Restoration of our statehood: a process that begins with mental de-colonization
(Text initially published on May-2020, the 29th.)
Restoration
of our statehood: a process that begins with mental de-colonization
I
The
question of the “rejection” or apprehension that arises among some people in
our Country the term ‘Erresuma’: which is the one that traditionally translates
in the Basque Language the concept of State (and this – as it is “argued” – merely on account of
its purported conceptual/terminological connection with ‘errege’/king), highlights
the ideological-political weakness established in our Country as a result of
confusion, corruption and recuperation of fundamental and basic terms and
concepts of sociology and politics, induced among us by the ideological agents
of the French-Spanish imperialism, previously taken as “democracy” with the
help of its local auxiliary agents: the Mafia-liquidationist bureaucracies
Pnv-Eta. (Of course, we have always distinguished between the bases of the Pnv
or the Eta, and their bureaucracies; and have expressly stated that those bases
did completely ignore what their purported representatives were plotting and
doing behind their backs.)
To
begin with, it must be said that the Euskara distinguishes between ‘Erresuma’ (State) and ‘Erreinu/Erregegoa’ (Kingdom). Moreover, in the past every State was a Kingdom. That is:
those of the highest rank, since there were also – and there still are – the
Principalities (Andorra, Catalonia, Monaco, or the countless ones of the Holy
Roman-Germanic Empire), the Duchies or Grand Duchies (Luxembourg, Lithuania,
Finland etc.), The Counties or Viscounties (Bearn)... is it necessary to
follow? Now then, is it conceivable a current citizen of the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg – for instance – who walks worried through life because his State
has that official name, and not that of a kingdom or let alone a republic? It
doesn’t seem plausible. These things only occur in the Countries mentally and
ideologically colonized: corrupted and weakened as a result of the action – for
centuries – of the imperialism that has them subjected and indoctrinated in
historical forgery and mental stupidity.
In
this way, a Basque citizen “duly” conditioned, because of his subjugation under
the Spanish régime of military occupation, can be horrified – as our “prudent”
soothsayers warn us – if he has to admit that our historical State is a
Kingdom: the Kingdom of Pamplona/Nabarre. A Kingdom, by the way, whose monarchs
did declare that the Basque Language was the ‘lingua navarrorum’ (the language of the Navarrese), and did order
and finance the translation of the Bible into the Basque Language. But, instead,
this alienated citizen does apparently endure: without repugnance or even noticing
it, being a citizen of the Kingdom of Spain currently governed by the Francoist
monarchy, whose historical and permanent objective is the liquidation of the
Basque People and above all of its language.
Similarly,
a continental Basque similarly conditioned, and subjected under French military
occupation and colonization, rejects our current state, the Kingdom of Nabarre,
and does not even accept that the Euskeric word equivalent to ‘State’ be the traditional
and literarily established term: ‘Erresuma’,
since it has “monarchical” resonances whereas he is a “republican”. And, in his
distorted formation, the “French Republic” is undoubtedly the ultimate word in
terms of respect for fundamental human rights: the first of which is the right
of self-determination or independence of Peoples; when it turns out that the
revolting French imperialistic Nationalism – like the Spanish one – whether it
be monarchical or republican, what it has done throughout its inglorious history
is to attack and destroy the freedom of Peoples and States that have had the
misfortune to fall under its clutches.
Unfortunately,
we all are under the conditioning, stupidity and mental colonization spread by
the media monopolies of French-Spanish imperialism; and it is not possible to
combat imperialism from the stupidity and colonization that it spreads with
full media hands. Having established this unfortunate ideological situation of
departure, we see that in order to overcome it we must tackle the need to
clarify two fundamental issues:
1/
to highlight the falsehood implied in affirming that a republic is necessarily
identified with the respect for fundamental human rights and with
“progressivism”, whereas a monarchy is necessarily identified with the violation
of those rights and with “reactionism”; and
2/
to highlight that our position: in affirming the continuity, validity and
actuality of our own State, the Kingdom of Nabarre, does not consist in
affirming the continuity of the Navarrese monarchy THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST. It
does strictly consist in a strategic approach based on the possibilities and
potentiality offered by current international law, which protects the
continuity of legitimate States (whatever their form may be) from the criminal
aggression and violation of the legitimate legality imposed by imperialism. In
the correct understanding, of course, that we must be the ones who maintain that
affirmation of our State continuity etc., for no one will keep it for us if we
do not do it ourselves. A position, therefore, that implies NOT that we should
claim the current existence and continuity of a King that WE DO NOT HAVE, but that
we should claim the current existence and continuity of a State that WE DO HAVE,
and which is the Kingdom of Nabarre, to which we have never renounced or
recognized any other.
We are not going to dwell here on the trickery that has been summed up in point 1/, since all this was sufficiently discussed in the article that, under the title ‘Frente al imperialismo republicano: derecho de autodeterminación’, was published on this FaceBook page on 14-April-2019, that is: precisely the day when alienated sectors of our Country celebrate “the day of the republic”; being so that there is no such “republic day” in general but, in any case, it is “the day of the Spanish second republic”, which obviously is not ours’.
It only
should be noted, if anything, the unfortunate situation of confusion and mental
alienation in which – by the action of its purported political class – the
Basque People have been put in, which means that such elementary issues have to
be explained: with the work and the waste of time that this entails, and with
very little possibilities of dissemination and influence on the public opinion,
in the face of the monopolies of mass indoctrination and ideological intoxication,
when such issues should be seen and identified without difficulty as the
ideological traps they are.
As
it has already been noted before, it is unimaginable for a citizen of Luxembourg,
England or the Netherlands to be worried by the fact that his State is not a
republic, such as France, China or Turkey are so. Of course, there is nothing
strange about it since the former are independent Countries, and these
ideological traps are neither made for them nor consequently do affect them;
whereas, on the contrary, they wreak havoc among Peoples and Countries
dominated by the French-Spanish imperialism, because of their being weakened
and undermined by the action of its warlike, political and ideological
centennial Terrorism, and by the systematic mental intoxication that this
entails.
And with regard to the issue set out in point 2/, it has also been discussed in the text ‘El Movimiento Vasco de Resistencia y Salvación Nacional frente al imperialismo franco-español’, which was published on this page on 14-November-2019. In particular, and as it has already been pointed out, it must be borne in mind that, in affirming the continuity of our State: the Kingdom of Nabarre, we are formulating strictly a political position that allows us to use in our favour the full potential of international law.
In
principle every right is conservative, and the international right is especially
so; therefore it does hold in abhorrence anything that means to change and
violate the established legal order. Well, without extending too far now, when
we affirm the continuity of our State, all we are asserting – in line with
international law established by UN resolutions – is the restoration of our
legitimate legality, violated by the imperialism of France and Spain when they
unlawfully and criminally abolished the Kingdom of Nabarre through military aggression
and uncountable, horrendous and imprescriptible war crimes, crimes against
peace, and crimes against humanity.
As for the question of a monarch, the thing is clear: we have none, nor do we have any need of it either so as to restore our State. A Kingdom (or a Duchy) is a State, that is: the juridical entity of the highest rank in international law, which exists 'per se' and does not need at all, in order to exist, the natural person at its head. This means that while it is impossible – for example – that a king can exist if there is no kingdom, on the contrary, there can perfectly be a kingdom without a king, in a situation of vacant seat or throne: which it is our current situation and which could be maintained perfectly and indefinitely, with the institution of an elective “royal” chancellery that might represent the Head of State.
Indeed,
after the death of Henry III of Nabarre (who since 1589 was also IV of France:
the last king of Nabarre who was legitimately king until his death – by murder
– in 1610), his son and successor Louis II of Nabarre (and XIII of France),
legally king of Nabarre at the time of succession, lost his legitimacy as such
king of our State by betraying the fundamental laws and constitutions of the Kingdom,
when on 19-October-1620 he did militarily impose the “Edict of Union” of the
Kingdoms of France and of Nabarre. The denunciation of that illegal act and the
demand for its revocation: carried out in the following month of November by
the Estates-General of the Kingdom gathered at the Church of St. Paul in
Donapaleu, were ignored. From that moment on, he himself and all his
successors: self-styled “kings of France and of Nabarre” in their official
titles, were usurper kings of our State; and first of all he was so his
successor: Louis III of Nabarre (and XIV of France), who in 1659, by the Treaty
of the Pyrenees and through his representatives, did illegally cede all the
territories of the Kingdom south of the Pyrenees – as well as the Valley of Luzaide/Valcarlos
– to the Hispanic-Catholic Monarchy: until then a mere illegal occupant of them,
as it remains today, by criminal military conquest. But, well understood, this illegitimacy
of the self-styled kings of Nabarre from Louis II did not at all affect the legitimacy,
validity and continuity of the Kingdom of Nabarre: officially recognized at all
effects as distinct – although no longer separated de facto – from the Kingdom of France.
As
already indicated, this provisional situation of Kingdom with a vacant throne
may thus either remain indefinitely, or it may be changed so that the State
ceases to be a kingdom and becomes legally- a republic; something that in our
case would have to be decided by the representatives of its constituent
subjects gathered in Estates-General, Meetings, Biltzar, Silviet etc. in order to
legally decide on the issue. Which, as it is natural, could only be done once
all the foreign armies that occupy our Country militarily had been expelled.
But, of course, in order to invoke the support of international law in
affirming the lawfulness, validity and continuity of our State, it is
completely absurd and counter-producing to think of the change in the form of
our State BEFORE affirming its restoration; which – we insist – is the restoration
of the legality violated by Spain and by France through criminal, unlawful and
null and void acts, under international law. To put it graphically, these
unlawful acts opened a parenthesis of illegality and nullity: which must
necessarily be closed by the abolition of imperialism, and completely erased by
the restoration of the earlier legality of our State in the form of the Kingdom
of Nabarre.
So, what we have to do at the present time is to proclaim THE RESTORATION and continuity of the Kingdom of Nabarre; and to affirm that any act that was done to its detriment and in violation of its legality is null and void. And, in particular, we must “declare the termination of all State ties which formerly did bind this State to other nations”, as did in February-1918 – without even taking the pains to mention them and referring naturally to Poland and Russia – the twenty Signatories of the Vilnius Declaration. This document did restore the State of Lithuania, after since 1569 it had been forced to join Poland through the “Union of Lublin” to form the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" (in our case the “Edict of Union of the Kingdoms of France and of Navarre ” was imposed in 1620); and that between 1772, 1793 and 1795 both Nations and States were “made disappear” by the so-called “Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth”; illegality that, in our case, did finally occur in 1830.
Until then (and
from the restoration in 1814), all official international acts continued to
recognize the Kingdom of France and of Nabarra. For example, on June 24, 1822,
the United States of America: represented by Secretary of State John Quincy
Adams (furnished with full powers for the event by President James Monroe),
signed a ‘CONVENTION OF NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE Between the United States of
America and his Majesty the King of France and Navarre’.
Therefore, our position must be focused on the consolidation of our State, based on the tacit resumption of the international recognition of the Kingdom of Nabarre: something that all the States of the world were formally doing until 1830, when they recognized the [United] Kingdom “of France and of Navarre”. Consequently, our position is not to expect from those States – let alone ask them – to do now: as if they were doing it ‘ex novo’ and it was something they had never done before, the reiteration of the recognition of our State that they have already done but to take it for granted; being so that “State practice supports the proposition, States extending (or declining) recognition only to newly-claimed statuses. [On the contrary] Continuation of a status already recognized does not require – and seldom if ever has occasioned – reiteration of recognition”, as we are going to see below.
Regarding
this idea of the restoration of a State, we bring here a quotation from the
author Thomas D. Grant, taken from his work “United States Practice Relating to
the Baltic States, 1940-2000”:
“Writers
have argued that the Baltic States in 1991 re-appeared as international legal
actors and were not created in that year anew. Starke and Shearer write:
‘States may [...] ‘re-emerge after their sovereignty has been suppressed’. They
add: ‘Such are the cases of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were forcibly
incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940. Most other States (including the
United Kingdom) recognized that incorporation de facto but not de jure. In
1990-91 the three States successfully reclaimed their independence, which was
acknowledged by most other States as a resumption of full statehood, but not as
the creation of new States’. One writer [Hubert Beemelmans] goes so far as to
say that the Baltic States in 1991 were direct continuations of their pre-1940
iterations. [...] The re-appearance of the Baltic States as independent legal
actors in 1991, in the view of such publicists, might well be described, then,
as restoration.
“The
notion exists in the practice of the United States – and other western States –
that a State might endure beyond the eclipse of its effectiveness as
administrator of the territory it claims its own. The Restatement (Third) [of
Foreign Relations Law of the United States] adopts as its definition of ‘State’
a formulae derivative of the 1933 Montevideo Convention. ‘Under international
law’, the Restatement posits, ‘a State is an entity that has a defined
territory and a permanent population, under the control of its own government,
and that engages in, or has the capacity to engage in, formal relations with
other such entities.’ This definition notwithstanding, the Restatement
observes, consistent with academic writers, that some features shared by most
States are not necessarily treated by all States as requirements of statehood
in all situations. [...] ‘Military occupation’, the Restatement indicates,
‘whether during war or after an armistice, does not terminate statehood [...].
An entity’s statehood would be terminated if all of its territory were lawfully
annexed, but not where annexation is in violation of the United Nations
Charter.’ The view that States could continue in spite of substantially
diminished effectiveness indeed antedates the Charter – the view firmly
installed in United States practice in the first half of the 1940s in connection
with the Baltic States.
[Note
of correction to the author that we are quoting: In fact, that view had been “firmly
installed in United States practice” BEFORE “the first half of the 1940s”,
through the international “doctrine of non-acquisition” and non-recognition of
annexations and territorial changes produced by the force; which, based on the
principle ‘ex
injuria jus non oritur’
(“unjust acts cannot create law”), had been installed
since January-1932 by Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson in response and
rejection of Japan’s annexation of Manchuria in September-1931. And this view
and doctrine were maintained by his successor at the helm of the US State Department,
Sumner Welles, when in the summer of 1940 he announced the non-recognition of
the annexation and incorporation of the three Baltic States into the new
Russian empire (at that time under Marxist-Soviet coverage, as it had
previously been Theocratic-Tsarist). It is the “Stimson-Welles Doctrine”, which
was confirmed by the practice and resolutions of the United Nations’ General
Assembly: both with regard to the Suez crisis of 1956 as well as in relation to the Goa
crisis, through the so-called “Goa doctrine” reflected in Resolution 1699 (XVI) of
19-December-1961, overwhelmingly approved (90 to 3) with the joint support of
the United States and the USSR, and the rejection of Franco’s Spain (along with
Portugal and South-Africa) and the abstention of France and Bolivia. All this
was set out in the text “The Pnv-Eta bureaucracy, or ‘the
abertzale political families’ (VII) – Relinquishment and abandonment of all policy
of national liberation by the Pnv-Anv bureaucracies: the pacts of liquidation”,
which was published by us on 19-February-2020.]
“This,
then, is the basis in international law as developed by United States practice:
that a State might undergo a restoration after a period during which its status
was in some respect compromised.
“A
number of claimants to statehood in the past have made ‘restorationist’
arguments. 76 Their object appears to have been to reduce the need of, or
obviate altogether, recognition by third States of their claims. The reasoning
has been thus: If an entity claiming statehood is already a State – that is, it
never had its statehood extinguished – then the status it claims requires
recognition by other States no more than would those other States require
recognition to confirm their own legal status. Important to the argument is the
proposition that recognition is accorded only to changes in status. State
practice supports the proposition, States extending (or declining) recognition
only to newly-claimed statuses. [On the contrary] Continuation of a status
already recognized does not require – and seldom if ever has occasioned –
reiteration of recognition.” (Thomas D. Grant: ‘United States Practice Relating to the Baltic States,
1940-2000; 4.4 Restoration and
United States Practice’.)
“Note
76. Representatives of the Irish Free State argued, for example, that Ireland
was never an integral part of the United Kingdom, and thus was not seceding
from the United Kingdom and did not require recognition as a State independent
from the United Kingdom. Hudson Meadwell, 25 Review of International Studies
317, 376-80 (1999). On the Irish case, see also Heinz Klarer, Schwezerische
Praxis der völkerrechtlichen Anerkennung 319 (1981). Norway, too, on the
ending in 1905 of its 1814 union with Sweden made restorationist arguments. See
Note of Christian Hauge, Chargé d’Affaires of Sweden and Norway, to the
Secretary of State of the United States, 12 July 1905; ‘1905 Papers Relating
to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 854-859’. (‘The recent
events in Norway... have in nowise created any new State of sovereignty. It is
not a case of a new State springing into existence, nor has here been any
splitting up of or separating from any sovereign entity.’) The dissolution of
other unions, such as those between Malaya and Singapore, former French West
African colonies, the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, and the former Spanish provinces
of Central America may also be heard to have echoed the restorationist theme.
These, of course, were cases of the ending of unions containing a substantial
voluntary element. Perhaps more on point with the Baltic cases, which, after
all, involved an involuntary union, was the involuntary exclusion of the
People’s Republic of China from the United Nations. On the seating of the PRC
in the General Assembly, the Assembly stated, ‘Considering that THE RESTORATION of the lawful rights of the
People’s Republic of China is essential both for the protection of the Charter
of the United Nations and for the cause that the United Nations must serve
under the Charter… [The General Assembly] decides
to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China’. UNGAR 2758
(XXVI), 25 October 1971. Emphasis supplied. Restorationist logic lay at the
heart of claims by representatives of Chechnya in the 1990s that Chechnya had
never as a matter of law been part of Russia or the Soviet Union. See Thomas D.
Grant, ‘A panel of experts for Chechnya: Purposes and Prospects in light of
International Law’, IX Finnish Yearbook of International Law 145, 145-146,
200-207, 207-248 (1998).”
Let's
finish this exposition with some quotations from our texts:
“A People that recognizes itself as non-existent or inferior is not – or is not any longer completely – a People. It is an assured toy and victim of its predators, whom it does not even recognize as such: stronger, better armed and well determined, on their part, to get rid of it. Never can expect the recognition of anyone the People that does not recognize itself in its own sociology and its own history. Unable – from that attitude – to gain access to international relations with its own strategy and State institution, it has already lost its self-esteem and the others’.
“A Nation that not only is unable to found or restore its own State – historically recognized during a thousand years – but ignores and/or despises it, will never gain the respect of other self-proclaimed, recent and discussed new States. It will never obtain it from the ‘great’ Nations; still less from others as weak as itself.” Etc. (Chapter XXXV.)
“The
Peoples that do not build, preserve or – if it already exists – restore their
own State, do not exist for the ‘international community’ of the dominant
States; they are impostors, ‘weak-minded’, or national and international
delinquents. ‘A People that, at this stage of History, does not yet have its
own State does not deserve our losing time talking about it.’ The only decent
thing it can do – they seem to say others from among that ‘respectable
community’ – is to disappear, so as not to complicate the things to Engels or
to make waste time to Hegel.
“The race for the freedom or the destruction of those Peoples has already entered the home stretch, since space is being exhausted, time is running out, and the deadlines are met. Fascism is today the terminal, finished, necessary and inevitable form of imperialistic Nationalism; because the systematic enterprise of subjugation and liquidation of States, Peoples and Nations: which is meant to be absolute, total and final, cannot already continue without resorting to the more ‘sophisticated’ totalitarian forms of repression and ideological conditioning of masses, intrinsic to fascism. Thus, all pay the consequences of the imperialistic enterprise, because it ends by turning against the predatory Peoples themselves since ‘A People that oppresses another People cannot be free’. The definitive victory of the imperialistic Nationalism implies, sometimes in a very short time, the irreversible and irreparable destruction of States and Civilizations, Nations and Races, and of pluri thousand-year-old Cultures and Languages.” Etc. (Chapter XXV.)
(See our work‘Euskal Herria y el Reino de Nabarra, o el Pueblo Vasco y su Estado, frente al imperialismo franco-español / Euskal Herria and the Kingdom of Nabarre, or the Basque People and its State, against French-Spanish imperialism’.)
II
As a continuation and complement to the article published on this page the day before yesterday, we are offering the reader an excerpt from the work ‘Notes on the History of the Basque People/Euskal Herria and its State: the Kingdom of Nabarre’.
In this work, and
so as to illustrate the period of our history that leads to the “French
revolution”, quotations are used from the valuable testimony provided by the
work ‘Le
Royaume de Navarre et la Révolution Française: its resistance to the King, its abstention in the
National Assembly’ that its author: G.-Emile
Morbieu, published in 1911.
Given the recent and sudden appearance of comments on FaceBook – and even the publication of a book – that stem from the work of this author: so far undisclosed, we believe it necessary to mention here our indicated PREVIOUS work on the history of our People and State (published – as we have indicated – two years BEFORE the appearance of these recent works), in which such quotations from the aforementioned work of Morbieu were offered as a novelty.
On the other hand, there is the fact
that this historical work, published in the blog Nabarra-ko Erresuma, remains
unpublished except on that website (certainly, it could not aspire to have the
editorial launch and propaganda that the media of the establishment provide to
other “like” works), and therefore it has possibly gone unnoticed by many
people; unless those recent comments and works we’ve alluded to are the result
of an un-confessed consultation of it.
Unfortunately,
this: plagiarism or various forms of rapacity and intellectual immorality, is a
disgrace in this Country. Federico Krutwig, referring to the members of a
certain group which he had relations with, whom he calls “intellectual lackeys
and pirates”, denounces that “this interest in stealing ideas from the
neighbour does not seem to fall within the moral code of the Basques”, or at
least of some Basques, we would like to nuance; which is a calamity for our Country,
since these groups: purportedly and falsely intellectual and political (at
least for a genuinely Basque intelligentsia and politics), disguise with these
ornaments and contributions of others their absolute inability to make any
proposal for our national liberation. In fact, these lackeys and pirates have
been following for forty-two years the policy of strategic liquidation of the
Basque People, established in our Country by the mafia-liquidationist
bureaucracy Pnv-Eta from 1977-79 up to the present.
That’s
why we wish to draw attention to our aforementioned historical work, since we believe it of great interest. Above all, it sets out in a very
illustrative way the clarity of ideas and the tenacity that the representatives
of the institutions of the Kingdom of Nabarre, and in particular Mr. Étienne Polverel:
lawyer of the Parliament of Nabarre and attached to its deputation as a Syndic,
did maintain in defending its continuity and its distinct and separate nature
from the Kingdom of France. To this end, and under the orders of the Estates of
Nabarre, Mr. Polverel took care to collect and publish the old Constitution of
the Kingdom, “which remained in a state of tradition”.
However,
Etienne Polverel, a lawyer native of Béarn, was probably an opportunist who
simply saw a good professional prospect in offering his services to the States
of Nabarre, and in fact he benefited from it; because, apart from his fees, he
obtained the title of nobility of Nabarre for him and his descendants. Yet, when
at the end of 1789 his duty towards Nabarre ended and he was left without his
employer (after having been the Kingdom of Nabarre illegally abolished and
blurred into the “Department of the Nether Pyrenees”), he decided to stay in
Paris, immediately embraced the French republican cause, and as early as 1790
he entered the Jacobin Club (‘no more, no less’), putting the laws of France
ahead as a good French Nationalist. Although he “personally” was against
slavery, when in 1792 he was sent by the French authorities to the island of
Saint-Domingue – together with another commissioner – to impose a law that
decreed that free blacks and the whites should have the same rights, upon
arriving on the island “one of their first acts was to issue a proclamation
declaring that they had arrived to save slavery, not to abolish it”.
A
strange – and dangerous – character this one: who some present almost as a
national hero when he was only a lawyer that did professionally defend a cause
from the obvious arguments that he had before his eyes, and which the Estates
of Nabarre did undoubtedly provide him with. Now, all we need is for the Pnv to
create another prize with his name, as it did with René Cassin’s; and so, the
list of “Great Basque Men” who did not care a bit about our People and its
fundamental right of self-determination or independence (first of fundamental
human rights and precondition of them all), will be more complete.
We, therefore, give way to this excerpt from Chapter 8: Continuity of the Kingdom of Nabarre after its Partition: the French totalitarianism founds its Republic through an exemplary Terror’; of our work ‘Notes on the History of the Basque People/Euskal Herria and its State: the Kingdom of Nabarre’:
[...]
After the conquest of the Kingdom of Nabarre by the Hispanic-Catholic Monarchy
in 1512, the Nabarre d’Outre Ports (= Beyond the Mountain Passes, or Nether
Nabarre) was “left” by the Spaniards in 1527-30, so the Kingdom of Nabarre
continued to exist on their territories to the North of the Pyrenees with full
legal effectiveness: with its own – albeit reduced – territory and legitimate
dynasty, even though not recognized as such by the Holy See. For this, however,
the Kingdom continued to exist, it’s only that now it was under the usurping
Hispanic-Catholic dynasty and its successors, to whom Rome had given the ownership
of the Kingdom through wicked Bulls that were null and void. The Holy See did
never deny the existence or the continuity of the Kingdom of Nabarre: it only
had stripped – by denying them the title of Monarchs of Nabarre – the dynasty
of Catherine of Nabarre and her King consort John of Albret; therefore, when
referring to these and their successors (who of course continued to be styled
and being the legitimate monarchs of Nabarre), the documents of the papal curia
designated them as “the so-called king of Nabarre”. Nor even did the usurper
Hispanic monarchs deny the existence of the Kingdom of Nabarre either; they
just pretended it belonged to them. In any case, neither the Holy See nor the
legitimate Kings of Nabarre did ever use the title “King of Nether Nabarre”,
nor did ever exist a “Kingdom of Nether Nabarre”.
Upon
the death of Queen Catherine I of Nabarra in 1517, she was succeeded by her
son: Henry II; and after his death, he was succeeded on the throne by Jeanne
III of Nabarra: the only daughter of Henry II of Nabarra and of the princess of
France, Queen of Nabarra, writer and humanist Margaret of Valois-Angoulême, whose
brother became King of France as Francis I. In 1572, after the death of Jeanne
III d’Albret: Queen of Nabarre, Sovereign Lady of Béarn, etc., she was
succeeded on the throne by her son, Henry III of Nabarre. And seventeen years
later, in 1589, that “self-styled King of Nabarre” (‘assertum regem Navarrae’, as he was qualified by the Papal diplomas) became also King of France
with the ordinal IV; albeit in a merely personal union that did not incorporate
the Kingdom of Nabarre into the domains of the French crown, according to his
Edict (Patent Letters given in Nany on 13-April-1590) “registered with much
difficulty by the Parliament of Paris”, but that he did always maintain for the
Kingdom of Nabarre. From that moment on, he and all his successors were formally
and legally styled: in their coronation and in their official documents, “Roi de France et de
Navarre”.
Yet,
Henry III did never declare the Kingdom of Nabarre united to the Kingdom of
France. This purely personal union decreed by him was violated by his son and
successor Louis II of Nabarre and XIII of France in 1620, by establishing a
royal union through the illegal “Edict of Pau” that did create the United
Kingdom “of France and of Nabarre”, and also imposed the use of the French
language in all the Acts of the Parliament of Nabarre, thus preventing the use
of the Basque language in any of its official documents.
The
United Kingdom “of France and of Nabarre”: imposed by “Louis-August, King of
France XIIIº and of Navarre IIº” on 1620, October the 19th through the
so-called “Edict of Union”, was an act of betrayal to the constitutional laws,
freedoms and rights of the Kingdom of Nabarre, imposed to its Parliament by
means of the French army of occupation and with the instigation and recognition
of the Roman and French Catholic Church. That illegality was denounced the
following month of November by the Estates of Nabarre; which, gathered in St.
Paul’s church in Donapaleu, did in vain demand the
revocation of the Edict. All this invalidated and made illegal from its very
birth that so-called “Kingdom of France and of Nabarre”.
Therefore,
the “Edict of Union” was an Act as juridically null and void as it had been the
“aggregation” of the Kingdom of Nabarre “in the royal crown of these said
kingdoms of Castile and of Leon and of Granada etc. [...] forever and ever”,
according to the formula coined in those so-called “Courts of Incorporation” of
Burgos in 1515. And yet, that Edict did expressly state that this was done
without repealing the charters, franchises, liberties, privileges and rights
belonging to nationals of the said Kingdom of Nabarre, “which we want that they
have them inviolably kept and maintained”, as King Louis said in it. Those are
the terms of the edict. With which it has always formally recognized:
1/
the continuity of the Kingdom of Nabarre, patent also in the official title of
all kings, who were crowned as kings “of France and of Navarre”;
2/
that France was not Nabarre; and
3/
that Nabarre was not France.
The
so-called “Nether Nabarre” was never a Kingdom or reputed as such: there never
was a union of “Nether Nabarre” to the Kingdom of France, nor “reunion of France
and Nether Nabarre”. Moreover, and unquestionably, the Kingdom of Nabarre was
NEVER ‘nominally’ incorporated into
France. In fact, even the parliament of Paris maintained, after the “Edict of
Union”, the differentiated existence of both Kingdoms. When in 1625 Pope Urban
VIII (Maffeo Barberini, the champion of nepotism) “omitted the style ‘King of
Nabarre’ in the bulls of papal legation” that its chancery had issued for
Cardinal Francesco Barberini (his own nephew), the parliament of Paris refused
to register such bulls and faculties since King Louis was only styled in them
as king of France, and not of Nabarre. It is as if that parliament had admitted
that France could only be a full kingdom if presented as such along with the
Kingdom of Nabarre. Or, put another way: that with the “Edict of Union”, given
five years earlier, there had been no incorporation of Nabarre into France but,
in any case, the other way round.
As
it is undeniable, this constitutive illegality of the Edict could not in its
turn affect in the least the validity and continuity of the Kingdom of Nabarre,
with its own institutions and vacant throne from that time until today. Instead,
from that moment on, all the so-styled kings “de France et de Navarre” until
the deposition in 1830 of the last of them (crowned in 1825 with all the
traditional ceremonial as “Charles X of France and V of Nabarre”), were
impostors and usurpers of the Kingdom of Nabarre; and their acts, insofar as
they affected this Kingdom: even more so if it was to its detriment, were null
and void. And, particularly, it was so the “Treaty of the Pyrenees” signed in
1659, by which the king “of France and of Navarre” ceded the South-Pyrenean
territories of the Kingdom of Nabarre to the Hispanic-Catholic Monarchy: until
then merely an illegal occupant of them by “right of conquest”. But this, as
Kant would point out at the time, was inherently illegal in an original and
permanent way. Let’s see:
“[...]
2. ‘No Independent State, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another
State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation’ [Whether Papal or
Royal!]
“A
State is not, like the ground which it occupies, a piece of property (‘patrimonium’). It is a society of men whom no one else has any right to command or
to dispose of it except the State itself. It is a trunk with its own roots. But
to incorporate it into another State, like a graft, is to destroy its existence
as a moral person, reducing it to a thing; such incorporation thus contradicts
the idea of the original [foundational] contract without which no right over a
people can be conceived. 1
[...]
“Footnote
1. A hereditary Kingdom is not a State that can be
inherited by another State, but the right to govern it can be inherited by
another physical person. The State thereby acquires a ruler, but he, as a ruler
(i.e., as one already possessing another realm), does not acquire the State.”
(Immanuel Kant; Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, 1795.)
As
for the actions taken by our Institutions, “In 1649 there was sent to them, as
if by mistake, a regulation for the election of [representatives in] the
Estates-General of France. [However,] The Estates of Nabarre refused to send
deputies there.” And “Their incessant claims will obtain at the end of the 17th
century the recognition by the King of the allodial character of the lands of
Nabarre” (in an Edict of the month of April-1694), that is: the opposite of the
concept of feudal ownership of the King.
“In
short, the official clause contained in all deliberations of the Estates [of
Nabarre] from 1620 until 1789 is the restoration of the Kingdom of Nabarre in
its original self-government: ‘The
kingdoms of Navarre and France are diverse, different, independent one from the
other. Each of them must be governed by its fundamental laws without those of
one be subject to those of the other’. They [the Estates] do with
insistence dwell upon the specific nature of the union of the two kingdoms of
France and Navarre: ‘We, sire, citizens, magistrates of a foreign country to
France, although subject to the same king, must expose to His Majesty the
particular rights of two nations that the hast of the administrators has
confused with your subjects of the various provinces of France’.” (G.-Em.
Morbieu; ‘The Kingdom of Navarre and the
French Revolution: its resistance to the King, its abstention in the National
Assembly’, 1911.)
Thus,
the opposition to become integrated into the Estates-General of France: which
were announced for 1789, consisted of invoking the Edict of 1590 [of Henry III
of Nabarre, by which this king ensured that the union of his two different
States was only personal], and that precedent of 1649. As it is furthermore set
out in this work,
“On
the 5th May [1789] the Estates-General of France were gathered at Versailles
without no deputy of Navarre would submit there his powers. The commissioners
elected at its last session by the Estates [of Nabarre] continued without haste
in Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port the drafting of their list of grievances. [...]. All
that had happened afterward with so much precipitation and vigour in Versailles
had not interested them but as a foreign revolution. From one end of France to
the other was then claimed a Constitution for the Kingdom. [...]. There is no
one who does not agree in saying that the current Constitution of France is
faulty; and such is also the view of the Navarrese. [...].
“But,
as regards to the constitution of Navarre, they deem it excellent; they do not see
any reason to change it in its essential provisions; they [in their list of
grievances] do even propose to the King – with a point of naivety fully
agreeable – that it should be adopted for the Kingdom of France. And it is
furthermore interesting to remark that from all antiquity there were contained
in the Charters of Navarre those two fundamental principles that the French
Revolution had proclaimed from its beginning, namely: 1º the national
sovereignty; 2º the vote of the tax by the representatives of the nation.”
(G.-Em. Morbieu; Ibid.)
In
order to accurately observe the legal forms in such delicate times, and after
having been compiled by the Syndic of the Kingdom the customs that were
scattered, it was undertaken the task of publishing the ancient Constitution of
the Kingdom, which remained in a state of tradition, with the work: ‘Table of the Constitution of the Kingdom of
Navarre, and its relationship with France; printed by order of the Estates-General
of Navarre, with a preliminary speech & notes, by M. de Polverel, Lawyer at
the Parliament, Syndic Deputy of the Kingdom of Navarre.’ (In Paris, J. Ch.
Desaint, 1789.)
In
that context of Partition of our Country between the occupying States of Spain
and of France (comparable to what did happen with the Partitions of the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which began in 1772), it is remarkable the zeal
shown by our State Institutions – under both zones of occupation – in
preserving the compliance with the legal formulas of a single Kingdom:
“[T]he
secretary of the Estates [of the Nether Nabarre under French occupation] wrote
to Mr. Joaquin Ferrer, Syndic of the Higher Nabarre in Pamplona, asking for
information ‘on the form to celebrate the Estates in this Kingdom, this being
the form that must be also followed in Nether Navarre’, even if the regulation
has been changed over the time”. (G.-Em. Morbieu; Ibid.)
Note
that the terms are “the Estates in this Kingdom”. Meanwhile, the assembly of
the Estates of the Kingdom of Nabarre decided to send the complaints, not to
the Estates-General of France, with which they had nothing to do, but as it is
logical to the King:
“In
the last days of June 1789, we find then the Estates gathered in
Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port in a state of spirit identical to that of its first call.
[...]. Once the contents of its notebook of grievances were ended, the Assembly
decided not to elect the four deputies to the Estates-General of Versailles, as
the royal regulations had prescribed, but to choose from among its bosom a
deputation towards the King. This deputation will be composed following the
invariable model that the Estates of the Kingdom had the custom to send to the
King at his arrival. [...]. The deliberation concerning the deputation
addressed to the king is held on July 4th, 1789. The Assembly decides however
on the next day, July the 5th, to give its powers to the deputation in view of
an eventual admission to the Estates-General of France; ‘even though Navarre,
being a distinct and separate kingdom from France, cannot be linked in any way
by the deliberations of the Estates-General of that Kingdom’.
“Under
the terms of their mandate, the deputies could deliberate neither on the taxes,
nor on the legislation, nor on the administration. ‘Concerning the taxes,
having Navarre the right to freely consent in its Estates-General to the
voluntary donations that are to be granted to the King, its deputies could not
be allowed to deliberate on this matter in the Estates-General of France
without jeopardizing the rights of the Kingdom’.
“The
deputation of Navarre did immediately after its election constitute a permanent
committee in Larceveau [Larzabal], which took the name of 'Committee of
Correspondence', and departed for Versailles. During this time the riot was
increasing in Paris and stormed the Bastille. The ‘great terror’ was beginning
to extend its sinister waves to the most remote points in France” (G.-Em.
Morbieu; Ibid.)
Moreover
the previous month, in June 1789, the Third State of France had self-proclaimed
the “National Assembly”, and in July it had also added the name of “Constituent”.
After the arrival in Paris of the delegation of Nabarre, and in such
circumstances,
“The
day 4th, August 1789, Mr. Logras, [Bertrand Dominique Joachim de
Logras, soul of the deputation: deputy and counsellor of the Parliament of
Nabarre], wrote to the Committee [of Correspondence] the following letter:
‘Gentlemen, it is a principle established in this [French] national assembly that
whatever the privileges of the different countries that have sent deputies
there may be, these deputies have renounced all privileges from the moment they
have taken seat in its session; and that their mere presence, despite the
protests that they could do (and that wouldn’t be accepted), is a consent to
all that could be determined by the Assembly.
“‘[...]
I do not think that the Assembly of the Estates-General of France could require
from us the sacrifice of our constitution, of the precious rights that we have
preserved in providing for ourselves with a sovereign and to which we have
never renounced neither expressly nor tacitly, since not having been at all
attached to France, we have never ceased being a distinct and independent
Country. From the contrary principle it would result that we should be stripped
of the priceless privilege of granting only voluntary donations, and that it
would be determined in our Estates, and by a necessary consequence, the abandonment
of our Constitution.
“‘If
we join the Assembly, it will provisionally admit us while having a
consultative voice; but on the condition that we make rectify our powers and
remove all the limits. Our presence in the banks of the assembly will produce
tacit acquiescence to all deliberations.’ For all these reasons – he concluded
in his letter– ‘We have unanimously thought that prudence was to delay the
sending of our powers to the National Assembly’.” (G.-Em. Morbieu; Ibid.)
As
this author suggests, perhaps the Navarrese gentleman wrote these pages amid
the rumour that, on that summer night, there was rising from the heart of the
French national assembly, and just at the height moment when the demagogues of
French Nationalism were proclaiming that complete totalitarian ideological
forgery that, under the guise of establishing a supposed “equality between the
classes, the individuals, and the fractions of the territory”, it was actually
seeking to liquidate the fundamental freedoms of non-French Peoples subjugated
by French Nationalist Imperialism.
And,
indeed, they never trod that Assembly:
“There
is only one door to which they did not enter: that of the chamber of the
[French] National Assembly. At no moment would the deputies of Navarre sent
their powers, and consequently they were not admitted to participate in the
sessions. ‘The most certain evidence [of it] could be presented’, Polverel
writes about this subject. It will suffice to quote the following lines from
the memory of Mr. Polverel [lawyer of the Parliament and assistant to its
deputation with the title of Syndic]: ‘Navarre is, if I am not mistaken, the
only one of the countries subjected to the domination of the King of France
whose deputies have not been present in the [French] National Assembly’.
“Further,
as we have seen, their powers were hampered by precise limitations. The decrees
of August 4 (especially Art. 17) abolishing all the privileges of the provinces
ruined their hopes: ‘Can it be assumed, moreover, that the National Assembly
would have admitted within it deputies not only provided with insufficient
powers but with deliberately separatist tendencies and in open opposition to
the ideas that prevailed then?’” (G.-Em. Morbieu; Ibid. His last quotation is
from Armand Brette.)
Despite
this, the decrees adopted by that French “National Constituent Assembly”, on the
night of 4th August 1789, did illegally abolish the constitutional freedoms of
the Kingdom of Nabarre: falsely and cunningly presented as “privileges” in the
context of the French Nationalist Totalitarianism and the “Great Fear”, which “began
to propagate its sinister waves to the farthest points” of France and Nabarre.
As we read in the author that we’ve been quoting:
“To
defer, to hedge again, while events rushed without respite, while only a few
minutes were enough to ruin the work of centuries! It was the decisive hour to
do the contrary. If Nabarre wanted to remain itself, there was no more time to
lose. The break-up had to be immediate and complete: it had to be made public
and an independent existence had to be organized. The deputation had to take
the road back to the Basque Country. No tacit or formal adherence had been
given to the new régime; none of the four deputies had passed through the [French]
national Assembly; despite repeated steps, an audience had not yet been
obtained from the king and the oaths had not been exchanged. In the fever of
liberalism [does perhaps the author call now ‘liberalism’ to the Great Fear??!!]
which then animated all minds, a split occurring at that very moment had some
chance of encountering no resistance either from the king’s side, or from the
part of the National Assembly.
“At
that moment there only could be taken seriously the pathetic ultimatum with
which a few weeks later Mr. Polverel had to end the introduction of his report
[addressed to the Estates of the Kingdom of Navarre]: ‘...I say this with
sorrow, but Navarre has only one way left open to take: it is to declare itself
an independent Republic and to govern by itself. To do so it has been left but
a too big right. The Ministers who have dissolved its Estates have violated its
constitution. Just because of this fact it would be released from the oath of
loyalty, in case there was an oath... There could not be a link between Navarre
and the King but by the oath of mutual fidelity... The king could not be
proclaimed, recognized as king but after the oath. The rejection of the oath
has prevented that there can be any link between Navarre and the King... Those
who doubt that Navarre can retain its independence do neither know its
mountains, nor the courage of the Basques, nor their love of freedom’.” (G.-Em. Morbieu; Ibid.)
and III
(Excerpts from
the work: ‘Notes on the History of the Basque People/Euskal Herria and its State: the Kingdom of Nabarre’.)
Thus,
from 1789 onwards the French “Revolution” did “break” with the Ancien Régime:
denied but also preserved in its own way, since it replaced the monarchist Absolutism
and Imperialism of the Old French Régime, with the Terrorist and proto-Fascist
dictatorship of the New Régime, also French and Nationalist. A “break” supported
on new titles of “legitimacy” arising from the ideological manipulations and
forgeries characteristic of the modern totalitarianism-imperialism, whose most
accomplished model was to be, since then to the present time, this French “New
Régime”. We’ll deal with this right away.
In
this way there was consummated the illicit absorption of the Kingdom of Nabarre
into the “French” mass; an operation that was completed exactly in two
centuries: from 1589 to 1789 (counting from the ascent to the throne of France
of Henry III of Nabarre); with the useless – but tirelessly renewed – protests
of the Estates-General of our Kingdom.
In
October 1789, also the annoying traditional title “Roi de France et de Navarre” was suppressed by the French “National Assembly”, and replaced by “Roi des Français”. However, this was clearly illegal even for the “revolutionaries”
themselves, and the style “Roi de France et de Navarre” did officially
continue, as evidenced by the fact that all the texts approved by the “Assembly”
as from August 4th, 1789, including the “Declaration of the Rights
of Man and of the Citizen” (which had finally been adopted on August 26th
of that year), they were officially promulgated by the “King's Patent Letters,
which order the sending to the Courts, Municipalities and other Administrative
Bodies, of the Decrees of the National Assembly, which have been accepted or
sanctioned by His Majesty. Given in Paris, 3 November 1789. LOUIS, BY THE GRACE
OF GOD, KING OF FRANCE AND OF NAVARRE: To all those who these present Letters see:
BLESS YOU.” Etc.
In
this context of abolition of the own and residual national and State
institutions of the Peoples subjugated under the French imperialism, the “Constitution”
of 3-September-1791 did “formally” confirm it all and brought the
Union-annexation of the Kingdom of Nabarre to a conclusion, by inaugurating “officially”
the populist and Nationalist title “King of the French”. That “Kingdom of the
French” lasted almost exactly a year until, with the abolition of the monarchy,
the French Republic was proclaimed on 21-September-1792. Twelve years later, Bonaparte
did adapt and adopt in the “Constitution” of 1804 the “republican” title “Empereur
des Français”. Next, the legitimist restoration of 1814 did restore, inter alia, the style “King of France and of Nabarre”, which
continued until the abdication of the last Bourbon (crowned in 1825 as ‘Charles X de France and V de Navarre’), occurred on August 2nd,
1830. Finally that same month, the “liberal” monarchy of Louis Philippe I (of
Orleans) did again annul the distinction of kingdoms without further procedure,
regaining the title “Roi des Français”.
(The
Spaniards: admirers and attentive imitators of the French model against the
Basque People and its State, did likewise by means of the “Royal Statute” of 1834.
Through this scheme, and in the context of a relentless war of aggression and
occupation against our Country – the First “Carlist” War –, the non-existent
“Kingdom of Spain” was taken as ‘allegedly’ constituted, which was thus
imposed without any legal formality; and as non-existent, null or annulled the
national and State realities that they were seeking to suppress, equally without
any form of procedure. So dirty there appeared to them what they really had to
do, that they preferred not to mention it “not even by its name”; thus founding
the new “Sacred Constitution” of “Spain” on a complete lie. Such contortions
and falsehoods do by themselves show to what an extent appeared to them as
unacceptable and unfounded the abominable attacks carried out against the
Kingdom of Nabarre.)
That’s
to say, and to recap: after the conquest of the Kingdom of Nabarre in 1512 by
the Hispanic-Catholic Monarchy; after it had “left” in 1530 the territories of
Nether Nabarre; and that in 1659 the king “of France and of Navarre” had “left”
to the former the territories of Upper Nabarre, more than three hundred years
of takings-in and leavings-out, of onomastic decisions, indecisions,
hesitations and corrections, had fully shown, at the very least, that the
politicians and ideologists of those “great” empires: the favourite daughters
of the Catholic Church, had not at all a clear idea as for the question of the
national and political identity of the Kingdom of Nabarre.
The
French Nationalist-imperialistic “Revolution” did liquidate: through violence
and contempt of all its fundamental rights, what there was left of the historic
liberties of the Basque People. The Republic introduced here among us the
dictatorship of the Parisian clubs, the guillotine, the terrorism and mass deportation.
The heroes of Haiti, pioneers of the independence and abolition of slavery in
America, verified also what there was behind the “republican values” that
Napoleon: a forerunner of Hitler both in his totalitarian effort to dominate
Europe and the world as well as in some of his methods, had instructed General
Leclerc that he had to re-establish there in 1802, namely: either the submission
to French slavery imperialism, or the genocide of the black population above
the age of twelve, made with innovative methods such as the first gas chambers.
(Claude Ribbe; ‘Le Crime de Napoléon’, 2005.)
(From
1896, it was the Spanish imperialism that tried to maintain itself on another
Caribbean island: Cuba, also with novel methods: those of the bloodthirsty
General Weyler, who was to establish his well-deserved prestige for his crimes
first in Cuba; later he would move to Catalonia. In charge of restoring the
“Spanish national unity” on that island, he fulfilled his mission in the only
way that French and Spaniards know to combat the freedom and resistance of the
Peoples: genocide, carried out through the “re-concentration” of peasants. It
was also the invention and first practical application of concentration camps
for large masses of population.)
It
was the “Republican Corsican” Bonaparte who, completely defeated in Haiti, took
avenge by crushing his own natal island under the terror. It was he who did
re-launch French expansionism, slavery, war, terrorism and looting throughout
Europe; he, who did found the “Republican Empire” that, “being hereditary,
would remove all hope of régime change through assassination plots” and that
lasted... eleven years (something less than the Hitlerian Thousand-Year Reich,
which lasted twelve); and it was he who did push to the extreme the liquidation
of the popular-democratic institutions along with the strengthening of the totalitarian
structures that co-existed in the Ancien Régime. Even the “Departments with a
Prefect”: which today are being vindicated here by the “moderate-opportunist-realistic-possibilist-minimalist
Basques”, are the Consular-Napoleonic contribution to the “republican”
institutions.
The
criminal imperialistic and chauvinist French Nationalism: imposed by “the
Revolution and the Republic” through the Terrorist and Proto-Fascist
Dictatorship of the Jacobin Committees of General Security and Public Safety
(1793-4), had achieved its purpose of camouflaging the violation of fundamental
rights of Peoples’ freedom – and of integrity and independence of their States –
by means of falsification of the principles of “liberty, equality, fraternity”
etc. The falsification of these concepts: undeniable merit of the “French
(Nationalistic) Revolution”, is the most characteristic feature of modern
totalitarianism, whose prototype was established precisely at that moment.
The
French Republic is founded on the (illicit) acquisitions of the Ancien Régime,
whose foundation and structure were nevertheless preserved and developed in the
“Revolution”. The terrorism of masses and the crimes of war, the crimes against
peace, and the crimes against humanity that horrified the world, were the means
that founded the republican Dictatorship: the first attempt of a modern
totalitarian régime and model for all the others. In the name of progress – and
it’s here where it is its greatest originality: inspiration for all
contemporary totalitarian ideology – the French Republic did inaugurate
Dictatorship and Terrorism cross-dressed of freedom, human rights and
democracy; imperialistic French Nationalism, under the cover and falsification
of universalism, equality and free disposition of Peoples; warmongering, aggression
and pillage, under the rhetoric of humanistic and pacifist fraternity;
ideological fanaticism, under the cloak of science and enlightenment and of
republican religion; deification of the State, on the pretext of secularism and
civic morality; and – al length – colonialism, under the guise of humanitarian
civilization and progress. The French Republic did continue and push: up to its
utmost end and on all Continents, the policy of aggression, plunder and
conquest of the Ancien Régime.
In
the French State, all opposition – in its various forms – to the absolute power
of the State disappeared with the “Revolution”, which kept intact all illicit
acquisitions of the Ancient Règime; and along with it, there also vanished all
attempts of resistance – irrelevant though they might be – to governmental acts
or dictates. French Nationalism and Totalitarianism are the constituents of the
Republican Empire. The Government of the Nation-state tends to totalitarian
domination: both inwards and outwards; even though this costs their own freedom
to the same oppressing Peoples at the hands of their own police, militaristic
and totalitarian Governments, because “A people that oppresses another People
cannot be free”. In consequence, the French Government on duty faces all the
problems: whether political or individual, by the immediate resource, without
hesitation, limits nor mitigation, to armed repression. This procedure has
repeatedly failed during the preceding century but it continues to be applied,
since it is the only one that responds to the nature of the régime.
Nowadays,
proclaiming oneself “republican” – as well as “socialist, communist or leftist”
– might still serve for some special occasion: particularly in order to deceive
the subjugated Peoples; but that is not a democratic label. Indeed, democracy
is the political power of the People, and it is based on the effectiveness of
fundamental human rights, of which the right of self-determination or
independence of all Peoples is the first one and the precondition of them all.
Everything other than this is mere fascist-imperialistic mystification and
forgery.
However,
nothing of what the French absolutist imperialism did at that time achieve in
this regard, that is: presenting the fundamental national rights of the
subjugated Peoples as “privileges and obscurantism”, and its own imperialistic
Nationalism as “liberalism and progress”, could be compared – in terms of
ideological forgery – with the realm of the supreme imposture and shamelessness
that would be established by the Second Francoism in the “Kingdom of Spain”;
where, since 1977-79 up to this day, the Spanish and clerical Nazi-Fascism: self-confessed
and never defeated, would end up cross-dressed and clad in “democracy”, with
the unfailing support of the liquidationist bureaucracy Pnv-Eta and its
satellites. (‘Notes on the History of the Basque People/Euskal Herria and its State: the Kingdom of Nabarre’.)
*
Yet,
and despite all this, today is the day when our People continue to be
disoriented and intoxicated by the statements of a “Basque” ‘intelligentsia’ and political class:
intellectual and ideologically ruined and fatally recuperated for the
French-Spanish imperialism; which, from
mass-media that in their turn present themselves as Basque and progressive, do indoctrinate
the Basque People with their hallucinated mystifications about the French
national-imperialistic “revolution”; make praise of its achievements involving
fundamental ideological forgeries such as those contained in the “Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”, by which our People, its own language
and its national institutions were declared “privileges” and therefore enemies
of the French “egalitarian revolution”; and do “present” us with such
statements like “I’m one of those who keep getting moved when in the movie ‘Casablanca’ they sing ‘La Marseillaise’”, or things like that. (J. M. Esparza Zabalegi, “Day of the Fatherland
with viruses”; published in ‘Diario de Noticias de Navarra’, on 2020-04-15. Spread in its turn by Nabarralde in its own internet
site.)
The
national liberation from the French-Spanish imperialism demands from all of us
a critical revision of the entrenched myths and falsehoods: even in the realm
of feelings and affections, with which we have been indoctrinated and poisoned
since we were children. It is normal that in our childhood we all would feel
emotion and relief as we saw the Seventh Cavalry arrive, because we were
conditioned by propaganda to generate that response. Yet it is not possible to
remain eternal children, and one ends up maturing and understanding that they
are murderers of elders, women and children, not heroes; and that the true
heroes are the Indigenous People who fight for their survival. Similarly, and
in this case because we are much more closely concerned, it is to be hoped that
a Basque will end up understanding – once his childhood and the affective and
intellectual poisoning have been surpassed – that the French in Casablanca are
imperialists and colonialists who occupy militarily a Country that is not their
own; and that “La Marseillaise”: ringing
in Casablanca or in Baiona, is for the peoples subjugated by French imperialism
– under any circumstances and even if its Government was not a collaborator
with Nazism as it was that of Vichy – a symbol of oppression and therefore
something to be regretted when one hears it, not to get moved about. An anthem,
by the way, which – protected by penal law – encourages the French to continue
to water the furrows of the earth with the others’ impure blood: ‘qu’un sang impur
abreuve nos sillons’.
King
Henry: “O piteous spectacle! O bloody times! / Whiles lions war and battle for
their dens, / Poor harmless lambs abide their enmity.” (W. Shakespeare; Henry
VI, Pt. 3; II, v, 73-5)
However,
lo and behold that those who consider themselves the ‘intelligentsia’ of the ‘Basque radicals’, confess themselves moved
at the seeing that the French imperialists – and allies of the Nazis to boot! –
do sing their genocidal anthem in the colony that they are occupying
militarily! What a shame!
The
national liberation in front of imperialism implies an ideological task that
cannot be tackled from the historical and sociological mystification, forgery
and fraud of presenting French-Spanish imperialism, colonialism and fascism as
if they were “democracy, progress and respect for fundamental human rights”;
and even much less if – as it is the case – such frauds are thus transmitted to
the public opinion by indigenous agents and mass-media that go through being
Democrats and patriots. It is advisable to think over this question and to urgently
adopt the right positions, because those who do not do it will have to face the
strict assessment of their actions. The domination and oppression of the Basque
People and its State at the hands of Spain and of France last too long and have
gone already too far, for us to have to be so tolerant in the face of their ignorance
– or mere sterile lament – which already can only be guilty. On the contrary,
our liberation from such domination poses to us the inescapable need to take a
lucid and determined political action.
Policy
does not consist in settling oneself into a state of tear-lacrimogenic
vindication based on the permanent longing for historical memory and “demonstrations”.
All of this can be very useful and it’s certainly necessary, but it alone does
not constitute the policy and therefore it goes nowhere. Policy either is
strategy, or else it is nothing at all. Now then, in policy, there can be no
vacuum; and so, when one does not have or does not make his own policy, that’s
to say: his own strategy (as it is our case), that does not mean that it is not
made ANY policy, but that the gap that we leave is inevitably occupied by the
policy of imperialism, which does have a strategy. And it does therefore mean
that under those circumstances: even despite any kind of sterile “opposition”
in the form of childish protests, kicks or tantrums of the oppressed, what we inevitably
do is the policy of imperialism.
Of
course, the French-Spanish imperialism does have a strategy against the Basque
People and its State. This strategy consists in the denial and violation of the
fundamental rights of self-determination or independence of the Basque People,
and of the integrity and independence of its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre; all
this – as it’s natural – through the use of the criminal and historical
imperialistic and fascist French-Spanish régime of military occupation against
our People and State: a régime that the traitors and/or scoundrel-cretin lunatics
of the Pnv-Eta bureaucracy and its satellites – some of them nominally “nabarrists”
– did almost half a century ago accept as “democracy” and that they are
sustaining it since then as if that régime and “the State” were their own, in
which they are incorporated as their local auxiliary agents.
In
such conditions, and as we are constantly stating, THE ONLY possible strategy
of liberation consists in a grouping of ALL the democratic opposition:
necessarily anti-imperialistic, in a National Resistance Movement vertebrate
and absolutely united around two fundamental principles, common to all
anti-fascist and anti-imperialistic Basques, namely:
1/ Affirmation of the right of freedom, FREE disposition, national independence or self-determinationof the Basque People/Euskal Herria.
“Cornerstone of democracy”, the international right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples is a right that is original, fundamental, inherent, customary, immediate, unconditional, continuous, permanent, inalienable, indefeasible and imprescriptible for all Peoples subjugated under an imperialistic and foreign régime; that is the same thing as their unconditional and immediate independence in the face of/against any foreign domination or interference contrary to their national freedom; and that has been recognized – not constituted – by the contemporary International Law of the United Nations: from the First Article of its foundational Charter of San Francisco as well as by numerous and relevant Resolutions of its General Assembly, as THE FIRST OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PRECONDITION FOR THE FULL ENJOYMENT OF THEM ALL.
Its corollary and practical application consists, as an inescapable requirement for its realization, in the DEMAND FOR THE UNCONDITIONAL AND IMMEDIATE EVACUATION of all the occupying forces and of the entire apparatus of imperial-colonialist subjugation of the occupying Powers: Spain and France, OUTSIDE the historical Territories of the Basque People and its State. And
2/ Affirmation of the continuity, validity and continuity of our own State: the Kingdom of Nabarre, successor of the Kingdom of Pamplona – “the Kingdom of the Basques” – constituted by a confederation of Vasconic Republics, Counties and Lordships historically and freely gathered around it. Internationally recognized for a thousand years, the Kingdom of Nabarre remains the sole State of the Basque Nation, and which it has never renounced to nor has ever admitted or recognized any other.
Its necessary consequence implies the constant and incessant NON-RECOGNITION AND DENUNCIATION of the occupying States: the “Kingdom of Spain” and the “French Republic”, and of their totalitarian régimes of military occupation, as criminal, imperialistic, colonialist and fascist,and not as their own, non-Nationalist, non-violent, legitimate and democratic, as the purported “official Basque political class” formed by the liquidationist bureaucracy Pnv-Eta and its satellites isdoing to this day.
Simultaneously, it is necessary to maintain a TOTAL
BOYCOTT to any collaboration with those who, because of their rejecting in
theory or in practice one or both fundamental principles mentioned above, do
objectively form part of the imperialism; especially the social-imperialists of
sundry feathers who, disguised as “progressives, socialists, communists” etc.
(in any of their splits or fashions), do not denounce/support the
French-Spanish fascist régime of military occupation. Unquestionably, those among
us – whatever their origin, surnames or purported ideology can be – who refuse
to totally or partially assume these principles, are absolutely unmasked as the
imperialists and fascists they are: supporters of the continuation of the
imperialistic military occupation of our Country and State by the Kingdom of
Spain and the French Republic. Now then, what collaboration can there be with these
agents? Can anyone honestly and sanely believe – unavowable interests or insane
hallucinations set aside – that it is possible to make an anti-imperialistic
policy with the help of imperialists and fascists? Clearly not.
Therefore, as long as the French-Spanish
imperialism does not withdraw from our Country its occupying forces, since they CONSTITUTE the essential and fundamental
element of its strategic device of domination (without which its entire system
collapses), and because it is not possible to make an anti-imperialistic policy
together with the fifth-columnists and agents in the service of the
imperialistic infiltration among the subjugated People, it is necessary to
maintain a TOTAL BOYCOTT:
– to any participation, both in the institutions of the imperialistic-colonial and fascist régime of Francespain, whichcriminally violatethem since theirreal and primary constitution (and especially in their juridical monopolies or “parliaments”: French Parliament and Spanish Cortes Generales, established over the centuries through their Monopoly of criminal Violence and the Terror of warandState, and countless and imprescriptible constitutive crimes); as well as in their totalitarian “general elections” that “legitimize” all this, and
– to any collaboration with any individual or collective person who in whole or in part, in theory or in practice, refuses to assume publicly one or both fundamental principles mentioned above.As is evident, it is not possible to make an anti-imperialistic policy with the help of the imperialists and fascists – infiltrated fifth-columnist agents of French-Spanish imperialism; who, by refusing to assume those principles that affirm our national rights, do instead affirm its “right of imperialism” and of military occupation over our People and State, anddo objectively – some of them even in an open and confessed form – form part of that imperialism.
RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OR UNCONDITIONALAND IMMEDIATE NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE BASQUE PEOPLE / EUSKAL HERRIA!
KINGDOM OF NABARRE: THE STATE OF THE BASQUE PEOPLE / EUSKAL HERRIA!
Army of occupation not even with music!
Spain not even with a republic! France not even with a monarchy!
TOTAL BOYCOTT OF THE IMPERIALISTS AND FASCISTS, AND THEIR RÉGIME OF MILITARY OCCUPATION! – AWAY WITH THEM!
LONG LIVE THE FREE BASQUE PEOPLE!!!
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario