As if they did not have enough on their plate already, Serbs are now worked up over a child abduction scandal with official fingerprints all over it. Besides the mother, the victims are three brothers, aged 10, 6, and 3. To make the case even more poignant, the children go by the angelic names of Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, given them by their single mother Ana Mihaljica who, in addition to her regular job, is also an Orthodox theology student. The authorities were acting on the spurious pretexts that the mother was too poor to properly provide for the needs of her offspring (in that regard she has plenty of company in Third World Serbia) and that a fire which accidentally broke out in their grandfather’s apartment when they were not even physically present there endangered the children’s safety. Thus armed with irrefutable proof of parental malfeasance, in November of 2023 the authorities literally snatched the children from their devastated mother Ana Mihaljica’s arms and spirited them off to parts unknown.

It is feared that the plan is to put the children up for foreign adoption, which Serbian law has greatly facilitated, at the going rate of between thirty and fifty thousand euros per auctioned off child, a lucrative scheme and attractive sum that assuredly makes corrupt officials salivate.

Ironically, the government agency many Serbs hold accountable for the disaster that has befallen the Mihaljica family operates with a mandate to protect the rights of children and to look after their welfare. Nearly every country in the collective (or should we say – “enlightened”?) West has such an outfit which in almost every known instance has generated more grief and trauma than any semblance of child or family wellbeing. Researchers who have studied the matter closely and, just as importantly, have also followed the money trail, claim that Barnevernet, the Norwegian institution which had pioneered many notorious practices in the child welfare business, has much to answer for regarding the abuses resulting from the internationalisation of its dreaded “child protection” methodology. The Serbian “child protection agency” is effectively a franchise of Barnevernet whose experienced personnel were contracted to train their Serbian colleagues and write their operational child snatching manuals. What euphemistically is called child protection has is fact imposed as a key condition for European integration which requires the Eastern European “lesser brethren” to divest themselves not just of their economic assets but cultural values and human resources as well.

Barnevernet itself, the Norwegian mentor of the Serbian copycat agency organised under its auspices, it has been persuasively suggested, is actually a linear descendant of a German Nazi outfit, Lebensborn. The latter outfit, interestingly, was running a major operation on the territory of occupied Norway during the war. In the course of the last several decades, Russian families aspiring to settle in Norway to enjoy its idyllic blessings discovered to their chagrin that their healthy, bright, and blue eyed children were prime targets of the Barnevernet Gestapo. They and parents of other ethnicities were eventually astonished to discover that in Norway, at least in this particular realm of human relations, “diversity,” though it is one of the central “universal” values the West insistently preaches, does not apply. Child rearing practices and family interaction models that in their native cultures had been practiced successfully for centuries by Barnevernet standards constitute child abuse and criminal offences justifying violent family break-up. To many devastated parents of Russian as well as other cultural backgrounds it must have seemed that some essential features of the Nazi heritage continue to exert their odious influence, notwithstanding the passage of time and unaffected by outward ideological mimicry.

After several high profile incidents involving the confiscation of Russian children by the government child protection agency acting with the licence of the Norwegian state, the Russian government drew proper conclusions. Diplomatic efforts to secure the liberation of sequestered children and reunification of broken families being of no avail, Russian citizens intending to settle or even travel to Norway are now admonished that they are acting at their own risk by raising and treating their children in the style to which they were accustomed and which in their native country over the centuries had produced satisfactory results. To add a further layer of protection to Russian children, and acknowledging the unhealthy moral climate of Western societies the majority of adoptive parents were coming from, Russian parliament prohibited most foreign adoptions altogether.

However, quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. Effective solutions available to a superpower are foreclosed to neo-colonial client states. The people of Serbia and other Eastern European vassalages can only dream of resorting to protective counter-measures to safeguard their children, environment, mineral deposits, territory, historical memory, cultural patrimony, or whatever else they might hold dear that their imperial masters have decided to seize with the eager and venal collaboration of local political elites.

In consequence, Serbia has been turned into a “don’t ask, don’t tell” child adoption (in reality minor trafficking) paradise. The relevant facts and statistics are appalling. In 2014 a law was passed in Serbia facilitating fast-track adoptions of minors, but it applies only to foreigners. The Ministry of Social Welfare signed agreements with seven foreign adoption entities, all from collective West countries of course, authorising them to act as exclusive agents for the placement of Serbian minors with adoptive parents abroad. The procedure was streamlined to a “6-step process” so that the foreign client need make only one visit to Serbia and within twenty-one days the selected child is delivered to him, her, or “zir.” Use of the woke pronoun option seems entirely appropriate because one of the agencies authorised by the Serbian government, ominously, happens to be called Rainbow Kids Adoption and Child Welfare Advocacy. Further elaboration of this point seems unnecessary. Under the agreement with foreign agencies, Serbian authorities may make inquiries about the minor for only fifteen days after the adoption is finalised and the child is whisked off abroad. Prior to that the adoptive parent is expected to remain in Serbia for three weeks to undergo a background check and complete the paperwork. Is three weeks enough to get to know the character and the proclivities of an adoptive parent? Do Serbian officials even care?

With such intense supervision, lucky is the child who does not end up in the clutches of traffickers, perverts, or worse.

There are about 6,000 “adoptable” children in Serbia today, orphans as well as minors forcibly separated from their natural parents and caregivers for a wide variety of spurious and arbitrary reasons. About eight hundred Serbian families have expressed an interest in adopting, but since unlike foreigners most lack the cash to cover the hefty “processing fee” they face interminable bureaucratic challenges after which the majority simply give up.

Meanwhile, photos of Serbian children are featured on the sites of foreign adoption agencies, not unlike cattle being advertised for a livestock fair or blacks at slave auctions in the Antebellum South. After shocking abuses went public in the post-Ceausescu era even Romania felt compelled to at least tighten its foreign adoption policies. But there is no indication that anyone in Serbia is interested in following suit. On the contrary, as the Romanian market becomes more stringently regulated, in adoption friendly Serbia business is bound to thrive and more profitably than ever.

The stand-off between the anguished Serbian mother Ana Mihaljica and outraged fellow-citizens of Novi Sad who have rallied to her cause, and Barnevernet’s Balkan spin-off, the local abduction agency masquerading as a child protection service, is the direct result of inhumanity and pervasive corruption on an appalling scale. But there is a much deeper level to it that needs to be explored. Beyond ordinary moral and pecuniary corruption, no doubt present, we also see here the contours of a frighteningly inhuman and comprehensively ideological programme. That sordid ideological design now threatens all of humanity and it cannot be referenced in terms milder than the “S” word that the President of Russia used in one of his public addresses to expose the diabolical inspiration of the demented, moribund West and its fellow-travellers. A fundamental objective of that nefarious project is to wage unrelenting war on every facet of normalcy in order to void natural and traditional relations between human beings, including relations of love and trust between parents and children. Victory in that war requires the expropriation of children by the globalist, corporate state and ultimately their management and servile indoctrination by bureaucratic fiat. It is that broader context that explains the clear pattern observable all around, for none of it is haphazard. From state sponsored abduction of children on the pretext of ensuring their “welfare” to the induction of minors into the transgender cult through the weaponised state “educational system,” without notice to or consent of parents, the natural caregivers, the design is unmistakably clear.

Eastern European governments have largely succumbed. Acting in disregard of their citizens’ desires and for paltry rewards earned by immoral compliance, their leaders kowtow to the programme which ensures the continued enslavement and ultimately the destruction of their societies. Serbia is an instructive case study and the Mihaljica abduction, brazenly carried out in full view of the entire country, highlights in concentrated form what is at stake in the battle for the bodies and souls of society’s most vulnerable members, its children.



Leave A Reply