Foreword

Introduction

Part 1: Limburg &endash; Political Situation, Culture, and Language

1.1. Political Map
1.2. Political Situation
1.3. Culture and Language
1.4. My Share as a Nationalist
1.5. Another Try ...

Part 2: The Political System

2.1. Natural Law versus Positive Law

2.1.1. Natural Law
2.1.2. Positive Law
2.1.3. Conclusion in favour of Natural Law
2.1.4. Relationship between Natural Law and Human Law

2.2. Sovereignty

2.2.1. On an International Level
2.2.2. On a National Level
2.2.3. The Natural Right to Revolution

2.3. The destructive Nature of Political Parties
2.4. A Democratic System of Government

Part 3: The oppressed Nations in Europe &endash; A League of their own

3.1. Why a League of their own?
3.2. Draft Statutes of the League
3.3. Get the Picture

Dear reader,

Thank you for downloading this four-volume work, which contains two proposals. The first is a proposal for cooperation on a European level between all nations in Europe which are now being oppressed and subjected to ethnocide (Scotland being one of them) by the various European states and the European Union. The second proposal is that for a legal institute which guards and fights for freedom, justice and righteousness, and thus against malevolent governments.

The proposed League and Institute, both of which would maintain their headquarters in Scotland, will have to perform very important tasks and duties, for in this corrupt world they may become the only organisations that stand between us and totalitarianism. And given the current speed of developments, both organisations may soon be the only ones left that can and will fight against oppression and ethnocide, and for freedom, justice and righteousness. All oppressed nations in Europe, Scotland included, would benefit from the work of these two organizations.

Since I'm not superman, I can't start these organisations alone and on my own, so I would need the help and assistance of existing organisations, such as Clannasaor and/or of Siol nan Gaidheal. But human and financial resources are also necessary and essential.

Given the fact that the attacks on our freedoms become more violent by the day, and that such organizations as described can't be conceived, developed and made operational in a single day, it is of the utmost importance that their foundations are laid as soon as possible, ere it's too late.

I do hope you have, or will free, the time to read this work thoroughly. Please tell me what you think of my proposals. And if you think positive of them, then why not give a hint to Clannasaor (which I'm a member of) and Siol nan Gaidheal?

I look forward to your reactions with great interest!

’Tis high time to turn the pages
And say farewell to the Middle Ages
For the sake of freedom, UNITE
And as ONE stand for your right!

(me, myself and I)

 

 Yours sincerely for A FREE EUROPE,

Bert Post Uiterweer
(Robert de Limburgh, Rabhairt a Limbroch)
baajt@wish.nl

September 25, 2002

I was born (1955) and raised in Mestreech (unfortunately better known under its Dutch name Maastricht), capital of the country of Limburg (Limbörg, in the spelling of my own language), which is now occupied and controlled by the Hollanders and the Belgians, and partially by the Germans. After having finished school, I joined the Navy for 6 years, and afterwards I served a number of years with the National Reserve, Limburg Division.

After this, and while working as a civil servant at the Dutch Ministery of Defence (in Limburg), I studied law. Not positive law though, which is typical of dictatorships and totalitarian states, and which has therefore nothing to do with justice (this same positive law is also the main cause of the many miscarriages of justice), but natural law, the highest form of law, which forms the fundament of a democracy. I have specialized in constitutional law, international law and philosophy of law only, supplemented with modules on political science, policy making, knowledge of organizations, and some modules on other, related, subjects.

Since about 1995 I have been devoted to the Limburg cause, in the same way Clannasaor and Siol nan Gaidheal are devoted to the Scottish cause.

While browsing the website of the Siol nan Gaidheal cultural movement, I also discovered the Manifesto of the Clannasaor political party, and I was struck by the many similarities between Scotland and Limburg, especially, but not only, in regard to their respective political situations.

Apart from that, I've always had a weak spot for Scotland and the Scots, and I hold them in very high esteem because they, unlike many other peoples, have backbone and never give up. This is something I highly esteem, probably because it reflects my own character. Since my first visit to Alba (during the seventies), I have always considered this country as a kind of second fatherland.

I downloaded the complete Siol nan Gaidheal website, and found my own views, as laid down in a compehensive policy document I wrote in 2001 fully represented in it. I could have written the texts myself, and even the choice of words is the same as mine would have been.

What is said in the Clannasaor Manifesto and the Siol nan Gaidheal Aims and Principles suggests that both share exactly the same ideas, views and goals. I agree for more than 98% with what is said in their documents, but having a lot of experience with political parties and cultural institutes, and their promises which they never fulfil, I wonder whether the Manifesto and the Aims and Principles aren't too good to be true ...

In this first Volume you'll find information about the situation in my own country of Limburg, which may well apply to the other oppressed nations too, as well as a proposal for cooperation on a European level.

The proposal for the legal institute can be found in Volume 2. Some essential essays on natural law are contained in Volume 3, and a number of historical, but still very important, human rights declarations in Volume 4.

The map below shows that the states now known as "The Netherlands" and "Belgium" actually consist of six different nations, each with their own identities (a nation's identity is determined by its own unique language and culture). However, the Frisians, Lower-Saxons, Limburgers, Flemisch and Brabantines are under the yoke of the Hollanders and the Belgians (and partially under those of the Germans and the French), and not allowed self-determination. The rest of this chapter is about Limburg, my own country, but what is said equally applies to all oppressed nations in Europe.

Just like Scotland, Limburg is denied its autonomy, its self-determination. The country, the nation, is divided and controlled by the Hollanders (eastern part), the Belgians (western part), and the Germans (a small part in the East), who for one or other obscure reason consider Limburg to be their territory, and thus its people to be Hollanders or Belgians (or Germans)! This is crazy though, and not true, because we Limburgers form a people in our own right, with our own unique culture and our own unique language, both of which have nothing to do with either Holland or Belgium, or any other country for that matter, with the exception of the Doric speaking region in Scotland (Aberdeenshire): Doric is not much different from the Limburgish language!

That we Limburgers are indeed a people in our own (natural) right is confirmed by the mere existence of our unique identity, but also by a number of International and European treaties and charters, which are signed and ratified by the Hollanders and the Belgians, but which treaties they simply refuse to apply.

The Hollanders and the Belgians, together with their collaborators within the two Limburg "provincial governments" and some individual quislings, want Limburg to disappear from the map as soon as possible. It appears that they find nothing more pleasing than committing ethnocide (destroying a people by robbing it of its identity = language and culture). Apparantly ethnocide is the legal (but never the legitimate!) form of genocide, from which it is just one step away! It is little known that when it comes to the natural or human rights, the Hollanders especially only keep up appearances. And at least since Sebrenica it is clear that the Hollanders don't object to genocide!

Since ethnocide is a far less overt form of genocide, to which even the UN don't protest (which can only mean that this rogue organisation agrees with this type of "Ausradierung"), the said occupying states attempt to eradicate the Limburg nation by employing various cunning techniques as part of their ethnocide policy.

Both the Hollanders and Belgians portray Limburg as a backward country, only useful for being exploited as a colony, and the Limburgers as an uneducated people, who are utterly unable to learn to speak a "civilized" language like Dutch without an accent. Of course, our language is not Dutch, but an old variant of the German language, so why on earth would we want or need to learn a foreign language like Dutch? The Limburg language, say the Hollanders, is no language at all, but just a dialect of Dutch (?); the Belgians, on the other hand, assert that it is merely a dialect of Flemish (?). Besides, say both, it is only spoken by peasants (thank you very much).

In line with the afore-said, we are also not allowed to teach our childern their own language at schools; the same applies to our own culture and history. Strange that this sort of discrimination is deemed acceptable by a state like Holland, who appears to have (mis)appropriated the right to rebuke every other state on discrimination and racism!

To put it another way, would it make sense for Tibetians struggling to free their land from Chinese oppression and ethnic cleansing to say that a Tibetian is anyone who happens to live and work in Tibet, including Chinese colonists planted there by Beijing? Of course not, and none would dream of calling the Tibetians "racist" for insisting that their nationality is authentic. The same goes for the people of East Timor. The term "racist" is only used to thwart self-determination movements by peoples with unfashionably pale skin.

And of course, "Racist!" is now the battle cry of those, like the 'Commission for Racial Equality', who would stop us from giving official status to Scottish languages in Scotland &endash; Gaelic instead of Gujarati, Scots instead of Swaheli. There is no real way for any white person to prove that you're not a racist &endash; that's the point of the smear, it's designed to frighten people and shut them up. The only appropriate way to meet allegations of "racism" is to laugh and refuse to take the thing seriously, thereby puncturing the balloon of self-righteous officiousness and manufactured outrage which fuels the activities of race relations parasites and other ethno-cultural terrorists. (Mr. P., Scotland).

Another method they use to get rid of us, as part of their ethnocide policy, is by giving the highest jobs to Hollanders and Belgians only: after all, Limburgers are an uneducated people, and thus eligible for lower jobs only. By means of this policy they (try to) force us Limburgers to adapt to the Dutch and Belgian languages and cultures (and really stupid Limburgers indeed fall into this trap). People who do not comply are considered paupers and robbed of all their rights and of their opportunities (but not overtly, of course).

Yet another method is by swamping Limburg with Hollanders and Belgians, with the aim that the own Limburg language and culture will gradually be replaced with the Dutch language and culture. And since the Hollanders and Belgians are often richer than the Limburgers, they have been able to acquire the better houses in the cities, towns and villages. Limburg was sold by the politicians and by Limburg traitors, and the Limburgers are now being discriminated in their own country.

The Hollanders (especially) and the Belgians are certainly no nice people, which is something Montesquieu had already discovered some 250 years ago, for he wrote:

Tout ce qu'on m'avait dit de l'avarice, de la friponnerie, de l'escroquerie des Hollandais, n'est point fardé, c'est la verité pure.

Everything they had told me about the avarice, about the villainy, about the swindle of the Hollanders is not exagerated, it is the pure truth.

Needless to say that this despicable mentality of the Hollanders, which the Belgians share with them, has not changed over the centuries.

Apart from the political situation, there are more similarities between Scotland and Limburg.

Though our culture is quite different from the Scottish culture (it is a Frankish culture, not unlike the culture of the Cologne and Aachen region), the Limburg language does not differ that much from the Doric variant of the Scottish language. Both languages have a common ancestor and neither language has changed a lot over the centuries, with the result that both (still) have a lot of words in common, albeit that the spelling and pronunciation often differs. In fact, we Limburgers could still communicate with Bruce.

The Limburg language is an independent and fully fledged language, recognized as such under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (but see below), by the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages and other authorities. It is not some backward Dutch or Flemish dialect, but belongs to the German language group, and stands thus very close to the High German language. It is, however, not truely High German, for it originates from the Southern-Lower-Frankish. In respect to its vocabulary, idiom and grammar the language (also known as Meuse-Frankish) is very closely related to the other Frankish languages: Southern-Lower-Frankish, Ripuarian-Frankish, Moselle-Frankish and Rhine-Frankish. The fair amount of German words the Hollanders and Flemish find in our language are therefore no foreign elements, but they form a natural and integrated part of our language.

It is worth mentioning that a Limburger can not only communicate in his own language within his own country, but also in e.g. Ripuaria, Lower Franconia and Luxembourg, and the Doric speaking region of Scotland, where a related language is spoken. There is also little difference between the Limburg language and the language spoken in the North of Germany; and even in Flanders he can communicate in his own language. The area in which our language is spoken, or at least understood, is by far larger than that of the Dutch and Flemish languages, which are quite isolated. This makes the Limburg language not only one of the oldest and most intact languages in Europe, but also a true European language, capable of binding (uniting?) a large group of people(s). Thus, killing this language means not only killing the Limburg nation, but also killing an important part of Europe.

Every true Limburger refuses to speak Dutch in his own country, and only speaks his own ancient language as perfectly as possible. Every Limburger who does speak Dutch in his own country, and moreover satisfies himself in being any Hollander's slave, can not be a Limburger. He must repent, or else move to Holland.

The landscape in central and southern Limburg, by the way, is hilly, and strongly resembles the Peebles area. Once it was a beautiful countryside, that is, before the Hollanders and Flemish chopped down our trees and dumped their trash here, flattened our mountains and hills in order to rob us of our sandstone (which continues to this day), and made giant holes for to get their claws on our pitcoal. And if we want some of that sandstone or coal ourselves, we have to pay for what is actually our own property!

I've done a lot of work for Limburg during the past few years (since about 1995), and my main project has been the composing of the Dictionary for the Limburg Language (Diksjonaer van de Limbörgse Spraok), the first time ever that this was done on a scientific basis. This work alone has taken me five years to accomplish. Unfortunately, some years ago it was stolen from me by three ruffians who put it on the internet for free download. It later became clear that those three bandits collaborated with the Limburg provincial government, who in turn collaborate with the Dutch and Belgian governments in The Hague and Brussels (a minority of politicians don't collaborate, but fearing the Dutch and Flemish anti-discrimination SS, they are afraid to open their mouths).

To me this theft meant a huge loss of 5 years of hard work, as well as a financial loss, because I never received any support whatsoever from neither the treacherous government in Limburg, nor from the Dutch and Belgian governments in The Hague and Brussels. So I had to pay all costs from my own pocket. Hiring an advocate in an attempt to bring the ruffians to trial, proved to be far too expensive.

Few people abroad are aware of the fact, that under the previous governments in Holland, led by the Stalinist Wim Kok and his henchmen, the natural right to freedom of speech was no longer recognized. Speaking your mind was no longer allowed and thus hazardous, for you could end up in the stockade for quite some time. Self-defence and defence of others was, and still is, forbidden: yet doing so inevitably means the dungeon, for the criminal is considered the victim, and the victim the criminal. In Holland it is quite normal that people are beaten up, robbed, murdered and raped in broad daylight. One may even say that such criminal acts are legal in Holland!

Under the new, right-wing, government the situation did not significantly change. Holland is still the archetype of the dictatorship, the tyranny, which has no respect at all for individuals nor for peoples. In Holland, the human being has been reduced to a mere object, a toy for the politicians to play with and to dispose off at will. Unfortunately, all the nations occupied by the Hollanders, and the people of those nations, also have to suffer from this vile form of terrorism exercised by the Dutch regime.

To support their policy in regard to silencing people, the previous governments imported (from the USA) the system of political correctness, usually referred to as 'that scourge of our times as a result of social decline' (more about political correctness in paragraph 4.1. of Volume 2).

So in some way or another I had to be stopped from finishing and publishing my dictionary, for a dictionary is a hell of a mighty weapon: suppose the Limburgers suddenly found out that they not only have a spoken language, but also one that can be written ...

As said above, there are a number of politicians who collaborate with the Dutch government against Limburg, but there are (better: were) exceptions. One of those was the political party 'Partie Nui Limbörg' (Party New Limburg), who tried to do something about our situation. I've worked for them, and even drafted the bill of law which would have forced the Limburg government to maintain our language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. This charter, aimed ostensibly at the protection of the European minority languages, has been signed and ratified by the Hollanders (not by the Belgians), but they simply refuse to execute it.

Unfortunately the PNL politicians were just parttime politicians and no match for the Dutch and Belgian professionals with their glib and evil tongues. So despite my advice to the PNL on how to proceed, they decided to do it their own way ... and they bungled it!

Meanwhile I've understood that the PNL has been almost completely absorped by the Dutch politicians, and appear to have forgotten about Limburg, which makes them the SNP of Limburg. The PNL is history, but no real loss though, for they were so focussed on gaining party political advantages that they would even have sold their own mothers in order to get these advantages. But in this they have failed as well.

Some years ago I also became the founder and director of the Instituut veur de Limbörgse Spraok en Kultuur (Institute for the Limburg Language and Culture), whose aims and principles quite closely resembled those of Siol nan Gaidheal. The Institute is no more (but still slumbering): being regarded as dangerous by the government, it was suppressed by denying it any support.

This doesn't mean that Limburg has no cultural institute now. There is a society that goes by the name of 'Veldeke', but this evil pack of trolls is "owned" and fully supported by the government in Limburg, and follows their directions minutely. They don't actually work on the promotion and maintenance of the Limburg language and culture, but only pretend to do so, and thus make many promises which they never fulfil. The work of Veldeke is destructive for it is implicitly aimed at putting an end to the Limburg culture and language. In fact, the sole reason fo their existence is to keep the crowds calm, and the crowds don't see what's going on ... So it is no surprise that Veldeke do everything possible to stay in control, and they even don't shun threats to other people's lifes (they never threatened me, but had they, this wouldn't have made any impression at all).

This vicious form of deception is very typical of the European Union as a whole. The Führers in Brussels know bloody well that through their pursuance of the Fourth Reich, national identities will disappear. Worse: in order to achieve their goals all national identities must disappear! However, they also know damn well that a number of people will never accept this and resist, which may or will result in a lesser support for their evil strive. So, in order to keep the masses calm, they have supplied their treaties with splendid articles which supposedly aim at the protection of the national identities (=language and culture). These articles have no effect, for the simple reason that they are not intended to have any effect at all (an example is given further down).

The Council of Europe have even drawn a European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (mentioned above), which should protect languages, especially minority or regional languages, and preserve European cultural and linguistic diversity. But, if this Charter is seriously meant, why then do the Council of Europe, who are also the authority to control the Charter's implementation, sit back in their lazy chairs and don't exert any pressure at all upon the European governments to actually apply the said Charter? The answer is simple: the Charter is not, and never was, intended to be applied, but its sole reason is to throw dust in the people's eyes. In short: deceit, deception. And the stupid people(s) fall into this vicious trap!

A recent example of this effectiveness of this Charter can be found in Scotland. The UK is party to the Charter, and Scots is officially recognized as a language under the Charter (and also by the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, which however is yet another European cheat):

b) The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter.

Yet, at the end of July 2002 the so-called Scottish parliament decided to do away with Scots as a language, and henceforth only recognize Gaelic and English as the two official languages in Scotland!

By the way: it is of course not the UK or England who decides whether Scots is a true language or not, but only the Scots themselves. The same is true of the Limburg, and of any other language.

Vaan van Limbörg (Flag of Limburg)

During the final months of last year (2001) I wrote a quite comprehensive policy document in which I put down my views against the totalitarian state, and on how a fair and just society could be achieved (from a legal point of view), and have maintained that document ever since. The main subject was of course the natural right to self-determination for all nations living within what are now known as the states of the Netherlands and Belgium, and who are now being oppressed.

I've sent this document to various political parties, but to no avail. Some answered, telling me that it was not in their interest (of course not), but most never replied at all. One party (a Flemish Christian party) even admitted that they didn't give a damn about the natural (or human) rights, because they don't exist ... but they were good enough to win votes.

In 2002 I also sent the document to a new political party in Holland who wanted to enter and win the May 2002 general elections. This was the party of Pim Fortuyn (LPF), who was murdered 10 days before the elections. Their main goals were full recognition of the natural rights, modernization of the public sector, a more efficient form of government, etc., but above all giving the country back to the people. I'm still waiting for their answer ....

The LPF indeed won the elections, but soon thereafter it became clear that they too had done so by throwing dust in the people's eyes. To make things worse, they too attribute superiority to the Hollanders alone, and bluntly deny the natural right of other peoples who have lived here since the beginning of times to independence or at least linguistic and cultural self-determination. The party eventually became the probably most corrupt and chaotic political party ever in the Dutch parliamentary history. As the result of the chaos within the LPF and of a treacherous move by a Liberal coalition minister, the new government fell after only 87 days in the saddle. The conclusion must be that nothing has changed at all ... and that nothing will ever change. Not without drastic action anyway.

The natural law tradition finds its origins in Ancient Greece (Plato, Aristotle), and assumes that not all rules are made by man, but that certain rules were given to man. These rules transcend human rules (laws) and act as a test for the human rules. This tradition therefore does accept the existence of man-made norms, but those norms must be tuned to, or brought in accordance with, natural law (the higher or absolute norms) in order to be legitimate. Man is thus not the maker of all the rules and/or the procedures belonging thereto, but he is bound when making laws. In other words: man's will is bound by higher norms.

Natural law is universal and eternal law, which contains the whole of the natural rights. It is also known as morality in the legal sense, and can be defined as:

A rule or body of rules of conduct based upon the instinctive sense of justice and of right and wrong (conscience), which is inherent in human nature and discoverable by reason alone, and essential to or binding upon human society.

Since the whole of the natural rights is inherent in human nature, they are said to be self-evident. By means of reason, man can make direct contact with, or have knowledge of, the absolute norms.

'Nature' in the expression 'natural law' does not mean that natural law is derived from nature, or from the nature of man, but it points to the critical dimension in relation to positive law in the form of universally valid objective and self-evident norms. Natural law should also not be confused with the law of nature, for there is an essential difference between the two: the law of nature is the law of the strongest, while natural law is concerned with the strongest right!

Under natural law (the highest form of law), decisions may not be based on the will alone, but the higher or absolute norms should always be observed, for they form the moral basis for the will. Yet, even under natural law one can of course will anything, but the point is, that one can only actually execute one's will if that will that is in full accordance with natural law (morality in the legal sense). Since natural law is based on a higher (not the man-made) norm, it creates order, but above all justice and righteousness.

Morality in the legal sense (natural law), is quite different from morality in the religious sense. This latter type of morality comprises subjective rules which only apply to the members of a certain (often religious) community, and which dictate how those members should act and behave within (and without!) that community. People who are not members of such a community are and should not be bound by these rules, for they are neither universal nor eternal, they aren't even always just!

It is also wrong to equate natural law with the inalienable human and civil rights; this has created a lot of misunderstanding and abuse of these highest rights. The human and civil rights actually form only a part of the whole of natural law, and may be regarded as the heart in the body of natural law (see paragraph 4.1.4 of Volume 2 ).

The essence of natural law is the conception of the existence of an absolute (or natural) law that transcends man-made relative (or positive) law. The higher (or natural) norm is the criterion or standard for the lower (or positive) norm, and not the actual behaviour of a man! Human behaviour must therefore be controlled by the power of reason, which detects the higher norm, and not by the will (alone), which is the result of actual behaviour.

Natural law is not concerned with man-made laws, since those are lower laws and results of the will alone. But because man-made laws are lower laws, they can be judged, and if necessary rejected, using the criteria of natural law (legitimacy, reasonableness and equity), regardless whether those positive laws belong to the fields of constitutional, administrative, criminal, civil or international law. To natural law, the individual is valuable, so natural law is 'made-to-measure' law (= justice), whereas to positive law the individual is just an unimportant part of the whole, so positive law is always 'ready-to-wear' law: one law fits all (= injustice) (see also paragraph 4.2.3 of Volume 2 ).

Natural law is the law of the people. It belongs to democracies, forms the legitimate fundament of democratic nations, and supports freedom. Natural law is based upon reason, and acknowledges that human beings, the individuals, are mature (competent) with the capability to distinguish themselves between what's good and what's bad for them, and that they have the wisdom to make their own decisions without any need for a Big Brother (hence they are subjects of law). Under natural law the freedom of an individual is only limited by the same freedom of another individual, which means that the responsibility for an individual's actions fully rests with the individual itself. Responsibilty is the complement of freedom: no freedom without responsibility (and accountability, of course). Natural law shows the highest respect for the human being and its dignity (hence natural law uses such terms as: 'to act in accordance with the rules', 'to sanction'). Under natural law, everything is allowed, unless explicitly forbidden; but the government has to answer to the people for every prohibition issued with a very good reason. Natural law is eternal, universal and flexible law, which guarantees freedom, justice and righteousness at all times and in all cases.

A very concise definition of natural law makes its essence clear: "Don't do any harm to your neighbour; having understood this well, do as you please!". Meaning: show full respect for the freedoms of the other, then you too shall be free. In short: Every human being is free within the bounds of legitimacy, reasonableness and equity (see paragraph 4.2.4 of Volume 2).

Diametrically opposed to natural law is positive (man-made) law, which also finds its roots in ancient Greece (Sophists), but which only got its chance to thrive from the end of the middle ages onward. Positivism assumes that man creates his own society, that he is master of the (material) nature and the creator of his own concepts. The result is a denial of higher, absolute norms: only the human will counts, man enjoys absolute freedom. The absence (or denial) of higher norms, however, causes utter chaos, for man can will anything ... And the will which lacks any moral basis inevitably leads to excesses (injustices), especially in the hands of politicians and other power-mad persons.

The adjective 'positive' in the expression 'positive law' must not be understood in the common sense of the word, that is, good (like in: a positive result). This adjective is derived from Latin 'ponere', which has some 37 different, but related, meanings, the one applicable here being that of 'to put down in writing'. The adjective 'positive' should thus be read as 'man-made'.

Positive law is therefore the whole of man-made laws, and is the law of the politicians. This form of law belongs to dictatorships, forms the legal fundament of totalitarian states, and supports enslavement. Positive law is always the sole result of the will of a paternalistic politician ("My will is the law"), who thinks he can mould a society after his own ideas, and will only make laws which are to his own advantage. Positive law assumes that individuals are not mature (competent) and can therefore make no decisions on their own (hence they are regarded as objects of law). This implies that all decisions must be made by the state, or by a certain elite within the state (the politicians) only. The state is always right and decides what's good and what's not good for the people, which thus always results in freedom being limited by the state. No freedom automatically implies that the individuals need not be responsible for their own deeds, because if the governments makes all decisions for the individual, then the resposibility also rests with the government: no responsibility without freedom. Positive law regards the people as little children and reduces the human being to a mere robot, fully controlled by its operator: Big Brother (hence positive law uses such terms as: 'to obey the law', 'to punish'). Under positive law everything is forbidden, unless explicitly allowed by the government; and the government need not answer to the people for anything they do or don't. Positive law is temporary, local and rigid law which often produces (gross) injustice.

A comparison between natural law and positive law teaches us that if the conception of the state is not based on natural law, it follows that the state can only be a dictatorship or tyranny. Laws are not made for the good of a people, but they are instruments to oppress a people. Positive law is therefore typical of dictatorships (slavery), whereas natural law is typical of democracies (freedom).

The difference between the two types of man-made law, human law and positive law, is that human law is derived from the absolute norm and based upon reason, but has only been adapted within the limits of the higher norm to the particular circumstances of every individual people, and that positive law is solely derived from facts (the actual human behaviour) and based on the pure will (of the politicians) alone, without any reference to a higher norm:

Natural law: Principles (higher norms) found with the conscience > human law (lower norm) based on reason

Positive law: Facts (actual human behaviour) found through observation > positive law (only norm) based on the will alone

The relationship between natural law (the higher or absolute norms) and the human law (resulting from natural law) is as follows.

&endash; Natural law (ius naturale) is the 'ius constituendum' (the law as she should be)

&endash; Human law (ius humanum) is the 'ius constitutum' (the law as she is). The human law is only legitimate if she answers the criteria of natural law.

The ius naturale (the whole of the natural rights) is present in man. It is a piece of objective knowledge of good and bad, and this knowledge forms the conscience. So the conscience is, as it were, the point of contact between the eternal and temporal worlds. Of course, one can (decide to) 'not listen to one's conscience ...'.

The human law (ius humanum) is the realization of the lex naturalis, and can be divided into national law (ius civile) with a number of subdivisions, and in international law (ius gentium), also with subdivisions (omitted here):

Human law which is not derived from natural law is called positive law (truely man-made law)

For a further explanation of natural law versus positive law see part 4.2. of Volume 2, and also the essays on natural law in Volume 3.

It is a natural and self-evident fact that the sovereignty rests with the people who form a nation and who are the rightful owners of the land, and neither with the government nor with parliament, both of whom are the public servants to the people and not their public controllers. A nation is a group of people with a common identity, which identity is determined by language and culture, and who therefore form a people in their own (natural) right. An alternative definition is: "A body of human beings belonging to the same linguistic stock and having the same culture".

Note 1: National indentity is determined by language and culture only, and the demand that immigrants must fully adapt themselves to the identity of the nation that has allowed them in has therefore absolutely nothing to do with race, skin colour, etc. National identity is only about every people's natural right to preserve, maintain and promote its own unique identity.

Note 2: customs and usages are sometimes equated with culture, but this is not true. Customs and usages do indeed form part of a culture, but they can (and do) change over time, without however affecting the culture as a whole.

On the international level (in relation to to other nations) the above-said implies that all nations have the natural right to independence, to self-determination. Paragraph 2 of the first article of the Charter of the United Nations (signed and ratified by most countries) refers to this:

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;

From this article it is not quite sure what the exact nature of that principle of self-determination of peoples is. Although the Charter refers to the natural rights, it doesn't actually say that the said principle belongs to these (but this might be deduced). That this principle of self-determination is indeed an inalienable human right (and thus belongs to natural law), is confirmed by Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says:

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Note that this article has a two-fold effect, namely: (1) external, in regard to other nations; and (2) internal, in regard to alien communities who have been allowed into the nation. Every nation has therefore the natural right to protect, maintain and promote its own identity, and to demand of all aliens, who are allowed to stay, to fully integrate within a fixed period, or else to leave the nation immediately or be removed.

It is not only a natural right of all nations to be independent, it is also their natural right to seek or even enforce their independence. In the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 the colonists justified their seperation from England with an appeal to natural law (see Volume 4). Also note in connection with this, what is said in paragraph 3 of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights above: "The States Parties to the present Covenant ... shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, ...".

Natural rights are inalienable individual rights, which implies that the sovereignty not only rests with a nation as a whole (in relation to other nations), but also with every individual within and belonging to that nation (in relation to the government). All power is thus in the hands of the people alone, individually and collectively: they are in charge, they rule and govern the nation, the land.

However, in order to relieve themselves of the daily business of running the nation, they have decided to appoint a board of managers (called the Government) to do that on their behalf, and to which end they have lent them some of their power. The people have also chosen and elected from amongst themselves a number of people to act as their representatives (collectively known as the Parliament), whose task it is to control the managers and prevent abuse of power, to assist them and to inform them of their (the people's) wishes, to which end the people have also lent some of their power to their representatives.

Note that the people have lent (not sold) a part (not all) of their power to the government and parliament. Which means that all power remains in the hands of the people, they just don't use all of it at all times.

The above-said is as follows expressed in section 2 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, which would become the basis of the US Declaration of Independence (see also Volume 4):

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

The government has thus a very limited competence to make decisions on their own. In more important matters, they can't make any decision without the permission or consent of parliament. Issues of major importance (e.g. to go to war) can only be decided upon by the government after a direct consultation of the citizens by means of a referendum. If the people reject a proposal by the government, then the government has to put up with it.

The competences are illustrated in the picture on the following page. The blue circle represents the nation as a whole: the people who own all the power by natural right, and who command their representatives in parliament as well as their managers in the government. The green circle shows the smaller amount of power of the parliament, who obey the people and command the government. And the brown circle, finally, represents the even smaller amount of power of the government, who obey the people.

The picture also clearly shows that the members of the government and those of parliament form part of the nation, of the people: they are nothing special, least of all gods!

Even if a government's decision rests on their own competence, or when a decision was taken in cooperation with parliament, then the people still have the right to prevent such a decision from being executed by demanding a referendum on the issue (petition). Goverment and parliament have to respect the will of the people and abide by the results of the referendum.

In case a government refuses to issue a referendum, then the people can force them to through their natural right of petition. If a government still does not respond, then they are asking for real trouble, for like the master has the right to discharge a disobedient servant, so the people have the right to remove either the government or their representatives, or both of them. There is no such thing as 'civil disobedience', but governmental and parliamentary disobedience sure as hell do exist!

The majority of the European governments have abused their position and grossly exceeded their power by forcing their citizens to join the EU without having consulted them beforehand, and without having first asked their permission or consent, by means of a referendum. Let alone that they have consulted and asked permission from the various oppressed nations on their territories! Those governments who have not first consulted the people(s) and asked their permission or their consent to enter their country into the EU have shamelessly sold the country behind the people's back. Sovereignty is an inalienable right, which means that it can never be taken away by anybody. Thus, since the governments have sold something that didn't belong to them, the 'Anschluß' is illegitimate, and therefore invalid (which applies to anything that directly or indirectly results from the joining e.g. the introduction of the euro currency), which means that no citizen is compelled to abide by any European law, but instead use them as toilet paper (read the speech 'Sleepwalking into the European Superstate' by Sir James Goldsmith in Volume 3).

Given the fact that the sovereignty rests with the people, and neither with the government nor with parliament (both of whom were only elected and/or appointed by the citizens to manage the daily business of the nation on behalf of them), it is not only a natural right of the people, but also a natural duty to overthrow a destructive, tyrannical government. To achieve this, armed violence against the government as a last resort (when all other means have been exhausted) is morally fully acceptable as long as innocent civilians suffer no damage at all.

In his work 'De Regimine Principum', St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) writes that:

Amongst the various kinds of government, that of a king is best, that of a tyrant is the worst. A tyrant is any ruler who despises the common good, and seeks his private advantage, and a tyrannical law, since it is not in accordance with reason, is not a law in the strict sense, but rather a perversion of law.

God constituted kings to rule and govern, and to secure to everyone the possession of his rights. But if kings, turning things to their own profit, should act otherwise they are no longer kings but tyrants.

It is natural that men brought under terror [a tyrannical government] should degenerate into beings of a slavish disposition, and become timid and incapable of any manly and daring enterprise &endash; an assertion which is proved by the conduct of countries which have been long subjected to a despotic government.

The farther the government recedes from the common weal, the more unjust is it. It recedes farther from the common weal in an oligarchy, in which the welfare of a few is sought, than in a democracy, whose object is the good of the many. But farther still does it recede from the common weal in a tyrannous government, by which the good of one alone is sought.

If a ruler governs a multitude of freemen for the common good of the multitude, the government will be good and just as becomes freemen. Therefore, the government of one is to be preferred &endash; which is the best &endash; and because this government is liable to degenerate into tyranny &endash; which has been proved to be the worst &endash; hence, the most diligent care is to be taken so to regulate the establishment of a king over the people, that he may not fall into tyranny.

Tyrannical government is unjust because it is administered, not for the common good, but for the private good of the ruler. Therefore, the overthrow of this kind of government is not properly called sedition, unless perhaps it produces such disorder that the society suffers greater harm from the resulting disturbance than from the tyrant's rule.

Note that although Aquinas still recognizes the common medieval idea of the 'divine king' (the king chosen by God), he considers it not wrong to abolish a king who rules and governs as a tyrant. The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 (see also Volume 4) agrees with him, and officially recognizes and acknowledges the natural right to revolution:

Yet if he [King Robert the Bruce] should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King;

The already quoted Virginia Declaration of 1776 (see also Volume 4) expresses this natural right to revolution as follows in section 3:

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

In the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 (see also Volume 4), based on the Virginia Declaration, this right is worded and justified as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This right was 13 years later again confirmed in the second article of the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen of 1789 (see also Volume 4):

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its preamble, does so too, and even regards the natural rights as the only guarantee that the ultimate means of violence need never be used:

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, ...

Because the sovereignty rests with the people, the right of the sword too rests with them. No government may ever use the (right of the) sword against their own people, nor use it against foreign peoples for an unjust and/or unnecessary cause. The people, on the other hand, do have the natural right to use the sword against a destructive government as a last resort. But if no alternative is left, and they are forced to use violence against a government in order to remove them, then they (the government) have asked for it themselves: no mercy. However, no violent actions may ever in any way affect any fellow citizens, for casualties and fatalities amongst them are not acceptable, not even as "collateral damage". Such acts and actions lack legitimacy and must be deemed criminal.

Examples of such criminal acts are the suicide bombings in Palestine, the shootings and bombings in Northern Ireland, the ETA terrorist attacks, the occupation of the Moscow theater in 2002 by Chechen bandits, and 911 in NYC (although this was an attack from outside the US by non-US nationals). And last but not least, of course, the terrorist acts of the so-called democratic state governments against their own people and against other nations ...

The occupation of the Moscow theatre by Chechen terrorists and its fatal ending would not have happened, had the Russian government given the Chechnyans what is due to them: their independence, to which the Chechnyans have the full natural right, for they form a people in their own right (own identity). This doesn't mean that the action taken by the Chechen terrorists should be approved of. In the contrary, what was committed here is a major crime.

Chechnya is occupied and being oppressed by the Russians, which gives them the full right to resist. They are allowed to undertake military (not terrorist) actions against the Russians in Chechnya, they have even the right to hit military and political targets in Russia, or anywhere else in the world. But they are not, never, allowed to involve innocent citizens in this bloody game.

Political parties are extremely destructive, for they can stop or even prevent a democracy from functioning. And a democracy that doesn't function, can only be a dictatorship.

Political parties are the result of the desire to, and the quest for, concentration of power. As such no problem of course, and a natural quest ('united we stand strong'), were it not that a system with political parties inevitably leads to a particracy (a form of oligarchy). This in turn leads to undesired protuberances, for political parties:

• decide, with the exclusion of all others, who is allowed to participate in politics. This implies that one who wants to participate, is obliged to become a member of a political party. Most people, however, can't associate themselves with the (whole) ideology of any party, and for that reason don't join. Those who through their ambitions do join, but remain upright, run the risk of becoming dissidents at some time or another. Political parties thus lock out the majority of the people from partaking in the political proces.

  Note: the assertion that anyone is free to start one's own party is hardly praticable.

• force their own ideology (wordly or religious) onto the whole society without the least respect to those with different views.

  A state or nation may not possess any specific denomination (e.g. Christian), but must be explicitly neutral. Every society consists of various groups, each with their own religions and political ideologies. All people are equal (but fortunately not the same) and they have equal common rights and obligations. Now, in order to serve all (these groups of) citizens in an equal manner, the state or nation, the authorities and the rules must at all times be neutral. The only system that is of a guaranteed neutral character is a system based on natural law, for the reason that natural itself is neutral "by nature".

• give precedence to party political interests instead of to the public good. A multi-polar political system (left, central, right, religious, each with their own multiple substreams) causes an inconsistent policy, because the winning party or parties decide what, within their own ideology, are the objects of policy and how the pilicies are executed. And after every general elections there will again be new "winning" party, who will deal with all problems in their own peculiar way.
  
• cause uncertainty and eventually disbelief amongst the citizens as a result of policy aims (often laid down in party programs) which can never be realised, which causes loss of confidence in politics and politicians, and thus a further widening of the gap between politics and the people.
  
• continually cause discord, resulting in a stagnation in the functioning of the government and parliament, which in turn causes no rules or faulty rules (very often the result of compromises) to be brought about. This is very damaging to the society as a whole, and to the individual in special.
  
• often use the so-called agreement mechanism, by which two or more parties (who may have lost the elections) decide to cooperate for the occasion in order to prevent another party (who may have won the elections) from gaining power, or to prevent a party already in parliament from having it their way. This is not only incompatible with the principle of democracy, it also turns the possibility of real opposition into a farce.

A system with political parties inevitably leads to a dictatorship, because the aim of political parties is not to serve the people, but party political self-interest. To this should be added that many politicians are corrupt, and notorious and compulsive liars with the intelligence of an amoeba, and obsessed with power. The destructive nature of political parties thus springs in essence from the quest and the lust for power and the satisfaction thereof. It is clear that political parties are only interested in the (potential) voters during the election period (party political propaganda as a means to win votes), outside that period they (the voters) don't exist. Political parties are destructive to the political contents and policy and demolish the confidence in political institutes, which only widens the gap between the citizens and politics further and further ... until the gap can't be bridged anymore. No interest is served by this.

The undermining of the representative democracy by allowing the formation of political parties contains for us serious dangers to a balanced decision-making where the common interest is in the foreground. And not seldom results in a bogus democracy, driven by vulgar emotion and attempts to manipulate public opinion. Bogus democracies (wolves in sheep's clothing) are actually veiled forms of dictatorship of a certain majority, or even of a certain minority (think of lobby groups, pressure groups, trade unions, etc.). All current so-called democracies in Europe (perhaps with the exception of Switzerland) are veiled dictatorships.

In order to guarantee a real (representative) democracy, a total prohibition on forming political parties is essential and must be considered (the natural right to freedom of union, in so far this does not concern political unions and aims, must of course be maintained!). Social, economical and other problems must be answered from the viewpoint of the public good, without narrowing left-wing, central-wing, right-wing and religious ideological eye-flaps. But this is only possible when there are no political parties, and the (attempted) influence of religious and other groups on policy-making is disregarded.

The system of government described below is in full compliance with the demands of a natural law system law (the fundament of a democracy), and based on three existing systems, namely the:

• Presidential system (United States)
• Parliamentary system (Britain)
• Conventional system (Switzerland)

A very important difference with the systems mentioned, is that the sovereignty of the people is fully recognized and acknowledged. The description below is concise, undetailed and incomplete, and only serves as an indication of how a modern system can be realised, that is truely democratic, transparent, comprehensible, simple yet effective and efficient, and above all: easy to control!

Note: Together with the description of a legal system with the same characteristics in Part 4 of Volume 2), the following description gives a good idea of how a modern Legislature, Executive and Judicature could/should look like.

Blue lines indicate elections, green lines: appointments, red lines: accountability

1. The Government

a. The Government consists of the Head of State and his Ministers.

b. The Government forms the Executive.

The Head of State:

c. The Head of State is directly elected for a fixed term by the people in periodic elections.

d. He appoints his vice-Head of State and his Ministers.

e. He is fully independant and interested in (the well-being of) all citizens.

f. He has an own fixed competence, but on more important affairs he is obliged to consult with the Parliament and/or call a referendum, which is binding.

g. He is at any time accountable for his own and for his Ministers' acting and failing to the Parliament, and to the people, either indirectly (through Parliament) or directly.

h. He can not be re-elected for a third term in office.

i. He can not dissolve the Parliament.

j. He can not at the same time be a Minister or a Member of Parliament.

k. He can at any time sack one, more than one or all of his Ministers of his own accord (but see g.), or must do so by order of the:

&endash; Parliament, acting with the consent or permission of the people;
&endash; Parliament, acting by request or order of the people;
&endash; people directly, in case of an unwilling Parliament.

 l. He can at any time be unelected (deposed) by the:

&endash; Parliament, acting with the consent or permission of the people;
&endash; Parliament, acting by request or order of the people;
&endash; people directly, in case of an unwilling Parliament.

Note: When the Head of State goes, his Ministers go too. After the Head of State has been disposed, the chairman of the Parliament immediately calls an election.

The Ministers:

m. The Ministers are appointed by the Head of State.

n. They have an own competence.

o. They are at any time individually and collectively accountable to the Head of State for their acting and failing.

p. They (any, some or all of them) can at any time be discharged by the Head of State.

Note: After a Minister has been sacked, the Head of State must immediately appoint a new one.

q. They can not at the same time be Members of Parliament.

2. The Parliament

a. The Parliament consists of one House only, the House of Representatives.

b. The Parliament forms the Legislature.

The Members of Parliament:

c. The Members of Parliament are the representatives of the people.

d. They are directly elected for a fixed term by the people within their constituency in periodic elections.

e. They must be born and raised within their constituency (or at least have become a full member of their community and have been accepted as such).

f. They must be independent, so that they truely represent (their) electors, and not one or other useless ideology.

g. They have their own competence, but act in general by order and consultation of the people (their electors): in case of major decisions, they must call a referendum.

h. They are at all times individually and collectively accountable for their acting and failing to the people as a whole, but individually especially to their electors.

i. They can at any time be unelected by their own electors in their constituency.

Note: After the electors have unelected their respresentative, they immediately elect a new one, who sits in Parliament for the rest of the legal term.

3. The People

a. The People posses the highest power in the nation, and thus all the power. In short: the sovereignty rests with them, and with them alone.

b. Their will (the Volonté Générale) must always be obeyed by the Government and by the Parliament, unless their will is clearly unreasonable.

c. They have the right to take all matters in their own hands if the Government and/or the Parliament don't comply with their orders, wishes or requests.

d. They have the right to demand a referendum from the Government on any issue or decision at any time, either indirectly (through Parliament) or directly, and from the Parliament, which referendum is always binding.

e. They have the right to unelect the Head of State, and any of their representatives in Parliament, at any time (the latter can only be unelected by their own electors in their own constituency), and to demand the resignation of any Minister indirectly (through the Parliament) or directly (of the Head of State).

Note: It is strongly recommended to also read the essays in Volume 3 and the historical declarations of human rights in Volume 4, for a better understanding of the following.

Scotland and Limburg are not the only peoples in the "civilized" West who are being oppressed and subjected to ethnocide by the states on whose territory they live (but they actually still live in their own territories, but which were stolen from them by the states). As said above, the Dutch and the Belgian states alone contain five peoples or nations (Limburgers, Frisians, Brabantines, Lower-Saxons, Flemish), all with their own unique identity, all of them being oppressed by the Hollanders and the Belgians.

Other nations in Europe who find themselves in the same situation are the Scots, Welsh, Bretons, Cornish, Basques, Catalones, Andalusians, Galicians, Corse, Sardinians, and many more. All of them are denied their natural rights and they are crying for help, but they are voices crying in the wilderness. This must change.

All nations mentioned above, and others, have in common that they fight for their natural right to independence, or at least cultural and linguistic self-determinaton, but also that they probably won't be able to achieve their common goal on their own.

It would be very beneficial if these nations formed themselves into a league of oppressed peoples in Europe. Would all these nations unite in one organisation, then they could put a lot of pressure on the established or state governments, and on the emerging and highly dangerous supergovernment of the EU (the Fourth Reich), in order to achieve their independence or their cultural and linguïstic autonomy.

There is nothing against a tight cooperation between independent European nations. In a number of cases this is even necessary, think of e.g. environmental issues which do not hold at political borders. But a 'European Union' or even a'United States of Europe' is completely out of the question. There are already enough dictatorships or totalitarian states, and there's absolutely no need for a Fourth Reich. And that's exactly where the EU (and on a larger scale the UN as well!) is heading right now. At present there are already enough nations under the yoke of the various European states, and thus indirectly under that of the EU, and such not of their own free will and accord! If a nation, after she has regained her independence, joined this E(vil) U(nion) she would voluntarily give up and loose every right ever fought for, often paid in blood, and become the slave of an even more evil witch master!

The oppressing states are all united, and the advantages of a union are clear from what they have achieved. One of the reasons why those states are so successful in oppressing the various nations, is that the oppressed nations are not united: divide and conquer, divide and rule!

For a successful counterattack it is essential that all oppressed European nations unite under one umbrella: the combined powers of all these nations largely exceeds those of the individual states, even if these states cooperate. Moreover, the existence of a league may also pursuade those independence movements who now use violence (terror) to achieve their goal, to abandon this wicked policy and (yet) again try to accomplish their mission in a peaceful manner.

The so-called world leaders may assert that they are working on world peace, but they are actually working on world war, by poking their ugly noses in other nations' internal affairs and by oppressing peoples. It is undeniable that there is a growing tendency amongst oppressed peoples to rely on more extreme tactics, if the normal means to achieve their independence don't work (anymore) or have become exhausted.

If Russia allowed the Chechnyans their independence, if Spain and France allowed the Basques and the Corse their independence, there would be no more terrorist attacks by those peoples, but peace instead ... There is no doubt that letting peoples free attributes to world peace, the opposite only attributes to world war.

War is the continuation of politics with other means. Where there is no politics, there is no war. The only thing that stands between us and a peaceful co-existence is that small criminal gang of politicians. This bloody gang should be hit, be hit hard and without mercy.

And what do the UN with all their fancy human rights treaties which recognize the self-determination of all peoples do about this? No sh..! They too are guilty as hell, and should be dealt with in due manner. The conclusion must be that the letters UN in reality stand for United Naughts ... or United Nazis?

Maybe a League of Oppressed Nations in Asia Minor could have prevented the occupation of the Moscow theatre ... maybe not. Yet, given the growing tendency to resort to more extreme tactics, the necessity of a (European) League is undeniable.

For good order: the League is not intended to become a substitute of some kind for the European Union! The League will not poke its nose in the internal affairs of the member nations, but only provide a platform for all oppressed nations to discuss their problems, to decide on a common policy or strategy and actions, in order to solve the problems, and to assist each other as far as lies in their power, in achieving their common objective.

The League does have the right though, to reprimand or condemn any member nation who does not observe the natural rights, or who acts in way that is detrimental or destructive to the cause! But the League will not invade such a member nation, for to 'restore order'. It will not even threaten with sanctions, but in the worst case the League may (or even must) decide to expel such a member nation, which is the worst sanction possible.

Below follows a outline of what could evolve into the formal statutes of the League. A good basis for these statutes might be formed by The Covenant of the League of Nations, 1924, which would only require a number of adjustments and additions (see Volume 4 for the text of the Covenant).

1. The League is a union of all free nations in Europe and of all those nations in Europe who were once conquered and are now being oppressed and subjected to ethnocide, by the states on whose territory and under whose rule they are forced to live.

2. The suggested name for the League is 'League of Independent and Oppressed Nations in Europe', or in short: LIONE.

Symbol of LIONE is the Roaring Lion

.Lions are not just predators, they are intelligent and ferocious predators that should not be under-estimated. They live together in co-operative groups, called 'prides', and the pride works together in hunting for food, in the protection of each member and in the care and protection of the offspring. The Roaring Lion is therefore a perfect symbol for LIONE.

3. The aim of the League is to actively support all nations referred to in the first article in their struggle for independence, or at least cultural and linguistic self-determination, to which they are entitled by natural right.

The reason for the clause “or at least cultural and linguistic self-determination” is that certain nations may feel more comfortable when they form a part of a bigger union, yet want to secure their own unique identity (culture and language). This form of part-independence can be achieved by cultural and linguistic self-determination.

Other nations may want to be independent, yet find themselves too small to exist and survive as fully independent nations. Such nations can join together in a confederation, a form of cooperation which can be described as “living apart together”. Within a confederation all nations remain fully independent, with their own heads of state and parliaments, but they can decide to tightly cooperate in regard to certain issues as were they a federal or unitary state, whereby each affiliated nation has the full right to cancel the cooperation in any field, or even leave the Confederation all together, whenever it pleases them and for whatever reason.

Which form will eventually be chosen is at the discretion of the people, not at that of their governments or parliaments, least of all at that of a foreign government!

4. The League will be led by Scotland as the leader of the oppressed world, and will maintain her seat in Scotland.

5. The League will at first recognize three European communities based on their common languages and cultures, to wit the Celtic, the Germanic, and the Romanic community. Other communities (such as the Slavic community) may be recognized later.

6. The official language of the League is English.

Since the League will consist of a large number of languages, this would inevitably result in communication problems, and the need for a whole army of interpreters and translators. This problem can be solved by appointing English as the official language at council meetings and for general communications, since English is understood and spoken by virtually everybody.

Nations who want the League’s texts translated in their own languages, must take care of that themselves. This way no money has to be wasted on interpreters and translators.

7. The League will only accept nations as members, and no individuals. A nation is a group of people with a common identity (which is determined by language and culture), and who therefore form a people in their own (natural) right, in accordance with Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

8. Membership of the League is also open to European nation states who are already enjoying independence.

It is not unthinkable that such nation states as Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, will in the future be “annexed” by the EU against their own will, so they may have to secure their independence with the support of an organisation like the League.

9. The League will seek formal recognition from the United Nations and the individual European governments.

10. The League will be financially supported by the national political parties of the member nations (who draw their money from membership fees and from donations), but will also seek financial support from the United Nations and from the individual European governments.

Articles 8 and 9 would mean requesting the European governments to recognize and finance the weapon that will eventually be used against themselves. An impertinence of course, but that’s all right.

11. The League will communicate with all state governments about (achieving) its goals, thereby publicly pointing them to the fact that their current attitude and policies in regard to the nations which are now being oppressed or subjected to ethnocide by them, are in conflict with the natural rights and thus not acceptable.

12. The League is at liberty to make full use of the power of the spoken and written word, and of the power of any other non-violent means without any restrictions, to achieve its aims.

13. The League shall base all its actions and decisions upon morality alone, this being the one and only true universal and just law. However, if national or international law are favourable to the cause, their power shall also be used.

Morality is to be understood as morality in the legal sense, that is natural law.

14. The League will compose and maintain a black list of all European states who (continue to) oppress and subject the nations living on their territories to ethnocide, of all European political parties who don’t condemn ethnocide, and of well-known individuals who publicly approve of ethnocide. This list shall be published at regular times in all major newspapers throughout Europe.

15. The League will maintain its own informative website, with webpages supplying the same information in the languages of all member nations. Nations will take care of the translations themselves.

16. Member nations must found a national political party with a democratic structure, whose sole aim is to achieve independence, or at least cultural and linguistic self-determination, for their nation. The language of the party is the language of the nation.

The national parties must follow in general the well-established pattern laid out by Scotland, Clannasaor and Siol nan Gaidheal being an excellent example. The parties shall dissolve themselves after the independence has been achieved.

17. The national parties must carefully select their members, who must be of the highest moral standards, impeccable, highly disciplined, endowed with a natural feeling for justice and righteousness, independent and good patriots. But no career hunters (for there won't be any career to hunt for), and not politically correct (for that would be detrimental to the cause).

18. Every national party shall choose and elect from amongst their members those who will form the virtual government of their nation. Once installed, this virtual government (an extra-parliamentary form of the English shadow cabinet) shall act in everything as were they the actual government.

Such a virtual government may decide to immediately start with the design of a modern legal system (organisation, procedures), and writing the Codes of Law which will come into force after the nation has (re-)gained its independence, which would guarantee a clean new-start (see Part 4 in Volume 2).

19. The virtual governments and the national parties shall do everything that is in their power to arouse a healthy sense of nationalism amongst the people of their nation, and to make their people fully aware of the high value and worth of their own identity (culture and language), and of their right to independence or at least cultural and linguistic self-determiniation, which is a natural (or inalienable human) right, confirmed by various International and European Treaties and Charters (for what these are worth).

20. The virtual governments and the national parties shall adapt the policy that aliens, insofar they are allowed to stay, must integrate, that is, fully adapt themselves to the national language, culture, customs and usages within a fixed period of time, or else leave the nation or be removed.

21. In line with article 20, immigrants shall no longer be granted admission to the member nations, unless they are of particular value (in accordance with common international immigration policy). Whether this is the case shall only be decided by the member nations themselves. Genuine political asylum seekers shall be admitted, but only as guests and for a limited period of time. As soon as the situation in the country of origin has stabilized and become safe, they shall return or else be returned.

But if the unsafe situation in the country of origin does not return to normal within a reasonable period of time, then the host nation has the moral duty to allow such asylum seekers the opportunity to enter the imigration procedure, so that in time and under certain conditions they can become citizens of the host nation.

22. Since terrorism is not only incompatible with morality (as described above) but also lethal, or at least detrimental, to the cause, both the virtual governments and national parties must refrain from any acts of terror, or violence in general, and condemn such acts in the strongest terms possible. The same applies to the individual members of the national parties, who may also not be a member of, or even maintain a link to, any terrorist group or oganization.

It can not be denied though, that if the European Union and/or the state governments persevere in their refusal to acknowledge the natural right to independence, or at least cultural and linguistic self-determination, of the nations, armed violence will become the last and sole solution. This will be inevitable and unavoidable.

23. The virtual government and the national parties will discuss, and try to achieve, their goals with their local governments in the same manner the League will communicate with and act towards the state's central governments.

24. Member nations formally acknowledge each other through their virtual governments, and can decide to exchange ambassadors, and design and issue a passport for their own nation. The same applies to the national flag and anthem if they don't already have these.

25. The virtual governments of the member nations shall develop a state and legal system based on morality (natural law) with the Clannasaor Manifesto and the Siol nan Gaidheal Aims and Principles as their guide. Such a system will guarantee a free, democratic and social state system and a fair and just society for all citizens of their nation, supporting the less well off and helping the disadvantaged to achieve their full potential, whereby also the national identity (language and culture) is maintained, promoted and safeguarded.

Note that 'social' is not the same as 'socialistic'. Fact is, that the more socialistic a state is, the more anti-social it is.

26. The virtual government shall appoint two of its members to represent their nation in the Assembly of the League.

27. The Assembly of the League shall choose and elect from amongst themselves the members of the Council of the League, as well as the president of the Council.

28. The Assembly of the League meets together quarterly, or as often as is deemed necessary, for two or more days, to discuss business, to exchange experiences and ideas, to analyze results and to put down and streamline their policies for the ensueing period.

29. The orientation meeting and the founding or constitutional meeting of the League will be held in Scotland. Thereafter the meetings of the League will be hosted by the member nations in rotation.

The picture below shows the relationships between the Leauge of Oppressed Nations in Europe, the Institute for Universal Rights in Europe (discussed in Volume 2), the virtual governments and the national parties.