Busted: Club Of Rome Reveals Gushing Support For Green New Deal

March 16, 2019

By Patrick Wood

The venerable global elite group, The Club of Rome, has tipped its hand by gushing over the Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal.

Founded in 1968, the Club of Rome was the original elite group who created crisis-mode global cooling and then global warming. They produced the infamous treatise called “The Limits to Growth” that was positioned as “A Report for The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind.” Limits to Growth proposed a resource-based economic system in the likeness of Technocracy, and called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources.

When the Trilateral Commission was co-founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski to establish a “New International Economic Order”, Club of Rome members intermingled with the Bilderberg group and members of the Commission.

The totality of the Green New Deal spectacle in America is precisely in line with the global elite’s plan to force Sustainable Development upon the entire world. In the Club’s statement below, they state “We know the facts. We have the solutions. We just need the political will.” The purpose of Green New Deal movement is specifically to develop the “political will” to implement their “solutions”.

The recent tweet that spilled the beans on Club of Rome’s support is pictured below.

www.activistpost.com...
...

Busted: Club Of Rome Reveals Gushing Support For Green New Deal

These are the original people behind these "new movements." It is ironic how the people who support Anthropogenic Global Warming claims are the same people who protest about the global elites, yet these are the same people who have fallen for the global elites plan.

As the above article states The Club of Rome in the 1991 book The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome

They stated the following:

...
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.
...

The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome

In other words, these claims were made up by the global elites and those who have fallen for these claims are believing the "global elites" and the need for a global government which will control every aspect of people's lives.

I think we need to do something about our abuse of the ecosystem, but this global warming green new deal is just a way of siphoning money out of people and shipping it to an elite group of people who will be the only ones allowed to do anything anymore. We will have the right to pay taxes and to starve though, while these people bribe scientists to say the world is ending because the poor through upper class are causing all of the problems so they need their money taken away.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources. "

This- right here. Without an equilibrium between population and available resources we will be no better than locusts... But the green new deal doesn't even begin to touch on that subject.
The poor can still breed freely, as their bills are paid by the middle class, while middle class struggle to afford their own children after being taxed so heavily to support the poor.

Meanwhile, the world population continues to grow, unchecked.

Gives a new "meaning" to the word "club" doesn't it 😎

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources. "

This- right here. Without an equilibrium between population and available resources we will be no better than locusts... But the green new deal doesn't even begin to touch on that subject.
The poor can still breed freely, as their bills are paid by the middle class, while middle class struggle to afford their own children after being taxed so heavily to support the poor.

Meanwhile, the world population continues to grow, unchecked.

Calm down, Thanos. How do we solve it? Population control? One child policies? You can only have children above a certain income threshold?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The ways I sees it is pretty straight forward, the elitists and club of Rome want to expand their profits from their free range tax farm while expanding power and control.

Cheers - Dave

Props to the Club - I read their fist trope The Limits of Growth around 50 years ago. It terrified me but once it became clear we weren't going to run out of oil in the 1980's or water by 1990 I got wise to fear porn at the ripe old age of 17. I've been studying conspiracies ever since thanks to our illustrious club of pseudoscience calamity mongers.

Take whatever they say, turn it 180 degrees and you're looking in the right direction.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources. "

This- right here. Without an equilibrium between population and available resources we will be no better than locusts... But the green new deal doesn't even begin to touch on that subject.
The poor can still breed freely, as their bills are paid by the middle class, while middle class struggle to afford their own children after being taxed so heavily to support the poor.

Meanwhile, the world population continues to grow, unchecked.

Calm down, Thanos. How do we solve it? Population control? One child policies? You can only have children above a certain income threshold?

We're spreading like locusts, finding new and creative ways to destroy our resources more effectively than ever before. Locusts destroy crops for a season- we're destroying the soil they grow from.

I never claimed to know how to solve the population problem. Do you have a solution, or do you just want to criticize me pointing it out? Ignoring the problem is ignorant, IMO... but that seems to be the go-to policy for every government and religion.

Speaking of, if we could ban religion it would only take another fifty years or so to get population under control. Want to criticize that reality too? Allowing people to breed unchecked and allowing them to raise children completely out of touch with reality is a huge part of most every problem we face.

Good night.
How hard is it to grasp, that yes, we need to clean up our environment, but the world is not going to go "poof" in 12 years?

If these dang kids would spend more time figuring out how to do that, or even just start implementing some of the great ideas I've already read about, and less time listening to all the BS out there, we would be off to a great start!

Taking all my money isn't going to stop a flood, tornado, or winter for pete's sake!

Do they not teach in schools anymore that Greenland has tropical plant fossils? Is it my fault it's not hot there any more?
Probably.

This is somehow very appropriate because the logistics of doing this would be mind boogling and the cost..

a reply to: lordcomac

Speaking of, if we could ban religion it would only take another fifty years or so to get population under control. Want to criticize that reality too? Allowing people to breed unchecked and allowing them to raise children completely out of touch with reality is a huge part of most every problem we face.

Quoted for breathtaking bigotry.

originally posted by: lordcomac
...
Speaking of, if we could ban religion it would only take another fifty years or so to get population under control. Want to criticize that reality too? Allowing people to breed unchecked and allowing them to raise children completely out of touch with reality is a huge part of most every problem we face.

Damn, you are describing yourself to a T... Meanwhile you still want to go along with the globalist elites, including "wanting to ban religion."

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I think it may be a good time for us to revisit the Recycling Scam. Have we learned nothing? Obviously not because we still pay for the privilege of recycling...

a reply to: rickymouse

Here is the problem. Many claim "capitalism is the problem," but if it was why is it that socialist and communist countries have a much worse record with pollution than countries like the U.S.?

The U.S. is still working on making cleaner coal, and we have been working for a long time to lower smog and other truly toxic substances and chemicals.

But, the globalists are concentrating on blaming CO2. CO2, one of the building blocks of life on Earth. Without CO2 life as we know it would not have been possible on Earth. By reducing "atmospheric CO2" you are reducing life on this planet, and that is a fact.

Perhaps some of you have noticed, or maybe not. But the goals of the globalists, and the left in general, not everyone, has been to fight against life.

Look at what democrats have been doing in democrat cities, they are at a point that even when a child survives abortion and is born alive democrats in power still claim those children should be left to die. It is exactly the same thing with this "globalist fight against CO2."

"Fighting Climate Change/fighting CO2" means fighting against life on Earth.

The Obama administration was not only thinking about imposing "carbon taxes" but they were also thinking about imposing a tax on pets, because they exhale CO2.

What do you think will happen if globalists get their way and the draconian carbon taxes are implemented alongside their other taxes, policies, and laws dictating what cars you can drive, what foods you can eat etc? Yet the planets and moons in entire Solar System" continue to "warm up?" They will impose more, and more, and more laws such as "China's original one child policy at a global level" etc.

If you think "the war on drugs" had not effect and was only detrimental, what do you think "a war on life and climate change" would be like?... It will never end.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: rickymouse

Here is the problem. Many claim "capitalism is the problem," but if it was why is it that socialist and communist countries have a much worse record with pollution than countries like the U.S.?

The U.S. is still working on making cleaner coal, and we have been working for a long time to lower smog and other truly toxic substances and chemicals.

But, the globalists are concentrating on blaming CO2. CO2, one of the building blocks of life on Earth. Without CO2 life as we know it would not have been possible on Earth. By reducing "atmospheric CO2" you are reducing life on this planet, and that is a fact.

Perhaps some of you have noticed, or maybe not. But the goals of the globalists, and the left in general, not everyone, has been to fight against life.

Look at what democrats have been doing in democrat cities, they are at a point that even when a child survives abortion and is born alive democrats in power still claim those children should be left to die. It is exactly the same thing with this "globalist fight against CO2."

"Fighting Climate Change/fighting CO2" means fighting against life on Earth.

The Obama administration was not only thinking about imposing "carbon taxes" but they were also thinking about imposing a tax on pets, because they exhale CO2.

What do you think will happen if globalists get their way and the draconian carbon taxes are implemented alongside their other taxes, policies, and laws dictating what cars you can drive, what foods you can eat etc? Yet the planets and moons in entire Solar System" continue to "warm up?" They will impose more, and more, and more laws such as "China's original one child policy at a global level" etc.

If you think "the war on drugs" had not effect and was only detrimental, what do you think "a war on life and climate change" would be like?... It will never end.

I know quite a few Democrats and less Republicans. Liberals stick their parents in nursing homes, conservatives have their parents move in with them much more often when they are having problems. Liberals will bring their pets to the vet more often and are more apt have them put down at the vet if they are feeling crappy. Conservatives will take the animals home and try to care for them, often the animals live a long time and do not suffer as liberals think they will.

I don't want to be stuck in a nursing home, I do not want someone to give me meds to ease my exit if I refuse cancer treatment and try to do it by myself, yes, doctors do give some meds to ease those who do not want more chemo out quicker, these meds will shut their immune system down to speed death. It is supposed to be humane to do so, I sure will never take these meds if I want to fight cancer naturally. I have had to make a decision with doctors to help someone pass peacefully twice in my life. Lots of people do this, but Both times the people were in really bad shape and their future was bleak.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources. "

This- right here. Without an equilibrium between population and available resources we will be no better than locusts... But the green new deal doesn't even begin to touch on that subject.
The poor can still breed freely, as their bills are paid by the middle class, while middle class struggle to afford their own children after being taxed so heavily to support the poor.

Meanwhile, the world population continues to grow, unchecked.

Calm down, Thanos. How do we solve it? Population control? One child policies? You can only have children above a certain income threshold?

By joining the BirthStrike Movement to save the planet

a reply to: rickymouse

I have noticed that too. My parents retired a couple years ago, and they could not afford living by themselves, so they are living in my house, and I intend to keep helping them until they die, or I die. I would not leave my parents to fend for themselves when they can't afford it. But this is also how conservative hispanics live. Our parents took care of us when we couldn't, so why shouldn't we take care of them, or help them, when they need it?

I have seen how the mentality of the left in general, but not everyone, has changed to "anti-life" for the past 2-3 decades, and it has only gotten worse and worse.

But the worse part is that even Republicans/conservatives in power are trying to kowtow to the left by implementing "atmospheric CO2 sequestration programs to try to stop the Green New Deal."

Some years back I stated that a job was offered to me in one such program to find ways to sequester atmospheric CO2, but I refused it. I refuse to partake in a program that I know will be detrimental to all life on Earth.

Two days ago I was in a conference with Senator Barrasso, and in that conference he explained how "Republicans" are planning to present their own version of a Green New Deal, to try to stop the Green New Deal. That Republican version is to "implement" ways to sequester atmospheric CO2, which imo will be as bad as the Green New Deal.

The problem with "sequestering atmospheric CO2" is that the Earth will become more barren of plant life by implementing such measures. It will decrease the harvests of all plant life, and the growth of many plants will simply be stunted. Less harvest in a world that has more people in it means more people starving to death because of these programs. Not to mention the fact that with less atmospheric CO2 plants will need more potable water to survive, which will leave us with less water.

But this is what many people, in all sides of the political spectrum, don't comprehend. This is exactly what the globalist elites want. They want less people on this planet, and these programs to sequester atmospheric CO2 will help in achieving this goal.

Many people, even in these forums, agree with these measures even when they know "people will suffer and starve to death."

We can't simply go along with another program that will be detrimental to all life on Earth to try to stop the Green New Deal. That's like getting out of the frying pan to fall in the fire. Although in this scenario the Green New Deal is the fire, and the programs to sequester atmospheric CO2 are the frying pan. The Green New Deal is the worse of the two ideas, but in this case we shouldn't go along with either program.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I think that the CO2 that is causing problems comes from Jets and rockets way up high, there are too many of them in the air. No trees up there. A volcano could also add some if the conditions are right, but we cannot control that. The carbon dioxide given off by cars is not that much harm, because trees and grass and stuff take it up...there is not much trees or grass in big cities though, Huge cities probably emit more CO2 than anything.. Around here there are lots of trees and weeds all over, lots of blueberry plants too. Here, the CO2 is not that much of a problem if we conserve somewhat. But the chemicals being sprayed around here are still a problem for the environment.

I do see way too many people making unnecessary trips though, they will go ten miles each way to a store to save two bucks on something, spending more on gas than they save lots of times. The Hardware stores are disappearing in the communities because of big chain hardware stores, so you have to go ten miles to get something to hang a picture.

I think people's intellect has been challenged, they will spend six dollars to save two bucks. Not too smart, maybe we should find out what is causing people to lose their ability to think correctly, a kid doing that, I can see, but I see lots of middle aged people doing that these days, and even some of the senior citizens. This all adds to polution.

a reply to: rickymouse

Airplanes don't go anywhere near the mesosphere. In fact airplanes fly at about 35,000 ft, within the stratosphere, because the higher up they fly the less oxygen there is in the atmosphere which will cause problems to the airplane's engines because of the lack of oxygen.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Obama's EPA was, and is wrong in labeling atmospheric CO2 as a pollutant. What will be next, oxygen will be labeled a pollutant? Too much oxygen can cause problems for all life on Earth as well, and in fact too much oxygen on living beings becomes toxic. Is that a reason to label oxygen as a pollutant?

As for CO2 being a problem from jets and rockets. CO2 acts differently the higher up it is in the atmosphere. In the stratosphere, and the higher layers of Earth's atmosphere, CO2 acts as a coolant.

...
Complex models of the atmosphere show that increased carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, while warming the surface and troposphere, lead to lower temperatures in the stratosphere and mesosphere.
...

www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

In the Thermosphere CO2 and nitric oxide try to shed all heat back to space.



The Earth's Troposphere is the layer in which atmospheric CO2 helps to warm the Earth's surface. However, it does not warm as much as Liberals, including liberal scientists claim. Water Vapor accounts for 97%, or even more, of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere which warms Earth's surface. Water Vapor, and not CO2, is the major greenhouse gas which warms/heats Earth's surface, and Earth's Troposphere.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

www.autoblog.com...

www.nasa.gov...

www.researchgate.net...
Reading the introduction is all that is really needed on this article.

We have so many Jets flying around, some utilized by climate change people flying all over the place, that this and all the rocket emmissions are tipping the environment to climate change. We need to stop all this wasteful flying. If we cut air travel by sixty percent, we would be way better off. The emmissions from jets do not have trees or grass to act as a carbon sink, trees need Carbon dioxide, so do many plants, but the carbon dioxide up at thirty thousand feet is not good. On top of that, other polutants are released and clouds are forming which also can lead to warming.

They do not need to tax us, all they need to do is cut air travel in half and stop shipping things around the world, the ships hauling stuff here from China lead to a lot of polution. We can make things we need here and increase emission standards to slow all polution. Not just CO2. I believe that CO2 is being used as a scape goat, the real culprits are all the chemicals we use that are unnatural or unnaturally concentrated and of course the air travel has to be cut in half at the least.