Look at the Jeffrey Sachs-style “HarvardrnCapitalism,” which many Russiansrnnowadays justifiably regard as “HarvardrnCommunism.” In a typical Russian enterprisernprivatized under the Harvardprescribedrn”voucher” system, 46 percentrnof the (grossly understated) value went tornworkers, five percent to management, 29rnpercent was sold at cash auctions, andrnthe remaining 20 percent was left in thernstate’s hands. As Anne Williamson wroternin How America Built the New RussianrnOligarchy, this meant that “the state’srnshareholding dwarfed others’ claims, andrntherefore, was still the controlling shareholderrnof any ‘privatized’ Russian asset.”rnOh, but the public now gets a chancernto buy shares in the companies being privatized,rnsome will argue. True, butrnmostiy at inflated prices. For stock marketrntrading, where the New World Orderrnarchitects “coincidentally” chose tornplace the privatized public assets, is conductedrnby institutions owned by this veryrnelite. They even get the first crack to buyrn”public assets” at fire-sale prices. By therntime we, the public, the former ownersrn—now disowned by the corrupt politiciansrn—get to bid on such privatized assets,rnit is usually at inflated prices. Plusrnwe pay a commission, of course, to therntiansnationalists’ institutions.rnThis plunder of national assets underrnthe guise of “privatization” and “reform”rnis occurring around the world. For example,rnLatin America’s intake of foreignrncapital rose in 1996 by 52 percent to $39rnbillion, the highest increase in the worldrnand a record high for this continent. Investmentsrnin Argentina tripled in 1996 torn$4.3 billion. If one compares these figuresrnto the less than $1 billion per yearrnwhich Russia averaged in the I990’s, onernwould think that Latin Americans arernbasking in prosperity. Not so.rnCarlos Saul Menem, elected presidentrnof Argentina in 1989, has ruled likerna czar, issuing over 300 decrees, accordingrnto a recent article in Foreign Affairs.rnMenem’s globalization of the Argentinerneconomy—meaning the sale of stateownedrnassets to foreign interests —hasrncaused millions of Argentineans to becomernexiles in their own country. In thernprovince of Jujuy, for example, some 42rnpercent of the people are unemployed orrndoing menial work, according to BishoprnMarcelo Palentini. “They used to ask forrnraises; now they ask for jobs,” he told thernNew York Times. YPF, a former stateownedrnArgentinean oil company, usedrnto employ 5,000 people. It now has onlyrn500 employees. But YPF made a $900rnmillion profit in 1996, delighting its foreignrnowners.rn”Menem thinks that by putting ourrncountry at the service of the InternationalrnMonetary Fund, he brought us intornthe First World,” said Carlos Santillan, arnunion leader in Jujuy. “But workers havernlost in a few years rights they fought forrnover a century. We’re a colony here. Allrnthat is missing is to have Clinton comernhere and plant the American flag.”rnBut Clinton won’t have to disgracernour flag any more than he has alreadyrndone, because the “Princes” do it forrnhim. At the Wal-Mart store in BuenosrnAires, an Argentine flag flutters over arnsign reading, “Proudly in Argentina.”rn”What is clear is that it is changing thernArgentine way of life: families buy theirrnbicycles here, sometimes using dollars;rnthe corner bicycle store is no more,” thernNew York Times reported. Wherever thernAmerican dollar is the currency ofrnchoice, the “Princes of the 20th Century”rnhave claimed yet another colony.rnAs the multinationals drove many ofrnArgentina’s small entrepreneurs outrnof business, some of the Americanrnglobalist elite—Ted Turner, GeorgernSoros, Sylvester Stallone, ArnoldrnSchwarzenegger, and others —havernmoved in and taken over the lands whererngauchos once freely roamed. “There arernmore fences going up in Patagonia as therninternationally wealthy install themselvesrnon newly acquired estates,” thernNew York Times reported. “I used to gornand camp or fish but now I hear that TedrnTurner is here, Rambo there, the Terminatorrnsomewhere else. And I say, no, thisrnis not my Argentina,” said OrlandornMendes, a local resident.rnForeign investors are not impervious,rnhowever, to the risks of “divided societies,”rnas the New York Times refers tornBrazil, Argentina’s bigger neighborrnwhich has until recentiy mostly resistedrnthe globalization pressures. But Brazilrnhas now surpassed Mexico as the largestrnrecipient of foreign investments—nearlvrn$10 billion in 1996 vs. Mexico’s $7.5 billion.rnYet in early 1998, five Wal-Martrnstores in Brazil were attacked and robbedrnby assailants armed with assault rifles.rnSuch social unrest was Brazil’s “reward”rnfor opening its doors to foreign capital,rnjust as has been the case in Russia andrnother developing countries.rnSo what are we to conclude from all ofrnthis? Where the “Princes” tread, crime,rnmiserv, and social unrest soon follow.rnJust like when the elite of the IndustrialrnRevolution dislocated and enslaved thernformerly independent farmers. “So, thernmore things change, the more they stayrnthe same”?rnNot quite. Sometimes they get worse.rnThe imbalance in capital investmentsrnbetween China and Russia, for example,rnis bad news for world peace. The factrnthat such political instability is beingrncaused dehberately makes a mockeryrnof the globalists’ line —”world peacernthrough world trade.” On the contiary, arnstate of low-grade perpetual war seems tornbe what Big Business wants.rnWhy? To answer that question, let’srnmove on to the Balkans and the MiddlernEast. In the Balkans, American policiesrnhave stoked the fires of war, which led tornthe greatest human and material carnagernin Europe since World War II. Since thernAmerican-imposed “peace” agreementrnsigned in Dayton, Ohio, in Novemberrn1995, 98 percent of foreign investmentrnhas ended up in the Muslim-Croat federation.rnThe Serbian half of Bosnia gotrnonly two percent of foreign aid. So thernwar against the Orthodox ChristianrnSerbs continues. It’s just that money hasrnreplaced the bombs as the weapon ofrnchoice.rnNow, which will be the first countryrnwhere NATO will be deployed? Answer:rnBosnia! In fact, NATO has already beenrndeployed in Bosnia for about five years,rnhowever surreptitiously. And it is therernto stay. Just as American troops never leftrnthe Arab lands after the Gulf War.rnThe similarities between Americanrnactions in both areas are striking. Anotherrnsmall country, another “hot” region ofrnthe world, another opportunity for thernWest (America in particular) to flex itsrnmuscles.rnThe United States built up SaddamrnHussein’s military capabilities in thern1980’s. During the Iraq-Iran war, for example,rnthe United States and GreatrnBritain supplied Iraq with most of the terriblernweapons of mass destruction. ThernFrench and the Germans also pitchedrnin. 7nd then, Iraq suddenly becomes arnbogey in 1990. If peace in the MiddlernEast were indeed the objective of thernNew World Order leaders, the Gulf Warrntroops could have easily taken Baghdadrnand dislodged Saddam Hussein in 1991.rnBut no, George Bush decided to savernSaddam for another President to use as arnpunching bag.rnWhy would the New World Orderrnleaders want perpetual low-grade wars?rnAUGUST 1998/47rnrnrn