Burning Man 2018: Silicon Valley’s Cult-Like Desert Festival

It’s the ultimate annual destination for top Silicon Valley techies to practice hedonistic pleasure, drugs, eastern spirituality and social engineering. This year could see as many as 100,000 people create a pop-up city in a northern Nevada desert. The Utopia-like Technocrat culture is ‘other-worldly’. ⁃ TN Editor

Over the last year, at lunches with various Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, I have been offered: Several chances to microdose on LSD (pass!); at least four suggestions that magic mushrooms will help me become a better reporter (maybe); three declarations that Ecstasy will make me a nicer person (doubt it); and now that it is legal in California, weed, weed and more weed in every conceivable delivery method (yum, gummy bears!).

And, of course, ayahuasca, a brew made from plants that includes the hallucinogen DMT. The well-known tech exec (who, like most people for this article, asked not to be named, for obvious reasons) who urged me to try it with him was nearly ecstatic on the subject. “It is the thing to reach the next level of innovation,” he said. “And you don’t throw up that much.”

He had me until vomiting. Thanks, but no thanks.

Last week The New York Times reported that some on the board of Tesla were worried that the company’s founder and chief executive, Elon Musk, “has on occasion used recreational drugs.” Some were blaming a series of his ill-conceived and possibly actionable tweets on the possible use of Ambien.

Now Burning Man, the annual gathering in Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, is about to begin. Techies and many others will flock there to look at art, dress in costumes, burn things and perhaps discover the next great start-up idea with the help of a tiny bit of ketamine.

This confluence of events made me curious about what is actually going on when it comes to drugs in the tech world these days. While the use of mind-altering substances here is nothing new, I spoke to just over a dozen people who all said consumption was increasing once again. Obviously, there are major problems with addiction to opiates and alcohol here, as elsewhere. But people in Silicon Valley tend to view drugs differently from those in places like, say, Hollywood and Wall Street. The point is less to let off steam or lose your inhibitions than to improve your mind.

“No one can afford to lose a step here anymore, so they want to hack the experience to make it work for their time-constrained schedules,” said one techie. “You want to be super lucid now.”

Another tech executive compares it to what Bradley Cooper did in the movie “Limitless,” about a man who uses a mystery drug to become much smarter than anyone else. “It was a terrible movie, but the idea of a having a heightened sense of awareness and also being totally functional appeals to people now,” he said. “Whatever can get you to that place without a lot of downside — like addiction — is preferred.”

That is why everyone he knows microdoses, saving the longer-acting drugs like Ecstasy for the rare occasions when they want to party and relax. As always, Adderall is often used to plow through work.

And marijuana, he told me, had become more like drinking a glass of wine, noting that he sees people openly vaping at tech events. Why? “No one does a stupid tweet on weed like they might on alcohol,” he said. “The most that happens is that you get lazy and eat badly.”

Read full story here…


Bioethicists Want To Purge Christian Doctors From Medical Practice

The Christian/Biblical worldview elevates man as the pinnacle of creation, whereas Technocrats debases man as being equal to or less than a common animal. This article shows the increasing hostility toward Christians who value human life and dignity. Is Technocracy anti-human? Yes.  TN Editor

Two academic bioethicists want to bar Christians and those who hold other traditional religious beliefs from practicing medicine, and even from attending medical school. The pair fear, as the National Post summarizes, doctors might “impose their values on patients.”

Of course, it is impossible — not unlikely: impossible — for doctors not to impose their values on patients. Even using a tongue depressor on a patient presupposes certain moral values. (Presumably the doctor is doing this to aid in his goal of healing the patient, a moral value.) Since morality infuses all actions, the only real question is this: what moral values should doctors hold?

Julian Savulescu and Udo Schuklenk (I will refer to them as “the SS” hereafter), in their paper “Doctors Have No Right to Refuse Medical Assistance in Dying, Abortion or Contraception” in the journal Bioethics, argue that conscientious objectors not be allowed to train for or to practice medicine. “The problem with conscientious objection,” they write, “is that it has been freely accommodated, if not encouraged, for far too long.”

Conscientious Objection

In their definition, conscientious objectors are those medical professionals who refuse to kill or to disperse contraception for traditional religious reasons. Throughout their paper the SS assume, but never argue, it is a moral good that doctors kill patients when patients demand to be killed, or that doctors kill the lives inside would-be mothers when requested.

“Enlightened, progressive secular countries like Sweden, have labour laws in line with our arguments. Sweden provides no legal right of employees to conscientious objection.” To the SS, the more enlightened and progressive a country is, in effect, the farther it is from Christianity.

The SS say anti-conscientious objection laws have “not had a detrimental effect on applications to these countries’ medical schools.” This must be false. If these laws have been applied, then they have prevented faithful Christians and other religious from (openly) entering these schools. If this turning-away hasn’t happened to many, it proves only how quickly Christianity has faded in these countries.

Religion in Medicine

“We don’t know of any evidence that those with religious beliefs make better medical doctors,” say the SS. This is proof the SS aren’t up on medical history. If it weren’t for Christianity, the tradition of hospitals, nursing, and even doctoring would be far different, notably far less prevalent. They say, “We are deeply sceptical that holding religious beliefs makes one better at the practice of medicine.” But the opposite of these religious beliefs lead to killing patients and the lives inside women, as opposed to healing and preventing death. In their scheme, medicine is no longer what is best for the patient or mankind, but what is most expedient.

They assert contraception is a “social good,” “one of the greatest and most valuable of human achievements.” This is false. It is by definition an anti-human achievement. Where contraception has been adopted, birth rates have plummeted, often below replacement levels. And there are many other detrimental effects (many are listed here).

Who Decides Right and Wrong?

The SS continue with their reasoning:

If society thinks contraception, abortion and assistance in dying are important, it should select people prepared to do them, not people whose values preclude them from participating. Equally, people not prepared to participate in such expected courses of action should not join professions tasked by society with the provision of such services.

That “tasked by society” bit comes dangerously close to arguing that morality can be decided by vote. If a society decides it wants a thing, then that thing is “right.” But then the SS also admit this kind of “ethical relativism is practically ethical nihilism. If one accepted ethical relativism, the holocaust was, from the Nazi’s perspective, right. It is just that today we have a different set of values from the Nazis.” This is true. Ethical relativism is ethical nihilism. And since this is so, theirs is a direct admission that we need seek for morals truths which transcend societies and times.

That truth can be found in the natural law. There is a lot more too it of course, but very briefly, the natural law states that that which goes against human nature is wrong. Impeding the results of sexual intercourse, and the direct killing of innocent human lives are antithetical to human nature, and they are therefore immoral.

Rights Don’t Trump Wrongs

It is important to understand that when doctors have a monopoly over a procedure like surgery, it is not a luxury that they can choose to give or withhold on personal grounds. There are criteria around justice, autonomy and interests that determine whether it is provided. When contraception, abortion or euthanasia are made legal and they become part and parcel of medical services over which doctors have monopoly power, patients do acquire a right to them.

It is an absurd argument that because a thing is legal that therefore people have a “right” to it. Driving is legal; do people therefore have a right to free cars?

Excepting contractual agreements and the like, it is just not true that a doctor is, as the SS say, ethically bound to provide any service asked of him.

Of course, potential employers (like hospitals) may choose not to hire doctors who refuse to kill or dispense contraception. If these acts are legal, this is the employers’ right. And given that legality, it does follow that certain medical schools may also bar entrants who do not promise to abide by that school’s ethics.

The SS have much of the law on their side. But that only demonstrates the well known truth that what is legal is not always what is right. So far, conscientious objection is still legal. Yet the SS gleefully look forward to a time when faithful Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other conscientious objectors are barred from practicing medicine. If we aren’t vigilant, they’ll get their wish.

Read full story here…

Theologians Argue: Forces Driving Globalization Ideology Are Demonic, Anti-Christ-Like

The United Nations, chief promotor of globalization around the world, has demonstrated a religious flair in recent years, and has been able to co-opt many main-line religions into the “green” camp. However, there are more orthodox Bible scholars who are taking exception to it all.   TN Editor

Prominent theologians and scholars are saying this week that while globalism may be a buzzword this election season, too few understand the demonic forces driving this ideology.

As The New York Times reported Monday, until relatively recently it was rare to hear people referred to as “globalists” but the label is more common now. And while many globalists claim to have the interests of the entire world at heart, the irony is that they have become a tribe of sorts; and they are a wealthy, elite, and powerful tribe for whom national borders are an impediment to their agenda.

While many definitions for globalism exist, a wide chasm separates 1) necessary global exchanges in an increasingly interconnected world, like trade, legal immigration, and the cooperation and sharing of ideas across borders, and 2) globalism as a secular humanistic religion of sorts that envisons a one-world government.

For the second definition of globalism, such views are antithetical to a Christian worldview, according to some, even as the Church itself is global and the Kingdom of God is not constrained by national borders.

“A major objection to globalism from a spiritual and biblical point of view is that many of the globalists are pushing for a global value system,” said Wallace Henley, senior associate pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas in a Tuesday phone interview with The Christian Post.

Henley, who has written recently on CP about national borders (see part 1 here, part 2 here, and part 3 here) further explained that there is an anti-Christ spirit at work in the world that opposes the Kingdom of Christ, which is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

“The Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ is the highest form of civilization. The anti-civilization represented by anti-Christ is the opposite of that. So if the kingdom of Christ is righteousness, the anti-civilization is evil and injustice. If the kingdom of Christ is peace, the Kingdom of anti-Christ is conflict. If the Kingdom of Christ is joy in the Holy Spirit, anti-civilization is misery.”

In a September 4 American Thinker article titled, “Globalism: the Religion of Empire” theologian Fay Voshell noted similarly that “[l]ike the Christian vision of the universal Kingdom of God, the religion of secular globalism claims universality, but is an earthly minded substitute for the Church universal. The Christian vision sees the Church universal as God’s kingdom ruling the earth. The religion of globalism sees an earthly, utopian world order in which all men pay allegiance to elite priests who rule over a World City without national borders.”

That lack of borders, Henley continued, is particularly problematic, “because within borders a particular civilization can choose to uphold those principles that we [as Christians] believe are at the heart of what makes a civilization a civilization.”

Without nation-states within those borders, “the only alternative to that is a global governance scenario which is terrifying,” he added.

Political tensions in the past year such as the populist backlash against Germany’s acceptance of hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East, Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, and the contentious Republican primary that produced a Donald Trump candidacy for President have showcased nationalist revolts against globalist ideas and influence.

In an 18-point essay that went viral on Charisma News in August, Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in San Diego suggested that perhaps the most important reason for Christians to support Donald Trump, is that he opposes globalism whereas Clinton thrives on it.

“Globalism is far more than ‘geographical’ or ‘eliminating national borders and boundaries,'” Garlow wrote. “It is spiritual and demonic at its core. Few — very few — understand this. This is quite likely one of the main reasons why Trump is hated. Do your homework on this one. Think ‘principalities and powers.'”

Read full story here…

The ‘Pseudo-Ethics’ of Social Justice In Economics, Politics And Religion


“Social Justice” is a phrase that you see everywhere today. Global Warming is all about social justice. The United Nations sponsors an annual World Day of Social Justice.  The Peaceful Uprising  website states that Climate Change Is A Social Justice Issue.

The U.N.’s own website states,

“For the United Nations, the pursuit of social justice for all is at the core of our global mission to promote development and human dignity. The adoption by the International Labour Organization of the Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization is just one recent example of the UN system’s commitment to social justice.” [emphasis added]

One Christian blogger recently wrote,

“As we strive for social justice and attempt to love our neighbors, are we relying on Christ, or are we relying on the military, political leaders, the government, church authorities, institutions, and abusive ideologies?” [emphasis added]

Social justice is a slippery bar of soap, but it surely sounds important, doesn’t it?

The term has a long history, definitive philosophy and uniformly disastrous results to any society who dared to embrace it. Plus, others have written extensively about it.

Spoiler ahead. According to famed Austrian economist F.A. Hayek, social justice is nothing more than “pseudo-ethics” that “fails every test which a system of moral rules must satisfy in order to secure a peace and voluntary co-operation of free men.”1

Brief History

There are two historical threads that started in the same time-frame and have travelled forward like parallel train tracks.

The first attribution of the term went to a Jesuit priest, Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s and was based on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. Taparelli argued that working for the common good was the highest calling. Redistribution of wealth was foreseen as the end, but he stopped short of calling for government intervention to get there.

The Catholic concept of social justice has not only matured, but is seen as the centerpiece of Pope Francis’ agenda for global harmony. The authoritative Jesuit organ, Ignatius Solidarity Network states clearly on its home page,

“Pope Francis’s emphasis on the plight of the poor and marginalized has brought new energy to the work of service and social justice in the Catholic Church.

“At the Ignatian Solidarity Network, our social justice education and advocacy mission is grounded in the spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Catholic Social Teaching and the prophetic call of the Gospels – each of which we see present in Pope Francis, both in word and action. His Jesuit formation, perspective as a Latin American and his gentle spirit provide inspire our work with individuals and institutions connected to the Jesuits and the larger church.” [emphasis added]

Also in the 1840s, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels were developing their ‘science of socialism’ that first produced The Communist Manifesto. To Marx, social justice would result by tearing down the elite class and raising up the oppressed class: in other words, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Today, we call this ‘wealth redistribution’.

For all of the altruistic goals of Marx and his followers, theory turned into practice and then the carnage began. Lenin and his Marxist revolutionaries “came to power with an ambitious programme of measures designed to ensure social justice and improve the lot of the poor.”2

According to Austrian philosopher Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,

“If one were to take paper and pencil to make an estimate of how many people were murdered or killed in battle because of the ideas of the French Revolution in their various stages, guises, and evolutionary forms, because of the ideas of equality, ethnic or racist identity, a ‘classless society,’ a ‘world safe for democracy,’ a ‘racially pure people,’ ‘true social justice achieved by social engineering’ – one would arrive at simply staggering sums. Even the Jewish holocaust offered by the National Socialists with five or six million dead would seem almost a drop in the bucket.” [emphasis added]

Literally, at least 97 million died during the last century in the Communist dictatorships around the world: Russia, China, Southeast Asia, Africa, South America, etc. In fact, more died at the hands of their own Marxist rulers than died in all external wars, combined.

When the Catholic doctrine of social justice met the Marxist version in the 1970s, it gave full birth to the so-called Liberation Theology that ravaged large swaths of Africa and South America. This writer personally witnessed the horrible carnage in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) thanks to Liberation Theology.

Modern Implications

Social justice is a major meme throughout the world, throughout the United Nations and throughout organized religions and even in the evangelical church. While the average person on the street would have a hard time defining social justice, it does have a very specific and historical doctrine that cannot be denied or minimized.

In short, social justice mostly focuses on economic justice, where income and wealth distribution is paramount. Ever-present is the notion that people as individuals are not worthy to serve their own needs, but rather they should serve the greater good and thus rely on the greater good to somehow meet their needs. This always elevates the needs of the community above the needs of individuals.

The United Nations is using social justice to promote its system of Sustainable Development, or Green Economy. This writer has carefully documented this to be the functional equivalent of Technocracy from the 1930s; a resource-based economic system without social classes, private property or liberty.

Churches are using social justice as a societal support system to justify the plans of the United Nations to transform the world into Sustainable Development. Do all church-goers recognize this? Hardly. But here is a tell-tale sign.

Whenever your pastor starts talking or writing about social justice, look out.

Whenever he or she starts quoting St. Loyola of Ignatius, the Catholic thought-leader preceding social justice in the 1840s, run.

The co-called ecumenical movement that brings various church movements together in “unity” (a social justice concept) has allowed the Catholic church to methodically and purposefully slip social justice dogma into the evangelical church. There is otherwise no Biblical mandate or support for the concept of social justice.

The world, including political, economic and religious, has seemingly gone mad over social justice.

However, We would do well to remember the lessons of the past century so that we don’t help to usher in the death of another 97 million world citizens. Social justice is an evil philosophy that must be repudiated at every opportunity.

Ed. Note: Shout-out and hearty thanks to Canadian researcher Carl Teichrib for his excellent research to document this important topic


  1. F. A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Political order of a Free People (University of Chicago Press, 1979), p.135.
  2. Mervyn Matthews, Poverty in the Soviet Union: The Life-styles of the Underprivileged in Recent Years (Cambridge University Press, 1986), p.7.
  3. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (Arlington House, 1974), p.419.

Additional Resources:

International Labour Organization Declaration On Social Justice For A Fair Globalization (UN)

A Fair Globalization Creating Opportunities For All (UN)

Global Religion For Global Governance


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

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

[the_ad id=”11018″]

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:

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

Let’s go 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 C. 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


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!


Atlantic Richfield Foundation


Long term support
Atlantic Richfield Foundation


Humanities & Arts Program
Atlantic Richfield Foundation


Environmental Program
Weyerhaeuser Foundation


To underwrite planning for project “Consequences of a hypothetical world climate change”
Rockefeller Foundation


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


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


“Arms control and international security.”


Carnegie Corporation


“Seminar series of Committee for the Third Sector”


Prudential Foundation


Ford Foundation


Conference on student aid policies
Ford Foundation


Comparative study of state judicial systems
Markle Foundation


“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


“Islamic Middle East program”
Rockefeller Brothers Fund


“Developing the CEO: educating the integrative leader”


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:

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

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

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


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)


Atlantic Richfield Foundation


Rockefeller Foundation


Markle Foundation (Morgan financial interests)


Other Foundations






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


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.


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.


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.



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


Ford Foundation


William and Flora Hewlett Foundation


John S. and James Knight Foundation


Charles Stewart Mott Foundation


David and Lucile Packard Foundation


Rockefeller Brothers Fund


Rockefeller Foundation


Alfred P. Sloan Foundation






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.


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).


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 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.


  • 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.”


  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 ;