlight. It is notable that alleged democracies today have a monarch at the head of society, often the least progress in social and economic level and in a familiar pattern congeals continue stabbing. It is these countries are simultaneously in their international position by rapid developments and progress of other areas being threatened. The political and economic paralysis in Belgium is a direct result of the rigidity in the political realm created by the struggle between monarchy and democracy which standing at right angles to each other. Two forces and principles that diverse or an even contradictory target intends. The monarchy in Belgium but also in the UK apparently the benefit arising from the power of the position to be strengthened by a power connected to the private resources of these monarchies.

One should not forget that the exploitation of colonial resources that were set up for the World War I by wealthy noble families with the royalty's in front, and not by the poor and exploited classes.

The rivalry between the two poles of power, monarchy and democracy, is also food for instability associated with the need to maintain itself at all costs. These two battles thus feed the corruption that is shunned by both parties to the sheet towards himself to attract. Corruption is at its turn, the foundations for lawlessness and crime which it can flourish rampant lawlessness, but lawlessness in turn food for instability of the country and its economy.

The so praised and beatific opposition which the country political life has to infuse and by the leaders of the sky in praise were, however, is the key of power of the nobility and monarchy that knows its power assured by disunity among the people, a disunity that finally the biggest threat to the prosperity of the nation and the future of the country shall give. There is needed a very strong hand to unify a community with many contradictions and ideologies together to forge a stable structure and become a healthy functioning, which is only possible if the leader more concerned about the people than for his personal interests.

Our modern society is today, however, additionally influenced by the widespread and modern electronic communication and rapid media and news dissemination through radio, TV and Internet, that restriction and censorship crowd out and the public a broader glimpse of what is happening globally in reality.

Belgium or Flanders, despite everything, not come to a unity, and by their internal disagreements do not detach from the crushing grip of the royal family. A disagreement mainly enhanced by the contrast between north and south. Contradictions that may emerge with the language barrier and be reinforce by the language barrier. The language barrier does, however, an invisible border determined by the ancient influences from southern Europe infiltrated and southern the language barrier kept stabbing. The Romans came barely north of the language barrier while the Huns under the authority of Attila this language barrier not breakthroughs and the influence of these two so clearly southern of this language barrier kept stabbing. Conquerors like the Romans and Huns were not out to conquer the cold and poorly viable areas north of the European language barrier and bounce in the west on the well socially developed nations of the coastal areas, but oppressed by mixing and presence characterize the population of conquered and occupied territories. It is noticeable that even in southern Belgium or the French-speaking area greater internal consistency among its population has, so their dominance to this day is supported. It's also clear that the ruling monarchies are from families from the former area of Huns from behind the Rhine, invaded, while Western Europe offers regions where degradations by an imbalance there be widespread.

The empire of the Huns under Attila in the south was bounded by the Danube in the east by the Ural River in the north by the Baltic Sea and the west by the Rhine.

Flanders does seem to sense and to unity want to come but the Flemish are distributed by the disagreement of their citizens into two poles, with a majority be moderate and realistic, and where the extreme being put off, which is currently reflected in the rise of the New Flemish Alliance or just N-VA at one side. This party does not appear to meet the aspirations of those who are severely affected by the crisis, making it more extreme and radical pro-Vlaams Belang that stubborn resistance against external integration, knows strengthens by his supporters, but this way denies the reality and the assessment of migrants to shortsighted through generalize about. The union of these two poles would lead to an ultimate and unstoppable revolution in political terms, even at short notice may not be great advantageous. Through monarchy sidelining can begin to govern democratically and without unwanted interference of a monarch, while a president for a bad policy can be called to justify which can't in case of a monarch. This is ultimately the only track to internal stability, which would open the doors of the future put, laws and codes to useful materials that will make everyone will be applicable without distinction, and both the peace and stability of the country and its citizens will benefit only come and will provide more certainty. The Belgian framework gives by the monarchy not an acceptable framework for democracy, while the European framework is that an aborted fetus but not to full development may come. The future of Europe is therefore further from home than she ever was. Flanders, now or in the future can't count on Belgium or Europe without the removal of the Belgian monarchy.