"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
In spite of this increased awareness, as this Volume II will
demonstrate, little has been done to curtail or forestall the rise
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
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
“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. “
Ecclesiastes Ch. 7, v. 10 -14
1. Ayn Rand, Anthem, p. 12.
2. Ecclesiastes, Chapter 7, verses 10-14, New American Standard
Back to Contents
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
Back to Contents
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
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
replaces the purely instinctive unity of the primitive state.”2 In
Contrat Social he proposed a sort of civil religion or civic
faith to which every citizen after giving his free assent -must
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
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
(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
. 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:
. 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.
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
Rockefeller Foundation 15,000 “Cost of executive seminar on women
and men in a changing society.”
Rockefeller Foundation 148,000 “Arms control and international
SEPTEMBER 1, 1980 – WASHINGTON D.C.
Carnegie Corporation $15,000 “Seminar series of Committee for the
Prudential Foundation $10,000
Ford Foundation 24,395 Conference on student aid policies
Ford Foundation 5,000 Comparative study of state judicial
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
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
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:
PI: Stephen P. Strickland
Title: Aspen Institute/ United Way Bicentennial Project Amount:
$350,000 G&M (to date $90,000)
PI: Robert B. McKay
Title: Development of the Justice Program
Amount: $15,000 outright
Grant Period: 11-1-76 to 6-30-80
PI: Stephen Strickland/Aspen Institute
Title: Challenge Grant
Grant Period: 11-1-76 to 6-30-8015
SUMMARY OF ASPEN INSTITUTE FUNDING
In brief, Aspen Institute has been funded from the following
taking 1979 as a representative year:
U.S. Taxpayer (via National
Endowment for the Humanities)
Atlantic Richfield Foundation 1,186,250
Rockefeller Foundation 343,000
Markle Foundation (Morgan financial
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,
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
“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
. 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
. 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.
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.
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