The Washington Times
Sunday, October 26, 1997


By Bob Djurdjevic

Talk is cheap, they say. Money talks louder than words. If these two industrial world's truisms still apply, the wallets of the New World Order's money managers have spoken loudly and clearly: Russia is still the bogey!

Forget the cheap talk by the American and Russian government officials about a "partnership for peace." Partnerships like that are made in hell. They tend to lead to war, not peace, as the Hitler-Stalin pact proved in the 1930s.

The descendants of the money managers who provoked WW II are now hard at work again. Their investment decisions are telling us that democracy is for suckers. The Chinese government shot at democracy. The Russian government shot in the name of democracy. So if "ET" dropped in on Earth from outer space, he might have thought that the democratic leaders of the free world would have punished the Chinese and rewarded the Russians.

Sorry, "ET." This is Planet Earth, not Planet Hollywood. This is where Greed, not Justice, rules supreme. Shortly after the Tiananmen square massacre in June 1989, the NWO leaders opened their money bags and started showering the Chinese communist murderers with billions of dollars of "reward money."

During the 1990-1996 period, China received $158 billion in foreign investments from multinational companies, the "Princes of the 20th century," who now carry out government policy. That's about $40 million per head of the killed Chinese pro-democracy demonstrators. Being an NWO mercenary is clearly a lucrative business.

And the beat goes on. In just a single year (1996), communist China received nearly as much in foreign capital investments as had all of the democratic Eastern European countries during the 1990s - combined! ($42 billion vs. $46 billion).

China's total "reward money" is also 27 times more than the democratic Russia got during the same time frame ($5.8 billion, two thirds of it coming in the last two years), according to the just-released annual report by UNCTAD, a U.N. agency. As if such an imbalance is not alarming enough, two tiny countries - Hungary and Israel, for example - got 32 and 27 times respectively more foreign investments per capita than did Russia.

All this may be well and good for Hungary and Israel. And it certainly is terrific news for the Chinese communist leaders, the head honcho of whom is about to descend upon Washington and hit up Slick Willie and his sponsors for more money, and maybe even some of our nuclear technology.

But such an imbalance in capital distribution is bad for world peace. And it should be especially troublesome for those who still believe in the globalists' fantasy line - "world peace through world trade." With every passing year, this is becoming more illusory.

The concentration of capital, for example, has been steadily increasing, as those who talk world peace line their pockets thanks to free trade.

The "princes" of this new hierarchy are the United States, the United Kingdom (including Hong Kong) and Japanese-based multinationals. In 1996, these three countries originated more than half of the world's private foreign investments (53% of the $350 billion). During the 1985-1990 period, the three countries' corresponding share was 49%.

But that's not the full story. Since the second half of the 1980s, the total foreign investments by all multinationals have more than doubled (from $156 billion to $350 billion), thus multiplying the financial and international influence of the three biggest countries.

The top 100 multinational companies ranked by the size of their foreign assets, owned about one-fifth of the total global foreign assets in 1995 (about $1.7 trillion of $8.5 trillion). Among those, the top 25 U.S. multinationals accounted for half of the country's capital exports - a share which remained almost constant during the past four decades, according to the latest UNCTAD report.

Nor is such a concentration of capital merely a U.S. phenomenon. In six out of the nine countries for which such data is available, the top 25 multinational companies accounted for more than half of their respective countries' capital outflow.

Foreign assets and foreign sales of the world's top 100 multinationals jumped 14% and 12% respectively in 1997, to $1.70 trillion and $2.05 trillion respectively. That's seven times the average GDP growth rate of the world's six biggest developed countries.

The rate of growth of foreign investments by all multinationals during the 1986-1995 decade was more than double that of the gross fixed capital formation, according to the UNCTAD report.

Students of history will realize that this is not the first time that a concentration of capital and political power has occurred. It also happened, for example, during the heydays of the industrial revolution in England. So if we follow the lessons of history, we may avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

Arnold Toynbee, a 19th century British historian, clearly defined the Industrial Revolution in a series of lectures at Oxford University in 1880-1881. His thoughts were posthumously published in 1884, in a book entitled "Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England."

Much of what had taken place in Britain in the 18th and 19th century is now happening worldwide under the NWO banner. Over a century ago, the rich got richer; the poor got poorer. The resulting social injustices gave birth to ideologies such as Marxism and Communism. They also led to several revolutions and two world wars. Unless we reverse the course, we are facing similar prospects today.

Take the concentration of wealth, for example. In 1881, 2,512 Englishmen owned half the land in the United Kingdom, Toynbee said. During the 1980s, the top 2.5 million Americans earned as much as the bottom 100 million.

The total compensation of about 30 CEOs of major U.S. corporations surged from 44 times an average worker's wage in 1965, to 212 times in 1995, closely tracking the stock market's spectacular rise, according to a Wall Street Journal Apr/96 survey.

The share of the national wealth owned by the top one percent of Americans increased from 22% to 42% between 1979 and 1996, according to an Apr/96 speech by Congressman David Obey (D-WI).

All this means that the world, and not just the U.S., is becoming a plutocracy. And that the pace is accelerating.

After several years of boosting their investments in Eastern Europe, the multinational companies pulled back in 1996. The total investment dropped from $14 billion in 1995 to $12 billion last year. Poland was the only country to experience a substantial increase in investments (from $3.7 billion to $5.2 billion). The two former biggest recipients of foreign money - Hungary and the Czech Republic - both recorded declines in 1996, partly reflecting a drop in privatization activities in those two countries.

It is interesting, and probably not coincidental, that the three countries first picked to join an expanded NATO accounted for two-thirds of the total foreign investment in Eastern Europe during the 1990s. The fact that these investments were made ostensibly by private companies, yet that they match up so perfectly with the U.S. government policy, only goes to reinforce the notion that "The Princes of the 20th Century" are in the service of the State Department, any rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

But while pulling back in Europe, U.S. companies seem to be tripping over each other to spend money in Latin America, specially in Brazil and Argentina. As a result, Latin America's in-take of the foreign capital surged by 52% in 1996 to $39 billion, a record high. The rate of increase was also the world's highest.

As a result, Brazil has now surpassed Mexico as the largest Latin American recipient of foreign funds, having received nearly $10 billion in 1996 (vs. Mexico's $7.5 billion). The investments in Argentina tripled in 1996 to $4.3 billion.

No wonder the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said at an Aug. 13 news conference in Washington that the U.S. was planning to designate Argentina "as one of its closest allies outside of NATO" (see TiM GW Bulletin 97/8-7, 8/16/97).

Peru, Chile and Colombia were the three next biggest Latin American recipients of foreign investments - at more than $3 billion each in 1996, despite being "less than perfect" examples of democracy.

Meanwhile, the world's largest democracy - India - got only $2.6 billion in 1996, its best year ever. During the 1990-1996 period, India received five times less foreign money on a per capita basis than did even Russia, and 17 times less than China.

Contrast that with the record amounts of international funds pouring not only into communist China, but also into Singapore ($9.4 billion), Indonesia ($8 billion) or Malaysia ($5.3 billion) - all more or less autocratic regimes. Even investments in Cambodia have risen five-fold in the last two years despite the "international community's" alleged indignation vis--vis that country.

So what message are NWO money managers giving us?

If you want economic prosperity, forget democracy. Democracy is a way to appease the plebes. It is something that sounds good on the stump, not in a bank. To a money manager, a dictator who rules with an iron fist is always preferable to a leader who governs by rule of law, especially parliamentary law.

This, of course, is also the rule of the mob. Underneath the pin-striped suits, the financial elite's actions reveal their real faces.



Phoenix, Arizona

Back to Index of Columns...