Election 2000

"New World Order" Series - Part XLIX

Aug. 29, 2000  


American vs. Serbian “Demo Farce”

By Bob Djurdjevic



PHOENIX, July 28, 2000 - During my recent trips to Serbia, I could see that "everybody" these days is calling for Slobodan Milosevic's resignation.  Which is understandable, considering the devastation, deprivation and genocide committed against the Serbian nation in the 1990s.

Far be it for me to defend the man whom I publicly denounced as early as August 1990, at the time when he objectively enjoyed about a 90% or higher support by the Serb electorate. 

Or have you forgotten that phase of the national euphoria? If you’re a Serb who was of voting age in August 1990, look yourself in the mirror, cross yourself with the Orthodox three finger sign, and answer truthfully the following question: Who would you have voted for back then?  Who DID you vote for in December 1990?

This writer’s answer:  “Anyone but Milosevic.”  Because Milosevic was a person I had met and gotten to know personally by then.  Even my late father got mad at me back then because of criticizing the popular Serb leader at the time. 

Yet I repeated such an opinion in 1994, when Milosevic betrayed the Bosnian and the Krajina Serbs.  And especially after the Dayton 1995 sellout.

But now, when the pro-western Serbian opposition vassals are repeating, like parrots, Bill Clinton's and Madeleine Albright's demands, I say: "Wait a minute, Serbian nation.  And think about alternatives."

Because only the Serbian people, victims of both Milosevic and the New World Order, and not the war criminals Clinton, Albright and other NATO leaders, or their obedient vassals among some Serbian opposition leaders, can decide when it is time to change the president.  And how…

Can you imagine any Serb leader posing for reporters with one of Hitler's top aids - after the Luftwaffe's April 6, 1941 bombing of Belgrade which killed hundreds of civilians?  Not if he hoped to be a Serb leader for long, right?

Well, on Dec. 17, 1999, three would-be Serb leaders - Zoran Djindjic, Milo Djukanovic and Vuk Draskovic did just that at a Berlin (how appropriate!) meeting with an unindicted war criminal, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. Secretary of State.  And have done the same several times since. 

Djukanovic even seemed to have posed with her in a private hotel room.  “His or hers?” asked the caption at the Truth in Media web site.

On Feb. 25, “His Disgrace,” Bishop Artemije did the same in Washington.  He honored the Serb butchers with his presence and subservience.  And he has also repeated the same disgraceful act several times since, including in late July.

The Serbs have long memories when it comes to traitors and vassals.  Starting with Vuk Brankovic. And including the Serbian M&M's - Milosevic and Mira Markovic.

So unless an uncompromised Serbian patriotic alternative emerges before the elections, the Serbs may have to choose between the devils they know (the Milosevic and Markovic M&M's) and the ones they don't (the Milo and Madeleine M&M’s).

The Serb M&M’s sold out Bosnia and Krajina.  The New World Order M&M’s will grab all of Serbia. Just as Yeltsin had tried to sell out Russia and Serbia to the West, before being given a choice last year after the Kosovo betrayal of leaving his Kremlin office with, or without his head between the shoulders. 

He chose wisely… as evident by Vladimir Putin’s bloodless ascendance to power.

So to summarize the answer as to what the New World Order is… In its ideal form, the New World Order is not all that different from the communist version that the Serbs experienced on their own skins.  It is a plutocratic world in which money is God and the end all and be all.  It is a world that legitimizes state terrorism, as in the case of Serbia’s bombing by NATO.

Which means, taking advice from totally corrupt regimes, such as today's Washington, is a recipe for a disaster. If in doubt, just ask the 62% of Americans who voted with their feet against Klinton's Amerika - by staying away from the voting booths at the 1998 congressional elections.

The last American election, the Nov. 3, 1998 U.S. mid-term vote, was a big yawn; much ado about nothing. Well not quite nothing. But close enough. Only 38% of adult Americans eligible to vote bothered to cast their ballots, according to a New York Times Nov. 5, 1998 report. There was only one clear winner in the latest chapter of the American "demo farce". And her name was Ms. Apathy.

Everywhere one looks these days across the political spectrum, one sees two front-runners racing for the same stable owners - the Wall Street "piranhas."  George W. Bush vs. Al Gore.  Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton.  George Bush Sr. vs. Bill Clinton.  Etc.

Starting with the Balkans wars, and continuing with the 1995 Wall Street bailout in Mexico, Dole, for example, supported Clinton on just every foreign policy issue. As did ostensible Republican leaders, Senators Trent Lott and John McCain.

With "conservatives" like the above Republicans, cheering on Clinton’s bombings of Iraq, Serbia, Sudan or Afghanistan, who needs the "liberals," like Al Gore?

Nothing new there.  Shortly after Bill Clinton had defeated George Bush Sr. in the 1992 presidential elections, this writer had to travel to Europe on business.  Wherever he went, and especially in the former Yugoslavia, people wanted to know what sort of a change in foreign policy they could expect?

“None whatsoever,” I would reply.  “Both Clinton and Bush raced for the same stable owners.  Things may only change for the worse.” (since many recent wars had been either started or escalated when a Democrat sat in the White House).

Nearly eight years later, people are asking me the same question.  Only in reverse.  What sort of a change can they expect if George W. Bush Jr., the “Dubya,” wins the presidency next November?

And my answer is the same as in 1992.  “None whatsoever.  Both Gore and ‘Dubya’ are in the race for the same stable owners.”

After the July 25 official selection of Dick Cheney as the Veep by “Dubya,” I can again add to it that, “things may only change for the worse.”  As I did in 1992.  (As if things can get any worse, especially in the Balkans, right?).

This time, however, you don’t have to take just my word for it.  Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of, has just about said the same thing in his article “Dick Cheney and Bush's Other Warmongers.”  He is a widely published author and columnist in America.  Here are some excerpts from Raimondo’s steak (take) on “Cheney et. al.”:

Dick Cheney and Bush's Other Warmongers

“Dick Cheney's ascension to the number two spot on the Republican ticket tells us much about the kind of foreign policy we can come to expect if Dubya makes it to the White House. To begin with, it means that the US will be in the Balkans forever. As CEO of the Halliburton Company, Cheney was among the chief profiteers of the Kosovo war: Brown & Root, a Houston subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded the engineering contract to house, feed, and otherwise amuse the US "peacekeepers" plunked down in the middle of that quagmire.

Indeed, in my Truth in Media wartime Bulletin, “The Pentagon Was in for Long Haul,” filed from Belgrade on Apr. 15, 1999, I pointed out that the $1 billion, 3-5 year services contract the Pentagon had been awarded Dick Cheney’s company BEFORE NATO’s bombing (in Feb. 1999).  It was another piece of evidence NATO’s bombing of Serbia was case of PREMEDITATED aggression by Washington and London, not a “humanitarian mission” the western public was told by CNN, BBC and other “lie and deny” media branches of the New World Order.

Returning to excerpts from Raimondo’s comments about Bush and Cheney:


The three foreign policy mavens always mentioned in news stories about Dubya's shadow Cabinet are: Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney. Ms. Rice, former Stanford University provost and a low-level advisor to Dubya's father, is often cited as the chief of this policy group, a future Secretary of State – but this is the story being told by the Bushies, and it doesn't quite add up. Like everything else in the Bush campaign, the foreign policy "team" assembled by the candidate and his campaign staff has all the earmarks of a classic Potemkin village – a phony fašade put up to impress those who don't bother looking too closely. Well, then, let's look a little more closely at the Bushies' answer to Mad Madeleine.


Rice started out as a music major at Stanford but almost flunked out, whereupon she switched to Soviet studies. Rice became interested in her specialty of Soviet studies as a student of Joseph Korbel, the father of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Now there is an interesting coincidence, one that underscores the inbred nature of the foreign policy-making elite: how different from Mad Madeleine will Secretary of State Rice turn out to be? Two years from today will we be calling her Crazy Condoleeza?


Having found her niche, Ms. Rice was quickly taken in hand by the Hoover Institution, a redoubt of the George Shultz/Bechtel wing of the Republican foreign policy elite, where she rose quickly through the ranks. As the sole person of color, and a female to boot, in an administration devoted to "affirmative access" (if not action), her visibility was high. But there is nothing in Rice's resume to suggest that she is the heavyweight the Bushies are describing. The apex of her academic career was reached with the 1984 publication of her magnum opus, The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, 1948-1983 : Uncertain Allegiance, a dissertation no more indicative of her capabilities as a future Secretary of State than her more recent unimpressive contribution to an anthology on German reunification.


In the first Bush administration Ms. Rice was the author of no known policy initiatives, and in the interim her career as provost at Stanford has not exactly catapulted her into the international spotlight. So what gives? How can we explain this strange gap between Rice's real achievements and the grandiose future planned for her by Bush campaign operatives?”


With his links to Texas oil barons, and his political connections, Cheney is gearing up with the rest of the oil industry to cash in on the Great Caspian Oil Bonanza. Cheney has been in the forefront of the effort to repeal US legislation that forbids foreign aid to undemocratic regimes such as the government of Azerbaijan. That central Asian nation, ruled by a neo-Stalinist dictator, is where a good deal of the oil is located; it is also a key link in the oil companies' scheme to build a trans-Balkan/Transcaucasian oil pipeline to bring its product to market in Western Europe. Can anyone doubt that "a quarrel among faraway peoples about whom we know nothing" in that tumultuous region will suddenly involve "vital" US "national interests"? As Russian troops fight Islamic rebels in Dagestan, and the Armenians and Azeris call for the US and/or NATO to intervene, the prospect of George Dubya in the White House begins to take on a distinctly ominous aspect.


It used to be, not so long ago, that the interface of corporate interests and US foreign policy was far subtler. In these decadents days of imperial excess, however, there is a pagan shamelessness in the unseemly spectacle of revolving doors between corporate and government institutions. A man like Cheney, who segues so rapidly and easily from chief warmaker to chief executive officer of a major international corporation, is the perfect symbol of the Republican foreign policy establishment in the age of George Dubya. If Wolfowitz is the chief theoretician of this mercantilist dogma that equates untapped oil fields with "the national interest," then Cheney is its chief practitioner – and among the most successful.


The oil companies envision a pipeline that will carry their product across Eastern Europe to customers in the West – and the Albanian end of that trans-Balkan route is already being taken care of. It was the Houston engineering firm of Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, that won the contract to build barracks not only in Bosnia, but also in Kosovo and Albania; they were one of the biggest direct beneficiaries of the war. As Wolfowitz was signing newspaper ads demanding the introduction of US ground troops into Kosovo, Halliburton was busy building and outfitting the Albanian staging areas.


The neo-conservative intellectuals, like Wolfowitz, expend millions of words to prove and reprove the necessity of their policies, of the inevitability of perpetual war for perpetual peace, while second-and-third tier activists like William Kristol proclaim the virtues of a "benevolent world hegemony." But in the end it boils down to such vulgar matters as Halliburton's profit margins and the price of oil. In an era in which wars are fought in the name of vague and improbable ideals, such as "human rights" and "multiculturalism," it is a safe bet to follow the money. It works almost every time.”

Now, regular readers of this writer’s columns may have noticed by now a striking similarity of conclusions, based on DIFFERENT FACTS, with those Mr. Raimondo has reached.

A coincidence?  Yes.  Which is why it is all the more credible.  I’ve never in my life either seen Mr. Raimondo, nor have ever spoken or exchanged any other written messages with Mr. Raimondo.  In fact, the only reason I ever got to find out about his above piece was that a Truth in Media reader had sent it to me, having been impressed by our similarities of views and analyses.

So given such examples of “democracy,” or American vs. Serbian “demo farce,” what sort of a choice should Yugoslavia’s voters make on September 24, 2000, in the country’s first-ever direct presidential elections?

This writer has been asked that question many times, both during his eight-city “Tour de Serbia” in September 1999, and by “live” questioners attending his lectures in Serbia or elsewhere around the world since then.  Or through e-mails and/or personal communications.

I have declined to answer it.  Meaning, I refused to take sides in Serbian politics.  For now…

First, because even though I am a Belgrade-born Serb, with family roots going as far back as before the Battle of Kosovo, I have no vote in Serbia! 

I happen to think that this is an outrage.  Especially considering the shrinking population of the Serbs around the world; both through the New World Order genocidal wars and sanctions, and through the voluntary CNN-Coca-Cola-McDonald’s “melting pot” into which many young Serbs seem eager to jump.  The more, the merrier, you’d think would be the attitude by a responsible Serb government.

If the Serbs are to survive as a nation, they must learn from the Jews about the way the Diaspora is treated.  Equally!  (If not more so, since the Diaspora Jews generally wielded more economic power than any Israeli Jews.  There would have been no Israel without the Jewish Diaspora). 

Any Serb anywhere should be a Serb citizen with the same rights and privileges as those who are living within national boundaries.

Until such time that we, the Serbs in the Diaspora, are granted such right and privileges, I assert my privilege to remain mum.  In protest!

Meanwhile, I will pray to God that the nation from which I and my family have descended, is wise enough to choose its future course wisely.  And that such a future is one of the God-fearing Orthodox Christian salvation, rather than that of a materialistic New World Order pursuit of “Earthly Kingdom” rewards of the CNN-Coca-Cola-McDonald’s world.

Regardless of whether or not I, and other Serbs in the Diaspora, are granted our birthright to vote on September 24, 2000, I will pray for Serbia on that day.  Prophetically, it is the 18-month anniversary of the start of NATO’s bombing, the New Day of Infamy (March 24, 1999). 

Does Serbia need any greater omens from God about how important this vote is?


Bob Djurdjevic, founder of TRUTH IN MEDIA of Phoenix, Arizona, is an internationally published author, e-mail: 

Also see "Electoral College: Origins and History"

Back to Index of Columns...