The predicament of the Serbian nation is dire, but there is a solution

Without doubt, sooner or later the Serbian Question must be put on the table for public scrutiny; in fact, there is no more opportune moment for that than now. Under the current in the series of foreign-backed colonial administrations in Belgrade, which seems to have pledged itself to utterly ruin and dismember the little that remains relatively intact in the wake of its predecessors, things in several respects seem to be coming to a head. The looming relinquishment of Kosovo by the treasonous government and its obviously cornered head is but the tip of this iceberg. There are also other critical issues ahead. They present as huge a threat to Serbia’s continued existence, though symbolically their significance may appear less by comparison. These are, to point out just the main ones, the planned inundation of demographically declining Serbia with up to a million Middle Eastern migrants rejected by Western European host countries that, by all accounts, are to be settled in Serbia’s depopulated areas with the treasonous connivance of the government; even fuller integration of Serbia within NATO structures in anticipation of the war with Russia; and, by the end of this year, forced vaccination of the Serbian population with hastily produced, experimental, and manifestly unsafe Covid-19 vaccines.

As a marker of where Serbia stands today and how it got there, it is useful to recall the recent July 17 double anniversary, which for Russians and Serbs is a date that will live in infamy. On that date in 1918 the Russian Emperor, his entire family, and the members of his entourage who remained faithful to him until the end were pitilessly shot – “liquidated” in the mechanical parlance of their executioners – in the basement of Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg. They were murdered upon orders issued anonymously “from the top,” without even the pretence of a fair trial, and without specific guilt other than being who they were and what steadfastly they were loyal to.

Fast forward 28 years, to Belgrade. In 1946, General Draža Mihailović, leader of the first uprising against Axis rule in occupied Europe, a figure whose stature grew to legendary proportions as the struggle for freedom wore on, was falsely declared an enemy collaborator by the newly installed ruler of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito. After a widely denounced show trial, he was executed the same year – also on July 17.

General Draža Mihailović and the people of Serbia were victims of a twisted and amoral political logic, just as Nicholas II was the tragic victim of behind the scenes manoeuvres by which World War I was conceived and orchestrated. In Serbia, they are both fondly remembered as personifications of rectitude in a world mired in “Treason, Cowardice and Deceit.”

The analogies between the two men who never met or spoke are striking. They were both unblemished in their personal life, of unquestionable integrity, ardent patriots, and zealous to accomplish their utmost for their respective countries in exceedingly difficult circumstances. Both had their human limitations, and both erred in some of their decisions and fell short in some of their undertakings. But the distinguishing characteristic that binds them was that they served  what Prof. Igor Panarin likes to describe as the forces of good. Their murderers were manifestly aligned with the forces of darkness and evil, and even made scant effort to conceal that sinister fact.

General Draža Mihailović was the most decorated officer in the Yugoslav army at the time of the Nazi invasion in April of 1941. He fought valiantly and with distinction in the ranks of the Serbian army in all Balkan wars and World War I. He was a general staff officer in the sector of military intelligence. Similarly to Gen. De Gaulle in France, he saw a bit further ahead than his fellow officers who were proverbially ready “to fight the last war.” Fully comprehending new war-waging techniques that were being introduced by Nazi military theoreticians, Mihailović knew that the Yugoslav army could not withstand frontally, as initially the Serbian army had done in World War I, the invasion of superior Axis forces. He urged that it should develop a capability to quickly reorganize into flexible guerrilla units that would make occupation costly and difficult while waiting for the moment when the global relationship of forces would change in favour his country. His forces would then deliver decisive blows to a weakened enemy and liberate their land. Mihailović’s prescient guerrilla warfare concepts were later amply vindicated on another continent and under a different set of circumstances by Gen. Giap.

In early May 1941, General Mihailović began to assemble his guerrilla units (Chetniks in Serbian) in the area of Ravna Gora, Serbia. That was barely a few weeks after the Axis invasion defeated the Royal Yugoslav Army, just as he had predicted would happen. Initially, Mihailović was ready to cooperate with the guerrilla forces organized much later, in July of 1941, by the Yugoslav Communist Party under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito. But when later that year it became clear that Tito’s primary goal was not national liberation but undemocratic seizure of power in Yugoslavia after the Axis had been defeated by the USSR and Western Allies, their cooperation turned into open hostility. Ultimately arrayed against Mihailović’s forces were German and Italian occupation troops, Croatian quisling Ustashi units, troops from Germany’s various Balkan allies, and Tito’s forces. It was a very uneven fight. As for Mihailović’s distrust of Tito and his intentions, it was shared also by Stalin, and both were ultimately proved right.

Mihailović’s guerrilla army made a significant contribution to the war effort in many ways. One was by efficiently sabotaging the Axis supply chain in support of their forces in North Africa in 1942-1943, thus enabling, in 1943, the first massive defeat of Nazi armies before the tide was turned by the Red Army on the Eastern front. In 1944, when the Soviet army poured from Rumania into Serbia and began its liberation, many Serbian towns, such as Kraljevo, were freed by joint effort of the Red Army and the Chetniks. And yet, in the end General Mihailović was apprehended by his arch-enemy Tito and shot on false charges of “collaborating with the Nazis.” Tito was installed to rule Yugoslavia for the next several decades, with drastic consequences for the Serbian nation to the present day. How did that happen?

Many answers have been offered to that complex question, but there is one straightforward and logical explanation that stands out. In the middle of the war, it was Great Britain that mysteriously pulled the rug from under Mihailović and, being in charge of Balkan policy on behalf of the Western Allies, shifted Western support to Tito. Those uninitiated into the background must have perceived it as a paradoxical change of policy. Why would royalist Churchill suddenly support the communist (or so he claimed) Tito, against loyal ally Mihailović, who was commander of the Yugoslav Homeland Army and also defense minister in the London-based Yugoslav government that was recognized by all allied powers, including the Soviet Union? A mystery wrapped in a paradox, one could almost say, paraphrasing Churchill himself.

The shift in British support actually began months before, with intensified arms drops to Tito’s forces, explicit instructions to Italian troops on Yugoslav territory after Italy’s surrender in September 1943 to turn their weapons and supplies over to Tito and not to Mihailović, and the usual BBC fake news barrage attributing Mihailović’s victories against the Axis to Tito. The new arrangement under British auspices was formalized in August 1944, when Tito was whisked away to the Italian mainland by the British from the Adriatic island of Vis, where he was safely ensconced far from the fighting, for a meeting with Churchill in Naples. But arguably an even more important meeting on Tito’s Italian schedule was with none other than Pope Pius XII in Rome, on August 9, 1944. Until evidence of this was unearthed by some diligent scholars quite recently, it was a secret closely guarded both by the Vatican and the Yugoslav communist government, for reasons that are perfectly obvious.

There can be little doubt that extremely important understandings must have been reached by the parties regarding the further conduct and political outcome of the war in Yugoslavia. What might they have been? By their fruits, they can now be roughly sketched.

When the nightmare was over, the Chetnik national liberation movement led by General Draža Mihailović stood decimated and betrayed by the self-interested political machinations of Britain, with the connivance of the Vatican. Power in the entire country was handed over to their local delegate, Josip Broz Tito. The “deal” that was reached can be inductively reconstructed with relative ease. Tito, conveniently wearing a communist mask, consented to his sponsors’ demand to cover up the atrocities committed against the Serbs in staunchly Catholic war-time collaborationist Croatia. That was a project to which Tito acquiesced quite willingly in return for power, but it was something Mihailović would never have considered. In virtue of that understanding, genocidal crimes of Vatican-supported Ustashi were swept under the rug and the moral reputation of the Roman Catholic Church was preserved. The Vatican was counted on as a key actor in the upcoming confrontation with the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, and it was of the utmost importance that its influence and mass mobilizing resources should be used to prevent and roll back the westward expansion of Soviet power and influence. That confrontation, as we have recently learned, was in the works already in 1945, even before Germany’s defeat, and it envisaged a redeployment of now “allied” German troops against the USSR on the reopened Eastern Front. Churchill’s Fulton speech in 1946 was but a sketchy public disclosure of plans that had already been laid in the highest councils, while outwardly the Soviet Union was still being praised as a “gallant ally.” The Dropshot Plan to annihilate the USSR with around 300 nuclear weapons, drawn up in 1949, was but an extension of these duplicitous schemes.

I The Root Cause

It is all very neatly laid out in the seminal research paper “The West’s Long War Against Serbia: The Paradoxes of Yugoslav History.” Now, both the seemingly paradoxical shift in British policy in the middle of World War II and Tito’s Faustian bargain with his putative ideological enemies begin to make logical sense.

What we shall designate here as “The West’s Long War against Serbia” is in fact a history of the grandest deception of World War Two and a vast international post-war open conspiracy orchestrated by Great Britain, the Vatican, United States, Germany, and the rest of the West to cover up the most savage genocide in modern history. That was a project so important that Winston Churchill initiated it and personally oversaw its operation.

As it is pointed out in the “Long War” analysis, “the ultimate purpose of the false history was to save the Roman Catholic Church for the Cold War, a war the British were planning early on as the Second World War played out.” With ample historical evidence, it is argued in the essay that “the West did not treat the Germans as badly after World War II in which 50 million people died nor did the West treat the Soviets, the Arabs, or any other enemy as cruelly as they have the Serbs. Destroy Serbia, by destroying the World War II Serbian Orthodox resistance movement of Draža Mihailović. This is precisely the mechanism the British used to save the Catholic Church.”

Using concepts derived from the game of chess, “when the British realized that a Soviet victory was a certainty and that the post war political landscape of Europe would see the Red Army occupying much of Catholic Europe. Thus began the largest covert intelligence operation in WW II history – destroy an entire nation of innocent witnesses to history greatest crime. . . A Serbian pawn would be sacrificed to save the Roman Catholic Queen for the coming chess game of the Cold War.

One of the pivotal points of this research paper is that Ustashi Catholic slaughter of Orthodox Serbs is not just one of many tragic episodes the Serbian people have had to endure, but actually the most important single event in modern Serb history. And yet, unlike the Jews and the Armenians, for all practical purposes Serbs do not speak of it to the outside world. The reason for that paradox is that the British, the Americans, the Vatican, the rest of the West want it that way. Collectively, it is they who had the power to change regimes (Tito), the power to intimidate the survivors, the money to corrupt and buy silence, and a mass media that practiced self-censorship.

One of the key points expounded in the paper is that contrary to what might naturally be assumed, historical evidence does not support the proposition that Tito was a Soviet protégé in the war theatre of Axis-occupied Yugoslavia. The Soviets had virtually no contact with Tito for at least the first three years of the war in Yugoslavia and they were highly suspicious of British involvement with Tito. The bombshell conclusion is that what might be expected notwithstanding it was the British who were controlling Tito, not the Soviets. Just one month after the battle of Kursk, which was the turning point of World War II, Brigadier Fitzroy MacLean arrived at Tito’s headquarters with a promise of aid to the Partisans to ensure a communist victory.

Such a turn of events could strike only geopolitical novices as fortuitous or the result of an honest political miscalculation. The British, whose strategic concern was the post-war political landscape of Europe, sent a seasoned anti-communist operative (MacLean) to a communist (Tito) to aid him against the pro-Western, pro-democracy Serbs of Draža Mihailović in a war they (the British) had manipulated in order to destroy Communism (Soviet Union). Well, British propaganda would claim – Tito is killing more Germans and that’s why we help him. But aren’t these the same British that Eisenhower accused of betrayal and cowardliness for not really fighting the Germans for two years? Yes, they are the same.

On the realpolitik level, the prospect that Western allies were facing at the end of World War II was Soviet occupation of the Intermarium (Baltic to Black Sea) Catholic counties in the European East and massive popular support for communism and socialism in France and Italy.

Simply put, the British and Americans reasonably feared a Serbian Orthodox victory in Yugoslavia, if allowed, would result in large-scale Serb retributive justice in Catholic Croatia which could very likely lead to a radical debilitation of the entire Roman Catholic Church and perhaps even the downfall of the Papacy at a time when the Soviet Union enjoyed immense prestige for its role in defeating Nazi Germany and when the masses of Europe where shifting radically to the left.

The remainder of this sordid tale derives naturally from these postulates. What had to be prevented was not just objective historical research demonstrating that the Catholic Church was involved in the Serbian Holocaust, but any utterance to the effect that it had happened at all. At stake was the very survival of the Roman Catholic Church, an instrument the British knew was absolutely essential to the successful conduct of the coming Cold War. What options did the British have? Only one. To create and implant in Yugoslavia, in the form of Tito, a force that would be, at once anti-Serb and entirely dependent on the West for its survival. They succeeded in their design perhaps beyond their own expectations. The result was that “there would be no examination or discussion of the Ustashi/Catholic Church crimes, no retribution on the perpetrators or justice for the victims. After the war, Tito and British propagandists would morally equate Mihailović’s Chetniks with the Ustashe, squaring the circle of deception. The Catholic Church was saved, for the moment at any rate. The Roman Church did survive and go on as anticipated to agitate in Poland, Lithuania, and the rest of Catholic Eastern Europe, initiating events that resulted the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

That in a nutshell is the reality behind Anglo-American policy in World War II Yugoslavia, whose cascading and ruinous impact on the Serbian nation is abundantly evident to this day.

The British, looking ahead to the Cold War, saw the Serbian Orthodox resistance movement of Draža Mihailović as their real enemy and Tito (despite the fact that technically he was a communist) as their friend or, more accurately, their accomplice in the cover up of the Serbian Holocaust.

Today, of all the former communist counties in Europe (including Russia), only in Serbia has there not been a critical re-examination of the communist past, with lessons drawn and necessary corrections made.

Serbia today, is an impoverished, depressed, divided against itself, land-locked country of demoralized people. That was the Price of Tito and Serbian Silence.

The purpose of this nefarious project was to ensure that an anti-Serb government would take power in post war Yugoslavia to do its evil work. That government’s natural and undisguised hostility not just to Serbian claims for justice and compensation, but even more importantly to Serbian identity and viable national development as well, would be its reason for being.

II The Solution

“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”  Samuel Adams (1722–1803) Father of the American Revolution, Patriot and Statesman

With the installation of Tito as ruler of Yugoslavia in 1944-1945 the strategic goal of the British conducted operation was achieved. The Serbs were subjected to the control of a totalitarian regime under foreign auspices, following an agenda thoroughly inimical to their national interest. With the enthusiastic complicity of Tito’s regime, the genocide of the Serbian people in war-time Croatia was swept under the rug by invoking the perfidious slogan of “brotherhood and unity” (“let’s move on” would be a good English-language rendition). The barbarous slaughter, entirely inspired and directed by the Roman Catholic Church, vastly exceeded even the most generous medieval measures of unbridled savagery, but thanks to the British intrigue of using Tito to neutralize its political and moral impact it was dumped into the historical memory hole. The “moral” stature of the Vatican was preserved largely intact for Cold War political battles and manoeuvres that lay ahead.

For good measure, and to further reduce the recuperative capabilities of the Serbian people, already traumatized by the rigors of the Axis occupation and extermination during the Catholic Croatian genocide, the Tito regime took several further steps. Fully cognizant of most Serbs’ sympathy and allegiance to the nationalist movement of General Mihailović and the patriotic values it symbolized, immediately upon seizing power at the end of 1944, Tito ordered the mass execution of tens of thousands of elite members of Serbian society in a reign of terror such as the country had never witnessed before. With the assistance of his henchmen, he drew up arbitrary borders entrapping over two million Serb inhabitants of Yugoslavia in the other “people’s republics” that he created, thus effectively fragmenting the single ethnic group that was the most hostile to his regime. Tito’s internal border manipulations later came back with vengeance to haunt the Serbs in the early 1990s, when the European Community’s Badinter Commission recognized them as international and inviolable at the start of the Yugoslav civil wars, itself ultimately the consequence of Tito’s malicious tinkering in mid-1970s with Yugoslavia’s internal political system. After deconstructing traditional Serbian society with methods of fire and brimstone at the beginning of his rule, Tito rounded off his destructive assignment by bequeathing as his poisonous legacy a troop of indoctrinated, self-perpetuating janissaries implanted in all spheres of Serbian society and programmed to complete the tasks left unfinished at the time of his death.

Clearly, the fundamental prerequisite for Serbia’s resurrection is the utter and complete dismantlement of Tito’s poisonous legacy, not sparing even the most minute detail and down to its nanoscopic traces.

That legacy is the system of governance and its basic principles that with minor cosmetic changes has persisted to the present day. To decapitate once and for all the Titoist hydra, the first and most urgent task is to institutionally uproot and destroy the system that in its many incarnations has been grinding Serbia down for decades and continues to oppress it to this day. That includes also the sweeping away of the current foreign-installed regime. Its malign rule is animated unmistakably by the Titoist spirit, whatever superficial distinctions may be put forward to create the illusion that there is a difference.

For the “experienced patriots” spoken of by Samuel Adams to be enabled to take direction of the affairs of state, in order to prevent the ruin of the little in Serbia that still stands upright and to raise from the dust much that has been laid waste, there are several minimum conditions that must be fulfilled.

  1. A thorough lustration of every nook and cranny of Serbian society must be relentlessly conducted to identify and ban from ever participating in public life again the heirs and offshoots of the Titoist system, whoever and how many they may be.
  2. A rigorous cultural policy must be instituted that emphasizes instead of suppressing national identity and patriotic values.
  3. Major Serbian media are to be locally owned and liberated from servitude to globalist agendas; from an instrument of mass brainwashing and moral degradation, they must be converted into a vehicle of truth and a place of healthy public debate of important issues.
  4. Principles of political representation must be thoroughly re-evaluated and restructured to eliminate in the future divisive partisan rivalry and parasitism.
  5. Serbia´s alliances must be changed to reflect its security and economic interests. Serbia must make a 180-degree policy turn to align itself with Russia and the Eurasian Union.
  6. The mainstay of Serbia´s policy with regard to foreign countries and power centers in the future must be the doctrine of national sovereigntism.

Like a thief in the night, in Serbia “vain and aspiring men” have been brought in and they have indeed been enabled to capture the “highest seats in government.” The consequence of their usurpation has been national ruin. For the last eighty years, acting as foreign proxies, successively they have been sucking dry Serbia’s treasure, humiliating and keeping down its gifted people, and deliberately dragging the country into the abyss on behalf of their malevolent foreign masters.

The “long war” that has been waged on the Serbian people for decades can end only with their victory or extinction. It is the mission and single-minded purpose of the Archibald Reiss Institute to help devise a victorious plan for the resurrection of Serbia and to bring together patriots determined to make it happen. However, the prerequisite for beneficially altering Serbia’s future is to understand its recent past. In order to effectively chart a new and better course for Serbia, its people must be helped to accurately understand how British intrigue plunged it to the low point where it is mired today.

Please assist us with your hearts, minds, and material support.

God bless and long live Serbia!




Leave A Reply