"Judgment in Moscow" is unique in several ways: first – due to the very personality of its author, Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky, the most prominent Soviet dissident, convicted to 12 years in prison and psychiatric wards.
By a mere whim of
the KGB, the
USSR then exchanged the inmate Bukovsky for a Chilean commie, so that
luckily got his freedom in the West.
More than a decade later, after the collapse of the USSR, it took another unexpected chance that Mr. Bukovsky was allowed to visit Russia and to get access to the archives of the Politburo. The book therefore follows the line of those top secret documents which Mr. Bukovsky had managed even to copy: also due to good luck (as described in the book).
That's how and why this book is an account of the Soviet crimes – a unique resource for historians wishing to meticulously follow the awkward language of the highest soviet nomenclatura ruling inside and outside of the USSR.
As to the materials about the Western complicity with the crimes of the USSR and its existence for so long, it was the life and works of Mr. Bukovsky in the West which provided the shocking testimonies about this complicity, one of which is the 22 year delay of this first English translation (explained in the book too).
Inexplicably, Marxism and the USSR somehow have always been indulged in the West (well demonstrated in both books). As Diana West put it, America lost its soul already in the 1930s – and I would add, America lost its mind and loyalty to the Founders as well. Now let's pose a question about the loyalty of a nation to its spiritual foundation and ideology, normally presumed unshakable and non-negotiable.
What is the ideology of the West, anyway?
It was obvious what the Soviet ideology (and the ideology of its clients everywhere in the world) was: it was the original Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, simplistically called "Communism" in the West. Indeed, all Soviet dissidents knew this ideology, lived under it, hated it, and many dreamed to escape from it into the free world, whose ideology they imagined at least as something opposite. They imagined the West as the most advanced achievement of the human civilization based on and owing everything to its Judeo-Christian tradition.
However, reaching the West, the Soviet dissidents were caught in by an unpleasant surprise, figuring out that the contemporary West even formally does not adhere to any particular ideology: not even to a particular Faith! Yes, some Western people could hate communism without any consequences for themselves, while others loved it, and the majority had no clue and no faith in anything – the situation envisioned by G.K. Chesterton: "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything".
Mr. Bukovsky too figured out the ideological emptiness and anarchy when settling in the West. However this anarchy happened to be strongly tilted toward Marxism and all kinds of lowlife proclivities such as sodomy and other sexual perversions. Not surprisingly, in the West he got considered by many as a "bad dissident" for his refusal to comply – this time refusal to comply with the "Western party line" which (among other things) has been to see no evil with the Soviets (Reagan being the only exception of this rule).
That is why the West has never even contemplated anything like the Nuremberg judgment over the crimes of the Communism: not even after Soviets on their own partially exposed and denounced Stalinism in 1956-1960 (to the great embarrassment of their clients and fellow travelers in the West); and not even after the final collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the ban on the CPSU in Russia! A hypothetical Moscow judgment has never happened not only because of the resistance of the old party apparatchiks in Russia, but mostly because of the resistance of the entire ruling elite in the West. That was a bitter realization of Mr. Bukovsky, and that is how the never happened Moscow Judgment became the title to this book.
Obviously, the Western complicity part first of all is intended for the Western conservatives and patriots. However, since the emergence of Marxism, even they have had no clue about its true nature and danger, living in complacency and a fantasy world of their own. Why then even listen to some "alarmists" and "bad dissidents" like Mr. Bukovsky?
Now let's pose a question: are the conservative minority and patriots of the West even comparable with the dissidents of the USSR?
Dissidents in the USSR then…
Well, even after Stalin and his partial exposure, the government of the USSR still didn't presume the possibility of any dissent from the party line. "Народ и партия едины" (The people and the party are together). The government took this slogan very seriously. However, that was already the period of the so call "thaw", and some folks did dare to dissent.
Dissidents were well-informed freedom loving citizens, who did not keep their criticism about various aspects of the Soviet ideology only for themselves, but spoke out. They also dared to gather in groups and do something entirely nonviolent, well within the basic freedoms in the West – yet criminalized in the USSR. Say, participants of a peaceful demonstration in an urban center would be arrested by the KGB in 5 minutes. Thus, a chance to express their protest during 5 minutes may cost them 5 years of imprisonment.
At that, in the 1960s, 70s, and even 80s, the USSR seemed unshakable. The dissidents did understand what they were up against, yet they did not want to comply by staying silent. They were noble, heroic, persistent, and very dedicated people. They were that very special kind of people for whom…
the immensely difficult goal of a full exposure of the Soviet system, and the indefinitely remote fulfillment (if ever) of that goal (coupled with the very immediate punishment!) however did not discourage them. (*)
Please take a note of this characterization. We will need it later.
That was then in the USSR.
… and in the USA now
Unlike in the USSR, dissent in the West seemed to be the basic right and the norm of life: the norm implemented in the form of minority parties, whose very existence and duty was to dissent from the majority parties and majority opinion. Therefore the very concept of "dissidents" in the West seemed redundant: at least in theory.
In the practice of the contemporary West, however, parties expressing really crucial dissenting views do not exist. No party, for example, dares to promote and stand for the ideas like those in this Platform, though no law prohibits them from doing so. These ideas do not have much traction not because they are wrong, but because for most people in America they seem already impossible to fulfill in any foreseeable future – see (*)! For example, people have already submitted (though reluctantly) to such outrages as…
· The de facto usage of a second language (Spanish) by the government and businesses, and all kind of services to illegal residents;
· The overwhelming spread of sodomy top down – down to kindergarten;
· The islamization of America and the massive presence of muslims and mosques (already 3100+);
· The still unacknowledged 2008-2016 imposture of the US presidency by an obvious fraud Obama – the "crime too big to ever acknowledge": this is in the nation with the motto "In God we trust", mind you!
The conservative people are tired and not used to resorting to lasting dissent and resistance. They have already accepted that the outrages mentioned above and many others are here to stay. (America as in the time of the Founders would surely not have stayed under such conditions, but what can the conservatives do?)
once to reach this or that representative, who answers with blatant
refusals. No matter that the replies were lies, the people concede and
them. They do not even consider persistent lasting efforts in order to
wrong. That is why every new wrong stays
here forever, presumed as the
new reality: the
new reality not in some Evil
in the freest part of the world (again, compare it with (*)).
The conservatives hate getting back to and re-analyzing earlier historic flaws (or crimes!) of America such as those exposed by Ms. West and Mr. Bukovsky. Why even bother about the things of the past – "the water under the bridge" in conservative minds? For example, the conservatives think: who now cares about a Judgment over communism? The USSR collapsed in 1991, and we won the cold war after all: right? Wrong! We did not win the cold war over communism. Marxism and socialism remain respected, widely taught and multiplied at nearly every American school and university (along with "subjects" like LGBT studies, "flexible gender", and such). Now we have more Marxism in America than we did 50 years ago, just as we have more islam than we did before 9/11/2001. And dreams about communism and even about Stalin didn't die in Russia, either: just look at this photo.
And on the top of it, as Mr. Eric Samuelson had noticed long ago, "The American people, especially the patriotic ones, simply do not want to hear or believe any bad news about their country".
They do not want
to hear any
bad news about America even now, when the former "beacon of humanity"
had actually compromised
the human civilization sliding to its own demise. Those patriots
their hopes in Pres. Trump
as though the savior, not being ashamed to regurgitate MAGA (i.e.
America Great Again) while being in denial or ignorance about the
"crime too big to ever acknowledge" (and obviously too big to repent
about it!) They do not want to hear that now they lag even behind
USSR which however did partially repent in 1956 about Stalinism – their
version of a crime "too big".
The shameless and unrepentant America couldn't care less... America now is not a nation of dissidents: it's a nation of compliers.
At that, it's not as though there were no dissenters in America at all. As noted by Mr. Bukovsky, American "dissent" is represented entirely by hysterical scum: anarchists, commies, muslims, liberasts and pederasts. They have no lack of persistence: their persistence is inexhaustible. For them the concept "No" doesn't exist, and Western governments actually indulge their anarchy and debauchery. As they are in sync with the government and the media, they are not dissidents like the Soviet dissidents in any sense. They are merely scandalous dissenters and troublemakers owned and controlled by the NWO commissars.
So much for dissent and dissidents in the USSR vs. the West.
Now we can say that one of the reasons for the Western and American demise is exactly the lack of dissidents of the caliber, convictions, and dedication of Mr. Bukovsky. It's because of the lack of such persistent heroes that the still existing freedoms of the West happen to be unused and near useless. Mr. Bukovsky has realized this more than well. That is why his final line in the Russian edition (1996) was this bitter statement below, the goring scream from the very depth of the soul:
The only thing I can do now is to preserve my testimonies up until the Last Judgment.
I was stunned when I first read it, as this exactly expresses my own feeling after 10 years of shoving America into its doo-doo of the 2008-2016 imposture. A handful of dissidents still keeps on this shoving: to no avail, and perhaps until the Last Judgment.
the words of a commentator
 "Nation of compliers" (despite all its freedoms) is not an exaggeration. The American people complied with and got accustomed not only to such "abstractions" as the false narrative about Obama, or the false version of modern American history in the WWII (explained in "American Betrayal" by Diana West). Already long ago Americans had accepted and got used to fiat dollars - despite the constitutional requirement that American currency be backed by gold and silver. The families of American POWs abandoned during the Vietnamese and Korean wars, and the American patriots in general, finally acquiesced to the false claims by the government as though no POWs were left behind, just as American patriots finally accepted and stopped challenging the false narratives about the late Senator John McCain and his treasonous role during and after his liberation from the Vietnamese capture. Somehow the American government is capable of burying any undesired truth as successfully as the Soviet government did - despite all the freedoms. This is possible also because of the prevailing compliance of American people (the "sheeple" in the expression of Michael Savage).