Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category


November 18, 2019

Author Bertil Haggman has published extensively on Soviet espionage in the United States. Below is an unpublished article to remind about the Democratic party techniques to smear Republican presidents. It demonstrates how the Democrats hated President Richard Nixon for his revelation that Alger Hiss, the founder of the United Nations, was a Soviet agent. The memorandum mentioned will hopefully be published later:

In my personal archive I have a memorandum written by Congressman Richard Nixon from the Hoover Institution Archives. It reveals how then United States Congressman Richard Nixon, a lawyer by profession, asked very relevant questions to Alger Hiss in a private meeting. It was important in the investigating against suspected Soviet spy Alger Hiss.

In the election of 1946 Richard Nixon was elected to Congress. As congressman he from 1948 was a Republican member of the House Un-American Activities Committee. His lead in investigating the charges against Soviet agent Alger Hiss turned Nixon into a national figure. Hiss’ guilt was after the Cold War been confirmed.

Re-elected in 1948 Nixon in 1950 was elected senator. During the election campaign Nixon was critical of the Truman administration and also warned of the global communist threat.

Senator Nixon was chosen as General Dwight Eisenhower’s running-mate in 1952. Under Eisenhower he in 1958 made a visit to South America. There he was assaulted by radical elements. His coolness under attack then attracted international attention.

In July 1959 Nixon was sent to represent the United States at the opening of the American National Exhibition in Moscow. There he engaged the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev in the so called “kitchen debate” which raised his stature at home.

The 2013 Nixon Year ought to a great extent to be focused on this early, successful career of President Nixon.

Below, as an introduction, to the Nixon memorandum, are a few notes on the American security system against international communism that was dismantled by the Democratic Party.

From 1917 the Soviet Union sought world domination. As a defense against Moscow’s aim to reach that goal the United States had put in place, when World War II ended, a security system both in the United States Congress and via the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The system was, however, under constant attack from forces of the left. The Supreme Court of the United States in several cases confirmed and endorsed the legality and necessity of such a defense. Among the cases can be mentioned

Barsky v. United States, 67 F (2) 241

The prime function of governments in the American concept, is to preserve and protect the rights of the people. The Congress is part of the government thus established for this purpose.

The “existing machinery of government has power to inquire into threats to itself…for the basic reason that, having been established by the people as an instrumentality for the protection of the rights of the people, it has an obligation to its creators to preserve itself…

We think that inquiry into threats to the existing form of government…is a power of Congress under its prime obligations to protect for the people that machinery of which it is a part…It would be sheer folly as a matter of governmental policy to refrain from inquiry into potential threats to its existence or security.”

United States v. Josephson 165 F (2) 82

One need only recall the activities of the so-called fifth column in various countries both before and during the late war (i.e. World War II, note) to realize that the United States should be alert to discover and deal with the seeds of revolution within itself. If there are any doubts on this score of the power and duty of the government and Congress to do so, they may be restored when it is remembered that one of the very purposes of the Constitution itself was to protect the country against danger from within as well as from without.

Friends of US Security and Intelligence React

When the internal security system of the United States was threatened in the 1970s The Security and Intelligence Fund was established by a group of Americans dedicated to freedom. The Fund reacted with dismay. Not only was the internal security system dismantled. It went as far as criminal investigations being launched against dedicated FBI agents, who had used electronic surveillance against terrorist organizations.

Among the sponsors and members of the Fund were:

The Honorable Robert B. Anderson
Admiral G.W. Anderson
Ambassador Shelby Cullom Davis
Ambassador William Kintner
Charles J. Murphy, Fortune Magazine
Senator George L. Murphy
Colonel G.R. Weinbrenner
Ambassador Elbridge Durbrow
Brigadier General Robert C. Richardson III

In 1973 the House held hearings led by Richard Bolling (D-Mo) in the first attempt to dismantle the system, but this time the attack was averted. It was not until during the Carter administration the forces of the left succeeded in bringing down these vital instruments to preserve and protect the republic.

The responsibility for destroying the security system is greatly with the forces of the left in the United States Congress then led by the Church Committee (Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho). The Church Committee came to affect American security and intelligence from then on. Some rebuilding was possible during the Reagan years in the 1980s, but a new period of neglect came in the 1990s. Another threat was the Pike Committee (Rep. Otis Pike, Democrat, New York).

In 1979 Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The result was that both counter-intelligence and intelligence activities were impeded.

When after September 11 FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have been attacked for not doing their job properly it is obvious that to a great extent they have not been allowed by law to carry out their work properly. One example is the problem the FBI has had to get a warrant to wiretap espionage and terrorist suspects.

In one incident in Minnesota a month before the terrorist 9/11 attack in New York and Washington a terrorist suspect had been arrested by the FBI after a flying school reported that he had offered cash for lessons on how to steer a commercial jetliner but not how to take off or land it. The FBI obtained his computer and asked Washington for a warrant to search it and wiretap his phone. The problem was that it did not meet the requirements Justice Department the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and so the warrant could not be obtained. After September 11th, the FBI got the warrant but now it was too late.

Thanks to the efforts of the Bush administrations these problems are being dealt with, at last, one may say.

House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAAC)

This committee was originally established as the Select Committee on Un- American Activities (the Dies Committee, Rep. Martin Dies (D.-Tex.) in 1938 and in 1945 became a standing congressional committee. A further name change came in 1969 when HUAAC was named the Committee on Internal Security. Abolished in 1975 its jurisdiction was transferred to the Judiciary Committee.

HUAAC was to investigate

– the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States

– how subversive and un-American propaganda was diffused within the United States from foreign countries or of a domestic origin if directed against the government as guaranteed by the American constitution

– all other questions related to these matters that would aid Congress in any legislation it might want to enact as a remedy.

The work of the Committee targeted both communist, national socialist and racist organizations. Ten years after Western victory in the Cold War and in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11 HUAAC should be honored for its work. It made a considerable contribution to saving the United States and the West for decades.

Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS)

This committee was organized in 1950 and abolished in 1977.

SISS was to investigate and study

– the administration, operation, and enforcement of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (the McCarran Act) and other laws relating to espionage, sabotage, and the protection of the internal security of the United States

– the extent, nature, and effects of subversive sabotage, and infiltration of persons who are or may be under the domination of the foreign government or organization controlling the world communist movement or any movement seeking to overthrow

– the Government of the United States by force and violence.

SISS was also authorized to subpoena witnesses and require the production of documents.

Subjects investigated during the 1950’s included

– formulation of United States foreign policy in the Far East
– the scope of Soviet activity in the United States
– subversion in the Federal government, especially the State Department and the Defense Department
– immigration
– the United Nations
– the telegraph industry
– the defense industry
– labor unions
– educational organizations
– civil rights
– racial issues
– campus disorders
– drug trafficking

For over 25 years SISS stood in the frontline to keep the United States secure. Like HUAAC its achievements should be recognized.

The Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB)

This Board was established by the Internal Security Act of 1950.

It was to decide cases brought by the U.S. Attorney General against organizations and individuals in the United States, believed to be communist party-affiliated but were not registered as such. It had five members appointed by the President. SACB was terminated in 1973.
Less known SACB should also get a share of recognition along with HUAAC and SISS.


The first pillar of the American internal security system was put in place already in 1938, over 70 years ago. The record shows that it was in place against all enemies of the United States : national socialism, communism, drug-traffickers, racists etc. It confronted all adversaries of America and not, as claimed by the left, only communists and those cooperating with communists.

Still ten years after the end of the Cold War the distorted picture of American security and intelligence is prevalent around the world and not least in the United States. The system was put in place to preserve and protect the freedom and security of all Americans in accordance with the American constitution.

The question is if there is not a need to reevaluate the distorted picture of what was in fact one of the most successful anti-totalitarian security defense systems in the Western world existing until it was dismantled by the left.

It is today important to remind of the Democrats efforts to abolish HUAAC and target the FBI (for more on this campaign see Edward J. Mowery, HUAAC and FBI – Targets for Abolition, 1961), which contains a list of those organizations that were active in the ‘abolition’ drive.

An important book, Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, and the Schism in the American Soul (ed. Patrick A. Swan), ISI, 2003, highlights perhaps the most important trial in American history, the Hiss trial, when exposing liberalism began. (“American liberalism has been reluctant to leave the garden of its illusion, but it can dally no longer: the age of innocence is dead…” (p. 339).

This short report can in no way describe the full importance the above mentioned institutions had in what should be seen as the world civil war, a form of international struggle, ongoing since 1789 against American and Western freedom. The Cold War was just a phase in this struggle but the defenders of liberty have so far been given a rough deal by the majority of historians. Just consider the great record of the security system including the quantity (nearly 7 million copies between 1948 and 1960) of records of hearings, studies, analyses and reports presented by HUAAC and other bodies mentioned above.

HUAAC and the other organizations had millions of supporters: the major veterans’ organizations, most of media, leading churchmen, college heads, military officials and not least the ‘vast silent legion’ of Americans. Not to forget these freedom organizations had strong supporters in the American Congress by later President Richard M. Nixon.



Alger Hiss was director of the Office of Political Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. He supervised the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, which helped create the United Nations. Later he served as secretary general of the San Francisco Conference, which drafted the United Nations Charter.

Below is a chronology of events in the Hiss case during 1947-1948.

June 2, 1947

After interrogation by two FBI agents, Hiss signs a statement describing his recollection of various alleged Communists. In his signed statement, Hiss states that he is “not acquainted with an individual by the name of Whittaker Chambers.”

August 3, 1948

Whittaker Chambers testifies before an executive session of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Chambers identifies Hiss as a member of an underground Communist group in the late 1930s.

Chambers says that he tried to convince Hiss to join in his break from the party, but that Hiss “absolutely refused.” In response, Hiss sends a telegram to Chairman Thomas saying “I do not know Mr. Chambers and, so far as I am aware, have never laid eyes on him.”

August 5, 1948

Alger Hiss appears before HUAC. He confidently denies “unqualifiedly” the charges made two days earlier by Chambers. After the hearing, Congressman Richard Nixon is appointed head of a subcommittee that
will privately question Chambers further about Hiss.

August 7, 1948

Nixon’s subcommittee questions Chambers in New York City. Chambers describes in greater detail his contacts with Hiss between 1934 and 1938. Chambers reveals that he stayed in Hiss’s home for as long as a week and was given an old Ford automobile by him in 1936. He also provides details that will later increase suspicion of Hiss, such as a morning when the Hiss’s traveled to Glen Echo to see a prothonotary warbler. At the conclusion of the hearing, Chambers says he is willing to submit to a lie detector test.

August 16, 1948

Hiss again appears before HUAC, meeting in executive session. Hiss testifies that he remembers a man, not named Whittaker Chambers or “Carl” (an underground name Chambers said he used), “who spent time in my house.” He asks the Committee to let him “see Chambers face to face and see if he can possibly be this individual” that he knew as “George Crosley” in the mid-1930s. Hiss testifies that he let Crosley have his old, nearly worthless, Ford when he bought a new automobile. Asked about his hobbies, Hiss falls into a trap when he describes his excitement in observing a prothonotary warbler.

August 17, 1948

At 2:00 A.M., Nixon leaves instructions to arrange a confrontation between Chambers and Hiss that very afternoon. Both Chambers and Hiss are instructed to appear at the Commodore Hotel in New York City. Hiss says Chambers is “probably” the man he knew as Crosley. He asks Chambers to open his mouth, remembering Crosley as having bad teeth. After some time, Hiss says he is “now perfectly prepared to identify this man as George Crosley.” Hiss is questioned aggressively, and the session ends acrimoniously.

August 24, 1948

In a one-man executive session, Nixon questions witnesses about the 1929 Ford Hiss gave to Chambers.

Evidence shows the car was transferred in 1936, not 1935 as Hiss had said.

August 25, 1948

Hiss and Chambers dramatically confront each other in a televised HUAC hearing. Hiss is questioned closely about his apartment lease to Chambers and his gift of a car.

August 27, 1948

The Baltimore News-Post publishes a story reporting that Chambers purchased a Maryland farmhouse in 1937, and that one year earlier Alger and Priscilla Hiss has signed a bill of sale to buy the same property. Nixon’s subcommittee quizzes Chambers about the farm. He describes driving out to look at the property with Hiss in the 1929 Ford. The Committee publishes an “interim report” on their probe. The report describes the testimony of Hiss as “vague and evasive.”

November 5, 1948

In a deposition taken by Hiss’s attorneys, Chambers indicates for the first time that Hiss gave him access to secret State Department documents.

November 14, 1948

Chambers pulls a large envelope out of the dumbwaiter shaft of a relative’s home. The envelope contains typed and handwritten documents (in Hiss’s hand) and developed and undeveloped film. The evidence proves Hiss saw Chambers as late as 1938 and that he engaged in espionage.

November 17, 1948

Chambers surprises Hiss’s attorney in his deposition by turning over to him a bundle of typed State Department documents from January to April, 1938. The documents are later (with one exception) determined to have been typed on a Woodstock typewriter–specifically, Woodstock #N230099 owned by the Hisses.

December 1, 1948

Nixon interviews Chambers concerning the nature of the documents given to him by Hiss. Chambers, accompanied by HUAC investigators, removes cans of undeveloped film allegedly given to him by Hiss from a hollowed-out pumpkin on his Maryland farm.

December 15, 1948

Alger Hiss testifies before a grand jury. In testimony that will later form the basis for the perjury prosecution against him, Hiss says that

1) he never gave any documents to Whittaker Chambers and

2) that he never saw or conversed with Chambers after January 1, 1937.


November 16, 2019

On March 27, 2009, Radio Free Europé Radio Liberty reported on convictions in a trial in Lithuania for communist war crimes and crimes against humanity. Excerpts below:

A Lithuanian court has convicted a former Soviet military chief and a senior KGB officer of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during Moscow’s 1991 crackdown on the country’s independence movement.

In a March 27 ruling, the Vilnius Regional Court sentenced former Soviet Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov in absentia to 10 years in prison. Former KGB officer Mikhail Golovatov was sentenced in absentia to 12 years in prison.

Yazov and Golovatov were the most prominent of 67 defendants in the trial over the momentous events that unfolded in Vilnius in January 1991, when the Soviet Union’s government tried to halt the country’s collapse by cracking down on the first republic to declare independence.

The verdicts followed three years of proceedings focusing on the deaths of 14 people killed by the Soviet Army in the Lithuanian capital that month.

Lithuanian prosecutors say all but one of the victims died during the storming of the state television headquarters and TV tower by Soviet paratroopers on January 13, 1991. More than 700 other people were wounded.

Judge Ainora Maceviciene sentenced the other 64 defendants — all citizens of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine — to prison terms ranging from four to 12 years. All but two were sentenced in absentia.

Two former Soviet military officers who were present at the trial, Russian citizens Gennady Ivanov and Yury Mel, were present at the trial, were sentenced to four and seven years in prison respectively.

Ivanov, a Vilnius resident who is not behind bars, has the right to appeal and will be imprisoned after the verdict enters into force. Mel, who has been in the Lithuanian custody since he was arrested in 2014 while entering the Baltic country from Russia, was handcuffed and escorted from the courtroom by a guard.

Yazov, now 94 years old, was the last marshal of the Soviet Union and Soviet defense minister in 1987-1991. He is one of two remaining members of a group of plotters who tried to take over the disintegrating Soviet Union in 1991 by sidelining its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, in an attempted coup that collapsed after three days in August 2, 1991.

After the coup failed, Yazov was arrested and spent time in pretrial detention until 1993. He was pardoned by the Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1994.

Golovatov, 69, a retired colonel, was the commander of the KGB military unit known as Alpha Group or Spetsnaz in 1991-92. The group under his command took part in the 1991 crackdown in Vilnius.


November 15, 2019

Swedish retired attorney and author Bertil Haggman was on the Organizing Committee on November 7, 2019, when the Appeal for a Nuremberg of Communism (Bukovsky-Cristin document) was introduced in the Senate of the Italian Republic in Rome by Prof. Renato Cristin, Prof. Roberto de Mattei, Dr. Dario Fertilio, senator Adolfo Urso, senator Lucio Malan and Vito Comencini.

It is an international initiative which expresses an idea of recently passed former dissident Vladimir Bukovskij. He believed that Communism should receive the same historical and moral judgment of irrevocable condemnation that Nazism has rightly received.

The thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was taken as an opportunity to make concrete elaborations with the aim of initiating a process that has the meaning and value of a Nuremberg of Communism.

“Communism did not fall with the Berlin Wall. This ideology is still alive in the world, in states and parties that are openly communist and in political and cultural thought that minimizes and tries to erase the crimes of communism, as if it were a good idea which only happened to coincide with the rise of one brutal regime after another across decades and continents…” (from the Appeal).

Among the first 200 signatories of the appeal is Antonio Tajani (former president and currently member of the European Parliament, Italy), Prof.Stéphane Courtois (historian, author of the Black Book of Communism, France), Robert R. Reilly (director of the Westminster Institute, former director of The Voice of America, former member of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, USA), Mart Laar (former prime minister and chairman of the supervisory Board of the Bank of Estonia), Erhard Busek (former vice-chancellor of the Austrian Republic, Austria), Vladimir Kara-Murza (Chairman, Boris Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom, Russia) and many others.

The Platform of European Memory and Conscience joins and supports this initiative because it is in line with its goals and projects. In 2014, for example, the project Justice 2.0 – International Justice for the Imprescriptible Crimes of Communism was introduced, the purpose of which is to raise international awareness about the issue of unpunished international crimes of Communism and to contribute to finding ways of achieving international justice for these crimes. Currently the investigation of the killings along the former Iron Curtain is ongoing in Germany and Poland in cases of those Germans and Poles who tried to escape and were killed by the Communist border guards in former Czechoslovakia.

“The Platform is in fact the only organisation capable of preparing such tribunal in symbolic way, and the experience of our members seems to be crucial to do it in a legal way,”says Łukasz Kamiński, President of the Platform and one of the signatories.

The other Platform representatives and member organisation signatories include María Schmidt (director of the Institute of the Twentieth Century, director of the House of Terror, Hungary), Paweł Ukielski (former deputy president of the Institute of National Remembrance in Poland, current deputy director of the Warsaw Rising Museum), Andreja Valič Zver (member of the Executive Board of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, Slovenia), Marion Smith (executive director, Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, USA), Ana Blandiana (writer, president of the Memorial of the Victims of Communism from Sighet, Romania), Ronaldas Račinskas (executive director, Secretariat of the International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation regimes in Lithuania, Prof. Antoine Arjakovsky (historian, Research director, Collège des Bernardins, Paris, France), Wolfgang-Christian Fuchs (president, Inter-Asso, Germany),Jonila Godole (executive director, Institute for Democracy, Media & Culture, Albania), Robert Kostro (director, Polish History Museum, Poland), Gjon Radovani (chairman of the Board, MEMO Center, Albania), Florian Razvan-Mihalcea (president, Timisoara Society, Romania), Milos Suchma (president, Czech and Slovak Association of Canada), Marek Mutor (director, History Centre Zajezdnia, Poland), Dr Jarosław Szarek (President of the Institute of National Remembrance, Poland), Johann Grünbauer (chairman, Foundation History of Totalitarian Regimes and their Victims, Netherlands).

Appeal for Nuremberg Trials for Communism

The thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall presents us with a valuable opportunity. We can not only make a desperately-needed contribution to historical memory, but also develop and support an anti-totalitarian culture, broad-ranging and forward-looking. We take this opportunity to propose the creation of Nuremberg Trials for Communism.

The Nuremberg Trials, held from 1945 to 1946, tried and condemned the crimes of National Socialism and its leaders, handing down a definitive judicial, moral, and political judgment on that instance of totalitarianism. The trials made clear to the world that Nazism was evil and destructive to its own people, and would not be accepted anywhere in the world again. Communism, which has caused more deaths and mass suffering worldwide than Nazism for much longer, has never been called to account in a global court such as Nuremberg.

Since 1917, communist or socialist dictatorships around the world have caused more than 100 million deaths. Not only are they responsible for widespread suppression of individual liberties and incitement of class hatred, but also for the genocide and mass killings inevitable under communist regimes. As we all know, genocides and massacres are universally recognized as crimes against humanity.

Today, after the catastrophic results of so-called “real socialism” and of all the other dictatorships over time rooted in communist ideology (as today in places like Venezuela or Cuba), both historic and current events beg for a similarly final judgment – not only a verdict on the actions of individuals, but also a political and moral judgment on the inevitable results of this ideology. Communism’s crimes against humanity must be broadcast and punished.

Communism did not fall with the Berlin Wall. This ideology is still alive in the world, in states and parties that are openly communist and in political and cultural thought that minimizes and tries to erase the crimes of communism, as if it were a good idea which only happened to coincide with the rise of one brutal regime after another across decades and continents.

To push back against these apologist influences, we urge the creation of Nuremberg Trials for Communism, a global trial that scrutinizes the very real crimes of this ideology, assigns political and institutional responsibility for them, punishes its moral degeneracy, and makes clear to all communism’s intrinsic inhumanity and incompatibility with free societies.

We are well aware that such a project would encounter practical difficulties and legal limitations. Even so, we believe that such barriers will not be able to stand in the way of a historic political, ethical, and cultural trial, which we see as a duty to humanity imposed upon us by historical conscience.

In the name of millions exterminated in the past, and to safeguard future generations from a recurrence, Nuremberg Trials for Communism must be enacted as soon as possible.
Add your signature here.


November 10, 2019

In March 2019, The Epoch Times interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky, the author of “Judgment in Moscow: Soviet Crimes and Western Complicity,” about his life and work. Bukovsky passed away before he could participate in the coming

start of Nuremberg trials for communism that he called for several times. Excerpts below:

The Epoch Times: What are your thoughts about “Russiagate,” the probe into whether our president colluded with Russia, with Putin, to win the election?

Vladimir Bukovsky: My first reaction was to laugh because probably the majority of your countrymen don’t realize, but the Soviet Union was always involved in the elections and manipulations even before computers were invented.

Last Man Standing: The Triumphant Return of Vladimir Bukovsky and the Dark Truth About the USSR and the West

They were always good at machinations but their knowledge of American realities was always very poor. They had no idea how America lives, how it is governed, what is going to prevail, what will be the result of this or that action.

The Epoch Times: The American left today, because it is an attack point against President Donald Trump, is wildly anti-Russian, Russo-phobic. Now. Suddenly.

Mr. Bukovsky: Yeah. The fact that Russia today is much weaker than the Soviet Union used to be, and therefore less dangerous, does not influence American opinion. They now perceive the danger very seriously.

The Epoch Times: So much of your life work has been about trying to wake up the West that communism was an abomination. They say 55 percent of millennials in the United States are proud to call themselves socialist. What hope is there?

Mr. Bukovsky: Very little hope. Mind you, don’t forget communism is still very powerful in places like China, Vietnam, countries like that, and when these countries are discussed you seldom hear anything about communism. As if China is not the biggest communist country in the world.

The Epoch Times: How does it feel that “Judgment in Moscow” is coming out in English? How has the response been?

Mr. Bukovsky: It’s a bit too late. It was written 25 years ago. Politically, it’s a bit too late.

The Epoch Times: Is this a dangerous book to publish in today’s world?

Mr. Bukovsky: Being a small publisher, they are not afraid of it. After all, you still have your First Amendment and things like that. They’re not afraid of the opposition.

The Epoch Times: What do you think is the most controversial thing in your book that caused it to be repressed or thwarted 25 years ago?

Mr. Bukovsky: The reaction here was most strong in connection with certain individuals, not with the documents. That has nothing to do with me; these are Politburo documents, I didn’t invent them.

The Epoch Times: Appealing to the part of the human mind that already knows what it thinks, aiming for that, lulling, and no surprises.

Mr. Bukovsky: Yeah.

The Epoch Times: The things going on now, raging all over in the name of political correctness, censorship, de-platforming, deleting people—are these new forms of the same old beast?

Mr. Bukovsky: The question is: How new? If you look back at the ’30s, “Brave New World,” it presents more or less that picture. These things were already set. But it didn’t become universal knowledge. People didn’t expect it to happen.

The Epoch Times: You have triumphed over your enemies in an extraordinary way. How did you do it? How did you survive, psychologically?

Mr. Bukovsky: I think it all depends on the strength of your character. If it’s strong enough it will become stronger. If it’s weaker, it might break down. So I’m not the only one who benefited, so to speak, from this experience. I knew quite a number of other people who became only stronger.

The Epoch Times: Can you look back on it all now and draw strength and maybe even joy from what you lived through, and were able to bear witness to?
Mr. Bukovsky: Oh, yes. Yes, of course.

The Epoch Times: Good.

Mr. Bukovsky: (Laughs.)

The Epoch Times: What do they mean when they say “globalism” and what does the word “globalism” mean to you?

Mr. Bukovsky: They usually mean global governments. A single governing structure over the whole world.

The Epoch Times: Why do they want this? Why do they want one government and why do they hate nations?

Mr. Bukovsky: Nations—if you look at the history of leftism—nations were always perceived as the enemy because they make people unequal. The basic idea of the left from very old time is the equality of people. Anything which makes people different is bad. So, for example, private property, incomes, abilities—it’s all bad. People are supposed to be equal, meaning the same. Therefore, nations are always bad. Nations have different histories, different privileges, different traditions. You can’t make them equal so leftism was always against nations.

The Epoch Times: Is communism a bodiless parasite that never dies?

Mr. Bukovsky: The basic idea probably would never die. Communism was a much more detailed program. As such it is already half dead. The program itself assimilated by Marx and others, it became bankrupt. Therefore theoreticians of the left today don’t want to remember the basic positions of the left at the time. With industrial relations, class relations, they don’t want to think about it right now, they don’t want even to discuss it. But they moved into a more general field, of equality in general and formulated their policies from that viewpoint. Therefore, political correctness today become more and more involved with personal affairs, private affairs of people, which didn’t happen before.

The Epoch Times: Did the architects of communism truly believe in communism?

Mr. Bukovsky: It very much depends. Lenin was the first to realize that he miscalculated. By 1921, he saw that the world revolution did not follow, and he was kind of banking on it. It was his main idea that a socialist coup in Russia would precipitate the world socialist revolution. By 1921, it was obvious that the world socialist revolution does not follow. And he had to admit it. You can find this in his writings. He was quite frank about it. He was disillusioned. It was “postponed” he said. And therefore he switched his policies into the New Economic Policy, NEP. Allowing the country to breathe a bit. But he also said it was temporary, it was not for a long time. He was the first to understand that it was a basic miscalculation.

Stalin realized the same thing when Germans attacked him in 1941 and the Soviet Union started collapsing, splitting into different parts. He suddenly realized that the whole thing is a big miscalculation. The new entity, as they called it, the Soviet people, was not born. And the Red Army was running like mad. They didn’t want to fight. So that was the collapse of his ideas, including collectivization and things like that.

Kruschev realized that only after he was pensioned off, was sitting in the dacha thinking it over and over again. He said a bit about it in his memoirs but not much. But you could see that he was very much in doubt of the main concepts. As far as people after Kruschev are concerned, I doubt they ever believed in anything. They believed in power, in their right to distribute wealth, and to be a kind of permanent elite. Most of them perceived ideology as something that actually hampered their movement forward. Makes it more difficult. And they got rid of ideology. But it’s still a communist mentality. In Brezhnev time I don’t think they believed in anything, except their right to be the nomenklatura [elite members of the Soviet bureaucracy].

The Epoch Times: Can you address the mass murder element in communism, that so many Westerners have a blind spot for?

Mr. Bukovsky: That was the result of introducing their ideology, which deliberately replaced human values with class values and therefore “liberated” them from responsibility. That was what they called “historic inevitability” and therefore no one was guilty. The old classes were supposed to die anyway and therefore murdering them was not a crime and so it went. Until it was not perceived anymore as murder. It was perceived as an aspect of class struggle. The question is, of course, how easy is it to dehumanize human beings? Apparently it’s very easy.

The Epoch Times: What is the difference ultimately between Nazism and communism?

Mr. Bukovsky: Well, Nazism essentially is a more narrow concept of one nation being above others, representing the masters, and others being subjugated. In the Soviet version we’re talking about classes—one class being the master, not one nation being the master, like in the Nazi version. But that’s the only difference; Otherwise both of them were socialist. Let’s not forget that the Nazi party was called National Socialist Workers Party so they were on the same line with creating a paradise, only for their own nation at the expense of others. That’s the only difference.

The Epoch Times: The average Western person says consistently that Nazis were extreme right wing, while communists were left wing. That’s why people like communists.

Mr. Bukovsky: (Laughs. )That’s very naive. Nazis were never right wing they were always left wing. They were socialists. It’s a version of socialism.

The Epoch Times: Defined how?

Mr. Bukovsky: Everything, including the social policies. If you look at labor legislation under Hitler, you will discover that they introduced huge, massive labor legislation in favor of working classes. Restrictions on the rights of the so-called capitalists. The difference between our version of socialism and the so-called northern socialism that the Germans implemented is that they would not nationalize the enterprises. They would cut the profits with huge taxes, cut them to the bone—that’s the difference in technical terms.

The Epoch Times: My experience of growing up in radical socialist Sweden in the late 70s was that the central idea was to build a new person, the new Swede, who would have only selfless, collectivist impulses, and have all human error drained off. A highly functional human being who could be predicted, you might say, like a robot. Tell me about the Soviet version of this.

Mr. Bukovsky: Same as with us. We were also told that they were creating a new historic entity called “Soviet People.” The New Man has all these qualities you mentioned—collectivist and so on and so forth and having no nationality, no ethnic belonging.

The Epoch Times: You say the West didn’t win the Cold War. Could you elaborate?

Mr. Bukovsky: I perceive the Cold War as an ideological war. Liberal democracy vs communist totalitarianism. In that sense we didn’t win. Instead, liberal democracy became infected with a lot of elements of Soviet ideology and the Soviet ideology did not disappear. It transformed, so there was no great victory. Usually they say that the West has won the Cold War meaning the military confrontation between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. NATO is still around and the Warsaw Pact disappeared, so that was perceived as a victory.

But I always perceived this war as much deeper, as a clash of ideologies, and in this clash we didn’t win. Communism has never been condemned internationally as a crime. They were not put on trial. They were not forced to answer for their crimes. Membership in communist organizations have never been perceived as a crime. Since we didn’t have some kind of Nuremberg trial in Moscow, the war’s not over.


November 3, 2019

Humanitarian organization Victims of Communism a few days ago reported that freedom fighter Vladimir Bukovsky has passed away. Excerpts below:

Everyone is familiar with the Nuremberg Trials that were convened in 1945 to prosecute the crimes of Nazi Germany. The trials served as a final day of reckoning for the violent and destructive [National Socialist] ideology that had wreaked havoc on [the world]…

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Bukovsky, a former dissident from Russia, decided to attempt [what is not impossible]: to convene a trial that would sue not the individuals as was the case in Nuremberg but rather the system of the communist regime. “For me, it seems like we have a moral responsibility to humanity,” he remarked in the documentary Le Nuremberg du communisme.

Historians have noted that while the Soviet regime had failed, the KGB were still active and the former nomenklatura, the communist-era elite, still retained power and influence, making it impossible to achieve justice for the victims of Soviet communism. Vladimir Bukovsky wanted to force the country to deal with its communist past and prevent the regime from gaining power again.

Born 1942, Bukovsky was a prominent activist whose fight against the Soviet regime earned him a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and psychiatric prison hospitals. In 1976 he was released in a swap for the imprisoned General Secretary of the Communist Party of Chile at the Zürich airport. Once free, Bukovsky felt like he had experienced a second birth. He settled in Cambridge [in the UK] and finished his studies in biology, but he never stopped fighting to free the Soviet Union from the grip of communism.

…Vladimir Bukovsky returned to Russia in 1991…Many hoped that Bukovsky would gather together a commission that would be able to judge the communist regime for its crimes. Upon his return, he was put into contact with Vadim Bakatin, the chief of the communist party at that time…

Even though Bakatin had doubts that Bukovsky’s idea for a “Nuremberg of Communism” could be realized, he agreed to his offer. However, the next step towards a trial failed before it could even get started. Bukovsky was denied access to the more than 60 million secret documents held by the Russian government. Without these files, it was impossible to organize a trial.

Surprisingly, another opportunity arose in 1992, after Boris Yeltsin was elected President of the newly formed Russian Federation and granted Bukovsky special permission to access the secret files. He was aware of the fact that the archive would not be open for long and that he was strictly forbidden to copy anything. Nevertheless, he scanned over seven thousand pages in order to preserve them.

‘When the “trial” really came, it focused on the question of whether or not Yeltsin’s ban on the Communist Party was legal. Called before the Russian Supreme Court, Bukovsky expounded upon the incriminating documents for several hours in a symbolically divided room. Despite all his efforts, the court decided to relegalize local branches of the Communist Party. The decommunization of Russia had failed.

In 1995, [Bukovsky’s] book, a testimony of the crimes committed by the communist regime of the Soviet Union, was published in France.

But no further trial was arranged. Historians have analyzed a variety of reasons for this hesitation.

Comment: The organization Appeal for Nuremberg Trials for Communism will on November 9,2019, launch a call for a court for communism at an event in Rome, Italy and at a gathering in Madrid, Spain. The goal for signatures of the appeal will be 200 of the leading experts on the crimes of communism.

Swedish author and jurist Bertil Haggman in 1982 published a book in Sweden (at publishing house Pro Veritate, Uppsla, on the crimes of communism and estimated 104 million victims of the horrendous ideology. After the end of the Cold War the number is more likely to be around 150 million victims. The highest number of victims of the crimes of communism is estimated to be in Mainland China where the Chinese Communist Party is responsible for around 80 million victims.


October 25, 2019

National Interest on October 20, 2019, published a highly interesting review of a new important book of the importance of oceans in the geopolitical sense. Excerpts below:

David Abulafia, The Boundless Sea: A Human History of the Oceans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 912 pp., $39.95.

Of all the fields of human progress, none owes more to unintended consequences than global exploration. The great American naval historian and Columbus biographer, Samuel Eliot Morison, summed it up admirably when he wrote—half in earnest, half in jest—that:

America was discovered accidentally by a great seaman who was looking for something else; when discovered, it was not wanted; and most of the exploration for the next fifty years was done in the hope of getting through or around it. America was named after a man who discovered no part of the New World. History is like that, very chancy.

In The Boundless Sea: A Human History of the Oceans, Cambridge historian David Abulafia offers a majestic narrative of mankind’s incredible, sea-born drive toward global discovery and interconnection, a voyage beginning in prehistoric times and lasting all the way up to the twenty-first century. From the beginning, the very seas that separate us have also served as a liquid bridge, first between neighboring islands but ultimately between continents and hemispheres, as mankind mastered navigation and gradually discovered the Earth’s true size and shape.

…in the age of jet transport and space exploration, the seas are still the broadest thoroughfare for global commerce, and naval strength still plays a critical part in the international balance of power. In a globalized age, mastery of the seas is, if anything, more important than ever. America’s place as a superpower is more reliant than ever on its ability to keep seaways open and to use its naval power to deploy air and land forces wherever and whenever needed.

Alfred Thayer Mahan’s description of the role of the Royal Navy in stopping Napoleon from dominating the rest of Europe could be updated to describe the role of American naval power in helping to topple Hitler and then containing Soviet influence on the European continent and around the globe: “The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon its history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which [Napoleon’s] Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world.”

As so often in the past, what happens at sea will determine what happens ashore. This is one of the underlying lessons that runs through Abulafia’s exhaustive survey. “In the making of connections between human societies, the role of the sea is particularly fascinating,” he writes in his preface.

Here Abulafia draws an important distinction between contacts made overland and those made by sea. “…[O]verland they were mediated by the cultures that lay along the routes being followed, whereas links across the sea could tie together very different worlds, as far apart as Portugal and Japan or Sweden and China.” In his justly acclaimed 2011 work, The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean, Abulafia concentrated on the rich history of a relatively small body of seawater and the regions it influenced during the rise and interaction of ancient civilizations and the emergence of Western civilization. For this reason, the Mediterranean is treated marginally in The Boundless Sea since the latter work is intended to serve as a companion volume, but with this important distinction:

Whereas the Mediterranean accounts for 0.8 per cent of the maritime surface of the globe, seas as a whole account for about 70 per cent of the world’s surface, and most of this watery space consists of the vast open areas we call oceans. From outer space, the Earth is mainly blue. The oceans have distinct but gigantic wind systems, generated by the movement of air over vast masses of both warm and cold water: one has only to think of the seasonal monsoons in the Indian Ocean. The Roaring Forties that would helpfully sweep sailing vessels from the Atlantic into the Indian Ocean were the same winds that made entry into the Pacific from the southern Atlantic, around Cape Horn, so frightening. Currents such as the Gulf Stream, which keeps the British Isles relatively warm, or the not dissimilar Kuroshio or Japan current, stretch across thousands of miles.


October 24, 2019

Washington Examiner on July 22, 2019, reported on a forthcoming book by Donald Trump Jr that will expose tricks by the left to smear political opponents. Excerpts below:

The president’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr. is releasing a book in November that denounces political correctness.

“Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us” is set to be released November 5, a year before Election Day.

The book, published by Center Street, will range over reminiscences from childhood summers in Communist Czechoslovakia that began his political thought process, to working on construction sites with his father, to the major achievements of President Trump’s administration.

Comment: Trump Jr will promote the new book at a first stop in the state of Alabama Books-A-Million on November 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM local time.


October 23, 2019

Fox News on October 22, 2019 reported that House Speaker Newt Gingrich in his new book on China vs Trump recommends strengthening the EXIM Bank. Excerpts below:

In the age of Huawei, the Belt and Road Initiative, and China’s state-sponsored companies, we need the United States Export-Import Bank more than ever.

The EXIM Bank, an independent agency, provides government-backed financing for those looking to export goods and services from the United States. Since the 1930s, it has helped grow the U.S. economy and foil unfairly aggressive foreign competitors. However, due mostly to recent politics, it hasn’t been fully functioning since 2014. This needs to change — for many reasons.

First, according to Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe, the country’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is absolutely a part of its military plans. This comes after years of the Chinese Communist Party insisting the worldwide infrastructure scheme is only focused on economics and international cooperation. Wei plainly said future Chinese military cooperation would fit “within the framework of BRI.”

This is a big deal. According to Ex-Im Bank reports, the BRI system includes about 30 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and impacts more than 66 percent of the world’s population. China’s Export-Import Bank alone has participated in more than 1,800 projects with a loan value in excess of $149 billion. If China links the economic might of the BRI with its military (the Communist Party-controlled People’s Liberation Army boasts 2 million troops) U.S. national security would be seriously threatened.

As I discuss in my upcoming book, “Trump vs China: Facing America’s Greatest Threat,” one way that the Chinese Communist Party imposes its will through the BRI is through so-called “debt-trap diplomacy.” It is a clear strategy to gain leverage and influence over countries that owe China for massive infrastructure loans.

This is how it works: China offers large loans to smaller, poorer countries in exchange for the country’s bolstering of Beijing’s strategic interests. Then, China takes control of the assets built with the money — ports, airfields, etc. — when the smaller countries can’t cover the debt.

…China uses its export credit agencies (ECAs) as a strategic arm for its “debt-trap diplomacy” — and the U.S. is not maintaining pace to counter the Chinese Communist Party’s influence. In 2018, China’s official ECAs outpaced the Ex-Im Bank by more than 100 fold (in terms of the amount of medium- to long-term credit it extended).

President Trump’s National Security Strategy rightly identifies economic security as national security. Clearly, the Chinese Communist Party is eroding U.S. economic influence abroad. The Ex-Im is one of our best tools to prevent this and keep America strong.

Congress should reauthorize the Ex-Im bank, so we can compete against the Chinese Communist Party’s economic strategy of world domination.

Without EXIM, there is no practical, clear way to compete against the ever-expanding Chinese economic-military machine. If we do nothing, the Chinese Communist Party’s power will grow, our economic and national security interests will diminish, and our very way of life could be consumed by a totalitarian system.

This is not an acceptable outcome if the U.S. wish to remain the strongest, freest, most prosperous country on the planet.


October 22, 2019

Fox News on October 21, 2019, published an article by Speaker Newt Gingrich on his new book ”Trump vs. China” (available in Sweden from Bokus at 229 SEK). Excerpts below:

For many decades, Americans thought communist-ruled China would evolve into a free and open system similar to our own. We were completely wrong.

In truth, Xi Jinping became the general secretary of the People’s Republic of China and chairman of the Central Military Commission in November 2012. He became the president of the People’s Republic of China in March 2013.

During Xi’s tenure, there has been a significant increase in censorship and mass surveillance, a significant deterioration in human rights, and the removal of term limits for the Chinese presidency.

The massive prison camps for Uighur Muslims and other non-Han Chinese minorities in the northwestern region of Xinjiang were also instituted under Xi…more than 1 million people have been detained in these state-created “re-education camps” in China – yet the world still regards Xi as a legitimate world leader.

China under Xi is also developing an ultra-high-tech police state, wherein powerful cameras and facial recognition artificial intelligence [is used]…

If the United States does not wake up and realize that communist-ruled China is not a friendly neighbor – it may be too late to stop the most powerful totalitarian regime of our time.

Comment: The process of decoupling American and Chinese economies has already started. One can only hope that a trading organization like the European Union will discover the risks of trading with China.


October 21, 2019

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is warning about the extraordinarily high stakes associated with the 5G competition. Below excerpts from a report he sent to Members of Congress on May 6, 2019:


From Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich May 6, 2019.


The selection and allocation of specific bands of spectrum is the key to American victory in the race to 5G wireless capability. The United States is losing the 5G competition to China because we are allocating the wrong spectrum and using the wrong model.

1) Coordinating and implementing an aggressive 5G strategy capable of overmatching the Chinese-Huawei effort will require a strong, clear Presidential Executive Order to bring all of government into one operational plan.

2) The specific bands of spectrum being allocated in the United States are critical to American success in the 5G competition. The U.S. Government’s decision of which bands to allocate will determine whether America can produce alternatives to Chinese equipment to sell around the world and whether the networks that U.S. carriers are building domestically have any long-term value.

3) The spectrum currently being made available in the United States is not the same as the spectrum that other countries are making available. This will leave the United States technologically isolated. Since American networks will be built with different equipment than the rest of the world will use and need to buy, other countries may be forced to install Chinese equipment by default as a result of the economies of scale.

4) The spectrum being made available in the United States (millimeter wavelength) covers only short distances, and thus is poorly suited to cover rural America. This means huge swaths of the country will never get 5G coverage and will lose major opportunities as a consequence of the government’s poor choice of spectrum allocation.

5) The spectrum that other countries are making available, sub-6 GHz, is owned in the United States by the Department of Defense (DoD). If made available, this spectrum will cover large distances and will result in the production 2 of equipment capable of competing with Chinese alternatives. The DoD could easily make this spectrum available and solve all of the above problems.

6) The proposed policy is for the DoD to make this spectrum available to the private sector – not for the government – to build a network or spend money on implementation. There are two primary bands in question that are controlled by the DoD – the 3.1-3.55 GHz band and the 4.4-4.9 GHz band. The Department of Commerce is investigating what the 3.1-3.55 band is being used for but has only studied a minimal amount of the band. The 3.1-3.55 band in particular is a good candidate for being made available for commercial use.

7) The first key step is for an immediate request for information (RFI) from interested parties so the available range of options and participants can be brought to light and evaluated. This should be followed rapidly by a request for proposals (RFP) once the information and options have been assessed.

On Friday, May 3, the National Spectrum Consortium issued a “Call for Technical Concepts” relating to, among other things, “Dynamic Spectrum Sharing” in the 5G context. This could prove to be an extremely important development.

The Consortium was originally established by the DoD to “incubate new technologies to revolutionize the way in which spectrum is utilized,” so this CTC, which is equivalent to an RFI, is very timely. If the Consortium receives suitable responses and moves quickly toward a procurement following the CTC, it could provide the vehicle the Executive Branch needs to share the DoD’s sub-6GHz spectrum with a private 5G rollout nationally in the short term.