Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship

The Brussels Journal ^ | June 27 | Paul Belien

[Bushwacker777]

"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 last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

...

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."

[Greg F]

Germany jailed a Christian pastor this week for saying that homosexuality is morally wrong.

[Bushwacker777]

Please, can you give a source? I am in a debate on another forum with a German who says Germany has as many civil rights as Americans.

[BigFinn]

This guy resounds of biblical prophecy. The leader of this EU superstate is to be a dictator, alright... bible calls him the ‘beast’.

[Greg F]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1857042/posts

Sorry, mistake. They jailed the poor man for speaking out against abortion. Compared abortion to the holocaust.

[Monterrosa-24]

Vladimir Bukovsky was a great Soviet dissident who once made the cover of National Review. His words are as much needed now as they were then.

[B4Ranch]

Americans need to be listening to his words just as closely as the Europeans do!

[SAJ]

''EU are just the Sovs without the tanks.'' ---

-- SAJ, on FreeRepublic, 2002

[Bringbackthedraft]

The Beast was already there. All that remains is a piece of his skull with a hole in it and part of his jaw bone. The other Beast is buried outside of Lenin’s tomb. Humanity has a habit of producing beasts on a regular basis. Beware, there will be more Beasts in the future.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

ping.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

For one, people in Germany can't argue that the World War 2 Holocaust didn't happen. Also Nazi memorabilia could be illegal.

Here they just aren't very tasteful.

[JSDude1]

They’re a bit late (and our American [traditional] culture) is fundamentally against this, but they are trying this here now openly with the SPP and North American Unionism!

[TBP]

Bukovsky may be right about the EeeeeeU!

[JSDude1]

PING: Here’s another one you might want to take a look at if you’re interested in how our sovereignty has been eroded (if what they say is true: That America is about 20-50 years behind Europe..:( hopefully NOT..).

[MountainFlower]

thank you!

I am doing more than reading it. I have a friend who is a Russian historian who will also shed light on it. Thanks again.

[MountainFlower]

So, in light of this article...

check this thread:
"http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1857429/posts?page=5#5"

hope link worked!

[Billthedrill]

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...

That it most definitely is. What is amazing is the progress that it is making in the United States in the face of a Constitution that specifically is designed to guard against it. "Hate speech isn't protected and hate speech is anything that we say that it is," is the language of tyranny.

That there are protected groups that are immune from criticism is an extension of the class awareness that Orwell mocked in Animal Farm in the formulation "All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others." That this sort of thing should be taken seriously by earnest social reformers is a testament to the intellectual poverty of class analysis as a guide for social reform. And they are very serious.

Where the state is empowered to enforce this sort of silliness using its inherent powers of coercion there is no possibility of a free society, only one in which all freedom is provisional and at the pleasure of the state. There is a tendency for the state to expand both those powers of coercion (the BATF, DEA, and the prevalence of SWAT teams come to mind) and the areas to which they apply (Waco, for example). Each individual step in that direction is justified with trumpets of righteousness; in sum they are the road to a police state. These are popularly described as "tools" toward one noble objective or another and tools they are indeed - if the carpenter intends to use them to whittle a "socially just" society out of the lumber that is us all then those tools need to be guarded, blunted, or destroyed altogether.

We cannot depend on nine judges to protect us from this sort of thing. Everyone must guard, or everyone will suffer.

[TopQuark]

You’ll never convince him. People envy America and want to have what we do WITHOUT adopting our system. Since they cannot achieve that, they envy and ultimately hate America. It is only then do they develop reasons for justifying their bias. This one talks about freedoms, the French about high culture (as if they produced any in XX century), etc. He will never be persuaded by your facts, because that would entail abandoning his irrational position.

[Uriah_lost]

How relevent is this today???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvOjg5E7Mw
Sad, really.

[Coleus]

.

[RogerFGay]

Ping to the Swedish Ping List.

[ScaniaBoy]

This article was published on the BrusselsJournal site about a year ago. The erudite Helen Szamuely on the blog EUReferendum took it to parts a day or so later in this reply:

Bukovsky ought to know better

For those who don't have time or inclination to follow the link here is the first and last few paragraphs: "Vladimir Bukovsky has been a heroic figure in all of our lives for some decades. Even if one was on the periphery of helping Soviet dissidents you could not avoid knowing about his fight, his imprisonment, his stay in psychiatric hospitals and, finally, his exchange for the Chilean Communist leader Luis Corvàlan.

This last event was of particular interest for all USSR-watchers. Corvàlan was a political prisoner according to the Soviet leadership and media. The Soviet Union, according to the same entirely trustworthy people, had no political prisoners. So they exchanged a non-political prisoner for a political one. Umm, yes. To this day I don’t know why they wanted the Chilean that badly. What did he know?

Bukovsky in Britain settled in Cambridge and studied biology. He wrote an excellent autobiography “To Build a Castle” and appeared in the media and at meetings, explaining the details of the Soviet system to the sometimes incredulous audience.

He kept in touch with dissidents both inside the Soviet Union and outside, thus gleaning a great deal of information which he tirelessly tried to broadcast.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening up of the archives (mostly closed again) Bukovsky acquired a new purpose – to collect as much information as possible about Soviet crimes and to publish them in the West. Like so many of us, he was constantly frustrated by the continuing blockage placed on that by the largely left-leaning western media. But he did succeed to some extent.

Somewhere in that period came the event that he keeps referring to, his supposed understanding that the EU as a federal state was an entirely Soviet invention, put together by Mikhail Gorbachev and various left-wing and Communist Western politicians".

SNIP

"In more detail, you can certainly draw parallels between the Commission and the Politburo and the European Parliament and the Supreme Soviet, though even the EP has occasional flashes of bloody-mindedness. Well, at least, some of the members do.

Of course, there is the minor matter of elections but we shall let that pass. There is also the minor matter that legislation is done very differently in the European Union from the Soviet Union and the not so minor matter of the position of the party in the latter. The fact the both entities have an ideology does not make up for that. (In another posting I shall try to analyze the differences in the ideology.)

Then again, there may be certain socialist ideas somewhere in the make-up of the EU, but it is really more centralized, bureaucratic and protectionist than outright socialist. Land is not being confiscated, business is in private hands and by no stretch of the imagination can the 80,000 pages of regulations be described as a Gosplan. Bukovsky ought to know better.

Finally, what of the Gulag? Given Bukovsky’s experiences, that should figure strongly in his analysis.

He is rightly worried about Europol and about the European Arrest Warrant, though he does not refer to it by name. But even he has to admit that this is not yet the KGB. So, in the end, there is only one thing: people are being persecuted for not saying the politically correct things. That is, of course, outrageous. But a man who has been through Soviet prisons, labour camps and psychiatric hospitals should be careful with his comparisons.

The trouble with all this and the subsequent rather vague warnings against this, that and the other is that there is a kernel of truth in it and one needs to see the dangers of the European Union. But we are engaged in a war of ideas and the first thing we must do is to understand the enemy. I am afraid Mr Bukovsky, much as one admires him in other ways, is no help in that."

(Underlining not in original / SB)

I'm sorry, the EU is bad enough in itself, but a new USSR it is not. It is not only that it hasn't developed far enough on the path to totalitarianism, its path is different and needs to be understood to be fought successfully.

[ScaniaBoy]

Sorry, the post above was meant as a reply to the multiple Bushwacker.

:-)

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I think that story was retracted, though the pastor did have legal problems.

Tell your German friend that Americans are free to be Nazis (a right Germans do not legally enjoy).

[Eurotwit]

Not all of us :-)

Happy independence day!

Cheers from Europe.

[TopQuark]

Best regards,
Skol!

[RogerFGay]

I must disagree with Helen Szamuely. My view that the proposed EU Constitution is designed to create a Soviet style state did not come from reading Bukovsky's commentary, or combing through Soviet archives for evidence of a conspiracy with Mikhail Gorbachev. It came from reading the proposed EU Constitution.

The proposed Constitution is what can be described as very easy to evolve. The introduction is nice; talking about EU "competency" verses state competency. It gives the impression that there will be some sort of respect for the status quo as kind of a pseudo states' rights thing. But read farther. "EU competency" is defined as including absolutely every area of law in which the EU can engage - plus pushing into foreign and defense policy which is currently not within the EU's scope. A little more reading - Brussels decides how far their own "competency" (scope of power) goes and can also change the constitution itself at their own whim.

It's set up like the Soviet Union was - the agenda is set at the top and zillions of bureacrats are there to thwart any attempt to interfer with that agenda. Power is expanded at will at the top, at the expense of freedom and democracy.

Bukovsky is right on target about the EU "democratic" processes that we actually see happening. The proposed EU Constitution was defeated in a referendum. But it's supporters will not let democracy stand in the way of its adption into law. (article). Bukovsky explains the process. He's seen it before. "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."

It seems to me that Helen Szamuely may be analyzing with blinders on. Perhaps like so many who comment on EU developments in the face of the current power struggle (coup attempt in my view), she has not actually read the whole document. In any case, my opinion is that Bukovsky knows the enemy better.

[RogerFGay]

Some confusion over replies - see above.

[Mentat]

You have forgotten two things:

First, and most importantly, the EU is a cooperation of democratic states. More loosely knitted that the USA, but still. Thus, any comparison with the dictatorial Soviet Union are null and void.

Secondly, the proposed constitution included paragraphs for regulating how a state could leave the EU, something which is not there today. Unless I am mistaken, it is not in the US constitution either...?

[RogerFGay]

You have forgotten two things:

Not really.

First, and most importantly, the EU is a cooperation of democratic states. More loosely knitted that the USA, but still. Thus, any comparison with the dictatorial Soviet Union are null and void.

The comparison is made in a couple of ways, and seems quite valid. It's made in connection with the refusal of supporters of the proposed constitution to accept democratic defeat -- voting continues again and again (in a variety of ways) until they get the outcome they want. Now, they've decided that they won't let the people decide. They'll rename it and pass it through the political machinery instead.

You aren't projecting what the EU will be if the proposed constitution is passed. It will no longer be a loose confederation, but more of a Soviet style super state -- possibly with something like the characteristics of the Soviet Union, also in the fact that there are so many differences between individual regions.

Secondly, the proposed constitution included paragraphs for regulating how a state could leave the EU, something which is not there today. Unless I am mistaken, it is not in the US constitution either...?

The original US Constitution allowed for secession; which the southern states did and formed a confederation. They weren't very diplomatic about it, and the Civil War returned them to Union rule. I have a countdown clock until civil war breaks out in Europe. Europe started two world wars during the last century, and the good ole boys in EU politics are pushing as rapidly as possible to WWIII.

[Mentat]

A constitution for the EU would tie the states more closely together, yes. However, as they ARE democratic states all camparisons with the Soviet Union are not only invalid but rather tasteless in my opinion. It would be a step towards a USE rather, a United States of Europe. That would be fine with me.

I am not altogether ignorant of history and have heard of the american civil war. However, I read your comment about it as confirmition to my question, that there is no paragraph for secession in the US contitution as it is today. Thank you.

[Nailbiter]

ping

[RogerFGay]

I find it altogether cruel to dupe people into accepting dictatorship. The fall of Europe is nothing to kid around about. Seriously - why do you support the elimination of democracy in Europe?

[Mentat]

“Seriously - why do you support the elimination of democracy in Europe?”

I don’t. In no way. It seems that I, as a citizen in the European Union, are better situated to realize that the EU and dictatorship has absolutely nothing to do with each other. Frankly, I fail to understand how anyone could ever get such a notion!

[RogerFGay]

RE. EU and dictatorship

You have to read the proposed constitution very carefully and understand it. It's a long document that few citizens of the EU have read, and even fewer understand. It would turn the union into one superstate with all the rules made in Brussels and no restrictions on the amount or type of power they choose. Superficially a democracy, it is styled on the Soviet Union. The commission sets the agenda, and that is that.

[Mentat]

I have read quite a lot of it, parts selected by an opponent to the Lissabon Treaty and that made me realise that it is a step forward compared to what we have today.

The USA is a superstate ruled in large parts from Washington and that has worked out OK for them. A lot better than it did for the Soviet Union, which I by the way have visited and had quite a lot of discussions about how their society was supposed to work.

The EU has nothing, nothing to do with the Soviet Union. I am in a very good position to state that.

[RogerFGay]

The USA is a superstate ruled in large parts from Washington and that has worked out OK for them.

No, actually not. The US operated for most of its history as a federation under constitutional rule. The Constitution limited the power of government and established civil rights. Over the past 50 years, there has been a major shift, with very dramatic changes over the past 10-15 years. Your characterization of the USA, as a superstate, is now correct. Civil rights have been abandoned, and Washington has dictatorial powers. This is not a good situation - tens of millions of people have already suffered greatly from it.

The EU has nothing, nothing to do with the Soviet Union. I am in a very good position to state that.

I don't see how you can be in a better position than I am. Did you just travel here from the future? You might know that the "European Constitution" was defeated by public referendum - and if you're paying attention - you also know that national leaders endorsed it into effect anyway. This new constitution sets up a Soviet style government in which democracy will no longer be effective in keeping dictatorial behavior from Brussels at bay.

[Mentat]

OK, you may dissect the language at your leisure - by a superstate I meant a federal state with some power in the overall capital and a lot of power still in the individual states. It work out fine for the US, there is no reason why it should not work out for Europe.

As for my position, I am a european that have both studied the proposed constitution (as opposed to most of the people voting in France and the Netherlands) AND one who visited the Soviet Union and spent time discussing with the interior ministry how their system was supposed to work.

Yes, I am in a very good position to state that the EU and the Soviet Union have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I must say that I am rather pissed off when I read such blatant lies.

[RogerFGay]

Well, now it's time for you to learn what's really going on. I'm a great fan of the US Constitution myself, and a strong believer in the liberal concepts that guided its construction. Unfortunately, it just ain't so anymore. There is no way that the Constitutional model - which clearly defines a federation - can be properly characterised as defining a superstate; which the Soviet Union was, China is, and the EU - now defined by the illegally adopted constitution is. You haven't seen the effects yet, since it's such a recent development; so merely living in Europe doesn't buy you anything: nor does visiting with a bureacrat in the former Soviet Union.

So, believe what you will; but unless you can at least get the difference between a federation and a superstate, I don't see any chance you'll ever get it right.