thought the unthinkable and earnednwhat should have been the unearnable.nMeanwhile, the Soviets stole atomic,nmilitary, and technological secrets, infiltratednthe government, and supportednsurrogates who overthrew U.S. allies innCuba, Central America, Asia, and Africa.nFortunately, Mr. Gorbachev’s predecessorsnnever fully gauged what mushnthey were up against, and their ownnoligarchy of crooks and commissars enterednits terminal stage before theynfound out.nJust as East Europeans seem to benthrowing out their ruling bums, so thenend of the Cold War ought to offer anchance for Americans to rid themselvesnof the parasitical mafias that have manglednthe pursuit of our national interestsnfor the last forty years. To do so wouldnnot necessarily lead to the muchdreadedn”isolationism” that is more oftennan epithet than a real option, but itnwould involve a definition of specificnand concrete goals and interests in placenof globalist slogans and the chicanerynthey encourage. Dealing with the ThirdnWorid debt, foreign (especially Asian)neconomic competition, massive illegalnimmigration, and the restoration of thenMonroe Doctrine are probably the majornproblems that a serious nationalistnforeign policy ought to address.nUnfortunately, there seems littlenprospect of doing so, since the samenelites that mismanaged the Cold Warnremain firmly in place and seem to havenlearned nothing from their lacklusternperformance over the past two generations.nManaging the global environment,ncreating democracy everywhere,nand making sure the sclerotic Sovietneconomy gets enough economic andntechnological fixes to save Mr. Gorbachevnfrom early retirement in Siberianappear to be the main appetizers on thenglobalist diplomatic plate just now.nSuch goals simply regurgitate whatnJames Burnham more than twentynyears ago called the “set of uprootednabstractions out of which globalismncompounds its heady brew.”nWhat distinguishes the globalistnabstractions from genuineninternationalist ideas is preciselyntheir divorce from technical,nsocial and historical realities.nThere are three billion plusnhuman beings now living on thenface of the earth, but there is nonHumanity: that is to say, actualnhuman beings, though they maynshare a metaphysical andnTHE WISDOM OF THE PLANNED GIFTntheological identity, do not innpoint of fact have commonnpsychological, social andnhistorical traits that link themninto an operative social groupingnthat we may name “Humanity.”nIn real life men are joined on anmuch less than universal scaleninto a variety of groupings —nfamily, community, church,nbusiness, club, party,netc. — which on the politicalnscale reach the maximumnsignificant limit in the nation.nIf Americans don’t want to findnthemselves embarked on another fortynyears in the global wilderness, they willnhave to take matters out of the hands ofnthose, on the left and the right, who stillnpeddle a foreign policy based on “HumannRights,” “Global Democracy,”n”Transnational Issues,” and whatnBurnham called the “other capitalizednfamiliars put into general circulation bynthe ideological hucksters of our time.”nOtherwise, those abstractions eventuallynwill show up on the national doorstep tontell us not only how we ought to runnour neighbors’ houses, but also how tonmanage our own.n<^nThere are a variety of ways to give to educational and charitable organizations, likenThe Rockford Institute, publisher of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.nMost people make outright gifts which result in a “charitable deduction” from a person’sntaxable income.nAnother option is to establish a Charitable Remainder Trust. For example, supposena person bought some stock at a cost of $20,000 many years ago that is now worthn$50,000 and pays 3 percent in dividends. One way to lock in the current value,navoid capital gains tax, and derive more income would be to create a CharitablenRemainder Unitrust. Pay-out percentages can be fixed from 5 percent to 8 percent,nand the investments are in secure income-producing investments. If the trust earnsnmore than the agreed pay-out amount, that additional money is added each yearnto the trust so that the size of the trust increases. Upon the death of the donor or hisnbeneficiary, the trust would become the property of the Institute or other charitiesnof the donor’s choice. Estate taxes are eliminated and there is a sizeable charitable deduction in the year the trust isnestablished. “The amount of the charitable deduction depends on the age of the donor and the income retained.nLegacy Program, The Rockford Institute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103nD Please send me general information on the various “Planned Giving” options. ‘nD Please send me information on the Institute’s Charitable Remainder Trust Fund.nNAME.nCITY _n.ADDRESS.nSTATE ZIP PHONEnIf you have a specific asset, such as stocks, that you are considering for a contribution, and if you would like the Institute to evaluate the financialntax implications for your gift, please include the following information:nSS # : SS # (SPOUSE) ^nCOST OF ASSET ESTIMATED MARKET VALUEnnnMAY 1990/11n