United Nations Agenda 2030 Part One with Sandi Adams - Origins - Where Has This Come From?

 

Club of Rome launches joint taskforce that would restrict your food, travel & ownership choices

May 28, 2025




The ‘Materials and Consumption Taskforce’ is an attempt to micro-manage all aspects of your life: perspective

The Club of Rome and the Hot or Cool Institute launch the “Materials and Consumption Taskforce” that will give policy recommendations that if implemented, would restrict your ability to decide how you travel, what you eat, and how you live your life — all in the name of sustainability and the global economic system.

Launched on May 23, the taskforce will begin producing “guidelines that will serve as a critical resource for policymakers, businesses, and civil society, providing an in-depth analysis of materials and consumption and offering practical solutions for a more resource-secure future,” according to the Club of Rome press release.

“The taskforce recognizes that materials and consumption lie at the heart of many interconnected crises. From the escalating demand for critical minerals to the impact of supply chains on climate change and social inequalities, addressing these issues is essential to building a sustainable and resilient future”Club of Rome, Materials and Consumption Taskforce Press Release, May 2025

Read more

The Summit Of The Future | Through The Lens - Episode 6

 

P.S.

Most of the words expressed here are Sound Doctrine, except for "the Seven Year Tribulation", The Rapture (Pretrib), and prophecy regarding the nation of Israel.

Rockefeller’s Dream: Global Governance Through ‘Climate Change’

Rockefeller’s Dream: Global Governance Through ‘Climate Change’

Like the left's “long march through the institutions,” David Rockefeller played the long game.

by PAUL E. SCATES

December 9, 2023, 10:35 PM





David Rockefeller, grandson of oil magnate John D. and longtime head of the Chase Manhattan Bank, must be laughing his head off right now, for his global government dream might come into existence through one of the most ridiculous and unbelievable scams in history, called “climate change.”

So, “global warming” was invented by men who are still committed to eliminating over seven billion humans from the earth.

Rockefeller created, funded, or joined various secret societies that spawned globalist conspiracy theories, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission, and Rockefeller often stoked those theories with provocative statements:“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are … conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [David Rockefeller, Memoirs]
“But [today] the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.” [1991 speech at Bilderberg meeting in Berlin]

Another Rockefeller-funded group is the Club of Rome, co-founded by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scotsman Alexander King in 1968, whose stated goal was to reduce the world’s population to a “sustainable” level of between 500 million and 1 billion people. Their 1972 book, The Limits to Growth, explained their Malthusian vision: too many people on earth, using too much of the planet’s resources, would result in a catastrophic world-wide societal collapse within 100 years “if something wasn’t done immediately.” They believed that only a world government could implement that “something.” (READ MORE: VIDEO: Kerry Promises to Get Rid of Coal Faster. That’s Not Good.)

Fast-forward to today, when we’re scolded by climate zealots that “we only have 12 years left to save the planet” from the effects of global warming. Same scaremongering, just a shorter timeframe.

In both cases the dire warnings were just useful lies, as the Club of Rome openly admitted in 1991 in a book titled The First Global Revolution, co-authored by co-founder Alexander King. In the intro to Part II, he quoted French futurist Gaston Berger: “We must no longer wait for tomorrow; it has to be invented.” So invent they did: King noted that the end of the Cold War resulted in the sudden absence of traditional enemies against which support for global government could be justified. He wrote, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that … the threat of global warming … would fit the bill.” (italics mine)

So “global warming” was invented, a new Frankenstein’s monster against which the gullible world would zealously unite. But, just like Miss Shelly’s frightful creature, “global warming” (later “climate change”) is an imaginary monster; the real threat to human society are the “solutions” proposed and backed by avid globalists.

I had thought that the Club of Rome was just a group of bored elitists who would quickly move on to EST, Scientology, etc., but I was wrong. In a 2017 interview, co-author of The Limits to Growth (and World Economic Forum member) Dennis Meadows said that “86 percent of the world’s population needs to be eliminated. But a benevolent dictator could accomplish that peacefully.” (italics mine)

So, “global warming” was invented by men who are still committed to eliminating over seven billion humans from the earth, men who recognize that only a global government can accomplish that task.

Another David Rockefeller protégé was Canadian millionaire Maurice (pronounced “Morris”) Strong. A high school dropout, at age 18 he met Rockefeller, who took Strong under his wing, introducing him to “the Canadian Rockefellers,” the Desmarais family. Strong went to work for them in the Alberta oil fields, and by age 28 was a millionaire, at which time Rockefeller got him his first job at the United Nations. (READ MORE: Al Gore for President)

In 1972, Strong was selected to head the UN’s new Environment Program (UNEP), where he convened the first international expert group on climate issues, and created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under the UNFCCC, he formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body that provides the climate Assessment Reports that have been termed “the Environmentalists’ Bible” (that the computer models used for those assessments have been repeatedly and embarrassingly wrong hasn’t deterred climate zealots from renewed hysteria at every IPCC report release).

Strong is credited with coining the term “climate change” when “global warming” became awkward due to declining global temperatures starting around the year 2000. His most important legacy, though, is the UN’s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development program, unveiled in 1972 (rebranded in 2015 as Agenda 2030).

Agenda 21/2030 is the blueprint of the global government scheme, using “climate change” as its alluring mask. In the UN’s own words, it “will require a profound re-orientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” Such as the massive redistribution of wealth from Western democracies to the developing world: “Between $3.3–$4.5 trillion per year … to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That staggering amount would cripple the Western economies, thus removing a major barrier to global government — the ultimate goal of the “climate change” ruse.

Agenda 21/2030, Chapter 4 calls for drastically reducing consumption and production of everything, which comports nicely with the Club of Rome’s 2018 Climate Emergency Plan, which calls for halving consumption/production and halting all fossil fuel investment. (Neither document addresses the millions of jobs that would destroy, or the poverty and vulnerability of the populace that would ensue.) Chapter 5 almost lets the cat out of the bag, blaming the growth of world population for “placing increasingly severe stress on our planet.” Chapter 7 calls for an end to private property, claiming that “social justice … can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society-as-a-whole.”

Lest you think I’m misinterpreting the true goals of Agenda 21/2030, in 1991 Maurice Strong wrote in a report for the UN’s Conference on Environment and Development: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, home and workplace air-conditioning and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” (italics mine). So “the good life” that most humans aspire to must be abandoned to “save the planet.” But is it worth saving the planet if most of us must exist only in wrenching poverty, disease, and hopelessness?

It’s telling that Strong was on the board of the Club of Rome, the group that invented “global warming” to justify its call for global government largely to eliminate seven billion people from the planet. He wrote in his autobiography (Where on Earth Are We Going?) that the death of two-thirds of humanity would be “a glimmer of hope” for the future. So the man most responsible for the decades-long climate hysteria was a committed de-population advocate. But there’s more.

Maurice Strong was also a Foundation Director of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab’s “self-selected coalition” with the answers to all the world’s problems. Upon Strong’s death in 2015, Schwab credited him with being “my mentor since the creation of the Forum.” In 1973 Klaus Schwab invited Club of Rome co-founder Peccei to give the keynote address at the European Management Symposium (later the World Economic Forum), providing an influential global audience for the Club’s de-population ideas. (READ MORE: A Climate Change Believer’s Curse)

There is yet another Rockefeller connection to the UN and the WEF: Rockefeller’s longtime friend Henry Kissinger tutored Schwab for two years at Harvard’s International Business Seminar, and Schwab named him (along with Strong) as a mentor. Kissinger was the architect of the secret 1974 U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200, which called for abortion on demand, widespread birth control, and sterilization to stem global fertility rates and “overpopulation.”

In 2019, Schwab signed an agreement with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to “accelerate the implementation of Agenda 2030 across the globe.” And oh, my, has Herr Schwab “accelerated” that process! A 2019 WEF video titled, “8 Predictions for 2030” gives the lie to the “factcheckers” at CNN, Reuters, USA Today, and others who deny that the WEF ever claimed “you’ll own nothing and be happy,” for that is the first of the eight predictions.

Aside from the questionable science of climate change, it’s the same old hackneyed lust for power and control by a small group of elites.

The video also calls for a merging of capitalism and socialism, more government intervention in the lives of citizens “for fairness,” and more public/private partnerships (once known as “fascism,” where corporations collude with government to make a shambles of Constitutional rights and free markets). Again, the aim of all this is to cripple the Western democracies, smoothing the way for globalist control. Rockefeller’s minions at the UN and the WEF are getting closer to that goal.

In his book The Great Reset, Schwab proposes “to change and move on from free-market capitalism,” replacing it with his idea of “stakeholder capitalism,” which requires companies to consider the interests of employees, customers, suppliers, and community instead of just investors (thus the ESG and DEI travesties). But Schwab’s scheme is modeled after a 1937 Nazi Shareholder Law that required companies to consider “public welfare before individual gain.” Just another lie supporting the “necessity” of draconian actions that will decimate Western societies, clearing the path for globalist control.

In light of this evidence, it seems that the “climate change” hysteria that has overtaken Western institutions has less to do with the problems associated with a changing climate and much to do with global elites’ efforts to acquire power and control for their de-population schemes, and possibly even for their own enrichment. But here is the bottom line: Eliminating fossil fuels, the basis of the modern world economy, will effectively return us to the material world of the mid-1800s, depriving the rest of us of the means and wherewithal necessary to resist the globalists’ dictates.

The unquestioning zealotry of the virtue-signaling supporters of Net Zero, “sustainable development,” and the elimination of fossil fuels are blissfully making that gloomy future a certainty, decrying “greedy capitalists” even as they mindlessly help create a real tyranny of wealthy elitist masters. (READ MORE: Whitmer Signs Michigan’s Green New Dystopia)

Aside from the questionable science of climate change, it’s the same old hackneyed lust for power and control by a small group of elites … only this time the whole world has fallen for it because it’s disguised as a noble cause to “save the planet.” But in that 2017 interview, Limits to Growth co-author Dennis Meadows explained that de-population (under the guise of climate change) was necessary “in order to maintain the survivors’ freedom and standard of living.” Not such a noble cause after all, is it?

Like the communists’ “long march through the institutions,” David Rockefeller played the long game, and placed his minions in positions of influence and power to eventually achieve his globalist dream. The Club of Rome, the UN, Agenda 2030, Klaus Schwab and the Great Reset … are all part of the pre-determined “solution” to the false crisis of “climate change,” a solution that gives them the global power and control they’d never be able to achieve otherwise. Somewhere, David Rockefeller is smiling.

Source

Rome's call: 'Come on over'

By George F. Will

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Late in life, the mother of the Rev. Thomas Reese, S.J., began attending mass at a Southern California church, the congregation of which soon became Spanish-speaking. Services were conducted entirely in that language, which she could not understand, yet she happily continued attending. When her son asked why, she replied: "It is just like the Latin Mass, I don't understand a word of it. It is even better, I don't understand the homily." We have all listened to a speaker and wished: If only he were incomprehensible. As G.K. Chesterton said of Times Square, it would be beautiful if you could not read.

Mrs. Reese's son, now 64 and a senior fellow at a religious-issues think tank at Georgetown University, was raised experiencing the liturgy in Latin. He entered seminary in 1962, the year the Second Vatican Council convened. By the time Reese was ordained, the council had essentially proscribed the Latin Mass.

Having seen much change -- and much resistance to it -- Reese is relaxed about 2009's most intriguing development in Christianity, the Vatican's enticement of disaffected Anglicans. Rome is saying to individuals, and perhaps to entire parishes and even dioceses: "Come on over." It is trolling with rules, recently written, that will enable Anglicans-become-Catholics to retain some of their liturgy. The church will accept some already married priests, and perhaps married seminarians, but not bishops.

The Vatican says it is not raiding but merely answers to Anglican knocks on its door. Combined, however, with Pope Benedict XVI's having appealed to dissident conservative Catholics by removing most restrictions on celebrating the traditional Latin Mass, the courtship of Anglicans looks like an aggressive -- although not improperly so -- attempt to consolidate an expanded Catholicism.

There are 1.1 billion Catholics. Anglicanism is the third-largest Christian communion (Eastern Orthodox is second) but has just 80 million adherents, of whom only 2.3 million are Americans, and a mere 16,000 of them -- those in New Hampshire -- have helped to precipitate the Vatican's move. The election of a gay Episcopalian as New Hampshire's bishop was one brick over a load for conservatives, who think the Episcopal Church has become a Moveon.org at prayer -- liberal politics in vestments.

Half of all Anglicans are in sub-Saharan Africa. There and in Latin America, Anglicanism is culturally conservative, reducing conservatives' reasons for embracing Catholicism.

Reese disputes the assumption that the Vatican is accelerating a sorting out that will produce a more conservative Catholic Church. Some Catholics, he notes, will experience the fact, and many more will contemplate the idea, of married priests administering the sacraments. This, Reese thinks, may remind Catholics that for its first thousand or so years, the church had married priests and bishops. A celibate priesthood, he says, is a product of church law, which can be changed.

Reese thinks that would strengthen the church in the competition for souls. In parts of Latin America, he says, Catholic priests are so scarce that many villages see one only a few times a year. Evangelical Protestants, however, come to a village, identify a respected man, married or not, train him, build a church and the village becomes Protestant.

Reese, slight and bespectacled, laughs easily and infectiously but once caused a future pope to mutter, as Henry II did about Thomas a Beckett, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" Reese was editor of the Jesuit magazine America until 2005, when he was reprimanded by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whose defense of orthodoxy earned him the sobriquet "God's Rottweiler." Then he became Benedict XVI. Reese's offense, conservative Catholics said, was latitudinarianism -- lack of stringency regarding disputes about faith and morals.

But with the Latin Mass restored and Anglicans being courted with liturgical concessions, will the Catholic Church have three liturgies? Who are the latitudinarians now?

Today, the most contentious issues between liberal and conservative Anglicans concern gay and female priests. But many of the conservative Anglicans to whom Rome is beckoning are apt to be especially serious about the theological differences with Rome that have defined Anglicanism for almost five centuries, including the nature of the sacraments, veneration of Mary, and papal infallibility.

Benedict XVI's 2010 visit to Britain, where the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be amused by Vatican poaching, may be awkward, but the most disconcerting consequences of what the Vatican began in 2009 might eventually be felt by conservative keepers of Catholic tradition. Popes have mighty powers, but the law of unintended consequences contains no exemptions for the merely infallible.

.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302396.html

.

The Facade of “Global Salvationism”

Terry Melanson (4/12/2009)

According to Mr. Henderson, the great psycho-wave of the past 35 years is “global salvationism.” This quasi-religious belief has two ill-fitting articles of faith: environmental alarmism, and the assertion that Third World poverty is in some way due to the West taking more than its fair share of global resources. Both problems are alleged to require top-down global political solutions, including giant corporations accepting more “social responsibility.”

The focus of this global master-plan is the bland but subversive notion of “sustainable development,” that without extensive UN-administered government controls the world is going to Hades in a handbasket …

- Peter Foster, “The Prince of Power [Maurice Strong],” Financial Post (May 19, 2005)

I can’t think of a better way to put Climategate into proper perspective than to revisit a 1998 Financial Post editorial titled “Global Warming: The Real Agenda.” Its author, Terence Corcoran, quoted from statements given to the Calgary Herald by the former Environment Minister, Christine Stewart.

As “minister of the environment, I am very worried about global warming,” Stewart said, “no matter if the science is phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.”

“Environment Canada, therefore,” Corcoran commented immediately after, “is prepared to act on global warming even if there’s no such thing as global warming. On the strength of phony science, the federal government would still be willing to impose new taxes on energy consumption, cut economic growth, reduce our standard of living, and create bookshelves filled with new regulation governing most facets of the lives of Canadians.”

And further:

In another statement quoted by the Herald, Ms. Stewart gave another reason for adopting the religion of global warming. ‘Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.’ Here she gets closer to the core motivation of some of the leading global warming activists. Where socialism’s attempt at a global redistribution of wealth ended in economic catastrophe, global warming is being wheeled in as the next new economic crusade.
Consolidating Ms. Stewart’s statements, we reach some horrific conclusions. Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians - and most citizens of the world - would not otherwise accept.

Ms. Stewart, perhaps unintentionally, has identified the two key foundations of the global warming movement. One is based in environmentalism, which essentially claims that human beings are a problem in nature. The other foundation is the old business of economic redistribution. Both these movements are linked in the international climate change treaty Canada signed in Kyoto. Environment Canada has already given up trying to examine the science. It never really tried. Instead, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars churning out propaganda on the hypothetical effects of global warming.

Putting aside for the moment the socialist proclivities of environmentalists, one salient point brought up in the article was their overt misanthropy – typical of which are statements such as these:

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster, or for dramatic social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our Appropriate Technology, our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt-free at last.
- Stewart Brand, 1980 (quoted in: Rodes and Odell, A Dictionary of Environmental Quotations, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997, p. 90)

Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.

- Paul Watson (founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society), May 04, 2007
We have become a plague upon [ourselves and upon] the Earth…Until such a time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
- David M. Graber, Los Angeles Times, 22 October 1989 (in Rodes and Odell, op. cit., p. 149)
[T]he hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens… us. …When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory…

- The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo sapiens, then, not only would the Earth’s Community of life continue to exist but in all probability its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interest, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!”

- Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Princeton University Press, 1986, p. 115

And so on.

There’s some primitivist longing (ala Rousseau or Weishaupt, with a bit of Unabomber- and Gaia-worship for good measure) in the mix, but the main sickness is a bad strain of eco-nihilism – originally diagnosed, perhaps, in George Reisman’s “The Toxicity of Environmentalism.”

Eco-Socialism; Eco-Fascism; Eco-Imperialism

There’s a quote – traced to a single source – attributed to Communist Party USA National Chairman Gus Hall in 1972: “in the struggle to save the environment….we must be the leaders of these movements…. Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.”

If the quote is genuine, apparently his wish has come true: ample evidence can be had – from the “horse’s mouth” – in books such as The Greening of Marxism; Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature; or in wiki offerings (such as this, this, this, and this).There’s nary a mention of this, though; much less the validity, and inherent hypocrisy, of this.

The “Wise Men” of Globalism

While it’s inconclusive whether the scientists at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) are infected with fatalistic, anti-man Malthusian angst, they have in the past received some intriguing email.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, self-proclaimed president of “Earth Government,” Canadian Germain Dufour, sent CRU his Earth Government April newsletter titled “Formation of Earth Government for the good of all.” Dufour is perhaps an idealist, but his longing for a one world government is shared by the transnational elite (their think tanks in conjunction with the behemoth UN/UNESCO/NGO/Foundation apparatus) and, presumably, the high priests of climatology as well.

(Contrary to some articles, blogs, and forum posts on the web, it is unlikely that “Earth Government” Germain Dufour is one and the same as the Belgian Germain Dufour, who, according to the French journal l’Humanité in 1999, was a labour activist, a former worker-priest, former green party senator [Ecolo], and a Belgian Communist Party candidate. For one, Joseph-Germain Dufour – if his auto-bio is legit – was in Canada in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s,establishing academic credentials, while studying and working on environmental projects; while the “capuchin Monk” Germain Dufour was variously involved in socialist Belgian labour politics as well as being featured in a 1997 documentary called “Seeker of Silence.” See also the photo comparison below.)

Eco-totalitarianism integrates zealous ideologues, of seemingly disparate persuasions, who collude for top-down control of the planet’s resources. “The climate conference in Copenhagen,” Bilderberg-vetted Herman Van Rompuy said at his first press conference as the newly “appointed” President of the EU, “is another step toward the global management of our planet.” Likewise, the totalitarian bent of the original “wise man” of environmentalism, Maurice Strong, has not diminished with age. In a recent essay for the World Policy Journal, he spewed forth that “our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions.” “This is a man, we might remember,” writes Peter Foster of the Financial Post:

who welcomes the collapse of industrial civilization, and has described the prospect of billions of environmental deaths as a “glimmer of hope.” My editor didn’t believe me when I wrote this, so here’s what Mr. Strong actually said, in his autobiography, in a section described as a report to the shareholders, Earth Inc, dated 2031: “And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.”

Strong’s Green-comrade is, of course, Mikhail Gorbachev.

A recent article by Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada, founding member of the Club of Madrid, and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation of North America – is titled “Gorbachev continues to shape history.”

“Gorbachev is today not merely a man of historical significance,” Campbell writes affectionately, “but a man who continues to shape history with his world-changing ways.” Behind the scenes he continues “working the world leaders’ circuit selling climate change — the UN in Geneva in early October, the Club of Rome in Amsterdam two weeks later, Nobel laureates in Berlin and the Club of Madrid last week — and then on to Copenhagen next month.”

The Club of Rome has been ramping up its activities as COP15 approaches. The conference that Gorbachev had attended in October was, according to one of its websites, the “last of seven stepping stones, seven global meetings, starting in Turin early 2008, in the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen in December 2009, on which depends so much.” Club of Rome Global Assembly 2009 featured speakers such as global warming propagandist James Hansen (whose presentation was titled “Global Warming Time Bomb: Actions Needed to Avert Disaster”), and was attended by Bilderberg luminary Queen Beatrix.

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlans and Gorbachev at the Club of Rome Global Assembly 2009

“The Club of Rome was deliberately fashioned to influence policy,” wrote one of its founders, Alexander King in 1979. It originated 12 years earlier:

when Dr Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, met the present author, a British scientist. They agreed on what later became the central concern of the Club of Rome: to find solutions to the tangle of interacting problems, now facing all mankind. So far the Club’s greatest impact on world opinion was the report it commissioned from The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Limits to Growth.

The interdisciplinary concept is predominant in this and the Club’s five subsequent reports. Regular meetings of Club members with Heads of States and other high officials is a further important activity. Like its small and local precursor, the Lunar Society of Birmingham, two hundred years ago, the international Club of Rome derives its strength from its eminent membership of private citizens, working together as a catalyst and a spur to the world’s conscience.

It comes as no surprise that one of the inspirations behind the work of the Club of Rome was Harrison Brown. J. Rennie Whitehead, one of the founders of the Canadian Association of the Club of Rome (CACOR), writes:

In 1954, Dr. Harrison Brown of the USA had written a book The Challenge of Man’s Future, in which he outlined, with great clarity and foresight, most of the major problems that, fifteen years later, became the preoccupation of the Club of Rome and which now, forty years later, seem to be even further away from solution. Even today, Harrison Brown’s book is still one of the best analytical presentations of the probable consequences of population growth and the inevitable shift from fossil fuels to other sources of energy.

As you may recall “mass sterilization” John Holdren was profoundly influenced by Harrison’s 1954 book as well. Like Harrison and Holdren, pessimistic Malthusian preoccupation has always been the raison d’être of the Club of Rome. Holdren was co-author on a book and few papers with Club of Rome luminary Paul R. Ehrlich. In the latter’s 1968 The Population Bomb (pp. 130-1), we find the stark admission that:

The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.

Another admission, in 1991, was that the Club of Rome used “environmentalism” as a vehicle for misanthropic gloom and doom:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.

- Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider (co-founder and secretary, respectively, of the Club of Rome), The First Global Revolution, p. 115

Lest the reader entertain the incredulous notion that these globalization kingpins have somehow redeemed themselves, and have all joined the choir; one need only peruse the 2007 CACOR Proceedings.

An article by Fred G. Thompson (“Turning the Elephant Around”), in particular, has this to say:
[W]e have temporarily acquired the means to defy Nature, it is only for a short time. If we do not design policies to halt, and then reverse population growth, Nature by default will soon exact a most punishing solution. [...] The reduction of human population by default means in plain language the reduction of human numbers by war, disease and famine. [...]

Over-consumption is, of course, the basic cause of polluting the atmosphere and global warming. So it must be dealt with.

One possible scenario would be the imposition of birth control by a world government which possesses the capacity to enforce it globally. Not a pretty scene, but an alternative to global war, disease and starvation.

(Notice that it’s “Nature” with a capital “N”.)

In the same issue Charles Beaubien proposed that the Club of Rome work toward a super-ordinate (of a superior kind, rank, status) “World Community,” that “would make of the quarrelsome UN a central World Government, interacting with present national governments (minus today’s Security Council).”

And only a few weeks ago there was a press release by Francesco Stipo, Director of the USA Club of Rome. He was promoting his book, World Federalist Manifesto: Guide to Political Globalization, at a National Press Club Luncheon. “A world government is the only solution to world problems, such as climate change and the global economic crisis,” he wrote. “A world confederation that respects the sovereignty of world nations and that deals with the issues of international economy that cannot be dealt by one nation alone.” Which is it – a Federation or a Confederation? The title of the book suggests the former, while the latter seems like a bit of semantics to trick those who may still entertain the notion of patriotism.

The Club of Rome are also funds and supports the major players of the New Age apparatus. An offshoot was established in 1978 by Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei and Ervin Laszlo. The Club of Budapest is a network of consciousness and evolutionary thinkers – new age, communitarian, change agent (paradigm shift), deep ecology humanists – who comprise a World Wisdom Council (WWC) and a World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality.
Dr. Ervin Laszlo is President of the Club of Budapest. He’s a philosopher and “Systems Theory” expert; the “author of more than 400 papers and articles and over eighty books of which the most recent are ‘Science and the Akashic Field’ (2007) and ‘Quantum Shift in the Global Brain’ (2008), and co-founder and president of the board of trustees of the WorldShift Foundation”; and a purveyor of an imminent world shift in 2012 – the last of which fits like a glove with the scaremongering tactics of his Club of Rome benefactors.

In short, the “Aquarian Conspiracy” first identified by Marilyn Ferguson in the 1980s has not only achieved full bloom, but has graduated from infiltration into a consensus-making, global establishment of “powerful networks, partnerships and collaborations in the interest of fostering growing circles and forces for creative transformation on a planetary scale.”

Source: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=3176

.