The fox (separatist) and the chickens (constitutional)

It is curious that the fact that Bildu or ERC can access state secrets produces a scandal (arcana empire), and not so much, that they may be seated in parliaments and municipal assemblies, participate in commissions and may be on different councils.

Bildu’s spokeswoman, Mertxe Aizpurua, in the plenary session held this Thursday in Congress.



Moreover, separatism participated in the elaboration of the Spanish Constitution itself, hand in hand with Michael Rock, one of the “pater patriae”, who was present at the Parador de Gredos. And all of this has been assumed, at least that is how it was expressed a hundred and one times in 1970s propaganda, as something that is part of “democratic normality.”

And it is that, indeed, if it is taken for granted that separatism can participate in the architecture of the State, as in fact it does, why put limits on its participation in any sphere of the state, including the National Intelligence Center? The one that must be, by the way, the only thing that remains of “national” in the institutions of the State.

If it has been compromised that the separatist sedition and the State can share institutions and headquarters in the different state agencies, why not those dedicated to espionage and secret services? With what arguments to deny them?

With the false excuse that Spain, due to its age-old historical despotism, owes something to the towns that compose it, the autonomous State has been created. The Constitution of 1978 thus operates a kind of damage on those peoples aggrieved by the historical action of Spain, and now it seeks to give them back an identity that, apparently, had been stolen from them.

In this way, the constitutional norm, which should be unequivocal in its form (for its subsequent legal technical interpretation), is exposed to the uncertainty of interpretation. historical of said grievances. Historiography becomes a kind of complaint notebook in which each region sees its rights violated and, now, with the very democratic Constitution of 78, they have to be compensated, restored.

They wanted to make the notion of autonomy a merely administrative entity, with claims of neutrality, when it is not at all. Nor can it be. It is an ideological, dissolving notion, inserted into the bosom of the State administration. One that, supposedly, was introduced to try to give back to the regions a national dignity that they have never had. Constitutional autonomy wanted to be, surely, a vaccine or a remedy to neutralize “this mange of local resentments that corrodes us”, to put it bluntly. Unamuno. But that, far from it, what he did was rather precipitate the disease.

Because it is not possible to compose the State with separatist sedition, which would be something like cheating the lonely, or like putting the fox to take care of the chickens. This is the (impossible) virguería of the Transition: trying to incorporate that resentment local in the Spanish body politic as if nothing had happened and, of course, deception is obvious in some contexts, such as those that affect state secrets.

In fact, the infiltration of the national-separatist factions into Spanish institutions through this regional sinkhole, which I have often compared to the infiltration of the pneumonid parasite into its victim, has allowed the representatives of these factions to establish a sort of institutional framework quasi-national, with its magistracies and positions, with its budgets and finances, with its satellites and dependencies whose activity in recent years has been carried out with a clear objective: the fragmentation of Spain.

For their part, those autonomies that have not been administered directly by members of said factions have also developed, by mimesis and perhaps with the good intention of neutralizing their effects, a similar framework. The famous “coffee for everyone” that Pujol wanted to avoid, far from solving the problem, what he has done is delve even deeper into it.

If it is absurd that separatism is in very sensitive institutions for the security of the State, as the PP, Vox and Ciudadanos have pointed out), it will be equally absurd that it is in any of the institutions. Because its dissolving, fragmentary effects act on the entire architectural framework of the State.

One more time: o State o sedition; Either Caesar or nothing. Both things at the same time are impossible.

We would like to give thanks to the author of this write-up for this remarkable material

The fox (separatist) and the chickens (constitutional)

Find here our social media profiles , as well as the other related pages