Analysts are predicting that the 1980 Reagan presidential election will be a boon for Western states, particularly California. These claims are not unreasonable, for Reagan will naturally sympathize with Western issues much more than Carter did. Conversely, Carter clearly favored some Southern states during his administration.

But things were already shifting westward, well before Reagan and Bush (from the Southwest) were elected. For instance Alden Clausen, the chairman of San Francisco-based Bank of America, was appointed by Carter (with Reagan’s tacit approval) to head the World Bank. Another example is Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt’s invitations to join the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations in mid 1980.

While traditionally Westerners have stayed aloof from the Eastern Establishment, it seems that the Eastern Establishment is moving in on the West. Western Trilaterals, notably David Packard, George Weyerhaeuser, Caspar Weinberger and others, have grown rapidly in national and international prominence and influence as a result of this transition.

There is a reason for this shift in power, and as always, it is related to economic trade and profits.

In 1979 the dollar amount of US trade with Pacific Basin countries outstripped trade done with Atlantic nations. (This refers to the countries that border the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, respectively.) One major reason for this is the rapidly expanding Japanese economy; for instance, Japan recently surpassed the US in auto production. The boom in the electronics industry in Taiwan, Korea and other oriental countries is also expanding every month.

To multinational elitists, the hope of the future lies in Mainland (Communist) China, with its 800 million population and virtual slave labor market. There is interest in selling goods and services to the Chinese population, of course, but the potential for making goods in China for export to the rest of the world is overwhelming. Low cost department stores in the US are already carrying Chinese made textile goods that are priced thirty per cent or more below any other brands.

China will be a profit bonanza for the multinationals, but a depression for American labor forces who cannot possibly compete with the Chinese wage market. Indeed, China proves to become the great “equalizer” between the “haves” and “have-nots” in the world.

International interest is high also. In February 1980 Business Week reported:

“Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira is being urged by some of his liberal, English-speaking advisors to take the initiative in setting up a Pacific Community, modeled on the European Economic Community... The Japanese, enthusiastic about the Pacific Community idea, have set up a meeting in Canberra, Australia, this fall to discuss the project. “1

In May 1980, one of the first steps in that direction took place with the response of the Pacific Basin Economic Council (which met in Australia) to a proposed think tank. On May 15, 1980, the Arizona Republic reported the following story which was not seen elsewhere.


It quoted a prospectus of that planned think tank, the Pacific Basin Institute:

“’The Pacific Basin Institute will be a private, nonprofit research center serving as a focal point for the business communities of North America, South America and Asia, with special emphasis on applied studies concerning trade, investment and economic development in the Pacific Region.

“’PBI is strategically located in Arizona, which borders Mexico and is the center of the most dynamic growth area in the United States.

“’The Southwestern site offers easy accessibility for Pacific Basin leaders of business, government and education to come together in an ideal climate with excellent resorts and meeting facilities.’

“The proposed research center is the brainchild of Mallery, who refused to comment on the results of the trip to Australia.

“Gov. Bruce Babbitt, who said Phoenix business and government leaders have been working intensively on the idea for a year, said the prospects of the research center becoming a reality look favorable.

“’Arizona must get into the arena of international trade on a large scale,’ he [Babbitt] said. ‘It must have the academic and research capacity to underpin that kind of effort. That’s what this is all about.

“’The underlying philosophy behind the concept is to look at the Pacific Basin region for data gathering and economic decision-making in partnership with business and government,’ he said.

“The prospectus says a site for the center ‘has been donated and sufficient financing has been committed to construct and operate the facility.’

“...The prospectus says the business activity and financial affairs of the institute would be directed by a board of trustees made up of 45 persons ‘who hold business, government and academic positions is throughout the Pacific region.’ “

This sounds similar to many other elite organizations that desire to make decisions for the rest of the world, but would be of little consequence if the people involved were of little consequence.

The others involved with PBI were revealed in the same article:

“The Pacific Basin Economic Council, a federation of private-sector businessmen representing 20 countries, including Canada, Japan, China and New Zealand, met in Sydney, Australia, last week and responded ‘very positively’ to the concept, said Larry Landry, director of the state [Arizona] Office of Economic Planning and Development.

“Landry, along with Phoenix lawyer Richard Mallery and Roger Lyon, president of Valley National Bank, went to Australia last week to gain acceptance of the proposed Pacific Basin Institute...2

The four principals here are Larry Landry, Richard Mallery, Roger Lyon and Bruce Babbitt.

Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt’s appointment to the Trilateral Commission coincided with the announcement of PBI. Babbitt is an old-line Arizona Democrat with direct ties to Washington. He received his degree from Harvard Law School, but only after receiving an advanced degree in geology. He was the only public official appointed by Carter to the Kemeny Commission (which investigated the Three Mile Island Incident) and later Carter named him to chair the Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee on May 7, 1979.

As head of the Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development Department, Larry Landry serves directly under Babbitt. Richard Mallery is part of Babbitt’s tight-knit “Kitchen Cabinet”, all of whom were classmates at Harvard. Mallery is described by the March 2, 1980 Arizona Republic as,

”A partner in the prestigious Snell and Wilmer law firm. . . shuns active involvement in the Democratic Party. He is viewed as non-partisan, moves well in both party circles and is more concerned about issues than party dogma.”3

Roger A. Lyon however, reveals the most interesting back ground. Lyon is president of Valley National Bank of Arizona, the 28th largest bank in the country and the largest in the Rocky Mountain Region. The largest individual shareholder in VNB is investment banker J.P. Morgan & Co. of New York, with a whopping 4.2% of VNB’s outstanding shares.

In late 1980, Lyon was elected to serve as chairman of the powerful Western Regional Council, which represents “40 of the largest corporations, banks, utilities and other businesses in the Western States,” according to the Arizona Republic.


Lyon had this to say about Western regional interests:

“We are different from the water, clean air, our vistas, national parks, wildernesses, recreation we have different values and standards. We have to convince Washington and the rest of the country of that. “4

Few asked how Lyon happened to come to Arizona. From 1950 to 1976 (26 years), Lyon served at David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank in New York! Lyon is the third generation of a banking family from New Jersey.

It would appear that Lyon has renounced the East for the sake of Western living, but one might remember the old proverb about a leopard changing its spots.

After analyzing the people who promoted Pacific Basin Institute through the Australian conference, we can see a heavyweight connection to the Trilateral elite and a typical modus operandi. PBI will have a membership similar to the Trilateral Commission: academics, politicians and multinational corporation “heads of state.” Its goal appears similar as well: to foster economic cooperation and trade.

Certainly Pacific Basin Institute is neither a copy nor replacement of the Trilateral Commission. Far from it. More likely it is the result of the same Trilateral policy that opened China up in the first place. Remember, all five of the original China negotiators (who worked in secret and included Carter), were current or former members of the Trilateral Commission. China is exclusively a Trilateral phenomenon.

Pacific Basin Institute is seen to be the natural extension of that phenomenon. It is certainly something to watch in the future.

It should also be noted at this point that it was very difficult in obtaining information regarding PBI. Governor Babbitt’s office was totally uncooperative and gave us no information. In fact, after his T.C. appointment was made public in 1980 by the Commission itself, Babbitt received so much harsh criticism from Arizonans that his staff responded to callers with “I have no personal knowledge of that.” This is a standard dodge when a politician doesn’t want to answer the question; they now acknowledge his membership.

Valley National Bank and Roger Lyon’s office have also been wholly uncooperative in releasing information on PBI. When asked for a “history sheet” on Lyon (a customary handout for top corporate executives, his aide became defensive and refused to release any information.

A contact was made with the Japanese embassy in Washington, D.C., who acknowledged that they had information on PBI. While they had originally agreed to send us information, after two months and two more phone calls, nothing was received.
Finally, after contact with Richard Mallery’s office, the prospectus for PBI was obtained. According to that report, Mallery is president of PBI and Lyon is chairman of the board.

There is a substantial link to Stanford University: Weldon B. Gibson is vice-chairman of the board and is executive vice president of SRI International (Stanford Research Institute). Trilateral Arjay Miller is a director of SRI International. Philip Habib, a senior fellow at Hoover Institution at Stanford is vice president of PBI.

Acknowledgements and thanks were given to heavyweights like Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Robert Macy, Jr., managing director of Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb.




. The West is rapidly growing in Trilateral influence. The election of Reagan and Bush will accelerate this trend. . As China’s manufacturing capacity is brought on line by Trilateral multinational corporations, America (and the rest of the world) will be flooded with noncompetitively priced goods.
. American labor will feel the biggest brunt of this and will lose countless jobs at the expense of Chinese slave labor.

. The Pacific Basin Institute is the main instrument that will be used by the Trilateral elite to coordinate the Pacific Basin and to devise and recommend “policies” for participating countries in the Basin.



1. Maryanne McNellis, Japan’s Push for a Pacific Community, Business Week (February 25, 1980), p. 72.
2. Joel Nilsson, Pacific Region Businessmen Back Idea of State-Based Trade Institute, Arizona Republic (May 15, 1980), p. A-I.
3. Richard Mallery: Bridge to the business community, Arizona Republic (March 2, 1980), P. A-I.
4. J.J. Casserly, Bank Chief to Lead Regional Council, Arizona Republic (December 6 , 1980).

Back to Contents






At this point we should step back and look at the Trilateral Commission in the light of history. The Commission represents the third attempt by the New York international banking fraternity to create a New Economic World Order under their control.


When we look at this third attempt within the context of history, it is clear why the Commission (or its equivalent) will continue.




It was Thomas Jefferson, writer and signer of the Declaration of Independence who first warned a newly independent America about the powers behind the scenes of government:

“If the American people ever allowed the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs.

“I sincerely believe the banking institutions are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.”1

The “banking institutions” are represented today by Trilateralism.

What was true in 1790 is true in 1980.

Out of seventy-seven Trilateral Commissioners from the U.S., well over one-half are either directors of banks, or have been directors of the Federal Reserve System (which is owned and controlled by private banks). We also must recall that David Rockefeller, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founded the Trilateral Commission.

To follow through on Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning, “the American people” have not merely allowed “banks to control the issuance of their currency,” but almost unbelievably they have allowed banking interests to control the domestic and foreign policies of the United States.




The formal attempt to extend control of the United States to the world was the League of Nations. The idea for the League of Nations came from Cecil Rhodes’ Round Table groups and was proposed to Woodrow Wilson at least as early as September 1915 by Sir Edward Grey, a member of the Round Table, in a letter to Colonel M. House:

“Would the President propose that there should be a League of Nations binding themselves to side against any power which broke a treaty.”2

What went wrong with the League of Nations? Elitists blame the failure on Woodrow Wilson. For example, elitist academic Harlan Cleveland wrote:

“The first try, the League of Nations, was the product of Woodrow Wilson’s strong initiative and the victim of his weak follow through: the United States wrote most of the club rules, then decided not to join the club. In its weakened condition, it could not survive the rise of fascism, Nazism and militarism.”3

This statement is typical of elitist evasion and distortion of truth.

Cleveland makes at least the following errors:

. The League did not survive Hitler to be sure, but who financed and nurtured Hitler? None other than key members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the successor to the Inquiry which promoted the League. (See Antony Sutton, Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler.) . Cleveland does not mention that the rise of Communism was also financed and nurtured by the same key members of the Council on Foreign Relations. (See Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.)
. It is more valid to argue that the first try at New Economic World Order failed because the “club” saw more profit (both financially and for the goal of New Economic World Order) in the Second World War. This aspect of world history has to be buried because it would highlight the amoral character of elitists.



In New York, July 29, 1921, the elite founded a semi-secret organization called The Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR evolved out of the American Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, which later merged with the American Branch of the British Institute of International Affairs. This culminated with the formation of the United Nations.


The report of the founding committee for the CFR contained the following statement of purpose:

"Until recent years it was usual to assume that in foreign affairs each government must think mainly, if not entirely, of the interests of its own people. In founding the League of Nations the allied powers have now recognized that national policies ought to be framed with an eye to the welfare of society at large.”4

Here we have precisely the same globalist objective to be found in the Trilateral Commission today.

What is important is the makeup of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations during the 1920’s and 1930’s. It was dominated, as is the Trilateral Commission, by Wall Street banking interests.

Prominent among the early directors was Paul M. Warburg, partner in the firm of Kuhn-Loeb and the first member appointed by Woodrow Wilson to the Federal Reserve Board. In fact, Warburg was the brains behind the Federal Reserve System. Warburg was also chairman of the International Acceptance Bank, Inc. and (much less known) a director of American I.G. Chemical Corporation which was the American branch of I.G. Farben that had so much to do with the rise of Hitler.

In the Trilateral Commission today we find Kuhn-Loeb and the Federal Reserve System well represented. Charles W. Robinson, former managing director of Kuhn-Loeb, was in the Carter administration. Links between Trilateralism and Federal Reserve System include Arthur F. Burns, Andrew Brimmer, David Rockefeller, Paul Volcker, Bruce K. MacLaury, Alden Clausen and Robert V. Roosa.

Another Wall Street financier on the board of the CFR was Otto H. Kahn. Like Paul Warburg, Kahn was a former partner in the private banking company of Kuhn-Loeb. Russell C. Leffingwell was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations during the inter-war years. In 1919 he held the office of Secretary of the Treasury and had been in partnership with J.P. Morgan and Company.

Another director of the CFR was Owen D. Young, chairman of General Electric Company (which was dominated by the J.P. Morgan interests) and the German Reparations Committee (which drew up the so-called Young Plan). CFR director Allan W. Dulles served during the inter-war period. During the same time, Dulles was also a director of J. Henry Schroeder Banking Corporation and a partner in the establishment law firm of Solomon and Cromwell. It is recorded that the J. Henry Schroeder Banking firm was one of the key elements behind the rise of Hitler in Germany.

Another inter-war director of the CFR was Norman H. Davis. According to Quigley, Davis was a “non-legal agent of the Morgans.”5 He had represented the US Treasury on the Paris Peace Delegation.


Woodrow Wilson himself owed his 1913 financial backing for the Presidency to his “classmate and life long friend.” Cleveland Hoadley Dodge was a director of National City Bank and the Russell Sage Foundation.

The CFR exerted its major influence during the period from 1940 through the mid 1960’s, and its members reflected almost all of the establishment leaders particularly people like Wall Street banker John J. McCloy, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and so on. The high point of the CFR undoubtedly was the creation of the United Nations. John D. Rockefeller, Sr. donated the New York site and was instrumental in getting the United Nations off the ground in San Francisco in 1945. At the height of CFR powers in 1971, a dispute over the editor of the Council’s quarterly Foreign Affairs magazine marked the end of the second attempt for new world order.


Under President Bayless Manning, a former dean of the Stanford Law School, the CFR tried to broaden its membership from a geographical, age, racial and sexual standpoint. By the 1970’s the CFR had sixty women and twenty-two blacks on its rolls; but these new members were not selected as carefully as in the past and the expertise and prestige traditionally associated with the CFR was diluted.


When Manning attempted to appoint William P. Bundy to the editorship of Foreign Affairs, he (Manning) was eased out of the CFR presidency by David Rockefeller.




In 1973 the third attempt at new world order came under the guise of the Trilateral Commission. It had different short-and medium-term objectives than both the League of Nations and United Nations.

Trilateralism abandons the concept of bringing together nations into a political world society in one giant step. Instead, it proposes to first create regional economic groupings and then link the three most important of these regional groupings (North America, Europe and Japan) into a new economic world order. The discussion and policy-making steps necessary for this objective are known as the “Trilateral process.” Incorporation of Communist societies and the Third World is desired but is left for a more distant date.

In brief, Trilaterals are more pragmatic than their CFR allies in the United Nations and the League of Nations.

Even this limited Trilateral objective has major problems, not least of which is that it requires abandonment of American independence and national sovereignty.

It is no surprise to find Trilaterals eager to change the Constitution into a document more malleable to their ends. Volume I quoted Brzezinski’s statement (Between Two Ages, p. 258):

“Either 1976 or 1989 -the two-hundredth anniversary of the Constitution -could serve as a suitable target date for culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements. . .”6

The Trilateral Commission’s New Economic World Order is impossible as long as the Constitution exists in its present form. More dictatorial powers are needed to function as revealed in an official Commission report:

“If a more effective and equitable economic order is to emerge, national policies and programs must be subject to moderation and adjustment to take into account probable adverse international ramifications. This can be accomplished only if powerful domestic agencies are brought under control and sensitized to the international consequences of their policies.”7

The Trilateral Commission here proposes that our domestic policies be subordinated to international policies.

In The Crisis of Democracy (funded and written by the Trilateral Commission) evidence is found that Trilaterals need to restrict Constitutional freedoms. For example, the right to free speech is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Yet the following concerning freedom of the press is found:

“... it is a freedom which can be abused... the responsibility of the press should now be increased to be commensurate with its power, significant measures are required to restore an appropriate balance between the press, the governments and other institutions in society. “8 How does the Commission propose to do this?

“...beginning with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act measures had to be taken to regulate the new industrial centers of power and define their relations to the rest of society. Something comparable appears to be now needed with respect to the media.”9

Of course, monopoly of industry and commerce is not the same as freedom of speech. The break-up of monopoly cannot in any way be compared to restrictions on expressions of ideas. It is a logical absurdity, yet an excellent example of Trilateral use of non sequiturs.




Continuation of the Trilateral Commission is almost a foregone conclusion. The Trilateral process is simply another attempt in almost 100 years of new world order plans.

There are subtle but important changes in Trilateralism to be noted. Not only is the immediate objective limited to regional groupings but the Trilateral program is carefully balanced on two key hinges: a. That a New Economic World Order is inevitable. For example, “The management of interdependence has become indispensable for world order in the coming years. Its origins lie in the extraordinary expansion of interaction between modern states and societies.”10 b. That the objective can be attained through propaganda techniques.


To this end, almost endless studies and reports are published assuming that the New Economic World order is inevitable for the survival of mankind. This assumption is critical because it has no basis in fact.

It is notable that the major propaganda effort is still centered within the Council on Foreign Relations i.e., the 1980’s Project. But the clue to Trilateral involvement is their dominance of the CFR Committee on Studies responsible for the 1980’s Project.

So far, the project consists of twenty-five volumes released by McGraw-Hill. They lay down the “steering trends” to new world order in the 1980’s. Of the ten members of the CFR Committee on Studies, four were Trilaterals (Kissinger, Volcker, Whitman, Perkins).


The chairman was Perkins. Kissinger and Volcker dominated the other members (pedestrian academics without fame or notoriety).




No doubt by this time readers will have grasped the fundamental observation that the Trilateral New Economic World Order is intended for the private benefit of Trilateral Commissioners at the expense of everyone else. This is the secret of monopoly, possibly age old, but certainly rediscovered by the Rockefeller-Morgan financial elite at the end of the 19th century.

Trilaterals are just following the golden rule of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and John Pierpoint Morgan: gain political power and use it for financial objectives.

If this is the fundamental Trilateral rule, what can be said about the future of our society? Specifically on monetary affairs, the following can be projected:

. A fiat currency. This is absolutely essential for the New Economic World Order, and must be coupled with international fiat “reserve” assets.
. Gold will continue to be centralized into a few hands. Gold in the hands of the many is out of the question if Trilateralism is to succeed. As gold provides for personal economic sovereignty, it must be retained in the hands of the elitist few and directly or indirectly be controlled. The Treasury campaign to demonetize gold, formerly led by Trilateral W. Michael Blumenthal, is an admission that Trilaterals are having problems in this segment of their program.

Gold has been removed from our monetary system in order to remove the shackles from “management” (manipulation) of the monetary system for elitist objectives. This policy was begun by Franklin D.

Roosevelt in 1933 and it must not be forgotten that Roosevelt himself, far from being a man of the people, came from the old established banking family that created the Bank of New York in 1784.

The Repeal of the 1933 Joint Resolution by Congress in 1974 has allowed American citizens to privately own gold, but was coupled with a Treasury program to sell gold and depress its price. Under US dominance, the International Monetary Fund joined in the gold-selling campaign. These selling pressures temporarily held down the price of gold.

Crisis management (or problem management) is an essential Trilateral tool to build a New Economic World Order. Problems do not exist to be solved or ameliorated. Problems exist to exasperate, knowingly or unknowingly, in order to advance basic world order objectives.

Monetary management is no exception. Trilateralist proposals for monetary management will not solve the questions of inflation, federal intervention, burdensome taxation, interest rates or any other matter.

One may be justified in thinking that academic experts in the Trilateral Commission are chosen because their “solutions” coincide with the objectives of the power elite. An excellent example is found in the views of Gardner Ackley who is a member of the Commission as well as having held the position of professor of political economy at Henry Carter University and the University of Michigan. An interview with Ackley presents Ackley as a valuable asset for Trilateralism.


His proposals advance New Economic World Order objectives:

“There are many occasions in which deficits are appropriate and necessary. .. There are many occasions in which deficits are unavoidable. “11




Trilateralism was heavily represented in every major political campaign in 1980. John Anderson -running on an independent ticket was a member of the Commission and was duly financed by many individual fellow members. Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale both had definite connections with the Commission.

While Ronald Reagan was not a member of the Trilateral Commission, many of his top campaign advisors were. We want to
demonstrate how Trilateralism “covered all the bets” in the political arena, and how its resulting influence on Ronald Reagan -the victor will all but guarantee the success of their New Economic World Order plans.

By the time the Republican National Convention met to nominate a candidate, Ronald Reagan had no serious rival. Excitement was high because for the first time in a long time there was a unified party. Senator Barry Goldwater delivered a well-cheered speech stating the dangers of elitist influence in government -he also said that this might be the last election America faces.

Goldwater’s recent book, With No Apologies, devotes an entire chapter to the Trilateral Commission. Without judging his intent, we can safely say that Goldwater well understands the Trilateral Commission and its goals.

Goldwater’s speech was cheered but his warnings were ignored. After the convention forcefully rejected Kissinger’s proposal for a “split Presidency” (with Kissinger being the “other” president), it turned right around and nominated Trilateral George Bush for Reagan’s vice-presidential running mate.

After this, many prominent and hopeful conservatives “counseled” the authors that Reagan was not connected to the Trilaterals and would “use” anything or anybody he could to get elected. In the Trilaterals’ case, it was OK because Reagan would quickly dispense with them once he was elected.

One of the largest pro-Reagan forces in the country was Moral Majority, a quasi-Christian political action group originally brainstormed by Paul Weyrich in Washington. Other groups like Moral Majority (Round Table and Christian Voice, for example) were wooed by Reagan in typical political fashion.

After the election, millions of Americans (many of whom are fundamental Christians) were looking to Reagan to support their positions. But the November 24 issue of U.S. News & World Report revealed the hard reality:

“Top officials of the Reagan team have sent a message to the Moral Majority: ‘It isn’t your administration.’ These advisers to the President-elect are urging him to ignore political threats of punishment by the religious right if he does not support their policies. “12

The article went on to say:

“Reagan’s first moves after the November 4 election generally pleased moderate Republicans and Democrats, some of whom feared he would follow the dictates of his most conservative supporters. ‘Hell with them,’ Vice President-elect George Bush declared on November 10 in Houston, referring to right-wing groups that supported the President-elect.”13

In perspective then one must ask, “Who is going to throw whom out of where?”

America had bought the “anti-elitist” story once more, like they did with CFR member Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934 and Trilateral Jimmy Carter in 1976. The facts cannot be ignored: Reagan’s campaign was engineered and operated by Trilaterals David Packard, George Weyerhaeuser, Bill Brock, Anne Armstrong and Caspar Weinberger, and a large assortment of CFR members, Reagan was personally supported by David Rockefeller.




On November 6, 1980, the following Reagan quote was widely reported in the nation’s press:

“I think there is an elite in this country and they are the very ones who run an elitist government. They want a government by a handful of people because they don’t believe the people themselves can run their lives...Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for peoples’ lives, or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?”14

Reagan certainly cannot claim ignorance of the scope and influence of the Trilateral Commission. Indeed, he has been rubbing elbows with the Eastern elite for many years as a member of the exclusive male-only Bohemian Grove Club in Northern California.

The San Mateo Times quoted Irving Stone, the author of The Origin • a biographical novel of evolutionist Charles Darwin -and an ardent evolutionist. In light of Reagan’s wooing non-evolutionists (i.e., the before-mentioned ‘fundamental groups) during the campaign, Stone’s comments serves as another warning that things might not be as they appear.

“I’ve known Ronald Reagan for 35 years. He’s a very’ warm, personable man. But Ronnie doesn’t have the mind to make independent judgments... he has to have a script which he will memorize perfectly.

“I’m a little frightened to have a man in the Oval Office who can’t make independent judgments... When he made that statement about evolution in Houston, he was talking to a large crowd of Fundamentalists. Apparently, he wants their votes very badly. “15

After the election, Reagan assembled a “transition team” which would later select, screen and recommend appointees for major administration posts. According to a compilation by Research Publications of Phoenix, of the fifty-nine people Reagan named to that team, twenty-eight were members of the CFR, ten belonged to the secret and elite Bilderberger group, and no less than ten were Trilaterals.

There are two particular “brain trusts” that will fuel Reagan’s foreign policy. The first is Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace in Palo Alto, California. The other is Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Almost forty of the total transition team had been associated with one or the other of these “think tanks.” Reportedly, fifteen of Reagan’s advisors came from CSIS. (Henry Kissinger is a professor at CSIS, for instance.)

The chairman of CSIS is Trilateral David M. Abshire, who also headed Reagan’s foreign policy and defense transition staff. David Packard is the most influential overseer at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

In short, the reader can see that regardless of good intentions or wishful thinking, Reagan appears to be totally consumed by Trilaterals. This is the Trilateral way of political “protection.” A Reagan-Bush administration will result in further progress for Trilaterals toward their New Economic WorId Order:

. Reagan will stress business and economics, and “business” is the Trilaterals’ expertise.
. The new Republican majority Senate will be very cooperative with the administration as far as an economic policy is concerned.
. Under Democratic control, Trilateral headway was stagnating; it has a “fresh start” with Republican control. Here we apply the principle that a ship will not respond to rudder control unless substantial movement is present.

Looking to the next ten years in light of the last sixty years does not promise anything but “business as usual.” The same type of elite groups that dominated in the 1920’s are dominating today. They are moving forward today with no less resolve than they were then. And prospects for their success never looked brighter.




1. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Autobiography, correspondence, reports messages addresses and other writings.) vol. 7, p. 685. 2. Jennings C. Wise, Woodrow Wilson: Disciple of Revolution, p. 382.
3. Harlan Cleveland, The Third Try at World Order, p. 2.
4. Whitney H. Shepardson, Early History of the Council on Foreign Relations, p. 3.
5. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 50.
6. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, p.258.
7. Egidio Ortona and, The Problem of International Consulations, p. 17.
8. Michael Crozier and, The Crisis of Democracy, p. 18!.
9. Ibid., p. 182.
10. Richard Cooper and, Toward a Renovated International System, p. 4. 11. A Constitutional Ban On Red Ink?, U.S. News & World Report, January 29, 1979, p.27.
12. Washington Whispers, U.S. News & World Report vol. LXXXIX No. 21 (November 24, (980), p. 20.
13. Ibid., p. 22.
14. San Jose Mercury, November 6, 1980.
15. San Mateo Times, October 16, 1980.

Back to Contents






Trilateralism, as its name suggests, is a three-sided affair:

(a) The United States
(b) Japan
(c) Western Europe (excluding Austria, Greece, and Sweden)

This area includes eighty percent of the economic power in the non-Communist world and is the source of virtually all of the world’s new technology.

The basic Trilateral concept is to link the three economic power areas in the world into a united international force. US dominance would mean Rockefeller-Chase Manhattan dominance because Trilateralism was created by David Rockefeller and continues to be dominated by him.

The European segment of the Commission shares the same goals for a New Economic World Order, but they would envision themselves as the ultimate dominating factor (likewise for the Japanese Trilaterals).

The political gaps in Trilateral distribution are more than noticeable. Africa is not included. Neither is the Far East, Latin America or Australasia.

Trilaterals want to build a unified Trilateral force, then draw in the last named areas on a piecemeal basis. Africa (apart from South Africa) is undeveloped and contributes talk rather than power. The Far East is a complex emerging economic force. Australasia is not powerful in global terms.

Latin America includes some powerful countries (Brazil; Argentina and Mexico) -yet is ignored because the Latin cultural tradition has kept Latin leaders aware of Chase Manhattan-Rockefeller activities. In general, Europe has a residue of gratitude for World War II, while Latin America has a long standing cultural antipathy towards anything smacking of international banking operators: Catholic bankers, for instance, are bound by religious precepts to lend money for productive purpose only. New York bankers use money and debt for political control.

Each Trilateral area has a chairman and a deputy chairman. David Rockefeller is North American chairman and Mitchell Sharp of Canada is North American deputy chairman.

Europeans hold these positions for their Trilateral side:

  • Georges Berthoin is European chairman

  • Egidio Ortona is European deputy chairman

  • Berthoin is president of the European Movement and one time aide to Jean Monnet, father of “One Europe.” Egidio Ortona is president of Honeywell Information Systems, Italia, which is closely linked to Trilateral Edson W. Spencer, president of Honeywell in the US.

The geographical distribution of Trilateralists in Europe is shown in Table 1.



The link between “One Europe,” or a United States of Europe and Trilateralism is important. To move from three regional groupings to “One World” requires that each region be cohesive and unified. (Authors’ note: “One Europe” is an established term created by the people associated with it. “One World” is the authors’ coinage to compare and describe the larger concept.) This is impossible with the current state of the United Nations. It is much more plausible in the Trilateral process.

US-Trilateral intent is to build “One Europe” to be merged into a global society. Oddly, this is not the view from Europe, which sees “One Europe” as a final goal. Wall Street sees “One Europe” as a stepping stone to One World.

When links between the European Economic Community (EEC) and Trilaterals are described, the step by step movement towards One World becomes apparent.

There may well be economic arguments for reducing European customs barriers to encourage free trade. But European political disadvantages have been obscured by more superficial economic benefits. To avoid sinking into the Trilateral morass, Europe will have to restrict cooperation to economic and military activities. To extend the cooperative process into the political arena invites loss of European sovereignty to a Trilateral global society. Traditional French hostility towards American political moves is not altogether without foundation.


So with this in mind, the coauthors feel it is important to take a look at European Trilaterals and their links to EEC and “One Europe.”




The European Economic Community currently consists of ten countries: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Greece. (Greece became an official member as of January I, 1981.)


Spain and Portugal are tentatively slated to join the EEC in 1983.

Out of ten Belgian Trilaterals, two are prominently connected with Europeanization and two more are connected with international banking.

Henri Simonet is foreign minister of Belgium and immediately before that (1973-1977) was vice president of the European Economic Community (EEC).

Jean Rey was Belgian minister for economic affairs from 1954-1958 followed by a long career at various European Community posts:

. 1958-1967, president of external relations of EEC
. 1967-1970, president of the executive committee of EEC Two prominent Belgian Trilateral bankers include Baron Leon Lambert, president of Groupe Bruxelles Lambert, SA, which is affiliated with the Rothschilds, and Luc Wauters, chairman of Groupe Almanij-Kredietbank of Brussels.

There are three Danish Trilaterals. Svend Auken is Minister. of Labor and was a member of the Committee of Social Democrats against EEC to 1971-72. On the other hand, Trilateral Ivar Norgaard is Minister of Environment and was vice president of the European Parliament in 1974. Norgaard was a member of the Danish National Bank in 1968 but otherwise Danish Trilaterals are politicians rather than bankers.

There are seven Irish Trilaterals including prominent members of European organizations.

Michael O’Kennedy is the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and a former vice president of the Irish Council of the European Party in the senate. Another politician, M.T.W. Robinson, is a member of the executive committee of the European Movement. F. Boland, chairman of IBM-Ireland and a director of the Investment Bank of Ireland, is a former representative to the United Nations (1956-1964). The key statement on “Political Cooperation” in the European Community was published by an Irish Trilateral Garret FitzGerald, former foreign minister of Ireland and current leader of the Fine Gael opposition party. He asserts that most European political activity is not part of the formal structure of EEC!

Political cooperation is centered in the office of the revolving post of president of the EEC Council of Ministers. A permanent secretariat of some 200 committees is constantly at work and meets on a continuing basis. FitzGerald is one-time president of the EEC Council of Ministers and claims that considerable political activity is taking place towards “One Europe.” It is notable that according to FitzGerald, Henry Kissinger found Europeanization too complex to grasp: it is a groping, slow movement toward a declaration of European identity.

FitzGerald concluded:

“...the work of political cooperation is important because it is only through this pragmatic process of seeking on a piecemeal basis to harmonize foreign policy that that foundation can be laid for a European Community that can eventually develop into a genuine federation or confederation.”2

The French Trilateral component is not truly French but represents mainly the French connection to international and European organizations plus French banking interests.

Trilateralism is totally inconsistent with a deeply held sense of French nationalism. French Trilaterals are much further from the cultural soul of their country than perhaps any other Trilaterals. The three French Trilateral-European Community links are of major significance. Raymond Barre, prime minister and Minister of France, was formerly vice president for Economic and Social Affairs at EEC. G. Berthoin, Trilateral European chairman, was the chief EEC representative to the United Kingdom, and was private secretary to the father of the One Europe concept - Jean Monnet. Robert Marjolin was formerly vice-president of the Commission of the European Communities and was a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Chase Manhattan Bank.


Marjolin was for many years connected with the EEC and the organization of the OEEC, and with Berthoin, he forms the core link between French Trilateralism, the European Economic Community and David Rockefeller. Why does France, the most independent nationalistic nation in Europe - almost the world - produce the strongest single Trilateral link to David Rockefeller? The answer might be that the Trilateral Executive Committee recognized the problem of French nationalism as standing in the way of One Europe and One World; perhaps special efforts were made to ensure a powerful French connection.


This French Trilateral triad is backed up by numerous lesser French Trilaterals with One Europe connections. They include R. Bonety, formerly with the EEC, Paul Delouvrier, formerly with the European Iron and Steel Commission, a part of EEC, and Francois Duchene, a French Trilateral residing in England as director of the Center for Contemporary European Studies at the University of Sussex. (This might be termed a European Trilateral think tank on a minor scale.)

Michel Gaudet was formerly director general of the EEC legal service. Thierry De Montbrial is director of the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales in Paris. This is the French affiliate to the Royal Institute of International Affairs with Trilateral connections through Sir Andrew Shonfield. Lastly, there is Roger Seydoux, formerly with UNESCO and UN.

Out of twenty-seven French Trilaterals we find that nine have strong One Europe connections.

The West German team of twenty-one Trilaterals includes Count Otto Lambsdorff, the German Minister of Economics. In general, West German Trilaterals stress industrial and trade union connections rather than One Europe connections.

Trade unionists include K. Hauenschild (Chemical, Paper and Pottery Workers), E. Loderer (Metal Workers Union) and H.O. Vetter (Federation of Trade Unions).

Industrialists with U.S. connections include Otto Wolff, a director of EXXON and a member of the secret Bilderberger group. Bank directors include H.K. Jannott, A. Munchmeyer and N. Kloten.

No German Trilaterals have more than incidental connections with One Europe. Even politician Trilaterals in Germany are domestically oriented, for example, K.H. Narjes, H.J. Junghans and O. Sund. The only major exception to this observation is Karl Kaiser, director of the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Policy and who is widely reported abroad and in West Germany.

By contrast to West Germany, Italy has a major EEC and One Europe representation.
These Italian Trilaterals include:

. F. Bobba, in 1950, was with the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for European integration. Later, Bobba became director general of Economic and Financial Affairs at EEC.
. Guido Carli is a longtime member of the EEC Monetary Committee.
. Umberto Colombo is a director of the Committee for Scientific Policy at OECD.
. G. Colonna Di Paliano has been with a variety of European organizations since 1964, including EEC, ECSC and Euratom. He is also a director of EXXON.
. E. Ortona is a former president of the UN Security Council and a president of Honeywell Information Systems (Italia).

. Giovanni Agnelli is a key Trilateral, president of Fiat and on the International Advisory committee of Chase Manhattan (Henry Kissinger is chairman of the IAC).

Although an important member of the European Community, Luxembourg has no Trilateral members.

With six Trilaterals, Netherlands has several connected with One Europe including:

. M. Kohnstamm, a civil servant with the ECSC in the 1950’s and a vice-president of the Action Committee of the United States of Europe since 1956.
. J. Loudon is a member of the Atlantic Institute and Ford Foundation, a member of the Chase Manhattan International Advisory committee and chairman of Royal Dutch Shell.
. E. Wellenstein was with ECSC from 1953-1967 and director General of External Relations at EEC from 1973- 1976.

With twenty-six Trilateralists, Great Britain has several with a close connection to EEC Affairs. These include:

. R.H. Grierson, director general of Industrial and Technical Affairs at EEC in 1973-74.
. R. Maudling, with EEC in 1958-59.
. C. O’Neill, ambassador to EEC in 1963-66 and a director of the “Britain in Europe Campaign” 1974-75.
. Lord Harlech, chairman of the European Movement. . A.L. Williams, deputy director of European Movement 1970- 71.

In brief then, there is (a) except in the case of West Germany, a major connection between One Europe and Trilateralism, and (b) a rather deep connection between Chase Manhattan and the European side of Trilateralism.





In some ways Europeans have a more sophisticated understanding of the realities of the world political process than many Americans.


Yet in other ways Europeans are quite deficient in their understanding of the political workings of both the United States and the Soviet Union. Historically, Europe has usually been run by elites. Populism in the American tradition does not exist in Europe - it is more of a frontier phenomenon, in the Jefferson-Jackson tradition. Elites are known and hardly mysterious for Europeans. In Britain, for example, the word “establishment” is generally accepted, if not approved, and no one uses the label “paranoid” or “conspiratorialist” to an argument based on acceptance of an Establishment.

For many years in the United States any talk of “elites” or “establishment” put the speaker into the “kook” category. Europe doesn’t have to be convinced of the existence of an elite; it is accepted. From a European perspective, the distinction between Republican and Democrat has always been elusive. The major American parties are seen as merely different sides of the same coin, and the existence of a supra-party elite is quite acceptable.

So it is easier for Europeans to accept the concept of Trilateralism as a verifiable fact. Trilateral human rights policies are seen more clearly in Europe as a pragmatic diplomatic tool. Consequently Germany and France have been major supporters of South Africa, knowing full well that the US elitist attack on South Africa has been motivated by selfinterest, not human rights.

Where Europe is weak is in its knowledge of the details of American elitism.


While the concept is acceptable, knowledge of the details is vague, hazy and perhaps largely unknown.




Rather ironically though, Europe has greater blocks to details of US elitist operations than the United States.


Governments own most of the radio and television industry this means censorship. A program on French radio or television exposing Trilateralism and its meaning for Europe is unthinkable; after all, an important part of the European elite is also Trilateral. French critics such as Pierre de Villamarest have a harder time disseminating information than critics in the United States.

Elitism in Europe is more securely entrenched than in the US. Both the US Constitution and American traditions frown on aristocracies and the flowering American aristocracy that stems from Alexander Hamilton.




The implementation of the concepts of secular humanism in Europe is being achieved through a branch of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, Trilateralists and other elitists. (See Chapters Two and Three.)


This is a major connection between European Trilateralism and American Trilateralism. In 1974, the Aspen Institute Berlin was founded as “an integral part of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies” and serves as the European and non-US funnel through which Trilateral ideas flow. In particular, the Aspen Institute Berlin states its purpose “as a flexible and experimental effort to articulate and to strengthen individual and social adherence to humanistic values.”3 (Emphasis added.) In other words, they are trying to force their values on Europe as well.

Members of the board of Aspen Institute Berlin include a host of Trilateralists, humanists, elitists and “One Europe” advocates: Georges Berthoin fits all those labels. Another board member is Marion Countess Donhoff, the publisher of Die Zeit, whose editor-in-chief is Trilateralist Theo Sommer, a participant in Henry Kissinger’s International Seminar in 1960.


Thierry De Montbrial was at one time affiliated with the University of California at Berkeley and is the author of books on world economy and energy policy. Richard Lowenthal,a professor emeritus at the Free University of Berlin, has taught at elitist The schools like University of California at Berkeley, Columbia (where Brzezinski had planned to return in January, 1981), Harvard and Stanford, and is an expert on foreign policy, especially in regard to the Communist bloc.

Other non-Trilateral elitists on the board of Aspen-Berlin whom we wish to mention are: Robert McNamara, president, World Bank; Robert O. Anderson, chairman, Aspen Institute and Atlantic Richfield; Pehr Gyllenhammaer, president, Volvo; Conor Cruise O’Brien, editor-inchief, The Observer, London; Jean-Francois Revel, editor, L’Express, Paris.

Additionally, we find the two most prominent German politicians of our time on the honorary board. First, there is Willy Brandt, former Federal Chancellor, chairman of the ruling Social Democratic Party and chairman of the United Nations’ Independent Commission on International Development Issues (which included Peter G. Peterson, Henry Kissinger and Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham). Secondly, there is Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, a close friend of Valery Giscard d’Estaing.


Willy Brandt, in describing the reasoning for the Aspen Institute Berlin’s location, gave away his own lack of understanding of the threat of the Communist bloc when he stated, “The choice of Berlin is not accidental - we regard it as a crossroads and touchstone of the new relationship between East and West.”


More recently, a publication of the Aspen Institute Berlin reported, “Scholars and public figures from the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe actively participate in the work of the Aspen Institute Berlin.”5 Once again, we view the Trilateralist’s naiveté and self-serving attitude.


In sum, The Aspen Institute Berlin is a European mirror image of Trilateralist thought and practice.




1. Garret FitzGerald, “Political- Cooperation: Towards a Common Policy”, Commission of the European Communities, European September-October 1978, p. 18.
2. Ibid., p. 20.
3. Aspen Institute of Berlin Catalogue. p. 2.
4. Ibid., p. 2.
5. Ibid., p. 3.

Back to Contents







There is no doubt that the Trilateral Commission exists: it is not a figment of a wild imagination as some of its supporters claim. Further, this Commission has written policies and set objectives. During the Carter administration, members of the Commission had the majority of executive branch power under their control, and it doesn’t look like much is changing under the new Reagan administration.

At this point, it is useful to address the criticism of the Trilateral Commission, and the counter-criticism from the Commission itself.

David Rockefeller’s feelings about Trilateral critics have been amply demonstrated: he views himself as the “moderate middle,” and puts his critics on the “far right.” This same theme was used in the November 24, 1980 issue of Forbes Magazine: Washington Bureau Chief Jerry Flint titled his article What’s a Trilateral Commission? and captioned it “Why Marxists and Birchers love to hate the Trilateral Commission.”1

Flint stated,

“On the Right radical end of the political fringe, for example, is Patrick Wood, co-author of the book Trilaterals Over Washington -53,000 sold, he says, who has a new expose coming and who publishes a monthly newsletter, The Trilateral Observer, from Scottsdale, Ariz. He warns that the Trilaterals want to trade America’s economic independence for some kind of new world economic order, a playground for the multinationals, manipulating governments for their profits. “2

The article then talked about the John Birch Society (rightwing), Laurence Shoup (a Marxist writer) and Penthouse magazine. Flint interviewed Commission coordinator and member George Franklin who claimed “We haven’t a single advocate of world government. . .”3

One of Flint’s concluding thoughts was “Alas, people and their conspiracy theories are not easily parted. It is much easier to imagine a villain than to think things through.”4

When this coauthor (Wood) was interviewed, Flint was pointedly told that neither Sutton nor Wood advocate, teach or believe in a “conspiracy” theory as such. This position has been expounded on dozens of radio and TV shows all over America, and on numerous of prestigious speaking platforms.

A conspiracy is defined by Webster’s as “a secret agreement to do something legal or illegal.” Since the coauthors have had little trouble in acquiring information on Trilateral activities and positions, it can hardly be called a secret organization. Further, who has a right to act as judge and jury to determine legality or illegality of specific acts by members of the Trilateral Commission? (This requires a Congressional investigation into the facts presented in Trilaterals Over Washington.)

The Forbes article is significant for the following reasons:

. Flint ignored the reasons given for the coauthors’ refusal to be involved with “conspiracy” tactics.
. He arbitrarily placed the authors in the “Right radical end of the political fringe,” implied to be even to the right of the John Birch Society.
. He did not mention Professor Antony Sutton’s name anywhere in the article, nor the fact that he was formerly a research fellow with Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at Stanford University - hardly the “Right radical end” of anything!
. Ignored was The Nation’s recent article attacking the Trilateral Commission. The Nation is one of the most prestigious liberal publications in the country.5
. Also ignored was the suppressed criticism of the Commission by Nobel Laureate Professor George Wald in August 19806 - the reader may not agree with the criticism, but certainly cannot discount the source and the platform.7

The Forbes article typifies “establishment” handling of critics of the Commission. Responsible and researched criticism is “associated” with various minority radical elements in the country.

Since the truth of the matter (the facts) cannot be discredited, they attempt to discredit the critic. This is a shallow and weak ploy, not too difficult to see through.

To be fair though, some credit can be given the Commission in sending representatives to participate in public debates around the US with the coauthors. North American Secretary Charles Heck appeared with Patrick Wood on the nationally broadcasted Larry King Show on the Mutual Broadcasting System, among others. Commissioners George Franklin and Phillip Trezise debated with Antony Sutton at different times. George Franklin has debated with left-wing Trilateral critic Howard Katz on an influential T.V. program in Florida.

It is the personal experience of the authors that when public response was measured (i.e., on “call-in” radio, T.V. shows or public speaking events), sentiment was at least 95% hostile to the position of the Trilateral Commission and only 5% against the position taken by the coauthors. While Commission members have no reason to admit it, overwhelming public antipathy against the Commission has stung deeply.

It has never been the coauthors’ intent to unfairly discredit a person in contrast to the philosophy that person holds. People are people but ideas differ. When facts don’t line up with a person’s philosophy, and this discrepancy is pointed out, it is difficult for the person to resolve the discrepancy. The reaction will most likely be negative, ranging from ignoring the facts to lashing out at the person(s) delivering the facts.

The coauthors readily admit that a certain amount of their own bias shows in their writings, but this is only natural. Despite this, these works have been used by both conservative and liberal writers around the world. The reason is the coauthors’ integrity for reporting facts is unquestioned, even if the reader disagrees with the conclusions offered.

As you have read this book, you may have arrived at different conclusions than the coauthors; in any case, you are probably antithetic to the Trilateral Commission and to the proposed New Economic World Order. You are urged to further your information gathering in your own community or sphere of influence. Share what you find with others, including the coauthors.

Freedom of the press is predicated on a free interchange of ideas and information. Any attempts to suppress either must be protested to the limit of moral restraint.

All in all, the information in this book (and in Volume I, as well) shows a very bleak picture of politics and the economics in the United States. Even so, it is a mistake to just abandon the field to the elite. God gave you a thinker (your brain) that is able to discern reality from fiction and fantasy; don’t be swayed by psychological pressure designed to discredit what you think. Even if your thinking is wrong, if you let someone browbeat you out of your position, you will still be wrong. Test every thing weigh, digest, chew, mull over, check, research, etc.

Then stand on your findings and decisions.

Finally, the coauthors believe that once the American in the street realizes the full implications of the Trilateral process, then Trilateralism will receive outright rejection.


The reason is simple: Trilateralism is diametrically opposed to the US Constitution and will ultimately require removal of the Constitution if the New Economic World Order is to succeed.




1. Jerry Flint, What's a Trilateral Commission?, Forbes (November 24, 1980), p. 45.
2. Ibid., p. 45. 3. Ibid., p. 46. 4. Ibid., p. 49.
The August Corporation Page 110

Back to Contents