Former Soviet Dissident Warns Of EU Dictatorship

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

-- 



http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865



Former Soviet Dissident Warns Of EU Dictatorship

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears 
that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet 
Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels Mr Bukovsky called the EU 
a "monster" that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it 
develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at 
the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member 
of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former 
Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion 
of this year's 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising.

After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an 
afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite 
the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the 
United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSR

In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from 
secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These 
documents confirm the existence of a "conspiracy" to turn the 
European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting 
and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment 
(approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview 
with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of 
which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union 
had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it 
brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir 
Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first 
monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.

Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man 
he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political 
prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 
1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 
22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric 
institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 
he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert 
testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet 
Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his 
testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of 
documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people 
ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. 
Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he 
managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), 
including KGB reports to the Soviet government.

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky

Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are 
drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. 
Can you explain this?

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain 
ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the 
inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the 
purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They 
do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union 
where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at 
university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a 
new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The 
same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. 
They call this people "Europeans", whatever that means.

According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist 
thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. 
In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away 
the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities 
were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came, 
these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and 
they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?

VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human 
psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press 
it, but don't forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It 
is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.

PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.

VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the 
Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the 
Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous 
pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five 
times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who 
knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always 
the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in 
referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they 
have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European 
Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.

PB: What do you think young people should do about the European 
Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or 
just abolish it?

VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be 
democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This 
kind of structures cannot be democratized.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional 
representation, which is not true representation. And what does it 
vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is 
ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average 
MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a 
real parliament.

Transcript of Mr Bukovsky's Brussels speech

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee 
secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, 
for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea 
of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed 
between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project 
which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our "common 
European home."

The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the 
Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German 
Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, 
particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher 
introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were 
threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of 
generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats - threatening to 
reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this 
onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to 
introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to 
that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European 
integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block 
their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed 
their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with 
the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack 
the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an 
open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning 
point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find 
them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye 
opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy 
- quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their 
political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations 
with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep 
structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of 
being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a 
conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral 
Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime 
Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard 
d'Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US 
Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice 
conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet 
Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, 
such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d'Estaing suddenly takes the floor and 
says: "Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen - 
probably within 15 years - but Europe is going to be a federal state 
and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with 
us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would 
you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how 
to become a part of it, you have to be prepared."

This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty 
had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d'Estaing know 
what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, 
how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 
2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn't 
it?

Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier 
and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the 
course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called 
a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and 
become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become 
social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The 
structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the 
European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into 
the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning 
and in structure.

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds 
me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it 
was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European 
Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, 
except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the 
Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are 
exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by 
anyone at all.

When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union 
with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used 
to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, 
to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same 
thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU 
corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from 
top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging 
European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the 
Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. 
Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. 
It has no KGB - not yet - but I am very carefully watching such 
structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot 
because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those 
of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB 
with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of 
crimes - two of which are particularly worrying, one is called 
racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth 
defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as 
Belgium already does so - pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have 
already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that 
those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World 
will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European 
integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt 
said this publicly.

Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more 
and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by 
ideology. Today's ideology of the European Union is 
social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political 
correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads 
and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they 
forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of 
people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months 
because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France 
passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is 
passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious 
speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into 
perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could 
later be enforced with oppressive measures.

Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we 
need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully 
who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one 
field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.

It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very 
consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and 
Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can 
introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My 
immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world 
wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the 
Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear 
world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, 
without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing 
emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a 
dictatorship out of your country in no time.

Today's situation is really grim. Major political parties have been 
completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really 
opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our 
freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, 
some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an 
economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen 
with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a 
competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the 
bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. 
Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency 
is not supposed to be political.

I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European 
Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget 
that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it 
takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it 
comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will 
be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of 
immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was 
promoted by the European Union.

What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will 
probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic 
strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such 
ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in 
Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to 
be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to 
collapse on our heads.

This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with 
the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will 
have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick 
because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to 
defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on 
Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow 
half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will 
happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I 
do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged 
Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers.

Anything may happen.

We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, 
work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum 
effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My 
conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do 
have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. 
We are losing and we are wasting time.

=====


Similar problems in America

Submitted by John Smith of Jamestown on Thu, 2006-11-09 07:16.

An American Reagan-staffer, former VOA, and retired international 
"aviation negotiator", Robert Whitaker, sees North America in a 
similar plight on his blog.
He likewise believes the situation is dire but sees the problem of 
North American union more in populist terms than in political 
structures. Nonetheless, he is constantly comparing the situation on 
his side of the Atlantic to the Soviet Bloc, as Bukovsky compares 
western Europe to the Soviet Union.

He writes a curious populist Mantra, which reads as follows:

"Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE 
problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the 
third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white 
countries.

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, 
but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by 
bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote 
with them.

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY 
white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., 
intermarry, with all those non-whites.

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem 
would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were 
brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

"How long would it take anyone to realize I am not talking about a 
RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK 
problem?"

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what 
kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of 
genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable 
conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.