Contribution of the Pnv-Eta group to the falsification of the right of self-determination of all Peoples and to the reactionary fraud: the “right to decide” (XVIII)

EUSKAL HERRIA AND THE KINGDOM OF NABARRE, OR THE BASQUE PEOPLE AND ITS STATE, AGAINST FRENCH-SPANISH IMPERIALISM

 

XVIII – “Contribution” of the Pnv-Eta group to the falsification of the right of self-determination of all Peoples and to the reactionary fraud: the “right to decide”

                                                                  Iñaki Aginaga and Felipe Campo

In an international society juridically organized and constituted upon fundamental human rights, the Self-Determination, National Freedom or Independence of all Peoples is set as a fundamental principle. Actually, the democratic State: where it exists, does not provide, or adopt, or allow, or recognize the Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples but it does imply and pre-suppose it as a prior premise. The Self-Determination of Peoples is constitutive of the democratic State and of International Law.

An institutional instrument of the subjugated and colonized Peoples’ freedom, the international right of freedom, free disposition or self-determination of all Peoples: fundamental, inherent and customary right, is registered and recognized – not constituted – in the Charter of the United Nations’ Organization-UNO (1945). We read in its Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles of “The Peoples of the United Nations”, and in its Article 1: “2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;” etc.

However, three years later, the theorists and legists of French imperialistic Nationalism: headed by the French Nationalist René Cassin (whom the Pnv liquidationist bureaucracy presents as “Basque”, having even created an Award after his name), managed to impose their National-imperialistic and colonialist ideological mystifications within the UNO. It is in this way and under that influence, that the right of self-determination or independence of all subjugated Peoples: a fundamental instrument of their national freedom against/in the face of Imperialism, was left absent in ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ established in the Resolution 217 (III) of the United Nations’ General Assembly (Paris, December 10^th, 1948). Thus began the evolution present in the resolutions on human rights created “under European inspiration”, which are a characterized and significant regression and leap backward by reference to the Charter and the United Nations’ General Assembly Resolutions (UNGAR), and to the International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966.

[Note. Faced with the expression ‘Human Rights’: adopted in the English version of the ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (whose literal translation into Spanish with the expression ‘Derechos Humanos’ is the one we have adopted in this text in Spanish), the title of that UNO Declaration in its official versions in French and in Spanish – published under the guidelines of the respective Governments and Academies – continued to cling to the expressions ‘Droits de l’Homme/Derechos del Hombre’. The mandarins of French imperialistic and chauvinist Nationalism: faithful guardians of the mythology and ideological falsifications established in 1789 with the “Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen”, remain undaunted to this day with the same official and obligatory expression: ‘Droits de l'Homme’. The Spaniards, constant admirers and imitators of the French, seem to hesitate somewhat in this regard. The feminist and abolitionist of slavery Olympe de Gouges: author in 1791 of the “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen”, and the only woman murdered by the “French Revolution” because of her ideas, was guillotined two years later by the French revolutionary Terrorist régime due to her support for the Girondins, and to her denunciation of the criminal French Nationalist Dictatorship of the Jacobins and their proto-fascist Committees of Public Salvation.]

The aforementioned Resolution 217 (III) and its “Universal Declaration” was approved by the UN General Assembly without any vote against but with the abstention of the European Eastern States, thus making clear their protest at the rejection of the Soviet proposal that the right of self-determination of all Peoples be included in that Declaration. The Russian Soviet Union, the Soviet Republics of Belarus and Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia, abstained for that reason. (The Union of South Africa – with its ‘apartheid’ – and Saudi Arabia hid in the abstention their rejection of the Resolution for other and obvious reasons. The Republic of Honduras and the Kingdom of Yemen did not vote.)

In any case, as early as 1950, in the Resolution adopted on the Draft for an International Covenant on Human Rights that the UNO considered it necessary to formulate, its General Assembly established the essential need that in the said Covenant: overflowing the lacuna created by the abstract idealism and individualism that permeated ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ of the Resolution adopted in 1948, the Peoples and Nations’ right of self-determination had to be included:

“The General Assembly, [...], Considering it essential that the Covenant should include provisions rendering it obligatory for States to promote the implementation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Covenant, and to take the necessary steps, including legislation, to guarantee to everyone the real opportunity of enjoying those rights and freedoms, [...] B 3. Considers: (a) That the list of rights in the first eighteen articles of the drat Covenant does not contain certain of the most elementary rights; [...] (c) That in the drafting of the Covenant account should be taken of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations and that these Purposes and Principles should be consistently applied and assiduously protected; [...] D 6. Calls upon the Economic and Social Council to request the Commission on Human Rights to study ways and means which would ensure the right of peoples and nations to self-determination, and to prepare recommendations for consideration by the General Assembly at its sixth session; E [...], Whereas, when deprived of economic, social and cultural rights, man does not represent the human person whom the Universal Declaration regards as the ideal of the free man, 7. (a) Decides to include in the Covenant on Human Rights economic, social and cultural rights and an explicit recognition of the equality of men and women in related rights, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations;” etc. [UNGAR 421 D (V-1950); Draft of International Covenant on Human Rights and measures of implementation.]

The following year, the aforementioned calling of the General Assembly became a resounding reaffirmation of that right, which had to be expressly included in the International Covenant or Covenants on Human Rights that were being promoted from that high Assembly:

“Inclusion in the International Covenant or Covenants on Human Rights of an article relating to the right of peoples to self-determination.

“Whereas the General Assembly at its fifth session recognized the right of peoples and nations to self-determination as a fundamental human right [Resolution 421 D (V) of 4 December 1950], [...], Whereas the violation of this right has resulted in bloodshed and war in the past and is considered a continuous threat to peace,

The General Assembly

(i)             To save the present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war,

(ii)            To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, and

(iii)           To take due account of the political aspirations of all peoples and thus to further international peace and security, and to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

1. Decides to include in the International Covenant or Covenants on Human Rights an article on the right of all peoples and nations to self-determination in reaffirmation of the principle enunciated in the Charter of the United Nations. This article shall be drafted in the following terms: ‘All peoples shall have the right of self-determination’, and shall stipulate that all States, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing Territories should promote the realization of that right, in conformity with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, and that States having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing Territories should promote the realization of that right in relation to the peoples of such Territories;

2. Requests the Commission on Human Rights to prepare recommendations concerning international respect for the self-determination of peoples and to submit these recommendations to the General Assembly at its seventh session. 375th plenary meeting, 5 February 1952.” [UNGAR 545 (VI-1951)]

And as early as 1952, the principle that the right of self-determination of all Peoples and Nations (RSD) was the precondition for the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights was formally recognized by the UN General Assembly:

“The right of peoples and nations to self-determination. - “A – Whereas the right of peoples and nations to self-determination is a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights, [...], Whereas every Member of the United Nations, in conformity with the Charter, should respect the maintenance of the right of self-determination in other States, The General Assembly recommends that: 1. The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations;” etc. [UNGAR 637 A (1952)]

From there, the RSD of all Peoples was incorporated in the two International Covenants on Human Rights: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [UNGAR 2200 (1966)], and in both cases it was placed in their Article 1. It was also incorporatedin the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions on Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (1977); and in numerous and relevant Resolutions of the UN General Assembly (with the opposition or abstention of the occupying and colonialist States) as well as other international acts.

For example, the following year, and in the Resolution “Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights”, we read:

“The General Assembly, [...], Reaffirming the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, national sovereignty and territorial integrity and of the speedy franting nof independence to colonial countries and peoples AS IMPERATIVES FOR THE FULL ENJOYMENT OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, [...],1. Calls upon all States to implement fully and faithfully the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and alien domination; 2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation BY ALL AVAILABLE MEANS, PARTICULARLY ARMED STRUGGLE;” [UNGAR 33/24 (1978)]

To make it even clearer – if there was still any need – that this right is the first of humans rights and the precondition of them all,the Human Rights Committee (attached to the Office of the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights) adopted in its Twenty-first session (March-1984) a General Comment No. 12 on the aforementioned Article 1 – The right of self-determination of peoples – of the International Covenants on Human Rights. This General Comment, in its first paragraph, runs as follows:

“1. In accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that all peoples have the right of self-determination. THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE BECAUSE ITS REALIZATION IS AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION FOR THE EFFECTIVE GUARANTEE AND OBSERVANCE OF INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOR THE PROMOTION AND STRENGTHENING OF THOSE RIGHTS. It is for that reason that States set forth the right of self-determination in a provision of positive law on both Covenants [the already mentioned, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights], and placed this provision as article 1 apart from and before all of the other rights in the two Covenants.” [HRI/GEN/1/Rev. 9 (Vol. I); 13-March-1984. Emphasis added.]

The evolution of formulas and dispositions has always reinforced this right. Its necessary content does impose on all (‘erga omnes’) the unconditional and immediate end of the imperialistic régime of occupation and colonization, and the corresponding unconditional and immediate independence of subjugated Peoples and States.

Without the Self-Determination of all Peoples, there is no Democracy. There is no Democracy where there are no fundamental human rights, and these rights do not exist where is missing the right of self-determination of all Peoples: “first of human rights and precondition of them all”:

The denying of the RSD in the name of democracy can only be done if it is adopted a designation and a concept of “democracy” previously fabricated or forged so as to exclude the right of self-determination. There is only a means of “combining” democracy and the theoretical and practical negation of the right of self-determination of all Peoples: falsifying either the former, the latter, or both. The imperialism: theoretical and practical denial of Peoples’ RSD, is not “compatible nor incompatible” with democracy; the imperialistic democracy is simply a contradiction in terms.

The imperialistic States that have subjugated Peoples under their domination and seek to perpetuate it, do use that domination to change the demographic or ethnic basis of the occupied Country: as a concurrent means to radically end with the National Resistance and the Country itself, through the systematic influx of foreign immigrants and the liquidation and deportation of the natives, in a manner inconsistent with the right of self-determination. Every colonized Country is “plural”: it contains colonized people and colonizers, otherwise it could not be colonial; but no colonization or invasion: either a minority or majority one, legitimizes the subjugation of Peoples.

Idealism, essentialism, (pseudo)historicism or consensualism do combine for the construction and consolidation of the imperialistic paradigm. To hide, deny, falsify and destroy the fundamental human rights and above all the right of self-determination of all Peoples: “first of human rights and precondition of them all”, is a permanent objective of fascism and imperialism. Its purpose is to hide that the régime of occupation established in the dominated Country is the result of imperialistic criminal violence: sometimes multi-centennial and always original and permanent.

The ideologists, agents, officials, and specialists at the service of the French-Spanish imperialistic Nationalism are making a constant effort and do make use of different techniques in order to deny, falsify, replace, adapt, distort and – finally – destroy the international right of self-determination, free disposition or freedom of the Peoples: right of immediate political independence against the imperialism, whose mere formulation constitutes a threat for the international domination, colonization and exploitation. On the other hand, the ideological incapability in which are kept the Peoples that are still the prey of the imperialism: achieved either with the collaboration – stupid or bought – or the complicity of its indigenous auxiliaries, does favour the most clumsy wiles to that effect. And this is how, in fact, this operation counts in our Country on the most active, dynamic, effective and spontaneous participation of the Pnv-Eta bureaucratic team and its satellites and media terminals, which mobilize for the task all means of mass dissemination and confusion that they have available at their disposal.

The imperialistic version of the right of free disposition is a crude ideological fraud. It is the contribution of its promoters to the confusion, degradation, falsification, perversion, recuperation and destruction of the cardinal terms, concepts, principles and rights: a task that no opportunistic pretext can excuse. Yet, since only a People can be the agent owner of the international right of self-determination of all Peoples, that task that the foreign and autochthonous agents of French-Spanish imperialism are carrying out at its service in our Country must consist from the start and above all in denying the very existence of the Basque People/Euskal Herria; which they realize by hiding that concept and term, and avoiding any reference to it.

When they are expressing themselves in Spanish, this is remedied by totally avoiding the expression ‘Basque People’, and systematically replacing it with ‘Basque citizenship’. And as for its expression in Euskara, the work of the Basque Renegades and Traitors: indigenous auxiliaries at the service of French-Spanish imperialism and colonialism, has consisted in corrupting/destroying the content of the term ‘Euskal Herria’.

This unequivocal term/concept: which is the unique and natural expression-translation in Euskara, word by word, of “Basque People/Baskische Volk/Peuple Basque/Pueblo Vasco” etc., is not only imprecise for them; they do further state in their neo-language that it has a “dynamic” meaning. (A. Esparza Leibar.) In other words: that the Extension and Comprehension of this term/concept do incessantly change and shrink, since they depend on the social presence of the Euskara. Thus, according to the formal logic of these chatter-boxes agents of the French-Spanish colonialist and fascist “dynamism”, the concept of ‘Basque People/Euskal Herria’ does only consist in its historical territorial and human regression, linked to the destruction of the Euskara among the Basque People by the imposition of the Spanish and French languages thanks to the military occupation of our Country and State by the National-imperialistic and totalitarian States of Francespain.

The imperialistic counterfeiting or “adaptation” of the concept of the RSD of all Peoples is a sly way of denying it for the Peoples subjected to foreign occupation. It consists in accepting it in words but altering its meaning, this is: both the agent subjects of the right (Nations or Peoples) and its contents (the immediate independence against imperialism) are refused or modified. The right of self-determination of all Peoples is thus reconcilable, harmless, recuperable and assimilated for the States and Nations that violate it; and unusable for the National Liberation Movements. The practical consequences are difficult to exaggerate: there is no possible strategic processing of a right whose nature is unknown, hidden or distorted.

The “specialists” of the Pnv-Eta group, serving the recuperation implemented by the ideologists of the imperialism, have constantly distorted and falsified the RSD. Such “specialists”, adopting the versions of liquidation overhauled by the ideologists-officials at the service of the imperialistic International (whose aim is to block and keep the Peoples subject to foreign occupation), they invoke – in a largely futile effort for obtaining the acceptance of the imperialism – a reactionary, contradictory, falsified and recuperated version of the international right of independence, free disposition or self-determination of the Peoples, consistent with the objectives of recuperation and liquidation of the imperialism. It is a well-known resource of it in order to prevent, stop or dissolve the process of national liberation. It is not strange that the French Constitutions, officials and “specialists” and even some Spanish ones, have followed the same procedure. But what elsewhere is elaborated and disseminated by the appointed ideologists-officials from the dominant States, is here “spontaneously and freely” realized by the bodies of propaganda of the purported political “abertzale” sub-class.

The propaganda of the Pnv-Eta group has constantly distorted and falsified the very concept of the Peoples’ RSD, openly hiding its sole necessary content, namely: the immediate political independence from imperialism. Deeply imbued with the imperialistic ideology, the vast conglomerate that runs from the official Pnv to the Eta collaborates: with all the resources that the régime of occupation puts within its reach, in the theoretical falsification and practical destruction of the RSD of the Peoples, upon which such a regime is founded, so as to make it “compatible” and to adapt it to the regime of occupation that its components describe as democratic and non-violent.

The “Basque moderates and radicals”, who have finally reached a total agreement in order to define, reject or accept the violence: as it is defined in each case by the imperialistic monopolies of violence and propaganda, do also defend an identical conception of the “right of/to self-determination of the Peoples”. It’s in this way that the armed and unarmed “institutionalists” subordinate the right of independence against the imperialism to “free and democratic consultations, elections, votings and decisions” under the imperialism; for want of them, the national independence against imperialism would be “imposition and fascism”, they say. This means either to deny the RSD, which is incompatible with imperialism; or to deny the reality of the imperialistic occupation, which is incompatible with freedom, democracy and human rights in general. To affirm the RSD as possible in and compatible with an imperialistic régime is a contradiction in terms.

An imperialistic régime is incompatible with freedom, democracy, the RSD and human rights in general; the only democratic alternative to it, is its liquidation by the immediate and unconditional independence of its colonies: a precondition for any internal democratization. Now then, if – on the contrary – the question is about a régime with a “deficit of democracy” (and therefore fundamentally democratic, since only in a democratic régime there can be a deficit of democracy), as they say, then fascism, imperialism and the occupying State do not exist, and nothing can and should be done against them since it is a legitimate and democratic régime. Even if a certain degree of “anomalous violence” is present in that State, but such violence that they speak about is reduced to “marginal excesses”, or to a purported “state of exception in South Basque Country”, as they continue saying, then just a moderate reform would be enough to correct the deficit of non-violence, thus establishing a whole fully “non-violent and democratic” social aggregate.

This is what the bureaucrats of the Pnv-Eta group: agents to the service of the French-Spanish imperialism, do pose when they reaffirm the urgency of a “Re-Foundation of the State” (Iñigo Urkullu, Araba-ko Alderdi Eguna, 16-VII-2016). Of course, the re-foundation of the Spanish State, which is the unique one that they can conceive and that they support in the most natural way as their own. Thus, “the State” (the Spanish one, since they would hold it a madness denying “French democracy”) is not imperialistic but democratic and in addition the own one, and therefore the national freedom and the right of self-determination of Peoples are in force, and there is nothing to do for restoring them because there is nothing to be restored. Whereupon the vindication of all those rights – and the rights themselves, because of their being already fully in force – are extinguished by a lack of adversaries who might be imposing their violation. It is, clearly, what they try to make-believe to a public opinion conveniently and relentlessly conditioned to believe anything.

Of course, all this is perfectly understandable when it is realized that the current supreme objective of them all is their own inclusion in the imperialistic apparatus of violence, propaganda, administrative corruption, benefits and grants or sinecures; an objective of which their “tactic” of infiltration and patronage has made them entirely dependent. Their obsessive and constant political-electoral support to “the stability of the régime” in the moments of its greatest disrepute and weakness: both international and internal, is revealing in this regard.

The indigenous counterfeiters of the RSD try to differentiate and to oppose that right, against the right of independence against imperialism, being so that they are one and the same thing. Regardless of the confession to which they feel attached to: whether as “Marxist-Leninists” or as representatives of the Basque clergy, they refer without any shame to the UN Resolutions, to Lenin or Pope John XXIII as inspiration or in support of their fabrications; which only proves that they do not know nor want to know those Resolutions or Conventions, the texts of the Bolshevik, or the Encyclicals of the Pontiff. As it was already exposed:

“Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations: not by juggling with legal definitions or ‘inventing’ abstract definitions, but by examining the historic-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. Later on, we shall see still other reasons why it would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state.” (V. Lenin; ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’, 1914.)

A different – although inseparable – question is the issue about the strategic and tactical means to make effective that right of self-determination or independence; but without theory, there is no practice; and without a final conception there is no possible political mediation. The RSD and its strategic implementation are different things, but not independent. In this way, the initial strategic ruin of the Basque People’s national and democratic opposition: absolutely linked to its recognition of the French-Spanish military occupation régime as “legitimate, non-violent and democratic”, and to its participation in the French-Spanish totalitarian “general elections” and juridical monopolies, has resulted in the liquidation of the concept of free disposition; and the liquidation of the concept of free disposition has reinforced the ruin of the strategic process.

A People cannot be mobilized by dragging its dignity along the ground and by destroying the constituent ends of its Resistance to aggression. There is no valid consideration that can justify the liquidation of a fundamental right or political and ideological principle; it can only be explained through the increasingly deep colonization of the Pnv-Eta bureaucratic conglomerate by the policy and ideology of the Spanish imperialistic Nationalism: initiated from the prolegomena of the intra-totalitarian transition and that led to the Pact of Munich. With such “Basque nationalists” there are not needed any Spanish Nationalists or non-Nationalists.

The supporters of the imperialistic adaptation of the right of national independence, free disposition or self-determination of the subjugated Peoples, do place conditions to the unconditional, immediate and unilateral independence of the occupied People and State; otherwise, they condemn this one as an “undemocratic imposition”. The scrupulous “Basque institutionalist democrats”: defenders of the French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régimen of military occupation, do pretend that “acting otherwise would be to impose”: “That’s fascism”, they say. The sole alternative they leave is the imposition of the continuity of that imperialism, since they do not lay conditions nor find impositions in the continuity of the conquest of the Kingdom of Nabarre and in the maintenance of its consequences.

Thus, those who do accept without conditions the aggression, occupation, annexation and destruction of Peoples and their States, and validate the consequences of such procedures, do on the contrary put preconditions to the liberation movement against the imperialism for getting rid of them. They hold that the consistent version of a subjugated People’s RSD against imperialism: which involves the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of foreign forces of military occupation and the restoration of its original independence, is an imposition, undemocratic and fascist. Thus, “moderates and radicals” are in agreement upon “the agreed exercise of the right to self-determination”. Yet, a “right to self-determination through an agreed exercise” is a piece of juridical-political nonsense: the RSD of a subjugated People is the same thing as its independence from imperialism, is inseparable from its exercise as a restoration of that independence and expulsion of the occupying forces, and is irrespective of any pact, even less with the criminal aggressor and occupant.

The “respect” towards the imperialistic institutionalism: as a purported “democratic” demand of the RSD and against what he called the “imposition of national freedom”, was maintained by Manex Goienetxe in such a sufficient, arrogant and aggressive way as empty of arguments, even in such an unexpected and implausible a scenario as it was the General Congress of the “International League for the Rights and Liberation of the Peoples-LIDLIP”, held in Donostia on 21/22-November-1999. How can freedom be imposed? “I’d like that it was explained to me.”

Indeed, the freedom of its holders: the subjugated Peoples, is the sole necessary content of the right to self-determination, which is the right of unconditional and immediate independence from imperialism, and it is in addition the fundamentals of the RSD. Every right: whether democratic or not, is imposition and violence. The question that arises, in making the distinction between despotic law and democratic law, it is only to establish who imposes what, on whom and what for. Freedom cannot be a matter of imposition; this is a tautological proposition. “It is not easy to understand” how freedom can be imposed to their beneficiaries, in what it could consist the “undemocratic imposition” of freedom, nor in what this one needs – or how it could be born – from the “agreement” of anyone. “Imposition of freedom” is an aporia, a paradox founded on an idea contradictory in terms.

What the RSD of the subjugated Peoples “does impose”: precisely on those who seek to circumvent or violate it, is the national Freedom. The Freedom of Peoples is the sole object of the RSD: the inherent right of unconditional and immediate independence against imperialism, without delays, without traps or falsifications. Starting from there, the issues of behaviour that it raises are not about law but about strategy.

However, the incorruptible, intractable and irreconcilable adversaries of all imposition and even of the immediate independence from imperialism – “undemocratic imposition”, as they dare say – do not see any imposition in the imperialism, in the aggression, conquest, occupation and subjugation, in the repression, colonization and Terrorism that found and constitute the current French-Spanish political régime of military occupation on the Basque People and its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre; an imperialistic and fascist régime that they defend against the “imposition” of freedom and the RSD; neither do they put conditions to submit to it. It is precisely the régime established and maintained by war and occupation: whose conditions and rules are those which they attempt to preserve, maintain and consolidate, what they lay as the basis of their adapted and distorted so-called “right of self-determination”. Which, logically, means indeed the denial that the imposed régime be imperialistic.

Nobody did warn – as it seems – to those who founded the present régime of military occupation, nor does now warn to their successors, that they should first accept the laws of the State of Nabarre, win the elections to its Courts, or start from the “bilateral agreement” with it; without which the established régime would be an undemocratic, illegal and imperialistic imposition whose consequences could not nor can the “democrats” accept as the basis of legitimacy. However, quite to the contrary, the “radical and moderate” advocates of such “right of self-determination” require the Basque People to accept and recognize the régime thus established as a basis and condition of the fundamental democratic right of self-determination, free disposition or freedom of the Peoples. Those who, under an imperialistic régime of military occupation, do put “the law, the Constitution, the elections, the consultations and the majorities” that derive from that de facto régime as conditions for the independence from the imperialism, do not instead put any conditions for the régime whose legitimacy and validity they defend, which was imposed by aggression, conquest, occupation, colonization, and countless and imprescriptible crimes.

The conquerors did never fulfil such requirements in order to establish their domination; which their native supporters do overlook. For to dismember, conquer and raze the Kingdom of Nabarre by war and Terrorism are not required for them – no more than for Alfonso 8, Ferdinand the Catholic, Louis 13 or 16 – conditions and “democratic” processes; but they are required for to restore its independence.

So: immediate and unconditional acceptance, legitimacy and recognition for the imperialistic aggression, conquest, occupation and colonization as legal and democratic, on the one hand; “democratic” requirements, condemnations, conditions, distortions, priorities and delays for the restoration of the denied and destroyed rights, on the other. A free and unimpeded field for imperialism; barriers for the defence or restoration of the occupied and subjugated Nations and States. Full license to ruin the freedom; obstacles and constraints to restore it. It is so as the aggressors and their collaborators or accomplices of the occupied and colonized territories: converted in their deniers and “moderate and radical defenders-restorers”, understand the democracy and the RSD of all Peoples. It is so as they conceal: behind the words of freedom, democracy and self-determination, the de facto and de jure recognition of the imperialistic régime of military occupation whose existence they deny, which they keep at the key of all their proposals, and whose principles they are unable to renounce to. It’s so, with such positions, as they ruin and drag the national dignity of a People: a secure way to finish with the People itself.

The RSD is not a possible way of “access” to independence. Quite to the contrary, national independence from all imperialism constitutes the RSD. But its counterfeiters have turned it into what they call “right to decide”, which consists of the confusion and the ruin of the fundamental right of self-determination of the Peoples by means of: the denial of their independence against imperialism as the sole political content of the right of self-determination; the denial of the opposition and legitimate self-defence against the imperialism as its sole strategic content; and the denial of the imperialistic nature of the French-Spanish régime of military occupation.

“The right to decide” – a recent ideological discovery of “the abertzale vanguard” – is a consequence of the collapse of the institutional path and the armed struggle: purported strategies of the Pnv-Eta group in order to resolve the problem of imperialism; and of the strategic and ideological submission of those bureaucracies to the French-Spanish imperialism, which the peripheral supporters of the régime of occupation have accepted and recognized as legitimate, democratic and non-violent, thereby denying the reality of imperialism and the national and political entity of the subjugated Nation. And it is also a consequence of the collaboration of that group in the fascist enterprise of liquidation of the freedom of expression, information and criticism, whose development would make impossible the dissemination of that superchery that constitutes the “right to decide”.

The total incapability of the Pnv-Eta group to cope with the real problem is hidden and remedied with the denial of the problem: since they do not know nor want to know (both things go here together) how to resist the imperialism, they opt for discovering that the imperialism does not exist but, in any case, as a deficient and curable condition of the “democratic and non-violent” régime of military occupation. Notions and words such as “imperialism” and “independence” have been deliberately evacuated by the propaganda of “moderates and radicals”, and replaced by other ones more suitable to reinterpret, adapt and falsify the right of self-determination. Along with this right, do also disappear, necessarily, from the vocabulary of the Pnv-Eta “opposition” the political history and reality of the key ideas of the National Resistance. They are replaced by “Jacobinism, unionism, centralism, nabarrism” etc.

The mental confusion that the fascist propaganda has managed to introduce in this matter, as in others, is not only a product of the incompetence (manifest, anyway), the bad-faith or worse trickeries of their authors and propagandists; and so gross a falsification of the right of self-determination: undertaken by “radicals and moderates”, does not only come from their ideological indigence. It has as a real objective the “reconciliation” of the right of self-determination with imperialism and fascism, it is: its theoretical and practical destruction. For that, they abandon the international, universal, fundamental, inherent and customary right of all Peoples’ independence or self-determination, recognized and insistently reaffirmed by the UN, which they replace by a reactionary vacuity.

It is not here about small-bore issues nor about an unfortunate theoretical lapse. It is about the abandonment of the fundamental positions and principles of national and international freedom and democracy. The reality of the régime of occupation established and preserved by criminal Violence and Terror, its imperialistic essence, and its radical incompatibility with the freedom and the right of of Peoples’ free disposition or self-determination, with the existence and dignity of the occupied Country as a different Nation and with its fundamental rights of dignity and freedom, have been implicitly or explicitly denied by the populist agents and collaborators of the Pnv-Eta system of collective swindling.

As already said, the latest contribution to the reigning confusion on this issue comes from the armed and unarmed aboriginal constitutionalists: collaborationists, accomplices, or local agents of the imperialism, which have fraudulently replaced the national freedom and the fundamental and inherent right of self-determination of all Peoples for a “right to decide” that they have invented. The so-called “right to decide”: which “moderates and radicals” have imagined and imposed in the propaganda of the collaboration, is the shameful and embarrassing falsification of the right of self-determination of all Peoples. Such a “finding” involves the denial or relegation of the fundamental inherent right of self-determination of all Peoples: the conquest of the struggle for freedom, which was formally recognized by the International Law of the UN, and its replacement by their own monster, in a futile effort to get the benevolence and approval of the ruling régime towards a project that they wait, will be compatible, acceptable, reconcilable, negotiable, recuperable and assimilable for what they call “the State”, that is to say, the French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist State of military occupation that the “Basque” Traitors, Collaborationists and Accomplices recognize as their own.

Under pretence of clarification and explanation of what they themselves do not understand nor want to, the “Basque” Collaborationists or Accomplices of the imperialism prefer to invent something that corresponds to their grasp and interests, and thus they’ve come to the “right to decide”. But the purported “right to decide in a process of self-determination without violence neither legalized nor of response”, which the armed and unarmed “Basque” institutionalists claim, is not the right of self-determination of all Peoples with a “clearer” name for the same thing; it is not even a different name for the same thing: it is its complete de-substantialization.

Their “right to decide” is the denial of the reality of the French-Spanish imperialism through its recognition and apologia. It is the denial of our own institutions, and the recognition of those of the current régime of military occupation, starting with its imperialistic and totalitarian State resulting from aggression, war, conquest, occupation, annexation and colonization, which they do constantly admit as the own and legitimate etc. “State” while rejecting our own and thousand-year-old State: the Kingdom of Nabarre. It is the recognition of what is the foundation of the imperialistic policy, namely: the denial of the occupied and annexed Nations and States, and of their national freedom. It is the screen for the “moderates and radicals” to hide the fact that they do not have the slightest idea about how even to raise the fundamental political question, namely: to constitute a strategy of National Resistance to the régime of occupation and colonization of France and Spain against the Basque People and its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre.

The “right to decide” has as its real aim the theoretical and practical destruction and denial of the national independence of the Basque People against the French-Spanish imperialism, as sole necessary content of the right of self-determination; the denial of the subjugated Nation and of its right and State; and the denial of all fundamental, historical and institutional rights and, in the first place, of the right of self-determination of all Peoples itself. The “right to decide” is, in fact, the ideological sabotage, the falsification and ruin of the international right of self-determination of all Peoples inasmuch as an institutional form of the national freedom and independence against imperialism, as defined both by the tradition and practice of Nations as well as by the formal principles and norms of the United Nations. (Principles and norms that later on were betrayed by them, and officially denied by the same Member States who had signed the Charter.)

The RSD of all Peoples: like any fundamental human right of which it is the first one and the precondition of them all, it is not to be put on voting. The current substitute to which they call “right to decide”: a purported “right” to be exercised under imperialistic régime of military occupation and its conditions (“and if it turns out ‘nay’, we accept it”), is the right of the imperialism to decide by means of/as a consequence of/thanks to aggression, conquest, permanent military occupation, annexation, colonization and genocide; it is the falsification and denial of the RSD or independence of all Peoples; it is the right of the imperialism to determine the others.

The “radical and moderate”, armed and unarmed Basque institutionalists-collaborationists, after having cooperated in the curatorial-novatorial manoeuvers and contortions necessary for achieving the intra-totalitarian transition of the Francoist régime (political operation mounted by the Spanish fascism and its Euro-American-Israelite-Sino-Vaticanist godfathers with the support of their Secret Services, Parties, Trade-Unions, Foundations, and NGOs, in order to finance and implement the transmutation that was going to result in the transitive neo-Francoism after the “general elections” in 1977 and 1979), could not accept the RSD, and so they had to undermine and distort it. They had discovered that this invaluable institutional instrument of struggle for the national freedom and independence that is the RSD, being thoroughly incompatible with the imperialistic right that they had accepted, was not suitable for their policy of collaboration in the imperialistic and fascist “institutions” of the régime and State they had recognized as democratic and non-violent ones; so a scheme to replace it with something that could be harmless and acceptable by the régime. This scheme was “the right to decide”.

The procedure is clear: since the régime (its “slight deficit” put aside) is basically a democratic one, the goal is to make it “understand” and bring it to accept that free voting “should” be allowed, since otherwise “it would not be democratic”. Meanwhile, the exploitation, ruin and ruthless terrorist repression of the popular sectors continued without respite or truce: “unilateral and unconditional” response from the régime to their “requests” for “democracy”. However, impossible though it may appear, none of this could induce that “opposition” to call into question their absurd positions based on the postulate of the “imperialistic democracy”, and to abandon the fascist ideological cavern which they live sunken in.

Unaware of the magnitude of the trap in which they had locked the Country as a result of their “brilliant” strategy: consisting for forty years in denying the colonialist and imperialistic nature of the French-Spanish régime of military occupation, “moderates and radicals” embarked themselves on the mad enterprise aimed to make the régime “understand and respect” its “democratic duties” towards the subjugated Peoples. They thus were vainly trying to obtain from the fascist imperialism an attitude consistent with its postulated “democracy”, while they were unable to understand that this “democracy” simply consisted of an instrumental disguise that they themselves had with their collaboration allowed the régime to wear, aimed precisely to deceive the Peoples and destroy: now also with the support of the Western “democracies”, true Democracy and fundamental human rights. Of course, in addition to their recognition of the fascist régime as democratic, it would be considered also as legitimate and democratic a result of the “referendum on self-determination” that, under the conditions of the imperialism and fascism, reflected a majority wish for the continuation of the imperialistic régime. It was not possible to go further in the abject task assumed at its service.

So, it’s therefore of the utmost importance to already make it clear that the so-called “right to decide” under the imperialistic régime of military occupation: latest “theoretic” discovery that all the range of infra-strategic Basque opposition does repeat and strive to “sell” (expecting that it can be acceptable and compatible to the occupation régime, and with which they vainly try to get an impossible trans-substantiation of imperialism into democracy: an absurd “democratic imperialism” contradictory in terms), consists, to begin with, in the falsification and destruction of the fundamental and inherent right of self-determination of all peoples; right whose only necessary content is the complete, unilateral, unconditional and immediate independence from imperialism, and about which there is nothing to decide. In addition, this position involves an apologia of imperialism.

Indeed, to pretend that it is possible to solve the problem created by the imperialism with moralistic rhetoric: exhorting it to “engage” and “show political will” in the solution of the conflict (which is as much as affirming that the fascist regime has no will to do the policy it is doing, and that it “should” agree to the dialogue and negotiation that “moderates and radicals” assume it to be already receptive for), and expecting from it a democratic attitude, all that really implies to deny the nature of the fascist régime of occupation, to make its apologia, and simply to refuse to see the reality.

Whether such proposals be the result of either hallucinations or of deliberate manoeuvres of corruption, ideological sabotage and political recuperation of the National Resistance, it is obvious for any observer that the imperialism – civil, military and ecclesiastical – has made it perfectly, unambiguously and painfully clear for centuries its “political will”, and this will does very precisely consist in “engaging”: not in the liberation but in the domination and liquidation of the subjugated Peoples; an attitude that has been maintained till today and is consistent to its current theoretical and practical positions. If it wasn’t enough with its use of terrorist violence at any cost and without hesitation at all moments that it has been considered necessary to maintain the domination of its imperialistic Nationalism (as it would do again should the occasion arise and was possible), its permanent fundamental theoretical position is the denial, just from the idea, of the very existence of the dominated Peoples so as to better destroy them in practice. For the ‘Constitution’, laws, jurisprudence, parties and propaganda of the Spanish (and French) imperialism: all trends gathered, the “Basque people” does not exist if it is not as an aliquot part of the Spanish (or French) “people”. And what doesn’t exist has no rights: nor to decide or to nothing.

(The equivocal Spanish version “People of peoples” and “Nation of nations”: simply rhetoric and anyway quickly withdrawn, does not prevent them from re-affirming that “in the Spanish State there is not any other People or Nation, nor any other source of power and right that the Spanish ones”; which is the base of the Spanish Constitution and recurring theme for the State monopoly of propaganda. In the “right” of French imperialism the “Basque people” does not exist, not even like that. The initial proposal of the Presidency of the Republic concerning “the Corsican People”; and even its corrected version in the draft statute project of 1991 by Minister P. Joxe: “the Corsican People: an integral part of the French People”, were both invalidated by the Constitutional Court when interpreting the Constitution quite otherwise, since “in the territory of the Republic there is no other People than the French one”.)

The reality of this data makes it clear for anyone that only a close determination to destroy them can be behind the denial of such an undeniable sociological fact as it is the existence of the Peoples so viciously subjected. However, for their part the armed and unarmed “Basque” Traitors do refuse to record so evident and tragic a lesson – learned from either the scientific knowledge, or even the vulgar popular experience – that provide sociology and history, and they continue saying that all this must necessarily be due but to some unfortunate misunderstanding of a basically democratic régime, except for fortunately correctable deficiencies. A deficit and misunderstanding that they: with fatal ignorance both of the imperialistic and fascist essence of the régime as well as of the exigencies – dictated by the rapport of forces – implied by an anti-imperialistic strategy, do hope to be able to heal through “persuasion and dialogue” and their captivating proposals.

The obdurate refusal to face the reality, and the need to encourage false illusions in the population, occasionally leads the collaborationism to establish fatal – and comparatively apologetic – parallels with English imperialism, which involve a flagrant distortion of reality. And that’s because England never denied the personality of Scotland, Eire, Bengal or Canada as differentiated political subjects, nor did annex them as a part of England; what both Spain and France did carry out with their surrounding Kingdoms or with Cuba or Algeria, to only mention those cases. According to these forgers:

“The right of self-determination is internationally recognized, but not in the legal system of the Spanish State. If we got in this legislature that the lehendakari promoted a consultation bound for and addressed to the citizenry of the Basque autonomous Community (Cav), asking them whether they agree that in the legal system in force we may have the capacity to decide on our future, it would be a very important step for the democratic normalization.”

In this unending gobbledygook on consultation for an agreement on a decision on a capacity for who knows what, the issue that is at stake is neither about the RSD of all Peoples against/in the face of imperialism, nor about the “decision to choose the future”. It is not even about the “decision to modify the Spanish legal system”. It’s about asking “whether the Basque citizenry agree” with a “modification of the Spanish legal system” that includes “the possibility of the capacity to decide”; which does fraudulently override the RSD: an inherent and fundamental right about which neither “the Basque citizenry” nor any other has anything to decide or agree.

Once again, the aim is “to beat about the bush”, to con the People, by presenting as “democratic normalization” and RSD the continuity of the régime of occupation, essentially incompatible with democracy and the RSD. As it can be seen, it always appears the extreme effort in order to pile up priorities, conditions and obstacles in a pseudo-democratic process designed so as to escape the RSD and its demands. The “consultations to give an opinion on the consultations to decide” on God knows what can be so be stretched and diversified ad infinitum, thus ensuring the permanence of the régime and the tranquillity of its beneficiaries. It is the usual technique in order to deceive the People and to never reach to pose the real problems.

The régime “that we have up to now” and whose “democratic” consolidation appears among the “options” of the Pnv-Eta group is essentially, not incidentally, incompatible with the democracy and the RSD. The “democratic option of following the same as up to now but democratically, by virtue of the right of self-determination”, aims to “heal” politically and juridically a régime constituted by war, occupation, Terrorism and the denial of the RSD. It is the most brazen acknowledgment of the régime of occupation as democratic régime, as a starting point for any modification of the political statute, and as actual reality of the RSD. It is the conceptual liquidation of the RSD, turned into “internal law” of the régime of military occupation .

In a democratic State, that’s to say: constituted on the principle of equal rights and Self-Determination of all Peoples (and therefore contradictory and incompatible with any imperialism, which is the negation of all this), there exists the possibility of choosing between “separating, uniting or continuing as before”. (See below Lenin’s commentary on the misunderstanding that arises the simile between self-determination and divorce.) But in a régime of imperialistic domination, there is no other democratic solution, consistent with the RSD, but reaching independence from imperialism. The régime of imperialistic occupation of Peoples and States cannot observe their RSD without being liquidated itself; that’s why, if applied to it the democratic right of the subjugated Peoples’ self-determination, he régime “that we have up to now” does not result in reform but it disappears. The counterfeiters of the right of self-determination pretend to be claiming it, while they are starting from that fascist-imperialistic régime and accepting it, being so that the RSD is its very denial.

Democratic freedoms in general, on the one hand, and imperialism, on the other, are irreconcilable in terms. That is: either institutional democracy – and the right of self-determination and the national freedom that constitute it – do already exist in a given régime, in which case it is not possible and it’s absurd to pretend that they are claimed or that there is an aspiration to them; or they do not exist in that régime constituted upon their denial/violation, and then there is no democratic institutional path in it to achieve them.

Let’s see. As indicated above, the RSD: considered as a foundation (and not as a result, end or aim), is essential for the qualification of the democratic State, which is necessarily constituted upon the RSD. Yet, these fakers who have abandoned the right of self-determination, the national freedom and democracy as a foundation, with the alleged purpose – as they claim – of being able to “facilitate” thus their processing and to “achieve” them as a result, end or aim within the established – imperialistic – régime that denies/violates them, they need them again and postulate them as a condition of possibility to be able to carry out their cheating “process of self-determination”. In this way, that RSD that they have initially abandoned re-appears biting its tail, and the only possible “loophole” so as to avoid that contradiction is to make denial and apologia of the imperialistic reality, presented as “democracy”; and that’s what the local fakers do.

The right of self-determination is not the procedure of self-determination. The right of self-determination is the immediate cessation: without any other form of procedure, of the imperialistic occupation and domination. Purely and simply, immediately, without conditions, without prior consultations or decisions which would be its negation.

The right of self-determination of Peoples is neither a future, nor probable, nor futurible, nor possible, nor contingent, nor next or remote object of the right of national freedom: it is its immediate present, tautologically necessary, without which the “right to decide” has neither essence nor existence. It is not an isolated, unique or periodic act: it is a continuous and permanent right; just as the right of property is a continuous and permanent right.

On the contrary, in the formulation of the “right to self-determination” raised by the saboteurs and counterfeiters of the RSD, the “options” admitted as “possible”: either the independence from imperialism, or the partial or total dependence of the imperialism, are contradictory to the inherent, inalienable, untransferable and un-waivable right of self-determination, which consists in the abolition of imperialism; just as the “free and democratic” alternative or decision between the “options of freedom or slavery” are contradictory to the fundamental right of freedom in general, which consists in the immediate abolition of slavery and is irreconcilable with it.

Lost in their delusions, Collaborationists and Accomplices of the imperialism try to dispel doubts: their own ones, and ascribe to the occupation institutions – by applying for their legal support – the high democratic mission of clarifying them. Of course, that is not the case of imperialism itself, which knows well the free will of the Peoples. If it was not so, it would not have resorted for centuries to wars of conquest, armed occupation, repression and Terrorism of masses, and to collective ideological poisoning through monopolistic propaganda. That’s why the imperialism in power does never accept the so-called referendum of self-determination; though at times uses it as a last resort to avoid or delay the impending independence, or to enhance or conceal the terms and conditions of the formal or real capitulation.

The so-called “referendum of self-determination”, either is a subsequent consequence, form and development of the RSD: once the independence of the imperialism has already been achieved; or it is a weapon and obstacle against that right. It appears in History either as a way of confirming the RSD: once it has already been effectively established after the abolition of imperialism, or as a means of preventing or delaying its implementation with the help of the metropolitan colony of population. The history of Peoples shows the falsehood or falsification inherent in such “decisions”, when they are adopted before the effective abolition of imperialism; which finally the independence highlights. To expect from an occupying State that it should recognize and accept the RSD of Peoples is to expect that the wolf should recognize and accept the right of self-determination of the sheep.

Under the circumstances of military occupation, the voting not only possible but more or less wide for the candidates of the imperialism does only reveal the degree of repression and intoxication suffered by the subjugated and colonized People. The strange thing, under these circumstances, is not that such voting can occur, since the overwhelming reality of the de facto power pre-supposes the governmental voting as total or widely majority. Quite to the contrary, the strange thing is that, even so, there are people who in a greater or fewer number abstain from voting or vote candidates or options at least dubious, and this is sufficiently revealing of the reality of imperialistic domination. Such facts do not occur in Poitiers or in Valladolid, only occur in the colonized Countries. They reveal the vote that would actually occur should the conditions be reversed, after centuries of independence.

In colonial Algeria and even on the eve of its independence, the French “won free and democratic consultations”, while the orders of the provisional Government of the rebellion were followed by 14% of the locals. Immediately after the independence, this 14% had become 100%; and after the colonists had been repatriated, there remains not a single trend that claims the annexation of Algeria to France, when shortly before, this was – supposedly – the object of the “unwavering adherence” from the vast majority of the population. The majority or the independentist vote in the colonized Countries does not normally exceed one-third of the population, with one-third undecided and another one adverse; which was considered as an acceptable operational base for the American insurgency driven by the independentist-terrorist colonizers – according to the established national and international law – who created the USA at the cost, once again!, of the indigenous “minority”.

As it is evident, a genuine consultation has as a precondition the immediate evacuation of the forces of occupation of imperialism and the immediate independence of the occupied States. Indeed, free expression implies not only the right to it but also the conditions of free expression. It is not possible to vote under the RSD, in a régime that contradicts and violates the RSD.

A democratic consultation, option, decision or vote involves – upon other issues – the free and democratic entity of the legal active subject of the right, and the free and democratic forms of its exercise: conditions that do not have any place under the imperialism and are contradictory of it. On the other hand, they involve – surely enough – not only the formal right to its realization but also the social, economic and cultural conditions for effective access to communication and information: circumstances that, being essential for any free decision-making, are all the more non-existent where all information has been replaced by the official propaganda, and the faintest attempt to spread the objectivity is likely to receive so official as immediate sanctions, well established in the Penal Code of the imperialistic fascism in terms of sedition/rebellion.

Therefore, they require first and foremost the prior achievement: without conditions or falsifications, both of the right of national freedom, free disposition or self-determination of the Peoples: “first of all fundamental human rights and precondition of them all”; as well as of the right of their States – constituted on the right of free disposition of Peoples – to integrity and independence. It implies, in other words, that such consultation procedures do imply – do not follow – the previous end of the imperialism, the independence from imperialism, and to begin with, the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of its occupying forces. The validity of the imperialistic régime: before, during, and “eventually” after so hypothetical and “democratic consultation” (a validity that the counterfeiters of the RSD do understand as compatible with the realization of those procedures), is contradictory to the democratic rights and to the RSD itself, which precede and condition any democratic consultation.

The “free will” of a People expressed under foreign military occupation, as well as the “free confession” under torture or threat of it, do not have the smallest value as a democratic basis; actually, they do not and cannot exist. The democratic vote implies the prior exclusion and abolition of the imperialistic and colonialist régime, starting with the unconditional and immediate evacuation of its occupying forces, that is: the effectiveness of Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples against/from imperialism. The free vote does not lead to independence: it supposes independence, because there is no free vote without prior independence. Self-Determination is the same as Independence from imperialism, and it does necessarily precede any “consultation”. Under an imperialistic régime of military occupation, the “right to decide” in freedom is not possible.

It’s enough to just confront the treatment that the dominant ideology applies to this right, compared to the one observed with respect to any other international or domestic right, to appreciate the theoretical aberrations that the defence of the right of self-determination of all Peoples has to face up.

In the occupied Territories of the Basque People, the absence of freedom of information and criticism – of which the imperialism avails itself and which the monopolies of violence and propaganda guarantee – allows and enhances the ideological sabotage of the RSD; sabotage which is the more effective and dangerous, and that affects the more to the freedom of Peoples, inasmuch it comes from indigenous actors that form the Pnv-Eta liquidationist bureaucracy and the purported “Basque intelligentsia”, who present themselves as advocates and champions of the human rights in general and the freedom of Peoples in particular.

The indigenous Collaborationists and Accomplices of the imperialism, which have been for more than fifty years preparing, forming and endorsing the Spain of the autonomies and advocating for a French Department with a Prefect, perceive now that “the urgent thing is to establish the foundations of a process of self-determination for whose starting it is the necessary condition the existence of a social climate without political violence, either legalized or of response. A sovereign process that from our point of view should lead – insofar as it has enough popular support – to settle as an independent State through the right to decide”: purported right with which they identify the national freedom and the right of self-determination.

Similarly, they invoke “the right of the Peoples to decide their future in a referendum of self-determination, by voting among all the options – all legitimate and respectable – in a social climate free of any political violence: neither institutional-legalized nor of reply” etc. Incessantly spread by the imperialistic and fascist monopolies of mass propaganda, reactionary nonsense of such a calibre is not – or not only – the result of the obvious incompetence and blatant bad faith of their authors; they are the result of their willingness to ignore or hide the imperialistic reality so as to better deceive their stunned followers, and allow to appreciate the devastating effects of the suppression of ideas and of the monopoly of the imperialistic and fascist propaganda on the politically and ideologically defenceless popular masses.

Such statements: sustained by the indigenous or foreign counterfeiters of the RSD, correspond to the official and unofficial recognition of the régime that the indigenous Collaborationists and Accomplices of the French-Spanish imperialism do accept and support as legitimate, democratic, non-Nationalist and non-violent at the same time. Those institutionalist leaders: “realistic and possibilistic”, armed and unarmed, do thereby deny the reality of imperialism and do practice the cover-up and the apologia of the régime of occupation, the same as they also deny the national and political entity of the subjugated Nation and State.

Because, either one thing or the other: either the imperialism exists, and therefore there is no freedom; or the freedom exists, and then there is no imperialism. If problems do exist, it is because imperialism exists. The “Basque problem” is the problem of the French-Spanish imperialism, and imperialism is: not by accident but by its essence and its existence, incompatible with the true dialogue and the democratic solution, which can only be established on freedom and the absence of criminal violence.

Indeed, if fascism and imperialism were not constituted by war and monopolistic criminal violence; if they agreed to engage in dialogue or did respect fundamental human rights; if they were to negotiate with those who – even having fundamental human rights on their side – they see that are unable to reach political entity to force them to negotiate; if they were willing to admit the right to decide in freedom; or if democracy, peace and human rights had any value for them, in such a case they would not devote themselves to occupying militarily others’ Peoples and States, they wouldn’t be the imperialism and fascism, and there wouldn’t be an imperialistic problem to solve. But, unfortunately, the French and Spanish imperialistic Nationalism does exist, it has established its armies of occupation and its monopolies of criminal violence and propaganda (served by its own political imperialistic parties that present themselves as democrats) on the dominated Peoples, and its invariable aim is to liquidate them by all means: preferably State Violence and Terrorism, and not to accept dialogue or consent their “right to decide” in freedom.

Now then, the RSD is not a purported “right to decide”, which is actually its denial, since there is nothing “to vote so as to decide” in relation to a fundamental and inherent right of all Peoples, as it is the RSD. The RSD is the theoretical and practical, unconditional and immediate negation of all imperialistic régime.

They intend to turn the RSD into “the right to vote in order to decide on the political future” of a People. But this “right to vote in order to decide future” etc. is a belated and subsequent part, form, derivation, consequence and development of the right of self-determination, which is the right of actual and immediate independence of the subjugated Peoples against/in the face/from imperialism; a right about which there is nothing to vote nor to decide, the same as there is not so, for example, about one human person’s slavery. The independence from imperialism is not an “option”, is not a possible result of the “right to decide about the future”; that “right of option about future” is a subsequent form and part of the RSD, which is identical and is nothing but the right of immediate independence from all imperialism.

The independence against / in the face of imperialism is the essence of the RSD, of which a possible subsequent decision is an integral part. The independence in the face of any imperialism is the unique and permanent content of the RSD, and not a formal variant, a possible end, consequence or result of it. These variants are irrelevant as for what is the common base of the RSD and of all its expressions, namely: the independence from imperialism. Similarly irrelevant are the variants of the subjects of right.

If the RSD exists, or what is the same: if a People is under a situation of imperialism, then the People has nothing to say or decide on that right, which is fundamental and therefore imprescriptible, indefeasible and immanent: “of which it is not possible to abdicate even with one’s own consent”. (B. Spinoza, ‘A Theological-Political Treatise’; 1670.)

A fundamental right does not depend on any “democratic” voting but does precede and condition it. Otherwise, that right would not be fundamental but founded by the voting, whose right: “the right to vote”, would then be the fundamental one; which is a sheer aberration that could be applied to the “legalization” of crimes against humanity such as imperialism or slavery.

But, as we know, the voting does not found anything: neither de facto nor de jure; on the contrary, it is always founded on a régime and a right which do precede and found it. If these ones – the previous régime and its positive law – are democratic, that’s to say: if they are themselves founded upon the validity and respect for the fundamental human rights, and therefore and firstly on the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples, then the voting simply does reflect – not constitute – that previous reality, which is already democratic and lawful before this voting. Instead, if the régime and its positive law are despotic and imperialistic, that’s to say: if they are founded upon the violation of fundamental human rights and first of all of the RSD, then the voting in the general conditions of that régime reflects and constitutes a falsification of reality: a mock of the purported democracy to which that voting pretends to be assimilated (but that it can neither found nor replace, since its foundation is despotic and imperialistic), as well as concealment of that previous reality that is hopelessly criminal, illicit, imperialistic and fascist in spite of that voting.

The vote or suffrage cannot constitute a political régime but they do suppose and imply it as something already previously constituted, since this vote or suffrage can only exist and be given as a result of it. Indeed, there is nothing less universal than the so-called “universal suffrage” carried out within the borders historically imposed by imperialism, since it has already determined: previously and by means of weapons, the borders, the voters, the non-voters and the conditions under which the vote is to be given. In an imperialistic régime, the voting, elections and suffrage do not found anything; it is the illicit and incurable imperialistic criminal violence: original and permanent, that has founded and maintains such a political order on the basis of imprescriptible crimes.

No “majority” has legitimacy against the right of self-determination of the subjugated Peoples, that is: against their right to live free in their own Homeland, on their own territory and in secure borders. To make depend the RSD on a “consultation”, whatever it may be, is to deny the RSD. The opinion of the Basque People – or that of any other one – on the RSD, in nothing affects the validity of the RSD, which does not at all depend on such an opinion. Neither the Basque People, nor any other, has the right to decide or vote ANYTHING as far as the RSD is concerned: a fundamental and inherent right to all Peoples that – precisely because of its being fundamental and inherent – PRECEDES any decision and on which there is nothing to decide. The Basque People has nothing to express, has not any “right” in this regard. The “consultation in order to find out the opinion of the Basque People about the RSD” is the most forced evasive and dilatory way of falsifying the RSD for the benefit of imperialism.

Actually, they invoke the “right to decide” in order to conceal, falsify or deny the right of self-determination or independence against imperialism; a right that is fundamental and inalienable, and that does not come from the capacity to vote and decide but is original and inherent to all Peoples. The right of self-determination or independence of the subjugated Peoples does not refer to a vote or referendum. Their “capacity to vote and decide” is an involved and derived part of the RSD, and has as its precondition the independence from all imperialism: the independence from imperialism does precede the capacity to vote and decide. Trying to achieve this capacity within the imperialistic régime of occupation implies either a contradiction in terms; or the denial of imperialism, from the very moment that such a régime is recognized as democratic and, therefore, in accordance with the RSD. It is, in any case, destroying the RSD.

The “freedom to decide” is not a condition of national independence; it is national independence that is constituted as a ‘sine qua non’ condition of the freedom to decide. The freedom to decide on something is a simple, possible, optional, derived, secondary and belated consequence of the RSD, which is the original right of unconditional and immediate independence of all subjugated Peoples. On the other hand, the “capacity to vote and decide in a referendum of self-determination with all the options, in the absence of any violence, and without any political violence, either institutional or of response”: which claim the indigenous or foreign counterfeiters of the RSD, is an absurd proposition.

Let’s see: either there is imperialism, or there isn’t. If – considering the first possibility – there is imperialism, that proposal for a solution is absurd because of its being contradictory with the reality of imperialism, since it consists NOT of the “absence of any violence”: which is the postulated path that they propose, but precisely of the denial of freedom and of oppression by means of all criminal violence; which is the true current reality of the imperialistic and fascist regime of military occupation. That is: in good logic, it is not possible to escape from actual imperialism – whose real existence is the basis of the starting point that we are now considering – through a path that implies the absence of actual imperialism: as alleged in the “absence of all violence” that these counterfeiters of the RSD do advocate for.

And if – contemplating the second possibility – there is no imperialism, then there is no imperialistic problem to solve. Evidently, that is not solving the “Basque problem”; that is denying it and taking it for solved. It is to transform the purported end, namely: the achievement of self-determination or independence through “a referendum of self-determination in the absence of any violence”, into a means or path that in addition is unnecessary, since the problem is already posed as previously solved. (Of course, although this is an absurd path, that doesn’t mean that imperialism will accept the celebration of such a masquerade either.)

The distorted version of the RSD that these indigenous or foreign forgers do with unheard-of stubbornness propose, consisting in the holding of a so-called “referendum of self-determination”, assumes that there is a régime without any violence previous to the “consultation to decide”; which involves the deviously concealed recognition of the imperialistic régime as non-violent and democratic, that is: the denial of imperialism as a current political reality among us. But in presenting the reality: which is an imperialistic one, as if it was as a democratic one and “compatible” with the RSD, they (apart from all that it implies in terms of misunderstanding/falsification of the reality and also of the democracy and the fundamental right of self-determination, which are the opposite of imperialism) are in addition incurring in the absurdity, since if they demand the holding of a “referendum of self-determination”, this is because they have assumed as a fact its necessity given the existence of imperialism; which nevertheless is refused next by admitting that reality is democratic and compatible with the holding of this “referendum”.

In other words: if they have come to claim the RSD, this is because there has been already recognized the existence of imperialism, which is contradictory with the “régime without any violence previous to the consultation to decide” that they presuppose. Thus, either one thing or the other. Either it is affirmed that there is imperialism and the corresponding régime of criminal constitutive violence against the freedom of the Peoples that it implies and has as a basis, which does immediately activate the RSD or unconditional and immediate independence of the People subjugated under that imperialistic régime, with a demand for the total, unconditional and immediate evacuation of its occupying forces, and without the holding of any “consultation”. Or, on the contrary, it is affirmed that there is no actual or virtual imperialism, and then there is not either RSD of the Peoples that can be exercised or the need for any consultation.

If there is no criminal violence and imperialistic domination against a subjugated People, but the Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples is already in force and effective, then there is not either RSD that can be claimed, since there is nothing to fight or defend about, and the entire issue is total nonsense. But if there is imperialism, that is: if the régime consists of constitutive criminal violence on which it is founded, then this situation of “a régime without any violence prior to the consultation to decide” cannot occur. Thus, the famous “right to decide” which they propose: falsification of the fundamental international right of self-determination or independence of all subjugated Peoples, rests on an insuperable contradiction in terms.

The defenders of the distorted version of the RSD do so replace the reality of the imperialistic régime of military occupation by an imaginary State already democratic, or whose more or less slight “democratic deficit” could be remedied by “the recognition of the RSD”, understood as “the right to hold a referendum” to which they reduce the RSD. But – deficits put aside – a really democratic régime is already necessarily constituted by the previous self-determination of Peoples: consisting in their national Independence, which precedes all recognition and all referendum; whereas an imperialist régime is inevitably constituted on the denial/violation of the Self-Determination or national Independence of Peoples, and consequently also of all freedom and all possibility of democratic coexistence. The “coexistence” offered by imperialism is the subjugation and national destruction of the subjugated Peoples, and consists of a bloody sarcasm.

Thus, in a truly and non-falsely democratic régime, the Self-Determination or national Independence are already effective and therefore there is no place for/it is superfluous the claiming either the right to them, their recognition or its exercise, since they are realy present in practice, do freely occur and do inform any moment of its daily life. Therefore, those who among us and under the French-Spanish fascist régime of military occupation claim “the recognition of the RSD”: by equating it with “the right to hold a referendum” within the imperialistic régime, they either – contradicting themselves – do assume it as already established, from the moment they recognize the imperialistic régime as a democratic one and compatible with the realization of that “referendum” to which they assimilate the RSD; or do understand and reduce the RSD to its secondary and derivative forms, in claiming a “realization” of it that consists of a simulacrum, of an empty ritual within a military occupation régime that is the denial of the RSD and incompatible with it.

As they affirm, “the right of self-determination, and the fact that [the Basque People] will use it when the time comes, if it expresses the will to do so, is a non-negotiable point”. But the RSD is inherent and inalienable, definitively or temporarily, and is the same thing as its “exercise”. The “utilization” of the RSD is not a fact subject to an “expression of will”, is the RSD itself, and the Basque People has nothing to decide on it. Even though the exercise of some integral faculties of the RSD can occur or not, however, the exercise of what is the invariable and necessary foundation of the RSD, this is: the independence from imperialism, is inseparable from this right.

The purported “expression of the will of the Basque People on using the RSD or not” is pseudo-democratic, anti-democratic and contrary to the RSD; it has nothing to do here, short of as an expression and display of the ideological degradation of those agents under the imperialism, or of their conscious service to it, if somehow they are being paid from their budgets. The “right not to use” the RSD is the “right to use” the “right of imperialism”, whose violent imposition its users try to hide. The “non-utilization” of the former does simply mean its denial, and the utilization-imposition of the latter; there is no room for another alternative: neither logical nor sociological.

The “right to/of vote and decide”: which the ideological henchmen of the imperialism do talk about, is not the RSD nor is exercised by virtue of the RSD; it is “the right to freely and democratically choose between the independence and the imperialism”. But the independence from imperialism is the unique and necessary content of the RSD: imperialism is not an “option” of the RSD, it is its absolute denial. Therefore it’s not possible: “by virtue of the RSD”, to vote for an “option” – namely: the continuity of the imperialism – that is contradictory with the RSD. The “right to decide” between the independence and the dependence of imperialism is the denial of the RSD, implied in the second “option”. The “right to decide between all the options”, “by virtue of the right of self-determination”, cannot include the “option” of continuity of imperialism, because the RSD does not give “right of choice” imperialism, which is contradictory to the RSD. The “capacity to vote and decide on the independence” under the imperialism is the denial of the RSD, since this one does – quite to the contrary – imply the unconditional and immediate abolition of imperialism by the evacuation of its occupying forces, and the unconditional and immediate independence of the subjugated People.

Imperialism and democratic freedoms are irreconcilable. Those who affirm the democratic nature of the imperialistic régime, do demand, at the same time, “respect for the freely expressed will of the Basque People”. But the will of the Basque People, expressed during a very long history by a permanent resistance to all imperialisms, and by the multi-centennial historical presence of the Kingdom of Nabarre, cannot be freely expressed under the French-Spanish imperialistic régime of military occupation. Its free expression demands first and foremost the prior respect, without conditions or falsifications, of the right of self-determination, free disposition or national freedom of the Peoples: “first of all fundamental human rights and precondition of them all”; and of the right that the States freely and legitimately constituted on the right of free disposition of Peoples have to their integrity and independence; all of which demands as a precondition the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of the occupying armies of Spain and of France, outside the historical Territories of the Basque People and its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre.

All options are not legitimate and respectable: imperialism and fascism are crimes of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. National liberation, that is: the imposition of the right of self-determination to an imperialistic régime, in whatever form, is a revolution, that’s to say: a fundamental transformation of the political relations.

The indigenous Collaborationists and Accomplices of the imperialism identify the RSD with the vote of the majority inside the established régime. But the RSD, the same as all fundamental and inherent human rights, does not depend on elections, majorities or minorities, which do only exist legitimately where previously there is a People, to which the RSD: which precedes any election, is immanent. The subsequent eventual procedures, solutions, compromises and decisions of the democratic State: founded upon the RSD, as well as the democratic character of the suffrage, of all majority or minority, do therefore imply the previous observance of the fundamental human rights and first and foremost of the RSD, and go back to a first decision or constitution:

“The act whereby a people becomes a people is the true foundation of society. For, indeed, if there be no prior convention, whence arises (unless the election were unanimous) the obligation of the smaller number to submit to the choice of the greater one? And whence comes it that one hundred persons, for instance, who might desire to have a master, had a right to decide for ten others who might desire to have none? The choice by a plurality of votes is itself an establishment of convention, and implies that unanimity must at least for once have subsisted among them.”

A People does, eventually, “vote or decide” “on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples” [UNGAR 742 (1953)], which is inherent to it. That’s to say: it is already previously a People with right of self-determination, and not as a result of a preceding vote and decision, or pursuant to and on the basis of a preceding right, which would then be antinomic to the RSD; all of which would – once again – involve not the affirmation but the denial of the RSD and of the democratic freedoms.

The supporters of this theory present the “right to decide” as a starting point of freedom and democratic policy, but in fact, it is the fraudulent acceptance and recognition of the actual and de facto imperialism as basis and condition for all political activity. To save the régime, “the State”, without which they are lost, without guidance or references, is an absolute necessity for them. Hence their effort in affirming, “denouncing” and reforming its “democratic deficit”: not to destroy it but to be able to continue counting on its presence and foundation. So, they claim for a “Right to decide without marked cards. [...] After the upcoming elections [2015], the weight of the sovereignty and left-wing forces, both in Congress as in the street, will be significantly higher. The State framework must thus be an obliged scene with a view to creating various networks and partnerships in order to promote the democratic and social breaking that we are claiming for.” (S. C. Emphasis added. Of course, it does not even occur to them the need to clarify that the “Congress” or “State framework” that they speak about are the Spanish ones: they simply cannot think of anything else.)

Certainly, the agents of the Pnv-Eta group do not consider the French-Spanish régime of military occupation merely as a “factor of power”: “a mere constellation of power which, on the one hand, has to be considered in the limits of its power and only to the extent of what its effective power does reach; and whose sources of power should, on the other, be studied in the broadest and most accurate way in order to discover the points where this power can be weakened and undermined [...], a real fact whose effective power is to be considered without accepting its pretension to inwardly determine our action”, as illustrated by the exposition of G. Lukács, but they consider it as the inevitable, natural and democratic sphere of their activity. Yet, without a strategically established policy of national liberation, the right of self-determination of all Peoples, and their national freedom, are wind music for the established régime, and have always been treated as such. Only professional paid-mourners and hypocrites may wonder or regret the consequences of the political dismantling that they themselves have allowed and promoted.

The Pnv-Eta group has been proclaiming for almost fifty years its aim to “reform, develop and democratize” the French-Spanish régime of military occupation that subjugates our Country, by correcting its “democratic deficit”; and to “reform, develop and democratize” the formal ‘Constitutions’ of those régimes of occupation by incorporating into them what its spokespeople call “right TO self-determination” (and more generally, “right to decide”), and the holding a so-called “referendum of self-determination” that in reality implies the denial of the RSD.

The “reformist and developmental” verbiage of the official “abertzale left and right-wing” aims to mislead, once again, the Country that they declare to serve, perhaps self-misleading themselves for greater comfort and efficiency. It is aimed at camouflaging, once more, the nature of the French-Spanish imperialistic Nationalism and of its established order of criminal Violence, to which they directly or indirectly serve. It always involves the open or disguised recognition of the dominant Nation and State, and the abandonment and denial of the occupied Nation and State. It involves the simple and qualified recognition of the régime of occupation and of its historical foundation: the wars in 1199, 1512, 1834 and 1936, as well as of their demographic, social, cultural and political consequences.

Because it is not a question here of “democratic deficit” or “rule of exception”. It is a question of the destruction of the fundamental right of free disposition or independence of the subjugated Peoples: first of fundamental human rights and precondition of them all, and of the consequent right of their legitimate States to integrity and independence, according to International Law. It’s a question of the imperialistic Nationalism: permanent shame and scourge of humanity, enterprise typical of criminal Nations and States, incompatible with any democratic organization of society, which is made by crimes of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, and whose obvious and stated purpose is here the complete liquidation of the Basque People and State. There is no deficit of a democratic régime that should be corrected: what must be done is to get rid of a criminal régime that is constituted by imperialism.

The indigenous forgers of the RSD cannot and do not want to see that “the Constitution is constituted” by the French-Spanish imperialistic régime of military occupation; and that it is radically and constitutively incompatible – whatever its accessory articles may be – with the right of self-determination of the subjugated Peoples. The only way to democratize the formal ‘Constitution’ of Francespain is to finish with it and, above all, with its real constitution: military occupation. The only way to “turn” an imperialist régime into a democratic one is to put an end to imperialism.

(As to the “reform” of the Constitution, we reproduce here the following paragraph from the text ‘The “European Union” and the Freedom of Peoples’:

The “reform” of the Constitution of the European Imperialistic Union (EIU) to incorporate the right of self-determination of all Peoples, as well as the “reform” of the French and Spanish Constitutions with the same purpose, is an illusory political enterprise that is located out of the realm of formal and, especially, real constitutions. The “reform” of the Treaty to include the right of self-determination of all Peoples would not be a reform but a revolution that would end with the Treaty and with the EIU. The State builders of the future Union, directly or indirectly affected by the national question, do have it well clear.)

After centuries of wars and dismemberment, of occupation, repression, corruption and political, economic, ideological and cultural monopoly in the hands of an all-powerful Administration, and of “universal suffrage” reduced to the purposes and means of the imperialistic régime, the Pnv-Eta “abertzale” do interpret and consider the vote under the conditions of the French and Spanish régime as the expression of the democratic will of the Basque People, and make of its result the basis of “self-determination” and the legitimation of dependence in that way established. They thus deny the existence of the Basque Nation and its RSD, incompatible with the annexation by the bordering States. With such as these “Basque nationalists” imperialism does not need Spanish and French Nationalists. The imperialism does not certainly begin or end with a referendum or the denial of a referendum: is constituted by war, conquest, occupation and colonization, State Terrorism, deportation and ethnic substitution, torture, genocide imprescriptible crimes and plunder, and by the denial of all fundamental human rights, perpetrated during centuries.

The “demand” – on the other hand always frustrated – of the “freedom to decide and choose” implies, in addition, the recognition that not even that exists in the régime whose “democratic deficit” they intend to “reform”; and that its “procedural” justification is as empty as its theoretical claim. They refer to a “Basque people” active subject of political rights. But for the French-Spanish Nationalism, and its “de facto right”, there are here not any other People, other Nation nor any other active subject of political rights than those of themselves. Everything else does not exist; and what does not exist, is not nor can be an active subject of rights. The subjugated Basque People and its rights are non-existent for the French-Spanish imperialism, which holds and monopolizes all rights. The Basque People has no “legal” existence, and according to the laws in force are “Basques” (or “Navarrese”) “the Spaniards with the administrative neighbourhood in four provinces of Spain”.

The fundamental rights are not accessories that can be – out of incompetence, indifference or simple opportunism – taken or left or distorted according to the time or the occasion. The falsification of the cardinal terms and concepts: worked out so as to conceal the real content of the collaboration and complicity with the French-Spanish criminal régime of military occupation, is part of the ideological and political liquidation of the strategy of national liberation of the subjugated Peoples.

The theoretical weakness, the brazenness, the laxity, the bad faith and the consequent distortion of terms, formulas and concepts, which are characteristic of the Pnv-Eta team and of its ideological “methods”, are not simple anodyne questions. The evident satisfaction that produces to them their theoretical “discoveries”, and the illustrated pedanticism with which they try to conceal those pieces of nonsense, do only serve to reinforce the reactionary content of their ideological innovations; thus giving way to the distortion of the fundamental idea of the RSD, whose consequences are of the utmost seriousness ideological and political. The theoretical confusion: spread by these agents Pnv-Eta and their auxiliaries, does always benefit imperialism and fascism, since it always turns into practical confusion. And it opens the doors, wide open, to the theoretical and practical recuperation of the right of self-determination by fascism and imperialism; strategy widely and currently used by the colonialist Powers to prevent or retard the process of national liberation.

The agents of the official “abertzale opposition” have been proclaiming for at least forty years its willingness to proceed to the resolution of the national problem “by the democratic way”, “through democratic means”, within the established régime and “without breaking anything”, as the burukide Andoni Ortuzar has just declared (45^th edition of the ‘Alderdi eguna’, 26-IX-2021). Their alleged “way to gain access to democracy” implies the affirmation of the French-Spanish imperialistic régime of military occupation as a starting democratic régime: a concept that the liquidationist conglomerate of the Pnv-Eta bureaucracy is “unable” to do without, given its decisive connections with the imperialistic-fascist régime. But the “imperialistic democracy” is a contradiction in terms.

Let’s see, if the democracy is, then there’s no point in gaining access to it: the imperialism is not, the right of free disposition is in current full effect, and the so much talked-about political problem is resolved, if perchance it ever existed. But if, on the contrary, the imperialism and the problem it has created do exist, then democracy is not, and there is no other way to gain access to democracy but the political and strategic opposition against imperialism.

However, in a new “great theoretical discovery”, they also affirm that the “right to decide” – an ersatz and falsification of the RSD – is in addition “a pre-political claim”: a formulation with which, as they imagine, they can mislead and disarm the imperialism, and achieve universal adherence thanks to their “cunning” trick. According to it, from now on everybody will agree and no one will be able to refuse something that is “pre-political”, that’s to say, something like “neutral”; a pretence that naturally impresses and worries the imperialism as much as the noise of rain: when there happens in addition that it’s not the latter but our Country that is still out in the open. (Something that certainly does not happen to the Traitors paid by the Spanish and French fascist régime of military occupation, which they call “democracy”.)

So, after the ideological rising awareness developed in the Western world at the beginning of the 1970s on aspects hitherto not considered as political (feminism etc.), which: in response to the previous stereotypes and submission, crystallized in mottos such as “The personal is political”, lo and behold that the representatives of the “Basque revolutionary vanguard” come to tell us now, forty-five years later, that their “right to decide” on the imperialism is pre-political. So as not to abound in more comments (as it’s bad enough with the time they’ve already made us lose), we shall confine ourselves in taking this example to illustrate the fact that, under the disastrous leadership of the Pnv-Eta agents, this Country has guaranteed that it will never leave the “pre-policy” to reach its own political and strategic opposition. Or, in other words: that if it depends on them, it will continue squarely stuck to the bottom in the policy of imperialism. The sterility of their contribution, and that they have led the Country to, is complete.

The same as about any other, there is nothing at all democratic about French-Spanish imperialism; it is tautologically anti-democratic: by definition, in its essence, in its ends, and in its means. And just as anywhere else, in our Country that imperialism is based on a criminal fascist régime of military occupation; much though this reality may disturb and annoy the defenders of the insane and impossible “democratic path to independence, to be carried out within and from the imperialistic régime”. A “democratic path to independence” that – carried out within and from the imperialistic régime – is impossible no matter how much “that thing” is called “democracy”, since in any case the RSD of the subjugated Peoples is not an ornament, accessory, complement, achievement or consequence of the democracy BUT IS ITS CONSTITUTIVE BASIS. That is to say: without prior abolition of imperialism and of its military occupation over the Peoples and States that it is subduing, that is, without their prior Self-Determination or Independence, THERE IS NO AND THERE CANNOT BE Democracy.

In short, the RSD is not the random end or outcome of democracy: it is its starting point; and to call anything else “democracy” is pure imperialistic falsification. Strictly speaking, it is not possible to “expect” or “claim” such a right from democracy, when it is democracy itself that does not exist but founded on fundamental human rights (and above all on the one that is the first and the precondition for the full enjoyen of them all, the RSD), which do precede and constitute it.

Even though all the imperialists of the world do deny the “unilateral” RSD of the subjugated Peoples (a right of theirs that of course is always unilateral and unconditional, as are all fundamental rights), however, in a tactical fallback position, they do now admit a “right of self-determination” achieved through “joint” agreement and decision, that’s to say: unilateral of the dominant Nation, in order to determine the political status of the occupied Nation. But for that, there is no need to speak of the RSD of all Peoples, unless it is done so for to better deceive them.

Let’s see: All rights imply the corresponding obligation. That’s to say: the proper thing of all rights is to unilaterally oblige those who are unwilling to respect them; for those who do agree to respect them, there is no need for disquisitions about rights and obligations. A “right” that – with or without an agreement – depends on the unilateral decision of the obliged, neither is a right nor implies obligation. The proper thing of the RSD of the subjugated Peoples is to impose itself on the imperialistic State against its will and by the sole will of the People who holds it; otherwise, it does not make any sense. A “right of self-determination” that – with or without an agreement – is founded on the unilateral decision of the obliged occupying State to accept it or not, is a functional mockery.

Indeed, conditioning the RSD to the “agreement” of the dominant Nation is contrary to the RSD; and demanding the “agreement” of the dominated Nation – as also proposed by the indigenous falsifiers of the RSD – is equally so, since the issue involved constitutes a fundamental, inherent and inalienable right that does not depend on anyone’s agreement. The raised issue is not the right of hetero-determination that the subjugated People and State propose to exercise against the oppressor People and State but quite all the opposite. The pieces of nonsense that could be reached going down that path, and that involved in such an approach, would be the affirmation of the right of self-determination “by imperialistic decision”; and its denial “by decision of the subjugated People”, because “In Euskadi right now there is not a majority that wants to exercise self-determination”. (Arnaldo Otegi, ideological-political agent of Spanish imperialism and “general coordinator of Ehbildu, in statement to the Spanish press on December 19, 2023.)

As already indicated, no “majority” has legitimacy against the right of self-determination of the subjugated Peoples, that is: against their right to live free in their own Homeland (not in that of others), on their own territory and in secure borders. Neither the Basque People nor any other has the right to decide or vote ANYTHING as far as the RSD is concerned: a fundamental and inherent right to all Peoples that – precisely because of its being fundamental and inherent – PRECEDES any decision and on which there is nothing to decide.

The Basque People has no “right” in this regard: it has nothing to say, nothing to decide, nohing to choose and nothing to vote for when it comes to the force, validity and contents of a fundamental, inherent, immediate, unconditional and inalienable right. As there has already been indicated above (Chapter XIV – International Law and Peoples’ Self-Determination), on the national independence of the Peoples subjugated under imperialism there is nothing to decide, the only thing to be done is its immediate (re)establishment; and without prior national independence of these Peoples in the face of imperialism: which implies the prior unconditional and immediate evacuation of their forces of military occupation, there is no freedom to decide on anything. The “consultation in order to find out the opinion of the Basque People about the RSD”: carried out under military occupation and without its previous national independence (after the abolition of French-Spanish imperialism on our State, the Kigdom of Nabarre), is the most forced evasive and dilatory way of falsifying the RSD for the benefit of imperialism.

On its side, imperialism has nothing to organize, nothing to condition and nothing to recognize when it comes to the right of independence of the Peoples it is subduing. Pretending that “we have to get a majority of this country that wants the right of self-determination [what they call ‘right to decide’], and that then imperialism will recognize it”: as the corrupt liquidationist bureaucracy Pnv-Eta and its satellites feign to believe in order to exhaust and stultify its followers, it is not only a strategically unattainable goal under the military occupation and – as if that were not enough – the multi-centennial colonization of the French-Spanish imperialistic Nationalism over our Country; it is, moreover, a logical and sociological absurdity that does inexorably lead to the perpetuation of that imperialism in which, by the way, they are already fully integrated, while they affirm that French-Spanish imperialism is not imperialism but is our own democracy and “the State”.

To achieve independence from imperialism – and therefore to refuse to collaborate with it – is an act that DOES PRECEDE any eventual free and democratic will on other issues. And the continuity and validity of the imperialistic régime: before, during, and “eventually” after such a hypothetical and “democratic” consultation, is contradictory to the democratic rights and to the RSD itself, which does precede and condition them all.

Unable to pose the unilateral and immediate nature of the right of independence, free disposition or self-determination of all Peoples, and forced to camouflage its forgery and abandonment behind an absurd and misleading constant verbiage, the Pnv-Eta “leaders of the Basque institutionalism” continue deceiving the People with the apparent maintenance of “the unwavering demand for compliance with the Statute”; which remains unfulfilled forty years after its “granting”, and in which they pretend that “are included other sections such as the bilateralism or the recognition of the Basque nation”. (I. Urkullu, purported “lehendakari [president]” of the Spanish “Basque autonomous community” and real ordinary representative of the Spanish imperialistic State.) All this, after having all of them recognized its identity as an aliquot part of the unique Spanish nation.

As they do hypocritically or stupidly declare, they try to “defend the Statute” in the face of the constant breaches by the National-imperialists who – whatever their party may be – are acting as Spanish Government and whom they do invariably consider and accept as “democrats”; who, for their part, do ignore, prune and breach it, and only recognize and admit the current imperialistic unilateralism which they all call “democracy”. The practical consequences of this sign of absolute incompetence, stupidity and servility towards the imperialistic and fascist régime: comforted by those “leaders” as democratic and therefore emboldened and untreatable, cannot be – once and again – more disastrous for any subjugated Country.

Not daring those “leaders” to even call the Basque People as such before the declared fascist agents (despite the fact that this is established in the provisions of the “statute of autonomy”, at least “for the purposes of this statute”), or even less to assert its RSD, a televised and pathetic attempt of the ex-Lehendakari Ardanza in a debate with them: in order to get them to accept a “pact between different ones” those who do not only deny the existence of the subjugated Basque People but even “any difference between Spaniards”, was resolved by making us all hear how in the Spanish television that they call ‘Euskal telebista’ the fascist agents provocateurs, admitted by him before the People as “democrats”, did denigrate this Country: which the Spanish and French imperialism has massacred through the centuries and which remains under its armies of occupation, saying that it is being intended to impose upon them “particularities” – our national characteristics, criminally and for centuries suppressed by Spain and France – that they called “droit de seigneur”. (F. Savater.)

The counterfeiters of the RSD avoid the theoretical consequences of their fraudulent operation through abstract formulas that do cunningly hide the issue of the political régime within which the RSD is to be accomplished; yet, the concrete qualification of the RSD, as well as of the political régime – imperialistic or democratic – in which it is exercised, is essential to determine the differential implications of the RSD. Indeed, independence faced to/against imperialism; and independence within a system that is already democratic in relation to the RSD, are starting points involving different situations and solutions. It’s not the same thing while passing from one form of Self-Determination and Democracy to another one (among its different possible options), than passing from imperialism and totalitarianism to Self-Determination and Democracy; which, as it has already been explained, does not allow any other possible option than the unavoidable transition to national independence and the liquidation of imperialism.

The correct distinction between the Peoples’ original independence in the face of imperialism, on the one hand (which is the necessary, unconditional and permanent content of the right of all subjugated Peoples to self-determination or independence); and, on the other, the independence as a concrete way – dispositionary or optional, eventual and conditional – of exercising this right of independence from imperialism once this one has been abolished and the national freedom and democracy that it was violating have been restored, makes it possible to avoid the risk of unfortunate mistakes, whether voluntary or involuntary.

The recent coming into fashion in our Country of the “dualistic differentiation” (one more) between “independence and sovereignty” could surprise. Long since, international use and jurisprudence interpret those terms as synonyms. The substitution – or rather supplanting – of the independence by an equally forged version of the “sovereignty” is not the anodyne displacement of a “vulgar” term or concept by another “most learned” one: admirable theoretical achieving of the advisers, specialists and intellectuals of the Pnv-Eta group. (Incidentally: the sudden and “inexplicable” fall into disfavour of the term – if not the idea – between the radicals, has not taken long in being remedied with its recuperation by the moderates, so that nothing is lost and everything remains at home.)

The matter is once again – as mentioned before – about the illustrated pedanticism with which they try to conceal their theoretical pieces of nonsense. In the sense that is attributed to it by its promoters, visibly delighted with their “discovery”, “sovereignty” is not the independence from imperialism. It is, quite on the contrary, the dependence of imperialism: denied as such and presented as compatible with democracy and the RSD. And this with only one ideological goal: to confuse, split and disperse the terms and concepts in order to remove and replace the clear and “uncomfortable” notion of independence against imperialism as the first and necessary foundation of the RSD; to exclude the independence against imperialism from the current and real policy; to relegate it into imaginary “votings and decisions”; to separate it from the general concepts of freedom and democracy; and to undermine the RSD with the illusory aspiration of making it acceptable for the imperialistic régime of military occupation imposed in the Kingdom of Nabarre, and permissible by the forces that support it.

Always a-listening to as many “contributions” as can extend the theoretical and ideological confusion about the RSD and the democratic rights in general, the local Pnv-Eta counterfeiters have not hesitated in adding to their arsenal of propaganda the new dualistic distinction – another one more – between “the external right of self-determination” and its corresponding “internal” one, which suits to a tee to their current campaign of conceptual liquidation of the right of self-determination. This is, in fact, the ideological purpose of this recent “theoretical innovation” (released mostly from 1979); end pursued by the Pnv-Eta forgers of the RSD. Their agreement with the ideological agents and officials of international imperialism has therefore occurred in a spontaneous and natural way, and if it arrives twenty or fifty years later is due to simple ignorance or informative disability.

In the same way as they claim the rights of “the minority Languages, the national minorities and the Stateless Peoples”: referred all of it to our linguistic, national and State reality (thereby recognizing the national language, the nation and the State of the occupant Peoples as their own ones), similarly they close: with their “right to decide”, all theoretical basis to the RSD of Peoples and of State independence. There is no doubt that such operation of sabotage and imperialistic and fascist falsification-recuperation of the ideas of freedom, rights and democracy could not have been even attempted in our Country if the joint group Pnv-Eta: “spontaneously and freely”, had not adopted, supported and diffused it as its own doctrine through the official monopolies of “information” generously put available at their disposition. All of it in sheer contradiction with the feeling of a Country that – the same as those who lost their property, freedom and life in its defence before the criminal fascist aggression – has never understood by ‘Askatasuna’ anything different than the Independence from the imperialism, without tricks or falsifications.

So as to better appreciate the deviations and aberrations: theoretical and practical, which the “contribution” of the Pnv-Eta group to the knowledge and application of international law leads to, we could consider the results of those same principles, should they be applied to the domestic – civil or criminal – law such as they conceive them:

Robbery and rape: crimes against the property and the right of sexual freedom or immunity, create a situation of political and legal conflict. According to the solution maintained by the group Pnv-Eta, the democratic procedure is to be held as follows: robbery and rape, along with all their results, are considered legally valid, and all activity against them is to be considered illegal and will be suppressed by violence – with or without penal or administrative procedure – while the corresponding “civil self-determination process” has not resulted in the modification of the “legality” currently in force on the “rights” of property and sexual freedom. In the meantime, the victims of robbery or rape may address the thief or the rapist: who holds the de facto and de iure political power, to claim from them the recognition of their right of not being plundered or raped. If the alleged offenders do agree with the claim, an indicative consultation will be organized to know the opinion of the victims about the opportunity to organize a consultation which will decide on the respect for the rights of property or sexual freedom. If those that have been consulted do free and democratically decide that hereinafter they want to continue being plundered or violated, then everything stays the same, but now in a fully free and democratic way. And if, on the contrary, they freely and democratically decide that they do not want to continue being plundered or violated, in such a case it is to be expected that robbers and rapists will respect the decision. But if they do not do it… then “even worse”, because it would not be democratic. In any case, the “democratic” joke can indefinitely continue, always on the initiative and with the endorsement of the group Pnv-Eta.

If the imperialistic version of the right of free disposition is a fraud and a theoretical nullity, its “strategic” implementation presents the “vacuous fullness” that an endless series of political pacts, consensual processes and catastrophic plans offer to the People that endures them. The truth is that the ideologists of the Pnv-Eta group do not have the slightest idea of how to get their teeth into the strategic crust that constitutes the essence of the problem. And since what the purported ideological and political vanguard cannot resolve is necessarily unsolvable (as it would be “contrary to reason” that the rear-guard could solve what the vanguard is unable to resolve), then it only remains as a way-out the creation of ideological monsters such as the possibility of “democratically” continuing the same as up to now in a régime whose essence is imperialism, and at the same time to deny the imperialism, the right of self-determination, the democracy and the formal logic.

When one does not have a blasted idea of something, he does not – honestly – play to being a teacher of public opinion. When one is completely clueless on how to deal with a strategic process, one goes home and does not play to being a political leader while leaving one’s unwary followers to carry the can. When one believes that it is impossible to combat the régime of military occupation, and that it is necessary to accept it and adapt to it; or that it’s impossible to put into effect the RSD, one says it honestly so. What one should not do is try to deceive, to pull the wool over people’s eyes, and to make a Country believe that “that” is Democracy and Self-Determination; nor does one try to falsify concepts and reality in order to keep the (brass) cheek and the vanity which facts have put into evidence over and over again.

In short, this is the situation to which the bureaucracies of “the moderate and the radical Basques” have led the political Resistance of the Basque People against French-Spanish imperialism. On the one side, immediate and self-qualified right of self-determination and of legitimate self-defence for the aggressors and occupiers Peoples and States, with an added imperialistic right of hetero-determination, war, conquest, occupation, annexation and colonization of the assaulted Peoples and their occupied States. And on the other, the obligation for the subjugated Peoples and States to accept and recognize de facto and de iure: as fully legitimate and democratic, the criminal French-Spanish imperialistic régime of military occupation established by means of war, genocide, war and State Terrorism, and maintained through the monopolies of criminal violence and ideological conditioning of masses. And as a consolation prize for all that, we the Basque People have the “right to vote” as Spaniards or as French in the “elections” mounted by the Spanish and French régime of military occupation, in order to “decide” what the Spanish and French régime of occupation wants to be decided. In the end, “right to consult, under the régime of occupation, on the legalization of the right to a consultation to decide” between “the right to independence and the right to dependence”: it’s this way that the official Pnv-Eta representatives of the “moderate or radical Basque nationalism” understand the freedom, the democracy and the right of free disposition of all Peoples.

By “virtue” of such caricature of “democracy”, it’s not the RSD of Peoples – that is, the right of independence of Peoples against the imperialism – which decides on the legitimacy of the elections; quite on the contrary, it’s the imperialistic régime: with the “consultations and elections” that it organizes, which decides on the illegitimacy of the fundamental right of self-determination, “first of the fundamental human rights and precondition of them all” according to International Law. They are not the crimes of imperialism that highlight what is the “legitimacy” of the international fascism; they are the French-Spanish consultations and elections, and the fascist régime that organizes them, which qualify the crimes of war, against peace and against humanity, whose prevention, repression, punishment and reparation are the very base of International Law. The fundamental right is not right, neither the crime is crime, unless the French-Spanish “elections” and the fascist régimes that organize them decide it so.

Attributing to the French-Spanish imperialistic régime of military occupation the right to condition, organize and determine the will of the subjugated Basque People through a “democratic process of self-determination”; subordinating the RSD to consultations and votings previous to the independence and carried out under a régime of military occupation and colonization established and preserved for centuries by means of the original and eminent violence of the war of aggression, the terrorism and conquest; interpreting – finally – and considering the vote in such conditions as an expression of the democratic will of the Basque People; and making of its result the basis and condition of the legitimacy of the Self-Determination and Independence, all of it is already denying the existence of the Basque Nation and its RSD: which is right to immediate and unconditional independence against the imperialism; and it is recognizing the occupation, annexation and colonization.

A political order: a criminal State of military occupation established and preserved by means of war, conquest, occupation, colonization, plunder and Terror; which for years or centuries has exercised and continues to exercise the political, economic and ideological power; which continues in full possession of the monopoly of violence, terrorism, repression and propaganda; which wields both the mass-media terrorism as well that of the incendiary bombs against defenceless civilian populations; which is lord and master of lives and properties and of the international relations and communications; which from the early childhood subjugates entire generations to deculturación, acculturation, education and re-education, censorship, brain washing, intoxication and compulsory indoctrination; which remains lord and master of the political and administrative borders, of the demographic movements, of the productive forces and – at length – economic flows, is not accessible to persuasion and dialogue, does not organize, allow or suffer “institutional” operations capable of overthrowing and replacing it, does not turn into a democratic one because it mounts “elections” so that those who it wants may vote where, when, the way and what it wants to, or because it authorizes the “opposition” to say what it wants to, nor does it capitulate in the face of the attempts: despite the fact that they be called “armed struggle and revolutionary war”, in the hope of changing things by changing their names.

All the positions of the group Pnv-Eta: first of all on the decisive issues of democracy and RSD, reveal both the dependence of these armed and unarmed collaborators and accomplices of French-Spanish imperialism regarding the positions of the latter, as well as their impregnation by its ideology. All this forms the basis of their mental reflexes; which is perceptible in all their positions: theoretical and practical, even when they pretend to oppose it.

The Pnv-Eta bureaucratic group group – along with its satellites and trade-union, “social and cultural” auxiliaries – is “incapable” to conceive a political process that does not have the French-Spanish fascist régime of military occupation of our Country as its foundation. They take this imperialistic and fascist régime as the starting point of the right and “process of self-determination”, because they cannot conceive of any policy or law that are not founded on it. Apart from deficiencies that can be fortunately remedied, this French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation of our Country consists for them in a “natural”, legitimate, non-violent and original political order; in a fundamentally democratic State and their own: the source of law and the unquestionable starting point of any “democratic process of self-determination” (in which the subjugated Nation aims or aspires to freedom as a random end and not as the foundation of all democracy and progress); and – at last – in a comfortable ideological-political environment which they are unable to leave even in idea.

The demand for the “right to decide” under the French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation of our Country implies accepting, recognizing and legitimizing this régime as a democratic one; and – in any case – leads to establishing a moratorium in its favour whilst prohibiting or delaying the claim for unconditional and immediate independence from imperialism: which is the only necessary content of the RSD;; thereby destroying the RSD.

For the ideology of liquidationism and betrayal of the Pnv-Eta and its satellites, the RSD is not an immediate right but a mediate and conditioned one through a “decision” to be adopted within the imperialistic “right”; instead, this one does not require a decision different from its own one in order to continue imposing its immediate, “legitimate and democratic” validity. It is a ploy to “gain time” in favour of imperialism and to make the Country lose it; it is a way to escape the strategic implementation of the RSD, which they don’t know nor want to deal with; and it is a way of hiding their real abandonment or denial of the RSD. Because – once more – the RSD does not result from democracy: it precedes and constitutes it.

The collaborators and accomplices of the established régime love to play not only at making the war but also at the elections, parliamentarism and parliamentary conventions, as if this were the United Kingdom or the United States, and not the criminal French-Spanish totalitarian, imperialistic and fascist régime of always; and as if they were true politicians, and not rag dolls. Not even the direct experience makes them discover through where make pass the elections, the ‘Constitution’ and the organic laws – and a fortiori their reserved domains: the “autonomous parliaments” and their express and tacit conventions – those who won the war and exert thereby the formal and real political power.

It is not possible to fight imperialism with the imperialistic ideology, institutions, categories, concepts and terminology. The armed and unarmed “Basque” institutionalists of the Pnv-Eta bureaucracy and its satellites Ea-Ehbildu-Sortu-Geroa bai etc. have adopted as their own the strategic assumptions and ideological principles of the French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation of our Country: which they have accepted as legitimate and democratic, within which there is no place or salvation for democracy or for the Basque People’s freedom; both ends being inseparable.

Victims of their baneful insanity: typical of fanatical “illuminated” friars who abandoned the seminary or Jelkidism so as to embrace instead a new “revelation” and a new dogma, this time those of the Eta group and its falsificó “revolution”; and after having maintained in an obtuse and suicidal way for decades their alleged “armed struggle” – that is, the attempts – while despising any consequent democratic criticism about it, they then went on without the slightest self-criticism to embrace since 1979 the same positions that the Pnv bureaucracy had adopted two years earlier as an immovable and absolute apriorism, namely: the acceptance that the criminal French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation that subjugates our People and State is legitimate and democratic, even though they all were warned about that tremendous and lethal error. The out-and-out fanatical maintenance by some of them of these “new positions”, almost fifty years later, and in “dialoguing and negotiating” with the fascism that is destroying our Country and that they keep calling democracy, surpasses all elementary prudence and sanity:

“To dialogue and to negotiate is the indispensable basis of democratic action. What would we think of anyone who refused to talk to the PSOE [sic], for having been the mentor of dirty wars and torture, which have caused hundreds and thousands of victims, with practically no judicial protection for the victims? There is no true democracy without dialogue and negotiation.” (Patxi Zabaleta Zabaleta; ‘Democracy and negotiation’, Diario de Noticias, June 14, 2023.)

Yet, quite to the contrary and strictly speaking, the authentic reality is that there is not and there cannot be true democracy without fundamental human rights, and in the first place without Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples, which is the first of the fundamental human rights and the precondition of all of them, as it has been recognized – not constituted – by International Law. However, for these Pnv-Eta loonies and their satellites “the indispensable basis of democratic action is dialogue and negotiation” with the Spanish imperialistic and fascist criminals of Falange-PsoE, with whom they have been pretending for half a century that they are “dialoguing and negotiating” while those fascists continue to liquidate our Country; which they not only do not deny but even affirm. It is clear what we should think of these lunatics or sub-normal “Basques”.

“Decent people, good people, do not talk to the imperialistic and fascist criminals who do continue or try that there continues the enterprise of domination of the French-Spanish imperialistic Nationalism, which has been attacking the Basque People and oppressing our Country for twelve centuries. Even less can do it those who exercise functions and assume ideological and political responsibility. The thinker, the politician, or the free person that faces theoretical, practical or simple information issues under the conditions of imperialism will do well to distrust and protect himself from any communication or ‘informative, scientific or artistic’ contribution that comes from its agents.

“For the decent politicians, scientists and persons, no honourable trade and no honest frequentation are possible with the imperialistic and fascist ideological agents: whatever the moral or cultural pretensions with which they conceal themselves may be. There cannot be talks with those who – whether having or not a gun on the table – do lean on the monopoly of criminal Violence, established through war and conquest and countless and horrendous imprescriptible crimes. In our Country, there cannot be a place for ‘talks’ with the agents of the propaganda and the psychological warfare that impose the ideas of the French-Spanish imperialism and fascism, in the service and under the protection of its occupying army. The ‘dialogue’ with the imperialistic Fascism and Terrorism is a formal nonsense that involves complicity with their agents and the covering-up of their criminal enterprise of destruction of the free persons and Peoples; consequently, it must be absolutely and positively avoided. (See Chapter XXV – ‘Imperialistic ideology versus democratic ideology : an asymmetry of variable and constant factors’.)

“Already since the clandestine and illegal pact of Munich, agreed in 1962 with the PsoE by the Pnv-Anv liquidationist bureaucracy (and all of them without interruption since their integration into Spanish Fascism, officially admitted by them as “democracy” since the “general elections” of 1977-1979, the moderate and radical armed and unarmed ‘Basque’ institutionalists Pnv-Eta and their satellites have been making their followers and victims believe up to this day that the agents of the Spanish National-imperialism and Fascism: the National-socialists/communists of Falange-PsoE/PcE and the National-fascists of Ap/Pp, were in fact noble and honourable democratic allies with whose real and reliable alliance a viable political strategy could and should be founded. The purported ‘official Basque political class’ has thus evacuated even the sense of distinction between the decision-making system ‘friend-or-foe’, and of the very nature of the imperialistic régime; has disconnected or reversed its immune system; and has destroyed its natural or artificial, bio-sociological and political-ideological defences. The collaborationism: from the traditional or official Pnv until its corollary the Eta, is the AIDS of the Basque People inoculated by French-Spanish imperialism.” (See Chapter XXVII – ‘Task of Pnv-Eta collaborationism and its result: strengthening of the Nationalist-imperialistic Front’.)

With their dire positions, caught between oxymoron and aporia, the armed and unarmed “Basque” institutionalists Pnv-Eta et alii (ardently supported in particular by the miserable mercenary agents who, in the service of Spanish imperialism, call themselves journalist and even “directors of abertzale newspapers), must DENY the criminal, imperialistic, colonialist and fascist reality of both the French-Spanish régime of military occupation over the Basque People and its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre, as well as that of the French-Spanish parties that support that régime; and AFFIRM IT on the contrary as non-criminal, legitimate and democratic, so that in this way their policy should make sense, and so that they could thus evade their own responsibility in the deviation and sabotage of our People’s struggle for liberation from imperialism.

Such ideological aberrations: which the aforementioned bureaucratic-liquidationist conglomerate Pnv-Eta and its satellites spread amongst the Basque People with the help of the mercenary agents of the imperialistic media monopoly, are a consequence of the repression of ideas, the obscurantism, the bad faith, and of their strategic and ideological identification with the criminal occupying States of France and of Spain; States that the mafia of liquidationist Traitors and accomplices “abertzale official Basques” in functions do accept, support and recognize as their own, legitimate, democratic and non-violent States, all at the same time; thereby denying imperialism. The stultification to which they lead their followers is total, and the damage they continue to do to our People es immense.

Carried by the inevitable logical and political consequences of their own inconsistencies, the Pnv-Eta armed and unarmed “Basque institutionalists” deny the very reality of the imperialistic domination, and the national and political entity of the subjugated Nations: imperialistic reality and subjugated national entity without which there is no RSD that is worthwhile. On the contrary, they affirm the democratic nature of the French-Spanish criminal régime of occupation and colonization, and starting from there all their alleged opposition collapses. From any side that it is taken, the ideology of the “patriotic right and left-wing” is resolved, does always revert to and conclude in the concealment of the occupying State, and in the denial, disguise and apologia of the Terrorism, Imperialism and Fascism as its sole political reality.

Unable as they are to raise the problem of the RSD of Peoples in a concrete form before the reality of imperialism, these liquidationist agents get lost in abstractions that correspond to a non-existent political régime. Curiously enough, the imperialistic and fascist ideology does – now that things are not going well for communism – resort to the classical Communists, in which it seeks inspiration to reduce the sense of the RSD. The famous analogy between the  RSD of Peoples and the right to the civil divorce of persons: conveniently falsified, has deserved the congratulations of liquidationists, fascists, opportunists and accomplices of the imperialism, who have drawn the gratifying feeling of having it very clear on the RSD of Peoples and the divorce of individuals, when in reality they still have it darker about both. It is evident that the sophism of composition continues providing great services to the dominant ideology.

Indeed, the free divorce – whether it be between persons or Nations – is only possible in associations that have been freely constituted themselves from a previous freedom/independence. Instead, when the unions are made by force, there is not possible choice or option for divorcing or not, and the annulment/abolition of that false union is the only way of freedom in the face of oppression: this is a tautological proposition. The independence from imperialism is an absolute requirement of the RSD, and tautologically cannot be otherwise. The RSD is not a right of union or separation starting from a previous voluntary and legitimate union. On the contrary, it is the right: without an alternative, of independence or of access to independence – whether personal or national – through separation-annulment from a forced union. In the first case: of a voluntary union, it is possible a choice between options; in the second one, the proposition of a choice is an absurd idea.

The ideas of People, Nation, nationality, the principle of nationalities, right of self-determination etc. entail implications that place them at the centre of the ideological struggles. The ideological attack against the freedom and the right of self-determination of all Peoples counts on extensive literature and overwhelming media broadcasting. Simple theoretical criticism will not change much; and the ideologists of fascism and imperialism will anyway continue saying the same things as long as they continue to see that their superior resources and the monopolies of violence and propaganda: without possible comparison with the limited means of a democratic opposition ideology, ensure them the domination over the consciences of subjugated Peoples, unable to become aware of their reality and even less to act effectively against it.

The incapability to escape from the pernicious consequences of this domination does not only result in the strategic aberrations and ruin of the subjugated Peoples’ popular forces that we’ve already exposed; it also turns its victims into Bedlamites and mentally alienated persons, or sinks them into the complex and painful syndromes that bad conscience, imposture and self-hatred do bring in their wake.

(From the work: ‘Euskal Herria and the Kingdom of Nabarre, or the Basque People and its State, against French-Spanish imperialism’.)

CONCLUSION

That all is why, from the Basque Movement of Resistance and National Salvation, we are calling on the Basque People/Euskal Herria not to support the calls and “initiatives” that, raised by the agents of the Pnv-Eta liquidationist bureaucracy and its satellites and “social-cultural” terminals, consist of the falsification and destruction of the international right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples.

As it has been explained in this text, this right is being supplanted by these bureaucracies through the fraudulent and reactionary imperialistic ersatz that they are “claiming” and which they call “the right to decide”. Their aim is to divert and exhaust our popular forces, mobilized in pursuit of a trap, a mirage, namely: the “vindication” of a so-called and fallacious “referendum of self-determination” that they intend should be carried out under the conditions of the criminal French-Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation over our People and State; a régime that for almost half a century and to this day those agents take as our régime and State of our own, legitimate and democratic.

In the face of this plot, we first invite the people who may be engaged in the realization of such “projects” just because their good faith may have been surprised by these agents of Spanish imperialism camouflaged as “Basque nationalists”, to desist from such approaches and stop supporting them. But above all, we urge the Basque People/Euskal Herria to turn their backs on any call that comes from those “initiatives”, which entail a fundamental ideological-political falsification, as well as the confusion and recuperation of our popular forces, to divert them from their objectives of liberation and to put them at the service of the fascist régime.

The fraudulent nature of these appeals is unequivocal to any Basque of good faith and right understanding and conscience since they consist in the concealment, denial and destruction of the two fundamental principles that do necessarily structure an authentic Basque national policy, and without which there is no Basque People or Nation.

Thus, the Basque Movement of Resistance and National Salvation appeals to every person of goodwill of our People not to support any call of any supposedly democratic and Basque group, which does not put forward these two fundamental strategic principles, without which there is not and cannot be any democratic politics or any salvation for our People; namely:

1/ Affirmation of the autochthonous Basque People/Euskal Herria as one more People of the World and, like them, owner and agent of the fundamental and inherent international right of independence, FREE disposition or self-determination of all Peoples. A right that is original, immediate, unconditional, continuous, permanent, inalienable, un-renounceable and indefeasible to all Peoples; that is the same thing as their free disposition or immediate independence against/in front of any alien or foreign domination constituted by imperialism; that has been recognized – not constituted – in the United Nations’ Charter and International Law: through numerous and relevant Resolutions of its General Assembly, as the first of fundamental human rights and the precondition of them all; and whose corollary and practical application consists, as a prerequisite for its realization, in the exigency of an UNCONDITIONAL AND IMMEDIATE withdrawal of all the occupying forces and of the entire imperial-colonialist subjugation apparatus of the occupying Powers: France and Spain, out of the historical Territories of the Basque People and its State; and

2/ Affirmation of the validity, continuity and actuality of its own historical State, freely constituted upon a confederation of Vasconic Republics, Counties and Manors gathered around the Kingdom of Pamplona: “the Kingdom of the Basques” that was succeeded by the Kingdom of Nabarre, which remains today the only State of the Basque People, 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, terrorist, imperialistic, colonialist and fascist, imposed on our People and State through permanent armed occupation and horrendous and imprescriptible crimes of war, crimes against the peace and security of Peoples and their States legitimately constituted on the principle of Self-Determination or Independence of  Peoples, and crimes against humanity.

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 imperialism infiltrated among the subjugated People, 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 mentioned fundamental principles, do objectively – some of them even in an open and confessed form – form part of the imperialism; and

– to any participation both in the institutions of the colonial-imperialistic régime of Francespain and especially in its juridical monopolies or “parliaments”: French Parliament and Spanish General Courts (established over the centuries through the Monopoly of criminal Violence and Terror of war and State, and countless and imprescriptible constitutive crimes); as well as in its totalitarian “general elections” that “legitimize” all this.

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!!!