PREFACE

"We have councils of Vocations, Councils of Eugenics, every possible kind of Council, including a World Council and if these do not as yet hold total power over us, is it from lack of intention?

"Some might think -though I don't -that nine years ago there was some excuse for men not to see the direction in which the world was going. Today, the evidence is so blatant that no excuse can be claimed by anyone any longer. Those who refuse to see it now are neither blind nor innocent."

Author's Foreword, Anthem
Ayn Rand, 1946

In the two years since Volume I of Trilaterals Over Washington, the “sleeping giant” has barely awakened to yawn before going back to sleep. While then hardly anybody in the U.S. had heard of the Trilateral Commission, now somewhere around 10 per cent are aware of its existence.


In spite of this increased awareness, as this Volume II will demonstrate, little has been done to curtail or forestall the rise of Trilateralism.


The authors’ view of Trilateralism and of many Trilateral Commission members has “mellowed” considerably since Volume I was written. More research, many personal contacts with members of the Commission and extensive travel have all contributed to this change.


A certain percentage of members are indeed sincere in their quest for Tri1atera1ism, albeit sincerely wrong (in the authors’ estimation). Others are not so innocent, and are quietly deceptive and misleading about their motives in creating a New Economic World Order.


We find that the Trilateral Commission, per se, is not attempting to create a world government -that is nonchalantly left to other forums and organizations, in which one finds many individual Trilateral Commissioners, but not the Trilateral Commission itself.


The Commission is dedicated to creating a New Economic World Order as opposed to a Political World Order. They cannot be directly or fairly criticized for the latter. Indirectly, of course, there are many close connections.


Neither is the Trilateral Commission a “conspiracy.” The authors have been able to secure information about the Commission without undue hardship - this book proves it. The authors do not pass judgment on the legality of any specific act of this alleged “conspiracy”; that should be left for a court or a Congressional investigation. In short, in order to properly expose the details and plans of Tri1ateralism it is not necessary or desirable to argue over what one doesn’t know. The Trilateral elite is operating in full daylight, but few are willing to say “Halt!”


Meanwhile, America continues to live in a state of fantasy, unable to discern reality amidst a myriad of surrealistic stimuli. America continues to be literally brainwashed by the electronic media, but not that it was all intended that way - to a large extent, Americans are getting exactly what they asked for!


Is America calming down to the serious business of saving the world from itself by embracing atheistic Humanism? Hardly. Americans spend more than $2.3 billion per year on tranquilizers. Of the $3.34 billion per year on the thirteen most popular medications sold, eighteen percent ($600 million) is for the tranquilizer Valium. $1.2 billion (another 36 per cent) goes for ulcer and high blood pressure medicine. Psychiatrists and psychologists are booked solid and different types of therapy cults are springing up all over. Families are being dissolved at an unprecedented rate, suicides are up and the still rising crime rate cannot be slowed.


Where is the world really headed? If you don’t at least have an opinion after reading this book, you are in serious trouble. How can you protect yourself? Consider this 3,000 year old masterpiece of wisdom:

“Do not say, ‘why is it that the former days were better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this.
Wisdom along with an inheritance is good and an advantage to those who see the sun. For wisdom is protection just as money is protection. But the advantage is that wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors. Consider the work of God, for who is able to straighten what He has bent? In the day of adversity consider -God has made the one as well as the other so that man may not discover anything that will be after him. “
 

King Solomon

Ecclesiastes Ch. 7, v. 10 -14


ENDNOTES PREFACE

1. Ayn Rand, Anthem, p. 12.
2. Ecclesiastes, Chapter 7, verses 10-14, New American Standard Bible.

Back to Contents

 


 CHAPTER ONE


INTRODUCTION


Trilaterals Over Washington -Volume II, is the continuation from Volume I of the saga of the Trilateral elite. The areas of focus in Volume II are essentially different: we delve into the philosophy of “Globalism,” new major economic developments, foreign policy and European Trilateralism.


One of the outstanding characteristics of the Trilateral Carter Administration was its pragmatic use of human rights for international elitist objectives. While Trilateral writing on human rights is scant, the Administration proclaimed to the world that it had deep concern for human rights around the world and that this concern was a basic premise of U.S. policy.
We have described in some detail how the Trilateral position on human rights is two-faced. On the one hand we present the plight of Russian Christians seeking refuge in the American Embassy in Moscow and attempts to have them returned to the dictatorship from which they were fleeing: their return will mean lengthy imprisonment as payment for their efforts to obtain human rights. On the other hand we point out the double standard with events in South Africa and Communist Hungary. Specific examples of Henry Kissinger’s use of human rights as a so-called “gambling chip” are cited.


We have clearly set forth in Chapter Two the operating “philosophy” of Trilateralism, that is, Humanism. According to the Humanist Manifesto1 (the “constitution” of Humanism), “No deity will save us: we must save ourselves.” Pointedly atheistic, Humanism-Trilateralism is spewing out “saviors” who are implementing their own self-righteous programs while thinking they are doing us a favor by preparing a brighter future for mankind. But is it so innocent? You may not think so after seeing how Humanism and Communism both were spawned from the same group in the early 1900’s. That the Trilaterals and Marxist countries can and do work together comfortably is no surprise.


Another area of concern to many Americans is the movement in schools across the country to create “global citizens” out of America’s youth, paving the way for easy and painless implementation of “interdependence.” This re-education of America is being funded by the same foundations that fund the Trilateral Commission. This is brought out in Chapter Three.
 

Chapters Four and Five take a look at the manner in which Trilateralism transcends political systems, particularly in the context of the historically erroneous theme of Capitalism versus Marxism. The broadly held idea that Capitalists are the enemies of Marxists misses the mark. The Trilateral Commission is continuing and indeed emphasizing a long-run cooperation between a segment of capitalist elitists and the emerging Marxist world. We cite, for example, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, a member of the law firm, Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett; this is the same law firm that in October 1918 prevailed upon Woodrow Wilson to recognize the then-new Soviet regime in Russia.


Chapter Five also points out some history behind groups that have dominated foreign policy since at least 1921-the latest of which is the Trilateral Commission. Historically, the most important of these is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) founded in 1920. But we should not ignore the Foreign Policy Association, the Atlantic Council and the Rockefeller Commission on Critical Choices for Americans. We show the extraordinary interlock between these organizations; for example, more than 24 percent of Trilaterals are also CFR members.


In Chapter Six we compare two examples of Trilateral foreign policy and human rights. First the case of Communist China and second the case of the Panama Canal Treaty. The Trilateral agreements with Communist China were concluded in the face of the murder of over one hundred million Chinese by the Communist regime.2


While China has possibly the worst record of genocide in history, it was overlooked for a reason similar to that in the early 1920’s when Wall Street and the European financial elite built up the USSR -profit.


Normalization of relations with China will dramatically change the economic structure of the world within a few short years as the Trilateral process exploits slave labor in China at the expense of free labor forces in the US and abroad.


The Panama Canal debacle is another case of hypocrisy and double standards. That the Panama Canal had been bought and fully paid for many years ago by the U.S. was not discussed at the Congressional hearings that led to the giving away of the Canal. Would Texans squawk if the administration unilaterally gave Texas -undisputed U.S. territory -back to Mexico?
Understatement aside, we found that of the 30 or so banks that had made rather shaky loans to Panama, one half of them had at least one


Trilateral on their board of directors. Had Panama defaulted on these loans, some major international banks would have faced financial ruin a scheme had to be implemented to restructure Panama’s debts.


So Sol Linowitz, director of Marine Midland Bank, was dispatched as “temporary” treaty negotiator (that is, his appointment did not require Senate approval). Again, profit or the fear of loss of profit dictated a solution clearly against the majority wishes of the US public, and against its security interests. The Panama Canal Treaty was conflict of interest at its utmost.
Chapter Seven details a new and major development as a direct result of normalization with China: economic trade among countries around the Pacific Ocean has dramatically outstripped its Atlantic counterpart. The Pacific Basin Institute, a think tank to monitor this booming trade and to offer policy “suggestions,” is to be located near Scottsdale, Arizona. Away from the hustle and bustle of the West Coast, PBI was proposed by Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt and Roger Lyon, president of Valley National Bank of Arizona and formerly a top executive with Chase Manhattan Bank in New York. This chapter is certainly the first critique of PBI, but was possible only because one of the authors of this book also lives in Scottsdale, Arizona and happened to see a reference to it in a local newspaper article.


The next to last chapter probes behind the 1980 presidential election. The evidence declares that Trilaterals were active in all three major campaigns. On the Democratic ticket, James Carter and Walter Mondale were both members of the Commission. Independent John Anderson was also a member. While Republican victor Ronald Reagan was not a member of the Trilateral Commission, many of his top advisors were, like Casper Weinberger, David Packard, George Weyerhaeuser, Bill Brock, Anne Armstrong and others. Two of these received major appointments.


In short, a victory for Reagan is certainly remote from a defeat for Trilateralism. Au contraire, Trilateralism will advance by leaps and bounds under a Reagan administration while a scarce few understand what is really going on.


The last chapter lightly covers European Trilateralism. While this topic could easily take several volumes in itself, we felt it was time to describe and analyze the European counterparts of Trilateralism. We show the link to the European Common Market, central banks and One Europe, and briefly describe Trilateral distribution among the different European countries.
As you may have already noticed, current and former members of the Trilateral Commission appear in bold type throughout this book.

 


ENDNOTES, CHAPTER ONE:

1. John Dewey and et.al., Humanist Manifesto I and II, p. 16.
2. Chinese Communist Document, reproduced in L’Express, November I, 1980.

Back to Contents

 


CHAPTER TWO


HUMANISM: THE GLOBAL IDEOLOGY


The word Humanism is often confused with the concept of humane-ism. In fact, however, Humanism is a secular, non-theistic (atheistic) religion that believes man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct and salvation without supernatural intervention.


Roots of modern-day Humanism go back to at least fifth century B.C. to the Greek philosopher Protagoras who said, “Man is the measure of all things.”1 During the period of the Enlightenment, philosophers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Georg Hegel (1770-1831) and slightly later Karl Marx (1818-1883), developed humanistic doctrines that have worked their way into the 20th century in the form of Humanism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Collectivism and Rationalism.


Rousseau wrote in Emile, “Only through the individual’s participation in the ‘common unity’ can full personal maturity become
possible... nature is still the norm, but one that has to be recreated, as it were, at a higher level, conferring on man a new rational unity which replaces the purely instinctive unity of the primitive state.”2 In Du Contrat Social he proposed a sort of civil religion or civic profession of faith to which every citizen after giving his free assent -must remain obedient under pain of death.3


Hegel coined the idea, “Freedom is not something merely opposed to constraint; on the contrary, it presupposes and requires restraint.”4 Like Rousseau, he contended that the individual could be “free” even when he is being coerced into it, and even though he would not like being forced, he must follow the “public will.”


Karl Marx hated Christianity, Judaism and religion in general. He stated: “Criticism of religion is the foundation of all criticism.”5 Even in his own lifetime Marx was known as a militant atheist. All of his writings were directed toward destroying the middle “bourgeois” class by means of the working class, which was to result in a classless society.


At the turn of the century, Humanism was represented in the US by the American Ethical Union (The American Civil Liberties Union ACLU -was the legal arm of the AEU.) In 1933 Humanist Manifesto I was published in The New Humanist, Vol. VI, No.3, and in 1973 Humanist Manifesto II appeared in The Humanist, Vol. XXXIII, No. 5.6


The following selected quotes from Humanist Manifesto II will give you a general idea of its content:

“As in 1933, Humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. .. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival... False ‘theologies of hope’ and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities... No deity will save us, we must save ourselves”.


“Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.”7 [Authors’ Note: This gave birth to the phrase, “if it feels good, do it.”]


“In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures unduly repress sexual conduct”.8


“We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. “


“We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. “


“The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope.”


‘Technology is the vital key to human progress and development. “


“We urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended. Destructive ideological differences among communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism should be overcome.” ‘[Humanism]... transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community. “9

Corliss Lamont is one of the most prolific writers on Humanism, and is literally “Mr. Humanism” in regard to awards, mentions, etc. in humanistic circles. Lamont authored The Philosophy of Humanism (1977) and noted “A truly Humanist civilization must be a world civilization.”10

 

He further wrote:

“Humanism is not only a philosophy with a world ideal, but is an ideal philosophy for the world... surmounting all national and sectional provincialisms, provides a concrete opportunity for overcoming the age-long cleavage between East and West. It is the philosophic counterpart of world patriotism”11

 

“The principle around which the United Nations and the International Court of Justice are organized is that the scope of national sovereignty must be curtailed and that nations must be willing to accept, as against what they conceived to be their own self-interest, the democratically arrived at decisions of the world community. “12

 

There is an extraordinary parallelism between Humanists and Marxists. Among the more obvious are:

. rejection of traditional Christianity and religion
. the necessity for subordination of the individual to state and the community
. catchwords of both Humanism and Marxism are “democracy, peace and high standard of living”
. individual rights and beliefs are non-existent
. collectivism is supreme.

CORLISS LAMONT AND THE MORGAN FINANCIAL GROUP

Corliss Lamont (previously quoted as a prime source of humanist philosophy) is the son of Thomas W. Lamont.


Let’s to back to the First World War. Thomas W. Lamont (1870-1948) was one of the original organizers of the Round Table group cited by Quigley in Tragedy and Hope.13 Lamont’s autobiography is appropriately entitled Across World Frontiers. He was not only a senior partner in J.P. Morgan & Co., but was also a director of Guaranty Trust Company, International Harvester Co. (with its Trilateral directors today) and the law firm of Lamont Corliss & Co. Thomas Lamont was a key figure in the Morgan financial group. (For further information and extensive documentation on the links between J.P. Morgan and the development of the early Soviet Union, see Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton.)


Mrs. Thomas Lamont was a member of several unusual organizations:

. Federal Union
. American-Russian Institute (on the Attorney General’s subversive list)
. National Council of American-Soviet Friendship
. American Committee for Friendship with the Soviet Union... and numerous others. (See above citation for full list.)

In short, the Lamont family epitomizes the links between:

. Humanism
. Communism
. New York financial interests

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC STUDIES

Humanism today is being “taught” throughout the business world by the Aspen Institute, particularly to the multinational corporation community. The major financiers of Aspen also are the major financiers of Trilateralism, and no less than seven members of the Trilateral Commission also serve at the Aspen Institute.

The Aspen Institute was founded in 1949 by Professor Giuseppe Borgese, Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins (both of University of Chicago) and Walter Paepcke, a Chicago businessman. In 1957, Robert O. Anderson became chairman, and has been its guiding force ever since. In 1969, chairmanship switched to Joseph E. Slater, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and formerly of the Ford Foundation. In the past the editors have reported the connections between the Rockefeller Family and the University of Chicago and also between the Ford Foundation and the Trilateral Commission.

 

The two leading foundations contributing to Aspen are Atlantic- Richfield (ARCO) and the Rockefeller Foundation. Moreover, the largest single institutional shareholder in ARCO is Chase Manhattan (4.5%) and the largest individual shareholder is Robert O. Anderson, who is also on the board of directors of Chase Manhattan Bank.


FUNDING OF ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC STUDIES - 1979 COLORADO

  • Atlantic Richfield Foundation $900,000 Long term support

  • Atlantic Richfield Foundation 250,000 Humanities & Arts Program

  • Atlantic Richfield Foundation 35,250 Environmental Program

  • Weyerhaeuser Foundation 15,000 To underwrite planning for project “Consequences of a hypothetical world climate change”

  • Rockefeller Foundation 150,000 To “bring together integrated and emerging leaders from all sectors of society to discuss and help shape policy by recommendations on contemporary issues.”

  • Rockefeller Foundation 15,000 “Cost of executive seminar on women and men in a changing society.”

  • Rockefeller Foundation 148,000 “Arms control and international security.”

     

    SEPTEMBER 1, 1980 – WASHINGTON D.C.

  • Carnegie Corporation $15,000 “Seminar series of Committee for the Third Sector”

     

    NEW YORK

  • Prudential Foundation $10,000

  • Ford Foundation 24,395 Conference on student aid policies

  • Ford Foundation 5,000 Comparative study of state judicial systems

  • Markle Foundation 220,000 “To provide forum for investigation and discussion of communication in modern society, specifically to investigate relationship between choice in programming content and increasing number of distribution
    channels for communications”

Rockefeller Brothers Fund 30,000 “Islamic Middle East program” Kettering Foundation 28,000 “Developing the CEO: educating the integrative leader” The Markle Foundation (a substantial Aspen backer) is less well known but leads us back to New York banks - in this case to the Morgan Guaranty group. Markle Foundation chairman is Charles F. Biddle, also chairman of the credit policy group of Morgan Guaranty Trust. Walter H. Page is president of Morgan Guaranty Trust and president of J.P. Morgan. Another director, William M. Rees, is a director of First National City Bank.


In short, it seems the private financing for the Aspen Institute comes from the international banks in New York City, and more specifically, from foundations controlled by Rockefeller and Morgan interests. Donors support activities which reflect their objectives.

 


PUBLIC FINANCING OF ASPEN


In Brzezinski’s book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, he wrote in reference to a proposed constitutional convention, “The needed change is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly... in keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and private institutions.”14

 

A prime Trilateral objective is to blur the distinction between “private” and “public” operations so as to divert public funds into private projects set up by Trilaterals to achieve Trilateral objectives.

A Freedom of Information Act request for information on public financing granted to Aspen was submitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities. We received the following list of NEH grants:

Ad-20009-80-1434
PI: Stephen P. Strickland
Title: Aspen Institute/ United Way Bicentennial Project Amount: $350,000 G&M (to date $90,000)
AP-00132-79-1297
PI: Robert B. McKay
Title: Development of the Justice Program
Amount: $15,000 outright
Grant Period: 11-1-76 to 6-30-80
CA-28286-77-0616
PI: Stephen Strickland/Aspen Institute
Title: Challenge Grant
Amount: $645,000
Grant Period: 11-1-76 to 6-30-8015

SUMMARY OF ASPEN INSTITUTE FUNDING

In brief, Aspen Institute has been funded from the following sources, taking 1979 as a representative year:

  • U.S. Taxpayer (via National Endowment for the Humanities) $1,010,000

  • Atlantic Richfield Foundation 1,186,250

  • Rockefeller Foundation 343,000

  • Markle Foundation (Morgan financial interests) 220,000

  • Other Foundations 97,000

The key point to note is the heavy representation of donations that have also financed Trilateralism: these include Weyerhaeuser, Rockefeller, Ford and Kettering.

 


THE ASPEN EXECUTIVE SEMINAR PROGRAM


While central offices of Aspen are in New York City, it has “centers of activity” (i.e. seminar and housing facilities) in Washington, D.C., Cambridge, Princeton, New Haven, Boulder, Hawaii, Tokyo and Berlin.


According to an Aspen publication:

“The idea behind the Aspen Institute has three essential ingredients: to gather thoughtful men and women around the table, not across the table; to explore the power of ideas in great literature stretching from ancient to contemporary time, and to translate ideas into policies and actions that meet the challenge of our age.
 

“In view of the rapidly increasing worldwide activities of the Institute, its international Board of Trustees and key staff act on the Institute’s long-standing principle to maintain absolute control over the selection of individual participants and their mix in all its meetings, the locations at which its meetings are held, as well as the subjects to be discussed. “16

At these meetings, a hotchpotch of corporate executives, military people, intellectuals and media personages “mingle” and become “educated,” typically for a period of two weeks at a time. This subtle form of brainwashing on global affairs is coupled with the breaking down of hard line principled positions through peer pressure. As Wilbur Mills once said, “To get along you have to go along.”

 

This is quite successful. For example, Newsweek reports that Bill Moyers (a special adviser to Aspen Institute) has drawn more than ten of his Public Broadcasting Service programs from contacts and ideas developed at Aspen.17 PBS is supported by many of the same foundations that support the Aspen Institute and Trilateralism in addition to large amounts of public money (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, etc.). Once again we observe a “blurring” of institutions where elitists combine their money with public financing to achieve their own ends and spread their global propaganda.

 


THE FUND FOR GOVERNANCE


According to the Institute’s A Brief Overview:

“...the Institute is undertaking a sustained examination of crucial issues of Governance: how societies and their
governments and institutions, public and private, national and international, can better respond to the often conflicting pressures for social justice, fairness, efficiency and individual freedom. Under this broad theme of Governance, the Institute focuses on such subjects as Financing the Future; Human Rights; The Corporation and Society; Energy; A Challenge to Governance; Tradition and Modernization; The First 20 Years of Life; Ethics; Religion and Governance; Work, Industrial Policy and Society; and Structures for Peace.


While these issues of Governance will be pursued throughout the year and around the globe, the preeminent setting for the dealing with Governance questions is the Institute’s newly acquired Wye Plantation outside of Washington, D. C. “18

Why should the Aspen Institute undertake this program? It merely quotes from Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”19 Apparently the Institute equates itself with the “good men.”


The Institute proposes to raise about $15 million for operating capital for this project. An annual budget of at least $1.2 million will provide a staff of senior fellows and consultants (about $450,000 per year) with workshops, seminars and consultative sessions and publications costing about $600,000 a year.


The Atlantic Richfield Company provided the first grant of $1 million and it is anticipated that another $3 million will be raised from corporations and foundations. As much as $6 million could come from public funds - either congressional appropriations or through the National Endowment for the Humanities grants.


Some of the participants in this program will not surprise you:

Harlan Cleveland, John Gardner, Trilateral Henry Kissinger, Marion Doenhoff and Pehr Gyllenhammar.

Without question, this Aspen program is a well-funded attack on Constitutional America.

 


CONCLUSIONS

. Humanism is a man-centered, atheistic religion inconsistent with and indeed utterly opposed to traditional Christianity, Biblical theology or Orthodox Judaism.

. The philosophy has been nurtured and promoted by the same group of globalists that nurtures and supports communism.
. Humanism is intimately connected with Trilateralism, and calls for the elimination of nationalism and nationalistic boundaries.
. Trilateral-style Humanism is procreated primarily by The Aspen Institute, and is funded by taxpayers’ money as well as by private foundation and corporate funds.


ENDNOTES: CHAPTER TWO

1. Protagoras, Protagoras IV, 51.
2. J.J. Rousseau, Emile.
3. ---, Du Contrat Social.
4. Paul Edwards, Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
5. Ibid.,
6. Both of these Manifestos are available from Prometheus Books, 923 Kensington Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14215.
7. John Dewey et al, Humanist Manifesto I and II, p. 14-16.
8. Ibid., p. 17, 18.
9. Ibid., p. 21-23.
10. Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, p. 281.
11. Ibid., p. 282, 283.
12. Ibid., p. 257, 258.
13. Ibid.
14. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, p.259.
15. Report of Financing Granted to Aspen Institute, National Endowment for the
Humanities, 14th report (1979).
16. The Aspen Institute: a Brief Overview, Aspen Institute.
17. Eric Gelman, The Great American Salon, Newsweek XCVI (July 14, 1980), p. 66.
18. Aspen Institute, Op. Cit.
19. Edmund Burke, Letter to William Smith, January 9, 1795.

Back to Contents