Global Religion for Global Governance

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pagePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

by Patrick Wood

INTRODUCTION

There are three inter­locking ele­ments that are key to any society: Pol­i­tics, eco­nomics and reli­gion. The three are inter­de­pen­dent and cannot be “unhinged” into sep­a­rate com­po­nents. Every facet of human inter­ac­tion is wrapped up in these three ele­ments, meaning that there are no more than three elements.

This issue will answer the ques­tion, “Do the global elite pro­mote a reli­gion that is com­pli­men­tary and inte­gral in pur­pose to their New World Eco­nomic Order and the World Governance?”

This is a slip­pery sub­ject and hard to nail down. When this writer asked (from 1978 – 1981) mem­bers of the elitist Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion if they had plans for a New World Polit­ical Order, they would say “Absolutely not.” Rather, they would point to their mis­sion state­ment, which clearly referred to a “New World Eco­nomic Order”. Upon closer exam­i­na­tion, we showed the inter­locks between cor­po­rate and foun­da­tion direc­tor­ships and funding of non-governmental think-tanks and ini­tia­tives, that proved otherwise.

When one talks about a “New World Reli­gion”, a sim­ilar ana­lyt­ical approach is nec­es­sary. While those in the global reli­gious move­ment are quick to dis­cuss global polit­ical gov­er­nance issues, those in the global eco­nomic and/or global polit­ical world more often side-step reli­gious ques­tions as being “pri­vate issues”, and simply deny any goals of bringing about a uni­fied, global reli­gion of any sort.

As we examine this sub­ject, one cannot help but note how the Amer­ican court system is fanat­i­cally removing every sem­blance of Judeo-Christian sym­bolism from public places using the argu­ment of “Sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State.” In spite of the fact that America’s her­itage is deeply rooted in simple con­cepts like the Ten Com­mand­ments, these are now per­sona non grata. To the global elite how­ever, there appar­ently is no “sep­a­ra­tion of church and state”… as long as it is their reli­gion and their state: Nei­ther of these wel­come tra­di­tional evan­gel­ical Christianity.

The first example of reli­gion in glob­alism is the Aspen Insti­tute, for­merly called the Aspen Insti­tute for Human­istic Studies. Aspen is chosen because it is estab­lished, influ­en­tial, sub­stan­tive and very rep­re­sen­ta­tive. There are many other orga­ni­za­tions that com­prise a loose net­work of common inter­ests, but it is not nec­es­sary or pos­sible to dis­cuss each one.

To lay a proper ground­work for a modern look at Aspen, the fol­lowing newsletter issue is reprinted in its entirety.

Tri­lat­eral Observer Vol. 3, Issue 9, Sep­tember, 1980

HUMANISM: THE GLOBAL IDEOLOGY

The term “Humanism” is often erro­neously thought of as humane-ism. Humanism is a sec­ular, non-theistic (athe­istic) reli­gion that believes man is capable of self-fulfillment, eth­ical con­duct and sal­va­tion without super­nat­ural intervention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We urge that parochial loy­al­ties and inflex­ible moral and reli­gious ide­olo­gies be tran­scended. Destruc­tive ide­o­log­ical dif­fer­ences among com­mu­nism, cap­i­talism, socialism, con­ser­vatism, lib­er­alism, and rad­i­calism should be overcome.”

‘[Humanism]… tran­scends the narrow alle­giances of church, state, party, class or race in moving toward a wider vision of human poten­tiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as prac­tice, a cit­izen of a world com­mu­nity. “9

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

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

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

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

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

CORLISS LAMONT AND THE MORGAN FINANCIAL GROUP

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

Let’s to back to the First World War.

Thomas W. Lamont (1870 – 1948) was one of the orig­inal orga­nizers of the Round Table group cited by Quigley in Tragedy and Hope.13

Lamont’s auto­bi­og­raphy is appro­pri­ately enti­tled Across World Fron­tiers. He was not only a senior partner in J.P. Morgan & Co., but was also a director of Guar­anty Trust Com­pany, Inter­na­tional Har­vester Co. (with its Tri­lat­eral direc­tors today) and the law firm of Lamont Corliss & Co. Thomas Lamont was a key figure in the Morgan finan­cial group. (For fur­ther infor­ma­tion and exten­sive doc­u­men­ta­tion on the links between J.P. Morgan and the devel­op­ment of the early Soviet Union, see Wall Street and the Bol­shevik Rev­o­lu­tion by Antony Sutton.)

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

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

In short, the Lamont family epit­o­mizes the links between:

  • Humanism
  • Com­mu­nism
  • New York finan­cial interests

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC STUDIES

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

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

In the past the edi­tors have reported the con­nec­tions between the Rock­e­feller Family and the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago and also between the Ford Foun­da­tion and the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

The two leading foun­da­tions con­tributing to Aspen are Atlantic-Richfield (ARCO) and the Rock­e­feller Foundation.

More­over, the largest single insti­tu­tional share­holder in ARCO is Chase Man­hattan (4.5%) and the largest indi­vidual share­holder is Robert O. Anderson, who is also on the board of direc­tors of Chase Man­hattan Bank.

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 Guar­antee group. Markle Foun­da­tion chairman is Charles F. Biddle, also chairman of the credit policy group of Morgan Guar­antee Trust. Walter H. Page is pres­i­dent of Morgan Guar­antee Trust and pres­i­dent of J.P. Morgan. Another director, William M. Rees, is a director of First National City Bank.

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

Donors sup­port activ­i­ties which reflect their objectives!

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
$32,250
Envi­ron­mental Program
Wey­er­haeuser Foundation
$15,000
To under­write plan­ning for project “Consequences of a hypo­thet­ical world cli­mate change”
Rock­e­feller Foundation
$150,000
To “bring together inte­grated and emerging leaders from all sec­tors of society to dis­cuss and help shape policy by rec­om­men­da­tions on con­tem­po­rary issues.”
Rock­e­feller Foundation
$15,000
“Cost of exec­u­tive sem­inar on women and men in a changing society.”
Rock­e­feller Foundation
$148,000
“Arms con­trol and inter­na­tional security.”
SEPTEMBER 1, 1980 – WASHINGTON D.C
Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion
$15,000
“Seminar series of Com­mittee for the Third Sector”
NEW YORK
Pru­den­tial Foundation
$10,000
Ford Foun­da­tion
$24,395
Con­fer­ence on stu­dent aid policies
Ford Foun­da­tion
$5,000
Com­par­a­tive study of state judi­cial systems
Markle Foun­da­tion
$220,000
“To pro­vide forum for inves­ti­ga­tion and dis­cus­sion of com­mu­ni­ca­tion in modern society, specif­i­cally to inves­ti­gate rela­tion­ship between choice in pro­gram­ming con­tent and increasing number of dis­tri­b­u­tion chan­nels for communications”
Rock­e­feller Brothers Fund
$30,000
“Islamic Middle East program”
Rock­e­feller Brothers Fund
$28,000
“Developing the CEO: edu­cating the inte­gra­tive leader”

PUBLIC FINANCING OF ASPEN

In Brzezinski’s book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era, he wrote in ref­er­ence to a pro­posed con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion, “The needed change is more likely to develop incre­men­tally and less overtly… in keeping with the Amer­ican tra­di­tion of blur­ring dis­tinc­tions between public and pri­vate insti­tu­tions.“14 A prime Tri­lat­eral objec­tive is to blur the dis­tinc­tion between “pri­vate” and “public” oper­a­tions so as to divert public funds into pri­vate projects set up by Tri­lat­erals to achieve Tri­lat­eral objectives.

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

Ad-20009 – 80-1434
PI: Stephen P. Strick­land
Title: Aspen Institute/ United Way Bicen­ten­nial Project
Amount: $350,000 G&M (to date $90,000)

AP-00132 – 79-1297
PI: Robert B. McKay
Title: Devel­op­ment of the Jus­tice Pro­gram
Amount: $15,000 out­right
Grant Period: 11 – 1-76 to 6 – 30-80

CA-28286 – 77-0616
PI: Stephen Strickland/Aspen Insti­tute
Title: Chal­lenge Grant
Amount: $645,000
Grant Period: 11 – 1-76 to 6 – 30-8015

SUMMARY OF ASPEN INSTITUTE FUNDING

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

U.S. Tax­payer (via National Endow­ment for the Humanities)
$1,010,000
Atlantic Rich­field Foundation
1,186,250
Rock­e­feller Foundation
343,000
Markle Foun­da­tion (Morgan finan­cial interests)
220,000
Other Foun­da­tions
97,000
========
TOTAL
$2,856,000

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

THE ASPEN EXECUTIVE SEMINAR PROGRAM

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

According to an Aspen publication:

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

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

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

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

THE FUND FOR GOVERNANCE

According to the Institute’s A Brief Overview:

“…the Insti­tute is under­taking a sus­tained exam­i­na­tion of cru­cial issues of Gov­er­nance: how soci­eties and their gov­ern­ments and insti­tu­tions, public and pri­vate, national and inter­na­tional, can better respond to the often con­flicting pres­sures for social jus­tice, fair­ness, effi­ciency and indi­vidual freedom. Under this broad theme of Gov­er­nance, the Insti­tute focuses on such sub­jects as Financing the Future; Human Rights; The Cor­po­ra­tion and Society; Energy; A Chal­lenge to Gov­er­nance; Tra­di­tion and Mod­ern­iza­tion; The First 20 Years of Life; Ethics; Reli­gion and Gov­er­nance; Work, Indus­trial Policy and Society; and Struc­tures for Peace.18

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. “19

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

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

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

Some of the par­tic­i­pants in this pro­gram will not sur­prise you: Harlan Cleve­land, John Gardner, Tri­lat­eral Henry Kissinger, Marion Doen­hoff and Pehr Gyl­len­hammar.

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

CONCLUSIONS

  • Humanism is a man-centered, athe­istic reli­gion incon­sis­tent with and indeed utterly opposed to tra­di­tional Chris­tianity, Bib­lical the­ology or Orthodox Judaism.
  • The phi­los­ophy has been nur­tured and pro­moted by the same group of glob­al­ists that nur­tures and sup­ports communism.
  • Humanism is inti­mately con­nected with Tri­lat­er­alism, and calls for the elim­i­na­tion of nation­alism and nation­al­istic boundaries.
  • Trilateral-style Humanism is pro­cre­ated pri­marily by The Aspen Insti­tute, and is funded by tax­payers’ money as well as by pri­vate foun­da­tion and cor­po­rate funds.

[END OF ORIGINAL TRILATERAL OBSERVER NEWSLETTER]

THE ASPEN INSTITUTE TODAY

Little has changed in 25 years. Aspen has since expanded its influ­ence by sev­eral times over, pro­viding human­istic training to tens of thou­sands of cor­po­rate executives.

With regard to funding, 2004 saw major sup­port from globalist-oriented foundations.

Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion
$1,165,400
Ford Foun­da­tion
$2,365,000
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
$865,450
John S. and James Knight Foundation
$125,000
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
$1,880,053
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
$200,000
Rock­e­feller Brothers Fund
$550,000
Rock­e­feller Foundation
$950,000
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
$355,000
========
TOTAL

$8,330,903

The cur­rent direc­tors of the Aspen Insti­tute con­tinue to be drawn from the same upper ech­elon of global elitists.:

William N. Joy Founder & chief sci­en­tist of Sun Microsys­tems, designer of the Berkeley ver­sion of UNIX that became the back­bone of the Internet.
Walter Isaacson Pres­i­dent & CEO of Aspen Insti­tute; for­merly chairman & CEO of CNN and man­aging editor of Time Mag­a­zine. Author of Kissinger: A Biography
Yotaro Kobayashi Chairman, Aspen Insti­tute Japan; chairman of Fuji Xerox, director of Xerox Cor­po­ra­tion; Pacific Asia chairman of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion; advi­sory council member of J.P. Morgan’s Inter­na­tional Council
Madeleine K. Albright Former Sec­re­tary of State under Bill Clinton; director of the Council on For­eign Relations.
Gerald M. Levin Former chairman and CEO of Time Warner, Inc.
John P. McNulty Senior director of Goldman Sachs & Co.
Philip Merril Pres­i­dent and chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States
Elaine Pagels Har­rington Pear Paine Pro­fessor (of reli­gion) at Princeton University
Fred­eric B. Whittemore Partner, man­aging director of Morgan Stanley and Com­pany; member of the Council on For­eign Relations
Mor­timer B. Zuckerman Chairman and Editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report; member of J.P. Morgan National Advi­sory Board; member of the Council on For­eign Relations

Aspen also main­tains a Council of Hon­orary Trustees that con­sists of former board mem­bers or promi­nent indi­vid­uals who have been elected to the Council by a majority of the board mem­ber­ship. Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers on the council include: John Brademas, William T. Coleman, Jr., Umberto Colombo, Robert S. Ingersol, Henry Kissinger, Paul Volker and Robert McNa­mara.

HAS ASPEN CHANGED ITS MISSION?

According to the 2005 “Letter From the Pres­i­dent” on Aspen’s web site, Walter Isaacson writes:

The orig­inal goal of the Aspen Insti­tute, in the words of one of its ear­liest mis­sion state­ments, was “for Amer­ican busi­ness leaders to lift their sights above the pos­ses­sions which pos­sess them, to con­front their own nature as human beings, to regain con­trol over their own humanity by becoming more self-aware, more self-correcting and hence more self-fulfilling.”

But our core mis­sion remains the same. We seek to foster enlight­ened lead­er­ship and open-minded dia­logue. Through sem­i­nars, policy pro­grams, con­fer­ences and lead­er­ship devel­op­ment ini­tia­tives, the Insti­tute and its inter­na­tional part­ners seek to pro­mote non­par­tisan inquiry and an appre­ci­a­tion for time­less values. [Emphasis added]

We help people become more enlight­ened in their work and enriched in their lives. Together we can learn one of the keys to being suc­cessful in busi­ness, lead­er­ship and life: bal­ancing con­flicting values in order to find common ground with our fellow cit­i­zens while remaining true to basic ideals.20

Reli­gious buzz­words seen above include self-aware, self-correcting, self-fulfilling, enlight­ened lead­er­ship, open-minded dia­logue, time­less values, bal­ancing con­flicting values, etc. Some readers may equate these terms to New Age Enlight­en­ment, and that would be cor­rect. Human­ists, by def­i­n­i­tion, do not limit them­selves to one “tra­di­tion”. In fact, as suc­cessful as Aspen Insti­tute has been in achieving its goals, even it rec­og­nizes that the world is not going to be con­verted to Sec­ular Humanism.

Rather, a more likely sce­nario is to take the existing reli­gions of the world and gather them together under a single umbrella of lead­er­ship and a common frame­work that all can agree upon. The best cur­rent example of such an effort is seen with the United Reli­gions Ini­tia­tive (URI).

UNITED RELIGIONS INITIATIVE AND THE QUEST FOR WORLD RELIGION

URI was founded in 1993 by William Swing, Bishop of the Epis­copal Church Dio­cese of Cal­i­fornia, as an Inter­faith orga­ni­za­tion that seeks to bind reli­gions of the world into one common orga­ni­za­tion. The con­cept of inter­faith orga­ni­za­tions is nothing new, but few have made much headway in this conflict-ridden world. By con­trast, URI has grown at a spec­tac­ular rate, up to 100% per year. In his newly released book, False Dawn, Lee Penn writes

“In 2002, New Age author Neale Donald Walsch said that the URI is ‘more global in scope, and more uni­versal in reach’ than other inter­faith orga­ni­za­tions, adding that ‘I am not sure that any other inter­faith orga­ni­za­tion casts that wide a net.’”21

The people (and the orga­ni­za­tions they rep­re­sent) who have drawn close to URI is striking; to name a few, World Eco­nomic Forum, Earth Charter move­ment, Ted Turner, Ford Foun­da­tion, Dee Hock (inventor of the VISA credit card, founder and former CEO of VISA Inter­na­tional), Mau­rice Strong (Cana­dian bil­lion­aire), Bill Gates (Microsoft founder), among others. The URI is also closely allied with the United Nations. At least two URI summit con­fer­ences have been held at Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity. Carnegie-Melon Uni­ver­sity in Pitts­burgh hosted the 2000 conference.

In 2000, URI co-sponsored the World Mil­len­nium Peace Summit of Reli­gious and Spir­i­tual Leaders, held at the United Nations in New York City. The Secretary-General of the meeting was Bawa Jain. After the con­fer­ence, Jain was inter­viewed by James Harder of Insight On The News as saying,

“What we need to engage in is an edu­ca­tion factor of the dif­ferent reli­gious tra­di­tions and the dif­ferent the­olo­gies and philoso­phies and prac­tices. That would give us a better under­standing, and then I think [we have to deal with] the claims of absolute truth — we will rec­og­nize there is not just one claim of absolute truth, but there is truth in every tra­di­tion. That is hap­pening more and more when you have gath­er­ings such as these.” 22

The reli­gions rep­re­sented at the summit included Hin­duism, Bud­dhism, Zoroas­tri­anism, Con­fu­cianism, Ba’hai, Chris­tianity, Indige­nous, Judaism, Shinto, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam and Taoism, among others. Note the heavy rep­re­sen­ta­tion of eastern religions.

Ted Turner, who gave a keynote address at the Summit, denounced his child­hood Chris­tian faith because “it was intol­erant because it taught we were the only ones going to heaven.”

What does URI have to do with any­thing other than reli­gion? Its pre­amble state­ment declares,

We unite in respon­sible coop­er­a­tive action to bring the wisdom and values of our reli­gions, spir­i­tual expres­sions and indige­nous tra­di­tions to bear on the eco­nomic, envi­ron­mental, polit­ical and social chal­lenges facing our Earth com­mu­nity. [emphasis added]23

The United Reli­gions Ini­tia­tive is cer­tainly not the exclu­sive effort of the global elite, but it is per­haps the best example of the char­acter and nature of what they are attempting to achieve.

THE EARTH CHARTER INITIATIVE

The Earth Charter was cre­ated in 1994 by Mau­rice Strong and Mikhail Gor­bachev. Some view Earth Charter as being a pro­to­type con­sti­tu­tion for the New World Order. Although closely asso­ci­ated with the United Nations, Earth Charter indoc­tri­na­tion is meant to take place through edu­ca­tion and reli­gion, which is one reason that it is strongly sup­ported by URI.

NOTE: Much could be said about the Marxist-like doc­trine of Earth Charter, URI, and others, but the pur­pose of this newsletter is to answer the ques­tion, “Do the global elite pro­mote a reli­gion that is com­pli­men­tary and inte­gral in pur­pose to their New World Eco­nomic Order and the World Gov­er­nance?” So, we must leave the nature of that reli­gion for another issue.

The prin­cipal spokesman for Earth Charter, and its U.S. Chairman and Com­mis­sioner, is little known Steven C. Rock­e­feller, son of the late Nelson A. Rockefeller.

Steven Rock­e­feller is the reli­gious link to the New World Order being pro­moted by orga­ni­za­tions like the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. This Rock­e­feller received his Master of Divinity from the very lib­eral Union The­o­log­ical Sem­i­nary in New York City, and his Ph.D. in the phi­los­ophy of reli­gion from Columbia Uni­ver­sity, also very lib­eral. He is Pro­fessor emer­itus of Reli­gion at Mid­dle­bury Col­lege in Ver­mont, and also served as Dean of the Col­lege. Most impor­tantly to this dis­cus­sion, he was Chairman of the Earth Charter Inter­na­tional Drafting Committee.

Steven Rock­e­feller is also chairman of the Rock­e­feller Brothers Fund (RBF). David Rock­e­feller, his uncle, is also a director of RBF.

CONCLUSIONS

  • The global elite have a reli­gious agenda.
  • It is funded by the same people & orga­ni­za­tions who fund global polit­ical and eco­nomic policies.
  • It is spe­cific in its beliefs and method­olo­gies of envelopment.
  • It is unques­tion­ably set against Bib­lical Chris­tianity and Bible-believing Chris­tians because the Bible makes spe­cific claim to exclu­sivity regarding entrance into Heaven, for instance, John 14:6 states, “I am the way, the truth, and the light: no man comes to the Father except through Me.”

ENDNOTES

  1. Pro­tagoras, Pro­tagoras IV, 51.
  2. J.J. Rousseau, Emile.
  3. —, Du Con­trat Social.
  4. Paul Edwards, Ency­clo­pedia of Philosophy.
  5. Ibid.,
  6. Both of these Man­i­festos are avail­able from Prometheus Books, 923 Kens­ington Avenue, Buf­falo, New York 14215.
  7. John Dewey et al, Humanist Man­i­festo I and II, p. 14 – 16.
  8. Ibid., p. 17, 18.
  9. Ibid., p. 21 – 23.
  10. Corliss Lamont, The Phi­los­ophy of Humanism, p. 281.
  11. Ibid., p. 282, 283.
  12. Ibid., p. 257, 258.
  13. Ibid.
  14. Zbig­niew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era, p.259.
  15. Report of Financing Granted to Aspen Insti­tute, National Endow­ment for the Human­i­ties, 14th report (1979).
  16. The Aspen Insti­tute: a Brief Overview, Aspen Institute.
  17. Eric Gelman, The Great Amer­ican Salon, Newsweek XCVI (July 14, 1980), p. 66.
  18. Aspen Insti­tute, Op. Cit.
  19. Edmund Burke, Letter to William Smith, Jan­uary 9, 1795.
  20. Letter From the Pres­i­dent, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/index.asp?i=53
  21. Lee Penn, False Dawn, p. 43
  22. James Harder, U.N. Faithful Eye Global Religion ;

    http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2000/10/02/World/Religion.U.n.Faithful.Eye.Global.Religion-213309.shtml

  23. United Reli­gions Ini­tia­tive, About URI; http://www.uri.org/About_URI.html

, , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to Global Religion for Global Governance

  1. Steve Phillips October 4, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

    Hi,

    Great article. Very informative.

    I just wanted to point out an error. John 14:6 says life not light.

    Steve

  2. Lance October 7, 2011 at 6:39 am #

    Very inter­esting, but how does one account for the FACT that America does not sup­port the “doc­trine of Christ” in its public edu­ca­tion system, or its psuedo-Christian “human­i­tarian” churches? If America’s laws sup­port the “doc­trine of Christ”, which they don’t, why does the con­sti­tu­tion sup­port other “reli­gions” by declaring that its the peo­ples right to “freedom of reli­gion”? If Christ is the way, the truth, the life, why do so many American’s reject this Truth?

  3. Bobby November 9, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    The United States of America was founded on the prin­ci­ples brought to this country by Pil­grims in pur­suit of a “vision” given to Sir Francis Bacon who related it to Queen Eliz­a­beth, advising her to pursue the col­o­niza­tion of North America, because this is where the Mes­siah would appear. They needed freedom of reli­gion not only for their own pro­tec­tion, but in order to achieve their goal.

    According to Alice A. Bailey, “Christ” is not a man named Jesus, but an office which Jesus once held. Con­se­quently there have been many Christs. This is not a matter to be believed or rejected. It IS the belief of the World Servers of the Plan. When they speak of “Master Jesus” or “Christ”, they refer to a demonic spirit crea­ture, oth­er­wise known as an “Ascended Master”.

    Alice A. Bailey wrote “The Plan”, and instructed “World Servers” on it’s imple­men­ta­tion. The Plan in a nut­shell is “The Founding of the Kingdom”. But it’s a coun­ter­feit. It is so much more than a global religion.

    I have doc­u­mented all of this and more on my web­site Congregator.net.

    Pil­grim Society Research
    http://www.congregator.net/topical/pilgrim-society-research.htm
    Chart of the Global power Struc­ture
    http://www.congregator.net/topical/power-structure-main.htm

  4. プラダ バッグ April 11, 2013 at 5:23 am #

    You need to take part in a con­test for one of the best blogs on the net.
    I will rec­om­mend this site!

  5. http://tudiencongnghe.net/ June 10, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article.
    I’ll be sure to book­mark it and come back to read more of your useful infor­ma­tion. Thanks for the post. I’ll def­i­nitely return.

  6. garena shell hack June 18, 2013 at 2:06 am #

    Thanks for finally writing about > Global Reli­gion for
    Global Gov­er­nance | August Fore­cast & Review < Loved it!

  7. sukienki July 2, 2013 at 3:32 am #

    Def­i­nitely imagine that which you stated. Your favorite reason
    appeared to be at the net the sim­plest factor to remember
    of. I say to you, I cer­tainly get annoyed while folks con­sider con­cerns
    that they just do not rec­og­nize about. You man­aged to hit the nail upon the top as neatly as out­lined out the whole thing with no need side effect ,
    folks can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more.
    Thanks

  8. Where You Can Buy Prosolution Pills July 17, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    Ebuaejti xeaoixti: Where You Can Buy Proso­lu­tion Pills uzbooama.

Powered by Patriot's Web