Letters from Vienna #94
One of the things which confused me most about the events at Waco in 1993, which I touched upon briefly in my last letter, was that the narrative kept changing. Initially it was reported, or at least that’s my recollection, that four ATF agents had been shot and killed. Then they hadn’t, then they had. Only much later was it alleged that all four hadn’t been ATF agents at all but rather former bodyguards of Bill Clinton; they’d seen too much and needed to be silenced.
I became so confused that I grew bored and resigned myself to the fact that I’d never really know for sure what had actually happened. For decades I accepted the official narrative, which remains the one Wikipedia still trots out today:
“The incident began when the ATF attempted to serve a search and arrest warrant on the ranch. An intense gunfight erupted, resulting in the deaths of four government agents and six Branch Davidians. Upon the ATF’s entering of the property and failure to execute the search warrant, a siege lasting 51 days was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out of the ranch. Shortly thereafter, the Mount Carmel Center became engulfed in flames. The fire resulted in the deaths of 76 Branch Davidians, including 25 children, two pregnant women, and David Koresh.”[1]
After watching two documentaries about the topic and one about the Clintons (see footnotes to letter #93) I’ve since revised my opinion. I now consider Waco an example of diabolical, cold-blooded mass murder and an early attempt to impose Fascist control on society.
Retrospectively I regard 1993 as a turning point and as one of the last times when there was a genuine struggle within the MSM (main stream media) between the forces of truth and light and those of lies and darkness. Sadly, the latter have since triumphed.
This is by no means accidental. It has become, over time, ridiculously easy (even without the help of the “Mighty Wurlitzer” “Operation Mockingbird” or “MK Ultra”) to control the narrative. As Herman and Chomsky reported: in 1983 there were fifty firms which dominated the mass media, by 1990 that number had halved and by 2002 only nine remained.[2] And of those publications which survived many unkind words need to be said.
As David Rockefeller put it in 1991: “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years.”[3]
The diabolical plan, which we’re currently experiencing: mass genocide and the enslavement of humanity, is currently in full swing and the media has played a key role in it. Yet this collaboration is nothing new. Nowhere was it more evident than in Yugoslavia.
The main stream media failed to report the various steps taken to dismantle Yugoslavia (see “To Kill a Nation” by Michael Parenti)[4]. Perhaps more telling still was the campaign to demonize Slobodan Milošević and “Serbian nationalism”. As Diane Johnstone points out: it was neither Slobodan Milošević nor “Serbian nationalism”, which were the root causes of the evil.
“Multiparty elections” she tells us “were held for the first time in 1990 in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Genuine nationalist parties won those elections. Franjo Tudjman’s party was clearly the party of Croatian nationalism. Muslim, Serb and Croat nationalist parties dominated the parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In contrast, the genuine Serbian nationalist party, Vojislav Šešelj’s Serbian Radical Party, came in far behind Slobodan Milošević’s Socialist Party. The voters of Serbia rejected nationalism.”[5]
Perhaps one of the best examples of the official narrative I know of, of the lies and obfuscation propagated by the Establishment, is: “Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation” by Laura Silber and Allan Little. In it the authors state: “The war in Yugoslavia was not the international community’s fault. The war was planned and waged by Yugoslavs. It was not historically inevitable. To attribute the calamity that engulfed the peoples of Yugoslavia to unstoppable forces is to avoid addressing oneself to the central dynamic of the war. It is also to let the guilty off the hook. And, it also provides a justification for the failure of the West, for so long, to intervene with sufficient will and vigor to end the war.”[6]
Yet even this questionable tome contradicts itself, especially when it comes to the vexed question of Bosnia. “By dawn on March 2, 1992, Sarajevo had been transformed into a menacing labyrinth. Serb leaders claimed the barricades were spontaneous, erected in retaliation for a gangland-style attack on a Serb wedding party, in which the groom’s father-in-law was shot dead and an Orthodox priest wounded. “This shot,” said Momcilo Krajisnik, a Serb, who was Speaker of the Bosnian Parliament, “was a great injustice aimed at the Serb people.”[7] Even this volume points out that the first shots came from Muslims. Similarly, as Diane Johnston makes clear: the first massacres in the Croatian-Serbian dispute were perpetrated by Croats.
“After the fall of the JNA (Yugoslav National Army) garrison in 1991, a number of Serb citizens, fearing for their safety, left the town, but were persuaded to return by Croatian authorities, who guaranteed their security. Shortly thereafter, in late September 1991, over 120 Gospic Serbs, including prominent professors and judges, were abducted and murdered, their bodies destroyed or hidden.”[8]
Silber and Little also make clear that the nationalism (or more exactly: fundamentalism) started with the Muslims: “The Muslims were first, establishing the Party of Democratic Action (SDA) in Sarajevo on May 26, 1990, as a “political alliance of Yugoslav citizens belonging to Muslim cultural and historical traditions.” A prominent Muslim intellectual and lawyer by training, Alija Izetbegovic, with clear blue eyes and broad cheekbones, became the party’s first leader.”[9] What the authors fail to mention however is that Izetbegovic was a profoundly corrupt fanatic who was willing to sacrifice the lives of Bosnians, roughly half of whose population was Serb, to his own personal ends.
Already in the 1970s Izetbegovic was thinking in terms of ethnic cleansing: “Even though the Muslims are the most numerous nation in the republic” he claimed, “there are not enough of them...they would have to comprise about seventy percent of the population.”[10]
And it was not the extremist Izetbegovic but rather the moderate Abdic who was elected head of the SDA: “Fikret Abdic, a local hero in the far northwestern corner of Bosnia, received 1,010,618 votes, compared to 847,386 for Izetbegovic.” Yet in an “unexplained deal” it was the latter who became president.[11]
Furthermore, Izetbegovic didn’t disguise his intention to initiate violence: “On February 27, 1991, Izetbegovic told Parliament he was prepared to fight to secure Bosnia’s sovereignty. “I would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina, but for that peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina I would not sacrifice sovereignty.”[12] This was despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bosnians didn’t want war. The Serbs, by contrast, were reasonable pragmatists: “The Serb leadership insisted on the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina into ethnic regions as the best way to avoid an all-out civil and religious war.”[13] Curiously enough such an obvious solution is damned by Silber and Little: “The absurdity of this proposal was obvious – any partition of Bosnia was a certain recipe for war.” A Swiss canton approach was the correct solution yet it was rejected in favour of an illusory “sovereignty”, something Bosnia couldn’t nor wouldn’t achieve; it remains to this day a vassal state of the “international community”.
In December 1991 “Izetbegovic went to the local JNA (Yugoslav National Army) sector commander Vojislav Djurdjevac to tell him that he’d decided to seek independence. The grey-haired General looked at him and asked if Alija intended to declare a civil war. For Djurdjevac, independence was a declaration of war. The JNA seemed to believe that Izetbegovic might change his mind. Top generals made several trips trying to threaten – and cajole – him into keeping Bosnia in Yugoslavia.”[14] As it turned out: Djurdjevac was right.
Milošević correctly pointed out that Izetbegovic was not a little insane: “He joked to Karadzic that the demented Roman Emperor Caligula had declared his horse a senator, but that it had never become one. He said the same applied to Izetbegovic, who had international recognition but no state.”[15]
“Under pressure from the EC mediators, the three (Muslim, Serb and Croat) leaders agreed to recognize the existing external borders of Bosnia. They also endorsed the formation of national territorial units within Bosnia. The first represented a compromise by the Serb and Croat parties because it committed them to the preservation of a Bosnian state. The second agreement was remarkable. It was a complete turnaround for Alija Izetbegovic who, until then, had rejected any division along ethnic lines. Karadzic and his Croat counterpart, Mate Boban, enthusiastically welcomed Izetbegovic’s concession.”[16]
Yet Izetbegovic abandoned peace and “there were later allegations that Warren Zimmermann, the US ambassador to Yugoslavia, urged him to abandon the agreement.”[17]
In the same way that the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia (which were both run by nationalists) triggered war so the recognition of Bosnia as a (Muslim fundamentalist) “sovereign state” was disastrous. In short: one has no choice but to accept the disagreeable fact that the “international community” bears the brunt of the responsibility for what transpired.
Given that Izetbegovic was willing to “sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina” it should hardly surprise that he was capable of instigating the Markale Massacres of 1994 and 1995. Yet despite the fact that all the evidence pointed in the direction of the Muslim forces the Western media steadfastly blamed the Serbs and continues to do to this day. According to Wikipedia:
“The Markale market shelling or Markale massacres were two separate bombardments, with at least one of them confirmed to have been carried out by the Army of Republika Srpska,
targeting civilians during the siege of Sarajevo in the Bosnian War. They occurred at the Markale (marketplace) located in the historic core of Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
“The first occurred on 5 February 1994; 68 people were killed and 144 more were wounded by a 120-millimetre (4.7 in) mortar. The second occurred on 28 August 1995 when five mortar shells launched by Army of Republika Srpska killed 43 people and wounded 75 others. The latter attack was the alleged reason for NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb forces that would eventually lead to the Dayton Peace Accords and the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
“The responsibility of the Army of Republika Srpska for the first shelling is contested, since investigations to establish the location from where the shells had been fired led to ambiguous results. It was claimed that the Bosnian army had actually shelled its own people in order to provoke intervention of Western countries on their side. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in its appeal judgement of Stanislav Galić in 2006 summarized the evidence and ruled that the conclusion that the shells had been fired from a location occupied by Serb forces was a reasonable one; nevertheless, Radovan Karadžić during his trial before ICTY tried to use this claim to his defence but was found guilty.”[18]
“Enough facts” Peter Brock tells us “interfered with what was reported as the “truth” behind the Markale market bombing on February 5, 1994, when the media ignored the fact that Bosnian Serbs had already commenced the withdrawal of heavy artillery and troops from around Sarajevo.”
“Unmentioned was that the pullback had been previously achieved through persuasion by Russian negotiators, and all parties in the war were on the brink of signing a peace agreement because disgruntled British and French leaders were threatening to pull out their large U.N. peacekeeping units.”
“Suddenly, the market explosion was touched off. The Serbs had nothing to gain but were blamed anyway. Munitions experts from Israel, France, Russia, the U.S. and elsewhere said the supposed explosion from a single mortar round could not have occurred as the headlines and news stories described. Even the Pentagon had argued that that it came from the Muslims, who fired on their own people to provoke airstrikes.”[19]
Of the attack in 1995 Brock writes: “There was more than casual skepticism about the bizarre mortar attack that occurred in Sarajevo on August 28, 1995. There were immediate cynics who noticed the similar pattern of deliberate media omissions about accountability for the suspicious incident, which occurred less than a hundred yards from its bloody predecessor –also fired by Bosnian Muslims but blamed on Bosnian Serbs – at the Markale market on February 5 1994.”
“The August 1995 blast killed thirty-seven-people – again just before an important diplomatic initiative – and touched off the huge NATO retaliation and political extortion:”
“The attack came just as the negotiating team, led by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, arrived today in Pars for talks intended to reactivate the peace process.”
“Bosnian government negotiators threatened a walkout in Paris unless NATO immediately punished the Bosnian Serbs.”
“But a report from Reuters – distributed four days later and significantly re-edited and shortened when published by the International Herald Tribune on September 4 – received little play in the American press and other major media. Around-the-clock-bombings of Bosnian Serbs had commenced and drowned out the alarm sounded by a Russian colonel assigned to the UNPROFOR (United Nations Protection Force) in Sarajevo.”
“Colonel Andrei Demurenko, an artillery specialist, had performed his own investigation of the August 28 explosion and determined, in the startling break with the UN findings, that the Serbs were not responsible:”
“It is extremely rare for a UN officer, particularly one of Colonel Demurenko’s rank, to publicly disagree on an issue of such importance… (He) said his own technical analysis had shown that a 120 mm mortar bomb could not have come from Bosnian Serbian positions.”[20]
Given the fact that false flags, such as 9/11, have played and continue to play such a vital role in our lives (it is a fair assumption that the recent Ukrainian attack on Poland was a false flag designed to provoke World War Three) it’s profoundly regrettable that the main stream media has acquired the profoundly evil and corrupt practice of lying about them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
[2] p.14 Manufacturing Consent, Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky
[3] https://cognitive-liberty.online/david-rockefeller-thanks-the-media/
[5] p.18 Fool’s Crusade, Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Diana Johnstone
[6] p.25 Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation, Laura Silber and Allan Little
7 p.219 Ibid
[8] p.29 Fool’s Crusade, Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Diana Johnstone
[9] p. 221 Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation, Laura Silber and Allan Little
[10] p.222 Ibid
[11] p.225 Ibid
[12] Ibid
[13] p.228 Ibid
[14] p.231 Ibid
[15] p.232 Ibid
[16] p.233 Ibid
[17] Ibid
[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markale_massacres
[19] p. 179 Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting – Journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia, Peter Brock
[20] p.23 Ibid