items. This meant, of c o u r s e — a s it did in the case of L e n d L e a s e — t h a t the A m e r i c a n t a x p a y e r h a d to m a k e up the difference.
The Soviets w e r e not e v e n required to h a v e the m o n e y to b u y these goods. A m e r i c a n financial institutions, the federal g o v e r n m e n t , a n d international agencies w h i c h are largely
is little m o r e than a thinly disguised m e a n s by which m e m b e r s of the R o u n d Table w h o direct o u r national policies h a v e bled
This enables those regimes to enter into contracts w i t h A m e r i c a n businessmen to p r o v i d e essential services. A n d the circle is c o m -
plete:
1. Anthony C. Sutton,
THE BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY
297
This is the key to understanding the transfusion mechanism.
Many Americans have looked at this process and have jumped to the conclusion that there must be a nest of Communist agents within our government. In an exam on reality politics, they would receive half credit for that answer. Yes, there undoubtedly have been, and continue to be, Red agents and sympathizers burrowed deep into our government woodwork, and they are all too happy to help the process along. But the main motive force has always come from the non-Communist, non-Democratic Socialist, non-American, non
These men are incapable of genuine patriotism. They think of themselves, not as citizens of any particular country, but as citizens of the world. They can do business just as easily with bloodthirsty dictatorships as with any other government—especially since they are assured by the transfer mechanism that the American taxpayer is going to make good on the deal.
When David Rockefeller was asked about the propriety of
providing funding for Marxist and Communist countries which are openly hostile to the United States, he responded: 'I don't think an international bank such as ours ought to try to set itself as a judge about what kind of government a country wishes to have.'
Wishes to have? He was talking about Angola where the
Marxist dictatorship was
Thomas Theobald, Vice President of Citicorp, was asked in 1981
about his bank's loans to Poland. Was he embarrassed by making loans to a Communist country, especially following the regime's brutal repression of free-trade unions? Not at all. 'Who knows which political system works?' he replied. 'The only test we care about is, can they pay their bills.' What he meant, of course, was can the
ITEM: The following item, taken directly from the
been using federal funds to repay Polish loans owed to U.S. banks, and the bill for this fiscal year may amount to $400 million, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Richard E. Lyng said Monday.... 'They (the Polish authorities) have not been making payments for at least the last 298 THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND
half of the last year,' Lyng said. 'When they don't make a payment, the U.S. Department of Agriculture makes a payment.'...
Lyng said the U.S. Government paid $60 million to $70 million a month on guaranteed Polish loans in October, November, December, and January—and 'we will continue to pay them.'1
This, remember, was precisely at the time the Polish government had declared martial law and was using military force to crush workers' demonstrations for political reform. The Polish default on this $1.6 billion loan was by no means an isolated event.
Communist Rumania and a multitude of Latin American countries were soon to follow.
The hard fact is that American taxpayers unknowingly have been making monthly bank payments on behalf of Communist, socialist, and so-called Third-World countries for many years. And, with the more recent staging of